ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t.rexjr

To vote, protest or rally against something, demanding your belief (secular or not) upon others when the outcome does not effect you is the epitome of bigotry.

---

You have a strange definition of bigot. I stand by my comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by couta1

It's very rare that pain can't be managed in this day and age and I've seen a lot of people with terminal illness die over the last 30 yrs.

---

It does happen though, but perhaps less so than in the past. Husband of a close work colleague (next desk) died in his 50s a few years back and was one of those few with pain that could not be well managed. A huge amount of effort went into managing but not very successful. Just terrible. Ok, sample of one, but terrible for all concerned. For weeks, fortunately not months.

Getting his highly controversial Bill through third reading is a significant achievement for a single MP. Mr Seymour deserves credit for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by couta1

It's very rare that pain can't be managed in this day and age and I've seen a lot of people with terminal illness die over the last 30 yrs.

---

When the "pain management" turns the patient into a stoned zombie they have no quality of life. Better to let them take an overdose of "pain management" if that is their wish.

Loved his rebuttal today in Parliament - ‘It’s alright, Grandpa’ to Winston 🤣

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12337324

ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.

But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...overnment.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seym...nger-man-alone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moka

ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.

But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...overnment.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seym...nger-man-alone

---

100% agree with that approach.

Better than the bleeding heart 'be kind' and breed as many beneficiaries as possible as possible Labour & Greens approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moka

ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.

But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...overnment.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seym...nger-man-alone

---

It's hardly 'their money' when it's taken by legislation from a working taxpayer and given to them. Restricting purchase of certain things, particularly casino chips, seems perfectly reasonable.
I think my party vote will go to Act in September. No point in an electorate vote in my seat. Labour, NZ First, and Greens are all definitely out this time round.

It will cost heaps and is more red tape.

their insurance policy is poorly thought through too. imagine taxing people more in a recession and less in a boom. act is bad at economics.
The actual working people ideally should not pay a cent more in their income tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moka

ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.

But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...overnment.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seym...nger-man-alone

---

I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda-NZ-

It will cost heaps and is more red tape.

---

To be honest, I do like the concept however you're right, it could cost more. If that's the case then as an alternative, the policy could be rolled out for those who haved repeatedly required emergency benefit supplements whom the budgeting service of Work & Income deem to need additional assistance.

I haven't had a chance to look at the insurance policy yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcap

I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.

---

Every dollar is spent in NZ and not on european car imports, boats and other things. This is pretty good for the economy and not a concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaphod

To be honest, I do like the concept however you're right, it could cost more. If that's the case then as an alternative, the policy could be rolled out for those who haved repeatedly required emergency benefit supplements whom the budgeting service of Work & Income deem to need additional assistance.

I haven't had a chance to look at the insurance policy yet.

---

Such a system is already in place, except more restrictive. It is the Young Parent Payment for teen parents, and could easily be rolled out to others, especially those not coping, as you suggest Zaphod. The scheme combines support, financial management, responsibilities and rewards for meeting them. There is a limited amount of pocket money with no strings attached.

It is expensive to run. But it was an early initiative of the last government's social investment programme, where data indicated that teen parents were the group most likely to stay on benefit for the longest. The programme is designed to cut that off at the pass.

Something is working as teen parent numbers here are half that of 10 years ago. Various reasons for that, no doubt.

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/pr...t-payment.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

It's hardly 'their money' when it's taken by legislation from a working taxpayer and given to them. Restricting purchase of certain things, particularly casino chips, seems perfectly reasonable.
I think my party vote will go to Act in September. No point in an electorate vote in my seat. Labour, NZ First, and Greens are all definitely out this time round.

---

Interesting how some people think that taxes are still “their” money when it is received by the government. Try telling Inland Revenue that it is still your money. Legally it is beneficiaries’ money and they are entitled to spend it however they like just like any other New Zealander. Excessive control of people like ACT are proposing leads to dependency. People need the freedom to make their own mistakes and learn from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda-NZ-

It will cost heaps and is more red tape.

their insurance policy is poorly thought through too. imagine taxing people more in a recession and less in a boom. act is bad at economics.
The actual working people ideally should not pay a cent more in their income tax.

---

My first thought about an employment insurance fund was more funds for very well paid fund managers to manage. Lucky them, helping the rich get richer. And always a risk if it is not well managed and in a recession when you really need the money its value has gone down suddenly.