Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initial
reaction.
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a
third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a >history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled
advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected
further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour
government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments
under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern
herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark
to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible
and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy
of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they
have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy
bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their
first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the
mistakes of the inexperienced. Their biggest attraction to me is a >commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no >mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I
could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather
focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off
adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the
commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single
biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but
Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--Interesting times. I cannot understand why National are not pushing the repeal of the water reforms (so-called). I believe the majority of this country do not support the water legislation imposed without a mandate by Labour.
Crash McBash
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initialInteresting times. I cannot understand why National are not pushing the repeal
reaction.
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a
third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a >>history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled
advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected
further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour
government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments
under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern
herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark
to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible
and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy
of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they
have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy
bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their >>first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the
mistakes of the inexperienced. Their biggest attraction to me is a >>commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no >>mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I
could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather
focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off
adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the
commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single >>biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but
Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--
Crash McBash
of the water reforms (so-called). I believe the majority of this country do not
support the water legislation imposed without a mandate by Labour.
Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initial
reaction.
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a
third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled
advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected
further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour
government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments
under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern
herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark
to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible
and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy
of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they
have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy
bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their
first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the
mistakes of the inexperienced.
Their biggest attraction to me is a
commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I
could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather
focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off
adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the
commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single
biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but
Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--
Crash McBash
On 2023-09-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initialInteresting times. I cannot understand why National are not pushing the repeal
reaction.
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a
third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a >>>history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled
advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected >>>further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour
government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments
under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern
herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark
to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible >>>and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy
of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they
have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy
bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their >>>first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the
mistakes of the inexperienced. Their biggest attraction to me is a >>>commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no >>>mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I >>>could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather
focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off >>>adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the >>>commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single >>>biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but >>>Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--
Crash McBash
of the water reforms (so-called). I believe the majority of this country do not
support the water legislation imposed without a mandate by Labour.
If one believes that the people/voters have made up their mind on a issue >then it is wasted effort trying to covert the other side. It is also a >distraction.
The response to three waters has come and gone and Act, National, and NZF >have said they will scarp it. NZ is over it for now until the Act remains or >that people keep getting hit in the wallet, or that National and ACT fail to >do the scrapping.
National/ACT need to remind people of the risk of what co-governance is and >what it will do.
I suspect that the three waters will take some time for the debit to hit the >fan, along with the realisation that no improvement has been made.
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their
first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the
mistakes of the inexperienced.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:17:16 PM UTC+12, Crash wrote:previous party leader, whether experienced or not, ever been so naive as to let show just how ill-prepared he is for the challenges of political life?
Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initial
reaction.
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a
third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled
advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected
further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour
government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments
under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern
herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark
to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible
and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy
of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they
have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy
bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make theHis beyond-embarrassing trainwreck appearance on Q&A yesterday (now streaming for your leisured savouring on TVNZ+) must have had National's caucus devouring their own livers. With his habitual motormouth blethering and desperate obfuscating, has any
mistakes of the inexperienced.
Their biggest attraction to me is a
commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I
could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather
focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the
commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--
Crash McBash
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their >>first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the
mistakes of the inexperienced.
He's doing it now, ruling out many ACT policies which are in fact
popular with the people. ACT is going to pick up a lot of Nat voters
who want those policies.
Meanwhile Luxon is shedding votes to NZ First because of his failure
to denounce the Three Waters type policies. Luxon is afraid of the
media branding him "racist" for opposing Three Waters, so more for
Winston. Who wants a PM who cowers before the media?
Historically, the Nats biggest accomplishments are to bed in Labour
policies. Luxon is half way there already.
Let's see if ACT doesn't
out-poll him.
But as for ACT, they are still pro-vaxx as anyone. We unvaxxed will
have to go with Winston, I guess. Sigh.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their >>first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the
mistakes of the inexperienced.
