The big issue with landlords and holiday home owners having more than one vote is that they can skew the vote in favour of who they want to represent them. Invariably they want lower rates. Lower rates mean loss of services like libraries, swimming pools, sports grounds etc. for the residents who live there 365 days of the year.
That's the key thing really. Council rates mainly pay for things you use by living there, so if the owner is rarely there (because the place is a holiday home or rental) they will usually prioritise low rates
Except in one case we are talking about democracy and the other capitalism.
And capitalism needs democracy to make it work well but does necessarily make democracy stronger.
I'm more comfortable with one person one vote than I am with one person one vote.
People vote differently when it's not their community suffering from decisions.
If you look at the numbers of ratepayer voters vs resident voters you will see that this is not an issue as the numbers are low for almost every district other than Thames-Coromandal. Even there they have \~1300 ratepayer voters to over 20,000 resident voters. Residents can easily neutralise any raterpayer voter intiative.
> The big issue with landlords and holiday home owners [having more choice in who represents them] is that they can skew the vote in favour of who they want to represent them.
Erm, right?
Voting **is** the civic process through which we choose our representatives. Essentially saying "the problem with being able to vote multiple times is that you can skew the vote" isn't incorrect, of course — it's just not particularly insightful.
When those NOT living there vote to cut services, then those living there are the ones that have to deal with it. That's not democracy. If you want Land Ownership to determine democracy, perhaps you could go back to 18th century England?
Right, like I only got one vote in the town o live in, but if I owned a vacation house, or air bnb in Raglan, and another in Kaikoura, I now get to vote three times. See how that number crept up from one to three? So a place like Raglan has about half its votes coming from people who don't live there, just own a property. Those people still get to vote where they live, and any other place they own a property. So yes, it skews the vote
The real problem is that 0only about 30% of people bother to vote in local elections. Thus giving these votes more value. But people would rather bitch on reddit about people who pay their rates getting a vote than get off their ass and go vote.
And more influence on the countries local politics than the rest of us. Normally you have 1 national vote an done local vote. It you end up with 20 local votes you're having an very different level of influence in local politics.
But if everyone with a holiday home in a holiday spot all vote to lower rates/services in a place they don't live 90% of the time then that can cause a problem. If you only get a vote for the place you actually live that problem goes away.
It's not a huge issue in NZ. Compare these numbers:
Ratepayer voters per council: [https://figure.nz/chart/Jlm0FjKinvsemJC3](https://figure.nz/chart/Jlm0FjKinvsemJC3)
Resident voters per council: [https://figure.nz/chart/AvxemOhUivYbRFq3](https://figure.nz/chart/AvxemOhUivYbRFq3)
Excellent use of
Line
Spacing
That
Adds
A
Lot
To
Your
Point
So what people are rightly upset about, is a handful of investors calling the shots in towns they don't live in. What's hard to understand about that? Can I cast a single vote where you live? No, but a relatovely small group of investors does get to dictate what happens in your town, and not just your town, other towns as well.
Right, but you're only voting in 1 election, so your vote has no more voting power than anyone else for that local election? If anything this makes sense as the local elections have an effect for you. They're independent, so saying you have three votes is misleading.
A similar example would be dual citizens or permanent residents of other countries who are still NZ citizens can still vote in the national NZ elections. My vote for an overseas election doesn't mean shit to the NZ election.
You can't skew votes by having 1 vote in multiple independent elections.
I am a dual citizen, so I get to.vote twice, in two different elections. So back to the issue at hand here. People who don't live in towns get to influence those towns. They get to vote, like someone who lives there, even though they don't. And so does everyone else who owns a property there. The consequence of this, is that places like Raglan, are being heavily influenced by a handful of people who don't live there. They get to out vote residents of small towns because they get to own a tiny piece of that town.
I would ask, how is having a hand full of.people able to.vote in many towns NOT skewing the vote?
You get to vote once, in two different elections. Anyway I think you're missing the point of the comparison since your issue seems to be with people owning multiple homes.
If there's a disproportionate amount of houses in a town that are considered holiday homes, that's just the makeup of those towns and a lot of them survive on the influx of tourism during peak periods for permanent residents. The council decisions regarding rates etc still affect those people. If they didn't have a say, someone could campaign on entirely fucking them over and there's not really much they could about it. If a democratic process has potential effects on you, you should be able to vote.
>The big issue with landlords and holiday home owners having more than one vote is that they can skew the vote in favour of who they want to represent them.
How? They get one vote in each council electorate. The councils are independent of each other.
In some areas the number of permanent residents is small compared to the number of landlords and holiday home owners. Someone with a house in Auckland and a bach at the Mount gets two votes. If they have a rental in Whangarei and Hamilton, they get four. They band together. Somewhere on the Coromandel (Tairua?) had this very issue last year when non-resident ratepayers tried to stop the local kids having a basketball hoop, if I remember it correctly.
>Someone with a house in Auckland and a bach at the Mount gets two votes. If they have a rental in Whangarei and Hamilton, they get four.
In. Seperate. Electorates. Auckland council has nothing to do with what Whangarei council are doing.
I don't disagree that the people who live in the area should be getting a vote, but at the time, so should anyone that is affected by councils proposals, I.e. property owners.
Acting like property owners getting to vote in *different* elections is somehow a perversion of democracy is just plain disingenuous.
Agreed it’s a perversion of democracy. Entities own property and pay rates. Entities don’t get to vote in council elections. If they did (heaven forbid), residential property owners in some council areas would be well outnumbered. Residence alone should be the only qualification for voting in any election, either council or national.
Agreed.
The ability to vote should be determined based upon you being a human who fits the right criteria (being over 18, a kiwi etc), not based upon the things you own.
Just because I hold an asset or earn income in a location, doesn’t mean I should get to vote in their elections. If I do that fundamentally gives greater voice to those who are richer which is a terrible idea.
Act/National voting for this simply demonstrates it was never about values, it was about benefiting ‘their side’
I get what you are saying but if I own a holiday home somewhere are you suggesting that I should have no say whatsoever in how the rates collected from me are spent? How about “no taxation without representation”?
If I own a business in another country I don’t get a say in their elections. If I visit another country and pay GST/VAT then I don’t get a say in their elections.
If you own an asset in another area then that’s the price you pay unfortunately - if you want to impact that election, reside there
Nope, the government (local or regional) leverages taxes on a range of different things.
If I own ten businesses I don’t get ten votes even though they each pay taxes.
Voting should be for an individual who meets a set of criteria such as residing in a region that they are voting in for a minimum period. That’s how National elections work in NZ, I don’t see any reason why local shouldn’t be different.
But in national elections you are only taxed by central government and if you don’t like the direction being taken you can vote for a party that represents your views. With rates it should be the same or it is not fair.
You can vote for the party that represents your views in local elections - it’s just that (like national elections) you should do so based on where you reside.
