web analytics

Open mike 29/06/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 29th, 2025 - 18 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 …

18 comments on “Open mike 29/06/2025 ”

  1. Todays Posts 1
    29 June 2025 at 6:00 am

    Today's Posts (updated through the day):

    A different way of doing politics

    Reply
    • PsyclingLeft.Always 2.1
      29 June 2025 at 8:21 am

      From your link….

      "It's really important because all us older guys, our bodies are worn out,"

      I'm not a Builder….but been Builders labourer (harder work?), Construction, incl Highways drove loaders etc (but also a lot of manual dig/shovel), some Forestry..etc etc.

      In the day, 10..sometimes more hours a day.

      I can absolutely back (ha) that guys statement.

      Office workers wouldn't know. Esp the type who are pushing any age increase !

      The French seemed to react a tad. I suppose they have some history : )

      And I know you have the hard Ag work.Done some so know what that is!

      Reply
    • SPC 2.2
      29 June 2025 at 12:29 pm

      One answer is to pay JSB at the super rate from age 60 (this should have been done with the lifting in age back in the 19990's).

      Reply
    • Kay 2.3
      29 June 2025 at 1:27 pm

      Agree, but nor should we consign to poverty, people who were born with, or developed later, failing bodies that ACC don't want to know about. Why should the person confined to a wheelchair from an accident be allowed more resources than one confined by MS?

      We very much have a 3 tier health system system in this country- Rich/private insurance, ACC, everyone else.

      And a 4 tier society in general- the Rich and on the housing ladder (homeowners) average income, minimum wage, beneficiaries (renters).

      Reply
  3. Dennis Frank 3
    29 June 2025 at 8:34 am

    Bomber sees hope for the left here: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2025/06/28/zohran-mamdanis-socialism-finally-provides-the-left-some-hope/

    focused on inequality and promised radical moves on rent, the price of food and free public transport

    So the formula is inequality plus a radical move triad. Those 4 elements compose a tetrad, which grounds ecosystemic relations in operating context. As such, it utilizes Deep Green conceptual terrain. Zohran, therefore, is likely to constellate solid common ground with his schema. His only problem is cut-through, since historical baggage works as effectively as concrete in the brains of too many other leftists.

    The good news is that any mental fixation is inherently susceptible to the right catalyst, so social darwinism in the group mind works via triggers, tipping points and shifting influences, as delineated in the science of complexity. In this way science informs progressive political activists how to proceed as change-makers…

    Reply
    • lprent 3.1
      30 June 2025 at 1:34 am

      Generally I use Bomber enthusiasms as a guide towards what is likely to be not be electable in a general voting population. Probably because I don't think that he has ever done a lot of the hard mechanics yakka that goes into producing winning elections years after year – like dealing with the data.

      What was interesting in the NY democratic primary was the turnout. In 2021 the election turnout was low.

      New York City has a vibrant civic life. But voter turnout in New York City elections is abysmal. In 2021, just 23% of registered voters participated in the general election, even though every local elected official, including the Mayor, was on the ballot.1 Indeed, while the city has over 4.7 million active registered voters, only around 1 million of them voted in the 2021 mayoral election.2

      While many New Yorkers are registered to vote, few consistently turn out.6 Turnout is particularly low among young people.7 In the 2021 mayoral elections, turnout among eligible voters was lowest for the 18-29 age group and was only above 30% for individuals 60-69 and 70-79.8

      Given that context, the primary turnout was impressive but actually not a major jump.

      This democratic primary got nearly as many people turning out for the actual election as in 2021, but so did the primary vote in 2021. But it is important to realise in New York, democratic primaries get almost as many voters as the election vote.

      The first (and probably only) democratic primary round for the 2025 mayoralty was about 993k votes (93% at 2025-06-28). But it was about 940k in the first round in 2021, and 1250k in the second. So the overall increase in numbers wasn't that high – it will be about between 5 and 6% over the previous election first round voting under the same rules in the final count. Currently 5.6% increase.

      In the end what counts isn't the primary turnouts to get a party candidate, it is the actual election turnout

      However there were other factors..

