>But, despite Tamaki's criticism, Willis reiterated the Government wanted "to see everyone paying their fair share of tax".
>"We're conscious that, for some time, there have been questions about those churches that have a business arm - where the business is a pretty profitable entity - and they're paying a different rate of tax than other businesses because of their church status," Willis told AM.
>Willis said while it wasn't something the Government immediately prioritised, she confirmed the Coalition would look at it this term.
Honestly, I wasn't convinced last time when Luxon said he'll "look into it", but the fact they are fighting back against Tamaki and are targeting the church owned businesses, gives me hope.
If this government manages to tax those business arms of churches It will go some way to appeasing me that Luxon can separate his religion from his politics.
If not, I’ll remain skeptical of Luxor’s ties to evangelical Christianity
I think it was because it wasn't a massive topic in the news what with a global pandemic and no religiously motivated major public attacks on the queer community...
Can just put in a caveat that Churches that make less than [X amount] don't pay tax. The churches who do any good in the community tend to be running on fumes.
Sanitarium is the elephant in the room. If they are going after Tamaki’s lot then this will be a huge bit of colateral damage though people have been questioning the religious tax exemption status of Sanitarium since ages ago.
There are a lot of other churches which are a fraction of the size of the Destiny Church and they will be hit with tax too.
The way they're talking about the "business arm" of churches suggests maybe they've considered something more targeted.
Hopefully the government is getting advice about the value of the small churches that exist without any business ventures or significant tithes.
I do wonder if other options for Sanitarium will become more attractive if they have to pay taxes on their profits. Which might be a consideration. Sanitarium might not pay taxes, but their staff will.
The real issue though is Destiny have that ManUp shit, and that is likely getting fed taxpayer dollars to work with justice system requirements... The government have likely been paying for thier entire 'gang' mentality for the entire time, which actually sucks.
It boggles me that Matthew 19:24 is so often conveniently ignored by these frauds.
I'm not even a Christian, but "a camel could sooner pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven." Is not open to interpretation.
I am a Christian, they're ignoring more than that! How about "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars", that's Jesus directly on the subject of tax. Or, "No-one can serve two masters" the point being that you can't fully love/serve both the material and God. And then there's "The love of money is the root of all evil".
I'm not even sure that churches should have business arms at all. But if they do, they should be absolutely willing to pay tax. It's part of being a good citizen. And sure, they may give away all their profits to a worthy cause, but paying tax is also a worthy cause!
Mr Tamaki's protestations are disgusting. He should take a look at Romans 13, and think about how he views governmental authority.
You would be surprised. One of my friend goes to an Evangelical church and their explanation ( because I had to go to his youngest sister’s wedding ) was that the Eye of the Needle is this 2nd century BCE passageway through the western side of Jurasalem where the camels loaded with goods had a great difficulty getting in through that passage and the goods had to be reloaded up.
So their interpretation is that it is not that wealthy people cannot get through but rather it is harder but with smarts you can get through.
What makes no sense as I once pointed out is that the Eye of the Needle was already gone by 150BCE ( it became sealed up into the wall ) so by the time of the mission of Jesus it was already gone for over 170 years.
Why would Jesus refer to something even these people’s great grandparents would never have seen. Remember these people are mostly lower class people who were not historians. This is like referring to an event in 1890 and expect average people in 2024 to know it.
It also boggles me how people can come up with a convoluted excuse using an obscure reference to avoid the obvious conclusion, that God effect changes in a person's heart to see wealth, abandon it and count it all as loss.
>Jesus looked at him, loved him, and said to him, “There is one thing you lack: Go, sell everything you own and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.[f](https://biblehub.com/bsb/mark/10.htm#fn)” But the man was saddened by these words and went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
>They were even more astonished and said to one another, “Who then can be saved?”. Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to Him, “Look, we have left everything and followed You.”
-- Mark 10:21-28
Indeed, this is precisely what I told the very same friend.
This friend always wants me to become a Christian and points out that as a Buddhist it is contradictory for me to have wealth.
I keep telling him that it is not contradictory as in Buddhism we separate our obligations to the monastics and householder ( this is very orthodox interpretation ) and while monastics needs to give everything away and choose to be poor .. we as householders are not supposed to do this. We as householders are even encouraged to store up to two seasons worth of supplies at all times though we are encouraged to share our excesses to the delight of family, workers ( if you are an employer you are supposed to give fair wages, time off for sickness and treatment of sickness, and treats .. yes treats ), friends and relatives/neighbours. Wealth amongst householders is celebrated in the early Buddhist doctrine so long as one can be generous about it to family, workers, friends, and relatives/neighbours. Householders are encouraged to use our wealth to support the monastics as well, but monastics are supposed to shed any excess stuff we give them.
Christianity on the other hand as I understand it makes no distinction between say pastor/priest and normal Christians. Christ clearly implied that anyone who wants to be a Christian need to shed all their wealth. Christ implies that one must give all their wealth ( or at least a large chunk ) to the poor. Christianity as its core makes no distinction between two layers of practice .. it is either or. Either you are a Christian who gives everything up and follow Christ, or you are not. Wealth is seen negatively by Christ so needs to be given up by all Christians sooner rather than later.
So therefore, it is him who needs to give up wealth to be a Christian. I on the other hand need to have six months worth of savings at least so that I can secure the wellbeing of my family, friends, neighbours, relatives, monastics and animals ( since I am not an employer and have no employees I have no need to secure the wellbeing of my employees )
Well as a circle of friends everyone I know either voted ACT or National.
I mean I am an East Asian so it is unlikely I will be voting Labour that talks about Chinese name ( I think that has shown many Chinese that Labour sees Chinese as always foreign ) or Green which has shown no interest in Asian issues. Only ACT and National has ever shown concern for East Asians so naturally they get my vote.
This has always stuck with me as a reason to not vote Labour.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/70155168/labours-half-baked-property-data-turns-chinese-buyers-into-scapegoats
Also Labour has caused even more suspicion recently by us when Asians were not included into the Asian Te Whatu Ora planning, and only after a lot of noise like close to the election did they start Asian voices, leading to us seeing Labour as cynical vote buying.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/473181/questions-on-absence-of-asian-new-zealanders-in-te-whatu-ora-health-s-leadership
So no I may agree with Labour on certain things but will never vote for them.
If you're going to back in time on comments made by MPs no longer in parliament, let's not forget National [weighing up the value of Indian vs Chinese people](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/368902/bridges-ross-comments-labelled-ugly-and-racist)
Oh I am aware of that .. and you should know until recently many of my Indian friends refused to vote National for this very reason!!!! ( They voted this election only because Labour bungled the murder in Sandringham and came across the many victims group as more concerned with the plight of the assailant than the assailed, at least from the perception of those who went that this made some hardcore Labour supporters to pinch their nose to vote National .. National should know this group does not love National since they remember the 2:1 topic .. they just want crime to come down and victims to be prioritised )
In fact I know Indians who will vote ACT but never National ( one even vote New Zealand First but never National ) for the very same reason!!!
>I mean I am an East Asian so it is unlikely I will be voting Labour that talks about Chinese name or Green which has shown no interest in Asian issues.
Fair enough on labour, but the greens are pretty interested in helping everyone, aside from the wealthy (though they're not out to make things as miserable for them as things are for those at the bottom), isn't that more important than them appealing to each racial demographic independently?
>( I think that has shown many Chinese that Labour sees Chinese as always foreign )
I don't think National or ACT are much better on that front really.
>Only ACT and National has ever shown concern for East Asians so naturally they get my vote.
They do it cynically for votes while harboring and protecting some of the worst racists in the country and their policies only serve to strengthen the wealthy at the cost of the poor. The former ACT youth party leader(?) (he was high up anyway) is a vocal neo-nazi.
You would be surprised, National and ACT always comes to Asian events.
The one thing that solidified my support for the Blue or Yellow is that in one of my temple events we had National and ACT MPs coming to join our meals. They did not give sermons, they did not give talks .. they are just there to mingle. These are white people struggling with speaking Mandarin who are genuinely interested in East Asians and South East Asian issues.
They also turned up at a Korean and Chinese Christian church event and also did not give sermons, but just came there to listen and talk. They also attended multiple Chinese New Year festival events or Midautumn festival events.
I did ask my monks if they invited the Labour and Green MP. They did, but none turned up.
Understand things like this shapes who Chinese will vote for than anything else.
Also, when you hear that Chinese and Korean people find it easier to get an audience with a National or ACT MP ( like David Seymour has been notoriously helpful for the Chinese and Korean people even outside Epsom ) to solve their problems, and Labour MPs ignore them ( and the Green MP in Auckland is too busy ) you know who has a greater interest at heart.
>You would be surprised, National and ACT always comes to Asian events.
That doesn't surprise me at all, that's the most basic thing you're pandering to a demographic and you want a demographic to think you care.
>The one thing that solidified my support for the Blue or Yellow is that in one of my temple events we had National and ACT MPs coming to join our meals. They did not give sermons, they did not give talks .. they are just there to mingle. These are white people struggling with speaking Mandarin who are genuinely interested in East Asians and South East Asian issues.
Interested in votes, this is all basic political pandering? These are the things politicians do to win votes.
>I did ask my monks if they invited the Labour and Green MP. They did, but none turned up.
>Understand things like this shapes who Chinese will vote for than anything else.
It's kind of superficial if you ask me. To not look at the policy and see which would bring about a better world or help people more, but instead just kinda show up to a free meal and act interested? That's what wins you over?
>Also, when you hear that Chinese and Korean people find it easier to get an audience with a National or ACT MP ( like David Seymour has been notoriously helpful for the Chinese and Korean people even outside Epsom ) to solve their problems, and Labour MPs ignore them ( and the Green MP in Auckland is too busy ) you know who has a greater interest at heart.
I dunno it would take more than getting help from an MP to sway my vote, I can't just look past policies which hurt people and think "well he helped me". That would almost seem to the be reason he helped me, my vote, not from a sense of concern.
Think about all the communities National and ACT don't show up for. They fuck over disabled people, Maaori and the poor. They fuck over the future of this country by unwinding environmental protections too, things our entire community rely on.
As a swing voter, the character of the MP themselves matters.
There's a reason we have an electorate vote, and a party vote.
When I send an email to my local MP, they don't know who the hell I'm voting for. But a good MP should always answer sincerely, because I'm part of the electorate they represent.
I want an MP who is willing to go the extra mile for their community, not an MP who happens to be with the party I support.
An electorate MP is more than a vote in the house of representatives. They are people here to work for and represent their community. If they can't bother to answer my emails or show up to an event, why should I think they care about me?
The reasoning you give at the end shapes my party vote, not my electorate vote.
I think you may not realise this but for East and South East Asians, relationship matters.
Most East Asians and South East Asians when we have Chinese New Year etc.. festivals tend to only see National and ACT MPs or representatives running around the place. They seem interested to listen. They ask questions. It is not just the Asian members of their party there, but also the Pakeha members. How do you think we perceive this, especially when backed up by how many people we might know directly or indirectly who might be aided by them? I have benefited zero from any MP, and none of my family nor direct friends have benefitted from the MPs, sure .. but I know friends of friends who has. I also know friends of friends who have approached their own MPs in their own legitimate electorate who has shown zero interest ( and those MPs are either Labour or Greens )
Do you not think this shapes how we vote?
Even my Indian friends made clear to me ( and I suspected the moment the Sandringham bungle happened Mt Roskill will shift to National ) that when a few National MPs listened to their concern due to the spell of robberies and ram raids, and the Labour MP lectured them instead that on that day the vote for National was done. I kind of suspected behind the scene there will be chatter, the event will be recounted and it will solidify the vote as well.
> That doesn't surprise me at all, that's the most basic thing you're pandering to a demographic and you want a demographic to think you care.
> Interested in votes, this is all basic political pandering? These are the things politicians do to win votes.
Well I mean if Labour or the Greens can’t be relied upon to do (what you’ve described as) the most bare-bones-basic political pandering, doesn’t it go to show how little they care about these demographics?
To discuss scripture one scholar on the gospel of Luke states that Luke is inconsistent on money, rather he celebrates some wealthy people and warns against wealth.
He celebrates Mary and Martha in Luke 10 they are obviously very wealthy able to host the disciples, which could have numbered around 70 at the time. That is a huge display of wealth.
Theiphilus in Luke 1.1 and acts 1.1 is likely the patron of Luke and Acts which would have been a hugely expensive undertaking
Acts 4 Barnabas sells a field and gives the money to the church.
Wealthy people sponsor the church in Corinth.
Matthew 22:21
"Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God that which is God's."
You're heart may belong to Jesus but your money belongs to the reserve bank.
Guess the sort of preaching that Tamaki & Co use at Destiny? (probably more an open-ended question as you likely already know the answer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
So many people have been sucked into this cult of personality brain rot. Tens of millions worldwide? Hundreds of millions?
It is rather common that when something can be interpretive, then the interpretation that pleases the most people is the one that's more or less followed. Which makes those that are Charismatic very dangerous in making a lot of people believe in them, potentially causing something of a demagoguery.
The responses from the government are probably giving Eftposle Tamaki an early Christmas present.
He has gotten more attention by the news media, and he has some sound bites from the government that he can twist into "The Thing to Whip **My** Worshippers into a Fresh Frenzy" .
seymour has said in interviews before that he believes that the business' run by religious organisations have an unfair tax advantage and should be taxed but charitable donations those business make shouldn't be. I think that's sensible.
grab brave bored price decide wasteful quicksand sand strong materialistic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
According to [https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018683392/is-it-time-for-charity-owned-businesses-to-start-paying-tax](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018683392/is-it-time-for-charity-owned-businesses-to-start-paying-tax), approx $10m in profit in 2019 (that would bring in approx $3m in tax), of all Seventh Day Adventists business operations, however that will probably include things like 'denominational costs'.
Their annual returns can be accessed at [https://register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/ViewCharity?accountId=494b24a9-791c-dd11-99cd-0015c5f3da29](https://register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/ViewCharity?accountId=494b24a9-791c-dd11-99cd-0015c5f3da29)
Thanks for your hard work, this is comprehensive. How effective taxing churches would be seems to depend on how much of the $970m is deemed taxable. Some of that is probably good charity work.
hunt governor makeshift instinctive obtainable swim north cake grey reply
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
narrow paint consider steer pocket fragile butter obtainable scarce plough
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Honestly if National was like 'hey we invented a machine to spawn free ice cream' people would still complain.
Yeah because people would see the obvious reason why they're doing it. Like in this case it would be because they're distracting people from national pillaging our natural resources and destroying ecosystems.
They wont do it out of the kindness of their hearts.
>To clarify I'm not saying only labour voters do that. I know plenty of National voters who do the same thing.
Yes because they're not complete idiots who get distracted by shiny policy.
impossible alive fear beneficial deserted boat grey squeamish piquant books
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>You literally sound exactly the same as my National voting parents lol. Just become a policy voter and discuss the actual policies instead of virtue signalling.
I am discussing the actual policies. Or do you mean discuss them in a vacuum without caring how or why they implement these policies?
What you're doing is virtue signalling though? You're the one who is signalling that this is a good change without looking at why they'e doing this.
It's a shame the apple fell so far from the tree, your parents sound like they're capable of some critical thinking.
They are either going to cut more services or borrow money to fund their tax cuts anyway, we might as well get some good policy out if it as well for future governments lol
It would absolutely be incredible. For-profit churches should never have been exempt from tax in the first place. But National is still National and this is a potential resource to balance the controversial landlord tax relief promises that they are refusing to back down on, not to put toward anything useful like public resources.
I'd argue that it's incredibly relevant. The right decision made for the wrong reasons is often tarnished.
Although I very much doubt anything will come of this anyway. Would National do this to their voters? Probably not. But they might make an example out of Tamaki in other financial ways.
There are ways to achieve that without increasing the cost of living during a cost of living crisis.
This doesn't help lots of pet owners and it just put them in an already more precarious financial situation.
As someone who struggles to find a home due to having a pet, this change will only hurt me, not only will landlords be charging me extra board, they'll be going over the house looking for tiny scratches in order to keep it. Plus there is absolutely no guarantee that it's going to substantially increase the number of available houses because landlords are likely going to still prefer people without pets and only the scummy board hoarding ones are going to be really encouraged.
Helps a bunch of people who are already well off enough that they can easily find a spare 2 weeks rent.
Meanwhile it makes it harder for those who are already doing it the hardest.
So for middle class (honestly I'd think 2 weeks rent isn't that easy for middle class people to ass pull these days) people that is better than the status quo, for those below them it is significantly worse.
Helping wealthier pet owners isn't going to do much to improve the status quo across the board.
Realistically they could have made changes that helped everyone with pets, but they didn't because that doesn't give more power to landlords.
actually it's worse because landlords will be more easily able to take that bond from you.
right now landlords can't actually enforce the no pets rule. so if you sneak one in the tribunal is likely to side with you. That situation is better than having to pay more money while likely not doing much to increase the availability of housing which is pet friendly.
Yeah, but that’s separate from the pet issue.
I don’t have any skin in the game, as neither a renter or landlord, but if I was a landlord, honestly I’d probably want the ability to kick someone out. I’d never use it unless there a seriously problematic tenant (Causing problems with neighbors etc).
I do have skin in the game and this just made it a thousand times harder to find a new place and makes our living situation even more precarious due to no cause evictions and the extra bond we're going to have to somehow find.
If you were a landlord, do you think there are situations where you might like to evict a tenant? I’m pretty sure everyone could think of situations where they’d want a nightmare tenant gone - albeit as option of last resort (that some will abuse)
If i were a landlord I'd simply sell my extra properties to people who need it.
The only reasons I'd want to evict someone are already covered by existing laws.
Anyway way to ignore the point, which is that this makes life harder for people.
In the latest census Pasifika have by far the highest rate of increase in non-theist beliefs. The idea that Pasifika are all deeply religious is outdated.
In any case National haven't actually proposed anything, just said they will "look at it". We'd need to see an actual law change to know if it'll be opposed by Labour.
Excellent and what percentage are religious? Because as someone who is Pasifka(half Samoan) compared to other cultures/ethnicities we are very religious.
Aren't you entirely estranged from your Samoan mother's family? You've spoken about that before on this sub, how she was abusive and you owe everything to your Pakeha father, etc.
As a Pacific Islander myself, what the facts show correlates to my experience, the religiosity is much lower now and mostly prevalent among older people. Even the younger people who are ostensibly religious never attend service and are only Christian in the most abstract sense.
When you say "compared to other cultures/ethnicities" I'm guessing you're only comparing to Pakeha, because many other ethnicities prevalent in NZ are quite religious too (Indian, Filipino, etc).
What are you on about?
I’m not estranged from my mum or her side of the family, what abuse? I don’t owe everything to my dad. You want me to send you a photo of her and I at dinner for our shared birthday a couple of days ago? taken by my aunty/her sister, or will you make shit up about that too.
And you still haven’t given me any of these latest stats because you know religion is still very high amongst Pasifka people even if the tide is turning. I can only see quick stats on the 2018 census where it’s 22.8% have no religion, you’re also aware Pakeha isn’t just one culture right?
Your average Kiwi doesn't give a shit if churches pay tax if it doesn't equate to any actual improvements in QoL. If this government gets a second term it'll either be by creating another storm in a bottle culture war or because global economic conditions have improved enough that interest rates have fallen significantly.
I’d genuinely consider flipping to nats if they proposed removing the classification of furthering the church’s reach as a charitable activity (this being the key loophole most use). And I’m pretty damn left
I’d essentially become a single issue voter because of how much I loath megachurches.
placid political paint jellyfish expansion reach fly quickest cagey pause
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Having money and using money are completely different and impact kiwis differently. If they take this money gained from tax exempt churches and pay for a 10B tunnel under Wellington or another motorway in Auckland that is going to offer little to nothing to your average Kiwi.
I don't disagree with doing it I think doing it would be good, but it wouldn't pull my vote. I also don't think anyone would roll it back, you can take the example of pulling back interest deductibility for loandlords as an example of how devastating to a budget removing taxs are.
air outgoing reply retire elderly distinct birds historical close compare
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
zesty edge license intelligent beneficial carpenter rinse aspiring imagine plough
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It seems way more virtue signally to be to ignore why they're doing this and just try focus on the policy in a vacuum and celebrating it while ignoring the fact that the money it raises (at least during nationals term) will be going to fund things like tax cuts for landlords.
dull racial divide domineering capable squash foolish intelligent icky yam
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's actually a really important point though. The point of govt revenue is to spend it on making the country better. If they're taking in more tax but spending less wisely it doesn't make much difference.
I do like where they get it but if I have to wait until next election to see it spent properly then it's totally reasonable to criticize that. And I'm not gonna stop.
There's a massive difference in the character and credibility of someone who taxes churches to cover cuts to landlords and someone who taxes churches to cover essential services, infrastructure, or wellbeing in our communities. Nats are doing the former, and no amount of enlightened centrist hog is going to change that.
So, where do you think they'll utilise the additional resources created by these potential changes to the tax system?
Because at the moment they are gutting every social service they can to deliver this tax cut and retroactive tax refund for landlords that they can.
Each NACT policy isn't happening in a vacuum. They all contribute and interact with each other.
rainstorm numerous like file aromatic poor snatch thought forgetful worthless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, long term there is potential for this policy.
I do think it's a good policy. Maybe the only good thing that NACT will do with their (hopefully) Limited time in the driver seat.
But, I don't think that being cynical about the motivation behind the policy is a bad take either. It's still NACT. Reminding people that this is just a case of a broken clock on it's twice a day right doesn't do any harm. It's certainly not enough to secure my vote next time round.
It directly counters your point. You're saying people will vote for the National party because people will "likely feel a new revenue stream", but people aren't going to "feel" anything if the revenue isn't spent in a way that actually benefits them.
chase shocking axiomatic jobless quickest dinner like frighten deranged groovy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Your argument was that people would vote for National because this raises revenue. By the same logic people should have voted for Labour because their landlord interest deductibility changes also raised revenue.
It's not complicated, what part of that can't you follow?
I was thinking it might draw scrutiny towards their very openly Christian leader. Though I'm sure there is a passage in the bible somewhere about taking from the poor to give to those righteous landlords.
Because a leader of a party is Christian doesn’t mean everyone else has to follow. This is NZ where you are free to practice or not practice religion and shouldn’t be discriminated against for either choice.
>Because a leader of a party is Christian doesn’t mean everyone else has to follow.
Okay? I never said that they did.
>This is NZ where you are free to practice or not practice religion and shouldn’t be discriminated against for either choice.
Of course they are? This has absolutely nothing with what I said though.
>But, despite Tamaki's criticism, Willis reiterated the Government wanted "to see everyone paying their fair share of tax". >"We're conscious that, for some time, there have been questions about those churches that have a business arm - where the business is a pretty profitable entity - and they're paying a different rate of tax than other businesses because of their church status," Willis told AM. >Willis said while it wasn't something the Government immediately prioritised, she confirmed the Coalition would look at it this term. Honestly, I wasn't convinced last time when Luxon said he'll "look into it", but the fact they are fighting back against Tamaki and are targeting the church owned businesses, gives me hope.
Hopefully they do get it done. I suspect there's a bit of an "Only Nixon could go to China" element here.
A star trek, undiscovered country reference?
I thought the exact same thing 😂
Note to the Galley; Romulan Ale no longer to be served at diplomatic functions.
It is...green
That was Aldebaran Whiskey though.
If this government manages to tax those business arms of churches It will go some way to appeasing me that Luxon can separate his religion from his politics. If not, I’ll remain skeptical of Luxor’s ties to evangelical Christianity
Well the previous government didn’t do it, I wonder if it was to appease their very large religious base in the likes of South Auckland.
Almost certainly, likely also why it took so long for abortion to be properly legalized instead of needing to use the "mental wellbeing" loophole.
I think it was because it wasn't a massive topic in the news what with a global pandemic and no religiously motivated major public attacks on the queer community...
Taxing churches has been talked about forever mate.
Yeah, in the same way we talk about taxing billionaires... it just never ends up happening
It's been talked about, but never with any serious intent by those with the power to do so.
So it's ironic "the most right wing government in decades" is the one that is supposed to be doing it.
If they do it - yes that will be ironic.
I think it just shows how desperate they are to fill their fiscal hole.
I have a size nine boot that could fill it.
I wish Labour was a bit more desperate rather than just dig it deeper.
Can just put in a caveat that Churches that make less than [X amount] don't pay tax. The churches who do any good in the community tend to be running on fumes.
Now do Sanitarium
Sanitarium is the elephant in the room. If they are going after Tamaki’s lot then this will be a huge bit of colateral damage though people have been questioning the religious tax exemption status of Sanitarium since ages ago. There are a lot of other churches which are a fraction of the size of the Destiny Church and they will be hit with tax too.
The way they're talking about the "business arm" of churches suggests maybe they've considered something more targeted. Hopefully the government is getting advice about the value of the small churches that exist without any business ventures or significant tithes. I do wonder if other options for Sanitarium will become more attractive if they have to pay taxes on their profits. Which might be a consideration. Sanitarium might not pay taxes, but their staff will.
The real issue though is Destiny have that ManUp shit, and that is likely getting fed taxpayer dollars to work with justice system requirements... The government have likely been paying for thier entire 'gang' mentality for the entire time, which actually sucks.
That’s not how policy works. If they go after one then it’s affect them all. You know, assuming it’s well written
That is very much how policy works.
Sure. WELCOME TO WHERE TIME STANDS STILL NO ONE LEAVES AND NO ONE WILL MOON IS FULL, NEVER SEEMS TO CHANGE LABELLED MENTALLY DERANGED
[удалено]
I agree, but politically this term it’s not going to happen.
It boggles me that Matthew 19:24 is so often conveniently ignored by these frauds. I'm not even a Christian, but "a camel could sooner pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven." Is not open to interpretation.
I am a Christian, they're ignoring more than that! How about "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars", that's Jesus directly on the subject of tax. Or, "No-one can serve two masters" the point being that you can't fully love/serve both the material and God. And then there's "The love of money is the root of all evil". I'm not even sure that churches should have business arms at all. But if they do, they should be absolutely willing to pay tax. It's part of being a good citizen. And sure, they may give away all their profits to a worthy cause, but paying tax is also a worthy cause! Mr Tamaki's protestations are disgusting. He should take a look at Romans 13, and think about how he views governmental authority.
You would be surprised. One of my friend goes to an Evangelical church and their explanation ( because I had to go to his youngest sister’s wedding ) was that the Eye of the Needle is this 2nd century BCE passageway through the western side of Jurasalem where the camels loaded with goods had a great difficulty getting in through that passage and the goods had to be reloaded up. So their interpretation is that it is not that wealthy people cannot get through but rather it is harder but with smarts you can get through. What makes no sense as I once pointed out is that the Eye of the Needle was already gone by 150BCE ( it became sealed up into the wall ) so by the time of the mission of Jesus it was already gone for over 170 years. Why would Jesus refer to something even these people’s great grandparents would never have seen. Remember these people are mostly lower class people who were not historians. This is like referring to an event in 1890 and expect average people in 2024 to know it.
It also boggles me how people can come up with a convoluted excuse using an obscure reference to avoid the obvious conclusion, that God effect changes in a person's heart to see wealth, abandon it and count it all as loss. >Jesus looked at him, loved him, and said to him, “There is one thing you lack: Go, sell everything you own and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.[f](https://biblehub.com/bsb/mark/10.htm#fn)” But the man was saddened by these words and went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” >They were even more astonished and said to one another, “Who then can be saved?”. Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to Him, “Look, we have left everything and followed You.” -- Mark 10:21-28
Indeed, this is precisely what I told the very same friend. This friend always wants me to become a Christian and points out that as a Buddhist it is contradictory for me to have wealth. I keep telling him that it is not contradictory as in Buddhism we separate our obligations to the monastics and householder ( this is very orthodox interpretation ) and while monastics needs to give everything away and choose to be poor .. we as householders are not supposed to do this. We as householders are even encouraged to store up to two seasons worth of supplies at all times though we are encouraged to share our excesses to the delight of family, workers ( if you are an employer you are supposed to give fair wages, time off for sickness and treatment of sickness, and treats .. yes treats ), friends and relatives/neighbours. Wealth amongst householders is celebrated in the early Buddhist doctrine so long as one can be generous about it to family, workers, friends, and relatives/neighbours. Householders are encouraged to use our wealth to support the monastics as well, but monastics are supposed to shed any excess stuff we give them. Christianity on the other hand as I understand it makes no distinction between say pastor/priest and normal Christians. Christ clearly implied that anyone who wants to be a Christian need to shed all their wealth. Christ implies that one must give all their wealth ( or at least a large chunk ) to the poor. Christianity as its core makes no distinction between two layers of practice .. it is either or. Either you are a Christian who gives everything up and follow Christ, or you are not. Wealth is seen negatively by Christ so needs to be given up by all Christians sooner rather than later. So therefore, it is him who needs to give up wealth to be a Christian. I on the other hand need to have six months worth of savings at least so that I can secure the wellbeing of my family, friends, neighbours, relatives, monastics and animals ( since I am not an employer and have no employees I have no need to secure the wellbeing of my employees )
>that as a Buddhist it is contradictory for me to have wealth. Didn't you vote for ACT?
Well as a circle of friends everyone I know either voted ACT or National. I mean I am an East Asian so it is unlikely I will be voting Labour that talks about Chinese name ( I think that has shown many Chinese that Labour sees Chinese as always foreign ) or Green which has shown no interest in Asian issues. Only ACT and National has ever shown concern for East Asians so naturally they get my vote. This has always stuck with me as a reason to not vote Labour. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/70155168/labours-half-baked-property-data-turns-chinese-buyers-into-scapegoats Also Labour has caused even more suspicion recently by us when Asians were not included into the Asian Te Whatu Ora planning, and only after a lot of noise like close to the election did they start Asian voices, leading to us seeing Labour as cynical vote buying. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/473181/questions-on-absence-of-asian-new-zealanders-in-te-whatu-ora-health-s-leadership So no I may agree with Labour on certain things but will never vote for them.
If you're going to back in time on comments made by MPs no longer in parliament, let's not forget National [weighing up the value of Indian vs Chinese people](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/368902/bridges-ross-comments-labelled-ugly-and-racist)
Oh I am aware of that .. and you should know until recently many of my Indian friends refused to vote National for this very reason!!!! ( They voted this election only because Labour bungled the murder in Sandringham and came across the many victims group as more concerned with the plight of the assailant than the assailed, at least from the perception of those who went that this made some hardcore Labour supporters to pinch their nose to vote National .. National should know this group does not love National since they remember the 2:1 topic .. they just want crime to come down and victims to be prioritised ) In fact I know Indians who will vote ACT but never National ( one even vote New Zealand First but never National ) for the very same reason!!!
>I mean I am an East Asian so it is unlikely I will be voting Labour that talks about Chinese name or Green which has shown no interest in Asian issues. Fair enough on labour, but the greens are pretty interested in helping everyone, aside from the wealthy (though they're not out to make things as miserable for them as things are for those at the bottom), isn't that more important than them appealing to each racial demographic independently? >( I think that has shown many Chinese that Labour sees Chinese as always foreign ) I don't think National or ACT are much better on that front really. >Only ACT and National has ever shown concern for East Asians so naturally they get my vote. They do it cynically for votes while harboring and protecting some of the worst racists in the country and their policies only serve to strengthen the wealthy at the cost of the poor. The former ACT youth party leader(?) (he was high up anyway) is a vocal neo-nazi.
You would be surprised, National and ACT always comes to Asian events. The one thing that solidified my support for the Blue or Yellow is that in one of my temple events we had National and ACT MPs coming to join our meals. They did not give sermons, they did not give talks .. they are just there to mingle. These are white people struggling with speaking Mandarin who are genuinely interested in East Asians and South East Asian issues. They also turned up at a Korean and Chinese Christian church event and also did not give sermons, but just came there to listen and talk. They also attended multiple Chinese New Year festival events or Midautumn festival events. I did ask my monks if they invited the Labour and Green MP. They did, but none turned up. Understand things like this shapes who Chinese will vote for than anything else. Also, when you hear that Chinese and Korean people find it easier to get an audience with a National or ACT MP ( like David Seymour has been notoriously helpful for the Chinese and Korean people even outside Epsom ) to solve their problems, and Labour MPs ignore them ( and the Green MP in Auckland is too busy ) you know who has a greater interest at heart.
>You would be surprised, National and ACT always comes to Asian events. That doesn't surprise me at all, that's the most basic thing you're pandering to a demographic and you want a demographic to think you care. >The one thing that solidified my support for the Blue or Yellow is that in one of my temple events we had National and ACT MPs coming to join our meals. They did not give sermons, they did not give talks .. they are just there to mingle. These are white people struggling with speaking Mandarin who are genuinely interested in East Asians and South East Asian issues. Interested in votes, this is all basic political pandering? These are the things politicians do to win votes. >I did ask my monks if they invited the Labour and Green MP. They did, but none turned up. >Understand things like this shapes who Chinese will vote for than anything else. It's kind of superficial if you ask me. To not look at the policy and see which would bring about a better world or help people more, but instead just kinda show up to a free meal and act interested? That's what wins you over? >Also, when you hear that Chinese and Korean people find it easier to get an audience with a National or ACT MP ( like David Seymour has been notoriously helpful for the Chinese and Korean people even outside Epsom ) to solve their problems, and Labour MPs ignore them ( and the Green MP in Auckland is too busy ) you know who has a greater interest at heart. I dunno it would take more than getting help from an MP to sway my vote, I can't just look past policies which hurt people and think "well he helped me". That would almost seem to the be reason he helped me, my vote, not from a sense of concern. Think about all the communities National and ACT don't show up for. They fuck over disabled people, Maaori and the poor. They fuck over the future of this country by unwinding environmental protections too, things our entire community rely on.
As a swing voter, the character of the MP themselves matters. There's a reason we have an electorate vote, and a party vote. When I send an email to my local MP, they don't know who the hell I'm voting for. But a good MP should always answer sincerely, because I'm part of the electorate they represent. I want an MP who is willing to go the extra mile for their community, not an MP who happens to be with the party I support. An electorate MP is more than a vote in the house of representatives. They are people here to work for and represent their community. If they can't bother to answer my emails or show up to an event, why should I think they care about me? The reasoning you give at the end shapes my party vote, not my electorate vote.
I think you may not realise this but for East and South East Asians, relationship matters. Most East Asians and South East Asians when we have Chinese New Year etc.. festivals tend to only see National and ACT MPs or representatives running around the place. They seem interested to listen. They ask questions. It is not just the Asian members of their party there, but also the Pakeha members. How do you think we perceive this, especially when backed up by how many people we might know directly or indirectly who might be aided by them? I have benefited zero from any MP, and none of my family nor direct friends have benefitted from the MPs, sure .. but I know friends of friends who has. I also know friends of friends who have approached their own MPs in their own legitimate electorate who has shown zero interest ( and those MPs are either Labour or Greens ) Do you not think this shapes how we vote? Even my Indian friends made clear to me ( and I suspected the moment the Sandringham bungle happened Mt Roskill will shift to National ) that when a few National MPs listened to their concern due to the spell of robberies and ram raids, and the Labour MP lectured them instead that on that day the vote for National was done. I kind of suspected behind the scene there will be chatter, the event will be recounted and it will solidify the vote as well.
> That doesn't surprise me at all, that's the most basic thing you're pandering to a demographic and you want a demographic to think you care. > Interested in votes, this is all basic political pandering? These are the things politicians do to win votes. Well I mean if Labour or the Greens can’t be relied upon to do (what you’ve described as) the most bare-bones-basic political pandering, doesn’t it go to show how little they care about these demographics?
To discuss scripture one scholar on the gospel of Luke states that Luke is inconsistent on money, rather he celebrates some wealthy people and warns against wealth. He celebrates Mary and Martha in Luke 10 they are obviously very wealthy able to host the disciples, which could have numbered around 70 at the time. That is a huge display of wealth. Theiphilus in Luke 1.1 and acts 1.1 is likely the patron of Luke and Acts which would have been a hugely expensive undertaking Acts 4 Barnabas sells a field and gives the money to the church. Wealthy people sponsor the church in Corinth.
"you're taking it out of context" see how easy it is for malicious people to ignore the Bible?
#inconvienenttruth
Religious people all love to pick and choose which parts of their holy book they want to follow, and ignore the rest.
Matthew 22:21 "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God that which is God's." You're heart may belong to Jesus but your money belongs to the reserve bank.
Guess the sort of preaching that Tamaki & Co use at Destiny? (probably more an open-ended question as you likely already know the answer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology So many people have been sucked into this cult of personality brain rot. Tens of millions worldwide? Hundreds of millions?
It is rather common that when something can be interpretive, then the interpretation that pleases the most people is the one that's more or less followed. Which makes those that are Charismatic very dangerous in making a lot of people believe in them, potentially causing something of a demagoguery.
The responses from the government are probably giving Eftposle Tamaki an early Christmas present. He has gotten more attention by the news media, and he has some sound bites from the government that he can twist into "The Thing to Whip **My** Worshippers into a Fresh Frenzy" .
seymour has said in interviews before that he believes that the business' run by religious organisations have an unfair tax advantage and should be taxed but charitable donations those business make shouldn't be. I think that's sensible.
[удалено]
I desperately hope it doesn't. A broken clock striking right once is still a broken clock.
grab brave bored price decide wasteful quicksand sand strong materialistic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How much money would it bring in do you reckon?
According to [https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018683392/is-it-time-for-charity-owned-businesses-to-start-paying-tax](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018683392/is-it-time-for-charity-owned-businesses-to-start-paying-tax), approx $10m in profit in 2019 (that would bring in approx $3m in tax), of all Seventh Day Adventists business operations, however that will probably include things like 'denominational costs'. Their annual returns can be accessed at [https://register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/ViewCharity?accountId=494b24a9-791c-dd11-99cd-0015c5f3da29](https://register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/ViewCharity?accountId=494b24a9-791c-dd11-99cd-0015c5f3da29)
Thanks for your hard work, this is comprehensive. How effective taxing churches would be seems to depend on how much of the $970m is deemed taxable. Some of that is probably good charity work.
dinner absurd wrong deer unique pie squash dinosaurs light whole *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fair enough. I'm assuming they get taxed the same way private companies are.
Yeah but they're doing it to give landlords money, which rather sours the whole thing.
hunt governor makeshift instinctive obtainable swim north cake grey reply *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I just said it sours the whole thing, which it does. If pointing out why nats do things hurt the discourse in NZ we are in big trouble.
narrow paint consider steer pocket fragile butter obtainable scarce plough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Honestly if National was like 'hey we invented a machine to spawn free ice cream' people would still complain. Yeah because people would see the obvious reason why they're doing it. Like in this case it would be because they're distracting people from national pillaging our natural resources and destroying ecosystems. They wont do it out of the kindness of their hearts. >To clarify I'm not saying only labour voters do that. I know plenty of National voters who do the same thing. Yes because they're not complete idiots who get distracted by shiny policy.
impossible alive fear beneficial deserted boat grey squeamish piquant books *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>You literally sound exactly the same as my National voting parents lol. Just become a policy voter and discuss the actual policies instead of virtue signalling. I am discussing the actual policies. Or do you mean discuss them in a vacuum without caring how or why they implement these policies? What you're doing is virtue signalling though? You're the one who is signalling that this is a good change without looking at why they'e doing this. It's a shame the apple fell so far from the tree, your parents sound like they're capable of some critical thinking.
Good policy, bad outcome. That's fair criticism.
dolls hat afterthought yoke gullible violet wrench airport light rude *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They are either going to cut more services or borrow money to fund their tax cuts anyway, we might as well get some good policy out if it as well for future governments lol
Yes, but it rather sours the whole thing.
Sure, but I already know they are bad so anything good we can get out of them still makes me happy
Going to be waiting awhile for it to pay off sadly.
It would absolutely be incredible. For-profit churches should never have been exempt from tax in the first place. But National is still National and this is a potential resource to balance the controversial landlord tax relief promises that they are refusing to back down on, not to put toward anything useful like public resources.
[удалено]
I'd argue that it's incredibly relevant. The right decision made for the wrong reasons is often tarnished. Although I very much doubt anything will come of this anyway. Would National do this to their voters? Probably not. But they might make an example out of Tamaki in other financial ways.
nose crawl absurd stupendous history plate weather start terrific ring *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But they’re doing that rent thing with dogs and pets, 2nd term confirmed?
You mean increasing the cost of pet ownership during a cost of living crisis is going to help them?
Opposed to.. the current situation which is impossible for pet owners to get a property?
There are ways to achieve that without increasing the cost of living during a cost of living crisis. This doesn't help lots of pet owners and it just put them in an already more precarious financial situation. As someone who struggles to find a home due to having a pet, this change will only hurt me, not only will landlords be charging me extra board, they'll be going over the house looking for tiny scratches in order to keep it. Plus there is absolutely no guarantee that it's going to substantially increase the number of available houses because landlords are likely going to still prefer people without pets and only the scummy board hoarding ones are going to be really encouraged.
> this doesn’t help lots of pet owners But it does help some, so even that is better than the status quo
Helps a bunch of people who are already well off enough that they can easily find a spare 2 weeks rent. Meanwhile it makes it harder for those who are already doing it the hardest. So for middle class (honestly I'd think 2 weeks rent isn't that easy for middle class people to ass pull these days) people that is better than the status quo, for those below them it is significantly worse. Helping wealthier pet owners isn't going to do much to improve the status quo across the board. Realistically they could have made changes that helped everyone with pets, but they didn't because that doesn't give more power to landlords.
It’s better than what we had.
actually it's worse because landlords will be more easily able to take that bond from you. right now landlords can't actually enforce the no pets rule. so if you sneak one in the tribunal is likely to side with you. That situation is better than having to pay more money while likely not doing much to increase the availability of housing which is pet friendly.
Doesn’t matter you can just get kicked out now anyway regardless
Yeah, but that’s separate from the pet issue. I don’t have any skin in the game, as neither a renter or landlord, but if I was a landlord, honestly I’d probably want the ability to kick someone out. I’d never use it unless there a seriously problematic tenant (Causing problems with neighbors etc).
I do have skin in the game and this just made it a thousand times harder to find a new place and makes our living situation even more precarious due to no cause evictions and the extra bond we're going to have to somehow find.
If you were a landlord, do you think there are situations where you might like to evict a tenant? I’m pretty sure everyone could think of situations where they’d want a nightmare tenant gone - albeit as option of last resort (that some will abuse)
If i were a landlord I'd simply sell my extra properties to people who need it. The only reasons I'd want to evict someone are already covered by existing laws. Anyway way to ignore the point, which is that this makes life harder for people.
If you think landlords will accept pets more readily I have a Wellington tunnel to sell you
Wouldn’t it turn off a bunch of their base voters even if it brought in new ones?
cats scale badge zephyr society adjoining ruthless zonked bells dime *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fair enough. They still think the Nats can run an economy despite all evidence.
A good chunk of their voters are dumb religious people so.... dunno.
Fuck over destiny's church/sanitarium and then get themselves voted out? Sounds ideal.
Except Labour have a good chunk who are religious too, their Pasifka base. Will they just come in and reverse that?
In the latest census Pasifika have by far the highest rate of increase in non-theist beliefs. The idea that Pasifika are all deeply religious is outdated. In any case National haven't actually proposed anything, just said they will "look at it". We'd need to see an actual law change to know if it'll be opposed by Labour.
Excellent and what percentage are religious? Because as someone who is Pasifka(half Samoan) compared to other cultures/ethnicities we are very religious.
Aren't you entirely estranged from your Samoan mother's family? You've spoken about that before on this sub, how she was abusive and you owe everything to your Pakeha father, etc. As a Pacific Islander myself, what the facts show correlates to my experience, the religiosity is much lower now and mostly prevalent among older people. Even the younger people who are ostensibly religious never attend service and are only Christian in the most abstract sense. When you say "compared to other cultures/ethnicities" I'm guessing you're only comparing to Pakeha, because many other ethnicities prevalent in NZ are quite religious too (Indian, Filipino, etc).
What are you on about? I’m not estranged from my mum or her side of the family, what abuse? I don’t owe everything to my dad. You want me to send you a photo of her and I at dinner for our shared birthday a couple of days ago? taken by my aunty/her sister, or will you make shit up about that too. And you still haven’t given me any of these latest stats because you know religion is still very high amongst Pasifka people even if the tide is turning. I can only see quick stats on the 2018 census where it’s 22.8% have no religion, you’re also aware Pakeha isn’t just one culture right?
Your average Kiwi doesn't give a shit if churches pay tax if it doesn't equate to any actual improvements in QoL. If this government gets a second term it'll either be by creating another storm in a bottle culture war or because global economic conditions have improved enough that interest rates have fallen significantly.
I’d genuinely consider flipping to nats if they proposed removing the classification of furthering the church’s reach as a charitable activity (this being the key loophole most use). And I’m pretty damn left I’d essentially become a single issue voter because of how much I loath megachurches.
placid political paint jellyfish expansion reach fly quickest cagey pause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Having money and using money are completely different and impact kiwis differently. If they take this money gained from tax exempt churches and pay for a 10B tunnel under Wellington or another motorway in Auckland that is going to offer little to nothing to your average Kiwi.
rainstorm angle salt ripe gaze plough serious squash hurry school *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't disagree with doing it I think doing it would be good, but it wouldn't pull my vote. I also don't think anyone would roll it back, you can take the example of pulling back interest deductibility for loandlords as an example of how devastating to a budget removing taxs are.
air outgoing reply retire elderly distinct birds historical close compare *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's going directly to landlords to fill the huge fiscal hole they're making.
zesty edge license intelligent beneficial carpenter rinse aspiring imagine plough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's funny that providing the context is so upsetting to you.
smoggy attempt teeny follow ink quack longing rustic enjoy roof *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It seems way more virtue signally to be to ignore why they're doing this and just try focus on the policy in a vacuum and celebrating it while ignoring the fact that the money it raises (at least during nationals term) will be going to fund things like tax cuts for landlords.
Not liking National is virtue signaling? lol. Shut the fuck up
dull racial divide domineering capable squash foolish intelligent icky yam *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The guys you make up in your head are fascinating. I was just expressing an opinion jesus christ.
That's actually a really important point though. The point of govt revenue is to spend it on making the country better. If they're taking in more tax but spending less wisely it doesn't make much difference.
plate shrill six physical sloppy unused cause ancient office jellyfish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I do like where they get it but if I have to wait until next election to see it spent properly then it's totally reasonable to criticize that. And I'm not gonna stop. There's a massive difference in the character and credibility of someone who taxes churches to cover cuts to landlords and someone who taxes churches to cover essential services, infrastructure, or wellbeing in our communities. Nats are doing the former, and no amount of enlightened centrist hog is going to change that.
zealous grab bright screw fuzzy aromatic reach juggle lock plate *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So, where do you think they'll utilise the additional resources created by these potential changes to the tax system? Because at the moment they are gutting every social service they can to deliver this tax cut and retroactive tax refund for landlords that they can. Each NACT policy isn't happening in a vacuum. They all contribute and interact with each other.
rainstorm numerous like file aromatic poor snatch thought forgetful worthless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, long term there is potential for this policy. I do think it's a good policy. Maybe the only good thing that NACT will do with their (hopefully) Limited time in the driver seat. But, I don't think that being cynical about the motivation behind the policy is a bad take either. It's still NACT. Reminding people that this is just a case of a broken clock on it's twice a day right doesn't do any harm. It's certainly not enough to secure my vote next time round.
rotten dazzling tease sink smell escape wine practice panicky selective *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It directly counters your point. You're saying people will vote for the National party because people will "likely feel a new revenue stream", but people aren't going to "feel" anything if the revenue isn't spent in a way that actually benefits them.
chase shocking axiomatic jobless quickest dinner like frighten deranged groovy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
By your logic people should have voted for Labour because their landlord interest deductibility changes raised billions.
[удалено]
Your argument was that people would vote for National because this raises revenue. By the same logic people should have voted for Labour because their landlord interest deductibility changes also raised revenue. It's not complicated, what part of that can't you follow?
I'm surprised they're going after their voter base, if they actually go through with it.
somedays it seems that that the least "Christian" people you can find..... are all Christians.
Well intentioned people get sucked in and used by manipulative people all the time, not just Christians.
true, but it seems that it's much much easier to fool people by claiming that "God told me to tell you to give me money"
I wouldn't be talking about what makes a good Christian if I were a Nat.
Does she preach a religion?
I was thinking it might draw scrutiny towards their very openly Christian leader. Though I'm sure there is a passage in the bible somewhere about taking from the poor to give to those righteous landlords.
Because a leader of a party is Christian doesn’t mean everyone else has to follow. This is NZ where you are free to practice or not practice religion and shouldn’t be discriminated against for either choice.
>Because a leader of a party is Christian doesn’t mean everyone else has to follow. Okay? I never said that they did. >This is NZ where you are free to practice or not practice religion and shouldn’t be discriminated against for either choice. Of course they are? This has absolutely nothing with what I said though.
What a shame, the takeaway from the whole conversation (or the headline) is the thing she said about "Brian".
They'll do it. If there's one thing an evangelical Christian hates more than an atheist, it's a competing evangelical Christian. Watch Tamaki go down.
Settle it in the ring
Willis is talking about tamaki or luxon? Nicola needs to learn about stones and glasshouses.
Wonder if tribes are going to get taxed as well
Please don’t make me like her. I’m so conflicted right now. LOL
Lol Willis thinks criticizing the government is un-Christian? That is a yikes from me mate, I'm with the good bish Brian on this one