Who will win the 2011 election? [Archive] - Page 3

shrub

17th August 2011, 08:53

Jeez, you're good at Propaganda

One of the basic tactics of propaganda is to blame the current troubles on a shadowy group or conspiracy. Galavanise the people by tilting at shadows.

Use snappy epithets for the opposition - "Puppet Master" for example.

Another is to belittle ones opponents by calling them naive, silly or stupid.

Good at propaganda? Probably, I've worked for many years in marketing and PR which is also why I am pretty good at seeing when it's being used.

The thing is mate, there are groups and individuals out there, some shadowey and some not, that work bloody hard to influence people and control their behaviour. Some (most) of them are businesses and their goal is to make people feel a certain way about them and their products and change their buying behaviour, some are industry groups, some are lobby groups, some political groups and sometimes you even get grand coalitions. They have learnt that they're most effective when they're subtle or even invisible because if you change what someone feels you have significantly better results than if you merely point out the facts and lay the data on the table. And my use of the epiphet puppet master was an intentional strategy to get a response.

As for calling Quasi naive, silly or stupid - I called him naive but not silly or stupid because he's not stupid and probably no more silly than you or I (although I struggle for better words to describe someone who hates all Somalis for the sole reason they're from Somalia). However based on his posts I would have to describe him as politically naive and he often chooses to accept a viewpoint without having looked beyond the superficial and appears to see no reason to back his opinion with facts.

shrub

17th August 2011, 09:07

That is a principled and ethical position to hold. Good on you.

Nevertheless I disagree. National public radio IMHO falls into the category of the Arts - like the NZ Ballet, NZ Symphony Orchestra, live theatre, painting and sculpture etc. William Shakespeare for example would never have been able to perform his plays without the financial support of rich people.

For centuries the Arts (particularly live theatre) has only thrived because of patronage ie. money from Kings, Popes, and other wealthy supporters. Plays and art galleries which actually make money are rare.

I think NZ would be a poorer place if we lost Kim Hill, Geoff Robinson, Jim Mora, and Mary Wilson (though she makes my teeth grate :D) etc. National Radio is the only place to find depth interviews, interesting people, and any topic under the sun being covered. The cost to the taxpayer is small when we consider the Rugby World Cup amd America's Cup spending.

Part of living in a community is accepting that we all contribute to a common good and ultimately all benefit. I listen to National Radio a lot, but watch almost no TV yet some of my taxes go towards TVNZ.

The worst part of losing National Radio is we would lose one of the last remaining public forums where the political elites and businesses can be called to account, and unlike TV it's a medium where a 30 minute interview is normal. TV is all about soundbites that fit within the ad breaks and because TV is commercial they have to entertain or they lose their audience. National radio does not have to keep an audience so if 80% of their listeners turn off because what they're listening to is over their heads, angers them etc, it doesn't matter. It really is the last bastion of solid investigative journalism.

Oscar

17th August 2011, 11:10

Good at propaganda? Probably, I've worked for many years in marketing and PR which is also why I am pretty good at seeing when it's being used.

The thing is mate, there are groups and individuals out there, some shadowey and some not, that work bloody hard to influence people and control their behaviour. Some (most) of them are businesses and their goal is to make people feel a certain way about them and their products and change their buying behaviour, some are industry groups, some are lobby groups, some political groups and sometimes you even get grand coalitions. They have learnt that they're most effective when they're subtle or even invisible because if you change what someone feels you have significantly better results than if you merely point out the facts and lay the data on the table. And my use of the epiphet puppet master was an intentional strategy to get a response.

As for calling Quasi naive, silly or stupid - I called him naive but not silly or stupid because he's not stupid and probably no more silly than you or I (although I struggle for better words to describe someone who hates all Somalis for the sole reason they're from Somalia). However based on his posts I would have to describe him as politically naive and he often chooses to accept a viewpoint without having looked beyond the superficial and appears to see no reason to back his opinion with facts.

Everyone is pushing their own barrow and provided they stay within the law I have no problem with it. Just because some business leaders have more acess to the PM than you do, doesn't make it a conspiracy (anymore than union leaders having more access to the previous regime).

I think my point stands however - you can't complain about propaganda in a statement where you indulge in it yourself.

Oscar

17th August 2011, 11:20

That is a principled and ethical position to hold. Good on you.

Nevertheless I disagree. National public radio IMHO falls into the category of the Arts - like the NZ Ballet, NZ Symphony Orchestra, live theatre, painting and sculpture etc. William Shakespeare for example would never have been able to perform his plays without the financial support of rich people.

For centuries the Arts (particularly live theatre) has only thrived because of patronage ie. money from Kings, Popes, and other wealthy supporters. Plays and art galleries which actually make money are rare.

I think NZ would be a poorer place if we lost Kim Hill, Geoff Robinson, Jim Mora, and Mary Wilson (though she makes my teeth grate :D) etc. National Radio is the only place to find depth interviews, interesting people, and any topic under the sun being covered. The cost to the taxpayer is small when we consider the Rugby World Cup amd America's Cup spending.

The supporters of Arts in history have generally been individuals, not taxpayers.
The problem with a National Broadcasting system is that there are no solid boundaries. If you have National Radio, why not State TV? And if you have those two, what about a State newspaper? A government imposed local music quota? This is a slippery slope.

For my own part, I buy the Arts Channel and Rialto, and now I reflect on it, these two organisations are as worthy of Govt. funding as Nat. Radio or Concert Radio would you not agree?

To put is succinctly, funding for the arts tends to fall into the control of the elite be it Govt funded or not, and with very few exceptions what's produced is for the elite. So let the elite pay for it.

.

shrub

17th August 2011, 11:38

Everyone is pushing their own barrow and provided they stay within the law I have no problem with it. Just because some business leaders have more acess to the PM than you do, doesn't make it a conspiracy (anymore than union leaders having more access to the previous regime).

I think my point stands however - you can't complain about propaganda in a statement where you indulge in it yourself.

I wasn't actually complaining about it, merely observing that it is widespread and is effective in manipulating and controlling people. I also never mentioned any conspiracies or access by anyone to the PM.

BTW the business community have pretty mixed feelings about Key and a lot of people feel he is "tinkering around the edges" with a common view that he is a transactional rather than transformational leader. Based on what I have seen I would have to agree. A lot of people are hoping that he will grow into his role because that's what we need right now and the only person in the National Caucus I would have picked as a better option is Simon Power.

It's funny, there is this common perception that politics is a binary of left or right and that one is either one or the other, but that is no longer true because as society has become more complex, politics has evolved to fit which means the model doesn't work any more. I have noticed that when you look at them objectively, many policies of the current Nats are very left wing and the Greens have policies that sit within what would once have been a very right wing ideology. But despite that, we still fall back on the old myth that "right wing is good for business and the economy and left wing is good for the poor and the downtrodden and bad for business" and "National are for the bosses while Labour are for the workers". All of which is utter bollocks.

We depend on these constructs because it gives us the ability to label and identify people and groups which makes it easy to place ourselves relative to them based on the labels we adopt. Personally I call myself a lefty/greeny because that's an easy answer, but the reality is in some ways I stand to the right of Don Brash and personally I don't give a fuck about dolphins or snails and shit. But at the same time I think our environment is a priceless asset we cannot afford to squander and that we need to have an inclusive society that looks after everyone.

Oscar

17th August 2011, 11:47

I wasn't actually complaining about it, merely observing that it is widespread and is effective in manipulating and controlling people. I also never mentioned any conspiracies or access by anyone to the PM.

No you didn't mention conspiracies or access to the PM - in fact you don't say much at all. You did say ..amorphous group of ever changing individuals and groups.. and then refer to a "Puppet Master", which sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Be there or conspiracy or no, using language like that is classic propaganda. On other boards (AdvRider for example), anyone using nebulous language like that to make unsubstantiated allegations would have been robustly challenged to provide proof, but my experience of Kiwibiker is that slogans are shouted left and right, but never explained.

So why don't you become the exception here? Tell us who makes up these amorphous groups, and expose the puppet master.

shrub

17th August 2011, 11:53

Tell us who makes up these amorphous groups, and expose the puppet master.

Because there are literally hundreds - possibly thousands, from all camps (left, right, up, down, green, grey, pink etc) that change constantly and are usually hard to find (look up amorphous) and there is no single puppet master - I refer you to my previous post.

BTW using a strawman is also a common technique.

Oscar

17th August 2011, 12:15

Because there are literally hundreds - possibly thousands, from all camps (left, right, up, down, green, grey, pink etc) that change constantly and are usually hard to find (look up amorphous) and there is no single puppet master - I refer you to my previous post.

BTW using a strawman is also a common technique.

What you speak of are called pressure groups and they are remarkably easy to find - a telephone book will direct you to the Business Round Table, Greenpeace, Federated Farmers or the Trade Unions. To lable them as amorphous or shadowy is to imbue your argument with the exciting tinge of conspiracy (whilst also allowing one to stay arms lenghth from any facts). To be fair these comments are not soley directed at you, you just happened to have mentioned the "P" word. Their are plenty here, unlike your good self, who speak in nothing but propagandisms...

shrub

17th August 2011, 15:58

What you speak of are called pressure groups and they are remarkably easy to find - a telephone book will direct you to the Business Round Table, Greenpeace, Federated Farmers or the Trade Unions. To lable them as amorphous or shadowy is to imbue your argument with the exciting tinge of conspiracy (whilst also allowing one to stay arms lenghth from any facts). To be fair these comments are not soley directed at you, you just happened to have mentioned the "P" word. Their are plenty here, unlike your good self, who speak in nothing but propagandisms...

Yes, some of the groups that influence our behaviour are pressure groups, and a similar group are think tanks - (I even belong to a couple of them - The Fabians and The NZ Institute). Some are quite overt and public while others are more, shall we say discreet. You also have industry bodies, individual corporations, corporate consortiums, political parties etc etc etc. They all have the same objective - influence public behaviour, but what differs is their motives; and for some it's profit, some to "make the world a better place", some to protect or advance the interests of their constituents and some to see a preferred ideology accepted.

I've just remembered a good example - remember the Exclusive Brethren and their little brochure from 2005? A small, private and largely unknown group funded a brochure that was intended to change the results of a general election by influencing voter behaviour. They came close to getting away with it and we could well have ended up with Prime Minister Don Brash. The next question is what was in it for them? Sure, they hated the Greens and Labour for all sorts of reasons, but what concessions did Uncle Don agree to behind closed doors? What legislation might have been passed in return for helping win the election? Would you like to have a religious cult determine how you live?

And now the big questions - that was exposed, but was it the only time it happened? Have our actions ever been influenced to benefit people we don't even know exist? And has that ever been at our cost?

Oscar

17th August 2011, 16:58

Yes, some of the groups that influence our behaviour are pressure groups, and a similar group are think tanks - (I even belong to a couple of them - The Fabians and The NZ Institute). Some are quite overt and public while others are more, shall we say discreet. You also have industry bodies, individual corporations, corporate consortiums, political parties etc etc etc. They all have the same objective - influence public behaviour, but what differs is their motives; and for some it's profit, some to "make the world a better place", some to protect or advance the interests of their constituents and some to see a preferred ideology accepted.

I've just remembered a good example - remember the Exclusive Brethren and their little brochure from 2005? A small, private and largely unknown group funded a brochure that was intended to change the results of a general election by influencing voter behaviour. They came close to getting away with it and we could well have ended up with Prime Minister Don Brash. The next question is what was in it for them? Sure, they hated the Greens and Labour for all sorts of reasons, but what concessions did Uncle Don agree to behind closed doors? What legislation might have been passed in return for helping win the election? Would you like to have a religious cult determine how you live?

And now the big questions - that was exposed, but was it the only time it happened? Have our actions ever been influenced to benefit people we don't even know exist? And has that ever been at our cost?

The furore over the Exclusive Brethren was very interesting, but it was not the first ‎time that a political party had been endorsed by a religion (Labour & Ratana for ‎example), and certainly not the first time that a political party had received assistance ‎from a pressure group (Labour & the Union Movement for example). ‎

In the case of the Union’s, the electorate had no information about the deals being ‎done behind closed doors, and there is no doubt that they assisted in the drafting of ‎Labour policy and legislation. At this very moment the Teachers are conducting a ‎media campaign aimed squarely at the Govt. only months out from the election.‎

In respect to your comment about having a religious cult determine how I live, that ‎made me smile. Do you seriously think that the Churches have not been involved in ‎politics in the country? Are you that naive?‎

SPman

17th August 2011, 18:40

TV is all about soundbites that fit within the ad breaks and because TV is commercial they have to entertain or they lose their audience.Thank the stars for the ABC and SBS over here.......programs like Q&A and Insight which aren't just "talking head" type interviews, and no adverts, except for "The Gruen Transfer".....

Winston001

17th August 2011, 19:12

.

It's funny, there is this common perception that politics is a binary of left or right and that one is either one or the other, but that is no longer true because as society has become more complex, politics has evolved to fit which means the model doesn't work any more. I have noticed that when you look at them objectively, many policies of the current Nats are very left wing and the Greens have policies that sit within what would once have been a very right wing ideology. But despite that, we still fall back on the old myth that "right wing is good for business and the economy and left wing is good for the poor and the downtrodden and bad for business" and "National are for the bosses while Labour are for the workers". All of which is utter bollocks.

Must spread more rep etc. :niceone:

An excellent summation.

I've just remembered a good example - remember the Exclusive Brethren and their little brochure from 2005? A small, private and largely unknown group funded a brochure that was intended to change the results of a general election by influencing voter behaviour.

But I've never really bought the Exclusive Brethren fuss. No conspiracy. No hidden agenda. The only reason the media picked it up is because the Brethren are private people, a bit weird, and easy to accuse of all sorts of wild theories. But they are a tiny inconsequential group.

mashman

17th August 2011, 20:46

The rationale is that charities do a great deal of unpaid beneficial work for the community, picking up some of the tax-payers burden. So if a donation is tax-deductible then the giver is inclined to give more. We all win.

I understand the reason for the incentive, but the tax payer loses imho. Those that can afford to donate to charities probably don't need the tax relief that it brings, and most likely will have their affairs structured in such a way that they limit their tax liability. Unfortunately most of the population can't afford to make such generous financial gestures and have all of their income taxed. And there are also those who use it for tax evasion purposes... legally that is.

Charity wins, Donator wins, tax payer loses.

shrub

18th August 2011, 10:52

But I've never really bought the Exclusive Brethren fuss. No conspiracy. No hidden agenda. The only reason the media picked it up is because the Brethren are private people, a bit weird, and easy to accuse of all sorts of wild theories. But they are a tiny inconsequential group.

Yes, they are a tiny and inconsequential group, but with the right strategy, and especially with a big old bucket of cash, it's easy to influence the political process, and that's my concern. The general public are not well informed politically and don't make their voting decisions all that rationally - remember when Peter Dunne got several seats because he kept saying "sensible" in a TV debate?

In a perfect world the majority of voters would sit down before an election and read the various flyers they get, go online and peruse websites reading policies and even interview the smiling candidate knocking on their door; but they don't. They listen to Wayne down at the pub and read the advertisements of the party they are erring towards and possibly their brochure, while consigning everything else to the bin. They don't really know what they're voting for and to be fair probably don't even understand the political process.

I hate to go back to him, but Quasi is a good example. He is rabidly anti the Greens despite having admitted he has never read their policies, and supports Act because they talk about tax cuts and deny the existence of human influenced climate change. I doubt he tries to join the dots to see whether their policies actually hold water and suspect he doesn't challenge anything they say, accepting what he is told because it fits with what he wants to believe. He is very, very typical of the NZ voter from all sides of the equation. I know Green party supporters who are identical to Quasi (apart from being vegans on bicycles). Suggest that National have good ideas and they run a mile and mutter about "big business" and "asset sales".

Maybe the answer is a benevolent dictatorship with me as dictator.

Swoop

18th August 2011, 12:18

In a perfect world the majority of voters would sit down before an election and read the various flyers they get, go online and peruse websites reading policies and even interview the smiling candidate knocking on their door; but they don't.
If anyone actually goes to that extent, he or she will still be led astray. All of the propaganda that gets thrown around prior to an election will vary from what a party does once in parliament.

As for seeing a "smiling candidate" knocking on my door, it has never happened. Not once. Ever.
I have had to make appointments to see them, however.

shrub

18th August 2011, 12:56

If anyone actually goes to that extent, he or she will still be led astray. All of the propaganda that gets thrown around prior to an election will vary from what a party does once in parliament.

Cynic! :laugh:

Most parties make some effort to stick to stated policies once in power because it is too easy to get caught out. They will often bend or reinterpret things to suit and find a million reasons to support it, but reading their policy positions gives a good idea of their intentions. Also it helps you get a grasp of how well they have thought things through and the substance of their planning and policy development.

The other option is to listen to Wayne down at the pub.

SPman

18th August 2011, 13:18

Most parties make some effort to stick to stated policies once in power because it is too easy to get caught out.So what. The media will react according to who it is and what party/power structure is represented and the parties, increasingly, have shown they don't give a shit what the public thinks and go ahead and do what they want , with or without public approval, stated policy, or, increasingly, any knowledge by the public at all!

"core" and "non core" promises ......................

Increasingly, both sides of the spectrum make me want to throw up, with their arrogance, stupidity, lack of empathy and willing ignorance to achieve ideological aims regardless of knowledge of their effects!

Oscar

18th August 2011, 13:50

So what. The media will react according to who it is and what party/power structure is represented and the parties, increasingly, have shown they don't give a shit what the public thinks and go ahead and do what they want , with or without public approval, stated policy, or, increasingly, any knowledge by the public at all!

This is a common accusation of National and Labour and was certainly true in the 1908's and early 1990's. However now we have both parties announcing fairly controversial policies prior to an election (National with Asset Sales and Labour with Capital Gains Tax) - so I'm not sure it's true anymore. Have you any examples?

Oscar

18th August 2011, 13:57

Yes, they are a tiny and inconsequential group, but with the right strategy, and especially with a big old bucket of cash, it's easy to influence the political process, and that's my concern. The general public are not well informed politically and don't make their voting decisions all that rationally - remember when Peter Dunne got several seats because he kept saying "sensible" in a TV debate?

In a perfect world the majority of voters would sit down before an election and read the various flyers they get, go online and peruse websites reading policies and even interview the smiling candidate knocking on their door; but they don't. They listen to Wayne down at the pub and read the advertisements of the party they are erring towards and possibly their brochure, while consigning everything else to the bin. They don't really know what they're voting for and to be fair probably don't even understand the political process.

I hate to go back to him, but Quasi is a good example. He is rabidly anti the Greens despite having admitted he has never read their policies, and supports Act because they talk about tax cuts and deny the existence of human influenced climate change. I doubt he tries to join the dots to see whether their policies actually hold water and suspect he doesn't challenge anything they say, accepting what he is told because it fits with what he wants to believe. He is very, very typical of the NZ voter from all sides of the equation. I know Green party supporters who are identical to Quasi (apart from being vegans on bicycles). Suggest that National have good ideas and they run a mile and mutter about "big business" and "asset sales".

Maybe the answer is a benevolent dictatorship with me as dictator.

Two things:

As I mentioned earlier, I am struggling to see the difference between the National/Brethern and Labour/Union Movement. Then, as now, the Teachers Union is attempting to change public opinion in an election year.

It is not surprising that Quasi is atnti-Green although he's never read their policies. People rarely vote against things - they vote for them. For example I'm rabidly anti-National Front, but I've never read their policies.

shrub

18th August 2011, 14:15

Two things:

As I mentioned earlier, I am struggling to see the difference between the National/Brethern and Labour/Union Movement. Then, as now, the Teachers Union is attempting to change public opinion in an election year.

Actually there is a big difference. The Labour/Union relationship is very public and the unions are not out to influence social policies and to impose their ideologies on the country, they are there to protect and advance the interests of their consituents. They don't give a shit about morals and are really only interested in labour laws. A better comparison would be National and the Business Round Table.

It is not surprising that Quasi is atnti-Green although he's never read their policies. People rarely vote against things - they vote for them. For example I'm rabidly anti-National Front, but I've never read their policie.

Not entirely. There is a truism that governments don't get voted in, they get voted out. National were always going to win in 2008 primarily because everyone was sick of Helen Clark and National will win again this year because they haven't pissed enough people off yet which will probably happen by 2014. I was amused to see Quasi's criticisms of the Greens because they are the same old criticisms everyone has, and they are largely either false or exaggerated. A common criticism of Act is that they are only there for big business and the rich when if you read their policies that is also far from the truth, and the same applies to the myths attached to Labour and National.

People base their opinions on what they hear in the media, what the opinion leaders tell them, the advertising they see and most of all the dominant view of their peer group. Political behaviour is a really interesting subject and it's fascinating to watch people leading up to an election. Personally I can't wait for the US elections even though I dread what will win.

bogan

18th August 2011, 14:26

In a perfect world the majority of voters would sit down before an election and read the various flyers they get, go online and peruse websites reading policies and even interview the smiling candidate knocking on their door; but they don't. They listen to Wayne down at the pub and read the advertisements of the party they are erring towards and possibly their brochure, while consigning everything else to the bin. They don't really know what they're voting for and to be fair probably don't even understand the political process.

Bring in voter testing! Smarter voters might lead to smarter leadership?

Oscar

18th August 2011, 14:33

Actually there is a big difference. The Labour/Union relationship is very public and the unions are not out to influence social policies and to impose their ideologies on the country, they are there to protect and advance the interests of their consituents. They don't give a shit about morals and are really only interested in labour laws. A better comparison would be National and the Business Round Table.

The example I gave is a Union trying to influence social policy - the Teachers don't like NCEA and National Standards and they just happen to be trying to influence public opinion in an election year.

shrub

18th August 2011, 14:35

Bring in voter testing! Smarter voters might lead to smarter leadership?

Hmmmm.... a very interesting concept. In my perfect world I would require people be able to demonstrate a sound understanding of the political process and be able to answer simple questions about the different parties before being allowed to vote.

But that's not democratic and would be too open to abuse - I become the King and change the requirements to the only people allowed to vote own motorcycles and drink beer, then I would require everyone under the age of 25 to be on contraception and make it illegal to be stupid and ugly in public and I would make it illegal to own an SUV unless you farmed, hunted or towed something and would impose the death penalty on women dropping their kids off at school in SUVs - I picked my step daughter up from her private school yesterday - I have never seen so many blonde women with bobs in SUVs!

shrub

18th August 2011, 14:38

The example I gave is a Union trying to influence social policy - the Teachers don't like NCEA and National Standards and they just happen to be trying to influence public opinion in an election year.

Teachers don't like NCEA and National Standards because they are the people who have to work with it and as a parent I have to agree - NCEA is a complete crock of shit (Labour shit). They are lobbying to change something that directly impacts on them and on their ability to do their jobs whereas Quentin shagging Cedric in their Grey Lynn villa has no impact at all on the exclusive brethren, yet they wanted that stopped.

Swoop

18th August 2011, 15:01

Bring in voter testing! Smarter voters might lead to smarter leadership?
I'd prefer to see the party candidates tested prior to being allowed to stand.
"Sorry Mr Smith, your IQ only allows you to be a back bencher. Here's your blanket and pillow, enjoy the debates".<_<

Oscar

18th August 2011, 17:05

Teachers don't like NCEA and National Standards because they are the people who have to work with it and as a parent I have to agree - NCEA is a complete crock of shit (Labour shit). They are lobbying to change something that directly impacts on them and on their ability to do their jobs whereas Quentin shagging Cedric in their Grey Lynn villa has no impact at all on the exclusive brethren, yet they wanted that stopped.

It's still a group outside the political mainstream trying to effect an election outcome, and in that regard differs little from the Brethren, the Union Movement as a whole and other ginger groups like Citizens for Rowling.

As a matter of opinion, I have no problem with pressure groups using the election to gain their own way, which is why I find it strange that the Brethren should be viewed as anything different.

shrub

18th August 2011, 21:55

It's still a group outside the political mainstream trying to effect an election outcome, and in that regard differs little from the Brethren, the Union Movement as a whole and other ginger groups like Citizens for Rowling.

As a matter of opinion, I have no problem with pressure groups using the election to gain their own way, which is why I find it strange that the Brethren should be viewed as anything different.

The Brethren are not a pressure group. They are a religious cult with some bizarre and destructive philosophies that were covertly trying to influence a democratic process that they neither support nor participate in in order to impose their ideologies on New Zealanders.

The union movement, teachers and citizens for Rowling are all open to public scrutiny and clear about what they're doing and why. Very, very different.

oldrider

18th August 2011, 22:43

The union movement, teachers and citizens for Rowling are all open to public scrutiny and clear about what they're doing and why. Very, very different.

I'm surprised you wrote that, you're too smart to be that biased or that naive!

Duplicity is one of the essential (unwritten) tools of most political and pressure groups!

They only show the face that they believe the observer wants or need to see!

Most are even duplicitous about their duplicity! :confused:

IMHO duplicity is one of NZ's worst social ills! :o

shrub

19th August 2011, 08:44

I'm surprised you wrote that, you're too smart to be that biased or that naive!

Duplicity is one of the essential (unwritten) tools of most political and pressure groups!

They only show the face that they believe the observer wants or need to see! :o

Jeez you're a cynical fuck, you make me seem wide eyed and trusting. It's normal to have different faces for different audiences and it's also normal for organisations to manage those faces for the best results. If I'm talking to the guy I want to pay me a shitload of money to do stuff i have a very different face to the one I wear when I'm down at the boozer which is different to the one I wear when I'm talking to my daughter's friends (why do 18 year old girls have to be so pretty and why do they flash so much body? It's hard on an old biker such as myself).

But having said that, I think most pressure groups like teachers, unions, Business Round Table, Prisoner's Aid, Family First and even the dodgiest of them all, BRONZ; and even political parties are pretty straight and what you see is pretty well what you get. When John Key and Bill English present a firm and united face before the cameras they seem like they are good mates and work well together, but I believe that behind closed doors they disagree a lot and sometimes things get nasty. Is that duplicitous? No more so than my parents never fighting in front of me. A few years ago I managed the publicity for a national pressure group and while some board meetings got hot, everyone had the same objectives and they were incredibly transparent, and all of us were committed to making the world a better place for our constituents. I know people in unions and business interest groups, and all of them have shitloads of integrity and wouldn't have a bar of working for any group that was the slightest bit dodgy or duplicitous.

IMHO duplicity is one of NZ's worst social ills!

I disagree, IMO (nothing humble about my opinion) NZ's biggest social ills are greed and ignorance. We live beyond our means and want everything NOW, and we can't be arsed finding anything out for ourselves so accept what we're told without checking. Cognitive dissonance is as rare in this fine land as jackets without tassels and patches at a HOG rally.

Oscar

19th August 2011, 09:17

The Brethren are not a pressure group. They are a religious cult with some bizarre and destructive philosophies that were covertly trying to influence a democratic process that they neither support nor participate in in order to impose their ideologies on New Zealanders.

The union movement, teachers and citizens for Rowling are all open to public scrutiny and clear about what they're doing and why. Very, very different.

Wow, that's a large brushstroke.
There is a long history of religious influence in politics, and as much as I think that the Brethren are creepy, I think they have every right to do what they did, Having said that, I think Brash was mad to entertain their overtures.

The Labour attack on the Brethren, late in the election was breathtakingly hypocritical considering their long ties with Ratana. The main thrust of their complaint was the unattributed media ads, which is also rich considering the amount of money unions spend trying to influence the voters.

Basically, the system allows for the Brethren, and if you want to change that, you'll have to prevent all the other pressure groups from trying to influence the election, and that's anti-democratic.

oldrider

19th August 2011, 09:18

IMHO where H stands for honest, never thought for a minute that it stood for humble! :shit:

Cheers, (honest/humble/take your pick :confused: ) John. :laugh:

Oscar

19th August 2011, 09:19

On a slightly different note - I see "Who the fuck cares" outpolls Labour by over three to one. I hope Phil has his retirement mapped out...

oldrider

19th August 2011, 09:27

Swoop

19th August 2011, 09:33

i have a very different face to the one I wear when I'm down at the boozer...
:rofl:

So YOU are "Wayne" from down the boozer with the grouse missus and hot Holden ute!:laugh:

shrub

19th August 2011, 09:34

Wow, that's a large brushstroke.
There is a long history of religious influence in politics, and as much as I think that the Brethren are creepy, I think they have every right to do what they did, Having said that, I think Brash was mad to entertain their overtures.

The Labour attack on the Brethren, late in the election was breathtakingly hypocritical considering their long ties with Ratana. The main thrust of their complaint was the unattributed media ads, which is also rich considering the amount of money unions spend trying to influence the voters.

Basically, the system allows for the Brethren, and if you want to change that, you'll have to prevent all the other pressure groups from trying to influence the election, and that's anti-democratic.

If what they did was perfectly acceptable, then why was it hidden? Maybe it's because I'm a parent, but when someone is trying to hide something I get a little suspicious.

And I agree, Labour have had a long connection with the Ratana church, but there is a huge difference between a very public relationship with a group that are openly lobbying for the interests of their members and a clandestine relationship with a group that is not interested in advancing the interests of their members, but is instead committed to imposing their archaic religious views by blocking the ability for legitimate challenges to occur in the house of representatives. A house of representatives that they don't vote for.

shrub

19th August 2011, 09:36

:rofl:

So YOU are "Wayne" from down the boozer with the grouse missus and hot Holden ute!:laugh:

Bugger, I've been outed, even when I carefully disguised my ute as a $500 Nissan Bluebird.:Oops:

Oscar

19th August 2011, 09:56

If what they did was perfectly acceptable, then why was it hidden? Maybe it's because I'm a parent, but when someone is trying to hide something I get a little suspicious.

And I agree, Labour have had a long connection with the Ratana church, but there is a huge difference between a very public relationship with a group that are openly lobbying for the interests of their members and a clandestine relationship with a group that is not interested in advancing the interests of their members, but is instead committed to imposing their archaic religious views by blocking the ability for legitimate challenges to occur in the house of representatives. A house of representatives that they don't vote for.

The reason it was hidden is because it's a reclusive religion.
I'm not saying I liked it, but you can't exclude a group from the democratic process just because you think they're creepy.

Besides if it's groups imposing their archane beliefs on us you want, there are much better practitioners about than these amateurs. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have long influenced political parties from within the system in such a way that the average voter would not be aware.

Hell, we have a system that dictates the religion of our Head of State!

oneofsix

19th August 2011, 10:00

shrub

19th August 2011, 10:38

The reason it was hidden is because it's a reclusive religion.
I'm not saying I liked it, but you can't exclude a group from the democratic process just because you think they're creepy.

Besides if it's groups imposing their archane beliefs on us you want, there are much better practitioners about than these amateurs. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have long influenced political parties from within the system in such a way that the average voter would not be aware.

Hell, we have a system that dictates the religion of our Head of State!

We're getting off topic becayse that was 6 years ago, but perhaps my last comment is that the brethren wanting to keep themselves to themselves is fine, but if that's the case why distribute hundreds of thousands of brochures? And why did brash and the National party work so hard to keep it under wraps? Ultimately it was an example of a small group of people who potentially could have changed the result of a general election through covert activities that were designed to manipulate voter behaviour. They were amateurs though, and that's why it failed.

