Roads not health

98 comments on “Roads not health ”

• Comments are now closed

1. keepcalmcarryon 1

   9 March 2017 at 9:41 am

   To be fair the highway is in Auckland and saves af a few minutes for holiday makers, for those wealthy enough to get holidays.
   You didnt think this government gave a toss about the rest of the country did you?
   • Tamati Tautuhi 1.1

     9 March 2017 at 8:52 pm

     7 minutes it will save in travelling time between Warkworth and Wellsford, has to be some huge economic advantages there?
     • keepcalmcarryon 1.1.1

       9 March 2017 at 11:29 pm

       Yep at the same time we have : “Westport North School roll drops by 30 per cent”
       “Greymouth Credit Union to close, alongside other South Island branches”
2. Ad 2

   9 March 2017 at 9:59 am

   It’s fair as a political comparison, but it doesn’t work as a funding for getting it done comparison. Roads have their own funding sources, but health has to slug it out at budget time with jails, schools, and Police.
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   9 March 2017 at 10:20 am

   Our government has its priorities all screwed up.

   Our governments priorities are to funnel taxpayer money to private contractors so that they can make a government guaranteed super-profit.

   And, yes, that’s screwed up.
   • ropata 3.1

     9 March 2017 at 1:47 pm

     Yep. NZ is now 47% foreign owned. Private capital = rent seeking greed

     Some $16.3 billion in profits and investment income left this country in the year to March 2016, and Dr Rosenberg said over the past decade this had averaged more than the combined dairy and forest product exports.

     More than $2 out of every $5 – $6.8bn – went to the mainly Australian owners of New Zealand’s banks.

     In terms of wealth such as housing, land and financial assets, foreign investors owned 28 percent, or $386bn, of the $1.4 trillion of wealth in New Zealand at March 2016, similar to the previous year.

     Foreign ownership nears 50% https://t.co/JqcAHClBR4— Robert James Stewart (@RobJStewartNZ) March 8, 2017
     • keepcalmcarryon 3.1.1

       9 March 2017 at 11:34 pm

       Good grief thats sobering.
4. saveNZ 4

   9 March 2017 at 11:04 am

   Has any of the other parties got any estimates for costs and timeframes to get rail up to Northland?

   We don’t need more roads, we need reliable, affordable rail options to get people off the roads! And then we need cheap and affordable electric car transport hire fielding people off the rail to their destinations.

   We have the dimwits that harp on about increasing our population, but since it seems to take years and years and billions of dollars to add a few motorway lanes which doesn’t even cover the amount of people already come into the country, let alone allow for the 15 million they are hoping to squeeze in and presumably pay for the health of another 11 million people.

   Looks fine on paper if you are a dimwit, and you realise everything in this country is now grinding to a halt due to 8 years of disastrous National party decisions.
5. Wayne 5

   9 March 2017 at 11:34 am

   We do need the 4 lane road to Wellsford, but especially to Warkworth.

   It is not about holidays, but actually the way people Albany to Warkworth now live and work. The overall population growth in this area over the next twenty years will be very large. Only dimwits would ignore it. Politicians who decide to ignore this will pay an electoral price.

   Rail can’t possibly substitute for the road. It is is just way too limited compared to the flexibility of road travel. so even if the rail north is improved it is not a substitute

   The funding point is essential. There would be real anger if the road tax was used for general expenditure.

   Also Winston, if he holds the balance of power, will insist on the whole project being finished. In fact he will probably demand 4 lanning at least through to Marsden Point!

   In terms of how terrible National is, you have to explain why this terrible govt has managed one of best performing economies in the OECD. While there are always going to be criticisms of govt performance, to grossly exaggerate runs the risk of losing credibility. That is why Andrew Little does not go completely over the top with his criticism. He knows it would make him look like a fool.
   • Andre 5.1

     9 March 2017 at 11:56 am

     “We do need the 4 lane road to Wellsford, but especially to Warkworth.”

     Utter crap.

     I use this road regularly. While it does need improvements, volumes are nowhere near needing a brand-new 4-lane autobahn the Germans would be proud of. Even if the traffic growth of the last 17 years continues on the same trajectory, it would still be many many years before four lanes each way would be needed.

     There is a choke point at the Hill Rd intersection in Warkworth. So OK, a four lane bypass around Warkworth is justified. There is a minor chokepoint at the Pohuehue viaduct for southbound traffic. Double up the viaduct so there’s a continuous passing lane up the hill and that chokepoint is gone. There is a safety issue at Schedewy’s hill. So put in tunnels or a cutting to eliminate the dangerous corners and fourlane it there while you’re at it.

