https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour childish abuse is noted. Maybe you would be happy if we messed your name up like you mess up other folks - and often so in the past. It is infantile.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch
really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is providedExactly the same as jacskon. And several others.
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >apartment that he already owns.
He could lease the apartment out, butHe has essentially identical arrangements for this matter as other MPs.
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most ofNo you are deliberately distorting the truth as usual.
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:And that is messing up a name - see the difference, Tony?
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour childish abuse is noted. Maybe you would be happy if we messed your name >up like you mess up other folks - and often so in the past. It is infantile. It is not a persons name - but perhaps you are confused again
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch
really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is providedExactly the same as jacskon. And several others.
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>apartment that he already owns.
No, Luxon is provided with free accommodation. Just like Bill EnglishHe could lease the apartment out, butHe has essentially identical arrangements for this matter as other MPs.
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Both English and Luxon did try to claim money to stay in their ownNo you are deliberately distorting the truth as usual.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
Why do you get a snitch on people who tell the truth? I wonder?
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 18:51:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyI didn't say it was - obviously you are confused.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour childish abuse is noted. Maybe you would be happy if we messed your name >>up like you mess up other folks - and often so in the past. It is infantile. >It is not a persons name - but perhaps you are confused again
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch
You childish little twerp, you deliberately abuse people and organisations with childish name changes - get a life you baby.And that is messing up a name - see the difference, Tony?really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is providedExactly the same as jacskon. And several others.
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>>apartment that he already owns.
So is Jackson.No, Luxon is provided with free accommodation. Just like Bill EnglishHe could lease the apartment out, butHe has essentially identical arrangements for this matter as other MPs.
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
was, but wanted to get a payment from taxpayers to stay living in a
property that he owned.
This is not an issue that National want kept live - it took less thanSo you dislike honest people - no surprise there. The puiblic think this beat up is typical of you and the bought press.
2 hours for Luxon to have reality pointed out to him and he withdrew
his claim - just as Bill English had done years ago - but it is still
spoke to their character very loudly to the public . . .
And that is their entitlement as it is for Jackson. Jackson is a prize hypocrit.Both English and Luxon did try to claim money to stay in their ownNo you are deliberately distorting the truth as usual.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
Why do you get a snitch on people who tell the truth? I wonder?
property when they were entitled to free accommodation in Premier
House. That is the truth.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 18:51:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is not a persons name - but perhaps you are confused again
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour childish abuse is noted. Maybe you would be happy if we messed your name >>up like you mess up other folks - and often so in the past. It is infantile.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch
And that is messing up a name - see the difference, Tony?really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is providedExactly the same as jacskon. And several others.
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>>apartment that he already owns.
No, Luxon is provided with free accommodation. Just like Bill EnglishHe could lease the apartment out, butHe has essentially identical arrangements for this matter as other MPs.
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
was, but wanted to get a payment from taxpayers to stay living in a
property that he owned.
This is not an issue that National want kept live - it took less than
2 hours for Luxon to have reality pointed out to him and he withdrew
his claim - just as Bill English had done years ago - but it is still
spoke to their character very loudly to the public . . .
Both English and Luxon did try to claim money to stay in their ownNo you are deliberately distorting the truth as usual.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
Why do you get a snitch on people who tell the truth? I wonder?
property when they were entitled to free accommodation in Premier
House. That is the truth.
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes it is and Rich has nothing better.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyLuxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we need >to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead >horse.
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we need to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead horse.
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Don't you love people like Rich who greedily pounce on trivia as if it is a panacea for their own ills?
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 18:51:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:And that is messing up a name - see the difference, Tony?
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour childish abuse is noted. Maybe you would be happy if we messed your >>>name
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch
up like you mess up other folks - and often so in the past. It is infantile. >> It is not a persons name - but perhaps you are confused again
really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is providedExactly the same as jacskon. And several others.
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>>>apartment that he already owns.
That is a typo, yours was not Rich old chap.
No, Luxon is provided with free accommodation. Just like Bill EnglishHe could lease the apartment out, butHe has essentially identical arrangements for this matter as other MPs.
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >>>>my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >>>>He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >>>>got the message and recanted.
was, but wanted to get a payment from taxpayers to stay living in a
property that he owned.
This is not an issue that National want kept live - it took less than
2 hours for Luxon to have reality pointed out to him and he withdrew
his claim - just as Bill English had done years ago - but it is still
spoke to their character very loudly to the public . . .
Both English and Luxon did try to claim money to stay in their ownNo you are deliberately distorting the truth as usual.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >>>>for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >>>>is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>>>most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>>companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>>young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
Why do you get a snitch on people who tell the truth? I wonder?
property when they were entitled to free accommodation in Premier
House. That is the truth.
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says...No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyLuxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we need >> to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead >> horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect quite a few of his supporters would agree with you. Many
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says...No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyLuxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >>> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >>> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead >>> horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance - that >makes Jackson's case nonsense.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 03:58:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyHis situation in regard to this particular payment is identical to other Wellington MPs. You cannot follow logic too well can you?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect quite a few of his supporters would agree with you. Many
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says... >>>>No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >>>> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>>> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >>>> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >>>> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >>>> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >>>> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >>>> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >>>> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>>> > most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>> > young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >>>> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we >>>>need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead >>>> horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>>spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>>money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage- >>>free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
would regard $52,000 as being relatively trivial; if he is entitled
the why not? His situation is however no the same as other out of
Wellington MPs - he is entitled to free accommodation at Premier
House; and if he wants it to be fixed up or redecorated that could be
easily arranged. It does seem an anomaly to also give him an
entitlement to $52,000 a year for not using free accommodation,
doesn't it?
