Noitall
π€
Seymour trying to get a contract at Warriors with the hyphenated name
Politics π³οΈ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
Seymour trying to get a contract at Warriors with the hyphenated name
Mr. Brownstone
β
More importantly September quarter was 1.3% above that period a year ago. But thatβs not a heap, definitely nothing remotely close to a V shape recovery towards rock star status. But at least itβs moving in the right direction.
Is this Batchelor guy serious?
"He repeatedly stated that he believed MΔori had fundamental character flaws. βItβs the lack of character inside MΔori that I believe is the issue,β he said. βIf MΔori donβt address the issue of character, then the culture and the language might as well die a natural death.β
He told the court that he believed MΔori were not indigenous to New Zealand and that a race of fair-skinned, ginger-haired people had settled the land before MΔori arrived."
"He repeatedly stated that he believed MΔori had fundamental character flaws. βItβs the lack of character inside MΔori that I believe is the issue,β he said. βIf MΔori donβt address the issue of character, then the culture and the language might as well die a natural death.β
He told the court that he believed MΔori were not indigenous to New Zealand and that a race of fair-skinned, ginger-haired people had settled the land before MΔori arrived."
Billionaire NZME director Jim Grenon funding defamation lawsuit against TVNZ, court told
Jim Grenon suggested to controversial evangelist Julian Batchelor that he should sue TVNZ, according to evidence given in court.
thespinoff.co.nz
Noitall
π€
Is this Batchelor guy serious?
"He repeatedly stated that he believed MΔori had fundamental character flaws. βItβs the lack of character inside MΔori that I believe is the issue,β he said. βIf MΔori donβt address the issue of character, then the culture and the language might as well die a natural death.β
He told the court that he believed MΔori were not indigenous to New Zealand and that a race of fair-skinned, ginger-haired people had settled the land before MΔori arrived."
Billionaire NZME director Jim Grenon funding defamation lawsuit against TVNZ, court told
Jim Grenon suggested to controversial evangelist Julian Batchelor that he should sue TVNZ, according to evidence given in court.thespinoff.co.nz
A descendent of NZ
Miki Hukenoa?
miket12
ποΈ
Most of the major banks have started to lift their long term interest rates now...
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #21,787
Short term. I predict the long term rates will ease again next year.Most of the major banks have started to lift their long term interest rates now...
Banking capital requirement changes, etc.
miket12
ποΈ
All depends on what happens to the wholesale rates the banks are paying.
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #21,789
Just keep fixing shorter term - lock in long term if thereβs an economic shock.
miket12
ποΈ
Interesting court case at the moment over a disputed will.
A mother had a will where she was going to leave everything as a 50/50 split between her two children.
Then her son wanted to buy a property so the mother gave him $400 K and altered her will to show that he would get $400 K less in inheritance if she passed away. Both her children were aware of this change to the will.
Her son stopped making repayments on the property and the bank sold it as a mortgagee auction. His mother, feeling sorry for him, re-wrote her will again, this time reverting back to the 50/50 split.
The mother has since died and the daughter is disputing the will on the basis that her brother had already "received" $400 K in inheritance and that, because she didn't know the mother had re-written the will, wonders if it was down under duress as the son knew of the final will but not her.
Interesting to see how this goes as usually the judge would take a lot of convincing to set aside a current will in favour of a previous one, but I suspect, in this case, the judge may side with the daughter.
A mother had a will where she was going to leave everything as a 50/50 split between her two children.
Then her son wanted to buy a property so the mother gave him $400 K and altered her will to show that he would get $400 K less in inheritance if she passed away. Both her children were aware of this change to the will.
Her son stopped making repayments on the property and the bank sold it as a mortgagee auction. His mother, feeling sorry for him, re-wrote her will again, this time reverting back to the 50/50 split.
The mother has since died and the daughter is disputing the will on the basis that her brother had already "received" $400 K in inheritance and that, because she didn't know the mother had re-written the will, wonders if it was down under duress as the son knew of the final will but not her.
Interesting to see how this goes as usually the judge would take a lot of convincing to set aside a current will in favour of a previous one, but I suspect, in this case, the judge may side with the daughter.
Noitall
π€
I hope he does to be honest. The entitlement of some is staggering regarding inheritance, I said to both my parents, you spend your money, you earned it. You make your own way in life in my view
miket12
ποΈ
There was an interesting way I heard how to make intergenerational wealth.... when a child is born, put $22,000 into a managed fund for that child. Because of compounding interest, without adding any more money into it, when that child retires at 65, if the fund averaged 6% returns after tax and fees for the 65 years, there would be of $1 million in that account.
Now, inflation would reduce the value of that money but, if it had an 8.5% average return after tax and fees (my KS growth fund has average just under 8% since I started it), would give an inflation adjusted amount equal to $1 mill in today's money (if inflation averaged 2.5%).
Not a bad return on $22,000!!!
miket12
ποΈ
Or, another way to make money. If you brought an $800 K terrace house in South Auckland and kept it for the entire 30-year mortgage time, at an average increase in value of just 4% PA, that house will be worth over $2.5 million... and you would need to pay the TPM wealth tax. At 6% increase PA, and the house would have a value of just under $5 million.
Don't think 6% increase is right? Since 2000, the median house value in NZ has risen from $170,000 to $800,000.... an average increase of 6.3% PA.
Don't think 6% increase is right? Since 2000, the median house value in NZ has risen from $170,000 to $800,000.... an average increase of 6.3% PA.
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #21,794
I agree and have said the same to my parents.
But devils advocate, if the βsystemβ moves wealth away from the younger generation and to the older generation, isnβt inheritance just redistributing your share back to you?