     A fiscally prudent government could thereby eliminate the current problems (and reasonably foreseeable ones for a long time into the future) for a third the cost of the all new motorway, allowing an earlier start on tackling the problems at Dome Valley and a bypass around Wellsford.

     And if the traffic volumes on the Puhoi-Warkworth stretch ever get high enough to justify four-laning it all, upgrading the rest of the road would be easy along it’s current route.

     But no, this current bunch of lemons in the Beehive is determined to throw money at expensive consultants and contractors for an un-needed all shiny new autobahn.
     • Ad 5.1.1

       9 March 2017 at 12:02 pm

       Auckland Council yesterday confirmed the switch of priority of their growth areas to include Warkworth as an accelerated programme, and putting for example the SH16 centres like Kumeu further back in the growth programme.

       (It was detailed in the NZHerald, but you can get the Committee papers on the Auckland Council website.)

       This will mean massive local transport investment required, as well as water and wastewater. This will further spread growth for the broader mid-north area. It makes a lot of sense for the NZTA roads and the AC/AT roads to tie in both timing and design function.

       I don’t like motorways or expressways either, but if they really are going to triple the size of Warkworth inside a decade, the faster main arterial linkages make sense.
       • Andre 5.1.1.1

         9 March 2017 at 12:10 pm

         Which came first, the commitment to the very expensive un-needed road to Warkworth, or the Auckland Council decision to put a lot more traffic onto that future road?

         nb: my personal financial interests will have suddenly significantly improved if there is to be increased development around Warkworth.
         • Ad 5.1.1.1.1

           9 March 2017 at 1:25 pm

           The urban and suburban growth in that area and Matakana-Leigh (most of which is in the Kaipara District are) had been accelerating for a while.

           The debate about Puhoi-Warkworth and its timing started in the first term of this current government.

           Either way I’m not sure it matters now. Both the accelerated growth for housing, and the motorway, and the arterial roads and other civic investments, are all happening and are not going to be unwound.
           • Andre 5.1.1.1.1.1

             9 March 2017 at 2:28 pm

             My contacts in the civil consultancy business were muttering about Puhoi-Warkworth-Wellsford routes in the early noughties, in the context of it being a road planner’s wet dream.

             But I didn’t start hearing about any serious planning for substantial residential growth in Warkworth and environs until quite recently, after the commitment to the Puhoi-Warkworth motorway. However, I don’t have contacts deep in that kind of planning field.

             But yeah, you’re right, it’s happening and the correct battle to fight is the next one not old ones. I just can’t help myself getting wound up about that particular kind of waste from a government that wanks on about their claimed “fiscal prudence”.
       • saveNZ 5.1.1.2

         9 March 2017 at 12:13 pm

         massive local transport investment required, as well as water and wastewater.

         Umm many of us living in Auckland have supposedly been paying for this for years. Then we find out nothing meaningful has been done, it’s all paper work and reports and glossy pamphlets.

         Billions being wasted and Auckland council in cahoots with the Government do not care about it and actively cover it up and minimise it.

         The COO’s have been a disaster. Having councils run as businesses are a disaster. Neoliberalism has been a disaster. National has been a disaster.
     • Red 5.1.2

       9 March 2017 at 4:25 pm

       Thanks Mr Road engineer and transport planner, how was your brilliance missed
       • Andre 5.1.2.1

         9 March 2017 at 4:48 pm

         The way I hear it told, it was a political decision made without regard to the evidence or merits.
         • Red 5.1.2.1.1

           9 March 2017 at 5:14 pm

           Ok then must be khosher as you heard from friend who heard from a friend thus irrefutable evidence
           • Andre 5.1.2.1.1.1

             9 March 2017 at 5:39 pm

             Here’s a bunch of bedtime stories for you Red. Slightly more reality-based than the fairy tales you seem to prefer from Nat politicians.

             http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/tag/puhoi-to-wellsford/

             https://sites.google.com/site/thewayforward2011/home/projects/Roads-of-National-Party-Significance/puhoi-wellsford/puhoi-wellsford-affected-parties
             • Red …

               9 March 2017 at 6:29 pm

               Green Party propaganda is hardly evidence,
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 10 March 2017 at 9:23 am

                 Wayne is National Party propaganda.
           • Andre 5.1.2.1.1.2

             9 March 2017 at 8:09 pm

             More bedtime stories. With actual costings of pretty much the suggested upgrades of the existing SH1.

             http://transportblog.co.nz/?s=puhoi+warkworth&submit.x=11&submit.y=7&submit=Search
       • saveNZ 5.1.2.2

         10 March 2017 at 9:11 am

         Thanks Mr Road engineer and transport planner, how was your brilliance missed – and there’s a few bribes and contracts along with that ‘decision’, no doubt.

