Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[Oscar]

Nz is a fiat money system and a fractional system , so yes banks AND government print money government issue bonds which banks buy and then are able to lend upon , ( im not aware of the ratio though )


Stephen


That isn't the banks printing money is it?

[Oscar]

One can never tire of throwing stones at the fat kid........


Stephen

Sounds like you have experience.
I doubt that you were the one throwing the stones though.

[Brian d marge]

That isn't the banks printing money is it?
No they use a photocopier dumbarse

Stephen

[Oscar]

No they use a photocopier dumbarse

Stephen

So you're saying that NZ Banks print money?

[Banditbandit]

Yeah? what makes you believe the social issues are attributable to the financial system?

'Cause as I said, those same issues can be found in greater numbers in any other system.

I suspect the general concept of "greedy" capitalism leeds people to believe it's not a system that caters well for it's poor. The facts don't agree.

I think your two statements are incompatible .. a system that does not cater well for the poor will create social issues. And capitalism does not cater well for the poor. It creates the poor to start with - that is stupidity in itself. That's the problem with capitalism ... (And remember I said that the fucked up capitalist system remains the best that fucked up human beings can come up with ...)

[Ocean1]

I'm talking specifically about the people who make more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime.

'Cause failing to spend what you earn means you don't deserve it?


Then they leave their fortune to their children.

Are you going to try telling me that those children worked hard for what they have?

Are you going to tell me they're less deserving than those that haven't earned the benefits they get?

[Ocean1]

I think your two statements are incompatible .. a system that does not cater well for the poor will create social issues. And capitalism does not cater well for the poor. It creates the poor to start with - that is stupidity in itself. That's the problem with capitalism ... (And remember I said that the fucked up capitalist system remains the best that fucked up human beings can come up with ...)

Then perhaps you'd better acquaint yourself with the facts somewhat better. Capitalist societies have fewer poor than any other sort, no other sort of society comes close in that regard. So far from making them fucked up it means they cater for their poor far better than any other system.

Calling the best human beings can do fucked up is simply biased bullshit, western style economies outperform every economic system in recorded history in that regard, reducing the number of poor from "almost everyone" to "almost nobody", what's wrong with calling it for what it is: a social success of unprecidented proportions?

[Brian d marge]

So you're saying that NZ Banks print money?

No they photocopy it ...how else

they even have the queens arse on it

Stephen

[Katman]

Are you going to tell me they're less deserving than those that haven't earned the benefits they get?

Well they're certainly no more deserving.

[Brian d marge]

So you're saying that NZ Banks print money?

You off to tell teacher the boys are calling you names again ......:nya:

stephen

[Oscar]

You off to tell teacher the boys are calling you names again ......:nya:

stephen

You just don't want to admit you're wrong do you ya little weasel.
Banks in NZ don't print money, and haven't for a hundred years.

[Brian d marge]

You just don't want to admit you're wrong do you ya little weasel.
Banks in NZ don't print money, and haven't for a hundred years.
not at all , I just cant be arsed wasting my breath,, ...

Its amusing to see , you happily call others names etc , but os soon as the tables are turned ...the red starts flying.... now that would be my definition of a weasel...

Fiat money , fractional reserve and NZ try a google search Mr Wisel I mean weasel

Stephen

[mashman]

True ...but it can assist in that exploitation ........

Nz is a fiat money system and a fractional system , so yes banks AND government print money government issue bonds which banks buy and then are able to lend upon , ( im not aware of the ratio though )

Nothing wrong whatsoever with working hard .....being expolited is another thing all together .....

yup once we started tilling the land, We start to become protective of , our, land , then others start to expand , their, land ....etc...... we can stop just start being , nicce!!!! might work ?

I wonder if I should bring out the 7Sharp video again which mentions, and provides the link to, the IMF document that states that banks can pluck money out of thin air for loans... again. Nah, if they haven't watched it by now, then they obviously never watch what we post, coz they're too fuckin scared of what they might find :yes:

People are already nice 99% of the time. It's the 1% of the time that they're scheming and conniving that does the damage. But it will work irrespective for many reasons, the main one being that we tolerate those who we don't get on with and socialise with those that we do. No change to any system will ever change that unless they're pitted against each other for survival. Ergo, 99% of the time we're nice... the outliers have been removed. SYSTEM ISSUE.

[mashman]

what's wrong with calling it for what it is: a social success of unprecidented proportions?

It is now failing and will soon enough be fucking your social success up and turning into an inferno. The financial system has had its day.

[Ocean1]

Well they're certainly no more deserving.

So they'd struggle to justify the expense?

Probably a good thing their donors willingly supply the cash then.

[Brian d marge]

I wonder if I should bring out the 7Sharp video again which mentions, and provides the link to, the IMF document that states that banks can pluck money out of thin air for loans... again. Nah, if they haven't watched it by now, then they obviously never watch what we post, coz they're too fuckin scared of what they might find :yes:

People are already nice 99% of the time. It's the 1% of the time that they're scheming and conniving that does the damage. But it will work irrespective for many reasons, the main one being that we tolerate those who we don't get on with and socialise with those that we do. No change to any system will ever change that unless they're pitted against each other for survival. Ergo, 99% of the time we're nice... the outliers have been removed. SYSTEM ISSUE.

go on get it out I dare you ....not too much mind ......or I wont have anything to do on me day off

Stephen

or the one about banke moon actually saying exactly that ......,, I think his exact words were ...we just printed it ......haahahahaha

[Ocean1]

It is now failing and will soon enough be fucking your social success up and turning into an inferno. The financial system has had its day.

