Election Bribes 2017 [Archive]

AllanB

28th August 2017, 18:27

Election Bribes.

This shit is getting out of hand. The country will be broke post election.

My daughter can vote this year - she is finding the BS rather confusing. My advice to her is - look at the policy then party vote for who gives you the best deal. Then look at the performance of your local prospective MPs and vote for the one who has done or will potentially do the best for your region.

Me - I reckon I could get at least a handie from my local if I swear I'll vote for them .......

Grumph

28th August 2017, 19:32

Certainly from the National candidates.....but would you want to ?
Even out here in Selwyn they've visibly got the wind up - unlike the last one, there's billboards everywhere.
And it's supposed to be a safe seat...

JimO

28th August 2017, 20:11

well labour is giving everybody a home, thats got to be the best bribe yet

Voltaire

28th August 2017, 21:00

After 9 years you would expect more than " we'll set up a work group on that"

National are afraid people would vote on one persons personality.... its happened before...." make NZ great again":laugh:

Akzle

29th August 2017, 11:36

pritch

29th August 2017, 11:43

Voltaire

29th August 2017, 12:01

i will roll out my "kalashnikovs in kindy" initiative. and see that every man woman and child gets issued with firearms.
as well as establishing an open hunting season on politicians, bankers, lawyers and other jew cunts.

and i'll build a wall around auckland, then flood it.

vote akzle.

Try out your building skills while your there....
https://images.pond5.com/hand-adding-block-lego-wall-footage-012503984_prevstill.jpeg

Doppleganger

29th August 2017, 12:07

National showing us they've saved everything up for now pisses me off. The hospitals, housing and schools are fucked thanks to them and now they claim all this bullshit.

I hope labor and winnie get in and get these arsholes can go off and get grounded in the real world again.

Swoop

29th August 2017, 12:13

Akzle

29th August 2017, 13:44

Well, that would solve the housing crisis. :whistle:

maaaaaaaaate. there'll be no more of this crises shit. when i'm voted king i'm gonna handle all that B-I
just you wait until i implement pants-optional-thursdays nation wide, hookers-for-lunch, and ban cars from all but single-digit-state-hIghways.

flashg

29th August 2017, 18:37

maaaaaaaaate. there'll be no more of this crises shit. when i'm voted king i'm gonna handle all that B-I
just you wait until i implement pants-optional-thursdays nation wide, hookers-for-lunch, and ban cars from all but single-digit-state-hIghways.You'll have to park up the magna and buy a bike for the long trips, it's been a while, you should visit Rastuscat for some training. We wouldn't want our new king hurt in an avoidable accident, now would we ?

AllanB

29th August 2017, 18:45

Well, the student allowance isn't the best and adding a bit to it makes sense, but HOW much of a bribe is being thrown out?

3 years study, paid for by the taxpayers, on retraining (if you so desire)?

Youth bribe. My 19 year old is interested (her first year at Uni) but she wonders how it will be paid for - I told her when she gets a job they will tax the shit out of her.

I've not researched the details (are there any) but I'd be more in favor of a policy that reimbursed students at the end of the year based on their performance. Do well and get something back. Fuck up and pay your debt.

I remember all to well when I was her age friends freeloading at Uni doing nothing of value or even passing (bumming around) and being covered by the tax payer.

Rhys

29th August 2017, 19:04

roogazza

29th August 2017, 19:11

Had enough of the Ads for the buck toothed sheila already ! Whats its name Eeeeorrr ? :confused:

AllanB

29th August 2017, 19:21

Well you'll never become a MP you're making sense

Ah - I reckon there is a middle ground for someone who makes sense. I remember way back to Peter Dunn when he started his party - appealed to the middle ground with reasonable policies for real working people.

Then he got in and became useless ..........

I believe I could do that :2thumbsup

AllanB

29th August 2017, 19:23

Had enough of the Ads for the buck toothed sheila already ! Whats its name Eeeeorrr ? :confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fz6XkWGpwQ

AllanB

29th August 2017, 19:24

Fuck me that sounds JUST like a dry clutch Ducati

Swoop

29th August 2017, 21:50

Youth bribe. Fuck up and pay your debt.

I remember all to well when I was her age friends freeloading at Uni doing nothing of value or even passing (bumming around) and being covered by the tax payer.
Since the country has a massive debt yet to be repaid by "students" of all types, perhaps a deeper look at this type of bribe is warranted.
Sadly liarbour is appealing to its membership base though (education system and railway union memberships).

As for lips...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uiToZVLlmZY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ocean1

29th August 2017, 22:06

Youth bribe. My 19 year old is interested (her first year at Uni) but she wonders how it will be paid for - I told her when she gets a job they will tax the shit out of her.

I've not researched the details (are there any) but I'd be more in favor of a policy that reimbursed students at the end of the year based on their performance. Do well and get something back. Fuck up and pay your debt.

I remember all to well when I was her age friends freeloading at Uni doing nothing of value or even passing (bumming around) and being covered by the tax payer.

Aye. The left's argument there is that we should all value the likes of all those arts history degrees. Possibly because a lot of them were the recipients of that academic largess. On that basis I'll be enrolling in the closest thing I can find to motorcycle maintenance via tantric sexual healing.

Failing that I expect those that value weird shit should pay for their own perversions.

You can make a damned good case for looking at what professions we're short of, or which ones contribute more economically and subsidising the fuck out of those, based purely on a return on investment.

pete376403

29th August 2017, 22:37

Voltaire

30th August 2017, 07:57

If I was the Greens I'd be offering a free Idroid and years subscription to Instasnaptunes with every photo of ballot paper voting

Green.

For old people National could offer the back catalog of the Rolling Stones and Beatles on Vinyl.

Winston could offer to give away the Pension that he is " entitled" too but on a salary of over 180K does not really need.

Labour could put together a Working Group on tax.

Scubbo

30th August 2017, 10:20

9 years, everything on offer now will not happen, its just that a valueless bribe -- such a farce at extreme costs to society

TheDemonLord

30th August 2017, 11:55

If Labour said they were going to fund ('frinstance) science, maths, engineering, medical degrees only but not lawyers, arts, etc there would be an uproar about how the communists are forcing people to do stuff they don't want to.

However if they are going to fund any degree then they're wasting money - cant win.

If National said the same thing (science, maths engineering etc) everyone would love how they are bringing prosperity through strong and stable policies. Fuck 'em - they have had nine years to do that, then pull these rabbits out of the hat in the last month.

