Labour Thus Far....

[DrTiTus]

Cap of 100% interest+fees applied to loan sharks

Seems like a reasonable move... from my anti-usury stance. There are potentially issues with lenders "re-loaning" outstanding amounts, and calling it a new loan; I would hope the legislation covers this obvious workaround.

An unintended consequence may be that when a borrower defaults, the loan is sold to a debt collection agency sooner rather than later, in which case credit ratings go bad sooner (but that's what credit ratings are for). I don't know whether a similar cap also exists which applies to debt collection agency fees.

Any thoughts on why this interest cap may be a bad idea?

[fixed_truth]

Arguments against typically claim the those at the bottom will be too risky to loan to now & so will turn to underground loaners which are worse.

[Ab]

Kiwibuild: it's actually fucking shit

[Lightspeed]

Ah the NZH. I'm sure that's a robust, impartial article you've just linked. /s

[fixed_truth]

At least Stuff is keeping track of things.

It's not a perfect scheme but it will dramatically increase the supply of houses and it is certainly a lot better than do nothing National.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Ah the NZH. I'm sure that's a robust, impartial article you've just linked. /s

So you didn't read it then?

[Lightspeed]

My goodness no. I'm not giving clicks or brain space to the NZH.

[Ab]

KiwiBuild began its life as David Shearer’s answer to David Cunliffe. In November of 2012, convinced that the Labour Left was plotting to replace him, Shearer was casting about desperately for a political circuit-breaker. He needed something that would halt the ambitious Cunliffe in his tracks and reassure the party’s rank-and-file that he was a Labour man through-and-through. KiwiBuild was that something. His announcement that the next Labour government would build 100,000 affordable homes for young New Zealanders brought Labour’s 2012 annual conference to its feet. In the warm glow of the membership’s support, an emboldened Shearer banished Cunliffe to the back-benches.

Having served its purpose, KiwiBuild was filed and forgotten. The necessary detailed development work on how it would be implemented, by whom, and at what cost, never progressed much beyond the hurried sketch vouchsafed to conference delegates and the news media six years ago. The consequences of Labour’s failure to fill in the gaps are now embarrassingly clear.

https://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/20...ting-poor.html

It is probably time to call the Government’s flagship KiwiBuild programme for what it is – state sponsored gentrification of state housing suburbs. As such it is little different from the previous Government’s efforts in places such as Tamaki to extract value from the public housing estate under the guise of modernisation.

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/10/0...entrification/

[Lightspeed]

It is probably time to call the Government’s flagship KiwiBuild programme for what it is – state sponsored gentrification of state housing suburbs.

That's such a good idea, if it was done effectively.

New state housing communities built around services and transport hubs, after 20 or so years, gentrify them, sell them at a high price, use the proceeds to build a new state housing community. Rinse, repeat.

Unfortunately throughout NZ's history just as we get state housing working as it should, we sell up without rebuilding. AKA the National government.

[fixed_truth]

A problem with New Zealands democratic system is that comparatively people at the bottom don't vote and so when policy favours this group it has to be at the approval of the block of swinging middle class voters. Labour could have made kiwibuild heavily weighted towards state housing but this would have been politically dangerous and also financially they need a good chunk of houses to be bought by someone. Also along side this Labour are doing things like tenancy law reform, living apartments, housing for homeless and housing corporation requirements around dividends.

Same with the budget. The money is there waiting to be spent and definitely needs to be spent, but again due to our democratic system they need to go slow. Here it's important to note that this tempered approach is nothing to do with what's evidence based, moral or needed (or 'sensible' purely because it's within the middle ground of actual voters) - it's because the alienation of one group gives more sway to another.

[pxpx]

trololol.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12153570

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Government's surplus grows so substantially it hits 2022 debt target early
Good headline for the Govt.

But wait there's more . . .

Unemployment drops sharply, hitting lowest level since 2008

[DrTiTus]

Original Stuff article

The Government will hold a referendum on personal cannabis use at the 2020 general election - and it will be binding.


Fuck YEAH. Binding for the win!

Please vote for personal cannabis use everybody!

[pxpx]

Nope

[Lightspeed]

Might get young people out voting. But I dunno, I think there are still too many boomers and alcoholics about to ensure a win.

[StN]

Ha! - Did the old corporate D&A refresher last week. The industry expert told us of her husband testing a chap on the West Coast who kept stating that NZDDA would be out of business soon when weed was legalised. Van man nodded quietly - "You mean legalised like Codine and Alcohol that we also test for..?"

Westies was all "OMG you mean it won't be a free for all and I can't be stoned at work???"

[Lightspeed]

Guy just needs to find the right workplace.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Nope

Why you hate freedom?

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Might get young people out voting. But I dunno, I think there are still too many boomers and alcoholics about to ensure a win.

Should be good for Greens & Labours party vote too.

[Ab]

Never forget: people are way more stupid than you think

[Juju]

I know most polls have weighed in favour of legalising, but have any of them been properly performed, by reputable companies with actual statisticians, or is it all just stuff polls?

[Ab]

Oh no, spinoff readers want it legalised too.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Juju

I know most polls have weighed in favour of legalising, but have any of them been properly performed, by reputable companies with actual statisticians, or is it all just stuff polls?

Curia Market Research are reputable and know their shit (so to speak) - from July this year.

https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/ne...l-possibility/

[fixed_truth]

Being against legalising personal use might be something people keep under their belt, like Trump voters. You only seem to hear from these people on talk back.

