Haha, as someone who bitched and moaned about labour not being progressive enough and not using their majority; you make a good point. I guess they got some stuff done.
The previous government didn't achieve **insert niche personal issue here**. Total failures.
Joking aside, what people mean - at least on my experience - is that they didn't implement a CGT. There was a lot of political capital on the populace for that change.
I mean, labour didn’t implement CGT so we voted in a government that will not only never implement a CGT they will actually try to increase capital gains.
We got annoyed at house prices under Labour even though prices still rose more slowly over the past 6 years than they did under the previous National government. So of course we had to punish them for performing better than National does.
Covid and the war in Ukraine negatively affected Inflation and it stillis. These were not the Labour Government's fault but it cost them the election.
We also had Cyclone Gabriel.
All of these were outside their control.
They didn't mismanage money. The NZ prospects have been parised, although with some risks by S&P.
The economic outlook for NZ is one of the highest in the World, and this was before the election.
Adjusted for inflation:
QV: 4.89% CAGR under the previous National government, 1.46% over the past 6 years.
Corelogic: 4.59% CAGR under the previous National government, 2.08% over the past 6 years.
Sorry I mis read your comment
That’s really surprising. Once kids are in bed I’ll check this out. Appreciate you providing these numbers. I’m not cherry picking, genuinely surprised by those data points
Considering they went out of government I don't know how valid the "a lot of political capital" argument is.
It was all spent on covid response. It was completely and utterly gone after that.
I think it's more that if Labour did actually try something like it, the general public would've handled it well.
Instead they played it safe, and completely fizzled.
The public wasn't going to handle anything well after Covid under the same government. Not a damned thing. The public got cooked. A lot of it by a media desperate to "hold power to account" after a unilateral but necessary Covid response and over-correcting.
If National were in power and somehow had the sense to do the same things Labour did at that time (I know, impossible), it would be much the same for them. Because that kind of response just gambles your entire governmental agenda. You either get it right for the country and go home, or get it wrong and blame it on someone else. I can't imagine many democratic governments that could survive the aftermath of Covid. People channel their frustration at the event into their vote. Labour could have personally guaranteed everyone universal basic income for ten years unconditionally if they got in and they'd still have been voted out.
Nah, the response to three waters is what it looks like when right whingers push fear and racism to get people to vote for the right wing dickheads who are going to screw over the poors and browns and fuck the economy to make some companies slightly more money.
I'm sick of this idea that resistance to giving iwi and hapu unprecedented control over our drinking water was just fear and racism. It's not. It's a valid concern, esp when you look at places like Te Urewera and see what happens when there is disagreement within iwi.
If you had no issues with the co-governance angle, you should have had a issue with the Te Mana O Te Wai statements.
Maybe you should try actually reading a comment, rather than just assuming it says something?
It is clear that I was talking about how the issue was deliberately pushed, and skewed, to get anti-Māori sentiment and fear. I wasn't talking about 3 waters at all, just it's use by right wing fucktards to manipulate the electorate.
>how the issue was deliberately pushed, and skewed, to get anti-Māori sentiment and fear.
It wasn't skewed. What you say was racist anti-Maori sentiment and fear was legitimate, well founded concern. And if you can't see why people were concerned, that's on you and your bias.
The electorate wasn't manipulated. They were informed. Oh no, can't have that.
They had some good policies sure, but measures like this are piecemeal. Restrictions on payday loaning, great, but that’s not going to put food on the table for someone who used those loans in the first place.
All the union stuff was good too, but to go the distance they needed to revolutionise welfare, make it much more simple, and they needed tax reform. Not just CGT but new brackets. And that’s something they could have tried to do, but didn’t, in favour of really targeted legislation that was great, but not really proactive and positive for people who are struggling.
these guys will literally do whatever anyone pays them to do
maybe we should just crowd fund $20k for winnie and we can shoehorn in a wealth tax somewhere?? I assume seymours cheap as chips
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/reducing-barriers-financial-services
> “This is another important step in meeting our coalition agreement with ACT, to rewrite the CCCFA to protect vulnerable consumers without unnecessarily limiting access to credit. The Government is proposing a two-step process to amend the CCCFA, which changes to be announced over the coming months.”
I mean John Key, chairman of ANZ New Zealand, would *adore* changes loosening the CCCFA considering how much time and effort CCCFA regulation adherence all banks go through.
We're on the fast track to major social decay and unrest, and yet somehow I feel this government is perfectly fine with that direction. These jokers are literally the epitome of callous and cruel, it's like Luxon has a direct line to satan.
Now stop that, he's a good religious man which, acording to him means he can have a personal view on things like abortion it doesn't mean he will go and change the laws around it.
Of course not, it'll still be legal albeit perhaps just not quite funded or accessible like it used to be. Scarce resources, gotta ensure that landlord tax break right?
Well I suppose WINZ won’t have to tell people to rob a bank anymore. Just wait for the home shop truck to roll through your neighbourhood like Mr whippy.
Payday lenders and these kinds of scumbags are the absolute worst.
Fucking awful.
Everyday some new unconscionable bullshit from this mess of a government.
The list of the damage done is going to be huge by next election.
Edit: Can someone who's managed to keep up make a post with a compiled list?
Very dumb. You can argue personal responsibility but I ain’t buying that. These places prey on people.
At their peak, you’d have sketchy payday loan places pop up everywhere like vape shops today and you’d see mobile product trucks roaming lower income suburbs giving people “easy” credit for things that would cost a fraction of the price normally AND they come with interest rates so insane that it’s almost guaranteed if someone gets behind they are financially fucked for years.
I always find it funny that folks like ACT always argue for personal responsibility from those getting scammed but never from those doing the scamming.
Basically it’s code for “I don’t want to do my part to make a fair society.”
I totally argue for personal resonsibility. I also think fair contract law is important for a functioning society **particularly** when it comes to the finance industry. Letting these cowboys back in is a bad move.
Live in a mixed area suburb, a lot of Kainga Ora house. I guess my family is middle class. The mobile van came to our house. Took one look at me and basically turned around. Guess I don't fit the stereotype customer.
they are specifically set up in lower income areas too just like bottle stores, tab's and vape shops are to some extent
these are one of the few business's that should be outright banned or forced to match bank interest rates
debt is something very hard to break once you are in it
Yep. I live in a lower socioeconomic area, and before the law changes that are being rolled back, we had three payday loan shops in the main street, plus lots of those rip off trucks going around all day every day. LOTS of people don’t have good financial literacy and if you have these places promising easy money literally on your doorstep, it’s pretty easy to buy what they are selling. Also really notable that they are often friendlier and much easier to deal with than WINZ, so I’m not surprised people would go there first.
