Making you pay for their folly

112 comments on “Making you pay for their folly ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Enough is Enough 1

   18 December 2012 at 12:35 pm

   I have no objection against this tax. It will have the effect of moving people out of cars. That is a good thing.
   • tc 1.1

     18 December 2012 at 12:41 pm

     And go to public transport ? which they refuse to back and keep stalling on such issues as the akl rail loop.

     There’s the nact logic at play.
   • Tiresias 1.2

     18 December 2012 at 12:58 pm

     And for the folk who live where there is no public transport – which is anyone in a rural area and even a small town, in New Zealand? Or who begin and end work when public transport isn’t running?
     Of course it’s their fault for chosing to live where there is no public transport – which is most of New Zealand. We should all live in high-rise suburbs where we can be suppied with plentiful public transport to carry us to our employment and schools and the shops and the circuses set up to entertain and mollify us. They we’d all be out of our cars. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
     • Lanthanide 1.2.1

       18 December 2012 at 4:43 pm

       Plentiful public transport, anywhere in NZ? Yeah right.
   • Lefty 1.3

     18 December 2012 at 2:00 pm

     Increasing fuel taxes won’t move people out of cars on to public transport if there is no suitable public transport available, which is the case in most of New Zealander most of the time.

     Nor will it shift people to public transport if driving is still cheaper as is often the case at present.

     Or if the distance to work is so great our slow public transport is impractical timewise.

     It will make it more costly for low paid workers to get to work though, while the business community and much of the middle class will find ways to write it off in tax or pass the cost on to someone else somehow.

     It may lead to less driving done for leisure activities by some low income people but why is it always them that has to make the sacrifice?

     This is simply a money grab so the governments can keep its promise to its mates to pay them heaps to build more roads.
     • mike 1.3.1

       18 December 2012 at 2:54 pm

       Lets not forget that the ‘roads of national significance’ have absolutely nothing to do with cars or public transport. They are built to suit the trucking industry. Since trucking companies have poured so much money into the national party cofers they feel it’s their right to have taxpayers pay for infrastructure that will help them shorten travel times around cities and make more dough – in other words the new roads will be of great significance to the trucking industry – simple.
   • Mike 1.4

     18 December 2012 at 11:31 pm

     Nah, most people won’t move out of cars until there’s a viable alternative. Even should an alternative materialise, I sorta think people may stick to their cars anyway. (Until ever decreasing oil production results in forced alternatives.)
2. Te Reo Putake 2

   18 December 2012 at 12:40 pm

   Boy, they really don’t want to win the next election, do they? Perhaps Matthew Hooten can let us know what the long term plan is? Lose in 2014, rebuild under Collins. Lose again in 2017. Rebuild again under Bridges*, with a new 20/20 vision. Lose again in 2020. Rinse and repeat.
    
   * not an intentional troll joke, but might be useful in the future.
3. xtasy 3

   18 December 2012 at 12:56 pm

   Damned, there goes another “share” of the “middle class” vote!?

   Having to pay more for running their cars, to get from A to B will not go down well with “the centre”, still largely clinging to a lifestyle of never ending lala land (quarter acre section, 2 car garage, drive everywhere, even to the corner dairy).

   But it is smartly timed, just before X-mas, while most are busy with making arrangements for the festive days, a holiday, shopping for presents and provisions, Parliament having ended for the year and many journalists preoccupied with freak weather, a shooting in Connecticut, Kate’s invisible “baby bump”.

   It is the start of the silly season, so news are not much taken note of, generally.
4. mickysavage 4

   18 December 2012 at 1:24 pm

   Do you know why this is being announced today? It is because the Government cannot make their figures add up otherwise so that they are in surplus in 2015-2016.
    
   It is no coincidence that increases in the FED are announced the same day that the HYEFUL is released.
    
   It is a sneaky tax take to pay for something that is an abject waste of time.
    
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10854830
   • tc 4.1

     18 December 2012 at 4:52 pm

     What on top of the billion + hole that existed off the back of the guesstimate over asset sales, no analysis on GDST rise impacts.
     Colleagues in Oz are just flummoxed that our MSM can’t do basic maths, they’d be hung over there with this kind of bookeeping.
     But hey isn’t it great to give yourself 8/10 and fob off those annoying ‘numbers’ as irrelevant.
   • tc 4.2

     18 December 2012 at 4:53 pm

     What on top of the billion + hole that existed off the back of the guesstimate over asset sales, no analysis on GST rise impacts etc etc
     Colleagues in Oz are just flummoxed that our MSM can’t do basic maths, they’d be hung over there with this kind of bookeeping.
     But hey isn’t it nice to be able to give yourself 8/10 and fob off those annoying ‘numbers’ as irrelevant.
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   18 December 2012 at 1:43 pm

   “The certainty that this guaranteed funding stream provides means we can proceed with confidence in developing and delivering these and other major projects which will enable economic growth and provide safer journeys for New Zealanders.”