[Juju]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Curia Market Research are reputable and know their shit (so to speak) - from July this year.

https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/ne...l-possibility/

Interesting - thanks. Done by landline phone poll, which one could argue is biased towards older people and families with younger children - the sort that one might think would vote against legalisation. I'm sure they have attempted to correct for that though, if they are indeed reputable.

But then again, NZF members voted highly in favour. I dunno. Interesting times ahead.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Juju

Interesting - thanks. Done by landline phone poll, which one could argue is biased towards older people and families with younger children - the sort that one might think would vote against legalisation. I'm sure they have attempted to correct for that though, if they are indeed reputable.

But then again, NZF members voted highly in favour. I dunno. Interesting times ahead.

Yeah the landline thing isn't as big an issue as most people seem to think it is. Landlines provide some certainty of data (such as geographic distribution) - and cellphones have their own problems in terms of potential clustering. Correct methodology wouldn't be to attempt to correct for that (because that makes the results far less reliable) but to disclose it (as they did).

I actually think geographic location is a more significant indicator of support than age or political affiliation personally. But yes, interesting times indeed.

[Jodi]

I'm for the legalisation for a few reasons:

* make it easier to get than P, hopefully P won't keep spreading as much
* tax income, sooo much tax income
* take major source of $$$ from organised crime (although it might backfire and cause a stronger push for P)
* don't have to pay $$$ to house people in prison, and cops to catch them, and helecopters to track them etcetc
* Treat as health issue and manage that way
* Maybe drinkers would become stoners instead, so we get more neglect cases instead of battery cases when it comes to domestic violence

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Jodi

* tax income, sooo much tax income

LOL, hell nah, too easy to grow.

Originally Posted by Jodi

* Maybe drinkers would become stoners instead, so we get more neglect cases instead of battery cases when it comes to domestic violence

It's damn sad statement of affairs that I agree that's a net positive.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by crocos

LOL, hell nah, too easy to grow.

See: tobacco, alcohol

[crocos]

Touché.

Hmm... I wonder if this will be a normalisation of MM/BP into becoming businesses given they've already got the growing infrastructure...

[fixed_truth]

There still seems to be a lot of people pretty pissed about this.

The migration pact creates non-legally binding agreement for countries to "enable all migrants to enrich our societies through their human, economic and social capacities," according to the UN.

On Wednesday, Peters announced New Zealand would support the pact after taking legal advice confirming the country's sovereignty would not be compromised by the agreement.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/new...ectid=12180474

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Juju

I know most polls have weighed in favour of legalising, but have any of them been properly performed, by reputable companies with actual statisticians, or is it all just stuff polls?

Not exactly "Labour thus far" but it does speak to those shitty polls that all the news orgs run.

http://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/rulin...aworks-newshub

The complainant, Jenny Kirk, complains of “poll fixing” and about unfairness, inaccuracy, and lack of balance. She says the situation goes “well beyond the standards of decency which New Zealanders expect from their media”. She is concerned about the delay in identifying and responding to manipulation of the poll. Ms Kirk notes that others beside her had noted the unlikeliness of the poll result.

. Robert Dowd of the MediaWorks Standards Committee confirmed the poll had been artificially manipulated, but believes the manipulation occurred after the broadcast. Until the complaint was received, the broadcaster was unaware of the manipulation. Generally, a daily poll will not be looked at again by Newshub, unless in relation to a further broadcast.

[pxpx]

The China/Huawei/5 Eyes thing does not seem ideal at all.

It's hardly Labours fault, but the "everything is fine, what are you talking about" response is far from confidence inspiring.

[fixed_truth]

So far all I've heard is 'I bought an investment property with my hard earned money for a next egg so that shouldn't be taxed'. Wah wah

[blynk]

Its hard to get past all those comments.
And them seem to forget about the income tax cuts that they will be getting.

[Ab]

It's the third rail of politics in NZ and Australia, you can't go anywhere near Baby Boomer property investments. Instant electoral death sentence.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by blynk

Its hard to get past all those comments.
And them seem to forget about the income tax cuts that they will be getting.

Read the report, look at who's in government; Those who stand to lose from a CGT are not the same who will benefit from personal tax cuts, if you think they'll balance each other out at an individual level then you probably need to think a little harder.

[fixed_truth]

It shouldn't matter whether they balance out at an individual level. People should pay tax on gains from an investment and it's dishonest of people to say they shouldn't have to solely because they don't want to.

[pxpx]

That's not dishonesty, that's selfishness.

[fixed_truth]

Well true, selfishness is why a lot are being disingenuous about whether it's fair or not.

[DrTiTus]

In reality, the banks are the ones that allow people to leverage their money to buy investment properties. I would guess that very few landlords have a portfolio consisting of 100% ownership. The CGT idea is a token gesture, but doesn't address the problem.

A CGT as put forward does not address the actual gain that a person has made by putting down only 20% (say 100k on a 500k house) and selling it after x years once a 3rd party has paid it off for them. If the purchase and sale price are both $500k, they'll say they "made no profit" but neglect to mention the $400k + interest that someone else paid off for them. Sure they may have paid tax on the rental income (which was factored in to the rent price so that the mortgage payments were still covered), but it's still a huge untaxed profit at the end of it, using no one else's money (because banks).

Now a CGT that takes THAT into account would really put the shits up the leeches.