Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[wizard of Tauranga]

.Bad look to have a person killed riding on public transport amongst many more reported

Why are we pushing public transport so hard. It’s unsafe and full of the crazies. Same all round the world.

I’ll keep my car thank you.

 

[Noitall]

Why are we pushing public transport so hard. It’s unsafe and full of the crazies. Same all round the world.

I’ll keep my car thank you.

Would be handy for congestion if there was a reliable public transport system

 

[Rizzah]

Absolute rubbish.

Really how many Uber drivers importing their families does NZ need?

Which is the number 1 goal of any immigrants to Aus & NZ, obtain property. High immigration effects healthcare and housing disproportionately, it negatively effects social cohesion.

I agree that high migration can exacerbate the wider issues - but the core issues aren't migration itself - it's a lack of planning/investment by Govt.
Migrants can't bring their entire families over. You have to go through a parent visa process.
No one said migrants can't/shouldn't buy property. I'm saying that central govt planning/investment of housing supply coupled with a lack of disincentives for the investment property market is killing us.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

all the migrants fault

Always the standard response from the left, designed as social critique to stifle the conversation. No, migrants aren't the problem as per my post. Mass immigration from different cultures is the problem.

migrants = people
immigration = policy

 

[Noitall]

I don’t think that’s pro immigration at all. I was saying there that the figures are covered up by immigration and they would have been worse otherwise with the I’mmigration hiding how we are really going.

Somewhat of a contradiction though. In response to a post from Rizzah your number 1 point was that immigrants don’t increase gdp to cover them coming here. But your post from June credits immigration as the 0.2 growth we had at that time as the cover for people leaving the country? What’s changed your view in 4-5 months?

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Lol, so according to the replies - the left suck - tax's are envy and it's all the migrants fault. This feels like a JD Vance TED talk.

Lets have a debate on immigration.

I’m actually for immigration. We’re all immigrants here, even Maori. It’s about sustainability for me. A low number focused on quality rather than quantity. Ultimately I would like to see us with 10m people.

So the questions are:

1 - What’s the optimal number per year?
2 - How do we fit all the people (rural or urban?
3 - if rural what about losing green space. If urban - what about Nimbyism. We’ve proved the last 20 years we can’t do urban and meet demand.
4 - are we prepared to compromise our existing infrastructure as we run deficits to fund the new immigrants?
5 - who should pay for the new growth? Why the rich?
6 - where do our immigrants come from? Do we worry about NZ’s identify? Does it worry us if teachers spend copious amounts of time with children who don’t understand English at the expense of the rest of the class?
7 - if we had a static population, wouldn’t all that money spent on new infrastructure be spent on improving existing infrastructure?

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Somewhat of a contradiction though. In response to a post from Rizzah your number 1 point was that immigrants don’t increase gdp to cover them coming here. But your post from June credits immigration as the 0.2 growth we had at that time as the cover for people leaving the country? What’s changed your view in 4-5 months?

Immigrants increase GDP by buying stuff to survive.

Immigrants haven’t increased GDP per person which is the important stat. (Eg they spend but dont produce themselves).

It’s fake growth.

 

[Rizzah]

Always the standard response from the left, designed as social critique to stifle the conversation. No, migrants aren't the problem as per my post. Mass immigration from different cultures is the problem.

migrants = people
immigration = policy

Lol, apologies if I missed your mass immigration point - yes, mass migration into a fucked system can cause problems.
But my point still stands, this is due to bad long term planning and investment.
I don't think different cultures are the problem? It's the effect of those migrants on underfunded public services and housing supply and esp in NZ - wage growth that can cause friction.
Not forgetting that mass immigration is often driven to satisfy the business community to meet, often imaginary, labour shortages and suppress wage inflation.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

yes, mass migration into a fucked system can cause problems.

It’s madness to invite a guest to dinner and not have any plates or cutlery for them…

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Lol, apologies if I missed your mass immigration point - yes, mass migration into a fucked system can cause problems.
But my point still stands, this is due to bad long term planning and investment.
I don't think different cultures are the problem? It's the effect of those migrants on underfunded public services and housing supply and esp in NZ - wage growth that can cause friction.
Not forgetting that mass immigration is often driven to satisfy the business community to meet, often imaginary, labour shortages and suppress wage inflation.

Agree with most of that, the planning is bad because they dont plan for their mass immigration schemes.

Only thing I disagree on is culture. Culture is far more important to social cohesion than race.

 

[Noitall]

Immigrants increase GDP by buying stuff to survive.

Immigrants haven’t increased GDP per person which is the important stat. (Eg they spend but dont produce themselves).

It’s fake growth.

Gee they must have brought a lot of stuff to be credited for the 0.2% growth we had at that time that you said was thanks to them with people leaving?

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Gee they must have brought a lot of stuff to be credited for the 0.2% growth we had at that time that you said was thanks to them with people leaving?

That was when we had 200,000 immigrants wasn’t it? A 0.4% increase in population?

Seems to make sense to me.

 

[Noitall]

That was when we had 200,000 immigrants wasn’t it? A 0.4% increase in population?

Seems to make sense to me.

But that was only thanks to the net 28,330 new immigrants who arrived over those three months to make up for the net 14,980 citizens who left.



28,330 would have to be spending pretty big to make up 0.2% of gdp, especially with 14,980 leaving

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

1 - it appears to me immigrants don’t increase the GDP per person to cover them coming here?

2 - so why even have immigration? When have we ever had a public debate about the level we want?

3 - productivity - I think our size and distance impacts productivity - or we can invest in a tunnel boring machine if we don’t have a constant supply of tunnels like overseas countries do. So should we aim for a bigger population? What’s our goal?

4 - where’s the incentive to invest to boost productivity? The most important question in this thread. labour was anti business and National is pro based on policy. I could list evidence but already don’t w that.

5 - a deportation scheme - that effectively what we’ve had the last 20 years by pushing out our young, best and brightest….

Because our productivity is poor we need immigration - we saw the impact on wage inflation of not having it when we came out of the lockdowns. There’s no quick fixes to our productivity trends so immigration remains important for us going forward.

 

[Noitall]

Because our productivity is poor we need immigration - we saw the impact on wage inflation of not having it when we came out of the lockdowns. There’s no quick fixes to our productivity trends so immigration remains important for us going forward.

That’s true but a reality too is that it can have a negative effect on wages. It’s a tough balance

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Because our productivity is poor we need immigration - we saw the impact on wage inflation of not having it when we came out of the lockdowns. There’s no quick fixes to our productivity trends so immigration remains important for us going forward.

Yes, the argument that immigrants suppress wages was exposed during the 2 years we locked down.

Chronic staff shortages everywhere. Reduced service levels. Wages went up but just transferred to costs going up more (inflation) so we were worse off.

There is a case for less immigration if that drives an investment in technology and machinery to replace people but it’s a slow, long term transition.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

That’s true but a reality too is that it can have a negative effect on wages. It’s a tough balance

Wage inflation relative to overall inflation is the key.

 

[Noitall]

Wage inflation relative to overall inflation is the key.

Not so much a wage based situation but a painter I’m aware of quoted a job on the north shore recently and thought he was in with a good shot at the job going in competitively to get it. He quoted $16,000, and was told by the owner that they’d found a Chinese group that we’re going to paint it for $6,000. He just couldn’t compete with him potentially making next to nothing by the time the products were purchased to complete the job. Got the better of him and he went and had a look at the finished product, and it looks like they struggled to find enough in the job to purchase all the paint required too with it looking very light

 

[miket12]

You can read we both face similar supply problems. Esp around social housing - the UK with the sell off during 'Right to Buy' that wasn't replaced. NZ with sell offs over the last 30 years, particularly the 90s without replenishing the houses sold. Also issue around cost to build.
You could argue our housing market is even more inflated on average, because we don't have a CGT or Land Tax to curb speculative investment.
A land tax and CGT aren’t meant to fix affordability on their own. They create another revenue stream for infrastructure to help address much needed supply and reduce speculative demand.

But Labour have continuously said that their CGT would be fiscally neutral.... in other words, they'd reduce the current tax rates by the amount the CGT would bring in..... there wasn't going to be "another stream for infrastructure".... or health, or education, or benefits, or programs targeting the poor, or public transport, or houses..... because the tax take would have been the same.

Secondly, CGT don't provide an immediate boast to the government accounts... they only collect revenue once assets are sold. For the first few years, the tax take will decrease until it gets to the point in time when enough assets have sold. So, if a government was to introduce a CGT now, and at the same time, reduce the tax on wages and salaries, the actual tax revenue received by the government goes down.... so there's less money to spend on infrastructure, health, education etc. That's why the Greens and the Māori Parties favour a wealth tax... they get hold of the money at the end of the next financial year instead of waiting for assets to be sold.

'Capital income tax' just an internal debate at this stage - Chris Hipkins

Instead, more scrutiny needs to go on the government's plans to bring in new taxes, Chris Hipkins says.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[MaybeTop8]

Lol, so according to the replies - the left suck - tax's are envy and it's all the migrants fault. This feels like a JD Vance TED talk.

it's groundhog day. This lot are so far right they're starting to see David Seymour as a commie