         I think we can all look at the appalling state of NZ roads and realise that our engineers on Roading and transport planners are either imbeciles or their managers or managers or government is.

         Maybe all of them?
     • Carolyn_nth 5.1.3

       9 March 2017 at 6:00 pm

       And it seems to me Warkworth and surrounding areas need more mass transit – a proper, regular bus service – especially if it’s expected to grow a lot in the near future. The town centre gets choked up with cars, and not enough parking for them.
       • Andre 5.1.3.1

         9 March 2017 at 6:07 pm

         The Harold article Ad was talking about (I think) had Warkworth adding 7500 homes over the next 20 years. Enough to be a big infrastructure and transport burden. But probably too sprawled and not enough density to make public transport an attractive option. So yeah, dumb development.
         • Carolyn_nth 5.1.3.1.1

           10 March 2017 at 8:08 am

           There are regular bus services around Auckland’s sprawling suburbs. They are a necessity.
   • saveNZ 5.2

     9 March 2017 at 12:04 pm

     How this terrible govt has managed one of best performing economies in the OECD – the fakers..

     Lazy immigration bringing in 70,000 plus migrants per year.
     Fake degrees with a free residency visa for 25 – 48% of the level 5 degrees and diploma’s in basic cookery or restaurant management aka running Burger King.
     Keeping offshore investors happy with tax haven benefits.
     Having multiple earthquakes and disasters and getting the insurance money.
     Faking statistics like water quality.
     Fake carbon credits.
     Faking statistics like counting someone as employed if they have 1 hour of work a week.
     Lowering in real terms benefits like working for families.
     Lowering in real terms health and education.
     Selling off assets like power and state houses, which is robbing future generations of income and driving up the cost of living.
     Stopping investment in the Cullen Fund.
     Having people just ‘disappear’ from statistics.

     And even then National can’t get a suplus with Blinglish.

     When Phil Goff is complaining about being stuck in traffic for 2 hours – it’s becoming obvious to even the most staunch neoliberal, something seems to have gone wrong with the Natz approach!

     My guess is Phil will probably have to rent or buy an apartment closer to his work so he doesn’t waste hours of his time in traffic getting back to his house also in the Super City. People who actually live here spend hours just getting around the gridlocked and road worked super city to appointments.

     Even Auckland Council’s one dimensional neoliberal musings of user pays to take more from the poor, will take 5 years – that’s a long time when you need to get to your next meeting immediately.
     • keepcalmcarryon 5.2.1

       9 March 2017 at 12:49 pm

       User payers innit?
       How about the capital gain you Aucklanders all make from unchecked immigration gets put in to building your infrastructure?
       Or does the rest of the country have to build stuff for you so your house prices can keep going up (aucklanders in general not you specifically savenz)?
       Bit politically unpalatable though eh, involves putting some money where some mouths are.

       Anyone driven around the South Island on our third world roads recently?
       • saveNZ 5.2.1.1

         9 March 2017 at 1:49 pm

         Actually Aucklander’s are only gaining if they sell and leave Auckland to live somewhere else because you have to buy into the same market if you actually live here. Yes some are selling on such as … the $81,000 gain on the same day by Hua Wu, probably to become some sort of ponzi asset overseas property scheme but apparently he’s paying tax on it.

         Once the South Island residential housing becoming roulette chips and each town swells up 45,000 extra cars per year, you might change your mind about who’s fault it all is.

         And the previous Mayor of Auckland wanted to put in a fuel tax for Auckland’s to fund the infrastructure but the government stopped him. Any taxes on petrol should be stopped apparently because that will effect everyone using Auckland roads and drive them to be more sustainable – but taxes against working commuters and big money for contracts to put in questionable user pays that target poorer groups like a congestion charge , well that sounds like a fabulous idea to the neolibs.
         • ropata 5.2.1.1.1

           9 March 2017 at 1:56 pm

           Goff will have to put rates up instead, that’s quite a decent tax on wealth and I fully support it.
       • ropata 5.2.1.2

         9 March 2017 at 1:54 pm

         Most Aucklanders didn’t vote for 70000 immigrants to arrive here every year and clog up everything. Also, we don’t own houses any more. Only the 1% and rich immigrants can afford it. Who else has 200K lying around for a freakin deposit?
         • Red 5.2.1.2.1

           9 March 2017 at 4:49 pm

           Many over half of 70k are kiwis coming home or Ozzies with reciprocal rights to live here, many others are students on education visas, what is your suggestion here Unfortunately national has made nz such a great place to live people can’t wait to get here Maybe a couple of terms of labour can turn net migration figures around as they did under their 9 years ( every one leaving) , Then the howls will be from this site about devestated communities that never see their grand kids
           • keepcalmcarryon 5.2.1.2.1.1

