web analytics

Open mike 24/05/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 24th, 2025 - 43 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

43 comments on “Open mike 24/05/2025 ”

  1. Todays Posts 1
    24 May 2025 at 6:00 am

    Today's Posts (updated through the day):

    Reply
  2. SPC 2
    24 May 2025 at 6:56 am

    Should the government be running the country like a farmer, or a landlord?

    In good years for farmers there is a profit and debt is paid down. In other years the bank pay his farm manager income. Nicola Willis says, as a disciple of the farmer (a literature student who got a job at Treasury to be their bard of words, narratives to explain numbers to people) Bill English, she does this too.

    Bill said NZSF was wrong, it was better to pay down debt. The NZSF grew at a much higher rate than debt cost and there is the magic of compound interest.

    Einstein

    “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it…he who doesn't……pays it.

    Wealth Funds are good.

    Thus there is the Minister of Finance who runs it like a landlord. If the assets are growing in value, more money can be borrowed. This is the difference between economics and accounting a household budget. The issue then becomes the quality of the spending, it can create new assets.

    The accountant says higher wages is a cost, the economist says there is no closed market and suppressing wages locally loses workers to another economy. Loss of skilled workers has an impact on the provision of services to those of the society, which is part of government's economy. The government gets tax revenues off PAYE and more GST revenue off higher wages.

    Not just women of Fonterra who have worked in the office of Bill English ruminate about the cost of big toys in the local sea or oceans further away, higher pay for women and whether investment in the chattels of the business is a good idea.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360699486/verity-johnson-running-country-household-political-con

    Reply
    • Ad 2.1
      24 May 2025 at 8:52 am

      If NZ households ran their budgets like the government, our average household debt would be a fifth of what it is.

      And most households don't have so much as $1,000 for emergencies.

      Reply
  3. Bearded Git 3
    24 May 2025 at 8:29 am

    Plaudits for The Guardian today where it supports a WEALTH TAX in its leader.

    "There needs to be a break with the current model. Politicians could, as a start, take up Tax Justice UK’s idea for a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10m. Campaigners say this would raise £24bn annually – enough to begin repairing broken Britain. Oxfam says 78% of the public would support such a progressive levy.

    Yet such proposals are still framed as radical. What’s radical is that monopoly profits end up in private hands while the state can’t fund public services. It is inescapably true that the rules have been written to benefit a tiny elite. They can be rewritten. If not, then the cost to society risks being paid in populist anger, democratic decay and a long-term loss of trust."

    Hipkins take note.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/23/the-guardian-view-on-billionaire-britain-tax-wealth-fairly-or-face-democratic-unravelling

    Reply
    • Ad 3.1
      24 May 2025 at 8:55 am

      I'd rather means test NZSuper for 65-75.

      It's old people hoovering up the tax we need focus on, not more taxes.

      Reply
      • bwaghorn 3.1.1
        24 May 2025 at 9:14 am

        Also in work plus 65 ers getting the pension, got 2 at my job 7 years of pension while on a wage so far.

        Reply
        • Ad 3.1.1.1
          24 May 2025 at 9:18 am

          I hope they love their job. Truly I do.

          I'm betting there's a few working to support grandchildren they are having to raise.

          I sure hope not to have to work beyond early 60s.

          Reply
          • bwaghorn 3.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2025 at 9:36 am

            Fear of sitting down and dying in one's case!!! I'm OK with them still working but they shouldn't be getting a pension,

            Reply
            • gsays 3.1.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2025 at 10:33 am

              The fear of sitting down and dying is real because it is seen so often.

              My plan, such as it is, is hobbies and volunteering.

              I've tried a few and discarded some.

              So far what has stuck is brewing cider and mead (way less involved than all grain beer plus I have a mate that does it real well), low and slow BBQ/smoking. Pulled pork, ribs and beef brisket… And making pyrotechnics mainly Catherine Wheels and ground effects.

              All three learnt of You Tube.

              Beekeeping club always wants help and so does local scouts/guides, cubs/brownies troop.

