The 2017 Election Thread [Archive] - Page 11

Ocean1

2nd August 2018, 19:45

That we can partly agree on that least, a society should be judged on what we pay and treat the people that look after the sick elderly and children.
If you look around what the people that look after children in day care, the bus drivers that drive the children and the carers in aged care get paid its a sad indictment on how our society places these people inputs and what value we place on those needing it.
The inordinate profits generated in aged care and childcare by a small number of rather large corperates and the lowest possible tender bus contracts reflect more a society that places a companies profits of companies over the care of people.
Profit is a great thing but it should be not monopolistic, there needs to be some form of regulation. Especially when it comes to the people that we should be looking after the Old, Young and Sick.

Take it from an ex rest home / continuing care hospital owner, there's fuck all money in mainstream rest home based aged care. Fuck, the Sallies had minuscule labour overheads and they've closed a lot of their homes, mostly in the late 90's, when a bunch of new compliance requirements hit. Which handed a lot of the industry to those big corporates on a plate, by the way.

There is a lot of money in retirement villages though, but that's real estate. As far as you can describe real estate as talking old dears into swapping their $500k family home for a shonky, short term deal on a serviced bed-sit.

Whether profit's a great thing or not is moot, it's a required factor for the supply of any services. By all means regulate to ensure minimum standards, but leave the "money is the root of all evel " narrative over in Stupid World where it belongs.

Ocean1

2nd August 2018, 19:50

Better yet, the cunt that did it could pay for it. Even if that means taking it out of his benefit 20 bucks a week or something (with lump sum from govt paid to employer ofc).

Profiling? nah that'd never happen, just a strange coincidence how some profiles don't have quite the skillset that is being looked for :innocent:

But they can't pay. And a spot of profiling would demonstrate why, they typically simply cost more than they produce at every possible opportunity.

Which book had the establishment tattoo R for rapist on their foreheads? That's a social welfare initiative I'd be happy to pay for.

Swoop

2nd August 2018, 20:06

Have you any idea what they were getting paid before that
Absolutely sweet fuck all. My mum was in aged care for years, not because she needed money. Many of her workmates did, & they were doing it hard.
I'm seeing a bit of both in Mum's rest home. There are s couple of staff who I suspect are "OK" financially and doing it for the love of the oldies there and quite a few Indian and Filipino staff who are doing it much harder. Oddly, after the payrise, there was a massive and noticeable staff turnover.

husaberg

2nd August 2018, 20:15

Take it from an ex rest home / continuing care hospital owner, there's fuck all money in mainstream rest home based aged care. Fuck, the Sallies had minuscule labour overheads and they've closed a lot of their homes, mostly in the late 90's, when a bunch of new compliance requirements hit. Which handed a lot of the industry to those big corporates on a plate, by the way.

There is a lot of money in retirement villages though, but that's real estate. As far as you can describe real estate as talking old dears into swapping their $500k family home for a shonky, short term deal on a serviced bed-sit.

Whether profit's a great thing or not is moot, it's a required factor for the supply of any services. By all means regulate to ensure minimum standards, but leave the "money is the root of all evel " narrative over in Stupid World where it belongs.

If There wasn't but there sure as shit is now, you do the maths av care 6 hours per week per patient per week and thats not nurse std care either
the big companies have killed off the smaller competition and are making substantial profits. Thats how business works.
Profit is not a required factor for supply.... demand is.

Ocean1

2nd August 2018, 20:46

If There wasn't but there sure as shit is now, you do the maths av care 6 hours per week per patient per week and thats not nurse std care either
the big companies have killed off the smaller competition and are making substantial profits. Thats how business works.
Profit is not a required factor for supply.... demand is.

So your premise is that if there's X revenue involved then there must be lots of profit?

Well, when you regulate for mandatory conditions that favour big suppliers then of course they're going to gain market share. But no, that's just not "how business works".

And profit is absolutely a required factor for supply, you can have all the demand in the world, but no profit: no supplier.

sidecar bob

2nd August 2018, 21:02

So your premise is that if there's X revenue involved then there must be lots of profit?

Well, when you regulate for mandatory conditions that favour big suppliers then of course they're going to gain market share. But no, that's just not "how business works".

And profit is absolutely a required factor for supply, you can have all the demand in the world, but no profit: no supplier.

Reminds me of the story of the bloke that was dealing in watermelons. He was buying them for a dollar each & selling them for a dollar each & couldnt work out why he wasnt making any money, so he bought a bigger truck.

husaberg

2nd August 2018, 21:05

So your premise is that if there's X revenue involved then there must be lots of profit?

Well, when you regulate for mandatory conditions that favour big suppliers then of course they're going to gain market share. But no, that's just not "how business works".

And profit is absolutely a required factor for supply, you can have all the demand in the world, but no profit: no supplier.
You are missing the practice of establishing an monopoly.
Supply= demand profit is what one expects from fulfilling said demand.
not all entities charities and Governments and trusts and councils demand a profit, others such as ethical business establish a benchmark for what is a reasonable profit.

Ocean1

2nd August 2018, 21:28

You are missing the practice of establishing an monopoly.
Supply= demand profit is what one expects from fulfilling said demand.
not all entities charities and Governments and trusts and councils demand a profit, others such as ethical business establish a benchmark for what is a reasonable profit.

Actually, I'm not.

And yet again: if there's no profit then there's no supplier, and therefore no supply. It's somewhat incontrovertible. Honestly.

And while charities may not charge the full cost of supplying a service, the cost is nonetheless there, it's just not the user that's paying it.

Which is why governments and councils are not, and can never be run like a charity, you can't base a whole economy on giving stuff away and charging someone else for it instead.

husaberg

2nd August 2018, 21:31

Actually, I'm not.

And yet again: if there's no profit then there's no supplier, and therefore no supply. It's somewhat incontrovertible. Honestly.

And while charities may not charge the full cost of supplying a service, the cost is nonetheless there, it's just not the user that's paying it.

Which is why governments and councils are not, and can never be run like a charity, you can't base a whole economy on giving stuff away and charging someone else for it instead.

You are just being an argumentative pillock Ocean.
I never said 4/5 of what you are claiming to reply too

Murray

2nd August 2018, 22:07

Which is why governments and councils are not, and can never be run like a charity, you can't base a whole economy on giving stuff away and charging someone else for it instead.

What? Councils and Governments don't charge the rate payers and Tax payers

When did this start!

Berries

2nd August 2018, 23:01

Reminds me of the story of the bloke that was dealing in watermelons. He was buying them for a dollar each & selling them for a dollar each & couldnt work out why he wasnt making any money, so he bought a bigger truck.
How did he do?

husaberg

3rd August 2018, 00:57

How did he do?
He go the pip after he got squashed by a multinational pumpkin conglomerate.
Hes not angry about it now though, more melancholic.

jasonu

3rd August 2018, 02:22

Oddly, after the payrise, there was a massive and noticeable staff turnover.

Not odd at all. Now the money is better the homes can attract a better standard of employee to replace some of the low level bums.

Swoop

3rd August 2018, 11:38

Fuck, the Sallies had minuscule labour overheads and they've closed a lot of their homes, mostly in the late 90's, when a bunch of new compliance requirements hit. Which handed a lot of the industry to those big corporates on a plate, by the way.
It was the sprinkler regulations which was the tipping point for them. Being able to use smaller, converted houses (quite often "bequeathed" to them - another issue there...) became much more difficult for them.
They are a fine example of a religious organisation pretending to care about cetain sectors of society, whilst harming others. Their behind-closed-doors hate of the gay community in particular is quite impressive.

Not odd at all. Now the money is better the homes can attract a better standard of employee to replace some of the low level bums.
I wondered about that, but since it was an "across the board" raise, then the entire playing field went upwards. Perhaps the "grass is always greener" syndrome among staff?

Ocean1

3rd August 2018, 12:42

It was the sprinkler regulations which was the tipping point for them. Being able to use smaller, converted houses (quite often "bequeathed" to them - another issue there...) became much more difficult for them.
They are a fine example of a religious organisation pretending to care about cetain sectors of society, whilst harming others. Their behind-closed-doors hate of the gay community in particular is quite impressive.

Yep, a full commercial building standards compliant sprinkler installation was worth several times their annual turnover, and that was the tip of the iceberg. Special "standards compliant" hoists for transferring patients from bed/wheelchair to bath at $18k, kitchen equipment compliance costs etc etc etc.

Until then though, they did supply a service costing less than the alternatives, to a standard their clients could afford and found acceptable. All those that cavorted on soap boxes about despicable, profiteering businesses ripping off old ladies and insisting on commercial hotel standards compliance for small rest homes really achieved is shoving those old ladies into hospitals at 10 times the cost. The taxpayer's cost.

I knew a lot of those old ladies. None of them were happy to leave what they absolutely saw as home for some institution. There's a thing called terminal drop, where old people cruise along year after year, doing just fine in an environment heavy on routine and social activity. Then something happens that forces a change, a broken arm, a cold, the death of a friend, and within a short time they decline, particularly in cognitive function and die quite quickly. Those social justice warriors literally cost many old dears their lives, but at least their anti-capitalist ethics remained unsullied.

Ocean1

3rd August 2018, 17:18

NO NEW TAXES!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/105982965/amazon-warns-on-internet-shopping-tax-change-but-government-signals-no-uturn

Did anyone over six years old really fall for that?

husaberg

3rd August 2018, 17:49

NO NEW TAXES!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/105982965/amazon-warns-on-internet-shopping-tax-change-but-government-signals-no-uturn

Did anyone over six years old really fall for that?

Its shutting a loop hole
Fot the record national avergaed 6 new taxs a year
including raising GST which they promised they would not do.

John Key “"National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes."”

He added that if the Government was "doing a half-decent job" of expanding the economy, a rise in GST "wouldn't be happening, and that's not on our agenda".

Mr English also pledged, in December 2008, not to raise GST. "We won't be doing that ... It is not our policy,"

later
But Mr Key denied ever pledging not to raise GST under any circumstances. "I never made that promise –
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3313887/Public-split-over-Keys-GST-plan
here is the up to 2014 ones
https://i2.wp.com/www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/nonewtaxes.png
GST increase from 12.5% to 15%
Increased taxes on KiwiSaver
Compulsory student loan payment increase from 10% to 12%
Increased tertiary fees
The 2012 ‘Paperboy’ tax
Civil Aviation Authority fees rise
Additional fuel tax increase of 9 cents with annual CPI increases locked in for perpetuity
Road User Charges increased
New annual student loan fees introduced
Massive unnecessary ACC levy increases
Prescription fees increased by 66%
New online company filing fees imposed on businesses
Creeping expansion of the scope of Fringe Benefit Taxes - National tried to tax car parks and plain-clothes police uniforms
Lowering of Working for Families abatement threshold and increasing the abatement rate, taking money out of the pockets of families
Imposing a $900 Family Court fee

National claimed they looked into doing it bad it was to complicated for them
Aussie also have it and its backed by the IRD and Retail NZ.

Spokesman Greg Harford said local retailers had long been at a disadvantage to overseas sellers.
"This is the first time that a Revenue Minister has committed to fixing this issue, and we want to congratulate Mr Nash on his leadership.
Its also followed te move in October to fix up Netflix

[The so-called Netflix tax kicked in last October, requiring sellers such as Apple to charge GST on online purchases from New Zealand.
It came after a review in 2015 found the Government was missing out on about $180 million a year by not collecting GST on online purchases, including $40m from shopping on iTunes, Netflix, Spotify and other online services.

Graystone

3rd August 2018, 19:56

NO NEW TAXES!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/105982965/amazon-warns-on-internet-shopping-tax-change-but-government-signals-no-uturn

Did anyone over six years old really fall for that?

Not too worried about a new tax or not, always just take those as they come based on the policy merits. This one is fucking stupid though, I'm all for imports being subject to GST, but expecting amazon to do it at their end? fucking dreaming.

Ocean1

3rd August 2018, 20:03

Its shutting a loop hole

It's a fucking joke. According to the article the reason they won't review it in spite of the disaster it's proven to be over the ditch is "but we've already spent the tax". :laugh:

If you're desperate to support New Zealand retailers you already have the option of paying six times the price. Level playing field be fucked.

Fot the record national ...

Aaaannd straight into the anti-nat spittle act. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Seriously, dude give it a rest, it does absolutely nothing to change the facts that this lot are fucking up a historically good economic run. You had a decade to bleat about how your pet bogymen supposedly fucked up, it's time to hold this lot accountable for their bullshit.

Ocean1

3rd August 2018, 20:14

Not too worried about a new tax or not, always just take those as they come based on the policy merits. This one is fucking stupid though, I'm all for imports being subject to GST, but expecting amazon to do it at their end? fucking dreaming.

The Aussies were warned what would happen, even they're not big enough to throw their weight around to that extent. All of the big suppliers just turned off their au stores, what the fuck made labour think we'd be any different?

And the whole narrative about making it so we should pay gst on such a small and slippery bit of the economy is just making for a "level playing field" is a bit like insisting everyone get a punch in the throat because that's what happens to some people. Sure, that's only fair. :laugh:

husaberg

3rd August 2018, 20:27

It's a fucking joke. According to the article the reason they won't review it in spite of the disaster it's proven to be over the ditch is "but we've already spent the tax". :laugh:

If you're desperate to support New Zealand retailers you already have the option of paying six times the price. Level playing field be fucked.

Aaaannd straight into the anti-nat spittle act. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Seriously, dude give it a rest, it does absolutely nothing to change the facts that this lot are fucking up a historically good economic run. You had a decade to bleat about how your pet bogymen supposedly fucked up, it's time to hold this lot accountable for their bullshit.

The aussie law as only been in effect 1 month.
As you know National wanted to do it but couldn't figure out how to.....
Odd that you are not in favour considering that you are always banging on about local business.
This was loophole closure was designed to have them compete on a even basis. Maybe the business angle you keep mentioning is just an excuse to bang on about how great national is.....
Even when half the osh and compliance costs were brought into effect under your beloved nats. but not a peep out of you about that or the GST rise or all the new taxes they introduced....only now do you mooan about that stuff. But never any blame on the Nats....
As for the historic good financial run why was it the nats had to borrow to the the hilt, did you not notice that the Debt was low as buggery when they came in? where is it now.
Historic good economic run my asre. What a joke.
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=nzldebt2gdp&v=201807251513v&d1=19180101&d2=20181231[/IMG[IMG]https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt.png?s=newzealangovdeb&v=201807251513vhttps://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt.png?s=newzealangovdeb&v=201807251513v&d1=19180101&d2=20181231&mean=1

jasonu

4th August 2018, 02:26

The aussie law as only been in effect 1 month.
As you know National wanted to do it but couldn't figure out how to.....
Odd that you are not in favour considering that you are always banging on about local business.
This was loophole closure was designed to have them compete on a even basis. Maybe the business angle you keep mentioning is just an excuse to bang on about how great national is.....
Even when half the osh and compliance costs were brought into effect under your beloved nats. but not a peep out of you about that or the GST rise or all the new taxes they introduced....only now do you mooan about that stuff. But never any blame on the Nats....
As for the historic good financial run why was it the nats had to borrow to the the hilt, did you not notice that the Debt was low as buggery when they came in? where is it now.
Historic good economic run my asre. What a joke.
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=nzldebt2gdp&v=201807251513v&d1=19180101&d2=20181231[/IMG[IMG]https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt.png?s=newzealangovdeb&v=201807251513vhttps://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt.png?s=newzealangovdeb&v=201807251513v&d1=19180101&d2=20181231&mean=1

Amazon and others will cease selling to NZ and you will be back to back orders that take 6 weeks and cost 5 times as much. Enjoy...

Ocean1

4th August 2018, 09:36

The aussie law as only been in effect 1 month.
As you know National wanted to do it but couldn't figure out how to.....
Odd that you are not in favour considering that you are always banging on about local business.
This was loophole closure was designed to have them compete on a even basis. Maybe the business angle you keep mentioning is just an excuse to bang on about how great national is.....
Even when half the osh and compliance costs were brought into effect under your beloved nats. but not a peep out of you about that or the GST rise or all the new taxes they introduced....only now do you mooan about that stuff. But never any blame on the Nats....
As for the historic good financial run why was it the nats had to borrow to the the hilt, did you not notice that the Debt was low as buggery when they came in? where is it now.
Historic good economic run my asre. What a joke.

Aye, 'cause the GFC wasn't a thing at all. And most of the economists on the planet never pointed out, in detail how NZ performed better than every other OECD economy through that either.

Seriously, are you, like 12? I get that you're desperate to believe labour > national, it's palpable. It's also simplistic drivel.

I don't know how many times I've told you I don't support national, that I support what you would call libertarian policy, but every response from you is the same anti-nat rant.

If you really supported labour general policy I assume you loved Muldoon's tenure? Haven't heard you singing any praises for his interventionist, anti free market policies? Haven't heard you deriding Lange and Douglas for their complete reversal of contemporary socialist ethos?

When you grow up you'll hopefully be better equipped to comment on policy rather than launch into a completely irrelevant "my team is better" rant.

Then maybe we can have a sensible discussion about how socialist ideology in economics leads to dramatic unintended consequences, costing more than it earns and wasting everyone's time.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 11:03

Aye, 'cause the GFC wasn't a thing at all. And most of the economists on the planet never pointed out, in detail how NZ performed better than every other OECD economy through that either.

Seriously, are you, like 12? I get that you're desperate to believe labour > national, it's palpable. It's also simplistic drivel.

I don't know how many times I've told you I don't support national, that I support what you would call libertarian policy, but every response from you is the same anti-nat rant.