             9 March 2017 at 5:19 pm

             “Then the howls will be from this site about devestated communities that never see their grand kids”

             Already happening if you stuck your nat voting head out of Auckland.
             One news terms us “the regions”, in actual fact we are “New Zealand.”
             • Red …

               9 March 2017 at 6:38 pm

               I was talking about leaving the country, I sense a big Chip on both shoulders re Auckland coming through your posts. A region is just a cluster of like area on various attributes , if you said I am going to Auckland you would not say I am going to Nz, likewise if you where visiting a number of small north island towns it’s quite proper to say I am visiting the regions or specific region by name if the case ie bay of plenty region. Just keep calm and carry on Auckland still loves you
               • keepcalmcarryon …

                 9 March 2017 at 6:47 pm

                 As an Aucklander yes you would consider i have a chip on my shoulder about it 🙂
                 Auckland after all is a region too isnt it? Wellington is our capital , why isnt our country talked about in those terms: wellington and the regions?
                 Because Auckland.

                 You just need to be reminded of it a fair bit otherwise you lot have a habit of forgetting the rest of the of the country – you know the majority of the population- “the regions” as you term us. Sounds patronising just a bit eh.
                 Have you heard “the regions” are dying? We are a bit cross about it and the endless news we get about our biggest city and a derth about anywhere else because news people are mostly too lazy to leave Auckland.

                 But its not a big chip Red, some of my best friends are Aucklanders 🙂
       • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.3

         9 March 2017 at 3:39 pm

         Or does the rest of the country have to build stuff for you so your house prices can keep going up (aucklanders in general not you specifically savenz)?

         Actually, it’s Auckland that’s been subsidising the rest of the country.
       • Red 5.2.1.4

         9 March 2017 at 4:29 pm

         you are lucky we don’t slap you with an uppity back water tax for that comment, 😀
   • Kevin 5.3

     9 March 2017 at 12:27 pm

     $2 Billion and climbing because Aucklanders refuse to build upwards.
     • saveNZ 5.3.1

       10 March 2017 at 9:23 am

       Keep that Natz propaganda aimed at liberals to keep that message fresh.. like if only we built up…

       Maybe Kiwis can’t afford or want a population of 15 million people. We can barely afford and cope with 4.3 million people.

       It’s not about going up or out with building. We just can’t afford more people. Especially as we are getting petrol attendants and project managers as our new people and their aged parents – which are jobs that Kiwis are perfectly capable of doing if anyone bothered to train them.

       Also many of us don’t want Auckland to become some red neck Gold coast like OZ..

       And even if we did, we can’t afford to, because we don’t have the infrastructure. Neoliberalism is never going to get us there, and NZ will bankrupt ourselves trying. We don’t have the money of the EU and the US to keep trying this neoliberal experiment to make it somehow work. It doesn’t.

       There’s a push back already from Kiwis against the pollution, traffic, poverty and housing crisis we find ourselves in and the government is still pouring petrol onto the crisis.
   • Poission 5.4

     9 March 2017 at 12:59 pm

     In terms of how terrible National is, you have to explain why this terrible govt has managed one of best performing economies in the OECD.

     In a word Rūaumoko.

     The Christchurch earthquakes added around 1.5% of gdp growth (and will to around 2020)

     This was from a mix of

     i) increased uptake of employment,
     ii) Significant overseas transfer of wealth from reinsurers (which is excluded from general accounts due to GATT practice) ie ghost money
     iii) Local expansion of underutilized capacity.

     The chch GDP growth of> 10.5% however also includes the demolition of 10,000 residential units and most of the CBD commercial estate,(an obvious problem when explaining the recent so called gdp uptake in wellington).

     http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Bulletins/2016/2016feb79-3.pdf
   • Draco T Bastard 5.5

     9 March 2017 at 3:21 pm

     Rail can’t possibly substitute for the road. It is is just way too limited compared to the flexibility of road travel.

     Bollocks.

     If anything, rail is far more flexible. It can passengers and freight in far greater numbers than road can.

     Also Winston, if he holds the balance of power, will insist on the whole project being finished. In fact he will probably demand 4 lanning at least through to Marsden Point!

     Winston doesn’t appear to be that stupid:

     “And we will upgrade the Auckland to Northland railway line and build the rail link to your port,” he said.