              Reply
          • Visubversa 3.1.1.1.2
            24 May 2025 at 11:05 am

            And I bet a lot of them are women who after years of unequal wages, discrimination, underpayment, time out of the workforce to raise children, possible family separation etc cannot afford to live only on the pension and have to work as long as they can in order to have a reasonable standard of living in their old age.

            Reply
            • SPC 3.1.1.1.2.1
              24 May 2025 at 5:34 pm

              There are two categories, those who do not own housing and those who do, but have no savings.

              I was in correspondence with Anne Hercus in 1983, aware of their plan for surtax. I suggested only paying super to those without FT income from jobs, she preferred a surtax, because there were people yet to pay off their mortgages at 60 (wages and super would sort that out more quickly).

              Then and now, an option for single women was to buy a property together.

              Another option is for the state to provide a group of women (Golden Girls) a house at income related rent. Someone with a car, someone with cooking ability, someone with fitness gardening/housework and someone who needs support/care.

              Reply
              • alwyn …
                24 May 2025 at 7:05 pm

                "for single women" and "group of women".

                Why are you in favour of discrimination against single men?

                Reply
                • SPC …
                  24 May 2025 at 8:21 pm

                  Why do you raise that question given the post I was replying to?

                  It raises the question whether there is an obsession with identity politics kulturekampf (anti DEI) – this is an unwelcome cultural import from the continent now the most likely to fall to fascist hegemony (all while the wealthy elite become an oligarchy technocracy).

                  We need better border security from that infestation.

                  It is no surprise that those of privilege are resistant to the idea of there being more society equity.

                  Do you post here to support anyone getting more help because of need?

                  Reply
                  • alwyn …
                    24 May 2025 at 8:43 pm

                    You are replying to a comment. The post is Open Mike.

                    The single women, or more accurately the never-married women I know are generally better of in retirement that the never married men. These men would seem to me to be at least as much in need as the single women.

                    I am only to happy comment here on providing support on the basis of people's need. I have never posted here though. What I object to is support based on sex, or race.

                    Reply
                    • SPC …
                      24 May 2025 at 9:01 pm

                      The post was about the position of women in old age (without home ownership and why) and their needs.

                      Yeah we know you oppose support based on race or sex, but when do you post to support to those in need?

                      Can you cite any post of yours on this site, Open Mike or otherwise, about the need to better support anyone?

                      Your anecdotal observation about a subset of single women in old age, never married women* is noted. But irrelevant to the post I replied to 3.1.1.1.2.

                      So if you support more aid to single aged men who do not own their own housing, have you ever considered what policy should exist to support them (and aged single women in the same category)? If so what is it and does the party you vote for been informed of this advocacy?

                      PS are you trying to gaslight someone* on this site, because of their support for other aged women in a worse position?

              • weka …
                24 May 2025 at 8:43 pm

                It’s not very easy for single women to buy land together, although easier now that banks are lending to people who aren’t married. Lots of barriers.

                Reply
      • Bearded Git 3.1.2
        24 May 2025 at 10:15 am

        They are not mutually exclusive.

        Reply
      • SPC 3.1.3
        24 May 2025 at 5:57 pm

        Labour applied a surtax in 1984 (tax on savings and or work income), there was no means test (assessment of asset wealth or need to pay rent/mortgage etc).

        This was supplanted in the 1990's by National's increase in age from 60-65 (people unemployed 60-65 in the 1990's in real poverty) and Shipley reducing super below the guaranteed level.

        There has not been a means test in recent memory (universal super at age 60 in the 1970's).

        I know of no other left wing party in the OECD but New Zealand Labour that could accept the tax structure we have here. We did 1999-2008 (sans estate tax in 1993) and 2017-2023 (sans gift duty 2013) with only an increase in term for Keys bright-line test and the reduction in landlord claim for a mortgage cost deduction against rent income).

        Even the IMF thinks we need more tax on CG/wealth.