He's doing it now, ruling out many ACT policies which are in fact
popular with the people. ACT is going to pick up a lot of Nat voters
who want those policies.
Meanwhile Luxon is shedding votes to NZ First because of his failure
to denounce the Three Waters type policies. Luxon is afraid of the
media branding him "racist" for opposing Three Waters, so more for
Winston. Who wants a PM who cowers before the media?
Historically, the Nats biggest accomplishments are to bed in Labour
policies. Luxon is half way there already. Let's see if ACT doesn't >out-poll him.
But as for ACT, they are still pro-vaxx as anyone. We unvaxxed will
have to go with Winston, I guess. Sigh.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023, willynilly@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
He's doing it now, ruling out many ACT policies which are in factI have not seen any reporting of this but would welcome a cite.
popular with the people. ACT is going to pick up a lot of Nat voters
who want those policies.
Personally I will continue with any further Covid jabs in exactly the
same way I do for the 'flu.
... again relegate this charlatan to history. While
I agree with many of NZ First's stands on issues, there is no
overcoming the factor that this is Winston's vanity party ...
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023, willynilly@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
He's doing it now, ruling out many ACT policies which are in factI have not seen any reporting of this but would welcome a cite.
popular with the people. ACT is going to pick up a lot of Nat voters
who want those policies.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/497636/act-s-david-seymour-floats-confidence-only-partnership-no-supply
excerpt:
"Luxon has been rejecting more and more of ACT's core policies. Last
month he completely ruled out abolishing the Zero Carbon Act, and said
he did not support ACT's proposed Treaty of Waitangi Principles
legislation - stopping short of the hardline rule-out. This week,
Luxon flatly rejected support for several more ACT policies, including >partial sales of state-owned enterprises, abolishing fees-free
first-year tertiary, ending first-home grants, scrapping all film
subsidies, ending various research and development grants, and more.
His answer to each was either "no" they would not do that - or it was
"not our policy"."
Personally I will continue with any further Covid jabs in exactly the
same way I do for the 'flu.
RIP unless you are having neither.
... again relegate this charlatan to history. While
I agree with many of NZ First's stands on issues, there is no
overcoming the factor that this is Winston's vanity party ...
-- political suicide wish -- check.
On 10 Sep 2023 23:56:11 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-09-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initialInteresting times. I cannot understand why National are not pushing the repeal
reaction.
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a
third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a >>>>history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled
advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected >>>>further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour
government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments
under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern
herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark >>>>to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible >>>>and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy >>>>of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they
have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy >>>>bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their >>>>first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the >>>>mistakes of the inexperienced. Their biggest attraction to me is a >>>>commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no >>>>mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I >>>>could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather >>>>focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off >>>>adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the >>>>commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single >>>>biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but >>>>Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--
Crash McBash
of the water reforms (so-called). I believe the majority of this country do not
support the water legislation imposed without a mandate by Labour.
If one believes that the people/voters have made up their mind on a issue >>then it is wasted effort trying to covert the other side. It is also a >>distraction.
The response to three waters has come and gone and Act, National, and NZF >>have said they will scarp it. NZ is over it for now until the Act remains or >>that people keep getting hit in the wallet, or that National and ACT fail to >>do the scrapping.
National/ACT need to remind people of the risk of what co-governance is and >>what it will do.
I suspect that the three waters will take some time for the debit to hit the >>fan, along with the realisation that no improvement has been made.
I am one of those who will most likely party-vote National because of
the promise to repeal the water Reforms Labour enacted. The
legislation is in place and the Water Entities are being set up. The
repeal is urgent because for every day wasted after the election the
'sunk costs' (being money spent that can never be recovered)
escalates. The sooner the repeal is enacted the greater the cost
savings to the taxpayer.