     In terms of how terrible National is, you have to explain why this terrible govt has managed one of best performing economies in the OECD.
     Except for the fact that it hasn’t. Poverty and homelessness increasing and government services consistently underfunded while a few people (National supporters by the looks) make out like the bandits they are.
     • Red 5.5.1

       9 March 2017 at 4:32 pm

       19th century technology and ideology is not the answer
       • keepcalmcarryon 5.5.1.1

         9 March 2017 at 5:33 pm

         BTW Adam Smith died 1790, I think free market ideology is WELL past its use by date 🙂
       • Draco T Bastard 5.5.1.2

         9 March 2017 at 5:58 pm

         So why do you idiot Rwnjs keep insisting that we have more cars and roads when you don’t like 19th century technology?
         • BM 5.5.1.2.1

           9 March 2017 at 6:48 pm

           Self-drive vehicles will be the future, that’s why a decent motorway system is so important ,trains are only good for point to point travel which makes them the wrong option for NZ
           • Draco T Bastard 5.5.1.2.1.1

             9 March 2017 at 7:30 pm

             Cars only do point to point as well and they only do it for 4% of the time.
   • Red Hand 5.6

     9 March 2017 at 7:52 pm

     I for one won’t need it but you expect me to pay for it. Driving a long distance to work is discretionary so why should all drivers have to pay for the selfish choice of a few ?

     Population trends are predictions and are not inevitable. Land use policy eg densification close to rail is crucial.

     Of course rail can substitute for the road for passenger transport, just look at the urban rail and bus systems overseas.

     You are guessing what Winston will do, admittedly an informed guess from an experienced politician. I’m still skeptical though.

     In my experience National governments favour their supporters instead of including the rest of us. That’s why so many people vote for them. People who think in terms of the individual rather than a community.
   • One Two 5.7

     9 March 2017 at 8:07 pm

     “…one of the best performing economies….”

     By selling lies and using lies to compare a turd to other turds

     A ban on lying is what is required, and higer standards forcing a ban on lies propagated by political parties and politicians

     You seem to accept the already low bar. A bar which can only lower further under the current constructs

     ALL governments are responsible and ALL politicians are ‘liars’

     You are also a ‘LIAR’
     • Wayne 5.7.1

       10 March 2017 at 8:05 am

       One Two

       Try and debate the facts.

       Facts; NZ growth rate for 2016 was 3.6%, which was third highest in the OECD. Export in 2016 ups by 7.6%. over the previous year. Residential construction permits up by 10% in 2016 over the previous year.

       You may not like it, but on just about every measure the New Zealand economy is performing near the top of the OECD.

       These are facts, unless of course you think NZ Statistics is basically corrupt.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.7.1.1

         10 March 2017 at 8:09 am

         The rates of inequality and homelessness indicate that these facts are poor indicators. It’s called cherry-picking, Dr. Mapp, and it’s a form of lying.
       • saveNZ 5.7.1.2

         10 March 2017 at 9:31 am

         Yes the growth is driven by disasters, not what the government did.

         And the profits are not evenly shared. They are going to a small percentage of people, the middle are getting squeezed and the bottom are going backwards. That’s inequality not something to be proud of.
         • Wayne 5.7.1.2.1

           10 March 2017 at 10:09 am

           OAB
           Inequality in NZ is in the middle of the OECD. So it is a neutral factor when it comes to comparing the growth rate with other OECD nations. In short we don’t have a higher growth rate than other OECD nations as a result of being much more unequal.

           Of course I know there will be an inequality debate during the election, but that does not change the fact that NZ has the third highest growth rate in the OECD.

           Save NZ,

           Wage groth was around 2 % last year. Population growth including immigration was around 1%. Along with inflation this adds to over 3%, pretty similar to the growth rate. So in short wage growth is reflecting economic growth. And if you look around you can see that reflected in the way people live. In Auckland where I Iive, there is clearly more prosperity, which at least a far as the 400,000 people living in North Shore seems pretty broadly spread.
           • KJT 5.7.1.2.1.1

             10 March 2017 at 11:16 am

             We wont mention that growth in inequality has been one of the fastest growing in the OECD, we have one of the lowest rise in pay rates for extra qualifications, Child poverty has gone from almost zero, during universal family benefit to almost a third of children.
             We had similar growth in exports, and productivity as Australia, but are still 30% behind after the “brilliant 1984 and 1990 reforms.
             Individual cost for healthcare, housing, power have all risen at much more than the rate of inflation.

             Growth is entirely propped up by immigration and disasters.

             The North shore has some of the highest priced housing in New Zealand and is inhabited by spivs, politicians and real estate agents. (The people who are getting rich in Wayne’s brave new world, while those of us with genuinely useful qualifications have had pay cuts. NZ has one of the lowest premiums for extra skills in the OECD).

             Hardly indicative of New Zealand.

             Come up to Northland, Wayne, and see the damage your lot have done.

             To me you are the political equivalent of children who vandalize schools.
             • Wayne …

               10 March 2017 at 1:14 pm

               KJT

               The inequality change that you refer to in your first sentence all occurred from 1985 to 1992, which is now a quarter of a century ago. The change shifted NZ from probably the lowest level of inequality in the OECD to the middle of the OECD.

               Now if you want to go back to a modern version of the 1950’s to 1970’s you are welcome to it. One of the reasons for the low level of inequality during that period was the tightly regulated economy, with controls on just about everything. A more open economy has more choice and freedom, but also more inequality.

               Northland, with 5% of New Zealand’s population, has some unique problems, which seem deeper than the reforms that occurred since 1985. After all most of the rest of NZ has managed quite well compared to Northland. Possibly a Northland focussed taskforce, to deal with the level of the problems there?

               A final point, the premium for skill was much lower in the pre 1985 period. By definition it is still lower than for the half of the OECD which has higher levels inequality than New Zealand.
               • KJT …

                 12 March 2017 at 9:41 am

                 Actually the premium for real skills was higher pre 1995. As I know from my own experience.

                 Which is why NZ companies have difficulty keeping skilled staff. They don’t pay them!

                 Scientists, Builders, Teachers, GP’s, Machinists, Engineers, all earn less than they did pre 1980’s.

                 The premium for bullshit artists has risen greatly!

                 What the fuck do managers contribute to a company that justify salaries 40 X, or more than that of other skilled staff, for one.

                 Going back to everyone being fed, educated, healthy and housed seems like a good idea to me.

                 However we now have better options than simply going back to a fortress economy. Though many aspects worked. Unfortunately the 80’s to 90’s “reformers” not only threw out the baby with the bathwater, they sold off the bath, the house, and the street outside as well.

                 National has introduced more and more legislation restricting privacy, allowing surveillance etc.
                 Restricting private companies in sectors which were formerly State run has also necessitated a lot of extra compliance legislation and Government spending, which was not required when Government could simply tell the bosses of State run infrastructure to behave..

                 “Freedoms” are no bloody good to people that have no income to use them.

                 A “more open economy” does not necessarily mean some people have to live in poverty. That was a cynical deliberate choice made by politicians since 1984, who decided bludgers at the top deserved to pay even less tax than the amounts they were dodging already.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   12 March 2017 at 9:47 am

                   …they sold off the bath, the house, and the street outside as well.

                   There’s a solution for that: nationalise all vital assets in the interests of national security.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   12 March 2017 at 9:55 am

                   What the fuck do managers contribute to a company that justify salaries 40 X, or more than that of other skilled staff, for one.

                   Especially when the managers aren’t that skilled.

                   I’ve been saying the the 90 Day Fire At Will Act was a piece of support legislation for National voting managers that had reached the Level of Their Incompetence so that they could blame someone else for their fuckups.

                   This lack of skill has been compounded by management courses and MBAs where the managers no longer even have a basic understanding of what the workers are doing but they get to tick all the right boxes on their CVs.
                   • KJT …

                     12 March 2017 at 10:11 am

                     Even the capitalists agree.

                     https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/#4f74d7a02287
                   • KJT …

                     12 March 2017 at 10:12 am

                     “The Peter Principle” should be required reading for all Managers.
                     Anyone who has ever worked for a corporate can recognize the accuracy of the book.
   • John 5.8

     9 March 2017 at 8:26 pm

     National have already announced that they will 4 lane Whangarei to Marsden Point but not for another 3 or 5 years. With their long term goal of 4 laning Whangarei to Auckland. As a regular traveller on this road I can’t wait for it to happen as there is no alternative. Pity its going to take so long. Traffic bottle necks in Wellsford and Warkworth and various other points from the Johnson tunnel at Puhoi to Tehana then the Brenderwyns when there is an accident and don’t get me started on those bloody trucks
6. Enough is Enough 6

   9 March 2017 at 11:46 am

   rob

   I know I am overly sensitive as I have had to endure the tragedy which comes with a fatal car accident. But I don’t think you can infer that improving our roads is done simply to allow Aucklanders to get to their holidays quicker.

   Improving our roads to make them safer is something that I am very passionate about. Especially when the government is using taxes which have been collected for that very purpose.

   This is not a safe road. It needs to be improved.

   http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11716543

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/76187178/Traffic-delays-near-Warkworth-after-serious-motorcycle-crash

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/84637495/Fatal-crash-blocked-SH1-near-Warkworth
   • r0b 6.1

     9 March 2017 at 12:32 pm

     Very sorry to hear of your loss.