Apparently there are some people who earn less than $52,000 a year ofIf you can't debate - shove your repetitive and obnoxious sarcasm somewhere else.
course, but I do not know precisely how many - perhaps some of them
don't think it is trivial. Clearly this is a complex issue with a lot
of different views. If Luxon feels he does not want to be in the job
more than a few years anyway, then why not take what he can get now?
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance - that >>makes Jackson's case nonsense.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Other MPs are not entitled to free accommodation at Premier House. Yes
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 03:58:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyHis situation in regard to this particular payment is identical to other >Wellington MPs. You cannot follow logic too well can you?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect quite a few of his supporters would agree with you. Many
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says... >>>>>No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >>>>> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>>>> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >>>>> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >>>>> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >>>>> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >>>>> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of >>>>> > them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >>>>> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >>>>> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>>>> > most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>>> > young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >>>>> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we >>>>>need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>>absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>>>spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>>>money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage- >>>>free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how >>>>he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
would regard $52,000 as being relatively trivial; if he is entitled
the why not? His situation is however no the same as other out of >>Wellington MPs - he is entitled to free accommodation at Premier
House; and if he wants it to be fixed up or redecorated that could be >>easily arranged. It does seem an anomaly to also give him an
entitlement to $52,000 a year for not using free accommodation,
doesn't it?
Other MPs are not provided with accommodation that is free to theIf you can't debate - shove your repetitive and obnoxious sarcasm somewhere >else.
Apparently there are some people who earn less than $52,000 a year of >>course, but I do not know precisely how many - perhaps some of them
don't think it is trivial. Clearly this is a complex issue with a lot
of different views. If Luxon feels he does not want to be in the job
more than a few years anyway, then why not take what he can get now?
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance - that >>>makes Jackson's case nonsense.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:22:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyCompletely off topic - this is about $52.000 per year. That is the topic. keep to it for once,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Other MPs are not entitled to free accommodation at Premier House. Yes
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 03:58:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyHis situation in regard to this particular payment is identical to other >>Wellington MPs. You cannot follow logic too well can you?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect quite a few of his supporters would agree with you. Many
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says... >>>>>>No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >>>>>> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>>>>> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >>>>>> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >>>>>> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >>>>>> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >>>>>> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of >>>>>> > them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >>>>>> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >>>>>> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>>>>> > most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>>>> > companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>>>> > young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >>>>>> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we >>>>>>need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the >>>>>>dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>>>absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>>>>spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>>>>money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage- >>>>>free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how >>>>>he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
would regard $52,000 as being relatively trivial; if he is entitled
the why not? His situation is however no the same as other out of >>>Wellington MPs - he is entitled to free accommodation at Premier
House; and if he wants it to be fixed up or redecorated that could be >>>easily arranged. It does seem an anomaly to also give him an
entitlement to $52,000 a year for not using free accommodation,
doesn't it?
he is entitled to claim $52,000 a year to live somewhere else; you
tell us why he decided not to claim what he was clearly "entitled" to
claim . . .
See above. Off topic.Other MPs are not provided with accommodation that is free to theIf you can't debate - shove your repetitive and obnoxious sarcasm somewhere >>else.
Apparently there are some people who earn less than $52,000 a year of >>>course, but I do not know precisely how many - perhaps some of them
don't think it is trivial. Clearly this is a complex issue with a lot
of different views. If Luxon feels he does not want to be in the job
more than a few years anyway, then why not take what he can get now?
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance - >>>>that
makes Jackson's case nonsense.
Prime Minister - are you suggesting that they rent that space out?
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzSorry that does not convince me.
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says...No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >> >> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >> >> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >> >> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >> >> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >> >> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >> >> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >> >> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >> >> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >> >> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we >> >>need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has
absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government
spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to
contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after
winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
Good, I support that, in fact I think it should happen every few years.If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance
that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look
at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting
value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming thisNot exactly correct, he did not actually campaign against any MP allowances.
allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every
week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >campaigned against.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says...
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyLuxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead >> horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for howNo, why should he?
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance
that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:treating the government like an ATM machine and then claimed a $52,000
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...Sorry that does not convince me.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says... >>> >>No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >>> >> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>> >> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >>> >> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >>> >> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >>> >> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >>> >> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >>> >> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >>> >> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>> >> > most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>> >> > young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >>> >> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we >>> >>need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has
absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>> >spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to
contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
Good, I support that, in fact I think it should happen every few years.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance
that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look
at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting
value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>other parts of government.
Not exactly correct, he did not actually campaign against any MP allowances. He was preaching austerity for the nation and asking people to stop
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every
week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>campaigned against.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 05:42:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is just rhetoric. You are just a self serving, blind, leftie which makes your opinions biased, hence the rhetoric.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:treating the government like an ATM machine and then claimed a $52,000
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...Sorry that does not convince me.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says... >>>> >>No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >>>> >> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >>>> >> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >>>> >> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >>>> >> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of >>>> >> > them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >>>> >> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>>> >> > most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>> >> > young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >>>> >> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we >>>> >>need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the >>>> >>dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>> >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>>> >spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>>> >money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage- >>>> >free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how >>>> >he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
Good, I support that, in fact I think it should happen every few years.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance
that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look >>>at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>>other parts of government.
Not exactly correct, he did not actually campaign against any MP allowances. >He was preaching austerity for the nation and asking people to stop
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>>campaigned against.
annual accommodation allowance for a house he owns, mortgage-free,
when as Prime Minister the state was already paying for free
accommodation. This isn't just hypocrisy; it's a brazen display of >self-entitlement to claim an unnecessary allowance that hasn't been
used by any Prime Minister for many years - and Bill English had gone
through just the same embarrassing act of hypocrisy - the only good
thing about Luxon's actions was that he reversed his decision very
quickly - but not quickly enough that most New Zealanders now know
that he is just another self-serving Nat..
