The 2017 Election Thread

[sidecar bob]

It is New Zealands resource as far as I am concerned and is something we should be charging for. Its as simple as that.

Try going to any other country and taking their water and see how free it is.

Each country has an over supply of something theyre not going to miss. Plenty of kiwi guys Get a Thai Mrs.

[Ocean1]

It is New Zealands resource as far as I am concerned and is something we should be charging for. Its as simple as that.

Try going to any other country and taking their water and see how free it is.

Genuine socialist dogma, the politics of envy.

If you're all that cut up about someone else making money out of selling something for more than they're paying then you could always do the same.

At least you'd see exactly how easy and free it is.

[Voltaire]

I had a vege stir fry the other day, usually put meat in, saved about 7000 litres of water.

Google search shows it takes a lot of water to make lots of shit.


Typical values for the volume of water required to produce common foodstuffs

Foodstuff Quantity Water consumption, litres
Chocolate 1 kg 17,196
Beef 1 kg 15,415
Sheep Meat 1 kg 10,412
Pork 1 kg 5,988

It takes 24 gallons of water to make 1 pound of another everyday material: plastic. In fact, it takes at least twice as much water to produce a plastic water bottle as the amount of water in the water bottle

It takes an estimated 39,090 gallons of water to make a car

After all, 29 gallons of water were used to produce that glass of cabernet sauvignon

[bogan]

332367

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

Interesting, also interesting is the way they skirt around that wording on their site...


I had a vege stir fry the other day, usually put meat in, saved about 7000 litres of water.

Google search shows it takes a lot of water to make lots of shit.


Typical values for the volume of water required to produce common foodstuffs

Foodstuff Quantity Water consumption, litres
Chocolate 1 kg 17,196
Beef 1 kg 15,415
Sheep Meat 1 kg 10,412
Pork 1 kg 5,988

It takes 24 gallons of water to make 1 pound of another everyday material: plastic. In fact, it takes at least twice as much water to produce a plastic water bottle as the amount of water in the water bottle

It takes an estimated 39,090 gallons of water to make a car

After all, 29 gallons of water were used to produce that glass of cabernet sauvignon

Take it one step further, one humane consuming all those things uses all the water, tax the fuck out of breeding.

[Ocean1]

I had a vege stir fry the other day, usually put meat in, saved about 7000 litres of water.

Google search shows it takes a lot of water to make lots of shit.


Typical values for the volume of water required to produce common foodstuffs

Foodstuff Quantity Water consumption, litres
Chocolate 1 kg 17,196
Beef 1 kg 15,415
Sheep Meat 1 kg 10,412
Pork 1 kg 5,988

It takes 24 gallons of water to make 1 pound of another everyday material: plastic. In fact, it takes at least twice as much water to produce a plastic water bottle as the amount of water in the water bottle

It takes an estimated 39,090 gallons of water to make a car

After all, 29 gallons of water were used to produce that glass of cabernet sauvignon

Which translates to the annual rainfall on....


Foodstuff Quantity Water consumption, litres
Chocolate 1 kg 17,196 .......... your bedroom roof
Beef 1 kg 15,415 .......... your kid's bedroom roof
Sheep Meat 1 kg 10,412 .......... your bathroom
Pork 1 kg 5,988 .......... your car


Perspective.


Also, as I suggested earlier I'd be a lot quicker to tax the use of those plastic bottles than water we have more than we can handle. Maybe there's an opportunity there to not be completely hypocritical in using NZ's clean green image to sell product in environmentally unfriendly containers by going back to those tetra, (?) cardboard things?

[Voltaire]

Which translates to the annual rainfall on....


Foodstuff Quantity Water consumption, litres
Chocolate 1 kg 17,196 .......... your bedroom roof
Beef 1 kg 15,415 .......... your kid's bedroom roof
Sheep Meat 1 kg 10,412 .......... your bathroom
Pork 1 kg 5,988 .......... your car


Perspective.


Also, as I suggested earlier I'd be a lot quicker to tax the use of those plastic bottles than water we have more than we can handle. Maybe there's an opportunity there to not be completely hypocritical in using NZ's clean green image to sell product in environmentally unfriendly containers by going back to those tetra, (?) cardboard things?

+1 on plastic bottles, and add take away coffee cups, plastic bags, and take away shit to that. Clean and Green.....yeah right.

[Ocean1]

+1 on plastic bottles, and add take away coffee cups, plastic bags, and take away shit to that. Clean and Green.....yeah right.

I got into an actual fistfight with a bunch of fuckwits up the road over them chucking a coke bottle out of the car window. And that's where the problem really lies, if the stuff was disposed of properly the benefits of the stuff as a material option would far outweigh any problems. But fuckwits, y'know? Including the ones that buy shit for the kids that lasts a week if you're lucky and then it's in the bin.

[Woodman]

Genuine socialist dogma, the politics of envy.

If you're all that cut up about someone else making money out of selling something for more than they're paying then you could always do the same.

At least you'd see exactly how easy and free it is.

How is charging for a resource that is scarce that we have in abundance turn me into a socialist? I want NZ to charge businesses or corporations for it or bottle it ourselves so we can make lots of money. Think Kuwait with their oil. I am not cut up about other people making money. That is their right, just as it is ours and I don't see why they can take our resource and not be charged for it.

[Ocean1]

How is charging for a resource that is scarce that we have in abundance turn me into a socialist?

This does:


I want NZ to charge businesses or corporations for it or bottle it ourselves so we can make lots of money.

THE fundamental tenet of socialism: The state controls the means of production.


Think Kuwait with their oil.

You want to copy the behaviour of a country with one of the highest levels of inequality and one of the poorest human rights records in the world?


I am not cut up about other people making money. That is their right, just as it is ours and I don't see why they can take our resource and not be charged for it.

Sure sounds like it.

So it's their right to make money from a resource that costs nobody anything, and it's "our" right to do the same, and yet you plan to take that right away from them.

Like I said, if you want a slice of the action why don't you exercise your right and front up with the few million it'd take to open your own business?

And again, who says it's your resource? And are you going to charge them for the bit of air in the top of the bottle too?



And incidentally, in most cases they're already paying the local govt for the privilege of using it.

[Woodman]

This does:



THE fundamental tenet of socialism: The state controls the means of production.



You want to copy the behaviour of a country with one of the highest levels of inequality and one of the poorest human rights records in the world?



Sure sounds like it.

So it's their right to make money from a resource that costs nobody anything, and it's "our" right to do the same, and yet you plan to take that right away from them.

Like I said, if you want a slice of the action why don't you exercise your right and front up with the few million it'd take to open your own business?

And again, who says it's your resource? And are you going to charge them for the bit of air in the top of the bottle too?



And incidentally, in most cases they're already paying the local govt for the privilege of using it.

I want the overseas corporations to pay for our resource so you and I don't have to pay so much tax to support the bludgers.

[Katman]

....tax the fuck out of breeding.

Fuck yeah.

Then dumb fucks might do it less.

[Swoop]

Oh the irony...

[Jeff Sichoe]

you guys have got it all wrong

what we need to do is start giving away our water to anyone who wants it, we're not going to run out anytime soon, but they are

when they do, we up the price and starting fleecing the fuckers

do the same with dairy... mofos in china and europe can pay 10x the price for our dairy, especially if we're farming less (for water quality reasons) = higher prices.

[pritch]

THE fundamental tenet of socialism: The state controls the means of production.



Perhaps a little "socialism" might sometimes be appropriate. We have local body politicians who will happily give water to overseas corporations to sell at a profit.
They do say there is one born every minute, but some councils seem to have more than their share.

The CEO of Nestle worldwide is apparently on record as stating water is not a human right, it's a product, and Nestle will sell it.

In case anyone is thinking there's plenty of water, that may not always be the case. Canterbury is just one example, the disappearing rivers may be a problem but contamination of the aquifer is a bigger one, and with the intensive dairy farming there now that's just a matter of time.

I'm not sure that Labour have the right idea but somebody needs to take an intelligent look at what's happening, and right now is a good time.

[Ocean1]

Perhaps a little "socialism" might sometimes be appropriate. We have local body politicians who will happily give water to overseas corporations to sell at a profit.
They do say there is one born every minute, but some councils seem to have more than their share.

The CEO of Nestle worldwide is apparently on record as stating water is not a human right, it's a product, and Nestle will sell it.

In case anyone is thinking there's plenty of water, that may not always be the case. Canterbury is just one example, the disappearing rivers may be a problem but contamination of the aquifer is a bigger one, and with the intensive dairy farming there now that's just a matter of time.

I'm not sure that Labour have the right idea but somebody needs to take an intelligent look at what's happening, and right now is a good time.

Maybe. But not simply because someone is making money from packaging and shipping an overwhelmingly abundant and completely free resource. The only possible driver behind that is simple jealousy.

And I don't really care what Nestle's CEO thinks, he's no credible authority on the ethics involved.

So where it is scarce or it's use causes damage then control the activity, that's pretty easy: simply limit it's use. By all means review the use of water, but let's do it properly, eh? Regulation by taxation is hypercritical bullshit, if it's not costing anyone else anything then keep your fingers out of the till, if it is then ban it.

[TheDemonLord]

Perhaps a little "socialism" might sometimes be appropriate.

Venezuala....

[Woodman]

The only possible driver behind that is simple jealousy.




No, just that it should have been charged for in the first place.

[Ocean1]

No, just that it should have been charged for in the first place.

No, it shouldn't, it's cost nobody anything to produce.

[Woodman]

No, it shouldn't, it's cost nobody anything to produce.


So...................

[Ocean1]

So...................

So there's no more reason for the state to charge anyone for it than there is for me to charge you for it.

[Woodman]

So there's no more reason for the state to charge anyone for it than there is for me to charge you for it.

But i wouldn't buy it off you, someon might, but I wouldn't and if someone doesn't want to buy water off NZ then they also don't have to buy it, but there will be someone who will so why the fuck not sell it. Its money for jam.
Its not just water that the end user is buying it is NZs clean green image bla bla bla which is definitely a marketable product that some effort and cost has gone into to produce.

[russd7]

No, it shouldn't, it's cost nobody anything to produce.

its a natural resource that is a saleable commodity so why not make these overseas corporations pay through the nose.

do you have large shares tied up in coca cola?

[Ocean1]

its a natural resource that is a saleable commodity so why not make these overseas corporations pay through the nose.

do you have large shares tied up in coca cola?

Because you don't own it. Which is usually a rather important factor when you're trying to sell shit.

No. What I do have is 28% of their profit, and an abiding respect for anyone that actually manages to produce anything at all in the face of a culture that sees that as less than an honorable endeavour.

[Oakie]

Interested to note that labour's new billboards, instead of the traditional red background, have an off-white background behind Jacinda. Trying to make her look clean and pure perhaps?

[Woodman]

Interested to note that labour's new billboards, instead of the traditional red background, have an off-white background behind Jacinda. Trying to make her look clean and pure perhaps?

Its to make her teeth look smaller.....

[oldrider]

Its to make her teeth look smaller.....

To the media she is a gift from god - "The Southern Tooth Fairy" - they are promoting her in to being the next Prime Minister - NZ's own Donald Trump? :mellow:

[Doppleganger]

Looks like national have fucked up big time trying to get Winnie in the shit.
Played right into the hands of Labour.....looks like a change of government is on the cards even more now.

[Woodman]

Because you don't own it. Which is usually a rather important factor when you're trying to sell shit.

No. What I do have is 28% of their profit, and an abiding respect for anyone that actually manages to produce anything at all in the face of a culture that sees that as less than an honorable endeavour.

Fishing industry?

[Ocean1]

Fishing industry?

What about it?

[jasonu]

Its to make her teeth look smaller.....

It's not working.

[mashman]

What about it?


Fishing industry?

:shifty:... Who owns the fish?

[Grumph]

:shifty:... Who owns the fish?

OOh, OOh, Please sir, I know the answer to this one !!

WE DO - that's how we can licence a quota and monitor the catch...

And this differs from water, exactly how, children ?

[Woodman]

What about it?

What effort is required to grow the fish in the sea? None.
So by your theory anyone should be able to come into our waters and just take the fish because no effort was made to produce them.

[Ocean1]

What effort is required to grow the fish in the sea? None.
So by your theory anyone should be able to come into our waters and just take the fish because no effort was made to produce them.

Last time I looked fish don't fall on us in inconvenient quantities.

Good comparison though. And I have no problem at all with regulation via licencing. In fact I'd be extracting some slightly more serious concessions for the right to fish here.

But given that since we started charging an imperial shitload for various "joint venture" quota arrangements the quality of fish available here is shit, expensive enough that it's no longer on the menu for many kiwis, (and yet I can buy NZ snapper in Sydney cheaper than I can in Wellington and NZ crayfish in San Francisco cheaper than here) I think it's a great example of how NOT to manage a resource in the country's best interests.

[mashman]

OOh, OOh, Please sir, I know the answer to this one !!

WE DO - that's how we can licence a quota and monitor the catch...

And this differs from water, exactly how, children ?

heh heh heh... only when the last fish is sold will we realise that we can't eat money :wari:

We sell fish for money so that we can protect our fishery. Such an approach strikes me as somewhat odd. I guess there's always subsidy not to fish lol.

[jasonu]

My cousins just got home from a week in Straya to find this on their fence.
Cheeky cunts!!!

[TheDemonLord]

My cousins just got home from a week in Straya to find this on their fence.
Cheeky cunts!!!

But you forget - Communists don't believe in property rights :msn-wink:

[jasonu]

But you forget - Communists don't believe in property rights :msn-wink:

Good point.
I told her to rip it down and send them a bill for the damage to the fence.

[russd7]

Good point.
I told her to rip it down and send them a bill for the damage to the fence.

tell her to send em a bill for the advertising space

[sidecar bob]

People are infuriatingly stupid.
Several weeks ago, labour was polling at pretty much fuck all, they put up a new public face & without any policy changes, they start kicking arse.
It's not a miss congeniality contest, it's choosing a government for fucks sake.
It proves that basically nobody gives a toss, or much less study's or understands govt policy & its effects on their lives, as long as the messenger is some kind of appealing.
It's damn near enough all the proof we need to have an iq test prior to people being allowed to register to vote.

[Madness]

My cousins just got home from a week in Straya to find this on their fence.
Cheeky cunts!!!

That's not about Communism, she's probably just a second or third generation tagger.

[Ocean1]

I see that the nz taxpayers union has labour's proposed spend at $19 billion over current. Nat's bribes amount to $6.8b.

Which will be almost all borrowing, cause the rich pricks are pretty much tapped out.

Fuxache, how much fucking govt will it take to convince these fuckwits that's not a solution to their problem?

[Grumph]

That's not about Communism, she's probably just a second or third generation tagger.

It works both ways...the one on our fence (put there with permission) is being deliberately obscured daily by a local cocky parking a van in front of it....

There's a horrible temptation to scatter tacks where he parks.

[Ocean1]

It works both ways...the one on our fence (put there with permission) is being deliberately obscured daily by a local cocky parking a van in front of it....

There's a horrible temptation to scatter tacks where he parks.

It's pretty much one way up here. I rode up to Hastings yesterday and about half of the blue graffiti I passed had been pulled down, didn't see any red stuff on the ground.

[oldrider]

TV generations rule today - change channels and get the same brand of shit from unlimited different actors - so many channels, so much shit! :facepalm:

The red channel is offering a female Dracula series this season - the media seem to think it has news potential! :yawn:

[James Deuce]

TV generations rule today - change channels and get the same brand of shit from unlimited different actors - so many channels, so much shit! :facepalm:

The red channel is offering a female Dracula series this season - the media seem to think it has news potential! :yawn:
Stop watching terrestrial TV. I had a lovely surprise this morning. I had no idea it was Father's Day. Got breakfast made for me by #1 son and he has also furnished a coffee and a Danish for morning tea.

If we still watched telly, I'd have been in no doubt of when Father's Day was, from the day after Mother's Day.

Similarly, this election I've done a much deeper dive into policy and manifesto documents and have been horrified at how unprepared for Government any of the parties are. They're completely glued to the Election Hype, Break Promises, Do Nothing unless it's really broken then do the worst thing possible, Election Hype cycle that our much too short election cycle gifts us.

[AllanB]

They're completely glued to the Election Hype, Break Promises, Do Nothing unless it's really broken then do the worst thing possible, Election Hype cycle that our much too short election cycle gifts us.


Pretty much sums up our modern disposable society.

I was talking to a car mechanic recently. He said it's a effort getting people to bring in their new cars for a yearly service.

[Swoop]

People are infuriatingly stupid.
Several weeks ago, labour was polling at pretty much fuck all, they put up a new public face & without any policy changes, they start kicking arse.
It's not a miss congeniality contest, it's choosing a government for fucks sake.

Absolutely true.
The potential to have a new leader who has the only credentials of running a socialist youth camp, is quite disturbing. Any form of serious crisis pops up and we are totally fucked.

[Ocean1]

Absolutely true.
The potential to have a new leader who has the only credentials of running a socialist youth camp, is quite disturbing. Any form of serious crisis pops up and we are totally fucked.

Like, a Monday morning?

[oldrider]

Stop watching terrestrial TV. I had a lovely surprise this morning. I had no idea it was Father's Day. Got breakfast made for me by #1 son and he has also furnished a coffee and a Danish for morning tea.

If we still watched telly, I'd have been in no doubt of when Father's Day was, from the day after Mother's Day.

Similarly, this election I've done a much deeper dive into policy and manifesto documents and have been horrified at how unprepared for Government any of the parties are. They're completely glued to the Election Hype, Break Promises, Do Nothing unless it's really broken then do the worst thing possible, Election Hype cycle that our much too short election cycle gifts us.

We don't actually have a TV since moving location and down sizing our house - enjoying life without it and don't miss it very much. :eek:

As for elections if they cannot get the money sorted they can do little more than shuffle the deck chairs about for their 3 year terms!

If they did try to sort the money out the USA would be on our doorstep creating destabilisation until we returned to status quo banking. :rolleyes:

[TheDemonLord]

running a socialist youth camp

That alone should bar anyone from holding any form of power...

[Swoop]

That alone should bar anyone from holding any form of power...

I looked into her a bit deeper last night (hadn't I better re-phrase that?) and there are surprisingly more areas to be concerned with. The one good point is that "supposedly" moving away from being a happy-clapping retard, she now claims to be agnostic...

[SPman]

People are infuriatingly stupid.......
.

So, not much has changed in NZ represented by KB then........

[James Deuce]

The one good point is that "supposedly" moving away from being a happy-clapping retard, she now claims to be agnostic...

Least offensive position to take when some of your voter base give away 10% of their low wages to the local tax-free money collecting service.

[Swoop]

Least offensive position to take when some of your voter base give away 10% of their low wages to the local tax-free money collecting service.

The aim of eliminating child poverty becomes almost unachievable, when the parents of the children are given the money and then decide there are better things to spend it on (smokes, pokies, destiny cult, etc).
So many promises which will go unfulfilled, even with the best of intentions.

[Ocean1]

The aim of eliminating child poverty becomes almost unachievable, when the parents of the children are given the money and then decide there are better things to spend it on (smokes, pokies, destiny cult, etc).
So many promises which will go unfulfilled, even with the best of intentions.

It became unachievable when they decided "poverty" was 60% of the medium income.

The few children living in actual poverty in NZ, (based on the definition our parents used) are down to parental abuse.

[Ocean1]

I see Labour have learned their lesson after taking a bath in the polls last election on the back of the promise of a capital gains tax.

They're going to be calling it a residential land tax. :laugh:

[sidecar bob]

I see Labour have learned their lesson after taking a bath in the polls last election on the back of the promise of a capital gains tax.

They're going to be calling it a residential land tax. :laugh:

Well they can start by finding lodgings for all the people that will be chucked out of their rentals pending sale prior to the election.

[Voltaire]

Well they can start by finding lodgings for all the people that will be chucked out of their rentals pending sale prior to the election.

Landlords should get more recognition for the public service they do.

But I wonder if it were not for being able to leverage capital for the initial purchase, claim all expense's including interest on borrowings, rates, insurance, repairs,

travel to inspect etc and after a few years selling the property for a nice tidy tax free profit would people still be as keen to offer said public service?

If labour do introduce a CGT and investors have a big sell off I can then help my other Son into a property.:niceone:, save me waiting for the enevitable crash thats coming after the longest post war Wall St Bull run and larger debt than the GFC.

[Ocean1]

Well they can start by finding lodgings for all the people that will be chucked out of their rentals pending sale prior to the election.

Oh, apparently they're not limiting it to investment property, the family home is fair game too.

[Ocean1]

Landlords should get more recognition for the public service they do.

But I wonder if it were not for being able to leverage capital for the initial purchase, claim all expense's including interest on borrowings, rates, insurance, repairs,

travel to inspect etc and after a few years selling the property for a nice tidy tax free profit would people still be as keen to offer said public service?

If labour do introduce a CGT and investors have a big sell off I can then help my other Son into a property.:niceone:, save me waiting for the enevitable crash thats coming after the longest post war Wall St Bull run and larger debt than the GFC.

There's only one reason most people rent: they can't afford to buy. So no matter how you cut it property owners that rent out those properties are supplying them for rents less than the cost to supply.

The fact that they don't pay tax AGAIN on money used to maintain the asset in the process simply means that they're only taking a slightly less hideous loss while paying the mortgage and that any "profit" they make on the business is deferred until they sell it.

So as Bob points out a sure fire way of completely fucking the social, (subsidised) housing stock is to either require landlords to pay tax a second time on maintenance costs and/or tax capital "gains", on the theory that all them rich pricks are getting something for nothing.

[mashman]

Landlords should get more recognition for the public service they do.

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... gold.

[Swoop]

Oh, apparently they're not limiting it to investment property, the family home is fair game too.

Surely gains on other forms of investment will also be included too, not just houses (boats, cars, bikes...)?

The stunning silence on any detail from liarbour is staggering, but not unexpected. What fool would vote for them and then wait to find out "how" a method of taxation would be implemented? That really resembles oppression.

[sidecar bob]

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... gold.

Yes, it certainly is.

[sidecar bob]

Surely gains on other forms of investment will also be included too, not just houses (boats, cars, bikes...)?

The stunning silence on any detail from liarbour is staggering, but not unexpected. What fool would vote for them and then wait to find out "how" a method of taxation would be implemented? That really resembles oppression.

Most of my daughters 18 year old mates will, because A, they like Jacinda (seriously WTF) & B, they were all 9 years old last time there was a labour govt & really have no idea what the fuck they are doing in general.

[Honest Andy]

What's the problem with capital gains tax?
It's tax. Tax is paid on profit. I still make money, tax would only take some of it.
And frankly, the money I've made in capital gain in the last few years is bordering on obscene...

[Ocean1]

Surely gains on other forms of investment will also be included too, not just houses (boats, cars, bikes...)?

The stunning silence on any detail from liarbour is staggering, but not unexpected. What fool would vote for them and then wait to find out "how" a method of taxation would be implemented? That really resembles oppression.

Here's how it works: I happily pay whatever tax is required to provide the infrastructure that allows me this most excellent lifestyle and which helps me to prosper. Plus a fair bit extra, just because.

Once.

If I'm required to pay it again because I choose to spend what's left of my earnings on any given purchase then I'll refrain from spending it there.

If, in spite of my choices they persist on trying to tax the same money multiple times I'll blow the fucking lot on an extended off shore sabbatical, making damned sure there's nothing left for the grasping bastards to take.

And I'll be applying for every benefit I possibly can when I return.




What's the problem with capital gains tax?
It's tax. Tax is paid on profit. I still make money, tax would only take some of it.
And frankly, the money I've made in capital gain in the last few years is bordering on obscene...

I'll cheerfully pay a capital gains tax.

Just as soon as someone promises to reimburse me for any losses I might make on my investments.

[TheDemonLord]

What's the problem with capital gains tax?
It's tax. Tax is paid on profit. I still make money, tax would only take some of it.
And frankly, the money I've made in capital gain in the last few years is bordering on obscene...

It's an interesting one.

I think the first issue is simply that people don't have to pay the tax currently, and don't want to pay even more tax.

There are then some additional issues - most people I think don't have a problem with capital gains tax being paid by someone whose has made it their job to buy a house cheaply, invest time, effort and money into it and then sell it at a reasonable profit, all whilst never living in said house (Since this isn't classed as an Income, I think they don't pay income tax on that? I could be wrong).

What they have an issue with is the nice old couple who bought a house in 1955 for cheap, lived in it for their entire life and the house is now hyper-desirable - it seems wrong to Tax these people through the nose.

Then there is the worry from both the Real estate sectors, the banking sectors and the home owner sector that such a tax would massively cool off the Housing Market - whilst that may be a good thing, there is the risk of an entire Strata of people who have only just gotten on the Property ladder, Mortgaged to the hilt, suddenly finding that they have negative Equity in their house (that the Mortgage is higher than the house value)

Personally - I think the way round it would be that you have to pay Capital Gains tax on any property that you own, but not live in yourself and sell within 10 years of owning it or 5 years of owning it if it has been regularly occupied by tenants.

If you were wanting to really stop the speculation - you could charge a double rate for any house that you don't live in, has had no regular tenants and is sold within 2 years of owning

[Ocean1]

It's an interesting one.

I think the first issue is simply that people don't have to pay the tax currently, and don't want to pay even more tax.

There are then some additional issues - most people I think don't have a problem with capital gains tax being paid by someone whose has made it their job to buy a house cheaply, invest time, effort and money into it and then sell it at a reasonable profit, all whilst never living in said house (Since this isn't classed as an Income, I think they don't pay income tax on that? I could be wrong).

What they have an issue with is the nice old couple who bought a house in 1955 for cheap, lived in it for their entire life and the house is now hyper-desirable - it seems wrong to Tax these people through the nose.

Then there is the worry from both the Real estate sectors, the banking sectors and the home owner sector that such a tax would massively cool off the Housing Market - whilst that may be a good thing, there is the risk of an entire Strata of people who have only just gotten on the Property ladder, Mortgaged to the hilt, suddenly finding that they have negative Equity in their house (that the Mortgage is higher than the house value)

Personally - I think the way round it would be that you have to pay Capital Gains tax on any property that you own, but not live in yourself and sell within 10 years of owning it or 5 years of owning it if it has been regularly occupied by tenants.

If you were wanting to really stop the speculation - you could charge a double rate for any house that you don't live in, has had no regular tenants and is sold within 2 years of owning

Or you could, y'know, remove the constraints in providing new houses at rational prices.

How long do you suppose prices for existing houses outside central Orks would hold up if there was a brand new build a couple of kilometers away for half the price?

[sidecar bob]

If you were wanting to really stop the speculation - you could charge a double rate for any house that you don't live in, has had no regular tenants and is sold within 2 years of owning

And the landlords could hike the fuck outta the rent to cover the tax they will eventually pay, which has to come from the end user, as would be normal. Which im sure some are in the process of doing, pending the tooth fairy gaining power.

[jasonu]

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... gold.

Ever tried being one?

[TheDemonLord]

And the landlords could hike the fuck outta the rent to cover the tax they will eventually pay, which has to come from the end user, as would be normal. Which im sure some are in the process of doing, pending the tooth fairy gaining power.

But if they hike the prices too much, they won't have tenants in them -ergo they have to pay more.

Don't get me wrong, the thought was far from a well rounded idea, addressing and encompassing each and every facet of the issue.

[TheDemonLord]

Or you could, y'know, remove the constraints in providing new houses at rational prices.

How long do you suppose prices for existing houses outside central Orks would hold up if there was a brand new build a couple of kilometers away for half the price?

Well, the RMA and Council innefficiency does have a massive hand to play, but Land availability also has to be factored in, as do the Infrastructure capability to handle a Commute - for example going east to west across Central Auckland is an absolute pain as there aren't any high speed aerterial routes (such as Sandringham to Remuera).

I also think that more could be done at a national level to encourage tele-commuting which would free up peoples living choices by removing the need to be within 'reasonable' commuting distance.

[Ocean1]

Well, the RMA and Council innefficiency does have a massive hand to play, but Land availability also has to be factored in, as do the Infrastructure capability to handle a Commute - for example going east to west across Central Auckland is an absolute pain as there aren't any high speed aerterial routes (such as Sandringham to Remuera).

I also think that more could be done at a national level to encourage tele-commuting which would free up peoples living choices by removing the need to be within 'reasonable' commuting distance.

Outside of central Auckland there is no shortage of land.

And why is the fact that Auckland's infrastructure is hugely underfunded a reason to bitch about house prices rather than Auckland's shit infrastructure? If anything I'd suggest that people actually paying the going rate for houses in Auckland in spite of the massive hassle involved is a damned fine argument that house prices are actually lower than they otherwise would be.

Like pretty much everything else the socialists hereabouts believe it's the government's responsibility to supply them with shit they can't otherwise afford. I'd suggest there's other places to look.

[TheDemonLord]

Outside of central Auckland there is no shortage of land.

And why is the fact that Auckland's infrastructure is hugely underfunded a reason to bitch about house prices rather than Auckland's shit infrastructure? If anything I'd suggest that people actually paying the going rate for houses in Auckland in spite of the massive hassle involved is a damned fine argument that house prices are actually lower than they otherwise would be.

Like pretty much everything else the socialists hereabouts believe it's the government's responsibility to supply them with shit they can't otherwise afford. I'd suggest there's other places to look.

I agree outside of Central Auckland there are big tracks of Land, the issue is how to get from these Areas, to the areas where the places of Employment are.

Infrastructure is important - if you can't get from point A to point B in a reasonable time frame, it's relevant. In other parts of the world, this is where mass transit rail systems enable the workforce to live in more affordable housing, in cheaper land.

Is Auckland's housing prices being held back by Infrastructure - possibly? but I would counter that if you increased Supply by opening up blocks of Land AND making them commutable - increase supply, whilst maintaining the same demand = prices fall.

[Honest Andy]

I'll cheerfully pay a capital gains tax.

Just as soon as someone promises to reimburse me for any losses I might make on my investments.

Good. You already get reimbursed for the tax on your losses. That's how tax works. The losses themselves on your investment are your problem, under the title "risk".

The tax is only a percentage of profit. I know I said that before but it's obviously easily missed.
If you don't make a profit then you don't pay tax. Simple really.
And as far as losses are concerned, it's like any other business or investment. You will be able to juggle the books a bit to spread your profit and loss, but in the end you have to wear the risk.
Just like any investment.

And remember also: we're talking about tax, not rates.

Don't start me on rates...

:angry2:

[Ocean1]

Good. You already get reimbursed for the tax on your losses. That's how tax works. The losses themselves on your investment are your problem, under the title "risk".

The tax is only a percentage of profit. I know I said that before but it's obviously easily missed.
If you don't make a profit then you don't pay tax. Simple really.
And as far as losses are concerned, it's like any other business or investment. You will be able to juggle the books a bit to spread your profit and loss, but in the end you have to wear the risk.
Just like any investment.

And remember also: we're talking about tax, not rates.

Don't start me on rates...

:angry2:

Expenses aren't losses, and I don't expect to pay tax on expenses.

And re "gains", as you said it's my risk, a risk I took with money I already paid tax on. If it's OK for the state to tax the difference between what I buy my house for and what I sell it for then it's OK for them to share that risk by reimbursing me if I sell it at a loss.

I'm not sure I understand this "juggling" shit, is that the same as when someone gets taxpayer money on one hand while producing nothing whatsoever on the other? Or is it the other sort of juggling, that socialists like to pretend all those rich pricks do instead of earning their money?

[Ocean1]

I agree outside of Central Auckland there are big tracks of Land, the issue is how to get from these Areas, to the areas where the places of Employment are.

Infrastructure is important - if you can't get from point A to point B in a reasonable time frame, it's relevant. In other parts of the world, this is where mass transit rail systems enable the workforce to live in more affordable housing, in cheaper land.

Is Auckland's housing prices being held back by Infrastructure - possibly? but I would counter that if you increased Supply by opening up blocks of Land AND making them commutable - increase supply, whilst maintaining the same demand = prices fall.

Or you could, y'know, remove the constraints in providing new houses at rational prices: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/96484661/waipa-mayor-affordable-housing-problem-remains-unless-attitudes-change

Dunno about you but I wouldn't think you'd have too many problems with funding infrastructure if some of that $200k excess pricing per section was funneled into, say a high speed rail link.

Again: remove the monopolies on new house supply and prices plummet.

[jasonu]

What a miserable looking old cunt.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11919611

[TheDemonLord]

Or you could, y'know, remove the constraints in providing new houses at rational prices: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/96484661/waipa-mayor-affordable-housing-problem-remains-unless-attitudes-change

Interesting reading - mainly because when we bought our house - the exact quote from my Wife was:

"I'm not getting anything less than a 3 Bedroom as no one buys 2 Bedroom houses"

It seems to be an interesting issue - I would suspect there are several causal factors:

-People renting for longer, getting more stuff, and buying houses later - when it necessitates a bigger house
-People's expectations about what their first house should be - it would seem they want their first house to be a Family home, rather than a glorified flat, that they live in for a couple of years (gaining equity) before upscalling to a bigger house
-If there was significant demand for smaller houses at a profitable price point - we would see them being built
-Assuming a fixed land cost, it makes more sense to build a larger house (with a greater profit margin as it is in a more competitive market space) than it does to build smaller houses

If the article is true - then you could make the argument that we have found ourselves in a feedback loop.


Dunno about you but I wouldn't think you'd have too many problems with funding infrastructure if some of that $200k excess pricing per section was funneled into, say a high speed rail link.

Or just a Rail link in general...


Again: remove the monopolies on new house supply and prices plummet.

Maybe, maybe not.

In this case, I think there are some societal attitudes that are also part of the issue.

[TheDemonLord]

What a miserable looking old cunt.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11919611

Someone should tell her that there is a difference between setting out a Policy and actually implementing it.

Just like there is a difference between planning to build a road and actually building it.

[Honest Andy]

Expenses aren't losses, and I don't expect to pay tax on expenses.

And re "gains", as you said it's my risk, a risk I took with money I already paid tax on. If it's OK for the state to tax the difference between what I buy my house for and what I sell it for then it's OK for them to share that risk by reimbursing me if I sell it at a loss.

I'm not sure I understand this "juggling" shit, is that the same as when someone gets taxpayer money on one hand while producing nothing whatsoever on the other? Or is it the other sort of juggling, that socialists like to pretend all those rich pricks do instead of earning their money?

Expenses, losses, whatever. That's semantics, either way it's not taxed.
Juggling? Haha nothing sinister, just sometimes with sensible business management it's possible to avoid a big tax credit one year and a big tax bill the next.

So tell me, why do you want the government to continue treating my housing portfolio differently to my business or share portfolio?

[Ocean1]

If the article is true - then you could make the argument that we have found ourselves in a feedback loop.

I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that what we find ourselves in is the consequences of a massively over regulated market and unrealistic expectations.

I mean, the cacophony of whining about house prices being "more than double the cost in income terms our parents paid" completely sails right over the fact that houses are, as the article pointed out more than twice the size, far better quality, better serviced as built and better equipped. If we weren't constrained by regulation from building the same 90sqM clapboard box our parents did I have little doubt you'd find house prices would be very similar to what they were then. But that's not good enough. Nowadays. Apparently.


Or just a Rail link in general...

I cbf doing the arithmetic, how fast could you make a train go with $200k from every overpriced house build between Hamilton and Orks over the last couple decades? For that money I'd expect teleportation.


Maybe, maybe not.

In this case, I think there are some societal attitudes that are also part of the issue.

See above, re expectations, whining.

[sidecar bob]

What a miserable looking old cunt.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11919611

That's the tooth fairy in 20 years.

[Ocean1]

Expenses, losses, whatever. That's semantics, either way it's not taxed.
Juggling? Haha nothing sinister, just sometimes with sensible business management it's possible to avoid a big tax credit one year and a big tax bill the next.

So tell me, why do you want the government to continue treating my housing portfolio differently to my business or share portfolio?

'Fraid not, completely different animals.

I don't give a fuck how they treat it, I'll continue investing or not based on whether it's profitable or not. Atm it's marginal, squeeze any harder and I'm outa there, my industrial property performs over 4 times better and the only reason the residential bits remain are because the tenants are good and because I'm a lazy bastard.

[Honest Andy]

'Fraid not, completely different animals.

I don't give a fuck how they treat it, I'll continue investing or not based on whether it's profitable or not. Atm it's marginal, squeeze any harder and I'm outa there, my industrial property performs over 4 times better and the only reason the residential bits remain are because the tenants are good and because I'm a lazy bastard.

Fair enough, now's probably a good time to get out of the housing market and realise all that lovely capital gain, then spend it on cool motorbikes and touring around :ride:

[Trade_nancy]

Fair enough, now's probably a good time to get out of the housing market and realise all that lovely capital gain, then spend it on cool motorbikes and touring around :ride:

Onto it...well owrking on it (her)..

[AllanB]

I notice that ALL party leaders are avoiding the most important question:

Will the new V4 Ducati be a game changer?

Until they answer this I am undecided who to vote for.

[Stylo]

Sorry, just back home, been away for a few days but I did see the Bennet- Davis interview this morning. The two potential deputy leaders.

I've been thinking about switching my allegiance from National after all these years , time for a change ? Jacinda doesn't say too many stupid things, seems pretty logical and makes some sense so, might vote Labour, not sure but, might.

Until I saw Kelvin Davis on TV this morning. Was he picked as Deputy only because he's a 'Maori' or perceived as one and therefore we have some 'racial balance' or does he have something else to add ?

Because this morning, on TV, he made a fucking idiot of himself. We've got a major IQ deficit going on here, holy shit....

He must have spent too much time on Y-tube watching the master clown himself. The orange idiot.

Is that the best you can do Jacinda ?

[Swoop]

So, tonight's news is announcing the re-joining of the carbon-credit scam if liarbour get in.

Meaning (as was commented on in the news) farmers would pay a lot more with the comment made of "taking cash out of the regions" in the process.
They failed to mention that this cost would be added onto products produced, so expect the whole country to get slammed with higher prices for milk, dairy, meat, etc.

Fuck voting for labour!

[sidecar bob]

So, tonight's news is announcing the re-joining of the carbon-credit scam if liarbour get in.

Meaning (as was commented on in the news) farmers would pay a lot more with the comment made of "taking cash out of the regions" in the process.
They failed to mention that this cost would be added onto products produced, so expect the whole country to get slammed with higher prices for milk, dairy, meat, etc.

Fuck voting for labour!

So, higher prices for commodities & rent if liarbour gets in? Sounds like a people's government.

[Swoop]

So, higher prices for commodities & rent?

That's just the start...
Who knows what other taxes the cunts can invent.

[Ocean1]

That's just the start...
Who knows what other taxes the cunts can invent.

I'm beginning to ask myself how best to keep the grasping bastard's hands out of my retirement investment returns when they roll out yet more income testing on... everything. And inevitably when they asset test pensions, etc.

So far the best I've got is to flog off the hideously unattractive residential properties and buy a boat out of Aus/Singapore etc. Well big enough to make the passage, like. Sail it home, but spend enough time off shore to avoid local registration. Think that'd be more or less invisible as an "asset". Compulsory off shore excursions around the Pacific required every year would be a drag, but needs must.

By the time they catch up with that I'll already be half way to emigrating to somewhere less likely to continually fleece me. I'm reliably informed that you can live very nicely in George Town, Malaysia on a very modest budget.

[Grumph]

Shit there's some whining going on here. The sky is not falling.....There's enough system inertia to stop 99% of the doom from happening.
Get over it children. I'm old enough to remember the moaning every time there's a change of govt - and well, bugger me, about 2 years after that, the admission that yes, it isn't so bad at all. Maybe even, shock horror, better.....

Personally, not being overinvested in real estate, I'm believing the statement that they won't tax the family home if it's sold.

I've had enough of the arrogant tories for a lifetime having grown up under the bastards - and met too many of them too.

Whatever you say on here, remember, is not going to change anyone's mind as to how they vote - it's just like this - a personal vent.

[mashman]

Ever tried being one?

Nope. I'm sure life is such a complete nightmare for those good folks who invest in houses so that people can rent them from them that they really could do with a break from putting in all that backbreaking effort.

[sidecar bob]

Nope. I'm sure life is such a complete nightmare for those good folks who invest in houses so that people can rent them from them that they really could do with a break from putting in all that backbreaking effort.

Yeah, I'm over it. I've been a noble (over) taxpayer & landlord for years. I've recently decided, fuck that shit, I'm leaving everyone to their own devices, including the race team I've been funding.
The tenants can blow me, the race team can blow me & im going to fuck off to the south of France & waste most of it so I can retire on the taxes of others. The government can fund my retirement & the housing of others like they do for every other loser.
I am now officially a liability to the govt, not an asset. It's what they want.

[TheDemonLord]

Shit there's some whining going on here. The sky is not falling.....There's enough system inertia to stop 99% of the doom from happening.
Get over it children. I'm old enough to remember the moaning every time there's a change of govt - and well, bugger me, about 2 years after that, the admission that yes, it isn't so bad at all. Maybe even, shock horror, better.....

Personally, not being overinvested in real estate, I'm believing the statement that they won't tax the family home if it's sold.

I've had enough of the arrogant tories for a lifetime having grown up under the bastards - and met too many of them too.

Whatever you say on here, remember, is not going to change anyone's mind as to how they vote - it's just like this - a personal vent.

I got no problem with a Left wing Government - it just seems that all the Left wing parties are closet raging Communists at the moment who hate the rich, want to tax them into oblivion and make everyone poor.

Where is the Central Left that understands Economics?

[oldrider]

The German War Against "Globalism" - Was Hitler Right About Everything? (or anything?) - is there anything our politicians can learn from here? :rolleyes:
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/34KOT9UlnUY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mashman]

Yeah, I'm over it. I've been a noble (over) taxpayer & landlord for years. I've recently decided, fuck that shit, I'm leaving everyone to their own devices, including the race team I've been funding.
The tenants can blow me, the race team can blow me & im going to fuck off to the south of France & waste most of it so I can retire on the taxes of others. The government can fund my retirement & the housing of others like they do for every other loser.
I am now officially a liability to the govt, not an asset. It's what they want.

France is nice.

[Grumph]

Yeah, I'm over it. I've been a noble (over) taxpayer & landlord for years. I've recently decided, fuck that shit, I'm leaving everyone to their own devices, including the race team I've been funding.
The tenants can blow me, the race team can blow me & im going to fuck off to the south of France & waste most of it so I can retire on the taxes of others. The government can fund my retirement & the housing of others like they do for every other loser.
I am now officially a liability to the govt, not an asset. It's what they want.

You won't like it - France is full of Algerians and Libyans - and the bloody French.....

[scott411]

Yeah, I'm over it. I've been a noble (over) taxpayer & landlord for years. I've recently decided, fuck that shit, I'm leaving everyone to their own devices, including the race team I've been funding.
The tenants can blow me, the race team can blow me & im going to fuck off to the south of France & waste most of it so I can retire on the taxes of others. The government can fund my retirement & the housing of others like they do for every other loser.
I am now officially a liability to the govt, not an asset. It's what they want.

lucky bastard

[Voltaire]

Yeah, I'm over it. I've been a noble (over) taxpayer & landlord for years. I've recently decided, fuck that shit, I'm leaving everyone to their own devices, including the race team I've been funding.
The tenants can blow me, the race team can blow me & im going to fuck off to the south of France & waste most of it so I can retire on the taxes of others. The government can fund my retirement & the housing of others like they do for every other loser.
I am now officially a liability to the govt, not an asset. It's what they want.
My Sil lives on a canal boat 6 month of year in France. See says pension goes much further there.
I like Italy and Greece over south of france:msn-wink:

[Ocean1]

I got no problem with a Left wing Government - it just seems that all the Left wing parties are closet raging Communists at the moment who hate the rich, want to tax them into oblivion and make everyone poor.

Where is the Central Left that understands Economics?

It's called the National Party.

Labour is further left than ever, and the greens are simply rabidly incoherent. There hasn't been a financially conservative government here for over a generation, and with the local press in full Marxist song it looks likely we won't see another one any time soon.

[Ocean1]

You won't like it - France is full of Algerians and Libyans - and the bloody French.....

And my bro. And hoards of retired Aussies escaping the consequences of their tax and spend, asset testing government. As is Spain, Mexico etc etc.

Everyone looks at the cost of those pensions and sucks their teeth and shakes their head and mutters about where that's going to come from. I promise, that won't hurt anywhere near as much as the tax those boomers are about to stop paying. It's fucking huge, boomers pay fucking near half of all income tax, that loss is going to reduce govt spending dramatically, in every direction. Where are the plans for managing that loss, outside of simply doubling income tax?

There's also a bunch of talk about whether we should change the rules and delay paying them until 67, eventually. Won't affect me but even if it did I'd be OK with it, we're living far longer and better. I hear Juicinda getting a bit shrill about shafting "her generation" and talk in the press about how super is funded, whether it's pay as you go or pre-funded sort of defines who's going to cop the bill. Seems politicians from both sides think it's pay as you go, so each generation pays for it's parents super. But every taxpayer I've ever talked to about it considers that a part of their tax was always paying for their own pension. So just another classic example of vote buying taking precedence over what those who actually pay for shit want.

[Woodman]

And my bro. And hoards of retired Aussies escaping the consequences of their tax and spend government. As is Spain, Mexico etc etc.

Everyone looks at the cost of those pensions and sucks their teeth and shakes their head and mutters about where that's going to come from. I promise, that won't hurt anywhere near as much as the tax those boomers are about to stop paying.

There's also a bunch of talk about whether we should change the rules and delay paying them until 67, eventually. Won't affect me but I'd be OK with it, we're living far longer and better. I hear Juicinda getting a bit shrill about shafting "her generation" and talk in the press about how super is funded, whether it's pay as you go or pre-funded sort of defines who's going to cop the bill. Seems politicians from both sides think it's pay as you go, so each generation pays for it's parents super. But every taxpayer I've ever talked to about it considers that a part of their tax was always paying for their own pension. So just another classic example of vote buying taking precedence over what those who actually pay for shit want.


Why not just sign the rights of our water over to the superfund and sell it for foreign money? Cha-chiiiing.

[Swoop]

There's also a bunch of talk about whether we should change the rules and delay paying them until 67...

The one specific reason that I refused to be sucked into kiwislaver.
They take your money and then keep moving the goalposts as to when you might see some of it again. My private scheme has payout beginning when I turn 60.

All of the investment people I have been approached by and had them ask "why don't you start Kiwislaver", have absolutely no reply when I ask about the moving goalposts. Complete silence. Only one has said "oh, yeah..." and not progressed further with the discussion.

I have been offered a narrow boat in England to cruise about on. If liarbour get in, this will be seriously considered as an option.

[Ocean1]

Why not just sign the rights of our water over to the superfund and sell it for foreign money? Cha-chiiiing.

:laugh: For the same reason we shouldn't just sign the rights of someone else's earnings over to ourselves: we don't own them.

It's this inherent failure to recognise that the person who owns shit is the person that earned it that defines socialism. And it's this exact failure that explains why socialism is, at best a short term, if somewhat painful experiment.

And actually, the super fund has done spectacularly well over the years, and it's a shame contributions weren't maintained. I sort of get the fact that borrowing more than we did to maintain it made more economic sense, but I'd quite like to have resumed payments when we could afford it. Unfortunately there's too many needy Kiwis right now for us to be able to afford saving for any mere retiring taxpayers.

[Woodman]

:laugh: For the same reason we shouldn't just sign the rights of someone else's earnings over to ourselves: we don't own them.

It's this inherent failure to recognise that the person who owns shit is the person that earned it that defines socialism. And it's this exact failure that explains why socialism is, at best a short term, if somewhat painful experiment.

And actually, the super fund has done spectacularly well over the years, and it's a shame contributions weren't maintained. I sort of get the fact that borrowing more than we did to maintain it made more economic sense, but I'd quite like to have resumed payments when we could afford it. Unfortunately there's too many needy Kiwis right now for us to be able to afford saving for any mere retiring taxpayers.

I just see it as a resource and an increasingly scarce resource that NZ can make a lot of money from. I see it more of a capitalist venture than a form of socialism. It could be used to pay off our debt for example. The stuff is just sitting there waiting to be exploited.

[Voltaire]

If it was oil that was there, ownership would be sorted out pretty quick.

[Woodman]

If it was oil that was there, ownership would be sorted out pretty quick.

Exactly. I see no difference.

[AllanB]

If it was oil that was there, ownership would be sorted out pretty quick.

That's some truth.

Then again there would be a decade of court claims by the tribes if it was oil.

Probably will be over the water tax. :facepalm:


What's the farmers up for in a couple weeks? water tax, land tax, higher income tax (maybe not if they earn F-all after paying taxes).


Mind you I don't buy into Bills 'cleaning the rivers' slow approach - make it happen faster as once they are fucked it's a hard road to get them back.

[Ocean1]

I just see it as a resource and an increasingly scarce resource that NZ can make a lot of money from. I see it more of a capitalist venture than a form of socialism. It could be used to pay off our debt for example. The stuff is just sitting there waiting to be exploited.

Yeah, I know. Except, look out your window, how scarce is that shit overflowing your drains, now?

Sorry mate, I'll just stick to the incorruptible test that says that if you didn't create it then you don't own it. Anything else is open to interpretation, and it's never your interpretation, so if you do actually create shit and actually do own it then you always lose.


If it was oil that was there, ownership would be sorted out pretty quick.

Any idea how much of the price you pay for oil products is actually represented by the cost of the oil?

Pro tip: it's well less than the price of that bottle of water in the supermarket.

The rest is all supply infrastructure and tax.

[Voltaire]

Yeah, I know. Except, look out your window, how scarce is that shit overflowing your drains, now?

Sorry mate, I'll just stick to the incorruptible test that says that if you didn't create it then you don't own it. Anything else is open to interpretation, and it's never your interpretation, so if you do actually create shit and actually do own it then you always lose.



Any idea how much of the price you pay for oil products is actually represented by the cost of the oil?

Pro tip: it's well less than the price of that bottle of water in the supermarket.

The rest is all supply infrastructure and tax.
You can apply that to most things. Fish, wine.... dare I say it milk.why do we drink it anyway...weird if you think about it.

[Ocean1]

That's some truth.

Then again there would be a decade of court claims by the tribes if it was oil.

Probably will be over the water tax. :facepalm:


What's the farmers up for in a couple weeks? water tax, land tax, higher income tax (maybe not if they earn F-all after paying taxes).


Mind you I don't buy into Bills 'cleaning the rivers' slow approach - make it happen faster as once they are fucked it's a hard road to get them back.

I agree. So regulate to reduce what causes it. But that's got sweet fuck all to do with whether or not you remove 0.0000000002% of the genuinely epic quantities of water flowing from the Southern Alps before it arrives at the ocean. That's just simple, unattractive envy.

[Ocean1]

You can apply that to most things. Fish, wine.... dare I say it milk.why do we drink it anyway...weird if you think about it.

No, you can't, distribution and tax is rarely such a huge percentage of the cost of supply.

Funnily enough it's often actual production, bizarre, I know, but making shit actually creates value. Never catch on of course.

[Woodman]

Yeah, I know. Except, look out your window, how scarce is that shit overflowing your drains, now?

Sorry mate, I'll just stick to the incorruptible test that says that if you didn't create it then you don't own it. Anything else is open to interpretation, and it's never your interpretation, so if you do actually create shit and actually do own it then you always lose.



Any idea how much of the price you pay for oil products is actually represented by the cost of the oil?

Pro tip: it's well less than the price of that bottle of water in the supermarket.

The rest is all supply infrastructure and tax.

Can't say that I understand your point of view at all, but its yours and you are entitled to it. Crude oil is about 33cents per litre currently. NZ could get that for our water. I think the powers that be are too chickenshit to start charging foreign corporations for it due to the shitfight money grab that wil happen internally.
Actually, would that fight be enough of an effort/cost to make you change your mind about selling it?

[Ocean1]

Can't say that I understand your point of view at all, but its yours and you are entitled to it. Crude oil is about 33cents per litre currently. NZ could get that for our water. I think the powers that be are too chickenshit to start charging foreign corporations for it due to the shitfight money grab that wil happen internally.
Actually, would that fight be enough of an effort/cost to make you change your mind about selling it?

Would extra cash change my perception of how basic ethics work?

No.

[Woodman]

Would extra cash change my perception of how basic ethics work?

No.

What about the millions of marketing dollars spent on promoting NZs clean green image that adds value to the water? probably the same clean green image that the people who sell our water now are using to add value to it. How much do they pay us for that privilege?

[Ocean1]

What about the millions of marketing dollars spent on promoting NZs clean green image that adds value to the water? probably the same clean green image that the people who sell our water now are using to add value to it. How much do they pay us for that privilege?

Those foreign bastards are spending nothing on marketing? Completely failing to promote NZ's clean green image in the process? The cunts!

So who, actually did pay for all that marketing? I suspect that if you could be bothered rooting out the details you'd find almost every instance of such advertising since day one has been commercially funded. And yet you're blaming them for cashing in on "our" efforts? :laugh:

Here's how you do it properly, dude: Go float your own enterprise, navigate the rort that is the RMA and get local authority approvals, (a substantial backhander probably helps), build your own multi million dollar bottling facility, negotiate the off shore distribution agreements, hire a few dozen staff, pay for the first year or so's outgoings with zero income and THEN tell us how well you're ripping all them Kiwis off, eh?

[Voltaire]

Foreign companies seem very good at minimising their taxable exposure....http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/nz-multinational-tax-gap/:rolleyes:

[Ocean1]

Foreign companies seem very good at minimising their taxable exposure....http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/nz-multinational-tax-gap/:rolleyes:

Link broke.

But, what was that old saw about "no representation without taxation"?

Doesn't seem to work the other way around, though...

[Woodman]

Those foreign bastards are spending nothing on marketing? Completely failing to promote NZ's clean green image in the process? The cunts!

So who, actually did pay for all that marketing? I suspect that if you could be bothered rooting out the details you'd find almost every instance of such advertising since day one has been commercially funded. And yet you're blaming them for cashing in on "our" efforts? :laugh:

Here's how you do it properly, dude: Go float your own enterprise, navigate the rort that is the RMA and get local authority approvals, (a substantial backhander probably helps), build your own multi million dollar bottling facility, negotiate the off shore distribution agreements, hire a few dozen staff, pay for the first year or so's outgoings with zero income and THEN tell us how well you're ripping all them Kiwis off, eh?

Didn't say they were ripping us off, ripping off would mean that someone is being misled and that isn't happening, rather just can't understand why the water is available free. What other resource in other countries can be had without some form of compensatory payment? Getting a NZ company to start up a bottling plant is a great idea, government backhanders and concubines all good with me if thats what it takes.

[Voltaire]

Link broke.

But, what was that old saw about "no representation without taxation"?

Doesn't seem to work the other way around, though...

That's an American Myth about how they perceived the British treated them... a damn sight better than other countries they raped and pillaged. Clearly they learnt off the masters but not as successful with the implementation

[Ocean1]

That's an American Myth about how they perceived the British treated them... a damn sight better than other countries they raped and pillaged. Clearly they learnt off the masters but not as successful with the implementation

Aye. My point was there probably should be a link between taxing any entity and giving them a say in how their money is spent.

You'd never sell that here, but that's the point: there's plenty of examples where minorities are required to pay for shit by the majority. Nobody I know would call that fair or reasonable, but those same people will continue to vote themselves other peoples money. And now that you mention it, that other form of slavery wasn't voted out, it took a civil war.

I suspect that "broken link" was in fact a paywall. Which means you're subscribed to teh Harrold?

I'm telling Swoop. :laugh:

[Ocean1]

Didn't say they were ripping us off, ripping off would mean that someone is being misled and that isn't happening, rather just can't understand why the water is available free. What other resource in other countries can be had without some form of compensatory payment? Getting a NZ company to start up a bottling plant is a great idea, government backhanders and concubines all good with me if thats what it takes.

So why don't you do it?

[Woodman]

So why don't you do it?


Now come on thats a katman style diversion. You are way better than that.

And I don't need to do it, but I think its a good idea.

[Voltaire]

Aye. My point was there probably should be a link between taxing any entity and giving them a say in how their money is spent.

You'd never sell that here, but that's the point: there's plenty of examples where minorities are required to pay for shit by the majority. Nobody I know would call that fair or reasonable, but those same people will continue to vote themselves other peoples money. And now that you mention it, that other form of slavery wasn't voted out, it took a civil war.

I suspect that "broken link" was in fact a paywall. Which means you're subscribed to teh Harrold?

I'm telling Swoop. :laugh:

Whilst not being as millen .... mellenial.... young people adjacent as stardust, I don't pay to read the Herald. quality media bludging/sharing is getting harder. I'm for user pays. Sell your stuff here including advertising leaches like Facebook/google/uber/airbnb and so on who are coining ( bitcoining) by not playing by the rules. Oh and probably amazon.

[Ocean1]

Waitaminute...

I smell a rat!

[Voltaire]

speaking of rats...

Ron Marks saying that both Nat and Lab may have to swallow some as NZ will be needed.

But worse....he plays country and western music.

I like Labs " No foreign ownership of existing houses by Chrissy", I'm sure that will be easy to get around.

[Ocean1]

speaking of rats...

Ron Marks saying that both Nat and Lab may have to swallow some as NZ will be needed.

But worse....he plays country and western music.

I like Labs " No foreign ownership of existing houses by Chrissy", I'm sure that will be easy to get around.

Yeah, if there's one thing worse than some rich prick paying more for shit than you can afford it's a foreign rich prick paying foreign cash for shit you can't afford. :laugh:

And when other countries nationalise NZ assets inside their borders and impose import tariffs it took us a generation to dismantle in retaliation?

[oldrider]

Read this while poking about the net - thought it pertinent to our own political situation - like why the best laid plans of our politicians always fizzle out to nothing! :oi-grr:

Could there be something in it that parallels our own situation? https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/09/Truck-Driver-Faces-the-NWO.html

Old Adage: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" :scratch: We probably all agree that our pollies start out intending to help the world and do good works? :rolleyes:

Yet all we ever get is more and more pathetic MEDIOCRITY at best! :brick:

[Voltaire]

Yeah, if there's one thing worse than some rich prick paying more for shit than you can afford it's a foreign rich prick paying foreign cash for shit you can't afford. :laugh:

And when other countries nationalise NZ assets inside their borders and impose import tariffs it took us a generation to dismantle in retaliation?

That's right, there must be thousands of Rich Prick Kiwis buying houses in Beijing....oh apart from that you can't if your a non resident.

Whats good for the Goose should be good for the Peking Duck :lol:



http://www.china.org.cn/english/LivinginChina/220516.htm


What Are the Rules for Foreigners Buying House in Beijing?


Foreigners who intend to buy a house in Beijing need a certificate issued by the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau to prove that they have stayed in China for at least one year for reasons of work or study, according to a statement jointly issued by six ministries led by the Construction Ministry.



The rule required that foreigners only use and dwell in the house themselves and not buy a house for other purposes.



Foreigners were also required to use their real names when buying a house in China.

[Ocean1]

That's right, there must be thousands of Rich Prick Kiwis buying houses in Beijing....oh apart from that you can't if your a non resident.

Whats good for the Goose should be good for the Peking Duck :lol:



http://www.china.org.cn/english/LivinginChina/220516.htm

Good point, and it'd be nice if the rules were the same worldwide, but there turns out to be fairly severe repercussions in trying to heavy hand trade partners that are 300 times your size.

So just how many Auckland houses are owned by Chinese rich pricks anyway? And are they paying more than Kiwis?

[Voltaire]

Good point, and it'd be nice if the rules were the same worldwide, but there turns out to be fairly severe repercussions in trying to heavy hand trade partners that are 300 times your size.

So just how many Auckland houses are owned by Chinese rich pricks anyway? And are they paying more than Kiwis?

Yeah, the Chinese might take kindly to that one Jacinda.

Only evidence seems to be anecdotal, but my BIL who was looking a purchasing a rental in 2015 worked local to BF and T's auction rooms and the few he went to

went to the person at the end of the phone.

Got a huge monstrosity being built across the road from me, been interesting seeing all the various tradies and PM's coming and going..... I'll give it to immigrants they sure put the hours in. Does look odd a large 4/5 bedroom two story house on what would struggle to be 400 square metres.

[Swoop]

I like Labs " No foreign ownership of existing houses by Chrissy", I'm sure that will be easy to get around.
Yes, it makes for a lovely sound bite that the media and plebs will lap up.
Putting it into practice would be ..."challenging" to say the least. As for having it done by imaginary sky-pixie's birthday.:lol:

Just put it onto the already lengthy list of stuff to "fix" that they already have written up:
Solve the house price crisis,
Eliminate homelessness on the streets (they have had their chance to fix this since the 70's - didn't work then either),
Eliminate "child poverty" (give away more taxpayers money to parents who will be off to the pokie machines asap),
Free education for everyone (to help their union mates in education),
Solve traffic problems throughout the country,
Help Winnie move Auckland's port up Norf,
Have sparkling clean rivers everywhere,
Solve all problems at hospitals, including the waiting lists,
Etc,




Got a huge monstrosity being built across the road from me, been interesting seeing all the various tradies and PM's coming and going..... I'll give it to immigrants they sure put the hours in. Does look odd a large 4/5 bedroom two story house on what would struggle to be 400 square metres.
Keep a really good eye on the place for the build quality.
I watched exactly the same happening on the North Shore and the place looked lovely, but dodgy as fuck. Weatherboards held on by one (yes ONE!) nail apart from the ends of the board where it met a window.
Weird design aspects too. Stunning views over the Waitemata so they put in really small windows! Like living in a Beijing apartment block.:rolleyes:

[Ocean1]

Yeah, the Chinese might take kindly to that one Jacinda.

Only evidence seems to be anecdotal, but my BIL who was looking a purchasing a rental in 2015 worked local to BF and T's auction rooms and the few he went to

went to the person at the end of the phone.

Aye, the only stab at actual numbers I've seen was surprisingly small, not useful in supporting rampant xenophobia at all.

Maybe that's where I'm going wrong, I don't do auctions. Although I must admit I have made post-auction offers before now, one of which worked out.

I most certainly don't do "deadline" marketing bullshit either, if you want to sell me stuff then you get to tell me what you want for it and then I decide if that's what I want to pay, I'm fucked if I'll queue up to plead my case at the behest of some fuckwit that thinks he holds all the cards. :laugh:

[Ocean1]

Keep a really good eye on the place for the build quality.
I watched exactly the same happening on the North Shore and the place looked lovely, but dodgy as fuck. Weatherboards held on by one (yes ONE!) nail apart from the ends of the board where it met a window.
Weird design aspects too. Stunning views over the Waitemata so they put in really small windows! Like living in a Beijing apartment block.:rolleyes:

But, but... there's standards, and shit. How can they possibly be sub-optimal quality?

[pete376403]

Good point, and it'd be nice if the rules were the same worldwide, but there turns out to be fairly severe repercussions in trying to heavy hand trade partners that are 300 times your size.

So just how many Auckland houses are owned by Chinese rich pricks anyway? And are they paying more than Kiwis?
Can think of at least one

https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/keys-20m-mansion-sale-great-timing-him-poor-timing-english
"It went to a buyer in China"

[Ocean1]

Can think of at least one

https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/keys-20m-mansion-sale-great-timing-him-poor-timing-english
"It went to a buyer in China"

And the associated link confirms my recollection of the actual numbers: "Covering January to March 2017, the report shows 3 percent of all property transfers involved overseas tax resident buyers and 3 percent involved tax resident sellers."

A net foreign ownership growth of zero.

And that's not whether those living there are foreigners, it's just where the money comes from.

Depressing to see Winnie's xenophobic rants finding such fertile ground in a country where every one of us are recent immigrants.

[Voltaire]

And the associated link confirms my recollection of the actual numbers: "Covering January to March 2017, the report shows 3 percent of all property transfers involved overseas tax resident buyers and 3 percent involved tax resident sellers."

A net foreign ownership growth of zero.

And that's not whether those living there are foreigners, it's just where the money comes from.

Depressing to see Winnie's xenophobic rants finding such fertile ground in a country where every one of us are recent immigrants.

Suppose it comes down to what sources are?

I prefer the Herald one at 60% of houses sold went to Chinese investors and who can blame them with NZ being a soft touch and interest rates being so low.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11636711

[Ocean1]

Suppose it comes down to what sources are?

I prefer the Herald one at 60% of houses sold went to Chinese investors and who can blame them with NZ being a soft touch and interest rates being so low.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11636711


Nearly 60 per cent of Auckland houses sold to foreign buyers went to Chinese investors.

I have no idea how he figured they were investors rather than, say parents buying their immigrant kids a house.

And in fact the very same article...


Across all of New Zealand, 3 per cent of houses sold between January and March went to people who were not New Zealand citizens

So the sources are obviously less important than how they're interpreted.

Edit: and I doubt any of those Chinese "investors" would have been borrowing anything whatsoever, it's simply not how they do business, and certainly not from NZ/Aus banks.

[Woodman]

Depressing to see Winnie's xenophobic rants finding such fertile ground in a country where every one of us are recent immigrants.

This is something that so called "real kiwis" tend to forget.

[sidecar bob]

Incidentally Jacinda, the letter T is not prononounced as D you fucking peasant.

[Grumph]

Incidentally Jacinda, the letter T is not prononounced as D you fucking peasant.

Was she in Dauranga today ? I saw the National bus going the other way on my way to town today - I kept going my way.

[Ocean1]

Dear Jacinda,

I’ve seen you on the telly, dear,
There’s quite a hullabaloo,
But taxing this and taxing that
Means my two ticks stay BLUE

You’ll tax us on our assets
There’s nothing you won’t snatch
You’ll tax us on our holidays
You’ll tax the boat or bach

You’ve said you’ll slap a tax on fuel
So when I need the car
I can’t afford to fill it up
I won’t get very far!

You’ll tax water by the litre
And our farms will hit the wall
Have you forgotten it’s the farmers
Who grow food to feed us all?

You’ve said you’ll tax emissions,
Does that mean mine as well?
If I can’t afford to fart, my dear,
Your tax can go to hell!

You’ll tax us on the things we own
Is nothing off the table?
I dread to think what else you’ll tax
As soon as you are able

I’m told you want a ‘gift’ tax
So the bit I’ve got put by
I can’t give to my grand-kids?
They can kiss my gift good-bye?

You’ll take the joy from giving
And even when I’m dead
You’ll slap me with Inheritance tax
Or take my house instead

Taxing the shit out of all of us
Is just not very nice
And I’m hoping at the polls, my dear,
The Left will pay the price

Truth to tell, Taxinda,
I think you’ve lost the plot
You’ll not get my vote, sweetheart,
My ‘comrade’ you are not!

So thank you for reading my letter,
I’ve got things off my chest
Just leave it up to National, dear…
They really do know best.

So I’ll vote for Mr English
And his team - they’ll get it right!
A pretty smile is not enough
Goodnight, Ms Ardern…….Goodnight

Stolen from Val Davis. :clap:

[pete376403]

Dear Jacinda,

....stuff...

Stolen from Val Davis. :clap:

Or there is this: (we know all about item 10)

[Ocean1]

Or there is this: (we know all about item 10)

Pah, compared to Juicinda the man's a fucking amateur. :laugh:

[AllanB]

Incidentally Jacinda, the letter T is not pronounced as D you fucking peasant.

Mate - that's not fair picking on the disabled. Her top lip does not fit her new teeth.

Mind you I wish Bill on his $450k annual income would get some oral work done.

[Doppleganger]

I hope Labour get in, they can take $20,- $40 out of my weekly wage as long as they give it to education, housing and health care.

Fucking over the haves V's have nots and the sickening evidence of greed creeping into our society.
A school teacher or a nurse cant afford to live in our biggest city anymore. People that don't even live here outbidding each other to buy homes to charge massive rents to Kiwis!!

National rock up after taxing the fuck out of us for the last nine years and bang on about Labours plans what a fukin joke
Add to that selling off our assets, cutting massive chunks out of education and health care budgets but letting huge corporations get away with little or no tax.

[T.W.R]

Mate - that's not fair picking on the disabled. Her top lip does not fit her new teeth.

Mind you I wish Bill on his $450k annual income would get some oral work done.

:clap: bet you're no fuckin oil painting either eh Fabio? :oi-grr:

[Grumph]

I hope Labour get in, they can take $20,- $40 out of my weekly wage as long as they give it to education, housing and health care.

Fucking over the haves V's have nots and the sickening evidence of greed creeping into our society.
A school teacher or a nurse cant afford to live in our biggest city anymore. People that don't even live here outbidding each other to buy homes to charge massive rents to Kiwis!!

National rock up after taxing the fuck out of us for the last nine years and bang on about Labours plans what a fukin joke
Add to that selling off our assets, cutting massive chunks out of education and health care budgets but letting huge corporations get away with little or no tax.

I'm picking you may have watched the Brian Brake doco the other night "Who owns NZ"
Well researched and put together. Pity it's not compulsory viewing for politicians....

[Voltaire]

I'm picking you may have watched the Brian Brake doco the other night "Who owns NZ"
Well researched and put together. Pity it's not compulsory viewing for politicians....


Reading the Herald review didn't sound like there were lots of facts, just getting money of NZ on Air


Yet such international solutions to our housing issues are foregone in favour of race-baiting and a Bruce family history.

That self-involvement is understandable. Who Owns New Zealand Now? was written, directed, produced and line-edited by one man: Bryan Bruce - whose production company Red Sky has been NZ on Air-funded 18 times in 18 years, totalling just shy of $4.5m.

Among those have been titles of merit and importance - but this is not one of them. Instead it's an indulgent, cheaply-made and presented travelogue with through lines of old-fashioned nostalgia and scaremongering. It should not have been made.

I think that in the end all the wealth is going to be in the hands of the few and the rest of us will just be wage slaves to pay off junk they peddle and overpriced houses.

[Grumph]

Reading the Herald review didn't sound like there were lots of facts, just getting money of NZ on Air


I'd suggest the writer of that had an axe to grind. Watch it and see for yourself.

[Voltaire]

I'd suggest the writer of that had an axe to grind. Watch it and see for yourself.

I watched " Why are we fat", one depressing doc a week is enough :innocent:

Don't they all have a barrow to push along?

I was living in Ireland ( 2002- 04) during the Celtic Tiger, was on about 60K NZ with a brand new company VW Passat ( Refrigeration Sales) and everyone was

spending like there was no

tomorrow. I remember a work mate who said about Galway " If its got a roof its worth 180K Euro"... Kids of 10 were getting mobile phones for their First Holy

Communion, people were buying holiday homes in Europe, going on overseas trips, buying cars, rental properties, going out every night drinking.......

Gee whiz....it was all fueled on debt.

[Ocean1]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96830392/labour-releases-full-tax-plan-in-response-to-criticism-over-its-working-group

"The party has been under sustained pressure from the Government and the media to clarify exactly what its taxation working group, which they are setting up to combat the housing crisis, will be looking at."

Here's what's got me: In attempting to reduce the cost of homes why are they looking at taxing them?

[sidecar bob]

Here's what's got me: In attempting to reduce the cost of homes why are they looking at taxing them?

Take a look at the dopey pricks. Seriously, if your doctor or dentist was as stupid as most politicians you would find another one.
I look at the election hoardings & think, what the fuck, really is this the best we can do?

[husaberg]

https://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NZ-debt-CLark-Key-comparison-620x465.jpg


August 2011 – “In only three years we will be one of the first developed countries back in surplus. After that, we will be repaying debt while other countries keep borrowing.”
October 2011 – “An earlier return to surplus gives future governments more choices, and National is focused on that goal”
November 2011 – “We are committed to getting back to surplus in 2014/15 and that significant challenge will require ongoing spending restraint across the public sector and a focus on innovation and results.”
January 2012 – “Mr Key said that the Government’s focus on responsibly managing its finances includes a commitment to return to surplus in 2014/15 – which National campaigned on at the election.”
April 2012 – “Getting back to surplus is a challenge but we are making the decisions required to get there, so that we can pay down debt and have more choices about what we want to do.”
April 2013 – “We remain firmly on track to reach surplus in 2014/15.”
May 2013 – “New Zealand’s economy is in good shape. The Budget confirms the Government will get back to surplus by 2014/15.”
January 2014 – “After much hard work, the Government is effecting a remarkable turnaround in the books, with the latest forecasts showing a budget surplus in the next financial year – 2014/15 – after which government debt begins to fall.”
May 2014 – “A $500 million support package for families and children, dividends from a growing economy, and a track to surplus next year are all features of Budget 2014.”
Even the 2014 election campaign material continued this theme that a surplus was just around the corner. Remember this?
Since National came into government, we have been working towards achieving a surplus in the 2014/15 year as well as reducing debt.
But the earlier euphoric confidence started to wear off after the 2014 election.
October 2014 – “The Government is focused on returning to surplus.”
January 2015 – “The Government is working towards a surplus and repaying debt.”

Each year the Government runs a deficit it drives public debt up further, and that comes at a cost.
For instance, at the moment financing debt costs taxpayers about $4 billion a year, expected to rise close to $5 billion by 2018.

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NZDEBT_zpsb1d16e48-600x462.png


https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-sales-tax-rate.png?s=nzlsalestax&v=201707031845v

https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-corporate-tax-rate.png?s=nzlcorptax&v=201707031845v

https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=nzldebt2gdp&v=201707031845v

https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt.png?s=newzealangovdeb&v=201707031843v

[Woodman]

I hope Labour get in, they can take $20,- $40 out of my weekly wage as long as they give it to education, housing and health care.

Fucking over the haves V's have nots and the sickening evidence of greed creeping into our society.
A school teacher or a nurse cant afford to live in our biggest city anymore. People that don't even live here outbidding each other to buy homes to charge massive rents to Kiwis!!

National rock up after taxing the fuck out of us for the last nine years and bang on about Labours plans what a fukin joke
Add to that selling off our assets, cutting massive chunks out of education and health care budgets but letting huge corporations get away with little or no tax.

Fucking nurses and school teachers, fuck am i sick of hearing about fucking nurses and fucking school teachers being hard done by. There are other people in the country you know. Fucking typical labour fucking claptrap.

[Ocean1]

Take a look at the dopey pricks. Seriously, if your doctor or dentist was as stupid as most politicians you would find another one.
I look at the election hoardings & think, what the fuck, really is this the best we can do?

They're far from stupid, they're just doing their job of buying votes while sticking as close as possible to their ideological roots.

You're just pissed because you're one of the minority paying for the votes they're buying.

[eldog]

Fucking nurses and school teachers, fuck am i sick of hearing about fucking nurses and fucking school teachers being hard done by. There are other people in the country you know. Fucking typical labour fucking claptrap.

I met up with a school teacher the other day, nothing but moaned about how they didn't have money for this or that.

I suggested they take a pay cut and put some of that money in the kitty. (like we do at work and home)

and then the fight started..... :eek:


A friend of mine took his son into A&E - badly damaged knee - (yeah caused by motorX bike crash/accident)
Sat around for approx. 7 hrs and was told they would come and see him. Then maybe get an MRI scan.

The MRI people had gone home hours earlier.....
meanwhile several drunk drivers with :Police: escort got taken care of.
Perhaps drivers found guilty of drunk driving could pay hospital and :Police: costs?

[Swoop]

Fucking nurses and school teachers, fuck am i sick of hearing about fucking nurses and fucking school teachers being hard done by. Fucking typical labour fucking claptrap.

Who is supporting liarbour? The Unions (health sector, teachers, etc) so they play to that tune quite a bit. Wonder why Taxcinda was down the West Coast recently...

[TheDemonLord]

Each year the Government runs a deficit it drives public debt up further, and that comes at a cost.
For instance, at the moment financing debt costs taxpayers about $4 billion a year, expected to rise close to $5 billion by 2018.


There's a few salient points missing there - like what the global economy was doing around 2009, the fact that Labour neglected our public infrastructure for their entire term (How many times have we heard from Mrs Clark that 'this was a Labour idea' - when in reality, it was National that actually did it)

[husaberg]

There's a few salient points missing there - like what the global economy was doing around 2009, the fact that Labour neglected our public infrastructure for their entire term (How many times have we heard from Mrs Clark that 'this was a Labour idea' - when in reality, it was National that actually did it)

Odd that you would say that as the Nats Catchcry at the time was people should be getting tax cuts..... rather than investing in NZs future by repaying crippling debt.
As for infrastructure investment the blue crowd only started this after ignoring and indede not even maintaining it for years, the recent investment is only a result of the last round of election bribes.

[Berries]

Fucking nurses and school teachers, fuck am i sick of hearing about fucking nurses and fucking school teachers being hard done by. There are other people in the country you know. Fucking typical labour fucking claptrap.
I met up with a nurse on Friday night.



It was fucking awesome.

[AllanB]

meanwhile several drunk drivers with :Police: escort got taken care of.
Perhaps drivers found guilty of drunk driving could pay hospital and :Police: costs?

I think anyone turning up shitfaced at A&E needs to be charged. A&E is full of drunken 20 somethings every weekend.

[jasonu]

I met up with a nurse on Friday night.



It was fucking awesome.

Was she the head nurse?

[Doppleganger]

Each year the Government runs a deficit it drives public debt up further, and that comes at a cost.
For instance, at the moment financing debt costs taxpayers about $4 billion a year, expected to rise close to $5 billion by 2018.

Are these Steven Joyce's figures :killingme


Fucking nurses and school teachers, fuck am i sick of hearing about fucking nurses and fucking school teachers being hard done by. There are other people in the country you know. Fucking typical labour fucking claptrap.

Its fucking teachers that raise the kids of dumb fucks like you ya wanker while your out flashing your conservative wads around complaining.

Its fucking nurses that work all hours that put dumb cunts like you back together again after you've had one too many pims and gobbed off to a normal bloke crap like you have here and found your nose under your ear. Then seek mental health services that the Nats have also fucked over because you cant cope..... Twat..

[Woodman]

Are these Steven Joyce's figures :killingme



Its fucking teachers that raise the kids of dumb fucks like you ya wanker while your out flashing your conservative wads around complaining.

Its fucking nurses that work all hours that put dumb cunts like you back together again after you've had one too many pims and gobbed off to a normal bloke crap like you have here and found your nose under your ear. Then seek mental health services that the Nats have also fucked over because you cant cope..... Twat..


Vote National.......

[Voltaire]

Would appear from HB's charts that you can save a lot of money by having Visions ( Waterview Tunnel, Electric Train Network etc) as opposed to actually building them.

[Grumph]

Would appear from HB's charts that you can save a lot of money by having Visions ( Waterview Tunnel, Electric Train Network etc) as opposed to actually building them.

Refer to the "Optimistic Sellers" thread.....Sorry, I couldn't resist.

At this point, I reckon that everyone on here has made up their mind which way they're voting and what's being said is just a rant in case it doesn't go the way they want...
I'll be interested to see over the next year or so just how many of the doomsayers will exit overseas.

Not you Bob, if I win lotto, I'm coming to visit in France...

[Ocean1]

There's a few salient points missing there - like what the global economy was doing around 2009, the fact that Labour neglected our public infrastructure for their entire term ...

A few? :laugh: Labour blew the largest, most sustained revenue take in NZ history on social experiments and a broken train set, leaving the purse so empty there was a very real risk of defaults, having deferred infrastructure spending in the billions to be dealt with through a worldwide recession.

A recession NZ dealt with well enough to gain international attention for how well it's economic policy changes produced world leading productivity.



Look, we get it, the voting majority want more money from the rich, just stop pretending there's some sort of ethical or moral rationale for what's actually simple petty larceny. And not so petty either.

[Ocean1]

Would appear from HB's charts that you can save a lot of money by having Visions ( Waterview Tunnel, Electric Train Network etc) as opposed to actually building them.

I dunno, visions of the transmission gully route out of Wellington lasted about 70 years and cost more than the total budget to actually do the fucking job.

[oldrider]

The only serious income the government has is Taxation - when they borrow the taxpayer coughs up to repay that debt+interest!

Therefore every three years the taxpayers are open tendering a public accountancy contract for politicians to apply for.

When the tender closes the successful applicants get together and form a company and "decide" how they are going to manage (or not!) the contract!

The successful contractors are dependant and accountable to each other for their tenure!

The unsuccessful applicants become beneficiaries and are paid (by the taxpayers) an allowance to hang about and criticise the successful contractor's.

Voters should be careful what they wish for - it's always going to hurt whatever the outcome! :rolleyes: Do we get value for our money with this system? :confused:

[Ocean1]

At this point, I reckon that everyone on here has made up their mind which way they're voting and what's being said is just a rant in case it doesn't go the way they want...

I'll be interested to see over the next year or so just how many of the doomsayers will exit overseas.

Not you Bob, if I win lotto, I'm coming to visit in France...

Of course, there is no argument whatsoever capable of overcoming beliefs based on self interested preconceptions.

You don't have to wait, just cast your eye back to how many Kiwi's jumped ship to Aussie over the last generation, how much tax did they pay there rather than here? That's just recently slowed down, and in the meantime we've lost the most productive of our people. And what's left is looking and sounding more and more like the caricature of the whining Poms we used to laugh at.

Come say hello, I'll be in his pool knocking back Margaritas.

[mada]

Of course, there is no argument whatsoever capable of overcoming beliefs based on self interested preconceptions.

You don't have to wait, just cast your eye back to how many Kiwi's jumped ship to Aussie over the last generation, how much tax did they pay there rather than here? That's just recently slowed down, and in the meantime we've lost the most productive of our people. And what's left is looking and sounding more and more like the caricature of the whining Poms we used to laugh at.

Come say hello, I'll be in his pool knocking back Margaritas.

Yet Australia has higher taxes.... Then again they have significantly higher wages and higher productivity.

Despite our "economic success" as you put it, our productivity hasn't budged. It's commented on internationally because our longer working hours for less worker output are significantly poor compared to other OECD countries and have not budged.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/333086/nz-s-weak-productivity-in-oecd-s-sights

9 Years is a long enough time to achieve shit. If you have to resort to blaming previous governments when you have such a long period of rule, then we could all go back to pinning all the blame on Muldoon's National Govt. The whole retain power at the cost of everything is getting lame.

It would be good if National and Labour actually sat the fuck down with each other and listened to Treasury for once on the implications of their policies eg:

National: "We're going to help first home buyers by boosting first home grant" "We'll help renters by spending billions on accommodation supplement"
Treasury: "These subsidies will only inflate the markets and not increase homeownership rates"

Labour: "We're going to help low income workers by raising minimum wages"
Treasury: "These increases will cause inflation, or increase unemployment"

Treasury: "The pension needs to be altered NOW. In its current state it is unaffordable"
Labour under Helen: "Lets create a private saving scheme to prepare"
National under Key: "Lets use that scheme for property!"

Labour now: "lets just increase funding for the saving scheme / means test"
National now: "We wont do anything" "Oh wait we will do something in 2047"

NZFirst: "Don't you touch the fucking pension. Free Dr's visits for the elderly, give them free debit cards! on top of their subsidised transport"

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[Ocean1]

Yet Australia has higher taxes.... Then again they have significantly higher wages and higher productivity.

Despite our "economic success" as you put it, our productivity hasn't budged. It's commented on internationally because our longer working hours for less worker output are significantly poor compared to other OECD countries and have not budged.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/333086/nz-s-weak-productivity-in-oecd-s-sights

9 Years is a long enough time to achieve shit. If you have to resort to blaming previous governments when you have such a long period of rule, then we could all go back to pinning all the blame on Muldoon's National Govt. The whole retain power at the cost of everything is getting lame.

It would be good if National and Labour actually sat the fuck down with each other and listened to Treasury for once on the implications of their policies eg:

National: "We're going to help first home buyers by boosting first home grant" "We'll help renters by spending billions on accommodation supplement"
Treasury: "These subsidies will only inflate the markets and not increase homeownership rates"

Labour: "We're going to help low income workers by raising minimum wages"
Treasury: "These increases will cause inflation, or increase unemployment"

Treasury: "The pension needs to be altered NOW. In its current state it is unaffordable"
Labour under Helen: "Lets create a private saving scheme to prepare"
National under Key: "Lets use that scheme for property!"

Labour now: "lets just increase funding for the saving scheme / means test"
National now: "We wont do anything" "Oh wait we will do something in 2047"

NZFirst: "Don't you touch the fucking pension. Free Dr's visits for the elderly, give them free debit cards! on top of their subsidised transport"

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

No, our productivity is very good, we just don't see that in terms of gdp/php because exchange rates are heavilly weighted against us. If you doubt that just brows through the web for both US and NZ products available in the US, and what they charge there vs here. We're a tiny speck on the international economy, pipsqueaks always have to work harder.

And yes, tax in Aus is higher, as are wages, but the reason our more productive units go there is because the standard of living is better. Which almost certainly has fuck all to do with tax and more to do with the same reason NZ doesn't get paid as much: they're bigger.

And yes, maybe if people didn't expect more of governments than their means allow them to provide we might get less bullshit and more jellybeans.

Me, in spite of the truly hideous tax I pay I'd be happy to pay more. All they'd have to do is spend it on everyone, equally. I get tired of being fleeced more and at a higher rate at every possible opportunity only to be told: "You're a rich prick, you don't need help".

[Maha]

Voted today, 100% certain I backed a winner.

[oldrider]

Voted today, 100% certain I backed a winner.

M'kay - lets track that action over the next three years and see if it gets you the the satisfaction that you are so anticipating! :confused:

First time in my life - I have decide not to vote! - If I change my mind at the last minute it will be for the incumbent National local candidate and party vote National.

Hobson's choice really! :o

[pritch]

leaving the purse so empty there was a very real risk of defaults,

Wot? Like National under Muldoon did? I think that was worse, there was concern they couldn't even pay the overseas embassies.

I'm old so maybe I harbour less illusions/delusions. Remember that whoever you vote for, you are voting for a politician. Politicians tell you what they think you want to hear but they will do what they want. Don't expect too much, that way lies disappointment.

Having said that, you should vote. There are people in the world who don't have that opportunity.

[AllanB]

9 Years is a long enough time to achieve shit.


On the face of it yes.

BUT look at how the rest of the world went broke, mad and changed governments like panties during that period of GLOBAL economic unrest.

I put forward that they performed superbly for the first two terms then dialed back for the third. If they get a fourth (??????) they better bloody shine instead of presume that they will be outed the next time (statistically a given) and just cruise for three years.


Side note. I think National should have courted The Green Party as soon as Jacinda took over and dry-butt-shafted them. A National Party with a Green thumb should do well.

[AllanB]

Wot? Like National under Muldoon did?


I was thinking the other day. Of all the governments etc I've been through my adult life what/who/which has made any memorial difference?

I came up with:

Muldoon - think big projects. Regardless of wage freezes, union bans etc where would we be now if those hydro dams had not been built (in a fucking environment court still probably).

David Lange - nuclear free. GST.

Key - for being the PM one could relate to the most (despite being a multi millionaire).


That's it.

[eldog]

Each year the Government runs a deficit it drives public debt up further, and that comes at a cost.
For instance, at the moment financing debt costs taxpayers about $4 billion a year, expected to rise close to $5 billion by 2018.

i have deleted various graphs from post, but would be interesting to see actual GDP, overseas exchange rate, $exported and imported over the same time

if I have read the graph right debt vs GDP has been slowly reducing even though corporate tax rate has reduce, is this because we are exporting/making more goods?

[Ocean1]

Wot? Like National under Muldoon did? I think that was worse, there was concern they couldn't even pay the overseas embassies.

I'm old so maybe I harbour less illusions/delusions. Remember that whoever you vote for, you are voting for a politician. Politicians tell you what they think you want to hear but they will do what they want. Don't expect too much, that way lies disappointment.

Having said that, you should vote. There are people in the world who don't have that opportunity.

Exactly like Muldoon did. The only difference is his profligacy in the face of a recession produced something tangible. Worth nowhere near what he'd spent, true, but as you know we had no luck whatsoever with most of the think big projects. And hardly surprising anyway, any servant of history of such advanced vintage as yourself will recognise that governments are no better at spending other people's money than anyone else that didn't earn it. To say the very least.

There was never even the slightest chance, however of Labour's "investments", (from the luxury of a decade of record income) producing even those paltry returns.

And like anyone as old as you if you're at all a quick learner you should expect those that work hard to be taxed on more of their earnings than they were before an election.

Uncle Addison is certainly under no illusions to the contrary..... https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/sep/27/tax.jobsandmoney

[pete376403]

Muldoon blew the best chance NZ had of ever being able to pay its way. The Lange Labour govt superannuation scheme had massive potential. Muldoon could see it too, and the best he could offer, to get National back in, was to tout "non contributory (ha!) superannuation. And look where that's got us.
Kiwisaver is starting to get there again, but how much better off would the country be if it had the benefit of an extra 27 years of superannuation saving?

Of course the polies still have an entirely seperate, contributory super scheme - they aren't going to struggle.

[pritch]

[QUOTE=AllanB;1131063223

Muldoon - think big projects. where would we be now if those hydro dams had not been built (in a fucking environment court still probably).

[/QUOTE]

I don't remember any hydro schemes in think big, you'll have to remind me? I do remember some energy projects including a synthetic petrol plant that cost 17 Billion and then the Govt virtually paid someone to take it off their hands. What's left of that project is now Canadian owned and produces methanol which is shipped overseas and the profits go to Canada. The synthetic fuel facility was cut up and sold for scrap. Just as well the world isn't going to run out of oil at any stage. :whistle:

The other "think big" methanol plant is also now owned by the same Canadian company.

[AllanB]

The Clyde Dam springs to mind.

Some of those Southern Dams are impressive buildings - thinking of one of the Waitaki ones, way before Sir Rob, in the 30's I think. It's quite a stunning building.


There are people who believe the Clyde Dam is build on fault lines or similar and is a ticking time bomb.

[Laava]

I don't remember any hydro schemes in think big, you'll have to remind me? I do remember some energy projects including a synthetic petrol plant that cost 17 Billion and then the Govt virtually paid someone to take it off their hands. What's left of that project is now Canadian owned and produces methanol which is shipped overseas and the profits go to Canada. The synthetic fuel facility was cut up and sold for scrap. Just as well the world isn't going to run out of oil at any stage. :whistle:

The other "think big" methanol plant is also now owned by the same Canadian company.

Don't forget Marsden B power station...

[husaberg]

i have deleted various graphs from post, but would be interesting to see actual GDP, overseas exchange rate, $exported and imported over the same time

if I have read the graph right debt vs GDP has been slowly reducing even though corporate tax rate has reduce, is this because we are exporting/making more goods?

All GDP figure are estimates the source of the graphs figures are from NZ teasury.
Plus no you haven't read the graph correctly the GDP to Debt level has climbed significantly under National. Its doubled.
https://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NZ-debt-CLark-Key-comparison-620x465.jpg

[Maha]

Don't forget Marsden B power station...

Which is now in India, I remember it being dismantled over a few visits to our Wai Whare at Ruakaka.

[Laava]

Which is now in India, I remember it being dismantled over a few visits to our Wai Whare at Ruakaka.

Yep, I imagine it will be belching out smoke somewhere, fuelled by pig coal, old tyres and widows(alive or dead).

[eldog]

All GDP figure are estimates the source of the graphs figures are from NZ teasury.
Plus no you haven't read the graph correctly the GDP to Debt level has climbed significantly under National. Its doubled.



Do you have a more upto date graph it stops at 2014
i only noticed its starting to be reduced in the latest years what happened in the missing years

[FJRider]

I don't remember any hydro schemes in think big, you'll have to remind me? I do remember some energy projects including a synthetic petrol plant that cost 17 Billion and then the Govt virtually paid someone to take it off their hands. What's left of that project is now Canadian owned and produces methanol which is shipped overseas and the profits go to Canada. The synthetic fuel facility was cut up and sold for scrap. Just as well the world isn't going to run out of oil at any stage. :whistle:

The other "think big" methanol plant is also now owned by the same Canadian company.

Think big schemes included ...

methanol plant at Waitara

ammonia/urea plant at Kapuni

synthetic-petrol plant at Motunui

expansion of the Marsden Point Oil Refinery

expansion of the New Zealand Steel plant at Glenbrook

electrification of the North Island Main Trunk Railway between Te Rapa and Palmerston North

a third reduction line at the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter, near Bluff

the Clyde Dam on the Clutha River.

[eldog]

Think big schemes included ...

methanol plant at Waitara

ammonia/urea plant at Kapuni

synthetic-petrol plant at Motunui

expansion of the Marsden Point Oil Refinery

expansion of the New Zealand Steel plant at Glenbrook - made parts for this

electrification of the North Island Main Trunk Railway between Te Rapa and Palmerston North - made parts for this

a third reduction line at the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter, near Bluff

the Clyde Dam on the Clutha River.- made parts for earthworks

i was involved in a few, on a small scale see above.

[husaberg]

Do you have a more upto date graph it stops at 2014
i only noticed its starting to be reduced in the latest years what happened in the missing years

Talk to NZ teasury.
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=nzldebt2gdp&v=201707031845vhttps://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-external-debt.png?s=newzealanextdeb&v=201707031920v&d1=20160101&d2=20171231
9 years in govermnent and they doubbled the debt to GDP and then achived a tiny forcast in reduction of 1 percent.againt a rise of 20% in the years since they took power thats what you concentrate on................
rather than the massive borrowing............
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-external-debt.png?s=newzealanextdeb&v=201707031920vhttps://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-external-debt.png?s=newzealanextdeb&v=201707031920v&d1=20070101&d2=20171231

[oldrider]

Saw this and thought it topical not just for America but NZ too as we seem to have disappointingly parallel electoral results here! :corn:

Focus on the Fed! by Tony B
(henrymakow.com)

All the billions of words about Trump are meaningless. Unless and until people are willing to actually think, which means getting outside of the box created by the world owner criminals to corrupt their brains, there will only be more confusion.

To understand the U.S. political situation people must be willing to understand that AMERICANS DO NOT VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT, nor for many other high offices when not convenient to our owners. At least one of these arrogant bastards, several decades ago make the unguarded, because true, statement: "AMERICANS ARE TOO STUPID TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT, WE DECIDE WHO WILL BE PRESIDENT." Until you face this simple fact you cannot understand politics because you are forever searching for what exactly it was that got this person the vote and not that person.

Note carefully the following: IN THIS COUNTRY (and undoubtedly most others) THE PARTIES ARE NOW OWNED OUTRIGHT BY THE ROTHSCHILD CABAL SEATED IN ITS CITY OF LONDON. NO ONE CAN BE NAMED ON A BALLOT WHOM THEY DO NOT OWN. ALL "VIABLE" CANDIDATES ARE THEIR PROSTITUTES. ALL, NO EXCEPTIONS. Is everyone too brain dead to see that no matter who is put in what office the direction of the politics NEVER CHANGES?

It is no minor detail that Hillary had been promised this office by that cabal for decades. Have all forgotten that early on in the last election this woman, who could not fill a small room with supporters, was being handed a fake "landslide" victory? The lying media was handing her states almost before the voting began.

As opposition to her, the tactic decided upon, and publically acknowledged, had been someone who would spout "right wing fanaticisms" as, believing their own deceitful lies or else their success in selling them, the people would surely be turned off by this noise. It should be obvious how that succeeded from the huge audiences Trump attracted while Hillary had to resort to depraved but highly promoted entertainment to fill a room.

Then there was an odd election day happening. Someone or some group, real unsung heroes in some ways, began dumping to the public extremely damaging information about Hillary and Co. involvement in child trafficking, child sex, child sacrifice to the devil. ALL VERY TRUE.

This leading UP THE LADDER OF WORLD CONTROL, not down it. To an extend that the cabal, the central promoter of this satanic hell, realized they may all shortly be hanging from lamp posts in their various nations if they did not stem the exposures which they had to know concerned their No 1 satanic choice as president. The were actually forced to change their choice, a first since they grabbed power.

THEN THERE WAS A SUDDEN REVERSAL OF THE MEDIA "VOTE COVERAGE" and those states so happily handed to Hillary were grudgingly pulled back and became "not sure" and finally given to Trump.

So what actually happened? Did the people vote for Trump? Well, maybe but that doesn't matter at all. WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE CABAL FELT FORCED TO DUMP THEIR CHOICE AND PUT IN THEIR SECOND STRING PROSTITUTE.

So what is all the constant blather about? True, from the campaign fanatical flight to Trump of the populous and flight from Hillary, Trump likely was the intended choice of probably 95% of the voters. But does it matter? HE IS OWNED BY THE SAME CABAL THAT OWNS HILLARY, ET AL. HE WILL DO AS HE IS TOLD. UNTIL THE CABAL IS ELIMINATED NOTHING WILL CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. PERIOD.

Why waste time, energy and resources on a president, any president, who will never be YOUR CHOICE unless you work to get rid of the Rothschild cabal. The number one requirement for this to happen is TO FORCE YOUR GOVERNMENT TO CREATE AND CIRCULATE REAL MONEY AS THE NATION'S MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE INSTEAD OF THE INSANE BORROWING OF NON-EXISTENT "CREDIT" FROM THE ROTHSCHILD FRANCHISES SUCH AS THE FEDERAL RESERVE, the real seat of the satanic power of this cabal..

