The Current Direction of New Zealand - (aka Political Thread)

[David R]

^ agree. My boss was part of a community at the top of the coromandel, and he said the turning point of when it started going downhill was when the government allowed the dole to be paid north of Thames. The dole should be finite, and should come with a lump-sum payment to help with relocation costs to move to an area with more employment.

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by SLOTEG

yeah and more big businesses deciding that the bullshit taxes we are bringing in are just not worth it and taking their factories overseas

Erm, so what, impose tariffs like we did prior to the mid nineties so we can employ people to make cars and have jobs, at the expense of everyone else who couldn't rely on cheaper cars because they can be manufactured elsewhere for cheaper, and pass those savings onto the consumer?

Companies like Fisher & Paykel ought to be applauded for hanging on so long. Who knows, my job could possibly be outsourced to India in theory.

2126770

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by Danielle

But when you want to pay someone for more than 2 months to sit there on their arse and collect free money.... come on guys, why should tax payers pay for that? 2 months is long enough to get at least some sort of alternative income...

Again, if someone wants to live on the dole, I could not care less. And if they want to put their $150 a week into pokies, I don't care. At least some sports team down the line will get funding from Lottery Grants.
Average income in NZ is about $35,684 PA?, so $27,747net, it's $533 per week, that should be incentive enough.

And you're more than welcome to voice your opinion!

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by simonr

NZ was top of the world 50 years ago, highest GDP per capita and solid growth.

50 years ago we were the "British Farm", we had a ridiculous percentage of exports to just one country.
A case of having all the eggs in one basket really. Imagine what would happen now if that were still the case, the British suffer economically and stop buying our beef/cheese/butter etc.

Edit. And no, I can't figure out multi quote.

[David R]

Originally Posted by Dionysus

Average income in NZ is about $35,684 PA?, so $27,747net, it's $533 per week, that should be incentive enough.

Should be, but it isn't. There's plenty of people capable of working that choose not to because they can get by with a government handout and a bit of under-the-table pay.
I'll use the hippies in the coromandel as an example again. How can you really claim to be seeking employment when you live on a farm at Port Charles (about as far up the coromandel you can go by road)? Sell a few herbs under and don't declare the income, grow a few veges, have no aspirations and you're set.

I guess if you don't care that people live on the dole you won't care if it gets slashed either!

[WTNESS]

i came from lebanon to nz back in 2001, and as i see it, u guys have it way easier than the rest of some countries, in tax and goverment and work.

hell my country rite now dont have a president for 7 months, and the people want the goverment to fall so they can have decent people running the country and get it back on to its legs like it used to be in the 70's.

its easy to complain and moan, but its better if you actually see if you can do something about it.

i dont like to see it hapen like wats hapening in lebanon, with militiaz going in with ak-47 going around the capital threatning people, but its the last resort it has for the re-vival.

yeah it suxs that hard earned money goes to the less fortunate and they seem to spend it on gambling, drinking, etc. because its a way to keep them tame and not on the streets breaking into shops/houses/cars (i know its hapening now but not at the rate if they didnt get welfare)

but wen they spend it somewere that money gets re-used for road development/schools and such things.

maybe we do need a better leader to get this country back up to shape.

i suggest VOTING this year for the person that u can see changing the country.

[Baxter]

Originally Posted by d16a7

we as a nation are going backwards, students are up to their eyeballs in debt, student allowance conditions to get them are ridiculous (yet its soo much easier to just go on the doll)...

You do know that National started the student debt scheme. Fees increased an average of about 20%pa while National were in power. And it was National that scrapped the universal student allowance (the driver of the bulk of student debt) and National that came up with all the silly exclusions for the allowance. National have not changed their policy and will do the same again...

Sure Labour isn't really the answer either, while they have limited fee increases to a 5% max, done away with interest, and tinkered a little so a few more peeps are entitled to an allowance, but history shows they're better for health and education than the Nats.

[Baxter]

Originally Posted by David R

The current taxation wouldn't be so bad if we had first-class services provided for us...

Agreed.

