The welfare state

[scissorhands]

Didnt the numpty say "leave it to the experts?":killingme

[BoristheBiter]

Aren't you a nice person? I take it you know Mr Sable, then, or are you just assuming that because he's on a benefit he's worthless?
Ah, clearly you must know him to be able to make a comment like that. Otherwise you'd just be a bigoted git....
Sheesh! You must know him well - you even know what he's thinking!
No?
Ahem. I do believe he did, this being the point of his anecdote about Bunnings. Y'know, he tried to get a job, like you and others keep saying these filthy bennies should do. So how about a little support and encouragement? Kinda like The Stranger's punishment-and-reward model of taxation - perhaps you might see the relative benefit of helping a battling bene, and the total worthlessness of the more typical slag-and-bash fest (to anyone except you, and other insecure people, that is). People tend to do ore of what they get rewarded for. Just a thought.

Oh, and it's "you're", by the way. As in "all you're worth", or "You're part of the problem". It is short for "you are". Your is possessive, like as in "your meanness of spirit is disappointing"..

Yep I am a nice person, I just don't like people who 1) cry about how poorly they have it on the dole, 2) Cry about not getting a job for some reason that may or not be true and 3) have a dig at someone just because the have worked hard.

People need to stop thinking they should be rewarded for doing nothing. Just a thought, but that is where society is today, want everything and get someone else to pay, and most are just plain scared of doing some hard work.

And 4) spelling Nazis.

[rainman]

Hmm, you seem hell bent on making this about Labour and National ACT.

Not at all - was just countering your jab about how Labour pollies keep their jobs.



what I would do would be to create many additional jobs

Excellent, I agree with that wholeheartedly. The argument against "dole bludgers" is pretty hard if there are clearly too few jobs. When we have lots of opportunity, then there is little excuse for not working (excluding disability etc) and the issues gets to be clearer.


It's quite simple. Get rid of company tax and increase income tax across the board and GST to 20% to recover the lost income tax take.

OK let's see. I'm basing this off 2009 numbers as that's what's easily available, so some reality distortion may occur, but:
- you want to take the roughly $9b company tax and pass it to consumers instead
- you would compensate for this by raising GST 5% (which ceteris paribus would only raise about half of the $9b, btw, so you'd have to up personal tax or cut $4b spending somehow - about the same size as the secondary and tertiary ed sectors, or the total of DPB+UB+ accommodation allowances, just to give you an idea)

Now (in 2009), companies made $569b in revenue, claimed $533b in expenses, and paid $9.8b in tax on the resulting $36b EBIT. (6.3% return on revenue on average?) Meaning they paid, on average, tax at 27%. I'm excluding GST as it just washes through.
Households, on the other hand, paid 36.5% on income only, and 49% if you include their share of GST, which doesn't wash anywhere but back to government.

Who're the bludgers, here, really?

So in your scenario, households would get hit with a lift in total tax take % to 61.5%, including your GST to 20%. Can't be bothered to work out what that would do to the top tax rate but it would be positively Scandinavian. No-one could run on that platform and win. (It sounds a lot like ACT policy, now that I mention it...)

To equalise tax take % between business and household you'd have to make both 42%, btw. Meaning an increase of $5b for the busniess sector (offset against the households, of course).


But let's look at that.
Under the present system my company sells you KFC. Who pays the tax?
That's right you guessed it, you do right. My company only collects it, processes it and passes it on to the government. So hello, you're paying the tax now, like it or not. Not the company.

True for GST, but companies pay tax on their earnings, although at a disproportionally low rate.


Now that I'm making big fat profits what do I do with the money my business makes?

Send it overseas?



Can you imagine the downward pressure on employment and upward pressure on wages under such a scenario?

No, I can see both going down, just like Jim says below.


Oh and The maxim "the more you tax something, the less of it you get. The more you subsidies something the more of it you get." refers quite simply to the fact that we tax the rich and subsidise the poor. In doing so, we get fewer rich and more poor.
If we continue to do so over a long period it becomes unsustainable. It really is that simple.


Tell ya what, let's not make you Finance Minister, eh? :)


That will drive wages down. Employment stats will improve but your plan will simply accelerate NZ's downward spiral into a cheap source of skilled labour.

Wot 'e sed.

Even Paul Holmes in the Herald today says:
'my former colleague John Pagani told me on the radio last weekend, everyone trawls the orchard of welfare to try to reduce the bill, but they all find that "there are no low-hanging fruit."'
'In other words, it's pretty much a hopeless cause trying to reform and reduce welfare.'

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10731487

[Ocean1]

Umm OK, you really can't see what will happen there? That will drive wages down. Employment stats will improve but your plan will simply accelerate NZ's downward spiral into a cheap source of skilled labour.

Why? What's the factor driving that?

[Ocean1]

To equalise tax take % between business and household you'd have to make both 42%, btw. Meaning an increase of $5b for the busniess sector (offset against the households, of course).

You failed to address the effect of initial cheaper product / services.

And why there should be “equality” in tax harvested from commercial entities vs. individuals. The “advantages” each gain from the “deal” are almost completely unrelated.

There’s another difference between businesses and households. If you tax business beyond a certain point they simply go away, the resources that formed them just either perish or go somewhere else. Conversely; if you tax them less, it stays, they proliferate. Unfortunately taxes that fund the cost of government services aren't often regulated by affordability. If you applied the same Darwinian imperatives to social support systems there’d be a bunch less of them dependant on the efforts of others I promise you. But we don’t.

Nor should we. But then neither can we afford to support too many for too long, the burden on other tax payers drags more of those on the fringe into the same trap. It’s become a self-perpetuating death-wish for any viable self-perpetuating creative economic nation we might otherwise hope to be.



Send it overseas?

So encourage local investment in the local economy. Let's just completely reverse the complete national current policy set affecting local investment markets, eh? that should come close to it. And while that's taking time to have some effect let's tax it less here than it would be off shore eh? then we'll see how much of it fucks off to be spent overseas.


Tell ya what, let's not make you Finance Minister, eh?

I think a finance minister that understood Stranger’s maxim would be a vast improvement on one that fails even to understand the necessity of spending less than one earns.

[rainman]

You failed to address the effect of initial cheaper product / services.

Indeed, because it would be dwarfed by the massive increase in taxes required to retain something even vaguely looking like today's society. Also when business costs decrease, prices often don't at quite the same rate.


And why there should be “equality” in tax harvested from commercial entities vs. individuals.

Not saying there should be, just highlighting the existing (maybe necessary) imbalance, and calling into question the popular "oh noes, businesses are so overtaxed and they are the atlases upon whose shoulders our very existence is based" bullshit. It's a partnership - you need both business and labour for a good society. And both need a fair deal.


If you tax business beyond a certain point they simply go away

To a degree, but it isn't quite so cartoonish. I formed a business in a place where company tax was 50%, as did many, and did very nicely thank you. This was higher than the highest personal tax rate at the time, too. And faced with the same circumstances I'd do it again today - tax is not the only consideration a grown-up should take into consideration when making life decisions.


neither can we afford to support too many for too long

Agree entirely. The bugger is that in reality there is very little that can be done to fix this easily. I suspect we're at least a generation away from starting to fix this, or that future hard times will just fix it for us, one way or another. We can't afford today, tomorrow - the game is not "who pays?", but "who pays first?".


Let's just completely reverse the complete national current policy set affecting local investment markets, eh?... let's tax it less here than it would be off shore eh?

Not sure what policy set you mean specifically, but it's a bit off topic anyway. Punitive tax for profits shipped offshore could be good - but difficult to do, and quite possibly illegal by WTO rules or similar - although would kill any benefits to the suggested zero tax rates of course. The reason overseas people would invest here is low costs (labour, taxes, etc) for decent skills and resources, so that they can get a return. Since they are overseas businesses, that means they want to export said return, not leave it here because they like us, FFS.


I think a finance minister that understood Stranger’s maxim would be a vast improvement on one that fails even to understand the necessity of spending less than one earns.

I agree we shouldn't have a deficit, long term. But gummint debt is pretty low, so maybe it's not the Finance Minister that should be spending less. Anyway, back to social welfare.... how to create jobs? Here's my 2c: we can't, in any meaningful sense. We foreclosed that option (and much more) when we sold everything not nailed down and completely opened our markets. One of the greatest ironies is that an arch-libertarian like Roger D actually implemented policy that reduced our freedom and increased our dependence. Which only confirms my prejudice that many righties are a bit fick when it comes to money...

[The Stranger]

Umm OK, you really can't see what will happen there? That will drive wages down. Employment stats will improve but your plan will simply accelerate NZ's downward spiral into a cheap source of skilled labour.

Not sure of the mechanism you expect to see here Jim. Would you care to elucidate please?
By and large when say a big foreign national goes into a country and sets up sweat shops it is because cheap labour already exists there. They utilise third world rates to their advantage, they don't create them. In fact they often raise the standard of living considerably, going form say $1.00 a day to $2.00 a day.

Supply and demand is the key driver of wages. Come back to this thread in 2 years and tell me what's going on in Christchurch for tradesmen.
Skills are secondary to supply and demand. Good skills will only net you better income than the guy without skills. Look at India. High supply of labour and America outsource their progamming to India. Indian programmers get a pittance (at least did not so long ago). Not because they are unskilled, but simply because the supply is so high.

What I an talking about is increasing demand.

I must admit, I had started selling widgets, but changed it to KFC and threw in the foreign company issue hoping someone would raise another obvious issue here. Perhaps that is what you are driving at, but I would appreciate your take on how this scenario would spiral into a cheap source of skilled labour.

[The Stranger]

Didnt the numpty say "leave it to the experts?":killingme

Yes indeed you did say that, but why you insist on referring to yourself in the third person is beyond me.

I (initially) declined to answer a question which you placed your interpretation on you may recall. But somehow I doubt you really can actually recall much at all.

[jrandom]

Indian programmers get a pittance (at least did not so long ago). Not because they are unskilled...

Trust me. They're unskilled.

Obviously the occasional exceptions (usually those who've gapped it ASAP to work in Western countries) prove the rule, but, yeah.

[The Stranger]

OK let's see. I'm basing this off 2009 numbers as that's what's easily available, so some reality distortion may occur, but:
- you want to take the roughly $9b company tax and pass it to consumers instead
- you would compensate for this by raising GST 5% (which ceteris paribus would only raise about half of the $9b, btw, so you'd have to up personal tax or cut $4b spending somehow - about the same size as the secondary and tertiary ed sectors, or the total of DPB+UB+ accommodation allowances, just to give you an idea)

Now (in 2009), companies made $569b in revenue, claimed $533b in expenses, and paid $9.8b in tax on the resulting $36b EBIT. (6.3% return on revenue on average?) Meaning they paid, on average, tax at 27%. I'm excluding GST as it just washes through.
Households, on the other hand, paid 36.5% on income only, and 49% if you include their share of GST, which doesn't wash anywhere but back to government.

Who're the bludgers, here, really?


Ah, I think you are missing something here.
YOU (the poor of this fine land) paid ALL of the tax in 2009 anyway.
Come on, do you think the companies printed the money?
NO, they collected it from you.

Now sure that is not entirely true (what about exporters, they eraned money that you didn't pay AND if their tax rate was actually zero they would then face arbitrary tarrifs on the other end) and to be honest part of the reason for my reluctance to answer in the first place as there are many exceptions at every twist and turn, but look at it in broad principals and it works. Yes the devil is in the detail, and I'm fucked if I'm writing a book to cover it all off. So again, look at it in broad principals.

Besides, as noted a straight reduction to zero would be silly.
In reality it would never reach zero. It need only reach a level where there is very low unemployment and may well be 20 or 25%.

Yes it does sound like ACT doesn't it. In my defence I put this to a young budding political candidate one evening over dinner at a resturant in Epson (no not Rodney) well prior to ACT's inception. He liked the idea, but favoured a tax break for additional employment. Interesting chap too, had a great way of looking at things - he was soo far outside the square it wasn't even a geometrical shape any more. But regardless of that - I'm absolutely positive I'm neither the first nor the only one to ever arrive at these conclusions on their own and I'm sure ACT aren't either.

[The Stranger]

Trust me. They're unskilled.

Obviously the occasional exceptions (usually those who've gapped it ASAP to work in Western countries) prove the rule, but, yeah.

Well, given the crap that comes out of America that has been written in India I guess you are onto something there. Yet, I have had very satisfactory results with software purchased direct from India.

[jrandom]

Yet, I have had very satisfactory results with software purchased direct from India.

Well, given that the size of my personal-experience sample is very much not statistically significant, for all I know, India could well be 99.93% populated with coding geniuses.

Either way, to be honest, let's face it - regardless of how many of us witter on about our socioeconomic theories on the internet, New Zealand is going to stay a woodchip-and-milk-powder based economy, and India is going to stay a...

... what is India's economy based on, anyway?

Has it ever had one, as such? Or does it just sort of generally muddle along?

Quite frankly, most of my impressions of India were formed reading Rudyard Kipling's Kim and W. Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge, and subsequently modified by maddeningly dense Indian programmers. I'm not sure whether any of that has much bearing on the general reality of the place.

[Ocean1]

Indeed, because it would be dwarfed by the massive increase in taxes required to retain something even vaguely looking like today's society. Also when business costs decrease, prices often don't at quite the same rate.

Knocking a third off the purchase price of everything isn't beneficial to the economy? Adding the difference to wages and then taxing accordingly is a bad idea?

Not saying there should be, just highlighting the existing (maybe necessary) imbalance, and calling into question the popular "oh noes, businesses are so overtaxed and they are the atlases upon whose shoulders our very existence is based" bullshit. It's a partnership - you need both business and labour for a good society. And both need a fair deal.

Fair? How's fair relevant? My point was in reference to that maxim, make good shit easy to do, make negative return behaviour difficult. When (and if) business is easier to do here then results will improve and we can better afford occasional discrepencies in the work output / return continium. In the meantime consider lowering the minimum wage, so, y'know there's work for those who otherwise aren't worth employing. That's fair.

To a degree, but it isn't quite so cartoonish. I formed a business in a place where company tax was 50%, as did many, and did very nicely thank you. This was higher than the highest personal tax rate at the time, too. And faced with the same circumstances I'd do it again today - tax is not the only consideration a grown-up should take into consideration when making life decisions.

I'm an engineer. I like cartoons. And I don't do "grown up". I do know about cause / effect, though. My current business IS my labour. If I have a bad month I don't get paid. That's fair innit? The various mechanisms we put in place to allow non-productive entities to survive and in some cases thrive are exactly those that cause the distortions in that income / tax / support ratio you like to bang on about

Agree entirely. The bugger is that in reality there is very little that can be done to fix this easily. I suspect we're at least a generation away from starting to fix this, or that future hard times will just fix it for us, one way or another. We can't afford today, tomorrow - the game is not "who pays?", but "who pays first?".

A generation? fuck off, if you think there's trouble at t'mill now wait until they attempt to suggest to me that I have to work another few years before I can have some of my tax back to live in my dotage, (and then only if I can supply proof that I'm utterly destitute, in triplicate). There'll be absolute hell to pay I do assure you, so they'd fucking well better get it sorted pretty much right fucking now. As for the various forms of support required by those who have never contributed anything from which to draw in adversity... Every single generation before this one did it better, let's check how they did it eh?

Not sure what policy set you mean specifically, but it's a bit off topic anyway.

Policies that punish our own citizens,(corperate and individual) for saving. They're what cost us our familly silver in the first place, not dem selfish right wing pricks you like to blame for the final and inevitable act of selling it.

The reason overseas people would invest here is low costs (labour, taxes, etc) for decent skills and resources, so that they can get a return. Since they are overseas businesses, that means they want to export said return, not leave it here because they like us, FFS.

Not so long ago I closed the doors on a NZ$20M manufacturing operation. Literally. It closed not because it failed to make an adequate return but because another of the multi-national's enteprises needed our product range to help justify a capital upgrade. The productivity of that plant was lower than the one here, but the country in which it was based had a more favourable tax regime. The premium commercial tax rate was actually slightly higher than NZ's, but there were signficant differences in how capital plant was depreciated. We'd have had to be almost twice as efficient as them to force head office to reconsider shutting us down.

200 jobs.

Gorne.

More recently a similar excercise demonstrated that a particular NZ manufacturer needed to make product 4% cheaper than it's Au counterpart to prevent it's orders being filled from Aus. The wagebill was 18% less, every other cost was higher. We'd have lost that one too but for the ChCh earthquake.

I have no idea, (and neither does anyone else) if NZ business is getting good value for their tax dollar. I do know, from bitter personal experience that the various individual policies are savagely detrimental to both start-up businesses and (re)-investment in existing ones.

Again, (engineer, remember?) make the good shit easy to do, eh?

I agree we shouldn't have a deficit, long term. But gummint debt is pretty low, so maybe it's not the Finance Minister that should be spending less. Anyway, back to social welfare.... how to create jobs? Here's my 2c: we can't, in any meaningful sense. We foreclosed that option (and much more) when we sold everything not nailed down and completely opened our markets. One of the greatest ironies is that an arch-libertarian like Roger D actually implemented policy that reduced our freedom and increased our dependence. Which only confirms my prejudice that many righties are a bit fick when it comes to money...

By righties I assume you mean those dudes that traditionally have money? The ones with some idea what it is and how it eventuates? The ones usually responsible, (outside of government in all it's widely diverse forms) for it's existance in any given area / industry?

[FJRider]

Well, given that the size of my personal-experience sample is very much not statistically significant, for all I know, India could well be 99.93% populated with coding geniuses.

Either way, to be honest, let's face it - regardless of how many of us witter on about our socioeconomic theories on the internet, New Zealand is going to stay a woodchip-and-milk-powder based economy, and India is going to stay a...

... what is India's economy based on, anyway?

Has it ever had one, as such? Or does it just sort of generally muddle along?

Quite frankly, most of my impressions of India were formed reading Rudyard Kipling's Kim and W. Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge, and subsequently modified by maddeningly dense Indian programmers. I'm not sure whether any of that has much bearing on the general reality of the place.

Check it out yourself ... :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India

[jrandom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India

(a) Linking to Wikipedia is cheating.

(b) I read it and I still have no idea. Basically it seems that the place is fundamentally fucked, but being chilled about that fact is such an ingrained tradition that nobody really worries about it.

[FJRider]

(a) Linking to Wikipedia is cheating.

(b) I read it and I still have no idea. Basically it seems that the place is fundamentally fucked, but being chilled about that fact is such an ingrained tradition that nobody really worries about it.

10% unemployment ... so their biggest "gross domestic product" is the availability of cheap labour ... They're spending more on imports than exports ... so attracting foreign business is their priority ... and it's working ...

Low salaries in most sectors ... mean a high corruption rate ... anything can be bought ... (remember the Exide battery factory debacle)

The military are equipped with Russian gear ... and is now a nuclear power ...

And ... with Pakistan a hated neighbour ... things are starting to get scarey ... but we are on the other side of the world ... so it's ALL ok ... eh ... !!!

[rainman]

Ah, I think you are missing something here.
YOU (the poor of this fine land) paid ALL of the tax in 2009 anyway.


Of course, in prices - but not explicitly. Your logic is based on the fiction that businesses would permanently drop prices directly in line with reductions in their tax rate. (Got any empirical evidence for that?) By that logic they should slash their wage bills, so they could discount product to the consumer... Henry Ford figured that one out a while back.



Knocking a third off the purchase price of everything isn't beneficial to the economy? Adding the difference to wages and then taxing accordingly is a bad idea?

Don't see it happening. Got any prior examples, empirical evidence, that sort of thing? Y'know... facts? Anyone in the world done anything like this and had it studied? Must be heaps of cases... no? 'Cos I'm pretty sure a moment's googling will find cases where this is not always true.


When (and if) business is easier to do here then results will improve

We're about the easiest place in the world to do business. Get a grip, man, and quit yer whining. Tax is a necessary part of a civilised society. Our tax rates aren't even that high.


I'm an engineer. I like cartoons. And I don't do "grown up".

An honest assessment; onya. But the problem is society is not tractable to engineering solutions. People are messy things - particularly when money is involved.


My current business IS my labour. If I have a bad month I don't get paid. That's fair innit?

Me too, but so what? You think this is a unqualified good? How about the self-employed who are just de-tribalised wage slaves, rather than brave entrepreneurs with the wind in their hair, leaping from challenge to challenge?

Only in bizarro-engineer-world is everything so idealistic and deterministic. Do you seriously think the entire society could be self-sufficient self-employed, live-and-die-by-the-sword small biz owners? It's not 1700 anymore.


There'll be absolute hell to pay

Yet by the time I get there undoubtedly I will have to work the extra years, and be means tested too, and I may be lucky to get that. My kids probably won't get a bean. The issue with raising the super age (like Aussie and the UK, btw) is not dole bludgers, it's boomers - which group I suspect you are one of.


Not so long ago I closed the doors on a NZ$20M manufacturing operation....200 jobs....Gorne.

Globalisation's a bitch. The liberalisation of this economy in the 80s has well fucked it, we didn't get growth, stable prices, full employment, or a balanced current account. Exports fell in a hole - funny that - and we became more dependent and less free. Most incomes nett of debt have not grown significantly. We have an entrenched underclass, and few local industries to keep them busy. Look at the Hillside workshop losses - where are those guys going to get work? Not like we have a big industrial sector.

Anyway it's too late to fix it now, and with the trouble rolling in over the next 10 years, well, we're fucked. Just remember who did this to you, is all I'm saying - those fine captains of industry that you aspire to be. But why you lot continue to defend and advance this Friedmanite bullshit when it's clearly screwed you over is beyond me.


By righties I assume you mean those dudes that traditionally have money?

No, I mean neolib useful idiots who think they know shit. Here's a parting quote from Alan Budd, who was involved in the Thatcherite version of the same game, with a different engineering view:


I was involved in making a number of proposals which were partly at least adopted by the government and put in play by the government. My worry is as follows; that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions, or people behind them, or people behind them, who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation. They did however see that this would be a very good way to raise unemployment. And raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes; if you like, that what was engineered there - in Marxist terms - was a crisis of capitalism which recreated the reserve army of labour.

[The Stranger]

Of course, in prices - but not explicitly. Your logic is based on the fiction that businesses would permanently drop prices directly in line with reductions in their tax rate. (Got any empirical evidence for that?) By that logic they should slash their wage bills, so they could discount product to the consumer... Henry Ford figured that one out a while back.


NO! I clearly cover that in my post.
I state that business by nature is greedy.
That (as I see it) is it's purpose, it's reason for being.
As such I need no evidence.

FFS man, stick your preconceived notions aside and entertain the possibility that there exist options beyond repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
A hint Google Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.

[Ocean1]

Don't see it happening. Got any prior examples, empirical evidence, that sort of thing? Y'know... facts? Anyone in the world done anything like this and had it studied? Must be heaps of cases... no? 'Cos I'm pretty sure a moment's googling will find cases where this is not always true.

I don’t see it happening either. Don’t believe prior examples or the lack of them prove fuck all. All that’s needed to explain the upward historical tax trends is the greed of those who believe someone else has their share of money.

We're about the easiest place in the world to do business. Get a grip, man, and quit yer whining. Tax is a necessary part of a civilised society. Our tax rates aren't even that high.

I’m not whining. I’m not blaming tax, per sae. I’m simply describing NZ business failure modes I’ve become familiar with. The history of business failures here suggests that either our businesses are uniquely incompetent or the environment is caustic. In some cases businesses that have failed here are the same ones that are successful off shore. My observation based on impartial professional involvement: the environment for businesses in NZ is less favourable than our trading partners. Don’t shoot the messenger.

An honest assessment; onya. But the problem is society is not tractable to engineering solutions. People are messy things - particularly when money is involved.

I don’t give a fuck how messy “people” attempt to behave, they need to live within their means. Good advice on how to achieve that has been around longer than recorded history, I’m sure you’d have no problem googling it.

Me too, but so what? You think this is a unqualified good? How about the self-employed who are just de-tribalised wage slaves, rather than brave entrepreneurs with the wind in their hair, leaping from challenge to challenge?

As opposed to hiding under the skirts of an employer? Absofuckinglutely.

Only in bizarro-engineer-world is everything so idealistic and deterministic. Do you seriously think the entire society could be self-sufficient self-employed, live-and-die-by-the-sword small biz owners? It's not 1700 anymore.

Of course not. But the vast majority need to be producing real live goods, and even then there’s a limit to how many camp followers they can afford to support.

Yet by the time I get there undoubtedly I will have to work the extra years, and be means tested too, and I may be lucky to get that. My kids probably won't get a bean. The issue with raising the super age (like Aussie and the UK, btw) is not dole bludgers, it's boomers - which group I suspect you are one of.

I once had a senior politician tell me that I couldn’t seriously expect the government to support me in retirement, it simply wasn’t financially possible. I suggested that not only did I expect exactly that but given that it’d take a relatively small portion of my lifetime’s tax contribution to make that possible I’d very much like to know why him and his mates had conspired to spend that portion on everything but. What’s cost me any reasonably comfort in old age isn’t some minor bulge in the age demographic, it’s the purchase by successive government of the votes of those who contribute nothing.

Globalisation's a bitch. The liberalisation of this economy in the 80s has well fucked it, we didn't get growth, stable prices, full employment, or a balanced current account. Exports fell in a hole - funny that - and we became more dependent and less free. Most incomes nett of debt have not grown significantly. We have an entrenched underclass, and few local industries to keep them busy. Look at the Hillside workshop losses - where are those guys going to get work? Not like we have a big industrial sector.

Kiwirail desperately need heavy engineering support that actually produces effective results, trust me, Hillside Workshop losses are mostely due to their inability to provide that.

Anyway it's too late to fix it now, and with the trouble rolling in over the next 10 years, well, we're fucked. Just remember who did this to you, is all I'm saying - those fine captains of industry that you aspire to be. But why you lot continue to defend and advance this Friedmanite bullshit when it's clearly screwed you over is beyond me.

What’s fucked the economy is the loss of primary and secondary industry. Without those the burgeoning “service” industries have no clients capable of supporting them. We have an entrenched underclass because of a lack of the acceptance of a direct link between the production of marketable goods and income. Yet again: make wealth creation easier, make alternative behaviours more difficult.

No, I mean neolib useful idiots who think they know shit. Here's a parting quote from Alan Budd, who was involved in the Thatcherite version of the same game, with a different engineering view:

Congratulations, you got to use neolib in a sentence. The rest is drivel.

[jaffaonajappa]

The military are equipped with Russian gear ... and is now a nuclear power ...

And ... with Pakistan a hated neighbour ... things are starting to get scarey ...

Ohhh come on! Troll.

Anyway, theres too much reading and not enough videos on this thread.

[rainman]

NO! I clearly cover that in my post.

Perhaps I am just being dim here, so please, humour me and connect the dots.
- You want to cut business tax, completely if possible,
- You propose to raise GST to compensate, but only partly.
- You don't expect business to cut prices because they're greedy.
- You haven't said how you'd reduce govt spend to make up the shortfall.
- You haven't admitted this means increasing individual tax.
What kind of maths do you use? I'm genuinely open-minded to wacky suggestions, but only those that actually add up. Unless you have a source of magic beans somewhere, I can't see this working for the voters who will have to foot the bill, so it will never happen and is what we might call irrelevant.


I don’t see it happening either.
Eh? I'm confused, you were just talking about "knocking a third off the purchase price of everything" and now you say you don't see it happening?


I don’t give a fuck how messy “people” attempt to behave, they need to live within their means.

Agree. How to do it? This is mainly not a government problem, so should be able to be solved without them. It does involve getting business and the media to do the right thing, though. And the "consumers", too. Oops.

I suspect we agree quite strongly here, actually. People have lost their sense of financial responsibility, and want the latest gadgets and lifestyle despite not being able to afford them. Why? Debt's way too easy (partly to compensate for the free-market-fuckeration of the middle and lower classes, who would otherwise not be able to afford these products) and partly because many people sense there's little point in working like their parents' generation because their chance of "making it" is steadily diminishing as the elites hoover up more and more of the pie.

OK, maybe in your world they're just innately lazy gangsta bitches on the DPB, but at least we agree on the problem?


As opposed to hiding under the skirts of an employer? Absofuckinglutely.

Really. It's an unqualified good (always better) to work for yourself? OK, but then I ask "Do you seriously think the entire society could be self-sufficient self-employed, live-and-die-by-the-sword small biz owners?" And you answer:


Of course not.

So it's always better, except when it's impossible? So, not better for everyone? Maybe some people should be under the skirts of an employer? Or even have to be? Does this still make them inferior to you? And can they in turn still feel good about themselves by dissing the unemployed?

Let's get out of kindergarten, guys, it's 2011.


But the vast majority need to be producing real live goods

Agree 100%. Why are we not? Nothing to do with 1984 and the economic philosophy you're so keen on?


Kiwirail desperately need heavy engineering support that actually produces effective results

I believe ya, but why don't we have that, again? (See above)


What’s fucked the economy is the loss of primary and secondary industry.

Indeed, it's a major cause. Why don't we have that? (You're getting the idea by now, I'm sure).

Think about it. You understand cause and effect. Engineering is evidence-based. So why hold loyalty for an economic model which the evidence pretty clearly shows is a failure?

If you do like unorthodox thinking, two solutions for your contemplation:
1. Anything that would have Mr Friedman spinning in his grave. Re-nationalise key industries and banks, protect local industries, do-it-ourselves not globalise, set trade tariffs, block most foreign ownership, restart training and apprenticeships for productive industries... Good god I'm sounding like Winston Peters.
2. Socialist (a real one, not the Helen Clark version) revolution. Think Cuba, Venezuela, that sort of thing. Ya, I don't see this happening either.

In short, cut the dole by reducing the demand for it - by building a strong economy that makes jobs. The current global free trade horse puckey just doesn't do this, the evidence on that is clear.

We don't have the right people to sell this, though, so it stands as much chance of being voted in as Mr Stranger's weird ideas. Thus it is also, sadly, irrelevant. Also, some of it is illegal, and the WTO would bitchslap up every way till Tuesday. And they probably have bigger guns.

Which is why we is fucked.


Congratulations, you got to use neolib in a sentence. The rest is drivel.

I was happier abut the useful idiots bit, actually. (And it's not drivel - we agree on a whole lot of things). Seriously though, you're being sold a pup. Follow the evidence, not your indoctrination.

[rainman]

Anyway, theres too much reading and not enough videos on this thread.

I can rise to that challenge...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqiKULsBzHU

[Howie]

Kiwirail desperately need heavy engineering support that actually produces effective results, trust me, Hillside Workshop losses are mostely due to their inability to provide that.



Interesting view of Hillside workshops.

What would you say are the reasons that they couldn't Get the support they needed??

I have a few ideas why they can't, but I'm interested in yours!!

[Ocean1]

Eh? I'm confused, you were just talking about "knocking a third off the purchase price of everything" and now you say you don't see it happening?

Correct on both counts. I can’t disprove the idea in terms of likely economic success, but it’s extremely unlikely to get past the general preconception that companies should pay tax. It might bend in that direction if companies had the vote their tax contributions arguably entitle them to.

Agree. How to do it? This is mainly not a government problem, so should be able to be solved without them. It does involve getting business and the media to do the right thing, though. And the "consumers", too. Oops.

Government shouldn’t govern? C’mon, it’s easy, encourage saving, discourage borrowing. It’s just not likely to attract votes.

I suspect we agree quite strongly here, actually. People have lost their sense of financial responsibility, and want the latest gadgets and lifestyle despite not being able to afford them. Why? Debt's way too easy (partly to compensate for the free-market-fuckeration of the middle and lower classes, who would otherwise not be able to afford these products) and partly because many people sense there's little point in working like their parents' generation because their chance of "making it" is steadily diminishing as the elites hoover up more and more of the pie.

OK, maybe in your world they're just innately lazy gangsta bitches on the DPB, but at least we agree on the problem?

Probably not the cause though. You are aware, are you not, that wealth is more evenly distributed now than at pretty much any time in history?

So the mechanism causing the problems you site are more likely to be the disconnect between the gnenration of that wealth and the spending of it, no?

Really. It's an unqualified good (always better) to work for yourself?

OK, but then I ask "Do you seriously think the entire society could be self-sufficient self-employed, live-and-die-by-the-sword small biz owners?" And you answer:

Insomuch as it usually results in a more accurate link between worth and income, yes pretty much.

So it's always better, except when it's impossible? So, not better for everyone? Maybe some people should be under the skirts of an employer? Or even have to be?
Does this still make them inferior to you? And can they in turn still feel good about themselves by dissing the unemployed?

Let's get out of kindergarten, guys, it's 2011.

From what complex does the “inferior” comment arise? Does a propensity to prefer that people rely on their own efforts for their own income indicate juvenile thinking to you?

I’m ambivalent about how inferior or otherwise you or anyone else feels about your work habits. Unless, of course you’re attempting to justify an income that you simply FEEL you deserve, then I’d FEEL inclined to tell you to fuck off. That’s how the majority of adults react to undeserved handouts in 2011.

Agree 100%. Why are we not? Nothing to do with 1984 and the economic philosophy you're so keen on?

Keen history buff, eh? No, nothing to do with 1984, much, much simpler than that. We’ve got far too many alternatives to productive membership of our society. We can’t afford them.

I believe ya, but why don't we have that, again? (See above)

Largely because it's mired in the work ethics of the 1960’s, (see above).

Indeed, it's a major cause. Why don't we have that? (You're getting the idea by now, I'm sure).

Because in much the same way that we allow too many people ways to live long term without producing anything of value, we also allow too many multi-national corporations to thrive while providing nothing of substance.

Think about it. You understand cause and effect. Engineering is evidence-based. So why hold loyalty for an economic model which the evidence pretty clearly shows is a failure?

If you do like unorthodox thinking, two solutions for your contemplation:
1. Anything that would have Mr Friedman spinning in his grave. Re-nationalise key industries and banks, protect local industries, do-it-ourselves not globalise, set trade tariffs, block most foreign ownership, restart training and apprenticeships for productive industries... Good god I'm sounding like Winston Peters.
2. Socialist (a real one, not the Helen Clark version) revolution. Think Cuba, Venezuela, that sort of thing. Ya, I don't see this happening either.

In short, cut the dole by reducing the demand for it - by building a strong economy that makes jobs. The current global free trade horse puckey just doesn't do this, the evidence on that is clear.

We don't have the right people to sell this, though, so it stands as much chance of being voted in as Mr Stranger's weird ideas. Thus it is also, sadly, irrelevant. Also, some of it is illegal, and the WTO would bitchslap up every way till Tuesday. And they probably have bigger guns.

Which is why we is fucked.

Unfortunately the minor successes in selling those concepts to simpletons is what has put us in the shit to start with, I’m hardly surprised you’re finding it difficult to get much traction for a second round of parasitic policy. You’ve got all the right words up there, you just need to arrange them in the correct order. Reducing demand for the doll will work when it becomes easier to work, which will happen when businesses are more productive, which will happen when less non-productive output is demanded of them.

The free market thing does work, dude. It’s just that we haven’t had one for a couple of hundred years, (if then). The largest growth industries since then have been those who demand an income without producing anything anyone wants.

However it's spun, the consequences of the failure to produce a living in the long term... is death. That applies as much to a nation or a business as it does to an individual.

[Ocean1]

Interesting view of Hillside workshops.

What would you say are the reasons that they couldn't Get the support they needed??

I have a few ideas why they can't, but I'm interested in yours!!

I'll PM you later, dude.

[Howie]

I'll PM you later, dude.


ok, look forward to hearing from you.

[BoristheBiter]

This might be a very simplistic idea but why don't we just keep what we earn? Pay for the things we use, yes they might be higher but if we don't use them we are not being charged, and its up to your family to look after you if you fall on hard times.

Getting something for nothing has been the downfall of west, constantly propping up the flotsam and jetsam of society.
How can someone that has been on the dole all there life get the same as someone that has worked?

No matter how you spin the argument the non contributes are, and will continue to, bring the rest of us down.

As said earlier the constant use of free handouts by successive governments has now made the welfare state untenable and it will soon drag us down if a major shake up is not carried out.
Unfortunately I don't see this happening any time soon.

[Pussy]

This might be a very simplistic idea but why don't we just keep what we earn? Pay for the things we use, yes they might be higher but if we don't use them we are not being charged, and its up to your family to look after you if you fall on hard times.

Getting something for nothing has been the downfall of west, constantly propping up the flotsam and jetsam of society.
How can someone that has been on the dole all there life get the same as someone that has worked?

No matter how you spin the argument the non contributes are, and will continue to, bring the rest of us down.

As said earlier the constant use of free handouts by successive governments has now made the welfare state untenable and it will soon drag us down if a major shake up is not carried out.
Unfortunately I don't see this happening any time soon.

Love your work!
The lefties should have shown dedication to their ideals by emigrating to Romania in the early 80s....

[rainman]

This is an interesting conversation, unfortunately I have to work today so won't be able to give it my full attention. But some quick questions:


I can’t disprove the idea in terms of likely economic success, but it’s extremely unlikely to get past the general preconception that companies should pay tax. It might bend in that direction if companies had the vote their tax contributions arguably entitle them to.

Sounds a bit like you're trying to navigate to a predetermined conclusion, tbh. If there is no evidence of past success of a scheme, why on earth would we do it if not for purely ideological reasons?


Government shouldn’t govern?

No, I'm saying it's no gummint debt that's the problem here, but consumer debt, so the consumers should take some responsibility for fixing that.


You are aware, are you not, that wealth is more evenly distributed now than at pretty much any time in history?

No, in fact my view would be close to the opposite of that. Do you have any evidence to cite to support this opinion of yours?


From what complex does the “inferior” comment arise? Does a propensity to prefer that people rely on their own efforts for their own income indicate juvenile thinking to you?

I wasn't the one looking down on people for being "under the skirts of an employer", or bene-bashing...


Unless, of course you’re attempting to justify an income that you simply FEEL you deserve, then I’d FEEL inclined to tell you to fuck off. That’s how the majority of adults react to undeserved handouts in 2011.

I have had only a very short period of my life when I have received any form of handout at all. And given the amount I pay in tax and the relative modesty of my demands on the social fabric, I don't have any moral issues with this - in fact I would comfortably say I was entitled to it at the time.


Reducing demand for the doll will work when it becomes easier to work, which will happen when businesses are more productive, which will happen when less non-productive output is demanded of them.

Productivity isn't the main problem. Look at the evidence.


The free market thing does work, dude. It’s just that we haven’t had one for a couple of hundred years, (if then).

OK, I'll bite. Name one successful country that has a free market that meets your standards, and where is "does work".

[allycatz]

Speaking from experience on receiving a benefit a few years back when my twins were little, I decided after trying to manage on a benefit I'd go back to work. At that stage I received, DPB, Accomodation supplement and Special Benefit. So, when you go back to work, the Special benefit goes, the accom supp drops by over half and the DPB adjusts accordingly downwards. That meant that any job I did, the first 18 - 20 hours went on just making up the money I lost. On top of that there was childcare for my twins (then$180 per week). I lost money (around$150 per week overall) in going back to work and for a while struggled even more than when I was at home. For me it was still worthwhile to get away from the stigma of it all, but I can understand how for some people it ends up in the too hard basket.

[Howie]

This might be a very simplistic idea but why don't we just keep what we earn? Pay for the things we use, yes they might be higher but if we don't use them we are not being charged, and its up to your family to look after you if you fall on hard times.

Getting something for nothing has been the downfall of west, constantly propping up the flotsam and jetsam of society.
How can someone that has been on the dole all there life get the same as someone that has worked?

No matter how you spin the argument the non contributes are, and will continue to, bring the rest of us down.

As said earlier the constant use of free handouts by successive governments has now made the welfare state untenable and it will soon drag us down if a major shake up is not carried out.
Unfortunately I don't see this happening any time soon.

Fortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. As I for one would not want to live in a society where the those in need aren't looked after. What would happen do you think if all Benefits were stopped?

Would you want to live with Bars on your windows? In Compounds with 24 hour security? Carry a gun to protect yourself at all Times? Mind you it would create a few more jobs in security, and the police. Hang on a minute aren't the police paid out of the tax revenue?

[Ocean1]

Sounds a bit like you're trying to navigate to a predetermined conclusion, tbh. If there is no evidence of past success of a scheme, why on earth would we do it if not for purely ideological reasons?

It wasn’t my idea, I just said I can’t see any reason it wouldn’t produce better results. What’s the point of invoking the lack of past success if the concepts haven’t previously been tried? Sound to me a bit like you’re attempting to attribute a pre-conceived characteristic.

No, I'm saying it's no gummint debt that's the problem here, but consumer debt, so the consumers should take some responsibility for fixing that.

But that debt, that poor behaviour affects the whole economy, isn’t it a socialist concept that the government should control that? In fact if lending regulation didn’t favour poor lending policy so much there’d be a bloody sight less loans to teenagers for things they genuinely can’t afford.

No, in fact my view would be close to the opposite of that. Do you have any evidence to cite to support this opinion of yours?

Your view is nonsense, do your own research.

I wasn't the one looking down on people for being "under the skirts of an employer", or bene-bashing...

Neither was I, there’s no disrespect in the statement, your interpretations are as usual slanted in favour of your prejudices.

I have had only a very short period of my life when I have received any form of handout at all. And given the amount I pay in tax and the relative modesty of my demands on the social fabric, I don't have any moral issues with this - in fact I would comfortably say I was entitled to it at the time.

Onya. Obviously a good bloke ™

The same can’t be said for far, far too many.

Productivity isn't the main problem. Look at the evidence.

Not? Well on a National level there’s only two variables there, dude. Which is it, low income or high expenditure?

OK, I'll bite. Name one successful country that has a free market that meets your standards, and where is "does work".

Did not you read the last bit there, dude? We haven’t seen a genuine free market since governments were decided by votes from those who rely on markets being regulated in their favour. The closest you’ll see is the one in the local car park of a Sunday afternoon.

[Ender EnZed]

This might be a very simplistic idea but why don't we just keep what we earn? Pay for the things we use, yes they might be higher but if we don't use them we are not being charged, and its up to your family to look after you if you fall on hard times.

Survival of the fittest. Your children would be in a deep fryer by (former) Dole-day afternoon.

[mashman]

Getting something for nothing has been the downfall of west, constantly propping up the flotsam and jetsam of society.
How can someone that has been on the dole all there life get the same as someone that has worked?

No matter how you spin the argument the non contributes are, and will continue to, bring the rest of us down.


You mean work or die?

[mashman]

No matter how you spin the argument the non contributes are, and will continue to, bring the rest of us down.


I disagree.

Instead of heading towards New Zealandopolis at break neck speed... suffering the associated growing pains of population explosion driven by rampant "consumerism" and the general confusion that goes with it. Why don't we try something slightly different. You may find that that perceived laziness disappears.

We pool our assets. Everyone in the country.

You will suddenly have a shitload of cash and a workforce that works for free. An unemployment rate that has never been heard of (in the millions (lazy bastards won't even be noticed) :yes:), but by default, this is not a bad thing at all? Not in a society that's still makin food, producing water, exporting overseas etc... (potentially for free... wonder what countries could benefit from free lamb :shifty:).

To fund this venture, we invite large corporations to set up head office in NZ and to make use of our free (highly educated) workforce for a small fee. That fee should be enough to cover our imports and lifestyle. We can keep the lovely technology and all move in a slightly different direction for a change. What education programme would you like with your KFC sir? That opens up opportunities to have a crack at tackling social issues, whilst not screwing the country over financially. Isn't that the goal? happy healthy workforce? Low crime rates? Infant mortality rate? educational standards/subjects/topics/institutions? Water quality? Air quality? Manage population growth (removing "career mums" and associated babies)No pressure to become one of the workers? Parents able to spend time with their kids and not leave them at the hands of a "society" that really doesn't deserve that term. Kids able to play in the streets again :shit:. I'll stop.

I'd rather not see people die because someone has deemed them lazy.

[scumdog]

Fortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. As I for one would not want to live in a society where the those in need aren't looked after. What would happen do you think if all Benefits were stopped?



Ah,,.. 'NEED' you say, a bit different to a chosen lifestyle eh?

[Smifffy]

Speaking from experience on receiving a benefit a few years back when my twins were little, I decided after trying to manage on a benefit I'd go back to work. At that stage I received, DPB, Accomodation supplement and Special Benefit. So, when you go back to work, the Special benefit goes, the accom supp drops by over half and the DPB adjusts accordingly downwards. That meant that any job I did, the first 18 - 20 hours went on just making up the money I lost. On top of that there was childcare for my twins (then$180 per week). I lost money (around$150 per week overall) in going back to work and for a while struggled even more than when I was at home. For me it was still worthwhile to get away from the stigma of it all, but I can understand how for some people it ends up in the too hard basket.

Good for you!

What I see as part of the problem is the entrenched attitudes. From my point of view you got yourself work, and continued to be a productive, contributing member of society. It may be semantics, but you didn't lose $180. The $180 payment you were receiving from the taxpayer to help you out of tight spot ceased.

I don't know you, and I don't wish you any ill, and it isn't personal.

I often hear people saying they won't get a job because they will lose too much of their benefit. It is such now that to actually be worthwhile getting off a benefit to go to work, one would need to go straight into management. In the past the average working bloke had gone on strike and been hungry for weeks on end, even getting involved in violence for just a few extra dollars a week.

For those that don't understand, the benefit is there because you can't work, no so that you don't have to work.

[Flip]

Good for you!

What I see as part of the problem is the entrenched attitudes. From my point of view you got yourself work, and continued to be a productive, contributing member of society. It may be semantics, but you didn't lose $180. The $180 payment you were receiving from the taxpayer to help you out of tight spot ceased.

I don't know you, and I don't wish you any ill, and it isn't personal.

I often hear people saying they won't get a job because they will lose too much of their benefit. It is such now that to actually be worthwhile getting off a benefit to go to work, one would need to go straight into management. In the past the average working bloke had gone on strike and been hungry for weeks on end, even getting involved in violence for just a few extra dollars a week.

For those that don't understand, the benefit is there because you can't work, no so that you don't have to work.

Its that old sense of entitlement thing again. Why should I work when I am entitled to a free $180/w payout. Then complain because the first 20 hours pay only cover my lost $180.

I am a hardliner lefty myself but this doesn't extend to the long term unemployed and professional solo parents. As far as unemployment goes a fairer system would be to say cover folk at say 80% of their wages for say 1 month then reduce it by 10% every month there after.

[FJRider]

Fortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. As I for one would not want to live in a society where the those in need aren't looked after. What would happen do you think if all Benefits were stopped?

"Need" is one thing ... as opposed to "Can't be bothered" ... an entirely different matter. The easy option is always the popular (usually FIRST ) choice ...

Look to the countries that dont have "benefits" ...


Ah,,.. 'NEED' you say, a bit different to a chosen lifestyle eh?

According to the court pages in any newspaper ... it's listed as an "occupation" ... :lol:

[Howie]

Ah,,.. 'NEED' you say, a bit different to a chosen lifestyle eh?

True, but how do you differentiate between those in need, and those choosing a lifestyle??

I personally could have made the choice to go on the DPB Ten years ago, but choose to keep working to show my children that life isn't a free ride. If I had gone on the DPB I would have undertaken to study probably towards a degree of some sort, instead I keep working, and also started a part time business that gave some very good returns while it was operating. By doing that my kids missed out on my time being spent on them. There lies the biggest challenge to a Single parent where the other parent isn't around. The quality time spent wirh the children vs Money to raise them in a reasonable lifestyle!!

[FJRider]

True, but how do you differentiate between those in need, and those choosing a lifestyle??

Ask those that turn up for job interviews in jandals ... ripped jeans ... a smoke hanging out of their mouth ... three days growth on their face ... and twenty minutes late for the interview ...


The quality time spent with the children vs Money to raise them in a reasonable lifestyle!!

By "quality time" ... do you mean 24 hours a day, seven days a week ... ???

A "reasonable lifestyle" is expected/demanded ... on the benefit by some ...

[Howie]

"Need" is one thing ... as opposed to "Can't be bothered" ... an entirely different matter. The easy option is always the popular (usually FIRST ) choice ...



According to the court pages in any newspaper ... it's listed as an "occupation" ... :lol:


ok so if someone can't be bothered!!

1) How do prove it is that they can't be Bothered.

2) why have they fallen into that behaviour pattern?? is it an addiction problem (alcohol, drugs, gambling etc)

3) Did the education system let them down as they didn't fit in the one size fits all system we have. Was it purely a poor up bringing, or do they have some sort of educational disorder that wasn't picked up??

4) if you are put down long enough the why should I bother behaviour comes into play. I have seen more than one young person have three or four different jobs over a period of a year or two where the only reason they haven't kept a job is the company that hires them run's out of work by losing contracts, or no more work coming in, or through resizing of the work force in larger organisations.
The problem with this is that the person involved starts to feel why bother trying to get a job as I'm just going to be used and spat out again.

[FJRider]

ok so if someone can't be bothered!!

1) How do prove it is that they can't be Bothered.

2) why have they fallen into that behaviour pattern?? is it an addiction problem (alcohol, drugs, gambling etc)

3) Did the education system let them down as they didn't fit in the one size fits all system we have. Was it purely a poor up bringing, or do they have some sort of educational disorder that wasn't picked up??

4) if you are put down long enough the why should I bother behaviour comes into play. I have seen more than one young person have three or four different jobs over a period of a year or two where the only reason they haven't kept a job is the company that hires them run's out of work by losing contracts, or no more work coming in, or through resizing of the work force in larger organisations.
The problem with this is that the person involved starts to feel why bother trying to get a job as I'm just going to be used and spat out again.

1) When you ring them up offering them work at nine in the morning ... they cant because they're just up an want breakfast first ... and want to take the kid's to the park in the afternoon while the Mrs is at the Warehouse ...

2) Because it's the lazy option ... don't have to ... means WONT ...

3) See no: 2)

I myself have been through this ... but with GOOD reports (in writing) from past employers ... one or two weeks (at most) out of work ...

Thing to remember ... having the "can't be bothered" attitude, means they'll never be spat out again ... EVER ... few employers employ them.

[allycatz]

Its that old sense of entitlement thing again. Why should I work when I am entitled to a free $180/w payout. Then complain because the first 20 hours pay only cover my lost $180.

I am a hardliner lefty myself but this doesn't extend to the long term unemployed and professional solo parents. As far as unemployment goes a fairer system would be to say cover folk at say 80% of their wages for say 1 month then reduce it by 10% every month there after.

Not complaining, just stating how it worked. Up until my last child left for Uni, I could still get $169 per week in Family Support payments because I was working. I think the cut out rate for these payments has been $60k with up to 6+ kids?


My ex and I had our own business that cleared 150K after tax, not sure that the Govt would want to pay 80% of that although the tax paid on that more than covered the years benefit I received

[Howie]

Ask those that turn up for job interviews in jandals ... ripped jeans ... a smoke hanging out of their mouth ... three days growth on their face ... and twenty minutes late for the interview ...

I have no doubt that some do turn up as you say, and of the number that do some are probably hoping not to get the job, with others it could simply be a lack of self estem, No money for clothes, unfortunately modern society is very image driven.



By "quality time" ... do you mean 24 hours a day, seven days a week ... ???

A "reasonable lifestyle" is expected/demanded ... on the benefit by some ...


Interestingly enough parenting is a 24/7 job when your kids are young. I can well remember the one night every 4 weeks that I got to myself, the times I had to leave work to pick up sick kids, the times I had to stay home to look after them etc.

But no quality time is the time you put into doing things with your kids, be it teaching them to ride a bike, helping them with homework, taking them for bushwalks, helping with their chosen sport or interest, sharing the good and sad times they have and trying to teach them some life skills along the way.

[Howie]

1)

I myself have been through this ... but with GOOD reports (in writing) from past employers ... one or two weeks (at most) out of work ...

Thing to remember ... having the "can't be bothered" attitude, means they'll never be spat out again ... EVER ... few employers employ them.


I too have been through a few restructures/ re- engineerings/ re-sizing's
of work place's fortunatly only being affected once so far. Like you I was out of work for about a week. Some aren't that lucky though.


now you observing a behaviour, not an attitude, you can't tell a person's attitude by there behaviour, unless you know(not assume you know) the reason that they are behaving that way!!

[FJRider]

I have no doubt that some do turn up as you say, and of the number that do some are probably hoping not to get the job, with others it could simply be a lack of self estem, No money for clothes, unfortunately modern society is very image driven.

The one's I saw ... were better dressed at the pub on the following saturday night ...


Interestingly enough parenting is a 24/7 job when your kids are young. I can well remember the one night every 4 weeks that I got to myself, the times I had to leave work to pick up sick kids, the times I had to stay home to look after them etc.

True enough ... but both parents and children need time to do things away from family ... to know how get on with OTHER people ... in REAL life ..


But no quality time is the time you put into doing things with your kids, be it teaching them to ride a bike, helping them with homework, taking them for bushwalks, helping with their chosen sport or interest, sharing the good and sad times they have and trying to teach them some life skills along the way.

I think thats called "child rearing" ... and it used to be normal ...

nowdays ... they learn that stuff on the net ... :(

[FJRider]

I too have been through a few restructures/ re- engineerings/ re-sizing's
of work place's fortunatly only being affected once so far. Like you I was out of work for about a week. Some aren't that lucky though.


now you observing a behaviour, not an attitude, you can't tell a person's attitude by there behaviour, unless you know(not assume you know) the reason that they are behaving that way!!

I witnessed an interview once ... after the attitude(behaviour ???) I described ... and the employer (mine as well) offered work at eight the next morning ... he sat bolt upright ... and found five excuses why he couldn't be there ... (one was a meeting with WINZ the next day ... to ensure he stayed on the benefit)

[rainman]

isn't it a socialist concept that the government should control that?

Probably, but I didn't figure you for a socialist.


Your view is nonsense, do your own research.

Sorry, but that is weak. You're the guy who made the original assertion, so either pony up the evidence for it, or have the balls to admit you're talking out of your ideological arse.

Or better yet, let's look at the facts. Let's remind viewers what the original statement was:
"You are aware, are you not, that wealth is more evenly distributed now than at pretty much any time in history?"
I give you: a picture (http://graphs.gapminder.org/communityproxy/ChartDataServlet?key=plL7_TnAeMdBLyRVf1rehGg#$majo rMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30 ;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti=2003$z pv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=ti;by=ind$inc_y;mmid =YCOORDS;iid=plL7_TnAeMdBcHOa_uGXYWg;by=ind$inc_s; uniValue=20;iid=plL7_TnAeMdCTpDLPYo-_VA;by=universal$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID1;iid =plL7_TnAeMdC8GEnotAixIg;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;da taMin=1974;dataMax=2005$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=0. 1975;dataMax=0.5186$cd;bd=0$inds=i159_t001985,,,,) .

See how that line goes up as you go to the right? That's the line that shows you are talking shit.


Not? Well on a National level there’s only two variables there, dude. Which is it, low income or high expenditure?

You're an engineer, you say? Hope you don't build anything I have to interact with.


Did not you read the last bit there, dude? We haven’t seen a genuine free market since governments were decided by votes from those who rely on markets being regulated in their favour. The closest you’ll see is the one in the local car park of a Sunday afternoon.

OK, I'll say this again, real slow. It's. Not. 1700. Anymore.

If you're pining for some utopian free-market liberteria that a) doesn't, b) won't, and c) can't exist, then, I'm afraid you're just a plain idiot, not even of the useful variety. (Pity really, I thought you worth debating with).

You and the rest of the ACT youth league can sit in darkened rooms or wherever and pine for idealism, the rest of us will get on with working on issues in the real world.


We pool our assets. Everyone in the country.

Sounds a bit like my socialist revolution... I'll vote for that!


Ah,,.. 'NEED' you say, a bit different to a chosen lifestyle eh?

Serious question. What percentage of benes do you think choose this supposed "lifestyle"? And on what (rational) basis do you hold that view?

[Ocean1]

Probably, but I didn't figure you for a socialist.

Correct. Although I do advocate intervention in markets in order to weed out the parasites.

Sorry, but that is weak. You're the guy who made the original assertion, so either pony up the evidence for it, or have the balls to admit you're talking out of your ideological arse.
Or better yet, let's look at the facts. Let's remind viewers what the original statement was:
"You are aware, are you not, that wealth is more evenly distributed now than at pretty much any time in history?"
I give you: a picture (http://graphs.gapminder.org/communityproxy/ChartDataServlet?key=plL7_TnAeMdBLyRVf1rehGg#$majo rMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30 ;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti=2003$z pv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=ti;by=ind$inc_y;mmid =YCOORDS;iid=plL7_TnAeMdBcHOa_uGXYWg;by=ind$inc_s; uniValue=20;iid=plL7_TnAeMdCTpDLPYo-_VA;by=universal$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID1;iid =plL7_TnAeMdC8GEnotAixIg;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;da taMin=1974;dataMax=2005$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=0. 1975;dataMax=0.5186$cd;bd=0$inds=i159_t001985,,,,) .

See how that line goes up as you go to the right? That's the line that shows you are talking shit.

But it doesn’t. It’s been going down since 2000. What’s more if that’s your idea of history it’s a fucking short baseline, where’s the rest of this century? Sounds to me like you’re the one full of shit.

OK, I'll say this again, real slow. It's. Not. 1700. Anymore.

If you're pining for some utopian free-market liberteria that a) doesn't, b) won't, and c) can't exist, then, I'm afraid you're just a plain idiot, not even of the useful variety. (Pity really, I thought you worth debating with).

You and the rest of the ACT youth league can sit in darkened rooms or wherever and pine for idealism, the rest of us will get on with working on issues in the real world.

So when you’re ungrateful enough to bitch about the lack of charity from those who actually generate income and demand that they produce more then that’s not idealism?

But if someone suggests that we can’t afford any higher subsidies for any more who don’t contribute to the pot then they’re idealistic?

Check.

That's not debating, dude, it's just plain old fashioned bullshit, no response required.

[rainman]

Although I do advocate intervention in markets in order to weed out the parasites.

Which, fascinating as it is, has nothing to do with reducing consumer debt, which I believe was the point.


But it doesn't. It’s been going down since 2000.

Comprehension fail.

That there is a small drop since 2000 (likely adjusted out again by 2011) makes no odds. The chart is a trivial dismissal of your point, given your lack of provided evidence in support of your view: income was more evenly distributed in 1985, when that GINI series began. Therefore it is now worse than then, and your statement is false.


What’s more if that’s your idea of history it’s a fucking short baseline, where’s the rest of this century?

Well, feel free to bring some real stats to support your view in the long term then. Or continue to believe shit without any evidence, whatever - but don't mind me calling you on being an ideologue, then.

If you mean to assert that feudal income distribution was worse than today, then yes, of course. But so fucking what?


So when you’re ungrateful enough to bitch about the lack of charity from those who actually generate income and demand that they produce more then that’s not idealism?

At no point have I done any such thing.

It's tiresome debating with you: you contradict yourself, make shit up, provide no evidence, propose crazy untested theories, tilt at strawmen... no wonder you're so fucking gullible and believe the shit you do. I give up, have fun in crazy world.

[Winston001]

This might be a very simplistic idea but why don't we just keep what we earn? Pay for the things we use, yes they might be higher but if we don't use them we are not being charged...

This point is worth considering in a modified sense.

Back to basics: individual income tax is actually a very new idea and has only been imposed by governments for about the last 100 years.

Prior to that tax was imposed on wealth, death duties, land holdings, the number of windows a building had, stamp duty, sales tax etc. Ordinary people did not personally pay tax.

I don't suggest we return to that but some economists are now thinking high sales taxes (GST at 25%) and low flat income taxes - say 20-25% are a better mix. Something to consider.

[Brian d marge]

Remember its the old people that cost the money ...we would save at least half of Social welfare just by getting rid of Old people

Stephen

[Pussy]

Remember its the old people that cost the money ...we would save at least half of Social welfare just by getting rid of Old people

Stephen

Except that most of them have paid a poultice of tax over the years, and are entitled to more than they get now....

[Winston001]

Except that most of them have paid a poultice of tax over the years, and are entitled to more than they get now....

Yeah? That's what a lot of pensioners believe. Tell me - where did the money for the very first old-age pensions come from?

[FJRider]

Yeah? That's what a lot of pensioners believe. Tell me - where did the money for the very first old-age pensions come from?

There WERE strings attached though ... perhaps the "modern" goverments might take lessons ... oh ... in answer to your question ... General taxation ... and where does Welfare (WINZ) get their money from ... ??? :innocent:

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/old-age-pensions-act-passes-into-law

[short-circuit]

Where did smokeu disappear to?

[avgas]

You mean work or die?
I used to think that statement was a bit cold. But some years ago when I had a "need" to be looked after - there was nothing.
So now all I think is fuck em. If they can't work they can die - they are stealing all my oxygen and giving nothing back to mankind.
Stews simple rule is this, I am not above anyone - and none of you fuckers are above me. Apparently it means "equality" but most people who put that into a sentence seem to forget its meaning.
If I have to work, guess what the rest of you have to do :)
Get back to work ya bums! Hell you can even get paid to post in forums these days.

Oh and before I hear the woe is me's - telling me some people cant work. Bullshit, I have had retards serve me at McD's (fantastic service by the way - made the normals seem even more special). If you are blind, you can still see. Paraplegics still get around. Deaf can still communicate. Why can't single mums still work?

[Winston001]

There WERE strings attached though ... perhaps the "modern" goverments might take lessons ... oh ... in answer to your question ... General taxation ...

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/old-age-pensions-act-passes-into-law

Yessss...so people didn't pay tax in those days for a future pension?

[avgas]

Where did smokeu disappear to?
He's off to get a job. :killingme

[FJRider]

Yessss...so people didn't pay tax in those days for a future pension?

Prior to the introduction of that piece of law ... NO ... !!! .. the first country in the British Empire to do so ...

I'm not even sure if this was before women got the vote either ... care to enlighten me ... ???

[Brian d marge]

The Pension should follow ACC , risk and income assessed, In a society that one should stand on their own two feet, and make provisions for their retirement. I dont see why my taxes should be used .....

Far better using that money for the productive members of society

Stephen

[FJRider]

Yessss...so people didn't pay tax in those days for a future pension?

Job: 21..22 I'm not that religious ... but ... it is appropriate ...

[FJRider]

The Pension should follow ACC , risk and income assessed, In a society that one should stand on their own two feet, and make provisions for their retirement. I dont see why my taxes should be used .....

Far better using that money for the productive members of society

Stephen

NOT the one's that WERE productive for fifty years ... and/or serving at least one world war ... ???

[Brian d marge]

NOT the one's that WERE productive for fifty years ... and/or serving at least one world war ... ???

should have saved the money ...if its good enough for me then its good enough for them

Stephen

[FJRider]

should have saved the money ...if its good enough for me then its good enough for them

Stephen

It's good enough for those living and working in New Zealand ...

Don't like it ... vote for change ...

[avgas]

... and/or serving at least one world war ... ???
Don't they have some sort of millitary super or something? I recall a friend of mine quit the navy about 5 years ago and had 50K super go into his bank account (I think he had done like 5 years or something).

[scissorhands]

Remember its the old people that cost the money ...we would save at least half of Social welfare just by getting rid of Old people

Stephen

I'll vote for that, I hate old people:ar15:

[oneofsix]

I'll vote for that, I hate old people:ar15:

Your definition of old changes the more you live. To a five year old you are old in not ancient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gO7uemm6Yo&feature=player_detailpage

[BoristheBiter]

The Pension should follow ACC , risk and income assessed, In a society that one should stand on their own two feet, and make provisions for their retirement. I dont see why my taxes should be used .....

Far better using that money for the productive members of society

Stephen

This would have to be one of your dumbest statements yet. How can a pension be risk assessed??
How do you define a productive members of society? I know many people over 65 that a) are still working and b)work a dam site harder than a lot of 20 year olds.



should have saved the money ...if its good enough for me then its good enough for them

Stephen

So under that statement you agree with my earlier post of no welfare hand outs at all to anyone.

[BoristheBiter]

It's good enough for those living and working in New Zealand ...

Don't like it ... vote for change ...

But that is the problem isn't it?
With so many now getting hand outs it would be political suicide to say that you will stop them. so we just end up with more of the same.
As most vote either National or Labour it won't change.
The only way to make change is to completely change the voting structure so only one party governs as with so many deals to be done the status quo is the easier and better political option.

[oneofsix]

The Pension should follow ACC , risk and income assessed, In a society that one should stand on their own two feet, and make provisions for their retirement. I dont see why my taxes should be used .....

Far better using that money for the productive members of society

Stephen

:love: the possibilities here. "As you earn big money and work in a low physical impact job we asses your risk of requiring a pension as low Mr Financier" a few years later the conversation continues ... "What do you mean your business went bankrupt and now you don't have a penny and it all happened the day of your 65th birthday? Oh and I see your house, car and boat are all own by your children's trust" :laugh:

[Quasievil]

The Pension should follow ACC , risk and income assessed, In a society that one should stand on their own two feet, and make provisions for their retirement. I dont see why my taxes should be used .....

Far better using that money for the productive members of society

Stephen

Hang on a sec, within the Tax I pay isnt there a component that is attributed towards retirement/ namely my retirement? yes would be the answer to that so on the basis of what youre saying I want one of two things
1/ the pension
or
2/ a refund of all that which I have paid, and a deduction of tax !!

fucking government would love to take the same yeild while reducing its services, fuck them I want what I pay for and demand it!

[BoristheBiter]

Fortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. As I for one would not want to live in a society where the those in need aren't looked after. What would happen do you think if all Benefits were stopped?

Would you want to live with Bars on your windows? In Compounds with 24 hour security? Carry a gun to protect yourself at all Times? Mind you it would create a few more jobs in security, and the police. Hang on a minute aren't the police paid out of the tax revenue?

Like i said just too simplistic as there is also health, having to pay for health care would make us end up like the USA and i for one don't want to see us go down that road.


I disagree.


We pool our assets. Everyone in the country.


We have had this discussion many times but i have just realised that your pooling of resources and my no benefits are exactly the same idea but looking from different points of view.

The end result will still be the same you either let the non productive's get an easy ride or you let them fend for themselves and this is where we differ, you are using the whole country where i am using only the family.

If we pool the whole country, whole family's get a free ride and in so doing train the next generation to be the same something like we are doing now, where if it is only the family's resources they will quickly change to having to fend for themselves or at least change the mindset of the next generation.

[Ocean1]

In a society that one should stand on their own two feet, and make provisions for their retirement. I dont see why my taxes should be used .....

I reckon you're taking the piss.

Given that any pension I'm likely to get ammounts to a pittance I've been trying to put a bit extra away for my dotage for a couple of decades. It's a pointless excercise, unless you earn many times the average income or earn it without paying tax on it you're fucked. Taxation is structured in such a way as to mop up pretty much everything you might have put aside.

So the best strategy there looks very similar to those that've fucked our economy through the working years: If you can't hide your income then don't bother trying to provide for yourself beyond the absolute minimum, they'll just take at off you and give it to those who've contributed fuck all.

But hey, you roll us back 30 odd years and change the tax structure so it's actually possible to save for your own retirement and give me a call eh?

[Ocean1]

Yessss...so people didn't pay tax in those days for a future pension?

Of course not.

It was a Labour government, budget? Pfftt.

[BoristheBiter]

I reckon you're taking the piss.

Given that any pension I'm likely to get ammounts to a pittance I've been trying to put a bit extra away for my dotage for a couple of decades. It's a pointless excercise, unless you earn many times the average income or earn it without paying tax on it you're fucked. Taxation is structured in such a way as to mop up pretty much everything you might have put aside.

So the best strategy there looks very similar to those that've fucked our economy through the working years: If you can't hide your income then don't bother trying to provide for yourself beyond the absolute minimum, they'll just take at off you and give it to those who've contributed fuck all.

But hey, you roll us back 30 odd years and change the tax structure so it's actually possible to save for your own retirement and give me a call eh?

And the real "kick in the guts" is if you do save so you have a bit extra you are penalised for it by being taxed again.

and they wonder why there are so many trusts and people hiding things in company's.

[Smifffy]

Go down to your local SPCA, Red cross, Salvation army, YMCA, Marae, church, community garden, volunteer organisation of choice, and find out how many beneficiaries are there putting in a solid effort to help out. Compare that with the number of willing workers there, who are either supported by a spouse/partner in the workforce, or workers who are there during their time off. Then tell me again how deserving most of these beneficiaries are.

When my g/f at the time moved in with me, she was not on a benefit, but had no work, having left her home town. She went and volunteered at the SPCA cleaning shit from cages, smiling nicely at cunts who were abandoning their 'pets', and doing the run to the vets for the euthing. She'd drop in to feed the critters on Xmas day. Within a couple of months someone came in and offered her a job.

It was one of those jobs that nobody really wanted to do, and she literally wore through the soles of two pairs of shoes doing it.

Yeah I married her ;)

[mashman]

:rofl: yes we have. I see how you could see it that way. How are they exactly the same ideas? I understand the different points of view, but I don't see the similarities at all.

The end result will be MASSIVELY different. When I was talking about high unemployment rates before, I was talking about it being in the millions, not just a couple hundred thousand that don't want to work, but people who don't have to work :yes:. Your way requires 0 unemployment. Sure there will be perceived easy rides under both systems, but in my version the lazy still get fed and noone would really notice them amongst the millions of unemployed, "bludger" problem solved (amongst many others). Your way penalises families for perceived lack of effort, irrespective of hardship or circumstance and smacks of resentment and pettiness... and all because you perceive that you are doing more work than someone else? :rofl:...

That's a mighty negative way of looking at it (They can eat themselves to death on KFC for all I care)... :killingme... you've not lived amongst unemployed people for extended periods of time have you? I have seen some of the kids from the street go to jail, some that went on to further education, some that headed off abroad to work, some head down souff (UK), some become gang members, others join the long family tradition of screwing the system :facepalm:... they are not stupid prople, they are all intelligent smart bastards in their own ways. They are not lazy, they are efficient with their time, they realise that a low paying job isn't a fair trade off in regards to time v effort they'd have to put in re: cost of living etc... so figure out a smarter way to achieve their level of cashflow... in essence their children want more for themselves... it isn't just the family that guides the child :facepalm:

So please, show me where the similarities are again?

[Banditbandit]

Hang on a sec, within the Tax I pay isnt there a component that is attributed towards retirement/ namely my retirement? yes would be the answer to that so on the basis of what youre saying I want one of two things
1/ the pension
or
2/ a refund of all that which I have paid, and a deduction of tax !!

fucking government would love to take the same yeild while reducing its services, fuck them I want what I pay for and demand it!

See .. there's the problem right there .. the Pension was supposed to be for people who needed it - then the non-needy middle class began to demand it on the basis that they had paid taxes all their lives and deserved it - not needed but DESERVED it ...

So people like Don Brash and other rich Capitalist fuckers get a pension because of entitlement - and cost us millions ...

Pensions for those who need it - not for those who don't - Means test the Old Age Pension .. or whatever it's fucking called nowadays ..

[scumdog]

I have seen some of the kids from the street go to jail, some that went on to further education, some that headed off abroad to work, some head down souff (UK), some become gang members, others join the long family tradition of screwing the system :facepalm:... they are not stupid prople, they are all intelligent smart bastards in their own ways. They are not lazy, they are efficient with their time, they realise that a low paying job isn't a fair trade off in regards to time v effort they'd have to put in re: cost of living etc... so figure out a smarter way to achieve their level of cashflow... in essence their children want more for themselves... it isn't just the family that guides the child :facepalm:



Intelligent they may be - but the kids do as the oldies do - eke out an existence - they certainly don't really live, more it's 'Groundhog Day' for their whole life.

UNLESS they spread their horizon a bit and realize there IS life outside of Brixton, the Gorbals, South Auckland or wherever and travel a bit and also realise that hey, if they get a job they can get better money etc etc...

[oneofsix]

See .. there's the problem right there .. the Pension was supposed to be for people who needed it - then the non-needy middle class began to demand it on the basis that they had paid taxes all their lives and deserved it - not needed but DESERVED it ...

So people like Don Brash and other rich Capitalist fuckers get a pension because of entitlement - and cost us millions ...

Pensions for those who need it - not for those who don't - Means test the Old Age Pension .. or whatever it's fucking called nowadays ..

do you consider yourself upper or lower class?
"Pension was supposed to be for people who needed it"
"middle class began to demand it"
"So people like Don Brash and other rich Capitalist fuckers get a pension because of entitlement "
The way you avoid blaming the rich for demanding it and then abusing it just makes me wonder. There would not be a lot of modern so called middle class that would be able to save enough to live on in their retirement, not after missing out on the university allowance, working for families and over benefits the rich get by being able to afford to hide their wealth.

[mashman]

Intelligent they may be - but the kids do as the oldies do - eke out an existence - they certainly don't really live, more it's 'Groundhog Day' for their whole life.

UNLESS they spread their horizon a bit and realize there IS life outside of Brixton, the Gorbals, South Auckland or wherever and travel a bit and also realise that hey, if they get a job they can get better money etc etc...

Make yer mind up... do they follow in the footsteps or do they spread their wings :shifty:

And your day is different how? What's so non-Groundhoggy about your day?

Ugh... money isn't everything to everyone!

[mashman]

The way you avoid blaming the rich for demanding it and then abusing it just makes me wonder. There would not be a lot of modern so called middle class that would be able to save enough to live on in their retirement

and that's the way it will remain... the system is designed to work that way for a purpose (all part of the grand conspiracy mind :))

[Brian d marge]

This would have to be one of your dumbest statements yet. How can a pension be risk assessed??
How do you define a productive members of society? I know many people over 65 that a) are still working and b)work a dam site harder than a lot of 20 year olds.




So under that statement you agree with my earlier post of no welfare hand outs at all to anyone.
Risk assessment is a term in the insurance industry used when sizing up well the risk... In Canada even your liking for KFC goes down on your assessment sheet ,,,So add your medical condition to your income ...ie the risk and whatever left is what the insurance ( the state) pays out ,

If half of these oldies had provided for themselves the welfare budget would be half , or that save money could be redirected towards the "productive members " ie Students who Will "are" earing

Or raise the age of retirement till 70 at least

Finally I never said no hand outs, just redirect towards the more productive

Stephen

[scumdog]

Make yer mind up... do they follow in the footsteps or do they spread their wings :shifty:

And your day is different how? What's so non-Groundhoggy about your day?

Ugh... money isn't everything to everyone!

I was pointing out that despite their intelligence so many don't aspire to do any more than their parents, they never realise there IS more/they could do more - which is maybe all that they want to do.

And my day?

Sometimes I wish it WAS Groundhog Day, I then wouldn't have to think so much or plan ahead.

But mostly I'm glad it isn't.

[Swoop]

It was a Labour government, budget? Pfftt.
I laugh every time I pass the liarbour billboard that promises "zero gst on fruit & veges".
More promises they will not keep, like not paying tax on the first $100 earned each week.



Unfortunately the brain-dead kiwi voter will have forgotten their promised "packet of chewing gum" (in three years time) tax cut from their last fiasco in power.

[oneofsix]

Risk assessment is a term in the insurance industry used when sizing up well the risk... In Canada even your liking for KFC goes down on your assessment sheet ,,,So add your medical condition to your income ...ie the risk and whatever left is what the insurance ( the state) pays out ,

If half of these oldies had provided for themselves the welfare budget would be half , or that save money could be redirected towards the "productive members " ie Students who Will "are" earing

Or raise the age of retirement till 70 at least

Finally I never said no hand outs, just redirect towards the more productive

Stephen

The oldies were providing the pension for their olds, which was the way the world worked at the time. Hence sayings like the kids supporting you in your old age. However after so many of the last generations kids having been killed in 2 world wars governments needed to spread the burden across society.

[Brian d marge]

The oldies were providing the pension for their olds, which was the way the world worked at the time. Hence sayings like the kids supporting you in your old age. However after so many of the last generations kids having been killed in 2 world wars governments needed to spread the burden across society.

Ask the germans, 2 nil , now pay up .......

Stephen

[oneofsix]

Ask the germans, 2 nil , now pay up .......

Stephen

French did that after WW1, hence WW2, especial when you consider the Germans were as much a victim of their alliances as us in WW1 and didn't start the friggin' thing.

[BoristheBiter]

:rofl: yes we have. I see how you could see it that way. How are they exactly the same ideas? I understand the different points of view, but I don't see the similarities at all.

The end result will be MASSIVELY different. When I was talking about high unemployment rates before, I was talking about it being in the millions, not just a couple hundred thousand that don't want to work, but people who don't have to work :yes:. Your way requires 0 unemployment. Sure there will be perceived easy rides under both systems, but in my version the lazy still get fed and noone would really notice them amongst the millions of unemployed, "bludger" problem solved (amongst many others). Your way penalises families for perceived lack of effort, irrespective of hardship or circumstance and smacks of resentment and pettiness... and all because you perceive that you are doing more work than someone else? :rofl:...

That's a mighty negative way of looking at it (They can eat themselves to death on KFC for all I care)... :killingme... you've not lived amongst unemployed people for extended periods of time have you? I have seen some of the kids from the street go to jail, some that went on to further education, some that headed off abroad to work, some head down souff (UK), some become gang members, others join the long family tradition of screwing the system :facepalm:... they are not stupid prople, they are all intelligent smart bastards in their own ways. They are not lazy, they are efficient with their time, they realise that a low paying job isn't a fair trade off in regards to time v effort they'd have to put in re: cost of living etc... so figure out a smarter way to achieve their level of cashflow... in essence their children want more for themselves... it isn't just the family that guides the child :facepalm:

So please, show me where the similarities are again?

Just Different points of view. You say the base level is country where i say it is family.

Actually i have lived in an area of mass unemployment (Newcastle, England) and the place is full of substance abuse, violence and crime. Its full of i want's.
It is full of generations of family's that no nothing of going out to work to earn money or for the betterment of themselves or their family never mind the country.

Yep i guess you are right we don't see it the same as you condone sitting on your arse and getting a hand out , you just call it "They are not lazy, they are efficient with their time, they realise that a low paying job isn't a fair trade off in regards to time v effort they'd have to put in"

You also say " figure out a smarter way to achieve their level of cash flow..." That sound like condoning crime to me.

So what i read from that post is just leave it the way it is except everyone that works puts more in and those that don't get more handouts.

So I guess you are right that the two outcomes will be greatly different as yours will just be the status quo and mine will make the family accountable instead of leaving it up to the rest of us.

[BoristheBiter]

French did that after WW1, hence WW2, especial when you consider the Germans were as much a victim of their alliances as us in WW1 and didn't start the friggin' thing.

Who didn't start what now??

[Brian d marge]

French did that after WW1, hence WW2, especial when you consider the Germans were as much a victim of their alliances as us in WW1 and didn't start the friggin' thing.
Actually on a serious note , that whole mess started way back , before even bismark and the way the Americans and English treated the Germans in international affairs wasnt to hot ..... especially when quote " Germany where all social and political forces of the modern civilization have reached their most advanced form " ( from not so famous dead guy ) and the the English and Americans were Way behind ....

Stephen

[oneofsix]

Actually on a serious note , that whole mess started way back , before even Bismark and the way the Americans and English treated the Germans in international affairs wasnt to hot ..... especially when quote " Germany where all social and political forces of the modern civilization have reached their most advanced form " ( from not so famous dead guy ) and the the English and Americans were Way behind ....

Stephen

Yes but all that just provided a greater excuse for the Germans to honour the treaties they were committed to anyhow

[mashman]

Just Different points of view. You say the base level is country where i say it is family.

Actually i have lived in an area of mass unemployment (Newcastle, England) and the place is full of substance abuse, violence and crime. Its full of i want's.
It is full of generations of family's that no nothing of going out to work to earn money or for the betterment of themselves or their family never mind the country.

Yep i guess you are right we don't see it the same as you condone sitting on your arse and getting a hand out , you just call it "They are not lazy, they are efficient with their time, they realise that a low paying job isn't a fair trade off in regards to time v effort they'd have to put in"

You also say " figure out a smarter way to achieve their level of cash flow..." That sound like condoning crime to me.

So what i read from that post is just leave it the way it is except everyone that works puts more in and those that don't get more handouts.

So I guess you are right that the two outcomes will be greatly different as yours will just be the status quo and mine will make the family accountable instead of leaving it up to the rest of us

Oooook, gotcha.

:rofl: @ I wants... pot kettle black much :killingme...

I condone it in the context of a free NZ :yes:... as far as our current setup is concerned... it doesn't bother me. Some people will be lazy (in economic terms, it's a prerequisite for keeping inflation down :yes: which cracks me the fuck up :killingme... status quo much?), I refuse to let that get under my skin... Funny thing is, they're no more lazy than the kid born into a family that has sound investments and does nothing and has done nothing for a living since they were born... but that's ok, they're not taking your money :rofl:, not a cent :killingme.

:killingme @ crime... in the context of a free NZ it wouldn't matter... there wouldn't be any cash flow, just time and required energy for the country (something you could share amongst millions of unemployed people at an hour a day or somefink :yes:). I don't condone ripping people off at all, what they're doing is wholly legal :yes: and you ain't gonna change that because it's a vote loser :rofl:, i love it, bloody funny... also the financial and environmental damage caused by the guys at the bottom pales into significance compared to those up top. The state of humanity and the planet are testament to that.

You forgot the FREE bit BtB... nothing about leaving things the way they are at all :rofl:

You definately got that last bit arse about face :yes: :yes: and hell :yes:...

[mashman]

I was pointing out that despite their intelligence so many don't aspire to do any more than their parents, they never realise there IS more/they could do more - which is maybe all that they want to do.


And if that's all they want to do?

[short-circuit]

Oooook, gotcha.

:rofl: @ I wants... pot kettle black much :killingme...

I condone it in the context of a free NZ :yes:... as far as our current setup is concerned... it doesn't bother me. Some people will be lazy (in economic terms, it's a prerequisite for keeping inflation down :yes: which cracks me the fuck up :killingme... status quo much?), I refuse to let that get under my skin... Funny thing is, they're no more lazy than the kid born into a family that has sound investments and does nothing and has done nothing for a living since they were born... but that's ok, they're not taking your money :rofl:, not a cent :killingme.

:killingme @ crime... in the context of a free NZ it wouldn't matter... there wouldn't be any cash flow, just time and required energy for the country (something you could share amongst millions of unemployed people at an hour a day or somefink :yes:). I don't condone ripping people off at all, what they're doing is wholly legal :yes: and you ain't gonna change that because it's a vote loser :rofl:, i love it, bloody funny... also the financial and environmental damage caused by the guys at the bottom pales into significance compared to those up top. The state of humanity and the planet are testament to that.

You forgot the FREE bit BtB... nothing about leaving things the way they are at all :rofl:

You definately got that last bit arse about face :yes: :yes: and hell :yes:...

Emoticons are gay

[racefactory]

So... a quick summary of this now 23 pages of bullshit would be: We're all dole bludgers but there are no jobs anyway supposing we might want to get off our arses suddenly.

[BoristheBiter]

Oooook, gotcha.

:rofl: @ I wants... pot kettle black much :killingme...

not really I want for nothing

I condone it in the context of a free NZ :yes:... as far as our current setup is concerned... it doesn't bother me. Some people will be lazy (in economic terms, it's a prerequisite for keeping inflation down :yes: which cracks me the fuck up :killingme... status quo much?), I refuse to let that get under my skin... Funny thing is, they're no more lazy than the kid born into a family that has sound investments and does nothing and has done nothing for a living since they were born... but that's ok, they're not taking your money :rofl:, not a cent :killingme.

The difference is with a wealthy family the family has to stump up with the cash, beneficiary's use someone else's cash. I don't mind people being lazy just not while others are hard at work

:killingme @ crime... in the context of a free NZ it wouldn't matter... there wouldn't be any cash flow, just time and required energy for the country (something you could share amongst millions of unemployed people at an hour a day or somefink :yes:). I don't condone ripping people off at all, what they're doing is wholly legal :yes: and you ain't gonna change that because it's a vote loser :rofl:, i love it, bloody funny... also the financial and environmental damage caused by the guys at the bottom pales into significance compared to those up top. The state of humanity and the planet are testament to that.

You forgot the FREE bit BtB... nothing about leaving things the way they are at all :rofl:

Now that's really using your head NOT

You definately got that last bit arse about face :yes: :yes: and hell :yes:...
have no idea what you mean here.



I have no problem with giving someone a hand up, I object to giving someone a handout.

[scumdog]

And if that's all they want to do?

Hell, no problem.

But there's more to life than sitting around, quaffing lagers and 'hanging off the Queens tit'.

Apparently

But first you have to realise it - then make your choice.

[Elysium]

Oh good gods :facepalm:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5135511/100-000-plus-benefits-paid-to-households
"The possibility of benefit fraud is being investigated following a report that shows some households appear to be receiving more than $100,000 a year in welfare payments, with one getting over $220,000.

A report obtained under the Official Information Act by the New Zealand Herald shows 24 households, made up of between seven and 18 people, are getting more than $2000 a week.

One Papatoetoe household, which lists three children and 11 adults as its occupants, was shown to get $4302.90 each week - amounting to about $224,000 per year.

A note with the report said it was likely some of the people listed in the households no longer lived at the houses, and Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the ministry was contacting each adult to check the details.

"We would want to make sure they have been honest in their reporting to us and not getting over-payments," she said.

Among the concerns was the potential double-dipping on accommodation supplements, and the safety of children in the potentially overcrowded homes.

The ministry is expected to report back on the investigation later this month. "

[mashman]

Emoticons are gay


OH SHIT, maybe it is genetic :blink:, but I do find the whole money farce comedic at times :shit: (you gotta laugh, else...)



I have no problem with giving someone a hand up, I object to giving someone a handout.


What about a hand job :shifty: :killingme: :hugs: There are instances where I will think that too :yes:

And that is fair enough. I can't do that to people if it's a Money v Human Life situation... (both of which you can lose in the blink of an eye BTW :bleh:). Where money is a factor, there are no rules or laws, not truly. If there are, they're there to protect finance and property.

It's as easy as this. We print money... yet it's supply is "controlled"??? and money is touted to be the answer??? and this from a society that has rocketed itself into space in the last 50ish years??? Human devistation in the pursuit of money. Outfuckinstanding... that's pretty much where I'm coming from. Sometimes I find it funny :).

[mashman]

Hell, no problem.

But there's more to life than sitting around, quaffing lagers and 'hanging off the Queens tit'.

Apparently

But first you have to realise it - then make your choice.

heh... don't knocker it til you've tried it?

I agree there is more to life (football, pub, women, pub). They have very few decisions to make in life in comparison to others it would seem, much easier situation to have to deal with. If people wanna buy stuff, they get jobs etc... if they don't, they find ways to get stuff if they want it etc... (pssst, removing money would get around petty crime). Wonder if that would have an influence on how much crime a police type person would have to deal on any given day?

Some people make a lot of "wrong" choices... I'm guilty of a few.

[BoristheBiter]

heh... don't knocker it til you've tried it?

I agree there is more to life (football, pub, women, pub). They have very few decisions to make in life in comparison to others it would seem, much easier situation to have to deal with. If people wanna buy stuff, they get jobs etc... if they don't, they find ways to get stuff if they want it etc... (pssst, removing money would get around petty crime). Wonder if that would have an influence on how much crime a police type person would have to deal on any given day?

Some people make a lot of "wrong" choices... I'm guilty of a few.

I would say that a lot of petty crime is due to drugs coming from the inability to find things to do during the day.

[BoristheBiter]

OH SHIT, maybe it is genetic :blink:, but I do find the whole money farce comedic at times :shit: (you gotta laugh, else...)



What about a hand job :shifty: :killingme: :hugs: There are instances where I will think that too :yes:

And that is fair enough. I can't do that to people if it's a Money v Human Life situation... (both of which you can lose in the blink of an eye BTW :bleh:). Where money is a factor, there are no rules or laws, not truly. If there are, they're there to protect finance and property.

It's as easy as this. We print money... yet it's supply is "controlled"??? and money is touted to be the answer??? and this from a society that has rocketed itself into space in the last 50ish years??? Human devistation in the pursuit of money. Outfuckinstanding... that's pretty much where I'm coming from. Sometimes I find it funny :).

(Missed the multi-quote)

If you want to give someone a hand job then by all means go right ahead, what you do in the privacy of your home, or back alley, is your business.:rofl:

I have never seen anywhere that touted money as the answer, self compliance is the answer.

