NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

BillW wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Will the houses suddenly disappear BillW?
I don't know what you mean by that remark.
If you are referring to earthquakes they certainly could.
It happened in Canterbury but we never ended up with a housing crisis.
Didn't need the Government to build the houses.
Go figure.

It is a peculiarity about Auckland.

For some reason they expect the govt to do everything for them when they are supposed to have a super duper, mega council
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
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 »

BillW wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Will the houses suddenly disappear BillW?
I don't know what you mean by that remark.
If you are referring to earthquakes they certainly could.
It happened in Canterbury but we never ended up with a housing crisis.
Didn't need the Government to build the houses.
Go figure.
Landlords very rarely build to rent - they buy existing houses. those houses won't disappear because an investor doesn't want to buy.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?
It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.
It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?
It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.
It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it

The government making out like a tax cut isn't really affordable right now is a total joke, they are practically rolling in revenue because they are over taxing.
Using tax relief to justify the CGT would be disingenuous.



The thing is, the government doesn't need to make up some kind of flimsy justification for a CGT. At it's basic principle it is simply a fairness issue
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?
It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.
It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.
I'm just stating the inescapable laws of nature.

The Pareto principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Prices Law. https://brainlid.org/general/2017/11/28/price-law.html

You have the right to a different opinion but I'd need to see what you base it on to give it any credence.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

deadduck wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?
It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.
It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it

The government making out like a tax cut isn't really affordable right now is a total joke, they are practically rolling in revenue because they are over taxing.
Using tax relief to justify the CGT would be disingenuous.



The thing is, the government doesn't need to make up some kind of flimsy justification for a CGT. At it's basic principle it is simply a fairness issue
The question was whether this would help inequality. It would, and the shane jones slush fund or free tertiary won’t change that. Those are irrelevant right now.

And they are not rolling in revenue. I have no idea what gives you that idea. This years budget is epically oversubscribed from agencies begging for cash after the lean years under nationals zero-spend budgets (which were necessary at the time, no criticism there). But Labour is not flush with cash. fudge no.

And using tax relief to justify a cgt is perfectly acceptable. It’s a complete restructure of the tax system in order to make it more fair.
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16182
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Tehui »

merlin the happy pig wrote:
guy smiley wrote:the professionals are running a tidy little duopoly on supply costs and creaming the consumer blind. Great read in last weekend's Herald on that. What the govt could do is award large contracts to other companies large enough to run their own supply chains and slash costs, introducing serious competition to the market.

So there's that.
If by the professionals you mean Materials suppliers, I wholeheartedly agree.
Builders much less so. Builders have been screaming about materials costs for years.

This government deserves credit for taking the problem of housing seriously.
They also deserve a brickbat for appearing to completely fail to understand how to go about it.

If they actually by some miracle achieve or even vaguely approach there targets,
given that they have not imported a whole lot of new labourers and building companies,
What evidence will there be that they didn't merely scavenge capacity that would have done exactly the same thing without there interference.

Two things they can do:
1. Do as suggested above and source materials from outside Fletchers/Hardies (preferably USA)
2. Make it easier to zone land as residential.

If they refuse to make it easier to develop new residential areas then they may have to bite the bullet and build tower blocks instead.
After all the goal is affordable housing, what they have produced so far is miles from that.
Interesting read.
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

deadduck wrote:
The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it
Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

BillW wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?
It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.
It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.
I'm just stating the inescapable laws of nature.

The Pareto principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Prices Law. https://brainlid.org/general/2017/11/28/price-law.html

You have the right to a different opinion but I'd need to see what you base it on to give it any credence.
How does this mean a cgt won’t impact inequality exactly? Seems somewhat unrelated and more than a bit random...
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Wilderbeast wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?
It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.
It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.

The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it

The government making out like a tax cut isn't really affordable right now is a total joke, they are practically rolling in revenue because they are over taxing.
Using tax relief to justify the CGT would be disingenuous.



The thing is, the government doesn't need to make up some kind of flimsy justification for a CGT. At it's basic principle it is simply a fairness issue
The question was whether this would help inequality. It would, and the shane jones slush fund or free tertiary won’t change that. Those are irrelevant right now.

And they are not rolling in revenue. I have no idea what gives you that idea. This years budget is epically oversubscribed from agencies begging for cash after the lean years under nationals zero-spend budgets (which were necessary at the time, no criticism there). But Labour is not flush with cash. fudge no.

And using tax relief to justify a cgt is perfectly acceptable. It’s a complete restructure of the tax system in order to make it more fair.