If you really supported labour general policy I assume you loved Muldoon's tenure? Haven't heard you singing any praises for his interventionist, anti free market policies? Haven't heard you deriding Lange and Douglas for their complete reversal of contemporary socialist ethos?

When you grow up you'll hopefully be better equipped to comment on policy rather than launch into a completely irrelevant "my team is better" rant.

Then maybe we can have a sensible discussion about how socialist ideology in economics leads to dramatic unintended consequences, costing more than it earns and wasting everyone's time.
GFC but you said it was a period of unrivaled economic growth.
As i said i only post in reply to your crap.
You can say what you waht but it doesn't change the fact that you never complain about what national they do only what labour does. Which makes you the child.
Doe you see me posting stuff about how crap national was that was not in reply to your posts
Or how great Labour was that was not in reply to your posts.

Graystone

4th August 2018, 11:14

Amazon and others will cease selling to NZ and you will be back to back orders that take 6 weeks and cost 5 times as much. Enjoy...

Exactly, noble intentions with near 0 chance of success. Kind of like their debt reduction 'policy' does anyone else wonder if the graph Husaberg posted was deliberately cut short to avoid showing what labor is doing to the national debt?

Katman

4th August 2018, 11:16

Seriously, are you, like 12?

I think you're being too generous.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 11:33

Exactly, noble intentions with near 0 chance of success. Kind of like their debt reduction 'policy' does anyone else wonder if the graph Husaberg posted was deliberately cut short to avoid showing what labor is doing to the national debt?

its not cut short its from Stats NZ. The latest stats.
If amazon doesn't sell to NZ anymore its no great loss. But seeing as they are setting up a Australian distribution base i don't see that happening do you.
Nor would it be if Apple pulled out, as they haven't paid tax here for 10 years despite billions of dollars of revenue earned here.

2017 revealed Apple paid no income tax to Inland Revenue over the past decade despite selling billions of dollars worth of iPhones and iPads to New Zealanders.
While in AUstrialia they have paid at least some tax

The latest statement shows Apple paid $10 million in income tax, it's understood that this was again paid to the Australian tax office.

"They're operating completely legally: it's just that age-old distinction between legality and morality," she said at the time.
The government is taking steps in response to big multi-nationals side-stepping tax in the local market.
At the end of last year, The Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill passed its first reading in Parliament.
The new law would adopt a number of measures developed to stifle the ability of large global firms to use base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) strategies to reduce their tax bill.
It is part of a global push being championed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD has estimated global losses through tax avoidance amount to US$240 billion (NZ$345b) a year.

Graystone

4th August 2018, 11:40

its not cut short its from Stats NZ. The latest stats.
If amazon doesn't sell to NZ anymore its no grest loss.
Nor would it be if Apple pulled out, as they haven't paid tax here for 10 years despite billions of dollars of revenue earned here.

What year is it? What year does the graph go to?
Isn't it? What about free market competition?

husaberg

4th August 2018, 12:07

What year is it? What year does the graph go to?
Isn't it? What about free market competition?
Stats for a year are wait for it run at the end of the entire year, the graph contains the lasterst information it is the latest available information.
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp
Free market competition is that free market not on rule for apple and amazon and a different rules for other companies who compete with them.

Graystone

4th August 2018, 12:26

Stats for a year are wait for it run at the end of the entire year, the graph contains the lasterst information it is the latest available information.
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp
Free market competition is that free market not on rule for apple and amazon and a different rules for other companies who compete with them.

Year, but it does seem like there could be something rather important that happened in the 2017 year when trying to compare red/vs blue performance on govt debt...
Quit it with the rabid anti-national bullshit, I've already explained I agree with the intent of the policy to create a level playing field, but the implementation is beyond stupid and will instead impede basic free market competition. This concept of policy discussion seems like it is quite beyond you, perhaps it is soon time for you to grow embarrassed and put me on ignore again?

husaberg

4th August 2018, 12:45

Year, but it does seem like there could be something rather important that happened in the 2017 year when trying to compare red/vs blue performance on govt debt...
Quit it with the rabid anti-national bullshit, I've already explained I agree with the intent of the policy to create a level playing field, but the implementation is beyond stupid and will instead impede basic free market competition. This concept of policy discussion seems like it is quite beyond you, perhaps it is soon time for you to grow embarrassed and put me on ignore again?

In your mind maybe.......lets see the goverment changed in one year out of 9. in september. the new goverment was sworn in 26th October yeah thats the reason it looks National borrowed money all those years.
Lets see it it got better or worse in those last two months
Surprise surprise it did not.
338047
You seem to forget that GST on goods purchased from overseas has been done by many other countries for decades.
The tax is an accross the board tax for goods and sevices purchased and sold here.
I should Quit it, piss off go f=-yourself.

Graystone

4th August 2018, 12:51

In your mind maybe.......lets see the goverment changed in one year out of 9. in september. the new goverment was sworn in 26th October yeah thats the reason it looks National borrowed money all those years.

I should Quit it, piss off go f=-yourself.

As Ocean patiently explained, the recession is the reason for the debt. After 26th of Oct, will the trend continue downwards or will it reverse? That's the Red vs Blue question you seem determined to not answer...

Yes, you should, all the strawman red vs blue drivel you spout is just embarrassing yourself.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 13:02

As Ocean patiently explained, the recession is the reason for the debt. After 26th of Oct, will the trend continue downwards or will it reverse? That's the Red vs Blue question you seem determined to not answer...

Yes, you should, all the strawman red vs blue drivel you spout is just embarrassing yourself.

Maybe you should go and look at the figures i posted......... and see it has continued downwards.
I posted the GDP and GDP to debt figures after Ocean claimed

Seriously, dude give it a rest, it does absolutely nothing to change the facts that this lot are fucking up a historically good economic run. You had a decade to bleat about how your pet bogymen supposedly fucked up, it's time to hold this lot accountable for their bullshit.
Now hes claiming it wasn't? when its pointed out they borrowed nearly all the way through....,
the GFC effected most countries worse than NZ because we were in a better position on account of all the hard work that was done prior to lower debt the GFC lasted 2 years.
We are now back into a far worse situation in regards to Debt than we were 9 years ago.

Graystone

4th August 2018, 13:18

Maybe you should go and look at the figures i posted......... and see it has continued downwards.
I posted the GDP and GDP to debt figures after Ocean claimed

Now hes claiming it wasn't? when its pointed out they borrowed nearly all the way through....,
the GFC effected most countries worse than NZ because we were in a better position on account of all the hard work that was done prior to lower debt the GFC lasted 2 years.
We are now back into a far worse situation in regards to Debt than we were 9 years ago.

Maybe you should write a whole post instead of editing shit after people have read and replied to it...
Where's the last 7 months on that graph?

I'm not Ocean, so I'm not here to clarify his statements, I will point out he is not some moron intent on making things red vs blue though...

husaberg

4th August 2018, 13:22

Maybe you should write a whole post instead of editing shit after people have read and replied to it...
Where's the last 7 months on that graph?

I'm not Ocean, so I'm not here to clarify his statements, I will point out he is not some moron intent on making things red vs blue though...
you asked about the last couple of months on the graph i posted which was the latest figures, for whole years

Year, but it does seem like there could be something rather important that happened in the 2017 year when trying to compare red/vs blue performance on govt debt...

i posted them are you unable to comprehend that?
AS you have now changed the question again as you didn't get the result that suited you
here is all i can post as the GDP to debt has not been calculated yet
338048
here is The total nation debt watch how it rises per second $182 dollars
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

Graystone

4th August 2018, 13:27

you asked about the last couple of months on the graph i posted which was the latest figures, for whole years

i posted them are you unable to comprehend that?

Maybe I'm just looking for some validity in what you say, 2 months of continuing a downward trend certainly doesn't support the notion that red is any better than blue; surely even you can see that?

husaberg

4th August 2018, 13:42

Maybe I'm just looking for some validity in what you say, 2 months of continuing a downward trend certainly doesn't support the notion that red is any better than blue; surely even you can see that?
Look and coment all you like but do so with a modicum of intellect
Debt to GDP should go down:killingme

Graystone

4th August 2018, 13:50

338047

beg you pardon, it was an upward trend seriously you need to actually understand stuff before commenting on it.

Debt to GDP should go down:killingme

Something about reading before posting?

Perhaps I'll wait for the next clarification/deletion/etc and see if you make any more sense...

Look and coment all you like but do so with a modicum of intellect
Debt to GDP should go down:killingme

Hmmm, not so much.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 13:58

Something about reading before posting?

Perhaps I'll wait for the next clarification/deletion/etc and see if you make any more sense...

Hmmm, not so much.
Will you figure out that debt to gdp should go down by when?

Maybe I'm just looking for some validity in what you say, 2 months of continuing a downward trend certainly doesn't support the notion that red is any better than blue; surely even you can see that?
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
how are you getting on

Graystone

4th August 2018, 14:00

Will you figure out that debt to gdp should go down by when?

Should? We were discussing red vs blue performance when it continued to go down. I'm not quite sure what the relevance of your opinion on how debt should work is...

Katman

4th August 2018, 14:05

Will you figure out that debt to gdp should go down by when?

Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
how are you getting on
or now
what about now
or now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
do you need more time
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now
have you figured it out yet
what about now.
Are you there yet
what about now
now are you there yet
what about now

Seriously, you are mentally unhinged.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 14:18

Should? We were discussing red vs blue performance when it continued to go down. I'm not quite sure what the relevance of your opinion on how debt should work is...

You asked about the last two months of the year you claimed that you were suspicious i had edited them out and that the would show something nefarious in the last two months performance
I showed they didnt. you didnt like that so you changed your question again
You then claimed that well what about the rest of the year (2018) why were they not included? I said because they had not come out as they are whole year figures
You then claimed well they might show another trend. i posted all a could find which showed the opposite.
You then said well they show a downward spiral
I told you they clearly dont.
Debt to GDP is a cornerstone economic performance indicator.
A low ratio of debt to GDP/captia is what it is seen to be better. its pretty simple really.
otherwise you end up paying all your revenue to interest on Debt.
Note the original graph low ratios of debt to gdp is better
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=nzldebt2gdp&v=201807251513v&d1=19180101&d2=20181231[/IMG[IMG]https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt.png?s=newzealangovdeb&v=201807251513vhttps://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=338047&d=1533344379

Graystone

4th August 2018, 14:25

You asked about the last two months of the year you claimed that you were suspicious i had edited them out and that the would show something nefarious in the last two months performance
I showed they didnt. you didnt like that so you changed your question again
You then claimed that wel what about the rest of the year (2018) why were they not included? I said because they had not come out as they are whole year figures
You then claimed well they might show another trend. i posted all a could find which showed the opposite.
You then said well they show a downward spiral
I told you they clearly dont.
Debt to GDP is a cornerstone economic performance indicator.
A low ratio of debt to GDP/captia is what it is seen to be better. its pretty simple really.
otherwise you endi up paying all your revenue to interest on Debt.

I asked about the graph being cut short, it's now August 2018, cut short refers to any data missing up to this day.

Where did I say they show a downward spiral?

We know low debt/GDP is an economic performance indicator, I'm not sure why you even bring this up? You seemed to be intent on the whole red vs blue thing, but when challenged it seems you're now intent on everything else. You've lost the plot mate, stop embarrassing yourself.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 14:29

I asked about the graph being cut short, it's now August 2018, cut short refers to any data missing up to this day.

Where did I say they show a downward spiral?
We know low debt/GDP is an economic performance indicator, I'm not sure why you even bring this up? You seemed to be intent on the whole red vs blue thing, .

Maybe I'm just looking for some validity in what you say, 2 months of continuing a downward trend certainly doesn't support the notion that red is any better than blue; surely even you can see that?

I'm not quite sure what the relevance of your opinion on how debt should work is...
You clearly dont know its a good thing.
AS i have said the whole figure are whole year figures you try and find the whole year figures in August 2018 for 2018 they don't exist.
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp

Exactly, noble intentions with near 0 chance of success. Kind of like their debt reduction 'policy' does anyone else wonder if the graph Husaberg posted was deliberately cut short to avoid showing what labor is doing to the national debt?

What year is it? What year does the graph go to?
Isn't it? What about free market competition?

Year, but it does seem like there could be something rather important that happened in the 2017 year when trying to compare red/vs blue performance on govt debt...

will the trend continue downwards or will it reverse? That's the Red vs Blue question you seem determined to not answer...

Where's the last 7 months on that graph?

Ever wonder why you were on ignore.........

Graystone

4th August 2018, 14:40

You clearly dont know its a good thing.
AS i have said the whole figure are whole year figures you try and find the whole year figures in August 2018 for 2018 they don't exist.
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp

The downward trend (not spiral) I spoke of was in regard to the debt/GDP ratio figures, which I thought so obviously a good thing I would not have to spell it out for you. What I'm calling you out on, is the drivel you spout about how much better red is than blue, when the trend remains unchanged, it does not back up your assertions in the slightest. When the trend is 2 months log it is statistically insignificant, thus my questioning around trying to find the subsequent 7 months of data...

I know you're not the smartest, but even you should be able to grasp these very simple concepts.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 14:43

The downward trend (not spiral) I spoke of was in regard to the debt/GDP ratio figures, which I thought so obviously a good thing I would not have to spell it out for you. What I'm calling you out on, is the drivel you spout about how much better red is than blue, when the trend remains unchanged, it does not back up your assertions in the slightest. When the trend is 2 months log it is statistically insignificant, thus my questioning around trying to find the subsequent 7 months of data...

I know you're not the smartest, but even you should be able to grasp these very simple concepts.
As i have said i have never said red is better then blue i have only responded with rather obvious data that shows what you and ocean have spouted it ttotal crap not backed by actual figures or actual hard data.
you can question all you like the data has not been calculated yet.
how many times do you need the same answer to the same troll question

Exactly, noble intentions with near 0 chance of success. Kind of like their debt reduction 'policy' does anyone else wonder if the graph Husaberg posted was deliberately cut short to avoid showing what labor is doing to the national debt?

What year is it? What year does the graph go to?
Isn't it? What about free market competition?

Year, but it does seem like there could be something rather important that happened in the 2017 year when trying to compare red/vs blue performance on govt debt...

will the trend continue downwards or will it reverse? That's the Red vs Blue question you seem determined to not answer...

Where's the last 7 months on that graph?

When the trend is 2 months log it is statistically insignificant, thus my questioning around trying to find the subsequent 7 months of data...
I know you're not the smartest, but even you should be able to grasp these very simple concepts.

Graystone

4th August 2018, 15:06

As i have said i have never said red is better then blue i have only responded with rather obvious data that shows what you and ocean have spouted it ttotal crap not backed by actual figures or actual hard data.
you can question all you like the data has not been calculated yet.
how many times do you need the same answer to the same troll question

Well you call them Labor and National, I use red and blue to highlight the moronically partisan approach you take to political policy.

Look for the deeper question and answer, if you do not have the data, do not draw the conclusion. We have no idea if labour would have performed any better over the years national raised our debt, to estimate it we would have to look at when govt changed but circumstances did not, which hasn't happened since '96 where a downwards trend from '90 simply continued. The previous govt change does show a trend reversal though... What we do know, and what Ocean pointed out, is that NZ performed very well (relatively) through the trying times of the 2008 GFC.

Swoop

4th August 2018, 15:29

We would have been royally fucked if labour was in charge during the GFC. Plain and simple.
In comparison, we were only "mildly" affected.

NO NEW TAXES!

Did anyone over six years old really fall for that?
Yup. Those deluded by a smile & short memories.

including raising GST which they promised they would not do.
They were forced to do that because of liarbour emptying the piggybank on a broken trainset (to buy the rail union votes...). That was a wonderful move now that everything is being transported by rail [/sarcasm mode].

Viking01

4th August 2018, 15:44

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96756247/Is-National-really-better-than-Labour-with-the-Government-books-Well-not-really

Grumph

4th August 2018, 16:18

We would have been royally fucked if labour was in charge during the GFC. Plain and simple.
In comparison, we were only "mildly" affected.

I can't let that pass without comment. The ChCh earthquakes were the salvation of the govt at the time. So much insurance money came into NZ in the 3 -4 years post quakes that we looked bloody good on paper....

Most ChCh residents would also now hold the belief that under a Labour govt priorities would have been different. Housing rather than business premises would probably have had priority - as it has become apparent it should have been.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 18:18

. What we do know, and what Ocean pointed out, is that NZ performed very well (relatively) through the trying times of the 2008 GFC.

Relativity well is not what ocean said though was it.

It's a fucking joke. A
Seriously, dude give it a rest, it does absolutely nothing to change the facts that this lot are fucking up a historically good economic run. You had a decade to bleat about how your pet bogymen supposedly fucked up, it's time to hold this lot accountable for their bullshit.

Also the whole time labour was in power aggressively paying off debt, national was yapping that they should have been cutting tax.... go figure it yourself

Graystone

4th August 2018, 18:21

Relativity well is not what ocean said though was it.
Also the whole time labour was in power aggressively paying off debt, national was yapping that they should have been cutting tax.... go figure it yourself

It was probably another term that should not have required spelling out for you.
And you think their decision not to cut tax makes Red better than Blue?

husaberg

4th August 2018, 18:23

We would have been royally fucked if labour was in charge during the GFC. Plain and simple.
In comparison, we were only "mildly" affected.
Yup. Those deluded by a smile & short memories

They were forced to do that because of liarbour emptying the piggybank on a broken trainset (to buy the rail union votes...). That was a wonderful move now that everything is being transported by rail [/sarcasm mode].

