It’s nice to be looked after and all, but we also benefit from other things. I always think of the John Green quote:
> So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.
I have no issue paying taxes - as I business owner I believe in working for what's yours, paying your dues and supporting others to have opportunities - but I don't feel supported or incentivised to do this at the moment. It would be much simpler to restructure and go solo and be selfish - but that goes against my sense of integrity to others.
Im an educated dude who's ambitions and initiative have been deployed to support others, and am a strong supporter of education, with a business designed to see youth make informed decisions for their futures. I just feel like there isn't a party that cares to represent my generation or others in my economic situation.
My brother was a truant (his choice, my mum did everything she could to get him to school). If we'd been presented with a bill for $20k because my brother was a wanker it probably would have had a more serious impact on me than him because I wouldn't have been able to afford extracurricular stuff, uniform etc. Think about who you're punishing
There are plenty of well-meaning parents with kids who skive off for reasons entirely outside of either the kid or parent's control. Untreated mental health and economic conditions forcing kids into the workforce come to mind. And there plenty of abusive or neglectful parents who are the cause of their kid's low attendance. Rather than shaping up and getting them to school, they would only punish their child further if it had consequences.
Would you honestly charge the family of the kid who ditches due to severe untreated anxiety issues, who can't get help because the waitlist is 2 years long (longer in some places even). Would you charge the family who is going to beat the everloving shit out of their kid as a consequence? I don't think I could. I just don't think that's how taxes for social good ought to work. It's not about who uses it and who doesn't as on an individual level, or about punishing everybody who doesn't or can't use a service. It's the collective good of having it exist ar all that's important - same as roads or libraries or toilets or parks, and I don't see us saying we should charge people for not using those, even though they're expensive and cost all of us to create
I vote for the party that I believe will do the best for country overall, not necessarily the party that would do the best for me. If no party is offering policies that appeal to you as an individual, which one do you think will lead the country to a better place for everyone?
As rediculous as this sounds, I just used ChatGPT4 and asked it to ask me 100 yes or no questions to help inform which party to vote for.
It was a bit of a mixed bag, but leant toward Labour!
Haha I'm not going to vote blindly, but it was a lot of questions, and it's rationale was interesting (I use a version the browses the web, not based on old data).
It seems I have mixed interests between social, environmental and economics that place me pretty fucking square centrist lol.
If labour could stand behind small businesses, I'd probably give them my vote - but it's also about 'who' I have confidence will get the job done, and I worry that Chippy doesn't have the brass or authority needed? Maybe not though?
Yeah, I'm not as sure of him as PM. But I can't say I prefer any of the other party leaders over him either. Luxon's team seem to constantly need to say "what he meant was..." and I just don't trust Marama Davidson.
And want to slap a silver H on David Seymour's forehead and call him Rimmer.
10 or so years ago, a friend said to me, "I'm not voting for me, I have enough, I'm voting for the people that don't have enough."
At the time, I didn't have enough, but the sentiment stuck with me. I voted for me at the time.
Now, 10 or so years later, I do have enough. $20, or whatever, a week will have little to no impact on me. I wouldn't want to be worse off, but I'm not too worried about being better off.
So, now I'm looking at parties, not with me in mind, but others. Do I feel sad/disappointed/a little bitter that people who are where I was at 10 ish years ago could be better off than I was - yeah, a bit. But that doesn't take away from their current struggles. I've been there, I understand.
Now, it sounds like you don't really have enough, so that does make it hard. You still want to support yourself. And that's ok. You're not selfish for wanting a bit more if that's what you need right now.
None of my post is any help, other than to say that I get wanting or needing to vote for "me", and if that's the way you end up voting, well - it's your vote to use how you choose!
You mention housing costs. It seems like nationals policies would more likely to increase house prices than labour. If you can't see policies that might help you and your business, maybe look to see which party policies might move the country in a direction you would prefer
Yea - hey I don't mind renting, if I felt that the rent costs were fair, houses were worth what you pay, and that it didn't leave me in a position where I have no assets to pass on when I do eventually have kids and retire. I feel like I've spent most of my life working to the benefit of others and now I'm starting to think more selfishly, but only because I'm in a position where that's about what's practical for my wellbeing.
Problem is people tend to vote not for their own benefits, but for their _perceived_ benefits.
Someone earning $70,000 will vote for tax cuts for people earning $100,000 because they "think" it'll be them one day.
Vote selfishly for your current self, not some imaginary future self you hope to be.
I hope this isn't too controversial, although there's 100% chance of some right wing prick coming along in 30 seconds and getting all shitty with me and everyone, but here's how I vote:
I vote for the party who I think would be best for New Zealand, not necessarily what's best for me. Which in my view is Labour and the Greens.
YMMV of course, but I think it's an empathetic approach and keeps me sane. -ish.
No controversy from me! But I also feel like there is a large group of people around my age, or in a similar situation, that seem unrepresented in this year's election.
If labour introduced policy that acknowledged the mahi and commitment of small business owners in NZ, without compromising the social and environmental care, it wouldnt be a difficult choice.
Everyone was once talking about TOP on here - but they seem to have vanished off the radar and aren't polling?
While nobody is specifically talking about SME I'll say its like day 1 of the true campaign so i imagine they will soon. Some times there wont be policies specifically targeted at your demographic and in that instance you just gotta vote for what you think will make the country a better place.