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says...No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyLuxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >> >> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >> >> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >> >> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >> >> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >> >> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >> >> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >> >> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >> >> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >> >> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has
absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government
spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to
contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after
winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance
that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look
at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting
value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this
allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every
week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >campaigned against.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says... >>> >>No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyLuxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided >>> >> > with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an >>> >> > apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >>> >> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >>> >> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >>> >> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >>> >> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >>> >> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property >>> >> > is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>> >> > most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>> >> > young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >>> >> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has
absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>> >spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to
contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates
outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance
that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look
at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting
value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every
week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on
excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are alsoIt can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he
allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as
accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an
property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs
from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should
only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify
for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are
offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the
allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was
the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English.
These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >permanently in Wellington.
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the
allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers,
profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have
two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable
capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They
should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:18:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:No evidence of that has been provided but good to see you are moderating your >approach. Clearly Jackson is in the saame position as Luxon which disqualifies >Jackson from commenting.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says... >>>>> >>No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of >>>>> >> > them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb -
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>>>> >> > most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>>> >> > companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>>> >> > young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we
need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the >>>>> >>dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>>> >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>>>> >spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>>>> >money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage- >>>>> >free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how >>>>> >he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates >>>outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >>>microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance >>>>> that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look >>>>at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>>>other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>>>campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on
excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Agreed, but it is a technical argument for most people - it is seen as
far more in terms of personal benefit than the amount beneficiaries
and minimum wage earners are expected to lose from the change of
indexation from average earnings to cost inflation.
It can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are also
allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as
accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an
property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs
from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should
only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify
for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are >>>offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the
allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >>>permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was
the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English. >>>These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >>>permanently in Wellington.
ceased to be an electorate MP and moved to the list, but he saw that
the allowance was an unnecessary distraction. There have been similar >>discussions regarding quite a few MPs over the years, but clearly
Luxon had been unaware of the discussions about and decision made by
Bill English, and that may be understandable, but speaks to his
possible lack of awareness of others. .
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the >>>allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers, >>>profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >>>landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have
two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable >>>capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They
should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
I agree that the basis of remuneration has too often become a
political issue, but the financial reward for being an MPs should
perhaps not depend on their personal circumstances. At one time the >>practice was to buy a house for all Cabinet Ministers - that became a >>problem as many were (quite reasonably) fussy about where they and
possibly their family lived. Getting these issues away from partisan >>politics is probably a very good idea.
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:18:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>No evidence of that has been provided but good to see you are moderating your approach. Clearly Jackson is in the saame position as Luxon which disqualifies Jackson from commenting.
wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says... >>>> >>No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, but >>>> >> > no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said "under >>>> >> > my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is over." >>>> >> > He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he eventually >>>> >> > got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of >>>> >> > them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb - >>>> >> > for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than >>>> >> > most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for >>>> >> > young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as usual >>>> >> >
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, we >>>> >>need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the >>>> >>dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>> >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>>> >spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>>> >money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage- >>>> >free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how >>>> >he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates >>outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >>microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance
that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look >>>at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>>other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>>campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on
excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Agreed, but it is a technical argument for most people - it is seen as
far more in terms of personal benefit than the amount beneficiaries
and minimum wage earners are expected to lose from the change of
indexation from average earnings to cost inflation.
It can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are also
allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as
accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an
property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs
from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should
only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify
for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are >>offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the
allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >>permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was
the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English.
These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >>permanently in Wellington.
ceased to be an electorate MP and moved to the list, but he saw that
the allowance was an unnecessary distraction. There have been similar >discussions regarding quite a few MPs over the years, but clearly
Luxon had been unaware of the discussions about and decision made by
Bill English, and that may be understandable, but speaks to his
possible lack of awareness of others. .
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the
allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers, >>profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >>landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have
two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable >>capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They
should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
I agree that the basis of remuneration has too often become a
political issue, but the financial reward for being an MPs should
perhaps not depend on their personal circumstances. At one time the
practice was to buy a house for all Cabinet Ministers - that became a
problem as many were (quite reasonably) fussy about where they and
possibly their family lived. Getting these issues away from partisan
politics is probably a very good idea.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:20:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have changed the subject again - you are a despicable excuse for a human being.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:18:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:No evidence of that has been provided but good to see you are moderating your >>approach. Clearly Jackson is in the saame position as Luxon which >>disqualifies
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin >>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of >>>>the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says...No, why should he?
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is >>>>>> >> >provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in >>>>>> >> >an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, >>>>>> >> >but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said >>>>>> >> >"under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is >>>>>> >> >over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he
eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of >>>>>> >> > them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb >>>>>> >> >-
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential >>>>>> >> >property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>>>> >> > companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as >>>>>> >> >usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, >>>>>> >>we
need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the >>>>>> >>dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>>>> >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government >>>>>> >spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>>>>> >money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage- >>>>>> >free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how >>>>>> >he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money.
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates >>>>outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >>>>microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance >>>>>> that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look >>>>>at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>>>>other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>>>>campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on >>>>excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Agreed, but it is a technical argument for most people - it is seen as >>>far more in terms of personal benefit than the amount beneficiaries
and minimum wage earners are expected to lose from the change of >>>indexation from average earnings to cost inflation.
It can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he >>>ceased to be an electorate MP and moved to the list, but he saw that
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are also >>>>allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as >>>>accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an
property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs
from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should >>>>only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify >>>>for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are >>>>offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the >>>>allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >>>>permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was >>>>the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English. >>>>These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >>>>permanently in Wellington.
the allowance was an unnecessary distraction. There have been similar >>>discussions regarding quite a few MPs over the years, but clearly
Luxon had been unaware of the discussions about and decision made by
Bill English, and that may be understandable, but speaks to his
possible lack of awareness of others. .