Rail union votes seriously rail union votes...................

husaberg

4th August 2018, 18:26

It was probably another term that should not have required spelling out for you.
And you think their decision not to cut tax makes Red better than Blue?
Do i think its better to pay off debt rather than endlessly borrowing money to fund corporate tax cuts while just raking up more interest on debt why yes.
As do most people who can add.

Graystone

4th August 2018, 18:37

Do i think its better to pay off debt rather than endlessly borrowing money to fund corporate tax cuts while just raking up more interest on debt why yes.
As do most people who can add.

Endlessly borrowing? I must have missed that part of the policy... I know how you like to stick to simple concepts like addition (even when interest is clearly multiplication), but; sometimes, it is worth borrowing up front, to realise net gains overall. It's kind of why mortgages are a thing. Do you know how much low value goods we export because we haven't invested in the plant required to process it to high value? Politicans have a propensity to fuck things up, but a plan to value add prior to export would certainly get my vote, looking for future gains in GDP that might go beyond a govt term often requires debt.

husaberg

4th August 2018, 18:40

338052338053338054338055

Swoop

5th August 2018, 14:59

Rail union votes seriously rail union votes...................
People like to claim that "big business pulls national's strings" but they forget who is pulling labours. Businesses are at least predictabe in as much as they want to make a profit and they also employ people. Labour, on the other hand, have political machinations and all sorts of other interests "dabbling" in the background for their own agendas. With socialists' it is a simple matter of personal power and gains whilst claiming they are working for the betterment of everyone.

How much benefit has the railway returned to NZ since being purchased? A better approach would have simply left the Australian owners to sell off rail at a "knock-down" price and purchase it at that stage, rather than purchasing at a premium rate - which emptied the coffers of all the savings (taxpayers being bled dry... again) they had made over their 9yr reign of terror.

husaberg

5th August 2018, 15:35

People like to claim that "big business pulls national's strings" but they forget who is pulling labours. Businesses are at least predictabe in as much as they want to make a profit and they also employ people. Labour, on the other hand, have political machinations and all sorts of other interests "dabbling" in the background for their own agendas. With socialists' it is a simple matter of personal power and gains whilst claiming they are working for the betterment of everyone.

How much benefit has the railway returned to NZ since being purchased? A better approach would have simply left the Australian owners to sell off rail at a "knock-down" price and purchase it at that stage, rather than purchasing at a premium rate - which emptied the coffers of all the savings (taxpayers being bled dry... again) they had made over their 9yr reign of terror.

They paid $1 for the railway network but it was substantially more than it was worth.
Due to its run down condition.
I seriously do not believe there was a railway union that had any pull or any large number of members.

rail and maritime union has 4,658. members

the retail union FIRST has 27,500 members

No idea how many Etu has but it pretty big

PSA has 63,000 members

so to suggest the railway union big enough to control the goverment is pretty funny.

Ocean1

5th August 2018, 19:20

People like to claim that "big business pulls national's strings" but they forget who is pulling labours.

The unions don't pull labour's strings. They don't have to, they built the party, launched it and have controlled it ever since. They retain voting rights on caucus appointments as both affiliates AND as party members. Make no mistake, labour aren't influenced by the unions in NZ, they ARE the unions in NZ.

Ocean1

5th August 2018, 19:29

They paid $1 for the railway network but it was substantially more than it was worth.
Due to its run down condition.
I seriously do not believe there was a railway union that had any pull or any large number of members.

They paid $1 for the infrastructure assets.

http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/about-us/history-of-kiwirail/150yearsofrail/stories/rail-privatisation.html

But.

The Government chose the purchase option and after protracted negotiations with Toll, bought the business in 2008 for $665 million.

Not including a maintenance contract with Toll as the beneficiary, costing even more.

Govt's have subsequently lost further hundreds of millions keeping the fucking business afloat.

husaberg

5th August 2018, 19:33

They paid $1 for the infrastructure assets.

http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/about-us/history-of-kiwirail/150yearsofrail/stories/rail-privatisation.html

They subsequently lost further hundreds of millions keeping the fucking business afloat.

Thats what i said
Someone else suggested it was far more
the infrastructure assets is the rail network.
$1 was stlll far to much
The problem is if NZ does not have a rail network all that transport has to go on the roads.

TheDemonLord

6th August 2018, 09:17

If amazon doesn't sell to NZ anymore its no great loss.

Speak for yourself - there's quite a lot of esoteric bits and pieces that are virtually unavailable through traditional means in NZ except by the likes of Amazon.

Swoop

6th August 2018, 09:46

so to suggest the railway union big enough to control the goverment is pretty funny.
As part of the "union" control in the background. Labour's politicians do what they are told to do.

The unions don't pull labour's strings. They don't have to, they built the party, launched it and have controlled it ever since. They retain voting rights on caucus appointments as both affiliates AND as party members. Make no mistake, labour aren't influenced by the unions in NZ, they ARE the unions in NZ.
Worded much better than my attempt.

Speak for yourself - there's quite a lot of esoteric bits and pieces that are virtually unavailable through traditional means in NZ except by the likes of Amazon.
And which NZ retailers and suppliers will refuse to stock or supply here, making their crying about being "undercut by the internet" misleading, at best.

TheDemonLord

6th August 2018, 10:04

And which NZ retailers and suppliers will refuse to stock or supply here, making their crying about being "undercut by the internet" misleading, at best.

Well, there is something to be said here - I don't blame the retailers for not stocking or supplying them - if you only expect to sell an item to a 1 in 10,000 customer, it's difficult to justify, especially of the catchment area for your physical store is only 5,000 people.

Whereas the internet allows you to reach a market of Billions - so whilst it may be 1 in 10,000, that's still a market size of 100,000 - which makes it worthwhile to stock and sell.

husaberg

6th August 2018, 11:28

Speak for yourself - there's quite a lot of esoteric bits and pieces that are virtually unavailable through traditional means in NZ except by the likes of Amazon.

Well according to ocean if there is demand there will be supply the only difference is you will have to pay the gst on it as that loophole is getting closed.

As part of the "union" control in the background. Labour's politicians do what they are told to do.

You mean Just as the bussiness roundtable and Fed Farmers control National?

Lets be frank since MMP came into effect there is really little difference between Nat and Lab there are both center parties, only one is a little left the other a little to the right. Neither party is able to do much anything radical antmore, as under MMP they have to be more conservative in their views.

Banditbandit

6th August 2018, 11:47

The unions don't pull labour's strings. They don't have to, they built the party, launched it and have controlled it ever since. They retain voting rights on caucus appointments as both affiliates AND as party members. Make no mistake, labour aren't influenced by the unions in NZ, they ARE the unions in NZ.

Was once true - but is no longer true ..

I think Labour is down to five affiliated unions ..

http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/04/myth_8_the_labo.html

TheDemonLord

6th August 2018, 12:56

Well accocrding to ocean if there is demand there will be supply the only difference is you will have to pay the gst on it as that loophole is getting closed.

Yes - but look at the curve:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/UBUfx.jpg

If the Demand is low, then the price for supply goes up - Bespoke engineering, Art etc. are examples of this.

So compare the supply and demand curves for your physical store (with a catchment of say ~15,000) to Amazon - (with a catchment of say ~1,000,000,000) - you get economies of scale, which means the price goes down.

Simply put - I primarily use Amazon for items that are difficult to source in NZ and when I am able to source them, they are orders of magnitude more expensive. And I don't wish to forgo that ease and convenience for the sake of some piss-poor legislation that I've yet to see any proof will produce the stated and desired outcomes.

husaberg

6th August 2018, 13:01

Yes - but look at the curve:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/UBUfx.jpg

If the Demand is low, then the price for supply goes up - Bespoke engineering, Art etc. are examples of this.

So compare the supply and demand curves for your physical store (with a catchment of say ~15,000) to Amazon - (with a catchment of say ~1,000,000,000) - you get economies of scale, which means the price goes down.

Simply put - I primarily use Amazon for items that are difficult to source in NZ and when I am able to source them, they are orders of magnitude more expensive. And I don't wish to forgo that ease and convenience for the sake of some piss-poor legislation that I've yet to see any proof will produce the stated and desired outcomes.

Tough titties the loop hole is being closed. To the best of their abilities anyway, some people will stilll seek to cheat the system.
No one is asking you to forgo anything at all, Just to pay the GST on a goods, Like it or not i don't really care, but the GST holiday days are drawing to an end. If amazon find it a hassdle and no longer want sell to NZ, i dont care either.

TheDemonLord

6th August 2018, 13:17

Tough titties the loop hole is being closed. To the best of their abilities anyway, some people will stilll seek to cheat the system.
No one is asking you to forgo anything at all, Just to pay the GST on a goods, Like it or not i don't really care, but the GST holiday days are drawing to an end. If amazon find it a hassdle and no longer want sell to NZ, i dont care either.

Yeah, I don't buy that - sorry, there is ZERO evidence that it will achieve the stated outcome and plenty of evidence (Cough Australia Cough) to show that it's a massively dumb fuck idea...

And you are, by implication, asking me to forgo things.

All we are going to do is end up cutting off our nose to spite our face.

husaberg

6th August 2018, 13:40

Yeah, I don't buy that - sorry, there is ZERO evidence that it will achieve the stated outcome and plenty of evidence (Cough Australia Cough) to show that it's a massively dumb fuck idea...

And you are, by implication, asking me to forgo things.

All we are going to do is end up cutting off our nose to spite our face.

I dont care i dont care i dont care
Ps I dont care.
To use Aussie as an example to just silly as its only been implimented for a single month.
But the UK has been doing it for 20 years which you conviently ignore. Seeing as you are from the UK you knew this.
https://www.gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad
Aussie has a Amazon distribution center opening their, so They dont care either.
If you truely believe its a huge problem for you to pay the legally defined ammount of GST. I say you should not be buying the goods then.

If its such an issue i suggest you move back overseas. Or set up your own political party and win an election or you could face up to the fact its a law and stop moaning about small amount tax for something you claim that you don't buy often anyway.

Ocean1

6th August 2018, 14:23

And which NZ retailers and suppliers will refuse to stock or supply here, making their crying about being "undercut by the internet" misleading, at best.

Dude, nobody believes the local suppliers prices at 2-3 times those of off shore orders are caused by GST. That's simply the most convenient direction labour can point to from their claimed moral high ground.

And to be more fair that is probably quite necessary, if there was only 15% difference nobody would bother taking their business off shore in the first place. The fact is until a few years ago all we ever had was the so called "level playing field", and it was lopsided as fuck in favour of anyone with an import licence.

Their level playing field can fuck right off.

Ocean1

6th August 2018, 14:25

Well according to ocean if there is demand there will be supply

Really?

Show me.

'Cause it sounds more like something you said to me.

Ocean1

6th August 2018, 14:30

Was once true - but is no longer true ..

I think Labour is down to five affiliated unions ..

http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/04/myth_8_the_labo.html

Which simply points out that the unions don't fund their party as much as they once did. Which is entirely understandable, the unions have far fewer members in turn, since their membership is no longer compulsory most of it's decided to decline to pay for whatever it was they were selling. The result of which was far less income and a massive integration of the few remaining unions.

It in no way diminishes the remaining union's control over their party, and the laughably low-level lobbying national is subjected to by local business interests isn't comparable to the unions ownership of labour at all.

Swoop

6th August 2018, 14:43

You mean Just as the bussiness roundtable and Fed Farmers control National?
There has been a mindset that "whoever" pulls the national strings, yet labour do not get this form of attention, so bringing the union interest (among other interested groups) into a more public view is relevant.

At least we know that businesses want to make a profit, prosper and employ people.

husaberg

6th August 2018, 15:07

There has been a mindset that "whoever" pulls the national strings, yet labour do not get this form of attention, so bringing the union interest (among other interested groups) into a more public view is relevant.

At least we know that businesses want to make a profit, prosper and employ people.
Minset.....

Labour appear to get the exact same scrutiny...
Business want to make a profit the rest is only an ends to the mean. Just ask Ocean LOL
Cabury is an classic example they made a profit having an production operation based in NZ, but they could make a bigger profit moving production ofshore so what happend.............

Voltaire

6th August 2018, 15:12

There has been a mindset that "whoever" pulls the national strings, yet labour do not get this form of attention, so bringing the union interest (among other interested groups) into a more public view is relevant.

At least we know that businesses want to make a profit, prosper and employ people.

I think they only want to profit, employing people is a necessary evil. Banking is an example, as they can provide the same level of service with technology. Banks in AU are even using chat bots, cheaper then overseas call centres.

Ocean1

6th August 2018, 15:16

I dont care i dont care i dont care
Ps I dont care.
To use Aussie as an example to just silly as its only been implimented for a single month.
But the UK has been doing it for 20 years which you conviently ignore. Seeing as you are from the UK you knew this.
https://www.gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad
Aussie has a Amazon distribution center opening their, so They dont care either.
If you truely believe its a huge problem for you to pay the legally defined ammount of GST. I say you should not be buying the goods then.

If its such an issue i suggest you move back overseas. Or set up your own political party and win an election or you could face up to the fact its a law and stop moaning about small amount tax for something you claim that you don't buy often anyway.

We get it, your only concern is that people pay tax. Including those that cost more than they earn. Can I be quite frank? Fuck you, and your horse.

Using Aussie as an example is fucking obvious though, they've just done exactly what NZ labour plan to do: force Amazon et al to deduct GST at source. They're the first country in the world to harbour such delusions of omnipotence, and it's not going anywhere near as well as you seem to believe.

And according to your link blighty has, in fact been doing exactly the same thing we've done for fucking years: catch some of it at the border and then demand payment. As far as I can see they've never required an off shore vendor to collect their taxes for them.

"You’ll be contacted by Royal Mail, Parcelforce or the courier company explaining how to pay any VAT, duty and fees for dealing with customs.

They’ll normally hold your parcel for about 3 weeks. If you haven’t paid the fee by then, it’ll be sent back."

husaberg

6th August 2018, 15:22

We get it, your only concern is that people pay tax. Including those that cost more than they earn. Can I be quite frank? Fuck you.

Using Aussie as an example is fucking obvious though, they've just done exactly what NZ labour plane to do, force Amazon et al to deduct GST at source. It's not going anywhere near as well as you seem to believe.

And blighty has, in fact been doing exactly the same thing we've done for fucking years: catch some of it at the border and then demand payment. As far as I can see they've never required an off shore vendor to collect their taxes for them.

"You’ll be contacted by Royal Mail, Parcelforce or the courier company explaining how to pay any VAT, duty and fees for dealing with customs.

They’ll normally hold your parcel for about 3 weeks. If you haven’t paid the fee by then, it’ll be sent back."

You dont get anything, i dont care about TDL moaning.
I have heard you other blather many times how its is okay that big companies shirk the tax laws
Nor do i care about your opinion because its generally just right wing whinging.
Aussie having been doing it for one month grow up, they expect to generate 500 milion dollars.
The only reason you are winging is it was a labour coalition that put the law into place.
I say this as you have never winged about the average of 6 nrew taxs that National brought in every year.
How many of the 6 new taxes a year did you moan about national doing?....
Did you moan when national raised the GST rate?
If it irks you so much to pay the correct ammount of gst dont.
Or form the" ocean party" where you hold your breath under the ocean for the next 2 1/2 years for all i care.

But nothing you are going to say ot do is going to change the fact that its a law, so grow up and move on.

Ocean1

6th August 2018, 15:32

You dont get anything, i dont care about TDL moaning.
Nor do i care about your opinion becase its generally just right wing whinging.
Aussie having been doing it for one month grow up
The only reason you are winging is it was a labour coalitition that put the law into place.
How many of the 6 new taxes a year did you moan about national doing?....
Did you moan when national raised the GST rate?
If it irks you so much to pay the correct ammount of gst dont.
Or form the" ocean party" where you hold your breath under the ocean for the next 2 1/2 years for all i care.

But nothing you are going to say ot do is going to change the fact that its a law, so grow up and move on.

All of which might be very interesting, (if tedious and horribly repetitive), if the rationale behind your opinions were at all based in fact, and not on your misinterpretation of what others say and whatever similarly misinterpreted "supporting evidence" you dredge up.

Sadly, such is not the case. Now clean up your horse's shit on your way out.

TheDemonLord

6th August 2018, 15:41

I dont care i dont care i dont care
Ps I dont care.

And thus we see what lurks beneath the facade.

You sound more like my Toddler whining about bed time, than someone who should be making significant changes to our international trade setup.

Let me put it another way.

Your assumption is that the net result of this change is that a whole load of tax which you assert is not being paid or you assert should be paid - gets paid. And because the government will have this wonderful windfall of tax, they'll be able to build roads, pay the nurses, ride unicorns etc. etc.

Now, if the legislation did that, and only that - I could perhaps relent a little - afterall - 15% markup on an item isn't the end of the world. But you've shown NOTHING to back that up. And what's more, we have our Aussie neighbours - with whom we have the closest geographic, political, Legislative, cultural and historic connections - they did something similar - the net result of which was that Australia (not Amazon) lost out.

There's also an implied line of logic in there that goes something like "there are a group of people who aren't paying their fair share, and are somehow freeloading" - which implies that the driving force behind this change isn't anything resembling Economic sense - but jealousy and hatred of a group who are perceived as gaming the system.

And FWIW - This concern isn't based out of any right or left wing politics - it's borne out of the fact that Governments are trying to impose taxes upon the internet, in much the same manner that British Colonialism imposed taxes - do you need a history lesson as to what happened next?

husaberg

6th August 2018, 17:11

All of which might be very interesting, (if tedious and horribly repetitive), if the rationale behind your opinions were at all based in fact, and not on your misinterpretation of what others say and whatever similarly misinterpreted "supporting evidence" you dredge up.