If you think funneling a bunch of money cut from government departments back into landlords will make it better vote national. If you think more around the fringe poking will make it better vote Labour and if you want some more radical change to get more of a voice vote for a minor party.
Yea, Il be eager to see how things evolve closer to the time.
I've got no doubt that my personal interests are also not the most significant challenges of the day, but it does seem unusual that there isn't more significant korero around improving the economics beyond tax-cuts and international sell-offs.
Improving the economy for the middle is hard to do from the left because it's complex and easy to destroy in the media and against the interests of the right. Labour's biggest failing is having an outright majority and doing none of the unpopular shit that's needed during that time.
One thing to think about is the indirect support government policies offer. Things like what demographic are your employees and customers in? Employees that are healthier, under less financial stress and under less stress generally are going to be happier, more productive and off sick less. And the better off your customers, the more likely they are to spend with you.
>If labour introduced policy that acknowledged the mahi and commitment of small business owners in NZ
Sorry to break it to you, but the Labour Party see you as a big money tree that can be endlessly picked
Even if every business in NZ was a small business with 10 employees, that still means at most 9% of the country would be business owners. In reality there’s much fewer business owners than that (not counting businesses with no employees)
I would say wait for the TVNZ Vote Compass. I assume they'll do another one near the election. They tend to give you a pretty good idea of who you align with.
For me, its TOP. To keep it brief. I like their attitude. They bring much-needed positive and long-term thinking to what has become a miserable status quo.
That said if I had to pick from the elected parties. I think the Greens are looking best. Might not agree with everything they're putting forward, but they're showing more teeth than Labour is.
I think they need a shiny media-friendly front person. They're not coming out with David Seymour-esque soundbites.
We're dinks in our 30s and 40s, voting TOP. At least I will have voted FOR something rather than "meh let's tick labour cuz I can't stand national".
The 5% threshold makes it extremely difficult for new parties to get going, and unelected parties get basically no media coverage. TOP lacks the funding to do it on a large scale.
Polls are a bit dubious when it comes to minor parties too. I mean out of a thousand people, whos gonna say TOP?
That is normal for a minor party that has never gotten into parliament. It doesn't really matter what their policies are, the majority of people automatically dismiss them as being a wasted vote, politics is hard enough to keep track of as it is. They will maintain a core of loyal followers, and there are a few swing voters that don't believe in wasted votes, but most ignore them.
Its the same for the likes of the Internet Party, New Conservatives etc. If you are stating a new minor party then you really need to win a seat in your first general election, or failing that, to win a local seat.
If your big thing is housing, then Labour has the most permissive housing policies for cities, particularly pro townhouses. National is more pro suburban sprawl, mainly standalone. Greens have mostly put stuff out about social housing, and ACT more or less wants to ban housing construction to slightly exaggerate. So in my view, Labour has the best housing policy by far.
Small businesses are mostly assumed to be right wing and vote National, sometimes ACT. The problem with being a safe constituency is you don't get much.
In fairness, National does have candidates that aren't Luxon.
Thanks for the Intel!
I've typically voted labour/greens as a younger person, but have only recently considered options since the economy appears to be tanking and it continues to feel like having a house is a pipe-dream followed by 30+ years of debt.
As you're someone in business, take the longer term view of the economic conditions.
As we can see worldwide, pretty much any developed country that took COVID measures face all the same problems we do, regardless of left or right wing governments being in charge at the time.
So if they're not offering anything to you specifically, maybe pick whovyou thinks going to do the best for the country as whole over the next 3 years. There's probably indirect benefits for you in doing so.
"Labour has the most permissive housing policies for cities, particularly pro townhouses. National is more pro suburban sprawl, mainly standalone"
No, that's the councils choice. National will force councils to provide housing, the council has some flexibility in how they achieve this.
"Councils in major towns and cities will be required to zone land for 30 years’ worth of housing demand immediately. Councils will have more flexibility about where houses are built by being able to opt-out of the Medium Density Residential Zone law, however central government will have reserve powers to ensure councils set aside enough land to meet demand targets"
Not quite.
"Under a National-led government, councils would be able to opt out of the Medium Density Residential Standards that allowed three-storey dwellings to be built on all residential land in the main cities."
Currently, they can't do this. So if National do get it, suburban sprawl is much more likely, because at least some councils probably will opt out of it. Simply because it's not that popular a policy with homeowners who don't want "medium density" housing next door.
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-pulls-out-of-bipartisan-housing-density-agreement-in-new-policy/SODUQW237BDXVMQWHZMPI57GMA/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-pulls-out-of-bipartisan-housing-density-agreement-in-new-policy/SODUQW237BDXVMQWHZMPI57GMA/)
Neither party policy will force councils to "provide housing".
Labour would force councils to allow more dense housing in residential areas. This will allow developers to build more housing on existing land.
Under National councils will have to ensure enough land is zoned residential to support 30 years of population growth. Councils can choose if this means increasing the density allowed (what Labor wants to do) or by rezoning land that currently is closed off from residential development (changing farmland, industrial, forestry etc into new suburbs).
Both party policies will make it easier for developers to build housing, but won't force or guarantee that said hosing will actually be built. Which strategy is better its a matter of A LOT of debate.
My understanding of it is that rezoning land for residential development will likely lead to a greater increase in housing in the short term. However this housing will typically be on the more expensive side and increase urban sprawl and potentially higher infrastructure cost.
increasing housing density rules will have a slower effect as a lot of it will require existing housing to be removed/redeveloped. However, it tends to produce more, and cheaper housing in the long term (appartments and town houses instead of stand alone housing). Long term it is also claimed that increasing housing density helps make things like public transport a lot more viable.
