ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags New Zealand elections , New Zealand politics

Reply
Old 10th August 2017, 01:13 PM   #41
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Ardern is just having her honeymoon period with the added bonus of the Metiria fiasco
And an opponent whose kindest description would be "boring".

Plus, Winnie isn't going to let up on the Barclay affair - and rightly so. Bill's "I don't remember 450 texts" is on pretty think ice.

All the other has deflected from that, but you can put your last buck on Winston carving him up with it televised debates.

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Things will be back to normal n a couple of weeks once the media actually start asking her some difficult questions, rather than fawning.
You have her confused with someone else. She is far too sharp for that to happen.

If anyone's scared of the hard questions, it will be Billy trying to figure out how his "rock-star" economy is forcing so many people into poverty.

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
And the water one you actually can't call policy, as it doesn't actually have any details and there is no guarantee they will even have one
Yet, funnily enough, it's one that will work for Labour.

People want clean water, and they don't like foreigners bottling it for free any more than they like dairy farmers using it to further pollute streams and lakes.

A smart move would be to throw dairy under the bus. Farmers won't ever vote Labour, but urban liberals will vote for clean water.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 03:35 PM   #42
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yet, funnily enough, it's one that will work for Labour.
This is the one policy that will stop me from voting for the Social Democrats..

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
People want clean water, and they don't like foreigners bottling it for free any more than they like dairy farmers using it to further pollute streams and lakes.
You can levy foreigners exporting water without screwing over ordinary working New Zealanders, which is what you will do if you tax water.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
A smart move would be to throw dairy under the bus...
...and throw $4 billion in foreign earnings under the bus with it

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Farmers won't ever vote Labour, but urban liberals will vote for clean water.
Not everyone living in the city is a Labour voter If they were, Labour would already be the Government.

Urban liberals love their coffee, and their tea and their wine. They like their chicken Tikka Masala and vegetables with their meals. They also like to have nice lawns and gardens in their urban paradises.... every one of these things contains water, or uses water in their production, and I haven't even started talking about industry and manufacturing yet.

You can expect a big hike in your cost of living if Labour wins and taxes water. Everyone in the chain will pass on the additional cost to their customers, and the poor old kiwi worker at the end of the line will be paying the price.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 10th August 2017 at 04:08 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 04:44 PM   #43
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
I'm fine with taxing foreign companies who are buying it to bottle at about 1c a litre and on-selling it for about $3 a litre, but hitting farmers is silly, that's just going to make us have to pay more for food at the store, and it's already far too expensive!
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 06:33 PM   #44
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This is the one policy that will stop me from voting for the Social Democrats..
I don't imagine you're alone, but I do think it will appeal to urban liberal Nats. Hardcore National voters don't matter, so it looks smart to me.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You can levy foreigners exporting water without screwing over ordinary working New Zealanders, which is what you will do if you tax water.
I presume you meant "can't".

Hey, I have no expectation of it happening. I've been saying for years that all the environmental problems possible, including the demise of the species itself, will never be stopped if it's going to hit people in the pocket.

Labour, here and in UK, seem to realise that, but I don't expect people to like it.

I'm fine with it, because it's extremely low priority.

What do you think it might cost the average Kiwi? $200 a year? I'd call that cheap for clean water.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
...and throw $4 billion in foreign earnings under the bus with it
About a third of it, I'd say. Not all farms will fail, just the ones who use a lot of irrigation, and the general feeling is that that's a good thing. The number of people who will shed tears for Canterbury farmers is very limited, and limited only to people who will vote for Billy anyway.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Not everyone living in the city is a Labour voter If they were, Labour would already be the Government.
Obviously, and when Labour has won, it's been on the back of those urban voters. The more they get, the better chance of winning. A lot of those latte-sipping tossers actually say out loud they'd pay more tax for real action.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You can expect a big hike in your cost of living if Labour wins and taxes water. Everyone in the chain will pass on the additional cost to their customers, and the poor old kiwi worker at the end of the line will be paying the price.
Absolute nonsense.