Sadly, such is not the case. Now clean up your horse's shit on your way out.

You are a hypocrite dude, plain and simple.
You have never actually used any evidence only your opinion.

husaberg

6th August 2018, 17:18

And thus we see what lurks beneath the facade.

You sound more like my Toddler whining about bed time, than someone who should be making significant changes to our international trade setup.

Let me put it another way.

Your assumption is that the net result of this change is that a whole load of tax which you assert is not being paid or you assert should be paid - gets paid. And because the government will have this wonderful windfall of tax, they'll be able to build roads, pay the nurses, ride unicorns etc. etc.

Now, if the legislation did that, and only that - I could perhaps relent a little - afterall - 15% markup on an item isn't the end of the world. But you've shown NOTHING to back that up. And what's more, we have our Aussie neighbours - with whom we have the closest geographic, political, Legislative, cultural and historic connections - they did something similar - the net result of which was that Australia (not Amazon) lost out.

There's also an implied line of logic in there that goes something like "there are a group of people who aren't paying their fair share, and are somehow freeloading" - which implies that the driving force behind this change isn't anything resembling Economic sense - but jealousy and hatred of a group who are perceived as gaming the system.

And FWIW - This concern isn't based out of any right or left wing politics - it's borne out of the fact that Governments are trying to impose taxes upon the internet, in much the same manner that British Colonialism imposed taxes - do you need a history lesson as to what happened next?

Ther only person whining is you and ocean.
The rest of it is blather to make yourself feel better.
Its not an implied logic, is what is fair and reasonable when the taxion laws were created there was no internet shopping.
As i have said about 5 times the aussie law has only been in effect for 1 month.
the UK law has been arround 20 years yet you never mention that, twenty years not a peep, were you unaware of that or did it not suit your agenda to mention that?

if you don't like NZ taxation laws stop moaning and do something about it or go back to the UK and moan there about it.
Either way i don't care.

TheDemonLord

6th August 2018, 21:20

Ther only person whining is you and ocean.
The rest of it is blather to make yourself feel better.
Its not an implied logic, is what is fair and reasonable when the taxion laws were created there was no internet shopping.

There was certainly the facility to purchase items from overseas - Mail order, Phone order - so people could still order from overseas...

As i have said about 5 times the aussie law has only been in effect for 1 month.

60 Million products vs 480 Million products - that's an instantaneous effect.

If you want one of the 420 Million products that is no longer on offer - you're shit out of luck.

the UK law has been arround 20 years yet you never mention that, twenty years not a peep, were you unaware of that or did it not suit your agenda to mention that?

It's more complicated than what you are trying to make it out to be - and furthermore, the UK happens to be a much bigger market than NZ or Aus - which happens to be relevant.

if you don't like NZ taxation laws stop moaning and do something about it or go back to the UK and moan there about it.
Either way i don't care.

A Tax that is fair and produces the desired result - fine.
A Tax that is stupidly applied and will cause a myriad of detrimental and unforseen consequences - not fine.

husaberg

6th August 2018, 21:27

There was certainly the facility to purchase items from overseas - Mail order, Phone order - so people could still order from overseas...

60 Million products vs 480 Million products - that's an instantaneous effect.

If you want one of the 420 Million products that is no longer on offer - you're shit out of luck.

It's more complicated than what you are trying to make it out to be - and furthermore, the UK happens to be a much bigger market than NZ or Aus - which happens to be relevant.

A Tax that is fair and produces the desired result - fine.
A Tax that is stupidly applied and will cause a myriad of detrimental and unforseen consequences - not fine.

All your opinion

oldrider

7th August 2018, 20:38

All your opinion

Just as valuable/valid as yours or anyone else's for that matter. :whistle:

Ocean1

18th August 2018, 09:02

Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES! :corn:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/106268761/superregions-or-a-special-tax--how-the-government-plans-to-fix-new-zealands-broken-water-systems

pete376403

18th August 2018, 09:56

Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES! :corn:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/106268761/superregions-or-a-special-tax--how-the-government-plans-to-fix-new-zealands-broken-water-systems

Ok so the water system appears to be broken. There are three options:

Ignore it and carry on as usual. This seems to be the way things have operated in the past. Government does nothing while in power then once in opposition blames the other party.

Impose a tax to pay for repairs. people end up paying for improvements but in the long term things may get better

Privatise the system such as the UK did. People end up paying but few improvements happen, huge profits accrue and go to (usually) overseas owners

Ocean1

18th August 2018, 12:41

Ok so the water system appears to be broken. There are three options:

Ignore it and carry on as usual. This seems to be the way things have operated in the past. Government does nothing while in power then once in opposition blames the other party.

Impose a tax to pay for repairs. people end up paying for improvements but in the long term things may get better

Privatise the system such as the UK did. People end up paying but few improvements happen, huge profits accrue and go to (usually) overseas owners

Oooorrrr, we could spend taxpayers money on infrastructure instead of social engineering, council rorts and civic empire building puffery.

It worked for previous generations. So what's changed?

Ocean1

27th August 2018, 13:34

Oh yeah, this housing crisis shit's easy! :laugh:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/106588008/landlords-planning-to-raise-rents-due-to-tenancy-overhaul-may-struggle

jasonu

27th August 2018, 14:16

Oooorrrr, we could spend taxpayers money on infrastructure instead of social engineering, council rorts and civic empire building puffery.

It worked for previous generations. So what's changed?

Coulda used those several millions the tooth fairy gave to the coconut islands for more pressing local stuff.

pritch

27th August 2018, 14:45

Oh yeah, this housing crisis shit's easy! :laugh:

While I was driving home last night from a barbecue Don Brash was saying it is easy. If they actually did anything effective though, house prices would drop and voters don't like that, so no politician will be brave enough to do it. Meanwhile they will want to appear as if they are doing something.

And basically that was the gospel according to Don.

jasonu

27th August 2018, 16:35

While I was driving home last night from a barbecue Don Brash was saying it is easy. If they actually did anything effective though, house prices would drop and voters don't like that, so no politician will be brave enough to do it. Meanwhile they will want to appear as if they are doing something.

And basically that was the gospel according to Don.

Rather than making house prices drop they would have done better preventing them from going through the roof in the first place.
NZ is way more reactive than proactive.

husaberg

27th August 2018, 19:15

Rather than making house prices drop they would have done better preventing them from going through the roof in the first place.
NZ is way more reactive than proactive.

While I was driving home last night from a barbecue Don Brash was saying it is easy. If they actually did anything effective though, house prices would drop and voters don't like that, so no politician will be brave enough to do it. Meanwhile they will want to appear as if they are doing something.

And basically that was the gospel according to Don.
Funny as according to Key there was no housing crisis
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/68621964/no-housing-crisis-in-auckland-john-key
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80320513/John-Key-says-no-Auckland-housing-crisis-but-76-per-cent-of-voters-want-more-action
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/flat-house-prices-prove-there-s-no-crisis-national-housing-spokesman-michael-woodhouse.html
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/271023/key-denies-akl-housing-crisis
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/308084/housing-'challenge'-still-not-a-'crisis'

Prime Minister John Key is standing by his statements that there isn't a housing crisis in Auckland and says the decision to tax property speculators was only made in April.
On Sunday, Key announced the Government planned a law change for October 1 that will make residential property bought and sold within two years subject to a capital gains tax, unless it was the family home, inherited, or needing to be sold because of a relationship split.

Finance Minister Bill English was not convinced there was a housing crisis either, .

labour leader Andrew Little described the policy as "panic stations at the Beehive" after a sudden change of heart by the prime minister, which has led to a "scrambled and last-minute housing measure".
"These are the actions of a bystander Government that has watched the Auckland housing crisis unfold and then done too little too late."

It wasnt until May 15 that they finally admitted there was one
https://www.labour.org.nz/john_key_finally_admits_there_s_a_housing_crisis

Ocean1

27th August 2018, 19:42

Oh aye, it was a crisis when labour could blame national for not introducing a CGT.

Now it's not.

So they don't have to.

All clear? :laugh:

Ocean1

27th August 2018, 19:47

While I was driving home last night from a barbecue Don Brash was saying it is easy. If they actually did anything effective though, house prices would drop and voters don't like that, so no politician will be brave enough to do it. Meanwhile they will want to appear as if they are doing something.

And basically that was the gospel according to Don.

Don's right.

But "effective" doesn't have to incinerate the market. Just get the local council's fingers out of the fucking till wrt new developments and kill the supply monopolies.

pritch

28th August 2018, 09:53

Don's right.

He also said some other stuff which I liked the sound of. He made the point that the fertile land around Pukekohe should be used productively. There is land available elsewhere that is less productive so more appropriate for housing. I didn't recognise the names he mentioned but think the areas were more more north.

Last time I drove through Pukekohe, some eighteen months ago, it looked sad. Fields full of weeds, presumably land banked pending development?

Ocean1

28th August 2018, 11:13

He also said some other stuff which I liked the sound of. He made the point that the fertile land around Pukekohe should be used productively. There is land available elsewhere that is less productive so more appropriate for housing. I didn't recognise the names he mentioned but think the areas were more more north.

Last time I drove through Pukekohe, some eighteen months ago, it looked sad. Fields full of weeds, presumably land banked pending development?

If it was economically viable to be farming it then it'd be farmed. Be interesting to find out why that's not the case, I suspect the cost of living in Orks drives employment costs up to the point where it's cheaper for countdown to buy spuds from the Horowhenua. I don't necessarily agree with nationalising property simply because some aren't happy with how the existing owners are using it though.

Same with the recent talk of "acquiring" some of the golf courses around Orks for urban development, against the "think of the poor people without houses" argument I'll place "think of the city defined as unrelieved, wall to wall suburbia". It's horrendously bad as it is.

Let's face it the problem is simply that there's more people that want an Orks McMansion than the current market can supply, in spite of the artificially high prices. Making more of the same around the fringes is a short-term solution anyway, maybe we'd be better off making it more attractive to live elsewhere. I suspect that a bullet train the length of the Waikato would help. So would some creative tax breaks for large employers looking to move out of town. Maybe govt takes the responsible lead, there and moves every public service office out of town.

Do wonders for Wellington...

Voltaire

28th August 2018, 11:21

Swoop

28th August 2018, 14:24

Oh yeah, this housing crisis shit's easy! :laugh:
I'm entertained by the cries of "we'll limit rent increases to only one per year!"
Which simply means that landlords will put the price up significantly when they do so.

He also said some other stuff which I liked the sound of. He made the point that the fertile land around Pukekohe should be used productively.
Pukekohe is a vital food production resource for the northern region and has been for a very long time. Idiot councils are continuing to destroy this asset.

Same with the recent talk of "acquiring" some of the golf courses around Orks for urban development...
All ready happening.

husaberg

28th August 2018, 14:40

I'm entertained by the cries of "we'll limit rent increases to only one per year!"
Which simply means that landlords will put the price up significantly when they do so.

Pukekohe is a vital food production resource for the northern region and has been for a very long time. Idiot councils are continuing to destroy this asset.

All ready happening.
Correct its the council that allowes the zoning to change for Rural lands. too much hightly productive land is being swallowed up for urban sprawl.
But in regards to the golf courses thats not really true the Auckland Council already owns 13 golf courses in Auckland they always have, they have as far as i know now decided to sell offand or subdivide a few. its not a bad idea, as its hardly core activity for councils to own golf courses. Although a lot of them actually do own golf courses land and rent them out for peppercorn rental to the clubs.

pete376403

28th August 2018, 19:51

So would some creative tax breaks for large employers looking to move out of town. Maybe govt takes the responsible lead, there and moves every public service office out of town.

Do wonders for Wellington...

Muldoon tried that. A long time ago I was doing some IT work at the Nestle (?) factory way out in Waiuku and asked how they had ended up there. Government incentives, apparently. Anathema to the free market though. (free market is why TransRails head office was moved to the North Shore, where no rail ever goes)

pritch

28th August 2018, 20:31

I don't necessarily agree with nationalising property simply because some aren't happy with how the existing owners are using it though.

Same with the recent talk of "acquiring" some of the golf courses around Orks for urban development, against the "think of the poor people without houses" argument I'll place "think of the city defined as unrelieved, wall to wall suburbia".

Nobody mentioned nationalising anything. The local body should be controlling land use, but I wouldn't bet on it.

We had a contretemps hereabout regarding one of the local golf courses the council had, in their wisdom - or lack thereof, decided to sell for development. So far so good, but we may need another mayor. Be it here or in Auckland, the green spaces that the golf courses provide will one day be hugely valuable as relief from the urban/suburban sprawl. Once they're gone, they'll be gone forever. No, I don't play golf. Did deliver a newspaper to Chamberlain Park in Auckland when I was a school kid though.

Ocean1

28th August 2018, 21:27

Nobody mentioned nationalising anything. The local body should be controlling land use, but I wouldn't bet on it.

We had a contretemps hereabout regarding one of the local golf courses the council had, in their wisdom - or lack thereof, decided to sell for development. So far so good, but we may need another mayor. Be it here or in Auckland, the green spaces that the golf courses provide will one day be hugely valuable as relief from the urban/suburban sprawl. Once they're gone, they'll be gone forever. No, I don't play golf. Did deliver a newspaper to Chamberlain Park in Auckland when I was a school kid though.

That's more or less what I thought I'd said.

Heard a related rumor the other day, though. Seems the local Hutt council was approached by developers wanting their blessing and some assurances about eventual sign off on some recent zoning changes for a large residential development before they bought the property. No worries says the council, we'll be dealing with all of the contracts. Um, we rather thought that was our role? says the developers, but OK, go ahead and quote for the work. That's not how it works, says the council, we'll just let you know when it's done. Well it's certainly the way it works for us, says the developers, maybe Porirua will be a little more accommodating. Which is why Porirua gets a new suburb, and Hutt doesn't. :facepalm:

husaberg

29th August 2018, 10:31

Cameron slatter has named Amy Adams as the most likely leaker

https://i1.wp.com/www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AmyAdams638Getty-630x348.jpg?resize=630%2C348https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/media/20432727/simon-bridges-national-energy-minister-getty-images.gif?width=635&height=395&mode=crop

I still believe that this leak and the subsequent texts were from ‘The Puddle’ and people closely associated with them.https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2018/08/whos-nationals-dirty-little-leaker/

https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2018/02/amay-adams-puddle-supporters/

Whats the issue with spending the equivalent of $400,000 a year on limo rides for the National leader anyway:laugh:

Mr Bridges acknowledges it's a lot of money, but is unapologetic - saying he hasn't spent too much.

Ocean1

30th August 2018, 20:10

It's all kosher, really...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/106704499/billions-borrowed-for-new-state-homes-against-treasury-advice

...we have financial responsibility rules y'know.

husaberg

30th August 2018, 21:38

It's all kosher, really...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/106704499/billions-borrowed-for-new-state-homes-against-treasury-advice

...we have financial responsibility rules y'know.
Thats just 145 years of limo rides For Bridges and the other 50 MP's

jasonu

1st September 2018, 02:33

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12116229

Seems to be plenty of money for certain groups...

Voltaire

1st September 2018, 07:40

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12116229

Seems to be plenty of money for certain groups...

Seems not a lot of tax paid by certain groups...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11607336

(same source so it must be true:msn-wink:

Ocean1

1st September 2018, 07:55

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12116229

Seems to be plenty of money for certain groups...

Well they had to do something with the cash they saved from ditching all those charter schools.

And the results will be SO much better.

Ocean1

1st September 2018, 13:05

This sounds promising.

https://www.travel.earth/new-zealand-freedom-camping-more-sustainable/

Haven't heard anything else about it though, which is strange...

Voltaire

1st September 2018, 13:45

Well they had to do something with the cash they saved from ditching all those charter schools.

And the results will be SO much better.

Expert on education are we?.... opps sorry, its just because its not National.

pritch

1st September 2018, 15:41

It's all kosher, really...

Well you see, once upon a time state houses were built with the money held in deposits at the Post Office Savings Bank. Nowadays, thanks to Roger Douglas and his philosophical successors, we no longer have such an institution. Of course if the rents paid by state house tennants had been used to finance new builds we wouldn't have quite the same problem. We'd still have a stock of empty houses due to somebody in the street having once smoked meth though.

You might not like what Labour are doing but decades of mismanagement by successive governments have limited their options. At least we'll be able to fill Avondale racecourse with crap housing now though.

Ocean1

1st September 2018, 16:07

Expert on education are we?.... opps sorry, its just because its not National.

I don't give a fuck who it is, when your policy plainly contradicts both observable reality and your stated objectives then you're either spinning shit to cover unpopular ideological motives or you're a fucking idiot.

Claiming the state knows best how to teach everyone's kids and insisting that's the only option doesn't agree with the results charter schools were achieving, with state school failures in many cases. To then turn around and separately fund another special interest group for the very same stated reason is just unbelievably duplicitous, its a fucking joke.

Ocean1

1st September 2018, 16:15

Well you see, once upon a time state houses were built with the money held in deposits at the Post Office Savings Bank. Nowadays, thanks to Roger Douglas and his philosophical successors, we no longer have such an institution. Of course if the rents paid by state house tennants had been used to finance new builds we wouldn't have quite the same problem. We'd still have a stock of empty houses due to somebody in the street having once smoked meth though.

You might not like what Labour are doing but decades of mismanagement by successive governments have limited their options. At least we'll be able to fill Avondale racecourse with crap housing now though.

You mean years of governments "managing" housing markets in an attempt to control what is ultimately an individual responsibility in order to buy votes has completely fucked the market beyond all repair?

