Jump to content

Photo

The wonderful world of NZ Politics

election politics government

  • Please log in to reply
1245 replies to this topic

#41 Chris Redfield

Chris Redfield

    Don't stop now I am make cumming.

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 18074 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your Mum
  • Steam ID:Nims_is_te_Man
  • Wii:666
  • Xbox Live:lol nah

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:54 AM

 

So how do we fix our waterways without it costing us or our families anything Steve?

 

Well assuming you or your family are not the problem; give them 28 days to fix the problem otherwise shut them down until it's fixed... Simple really, there's no bigger motivator than lost profits.

I guarantee they'd either avoid the shutdown or have it back up within the week if it was shutdown

 

* I was talking about the ongoing pollution to the waterways & not the instant fix

 

 

I should have added "realistically" to the question coz that is never going to happen. 

 

I like the Greens Carbon Tax because it is more than "just a tax". It redistributes wealth whilst encouraging companies and farmers to adopt greener business practices. The ETS is a load of sh*t precisely because it doesn't add any real incentive to lower emissions, whereas a comprehensive and costly Carbon tax will benefit companies that do manage to lower emissions. Add to that some funding for R&D in green technology and we really could become a world leader in environmentally friendly industry. 

 

 

As far as the election goes I'm throwing my lot in with the left. I don't like Key's government and don't believe they are doing much to help the country. That new a guy a few posts up summed it up nicely. I don't like what they've done to our education system and charter schools are a disaster waiting to happen. Their highest bracket tax cuts and the rise in GST favour the rich at the expense of the poor. I disagree with state asset sales and their attitude towards employment relations will hurt the working class and strengthen corporate power. '

 

Their fiscal plans amount to diverting money towards interests that benefit the parties donors whilst forsaking the rest of us. 

 

 

 

Our incarceration rate is still far too high as well as child abuse and sexual violence. Neither of which are Nationals fault but I don't think they've done enough to address the problems. 

 

 

 Unemployment is still high and they've done very little to correct that or help produce more qualified labourers from those out of work. 

 

And strangely enough they haven't managed to reign in government spending. 

 

I do like their policy of free healthcare for under 13 year olds, LAbour will be kicking themselves for not having thought of it first. But that's not enough to convince me to vote for them. 

 

In short- Under National inequality has grown in this country and will continue to do so. The country will be geared more towards the elite whilst the working and lower classes will suffer. Inequality hurts us all. 

 

I would write up a bit about why I want a Labour government but now I'm sleepy and can't be f***ed. Will drink some wine tomorrow and have a rant yup yup. 

 

ITT:

Steve: I am angry and hate things. Rargh propaganda propaganda errywhere.

Chris: Can I suggest a sensible question?

Fox: I like these guys and this is why.

Handankel: Here are some things I disagree with, let me explain them.

Gnomey: I have a platform I like and continue to support.

I: am drunk.






Uber: lol.

 

Lol


Edited by Chris Redfield, 08 July 2014 - 12:55 AM.

  • 2

#42 drunk_monk

drunk_monk

    What happened? How did I get here?

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 10694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wairarapa
  • PSN:drunk_monk_13
  • Xbox Live:drunkmonk37

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:41 AM

I'm voting for Obama.  He got Osama


  • 1

#43 Scuba_Steve

Scuba_Steve

    Gods Evil Twin

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 5921 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Steam ID:psychomonkey69
  • PSN:PsychoMonkey
  • Wii:ScubaSteve
  • Xbox Live:Psycho Obezyana

Posted 08 July 2014 - 09:34 AM

 

I should have added "realistically" to the question coz that is never going to happen. 

 

 

And what's so unrealistic about it? I know all the current parties are too scared to implement it but I'm saying this is how I would fix it not them.

OSH will shut down a building site for being unsafe, feed health people will shutdown a restaurant for being "unhealthy" so why can't we shutdown businesses that are polluting?

 

Tax will just be incorporated into cost & passed onto the buyers i.e. us; shutting down the business until pollution problem is solved cannot be passed on that is a cost of the business & one that'll see the problem fixed almost instantly.

Also it's the fertilisers & sh*t polluting the waterways not cow farts so taxing the farts is just retarded regardless


  • 1

#44 sakuraba

sakuraba

    I know what you did last summer

  • NZGamer.com VIP 3 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 1521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:manukau Auckland
  • PSN:subtime
  • Xbox Live:subtime

Posted 08 July 2014 - 10:03 AM

Its hard to know who to vote for.... everytime any politician speaks poos and farts come out of their mouths.
  • 4

#45 Chris Redfield

Chris Redfield

    Don't stop now I am make cumming.

