FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

So who do u THINK you should vote for?

Page  <1234>
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote shaneg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 9:12pm
shaneg View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2358
Did Gareth really say that, disappointing and verging on disgusting .. only because used to respect his sensationalist intellect. Hates cats as well ( I love my cats). Probably is why I won't be voting for TOP and that he was a pretty hopeless economist too, always predicting a Auckland property market collapse 20 odd yrs back. I was once in same game and never predicted that, quite the opposite .... which is partly why I have a small rental portflolio and we are where we are now with unaffordable housing problem. Laise faire immigration and no provision for housing or infrastruture not a winner in my view or Winston or Jicindas. I'm rightish wing economically but with a social conscience and leaning labour this time. As one above said: financial stabiliity and fuked environment for all.... not my cup of tea either, even if I I have to vote in a tax increase. Trust a new seemingly better moraled leader .. I think I might.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote KikBac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 9:53pm
KikBac View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2011
Location: Tairua, NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1511
Originally posted by MacSkipper MacSkipper wrote:


Wasn't impressed by Gareth Morgan and his lipstick on a pig comment about labours new leader!

I'm pretty sure Morgan's comment was more about putting shiny new lipstick on a tired old party, but yeah pretty bad all the same
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Kevin.S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2017 at 12:14am
Kevin.S View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Location: Waiuku
Status: Offline
Points: 5978
I always thought Morgan was a dick, but his response to this whole thing just shows how stupid he is.  Either that or so desperate for publicity he did it to get on the news, but if that was the case then it was still stupid as it seems to have backfired.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2017 at 9:23pm
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Sth Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 9417
Morgan is a strange one... every so often he makes a stand, that just downright is plain common-sense. Then next thing some real way out concept. Which also usually has a basic common-sense, but just totally will not achieve the objects.

 And then there are the times that he just leaves us scratching out heads

You either like Morgan or dont, and it is subject dependant.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote cirrus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2017 at 10:45pm
cirrus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 8997
I have entered the realm of the undecided voter.

I consider Gareth. Tax private family homes. No thanks. Dosent he realize people have already paid tax on the money they have paid into those homes.  Maybe taken to extreme we are looking at state seizure of private property. He didnt volunteer to pay C.G tax when he sold trademe.

Then National. The economy is humming along. About half the people feel wealthy,the other half poor and desperate.
We also have one of the biggest housing bubbles on the planet.

We fund this ,not on real economy but on huge spiraling debt.
We are spending more money than ever before,and it dosent work.. Like our fisheries this is not sustainable.
Iceland ,Ireland, Italy, Greece,Spain,Portugal have tried this.
Since 2009 the central banks have injected over 15 Trillion into the world economy,much into emerging nations. Most of these are now in recession. The new markets Bill english talks about involve such countries.
So where does that leave Nationals dream in the real economy where growth is slowing,heading towards stagnation as it is world wide
Do we wait until wages catch up,or does the artificial economy fall back to match the real economy. That would mean much hardship,and a stagnant or downward spiraling housing market. No wonder the banks have tightened their lending.
Some call the endless borrowing "Financial Botox. " Cheap ,easy and very toxic.
And labour. All i have heard is about new taxes. Tax and spend until the money,inovation and desire to work runs out. Then what. Socialism is a great idea and a noble concept provided we have capitalism to pay for it.
Right now with the real economy we have neither.
So how will these parties actually bring their policies to fruition .
N.Z is but a tiny segment of the global economy,and global trends will have the ultimate financial say,way above the local policies. So labour where is the new vision.? We have generation X pounding at the door with a vibrant new leader. Yet behind that door we have the same old tired policy that the previous salesman couldnt sell.

I would like to see a party that wants to strongly promote innovation and real wealth  production , and  away from non value added commodities, and environmental decline. Do we have such a party.
And if we want real socialism then maybe drop a nice fish over to your neighbour ,who you may have never spoken to and be their friend. Far better than taxes that always make it harder for the poorer people

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote Rocksteady Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 1:57pm
Rocksteady View Drop Down
Bronze
Bronze


Joined: 20 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 44
One of the biggest problems I see is that for too long too many have considered that the environment and the economy are two separate issues and one can only prosper at the expense of the other.
We need to start considering that the environment is critical to a prosperous NZ economy.
Our clean, green image abroad is our point of difference. Once we lose that, then we are just another milk factory like any other country in the world. Our product looses it's added value. Dairy farmers have been hit hard in recent years by falling prices and must only be too aware of the dangers and instability of global commodity trading. We must maintain our point of difference to protect our economy!
Same goes for fisheries... and this time I'm not talking about the value of dead fish packed into boxes for export. The value of having an abundant fishery in a beautiful environment could potentially draw billions of offshore dollars through tourism. Deplete the fishery or spoil the environment and these dollars are lost.
This National government has no long term vision for this country and is void of imagination and leadership. All they care about is destructively exploiting and extracting as much short term "value" from our resources as possible with little regard to the long term effects to our future generations.
We desperately need change.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Muppet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 6:34pm
Muppet View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 26 May 2004
Location: North Shore
Status: Offline
Points: 15668
Originally posted by Rocksteady Rocksteady wrote:

One of the biggest problems I see is that for too long too many have considered that the environment and the economy are two separate issues and one can only prosper at the expense of the other.
We need to start considering that the environment is critical to a prosperous NZ economy.
Our clean, green image abroad is our point of difference. Once we lose that, then we are just another milk factory like any other country in the world. Our product looses it's added value. Dairy farmers have been hit hard in recent years by falling prices and must only be too aware of the dangers and instability of global commodity trading. We must maintain our point of difference to protect our economy!
Same goes for fisheries... and this time I'm not talking about the value of dead fish packed into boxes for export. The value of having an abundant fishery in a beautiful environment could potentially draw billions of offshore dollars through tourism. Deplete the fishery or spoil the environment and these dollars are lost.
This National government has no long term vision for this country and is void of imagination and leadership. All they care about is destructively exploiting and extracting as much short term "value" from our resources as possible with little regard to the long term effects to our future generations.
We desperately need change.

Funnily enough Labour did have 9 years before National to do all this but of course did really nothing. I think the Dairy conversion boom happened under her government why did they not monitor and put measures in place back then? 

I hate hearing people talk like Labour never had a chance but they had their 9 years too. And by the end most of us were calling them communist! To be fair to National and Key they have pushed NZ forward on infrastructure etc. Yes they are buisness focused but how else do you run a country except like a buisness? In a capitalist world its the only way to exist I can't see any other way. 
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Joker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 8:11pm
Joker View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum


Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 2763
Originally posted by OneWayTraffic OneWayTraffic wrote:

It must be said at this point that the good work in building a robust economy was partly done by the Clark government. Shame National stopped investing in the Cullen fund. Would have had enough in the bank to pay for another ChCh. 

National have done a good solid job, as did labour before them. IMO the last government to really dig NZ into a hole was Muldoon.





Eh!. The cupboard was bare after the last Labour govt whilst reaping the windfall of the crop sown years before them just like now.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Joker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 8:15pm
Joker View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum


Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 2763
Originally posted by MacSkipper MacSkipper wrote:

Wasn't impressed by Gareth Morgan and his lipstick on a pig comment about labours new leader!

It wasn't lip stick on a pig personally thought there is plenty on view there but still the crap party policies that they put a personality over hence the "lip stick on the pig" comment.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Rocksteady Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 6:56am
Rocksteady View Drop Down
Bronze
Bronze


Joined: 20 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 44
I don't agree really mate, but that's just my view and I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think it's far more complex than that.

Having said that, if the country were a business, then the point I was making still stands. The board are running the company into the ground by failing to recognise and protect the business' assets and brand.
This means that the books may look okay now, but what happens 10 years down the line when you have lost your good reputation and are simply a commodity trader trying to compete against giants in a global market?
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Muppet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 8:42pm
Muppet View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 26 May 2004
Location: North Shore
Status: Offline
Points: 15668
Fair enough but reputation is one thing actually living up to it is quite another as per the Pure tourism campaign which we know is BS. But really it does not matter, Rome stinks bad but still draws millions every year same as Paris etc. But of course the fact you want to rely on tourism is ironic considoring the pollution made to get here in C02 emissions.   

Anyway more points.
On the news I hear the politicians making noises about having clean pure rivers to swim in. All good but only for already really bad drowning stats that would rise. In a country that really had no mammals before man arrived they were always going to have an effect.  

Child poverty the other current catch phrase when really there is no such thing. It really is lack of parental responsibilty. One policy I would do is make parents who need it to learn how to run a household. What I mean by that is teach them how to clean and maintain a healthy home then we would not hear so much about poor housing when really they are getting treated like a pig sty. Also budgeting, cooking lessons etc. 
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Rocksteady Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 9:10pm
Rocksteady View Drop Down
Bronze
Bronze


Joined: 20 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Sorry, did you just suggest that it's better our waterways are polluted otherwise we would have more drownings?

Think I'll just leave this one here.

Anyway, whatever your viewpoint, I just hope everyone gets out exercises their right to vote this election. It's a privilege that most of us take for granted.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Muppet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 5:51am
Muppet View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 26 May 2004
Location: North Shore
Status: Offline
Points: 15668
No again you are missing the political term being used as the reason which is "safe swimmable rivers" http://rivers.greens.org.nz/ which is a misleading. There is no such thing as a safe river swim the last place I would ever swim is a river and if more people use them drownings will go up. The Greens should know better frankly.