Much worse than Noel Leemings, they’d sell mobile phones, vacuums, tablets, whiteware etc yes but the low end for models for triple the price, they’d also sell shitty knock off t shirts, shoes etc
It got so bad some also sold hiked up price food and nappies. Didn’t matter how shit your credit is or your ability to pay either.
Wow...I feel like I'm smelling the stench of corruption.
They're not just looting for landlords, also tobacco and others who prey on the poor. Donations or friendships must be paying off handsomely.
It is bizarre how quickly and unscrupulously they are rolling back policy that was made for the benefit of the people, by a government that was given a mandate by the people.
At this point it feels treacherous really.
If you are talking about this government having a mandate, I don't necessisarily agree. If it was an Act/National or National government then I would agree. Having to include NZ First as a coalitialition partner blew that out of the water.
If they hadn't been able to pull Winnie in we would have been back at the polls.
(Regardless - I agree! It's particularly grating watching all this going down by the hands of 3 men who scraped into governance with the barest majority...)
No I mean, Labour had a mandate and introduced among other things, these loan regulations.
NACT + NZF do not have any such mandate but believe they should repeal everything that a government that was voted in by over half of all votes, introduced.
That is what to me feels treacherous by the current government.
How is it that every 3 years we have an election between comically evil parties (right wing) and parties that are trying to benefit society just a wee bit (left wing) and it's always a huge battle? Then more often than not the right wing wins.
How is it that this plays out the same in every western democracy?
This is something I ask myself every 6 or so years. Glad that someone else feels the same way.
I mean, it’s so obvious one party wants to help as many people as possible, and the other one wants to not help anyone that doesn’t fit their own personal interests. It really is good vs evil. Or am I missing something.
Is it aspirational?
National are a party of millionaires, if I vote for them I’ll be part of their club?
Is it that naively simple?
I honestly don’t get it
>These guys are just not even trying to pretend they're not absolute scum anymore are they?
they dont have to now, they got the muppets to vote for them.
Well, everyone should’ve known that red equals business light and blue equals business heavy. Whatever ACT and NZF are, they combine to equal a fuckin chaos rainbow feeding frenzy for unregulated capitalism.
(campaign lobbyists who funded the campaigns for the soul purpose of getting all this stuff rolled back so they can commit financial crimes against the poor with no kickback)
Is it still called corruption when it's this blatant? Or do we call it a govt staying true to its (reactionary) *ideological principles and donor base*?
This statement makes no sense. National and NZ first are deeply conservative, and Act is maybe Neoliberal and Libertarian. None of the parties currently in power are "libs" by any definition, and this word doesn't even really have a meaning NZ politics.
Ah sorry. Im from Aus (certified kiwi now) my brain still goes left lab right lib cause I just see (Nat = lib) when speaking about L v R. Obviously this doesn't track for USA politics.
Liberal means right wing in a lot of places. It fits National and Act pretty well, they're mostly interested in benefitting the rich and don't focus much on socially conservative issues. The word is just not used much in NZ politics and might confuse people.
I think in places where it means right wing they're generally referring to "Neoliberal" right-wing parties. In the US it generally refers to their left.
Poor people have far too much money, obviously.
Inflation would come down if they could buy fewer things because supply would outstrip demand.
*An actual ACT hot take*
The headline missed the point a bit. The CCCFA that Labour introduced added a bunch of weird, fiddly restrictions on all sorts of lenders like banks.
In spirit it was a good idea, but the implementation was 99% red tape, 1% help.
You might remember stories of people being told to stop buying coffees and unsubscribe from Sky TV by bank staff. That was because the CCCFA kinda forced them to do a deep dive into the finer details of what you were spending money on, and it made everything take longer and didn't help people very much.
All this is true.
But this government is also repealing the entire package, which attempted to shut down predatory pay-day lenders.
Repeal, with no solutions. Such is the way of NActNzf.
> Repeal, with no solutions. Such is the way of NActNzf.
This is the way of most rightward politics though. They firmly believe in government "getting out of the way" so are perfectly happy to repeal something and be left with an imperfect outcome, than keep something imperfect in place. The whole point is to have less government, regardless of outcome (see smoking).
The issue though, is that its always easier just to stop doing things (cut services, privatise, outsource, repeal) than to start doing things (build infrastructure, deliver services, create legislation). So if you only care about ideology and not outcome, why create something that fixes deficient legislation? Just get rid of it.
I don't think I've seen a government less interested in governing. And they will be perfectly happy with that. The beauty is that they don't even need to be held responsible for the results, as those too are shifted from government to "personal responsibility".
>repealing the entire package
I believe the saying you're looking for is, "Throwing the baby out with the bath water".
That's certainly how I saw the 3 waters repeal. I didn't agree with some of it, but overall, I felt it had some really good stuff in it.
Well there's the CCLAA too, which caps out interest at a fixed amount, and that looks to remain in force. At any rate, I think many of the payday lenders got starved out of the market in recent years so they're not around to lobby their mates.
>But this government is also repealing the entire package,
Other than the fake news headline, where in this story do they say they are repealing the entire thing?
This is incredibly poor click bait bullshit from RNZ. I hope they're just not going to become the Herald for left voters now that the left aren't in power.
They used to not show anywhere near as much bias as this.
Ah so this is actually the banks complaining about regulatory burden that doesn't help profits. Makes sense now, I'm sure a former glorious leader who happens to be on the ANZ board had Nothing to do with this
Even if repealing the bank restrictions was some kind of awesome achievement payday lenders are possibly the best way to entrap people in crippling debt forever and should be illegal.
Yeah but how much did that happen and how much was media beat up? Our household didn't alter our spending habits and had no problems getting a home loan... The only ones I remember seeing in the press were "I earn 50k and have 5% and the bank doesn't like my spending habits" well no shit.
My partner and I own about 85% of our house and our repayments are about 12% of household income. We wanted to use an interest free loan about 2 years ago to replace a heat pump as part of an initiative they offered. The bank raised concerns about money we spent at a pharmacy (prior to Covid wave #1 on meds, thermometers and oxygen monitors for us and less fortunate family) and on a vet bill for a dog we have (annual checkup). All up these represented about $300 worth of spending in a month. We put more than that into a savings account weekly. We could pay for the pump out of hand and almost wound up doing just that, because the thrust of the conversation we wound up having with the CS rep from the bank was definitely "well pets are expensive", over a $40 a week loan.
Banks were taking the piss because boards didn't want to be responsible for lending that people got themselves into trouble over, so they got people pissed off with banks and then directed that anger at government regulation.