     No one is saying we shouldn’t make safety improvements (see the Greens in the article quoted). Just that the current version has a ridiculously low cost/benefit while the health system is bleeding to death.
     • Bob 6.1.1

       9 March 2017 at 2:24 pm

       Perhaps we should look at a change of funding model for health then, something along the lines of the NHS in the UK for example, because as Enough is Enough points out, the taxes used for roading, come from roading.
       • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1

         9 March 2017 at 6:00 pm

         The NHS is presently failing badly because of its funding model that the Tories are fucking around with.
     • KJT 6.1.2

       10 March 2017 at 11:21 am

       Just charge trucks the full costs of their road use.

       The reason why Toll were able to neglect rail lines and put their freight on the road.
       On the rails they had to pay the full cost of their permanent way. Trucks are heavily subsidised by motorists and tax and rate payers.

       They will either change their freight to rail or sea, Or cover the costs of upgrading the road.

       It is the extra trucks which make for congestion and the need to straighten and widen the road.

       I don’t think for a moment the road improvements are for holiday makers.
       They are to help the trucking industries profits.
       • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1

         12 March 2017 at 10:23 am

         I don’t think for a moment the road improvements are for holiday makers.
         They are to help the trucking industries profits.

         QFT

         I always cringed when people called it the Holiday Highway. Although it will help the people going to the holidays in the north its mostly for the trucking companies to make more profit without having to pay out any expense to do so.

         That’s pretty much true of all National Party infrastructure spending.
7. Antoine 7

   9 March 2017 at 12:20 pm

   +1 the OP

   A.
8. tc 8

   9 March 2017 at 2:21 pm

   We can have both if taxes are levied evenly and distributed appropriately.

   National have plundered all the piggy banks cullen left, punched a billion plus annual hole in tax revenue and played a shell game to fund roads that dont stack up on a cost/benefit basis.

   Isnt there 1billion gone annually from rural road funding alone for the holiday highways?

   Wrong conversation IMO lets tax equitably and do both.
   • Red 8.1

     9 March 2017 at 4:35 pm

     10pc paying 90pc of the net tax is not equitable ?
     • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1

       9 March 2017 at 4:38 pm

       Nope: it’s not true.
       • Red 8.1.1.1

         9 March 2017 at 4:42 pm

         It isn’t ?
         • McFlock 8.1.1.1.1

           9 March 2017 at 5:05 pm

           Nope. You need to check your math. And include all taxes. And stop believing everything farrar tells you.
           • Red 8.1.1.1.1.1

             9 March 2017 at 5:11 pm

             stop making stuff up
             • adam …

               9 March 2017 at 5:15 pm

               Come on Red, when you talk shit, you know we going to pull you up on it.
             • McFlock …

               9 March 2017 at 5:28 pm

               I merely assumed that the “90:10” ratio you used was intentionally repeated from a kb post years ago, a post that a variety of innumerate tory swine have subsequently and unthinkingly regurgitated here on a periodic basis.

               Although even if you missed that post, it’s a reasonable assumption that the similarity between the figures is the result of using calculations that are flawed in a similarly imbecilic way to that piece of drivel.

               If, of course, you came to the same bullshit conclusion in a new and uniquely incompetent way, please feel free to expound upon your methodology.

               Either way, it’s still not fucking true.
             • Andre …

               9 March 2017 at 5:42 pm

               Little hint Red: there needs to be at least one qualifier between net and tax for your assertion to be close. And you need to willfully ignore a whole bunch of other taxes that everybody pays.
               • Red …

                 9 March 2017 at 6:41 pm

                 Your still making stuff up.
                 • Andre …

                   9 March 2017 at 6:57 pm

                   Feel free to provide evidence for your original implied assertion at 8.1. Weaseling out of it by saying just asking won’t cut it.
                 • McFlock …

                   9 March 2017 at 8:03 pm

                   oh look, people did the math for you ages ago:

                   here
                   here
                   here
                   here
                   here
                   here.