Now cleaning up waterways for eels, whitebait and native fish is a worthy cause and I think minimum standards could and should be set for that reason alone.   
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 8:25am
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Sth Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 9417
I do not understand...
Both parties talk about things like housing unaffordablity, espec for the 1st home buyer and service ppl like teachers, police etc.
THEN on the other hand talk about increasing rent, income subsidies to over come poverty etc.
It then follows that both parties recognises that mid low income earners are not getting a fair cut of the economy boom.
So why not simply eliminate rent/ low income subsidies and increase the living wage... the tax (which is in the billions) to cover these subsidies is no longer needed, and the increase in the wage of such a large population would also increase the tax take for things like infrastructure
.
Spreading more of the wealth by wage distribution to the mid to low income sector then makes home unaffordablity a myth..

Subsidies tend to distort market values.. the longer they are applied the greater they become and along with that the greater the distortion the market becomes... eg we just need to see the market changes when farm/ dairy substities came off after decades.. farmers driving tractors up parliament steps lol

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Tagit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 8:42am
Tagit View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Westhaven, Auck
Status: Offline
Points: 15047
Increase the minimum (living) wage to the point where it doesn't need any subsidies and you will slow down economic development and provide a barrier to workforce entry as employers can't see how they will get a reasonable return on the new employees taken on at higher wage rates. The subsidies concept better supports economic growth as it better encourages employment. Subsidies always distort the market, but if the distortion is planned to be a positive impact then they aren't always a bad thing. Shifting to a lower subsidy arrangement would have to be a very long term thing so that the employment market could develop and adapt without any sudden shocks.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote pompey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 8:45am
pompey View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum


Joined: 02 Sep 2011
Location: kerikeri
Status: Offline
Points: 1167
I can't wait until they remove the subsidy for having babies. The market will sort itself out then.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 10:26am
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Sth Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 9417
Tagit, I see/ agree with you point on employment and slowing the market..
I still dont understand the basic principle of why the polies.. and RB dont see unaffordable.. (rents new home owners etc) is not unaffordable but rather a lack of a far proportion of our economic good times, getting to middle and lower income ppl.
Rather than keeping on increasing subsidies .. by both major parties, as you rightly suggest .. maybe remove the "very"

"Shifting to a lower subsidy arrangement would have to be a( very )long term thing so that the employment market could develop and adapt without any sudden shocks."

Note: Im only referring to Those employed.
Benefits.. , eg widows, unemployment befits etc, they are actually .. when put back to basics 100% subsidies that are simply to not allow starvation, basic housing etc. The government has a responsibility to tax payers and citizen how these monies are spent. Therefore I do see the basics, like rent, maybe food, education etc remaining.
Better control on these would mean better control on how this tax payer money is spent..  ie remove such choices as smokes or children breakfast and lunches

 I still dont understand not recognising its not "unaffordable" but rather lack of income from a buoyant economy.
 

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote Tagit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 11:47am
Tagit View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Westhaven, Auck
Status: Offline
Points: 15047
I have employed quite a few people on a short term basis in the past few years. Some I wanted to turn into long term employees if they worked out. Bottom line is that when I have experimented with hiring at the 'low end' of the market you find that work output is very low. Poor attitudes, drugs, low work ethic etc seem to be serious issues. Hire someone, give them a couple of days training and their first pay packet only to find that they disappear for the next week until they run out of money and come back with some story about being sick or a dead relative etc. The other major thing that is reasonably common is an inflated sense of entitlement. I have had 18 year old guys who think it is unreasonable that I expect them to turn up at 9:00am rather than anytime they like between 9:00am and midday.
If you are a hard working small business owner you have to either grab them out of school before they (hopefully) learn bad habits and hope you choose well, or go through a huge number of trials to find that one 'diamond'. 
My summary observation is that our social policies have created a segment of society that aren't productive enough to earn the money they need to survive properly at today's costs. Question is how to do you change that? Throwing more 'free' money at them will just entrench the behaviour.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote pjc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 1:48pm
pjc View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: papakura
Status: Offline
Points: 11043
Got the 17yr son a part time employment at my place of work on Saturdays,(last yr of school) starts 6.00am finishes 2.30pm minimum wage,no biggy. Bugger me if hes not waking me up at 4.30am to get ready,he is happy with $100 he gets and saves as he wants to go to varsity next year,he has already made enquirers as to holiday work, but I put this down to me having work ethics,so many out there with nil or lack of enthusiasm.
some catch fish seems I like to feed them so you can catch them.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote CanadianJohn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 2:28pm
CanadianJohn View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: east auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 5569
i have a soon to be thirteen year old chomping at the bit to get a part time job. hes got a great attitude towards work.

i think theres quite a shock to young people. they see all the easy wealth around them and get a job and do some easy maths and see they will never have any of it.
Back to Top
Page  <1234>
Forum Jump
Forum Permissions View Drop Down


This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.