Bald Eagle

19th August 2011, 10:40

you can't exclude a group from the democratic process just because you think they're creepy.

!

If we did that there would be not be many groups in the democratic process.

Oscar

19th August 2011, 11:30

Exclusive is one thing being two faced is another. They don't vote because they don't believe in the process etc but they want to tell us how to vote?!

There are lots of people telling you how to vote.
There are multi-national companies trying to influence your vote.
How is that different to the Brethren?

Oscar

19th August 2011, 11:32

We're getting off topic becayse that was 6 years ago, but perhaps my last comment is that the brethren wanting to keep themselves to themselves is fine, but if that's the case why distribute hundreds of thousands of brochures? And why did brash and the National party work so hard to keep it under wraps? Ultimately it was an example of a small group of people who potentially could have changed the result of a general election through covert activities that were designed to manipulate voter behaviour. They were amateurs though, and that's why it failed.

I still can't see how a Church trying to change social policy is that big a deal.
Is the fact their Elders tell them not to vote any different from Priests telling their flock how to vote?

shrub

19th August 2011, 11:35

I still can't see how a Church trying to change social policy is that big a deal.
Is the fact their Elders tell them not to vote any different from Priests telling their flock how to vote?

No, it's not. WHat is a big deal is that it was done so secretively and worst of all that Don Brash actively participated and then lied about it.

Oscar

19th August 2011, 11:42

No, it's not. WHat is a big deal is that it was done so secretively and worst of all that Don Brash actively participated and then lied about it.

Although I think that the Labour reaction to the situation verged on anti-democratic, in hindsight I am quite happy that Brash didn't get his hands on the treasury benches.

shrub

19th August 2011, 11:45

Although I think that the Labour reaction to the situation verged on anti-democratic,

How so? And I agree, we are lucky he was kept out.

Oscar

19th August 2011, 11:47

How so? And I agree, we are lucky he was kept out.

He was too far right and socially devisive for my taste (as his subsequent takeover of ACT showed).

shrub

19th August 2011, 12:06

He was too far right and socially devisive for my taste (as his subsequent takeover of ACT showed).

Sorry, I meant how was it undemocratic of Labour to call him to account?

Winston001

19th August 2011, 13:29

Although I think that the Labour reaction to the situation verged on anti-democratic..

What happened was the law regarding political statements was severely proscribed - Electoral Finance Act 2007. It was anti-democratic because it suppressed support for any party unless the organiser specified their name and details.

The result was that the last election was the most boring and muted I can ever recall. Right up to election day it almost seemed as if it wasn't happening - everyone was afraid to publicly comment. Fortunately the law has been repealed.

puddytat

19th August 2011, 14:23

On a slightly different note - I see "Who the fuck cares" outpolls Labour by over three to one. I hope Phil has his retirement mapped out...

might be 'cause there wasnt an "other" option:shifty:

Oscar

19th August 2011, 19:57

Sorry, I meant how was it undemocratic of Labour to call him to account?

The Brethren were perfectly entitled to advertise as they did - right of free speech 'n all. And it's not like they disclose what they promise the unions for their support.

Oscar

19th August 2011, 19:58

might be 'cause there wasnt an "other" option:shifty:

The question is "Who will win the 2011 election".

Are you suggesting that someone else can win?

puddytat

19th August 2011, 20:41

Possibly maybe...probably not.
i'd like to think the Greens, Mana,Social Credit,MacGuillicuddy,Pot Party,Maori,Dunne & any other fringers could join together & put the frightners on those who think its just about them..Labour & National that is.(yeah I know that it IS just about them)
Never going to happen though, people are too scared of change.And maybe folk think that some of the smaller parties are not worth the vote, but if they pooled thier resources & got over thier dogma & schisms ,it just might. Not.:facepalm:
Silly I know,i got to medicate myself a bit better:doobey:'cause these utopian dreams are doin my head in .....

rainman

21st August 2011, 00:45

shrub

22nd August 2011, 10:17

Since this is an election thread and as good a place as any to ask the question:

What do you boys and girls think the impact of the Conservative Party (Colin Craig's outfit) will be on this election?

Would be interesting if he stood in Epsom and beat Banks, thereby consigning ACT to well-deserved oblivion. Got a flyer in the mail recently. Real mixed bag of policies; some I agree strongly with, others I disagree equally strongly with!

I'm actually a little surprised that National haven't pointed them at a safe blue seat, then not contesting the seat the way they are planning in Epsom and Maharia Belmont so the right wing feel obliged to vote for them. I guess the idea is that it's better to have a puppet representing a pointless and idiotic right wing party than a Labour or Green MP. It also means National secure their autonomy by getting a few bonus PS that will (kind of) follow their position, and when said MPs inevitably do something stupid or get caught being a little less than honest they can piously wash their hands and say "Not our problem".

Might book that one way ticket to Aussie....

Winston001

23rd August 2011, 15:40

oneofsix

23rd August 2011, 15:46

I don't know anything about Colin Craig or the new Conservative Party but I am surprised anyone is willing to try another right wing effort. We have a centrist government with slightly right leaning policies and they are popular. ACT appear to have self-destructed quite unnoticed by the general population.

I'd be surprised if there was any electoral appetite for right wing politics at all.

The current governing party is spun as right wing, they look like they will win the election therefore somebody is bound to think that this means the country is leaning to the right.

shrub

23rd August 2011, 17:06

The current governing party is spun as right wing, they look like they will win the election therefore somebody is bound to think that this means the country is leaning to the right.

the old right/left cleavage dates back to the French revolution of 1789 is largely irrelevant these days, but National are kind of a right wing party under the traditional definition of being conservative, giving priority to supporting the economic elites, attributing less value to scientific development or in preservation of environmental capital. They are very populist, which people mistake for being left wing, and Key is too much of a pragmatist to engage in a hard-core neo-conservative track in the Roger Douglas way because he's smart enough to know it won't work.

cowpoos

23rd August 2011, 20:27

If the Nats get in, then god help you lot - unless you earn over $100k a year........

Nah...Labour ain't got a clue about anything at the moment....least of all the economy. and as a matter of fact everyone got a tax cut...more than what was taken by GST hike which, GST effects high income eraners more than low ones,

and high income earners are better, smarter, work harder and contribite far more to this country that fucking whinging dumb labour voters/bludgers/idiot/union fools.

The top 10% of incomer earners pay 75% of the tax....so why scare them oversea's????

Oakie

23rd August 2011, 21:27

By the latest poll results this thread should be re-named 'How much will National win the 2011 election by?' Something remarkable would have to happen from here for them to lose it.

My pick is that even though they could probably govern alone they will still form a coalition with the Maori Party and will cut ACT loose.

shrub

23rd August 2011, 21:47

Nah...Labour ain't got a clue about anything at the moment....least of all the economy. and as a matter of fact everyone got a tax cut...more than what was taken by GST hike which, GST effects high income eraners more than low ones,

Not exactly, GST affected low income earners far more than high income earners because they pay a far bigger percentage of their income in GST.

and high income earners are better, smarter, work harder and contribite far more to this country that fucking whinging dumb labour voters/bludgers/idiot/union fools.

Did you know that a far greater percentage of unversity grads around vote labour than National? And that the average university grad earns 25% more than a non-graduate? I'm also amused that the national/act supporters on this thread are the ones who whinge the most? By a long shot. And what do you have to support your argument that people who vote Labour support NZ less than people who vote National/Act?

Do you have a basis for your assertions, or is it just what Wayne down at the pub told you? After all, he has a grouse ute and hot missus, so you gotta listen to him.

oldrider

23rd August 2011, 22:09

Did you know that a far greater percentage of unversity grads around vote labour than National? And that the average university grad earns 25% more than a non-graduate?

You have just given support to the claim that NZ state school system breeds socialist teaching and brainwashes our children!

Socialism is so entrenched into our education system and leaves our children/students devoid of original thought .... I.E. the educated brain dead!

Behold, I give to you "shrub" .... a case in point! :mellow:

cowpoos

23rd August 2011, 22:13

Not exactly, GST affected low income earners far more than high income earners because they pay a far bigger percentage of their income in GST.

The fact I have to explain this to you say something. Listen carefully!!

Have more income....spend more income....therefore pay more GST!!!

also

Have more income pay way way fucking more tax!!!

Understand now???

understand how this contributes more to society????? or do I have to explain this aswell???

Did you know that a far greater percentage of unversity grads around vote labour than National?

Yeah .... know why??? Because all the smart ones have gone overseas because labour scared them off with envy tax's and other nanny state rhetoric!!

Do you have a basis for your assertions, or is it just what Wayne down at the pub told you? After all, he has a grouse ute and hot missus, so you gotta listen to him.

my assertions are based on facts...stupid people, who are lazy, selfish, ignorant ,with no aspiration [usually whinge about not being well off but don't want to work for it...and make up suitable conspiracies to support their bollacks]. Don't get anywhere in life....don't make much money....don't deserve handouts...and they don't contribute to the society...and think society owes them something...I mean piss off. don't even try that argument!!

cowpoos

23rd August 2011, 22:17

You have just given support to the claim that NZ state school system breeds socialist teaching and brainwashes our children!

Socialism is so entrenched into our education system and leaves our children/students devoid of original thought .... I.E. the educated brain dead!

Behold, I give to you "shrub" .... a case in point! :mellow:

Your right...my girl walked in to a PPTA meeting once....guy talking start with....afternoon comrades...she left PPTA after that...but was not the only reason why!!

Shadows

23rd August 2011, 23:22

Did you know that a far greater percentage of unversity grads around vote labour than National? And that the average university grad earns 25% more than a non-graduate?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the announcement that graduating from university automatically makes people smarter than average.

This has often been proven to not be the case in my experience.

The fact that compulsory student union membership has survived for so long speaks volumes too.

Oscar

24th August 2011, 08:22

The fact I have to explain this to you say something. Listen carefully!!

Have more income....spend more income....therefore pay more GST!!!

Before you go venting your spleen all over the interweb, I think you'll find he said that GST affects the low paid more, as a percentage of their income. And it does.

So take a breath and use your inside voice...

shrub

24th August 2011, 09:06

You have just given support to the claim that NZ state school system breeds socialist teaching and brainwashes our children!:

Explain to me how that statement proves our state school system breeds socialist teaching or brainwashes children? If well educated people are more likely to vote labour could it possibly be because they're better informed (a synonym for educated), more widely read? I am well educated, but came into it late in life and before that I started life with a trade, I was an owner/driver of a furniture truck, I have started and run businesses, worked on the tools in a workshop, made furniture and even been on the DPB when my ex walked out on me and 2 preschoolers. At university Ilearned to ask questions, challenge everything and accept nothing until I had exhausted every alternative explanation. How is that brainwashing? Or do you simply call it brainwashing because anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong? Have you ever considered that YOU might not have all the facts?

Socialism is so entrenched into our education system and leaves our children/students devoid of original thought .... I.E. the educated brain dead!

Really? I discovered something really interesting when I started to study - the more I worked my brain the better it worked. You see, a brain is like a muscle - leave it idle and at best it stagnates, but the more you use it the sharper it gets. Educated people aren't brain dead (although some are), they're people who read, study, learn and gain knowledge and understanding. And they're the people who challenge, question and go against the flow.

Behold, I give to you "shrub" .... a case in point! :mellow

Exactly.

shrub

24th August 2011, 09:25

The fact I have to explain this to you say something. Listen carefully!! Have more income....spend more income....therefore pay more GST!!! also Have more income pay way way fucking more tax!!!

Oh dear, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I said that people on low incomes pay more GST as a proportion of their income. Statistically a typical person on $50k will spend around 60% of their income on living costs like food, petrol, power, phone, clothes and entertainmen, all of which attract GST.

However someone on $150,000 you will typically spend a greater dollar amount on all of the above, but because mortgages and savings are GST exempt between 40% and 50% of their income will attract GST.

understand how this contributes more to society????? or do I have to explain this aswell???

So what you're saying is the only way to contribute to society is through paying tax? Then why do you hate paying tax? Do you hate contributing to the society you live in?

Because all the smart ones have gone overseas because labour scared them off with envy tax's and other nanny state rhetoric!!

Then why have the number of people emigrating increased since National came in? And why do Labour and the Greens always do better out of special votes cast by expat Kiwis? And what are envy taxes and nanny state rhetoric? Has it dawned on you that the reason smart people emigrate (often to countries with higher tax rates) is because there are more opportunities overseas? Or are you simply spouting what you have been told?

my assertions are based on facts...stupid people, who are lazy, selfish, ignorant ,with no aspiration [usually whinge about not being well off but don't want to work for it...and make up suitable conspiracies to support their bollacks]. Don't get anywhere in life....don't make much money....don't deserve handouts...

Those aren't facts - they're your paranoid prejudices. Facts are things that are known to exist and can be independently observed, measured and experienced.

and they don't contribute to the society...and think society owes them something...I mean piss off. don't even try that argument!!

Like you?

shrub

24th August 2011, 09:35

I'm sorry, I must have missed the announcement that graduating from university automatically makes people smarter than average. .

So you need announcements to tell you what to think? I'm guessing you have never been to uni, and you're right, graduating from university does not automatically make one smarter, and there are a lot of graduates that really aren't that bright and only got through by working their arses off. There are also some well educated and intelligent people who are idiots and do really stupid shit just like some poorly educated people are very smart and really well informed.

However on balance you will find people who have completed tertiary education are of above average intelligence and well informed.

Banditbandit

24th August 2011, 09:37

Did anyone notice TV3's story last night that people want the Capital Gains tax over the proposed Asset Sales?

Go here ..

http://www.3news.co.nz/Kiwis-prefer-capital-gains-tax-over-asset-sales---poll/tabid/370/articleID/223233/Default.aspx

53% prefered the capital gains tax ...
31% wanted asset sales ...

shrub

24th August 2011, 09:39

Your right...my girl walked in to a PPTA meeting once....guy talking start with....afternoon comrades...she left PPTA after that...but was not the only reason why!!

Ooooh! That's scary, there are reds under the bed - they're taking over and we'll all be speaking russian if we're not careful! Hang on, didn't you just rant about people fearing conspiracies? And did she not think to challenge the speaker about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbevFguT6NE&playnext=1&list=PL3AB8DFA1BA8A9EAE

Banditbandit

24th August 2011, 10:26

The fact that compulsory student union membership has survived for so long speaks volumes too.

That's a misunderstanding - there is no "compulsory" student union membership as you think.

All students enrolled in a tertiary institution vote whether that particular institute has compulsory membership - as fasr as I know all the institutes have so far voted in favour of membership ...

The National Government is hell bent on removiong that vote - doesn't sound very democratic to me ...

Oscar

24th August 2011, 10:33

shrub

24th August 2011, 11:29

As the Labour Party has found, niether question is that important to the average punter.

What is really important is getting a tax cut so they can buy a new 3D internet ready 50 inch TV to replace that dungery old 42 inch HD piece of crap they bought last year.

I think the problem is that very few people actually understand the nature and depth of the problems facing NZ and the west, or why selling energy companies now is about as stupid as selling Microsoft shares just before personal computers took off. We live in an age where all the world's knowledge is at our fingertips wherever we are, yet ignorance is held up as being something good.

I read 1984 and Animal Farm over the weekend and they described the world I live in. Animal farm was especially scary because it was originally written about Stalinism yet so many of the things Orwell saw in that ideology are becoming evident in the current world.

imdying

24th August 2011, 11:47

Both epic books... Both (Animal Farm especially) are a little disturbing for the reasons you mention.