If vegetables are too expensive locally, we'll source them from overseas, just as we do right now. Prices might go up a few percent, but nothing more than usual seasonal variation.

That is complete right-wing scaremongering garbage, I'm quite surprised you buy into it.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'm fine with taxing foreign companies who are buying it to bottle at about 1c a litre and on-selling it for about $3 a litre, but hitting farmers is silly, that's just going to make us have to pay more for food at the store, and it's already far too expensive!
We've already had $12 cauliflowers this year. Yet I'm buying $3-50 punnets of Australian strawberries.

We don't need to buy cabbages from Timaru. (or anywhere else, for that matter) Half the fruit & veg in your supermarket is sourced overseas, and things like cabbages aren't because there is virtually never any demand. If the demand was created by high prices, we'd have planeloads of Chilean cabbages here before you could cut the onions for coleslaw.

But nice try by National to have a go at selling that story.

I'm not buying.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 07:54 PM   #45
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You can levy foreigners exporting water without screwing over ordinary working New Zealanders, which is what you will do if you tax water.
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I presume you meant "can't".
No, I did mean "can"

There is no reason why there could not be an export licensing system for companies who want to ship water overseas. They can pay by the litre.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What do you think it might cost the average Kiwi? $200 a year? I'd call that cheap for clean water.
Hardly. I'm already paying $180 - $220 every six months to the local council for water rates... its even more for my business premises.($125 per quarter)

A tax on water is just a tax on a tax.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If vegetables are too expensive locally, we'll source them from overseas, just as we do right now. Prices might go up a few percent, but nothing more than usual seasonal variation.
Sorry, this that's laughable. You're prepared to sacrifice NZ farmers on the altar of environmentalism, and then you advocate the importation of foreign fruit and vegetables. Ever heard the term "carbon footprint"? You won't make a lot of friends in the Green party with that sort of suggestion!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 10th August 2017 at 07:56 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 11:00 PM   #46
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,193
Hey Atheist

By throwing farmers and presumably horticulturalists under the bus, how do you plan to pay the benefit to the 100,000s of people who will become unemployed, bearing in mind the government just lost half our export cash
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 02:59 AM   #47
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Hey Atheist

By throwing farmers and presumably horticulturalists under the bus, how do you plan to pay the benefit to the 100,000s of people who will become unemployed, bearing in mind the government just lost half our export cash
Just a little exaggeration there. There wouldn't even be tens of thousands losing their jobs, let alone hundreds of thousands, and we're actually talking about a shrinking of exports of low, single-figure percentage of total receipts.

More total National Party propaganda.

As I keep saying, many people would rather see a contraction in the economy than continuing toxic waterways.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 03:21 AM   #48
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,193
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Just a little exaggeration there. There wouldn't even be tens of thousands losing their jobs, let alone hundreds of thousands, and we're actually talking about a shrinking of exports of low, single-figure percentage of total receipts.

More total National Party propaganda.

As I keep saying, many people would rather see a contraction in the economy than continuing toxic waterways.
I think you would be surprised

The farming and horticulturers and their workers wouldn't be the only ones affected if we threw them underthe bus

You have truck drivers, milk processor plants, trendy cafes round winerys, scientists, Machinery makers and builders and sellers, farming material suppliers like fencing etc, meat working plants, bottling plants and sellers, less warfies, less air freight means probably higher fares, fruit cannerys, freezing plants, packing plants, packaging makers, packaging printers, commercial vehicle suppliers, less electricity being used probably means higher prices, rural convenience stores, food markets, small artisan business, food vendors at markets, the people that clean up after markets,.....on and on and on

That is me just thinking of some over a few minutes

But petrol would probably be cheaper
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 03:31 AM   #49
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,193
Forgot to say

Labours new detailess water policy doesn't include coca cola, or any of the other massive multi national fizzy companies.

Brilliant start for the new leaderess

Doh!!!

