The Bimmersport Election Poll

[mtk540 3]

Don't forget you get TWO votes under MMP - One for the seat and one party vote.

Use the party vote wisely as this is the vote that in the end dictates how many seats the minorities get i.e. to get over the 5% threshold.

Ignore the mud slinging by Labour - it's a sign that they are desperate.

Me? Two ticks National.

[M325is 0]

and they did bring my interest free student loan... but then national reckons they'll pay 10%.... not keen on massive taxcuts tho... all they ever do is make the rich richer

If tax cuts make the rich more rich that is a good thing, it means it makes the poor average and the average rich.

I hope somebody raises the % students have to pay back out of their wages, that would help pay for better things, like tax cuts.

Tax cuts can come from reducing the amount of money going out to the so called needy: Single mothers, Early childhood care, DPB, CHB, IDB, SB, UB, Working for families, then theres ACC, people on the DOL and living in government houses. We need to employ an agency that investigates these people.

I have never been on any of these benefits and never plan to be, but it looks like theres a benefit to suit anyone, whether you are earning a wage or not. I't makes me wonder if I should try and claim one for the hell of it, why not, most people are.

[Grant 4]

If tax cuts make the rich more rich that is a good thing, it means it makes the poor average and the average rich.

I hope somebody raises the % students have to pay back out of their wages, that would help pay for better things, like tax cuts.

Tax cuts can come from reducing the amount of money going out to the so called needy: Single mothers, Early childhood care, DPB, CHB, IDB, SB, UB, Working for families, then theres ACC, people on the DOL and living in government houses. We need to employ an agency that investigates these people.

I have never been on any of these benefits and never plan to be, but it looks like theres a benefit to suit anyone, whether you are earning a wage or not. I't makes me wonder if I should try and claim one for the hell of it, why not, most people are.

You are probably one of the most ignorant and badly informed people I have ever come across.

Everything you have written above is complete rubbish. Do you have any knowledge of economics at all?

I suggest that you try and become better informed before you post anything and pass it off as fact.

[Cale 36]

National.

Firstly, NZ needs a change, just like the US.

Key has had much more experience in the real world (raised a family, very successful sharebroker etc.), so I think he will understand the general population better than Helen (who only works off the textbook).

Who gives a s*** if Key didn't declare his buying into Transrail or whatever it is, he has the brains, aptitude and he could see the oppurtunity (I realise that he says he lost money on it, but hes come from nowhere to being worth what? $50million), would you not rather someone running the country with some aggression, understanding, and awareness of micro/macro economics- sounds like just the person we need to run the country after the friggin idiots in the US didn't pass the bailout soon enough.

Wait for the sudden rediculous policy that Labour will bring out that they will never be able to live up to (just like last elections), because they are desperate.

[OLLIE 26]

How can you say Labour have NOT done a bad job? We have slid down just about all the OECD ratings to an embarrassing point! the sooner Uncle Helen and and her pitbull Cullen go the better.

did you listen to the news today Johno? the media has a way of picking at such things close to election time, you'd be a liar if you said Labour hasn't done too bad of a job of running the country. They have done a pretty bloody good job and it's annoying when people use stupid statistics and no real information to find excuses to argue otherwise.

at the end of the day all parties make up parliament and are responsible for running the country and making vital decisions. I wish they would all just shut the f**k up, quit electioneering, quit trying to hang each other out to dry and do their job, especially at this point in time during a worldwide financial crisis.

If there was a "f**k politicians, we're normal people, we're smart and we listen to what taxpayers have to say party" i'd vote for them but there isn't so i'll probably decide with the flip of a coin because at the moment i'm on the labour national fence.

[JiB 0]

For those of you bagging Helen Clarke, she is a career politician. Yes this means that she has done nothing but politics and tertiary in her life. This does not mean that she can't run a country. She works close to 18 hour days and is an extremely intelligent woman. I have attended a few of her lectures and have personally questioned some of her policies. She has logical and substantive answers, there is reason behind them when the situation has explained. For example, her working for families, etc.