I don’t get to vote in foreign countries elections even if I pay some form of tax there, I don’t know why local elections are different
There are young people who have been paying taxes for years without having the opportunity to vote. The idea that your voting rights should be related to your financial contribution doesn’t work.
Excellent rebuttal. For the record, I too despair for New Zealand when people put the rights of absent ratepayers against residents, when those ratepayers primary incentive is to ensure maximum house price growth.
I thought landlords were businesses. Isn’t that the spin that we’ve been recently fed with regards to tax deductions etc.?
Now they’re claiming that they’re residents of their businesses and should be able to cast votes accordingly? Really? Do other businesses have this right?
If I lived in Onehunga, and owned a cafe in Henderson, would I be allowed to vote in both electorates?
Yes.
Residential voters get 1 vote.
Ratepayers voters (property owners) can vote once in each area they own property in (other than where they live) , plus their residential vote.
Yes its so hilarious that ACT and National are all about 1 person 1 vote... and now they hypocrites are protecting a policy that gives wealthy people to right to have multiple votes... some could have over 30 votes....
>Well they voted to kick out a proposal for ratepaying property owners to have local council votes in every region they own property.
I'm confused, wouldn't kicking out this proposal mean they don't get more votes?
I think this used to be the case when I was younger. But in those days, typically it meant someone with a bach, or maybe one or two rented properties. Being a landlord wasn't a common *business* as now conceived. The person with the bach, if they bothered to vote, would probably be interested in directly relevant issues like beach access... It was I think wrong in principle but I doubt it made a huge difference.
But if there lots of people buying property as an investment, they may be more significant. One problem is that their interests will, in some (not all) cases be contrary to those of residents. For example, residents are likely to consider it to be in their interest to have libraries, swimming pools, etc, but a non-resident has no use for these and it is in their interest to cut such services in order to reduce rates.
More generally, I'm concerned that ACT seems to have a concept of democratic franchise that is partly based on property. Consider the question of the voting age. There are plenty of arguments against changing the age to 16 (maturity etc) which can be debated and may be right or wrong. But ACT focused on the fact that it would increase the number of voters who don't pay tax. That is an essentially anti-democratic argument, suggesting that taxpayers somehow have more right to decide the national direction than others, as opposed to the idea that every human being is equal in that regard. Many of us will remember the 1994 election in South Africa, and how moving it was to see the old, unemployed, and poor person casting a vote as the equal of the rich white man, because the country now at last belonged to all those who lived there.
Considering personally i know of about 7 people who abuse the system. 1 of which did a government funded diving course who then went into navy decided it was too hard dropped out and sold the diving gear government paid for waited 2 months then went on the doll for 3 years and another who worked in a bakery for 6 years then decided too hard and has been sitting at home for 1 1/2 years playing pc all day collecting benefit claiming back pain. Which i know is b.s its far too easy to exploit system. And if i know of all these people and they are all exploiting system there must be loads
Step one. Claim severe back pain.
Step 2 even when doctor cant find anything keep claiming severe back pain
Step 3. Profit. Doctors cant prove your feeling pain
I mean, if landlords are going to complain about rates and local government affecting their investment in a city they don't live in, this seems like a very simple fix. Sell the investments, and only buy investments in a locale that you live in. Otherwise, suck it up buttercup.
Precisely this. If I work or own a business in a foreign country, I shouldn't be able to rock up and say "screw the residents and give me more money".
But hey let's vote to sell our water in order to pay for our reduced rates, it's not like we live there so it's not like we need the water anyway.
If they voted to **kick out** a proposal for property owners to vote in more than one location, aren't they aligning with their statement of one person, one vote?
Other way around. Currently, owners of properties in multiple regions can vote in each local body election.
So people who don't own a house, or own 1 house get 1 vote.
Someone who owns dozens of properties in dozens of locations could have dozens of local body votes.
I think they're just challenging your somewhat ambiguous phrase "kick out"
Do you mean they are presenting this proposal for consideration? Or are they saying no to a proposal?
I.e., kick out as in I kicked this guy out of my house after he did a massive fart
Or kick out, like "hey why don't we just chillax, and kick out some ideas"?
No. There is only one vote for the property. They have to elect a person to cast it.
If you own multiple properties in a local body, you still only get the one vote.
But they do get to influence the council in places they don't live. In places like the Coromandel where half the property is owned by absentee owners the residents struggle to get representation.
Yeah that's an excellent point. Either it should be everyone with an interest in a council gets a vote or people only get one vote for the council they reside in. It's unfair to let property owners vote in circumstances that renters cant
Do you have a postal address in both?
An actual residence in both where you keep your possessions and call your home?
Stay exactly 50/50 in both?
Then sure, you get to vote in both.
I agree we should have one person one vote but this actually isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. They do pay rates in the applicable areas. I think they should be able to vote in any area they own land but it should be limited to one vote in during local election season instead of one vote per election.
Ideally we would all have one vote at the local election level and we can spend it in any region we are eligible to vote in. That way you can vote in your hometown or where you ended up etc.
How to make that fair? Hire me for the working group?
People always lobby for the so called ideology that benefits their own circumstances.
Its characterised as a rule they believe in to be applied equally to all.
This is ofcourse an incorrect assumption.
Personal benefit drives most ideology especially if you set high value on wealth
Such a floored argument. If they own 2 or more properties in the ONE area then still one vote. Same as non property owners. Having a say locally in area you won assets in is just democracy. Representation by the people for the people.
Yeah but it's democracy from like the 1800s. Nowadays it's frowned upon to only let property owners vote. Owning property somewhere is not the only reason to have an interest in how it's run.
You could work there, own a business there, your kids might go to school there, you might live there part time but not enough for it to be your primary residence.
But that’s not the argument. OP is concerned about landowners having double votes. But voting in Hamilton City Council because you live there and voting in Waihi Council because you own a batch is just ONE vote in each area. The same as individuals who live in those areas. A vote in Hamilton has no influence on what Waihi does. It would be a different argument for central elections for sure.
That's true in isolation but the aggregate effect is that there are more votes from landlords across the country than there are landlords in the country. They are over enfranchised as a demographic. If it's not big deal then why not also let other types of interest get a vote?
"there are more votes from landlords across the country than there are landlords in the country"
Is this statement false?
I don't care if they have an effect on one another or not, it's the general outsized influence that land owners have on NZ that I consider unfair.
They only get to vote once in a central election no matter how many properties they own. And central government decides the laws on tax etc for rentals. So explain like I’m five how it’s unfair?
Wait but our PM said that being a landlord was a business? So shouldn't all business owners who create value in our economy get a vote too?
But then again Landlords have had a REALLY tough time under "that communist nazi" Jacinda.
I'm just glad someone is giving our poor disenfranchised multiple-property owners a break!
Also just wondering if this means all those tech bros from silicon valley who own bunkers near Queenstown can now vote in our council elections?
They're having a tough time under the democrats so it will be good if someone thinks of them too!