__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 03:33 AM   #50
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
The farming and horticulturers and their workers wouldn't be the only ones affected if we threw them underthe bus

You have truck drivers, milk processor plants, trendy cafes round winerys, scientists, Machinery makers and builders and sellers, farming material suppliers like fencing etc, meat working plants, bottling plants and sellers, less warfies, less air freight means probably higher fares, fruit cannerys, freezing plants, packing plants, packaging makers, packaging printers, commercial vehicle suppliers, less electricity being used probably means higher prices, rural convenience stores, food markets, small artisan business, food vendors at markets, the people that clean up after markets,.....on and on and on

That is me just thinking of some over a few minutes
In other words, the death of Provincial heartland NZ
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 11th August 2017 at 03:37 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 04:09 AM   #51
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,193
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In other words, the death of Provincial heartland NZ
That is another way of putting it

A heap more succinctly than me

__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 01:10 PM   #52
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In other words, the death of Provincial heartland NZ
This is complete nonsense, and demonstrably so.

"Heartland NZ" (whatever that's actually supposed to mean) operated fine and dandy prior to the mass irrigation schemes. Restricting water use is only going to affect a few, mostly corporate farmers.The overwhelming majority of farmers will notice little or no difference.

Still, the pair of you are doing a superb job of showing how Trumpian fake news spreads and is eaten by the gullible.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 03:14 PM   #53
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,193
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
This is complete nonsense, and demonstrably so.

"Heartland NZ" (whatever that's actually supposed to mean) operated fine and dandy prior to the mass irrigation schemes. Restricting water use is only going to affect a few, mostly corporate farmers.The overwhelming majority of farmers will notice little or no difference.

Still, the pair of you are doing a superb job of showing how Trumpian fake news spreads and is eaten by the gullible.
There have been irrigation schemes since farming started

I don't quite get what people want

Do you want farming to be halved? Quartered? Stopped?

Only evil foreign ones stopped?

What is the criteria to make them bad?

And I would also point out that although it has been pretty nasty on the environment farmers have actually pulled finger and vast clean ups are going on.

You can't clean up generations of crap up overnight, and even if half the farms blinked out of existance in a split second it will take a decade or two
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Last edited by cullennz; 11th August 2017 at 03:19 PM.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 05:33 PM   #54
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
There have been irrigation schemes since farming started

I don't quite get what people want

Do you want farming to be halved? Quartered? Stopped?

Only evil foreign ones stopped?

What is the criteria to make them bad?

And I would also point out that although it has been pretty nasty on the environment farmers have actually pulled finger and vast clean ups are going on.

You can't clean up generations of crap up overnight, and even if half the farms blinked out of existance in a split second it will take a decade or two
While I don't agree with the policy, and have even taken the step of writing to express my concerns over the policy, there seems to be a lot of doom and gloom considering that no actual figures have been discussed. For instance, say that the royalties came to $20,000 for a cauliflower grower who was producing 100,000 Cauliflowers a year, that actually increases the price he sells at by just 20c per cauliflower, not great, but certainly not enough to bankrupt the farmer or send shoppers screaming into the night.

So yeah, bad policy as it stands, but screams of "We're doomed!" are really over the top as well.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 05:34 PM   #55
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
We've already had $12 cauliflowers this year. Yet I'm buying $3-50 punnets of Australian strawberries.
$12 dollars????? Damn, I should be buying ours and shipping them up north. I thought that $5 was bad!
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 11:41 PM   #56
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
While I don't agree with the policy, and have even taken the step of writing to express my concerns over the policy, there seems to be a lot of doom and gloom considering that no actual figures have been discussed. For instance, say that the royalties came to $20,000 for a cauliflower grower who was producing 100,000 Cauliflowers a year, that actually increases the price he sells at by just 20c per cauliflower, not great, but certainly not enough to bankrupt the farmer or send shoppers screaming into the night.

So yeah, bad policy as it stands, but screams of "We're doomed!" are really over the top as well.
The volume of milk produced in NZ from January to December 2010 was about 15 million tonnes, and to make this milk, and Ag Research estimates that NZ dairy farmers used 15000 million Litres for dairy pasture irrigation. Dividing the estimated actual water use of all pasture irrigation (which would be a bit more than just dairy irrigation) by this number gives an upper bound of about 160 litres of water per litre of milk for New Zealand as a whole.