Over the next four years they're forecasting an increase in spending of over $11 billion and still forecasting a surplus in 2021-22 of over $7 billion.

In the 2018 financial year, tax revenues increased by 6% and the government found themselves with a surplus $2.4 billion ahead of what they had forecast.

The government making out like they're skint is a joke. The fact that they've decided to allocate away much of it on wasteful spending, which might leave them short in other areas, is a bed of their own making. But in any case, if they were really keen on tax relief, they could afford to do it without introducing a CGT.

But there doesn't seem to be much impetus from the government to alter the brackets. They were very vocal in their criticism of National's plan to do much the same thing and immediately rolled it back when they came to power. That plan would have only cost $1.5 billion. I really don't think they'll do it prior to 2020 and it will be some kind of election bribe.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it
Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.

So you're talking about perhaps 10% of people who go to university. Maybe less even.

The other 90% would have got their interest free student loan and gone along and got their degree just like every single other uni graduate managed to do in the last 18 years.
If the goal was really to enable access for those kids for whom cost was a genuine barrier to study, surely that couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money every year could have been better targeted.


It was a blatant vote buy, nothing else.
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it
Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.

So you're talking about perhaps 10% of people who go to university. Maybe less even.

The other 90% would have got their interest free student loan and gone along and got their degree just like every single other uni graduate managed to do in the last 18 years.
If the goal was really to enable access for those kids for whom cost was a genuine barrier to study, surely that couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money every year could have been better targeted.


It was a blatant vote buy, nothing else.
That wasn't what you said though. Still, I don't see most of Europe complaining about having zero tuition fee tertiary study. Studies show the investment pays off in the long run through the entrepreneurial economy which, incidentally, Stephen Joyce was obsessed with to the tune of wasteful initiatives like the ICT Graduate Schools and Entrepreneurial Universities Initiatives, but I don't hear much whinging about those initiatives. Fees free is about $500m cost per annum. EUI was about $100m and so was the ICTGS. There's been a lot of chat about how few students benefitted from fees free, but still exponentially more than have benefitted from EUI or ICTGS. That's before you factor in the complete waste of funding that Callaghan Innovation has proven to be (compared to IRL) and the unnecessary National Science Challenge initiative that succeeded in basically wasting science sector investment for about 3 years. Quite frankly, in comparison fees free is an initiative that will pay dividends.
User avatar
Flockwitt
Posts: 6363
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Flockwitt »

Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it
Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.

So you're talking about perhaps 10% of people who go to university. Maybe less even.

The other 90% would have got their interest free student loan and gone along and got their degree just like every single other uni graduate managed to do in the last 18 years.
If the goal was really to enable access for those kids for whom cost was a genuine barrier to study, surely that couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money every year could have been better targeted.


It was a blatant vote buy, nothing else.
That wasn't what you said though. Still, I don't see most of Europe complaining about having zero tuition fee tertiary study. Studies show the investment pays off in the long run through the entrepreneurial economy which, incidentally, Stephen Joyce was obsessed with to the tune of wasteful initiatives like the ICT Graduate Schools and Entrepreneurial Universities Initiatives, but I don't hear much whinging about those initiatives. Fees free is about $500m cost per annum. EUI was about $100m and so was the ICTGS. There's been a lot of chat about how few students benefitted from fees free, but still exponentially more than have benefitted from EUI or ICTGS. That's before you factor in the complete waste of funding that Callaghan Innovation has proven to be (compared to IRL) and the unnecessary National Science Challenge initiative that succeeded in basically wasting science sector investment for about 3 years. Quite frankly, in comparison fees free is an initiative that will pay dividends.
Ah, kinda curious on your thoughts regards the Callaghan Innovation. I've seen it about and even considered using it, but never really understood just what it is or isn't doing... if it is in anyway successful.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:
Kahu wrote:How is a CGT going to reduce inequality?
It's not going to.
And nor is discouraging investment in rental properties going to increase the housing supply.
It will be a tax neutral package. You can bet your bottom dollar the revenue raised from a CGT will be plugged back in by providing relief in the lower tax brackets. There’s no doubt it’s people on the richer side of average who will pay CGT.

So yes, it will affect inequality.
I'm just stating the inescapable laws of nature.

The Pareto principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Prices Law. https://brainlid.org/general/2017/11/28/price-law.html

You have the right to a different opinion but I'd need to see what you base it on to give it any credence.
How does this mean a cgt won’t impact inequality exactly? Seems somewhat unrelated and more than a bit random...
I don't see that inequality is worse in New Zealand without cgt than it is in countries with cgt.
You may have some credible sources that say different.
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

Flockwitt wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it
Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people who couldn't previously afford to access it.

