Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, July 5th, 2026 - 59 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361001544/damien-grant-maths-behind-tops-biggest-promise-falls-apart
Grant reckons tops numbers are woefully inaccurate
He was even having a go at a put-down. Other financial finaglers foraging ferociously for better numbers may issue competitive analyses though. Perhaps Jason Walls on One News will run his slide rule over the TOP.
I was intrigued at the notion of using AI to revise their party. Pattern recognition seems on tap via intelligent design. Only a fool wouldn't use the tool.
F is today's Letter Standard. 'Only a fool wouldn't use the tool.' Who will join the Fools performing the position of Jester* to the ruling power/s?
And dash aside the 'financial finaglers foraging ferociously' as noted by Frank.
So Labour aren't the only one allegedly missing billions.
Wonder if Willis will hold a press conference asking them (TOP) to please explain?
This is based on pay equity cost claims – National makes without providing any evidence.
National has not properly provided for the cost of government as employer for 6% Kiwi Saver payments.
someone needs to fact check Grant's piece, but hopefully now the MSM will start asking TOP more difficult questions. I look forward to seeing TOP's response, I'm not sure Grant got it right.
Grant calls the "citizens' income" a benefit. It's not. It's as much "income" as wages, salaries, profits, and everything else that is counted as income. This is based on the proposition that everyone a should receive an income from the wealth and productivity of the economy, regardless of their contribution, or lack of contribution. This economy is not just the property of those that contribute today, but a "common" built up through the knowledge, skills and efforts of our forebears.
It's a social security benefit. It is not wages or interest or salary or profit. It's a tax-free transfer from the state to every person. The only differences from a benefit are that it's tax free (some benefits are also tax free) and it side steps the current punitive welfare system.
Super is a taxed benefit.
It is paid at an amount – % of the net average wage.
Then tax is deducted from that.
Presumably this would have the effect of increasing the amount if there was a zero rate threshold up to $10,000.
all the core benefits are.
Yet only Super is adjusted upward if there are tax cuts.
Yeah and the last tax cuts delivered me an incredible $2.37 a week
I think the payment of Super and other benefits is taxed because the recipients may have other income. The PTB want all income, including benefits, to be paid on the same basis. To achieve this tax has to be deducted from benefits as well as from other income.
You are referring to Income Tax. Income tax is also paid by beneficiaries, incl superannuitants, on (some) other sources of income, eg, investments in Kiwisaver once past the age of 65. Homeowners pay rates, tho there is a partial rebate for those with lower incomes. Rental properties…….don't get me started!
And everyone pays GST every time they make a purchase, which is a regressive tax….
A benefit is based on need. A UBI is uncoditional.
PS: We don't even know whether WINZ would have anything to do with the payment of a UBI.
'regardless of their contribution, or lack of contribution.' from 1.4.
This is something missing in our political system and method that needs to be addressed. Everyone in an inclusive and honourable human system should be included in societal thinking and deserve considered, good treatment. And this achieved by dropping the primary importance of money transactions and changing to give the opportunity for each to do something to carry forward the body politic.
They would make a living partly from a money benefit for societal work according to their skills, choices and societal needs, and barter with other non-money workers to satisfy their wants and needs. They would be working, trading their personal skill somewhere, somehow to assist others and society, not in the narrow sense delineated by the money system which perceives non-earners as receiving charity and a burden on society. At a stroke of a pen, they would be great people, an asset helping society to manage and with less difficulties.
Ergo a better society at no great cost (Marilyn Waring could start us off and have some satisfaction from her thoughts being paid attention to and turned to positive use.)
No. A UBI has to be unconditional though of course people may use the freedom from paid employment that a UBI would provide, to engage in useful voluntary activities.
Ah ha. People wanting a fair system will be practically aware that society requires input to keep it going. Humans make things happen and if you want something you or someone has to do something to get it. Mikesh we need to keep our feet on the ground.
My idea is that there would be a basic income that people could manage on plus extra for doing something that they can, or wanted to do, ie wheelchair people might like to knit, conduct classes in what their specialty is, mentor learners, help with homework for students.
No-one is useless; all should be respected for the input they make. I am sick of the smarmies who despise beneficiaries and beggars. There will be growing unemployment, unreasonable demands from the smarmies with AI and the war-oriented future. Some now have mental problems but the idealist, soft-hearted pollies (or so they portray themselves), organised the sale of suitable properties where some disabled people could live and be safe, doing a modicum of work when their bodies and minds allowed.
Grant reckons…
Trump speaks…
Narrative has it, the sun also rises – if Atlas shrugs and those with most of the wealth approve.
They are.
That an ACT supporter would say this, is unsurprising. That they provide some use in our society, (so do actuaries and those presiding over the ruin of bankruptcies) is an irony.
For they do not care for society as such.
They slash lunches in schools without care for decline in well-being. They know the alienated poor are failed in education and thus in later life. Their inevitable alienation from society is managed by ACT investment in police and prisons (and the administrative costs of harsh welfare regimes). That they also love big military spending speaks to an old regime allegiance – of the class rule era.
[Grant reckons tops numbers are woefully inaccurate]
In calculating the cost of the citizens' income Grant has apparently not taken into account the fact that TOP are not planning to pay it to taxpayers earning more than $300k.
The $20,000 people make little aggregate difference
Damien Grant is of course a supporter of the status quo where the rich get richer and the homeless are queing up for a park bench to sleep on.
But he is right about TOP….wasted vote. (The Waitaki candidate for TOP is in my quiz team btw)
Wandering Greek pursues intellectual odyssey: https://unherd.com/2026/07/ai-and-the-false-consciousness-trap/
Dawkins, notoriously down on god, hereby detecting a deity in AI, essays a bridge too far for the wandering Greek. Yet anthropomorphic allegories are a typical form of culture, so his bridge of artistry between lit & science may hold up enough for a crowd of trend-followers to surge across – desperate times induce mass transcendence…
Skepchick takes down the 85 yo Dawkins, who liked to chat with Epstein, and who fell in love with Claude. He resexed Claude, because he found the ego-stroking affirmations the ai chat made of his input to be 'feminine'. He transed his ai buddy.
https://skepchick.org/2026/05/richard-dawkins-claude-delusion/
That was fun, thanks. I'll comment on the worthwhile conclusion:
That would seem to imply comfort (security) prevails over truth (reality). I wouldn't cite that as a general principle. In the old stone age when you move along a trail then a sabre-tooth tiger pounces upon you from behind a bush, you had momentary discomfort before you decease, but your reality was a meal for the big cat regardless.
Nick Rockel winds it up for a big twang!
"You’ve got:
So Winston should hardly have been surprised or angered by Andrea Vance’s article today, but perhaps it struck a bit close to the bone."
https://nickrockel.substack.com/p/basket-cases
Thanks for the info on the condensed, impacting pisstons lining up for voters' delectation, mastication and fascination of a nation that once had imagination.
It used to be one site run by Henry Makow – called Save the Males, who were at risk because the commies were using feminists (women who care about society) to destroy the old white race nation Christian order of only property owning men being allowed to vote and have career jobs.
Karl du Fresne is a notable absentee. There could be an article in asking him why.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/361036815/welcome-nz-first-manosphere-now-featuring-undead?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
On the US fascism front, the establishment seems sceptical: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/when-their-interests-align-trump-roberts-both-win-supreme-court-2026-07-04/
There's a hinge between team leader and ruler. The former is motivational via ethos, the latter rules via logos. The shifting rw pivot comes into focus here:
Centralising power is trad statism, but I bet T is using the CEO model – sensible insofar as politicos conform via obeisance to corporate thought – to align US democracy with `corps as persons' SC ideology. Roberts, on behalf of the control system, feels obliged to play T in accord with useful idiot theory. All very infotaining, oughta do it on reality tv.
Roberts gutted the Voting Rights Act – extending the orbit of gerrymandering (already a tell of a corrupted democracy.
He also led the Unitary Executive Theory (see Leonard Leo Federalist Society) having SCOTUS backing.
*POTUS head of executive
*SCOTUS regime over the courts (ending their delay on POTUS executive orders)
*Congress (corrupt elections established) retaining power over taxation
A very GOP SCOTUS (abortion rights to states)(social conservative vs DEI) checking the excesses of Trump while taking the society to a more authoritarian and less democratic future.
Recently I read a comment from a local vox pop on what people liked reading and why. One man said nonfiction because he learned things. I think he is in error about the role of fiction in showing and learning things. I've just read Anne Perry's Southampton Row on politics and its depths, and those who take an interest in politics know it has depths. She is a writer who can teach us all about imagination, keeping alert, thinking widely, supporting others who have integrity (and style), and winning your point over the odds.
Also Robert Goddard (the novelist, age 71) – this is from his 2015 web site.https://robertgoddardbooks.co.uk/
Google
and AI provides information.
Your point?
It's not so hard to find enlightenment.
My point is that by wide reading of fiction you can find enlightenment that you didn't know existed. Also fiction is a narrative referring to events and practices; the reader can follow a story and see how the facts and history affect the people or environment.
Those who only follow the known unknowns are ignoring the million other things they could know and use to solve today's problems. Perhaps that behaviour is behind the constant churn in politics where no improvement ever can be made. Are we on a mousewheel? I would like to see some new ideas that are practical and positive for all. But my experience tells me that if Labour get in and then are dismissed next election, that National will badmouth their work (ferries!). Can some one think up new ideas to go round this? This Overton window thing may be a killer for us all.
AI Search Assist: The Overton window is the range of policies and ideas considered acceptable to the mainstream public at a given time, which can shift or expand over time. It was named after policy analyst Joseph Overton and describes how politicians typically stay within this "window" to avoid appearing too extreme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
And Rumsfeld's knowns and unknowns; known from the 1960s. Have we found this enlightenment yet?
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › There_are_unknown_unknowns
And this is interesting : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remember_versus_know_judgements
Characters existing within a narrative are certainly aware of the complexity of their circumstance, bound by personal and functional (societal) relationships (as well as time and place) which form their own "Overton" window.
Historical novels are first gathering of information, then about the characters. Which is one way to learn about eras.
From non-fiction, I learned how things worked.
From fiction, I learned how other people think.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361002445/nz-first-campaign-ending-voting-rights-permanent-residents
“New Zealand First would seek to change the law so that only New Zealand citizens can vote in general and local elections if returned to government, leader Winston Peters has announced.
Speaking at a campaign meeting in Warkworth on Sunday, Peters said the party would end voting rights for permanent residents, arguing that deciding New Zealand’s future should be “the privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand”.”
Winnie really is loosing the plot. Messing with the franchise is scandalous.
I beg to differ.
Winston has finally come out promoting something I agree with. I also think that New Zealand should, like most countries we compare ourselves with, limit the right to vote to citizens of the country in National, ie Parliamentary elections. I don't think that the limitation is necessary in the local body elections though.
Opening the vote up to all permanent residents only happened in 1975 after all.
The only problem with Winston pushing it is that he forgets all the things he promised the moment the election is over.
"New Zealand First would seek to change the law so that only New Zealand citizens can vote in general and local elections if returned to government, leader Winston Peters has announced.
Speaking at a campaign meeting in Warkworth on Sunday, Peters said the party would end voting rights for permanent residents, arguing that deciding New Zealand’s future should be “the privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand”."
Insane. Peters and alwyn 🙂
Are all the people in Australia insane? You must be a citizen to vote in the federal and state elections. I lived there for about 7 years and couldn't vote in those elections and I didn't feel deprived. I had the option of taking citizenship after all.
It is a privilege and it should be limited to citizens. Insane views by Mercurio not-withstanding.
Yes, my apologies, alywn. A rush of blood and inexcusably bad manners from me. Apologies x2. 🙁
Thank you. I had been a little surprised at you saying that.
"… only happened in 1975 after all."
Seems like yesterday…
Yes you are correct "messing with the franchise is scandalous"
The current coalition has done that and more.
They have taken voting off citizens and brought in wealthy friends who will vote.
Winston sees a danger in those moves, so it is an election plank which suits his mantra
Many countries only allow citizens to vote including Australia.
You do not have to be an NZ citizen to join the Police or Army in this country. They are ok with accepting PRs. Committed enough to risk their lives defending us, but not to vote?
According to the Oz Public Service Act 1999 "A person may only be engaged in the Australian Public Service….if they are not an Australian citizen where an Agency Head has considered it appropriate to do so, in accordance with subsection 22(8) of the Public Service Act".
I agree with Peters on the right to vote in general elections to be limited to NZ citizens. Local body elections, not an issue, as you can contribute at the community level. I also agree with Australia's approach to the PS.
General elections set the future of a nation. The PS creates and informs policy. If you can't commit to citizenship, then you shouldn't get a say in the way the country's run. You still have a another bolt-hole – we don't.
Currently, there is almost no differentiation between NZ citizens and longterm permanent residents. I strongly feel there should be some sort of advantage.
Do people choose PR because they get to keep citizenship somewhere else?
There might be a few in that category. I think it is mostly laziness or not wanting to pay to do it. I know quite a few Australian residents of NZ origin who have been there for 30 or more years but who have never taken out Australian citizenship. They have no intention of coming back here to live but they just don't bother.
There are only a few countries, mostly in Asia, that make you renounce your existing citizenship if you take out the NZ one. The ones that would matter here are probably only China, India and Indonesia.
I don't mind foreign citizens having permanent residence without taking out citizenship here. I just don't think they should have the right to vote in the parliamentary elections.
We could still use a side door by the steps of parliament as late as 1988 (youth benefit protest – we ended up with Anderton in a meeting room to the north)(I had used it to deliver early evening "ministerials" back in the 70's and told the organiser how to get in – Labour had placed planks behind the doors).
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/07/05/ardern-tougher-than-public-saw-sacked-ministers-with-steel-new-book/
A distinction I feel is important, is that as a PR you may be voting primarily as a taxpayer, rather than as a citizen.
NZ has been an outlier for over half a century – bit late to flip-flop now, imho. The idea that hundreds of thousands of Kiwis who voted in previous elections could become ineligible to vote in future elections makes me uneasy, as do some of the beliefs underlying such regressive changes – the CoC's current jiggery-pokery is bad enough.
"Uncontroversial" no longer. ‘Thanks’ Winston First, for this predatory, divisive punt
It is worth noting that while Permanent Residents have voted since 1975, the current vision of NZ Citizenship only dates from 1977 (it started in 1948, but 1977 is the current legislation). Ergo, you have quite a few elderly (generally British-born) people who have been Permanent Residents for decades, but who haven't become citizens.
At least one of them can't become a citizen because the ceremony requires a public oath of allegiance to the monarchy, which they object to.
I'd prefer a permanent resident having voting rights over expat kiwis that have been out of the country for more than an election cycle
In fact NZ citizens can't vote if absent for more tham 3 years. A flying visit counts, though, so richer ex-pats benefit from that rule.
Residents only need to have lived here in the past 12 months to be eligible to vote.
Thanks twig I did not know that, maybe a 180 day minimum should apply