Sick and tired of Cullen

[Maki]

Am I alone in this or do other people think M Cullen is sounding like a tired old broken record. "If we give you tax cuts it's just going to mean cutting down government services".

The fact is that in most countries that have offered tax cuts that reward people for working more and increasing productivity have actually seen more money coming in to the government, not less.

Is it so hard to see that a tax policy that stifles, and punishes people for working is actually going to bring less money in than a tax policy that rewards work. If you work more you get slammed with at least a double whammy, you lose "working for families" assistance and you get placed in a higher tax bracket. You may also lose other benefits because of your "high income".

How about a fair tax policy that does not punish people for producing wealth that can go into health care, roads and education.

I also want to see families taxed as a unit so that families where one of the partners decides to forgo payed work to care for children is not slammed into the highest tax bracket at an absurdly low income level if taking care of a whole family is taken into account. It's only fair, but will auntie Helen have a bar of it? No, apparently it does not buy her enough votes...

When pension time come a married couple gets less pension than individuals do. When people are working the fact that one of the partners may be the families sole support is conveniently ignored.

[Pussy]

Yep, it's a no-brainer, isn't it? I'm also sick of social engineering, and the government's "when I want your opinion, I'll give it to you" attitude

[jim.cox]

Bye bye, Aunty Helen & Co - it was nice knowing you - <B>NOT</B>

[chubby]

Yes.. your very right.

But what gets me steamed...... is that above all else

Cullen comes across, in my opinion, as a smug, condescending twat.

PS there is a review/study/submission going on about taxing the family unit. One of the biggest issues is defining a family unit (seperated people but still married, defactos, some who appear in both etc) but that is for way passed the election.

[MSTRS]

Too bloody right. The prick had his day some time ago.
What group of gullible voters will he attempt to buy this time? Or are there none left that are stupid enough to be sucked in?

[enigma51]

You guys seem to forget what a great job working for families are doing and we cant have cuts on that cause how are people suppose to survive then you are all selfish the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 year

[MIXONE]

Yep the man pisses me off bigtime!We are in the position where my wife works and I do the house husband thing.She's in the high tax bracket but if we both worked at more menial jobs, at half her present salary each,as a family unit we would be $17k a year better off!Imagine the bikes I could buy with that in my back pocket.
If you vote Labour you get what you deserve.

[jim.cox]

the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 year

I strongly disagree

The country is now in a significantly worse position than it was when Aunty Helen came to power

The bureaucracy has bloated, the country has gone to the dogs (bitches?), the pigs have been wallowing at the trough and its little surprise that those who can are leaving for pastures green

We're fucked, Mate

[MSTRS]

You guys seem to forget what a great job working for families are doing and we cant have cuts on that cause how are people suppose to survive then you are all selfish the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 year

Yeah right :mad::mad: Like ACC for self-employed people...
:buggerd:

[MIXONE]

You guys seem to forget what a great job working for families are doing and we cant have cuts on that cause how are people suppose to survive then you are all selfish the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 yearTUIS anyone?

This must be a pt.They have done such a great job that kiwis are leaving the country in droves to be replaced by immigrants that often end up being a further tax drain.

[Nasty]

You guys seem to forget what a great job working for families are doing and we cant have cuts on that cause how are people suppose to survive then you are all selfish the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 year

I am sorry but it does nothing for those of us that choose not to breed ... its teaching people that its ok to have kids if you can't afford it ... YAY to them.

[ManDownUnder]

What group of gullible voters will he attempt to buy this time?

Just one - but he has a lot of say in the electoral process...

Ben E. Fishery

[MIXONE]

Just one - but he has a lot of say in the electoral process...

Ben E. Fishery

He should have a lot to say as he gets the biggest cut of the tax take.A full ONE THIRD!!!!:mad:

[avgas]

When pension time come a married couple gets less pension than individuals do.
SHhhhhhh
Don't tell anyone but your about to loose that altogether.
Or do you truly believe that Kiwisaver was to YOUR benefit. In 30 years time people will say, "Man it sucks that we have lost our pension, good thing we can fall back on that Kiwisaver they set up for us 30 years ago - now i can pay off that mortgage still".
Its not conspiracy theory, its too bleeding obvious for that.

