The 2017 Election Thread

[Berries]

I'd tap it.

[Swoop]

Regarding labour's taxation policy and future taxes...

They like to make up new taxes (in fact they LOVE taxes) and as the saying goes "taxation without representation = repression". Have a read of this article (ignore the messenger, the message is important if you vote).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11910170

[Oakie]

Surprised no one has raised in relation to Labour's water use tax, levy, whatever ... what will the power generators have to pay and how will it affect power prices?

[Ocean1]

Regarding labour's taxation policy and future taxes...

They like to make up new taxes (in fact they LOVE taxes) and as the saying goes "taxation without representation = repression". Have a read of this article (ignore the messenger, the message is important if you vote).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11910170

"tackle the housing crisis and inequality in your tax system"

I'm glad they'll finally be addressing the extortionate tax rates that see the most productive 3% of the country paying 25% of total tax, and the highest earning 10% subsidising the rest to the tune of 70% of the tax take.






Maybe.

[Ocean1]

Surprised no one has raised in relation to Labour's water use tax, levy, whatever ... what will the power generators have to pay and how will it affect power prices?

Royalty, I believe.

And when they start taxing shit that literally falls from the sky in sometimes unmanageable quantities you know a tax on breathing air isn't far behind.

Also: I can hear the Maori party positively cackling over the fact that "their" water is now recognised, in fact as an asset, with a quantifiable value no less. (If "whatever we say it is" can be said to be quantifiable).

[Ocean1]

Tell you what's scary as fuck, though, is all this talk from TOP, Labour and the Lunatics about wealth tax.

I mean, it's pretty much a given that everyone has the right to improve their lot, ostensibly paying their share, (or more, as the case may be) of the cost of maintaining collective assets and charitable contributions along the way.

But to tax someone simply because, (in spite of having contributed more than most to the collective pot) they've been successful in accumulating some actual assets they can call their own?

I don't think so Garcinda.

Is there any actual ethical rationale behind all these cash grabs at all? I can already hear the doors slamming behind every successful Kiwi as they take their money elsewhere to spend how they see fit.

[bogan]

Tell you what's scary as fuck, though, is all this talk from TOP, Labour and the Lunatics about wealth tax.

I mean, it's pretty much a given that everyone has the right to improve their lot, ostensibly paying their share, (or more, as the case may be) of the cost of maintaining collective assets and charitable contributions along the way.

But to tax someone simply because, (in spite of having contributed more than most to the collective pot) they've been successful in accumulating some actual assets they can call their own?

I don't think so Garcinda.

Is there any actual ethical rationale behind all these cash grabs at all? I can already hear the doors slamming behind every successful Kiwi as they take their money elsewhere to spend how they saw fit.

Is there though? I haven't seen any from Labour or TOP. There has been a lot of talk about CGT though.

On the one hand it is good to hear Labour saying they will think through all options before coming up with the figures for their water/etc taxes. But on the other an much more pragmatic one, what the fuck have they been up to that they haven't got such figures already? That lipstick on a pig comment is looking pretty damn accurate.

[Ocean1]

Is there though? I haven't seen any from Labour or TOP. There has been a lot of talk about CGT though.

On the one hand it is good to hear Labour saying they will think through all options before coming up with the figures for their water/etc taxes. But on the other an much more pragmatic one, what the fuck have they been up to that they haven't got such figures already? That lipstick on a pig comment is looking pretty damn accurate.

Oh yes, Gareth has definitley proposed a wealth tax. Teh greens danced around the issue last elections but refused to rule it out and it's on the long list of taxes Labour cite as potential sources of revenue but won't confirm or deny until/unless elected.

They all obviously know damned well how that shit would be received, or they'd front with their plans.

In any reasonable democratic system failing to confirm or deny such a dramatic tax policy change should automatically rule them out of contention.

Edit: The thing that I found interesting about the water thing was the recent resource consent application that was declined on the basis that the resource was, (pretended to be) limited. In spite of the fact the applicants proposed plans would have seen an increase of water in that catchment. Socialists, you can trust them ONLY to be irrationally envious of anyone more resourceful than themselves.