If they charge just 1c per litre for the dairy farmer's water, that will push the cost price for a 2L bottle of milk up by $3.20. Current supermarket price (using countdown as an example) is $4.49 so even if farmers just pass this cost on, we can expect to see the price of a 2L bottle of milk skyrocket to around $7.20. Furtermore, nonme of this takes into account the water the milk processing industry uses, cleaning out the milk trucks, milk processing plants.

Now if you think that is bad, I hope you are not a keen cheese eater, because a 1KG block of cheese requires 10 litres of milk to make it (1600 litres of water). At 1c per litre of water, a 1Kg family block of cheese could end up setting you back about $30.

This is not scaremongering, these are facts based on thorough research. Taxing water is a very, very bad idea (licensing its export though would be a good idea). Its the only reason I will not be switching my vote from Green to Labour this election... I might even end up voting National for the first time in my life, and for someone who contributes financially to both Greenpeace and SSCS to the tune of $480 p.a. each, this would have been unthinkable a month ago.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 12:29 PM   #57
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
...At 1c per litre of water, a 1Kg family block of cheese could end up setting you back about $30...

This is not scaremongering, these are facts based on thorough research.
Lies, damned lies. and statistics.

You're drawing an inference on averages that is simply false, and I've repeatedly stated why it's baloney.

The enormous majority of water used by dairy is on South Island farms that have been converted from sheep. There are thousands of farms that won't be affected at all by pricing water.

But hey, you just stick to repeating the propaganda.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I might even end up voting National for the first time in my life, ...
May as well - you've bought the bollocks and are repeating it.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 05:54 PM   #58
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,349
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
snip>

The enormous majority of water used by dairy is on South Island farms that have been converted from sheep. There are thousands of farms that won't be affected at all by pricing water.

<snip>

I'm not sure I understands what this means.

Why won't they be affected?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 06:22 PM   #59
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,193
Still

At least coke will still be cheap and every other mass produced crap
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 06:58 PM   #60
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I'm not sure I understands what this means.
Going by your pevious comments in the thread, I'm not even slightly surprised.

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Why won't they be affected?
Now let me think... why would someone not need to buy water?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 07:31 PM   #61
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I'm not sure I understands what this means.

Why won't they be affected?
He thinks those "thousands of farms" won't need to irrigate with ground water because they have plenty of rainfall. In this "townie" (urban liberal) fantasy world of his, the annual rainfall will not only be sufficient to keep all these "thousands of farms" lush and green the whole year round, the rainfall also will be nicely and evenly distributed over the whole year, and not only that, it will fall on all the right pastures at the right time so the farmer will never need to supply water to any pasture when he needs it.

This does not bear the slightest resemblance to reality. Over here, in the real world, farming is seasonal; especially rainfall. In the North Island especially, you can go months and more with no rain at all, then it will bucket down for weeks on end. Farmers that do not have an easily accessible aquifer or with sufficient ground water for irrigation, use storage dams to store water for irrigation. The dams fill in the rainy times, and when there is no rain, the farmer has to manage this water supply carefully, so that he wont run out before the rains come again.

Now, here is the kicker. Labour have said they plan to tax ALL commercial water use from ALL sources. If the farmer irrigates from a bore, he will be taxed; from streams and rivers, even on his own property - he will be taxed; from the storage dams on his own property - he will be taxed.

While Labour haven't specifically said they will do this, I take "ALL sources" to literally mean that. They have been very short on details. IMO, they have intentionally not put any numbers on this policy because they do want anyone doing the number. Frankly, I don't trust ANY politicians (red, blue, green or black). They will keep quiet on things they know will be deeply unpopular, and then spring it on the public when they get into power. (I haven't forgotten the introduction of GST, the foisting of previously incarcerated mental patients on the community or the way our health system was gutted back in the 1980s and 1990s)
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 12th August 2017 at 07:34 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 07:35 PM   #62
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,349
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Going by your pevious comments in the thread, I'm not even slightly surprised.

Did I bruise your feelings with a couple of harmless jokes?

Sorry. I didn't realize you were so sensitive. I'll try to remember that in the future.

Quote:


Now let me think... why would someone not need to buy water?

I'm trying to figure out why the South Island is a special circumstance as far as water is concerned. Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.

That's why I asked.

Politely, I might add.

You might try that as a response.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 10:25 PM   #63
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Did I bruise your feelings with a couple of harmless jokes?
You wish.

Simply a case of feeble, and absurdly unoriginal, attempts at humour of the kind that encourages me to think the writer is lacking in brain cells.

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I'm trying to figure out why the South Island is a special circumstance as far as water is concerned. Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.
You didn't misunderstand, you just didn't read far enough so I'll re-quote the words after "South Island" for you:

Quote:
...farms that have been converted from sheep.
That's the part that actually matters.

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
You might try that as a response.
You've been a member here for nearly ten years; what on earth makes you think I'd be polite?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 02:15 AM   #64
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Just on the subject of "fresh water":

Selwyn River, Canterbury.

A tributary to L2, Canterbury.

Another part of the Selwyn.

Lake Ellsmere, Canterbury.

Waimak, you guessed it - Canterbury.

Halswell River, Canterbury.

Go National!
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 07:09 AM   #65
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The volume of milk produced in NZ from January to December 2010 was about 15 million tonnes, and to make this milk, and Ag Research estimates that NZ dairy farmers used 15000 million Litres for dairy pasture irrigation. Dividing the estimated actual water use of all pasture irrigation (which would be a bit more than just dairy irrigation) by this number gives an upper bound of about 160 litres of water per litre of milk for New Zealand as a whole.

If they charge just 1c per litre for the dairy farmer's water, that will push the cost price for a 2L bottle of milk up by $3.20. Current supermarket price (using countdown as an example) is $4.49 so even if farmers just pass this cost on, we can expect to see the price of a 2L bottle of milk skyrocket to around $7.20. Furtermore, nonme of this takes into account the water the milk processing industry uses, cleaning out the milk trucks, milk processing plants.

Now if you think that is bad, I hope you are not a keen cheese eater, because a 1KG block of cheese requires 10 litres of milk to make it (1600 litres of water). At 1c per litre of water, a 1Kg family block of cheese could end up setting you back about $30.

This is not scaremongering, these are facts based on thorough research. Taxing water is a very, very bad idea (licensing its export though would be a good idea). Its the only reason I will not be switching my vote from Green to Labour this election... I might even end up voting National for the first time in my life, and for someone who contributes financially to both Greenpeace and SSCS to the tune of $480 p.a. each, this would have been unthinkable a month ago.
The problem here is that you are still putting a cost to it when none has been determined. How does your costing work out if instead of using 1c per litre you use 10c per cubic meter?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 07:29 AM   #66
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The volume of milk produced in NZ from January to December 2010 was about 15 million tonnes, and to make this milk, and Ag Research estimates that NZ dairy farmers used 15000 million Litres for dairy pasture irrigation. Dividing the estimated actual water use of all pasture irrigation (which would be a bit more than just dairy irrigation) by this number gives an upper bound of about 160 litres of water per litre of milk for New Zealand as a whole
I'm also having trouble following your math here.

First Tonnes is not a measure of Volume, but mass.

Second 15 million tonnes of milk is around 14.5 Billion litres of milk (because its density is 1033 kg/m3) whereas 15,000 million litres is 15 Billion litres, which would seem to be ~1 litre of milk per 1 litre of water. Correct me if I am wrong here (it's 2:30am so my math is not the best.) How do you get 160 litres of water?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 12:53 PM   #67
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
It has started...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11903486

If Labour taxes the water, then they are declaring ownership of the water. That means all full and final Treaty of Waitangi settlements will be invalidated and have to be re-negotiated. All of them have as a key basis that water belongs to no-one.

Oh dear, Jacinda hasn't really thought this one through has she.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:00 PM   #68
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'm also having trouble following your math here.

First Tonnes is not a measure of Volume, but mass.

Second 15 million tonnes of milk is around 14.5 Billion litres of milk (because its density is 1033 kg/m3) whereas 15,000 million litres is 15 Billion litres, which would seem to be ~1 litre of milk per 1 litre of water. Correct me if I am wrong here (it's 2:30am so my math is not the best.) How do you get 160 litres of water?
Here, check for yourself

https://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/2012...litre-of-milk/

Quote:
"We can estimate the irrigation requirement of New Zealand’s milk production another way. The volume of milk produced in NZ from January to December 2010 was about 15 million tonnes, or assuming the density of water again, then 15000 million L. Dividing the estimated actual water use of all pasture irrigation (which would be a bit more than just dairy irrigation) by this number gives an upper bound of about 160 litres of water per litre of milk for New Zealand as a whole. This is on par with the AgResearch numbers above."

https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20G...10-19-2010.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...08521X12000492

Note that Waikato gives a result of 945 litres of water to produce 1 litre of milk, but much of that is "green" water from rainfall and "blue" water from rivers and streams. The elephant in the room is that Labour have clearly stated their intent to tax water from ALL sources, that will include rainfall and rivers. Its easy enough to to that, some places in the world already have a rain tax in place. They tax landowners on the collection area of their properties or the roof area of their buildings.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 13th August 2017 at 01:11 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 08:28 PM   #69
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Here, check for yourself

https://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/2012...litre-of-milk/




https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20G...10-19-2010.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...08521X12000492

Note that Waikato gives a result of 945 litres of water to produce 1 litre of milk, but much of that is "green" water from rainfall and "blue" water from rivers and streams. The elephant in the room is that Labour have clearly stated their intent to tax water from ALL sources, that will include rainfall and rivers. Its easy enough to to that, some places in the world already have a rain tax in place. They tax landowners on the collection area of their properties or the roof area of their buildings.
I see what you have done, the 15 billion Litres is milk, not irrigation. In fact they noted that there were 4.707 billion m3 of water permitted for, but only about 50% was used, so around 2.354 trillion litres of water.

At that rate they could happily set the level at 1c per m3 and pull in $23.5 Million while raising the cost of producing a 2l bottle by just 0.32c!

ETA: Even including all water sources, it's still around 2c per 2l bottle increase with a rate of 1c per m3, and would potentially bring in $140-150 million.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 13th August 2017 at 08:39 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 08:32 PM   #70
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It has started...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11903486

If Labour taxes the water, then they are declaring ownership of the water. That means all full and final Treaty of Waitangi settlements will be invalidated and have to be re-negotiated. All of them have as a key basis that water belongs to no-one.

Oh dear, Jacinda hasn't really thought this one through has she.
There is the argument that since it's not actually a tax, but rather a royalty, similar to that on Gold, Iron, Copper, Oil and Gas, then it's not actually a claim to ownership in the same way actually taxing would be.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 08:49 PM   #71
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
There is the argument that since it's not actually a tax, but rather a royalty, similar to that on Gold, Iron, Copper, Oil and Gas, then it's not actually a claim to ownership in the same way actually taxing would be.
Don't spoil the National Party propaganda, mate - they might lose votes and the election.

Quelle horreur!
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:38 PM   #72
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
There is the argument that since it's not actually a tax, but rather a royalty, similar to that on Gold, Iron, Copper, Oil and Gas, then it's not actually a claim to ownership in the same way actually taxing would be.
A Royalty (when charged by a government) is a Tax
A levy is a tax

ACC levies are the worst, you pay GST on those, so its a Tax on a Tax

You call it anything you like, its still money I am forced to pay to the government.

Taxing water is a rort any way you slice it
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:49 PM   #73
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A Royalty (when charged by a government) is a Tax
A levy is a tax

ACC levies are the worst, you pay GST on those, so its a Tax on a Tax

You call it anything you like, its still money I am forced to pay to the government.

