Posts by Nobody Important
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Here's what you do: You don't give kids drivers licences until they're at least 19. Their brains are not fully grown, cars are simply too dangerous for them. (In netherlands) the drinking age is 16 but you don't get behind the wheel until your 19...... Aren't we trying to get people out of cars anyway? And to carpool and use public transport?.....The risks we take with cars in New Zealand are ridiculous and the cost to society too high for any demographic. Cars have no place in the life of a teenager, and we don't trust them to make rational decisions regarding alcohol so why do we trust them to make rational decisions regarding the deadly things that cars are. Cars are too cheap here and it's too easy to get them at a too young age.
NZ driver laws are predicated on the idea that a 15 year old farm hand need a liscence to be able to drive a tractor down a rural road. That's why our driving age is so low, and over the years no politician has been game to change that (aside from minor tinkering with graduated liscences) NB - the drinking age in Holland might be 16, but I don't think that's the age to go in to a bottle store. Unlike here where its open slather at 18.
-
And this was due, largely, because they didn't ask me what I thought.
I was under the impression the kids had been asked and their response was that they wanted free drag strips that operated at 2 in the morning? And by 'free' I think we're expected to throw in the diesel for burnouts too.
Nobody, if you'd even bothered to read Russell's article before hitting the discuss button you'd notice the 'carnage' was worse 'back then'. Or, like they mayors, do you have a point to make, and you'll be damned if you pay attention to the facts?
Of course I bothered to read RB's blog Rogerd, did you bother to read my comments properly? I said "...there didn't seem to be such carnage back then..." and then went on to recount how my sister flew out the back window of a rolling car and landed unscathed. And I prefaced that with a comment about a friend who wrote off 2 cars at aged 16. Now do you get it??
Oh, and BTW ... if you're going to accept every word from RB as Gospell written by the hand of God himself, then I've got a Wikipedia entry you might like to look atThe Government isn't assuming the risk. If you choose the wrong Kiwisaver vehicle and it breaks, you lose.
A point worth remembering. So yes, I guess this is privatisation-by-stealth of Superannuation. But I'm wondering what the alternative is?
-
and everything ever released on Tamla Motown
presumably not including ROCKWELL ~ Somebody's Watching Me
or MICHAEL JACKSON ~ Rockin' Robin
-
but can you convert a Qantas Media Award to Qantas Airmiles?
-
the perpetrator in Christchurch was 22, and the victim in Tauranga was 20. They're both accountable adults.
Darn right. A male friend of mine wrote off two cars when he was 16, one after the other. His parents wouldn't let him buy a third. But those were $600 cars back then (yes, I'm reverting to the "back when I was kid" argument) and there didn't seem to be such carnage back then. When my sisters BF rolled his car she went flying out the back window, landing safely, because they didn't wear seatbelts in those days.
I don't understand why we don't have compulsory insurance. And a no-claims system on ACC so your rego goes up if you have injury accidents.
Darn right. If the kids can afford to 'modify' their vehicles then they can afford 3rd party insurance. No insurance = no rego or warrant, simple as that. I really don't understand why Labour has resisted this idea; their argument that it penalises low income drivers is ridiculous. They'll all be riding buses soon anyway ...
-
tell us a joke Jeremy .... a funny one ... </baiting>
-
What scares me about the Kiwisaevr scheme is that it is not govt guarranteed.
Don't join then - no-one is forcing you to.Oh very nice Muriel, did you read my whole comment? I consider myself reasonably savvy (despite most of that coming from learning from my mistakes) what I'm worried about is the average punter who really doesn't know much. (Or maybe they do, it's just most of my friends and acquaintances that seem clueless.)
Anyway, here's a very likely scenario: some time in the future the govt makes Kiwisaver compulsory, and some time after that it signals that in 20-30 years time that's all the govt super you're going to get when you retire.
So in 20-30 years time we've got two classes of retirees: those that did well with their Kiwisaver provider and those that didn't. The latter will include those that opted out in the beginning, meaning their nest egg is tiny.
So what happens after that? Much gnashing of teeth and liberal angst about what sort of decent society are we that we can let old folks suffer like that? So once again the govt steps in to help those that need it and those who squirreled away their nuts gets pinged (twice).
It's very much like the current means test for old age care. Old folks who go without to pay off their houses have their houses sold to pay for their care (ie you must use up your own assets before the govt will pay). Those that didn't but instead choose to travel (or whatever, ie spend up and enjoy themselves) still get their aged care paid for by the govt. And can you blame them?
Which is why I'll be joining Kiwisaver - all that govt money being tossed in to start with is money I wont refuse. How long I keep contributing will depend on the return and the incentives. -
What scares me about the Kiwisaevr scheme is that it is not govt guarranteed. If the fund you enter craps out in 10 years because the provider was crap then you are left with nothing. My father entered a super scheme in the 70s that yielded nothing because the reputable people running it were charging reputable fees and investing in reputable stocks that turned out to be not so. I lost my life savings in the 87 sharemarket crash (too young to know better I put all my money in shares prior to my first OE - duh!!)(it was the prevailing wisdom at the time). In the 90s I bought my first house and impressed with the capital gains I started putting more funds into rental property. 4 years ago I sold the 2 rentals and put the money into the sharemarket; because even back then the govt was beating the drum that property investment was bad and they were going to move to curtail it. Unfortunately the free market said otherwise. Anyway, my money was put into a diversified portfolio and has seen paltry return since then. If I'd stayed in property I would have doubled my money.
MY POINT IS THAT Joe Kiwi knows jack about investing (hence they spend instead of saving) and so Kiwisaver Providers will have a field day. How can they lose? You have to put your money somewhere so you pick the brand you trust and give them your money each payday. They take out the fees and the performance bonuses and send you quarterly newsletters telling you how well your investment is doing. But with a little asterisk pointing to a footnote on Page 17 you really don't understand.Wha wha wha .... I don't know what the answer is. It's certainly not having the govt guarrantee the banks!! I'm just venting I s'pose ... buggar this, I'm off for a latte!
-
great link. thanks! not sure if yanks will get the dry humour/humor but ...
best line: "just because I'm married doesn't mean I can't be here for you"
will probably kill out tourist trade ... or mean we just get the wackos
-
The fear of being tagged anti-Semitic in US politics is a powerful driving and tempering sword.
The fear of being tagged anti-Semitic for any reason is a powerful driving and tempering sword. I hate it. Israel has done well to redfine support of Palestine as akin to wishing all Jews were dead. Which it's not. How many years did it take for a solution to the Irish "troubles" to be found? It will take twice as long for an Israeli-Palestinian solution -- and that's discounting the regional emergence of nuclear weaponry.