Absolutely.

jasonu

5th September 2018, 12:00

TheDemonLord

5th September 2018, 14:10

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12118916

Where are all those dicks on here that were claiming her having a baby would be no different than if a man was PM? Looks like that little sprog has cost you lot $80k and climbing.

Using the Air Force for Official travel has an always will be perks of being PM.

I'll criticise Comrade Taxinda for many things - but I've got no problem with what she did.

jasonu

5th September 2018, 14:30

Using the Air Force for Official travel has an always will be perks of being PM.

I'll criticise Comrade Taxinda for many things - but I've got no problem with what she did.

Hardly a perk.

and if she hadn't just dropped a kid she could have flown to Nauru with the rest of the pollies and not spend $80k on a seperate flight.
That is my point old chap.

Katman

5th September 2018, 14:38

and if she hadn't just dropped a kid....

But she did.

And why should it bother you anyway?

Woodman

5th September 2018, 14:51

So what would the plane be doing if it wasn't flying her to Nauru? The plane and its hours are already paid for as she says in the article.

carbonhed

5th September 2018, 18:30

So what would the plane be doing if it wasn't flying her to Nauru? The plane and its hours are already paid for as she says in the article.

The plane could have been used for whatever the hell came up. This is something unplanned for and completely unnecessary... it's hardly likely that Cindy will bring anything worthwhile to the proceedings anyway... smile and wave, smile and wave. Hell they could have sent Kelvin Davis to hold Winnie's hand if they didn't trust the prick on his own :laugh:

Here's the hourly direct operating costs of the plane...

https://www.bjtonline.com/sites/bjtonline.com/files/pdfs/boeing757_additional_information.pdf

Cindy owes us $125k as well as the six weeks holiday on a salary of $500k plus the second rate job she's doing as PM... smile and wave, smile and wave.

Woodman

5th September 2018, 18:43

The plane could have been used for whatever the hell came up. This is something unplanned for and completely unnecessary... it's hardly likely that Cindy will bring anything worthwhile to the proceedings anyway... smile and wave, smile and wave. Hell they could have sent Kelvin Davis to hold Winnie's hand if they didn't trust the prick on his own :laugh:

Here's the hourly direct operating costs of the plane...

https://www.bjtonline.com/sites/bjtonline.com/files/pdfs/boeing757_additional_information.pdf

Cindy owes us $125k as well as the six weeks holiday on a salary of $500k plus the second rate job she's doing as PM... smile and wave, smile and wave.

The crew get extra training, and they are getting paid whether they are flying the plane or sitting in their barracks having wanking competitions
. How much extra has it cost over and above just normal ops?

Ocean1

5th September 2018, 21:13

The crew get extra training, and they are getting paid whether they are flying the plane or sitting in their barracks having wanking competitions
. How much extra has it cost over and above just normal ops?

Dunno, but since cost isn't a factor and it's apparently used for fuck all else I've got dibs on the plane and crew for an event of vital importance in Hawaii next month.

carbonhed

5th September 2018, 21:16

How much extra has it cost over and above just normal ops?

Every single cent was wasted on her vanity.

We've been lucky over the last eighteen years with PM's who operated at a very high level (whether you liked them or not they were both smart and efficient) and now we're lumbered with a government of mediocrities at best. Ardern is an utter plodder. Winston's a crook and the Greens are busy rescuing "cunt" :corn:

Woodman

5th September 2018, 21:36

Every single cent was wasted on her vanity.

We've been lucky over the last eighteen years with PM's who operated at a very high level (whether you liked them or not they were both smart and efficient) and now we're lumbered with a government of mediocrities at best. Ardern is an utter plodder. Winston's a crook and the Greens are busy rescuing "cunt" :corn:

$26,000,000 dollars for a new flag that never flew. Could have flown to Nauru and back 325 times.

carbonhed

5th September 2018, 22:06

$26,000,000 dollars for a new flag that never flew. Could have flown to Nauru and back 325 times.

Whataboutism at it's finest!

husaberg

5th September 2018, 22:07

The crew get extra training, and they are getting paid whether they are flying the plane or sitting in their barracks having wanking competitions
. How much extra has it cost over and above just normal ops?

Every single cent was wasted on her vanity.

We've been lucky over the last eighteen years with PM's who operated at a very high level (whether you liked them or not they were both smart and efficient) and now we're lumbered with a government of mediocrities at best. Ardern is an utter plodder. Winston's a crook and the Greens are busy rescuing "cunt" :corn:

It wasn't on Vanity it was on account of her daughter being too young to get the needed Vaccinations to travel with her.
She is attending a pacific forum leaders meeting.
Interestingly enough even if she had of gone on the earlier flight it would have had to leave the island anyway as there isnt enough room on the island to store the aircraft.
the closest island it was scheduled to go to was the Marshalls island a 2 hour return trip.

The prime minister could not go for the longer period as her 11-week-old daughter, Neve, is too young to be given the appropriate vaccinations for the trip and, thus, could not travel with her."Weighing up the logistics around travel I asked officials to check what the extra costs I would be imposing on the crown would be if I were to travel separately," Ardern said.
"They assured me that because of the 757 not being able to remain on Nauru anyway, but having to leave the island so other planes could come in and depart - and also the fact that if it wasn't flying there it would be taking up an hour somewhere else anyway, then on balance I decided it was worth me travelling.The original plan was to send the plane to the Marshall Islands an hour's flight away to get it off Nauru."
Ardern noted that the incident was somewhat unique while her daughter was so young and she didn't anticipate it happening again.
"This is a unique set of circumstances, I don't anticipate being in the situation again."
She is intending to take Neve with her on a trip to New York this month for the United Nations General Assembly meeting".

Woodman

5th September 2018, 22:12

Graystone

6th September 2018, 01:46

$26,000,000 dollars for a new flag that never flew. Could have flown to Nauru and back 325 times.

Hahaha, that's gold!

jasonu

6th September 2018, 02:23

it was on account of her daughter being too young to get the needed Vaccinations to travel with her..

See post 2635.
That is my point. All the blather on here and from the likes of the harold claiming her having a sprog won't make any difference, now here is a bill for at least $80k directly attributable to her having a new baby. Pretty sure this will be one of many extra new PM baby taxes you lot will have to foot.

As a side note, how come the sprog couldn't stay with Gaylord the house hubby?

husaberg

6th September 2018, 09:06

See post 2635.
That is my point. All the blather on here and from the likes of the harold claiming her having a sprog won't make any difference, now here is a bill for at least $80k directly attributable to her having a new baby. Pretty sure this will be one of many extra new PM baby taxes you lot will have to foot.

As a side note, how come the sprog couldn't stay with Gaylord the house hubby?
it not even a fraction of 80K as the flight had to leave the island anyway as the runway cant store the plane and the crew had to be paid regardless.
Its hardly a huge issue considering its only on account of the baby being to young to get the required vaccinations to travel to Nararu
The house hubby cant make enough breast milk for the extra 2 days.
On a side note how much does Trumps flying down on Airforce one to play golf cost the US.Thus far $55 Million US https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/trumps-56-million-in-golf-trips-cost-by-extravagant-cost.html/

or how much in severance for the 37% staff turnover he has? even with all the staff receiving significant raises? https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-white-house-staff-turnover-records-2018-7/?r=AU&IR=T

Or the 75 Million USD thus far as his wife chooses not to live with him? thats 100K a day http://Melania Trump's security detail at Trump Tower cost taxpayers more than $100,000 a day
plus add in the US secret service cost for melaina choosing not to live with the oath of $175000 a day on top.

Their reason initially given is that Baron had to finish the schooling term, his age 10 years old.........
Dont they have schools in WASHINGTON?

Banditbandit

6th September 2018, 09:16

sidecar bob

6th September 2018, 09:39

it not even a fraction of 80K as the flight had to leave the island anyway as the runway cant store the plane and the crew had to be paid regardless.

The plane is down as a 19 seater, that's in VIP trim, it is in fact a 228 seat commercial aircraft in passenger trim.
But I'm sure everyone knows what a 757 looks like.
If she had taken an aircraft of the appropriate size it could have stayed put.
She's riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels.

husaberg

6th September 2018, 09:47

The plane is down as a 19 seater, that's in VIP trim, it is in fact a 228 seat commercial aircraft in passenger trim.
But I'm sure everyone knows what a 757 looks like.
If she had taken an aircraft of the appropriate size it could have stayed put.
She's riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels.
There is no other flights dude
Its a tiny island in the middle of an ocean check the schedule.
The PM cant fly on Quantas or AIr Nararu or anything anyway it has to be a NZ plane. think about it.
No one has denied its a 757.
If she had taken another ariircraft there still would have been another flight to pick up the rest. it still would have been a separate flight to take her their.
Shes the PM, she also has a vagina so deal with it. You do like vaginas don't you?

pritch

6th September 2018, 09:53

If she had taken an aircraft of the appropriate size it could have stayed put.

Our budget air farce doesn't have a selection of aircraft for any given purpose. When Helen was PM they couldn't even get there and back without breaking down.

Once somebody was whinging about the expense of an aerial search for a missing yacht. I made the point that the primary role of those aircraft is anti submarine warfare which involves looking for small objects in a large ocean. Searching for lost yachts is more meaningful training than another exercise looking for an imaginary submarine.

In this case the pilots are glorified bus drivers and the PMs jaunt will provide additional training. It will, of course, also boost the hours of the crew so that they can get a job with Air NZ that much sooner. :whistle:

sidecar bob

6th September 2018, 10:00

There is no other flights dude
Its a tiny island in the middle of an ocean check the schedule.
The PM cant fly on Quantas or AIr Nararu or anything anyway it has to be a NZ plane. think about it.
No one has denied its a 757.
If she had taken another ariircraft there still would have been another flight to pick up the rest. it still would have been a separate flight to take her their.
SHes the PM she also has a vagina so deal with it. You do like vaginas dont you?

I fairly sure a short Google search could turn up half a dozen private NZ operators with an appropriate charter aircraft fit for purpose, but hey, as you said, she's got a vagina.
Oh, and why does it have to be a NZ aircraft again? Don't the others work when she is in them?
Wouldn't it have worked out cheaper to fly all the required residents of Naru to NZ for some kind of catch up that could have taken place on Whatsapp? Or is that too obvious?
I mean it's them that don't have the infrastructure, not us.

Banditbandit

6th September 2018, 10:06

Oh, and why does it have to be a NZ aircraft again? Don't the others work when she is in them?

Security issues dungbat ... yeah - I know - low risk - but not a complete lack of risk ...

Also the PM needs to contactable al the time - that can only be guaranteed if they fly on the specified aircraft .

(dungbat is not a spelling mistake - or a typo ...)

husaberg

6th September 2018, 10:07

I fairly sure a short Google search could turn up half a dozen private NZ operators with an appropriate charter aircraft fit for purpose, but hey, as you said, she's got a vagina.
Oh, and why does it have to be a NZ aircraft again? Don't the others work when she is in them?

Imagine if she had chartered a flight there would be an outcry, she asked the officials they said its not an issue as the plane that took the original party a 757 had to leave the island anyway. Its all in the story and expaination.
As i said the plane has to be staffed and paid for, if its used or not. the plane had to leave the island anyway after delivering the original NZ contingent.
If she had not gone to the leaders conference ithere would have been an outcry anyway so its a lose lose situation.
How often have you seen a NZ PM use another nations airline?

Weighing up the logistics around travel I asked officials to check what the extra costs I would be imposing on the crown would be if I were to travel separately," Ardern said.
"They assured me that because of the 757 not being able to remain on Nauru anyway, but having to leave the island so other planes could come in and depart - and also the fact that if it wasn't flying there it would be taking up an hour somewhere else anyway, then on balance I decided it was worth me travelling.The original plan was to send the plane to the Marshall Islands an hour's flight away to get it off Nauru."
Ardern noted that the incident was somewhat unique while her daughter was so young and she didn't anticipate it happening again.
"This is a unique set of circumstances, I don't anticipate being in the situation again."
She is intending to take Neve with her on a trip to New York this month for the United Nations General Assembly meeting".

jasonu

6th September 2018, 10:14

Imagine if she had chartered a flight there would be an out cry she asked the officials they said its not an issue as the plane that took the original party a 757 had to leave the island anyway.
AS i said the plane has to be staffed and paid for if its used or not.
If she had not gone to the leaders conference ithere would have been an outcry anyway so its a lose lose situation.
How often have you seen a NZ PM use another nations airline?

Yeah it may be staffed weather it is being used or not but that $80k worth of jet fuel would still be in the tanks had she gone with the rest of them. If it was a national mp you would be screaming blue murder.

husaberg

6th September 2018, 10:18

Yeah it may be staffed weather it is being used or not but that $80k worth of jet fuel would still be in the tanks had she gone with the rest of them. If it was a national mp you would be screaming blue murder.
$80k was plucked out of thin air the closest cost i can come up with is $48K but as its already in the budget for the year their is no actual additional cost
The plane had to leave the island regardless the island, is not Hawaii dude.
so its only one return flight to NZ mius the return trip to the marshall islands it didnt need to make.
No doubt there are actuall costs to landing in the marshalls and the fuel price would be higher their and there would be storage and ground crew costs accommodation that they wouldnt get in NZ as well. so its likely amounts to further savings for the tax payer.
Even if it was the actual cost and then it was doubled it is still not the cost for one of Trumps golf games. one day of security for Trumps wife living in New York because his child wants to finish his school term, let alone one of his affairs.
Unlike trumps expenses its all one off stuff.
I remember when john Key made the air force fly him at a cost of $10K so he could get pictured fore 5-10 minutes being at the Hamilton V8s and then attend a gala.

jasonu

6th September 2018, 12:11

1) I, for one - and I suspect there are others, are happy to pay it .. we are not all greedy self-serving cunts like you seem to be. Greed was never what New Zealand was about - until the rich pricks took over ..

2) The baby DID NOT travel with her - that is the fucking point - the baby is too young to get the required vaccines ... so she stayed home with Gaylord ... Jacinda traveled separately so she spent as short a time as possible away from the baby ..

3) Sheesh you can be dumb sometimes ..

1) You mean the 36.9% of registered voters that actually voted for labour.

2) Fair enough, I got that wrong.

3) Have you been talking to my wife?

husaberg

6th September 2018, 12:16

This is not the slagging off trump thread.
Every thread in the world is a potential slagging off Trump thread, he gives us so much ammunition, its hardly a coincidence hes in bed with the NRA (when its not with prostitutes and porn stars):bleh:
https://3drepw14r81maeu421dqauozkd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/image-31.jpeg

Voltaire

6th September 2018, 12:17

Complete waste of taxpayers money that could be spent on useful things like Flag Referendums and ($32K) for ex US presidents to go on speaking tours.:msn-wink:

jasonu

6th September 2018, 12:19

$80k was plucked out of thin air the closest cost i can come up with is $48K but as its already in the budget for the year their is no actual additional cost
The plane had to leave the island regardless the island, is not Hawaii dude.
so its only one return flight to NZ mius the return trip to the marshall islands it didnt need to make.
No doubt there are actuall costs to landing in the marshalls and the fuel price would be higher their and there would be storage and ground crew costs accommodation that they wouldnt get in NZ as well. so its likely amounts to further savings for the tax payer.
Even if it was the actual cost and then it was doubled it is still not the cost for one of Trumps golf games. one day of security for Trumps wife living in New York because his child wants to finish his school term, let alone one of his affairs.
Unlike trumps expenses its all one off stuff.

If something is 'already in the budget' does that mean that money HAS to be spent and if it isn't does it expires or goes bad?

husaberg

6th September 2018, 12:38

If something is 'already in the budget' does that mean that money HAS to be spent and if it isn't does it expires or goes bad?
No grass hopper it means it cant be construed as "an additional cost"
If you look at the current Governements spending on Travel compared to Nationals you will see they are well under the previous budget. 2 million per year or about 1 1/2 years of limo rides for the nationals opposition leader. (Who remembers his name?)

The Government's $1.49m spend compares to Nationals $2.02m spent in the same period of 2017, $2.25m spent in the same quarter in 2016, and $2.33m in the same period of 2015.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/106348030/Ministers-spent-1-49m-on-travel-and-accommodation-in-last-quarter-less-than-last-Government-for-same-period

jasonu

6th September 2018, 14:15

No grass hopper it means it cant be construed as "an additional cost"
If you look at the current Governements spending on Travel compared to Nationals you will see they are well under the previous budget. 1/2 million per year or about 1 1/2 years of limorides for the national opposition leader.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/106348030/Ministers-spent-1-49m-on-travel-and-accommodation-in-last-quarter-less-than-last-Government-for-same-period

If the budget has enough innit to squander $80k on a pointless private plane ride then the budget needs looking at.

husaberg

6th September 2018, 14:25

If the budget has enough innit to squander $80k on a pointless private plane ride then the budget needs looking at.
You answer ignores reality, if they are spending significantly less than the previous government you would think you would acknowledge that but you ignore it.

The Government's $1.49m spend compares to Nationals $2.02m spent in the same period of 2017, $2.25m spent in the same quarter in 2016, and $2.33m in the same period of 2015.
As i pointed out it wasnt 80K either.
As they are significantly under budget anyway its not an additional cost at all now is it.
But instead why are you not hammering national for them spending 2 million dollars more per year tyhat Labour or Jon Keys 26 million flag referendum trhat no want wanted.

Voltaire

6th September 2018, 14:51

The plan was to fill up the plane with refugees and Clark was going to write the screenplay Jachindlers List.

pritch

6th September 2018, 15:32

If something is 'already in the budget' does that mean that money HAS to be spent and if it isn't does it expires or goes bad?

