Moving the capital of NZ to Auckland... Good or Bad?

[jrandom]

Hehe....Christchurch, a good place to settle...I dont think so...Back in the day when it was settled it was basically a Flaxen and Raupo bog...

Yes, but it's hard to avoid the necessity of a city in that location, given the surrounding agriculture.

[NordieBoy]

And the simple fact is the tax take from Auckland subsidises services elswhere in the country, so you rural lot should all be thankful

So if we turn off your power you won't mind?
And you can pay for your own roads too.

[Flatcap]

So if we turn off your power you won't mind?
And you can pay for your own roads too.

We already did pay for our own roads, except the government appropriated the funds to pave elsewhere in the country.

Again, be thankful

[Skyryder]

Instead of Akld, how bout.........oh never mind Raoul Isld is DOC controlled, and the pollies would compete with the native fauna for food.

I think White island would be better

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I think it's a good idea.......the further some of them are away from me the better.


There's a realy nice peice of land on Bastion point. They could live in tents and practice what they preach by reducing their own carbon emissions.

Skyryder

[The Pastor]

It would save nz alot of money having it in auckland.

[wickle]

I think White island would be better

Skyryder

No use White Island as a prison!

[PrincessBandit]

I think White island would be better

Skyryder

Or the entire island(s) of Tonga or Samoa?

[Bren]

Or the entire island(s) of Tonga or Samoa?

too nice ans warm...I vote the Chatham Isles

[wickle]

Cant let the Capital go to AKLD, next thing Akld'ers wouild what a border at the bottom of the Bombay Hills as some of them already think that where the country ends.

[Jantar]

Cant let the Capital go to AKLD, next thing Akld'ers wouild what a border at the bottom of the Bombay Hills .....

Well that is the best reason yet for moving the capital TO Auckland.

[Jantar]

That old chestnut. That argument is better applied to Wellington.

And the simple fact is the tax take from Auckland subsidises services elswhere in the country, so you rural lot should all be thankful

We have heard this claim from Auckland so many times, yet it is been shown to false again and again.

On direct income tax (paye etc) Auckland pays and receives in the same proportion as the rest of the country. It is company tax where Auckland appears tp pay more tax proportionally than the rest of the country, and that is purely because of the number of companies with head offices in Auckland. Take a fuel company as example, it makes more profit from its sales in rural areas because of the greater distances travelled per head of population, but all profit, and hence all tax is calculated at the Auckland head office. That is how Auckland can make the claim, by simply ignoring the fact that it is the rest of the country sending money to Auckland before it is counted for tax purposes.

[Sollyboy]

Hmm... Aucklanders do like to point that out, as a justification for getting extra road tax, schooling, electricity ... the list goes on.

But, who really IS the powerhouse of the country ?

Hmm looks like its Levin.

Or at least rural NZ.

NZ Trade and industry figures ... 2006
Exports, in decending order of value

Dairy = 22%
Meat = 15.27%
Wood = 6.4%
Machinery = 5%
Aluminium = 4.74%
Starch = 3.9%
Fish = 3.47%

Hmm. It would seem that in term of EARNING money, Aucklands not really even on the chart.

It may be a bit like real life.

I wear overalls. I run three firms, and make a healthy profit.

My wife wears a nice frock, and uses the money I make to go shopping.

When I walk in a shop, the retailers look at my overalls, and walk away.

When my wife walks in, they race over.

Hi Maria ! Hope you are well ! how can we help !

Torism is 8.9% of GDP , out of all the revenue you listed it was the only one that is sustainable and mostly enviromentally friendly,it also doesnt utilise half the countrys usable land to generate profit ,Auckland is the gateway , and tourism is the only export that gathers GST , Auckland rocks , you haters can go fuck yourselves............Aucks

[CB ARGH]

Not more fucking tourists!


NO

[davereid]

Torism is 8.9% of GDP , out of all the revenue you listed it was the only one that is sustainable and mostly enviromentally friendly,it also doesnt utilise half the countrys usable land to generate profit ,Auckland is the gateway , and tourism is the only export that gathers GST , Auckland rocks , you haters can go fuck yourselves............Aucks

What a load of bollocks.

What does the word "sustainable" mean ?

For most of the world it means the rich man, stealing their land, (and therefore their food production.)

Generally, the rich use the "sustainable land" for very good, reasons.

Like ....

We use the poor mans food to make the rich man cheap petrol.
We use the poor mans food to make the rich man cheap electricity.
We use the poor mans food to ensure the rich man stays fat, and rich.

"Sustainability" is the process of replacing the finite resources of coal, oil, and metals, with the much more finite resource of arable land.

Of course, the arable land we choose, we usually seize with dollars, not bullets, as we are green, caring and civilised. We even organise conferences in Rome, so we can chat (caringly) over dinner and drinks about the people we are starving !

And with regard to "tourisim" being environmentally friendly ?

You could hardly be more wrong. The tourist gets here in a jet. He has already used more fuel (and carbon) than I will use in a year.

Then, he will eat as much as me, therefore using exactly the same carbon as I do. He will travel, normally much greater distances than I do, using more carbon.

He will stay in hotels and motels, using fossil fuels to stay warm, dry his clothes, and eating entirely processed foods.

During the same time, lots of kiwis will heat their home with wood, dry clothes on the line and eat food they grew, or hunted.

Sorry ! Tourisim is about as un-green as it can get.