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 18074 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your Mum
  • Steam ID:Nims_is_te_Man
  • Wii:666
  • Xbox Live:lol nah

Posted 08 July 2014 - 10:41 AM

 

 

I should have added "realistically" to the question coz that is never going to happen. 

 

 

And what's so unrealistic about it? I know all the current parties are too scared to implement it but I'm saying this is how I would fix it not them.

OSH will shut down a building site for being unsafe, feed health people will shutdown a restaurant for being "unhealthy" so why can't we shutdown businesses that are polluting?

 

Tax will just be incorporated into cost & passed onto the buyers i.e. us; shutting down the business until pollution problem is solved cannot be passed on that is a cost of the business & one that'll see the problem fixed almost instantly.

Also it's the fertilisers & sh*t polluting the waterways not cow farts so taxing the farts is just retarded regardless

 

  

It's unrealistic because it would never happen.Corps would riot/flee, farmers would riot... sh*t would get f***ed up. 

 

The higher costs can be offset by passing the revenue from the tax onto the general public through tax cuts. But if implemented well a carbon tax could create a competitive environment where green business practises give businesses an edge by being able to offer lower prices due to saving money on pollution.  If the cost/benefit of reducing emissions works out as benefiting business, then they will reduce emissions.

 

And it's not just a fart tax it's a carbon tax.  


  • 0

#46 stupidlikeafox

stupidlikeafox

    No sleep 'til bed time

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Moderator
  • 12417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Porirua
  • PSN:foxymcstupid

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:30 AM

 

 

It's unrealistic because it would never happen.Corps would riot/flee, farmers would riot... sh*t would get f***ed up. 

 

The higher costs can be offset by passing the revenue from the tax onto the general public through tax cuts. But if implemented well a carbon tax could create a competitive environment where green business practises give businesses an edge by being able to offer lower prices due to saving money on pollution.  If the cost/benefit of reducing emissions works out as benefiting business, then they will reduce emissions.

 

And it's not just a fart tax it's a carbon tax.  

 

its actually a solid plan, only problem is that the price of milk is going down hard so its going to be portrayed as compounding tough times for dairy farmers, and thats their excuse out.

 

kinda related, im pretty sick of the old cop out of "itll increase costs and raise prices". saw it a lot with the protests against farrow and sow crates. infant mortality rates was the only justification as to why to continue their usage.

 

research showed that there was no difference between mortality rates of farrow v not farrow. there is no additional cost to drop farrow crates. so why do we still use them? because of the ignorant perceived view that somehow its going to make their pork chop cost two cents more.


  • 0

#47 Scuba_Steve

Scuba_Steve

    Gods Evil Twin

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 5921 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Steam ID:psychomonkey69
  • PSN:PsychoMonkey
  • Wii:ScubaSteve
  • Xbox Live:Psycho Obezyana

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:33 AM

It's unrealistic because it would never happen.Corps would riot/flee, farmers would riot... sh*t would get f***ed up. 

 

The higher costs can be offset by passing the revenue from the tax onto the general public through tax cuts. But if implemented well a carbon tax could create a competitive environment where green business practises give businesses an edge by being able to offer lower prices due to saving money on pollution.  If the cost/benefit of reducing emissions works out as benefiting business, then they will reduce emissions.

 

And it's not just a fart tax it's a carbon tax.  

 

 

No-one would riot, nothing would get f***ed up. Never seen a building site riot because they got shutdown for safety, hell no-one even rioted when people died in an unsafe mine that collapsed down south.

It's only unrealistic because all the parties are too scared of losing votes to man up & stop pollution

 

The higher costs aren't high enough for them to bother doing anything other than increasing costs

And call it whatever you want, it's a tax nothing more; it'll achieve nothing other than to give the Govt more money to think otherwise is naive.

Think of it this way, if power went up 20$/mth would you start generating your own? I bet the answer is no, just like these businesses only they get to pass on that 20$/mth as 40$/mth to you

Now if you're power was shut off completely you would make an effort to generate your own, just like these businesses


  • 0

#48 Chris Redfield

Chris Redfield

    Don't stop now I am make cumming.

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 18074 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your Mum
  • Steam ID:Nims_is_te_Man
  • Wii:666
  • Xbox Live:lol nah

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:59 AM

 

It's unrealistic because it would never happen.Corps would riot/flee, farmers would riot... sh*t would get f***ed up. 

 

The higher costs can be offset by passing the revenue from the tax onto the general public through tax cuts. But if implemented well a carbon tax could create a competitive environment where green business practises give businesses an edge by being able to offer lower prices due to saving money on pollution.  If the cost/benefit of reducing emissions works out as benefiting business, then they will reduce emissions.