In practice sadly yes. Government departments don't like unspent budgeted funds as generally that means the following years budget could be cut. The unspent portion being regarded as evidence the previously budgeted amount was too great.

In reply to someone else: Use of a charter flight or an airline has to be paid in real money. Use of the air force does not. At worst it might require a transfer between government departments which is a lesser matter. The fuel cost will probably be written off as training. Basically the whole trip was free.

Woodman

6th September 2018, 15:51

In practice sadly yes. Government departments don't like unspent budgeted funds as generally that means the following years budget could be cut. The unspent portion being regarded as evidence the previously budgeted amount was too great.

In reply to someone else: Use of a charter flight or an airline has to be paid in real money. Use of the air force does not. At worst it might require a transfer between government departments which is a lesser matter. The fuel cost will probably be written off as training. Basically the whole trip was free.

Ooooh look everyone, reality.

jasonu

6th September 2018, 15:57

Basically the whole trip was free.

Where does one apply???

husaberg

6th September 2018, 16:00

I never knew this one happened
Its turns out Keys goverment added in this to the former PM perks
50K per year and a new car every 60,000kms for anyone who has been a PM for more than 2 years
this is additional to free travel perks and massive super package.
https://www.remauthority.govt.nz/clients-remuneration/remuneration-for-former-prime-ministers/

Ocean1

6th September 2018, 16:18

In practice sadly yes. Government departments don't like unspent budgeted funds as generally that means the following years budget could be cut. The unspent portion being regarded as evidence the previously budgeted amount was too great.

Aye. Which is why any good salesman knows when the end of the financial year is for all of his govt clients, there's sales to be had immediately before that date to mop up any cash lying around from this year's budget and immediately after that date if last year's budget is long gone and they've been hanging out for new stuff for months.

I've both worked for and sold tech shit to some of those departments, without the inside experience you'll never convince yer average pleb how little of any govt department budget spend results in anything of value whatsoever.

If I was paying for it I'd probably have a wee well armed meltdown.

Oh....

Voltaire

6th September 2018, 16:18

Where does one apply???

You just need to join some party Young Twats when you leave school and work you way up to MP, easy peasy, or in the US just buy your way in.

The Defence Force probably gets fuel at cost too.

carbonhed

6th September 2018, 16:50

Cindy's personal transport. $13k hourly operating costs. 9 extra hours operation = $117k. I wonder what seat she chose?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lAk4cjailGM/WCT0p5_rCAI/AAAAAAAAaUQ/elIJgIQUn9cEr3N7GogSFM_0h4UHrUufQCLcB/s1600/NZ7571%2BB752%2BRNZAF%2BYBCS%2B101116%2B3%2BNOV16. jpg

Voltaire

6th September 2018, 18:26

Does the air base have a Duty Free shop?

sidecar bob

6th September 2018, 19:40

Does the air base have a Duty Free shop?

It has bugger all by the look of this.
What did she actually want with the place?
https://dose.com/articles/welcome-to-nauru-the-most-corrupt-country-youve-never-heard-of/

husaberg

6th September 2018, 19:48

It has bugger all by the look of this.
What did she actually want with the place?
https://dose.com/articles/welcome-to-nauru-the-most-corrupt-country-youve-never-heard-of/
that where most of our fert came from traditionally that and the Christmas Islands in the Indian not pacific (not the ones with the Statues thats Easter)
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000tTu9wVzxJAE/s/850/850/002-Nauru-1999.jpg
Soneone posted a pic of the steeples that are left when the millions of years of bird droppings are removed that makes up the phosphate deposits.

Voltaire

6th September 2018, 20:59

The PM has his own band.

https://youtu.be/btqPMPbLLqY?t=146

husaberg

7th September 2018, 00:54

Simon Bridges considering going until someone told him he wasnt invited and no one knew who he was...
http://www.conchtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/nautilimo_pic.jpg
He might have made it but it had a leak.........

jasonu

7th September 2018, 02:04

jasonu

7th September 2018, 02:05

Graystone

7th September 2018, 02:22

1) You mean the 36.9% of registered voters that actually voted for labour.

2) Fair enough, I got that wrong.

3) Have you been talking to my wife?

Didn't vote for her, happy to pay it. 80k cost is sensationalist garbage, ironically, if she was a shit PM this would be a distraction from something that actually matters...

Graystone

7th September 2018, 02:36

That's what happens when there's a bunch of boongers in charge.
South Africa is going down the same path.

You're one those people who raised the iq of both countries when you left NZ for USA aren't you?

sidecar bob

7th September 2018, 04:54

You're one those people who raised the iq of both countries when you left NZ for USA aren't you?

Perhaps you could come up with a more viable explanation for the situation they have currently found themselves in?
If a smart man found himself in a spot of financial bother would he sell his front driveway to the street to someone that could then charge him whatever toll they fancied for him to access his property?
Fortunately for Nauru Theres not much of a market for second hand airports to nowhere that were built with forced labour.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_International_Airport

sidecar bob

7th September 2018, 05:04

Didn't vote for her, happy to pay it. 80k cost is sensationalist garbage, ironically, if she was a shit PM this would be a distraction from something that actually matters...

Is she a shit pm or not? Simply playing Santa Claus with taxpayer money doesn't make her a good P.M the same as buying your children gifts every day doesn't make you a good parent.
Now we have some feral Labour MP stood down on full pay because she can't control her temper, or keep her hands to herself.https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/365312/labour-mp-stands-down-amid-assault-allegation
She was however overjoyed on TV last night, that some Iwi or another had weaseled another substantial payout from the taxpayer coffers for an imagined historic grievance I couldn't be bothered following the ins & outs of.
And re the aircraft, if you can be bothered doing the maths at the cost per capita between what trump wastes on air travel & this wee debacle, I'm pretty sure I can guess who spent the most.
But her position as PM is as safe as houses with Labour supporters refusing to accept she can do any wrong, just like Hitler in 1933, absolutely flavour of the month.

sidecar bob

7th September 2018, 05:17

The PM has his own band.

https://youtu.be/btqPMPbLLqY?t=146

Great to see he got himself all tidied up for his distinguished guest. Much respect.
I reckon I would have learned the words first . . . . . .at primary school.:facepalm:
When was the last time you saw Maoris using a word sheet in a welcome? How about a bit of pride there fellas.

5:17am. Damn this jet lag. Lol.

Graystone

7th September 2018, 06:56

Is she a shit pm or not? Simply playing Santa Claus with taxpayer money doesn't make her a good P.M the same as buying your children gifts every day doesn't make you a good parent.
Now we have some feral Labour MP stood down on full pay because she can't control her temper, or keep her hands to herself.https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/365312/labour-mp-stands-down-amid-assault-allegation
She was however overjoyed on TV last night, that some Iwi or another had weaseled another substantial payout from the taxpayer coffers for an imagined historic grievance I couldn't be bothered following the ins & outs of.
And re the aircraft, if you can be bothered doing the maths at the cost per capita between what trump wastes on air travel & this wee debacle, I'm pretty sure I can guess who spent the most.
But her position as PM is as safe as houses with Labour supporters refusing to accept she can do any wrong, just like Hitler in 1933, absolutely flavour of the month.

Obviously trump spends the most, what's your point?

sidecar bob

7th September 2018, 07:19

Obviously trump spends the most, what's your point?

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

husaberg

7th September 2018, 07:24

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

If its only about cost per capita why are National not getting hammered by you Carbon ,Ocean and Jason about spending far far more per year then +25%?....:2thumbsup
Okay, thats right, it must be because its not about cost per capitia its about something else..........:killingme

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.
Id be keen to see the maths on that as Air force one costs $200,000+ USD to Fly per hour. thats times two as there are two that fly together.
Plus the tankers as well to refuel them.
4.6 -5,8 billion USD to replace as well. thats not including the heicopters the small planes the fighter escort the beast limos etc.
Trump just spend $32 milion usd on fridges on the planes that will be replaced soon.
Not to mentions his wifes frequent trips to NY. plus his weeks flights to play golf.
Plus NZ does not have a dedicated vip plane for the pm only one thats been used on this occasion.
They normally fly Air NZ same as everyone else.
Jacindas Travel costs for the first 3 months in office were $37,000 NZD thats limos air travel and everything.........

jasonu

7th September 2018, 07:26

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

But but but that doesn’t fit my agenda.

Ocean1

7th September 2018, 07:50

If its only about cost per capita why are National not getting hammered by you Carbon ,Ocean and Jason about spending far far more per year then +25%?....:2thumbsup
Okay, thats right, it must be because its not about cost per capitia its about something else..........:killingme

Can't speak for the others, but it's got a lot to do with what it's being spent on. You know all this, we've discussed it numerous times, it's not labour I'm hammering, it's their union-driven socialist policies.

So yeah, it is about something else, it's about not expecting a nanny state's taxpayers to pay for my choices, I don't expect them to pay for my house, to chose an example completely at random.

So you can, and will see me bag labour AND national for "redistributing" my hard earned money to people that simply didn't put in the yards to earn it themselves.

That, and any spending that's simply pointless, or thoughtless of the people that actually earned what they're spending.

Woodman

7th September 2018, 08:01

I wonder how much jacindas child will end up costing the tax payer when compared to just one offspring of some no hoping baby machine after winz, cypfs, various other state departments and eventually the prison service have been involved. At least she is trying to look after the kid.

Voltaire

7th September 2018, 08:10

Its good the chattering classes have an outlet to squeek on :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Why is all the people who could run the country better are not involved in politics.

sidecar bob

7th September 2018, 08:29

Its good the chattering classes have an outlet to squeek on :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Why is all the people who could run the country better are not involved in politics.

Not sure about a country, but if I'd run my business as if money grew on trees I'd be broke now, not retired.

Graystone

7th September 2018, 08:40

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

And it is still obvious trump spends more per that metric, so I'll ask again, what's your point?

sidecar bob

7th September 2018, 08:48

Jacindas Travel costs for the first 3 months in office were $37,000 NZD thats limos air travel and everything.........

So aprox $142,000 per year. That's an absolute bargain, the woman needs to be a bit kinder to herself. Nuthin's too good for our girl.

sidecar bob

7th September 2018, 08:49

And it is still obvious trump spends more per that metric, so I'll ask again, what's your point?

I don't know anymore. Just think one up that fits your agenda & dosent vilify your current do no evil favourite communists & we should get along fine.

husaberg

7th September 2018, 08:53

Can't speak for the others, but it's got a lot to do with what it's being spent on. You know all this, we've discussed it numerous times, it's not labour I'm hammering, it's their union-driven socialist policies.

So yeah, it is about something else, it's about not expecting a nanny state's taxpayers to pay for my choices, I don't expect them to pay for my house, to chose an example completely at random.

So you can, and will see me bag labour AND national for "redistributing" my hard earned money to people that simply didn't put in the yards to earn it themselves.

That, and any spending that's simply pointless, or thoughtless of the people that actually earned what they're spending.
The facts and figures of what you are saying dont back up your stated opinions though now do they?in fact quite the reverse.
The other thing is you dont bag national at all ever ,you just go on attempting to shift blame onto Labour for what was Nationals non actions.

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

I don't know anymore. Just think one up that fits your agenda & dosent vilify your current do no evil favourite communists & we should get along fine.

So aprox $142,000 per year. That's an absolute bargain, the woman needs to be a bit kinder to herself. Nuthin's too good for our girl.
Come on you made the statement that trump spends less on travel per capitia than the NZ PM
Do the figures to prove it or admit this is not the case at all. then explain why you were not moaning about nationals 25% higher costs for travel or fess up its nothing to do with costs anyway but to do with the lack of Y chromosomes and open door unprotected reproductive policy the PM has.

Ocean1

7th September 2018, 09:28

The facts and figures of what you are saying dont back up your stated opinions though now do they?in fact quite the reverse.
The other thing is you dont bag national at all ever ,you just go on attempting to shift blame onto Labour for what was Nationals non actions.

And yet they do. You simply reinterpret anything I say to "national good, labour bad", pluck some historical anti-national rhetoric from google and and construct some spurious "but national" argument around that.

Again, it shouldn't be surprising that labour features prominently in any bagging of re-distributive govt policy, it's their core tenet, driven by their union owners.

And yet again you mistake criticism of policy for criticism of the party. As far as I'm concerned outside of infrastructure, basic healthcare and education any policy that interferes with what should be a free market is inerventionist bullshit, usually clad in tattered and ineffective social justice clothing. My expectation of national was for them to simply dismantle the monopolies that damaged the market in the first place. They failed. I don't hold out any hope that labour will do it either, for them, a free market concept simply doesn't compute, their primary response so far has been to blamestorm about "elitism" and "inequality" which demonstrates that they're not interested in how to fix it, they're more interested in blaming all dem "advantaged" rich pricks.

Both "sides" walk a careful path between their ideals and their polling. Neither of which is likely to produce effective policy, because often the two are somewhat contradictory.

For example: Labour's redistribution of earnings by paying for the first year of tertiary education, ('cause affordability was the reason "disadvantaged" kids didn't go to uni) was a spectacular example of their ideologically driven policies resulting in not only a waste of taxpayers money but having the complete opposite of the effect intended. Fuck all "disadvantaged" kids took up the offer, but on the other hand the wealthier kids who were going to uni anyway couldn't sign up fast enough.

On the other hand I struggle with national's socially conservative elements, why can't we have rational, effective financial governance without the 18th century social constructs?

I hate it that apparently, in order to get some environmentally responsible govt you have to be both rabidly communist and support scientifically nonsensical environmental policies.

I hate it that ACT, the party that should represent most of what I want in govt departed rapidly from their libertarian roots to the populist, reactive bullshit they became.

So you can't, by any stretch of the imagination paint me any sort of party hack, for any of them.

husaberg

7th September 2018, 10:45

And yet they do. You simply reinterpret anything I say to "national good, labour bad", pluck some historical anti-national rhetoric from google and and construct some spurious "but national" argument around that.

Again, it shouldn't be surprising that labour features prominently in any bagging of re-distributive govt policy, it's their core tenet, driven by their union owners.

And yet again you mistake criticism of policy for criticism of the party. As far as I'm concerned outside of infrastructure, basic healthcare and education any policy that interferes with what should be a free market is inerventionist bullshit, usually clad in tattered and ineffective social justice clothing. My expectation of national was for them to simply dismantle the monopolies that damaged the market in the first place. They failed. I don't hold out any hope that labour will do it either, for them, a free market concept simply doesn't compute, their primary response so far has been to blamestorm about "elitism" and "inequality" which demonstrates that they're not interested in how to fix it, they're more interested in blaming all dem "advantaged" rich pricks.

Both "sides" walk a careful path between their ideals and their polling. Neither of which is likely to produce effective policy, because often the two are somewhat contradictory.

For example: Labour's redistribution of earnings by paying for the first year of tertiary education, ('cause affordability was the reason "disadvantaged" kids didn't go to uni) was a spectacular example of their ideologically driven policies resulting in not only a waste of taxpayers money but having the complete opposite of the effect intended. Fuck all "disadvantaged" kids took up the offer, but on the other hand the wealthier kids who were going to uni anyway couldn't sign up fast enough.

On the other hand I struggle with national's socially conservative elements, why can't we have rational, effective financial governance without the 18th century social constructs?

I hate it that apparently, in order to get some environmentally responsible govt you have to be both rabidly communist and support scientifically nonsensical environmental policies.

I hate it that ACT, the party that should represent most of what I want in govt departed rapidly from their libertarian roots to the populist, reactive bullshit they became.

So you can't, by any stretch of the imagination paint me any sort of party hack, for any of them.

You choose to make statements that are not backed by actual facts, you cant refute the facts i posted as unlike your biased opinion you offer, my replies had the actual facts, These were 100% contary to what your opinion stated so you seek to minimise and then you change the subject. Why is it you cant show the posts where you have ever bagged National if you are really so bipartisan.
As for me not being able to paint you as a party hack I believe i can.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/387/091/72b.png

Katman

7th September 2018, 11:00

Some of you might actually be starting to see why I despise the prick.

Ocean1

7th September 2018, 11:16

You choose to make statements that are not backed by actual facts

Show me.

you cant refute the facts i posted as unlike your biased opinion you offer, my replies had the actual facts, These were 100% contary to what your opinion stated so you seek to minimise and then you change the subject.

You mean here? https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/169975-New-Zealand-What-a-back-water-shit-hole?p=1131109253#post1131109253

Why is it you cant show the posts where you have ever bagged National if you are really so bipartisan.

Who said I couldn't? What I said was why would I bother? Unlike you I'm not interested in party politics in the slightest, just counterproductive policy.

As I also said, if I comment on labour's poor policy more than nationals that's probably because there's more of it.

As for me not being able to paint you as a party hack I believe i can.

Yeah. You need to get some different beliefs, those ones are shit.

unicorns

Ah, red vs blue cartoons. Now that's far more your level, stick to that, eh?

Graystone

7th September 2018, 11:39

I don't know anymore. Just think one up that fits your agenda & dosent vilify your current do no evil favourite communists & we should get along fine.

Here's a free tip, know things before you post about them, you'll look less foolish that way!

husaberg

7th September 2018, 11:48

Show me.
You mean here? https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/169975-New-Zealand-What-a-back-water-shit-hole?p=1131109253#post1131109253
Yip note how the facts didnt back up your arguement yet you claimed it was irrelevant, yet it was 100% the opposite to what you claimed had happened.

