| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 60840 | 2005-08-14 23:44:00 | Who are you gonna vote for?? (Govt Election) | rmcb (164) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 381371 | 2005-09-05 21:40:00 | I'm undecided as off now and I will decide a day before voting begins. If I had to vote Labour: They have done very well for the last 6yrs. But I don’t like the arrogance of the party. Their help for family is something that does not cover my family and me. If I had to vote National: I like some of their polices and one that I do like in particular is that they are going to drop the business tax. Now especially with petrol prices going up the tax relief will help some/ most companies pass on some $$$ to the employees as sooner or later cost of living is going to go up. I don’t like the idea of borrowing money to do what they say. Who Knows: May be it is time for the Labour party to sit on the sideline and re-think its strategies. May be if national comes to power it might help them think that is not a bed of roses up there in the hot seat!…………… |
alopes (5331) | ||
| 381372 | 2005-09-05 22:09:00 | <<Who Knows: May be it is time for the Labour party to sit on the sideline and re-think its strategies. May be if national comes to power it might help them think that is not a bed of roses up there in the hot seat!>> Agreed. I have never voted National, neither has my wife or our best friends, but we think it is time for a change. Hopefully National will help small businesses, significantly reduce welfare-dependent people (dole bludgers and the like), stop crazy 'political correctness', rectify a growing anti-Asian racism (I am not Asian), and stop the whinging / militant Maoris from taking more and more and more. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 381373 | 2005-09-05 22:20:00 | <<Who Knows: May be it is time for the Labour party to sit on the sideline and re-think its strategies. May be if national comes to power it might help them think that is not a bed of roses up there in the hot seat!>> Agreed. I have never voted National, neither has my wife or our best friends, but we think it is time for a change. Hopefully National will help small businesses, significantly reduce welfare-dependent people (dole bludgers and the like), stop crazy 'political correctness', rectify a growing anti-Asian racism (I am not Asian), and stop the whinging / militant Maoris from taking more and more and more. Good that you are seeing the light S. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 381374 | 2005-09-05 22:28:00 | National would have been even more likely to close the schools with Brash at the wheel . The schools were costing them too much money, and the steadily decreasing school age population gave them the perfect excuse to get rid of a few liabilities . You can bet on it that National wouldn't have backed down in the slightest, whereas Labour let us keep 2 schools that they wanted to be rid of - Ruru school & Rosedale . You may be right . Where I do see a difference is that National are saying that teachers should be able to concentrate on teaching . At the moment an extraordinary amount of a teachers time is taken up with assessment and recording for each child . It is a lovely idea but there are only a limited number of hours in the day . Factor in individual disruptive children and the actual teaching time is short compared with 20 years ago . And small class size as promoted by Labour is touchy feely . Asian schools produce well educated kids with large classes . Its the teacher who matters, not the class size . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 381375 | 2005-09-06 00:02:00 | . . . . and stop the whinging / militant Maoris from taking more and more and more . Hear Hear !!! Most the ones whinging the hardest are the ones with the least amount of Maori in them . While I agree we should recognise the Maori Culture, most Maori's are more white than Maori (i . e . less than 50% Maori) . Therefore, since "Maori" are just like the rest of us, a mixture of multiple races, we should all be treated equally . |
KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 381376 | 2005-09-06 00:06:00 | I don't know what gives you that impression. National's cut taxes are for all income brackets and very wealthy people (those earning $100,000+) will have most of their income taxed at the same rate ie. a smaller percentage in savings. :) A very rough calculation under National's tax cuts: $20,000 pa = $300 in the first year, $300 in the second year 1.5% of income returned $40,000 pa = $900 in the first year, $1,000 in the second year 2.25% - 2.5% of income returned $100,000 pa = $2,700 in the first year, $4,800 in the second year 2.7% - 4.8% of income returned. As a percentage of income, the tax cuts are more beneficial to people on higher incomes. Why? Because they earn more money. But here's the thing. I earn around $40,000 a year on a fixed salary. How do I move up to $100,000 a year within two years? I could try and work extra hours, but working 100 hours a week isn't exactly healthy, or feasible in my job. It's even harder for the person on the low wage. The ideal that more money goes to the harder worker assumes that people have complete control over their wage-earning ability, but this is rarely true - most wage earners are restricted by such factors as the market, profit margins, or even just tight-fisted employers. The illusion that more work = more money is fuelling National's justifcation for rewarding over-paid business executives. Furthermore, it's assumed that someone who earns $100,000 works harder than someone earning $20,000. I'd like to see that comparison justfiied. Just because you don't wear a suit, doesn't mean that you're not hard-working. In fact, the opposite often applies... |
Lizard (2409) | ||
| 381377 | 2005-09-06 00:07:00 | Hear Hear !!! Most the ones whinging the hardest are the ones with the least amount of Maori in them . While I agree we should recognise the Maori Culture, most Maori's are more white than Maori (i . e . less than 50% Maori) . Therefore, since "Maori" are just like the rest of us, a mixture of multiple races, we should all be treated equally . I would imagine it is tempting to get on the gravy train . |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 381378 | 2005-09-06 00:32:00 | Just because you don't wear a suit, doesn't mean that you're not hard-working. In fact, the opposite often applies... I agree that people work hard. However, I changed jobs, improved my skills, training and education. I started at $21,000 in 1987; now in 2005 I am on well above the $60,000 threshold. I am now penalised for improving my salary (I have to pay more tax and at higher rate than what I was on before). Why should it get progressively worse, the more you earn. It hinders improving your situation. I saw a graph once, that as your income increases your share of the overall tax paid increases. A person on $40,000 pays about $10,000 A person on $80,000 pays about $30,000 (a 50% increase in the rate) I believe, I am as hardworking as before but the difference is I am also working 'smarter', using my improved skills. |
KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 381379 | 2005-09-06 00:37:00 | I agree that people work hard. However, I changed jobs, improved my skills, training and education. I started at $21,000 in 1987; now in 2005 I am on well above the $60,000 threshold. I am now penalised for improving my salary (I have to pay more tax and at higher rate than what I was on before). Why should it get progressively worse, the more you earn. It hinders improving your situation. I saw a graph once, that as your income increases your share of the overall tax paid increases. A person on $40,000 pays about $10,000 A person on $80,000 pays about $30,000 (a 50% increase in the rate) I believe, I am as hardworking as before but the difference is I am also working 'smarter', using my improved skills. I am not smart and I want you buggers that are to pay more,I am jealous and want to bring you down to my level,and Labour are just the people to make my wish come true. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 381380 | 2005-09-06 01:23:00 | I agree that people work hard. However, I changed jobs, improved my skills, training and education. I started at $21,000 in 1987; now in 2005 I am on well above the $60,000 threshold. I am now penalised for improving my salary (I have to pay more tax and at higher rate than what I was on before). Why should it get progressively worse, the more you earn. It hinders improving your situation. I saw a graph once, that as your income increases your share of the overall tax paid increases. A person on $40,000 pays about $10,000 A person on $80,000 pays about $30,000 (a 50% increase in the rate) I believe, I am as hardworking as before but the difference is I am also working 'smarter', using my improved skills. Have you ever met anyone who refused a pay rise because they had to pay more tax? |
Lizard (2409) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | |||||