Swoop

24th August 2011, 12:23

All students enrolled in a tertiary institution vote whether that particular institute has compulsory membership - as fasr as I know all the institutes have so far voted in favour of membership ...
You might find that certain establishments automatically add on an amount for "fees", but these are not passed onto the student union unless it is a "mandatory membership" location.

Banditbandit

24th August 2011, 12:56

I read 1984 and Animal Farm over the weekend and they described the world I live in. Animal farm was especially scary because it was originally written about Stalinism yet so many of the things Orwell saw in that ideology are becoming evident in the current world.

Go back and read Karl Marx on late-period Capitalism .. Marx describes our world exactly ..

Banditbandit

24th August 2011, 12:57

You might find that certain establishments automatically add on an amount for "fees", but these are not passed onto the student union unless it is a "mandatory membership" location.

I might not too ... can you name those institutes? If that is the case, then what they are doing is illegal.

shrub

24th August 2011, 13:12

Go back and read Karl Marx on late-period Capitalism .. Marx describes our world exactly ..

Will do, I haven't read any Marx for years. Have you read Lenin's 'Imperialism, the Hihest Stage of Capitalism'? Again very prescient.

It's interesting watching the evolution of plutocracy into feudalism. To quote the immortal George Santayana - "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

shrub

24th August 2011, 13:13

I might not too ... can you name those institutes? If that is the case, then what they are doing is illegal.

he'll need to get their names from Wayne down at the pub. Wayne has a grouse ute and a smoking hot missus, so he'll know.

Swoop

24th August 2011, 13:56

If that is the case, then what they are doing is illegal.
The most prominent changed to "compulsory membership" not too long ago. The student union was happy with the outcome so I guess never raised a fuss.

oldrider

24th August 2011, 17:46

Well who ever wins the election, don't expect much change!

Does this sound familiar?

Quote of the Week

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt
should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and
controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest
Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on
public assistance."

Cicero - 55 BC

So what have we learned in 2,066 years?

SPman

24th August 2011, 18:13

Nah...Labour ain't got a clue about anything at the moment.... agree with you there, although some of them are trying to get through....

and high income earners are better, smarter, work harder and contribite far more to this country that fucking whinging dumb labour voters/bludgers/idiot/union fools. -Better?:confused: Smarter :laugh: ...work harder:killingme not necessarily - I know some fucking hard workers who earn SFA, and high earners who know how to tweak figures, but wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase!

The top 10% of incomer earners pay 75% of the tax....
And where do you get these figures from? - they are often bandied about but seem to have their origin in urban myth, like a lot of this stuff - source and proof, please.
so why scare them oversea's???? This IS a myth that people like to fling around, which has been definitively debunked! The very wealthy go overseas if they feel like it, not because a tax rate has gone up or they feel hard done by by some financial law change or whatever - and if they want to go, rather than contribute positively to the community and society, well, they know where the airport is!:violin:
It's usually those on lower and middle incomes that go.

Ocean1

24th August 2011, 19:33

And where do you get these figures from? - they are often bandied about but seem to have their origin in urban myth, like a lot of this stuff - source and proof, please.

Attributed to:

The top 10 percent of income earners pay 44 percent of all personal income tax. If the impact of Working for Families, New Zealand superannuation, and other benefits is included, the top 10 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand pay 76 percent of all net tax in New Zealand.

Which appears to be unavailable on line. Haven't heard anyone dispute it, though.

Edit: even way scarier is the fact that 55% of wage earners cost more in benefits than they pay in tax. They represent a net loss to the system. You can research that one yourself.

Oscar

24th August 2011, 20:07

Attributed to:

Which appears to be unavailable on line. Haven't heard anyone dispute it, though.

Edit: even way scarier is the fact that 55% of wage earners cost more in benefits than they pay in tax. They represent a net loss to the system. You can research that one yourself.

It's here:

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr/pdf/tax-report-website.pdf

This is also interesting:

In contrast with the treatment of capital gains and property, New Zealand taxes corporate taxable income
at a relatively high rate. The changing international environment is putting pressure on the corporate tax
system. In 1989, New Zealand’s 33% corporate tax rate was one of the lowest in the world. That situation
has changed markedly in the last 15 years (see Figure 8). While New Zealand’s corporate rate was
reduced recently to 30%, the average rate for small OECD countries is now 26%. International trends
may not continue into the future at the same rate (for example, as a result of many countries experiencing
huge increases in public deficits and debt following the global financial crisis). However, further reductions
in company tax rates overseas will mean that New Zealand would be vulnerable and would be under
pressure to reduce its company tax rate.

cowpoos

24th August 2011, 20:23

Oh dear, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I said that people on low incomes pay more GST as a proportion of their income. Statistically a typical person on $50k will spend around 60% of their income on living costs like food, petrol, power, phone, clothes and entertainmen, all of which attract GST.

However someone on $150,000 you will typically spend a greater dollar amount on all of the above, but because mortgages and savings are GST exempt between 40% and 50% of their income will attract GST.

So what you're saying is the only way to contribute to society is through paying tax? Then why do you hate paying tax? Do you hate contributing to the society you live in?

Then why have the number of people emigrating increased since National came in? And why do Labour and the Greens always do better out of special votes cast by expat Kiwis? And what are envy taxes and nanny state rhetoric? Has it dawned on you that the reason smart people emigrate (often to countries with higher tax rates) is because there are more opportunities overseas? Or are you simply spouting what you have been told?

Those aren't facts - they're your paranoid prejudices. Facts are things that are known to exist and can be independently observed, measured and experienced.

Like you?

Blah blah blah labour rhetoric bla blah....why don't you answer the real points I posed...

agree with you there, although some of them are trying to get through....

Better?:confused: Smarter :laugh: ...work harder:killingme not necessarily - I know some fucking hard workers who earn SFA, and high earners who know how to tweak figures, but wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase!

And where do you get these figures from? - they are often bandied about but seem to have their origin in urban myth, like a lot of this stuff - source and proof, please. This IS a myth that people like to fling around, which has been definitively debunked! The very wealthy go overseas if they feel like it, not because a tax rate has gone up or they feel hard done by by some financial law change or whatever - and if they want to go, rather than contribute positively to the community and society, well, they know where the airport is!:violin:
It's usually those on lower and middle incomes that go.

I like you Spman....how ever...you and I will never agree on this issuse...so out of respect I'm not going to Debate with you...

Not exactly, GST affected low income earners far more than high income earners because they pay a far bigger percentage of their income in GST.

Did you know that a far greater percentage of unversity grads around vote labour than National? And that the average university grad earns 25% more than a non-graduate? I'm also amused that the national/act supporters on this thread are the ones who whinge the most? By a long shot. And what do you have to support your argument that people who vote Labour support NZ less than people who vote National/Act?

Do you have a basis for your assertions, or is it just what Wayne down at the pub told you? After all, he has a grouse ute and hot missus, so you gotta listen to him.
right....because your a bit dumb....heres an explaination that even youshould understand

This little gem might help some of you understand the tax system better, but only if you want to!

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, labour twits and college professors like shrub, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Clockwork

24th August 2011, 22:05

It's here:

This is also interesting:....

More fool us for buying into the "global economy" bullshit then eh?

So corperations are now free to move their buiness to the country with the lowest tax rates yet we still allow them free access to our markets (even though in NZ's particular case we are not allowed to buy at the same price that the rest of the world pays).

No wonder corperate tax rates are declining world wide..... guess who gets to pick up the slack!!!

shrub

25th August 2011, 08:24

Blah blah blah labour rhetoric bla blah....why don't you answer the real points I posed...

Actually I did. I countered every argument you raised, but unfortunately for you I didn't give the answer you wanted (or understood) and...

I like you Spman....how ever...you and I will never agree on this issuse...so out of respect I'm not going to Debate with you...

you admit are only willing to debate with people you agree with which probably explains why you are so naive and ill informed - the perfect muppet.

shrub

25th August 2011, 09:37

More fool us for buying into the "global economy" bullshit then eh?

So corperations are now free to move their buiness to the country with the lowest tax rates yet we still allow them free access to our markets (even though in NZ's particular case we are not allowed to buy at the same price that the rest of the world pays).

No wonder corperate tax rates are declining world wide..... guess who gets to pick up the slack!!!

Globalisation is a two edged sword. It has opened markets that were once inaccessible and created opportunities, but at the same time competition has increased monumentally. Because NZ is so small (we have a similar GDP to General Motors and are smaller than General Electric) we are extremely vulnerable. I believe that the only option to NZ surviving and growing economically is to become a niche operator producing extremely high quality and innovative products. We HAVE to diversify from primary produce and volume tourism, especially from dairy. We also need to reassess the RB Act, but that's another story.

i think that our tax structure needs to change, and a CGT is not just a good idea, it's bizarre that we don't have one. Company tax rates are probably too high, and I have read strong arguments to shift them down to 25% and to follow the model used a lot overseas of allowing a company's first year's trading to be tax free (with conditions). Personal tax rates need reassessing and the lovely tax cuts we have all enjoyed were probably unaffordable, even if they did get votes. But my expertise lies in business growth not taxation, and I'm not an economist so what I think is entirely based on what I have read in the public commons so is likely to be incomplete at best.

oldrider

25th August 2011, 11:24

Title of this thread is: Who will win the 2011 election?

Shrub and the Labour party should just start their own official thread! :mellow:

shrub

25th August 2011, 12:38

Title of this thread is: Who will win the 2011 election?

Shrub and the Labour party should just start their own official thread! :mellow:

Would you rather I followed the crowd and whined about paying tax while agreeing that Labour supporters are all homos, beneficiaries and losers and anyone who has an education is an idiot? Mate, if you disagree with me put forward an argument, don't just wish I would go away. BTW I am not a Labour supporter, but I also don't think National are doing a very good job. And their policies range from ordinary to poor, but John Key has a lovely smile and is SUCH a nice man, so the sheeple will vote them back.

I reckon the only way National won't win this year is if John Key and Bill English are caught starring in a gay porn film made in a P lab that they are found to own while channelling millions of dollars into funding the Wallaby's RWC campaign. Even then it would be close.

oneofsix

25th August 2011, 12:53

It must really suck having me on the other side of the debating table - would you rather I shut up and let everyone complain about tax rates and agree that Labour supporters are all homos, beneficiaries and losers? BTW I am not a Labour supporter, but I also don't think National are doing a very good job.

I reckon the only way National won't win this year is if John Key, Jerry Brownlee and Bill English are caught starring in a gay porn film made in a P lab that they are found to own while channelling millions of dollars into funding the Wallaby's RWC campaign. Even then it would be close.

It would have been a very short thread if everyone stuck strictly to the subject in the title.

admenk

25th August 2011, 15:55

It would have been a very short thread if everyone stuck strictly to the subject in the title.

National.....there, managed it <_<

oldrider

25th August 2011, 17:40

Would you rather I followed the crowd and whined about paying tax while agreeing that Labour supporters are all homos, beneficiaries and losers and anyone who has an education is an idiot? Mate, if you disagree with me put forward an argument, don't just wish I would go away. BTW I am not a Labour supporter, but I also don't think National are doing a very good job. And their policies range from ordinary to poor, but John Key has a lovely smile and is SUCH a nice man, so the sheeple will vote them back.

I reckon the only way National won't win this year is if John Key and Bill English are caught starring in a gay porn film made in a P lab that they are found to own while channelling millions of dollars into funding the Wallaby's RWC campaign. Even then it would be close.

My post means this thread is dead, it's time to start a new one, more on topic!

Your comments reflect the poll results on this thread too!

I am not sure that that will be the result of the election though, the media have yet to do their work!

Possibly the RWC will be too big a distraction so I guess it all depends on whether we win or lose!

Even more so, if we don't win, who does! .... pretty fickle country, definitely politically inept electorate! :apint:

mashman

25th August 2011, 19:06

Even more so, if we don't win, who does! .... pretty fickle country, definitely politically inept electorate!

Alas, it will be more of the same. As for politically inept. I agree, and inept we should be. Otherwise what would be the point of politicians?

The way I look at it, no matter who wins the election, the goal will still be to "balance the books". Every society will "suffer" where budget is a consideration. Proven since ages ago :).

Oscar

25th August 2011, 19:23

Alas, it will be more of the same. As for politically inept. I agree, and inept we should be. Otherwise what would be the point of politicians?

The way I look at it, no matter who wins the election, the goal will still be to "balance the books". Every society will "suffer" where budget is a consideration. Proven since ages ago :).

Oh look the children have entered the room.
Isn't it past your beddy-byes?

mashman

25th August 2011, 20:08

Oh look the children have entered the room.
Isn't it past your beddy-byes?

?????????????????????

cowpoos

25th August 2011, 20:47

Actually I did. I countered every argument you raised, but unfortunately for you I didn't give the answer you wanted (or understood) and...

no you didn't...you only answered to the question you wanted me to ask. lmao!!!

you admit are only willing to debate with people you agree with which probably explains why you are so naive and ill informed - the perfect muppet.

go read it again...lol

and by the way....name calling doesn't make you win and argument....but what it does do...is remove all doubt, too those that may have be on the fence about your supposed opinions...no clever really, is it lad.

puddytat

25th August 2011, 21:10

Whatever happens I reckon, we'll be sold down the line one way or the other.There'll still be a Free For All agreement with whoever ....& we'll end up owning less.
And owing more.
:soon:

Right, back to the playroom:wings:

98tls

25th August 2011, 21:15

Ocean1

25th August 2011, 22:08

I have read strong arguments to shift them down to 25% and to follow the model used a lot overseas of allowing a company's first year's trading to be tax free (with conditions).

I'd be happy if they simply refrained from demanding the first years tax AND the next three months worth on about the business’s first anniversary. Now. Or else. Fuck me you’d think new business was something to be discouraged with extreme prejudice.

While we’re at it, why is it that when I spend half a squillion dollars on some really clever kit the bastards still want the tax paid on the money I used to buy it? So if you survive the first 18 months, build a wee bit of a reserve up and want to invest that in ways to make your business grow they’re there to fuck that up too.

‘Course the clever dickie financial wizards reckon I’ve got it all wrong, I orta have BORROWED all that capital, so’s I could claim the interest as a loss. Trouble is I’m not in business to make a loss...

Clockwork

26th August 2011, 08:40

Out of interest is there anyone campaigning with the the "we will stop the buying smokes for those that otherwise couldnt afford them" or as its known "working for familes",if so they will get my vote.

As Corney as it sounds, children are any nations future, Bud. If only families that could comfortably afford children were to have them, this nations population would quickly decline and there would be no one left to wipe our arses for us in our dotage.

The more worrying fact is it appears that the average worker can no longer afford to support a family without assistance!!

98tls

26th August 2011, 11:23

As Corney as it sounds, children are any nations future, Bud. If only families that could comfortably afford children were to have them, this nations population would quickly decline and there would be no one left to wipe our arses for us in our dotage.

The more worrying fact is it appears that the average worker can no longer afford to support a family without assistance!!

Mate i agree entirely with the 1st bit the second not,i sit and listen to the whining come smoko time from some with kids about cant afford this that and the other thing whilst eating there smoko bought from a bakery after which they sit there moan some more whilst puffing on the tailor made fag,there probably still moaning as they drive home in there XR8 bought on tick,which part of the working for families is actually being spent on there kids?

Clockwork

26th August 2011, 11:58

Fair enough, I have no first hand experience of it and there may well be a case for re-examining how much and who needs to be paid nut I still think the principal is sound enough.

Likewise Id bet that without the support these people you talk of would still have the smokes, cars and nice foods..... just not kids.

But then we still be short of people to wipe our arses later!.

rainman

26th August 2011, 20:17

why is it that when I spend half a squillion dollars on some really clever kit the bastards still want the tax paid on the money I used to buy it?