And I also agree that current government are not doing a perfect job of allocating resources.

Originally Posted by David R

instead we have doctors either on strike or moving overseas, a huge and ever increasing level of student debt, roading and infrastructure that is barely coping with todays needs let alone tomorrows. The government need to scrap the budget and start again, prioritising with health, education, law enforcement and infrastructure,

That's probably because we already have one of the lowest taxation in the Western world - ie many of our key services are underfunded.

Lowering taxes will mean the government have less ability to fix these problems. This is sadly the direction we will head if National wins the election.




Roads are a good example of the other part of the problem - privatisation.

In the days where the government/local bodies did the work - sure we had plenty of jokes about MOW workers leaning ion their spades - but we also had some of the best roads in the world. Since being contracted out to profit making companies the roads here have turned to absolute shite.

Electricity is the same. Remember Mad Max Bradford promising that privatisation would bring cheaper power? Funnily enough mine has only up and up since then. Privatisation simply does not work for essential large scale services.

Imagine if universities were sold off - crappier degrees and even bigger debt. How about selling roads off - even crappier and we'd have to pay tolls to use them. While National have backed away from privatisation they still believe it doing it.

[Kiwi XTR2]

Originally Posted by Baxter

Roads are a good example of the other part of the problem - privatisation.

In the days where the government/local bodies did the work - sure we had plenty of jokes about MOW workers leaning ion their spades - but we also had some of the best roads in the world. Since being contracted out to profit making companies the roads here have turned to absolute shite.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with out-sourcing that kind of work.

What is wrong is stripping back the resources of the owner/specifier to the point where they cannot produce a decent asset management plan, manage the specification of the contracts, audit the work and hold the out-sourced contractor to account.

By resources I don't just mean money but expert staff as well. If the top 20 game-keepers get re-assigned to be poachers then the 21st ranked game-keeper is going to have a problem.

My person view is that it's not a bad idea but some of the implementation had been woeful.

[M3_Power]

Originally Posted by Baxter

You do know that National started the student debt scheme. Fees increased an average of about 20%pa while National were in power. And it was National that scrapped the universal student allowance (the driver of the bulk of student debt) and National that came up with all the silly exclusions for the allowance. National have not changed their policy and will do the same again...

Sure Labour isn't really the answer either, while they have limited fee increases to a 5% max, done away with interest, and tinkered a little so a few more peeps are entitled to an allowance, but history shows they're better for health and education than the Nats.

You do sound like a broken record sometimes ... so what if National started the scheme? This makes no difference to how Labour have carried on with the scheme ... This is what this thread is about - the direction that the current leaders are taking this country.

I fondly recall this argument you had with David R back in 05

Originally Posted by David R back in 05

Student debt will increase, government will have less income to spend else-where (gosh that almost sounds like the dreaded National-Brash syndrome!), therefor labours policy is stupid.

Your response:

Originally Posted by Baxter back in 05

Why will it increase? Because education's cheaper and more people will enrol? Sure maybe there will be a small increase - but what's they problem with having a smarter and trained country? - At least you might be able to get a builder/plumber/etc when you need one.

Besides instutitions can only take so many people, so they'll put caps on class sizes if there was a flood of new people anyway.

However, yes you're right student debt will increase without interest on loans (by pretty much the amount it's currently forcast to increase, less interest) - ie at much lower rate than it's increasing right now with interest. That's the nature of interest.


Or are you sugesting that it will increase because people aren't making as many voluntary re-payments (ie extra re-payments)?

Which is simple BS - f$%#k all people make extra repayments now. Indeed, if no one made these extra repayments - you'd virtually wouldn't notice the impact on the increase of debt.