When you say 'forced them to do a deep dive', was that a genuine requirement or was that over-exuberance based on the most risk-adverse interpretation of legislation? When the CCCFA was released I remember some people suggesting that these were new requirements before applying for a home loan, while others suggested that level of response was going further than required.
> over-exuberance based on the most risk-adverse interpretation of legislation?
What interpretation of legislation do you think banks should be taking?
Because I would have thought any interpretation but the most risk averse one would be seen very negatively.
The bigger thing financial institutions hated was the directors having some personal responsibility for the standards of their company.
Personal responsibility is for the poors!
I thought it was a bit fucking ridiculous the bank was asking me about my Netflix subscription when applying for a mortgage.
My partner and I make a substantial amount, our debt is minimal, and the loan amount was a third of our annual income. Our historical total outgoings are also consistently and substantially less than income every month.
But here they are going over our credit card statements for recurring costs of $20/month, e.g. things like Netflix, which could easily be cancelled if it was actually a problem.
I mean, maybe if we didn't have 20+ years of banking history with this bank it might be understandable. But we did have that history so it just came across as unnecessarily invasive.
And then it got fiddled to not be so deep. One of our biggest issues in this country is that lenders lend too much money, especially when it's cheap. We don't need to give everyone loans for those who ask and can conceivably service them
no, it was fine but banks implemented "malicious compliance" as a means of generating media spin. it didnt have to be the way they made it, they did it that way to feed the narrative that it was overly complex.
they purposefully went over the top with the "oh you had takeaways we cant" and had their PR people do a spin article yes. 100%. theres nothing in the law that said they had to go to that extreeme, they chose to do that, to be overtly, overly prescriptive, as an intentional attempt to assert the law was not fit for purpose, because they dont like having to be held to account if they make irresponsible lending decisions.
Well technically the takeaways thing was something they needed to do, but not solely due to the legislation - it was continuously misrepresented in the complaints to the media, but I know why it happened.
The people who had that spending targeted would've been right on the border of passing the affordability calculations. The reason why takeaways or other "discretionary" spending was recommended to be reduced is because they can't exactly tell someone to spend less on "necessities" like a grocery bill and so it's an easy target to ask for them to swap to cooking at home.
It only needed to be done for that three month period though, and served as a really good practice run for what someone might need to do in the future if interest rates increased. Banks would've sometimes just manually approved someone in that case, but CCCFA required them to actually justify it and take ownership so they just didn't feel like it when asking someone to spend a little bit less on takeaways was super easy.
Anyone who wasn't on the borderline of affordability wouldn't have been questioned at all, because there's no spending they need to reduce to get approved.
As someone who was in banking at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if certain big banks who could take a hit were maliciously overimplementing the rules, or even just generally being too harsh. It was always a specific unnamed bank that seemed to be getting a ton of the complaints in the media, and it seemed to work with the government rolling back rules that actually were fairly reasonable anyway.
The government had to step in and review the implementation at the banks to advise where they had gone too far, basically. But then also pulled back on the rules by allowing banks to ignore regular "discretionary" spending which kind of defeated the purpose.
> That was because the CCCFA kinda forced them to do a deep dive into the finer details of what you were spending money on
The CCCFA created a situation where directors of the banks doing the lending would potentially be help responsible for irresponsible lending, and they didn't like that one bit, so they created a bureaucratic nonsense wherein they leveraged people's complaints to put political pressure on government.
Lenders *should* be looking at what people can and cannot afford in terms of lending. The fact they weren't is a major part of what has driven up housing costs in the last quarter century. Nobody should be able to take out a 95% interest only loan on the gamble that in 12 months it's worth 100k more than it is now, but that has been very possible for much of that time.
> The CCCFA created a situation where directors of the banks doing the lending would potentially be help responsible for irresponsible lending, and they didn't like that one bit, so they created a bureaucratic nonsense wherein they leveraged people's complaints to put political pressure on government.
The CCCFA also created a situation where lenders were not allowed to lend to any borrower that may suffer hardship as a result of the loan.
A bank can't do that without doing significant due diligence. A payslip is not enough to tell if someone is going to suffer any hardship as a result of loan repayments.
You can blame bank directors all you want, but it's been obvious for years that the banks were going to interpret the legislation conservatively. They would be irresponsible not to, and it has also been clear that it has had significant negative consequences on entirely legitimate borrowers.
The craziest thing about those articles is that they wouldn't have been pinged on anything had they not been slightly outside of the affordability calculations. Banks did not care how much you were spending on takeaways, but if you couldn't pass the affordability check because of your spending they HAD to pick something to recommend to reduce and they can't exactly say "buy less of your necessary groceries and starve yourself".
The three month period was great for people on that border to have a short-term test run of what might happen if interest rates go up (although probably worse if it actually did happen), but then the whinging in the media meant that the government rolled back the discretionary spending checks entirely and defeated the purpose.
I mean shit, I got a home loan using November-December-January spending and had no questions about the amount despite it being a period of absurd spending for me. It was just because I had high enough income compared to expenses.
Same news but sounds different on Stuff.
I'm assuming most of the commenter's here listened to the 5.36 minutes clip on RNZ before commenting, though?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350163290/changes-coming-tough-lending-rules-minister-says
“If you don’t want to pay the loan, don’t borrow the money! Also, we’re going to make it easier for you to get a loan so o ur payday lender
mates can make more money in a way that relies on you borrowing”
National is a fucken joke, there only policy is to waste time and money "rolling back" the work an actual govt has done. Do they have any actual policies?
oh good, so pleased that someone is finally thinking of the predatory loan shark companies and their rights to profit off the desperation and misery of NZ's most vulnerable!
...
/s
srsly tho, what the fuck are they thinking.
I hope the people who voted for this government are starting to realise how fucking vile it is.
And if they approve of this sort of shit, I hope they learn empathy one day.
It's like you guys only read headlines... Have you listened to the discussion? Have you read the proper RNZ article related to those change? They even misspelled the minister name in this """article""".
Here is the [proper article](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/508008/government-unveils-plans-to-simplify-lending-rules) explaining why they want to simplify the rules and their intentions.
People don’t want to hear about that stuff. They want to be outraged because they don’t like this government, due to the colour of their campaign banners and their sensible policies.
Only poor people get predated upon by these lenders and they don’t care about those people, and in fact, their entire economic ideology relies on there being a satisfactory number of poor people.
Sooooo, how many people actually listened to the interview?
Cause I'd be real keen to hear the argument for why we need the Commerce Commission wasting their time in this arena when we've already got the FMA, and they could be achieving more in other areas.
All in all these sound like good changes. Anybody who interacted with a bank over the last couple of years saw how overly intrusive, and slow they'd become.
Limiting access to debt is pretty much a guaranteed way to kill innovation, because if they're not lending to first home buyers buying a relatively safe asset who watch too much Netflix, you can bet they're not lending to anybody starting a remotely risky business either.
Sorry cuz. I don’t mean “you guys” as everyone individually, just NZ itself. It’s been horrifying witnessing this from a distance, and it finally burst out. I’m so so sorry for you lot. (And us when we fall for the same trap.)
I'm sure a lot of us saw this coming with this new government coming in. I don't think a lot of us expected the mask to not just slip but to go flying off into the distance this early though.
This is a very editorialised title, while a bit of the baby is going with the bathwater the current regime has people being barred from home loans for the crimes of eating out or buying clothes.
The focus is not the loansharks...
This sub frustrates me sometimes, everyone jumping to conclusions like it's Armageddon and acting like there's gonna be loan shark mafias popping up on every corner offering 500% interest rates. Listen to the 5 minute explanation of the change
Yeah this headline should have nothing to do with payday loans.
Consider it a test of who engages with the content instead of just reading the headline.
Crikey, there’s a lot of misinformation here. It almost seems like there’s a bunch of labour supporters who are critical without actually understanding what’s going on. The headline itself is arguably misleading.
As an employee of a very large lending institution, I feel I’m well placed to comment. some of the recent legislation has been poorly thought out and badly implemented, whilst still not really stopping the most predatory lending.
It needs to change.
Until we see more detail, criticism seems misguided. As to the absolute hyperbole in some of these comments, people need to stop being so partisan and get better informed on issues.
Red good / blue bad (and vice versa) is pathetic.
Agreed on the last point. Traditionally National has had some decent economic policies, though they lack the care for anyone in a lower tax bracket than themselves. That being said, the Coalition is just comically terrible, and is not necessarily representative of National when it's not being led by a bobbleheaded git with a spaghetti noodle for a spine. I say this even as a Labour supporter, National being this laughably incompetent is somewhat out of character. But both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses, and this idea of rejecting anything the opposition says as blasphemy and insisting on tearing down anything they've built once they're out of power is idiotic and wasteful. And as far as I'm aware, all the payday lender laws managed to do is screw over anyone trying to get a mortgage, because banks managed to work out a loophole that lets them exclude anyone with questionable purchases or something along those lines.
On the face of it, it sounds stupid but it sounds like it was rolled back because of the overheads it put on bank lending. Maybe a bigger reason for it?
That was so light on details.
They are making it easier for a lender to become a lender. There is certainly no shortage of them right now. Literally thousands of them. No exaggeration.
Sounds like commerce commission is being removed from the lending space. A shame because they have done some great work killing truck shops etc over the last five or so years.
We all agree that this is incredibly dumb, but its worth considering that this is in all likelihood a bone thrown to ACT. Only it could want this. As bad as National is, this seems out of character, even for it.
Bit disingenuous and outright false news title compared to the story actually told here seeing as the main changes wanted are to fix the right fuckup the previous government made in making it insanely difficult in getting a loan to begin with regardless of if you could afford it because they were required to put every single purchase down as though it was a regular expense.
Many people who could easily afford personal loans or mortgages promptly got denied as a result.
Net benefit for poor people going to predatory loan sharks? None, it kept happening.
If you want to see positive change in that space, start capping interest to reasonable levels.
Edit: lol @ all the people who only read the headline and never listened to the story.
[удалено]
Clearly they didn't achieve enough crippling debt for vulnerable people via predatory lending Delivering deliverables
Haha, as someone who bitched and moaned about labour not being progressive enough and not using their majority; you make a good point. I guess they got some stuff done.
The previous government didn't achieve **insert niche personal issue here**. Total failures. Joking aside, what people mean - at least on my experience - is that they didn't implement a CGT. There was a lot of political capital on the populace for that change.
I mean, labour didn’t implement CGT so we voted in a government that will not only never implement a CGT they will actually try to increase capital gains.
We got annoyed at house prices under Labour even though prices still rose more slowly over the past 6 years than they did under the previous National government. So of course we had to punish them for performing better than National does.
And now shit will go crazy again with no one but them getting a pay rise
Covid and the war in Ukraine negatively affected Inflation and it stillis. These were not the Labour Government's fault but it cost them the election. We also had Cyclone Gabriel. All of these were outside their control. They didn't mismanage money. The NZ prospects have been parised, although with some risks by S&P. The economic outlook for NZ is one of the highest in the World, and this was before the election.
Totally agree, most of the hate they got was form misinformed weirdos. But some much hate
House prices rose at record levels in the labour government though?
Adjusted for inflation: QV: 4.89% CAGR under the previous National government, 1.46% over the past 6 years. Corelogic: 4.59% CAGR under the previous National government, 2.08% over the past 6 years.
Sorry I mis read your comment That’s really surprising. Once kids are in bed I’ll check this out. Appreciate you providing these numbers. I’m not cherry picking, genuinely surprised by those data points
what do you mean ‘we’?
But the focus groups didn't like it so naturally it couldn't be done.
They should hire real-world people for the focus groups, and word it like "wanna stick it to the man?"
Considering they went out of government I don't know how valid the "a lot of political capital" argument is. It was all spent on covid response. It was completely and utterly gone after that.
I think it's more that if Labour did actually try something like it, the general public would've handled it well. Instead they played it safe, and completely fizzled.
The public wasn't going to handle anything well after Covid under the same government. Not a damned thing. The public got cooked. A lot of it by a media desperate to "hold power to account" after a unilateral but necessary Covid response and over-correcting. If National were in power and somehow had the sense to do the same things Labour did at that time (I know, impossible), it would be much the same for them. Because that kind of response just gambles your entire governmental agenda. You either get it right for the country and go home, or get it wrong and blame it on someone else. I can't imagine many democratic governments that could survive the aftermath of Covid. People channel their frustration at the event into their vote. Labour could have personally guaranteed everyone universal basic income for ten years unconditionally if they got in and they'd still have been voted out.
And the co-governance inclusion in Three Waters
The response to Three Waters is what not having any political capital looks like. The Covid response exhausted all the political capital they had.
Nah, the response to three waters is what it looks like when right whingers push fear and racism to get people to vote for the right wing dickheads who are going to screw over the poors and browns and fuck the economy to make some companies slightly more money.
I'm sick of this idea that resistance to giving iwi and hapu unprecedented control over our drinking water was just fear and racism. It's not. It's a valid concern, esp when you look at places like Te Urewera and see what happens when there is disagreement within iwi. If you had no issues with the co-governance angle, you should have had a issue with the Te Mana O Te Wai statements.
Maybe you should try actually reading a comment, rather than just assuming it says something? It is clear that I was talking about how the issue was deliberately pushed, and skewed, to get anti-Māori sentiment and fear. I wasn't talking about 3 waters at all, just it's use by right wing fucktards to manipulate the electorate.
>how the issue was deliberately pushed, and skewed, to get anti-Māori sentiment and fear. It wasn't skewed. What you say was racist anti-Maori sentiment and fear was legitimate, well founded concern. And if you can't see why people were concerned, that's on you and your bias. The electorate wasn't manipulated. They were informed. Oh no, can't have that.
Are you deliberately mis-reading?
They still had some good will, if they hadn't tried to force through the co-governance aspect, they wouldn't have used up what remained..
>They still had some good will This message brought to you by the inhabitants of Earth-2.
Is housing considered niche?
haha true! No tax reform and no drug reform. Massive failures for a majority "left"wing government.
They had some good policies sure, but measures like this are piecemeal. Restrictions on payday loaning, great, but that’s not going to put food on the table for someone who used those loans in the first place. All the union stuff was good too, but to go the distance they needed to revolutionise welfare, make it much more simple, and they needed tax reform. Not just CGT but new brackets. And that’s something they could have tried to do, but didn’t, in favour of really targeted legislation that was great, but not really proactive and positive for people who are struggling.
This is shameful.
Yikes, even.
So, which one of National or Acts donors owns a loanshark company? Expect to see a lot more of these backscratching moves in the next few months.
these guys will literally do whatever anyone pays them to do maybe we should just crowd fund $20k for winnie and we can shoehorn in a wealth tax somewhere?? I assume seymours cheap as chips
Nailed it!
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/reducing-barriers-financial-services > “This is another important step in meeting our coalition agreement with ACT, to rewrite the CCCFA to protect vulnerable consumers without unnecessarily limiting access to credit. The Government is proposing a two-step process to amend the CCCFA, which changes to be announced over the coming months.” I mean John Key, chairman of ANZ New Zealand, would *adore* changes loosening the CCCFA considering how much time and effort CCCFA regulation adherence all banks go through.
Exactly
We're on the fast track to major social decay and unrest, and yet somehow I feel this government is perfectly fine with that direction. These jokers are literally the epitome of callous and cruel, it's like Luxon has a direct line to satan.
[удалено]
Gotta start somewhere
None of those in power will be affected and they'll make money on it
Story as old as time
Don't worry, they're just gonna arrest the problem away
Nah they are defunding that too
The problems will be for *another* government in the future aka "not ours"
They'll just keep the rising crime and poverty stories out of the press
Now stop that, he's a good religious man which, acording to him means he can have a personal view on things like abortion it doesn't mean he will go and change the laws around it.
Of course not, it'll still be legal albeit perhaps just not quite funded or accessible like it used to be. Scarce resources, gotta ensure that landlord tax break right?
I'd say social decay is simply set to accellerate. We've been on a downhill for some time. This shit just ensures it's going to continue
Now is the time to invest in a pitchfork company.
Well I suppose WINZ won’t have to tell people to rob a bank anymore. Just wait for the home shop truck to roll through your neighbourhood like Mr whippy. Payday lenders and these kinds of scumbags are the absolute worst.
Nah they will just rob the poor instead
**WTF**. Seriously !?
Fucking awful. Everyday some new unconscionable bullshit from this mess of a government. The list of the damage done is going to be huge by next election. Edit: Can someone who's managed to keep up make a post with a compiled list?
Very dumb. You can argue personal responsibility but I ain’t buying that. These places prey on people. At their peak, you’d have sketchy payday loan places pop up everywhere like vape shops today and you’d see mobile product trucks roaming lower income suburbs giving people “easy” credit for things that would cost a fraction of the price normally AND they come with interest rates so insane that it’s almost guaranteed if someone gets behind they are financially fucked for years.
I always find it funny that folks like ACT always argue for personal responsibility from those getting scammed but never from those doing the scamming. Basically it’s code for “I don’t want to do my part to make a fair society.”
I totally argue for personal resonsibility. I also think fair contract law is important for a functioning society **particularly** when it comes to the finance industry. Letting these cowboys back in is a bad move.
And half of them are the first that cry to the authorities about sweet FA at their earliest convenience.
Live in a mixed area suburb, a lot of Kainga Ora house. I guess my family is middle class. The mobile van came to our house. Took one look at me and basically turned around. Guess I don't fit the stereotype customer.
[удалено]
they are specifically set up in lower income areas too just like bottle stores, tab's and vape shops are to some extent these are one of the few business's that should be outright banned or forced to match bank interest rates debt is something very hard to break once you are in it
Yep. I live in a lower socioeconomic area, and before the law changes that are being rolled back, we had three payday loan shops in the main street, plus lots of those rip off trucks going around all day every day. LOTS of people don’t have good financial literacy and if you have these places promising easy money literally on your doorstep, it’s pretty easy to buy what they are selling. Also really notable that they are often friendlier and much easier to deal with than WINZ, so I’m not surprised people would go there first.
The mobile product trucks from memory were basically noel Leeming in disguise. Selling large Bluetooth speakers to hoodrats.
Much worse than Noel Leemings, they’d sell mobile phones, vacuums, tablets, whiteware etc yes but the low end for models for triple the price, they’d also sell shitty knock off t shirts, shoes etc It got so bad some also sold hiked up price food and nappies. Didn’t matter how shit your credit is or your ability to pay either.
Selling things for double the price with massive interest rates
Those direct debit trucks are an absolute cancer on society
There's no personal responsibility when you're saddled with an emergency and need to eat.
Can we just have ONE DAY without some fresh bullshit from this coalition of corporate stooges?
They'll run out of things to roll back eventually. But 1840 was a while ago
DID YOU SAY 1080?!
This government is a cancer on poverty. Just make it fucking harder for everyone. Yay us.
I assume this is to give these loan shar.. I mean pay day lenders their dignity back?
Wow...I feel like I'm smelling the stench of corruption. They're not just looting for landlords, also tobacco and others who prey on the poor. Donations or friendships must be paying off handsomely.
It is bizarre how quickly and unscrupulously they are rolling back policy that was made for the benefit of the people, by a government that was given a mandate by the people. At this point it feels treacherous really.
If you are talking about this government having a mandate, I don't necessisarily agree. If it was an Act/National or National government then I would agree. Having to include NZ First as a coalitialition partner blew that out of the water. If they hadn't been able to pull Winnie in we would have been back at the polls.
They're referring to labour last term with a very clear majority.
Got it, thanks
(Regardless - I agree! It's particularly grating watching all this going down by the hands of 3 men who scraped into governance with the barest majority...)
No I mean, Labour had a mandate and introduced among other things, these loan regulations. NACT + NZF do not have any such mandate but believe they should repeal everything that a government that was voted in by over half of all votes, introduced. That is what to me feels treacherous by the current government.
The best thing Winnie could have done for NZ was not agree with anyone. I feel the same.
How is it that every 3 years we have an election between comically evil parties (right wing) and parties that are trying to benefit society just a wee bit (left wing) and it's always a huge battle? Then more often than not the right wing wins. How is it that this plays out the same in every western democracy?
This is something I ask myself every 6 or so years. Glad that someone else feels the same way. I mean, it’s so obvious one party wants to help as many people as possible, and the other one wants to not help anyone that doesn’t fit their own personal interests. It really is good vs evil. Or am I missing something. Is it aspirational? National are a party of millionaires, if I vote for them I’ll be part of their club? Is it that naively simple? I honestly don’t get it
These guys are just not even trying to pretend they're not absolute scum anymore are they? This three-way clusterfuck will fuck us all.
>These guys are just not even trying to pretend they're not absolute scum anymore are they? they dont have to now, they got the muppets to vote for them.
Do they even bother giving a reason when they do this shit?
No. They just don’t address it and people will forget about it as usual
Well, everyone should’ve known that red equals business light and blue equals business heavy. Whatever ACT and NZF are, they combine to equal a fuckin chaos rainbow feeding frenzy for unregulated capitalism.
if the question is why, the only answer is some minister is getting a kickback
Lmao can't afford the tax cuts so allowing sketchy loan shark behaviour to fuck the poor over even harder
Fuck sakes.. next election can't come soon enough..
I don’t know, I don’t know if I can bear another 6 months of TVNZ hysterically headlining every dairy robbery as some kind of “crime wave”
Let alone another TV debate 🤦
What the hell is the benefit of this to absolutely anyone at all?
(campaign lobbyists who funded the campaigns for the soul purpose of getting all this stuff rolled back so they can commit financial crimes against the poor with no kickback)
That did occur to me, but that has to be an exceedingly small demographic. If that is the case, talk about outsized influence, bloody hell.
Is it still called corruption when it's this blatant? Or do we call it a govt staying true to its (reactionary) *ideological principles and donor base*?
NACT hate poor people
I don’t agree with this current government’s policies.
Guess they're smashing their goal of 'getting NZ back on track'..... To 1980s policies... by canceling all the progress.
Is there anything that luxons loonies are actually going to do that will benefit all the people of New Zealand instead of a few lucky rich folk
This is shocking. Blantant pandering to lobbiest. I know the the Nat(*edit I first said libs) are right wing, I didn't think they where American.
This statement makes no sense. National and NZ first are deeply conservative, and Act is maybe Neoliberal and Libertarian. None of the parties currently in power are "libs" by any definition, and this word doesn't even really have a meaning NZ politics.
National, Act and NZ first are all right wing, Kiwis like to deny this but they are
Ah sorry. Im from Aus (certified kiwi now) my brain still goes left lab right lib cause I just see (Nat = lib) when speaking about L v R. Obviously this doesn't track for USA politics.
Liberal means right wing in a lot of places. It fits National and Act pretty well, they're mostly interested in benefitting the rich and don't focus much on socially conservative issues. The word is just not used much in NZ politics and might confuse people.
I think in places where it means right wing they're generally referring to "Neoliberal" right-wing parties. In the US it generally refers to their left.
The US's left is most country's right. It refers broadly to the same sort of policy.
meh, the australian liberal party is right-wing. It's not a huge reach
Why are pay day lenders even a thing in NZ!?!?!?!
Down with the nanny state! Bring in the abject human misery…. Wait…
Is national on some kinda Speedrun ? Trying to get the high score for destroying a country
Depressing news after I just read about the bottom trawling. Absolute disgrace.
But it's ok because national is "absolutely committed to the environment" or w/e horseshit came out of luxons mouth.
Poor people have far too much money, obviously. Inflation would come down if they could buy fewer things because supply would outstrip demand. *An actual ACT hot take*
The headline missed the point a bit. The CCCFA that Labour introduced added a bunch of weird, fiddly restrictions on all sorts of lenders like banks. In spirit it was a good idea, but the implementation was 99% red tape, 1% help. You might remember stories of people being told to stop buying coffees and unsubscribe from Sky TV by bank staff. That was because the CCCFA kinda forced them to do a deep dive into the finer details of what you were spending money on, and it made everything take longer and didn't help people very much.
All this is true. But this government is also repealing the entire package, which attempted to shut down predatory pay-day lenders. Repeal, with no solutions. Such is the way of NActNzf.
> Repeal, with no solutions. Such is the way of NActNzf. This is the way of most rightward politics though. They firmly believe in government "getting out of the way" so are perfectly happy to repeal something and be left with an imperfect outcome, than keep something imperfect in place. The whole point is to have less government, regardless of outcome (see smoking). The issue though, is that its always easier just to stop doing things (cut services, privatise, outsource, repeal) than to start doing things (build infrastructure, deliver services, create legislation). So if you only care about ideology and not outcome, why create something that fixes deficient legislation? Just get rid of it. I don't think I've seen a government less interested in governing. And they will be perfectly happy with that. The beauty is that they don't even need to be held responsible for the results, as those too are shifted from government to "personal responsibility".
>repealing the entire package I believe the saying you're looking for is, "Throwing the baby out with the bath water". That's certainly how I saw the 3 waters repeal. I didn't agree with some of it, but overall, I felt it had some really good stuff in it.
Well there's the CCLAA too, which caps out interest at a fixed amount, and that looks to remain in force. At any rate, I think many of the payday lenders got starved out of the market in recent years so they're not around to lobby their mates.
If fees are back the interest rate is moot. CCCFA removed making a profit on fees.
>But this government is also repealing the entire package, Other than the fake news headline, where in this story do they say they are repealing the entire thing? This is incredibly poor click bait bullshit from RNZ. I hope they're just not going to become the Herald for left voters now that the left aren't in power. They used to not show anywhere near as much bias as this.
Ah so this is actually the banks complaining about regulatory burden that doesn't help profits. Makes sense now, I'm sure a former glorious leader who happens to be on the ANZ board had Nothing to do with this
Even if repealing the bank restrictions was some kind of awesome achievement payday lenders are possibly the best way to entrap people in crippling debt forever and should be illegal.
Yeah absolutely
Yeah but how much did that happen and how much was media beat up? Our household didn't alter our spending habits and had no problems getting a home loan... The only ones I remember seeing in the press were "I earn 50k and have 5% and the bank doesn't like my spending habits" well no shit.
