Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[miket12]

Rubbish Mike. The committee and report was commissioned by Ayesha Verrall - https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-committee-established-drive-better-public-health-outcomes.

And how is pushing for a tax on sugary drinks and ultra processed food worse or equal to tobacco companies pushing their death products through NZ First and ACT? Not even remotely comparable.

The report talks about using financial levers to reduce inequalities. Your argument, like many on the right, pushes for the retention of the status quo.

As for the covid inquiry that's currently running, it's a witch hunt commissioned by the conspiracy fringe of ACT and NZ First. Look at the current government for that shitfest.

View attachment 14253

I'm pushing for retention of the status quo? Do you ever read what others post before typing..... or is it just comprehension you struggle with? Why did I say I'd prefer an inheritance tax and gift duty over a wealth tax? Guess what? NONE of them exist at the moment so that can't mean I'm wanting to "retain the status quo".

I have no problem with changing health setting for men from certain areas of NZ and racial groups. I have no problem with looking at things that can be done to reduce obesity by reducing access to or taxing certain foods. I do have a problem with a former Greens MP using what should be an unbiased report on our nation's health to push the Greens tax agenda.

Funny, for someone always calling out corruption, I thought you would have a problem with it too. But I guess your morals take a backseat to your ideology when required.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I'm pushing for retention of the status quo? Do you ever read what others post before typing..... or is it just comprehension you struggle with? Why did I say I'd prefer an inheritance tax and gift duty over a wealth tax? Guess what? NONE of them exist at the moment so that can't mean I'm wanting to "retain the status quo".

I have no problem with changing health setting for men from certain areas of NZ and racial groups. I have no problem with looking at things that can be done to reduce obesity by reducing access to or taxing certain foods. I do have a problem with a former Greens MP using what should be an unbiased report on our nation's health to push the Greens tax agenda.

Funny, for someone always calling out corruption, I thought you would have a problem with it too. But I guess your morals take a backseat to your ideology when required.

Nah it's not corruption though is it Mike? Guyon asks him exactly those questions

Report calls for cross-party focus on wellbeing

A new report is calling for a cross-party focus on wellbeing and says health inequalities have gotten worse over the last 25 years. Former Green Party list MP Kevin Hague spoke to Guyon Espiner.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[juju]

I knew it was something you'd relate to

There is either a legal right to do so, or there is not. It doesn't matter what I think "should" happen. If there is a legal right, there is no need to change the law. Just implement the law as it stands. Is the law racist? If it is, then your issue isn't with me

There is already process that is in place for stakeholders to ensure sewage (not "sewarage" - that is the plant element) is managed safely

This is about fixing broken pipes... Which ratepayers own and pay to maintain...

If you are so educated about the Treaty, which chiefs put their hands up to manage the sewage network? If you want a good definition of Kaitiakitanga, David Seymour delivered a speech outlining it (that part is a joke, before you fire up)

I wasn't the only person in NZ that didn't like 3 Waters. Various councils, the Greens and TPM didn't like it either. Nor did plenty of Iwi, who felt it took away their ability to influence local decision-making. But no, they are all wrong and you and Labour are right

It was rushed through under urgency, combining its 2nd and 3rd readings. Then entrenched. That wasn't "explaining poorly". "Explaining poorly" would have been following due process and not communicating. What Labour did went a bit further. And for such a contentious legislation. You've previously expressed disgust at this government rushing legislation. But not in this instance? And yes, I agree, there were elements of a smear campaign. There was also a massive publicly-funded PR exercise to announce it, then bribe cash-strapped local councils to accept it. So swings and roundabouts. Doesn't make it a good policy

That flew over your head!

Local councils are responsible for in managing rates for their respective electorates and comparing the new govt's water reform with a counterfactual is a futile argument

Anyway, we don't have to worry about it anymore. It has gone the way of the dodo

Three waters wasn't solely about pipes - it was the management of a resource: water, to provide government oversight to ensure situations like Havelock North didn't happen again. It came from the Three Waters Review by Chris Finalyson.

What kind of idiotic bad faith argument is asking what chief's put their hands up to manage the sewerage network?
What is rangatirtatanga? Do you know? Is honouring the treaty a legal requirement or nah?

Water reform has not actually gone the way of the dodo - it's been kicked down the road & will end up getting more expensive for the tax and rate payers.

Please explain the joke that flew over my head - otherwise you just look racist.

 

[miket12]

Nah it's not corruption though is it Mike? Guyon asks him exactly those questions

Report calls for cross-party focus on wellbeing

A new report is calling for a cross-party focus on wellbeing and says health inequalities have gotten worse over the last 25 years. Former Green Party list MP Kevin Hague spoke to Guyon Espiner.

www.rnz.co.nz

Did you even listen to the interview?

He's promoting Green party policy..... in a report that was supposed to be independent of politics.... which you would have understood if you'd actually read the press release from Ayesha Verrall you posted.



Hague spouting out Chloe's press releases on RNZ is not "evidence-based independent advice"..... unless you're willing to forsake your morals when it doesn't suit your ideology, then I'm sure you think it is!!!

