Tobacco tax on the increase.

[Milts]

You suggest that there is a "right" in there!

I see two "major" left wing (socialist) parties vying for the support of the "minor" left wing parties!

If the entire house voted, it would be "left wing" in my opinion!

Big government (the state) forcing their will upon the unsuspecting people equals freedom lost, in the guise of "saving us from our selves"! Yeah right!

Funny. I see two economically very right wing parties and one properly left wing. On a social scale they are both pretty left wing but on an economic scale both pretty right wing imo.
And I don't think any government which created or allows for SOEs and non nationalised information infrastructure as 'socialist' by any stretch of the imaginiation.

[Milts]

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1...03/content.pdf
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1165/240/content.pdf

The new zealand medical profession's academic perspective on tobacco tax and the impact of second hand smoke. The conclusions of the article in the first link are particularly interesting.

[oldrider]

Funny. I see two economically very right wing parties and one properly left wing. On a social scale they are both pretty left wing but on an economic scale both pretty right wing imo.
And I don't think any government which created or allows for SOEs and non nationalised information infrastructure as 'socialist' by any stretch of the imaginiation.

Look back at your state school education and it is little wonder that you come to that conclusion, they have done their work well and you are conforming as programmed!

I don't need the "state" to save me from my unnatural desire to ride a "dangerous" motorcycle, no matter how high they tax my behaviour in order to stop me!

I don't smoke or drink or they could have saved me from myself there too with their excessive tax regime!

New Zealanders seem to just love governments taxing their freedoms and running their lives!

Have they been brainwashed by the State school system? IMHO, yes!

[Milts]

Look back at your state school education and it is little wonder that you come to that conclusion, they have done their work well and you are conforming as programmed!

I don't need the "state" to save me from my unnatural desire to ride a "dangerous" motorcycle, no matter how high they tax my behaviour in order to stop me!

I don't smoke or drink or they could have saved me from myself there too with their excessive tax regime!

New Zealanders seem to just love governments taxing their freedoms and running their lives!

Have they been brainwashed by the State school system? IMHO, yes!

....What?
Do you even understand the difference between social policy and economic policy?

Everything you have listed is essentially a social policy. I'm saying that from an economic policy perspective, they are both 'right wing'; they both believe in privatisation to some extent or another. Socialism is not capitalism and does not believe in the free market. Now which of the two major parties in New Zealand doesn't believe in the free market? Actually, they both do!

Choosing to tax tobacco to reduce smoking is a social policy. The state taking over production of tobacco and allowing workers to allocate its distribution is socialism.

Here are some defintions of socialism. Please explain how the ideologies of either labour or national fit into these catagories.
If you want to talk about their social policy being mostly left wing, go ahead. I agree with you. But don't confuse 'social policy' and 'socialism', because they are two entirely different concepts.

Also, I'm pretty sure my Venezuelan politics lecturer is about as far from 'brainwashed by the state' as it is possible to get. And if you are talking about the 'state school system', I've attended schools in NZ, Germany, and have a BA in political science. Apparently the government mind control is reaching further every day.

[oldrider]

....What?
Do you even understand the difference between social policy and economic policy?

Everything you have listed is essentially a social policy. I'm saying that from an economic policy perspective, they are both 'right wing'; they both believe in privatisation to some extent or another. Socialism is not capitalism and does not believe in the free market. Now which of the two major parties in New Zealand doesn't believe in the free market? Actually, they both do!

Choosing to tax tobacco to reduce smoking is a social policy. The state taking over production of tobacco and allowing workers to allocate its distribution is socialism.

Here are some defintions of socialism. Please explain how the ideologies of either labour or national fit into these catagories.
If you want to talk about their social policy being mostly left wing, go ahead. I agree with you. But don't confuse 'social policy' and 'socialism', because they are two entirely different concepts.

Also, I'm pretty sure my Venezuelan politics lecturer is about as far from 'brainwashed by the state' as it is possible to get. And if you are talking about the 'state school system', I've attended schools in NZ, Germany, and have a BA in political science. Apparently the government mind control is reaching further every day.

Non so blind as those who will not see!

[Milts]

Non so blind as those who will not see!

I disagree. I'd say there are none so blind as those who think they see, but don't.

[oldrider]

I disagree. I'd say there are none so blind as those who think they see, but don't.

OK, fair enough.

While I deeply respect your academic achievement, it is in "real life experience" that I make my observations.

The first government that I ever became "aware" of was the labour government in New Zealand in the 1940's during WW2.

I have witnessed successive governments in NZ ever since (not withstanding world affairs) and the net value of the outcomes have always been relatively the same.

Higher taxation, higher levels of personal debt, reduced freedom and liberties, increased crime, decreased standards of justice punishment and corrections.