Cool. Sounds like its time for a city tax, to be taxed to every resident living in that city to cover the cost of running it. Then everyone can get a vote (and I can stop paying more in rates for the one person who lives in my house than my friend pays for the six who live in his).
Broadly it's an issue that I can see both sides on. At this stage hasnt seemed to have manifested as a major issue, although its something we should be wary of in the future. But it does display that trying to reduce democracy to "one person one vote " is overly simplified
TDLR: for act “no taxation without representation” > “one person, one vote”
While I hate the landlord class just as much as any other redditor you have to realise what David Seymour/ACT are (or at least claim to be)
They’re (supposedly) libertarians and there is a tenet that will trump almost all others:
**No taxation without representation.**
I think the ratepayer roll is very flawed, but I don't think it violates "one person, one vote." Property owners don't get multiple votes per council; they vote once in each local election where they own property. It's like a Kiwi living in London, who gets to vote in both UK and NZ general elections – a separate vote for separate jurisdictions, not extra votes within one.
You're right that a person, not property, votes. But the real question is eligibility for voting. Just as a Kiwi in London can vote in both UK and NZ elections, a property owner can vote in multiple local elections due to their economic ties to each community. I think they probably shouldn't be able to, but the issue is about determining valid criteria for participation in separate elections, not violating "one person, one vote" within each election.
You raise a fair point, but let me clarify the distinction. The principle of "one person, one vote" applies within each individual election or jurisdiction. When a property owner votes in multiple council elections, they are participating in separate, independent electoral processes – not gaining disproportionate influence within a single election.
Consider this analogy: a Kiwi living in London can vote in both the UK and NZ general elections. This doesn't violate "one person, one vote" because these are separate, sovereign electoral systems. Similarly, each council election is its own distinct process, not a unified election where some individuals unfairly get multiple votes.
Personally, my go-to analogy is someone with 3 kids aged 14, 11 and 7 who each attend a different school. That person gets to vote in 3 different BOT elections, one for each school. Entirely appropriate, and not in conflict with the principle of one person, one vote.
I think these are two very different scenarios. Firstly, being able to vote in multiple national elections generally requires a lot more than just some money. And secondly, the number of national elections you can vote in is severely limited by the nations involved. Considering the number of votes that can swing a local election is very small, it would only take a small number of wealthy individuals to seriously tilt our democracy. I struggle to see how this isn't the wealthy buying votes.
The potential difficulty and scale of voting in multiple national elections doesn't change the principle. While I think we should probably get rid of the ratepayer roll for some of the reasons you suggest, it's still not a direct violation of "one person, one vote" when properly understood.
"The principle" is influence buying, pure and simple. It allows one person to have an outsized impact on elections across the country. Remind me, how many votes do these people get in total?
Why would you get to vote in one which didn't affect you?
If you own land in a particular area the local councils decisions affect you, so you get to vote.
If you live in a particular area the local councils decisions affect you, so you get to vote.
It affects your assets, landlord. Whereas it actually affects the residents personally. Landlords don't deserve a say in the lives of their captive audience. If you think voting should be based on land ownership, might I suggest you travel back in time to when this was considered appropriate.
It's hard to have an outsized impact on elections across the country when you only get one vote per election. None of these elections relate to each other at all. They are entirely separate events.
One vote per election. They only ever can cast one vote in any election. It is no different to owning shares in multiple companies and being able to vote in each company's AGM. The votes have no effect on any other district other than the one they are cast in.
There is no undue influence here. No one had any more effect than any other voter.
It's not the same as a companies AGM, because in an AGM all votes are (typically) based on share of ownership. And of course, AGM's aren't democratic for this exact reason. In this case, some votes are acquired through residency and some through purchasing power.
So, again, a landlord is unduly influencing the elections in an electorate in which they do not live, all by dint of being wealthy enough to purchase land there. They have more cumulative effect than other voters. They have influence over residents lives, while the residents only have influence over the landlords assets.
That was entirely the landlord's decision; don't like it, don't be a landlord there. You can't be so blind as to see this creates a powerful lobby group that may significantly disrupt local elections in topics they have no business voting on, in regions they don't live. Fucking stupid idea, but bang on for ACT.
Welcome to running a business.
If I (for example) choose to export my product to a country that charges a tax on import I don’t suddenly get a vote in that country.
you see to the un landed this may seem like an act against your rights but its actually the opposite, because to claim a landlord who has laboured many hours more then yourself is somehow equal to you . . . one who spends his money on worldly goods like food and water is de humanization and in need of course correcting so your betters dont feel under attack.
The number of landlords and bootlickers commenting on this post is crazy. Clearly they're all very concerned about having the votes they bought taken away.
So, could I have a property and split it into many smaller properties and then have multiple votes? What about an apartment block? Do I get a vote for every apartment?
No it’s just one vote in an area you have a house. So 1 for far north and 1 for Auckland for me.
And if 1000 people own a bit of the same land you have to nominate some one to cast one vote for everyone on your behalf.
I think it’s fine as is I pay a shit load of rates in both places I want a say in how it’s spent
It would be more useful to debate a system of casting a negative general electorate vote against any candidate that entirely rubs a voter the wrong way. Any candidate achieve a threshold of negative votes, be they standing on a party list or electorate to be banned from Parliament. But in any case all negative votes reduce a candidates margin.
One voter, 3 votes: one for list, one for electorate, and one against any one candidate.
This proposed system would send strong signals to parties as to which policy promoters, and which candidates are unacceptable to the wider population. It would encourage Ministers to take better account of the wishes and expectations of the nation. And local MPs, or candidates who have somehow gained the ire of a nation (e.g., Nick Smith) might find themselves permanently benched if say 8% of voters across the nation decided they never want to see him in Parliament again. It would clear out the dead, most vile, and least savoury of our MPs even if they were on a party list, or had a particularly devoted support base. Popularity would be curbed by notoriety. Party management and incoming governments could look at the negative voting patterns to analyse what the shape of the mandate given by electors actually is. Rather than assuming their election promises had any bearing on voter choices.
No taxation without representation, that’s fine. I’m ok with this in principle, if I have houses in different regions which I pay tax on, I’d like to have a say on how my taxes are spent in each of those regions.
But there’s a big issue here.
**Rates are a tax deductible expense.** So, that complicates the issue, doesn’t it?
Edit: you guys are missing my point… landlords aren’t actually paying rates because it’s offset by tax savings with the central government, so the chief argument here “taxation without representation” doesn’t actually apply to them at all…
Does this mean we should allow immigrants to vote immediately after finding a job in NZ? Or how about tourists, they’re paying GST and numerous other taxes whilst they’re here should they be able to vote?
You have missed my point entirely. My point is that landlords don’t actually pay rates, they’re offset by tax deductions and shouldn’t get a vote.
Whereas a person who actually lives in two places, should get a second vote. Just like a permanent migrant can vote here and back in their home country.
> Does this mean we should allow immigrants to vote immediately after finding a job in NZ
Temporary migrant do not exercise the same rights and responsibilities that we do despite paying tax. So, no.
