https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction

Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
over great times has been called into question.

Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
along the road.

Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
is a case of increased risk.

So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
rest alone.

Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>
>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>over great times has been called into question.
>
>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>along the road.
>
>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>is a case of increased risk.
>
>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>rest alone.
>
>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic signs.
Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break the
rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones permanently
30k would actually improve safety anyway.

On 3/05/2024 8:17 am, Gordon wrote:
> https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>
> Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
> previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
> over great times has been called into question.
>
> Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
> across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
> no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
> along the road.
>
> Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
> is a case of increased risk.
>
> So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
> rest alone.
>
> Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.

I would have thought NZ would have school zone speed limits like there
are in Australia.

It surprises me that this is not the case.

On Fri, 3 May 2024 12:32:56 +1000, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:

>On 3/05/2024 8:17 am, Gordon wrote:
>> https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>
>> Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>> previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>> over great times has been called into question.
>>
>> Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>> across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>> no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>> along the road.
>>
>> Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>> is a case of increased risk.
>>
>> So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>> rest alone.
>>
>> Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>
>I would have thought NZ would have school zone speed limits like there
>are in Australia.
>
>It surprises me that this is not the case.

Freedumb means being able to keep to 50 kph past a busy school as
children are going into of coming out of school. Saving 15 minutes for
some in Auckland to get to work earlier is worth spending millions on
more roads. All decisions must be made by central government, we don't
have state parliaments, and local authorities are for raising rates to
keep the top income tax rate low.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 3 May 2024 12:32:56 +1000, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:
>
>>On 3/05/2024 8:17 am, Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>
>>> Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>> previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>> over great times has been called into question.
>>>
>>> Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>> across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>>> no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>> along the road.
>>>
>>> Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>> is a case of increased risk.
>>>
>>> So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>>> rest alone.
>>>
>>> Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>
>>I would have thought NZ would have school zone speed limits like there
>>are in Australia.
>>
>>It surprises me that this is not the case.
>
>Freedumb means being able to keep to 50 kph past a busy school as
>children are going into of coming out of school. Saving 15 minutes for
>some in Auckland to get to work earlier is worth spending millions on
>more roads. All decisions must be made by central government, we don't
>have state parliaments, and local authorities are for raising rates to
>keep the top income tax rate low.
Freedom however is quite different to that nasty sarcastic response.
You really are a loser. Perhaps you should rid this country of your presence.

Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>
>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>over great times has been called into question.
>>
>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>along the road.
>>
>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>is a case of increased risk.
>>
>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>>rest alone.
>>
>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic signs.
>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break the
>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones permanently
>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
cameras.

On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>
>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>
>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>along the road.
>>>
>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>
>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>>>rest alone.
>>>
>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic signs.
>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break the
>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones permanently
>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>cameras.

In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
to go back to 50 . . . There is a camera and screen which shows
speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
.. . . . . .

On 2024-05-03, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:
> On 3/05/2024 8:17 am, Gordon wrote:
>> https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>
>> Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>> previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>> over great times has been called into question.
>>
>> Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>> across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>> no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>> along the road.
>>
>> Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>> is a case of increased risk.
>>
>> So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>> rest alone.
>>
>> Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>
> I would have thought NZ would have school zone speed limits like there
> are in Australia.
>
> It surprises me that this is not the case.

Several years ago the introduction of a lower speed limit was introduced in
NZ on a school by school basis. Some would say on a trial basis. As it was
considered worthwhile an so the schme was extended.

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>On 2024-05-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>>>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>>>along the road.
>>>>>
>>>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>>>
>>>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave
>>>>>the
>>>>>rest alone.
>>>>>
>>>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic signs.
>>>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break
>>>>the
>>>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones
>>>>permanently
>>>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>>>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>>>cameras.
>>
>> In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
>> regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
>> primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
>> normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
>> to go back to 50 . . .
>
>The point is that the whole street has been hit with the 30km/hr speed
>limit. It is this blanket speed limit which some of the public are objecting
>to.
>
>> There is a camera and screen which shows
>> speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
>> reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
>> Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
>> . . . . . .
>
>The Government has no proposal to tax the top tax rate.
>
>https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
>From the above link
>
>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled
>out
>removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic
>pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under $78,100.
>National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
>
>National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
>Tax Threshold Adjustments
>Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
>$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
>$48,000 $53,500 30%
>$70,000 $78,100 33%
>
>Unquote
>
>One more time
>
>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place"
Good try Gordon, but Rich will not read anything he does not want to be true.