Who said I couldn't? What I said was why would I bother? Unlike you I'm not interested in party politics in the slightest, just counterproductive policy.
I did and you just backed it up by not being able to.
Odd that you claim you are not intersted in Party politics when you post about them all the time Ra Ra national Boo Boo Labour....that cant really be rationally construed as being bipartisan

As I also said, if I comment on labour's poor policy more than nationals that's probably because there's more of it.
Again a opinion not based or backed by facts or logic.

Yeah. You need to get some different beliefs, those ones are shit.
Another one of your opinions not supported by facts.

Ah, red vs blue cartoons. Now that's far more your level, stick to that, eh?
The shoe i shod you with fitted you so well. PS i they were as far as i know not unicorns.

Some of you might actually be starting to see why I despise the prick.
Awe steve why thats sweet, i dont despise you, i only feel sorry for you in that you dont have the ability to rationalise your paranoia driven beliefs and control your rampant narcissism, Its not at all personal.
But i can see why you would think it was, on account of your narcissism and all though.

Katman

7th September 2018, 12:05

Awe steve thats sweet, i dont despise you, i only feel sorry for you in that you dont have the ability to rationalise your paranoia driven beliefs and control your rampant narcissism, Its not at all personal.

I'm pleased you were able to work out who I was talking about.

husaberg

7th September 2018, 12:11

I'm pleased you were able to work out who I was talking about.

Oceans a Engineer why dont you ask him about your alternative fuel engine you posted that you claimed big oil was trying to keep hidden see what he says about it?

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/oklahoma-survivalist-claims-motor-will-run-anything
https://kfor.com/2012/11/09/the-man-with-the-magic-motor/
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk7Y7NippQ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXTRCswC8lI

Katman

7th September 2018, 12:13

Oceans a Engineer why dont you ask him about your alternative fuel engine you posted

Probably because I don't give a fuck what Ocean has to say.

Swoop

7th September 2018, 13:18

Does the air base have a Duty Free shop?
Quite large duty-free quantities fly on that NZ airline...

Good to see Clare Curran out of cabinet today. Just a shame she isn't out of parliament completely along with the rest of the "coalition of the unwilling".

husaberg

7th September 2018, 14:07

Quite large duty-free quantities fly on that NZ airline...

.

When Deep freeze was running at full steam that was even worse they had far bigger cargo bays.
I remember one of the MP's used to ride arround the airport on a 1500 Goldwing he snuck in and brought over, i had herd tales of mustangs as well running arround the airport limits.

jasonu

7th September 2018, 14:20

I remember one of the MP's used to ride arround the airport on a 1500 Goldwing he snuck in and brought over, i had herd tales of mustangs as well running arround the airport limits.

Sounds like a better use for those planes than being used as tax payer funded private transportation for the tooth fairy

Ocean1

7th September 2018, 15:11

Yip note how the facts didnt back up your arguement yet you claimed it was irrelevant, yet it was 100% the opposite to what you claimed had happened.

I did and you just backed it up by not being able to.
Odd that you claim you are not intersted in Party politics when you post about them all the time Ra Ra national Boo Boo Labour....that cant really be rationally construed as being bipartisan

Again a opinion not based or backed by facts or logic.

Another one of your opinions not supported by facts.

The shoe i shod you with fitted you so well. PS i they were as far as i know not unicorns.

Did you read the bit about how I don't expect a government to provide me with a cheap home? So, then, I'm wondering why you think your apparent assumption that national should have interfered with the market by using taxpayer's money to provide state houses at a substantial loss is any sort of proof that you're right and I'm wrong.

Did you not also read the bit about the fact that it was labour that initially flogged off a bunch of state houses and threw the problem at private investors?. You seem to have ignored that bit. Again, you ignore facts that you don't like and revert to inventing shit to argue with and then put that into your favourite bogeyman's mouth.

Here's a novel idea, how about you go away and see if you can find a tolerably recent post of mine where I DID blame national for one aspect of house prices and then come back and see if you can discuss how I'm a dedicated national party plant. :laugh:

Or just stick with the cartoons, I don't think anyone here would think they detracted from your lop sided political opinions much.

husaberg

7th September 2018, 15:33

Did you read the bit about how I don't expect a government to provide me with a cheap home? So, then, I'm wondering why you think your apparent assumption that national should have interfered with the market by using taxpayer's money to provide state houses at a substantial loss is any sort of proof that you're right and I'm wrong.

Did you not also read the bit about the fact that it was labour that initially flogged off a bunch of state houses and threw the problem at private investors?. You seem to have ignored that bit. Again, you ignore facts that you don't like and revert to inventing shit to argue with and then put that into your favourite bogeyman's mouth.

Here's a novel idea, how about you go away and see if you can find a tolerably recent post of mine where I DID blame national for one aspect of house prices and then come back and see if you can discuss how I'm a dedicated national party plant. :laugh:

Or just stick with the cartoons, I don't think anyone here would think they detracted from your lop sided political opinions much.

You produce no facts again its pretty irelevent your wishes about state homes as they were not what was glaringly wrong with what you posted.
Your opinion as to why there was a housing shortage was.
You are the one claiming you are bipartisan post some evidence that you are or accept that if you are judged by almost everything you post the only logical conclusion is you are that much smitten with the National party you cant see past your own rhetoric.

I'm doubtful you can attribute the housing shortage to labour policies, it was not under their watch prices skyrocketed. That was more to do with the ready availablity of cheap money with interest rates not seen since the 60's.
With global debt at least 1.5 time higher than in 2007 and countries like Turkey, Argentina having financial issues, the US stock market at record levels assisted by Corporate tax breaks a reset cannot be far away.

Sure we can. The whole thing started a couple of labour's ago, when they found there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay for their election promises. Again.

So they slashed the state housing budget, sold off a bunch of state houses and set up tax breaks to encourage private investment in rental properties instead. (the very same mechanisms they're now calling "inequitable").

They also changed the tax law re retirement savings, taxing them at source instead of on withdrawal, a move that was specifically designed to free up retirement scheme savings capital for housing investment.

So we can absolutely blame labour for implementing policy that drove the housing market in the direction it subsequently took.

Them, and crooked cunts like this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/106862107/Former-NZ-local-govt-CEOs-behaviour-deemed-corrupt-by-Australian-commission and their developer mates for the seriously dodgy practices that created the shortage that drove further price rises.

................August 23, 2014
House prices in Auckland

Council valuations indicate Auckland house prices have gone up by one-third over the last three years. (Auckland Council)
The average Auckland house price has gone up by nearly $225,000 since 2008, up over $75,000 in the past 12 months. (QV)
It now takes 50 years to pay off the average house in Auckland. (NZIER)

The residential rebuild in Canterbury

Only 2,000 houses have been rebuilt in Christchurch when the earthquakes destroyed 11,000 and CERA says 31,000 more are needed in the Canterbury region by 2021. (Christchurch City Council)
Rents are up nearly 45% and house prices up nearly 30% since the first earthquake. (MBIE & QV)
MBIE estimates there are up to 7400 people homeless in Canterbury.
Only 62 of the 700 new state houses Nick Smith promised have been built.

National says it’s policy aims to increase supply of new housing but more houses were built every year under the last Labour Government than National were able to build in their first five years in office.
State housing

Labour increased the state housing stock by 9000 when last in government: National have reduced the number of state houses by 1000 in the last 12 months alone.
There are 2700 vacant state houses, and the waiting lists are at a record high at 5800.
National has used Housing NZ as a cash cow in the middle of the housing crisis: making a net withdrawal of $212 m (2009-2013) and are budgeting to withdraw another $252 m over the next 3 years.

The National Government denies there is a housing crisis.

The OECD says we have the 2nd most unaffordable housing in the western world.
The IMF says house price to income ratios are 30% out of step with historic averages and house price to rent ratios 80%.
The Reserve Bank says the overheated housing market is a threat to macro-economic stability.

.

All somewhat correct.

*wipes spittle*

And completely irrelevant.

Grumph

7th September 2018, 15:56

Sounds like a better use for those planes than being used as tax payer funded private transportation for the tooth fairy

The duty free stuff through Operation Deep Freeze was never RNZAF. It was US Military Air Command planes. The MP quoted on a Goldwing was Military Police
I personally know of a number of US cars brought in by staff based in ChCh - it was a perk.
I also know of an ex works Datsun flown in from Africa where it had been used on the Safari Rally by Sheka Mehta...which wasn't on the official lists LOL.

Currently I don't know of a bigger user of Air Force planes for personal use than your Mr Trump...

jasonu

7th September 2018, 16:11

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12121235

Another fiasco bought to you by the Amateur Hour coalition.

sidecar bob

7th September 2018, 16:45

Here's a free tip, know things before you post about them, you'll look less foolish that way!

Thanks, because I felt really foolish, and you won.
Sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier, I had to go for a relaxing drive in my BMW classic car & then tinker with it for pleasure. I'm quite pooped now, but that's probably more because I'm a bit jet lagged after returning from running top level race bikes on the other side of the world.

carbonhed

7th September 2018, 16:47

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12121235

Another fiasco bought to you by the Amateur Hour coalition.

The level of incompetence is mind blowing isn't it? Every minor cockup is stage managed into catastrophe.

Earlier in the week Winnie told her she couldn't have her increased refugee quota and she just buckled under. Like the Clarkula said Ardern's never had to fight for a single thing in her entire life... shit got real sweetie.

ETA maybe all those people who were confident that Cindy could have a baby and perform as prime minister might just be beginning to.... wonder.

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/pm-says-she-wont-fire-clare-curran/

When even a die hard leftie like Norightturn starts calling you out things aren't going well.

None of this was caused by anybody but Cindy. It's an unfathomable fuckup.

Ocean1

7th September 2018, 17:27

You produce no facts again its pretty irelevent your wishes about state homes as they were not what was glaringly wrong with what you posted.
Your opinion as to why there was a housing shortage was.
You are the one claiming you are bipartisan post some evidence that you are or accept that if you are judged by almost everything you post the only logical conclusion is you are that much smitten with the National party you cant see past your own rhetoric.

...................

Did you read the bit about how I don't expect a government to provide me with a cheap home? So, then, I'm wondering why you think your apparent assumption that national should have interfered with the market by using taxpayer's money to provide state houses at a substantial loss is any sort of proof that you're right and I'm wrong.

Did you not also read the bit about the fact that it was labour that initially flogged off a bunch of state houses and threw the problem at private investors?. You seem to have ignored that bit. Again, you ignore facts that you don't like and revert to inventing shit to argue with and then put that into your favourite bogeyman's mouth.

Here's a novel idea, how about you go away and see if you can find a tolerably recent post of mine where I DID blame national for one aspect of house prices and then come back and see if you can discuss how I'm a dedicated national party plant. :laugh:

Or just stick with the cartoons, I don't think anyone here would think they detracted from your lop sided political opinions much.

husaberg

7th September 2018, 17:43

...................
Did you read the bit about how I don't expect a government to provide me with a cheap home? So, then, I'm wondering why you think your apparent assumption that national should have interfered with the market by using taxpayer's money to provide state houses at a substantial loss is any sort of proof that you're right and I'm wrong.

Did you not also read the bit about the fact that it was labour that initially flogged off a bunch of state houses and threw the problem at private investors?. You seem to have ignored that bit. Again, you ignore facts that you don't like and revert to inventing shit to argue with and then put that into your favourite bogeyman's mouth.

Here's a novel idea, how about you go away and see if you can find a tolerably recent post of mine where I DID blame national for one aspect of house prices and then come back and see if you can discuss how I'm a dedicated national party plant. :laugh:

Or just stick with the cartoons, I don't think anyone here would think they detracted from your lop sided political opinions much.

You produce no facts again its pretty irelevent your wishes about state homes as they were not what was glaringly wrong with what you posted.
Your opinion as to why there was a housing shortage was.
You are the one claiming you are bipartisan post some evidence that you are or accept that if you are judged by almost everything you post the only logical conclusion is you are that much smitten with the National party you cant see past your own rhetoric.

I'm doubtful you can attribute the housing shortage to labour policies, it was not under their watch prices skyrocketed. That was more to do with the ready availablity of cheap money with interest rates not seen since the 60's.
With global debt at least 1.5 time higher than in 2007 and countries like Turkey, Argentina having financial issues, the US stock market at record levels assisted by Corporate tax breaks a reset cannot be far away.

Sure we can.
The whole thing started a couple of labour's ago, when they found there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay for their election promises. Again.

So they slashed the state housing budget, sold off a bunch of state houses and set up tax breaks to encourage private investment in rental properties instead. (the very same mechanisms they're now calling "inequitable").

They also changed the tax law re retirement savings, taxing them at source instead of on withdrawal, a move that was specifically designed to free up retirement scheme savings capital for housing investment.

So we can absolutely blame labour for implementing policy that drove the housing market in the direction it subsequently took.

Them, and crooked cunts like this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/106862107/Former-NZ-local-govt-CEOs-behaviour-deemed-corrupt-by-Australian-commission and their developer mates for the seriously dodgy practices that created the shortage that drove further price rises.

................
August 23, 2014
House prices in Auckland

Council valuations indicate Auckland house prices have gone up by one-third over the last three years. (Auckland Council)
The average Auckland house price has gone up by nearly $225,000 since 2008, up over $75,000 in the past 12 months. (QV)
It now takes 50 years to pay off the average house in Auckland. (NZIER)

The residential rebuild in Canterbury

Only 2,000 houses have been rebuilt in Christchurch when the earthquakes destroyed 11,000 and CERA says 31,000 more are needed in the Canterbury region by 2021. (Christchurch City Council)
Rents are up nearly 45% and house prices up nearly 30% since the first earthquake. (MBIE & QV)
MBIE estimates there are up to 7400 people homeless in Canterbury.
Only 62 of the 700 new state houses Nick Smith promised have been built.

National says it’s policy aims to increase supply of new housing but more houses were built every year under the last Labour Government than National were able to build in their first five years in office.
State housing

Labour increased the state housing stock by 9000 when last in government: National have reduced the number of state houses by 1000 in the last 12 months alone.
There are 2700 vacant state houses, and the waiting lists are at a record high at 5800.
National has used Housing NZ as a cash cow in the middle of the housing crisis: making a net withdrawal of $212 m (2009-2013) and are budgeting to withdraw another $252 m over the next 3 years.

The National Government denies there is a housing crisis.

The OECD says we have the 2nd most unaffordable housing in the western world.
The IMF says house price to income ratios are 30% out of step with historic averages and house price to rent ratios 80%.
The Reserve Bank says the overheated housing market is a threat to macro-economic stability.

.

All somewhat correct.

*wipes spittle*

And completely irrelevant.
https://teara.govt.nz/files/32421-enz.gif
Housing NZ's latest quarterly report reveals the agency's portfolio of 63,276 houses had shrunk by 3922 since 2015, including by 1132 properties in the past year.

2.2. The 1990s
New Zealand’s state housing policy changed direction significantly in the 1990s under a
new National government. In 1993, New Zealand held a stock of approximately 70,000 state
houses which were leased at income-based subsidised rents. The new policy moved towards
market rents plus a cash supplement to assist with issues of affordability. State involvement in
mortgages was reduced with a large proportion of the state mortgage portfolio being privatised.
Finally, the stock of state rentals underwent large changes due to new asset management
strategies that saw a large fall in state rental stock.

2.3. The 2000s
Under the Labour government, state housing policy changed direction again. The new
government placed a moratorium on sales – disestablishing the Homebuy Programme.
Institutional restructuring again took place. This time several agencies were merged together to
form Housing New Zealand Corporation. Income-related rents were re-introduced, a new
Social Allocation System was developed to direct housing resources towards pressing housing
needs, and several new programmes were developed to increase and modernise the state housing
stock and to increase home ownership.
338844
http://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/10_13.pdf

oldrider

7th September 2018, 19:33

There is little difference between the performance of either government in the long term and all you have done is illustrated that - Tweedledee or Tweedledum - pick either one? :rolleyes:

Ocean1

7th September 2018, 19:56

...................

https://teara.govt.nz/files/32421-enz.gif
Housing NZ's latest quarterly report reveals the agency's portfolio of 63,276 houses had shrunk by 3922 since 2015, including by 1132 properties in the past year.

The unicorns were more coherent.

husaberg

7th September 2018, 20:22

The unicorns were more coherent.

Yet what you posted is no more truthful than it was yesterday. It will also still be wrong tomorrow.
Here is a hint, as you seem not be not able to understand, what you wrote is not only backed by any facts. It is actually the polar opposite of what occurred.
No amount of your posturing is going to make it any less wrong.
If you want to actually get to the true cause of the Auckland housing crisis you have to admit it actually is real which is something you appear not to be capable of doing.
the previous governments ignoring the problem did not make it not happen either.
Its pretty simple really why it occurred you only have to look at the population growth.
Contrary to what most people consider NZ has actually became one of the most urban countries on the planet (85% POP URBAN) but kiwis are not living in housing that reflects that.
You are always going to have a housing shortage when you have huge population growth and finite land mass to accommodate the 1/4 acre Kiwi dream.

Our home ownership rate has gone from being the highest in the world to the worst New Zealand has seen for more than 60 years. New Zealand is now consistently one of the worst places for housing affordability, even though, as one of the most sparsely inhabited countries, we still have plenty of land.Because thats not the whole problem
Money is readily available to almost all applicants. Quantitative easing by central reserve banks across the world has meant there is more money in circulation than at any other time in history. Banks have never been keener to provide there is more money chasing a dwindling pool of available houses.
There is precious little incentive for developers and builders to construct affordable housing.
the average single Kiwi on the average annual income of just $49,000 a year finds a house affordable when it is three to four times their salary. That puts the truly affordable house price at between $147,000 and $196,000 – and you don’t need to rush to the property guide to know there is absolutely zero chance of finding that in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch. Instead, our most desirable city (Auckland) has had average house prices hovering just under the $1 million mark for the best part of a year. Average house prices at some 20 times the average annual income – that spells crisis to me.
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NZ-city-population-growth-1926-2006.png

Katman

7th September 2018, 21:30

Have you ever considered that you might need psychiatric help?

