The 2017 Election Thread

[nerrrd]

It's inclusive ...

LOL

The RUc and a proprtion of the Fuel levies is meant to go to the regions, they are the ones being bled dry, the regions pay for their own roads you tosser.



Attachment 333123

Only that's not exactly what it says here:

Revenue for land transport comes mostly from motorists through fuel excise duty (petrol tax), road user charges on diesel vehicles (RUC), and vehicle licensing charges. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 ring-fences this revenue for investment in land transport, including building and maintaining State highways and local roads.

State highways are funded entirely by central government, with maintenance responsibilities and expenses falling on the NZ Transport Agency(external link).

The costs of building and maintaining local roads are shared between central government (through the NZ Transport Agency) and local councils. Councils contribute to the cost of their land transport activities from rates and borrowing, in what is known as the ‘local share’.

And 2003 was a while ago, just sayin'.

But I give up, Auckland sucks and we all suck and I suck and so on. And it's personal and such. And it's not like Wellington had anything to do with making any of the funding decisions involving Auckland, no sir.

Meanwhile 1 million or so of us travel around in circles paying 60c per litre into the Transport Fund and it works out to nine tenths of bugger all apparently.

[husaberg]

LOL



Only that's not exactly what it says here:



And 2003 was a while ago, just sayin'.

But I give up, Auckland sucks and we all suck and I suck and so on. And it's personal and such. And it's not like Wellington had anything to do with making any of the funding decisions involving Auckland, no sir.

Meanwhile 1 million or so of us travel around in circles paying 60c per litre into the Transport Fund and it works out to nine tenths of bugger all apparently.

It is exactly what it says there
Its just you are too ill informed to be able to figure it out

The costs of building and maintaining local roads are shared between central government (through the NZ Transport Agency) and local councils. Councils contribute to the cost of their land transport activities from rates and borrowing, in what is known as the ‘local share’.

The percentage of the RUC and Fuel levies that came from the area where they were generated was progressivly reduced under national.

In other words all the rest of the regions are effectively paying for your roads and stupid transport decisions from revenue generated on our roads.

In May 2014, the NZ Transport Agency Board agreed that the minimum funding assistance rate would be 52%, one percentage point below the national co-investment rate of 53%. At the time this was considered sufficient 'headroom' to enable councils who needed it to receive an enhanced funding assistance rate.
Subsequently the Board has decided to reduce the minimum funding assistance rate by one percentage point to 51% which will enable a larger group of approved organisations to receive an enhanced FAR, spreading the impacts of the transition to the new FAR regime more evenly.
Some approved organisations may have made commitments in the 2015/16 financial year on the basis that their minimum normal FAR would be 52%. To recognise those councils who may have made such commitments, the lowest rate that they will receive for this period is 52%.
Funding assistance rates are part of a co-investment system that recognises there are both national and local benefits from investing in the land transport network. To ensure that both partners adopt a co-investment approach, it is important that councils continue to have 'skin in the game', so we have set the maximum FAR at 75%.
Councils' actual funding assistance rates for the 2015–18 NLTP are set out in Attachment 1 [PDF, 175 KB] of the NZ Transport Agency board paper 31 October 2014.
3. Transition

The transition period for the new funding assistance rates system is nine years, or three NLTP investment periods. However, many approved organisations are likely to complete the transition to their normal funding assistance rate sooner.
For the 2015–18 NLTP, councils' normal funding assistance rate will decrease by no more than one percentage point per year.

“The critical issue for New Zealand,” McDonald says, “is the very large subsidy Auckland receives from the rest of New Zealand because of its low exports per capita. Its living standards are heavily underwritten by the provinces.”

Given that the overwhelming bulk of the nation’s wealth is produced in the provinces by exporting primary products, it is highly debatable that Auckland will be the nation’s economic centre of gravity

And no one seems to worry about the cost of retrofitting the city with better sewage pipes, oxidation ponds, roads, parks and schools, and expanding hospitals. Some reckon this could be as much as $17 billion over the next decade alone. Who is going to pay for it all – and how – doesn’t seem to enter the debate. If the government has to stump up, it’s effectively another tax on the rest of New Zealand, including the provinces which generate so much of our export wealth.

