Election Bribes 2017

[Ocean1]

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]

Yep. Suggestions for a fix?

stv.


or, y'know. vote ax.

[Ocean1]

stv.


or, y'know. vote ax.

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

[Voltaire]

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.

[Akzle]

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

ahem. you voted for it

[TheDemonLord]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[Ulsterkiwi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.