[ManDownUnder]

The ugly truth as I see it... with very few exceptions being in Parliament is not some higher calling, some noble stand enabling those voted in to make a lasting mark in the annals of New Zealand history.

For most it's a job. A job with defined lined of responsibility, a boss from whom you must take orders, and you need to compete for business (aka votes).

You do what you can to get the business (votes) from the competition (opposition). If you come across as a smug twat then so be it - the #1 rule is KEEP YOUR JOB. Check out Winnie the poo at the last election. Beaten in his own electorate but got in as a list MP.

If that means pissing off a lot of people from time to time then they do it, so long as the ones that get them back into power on the nominated date are willing to do so. So what does that mean for a Labour Govt?

Bribe the poor. Throw them a few baubles, set their expectations low, right up until the critical date then give them $20/week. For 5/8ths of fuck all they just bought a lot of votes and - most importantly to them - kept their jobs!

Know your enemy... they're a pack of powerful, intelligent, self serving people that club together and busily scratch each others backs first... and THEN think about the country as a whole.

Don't think they're always at each others throats either... just take a quick look at how parliamentary pay rises get pushed through under urgency.

[Maki]

You guys seem to forget what a great job working for families are doing and we cant have cuts on that cause how are people suppose to survive then you are all selfish the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 year

As far as I am concerned working for families should be named "free advertisements for labour". People on low incomes get taxed unfairly in my opinion and then the money is plowed back into "working for families", so people feel like they owe auntie Helen something and should kiss her on the bum.

Well, in all fairness the lowest incomes should simply be tax free and people should not have to be on this kind of benefit.

Helen is not doing people any favors by taking money out of their pockets and then kindly giving some of it back.

[vifferman]

Am I alone in this or do other people think M Cullen is sounding like a tired old broken record. "If we give you tax cuts it's just going to mean cutting down government services".
Too much is spent on Gubmint 'Services' as it is - we have way too many bureaucrats, and not enough people actually doing productive work.

[vifferman]

Cullen comes across, in my opinion, as a smug, condescending twat.
Of course.
He's paid shitloads of money, is guaranteed a fat pension if/when he gets booted out or retires, plus perks such as free lifetime first-class air travel.

[xwhatsit]

Tax cuts -- where does the money come from?

I find it amusing that people expect taxes to be cut every year. On the other hand, we expect the government to do more for us. Where does it end? With no tax? How do we pay for roads? New Harbour Bridge? Hospitals? ACC? Schools?

This is a comment on any political party, not just Labour. No matter who is in power, you can't keep cutting taxes and maintain the same level of public services (or even expect more) -- money doesn't come from thin air. I bet Mr Reserve Bank is shitting himself every time the election year rolls around; more strain (resulting in higher interest rates) from politicians yet again over-promising on tax cuts. Happens in every country.

[MSTRS]

Of course.
He's paid shitloads of money, is guaranteed a fat pension if/when he gets booted out or retires, plus perks such as free lifetime first-class air travel.

Who's gunna do that...he's a list MP.

[MSTRS]

Helen is not doing people any favors by taking money out of their pockets and then kindly giving some of it back.
Of course she is...see below.

Too much is spent on Gubmint 'Services' as it is - we have way too many bureaucrats, and not enough people actually doing productive work.

Unemployed waiting line?
We can only hope....

[Hitcher]

Don't worry about Dr Cullen and his budget. If you earn more than $30,000 a year, you're not going to "get" anything.

[jim.cox]

you can't keep cutting taxes and maintain the same level of public services (or even expect more)

So how about we cut Taxes <b>AND</b> Bureaucracy - thats got to be good

This country is already drowning in red tape

And while we're at it - lets axe all those perks for ex-MP's

[Maki]

Tax cuts -- where does the money come from?

I find it amusing that people expect taxes to be cut every year. On the other hand, we expect the government to do more for us. Where does it end? With no tax? How do we pay for roads? New Harbour Bridge? Hospitals? ACC? Schools?

This is a comment on any political party, not just Labour. No matter who is in power, you can't keep cutting taxes and maintain the same level of public services (or even expect more) -- money doesn't come from thin air. I bet Mr Reserve Bank is shitting himself every time the election year rolls around; more strain (resulting in higher interest rates) from politicians yet again over-promising on tax cuts. Happens in every country.