Now that's see what the NZHerald have to say in Feb 08

Originally Posted by NZHerald

NZ student loans reach all-time high

6:04PM Friday February 29, 2008


The number of students with loans reached an all time high in 2006, Statistics New Zealand data released yesterday shows.
The Statistics New Zealand figures - Student Loans and Allowances 2006 - showed the number of students borrowing under the Student Loan Scheme had increased by eight per cent from 2005 to 2006.
The number of students who received an allowance in 2006 increased for the first time since 2002, but the number of students who only received an allowance - not a loan as well - declined.
In 2006, about seven in every 10 borrowers received an allowance, Statistics New Zealand said.
Auckland University Students Association president David Do said the statistics confirmed that student debt was continuing to skyrocket.
He said the figures showed the number of students who received only a student loan had increased.
Mr Do said this suggested they were not eligible for an allowance and thus had to borrow to live.
The figures showed the average student loan leaving debt reached a high of $15,590 in 2005, up six per cent from $14,730 in 2004.

Mr Do said this continued the upward trend in average student loan leaving debt since 1992.
The data also showed that more females had a student loan compared with males.
However, when men did have a student loan they borrowed more.

Originally Posted by NZherald back in Jan 08

Average student loan debt now $30,000

10:00AM Thursday January 24, 2008


The average student will be starting their working lives with a nearly $30,000 debt hanging around their necks, the New Zealand Union of Students Association (NZUSA) says.
NZUSA co-president Paul Falloon said research released today by TNS Conversa revealed average student debt had risen by 54 per cent since 2004 and was now $28,838.
The research also found students were looking beyond the student loan scheme, to bank loans, overdrafts, and credit cards to pay for essential living costs and 88 per cent of students considered student loans would impact on their ability to buy a house.
"For the majority of students, living expenses now far outweigh their income levels and they are forced to borrow to live," Mr Falloon said.
The drivers of student debt included continual increases in tuition fees and basic costs of living.
For example, average accommodation costs had increased from $116 to $142 a week in the last three years, he said.
Student debt included debt from student loans, bank overdrafts, personal bank loans, loans from parents and family, credit card and other loans such as hire purchase, but excluded mortgages.

The results of the research will be officially launched at Victoria University of Wellington tomorrow, followed by a march of student leaders to Parliament.

Originally Posted by Statistics NZ Wrote

Borrowing and borrowers increase
The number of students borrowing in a year under the Student Loan Scheme reached a high of
167,400 in 2006. The 8 percent increase from 154,404 in 2005 is the biggest percentage
increase in the total number of borrowers since 2001. This is despite a 3 percent drop in total
enrolments from 527,211 in 2005 to 512,694 in 2006.
The average total amount borrowed in a year by students has increased gradually over time, with
the biggest annual increase between 2005 and 2006 (up 3 percent) from $6,410 in 2005 to $6,610 in 2006.

* * * *

Increasing number of students receive loan and/or allowance
The number of students that received a loan and/or allowance in a year increased by 7 percent,
from 164,526 in 2005 to 176,502 in 2006. This contributed to the overall 25 percent increase in
students using the financial support system for tertiary education between 2000 and 2006.

* * * *

Loan and allowance students up 8 percent from 2005 to 2006
The number of students that received a loan and an allowance increased 8 percent (from 45,429
in 2005 to 49,092 in 2006). This is different to previous years where the number of students that
received both a loan and an allowance declined each year, from 56,274 in 2001 to 45,429 in
2005.

* * * *

Increased borrowing for course fees and living costs
The average amount borrowed for course fees by students per year was highest in 2006
($4,410). This is 4 percent higher than in 2005 ($4,250), and 15 percent higher than in
2000 ($3,820).

And let's not forget you also said this:

Originally Posted by Baxter back in 05

Anyway, I work with students and graduates, and I have spoken to a fair few in the last couple of weeks and I've found that now people have a chance of actually paying off their debt they are far more motovated...

And what does statistics NZ have to say ...

Originally Posted by Statistics NZ

Proportion of debt repaid within five years
The proportion of debt repaid within five years of leaving study has decreased over time.

* * * *

Plateau in students who fully repaid their loans at time of leaving study since 1997
Since 1997 the proportion of all borrowers who had fully repaid their student loan debt at the time
of leaving study remained relatively steady (between 6 percent and 7 percent), and there is no
noticeable change in behaviour from 2001 when the zero interest while studying policy was introduced.