So you're talking about perhaps 10% of people who go to university. Maybe less even.

The other 90% would have got their interest free student loan and gone along and got their degree just like every single other uni graduate managed to do in the last 18 years.
If the goal was really to enable access for those kids for whom cost was a genuine barrier to study, surely that couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money every year could have been better targeted.


It was a blatant vote buy, nothing else.
That wasn't what you said though. Still, I don't see most of Europe complaining about having zero tuition fee tertiary study. Studies show the investment pays off in the long run through the entrepreneurial economy which, incidentally, Stephen Joyce was obsessed with to the tune of wasteful initiatives like the ICT Graduate Schools and Entrepreneurial Universities Initiatives, but I don't hear much whinging about those initiatives. Fees free is about $500m cost per annum. EUI was about $100m and so was the ICTGS. There's been a lot of chat about how few students benefitted from fees free, but still exponentially more than have benefitted from EUI or ICTGS. That's before you factor in the complete waste of funding that Callaghan Innovation has proven to be (compared to IRL) and the unnecessary National Science Challenge initiative that succeeded in basically wasting science sector investment for about 3 years. Quite frankly, in comparison fees free is an initiative that will pay dividends.
Ah, kinda curious on your thoughts regards the Callaghan Innovation. I've seen it about and even considered using it, but never really understood just what it is or isn't doing... if it is in anyway successful.
Callaghan Innovation turned a reasonably successful applied research organisation (Industrial Research Limited) into another government research funding organ - replicating what MBIE, TEC and the Royal Society already do, but at the more applied research end. At the same time, the remaining applied researchers at the new Callaghan Innovation were no longer allowed to apply for government funding; only commercial funding, so the really top quality people left (mostly offshore) and crippled the applied research sector. Obviously, the blue skies research still happens at universities and applied research still happens in the CRIs, but the advanced physics and chemistry that IRL used to manage is largely gone. The fact that they put Sir Paul Callaghan's name to this debacle adds insult to injury.

But where Callaghan Innovation does plug a gap is that they do provide support to small and emerging businesses and aid in the commercialisation process. My view is that this could have been managed within MBIE, removing unnecessary duplication and not crippling the IRL research at the same time.
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

BillW wrote: I don't see that inequality is worse in New Zealand without cgt than it is in countries with cgt.
You may have some credible sources that say different.
That's one relevant question, but the other equally relevant question is whether inequality would be worse in those countries with CGT if they didn't have it.
User avatar
jambanja
Posts: 4811
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The other side of midnight

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jambanja »

Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it
Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people wxho couldn't previously afford to access it.
Why was the free year applied to the first year rather than the final or even second year?

Is there any financial penalty for students who take advantage of the free first year and then decide that the course/degree isn’t for them
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Gordon Bennett wrote:
BillW wrote: I don't see that inequality is worse in New Zealand without cgt than it is in countries with cgt.
You may have some credible sources that say different.
That's one relevant question, but the other equally relevant question is whether inequality would be worse in those countries with CGT if they didn't have it.
Pareto principle says no.
Price's law says no.
NZ example says no.
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

jambanja wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it
Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people wxho couldn't previously afford to access it.
Why was the free year applied to the first year rather than the final or even second year?

Is there any financial penalty for students who take advantage of the free first year and then decide that the course/degree isn’t for them
The financial penalty is that they still have to pay living expenses for the time they're studying and if they withdraw without completing, they have absolutely nothing to show for it other than having less money than when they started.

As for applying it to the final year instead of the first year - yep, I can absolutely see that being a valid alternative. In terms of pragmatism and cost to implement though, the 'final year' is less clearly defined. For Architecture students, it's year five; for medical students its 5+ years, Engineering 4 years, those doing conjoints or double majors it could be anywhere over 4 years. Inherently more complicated. But yes, I can see the benefit that the final year being free would encourage students to complete... perhaps...
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

BillW wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
BillW wrote: I don't see that inequality is worse in New Zealand without cgt than it is in countries with cgt.
You may have some credible sources that say different.
That's one relevant question, but the other equally relevant question is whether inequality would be worse in those countries with CGT if they didn't have it.
Pareto principle says no.
Price's law says no.
NZ example says no.
How is there an 'NZ example'. The question I'm posing is if, in somewhere like the UK, would inequality be worse without CGT. How does the NZ example provide any evidence, given that we don't have a before and after? As for your other principle and law, I'd rather see a case study or two in this specific example. After all, most physical and economic laws only apply only in a limited range of circumstances and applying such laws to examples without empirical and experimental evidence could be seen as ridiculous extrapolation.