Her capabilities are not to blame, her ideologies ideologies are.

The PC, everyone gets a 8th chance nanny state rubbish is what I don't like. We have a family friend who is a widower with children and unemployed. She went to WINZ and asked what would happen if she went for a part time job so she wasn't living off the dole and benefits. This dole and benefit is barely enough to keep her and her son fed and clothed.

The result? WINZ told her if she worked 10-15hrs a week (part time) she would not qualify for any of her benefits - so she would have less than half of what she would have on the dole. Now, where is the incentive to work? She can not work full time as her son needs to be taken care of, and if she started working part time she would not have enough money to live on! Something is not right here! She is able to and willing to work, but is forced to stay on the benefit to feed her son!

As for students? Well, I don't have a student loan or allowance, but many of my friends do. How about this - the student allowance is enough to keep fed and buy uni books. But by no means is it a luxurious lifestyle, many work a part time job or two. My girlfriend works two jobs on top of doing a full-time postgraduate degree. I, without a access to a student allowance, work three jobs on top of doing a fulltime double major (although this is mainly to fund my racecar )

So if you want New Zealand to have a higher degree of education then don't make it any harder on tertiary students. Yes there are a few out there who abuse the system, but there are those that will be prevented from acheiving excellence. If you ask me, it is better that those that can achieve are encouraged even if it means a minority abuse the system. Not everything is perfect, but preventing people from furthering themselves is a sure way to stagnate a country!

As for Keys, he is also a very intelligent person with some gallant ideas for improving New Zealand. I have also attended a lecture from him, he is very influenced by Lee Kuan Yew which may or may not be a good thing. It'd compartmentalise New Zealand into pliable resources to be exploited for the good for development. This would be great if it left (what remains of) the laid back New Zealand lifestyle, but I fear that it will not.

@M325is, IIRC there is a dole/benefit investigation unit, not to mention the sea of paper work before a benefit is given. But yes, the system does not encourage some able to work (as discussed above).

Also, if the rich get richer, this usually means the poverty gap widens - the poor get poorer. Perhaps if you think about it as limited amount of money divided (unevenly) between the rich/middle/poor then if the rich get a bigger slice then the other two will get even less.

EDIT:

@Ollie, unfortunately tax payers all want different things. Not to mention interest groups like Federated Farmers and Business Roundtable. Often the party can not help losing control over some policy changes.

My 2c

Edited October 7, 2008 by JiB

[M325is 0]

You are probably one of the most ignorant and badly informed people I have ever come across.

Everything you have written above is complete rubbish. Do you have any knowledge of economics at all?

I suggest that you try and become better informed before you post anything and pass it off as fact.

I was waiting for you to say something, as you always do. Its like primary school all over again, the little boy who throws acorns at girls.

I play Sim city 4 deluxe regularly That counts right?

Go on you know you want to vote National grunt.

Edited October 7, 2008 by M325is

[M325is 0]

Feed the wealthy and keep them healthy and happy, they or somebody in their family did something right, worked hard, fought for their dollar. I like how things naturally work, the weak die off and the race grows stronger. Not help the weak and let them drag us down with them.

VOTE SHELLEY, VOTE JOHN KEY :lol:

Edited October 7, 2008 by M325is

[JiB 0]

I was waiting for you to say something, as you always do. Its like primary school all over again, the little boy who throws acorns at girls.

You may think its rubbish, you have always stuck up for the "people" who rob us, I use the term rob as we won't see that money again. I guess your just trying to be politically correct but come on, its plain black and white.

As for economics, I have done about 12hours of it while at high school and play Sim city 4 deluxe regularly but come on its just common sense, some people just make a career of it, poor them.

What do you care if your not even going to be around anyway?? Why not vote National if you think its a bad choice, you don't have to live with it in the long run... go on you know you want to vote National grant.