“Auckland’s population growth is increasing the negatives: more spending on infrastructure and government services; eating up more agricultural land for housing; a less attractive living environment for existing residents; more demand for urban water use at the expense of more productive uses; greater population pressure on the environment generally; and an increasing dependence on the rest of New Zealand to subsidise its weak export performance – which reduces the living standards of everyone else.”

McDonald emphasised to North & South that unlike the US, which can manufacture a big proportion of what it needs within its own borders, New Zealand can’t and has to have a large export base to fund its imports – whether oil, cars, medicines or appliances. So exports are the vital component of our wealth and Auckland, with its low share of national exports, is a laggard in that respect.

[nerrrd]

It is exactly what it says there
Its just you are too ill informed to be able to figure it out

The percentage of the RUC and Fuel levies that came from the area where they were generated was progressivly reduced under national.

In other words all the rest of the regions are effectively paying for your roads and stupid transport decisions from revenue generated on our roads.

Well I am ill informed, and I don't do maths, but that seems to be saying that at least 51% of any region's transport funding is coming from the National Transport Fund, to which we all contribute. Auckland's getting 51%, like a lot of other places, some other regions are getting more. I guess your point is it used to be more?

Anyhoo I don't know who 'McDonald' is, and I can't speak to GDP because I'm not an economist. I have noticed that economists have a distinct habit of disagreeing with each other, however, and of not being able to predict global financial crises.

The only transport decision I've made is buying a motorcycle, which some people might well consider to be 'stupid'. So in that sense, I don't pay as much as a car driver in fuel tax, but I pay it at the same rate as every other private motor vehicle owner in the country.

And Auckland sucks, I suck etc etc

[husaberg]

Well I am ill informed, and I don't do maths, but that seems to be saying that at least 51% of any region's transport funding is coming from the National Transport Fund, to which we all contribute. Auckland's getting 51%, like a lot of other places, some other regions are getting more. I guess your point is it used to be more?

Anyhoo I don't know who 'McDonald' is, and I can't speak to GDP because I'm not an economist. I have noticed that economists have a distinct habit of disagreeing with each other, however, and of not being able to predict global financial crises.

The only transport decision I've made is buying a motorcycle, which some people might well consider to be 'stupid'. So in that sense, I don't pay as much as a car driver in fuel tax, but I pay it at the same rate as every other private motor vehicle owner in the country.

And Auckland sucks, I suck etc etc

Incorrect Auckland is currently getting the lions share of the roading budget, using the roads of national significance budget that has been taken out of the regional funding every other region is paying for it. their infastructure is being run down and not only are they losing their own generated funding they are having to dig into their own local funding attempt to make up for the lost revenue.
they are then having to pay for additional funds through rates to make this shortfall. its a double whamy. You are clearly to thick to comprehend how the system works.

[Ocean1]

https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2...land-too-much/

"Auckland’s a bit of a problem. If the city’s prospering while small towns decline, isn’t it because the government is spending too much money trying to pump growth into Auckland and too little elsewhere?

In short, is Auckland costing New Zealand too much?

The answer, in a word, is no. If anything, the government’s spending a little bit less in Auckland than it spends elsewhere."

[nerrrd]

Incorrect Auckland is currently getting the lions share of the roading budget, using the roads of national significance budget that has been taken out of the regional funding every other region is paying for it. their infastructure is being run down and not only are they losing their own generated funding they are having to dig into their own local funding attempt to make up for the lost revenue.
they are then having to pay for additional funds through rates to make this shortfall. its a double whamy. You are clearly to thick to comprehend how the system works.

Well I'm confused, I thought your pdf said locally speaking we were all getting at least 51% out of the Fund, and yes Aucklanders pay a shitload in rates for our local roads too.