Yeah, it's failing so fast the world's social justice monitors can't recalibrate the meaning of poor fast enough to prevent the species becoming extinct from capitalist economies all over the planet.

Any minute now they'll be knocking on your door pleading you to do something about it. :tugger:

[oldrider]

You just don't want to admit you're wrong do you ya little weasel.
Banks in NZ don't print money, and haven't for a hundred years.

http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/

[mashman]

Yeah, it's failing so fast the world's social justice monitors can't recalibrate the meaning of poor fast enough to prevent the species becoming extinct from capitalist economies all over the planet.

Any minute now they'll be knocking on your door pleading you to do something about it. :tugger:

Well it's being propped up with never ending record debt... something that always comes undone as recessions will always happen. The species won't become extinct, but we'll be back in the 1800's, if we're lucky.

:rofl: they could do worse... like leaving the current lot, and their proteges, to do what they do best.

[mashman]

go on get it out I dare you ....not too much mind ......or I wont have anything to do on me day off

Stephen

or the one about banke moon actually saying exactly that ......,, I think his exact words were ...we just printed it ......haahahahaha

Nah, fuckim, he can't find the document that says that banks aren't allowed to, then fuckim. I know for a fact that you are right and that he's, ill informed.

I'd pay good money to see the bank i moon one.

[mashman]

http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/

Second guy on the second vid made the point rather well. I'm sure someone posted a link of the second guy giving a talk about The Chicago Plan as the model we should be implementing.

[oldrider]

Wow, you just don't stop digging do you?
The evidence is there in front of you, but you are to stupid to understand it.
Please tell me, in your own words, how a bank makes money out of a foreclosure, and how this makes it a Ponsi scheme?
Don't forget to factor in the bank paying its investors for money that it isn't getting a return on.
You might also explain the reference to banks printing their way out of it - I had no idea that banks in NZ could actually print their own money any more.
Then you might want to reference these laws that are "protecting" the banks...

Oscar, I probably deserve your reaction because of the flippant way I posted my comments but I think that this site is about the best way to answer you.

Positive money NZ. :http://www.positivemoney.org.nz/

I personally have been a monetary reformist from way back in the early 1960's after an introductory paper I read by Major Douglas of Social Credit fame!

Red - Green - Black - Yellow - Blue whatever your politics it won't succeed without a sound monetary system to bind it all together!

The "Positive Money" movement is new but it seems to be gaining momentum all around the world now ... seriously, it's worth looking into IMHO. :niceone:

These short UK videos are worth a look at too: http://www.positivemoney.org/videos/

[Brian d marge]

Oscar, I probably deserve your reaction because of the flippant way I posted my comments but I think that this site is about the best way to answer you.

Positive money NZ. :http://www.positivemoney.org.nz/

I personally have been a monetary reformist from way back in the early 1960's after an introductory paper I read by Major Douglas of Social Credit fame!

Red - Green - Black - Yellow - Blue whatever your politics it won't succeed without a sound monetary system to bind it all together!

The "Positive Money" movement is new but it seems to be gaining momentum all around the world now ... seriously, it's worth looking into IMHO. :niceone:

These short UK videos are worth a look at too: http://www.positivemoney.org/videos/

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lIjYjkJt2us" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


hey its not just me and a few loonys on kb...looks like the loonys are getting stronger and stronger

Stephen

[oldrider]

That sort of behaviour makes these publications seem more likely to be true FFS: http://www.rense.com/general49/prot.htm

The protocols true or false? :scratch:

Who would ever know, judge for yourself: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/protocolsofsion.shtml#who

[Brian d marge]

That sort of behaviour makes these publications seem more likely to be true FFS: http://www.rense.com/general49/prot.htm

The protocols true or false? :scratch:

Who would ever know, judge for yourself: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/protocolsofsion.shtml#who
Hope they dont believe in revenge , the jermans would be fked

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Forget "income inequity", statistically there's bugger all to that fashionable lie even before you consider the wealth redistributed to the "poor".


Your comment that the bottom and middle class have never had it better is a load of shit.

Jayz but my shit smells good. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10244667/Rich-poor-gap-not-growing-report

"Broadly the report maintains that over a longer period it has not found evidence of a growing gap between the rich and the poor".

And, as above, that's BEFORE you consider benefits only the "poor" are eligible for.



Is it working for you?

[Brian d marge]

The cia would diagree

[mashman]

Jayz but my shit smells good. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10244667/Rich-poor-gap-not-growing-report

"Broadly the report maintains that over a longer period it has not found evidence of a growing gap between the rich and the poor".

And, as above, that's BEFORE you consider benefits only the "poor" are eligible for.



Is it working for you?

Fed up with the old reports telling tales of woe, there was bound to be another 2 or 3 along the way that would contain a smoothed, as it turns out here, longer term curve to negate the bad press. It's an election year innit?

[Oscar]

Fed up with the old reports telling tales of woe, there was bound to be another 2 or 3 along the way that would contain a smoothed, as it turns out here, longer term curve to negate the bad press. It's an election year innit?

So, as this report doesn't suit, you're gonna ignore it?

Actually, it commented on another favourite of you on the left - the gap between rich and poor:


Broadly the report maintains that over a longer period it has not found evidence of a growing gap between the rich and the poor.