 

And it's not just a fart tax it's a carbon tax.  

 

 

No-one would riot, nothing would get f***ed up. Never seen a building site riot because they got shutdown for safety, hell no-one even rioted when people died in an unsafe mine that collapsed down south.

It's only unrealistic because all the parties are too scared of losing votes to man up & stop pollution

 

The higher costs aren't high enough for them to bother doing anything other than increasing costs

And call it whatever you want, it's a tax nothing more; it'll achieve nothing other than to give the Govt more money to think otherwise is naive.

Think of it this way, if power went up 20$/mth would you start generating your own? I bet the answer is no, just like these businesses only they get to pass on that 20$/mth as 40$/mth to you

Now if you're power was shut off completely you would make an effort to generate your own, just like these businesses

 

 

It's naive to think shutting down major industry in the country won't cause problems.

 

And the money isn't just lining the pockets of the government, all revenue from the tax will be distributed back to people and the community. I don't see how it's giving the government more money when all the cash is earmarked to be given back in tax cuts.

 

Also all it will take is a couple of instances of polluters changing their ways to have a run on effect. If one power company reduces emissions and save on tax they are then able to undercut competition with lower prices while still making the same margins. If two companies do so then virtually all others will have to do so to remain competitive. If the opportunity is there to increase market share AND save on tax then business will do so. 


  • 0

#49 Romulus

Romulus
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:00 PM

 

It's unrealistic because it would never happen.Corps would riot/flee, farmers would riot... sh*t would get f***ed up. 

 

The higher costs can be offset by passing the revenue from the tax onto the general public through tax cuts. But if implemented well a carbon tax could create a competitive environment where green business practises give businesses an edge by being able to offer lower prices due to saving money on pollution.  If the cost/benefit of reducing emissions works out as benefiting business, then they will reduce emissions.

 

And it's not just a fart tax it's a carbon tax.  

 

 

No-one would riot, nothing would get f***ed up. Never seen a building site riot because they got shutdown for safety, hell no-one even rioted when people died in an unsafe mine that collapsed down south.

It's only unrealistic because all the parties are too scared of losing votes to man up & stop pollution

 

The higher costs aren't high enough for them to bother doing anything other than increasing costs

And call it whatever you want, it's a tax nothing more; it'll achieve nothing other than to give the Govt more money to think otherwise is naive.

Think of it this way, if power went up 20$/mth would you start generating your own? I bet the answer is no, just like these businesses only they get to pass on that 20$/mth as 40$/mth to you

Now if you're power was shut off completely you would make an effort to generate your own, just like these businesses

 

 

Scuba is right about this, the way the Greens have formulated the carbon tax it will be nothing more than a tax, with the revenue generated being used to fund unrelated social policy programs such as the $2000 tax free break and a reduction in the company tax rate.

 

What this means is that the 'carbon tax' while punitive for production and agricultural industries, does not do anything to redress the carbon emissions. It is all stick and no carrot.

 

In contrast, the ETS is aimed to be revenue neutral for a tax perspective. Companies buy carbon credits which are produced by undertaking activities which offset the carbon emissions. While this has been criticized due to the availability of cheap offshore credits (and thereby brings no benefit from a tax perspective to the NZ govt.), from an emissions perspective we are all actually better off as it ensures that for every unit of carbon emitted someone is doing something to offset it.

 

It also provides an incentive for companies to invest in green tech as by doing so they can offset this cost all together.

 

While the ETS is by no means perfect, as agriculture has a massive exemption, I actually think it has a better effect on climate change than just a straight carbon tax.


  • 1

#50 Chris Redfield

Chris Redfield

    Don't stop now I am make cumming.

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 18074 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your Mum
  • Steam ID:Nims_is_te_Man
  • Wii:666
  • Xbox Live:lol nah

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:29 PM

The ETS is bullshit because it essentially ends up as the taxpayers footing the bill for polluters with no real consequences for the polluters. It is overall a complete failure that benefits cynical big business in New Zealand. 

 

At least with the Carbon Tax it's on the polluters to pay their way with the taxpayers receiving the revenue. 


Edited by Chris Redfield, 08 July 2014 - 12:30 PM.

  • 0

#51 Romulus

Romulus
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:46 PM

The ETS is bullshit because it essentially ends up as the taxpayers footing the bill for polluters with no real consequences for the polluters. It is overall a complete failure that benefits cynical big business in New Zealand. 

 

At least with the Carbon Tax it's on the polluters to pay their way with the taxpayers receiving the revenue. 

