Discussion:
Tighten your belts folk. More taxes coming!
(too old to reply)
John Bowes
2020-12-15 08:15:06 UTC
Permalink
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising

Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
Gordon
2020-12-16 07:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
John Bowes
2020-12-16 09:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Mutlley
2020-12-16 22:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
John Bowes
2020-12-16 22:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
yup! Like the government the Marxist muppet lies as a matter of course :)
Rich80105
2020-12-17 03:46:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:50:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
yup! Like the government the Marxist muppet lies as a matter of course :)
So there we have it - irrelevant criticism from John Bowes leading to
wild speculation from others leading to an accusation of lies from J
Bowes! Its like a pub discussion of matters that none of the
participants know anything about - as useful as we have come to expect
from Troll 2 . . .
John Bowes
2020-12-17 04:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:50:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
yup! Like the government the Marxist muppet lies as a matter of course :)
So there we have it - irrelevant criticism from John Bowes leading to
wild speculation from others leading to an accusation of lies from J
Bowes! Its like a pub discussion of matters that none of the
participants know anything about - as useful as we have come to expect
from Troll 2 . . .
Your glorious misleader has a record of lying almost as long as yours is Rich! Unlike your opinions this one is an honest one based on treasury advice :)
John Bowes
2020-12-17 04:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:50:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
yup! Like the government the Marxist muppet lies as a matter of course :)
So there we have it - irrelevant criticism from John Bowes leading to
wild speculation from others leading to an accusation of lies from J
Bowes! Its like a pub discussion of matters that none of the
participants know anything about - as useful as we have come to expect
from Troll 2 . . .
btw the only trolls in this ng are you and your bosom buddy Keith a.k.a. <newsman>, a.k.a. linj, a.k.a. james Christopher. hell he has more nyms than teeth :)
Tony
2020-12-17 02:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
James Christophers
2020-12-17 03:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
Tony
2020-12-17 03:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
A tax is a levy is a duty is a tax. All is semantics otherwise.
James Christophers
2020-12-17 23:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
A tax is a levy is a duty is a tax.
As also are imposts and excises.
Post by Tony
All is semantics otherwise.
Quite so. But that's not my point - which is to do with the naming and pigeon-holing of taxation categories for official bookkeeping purposes. In effect, it all operates within what is effectively a slush fund in all but name, with the government of the day dipping into and out of as needs, **pragmatism and politics** dictate. T'was ever thus and shall forever be because this is what, in essence, you cast your vote for every three years. That, plus our tax system is beyond broken. Result? Our ** **historic lacklustre real productivity** economic performance is even further stymied and inhibited to the point of long-term stultification. No one has yet come up with a way of fixing it, and I doubt anyone ever will. Our ostrich-like first-world demands exceed by far our sub-second-world capacity to pay for them. Printed paper and foreign funding are now all that keep us afloat. Fool's gold if ever there were.