Using the Gini co-efficient, which measures the statistical distribution of income across an economy, the report found that the top decile in New Zealand received 8.0 times that of the bottom decile, the average for the OECD, but more equal than Australia or Canada.

According to the report, the top 1 per cent of New Zealand received 8 per cent of all taxable income in 2010 and 2011, down from 9 per cent in the 1990s.

[mashman]

So, as this report doesn't suit, you're gonna ignore it?

Actually, it commented on another favourite of you on the left - the gap between rich and poor:

Maybe this one is more accurate as it is more recent (https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-richer-survey-shows-160234915.html). Certainly looks like the gap is increasing and there are people suffering because of it. I'm not the one with my head buried in the sand son.

[Oscar]

Maybe this one is more accurate as it is more recent (https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-richer-survey-shows-160234915.html). Certainly looks like the gap is increasing and there are people suffering because of it. I'm not the one with my head buried in the sand son.

I'm not your son.

Do you even know what the definition of "low income" in NZ is?

[mashman]

I'm not your son.

Do you even know what the definition of "low income" in NZ is?

Definition? It's way more than a definition son.

[Oscar]

Definition? It's way more than a definition son.

I'll take that as a "no".

[mashman]

I'll take that as a "no".

It's ok. Some people require a definition to fall back on in order to deny that a thing exists. Kudos for making your stand so publicly.

[Oscar]

It's ok. Some people require a definition to fall back on in order to deny that a thing exists. Kudos for making your stand so publicly.

It helps to actually understand what you're talking about, but I've noticed that this has never stopped you.

[mashman]

It helps to actually understand what you're talking about, but I've noticed that this has never stopped you.

Then try using your brain for a change.

[Brian d marge]

Of top of head , the GINI has stayed constant , more or less around 0.33 after tax from about the early 90s so the report is right in a way the gap isnt widening ,,,its just was lower pre reforms and is no where near norway at about 0.25 and America .44 ( i think ) . NZ was sitting around 0.25 until about 1988 .......
Rome when it fell was around 0.46 and the french were at 0.62 when it all hit the fan

The food price index is the one to watch , off top of head at 210 it goes pear shaped and the average is 190 at the moment ,,,NZ uses a funny sysyem Im not sure how to use it ,,yet

Stephen

[Oscar]

Then try using your brain for a change.

Why bother?
Exchanges at your level (like your replies to my question) are hardly cerebral.

[SPman]

Of top of head , the GINI has stayed constant , more or less around 0.33 after tax from about the early 90s so the report is right in a way the gap isnt widening ,,,its just was lower pre reforms and is no where near norway at about 0.25 and America .44 ( i think ) . NZ was sitting around 0.25 until about 1988 .......
Rome when it fell was around 0.46 and the french were at 0.62 when it all hit the fan

The food price index is the one to watch , off top of head at 210 it goes pear shaped and the average is 190 at the moment ,,,NZ uses a funny sysyem Im not sure how to use it ,,yet

Stephen
In China the gini is around 0.39.....

[Brian d marge]

In China the gini is around 0.39.....

they say china is similar to living in Hungary ...0.39 wouldnt be far off .....

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Fed up with the old reports telling tales of woe, there was bound to be another 2 or 3 along the way that would contain a smoothed, as it turns out here, longer term curve to negate the bad press. It's an election year innit?

Fed up with the whining from fuckwits who seem to think equality of income is some sort of measure of a just or fair society.

When you've got equality of contribution then equality of income will be just and fair.

In the meantime, if you want more money then fucking work for it. :motu:

[Ocean1]

Maybe this one is more accurate as it is more recent (https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-richer-survey-shows-160234915.html). Certainly looks like the gap is increasing and there are people suffering because of it. I'm not the one with my head buried in the sand son.

Bullshit, you read what you want to see.

Shorn of the Labour quoted bullshit the report finds: •Income inequality trend-line is almost flat.


Now fuck off, you whining ingrate.

[Brian d marge]

Bullshit, you read what you want to see.

Shorn of the Labour quoted bullshit the report finds: •Income inequality trend-line is almost flat.


Now fuck off, you whining ingrate.
Yes thats true since 1990 but it was much better before

Telling u that the neocon economics have just transfered wealth to a few

Which is what people are trying to

A . Point out to u
B . Trying to stop

Stephen

[mashman]

Why bother?
Exchanges at your level (like your replies to my question) are hardly cerebral.

I answered your question... sigh, unfortunately you didn't like the answer. Stop projecting.

[mashman]

Fed up with the whining from fuckwits who seem to think equality of income is some sort of measure of a just or fair society.

When you've got equality of contribution then equality of income will be just and fair.

In the meantime, if you want more money then fucking work for it. :motu:

Is that what I think? Fuckin funny considering I'm advocating there being no money at all i.e. no income, ya dumb fuck.

Equity is where it's at baby, freedom and equity. Contribution as measured by? The market? :killingme damn that's some powerful delusions yav got goin on there.

You really don't understand at all do you? :facepalm: ach well, you'll die out some day.

[mashman]

Bullshit, you read what you want to see.

Shorn of the Labour quoted bullshit the report finds: •Income inequality trend-line is almost flat.


Now fuck off, you whining ingrate.

No fuckin shit I read what I wanted to see... you on the other hand have decided that you know what I saw. Ultimately sad, but highly predictable and just as pathetic.

Oh good, so that means it's not an issue then :tugger:

Why? I see no reason to.