On 2024-05-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>
>>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>>along the road.
>>>>
>>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>>
>>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>>>>rest alone.
>>>>
>>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic signs.
>>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break the
>>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones permanently
>>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>>cameras.
>
> In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
> regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
> primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
> normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
> to go back to 50 . . .

The point is that the whole street has been hit with the 30km/hr speed
limit. It is this blanket speed limit which some of the public are objecting
to.

> There is a camera and screen which shows
> speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
> reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
> Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
> . . . . . .

The Government has no proposal to tax the top tax rate.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
From the above link

"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled out
removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic
pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under $78,100.
National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:

National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
Tax Threshold Adjustments
Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
$48,000 $53,500 30%
$70,000 $78,100 33%

Unquote

One more time

"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place"

On 4 May 2024 00:35:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

>On 2024-05-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>>>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>>>along the road.
>>>>>
>>>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>>>
>>>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>>>>>rest alone.
>>>>>
>>>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic signs.
>>>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break the
>>>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones permanently
>>>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>>>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>>>cameras.
>>
>> In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
>> regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
>> primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
>> normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
>> to go back to 50 . . .
>
>The point is that the whole street has been hit with the 30km/hr speed
>limit. It is this blanket speed limit which some of the public are objecting
>to.
It is only a short length of the street that is affected, past some
shops which have a pedestrian crossing and a bus stop, then a narrow
short stretch of road then the school. Most of the street remains at
50; it has made negligible difference to travel times and no
complaints that I am aware of.

>
>> There is a camera and screen which shows
>> speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
>> reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
>> Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
>> . . . . . .
>
>The Government has no proposal to tax the top tax rate.
>
>https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
>From the above link
>
>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled out
>removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic
>pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under $78,100.
>National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
>
>National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
>Tax Threshold Adjustments
>Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
>$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
>$48,000 $53,500 30%
>$70,000 $78,100 33%
>
>Unquote
>
>One more time
>
>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place"

Sorry yes you are correct. The maximum benefit from those increases
will of course go to the most wealthy, and of those landlords have
already received very significant tax reductions, as well as other
'benefits' still to come. It does appear that the government is having
trouble affording their tax cut programme however, even after moving
costs of clean water from government to Councils and a lot of other
cost increases. The high priority was to benefit landlords and that
has been done - while the rate of building houses slows, some state
house projects have been paused or stopped, and some building
companies are going out of business . . . Not quite the track their
supporters (other than landlords) expected.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 4 May 2024 00:35:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-05-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>>>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>>>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>>>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>>>>along the road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>>>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>rest alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic
>>>>>signs.
>>>>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break
>>>>>the
>>>>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones
>>>>>permanently
>>>>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>>>>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>>>>cameras.
>>>
>>> In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
>>> regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
>>> primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
>>> normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
>>> to go back to 50 . . .
>>
>>The point is that the whole street has been hit with the 30km/hr speed
>>limit. It is this blanket speed limit which some of the public are objecting
>>to.
>It is only a short length of the street that is affected, past some
>shops which have a pedestrian crossing and a bus stop, then a narrow
>short stretch of road then the school. Most of the street remains at
>50; it has made negligible difference to travel times and no
>complaints that I am aware of.
In that case your argument is fatuous. Why did you raise it if it is only a
short length of the street? It was a completely illogical argument.
Gordon was correct.
>
>>
>>> There is a camera and screen which shows
>>> speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
>>> reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
>>> Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
>>> . . . . . .
>>
>>The Government has no proposal to tax the top tax rate.
>>
>>https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
>>From the above link
>>
>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled
>>out
>>removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic
>>pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under $78,100.
>>National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
>>
>>National�s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
>>Tax Threshold Adjustments
>>Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
>>$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
>>$48,000 $53,500 30%
>>$70,000 $78,100 33%
>>
>>Unquote
>>
>>One more time
>>
>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place"
>
>Sorry yes you are correct. The maximum benefit from those increases
>will of course go to the most wealthy,
How do you show that?
> and of those landlords have
>already received very significant tax reductions
Which has increased the likelihood of rental availability.
>, as well as other
>'benefits' still to come. It does appear that the government is having
>trouble affording their tax cut programme however, even after moving
>costs of clean water from government to Councils and a lot of other
>cost increases. The high priority was to benefit landlords and that
>has been done - while the rate of building houses slows, some state
>house projects have been paused or stopped, and some building
>companies are going out of business
They are still suffering from 3 years of Labour incopetency, that has been
going on for at least 2 or 3 years.
> . . . Not quite the track their
>supporters (other than landlords) expected.