Although to be fair you then claim the depreciation over time so it's a wash, over time. My advice would be to invest in new capital equipment carefully at the start of a new business. Or find cleverer funding solutions.

However, back to elections...

SPman

26th August 2011, 20:29

...........
However, back to elections...
Must we.........lifes depressing enough as it is.........

Ocean1

26th August 2011, 21:02

Although to be fair you then claim the depreciation over time so it's a wash, over time.

To be fair you'd ask "how much more money have you got this year than you had last year" and you'd tax that. Any other measure of income is bullshit, what's more it's bullshit that penalises investment in business, and all so the government can have their pound of flesh early.

Clockwork

27th August 2011, 07:12

This is probably one of my biggest concerns about tax..... the fact the it always seems that the Government is trying to get its hands on it too early. Company Provisional Tax, the taxes on Unit Share values (even though they havn't yet been sold and so any value increase in only notional).

Even the fact that they pre-tax the money that you put into a super scheme and then tax its earnings throughout its term. I'd have thought the fairest way would be to let the savings go in and accure tax free, then tax the repayments on maturity. Imagine how much more money would have been invested by these funds now if that had been the regime

rainman

27th August 2011, 09:21

To be fair you'd ask "how much more money have you got this year than you had last year" and you'd tax that. Any other measure of income is bullshit, what's more it's bullshit that penalises investment in business, and all so the government can have their pound of flesh early.

I see your point, but business is short-term-focused enough as it is; a purely cash basis for accounting would be more problematic, not less. How would you deal with depreciation? And how would your scheme work for farmers, who grow things that acquire value over time but only sell at specific times? Things like depreciation, taxing at one of the various livestock valuation schemes, and provisional tax spread the impact over time. You'd have to have massive overdraft limits in most businesses to only work on straight cash.

And the bank would have to trust you not to spend up large when you're flush. I wouldn't expect a high success rate with this short term. Maybe in time a new operating culture would emerge, but initially I'd expect your scheme would cause more businesses to fail, not fewer.

Ocean1

27th August 2011, 20:26

I see your point, but business is short-term-focused enough as it is; a purely cash basis for accounting would be more problematic, not less. How would you deal with depreciation? .

It's based on a flawed premis in the first place. Why on earth should you tax capital investment? it just ties a millstone around every productive manufactuary in the country.

Let 'em spend ALL of their hard earned improving their business, you'll reap the benefits in revenue from improvements in genuine income tax down the track.

rainman

27th August 2011, 21:51

It's based on a flawed premis in the first place. Why on earth should you tax capital investment? it just ties a millstone around every productive manufactuary in the country.

Let 'em spend ALL of their hard earned improving their business, you'll reap the benefits in revenue from improvements in genuine income tax down the track.

Creates a bit of an anomaly though: you pay tax on the income earned by your business, and you incur costs in operating it. (Depreciation is just a means of spreading large costs over their useful life). If you want to make some of those costs tax-free then all you are really arguing is for giving business a further tax cut because it will increase growth, which is magical thinking that has been discussed to death here before.

How would you want to treat a farmer buying a bunch of livestock? Productive business investment, or trading stock?

And what does this have to do with elections?

Ocean1

27th August 2011, 22:10

If you want to make some of those costs tax-free then all you are really arguing is for giving business a further tax cut because it will increase growth, which is magical thinking that has been discussed to death here before.

It's a fucking COST. Y'know: not income. Tax free? why the fuck should you pay tax on income you never made?

rainman

27th August 2011, 23:35

It's a fucking COST. Y'know: not income. Tax free? why the fuck should you pay tax on income you never made?

Look, this isn't difficult:

I trade, make profit, and get taxed on that. From my after tax surplus...

1) ... I buy a widget, mark it up and sell it. The widget is no longer generating any income for me. I deduct its entire cost from my revenue from the new sale and pay tax on the profit.

2) ... I buy raw materials and make a widget by hand, then sell it. I deduct the cost of all the stuff that made up the widget from my revenue, and pay tax on the profit.

3) ... I buy a machine to make widgets. It lasts for years, happily making widgets that I sell for more profit. I need other raw materials to make widgets. I deduct the full cost of the raw materials as they are consumed, and the cost of the machine as it's "consumed" (depreciated), and pay tax on the profit.

Spot the pattern?

It's all consistent, there is no big government conspiracy to wrest your hard won funds from you and tax them "early". If you want business investments to be tax free then why not any other cost of sales?

Think of farming again. I buy an animal for cheap, fatten it up and sell it some years later. During this time it may produce offspring which will in turn generate more offspring and income. It may die and be worthless. Each year after I bought it I pay tax on it, as part of sales less purchases plus opening stock (valued in a variety of ways) less closing stock. But I haven't sold the animal at that stage and realised the cash income. Unjust or not?

schrodingers cat

28th August 2011, 07:43

I sometimes think it should be mandatory for folks to have a go in business for themselves.

Put your nuts on the line and hold the check book and you'll start to see how shit works.

People bitch endlessly about (nanny pc) government but there does seem to be an underlying attitude that the gubbermint should look after us. Give us jobs. Give us money for not having a job. Smack the rich bastards blah blah

Some personal responsibility goes a long way

Ownership, accountability, responsibility: These attitudes will help you achieve
Blame, excuses, denial: Here is the road to failure

oldrider

28th August 2011, 09:04

Ocean1

28th August 2011, 09:11

Spot the pattern?

Yes. Only an accountant wouldn't spot the fact that #1 and #2 generate immediate income which is appropriate to tax, whereas #3 represents an immediate cost which may be mitigated over several years. With careful planning and hard work it MIGHT even play a part in increasing your income. 'Er majesty's best have the same blind spot, they want "their" money now, so if you want to spend $100,000 on, say a CNC lathe but you're prudently gun-shy of borrowing you actually need to save up $133,000, an extra $33,000 to cover the cost of what can only be described accurately as a protection racket.

Not a rort? Fuck off, Al Capone would be proud of the scale of it.

Think of farming again. I buy an animal for cheap, fatten it up and sell it some years later. During this time it may produce offspring which will in turn generate more offspring and income. It may die and be worthless. Each year after I bought it I pay tax on it, as part of sales less purchases plus opening stock (valued in a variety of ways) less closing stock. But I haven't sold the animal at that stage and realised the cash income. Unjust or not?

Spot the incentive for Govt to prune the tree AFTER it's grown?

You're looking for consistency of application in tax between capital plant and stock. I simply see an added disincentive for business owners to invest in the future of their business and, by simple extension the future of their employees and their country.

rainman

28th August 2011, 09:38

The mood of the nation will be dark if the "All (tween)* Blacks" don't improve their performance from last night! * (best between RWC's)

John Key's government could cop the backlash, such is the fickleness of the NZ electorate! :wacko:

Now there's an interesting element that gets back towards the topic.
Three scenarios:
1. ABs are eliminated early (or beaten by France on the 24th)
2. ABs get a place but not first, say 3rd
3. ABs win

Do any of these have an impact on the election in real terms?

(Bonus question driven entirely from self-interest: do you think any of these have an impact on house prices? :) )

rainman

28th August 2011, 09:48

Yes. Only an accountant wouldn't spot the fact that #1 and #2 generate immediate income which is appropriate to tax, whereas #3 represents an immediate cost which may be mitigated over several years.

You're missing the point of which income it is: past income is taxed, consistently. Future income (generated by the sales of new stock, manufacture, or your lathe) is taxed, consistently. How did you make the money to buy the lathe in the first place? Think it through, or go ask your accountant. It really isn't a gummint conspiracy to take your hard earned wealth.

Not all debt is bad, either - if buying the lathe s a really good idea and you don't have all the cash now, the numbers with some borrowing may stack up, if you shop intelligently. If the tax on the income you've already made (which you're going to have to pay regardless) is the make-or-break factor in buying the kit then you have bigger problems and shouldn't buy it.

EDIT: Or just lease the thing?

Winston001

28th August 2011, 15:54

I understand Ocean's point although its hard to see how else capital purchases could be treated.

In the example above, the new lathe might be essential to replace an old one. No new lathe = close the business. The capital cost is a big lump to find in one hit.

This is a good example of the capital limitations many businesses face. To increase production it isn't possible to extend the existing building 10m, and to stretch existing plant like a piece of elastic: or buy 1/8 of another lathe. Its all or nothing. A complete new building plus new machinery is required to take the next step.

Businesses regularly get broken when they expand and it doesn't work out.

rainman

28th August 2011, 18:11

Businesses regularly get broken when they expand and it doesn't work out.

Yeah, that's why they need to do it intelligently. Major expansion is seldom done from cash surplus in my experience.

Ocean1

28th August 2011, 18:44

Major expansion is seldom done from cash surplus in my experience.

You're right. And if you haven't worked out why yet you never will.

jonbuoy

29th August 2011, 02:16

mashman

29th August 2011, 14:45

my lord. sense from a politician (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10134618/king-the-need-for-change-is-urgent/)

Oscar

29th August 2011, 15:23

my lord. sense from a politician (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10134618/king-the-need-for-change-is-urgent/)

What sense?
She's a failure.
She had nine years in Government.
What did she do, apart from making more people dependant on welfare?

mashman

29th August 2011, 16:48

What sense?
She's a failure.
She had nine years in Government.
What did she do, apart from making more people dependant on welfare?

I don't care who she is, or what she hasn't done.

"That's why Labour says it's time for politicians to come together on this issue and develop a cross-party agreement for the sake of our children."

That sense. Politicians sharing a common goal :shit:

"Sadly, so far John Key has denied the request for cross-party agreements on child welfare citing a disagreement over National standards as a reason not to engage with other politicians."

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa.

Oscar

29th August 2011, 16:56

I don't care who she is, or what she hasn't done.

"That's why Labour says it's time for politicians to come together on this issue and develop a cross-party agreement for the sake of our children."

That sense. Politicians sharing a common goal :shit:

"Sadly, so far John Key has denied the request for cross-party agreements on child welfare citing a disagreement over National standards as a reason not to engage with other politicians."

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa.

So you fall for Labour propaganda, but not National's.
That just makes you a red idiot, rather than a blue one.

mashman

29th August 2011, 17:02

So you fall for Labour propaganda, but not National's.
That just makes you a red idiot, rather than a blue one.

:killingme... whew, wed is me favouwite colour.

Winston001

29th August 2011, 17:09

What sense?
She's a failure.
She had nine years in Government.
What did she do, apart from making more people dependant on welfare?

I have to agree. Labour had a long time in government to address child welfare issues.

As for cooperation two points:

1. Some of the legislation passed by Parliament is done so with Labour and National voting together. Most Parliamentary work is carried out quietly and without fuss. We only see the debates on what MPs regard as hot issues.

2. David Lange led a cooperative style of government for a few months in 1984. It was very refreshing to see but sadly, politicians just can't do that. Inevitably the agreeableness fell to pieces and we went back to abuse and filibustering. Shame.

Oscar

29th August 2011, 18:39

:killingme... whew, wed is me favouwite colour.

I'm picking that your favourite colour is nipple pink.

Oscar

29th August 2011, 18:41

I have to agree. Labour had a long time in government to address child welfare issues.

As for cooperation two points:

1. Some of the legislation passed by Parliament is done so with Labour and National voting together. Most Parliamentary work is carried out quietly and without fuss. We only see the debates on what MPs regard as hot issues.

2. David Lange led a cooperative style of government for a few months in 1984. It was very refreshing to see but sadly, politicians just can't do that. Inevitably the agreeableness fell to pieces and we went back to abuse and filibustering. Shame.

I could understand John Key harbouring some resentment after being called a "rich prick" by Cullen.

rainman

29th August 2011, 18:43

What sense?
She's a failure.

I have to agree. Labour had a long time in government to address child welfare issues.

Ah, good old New Zilind. Can always be counted on to trot out the same tired old thinking.

Even if you don't believe it's anything more than a pre-election stunt, is there anything in what she's said you actually disagree with? Reducing reliance on benefits would have gone down a treat here, I would have thought.

And besides, if you want to have a partisan trading session of useless polllies you know I can always play the McCully card... trumps everything in the rest of the pack!

rainman

29th August 2011, 18:45

I could understand John Key harbouring some resentment after being called a "rich prick" by Cullen.

Wot, you think he isn't a prick?

Oscar

29th August 2011, 19:01

Wot, you think he isn't a prick?

I have no opinion on the subject, but it's pretty rich coming from a University Socialist like Cullen and directed at state house boy makes good. Pretty much the definition of "'Tall Poppy Syndrome".

Oscar

29th August 2011, 19:03

Ah, good old New Zilind. Can always be counted on to trot out the same tired old thinking.

Even if you don't believe it's anything more than a pre-election stunt, is there anything in what she's said you actually disagree with? Reducing reliance on benefits would have gone down a treat here, I would have thought.

And besides, if you want to have a partisan trading session of useless polllies you know I can always play the McCully card... trumps everything in the rest of the pack!

After nine years of failed social engineering, the Labour Party is on fairly shaky ground when they talk about welfare dependence.

Winston001

29th August 2011, 21:50

Ah, good old New Zilind. Can always be counted on to trot out the same tired old thinking.

Even if you don't believe it's anything more than a pre-election stunt, is there anything in what she's said you actually disagree with?

Or...Annette King (for whom I do have some respect) is trotting out the same tired old slogans??

Is it disingenuous to point out her government held the treasury benches for most of the last decade? During a period in which many children were born, abused, and killed. Is it somehow unfair to ask why Labour did not stop this?

rainman

29th August 2011, 22:29

Is it somehow unfair to ask why Labour did not stop this?

Not unfair. Just pointless and entirely predictable.

Banditbandit

30th August 2011, 09:40

After nine years of failed social engineering, the Labour Party is on fairly shaky ground when they talk about welfare dependence.

And you don't think the Nats indulge in what you call Social Engineering?

Is it disingenuous to point out her government held the treasury benches for most of the last decade? During a period in which many children were born, abused, and killed. Is it somehow unfair to ask why Labour did not stop this?

And National are stopping this how?

shrub

30th August 2011, 12:31

And you don't think the Nats indulge in what you call Social Engineering?

And National are stopping this how?

The answer to both of those is making the 2600 young people on a benefit use a card to buy anything. Guaranteed to work gangbusters and turn them all into millionaire forex traders.:third:

Seriously, we will have these problems as long as we operate in a broken and disfunctional society with:

A very large group of people who will never work, never own their own homes, always be poor, and have no idea how to change their circumstances
Blaming these people for their situation instead of recognising that the health of our society is the responsibility of all of us, not just those at the bottom.
People who see tax as unfair and not the cost of living in a functioning society, so will do anything to avoid paying their way
Resentment and envy, whether that is resenting the rich guy's ferrari or the beneficiary's $160.00 a week
A prison system that only succeeds in teaching people how to stay in crime
An addiction to consuming goods we don't need and can't afford because we attribute our self esteem and sense of self to what we own and not who we are and how we behave
Drug laws that place the sales and marketing of the second most popular recreation drug in the hands of gangs and encourage the sale of methamphetamine

SPman

30th August 2011, 14:51

Some more comment from I/S

Phil Goff's excuse for his latest round of poor polling (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10748302)? "People aren't focused on the issues" (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5531969/People-aren-t-focused-on-the-issues-Goff). But before Labour hacks engage in another round of "blame the voters", I think we should ask: whose fault is that?
To point out the obvious, getting people to care about "the issues" so that they are energised and mobilised to vote is a core task of a political party. If people aren't focused on Labour's chosen issues, then that tells us that the Labour Party is doing a piss-poor job. Either they've chosen their issues badly, or they're communicating them poorly (and in particular, worse than the government). But either way, it is not the voters who are at fault, but the party. And blaming the voters for the party's failure just adds to the perception that Labour is arrogant.
As for what they can do about it, I think the answer is pretty clear: Labour needs to own its own shit. Stop making excuses, accept responsibility for failure, and lift their game. And if they don't, and a bunch of them are out of work come November 27, then they have no-one to blame but themselves.
I fear Labour are toast, this election....
National, meanwhile, release crap, non focussed documents like the National Energy Strategy, which says that.....they have no strategy on energy except carry on as usual! Fuck me, what a pack of muppets, all of them!

