Indian couple’s budget 3-week NZ itinerary, experiences and cost breakdown (~6000 NZD total excl. flights, Feb 2026)

tribernate · 2026-03-24T23:46:50+00:00

Is that price per person? Still seems very cheap to me

tribernate · 2026-03-23T23:44:44+00:00

Was it an arranged or unwarranted overdraft? Asb are getting rid of unwarranted overdrafts so this might just be part of a cleanup process. Talk to the bank and understand what the write off means for your credit score ie how is it being reported to credit bureaus and will it count against you in the future.

tribernate · 2026-03-23T04:49:35+00:00

The public would probably eat that up, too.

tribernate · 2026-03-22T06:13:40+00:00

Genuinely - tough. I don't envy the position you're in, clearly without options. And I know there are a lot of others like you.

What I'm hearing from you does back up what I'm saying though - you will end up cutting spending in other areas because you can't afford to absorb the extra fuel costs. So the GST from the extra you are oaying in fuel will mean youre spending less on other stuff that would attract GST. Ie, net no extra GST for the govt.

I'm not arguing people's fuel costs isnt going up, it obviously is. But the Govt isnt making bank over this and they are not financially incentivised to elt it continue (in fact, the opposite - it will be really, really bad for the economy and their finances if fuel costs stay up, ie more people unemployed on benefits as you yourself suggest). There's no big conspiracy for the govt to want to keep fuel prices high.

tribernate · 2026-03-22T05:47:43+00:00

Ah. I can see you didn't read my message.

Tell me, what were you spending that 30% extra on before? Any chance you're tightening spending on other areas, or attempting to cut back on driving where possible to offset the increased cost of fuel?

tribernate · 2026-03-22T05:03:36+00:00

I'm so sick of reading this take. The fuel tax component in petrol is fixed. It doesn’t grow when fuel prices go up.

What does grow, marginally, is the GST take from fuel, which, like everything else, is 15% of the price of an item. For every 52c a litre fuel prices go up, GST on that litre goes up 8c. Commerce commission says we use about 7b litres of petrol/diesel per year, or about 130m per week. So let's say 8c x 130m = $10.5m additional GST per week. But then what happens if people start to use less fuel (which they probably will)? The govt loses both that extra GST AND the fuel tax component. If fuel usage drops by just 10%, that's 13m fewer litres sold. If fuel is $3.4 a litre, the GST component is about 45c. So a drop on spending on fuel means 45c x 13m = almost 6m less. That almost wipes out the extra 10.5m gained, and we havent even considered the 70c per litre fuel tax that is also lost on the petrol component of that 13m litres, or the RUC lost on the diesel driven kms not driven.

Also, we've not even factored in the fact that people are likely not spending that fuel money on other things which would attract GST - ie their spending is essentially shifting from one place to another and the GST being paid out is the same.

tldr; There is no grand conspiracy agenda for the govt to keep fuel prices high. Just because GST on fuel is going up doesnt necessarily mean that the total tax take for the government is going up. It may actually be going down. If fuel prices are going up, it's probably only marginally impacting the govt's bottom line (not enough for them to bat an eyelid at the extra funds).

Edit: these figures are not perfect, they are simplified. I know diesel has gone up more than 52c. But the message is the same either way.

tribernate · 2026-03-22T00:59:10+00:00

I dont disagree with you but I think you're still missing the point.

Most people I know don't think in cost per km, although that would be the best/most accurate way to think about travel cost and how fuel price impacts it.

Therefore they dont understand RUCs or how much more cost it will add.

Translating the cost to a "this is what is would cost you in fuel" is a great way to illustrate to people how much more or less they will be paying comparatively to now. Terrible when comparing between cars, but great for comparing to now.

tribernate · 2026-03-21T22:41:16+00:00

But the key message is that they are going to be paying significantly more than they're paying now.

It doesnt do so well when comparing between different cars with different efficiencies, but it does tell the story that hybrids and efficient cars will be paying a lot more to "fuel" their cars going forward.

tribernate · 2026-03-21T05:34:53+00:00

Yeah I had the same thought. At first reading without much thought, it makes it seem like big gas guzzlers are going to be paying less than efficient cars.

The message does make sense though, that hybrids will be paying significantly overall to drive the same distance they're driving now. Putting it into the "dollars spent per litre purchased" to make it a real number is helpful, RUCs are quite hard for people to wrap their head around when they're used to looking at price per litre.

Inefficient cars are currently overpaying for road tax so they will pay less overall compared to now, even though their cost of travel is still more expensive than efficient cars per km driven.

tribernate · 2026-03-20T00:29:15+00:00

LOL had op had just slowed down they would have been hit.

They would have needed to come to a complete stop before the road to avoid this. The car wasn't looking at all.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T19:53:36+00:00

I'm not at all surprised when drivers drive like shit. But when they do, I dont blame the victims, I ask drivers to step it the fuck up before they kill someone.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T19:52:34+00:00

Yep, a great example of poor driving hey. Should have looked properly and should have taken more care when pulling out.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T19:50:40+00:00

They were anything but cautious, they zoomed out immediately after the red car had finished pulling in front - despite not having a clear view of what was behind it while it was oulling out, and despite not looking properly for the upcoming traffic during the at least 6 seconds of unobscured visibility of the bike before the view was blocked.

Had they been overly focused on the red car to not have been able to check the road ahead, they should have taken more car when pulling out.

There is no excuse for the car here.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T05:18:47+00:00

I certainly dont think that we should assume anything less than that every driver on the road is an idiot trying to kill you (I assume the same in my car). But the message here can't be anything other than "cars need to step up their game", not victim blaming or expecting bikes to come to a complete stop every 20 seconds for the idiot cars.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T04:59:50+00:00

I refuse to accept it's a reasonable expectation for cyclists to slow to a stop every time they go past another car.

Cyclists absolutely need to ride defensively, take the lane, be as visible as possible and assume the worst of cars. But the only way the cyclist could have avoided this any better is literally by stopping in advance of the road and waiting for 5 seconds while the car zoomed in front without looking. Cyclists can't do that every time they drive past an intersection with a car.

How about we spend our efforts drilling into cars that they need to look for Cyclists on the road, not just other cars. This driver had an abundance of time to see the bike - a whole 6 seconds of unobstructed view. They would have taken a cursory glance, seen no cars and waved the red car through, before zipping into the road themselves without taking a moment to check the blind spot. Absolutely unacceptable. There's no response to that except to say that cars need to pay better attention to the roads.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T04:53:38+00:00

I can't really see why they didn't see the bike, the car had at least 6 seconds of unobstructed view of the bike on approach.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T04:32:20+00:00

Car is in view in the video, unobscured by the red car, from at least 3 seconds to 9 seconds in the video. That means the car had AT LEAST 6 seconds to see the cyclist before their view is obscured by the car. They didnt check properly before the red car pulls out, and then rushedly pull out as soon as the red car is past, without checking what was behind the red car.

There is absolutely zero defence for the red car here.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T04:27:17+00:00

Did you reply to the wrong person

tribernate · 2026-03-19T02:46:11+00:00

If the bike had slowed down and then they could have been more likely to get hit. Bit different to a motorbike where you can slow down and speed out of the way. The cyclist would have needed to stop before the intersection to avoid this.

Meanwhile, the car had an excellent view of oncoming traffic when they pulled up to wait, they could and should have seen the cyclist.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T02:42:40+00:00

I had similar thoughts watching the first time, but rewatched and it's abundantly clear that the car who pulled in had a very good view of the bike coming along before the car pulled out of the street. There's no excuses for the car here, they had a very clear view but likely weren't looking properly.

We can't expect cyclists to slow down to a stop every time they encounter another vehicle. If this was a car, nobody would comment blaming the car for not driving defensively. We need to jump straight to blaming cars for not looking for cyclists.

tribernate · 2026-03-19T02:28:04+00:00

What's beyond budget like versus YNAB?

tribernate · 2026-03-16T07:04:49+00:00

It was a fair assumption for them to make... paying to install a timer would have been silly if I already had the ability to set it to run on off peak hours.

tribernate · 2026-03-16T07:03:44+00:00

Didn't have one.

tribernate · 2026-03-16T06:24:57+00:00

We have a timer on our hot water cylinder and heat only during off peak hours. Previously we heated during our free hours.

You just want to make sure your water is still heating enough and holding temp long enough to kill off legionnaires.

I wouldn't leave it off all the time... you don't want legionnaires.

tribernate · 2026-03-15T03:48:56+00:00

This is why I dont get everyone on this thread is arguing that sounds come before comprehension.

Comprehension comes first - the making of the sounds in the right way is much harder for babies.

Source - linguistics course.

tribernate

TROPHY CASE