I think the problem is that precedents have been set by far Left wing organizations - either they spend everyone else's Money, or they end up using force to get people to comply.

Personally, The prevalence of Election year bribes is simply another reason why I don't vote.

Ocean1

30th August 2017, 12:06

I think the problem is that precedents have been set by far Left wing organizations - either they spend everyone else's Money, or they end up using force to get people to comply.

Personally, The prevalence of Election year bribes is simply another reason why I don't vote.

Maybe vote for the least bribingest outfit might stand a better chance of knocking the bullshit on the head?

Katman

30th August 2017, 12:18

Maybe vote for the least bribingest outfit might stand a better chance of knocking the bullshit on the head?

I'm sure the Greens will appreciate every vote they get.

Akzle

30th August 2017, 12:43

https://cannabis.org.nz/sites/cannabis.org.nz/files/jeff_lye.jpg

oldrider

30th August 2017, 12:51

Is that you Akzle?

Ocean1

30th August 2017, 13:41

I'm sure the Greens will appreciate every vote they get.

Oh the lunatic fringe don't need any help from us, they're doing just fine knocking on their own heads.

Akzle

30th August 2017, 14:17

the lunatic fringe .

http://www.bajiroo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/funny-hairstyles-sweet-fringe-bad-haircut-hairs-style-people-fashion-funny-pictures-fun-images-bajiroo-photo-humor-20.jpg

TheDemonLord

30th August 2017, 17:18

Maybe vote for the least bribingest outfit might stand a better chance of knocking the bullshit on the head?

It's tricky cause a vote for anyone other than National or Labour is a vote for those 2 by proxy.

Ocean1

30th August 2017, 19:39

It's tricky cause a vote for anyone other than National or Labour is a vote for those 2 by proxy.

Yep. Suggestions for a fix?

Akzle

30th August 2017, 20:24

Yep. Suggestions for a fix?

stv.

or, y'know. vote ax.

Ocean1

30th August 2017, 20:31

stv.

or, y'know. vote ax.

Yep. No idea how MMP got the nod, it's a fucking stupid idea.

Voltaire

30th August 2017, 20:39

Yep. No idea how MMP got the nod, it's a fucking stupid idea.

Wasn't there an election in the 70's/80's where the party that won the most seats got less overall votes?

I'm thinking mid 70's " Rob Muldoon and Rowling, they haven't had a hit, their ruining the country more than just a bit"

ah....wheres the witty political satire these days.:laugh:

Akzle

30th August 2017, 20:58

Yep. No idea how MMP got the nod, it's a fucking stupid idea.

ahem. you voted for it <_<

TheDemonLord

30th August 2017, 22:07

Yep. Suggestions for a fix?

Probably a start would be to move away from the traditional dichotomy of left and right politics, or at least have a centrist option to create a Triumvate of sorts (Labour, National, other)

But even then, I'm not so sure.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 08:38

Probably a start would be to move away from the traditional dichotomy of left and right politics, or at least have a centrist option to create a Triumvate of sorts (Labour, National, other)

But even then, I'm not so sure.

How do you define left/right?

Only if, as I suspect it's more or less a mutually exclusive difference in focus between earning/spending I can't see you "moving away" from it without some mechanism that actually requires a direct link between the two. Y'know, the sort of concept common in most household budget decisions, FFS?

Which isn't actually that difficult now that I think about it. Publish some interactive versions of this: http://wheresmytaxes.co.nz/

Include a taxation plan version, (it's already there somewhere).

Registered voters get to fiddle with the size of the various slices, the system integrates the results and the various political entities get to make their pitch not on how much of their earnings each social category gets to keep or how much of someone else's earnings they receive but simply how they propose the voter-defined budget be implemented.

You'd still get people voting themselves other people's money though. Which I'm not entirely happy with.

TheDemonLord

31st August 2017, 09:14

How do you define left/right?

Currently it seems to be everyone who isn't a raging communist is Right wing... but I agree with the sentiment

You'd still get people voting themselves other people's money though. Which I'm not entirely happy with.

That I think is the crux of the issue.

There are shared services (roads for example) that are utilized by everyone, but given what we know of the Tax take (that something like 20% of people/companies pay 80% of the tax take) is mostly payed by a select few.

Then there are social services which are primarily consumed by those who cannot pay for them - and bludging aside, they are necessary - the question is Balance and should there be an equal representation.

Hypothetically - is it right that 80% of people get to decide how to spend the contributions made solely 20% of the people? And the flip side - is it right that those 20% get a disproportionate say in how their taxes are spent?

Both systems are inherently corrupt.

Banditbandit

31st August 2017, 10:56

Wasn't there an election in the 70's/80's where the party that won the most seats got less overall votes?

I'm thinking mid 70's " Rob Muldoon and Rowling, they haven't had a hit, their ruining the country more than just a bit"

ah....wheres the witty political satire these days.:laugh:

From about the late 1970s the national Governments got less overall votes - but still got the most seats - and therefore became Government.

Ulsterkiwi

31st August 2017, 11:10

Gareth Morgan can be a bit of a tosser but I like the line his TOP crew are taking. Forget Left and Right, what will the policies do for the country? Are they evidence based or a sop to traditional Left or Right voters? Didn't he offer to throw his weight (measured in $$) behind the party that adopted evidence based policies? How many people run for parliament saying "tax me more, I can afford it!"? I don't see Bill, Winnie or any of the rest of them yelling that out. The Greens lost whatever modicum of support I would have had for them with the way they handled Metiria's revelations. It wasn't what she did that bothered me, it was the arrogant, smug way it was all handled. Now they are just desperate to stay relevant.
Jacinda and her teeth are quite refreshing, its great that Labour might actually represent an alternative so why the hell didn't they do this years ago?
Bill English I have no particular issues with, seems a genuine enough guy (for a politician, so still on the negative side of the scale for genuineness) Its wankers like Stephen Joyce that get my blood boiling, now there is a face I would never tire of punching. Time for change, National have had long enough to address housing (living in cars? really?), child poverty (an OECD country where kids don't have shoes or a rain jacket?), the environment (clean green my arse, has anyone looked at the shit being dumped in the rivers and how the sea is being raped?) and education (where is the investment in the next generation? why are teachers paid such shit money?), they should piss off and see what the next bunch of wannabees can do, can't be any worse.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 11:51

Currently it seems to be everyone who isn't a raging communist is Right wing...

