$100M is serious coin, for a small countryrunning a deficit, and comparing it to the total tax take at a time when we are running a deficit is akin to telling a struggling low income family living on their credit card to give up yet another $100. (Grab a calculator, it really is)
Investing 10M to maintain an annual income of 100M is excellent economics in anyone's book. Go ask any accountant.
I fail to see any logic in anything you said, which is likely why you empathise with the Police's position on these things.
smac,
Sep 6, 1:18pm
$100M (and it's much less than that, because of the cost of the collection) is somewhere around $1 a week per tax payer. It's nothing. If it was just about dollars there are FAR easier ways of doing it (eg PAYE, excise, duties).
As I've said before I don't sympathise with the Police methods at all actually. I think they're completely missing the mark. I am thoroughly pissed off with the seemingly mindless application of an arbitrary speed limit that has little or no link to any safety goal, while dangerous intersection and cornering behaviour goes seemingly unchecked.
The difference is, I'm not stupid enough to think they do it for the money. They do it because of too much politics, not enough reality, and too many illogical people in decision making positions of power.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 1:22pm
I thought I would deal with this part separately while you digest what I said above.
There are multiple problems with over taxing cigarette's to absurd levels
However I actually fully endorse taxing them to the point that they cover the health and public education costs. Just like I endorse road Policing to a reasonable level.
Its very important to distinguish between the two.
There comes a point when tax's on cigarette's are so high that the effects are similar to banning them completely. Some of the problems are akin to not decriminalising marijuana. You lose income on tax's while simultaneously promoting a black market that increases enforcement costs. So economically it becomes more of a problem.
You then have another income stream for gangs and other crimes increase as well as people (especially young ones) shoplift and burgle to fund their habit.
You also have a greater social cost, what researchers are finding is that "nanny state" style upbringing's where things like cigarettes, fire crackers, non safety approved playgrounds, walking unsupervised etc are banned. Cause significant developmental problems.
Basically, when you take the risks away young people never develop the ability to make sensible risk assessments for themselves. The result is that in later life they often find themselves in serious financial, psychological or even physical trouble.
Now that's just touching on the issues. But hopefully you see the point, its dangerous to make knee jerk populist law changes. What might seem a good idea to the casual observer often creates a much greater problem.
Its really important to do the math and follow the science when making these sorts of decisions rather than pandering to the populist ideals. Especially as people at large rarely invest the effort to think things through and make sound decisions. Ultimately that's why the world is in financial crises right now.
smac,
Sep 6, 1:24pm
There's two Jazz's right! There's no way one guy can talk so much crap most of the time and then make sense every now and then. Baffles me completely.
therafter1,
Sep 6, 1:27pm
It??
floscey,
Sep 6, 1:27pm
sounds quite found of dorks
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 1:29pm
Politics are also a very big part of it, I certainly agree. What I don't think you grasp though is that the Government does not see it as "just another $1 a week per person", a trivial amount not to be concerned with.
When you have zero surplus all of the little revenue streams add up.
While I am sure the Government would happily give up the 100M a year if there was social pressure to do so, they are more than happy to retain it (and the many more like it) while sleeping dogs lie and the public at large are not complaining.
Just like a family on the breadline would give up $100 a year if they really had to, but all while it rolls in without any serious reason to give it up they will gladly hang on to it.
I think that's where a lot of people get confused they hear the term "revenue gathering" and assume people like me consider it some sort of crazy conspiracy. Its clearly not, however it is enough money that the government won't be in a hurry to give it up unless they have valid reason.
Its also worth considering that in terms of the Police as a department 100M is actually big dollars. Its about half the cost of running the road Policing program. When a meeting is called and someone has to explain that they are changing tactics and expect half the 100Mto be gone from next years and subsequent budgets that will certainly be noticed.
therafter1,
Sep 6, 1:31pm
Now you are getting to the guts of it.
Why is it necessary for the police commissioner to have a weekly meeting with the minister concerned ! . who manages police and policing, the commissioner or the minister ! . I frequently wonder !
therafter1,
Sep 6, 1:32pm
We usually speak (type) in english in here.
Could you please expand on your post !
smac,
Sep 6, 1:34pm
Tree follow white always
opos,
Sep 6, 1:36pm
read the thread buddy
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 1:44pm
There is a second part to this as well.
Believe it or not your subconscious does most of your driving. It does a better job than we could consciously too. However one of the drawbacks of the subconscious is that it's all about routines.
If you drive a road regularly and a speed limit is changed without say, some notice in the media. You are actually not overly likely to notice it, especially if that speed change is one that falls after a period of monotonous driving. That's just how we are wired, the Government knows this but chooses to ignore it because the public by and large are not aware or concerned.
BTW, you know how sometimes when driving some distance you suddenly realise that you don't remember the last few corners because your mind was somewhere else! That would be and instance where your subconscious is doing ALL the driving.
The ability to change gear without thinking about it while you peer through the rain is your relegating PART of the driving to your subconscious.
This all has other implications too, like temporarily 1km/h speed tolerances. They play to the weakness's of your subconscious as well, especially as they are usually applied on weekends when drivers are doing long monotonous trips.
elect70,
Sep 6, 2:53pm
Ha hatry itsnowballs chance in hell .
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 6, 3:36pm
Possibly there is a very low chance of success. But that's not really the point, after all he is only considering going to make a point anyway.
Theoretically the law should treat everyone equally with as few technical exceptions as possible.
Just because the other party happens to be the Police why should that exempt them from paying reasonable costs!
Say it was an infringement notice incorrectly and carelessly issued by a private parking building owner. Would it be fair to award reasonable costs then!
What about if it was the Police but instead of issuing the notice to the wrong person they bashed in your front door because they mistook your house for the P Lab down the road!
Would you expect them to pay reasonable costs for your front door then!
Bottom line in my opinion is the Police have made a careless mistake and a false allegation that has left the OP out of pocket.
Theoretically the judge still has to weigh these things fairly, and if nothing else it adds further embarrassment to the whole situation. If the Judge not only has their time wasted by the Police but also is put in a position of having to bend the rules for them to get out of paying fair costs. It's not going to sit well.
Bare in mind, I am no lawyer. Just my very amateur take on the situation.
smac,
Sep 6, 4:05pm
Out of pocket how! A couple of clicks with a mouse to get the photo (I've done it, it IS that easy), then a phone call will have it sorted (or divorced, depending on what the photo shows).
howie69,
Sep 9, 9:13am
Yep government cost cutting, automate it
johnf_456,
Sep 9, 9:20am
Hes just having his anti police rant.
mugenb20b,
Sep 9, 9:22am
He's stating the facts rather than having a rant.
therafter1,
Sep 9, 9:56am
One also assumes that Jazz is talking about situations in the real world of motoring, which is out there on the highways and byways of lil ol NZ . not commuting around Auckland on a daily basis where you know where all of the fixed cameras are situated, and you know where the secret 'non hidden' preferred mobile camera pozzies are, or you are using arterial routes or motorways with multiple lanes and barriers separating you from the opposing traffic and the highway patrols with their dash mounted revenue collecting devices, or you are jam packed in amongst thousands and thousands of daily commuters where the speed that you travel at is dictated by the traffic flow itself !
John should try commuting 500km's or so each week on Highway One in the Central North Island where we seem to have a 24 hour presence of multiple marked and unmarked patrol cars constantly cruising back and forward on selected portions of the highway pinging people for offences that I would hazard a guess in most instances are momentary indiscretions, such as coming back in from a passing manoeuvre, or having the temerity to pass a line of sheeple that seem to delight in scoffing b-train/truck+trailer fumes on a passing lane, or coming off the bottom of a hill where you haven't done as all the locals do and used a lower gear or given the brakes a dab now and then to ensure that you don't momentarily encroach into revenue collection territory !
As Jazz continues to promulgate, the manner and vigour with which speed is being enforced on the highways and byways of this country at the moment can only at best be described as a joke. You can have 100 cars in a line a car length off the rear end of the car in front of them all stuck behind some ignorant arrogant berk dawking down the road at 85 kph, every single one of them is committing a traffic offence from the ignorant berk backwards and the scenario is ignored totally as long as anyone isn't silly enough to encroach into the 110/104kph trigger point !
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.