 

How do taxpayers fit the bill under the ETS???

 

The ETS system require credits to be bought and sold between emitters and those that undertake activities to remove carbon. These credits can be bought and sold on the open market, including the international market.

 

It only causes a tax effect if the government tries to intervene and allocate free credits to certain sectors (i.e. dairy, forestry, etc).


  • 1

#52 stupidlikeafox

stupidlikeafox

    No sleep 'til bed time

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Moderator
  • 12417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Porirua
  • PSN:foxymcstupid

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:55 PM

 

The ETS is bullshit because it essentially ends up as the taxpayers footing the bill for polluters with no real consequences for the polluters. It is overall a complete failure that benefits cynical big business in New Zealand. 

 

At least with the Carbon Tax it's on the polluters to pay their way with the taxpayers receiving the revenue. 

 

How do taxpayers fit the bill under the ETS???

 

The ETS system require credits to be bought and sold between emitters and those that undertake activities to remove carbon. These credits can be bought and sold on the open market, including the international market.

 

It only causes a tax effect if the government tries to intervene and allocate free credits to certain sectors (i.e. dairy, forestry, etc).

 

we'd need the credits to be provided through the government, or government approved companies to make it work. itd also help create non-harmful opportunities too.


  • 0

#53 OriginalSin

OriginalSin
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:51 PM

Whichever government is in doesn't matter so long as none of them have the balls to solicit and enforce the changes that are needed to make our society healthier and our country a better place.


  • 2

#54 Deku_Scrub

Deku_Scrub

    Click here.

  • NZGamer.com VIP Silver VIP
     
  • Members
  • 2227 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Christchurch, NZ
  • Wii:8799 0321 3556 5461

Posted 09 July 2014 - 06:06 PM

Here are some things I have gotten into hefty debates about this week;

 

1) Hey Labour? Instead of giving every.f***ing.student a motherf***ing laptop how about you give them shoes and food? KidsCan is a charity that gives kids rain coats, shoes and breakfast. WHY are they solely donation based? Use that bullshit vote buying laptop money and give it to them.

 

2) People who don't f***ing vote. Not voting is still a vote for the majority. You are indirectly helping them win by not voting against them. Therefore don't whinge about the government if you elected them. Also if Kate Shepard and countless other women chained themselves to things to win you your right to vote. You pretty much owe them. To this day there are women who cannot vote. Get off your ass and do it. 

 

3) National. "We will pay the best teachers and principals more and not give a sh*t about class sizes." You wank stains. 

The rich get richer and the kids suffer. Goddam. 


  • 2

#55 stupidlikeafox

stupidlikeafox

    No sleep 'til bed time

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Moderator
  • 12417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Porirua
  • PSN:foxymcstupid

Posted 09 July 2014 - 07:06 PM

Here are some things I have gotten into hefty debates about this week;

 

1) Hey Labour? Instead of giving every.f***ing.student a motherf***ing laptop how about you give them shoes and food? KidsCan is a charity that gives kids rain coats, shoes and breakfast. WHY are they solely donation based? Use that bullshit vote buying laptop money and give it to them.

yeah, its a dumb impractical idea. that said, i wonder if theyre getting many "yay free laptop" votes lol.

 

i also think kidscan shouldnt be necessary if beneficiaries were given food stamps instead of money. people are getting money, theyre just opting to spend it on other things.


  • 2

#56 Scuba_Steve

Scuba_Steve

    Gods Evil Twin

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 5921 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Steam ID:psychomonkey69
  • PSN:PsychoMonkey
  • Wii:ScubaSteve
  • Xbox Live:Psycho Obezyana

Posted 09 July 2014 - 07:55 PM

 

2) People who don't f***ing vote. Not voting is still a vote for the majority. You are indirectly helping them win by not voting against them. Therefore don't whinge about the government if you elected them. Also if Kate Shepard and countless other women chained themselves to things to win you your right to vote. You pretty much owe them. To this day there are women who cannot vote. Get off your ass and do it. 

 

What there should be is a vote of no confidence, then we'd see alot more voters show up

Alot of people who don't vote don't do it because there's no option for them to pick, a "no confidence" vote would change that & probably see the country run a f***load better than it currently is


  • 0

#57 Romulus

Romulus
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 July 2014 - 09:05 AM

 

Here are some things I have gotten into hefty debates about this week;

 

1) Hey Labour? Instead of giving every.f***ing.student a motherf***ing laptop how about you give them shoes and food? KidsCan is a charity that gives kids rain coats, shoes and breakfast. WHY are they solely donation based? Use that bullshit vote buying laptop money and give it to them.

yeah, its a dumb impractical idea. that said, i wonder if theyre getting many "yay free laptop" votes lol.

