NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
grouch
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by grouch »

Enzedder wrote:
#MeTooNZ: Govt considers ACC for workers traumatised by sexual harassment
Excellent work if this goes ahead - even better if they add bullying to the list of acceptable claims.

Companies invariably ignore both and sweep them under the table with faux investigations. Having an active ACC claim will hit them both in the pocket and force them to work with the affected staff member to put the situation right so that they can return.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... harassment

(It a long story so read it it you care; don't care if you don't)
:thumbup:
I agree that bullying should be included . if anything sexual harassment is a subset of Bullying .
User avatar
grouch
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by grouch »

deadduck wrote:Things would also end up being taxed more than once

E.g. Say you withdraw $1000 from the bank and use it to pay your gardener. They then bank it. Is that two transactions or one? If you just did a money transfer, would it be two transactions or one?

And if they don't bank it, but instead use it to pay the babysitter, and then the babysitter uses it to pay to get her nails done, and then the salon owner uses it to buy afternoon tea for her staff etc ... that money can go around and around in the cash economy avoiding your transaction tax. But if these things are done electronically, is the money taxed half a dozen times?
What's being discussed here is sounding a lot like a FTT/ Tobin tax .

Which if introduced comprehensively would eliminate GST completely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

grouch wrote:
deadduck wrote:Things would also end up being taxed more than once

E.g. Say you withdraw $1000 from the bank and use it to pay your gardener. They then bank it. Is that two transactions or one? If you just did a money transfer, would it be two transactions or one?

And if they don't bank it, but instead use it to pay the babysitter, and then the babysitter uses it to pay to get her nails done, and then the salon owner uses it to buy afternoon tea for her staff etc ... that money can go around and around in the cash economy avoiding your transaction tax. But if these things are done electronically, is the money taxed half a dozen times?
What's being discussed here is sounding a lot like a FTT/ Tobin tax .

Which if introduced comprehensively would eliminate GST completely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM
Yeah but it won't be introduced. It just came out of the discussion about how to capture the GST on goods purchased online from overseas with a value <$400.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

grouch wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
#MeTooNZ: Govt considers ACC for workers traumatised by sexual harassment
Excellent work if this goes ahead - even better if they add bullying to the list of acceptable claims.

Companies invariably ignore both and sweep them under the table with faux investigations. Having an active ACC claim will hit them both in the pocket and force them to work with the affected staff member to put the situation right so that they can return.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... harassment

(It a long story so read it it you care; don't care if you don't)
:thumbup:
I agree that bullying should be included . if anything sexual harassment is a subset of Bullying .
Who decides what constitutes bullying? I reckon that'll be one thing that's very difficult to legislate around, how to tell the difference between genuine bullying and someone's hurt feelings or simply two people that don't like each other.
jono45
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jono45 »

deadduck wrote:
grouch wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
#MeTooNZ: Govt considers ACC for workers traumatised by sexual harassment
Excellent work if this goes ahead - even better if they add bullying to the list of acceptable claims.

Companies invariably ignore both and sweep them under the table with faux investigations. Having an active ACC claim will hit them both in the pocket and force them to work with the affected staff member to put the situation right so that they can return.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... harassment

(It a long story so read it it you care; don't care if you don't)
:thumbup:
I agree that bullying should be included . if anything sexual harassment is a subset of Bullying .
Who decides what constitutes bullying? I reckon that'll be one thing that's very difficult to legislate around, how to tell the difference between genuine bullying and someone's hurt feelings or simply two people that don't like each other.
It's spelled out pretty clearly in the new work place health and safety legislation. In my recent dealings with a bully employee the labour dept were awesome and were right behind me making a move on the psychopath
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3480
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

I was accused of workplace bullying recently while training another employee. When asked by management I said I gave honest feedback without ad hominem attacks. Once they googled what ad hominem meant they asked me what was said. Both the accuser and I gave similar answers. I now have a new trainee and the last trainee has been given unpopular tasks 😂😂 luckily for me though the unhappy trainee was truthful about what was said, a more intelligent and manipulative person could easily have made things a lot more difficult.
User avatar
Wignu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:20 am
Location: From the Hutt bro.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wignu »

Kahu wrote:I was accused of workplace bullying recently while training another employee. When asked by management I said I gave honest feedback without ad hominem attacks. Once they googled what ad hominem meant they asked me what was said. Both the accuser and I gave similar answers. I now have a new trainee and the last trainee has been given unpopular tasks 😂😂 luckily for me though the unhappy trainee was truthful about what was said, a more intelligent and manipulative person could easily have made things a lot more difficult.
Guess that's a good reason to have all feedback in written form (not always possible I know) just to cover yourself.
User avatar
Mr Mike
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Texas