On Sat, 4 May 2024 04:03:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 4 May 2024 00:35:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2024-05-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>>>>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>>>>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>>>>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>>>>>along the road.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>>>>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>rest alone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>>>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic
>>>>>>signs.
>>>>>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones
>>>>>>permanently
>>>>>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>>>>>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>>>>>cameras.
>>>>
>>>> In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
>>>> regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
>>>> primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
>>>> normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
>>>> to go back to 50 . . .
>>>
>>>The point is that the whole street has been hit with the 30km/hr speed
>>>limit. It is this blanket speed limit which some of the public are objecting
>>>to.
>>It is only a short length of the street that is affected, past some
>>shops which have a pedestrian crossing and a bus stop, then a narrow
>>short stretch of road then the school. Most of the street remains at
>>50; it has made negligible difference to travel times and no
>>complaints that I am aware of.
>In that case your argument is fatuous. Why did you raise it if it is only a
>short length of the street? It was a completely illogical argument.
>Gordon was correct.

It is an example that demonstrates that it was not a blanket speed
limit everywhere - it is possible to have limits which fit the
situation. Nobody wants limits that change too frequently, but limits
should fit each situation - ACT1stNat imposing blanket limits without
local input is the problem

>>
>>>
>>>> There is a camera and screen which shows
>>>> speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
>>>> reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
>>>> Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
>>>> . . . . . .
>>>
>>>The Government has no proposal to tax the top tax rate.
>>>
>>>https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
>>>From the above link
>>>
>>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled
>>>out
>>>removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic
>>>pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
>>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under $78,100.
>>>National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
>>>
>>>National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
>>>Tax Threshold Adjustments
>>>Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
>>>$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
>>>$48,000 $53,500 30%
>>>$70,000 $78,100 33%
>>>
>>>Unquote
>>>
>>>One more time
>>>
>>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place"
>>
>>Sorry yes you are correct. The maximum benefit from those increases
>>will of course go to the most wealthy,
>How do you show that?
>> and of those landlords have
>>already received very significant tax reductions
>Which has increased the likelihood of rental availability.
>>, as well as other
>>'benefits' still to come. It does appear that the government is having
>>trouble affording their tax cut programme however, even after moving
>>costs of clean water from government to Councils and a lot of other
>>cost increases. The high priority was to benefit landlords and that
>>has been done - while the rate of building houses slows, some state
>>house projects have been paused or stopped, and some building
>>companies are going out of business
>They are still suffering from 3 years of Labour incopetency, that has been
>going on for at least 2 or 3 years.
You haven't shown that, but I accept that you think that if Luxon has
said something more than once it must be true . . .
>> . . . Not quite the track their
>>supporters (other than landlords) expected.