National's tax actions are the right thing to do but their reasoning
is wrong. First of all these are not tax cuts but a return of some
tax revenues that increased because bracket-creep. Their policy does
not include a commitment ensure income tax brackets are periodically >reviewed, therefore the underlying problem remains unfixed.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:32:34 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 10 Sep 2023 23:56:11 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-09-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initial >>>>>reaction.Interesting times. I cannot understand why National are not pushing the repeal
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a >>>>>third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a >>>>>history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled >>>>>advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected >>>>>further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour >>>>>government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments >>>>>under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern >>>>>herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark >>>>>to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible >>>>>and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy >>>>>of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they >>>>>have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy >>>>>bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their >>>>>first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the >>>>>mistakes of the inexperienced. Their biggest attraction to me is a >>>>>commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no >>>>>mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I >>>>>could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather >>>>>focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off >>>>>adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the >>>>>commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single >>>>>biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but >>>>>Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--
Crash McBash
of the water reforms (so-called). I believe the majority of this country do not
support the water legislation imposed without a mandate by Labour.
If one believes that the people/voters have made up their mind on a issue >>>then it is wasted effort trying to covert the other side. It is also a >>>distraction.
The response to three waters has come and gone and Act, National, and NZF >>>have said they will scarp it. NZ is over it for now until the Act remains or >>>that people keep getting hit in the wallet, or that National and ACT fail to >>>do the scrapping.
National/ACT need to remind people of the risk of what co-governance is and >>>what it will do.
I suspect that the three waters will take some time for the debit to hit the >>>fan, along with the realisation that no improvement has been made.
I am one of those who will most likely party-vote National because of
the promise to repeal the water Reforms Labour enacted. The
legislation is in place and the Water Entities are being set up. The >>repeal is urgent because for every day wasted after the election the
'sunk costs' (being money spent that can never be recovered)
escalates. The sooner the repeal is enacted the greater the cost
savings to the taxpayer.
National's tax actions are the right thing to do but their reasoning
is wrong. First of all these are not tax cuts but a return of some
tax revenues that increased because bracket-creep. Their policy does
not include a commitment ensure income tax brackets are periodically >>reviewed, therefore the underlying problem remains unfixed.
You have not identified just what you think the underlying problem is
then. The reality is that New Zealand has low tax rates compared to
most other countries, but we are
currently sharing with other countries the effects of extreme weather
events. The current government have promised to meet half the costs of dealing with dwellings that a re a total write off, whether in Nelson, Auckland or the East Coast, and are also meeting some costs relating
to the destruction of underground services. How does National propose
to deal with the costs (yet to be paid) for some of those events that
have already happened, or which we now know are more likely in future?
ACT would I suspect object to government getting involved in any way; claiming that the total cost should be met by private insurance or the owners, but they are keeping quiet about that . . .
What National are doing however is using the "excuse" of indexation to
skew tax reductions so that the wealthy gain even greater rewards proportionately that all those on lower incomes - together with their proposals to not regard sales of property as an investment decision
after two years ownership they are cranking up the advantage to the
wealthy as much as they can - and all that at the expense of those
earning lower taxable income, and leaving he government with a lower
tax take to fund work arising natural disasters such as a Kaikoura earthquake, and more recent extreme weather events.
On 2023-09-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:32:34 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 10 Sep 2023 23:56:11 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-09-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initial >>>>>>reaction.Interesting times. I cannot understand why National are not pushing the repeal
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a >>>>>>third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a >>>>>>history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled >>>>>>advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected >>>>>>further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour >>>>>>government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments >>>>>>under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern >>>>>>herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark >>>>>>to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible >>>>>>and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy >>>>>>of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they >>>>>>have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy >>>>>>bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their >>>>>>first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the >>>>>>mistakes of the inexperienced. Their biggest attraction to me is a >>>>>>commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no >>>>>>mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I >>>>>>could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather >>>>>>focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off >>>>>>adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the >>>>>>commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single >>>>>>biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but >>>>>>Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--
Crash McBash
of the water reforms (so-called). I believe the majority of this country do not
support the water legislation imposed without a mandate by Labour.
