Possibly. But while nearly everyone seems to be in agreement that something needs to change, pushing ahead with something that had almost universal disapproval for a number of very valid reasons just for the sake of it doesn't seem the right thing either.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
It's blatantly obvious that something needs to be done.
If it's unpalatable then dicuss the options and get a solution.
- Thread starter
- #4,023
The lack of clarity regarding a farmers personal water tanks/ water bore or septic systems which may become contaminated or contaminate rivers, highlights that ownership and control solve nothing.
Better regulation is the solution, not who owns it.
NZWarriors.com
So while everyone carries on about the responsibilities and financial issues and green issues and who should do what nothing changes and in fact gets worse.
The kickback of 3 waters was more about councils being shown up for what they were doing was very inefficient .
Then we have a change of government and the new circus says we want nothing to do with the previous mob.
Let's do nothing.
It probably needs to handled like roading. We figured out a long time ago that local and regional councils coudnt be trusted to maintain nation highways for the national good, but also central govt couldnt manage the miniate detail of local suburban roading
I spent many years in Australia and they don't fuck around.
When the Greens said you cannot build the highway between the Gold Coast and Brisbane because of the koala population.
They just gathered up as many koala as possible and relocated them in the hinterland and built a magnificent multi laned highway.
We would still be talking about it.
Port of Tauranga is a great example
NZWarriors.com
Well why didn't you say so before, just double our GDP!
Is it actually feasible though. Mining what exactly? What oil, our offshore reserves weren't a profitable grade for big oil to drill were they? And we can't refine it. Also fossil fuels are over aren't they?
Secondary production for export sounds good, why doesn't it happen and do we have the skilled labour without importing hundreds of thousands more? High tech manufacturing, again why aren't we, can you detail the industries we can go to market with? Need more detail of this plan Wiz.
Typical neoliberal thinking….. not willing to even think that anything is possible outside of the square.
- Thread starter
- #4,029
Yep, some look at a Rubiks cube and think impossible and others just get it done.
Productivity shifts require a change in mindset but definitely possible!
NZWarriors.com
Says who?
Cos its easier to be a landlord that it is to build skills and develop business
Or you can do both….. I’ve had my own architectural practise for over 35 years and been a landlord for eight. Buying the rental was a way to diversify from the business and our other investments including shares in commercial property. It doesn’t need to be one or the other.
It was the easiest and most govt protected way of diversifying. Im all for taking advantage of govt policy, but we need to be honest when we do it. Otherwise it leads to situations like people claiming they have "earnt" the aged pension. Or that they "deserve" tax breaks
NZWarriors.com
That’s entitlement. I’m seperated from my wife but as a nurse, I know one thing that bugs her is holders of private health insurance using the public system which comes from a similar place you’re mentioning.
You don’t think profiting off people’s need to house themselves is also entitled?
- Thread starter
- #4,035
Don’t they pay taxes towards the public system as well? Or do they get a discount?
NZWarriors.com
The public system was set up for those that don’t have the means, by those funding the private settings and using the public one are only double dipping to see which they get earliest. Also quite fascinating how funding works when it’s broken down, it’s no different to the accountant who bends the rules on behalf of their client to get the most for them. With such abuses right across the board, it’s no wonder funding is lacking in multiple areas.
I think absorptive profiting in this area is lowlife.
- Thread starter
- #4,038
I thought it was universal healthcare rather than those without the means?
And the public system should never use private practitioners if overloaded?
Do you think no one should get super unless it’s income tested as well?
NZWarriors.com
It is, but those with the means have the opportunity to opt into a private setting and let those less fortunate take up the public setting. Absolutely private and public should have the opportunity to cross each others settings for purposes such as overloading on one or the other, but in my view neither should be prioritised from the setting they belong to unless there is concerns of the severity and life threatening for the patient. For most of society the private setting gets too expensive the older you get , which is when it’s often necessary or helpful and majority end up back on the public system. I do lean towards means testing on the subject of superannuation but a loophole would be found I’m sure if this eventuated, I think the days are gone where we should expect honesty and decency from people and it just comes across to me as naive thinking. Fascinating in a courtroom setting that society expects someone on a stand to be completely honest from holding their hand over a book. It’s almost comical.
I can kind of see your point but also on the other hand if you have a universal healthcare or a universal superannuation it should be available to all and if you can provide for yourself over and above that then so be it. Aren't those things provided regardless of income, wealth, race, how much or little tax you have contributed? If there is an issue around taking up space then that's more a reflection on the lack of infrastructure investment in hospitals over successive governments and time isn't it?