[Ocean1]

Is that what I think? Fuckin funny considering I'm advocating there being no money at all i.e. no income, ya dumb fuck.

I don't believe you think at all, but at least you recognise that you're a whining fuckwit.


Equity is where it's at baby, freedom and equity.

Yep, you're free to be as equal as you want, enitrely up to the individual.


Contribution as measured by? The market? :killingme damn that's some powerful delusions yav got goin on there.

What's delusional is using the market every day and then denying it works.


You really don't understand at all do you? :facepalm: ach well, you'll die out some day.

Oh I got your point all along, you don't see any link between value given and value recieved. A fuckwit. But you could at least stop whining about it.

[Oscar]

I answered your question... sigh, unfortunately you didn't like the answer. Stop projecting.

Horseshit.

As usual, you dissembled. You have no idea of the answer so you avoided the question.

[Ocean1]

No fuckin shit I read what I wanted to see... you on the other hand have decided that you know what I saw. Ultimately sad, but highly predictable and just as pathetic.

You told us what you saw. All I did was post what you read and pointed out that you saw the complete opposite.

Ultimately wrong. But hardly surprising, it's the only consistent feature of your posts.


Oh good, so that means it's not an issue then :tugger:

Don’t be silly, fuckwits wanting equal shares to the highly productive is always going to be an issue.

Just not a very important one.


Why? I see no reason to.

Just as you don’t see any need to produce anything in exchange for your lifestyle.

Or anything else, really.

[Banditbandit]

When you've got equality of contribution then equality of income will be just and fair.



A good Marxist idea that - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

[bogan]

A good Marxist idea that - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Problem is getting from each according to their ability, when their needs are provided for irrespective of what they do. How did marxism turn out anyway... :shifty:

[Banditbandit]

How did marxism turn out anyway... :shifty:

No idea ... it's never been tried properly.

[Oscar]

For everyone who is slightly shocked by a headline that says that 270,000 children are defined as being in "poverty", some thoughts from Rodney Hide:


The 270,000 “child poverty” figure refers to relative poverty. Your children suffer in “poverty” if your household’s net income is less than 60 per cent of your equivalent household’s median income. The cut-off income for a couple with four children is just over $1000 a week. Net.

It’s no wonder that one child in four lives in “poverty” – $1000 a week in the hand is well above any lack of comfort let alone starvation. But for the experts, that’s “poverty”.


Four kids on $1,000 in the hand a week would be tough (esp. in Auckland), but it ain't "poverty" is it?


A windfall that doubled all incomes wouldn’t budge the child “poverty” figure. There would still be 270,000 poverty-stricken children. That’s because experts define “poverty” in reference to the middle income.

Making people richer doesn’t fix relative poverty. The only fix is to narrow the spread of income, even if that makes everyone poorer. That’s why experts recommend taking even more income from families above the median income to give to those below it. The fix follows directly from defining “child poverty” as household inequality.


This is the question that I was asking Mashbrain. Poverty as defined statistically as a ratio of national income averages will always be evident no matter how rich the society.


News reports now link the poverty report to children turning up to school hungry. But even the gloomiest estimates don’t have 270,000 hungry kids.

Labour leader David Shearer quoted a 2002 Ministry of Health survey to say 83,000 children aged 5 to 14 “sometimes or often went to school without breakfast”. That’s well short of the 270,000 “living in poverty”.

But even the 83,000 figure is exaggerated. The survey found the equivalent of 83,000 kids in the previous week “not” or “sometimes not” eating or drinking at home before school but 76,000 “usually” or “sometimes” eating or drinking on the way to school. Presumably, they are many of the kids who didn’t eat at home.


"Not having breakfast" is not the same as being hungry.
My kids sometimes couldn't be bothered with breakfast as it meant an extra 10 minutes in bed, so they would be featured in this statistic.
I am not saying we don't have a problem with poverty in this country, but I do think that it is exaggerated for political purposes...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10835846

[mashman]

I don't believe you think at all, but at least you recognise that you're a whining fuckwit.

Yep, you're free to be as equal as you want, enitrely up to the individual.

What's delusional is using the market every day and then denying it works.

Oh I got your point all along, you don't see any link between value given and value recieved. A fuckwit. But you could at least stop whining about it.

It comes with thinking... you may wish to try it someday instead of expecting everyone else to fulfill your entitlement complex.

If only you understood what that meant.

:facepalm:... if your airbed was going down, would you change/fix it or leave it until it was flat and wait for someone to appear out of the ether and fix it for you?

Wrong. You haven't gotten my point at all. Oh and BTW, my "whining" is seen as inspiration by some, so the "whining" label you attach to it is your problem, not mine. If you can wrap your head around that, which you seemed to alluded to "Yep, you're free to be as equal as you want, enitrely up to the individual.", then you may start to understand what the "whining" is about. I realise that that would have you engaging your brain and thinking, so I'm not holding out any hope that you'll ever grasp the concept. To that end I shall carry on whining and you shall carry on watching your airbed go flat.

[Oscar]

No idea ... it's never been tried properly.

No it hasn't.
It's like Christianity, great in theory but never actually properly tested as greed, ego and lust for power always turn up to the party.
Orwell knew this.

[Oscar]

It comes with thinking... you may wish to try it someday instead of expecting everyone else to fulfill your entitlement complex.

If only you understood what that meant.

:facepalm:... if your airbed was going down, would you change/fix it or leave it until it was flat and wait for someone to appear out of the ether and fix it for you?