      • The primary in 2021 only had three candidates up possible for the second round round. In 2021 there were five. Which indicates a wider spread, which is what you see when you bore down to the actual voting numbers.
      • The 2021 democratic primary was done with the background of an ongoing covid-19 epidemic. That tended to suppress turnouts in the US elections during and after 2020.
      • This time the number of early votes and mailed in votes increased substantially. Anyone who has done elections can tell you that increases in early voting and having an option for mailed votes will usually increase actual turnout. Certainly does in NZ.
        "384,251 people voted early in the primary, more than double the turnout of 2021.[267] As of June 20, there are 45,597 scanned, valid mail-in ballots.[268]"

      What was interesting were the tactics. It pretty much wound up as a big budget TV + media vs small budget social media and local organisation. The numbers show a bit more interest in an election amongst disengaged voters – but probably not going to move that turnout.

      Which is kind of what I'd expect, Who in the hell watches free-to-air TV or any broadcast or broadsheet advertising these days? Not me and I'm in my mid-60s. Not my younger relatives in their 20s and 30s. Like them, I'll put up with ignoring some non-intrusive ads on websites and social media, but will block anything that gets between me and what I am reading. Advertising is drifting to influencers and repeat shock message bots these days (and the latter are starting to lose against blockers).

      For instant nostalgia of watching advertisements in broadcast media or actual ppaper newspapers, I go and see my dad or other elderly relatives in their late 70s or 80s.

      Reply
  4. KJT 4
    29 June 2025 at 9:11 am

    https://substack.com/@susanstjohn2/note/c-128141183?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=ryrbu

    Imagine how severe this slump would be if NZ Super was not there keeping up the spending in the economy. NZS is a really good fiscal cushion that does its job, other fiscal cushions such as Working for families and the benefit system do not work nearly as well and we see that so many now are needing to cash in their KiwiSaver to stay afloat

    Anyone enthusiastic about reducing super in any way, should be aware of the detrimental fiscal and social results.

    Reply
    • PsyclingLeft.Always 4.1
      29 June 2025 at 9:25 am

      Not sure where you are aiming "Anyone enthusiastic about reducing super in any way" ?

      I give a fuck about the "detrimental fiscal and social results" effects on those on earning/being paid $100K , $200 K and getting Super.

      I do give a fuck about the rest of us.

      Theres some Class War for you….

      Reply
      • Phillip ure 4.1.1
        29 June 2025 at 10:25 am

        Wot p.l.a. said…

        Reply
      • KJT 4.1.2
        29 June 2025 at 3:24 pm

        I care about the fiscal and social results of those earning 200k saying "i'm not getting it so we may as well remove it altogether". The same principle as those using private schooling advocate for tax reductions for themselves, instead of good state schools. The only reason why super hasn't been "gone by lunchtime" is that wealthy people like the extra bit of pocket money.

        I care about the many communities in New Zealand, who survive on people spending their super. Even if it is the wealthy spending "pocket money"! We saw what happens in Kaitia and other communities when Government transfers are reduced, during Richardsons reign of terror, and again with her clone, Nicky no boats.

        Also it pisses me off that wealthy people who have kept their taxable income below 11k all their lives, will still get super, while a tradesperson, technician, Teacher or nurse, who has managed to scrape together some retirement savings, while paying PAYE and GST all their lives, will be means tested as in Oz.

        This is as true as when another right wing Government decided to have a go at social wages.

        Kwisaver is privatisation of super. We all know how well that works.

        KJT. Random musings on all sorts of things.: On New Zealand's Retirement Income. Pension.

        Since the 70's they have been constant in the meme that we cannot afford super. A meme that has been driven entirely by the self interest of those, who are too wealthy to need super and too mean to pay taxes, and a greedy finance industry.

        Unfortunately, it is true, that if you repeat bullshit often enough, even those who should know better come to believe it.

        We cannot afford super is code for, "we should leave our elderly to beg on the streets". So that wealthy people can pay less tax and the finance industry can again lose our savings for us.

        In fact the idea that State super is unaffordable is crap from the same people that cry TINA and reckon that all social insurance is unaffordable.

        If they win with super, they will just start on other social wages.

        In reality it is much more affordable than the finance company bailouts, which would be necessary with private super.

        No Right Turn: What superannuation crisis?