 

[defensivebomb]

Three waters wasn't solely about pipes - it was the management of a resource: water, to provide government oversight to ensure situations like Havelock North didn't happen again. It came from the Three Waters Review by Chris Finalyson.

Happy for water reform to be put into place for water. Not happy for water reform to encompass assets that I have paid for, pay to maintain, and wish to retain my existing mechanisms (local democracy) to ensure the right things happen with those pipes
My desire for this (and dislike of centralised management) aligns with my political alignment, not any racial alignment

Look at Wellington, and their dysfunctional water network. The council is answerable to the ratepayers. Imagine the ineptitude if there was another layer for the council to point their finger at and shirk their duties

What kind of idiotic bad faith argument is asking what chief's put their hands up to manage the sewerage network?
What is rangatirtatanga? Do you know? Is honouring the treaty a legal requirement or nah?

As demonstrated with my sewage network example, I don’t believe the treaty extended to the plant and equipment that has been invested in by ratepayers

Happy to honour the treaty re water. I just don’t think the “water” part extends to the plant and equipment that has been built, and breaks from time to time

Water reform has not actually gone the way of the dodo - it's been kicked down the road & will end up getting more expensive for the tax and rate payers.

Yeah more expensive, probably. But that’s the price premium for control, which the electorate has accepted as the preferable choice. Remember - it would have been a centralised agency. So people would just have to suck up whatever bad decisions are made elsewhere

Please explain the joke that flew over my head - otherwise you just look racist.

Taking into account my position that iwi that doesn’t have a legal right over something (e.g sewerage facility or a pipe - I know your position is different, but assume I am correct for the analogy), why have choose iwi to mandatorily be 50% of the board? You could just as easily have anyone else that has the same right. Like an Eskimo or bunch of church elders. Iwi have a right over certain elements of the water system I agree, but I don’t believe they hold that right over all elements. Some of those elements are owned by other participants. I take it your position is different from mine, and I can respect that. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong or vice versa. At the same time, Three Waters should never have been a fair accompli. The attitude that labour applied to it was a good demonstration of why they were voted out. It’s like they were too timid in term one, so they decided to be bullies in term 2

 

[Worried2Death]

Happy for water reform to be put into place for water. Not happy for water reform to encompass assets that I have paid for, pay to maintain, and wish to retain my existing mechanisms (local democracy) to ensure the right things happen with those pipes
My desire for this (and dislike of centralised management) aligns with my political alignment, not any racial alignment

Look at Wellington, and their dysfunctional water network. The council is answerable to the ratepayers. Imagine the ineptitude if there was another layer for the council to point their finger at and shirk their duties

As demonstrated with my sewage network example, I don’t believe the treaty extended to the plant and equipment that has been invested in by ratepayers

Happy to honour the treaty re water. I just don’t think the “water” part extends to the plant and equipment that has been built, and breaks from time to time

Yeah more expensive, probably. But that’s the price premium for control, which the electorate has accepted as the preferable choice. Remember - it would have been a centralised agency. So people would just have to suck up whatever bad decisions are made elsewhere

Taking into account my position that iwi that doesn’t have a legal right over something (e.g sewerage facility or a pipe - I know your position is different, but assume I am correct for the analogy), why have choose iwi to mandatorily be 50% of the board? You could just as easily have anyone else that has the same right. Like an Eskimo or bunch of church elders. Iwi have a right over certain elements of the water system I agree, but I don’t believe they hold that right over all elements. Some of those elements are owned by other participants. I take it your position is different from mine, and I can respect that. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong or vice versa. At the same time, Three Waters should never have been a fair accompli. The attitude that labour applied to it was a good demonstration of why they were voted out. It’s like they were too timid in term one, so they decided to be bullies in term 2

I thought Eskimo was racist terminology now, we went through this with the ice cream fiasco

 

[juju]

Happy for water reform to be put into place for water. Not happy for water reform to encompass assets that I have paid for, pay to maintain, and wish to retain my existing mechanisms (local democracy) to ensure the right things happen with those pipes
My desire for this (and dislike of centralised management) aligns with my political alignment, not any racial alignment

Look at Wellington, and their dysfunctional water network. The council is answerable to the ratepayers. Imagine the ineptitude if there was another layer for the council to point their finger at and shirk their duties

As demonstrated with my sewage network example, I don’t believe the treaty extended to the plant and equipment that has been invested in by ratepayers

Happy to honour the treaty re water. I just don’t think the “water” part extends to the plant and equipment that has been built, and breaks from time to time

Yeah more expensive, probably. But that’s the price premium for control, which the electorate has accepted as the preferable choice. Remember - it would have been a centralised agency. So people would just have to suck up whatever bad decisions are made elsewhere

Taking into account my position that iwi that doesn’t have a legal right over something (e.g sewerage facility or a pipe - I know your position is different, but assume I am correct for the analogy), why have choose iwi to mandatorily be 50% of the board? You could just as easily have anyone else that has the same right. Like an Eskimo or bunch of church elders. Iwi have a right over certain elements of the water system I agree, but I don’t believe they hold that right over all elements. Some of those elements are owned by other participants. I take it your position is different from mine, and I can respect that. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong or vice versa. At the same time, Three Waters should never have been a fair accompli. The attitude that labour applied to it was a good demonstration of why they were voted out. It’s like they were too timid in term one, so they decided to be bullies in term 2

You didn't pay for water assets or sewage assets - they were implemented long before you were around.
We contribute towards them as a society.
Lot's of "I" and "My's"
Your existing mechanism's wouldn't change one little bit.