I gather that the government is now being told that in accordance with
standards, they will have to book in government accounts the liability
for payments through New Zealand not meeting emission targets- with
the new government, the chance of meeting the targets is lower, and
the debt is also more likely to be required to be paid in the now
shorter period until the first payments are due. The Atlas parties are
clearly heading us down the wrong track.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 4 May 2024 04:03:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 4 May 2024 00:35:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2024-05-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested.
>>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a
>>>>>>>>dash
>>>>>>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However
>>>>>>>>there
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>>>>>>along the road.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then
>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and
>>>>>>>>leave
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>rest alone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>>>>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic
>>>>>>>signs.
>>>>>>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones
>>>>>>>permanently
>>>>>>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>>>>>>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>>>>>>cameras.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
>>>>> regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
>>>>> primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
>>>>> normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
>>>>> to go back to 50 . . .
>>>>
>>>>The point is that the whole street has been hit with the 30km/hr speed
>>>>limit. It is this blanket speed limit which some of the public are objecting
>>>>to.
>>>It is only a short length of the street that is affected, past some
>>>shops which have a pedestrian crossing and a bus stop, then a narrow
>>>short stretch of road then the school. Most of the street remains at
>>>50; it has made negligible difference to travel times and no
>>>complaints that I am aware of.
>>In that case your argument is fatuous. Why did you raise it if it is only a
>>short length of the street? It was a completely illogical argument.
>>Gordon was correct.
>
>It is an example that demonstrates that it was not a blanket speed
>limit everywhere - it is possible to have limits which fit the
>situation. Nobody wants limits that change too frequently, but limits
>should fit each situation - ACT1stNat imposing blanket limits without
>local input is the problem
Bullshit. Labour was the idiot government that wanted them to be permanent.
National want it to be flexible. Making them permanent is unnecessary and
typical left wing autocracy.You really are dense.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There is a camera and screen which shows
>>>>> speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
>>>>> reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
>>>>> Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
>>>>> . . . . . .
>>>>
>>>>The Government has no proposal to tax the top tax rate.
>>>>
>>>>https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
>>>>From the above link
>>>>
>>>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled
>>>>out
>>>>removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic
>>>>pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
>>>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under
>>>>$78,100.
>>>>National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
>>>>
>>>>National�s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
>>>>Tax Threshold Adjustments
>>>>Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
>>>>$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
>>>>$48,000 $53,500 30%
>>>>$70,000 $78,100 33%
>>>>
>>>>Unquote
>>>>
>>>>One more time
>>>>
>>>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place"
>>>
>>>Sorry yes you are correct. The maximum benefit from those increases
>>>will of course go to the most wealthy,
>>How do you show that?
>>> and of those landlords have
>>>already received very significant tax reductions
>>Which has increased the likelihood of rental availability.
>>>, as well as other
>>>'benefits' still to come. It does appear that the government is having
>>>trouble affording their tax cut programme however, even after moving
>>>costs of clean water from government to Councils and a lot of other
>>>cost increases. The high priority was to benefit landlords and that
>>>has been done - while the rate of building houses slows, some state
>>>house projects have been paused or stopped, and some building
>>>companies are going out of business
>>They are still suffering from 3 years of Labour incopetency, that has been
>>going on for at least 2 or 3 years.
>You haven't shown that, but I accept that you think that if Luxon has
>said something more than once it must be true . . .
>>> . . . Not quite the track their
>>>supporters (other than landlords) expected.
>
>I gather that the government is now being told that in accordance with
>standards, they will have to book in government accounts the liability
>for payments through New Zealand not meeting emission targets- with
>the new government, the chance of meeting the targets is lower, and
>the debt is also more likely to be required to be paid in the now
>shorter period until the first payments are due. The Atlas parties are
>clearly heading us down the wrong track.
You "gather" cite please.
The rest of that is supposition and silly supposition at that.