Jackson from commenting.
Willie Jackson is not in the same position as Luxon. You may wish
Jackson was Prime Minister, but he is not - Jackson is not entitled to
live in Premier House for no cost.
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the >>>>allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers, >>>>profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >>>>landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have
two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable >>>>capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They
should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
I agree that the basis of remuneration has too often become a
political issue, but the financial reward for being an MPs should
perhaps not depend on their personal circumstances. At one time the >>>practice was to buy a house for all Cabinet Ministers - that became a >>>problem as many were (quite reasonably) fussy about where they and >>>possibly their family lived. Getting these issues away from partisan >>>politics is probably a very good idea.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:20:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have changed the subject again - you are a despicable excuse for a human >being.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:18:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:No evidence of that has been provided but good to see you are moderating your
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin >>>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of >>>>>the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz says...
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is >>>>>>> >> >provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay in
an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, >>>>>>> >> >but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said >>>>>>> >> >"under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is >>>>>>> >> >over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he
eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of >>>>>>> >> > them own at least one property and usually more - they are not dumb
-
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential >>>>>>> >> >property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>>>>> >> > companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as >>>>>>> >> >usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other reason, >>>>>>> >>we
need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating the
dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>>>>> >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful government
spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to save >>>>>>> >money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage- >>>>>>> >free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for how >>>>>>> >he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money. >>>>>>> No, why should he?
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>>>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>>>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates >>>>>outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >>>>>microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance >>>>>>> that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look >>>>>>at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>>>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>>>>>other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>>>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>>>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>>>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>>>>>campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on >>>>>excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Agreed, but it is a technical argument for most people - it is seen as >>>>far more in terms of personal benefit than the amount beneficiaries
and minimum wage earners are expected to lose from the change of >>>>indexation from average earnings to cost inflation.
It can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he >>>>ceased to be an electorate MP and moved to the list, but he saw that >>>>the allowance was an unnecessary distraction. There have been similar >>>>discussions regarding quite a few MPs over the years, but clearly
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are also >>>>>allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as >>>>>accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an >>>>>property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs >>>>>from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should >>>>>only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify >>>>>for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are >>>>>offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the >>>>>allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >>>>>permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was >>>>>the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English. >>>>>These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >>>>>permanently in Wellington.
Luxon had been unaware of the discussions about and decision made by >>>>Bill English, and that may be understandable, but speaks to his >>>>possible lack of awareness of others. .
approach. Clearly Jackson is in the saame position as Luxon which >>>disqualifies
Jackson from commenting.
Willie Jackson is not in the same position as Luxon. You may wish
Jackson was Prime Minister, but he is not - Jackson is not entitled to
live in Premier House for no cost.
Jackson and the PM have the same allowance. That is what I have consistently >said and you have consistenly ignored.
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the >>>>>allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers, >>>>>profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >>>>>landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have >>>>>two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable >>>>>capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They >>>>>should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
I agree that the basis of remuneration has too often become a
political issue, but the financial reward for being an MPs should >>>>perhaps not depend on their personal circumstances. At one time the >>>>practice was to buy a house for all Cabinet Ministers - that became a >>>>problem as many were (quite reasonably) fussy about where they and >>>>possibly their family lived. Getting these issues away from partisan >>>>politics is probably a very good idea.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 06:11:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead and learn. https://centrist.co.nz/willie-jacksons-hypocrisy-exposed-cash-grab-or-principle/
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:20:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have changed the subject again - you are a despicable excuse for a human >>being.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:18:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:No evidence of that has been provided but good to see you are moderating >>>>your
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin >>>>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of >>>>>>the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz >>>>>>>> >says...
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is >>>>>>>> >> >provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay >>>>>>>> >> >in
an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, >>>>>>>> >> >but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said >>>>>>>> >> >"under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is >>>>>>>> >> >over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he >>>>>>>> >> >eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not >>>>>>>> >> >dumb
-
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential >>>>>>>> >> >property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable >>>>>>>> >> >than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>>>>>> >> > companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing >>>>>>>> >> >for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as >>>>>>>> >> >usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other >>>>>>>> >>reason,
we
need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating >>>>>>>> >>the
dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>>>>>> >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful
government
spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to >>>>>>>> >save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for >>>>>>>> >how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money. >>>>>>>> No, why should he?
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>>>>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>>>>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates >>>>>>outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >>>>>>microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance >>>>>>>> that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look >>>>>>>at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>>>>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>>>>>>other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>>>>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>>>>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>>>>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>>>>>>campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on >>>>>>excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Agreed, but it is a technical argument for most people - it is seen as >>>>>far more in terms of personal benefit than the amount beneficiaries >>>>>and minimum wage earners are expected to lose from the change of >>>>>indexation from average earnings to cost inflation.
It can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he >>>>>ceased to be an electorate MP and moved to the list, but he saw that >>>>>the allowance was an unnecessary distraction. There have been similar >>>>>discussions regarding quite a few MPs over the years, but clearly >>>>>Luxon had been unaware of the discussions about and decision made by >>>>>Bill English, and that may be understandable, but speaks to his >>>>>possible lack of awareness of others. .
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are also >>>>>>allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as >>>>>>accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an >>>>>>property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs >>>>>>from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should >>>>>>only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify >>>>>>for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are >>>>>>offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the >>>>>>allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >>>>>>permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was >>>>>>the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English. >>>>>>These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >>>>>>permanently in Wellington.
approach. Clearly Jackson is in the saame position as Luxon which >>>>disqualifies
Jackson from commenting.
Willie Jackson is not in the same position as Luxon. You may wish
Jackson was Prime Minister, but he is not - Jackson is not entitled to >>>live in Premier House for no cost.
Jackson and the PM have the same allowance. That is what I have consistently >>said and you have consistenly ignored.
Except that you are wrong.
Willie Jackson is a list MP, based in South Auckland. He is entitled
to a salary of $179,713 plus an allowance of $16,980 for office
expenses (he may get a little more if he is Chair of a select
Committee - I have not looked into that).
Christopher Luxon is the Prime Minister, He has a salary of $471,049
plus an allowance of $22,606 for office expenses.
Both get superannuation subsidy of up to 20% of their salary - on a
ratio of $2.50 for every $1 contributed.
If the Prime Minister takes up residence in Premier House, he is
provided with maintenance and support services commensurate with the
status of the official residence. The allowance for accommodation in >Wellington was changed late last year to apply to the current term of >parliament, and when applicable is for the Prime Minister an amount up
to a maximum of $52,000 (Clause 19), provided that the PM does not
take up residence in Premier House / Te Whare Pirimia in which case .
For other MPs the maximum allowance is $36,400 per year (clause 33).
See: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300960756/politicians-set-for-a-pay-rise-heres-what-they-get-now
or >https://www.remauthority.govt.nz/members-of-parliament/members-of-parliament-remuneration
and >https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2023/0195/latest/LMS876299.html
(click Next Clause to get the full picture) >https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2023/0195/latest/LMS876236.html#LMS876239
The previous government had understood the need for Parliament to set
an example of restraint, so those salaries for example had remained
unchanged since July 2017. They will be reviewed in the next couple of >months; I suspect National and NZ First will vote for increases - ACT
may make a show of voting against but will take the full amounts
anyway.
The other difference is that, totally voluntarily, the PM has decided
not to accept an accommodation allowance. I suspect that Willie
Jackson, like other MPs entitled to such an allowance, has agreed to
accept it. I do not know if accommodation allowances are often or
indeed ever lower than the maximum, but if both were accepted, the
allowances are not the same for C Luxon and W Jackson.
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the >>>>>>allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers, >>>>>>profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >>>>>>landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have >>>>>>two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable >>>>>>capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They >>>>>>should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
I agree that the basis of remuneration has too often become a >>>>>political issue, but the financial reward for being an MPs should >>>>>perhaps not depend on their personal circumstances. At one time the >>>>>practice was to buy a house for all Cabinet Ministers - that became a >>>>>problem as many were (quite reasonably) fussy about where they and >>>>>possibly their family lived. Getting these issues away from partisan >>>>>politics is probably a very good idea.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 06:11:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:20:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have changed the subject again - you are a despicable excuse for a human >>being.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:18:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:No evidence of that has been provided but good to see you are moderating >>>>your
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin >>>>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of >>>>>>the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz >>>>>>>> >says...
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is >>>>>>>> >> >provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay >>>>>>>> >> >in
an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out, >>>>>>>> >> >but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said >>>>>>>> >> >"under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is >>>>>>>> >> >over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he >>>>>>>> >> >eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not >>>>>>>> >> >dumb
-
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential >>>>>>>> >> >property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable >>>>>>>> >> >than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>>>>>> >> > companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing >>>>>>>> >> >for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as >>>>>>>> >> >usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other >>>>>>>> >>reason,
we
need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating >>>>>>>> >>the
dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has >>>>>>>> >absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful
government
spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to >>>>>>>> >save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for >>>>>>>> >how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money. >>>>>>>> No, why should he?
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>>>>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>>>>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates >>>>>>outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >>>>>>microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance >>>>>>>> that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look >>>>>>>at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>>>>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all >>>>>>>other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>>>>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>>>>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>>>>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes.
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>>>>>>campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on >>>>>>excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Agreed, but it is a technical argument for most people - it is seen as >>>>>far more in terms of personal benefit than the amount beneficiaries >>>>>and minimum wage earners are expected to lose from the change of >>>>>indexation from average earnings to cost inflation.
It can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he >>>>>ceased to be an electorate MP and moved to the list, but he saw that >>>>>the allowance was an unnecessary distraction. There have been similar >>>>>discussions regarding quite a few MPs over the years, but clearly >>>>>Luxon had been unaware of the discussions about and decision made by >>>>>Bill English, and that may be understandable, but speaks to his >>>>>possible lack of awareness of others. .
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are also >>>>>>allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as >>>>>>accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an >>>>>>property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs >>>>>>from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should >>>>>>only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify >>>>>>for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are >>>>>>offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the >>>>>>allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >>>>>>permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was >>>>>>the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English. >>>>>>These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >>>>>>permanently in Wellington.
approach. Clearly Jackson is in the saame position as Luxon which >>>>disqualifies
Jackson from commenting.
Willie Jackson is not in the same position as Luxon. You may wish
Jackson was Prime Minister, but he is not - Jackson is not entitled to >>>live in Premier House for no cost.
Jackson and the PM have the same allowance. That is what I have consistently >>said and you have consistenly ignored.
Except that you are wrong.
Willie Jackson is a list MP, based in South Auckland. He is entitled
to a salary of $179,713 plus an allowance of $16,980 for office
expenses (he may get a little more if he is Chair of a select
Committee - I have not looked into that).
Christopher Luxon is the Prime Minister, He has a salary of $471,049
plus an allowance of $22,606 for office expenses.
Both get superannuation subsidy of up to 20% of their salary - on a
ratio of $2.50 for every $1 contributed.
If the Prime Minister takes up residence in Premier House, he is
provided with maintenance and support services commensurate with the
status of the official residence. The allowance for accommodation in >Wellington was changed late last year to apply to the current term of >parliament, and when applicable is for the Prime Minister an amount up
to a maximum of $52,000 (Clause 19), provided that the PM does not
take up residence in Premier House / Te Whare Pirimia in which case .
For other MPs the maximum allowance is $36,400 per year (clause 33).