                   Making it up? Suck my balls, making it up.
                   • Red …

                     10 March 2017 at 9:44 am

                     No thanks but I doubt you have any if I was that way inclined, you will need to find a willing partner, sorry
                   • McFlock …

                     10 March 2017 at 11:42 am

                     I just figured that seeing as you were already kneeling down there so that some pretty low-flying facts could go over your head, maybe you could make yourself useful at the same time.
                   • Red []

                     10 March 2017 at 1:36 pm

                     Sorry not that way inclined no matter how much you plead, there are websites where you can hook up with like minded individuals or cold shower maybe 😀
                   • McFlock …

                     10 March 2017 at 1:37 pm

                     Still not found anything to back up your 90:10 bs, then?
         • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.1.1.1.2

           9 March 2017 at 9:17 pm

           @ Red

           And understand that your 10% of people is referring to payment of income tax – and income is not a good measure of wealth at all – most very rich people have very little IRD-declared income.
           • Red 8.1.1.1.2.1

             10 March 2017 at 9:41 am

             I understand that but my point still holds re our tax systen no matter how much mcflock gets his panties twisted
             • McFlock …

               10 March 2017 at 12:30 pm

               dude, your point is a figment of your imagination. An article of faith mindlessly repeated by the idiot follower of a corrupt and festering cult.
             • UncookedSelachimorpha …

               11 March 2017 at 10:33 pm

               Your point does not hold re wealth and tax – people with more wealth pay less tax as a percentage of their assets under our system.
     • KJT 8.1.2

       10 March 2017 at 11:26 am

       Actually most of the net tax is paid by middle income earners.

       The top 6% don’t pay taxes, and the bottom 10% can’t.

       And your 90/20 figure is net income tax. Even RWNJ should be able to figure out that taxes like GST, duties and fuel taxes impact most on those who have to spend all their income, and skew the figures totally in the other direction..

       A large proportion of the wealthiest people in New Zealand have taxable incomes below 70K. (From the IRD).

       Not to mention that the wealthiest people are the highest users, and beneficiaries, of tax funded infrastructure, and utilities.
       • Red 8.1.2.1

         10 March 2017 at 2:35 pm

         Fair enough kJT, but I can tell you from personal experience the top 6pc pay a shit load of tax

         Note to self, don’t ever raise tax inequity here, highly volatile subject, and some what over arousing for mr mcflock
         • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.1.2.1.1

           11 March 2017 at 10:41 pm

           “Personal Experience”…when the actual facts aren’t good enough!
         • KJT 8.1.2.1.2

           12 March 2017 at 10:04 am

           As one of them. No, we do not pay enough taxes for a functioning society.

           In fact we would be better off paying more.
           A functioning society is still important for us and our children.
           Cheaper to give people enough to live on, rather than pay the costs of crime, and other costs of poverty, for one.
           Things like ACC, health and other State benefits are much cheaper for the same outcome, than paying for health or income replacement insurance.
           My power bills are hugely greater than the extra tax and power bills when power was tax funded.

           Even though the top tax rate was 66% in my early working years. A hell of a lot was paid for out of that. A lot that we now have to pay in addition for the same level of services.

           Also with GST and other taxes, many low income people are paying a much higher proportion of their income in tax than you or I.
           Not to mention the marginal tax rate, on those earning a bit of money over their welfare payments, is much higher than ours. A disincentive for welfare recipients to take on part time work.

           Lastly. Those with more wealth and/or higher incomes have benefited the most, from the infrastructure and Society provided by tax payers, so we should pay the most tax.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1.2.1

             12 March 2017 at 10:27 am

             Boom.
   • Ad 8.2

     9 March 2017 at 5:02 pm

     You might want to have a look at transportblog.

     A few days ago they did an interrogation of the Government Policy Statement:

     http://transportblog.co.nz/page/2/

     This breaks down which parts of transport funding are going where, in broad terms.

     This will then get divided up into regions with specific projects attached through the Regional Land Transport Plans that are provided through each regional council or in the case of Auckland, unitary council. These form the bids to government for each finding category.

     For example: in the 2018-21 years, about $7b goes into motorways, and about $1b into public transport.
     • adam 8.2.1

       9 March 2017 at 5:17 pm

       “For example: in the 2018-21 years, about $7b goes into motorways, and about $1b into public transport.”

       You know Idiots are in charge when you look at those figures. It’s head buried in sand stuff.
       • Ad 8.2.1.1

         9 March 2017 at 5:21 pm

         The $1b doesn’t include the $3.5b allocated for Auckland’s City Rail Link.

         But if you pop over the the transportblog site, Mr Lowrie or Mr Nunns will take you through their views via the comments section.
         • adam 8.2.1.1.1

           10 March 2017 at 1:24 am

           My point is that the low figure on public transport is the height of stupidity.
9. Hum 9

   10 March 2017 at 12:14 pm

   You do understand that roads are funded directly from the user-pays ring-fenced National Land Transport Fund, while health funding comes from taxation don’t you? The NLTF is designed to protect other forms of taxation from being poached for roads and vice versa.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1

     12 March 2017 at 10:30 am

     You do understand that the OP is about priorities, eh.

     Tax cuts and roads of low return rather than decent healthcare and competent investment.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS