|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
My salary has been frozen for the last four years because of austerity, and we got a under 1% increase in the four years before that. I mean, the gfc excuse can only be used for so long. If I am still on my 2009 salary and paying nine bucks for a cauliflower I'm probably not going to vote for the dudes who have presided over this financial mess Then I walk past literally dozens of homeless people on the main streets of Napier, all high off their faces on synnies, stinking of stale BO, getting taxed to gently caress by gangs, sleeping in sub zero temperatures in the doorways of local businesses because literally no one wants them. Then they get arrested, charged and convicted in the morning for begging for food and drugs [and to pay for their newly acquired court fine lol] I find it hard to get angry about my own situation. But nine bucks for a cauliflower god drat it! I don't think the govt is getting my vote this time around.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Also lol@shane jones
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Why are cauliflowers so loving expensive anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Why are cauliflowers so loving expensive anyway? Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
God if Shane Jones takes over from Winston Peters I'll be pissed. He's like all of the bad parts of Winston without any of the charisma or political skill. Just a lazy, sexist old gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Why are cauliflowers so loving expensive anyway? Because they can sell them overseas for more, so would be dumb to not do that for the extra money, apart from the tax breaks they get from negative gearing and the bailouts and help they get in droughts, and the under market rates they pay for water to grow the crops and etc etc. So basicaly privatise the profits and socalise the losses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Why are cauliflowers so loving expensive anyway? Because it is not the season for them. If you buy in season you can get them for $8 sometimes $7 on special. I wonder why people don't eat enough fresh fruit and vegetables?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Because it is not the season for them. If you buy in season you can get them for $8 sometimes $7 on special. I mean you can buy them from weekend markets in Welly for 3.50, but for some reason they're $6-9 in supermarkets year round. It's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
This story is actually about how even houses in the "affordable" homes scheme in loving Pukekohe are out of reach for first home buyers, but they make it seem that the new regulations around loans are the problem. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/94256129/Auckland-first-home-buyers-facing-increasingly-more-difficult-hurdles?cid=app-android
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
bike tory posted:This story is actually about how even houses in the "affordable" homes scheme in loving Pukekohe are out of reach for first home buyers, but they make it seem that the new regulations around loans are the problem. quote:Under the legislation, the properties can only be sold to first-home buyers who are New Zealand citizens. It also sets a salary cap of $120,000 for couples. Fuccckk. 120k a year and you still can't buy a house?! what the poo poo is going on here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
How the gently caress is $570k+ considered affordable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Robo Captain posted:How the gently caress is $570k+ considered affordable? Well, for certain people who can afford it due to the outstanding merit of passing between the right inbred thighs when they were born, it could be considered that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Robo Captain posted:How the gently caress is $570k+ considered affordable? e: and receive government finance for at least one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
No no it's only people $120k/year who can't afford, that's not too expensive
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure how affordable housing is supposed to work given how overvalued the market is and no developer is going to sell for less than market value.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
If only there were some kind of entity who could step in when there is a failure in the market. Perhaps even if they could adjust the laws or other ways to shift the market for the benefit of the citizens. Someone to provide some governance. Perhaps we could call it a government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Varkk posted:If only there were some kind of entity who could step in when there is a failure in the market. Perhaps even if they could adjust the laws or other ways to shift the market for the benefit of the citizens. Someone to provide some governance. Perhaps we could call it a government. Perhaps that government could hire people to build houses that it then sells at an affordable price on terms it controls?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
quote:Migrants are not to blame for the social and economic ills of this country. good speech
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Migrants aren't to blame but lets cut those bastards down anyway just cause, you know
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
My new party's running on a platform of 30,000 mandatory random abortions chosen by an entirely unbiased lottery (it's points-based an therefore fair and objective). We expect this will help heal New Zealand's infrastructure woes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Somfin posted:My new party's running on a platform of 30,000 mandatory random abortions chosen by an entirely unbiased lottery (it's points-based an therefore fair and objective). We expect this will help heal New Zealand's infrastructure woes. I didn't know Gareth Morgan had announced a new policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
hell yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Migrants aren't to blame but lets cut those bastards down anyway just cause, you know Well, to be fair, only those that aren't white and make less than 50k/year
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Just change the title of the thread to "open borders or nothing". I feel like there's no way immigration cuts can be brought up without this same stupid discussion cropping up