You can't "keep cutting taxes"? When did they last cut taxes?

The governement does not do anything for you. You do it for yourself by paying for it with your tax money. All the government does is move YOUR money from one place to another and stick some of it in their back pocket (fat pension, high salary, buying votes, etc.)

Rewarding people for being productive creates jobs and makes funds available to pay for essential services like health, roads and education. Punishing people for productivity creates poverty and an exodus to Australia.

[Dafe]

Tax cuts -- where does the money come from?

I find it amusing that people expect taxes to be cut every year. On the other hand, we expect the government to do more for us. Where does it end? With no tax? How do we pay for roads? New Harbour Bridge? Hospitals? ACC? Schools?

This is a comment on any political party, not just Labour. No matter who is in power, you can't keep cutting taxes and maintain the same level of public services (or even expect more) -- money doesn't come from thin air. I bet Mr Reserve Bank is shitting himself every time the election year rolls around; more strain (resulting in higher interest rates) from politicians yet again over-promising on tax cuts. Happens in every country.

Perhaps tax cuts are what would retain the emigrating working class New Zealanders. The taxes lost from these working New Zealanders alone would pay a substantial amount towards tax cuts whilst at the same time promoting businesses within New Zealand rather than the current situation we have - High Taxes, Promoting Emigration and Business closure/departure.

I mean - Just look at the new law of 4 weeks annual leave - That shit just kills small/struggling businesses.

By God - This shit is so Obvious! How can people ask such questions and not be taking the piss???

[Dafe]

You guys seem to forget what a great job working for families are doing and we cant have cuts on that cause how are people suppose to survive then you are all selfish the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 year

What the Fark? Are you just plain farken stupid?

In Australia they have the equivalent to "working for families".
Australia also have tax cuts and Lower Interest Rates.
Australia also Gift you $7,000 towards buying your own home.
Australia gifts you upto $15,000 if you decide to build your own home.
You receive $1500 when you have a child.
You'll receive hospital treatment for cancer.
You'll receive a half decent retirement package. Blah blah blah blah..... It goes on and on.

Our system is hardly farken decent!!! Whoopdie shit we have working for families. I have a child now and I get Zero! I actually want to work a second job but the government will tax me at %40 so whats the farken point? It makes sense to sit on ones arse with this government.

In the last 9 years
Labour has managed to drop the NZ OECD ranking by nearly 30 places.
Labour has filled this country will non-working immigrants and refugees.
Labour has driven industry off-shore.
Labour is causing business collapses in NZ at an alarming rate.
Labour is driving record numbers of working class off shore .
Labour has legalised Prostitution/Brothels - Promoting it.
Labour has funded multiple sex themed events.
Labour has given your young teens disclosure to deal with sex issues.
Labour is dictating the upbringing of your children
Labour has removed a competitive environment from the classroom.
Get the picture????? Loser Farken Policies.
Labours leader has forged documentation
Labour is (Currently) receiving huge amounts of undecleared trade union funding.
Labour blatantly ignores the Public Opinion. %88 against Smacking Bill.
Labour lies outright to the public. Tolls purchase pricing.
Labour breaks promises - Tax cuts.
Labour has killed the overseas appeal of the education system.
Labour has resulted in the drain of New Zealand Senior Doctors.
Police aren't funded properly and crime is through the roof.
FFS - The list goes on and on....... Get my point.

This Govt has done a SHIT job over the last 9 years and the job losses, emigration statistics, business closures and fall in the OECD position is all evidence of that.

[HenryDorsetCase]

No matter who is in power, you can't keep cutting taxes and maintain the same level of public services (or even expect more) -- money doesn't come from thin air.

The point is that these arseholes (and I am nailing my flag to the wall there) HAVE NEVER CUT TAXES IN THE YEARS THEY'VE BEEN IN OFFICE. In a period of relative prosperity, with wages rising, the bracket creep alone should be paying some Pakistani doctor to follow us around "just in case". What we have is a minority government pandering to its underclass supporters by giving them lollies in election year.

