Hard News: Transferring wealth to Wellington
180 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
</troll>
</droll>
-
Re that Wellington thing, here's a compromise that I'm sure all you 'tonians will support:
Wellington=The Goverment
Wellywood=The City
;)
-
We wouldn't be having these problems if Auckland was the capitol of NZ as it should be.
Do you want Auckland to look like this? I'm confused, but not against. It would create plenty of jobs in the building sector
I'm not at all intending to be polemic nor taking offence, but FWIW I also read Wellington in the title of the post as meaning the city.
-
At least Billy Connoly understands Wellingtonians:
If it wisnae fur yer wellys where wid ye be
you'd be in the hospital or infirmary
cause you'd have a dose ae the flu or even plurisee
if ye didnae have your feet in your wellys.wellys they are wonderful
wellys they are swell cause they keep out the water
and they keep in the smell.
and when yur sittin' in a room
you can always tell when some bugger takes aff his wellys.And yes, if you didn't know, Billy got there first. Apparently the tune is an old Weavers' guild anthem.
-
The Goldmine.
Yeah, see your fault-line and raise you one, two, three (counting on fingers, sorry) four... heaps of volcanoes. Smart-as we is up here.
-
Except that's the same essentially bullshitty rhetorical slight of hand that allows you to pretend that government is some mysterious "they" you're in no way responsible for.
On that basis, Beehive == Auckland at least as much (and indeed twice as much based on number of MPs) as Beehive == Wellington. And that would make the headline of Russell's post slightly accurate (given where Key and Hide represent) nonsense.
Personally, I assumed the headline was about buying lumps of delicious pastry-wrapped beef.
I thought Russell was going to link to an MP3 of him covering Billy Connelly's "if it weren't fer yer Wellies...." Now I feel deprived.
-
Damn you Hood!
-
Local Government actually capable of acting in the interests of the whole of Auckland, ensuring that local and regional infrastructure is built toward long-term goals of enhancing action of region-wide social issues and ensuring robust economic performance in the largest metropolitan area in the country and the best chance for a prosperous New Zealand?
And Graeme, by what standards would you say that Auckland's Councils were failing to do all that?
I wouldn't. Although I suspect there were views to that end in the Report of the Royal Commission. My point was mainly that there were other rationales than saving money, and indeed those other rationales were much more important.
-
</troll>
</droll>
</lol>
-
*sigh* Could someone make Lindsay Perigo post under his own name? I'm sorry to tell you this, Mr. Dempsey, but people who don't use public transport don't get to opt out of the portion of their rates that deliver subsidies to ARTA.
But they do get to vote for councillors who support cutting funding for public transport. And if they can convince enough of their friends, they can even make it happen.
But Aucklanders won't have any influence over how their rates are spent on transport. I mean, that's what this is about, isn't it?
-
Well? Ington!
-
I'll see you Billy Connolly and raise you J.K. Baxter:
Wellington
Time is a frown on the stone brow
Of a monument, a gale shaking the quay.
There is never time to let the whole day sink
Into the heart, and hold it sheltered there.Power breeds on power in labyrinthine hives
Nested under the daylong driving cloud;
Stale breath of suburb dawn hazing the harbour;
Tiring the eye, stripping the nerve to fever.City of flower-pots, canyon streets and trams;
O sterile whore of a thousand bureaucrats!
There is a chasm of sadness behind
Your formal giggle, when the moon opensCold doors in space. Here on the dark hill
Above your broken lights - no crucifix
Entreats, but the gun emplacements overgrown
And the radio masts' huge harp of the wind's grief.He must have written that on a day like today - daylong driving cloud alright.
-
Well? Ington!
I'll always be partial to Wellington Schmellington.
-
no crucifix Entreats
Ah well, those buggers with the tower on Mt Vic fixed that.
-
Is "==" some "C" thing that I've missed again?
-
Is "==" some "C" thing that I've missed again?
Yes.