[FJRider]

Hang on a sec, within the Tax I pay isnt there a component that is attributed towards retirement/ namely my retirement? yes would be the answer to that so on the basis of what youre saying I want one of two things
1/ the pension
or
2/ a refund of all that which I have paid, and a deduction of tax !!

fucking government would love to take the same yeild while reducing its services, fuck them I want what I pay for and demand it!

Your tax goes into the big pot from which all the state welfare is paid ... and everything else too .. Treasury ...

As for refund and/or deduction in taxes ... He DID say productive members of society ... :lol:

[rainman]

So... a quick summary of this now 23 pages of bullshit would be: We're all dole bludgers but there are no jobs anyway supposing we might want to get off our arses suddenly.

Yup. :)


Oh good gods :facepalm:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5135511/100-000-plus-benefits-paid-to-households
"The possibility of benefit fraud is being investigated following a report that shows some households appear to be receiving more than $100,000 a year in welfare payments, with one getting over $220,000.

So why is it so fucking hard to sort this shit out? Think about it, if you were given oversight of WINZ how long would it take to find the gratuitous crooks and come up with a suitably targeted solution to weed out the top N worst offenders? Labour can't or won't do it, looks like National can't or won't either. I'm first to say that really fixing welfare is almost impossible, but finding the biggest fraud issues should be easy, and wildly popular to boot. Surely? I mean, I hate the bene bashing that goes on here and elsewhere, but the genuinely fraudulent need to get a kingsize can of arsekickery. (I just think they are the minority of bene's, unlike those of you who believe they are 100%),

I was going to say a coupla hours with some well-targeted SQL queries against their database would turn up some useful insights... but then I realised how primitive WINZ IT is (at least from the "customer" end...). Maybe it's all stored on 3x5 filing cards or something...

Grrr. My tolerance for useless politicians is at an all time low.

[Quasievil]

Yup. :)



So why is it so fucking hard to sort this shit out?

Because we all vote, thats why a dictatorship is the way to go

[Ocean1]

So why is it so fucking hard to sort this shit out?.

Watch closely...


"We would want to make sure they have been honest in their reporting to us"

They're relying on honest self-reporting.

Yeah, that orta do it.

[rainman]

Because we all vote, thats why a dictatorship is the way to go

But seriously, most people, even if they vary widely in their philosophical orientation towards welfare, would vote against blatant fraud and crookery. This is just government incompetence, over successive governments....

[mashman]

I would say that a lot of petty crime is due to drugs coming from the inability to find things to do during the day.

If you want to give someone a hand job then by all means go right ahead, what you do in the privacy of your home, or back alley, is your business.

I have never seen anywhere that touted money as the answer, self compliance is the answer.


:rofl:... isn't that to PAY for the habit? What if it's free? We'll still have "fuck ups" in society... it may be used sensibly? it may even become boring and noone will bother? (same with alcohol?). Perhaps with a whole society at their disposal, your bludgers might do "something" for society. We'll still have police to catch the same nut fucks that are around today. Hopefully we'll get less in the future etc... Who knows. But until you try it??????????

ha ha haaaaaaa

I agree... but only in its purist form (because human beings are quite unpredictable, even to themselves at times))... money seriously clouds the issues and blurs the lines of everything, because you can only afford to do so much (yeah yeah with graft you too can make it)... you have to balance an economy whilst trying to "make" people become "decent". None of that "justice"? you seek is fair without a level playing field imho... money has been proven to be the biggest problem in that regard... and with some quite horrific consequences. I'd like to try something completely different please. Something that doesn't involve kids/adults having their chances cut down because of their perceptions of the mighty $$$ (be it war/poverty/uninterested parents etc...).

Don't get me wrong, it could all go spectacularly wrong too... but I'm betting it won't... at least for a few thousand years.

If you're worried about the social fallout... check the reaction of the people in Belgium to their Government having not truly existed for a year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13725277)...

[Winston001]

The oldies were providing the pension for their olds, which was the way the world worked at the time. Hence sayings like the kids supporting you in your old age. However after so many of the last generations kids having been killed in 2 world wars governments needed to spread the burden across society.

Exactly correct. Good man. :niceone:


Hang on a sec, within the Tax I pay isnt there a component that is attributed towards retirement/ namely my retirement? yes would be the answer to that so...



NO would be the answer to that.


Although its not quite so simple.

Decades ago there was a Social Security tax of sixpence in the pound = 3%. This was intended to cover social welfare payments of the old age pension and the dole.

Eventually this amount wasn't enough (perhaps as early as 1952) and this special tax quietly disappeared in the 1970s. However the Social Security tax is the original reason many New Zealanders still believe we pay our own pensions for when we retire. Sadly - we don't.

Current pensions are paid by current taxpayers.

BUT...but...Michael Cullen recently introduced the NZ Super Fund (good on him) which is paid from general taxation, so in that sense, we are all paying a little bit forward. Except since the GFC, the govt have suspended the annual investments.

Secondly, Cullen (again) introduced Kiwisaver which is a true super fund for the individual. And that Quasi is all you get. You pay into it, you get it back. Everything else is just general taxation.

[avgas]

Go down to your local SPCA, Red cross, Salvation army, YMCA, Marae, church, community garden, volunteer organisation of choice, and find out how many beneficiaries are there putting in a solid effort to help out. Compare that with the number of willing workers there, who are either supported by a spouse/partner in the workforce, or workers who are there during their time off. Then tell me again how deserving most of these beneficiaries are.

When my g/f at the time moved in with me, she was not on a benefit, but had no work, having left her home town. She went and volunteered at the SPCA cleaning shit from cages, smiling nicely at cunts who were abandoning their 'pets', and doing the run to the vets for the euthing. She'd drop in to feed the critters on Xmas day. Within a couple of months someone came in and offered her a job.

It was one of those jobs that nobody really wanted to do, and she literally wore through the soles of two pairs of shoes doing it.

Yeah I married her ;)
Aye - just to clear something up. So she works for the SPCA, and is not a beneficiary.
Didn't you just defeat your own argument.
As for the Sallys about 70% paid, the others are on pension. Likewise figure is higher for RedCross. I haven't seen anyone on a dpb in a garden that is not their own. Greenpeace - paid. St John - paid........ SPCA - not paid, but many are workers such as vets etc. So not exactly beneficiaries.

Mother in law was in the car with me today, we called into LynnMall on way home from hospital and she was surprise how full the Mall was at 2pm. I had to kindly explain to her that many people don't have to work and the Government pays for them (she is from the US/China). So many people in NZ just muck around all day.

[avgas]

BUT...but...Michael Cullen recently introduced the NZ Super Fund (good on him) which is paid from general taxation, so in that sense, we are all paying a little bit forward. Except since the GFC, the govt have suspended the annual investments.
Are you sure about that?
Wife was working with that fund in late-2008 till 2009 and she reckons its always had regular incomming payments. I think that must have some truth otherwise where did the "Z" money come from, previous to that they had invested all the money so no liquid capital to put into stuff like buying a refinery and national group of stations. They even lost some money in stuff like Pike River.

Unless they sold up their overseas investments such as Sydney Airport Rail etc But that would take years?????

[Winston001]

Total assets as at 30 April 2011: NZ$19.15 billion.

Annual investment return since inception on 30 September 2003: 8.04%pa.

No additional funds invested since June 2009.

http://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145876642

[Smifffy]

Aye - just to clear something up. So she works for the SPCA, and is not a beneficiary.
Didn't you just defeat your own argument.
As for the Sallys about 70% paid, the others are on pension. Likewise figure is higher for RedCross. I haven't seen anyone on a dpb in a garden that is not their own. Greenpeace - paid. St John - paid........ SPCA - not paid, but many are workers such as vets etc. So not exactly beneficiaries.

Mother in law was in the car with me today, we called into LynnMall on way home from hospital and she was surprise how full the Mall was at 2pm. I had to kindly explain to her that many people don't have to work and the Government pays for them (she is from the US/China). So many people in NZ just muck around all day.


I'm talking about the volunteers, not the people on staff. Any of those places I mentioned will be only too happy to accept help from somebody who freely offers it without expecting payment.

What I'm getting at, is that the people that have the most time to offer their services, and are already getting enough money to survive on are nowhere to be seen in most of these places. The majority of the work is being done by people who are also in employment. For the most part volunteers don't even need a CV...

If they were serious about not being labelled bludgers they would indeed be trying to give something back. Sadly most only do when it is part of a community based sentence.

I guess what I was trying to say was clear in my head, but it seems it was misinterpreted by a number of people. Oh well.

To put it straight, for the record: She was not being paid by the SPCA, she was out of work and working there for nothing. A business person who had been providing a service to the SPCA and had seen her there several times and seen her work ethic, came in and offered her a job, when one became available.

The job was a pretty sucky one, but it was paid employment and she took it.

[Brian d marge]

Seriously
Old people smell
the war was over years ago ...and the ones that did fight are all dead now , The ones Im paying for are from "one night of passion on leave "

Further more have you ever noticed the ratio of butt ugly to pain in the arse ( Thailand not withstanding ) Paulas Bennet ,..... not even when im pissed ...so she will make everyone PAYE

eeeeuuuuuuuu

old people will be dead soon, so all we have to do is tread water , until sanity comes back. We have computers now , old people cant even switch them on .....

they still use telephones and leave voice messages .....sod knows what Global Warming means to them .......

Any way, once we get rid of Farmers ( and the aged are gone ) and we move towards a knowledge economy , every one will have a lot more money and this debate will have little relevance

IMHO

Stephen

[scissorhands]

Yawn.... 5:55am....what really bugs me about this thread is the putting something back mentality

What is being put back? Most people are lining their own nest, maybe destroying goodness working in some environmentally harmful and unnecessary career, all the while convinced that they are the good ones putting something back

Say I work for a motorcycle company selling parts or bikes whatever. What am I putting back? Selling unnecessary toys smelling of vain longings, for mid life crises men needing to fulfil something which is lost to them, actually unnecessary and may kill them. Same with snack foods.

Then you have the advertising and marketing people, politicians constantly arguing amongst themselves, social engineering dressed up as TV and movie industry...........it goes on and on and on, do we actually need so many pets? Are they happy being pets. As an industry and expenditure, how much time and money is spend on pets as our penis extension I mean ego extension????????

It may be that by 'putting something back' and working, you are proliferating a broken machine. And as a conscientious objector does not go to war, someone who chooses not to be a part of the system, may in some weird convoluted way be a positive agent for change

Glamour and vanity are rampant, and we convince ourselves we are doing good things, when self and greed are our real motivators

I believe that once society gets really spiritual and ethical, from the top down, the children and dispossessed at the bottom will be more motivated to join in and contribute

[scumdog]

Seriously
Old people smell
the war was over years ago ...and the ones that did fight are all dead now , The ones Im paying for are from "one night of passion on leave "

Further more have you ever noticed the ratio of butt ugly to pain in the arse ( Thailand not withstanding ) Paulas Bennet ,..... not even when im pissed ...so she will make everyone PAYE

eeeeuuuuuuuu

old people will be dead soon, so all we have to do is tread water , until sanity comes back. We have computers now , old people cant even switch them on .....

they still use telephones and leave voice messages .....sod knows what Global Warming means to them .......

Any way, once we get rid of Farmers ( and the aged are gone ) and we move towards a knowledge economy , every one will have a lot more money and this debate will have little relevance

IMHO

Stephen

Pissed?

or forgot to take your meds??

[Clockwork]

Wasn't there an abortive attempt at some sort of pension fund in the seventies. Thought I'd heard somewhere along the way Piggy robbed it and promised everyone the state would take care of them when they retired.

Anyone recall any more on this or have I just imagined it?

[Winston001]

Yes Clockwork although I can't remember the precise details.

The Bill Rowling led Labour Government in 1974 enacted a compulsory superannuation scheme where each of us had personal accounts. National led by Robert Muldoon repealed the law when elected in late 1975. The money was returned to workers.

Its been viewed as a terrible decision in hindsight. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/super-fund/news/article.cfm?c_id=468&objectid=10465138

[BoristheBiter]

Seriously
Old people smell
the war was over years ago ...and the ones that did fight are all dead now , The ones Im paying for are from "one night of passion on leave "

Further more have you ever noticed the ratio of butt ugly to pain in the arse ( Thailand not withstanding ) Paulas Bennet ,..... not even when im pissed ...so she will make everyone PAYE

eeeeuuuuuuuu

old people will be dead soon, so all we have to do is tread water , until sanity comes back. We have computers now , old people cant even switch them on .....

they still use telephones and leave voice messages .....sod knows what Global Warming means to them .......

Any way, once we get rid of Farmers ( and the aged are gone ) and we move towards a knowledge economy , every one will have a lot more money and this debate will have little relevance

IMHO

Stephen

Get back under your bridge as that isn't even worth the effort.

[Brian d marge]

Get back under your bridge as that isn't even worth the effort.

aww come on ... it was getting pretty blatant ....

Ok have stopped now , back to serious

Stephen

[Elysium]

Yup. :)



So why is it so fucking hard to sort this shit out?

Shouldn't be hard to search the system for people getting $100,000 - $220,000 a year and check on them.

[BoristheBiter]

aww come on ... it was getting pretty blatant ....

Ok have stopped now , back to serious

Stephen

Like you could ever do serious:killingme

[mashman]

Bill says: "We don't know the situation of every New Zealander but it is a fact that main benefits have to increase each year at the same rate as prices and superannuation has to increase each year by at least the same rate as prices and often increases by more," he said. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9638090/food-prices-drive-people-into-poverty-labour-says/)

[Brian d marge]

Like you could ever do serious:killingme

hey I did serious once ,,,, looked the bugger in the eye and said " i do " ...last time I do serious

Charlie Murphy did serious once , ,,,came home empty handed


Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Bill says: "We don't know the situation of every New Zealander but it is a fact that main benefits have to increase each year at the same rate as prices and superannuation has to increase each year by at least the same rate as prices and often increases by more," he said. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9638090/food-prices-drive-people-into-poverty-labour-says/)

inst it time to reming Labout that they started this ball rolling .. ( most likely from pressure from above )

Also food , what kind and how much ..I have woolies on line in front of me and what ...50 dollars for a week for a family ??

I would be more worried about the price of electricity ....and all the other crap that eats into a budget .....like speeding tax ( there ya go ,)

Governments , how about getting the basics right ( electricity , health , welfare transport infrastructure ) and let the market decide on the incidentals ( business , entertainment etc)

Are tiz but a lonely road to serfdom

Stephen

[Ender EnZed]

Also food , what kind and how much ..I have woolies on line in front of me and what ...50 dollars for a week for a family ??


A family of mice?

[Brett]

inst it time to reming Labout that they started this ball rolling .. ( most likely from pressure from above )

Also food , what kind and how much ..I have woolies on line in front of me and what ...50 dollars for a week for a family ??

I would be more worried about the price of electricity ....and all the other crap that eats into a budget .....like speeding tax ( there ya go ,)

Governments , how about getting the basics right ( electricity , health , welfare transport infrastructure ) and let the market decide on the incidentals ( business , entertainment etc)

Are tiz but a lonely road to serfdom

Stephen

Maybe it is just my frame of mind, but I am thinking that there are no decent politicians or government groups out there. Am I the only one HOPING that December 2012 resets mankind?
At present time, most of the world is in financial strife, at war or so broke it has the GDP of a corner store. I for one am looking forward to a clean slate.
Fuck this, maybe I should defect INTO North Korea.:banana:

[Brett]

They tend to be arrogant self serving biggots who think the world owes them a living.

That's a pretty unfair generalisation.

[Brian d marge]

A family of mice?

Fatso

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Maybe it is just my frame of mind, but I am thinking that there are no decent politicians or government groups out there. Am I the only one HOPING that December 2012 resets mankind?
At present time, most of the world is in financial strife, at war or so broke it has the GDP of a corner store. I for one am looking forward to a clean slate.
Fuck this, maybe I should defect INTO North Korea.:banana:

No just go next door and see how they are doing ...

trust me on this one

Stephen

[scissorhands]

The community problem of autism and neurodiversity in India is handled by making them into Musahar, or untouchables.

They're forced to live on the edge of cities, and were expected to catch and eat rats.

We could do that here?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2492/4150181461_9dd1df10a3.jpg

Good going India! Take nerdy people with excellent academic qualities and make them catch and eat rats! Tell them they are untouchables and retarded and thats all they are good for!

No wonder your country is such a basket case! No wonder you have never designed a bike ever,

and your nation runs like a well oiled machine:2thumbsup not

Anyone see Beauty and the Geek last night on telly? Good bit of positive enforcement there, nothing like making jokes out of a neurotype... and repressing this element of society. Fucken pricks

[mashman]

I would be more worried about the price of electricity ....and all the other crap that eats into a budget .....like speeding tax ( there ya go ,)

Governments , how about getting the basics right ( electricity , health , welfare transport infrastructure ) and let the market decide on the incidentals ( business , entertainment etc)


That I am... specially when they're about to put vast chunks of it in private hands...

They can't get the basics right, it costs too much, because some of that money is required to invest overseas to grow the economy, and we do have our debt to pay.

[oneofsix]

That I am... specially when they're about to put vast chunks of it in private hands...

They can't get the basics right, it costs too much, because some of that money is required to invest overseas to grow the economy, and we do have our debt to pay.

pay? I think you mean shift from government debt to private debt but still NZ debt. If NZ owes so much private debt in overseas exchange because of overseas ownership of so many of our assists doesn't that drive Government borrowing to balance the books?

[Swoop]

The Bill Rowling led Labour Government in 1974 enacted a compulsory superannuation scheme where each of us had personal accounts. National led by Robert Muldoon repealed the law when elected in late 1975. The money was returned to workers.

Its been viewed as a terrible decision in hindsight.
Dunno why.
I withdrew from the compulsory scheme when it became available (not that trusting that bastard muldoon to do anything intelligent though) and have been happy since.

No just go next door and see how they are doing ...

trust me on this one
Yup.
Especially with China upping troops on the border to get the smugglers under control and sending a message to the NK hardliners about their actions...

[mashman]

pay? I think you mean shift from government debt to private debt but still NZ debt. If NZ owes so much private debt in overseas exchange because of overseas ownership of so many of our assists doesn't that drive Government borrowing to balance the books?

That is probably the case. Although I suppose you could argue that it is good for the govt... in that selling on the debt means govt don't have to borrow as much (but probably will anyway)... all depending on who the debt sits with I guess. I'm sure we'll share the cost :shifty:

[Winston001]

That I am... specially when they're about to put vast chunks of it in private hands...

They can't get the basics right, it costs too much, because some of that money is required to invest overseas to grow the economy, and we do have our debt to pay.


pay? I think you mean shift from government debt to private debt but still NZ debt. If NZ owes so much private debt in overseas exchange because of overseas ownership of so many of our assists doesn't that drive Government borrowing to balance the books?

Bit of confusion here chaps.

The govt intends selling 49% of the power companies and using that money to repay loans the govt owes to overseas lenders. So govt debt is reduced. That is good.

NZ doesn't owe private debt or public debt arising out of foreign investment in NZ assets. I'm not sure where you got that from, or I'm misunderstanding.

[Oscar]

That I am... specially when they're about to put vast chunks of it in private hands...

They can't get the basics right, it costs too much, because some of that money is required to invest overseas to grow the economy, and we do have our debt to pay.

This is confusing, even by your standards.
Why do we have to invest money overseas to grow our economy?
How does that and overseas debt (I assume that's what yer on about) relate to the price of electricity?

Surely there's a shit load of money being invested locally on energy generation?

[Howie]

Yup.
Especially with China upping troops on the border to get the smugglers under control and sending a message to the NK hardliners about their actions...

Yep and China does so well for it's own people.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mot72pmBTk8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mot72pmBTk8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[The Stranger]

Perhaps I am just being dim here, so please, humour me and connect the dots.
- You want to cut business tax, completely if possible,
- You propose to raise GST to compensate, but only partly.
- You don't expect business to cut prices because they're greedy.
- You haven't said how you'd reduce govt spend to make up the shortfall.
- You haven't admitted this means increasing individual tax.
What kind of maths do you use? I'm genuinely open-minded to wacky suggestions, but only those that actually add up. Unless you have a source of magic beans somewhere, I can't see this working for the voters who will have to foot the bill, so it will never happen and is what we might call irrelevant.



Man, are you fucking with me?
Surely you jest.
From my post #249
"Get rid of company tax and increase income tax across the board and GST to 20% to recover the lost income tax take."
There's your missing link for fuck sake!
Learn to read.

And no of course it wont happen. Too many people are too rigid in their ideologies to even entertain the idea of thinking for themselves and apparently reading comprehension in this country is at an all time low right now - sound like anyone you know?

For the umpteenth time - YOU PAY ALL THE TAX ANYWAY! My company hasn't paid a cent in tax ever! I have collected a heap from you (the public at large) and passed it on to the government though. So the way it is now, you pay my tax anyway, what's the difference if you pay me to pay the govt or pay them direct?

Now, to be sure - I'm NOT saying a sudden drop to zero and as previously pointed out zero would almost certainly never happen. I used zero as an example to provoke thought on principals.

[The Stranger]

I can't see this working for the voters who will have to foot the bill, so it will never happen and is what we might call irrelevant.


Irrelevant it may be. But you did ask what I would do?
Not what will or will not happen.
Were you to ask what I believe will happen I would have said we will continue to do the same as we have always done all the while expecting a different outcome.

Sounds suspiciously like a familiar definition for something. Think about that definition when you find yourself unable to change wont you.

[Winston001]

"Get rid of company tax and increase income tax across the board and GST to 20% to recover the lost income tax take."



That's an idea I've wondered about myself. If anyone is interested, its discussed on Straight Dope http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=608778

Theoretically all money eventually flows to the individual where it can be taxed.

The objection is that companies can retain earnings (untaxed) while still indirectly benefiting the shareholders. It shouldn't happen but can be damned hard to pick up.

[FJRider]

Theoretically all money eventually flows to the individual where it can be taxed.



In practice ... it flows from the individual ... and IS taxed ...

[rainman]

From my post #249
"Get rid of company tax and increase income tax across the board and GST to 20% to recover the lost income tax take."


Apologies, I had forgotten that's what you has said by the time we got to this part of the discussion. And in my defense, my brain is scrambled from too little sleep and too much study.

Also, had you said "my idea is to increase effective individual tax to over 60%", we could probably all have saved a bit of time here.

And before you trot out your logic that prices will drop and it won't matter, so would salaries and wages...


And no of course it wont happen.

Yes, but that's less because it' hard to get people to do sensible things, and more because it's a fucking stupid idea.


For the umpteenth time - YOU PAY ALL THE TAX ANYWAY! My company hasn't paid a cent in tax ever! I have collected a heap from you (the public at large) and passed it on to the government though. So the way it is now, you pay my tax anyway, what's the difference if you pay me to pay the govt or pay them direct?


I also pay all of your electricity bill, by the same token. Do you want that free too?


Irrelevant it may be. But you did ask what I would do?
... Think about that definition when you find yourself unable to change wont you.

Indeed i did ask that, fair enough. But now that you've told me I'm left a little disappointed.

And I'm eminently flexible and always willing to change my views - but only as long as the opposing views are better.than those I already hold.

[The Stranger]

Apologies, I had forgotten that's what you has said by the time we got to this part of the discussion. And in my defense, my brain is scrambled from too little sleep and too much study.

Also, had you said "my idea is to increase effective individual tax to over 60%", we could probably all have saved a bit of time here.

And before you trot out your logic that prices will drop and it won't matter, so would salaries and wages...



Yes, but that's less because it' hard to get people to do sensible things, and more because it's a fucking stupid idea.



Without bothering to check your 60% figure (which incidentally is still below the top marginal rate we have had in NZ in years past) you are obviously missing a critical element (now there's a surprise). That is as noted on at least 2 previous occasions that it would be phased in and in reality wouldn't reach 0.

Providing an environment for companies to grow and become strong is clearly fucking stupid. Better off we all just hope like hell that commodity prices stay high, because that sounds like a plan we can all bank on for the future. And what's more, we don't actually need companies anyway because the likes of yourself are perfectly able to find jobs on your own, and hell, if you can't, you can always go on the dole right.

[scissorhands]

Who's winning the facts and figures pooh fight?

Keep it up, you will either finally get it right:lol:, or end up with a job in the herdhive

[Winston001]

Globally, company taxes average 25%. Few countries have no company tax.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;316529

Much as I like your idea Stranger, the evidence is against it. Consider economic powerhouses such as China (25%), Japan (40%), Germany (29%), and the United States (0-35%).

If we reduced company tax to Zero, people would rearrange their affairs to keep as much money in their companies as possible. We know that, from existing efforts to move income to the lowest taxed enitity eg. spreading it among your children - tax law was amended to stop that.

The fairest tax system is one flat tax across everybody. Rodger Douglas tried - and he was correct.

[mashman]

Bit of confusion here chaps.

The govt intends selling 49% of the power companies and using that money to repay loans the govt owes to overseas lenders. So govt debt is reduced. That is good.

NZ doesn't owe private debt or public debt arising out of foreign investment in NZ assets. I'm not sure where you got that from, or I'm misunderstanding.


I didn't say it wasn't good (the post just above yours agrees... to a degree :))

It doesn't? Did NZ not "take on" the debt of Kiwirail when it was re-bought from Oz? Is that the same thing?



This is confusing, even by your standards.
Why do we have to invest money overseas to grow our economy?
How does that and overseas debt (I assume that's what yer on about) relate to the price of electricity?

Surely there's a shit load of money being invested locally on energy generation?


Noooo, surely not.
Dunno, educate me... (but 1 reason will be to keep personal tax bills down)
If we're using the money from the asset sales to pay off overseas debt, there will be less $$$ available for investment/maintenance of the actual assets. Having nearly cut the "steady" cashflow in half, investment/maintenance will suffer and any shortfalls will need to be covered (up) and probably by the govt at our expense as the major shareholder... who will then have to borrow from overseas again for investment/maintenance etc... One consequence will be higher elecrticity prices... Pick away big boy.

There probably is... these things ain't cheap.

[Oscar]

Noooo, surely not.
Dunno, educate me... (but 1 reason will be to keep personal tax bills down)
If we're using the money from the asset sales to pay off overseas debt, there will be less $$$ available for investment/maintenance of the actual assets. Having nearly cut the "steady" cashflow in half, investment/maintenance will suffer and any shortfalls will need to be covered (up) and probably by the govt at our expense as the major shareholder... who will then have to borrow from overseas again for investment/maintenance etc... One consequence will be higher elecrticity prices... Pick away big boy.

There probably is... these things ain't cheap.

The money from the share sales has little or nothing to do with investment or maintenance in the infrastructure. That money would have to be found from somewhere even if the shares weren't sold.


I have no idea what your comment about the cashflow being cut in half refers to. Tell the voices in your head to slow down, so you can type everytng they say...

[Winston001]

Did NZ not "take on" the debt of Kiwirail when it was re-bought from Oz? Is that the same thing?

NO. NZ did not take on Toll Holdings debt when we purchased the rolling stock and ferries.



If we're using the money from the asset sales to pay off overseas debt, there will be less $$$ available for investment/maintenance of the actual assets. Having nearly cut the "steady" cashflow in half, investment/maintenance will suffer and any shortfalls will need to be covered (up) and probably by the govt at our expense as the major shareholder... who will then have to borrow from overseas again for investment/maintenance etc... One consequence will be higher elecrticity prices... Pick away big boy.

Oh dear. Mash - debt requires servicing ie. interest payments. If you have no debt = no interest to pay. That means more money for you to spend elsewhere.

SOEs like any other business set money aside each year to replace/build new plant. These are strong businesses with near monopolies so I don't think you have to worry too much.

Yes, the price of electricity will rise. We are one of the cheaper places in the world but don't have enough of the stuff and new generation is expensive. No nation can get away from that.

[mashman]

I know i shouldn't... but BONSAAAAAAAAAAAAAI



The money from the share sales has little or nothing to do with investment or maintenance in the infrastructure. That money would have to be found from somewhere even if the shares weren't sold.

I have no idea what your comment about the cashflow being cut in half refers to. Tell the voices in your head to slow down, so you can type everytng they say...

With more outgoings there WILL be less money around for that incestment/maintenance, which in turn will encourage a price rise (it may take a year or 3, but it'll happen?).

Hyperbole... the voices told me to say it... (i'm glad someone else hears them too)



NO. NZ did not take on Toll Holdings debt when we purchased the rolling stock and ferries.


I must have misread? "Hon Bill English:

Can the Minister tell the House and the public whether that figure includes the Government taking on somewhere around $100 million to $200 million of debt, Toll NZ having access to rent-free depot space in prime locations for 6 years, and, as rumoured, a special discount for Toll NZ’s own freight?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the first point, clearly, the company carries some debt. It also has a finance lease over the Arahura. The price being paid is slightly above the per share price with which Toll NZ bought out the minority shareholders, so a premium was paid to obtain control. That share price, of course, reflected also the existence of debt and the Arahura finance lease. On the other matters, the member is free to invent what he likes for the next few weeks; the full details will be released when the final deal is completed, and I think members will discover that a lot of what has been said in the public area is greatly exaggerated." (http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/portfolios/finance/2008/may/13/toll_holdings#national_3)

Isn't that Ironbridge radio nonsense situation kinda similar? Foreign debt I mean? After all that $49,000,000 (quoted somewhere) was probably earmarked for the PM's house to be renovated or somefink... so "we" have to fund the shortfall by borrowing more or cutting services?



Oh dear. Mash - debt requires servicing ie. interest payments. If you have no debt = no interest to pay. That means more money for you to spend elsewhere.

SOEs like any other business set money aside each year to replace/build new plant. These are strong businesses with near monopolies so I don't think you have to worry too much.

Yes, the price of electricity will rise. We are one of the cheaper places in the world but don't have enough of the stuff and new generation is expensive. No nation can get away from that.


:rofl:... I understand that debt requires servicing and didn't realise that I had said the opposite? I understand that the govt could pay off a chunk of public debt, which would hopefully lower the borrowing and leave a little left over to give more tax breaks and pave the streets with gold etc... call me a cynic like... but, I have my reservations in regards to what the money will be spent on... they've already said they're looking at new assets, so I'm not counting my chickens that public debt will be healthier after the SOE "sales". Which, to me, is what the message is?

I'm not worrying, I'm laughing... I've other things to worry about.

A nation can get away with it... they just need to do what's necessary to prove that new generation = expensive theory incorrect. Your lecky (amongst other things) is farkin expensive here... I use MUCH less than here than when living in Scotland, yet I pay more... I know, I know new generation = expensive.

[Oscar]

I know i shouldn't... but BONSAAAAAAAAAAAAAI



With more outgoings there WILL be less money around for that incestment/maintenance, which in turn will encourage a price rise (it may take a year or 3, but it'll happen?).



What the fuck is incestment, you sick bastid?

Where are these extra outgoings coming from?
And don't say dividends, because the SOE's already pay the Govt. the market equivalent.

[mashman]

What the fuck is incestment, you sick bastid?

Where are these extra outgoings coming from?
And don't say dividends, because the SOE's already pay the Govt. the market equivalent.

:rofl:... double entendre for my own giggles...

Do the govt take a fixed rate? or all of it because they own the SOE anyway? Anything not going to the govt coffers, that currently does, is an extra outgoing in my eyes. So DIVIDENDS :bleh:

[rainman]

it would be phased in and in reality wouldn't reach 0.

So your big idea is you want to reduce company tax a little?


Providing an environment for companies to grow and become strong is clearly fucking stupid.... And what's more, we don't actually need companies anyway because the likes of yourself are perfectly able to find jobs on your own, and hell, if you can't, you can always go on the dole right.

It's considered poor form in logical debate to state your own conclusions in support of your argument..

And your second sentence in that quote is hilarious, considering I get 100% of my income from my own company.


Globally, company taxes average 25%. Few countries have no company tax....the evidence is against it.

Sssshh! Don't ruin the fun by bringing reality in to this.

[The Stranger]

Globally, company taxes average 25%. Few countries have no company tax.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;316529

Much as I like your idea Stranger, the evidence is against it. Consider economic powerhouses such as China (25%), Japan (40%), Germany (29%), and the United States (0-35%).

If we reduced company tax to Zero, people would rearrange their affairs to keep as much money in their companies as possible. We know that, from existing efforts to move income to the lowest taxed enitity eg. spreading it among your children - tax law was amended to stop that.

The fairest tax system is one flat tax across everybody. Rodger Douglas tried - and he was correct.

Yes, I readily accept that zero is unworkable. Just as I pointed out on 2 previous occasions, post 260 and again in post 392 where I go on to say I use zero as an example to provoke thought - a what if scenario. In post 260 I say that I doubt it would get below 20% and give a range of between 20 - 25%.
Whilst I understand that someone not closely following the thread may not have picked up on these, they were both replies to rainman and to which he also replied - but some are slow to take clue.
My mistake of course was trying to provoke thought in my original post on the matter.

There are numerous reasons why 0 is not practically possible and most who have raised that have only scratched the surface. But regardless of that. People keeping money in their companies if you will note from my first post on the subject is an effect that I had intended. Do you think that would make for healthier companies?
Would a healthier company be more or less likely to hire more staff?

Re your economic powerhouses - well good luck there. There are myriad other issues to consider. The average dole bludger in NZ earns more in a week than the average Chinese worker earns in a month. Perhaps we should apply their solution to NZ? How do you think rainman will react to his new salary?
We could model our economy on the good old US of A, but I doubt we could actually borrow 14 trillion dollars.
And it's not like things were looking particularly rosey in Japan pre quake either. Still, I suppose we do share the same work ethic and skills in general.

Point is - they have their problems too.

We have heard talk of pay parity with Australia ha (ha fucking ha ha ha)! Seriously, ANY thought of that through conventional means is preposterous. Look at the natural resources they have.
IF we are to even come close we need an advantage. We desperately need to support business. That support may well not be "fair", but what in life is?

But hey, I'm all open to a better approach.

RD's flat tax is not looking too far off my approach now really is it. Though it has to be predicated on a reduction in govt spending. I wouldn't mind betting he is betting on a reduction in company tax to soak up unemployment for that. The down side I see to that is that governments don't reduce spending, instead they find new and creative ways to spend everything they get their hands on. My approach recognises this reality.

[The Stranger]

So your big idea is you want to reduce company tax a little?


I want to reduce company tax sufficiently.
I can see you have trouble working stuff out on your own, so I give up on try to plant ideas for you to think through - It's really not your strong point.
You see, were you to reduce company tax too far a number of problems would arise to stifle growth.
For one, foreign manufacturers would cry foul and implore their governments to impose punitive tarrifs on the import of our goods - thus stifling growth.
Another problem would be that if (as I anticipate) unemployment were to be soaked up we would then be in a situation where we have a shortage of labour, which would lead to very high wages, again stifling growth.
Another issue is that some companies don't earn all of their income in NZ (say Fontera). So you (as in the general public at large) don't actually pay all of their tax at the moment, so why should you pick up this entire bill for them now?
Then there is the issue of foreign companies exporting their profits both to and from NZ.

So yes my big idea is to reduce it a little at a time over a period and to monitor these factors (and account for them in various other ways) until unemployment reaches a suitable level (above zero). What makes it a big idea - the fact that little people can't let go their ideologies to see past the end of their noses and would whine like stuck pigs at the thought.




It's considered poor form in logical debate to state your own conclusions in support of your argument..
.

Logical debate? With you? BWAHAHAHAHA, perhaps when you learn to read maybe.

[rainman]

some are slow to take clue.
...
My mistake of course was trying to provoke thought in my original post on the matter.

I had noticed that. Here's a thought-provoking point, perhaps, using your "tax more, get less, tax less, get more" logic: what happens when you tax companies less and individual taxpayers more? You get more companies and fewer individual taxpayers, perhaps? So far so good, possibility of further goodness developing from there maybe, but what when the bottom 64% of companies are already 1-5 employees or smaller, and the top 47% of employees are employed by fewer than 2000 companies? It's not a raw volume game here in NZ - we get 145,000 new company registrations a year as it is (unfortunately 137,000 declare bankruptcy every year, but hey, gotta love a tryer, right? Give it a go mate, she'll be right?).

What we are lacking is not low tax, or more companies, or yet another fucking oversimplistic idea about tax to argue over. It's competence, nouse in negotiations, market access, quality product, capable management, infrastructure, people development skills, ability to manage at scale, mature risk orientation, long-term and strategic thinking, and yes, better wages so we can buy our own stuff... The things that make good mid-sized companies into great and successful larger companies. When was our last company success story that wasn't farming and didn't just end up being bought out overseas? Who grew heaps of jobs? In NZ, that is?

In short: we're actually a bit shit. (A bit) low (er)tax won't fix that.


How do you think rainman will react to his new salary?

Considering the amount I earn from a salary is precisely zero, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon, if I were pedantic I'd say it'd make no difference. As it happens, the Chinese "managed market" approach is one model that structurally stands more likelihood of success than raw freemarketarianism in the near future, somewhat ironically. I'd hate it though, too much of a shit stirrer, it would be mere weeks before the comrades put me in jail.

Your later post sounds like you're starting to think this through a bit more. Excellent. But it still sounds to me like you're describing the Greek tax model. And that isn't working so well for them, even right there next to European markets, despite them following your recipe for success and cutting company tax rates (a little). Their unemployment curve is up up up.

[The Stranger]

What we are lacking is not low tax, or more companies, or yet another fucking oversimplistic idea about tax to argue over. It's competence, nouse in negotiations, market access, quality product, capable management, infrastructure, people development skills, ability to manage at scale, mature risk orientation, long-term and strategic thinking, and yes, better wages so we can buy our own stuff.

So now you're in government and have this great idea. What are you going to do to achieve these goals?

[The Stranger]

But it still sounds to me like you're describing the Greek tax model. And that isn't working so well for them, even right there next to European markets, despite them following your recipe for success and cutting company tax rates (a little). Their unemployment curve is up up up.

Thank you, now I see you are really getting to grips with it, awesome.
If we compare this (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/highest-marginal-tax-rate-corporate-rate-percent-wb-data.html) chart of Greeces corporate tax rate to this (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=z9a8a3sje0h8ii_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=eu_country:GR&dl=en&hl=en&q=greek+unemployment+rate) chart of unemployment what do we see?
That's right a direct corelation - up until the global financial crisis hit.

As noted above however, direct comparrisons between different countries are not really valid. They had significantly wider issues when the crisis hit which we don't have.

The interesting thing is they have announced that they plan to cut further the corporate tax rate - so I guess having tried it they really wouldn't have a clue would they.

[superman]

John Key says....

IMPROVING OUR WELFARE SYSTEM
This week I announced a ministerial group to lead work on improving New Zealand's welfare system.
I want this country to have a welfare system that encourages personal responsibility, helps people into paid jobs, and protects our most vulnerable.
The independent Welfare Working Group's recent report shows our welfare system isn't working as well as it could.
We have to do better for hardworking taxpayers, for beneficiaries who are falling far short of their potential, and for children growing up in welfare-dependent households.
Long-term welfare dependency robs people of confidence, motivation and aspiration. Ultimately it can rob their children of these things, too.
This Government is not prepared to leave this large group of New Zealanders behind. I'm ambitious for what we can achieve in this area, and I look forward to announcing our welfare reform policies before the election

I'm so glad that Labour and National are finally going further left and right wing again. Was rather annoying last election how centre National became as well as Labour when they were both trying to dip into eachothers vote coffers. Wonder how convinced average Joe will be of right-wing policies this coming election.

[BoristheBiter]

Isn't that Ironbridge radio nonsense situation kinda similar? Foreign debt I mean? After all that $49,000,000 (quoted somewhere) was probably earmarked for the PM's house to be renovated or somefink... so "we" have to fund the shortfall by borrowing more or cutting services?



You really should pay attention to the news as it is premiere house that is being renovated.




John Key says....

IMPROVING OUR WELFARE SYSTEM
This week I announced a ministerial group to lead work on improving New Zealand's welfare system.
I want this country to have a welfare system that encourages personal responsibility, helps people into paid jobs, and protects our most vulnerable.
The independent Welfare Working Group's recent report shows our welfare system isn't working as well as it could.
We have to do better for hardworking taxpayers, for beneficiaries who are falling far short of their potential, and for children growing up in welfare-dependent households.
Long-term welfare dependency robs people of confidence, motivation and aspiration. Ultimately it can rob their children of these things, too.
This Government is not prepared to leave this large group of New Zealanders behind. I'm ambitious for what we can achieve in this area, and I look forward to announcing our welfare reform policies before the election

I'm so glad that Labour and National are finally going further left and right wing again. Was rather annoying last election how centre National became as well as Labour when they were both trying to dip into eachothers vote coffers. Wonder how convinced average Joe will be of right-wing policies this coming election.

About time too.

[mashman]

John Key says....

IMPROVING OUR WELFARE SYSTEM
This week I announced a ministerial group to lead work on improving New Zealand's welfare system.
I want this country to have a welfare system that encourages personal responsibility, helps people into paid jobs, and protects our most vulnerable.
The independent Welfare Working Group's recent report shows our welfare system isn't working as well as it could.
We have to do better for hardworking taxpayers, for beneficiaries who are falling far short of their potential, and for children growing up in welfare-dependent households.
Long-term welfare dependency robs people of confidence, motivation and aspiration. Ultimately it can rob their children of these things, too.
This Government is not prepared to leave this large group of New Zealanders behind. I'm ambitious for what we can achieve in this area, and I look forward to announcing our welfare reform policies before the election

I'm so glad that Labour and National are finally going further left and right wing again. Was rather annoying last election how centre National became as well as Labour when they were both trying to dip into eachothers vote coffers. Wonder how convinced average Joe will be of right-wing policies this coming election.

:killingme... bunch of ignorant cunts the lot of 'em... we want to help people reach their potential irrespective of wether they'd like to or not... ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa... that attitude is gonna work :blink:



You really should pay attention to the news as it is premiere house that is being renovated.


hee hee... yeah I know... they also had the $40+ million upgrade of the gov gens mansion too... but that's money well spent too :blink:

[BoristheBiter]

hee hee... yeah I know... they also had the $40+ million upgrade of the gov gens mansion too... but that's money well spent too :blink:

You are starting to sound more and more like a labour lacky with every post.
You just make up any old shit just to make a noise and when you are picked up on it you just say "i knew that". Its getting very boring now.

I think you should be sent to PD for excessive use of emoticons.

[oneofsix]

You are starting to sound more and more like a labour lacky with every post.
You just make up any old shit just to make a noise and when you are picked up on it you just say "i knew that". Its getting very boring now.

I think you should be sent to PD for excessive use of emoticons.

Awl looks like some one bit the biter :nya::2thumbsup: :killingme: :girlfight: :lol: :dodge:

[BoristheBiter]

Awl looks like some one bit the biter :nya::2thumbsup: :killingme: :girlfight: :lol: :dodge:

I bit about a month ago and am still paying for it.:facepalm:

[oneofsix]

I bit about a month ago and am still paying for it.:facepalm:

aint KB fun?
Helps me get through my day

[BoristheBiter]

aint KB fun?
Helps me get through my day

It's the reason i get up in the morning.

[Oscar]

Do the govt take a fixed rate? or all of it because they own the SOE anyway? Anything not going to the govt coffers, that currently does, is an extra outgoing in my eyes. So DIVIDENDS :bleh:

You have no clue, do you?

[mashman]

You are starting to sound more and more like a labour lacky with every post.
You just make up any old shit just to make a noise and when you are picked up on it you just say "i knew that". Its getting very boring now.

I think you should be sent to PD for excessive use of emoticons.


:rofl: a labour lacky. There is a reason I've never voted ya know :yes: :bleh: :hug:
You'd be amazed, obviously, at what I do know. When I'm picked up on something I "try" to explain myself... but that explanation will be from my point of view... no need for me to toe a party line as others seem to... let alone categorise a person by their perceived political affiliation.

I'm already in a land of pointless drivel... I'd like to see that change and once there, it'll be emoticons for everyone :)



You have no clue, do you?


Was wondering if you'd take the time to educate me on the finer points by leaving some "questions" :innocent:... but as per usual, you don't. And yes, I have A clue (you posted one earlier, I know, I noticed :shit:, hence the "questions")... but I am also aware that I don't know it all, quite possibly not even close.

[Oscar]

Was wondering if you'd take the time to educate me on the finer points by leaving some "questions" :innocent:... but as per usual, you don't. And yes, I have A clue (you posted one earlier, I know, I noticed :shit:, hence the "questions")... but I am also aware that I don't know it all, quite possibly not even close.

As usual, you've made some stupid comments on a subject you obviously know little or nothing about, and are now backing it up with more gibberish.

And since gibberish seems to be your specialist subject, I'll leave you to it.

[mashman]

As usual, you've made some stupid comments on a subject you obviously know little or nothing about, and are now backing it up with more gibberish.

And since gibberish seems to be your specialist subject, I'll leave you to it.

So post the stupid comments and point our where I was wrong. I have no fear of being wrong, humiliated and ridiculed publicly. Or is that beneath you... which I suspect it is, hence the lack of a question mark.

Back up what you're claiming for a change instead of running away. Ya know, have the argument that you know you're going to win and have that all too familiar superior glow you receive afterwards :girlfight:

[Oscar]

So post the stupid comments and point our where I was wrong. I have no fear of being wrong, humiliated and ridiculed publicly. Or is that beneath you... which I suspect it is, hence the lack of a question mark.

Back up what you're claiming for a change instead of running away. Ya know, have the argument that you know you're going to win and have that all too familiar superior glow you receive afterwards :girlfight:

Your comments about SOE's are gibberish.
You appear to be inferring that R&M + investment in new technology is funded by the Govt. This is simply not true.

[oneofsix]

Your comments about SOE's are gibberish.
You appear to be inferring that R&M + investment in new technology is funded by the Govt. This is simply not true.

SOE's investing in new tech :lol: :rofl:
Perhaps I should read back through the thread, there might be serious thought there somewhere :sherlock:

[mashman]

Your comments about SOE's are gibberish.
You appear to be inferring that R&M + investment in new technology is funded by the Govt. This is simply not true.

but but but... you're right... I do think that that is the case... and it would appear that I wasn't the only one.



SOEs like any other business set money aside each year to replace/build new plant. These are strong businesses with near monopolies so I don't think you have to worry too much.

[Oscar]

but but but... you're right... I do think that that is the case... and it would appear that I wasn't the only one.

They pay their shareholders a dividend (the Govt. in this instance), and put some money aside for future development and R&M. Like any other business.

But you seem to think that the money moves in the other direction:


If we're using the money from the asset sales to pay off overseas debt, there will be less $$$ available for investment/maintenance of the actual assets. Having nearly cut the "steady" cashflow in half, investment/maintenance will suffer and any shortfalls will need to be covered (up) and probably by the govt at our expense as the major shareholder... who will then have to borrow from overseas again for investment/maintenance etc... One consequence will be higher elecrticity prices... Pick away big boy.


This is, even by your standards, pretty stupid.

[mashman]

They pay their shareholders a dividend (the Govt. in this instance), and put some money aside for future development and R&M. Like any other business.

But you seem to think that the money moves in the other direction:


So the govt don't put ANY money into an SOE in the form of initiatives (?loans?) to augment the R+M budget available to that SOE?






If we're using the money from the asset sales to pay off overseas debt, there will be less $$$ available for investment/maintenance of the actual assets. Having nearly cut the "steady" cashflow in half, investment/maintenance will suffer and any shortfalls will need to be covered (up) and probably by the govt at our expense as the major shareholder... who will then have to borrow from overseas again for investment/maintenance etc... One consequence will be higher elecrticity prices... Pick away big boy.


This is, even by your standards, pretty stupid.


Heh, aye that one has a few things in there that could probably do with a wee smidge of seperation :shifty:

Assets sales = money away from govt and money away from R+M budget? (supposedly paying off debt, but most likely not).
Govt "loses" 49% of what they would have received had they had 100% ownership? (albeit traded for lump sum)
That 49% becomes "dead" money imho. Shareholders probably won't directly invest in R+M of the SOE, govt/taxpayer will probably have to cover any shortfall as main shareholder?
Causing govt to borrow/tax more? either at a consumer level (price rises) or at the shareholder level (no return)?

[Oscar]

So the govt don't put ANY money into an SOE in the form of initiatives (?loans?) to augment the R+M budget available to that SOE?



Heh, aye that one has a few things in there that could probably do with a wee smidge of seperation :shifty:

Assets sales = money away from govt and money away from R+M budget? (supposedly paying off debt, but most likely not).
Govt "loses" 49% of what they would have received had they had 100% ownership? (albeit traded for lump sum)
That 49% becomes "dead" money imho. Shareholders probably won't directly invest in R+M of the SOE, govt/taxpayer will probably have to cover any shortfall as main shareholder?
Causing govt to borrow/tax more? either at a consumer level (price rises) or at the shareholder level (no return)?

Do you even know what R&M is?
Why would any viable business be asking it's shareholders for money to cover this?

[oneofsix]

So the govt don't put ANY money into an SOE in the form of initiatives (?loans?) to augment the R+M budget available to that SOE?


Didn't with T'com and that generation of SOE's, haven't seen any in the power companies, TVNZ was denied the chance to invest in tech that would have made them SKY competitive and if you think Freeview is SOE investment think again. SOE is just a separation step to prepare them for sale, so they can get some stock history etc.

[The Stranger]

:killingme... bunch of ignorant cunts the lot of 'em... we want to help people reach their potential irrespective of wether they'd like to or not... ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa... that attitude is gonna work :blink:



What's your angle here, why do you find it humorous?

[Ocean1]

Do you even know what R&M is?
Why would any viable business be asking it's shareholders for money to cover this?

I reckon he's got it as Research and somethingsimilarstartingwithM.

[mashman]

Do you even know what R&M is?
Why would any viable business be asking it's shareholders for money to cover this?

I'm assuming Resources and Manitenance...
Are you saying it doesn't happen?



Didn't with T'com and that generation of SOE's, haven't seen any in the power companies, TVNZ was denied the chance to invest in tech that would have made them SKY competitive and if you think Freeview is SOE investment think again. SOE is just a separation step to prepare them for sale, so they can get some stock history etc.

So it doesn't happen then?



What's your angle here, why do you find it humorous?

waaaaaaa ha ha ha ha aaaaaaaaaa stop it please...



I reckon he's got it as Research and somethingsimilarstartingwithM.


could be that too I guess :)

[BoristheBiter]

I'm already in a land of pointless drivel... I'd like to see that change and once there, it'll be emoticons for everyone :)

.

God help us all


So post the stupid comments and point our where I was wrong. I have no fear of being wrong, humiliated and ridiculed publicly. Or is that beneath you... which I suspect it is, hence the lack of a question mark.
:

Like ther is another way on KB??

[Oscar]

I'm assuming Resources and Manitenance...
Are you saying it doesn't happen?





It stands for Repairs and Maintenance, and any company that needed to ask money ‎from shareholders for this is not long for this world.‎ Your comments are indicative of your tenuous grasp on this subject (not to mention your tenuous grasp on reality).‎

I think you were referring to Capital Investment and Research, and I don’t recall any ‎SOE ever having to ask the Govt. for money to fund this.‎

[mashman]

It stands for Repairs and Maintenance, and any company that needed to ask money ‎from shareholders for this is not long for this world.‎ Your comments are indicative of your tenuous grasp on this subject (not to mention your tenuous grasp on reality).‎

I think you were referring to Capital Investment and Research, and I don’t recall any ‎SOE ever having to ask the Govt. for money to fund this.‎

:rofl:@tenuous on the subject of SOE and its dealings with govt... you flatter me. (my grasp on reality is fine thanks)

I wonder if the govt just offer, instead of waiting to be asked (that is a joke :shifty)

[The Stranger]

waaaaaaa ha ha ha ha aaaaaaaaaa stop it please...


My apologies, I hadn't meant to trigger another psychotic episode by enquiring into which of the several possible humorous interpretations of the statement you found mirth in.
Please resume your meds.

[BoristheBiter]

My apologies, I hadn't meant to trigger another psychotic episode by enquiring into which of the several possible humorous interpretations of the statement you found mirth in.
Please resume your meds.

The sad thing is I don't think he is on any.

[mashman]

My apologies, I hadn't meant to trigger another psychotic episode by enquiring into which of the several possible humorous interpretations of the statement you found mirth in.
Please resume your meds.

I'm sorry... your original post made me laugh... the reason tends to do that to me :)... and I wasn't sure which way to take your post. I'm sure you have a point to prove. But...

Let me start by saying in so many different ways (the more I read it, waaaa ha ha haaaaaa)

Primarily from the status quo point of view. It's ok. Money fixed the system last time we had a tinker :blink:.
Then...
"Helps people into paid jobs and protects our most vulnerable". At last, someone who has figured out how to fix it.
"The independent Welfare Working Group's recent report shows our welfare system isn't working as well as it could." No shit... the mans a genius.
"We have to do better for hardworking taxpayers, for beneficiaries who are falling far short of their potential, and for children growing up in welfare-dependent households." Make more money, save more money and think happy happy thoughts. The beneficiaries really want our lifestyle, they just don't know it yet.
"Long-term welfare dependency robs people of confidence, motivation and aspiration. Ultimately it can rob their children of these things, too.". Ok, so there's not a lot to laugh at there... other than telling dependents that long-term welfare will utterly destroy the person that they are.
"This Government is not prepared to leave this large group of New Zealanders behind. I'm ambitious for what we can achieve in this area, and I look forward to announcing our welfare reform policies before the election" ... aaaaaaaand curtain ... what a rousing finale... it just takes yer breath away doesn't it.

I've heard that kind of "statement" a few times before, but MANY different guises... Noble thoughts, Zero intention. It smacks of, Dear Voters ... Pick ME, ME, ME, I want the same things as you do too...

The fix for welfare reform. Move money from here, over there and take that money from there and move it over here... yeah, that looks about right. sorted

If I didn't laugh. I'd cry.

[mashman]

The sad thing is I don't think he is on any.

you're such a bitch

[BoristheBiter]

you're such a bitch

To know me is to love me:p

[mashman]

To know me is to love me:p

divine beauty?

[BoristheBiter]

divine beauty?

You do know me well.



Oops ...sorry i thought you said bovine.

[Smifffy]

Typical. WTF do SOEs etc have to do with lazy people too tired to get off their couches and go do something other than xbox for a living, other than the fact that the rest of us are propping them up too?

[rainman]

So now you're in government and have this great idea. What are you going to do to achieve these goals?

Firstly, me being in government is your biggest nightmare, I would think. Fortunately I have a healthy cupboard full of skeletons, so to speak, and would never get anywhere close to being elected.

Secondly, I don't think government exists to address most of the issues I have raised. Most of them are cultural, and although government can certainly affect that, it's not their main job. Sure government is a useful bully pulpit to preach from, but change has to come from within. Almost none of them an be fixed, anyway, but if I had a play at governing? I'd start by significantly increasing our dose of vision - something that has been sorely lacking in this land for quite some time. Get 'em by the hearts and their hands and feet will follow, I say...

The main part of this would have to be building more of a sense of unity in the country - less us and them, more we're in it together (see below). Bit of national pride, identity and belonging, perhaps like existed in the good old days, or can be found in our neighbours to the west (although we don't actually seem to like that about them too much). That delivers both ways - more wanting to participate in OUR society, more willing to help those of US fallen on hard times, less willing to bludge off the rest of US. Yes of course this isn't a silver bullet but there isn't one - social change is lots of little nudges. Oh, I might have to restructure the media.

Some stick with the carrot - public sanction for the obvious frauds, which I hold are easy to find and make examples of, but both at the bottom of the scale as well as the top. I'd make it clear that benefit crookery (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4511808/Harris-to-get-benefit-axed-after-26-years) would be as little tolerated as tax dodging (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/02/tax-cheats-ii.html). But that's not remotely the main task at hand, building self-reliance is - not only as individuals, although that helps, but as communities, and as a nation overall.

Tax and economic policy? I'd be strongly inclined towards a less globalist approach and would reward local production as my preferred way of making jobs. I don't know in a WTO-driven world how much progress one could make to unwinding all of the globalised free trade crap, but I'd give it a go. I'd be keen to nationalise all of the shit we sold off shore, particularly banking ("Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" as the old quote goes), but we might need an army for that. Maybe default on debts, fuck the ratings agencies..I'd disincentivise large cities, incentivise net local (useful) production and local shipping. Reward Kiwi made and kiwi consumed. Grow our domestic markets and refocus global trade. Globalism hollows local economies, we need to rebuild our centre before we get to be a bunch of poor people with high living costs (Oops!),

Kinda Great Leap Backwards, with a twist of Bolivarian revolution.

Of course, all of that won't happen, and we're too small and powerless to force this change even if we wanted to, so it's irrelevant too. Also, it it's not an easy solution because there is no easy solution..

Thirdly, my view of the future and yours (if not, certainly of most people) are probably worlds apart, and without some things agreed you are unlikely to see any sense in any solutions I advance. I hold we're about to fall into a set of circumstances which the world has never seen before - yes, I am explicitly claiming that these are unique and extraordinary times - and we are extremely ill-prepared. It's too late to fix now though, and some bits of the future are just going to suck. Those that don't hurt, that is.

In particular, oil depletion, high food prices, and financial woes (how long before we stop talking about recession, I wonder) are here to stay, and for a long time. The world has fundamentally changed, we're a bit like Wile E Coyote and have run off the cliff, but have not figured it out yet.

The good outcome is we have a big crash, it shakes us and the rest of the planet up a little, and while everyone's attention is diverted we get on with sorting shit out, and can stop being an underperforming little island nation which half the world couldn't find on a map if you held hot coals under their feet. The only people who care about us are the one we owe money to,

The bad outcome is things don't crash but slowly decline, and we "enjoy" a period of Greek-style IMF medicine (but without the rioting, we're too domesticated for that) before things get worse for everyone again, and worser for us. We've always been the beta testing ground for the world, maybe we'll be both first to see the sun, and first to see the dark times.

And no, I don't see a feasible "Business As Usual" growth scenario in my lifetime - which is why even if your scheme did somehow magically create more companies and jobs I'd be interested to see what you think they would produce. Knowledge economy, gaming and entertainment or similar? They're over.Unspecified next big thing? Spare me the magical thinking. Green economy? A bit too late. May be some minor progress for a while here and there, but the long term trend overall is inexorable decline.

Good thing I'd never be elected, eh?

[Winston001]

I'd start by significantly increasing our dose of vision - something that has been sorely lacking in this land for quite some time. Get 'em by the hearts and their hands and feet will follow, I say...

The main part of this would have to be building more of a sense of unity in the country - less us and them, more we're in it together .

I hold we're about to fall into a set of circumstances which the world has never seen before - yes, I am explicitly claiming that these are unique and extraordinary times - and we are extremely ill-prepared. .

In particular, oil depletion, high food prices, and financial woes (how long before we stop talking about recession, I wonder) are here to stay, and for a long time. The world has fundamentally changed.

...even if your scheme did somehow magically create more companies and jobs I'd be interested to see what you think they would produce. Knowledge economy, gaming and entertainment or similar? They're over.Unspecified next big thing?

I agree with much of what you say, but I don't have such a dystopian view of the future.

NZ is a rare country. Geographically isolated from war, invasion, and disease. Spacious with a low population and a temperate climate. A stable nation with first world education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The world is facing unique risks. Overpopulation. Collapse of the biosphere. Evaporation of cheap energy. Disappearance of clean water.

Historically when these things happened there were new lands to settle. Not any more.

Still, at a primary level we create food. And we have plenty of water. NZ is a paradise for most of humanity. What we need are more frigates! :2thumbsup

[Ocean1]

One of the earlier Hellenisms was her quashing of the extended ANZUS frigate deal. At the request of several NZ comercial elements the Aussie government countered with the reinstatement of the supply contract in exchange for contracts for NZ's supply of smaller naval craft for the Aussie navy. They offered help in developing that capacity, although I reckon we were then better boatbuilders than them anyway.

What was actually on offer was not just a job building boats, it was an industry potentially worth more to NZ than Tenex, (the Aussie frigate builders). We were to become the one of the worlds principal boatbuiulding assets for both naval and commercial markets.

One of the interested parties above had already invested considerable resources in preperation for converting a stretch of the Seaview, (Lower Hutt) foreshore into high-tech shipping yard.

She turned it down.

[racefactory]

I agree with much of what you say, but I don't have such a dystopian view of the future.

NZ is a rare country. Geographically isolated from war, invasion, and disease. Spacious with a low population and a temperate climate. A stable nation with first world education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The world is facing unique risks. Overpopulation. Collapse of the biosphere. Evaporation of cheap energy. Disappearance of clean water.

Historically when these things happened there were new lands to settle. Not any more.

Still, at a primary level we create food. And we have plenty of water. NZ is a paradise for most of humanity. What we need are more frigates! :2thumbsup

Exactly why given the coming times ahead I would rather be here than anywhere else in the world. Too isolated for mass desperate refugees to reach, sustainable population, plenty of land with ability to feed the nation and most importantly- WATER! I just bloody hope the rest of the world doesn't wake up and see this too soon... we need defenses first.

[rainman]

I agree with much of what you say, but I don't have such a dystopian view of the future.

NZ is a rare country. Geographically isolated from war, invasion, and disease. Spacious with a low population and a temperate climate. A stable nation with first world education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The world is facing unique risks. Overpopulation. Collapse of the biosphere. Evaporation of cheap energy. Disappearance of clean water.

Historically when these things happened there were new lands to settle. Not any more.

Still, at a primary level we create food. And we have plenty of water. NZ is a paradise for most of humanity. What we need are more frigates! :2thumbsup

Sounds awfully like "she'll be right" to me. Is this belief in NZ exceptionalism what we were sold to sweeten the rape and pillage of the 80's, or does it predate that? Either way it is much more untrue than it is true.

Geographically isolated is a real mixed blessing, but I think limited market access outweighs the distance from war element - you can bring war anywhere (although with NZ, why would you bother? We could be invaded in an afternoon by anyone with a smidgen of competence).
Population density: low, but that really just means high infrastructure costs. Heaps of countries are within their carrying capacity, we're not unique there. Has potential if we were culturally aligned to have some Do It Ourselves/Buy Kiwi Made national pride, of course.
Stable: yeah, I suppose. I'd say catatonically apathetic, but that's just semantics. We're too polite to riot, rather just have a good bitch about each other to feel better. What has been our response to being rogered by the left and the right in he 80's and 90's? We voted in MMP (that'll send the buggers a message), and we feel vaguely disappointed and betrayed by politicians. Ho hum.
And we much prefer to bicker like children about bludgers of one shade or another* than get on with sorting the real issues.
Education, healthcare, infrastructure (except roads): sure, they are good by comparison to some, but if we can't afford to maintain them, or increasingly to access them, what good is that? The trajectory there is downward too, I'm afraid - public healthcare is under threat, and the right hates the education system and always tries to undermine it. Earthquakes don't help either. And the more we privatise the worse it gets - foreign owners don't deliver social goods unless they have to, or an make a buck doing so. Connect the dots.

Also, with globalisation it matters not a whit how wonderful NZ is. If your prices (food and commodities) are set globally, and your markets are completely open, then if you want a decent standard of living you have earn one by producing valuable goods and services (rather than borrowing). This is where geography bites us and will do so more in the near future, as it gets harder to get to our markets. If our wages (share of earnings) drop further then we lose more access to our own assets, and become even more tenants than owners. And I don't think we can unscramble the egg and put up isolation measures to undo the mess wrought by Roger Sociopath Douglas and his mates. No-one has the balls, for one thing. And as you point out, we don't have the frigates.

This is why I get grumpy when people like The Stranger trot out simplistic tax remedies to fix all our woes: 1) doesn't recognise present reality, and 2) we tried that already and it fucked the place over wholesale. Not learning from your mistakes in these circumstances is exceptional. Exceptional stupidity, that is.


One of the earlier Hellenisms was her quashing of the extended ANZUS frigate deal.

Sounds like a mistake, and was maybe even driven by guns-are-bad-mmmkay ideology. But why has no-one done anything to find an equivalent opportunity since? If we have exceptionally good boat builders why aren't we building frigates for the Koreans, or Somalis, or whoever? If we have all these assets why are we not using them to get a return for the country?

Why can't we even compete when it comes to building a few trains?


* Speaking of bludgers, did you see that one of the Property Developer Dave Henderson's currently going bankrupt has paid a total of $17,000 in taxes over about the last 16 years? By comparison even Daryl Harris is an amateur bludger. Betcha he doesn't get any public outrage, though.

[avgas]

Capital Investment and Research, and I don’t recall any ‎SOE ever having to ask the Govt. for money to fund this.‎
- Meridian
- Delta
- Orion
- Vector
- Watercare
- NZP
- WINZ...pretty much if you find me a SOE or Govt Enterprise, I will find the funding.
(note not all SOE's).
They usually put it under the pseudonym "Program" or "Scholarship", but essentially broke down to funding for what you have requested.
Not saying its bad though - I mean hell I would rather someone found a way to generate clean power than to fund some moron playing PS3.

[avgas]

If we have exceptionally good boat builders why aren't we building frigates for the Koreans, or Somalis, or whoever? If we have all these assets why are we not using them to get a return for the country?
We are building small defense ships for use in CoastGuards. But essentially the problem with boatbuilding is distance. You can't just chuck a boat in a container and send it overseas. Which is why our frigates were made in Australian even though half the gear came from US or Europe.

Why can't we even compete when it comes to building a few trains?
Because we can't compete against the like of Siemens without a trainyard with the balance of Fonterra.
Bottom line counts here, the big boys can setup a village in the middle of nowhere, build a rail system then packup cheaper than we can build in NZ and ship out.

[rainman]

We are building small defense ships for use in CoastGuards. But essentially the problem with boatbuilding is distance. You can't just chuck a boat in a container and send it overseas. Which is why our frigates were made in Australian even though half the gear came from US or Europe.

Bottom line counts here, the big boys can setup a village in the middle of nowhere, build a rail system then packup cheaper than we can build in NZ and ship out.

Exactly, thank you. None of that gets easier in an oil-constrained world, and we're unlikely to increase in scale significantly.

[Ocean1]

Sounds like a mistake, and was maybe even driven by guns-are-bad-mmmkay ideology.

Exactly correct.


But why has no-one done anything to find an equivalent opportunity since? If we have exceptionally good boat builders why aren't we building frigates for the Koreans, or Somalis, or whoever? If we have all these assets why are we not using them to get a return for the country?


Not Frigates, patrol craft and smaller.