        Reply
      • Phillip ure 3.1.4
        25 May 2025 at 6:10 pm

        @ ad..

        Do both….

        Reply
    • mikesh 3.2
      24 May 2025 at 11:21 am

      I think Britain already has capital gains tax so if a wealth tax were to be levied capital gain should be deducted since it would already have been taxed, and capital gain is a part of wealth. That might leave less wealth available to be taxed.

      Reply
      • SPC 3.2.1
        24 May 2025 at 5:19 pm

        A CGT is a tax on realised income. Just as PAYE.

        Where there is an estate tax, a wealth tax could be seen as a down payment on that future liability. After paying wealth tax for years, there would be simply a balance left to pay.

        Reply
    • SPC 3.3
      24 May 2025 at 5:15 pm

      The UK and Ireland have stamp duty, CGT, gift duty and estate tax. Under Tory and Labour governments.

      And 78% support a wealth tax to remove the need for austerity.

      Also their home ownership rates are higher than ours now.

      They have better solidarity than we do.

      Here, even Labour is passive on taxation on wealth and privilege of any form. It was left to Key to bring in the bright-line test (National ended the estate tax in 1993 and gift duty c2012-2013).

      Reply
  4. Kay 4
    24 May 2025 at 8:33 am

    Many of the people affected by this government's actions had made to choice not to vote, or made a non informed vote against their own interests.

    As I have been saying since the last election, I just can't have sympathy for them, much as I'd like to, because it's more than likely their votes would've altered the results and the rest of us wouldn't be suffering now.

    But we can't change the past, so looking to the future, is it possible to convince- in 18 months- 1/4 of voters to actually vote?

    https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/historical-events/2023-general-election/voter-turnout-statistics/

    Reply
    • Ad 4.1
      24 May 2025 at 8:57 am

      You participate if you're going to get something out of it.

      I wouldn't blame people earning under $50,000 which is most Kiwis.

      Reply
    • SPC 4.2
      24 May 2025 at 5:37 pm

      They should vote to support those who want a stamp duty (5% on property over $2M) and a 1% surcharge on landlord mortgages.

      And for those who want a CGT and wealth/estate tax/gift duty.

      And for a party with policy for Fair Pay Agreements and pay equity.

      That is for a society that has better public health services, more income related housing, more support for those on low incomes and more home ownership.

      Reply
  5. gsays 5
    24 May 2025 at 10:37 am

    Just in case anyone is wondering what the fallout was from the horror that was pasteurising over carbonated cyzer…

    Put the rest of the bottles outside to chill down overnight then with a 1.5mm drill, put holes in the caps to 'release' pressure, removed crown caps, topped back up and resealed.

    Will let them warm gently in the sun today and pasteurise this arvo/evening.

    Reply
    • alwyn 5.1
      24 May 2025 at 7:10 pm

      "outside to chill down overnight".

      For some reason I thought that you lived in the deep South. I would have thought that the bottles would have frozen and that you would have even more of a mess.

      Perhaps I am confusing you with another commenter.

      Reply
    • Ad 5.2
      24 May 2025 at 7:43 pm

      That's a mighty save GSAYS

      Reply
      • gsays 5.2.1
        26 May 2025 at 7:43 pm

        That's the thing, there is so much mahi that goes into a bottle. Washing, crushing, pressing, fermenting then the biggest pain, bottling.

        Reply
  6. SPC 6
    24 May 2025 at 9:18 pm

    The government developed the Kiwisaver policy knowing these things

    1.They would reduce government cost

    2.They could claim that there would be more in peoples Kiwisaver accounts

    3.This would only be true for those who could afford the 4% contributions.

    4.Because of the 4% contributions, employers would pay less in wages (Treasury told them this).

    That could have consequences for their ability to sustain 4% contributions.

    5.Those making only 3% contributions would also be impacted by lower wage increases (as per collective agreements, same pay for same work).

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360700690/government-warned-kiwisaver-changes-could-result-lower-pay-rises

    Reply

Leave a Comment