Posts by Bart Janssen

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Speaker: Honest Bastards & Dishonest Cowards, in reply to BenWilson,

    I’m saying it’s not the only option, which you claimed when you said.

    For any government that wishes to provide significant services to its public taxation is the vast majority of its income.

    Yes there are other forms of income, but if you want to provide services you need to tax the population.

    Your arguments against that statement are simply arguments for the sake of argument. You continue to argue for user-pays without ever acknowledging that it essentially replaces taxation of those who can afford it with demands for payment from those who can't.

    4 Have a look at the US dollar when they started printing money furiously. What printing money does is put more cash into the internal economy, which for a large internal economy has some positive effect but for all exports and imports has no effect at all because the value of the dollar drops exactly in step with the amount printed. For New Zealand with an almost insignificant internal economy printing money would be an utter waste of time and suggesting it as an alternative to taxation is pointless, except for the sake of argument.

    Quite simply none of you arguments makes convinces me that we have any option in NZ other than to increase taxation - unless of course you are happy to see the poor of NZ slip deeper and deeper into the mire.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Honest Bastards & Dishonest Cowards, in reply to BenWilson,

    1. More debt.
    2. Incomes from existing assets
    3. Incomes from services – more user pays
    4. Directly tapping the money supply

    To address your alternatives to taxation

    1 More debt leads to more debt repayment costs and eventually defaulting on loans. What you are suggesting is just fine if and only if you have a real expectation that your income will increase to service the debt and eventually pay off the loan. None of those conditions are true.

    2 What assets? We sold those income delivering assets to the private sector.

    3 WTF I just pointed out that we have replaced government funding with user pays which is fine if you are rich and can pay but if you are poor you are fucked. User pays is what you get when government funding is inadequate for the purpose. That is fine in some cases but for a Labour party arguing for users pays for education health and social welfare is beyond stupid.

    4 Yup you can print more money, that works for about a second.

    You forgot about buying lotto ticket.

    So how about you come up with a real reason why taxation is bad.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Honest Bastards & Dishonest Cowards, in reply to BenWilson,

    I’m unwilling to accept it because it’s not true.

    Well since you said so ...

    I suggest you visit Cambodia, a country with essentially no taxation. Lots of schools, paid for by foreign aid but no teachers because there is no money to pay them. No money to maintain roads. No money to provide sewerage or electricity.

    But since you've said taxation isn't the answer it must be true.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Honest Bastards & Dishonest Cowards,

    Given National has gutted education, health and social welfare spending foisting ever more onto user-pays type operations that are great for the rich but suck for the poor (and even for the middle class) ... the Labour policies shouldn't be hard to write.

    Fixing those core institutions after the damage done by National will cost money. The blame for the increased taxes that must come lays squarely on National - but it must be Labour and The Greens that enact those taxes.

    Sadly too many people here and elsewhere are unwilling to accept that in order to have the nice things we need taxes. My guess is Labour will again shy away from a commitment to proper government including taxation. In that case one can hardly blame the voters for walking away from them in disgust.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Living under bridges, in reply to Russell Brown,

    “we should consider the concerns of residents in good faith”

    And as far as I can tell the good faith concerns are being considered in good faith.

    The problem is the project seems to have drawn the attention of some who are determined to oppose simply for the sake of opposition. As each genuine concern is addressed a new concern is raised, the point we appear to have reached now is the remaining concerns are ... well ... a bit odd.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Living under bridges, in reply to Mikaere Curtis,

    the chthonic doom of the Victoria Park Tunnel.

    Not to mention all those pedestrians who ran for miles to avoid the open day.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Living under bridges,

    I kinda want to know what a cultural musing hat looks like ...

    Meanwhile why do things like the skypath evoke this kind of response? There seems to be something about other people getting something good that causes some folks to go completely off the rails.

    That video is bizarre as is the web page from the Waihitian.

    But we see this kind of response any time some group gets benefit from government or council, those that don't benefit seem to find all sorts of bizarre reasons to object.

    And as for the dangers of cyclist versus pedestrian accidents - yes injury is possible as is, in extreme cases, death. But your chance of injury or death from driving over the bridge is not zero either.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Living under bridges, in reply to Mikaere Curtis,

    Because people taking to the Skypath for a view of the harbour and a 3 day water festival involving 4 million people are exactly the same.

    psssh next thing you'll be using data like some radical scientist type :)

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Living under bridges, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I still think it’s reasonable to consider the interests of the small community at the base of the bridge.

    Absolutely. And nothing I've seen from the plans suggests that such consideration isn't happening.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Living under bridges,

    ... if its execution is flawed ...

    This is the key point for me. The NIMBYs (and yes I will label them that) have argued that because of the possibility of flawed design then the project must be stopped.

    They haven't engaged with design to make it a good design, nor have they considered that the folks designing it have a pretty good track record, nor have they seemed willing to compromise.

    For them the only option has been opposition at all costs.

    Of course, it needs careful design at each end. The way to get that is to participate not oppose.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3778 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 378 Older→ First