I understand the inefficiency argument - but the other major part of the reforms its to pre empt broke & incompetent councils not being able to afford the infrastructure improvement making water supply insecure.
Something we're told is a looming disaster - with health implications and cost implications to the rate payer and tax payer.

Moari signed a treaty, which is why they have explicit legal rights on the management of natural resources.
Eskimo's didnt sign a treaty in this country so don't have those same rights.
Church Leaders also didn't sign a treat so don't have those rights.
Not sure if you heard but the treaty was signed, not only ignored but trampled on for 130 years denying māori rights that were promised.

Pipe's / Sewage or not - that's why they deserve a seat at the decision making table.

Some reading on co governance for you.

Chris Finlayson: Co-governance should be embraced — not feared | E-Tangata

“A decade of my life was spent on Treaty settlements. I think many people would be a lot more sympathetic toward the notion of co-governance if they learned the things that I was able to learn as a public official in that role.” — Chris Finlayson, former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.

e-tangata.co.nz

I said Labour handled it poorly from the start - but you only need to google the topic to see the racist dogwhistle that dominated the debate.

 

[miket12]

For people who think that a wealth tax is going to bring in the billions promised by the māori Party and the Greens, think of what is happening in the last two countries in the world with a comprehensive wealth tax (and not just countries like France, Italy and Belgium where the wealth tax only covers certain assets).

Spain's annual wealth tax raises roughly 1.2 billion Euros ($2.4 billion NZD) or 0.25% of the country's total tax revenue. While Norway's wealth tax at NOK 28 billion ($4.7 billion NZD), provide only 1.6% of their total tax revenue. Yet, at the Greens $18 billion, they're saying their wealth tax will provide approximately 13.5% of the total tax revenue.

By only "taxing the top 5%" (which equates to 265,000 individuals) the NZ Greens say their wealth tax will raise $18 Billion NZD per year. Yet, in Norway, 6.8% of the population (375,000 individuals) pay the wealth tax yet the Greens a conning us by saying that with less people paying it than in Norway, they will raise 3 times as much.

Oh, and before people say it's because the thresholds are different, it's not enough to explain how the NZ Greens arrive at that figure. In NZ, individuals with a net worth of over $2 million NZD or couple with a net worth over $4 million NZD will pay 2.5% per year on the amount over the threshold. While it's true that in Norway, they only pay 1% wealth tax, it starts at a much lower threshold of approx. $285,000 per individual while those with a net wealth of over $3.5 million, the marginal tax increases from 1% to 1.1%.

And the māori party are even more misleading when they say their version of a wealth tax will bring in $23 billion NZD annually.

Makes you wonder what Labour's figures will be... too different from the Green or the māori Party and that will cause "trouble in left paradise" when people wonder why there is such a large difference in projected revenue, while too close to the other two parties could mean they'll be accused of "cooking the books" if economists had a look at the figures like they did to the Nats with the holes in their pre-election budget predictions when Steven Joyce fudged the books.

Far more efficient to have a CGT or an even more efficient inheritance tax and gift duties.

 

[defensivebomb]

You didn't pay for water assets or sewage assets - they were implemented long before you were around.
We contribute towards them as a society.
Lot's of "I" and "My's"
Your existing mechanism's wouldn't change one little bit.

the right to use the water network assets is attached to the property title. When a new build is done, a development contribution is paid to the council to access the assets, effectively paying for it, as property owners. That value is then effectively baked into the property price. Try selling one without that right. You’d quickly find out its value. So yes, as a property owner, I have paid the previous owner (and previous owners over time) for the assets

The problem I had was we were being made to give that unemcumbered right away for free to the govt. We’d effectively get lower rates *in theory*, over time, after 3 Waters overheads. Was that a good deal? Maybe. I didnt think so. I certainly didn’t think it was such a great deal that it needed to be pushed through like it did

If the govt wanted to buy the entire system from ratepayers, and lease it back, I’d be ok with that, provided it was done at market value.

I do respect that the Treaty provides rights to māori that are different from non-māori. I just differ on this occasion with the scope of how that was applied in 3 waters. Appreciate your views nonetheless

Here’s a conspiracy theory did the non-māori caucus members of labour conspire to let Three Waters implode, so they could watch from the sidelines and wrestle control back from the māori caucus?

 

[Kaos A.D.]

If it wasn't for colonisation, Māori would have developed indoor plumbing to rival the Romans! (although the Romans did start theirs in 312BC)

so are māori supposed to kiss colonial butt for the rest of our existence, weve fought and died for this country in two world wars, so whats your problem? want more groveling is that it?... most māori just want to get on with life not be run down just because you have a problem with a minor political party.... and aint you some african decendent? maybe look at your own past and do your own colonial groveling .... roman plumbing? wtf is that