   Ha, that’s funny. the amount of driving is already decreasing due to the price of fuel and this tax increase will decrease it even more meaning that those projects won’t be paid for by the rise in taxes.
   • Matthew 5.1

     18 December 2012 at 4:25 pm

     ‘guaranteed funding stream’ is us, im guessing?
6. burt 6

   18 December 2012 at 2:22 pm

   Labour campaigning against a tax hike – sheeesh… This two party system serves the politicians and their desire to play musical chairs…. but what about the voters – the tax payers – the people of NZ ….

   Lets get this out for debate – is tax hikes to raise revenue a good or a bad thing or is it more simple than that – It’s good when Labour do it and bad when National do it… But tax cuts are also bad when National do it … Is status quo as defined by the actions of the last Labour govt the only acceptable situation to people so dim they follow a flag colour rather than a policy or principle ?
   • vto 6.1

     18 December 2012 at 2:33 pm

     You seem to have all the answers today so perhaps you can answer this unanswered question.

     Given that Northland’s permanent population is relatively static and that Northland’s economic growth is static, who or what is the Holiday Highway meant to serve?
     • vto 6.1.1

       18 December 2012 at 3:04 pm

       hello? burt? got an answer? or just stupid comments like the one below?
       • burt 6.1.1.1

         18 December 2012 at 3:16 pm

         I don’t see the relevance – I was addressing the partisan nature of support for (or campaign against) tax hikes. I’m sorry if you can’t find a reasonable position on this debate although being a partisan flag follower I’m not surprised you are not prepared to state your position when Labour ALSO seem to only be able to oppose what would typically be their own policiy direction rather than lead with a coherent policy position of their own.
         • vto 6.1.1.1.1

           18 December 2012 at 3:21 pm

           burt, have a look at my hisotory of commenting on each of labour and the nats. You don’t know what you are talking about.

           And you don’t see the relevance of this question “Given that Northland’s permanent population is relatively static and that Northland’s economic growth is static, who or what is the Holiday Highway meant to serve?” when the thread is entirely about putting up roading taxes?

           You’re useless.
           • Polish Pride 6.1.1.1.1.1

             19 December 2012 at 11:43 am

             Actually he raised a very good point but because you couldn’t think of a decent response you instead attack him for his post and call him useless, instead of addressing the question he has posed….. The answer by the way is – ‘It depends on what the rise in tax is to pay for regardless of whether it is National or Labour’ followed perhaps by your personal view on ‘the tax hike for ‘Roads of national significance’.
             Would you object if the hike was to improve roads, increase passing lanes and most importantly put on place median barriers to eliminate head on collisions and save lives?
             • vto …

               19 December 2012 at 12:17 pm

               Polish pride, I attacked him because he couldn’t see the relevance of questioning one of the country’s most expensive roads which has, by the government’s own measures, no benefit except for holiday-makers, during a thread about increasing roading taxes. That useless road is being paid for by roading taxes – the subject of the thread. That he cannot see the relevance is useless. (btw, the “attack” word “useless” has to be about the most mild in the world)

               Sure, labour and national are both as bad as each other when it comes to taxes, but the point was about the use this is to be put to, which Bill English has said is to keep their promise re surplus and to put towards these roads.

               pretty simple.

               As for this “Would you object if the hike was to improve roads, increase passing lanes and most importantly put on place median barriers to eliminate head on collisions and save lives?”

               Yes I would. The reason is this government’s allocation of taxes. This government is putting $400million to private business in Canterbury. It loans $35million to Mediaworks, Stephen Joyce’s previous business. It put $1,700 million into South Canterbury Finance when it should not have even been in the scheme.

               Quite frankly, each of those items should come after roads have been improved, passing lanes increased and most importantly put in median barriers to eliminate head-on collisions and save lives.

               Polish Pride do you actually think spending money on private business like Canterbury farming, Mediaworks and South Canterbury Finance is more important than saving the lives of children on the roads?
               • Polish Pride …

                 19 December 2012 at 1:11 pm

                 You get no opposition from me that the governments allocation of taxes is bs and self serving.

                 Useless – to be of no use at all …..yet he has like everyone a vote should he choose to exercise it and unlike me.. I am sure he will…
         • ColonialPete 6.1.1.1.2

           18 December 2012 at 4:27 pm

           Consumption taxes are in no way progressive and do not serve the purpose of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poorer in society through the provision of government services. This kind of tax is regressive in that it sucks up a greater proportion of the income of the poor and the lower middle class, while the harm on the wallets of the rich is barely noticeable. A progressive tax system places the burden more on those who have the wherewithal to afford it. So, for example a road user charge on vehicles over 3.5 tonnes – commercial vehicles – would be a better way to pay for this than a fuel tax on a harried solo mum doing the school run.
       • Populuxe1 6.1.1.2

         18 December 2012 at 3:19 pm

         Well at a guess I’d say that encouraging internal tourism to the picturesque but difficult to get to far north might actually make its economy less static, and indeed offer opportunities for growth and employment. But then again I might just be a “queer cunt”, so what would I know…
          
         • vto 6.1.1.2.1

           18 December 2012 at 3:24 pm

           Well, the Nat’s own studies apparently say that those benefits which you mention do not actually measure up.

           So I will ask it again, who or what is the Holiday Highway meant to serve?

