The Bimmersport Election Poll

[CamB 48]

Shelley - This would be easier if you had a clue. Sorry - rude but true.

Assume a couple, each earning $30k, taxed at about 20% so $24k each, or $48k total.

Cheap house in AKL - $300k. Deposit (these days) $60k. Number of years to save a deposit based on spending half the $48k on housing/living/eating/medical expenses is 2.5 years. Approx number of year until an 8% mortgage on the balance is paid off with the same $24k pa plus an assessment of rent and trying to at least think about inflation = ~7.5-8 years.

So ... 10 years to pay off the house assuming:

- no wedding and associated costs

- no holidays of note

- no material expenditure on basically anything

- some pretty tight living expenses

- finding a house that cheap (not really doable in AKL)

- no BimmerSport (lol)

- etc

So ... I'd maintain that is not especially realistic for the average couple, and 10 years is a long time.

Edited October 8, 2008 by CamB

[CamB 48]

No government has ever helped me in anyway. I've never had a hand out in all my life

You must have benefited from ACC, medical, police, roads, and education, and presumably you're hoping to benefit from at very least NZ super.

I've got to reiterate an earlier point I made - some time spent in a country with poor or non-existent social services is a bit of an eye opener. I'd rather pay high taxes and have a society on a more even footing.

[martyyn 2]

Is your wife an early childhood teacher? Kids benefit from going to pre-school.

My wife's not an early childhood teacher, she is a mother. If you would rather someone else brought up your children, why did you have them in the first place ?

I have lots of friends who send their kids to childcare/pre-school (some by choice, others by necessity) and plenty of the kids are getting by far the wrong end of the deal.

[Apex 693]

You must have benefited from ACC, medical, police, roads, and education, and presumably you're hoping to benefit from at very least NZ super.

I've got to reiterate an earlier point I made - some time spent in a country with poor or non-existent social services is a bit of an eye opener. I'd rather pay high taxes and have a society on a more even footing.

True that.

Laugh at you ACC comments though, I must have paid them 15k thus far. Haven’t got anything back.

ACC is great if you’re a hard to do 30k a year hard worker but it seriously sucks if your self employed and run a business.

[M325is 0]

If your priority is to own a home, you will tighten your wallet to do so, if that means no weddings or holidays so be it. If you can afford to pay a house off over 10years do it. 10years goes bloody quickly, think of the holidays you could have afterward, not worrying about having a mortgage.

[CamB 48]

True that.

Laugh at you ACC comments though, I must have paid them 15k thus far. Haven’t got anything back.

ACC is great if you’re a hard to do 30k a year hard worker but it seriously sucks if your self employed and run a business.

The way I understand it, ACC means we don't have the US-style litigation over pretty much all personal injury and medical misadventure scenarios. It's well worth the $$$.

Shelley - you don't have holidays once you have new kids, so you can rule out several years there, and the income on the fictitious family will drop to a point where there won't be much left even though there are no mortgage or rent costs.

Although again with some irony I would point out the current system would see such a family start to receive quite a bit of government assistance as they have low income and children. It would probably rebate most of the tax. I'm sure you would disagree with that (but hey - they might get their holidays).

And 10 years does not go quickly. I've been working about that long and it feels like an eternity, LOL.

Edited October 8, 2008 by CamB

[*Glenn* 854]

You must have benefited from ACC, medical, police, roads, and education, and presumably you're hoping to benefit from at very least NZ super.

I've got to reiterate an earlier point I made - some time spent in a country with poor or non-existent social services is a bit of an eye opener. I'd rather pay high taxes and have a society on a more even footing.

If I get hurt, or sick...I get nothing because I have a business. If I need medical attention ... I get emergency only or go on a waiting list.. If I cant work I'd go broke....who will help me ?? I have to have medical insurance in case of that arising. If I go on holiday, I have to pay someone to do my job so that I can have one. Yet I pay more taxes than the average JO BLOGG

Police ??? what a joke... defend yourself & go to jail ???... find the knife ??? I'm tired ??? yeah right

Education ?? I paid for my own & my daughters, except primary & high school

Super ?? Thats a joke too.. I couldnt survive on that... but others are living off my taxes that I pay

Edited October 8, 2008 by *Glenn*

[CamB 48]

Lots of people do survive on Super. I think your argument is we need to pay more? Do the other benefits need to be raised too since they're obviously too low as well?