Banditbandit

30th August 2011, 16:04

Some more comment from I/S
I fear Labour are toast, this election....
National, meanwhile, release crap, non focussed documents like the National Energy Strategy, which says that.....they have no strategy on energy except carry on as usual! Fuck me, what a pack of muppets, all of them!

A good reason to include "No Confidence" tick box on a ballot paper ... and have no election if No Confidence is the highest polling one ..

Oscar

30th August 2011, 18:04

And you don't think the Nats indulge in what you call Social Engineering?

If you could figure out how the Nats could do what the Labour party did and breed it's own electorate (by paying single mothers to drop sprogs), I'd be pleased to hear it.

Oscar

30th August 2011, 18:07

The answer to both of those is making the 2600 young people on a benefit use a card to buy anything. Guaranteed to work gangbusters and turn them all into millionaire forex traders.:third:

It may not guarantee success, but if it stops a few from becoming welfare dependent and developing a sense of personal responsibility, it's a start.

puddytat

30th August 2011, 21:30

If you could figure out how the Nats could do what the Labour party did and breed it's own electorate (by paying single mothers to drop sprogs), I'd be pleased to hear it.

Somewhat pompous dont you think.....

oldrider

30th August 2011, 22:23

A good reason to include "No Confidence" tick box on a ballot paper ... and have no election if No Confidence is the highest polling one ..

I'll vote for that! :niceone: Consider my box ticked! :yes:

Oscar

30th August 2011, 22:27

Somewhat pompous dont you think.....

Pompous?

Affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.

How is that remark pompous?

The habit of left wing Governments encouraging their own voters to breed at the taxpayers expense is obvious. Third generation DPB Mums are depressingly common in this country.

shrub

31st August 2011, 09:18

The habit of left wing Governments encouraging their own voters to breed at the taxpayers expense is obvious. Third generation DPB Mums are depressingly common in this country.

You are of course kidding. Please tell me you're kidding.

The reason they're a problem is because they don't know any better - if everyone you know does something it becomes normative behaviour. My kids think education and making something of your life is just what you do, like brushing your teeth and eating healthy food because that's all they know.

Oscar

31st August 2011, 09:35

You are of course kidding. Please tell me you're kidding.

The reason they're a problem is because they don't know any better - if everyone you know does something it becomes normative behaviour. My kids think education and making something of your life is just what you do, like brushing your teeth and eating healthy food because that's all they know.

I'm not kidding, and you're right - they don't know any better because successive Govts have been to scared to address the issue..
We need to do something about the inter-generational social welfare dependancy in this country. Hell, it's not so long since there was a stink about how long the DPB should be paid for. Mothers were saying as how it was their right to have the DPB paid until their youngest child was 15 years old.

‎Why do we countenance paying for second, third and fourth children for people on a ‎benefit? ‎The DPB is a safety net, not a career.

And then there's taxes.
I think I read somewhere that 50% of NZ families don't pay any income tax. Why?
Why "Working for Families"? Apart from being a spectacular vote catcher, as I’ve mentioned here before, this is discriminatory – there are plenty of people who ‎choose not to, or can’t have children. ‎

At the risk of sounding waaay to the right, we should have a national conversation about where our population is coming from. Why are we paying the dregs of society to bred? Even ignoring the benefit situation, why are we giving tax breaks for children to the people who can least afford to have them?

shrub

31st August 2011, 09:40

It may not guarantee success, but if it stops a few from becoming welfare dependent and developing a sense of personal responsibility, it's a start.

Riiiight.... I might just head down to Aranui or Otara and recruit a few forex traders.

One of the biggest reasons John Key is successful is his background. The National spin doctors have told us all that he came from a state house and his mother was a solo mum, so the right whingers all puff their chests out and say "if he could do it, anyone can" which neatly segues into "it's their own fault for being poor therefore why the hell should my taxes pay for their luxurious and indolent lifestyle?".

But let's look at Uncle John's background: In the 60s and 70s a hell of a lot of very ordinary middle class kiwis lived in state houses because we had a welfare system that looked after everyone. Plus his mother was not a "solo mum" in the way we talk about them today - she was a widow on the widow's benefit, which was pretty liveable back then. She also had a strong work ethic and worked evenings so her kids could have whatever they needed and encouraged them to work hard and succeed. They lived in a good area and he went to a very good school, so while he did not come from money, he had a bloody good foundation.

And that's what we need to do. Give kids a good start, teach them that work is a normal part of life, help them get an education and most of all, help them believe in themselves.

Blaming and condemning the poor achieves nothing other than to make the right whingers feel better.

Banditbandit

31st August 2011, 09:42

If you could figure out how the Nats could do what the Labour party did and breed it's own electorate (by paying single mothers to drop sprogs), I'd be pleased to hear it.

HUH? That's crap and you know it ..

I'm not kidding, and you're right - they don't know any better because successive Govts have been to scared to address the issue..
We need to do something about the inter-generational social welfare dependancy in this country. Hell, it's not so long since there was a stink about how long the DPB should be paid for. Mothers were saying as how it was their right to have the DPB paid until their youngest child was 15 years old.

‎Why do we countenance paying for second, third and fourth children for people on a ‎benefit? ‎The DPB is a safety net, not a career.

If you do not pay the solo mothers who feeds the kids? THis is a fair question, because I do understand where you are coming from. The benefit is not for the benefit of the mother it is for the benefit of the kids ... and under your concept you punish the kids as well as the mother - you need to come up with a way to look after the kids - not punish them - and taking them off the parents just adds costs to the system, it doesn't save them.

And your "successive Governments" includes national as well as Labour ..

And then there's taxes.
I think I read somewhere that 50% of NZ families don't pay any income tax. Why?
Why "Working for Families"? Apart from being a spectacular vote catcher, as I’ve mentioned here before, this is discriminatory – there are plenty of people who ‎choose not to, or can’t have children. ‎

Love to see where you read that .. even beneficiaries pay taxes .. it comes out of their income .. their benefit ..

(So - the benefit is what you need to survive on .. and absolute minimum .. then our dickhead Government takes out tax .. Doh ... no wonder there is child poverty in GodZone ...)

At the risk of sounding waaay right, we should have a national conversation about where our population is coming from. Why are we paying the dregs of society to bred? Even ignoring the benefit situation, why are we giving tax breaks for children to the people who can least afford to have them?

Again - we are not paying the dregs of society to breed - we are paying for the care of the kids ... You need to keep that in mind ... in the very front of your mind ..

Oscar

31st August 2011, 09:49

Riiiight.... I might just head down to Aranui or Otara and recruit a few forex traders.

One of the biggest reasons John Key is successful is his background. The National spin doctors have told us all that he came from a state house and his mother was a solo mum, so the right whingers all puff their chests out and say "if he could do it, anyone can" which neatly segues into "it's their own fault for being poor therefore why the hell should my taxes pay for their luxurious and indolent lifestyle?".

But let's look at Uncle John's background: In the 60s and 70s a hell of a lot of very ordinary middle class kiwis lived in state houses because we had a welfare system that looked after everyone. Plus his mother was not a "solo mum" in the way we talk about them today - she was a widow on the widow's benefit, which was pretty liveable back then. She also had a strong work ethic and worked evenings so her kids could have whatever they needed and encouraged them to work hard and succeed. They lived in a good area and he went to a very good school, so while he did not come from money, he had a bloody good foundation.

And that's what we need to do. Give kids a good start, teach them that work is a normal part of life, help them get an education and most of all, help them believe in themselves.

Blaming and condemning the poor achieves nothing other than to make the right whingers feel better.

You have missied the point (again).
I'm not blaming the people concerned, I'm blaming the people that enable thier behaviour. The people structured laws that make it impossible for a state agency to evict gang scum from a state house. The people that allow the granting of benefits with no personal responsibilty attached. The people who talk about the "right" to spend a benefit anyway that the beneficary chooses.

shrub

31st August 2011, 10:14

You have missied the point (again).
I'm not blaming the people concerned, I'm blaming the people that enable thier behaviour. The people structured laws that make it impossible for a state agency to evict gang scum from a state house. The people that allow the granting of benefits with no personal responsibilty attached. The people who talk about the "right" to spend a benefit anyway that the beneficary chooses.

The problem is not in having benefits or even in how they're granted - the problem is that we need benefits in the first place, and then that people see life on a benefit as being preferable to life working.

The problem is that there isn't enough work because we have an economy that is struggling and is not business-friendly. The problem is that we have people who don't know any better, and who's kids are learning from them that life on a benefit is the best option for them.

The problem is that we don't care enough to sacrifice our lifestyles to create work, better fund lower decile schools and intervene early in people's lives so they can see an alternative. Maybe we need to bring back things like the MOW, Railways and Post Office where there are jobs for everyone, even if that job is leaning on a shovel all day. I would rather that than have kids hanging around the malls.

oldrider

31st August 2011, 13:17

.. even beneficiaries pay taxes .. it comes out of their income .. their benefit ..

No they don't .... they simply forfeit some of their benefit, calling it tax is bullshit!

It's an illusion created to disguise the reality of an unequal society! (feel good crap)

The tax is paid by somebody else who has actually produced something .. I.E. goods and services!

Real taxpayer's pay tax and carry the beneficiaries .... that's why they are called beneficiaries, they don't contribute anything! :no: They just receive! :yes:

Banditbandit

31st August 2011, 14:57

No they don't .... they simply forfeit some of their benefit, calling it tax is bullshit!

It's an illusion created to disguise the reality of an unequal society! (feel good crap)

The tax is paid by somebody else who has actually produced something .. I.E. goods and services!

Real taxpayer's pay tax and carry the beneficiaries .... that's why they are called beneficiaries, they don't contribute anything! :no: They just receive! :yes:

I agree it is an illusion - but it does mean that those on the benefit are classed as taxpayers and would not show up on any information that suggests 50% of New Zealand households pay no tax ... which was the point of my post ...

So .. all those who pay PAYE tax and all beneficiaires pay "tax" ... what 50% of NZ househiolds pay not tax ? I don't believe the stat ...

Oscar

31st August 2011, 16:23

I agree it is an illusion - but it does mean that those on the benefit are classed as taxpayers and would not show up on any information that suggests 50% of New Zealand households pay no tax ... which was the point of my post ...

So .. all those who pay PAYE tax and all beneficiaires pay "tax" ... what 50% of NZ househiolds pay not tax ? I don't believe the stat ...

You've fallen into the same trap I did - of course they pay tax, it's almost impossible not to pay GST. The stat is 50% of NZ Families pay no income tax. I assume that this is based on whatever statisticians define as a family unit and reflects the working for families tax credit.

SPman

31st August 2011, 16:41

A good reason to include "No Confidence" tick box on a ballot paper ... and have no election if No Confidence is the highest polling one ..
It would be better than not voting, which is the only other option...

(So - the benefit is what you need to survive on .. and absolute minimum .. then our dickhead Government takes out tax .. Doh ... no wonder there is child poverty in GodZone ...)The benefit was set by Ruth Richardson at 40% less than was calculated you need to survive on - as an incentive to get the "bludgers" back to work (that sounds familiar), and has not regained it's parity, even under a 3 term Labour government!

Oscar

31st August 2011, 16:54

I tried to source the "50% of families pay no tax" quote.

I didn't, but I did find this:

http://http://www.grownzeconomy.co.nz/uploads/89385/files/230807/Who_Pays_Tax_in_New_Zealand.pdf

Some interesting things in it:

• Households with an income of $50,000 or below pay no net tax at all. They ‎actually receive approx. $4.40 for every $1 of tax paid. That is –they pay ‎‎$1.7b in tax and receive $7.7b in welfare.‎
• ‎44%of households are net tax recipients. ‎
• ‎17% of households are paying 97% of net taxation.‎

shrub

31st August 2011, 18:23

Ocean1

31st August 2011, 21:16

• Households with an income of $50,000 or below pay no net tax at all. They ‎actually receive approx. $4.40 for every $1 of tax paid. That is –they pay ‎‎$1.7b in tax and receive $7.7b in welfare.‎
• ‎44%of households are net tax recipients. ‎
• ‎17% of households are paying 97% of net taxation.‎

Staggering, innit?

rainman

31st August 2011, 23:00

I think I read somewhere that 50% of NZ families don't pay any income tax. Why?

Oooh I know, I know, pick me....

... because they don't earn enough.

oldrider

31st August 2011, 23:09

When I left school NZ had full employment, it was possible to walk in and out of jobs almost at your leisure!

I began life as an office junior at Levin and Co Masterton, after nine months I quit and went out to Akitio (East Coast) driving a crawler tractor crashing scrub.

Got interested in engineering so then served an apprenticeship with NZR.

On completion of my apprenticeship I left NZ and became an engineer with New Zealand Shipping Co.

My generation has had the best years life has ever offered the ordinary people in the street.

It makes me feel ashamed the way we have left everything for the new generations that follow!

I am now a passenger running on your tickets and although I have paid the premiums for my pension, it is on the backs of the current and future generations that I depend.

It is not taken lightly and I am thankful for your generosity on every pension day!

As a dependant on workers of today, is it fair that pensioners have the same voting rights as those that pay the piper?

Doesn't seem like justice does it! :mellow:

Ocean1

1st September 2011, 08:26

As a dependant on workers of today, is it fair that pensioners have the same voting rights as those that pay the piper?

There are plenty who vote having contributed nothing. If you believe one politician of my acquaintance we can’t possibly have expected our taxes to have funded our pension, it’s always been accepted that it’s funded by future tax revenue.

I’ve never accepted that, I expected successive governments to have invested a portion of our tax to pay for our pensions. Y’know, not blow the fucking lot on election lolly scrambles.

Enjoy your retirement, John, you’ve earned it.

MisterD

1st September 2011, 10:06

it’s always been accepted that it’s funded by future tax revenue.

The words "ponzi scheme" spring to mind...

Ocean1

1st September 2011, 18:37

The words "ponzi scheme" spring to mind...

Filthy stinking lying cheating slimey arseholes are up there also.

rainman

1st September 2011, 20:52

I’ve never accepted that, I expected successive governments to have invested a portion of our tax to pay for our pensions.

Yeah me too, but sadly we're both going to be disappointed here.

Enjoy your retirement, John, you’ve earned it.

Wot 'e sed.

But you're right, your lot had it very good indeed.

Ocean1

1st September 2011, 21:00

Yeah me too, but sadly we're both going to be disappointed here.

I'd be cool, if the system didn't effectively prevent me from belatedly providing my own funds for retirement.

Worse will come. They'll means test the pittance we'll eventually get.

Clockwork

2nd September 2011, 07:53

Actually, I reckon fair solution may be to freeze the current offering and make it available all, as now but start to means test any "cost-of-living" increases.

shrub

2nd September 2011, 09:59

I had a look at what he wrote on interest.co.nz (http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/54998/gareth-morgan-launches-his-big-kahuna-book-saying-we-have-lost-plot-worshipping-paid-w) and it makes a hell of a lot of sense. He's a bloody clever bastard with some very good ideas, plus he rides a bike, so I'll be reading that this weekend with interest.

puddytat

2nd September 2011, 17:00

I tried to source the "50% of families pay no tax" quote.

I didn't, but I did find this:

‎
• ‎17% of households are paying 97% of net taxation.‎

I find that incredible:yes: Certainly would'nt be the rich would it?
If not then who is? What demographic or socio-economic level do they come from?