           And yep pop, you could well be just a queer cunt, lotsa people are. Wouldn’t worry about it if I were you though, it is almost a term of endearment for some.
         • felixviper 6.1.1.2.2

           18 December 2012 at 4:15 pm

           You’ve always struck me as a bit of an odd character Pop.
         • Matthew 6.1.1.2.3

           18 December 2012 at 4:27 pm

           a four lane highway between Puhoi & Wellsford will do nothing for tourism in Northland, & combined with the added tx on fuel, could even see it go down.
         • bad12 6.1.1.2.4

           18 December 2012 at 8:22 pm

           For you i pick option 2…
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     18 December 2012 at 3:23 pm

     Raising taxes for things that are good (hospitals, feeding children etc, etc) is good, raising taxes for things that are bad (Nationals RoNs, increasing GST so that the rich can have tax cuts, etc, etc) is bad.
     There, I think that’s simple enough even for you to understanf burt.
   • felixviper 6.3

     18 December 2012 at 4:25 pm

     National campaigned hard for at least six years on cutting taxes burt, but they’ve been raising them since they got into office.

     Sure, they took a few cents off the top income rate, but up goes the GST straight away. And look at all the other levies and surcharges and fees they’ve raised. Registered your car lately?
   • QoTViper 6.4

     18 December 2012 at 5:48 pm

     Burt, you’ve been around here long enough to know that IrishBill’s opinion =/= Labour Party policy statements.

     More’s the pity.
   • Mike 6.5

     18 December 2012 at 11:45 pm

     Tax hikes to raise government revenue are not a bad thing, if they are the right kind of tax hikes. Raising consumption taxes always hurt the poor and those on low incomes far more than they hurt everyone else. This is because consumption taxes on essentials form a far larger percentage of a poor persons income than that of a wealthy person.

     Regardless, we live under the ‘illusion of democracy’, having been brainwashed into believing that voting for a different party to govern actually really changes anything. Just another example of divide and conquer working perfectly. Give the masses 2 sides to vote for and call it democracy, they’ll be so busy fighting amongst themselves over petty political differences that they won’t notice what’s really being done to the world.

     “Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.

     These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.”

     – Montagu Norman, Governor of The Bank Of England, addressing the United States Bankers’ Association, New York, 1924.

     I think Mark Twain is credited with the quote “If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.” He was right.
7. Daz 7

   18 December 2012 at 2:24 pm

   From the title I thought this would about people on benefits having kids……..
   • IrishBill 7.1

     18 December 2012 at 2:50 pm

     Because children are a folly? Fuck off misanthrope.
     • Daz 7.1.1

       18 December 2012 at 3:52 pm

       Folly
       1 Lack of good sense; foolishness: “an act of sheer folly”.
       2 A foolish act, idea, or practice: “the follies of youth”.
       Having children when you can’t afford to provide for them fits with this quite well I think.
       My comment was made my tongue firmly in my cheek fwiw.
       I had thought that calling this place a hate blog was a bit of an exaggeration on whaleoils behalf but after the rather unpleasant and over the top responses I am starting to think that he may just be right (in terms of comments at least)

       IrishBill: if you don’t like it, don’t comment. The last thing we need here is another spineless rightie having a wee cry.
       • onsos 7.1.1.1

         18 December 2012 at 4:20 pm

         Your comment about having your tongue in your cheek is bullshit.
         You have expressed that people who choose to have kids are foolish. Tell me what the other options are when people find themselves pregnant, and get off your high horse.
         • Daz 7.1.1.1.1

           18 December 2012 at 5:15 pm

           Step 1, Don’t find yourself pregnant – plan when to, we have the science/technology to control it now and much of it is subsidised.
           There is no Step 2.

           To be clear since some people don’t seem to be getting it:
           I was saying that when people who are on a benefit get pregnant and have a baby other people have to pay for that baby, because the people in question are on a benefit and need the assistance it is a folly to have a child.
           The folly is having a child you can’t support.
           I was not saying having children in general is a folly.
           Clear enough?

           I assure you that it was tongue in cheek (the right one) but maybe I was expecting to much for people to follow my train of thought and see it as potentially being a headline for an article having a go at “dole bludgers”
           I would apologise for expecting to much but it really isn’t my fault if people are dense.
           • One Tāne Viper 7.1.1.1.1.1

             18 December 2012 at 5:17 pm

             [citation(s) needed]
             • Daz …

               18 December 2012 at 5:44 pm

               For what exactly? I haven’t quoted anybody or presented any statistics or anything, merely laid out my reasoning.
               • QoTViper …

                 18 December 2012 at 5:53 pm

                 For starters, you could point us to this magical world where sex education is comprehensive, doctor’s appointments are free, contraception is infallible and abortion is easily accessible. Seriously, I’d love to visit that fairyland.
                 • Daz …

                   18 December 2012 at 8:10 pm

                   Nice list of statements I didn’t make.
                   I’ll repeat that for the thicker commentors
                   Nice list of statements I didn’t make.
                   I’ll address them anyway

                   Pretty good sex ed in NZ but irrelevent since I wasn’t talking about kids since they shouldn’t be on a benefit (barring extraordinary circumstances)

                   As for doctors appointments, heres a citation for something I didn’t even say http://www.familyplanning.org.nz/our_clinics/clinic_fees
                   Pretty cheap when they aren’t free. I believe there was also a proposal for free longterm contraception for beneficiaries that the left had a collective shit fit about.