See: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300960756/politicians-set-for-a-pay-rise-heres-what-they-get-now
or >https://www.remauthority.govt.nz/members-of-parliament/members-of-parliament-remuneration
and >https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2023/0195/latest/LMS876299.html
(click Next Clause to get the full picture) >https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2023/0195/latest/LMS876236.html#LMS876239
The previous government had understood the need for Parliament to set
an example of restraint, so those salaries for example had remained
unchanged since July 2017. They will be reviewed in the next couple of >months; I suspect National and NZ First will vote for increases - ACT
may make a show of voting against but will take the full amounts
anyway.
The other difference is that, totally voluntarily, the PM has decided
not to accept an accommodation allowance. I suspect that Willie
Jackson, like other MPs entitled to such an allowance, has agreed to
accept it. I do not know if accommodation allowances are often or
indeed ever lower than the maximum, but if both were accepted, the
allowances are not the same for C Luxon and W Jackson.
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the >>>>>>allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers, >>>>>>profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >>>>>>landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have >>>>>>two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable >>>>>>capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They >>>>>>should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
I agree that the basis of remuneration has too often become a >>>>>political issue, but the financial reward for being an MPs should >>>>>perhaps not depend on their personal circumstances. At one time the >>>>>practice was to buy a house for all Cabinet Ministers - that became a >>>>>problem as many were (quite reasonably) fussy about where they and >>>>>possibly their family lived. Getting these issues away from partisan >>>>>politics is probably a very good idea.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The question was "Do you ever check facts before writing a
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 06:11:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead and learn. >https://centrist.co.nz/willie-jacksons-hypocrisy-exposed-cash-grab-or-principle/
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:20:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have changed the subject again - you are a despicable excuse for a human >>>being.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:18:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:No evidence of that has been provided but good to see you are moderating >>>>>your
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin >>>>>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of >>>>>>>the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz >>>>>>>>> >says...
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point)https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is >>>>>>>>> >> >provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to stay >>>>>>>>> >> >in
an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment out,
but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said >>>>>>>>> >> >"under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is >>>>>>>>> >> >over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he >>>>>>>>> >> >eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not >>>>>>>>> >> >dumb
-
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential >>>>>>>>> >> >property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable >>>>>>>>> >> >than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ >>>>>>>>> >> > companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted housing >>>>>>>>> >> >for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as >>>>>>>>> >> >usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other >>>>>>>>> >>reason,
we
need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating >>>>>>>>> >>the
dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money.
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he has
absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful >>>>>>>>> >government
spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to >>>>>>>>> >save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for >>>>>>>>> >how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money. >>>>>>>>> No, why should he?
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>>>>>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>>>>>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending.
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates >>>>>>>outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >>>>>>>microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that allowance >>>>>>>>> that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a look
at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>>>>>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of all
other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>>>>>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>>>>>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>>>>>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes. >>>>>>>>
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something he >>>>>>>>campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on >>>>>>>excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Agreed, but it is a technical argument for most people - it is seen as >>>>>>far more in terms of personal benefit than the amount beneficiaries >>>>>>and minimum wage earners are expected to lose from the change of >>>>>>indexation from average earnings to cost inflation.
It can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he >>>>>>ceased to be an electorate MP and moved to the list, but he saw that >>>>>>the allowance was an unnecessary distraction. There have been similar >>>>>>discussions regarding quite a few MPs over the years, but clearly >>>>>>Luxon had been unaware of the discussions about and decision made by >>>>>>Bill English, and that may be understandable, but speaks to his >>>>>>possible lack of awareness of others. .
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are also >>>>>>>allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as >>>>>>>accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an >>>>>>>property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs >>>>>>>from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should >>>>>>>only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify >>>>>>>for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are >>>>>>>offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the >>>>>>>allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >>>>>>>permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was >>>>>>>the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English. >>>>>>>These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >>>>>>>permanently in Wellington.
approach. Clearly Jackson is in the saame position as Luxon which >>>>>disqualifies
Jackson from commenting.
Willie Jackson is not in the same position as Luxon. You may wish >>>>Jackson was Prime Minister, but he is not - Jackson is not entitled to >>>>live in Premier House for no cost.
Jackson and the PM have the same allowance. That is what I have consistently >>>said and you have consistenly ignored.
Except that you are wrong.
You are wrong and deliberately twisting the conversation. Shame on you, as >always.
Abuse removed.
Willie Jackson is a list MP, based in South Auckland. He is entitled
to a salary of $179,713 plus an allowance of $16,980 for office
expenses (he may get a little more if he is Chair of a select
Committee - I have not looked into that).
Christopher Luxon is the Prime Minister, He has a salary of $471,049
plus an allowance of $22,606 for office expenses.
Both get superannuation subsidy of up to 20% of their salary - on a
ratio of $2.50 for every $1 contributed.
If the Prime Minister takes up residence in Premier House, he is
provided with maintenance and support services commensurate with the
status of the official residence. The allowance for accommodation in >>Wellington was changed late last year to apply to the current term of >>parliament, and when applicable is for the Prime Minister an amount up
to a maximum of $52,000 (Clause 19), provided that the PM does not
take up residence in Premier House / Te Whare Pirimia in which case .
For other MPs the maximum allowance is $36,400 per year (clause 33).
See: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300960756/politicians-set-for-a-pay-rise-heres-what-they-get-now
or >>https://www.remauthority.govt.nz/members-of-parliament/members-of-parliament-remuneration
and >>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2023/0195/latest/LMS876299.html
(click Next Clause to get the full picture) >>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2023/0195/latest/LMS876236.html#LMS876239
The previous government had understood the need for Parliament to set
an example of restraint, so those salaries for example had remained >>unchanged since July 2017. They will be reviewed in the next couple of >>months; I suspect National and NZ First will vote for increases - ACT
may make a show of voting against but will take the full amounts
anyway.