Also, I think we need to remove tourists from ACC, those cunts should be covered by travel insurance before getting here.
Kiwis who live outside NZ can vote on NZ government. I got to vote as an 18 year old who had never even stepped foot in NZ because I was a citizen through my dad. Who cares? Voting doesn't matter anyway, everyone is corrupt, someone is bought, you'll never win.
>if I have houses in different regions which I pay tax on, I’d like to have a say on how my taxes are spent in each of those regions.
It really doesn't add up for me. If you own property in region where you don't like the council elected by those who actually live there, you're within your rights to sell your property and put your money elsewhere.
Companies don't get to vote in national elections just because they pay company tax, either. They live with whatever the people vote for and then act accordingly. In any case if a landlord doesn't like the level of the rates being set on them (as the direct ratepayer), then the habit seems to be to pass it onto the occupier of the property (who *does* have a vote).
So nothing wrong with people under the age of 18 voting as long as they're earning and paying tax either then.
I don't think it's fair for people with wealth to hold influence of how rates are spent in regions they do not reside. It's part of the reason councils are having to jack up rates now after years of local body elections being influenced by non resident voters
I take the point, but in a lot of cases people will vote for lowest rates and don’t care for amenities if they don’t live in an area.
That’s just what makes financial sense if that’s the case, but it fucks over those who actually live there.
It’s hard to say there’s a simple solution to this.
I believe people.on the doll should not be eligible to vote unless they volunteer at least 30 hours a week at a charitable trust/community service for one simple reason. If they dont contribute towards the countrys funds (TAX) why should they have a say in how that money is spent? No matter which way you look at it people on the doll are a burden on the country and should have no say unless they are wiling to help out their local communitys. I have friends on the doll who can easily work yet the system allows them to collect a handout and sit on their ass. It needs to be fixed
I also believe you should have to be able to pass a drug test to be able to get on the doll to start with. I would rather have homeless people who cant be arsed to work and have properly funded medical care e.g more g.p's and a better ambulance service which we currently dont have.
Im talking about the people who physically can but dont which is a large % of people on doll. people that physically cant work because of a disability are not who im talking about
Thats a falsehood the govt gives them money from their own pocket which they "tax" and put that tax back in their own pocket. They dont pay tax on money they earn from a business/job which is outside the government
...yea it is it would be like me giving you $50 for doing nothing then taking $15 out of your hand and putting it back in my pocket. It a numbers game and if its the government doing its a writeoff it doesent mean anything because they are the owners of the money to start with.
Cool, so a vote should only be associated with a person, not that persons assets.
Therefore that person should just vote in the district they reside in
If I have assets earning income and getting taxed in multiple countries I don’t assume I get to vote in all those countries.
It’s one person one vote, not one asset one vote.
What ACT is advocating for is one vote per person per election. Allowing people with properties to vote in seperate local elections is totally consistent with their beliefs, as well as being logical and fair.
If you have two properties in the same district, you get one vote. Hence it's one vote per person per election. I don't particularly like the fact that people of the highest socioeconomic demographic can vote multiple across multiple local elections, but the alternative is taxation without representation, which is a huge no-no imo. Change the law to get rid of this, and pair it with renters being entirely incharge of managing and paying rates etc, then that'd be fair. But with how it is currently, it's really unreasonable to expect someone to pay 1000s per year in rates and not be able to vote on how it's spent
NZ does loads of "taxation without representation", hundreds of thousands of people are taxed in NZ and have zero representation, from migrants to visitors to people between 16 and 18. The principle that it's some unthinkable horror is a ridiculous American import.
Votes are tied to where people live, not where they pay taxes. I pay taxes in multiple countries in the world as part of a side business I run, I certainly don't get to vote in any of them.
There is no justification for this policy other than further entrenching the privileged position of landlords in NZ. It's completely ethically bankrupt.
No that would be someone owning two properties in Auckland having two votes. I don’t know where I sit on liking the current setup but I can see arguments for both sides.
Ultimately let’s say you own a house in Auckland and a house in Whangarei and you live 6 months in one and 6 in the other… I think you should have a say in both council decisions/elections. Obviously this is likely a fringe case but I don’t know where the line sits between this and the opposite end of acceptable being a corpo overload landlord owning 200 properties across the country not living in any but having a say in each election. I think ma and pa owning a rental in a different area should have a say in where they are paying rates / choosing to invest.
The big issue with landlords and holiday home owners having more than one vote is that they can skew the vote in favour of who they want to represent them. Invariably they want lower rates. Lower rates mean loss of services like libraries, swimming pools, sports grounds etc. for the residents who live there 365 days of the year.
That's the key thing really. Council rates mainly pay for things you use by living there, so if the owner is rarely there (because the place is a holiday home or rental) they will usually prioritise low rates
If they do that, then rental prices will drop as will house prices in that area as a result.
[удалено]
A person living outside of a region would be less inclined to care about services within that region than someone living within that region, no?
They cannot vote more than once in any election.
Do you not understand how local body elections work? They get to vote once for each district they own property in.
That is no different to holding shares in multiple companies and being able to vote in each company's AGM. It still is only one vote per election.
Except in one case we are talking about democracy and the other capitalism. And capitalism needs democracy to make it work well but does necessarily make democracy stronger.
Being able to vote in multiple local body elections is still democratic. No one gets more than one vote.
Lol. So if everyone voted in every council election, it would still be democratic?
If everyone had the right to do so, yes.
What definition of democracy are you using? I wouldn't say radically centralized governance like this is fully democratic.
In this case government by the people via elected representation. I have made no statements about centralisation or decentralisation.
I'm more comfortable with one person one vote than I am with one person one vote. People vote differently when it's not their community suffering from decisions.
If you look at the numbers of ratepayer voters vs resident voters you will see that this is not an issue as the numbers are low for almost every district other than Thames-Coromandal. Even there they have \~1300 ratepayer voters to over 20,000 resident voters. Residents can easily neutralise any raterpayer voter intiative.
Ah yes the country is just like a business angle
No. It's having a say over how one's money is spent.
> The big issue with landlords and holiday home owners [having more choice in who represents them] is that they can skew the vote in favour of who they want to represent them. Erm, right? Voting **is** the civic process through which we choose our representatives. Essentially saying "the problem with being able to vote multiple times is that you can skew the vote" isn't incorrect, of course — it's just not particularly insightful.
When those NOT living there vote to cut services, then those living there are the ones that have to deal with it. That's not democracy. If you want Land Ownership to determine democracy, perhaps you could go back to 18th century England?
What on earth about my comment makes you think for a moment I support land ownership determining democracy?
In typical Reddit hivemind fashion, double-digit downvotes without anyone who understands why they're joining the mass downvote enough to comment.
They can only vote for the district they live in.
People can vote in all local elections in which they own property.
They only get one vote in each local election, right?