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Mr Mike »

I’m sure we can all come together (other than ENZ and Thai Guy) to congratulate Sir William.
Last edited by Mr Mike on Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19675
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

I would rather all Pollys disqualify themselves from eligibility for these awards. They are already rewarded handsomely with their own gold plated trough
User avatar
Thai guy
Posts: 1873
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:16 am
Location: I raro i te maunga

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Thai guy »

Mr Mike wrote:I’m sure we can all come together (other than ENZ) to congratulate Sir William.
Cold comfort for all the people sleeping in cars this winter.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19675
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

jono45 wrote:
Enzedder wrote:I notice all the political supporters of the big shop owners and mall owners don't even mention the price gouging rents that NZ retailers have to pay for, and pass on the costs to their clients.

No

Far

King

Eye

Deer
So what planet do you live on ? Are these shop tenanted and do these businesses turn a.profit in the face of internet shopping
And that is why they have higher farking markups and struggle to compete with GST free internet sales - sheesh girls
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19675
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Mr Mike wrote:I’m sure we can all come together (other than ENZ and Thai Guy) to congratulate Sir William.

You guys already all cum together over these things MM :twisted:
User avatar
Glaston
Posts: 3129
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Glaston »

OK not politics but the Topp twins as DBE's :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
or whatever the Kiwi equivalent is.
eugenius

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by eugenius »

Frankly I’m at a lost to understand the fragile state of our school buildings and grossly underfunded mental health system after the billions raised by flogging off our assets were pumped into them.

Gee makes you wonder don’t it ?
User avatar
Mr Mike
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Texas

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Mr Mike »

Glaston wrote:OK not politics but the Topp twins as DBE's :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
or whatever the Kiwi equivalent is.
Image
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19675
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Now THOSE awards I can understand. :P
User avatar
grouch
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by grouch »

Mr Mike wrote:
Glaston wrote:OK not politics but the Topp twins as DBE's :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
or whatever the Kiwi equivalent is.
Image
:shock: :shock:
hell's bells , this could be political dynamite in the rural electorates.

Why?

Here we have the last Knighthoods for 10-12 years [ Labour abolishes Knigthoods , Gnats re-instate ] and alongside a couple of Rural icons , The Topp twins , we have the same honour being dished out to Double Dipton Bill ,thief , architect and guiding hand to some the biggest upf*ks in the country's history.

M Bovis , South Canterbury Finance, Christchurch[non] rebuild , infrastructure rundown , housing crisis , climate change denial ,etc , etc,etc .
Mind you , whomever drew up the list definitely doesn't hold Knighthoods as the ultimate pinnacle of our society's esteem.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12062840
Last edited by grouch on Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3480
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

eugenius wrote:Frankly I’m at a lost to understand the fragile state of our school buildings and grossly underfunded mental health system after the billions raised by flogging off our assets were pumped into them.

Gee makes you wonder don’t it ?
This country is corrupt from the cabinet to the core. A change of government won't change a thing.
User avatar
AD345
Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by AD345 »

Good grief
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 6988
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by JB1981 »

AD345 wrote:Good grief
Image
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8822
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

JB1981 wrote:
AD345 wrote:Good grief
Image

:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19675
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Is that Winston and Jacinda? :lol:
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 6988
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by JB1981 »

Enzedder wrote:Is that Winston and Jacinda? :lol:
Probably. With the yellow and black it's also a good analogy for the Hurricanes season at the moment.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Eug makes a good point about asset sales...

privatisation has resulted in savings and improved services where, exactly? When has that modern marvel of economic policy actually delivered a positive result for tax payers?
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

guy smiley wrote:Eug makes a good point about asset sales...

privatisation has resulted in savings and improved services where, exactly? When has that modern marvel of economic policy actually delivered a positive result for tax payers?
We still own 51% of them
User avatar
Thai guy
Posts: 1873
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:16 am
Location: I raro i te maunga

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Thai guy »

Dark wrote:
guy smiley wrote:Eug makes a good point about asset sales...

privatisation has resulted in savings and improved services where, exactly? When has that modern marvel of economic policy actually delivered a positive result for tax payers?
We still own 51% of them
Sir Bill's mates now own the rest.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

The 49% sale of assets was harmless as far as I can tell. Most people have an issue with National not spending enough money so a bit weak to hit them up over generating additional funds for the budget.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

The question about asset sales for me, is what is done with the proceeds. It's all well and good to raise revenue, it's what is done with that that interests me.