On the other hand, I will confess to a certain level of playing devil's advocate here. I would not be surprised in the slightest to see that CGT is a mere drop in the ocean when it comes to effecting inequality. In which case, a more robust adjustment of, say, reducing GST and increasing top rate income tax would be more effective. However, that wouldn't achieve the rebalancing of investments that the CGT is purported to achieve.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

The only way of wiping out inequality is by wiping out the human race.
Why is inequality so bad?
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

CGT ain't going to happen with Winston on 3%
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

BillW wrote:The only way of wiping out inequality is by wiping out the human race.
Why is inequality so bad?
As someone from the lower classes who's had to fight tooth and nail to where I've got to, what annoys me the most is the inequality of opportunity - perpetuated throughout society either with the "which School did you go to" attitude of certain cities which don't need naming or the "voluntary" contributions that Schools insist upon. Inequality of opportunity is intrinsically and inexorably linked to basic inequality.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Think back throughout history and basically all the violent social upheavals or revolutions in the last 300 years were brought about by extreme wealth inequality

It does very bad things to countries in the long run when it gets out of hand.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Inequality is what drives the economy and creates wealth.
It's why 20% of the people get 80% the work done.
Most of us are reliant one way or another on that 20%.
Some of that 20% had worse starts in life than you did.
Equality of opportunity is desirable.
Equality of outcome is a false god.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

deadduck wrote:Think back throughout history and basically all the violent social upheavals or revolutions in the last 300 years were brought about by extreme wealth inequality

It does very bad things to countries in the long run when it gets out of hand.
Most of very worst disasters were bought about by trying to achieve equality of outcome.
Stalin.
Mao.
Pol Pot.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

BillW wrote:Inequality is what drives the economy and creates wealth.
It's why 20% of the people get 80% the work done.
Most of us are reliant one way or another on that 20%.
Some of that 20% had worse starts in life than you did.
Equality of opportunity is desirable.
Equality of outcome is a false god.
What!?
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:Inequality is what drives the economy and creates wealth.
It's why 20% of the people get 80% the work done.
Most of us are reliant one way or another on that 20%.
Some of that 20% had worse starts in life than you did.
Equality of opportunity is desirable.
Equality of outcome is a false god.
What!?
The rewards are there for the for the more capable.
If we were all paid the same rate nobody would give a shit.
There's nothing like a good dose of socialism to suck the vitality out of a nation.
Brabus
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Brabus »

Wilderbeast wrote:
BillW wrote:Inequality is what drives the economy and creates wealth.
It's why 20% of the people get 80% the work done.
Most of us are reliant one way or another on that 20%.
Some of that 20% had worse starts in life than you did.
Equality of opportunity is desirable.
Equality of outcome is a false god.
What!?
It could have been put more eloquently but inequality exists as part of the human condition, and competition drives innovation. Some people are more driven than others, have more ambition and/or possess greater cognitive abilities. There is a reason that an oncologist gets paid more than a florist. Now there are arguments to be made that one may be over paid and the other under but that does not address the fact that one takes on a whole lot more commitment and risk than the other.

As mentioned by BillW: Equality of opportunity good, equality of outcome so very, very bad.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Oh so he meant competition? Someone should tell him that competition and inequality are not the same thing.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

Mr Mike wrote:
Ted. wrote:Nevertheless, there is a serious shortage of non-tourist accommodation in Central Otago. This issue is pretty fundamental to Central Otago's housing policy and why, for example, QLDC are putting so much effort into finding solutions for the shortage.
I need to read my ratepayers communications more closely. All I’ve noticed is the rates appear to have come down.

Which initiatives are the QLDC pushing? I hope they aren’t pushing to increase the prices at Fergburger

I don't remember the details, it was a couple of years ago and I was nodding off at the time, but according to the mayor, who spoke at our conference, they're are desperately trying to free up land and encourage developers to construct worker and family accommodation.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

BillW wrote:
Ted. wrote:
BillW wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
BillW wrote: Not sure how that would lower the price of houses.
I didn't say it would. Nice deflection though.
BillW wrote: What is it that makes you think that anybody in parliament has got the knowledge and expertise to build houses cheaper than the professionals do it?
hmmm... the professionals are running a tidy little duopoly on supply costs and creaming the consumer blind. Great read in last weekend's Herald on that. What the govt could do is award large contracts to other companies large enough to run their own supply chains and slash costs, introducing serious competition to the market.

