If National wins ...

[westerly]

[QUOTE=Aaron;441144]Taxpayer funded university education worked in the past in fact all the baby boomers and older would have had the opportunity to get a taxpayer funded tertiary education QUOTE

If my recollection is correct university was free but in the absence of student loans living costs, books etc were paid for by the student. There was no such thing as todays Technical Institutes these having replaced the former technical high schools which catered for those interested in a trade career.
The idea that baby boomers had some sort of state funded education for free comparitive to what is available today is not correct. University in my day was regarded as being suitable for those entering the professions and not for the those persuing a trade or a job requiring a lesser education.

Westerly

[blackcap]

Taxpayer funded university education worked in the past in fact all the baby boomers and older would have had the opportunity to get a taxpayer funded tertiary education. Are you suggesting that anyone with a NZ university degree is a disaster costing the country jobs. I don't follow your argument..

My argument rather was that means testing would slow the economy down as people moved towards a consumption based economy rather than save/invest etc. But back to tertiary education. Back in the good old days it may have been free... but only a small portion of the population actually went. Most left school at 15 and started work. Today things are so much different where nearly everyone is in some form of tertiary education. I really believe we cannot afford it now. (to provide it for free). I am also tertiary educated and don't doubt its value but there is a point where with too many people at higher education diminishing marginal utility sets in.
It would be difficult to dismantle the "trust" system. Not going to happen. As for means testing, I am totally opposed to it in all forms. The tax system we have in this country (income) is already progressive as is the GST system (the bigger spenders pay more), so no need to meddle further.
Means testing as a basis for awarding super rewards the wrong people and sends the wrong message.

[JBmurc]

Belgie as blackcap says, they are playing it perfectly above board and following the rules. There is no issue here.
If you want to talk about "snouts in the trough", look at how many National MPs that have had their day are voluntarily leaving early at the next election, to pursue careers outside Parliamen. Do you see the same in Labour, which is full of deadwood ? No you don´t because they generally have very limited skills to find decent paying jobs outside of Parliament/Government/Unions. That´s why they hang onto the "trough" as long as they can. No wonder they are pushing hard for the silly " living wage". Purely out of self interest for life beyond Parliament when they´ve beenthrown out ?

Yes the Far left we now have in opposition the biggest bunch of vote buyers around free money for votes no worries we just add Cap gain tax ....We will buy back the assets... How will we pay by increasing TAXes ...(Or till just recently PRINT MONEY greens) ...

I know in my personal earnings (same job last 17yrs) under the lastest National Gov I'm paying less in tax each year than I did any time before couldn't believe I got a refund last Financial year as I earned more than I had for years and had expected to be hit with more tax payable as I didn't lift my tax per dollar to match increase ....I know for sure than would change under a Lab/green they were always harshly against the TAX cuts helps all the working classes you see which mean also the successive rich pay less

[Cuzzie]

If Labour wins we all emigrate.
Somewhere the government is perpetually business friendly and non socialist.
Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Bahamas,....any other suggestions?

All that superannuation stuff is BS. If you are competent and saved and invested all your life you shouldn't need the State crutch.
I'd be quite happy to totally lose my 65+ super....

Although one has to except all those unfortunate people who invested in dodgy finance companies and dodgy enterprises and were defrauded.

I followed the principle that I never invested with a finance company because there was no capital return. A principle that has worked brilliantly for me, nearly all NZ's 53 finance companies went down in a heap. I used to look at the constant stream of mail from companies like Nathan imploring me to invest. As it got more and more frenetic I thought they must be just about to go down. Obligingly they then did. No more nuisance mail from them.
Nor did I buy shares in the companies of any of the 1987 villains like Petrecevic or shady characters like the Hotchin brothers or high flying speculative real estate ventures. Also worked brilliantly for me.

I could not agree more. That was like reading something I just typed.

[iceman]

O Look! ... MP's screwing taxpayers again and Key saying to give them a break!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11154765

Not surprising that more National members have more snouts at the trough than Labour.

Key wasn't one of them. Hmmm ... How long before his arrangements are held up for scrutiny? Maybe never? He can afford better advice I'd guess.

All clear as mud with Labour then eh Belg http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11156004

[Harvey Specter]

All parties are guilty of not ensuring these arrangements are conducted "at arms length".

Rents are paid by parlimentary services I though which is independent from the government. They should all have market appraisals conducted by third parties - not sure if this is done.

[iceman]

Iceman,

You'll notice that the article says: In a similar arrangement, at least five National MPs, including Prime Minister John Key, own their electorate offices, which are rented to themselves.

The article mentions Labour as I suspect National's arrangements have yet to be fully understood.

All parties are guilty of not ensuring these arrangements are conducted "at arms length". Not exactly at arms length when the person setting the rent is also the one paying the rent with taxpayer dollars is it?!? And even more scandalous when we know that they'll be pocketing capital gains tax free while clawing back interest and other expenses (all at other taxpayers expense).

Yes I know Belgie. I am not the one that has a problem with this. I´m simply pointing out that this is not just 5 National MPs,as indicated in some posts above, but cuts right across the political spectrum. As blackcap and I both said above, we don´t see a problem with it. As long as it is all within the rules and above board, I don´t care who owns the houses. Parliamentary Services or the State Services Commission must be the authority tasked with monitoring this and make sure the rules are complied with. It isn´t exactly the MPs negotiating rent with themselves as you´re suggesting !
Surely the Herald can find something more newsworthy to write about !

[elZorro]

Most of the MP's offices I've seen from the street, look to be fairly modest. Surely there is not too much to gain, and at least it allows a longer term tenancy which can be relied on.

Best MPs concentrate on enabling the IRD to collect fair taxes. Labour will be more likely to push harder for action against blatant avoidance.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...gers-to-pay-up

[iceman]

Comments from Gary Morgan of Roy Morgan Polls:

“Labour’s controversial policy to increase female representation in the Parliamentary Labour Party appears to have driven men away from Labour and across to National in large numbers over the past fortnight. Driving the increase in support for National was a large jump in support by men, who this week deserted Labour. New Zealand men now clearly favour National (50.5%, up 10%) over Labour (29%, down 5.5%) while female support was down for both of the major parties – National (41%, down 2.5%) and Labour (35%, down 2%).

“The Labour Party’s new policy – which the press have dubbed the ‘man-ban’ – calls for female representation in the Labour caucus to be at 50% by 2017. Currently, 42% of Labour MPs in New Zealand are women and judging by this week’s result the policy has not provided a boost amongst women, but has achieved the outcome of driving men away from Labour in large numbers.”

[blackcap]

Comments from Gary Morgan of Roy Morgan Polls:

“Labour’s controversial policy to increase female representation in the Parliamentary Labour Party appears to have driven men away from Labour and across to National in large numbers over the past fortnight. Driving the increase in support for National was a large jump in support by men, who this week deserted Labour. New Zealand men now clearly favour National (50.5%, up 10%) over Labour (29%, down 5.5%) while female support was down for both of the major parties – National (41%, down 2.5%) and Labour (35%, down 2%).

“The Labour Party’s new policy – which the press have dubbed the ‘man-ban’ – calls for female representation in the Labour caucus to be at 50% by 2017. Currently, 42% of Labour MPs in New Zealand are women and judging by this week’s result the policy has not provided a boost amongst women, but has achieved the outcome of driving men away from Labour in large numbers.”

Where is your source Iceman, because I cannot find it. Because those figures are astounding....