Taxing water is a rort any way you slice it
This is just incorrect in a number of grounds.

Firstly, Taxes are a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. This is not what is being talked about.

Secondly...

Quote:
When minerals are produced from a leased property, the owner is usually paid a share of the production income. This money is known as a "royalty payment." The amount of the royalty payment is specified in the lease agreement. It can be a fixed amount per ton of minerals produced or a percentage of the production value.
This is what is being talked about. It doesn't become a Tax just because the Government is the lessor. No one says that Oil Companies pay a Tax for the oil and gas, they pay a Royalty. Likewise mining companies don't pay a Tax on the gold, iron, or copper they extract, they pay a Royalty.

Calling it a Tax is simply scare tactics.

Oh, an your ACC Levy, it's a service, just as if you were paying for your insurance premium, that is why it incurs GST. The real Tax on a Tax is the GST applied to excise Tax added to petrol and other things such as Make-up, Alcohol and Cigarettes.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 13th August 2017 at 09:51 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 01:06 AM   #74
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Calling it a Tax is simply scare tactics.
The Labour announcement called it a tax, so its a tax

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
When minerals1 are produced from a leased property, the owner2 is usually paid a share of the production income. This money is known as a "royalty payment." The amount of the royalty payment is specified in the lease2 agreement. It can be a fixed amount per ton of minerals produced or a percentage of the production value.
This clearly does not apply on a couple of grounds

1. Water is not a mineral. It does not pass the test of being a solid so it is not considered a mineral although ice; which is solid, is classified as a mineral as long as it is naturally occurring. Thus ice in a snow bank is a mineral, but ice in an ice cube from a refrigerator is not.

2. The water being talked about is water drawn from the land by the owner of that land. The land is not owned by the government, its owned by the farmer. If the government wants money from the farmer for the water he draws from his own land, then the government is claiming ownership of the water.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 03:50 AM   #75
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Labour announcement called it a tax, so its a tax
The policy announcement on their website certainly doesn't. The Media might have called it that, but they aren't labour.

Originally Posted by Labour
A royalty on the commercial consumption of water will assist with the cost of keeping our water clean. Households and councils will not pay any water royalty.

The royalty will be flexible to reflect the scarcity or abundance of water in different regions, the different quality of water, and its use.

The royalty for bottled water will be based on per litre and the royalty for irrigation water will be based on per 1000 litres. It will be proportionate and fair.


Quote:
This clearly does not apply on a couple of grounds

1. Water is not a mineral. It does not pass the test of being a solid so it is not considered a mineral although ice; which is solid, is classified as a mineral as long as it is naturally occurring. Thus ice in a snow bank is a mineral, but ice in an ice cube from a refrigerator is not.
So Oil and Gas aren't considered minerals under this either? I guess someone better tell the Oil and Gas industry....

Quote:
2. The water being talked about is water drawn from the land by the owner of that land. The land is not owned by the government, its owned by the farmer. If the government wants money from the farmer for the water he draws from his own land, then the government is claiming ownership of the water.
The idea of charging for rain water that falls on the land is something that has been dreamed up out of thin air and has no reality in the currently proposed policy, so this is rather irrelevant.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 05:30 AM   #76
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Semantics. The inconvenient truth is that Labour in government will take money for water, you can call it a tax, or a levy or a royalty or a charge (I call it a rort). It is a new form of rort that comes directly off the bottom line of an industry which already operates on razor thin margins. It will hit the average dairy farmer to the tune of $50,000 in a good year, as much as $100,000 or more in bad one.

They say the householders won't have to pay.. well, I don't trust them. I remember being promised that NZ would never have a universal sales tax...then the same government that promised this, introduced GST. Damned liars!

Then they promised us it would remain at 10% for the foreseeable future, and that personal income tax would come down, and it did for a while, but three years later, GST is up to 12½%. Double damned liars!

Next, the bloody Tories get in on the act, and push it up again to 15%, and personal income tax rates are back where they were before GST came in.

