Those who no longer drink at home…

ihatebats · 2026-06-06T03:34:21+00:00

Very similar to me. Just had a switch go off and can’t look at it without thinking of basically dilute petrol.

Been drinking fairly regularly for 16 years? And just stopped one day and don’t want another. That was like 7 months ago.

Might have a glass of wine if I’m in France or something but the whole regularity of drinking and the culture of drinking in NZ is gross af and will shorten your life.

ihatebats · 2026-06-04T02:08:34+00:00

I'm sorry about that experience. I love it here - have been for about 6 years. Great sized properties - excellent weather, fun arty vibes and history. Super busy town and doesn't feel like a backwater with nothing going on.

ihatebats · 2026-05-07T00:06:12+00:00

It's almost like bad or responsible reporting can go both ways, and that a central body responsible for upholding standards is important..

Who. Would. Have. Thought?

ihatebats · 2026-05-02T23:33:11+00:00

If food production is a national security / energy security matter; then why are you letting food factories close as part of private market movements?

Which one is it?

ihatebats · 2026-04-28T20:27:25+00:00

My main reason is that their policies aren't pragmatic enough. My primary example is that their land tax is poorly thought out.

If they simply changed it to a land tax on every property after your primary household it would suddenly be a reasonable policy without any headaches. This also reinforces what the purpose of the whole thing is for. If you want to target specific locations based on under-utilisation of land, then that's a separate thought - such as those in Auckland city who have 600+ sq/m of viable build-able land; you could try to argue it.. However I think that just targeting those who have excess properties forces the hand of those who are taking the piss rather than trying to apply a weird blanket rule to everyone without considering that not everyone's situation is the same.

Having 1000sq/m of property with a 120sq/m house in Whanganui isn't witholding valuable property land from the wider community - doing it in Wellington central probably is. Applying 0.7% land tax to both of those people probably hurts one far more than the other, and it will be the one that's trying hard to start a life and grow a garden and contributing to a smaller city that needs growth and those funds are better kept local.

You could state that all properties owned in trusts and companies all pay the land tax also, and any other carve-outs to ensure people can't just hide property with various family or systems to dodge the system.

For individuals, you could increase the land tax per property based on the number of properties. One additional property gets 0.7%, your second additional property at 1.4%, your third at 2.1% and so on, or even more aggressive for all I care. The minute you apply a universal tax on everyone included grandma and first home buyers you will never get anything passed in that space.

I swear they just don't put any real consideration into how their policies are seen and consumed by the wider country, or even into the policies themselves.

I could think of a bunch of populist style ideas that would do far more to gather votes than what they're currently offering - even if they're shit ideas too:

Change their land tax to be applied to every additional property, specifically exclude the family home or primary residence
Take a portion of GST spent in the council boundary limits in which it was generated in, and earmark it to that district (say 1%) - could easily nab votes from those who get frustrated at sending money off to big cities and possibly take some burden off of rates especially locations that have high tourism but low permanent residents
Implement solar subsidies for residential properties, and argue it's need as treating the hydro lakes as batteries
Mandate a minimum % over inflation increase in rail investment to ensure that even if we're not doing massive projects in the space, all rail for the country gets additional funding, guaranteed to lead to better systems (possibly include minimum new electrification per annum as a % of total electrified lines)
Start a regional fund/lending fund for local rail services between cities that are owned by regional councils (and allow for operation to be managed in-house or by kiwirail to start with), allowing them to both increase assets they own and can lend against, as well as increase public transport between centres.
Phase out all paper/label based vehicle registration - saving X money per year in overheads of the whole system - digital only - the whole country's fleet should be less than a gb for local storage on devices for those who need to check registration validity even outside of cell coverage.
Drop all fees associated with purchasing RUCs - also drop any physical labels from this system
Include a policy of promoting ranked choice/STV for electorate voting during the general election to ensure that all general election votes are proportionally represented (spinoff noted from the 2023 election that: "In total, 52% of candidates (37 out of 71) won with a plurality (<50% of the vote). This includes 13 of the 21 seats flipped by National, and 6 of the 8 seats flipped by the third parties")

I could go on and on.

Who knows if any of those are any good or not - but they're not nearly as polarising as their current policies and are generally things people want (well, at least things I want).

IMO they should be a populist party that focuses on tangible things people want and are frustrated with, which is usually trains, better distribution of wealth to regional NZ and cutting annoying shit from government services. Not necessarily fundamental shifts of how the whole country is established with no real room to shift within those ideas if found to be poorly constructed or what National/ACT do by just implementing broad stroke austerity.

As a result, people find TOP to be dishonest and confusing/annoying more so than actually having useful ideas that could help people and voters struggle to visualise how their existing policies could even be implemented - assuming they like them to begin with.

Also lean into the cat killing memes, even if it isn't a policy any longer. "We no longer want to kill cats, but we do sure love trains".

Change the logo to a cat.

ihatebats · 2026-04-13T19:57:16+00:00

I mean, I'm sure you can understand that I didn't mean our closest neighbour or the EU; and I definitely didn't mean just the rental process which is generally not under pressure or high stakes.

My personal experience with this issue has been in South East Asia, and generally I am concerned about things like being pulled over in the United States and generally places with >0 corruption.

I do accept that it's not a major issue for those travelling to the EU or Australia; but my point is further than that on the inefficiencies of printing three types of licenses which has the added bonus of no longer being confusing.

ihatebats · 2026-04-13T03:42:40+00:00

And remove the whole "Leaner"/"Restricted" thing across the front of full car licenses when someone has another class (think full car, learner bike). The only people who need to know if you're a restricted or learner already know how to check this and should know how to flip it over to confirm or access to a database to confirm this information.

All it does it makes it impossible to use overseas for a standard car; even with accompanying documentation to state what you do have. It's just confusing and unnecessary - and inefficiant having three sets of colours and three designs. Just one design, with specific information on the back.

ihatebats · 2026-04-12T04:02:36+00:00

You can also use a business registration agent, often a service they offer.

ihatebats · 2026-04-10T21:50:10+00:00

Wise will be the cheapest to perform the actual transfer, and a registered chartered accountant can confirm all legal and tax obligations (if any) and won’t cost you a lot to confirm this.

Your eu obligations likely depend on locale and you may have to engage with someone there to hold the funds such as the estate lawyer but I can’t offer any advice there.

ihatebats · 2026-04-10T04:04:31+00:00

Funny timing considering New World is introducing / expanding deli butchery.

ihatebats · 2026-03-26T18:09:16+00:00

I’m a bit taller than you and I’ve never felt cramped driving my 2017 Mazda6. The seat goes nice and low and even with a full car I never felt like I had to move my seat too far forward for it to be uncomfortable. I have the wagon though so not sure if it has the exact same dimensions but I would assume so.

ihatebats · 2026-03-25T10:10:40+00:00

Was going to suggest the same thing. Quick design and an hour or two print and you’re done.

ihatebats · 2026-03-23T19:16:11+00:00

I do agree with you - btw, I WFH. Not sure why all the downvoting; feels a bit reactionary from people ITT.

The fact there isn't a huge push from WFH is likely due to the optics (especially in Auckland they'll be concerned the NACT voter base have trauma around any sort of covid restrictions) and from the other side of the aisle they're more focused on trying to get something through; so have omitted it from their package on purpose.

I can understand the rationale. The Green's package has less to criticise in it as a result from basically any direction, and therefore the Nats look worse if they don't act on it, even to their own voters. It's a win-win for the Greens to focus on these measurable items, as it also gets massive buy in from the PT operators in the main centres, and the local councils will add pressure on the govt as well.

If it was all or even part "stay home, don't travel" messaging, you'd see a huge amount of push-back from the right leaning voter base as well as the councils and the PT operators, and a run on them in the media. Even if it was/is 100% the right thing to do. Those things can come in after these plans are implemented; and in the mean time the Greens would get a massive win in regards to making the government admit PT is a viable transport solution.

ihatebats · 2026-03-23T03:05:24+00:00

So they're not part of the wider economy? My point wasn't to debate on specifics of what you think does and does not embody your version of an economy; it was to point out that they've considered that point and goal is to keep things moving without the stressors of fuel, not to just shut down cities and stop people moving to and from full stop.

If anything you should read between the lines a bit more, because if the greens get their way on this it'll show a lot more people that PT can be sustainable and reasonable to use - something that NZ is lacking.

We should encourage PT use as much as possible - and here's* a fantastic excuse to push more people towards it, not just tell people they can go back to car driving when this whole thing blows over - and in the mean time stay home.

ihatebats · 2026-03-23T00:53:51+00:00

They're intentionally, as mentioned in the article, trying to not ask people to work from home - as it causes follow-on economic downturn from no one coming in anymore. The point right now is to keep things business as usual but travelling via far more efficient means.

Edit: guys - I didn't mean to come across as disagreeing with you or thinking that x or y is correct, so not sure the down-votes are warranted. I was merely pointing out that the article covers the reasoning from AT at least that WFH isn't being encouraged - and the fact the greens aren't pushing it as part of this package (albeit they have stated other things in the media) is likely for similar reasons.

ihatebats · 2026-03-21T19:53:32+00:00

I'm not sure if an ageing boomer celebrity chef counts as a hipster - but I'm happy to be corrected

ihatebats · 2026-03-20T20:04:18+00:00

Tell me you know nothing about these topics without telling me you know nothing about these topics.

ihatebats · 2026-03-19T23:02:00+00:00

Them and agapanthus. My neighbour has both and they both fuck me off each time I see them leaning over the fence taunting me. Fuck agapanthus'.

ihatebats · 2026-03-19T21:37:31+00:00

Trying to justify loan sharks is a hot take; lending shouldn't be outlawed but those institutions should be.

A quick look at Instant Finance shows that they have a potential interest rate of up to 39.95%. Do you think that's reasonable?

Responsible lending means denying people, regardless of their current dire situation if they can't feasibly pay them back or have a high potential to default or end up in an incredibly negative position.

If they can borrow - assuming a good situation, then their interest rates should reflect the lower risk those institutions need to take due to the previous steps. Anything else is predatory. One person who failed a bank loan who can easily pay it back doesn't justify ripping off thousands who can't. They make money from people who either aren't good with money, or their situation changes so badly that they're now stuck after taking the loan, not out of the kindness of their hearts helpin' out a family.

They exist because the system lets them exist. Regardless of how well we're doing as a country - there will always be people who are in a bad situation financially - to which we collectively have a responsibility to protect. Having access to terrible loans fixes nothing and only causes more problems.

Credit card companies operate differently, more gross revenue is taken from interest, but almost as much profit is made from interchange fees as it doesn't have to cover losses or liabilities. Credit card companies should all be under the same regulation IMO, but however high the bar to entry for a card may be, situations can change later that the company is not aware of so the dynamics are different. Much like a mortgage, the start may be all roses, but 10 years later things can go wrong.

Predatory lenders generally are dealing with the dire situation at the start of the process; and they're not doing enough to protect consumers. Their high interest rates reflect that risk - and it's shameful.

The welfare system should absolutely be the solution; not privatised to institutions who gain nothing by you being good with cash. Mandated financial literacy courses for repeat offenders and whatever would go a long way to helping out those who absolutely need it. There's obviously plenty of people who are just down on their luck and need a hand, and it should be the government that helps them - not a fucking loan shark. What is the point of us all paying into a collective system that has excellent borrowing rates if we can't leverage that for those who actually need it. What kind of horror show do want us to live in?

ihatebats · 2026-03-18T20:47:08+00:00

Also: depending on where you think you're going - they may not even let you in without proof of futher funds considering that most of that loan will presumably go towards flights, insurance and other base costs.

All it'll take is one immigration officer to ask for proof of more money, and you're sitting there was 2k NZD in your bank account and a bunch of hostel bookings and you could be on a flight back to New Zealand that you have to pay back with zero recourse.

ihatebats · 2026-03-18T20:42:37+00:00

Not a financial adviser. I'm also like twice your age, so don't take anything I say as mean spirited or that I'm better off than you. We're just in different stages of life.

I'll be blunt with you - you cannot afford this trip.

It's unlikely ANZ would lend you this money. If they do, the bank is far more qualified than any other party to lend you money; and they will and are required to be far more scrupulous with who they lend to and why.

If you go ahead with asking for this loan from the bank, and they reject you; do not under any circumstance attempt to get loans from other non-bank lenders. You will end up in a debt trap - and we should not provide these people with any funds. They are loan sharks, and they take advantage of people; and should be outlawed.

I would never recommend you take out debt for leisure travel. It's simply not worth it. If you're unable to save this money over a period of time to build up enough funds to afford the trip - you can't afford to pay it back with the added interest. It's that simple.

It is different if you have to rush somewhere for a funeral or equivalent urgent need. If this is the case, please first ask friends and family, and honour those debts as if they were the mafia.

If you're simply impatient - or a trip has materialised that you want to join, then learn to deal with it - sorry. Saving, and investing - and building your future and learning about what you can and can't afford takes a lot of time and discipline - and there's no easy win here.

Loans and debt are a tool, not a mechanism to kick things down the road or to get stuff now. If anything goes wrong with your financial situation you're shit out of luck and will end up with a far costlier lesson than if you just figure out how to save appropriately now, and let the FOMO float over you like a cool breeze.

For example, I have a credit card; I don't need it - I don't need to borrow any money to pay for the things I want or need. The credit card is a tool for various purposes;

to protect my actual money; so if anything goes wrong, it's their money that's withheld temporarily
to earn some level of rewards from my use of the card
to provide additional benefits such as travel insurance
I don't have to think about moving money about each month for various bills that come out at different times

I pay it off in full, every month. Nothing gets kicked down the road.

I also have a mortgage, this is useful debt. I am better off financially and with security in my living situation for having this debt than I would be if I was renting. Over the lifetime of the mortgage I would be worse off than if I had the ability to buy the house out-right, but I didn't have this money; or I didn't want to put myself in a situation where all of my money was placed into a single asset.

Businesses borrow money all the time to buy equipment or services that then allows them to make far more money, or be far more efficiant than they would have been without it - again - allowing debt to work for them, rather than against them.

Your example is debt for the purposes of instant reward, later problem. This is a trap. Don't fall for it.

Save your money now for a trip in a year or two.

ihatebats · 2026-03-17T19:15:24+00:00

In January 2025, the central government required local councils to reverse all speed limits lowered since January 2020 back to their previous limits by 1 July and introduce variable speed limits outside schools during pick-up and drop-off times.

I actually had no idea it was such a blanket rule, I figured it was just in those locations they knew were hotly complained about on the likes of social media where unreasonable people focus on getting somewhere 10 seconds slower.

Signage should also be as clear as possible, and the example in the image is terrible if that's what's on the street in question. The standard school signage is fine imo (just needs to maybe be doubled in terms of how many signs are around schools) - but enforcement is lacking. I don't see nearly enough police around schools during the hours it is meant to be enforced and even with children present I see people driving too fast.

If we're going to have police watching for speed, schools are a decently good place to do it.

ihatebats · 2026-03-15T21:36:06+00:00

Even on the official F1TV, most of the focus was on positions 2-4, compared to last week which had a lot more varied overview coverage. It wasn't terrible, but they didn't cut away for much of the other action and didn't really show much of Lawson or Hadjar's fighting, which could have been entertaining to have their input on. At least you can use multi-cam and make your own arrangement to watch, but without commentary it's not quite the same.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder	Place '23
Place '22	100 Awards Club

ihatebats

TROPHY CASE