You don't get to sell these things when there's a shortfall in service provision, for example, and I think it's fair that taxpayers see their money and investments providing quality service in return.

Retaining part ownership is a side issue to that, although it's a good thing they did.
User avatar
Thai guy
Posts: 1873
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:16 am
Location: I raro i te maunga

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Thai guy »

Wilderbeast wrote:The 49% sale of assets was harmless as far as I can tell. Most people have an issue with National not spending enough money so a bit weak to hit them up over generating additional funds for the budget.
I disagree. Those assets delivered dividends to all New Zealanders and now only 50% of them do. What was once owned by everyone is now in the hands of the few who are able to invest. They of course are now free to sell to overseas interest whenever they like.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Thai guy wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:The 49% sale of assets was harmless as far as I can tell. Most people have an issue with National not spending enough money so a bit weak to hit them up over generating additional funds for the budget.
I disagree. Those assets delivered dividends to all New Zealanders and now only 50% of them do. What was once owned by everyone is now in the hands of the few who are able to invest. They of course are now free to sell to overseas interest whenever they like.
The profit of the sales went to all nzers. It allowed us to continue our high level of social services without going even further into debt than we did. Would you have preferred national to go even further into debt or cut services?

And frankly, I don’t give a shit who owns the 49% when the govt has 51%.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20881
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

guy smiley wrote:The question about asset sales for me, is what is done with the proceeds. It's all well and good to raise revenue, it's what is done with that that interests me.

You don't get to sell these things when there's a shortfall in service provision, for example, and I think it's fair that taxpayers see their money and investments providing quality service in return.

Retaining part ownership is a side issue to that, although it's a good thing they did.
My hope was that it would be used to grow those assets where needed (additional power generation for example) so that we would end up getting the additional infrastructure that was required, and as the asset was now larger, effectively own the same or a similar amount of pie as the pie had grown. But it was apparently diverted to other assets that aren't directly self funding such as health and education.

I suspect what we are seeing now with how much maintenance and additional infrastructure is still required in those areas reflects just how much they really needed doing to them. They have a well deserved reputation of being bottomless money pits, even if you only factor in advances in technology and forget about the population growth NZ has been experiencing.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

The profit from the assets was sucked up into the giant bundle of funding from taxes and other crown revenue. This is then distributed according to govt priorities. This is how it should be imo. Linking revenue to expense can mean initiatives of higher priority end up missing out.
User avatar
Thai guy
Posts: 1873
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:16 am
Location: I raro i te maunga

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Thai guy »

Wilderbeast wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:The 49% sale of assets was harmless as far as I can tell. Most people have an issue with National not spending enough money so a bit weak to hit them up over generating additional funds for the budget.
I disagree. Those assets delivered dividends to all New Zealanders and now only 50% of them do. What was once owned by everyone is now in the hands of the few who are able to invest. They of course are now free to sell to overseas interest whenever they like.
The profit of the sales went to all nzers. It allowed us to continue our high level of social services without going even further into debt than we did. Would you have preferred national to go even further into debt or cut services?

And frankly, I don’t give a shit who owns the 49% when the govt has 51%.
As GS says it's important what was done with the proceeds which were a lot lower than what was forecast and which number the Nats tried to sell it to the country with. They promised it was going into concrete infrastructure - things that would last and serve future generations but it look to have been absorbed into the fake surpluses National posted.

Borrowing rates are and have been at historically low rates so then (and now) was the time to borrow to fulfil social service commitments. It's also a bit rich saying National met social service commitments in light of their failing on housing and health, and their gutting of MPI among others.

No, the asset sales were a straight transfer of assets from all New Zealanders to a wealthy few the proceeds of which were swallowed up in dodgy accounting.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32870
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Fat Old Git wrote:
guy smiley wrote:The question about asset sales for me, is what is done with the proceeds. It's all well and good to raise revenue, it's what is done with that that interests me.

You don't get to sell these things when there's a shortfall in service provision, for example, and I think it's fair that taxpayers see their money and investments providing quality service in return.

Retaining part ownership is a side issue to that, although it's a good thing they did.
My hope was that it would be used to grow those assets where needed (additional power generation for example) so that we would end up getting the additional infrastructure that was required, and as the asset was now larger, effectively own the same or a similar amount of pie as the pie had grown. But it was apparently diverted to other assets that aren't directly self funding such as health and education.

I suspect what we are seeing now with how much maintenance and additional infrastructure is still required in those areas reflects just how much they really needed doing to them. They have a well deserved reputation of being bottomless money pits, even if you only factor in advances in technology and forget about the population growth NZ has been experiencing.