        So, in 2050, we're projected to be paying only 1% of GDP more in superannuation than we were paying in 1990. Quelle horreur! This is not a difference to be terrified of, and it is easily manageable with a modest increase in taxation, either now or in the future (though that perhaps is exactly what those pushing for change are frightened of: higher taxes).

        In general the costs of super, health care, welfare and the rest can be covered by higher marginal tax rates, and by joining the rest of the world, except the USA, by taxing non wage gains. The Greens are showing how!

        Reply
        • PsyclingLeft.Always 4.1.2.1
          29 June 2025 at 4:00 pm

          Well we maybe gonna disagree on the trickledown effect of their charitable pocket money spendups. Personally….I think its fuck all locally.

          The only reason why super hasn't been "gone by lunchtime" is that wealthy people like the extra bit of pocket money.

          Even if it is the wealthy spending "pocket money"!

          I would agree the Greens are most forward looking and thinking. My moneys on them : )

          Reply
        • SPC 4.1.2.2
          29 June 2025 at 4:19 pm

          The USA has a CGT (low rate 15%).

          There is also a federal estate tax – it applies over $13M (Trump doubled it from 5 to 10M in 2018). Progresses from 18 to 40%.

          Thus they have gift duty.

          Reply
    • SPC 4.2
      29 June 2025 at 12:31 pm

      The consequence of paying a $Bpa to those earning over $100,000 pa from work income on our health care system is?

      Reply
  5. Dennis Frank 5
    29 June 2025 at 10:28 am

    Foreign relations tuition class in Wellington delivered by a bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals from Oz: https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/06/27/a-view-of-the-world-from-across-the-ditch/

    Speaking at an event hosted by Victoria University of Wellington’s Centre for Strategic Studies this week, a range of Australian experts laid out their view of the foreign policy challenges across the Tasman.

    Mike Hughes, the director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s defence strategy programme and a former national security official, said the current international environment posed challenges for Australia not seen since the end of World War II… the country had undergone “a 180-degree turn” on its China policy starting in late 2015, before which it had viewed the Asian nation’s increased assertiveness as natural for a rising power.

    “That assessment changed from a relatively benign interpretation to one that [said] actually no, what we see is deliberate, it is malign, and it is all about changing the current international system – the one that we benefit from – into what we used to call a Sinocentric product.”

    In consumer society one must sell a product. It may not be a good idea to see the product as a Bad Thing. China has never had an overseas empire and there seems no evidence it wants one. Could be they are merely intent on providing an alternative world policeman to the USA, huh? A balance of power, as it were…

    Reply
  6. SPC 6
    29 June 2025 at 12:48 pm

    The founder of Mainfreight supports a wealth tax.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/527411/billionaire-mainfreight-co-founder-bruce-plested-backs-wealth-tax-with-a-catch

    Treasury dissed the need for rail enabled ferries. Mainfreight said they were wrong.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018957194/mainfreight-makes-the-case-for-rail-enabled-ferries

    And the single girl said to the single boy, have you read the book on vulture capitalism?

    It is about how the failure of business is an opportunity to make money buying stuff cheap at the bottom of the market.

    Like health debt in America.

    Reply
  7. joe90 7
    29 June 2025 at 6:46 pm

    Rimmer's $6k won't go far.

    With all the understandable focus on Congressional Republicans efforts to effectively end Medicaid coverage for nearly 21 million Americans enrolled via ACA expansion, there's been much less attention paid to the other looming threat to healthcare coverage: The expiration of the upgraded financial subsidies for ~24.2 million ACA exchange enrollees, which are currently scheduled to end this New Year's Eve.

    […]

    A major project of mine in recent months was to create state-by-state examples of what the real-world impact of these rate hikes will be for various households in every state at different income levels. For example, in my home state of Michigan:

    • A single 50-yr old would see his net premiums jump by as much as 196%
    • A single parent earning $30,000/year would go from paying nothing to $87/month…technically an infinite increase.
    • A family of four earning $60,000/year would see their premiums jump from $84/month to $270/month…more than triple their 2025 premiums.
    • A 64-yr old couple earning $90,000/yr would have to shell out over $20,000 MORE per year for the same coverage. In fact, their monthly premium would nearly quadruple to $2,380/month.

    https://acasignups.net/25/06/28/state-state-46-million-americans-whose-healthcare-threatened-gops-budget-bill

    Reply

Leave a Comment