General Debate 13 April 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment130

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (130)

Login to comment or vote

starboard

Im with you Hori…if you want it you pay for it..if you cant afford it tough , you go without. Why should I subsidise the scum/leeches???
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 12:55pm
Pete George

Red, I answered earlier – I believe I pay my share for defence forces. I believe in paying my share of tax.

You haven’t answered a numbered of questions. The key ones:

Would you phase in a poll tax or make a sudden restructure?

What happens to those who don’t have their own income – those on national super, sickness, unemployment, and students? It’s no good just ranting about ponzi schemes, there are a lot of people involved that would not manage financially.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 1:21pm
Redbaiter

“Red, I answered earlier ”

Nope. You avoided it. As usual.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 1:25pm
freethinker

A few facts of the Poll tax trialled in Thatchers Britain. It was to replace council rates and was implemented in Scotland, the rating base was property values which skewed the payments for services in favour of high users low value housing ownership and against low user occupiers of high value property thus diminishing the tax base. The problem was collection, many avoided the electoral register to become invisible to the system other moved location, changed their name, bailiff collection demonstrated the inadequacy of the staff numbers and susceptibility to the intimidation by the public the bailiffs utilized themselves so the system failed not because it was unfair or unworkable more because its implementation was not thought through. NZ could emulate a poll tax and substitute it for local rates by collection through PAYE or in business situation in the same way as ACC is collected, everyone in NZ is a taxpayer and central collection would release local council collection operations for something more productive as well as being lower cost. It must be more acceptable and therefore perception-ally fairer that all users pay for services instead of those with more expensive property subsidizing those with cheaper property.The current UK council tax is a part hybrid poll tax as the number of occupants affects the tax payable which to some extent mitigates the property value aspect but the tax is still paid by the propert owner who has no right of apportioning the tax to any non owning residents. A robust debate on council rates/democracy and governance is something that is overdue and will become a cancer if the boil it now is, is not pricked.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 1:48pm
Pete George

“You haven’t answered a numbered of questions.”

You avoided it. As usual.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 1:55pm
stephen

Maybe, but do you really think they’d [ACT] get more votes if they had a more radical set of policies?

They were more popular in the 90s when they had more radical policies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 2:58pm
transmogrifier

Red,

A defense force is there to repel invasions. Okay. But why are we repelling the invasions?

To protect our assests, both public and private.

Not sure how you can argue any other way.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 2:58pm
transmogrifier

It’s an age old problem with no real solution, really, because it encompasses both moral, economic, social AND practical aspects, and I don’t think you can ever maximise all of them at the same time. So you have to either specialise or compromise.

User pays is probably the fairest in a moral sense, but it fails spectacularly in the practical sense – you think your life is swamped with paperwork now, imagine how much it would increase if you had to negotiate and pay for all use of infrastructure. This would decrease productivity drastically.

A poll tax seems reasonable, except wealth distribution is not even, meaning the lower income earners do not get value for money; they don’t get nearly as much utility from having a defence force (less to lose, after all), are less likely to use roads (for example), don’t benefit from having an educated workforce like wealthier entrepeneurs do, are less likley to enjoy publically protected recreational areas etc. In addition, richer people have more to lose in a lawless society as well.

You could just make sure everyone was taxed so that they ended up with the same net income, but this is the worst idea of the lot, of course.

I think progressive taxation is fine in conjunction with other measures that provide disincentive for people NOT to join the workforce and reward their idleness, and that it doesn’t become punitive for those hardworking/lucky/ambitious/talented enough to be highly paid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 3:10pm
Fletch

Sweeeettt!!

The Opera Mini browser has been approved by Apple for iPhone. It loads pages up to five times faster because they first go through Opera’s servers where the images are compressed before being delivered to your cellphone. I used to have it on my Sony Ericsson and Nokia phones. Story and link HERE (we down under are the first to get it).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 3:13pm
Redbaiter

“To protect our assests, both public and private. ”

The US Defence forces exist to preserve the borders of the US and to protect the American Government that is underpinned by the American Constitution (sovereignty). The implication that countries wage war to protect the personal assets of its individuals is utter nonsense, and that some people here think that is so is more an indication of the intellectual barrenness of socialist society than anything.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 4:36pm
Pete George

Is that why the US wasn’t concerned about a couple of private asset skyscrapers collapsing?
What is a country without public and private assets? A Dalai Lama?

And gosh RB, you went away without answering those questions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 4:43pm
Redbaiter

“Is that why the US wasn’t concerned about a couple of private asset skyscrapers collapsing?”

It was the murder of US citizens and the direct offensive against US sovereignty that was the issue moron.

” And gosh RB, you went away without answering those questions.”

Only an arrogant socialist twit would demand I succumb to his idiot endless and irrelevant interrogations whilst he himself refuses to respond to one simple query.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 4:47pm
Redbaiter

Of course, the crux of the issue is 1) how much does it cost to run a country, and 2) what is involved in running a country?

1) has to be kept as low as possible, as its essentially an overhead, and 2) should also be kept as minimal as possible to prevent government from becoming an anti-democratic enterprise killing monolithic force for social destruction and endemic poverty as it has become in NZ today.

The poll tax is the only way to achieve those simple objectives.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 4:57pm
Pete George

I’m not demanding anything RB, just pointing out your hypocrisy. There are a lot of potential holes in your poll tax theory you haven’t even attempted to fill.

I agree the aim should be to keep government as small and simple as possible. Just about any sort of government seems to naturally grow, that needs to be resisted somehow.

Simple ideologies like poll taxes and socialism are never likely to work in practice. The trick any government has is trying to get the right combination.

And why is a poll tax alone the only way to achieve what you want?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 5:04pm
Redbaiter

” There are a lot of potential holes in your poll tax theory you haven’t even attempted to fill.”

PG, most of your questions are to me just examples of utter infantile idiocy and it is just not worth putting effort into responding to such pointless drivel. Merely that you assert there are “holes” does not mean there are, or more importantly, that I accept such claims. You’re unimaginative perceptions are always clouded by narrow self deceit and unreality, and that is your problem, not mine.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 5:13pm
Redbaiter

” why is a poll tax alone the only way to achieve what you want?”

Because it applies a clearly delineated financial bottom line to the cost of government. No other taxation system does this.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 5:15pm
Redbaiter

Of course the best argument for a poll tax is that the mere mention of the idea immediately sends leftists into a frothing insane red rage. Anything they hate so intensely has to good for everybody else.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 5:23pm
Pete George

But there are a heck of a lot more things involved in governments and taxing than a clearly delineated financial bottom line to the cost of government.

People with no money or food or place to live, rocketing crime rates, mass migrations (to countries that haven’t gone mad), they can also be factors in the well being of a country and it’s people.

You love to think you cause frothing rage don’t you. You actually cause a lot more mirth than anger. But then, you may just be a secret comedian anyway, who knows.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 5:25pm
Redbaiter

Here’s another good argument-

‘Why work when I can get £42,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes?
The Davey family’s £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.
Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.
Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.
With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.
…At their semi on the Isle of Anglesey, the family have a 42in flatscreen television in the living room with Sky TV at £50 a month, a Wii games console, three Nintendo DS machines and a computer – not to mention four mobile phones.
With their income of more than £42,000 a year, they run an 11-seater minibus and the seven-seat automatic Mercedes.
But according to the Daveys they have nothing to be thankful for.
…She added: ‘I don’t feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I’m just working with the system that’s there.
‘If the government wants to give me money, I’m happy to take it. We get what we’re entitled to. I don’t put in anything because I don’t pay taxes, but if I could work I would.’
….Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.
And she adds: ‘I’ve always wanted a big family – no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I’m working or not.’

From Crusader Rabbit-

http://crusader-rabbit.blogspot.com/

“But there are a heck of a lot more things involved in governments and taxing than a clearly delineated financial bottom line to the cost of government.”

Just because you assert this does not mean it is so. In fact I would say that this is the only thing that really matters, as it is the only thing that will prevent items 1 & 2 above. As I have already stated. Government is restrained from spending money it does not have, or committing to borrow when repayment is going to be burdensome for future generations.

The budget is clear and simple, and boils down to the simple fact that if there are two million taxpayers in NZ, then the government collects say $20 (US) billion to run the country annually and that is that. To expand on that budget, they must ask every NZer to contribute a larger amount when they write their cheque each year and still expect to get their vote. Fat chance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 5:32pm
Pete George

There is one critical question you haven’t answered – what about those people who don’t have the money to pay the poll tax?

Anyway, I guess that’s a moot point. There is more chance of Kris K renouncing religion than there is of a sole tax poll tax happening in NZ. If Bill English was suggesting it as a possibility I’d be worried, but some anonymous idealist, the Karl Marx of poll taxes, it’s just not a concern.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 5:54pm
Redbaiter

” There is one critical question you haven’t answered – what about those people who don’t have the money to pay the poll tax?”

For fuck’s sake- because it is not a question of any real relevance. The government currently takes what- $70 billion out of the economy?? So all of that money remains with the people. That means there is a $50 million surplus. Even tho $20,000 per person is still far too much.

The people can easily pay the tax, and that (again as I pointed out again above) is something that in any case should be a limiting factor on taxation. It should only ever be set at a level that is affordable to everyone, and in a democracy this will be self regulating, for nobody gains by voting to increase the taxation others might pay.

Fuck, you’re always going on about fucking equality aren’t you?? The minute you get the chance to embrace the reality, you turn to water.

“Anyway, I guess that’s a moot point.”

Blinkered people such as yourself no doubt once said the same about the vote for women.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 6:03pm
krazykiwi

guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 April 2010

Confidential document reveals Obama’s hardline US climate talk strategy

A document accidentally left on a European hotel computer and passed to the Guardian reveals the US government’s increasingly controversial strategy in the global UN climate talks.

Titled Strategic communications objectives and dated 11 March 2010, it outlines the key messages that the Obama administration wants to convey to its critics and to the world media in the run-up to the vital UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico in November. You can read the document here.

Top of the list of objectives is to: “Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change.” It also talks of “managing expectations” of the outcome of the Cancun meeting and bypassing traditional media outlets by using podcasts and “intimate meetings” with the chief US negotiator to disarm the US’s harsher critics.

The actual text of the document is posted in the link above. The article comments section makes interesting reading too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 6:12pm
Pete George

“Fuck, you’re always going on about fucking equality aren’t you?? “

I fully support universal suffrage – an equality that you keep going on about.
You are the one that wants people to pay equal tax – that’s a form of equality isn’t it?

“The people can easily pay the tax,”

You keep ignoring the many people who have little or no money.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 6:20pm
Redbaiter

” You keep ignoring the many people who have little or no money.”

You keep ignoring the fact that this is because of our fucked up taxation system, and the socialist’s perversion of democracy, both a serious damper on prosperity. Take away these damaging factors and a poll tax would be affordable by anyone and everyone.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 6:23pm
Pete George

Sounds too much like the communist’s utopia, make everything equal and anyone and everyone will automatically prosper and be happy.

I’ve been paying taxes for nearly forty years on the assumption that some of that will look after me when I get old. Under your poll tax system what will happen when I retire?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 7:25pm
Viking2

Here’s what needs to be done to make poll taxes work.
Just a small example but it clearly works. No need for the defense forces at all. Well not since 1815
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=936&p=29575#p29575
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 7:40pm
BR

If someone goes into a shop to buy, say, a tin of paint, it matters not the wealth of the buyer, because the cost of delivery is the same for all customers.

So why should it be any different when purchasing services from the government? It shouldn’t, of course, but because it is compulsory to buy government services, there is no limit on what the government can sell you, there is no incentive for them to deliver a quality product, and there is nothing to stop them from arbitrarily hiking the price according to the customer’s ability to pay.

A poll tax would eliminate the sort of cronyism and vote buying that exists with the current system, with the government buying the votes of the least productive using the money taken by force from the most productive.

Bill.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 7:48pm
Viking2

Yep. and same for local govt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 7:57pm
Viking2

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/us-ambassador-critical-of-conroys-internet-filters-20100413-s5fs.htm

US ambassador critical of Conroy’s internet filters
ASHER MOSES
April 13, 2010 – 12:06PMl
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 13, 2010 9:05pm
jcuknz

From what I am reading here it seems that a poll tax favours the rich at the expense of the poor. It completely ignores the principle that those with more are able and should look after those with less. It is nothing to do with turkeys voting for thanksgiving or christmas but simply what is right and just and what these foolish rightwingers would want if they were not living the life of riley.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 14, 2010 7:47am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Shadbolt vs Prentice

Law Society supports claim of right review »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Breaking Views Update: Week of 14.4.24
Breaking Views
A who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies
No Right Turn
"Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes."
Not PC
Marxist Economics Is Dumb
Utopia
Can taxpayers be confident PIJF cash was spent wisely?
Point of Order
Daily review 19/04/2024
The Standard
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Scottish Skullduggery
No Minister
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Te Papa gutlessly cower to Chief Culture Censor Paul Goldsmith
The Daily Blog
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz