Random Politics

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Juju

Te Tii have solidified their numptyness by allegedly asking cameramen and reporters for $800 to report on the Marae grounds. Not the producers or production companies or the accounts payable department, the reporters themselves. In Cash.

I 'spose it's koha though, right? Like, "voluntary" koha.

[fixed_truth]

So since Key won't go to Waitangi he's gonna go to the 9s instead. Well played John, well played.

[Juju]

So I'm looking through the latest CPI corruption report put out that claims NZ fell from 2nd to 4th.

Of the 7 data sources that they used for NZ - only 2 show a drop in score, 1 showed and increase and the rest were the same.

One of the scores that dropped was the Bertelsmann Foundation SGI, which Transparency said scored NZ at 97 points in 2014, down to 81 points in 2015.

Thankfully the SGI report is publicly available.

Here's the weird thing. NZ's ranking in the SGI report itself basically stays the same. In fact, across the 6 sectors they measure, the average went up!

So can anyone explain to me why Transparency International dropped NZ's SGI score so much, when the actual report put us more or less equal to last year?


Saucey sauces
CPI 2015: http://files.transparency.org/conten...odologyZIP.zip
CPI 2014: http://files.transparency.org/conten...DataBundle.zip
SGI: http://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2015...Scores_csv.zip

[Ab]

Rage.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11595600

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

Rage.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11595600

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11596774

Auckland Council is reverting to the 2013 version of its Unitary Plan proposal, which will provide for just over 80,000 new homes by 2040.

This is despite expert working advice that it needed to come up with a set of zoning maps to produce 280,000 houses within the enlarged Auckland Council boundaries.

Think about this for a second.

The council decided it preferred zoning rules that would leave Auckland 200,000 houses short of what it needed to accommodate up to a million extra people over the next 30 years or so. This in a city that already has a shortage of 35,000-50,000 houses. …

Simply put, 700 residents from Kohimarama, Mission Bay and Glendowie held a meeting on February 9 to protest at the maps submitted in December, which they said proposed massive intensification in their suburbs.

They argued they had not been told about these changes, which they said was undemocratic. The meeting and the following publicity spooked councillors into opposing the more intense maps at this week’s meeting.

It demonstrated in vivid technicolour the concept of “Democratic Deficit”. This is where a few well-organised home-owners with the time and resources to lobby councillors stop development near them because these local politicians know older home owners vote at vastly higher rates than young renters.

… the Council’s Youth Advisory Chair, Flora Apulu, spoke to the Council about how she felt the weight of the city’s half a million young people on her shoulders as she argued for the affordable housing they desperately needed from this “up-zoned” plan. She was jeered and heckled by the dozens of elderly and predominantly Pakeha homeowners sitting just metres behind her.

Sudhvir Singh from Generation Zero was jeered even more loudly when he said the generation of home-owners sitting behind him were “pulling up the ladder” of home ownership on the young of today. “Poor you”, was the response. Indeed. Poor us.

[Lightspeed]

I live in Kohi. The cognitive dissonance here is strong. I would comfort myself with the fact that the area will be getting flooded regularly in a decade or so (it already occasionally floods), except the fucks will mostly be dead by then.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Ab

Rage.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11595600

You think that's rage inducing? Check this one out:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11581857

[Ab]

jesus.

[spigalau]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...l?sf21678095=1

Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis is advising the Labour party on the economy, Jeremy Corbyn has revealed.

The controversial ex-minister, who was forced to resign after his country plunged into a debt crisis, has met with shadow chancellor John McDonnell, the Labour party leader said.

Words fail.... while you are at it why not get Robert Mugabe to be your ethnic affairs consultant.

[blynk]

Well he definitely knows what not to do. Unless he staunchly denies that there was nothing wrong with Greece's economy

[spigalau]

Originally Posted by blynk

Well he definitely knows what not to do. Unless he staunchly denies that there was nothing wrong with Greece's economy

Rule 1 - Don't host an Olympics

Oh cock....

[Ab]

Originally Posted by spigalau

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...l?sf21678095=1



Words fail.... while you are at it why not get Robert Mugabe to be your ethnic affairs consultant.

To be fair, Varoufakis is undeniably a very bright guy, published academic and professor of economics, blahblahblah (and consultant to Valve, yes that Valve, didn't know that, thanks Wikipedia). As a layperson a lot of what he said about the Greek collapse seemed pretty reasonable to me. The debt crisis wasn't of his making, it's just that the powers that be didn't like his ideas on how to fix it.

[Nothing]

I have no idea where the article is, can't remember the url, too lazy to Google, but I do remember reading a really interesting article on the work he was doing with Valve ages ago, now that you mention it.

[Lightspeed]

I thought we had already agreed that perception significantly outweighs substance, so this must count as just one more gaffe by the Labour party.

[fixed_truth]

The whole anti wicked camper crusade is a bit lol.

[Ab]

I see NZ's "Internet Left" are still going on about the Teapot recording saga. They are literally still going bananas over something that a) happened before the election before the last election, and they don't seem to realise that John Key came out of that whole mess looking golden and getting elected.

[CCS]

In their minds it justifies their obsession with John Key. To everyone else it just reinforces that Key Derangement Syndrome is in full effect.

With Labour continuing to pledge wildly expensive election bribes, National is like "roll on 217 yo"

[Nothing]

You know, if Labour pledged to, for instance, crack down hard on corporate tax evasion, then none of their other election bribes would actually be all that expensive. I'm pretty sure cracking down on corporate tax evasion would probably be pretty popular with most of the electorate as well.

[CCS]

It's a bit of a myth that all a govt needs to do is enact the magic Tax Avoidance Clampdown Act and everything will be sweet. Corporations will find different ways of minimising their tax obligations so there's no real way of predicting how much a 'tax clampdown' will net in tax revenue and whether that revenue would cover expensive election bribes.

TLDR: wishful thinking.

[crocos]

^^^
Yes, that. Thanks for saying it more eloquently than I would have.

[fixed_truth]

Good to see discussion going on lately about the a universal basic income

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/th...#axzz43gatmflz

But the UBI could solve more than just the looming unemployment/underemployment crisis.

In Labour's background paper on the UBI, it lists a number of potential benefits:

increased income security, giving people more time to devote to "creative work and their family, rather than worrying about keeping a roof over their heads"
encourage entrepreneurs to start new businesses by covering their expenses in the start-up period
give people the chance to go back to university and up-skill and reduce student debt
give seasonal and contract workers income security
reduce the stigma of collecting welfare, and encourage more beneficiaries into work
dramatically simplify the welfare system from 53 overlapping benefits to just one
stop people taking jobs they're unsuited to just for the money

The paper also notes some potential flaws:

if the UBI is set too low, it won't bring about the above benefits; while if it's too high, taxes will need to raise significantly
it could be seen as unfair, as in Prime Minister John Key's words: "You'd be giving it to people that don't need it."
it could disincentivise paid work.

[CCS]

That is some unbelievable shit.

[crocos]

The results in Denmark suggest quite the opposite.

[blynk]

I like the idea, raise the taxes so effectively you have paid 11k more tax at a certain income level - maybe just above the average income.

Adjust the benefit amounts down to account for this.

I know of people in my life where this would help/have helped immensely.

[Lightspeed]

I like the idea of a UBI balanced with public services. With the idea being that you couldn't really get along just on a UBI without making use of these services. So people on UBI will be encouraged to make use of these services by economic necessity, and people making use of these services will be helped in ways that leave them less dependant on a UBI.

At the moment it seems we offer neither. With mental health care in particular falling by the wayside, we'll find more and more people dependant on a UBI than we would otherwise.

A problem some might see with a UBI is it changes the dynamic for compelling people into work somewhat. The onus falls more on the employer to deliver meaningful, well remunerated work, rather than relying on the desperate who feel compelled to take whatever work is available.

A cynical person might wonder how much intention there is in exacerbating this situation. A UBI looks less and less appealing when there's the impression that it will be too expensive, due to the growing number of people who would look to be immediately dependant on it.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by CCS

It's a bit of a myth that all a govt needs to do is enact the magic Tax Avoidance Clampdown Act and everything will be sweet. Corporations will find different ways of minimising their tax obligations so there's no real way of predicting how much a 'tax clampdown' will net in tax revenue and whether that revenue would cover expensive election bribes.

TLDR: wishful thinking.

Well, magic is your word, not mine. I didn't say the solution would necessarily be easy or that it wouldn't require any work. But suggesting that it is impossible to solve is, I think, also incorrect.

Moreover, the quantity of money being siphoned away from the NZ public through corporate tax avoidance is much more worthy of having serious attention paid to it by the government than is the issue which right wing politicians love to draw attention to the most, namely benefit fraud. The amount we lose as a result of benefit fraud is utterly dwarfed by the amount we lose as a result of corporate tax avoidance.

Even if we only managed to solve a relatively small proportion of the total corporate tax avoidance, we would still stand to gain substantially more than we do by focussing on benefit fraud. And yet the vast majority of the attention is paid to benefit fraud rather than corporate tax avoidance.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Nothing

the vast majority of the attention is paid to benefit fraud rather than corporate tax avoidance.

Benefit fraudsters are weak, easy targets. Corporations are big, tough and scary. What we're seeing is the quality of the substance of our current government.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Corporations are big, tough and scary.

I don't think the issue is that they're big, tough and scary. I think the issue is that the neo-liberal economic and political ideology and its close association with the protestant work ethic predisposes right wing politicians to be heavily biased in favour of big business. They aren't scared of the corporates, they're in bed with them.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

A problem some might see with a UBI is it changes the dynamic for compelling people into work somewhat. The onus falls more on the employer to deliver meaningful, well remunerated work, rather than relying on the desperate who feel compelled to take whatever work is available.