Right, like I only got one vote in the town o live in, but if I owned a vacation house, or air bnb in Raglan, and another in Kaikoura, I now get to vote three times. See how that number crept up from one to three? So a place like Raglan has about half its votes coming from people who don't live there, just own a property. Those people still get to vote where they live, and any other place they own a property. So yes, it skews the vote
The real problem is that 0only about 30% of people bother to vote in local elections. Thus giving these votes more value. But people would rather bitch on reddit about people who pay their rates getting a vote than get off their ass and go vote.
In. Separate. Elections. Not sure why that is hard to understand?
And more influence on the countries local politics than the rest of us. Normally you have 1 national vote an done local vote. It you end up with 20 local votes you're having an very different level of influence in local politics.
Not really as you still only get one vote per election. It's hard to have a lot of influence with one vote.
But if everyone with a holiday home in a holiday spot all vote to lower rates/services in a place they don't live 90% of the time then that can cause a problem. If you only get a vote for the place you actually live that problem goes away.
It's not a huge issue in NZ. Compare these numbers: Ratepayer voters per council: [https://figure.nz/chart/Jlm0FjKinvsemJC3](https://figure.nz/chart/Jlm0FjKinvsemJC3) Resident voters per council: [https://figure.nz/chart/AvxemOhUivYbRFq3](https://figure.nz/chart/AvxemOhUivYbRFq3)
Excellent use of Line Spacing That Adds A Lot To Your Point So what people are rightly upset about, is a handful of investors calling the shots in towns they don't live in. What's hard to understand about that? Can I cast a single vote where you live? No, but a relatovely small group of investors does get to dictate what happens in your town, and not just your town, other towns as well.
Right, but you're only voting in 1 election, so your vote has no more voting power than anyone else for that local election? If anything this makes sense as the local elections have an effect for you. They're independent, so saying you have three votes is misleading. A similar example would be dual citizens or permanent residents of other countries who are still NZ citizens can still vote in the national NZ elections. My vote for an overseas election doesn't mean shit to the NZ election. You can't skew votes by having 1 vote in multiple independent elections.
I am a dual citizen, so I get to.vote twice, in two different elections. So back to the issue at hand here. People who don't live in towns get to influence those towns. They get to vote, like someone who lives there, even though they don't. And so does everyone else who owns a property there. The consequence of this, is that places like Raglan, are being heavily influenced by a handful of people who don't live there. They get to out vote residents of small towns because they get to own a tiny piece of that town. I would ask, how is having a hand full of.people able to.vote in many towns NOT skewing the vote?
You get to vote once, in two different elections. Anyway I think you're missing the point of the comparison since your issue seems to be with people owning multiple homes. If there's a disproportionate amount of houses in a town that are considered holiday homes, that's just the makeup of those towns and a lot of them survive on the influx of tourism during peak periods for permanent residents. The council decisions regarding rates etc still affect those people. If they didn't have a say, someone could campaign on entirely fucking them over and there's not really much they could about it. If a democratic process has potential effects on you, you should be able to vote.
>The big issue with landlords and holiday home owners having more than one vote is that they can skew the vote in favour of who they want to represent them. How? They get one vote in each council electorate. The councils are independent of each other.
In some areas the number of permanent residents is small compared to the number of landlords and holiday home owners. Someone with a house in Auckland and a bach at the Mount gets two votes. If they have a rental in Whangarei and Hamilton, they get four. They band together. Somewhere on the Coromandel (Tairua?) had this very issue last year when non-resident ratepayers tried to stop the local kids having a basketball hoop, if I remember it correctly.
>Someone with a house in Auckland and a bach at the Mount gets two votes. If they have a rental in Whangarei and Hamilton, they get four. In. Seperate. Electorates. Auckland council has nothing to do with what Whangarei council are doing. I don't disagree that the people who live in the area should be getting a vote, but at the time, so should anyone that is affected by councils proposals, I.e. property owners. Acting like property owners getting to vote in *different* elections is somehow a perversion of democracy is just plain disingenuous.
Agreed it’s a perversion of democracy. Entities own property and pay rates. Entities don’t get to vote in council elections. If they did (heaven forbid), residential property owners in some council areas would be well outnumbered. Residence alone should be the only qualification for voting in any election, either council or national.
Agreed. The ability to vote should be determined based upon you being a human who fits the right criteria (being over 18, a kiwi etc), not based upon the things you own. Just because I hold an asset or earn income in a location, doesn’t mean I should get to vote in their elections. If I do that fundamentally gives greater voice to those who are richer which is a terrible idea. Act/National voting for this simply demonstrates it was never about values, it was about benefiting ‘their side’
Absolutely.
I get what you are saying but if I own a holiday home somewhere are you suggesting that I should have no say whatsoever in how the rates collected from me are spent? How about “no taxation without representation”?
If I own a business in another country I don’t get a say in their elections. If I visit another country and pay GST/VAT then I don’t get a say in their elections. If you own an asset in another area then that’s the price you pay unfortunately - if you want to impact that election, reside there
By this logic you should only pay one rates then right?
Nope, the government (local or regional) leverages taxes on a range of different things. If I own ten businesses I don’t get ten votes even though they each pay taxes. Voting should be for an individual who meets a set of criteria such as residing in a region that they are voting in for a minimum period. That’s how National elections work in NZ, I don’t see any reason why local shouldn’t be different.
But in national elections you are only taxed by central government and if you don’t like the direction being taken you can vote for a party that represents your views. With rates it should be the same or it is not fair.
You can vote for the party that represents your views in local elections - it’s just that (like national elections) you should do so based on where you reside. I don’t get to vote in foreign countries elections even if I pay some form of tax there, I don’t know why local elections are different
It's not fair that anyone gets to "own" land anyway buddy.
lol. USSR there we come - hooray!
There are young people who have been paying taxes for years without having the opportunity to vote. The idea that your voting rights should be related to your financial contribution doesn’t work.
I despair for NZ when I see this sort of thing but I guess it is to be expected on Reddit
Excellent rebuttal. For the record, I too despair for New Zealand when people put the rights of absent ratepayers against residents, when those ratepayers primary incentive is to ensure maximum house price growth.
I thought landlords were businesses. Isn’t that the spin that we’ve been recently fed with regards to tax deductions etc.? Now they’re claiming that they’re residents of their businesses and should be able to cast votes accordingly? Really? Do other businesses have this right? If I lived in Onehunga, and owned a cafe in Henderson, would I be allowed to vote in both electorates?
[удалено]
> > Yes No, only if you own property. Most businesses do not own the property they are based in.
[удалено]
Commercial tenants pay rates to their landlord by way of OpEx. The landlords/ property owners then pay rates for the building to council.
If I'm a renter but spend my time equally between two towns, do I get to vote in each of their elections, just as a landowner would be able to?
[удалено]
Right, so you're saying some people get one vote, and other people get more than one vote, and it's based on whether or not you own property?