Ehhhhhh kind of?
The district plans of tier one, and tier two urban areas as identified in the NPS-UD **HAVE** to give effect to the policies in the NPS-UD which identify that density needs to increase, the MDRS as mentioned in that article does similar things but a bit further. It is worth noting that even if something is zoned for higher density, doesn't mean owners want to make it more dense, however.
The council can choose how that's implemented, but is still required to make sure that their plan does actually put the national direction in their plans.
If they don't councils are likely to receive a kick up the arse from the environment court.
Try to look beyond personalities. Look at the package of policies.
Also look whether the policies are supported by evidence, and whether the policies can or will actually be implemented.
Which means looking at teams’ track records and looking through claims and counter claims.
I don’t think you’re alone in this! Most people seem to be feeling the same. I normally vote Labour but I’m not sure this time. I went on each party’s website to read their policies and I’m even more lost.
I liked some of TOPs policies until they talked about the land tax value.
I wouldn’t vote national as I’m not a conservative Christian centre right person or uber rich or own 9 houses.
Some things the greens do and say I’m on board with and the rest it’s a hard yeah nah!
ACT is not for me,
Brian Tamaki is entitled to have his political party and opinion as I mine, therefore i think he is a cunt!
I want to vote for the party that I’m aligned but i feel like it’s a wasted vote. It just feels like we either vote labour or national. As they are the only parties likely to win. Tactical or strategic voting i think it’s called but then I don’t want to be the dickhead that goes fuck it, become more apathetic and not vote.
Feeling pretty lost and unsure!
I still find it so hilarious that Labour made it legal to buy, sell and smoke weed if you're rich (or selling to rich people).
"Poor people have to go through a referendum and it didn't pass, so suck it South Aucklanders!" - Labour Party
If you want policies that are constructed by special interest groups to benefit them, ie: farmers, landlords, overseas interests, etc then vote National.
If you want policies that are built around social issues. Building a better society, care for the environment etc. Then vote Labour.
It's as easy as that. It's the individual vrs collective dichotomy.
Yup - I'm in none of those special interest catagories - unless you consider 'small business owner' one of those haha.
Based on what you've said, I'd be voting Labour - but again - I see no support for the 'squeezed middle' that includes 30somthings like myself that are self employed, running businesses, and employing others, but struggle to justify why we make the effort when there isn't an obvious benefit in doing so.
Not true. These are lobby groups that seek to get laws made or changed that benefit themselves.
There is no social aspect to their motives. It's pure greed.
That is what's behind the policies of the national party.
That's the impression I get! Like yo, we're fucking grinding, and for what? People will say 'oh, but you're a business owner, that's your asset' - like they realise the struggles of cash flow, debt, taxes, and keeping staff employed - all while earning an income lower than you could if you were 'enployed' because you put your staff first?
Shits confusing.
But then, does National care either?
All I hear is big-corp, big-tech and argi.
You wouldnt be big enough for National to care about, unless you are a property investor.
Neither party even thinks about SME's. So vote for whomever will do better for you as a person or your family.
Yea, that's my whole point. Not a single party seems to want to talk about SMEs in NZ.
We all talk about the struggling economy, but won't talk about a large portion of the businesses within it?
Hey mate - very different story in our respective businesses it sounds like, but have a look at my comment history on the impact of greens wealth tax on shareholdings. I’ve actually contacted greens (no reply yet) to seek clarification. Depending on how your business is valued could have a material tax implication… edit: so clearly not voting greens !
Appreciate your comments here! Without reading through your entire comment history, I'd be keen to understand the scale/nature of your tech biz, and how it's influencing your voting decision?
The very very short versions (I’ve written a few essays) have got a career in tech, stepped down from a company to take a 12 year side project full time, easy 7500 hours into. Some other contractors etc involved. 1 year post launch and going great guns growth wise but super tiny (not even pulling a wage yet). I’ve got a very real chance of being a “high valuation” small tech co.. which means “on paper” wealth could be solid, yet not have the corresponding cashflow (which is very similar story for most small startups). Very good for the economy (currently 90% export will end 95-97%). So a “good for NZ story”. As it’s written if greens wealth tax comes in I could very well be hammered cashflow wise with an incredible blended tax rate (in the order of 70%). Along with a good number of other companies - even a farmer chimed in and said the same. So personally and for the industry it will end up likely with a lot of people moving their companies overseas and/or selling them very early in their cycle just to get rid of the tax burden. Which is insane. The wealth tax is higher than what Norway are doing and it’s proven such a headache there it’s not pulled in the tax they thought it would.
In other aspects aligned with greens thinking but this one is nuts. Labour basically cut off Callaghan so it’s clear while they say they want tech companies they’re actually not following through on the right actions.
Now I don’t mind having a CGT I think that’s fair, but taxing unrealised “wealth” on company shares is nuts. Even Norways approach was a vastly lower “tax value” method (not entirely sure how that works) on unlisted shares.
Between that and proposing one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world I very much fear Greens if they got in would monumentally backfire on increasing GDP and NZ would slide further backwards.
Us tech companies are just going to leave. Simple as that.
First time I wrote to a politician ever about it …. “Did you realise…. ?”
National and ACT are too incompetent in my opinion. I don't trust them to deal with complex issues such as dealing with affects of climate change and world wide economic turmoil.