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Just change the title of the thread to "open borders or nothing". I feel like there's no way immigration cuts can be brought up without this same stupid discussion cropping up I'm sure those of you who think we really should be more stringent on the number of people we let in would phrase it that way. Why not call for closed borders if "immigrants" are the source of enough of our problems to make planned immigration cuts an advertised position?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Immigration rate=/=immigrants Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I'm sure those of you who think we really should be more stringent on the number of people we let in would phrase it that way. Why not call for closed borders if "immigrants" are the source of enough of our problems to make planned immigration cuts an advertised position? Because immigrantion is good? Immigration levels are a fairly common policy lever for governments but unfortunately the current zeitgeist is this horrible xenophobic nationalism which makes any discussion of immigration really fraught. Labour waded right into the racism with NZF but when James Shaw makes a speech like that and is still getting poo poo because, apparently, any immigration cut is racist, then there isn't really much to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
bike tory posted:any immigration cut is racist I'm not saying it's racist, I'm saying it's inconsistent. If our infrastructure is in such a state that an immigration cut will help, won't a larger immigration cut help more? E: Ratios and Tendency posted:Immigration rate=/=immigrants True, now say that the two are not linked in any way and you'll have made an actual point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Because immigrantion is good? Literally no one I've talked to in my regional town believes this. Consensus being that immigration is good, (a lot of immigrant labour in agriculture/horticulture/viticulture) but the country does not have the infrastructure to support the current rate. The govt needs to sort this and the housing shortage out first. These are not usually stupid people who are telling me this. So the Greens are doomed in tukituki who would have guessed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
You could cut immigration without scapegoating migrants as the major driver for the rapidly declining state of our public services. We're hosed by our country's love of slowly choking the welfare state to death even if net migration was zero.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I'm not saying it's racist, I'm saying it's inconsistent. If our infrastructure is in such a state that an immigration cut will help, won't a larger immigration cut help more? Not when large and important sectors of the economy depend on migrants. The government gathers data on poo poo like job growth, industry needs, employment etc to set targets that meet the needs within the country. Obviously migrants bring way more than that with them but that isn't quantifiable and can't translated into a numerical value. Best way to put it into policy is to ensure that there is space in the economy to accommodate large numbers of migrants. Since the early 90s NZ as had a fairly large net migration loss to Australia which is when we set current immigration targets (which have obviously been adjusted and tweaked over the years since), but that trend slowed significantly since 2012 and actually reversed in 2015. The result has almost doubled net migration into the country (up by about 30,000 people wouldn't you know), without the government changing targets for new migrants. Unless you think that jobs/infrastructure/service sector growth has been THAT good under National since 2012, doesn't it seems pretty logical that the targets are now inappropriate and need to be lowered? Like, this is the conversation that we need to be having but can't because Labour are assholes and any discussion of immigration since the 90s has been dominated by everyone's favourite racist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Not when large and important sectors of the economy depend on migrants. The government gathers data on poo poo like job growth, industry needs, employment etc to set targets that meet the needs within the country. Obviously migrants bring way more than that with them but that isn't quantifiable and can't translated into a numerical value. Best way to put it into policy is to ensure that there is space in the economy to accommodate large numbers of migrants. Given the problems you're choosing to highlight- jobs, the economy, our infrastructure, all of which you claim are not keeping pace- I feel that you can't really argue for 'less migration in' and argue against 'zero migration in.' After all, wouldn't that make it much easier to deal with the problems of not having enough job growth and housing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Given the problems you're choosing to highlight- jobs, the economy, our infrastructure, all of which you claim are not keeping pace- I feel that you can't really argue for 'less migration in' and argue against 'zero migration in.' After all, wouldn't that make it much easier to deal with the problems of not having enough job growth and housing? ??? There are these things called numbers between 0 and infinity so yes he can argue for a cut but not reduce migration to 0.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:You could cut immigration without scapegoating migrants as the major driver for the rapidly declining state of our public services. We're hosed by our country's love of slowly choking the welfare state to death even if net migration was zero. Yeah but immigration policy is the low hanging fruit this cycle it seems. Even in this region for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Oh man, I'm going to be out of the city that day. Amazing people watching opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Given the problems you're choosing to highlight- jobs, the economy, our infrastructure, all of which you claim are not keeping pace- I feel that you can't really argue for 'less migration in' and argue against 'zero migration in.' After all, wouldn't that make it much easier to deal with the problems of not having enough job growth and housing? Read the very first sentence I wrote pls
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Read the very first sentence I wrote pls Oh, I know you threw in an extraordinarily vague note about them being important to the economy, then spent the entire rest of your post working up the courage to suggest that less of them will be a good thing. To which my reply remains identical. How can you say that less is a good thing but dramatically less is a bad thing, given that the only issues you're specifically mentioning are existing infrastructure problems and housing shortages? Or are you willing to be specific about the poo poo immigrants actually contribute, beyond vague platitudes about parts of the economy relying on them? Please note that you're speaking to a fuckin' immigrant here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
If I'm first generation, do I technically qualify as an immigrant?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
I'm about 6th or 7th generation white boy, do I count?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 10:25
|
|