Winston001

3rd September 2011, 14:17

puddytat

3rd September 2011, 14:23

Far out man,who'd of thought.:yes:
Couldnt open that attatchment properly though, was all computer speak, or Russian....

oldrider

3rd September 2011, 15:41

Here is the table of nett tax paid by families - source: Ministry of Inland Revenue.

Families earning over $150,000 represent 9.7% of all families, and pay 70.7% of total tax.

Oscar's figure is correct. The reason for the gross imbalance is many families have a negative tax position - they receive more money from other taxpayers than they pay.

246121

So this "is" the hard evidence that the have's, now have not, because the have not's have had it given to them by the government after they steal it from the have's by exorbitant taxation demands! (extortion by any other name)

If all of the have's decide to ship out to Australia etc, who will the government steal from then?

Then again, all the have not's might ship out to Australia etc too and there will only be the government left here!

Who will they steal their ill gotten gains from then? :wacko:

Clockwork

3rd September 2011, 17:22

Here is the table of nett tax paid by families - source: Ministry of Inland Revenue.

Families earning over $150,000 represent 9.7% of all families, and pay 70.7% of total tax.

Oscar's figure is correct. The reason for the gross imbalance is many families have a negative tax position - they receive more money from other taxpayers than they pay.

246121

This is pretty sobering stuff but between me and my wife, we must be on the edges of that 9.7%. I don't exactly feel destitiute.

Just sayin'

I'm betting that the figures arnt too different in Aus either. I Wonder how that compares with the wealth distribution.

shrub

5th September 2011, 10:20

This is pretty sobering stuff but between me and my wife, we must be on the edges of that 9.7%. I don't exactly feel destitiute.

Just sayin'

I'm betting that the figures arnt too different in Aus either. I Wonder how that compares with the wealth distribution.

It amuses (and saddens) me to see people on high incomes complaining about how done they are. My partner and I made a decision to make some big sacrifices now as an investment for tomorrow, and I am studying full time towards something that will have us pretty well set up for the duration. As a result our combined family income is under $75k, and we have 2 kids and a mortgage between us. We live in a very nice 4 brm home, pay all our bills on time, have enough money to go out for dinner now and again and fund hobbies and interests.

Banditbandit

5th September 2011, 10:43

YUP. +1

I earn more than $70k per annum. I certainly don't feel hard done by ... I live well, pay all my bills, (my wife's not working at present) I own my own house (owe the bank a bit) own a boat - two bikes (no money owing on either bikes or boat) eat well ... have cash in the bank.

More than $600 goes straight out of my pay each fortnight into PAYE .. I don't begrudge that ..

I don't have any kids ... so no child support or Working for Families ...

Shit I must be one of that small minority who pay all the tax ...

Oscar

5th September 2011, 11:13

It amuses (and saddens) me to see people on high incomes complaining about how done they are. My partner and I made a decision to make some big sacrifices now as an investment for tomorrow, and I am studying full time towards something that will have us pretty well set up for the duration. As a result our combined family income is under $75k, and we have 2 kids and a mortgage between us. We live in a very nice 4 brm home, pay all our bills on time, have enough money to go out for dinner now and again and fund hobbies and interests.

Where are these people on high incomes complaining about how "hard done" they are? The fact that you're satisfied doesn't make it right, and doesn't stop people voting with thier feet.

My issues are: generational welfare dependancy, the waste of potential caused by the system and people talking about their "rights" in respect of welfare.
There has to be a better way.

mashman

5th September 2011, 11:17

Shit I must be one of that small minority who pay all the tax ...

heh, I earn way more than I should, wife hasn't worked for 8 years (lazy shitbag), support 3 kids (and the odd chunk to overseas son), pay a huge mortgage, pay my bills, own the car, own the bike and pay tax like it's going out of fashion and don't structure my affairs to dodge my taxation obligations (which earned me "sympathy" from a lady on the phone a few weeks ago after she asked if I was tax efficient)...

Honestly, I'd give it all to NZ Inc if we ever went down the TRULY Free Local Economy route...

Oscar

5th September 2011, 11:20

Honestly, I'd give it all to NZ Inc if we ever went down the Free Local Economy route...

So, when you start your economic revolution, how will you pay for the next Aprillia?

mashman

5th September 2011, 11:34

So, when you start your economic revolution, how will you pay for the next Aprillia?

Figure it out for yourself... unless of course you don't have the mental capacity :shifty: (I don't need, and probably will never buy another bike)

Oscar

5th September 2011, 11:40

Figure it out for yourself... unless of course you don't have the mental capacity :shifty: (I don't need, and probably will never buy another bike)

Are you assuming that I could figure out your economic revolution based on your ‎fetid ranting here? I don't frequent bong_abusers.com, so you may have to elucidate further...

mashman

5th September 2011, 11:49

Are you assuming that I could figure out your economic revolution based on your ‎fetid ranting here? I don't frequent bong_abusers.com, so you may have to elucidate further...

Yes, you should be able to... but... All it will take, for me to get a new Prila, is to put in a purchase request.

Banditbandit

5th September 2011, 13:10

Yes, you should be able to... but... All it will take, for me to get a new Prila, is to put in a purchase request.

Naaaa .... Naaaaa ....

That's too subtle - you'll have to elaborate .. seems way way way too good to be true ..

mashman

5th September 2011, 13:18

Naaaa .... Naaaaa ....

That's too subtle - you'll have to elaborate .. seems way way way too good to be true ..

This very day, should I decide to go out and buy another Prila, I will have to check how much money I have in the bank. If I have enough, ppppft with 4 women in the house, then I buy it, or order it.

In the FREE Local Economy, I submit a purchase request. If there's nothing on tradeFree :innocent:, and the cash is available, my Govt, yes I will have a govt, a proper functioning one though, one arm finance, one arm logistics, one arm social, my govt will approve my purchase et voila. Should my request be turned down, why would I care, obviously the country couldn't afford it.

Or something along those lines :)

pzkpfw

5th September 2011, 14:03

This very day, should I decide to go out and buy another Prila, I will have to check how much money I have in the bank. If I have enough, ppppft with 4 women in the house, then I buy it, or order it.

In the FREE Local Economy, I submit a purchase request. If there's nothing on tradeFree :innocent:, and the cash is available, my Govt, yes I will have a govt, a proper functioning one though, one arm finance, one arm logistics, one arm social, my govt will approve my purchase et voila. Should my request be turned down, why would I care, obviously the country couldn't afford it.

Or something along those lines :)

So just the same, but wrapped up in a huge inefficient beurocracy? (sp?)

I guess that's where we'll put all the unemployed people - the purchase request analysis depertment.

(If two people want the bike, but there's cash for one - what happens? What if we all put in requests for Ferrrrraris?)

Oscar

5th September 2011, 14:07

mashman

5th September 2011, 15:02

So just the same, but wrapped up in a huge inefficient beurocracy? (sp?)

I guess that's where we'll put all the unemployed people - the purchase request analysis depertment.

(If two people want the bike, but there's cash for one - what happens? What if we all put in requests for Ferrrrraris?)

You can make it as convoluted as you like... although I'd argue the beaurocracy (fook da spellin) would be removed by the computer saying no... bit like yer bank account does at the moment.

I have no doubt that if the system was put in place, you could probably add another million to the dole Q... give or take...

(perhaps you could share :shit:)

Sounds like the Mormon Church.

Perhaps they should win this years election :)

Banditbandit

5th September 2011, 15:11

Perhaps they should win this years election :)

Perhaps they shouldn't ... the current bunch of one-eyed politicians can't be as bad as Joseph Smith and his tinted glasses with Angelic Accompanyment

admenk

5th September 2011, 16:02

Perhaps they should win this years election :)

One wife's enough for me, thanks :violin:

oldrider

5th September 2011, 16:16

shrub

5th September 2011, 16:44

Where are these people on high incomes complaining about how "hard done" they are?

try on good old KB for a start. The facade put forward by the right whingers is that they are all high income eaners, and all they ever do is whine and complain about...

generational welfare dependancy, the waste of potential caused by the system

the only problem is, as a percentage there aren't a lot of people who are multi-generational welfare recipients and they really don't get a hell of a lot of money.

There has to be a better way.

Yes, but the mantra of cutting benefits and making benefits harder to get no more deals with the problem than putting more petrol in my bike deals with the problem that it's slow. if anything those methods actually make things worse, but they're popular with the voters, so that's what we'll do.

rainman

5th September 2011, 23:07

SPman

6th September 2011, 15:32

Who'll win the election?

John Key will win it for his party of useless reactionaries, with less sense of history and what works for a society than my cat!

And if NZ voters reckon a state house raised, 90's wide boy, who made his millions gambling with other peoples money in ponzi schemes that destroyed countless lives and likes being Prime Minister so he can meet celebrities and hob nob with more of his ilk is a person to aspire to, than you're welcome to what's coming - more of the '90s style National administration that did so much to ensure NZ'ers wages and lifestyle was driven into the ground.

oldrider

7th September 2011, 07:50

Who'll win the election?

John Key will win it for his party of useless reactionaries, with less sense of history and what works for a society than my cat!

And if NZ voters reckon a state house raised, 90's wide boy, who made his millions gambling with other peoples money in ponzi schemes that destroyed countless lives and likes being Prime Minister so he can meet celebrities and hob nob with more of his ilk is a person to aspire to, than you're welcome to what's coming - more of the 80s /90s style Labour and National administrations that did so much to ensure NZ'ers wages and lifestyle was driven into the ground.

There I fixed that for you, you accidentally left Labour out!

Winston001

7th September 2011, 12:23

John Key will win it...if NZ voters reckon a state house raised, 90's wide boy, who made his millions gambling with other peoples money in ponzi schemes that destroyed countless lives ...

Sorry mate can't let that pass.

John Key was a currency trader and a very good one. It is a rare skill and most currency traders burn out.

We actually need people like this because they flatten out the highs and lows of exchange rates. Remember - for every buyer there is a seller. Businesses like to be able to buy forward exchange cover to guarantee the exchange rate in say, 6 months time when they export logs/milk/electronics or buy oil/cars/electronics.

Currency traders calculate and provide those forward contracts. That is their job. If they do it right there is a tiny margin (but multiplied by millions) for the bank they work for.

Occasionally they get it wrong - Nick Leeson destroyed Barings Bank. http://www.scribd.com/doc/16606536/Case-Study-Barings-Bank-and-Nick-Leeson

Bald Eagle

7th September 2011, 12:29

John Key was a currency trader and a very good one.

Don't you mean he was very good at gambling with other peoples money - oops that's what he is still doing , only now it's our money.

admenk

7th September 2011, 12:39

Don't you mean he was very good at gambling with other peoples money - oops that's what he is still doing , only now it's our money.

Yeah yeah, we know, but he's got ever such a nice smile, and that's all that matters isn't it? :blink:

Winston001

7th September 2011, 12:45

Those of you who think voting for Act or the Nats because they are the parties that have policies that justly reward hard work should look at the effect of similar policies in the states (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday).

Like turkeys voting for Christmas...

Good link and I agree there is a huge disconnect between effort and reward in the USA. Strangely enough though, Americans seem to embrace it on the proposition that anyone can achieve wealth and success.

You'd think times would be changing but the latest brouhaha over govt borrowing levels shows an almost pathological abhorrence of increased taxation.

However I don't perceive anyone apart from perhaps ACT as pursuing similar policies in NZ.

shrub

7th September 2011, 12:52

Yeah yeah, we know, but he's got ever such a nice smile, and that's all that matters isn't it? :blink:

And he's a good family man. The perfect PM in my book.

mashman

7th September 2011, 12:55

Good link and I agree there is a huge disconnect between effort and reward in the USA.

Not just the US (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Fat-Cat-Pay-Doubles-In-10-foolcouk-3799500051.html?x=0) ... I doubt it's a global phenomenon though :shifty:

MisterD

7th September 2011, 15:18

Good link and I agree there is a huge disconnect between effort and reward in the USA.

Ain't just the US...look at the problems in the UK when those that pick up rewards for SFA effort thought they might be under threat of having to work.

Winston001

7th September 2011, 17:31

Don't you mean he was very good at gambling with other peoples money -

You could say that but its meaningless. Your local bank teller also gambles with your money when you get her to set up a term deposit. You gamble that your employer is going to pay you at the end of the week - why not insist on getting the money first up front? You gamble your money when you order anything online.

IMHO we live in a weird nation when a person is disrespected because they achieve success.

oldrider

7th September 2011, 18:48

IMHO we live in a weird nation when a person is disrespected because they achieve success.

Welcome to our world .... NZ is about as weird as it gets in that respect! :bash:

SPman

7th September 2011, 19:42

The Ayan Rand six step.
Step one: Discredit government.
Step two: Starve it.
Step three: When the underfunded government can’t perform, stand back and say “I told you so.”
Step four: Create the myth of the individual uber-alles – the Marlboro man on steroids;
Step five: If anyone gets wise, find a scapegoat and blame it on them – gays, immigrants, government workers; government working gay immigrants, dole bludgers, solo mums....
Step six: When things get bad, divide and conquer – “if it wasn’t for them…........

John Atcheson

shrub

8th September 2011, 08:53

Banditbandit

8th September 2011, 09:15

Hmmm... that all looks very familiar, looks like the inspiration behind half the posts on KB. She was a scary woman that Ayn Rand.

Looks like Hitler's Nazi Party plan to take over the country ... probably where Ayn Rand got it from

MisterD

8th September 2011, 09:19

She was a scary woman that Ayn Rand.

Yada yada, typical smear job on Libertarians. Here's Penn Jillette's viewpoint:

"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness."

Banditbandit

8th September 2011, 09:24

Yada yada, typical smear job on Libertarians.

I would NEVER describe Ayn Rand as "Libertarian" ... Fascist yes, libertarian no ...

MisterD

8th September 2011, 09:50

I would NEVER describe Ayn Rand as "Libertarian" ... Fascist yes, libertarian no ...

Can you see the problem with calling someone who advocated the State's role as merely to uphold and protect individual rights "Facist"?

I mean, I know "facist" and "racist" are now almost meaningless epithets that the left chuck to shut down debate, but really...

shrub

8th September 2011, 09:56

I would NEVER describe Ayn Rand as "Libertarian" ... Fascist yes, libertarian no ...

I would add mad with it. She was paranoid, manipulative and power hungry and if you look at the history of Objectivism and the interractions it is kind of scary. She refused to accept any argument and publicly rejected and humiliated members of her group that challenged her on any points. Out of curiosity I read Atlas Shrugged a few years ago and it was a very strange experience. I found myself getting very caught up in her rhetoric and despite the huge flaws I wanted to believe in her and John Galt.

She is a major influence on what is called the libertarian thinking because she preaches greed, avarice and private gain at any and all cost - things the libertarians hold dear despite their ultimate cost.

Banditbandit

8th September 2011, 09:59

Can you see the problem with calling someone who advocated the State's role as merely to uphold and protect individual rights "Facist"?

I mean, I know "facist" and "racist" are now almost meaningless epithets that the left chuck to shut down debate, but really...

Yeah calling her a fascist was a bit of a half-asleep pre-coffee emotive reaction.

On the twin axis political quadrant Ayn Rand is about as far right and as far Libertarian as you can get. That far right position does mean she does share some concepts and ideas with Hitler - but doesn't mean she is a fascist (which is far right Totalitarian).

Me, I'm far left and a fair way down the Libertarian scale - so I do share some of Ayn Rand's ideas .. but I'm a complete left-wing anarchist ... unlike Rand I believe we do have responsibilities towards out society and our fellow human beings - which Rand denies ..