So with the current state of the economy - currently "well managed" though it may arguably be - railing against any government, body or individual can only be futile. Which implies that any such further discourse based on the long-term, deep-rooted scenario as given above can never be satisfactorily concluded.
Tony
2020-12-17 23:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great
till
the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
A tax is a levy is a duty is a tax.
As also are imposts and excises.
Post by Tony
All is semantics otherwise.
Quite so. But that's not my point - which is to do with the naming and
pigeon-holing of taxation categories for official bookkeeping purposes. In
effect, it all operates within what is effectively a slush fund in all but
name, with the government of the day dipping into and out of as needs,
**pragmatism and politics** dictate. T'was ever thus and shall forever be
because this is what, in essence, you cast your vote for every three years.
That, plus our tax system is beyond broken. Result? Our ** **historic
lacklustre real productivity** economic performance is even further stymied and
inhibited to the point of long-term stultification. No one has yet come up with
a way of fixing it, and I doubt anyone ever will. Our ostrich-like first-world
demands exceed by far our sub-second-world capacity to pay for them. Printed
paper and foreign funding are now all that keep us afloat. Fool's gold if ever
there were.
So with the current state of the economy - currently "well managed" though it
may arguably be - railing against any government, body or individual can only
be futile. Which implies that any such further discourse based on the
long-term, deep-rooted scenario as given above can never be satisfactorily
concluded.
All of which is reasonable as was "A levy is a tax by any reasonable
definition. " which is what I wrote.
James Christophers
2020-12-18 02:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great
till
the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
A tax is a levy is a duty is a tax.
As also are imposts and excises.
Post by Tony
All is semantics otherwise.
Quite so. But that's not my point - which is to do with the naming and
pigeon-holing of taxation categories for official bookkeeping purposes. In
effect, it all operates within what is effectively a slush fund in all but
name, with the government of the day dipping into and out of as needs,
**pragmatism and politics** dictate. T'was ever thus and shall forever be
because this is what, in essence, you cast your vote for every three years.
That, plus our tax system is beyond broken. Result? Our ** **historic
lacklustre real productivity** economic performance is even further stymied and
inhibited to the point of long-term stultification. No one has yet come up with
a way of fixing it, and I doubt anyone ever will. Our ostrich-like first-world
demands exceed by far our sub-second-world capacity to pay for them. Printed
paper and foreign funding are now all that keep us afloat. Fool's gold if ever
there were.
So with the current state of the economy - currently "well managed" though it
may arguably be - railing against any government, body or individual can only
be futile. Which implies that any such further discourse based on the
long-term, deep-rooted scenario as given above can never be satisfactorily
concluded.
All of which is reasonable as was "A levy is a tax by any reasonable
definition. " which is what I wrote.
Already known and established uncontested by both parties. So your purpose in repeating what you have posted before is...?
Tony
2020-12-18 03:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great
till
the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
A tax is a levy is a duty is a tax.
As also are imposts and excises.
Post by Tony
All is semantics otherwise.
Quite so. But that's not my point - which is to do with the naming and
pigeon-holing of taxation categories for official bookkeeping purposes. In
effect, it all operates within what is effectively a slush fund in all but
name, with the government of the day dipping into and out of as needs,
**pragmatism and politics** dictate. T'was ever thus and shall forever be
because this is what, in essence, you cast your vote for every three years.
That, plus our tax system is beyond broken. Result? Our ** **historic
lacklustre real productivity** economic performance is even further stymied and
inhibited to the point of long-term stultification. No one has yet come up with
a way of fixing it, and I doubt anyone ever will. Our ostrich-like first-world
demands exceed by far our sub-second-world capacity to pay for them. Printed
paper and foreign funding are now all that keep us afloat. Fool's gold if ever
there were.
So with the current state of the economy - currently "well managed" though it
may arguably be - railing against any government, body or individual can only
be futile. Which implies that any such further discourse based on the
long-term, deep-rooted scenario as given above can never be satisfactorily
concluded.
All of which is reasonable as was "A levy is a tax by any reasonable
definition. " which is what I wrote.
Already known and established uncontested by both parties. So your purpose in
repeating what you have posted before is...?
And your purpose in hijacking the thread was?
James Christophers
2020-12-18 04:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great
till
the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
A tax is a levy is a duty is a tax.
As also are imposts and excises.
Post by Tony
All is semantics otherwise.
Quite so. But that's not my point - which is to do with the naming and
pigeon-holing of taxation categories for official bookkeeping purposes. In
effect, it all operates within what is effectively a slush fund in all but
name, with the government of the day dipping into and out of as needs,
**pragmatism and politics** dictate. T'was ever thus and shall forever be
because this is what, in essence, you cast your vote for every three years.
That, plus our tax system is beyond broken. Result? Our ** **historic
lacklustre real productivity** economic performance is even further stymied and
inhibited to the point of long-term stultification. No one has yet come up with
a way of fixing it, and I doubt anyone ever will. Our ostrich-like first-world
demands exceed by far our sub-second-world capacity to pay for them. Printed
paper and foreign funding are now all that keep us afloat. Fool's gold if ever
there were.
So with the current state of the economy - currently "well managed" though it
may arguably be - railing against any government, body or individual can only
be futile. Which implies that any such further discourse based on the
long-term, deep-rooted scenario as given above can never be satisfactorily
concluded.
All of which is reasonable as was "A levy is a tax by any reasonable
definition. " which is what I wrote.
Already known and established uncontested by both parties. So your purpose in
repeating what you have posted before is...?
And your purpose in hijacking the thread was?
'Highjacking'? How? Where?
Tony
2020-12-18 06:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're
great
till
the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
A tax is a levy is a duty is a tax.
As also are imposts and excises.
Post by Tony
All is semantics otherwise.
Quite so. But that's not my point - which is to do with the naming and
pigeon-holing of taxation categories for official bookkeeping purposes. In
effect, it all operates within what is effectively a slush fund in all but
name, with the government of the day dipping into and out of as needs,
**pragmatism and politics** dictate. T'was ever thus and shall forever be
because this is what, in essence, you cast your vote for every three years.
That, plus our tax system is beyond broken. Result? Our ** **historic
lacklustre real productivity** economic performance is even further
stymied
and
inhibited to the point of long-term stultification. No one has yet come
up
with
a way of fixing it, and I doubt anyone ever will. Our ostrich-like first-world
demands exceed by far our sub-second-world capacity to pay for them. Printed
paper and foreign funding are now all that keep us afloat. Fool's gold
if
ever
there were.
So with the current state of the economy - currently "well managed"
though
it
may arguably be - railing against any government, body or individual can only
be futile. Which implies that any such further discourse based on the
long-term, deep-rooted scenario as given above can never be satisfactorily
concluded.
All of which is reasonable as was "A levy is a tax by any reasonable
definition. " which is what I wrote.
Already known and established uncontested by both parties. So your purpose in
repeating what you have posted before is...?
And your purpose in hijacking the thread was?
'Highjacking'? How? Where?
It only needs a little thought to understand "how" and "where".
Please apply yourself.
Rich80105
2020-12-18 09:00:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 15:10:03 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the
smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
No 17.5% GST first.
Like Ardern's promise of no further taxes I wouldn't bet on it :)
Rich will say that these are not new taxes but increases to existing
ones and levies.
A levy is a tax by any reasonable definition.
A category, defining a specific target and/or purpose.
A tax is a levy is a duty is a tax.
As also are imposts and excises.
Post by Tony
All is semantics otherwise.
Quite so. But that's not my point - which is to do with the naming and pigeon-holing of taxation categories for official bookkeeping purposes. In effect, it all operates within what is effectively a slush fund in all but name, with the government of the day dipping into and out of as needs, **pragmatism and politics** dictate. T'was ever thus and shall forever be because this is what, in essence, you cast your vote for every three years. That, plus our tax system is beyond broken. Result? Our ** **historic lacklustre real productivity** economic performance is even further stymied and inhibited to the point of long-term stultification. No one has yet come up with a way of fixing it, and I doubt anyone ever will. Our ostrich-like first-world demands exceed by far our sub-second-world capacity to pay for them. Printed paper and foreign funding are now all that keep us afloat. Fool's gold if ever there were.
So with the current state of the economy - currently "well managed" though it may arguably be - railing against any government, body or individual can only be futile. Which implies that any such further discourse based on the long-term, deep-rooted scenario as given above can never be satisfactorily concluded.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich

"... The paper, published by LSE’s International Inequalities
Institute, uses data from 18 OECD countries, including the UK and the
US, over the last five decades. The Economic Consequences of Major Tax
Cuts for the Rich, by David Hope and Julian Limberg, shows that the
last 50 years were a period of falling taxes on the rich in the
advanced economies. Major tax cuts were spread across countries and
throughout the observation period but were particularly clustered in
the late 1980s.

It states: “Our results show that…major tax cuts for the rich increase
the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the
reform. The magnitude of the effect is sizeable; on average, each
major reform leads to a rise in top 1% share of pre-tax national
income of 0.8 percentage points. The results also show that economic
performance, as measured by real GDP per capita and the unemployment
rate, is not significantly affected by major tax cuts for the rich.
The estimated effects for these variables are statistically
indistinguishable from zero.”

It continues: “Our findings on the effects of growth and unemployment
provide evidence against supply side theories that suggest lower taxes
on the rich will induce labour supply responses from high-income
individuals (more hours of work, more effort etc.) that boost economic
activity. They are, in fact, more in line with recent empirical
research showing that income tax holidays and windfall gains do not
lead individuals to significantly alter the amount they work.” "

Worth reading the whole article.
Mutlley
2020-12-16 22:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
Don't forget the wealth tax, The new eco taxes to pay for the "Climate
Emergency"
Firu
2020-12-17 13:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
That's the problem with the fiscally bereft left. They're great till the smelly stuff hits the rotating blades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300184709/treasury-warns-more-tax-needed-to-plug-government-spending-hole-house-prices-will-keep-rising
Will it be a CGT, 20% GST or both?!
Not sure how that article warrants your comment.

Yeah, there's a bloody great hole in the finances, how that's the fault
of the current government when:-

"Finance ministers have historically kicked this issue for touch, hoping
that economic growth would make it easier for their governments to pay
the bills."