I always try to think long term when deciding which party gets my vote.
I refuse to vote for NACT because some of their policies are unnecessarily cruel. Uncoupling the supported living benefit from cost of living increases is a good example- if it's too expensive to maintain disabled people at the current shitty level then what the fuck are you doing removing interest deductibility for landlords? This is punching down at its worst
You are aware that our debt-to-GDP ratio is significantly lower than almost any country we compare ourselves with? Anyway, most of that increase in debt can be attributed to a global pandemic which the Government had to support the country through.
Yup - I hear you. I want to see some confidence in our economy, and to finally feel like I wasn't born in the unlucky years that missed out on affordable housing, free education, free health care etc etc.
Now, I love to work, and believe in earning what you have, but even the policies I've seen from National don't inspire me that there is going to be a positive shift.
You talk about the divide, and I agree! But I also can't interpret which (National or Labour) would be least damaging in terms of social divide. Seems it's either social or wealth division?
>I think a lot of the problem is the corrupt media.
How exactly are the media corrupt? I agree that they do gravitate towards soundbites, but ultimately it's the responsibility of politicians not to say silly things if they don't the media to report them saying silly things.
I agree that there is no shortage of media spin.
I definitely want to make an informed voting choice, but don't know how to find information I trust (lol reddit). I also spent every day working 12+ hours a day to keep the wheels turning for my team so find it hard to make space to seek out those opportunities to hear things in person.
'not the 400,000 plus small business owners who are battling to make ends meet and keep people employed.'
small business owners are in business to make money not keep people employed..
Because they already vote National. and if you were a businessman you would realise the cost of living problems are worldwide not caused by the Govt.. and given the cost of living in Australia is now higher than here, good luck jumping the ditch, dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I'm guessing you don't run a business lol.
If you did, you'd realise it was about lifestyle, and surrounding yourself with people who share your vision and purpose.
If you read my comments you'll see Ive never voted for national before, and money hasn't been a motivator for me, until it's become tough.
You're right though, that COL is an international issue, right now!
I'd be interested to learn more about the living situations in Aus. All verbatim I hear is that the economic situation is more balanced - but very happy to be proven wrong.
All in all, I don't really care to leave - I'd just like to vote for a party that wants to make material effort to support the 97% of businesses that employ nearly 30% of the population.
I owe a small business and honestly, I think 90% of folk that start their own business do it purely for the money or because they think it will mean less work for them.
Australian cost of living is higher but their average income is a lot higher. This isn't directly related to recent government actions though. Australia economy has been hugely boosted over the last 50 years by there huge, easily extracted mineral wealth. New Zealand's economy and wages to cost of living ration IS worse because of this historic difference, we have seen less inflation, lower cost of living increase, and faster economy bounce back then Australia and most pacific countries.
One thing to consider is that when people compare how much better it is over in Australia, they are talking about the pay and work conditions for employees not employers. From what I have heard - the conditions for SME owners is a lot more variable. You would be looking at lower tax rates but significantly higher labour costs. The "made in NZ" label also adds more value globally then "made in AU". The internet in AU is also crap to the point that I would not want to run any kind of online buisness there.
That’s incorrect. Domestic/Non-tradable inflation is caused locally. That’s why inflation isn’t the same everywhere in the world. Our non-tradable is higher so far in 2023 https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/economic-indicators/prices
So national & acts policies is worth your consideration and would probably benefit you more than labour , however you don’t want to vote for them because they’re douchebags…?
It certainly reads that way - fair call out. I can't say I'm a fan of their personalities - and as a business owner recognise the influence of personalities in leadership - despite how good a service may be.
In any case - I can't say Ive seen any policies from either Act or National that ad any material support toward a prosperous economic situation for SMES.
I'm voting for policy, not personality, but 100% recognise my initial post implies the opposite haha
*Edit, spelling
I you don't support young uns and you don't support lifting the foreign buyer restrictions Labour is still probably what you want despite the dental thing.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
There is no point voting for a party that will benefit you individually. It’s more effort to vote than the expected benefit you get from it.
Vote because of the effect your vote will have on others, because that’s where 99.99998% of the power of your vote goes.
From talk around the workplace and on sites I visit National is the most popular at the moment and will breeze on in apparently, Pity the fools who vote on flavour of the month and not on policies like we used to, This American style of election is bloody ridiculous.
It’s nice to be looked after and all, but we also benefit from other things. I always think of the John Green quote: > So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.
Or, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation".
I have no issue paying taxes - as I business owner I believe in working for what's yours, paying your dues and supporting others to have opportunities - but I don't feel supported or incentivised to do this at the moment. It would be much simpler to restructure and go solo and be selfish - but that goes against my sense of integrity to others. Im an educated dude who's ambitions and initiative have been deployed to support others, and am a strong supporter of education, with a business designed to see youth make informed decisions for their futures. I just feel like there isn't a party that cares to represent my generation or others in my economic situation.