I'm sorry, despite media portrayal of "dole bludgers" a majority of the people on the benefit have just enough. Technically, if you want to see who "robs" the most, the tax dodgers do. Yes the high income upper middle class.

A couple of studies have been done on this all over the globe. If I remember correctly Raymond Millar did one on New Zealand. I'll post it if I can try find it. But the conclusion was, just because you see some on tv abusing the system doesn't mean that you aren't going to drop thousands of people below the poverty line by deleting the benefits.

Btw, I am from a upper middle family. I am very right wing and probably don't like dole bludgers as much as you do, but this doesn't mean I want to make properly less well off people even less well off. I'd rather put up with a minority of dole bludgers than see more kids growing up without full secondary education or health care. Removing what little support these people have would make the problem worse.

A better way would be to bring them up to self-sufficient standards.

Sad story, why can't she work 30hr weeks like every other mother

30hr weeks? Oh great another neglected child bound for mediocrity. Perhaps you don't understand that what we do now brings a better future for New Zealand. The more educated, the more in good jobs, the better it is for all of us. Look at any of the Scandinavian countries, extremely high standard of living, low crime, educated people who can contribute to society.

But I fear you have missed my point, here it is again: I was agreeing with your assertion that the system is lacking. It does not encourage people to contribute to society. Hence my example.

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a state-hurting student right?

Edited October 7, 2008 by JiB

[bmw.maniac 1]

I was waiting for you to say something, as you always do. Its like primary school all over again, the little boy who throws acorns at girls.

You may think its rubbish, you have always stuck up for the "people" who rob us, I use the term rob as we won't see that money again. I guess your just trying to be politically correct but come on, its plain black and white.

I agree there are some people that abuse the benefit system but you are being narrow-minded saying people are "robbing you" by being on the benefit.

My mum has a close friend who was on the DPB for a few years. Her and her husband had a good life, with flash cars, a nice house with all the toys. The husband found another woman, left the wife and his kids and ran off with her. The ended up seperating and and she got $60,000 - half the total equity in their flash house - almost everything was mortgaged. The husband had an incredibly well-paying job, and also had an incredible accountant who was able to hide all his income in a trust, so legally he earned something like $15,000, and as child-support is based on the man's income, she got a whole $72 per month child support. She was lucky and bought a house in late 2001, just before property values sky-rocketed. She scraped through on her benefit, brought up her 3 children with basic manners and respect, and stayed on the benefit until her children had left home - as said above, if she had worked part-time, her benefit would have been reduced dramatically. She got a job as a clerk in an accounting firm, and paid off her house, which is now worth $400,000.

The DPB is there to help people like this. Yes, there are some people (especially on the sickness benefit) who definately should not be on there, to which I look down on - they are abusing the system and ruining it for others who truely depend on it. Mothers should not have to work 30 hours a week. Their job is to raise children, bring them up to be respectful citizens, and run the household, not be the absent working parent who isn't home until 5pm.

But of course (and especially in John Key's eyes), being a mother is not a worthwhile job. You are expected to work. My own mother got pulled up the other day by a cop, and got a ticket for speeding. When asked what her occupation was, my mum replied "A Mother," and the cop scribbled U/E on the ticket - unemployed. Boy, did she rip into this young guy!

Edited October 7, 2008 by Eddy

[bmw.maniac 1]

Oh, and her eldest son is now at medical school, her daughter is training to be a teacher and her youngest son an accountant. I would think these occupations would make a healthy contribution to society.

Boy, her family has sure ripped New Zealand off and robbed the tax-payers!!

[M325is 0]

I agree there are some people that abuse the benefit system but you are being narrow-minded saying people are "robbing you" by being on the benefit.