Aye, I've never seen the sheer quantity of anti-right spittle evident in the general media at any previous election. And yes, I've accounted for confirmation bias in that assessment.

There are shared services (roads for example) that are utilized by everyone, but given what we know of the Tax take (that something like 20% of people/companies pay 80% of the tax take) is mostly payed by a select few.

Then there are social services which are primarily consumed by those who cannot pay for them - and bludging aside, they are necessary - the question is Balance and should there be an equal representation.

Hypothetically - is it right that 80% of people get to decide how to spend the contributions made solely 20% of the people? And the flip side - is it right that those 20% get a disproportionate say in how their taxes are spent?

Both systems are inherently corrupt.

Again, it's really not that difficult to fix: split the two costs and fund them differently.

Infrastructure tax would represent, say 90% of the budget. Everyone uses it so everyone should pay accordingly. Ethically that should be a nominal amount per citizen, but as you say 80% simply couldn't afford to pay that. So we're immediately back to pinging rich pricks more simply "because they can afford it". So be it, everyone pays, say a flat 15% infrastructure tax. Fuck a sliding scale, that's simply doubling down on the same "they can afford it" bullshit.

Social services, by their very nature amount to charity. If that's not the case then I can't see why I should be paying for it. Those benefiting simply can't contribute, (possibly temporarily) and as above: those contributing can afford it more. Fund it from a designated and fenced charity tax. Less than some 3% of the current budget is "benefits", fuckit, call the charity tax 5%. You get charity, (which orta be fairly generous from that revenue) for being unable to work, and maybe to help look after special needs relatives. That's it. Arsehole 99% of the administration cost involved in the current setup and feed that back into the pot.

How's your addition? I make that a flat tax of 20%. There is no other tax designation, and no fuzzy "working for (someone else's) familys", if you can't afford your life choices at your current income then asking someone else to pay for them isn't an option. Note that with 90% of the national tax take paying for a lot of your needs and you paying a paltry 20% tax you really don't have much of an excuse for not managing that.

TheDemonLord

31st August 2017, 12:29

Aye, I've never seen the sheer quantity of anti-right spittle evident in the general media at any previous election. And yes, I've accounted for confirmation bias in that assessment.

I've also noted that this is doing a massive disservice to centrists whose feet dangle on the left, who look at the current left and go "Fuck that" and side with the right, simply as a protest against the current Left.

I'd also posit that the wider acceptance of radically left-wing view points is practically a recruiting boon to the radical right wing, KKK, Neo-Nazis etc.

Again, it's really not that difficult to fix: split the two costs and fund them differently.

Infrastructure tax would represent, say 90% of the budget. Everyone uses it so everyone should pay accordingly. Ethically that should be a nominal amount per citizen, but as you say 80% simply couldn't afford to pay that. So we're immediately back to pinging rich pricks more simply "because they can afford it". So be it, everyone pays, say a flat 15% infrastructure tax. Fuck a sliding scale, that's simply doubling down on the same "they can afford it" bullshit.

Social services, by their very nature amount to charity. If that's not the case then I can't see why I should be paying for it. Those benefiting simply can't contribute, (possibly temporarily) and as above: those contributing can afford it more. Fund it from a designated and fenced charity tax. Less than some 3% of the current budget is "benefits", fuckit, call the charity tax 5%. You get charity, (which orta be fairly generous from that revenue) for being unable to work, and maybe to help look after special needs relatives. That's it. Arsehole 99% of the administration cost involved in the current setup and feed that back into the pot.

How's your addition? I make that a flat tax of 20%. There is no other tax designation, and no fuzzy "working for (someone else's) familys", if you can't afford your life choices at your current income then asking someone else to pay for them isn't an option. Note that with 90% of the national tax take paying for a lot of your needs and you paying a paltry 20% tax you really don't have much of an excuse for not managing that.

Whilst I can agree with some of the sentiments, I would counter that an absolute hardline on those things results in a net cost to society greater than the net dollar cost of supporting them properly. So I don't think your solution is quite the cut-and-dried fixall it would first appear.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 13:10

I've also noted that this is doing a massive disservice to centrists whose feet dangle on the left, who look at the current left and go "Fuck that" and side with the right, simply as a protest against the current Left.

I'd also posit that the wider acceptance of radically left-wing view points is practically a recruiting boon to the radical right wing, KKK, Neo-Nazis etc.

Whilst I can agree with some of the sentiments, I would counter that an absolute hardline on those things results in a net cost to society greater than the net dollar cost of supporting them properly. So I don't think your solution is quite the cut-and-dried fixall it would first appear.

Aye, there's a reason Labour has dwindled over the years, they keep drifting further left in spite of the obvious fact that their constituents want the opposite.

You think it's less expensive to discourage productivity and encourage unproductive behaviour than it would be to do the opposite?

TheDemonLord

31st August 2017, 13:18

Aye, there's a reason Labour has dwindled over the years, they keep drifting further left in spite of the obvious fact that their constituents want the opposite.

You think it's less expensive to discourage productivity and encourage unproductive behaviour than it would be to do the opposite?

There's a balance point - too much in one way, and you get a large group who as you say are unproductive and just consume resources, too much in the other and those who are not at fault get punished for the sins of the parents.

Bad things happen either way.

Me personally, I think welfare should be predicated on some form of Community service - picking up litter, planting trees - this solves the productivity dilemma, it may not be productivity that results in a net dollar value increase, but there would be a net overall increase.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 13:29

There's a balance point - too much in one way, and you get a large group who as you say are unproductive and just consume resources, too much in the other and those who are not at fault get punished for the sins of the parents.

Bad things happen either way.

Me personally, I think welfare should be predicated on some form of Community service - picking up litter, planting trees - this solves the productivity dilemma, it may not be productivity that results in a net dollar value increase, but there would be a net overall increase.

And the fact that those doing the supporting also have families, also not at fault?

Is a great idea. Tried it. Multiple times.
The reason, they're poor is because they make poor decisions.
Including not turning up for community service work.

James Deuce

31st August 2017, 14:01

TheDemonLord

31st August 2017, 14:01

And the fact that those doing the supporting also have families, also not at fault?

Is a great idea. Tried it. Multiple times.
The reason, they're poor is because they make poor decisions.
Including not turning up for community service work.

not necessarily - they may also be poor because they aren't very intelligent. just remember - 50% of people have an IQ less than 100...

They may also be poor because they are highly creative, but not very conscientious

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 14:21

The only thing Politicians follow through on is increasing taxes and/or "levies".

Everything else they say is a baldfaced lie.

We won't any more broke after the election than we already are. The only difference will be if one lot get in Government services will stay the same. If the other lot get in they'll continue to decrease in availability and quality.

Broadly, what services have decreased in real terms over the last decade?

Akzle

31st August 2017, 14:22

Aye, I've never seen the sheer quantity of anti-right spittle evident in the general media at any previous election. And yes, I've accounted for confirmation bias in that assessment.

Again, it's really not that difficult to fix: split the two costs and fund them differently.

Infrastructure tax would represent, say 90% of the budget. Everyone uses it so everyone should pay accordingly. Ethically that should be a nominal amount per citizen, but as you say 80% simply couldn't afford to pay that. So we're immediately back to pinging rich pricks more simply "because they can afford it". So be it, everyone pays, say a flat 15% infrastructure tax. Fuck a sliding scale, that's simply doubling down on the same "they can afford it" bullshit.

Social services, by their very nature amount to charity. If that's not the case then I can't see why I should be paying for it. Those benefiting simply can't contribute, (possibly temporarily) and as above: those contributing can afford it more. Fund it from a designated and fenced charity tax. Less than some 3% of the current budget is "benefits", fuckit, call the charity tax 5%. You get charity, (which orta be fairly generous from that revenue) for being unable to work, and maybe to help look after special needs relatives. That's it. Arsehole 99% of the administration cost involved in the current setup and feed that back into the pot.

How's your addition? I make that a flat tax of 20%. There is no other tax designation, and no fuzzy "working for (someone else's) familys", if you can't afford your life choices at your current income then asking someone else to pay for them isn't an option. Note that with 90% of the national tax take paying for a lot of your needs and you paying a paltry 20% tax you really don't have much of an excuse for not managing that.

ah yes. an economic solution to the economic problem. and you know it will work cos it always has before :weird:

mashman

31st August 2017, 14:28

The only thing Politicians follow through on is increasing taxes and/or "levies".

Everything else they say is a baldfaced lie.

We won't any more broke after the election than we already are. The only difference will be if one lot get in Government services will stay the same. If the other lot get in they'll continue to decrease in availability and quality.

Reagan nailed it.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 14:29

not necessarily - they may also be poor because they aren't very intelligent. just remember - 50% of people have an IQ less than 100...

They may also be poor because they are highly creative, but not very conscientious

Then if they aspire to an average lifestyle they should probably expect to work a tad harder.

In which case they can afford to fuck around a bit and still earn a decent income.

This "equality" shit, can we just arsehole the whole rationale as a means of defining "fair and just" FFS? Only, I'm actually pretty sure that absolutely nobody is equal to anyone else in any given respect. So why should they expect equal income?

The only possible result of paying everyone the same is to lower production to the lowest common denominator. Fuck that.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 14:31

ah yes. an economic solution to the economic problem. and you know it will work cos it always has before :weird:

Show me where's it's been tried before.

Or are you just driveling on auto as usual?

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 14:32

Reagan nailed it.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

:laugh: I'd forgotten that. But damn it's accurate.

Edit: which reminds me: An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. Simon Cameron.

James Deuce

31st August 2017, 14:39

Broadly, what services have decreased in real terms over the last decade?
Health, education, and welfare.

I've lived at the pointy end of all three for the last 14 years and Special Education Services have all but disappeared. Access to top flight diagnostic gear requires private medical insurance and Mental Health services have also vanished. Many procedures that were Inpatient activities have become day cases requiring uplift of a child at 2am because there are "no" beds. WINZ and IRD have gone from being accessible if not outright friendly to hiding behind callback systems and insisting that Autosomal conditions can be cured requiring private medical Insurance to provide proof that they can't as you need private access to Consultants to provide supporting documentation to WINZ.

Funding for Early Intervention has fluctuated wildly requiring significant increases in fees from parents that amount to thousands a year. Early Intervention is vital for obtaining ORRS funding to get the correct level of support in place before starting school, such as teacher aides and specialist furniture, equipment and teaching aids. Without Early Intervention involvement it is almost impossible to get the top level of ORRS funding.

TheDemonLord

31st August 2017, 14:59

Then if they aspire to an average lifestyle they should probably expect to work a tad harder.

In which case they can afford to fuck around a bit and still earn a decent income.

Well, yes - there are those who are intelligent and creative, but have fuck all work ethic - those people need to work harder, but there is also a class who work hard, but for lack of a better word are Stupid. They are barely capable of performing the most menial of tasks.

You know that 40 year old worker at a fast food restaurant who can barely get your order right - they can work as hard as they want, they are still going to be on the bottom rungs of the economic and societal ladder because they are stupid. And this isn't faux-superiority, the 2 biggest predictors (combined) for how much someone will earn is hard work AND intelligence - if you work hard but are stupid, you are going to hit an intellectual ceiling - where the higher paying tasks are simply too complex for you.

For these people - there should be a reasonable standard of living - what constitutes reasonable - well, that's up for debate.

This "equality" shit, can we just arsehole the whole rationale as a means of defining "fair and just" FFS? Only, I'm actually pretty sure that absolutely nobody is equal to anyone else in any given respect. So why should they expect equal income?

The only possible result of paying everyone the same is to lower production to the lowest common denominator. Fuck that.

Equality of outcome is Cancer, but also one has to be conscious of the gini coefficient for Income - if it becomes too steep, that's where you see a big rise in Crime - if those at the bottom have no alternatives to succeed other than become violent thugs.

This is what I talk about when I mean a societal cost. Yes, nature is unequal, but if we let society get too disparate, then we end up creating a crime wave.

TheDemonLord

31st August 2017, 15:00

Voltaire

31st August 2017, 16:50

from 2012

The number of people aged 65 and over will grow from 610,000 today to over 1.1 million in 2031. The cost of New Zealand Superannuation will balloon from 9 billion dollars a year to 20 billion dollars a year in today's terms. That is $7,800 per person in the labour force, nearly twice the current bill.Jan 25, 2012

That needs a " working group" :innocent:

Maybe the likes of Winston Peters who don't need it but see it as an 'entitlement' should offer to pass on it or better still retire and get out of our faces.

Mr English should come out and say if he will or wont form a Govt with NZ First as it might determine if I vote for them or not.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 17:30

Health, education, and welfare.

I've lived at the pointy end of all three for the last 14 years and Special Education Services have all but disappeared. Access to top flight diagnostic gear requires private medical insurance and Mental Health services have also vanished. Many procedures that were Inpatient activities have become day cases requiring uplift of a child at 2am because there are "no" beds. WINZ and IRD have gone from being accessible if not outright friendly to hiding behind callback systems and insisting that Autosomal conditions can be cured requiring private medical Insurance to provide proof that they can't as you need private access to Consultants to provide supporting documentation to WINZ.

Funding for Early Intervention has fluctuated wildly requiring significant increases in fees from parents that amount to thousands a year. Early Intervention is vital for obtaining ORRS funding to get the correct level of support in place before starting school, such as teacher aides and specialist furniture, equipment and teaching aids. Without Early Intervention involvement it is almost impossible to get the top level of ORRS funding.

And yet the spend on at least Health and Welfare is higher than it's ever been.

And I know you don't see that, and I know ACC and WINZ fail to deliver what they say they do, but at least part of the reason for that is the fact that politicians continue to promise more services, for more people than the budget will deliver. A situation not made any easier by rapid improvements in expensive health technology. Vote buying will ALWAYS fail to deliver effective results, it's not even in the picture.

So you go from a rational "best bang for your buck" spending policy to one where you've over-promised so much that nit pickin' bureaucratic obstruction and blowing out the waiting list are the only options.

Also, promising middle NZ health care subsidies and welfare access is fucking stupid, it simply detracts from resources that should be available for those that actually need them. You'd think that when you reach the point that half the population are net beneficiaries it'd be a dead giveaway that you're not dealing in "need", you're just taking money they'd far more efficiently be spending themselves, blowing half of it on administration and giving back pretty much what you took in the first place. This is manufacturing a dependent middle class.

oldrider

31st August 2017, 17:39

Ground hog day? - same old same old every three years! - Keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result? - :jerry:

Stylo

31st August 2017, 18:05

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 18:44

Leaders debate tonight is an instant ' no watch ' for me . If Mike Hoskings is the mediator , it's hardly going to be balanced.

He lost his credibility a long time ago. plus , he's an egotistical wanker, and I'm a long time National supporter.

And yet a recent analysis of actual historic performance data had him balanced, more or less dead even.

Which is hardly surprising, as that's the basis of TVNZ's remit for the role.

Amazing how one's perception is bent in by intense dislike, innit?

I mean how else can you explain Labour's recent fortunes, on the basis of absolutely zero change in policy whatsoever?

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 19:05

Well, yes - there are those who are intelligent and creative, but have fuck all work ethic - those people need to work harder, but there is also a class who work hard, but for lack of a better word are Stupid. They are barely capable of performing the most menial of tasks.

You know that 40 year old worker at a fast food restaurant who can barely get your order right - they can work as hard as they want, they are still going to be on the bottom rungs of the economic and societal ladder because they are stupid. And this isn't faux-superiority, the 2 biggest predictors (combined) for how much someone will earn is hard work AND intelligence - if you work hard but are stupid, you are going to hit an intellectual ceiling - where the higher paying tasks are simply too complex for you.

For these people - there should be a reasonable standard of living - what constitutes reasonable - well, that's up for debate.

Mmmmm. So why are we importing fruit pickers and farm workers?

And what's the function of the minimum wage? It sure as fuck bears no relationship to any requirement for any minimum production.

Equality of outcome is Cancer, but also one has to be conscious of the gini coefficient for Income - if it becomes too steep, that's where you see a big rise in Crime - if those at the bottom have no alternatives to succeed other than become violent thugs.

This is what I talk about when I mean a societal cost. Yes, nature is unequal, but if we let society get too disparate, then we end up creating a crime wave.

Well in spite of the deluge of whining from the left about rampant inequality NZ's gini numbers have hardly moved for years. So if there's a problem it's the advertising campaign saying otherwise that's most likely to be responsible for any increases in crimes of envy. Not, I hasten to add that threats of violence have ever been any reason whatsoever to pander to such shit.

Similarly, the perception that living standards are plummeting can fairly easily be refuted, but massive improvements in living standards aren't all that useful in shaking down all dem rich pricks.

Stylo

31st August 2017, 19:45

And yet a recent annalists of actual historic performance data had him balanced, more or less dead even.

Which is hardly surprising, as that's the basis of TVNZ's remit for the role.

Amazing how one's perception is bent in by intense dislike, innit?

I mean how else can you explain Labour's recent fortunes, on the basis of absolutely zero change in policy whatsoever?

I haven't read that analysis Ocean1 , please enlighten me.

And I'm not leaning any way..but, must admit due to complete apathy on the National party side, I'm leaning slightly more to the left than I have ever done.

'Intense' dislike ? Where did that come from, I never said that.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 19:58

I haven't read that analysis Ocean1 , please enlighten me.

And I'm not leaning any way..but, must admit due to complete apathy on the National party side, I'm leaning slightly more to the left than I have ever done.

'Intense' dislike ? Where did that come from, I never said that.

Oh it wasn't anything deeply numerically impressive, just a look at how many embarrassing questions, interruptions imposed on either side, etc etc. It's interesting, given the recent petition from some insignificant percentage of the population insisting he be sacked, based on the completely unsupported claim that he dressed right.

Oh we're all internally centered, no doubt, but from an outsider's perspective we all lean one way or another.

Came from an ill advised browse through comments on a Harold article, which mostly matched your comments, and similarly offered little by way of evidence for all the foamy mouth stuff. You may not dislike him, but the fact is that's the single most powerful factor in how we perceive others. Actual integrity and performance come way, way down the list.

Stylo

31st August 2017, 20:38

Oh it wasn't anything deeply numerically impressive, just a look at how many embarrassing questions, interruptions imposed on either side, etc etc. It's interesting, given the recent petition from some insignificant percentage of the population insisting he be sacked, based on the completely unsupported claim that he dressed right.

Oh we're all internally centered, no doubt, but from an outsider's perspective we all lean one way or another.

Came from an ill advised browse through comments on a Harold article, which mostly matched your comments, and similarly offered little by way of evidence for all the foamy mouth stuff. You may not dislike him, but the fact is that's the single most powerful factor in how we perceive others. Actual integrity and performance come way, way down the list.

Sounds you're a bit be-fuddled tonight Ocean 1 .... Not sure what a Harold article is but, best you have an early night aye.

Oh dear.

Swoop

31st August 2017, 20:50

Sounds you're a bit be-fuddled tonight Ocean 1 .... Not sure what a Harold article is...

The Harold.
What used to be a bastion of NZ reporting, based in a newspaper format.

It nowadays is unable to decide if it really wants to be a woman's magazine, gossip column, fake news, or mouthpiece for articles written overseas and re-published here. Journalistic ability and editorial standards = zero.

FJRider

31st August 2017, 21:04

... and i'll build a wall around auckland, then flood it.

vote akzle.

Give it a few years ... and it will sink into the mire on it's own accord.

But when the motorways become clogged up ... there'll be plenty of cycle lanes available to get around ... :yes:

Woodman

31st August 2017, 21:11

Watched a bit of the leaders debate. Fuck jacinda adearn has huge ears. Not huge compared to her teeth, but still well out of proportion. Vote National.

James Deuce

31st August 2017, 21:17

And yet the spend on at least Health and Welfare is higher than it's ever been.

And I know you don't see that, and I know ACC and WINZ fail to deliver what they say they do, but at least part of the reason for that is the fact that politicians continue to promise more services, for more people than the budget will deliver. A situation not made any easier by rapid improvements in expensive health technology. Vote buying will ALWAYS fail to deliver effective results, it's not even in the picture.

So you go from a rational "best bang for your buck" spending policy to one where you've over-promised so much that nit pickin' bureaucratic obstruction and blowing out the waiting list are the only options.

Hospitals are failing to deliver as well. The Bureaucracy is worse than it's ever been. It's the biggest obstruction to gaining access to the only available channels of targeted help. Throwing more money at it is not the way to fix it, because the only people money managers trust are more money managers. All services need more frontline people. There is no longer an excuse for personal information being held by Government being segregated departmentally. Privacy "concerns" are the biggest hindrance to service delivery and the greatest contributor to systemic inefficiency. When Facebook knows more about the populace of a country then Government bureacracy needs to have a long hard look at itself. Doctors and teachers need to stop writing stuff on paper too. That's another problem that creates more problems than it solves.

James Deuce

31st August 2017, 21:21

Mmmmm. So why are we importing fruit pickers and farm workers?

Because minimum wage seasonal part time work over a few months of the year no longer provides enough income to raise a family. Because being paid for a 3 hour milk in the morning and 3 hour milk in the afternoon and working a 16 hour day was becoming a bit obviously exploitative.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 21:54

Hospitals are failing to deliver as well. The Bureaucracy is worse than it's ever been. It's the biggest obstruction to gaining access to the only available channels of targeted help. Throwing more money at it is not the way to fix it, because the only people money managers trust are more money managers. All services need more frontline people. There is no longer an excuse for personal information being held by Government being segregated departmentally. Privacy "concerns" are the biggest hindrance to service delivery and the greatest contributor to systemic inefficiency. When Facebook knows more about the populace of a country then Government bureacracy needs to have a long hard look at itself. Doctors and teachers need to stop writing stuff on paper too. That's another problem that creates more problems than it solves.

Aye, pretty much. Unfortunately any subsidy at all distorts both cost and usage. Taking your snotty kid to the ED might save you a few dollars, but the DHB gets no GP subsidy, so it makes a complete joke of their ED funding model. And costs the taxpayer an order of magnitude more than any GP subsidy. Not to mention trashing waiting time kpis.

I don't necessarily agree that more money wouldn't provide more discrete interventions, but you certainly need to channel that money all the way to it's intended purpose, or it leaks amazingly quickly. Which is why I'm also a little wary of the "less admin, more front line" thing, you can't rely on clinical staff to manage money, they'll completely and utterly fuck any given budget, every time, they're simply not wired that way. Needless to say there will always be budget constraints, anyone proposing significant funding increases is either an idiot or a... politician.

Re the information sharing, yes it's well overdue, there are moves afoot, as you probably know, but there's also discrepancies in the platform proposed for each service. Really does need central govt to wave a big stick, lock the various Boards in a room and let them out only when they've got a coherent plan.

Ocean1

31st August 2017, 21:59

Because minimum wage seasonal part time work over a few months of the year no longer provides enough income to raise a family. Because being paid for a 3 hour milk in the morning and 3 hour milk in the afternoon and working a 16 hour day was becoming a bit obviously exploitative.

Re minimum wage, see: minimum production. If the end user doesn't think the finished goods are worth the extra then there that's another job down the tubes. Want to loose some more? Just increase minimum wage again.

And I'm not sure that "because arseholes" is a viable reason to choose imported labour over local labour, is it?

AllanB

31st August 2017, 22:13

Gareth Morgan can be a bit of a tosser but I like the line his TOP crew are taking. .

I work with a few 30 year old or so lawyers - they like the way he talks.

I reckon John Key read it well. NZ, regardless of how well we are or are not doing just won't tolerate anything beyond three terms. Not that long ago the catch phrase about Helen Clark and her lot was '9 years and what have they done..'

Voltaire

1st September 2017, 07:03

My wifes observation was " OMG what has she done to her hair", she had no comment on Bills hair.

I think Mike looked spiffing in a suit and tie, much better than the jeans look that he tries to keep up with his much younger wife and Toni Street.

No mention of the costs of large Flat Whites now hovering near $5.

Its not builders we need its Baristas.

TheDemonLord

1st September 2017, 07:51

Leaders debate tonight is an instant ' no watch ' for me . If Mike Hoskings is the mediator , it's hardly going to be balanced.

He lost his credibility a long time ago. plus , he's an egotistical wanker, and I'm a long time National supporter.

I'm not a huge Hoskings fan (sometimes I do have the urge to slap his Smug Mug) but I thought he gave both sides an equal Grilling, allowed some crucial interjections from both sides and allowed a little bit of back and forth were needed.

It was a very balanced moderation.

I think the problem that certain sectors of society is winging about - is that the Moderator isn't a raving Marxist and therefore shouldn't be allowed to speak...

AllanB

1st September 2017, 07:59

I had the misfortune of watching the debate with my in-laws. People in their mid 80's, die hard Labour voters with no ability to consider anything else period. If Jacinta (SP?) had rolled up her skirt and took a squat on TV they would still vote for her.

Just watched the two deputy leaders on TV3 this morning - Kelvin did not do well - hammered for detail - there is none other than a 'working group'. I personally like the fella but he's being hung out to dry by his party. And that is my concern - there is nothing behind the facade.

TheDemonLord

1st September 2017, 08:09

Privacy "concerns" are the biggest hindrance to service delivery and the greatest contributor to systemic inefficiency. When Facebook knows more about the populace of a country then Government bureacracy needs to have a long hard look at itself. Doctors and teachers need to stop writing stuff on paper too. That's another problem that creates more problems than it solves.

You are completely wrong about Privacy concerns.

They are and must always be a very high priority. Literally half of my Job revolves around making systems secure to protect the data held within. Every decision I make, I must be able to prove that it is being done in the most secure many for the function required.

You may think that "oh, it's just some personal details" - but time and time again, a few personal details have been all that was required for major security breaches - case in point, the Celebrity nude photo hack. This was done by daisy chaining compromised accounts: As one account was compromised, the data/access gleaned from that account was used to compromise the next one - until they got into the cloud photo storage platform and the rest is history.

If you disagree - then feel free to post up your full name, Home address, Bank account details, Mother Maiden name, Date of Birth, Place of Birth, Credit card info etc. etc.

Now, I agree that Hospitals have a crap tonne of beuracracy - in fact it reminds me of a clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A

This is however, a function of the high levels of Auditing needed when dealing with people's health - think on this, the regular nurse checks that they do - now imagine a patient died after a complication from a relatively routine surgery, also assume that the nurse did the check, but didn't record the results - At a subsequent enquiry into the death it would go something like this:

Nurse: But I checked the patient, they were fine
Inquiry: There isn't a record of you checking the patient, what was the results?
Nurse: I can't remember their exact temperature and BP
Inquiry: Then how do you know they were fine?
Nurse: Well, I...

And so on and so forth - when it comes to health, every action must be logged so that there is a full audit trail for when people die unexpectedly.

The reliance on Paper is simply down to one simple fact - Data can be lost (for example, once, a certain Demon Lord accidentally rm'd about 12 TB of backup data....) but paper has a physical permanence to it that is not so easily afflicted by a wayward keystroke.

TheDemonLord

1st September 2017, 08:17

Mmmmm. So why are we importing fruit pickers and farm workers?

And what's the function of the minimum wage? It sure as fuck bears no relationship to any requirement for any minimum production.

Typically because those jobs are out in the country, not where the large unemployed workforce is, and that seasonal labour works out quite nicely for people wanting a certain lifestyle (namely, to have a working Holiday in NZ)

Minimum wage is a tough one - on the one hand, There is a principle that without a protection, there are those who do not have the means or the ability to negotiate their wage, which ends up being a case of 'take what we deign to give you' - which I don't agree with.

On the flipside - you are correct that changes to the Minimum wage seldom have the desired effect and often puts a tight squeeze on small to medium sized business, franchise owners etc. whilst unaffecting the 1% in their palatial mansions.

Well in spite of the deluge of whining from the left about rampant inequality NZ's gini numbers have hardly moved for years. So if there's a problem it's the advertising campaign saying otherwise that's most likely to be responsible for any increases in crimes of envy. Not, I hasten to add that threats of violence have ever been any reason whatsoever to pander to such shit.

Similarly, the perception that living standards are plummeting can fairly easily be refuted, but massive improvements in living standards aren't all that useful in shaking down all dem rich pricks.

See the Marxist/Radical Leftist/Post-Modernist Narrative - which both you and I deeply despise. The point remains however that we must be cognizant of it, and whilst part of me thinks that anyone who turns to violence should be treated in kind, I don't want to end up living in South Africa.

This thread is ripe for some Jordan Peterson: "It's not that the love the Poor, they are just simply hate the rich, because they are jealous"

Ocean1

1st September 2017, 08:18

Nurse: But I checked the patient, they were fine
Inquiry: There isn't a record of you checking the patient, what was the results?
Nurse: I can't remember their exact temperature and BP
Inquiry: Then how do you know they were fine?
Nurse: Well, I...

And so on and so forth - when it comes to health, every action must be logged so that there is a full audit trail for when people die unexpectedly.

The reliance on Paper is simply down to one simple fact - Data can be lost (for example, once, a certain Demon Lord accidentally rm'd about 12 TB of backup data....) but paper has a physical permanence to it that is not so easily afflicted by a wayward keystroke.

And this isn't even America, where an estimated 40% of the health budget is spent on some form of professional botty protection.

TheDemonLord

1st September 2017, 08:43

And this isn't even America, where an estimated 40% of the health budget is spent on some form of professional botty protection.

America is a special case, it really is.

Swoop

1st September 2017, 09:20

I think the problem that certain sectors of society is winging about - is that the Moderator isn't a raving Marxist and therefore shouldn't be allowed to speak...

The incessant childish whining from the left is tiresome.
Their "petition" to have him removed as moderator is a recent example. America's perpetual tantrum about their new president is hysterical.

TheDemonLord

1st September 2017, 09:40

The incessant childish whining from the left is tiresome.
Their "petition" to have him removed as moderator is a recent example. America's perpetual tantrum about their new president is hysterical.

And what pisses me off more than that, is with the exception of Fiscal policy, I'm centrist, with some left leanings (in the classical British Liberal tradition) - but the current left has turned ever so ugly.

I've got a few ideas as to the culprits, but that's a rant for another thread.

Woodman

1st September 2017, 18:44

oldrider

1st September 2017, 20:52

Show us the money?
<iframe width="480" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/23DNe0cJhcU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ocean1

3rd September 2017, 11:19

Labour are just promising the world with no fucken clue where the money will come from.
If they get in they will then blame the National Government for leaving the country in such a bad state that they can't fulfill their election promises.

Well not quite all of the world.

19 billion dollars of it, though, according to the taxpayers union.

:facepalm:

Berries

3rd September 2017, 12:35

If Jacinta (SP?) had rolled up her skirt and took a squat on TV they would still vote for her.
To be fair, if she did that I might overcome my apathy and cast a vote.

Woodman

3rd September 2017, 20:26

I think the money Labour want to spend will come from the emissions taxes on farmers and capital gains. With respect to the emissions tax on farmers all that will do is put up the price of food as it will be the consumer who will be paying the emissions tax.

Capital gains tax will be paid by the consumers too.

Woodman

3rd September 2017, 20:27

Nationals proposed law changes against drug dealers is a great policy and about time too.

oldrider

3rd September 2017, 20:53

Before you vote check out these seven "free" videos and then compare your expectations from casting your vote against what you will actually receive in return?