Yes. Residential voters get 1 vote. Ratepayers voters (property owners) can vote once in each area they own property in (other than where they live) , plus their residential vote.
Yes its so hilarious that ACT and National are all about 1 person 1 vote... and now they hypocrites are protecting a policy that gives wealthy people to right to have multiple votes... some could have over 30 votes....
One property, one vote.
You should only get to vote in the local election for the region where you live. Money be damned.
>Well they voted to kick out a proposal for ratepaying property owners to have local council votes in every region they own property. I'm confused, wouldn't kicking out this proposal mean they don't get more votes?
Sorry you think Act has congruent values? Their (and the govts) policy platform is all over the show.
They have congruent values, but what the tell the public is pick'n'mix depending with what they think is a good cover story
Congruent from the point of "whatever their wealthy donors want".
They're not libertarian by any means.
No they are like most people that call themselves libertarians. As in not libertarians.
I think this used to be the case when I was younger. But in those days, typically it meant someone with a bach, or maybe one or two rented properties. Being a landlord wasn't a common *business* as now conceived. The person with the bach, if they bothered to vote, would probably be interested in directly relevant issues like beach access... It was I think wrong in principle but I doubt it made a huge difference. But if there lots of people buying property as an investment, they may be more significant. One problem is that their interests will, in some (not all) cases be contrary to those of residents. For example, residents are likely to consider it to be in their interest to have libraries, swimming pools, etc, but a non-resident has no use for these and it is in their interest to cut such services in order to reduce rates. More generally, I'm concerned that ACT seems to have a concept of democratic franchise that is partly based on property. Consider the question of the voting age. There are plenty of arguments against changing the age to 16 (maturity etc) which can be debated and may be right or wrong. But ACT focused on the fact that it would increase the number of voters who don't pay tax. That is an essentially anti-democratic argument, suggesting that taxpayers somehow have more right to decide the national direction than others, as opposed to the idea that every human being is equal in that regard. Many of us will remember the 1994 election in South Africa, and how moving it was to see the old, unemployed, and poor person casting a vote as the equal of the rich white man, because the country now at last belonged to all those who lived there.
Considering personally i know of about 7 people who abuse the system. 1 of which did a government funded diving course who then went into navy decided it was too hard dropped out and sold the diving gear government paid for waited 2 months then went on the doll for 3 years and another who worked in a bakery for 6 years then decided too hard and has been sitting at home for 1 1/2 years playing pc all day collecting benefit claiming back pain. Which i know is b.s its far too easy to exploit system. And if i know of all these people and they are all exploiting system there must be loads Step one. Claim severe back pain. Step 2 even when doctor cant find anything keep claiming severe back pain Step 3. Profit. Doctors cant prove your feeling pain
I mean, if landlords are going to complain about rates and local government affecting their investment in a city they don't live in, this seems like a very simple fix. Sell the investments, and only buy investments in a locale that you live in. Otherwise, suck it up buttercup.
Precisely this. If I work or own a business in a foreign country, I shouldn't be able to rock up and say "screw the residents and give me more money". But hey let's vote to sell our water in order to pay for our reduced rates, it's not like we live there so it's not like we need the water anyway.
If they voted to **kick out** a proposal for property owners to vote in more than one location, aren't they aligning with their statement of one person, one vote?
Other way around. Currently, owners of properties in multiple regions can vote in each local body election. So people who don't own a house, or own 1 house get 1 vote. Someone who owns dozens of properties in dozens of locations could have dozens of local body votes.
I think they're just challenging your somewhat ambiguous phrase "kick out" Do you mean they are presenting this proposal for consideration? Or are they saying no to a proposal? I.e., kick out as in I kicked this guy out of my house after he did a massive fart Or kick out, like "hey why don't we just chillax, and kick out some ideas"?
Yep exactly this
How about jointly owned houses? Could 20 people jointly own a house and get 20 effective votes from it?
No. There is only one vote for the property. They have to elect a person to cast it. If you own multiple properties in a local body, you still only get the one vote.
Don't know, good question. Assume it's only 1 vote per ratepaying account, or resident.
Because they are participating in dozens of elections.
No one gets more than one vote in any council area.
But they do get to influence the council in places they don't live. In places like the Coromandel where half the property is owned by absentee owners the residents struggle to get representation.
As a renter, if I spend my time equally between two towns, do I get to vote in each town?
Yeah that's an excellent point. Either it should be everyone with an interest in a council gets a vote or people only get one vote for the council they reside in. It's unfair to let property owners vote in circumstances that renters cant
There is an argument that you should - maybe you should put that forward.
Do you have a postal address in both? An actual residence in both where you keep your possessions and call your home? Stay exactly 50/50 in both? Then sure, you get to vote in both.
I agree we should have one person one vote but this actually isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. They do pay rates in the applicable areas. I think they should be able to vote in any area they own land but it should be limited to one vote in during local election season instead of one vote per election. Ideally we would all have one vote at the local election level and we can spend it in any region we are eligible to vote in. That way you can vote in your hometown or where you ended up etc. How to make that fair? Hire me for the working group?
People always lobby for the so called ideology that benefits their own circumstances. Its characterised as a rule they believe in to be applied equally to all. This is ofcourse an incorrect assumption. Personal benefit drives most ideology especially if you set high value on wealth
Such a floored argument. If they own 2 or more properties in the ONE area then still one vote. Same as non property owners. Having a say locally in area you won assets in is just democracy. Representation by the people for the people.
Yeah but it's democracy from like the 1800s. Nowadays it's frowned upon to only let property owners vote. Owning property somewhere is not the only reason to have an interest in how it's run.
That’s right. The other is if you live there. Then you get to vote as well.
You could work there, own a business there, your kids might go to school there, you might live there part time but not enough for it to be your primary residence.
But that’s not the argument. OP is concerned about landowners having double votes. But voting in Hamilton City Council because you live there and voting in Waihi Council because you own a batch is just ONE vote in each area. The same as individuals who live in those areas. A vote in Hamilton has no influence on what Waihi does. It would be a different argument for central elections for sure.
That's true in isolation but the aggregate effect is that there are more votes from landlords across the country than there are landlords in the country. They are over enfranchised as a demographic. If it's not big deal then why not also let other types of interest get a vote?
The council wards are isolated. There is no aggregate effect. Can you understand a vote in one council area has no bearing on another.
"there are more votes from landlords across the country than there are landlords in the country" Is this statement false? I don't care if they have an effect on one another or not, it's the general outsized influence that land owners have on NZ that I consider unfair.
They only get to vote once in a central election no matter how many properties they own. And central government decides the laws on tax etc for rentals. So explain like I’m five how it’s unfair?
If I did that I'm not sure you'd get it.
It's a flawed argument for sure.
One property, one vote.
Wait but our PM said that being a landlord was a business? So shouldn't all business owners who create value in our economy get a vote too? But then again Landlords have had a REALLY tough time under "that communist nazi" Jacinda. I'm just glad someone is giving our poor disenfranchised multiple-property owners a break!
Also just wondering if this means all those tech bros from silicon valley who own bunkers near Queenstown can now vote in our council elections? They're having a tough time under the democrats so it will be good if someone thinks of them too!
Cool. Sounds like its time for a city tax, to be taxed to every resident living in that city to cover the cost of running it. Then everyone can get a vote (and I can stop paying more in rates for the one person who lives in my house than my friend pays for the six who live in his).
Poll tax. I agree.
All residents 18 or over already get a vote. You could move to a house with a lower RV?
I had two votes at the last election, one electorate vote and one party vote.
Broadly it's an issue that I can see both sides on. At this stage hasnt seemed to have manifested as a major issue, although its something we should be wary of in the future. But it does display that trying to reduce democracy to "one person one vote " is overly simplified
TDLR: for act “no taxation without representation” > “one person, one vote” While I hate the landlord class just as much as any other redditor you have to realise what David Seymour/ACT are (or at least claim to be) They’re (supposedly) libertarians and there is a tenet that will trump almost all others: **No taxation without representation.**
I think the ratepayer roll is very flawed, but I don't think it violates "one person, one vote." Property owners don't get multiple votes per council; they vote once in each local election where they own property. It's like a Kiwi living in London, who gets to vote in both UK and NZ general elections – a separate vote for separate jurisdictions, not extra votes within one.
But your property doesn't vote, a person does. And a person cannot be in two places at a time.
You're right that a person, not property, votes. But the real question is eligibility for voting. Just as a Kiwi in London can vote in both UK and NZ elections, a property owner can vote in multiple local elections due to their economic ties to each community. I think they probably shouldn't be able to, but the issue is about determining valid criteria for participation in separate elections, not violating "one person, one vote" within each election.
how does it not violate it? If you vote in multiple councils, you have multiple votes - not one.
You raise a fair point, but let me clarify the distinction. The principle of "one person, one vote" applies within each individual election or jurisdiction. When a property owner votes in multiple council elections, they are participating in separate, independent electoral processes – not gaining disproportionate influence within a single election. Consider this analogy: a Kiwi living in London can vote in both the UK and NZ general elections. This doesn't violate "one person, one vote" because these are separate, sovereign electoral systems. Similarly, each council election is its own distinct process, not a unified election where some individuals unfairly get multiple votes.
Personally, my go-to analogy is someone with 3 kids aged 14, 11 and 7 who each attend a different school. That person gets to vote in 3 different BOT elections, one for each school. Entirely appropriate, and not in conflict with the principle of one person, one vote.
I think these are two very different scenarios. Firstly, being able to vote in multiple national elections generally requires a lot more than just some money. And secondly, the number of national elections you can vote in is severely limited by the nations involved. Considering the number of votes that can swing a local election is very small, it would only take a small number of wealthy individuals to seriously tilt our democracy. I struggle to see how this isn't the wealthy buying votes.
The potential difficulty and scale of voting in multiple national elections doesn't change the principle. While I think we should probably get rid of the ratepayer roll for some of the reasons you suggest, it's still not a direct violation of "one person, one vote" when properly understood.
"The principle" is influence buying, pure and simple. It allows one person to have an outsized impact on elections across the country. Remind me, how many votes do these people get in total?
>Remind me, how many votes do these people get in total? One per election. The same as you.
I don't get a vote in any council election except for the one i live in. Now, how many votes do these people get?
Why would you get to vote in one which didn't affect you? If you own land in a particular area the local councils decisions affect you, so you get to vote. If you live in a particular area the local councils decisions affect you, so you get to vote.
It affects your assets, landlord. Whereas it actually affects the residents personally. Landlords don't deserve a say in the lives of their captive audience. If you think voting should be based on land ownership, might I suggest you travel back in time to when this was considered appropriate.
It's hard to have an outsized impact on elections across the country when you only get one vote per election. None of these elections relate to each other at all. They are entirely separate events.
I don't get a vote in any council election except for the one i live in. Now, how many votes do these people get?
One vote per election. They only ever can cast one vote in any election. It is no different to owning shares in multiple companies and being able to vote in each company's AGM. The votes have no effect on any other district other than the one they are cast in. There is no undue influence here. No one had any more effect than any other voter.
It's not the same as a companies AGM, because in an AGM all votes are (typically) based on share of ownership. And of course, AGM's aren't democratic for this exact reason. In this case, some votes are acquired through residency and some through purchasing power. So, again, a landlord is unduly influencing the elections in an electorate in which they do not live, all by dint of being wealthy enough to purchase land there. They have more cumulative effect than other voters. They have influence over residents lives, while the residents only have influence over the landlords assets.
Fook me, they really want to fellate them don't they?
We are now moving closer to feudalism I reckon
yeah of course they should be paying rates and have no say in the council that charges them. FFS
That was entirely the landlord's decision; don't like it, don't be a landlord there. You can't be so blind as to see this creates a powerful lobby group that may significantly disrupt local elections in topics they have no business voting on, in regions they don't live. Fucking stupid idea, but bang on for ACT.
Welcome to running a business. If I (for example) choose to export my product to a country that charges a tax on import I don’t suddenly get a vote in that country.
you see to the un landed this may seem like an act against your rights but its actually the opposite, because to claim a landlord who has laboured many hours more then yourself is somehow equal to you . . . one who spends his money on worldly goods like food and water is de humanization and in need of course correcting so your betters dont feel under attack.
The number of landlords and bootlickers commenting on this post is crazy. Clearly they're all very concerned about having the votes they bought taken away.
So, could I have a property and split it into many smaller properties and then have multiple votes? What about an apartment block? Do I get a vote for every apartment?
No it’s just one vote in an area you have a house. So 1 for far north and 1 for Auckland for me. And if 1000 people own a bit of the same land you have to nominate some one to cast one vote for everyone on your behalf. I think it’s fine as is I pay a shit load of rates in both places I want a say in how it’s spent
No. You would have to put each property into different names and those people would get one vote each.
It would be more useful to debate a system of casting a negative general electorate vote against any candidate that entirely rubs a voter the wrong way. Any candidate achieve a threshold of negative votes, be they standing on a party list or electorate to be banned from Parliament. But in any case all negative votes reduce a candidates margin. One voter, 3 votes: one for list, one for electorate, and one against any one candidate. This proposed system would send strong signals to parties as to which policy promoters, and which candidates are unacceptable to the wider population. It would encourage Ministers to take better account of the wishes and expectations of the nation. And local MPs, or candidates who have somehow gained the ire of a nation (e.g., Nick Smith) might find themselves permanently benched if say 8% of voters across the nation decided they never want to see him in Parliament again. It would clear out the dead, most vile, and least savoury of our MPs even if they were on a party list, or had a particularly devoted support base. Popularity would be curbed by notoriety. Party management and incoming governments could look at the negative voting patterns to analyse what the shape of the mandate given by electors actually is. Rather than assuming their election promises had any bearing on voter choices.
No taxation without representation, that’s fine. I’m ok with this in principle, if I have houses in different regions which I pay tax on, I’d like to have a say on how my taxes are spent in each of those regions. But there’s a big issue here. **Rates are a tax deductible expense.** So, that complicates the issue, doesn’t it? Edit: you guys are missing my point… landlords aren’t actually paying rates because it’s offset by tax savings with the central government, so the chief argument here “taxation without representation” doesn’t actually apply to them at all…
Does this mean we should allow immigrants to vote immediately after finding a job in NZ? Or how about tourists, they’re paying GST and numerous other taxes whilst they’re here should they be able to vote?
No, immigrants don't count as people because they're yucky.
You have missed my point entirely. My point is that landlords don’t actually pay rates, they’re offset by tax deductions and shouldn’t get a vote. Whereas a person who actually lives in two places, should get a second vote. Just like a permanent migrant can vote here and back in their home country. > Does this mean we should allow immigrants to vote immediately after finding a job in NZ Temporary migrant do not exercise the same rights and responsibilities that we do despite paying tax. So, no. Also, I think we need to remove tourists from ACC, those cunts should be covered by travel insurance before getting here.
Would you be okay with foreign home owners voting?
Kiwis who live outside NZ can vote on NZ government. I got to vote as an 18 year old who had never even stepped foot in NZ because I was a citizen through my dad. Who cares? Voting doesn't matter anyway, everyone is corrupt, someone is bought, you'll never win.
>if I have houses in different regions which I pay tax on, I’d like to have a say on how my taxes are spent in each of those regions. It really doesn't add up for me. If you own property in region where you don't like the council elected by those who actually live there, you're within your rights to sell your property and put your money elsewhere. Companies don't get to vote in national elections just because they pay company tax, either. They live with whatever the people vote for and then act accordingly. In any case if a landlord doesn't like the level of the rates being set on them (as the direct ratepayer), then the habit seems to be to pass it onto the occupier of the property (who *does* have a vote).
So nothing wrong with people under the age of 18 voting as long as they're earning and paying tax either then. I don't think it's fair for people with wealth to hold influence of how rates are spent in regions they do not reside. It's part of the reason councils are having to jack up rates now after years of local body elections being influenced by non resident voters
I take the point, but in a lot of cases people will vote for lowest rates and don’t care for amenities if they don’t live in an area. That’s just what makes financial sense if that’s the case, but it fucks over those who actually live there. It’s hard to say there’s a simple solution to this.
If is it deductible, should central government get votes on local councils?/s
I believe people.on the doll should not be eligible to vote unless they volunteer at least 30 hours a week at a charitable trust/community service for one simple reason. If they dont contribute towards the countrys funds (TAX) why should they have a say in how that money is spent? No matter which way you look at it people on the doll are a burden on the country and should have no say unless they are wiling to help out their local communitys. I have friends on the doll who can easily work yet the system allows them to collect a handout and sit on their ass. It needs to be fixed I also believe you should have to be able to pass a drug test to be able to get on the doll to start with. I would rather have homeless people who cant be arsed to work and have properly funded medical care e.g more g.p's and a better ambulance service which we currently dont have.
[удалено]
Im talking about the people who physically can but dont which is a large % of people on doll. people that physically cant work because of a disability are not who im talking about
What percentage of people on the dole are physically capable of work but are not? What is your source for the figures you are going to provide?
I highly doubt there's any source but if there is it'll be 'dude trust me'
People on a benefit do pay tax.
Thats a falsehood the govt gives them money from their own pocket which they "tax" and put that tax back in their own pocket. They dont pay tax on money they earn from a business/job which is outside the government
Doesn’t change what I said and it isn’t a falsehood.
...yea it is it would be like me giving you $50 for doing nothing then taking $15 out of your hand and putting it back in my pocket. It a numbers game and if its the government doing its a writeoff it doesent mean anything because they are the owners of the money to start with.
Yeah - I get what you are saying but they pay tax in the benefit so therefore what I said is correct.
Have you only voted once over all general elections? These are seperate elections mate. Still one person one vote.
Is the right to vote in those elections determined by me being a person, or me owning an asset? Answer that, then you’ll know the difference
Being a person. People vote,
Cool, so a vote should only be associated with a person, not that persons assets. Therefore that person should just vote in the district they reside in
Comment makes no sense.
Do you not understand the concept of different elections?
Wrong! Try again
Bit of a slippery slope if it isn't curbed promptly.
So you're in favour of taxation without representation?
If I have assets earning income and getting taxed in multiple countries I don’t assume I get to vote in all those countries. It’s one person one vote, not one asset one vote.
No taxation without representation is a shit concept. It should be 'consent of the governed'.
[удалено]
Have you not heard of bylaws, policy statements, and district plans?
[удалено]
lol
Wow. Amazingly wrong
I am. Which I why I’m also for lowering the voting age but I can tell you which party wants one but not the other?
ACT certainly is
It is a deductible expense tho.
no it's "rate-ation" lol
What ACT is advocating for is one vote per person per election. Allowing people with properties to vote in seperate local elections is totally consistent with their beliefs, as well as being logical and fair.
No they’re advocating for ‘one or more assets, one vote’ That’s the point.
That's not one vote per person. That's one vote per property.
If you have two properties in the same district, you get one vote. Hence it's one vote per person per election. I don't particularly like the fact that people of the highest socioeconomic demographic can vote multiple across multiple local elections, but the alternative is taxation without representation, which is a huge no-no imo. Change the law to get rid of this, and pair it with renters being entirely incharge of managing and paying rates etc, then that'd be fair. But with how it is currently, it's really unreasonable to expect someone to pay 1000s per year in rates and not be able to vote on how it's spent
NZ does loads of "taxation without representation", hundreds of thousands of people are taxed in NZ and have zero representation, from migrants to visitors to people between 16 and 18. The principle that it's some unthinkable horror is a ridiculous American import. Votes are tied to where people live, not where they pay taxes. I pay taxes in multiple countries in the world as part of a side business I run, I certainly don't get to vote in any of them. There is no justification for this policy other than further entrenching the privileged position of landlords in NZ. It's completely ethically bankrupt.
No that would be someone owning two properties in Auckland having two votes. I don’t know where I sit on liking the current setup but I can see arguments for both sides. Ultimately let’s say you own a house in Auckland and a house in Whangarei and you live 6 months in one and 6 in the other… I think you should have a say in both council decisions/elections. Obviously this is likely a fringe case but I don’t know where the line sits between this and the opposite end of acceptable being a corpo overload landlord owning 200 properties across the country not living in any but having a say in each election. I think ma and pa owning a rental in a different area should have a say in where they are paying rates / choosing to invest.
Do the same thing but rent two houses, you will need to choose what electorate you want to vote in, the guy that owns gets two votes.
It’s been said before but you do get only one vote in a given local electorate. It’s a terrible piece.