Wrong. You haven't gotten my point at all. Oh and BTW, my "whining" is seen as inspiration by some, so the "whining" label you attach to it is your problem, not mine. If you can wrap your head around that, which you seemed to alluded to "Yep, you're free to be as equal as you want, enitrely up to the individual.", then you may start to understand what the "whining" is about. I realise that that would have you engaging your brain and thinking, so I'm not holding out any hope that you'll ever grasp the concept. To that end I shall carry on whining and you shall carry on watching your airbed go flat.

175 whining words on whining.
Also the definitive religious fallback when discussing dogma - "you're not smart enough to grasp my (wacko) concept".

[mashman]

You told us what you saw. All I did was post what you read and pointed out that you saw the complete opposite.

Ultimately wrong. But hardly surprising, it's the only consistent feature of your posts.

Not at all, you read 2 lines of a highly condensed but applicable post (given your original link) and then made the rest of the shit up yourself. S'ok, I understand that that's what you do and the only way you can be, so am more than comfortable with it.



Don’t be silly, fuckwits wanting equal shares to the highly productive is always going to be an issue.

Just not a very important one.

I never said equal shares. Stop making shit up.



Just as you don’t see any need to produce anything in exchange for your lifestyle.

Or anything else, really.

Of course I do, just not using the terms you use. Again, stop making shit up as you have clearly demonstrated you are incapable of understanding anything outwith that which you already know.

Shut the full cup, bro.

[mashman]

Horseshit.

As usual, you dissembled. You have no idea of the answer so you avoided the question.

Like I said, stop projecting... if you don't get the answer you want, then try to work out why I gave you the answer that I did. It's called being open minded and using your brain. Again though, no hope of that.

I decided not to write an essay in response to an idiot... but thanks for trying to consider what I meant.

[mashman]

A good Marxist idea that - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Maybe, "Do what thou wilt" ;)

[Oscar]

Like I said, stop projecting... if you don't get the answer you want, then try to work out why I gave you the answer that I did. It's called being open minded and using your brain. Again though, no hope of that.

I decided not to write an essay in response to an idiot... but thanks for trying to consider what I meant.

Not answering the question is one thing, but saying you did just makes you look stupid.
You like to wank on about concepts like child poverty or income equality, but when asked to define terms, you show your ignorance.

[mashman]

Denial and wankery

Says it all really.

[mashman]

175 whining words on whining.
Also the definitive religious fallback when discussing dogma - "you're not smart enough to grasp my (wacko) concept".

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... well, neither of you are... and given that plenty of others do understand the concept, that would highlight that neither of you are smart enough.

[Oscar]

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... well, neither of you are... and given that plenty of others do understand the concept, that would highlight that neither of you are smart enough.

Plenty of others?!!
How many other inmates are in your ward?:lol:

[bogan]

Plenty of others?!!
How many other inmates are in your ward?:lol:

I think by reading just a few of his recent posts, he has gotten stupider in the brief time I've been out of this thread; just do what the 99% do to his ilk and put em on ignore :2thumbsup:

[mashman]

Plenty of others?!!
How many other inmates are in your ward?:lol:

My kids get it. As do other people's kids. As do many of their parents etc... so yeah, plenty of others, even those who would make it into the top 5% of salary earners in NZ.
We're the wardens son... we're here to make sure you don't fuck things up too badly.

[Oscar]

My kids get it. As do other people's kids. As do many of their parents etc... so yeah, plenty of others, even those who would make it into the top 5% of salary earners in NZ.
We're the wardens son... we're here to make sure you don't fuck things up too badly.



A Warden?
At best, you are an interesting oddity.
At worst a strident wacko.
You are a classic character from literature, the insane inmate who thinks he runs the asylum. “El Supremo” from C S Forester comes to mind.

[Oscar]

I think by reading just a few of his recent posts, he has gotten stupider in the brief time I've been out of this thread; just do what the 99% do to his ilk and put em on ignore :2thumbsup:

You could be right - taunting the obviously mentally ill is not a good look...

[Swoop]

"Not having breakfast" is not the same as being hungry.
My kids sometimes couldn't be bothered with breakfast as it meant an extra 10 minutes in bed, so they would be featured in this statistic.
I am not saying we don't have a problem with poverty in this country, but I do think that it is exaggerated for political purposes...

A well put post!
Statisticians must have a bizarre theoretical equation that inputs garbage and outputs bullshit that smells sweet to a politician.


I also agree with the kids simply not crawling out of their fart-sacks in time to have a proper breakfast. At school they would be adding to the mis-information of "poverty". Sadly the only people who will be delighted about this (apart from the labour party...) are the social workers who will be asking for more funds to "get rid of the problem" - which we know will never happen.

[Ocean1]

It comes with thinking... you may wish to try it someday instead of expecting everyone else to fulfill your entitlement complex.


Ah, no. Whining fuckwits come from fuckwits whining, nothing to do with thinking.

And as the rest of your post is at least as full of shit I'll not bother with it.

[Ocean1]

A good Marxist idea that - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Which is nothing like what I suggested.

Which is no more than what occurs naturally: From each according to his ability; to each according to his ability.

Need is a completely arbitrary concept, used by socialists to mean "can't afford".

[Ocean1]

Statisticians must have a bizarre theoretical equation that inputs garbage and outputs bullshit that smells sweet to a politician.

In one of his less well known works Douglas Adams had one of his characters, (a statistician / nerd) invent a special computer. You gave it the answer you wanted and it formulated the question required to achieve it. The character sold it unfinished to some fuzzy entity associated with the pentagon.

Years later he noticed some mathematically familiar features in some of the whitehouse’s press releases…

[Brian d marge]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IESYMFtLIis" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Point five is especially valid for a few on here

Stephen

[mashman]

Not answering the question is one thing, but saying you did just makes you look stupid.
You like to wank on about concepts like child poverty or income equality, but when asked to define terms, you show your ignorance.

You not understanding it where others do makes you look stupider.
The answer was "It's way more than a definition son."... like I said, you're not thinking and have continued not to do so and calling me ignorant on that basis is highly amusing.

[mashman]

A Warden?
At best, you are an interesting oddity.
At worst a strident wacko.
You are a classic character from literature, the insane inmate who thinks he runs the asylum. “El Supremo” from C S Forester comes to mind.

Yup, you betcha.
I don't think I run the asylum... so yet again, you're making shit up.

[mashman]

Ah, no. Whining fuckwits come from fuckwits whining, nothing to do with thinking.

And as the rest of your post is at least as full of shit I'll not bother with it.

You said it.

Thanks for illustrating your point. Damned good of you to make a contradictory arse out of yourself for my entertainment.

[Ocean1]

Point five is especially valid for a few on here

Stephen

Have you read the book?

[Oscar]

You not understanding it where others do makes you look stupider.
The answer was "It's way more than a definition son."... like I said, you're not thinking and have continued not to do so and calling me ignorant on that basis is highly amusing.

So you whine about a problem which you won't/can't define?
You are a looney.

[Brian d marge]

Have you read the book?


No but I would like to ....

I knew about the yaka,,,and how they removed the trees Easter Island I didnt know about ,,,,

So its on my reading list

Stephen

[mashman]

So you whine about a problem which you won't/can't define?
You are a looney.

In other words you're too lazy to want to try to understand. That's ok by me... but the lack of ability to think about it is your issue, not mine.

[Oscar]

In other words you're too lazy to want to try to understand. That's ok by me... but the lack of ability to think about it is your issue, not mine.

You posted on on low incomes in NZ.
I asked you if you even knew what the definition of "low income" was.

You have so far refused to answer, which kinda makes you look like someone who posts stuff they don't understand.
Your lack of ability to think deeply about an issue has become clear.

[mashman]

You posted on on low incomes in NZ.
I asked you if you even knew what the definition of "low income" was.

You have so far refused to answer, which kinda makes you look like someone who posts stuff they don't understand.
Your lack of ability to think deeply about an issue has become clear.

:rofl: in which case, you did not accept the answer, which I have re-quoted again and again, of "It's way more than a definition son".

So I have answered the question and as mentioned earlier, you either don't like the answer or can't understand it. In either case that lack of understanding is not mine and is entirely of your own making.
My lack of want to give you an answer in even further detail than I already have and you not having grasped that answer on numerous occasions does not highlight my lack of ability. Your denial only serves to prove that you are incapable of accepting an answer that someone else has given... and not only that, you believe that that's my issue. Are you one of them speshul kids?

[Oscar]

:rofl: in which case, you did not accept the answer, which I have re-quoted again and again, of "It's way more than a definition son".



That is not an answer, it's an evasion.
Like in - if it's way more than a definition, what is it then?
Like in - if it's way more than a definition, why are you posting stuff that uses that definition.

As I noted some time ago - you got nuthin'.

[Ocean1]

Yes thats true since 1990 but it was much better before

Telling u that the neocon economics have just transfered wealth to a few

Which is what people are trying to

A . Point out to u
B . Trying to stop

Stephen

Yeah?

Is that like the huge historic house price increases?

Show me historic data for consumption in NZ since "before".

[Banditbandit]

Consumption ???

Just go here and look at the OECD stats for Godzone ...

http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/41527985.pdf

Sure, it's dropped recently ... but it grew tremendously from the mid-1985s up to 2000, under neo-con economics ...

Rich people got richer and poor people got poorer ..

[mashman]

That is not an answer, it's an evasion.
Like in - if it's way more than a definition, what is it then?
Like in - if it's way more than a definition, why are you posting stuff that uses that definition.

As I noted some time ago - you got nuthin'.

I say it's an answer.
Someone's daily life.
It's not a definition.

No, you've got nuthin'. Else you wouldn't be asking for definitions.

[mashman]

Yeah?

Is that like the huge historic house price increases?

Show me historic data for consumption in NZ since "before".

Consumption is a temporary fools paradise... but hey, you ain't gonna be here forever, someone else can clean up the mess, right.

[Ocean1]

Consumption ???

Just go here and look at the OECD stats for Godzone ...

http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/41527985.pdf

Sure, it's dropped recently ... but it grew tremendously from the mid-1985s up to 2000, under neo-con economics ...

Rich people got richer and poor people got poorer ..

That's income. Which has fuck all to do with consumption.

You can't actually answer my question, because nobody collects that data. Doesn't that seem a little strange? After all it's so terribly fashionable to bleat about income inequality, and yet it's the money individuals spend that defines how well off they are, not the money they earn.

So why do all of the metrics defining poverty and inequity focus on income, a value most closely linked to productive performance, and having nothing whatsoever to do with social "justice"?

Someone did collect those numbers. Once. They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html

On that first chart.