I was a staunch Labour voter until Rogernomics, and after that I never returned, even for Helen Clark because I have along memory and haven't forgotten how she screwed over the Education and Health Systems in the Lange/Palmer/Moore Government. I either didn't vote at all or voted for Jim Anderton's NLP, then the Greens when MMP came along.

The rise of Jacinda would certainly have brought me back to Labour, but not with the water rort they are planning.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 12:20 PM   #77
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
...Damned liars!

...Double damned liars!
I love the way you reserve such fanatical hatred for Labour's lies while completely ignoring that your chosen group, the Greenmunists, are not just liars, but hypocritical liars.

You're also giving a free pass to the group of lying, cheating, corrupt filth in power right now.

Nice work.

Kinda like ex-smokers, ex-Labour people.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 12:43 PM   #78
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I love the way you reserve such fanatical hatred for Labour's lies while completely ignoring that your chosen group, the Greenmunists, are not just liars, but hypocritical liars.

You're also giving a free pass to the group of lying, cheating, corrupt filth in power right now.

Nice work.

Kinda like ex-smokers, ex-Labour people.
I follow my parent's philosophy when it comes to political elections; it served them well and it has always serve me well. If I am an undecided voter, I pick an issue that is important to me, and vote according to that. I have picked the water rort as my issue in this election. It make is simple, Labour drops the water rort, they get my vote, if the don't then they don't.

And as for lying, cheating and corrupt politicians, here is my feeling about that....



There are liars, cheats and corrupt scumbags on all sides of the house. When you vote in a NZ Election you are not voting for the best party, you are voting for the least worst... the best of a bad lot. That's why I have never voted National.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 14th August 2017 at 12:44 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 02:41 PM   #79
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
That's why I have never voted National.
Then stop quoting their unmitigated bollocks.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 02:49 PM   #80
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Semantics. The inconvenient truth is that Labour in government will take money for water, you can call it a tax, or a levy or a royalty or a charge (I call it a rort). It is a new form of rort that comes directly off the bottom line of an industry which already operates on razor thin margins. It will hit the average dairy farmer to the tune of $50,000 in a good year, as much as $100,000 or more in bad one.

They say the householders won't have to pay.. well, I don't trust them. I remember being promised that NZ would never have a universal sales tax...then the same government that promised this, introduced GST. Damned liars!

Then they promised us it would remain at 10% for the foreseeable future, and that personal income tax would come down, and it did for a while, but three years later, GST is up to 12½%. Double damned liars!

Next, the bloody Tories get in on the act, and push it up again to 15%, and personal income tax rates are back where they were before GST came in.

I was a staunch Labour voter until Rogernomics, and after that I never returned, even for Helen Clark because I have along memory and haven't forgotten how she screwed over the Education and Health Systems in the Lange/Palmer/Moore Government. I either didn't vote at all or voted for Jim Anderton's NLP, then the Greens when MMP came along.

The rise of Jacinda would certainly have brought me back to Labour, but not with the water rort they are planning.
I guess at the end of the day, do you want money going to cleaning up New Zealand's waterways and lakes? Because if the answer is yes, then the next question is, who do you think should pay for it? Someone has to, and really no matter the way of collecting, the probable answer is that you and I are going to be the ones paying for it some way. Whether it's through in increase in Income Tax, GST, or a water Royalty, it's going to have to come from somewhere. Even if the Government were to just shuffle money around, then we'd pay for it in the reduction of other services.

Seems to me that getting those industries that either take the water a resell it overseas at a massive profit and those that are responsible for a lot of the pollution in the first place to be the ones doing the paying isn't such a bad idea. At least that way the cost of fixing it is spread out over both the NZ customer and the International ones, so we end up paying less of the overall bill than if we have to pay for it all by ourselves.

But hey, if you can come up with a better idea on how to pay for cleaning up the county's waterways and lakes without us having to pay for it either directly, or indirectly through loss of other services, go for it, perhaps Labour will listen to you if you get a really stunning idea.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.