                   5 seconds of googling gets this on contraception http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/CTFailureTable.pdf
                   Pretty decent levels of effectiveness there

                   As for abortion access – don’t know, never needed it and we are close enough to our PLANNED parenthood that we could afford to have a baby now if the methods of contraception that we have been using successfully for years failed.

                   I never proposed an alteration of the laws around benefits or the having of babies but you seem ready to go very in depth into a one line comment, maybe if you poured some of that scorn on the absolute failures that the left has for political parties at the moment then you could win the next election. Face it national have done so well because they are good but because labour is so fucking useless.
                   • Te Reo Viper …

                     18 December 2012 at 8:29 pm

                     So much anger, Daz. Do you fear the next government that much? Still, always good to hear from someone with a vitriolic contempt for the less well off in NZ, reminds me why I’m a lefty.
                   • onsos …

                     19 December 2012 at 10:51 am

                     Don’t find yourself pregnant – plan when to, we have the science/technology to control it now and much of it is subsidised.
                     Who do you mean by “we”? I have this access. Middle-class and educated, went to a liberal school with good sex-ed, and work in health promotion. I know what works, and where resources are. I presume you do, too.
                     The interesting question is who doesn’t have this access, because of religious conservatism and educational failure, because of logistical and financial pressure. They don’t have the science/technology you are talking about.
                     Moreover, imposing that technology is morally abhorrent.
                     That’s where you need to substantiate your claims.
               • McFliper …

                 18 December 2012 at 5:54 pm

                 [facepalm]
       • onsos 7.1.1.2

         18 December 2012 at 4:22 pm

         Wow. A tax grab because they can’t balance the books like they promised they would.
       • Daz 7.1.1.3

         18 December 2012 at 4:22 pm

         Somebody is upset at losing their lucky charms 🙁
         Don’t worry I can take all the childish abuse you throw at people who seem to have a different view point from you or make a joke about what type of article a headline would have following it on right-wing blog. Enjoy your life full of hatred 🙂
         • One Tāne Viper 7.1.1.3.1

           18 December 2012 at 5:04 pm

           “…make a joke…” the stock-in-trade excuse of the bigot.

           I can’t be bothered destroying the assumptions in your initial statement: if you’re naive enough to believe your “argument” rests on any thing but quicksand more fool you, but you should know that your “having children you can’t afford” meme is bogus, a zombie argument that was debunked years ago, but just keep moaning and shuffling and eating right-wing brains.

           What is it about you people that you’re so easily lied to?
           • Daz 7.1.1.3.1.1

             18 December 2012 at 5:38 pm

             Pointing out how the same title could be used by both sides of the politcal spectrum in reference to different things by using a play on words is a joke. (not necessarily a good one)
             Implying that you must be of inferior intellect due to your race/gender/sexual preferences is being a bigot/racist/sexist.
             Calling people a bigot/racist/sexist instead of telling them why they are wrong is laziness (or stupidity if you’ve got nothing else to say and are trying to cover for it).
             • One Tāne Viper …

               19 December 2012 at 11:11 am

               It’s laziness, and boredom. I’m bored of doing it – hence the reference to “zombie argument” – and you’re too bloody lazy to do a little elementary fact checking.
           • Polish Pride 7.1.1.3.1.2

             19 December 2012 at 1:02 pm

             Actually OTV he is bang on You seem like an intelligent guy who could make your points quite articulately and without the insults and negativity. Your approach is more likely to switch people off instead of having them reconsider their position.. You could change it but then I get the impression you’d prefer to deal out negativity. I hope I am wrong.
             • One Tāne Viper …

               19 December 2012 at 1:45 pm

               Your approach is more likely to switch people off instead of having them reconsider their position..

               Several facts argue against this. Firstly, confirmation bias causes people to cling even harder to false beliefs when facts contradict them. Secondly, studies show that right wingers lack the cognitive ability to recognise their own incompetence. Thirdly, that for people of low intelligence, emotive arguments have more impact that factual ones.

               Hence my question: “why are you people so easily lied to?”
               • blue leopard …

                 19 December 2012 at 2:36 pm

                 One Tane Viper
                 …it appears that you’ve answered your own question…and rather well, I might add!
       • McFliper 7.1.1.4

         18 December 2012 at 4:35 pm

         Folly
         5 A popular name for any costly structure considered to have shown folly in the builder

         Personally, arguing that some children shouldn’t exist seems to me to be pretty hateful. But whatever.
          