 

i also think kidscan shouldnt be necessary if beneficiaries were given food stamps instead of money. people are getting money, theyre just opting to spend it on other things.

 

 

I understand your sentiment but food stamps have been such an epic fail in the US why on earth would you want to bring them to NZ???


  • 0

#58 stupidlikeafox

stupidlikeafox

    No sleep 'til bed time

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Moderator
  • 12417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Porirua
  • PSN:foxymcstupid

Posted 10 July 2014 - 10:06 AM

 

 

Here are some things I have gotten into hefty debates about this week;

 

1) Hey Labour? Instead of giving every.f***ing.student a motherf***ing laptop how about you give them shoes and food? KidsCan is a charity that gives kids rain coats, shoes and breakfast. WHY are they solely donation based? Use that bullshit vote buying laptop money and give it to them.

yeah, its a dumb impractical idea. that said, i wonder if theyre getting many "yay free laptop" votes lol.

 

i also think kidscan shouldnt be necessary if beneficiaries were given food stamps instead of money. people are getting money, theyre just opting to spend it on other things.

 

 

I understand your sentiment but food stamps have been such an epic fail in the US why on earth would you want to bring them to NZ???

 

firstly they havent been an epic fail at all, and the main complaints opponents have with the program lately are the same complaints we have here about dole bludgers as it is, the only difference would be that food stamps would restrict beneficiary spending to food, rather than cigarettes, drugs and alcohol.

 

edit: that said, the program would need to be analyzed and tweaked to reflect our unique needs.


  • 2

#59 Scuba_Steve

Scuba_Steve

    Gods Evil Twin

  • NZGamer.com VIP 4 Star Gold VIP
     
  • Members
  • 5921 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Steam ID:psychomonkey69
  • PSN:PsychoMonkey
  • Wii:ScubaSteve
  • Xbox Live:Psycho Obezyana

Posted 10 July 2014 - 11:11 AM

firstly they havent been an epic fail at all, and the main complaints opponents have with the program lately are the same complaints we have here about dole bludgers as it is, the only difference would be that food stamps would restrict beneficiary spending to food, rather than cigarettes, drugs and alcohol.

 

 

edit: that said, the program would need to be analyzed and tweaked to reflect our unique needs.

 

 

I wouldn't call them an epic fail but they're anything but successful either.

What would benefit NZ way more is a Govt run supermarket, not an anti-competitive one just one that made modest profit instead of massive ones.

Oh and also if it was illegal for the food industry to destroy perfectly good feed like Zespri in recent years where they destroyed tonnes of Kiwifruit just to keep prices high then went seeking Govt assistance when crops weren't doing so good; which also segways to the fact we need complete separation of state & sector.

I have no interest in stifling corporations but equally I have no interest in helping them, you survive or die by yourself the way free market is intended but not run


  • 0

#60 Romulus

Romulus
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:28 PM

 

 

 

Here are some things I have gotten into hefty debates about this week;

 

1) Hey Labour? Instead of giving every.f***ing.student a motherf***ing laptop how about you give them shoes and food? KidsCan is a charity that gives kids rain coats, shoes and breakfast. WHY are they solely donation based? Use that bullshit vote buying laptop money and give it to them.

yeah, its a dumb impractical idea. that said, i wonder if theyre getting many "yay free laptop" votes lol.

 

i also think kidscan shouldnt be necessary if beneficiaries were given food stamps instead of money. people are getting money, theyre just opting to spend it on other things.

 

 

I understand your sentiment but food stamps have been such an epic fail in the US why on earth would you want to bring them to NZ???

 

firstly they havent been an epic fail at all, and the main complaints opponents have with the program lately are the same complaints we have here about dole bludgers as it is, the only difference would be that food stamps would restrict beneficiary spending to food, rather than cigarettes, drugs and alcohol.

 

edit: that said, the program would need to be analyzed and tweaked to reflect our unique needs.

 

 

Actually that is not true, it's already been recognized by congressional studies in the United States that the food stamp program has ingrained inefficiencies in the form of cash leakage through he conversion of federal cash to vouchers to cash again at the point of sale. 

 

Key issues raised are:

 

- You spend a significant portion of the allocated budget managing the program; and

- It diminishes market competitiveness to low income households, often compounding unhealthy budgets

 

Most people in NZ who support this program just think in generalities such as "would restrict beneficiary spending to food, rather than cigarettes, drugs and alcohol."


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: election, politics, government

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users