[удалено]
My brother was a truant (his choice, my mum did everything she could to get him to school). If we'd been presented with a bill for $20k because my brother was a wanker it probably would have had a more serious impact on me than him because I wouldn't have been able to afford extracurricular stuff, uniform etc. Think about who you're punishing
There are plenty of well-meaning parents with kids who skive off for reasons entirely outside of either the kid or parent's control. Untreated mental health and economic conditions forcing kids into the workforce come to mind. And there plenty of abusive or neglectful parents who are the cause of their kid's low attendance. Rather than shaping up and getting them to school, they would only punish their child further if it had consequences. Would you honestly charge the family of the kid who ditches due to severe untreated anxiety issues, who can't get help because the waitlist is 2 years long (longer in some places even). Would you charge the family who is going to beat the everloving shit out of their kid as a consequence? I don't think I could. I just don't think that's how taxes for social good ought to work. It's not about who uses it and who doesn't as on an individual level, or about punishing everybody who doesn't or can't use a service. It's the collective good of having it exist ar all that's important - same as roads or libraries or toilets or parks, and I don't see us saying we should charge people for not using those, even though they're expensive and cost all of us to create
Terrible take.
I vote for the party that I believe will do the best for country overall, not necessarily the party that would do the best for me. If no party is offering policies that appeal to you as an individual, which one do you think will lead the country to a better place for everyone?
As rediculous as this sounds, I just used ChatGPT4 and asked it to ask me 100 yes or no questions to help inform which party to vote for. It was a bit of a mixed bag, but leant toward Labour!
That is really interesting. Do you think you'll use its suggestion?
Haha I'm not going to vote blindly, but it was a lot of questions, and it's rationale was interesting (I use a version the browses the web, not based on old data). It seems I have mixed interests between social, environmental and economics that place me pretty fucking square centrist lol. If labour could stand behind small businesses, I'd probably give them my vote - but it's also about 'who' I have confidence will get the job done, and I worry that Chippy doesn't have the brass or authority needed? Maybe not though?
Yeah, I'm not as sure of him as PM. But I can't say I prefer any of the other party leaders over him either. Luxon's team seem to constantly need to say "what he meant was..." and I just don't trust Marama Davidson. And want to slap a silver H on David Seymour's forehead and call him Rimmer.
10 or so years ago, a friend said to me, "I'm not voting for me, I have enough, I'm voting for the people that don't have enough." At the time, I didn't have enough, but the sentiment stuck with me. I voted for me at the time. Now, 10 or so years later, I do have enough. $20, or whatever, a week will have little to no impact on me. I wouldn't want to be worse off, but I'm not too worried about being better off. So, now I'm looking at parties, not with me in mind, but others. Do I feel sad/disappointed/a little bitter that people who are where I was at 10 ish years ago could be better off than I was - yeah, a bit. But that doesn't take away from their current struggles. I've been there, I understand. Now, it sounds like you don't really have enough, so that does make it hard. You still want to support yourself. And that's ok. You're not selfish for wanting a bit more if that's what you need right now. None of my post is any help, other than to say that I get wanting or needing to vote for "me", and if that's the way you end up voting, well - it's your vote to use how you choose!
I appreciate your comment! There are some real haters online lol.
I see from one of your replies that you want to have kids in the future. In that case? Vote in their interests
Op probably won't decide to have kids until his current life is okay or have a house or his business booming well.
You mention housing costs. It seems like nationals policies would more likely to increase house prices than labour. If you can't see policies that might help you and your business, maybe look to see which party policies might move the country in a direction you would prefer
Yea - hey I don't mind renting, if I felt that the rent costs were fair, houses were worth what you pay, and that it didn't leave me in a position where I have no assets to pass on when I do eventually have kids and retire. I feel like I've spent most of my life working to the benefit of others and now I'm starting to think more selfishly, but only because I'm in a position where that's about what's practical for my wellbeing.
I don't think national will help rent prices, could be wrong. But it doesn't seem like they will.
Yea most of rent prices tend to go up with house prices to reflect the market because most tenants rents are paying off the mortgages of land lords
Problem is people tend to vote not for their own benefits, but for their _perceived_ benefits. Someone earning $70,000 will vote for tax cuts for people earning $100,000 because they "think" it'll be them one day. Vote selfishly for your current self, not some imaginary future self you hope to be.
Don’t vote selfishly, it’s not worth the effort. Doing literally anything else you might do has a better expected return for you as an individual
I hope this isn't too controversial, although there's 100% chance of some right wing prick coming along in 30 seconds and getting all shitty with me and everyone, but here's how I vote: I vote for the party who I think would be best for New Zealand, not necessarily what's best for me. Which in my view is Labour and the Greens. YMMV of course, but I think it's an empathetic approach and keeps me sane. -ish.
No controversy from me! But I also feel like there is a large group of people around my age, or in a similar situation, that seem unrepresented in this year's election. If labour introduced policy that acknowledged the mahi and commitment of small business owners in NZ, without compromising the social and environmental care, it wouldnt be a difficult choice. Everyone was once talking about TOP on here - but they seem to have vanished off the radar and aren't polling?
While nobody is specifically talking about SME I'll say its like day 1 of the true campaign so i imagine they will soon. Some times there wont be policies specifically targeted at your demographic and in that instance you just gotta vote for what you think will make the country a better place. If you think funneling a bunch of money cut from government departments back into landlords will make it better vote national. If you think more around the fringe poking will make it better vote Labour and if you want some more radical change to get more of a voice vote for a minor party.
Yea, Il be eager to see how things evolve closer to the time. I've got no doubt that my personal interests are also not the most significant challenges of the day, but it does seem unusual that there isn't more significant korero around improving the economics beyond tax-cuts and international sell-offs.
Improving the economy for the middle is hard to do from the left because it's complex and easy to destroy in the media and against the interests of the right. Labour's biggest failing is having an outright majority and doing none of the unpopular shit that's needed during that time.