         • Daz 7.1.1.4.1

           18 December 2012 at 8:12 pm

           Well either you argue that some children shouldn’t exist or you end up here….
           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
           Think about it.
           • McFliper 7.1.1.4.1.1

             18 December 2012 at 9:44 pm

             Hmmm.
             A) other people’s children shouldn’t exist
             B) every sperm is sacred.
             C)?
             Think about it.
     • Polish Pride 7.1.2

       19 December 2012 at 3:19 pm

       Folly
       1 Lack of good sense; foolishness: “an act of sheer folly”.
       2 A foolish act, idea, or practice: “the follies of youth”.
       Having children when you can’t afford to provide for them fits with this quite well I think.
       My comment was made my tongue firmly in my cheek fwiw.
       I had thought that calling this place a hate blog was a bit of an exaggeration on whaleoils behalf but after the rather unpleasant and over the top responses I am starting to think that he may just be right (in terms of comments at least)

       IrishBill: if you don’t like it, don’t comment. The last thing we need here is another spineless rightie having a wee cry.

       Really!?! I would have thought that what would have been good is more considerate and intelligent minds that despite being from different positions on the political spectrum could add to intelligent debate and come up with solutions to fix the problems that we currently face…without flinging insults.
       I thought he was (arguably) doing exactly that.
       Or do you seriously believe that all will be fixed once Labour is back in power….
   • Schlurps McGoo 7.2

     18 December 2012 at 3:00 pm

     Disgusting comment. What moves you to type that shit?
8. vto 8

   18 December 2012 at 2:35 pm

   Didn’t the Nats come in on reducing taxes? And isn’t that what they did when they first got into power?

   So why are they putting the taxes up again? Are their policies failing again?
9. Bill 9

   18 December 2012 at 2:37 pm

   While acknowledging the hypocrisy of this government hiking taxes, I have to say I think that 3c is woefully inadequate. (That’s aside from the fact that the shit it’s going to fund is just plain wrong.) I’d far rather see ongoing $1 per liter increases channeled into a rapid development/expansion of non-petroleum public transport infrastructure.
10. vto 10

    18 December 2012 at 2:55 pm

    I am going to walk absolutely everywhere now. The government can go fuck itself.
    • burt 10.1

      18 December 2012 at 2:57 pm

      That will be until Labour introduce a bigger petrol tax then you will buy a V8 and be happy to pay the tax …. muppet.
    • alwyn 10.2

      18 December 2012 at 3:35 pm

      If nothing else this might help New Zealand’s obesity epidemic.
      Alright, only joking.
      • vto 10.2.1

        18 December 2012 at 3:43 pm

        hee hee, but it would. Plus it would mean less cars clogging up our streets.

        It seems these days that as soon as you step outside the gate in any larger urban place its just cars cars cars. Loud, stinky, noisy, dangerous and made of bone-crunching flesh-tearing metal.

        They dominate completely all of the streetscape. The streets have been around infinitely longer than bloody cars but here are the cars taking over. The streets are people and for pedestrians – the streets are places where people quietly make their way, stop to talk to others and pause for pipes. They are for pleasant community exchange and for passing quietly. They are not for every inch to be taken up for the sole purpose of people speeding by behind their dark screens and raised fingers. This most forgotten aspect of our streets is part of what leads to our more isolated society imo.

        The streets are made for walking.
        • indiana 10.2.1.1

          18 December 2012 at 3:56 pm

          What are footpaths for?
          • McFliper 10.2.1.1.1

            18 December 2012 at 4:01 pm

            parking on, cycling on, and long term storage of dogshit.
        • QoTViper 10.2.1.2

          18 December 2012 at 6:01 pm

          hee hee, but it would.

          No it wouldn’t, since “obese” people are on average just as “active” as “normal”-weight people.

          People are not lazier now than they were in previous times
          Seriously, they’re not
          Survey-based studies on activity levels are flawed
          Attempts to “cure” obesity through increased “activity” fail
          • higherstandard 10.2.1.2.1

            18 December 2012 at 8:28 pm

            Some informed opinion on the causes of increasing obesity in populations

            http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html
            http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes
            http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/5261735/Startling-rise-in-levels-of-obesity
    • David Viperious H 10.3

      18 December 2012 at 4:39 pm

      Buy a Pushbike, way easier on the feet lol. I did Sold the Car and bought a couple of pushbikes. mind you I live somewhere sane, Levin. Not Auckland or Wellington where riding bikes is more than a wee bit dangerous.
11. the pigman 11

    18 December 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Like GST, petrol is an area that affects those within all income brackets, especially commuters driving from increasingly far distances to work due to urban sprawl, unaffordable housing and less-than-mediocre public transport options.

    That is the principled reason for Labour opposing the hike. I thought that would be pretty obvious to people like burt, but apparently not.

    Then again, I suspect the attempt to reduce the debate to simple binaries of “National dislike tax, Labour love it, so why are they complaining?” is just tory spin designed to distract from the unprincipled nature of this tax hike.
12. indiana 12

    18 December 2012 at 3:54 pm

    This is a consumption tax – the more you buy , the more tax you pay. If you can manage your consumption, the tax increase will be marginal. At least with this tax hike, you get the revenue straight away unlike a CGT that takes 15 plus years to materialise.
    • Napkins 12.1

      18 December 2012 at 4:56 pm

      But consumption taxes are almost always regressive. They broadly and severely hit those on lower incomes who have to consume most of their income just in day to day living expenses.
      They broadly miss those whose income is so high that most of their income is saved or invested in property or shares, not spent on day to day consumption for survival.
    • Mike 12.2