He refuses to be helped.

husaberg

7th September 2018, 21:51

Have you ever considered that you might need psychiatric help? You are really not operating in a way that allows any kind of social interaction. You were weird and creepy when you were posting endless pics of underage girls... things have not got better.
Why don't you help me by showing me where and when i have ever posted any pics of any pics of underage girls, that would be a great start.
As far as i can see from any of your posts you post utter shit. Much the same way Katspam does
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11247716

He refuses to be helped.
Who do you recommend for Paranoia and Narcissism?
PS your projecting again

BuzzardNZ

7th September 2018, 22:14

carbonhed

8th September 2018, 17:25

Why don't you help me by showing me where and when i have ever posted any pics of any pics of underage girls, that would be a great start.

Well you seem very sure of that... do you keep them in a separate folder? :laugh:

How does this predilection for taut teen pussy go down with the wimmin's section down at the local Labour Party meetings? I'd have thought a whisper of that would have cost you your balls... but perhaps not down in banjo pluckin country eh?

Do you ever have anything to do with Labour Youth camps... recently... like February? :rolleyes: Fucking sanctimonious hypocrite.

Ocean1

8th September 2018, 17:59

Just to recap on the unicorn discussion....

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/387/091/72b.png

Except I can't be fucked collecting all the spittle from the other thread.

One source of Ocean's suggestion that labour probably caused 'the housing crisis' (tm): https://www.interest.co.nz/property/87077/land-price-house-size-jumps-how-nz%E2%80%99s-1989-tax-experiment-ignored-potential-impacts

Tax changes introduced in 1989 created one of the biggest tax system distortions in the OECD between how property and sanctioned savings schemes were taxed.
Tax system distortion

In 1989, the Lange Labour government, based on a review carried out by Don Brash, changed New Zealand’s tax settings. Until then, New Zealand was like most other OECD countries in that it applied an expenditure tax treatment on savings placed in sanctioned savings schemes (ie what KiwiSaver is today).

The change was that we scrapped NZ’s ‘exempt exempt tax’ system (EET), where income was exempt from tax when earned then saved, exempt when it accumulated and earned interest and dividends, but was taxed at a person’s marginal rate when withdrawn and spent.

We replaced that with income tax treatment, so it would match other forms of savings, except owner-occupied housing. This meant there was a distortion created in our tax settings.

Here are some of the countries that do what New Zealand did up until 1989:

There’s the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom. And Hungary has a very similar way. Furthermore, Denmark, Italy and Sweden exempt tax from when it is saved and put into a retirement savings account.

So we used to be part of the mainstream OECD approach to expenditure taxes. But the Lange government needed revenue, and the change brought forward revenue into the government’s coffers.

Aannnnnd: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/04/19/19623/housing-1989-generation-rent

"New Zealand has one of the most distortionary tax environments for housing markets of any country in the OECD," Coleman said in presentation of the paper to a MOTU event last week.

"The root cause is the tax changes made to retirement savings in 1989," he said.

In 1989 the Government changed the tax rules so that investments in pensions and other savings accounts lost their tax-exempt status. This didn't directly change the way housing was taxed, but it effectively gave investing in housing and land a major advantage.

Before 1989, income that was put into a private pension or insurances schemes was not taxed, and neither was the income earned in the schemes. But then the Labour Government changed the rules so that income was taxed before it was put into private schemes and any income earned by the savings was also taxed. This helped save the Government $800 million a year in tax exemptions at the time - in effect pulling forward tax revenue in one-off way. That's because the system at that time taxed income from pension schemes on the way out as it was being spent, which is still also the case in most other countries.

Those of you not currently riding unicorns might have noticed that the effect of the above was to bring forward billions of dollars worth of tax revenue on a very large chunk of income from "when your retirement scheme matures" to "right now".

Those of you even more.... mature may recall that the response of many was to ditch the now extremely unattractive retirement scheme and look around for better things to do with your potential savings. You'd have possibly taken a glance at the stock market, remembered what had happened to your life's savings in your recent foray there and thought fuckit, the best of a very bad set off choices, (by international comparisons) was to buy that old shitter of a cottage up the road. I mean, maybe they're less likely to take that off you too, right

Welcome to the boomer property rush, c'1989.

Now, I get that the whole bollox looks like a classic candidate for reference under one of the many corollaries of the law of unintended consequences. But don't we have a right to expect that the keepers of the national purse strings might have slightly better understanding and foresight? I mean isn't not eating the seed potatoes generally recognised as a damned fine idea?

It might have mattered less, if national had reversed the fuckup a few years later. But, faced with the already high political cost involved, they didn't. And the cost of redressing the balance has grown every year since.

Unfortunately, the most likely "fix" is to balance the distortion by taxing the living fuck out of anything to do with property, starting with the almost mandatory "why not tax capital gains, same as other income?" See, we haven't learned: taxing anything has unintended consequences, especially taxes on savings. Dunno 'bout you, but my response to yet another attempt on my savings, including any that refuses me healthcare on account of being a rich prick.... is to spend it just as fast as I can.

husaberg

8th September 2018, 19:56

Just to recap on the unicorn discussion....

Except I can't be fucked collecting all the spittle from the other thread.

One source of Ocean's suggestion that labour probably caused 'the housing crisis' (tm): https://www.interest.co.nz/property/87077/land-price-house-size-jumps-how-nz%E2%80%99s-1989-tax-experiment-ignored-potential-impacts

Aannnnnd: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/04/19/19623/housing-1989-generation-rent

Those of you not currently riding unicorns might have noticed that the effect of the above was to bring forward billions of dollars worth of tax revenue on a very large chunk of income from "when your retirement scheme matures" to "right now".

Those of you even more.... mature may recall that the response of many was to ditch the now extremely unattractive retirement scheme and look around for better things to do with your potential savings. You'd have possibly taken a glance at the stock market, remembered what had happened to your life's savings in your recent foray there and thought fuckit, the best of a very bad set off choices, (by international comparisons) was to buy that old shitter of a cottage up the road. I mean, maybe they're less likely to take that off you too, right

Welcome to the boomer property rush, c'1989.

Now, I get that the whole bollox looks like a classic candidate for reference under one of the many corollaries of the law of unintended consequences. But don't we have a right to expect that the keepers of the national purse strings might have slightly better understanding and foresight? I mean isn't not eating the seed potatoes generally recognised as a damned fine idea?

It might have mattered less, if national had reversed the fuckup a few years later. But, faced with the already high political cost involved, they didn't. And the cost of redressing the balance has grown every year since.

Unfortunately, the most likely "fix" is to balance the distortion by taxing the living fuck out of anything to do with property, starting with the almost mandatory "why not tax capital gains, same as other income?" See, we haven't learned: taxing anything has unintended consequences, especially taxes on savings. Dunno 'bout you, but my response to yet another attempt on my savings, including any that refuses me healthcare on account of being a rich prick.... is to spend it just as fast as I can.

Right so when you say couple of Labour goverments you mean 5 labour goverments ago
so you claim that a housing chrisis occured in 2018 because of a change in the tax system 29 years ago
But if that is the true cause cause there has been subsequently 5 National governments that never fixed that one cause of the crisis
I am not surprised National never fixed it myself as up until they lost power they claimed there never was a housing crisis.
Nor does that theory address that fact that the Kiwi house has aleways been the Kiwi life saving scheme.
Nor does it address that NZ had an Amazing Superanuation scheme that was scapped and robbed by National in the 1975 so using your own data the true Cause is actually National
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10465138

PS your theory doesnt include the fact that there is 1 million more people living in Auckland which is actually why there is a shortage that and there is less houses being built than is needed which is nationals fault.
I say this as every time National is in power they build less houses.

“The number of homes we’re building is lower than in the mid-1970s, but we’re building more in terms of total floor area,” business indicators senior manager Neil Kelly said. “This is because houses are now so much bigger than they used to be.”
Consented homes nowadays are over 60 percent bigger than they were in the 1970s.
For comparison, in the year ended August 1974:

38,000 new homes were consented
the average floor area was 110 square metres
the total floor area consented was 4.2 million square metres.

In the year ended August 2004:

33,000 new homes were consented
the average floor area was 181 square metres
the total floor area consented was 5.9 million square metres.

In the year ended August 2016:

30,000 new homes were consented
the average floor area was 182 square metres
the total floor area consented was 5.4 million square metres.

Floor area includes shared spaces and basement carparks in apartment buildings.
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/Construction/building-bigger-5oct-16.aspx

Swoop

8th September 2018, 20:03

The level of incompetence is mind blowing isn't it? Every minor cockup is stage managed into catastrophe.

...that Cindy could have a baby and perform as prime minister...
Isn't it surprising how the propaganda of "the new sprog will not change anything" has been forgotten now that the use of an air force transport is required because the patagonian toothfish needs to be with the little one and cannot possibly travel with the rest of the three-ring circus called "the coalition"?

AllanB

8th September 2018, 20:42

I'm more interested in the fuel crisis - Mega Woods dragged them into her office earlier this year to bitch-slap them into competitive practices and the result months later is ........ NZ's highest fuel prices ever. Nice one minister. Yeah we know you get a company car and fuel card.

Ocean1

8th September 2018, 20:44

so you claim that a housing chrisis occured in 2018 because of a change in the tax system 29 years ago

Did you see my name on any of the documents I posted?

So no, it's not my "theory". Is is, however, with 20:20 hindsight rapidly becoming an accepted historic economic fact.

And yes, I pointed out that national failed to correct the fuckup well before you predictably picked that up as some sort of partisan point scoring coup, need I point out that I don't play that game? Again?

The reason they didn't put the money back in the biscuit tin was that without the same revenue they would never again have bought enough votes to compete. And you still don't see the problem with a system that rewards petty vote buying bullshit over prudent, ethical governance?

And no, I don't know how many Kiwis you know who bought residential property specifically as a retirement investment before that, but the number I know who did so only after their pension scheme was burgled amounts to most of the double income professional middle class households I know.

Aaannnd straight back into the anti-nat whataboutist bullshit. See ya.

Ocean1

8th September 2018, 20:49

husaberg

8th September 2018, 21:00

Did you see my name on any of the documents I posted?

So no, it's not my "theory". Is is, however, with 20:20 hindsight rapidly becoming an accepted historic economic fact.

And yes, I pointed out that national failed to correct the fuckup well before you predictably picked that up as some sort of partisan point scoring coup, need I point out that I don't play that game? Again?

The reason they didn't put the money back in the biscuit tin was that without the same revenue they would never again have bought enough votes to compete. And you still don't see the problem with a system that rewards petty vote buying bullshit over prudent, ethical governance?

And no, I don't know how many Kiwis you know who bought residential property specifically as a retirement investment before that, but the number I know who did so only after their pension scheme was burgled amounts to most of the double income middle class household I know.

Aaannnd straight back into the anti-nat whataboutist bullshit. See ya.

Its your theory as you offered it as the reason for the housing crisis .
But its an obscure one at best, it would take 40 odd pages of googling to find it under cause of Auckland Housing crisis. So i dont believe it rates highly in the real reasons
Reason you say National never fixed it? No you offer excuses, that they did not, National has never even admitted it is a crisis and if they have known about it for 30 years and have not done anything about it or highlight it.
it is not what you would expect a goverment that claims to have the best interest of voters now is it?
As i have stated you chose to ignore the fact every subsequent National government built less houses and sold more houses which you outlined as being a cause of the current crisis which is what i highlighted as being stupid and not backed by facts.

Sure we can. The whole thing started a couple of labour's ago, when they found there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay for their election promises. Again.
So they slashed the state housing budget, sold off a bunch of state houses and set up tax breaks to encourage private investment in rental properties instead. (the very same mechanisms they're now calling "inequitable").
They also changed the tax law re retirement savings, taxing them at source instead of on withdrawal, a move that was specifically designed to free up retirement scheme savings capital for housing investment.
.

Auckland has a crisis and its pretty simple why we are still building less houses than we did in the 1970's yet we have a million more people living in Auckland in bigger houses.

http://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/images/pricetoincome_lg.jpg

Murray

8th September 2018, 21:15

You were weird and creepy when you were posting endless pics of underage girls... things have not got better.

Well you seem very sure of that... do you keep them in a separate folder? :laugh:

How does this predilection for taut teen pussy go down with the wimmin's section down at the local Labour Party meetings? I'd have thought a whisper of that would have cost you your balls... but perhaps not down in banjo pluckin country eh?

You have accused someone of posting "endless" pics of underage girls and when asked to provide proof backed off?

Please provide proof before making serious allegations or just keep your mouth shut.

I await your intelligent response!

carbonhed

8th September 2018, 22:22

You have accused someone of posting "endlrss" pics of underage girls and when asked to provide proof backed off?

Please provide proof before making serious allegations or just keep your mouth shut.

I await your intelligent response!

You are right. It was a mistake. I can't prove they are underage. Apologies.

jasonu

9th September 2018, 03:19

Isn't it surprising how the propaganda of "the new sprog will not change anything" has been forgotten now that the use of an air force transport is required because the patagonian toothfish needs to be with the little one and cannot possibly travel with the rest of the three-ring circus called "the coalition"?

Right on Sista.
Back to my original question at the beginning of this discussion, where are the ones that said her having a baby won't make any difference? I know crasher was one but he buggared off. The rest are suspiciously mute...

jasonu

9th September 2018, 03:20

Graystone

9th September 2018, 04:38

Right on Sista.
Back to my original question at the beginning of this discussion, where are the ones that said her having a baby won't make any difference? I know crasher was one but he buggared off. The rest are suspiciously mute...

Has it made a difference? The '$80k' flight is such a storm in a teacup if that is the best case for 'difference' you have it simply goes to prove our point.

Graystone

9th September 2018, 04:40

No fuel crisis here mate. I get a gallon for the same money you pay for a liter.

Does oregon have fuel at half the price Washington state does then? Or are you just making shit up again?

Voltaire

9th September 2018, 08:13

No fuel crisis here mate. I get a gallon for the same money you pay for a liter.

Without resorting to Google and endless quotes in brackets ( and re-quotes) isn't the US now self sufficient in oil now, probably due to accessing

tight oil?

Beer crisis here.... my favs are over $24 a litre.:eek5:

oldrider

9th September 2018, 08:28

You are right. It was a mistake. I can't prove they are underage. Apologies.

But by his own volition (see his signature) he is a declared advocate for the use of whole chicken! - No mistake there.

carbonhed

9th September 2018, 09:01

Has it made a difference? The '$80k' flight is such a storm in a teacup if that is the best case for 'difference' you have it simply goes to prove our point.

It's just been triumph after triumh since she got back... right.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrongs-opinion-jacinda-arderns-excursion-nauru-pr-disaster

Graystone

9th September 2018, 14:38

It's just been triumph after triumh since she got back...

I didn't even know she rode!

carbonhed

9th September 2018, 17:46

I didn't even know she rode!

Comedy Gold right there. You should go on stage... say, you're not Guy Williams incognito are you? Because he has that same comedy godlikeness as you, even more than Te Radar because that motherfucker is surely the least amusing asshole passing himself off as a comedian ever... only possible in Godzone eh. Rock on Guy!

jasonu

9th September 2018, 19:10

Does oregon have fuel at half the price Washington state does then? Or are you just making shit up again?

eh?????????
About the same.

husaberg

9th September 2018, 21:00

No fuel crisis here mate. I get a gallon for the same money you pay for a liter.

New Zealand Gasoline prices, liter
Gasoline prices: We show prices for New Zealand from 28-May-2018 to 03-Sep-2018. The average value for New Zealand during that period was 2.34 New Zealand Dollar with a minimum of 2.30 New Zealand Dollar on 02-Jul-2018 and a maximum of 2.40 New Zealand Dollar on 03-Sep-2018. For comparison, the average price of gasoline in the world for this period is 2.43 New Zealand Dollar.

USA Gasoline prices, liter
Gasoline prices: We show prices for USA from 28-May-2018 to 03-Sep-2018. The average value for USA during that period was 1.28 New Zealand Dollar with a minimum of 1.27 New Zealand Dollar on 25-Jun-2018 and a maximum of 1.31 New Zealand Dollar on 28-May-2018. For comparison, the average price of gasoline in the world for this period is 2.43 New Zealand Dollar.

You pay about 1/2 what we pay not a 1/4, a lot less granted, but not a quarter less.
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/
you pay twice what Egypt does, you also pay 81 times what Venezuela does.

Diesel guess you dont have RUC's

USA Diesel prices, liter
Diesel prices: We show prices for USA from 28-May-2018 to 03-Sep-2018. The average value for USA during that period was 1.28 New Zealand Dollar with a minimum of 1.27 New Zealand Dollar on 30-Jul-2018 and a maximum of 1.30 New Zealand Dollar on 28-May-2018. For comparison, the average price of diesel in the world for this period is 2.20 New Zealand Dollar.

New Zealand Diesel prices, liter
Diesel prices: We show prices for New Zealand from 28-May-2018 to 03-Sep-2018. The average value for New Zealand during that period was 1.60 New Zealand Dollar with a minimum of 1.55 New Zealand Dollar on 02-Jul-2018 and a maximum of 1.70 New Zealand Dollar on 03-Sep-2018. For comparison, the average price of diesel in the world for this period is 2.20 New Zealand Dollar.