My mum has a close friend who was on the DPB for a few years. Her and her husband had a good life, with flash cars, a nice house with all the toys. The husband found another woman, left the wife and his kids and ran off with her. The ended up seperating and and she got $60,000 - half the total equity in their flash house - almost everything was mortgaged. The husband had an incredibly well-paying job, and also had an incredible accountant who was able to hide all his income in a trust, so legally he earned something like $15,000, and as child-support is based on the man's income, she got a whole $72 per month child support. She was lucky and bought a house in late 2001, just before property values sky-rocketed. She scraped through on her benefit, brought up her 3 children with basic manners and respect, and stayed on the benefit until her children had left home - as said above, if she had worked part-time, her benefit would have been reduced dramatically. She got a job as a clerk in an accounting firm, and paid off her house, which is now worth $400,000.

The DPB is there to help people like this. Yes, there are some people (especially on the sickness benefit) who definately should not be on there, to which I look down on - they are abusing the system and ruining it for others who truely depend on it. Mothers should not have to work 30 hours a week. Their job is to raise children, bring them up to be respectful citizens, and run the household, not be the absent working parent who isn't home until 5pm.

But of course (and especially in John Key's eyes), being a mother is not a worthwhile job. You are expected to work. My own mother got pulled up the other day by a cop, and got a ticket for speeding. When asked what her occupation was, my mum replied "A Mother," and the cop scribbled U/E on the ticket - unemployed. Boy, did she rip into this young guy!

I'm sorry, did you just say she bought a HOUSE (which over 7years is now worth 400k, so probably worth 300k in 2001) and still had enough to live off a benefit until her kids were old enough to leave home?

That is so wrong!

If you worked a 30hour week you would get up normal time say around 7.00am, get your kids to school at 8.00am then get yourself to work at 8.30am work till 2.30pm pick your kids up at 3pm. How is that neglecting your children?

[M325is 0]

Oh, and her eldest son is now at medical school, her daughter is training to be a teacher and her youngest son an accountant. I would think these occupations would make a healthy contribution to society.

Boy, her family has sure ripped New Zealand off and robbed the tax-payers!!

YOU SAID IT NOT ME!

If I were her instead of using the 60k to get a mortgage on a house I would have got myself a good lawyer and investigator to dispute the husbands wages. But hey, she probably got more from the benefit if she could afford to pay the mortgage and feed 3 kids.

Edited October 7, 2008 by M325is

[topcat 11]

the sooner this country is run like a business,the better.

last decade has seen the biggest increase in welfare/health spending.

buracrates (spelling?) are spend and waste our tax dollars.

Aunty Helen has done some good and some bad things,

anti-smacking bill

kiwi saver

legalize prostitution

working with/for families

carbon credits,dont start me

agree to be driven at lightning speeds to catch a game of footy

genetic food debarcle

fuel tax for auckland for roading,how many is that now?why only auckland? 40% of the exports come from this region(or so i'm told)

a painting she didnt paint

i wonder if we will hear her an apology for the times she got it wrong.

not saying keys the answer to all,but has been open and quick to retract/apologize for incorrect statements etc

and not blame his department or someother underling

we are in for a lot of economic pain,and the goverment who is in next will have to work hard to 'keep it together'.

labour has been very fortuate with the last 3 trms of economic growth

[Jeddy 0]

the sooner this country is run like a business,the better.

The partial reason for the world economic problems currently being experienced is due to the USA doing this, what makes you think it'll work here?

[CamB 48]

Well Labour didn't cock the period of economic growth up - you have to give them some credit for that. George Bush can't say the same in the US...

I'm not sure I have a lot to add to this, other than commenting that "NZ needs a change" is about the worst reason I can think of for voting for someone else. We aren't a nappy - assess the parties on what they offer society/you (depending on how altruistic you are).

Shelley - most areas have seen house prices at least double in the last 7 years, so you might want to redo your maths. You should have a look at how much the DPB/dole/sickness benefit actually is, in $$$ per week. It is not a cushy life.

Edited October 7, 2008 by CamB

[M325is 0]

Just sold a house after 10years, made 150k on it, house prices are very low at mo so 400k would be about right

[topcat 11]

The partial reason for the world economic problems currently being experienced is due to the USA doing this, what makes you think it'll work here?

there's more to business then borrowing up to the eye-balls and gamble on your property values

edit; 's

Edited October 7, 2008 by BM Weapon aka topcat

[CamB 48]

No, prices are very high at the moment.

