If National wins ...

[Minerbarejet]

Oh I see whats happening here, there's an underhand plot to make NZ the 51st state of the US so that Cot Dom can be arrested without being extradited. Very clever. Now, where did I put that Laphroaig?

[elZorro]

Banksie, when you boil it all down, what's your number one reason for voting left of center?

NBT, I have the link to answer your question. I entered this survey.

http://campaign.labour.org.nz/our_st...ource=nzlabour

[craic]

I have now set up my distillery to produce all forms of Scotch and Laphroaig is on the list. But I still have two bottles of Glenfiddish to get through first. The idea of being a state of the USA appeals to me as does the idea of being part of Australia.

Oh I see whats happening here, there's an underhand plot to make NZ the 51st state of the US so that Cot Dom can be arrested without being extradited. Very clever. Now, where did I put that Laphroaig?

[nextbigthing]

NBT, I have the link to answer your question. I entered this survey.

http://campaign.labour.org.nz/our_st...ource=nzlabour

Firstly el Z, cheers for your time. I appreciate a lefty trying to put forward their views on a site such as this and in a political environment such as this. It's good to debate with someone who's more interested in theory, morals and policy than distractions such as he said she said etc.

Re my question to Banksie, I was after just the one thing to sum it up, there's many things on the link you gave.

The one reoccuring theme on that site you linked, that 'Silent T' (DC) also referred to a lot during the last leaders debate was equality. So lets roll with your answer being, I vote left of centre due to my belief in the importance of equality.

In a nutshell, Labour achieve this by taxing those at the top more and giving it to those on the bottom. How is this fair though? Who is the government to decide that they can take from me and give to someone else because they believe it's fairer. How is that fair to the guy who against his/her will is being forced by the Government to give up possessions (money) to another person? People being forced to do things against their will by another person (or Governments) should be minimised where-ever possible!
I absolutely agree some tax needs to be paid and I also absolutely agree some people genuinely need help and taxing the richest a little to give to them is the fairest way of doing so. But provided everyone is fed, housed, clothed etc then after that leave it alone. How can a Government tell me that they know what's the best way to spend my money.
A classic example of this is a chap I went to school with. Funny guy, great sense of humour. Loves to party. Said person was complaining on Facebook the other day that they were creating all this music as a full time composer and yet they had no money and how b#llsh!t the National Government and 'the system' was. Well it's quite simple buddy. People don't want to be taxed 39% or more so you can sit around and party when you feel like it and make a little music from time to time. Find a more productive job and do that in your spare time. This sort of stuff is why we don't want to be taxed 39%.
Let me be clear, I'm not talking about such little tax that there's not a reasonable safety net for people who genuinely need it. I'm talking about freedom of choice and individual rights. Tax as little as possible to ensure everyone is looked after, but after that, let freedom rule. If someone wants to pick an easier career with less pay so they can spend more time with the outdoors they love for example, fine, great, but don't you dare tell me to subsidise that Mr Cunliffe, no way! That's their choice.
I believe a top tax rate of 33% if sufficient to provide a safety net and ensure everyone is looked after. After that, freedom of choice for an individual is surely more important than a Government engineering society and telling me how to live.
It's for this reason I believe Labour isn't worth a shot, National is.

Why else might one want to vote for Labour?
Better healthcare? I absolutely believe in free accessible healthcare for all. Yet the ironic thing is that the health system wasn't coping under Labour, National come in and cut managers by 1000 and increase doctors by something like 2000. I don't hear the complaints from the health system like I used to under Helen Clarks watch. So one reason to vote for Labour, better healthcare, you're actually better off voting National!!! They are getting it done, National are actually rolling out a socialist policy better than Labour!

Education - NZ has a great education system despite what some would like to have you believe. Sure you end up with a student loan - so you should. It just means you're accountable. It's accessible. No need to vote Labour on that one.

Perhaps you could look at equality in other ways other than tax. Eg saying Maori make up 15% of the population, so let's ensure they make up 15% of plum Government jobs. So poor old Mr x turns up for the interview but gets told sorry, we can't give you the job as you're non Maori. How on Earth is that fair. It's not. It's racist bullsh!t.

Equality is an honorable thought. But someone has to pay against their will. A Government forcing people to do things against their will when safety isn't at stake isn't cool.

Why else would you vote Labour etc?

To those who like to reply to this, please have the decency to read the whole article and reply in context to the nature of the whole post, not just pick off a sentence and reply out of context.

Cheers,

NBT

[elZorro]

NBT, you have fair enough points of view, I'm sure they are shared by many.

However, the truth is that everyone pays taxes of some sort. Every litre of fuel, nearly 50% of it is GST and excise taxes. GST on all food and normal household spending except rent, etc. Therefore, if the govt taxes all of us who are working with net income tax, and only a small portion of it ends up with beneficiaries or for a topup to incomes, then some of that money gets recycled to the govt anyway. More money in the system means retailers do better than they would have otherwise, which in turn creates jobs.

Sgt Pepper would know if what you say about the health sector is correct. But as far as musicians go, and I've met a few, they can be very talented, and I'd like to see them paid what they are worth. Yet pubs, private people, seem to think that a 3-piece band can be paid $600 or so, and that's good money. $200 per person to practise for free, buy gear and keep it going, lug it to a gig, play to the small hours, lug the gear back home and unpack it. Often they don't get offered food or free drinks either. This is the same sort of money they were paid 20 years ago. They are in a time warp. Unless you get 3-4 gigs a week at that sort of money, you can't make a bare living from it, but you should be able to. Even older acts who are relatively famous, get asked to do free gigs for fundraisers. Get real, NZ, this is their job, their career. If you want them, pay the going rate at least.

