Curwen Ares Rolinson @huntersrolinson
I gotta say, the Taxpayers’ Union attempting to spook voters by portraying the Green Party as fundamentally aligned with New Zealand values and wanting to ensure our kids are indoctrinated to like the great outdoors, environment, and arts/culture … … is an odd flex
Kia ora. The creative industries are of the future as automation takes over the rest. Instilling environmental stewardship in future generations may very well stop this planet turning into an unliveable cesspit. And civics education will ensure that they don’t vote for dickheads.
Who had “Taxpayers Union appointed as Greens’ campaign manager” in their 2020 bingo?
[tweet https://twitter.com/Edit_Moa/status/1290207734734807047]
Reminiscent of the "Beware!" Brethren attack flyers during the time of Rod and Jeanette. Only more lame.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/08/newshub-reid-research-poll-half-of-kiwis-support-taxing-biggest-earners-at-higher-rate.html
Time to raise the top rate and perhaps lift the band on the rate below. Also massively increase penalties for tax evasion and deliberate minimisation.
Hoots has found a new gig already? Good to see this one doesn't proclude both drinking and social media.
Up to 40K likes…
https://twitter.com/accidental_left/status/1290232177330982913
"Who needs maths anyways?"
First time I've ever seen that even the opponents of Greenies consider them to be uneducated, in-bred, moonshine whisky drinking, tree felling, deer-hunting, feral mountain folk!
I always thought the stereotype was over-educated, woke urban, definitely not inbred, Morris-dancing, tree-hugging, vegetarian, dope-smoking, flower children of the Sixties!
Do you expect The Greens to rise in the polls as a result of this?
This and other matters.
Yes. As Bomber puts it over here:
The brake of the past is leaving.
Generational inequity starkly depicted (USA, probably worse in Aotearoa):
https://twitter.com/phil49472744/status/1290378436570157058?s=20
What is 'Other'?
At a guess I'd say that it is stuff that doesn't go through the legal books.
Maybe other financial instruments such as bonds, term deposits, and other fixed interest investments.
Without a lot more information, that bar chart really doesn't show anything more than in general, as people get older towards retirement, they get wealthier. Then after retirement, your population cohort starts getting smaller rapidly, as well as wealth starting to reduce due to being drawn down and spent.
I'm pretty sure that you'll find that that happens only to the poor. Those who are wealthy will continue to increase their wealth.
Of the wealthy post-retirement people I know and have some idea of their finances, it's about 50/50 whether it keeps growing or starts decreasing.
But sure, for those in the 0.01%, accumulation is how they get their jollies and so they keep doing it. And then there's some that aren't still actively trying to accumulate, but they've amassed so much it keeps growing faster than they can spend it.
But those categories are quite small parts of the population. And even they die, eventually, which could be sufficient to explain why the silent generation bar is smaller than the baby boomer bar.
Inheritance.
Sure. That's always going to be a factor plumping up the wealth in the approaching retirement and recently retired demographics. Which is the baby-boomers at the moment.
Oh, every little bit helps.
It certainly won't dissuade people from voting Green, if they were ever going to. It might echo negatively around the sewer system, though.
Fuck it if these guys keep wavering on the 5% knife-edge I may even have to vote for them out of pity.
The difference between believers in Green tax policies and the Titanic, is there's a a far greater chance of the Titanic floating.
I can see why Labour is politely but sensibility distancing itself from the Greens policy platforms, simply put, they want to return to office after the election.
Greens can scream the house down claiming the moral high ground, but if only 5% or less of the voters actually vote for you, then it means 95% or more think your tax policy sucks.
Labour will govern in their own right after the election for certain.
Or they just think another party's policy on another issue is better than your tax policy.
I might or might not support a specific roading project in theory – voting Lab/Grn doesn't mean I think that particular road idea sucks. It just means that a single good idea for a road does not make the nats a party competent to govern.
Ah, that old FPP thinking.
It would be good if it was put to referendum.
Of course, we already know how it will go:
So, that would be a full majority supporting better, more progressive taxes.
On that logic, the Alliance policies such as Kiwibank or paid parental leave would never have happened after 1999, because 92% of voters thought they "sucked".
But the policies are still here. Supported by National, and the vast majority of voters now.
Your theory is wrong. Do most people even know the Greens tax policy? Unlikely.
Regrettably only political tragics have much awareness of party policy. The rest of the electorate (that can be bothered getting out of bed) vote out of tribalism, emotion, or for a personality. So Labour gets away with no policy announcements but still holds over 50% of the popular vote.
what, make the likes of maths interesting by weaving it through other curriculum subjects to produce a stimulating and experience rich learning culture? stuff that. no way.
Make maths as boring as dry as possible. You go for it tax payers lobby group.