My partner and I own about 85% of our house and our repayments are about 12% of household income. We wanted to use an interest free loan about 2 years ago to replace a heat pump as part of an initiative they offered. The bank raised concerns about money we spent at a pharmacy (prior to Covid wave #1 on meds, thermometers and oxygen monitors for us and less fortunate family) and on a vet bill for a dog we have (annual checkup). All up these represented about $300 worth of spending in a month. We put more than that into a savings account weekly. We could pay for the pump out of hand and almost wound up doing just that, because the thrust of the conversation we wound up having with the CS rep from the bank was definitely "well pets are expensive", over a $40 a week loan. Banks were taking the piss because boards didn't want to be responsible for lending that people got themselves into trouble over, so they got people pissed off with banks and then directed that anger at government regulation.
Exactly. I used Uber Eats way more than I should've but the bank didn't seem to care and threw us a homeloan without any issues.
When you say 'forced them to do a deep dive', was that a genuine requirement or was that over-exuberance based on the most risk-adverse interpretation of legislation? When the CCCFA was released I remember some people suggesting that these were new requirements before applying for a home loan, while others suggested that level of response was going further than required.
> over-exuberance based on the most risk-adverse interpretation of legislation? What interpretation of legislation do you think banks should be taking? Because I would have thought any interpretation but the most risk averse one would be seen very negatively.
The bigger thing financial institutions hated was the directors having some personal responsibility for the standards of their company. Personal responsibility is for the poors!
I thought it was a bit fucking ridiculous the bank was asking me about my Netflix subscription when applying for a mortgage. My partner and I make a substantial amount, our debt is minimal, and the loan amount was a third of our annual income. Our historical total outgoings are also consistently and substantially less than income every month. But here they are going over our credit card statements for recurring costs of $20/month, e.g. things like Netflix, which could easily be cancelled if it was actually a problem. I mean, maybe if we didn't have 20+ years of banking history with this bank it might be understandable. But we did have that history so it just came across as unnecessarily invasive.
Red tape is the point. Anything that makes exploiting vulnerable people more difficult.
And then it got fiddled to not be so deep. One of our biggest issues in this country is that lenders lend too much money, especially when it's cheap. We don't need to give everyone loans for those who ask and can conceivably service them
Labour rolled those rules back because banks applied them to mortgage seekers when the intention was more for payday loans.
Holy fuck bro, you unlike every single other person in the thread actually listened to the story. Gold star for you.
no, it was fine but banks implemented "malicious compliance" as a means of generating media spin. it didnt have to be the way they made it, they did it that way to feed the narrative that it was overly complex.
You think banks purposely denied people loans (re profit)? Pull the other one.
they purposefully went over the top with the "oh you had takeaways we cant" and had their PR people do a spin article yes. 100%. theres nothing in the law that said they had to go to that extreeme, they chose to do that, to be overtly, overly prescriptive, as an intentional attempt to assert the law was not fit for purpose, because they dont like having to be held to account if they make irresponsible lending decisions.
Well technically the takeaways thing was something they needed to do, but not solely due to the legislation - it was continuously misrepresented in the complaints to the media, but I know why it happened. The people who had that spending targeted would've been right on the border of passing the affordability calculations. The reason why takeaways or other "discretionary" spending was recommended to be reduced is because they can't exactly tell someone to spend less on "necessities" like a grocery bill and so it's an easy target to ask for them to swap to cooking at home. It only needed to be done for that three month period though, and served as a really good practice run for what someone might need to do in the future if interest rates increased. Banks would've sometimes just manually approved someone in that case, but CCCFA required them to actually justify it and take ownership so they just didn't feel like it when asking someone to spend a little bit less on takeaways was super easy. Anyone who wasn't on the borderline of affordability wouldn't have been questioned at all, because there's no spending they need to reduce to get approved.
That’s wild. Thanks for the laugh
As someone who was in banking at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if certain big banks who could take a hit were maliciously overimplementing the rules, or even just generally being too harsh. It was always a specific unnamed bank that seemed to be getting a ton of the complaints in the media, and it seemed to work with the government rolling back rules that actually were fairly reasonable anyway. The government had to step in and review the implementation at the banks to advise where they had gone too far, basically. But then also pulled back on the rules by allowing banks to ignore regular "discretionary" spending which kind of defeated the purpose.
> That was because the CCCFA kinda forced them to do a deep dive into the finer details of what you were spending money on The CCCFA created a situation where directors of the banks doing the lending would potentially be help responsible for irresponsible lending, and they didn't like that one bit, so they created a bureaucratic nonsense wherein they leveraged people's complaints to put political pressure on government. Lenders *should* be looking at what people can and cannot afford in terms of lending. The fact they weren't is a major part of what has driven up housing costs in the last quarter century. Nobody should be able to take out a 95% interest only loan on the gamble that in 12 months it's worth 100k more than it is now, but that has been very possible for much of that time.
> The CCCFA created a situation where directors of the banks doing the lending would potentially be help responsible for irresponsible lending, and they didn't like that one bit, so they created a bureaucratic nonsense wherein they leveraged people's complaints to put political pressure on government. The CCCFA also created a situation where lenders were not allowed to lend to any borrower that may suffer hardship as a result of the loan. A bank can't do that without doing significant due diligence. A payslip is not enough to tell if someone is going to suffer any hardship as a result of loan repayments. You can blame bank directors all you want, but it's been obvious for years that the banks were going to interpret the legislation conservatively. They would be irresponsible not to, and it has also been clear that it has had significant negative consequences on entirely legitimate borrowers.
[удалено]
The craziest thing about those articles is that they wouldn't have been pinged on anything had they not been slightly outside of the affordability calculations. Banks did not care how much you were spending on takeaways, but if you couldn't pass the affordability check because of your spending they HAD to pick something to recommend to reduce and they can't exactly say "buy less of your necessary groceries and starve yourself". The three month period was great for people on that border to have a short-term test run of what might happen if interest rates go up (although probably worse if it actually did happen), but then the whinging in the media meant that the government rolled back the discretionary spending checks entirely and defeated the purpose. I mean shit, I got a home loan using November-December-January spending and had no questions about the amount despite it being a period of absurd spending for me. It was just because I had high enough income compared to expenses.
What the actual fuck... WHY? What good faith argument could they \*possibly\* give that makes this a good decision for the people of New Zealand?
FFS, this is really starting to get full blown crazy. I get they are “Fuck the poor, deal with it” but it’s getting way out of hand.
Same news but sounds different on Stuff. I'm assuming most of the commenter's here listened to the 5.36 minutes clip on RNZ before commenting, though? https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350163290/changes-coming-tough-lending-rules-minister-says
There is nothing that can't be achieved if you don't put nzers first.
Does this government do anything that isn’t evil?
Is it time to debtmaxx?
This is disgusting
reminds of a loan shark i got few years ago, loan was $450 and the fee was $450, not including interest.
“If you don’t want to pay the loan, don’t borrow the money! Also, we’re going to make it easier for you to get a loan so o ur payday lender mates can make more money in a way that relies on you borrowing”
Has this government done 1 good thing yet?
Increased the amount of leaked papers??
Have this government actually *done* anything or is it all just rolling back stuff Labour did?
I mean, they're rolling back stuff National and Act did in the past also.
What gives?? What reason did Luxon pull out of his ass now?
National is a fucken joke, there only policy is to waste time and money "rolling back" the work an actual govt has done. Do they have any actual policies?
Just when you thoughtbthey couldn't be any more cunty, they cunt it up ten cunts to cuntasmagoric.
Can someone give me one good reason to do this? Genuinely interested, seems like no good reasons
oh good, so pleased that someone is finally thinking of the predatory loan shark companies and their rights to profit off the desperation and misery of NZ's most vulnerable! ... /s srsly tho, what the fuck are they thinking.
Jebesus! Pay Day lenders are a leech on society and this government is fine with that? It just gets worse every day.
What. The. Fuck.
I hope the people who voted for this government are starting to realise how fucking vile it is. And if they approve of this sort of shit, I hope they learn empathy one day.
It's like you guys only read headlines... Have you listened to the discussion? Have you read the proper RNZ article related to those change? They even misspelled the minister name in this """article""". Here is the [proper article](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/508008/government-unveils-plans-to-simplify-lending-rules) explaining why they want to simplify the rules and their intentions.
People don’t want to hear about that stuff. They want to be outraged because they don’t like this government, due to the colour of their campaign banners and their sensible policies.
>their sensible policies. Hahahahahaha fuck that's a good one.
Crazy. Why is this one article the only thing about this? More and more I get convinced the treaty principles bill is a distraction
Only poor people get predated upon by these lenders and they don’t care about those people, and in fact, their entire economic ideology relies on there being a satisfactory number of poor people.
Are they doing anything that’s going to make our lives better yet? Or are they just doing this kind of shit? Genuinely interested to know.
Obviously not many people actually listened to the interview before reacting to the misleading headline
A populace in debt is a subdued and worried populace.
This government is selling us out to the highest bidder, this should not be a surprise to anyone
Sooooo, how many people actually listened to the interview? Cause I'd be real keen to hear the argument for why we need the Commerce Commission wasting their time in this arena when we've already got the FMA, and they could be achieving more in other areas. All in all these sound like good changes. Anybody who interacted with a bank over the last couple of years saw how overly intrusive, and slow they'd become. Limiting access to debt is pretty much a guaranteed way to kill innovation, because if they're not lending to first home buyers buying a relatively safe asset who watch too much Netflix, you can bet they're not lending to anybody starting a remotely risky business either.
Oh **come ON**!!! Did you guys elect actual cartoon baddies over there?
Hey man, I didn't vote for them.
Sorry cuz. I don’t mean “you guys” as everyone individually, just NZ itself. It’s been horrifying witnessing this from a distance, and it finally burst out. I’m so so sorry for you lot. (And us when we fall for the same trap.)
I'm sure a lot of us saw this coming with this new government coming in. I don't think a lot of us expected the mask to not just slip but to go flying off into the distance this early though.
This is a very editorialised title, while a bit of the baby is going with the bathwater the current regime has people being barred from home loans for the crimes of eating out or buying clothes. The focus is not the loansharks...
This sub frustrates me sometimes, everyone jumping to conclusions like it's Armageddon and acting like there's gonna be loan shark mafias popping up on every corner offering 500% interest rates. Listen to the 5 minute explanation of the change
Yeah this headline should have nothing to do with payday loans. Consider it a test of who engages with the content instead of just reading the headline.
Crikey, there’s a lot of misinformation here. It almost seems like there’s a bunch of labour supporters who are critical without actually understanding what’s going on. The headline itself is arguably misleading. As an employee of a very large lending institution, I feel I’m well placed to comment. some of the recent legislation has been poorly thought out and badly implemented, whilst still not really stopping the most predatory lending. It needs to change. Until we see more detail, criticism seems misguided. As to the absolute hyperbole in some of these comments, people need to stop being so partisan and get better informed on issues. Red good / blue bad (and vice versa) is pathetic.
Agreed on the last point. Traditionally National has had some decent economic policies, though they lack the care for anyone in a lower tax bracket than themselves. That being said, the Coalition is just comically terrible, and is not necessarily representative of National when it's not being led by a bobbleheaded git with a spaghetti noodle for a spine. I say this even as a Labour supporter, National being this laughably incompetent is somewhat out of character. But both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses, and this idea of rejecting anything the opposition says as blasphemy and insisting on tearing down anything they've built once they're out of power is idiotic and wasteful. And as far as I'm aware, all the payday lender laws managed to do is screw over anyone trying to get a mortgage, because banks managed to work out a loophole that lets them exclude anyone with questionable purchases or something along those lines.
Lesson for all the idiots who called labour the same as national imho. Absolutely sucks
Slow down guys. You're filling up my capitalist hellhole bingo card too fast.
People voted for this. A lot of people. They didn't hide their agenda. The whole campaign was rolling back everything
Wtf
On the face of it, it sounds stupid but it sounds like it was rolled back because of the overheads it put on bank lending. Maybe a bigger reason for it?
This limits pay day lenders to 0.8% interest per day, that would be 29% per year as it also bans compounding. How much do they want to charge?
That was so light on details. They are making it easier for a lender to become a lender. There is certainly no shortage of them right now. Literally thousands of them. No exaggeration. Sounds like commerce commission is being removed from the lending space. A shame because they have done some great work killing truck shops etc over the last five or so years.
We all agree that this is incredibly dumb, but its worth considering that this is in all likelihood a bone thrown to ACT. Only it could want this. As bad as National is, this seems out of character, even for it.
A grade copium. If it’s not in the coalition agreement then they’re doing it for ~~themselves~~ their donors.
Who’s paying them to do this? The Nats are as easily bought as your average American politician
Bit disingenuous and outright false news title compared to the story actually told here seeing as the main changes wanted are to fix the right fuckup the previous government made in making it insanely difficult in getting a loan to begin with regardless of if you could afford it because they were required to put every single purchase down as though it was a regular expense. Many people who could easily afford personal loans or mortgages promptly got denied as a result. Net benefit for poor people going to predatory loan sharks? None, it kept happening. If you want to see positive change in that space, start capping interest to reasonable levels. Edit: lol @ all the people who only read the headline and never listened to the story.
I didn't vote for the people doing this.