Edit: If Kyle had used "=", "the Beehive" would have become literally equal to Wellington, and then later Auckland - a side effect with catastrophic consequences. But a good unit test would catch that.
-
Well? Ington!
Well... now we're quoting The Goons?
Ington, Ington, Ington, iddle-eye poh!
-
So, all these CCO's... presumably as well as getting income from user charges, they will also be apportioned a share of the rates? (roading, public transport subsidy, etc?)
Who does the apportioning? If it's the elected officials of the council then that is at least some way to help control the direction of the CCO's, no?
The CCO's might be free to choose their own path... but if some paths lead to more funds and others lead to it getting cut off, is that not a way for the elected people to exert the influence we are worried they wont have?
-
But Aucklanders won't have any influence over how their rates are spent on transport. I mean, that's what this is about, isn't it?
I;m going to ask this two-part question again:
1) Who voted for the board of ARTA? I sure didn't.
2) And without recourse to Google, can you name ARTA's directors and the ARC's Chief Executive and General Manager (Transport & Urban Development)?
-
And again, ARTA's budget is what proportion of the total transport expenditure by Auckland's current local authorities?
Compared with the proposed Transport CCO's 54% of the new Council's total budget.
Hopefully the attention on this lately means that the government will back down and insert some real accountability into the arrangements so that the CCOs are actually bound to follow strategic direction as set out in Council strategies and plans. Like ARTA is now.
Otherwise this will continue to be a live issue all the way to the next national elections, whenever they may be held.
-
All I can see happening there is folks ending up in court for not paying their bills and spending a few weeks in a private prison run by the same company that owns the CCOs.
I don't think you can actually go to jail for not paying rates in NZ.
Anyway, people refusing to pay poll tax in the UK, and smashing the place up a bit in March 1990 led to the tax being abolished and its perpetrator forced into demented retirement.
All voting and whining will do is lead to a succession of National governments until enough people get bored and consider it "time for a change" again.
Get up off your knees!
-
Increased tax is not the only way Government benefits from the creation of the CCOs. Currently Government funds rates rebates for low income households, based on total household rates - including water rates. Once water charges are transferred to Watercare, they will be excluded from the rebate calculation. This issue of allowing rebates to include water charges has been raised to Government, and the answer has been a resounding NO.
This is already the situation for Auckland City and Manukau, who currently offer a remission for affected households. Auckland Council may choose to adopt a similar policy but this of course will be funded by Auckland ratepayers, and not the government.
-
You won’t go to jail for not paying rates. However, if you have a mortgage the council will simply instruct your mortgage provider to pay any outstanding arrears, including penalties. (And they will oblige – check the small print of your mortgage agreement). Most banks will also charge a fee for this service. And, as they take the money from your loan funding account, you may also be hit with further penalties for any other payments you then default on.
If you don’t have a mortgage, it is fairly straight forward for the council to get a charging order from the court, costs naturally payable by you. They will then follow the normal debt collections processes.
If you still manage to avoid paying, it is extremely unlikely that the council will apply the ultimate sanction of a forced rating sale. But if you ever want to sell the property, paying the rates will generally be a requirement of settlement.
So in short, don’t bother with the rates revolt – you’ll end up paying sooner or later, with the addition of penalties. (10% every six months is fairly standard.)
-
you’ll end up paying sooner or later, with the addition of penalties. (10% every six months is fairly standard.)
Yeah, but if everyone refused to write a check for six months, the council would fail to make payroll and things would start to go a bit pear-shaped for them.
It would be easier for them to give us our votes back than try and sue half of Auckland.
-
Anyway, people refusing to pay poll tax in the UK, and smashing the place up a bit in March 1990 led to the tax being abolished and its perpetrator forced into demented retirement.
True. It did however 6 months later lead to a very thinly disguised poll tax called council tax which exists to this very day and people are still paying it on a regular basis. And it's perpetrator was replaced by a potato like figurehead, the resulting image change ensured the same party stayed in power - with the said tax in place.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.