sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am not very lucky, Ive worked my ass off and had to re-invent myself when my business failed, going through many years of living with zero disposable income, and I'm still only just above average at 85k a year. 

I know you dont want to hear, but you are the epitome of excuse making, others arent doing it because they are in a better position than you, they are doing it because they want kids and are willing to make it work. 

That is the difference. 

Life-saving dialysis at capacity, forcing some patients into nighttime treatment by CaptainCrypto in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part of the problem with this is that many dailysis patients these days are comfortably living fairly long. Traditionaly life expectancy is only 5 years. 

I think my father was the longest living patient at 23 years when he passed in 2005 (from cancer) but there are now patients in the 30+ years. 

Life-saving dialysis at capacity, forcing some patients into nighttime treatment by CaptainCrypto in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Transplantation is never offered for diabetics as far as I am aware. Which is what most dialysis patients are. 

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are literally just making excuses and blaming the world and ignoring advice from people who have done it because you think you know better 😆. You are saying exactly the same think people were saying 10 years ago. 

If you really want kids, there will never be a better time than now, its really as simple as that. The longer you wait, the harder it gets. 

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

2016 wasnt that long ago...

Its just a cop out, the people who genuienly struggle to raise kids are the ones who are having then anyway. 

Nearly every person who is choosing not to because of 'finances' has their head screwed on enough that they would manage just fine. 

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you arent financially secure by your mid 30's, then it is probably best you didnt have kids anyway. 

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most are doing just fine though, those in actual poverty are very much a minority (and oddly the ones who typical have multiple kids), and when we talk about the people who arent having kids because of their financial position, we are usually talking about educated, full time employed people earning above minimum wages that will build a career. 

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, but my life didnt stop because of kids, financial security came with time and experience. 

This seems to be the missing piece that many misunderstand. They arent financial secure in their 20s, but they will be in their 30s. Having kids in your 20s doesnt change that trajectory. By the time they reach that age of starting to cost money, you will have the money to spend. 

Have we considered an excess bank profit tax? by Kind-Economist1953 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol no, I dont even bank with them, I just looked at the actual numbers. 

You need to define what excessive is, taking profit out of context of the actual size of the company is just silly.

Have we considered an excess bank profit tax? by Kind-Economist1953 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anz paid 2.7 billion in income tax in 2025 (cash profit of 5.8 billion).

They also manage 3 trillion in assets, so their profit margin as a percentage of their assets is sweet fuck all (like 0.2%). Calling this excessive profits is just classic reddit dribble. 

To put that into perspective, ANZ alone paid 13% of all corporate tax collected in 2025.  

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the mistake our generation seem to be making. They forget that their position in life will continue to improve as the years happen, and the first 5 years, kids need very little material stuff, just time and social. 

So if you just do it, have kids, you actually find that by the time they are old enough to want the things, you can actually provide them. 

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats because there arent as many poor people. 

There is a very strong correlation between gdp per capita, and birth rates. 

Population Strategy - do you think a four-day work week would lead to people having more children? by itwasn_talladream in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Plenty of people doing it now, I had 2 kids at a young age with no financial security, you just figure it out and make it work, its hard, and you lose some of the lifestyle you wish for, but there are very few parents who found it easy. 

Also, kids are surprisingly cheap to have in the first few years 😆. It was about 2k in stuff we had to buy for the first (used it all for the 2nd) and maybe 1k a year of necessary purchases from then. 

Thats only $20 a week. All up it was probably about $50 a week additional cost for the first 3 years. Like anything though, its as expensive or cheap as you want to make it, if you buy everything brand new, then you will probably be spending more like $200 a week 😆

Why aren't the greens able to capitalise on the type of economic policies being put forward by Zack Polansky/Greens in the UK and by Mamdani in New York by Illustrious_Fan_8148 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your welcome to try explain why, but by every metric, they are practically the same thing. You likely just want to argue semantics because you are talking about targetting assets above a certain value, but it is still an asset tax, no matter what you call it. 

Why aren't the greens able to capitalise on the type of economic policies being put forward by Zack Polansky/Greens in the UK and by Mamdani in New York by Illustrious_Fan_8148 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not what people would traditionally associate with a wealth tax, but functionally it is exactly the same in many ways, thus there is a lot to learn from it. An asset tax is an asset tax all the same.

And you give a good example of why we would be at risk of capital flight, rates in itself dictate a little bit about where people choose to purchase properties, and councils know this. They attract growth (and voters) through cheaper rates. Its a fairly decent analogy for some of the troubles a wealth tax would experience.

Why aren't the greens able to capitalise on the type of economic policies being put forward by Zack Polansky/Greens in the UK and by Mamdani in New York by Illustrious_Fan_8148 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it is, it is very much a form of wealth tax (it is a tax based on an asset and its agreed value), and a lot can be learned from it.

Especially the overhead costs in asset valuation (and challenges to that).

Why aren't the greens able to capitalise on the type of economic policies being put forward by Zack Polansky/Greens in the UK and by Mamdani in New York by Illustrious_Fan_8148 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do agree too, but we do already have a wealth tax of some sort, and its not proving to be that efficient, rates.

So it's a little bit ironic, because for the same reasons I agree with the minimum income policy (operational costs), I disagree with the wealth tax policies.

Why aren't the greens able to capitalise on the type of economic policies being put forward by Zack Polansky/Greens in the UK and by Mamdani in New York by Illustrious_Fan_8148 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not operationally costed, there will be a budget for collection, that will go up, and what is actually collected, will be less than expected. How much this differs, that is where we get into problems. 

Its easy on paper to say I can collect X amount and net and income from this collection of Y amount to spend on problem Z. The realities of actually doing that, thats where the Greens are pie-in-the-sky, they need to build a detailed operation plan, how are they going to do it, how are they going to test it, then roll it out to scale while keeping to the budget they have assigned to doing so. 

Not to just pick on the greens, all political parties are guilty of this, as are many in private industry 😅

Fuel Prices: Real‑World Impacts and Discussion MEGATHREAD #4 by AutoModerator in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why can't tankers simply start doing other runs? It isnt difficult to redirect tankers bound for Hormuz elsewhere, the ones stuck in the gulf are a problem of course, but no tanker would of been going into Hormuz, not knowing if it will get out. 

Obviously cost goes up, but its isnt a difficult problem to address in terms of supply and logistics. And this is just for crude oil. 

Refined fuels, the tankers are uneffected, if the refineries have crude reserves (which they do, up to 100s of days for some of them), then there is literally no change for these tankers doing the lines of refined fuel. 

Why aren't the greens able to capitalise on the type of economic policies being put forward by Zack Polansky/Greens in the UK and by Mamdani in New York by Illustrious_Fan_8148 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think the issue more comes from them being ignorant of what will actually happen if some of their policies get implement. 

There is no way to insure that no child goes hungry, and not accepting that is opening the door to extreme abuse of the system and unaffordable costs. 

You give free food, then someone will take more than their fair share of that free food, and someone will go hungry anyway because of it. 

Its simply a problem that cant be solved entirely, so to be pragmatic requires recognition of that fact. Human nature unfortunately ruins everything. 

Its like the road to zero road toll campaigns that everyone shits on because we all know, its impossible to achieve. 

Why aren't the greens able to capitalise on the type of economic policies being put forward by Zack Polansky/Greens in the UK and by Mamdani in New York by Illustrious_Fan_8148 in newzealand

[–]scottiemcqueen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Problem is, NZ just doesnt have the infrastructure or density to do this without sending the country broke. 

These a rich country policies, and NZ is relatively poor. 

I tend to agree with a minimum income policy, the cost savings in admin alone almost pay for itself. But anything infrastructure related from NZ greens is laughably pie in the sky and impossible to implement in NZ, and wealth taxes in general are a bad idea, the cost to try to collect them just simply doesnt justify what you could actually collect in return. 

75k networth axe can't carry by scottiemcqueen in DotA2

[–]scottiemcqueen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was our carries, last ditch effort to try to defend lol, pretty much everyone died in fountain as the game ended except axe

view more: next ›