A cynical person might wonder how much intention there is in exacerbating this situation. A UBI looks less and less appealing when there's the impression that it will be too expensive, due to the growing number of people who would look to be immediately dependant on it.

Also with a UBI there is more incentive to work as you do not get your basic income removed if you do gain employment / continue to work. Unlike the current welfare system.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Also with a UBI there is more incentive to work as you do not get your basic income removed if you do gain employment / continue to work. Unlike the current welfare system.

That's actually a feature of it which I dislike. It means that people who are already independently very wealthy, such that they can make a lot of money simply because of the fact that they already have a lot of money, no actual work involved, get another income stream for nothing.

[Lightspeed]

I would assume a UBI would be funded in part by taxes from that group of people.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Nothing

That's actually a feature of it which I dislike. It means that people who are already independently very wealthy, such that they can make a lot of money simply because of the fact that they already have a lot of money, no actual work involved, get another income stream for nothing.

One aspect of the universality is to remove the high cost of bureaucracy involved in determining and tracking eligibility and identifying fraud.

Also (from Gareth Morgans site) it's about removing the stigma which acts in perpetuating the poverty cycle.

“Universalism recognises that we are all members of society… being New Zealanders entitles and engages all of us, whatever our ages or circumstances, and support measures should be rights based. And those eligible for income support should not be subject to unnecessary and stigmatising procedures to establish what is theirs as a basic right.

A system designed only to assist the poor helps perpetuate existing social and economic inequality in the longer run by reinforcing distinctions between the poor and the rest of society, and at the same time it may lock the poor into a cycle of poverty by its system of benefit abatement. A further implication is that a highly targeted system will ultimately face considerable resistance from taxpayers unwilling to support a system perceived as rewarding the improvident and providing themselves with no return for their contributions. The longer run consequences could thus be an even more targeted system that provides continually falling benefit levels.”

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I would assume a UBI would be funded in part by taxes from that group of people.

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

One aspect of the universality is to remove the high cost of bureaucracy involved in determining and tracking eligibility and identifying fraud.

So which is it guys? Are we keeping track of who has lots of money and taxing them so that we can fund the UBI, in which case we know who is well off and don't need to give them the UBI? Or do we just not know who is wealthy enough to not need the UBI, because we've cut our bureaucracy back so much we can't tell who is wealthy and who is not any more, in which case we can't accurately tax the wealthy individuals to fund the UBI.

Also, Gareth Morgan? Really? Like I'm going to listen to anything that capitalist has to say. Pfft.

[fixed_truth]

Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development would still exist - though the services and they administer would be greatly reduced.

I agree with some of Morgans views but he did lose a lot of credibility with the whole cat curfew thing. I don't expect a UBI in NZ any time soon but it's good there's now a public discourse going on.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Nothing

So which is it guys? Are we keeping track of who has lots of money and taxing them so that we can fund the UBI, in which case we know who is well off and don't need to give them the UBI? Or do we just not know who is wealthy enough to not need the UBI, because we've cut our bureaucracy back so much we can't tell who is wealthy and who is not any more, in which case we can't accurately tax the wealthy individuals to fund the UBI.

Also, Gareth Morgan? Really? Like I'm going to listen to anything that capitalist has to say. Pfft.

I think you missed the point. Everyone gets a UBI. Rich, poor, healthy, unheathly, men, women.

But you raise the tax at the higher brackets that means most of the cost of this comes from the richer folk.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Nothing

So which is it guys?

Maybe I should have emphasised the "I" in my response. I don't assume a UBI will be much like has been currently raised, I think we need to get effective public services up and running first, and that's going to require the emergence of drastic circumstances or a change of government before that happens.

Are we keeping track of who has lots of money and taxing them so that we can fund the UBI, in which case we know who is well off and don't need to give them the UBI?

I would think it would depend on what's more straight forward to administrate. And perhaps most politically palatable, if it comes to that.

[Jodi]

I like UBI. From the reports I have read, it has many positive social outcomes and few if no negatives.

However.

I will guarantee that if we ever manage to get it in NZ, that the NZ political parties will fuck up the implementation of it so hard, that it will have the opposite effect, get branded a failure, and avoided for another couple of generations.

Also, I an interesting on the net that states the UBI will be the solution to the problem faced in 'merica where businesses are failing because people aren't buying stuff cos they have no money. With UBI, everyone has money, so they can buy stuff again!

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Jodi

I like UBI. From the reports I have read, it has many positive social outcomes and few if no negatives.

wut

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Jodi

I like UBI. From the reports I have read, it has many positive social outcomes and few if no negatives.

Except for the fact that the money has to come from somewhere?

[[Malks] Pixie]

So what are the social negatives that people perceive a UBI may usher in?

[i.e. outside of the existential "where will the money come from" argument]