Link to the video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE88E9ICdipidHkTehs1VbFzgwrq1jkUJ How does your chosen candidate/party stack up? - Are you on to a winner? :scratch:

Grumph

3rd September 2017, 20:55

Nationals proposed law changes against drug dealers is a great policy and about time too.

If you say so...But their last go at removing the rights of individuals - The legislation enabling the confiscation of properties post Chch quakes - hasn't worked out well for them with a lot of it being overturned in court.
Amy Adams isn't getting a great track record as MoJ either....

pete376403

3rd September 2017, 21:17

Nationals proposed law changes against drug dealers is a great policy and about time too.

Bennett "drug dealers and gang members have fewer human rights..." I wonder if this includes her grand-daughters father?

"Police said Halaholo, 23, was a member of the Thugs of Canal, a so-called youth gang based around Canal St in Avondale. The gang members reportedly have a history of violence and intimidation, creating the risk inappropriate pressure could be brought to bear on the senior minister and her decisions.

Yesterday, Halaholo’s father Lolo Halaholo, 42, said Bennett had been trying to support her daughter and family by taking in her granddaughter’s father.
Viliami Halaholo left Avondale College aged 17 and got work with a road crew. He had been in regular police trouble because of his involvement in up to 10 fights, his father said.
Halaholo’s aunty, Tolo Langi, said her nephew had settled down after meeting Ana, but had still hung around Avondale with his gang associates.
Ana studied at Excel Ministries School of Performing Arts before becoming a mum.
Ana and Halaholo plan to set up house with their child and Halaholo’s other toddler daughter when he gets out, Langi said. The family hoped he would be up for parole this year."

TheDemonLord

3rd September 2017, 21:19

Nationals proposed law changes against drug dealers is a great policy and about time too.

Interesting - but this comment scares me:

But she said that they would only be applied to serious criminals, adding that this group of people had "fewer human rights than others".

Part of me agrees with it, but the other half is extremely wary when a Government limits the human rights of others.

TheDemonLord

3rd September 2017, 21:30

Woodman

3rd September 2017, 21:33

Interesting - but this comment scares me:

Part of me agrees with it, but the other half is extremely wary when a Government limits the human rights of others.

aaah the poor struggling drug dealer.

If the drug dealers don't like it then they can always lobby parliament, after all they still have rights.

AllanB

3rd September 2017, 22:32

aaah the poor struggling drug dealer.

If the drug dealers don't like it then they can always lobby parliament, after all they still have rights.

Hmm one could argue that if they are not paying tax on their ill gotten funds then are they not by default giving up their tax payer rights?

Hang em high.

TheDemonLord

4th September 2017, 09:58

aaah the poor struggling drug dealer.

If the drug dealers don't like it then they can always lobby parliament, after all they still have rights.

I'll note that Mr English basically said Mrs Bennetts comments were inaccurate.

but I must challenge - the same line of reasoning (They are Criminals, they don't deserve rights/protections) is the same line of Reasoning that was used to justify Torture as a punishment.

It's a very very principled issue.

Katman

4th September 2017, 10:49

but I must challenge - the same line of reasoning (They are Criminals, they don't deserve rights/protections) is the same line of Reasoning that was used to justify Torture as a punishment.

It's a very very principled issue.

But you don't seem to have a problem with 'confessions' obtained by means of torture - when it suits your argument.

TheDemonLord

4th September 2017, 11:59

But you don't seem to have a problem with 'confessions' obtained by means of torture - when it suits your argument.

Such as?

or are you lumping Psychological pressure in with Torture?

oldrider

4th September 2017, 12:03

Who needs election bribes when we have parasites like this? - if they don't get their own way they simply consume the host! :kick: . :corn:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LMIhnn0lkUY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

jasonu

4th September 2017, 13:15

(Insert any political party name here) are just promising the world with no fucken clue where the money will come from.
If they get in they will then blame the (Insert any political party name here) Government for leaving the country in such a bad state that they can't fulfill their election promises.

Fixed it for you:2thumbsup

jasonu

4th September 2017, 13:20

But for anyone not wanting to buy a house they wont have to pay it unlike food which is more essential. With the depressed property market now vendors may not find capital gains tax easy to pass on.

What depressed property market? The thing is red hot in a good portion of NZ.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11913359

James Deuce

4th September 2017, 15:43

What depressed property market? The thing is red hot in a good portion of NZ.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11913359
The Real Estate agents are depressed, not the market. Growth is in single figure percentages.

SPman

4th September 2017, 18:36

Capital gains tax will be paid by the consumers too.The one's accruing all those capital gains??????

AllanB

4th September 2017, 19:09

The one's accruing all those capital gains??????

Every time you write a sentence online, Labour have spyware that counts how many capitals you use and tax you for that. No more LOL or WTF under Jacinda people.

awayatc

4th September 2017, 19:29

Nationals proposed law changes against drug dealers is a great policy and about time too.

We have courts to rule on guilt....
And the police to get them there.

I don't mind if we want to change the laws.
I object to the government wanting to bypass it.

We want people to operate within the law,
So should the government.....

Coz I trust them just a little as I trust drug dealers

Ocean1

4th September 2017, 19:36

The one's accruing all those capital gains??????

Consumers. Fairly simple concept, and generally fuck all to do with capital gains.

Although I'll grant the old fashioned link between the consuming bit and the paying bit isn't generally observed nowadays.

Voltaire

4th September 2017, 19:44

The Real Estate agents are depressed, not the market. Growth is in single figure percentages.

I hate how Real Estate Agents call it growth, growth is when you make more products or services. Selling houses to each other

via a ticket clipper is not.:baby:

I find car dealers better to deal with these days.

JimO

4th September 2017, 19:58

I hate how Real Estate Agents call it growth, growth is when you make more products or services. Selling houses to each other

via a ticket clipper is not.:baby:

I find car dealers better to deal with these days.
had a real estate agent look at one of my rentals that we are preparing to sell..........at the moment homes in the area are selling within 2 weeks, their cut is around 20k, i may have a crack at selling it myself

AllanB

4th September 2017, 20:25

had a real estate agent look at one of my rentals that we are preparing to sell..........at the moment homes in the area are selling within 2 weeks, their cut is around 20k, i may have a crack at selling it myself

A couple of homes in my culdesac have sold on Trademe quickly in the past ten months.

Have you noticed that as house prices have rocketed upward Real Estate agents still charge the same percentage. For doing the same. Indeed for a period of a couple years one could argue doing F-all given homes have been self selling as soon as listed.

Harcourts are one of the dearest leaches.