So there's that.
Yeah.
Source supplies from countries with lower wages, less compliance costs and no health and safety rules.
Yeah, like pinus radiata. Or portland cement. Hang on, maybe you mean greywacke aggregate. Ok, ok, it must be the steel reinforcing and roofing materials... the gib? :roll:
Pre-cut houses.
Great for the Simple House (Acceptable Solution) and Multi-Proof, but they will need to dot their i's and cross their t's before they will be granted consent(s). Great when you need to bung up a bunch of dwellings in a hurray and your clientele isn't too fussy about having the same house as a bunch of other people. Not great for when you start hitting different wind zones, for e.g. All the same, I am a fan for keeping our building materials suppliers honest and maybe even encourage them not to gouge the locals to the extent they have been doing for many many years - everyone like a competitive market, right?

Manufactured houses are going to be pretty much the norm anyway. It's a good thing in some respects as their does not seem to be a will to fix our broken trade training regime. Semi skilled people in a managed environment, under the supervision of the minimum number of LBP's; no weather to bother about and with as much automation as can be thrown at it, surely has to bring costs down and even out the quality - note: that doesn't necessarily mean high quality, just less very poor quality, which is the best we can hope for when the minimum standards our performance based building codes are, by default, maximum standards when applied to the majority of builds (hey, they get a CCC, so why go further than, say a 15 year durability for brand new cladding..... with normal maintenance of course, which incidentally is not defined anywhere in the Act or Code).

Ok, that went off piste rather quickly. It's a subject that is dear to my heart.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:Anyway



Image




x(







Man









Walking





:nod:
Yep, the sooner the better. :thumbup:
I didn't always, but I quite like Judith. :thumbup:
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Ted. wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:Anyway



Image




x(







Man









Walking





:nod:
Yep, the sooner the better. :thumbup:
I didn't always, but I quite like Judith. :thumbup:
Yeah me too. :)
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
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 »

jambanja wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The government could afford to do some kind of tax relief package in the lower brackets without a CGT but they decided to fund things like Shane Jones' slush fund and free university education for people who don't need it
Says who? I work with some of those kids, and the policy has introduced tertiary education to people wxho couldn't previously afford to access it.
Why was the free year applied to the first year rather than the final or even second year?

Is there any financial penalty for students who take advantage of the free first year and then decide that the course/degree isn’t for them
Jammy, keep in mind that year one is the hardest one in which to gain a scholarship. If you can get in (don't overload in year 1) and work like hell, it is far easier to get awarded scholarships for subsequent years. I would prefer the assistance in year one but geee, it would be tempting to chuck in that extra class, wouldn't it?
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20879
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 »

booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:
I didn't always, but I quite like Judith. :thumbup:
Yeah me too. :)
Now I'm seriously worried about you guys! :shock:
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

BillW wrote:
deadduck wrote:Think back throughout history and basically all the violent social upheavals or revolutions in the last 300 years were brought about by extreme wealth inequality

It does very bad things to countries in the long run when it gets out of hand.
Most of very worst disasters were bought about by trying to achieve equality of outcome.
Stalin.
Mao.
Pol Pot.
You need to go back one step in your root cause analysis. What led to the communist revolutions in Russia and China, and the subsequent domino effect in Indochina?
They were corrections, and obviously overcorrections, to the huge disparity in wealth between the landowning elite and the newly liberated serfs and peasants who owned nothing. The disenfranchisement caused by extreme inequality led these people to throw out their own governments and spend the next 30 years exterminating the educated middle classes to prevent it happening again.


Clearly not the right way to go about things but an example of why a country should not let inequality grow unchecked.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Fat Old Git wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:
I didn't always, but I quite like Judith. :thumbup:
Yeah me too. :)
Now I'm seriously worried about you guys! :shock:
She's the leader we'll need when we invade Australia.
User avatar
Mr Mike
Posts: 10596
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Texas

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Mr Mike »

BillW wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:
I didn't always, but I quite like Judith. :thumbup:
Yeah me too. :)
Now I'm seriously worried about you guys! :shock:
She's the leader we'll need when we invade Australia.
She’s the leader that won’t need us when she invades Australia.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

BillW wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:
I didn't always, but I quite like Judith. :thumbup:
Yeah me too. :)
Now I'm seriously worried about you guys! :shock:
She's the leader we'll need when we invade Australia.
Our very own Iron Lady. ;)

Perfect antithesis to the smiling windbag. :thumbup:
Post Reply