And it's a chicken / egg thing. If you had the work you'd have the capacity and vic versa. That contract would have funded the asset build at Seaview.

You get a signature on any roughly equivalent contract tomorrow, I'll introduce you to the guys who can build the infrastructure and we'd be in business next week.


Why can't we even compete when it comes to building a few trains?

Slightly different proposition. To quote a recent conversation, "Kiwirail see their business as freight, not engineering". So Wellington's Matangis were built in Korea, rather than Woburn.

I rather think they don't know their business all that well, but what the fuck would I know, I'm an engineer.

[rainman]

And it's a chicken / egg thing. If you had the work you'd have the capacity and vic versa.

S'funny logic that. Customer of mine once tried to tell me he'd love to do business with me, but I'd have to have had the right number of people on the payroll for the right length of time in offices at the right address. Didn't matter if I could do the work he needed then and there, better than others. Small-minded bloke, but hey, there's a lot of it out there. One of the things that holds us back.

A lot of business in the real world gets sold on potential rather than actual capability, but based on either keen pricing or a demonstrable historical ability to get shit done. If we're not closing the deals then either we're too dear, don't have the history, or there's some other reason (no-one's selling it?) for why prospective customers don't have faith in us. What is holding us back from being an engineering powerhouse (OK, a small one), employing relative hordes and solving our welfare problem? I'm fairly sure it isn't excessive company tax.

For that matter why aren't we out there buying up big chunks of the "lesser" countries' industry, running it better and making shitloads of cash to feed back into developing capability back home? I think we have a rather inflated opinion of our capability relative to that held by our customers. Which is another reason why a fully open market etc was and is a dumb idea.

[Ocean1]

Customer of mine once tried to tell me...

That dude that said "the customer is always right"? Was a dirty stinkin' know-nothin' customer.


What is holding us back from being an engineering powerhouse (OK, a small one), employing relative hordes and solving our welfare problem? I'm fairly sure it isn't excessive company tax.

Best guess? Lack of cohesive marketing and inflexible labour laws.


I think we have a rather inflated opinion of our capability relative to that held by our customers.

Hasn't been my experience. Invariably I find most Kiwi engineering based industry to be genuinely innovative. I've a few stories about how the rest of the world see us...

One of North America's largest tractor manufacturers pulled their flagship model from the showrooms two years into it's six year product life because a Kiwi supplier had been shut down by it's UK head office. With the capital backing of one of the worlds biggies behind them none of that multi-national's twenty odd alternative plants could supply the parts. At any price or any lead time. That was one of about 20 overseas product lines so affected. You know what that must have cost. In that industry the loss of that NZ plant is seen as a major fuck up.

Helps us now not a jot, of course. How is it that invariably those who make descisions regarding capital don't seem to be able to see the woods for the trees?

[Winston001]

reason (no-one's selling it?) for why prospective customers don't have faith in us. What is holding us back from being an engineering powerhouse (OK, a small one), employing relative hordes and solving our welfare problem?

For that matter why aren't we out there buying up big chunks of the "lesser" countries' industry...

From my short visit to Malaysia I can't see why anybody would contract engineering to a distant place like NZ. Those guys are switched on, dedicated, accurate, high quality, and half our price.

Plus this type of economy is closed: NZ investors thinking they could take over would get a shock.

[rainman]

inflexible labour laws.

What specifically would you change? What substance there is in the reflexive and regular complaints about labour laws in NZ is surely at the lower end of the skill spectrum - giving people a chance but not being able to easily move them on if they turn out to be hopeless. That's been addressed (whether fairly or not is the matter for another thread) by the 90 day fire-at-will laws. There's basically no reason but managerial incompetence for employment problems now - and even so, the process for fixing issues is really not onerous; I've done it several times (most resulting in the person staying and performing, others ending in separation). All you are required to do is treat people with some basic dignity and fairness. Y'know, as you would have them do unto you, were the boot on the other foot.


Plus this type of economy is closed: NZ investors thinking they could take over would get a shock.

There's a point I'd neglected. So why do we almost completely open our economy to foreign ownership, when the favour mostly isn't returned? I have to ask: are we just terminally stupid?

[Ocean1]

Those guys are switched on, dedicated, accurate, high quality, and half our price.

Then why do they hire me as a consultant?

They have a management class that seems well competent, but they're light on technical developpment skills, (more a cultural thing than a lack of training) and while the labour is relatively cheap it's extremely intractible. On any given workday I'd have at least 10% of the staff on leave for one religeous reason or another.



Plus this type of economy is closed: NZ investors thinking they could take over would get a shock.

True. They're a large country, which equals a large potential market, which equals a lot of political clout wrt trade agreements.

[Ocean1]

What specifically would you change? What substance there is in the reflexive and regular complaints about labour laws in NZ is surely at the lower end of the skill spectrum - giving people a chance but not being able to easily move them on if they turn out to be hopeless. That's been addressed (whether fairly or not is the matter for another thread) by the 90 day fire-at-will laws. There's basically no reason but managerial incompetence for employment problems now - and even so, the process for fixing issues is really not onerous; I've done it several times (most resulting in the person staying and performing, others ending in separation). All you are required to do is treat people with some basic dignity and fairness. Y'know, as you would have them do unto you, were the boot on the other foot.

P’raps you’re right, mebe it’s simply a peculiarly distinct culturally inbred incompetence in our collective management. Certainly many managers fail to identify their skilled staff as THE primary asset of their business. That’s not unique to NZ but it is endemic here. I don’t know how to fix that, if decades of having our most highly trained techies fuck off overseas for better offers leaving the unskilled and a largely poorly trained management class behind doesn’t give ‘em a clue I’m fucked if I know what will.


Still. As you said, we're a small country, wrt export opportunities in particular our market penetration is sporadic. Our employment laws need to recognise that small companies, (over 90% of our economy) simply can’t absorb that risk alone and hope to survive. Companies can indeed more easily divest themselves of surplus “labour” when the belt needs tightening nowadays. The trouble is how to identify and retain the skill and experience required to develop the company's product through tight times. ‘Cause that's when you need them, not when you're simply filling orders in a good year.

The Auckland boatbuilding industry was held as a good example of how to do it, many small specialist companies supplying skills to the big yards, who then needed to simply focus on retaining the marketing and design focus.

[avgas]

From my short visit to Malaysia I can't see why anybody would contract engineering to a distant place like NZ. Those guys are switched on, dedicated, accurate, high quality, and half our price.
Yeah and No.
Seen some good ones and some bad ones. While the ratio is probably the same here - any good engineers go to Singapore. Where we send the same ratio of morons to Aus. So I suspect we 'hopefully' have a slightly higher ratio here of good engineers.

As for another comment here, about overseas firms buying up NZ ones. Has happened already. I still work for an NZ firm, 100% owned by my Singaporean oversears CSE-Global. Likewise the my previous group I worked (in Aus) for is now owned by Schneider. EDS is now owned by HP........ so they are buying all the smarts here too.

[mashman]

What is holding us back from being an engineering powerhouse (OK, a small one), employing relative hordes and solving our welfare problem? I'm fairly sure it isn't excessive company tax.


Easy. Money... but in light of the obvious copout there... Easy. Too many people in the wrong jobs for wrong reasons. How often do you hear, I would have stayed in the <insert industry>, but it didn't pay enough? That money thing "forces" people to make life decisions that they normally wouldn't. I've asked a few friends why they do what they do and very few do it for the "love" of the job... and just about all of them do it for the $$$ they can earn (shallow bastards :rofl:). So right people wrong job ranks right under money imho.

[SPman]

There's a point I'd neglected. So why do we almost completely open our economy to foreign ownership, when the favour mostly isn't returned? I have to ask: are we just terminally stupid?
Yes! :nya:

[scumdog]

There's a point I'd neglected. So why do we almost completely open our economy to foreign ownership, when the favour mostly isn't returned? I have to ask: are we just terminally stupid?

YUp, that's why we're selling lots of dairy cows to China at the moment..

[Winston001]

YUp, that's why we're selling lots of dairy cows to China at the moment..

Yeah? News to me Scummy. I'd have thought it was far simpler and cheaper to sell the semen than ship live animals. Got a link?

[FJRider]

YUp, that's why we're selling lots of dairy cows to China at the moment..

And I recall the sale of apple tree's to south-american countries ...

[FJRider]

Yeah? News to me Scummy. I'd have thought it was far simpler and cheaper to sell the semen than ship live animals. Got a link?

Don't you watch country calender ??? ... was on a while back ....

http://www.agritech.org.nz/products-liveanimal.shtml

[Winston001]

Cheers FJ, thanks for the link.

[The Stranger]

Firstly, me being in government is your biggest nightmare, I would think.

Too true, too true - especially given your vague directionless rambling.



And no, I don't see a feasible "Business As Usual" growth scenario in my lifetime - which is why even if your scheme did somehow magically create more companies and jobs I'd be interested to see what you think they would produce. Knowledge economy, gaming and entertainment or similar? They're over.Unspecified next big thing? Spare me the magical thinking. Green economy? A bit too late. May be some minor progress for a while here and there, but the long term trend overall is inexorable decline.


Shit, that's a pretty neat trick. Did you have to send that post to Redmond to get them to extract anything useful and pad it with waffle or is there a wafflise function in the editor that I don't know about?

I thought surely after your critique of my ideas you would surely have a plan of your own. It turns out yours is worse than the average lotto punter. Like you they know what they want, but the difference is at least they have a plan of how to get it.


Now to some nuts and bolts.

For a start, any company does help the economy. Be they service industries, knowledge, gaming whatever. Not all are going to improve our standard of living as a whole, but they may well improve some individual/s standard of living.
They employ people for one thing. They churn money for another. The more times money changes hands the happier everyone is - as more get to clip the ticket.

I have no doubt however that companies that say bring in tourism or export are best at raising the nation's standard of living.
So whilst we are at it, what do you have against Fontera? One of your earlier posts you seemed a touch disconcerted by large dairy. Regardless of that - and because it illustrates a point here. Fletcher Construction. It was not that long ago that it was the 4th largest construction company in America (by way of subsidiaries) and measured by value of contracts in play - co-incidentally it was also the 8th largest in the world by the same measure. Where it ranks now I do not know. However, you can be very sure that they have one hell of a capacity and some very talented people.

So, my point is, Kiwis can do shit. They can reach the top.
Your post appears very negative you use your opinion "I don't see a feasible "Business As Usual" growth scenario in my lifetime" to justify why my scheme won't work.
Just as China benefits from it's exports and as does Japan (countries previously cited as power house economies) so too can we.

We have people and companies capable of great innovation (including in our primary industry and lets face, everyone in the world likes to eat too) - jet pack anyone?, or a never go flat battery, a high efficiency pump, or a high efficiency electric motor or a whole host of other things. Many of these things never reach their potential. Much of it for want of money. In the states you have soo many people with soo much money that these things will get off the ground.
The Segway is a classic - in the USA people like Paul Allen tipped in huge amounts of money without even knowing what it was that was being invented. In NZ - it never would have happened, it would still be in a back shed.

SO - my point is we can do it, we can create design, produce, export and run large successful companies the generate foreign income and that would be easier and more common if these companies had more money. More people would be employed, fewer people would be on the dole, the government could then reduce the tax take and we'd all live happily ever after.

[rainman]

Too true, too true - especially given your vague directionless rambling.

Now you're just being mean. I could counter by saying it seems waffle is any shit you don't understand.


I thought surely after your critique of my ideas you would surely have a plan of your own.

No, I have no magic plan. Because there is NO FUCKING MAGIC PLAN to get back to Friedmanite growth nirvana. We are done, finished, kaput. (Un-waffly enough for you?)


So, my point is, Kiwis can do shit. They can reach the top.

If we are so fucking good, then why aren't we? Oh, that's right, the taxes and excessive labour laws and.... boo fucking hoo.


SO - my point is we can do it, we can create design, produce, export and run large successful companies the generate foreign income and that would be easier and more common if these companies had more money. More people would be employed, fewer people would be on the dole, the government could then reduce the tax take and we'd all live happily ever after.

Buddy, let me spell it out:
- Your "plan" is cartoonishly oversimple
- We've already tried it and it just fucked the economy over (well, it was a contributing factor)
- No-one else that I can find has radically slashed company taxes and found their economy sustainably transformed. Lest you think this is waffle, I'm saying Your Plan Won't Work In The Real World Even If It Sounds Like A Really Good Idea.
- Yes I know you said just cut them a little but originally you were all on about the PR appeal to foreign owners of 0% yada yada. If you want to cut company taxes a bit, meh. It'll just lose whoever does it the next election, but go for it if it makes you happy.

[scissorhands]

Where does all the pooh come from? Who' s winning?

Is the new age upon us? Can the world move on and live together as one yet?

Or are we still stuck in the past?

Will feudal warlords reign again or will the UN take over the ship and eject all the cooks in the kitchen?

[Winston001]

Will feudal warlords reign again or will the UN take over the ship and eject all the cooks in the kitchen?

I'm sure we will have a world government one of these days but not soon. Too much argy bargy at the moment.

Alternatively science fiction has predicted corporate nations instead of countries. If we consider globalisation and the fact there are companies with bigger economies than small nations....maybe we are close already.

[Clockwork]

We're already well on the way.....


and the good thing about corporate democracies is (depending on you point of view) instead of one man one vote it's one dollar one vote

[oneofsix]

We're already well on the way.....


and the good thing about corporate democracies is (depending on you point of view) instead of one man one vote it's one dollar one vote

:woohoo: The great leap backwards, been done except last time it was based on land ownership, hence why all maori men had the vote before most white men.

[SPman]

We're already well on the way.....


and the good thing about corporate democracies is (depending on you point of view) instead of one man one vote it's one dollar one vote
Corporate..

democracies..

The 2 concepts are mutually exclusive!

a democracy is far more than one man, one vote.......

[mashman]

We're already well on the way.....


and the good thing about corporate democracies is (depending on you point of view) instead of one man one vote it's one dollar one vote

like it isn't already here? Plutarchy. and I found the images in this (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph) quite amusing (albeit it's merka, and it's statistics :))

[Winston001]

I've seen those figures elsewhere Mash. I suspect they aren't completely unbiased but also true enough. The disparities in wealth distribution are enough to cause revolution. What is likely to happen if the ordinary people make enough noise, are new capital taxes and death duties which redistribute wealth.

That's what happened in NZ in the late 19th century and in Britain. In fact the Brits still have hefty taxes to flatten wealth inequality.

[SPman]

That's what happened in NZ in the late 19th century and in Britain. In fact the Brits still have hefty taxes to flatten wealth inequality. But getting lesser by the year.......

[rainman]

like it isn't already here? Plutarchy. and I found the images in this (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph) quite amusing (albeit it's merka, and it's statistics :))

But wait, won't it all just get better if we give our mighty atlases more money?

By value of total taxable income (Individuals, 2009, but still):
Average income bottom 90% = $31,193 per person per year
That's roughly 98.8% of us that derived a taxable income (see below).
Average income top 10% = $270,000 pppy
Average income top 5% = $447,413 pppy

We don't have stats for 1% or 0.01% but spot the pattern.

Includes income from employment and taxable welfare benefits, super, student allowances etc. Does not include anyone with no taxable income, but 134,160 that filed zero taxable income (might be a coupla paths to that). Does not include WFF tax credits, but others are included, except donations and.. ah feck it, there are some exceptions and inclusions, look it up yourself if you care enough.

Somehow, I think Michael Cullen was right.


I suspect they aren't completely unbiased but also true enough.

On what basis do you think there might be bias? And how can they be biased but true enough?

[mashman]

I've seen those figures elsewhere Mash. I suspect they aren't completely unbiased but also true enough. The disparities in wealth distribution are enough to cause revolution. What is likely to happen if the ordinary people make enough noise, are new capital taxes and death duties which redistribute wealth.

That's what happened in NZ in the late 19th century and in Britain. In fact the Brits still have hefty taxes to flatten wealth inequality.

I'm sure there's a spin... but as you point out, there's probably some truth in it. Heh, no amount of money can sort the "wealth gap". You just have to mention the idea and people start scrambling for the socialist, lefty basket, I've earned it, why should you get it for free etc...

Sounds more like the playground politics of 19th century NZ... As for the UK... if footballers can "get away" with it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347677/Top-footballers-like-Wayne-Rooney-dodge-millions-tax-cashing-loophole.html), then who else isn't?

[Winston001]

On what basis do you think there might be bias? And how can they be biased but true enough?

D'you really want to know? I've developed a healthy scepticism of colourful websites littered with charts, pies, and absolute statements. However the trend is probably fairly indicated so in that sense there is an essential truth.

Just to illustrate, the American stats do not include state taxes and state sales taxes. Neither do they include state welfare payments and benefits. All the figures are federal only.

The American left are intelligent and able to manipulate data just as effectively as the right.

Articles shorn of emotion with balanced viewpoints are more likely to have credibility.

None of which answers the core postulation that 21st century capitalism is concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands. I do not support that.

¡Viva la Revolución!

[Brian d marge]

¡Viva la Revolución!
[/B]

Would you like to walk the "road to Serfdom " with me ......it may not have the answers but it will kill a rainy Sunday morning

Stephen

[Clockwork]

Corporate..

democracies..

The 2 concepts are mutually exclusive!

Of course they aren't. Shareholder's get to vote...... sometimes.

Just like national politics really.

[oneofsix]

Of course they aren't. Shareholder's get to vote...... sometimes.

Just like national politics really.

getting a vote doesn't make it a democracy. Is it true that they even had the vote in the USSR but of course you could only vote Communist? Anyhow there are many governance structures where there is a vote but not democracy and shareholders are an example as it isn't a vote per person but a vote per share. The US even defined NZ as a Plutocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy) and we still get to vote.

[Ocean1]

What about 2 votes for each full time job.

One for the employee and one for the employer.

Fair, innit?

[mashman]

What about 2 votes for each full time job.

One for the employee and one for the employer.

Fair, innit?


Technically I can be an employee, as well as an Employer of one or MANY more companies etc...
But as an employee I could have a maximum of 2 votes. 1 for being a human being, and one for being in a fulltime job... so that would mean that a group(s) of people, I mean Employers, that are "responsible" for millions of jobs at a time, would get millions of votes? (kinda what happens atm imho)

How would you define employer?

aaaaand that's a No from me on the fair bit.

[Winston001]

The US even defined NZ as a Plutocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy) and we still get to vote.

Say wut????

[Ocean1]

Technically I can be an employee, as well as an Employer of one or MANY more companies etc...

What?


But as an employee I could have a maximum of 2 votes. 1 for being a human being, and one for being in a fulltime job...

One. Unless you've got two full time jobs.



... so that would mean that a group(s) of people, I mean Employers, that are "responsible" for millions of jobs at a time, would get millions of votes?

Correct, directly proportionate to the number of taxable full time positions they maintain.


How would you define employer?

The same way IRD does.


aaaaand that's a No from me on the fair bit.

Right. God forbid those providing the revenue should decide where it's spent. That'd be totally unfair.

[mashman]

Right. God forbid those providing the revenue should decide where it's spent. That'd be totally unfair.

:rofl: they already do (not the pollies, and neither give a shit)... look at the state of the place.

[Ocean1]

:rofl: they already do (not the pollies, and neither give a shit)... look at the state of the place.

Last time I looked companies don't get a vote.

And yet a sizeable minority who contribute fuck all get to vote themselves a new lolly scramble every three years.

That's why the place is a fiscal train wreck.

[jaffaonajappa]

Last time I looked companies don't get a vote.



So the corporates manage to donate large $$ to the major political parties in exchange for some dialogue and etc?
I actually wonder if the corporates really are getting more than an ordinary say in what goes on. Id say they would....

[Ocean1]

So the corporates manage to donate large $$ to the major political parties in exchange for some dialogue and etc?
I actually wonder if the corporates really are getting more than an ordinary say in what goes on. Id say they would....

*Shrugs* You wouldn't know.

And that's a point, you should. So do away with donations all together. Fixed.

Next?

[jaffaonajappa]

*Shrugs* You wouldn't know.

And that's a point, you should. So do away with donations all together. Fixed.

Next?

Only if ya happy with a Tory govt for the next gazillion years :)

[mashman]

Last time I looked companies don't get a vote.

And yet a sizeable minority who contribute fuck all get to vote themselves a new lolly scramble every three years.

That's why the place is a fiscal train wreck.


:rofl: True. Tis all just a conspiracy theory :blink:

No it's not. It's because people give a shit about the fact that some people don't work (boofuckinhoo). Because it means less money in their pocket. Tis pathetic.



And that's a point, you should. So do away with donations all together. Fixed.

Next?


I'd settle for that (like it would ever stop).

[98tls]

:rofl:



settle

:brick:Never say that word.

[Ocean1]

Only if ya happy with a Tory govt for the next gazillion years :)

Wrong label for NZ. But if the govt has to win the votes of those who's resources they're spending then yes, every party's focus would need to shift to have a chance.


I'd settle for that (like it would ever stop).

Why not? Party funding is already pretty transparent, just allocate a fair election budget and make 'em account for it. Easy.

[98tls]

Why not? Party funding is already pretty transparent, just allocate a fair election budget and make 'em account for it. Easy.

No, fuck em,there full of "passionate" about this that and every other thing New Zealand so remove the funding let them put there hands in there own pockets and pay there own way in to politics,see how "passionate" they are then.I struggle to at the moment see any reason to vote for any one of them,walk the talk and get my vote.

[Ocean1]

No, fuck em,there full of "passionate" about this that and every other thing New Zealand so remove the funding let them put there hands in there own pockets and pay there own way in to politics,see how "passionate" they are then.I struggle to at the moment see any reason to vote for any one of them,walk the talk and get my vote.

By "fair" I meant enough to publish a one page budget.

Do you need to know anything else to decide?

[98tls]

By "fair" I meant enough to publish a one page budget.

Do you need to know anything else to decide?

Perfect.............

[Smifffy]

The US even defined NZ as a Plutocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy) and we still get to vote.

I don't know about a Plutocracy, but we certainly have a Mickey Mouse system.

[mashman]

Why not? Party funding is already pretty transparent, just allocate a fair election budget and make 'em account for it. Easy.

I'd rather not waste money dragging politicians through the courts for breach of the rules (not broken or prosecutable, breach). It'd clog the system up. Who's going to hold them to account?