      18 December 2012 at 11:58 pm

      FFS! How many times do people like yourself have to have explained to you why increasing consumption taxes on essentials is extremely unfair towards those on lower incomes who can least afford any tax increases?
13. vivaciousviper 13

    18 December 2012 at 4:08 pm

    It all represents what disastrous managers of the economy they are.
    Key can give $600 grand of tax payers money to the Hill golf classic,while cutting
    crucial social services, rape centres,budgeting advice centres and others.
    Key can give tax cuts to the top earners, so they can have more holidays and buy luxury
    boats,cars and property,the tax take shows the tax cuts are not filtering back into the
    economy, that plan failed.
    Key can give $14 billion to roads of ‘their national importance’ but can’t grasp that
    child poverty is real and needs attention,right now,not in 2-4yrs time.
    People needing food grants from winz have got to bare their souls and almost beg,while
    having to show and prove what they spend their yearly $10-$12 grand on,dispicable.
    How much tax payers money went to the yachting cup? a huge packet from memory.
    How much has been wasted on getting advice from Goldman Sach’s and others, the same
    crowd in charge of the partial sale of our assets,nz’s tax payer assets.
    If Key came here to wreck the nz economy,it’s obvious he is on the right track.
    Can nz afford another 2yrs of Keynesia,Blinglish?, absolutely,positively,not.
14. indiana 14

    18 December 2012 at 4:38 pm

    “How much tax payers money went to the yachting cup? a huge packet from memory.”

    Trevor will tell you that was one of his finest investments ever on behalf of all New Zealanders!
    • leftriteleft 14.1

      18 December 2012 at 4:47 pm

      I can see a TUI advt coming out before Xmas.
       
15. ColonialPete 15

    18 December 2012 at 5:05 pm

    This also happens shortly after the student loan repayment rate increases to 12% and the minimum Kiwisaver contribution goes up to 3%.
16. bad12 16

    18 December 2012 at 5:39 pm

    So, Slippery and His Minister of Finance think that ‘the books’ will be balanced in 2014/2015 by rack raising petrol taxes,

    English like Rowan Atkinson in Mister Bean has made an art form from out-right idiocy, in Atkinson’s case tho there is at times genuine humor in the practice of this art which sadly for English is entirely lacking,

    The Mister Bean of New Zealand having foisted a very sick and un-funny joke upon New Zealand, (along with His ‘National wont be raising GST mate Slippery),with tax cuts for those who least need them have now found that despite rack raising consumer taxes the hole in the Governments revenue stream steadfastly continues to grow,

    Mister Bean in His Bill English guise glibly told reporters today that ‘petrol taxes’ will fill this hole and give the Governments accounts a surplus by 2014/2015, having made the claim in all the previous years after the tax cuts fiasco English should not be believed and this consumption tax will simply do to the Government deficit what raising GST and other consumer tax rack raising’s like those upon tobacco products did,

    The plan is,with raising the petrol tax to gain through taxation another 500 million dollars for the Government, unfortunately while the mechanics of this can be demonstrated against current usage of the product being taxed as the un-thought of consequences of such taxation have obviously not been taken into account there is in fact no way that English will balance those books by such means,

    In simple terms, part of that expected taxation will not be collected as those with the least disposable income severely cut their use of the product,in this case petrol while further up the income ladder many will also cut their use of the product,

    As such taxation effects those with the least income the most, to in effect pay the tax via use of the product those with the least income MUST spend less in other areas of the economy, should the 40% on the lowest income continue to use the product at it’s present level of consumption then it is a ‘Given” that they must stop spending their share of that 500 million in extra taxation in other parts of the economy,

    Take as a given that should that 40% of taxation be accrued to the Government then the deflation of spending in the local economy from those who have little disposable income will amount to 200-250 million, the cost of this will tell in further job losses in the local economy where any gains from petrol taxation will be more than wiped out in less GST and taxes from profit, taxes on income and a further increase in unemployment numbers of an estimated 5000…
17. BM 17

    18 December 2012 at 6:14 pm

    More than happy to pay a bit of extra tax to sort out the roads.
    The savings in fossil fuels and the decrease in pollution well and truly offset the extra cost.
    • McFliper 17.1

      18 December 2012 at 6:26 pm

      Indeed. I’d just love it to be on the roads more travelled, not the roads less travelled. Truckies have the RUC to pay for their roads.
      • BM 17.1.1

        18 December 2012 at 6:36 pm

        In Hamilton they’re finally getting the ring road sorted, It will save an immense amount of time and save people heaps.You may not realise but the internal combustion engine is at it’s least efficient when idling, you want to keep people moving not stuck in traffic jams.
        Labour should be right behind this.
        • McFliper 17.1.1.1