That's something all parties have done so they all get the shit stick!

The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms. If this
government finally does anything I say well done. A combination of all
three/four options will be the end result.

But past poor decisions are always the fault of the current government
and whatever the government does, it will be wrong. (even if it's right)

Peoples lives, well-being and futures are important and these issues are
beyond party politics. There will always be someone disadvantaged by
healthcare, education, taxes or welfare. The true measure of a human
being is how we support those people, or don't!

To see some of the challenges all governments face it's worth reading
this summary of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group.

http://www.weag.govt.nz/assets/documents/WEAG-report/3a22acc869/WEAG-Executive-Summary-with-QR-code-160419.pdf
BR
2020-12-17 16:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.

How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"? How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them? How about getting rid of all the useless
government comissions that don't achieve a damn thing except cost
money? Go to the government website and go down the list of government
departments. Over half of them could be abolished and most people
wouldn't notice them missing.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Rich80105
2020-12-17 19:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
Having made the statement, I'd be interested in your ideal solution.
It is a high cost area of government spending.
Post by BR
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"? How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them?
That is effectively saying that you do not think the government should
honour contracts - is that what you meant?
Post by BR
How about getting rid of all the useless
government comissions that don't achieve a damn thing except cost
money? Go to the government website and go down the list of government
departments. Over half of them could be abolished and most people
wouldn't notice them missing.
So name one or two to start with and give your argument. ""Drowning
government in a bathtub" isn't convincing (if it ever was).
Post by BR
Bill.
John Bowes
2020-12-17 20:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
Having made the statement, I'd be interested in your ideal solution.
It is a high cost area of government spending.
Post by BR
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"? How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them?
That is effectively saying that you do not think the government should
honour contracts - is that what you meant?
Nothing of the sort Rich. Funny how you were VERY defensive of the contracts the government failed to deliver on 2017-2020!
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
How about getting rid of all the useless
government comissions that don't achieve a damn thing except cost
money? Go to the government website and go down the list of government
departments. Over half of them could be abolished and most people
wouldn't notice them missing.
So name one or two to start with and give your argument. ""Drowning
government in a bathtub" isn't convincing (if it ever was).
Post by BR
Bill.
Ministry of climate Change, Pike River Re Entry ministry, Child Poverty and all the others that duplicate effort. The three departments that replaced KiwiBuild1 The list goes on and on all the ones I've mentioned have achieved diddly squat or watched the problems they were supposed to solve get worse!

Rich you need to get your head out of your virtue signalling arse and have a long look at your glorious leader and her utterly useless government.

Bills right about cutting MP numbers. We don't need 120! 90 are more than enough! We don't need 60 list MPS for starters because we don't actually select them most of the time they're MPs the voter have rejected! They're all just party hacks their to vote as the party not the people want!
James Christophers
2020-12-17 20:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
Having made the statement, I'd be interested in your ideal solution.
It is a high cost area of government spending.
Post by BR
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"? How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them?
That is effectively saying that you do not think the government should
honour contracts - is that what you meant?
Nothing of the sort Rich.
In that case, what **does** Bill actually mean? After all, since you have chosen to speak for him, it's now up to you to follow up with a credible explanation.
John Bowes
2020-12-17 23:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
Having made the statement, I'd be interested in your ideal solution.
It is a high cost area of government spending.
Post by BR
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"? How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them?
That is effectively saying that you do not think the government should
honour contracts - is that what you meant?
Nothing of the sort Rich.
In that case, what **does** Bill actually mean? After all, since you have chosen to speak for him, it's now up to you to follow up with a credible explanation.
I will when you make a sensible retort Keith!
James Christophers
2020-12-18 00:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
Having made the statement, I'd be interested in your ideal solution.
It is a high cost area of government spending.
Post by BR
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"? How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them?
That is effectively saying that you do not think the government should
honour contracts - is that what you meant?
Nothing of the sort Rich.
In that case, what **does** Bill actually mean? After all, since you have chosen to speak for him, it's now up to you to follow up with a credible explanation.
I will when you make a sensible retort Keith!
No retort of any kind but a reasonable, logical challenge to your post. Side-stepping it as you now have thereby invalidates your ill-judged retort to "Rich" and you can't show otherwise.

QED.
John Bowes
2020-12-18 04:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
Having made the statement, I'd be interested in your ideal solution.
It is a high cost area of government spending.
Post by BR
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"? How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them?
That is effectively saying that you do not think the government should
honour contracts - is that what you meant?
Nothing of the sort Rich.
In that case, what **does** Bill actually mean? After all, since you have chosen to speak for him, it's now up to you to follow up with a credible explanation.
I will when you make a sensible retort Keith!
No retort of any kind but a reasonable, logical challenge to your post. Side-stepping it as you now have thereby invalidates your ill-judged retort to "Rich" and you can't show otherwise.
QED.
Stop being a silly little boy Keith. At your advanced age you should be well past this bullshit! Interesting that you've carefully snipped my answers to Rich but not surprising considering your record of deceptive and useless "reply's'"!
Firu
2020-12-17 22:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
I'd be interested to hear alternative to government provided social
services. The current crop of alternatives don't seem to be working that
well. US healthcare. insurance based private care doesn't seem to be
effective, excluding huge numbers of unprofitable patients. UK is trying
to privatise hospital management, Circle lasted two years, Serco pulled
out of contracts early.
Post by BR
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"? How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them? How about getting rid of all the useless
government comissions that don't achieve a damn thing except cost
money? Go to the government website and go down the list of government
departments. Over half of them could be abolished and most people
wouldn't notice them missing.
Bill.
Climate change is a modern example of Pascal's wager. Arguably a better
wager than the existence of God in the original. The weight of evidence
today favours climate change being human driven than any other theory.

Abandoning treaties and any associated costs would destroy and
credibility NZ has overseas. A dodgy path at best:)

Commissions are often used as a way to do bugger all. Do it once, do it
right. So a second/third/ongoing commission is really kicking the can
down the road.

Fixing the overly complex overlapping multitude government departments,
I could get behind that! Anyone want to be on that commission?
Crash
2020-12-19 00:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"?
BR - be specific and name those costs. "Climate Change costs" is not
definitive enough.
Post by BR
How about stopping of all treaty payments and all the other
costs associated with them?
All that probably adds up to trivial savings, depending on what you
mean by associated costs.
Post by BR
How about getting rid of all the useless
government comissions that don't achieve a damn thing except cost
money? Go to the government website and go down the list of government
departments. Over half of them could be abolished and most people
wouldn't notice them missing.
Opinions will quite rightly vary on which of them qualify for
abolition as you say. Be specific - which ones do you believe
qualify?

Have a look at this document:
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-10/fsgnz-2019.pdf

If you scroll down to the 'Expenses' bit on page 13 you will see that
in the 2019 year (ended June 30) the spend on 'Core Crown Expenses' is
87.3 billion. If you take out Social Security, Health, Education and
Law&Order, you are left with just under $20 billion. Some of that
spending is necessary (it presumably includes the IRD), but we are
starting with a small number and making it smaller. So eliminating
all those government departments as you advocate would not achieve a
significant saving in government spending.

BR - prove me wrong - but be specific.


--
Crash McBash
Gordon
2020-12-19 04:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"?
BR - be specific and name those costs. "Climate Change costs" is not
definitive enough.
Carbon credits. However it is the average person will be coffing up money to
"fix" the climate change. Governments will be collecting the money/taxes.
Rich80105
2020-12-19 05:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Crash
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"?
BR - be specific and name those costs. "Climate Change costs" is not
definitive enough.
Carbon credits. However it is the average person will be coffing up money to
"fix" the climate change. Governments will be collecting the money/taxes.
How do you propose to modify international obligations regarding
carbon credits, Gordon?
John Bowes
2020-12-19 23:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Firu
The current choices are higher taxes or a cut health and education (and
though it's not mentioned in the article)future welfare reforms.
There are huge cuts that could be made to government spending without
going anywhere near health and education. Not that I believe that the
government are the ideal providers of these things, but let's play
along.
How about cutting all costs associated with so-called "climate
change"?
BR - be specific and name those costs. "Climate Change costs" is not
definitive enough.
Carbon credits. However it is the average person will be coffing up money to
"fix" the climate change. Governments will be collecting the money/taxes.
How do you propose to modify international obligations regarding
carbon credits, Gordon?
Maybe the government needs to take a reality check and look at things that will make needed changes rather than stupid ideas that do nothing about carbon capture and just cost the long suffering taxpayer more!

For people that supposedly care you and your glorious leader saint Jacinda of the lying mouth lean more towards hypocrisy than actually doing things about problems!
Loading...