On tertiary education, I went through for free a few decades back. Now students have to pay about 30% of the costs, which will ensure they have to be keen to stick at it. But still, the quality of the output seems not much better than it ever was, the feed-in from schools seems lower grade in some areas. Links to the outside world are better then they were, could still be improved. But if everything was more equal, students allowed to head to universities and polytechnics would have their courses paid for. We could afford it in the past, why not in the future?

So how do we build a NZ that isn't going backwards in terms of indebtedness, terms of trade and inequality? Not by more of the same from National. We have to work and invest in a lot smarter way. National has undone steps Labour took to get us there, an unforgiveable neo-liberal course that will keep most of us poor.

You're right, I will be very disappointed if National get to stay in charge of our country.

[nextbigthing]

el Z, someone becoming a musician is a choice. Their choice. They know the deal when they get into it, poor pay, long hours but perhaps more enjoyable than some jobs. Why should I be taxed more to prop these people up when they made that choice?
The answer is I shouldn't! And my point is this, if they can't find work, we need to support and protect them. But if they choose a low paid career because it's their interest, that's there choice. Don't punish me for that. 33% seems to be enough to provide a safety net. 39% seems to be the government taking from me so someone else can have a more fun career. Not cool!

Musicians made a choice. Don't penalize me for that.

Cheers

[westerly]

[QUOTE=nextbigthing;505023]Firstly el Z, cheers for your time. I appreciate a lefty trying to put forward their views on a site such as this and in a political environment such as this. It's good to debate with someone who's more interested in theory, morals and policy than distractions such as he said she said etc.

Re my question to Banksie, I was after just the one thing to sum it up, there's many things on the link you gave.

The one reoccuring theme on that site you linked, that 'Silent T' (DC) also referred to a lot during the last leaders debate was equality. So lets roll with your answer being, I vote left of centre due to my belief in the importance of equality.

Thats where you lost all credibility.

westerly

[nextbigthing]

That doesn't add much to the debate westerly. What are your credible thoughts on it?

[elZorro]

el Z, someone becoming a musician is a choice. Their choice. They know the deal when they get into it, poor pay, long hours but perhaps more enjoyable than some jobs. Why should I be taxed more to prop these people up when they made that choice?
The answer is I shouldn't! And my point is this, if they can't find work, we need to support and protect them. But if they choose a low paid career because it's their interest, that's there choice. Don't punish me for that. 33% seems to be enough to provide a safety net. 39% seems to be the government taking from me so someone else can have a more fun career. Not cool!

Musicians made a choice. Don't penalize me for that.

Cheers

NBT, you are not being penalised. Only a small percentage of your income would be taxed at 39% in most cases. Only a small percentage of that extra amount would be paid to beneficiaries and for topups. The rest goes on roading (National's favourite expense) and hospitals, schools, infrastructure, etc. Labour have a policy to ensure that employers decrease their tendency to get the taxpayers to subsidise their cheaper workers. It's called increasing the minimum pay scale by law.

Musicians are taxed by pubs, and get the remainder of their fee in-hand after the gig.

It would be a dull NZ if, when you went into town of a Friday evening, there were no live bands anywhere, just discos and karaoke, or music channels on a TV screen. Part of the problem is that nightclubs get kickstarted from say 11pm onwards, with many patrons already boozed up on cheap supermarket alcohol. They need a lot of patrons buying $20 average a night, to cover their staff costs and weekly overheads, let alone a band. We should all be happy to pay a cover charge, and then everyone gets what they want.

[fungus pudding]

NBT, you have fair enough points of view, I'm sure they are shared by many.

However, the truth is that everyone pays taxes of some sort. Every litre of fuel, nearly 50% of it is GST and excise taxes. GST on all food and normal household spending except rent, etc. Therefore, if the govt taxes all of us who are working with net income tax, and only a small portion of it ends up with beneficiaries or for a topup to incomes, then some of that money gets recycled to the govt anyway. More money in the system means retailers do better than they would have otherwise, which in turn creates jobs.

Sgt Pepper would know if what you say about the health sector is correct. But as far as musicians go, and I've met a few, they can be very talented, and I'd like to see them paid what they are worth. Yet pubs, private people, seem to think that a 3-piece band can be paid $600 or so, and that's good money. $200 per person to practise for free, buy gear and keep it going, lug it to a gig, play to the small hours, lug the gear back home and unpack it. Often they don't get offered food or free drinks either. This is the same sort of money they were paid 20 years ago. They are in a time warp. Unless you get 3-4 gigs a week at that sort of money, you can't make a bare living from it, but you should be able to.

I'm struggling to believe what I'm reading!! I presume you want a minimum income then for all businesses with talented or clever owners! I know lots of commission salesmen - some of great ability who have had tough years - tough times. I also have several friends who are musicians. Some have been able to make a damn good living while others have found other employment and continue with music as a part time / hobby thing. i'ts a crowded industry. Go to a pub in the states and you may well find a top rate band playing for nothing. I struck one lot in Florida once who were resident band in one bar and had been for a year - they were not paid at all - but they were getting exposure. That's the name of that game worldwide and it's perfectly fair. It's not compulsory to be a musician. Move into the real world eZ!