Banditbandit

8th September 2011, 10:02

I would add mad with it. She was paranoid, manipulative and power hungry and if you look at the history of Objectivism and the interractions it is kind of scary. She refused to accept any argument and publicly rejected and humiliated members of her group that challenged her on any points. Out of curiosity I read Atlas Shrugged a few years ago and it was a very strange experience. I found myself getting very caught up in her rhetoric and despite the huge flaws I wanted to believe in her and John Galt.

She is a major influence on what is called the libertarian thinking because she preaches greed, avarice and private gain at any and all cost - things the libertarians hold dear despite their ultimate cost.

:rofl: :rofl:

Yeah it's easy to get sucked into Rand. She preys on human greed and selfishness, which at first always appeals to something deeply buried in all of us ... probably something reptilian and animalistic ...

shrub

8th September 2011, 10:12

Can you see the problem with calling someone who advocated the State's role as merely to uphold and protect individual rights "Facist"?

I mean, I know "facist" and "racist" are now almost meaningless epithets that the left chuck to shut down debate, but really...

You need to look past the simple definition of fascism to the underlying philosophical intentions of its proponents. Fascism is about the creation of absolute power controlled by a small and defined group, and whether that group is a totalitarian state or a small body of immensely wealthy individuals makes little difference. Fascism also seeks to remove those it considers weak or inferior from society through social Darwinism - very Ayn Rand. Fascism sees the market economy and the profit motive as having supremacy and believes all property should be privately owned. Extend that thinking and you have plutocracy which in turn is a modern form of feudalism which is absolute power and totalitarianism.

The interesting thing about Ayn Rand and libertarianism is the way they sweep people up, and manage to make the people they are feeding off believe that they are the elite even when all evidence is to the contrary.

shrub

8th September 2011, 10:19

:rofl: :rofl:

Yeah it's easy to get sucked into Rand. She preys on human greed and selfishness, which at first always appeals to something deeply buried in all of us ... probably something reptilian and animalistic ...

Greed and the fear of losing what you have are very primal and effective tools of the right. "Those lazy beneficiaries - it's YOUR taxes they're spending at the pub you know" or "look at all those hundreds of politicians and the lazy blood sucking bureaucrats in Wellington - we need a smaller parliament and less paper shufflers". Nobody looks at how little the evil, lazy scum on the dole cost you and I or the size of our parliament is compared to comparable countries, and they whine like crazy when government departments don't deliver.

Banditbandit

8th September 2011, 10:22

You need to look past the simple definition of fascism to the underlying philosophical intentions of its proponents. Fascism is about the creation of absolute power controlled by a small and defined group, and whether that group is a totalitarian state or a small body of immensely wealthy individuals makes little difference. Fascism also seeks to remove those it considers weak or inferior from society through social Darwinism - very Ayn Rand. Fascism sees the market economy and the profit motive as having supremacy and believes all property should be privately owned. Extend that thinking and you have plutocracy which in turn is a modern form of feudalism which is absolute power and totalitarianism.

The interesting thing about Ayn Rand and libertarianism is the way they sweep people up, and manage to make the people they are feeding off believe that they are the elite even when all evidence is to the contrary.

Yeah maybe - Rand's ideal would be a Government free zone - not organisation and no controls - without any of that there can be no absolute power ...

Now she herself certainly exercised power ... so was she walking her talk? Doesn't look like it ... she does look more fascist when you see her actions, but totally libertarian in her philosophy ...

And her total believe in the rightness of her own beliefs and her expectation that everyone would share them is also pretty facsist - even left wing thinkers such as Jurgen Harbermas fall into that trap ..

But her position on the twin axis conceptualization means she shares a lot in common with the fascists - but also a lot in common with the anarchists - most anarchists would probably hate her for the parts of her thought that are fascist and most fascists would hate her for trhe parts of her thoughts that are libertarian ....

Greed and the fear of losing what you have are very primal and effective tools of the right. "Those lazy beneficiaries - it's YOUR taxes they're spending at the pub you know" or "look at all those hundreds of politicians and the lazy blood sucking bureaucrats in Wellington - we need a smaller parliament and less paper shufflers". Nobody looks at how little the evil, lazy scum on the dole cost you and I or the size of our parliament is compared to comparable countries, and they whine like crazy when government departments don't deliver.

That's it exactly ..

oldrider

8th September 2011, 13:12

Well, well, well, page 48 has certainly been one for the left, moving right (pun?) along to page 49 now and the real world!

Banditbandit

8th September 2011, 15:11

Well, well, well, page 48 has certainly been one for the left, moving right (pun?) along to page 49 now and the real world!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Who's "real world"? Ours or yours? Left or Right?

(And please don't tell me the rigt one is the right one .. the political "right" and "left" is a simple physical arragement of politicians in the House .. not about correctness.)

Still not page 49 either ..

oldrider

8th September 2011, 15:25

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Who's "real world"? Ours or yours? Left or Right?

(And please don't tell me the rigt one is the right one .. the political "right" and "left" is a simple physical arragement of politicians in the House .. not about correctness.)

Still not page 49 either ..

Well, this time maybe! :lol:

Edit: Damn!

SPman

8th September 2011, 15:28

Left wing, right wing - still the same fucking bird!

oldrider

8th September 2011, 16:25

Left wing, right wing - still the same fucking bird!

True but when one wing gets too much longer than the other it tends to fly round and round in ever diminishing circles until it disappears up it's own arsehole! :mellow:

The unfortunate part in all that is that it takes us "all" up there with it! :facepalm:

We just waste our time arguing about the rotation we want it to fly in! :confused:

Page 49 at last!

Banditbandit

8th September 2011, 16:34

True but when one wing gets too much longer than the other it tends to fly round and round in ever diminishing circles until it disappears up it's own arsehole! :mellow:

The unfortunate part in all that is that it takes us "all" up there with it! :facepalm:

We just waste our time arguing about the rotation we want it to fly in! :confused:

Page 49 at last!

That's why the left invented armed revolution .. hand me my Shotgun ... circling birds are easier to hit ..

cowpoos

8th September 2011, 21:17

Don't you mean he was very good at gambling with other peoples money - oops that's what he is still doing , only now it's our money.

you don't understand currency trading....and what happens...maks you look silly really!

shrub

9th September 2011, 08:38

you don't understand currency trading....and what happens...maks you look silly really!

From reading your posts I doubt you do either. Currency trading is high risk and is essentially based around differing values of currency between the currencies which change constantly and it is analysing these changes and trading between the currencies to capitalise on them that makes the money. A forex trader expects a certain outcome, takes a position on that outcome happening and capitalises when it does. When I put a tenner on the ABs winning tonight I am expecting an outcome, take a position and will capitalise when it happens.

That's an overly simple description, and of course there is far more to it, but that is currency trading in a nutshell.

Maha

9th September 2011, 09:12

I heard about this KB poll on 3News the last night...
National leading by a commanding 58% with who the fuck cares a close second on 33%.
Poll analysis experts believe the gap between the two will close dramatically closer to election day.

Banditbandit

9th September 2011, 09:14

shrub

9th September 2011, 09:36

And I would add that currency trading is financial speculation on the supposed value of the symbolic medium of exchange ... that's total bullshit !!! And a parasitic activity - parasitic on the many economies using a symbolic medium of exchange.

It's a completely non-productive activity ... John Key added nothing to the economy in which he worked as a currency trader ...

Yep, completely parasitic. Johnny boy has all his millions, but he didn't add anything to the pot by making, creating or enhancing; he simply took as much as he could out.

Ocean1

9th September 2011, 10:52

Yep, completely parasitic. Johnny boy has all his millions, but he didn't add anything to the pot by making, creating or enhancing; he simply took as much as he could out.

I agree. Currency exchange fees, interest charged on lending... in fact anything that doesn't produce hard product. All parasitic.

Banditbandit

9th September 2011, 10:56

So - there ya go - our country is lead by a parasitic wide boy !!!!

(Shit, I hope our Rugby team is not)

Oscar

9th September 2011, 11:08

So - there ya go - our country is lead by a parasitic wide boy !!!!

(Shit, I hope our Rugby team is not)

So no doubt you would prefer an out of touch Academic like Clarke?
Name the last NZ Prime Minister who actually worked for a living before entering politics.

Banditbandit

9th September 2011, 11:44

So no doubt you would prefer an out of touch Academic like Clarke?
Name the last NZ Prime Minister who actually worked for a living before entering politics.

Here's the PMs I've been aware of in my lifetime and their previous jobs ..

Walter Nash - was a company secretary until he established his own tailering company
Keith Holyoake - Farmer
Norm Kirk - Stationary engine driver
Bill Rowling - NZ Army
Rob Muldoon - Cost Accountant :facepalm:
David Lange - Lawyer
Geoffrey Palmer - Law lecturer :facepalm:
Mike Moore - Printer
Jim Bolger - Farmer
Jenny Shipley - teacher :facepalm:
Helen Clarke - (didn't she make politics her career?) Actually a junior lecturer :facepalm:
John Key - Parasitic currency trader :facepalm:

Geoffrey Palmer was the first of the PMs to come from the university sector .. Key may well have worked for a living - but in a non-productive sector .. Jenny Shipley certainly worked for a living before marrying her Burton ... then entering politics ... Helen Clarke certainly worked for a living (you still have to pay bills even if you are a radical) unless tyou consider working in a university is not working for a living ..

I'd probably say that the answer to the spirit of your question rather than a very literal answer is Jenny Shipley ...

Oscar

9th September 2011, 11:48

Here's the PMs I've been awae of in my lifetime and their previous jobs ..

Walter Nash - was a company secretary until he established his own tailering company
Keith Holyoake - Farmer
Norm Kirk - Stationary engine driver
Bill Rowling - NZ Army
Rob Muldoon - Cost Accountant :facepalm:
David Lange - Lawyer
Geoffrey Palmer - Law lecturer :facepalm:
Mike Moore - Printer
Jim Bolger - Farmer
Jenny Shipley - teacher :facepalm:
Helen Clarke - (didn't she make politics her career?) Actually a junior lecturer :facepalm:
John Key - Parasitic currency trader :facepalm:

So the answer to your question is Jim Bolger !!!! Geoffrey Palmer was the first of the PMs to come from the university sector ..

You can say what you like about Key, but he's a shrewd operator.
Could you see anyone else on that list stitching together Tory / Maori / Act into a functioning unit? He also the most teflon coated politician I've ever seen - nowt sticks to him.

shrub

9th September 2011, 13:17

Helen Clarke - (didn't she make politics her career?) Actually a junior lecturer :facepalm:

Come on, you can't expect someone who has devoted their lives to learning everything they can about politics and who has worked in the field for decades to be a better politician than someone who until recently was a yuppie forex trader? It's much better that the country be run by wheeler dealers ticking off something in their bucket list than career politicians.

Especially if said forex trader has a great smile and a hot missus.

Banditbandit

9th September 2011, 13:43

Especially if said forex trader has a great smile and a hot missus.

All he needs then is the V-8 Ute

shrub

9th September 2011, 16:01

All he needs then is the V-8 Ute

With a V8 ute the man would be the perfect PM to lead NZ into the future. Might suggest it to him.

Swoop

9th September 2011, 16:19

So - there ya go - our country is lead by a parasitic wide boy !!!!
:scratch:
That description is surely Parekura Horomia.:yes:

Banditbandit

9th September 2011, 16:40

:scratch:
That description is surely Parekura Horomia.:yes:

Bwhahahaha .. ka kata kata ahau ... ko koe he tangata rēreke.

Clockwork

9th September 2011, 18:41

Bwhahahaha .. ka kata kata ahau ... ko koe he tangata rēreke.

Sorry, I don't speak Maori but I'll give it a guess....

"Bwhahahaha .. it's funny ... 'cos it's true" ???

Winston001

9th September 2011, 19:19

Currency trading is high risk and is essentially based around differing values of currency which change constantly and it is analysing these changes and trading that makes the money.

A forex trader expects a certain outcome, takes a position on that outcome happening and capitalises when it does.

When I put a tenner on the ABs winning tonight I am expecting an outcome, take a position and will capitalise when it happens.

Agreed but there is more to it. When entering a trade the buyer/seller also needs to hold a counter option - an opposite sell/buy. Just in case the trade goes badly wrong. The traders skill is to remember and juggle lots of trades and counter options, both his own and others made by other people. It requires an extraordinary memory and split-second judgement.

At the end of each day the trader must have all his positions covered.

To use your example Shrub, you would also take a bet on Tonga winning but only put down $1. That way you are covered if you lose your tenner.

puddytat

9th September 2011, 20:06

Pussy

10th September 2011, 12:04

Sorry, I don't speak Maori but I'll give it a guess....

"Bwhahahaha .. it's funny ... 'cos it's true" ???

No...
It means "Aunty Huia has got an eel in her handbag".

You're welcome! :)

cowpoos

10th September 2011, 18:49

From reading your posts I doubt you do either. Currency trading is high risk and is essentially based around differing values of currency between the currencies which change constantly and it is analysing these changes and trading between the currencies to capitalise on them that makes the money. A forex trader expects a certain outcome, takes a position on that outcome happening and capitalises when it does. When I put a tenner on the ABs winning tonight I am expecting an outcome, take a position and will capitalise when it happens.

That's an overly simple description, and of course there is far more to it, but that is currency trading in a nutshell.

Well if your such a know it all...you would realise that John, brought and sold currency for investment transaction for Merrill Lynch and became the head of thier london based department I believe...not a currency speculator like you are insinuating...and your description of currency trading is a tiny tiny part of the business...I suppose your description of a builder is a guy who has a hammer?

and if you actually bother researching anything...rather than just making it up as you go...you will discover the fella was on a 4 million nzd plus salary [plus bonuses] in London...thats where he made his money...working his arse off,using his brain,investing wisely....and not listening to silly self profound know it alls like you...you need to get over your self...seriously!!

rainman

11th September 2011, 09:46

Seeing as some of you fellas are real good at haulin' out facts & figures & stuff, would one of you's be able to answer this question.....
Is this countrys Govt debt greater or smaller than before we started down this Free Trade & State assets sales path? Going back to before Rogernomics et al?',compared to our Govt debt of today:blink:

From what I could find, being the IMF historical series from 1860 showing public external debt as a % of GDP, we were at about 40% in 1974, lifted to 78% in 1986, and have generally dropped since then. Got to 18% in 2007 and have been climbing again since, 24% in 2009. Nowhere near the 259% of 1933 of course, but depressions do tend to increase debt levels.

RBNZ has a more recent series that also shows private overseas debt as well. This runs from 1993 and shows pubic debt as % of GDP generally decreasing (until 2008/9) but private debt increasing quite a lot.

In 1993 public debt was 30% of GDP, private 58% - 1.9 times bigger.

In 2008 public debt was only 9.4% of GDP (so much for Labour having destroyed the country's finances, eh?) but private debt was 120.8% of GDP - 12.9 times higher.

Of course I would have no concern at all how much a private enterprise borrowed if I as taxpayer didn't have to bail the fuckers out with such monotonous regularity...

Were we better off then when fellas would lean on a shovel & have a fag before they got back into the job of building the basic total infrastructure of this country?

That's a different question, and I don't think public external debt will give you the answer.

Well if your such a know it all...you would realise that John, brought and sold currency for investment transaction for Merrill Lynch and became the head of thier london based department I believe...not a currency speculator like you are insinuating.....you will discover the fella was on a 4 million nzd plus salary [plus bonuses] in London...thats where he made his money...working his arse off,using his brain,investing wisely....and not listening to silly self profound know it alls like you..

Oh shit, Shrub, you're in it now - you've pissed off the head of the John Key Fan Club... :)

Cowpoos, however much the man might be counted as "successful" simply for accumulating wodges of money, he still added nothing of value to the real economy, and was just another member of the vampire class.