[Woodman]

We don't need to be taxed any more all we need to do is act on the paragraphs below. Its not rocket surgery.


By my calculations, milk produced on an irrigated farm requires about 330 litres of irrigation water per litre of milk (or about 5 million litres per hectare to produce about 15,000 litres of milk). Rainfall is additional. One can argue over the fine details but the big picture is irrefutable. The potential export returns from bottled water relative to milk from a given quantity of irrigation water, are huge.

If we sold one litre of water per day to 10 per cent of the Chinese population at an export value of $1 per litre, then we would be an extremely wealthy society. The annual export income returns would be $55 billion per year. The amount of water required (55 billion litres) is trivial – about 1 per cent of the water we use on irrigated agriculture.

[Swoop]

I mean, it's pretty much a given that everyone has the right to improve their lot...

Socialists need everyone to be equal. The less well off need to be propped up and those wealthy bastard scum HAVE to be dragged down to the common level!
Working harder to earn more? What the fuck is that about Comrade?



Juceinda is showing up the lack of anything apart from the stampede to be in power. Scary.

[Ocean1]

We don't need to be taxed any more all we need to do is act on the paragraphs below. Its not rocket surgery.


By my calculations, milk produced on an irrigated farm requires about 330 litres of irrigation water per litre of milk (or about 5 million litres per hectare to produce about 15,000 litres of milk). Rainfall is additional. One can argue over the fine details but the big picture is irrefutable. The potential export returns from bottled water relative to milk from a given quantity of irrigation water, are huge.

If we sold one litre of water per day to 10 per cent of the Chinese population at an export value of $1 per litre, then we would be an extremely wealthy society. The annual export income returns would be $55 billion per year. The amount of water required (55 billion litres) is trivial – about 1 per cent of the water we use on irrigated agriculture.

The problem with that is that 10% of China can't afford the $1 per day.

It's a communist state for fucks' sake, y'know, socialism on steroids, how on earth are the serfs going to afford anything the state doesn't deign to allow them?

Now charging the top 1% $10 for a bottle of water is possibly doable...

[Woodman]

The problem with that is that 10% of China can't afford the $1 per day.

It's a communist state for fucks' sake, y'know, socialism on steroids, how on earth are the serfs going to afford anything the state doesn't deign to allow them?

Now charging the top 1% $10 for a bottle of water is possibly doable...

China was just an example. There is a lot of other money out there that we can have. I just can't get my head around the fact that we have been giving away the water for free. Even 10 cents per litre would have been a good earner.

[Grumph]

We don't need to be taxed any more all we need to do is act on the paragraphs below. Its not rocket surgery.


By my calculations, milk produced on an irrigated farm requires about 330 litres of irrigation water per litre of milk (or about 5 million litres per hectare to produce about 15,000 litres of milk). Rainfall is additional. One can argue over the fine details but the big picture is irrefutable. The potential export returns from bottled water relative to milk from a given quantity of irrigation water, are huge.

If we sold one litre of water per day to 10 per cent of the Chinese population at an export value of $1 per litre, then we would be an extremely wealthy society. The annual export income returns would be $55 billion per year. The amount of water required (55 billion litres) is trivial – about 1 per cent of the water we use on irrigated agriculture.

Yep - and how much of that irrigation water goes back into the atmosphere from the drying process ? Is it even condensed ? If Fonterra had some brains they'd be condensing it and exporting it as the purest water obtainable...
But yes, simply eliminating the middle process - dairying - would give better returns.

[Ocean1]

Juceinda is showing up the lack of anything apart from the stampede to be in power. Scary.

I read somewhere that she had worked for Tony Blair's office at some stage, so I though there might be hope for her.

But apparently she only did that because she was desperate for the money, so she swallowed her principles and took the tainted cash, but later redressed the karmic balance by stabbing him in the back at some press conference.

A woman of principle, see?

[Woodman]

Yep - and how much of that irrigation water goes back into the atmosphere from the drying process ? Is it even condensed ? If Fonterra had some brains they'd be condensing it and exporting it as the purest water obtainable...
But yes, simply eliminating the middle process - dairying - would give better returns.

Water will be the new oil, and it won't cause global warming.