If one believes that the people/voters have made up their mind on a issue >>>>then it is wasted effort trying to covert the other side. It is also a >>>>distraction.
The response to three waters has come and gone and Act, National, and NZF >>>>have said they will scarp it. NZ is over it for now until the Act remains or
that people keep getting hit in the wallet, or that National and ACT fail to
do the scrapping.
National/ACT need to remind people of the risk of what co-governance is and >>>>what it will do.
I suspect that the three waters will take some time for the debit to hit the
fan, along with the realisation that no improvement has been made.
I am one of those who will most likely party-vote National because of
the promise to repeal the water Reforms Labour enacted. The
legislation is in place and the Water Entities are being set up. The >>>repeal is urgent because for every day wasted after the election the >>>'sunk costs' (being money spent that can never be recovered)
escalates. The sooner the repeal is enacted the greater the cost
savings to the taxpayer.
National's tax actions are the right thing to do but their reasoning
is wrong. First of all these are not tax cuts but a return of some
tax revenues that increased because bracket-creep. Their policy does
not include a commitment ensure income tax brackets are periodically >>>reviewed, therefore the underlying problem remains unfixed.
You have not identified just what you think the underlying problem is
then. The reality is that New Zealand has low tax rates compared to
most other countries, but we are
currently sharing with other countries the effects of extreme weather
events. The current government have promised to meet half the costs of
dealing with dwellings that a re a total write off, whether in Nelson,
Auckland or the East Coast, and are also meeting some costs relating
to the destruction of underground services. How does National propose
to deal with the costs (yet to be paid) for some of those events that
have already happened, or which we now know are more likely in future?
ACT would I suspect object to government getting involved in any way;
claiming that the total cost should be met by private insurance or the
owners, but they are keeping quiet about that . . .
There seems to be an intial desire by the public to have a good look at the >tax system. This probably is a good idea as things do get out of kilter over >time. It will also allow people to have their say, which is a good idea in a >democracy.
The bracket creep should have been fixed in the distant past. The proposal
to look at it every few years is a good one. Inflation creates this need, >espically when you have a few large steps. There used to be many more steps >on the scale up to 66% at the top at one stage. (No GST at the time)
What National are doing however is using the "excuse" of indexation toHow the country should pay for the emergencys of Climate change, earthquakes, >downpours can be included in the review. It is however a separate section to >everyday tax.
skew tax reductions so that the wealthy gain even greater rewards
proportionately that all those on lower incomes - together with their
proposals to not regard sales of property as an investment decision
after two years ownership they are cranking up the advantage to the
wealthy as much as they can - and all that at the expense of those
earning lower taxable income, and leaving he government with a lower
tax take to fund work arising natural disasters such as a Kaikoura
earthquake, and more recent extreme weather events.
On 16 Sep 2023 22:01:25 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Just because they have not attcked it does not mean they agree with it - simple English logic.
On 2023-09-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:32:34 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 10 Sep 2023 23:56:11 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-09-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Well we have got beyond the opening shots so time for initial >>>>>>>reaction.Interesting times. I cannot understand why National are not pushing the >>>>>>repeal
Labour are trying to be re-elected for a second time: going for a >>>>>>>third consecutive term in Government. Parties in this position have a >>>>>>>history of 6 years in Government, giving them an unparalleled >>>>>>>advantage on campaigning on achievement as the basis for projected >>>>>>>further successes with another term. Incredibly this Labour >>>>>>>government is NOT doing this. It is as if the Labour Governments >>>>>>>under mostly Ardern's leadership have achieved nothing. Ardern >>>>>>>herself is nowhere to be seen, instead they are relying on Helen Clark >>>>>>>to appear in the campaign launch. This is nothing short of incredible >>>>>>>and clearly illustrates that Hipkins has no confidence that the legacy >>>>>>>of Ardern's leadership is worth using to get re-elected. Yes they >>>>>>>have future plans, but what of a party that had a public 'policy >>>>>>>bonfire' when Ardern resigned?
National are also in a very weak position, with Luxon being their >>>>>>>first-ever first-term MP as Leader. He will inevitably make the >>>>>>>mistakes of the inexperienced. Their biggest attraction to me is a >>>>>>>commitment to repeal Labours Water Reforms legislation but there is no >>>>>>>mention of this either on their pledge card or their website (that I >>>>>>>could find). Yes they have committed to this but they would rather >>>>>>>focus on the repeal of inflation-induced tax hikes (as a one-off >>>>>>>adjustment rather than indexation of tax bands). Seriously, the >>>>>>>commitment to repeal Labours water reforms legislation is the single >>>>>>>biggest element to get back the voters that deserted them in 2020 but >>>>>>>Luxon does not recognise the importance of this.
So lets see where we go now.
--
Crash McBash
of the water reforms (so-called). I believe the majority of this country >>>>>>do not
support the water legislation imposed without a mandate by Labour.
If one believes that the people/voters have made up their mind on a issue >>>>>then it is wasted effort trying to covert the other side. It is also a >>>>>distraction.
The response to three waters has come and gone and Act, National, and NZF >>>>>have said they will scarp it. NZ is over it for now until the Act remains >>>>>or
that people keep getting hit in the wallet, or that National and ACT fail >>>>>to
do the scrapping.
National/ACT need to remind people of the risk of what co-governance is and
what it will do.
I suspect that the three waters will take some time for the debit to hit >>>>>the
fan, along with the realisation that no improvement has been made.
I am one of those who will most likely party-vote National because of >>>>the promise to repeal the water Reforms Labour enacted. The >>>>legislation is in place and the Water Entities are being set up. The >>>>repeal is urgent because for every day wasted after the election the >>>>'sunk costs' (being money spent that can never be recovered)
escalates. The sooner the repeal is enacted the greater the cost >>>>savings to the taxpayer.
National's tax actions are the right thing to do but their reasoning
is wrong. First of all these are not tax cuts but a return of some
tax revenues that increased because bracket-creep. Their policy does >>>>not include a commitment ensure income tax brackets are periodically >>>>reviewed, therefore the underlying problem remains unfixed.
You have not identified just what you think the underlying problem is
then. The reality is that New Zealand has low tax rates compared to
most other countries, but we are
currently sharing with other countries the effects of extreme weather
events. The current government have promised to meet half the costs of
dealing with dwellings that a re a total write off, whether in Nelson,
Auckland or the East Coast, and are also meeting some costs relating
to the destruction of underground services. How does National propose
to deal with the costs (yet to be paid) for some of those events that
have already happened, or which we now know are more likely in future?
ACT would I suspect object to government getting involved in any way;
claiming that the total cost should be met by private insurance or the
owners, but they are keeping quiet about that . . .
There seems to be an intial desire by the public to have a good look at the >>tax system. This probably is a good idea as things do get out of kilter over >>time. It will also allow people to have their say, which is a good idea in a >>democracy.
The bracket creep should have been fixed in the distant past. The proposal >>to look at it every few years is a good one. Inflation creates this need, >>espically when you have a few large steps. There used to be many more steps >>on the scale up to 66% at the top at one stage. (No GST at the time)
What National are doing however is using the "excuse" of indexation toHow the country should pay for the emergencys of Climate change, earthquakes, >>downpours can be included in the review. It is however a separate section to >>everyday tax.
skew tax reductions so that the wealthy gain even greater rewards
proportionately that all those on lower incomes - together with their
proposals to not regard sales of property as an investment decision
after two years ownership they are cranking up the advantage to the
wealthy as much as they can - and all that at the expense of those
earning lower taxable income, and leaving he government with a lower
tax take to fund work arising natural disasters such as a Kaikoura
earthquake, and more recent extreme weather events.
I agree that it should be considered, but paying for necessary work is >something that needs to be considered as part of a review of the
whole tax system. It is interesting that while National have not
attacked the 50/50 deals with local authorities, they have not
committed to continue those subsidies.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 119:14:00 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,367 |