Would you rather each individual paid for primary and high school education? That there were no police? That there were no free operations?

You own a business - it is risk and reward. Those risks/costs include what you say around holidays, medical insurance, etc. Its your choice ---> the tax system was there before you were.

What's the alternative? Flat tax? Massive gap between rich and poor? It stands to reason that for you to be significantly better off (eg flat tax) that someone else is going to be worse off.

What's the alternative? Flat tax? Massive gap between rich and poor? It stands to reason that for you to be significantly better off (eg flat tax) that someone else is going to be worse off.

I'm not comfortable with that. I've been to countries where that is the case and I didn't like it. As a side note, I think there'd be a lot of crime if that occurred.

Edited October 8, 2008 by CamB

[*Glenn* 854]

I am only guessing here

But I would say most of the taxes we pay for go to social welfare & Waitangi payouts and not infustructure

There are far too many non producers in this country getting supported by a minority of producers.

Income = Tax revenue & market returns in the global sense , non workers dont produce or generate produce, wealth or taxes. They just keep costing the minority of producers

[CamB 48]

So do we kick them out? Is that humane? Legal?

Forced work? Exterminate? Make them beg? Simply starve? No job, no food?

Which bits of social welfare aren't ok? NZ Super? DPB? Dole? Sickness benefit? Working for Families? Accommodation supplement?

Waitangi payouts are a drop in the bucket in total, and 5 mins looking for statistics would disprove that "non producers" outweigh "producers" (although if you count children and retirees as non-producers then maybe not).

[*Glenn* 854]

So do we kick them out? Is that humane? Legal?

Forced work? Exterminate? Make them beg? Simply starve? No job, no food?

Forced to work ??? now we are getting somewhere

[Apex 693]

So do we kick them out? Is that humane? Legal?

Forced work? Exterminate? Make them beg? Simply starve? No job, no food?

I like your thinking.

Everyone I know that is on DPB, the Dole or a sickness benefit see it as “pay†and are heavy Mariana and alcohol abusers..Couple even enjoy meth. It’s just hilarious.

[CamB 48]

Couple even enjoy meth.

Shows admirable budgeting skills.

My problem is I am way too much of a bleeding heart to even consider thinking about work for dole. And wouldn't consider work for DPB, and would clamp down on sickness benefits but "work for sickness benefit" should be an oxymoron.

Plus the admin costs would be atrocious.

Edited October 8, 2008 by CamB

[Apex 693]

You’d be amazed at how much the whores get, one gets to go out partying three nights of the week and try and make some more little income earners.. She loves it.

[*Glenn* 854]

You’d be amazed at how much the whores get, one gets to go out partying three nights of the week and try and make some more little income earners.. She loves it.

Lol...Phone number please ??

[steve R 0]

No job, no food?

you dont work, you dont eat, seams pretty logical to me?

[Creaver 55]

you dont work, you dont eat, seams pretty logical to me?

+1

[*Glenn* 854]

you dont work, you dont eat, seams pretty logical to me?

Alot of our softcock PC correct people dont see it this way though

FFS... Kiwis harden up and get on with life

Get a job and be a producer. The benefits will all be yours

[CamB 48]

Well f*ck I wouldn't want to lose a job or have some other misfortune occur around you guys.

Geez, its not softcock PC to believe that a social safety net is a good idea. It's common decency.

[JiB 0]

Well f*ck I wouldn't want to lose a job or have some other misfortune occur around you guys.

Geez, its not softcock PC to believe that a social safety net is a good idea. It's common decency.

+1

Admittedly some abuse the safety net.

New Zealand is a welfare state. Compare it with Singapore, if you had an injury and you can't work any more. You attempt to sue anyone who can give you money to live on (not likely because the people you sue are wealthier than you and have more influence + better lawyers)....you're f**ked.

Despite being wealthy, clean, healthy, etc, etc. The poverty gap is similar to some 3rd world countries. Some only just surviving, and because begging is banned....you're f**ked again. Some Singaporeans are actually under the poverty line with not enough food, etc. Hard to imagine in such a successful society? Well, yes they have no bludgers. But it's hard in different ways.

If you can't work/produce in Singapore. You're not welcome there. But you can't leaver either, because it costs money to leave. So I'd rather pay high taxes for the safety net then New Zealand become as much of a rat race as Singapore.

edit: btw, you want tax cuts? yea...not much income tax in Singapore....but try own a car. 40-60% tax, there's fines for everything and sometimes a relatively restricted lifestyle.

Edited October 8, 2008 by JiB

[Mike 1]

you dont work, you dont eat, seams pretty logical to me?

so they start stealing instead? guess we use the money we save from benefits to get more cops to catch them. Then we can spend more money keeping them in jail.

[JiB 0]

so they start stealing instead? guess we use the money we save from benefits to get more cops to catch them. Then we can spend more money keeping them in jail.

NZ is too PC and to quote CamB too softcock to have an executive system strong enough to properly persecute/terrorize the population into behaviour despite poor conditions (more cops to stop poor people stealing to eat). It is also too far into the country's history to pull a take over. Singapore managed to eliminate ALL major gangs overnight in mid 1960's because it passed a potent version of the Patriot's Act allowing government to deem what it wanted as criminal congregation ie gangs and throw everyone in jail/public whippings, etc.

If the government passed something like that here, there would be revolt, and everyone will complain that the government has too much power, etc, etc. But a strong executive is a necessity for a change to right wing capitalist tendencies. A strong executive will not survive in New Zealand. Look how fondly Muldoon is remembered.

Sorry a bit off topic, but there are a lot of reasons why New Zealand is the way it is and why it will struggle to become something it is not. And why becoming something it's not may not be a good thing.

Edited October 8, 2008 by JiB

[bradc 0]

I 100% agree with Glenn (I knew after meeting you I'd get along with you well) My parents owned their own company for 28 years and dealt with the exact same sh*t. While I'm not self employed all of the bosses I've had (4) have always said I have had the absolute best working attitude out of anyone they have ever employed.

I personally hate the DPB and don't see a single reason for it. I'm 24 and I do quite like the idea of having kids, but I know I don't have enough money to support one (well and not having a gf/partner/wife atm will also limit my chances there) but I don't see why the hell I should put so much of my hard earned money to people who have had kids and can't afford them. Simply don't have them in the first place. I do agree with the earlier comments about being home to support kids and spend time with them. One of our customers is a large preschool and it amazes me at the amount of kids that go there!

I've always been right wing and I've always thought that the right wing encourages people who want to do well for themselves to work harder and acheive it themselves, and the left wing is just there to support a large number of lazy bastards who can't get off their arse and be bothered working, or are too stupid to do anything better than ask if you'd like fries with that (excluding 17 year olds in their first jobs and such) or sweep floors.

Work for the Dole is simply an awesome idea, I don't see a single reason why I should be working 8-12 hours a day 5 days a week to have some piece of crap low life sit around and do nothing but produce kids.

I would also implement urine tests for ALL benefits. dpb, unemployed, sickness, whatever, make them all be completely clean of 'negative' things, drugs, alcohol, tobacco. Those items are all luxuries and should only be used by those that can afford them. No I'm not saying if you've got a job it is a good idea to spend your money on drugs, but I'm sure you all understand what I'm getting at. Someone here will ask what about their kids? Stuff them I say, their kids aren't going to be shooting for the stars with a druggie/alcoholic unemployed parent anyway are they?

Finally - this is a useful link http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/taxcalc/

See how much of your money is being wasted by people too lazy to get a job and by government departments. See how little is being spent relatively on health, education and the police.

[ThreeOneEight 0]

I wish the McGillicuddy Serious Party would come back. Turning Wainuiomata into an authentic Scottish Loch was perhaps the most inspired piece of policy I have seen. I would like to see them regroup, and expand on this idea by providing a waterslide down through Eastbourne. It would be a great way for me to get to work/fishing/ or even Wellington, if the Loch-tidal current generated were strong enough, and practically carbon neutral, thus sating the greener among us. We're all winners, under McGillicuddy. Except Wainuiomartians. They'd be under water.

Unfortunately, they have gone quiet.

So I'll be voting ACT, as they are the only party who have so far respected my 'No Advertising Material' sign. I think it's a sound basis on which to vote- on discussing with others, ACT are also the party most likely to leave me in peace.

[Guest SamSpargo]

If you're sick of the nanny state, vote libertarianz, which is what I personally believe in.