Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 137572	2014-07-22 22:22:00	Must be a Maori Princess ..	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1379908	2014-07-24 04:47:00	Binding referenda is a crock idea. A binding "war or peace" referendum in September 1939 would have seen Britain overrun by Nazi Germany before you could have said Neville Chamberlain. Lets have a binding referendum to scrap all forms of taxation, then another to have one to one teacher pupil ratios, and another for unlimited elective surgery..........and so on and so on.........(reductio ad absurdum) That same anarchy could be had without the requirement of a binding referendum. Luckily the human race isn't *that* bad and we mostly have sufficient common sense, though the Darwin Awards may disagree at times. So that's the Govt's annual income, 64.8 billion. Hypothetically here we're talking about a change in 5% of all their income... That's hardly more than inflation, so yeah, balancing the books is most certainly doable.	Chilling_Silence (9)
1379909	2014-07-24 05:58:00	Not quite the same thing as allowing parents to choose when a slap is appropriate, I would have thought. No, but with binding referendum you could have both.	Nick G (16709)
1379910	2014-07-24 23:12:00	Binding referenda is a crock idea. A binding "war or peace" referendum in September 1939 would have seen Britain overrun by Nazi Germany before you could have said Neville Chamberlain. Lets have a binding referendum to scrap all forms of taxation, then another to have one to one teacher pupil ratios, and another for unlimited elective surgery..........and so on and so on.........(reductio ad absurdum) What absolute nonsense. :lol: Your reference to the Second World War is a red herring because the war would have been well and truly underway before any referendum could be organised. And loopy proposals simply won’t see the light of day because firstly you have to obtain 10% of the eligible voter’s signatures just to get started. At the moment that is just over 300,000. Having done that, the question is put to the General Vote and what Colin Craig is proposing is you must then obtain a 67% of that. So, let’s say you only have a 50% turnout you are still going to need the vote of over 1,000,000 nutters to get the referendum through. But I guess we can draw some comfort from the fact that if we have a million or so nutters force though some dog eared referendum, then we have no future anyway, even under a Dictatorship. :rolleyes:	B.M. (505)
1379911	2014-07-25 00:21:00	And the majority of those "nutters" will vote for Dotcom, the Greens and Labour, in that order :( :(	Zippity (58)
1379912	2014-07-25 00:28:00	Approximately $200 million a year. Only leaves $2.8 billion per year left to find, nearly there :rolleyes::rolleyes: If it wouldn't take much manipulating, show me how you'd do it. Well if your're not going to count the money I've saved by canning the Treaty Claims and "Waitangi Tribunal Gravy Train" then I'll just add 5% to the all the other items in the revenue chart which should show a decent profit for a "tab" in the Backbenchers Bar. :D	B.M. (505)
1379913	2014-07-25 00:29:00	What absolute nonsense. :lol: Your reference to the Second World War is a red herring because the war would have been well and truly underway before any referendum could be organised. And loopy proposals simply won’t see the light of day because firstly you have to obtain 10% of the eligible voter’s signatures just to get started. At the moment that is just over 300,000. Having done that, the question is put to the General Vote and what Colin Craig is proposing is you must then obtain a 67% of that. So, let’s say you only have a 50% turnout you are still going to need the vote of over 1,000,000 nutters to get the referendum through. But I guess we can draw some comfort from the fact that if we have a million or so nutters force though some dog eared referendum, then we have no future anyway, even under a Dictatorship. :rolleyes: No good, Terr will have withdrawn into his music room, if that can be said of music of the 40's.	Cicero (40)
1379914	2014-07-25 00:46:00	Well if your're not going to count the money I've saved by canning the Treaty Claims and "Waitangi Tribunal Gravy Train" then I'll just add 5% to the all the other items in the revenue chart which should show a decent profit for a "tab" in the Backbenchers Bar. :D Wasn't going to count it, because that's not politically achievable IMO, so its a bit pointless. Besides, it still isn't going to be close to $3 billion a year. And oh look, you're not actually reducing taxes at all, just reducing them somewhere and adding them back on somewhere else. Congrats B.M., you're really helping the average Kiwi here :thumbs: :rolleyes: Seriously though, why would you even want to do that? You're not reducing taxes, you're increasing taxes somewhere - increasing the incentive to evade them - and you're taking GST, a simple, fair, and I think good, tax, and making it a complicated mess.	Nick G (16709)
1379915	2014-07-25 00:57:00	Wasn't going to count it, because that's not politically achievable IMO, so its a bit pointless. Besides, it still isn't going to be close to $3 billion a year. And oh look, you're not actually reducing taxes at all, just reducing them somewhere and adding them back on somewhere else. Congrats B.M., you're really helping the average Kiwi here :thumbs: :rolleyes: Seriously though, why would you even want to do that? You're not reducing taxes, you're increasing taxes somewhere - increasing the incentive to evade them - and you're taking GST, a simple, fair, and I think good, tax, and making it a complicated mess. Hang on a second who said anything about reducing taxes? :confused: I thought the debate was about removing GST from unprocessed food, as they do in Australia. The Aussies have no problem with their GST system so it can't be too difficult. :D	B.M. (505)
1379916	2014-07-25 01:36:00	I thought the debate was about removing GST from unprocessed food, as they do in Australia . So what is unproceesed food? You can search here . ato . gov . au/scripts/net/SearchableFoodList/scSearchableFoodList . aspx?PID=68&ms=Businesses" target="_blank">expertsystems . ato . gov . au Seems a bit of a joke at 1st glance , so saying Aus has it right is a nonsense . Cake is gst free ?? yep , thats really helping out the poor over there coffee is & isnt for some reason chocolate is & isnt sugar !!! do we really need to encourage fatties ?	1101 (13337)
1379917	2014-07-25 01:51:00	Hang on a second who said anything about reducing taxes? :confused: I thought the debate was about removing GST from unprocessed food, as they do in Australia. The Aussies have no problem with their GST system so it can't be too difficult. :D What is GST again? Goods and Services Tax. So...yea, it's about reducing taxes. And if, to make up the $3 billion a year shortfall, you increase taxes eslewhere - as you suggested - you're not actually saving people anything - so there's absolutely no point in it! I'd advise making sure you're aware of what you're talking about, reducing GST is reducing taxes, simple as that. :)	Nick G (16709)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9