Spending priorities are a nightmare because everyone has their own philosophy...

mine centre on supporting the weakest area in the economy first... usually social services and health. I think taxing people should see them get a solid return so health and education first for me. Smart healthy people are an asset. Of course you've got to maintain infrastructure and stimulate industry where you can. Nightmare balancing act.


Power generation is a global challenge. We must have all just taken the hydro schemes for granted for years :lol: There's an interesting scheme planned in South Australia. The state has a contract with Tesla for storage batteries and solar panels on 50 000 interconnected homes, forming a virtual grid and power plant all centrally controlled. They already have the largest battery back up in the world in operation and that has already provided essential back up and massive savings, within it's first year. That sort of thinking is where we need to start heading.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20881
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

guy smiley wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
guy smiley wrote:The question about asset sales for me, is what is done with the proceeds. It's all well and good to raise revenue, it's what is done with that that interests me.

You don't get to sell these things when there's a shortfall in service provision, for example, and I think it's fair that taxpayers see their money and investments providing quality service in return.

Retaining part ownership is a side issue to that, although it's a good thing they did.
My hope was that it would be used to grow those assets where needed (additional power generation for example) so that we would end up getting the additional infrastructure that was required, and as the asset was now larger, effectively own the same or a similar amount of pie as the pie had grown. But it was apparently diverted to other assets that aren't directly self funding such as health and education.

I suspect what we are seeing now with how much maintenance and additional infrastructure is still required in those areas reflects just how much they really needed doing to them. They have a well deserved reputation of being bottomless money pits, even if you only factor in advances in technology and forget about the population growth NZ has been experiencing.

Spending priorities are a nightmare because everyone has their own philosophy...

mine centre on supporting the weakest area in the economy first... usually social services and health. I think taxing people should see them get a solid return so health and education first for me. Smart healthy people are an asset. Of course you've got to maintain infrastructure and stimulate industry where you can. Nightmare balancing act.


Power generation is a global challenge. We must have all just taken the hydro schemes for granted for years :lol: There's an interesting scheme planned in South Australia. The state has a contract with Tesla for storage batteries and solar panels on 50 000 interconnected homes, forming a virtual grid and power plant all centrally controlled. They already have the largest battery back up in the world in operation and that has already provided essential back up and massive savings, within it's first year. That sort of thinking is where we need to start heading.
Solar panels should be a current requirement on the roof of any new build in imho. Why build a massive power plant and network if you can generate a lot of it at the point of use?
eugenius

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by eugenius »

Dark wrote:
guy smiley wrote:Eug makes a good point about asset sales...

privatisation has resulted in savings and improved services where, exactly? When has that modern marvel of economic policy actually delivered a positive result for tax payers?
We still own 51% of them

And ?
Santa
Posts: 10320
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Thai guy wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:The 49% sale of assets was harmless as far as I can tell. Most people have an issue with National not spending enough money so a bit weak to hit them up over generating additional funds for the budget.
I disagree. Those assets delivered dividends to all New Zealanders and now only 50% of them do. What was once owned by everyone is now in the hands of the few who are able to invest. They of course are now free to sell to overseas interest whenever they like.
The profit of the sales went to all nzers. It allowed us to continue our high level of social services without going even further into debt than we did. Would you have preferred national to go even further into debt or cut services?

And frankly, I don’t give a shit who owns the 49% when the govt has 51%.
As GS says it's important what was done with the proceeds which were a lot lower than what was forecast and which number the Nats tried to sell it to the country with. They promised it was going into concrete infrastructure - things that would last and serve future generations but it look to have been absorbed into the fake surpluses National posted.

Borrowing rates are and have been at historically low rates so then (and now) was the time to borrow to fulfil social service commitments. It's also a bit rich saying National met social service commitments in light of their failing on housing and health, and their gutting of MPI among others.

No, the asset sales were a straight transfer of assets from all New Zealanders to a wealthy few the proceeds of which were swallowed up in dodgy accounting.
If that's what happened (it didn't) I would call that pretty f**king good accounting.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19675
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

They corresponded very nicely to the tax cuts that the Nats made, didn't they? And they favoured the top end of the market
eugenius

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by eugenius »

Noooooo you don’t say.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Enzedder wrote:They corresponded very nicely to the tax cuts that the Nats made, didn't they? And they favoured the top end of the market
This is debatable. The rich certainly gained more out of the tax breaks as individuals, but the entire package costs hundreds of millions and a good 80% of that went to middle and lower income groups (due to numbers).
Post Reply