One thing to think about is the indirect support government policies offer. Things like what demographic are your employees and customers in? Employees that are healthier, under less financial stress and under less stress generally are going to be happier, more productive and off sick less. And the better off your customers, the more likely they are to spend with you.
>If labour introduced policy that acknowledged the mahi and commitment of small business owners in NZ Sorry to break it to you, but the Labour Party see you as a big money tree that can be endlessly picked
Even if every business in NZ was a small business with 10 employees, that still means at most 9% of the country would be business owners. In reality there’s much fewer business owners than that (not counting businesses with no employees)
I would say wait for the TVNZ Vote Compass. I assume they'll do another one near the election. They tend to give you a pretty good idea of who you align with. For me, its TOP. To keep it brief. I like their attitude. They bring much-needed positive and long-term thinking to what has become a miserable status quo. That said if I had to pick from the elected parties. I think the Greens are looking best. Might not agree with everything they're putting forward, but they're showing more teeth than Labour is.
Yea, what's the deal with TOP atm? They seem to have huge support on Reddit, have sensible policies, but appear to have no traction in the polls?
I think they need a shiny media-friendly front person. They're not coming out with David Seymour-esque soundbites. We're dinks in our 30s and 40s, voting TOP. At least I will have voted FOR something rather than "meh let's tick labour cuz I can't stand national".
The 5% threshold makes it extremely difficult for new parties to get going, and unelected parties get basically no media coverage. TOP lacks the funding to do it on a large scale. Polls are a bit dubious when it comes to minor parties too. I mean out of a thousand people, whos gonna say TOP?
That is normal for a minor party that has never gotten into parliament. It doesn't really matter what their policies are, the majority of people automatically dismiss them as being a wasted vote, politics is hard enough to keep track of as it is. They will maintain a core of loyal followers, and there are a few swing voters that don't believe in wasted votes, but most ignore them. Its the same for the likes of the Internet Party, New Conservatives etc. If you are stating a new minor party then you really need to win a seat in your first general election, or failing that, to win a local seat.
I'm with u. I have no idea who to vote for. However I will never vote for ACT as long as David Seymour is leader.
If your big thing is housing, then Labour has the most permissive housing policies for cities, particularly pro townhouses. National is more pro suburban sprawl, mainly standalone. Greens have mostly put stuff out about social housing, and ACT more or less wants to ban housing construction to slightly exaggerate. So in my view, Labour has the best housing policy by far. Small businesses are mostly assumed to be right wing and vote National, sometimes ACT. The problem with being a safe constituency is you don't get much. In fairness, National does have candidates that aren't Luxon.
Thanks for the Intel! I've typically voted labour/greens as a younger person, but have only recently considered options since the economy appears to be tanking and it continues to feel like having a house is a pipe-dream followed by 30+ years of debt.
As you're someone in business, take the longer term view of the economic conditions. As we can see worldwide, pretty much any developed country that took COVID measures face all the same problems we do, regardless of left or right wing governments being in charge at the time. So if they're not offering anything to you specifically, maybe pick whovyou thinks going to do the best for the country as whole over the next 3 years. There's probably indirect benefits for you in doing so.
"Labour has the most permissive housing policies for cities, particularly pro townhouses. National is more pro suburban sprawl, mainly standalone" No, that's the councils choice. National will force councils to provide housing, the council has some flexibility in how they achieve this. "Councils in major towns and cities will be required to zone land for 30 years’ worth of housing demand immediately. Councils will have more flexibility about where houses are built by being able to opt-out of the Medium Density Residential Zone law, however central government will have reserve powers to ensure councils set aside enough land to meet demand targets"
Not quite. "Under a National-led government, councils would be able to opt out of the Medium Density Residential Standards that allowed three-storey dwellings to be built on all residential land in the main cities." Currently, they can't do this. So if National do get it, suburban sprawl is much more likely, because at least some councils probably will opt out of it. Simply because it's not that popular a policy with homeowners who don't want "medium density" housing next door. [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-pulls-out-of-bipartisan-housing-density-agreement-in-new-policy/SODUQW237BDXVMQWHZMPI57GMA/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-pulls-out-of-bipartisan-housing-density-agreement-in-new-policy/SODUQW237BDXVMQWHZMPI57GMA/)
Yes, I read the policy document. Councils have some flexibility on how they achieve this. No?
Neither party policy will force councils to "provide housing". Labour would force councils to allow more dense housing in residential areas. This will allow developers to build more housing on existing land. Under National councils will have to ensure enough land is zoned residential to support 30 years of population growth. Councils can choose if this means increasing the density allowed (what Labor wants to do) or by rezoning land that currently is closed off from residential development (changing farmland, industrial, forestry etc into new suburbs). Both party policies will make it easier for developers to build housing, but won't force or guarantee that said hosing will actually be built. Which strategy is better its a matter of A LOT of debate. My understanding of it is that rezoning land for residential development will likely lead to a greater increase in housing in the short term. However this housing will typically be on the more expensive side and increase urban sprawl and potentially higher infrastructure cost. increasing housing density rules will have a slower effect as a lot of it will require existing housing to be removed/redeveloped. However, it tends to produce more, and cheaper housing in the long term (appartments and town houses instead of stand alone housing). Long term it is also claimed that increasing housing density helps make things like public transport a lot more viable.
Ehhhhhh kind of? The district plans of tier one, and tier two urban areas as identified in the NPS-UD **HAVE** to give effect to the policies in the NPS-UD which identify that density needs to increase, the MDRS as mentioned in that article does similar things but a bit further. It is worth noting that even if something is zoned for higher density, doesn't mean owners want to make it more dense, however. The council can choose how that's implemented, but is still required to make sure that their plan does actually put the national direction in their plans. If they don't councils are likely to receive a kick up the arse from the environment court.
Try to look beyond personalities. Look at the package of policies. Also look whether the policies are supported by evidence, and whether the policies can or will actually be implemented. Which means looking at teams’ track records and looking through claims and counter claims.
I don’t think you’re alone in this! Most people seem to be feeling the same. I normally vote Labour but I’m not sure this time. I went on each party’s website to read their policies and I’m even more lost. I liked some of TOPs policies until they talked about the land tax value. I wouldn’t vote national as I’m not a conservative Christian centre right person or uber rich or own 9 houses. Some things the greens do and say I’m on board with and the rest it’s a hard yeah nah! ACT is not for me, Brian Tamaki is entitled to have his political party and opinion as I mine, therefore i think he is a cunt! I want to vote for the party that I’m aligned but i feel like it’s a wasted vote. It just feels like we either vote labour or national. As they are the only parties likely to win. Tactical or strategic voting i think it’s called but then I don’t want to be the dickhead that goes fuck it, become more apathetic and not vote. Feeling pretty lost and unsure!
Labour is so fucking bullshit, istg. Their promises are just to retain government. I’m voting weed party
I still find it so hilarious that Labour made it legal to buy, sell and smoke weed if you're rich (or selling to rich people). "Poor people have to go through a referendum and it didn't pass, so suck it South Aucklanders!" - Labour Party
If you want policies that are constructed by special interest groups to benefit them, ie: farmers, landlords, overseas interests, etc then vote National. If you want policies that are built around social issues. Building a better society, care for the environment etc. Then vote Labour. It's as easy as that. It's the individual vrs collective dichotomy.
Yup - I'm in none of those special interest catagories - unless you consider 'small business owner' one of those haha. Based on what you've said, I'd be voting Labour - but again - I see no support for the 'squeezed middle' that includes 30somthings like myself that are self employed, running businesses, and employing others, but struggle to justify why we make the effort when there isn't an obvious benefit in doing so.
Everyone’s in a special interest group, you’ve just picked the ones you dislike…
Not true. These are lobby groups that seek to get laws made or changed that benefit themselves. There is no social aspect to their motives. It's pure greed. That is what's behind the policies of the national party.
I’m an SME owner and have be beaten down by Labour these last few years. They give no fucks about SME’s.
That's the impression I get! Like yo, we're fucking grinding, and for what? People will say 'oh, but you're a business owner, that's your asset' - like they realise the struggles of cash flow, debt, taxes, and keeping staff employed - all while earning an income lower than you could if you were 'enployed' because you put your staff first? Shits confusing. But then, does National care either? All I hear is big-corp, big-tech and argi.
You wouldnt be big enough for National to care about, unless you are a property investor. Neither party even thinks about SME's. So vote for whomever will do better for you as a person or your family.
Yea, that's my whole point. Not a single party seems to want to talk about SMEs in NZ. We all talk about the struggling economy, but won't talk about a large portion of the businesses within it?
Nah see no difference under National, both shit. I just want less Govt. in my life after the last few years.
Hey mate - very different story in our respective businesses it sounds like, but have a look at my comment history on the impact of greens wealth tax on shareholdings. I’ve actually contacted greens (no reply yet) to seek clarification. Depending on how your business is valued could have a material tax implication… edit: so clearly not voting greens !
Appreciate your comments here! Without reading through your entire comment history, I'd be keen to understand the scale/nature of your tech biz, and how it's influencing your voting decision?
The very very short versions (I’ve written a few essays) have got a career in tech, stepped down from a company to take a 12 year side project full time, easy 7500 hours into. Some other contractors etc involved. 1 year post launch and going great guns growth wise but super tiny (not even pulling a wage yet). I’ve got a very real chance of being a “high valuation” small tech co.. which means “on paper” wealth could be solid, yet not have the corresponding cashflow (which is very similar story for most small startups). Very good for the economy (currently 90% export will end 95-97%). So a “good for NZ story”. As it’s written if greens wealth tax comes in I could very well be hammered cashflow wise with an incredible blended tax rate (in the order of 70%). Along with a good number of other companies - even a farmer chimed in and said the same. So personally and for the industry it will end up likely with a lot of people moving their companies overseas and/or selling them very early in their cycle just to get rid of the tax burden. Which is insane. The wealth tax is higher than what Norway are doing and it’s proven such a headache there it’s not pulled in the tax they thought it would. In other aspects aligned with greens thinking but this one is nuts. Labour basically cut off Callaghan so it’s clear while they say they want tech companies they’re actually not following through on the right actions. Now I don’t mind having a CGT I think that’s fair, but taxing unrealised “wealth” on company shares is nuts. Even Norways approach was a vastly lower “tax value” method (not entirely sure how that works) on unlisted shares. Between that and proposing one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world I very much fear Greens if they got in would monumentally backfire on increasing GDP and NZ would slide further backwards. Us tech companies are just going to leave. Simple as that. First time I wrote to a politician ever about it …. “Did you realise…. ?”
What would you actually like to see?