I think inter-generational wealth could be a key to fixing poverty, rather than relying on the govt.
70 per cent of a familyβs wealth is squandered by the second generation. By the third generation itβs 90 per cent, according to a widely quoted longitudinal study of 3,250 families conducted over 25 years by US wealth consultancy The Williams Group in 2002.
Succession: beating the third generation βcurseβ. | ANZ
You can spend your life creating generational wealth only to see it squandered, leaving younger family members to start out with nothing. How do you avoid this fate?
www.anz.com.au
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #21,796
Pass your work ethic and knowledge as well as your wealth and stay in the 30%!70 per cent of a familyβs wealth is squandered by the second generation. By the third generation itβs 90 per cent, according to a widely quoted longitudinal study of 3,250 families conducted over 25 years by US wealth consultancy The Williams Group in 2002.
Succession: beating the third generation βcurseβ. | ANZ
You can spend your life creating generational wealth only to see it squandered, leaving younger family members to start out with nothing. How do you avoid this fate?
No trust fund spoilt brats!
Not raising morons is one problem, another is marriage. Hence why it was so tightly controlled for so long. Your daughter marries one low born commoner and boom, family wealth gone.
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #21,798
Couple of things:
If you have $10m and end up with 10 grandkids then the wealth gets diluted by the third generation if shared equally.
If you have 10 grandkids 3 will maintain and grow the wealth, 7 will revert to mean.
Do you believe in the iwi way? Keep the principle together as a legacy and only use the income generated for family/ charity
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #21,799
Interesting commentary:
Thereβs something deeply rotten in New Zealandβs political culture right now, and the Julian Batchelor saga has dragged it into the open.
If you challenge race based politics or coβgovernance, you donβt get argued with. You get labelled. Smeared. Treated as a problem to be neutralised rather than a citizen to be debated.
Batchelor went on the road. He spoke to ordinary people. He questioned a political direction that many New Zealanders feel they were never properly asked to consent to.
And for that, he wasnβt countered with better arguments β he was branded.
Once the media sticks words like dangerous, harmful, or racist to your name, the debate is already over. Employers back away. Venues cancel. Friends distance themselves. The punishment happens long before any court ever looks at the truth of the claims.
Thatβs not journalism. Thatβs social execution.
Why this court case really matters. This defamation case isnβt a side show. Itβs a line in the sand.
It asks a very simple question: are powerful media organisations still accountable when they destroy someoneβs reputation β or are they untouchable as long as theyβre on the βright sideβ of politics?
If the answer is that media can say anything about you as long as your views are unpopular, then free speech in New Zealand already died β we just didnβt bother to hold a funeral.
The panic you can sense from parts of the media isnβt about press freedom. Itβs about precedent. Because if one man can successfully push back, others might follow.
The unspoken power imbalance. The media loves to posture as brave truthβtellers holding power to account. But when they are the power, scrutiny suddenly becomes βharassmentβ and pushback becomes βdangerous rhetoricβ.
Hereβs the part the commentariat refuses to acknowledge: coβgovernance is not beyond criticism. Believing in one person, one vote is not hatred. Questioning raceβbased political structures is not extremism. Wanting laws to apply equally is not violence.
You donβt have to like Julian Batchelor. But if youβre cheering the attempt to erase him rather than challenge him, youβre not defending democracy β youβre dismantling it.
Because once speech is policed by narrative and punishment replaces persuasion, the system no longer belongs to the public.
It belongs to those who decide which voices are allowed to exist.
Thereβs something deeply rotten in New Zealandβs political culture right now, and the Julian Batchelor saga has dragged it into the open.
If you challenge race based politics or coβgovernance, you donβt get argued with. You get labelled. Smeared. Treated as a problem to be neutralised rather than a citizen to be debated.
Batchelor went on the road. He spoke to ordinary people. He questioned a political direction that many New Zealanders feel they were never properly asked to consent to.
And for that, he wasnβt countered with better arguments β he was branded.
Once the media sticks words like dangerous, harmful, or racist to your name, the debate is already over. Employers back away. Venues cancel. Friends distance themselves. The punishment happens long before any court ever looks at the truth of the claims.
Thatβs not journalism. Thatβs social execution.
Why this court case really matters. This defamation case isnβt a side show. Itβs a line in the sand.
It asks a very simple question: are powerful media organisations still accountable when they destroy someoneβs reputation β or are they untouchable as long as theyβre on the βright sideβ of politics?
If the answer is that media can say anything about you as long as your views are unpopular, then free speech in New Zealand already died β we just didnβt bother to hold a funeral.
The panic you can sense from parts of the media isnβt about press freedom. Itβs about precedent. Because if one man can successfully push back, others might follow.
The unspoken power imbalance. The media loves to posture as brave truthβtellers holding power to account. But when they are the power, scrutiny suddenly becomes βharassmentβ and pushback becomes βdangerous rhetoricβ.
Hereβs the part the commentariat refuses to acknowledge: coβgovernance is not beyond criticism. Believing in one person, one vote is not hatred. Questioning raceβbased political structures is not extremism. Wanting laws to apply equally is not violence.
You donβt have to like Julian Batchelor. But if youβre cheering the attempt to erase him rather than challenge him, youβre not defending democracy β youβre dismantling it.
Because once speech is policed by narrative and punishment replaces persuasion, the system no longer belongs to the public.
It belongs to those who decide which voices are allowed to exist.
If you hold TPM to account for saying racist things like being 'superior', then Batchelor saying things like a whole race lacks character also needs to be held to account.
