As is repeal of the helmet law.
I don't know about this, I've fallen off / been knocked off my bike enough appreciate having even an imperfect protection between my head and the road.
This has been explained in two previous threads.
We probably shouldn't go there again but absolutely wearing a helmet is a good idea even if they are a bit less useful than we think.
It's the law that is the problem. The law has unintended consequences and it's trivial to show that it raises the likelyhood of having a car v bike accident.
It wasn't a bad idea to try a law but it had a negative effect and should be repealed because it does more harm than good.
My partner bought an e-bike at the beginning of this year and we've been cycling a lot, her on the e-bike and me on my road bike, usually single file. For the most part it's been great. As I experienced two years ago when I spent a lot of my long service leave cycling around Auckland most drivers in Auckland are really good around bikes.
The bike paths are getting better every day and even the fairly useless green painted paths are helping define space for bikes. Then there's the doofus who decided that because the green paint had been painted over the dotted yellow line on Mt Abert rd opposite Owairaka Ave then it was obviously now an acceptable parking space - sigh.
The problem is the 1 in 500 driver (number pulled out of my head but feels about right). Like the little blue car that decided to overtake us down a hill in the rain on a narrow road with a blind corner ahead - and yes a car came round the corner forcing him to cut in on us. Never mind that we were doing over 50 kph in the rain anyway and waiting a minute behind us would have given him a perfectly safe passing zone.
It's that guy, the one that swerves into you as they pass or stops at the lights completely covering the green paint. Those are the ones that make cycling scary - it doesn't matter how experienced you are on the bike they threaten your life.
And I just don't get it, every time we ride to work it's one less car and one more parking space for them - you'd think they'd like us on the road not try and kill us or just scare us with their one tonne metal sledgehammer.
But pissing on the seats
urinating is hard
“where would the government get money if we don’t tax income?”
Land value tax - most efficient and most progressive of all taxes;
You don't need to restrict yourself to only one tax. There is a complexity issue but so long as you don't have exemptions then using multiple systems to tax is not inherently a problem.
It also allows you flexibility to modify the system if it isn't achieving the stated goals.
However, that would require you to state goals and measure changes - you know like having a hypothesis and collecting data and then reassessing your hypothesis ...
I’ve no idea what Family First’s position on it is
It probably involves years of practice and incredible flexibility.
As far as I can tell both men and women make a mess in toilets. At home we clean up after ourselves, unless we want disharmony.
Elsewhere we rely on someone paid to clean up after we have for some unknown reason decided to spray the walls floor and seat with body fluids ... or solids (how?, just how?). If the toilets are dirty it's because someone doesn't want to pay enough to get them cleaned regularly.
Most homes have gender neutral toilets, the idea that a home would have segregation is nuts so why do we have segregation anywhere else?
The only reason for separating genders is if you can have men use a urinal, preferably one with a large target because some men find it hard to aim ... or maybe like a firehose they can't control the force ... or maybe the barrel is too short ... or maybe they should just learn to look where they're aiming.
Or alternatively we could get over ourselves and just have completely gender neutral toilets because frankly seeing another gender do their ablutions is not going to scar you for life and maybe we could all do with some reality about our bodies and the various things that bodies do.
The frustrating thing about these discussions is they all seem to devolve into binary options. Super or not. Age X or Age Y. Means testing or not.
Most of us are adults, we live in a world of greys and compromises. Day to day we make judgement calls and think sharing is good.
But get into a political discussion and it's all black and white, all or nothing.
So here's my reckons (valueless and hence free). Superannuation serves two purposes, first it acts as a safety net so that when people get old they don't have to work, our socialist state looks after them. You can take an actuarial approach to who gets it and/or use a UBI, but in a morally sound country we don't force old people to work beyond a certain point and we let people relax a bit before they die.
Second, superannuation serves as a reward for contributing to the country over your working career. It was your taxes that made everything possible and the country chooses to reward people for that.
So means testing makes the first part work better but sacrifices the second, so find a compromise, means-test up to a certain point eg the UBI and after that yeah you are being rewarded for what you contributed even if you are rich.
As for the age, it's pretty clear 65 is too low for some people and too high for others. So find some compromise. Make the UBI portion (or whatever) activate earlier and the reward part activate later, yes I know that's somewhat unfair on those who die earlier but that's what a compromise is about - being somewhat unfair to everyone.
As for paying for it, the morons who stopped paying into the Cullen fund should be taken out back and something embarrassing should happen to them, and frankly the idea that we're taking their ideas seriously now after that fuck up is insane. We need a combined approach that leverages the power of compounding inherent in a large independent fund like the Super fund. And yeah we also need to bite the bullet and realise we (those of us who are rich) need to pay more taxes, it pisses me off when folks wibble about their taxes as if they have no idea what sharing is about.
TLDR: We need some adults in parliament. Children like English and Little and Peters need to be booted out.
disdained the idea of "borrowing money to invest"
That made me laugh out loud. Are these the same people who run workshops on how to borrow money ... er I mean leverage your assets ... to invest in capital gains-free property?
we should be mindful that many of the sports that NZers not only value viewing, but also participating in (along with children, family and friends) rely on rights revenue.
From what I understand of what happens overseas when sports are limited to pay TV participation rates drop as does live attendance (probably because folks often watch sports they play). In NZ cricket has been the big loser when compared with Netball.
While the big lump sum that sports get from Sky would disappear I'm not certain that most sports would lose overall from widening the market for their sport away from pay TV.
Sadly, times have changed.
Meanwhile none of that explains SDHBs behaviour, all it would take would be for them to admit they have been doing it wrong ... oh wait.