          18 December 2012 at 9:41 pm

          Relevant to RoNS how?
        • gnomic 17.1.1.2

          18 December 2012 at 10:53 pm

          This is just so nonsensical it’s hard to know where to start. Would it not be true to say that the ring road was planned decades ago by local government, despite the efforts of the smirking weasel and the local deadbeat MPs to take the credit currently? And given that Hamilton’s traffic congestion problems are fairly trivial what is the return on investment? As for Labour, somewhat to their shame, they did throw large amounts of money into roading in the electoral auctions towards the end of their last term in office, in the futile quest for that ideal state where all happy motorists can drive everywhere at all times without having to wait. Now the weasel and cohorts are bribing local government to push the wondrous ring road through earlier than planned somewhat to the consternation of council planners, because it will stuff things up and result in (gasp!) congestion. But the current regime must hang on to those Hamilton seats at almost any cost. Hell, we’ll even spend money we haven’t got to that end.
    • felixviper 17.2

      18 December 2012 at 6:34 pm

      I imagine you’re also more than happy to pay a bit of extra tax to ensure that no-one in our society is hungry, homeless, or unable to get whatever help they need to be safe, warm and healthy.
      The savings in health and the decrease in crime well and truly offset the extra cost.
      • BM 17.2.1

        18 December 2012 at 6:38 pm

        No, I think our social welfare policy is generous enough as it is.
        • felixviper 17.2.1.1

          18 December 2012 at 6:45 pm

          Of course you do, the real problem facing our nation is that some of the roads aren’t quite wide enough.

          ps it’s not generosity. It’s not charity. There’s a price attached to having a fucking society that everyone can afford to live in.
          • BM 17.2.1.1.1

            18 December 2012 at 6:55 pm

            Get bennies out cleaning gullies ,planting up riparian strips, doing work that makes NZ a better place.Then I might be a bit more enthusiastic about increasing social welfare payments.Sitting on your chuff all day not so much.
            • Napkins 17.2.1.1.1.1

              18 December 2012 at 7:08 pm

              A few thousand new public works jobs then.
              • BM …

                18 December 2012 at 7:09 pm

                Nothing wrong with taskforce green.
                Get beneficiaries out working 2 days a week,they’ll feel better contributing to the country and tax payers won’t be so grizzly about paying tax towards social welfare.
                • vto …

                  18 December 2012 at 8:23 pm

                  I’ll be happy when the minimum wage pays enough for a man and his family to live on instead of the fucking less-than-it-cost-to-keep-a-slave wages paid now by a whole bunch of fucking arseholes in New Zealand who keep voting for the National party.
                  • BM …

                    18 December 2012 at 8:29 pm

                    Damn those National voting arseholes.
                    Damn their eyes,damn their britches
                    • gnomic …

                      18 December 2012 at 11:21 pm

                      Yes, well let’s look at the record.
                      Holland – nasty piece of work. Not exactly a democrat, and an enemy of the working class when there was still one in New Zealand.
                      Holyoake – pompous sounding but asleep at the wheel while the country was still on the sheep’s back. Slavish foreign policy.
                      Muldoon – why didn’t the party commit suicide in shame over that episode? Spineless worms. It took Bob Jones to get rid of NZ’s Mussolini. The bag of pus as I once heard Mallard call him in Parliament. Not in Hansard probably.
                      Bolger and the dynamic duo of Richardson and Shipley. The decent society. Yeah right. More hypocrisy from the party of hypocrisy. Aided and abetted by such would-be luminaries as Roger Kerr and Rod Deane.
                      And now the current crew, with focus group aid from the great Lord Ashcroft and Crosby Textor. Key, English, Joyce. Pass the sickbag. Key’s political hero Muldoon. Who knows what inspires the other two? The Pope? Greed and arrogance?
                • NoseViper (The Nose knows) …

                  18 December 2012 at 8:51 pm

                  Bm
                  Very sensible having pep jobs and task force green, some pollies turned up their noses at those programs because in their wisdom, doing manual work isn’t a ‘job’. Someone was going to set up first world tech jobs and we should all be ready for the cargo cult of prosperity that would come next year when the jobs landed.
                  But a more contentious employment and social support problem is that of the growing number of oldies who are still spritely and who should be required to put in time at something helpful for the country every year. Either some hours a week, or seasonal work they are still able to do or something.
                  It is a really bad outlook by supposed intelligent and mature people that they seize on every chirpy commentator with a social work diploma who insists that the country can afford to allow people the luxury of being paid welfare when they have stopped contributing to the community.

                  That’s not an example of a caring community, which provides mutual support. Yet the community is expected to pay for their medical bills so they can live longer, more to 100 years, something once very rare. And objectivity is required here. I am over 70 myself, and am well aware of the attitudes of the different social strata and age groups in Nz.
                • felixviper …

                  18 December 2012 at 11:01 pm

                  Now you’re talking BM. We’ll make a Green voter out of you yet.
            • Mike 17.2.1.1.1.2

              19 December 2012 at 12:05 am

              That would cost alot as you would have to pay them at least the minimum wage. I’m sure most on the unemployment benefit would be happy to do this. However the unemployment benefit is only a very small percentage of total welfare spend and the number of people on the unemployment benefit is only a small percentage of total persons receiving benefits. (Think working for families, state pension, etc)
              Closing tax loopholes and forcing corporations to pay their fair share of tax would be a much better way of increasing government revenue.
              • NoseViper (The Nose knows) …

                19 December 2012 at 1:03 pm

                Mike
                Which comment are you replying to?
        • vivaciousviper 17.2.1.2