Also found this: http://www.transport.govt.nz/land/ro...-the-money-go/

According to this 26% of the total income is from heavy RUC vehicles...so a quarter is a fair bit, but maybe not as much as you seem to think? Most of the rest of the fleet would be in urban areas, wouldn't they?

Couldn't find any figures on Roads of National Significance, but from the list I found 3 out of 7 are in Auckland - plus I'm betting the roads around Kaikoura are pretty significant also. I'm only guessing, but do you think, maybe, they just might be borrowing money to pay for these? I know, unlike the government to borrow billions of dollars willy nilly, but just maybe? And by the government, I mean Wellington, not Auckland.

[husaberg]

Well I'm confused, I thought your pdf said locally speaking we were all getting at least 51% out of the Fund, and yes Aucklanders pay a shitload in rates for our local roads too.

Also found this: http://www.transport.govt.nz/land/ro...-the-money-go/

According to this 26% of the total income is from heavy RUC vehicles...so a quarter is a fair bit, but maybe not as much as you seem to think? Most of the rest of the fleet would be in urban areas, wouldn't they?

Couldn't find any figures on Roads of National Significance, but from the list I found 3 out of 7 are in Auckland - plus I'm betting the roads around Kaikoura are pretty significant also. I'm only guessing, but do you think, maybe, they just might be borrowing money to pay for these? I know, unlike the government to borrow billions of dollars willy nilly, but just maybe? And by the government, I mean Wellington, not Auckland.

There is a lot of confusion and guessing in your last post, why not post something when you know the facts, because as it is you clearly can't figure out the funding model despite repeated attempts to educate you thus far.
But as i am feeling generous i will give you a hint the equal share allocated for the regions has been lowered.
Aucklands on the whole has been raised as a percentage they are reciving more than their share of what they contribute, so to say you pay a higher amount is factually untrue as it is a percentage.
Also you need to figure out the difference between repairs from a natural disaater such as an earthquake and normal road mantenance..
Also lastly if Auckland was generating such vast income from fuel levies and RUCs as you believe, Its pretty simple you wouldn't need to be funded by the regions or the RONS.
You will get a regional fuel levy in the future and no one other than Aucklnders will give a shit about it. Everyone alse in the regions will probably just laugh about it.

[Ocean1]

https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2...land-too-much/


Share of NZTA spending, 2005-2014 Share of population growth, 2006-2013 Share of projected population growth, 2013-2043

Auckland 48.5% : 55.0% : 61.5%
Canterbury 5.9% : 6.4% : 13.9%
Wellington 10.1% : 10.3% : 5.2%
Waikato 13.7% : 10.4% : 7.8%
Bay of Plenty 8.0% : 4.4% : 4.1%

"Although Auckland has received a large share of new road spending over the last decade, this may just be enough to keep up with current and projected population growth."

[husaberg]

https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2...land-too-much/


Share of NZTA spending, 2005-2014 Share of population growth, 2006-2013 Share of projected population growth, 2013-2043

Auckland 48.5% : 55.0% : 61.5%
Canterbury 5.9% : 6.4% : 13.9%
Wellington 10.1% : 10.3% : 5.2%
Waikato 13.7% : 10.4% : 7.8%
Bay of Plenty 8.0% : 4.4% : 4.1%

"Although Auckland has received a large share of new road spending over the last decade, this may just be enough to keep up with current and projected population growth."

What you missed out was the NZTA spending was on "new and improved roads" not maintence, do try and follow.
Please explain why the rest of the country should fund new roads for Auckland, User pays after all. Or do you perfer a more communist approach comrade Stalin?
If there are all these new tax payers why should the rest of NZ still need to pay for Aucklands lack of planning and lack of use of public transport.
Lets look to see if everything balances out.

[Ocean1]

What you missed out was the NZTA spending was on "new and improved roads" not maintence, do try and follow.
Please explain why the rest of the country should fund new roads for Auckland, User pays after all. Or do you perfer a more communist approach comrade Stalin?
If there are all these new tax payers why should the rest of NZ still need to pay for Aucklands lack of planning and lack of use of public transport.
Lets look to see if everything balances out.

What? I'm the only one not allowed to cherry pick references?

Well darn.

And your pick is the rate of spending increases are high in areas with high population growth?

Meh.

[husaberg]

What? I'm the only one not allowed to cherry pick references?

Well darn.

And your pick is the rate of spending increases are high in areas with high population growth?

Meh.

Look again its the disparity in funding sources its hardly a cherry pick when its compared to its north island neighbours.............
AS you see Aucklands being proped up by the other regions funding.
Its hardly user pays now is it Mr Stalin?

[Ocean1]

Look again its the disparity in funding sources its hardly a cherry pick when its compared to its north island neighbours.............
AS you see Auckalnds being proped up by the other regions funding.
Its hardly user pays now is it Mr Stalin?

So funding % levels should remain the same regardless of population % growth?

[nerrrd]

There is a lot of confusion and guessing in your last post, why not post something when you know the facts, because as it is you clearly can't figure out the funding model despite repeated attempts to educate you thus far.
But as i am feeling generous i will give you a hint the equal share allocated for the regions has been lowered.
Aucklands on the whole has been raised as a percentage they are reciving more than their share of what they contribute, so to say you pay a higher amount is factually untrue as it is a percentage.

But the evidence you provided doesn't show that. So aren't you speculating as well?

Also you need to figure out the difference between repairs from a natural disaater such as an earthquake and normal road mantenance.

Was talking about the roads of national significance, I thought you said that was the main reason most of the money was going to Auckland.

Also lastly if Auckland was generating such vast income from fuel levies and RUCs as you believe, Its pretty simple you wouldn't need to be funded by the regions or the RONS.
You will get a regional fuel levy in the future and no one other than Aucklnders will give a shit about it. Everyone alse in the regions will probably just laugh about it.

Well, you haven't provided any figures that say we are being funded by the regions so far - just that we're getting 51% for our local roads, no more or less than anyone else [actually it is less than some regions]. And the regional fuel tax (which I'm not particularly happy about you're right, but I'll pay it if Wellington allows us to have one because I won't have any choice) is to pay for trains and public transport infrastructure, I believe, not roads.

[Edit Ok I don't have much time at the moment to look into the other stuff above, but the NZTA funding contribution isn't broken down by regions, it's a general pool; don't we need to know what percentage of that pool is contributed by each region and compare that to the amount being distributed to each region overall before we can say who is paying for whom?? Regardless of whether the NZTA contribution is going up or down by however much? Sorry for the continued speculation but it still doesn't make sense to me]

[husaberg]

But the evidence you provided doesn't show that. So aren't you speculating as well?]

Yes i did provide the evidence

Was talking about the roads of national significance, I thought you said that was the main reason most of the money was going to Auckland.?

The resaon the money going to auckland is they are clearly useless

Well, you haven't provided any figures that say we are being funded by the regions so far - just that we're getting 51% for our local roads, no more or less than anyone else [actually it is less than some regions]. And the regional fuel tax (which I'm not particularly happy about you're right, but I'll pay it if Wellington allows us to have one because I won't have any choice) is to pay for trains and public transport infrastructure, I believe, not roads.]

Yes i have you just can't read a graph

[Edit Ok I don't have much time at the moment to look into the other stuff above, but the NZTA funding contribution isn't broken down by regions, it's a general pool; don't we need to know what percentage of that pool is contributed by each region and compare that to the amount being distributed to each region overall before we can say who is paying for whom?? Regardless of whether the NZTA contribution is going up or down by however much? Sorry for the continued speculation but it still doesn't make sense to me]

Its not a lack of time on your behalf, its a profound lack of intelligence.

[husaberg]

So funding % levels should remain the same regardless of population % growth?

User pays is a corner stone of your own ideology, is it not.
Surely if they have more users they can pay for it themselves.
After all they are the users of the roads not the rest of the country
Why should the rest of the country fund Aucklands poor planning and allocation of resources and inability to use public transport