The other difference is that, totally voluntarily, the PM has decided
not to accept an accommodation allowance. I suspect that Willie
Jackson, like other MPs entitled to such an allowance, has agreed to
accept it. I do not know if accommodation allowances are often or
indeed ever lower than the maximum, but if both were accepted, the >>allowances are not the same for C Luxon and W Jackson.
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the >>>>>>>allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers, >>>>>>>profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >>>>>>>landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have >>>>>>>two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable >>>>>>>capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They >>>>>>>should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
I agree that the basis of remuneration has too often become a >>>>>>political issue, but the financial reward for being an MPs should >>>>>>perhaps not depend on their personal circumstances. At one time the >>>>>>practice was to buy a house for all Cabinet Ministers - that became a >>>>>>problem as many were (quite reasonably) fussy about where they and >>>>>>possibly their family lived. Getting these issues away from partisan >>>>>>politics is probably a very good idea.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 20:01:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe question was abusive.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 06:11:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead and learn. >>https://centrist.co.nz/willie-jacksons-hypocrisy-exposed-cash-grab-or-principle/
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:20:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You have changed the subject again - you are a despicable excuse for a >>>>human
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:18:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:No evidence of that has been provided but good to see you are moderating >>>>>>your
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:45 +1300, David Goodwin >>>>>>>><david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.i4JaO67TkVtuAA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>>>says...It looks bad only to those who are ideologically opposed to the PM of >>>>>>>>the day. The following realities are willfully ignored:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <l4shqcFtqtU2@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz >>>>>>>>>> >says...
On 2024-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> > On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Luxon was with the rules. (Hint Rich this is the point) >>>>>>>>>> >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Waikanae witch really misses the point, doesn't he?. Luxon is >>>>>>>>>> >> >provided
with free accommodation, but he wants to be paid $52,000 to >>>>>>>>>> >> >stay
in
an
apartment that he already owns. He could lease the apartment >>>>>>>>>> >> >out,
but
no, he wants taxpayers to pay more, This is the man that said >>>>>>>>>> >> >"under
my government the culture of treating taxpayers like an ATM is >>>>>>>>>> >> >over."
He does not have the same arrangement as other MPs. And he >>>>>>>>>> >> >eventually
got the message and recanted.
Willie is not much different from the average of all MPs - most >>>>>>>>>> >> >of
them own at least one property and usually more - they are not >>>>>>>>>> >> >dumb
-
for over 20 years politicians have made sure that residential >>>>>>>>>> >> >property
is exempt from capital gains tax - that makes it more desirable >>>>>>>>>> >> >than
most shares , and has caused problems with business owners of NZ
companies getting share capital to expand, and distorted >>>>>>>>>> >> >housing
for
young people coming through. Waikanae Watch misses the point as >>>>>>>>>> >> >usual
So if one thinks this is unfair, not right or whatever other >>>>>>>>>> >>reason,
we
need
to alter the rules.
Using this as a political weapon is just a damp squid, or beating >>>>>>>>>> >>the
dead
horse.
No one was ever disputing Luxons entitlement to the money. >>>>>>>>>> >
The problem was him choosing to take additional taxpayer money he >>>>>>>>>> >has
absolutely no need for after campaining on reducing wasteful >>>>>>>>>> >government
spending. He was expecting public servants to loose their jobs to >>>>>>>>>> >save
money while the taxpayer pays him to live in one of his many >>>>>>>>>> >mortgage-
free homes.
He should have been leading from the front. Setting an example for >>>>>>>>>> >how
he expects the rest of the government to treat taxpayers money. >>>>>>>>>> No, why should he?
Because however entitled to it he may be, it still looks bad to >>>>>>>>>contribute to wasteful government spending for personal benefit after >>>>>>>>>winning an election on reducing wasteful government spending. >>>>>>>>>
1. The allowance is on offer to all MPs who are based in electorates >>>>>>>>outside Wellington.
2. The amounts involved in total for this allowance represent a >>>>>>>>microscopically small portion of government spending.
If he should be doing that then so should all MPs with that >>>>>>>>>>allowance
that makes Jackson's case nonsense.
I think it would be consistent for the current government to have a >>>>>>>>>look
at the benefits MPs receive and ask if the taxpayer is really getting >>>>>>>>>value for money, just as they are supposedly asking this question of >>>>>>>>>all
other parts of government.
I personally don't have an issue with MPs in general claiming this >>>>>>>>>allowance though. If my employer asked me to work for a few days every >>>>>>>>>week in another city I'd sure hope they paid for my accommodation! And >>>>>>>>>ensuring MPs are paid well reduces the incentive to take bribes. >>>>>>>>>
The issue here is I hope just the fact that Luxon is doing something >>>>>>>>>he
campaigned against.
He did not campaign against this allowance, he did campaign on >>>>>>>>excessive government spending. The distinction is important.
Agreed, but it is a technical argument for most people - it is seen as >>>>>>>far more in terms of personal benefit than the amount beneficiaries >>>>>>>and minimum wage earners are expected to lose from the change of >>>>>>>indexation from average earnings to cost inflation.
It can be more complicated than that - he moved to Karori before he >>>>>>>ceased to be an electorate MP and moved to the list, but he saw that >>>>>>>the allowance was an unnecessary distraction. There have been similar >>>>>>>discussions regarding quite a few MPs over the years, but clearly >>>>>>>Luxon had been unaware of the discussions about and decision made by >>>>>>>Bill English, and that may be understandable, but speaks to his >>>>>>>possible lack of awareness of others. .
Of wider interest is that MPs entitled to this allowance are also >>>>>>>>allowed to own the property in Wellington that they use as >>>>>>>>accommodation - they therefore profit from the allowance as an >>>>>>>>property investor as well as not having to pay accommodation costs >>>>>>>>from their salary.