[pritch]

Think big schemes included ...

ammonia/urea plant at Kapuni



That seems to be still working as intended. Sometimes I ride past there if the weather's nice. Which means I haven't been that way in some considerable time.

[Ocean1]

Do you have a more upto date graph it stops at 2014
i only noticed its starting to be reduced in the latest years what happened in the missing years

Treasury publish historic data well late, later GDP/Sovereign debt data will be findable though....
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-budget

From memory National are projecting to balance the books about 2021, Labour will tax more but spend more than they tax for longer, so hope to achieve that at some later stage. But neither of them have enough control over the biggest variables affecting that to make predictions with any great confidence.

This is mostly good news: https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/forecast

This in particular doesn't agree with all the whining: https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/wages or the apparent need to significantly boost "redistributive" social spending.

This don't look so flash, and surprised me: https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/productivity/forecast

May be something in this lot too: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs

[Ocean1]

9 years in govermnent and they doubbled the debt to GDP and then achived a tiny forcast in reduction of 1 percent.againt a rise of 20% in the years since they took power thats what you concentrate on................
rather than the massive borrowing............

So if you wanted to get some idea of how badly they've done since the global financial crisis you'd be interested in comparisons like this, no?:

[eldog]

So if you wanted to get some idea of how badly they've done since the global financial crisis you'd be interested in comparisons like this, no?:

How are they coping in Japan? Do they have a strategy. Maybe not the same social benefits like NZ

Seem to remember a whole lot of statistics sank an incumbent party one election a few years back

Just find the right graph and leave out what you don't need. It's on the web it must be true. Yes Minister

[Ocean1]

How are they coping in Japan? Do they have a strategy. Maybe not the same social benefits like NZ

Seem to remember a whole lot of statistics sank an incumbent party one election a few years back

Yes, the problem's not going away, politically it's a fucking mess, there's not a lot they can do about it without all hell breaking loose. Also, it's not as bad as it looks, a lot of their debt is internal, they have a weird banking system and it's in the central bank's interest not to get too heavy handed with the commercial banks. Even to the extent of charging them "negative interest".

I don't think there's much shortage of money, just public money, and in fact Japan is owed a lot more than they owe.

There's a bunch cultural issues going on there that I don't understand too, there's a huge disinclination to either pay more tax or reduce public services.

Edit, I found this: I like it!


Let's say you are a parent with three kids. You want your kids to do their chores, clean up after themselves, and contribute to the common good of your household. You decide to print up small paper squares with a picture of your face on them and since your name is Bill you call them "Bills"

You offer to pay your kids Bills when they do things you want. One Bill to unload the dishwasher, two Bills for walking the dog, five Bills to mow the lawn. You announce your plan to the kids and they look at you like you're nuts. "Why would we care about these pieces of paper with your face on them?" they ask. That's when you inform them about the second part of the plan. Every week they have to give you ten Bills to cover their room and board. No Bills means no food and they have to sleep in the backyard. Your children enthusiastically agree to the new system.

This is how modern monetary systems work. You (Japan) spend Bills (yen) by giving it to your kids (private sector) and you demand payment (taxes) from them all and if they don't pay you punish them (jail).
You are a prudent parent so each week you decide to spend 30 Bills getting work out of your kids and you ask for payment of 30 Bills each week, you have a balanced budget.

But after a few weeks your children notice something, earning and spending 10 Bills a week is a bit constraining. Some weeks they are busy and earning 10 Bills is hard, some weeks they have extra time and they end up sitting around when they could be earning Bills. They ask you if you'd consider spending some extra Bills so they can save a few. So the next week you pay your kids for 40 Bills worth of work, you take back their required 30 Bills at the end but the kids now have 10 Bills between them. This is deficit spending. You (Japan) have spent more Bills (Yen) than you took back (taxed) and you have run a 10 Bill deficit. Notice that the deficit is exactly equal to the amount the kids (private sector) have saved.

The kids now begin to trade these 10 Bills back and forth. Bobby does Suzy's chores on Monday and she gives him 2 of her saved Bills. Jimmy goofs off and only has 9 Bills at the end of the week so he borrows 1 Bill from Bobby and promises to pay it back the following week. Having 10 Bills floating around makes it a lot easier for the kids to trade with each other, back in the old days they have no Bills left over each week which they could exchange with each other. The kids ask you if they can save any more Bills and you agree.

The following week you spend another 40 Bills on child labor and only take 30 out at the end of the week. The deficit is 10 Bills and the cumulative deficit is 20 Bills. The net savings of your kids is 20 Bills. The sum of all the deficits you have run (National Debt) is exactly equal to the savings of your kids (private sector).
As long as your kids want to save more you can continue to run deficits to fund them. You could give them 60 Bills (200% GDP) to save between them if they really wanted it.
What happens if you become more "financially responsible" and decide to cut your debt? You must spend less than you tax to do this, let's say you decide to spend 30 Bills and tax 33 Bills this week. Turns out Jimmy, that little spendthrift has no savings and he only has 10 Bills worth of chores. He's desperate to earn that extra Bill he needs. Bobby and Suzy are happy with their amount of saved Bills so Jimmy is in trouble. He offers to do some work for Bobby to get that precious extra Bill, he asks you if he can do Suzy's chores for fewer Bills. Your new budget where you tax more than you spend (a surplus) has led to a negative effect (deflation).

You are smart enough to reason this out ahead of time so you never go ahead with your foolish surplus plan. Instead you decide that maybe this chore system is a way to get lots of extra work out of the kids. So instead you decide to spend 60 Bills and tax only 30 Bills (a big deficit). Your kids do their normal workload, 30 Bills worth of work. Bobby and Suzy are pretty busy and satisfied with their current amount of savings so they just pass on the extra offer of work for Bills. Jimmy has finally gotten his financial house in order and wants to save a bit. But Jimmy doesn't really want to save 30 Bills, he offers to take the money but he's only going to do half the work for it. Your large deficit spending has led to a different negative effect (inflation).

So to sum it up you (Japan) can spend more than you require your kids (private sector) to pay back (taxes) and build up a cumulative deficit (debt). Your total cumulative deficit (debt) is exactly equal to the savings of kids (private sector). If your deficit/debt is too high you cause inflation, if it's too low you cause deflation. The right size is dictated by the savings desire of the holders of your currency.

The most interesting implication of this is that deficits are good and necessary as long as they are appropriately sized. Large ones could cause inflation. If the private sector has more savings than they need and choose to spend excess savings, if economic output is at capacity and the government continues to spend prices go up. Conversely balanced government budgets or surpluses cause deflation and economic harm.

The United States has had six economic depressions and six periods of extended government surpluses. In every case the surpluses occurred immediately prior to the depression. The 7th period of surpluses ended in 2001, how did the next couple decades work out?

Another implication is that government spending must necessarily occur before government taxation and government borrowing. The government does not borrow money in order to spend. On day one there are no Bills in circulation for you as the parent to borrow. You spend first and then tax second. If there are extra Bills you can let them sit in paper form or if you are so obliged you can let your kids deposit them with you in an interest bearing form (government borrowing). But in either case spending comes first, there is no reason for the government to ever worry about borrowing the dollars it needs to spend.

[husaberg]

So if you wanted to get some idea of how badly they've done since the global financial crisis you'd be interested in comparisons like this, no?:

NZ was insulated from the effects as they were not part of the first Asian crisis.
You can only compare NZ's debt to NZ's debt.
The Nats have done piss poor just as they also did in the last 2 National goverments.
Clearly when the rock star economy was suggested they meant Keith Richards spending all the money on Coke

[Ocean1]

NZ was insulated from the effects as they were not part of the first Asian crisis.
You can only compare NZ's debt to NZ's debt.
The Nats have done piss poor just as they also did in the last 2 National goverments.
Clearly when the rock star economy was suggested they meant Keith Richards spending all the money on Coke

Oh I get it, when there's a problem it's the Nat's fault, but when there's good shit happening it's fuck all to do with them. :laugh:

And if you want to see how well NZ economic policy worked compared to those of other similar country's policies then it's pretty fucking pointless ignoring those other country's performance data innit?

Come on mate, fair suck of the sav, that "Rock Star" quote was from a completely impartial foreign economist, and in the international press most foreign economic commentators agreed with him. The only people that don't are die hard NZ socialists who can't stand any praise for "the Nat's". Generally, when a majority of impartial experts praise my country's efforts, (and we lead the world in a bunch of life quality metrics) I accept that as deserved praise for a job well done, not go looking for ways to use it as ammunition in some interminable Marxist war against the "ruling class elite". :laugh:

[oldrider]

Otago Daily Times goes all out to make Labour (and the tooth fairy) sound like an attractive option - how bizarre! :rolleyes:

[TheDemonLord]

She then said, "I'm a pretty communist? Did they intend that to be a compliment or an insult? I'm not entirely sure."

If she'd been called a Pretty Nazi - would she ask if it was a Compliment or Insult?

[husaberg]

Oh I get it, when there's a problem it's the Nat's fault, but when there's good shit happening it's fuck all to do with them. :laugh:
:

That funny esp considering the NAas have bllammed Labour for the last nine years.
PS point to all the ""Good Shit" happening.

[Ocean1]

That funny esp considering the NAas have bllammed Labour for the last nine years.
PS point to all the ""Good Shit" happening.

Who's blamed who for what?

Good shit? I thought I just did: https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/forecast

But just for you, from the first google "New Zealand best" page:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/70578672/New-Zealand-has-worlds-third-highest-material-standard-of-living-report
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/86084805/New-Zealand-tops-world-prosperity-index-again
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11594241
http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/economic-survey-new-zealand.htm
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/rankings.pdf
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/75224095/New-Zealand-ranked-as-the-worlds-9th-best-country-in-global-UN-report
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88770772/New-Zealand-and-Denmark-deemed-the-least-corrupt-countries-in-the-world

I know it doesn't agree with all the heavily contrived doomsday narrative emanating from the left, but the fact is we're doing better than ever. Not only that but for some of the best of that good shit we're doing better than ever better than ever. :niceone:

Sure, some of that has fuck all to do with political measures, but that doesn't stop the bone pointing when good shit fails to happen, now does it?

[husaberg]

Who's blamed who for what?

Good shit? From the first google "New Zealand best" page:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/70578672/New-Zealand-has-worlds-third-highest-material-standard-of-living-report
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/86084805/New-Zealand-tops-world-prosperity-index-again
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11594241
http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/economic-survey-new-zealand.htm
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/rankings.pdf
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/75224095/New-Zealand-ranked-as-the-worlds-9th-best-country-in-global-UN-report
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88770772/New-Zealand-and-Denmark-deemed-the-least-corrupt-countries-in-the-world

I know it doesn't agree with all the heavily contrived doomsday narrative emanating from the left, but the fact is we're doing better than ever. Not only that but for some of the best of that good shit we're doing better than ever better than ever. :niceone:

Sure, some of that has fuck all to do with political measures, but that doesn't stop the bone pointing when shit fails to happen good, now does it?
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/88510/nick-smith-blames-labour-aucklands-housing-problems-says-national-introduced-most
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/08/29/john-key-blaming-helen-clark-for-his-housing-crisis-is-like-blaming-john-campbell-for-the-state-of-journalism/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/your-story-your-views-your-words/11105580/National-can-t-blame-Labour-for-the-housing-crisis
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6957341/Labour-cops-debt-blame
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/finance-minister-blames-labour-15b-acc-funding-shortfall
political narative Yeah sure...........
Next you will say National is running a postive campaign with zero negitive scaremongering..................

[Ocean1]

Negative political narative Yeah sure...........
Next you will say National is running a postive campaign with zero negitive scaremongering..................

Dude, it's their job, that's why it's called "opposition", don't take it personally if the govt fires the odd broadside back.

Edit: And even I could have told her that particular piece of negative narrative was going to come back and bite her on the arse. :laugh: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96945811/labour-says-national-has-let-down-auckland-over-fuel-vulnerability

So much for "relentlessly positive".

[Ocean1]

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/88510/nick-smith-blames-labour-aucklands-housing-problems-says-national-introduced-most
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/08/29/john-key-blaming-helen-clark-for-his-housing-crisis-is-like-blaming-john-campbell-for-the-state-of-journalism/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/your-story-your-views-your-words/11105580/National-can-t-blame-Labour-for-the-housing-crisis
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6957341/Labour-cops-debt-blame
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/finance-minister-blames-labour-15b-acc-funding-shortfall.

OK.

Did you read any of that?

Only the 4 articles reporting on the same thing about National's claim there was more housing price rise during Labour's 9 years in office than there was in the 8 National was, as I suggested a response to Labour's negative rhetoric on the housing "crisis". Literally everything else in those articles is comments foaming at the mouth about how the Nat's were to blame. Not a single refutation. You gotta assume they're right don't you?

[husaberg]

Dude, it's their job, that's why it's called "opposition", don't take it personally if the govt fires the odd broadside back.

Edit: And even I could have told her that particular piece of negative narrative was going to come back and bite her on the arse. :laugh: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96945811/labour-says-national-has-let-down-auckland-over-fuel-vulnerability

So much for "relentlessly positive".

They were in response to questions as to why they have gone backwards for 9 years.
As for someone integrity how about all the questions Key and English won't answer?
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/26-06-2017/no-point-asking-me-all-these-questions-bill-english-in-his-own-words-on-the-barclay-affair/
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/06/i-m-not-a-lawyer-bill-english-on-barclay-scandal.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11879385
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93861330/PM-confirms-Todd-Barclay-told-him-about-secret-recording
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/06/20/34947/barclay-apologises

[husaberg]

OK.

Did you read any of that?

Only the 4 articles reporting on the same thing about National's claim there was more housing price rise during Labour's 9 years in office than there was in the 8 National was, as I suggested a response to Labour's negative rhetoric on the housing "crisis". Literally everything else in those articles is comments foaming at the mouth about how the Nat's were to blame. Not a single refutation. You gotta assume they're right don't you?

I read all of them.
Youre talking shit. Just as National was
its 2017, FFS Key didn't even think there was a housing crisis in Auckland.

[Ocean1]

They were in response to questions as to why they have gone backwards for 9 years.
As for someone integrity how about all the questions Key and English won't answer?
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/26-06-2017/no-point-asking-me-all-these-questions-bill-english-in-his-own-words-on-the-barclay-affair/
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/06/i-m-not-a-lawyer-bill-english-on-barclay-scandal.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11879385
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93861330/PM-confirms-Todd-Barclay-told-him-about-secret-recording
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/06/20/34947/barclay-apologises

No, they were about house prices.

And the apparently higher price rises under labour. Which none of those articles disputed.

[Ocean1]

I read all of them.
Youre talking shit. Just as National was
its 2017, FFS Key didn't even think there was a housing crisis in Auckland.

And you blame Key for not answering questions. :laugh:

Just take a deep breath, mate, as someone noted the other day: most countries have political divide a mile wide, here it's about a foot. And apparently Key was right, if there's a housing crisis with price increases under National then there was more of a crisis under Labour.

[Berries]

Was she the head nurse?
No. She specialised in proctology.




Which was nice.

[husaberg]

No, they were about house prices.

And the apparently higher price rises under labour. Which none of those articles disputed.
See below

And you blame Key for not answering questions. :laugh:

See above for questions you never answered


Just take a deep breath, mate, as someone noted the other day: most countries have political divide a mile wide, here it's about a foot. And apparently Key was right, if there's a housing crisis with price increases under National then there was more of a crisis under Labour.

You are confused, he spun the issue. Just as you are trying to now, Spin is not an answer.

[Ocean1]

You are confused, he spun the issue. Just as you are trying to now, Spin is not an answer.

I guess it would be spin. If house prices didn't in fact rise as much under labour as they did with National.

But I can't see any of those articles actually disputing that, which you sort of think they would have if it was all bullshit.

[Swoop]

Hopefully liarbour has learnt a good lesson? Don't fuck with the farmers!

Or they'll reduce NZ's biggest city, airlines AND the NZ tourism to its knees in ONE fell swoop!:laugh:

The farmer will probably play the Treaty of Wangotango card and say he was looking for "cultural remains" and get off scott free.

[James Deuce]

Hopefully liarbour has learnt a good lesson? Don't fuck with the farmers!