          18 December 2012 at 7:10 pm

          BM, i hope that by any strange twist of fate, you dont have to survive on a benefit,
          could you manage on $12-$14 grand a year ?
          • BM 17.2.1.2.1

            18 December 2012 at 7:21 pm

            Done it before, takes a bit of effort but it’s doable.
            • Mike 17.2.1.2.1.1

              19 December 2012 at 12:06 am

              Bullshit.
18. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 18

    18 December 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Ken Shirley has just damned cross subsidisation of rail and said that roads are self-funded – Is that true? It’s all right with him about rise in petrol tax (I think diesel is going up too.)
    ( KS became chief executive of the Road Transport Forum when former National Party cabinet minister Tony Friedlander retires from the lobby group in July 2010.)

    Incidentally these notes on whos who by Frank Macskasy
    http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/ken-shirley/
19. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 19

    18 December 2012 at 6:28 pm

    Great shots of NZ past. Is it a test to see how many we can identify.
20. Craig Glen viper 20

    18 December 2012 at 7:18 pm

    To make matters worse MPs get a pay rise cos they are struggling you understand, and Teachers are being offered one percent. Hone says its not deserved but Shearer er arrgh its not up to me to say what I should get paid! What a bloody joke he is, this clown has to go.
21. Tiresias 21

    18 December 2012 at 7:41 pm

    I heard Bill English on “PM” explaining that the fuel-tax increase was a result of the Government not been afraid to take the tough decisions to balance the books even with a fall in tax income resulting from a fading economy, and the vacant Mary Wilson failing to point out that it would not have been necessary had National not cut taxes for the wealthy – and themselves – almost as the first thing on getting the Treasury benches.

    Cut taxes for the wealthy and recover it from everyone. Sounds like socialism to me.
    • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 21.1

      18 December 2012 at 8:36 pm

      Tiresias
      Give Mary Wilson a break. She’s quite an attack dog. She may already have covered the bit about tax cuts for the wealthy, she wants to hear what Blenglish has to say now.
22. tsmithfield 22

    19 December 2012 at 5:02 am

    So if petrol taxes to pay for roads is so bad, why has Labour been so keen on them?
    • bad12 22.1

      19 December 2012 at 7:00 am

      The rack raising of petrol taxes as announced yesterday isn’t tho specifically to pay for roading, as English says,”they will help the Government get back into surplus by 2014/2015”, unquote,

      It won’t of course, close the gaping hole that has been apparent in the Governments revenue from taxation since the GST raise/tax cuts for the wealthy stupidity of 2008/2009 that is,

      It’s a consumer tax, as such there is going to be a drop in consumption of the product as people stop making use of their cars as a tool for pleasure across the spectrum of those who the Government intends to collect these extra taxes from,

      Of course there will be no choice in this for the bottom 40% of income earners, having no discretionary income that 40% of consumers should they keep to their current usage of petrol products will have to stop spending in other areas of the economy by the amount of that taxation,

      Should this occur,and, it’s a given that it will or the Government will not be collecting as much extra taxation from petrol products as it calculates, then, while collecting the extra in petrol taxes the Government will lose the taxation from that bottom 40% of income earners having prior to the raising of the tax on petrol products spent that money elsewhere in the economy,

      There is a further price to pay for the Government inherent in having that bottom 40% of income earners shift spending from elsewhere in the economy to pay for the raised petrol taxes in that it then becomes a given that 200-250 million dollars annualy WILL NOT be spent into the local economy but instead will become a direct transfer to the Government,

      For the Government, this redirection of that 200-250 million dollars away from the local economy will directly result in a lowering of the tax income through less GST, less tax on profits, higher unemployment, so less PAYE collected and more dole payments to make,

      Don’t be surprised that as a result of this tax alone a conservative estimate of the unemployment generated in an already fragile economy will be 5000 and 18 months to 2 years from now the hole in the Governments revenue from taxation will not have closed but instead doubled…
23. Rich 23

    19 December 2012 at 9:31 am

    Here in Wellington, I’d like to know why Labour and our allegedly “Green” mayor are still supporting various tunnel/flyover schemes at the Basin Reserve. Traffic’s falling, it’s never taken me more than 5 minutes to get through the tunnel/basin area and in any case Wellington has one of the quickest city/airport journey times in the world.
    • bad12 23.1

      19 December 2012 at 11:18 am

      The powerful elite have a requirement that just in case they f**k the economy and country bad enough to get the peasants coming looking for them with a rope, that the trip from the Parliament to the airport takes no more than 5 minutes at any given time…
      • Polish Pride 23.1.1

        19 December 2012 at 1:12 pm

        Brilliant 🙂
        • blue leopard 23.1.1.1

          19 December 2012 at 1:22 pm

          Nice to see you again Polish Pride
          • Polish Pride 23.1.1.1.1

            19 December 2012 at 3:05 pm

            Thanks 🙂

Links to post

1. Turei: Green Party retrospective « The Standard: posted on 19 December 2012 at 11:28 am
2. Brownlee’s latest emission « Cut Your Hair: posted on 21 December 2012 at 2:07 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS