Feel the fear?
I ❤️ It!
Printable View
Special votes to push Jacinda above 50%? have they been counted or still to come in.
Some of these people will have a unique perspective on how the rest of the world is doing on covid compared to us.
I know but 51% under MMP would be pretty remarkable even if they already have the majority. something to write to the grandkids about.
There are an estimated 480,000 votes (17 per cent of the total) still to be counted, and they could make slight changes to the election result.
Special votes are typically more left-leaning votes.
In 2017, after special votes were counted, National lost two seats, Labour lost one, and the Green Party picked up two. In 2014, National lost two seats, with Greens and Labour picking up one each.
The same kind of slight changes could happen again this year, but they are unlikely to fundamentally alter the balance of power in Parliament.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/electi...SZ4LCEROLRJSE/
There are eight electorates with a current margin of less than 1000 that could be changed by special votes.
Greens MP Chloe Swarbrick took out Auckland Central by a slim margin of 492.
It was also a close race in the Waiariki Māori electorate, with Rawiri Waititi beating Labour's Tāmati Coffey by just 415 votes.
Other close electorate races that could see changes include Whangārei, with Shane Reti (NAT) taking out the seat by just 162 votes.
In Maungakiekie, Denise Lee (NAT) managed to take the seat with 580 votes in it.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ge-some-things
Invercargill SIMMONDS, Penny (NAT) CRAIG, Liz (LAB) 685
Northland KING, Matt (NAT) PRIME, Willow-Jean (LAB) 742
Tukituki LORCK, Anna (LAB) YULE, Lawrence (NAT) 772
Tamaki Makarau HENARE, Peeni (LAB) TAMIHERE, John (MAOR) 902
https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/...te-status.html
No doubt someone will get around to changing the name of this thread - or starting a new one.
:p
We might also see a new higher PIR rate?
Well done Labour, out nationaled National.
1/ Won't touch your tax free capital gains
2/ Won't touch your national superannuation "entitlement" (at least National proposed to raise the entitlement to 67yrs)
3/ And went one further promising to protect the aging baby boomers from Covid-19 at the expense of the next generation
At a guess that might partly explain the swing from national to labour. In a way it is nice to know we have a centerist govt so no one is expecting any significant change over the next three years. I suspect it will be much like a John Key National govt. Popular and not doing much to change the status quo or upset anyone.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has outlined her immediate priorities after sweeping to power for her second term = Covid recovery and business support as first priorities.
Ardern wants more support for small business loans and $300 million in cash incentives to hire the unemployed in place by the end of the year.
And while she is giving little away about a potential governing arrangement with the Greens, she is stressing the "strong mandate" given to Labour and the need to keep voters who may have turned to Labour for the first time.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...AXIH64AAFZO7Q/
Quite a lot of the unemployed are newly laid off and will have more chance of a new job quickly. For longer term unemployed, employers will be weighing up the government subsidy against time, cost, effort and general hassle of taking on potentially high maintenance employees. Especially if it is hard to terminate them for performance issues.
You stress over the words too much - trying to read the tealeaves.
They govern for all NZers but under the mandate they have been given - what they stood at the election for.
Given their absolute majority they could do whatever they wanted - campaigned for or not. They may get voted out next time but that's 3 years away. Jacinda has said that they wouldn't.
Asked again about CGT she said they wouldn't and they won't - what she said she meant.
Is unemployment the problem in NZ to repeat FPs link from earlier.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...wont-take-them
Our fishing industry has to fly in labour from Russia apparently
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123...shing-industry
The Dairy industry has been crying out for staff for a long time.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/far...er-theyre-from
I haven't gone much beyond the headlines but based on these headlines something is not adding up to me. 2 of these are October 2020 headlines and one June 2020 all after the lockdown.
I currently have work sitting in an office but if push came to shove and I had no work I would hope I would take up work in these areas rather than living off everyone else. It doesn't sound like there is a shortage of jobs in NZ. It sounds more like a shortage of people willing to do them. It is hard to believe that all the unemployed are unable to find work especially while employers in productive industries are having to look overseas to find staff.
Yes plenty of blue collar labour jobs ....but far too Many Lazy Kiwis think they are far too superior to do them,, much rather suck on the tit of welfare..why work hard and help you country create more jobs ... when you look at some of the policies of the Far Left with talk of $300+ week payment living wage to students might well head back to school go get Arts Degree ... why work my ass off and risk my life at sea not seeing my family 140+days a year ...
Breeding beneficiaries & Labour’s voter base - going to be a whole heap of wasteful spending in the next 3 years - it’s the nature of the beast.
Just make sure you are in the right place and right sector to make plenty from it - your future direct descendants are going to pay for it anyway so you better make & salt it away from the spending for their benefit (if you so choose).
One of our government projects is bound to get the green light now and it’s gonna be BONANZA time!
I ❤️ It ..... 🤣
Gonna love ❤️ the next 3 years!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-in...-own-handbrake
Ardern and Robertson have shown themselves to be as cautious as they are astute in reading mandates. If the first term is anything to go by, they will be reading this result as a mandate for more of the same, not for a bold second term transformation. In short, some of its supporters now want the do-little status quo and some want the promised transformation.
Ardern has promised both and now has to find a way to walk the line without falling over-board.
Whichever way they play it, the pressure will come on them. There is much water, as the poem says, but is it water they can use to explore new horizons or is it steady as she goes? Could it even be such a flood of support it could sink the good ship Labour and Captain Ardern?
Congratulations Labour on being able to govern alone. But now you've got to govern alone.
There has been substantial cash incentives to employ new people from the government all year long for small business. Jacinda I think will do two terms and resign before the next election, timing wise will be a a better time to move onto international opportunities with freed up borders and recovery starting to occur internationally.
John Minto comes to similar conclusions (even uses the handbrake analogy) and his disdain for Ardern is evident. Funny how a far leftie dislikes her for the same reasons as I do.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2020/10/2...nts-handbrake/
Summed up well :
‘The ”T” word will not be a happening thing in this government because the biggest handbrake on transformation is the Prime Minister herself.‘
Better make the best of the BONANZA of wasteful government spending in the next 3 years - NZ is going to be in one almighty economic & social mess when Cindy buggers off to the UN. Somebody else is going to have to clean up her mess.
Transformation can take many forms, and tackling the social/cultural issues such as assisted dying, cannabis and abortion is transformational and shows courage and that she is not afraid, unlike National, to raise controversial and divisive issues such as abortion, when there is public support for them.
I always read the comments on articles – “Jacinda is a pragmatist rather than a populist” – I agree.
This comment makes a lot of sense “I think you will find the issue with a Capital Gains tax wasn’t about popularity with voters but more about more than half of politicians having investment properties themselves, she said it was “politically unpalatable” in other words, she was unable to get the numbers to pass anything.”
“Poverty, Housing and Tax. All 3 are the same issue, welded together” = neoliberalism. All in the very hard basket.
Not free, you're paying for it more than me.
You're also paying to help reduce child poverty by way of impoverished children being given at least something to try and help them to concentrate and learn at school.
Not a perfect policy by any means, but no doubt you'll be doing a few cashies along the way to offset the higher tax that you'll be paying. ;)
There is an organisation currently setup in Auckland that does offer free dinner - Basically a pay what you feel like paying type service. Not obligated to for your dinner.
They take food that would otherwise have gone to landfill and offer it up as 3 course dinners.
http://everybodyeats.co.nz/
A great initiative if you ask me.
I see nothing has changed since I left.
Question for you. How would you tackle child poverty in this country Balance? You don’t support an increase to the minimum wage, a living wage, or any form of social assistance. So what would your solution be for families working their butts off to support their children, who can’t earn enough to do that? I am not talking about people on benefits so please don’t come back at me with any of your beneficiary bashing comments. I am talking about low income families, many of whom have both parents working multiple jobs, who are still unable to get themselves out of poverty. Do you really begrudge your tax dollars going to help feed their children? Would you feel the same way if someone in your family was in this position?
Tell me what you would do to help these families, or do you actually genuinely not care about them or their children?
I'll have a crack.
For starters I would remove the punitive secondary tax rates. Also lowering the tax rate for the first 40-50k or removing it altogether to a certain level. Would require serious number crunching. Remember people will still be paying consumption taxes so the overall tax take would not fall much.
Lowering or removing GST on essential food should also be considered (Could be complicated but I think achievable)
What punitive secondary tax rates?
At the end you pay the progressive tax rate on your overall income.
A zero tax income threshold has some merit and you are right - would require a few assumptions and number crunching.
Something needs to change though. At the moment there is a lot of corporate welfare - the ability of business to pay low wages because the Govt effectively tops it up through 'working for families' and the like.
Yeah I used the term 'free' loosely haha. There are a lot in the school that are definitely living in poverty, so if it helps those kids out, and a blanket policy is the easiest way to achieve it, then so be it.
I bloody WISH I was able to do cashies, but nope, every cent that makes it into my pocket has come via the tax man.
Complicated is an understatement, and also starts a definition war. NZ has the simplest and best consumption tax in the world. Best left well alone.
And secondary rates are only the at source deduction. It all balances out at year end, so normal marginal rates will refund any overpayment.
Punitive secondary tax is a misconception. I didn’t realise that myself until I found myself on a benefit many years ago. You only pay the higher rate if your total income is over X amount (no idea what that figure is now).
I agree with all of your suggestions - who would have thought ;)
I also think it is high time they stopped charging us withholding tax on pathetic amounts of deposit interest. It is ridiculous that one can earn less than $1 and still be taxed on it. At a bare minimum the first $1000 of interest earned should be tax free.
You aren't pushed into another tax bracket - only the income over the threshold is taxed at the higher rate - your marginal tax rate.
It is a common misconception that all your income is suddenly taxed at a higher rate.
The idea of a 'secondary' tax rate is so that you are less likely to have to pay tax at the end of the tax year.
Your secondary income can push you into another tax bracket, depending upon your primary income rate. I agree that you're entire income isn't taxed at the same rate, and I am disturbed to hear that people actually believe it's taxed at one uniform rate, or perhaps they are flat-tax supporters?
The issue with secondary tax is where income from other sources pushed you into another tax bracket, or potentially where either the primary or secondary income varies causing you to move in and out of brackets and an incorrect amount of tax being deducted. FYI: Ministerial discussion documents on tax reform reference "punitive secondary tax"
$14,000 is taxed at 10.5%
$21,000 is taxed at 17.5%
average tax rate is 16.09% which is 5.59% higher than the 10.5% rate. Not much to you, but approx $2000 difference is significant to me. It is very easy for those on high incomes to just brush off a measly amount like that, but for people on low incomes, every $ matters.
The Accommodation Supplement (AS) is a significant government subsidy of the private rental market, covering the cost of approximately 10 per cent of the $10 billion to $12b rents paid to private landlords a year. Although it assists some recipients with mortgage payments, the AS helps neither the state nor the vast majority of its low-income recipients accumulate or maintain assets for themselves.
A major problem with the AS formula is that entitlement is directly linked to actual housing costs. Evidence suggests this link helps keep rents high and makes it difficult for recipients to save money by moving to cheaper accommodation because, as their housing costs go down, their AS entitlements also go down. Besides, if they do save, they quickly become ineligible for the AS due to the cash assets test.
While AS is supposed to help with housing costs to protect living standards of low-income people, most recipients are still consigned to poverty, and its bad design actually helps fuel New Zealand's housing crisis.
For all these reasons, the Child Poverty Action Group's just released report, The Accommodation Supplement: the wrong tool to fix the house, calls for the Government to remove the AS for most recipients while significantly raising incomes of all benefit recipients and low-wage workers.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...housing-crisis
“Poverty, Housing and Tax. All 3 are the same issue, welded together” = neoliberalism. All in the very hard basket.
Poverty is a measure of success for neoliberalism. It means its agenda is working, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Driving down wages, making people desperate for work, forced to take any job and accept poor working conditions and just be grateful that they have a job, is part of the agenda to reduce costs.
Neoliberalism means economic freedom for the haves, less government, less regulation, stripping away protection and benefits that workers and consumers have struggled to achieve over the years. Neoliberalism is an extreme for of capitalism - predatory capitalism and vulture capitalism. Neoliberalism wants to undermine democracy so the financial elites are in effect ruling the world, and laws are made that favour them, rather than society as a whole.
It is an ideology that says the government should not intervene in the free market and if people are homeless that is just the market at work. Neoliberalism reduces people, land and nature to commodities when they are not commodities in the sense that a commodity is something that is used to produce a product. Land and housing have become commodities for speculation and investment and the “use value” of a house as a home has become secondary.
The economy is there to support society, but society has become secondary to the economy under "free market" neoliberalism.
Tax on 35k is 5145; which is 14.7%
Use the proper IRD calculator.
https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/i...or-individuals
I did use an IRD calculator but it was not the one you posted for some reason. My bad. But it doesn't change my argument. Every dollar low income people don't have to pay in tax, is a dollar they can use to feed their children, pay their bills or save for emergencies.
Another thread that seems to have lost it...……..
This is what Cindy obviously supports, wearing the hijab to garnish her efforts to get the Muslim votes in NZ.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...o=taboola_feed
Under Islamic law in force in Iran since its 1979 revolution, women must wear a hijab that covers the head and neck and that conceals their hair.