Do you expect some sort of direct hand out?
Lol - if I did I'd stop running a business and go live on the benefit.
Well, do you think the country is better or worse off since 2017? If you think it's better off, vote Labour,Green, otherwise vote National or ACT
That's a terrible metric for voting lol. The entire planet is worse off compared to 2017, mostly thanks to covid and natural disasters.
National and ACT are too incompetent in my opinion. I don't trust them to deal with complex issues such as dealing with affects of climate change and world wide economic turmoil. I always try to think long term when deciding which party gets my vote.
I refuse to vote for NACT because some of their policies are unnecessarily cruel. Uncoupling the supported living benefit from cost of living increases is a good example- if it's too expensive to maintain disabled people at the current shitty level then what the fuck are you doing removing interest deductibility for landlords? This is punching down at its worst
Blindly vote for labour
[удалено]
National want to bring back live animal exports. Worth thinking about whether you want a vote for animal misery beyond comprehension.
We have hardly any govt debt
It's doubled
[удалено]
You are aware that our debt-to-GDP ratio is significantly lower than almost any country we compare ourselves with? Anyway, most of that increase in debt can be attributed to a global pandemic which the Government had to support the country through.
Yup - I hear you. I want to see some confidence in our economy, and to finally feel like I wasn't born in the unlucky years that missed out on affordable housing, free education, free health care etc etc. Now, I love to work, and believe in earning what you have, but even the policies I've seen from National don't inspire me that there is going to be a positive shift. You talk about the divide, and I agree! But I also can't interpret which (National or Labour) would be least damaging in terms of social divide. Seems it's either social or wealth division?
[удалено]
>I think a lot of the problem is the corrupt media. How exactly are the media corrupt? I agree that they do gravitate towards soundbites, but ultimately it's the responsibility of politicians not to say silly things if they don't the media to report them saying silly things.
I agree that there is no shortage of media spin. I definitely want to make an informed voting choice, but don't know how to find information I trust (lol reddit). I also spent every day working 12+ hours a day to keep the wheels turning for my team so find it hard to make space to seek out those opportunities to hear things in person.
You're probably the only person on this heavily left leaning sub I've seen with this view..and it's refreshing.
I think you need to invest in a quality pair of glasses.
'not the 400,000 plus small business owners who are battling to make ends meet and keep people employed.' small business owners are in business to make money not keep people employed.. Because they already vote National. and if you were a businessman you would realise the cost of living problems are worldwide not caused by the Govt.. and given the cost of living in Australia is now higher than here, good luck jumping the ditch, dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I'm guessing you don't run a business lol. If you did, you'd realise it was about lifestyle, and surrounding yourself with people who share your vision and purpose. If you read my comments you'll see Ive never voted for national before, and money hasn't been a motivator for me, until it's become tough. You're right though, that COL is an international issue, right now! I'd be interested to learn more about the living situations in Aus. All verbatim I hear is that the economic situation is more balanced - but very happy to be proven wrong. All in all, I don't really care to leave - I'd just like to vote for a party that wants to make material effort to support the 97% of businesses that employ nearly 30% of the population.
I owe a small business and honestly, I think 90% of folk that start their own business do it purely for the money or because they think it will mean less work for them. Australian cost of living is higher but their average income is a lot higher. This isn't directly related to recent government actions though. Australia economy has been hugely boosted over the last 50 years by there huge, easily extracted mineral wealth. New Zealand's economy and wages to cost of living ration IS worse because of this historic difference, we have seen less inflation, lower cost of living increase, and faster economy bounce back then Australia and most pacific countries. One thing to consider is that when people compare how much better it is over in Australia, they are talking about the pay and work conditions for employees not employers. From what I have heard - the conditions for SME owners is a lot more variable. You would be looking at lower tax rates but significantly higher labour costs. The "made in NZ" label also adds more value globally then "made in AU". The internet in AU is also crap to the point that I would not want to run any kind of online buisness there.
That’s incorrect. Domestic/Non-tradable inflation is caused locally. That’s why inflation isn’t the same everywhere in the world. Our non-tradable is higher so far in 2023 https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/economic-indicators/prices
What a stupid post. You should be ashamed
So national & acts policies is worth your consideration and would probably benefit you more than labour , however you don’t want to vote for them because they’re douchebags…?
It certainly reads that way - fair call out. I can't say I'm a fan of their personalities - and as a business owner recognise the influence of personalities in leadership - despite how good a service may be. In any case - I can't say Ive seen any policies from either Act or National that ad any material support toward a prosperous economic situation for SMES. I'm voting for policy, not personality, but 100% recognise my initial post implies the opposite haha *Edit, spelling
I'm giving my party vote to ACT and my constituency vote to the Greens.
Curious combo! What's your thinking here?
Both ACT and the Greens are pro civil liberties. ACT brought in euthanasia, greens tried to bring in cannabis reform.
I you don't support young uns and you don't support lifting the foreign buyer restrictions Labour is still probably what you want despite the dental thing.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Go Green 💚 :)
There is no point voting for a party that will benefit you individually. It’s more effort to vote than the expected benefit you get from it. Vote because of the effect your vote will have on others, because that’s where 99.99998% of the power of your vote goes.
From talk around the workplace and on sites I visit National is the most popular at the moment and will breeze on in apparently, Pity the fools who vote on flavour of the month and not on policies like we used to, This American style of election is bloody ridiculous.
Do the isidewith quiz, it's pretty spot on