My preference for this is simple: the Allowance in question should >>>>>>>>only be available to MPs based outside Wellington who do not qualify >>>>>>>>for state-provided Wellington housing. IIRC all Cabinet members are >>>>>>>>offered such housing and therefore should not qualify for the >>>>>>>>allowance.
We should then consider MPs based outside Wellington but who reside >>>>>>>>permanently in Wellington rather than where they are based. This was >>>>>>>>the situation quoted elsewhere in this thread with Sir Bill English. >>>>>>>>These MPs should not be paid the accommodation allowance as they live >>>>>>>>permanently in Wellington.
approach. Clearly Jackson is in the saame position as Luxon which >>>>>>disqualifies
Jackson from commenting.
Willie Jackson is not in the same position as Luxon. You may wish >>>>>Jackson was Prime Minister, but he is not - Jackson is not entitled to >>>>>live in Premier House for no cost.
being.
Jackson and the PM have the same allowance. That is what I have >>>>consistently
said and you have consistenly ignored.
Except that you are wrong.
You are wrong and deliberately twisting the conversation. Shame on you, as >>always.
Abuse removed.
and you have in part answered with the indication that you take yourI do not. You take your instructions from the party.
lead from The Taxpayer Union or their fake temporary "news" sites with >articles designed to suck in National supporters.
You may have been better informed however if you had also read: >https://centrist.co.nz/much-ado-about-housing-public-outcry-over-politician-pay-and-entitlements-amid-austerity-measures/
and >https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/29/expenses-for-mps-and-ministers-revealed-who-spent-what/
For an alternative view, see:https://democracyproject.substack.com/No thanks.
or more particularly >https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/anger-at-excessive-politician-payNot interested. I only care about facts. The entitlement is the same for both, allowance size matters not at all.
and note the cartoons that accompany that article.
So what is the underlying problem that needs fixing?There is no problem other than your lies, innuendo and deliberate misinformation.
from that last link:Irrelevant. The situation is in the past not the future.
"At the moment the Remuneration Authority is undertaking their review
of how much politicians should get paid. Their recommendations will be >delivered next month, mere weeks before Nicola Willis presents her
austerity Budget.
Expect to see some campaigning for pay cuts. The Taxpayer Union hasIrrelevant
recently said: “New Zealand's MPs are already among the most highly
paid in the world, and when you add in their additional perks and
spending allowances, all of which are not subject to the Official
Information Act, taxpayers aren't getting a fair deal.”
Willie Jackson is a list MP, based in South Auckland. He is entitled
to a salary of $179,713 plus an allowance of $16,980 for office
expenses (he may get a little more if he is Chair of a select
Committee - I have not looked into that).
Christopher Luxon is the Prime Minister, He has a salary of $471,049
plus an allowance of $22,606 for office expenses.
Both get superannuation subsidy of up to 20% of their salary - on a
ratio of $2.50 for every $1 contributed.
If the Prime Minister takes up residence in Premier House, he is
provided with maintenance and support services commensurate with the >>>status of the official residence. The allowance for accommodation in >>>Wellington was changed late last year to apply to the current term of >>>parliament, and when applicable is for the Prime Minister an amount up
to a maximum of $52,000 (Clause 19), provided that the PM does not
take up residence in Premier House / Te Whare Pirimia in which case .
For other MPs the maximum allowance is $36,400 per year (clause 33).
See: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300960756/politicians-set-for-a-pay-rise-heres-what-they-get-now
or >>>https://www.remauthority.govt.nz/members-of-parliament/members-of-parliament-remuneration
and >>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2023/0195/latest/LMS876299.html
(click Next Clause to get the full picture) >>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2023/0195/latest/LMS876236.html#LMS876239
The previous government had understood the need for Parliament to set
an example of restraint, so those salaries for example had remained >>>unchanged since July 2017. They will be reviewed in the next couple of >>>months; I suspect National and NZ First will vote for increases - ACT
may make a show of voting against but will take the full amounts
anyway.
The other difference is that, totally voluntarily, the PM has decided
not to accept an accommodation allowance. I suspect that Willie
Jackson, like other MPs entitled to such an allowance, has agreed to >>>accept it. I do not know if accommodation allowances are often or
indeed ever lower than the maximum, but if both were accepted, the >>>allowances are not the same for C Luxon and W Jackson.
Lastly we should also review the practice that MPs receiving the >>>>>>>>allowance can also own the accommodation that the allowance covers, >>>>>>>>profiting from the investment return as they are effectively their own >>>>>>>>landlord. I believe that MPs in this category are choosing to have >>>>>>>>two permanent residences. They will also benefit from a non-taxable >>>>>>>>capital gain financed (at least in part) by the allowance. They >>>>>>>>should not qualify for the allowance in these circumstances.
I agree that the basis of remuneration has too often become a >>>>>>>political issue, but the financial reward for being an MPs should >>>>>>>perhaps not depend on their personal circumstances. At one time the >>>>>>>practice was to buy a house for all Cabinet Ministers - that became a >>>>>>>problem as many were (quite reasonably) fussy about where they and >>>>>>>possibly their family lived. Getting these issues away from partisan >>>>>>>politics is probably a very good idea.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:On second thoughts read this https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Garbage removed.
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:On second thoughts read this >https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Garbage removed.
and this >https://centrist.co.nz/willie-jacksons-hypocrisy-exposed-cash-grab-or-principle/
Willie Jackson and hypocrisy - a definition.
QED
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 03:57:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:On second thoughts read this >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/06/peter-williams-on-willie-wonky-jackson/#comments
Garbage removed.
and this >>https://centrist.co.nz/willie-jacksons-hypocrisy-exposed-cash-grab-or-principle/
Willie Jackson and hypocrisy - a definition.
QED
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 125:23:09 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,851 |