So basically we've had since Labour came into power:

- Rising Interest Rates (oh we don't produce enough locally so let's borrow from overseas)
- Higher than expected inflation.
- Higher living costs
- No capping of class size for first year uni entrance because of NCEA (became too hard for Universities to differentiate between the top students from the average students)
- Rising Student loan and student debt levels above predicted averages
Any many others I can't be bothered writing about

So much for your prediction back in 2005

[David R]

Originally Posted by Baxter

Lowering taxes will mean the government have less ability to fix these problems. This is sadly the direction we will head if National wins the election.

Well I haven't seed the budget an actually worked things out, but I'm pretty certain you could offer a substantial tax cut by eliminating wastage and non-essential services without cutting a cant from key services. I Definitely think with the amount of money they're taking we should be provided with better services.

Originally Posted by Baxter

Privatisation simply does not work for essential large scale services.

Really? Where do you buy your groceries? KiwiSupermarket?

[grandell]

Privatisation of large scale essential services (like power, phone, water, rail, roading, healthcare, airports etc) does not work, is because companies exist to make money for their shareholders, not the general public, who they are meant to provide these services for

[simonr]

Originally Posted by grandell

Privatisation of large scale essential services (like power, phone, water, rail, roading, healthcare, airports etc) does not work, is because companies exist to make money for their shareholders, not the general public, who they are meant to provide these services for

Yes the company is meant to make profits for their shareholders because their shareholders are the ones who invest money into the company (just like the taxpayers are in public entities, except we don't receive any dividends). Thats how companies work, and you will find that most companies (excluding ones with monopolies and cartels) actually don't make any economic profit.

So Japanrail, one of the world's first class railway service could be run better in public hands? There are hundreds of examples of privately owned firms providing essential services that outperform their public counterparts.

Let alone private hospitals perform a whole lot better than public, airports run better in private hands-all shown in NZ, let alone other countries. Any of those examples can be privatized and with suitable market structure (ie limiting monopoly power) will outperform public run services anyday...

[grandell]

but they also cost more, increasing the cost of daily living.
you can't tell me anyone with private health insurance pays less than someone that uses public healthcare. sure they don't get the same quality of service, but its still more expensive

also there's the economy of scale thing. Japanrail probably has more daily commuters than there are people in NZ


i guess my main problem is why should i have to pay extra for better, private services, when i'm already paying for public services that bums on the dole can use for free?

[David R]

Originally Posted by grandell

i guess my main problem is why should i have to pay extra for better, private services, when i'm already paying for public services that bums on the dole can use for free?

Bingo, just look at how well the government is doing with the hospitals. Huge waiting lists, doctors striking and leaving for overseas, old buildings etc. So much healthcare is already done by the private sector, my GF had major back surgery in 2006, paid for by ACC and done at Ascot Hospital. You can't tell me that that is the most efficient way to do things. And have you ever been to a public dentist?
Our cat needed an operation a while ago, we took it to the vet, paid the money and it was done. No waiting lists, nothing. I doubt health care could get much worse if it was handed over to the private sector. And even if it did, I'm sure the government would buy it back at over double the book value....

[KLRVTC]

Look at America's Healthcare if you really think private healthcare is better than public.

[Moclov]

Originally Posted by KLRVTC

Look at America's Healthcare if you really think private healthcare is better than public.

Americas healthcare system is great if you can afford it/have health insurance...? It'd suit me fine.

[Kiwi XTR2]

Originally Posted by Moclov

Americas healthcare system is great if you can afford it/have health insurance...? It'd suit me fine.

If they limited the action of frivolous lawsuits for extortionate sums of money then it would be much cheaper as well.

You should be able to sue, but not for some of the bo11ocks they do in the US.

[Dionysus]

ACC is still an excellent system. Especially compared to the US

[BRET]

helen is a useless twat .. and michael cullen is a wanker..

and that basically sums it up

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by BRET

helen is a useless twat .. and michael cullen is a wanker..

and that basically sums it up

What an eloquent and well crafted answer. So you won't be voting this election?

[SLOTEG]