On Sat, 4 May 2024 06:38:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 4 May 2024 04:03:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 4 May 2024 00:35:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2024-05-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested.
>>>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a
>>>>>>>>>dash
>>>>>>>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However
>>>>>>>>>there
>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>>>>>>>along the road.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then
>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and
>>>>>>>>>leave
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>rest alone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>>>>>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic
>>>>>>>>signs.
>>>>>>>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they break
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones
>>>>>>>>permanently
>>>>>>>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>>>>>>>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>>>>>>>cameras.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
>>>>>> regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
>>>>>> primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
>>>>>> normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
>>>>>> to go back to 50 . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is that the whole street has been hit with the 30km/hr speed
>>>>>limit. It is this blanket speed limit which some of the public are objecting
>>>>>to.
>>>>It is only a short length of the street that is affected, past some
>>>>shops which have a pedestrian crossing and a bus stop, then a narrow
>>>>short stretch of road then the school. Most of the street remains at
>>>>50; it has made negligible difference to travel times and no
>>>>complaints that I am aware of.
>>>In that case your argument is fatuous. Why did you raise it if it is only a
>>>short length of the street? It was a completely illogical argument.
>>>Gordon was correct.
>>
>>It is an example that demonstrates that it was not a blanket speed
>>limit everywhere - it is possible to have limits which fit the
>>situation. Nobody wants limits that change too frequently, but limits
>>should fit each situation - ACT1stNat imposing blanket limits without
>>local input is the problem
>Bullshit. Labour was the idiot government that wanted them to be permanent.
>National want it to be flexible. Making them permanent is unnecessary and
>typical left wing autocracy.You really are dense.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a camera and screen which shows
>>>>>> speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
>>>>>> reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
>>>>>> Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
>>>>>> . . . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>The Government has no proposal to tax the top tax rate.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
>>>>>From the above link
>>>>>
>>>>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled
>>>>>out
>>>>>removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic
>>>>>pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
>>>>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under
>>>>>$78,100.
>>>>>National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
>>>>>
>>>>>National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
>>>>>Tax Threshold Adjustments
>>>>>Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
>>>>>$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
>>>>>$48,000 $53,500 30%
>>>>>$70,000 $78,100 33%
>>>>>
>>>>>Unquote
>>>>>
>>>>>One more time
>>>>>
>>>>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place"
>>>>
>>>>Sorry yes you are correct. The maximum benefit from those increases
>>>>will of course go to the most wealthy,
>>>How do you show that?
>>>> and of those landlords have
>>>>already received very significant tax reductions
>>>Which has increased the likelihood of rental availability.
>>>>, as well as other
>>>>'benefits' still to come. It does appear that the government is having
>>>>trouble affording their tax cut programme however, even after moving
>>>>costs of clean water from government to Councils and a lot of other
>>>>cost increases. The high priority was to benefit landlords and that
>>>>has been done - while the rate of building houses slows, some state
>>>>house projects have been paused or stopped, and some building
>>>>companies are going out of business
>>>They are still suffering from 3 years of Labour incopetency, that has been
>>>going on for at least 2 or 3 years.
>>You haven't shown that, but I accept that you think that if Luxon has
>>said something more than once it must be true . . .
>>>> . . . Not quite the track their
>>>>supporters (other than landlords) expected.
>>
>>I gather that the government is now being told that in accordance with
>>standards, they will have to book in government accounts the liability
>>for payments through New Zealand not meeting emission targets- with
>>the new government, the chance of meeting the targets is lower, and
>>the debt is also more likely to be required to be paid in the now
>>shorter period until the first payments are due. The Atlas parties are
>>clearly heading us down the wrong track.
>You "gather" cite please.
>The rest of that is supposition and silly supposition at that.
RNZ this morning.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 4 May 2024 06:38:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 4 May 2024 04:03:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 4 May 2024 00:35:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2024-05-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 03 May 2024 15:40:11 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being
>>>>>>>>>>suggested.
>>>>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>>>>previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great
>>>>>>>>>>areas
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>over great times has been called into question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a
>>>>>>>>>>dash
>>>>>>>>>>across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However
>>>>>>>>>>there
>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as
>>>>>>>>>>miles
>>>>>>>>>>along the road.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and
>>>>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>>is a case of increased risk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and
>>>>>>>>>>leave
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>rest alone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>>>>>>>Where I live the limit changes to 30k as necessary using el;ectronic
>>>>>>>>>signs.
>>>>>>>>>Works well, no reasonable person will complain about that, if they
>>>>>>>>>break
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>rule then they deserve the fine. I can't see how making the zones
>>>>>>>>>permanently
>>>>>>>>>30k would actually improve safety anyway.
>>>>>>>>It won't . It will just be a cash cow fore the police speed
>>>>>>>>cameras.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the right places, they are supported by local residents. I
>>>>>>> regularly go through a fairly congested small shopping area with a
>>>>>>> primary school where traffic at critical hours for the school was
>>>>>>> normally around 30 kph anyway - but the local Nats are pushing for it
>>>>>>> to go back to 50 . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The point is that the whole street has been hit with the 30km/hr speed
>>>>>>limit. It is this blanket speed limit which some of the public are
>>>>>>objecting
>>>>>>to.
>>>>>It is only a short length of the street that is affected, past some
>>>>>shops which have a pedestrian crossing and a bus stop, then a narrow
>>>>>short stretch of road then the school. Most of the street remains at
>>>>>50; it has made negligible difference to travel times and no
>>>>>complaints that I am aware of.
>>>>In that case your argument is fatuous. Why did you raise it if it is only a
>>>>short length of the street? It was a completely illogical argument.
>>>>Gordon was correct.
>>>
>>>It is an example that demonstrates that it was not a blanket speed
>>>limit everywhere - it is possible to have limits which fit the
>>>situation. Nobody wants limits that change too frequently, but limits
>>>should fit each situation - ACT1stNat imposing blanket limits without
>>>local input is the problem
>>Bullshit. Labour was the idiot government that wanted them to be permanent.
>>National want it to be flexible. Making them permanent is unnecessary and
>>typical left wing autocracy.You really are dense.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a camera and screen which shows
>>>>>>> speed of incoming traffic but there is no need for a speed camera; the
>>>>>>> reminder is enough, but you may be right, Mutley, apparently the
>>>>>>> Government still needs more money to justify cutting the top tax rate
>>>>>>> . . . . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Government has no proposal to tax the top tax rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
>>>>>>From the above link
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has
>>>>>>ruled
>>>>>>out
>>>>>>removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and
>>>>>>economic
>>>>>>pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
>>>>>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under
>>>>>>$78,100.
>>>>>>National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>National�s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
>>>>>>Tax Threshold Adjustments
>>>>>>Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
>>>>>>$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
>>>>>>$48,000 $53,500 30%
>>>>>>$70,000 $78,100 33%
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unquote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One more time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place"
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry yes you are correct. The maximum benefit from those increases
>>>>>will of course go to the most wealthy,
>>>>How do you show that?
>>>>> and of those landlords have
>>>>>already received very significant tax reductions
>>>>Which has increased the likelihood of rental availability.
>>>>>, as well as other
>>>>>'benefits' still to come. It does appear that the government is having
>>>>>trouble affording their tax cut programme however, even after moving
>>>>>costs of clean water from government to Councils and a lot of other
>>>>>cost increases. The high priority was to benefit landlords and that
>>>>>has been done - while the rate of building houses slows, some state
>>>>>house projects have been paused or stopped, and some building
>>>>>companies are going out of business
>>>>They are still suffering from 3 years of Labour incopetency, that has been
>>>>going on for at least 2 or 3 years.
>>>You haven't shown that, but I accept that you think that if Luxon has
>>>said something more than once it must be true . . .
>>>>> . . . Not quite the track their
>>>>>supporters (other than landlords) expected.
>>>
>>>I gather that the government is now being told that in accordance with
>>>standards, they will have to book in government accounts the liability
>>>for payments through New Zealand not meeting emission targets- with
>>>the new government, the chance of meeting the targets is lower, and
>>>the debt is also more likely to be required to be paid in the now
>>>shorter period until the first payments are due. The Atlas parties are
>>>clearly heading us down the wrong track.
>>You "gather" cite please.
>>The rest of that is supposition and silly supposition at that.
>RNZ this morning.
That is not a cite. Provide evidence, you know a link or something real.

On 3/05/2024 1:33 pm, Tony wrote:
> Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 May 2024 12:32:56 +1000, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/05/2024 8:17 am, Gordon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>
>>>> Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>>> previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>>> over great times has been called into question.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>>> across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there is
>>>> no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>> along the road.
>>>>
>>>> Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>>> is a case of increased risk.
>>>>
>>>> So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave the
>>>> rest alone.
>>>>
>>>> Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>
>>> I would have thought NZ would have school zone speed limits like there
>>> are in Australia.
>>>
>>> It surprises me that this is not the case.
>>
>> Freedumb means being able to keep to 50 kph past a busy school as
>> children are going into of coming out of school. Saving 15 minutes for
>> some in Auckland to get to work earlier is worth spending millions on
>> more roads. All decisions must be made by central government, we don't
>> have state parliaments, and local authorities are for raising rates to
>> keep the top income tax rate low.
> Freedom however is quite different to that nasty sarcastic response.
> You really are a loser. Perhaps you should rid this country of your presence.

That is not really a nice thing to say. I thought you New Zealanders
were nicer people.

Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:
>On 3/05/2024 1:33 pm, Tony wrote:
>> Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 May 2024 12:32:56 +1000, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/05/2024 8:17 am, Gordon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350265669/full-speed-reversing-blanket-approach-speed-reduction
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a case of where common sense,a compromise, is being suggested. The
>>>>> previous Governments 30km/hr speed zones being placed over great areas and
>>>>> over great times has been called into question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, things get busy around schools twice a day and children can do a dash
>>>>> across the road, so lets have the school zone speed limit. However there
>>>>>is
>>>>> no need to have the limit on all day and 24hrs per day as well as miles
>>>>> along the road.
>>>>>
>>>>> Motorists will just ignore the speed limits, or get frustrated and then it
>>>>> is a case of increased risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> So good to read the Minster is sgoing to target the risk areas and leave
>>>>>the
>>>>> rest alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still on the bright side the revenue gathering must be a plus.
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought NZ would have school zone speed limits like there
>>>> are in Australia.
>>>>
>>>> It surprises me that this is not the case.
>>>
>>> Freedumb means being able to keep to 50 kph past a busy school as
>>> children are going into of coming out of school. Saving 15 minutes for
>>> some in Auckland to get to work earlier is worth spending millions on
>>> more roads. All decisions must be made by central government, we don't
>>> have state parliaments, and local authorities are for raising rates to
>>> keep the top income tax rate low.
>> Freedom however is quite different to that nasty sarcastic response.
>> You really are a loser. Perhaps you should rid this country of your presence.
>
>That is not really a nice thing to say. I thought you New Zealanders
>were nicer people.
If you have been reading here you will have noticed that the fool I responded
to hates New Zealand and New Zealanders, he does all he can to damage the
country and subjugate the people. If he left it would be a day for us to
celebrate. I hope he does not go to Australia, you don't deserve that.