Higher debt and costs with corresponding deterioration in standards of education, public health and every other government run institution, etc , etc etc! (the list goes on)

There has been no difference in those outcomes, just the net constant of decline regardless of it being a National or Labour government responsible at any time.

All the time there has been a net increase in government influence (of dubious quality) in the daily lives of the citizens of the country, the "state" is growing in power at the cost of individual!

State influence in education (IMHO) insures that the bulk of the population are dumbed down and accepting of the situation as normal and that they are powerless to change it.

That is my perception of New Zealand "socialism" based on 60 years of life being subjected to the "results" of the cosy little political club that has controlled this country over that time! (MMP has made it even more secure for "them")

Yes, I have read the links (as well as many others) that you directed and it has done nothing to change my perception of the state controlled political rubbish dump New Zealand has become!

Right or wrong in your eyes, my perception is my reality!

[mashman]

Nah. The majority of the population has jot sick of smokers and dealing with them.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... the govt says that smoking is just real bad... what about the booze soaked weekend Accident and Emergency cycle? what about exhaust fumes (only 20 years since lead in fuel was banned)? what about factory fumes that mix with the moisture in the clouds, turn to Acid Rain and destroy forests etc... and the "majority" want to stop us smoking... FUCK OFF... BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[mashman]

and have a BA in political science. Apparently the government mind control is reaching further every day.

Hi there and welcome to the Further Education system... We would like you to leave your mind in the reconditioning basket as you enrol for the course... this will be returned to you when you leave... enjoy chatting with the other idealists (idealism will be removed from your returned mind)... Let's study the past as it's turned out to be such a success...

Political Science: didn't I see that in the oxymoron section?

[davereid]

.[B]Choosing to tax tobacco to reduce smoking is a social policy. The state taking over production of tobacco and allowing workers to allocate its distribution is socialism.[/

Well, not really. Socialists can and do exist quite cheerfully without state distribution and control. Socialism is very much defined by its social policy, not by its economic policy.

A country like NZ, is by any measure very socialist. We offer free health, free pensions, free schools and full welfare from cradle to grave. We tax income progressively, and actively seek an "egalitarian" society.

I use the word "free" carelessly, as its not free, its just that its paid for by taxation, and we live in hope that we get more than our fair share !

Its simply not relevant that we operate some free market policies. We are a trading nation, and we have no choice but to buy or sell on the world stage, so a socialist country with free market policy is no surprise, its merely a pragmatic solution to the issue of trade.

This leads us to the policy of taxing tobacco. Its from the (very) socialist school of "I, and my officials are clever, you are not, we will make these decisions in your best interests, you have demonstrated you inability to make them correctly yourself."

Inevitably backed up with facts and figures on "public health" socialists steal freedom in this manner, while all the time proclaiming they care for me.

God save me from those who would use violence against me to make me safer.

[Milts]

Maybe you guys are just working off a completely different definition of 'socialism' to the definition accepted by political scientists... In which case what you classify as a 'socialist' country, a political scientist would classify as a 'liberal democracy' with a number of state benefits. The definition of liberal democracy has expanded to include countries which provide healthcare etc, because that's fairly normal nowadays...
I mean, in America even before Obama, taxation was done on a progressive basis, there was a form of welfare, healthcare etc - yet very few (if any) political scientists would have labeled America under Bush a 'socialist' nation. In fact it was basically the definition of a modern liberal democracy. And again 'egalitarian' goes hand in hand with classic liberalism. You can't say that because a society is egalitarian it is socialist. And arguing that socialism is defined by social policy more than economic policy is akin to arguing that the theory (not practice) of communism is more about the state changing speed limits than it is about economic restructuring.

Socialism is much more extreme. The list of socialist countries in the world at the moment is in fact very small.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...al.html?cat=37

I think socialism gets confused with protectionist policy because a lot of socialists strongly agree with 'nanny state' style protection and taxation; however being a 'nanny state' does not make a nation socialist. I hope I'm making sense here.

As to Oldboy's comments on the 'deterioration' of New Zealand, some of it's true and some isn't. I mean, in the 90s, crime figures dropped.

I mean, tertiary education used to be free. By the time I finish my masters I'll have about a $25,000 student loan. Yeah, New Zealand is totally becoming more socialist. Also, some of your points seem to contradict others in some ways. We only have the 38th highest % of GDP spent on education in the world (don't forget there are what, 30 countries in the OECD? So we're even behind the most economically developed countries in the world). We're even behind Israel and Vanuatu, for christ's sake.

And your point about 'higher level of personal debt' contradicts your argument that NZ is becoming more socialist. In a socialists state the government pays for more things, and individual debt would go down.

And apparently the state influence on education isn't enough to teach you the difference between 'ensure' and 'insure'. Not to mention, university students are the most politically active and most likely to protest demographic in the entirety of society. Hardly 'brainwashed to accept the current state as the norm'.

I've been trying to find year by year literacy statistics for New Zealand, but can't at the moment. However I'm willing to bet you anything that literacy has gone up in the last 50 years, which is probably one of the best measures of the success of our education system. Which would contradict your statement that education standards are slipping. The stats I can find indicate that we are above average in the OECD, but especially above average in terms of child literacy - this to me suggests that the current school sustem is more effective than the average in the OECD. Stats here.

Also davereid, your argument that - "I, and my officials are clever, you are not, we will make these decisions in your best interests, you have demonstrated you inability to make them correctly yourself." - is a socialist perspective is only partially true. It could equally be a communist, facist, or totalitarian policy. And facism and socialism are on completely different ends of the idealistic scale.

I agree that taxing tobacco is a step towards a more controlled (and possibly more 'socialist') society. But to be socialist it would have to go much further. You could also argue that tax on tobacco is in keeping with classical liberalism (ie, you can do anything so long as it does not harm others; we pay for your healthcare therefore you are harming us therefore we tax you for it).

I also love how in these threads people go on about politicians loving MMP, or how MMP is a tool used by parties for this and that, when it was in fact implemented due to popular vote in a referendum of New Zealand citizens.


Oh, and one last quick dig at those opposing socialism (not saying I support it!)
And Sweden is considered one of the best-off socialist countries in the world today. And isn't ghostrider Swedish?

[davereid]

davereid, your argument that - "I, and my officials are clever, you are not, we will make these decisions in your best interests, you have demonstrated you inability to make them correctly yourself." - is a socialist perspective is only partially true. It could equally be a communist, facist, or totalitarian policy.

Of course. Socialists, Facists, and Communists all share the view that the individual is subservient to the state, and that, therefore the state can do what it wishes with the individual, and his property.

.....You could also argue that tax on tobacco is in keeping with classical liberalism (ie, you can do anything so long as it does not harm others; we pay for your healthcare therefore you are harming us therefore we tax you for it...

Yes, this is the part I hate the most. Firstly, the (classically liberal democratic) state extracts money from me at gunpoint, against my will, to fund a health system that I didn't ask for, don't want, and don't have any confidence in.

Then the state claims to be my benefactor, as it turns $100 of my money into $20 worth of health-care.

Then it says "Ooohhh look at your life-style. You smoke, you drink, you have unprotected sex. You ride a motorbike, and eat too many chippies !! The free things we give you are threatened by your terrible attitude. We will get the gun out again, and TAX those terrible things to protect the good clean living people from your abhorrent behaviour !"

I also love how in these threads people go on about politicians loving MMP, or how MMP is a tool used by parties for this and that, when it was in fact implemented due to popular vote in a referendum of New Zealand citizens....

Yes democracy. Thats a bit of a laugh really.

Lets draw an analogy.
Theres three kids in the playground. One has lunch. Its morally wrong for either of the other two to beat him up and take his lunch, maybe we can hope he will share it, but thats all.

But what if we form a democracy ! Then the other two kids can vote to take the third kids lunch and apparently its all legal.

Classically liberally democratic even. Specially if one of the kids appoints himself the government department in charge of lunch, and eats most of the lunch himself, then shares the crusts with the original owner, and the kid who didn't have lunch.

Somehow, the state was delegated the power to steal, by voters who never had that power to delegate !

"In keeping with classical liberalism you can do anything so long as it does not harm others".

The bit about not hurting others is the bit the socialists like to apply to others, but not to themselves. Your right not to be hurt by the state is completely ignored.

[Eyegasm]

The mad thing in all of this is the horrendous use of outright lies by the government. The government tells you that the health related cost to society of smokers is 1.9 billion dollars. That is a lie. If any sane person goes through the health departments itemised costing to see how the figure of 1.9 billion is arrived at they would be horrified to see what is included on the list. Eric Crampton (a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Canterbury) notes in the New Zealand Medical Journal (15th of February 2008) that "Indeed, tobacco taxes collected, at $980 million, dwarf health care expenditures of $350 million". Now, if the heathcare expenditure on smoking smoking related problems has increased six-fold in two years I would be very suprised.

If you want the actual facts look at what is released in peer-reviewed journals, not what is released by government spin-docters. After costs are recouped smoking provides over 600 million dollars in tax to the government. That is a very substantial amount. And that is before we take into account the reduced pension paid to smokers because of shortened life expectancy. If you ban smoking then tax has to be recouped elsewhere.

Finally, someone that has sense.

I actually work for the Ministry of Health and was laughing at all those that believed the 1.9 billion price tag
that was stated.

Eyegasm

[oldrider]

OK, the label on the can of worms is politically incorrect!

Society spends all it's time focussing on the correctness of the label.

Meanwhile the quality and behaviour of the worms goes unchecked.

Great deal for the worms!