Or they'll reduce NZ's biggest city, airlines AND the NZ tourism to its knees in ONE fell swoop!:laugh:

The farmer will probably play the Treaty of Wangotango card and say he was looking for "cultural remains" and get off scott free.
Time to push back harder on farmers. They deserve everything they get.

[Voltaire]

Hopefully liarbour has learnt a good lesson? Don't fuck with the farmers!

Or they'll reduce NZ's biggest city, airlines AND the NZ tourism to its knees in ONE fell swoop!:laugh:

The farmer will probably play the Treaty of Wangotango card and say he was looking for "cultural remains" and get off scott free.

You just need a digger looking for swamp Kauri to do that.

I was doing a lot of back roads in the weekend and looks like you don't need helmets to ride on the road in the Naki on quad or farm bikes, as well as passengers.

Not anti Farmer but " she'll be right" attitude has gone from the work place elsewhere.

[Ocean1]

You just need a digger looking for swamp Kauri to do that.

I was doing a lot of back roads in the weekend and looks like you don't need helmets to ride on the road in the Naki on quad or farm bikes, as well as passengers.

Not anti Farmer but " she'll be right" attitude has gone from the work place elsewhere.

So has most of the production.

[Ocean1]

Time to push back harder on farmers. They deserve everything they get.

They certainly deserve to comply with the rules they operate under.

They probably don't deserve to have a bunch of politically popular rules dumped on them at their cost overnight.

[Woodman]

It still does my head in that labour are going to charge nz farmers a tax for water yet let foriegn companies take water for free.:brick::brick:

[husaberg]

Hopefully liarbour has learnt a good lesson? Don't fuck with the farmers!

Or they'll reduce NZ's biggest city, airlines AND the NZ tourism to its knees in ONE fell swoop!:laugh:

The farmer will probably play the Treaty of Wangotango card and say he was looking for "cultural remains" and get off scott free.

To be fair i understand it was a swamp Kauri Digger rather than a farmer


It still does my head in that labour are going to charge nz farmers a tax for water yet let foriegn companies take water for free.:brick::brick:
Most farmers who irrigate already pay for the water as do most business's.
What they are talking about is a tax to fund the clean up the waterways.
poeple want to clean up the waterways, but who should pay for it. Personally Id be happy with a tax on all NZers what about you?.............
I note National never got rid of the carbon tax.


I guess it would be spin. If house prices didn't in fact rise as much under labour as they did with National.

But I can't see any of those articles actually disputing that, which you sort of think they would have if it was all bullshit.

More spin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNiXGX2nLU

[Woodman]

To be fair i understand it was a swamp Kauri Digger rather than a farmer


Most farmers who irrigate already pay for the water as do most business's.
What they are talking about is a tax to fund the clean up the waterways.
poeple want to clean up the waterways, but who should pay for it. Personally Id be happy with a tax on all NZers what about you?.............
I note National never got rid of the carbon tax.

Seriously ? a tax on new zealanders? for what? being a new zealander? Fuck that, thats riot talk.

Seriously, if we charge foreign money for the water then we won't have to just recycle NZ money to clean up the waterways. Its a no brainer.

[husaberg]

Seriously ? a tax on new zealanders? for what? being a new zealander? Fuck that, thats riot talk.

Seriously, if we charge foreign money for the water then we won't have to just recycle NZ money to clean up the waterways. Its a no brainer.

Well, We could pay for it with a corperate tax but alas National already lowered that while raising GST on the rest of us
Ocean likes User pays, maybe th eopeple that use the rivers IE not only farmers Kayakers people fishing whitebaiting people swiming rowing etc etc

[Voltaire]

Most farmers who irrigate already pay for the water as do most business's.
What they are talking about is a tax to fund the clean up the waterways.
poeple want to clean up the waterways, but who should pay for it. Personally Id be happy with a tax on all NZers what about you?.............
I note National never got rid of the carbon tax.



The Taxpayers are not a charity for Business's who can't get their shit together ( pun intended) to subsidise.

Get friggen Fonterra to fund it by charging more.

In my line of work we had to dispose of 1200 litres of oil, you should see the paper trail for that.

[husaberg]

The Taxpayers are not a charity for Business's who can't get their shit together ( pun intended) to subsidise.

Get friggen Fonterra to fund it by charging more.

In my line of work we had to dispose of 1200 litres of oil, you should see the paper trail for that.
Bussiness now how could they be charged.........
I think that was actually Labours intention.
Fontera can't charge more as its mainly a competitive global a comodity bussiness.
Unless of course you raise the corperate tax that National lowered.:laugh:
plus not all farmers or indeede not even all dairy farmers are part of Fontera.
Nor are farmers the only polluters of waterways.
Urban People are actually likely NZs biggest polluters of the environment.

[sidecar bob]

The Taxpayers are not a charity for Business's who can't get their shit together ( pun intended) to subsidise.

Get friggen Fonterra to fund it by charging more.

In my line of work we had to dispose of 1200 litres of oil, you should see the paper trail for that.

Really? I dispose of over 1000 litres a month every month with nothing more that a "how is it mate" to the truck driver.
And it costs me nothing.

[Katman]

Its a no brainer.

You and berkboy can share some common ground.

[Ocean1]

Well, We could pay for it with a corperate tax but alas National already lowered that while raising GST on the rest of us
Ocean likes User pays, maybe th eopeple that use the rivers IE not only farmers Kayakers people fishing whitebaiting people swiming rowing etc etc

Ocean likes workable rules. Access to waterways is treated differently to most other public assets in most western law, has been for centuries. They're supposed to be designed to ensure free access and prevent upstream heighbours fucking up your share of river. They're obviously not working too well any more, but regulation is the right way to deal with activities that pollute waterways, just make the rules fit the problem.

It costs nothing for anyone to supply rivers, so I don't see why anyone gets to charge for their use, it does fuck all to prevent environmental abuse.

[Voltaire]

Really? I dispose of over 1000 litres a month every month with nothing more that a "how is it mate" to the truck driver.
And it costs me nothing.

What?, you didn't have to go to the facility and do an audit, view all the H and S policies, Council Certs, Emergency Plans,

Groundwater test certs, Public Liability insurances and so on?

It probably goes to the same place but how do you know its not just dumped in a river?

Do you charge your customers a " Environmental "fee for ethical oil disposal?

How do you get rid of tyres...same bloke?

[husaberg]

It costs nothing for anyone to supply rivers, so I don't see why anyone gets to charge for their use, it does fuck all to prevent environmental abuse.

So why are yo not up in arms about how Farmers are charged for Irrigation water and have been for many years including multiple terms under National then.
whats your Ocean answer to cleaning the waterways?
Lots of rivers and lakes and watwerways have concessions on them where private enterprise charges and is charged for its use by goverment etities, Doc land as well.
Why was their is there no Ocean outcry about this? Is that because it was under National?

[Woodman]

You and berkboy can share some common ground.

Ironic, coming from KBs stupidest member.

[T.W.R]

Fuckin farmers waste as much as they use

Nearly thirty odd years ago environmental scientists said fresh water would be the oil of the future and it needed to be looked after.
And on the grand scale of things the usable amount of fresh water available is sweet F/A, it'll be too late to shut the gate after the horse has bolted as it's only a finite resource

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Figure_46_03_01.jpg

[Ocean1]

So why are yo not up in arms about how Farmers are charged for Irrigation water and have been for many years including multiple terms under National then.
whats your Ocean answer to cleaning the waterways?
Lots of rivers and lakes and watwerways have concessions on them where private enterprise charges and is charged for its use by goverment etities, Doc land as well.
Why was their is there no Ocean outcry about this? Is that because it was under National?

No, my ethical perspective doesn't change with the govt, dude. If demand is higher than can be sustained then I think you simply regulate to control that, not fuck with fundamental riparian rights which have historically been heavily protected for a damned good reason.

Reticulation is another matter, it's entirely correct to charge for the cost of the infrastructure that gets water to your tap.

And you already saw my answer to cleaning up the waterways: stop shitting in them. Is pretty simple, you don't have to tax every fucking problem into submission.

[husaberg]

Ironic, coming from KBs stupidest member.

If only they could find away to tax people who perpetuate and propagate stupid conspiracy theories. I'd vote ACT if they would do that.:laugh:
Of course the problem would be they (the tin foil hatters)have no money as they generally useless with little intelligence or skills.
Maybe we could farm them for organs?

[mashman]

but regulation is the right way to deal with activities that pollute waterways

No. Stopping production is. Regulation sets a new minimal level, which can then be studied for 20 years to see if it's working before a conclusion can be made. Ironically enough, anything other than stopping the production of useless shite that's produced for the sole purpose of making money, is doing absolutely nothing about anything. Your environment will die because you have allowed pollution, so long as someone has been taxed to pay for any cleanup that may potentially take place when the money can be made available. Stopping production stops the pollution and gives the chance of a cleanup an actual chance as yielding a positive result. Unfortunately, your system can't handle such a thing, because it's direct output is the very thing that is responsible for pollution in the first place. Regulation indeed :killingme

[Honest Andy]

Really? I dispose of over 1000 litres a month every month with nothing more that a "how is it mate" to the truck driver.
And it costs me nothing.

yeah that's being recycled, maybe for waste-oil burners and stuff like that

[husaberg]

No, my ethical perspective doesn't change with the govt, dude. If demand is higher than can be sustained then I think you simply regulate to control that, not fuck with fundamental riparian rights which have historically been heavily protected...
It is already regulated its just it not regulated enough.


Reticulation is another matter, it's entirely correct to charge for the cost of the infrastructure that gets water to your tap..
Ocean in case you missed it run of the river or ground water irrigation is consented, metered and charged already. not just the irrigation sheme that were set up by the farmers..........

And you already saw my answer to cleaning up the waterways: stop shitting in them. Is pretty simple, you don't have to tax every fucking problem into submission.

So how are you going to stop the shit getting into them then? how are you going to pay to police this? where is the money coming from?
Remember a lot of the waterway and environmental pollution comes from urbanites.

[Ocean1]

Fuckin farmers waste as much as they use

Nearly thirty odd years ago environmental scientists said fresh water would be the oil of the future and it needed to be looked after.
And on the grand scale of things the usable amount of fresh water available is sweet F/A, it'll be too late to shut the gate after the horse has bolted as it's only a finite resource


Were those NZ scientists?

Only we get somewhat more than our fair share of the world's fresh water here. About 560,000 million cubic meters a year.

If it didn't eventually escape off the edges of the country it'd be over 2 meters deep inside a year.

There isn't going to be any shortage of water in NZ for a while yet, too much water is far more of a problem than not enough.

[Ocean1]

No. Stopping production is. Regulation sets a new minimal level, which can then be studied for 20 years to see if it's working before a conclusion can be made. Ironically enough, anything other than stopping the production of useless shite that's produced for the sole purpose of making money, is doing absolutely nothing about anything. Your environment will die because you have allowed pollution, so long as someone has been taxed to pay for any cleanup that may potentially take place when the money can be made available. Stopping production stops the pollution and gives the chance of a cleanup an actual chance as yielding a positive result. Unfortunately, your system can't handle such a thing, because it's direct output is the very thing that is responsible for pollution in the first place. Regulation indeed :killingme

So in your world the right way to regulate pollutants is to not regulate them.

No surprises there.

[sidecar bob]

What?, you didn't have to go to the facility and do an audit, view all the H and S policies, Council Certs, Emergency Plans,

Groundwater test certs, Public Liability insurances and so on?

It probably goes to the same place but how do you know its not just dumped in a river?

Do you charge your customers a " Environmental "fee for ethical oil disposal?

How do you get rid of tyres...same bloke?
http://www.oilrecovery.co.nz
Dude, didn't you even google or pm me?
There ya go, a plug for the good blokes. I could have saved you a bundle.
If they're dumping it in a river I'd say they're in more shit than I am::bleh:
I don't sell tyres, but there's a creek near my house for all the old bike ones.

[Ocean1]

yeah that's being recycled, maybe for waste-oil burners and stuff like that

I once sold 60 tons of HFO from cleaning out the refinery's abandoned tankage back to them for not much short of their list price.

We weren't allowed in the pub to celebrate, what being black as fuck from head to foot. :laugh:

[mashman]

So in your world the right way to regulate pollutants is to not regulate them.

No surprises there.

In my world, people realise that the state of their waterways is more important than profit and wouldn't pollute them in the first place, because people realise that that production results in that pollution. You have no idea of my world, because you've never tried to understand it. That's your prerogative, dude, but you're denying the evidence. See, I see people as capable of grasping a concept like, environmental responsibility, given that it's really rather important for an awful lot of things. No need to regulate anything.

[Ocean1]

It is already regulated its just it not regulated enough.

Ocean in case you missed it run of the river or ground water irrigation is consented, metered and charged already. not just the irrigation sheme that were set up by the farmers..........


So how are you going to stop the shit getting into them then? how are you going to pay to police this? where is the money coming from?
Remember a lot of the waterway and environmental pollution comes from urbanites.

Then regulate it more effectively.

Yes. I just don't agree with it.

What makes you think I have a problem with charging for regulation?

[Ocean1]

In my world, people realise that the state of their waterways is more important than profit and wouldn't pollute them in the first place, because people realise that that production results in that pollution. You have no idea of my world, because you've never tried to understand it. That's your prerogative, dude, but you're denying the evidence. See, I see people as capable of grasping a concept like, environmental responsibility, given that it's really rather important for an awful lot of things. No need to regulate anything.

It's not profit that pollutes the environment dude. It's arseholes.

So you go fail to regulate arseholes in your wee world and stop annoying the adults here, eh?

[husaberg]

Then regulate it more effectively.

Yes. I just don't agree with it.

What makes you think I have a problem with charging for regulation?

You need to sort ou who is paying for the enforcement of these regulations or the tighter ones needed otherwise you are just tring to avoid the questions.
Hint just how does Ocean intend to pay for this? who is to be charged? how does one identify who is to be charged? Hint all of this costs money.
Who is going to pay for this and the cleaning plus rehabilitation of the waterways.
You slag off Labours policy but offer no better alternative. or indeede no other workablile alternative (Unless yoou consider Waffle and spin as being workable alternatives)

[Woodman]

In my world, people realise that the state of their waterways is more important than profit and wouldn't pollute them in the first place, because people realise that that production results in that pollution. You have no idea of my world, because you've never tried to understand it. That's your prerogative, dude, but you're denying the evidence. See, I see people as capable of grasping a concept like, environmental responsibility, given that it's really rather important for an awful lot of things. No need to regulate anything.

So in your world you would be happier to just sell the fresh water overseas for the same money as we now sell the milk products for therefore not needing all the cows, paddocks and dairy factories that pollute the rivers.

It takes approximately 1000 litres of water to produce 1 litre of milk.

[mashman]

It's not profit that pollutes the environment dude. It's arseholes.

So you go fail to regulate arseholes in your wee world and stop annoying the adults here, eh?

They do it for profit.

Adults :killingme. You're the one doin' the dodgin, Son. I'm offering the blindingly obvious evidence and the logical solution. Why would you pollute when there's no profit in it? Look, when you grow a pair of balls, Son, you might actually be useful.

[T.W.R]

Were those NZ scientists?

Only we get somewhat more than our fair share of the world's fresh water here. About 560,000 million cubic meters a year.

If it didn't eventually escape off the edges of the country it'd be over 2 meters deep inside a year.

There isn't going to be any shortage of water in NZ for a while yet, too much water is far more of a problem than not enough.

It was from a scientific symposium held in Queenstown in the very early nineties

Ha more than our fair share :laugh: right, yet we've got one of the quickest run-offs of any country in the world
I live pretty much in the ground zero of where the biggest extractions are happening and locally the rivers have gone from things to be reckoned with to piddly trickles of their former selves.
The major river, the Rakaia would flow at 200 cumecs plus over the summer now it'll regularly drop below 100 and the river mouth closes with too much regularity when it gets really dry over the summer months.
Once the only way of crossing the river in it's last 20km to the sea was the main road bridge, nowadays there's multiple points where you can get a 4x4 from one bank to the other without any risk of the water level getting anywhere near bonnet level.
The likes of the Barhill irrigation scheme are totally fucking the whole ecosystem and even though the cockies need the water due to the high intensity practices they have to undertake because of supply & demand the majority flaunt the regulations and irrigation wastage is disgusting.
30yrs ago here water restrictions weren't heard of yet over the last 10yrs it's a regular event for the local communities