It is possible that the person doesn't live in Botany Downs.

[bmw.maniac 1]

I'm sorry, did you just say she bought a HOUSE (which over 7years is now worth 400k, so probably worth 300k in 2001) and still had enough to live off a benefit until her kids were old enough to leave home?

That is so wrong!

If you worked a 30hour week you would get up normal time say around 7.00am, get your kids to school at 8.00am then get yourself to work at 8.30am work till 2.30pm pick your kids up at 3pm. How is that neglecting your children?

I guess i'll go into more detail.

Bought house for $110,000 for an elderly lady for under valuation of $140,000. The house was a complete mess, but luckily sound. She saved up a small amount each week and was able to afford things like paint and got furniture from the salvation army shop. She repainted the complete outside of the house by herself, and when the kids left and she moved into work she was able to save up and re-do the interior and build a deck. She worked on the yard and transformed it from an overgrown jungle to a nice, clean maintained garden. House prices have shot up on the Peninsula, you'd be lucky to find one for under $400,000 and this house is in a nice position on the Thames Coast.

Honestly, what kind of idiot would work those sort of hours. Obviously you have no idea of raising kids, its more than dropping them off to school each morning. Meals, washing, cleaning, maintaining the house (in this case where you can't afford it), carting kids to sports etc. How could you do all this, for 3 kids, on top of working a 30 hour week, all for a very little financial gain? I can see why she stayed on the benefit.

[JiB 0]

I'm sorry, did you just say she bought a HOUSE (which over 7years is now worth 400k, so probably worth 300k in 2001) and still had enough to live off a benefit until her kids were old enough to leave home?

That is so wrong!

If you worked a 30hour week you would get up normal time say around 7.00am, get your kids to school at 8.00am then get yourself to work at 8.30am work till 2.30pm pick your kids up at 3pm. How is that neglecting your children?

And be totally knackered? So the only time actually spent with the kids is in a ratty tired condition? I'm sorry, but perhaps I hold seemingly frivolous things like spending time with one's children in too high a regard. Maybe this is why so many children today wander the malls every day after school dressed like hookers and gangsters instead of maybe playing a sport or engaging in a more fruitful activity developing themselves?

YOU SAID IT NOT ME!

If I were her instead of using the 60k to get a mortgage on a house I would have got myself a good lawyer and investigator to dispute the husbands wages. But hey, she probably got more from the benefit if she could afford to pay the mortgage and feed 3 kids.

That's ridiculous! Take a gamble with all you have to go dispute something that is entirely legal? I'd say the mother made the wiser choice investing a house - which some might say is an asset! If she wasn't paying the mortgage, she would've been paying rent. I don't see what you are trying to argue for.

[M325is 0]

I'm talking of a house in Papatoetoe not Botany, big difference. And sorry my math was wrong, it was around 200k gain. But still my point stands.

[bmw.maniac 1]

If I were her instead of using the 60k to get a mortgage on a house I would have got myself a good lawyer and investigator to dispute the husbands wages. But hey, she probably got more from the benefit if she could afford to pay the mortgage and feed 3 kids.

Everything was perfectly legal. A nice loophole, and "aggressive accounting."

She couldn't touch any of it.

[CamB 48]

there's more to business then borrowing up to the eye-balls and gamble on your property values

edit; 's

The subprime crisis was effectively caused by a credit bubble created by the lack of regulation of wall street banks and an increasing tolerance for risk across all financial institutions.

I personally don't blame the borrowers - most aren't equipped to understand (in detail) the decisions they make.

Edited October 7, 2008 by CamB

[Jeddy 0]

there's more to business then borrowing up to the eye-balls and gamble on your property values

edit; 's

Deregulation didn't help.

Also Kiwisaver will help wean our dependence on property as security/retirement