Along wit a few other rarely seen facts:

"Now let us look at the households with income of over $150,000. We don’t know if this is one person earning say $150,000 or two people earning say $80,000 each but we do know it includes be definition everyone earning at least $150,000. Household income is used as welfare payments are normally made on a household basis.

So 10% of households have an income of $150,000 or greater. And those 10% fund 71% of net taxation. And these are the households that Labour are saying are not doing their fair share and must pay more.

If we go slightly further down to households with an income of $120,000 or greater – which is 17% of households. Well those 17% of households are paying 97% of net taxation.

Yet Labour seems to think this is not enough. Their tax policy (I don’t mean CGT, but their income tax policy) is that 97% is not enough. Those rich pricks have to be screwed over until they are paying over 100% of net taxation."


So next time you bleat about those rich pricks just pause for a minute and remember who's paying for your free lunch.

[Akzle]

i wonder how many occupations pay >150k.

I wonder if that equates to their actual worth to people/ communities.

I have a sneaky suspicion not.

[Katman]

I think that what we are seeing around the world today is conflict, due not so much to the disparity of wealth, but rather to the disparity of power and influence that the 'haves' wield over TPTB compared to the 'have nots'.

[Banditbandit]

So next time you bleat about those rich pricks just pause for a minute and remember who's paying for your free lunch.

I'm close to being one of those rich pricks myself .. I might not be over $100K per annum .. but I certainly pay tax in the top bracket ... That probably makes me a middle income earner - one of those you suggest get more money back than I pay ..

Well fuck me, I get no money from Working for Families, I get diddlesquat back from our Government.. I pay my taxes happily - and like you, would be happy to pay more ...

[Ocean1]

i wonder how many occupations pay >150k.

I wonder if that equates to their actual worth to people/ communities.

I have a sneaky suspicion not.

And if you were one of the people / communities paying them then you'd be in a splendid position to do something about that suspicion.

If not it's literally none of your godamned business.

[Katman]

And if you were one of the people / communities paying them then you'd be in a splendid position to do something about that suspicion.

If not it's literally none of your godamned business.

The size of your income doesn't determine the worth of your opinion.

[bogan]

The size of your income doesn't determine the worth of your opinion.

It does determine how well you can back your opinion in cases like Ocean has described though.

[Katman]

It does determine how well you can back your opinion in cases like Ocean has described though.

A large income doesn't necessarily say anything more than you're a greedy prick who places great importance on money.

It most certainly does not mean your opinion is worth any more than someone's whose income is only a fraction of yours.

[bogan]

A large income doesn't necessarily say anything more than you're a greedy prick who places great importance on money.

It most certainly does not mean your opinion is worth any more than someone's whose income is only a fraction of yours.

Yes, but if I earn 1 million dollars per year, and decide some dude is being paid less or more that is appropriate, I could either set up lower priced competition, or just pay him more myself. As one who earns <40k, all I can do is bitch and moan about things online. So whose opinion can be better self-backed to get results?

[Ocean1]

I'm close to being one of those rich pricks myself .. I might not be over $100K per annum .. but I certainly pay tax in the top bracket ... That probably makes me a middle income earner - one of those you suggest get more money back than I pay

If you earn $90 - $100k and assuming you're the sole earner in the household then what it makes you is one of 67,000 households who, as a group paid $1,150 million in gross tax, (5.3%) and received $109 million in direct and indirect benefits, (1%), making for a total contribution of $1041 million, or 9.5% of the total tax take.

If you make much less than that then indeed you will be contributing fuck all.

Compare that to the group of a little over half that number of households who earn $130 - $140k, pay almost as much tax as your group and receive the lowest subsidies of any group.

Doesn't that suggest to you that you'd be better off declining any offers of a pay rise? If it nudges you into that group yhen you’ll suddenly find your household paying twice as much tax and receiving sweet fuck all in return.


Well fuck me, I get no money from Working for Families, I get diddlesquat back from our Government..

But you do. Every time you interface with a government funded entity you pay either less or more than the actual cost of supplying those goods or that service. Working for famillies is another layer on top of those subsidies. Yes, most of those “tweaks” are hidden, but that makes it all the more important to recognise that those top earners are not only paying massively more than everyone else but they’re deprived of many of the benefits their taxes pay for because they earn too much.

Doesn't that sound just a little oxymoronic?

[Ocean1]

The size of your income doesn't determine the worth of your opinion.

I wasn't suggesting it did.

Your comprehension is certainly a much greater impediment to the value of your opinion than any quantity of money could ever impose.



Edit: let me help you out there: If someone is earning >$150k then those paying them obviously consider them worth it. And as nobody else is pying them they shouldn't really have much to say on the topic.

[Katman]

Edit: let me help you out there: If someone is earning >$150k then those paying them obviously consider them worth it. And as nobody else is pying them they shouldn't really have much to say on the topic.

And that's why I believe the problem isn't that some people are getting paid 10 times more than someone else, the problem lies with the people who earn large incomes that seem to think that it gives them a greater right to influence the progress of humanity.

Your repeated cries of "shut the fuck up" suggest you are one those people.

[oldrider]

Suggest this as a starting point: http://www.positivemoney.org/

All political suggestions have some degree of merit but a broken money system will guarantee their failure! --- Gotta fix that first! :sunny:

[mashman]

Suggest this as a starting point: http://www.positivemoney.org/

All political suggestions have some degree of merit but a broken money system will guarantee their failure! --- Gotta fix that first! :sunny:

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa... Sorry J, but there's just no getting over how silly such statements sound... and this time around I'm not so happy to wait to find out when all indicators point to the opposite.

[Ocean1]

And that's why I believe the problem isn't that some people are getting paid 10 times more than someone else, the problem lies with the people who earn large incomes that seem to think that it gives them a greater right to influence the progress of humanity.

Your repeated cries of "shut the fuck up" suggest you are one those people.

And as I said, when you're paying their wages then you can direct their influence on humanity as you see fit.

In the meantime as you're not paying me fuck all I'm not interested in your beliefs or your suggestions.

[Katman]

In the meantime as you're not paying me fuck all I'm not interested in your beliefs or your suggestions.

Snap! :motu:

[Brian d marge]

That's income. Which has fuck all to do with consumption.

You can't actually answer my question, because nobody collects that data. Doesn't that seem a little strange? After all it's so terribly fashionable to bleat about income inequality, and yet it's the money individuals spend that defines how well off they are, not the money they earn.

So why do all of the metrics defining poverty and inequity focus on income, a value most closely linked to productive performance, and having nothing whatsoever to do with social "justice"?

Someone did collect those numbers. Once. They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html

On that first chart.

Along wit a few other rarely seen facts:

"Now let us look at the households with income of over $150,000. We don’t know if this is one person earning say $150,000 or two people earning say $80,000 each but we do know it includes be definition everyone earning at least $150,000. Household income is used as welfare payments are normally made on a household basis.

So 10% of households have an income of $150,000 or greater. And those 10% fund 71% of net taxation. And these are the households that Labour are saying are not doing their fair share and must pay more.

If we go slightly further down to households with an income of $120,000 or greater – which is 17% of households. Well those 17% of households are paying 97% of net taxation.

Yet Labour seems to think this is not enough. Their tax policy (I don’t mean CGT, but their income tax policy) is that 97% is not enough. Those rich pricks have to be screwed over until they are paying over 100% of net taxation."


So next time you bleat about those rich pricks just pause for a minute and remember who's paying for your free lunch.

If you add up all the others they pay roughly the same as the rich ( 150000+) Sooooo,,,there are a few rich paying their fair share , AD Shitloads of poorer people doing the same
hmmm it looks good ....but ...needs thinking about

Stephen

[Ocean1]

If you add up all the others they pay roughly the same as the rich ( 150000+) Sooooo,,,there are a few rich paying their fair share , AD Shitloads of poorer people doing the same
hmmm it looks good ....but ...needs thinking about

Stephen

Sorry? Have you been adding the net tax deficits in there?

Look again, housholds earning >$150k (9.9% of all housholds) pay 70.7% of the total tax take.

Those earning from about $55k down are into negative tax.

[Brian d marge]

Sorry? Have you been adding the net tax deficits in there?

Look again, housholds earning >$150k (9.9% of all housholds) pay 70.7% of the total tax take.

Those earning from about $55k down are into negative tax.


Im getting there ..hang on

but just to give you a sneak preview ....

Snip"

When I did the correct calculations for National in 2011 - accounting for GST - I found that the top ~10% of households actually pay around 43% of the total net tax on individuals. They also earn around 30% of the income and have over 50% of the wealth.

Ill try and find the figures ....

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Someone did collect those numbers. Once. They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html


Ill try and find the figures ....

Stephen

They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png




Deaf cunt.

[Brian d marge]

They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png




Deaf cunt.

hahahahahaaaaaa very funny ,,,,,

I thought they were

HERE.....

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/tax-burdens-some-facts-for-a-change


Stephen

[Ocean1]

hahahahahaaaaaa very funny ,,,,,

I thought they were

HERE.....

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/tax-burdens-some-facts-for-a-change


Stephen

Meh. The chart splits groups by income - benefits. Net tax. The opposition reckon that's not a true reflection of tax paid. That's right, so what? The objective was to highlight groups by net tax, because that's the real world.

[Brian d marge]

Tin hats are much more fun


Qabalah baby Qabalah !


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QYmViPTndxw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Now we are back on track

let the debate continue

Stephen

There are 7 letters in my name.
Those 7 letters total to 33
There are 2 vowels and 5 consonants in my name.

What my first name means:


<tbody>
Shakespearean
Male
'King Richard The Second' Sir Stephen Scroop.


Greek
Male
Crown; victorious.


English
Male
Crown; wreath. In the bible Stephen was the first Christian martyr.


Biblical
Male
Crown; crowned


</tbody>
my number is: 6



6.............. not seven not five but 6.......

[oldrider]

Not so unique: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Casting+nines+checking&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp&gfe_rd=cr&ei=b7u_U7G4CcWN8QfPuoD4CA casting nines and numerical digital sums are old school checking systems. :shifty:

[Ocean1]

Not so unique: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Casting+nines+checking&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp&gfe_rd=cr&ei=b7u_U7G4CcWN8QfPuoD4CA casting nines and numerical digital sums are old school checking systems. :shifty:

Man that brought back a few memories, I wouldn't have used that for well over 40 years.

I remember being fascinated at how it worked and I don' think I ever really understood.

[oldrider]

Man that brought back a few memories, I wouldn't have used that for well over 40 years.

I remember being fascinated at how it worked and I don' think I ever really understood.

Ditto! ... There was also a Professor Trachtenberg who developed some interestingly tricky mathematics systems too. (during captivity WW2)

Have a look here: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Trachtenbergh+mathematics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np