Why I, or anyone else, would be self employed escapes me most days: all I am is a form filler for Uncle Helen, and don't forget when the bitch gave the employees an extra weeks holiday it was an IMMEDIATE cost to a business of 6% drop in productivity. Then the fuckers have the gall to moan that "We are the least productive country in the OECD" or some shit. All you employees in Kiwisaver: guess what, that costs me money too.

Oh and dont forget the incentives to breed: Fucking tax credits.

Being white, male, middle class and self employed in this country: Im an oppressed minority!.

Fuck all a yis.

:(

[ManDownUnder]

What the Fark? Are you just plain farken stupid?Our system is hardly farken decent!!!

In the last 9 years
Labour has managed to drop the NZ OECD ranking by nearly 30 places.
Labour has filled this country will non-working immigrants and refugees.
Labour has driven industry off-shore.
Labour is causing business collapses in NZ at an alarming rate.
Labour is driving record numbers of working class off shore .
Labour has legalised Prostitution/Brothels - Promoting it.
Labour has funded multiple sex themed events.
Labour has given your young teens disclosure to deal with sex issues.
Labour is dictating the upbringing of your children
Labour has removed a competitive environment from the classroom.
Get the picture????? Loser Farken Policies.
Labours leader has forged documentation
Labour is (Currently) receiving huge amounts of undecleared trade union funding.
Labour blatantly ignores the Public Opinion. %88 against Smacking Bill.
Labour lies outright to the public. Tolls purchase pricing.
Labour breaks promises - Tax cuts.
Labour has killed the overseas appeal of the education system.
Labour has resulted in the drain of New Zealand Senior Doctors.
FFS - The list goes on and on....... Get my point.

This Govt has done a SHIT job over the last 9 years and the job losses, emigration statistics, business closures and fall in the OECD position is all evidence of that.

... what're you hinting at?

[HenryDorsetCase]

You guys seem to forget what a great job working for families are doing and we cant have cuts on that cause how are people suppose to survive then you are all selfish the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 year


You insane crackhead! Go and have a vasectomy immediately.

If you are female, go have a tubal ligation, or emigrate to a pacific island: Australia say.

[HenryDorsetCase]

In the last 9 years
Labour has managed to drop the NZ OECD ranking by nearly 30 places.
Labour has filled this country will non-working immigrants and refugees.
Labour has driven industry off-shore.
Labour is causing business collapses in NZ at an alarming rate.
Labour is driving record numbers of working class off shore .
Labour has legalised Prostitution/Brothels - Promoting it.
Labour has funded multiple sex themed events.
Labour has given your young teens disclosure to deal with sex issues.
Labour is dictating the upbringing of your children
Labour has removed a competitive environment from the classroom.
Get the picture????? Loser Farken Policies.
Labours leader has forged documentation
Labour is (Currently) receiving huge amounts of undecleared trade union funding.
Labour blatantly ignores the Public Opinion. %88 against Smacking Bill.
Labour lies outright to the public. Tolls purchase pricing.
Labour breaks promises - Tax cuts.
Labour has killed the overseas appeal of the education system.
Labour has resulted in the drain of New Zealand Senior Doctors.
FFS - The list goes on and on....... Get my point.

This Govt has done a SHIT job over the last 9 years and the job losses, emigration statistics, business closures and fall in the OECD position is all evidence of that.

I dont care about any of the sexual politics stuff, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no-ones business.

As long as you dont do it in the High Street and frighten the horses, thats OK.

To a certain extent I dont even care about the no smacking thing. I think it was appallingly handled though.

What really pisses me off is the promotion and creation of the underclass because they all vote labour.

By the way, I hate John Key as well.

[Tank]

In the last 9 years
Labour has managed to drop the NZ OECD ranking by nearly 30 places.
Labour has filled this country will non-working immigrants and refugees.
Labour has driven industry off-shore.
Labour is causing business collapses in NZ at an alarming rate.
Labour is driving record numbers of working class off shore .
Labour has legalised Prostitution/Brothels - Promoting it.
Labour has funded multiple sex themed events.
Labour has given your young teens disclosure to deal with sex issues.
Labour is dictating the upbringing of your children
Labour has removed a competitive environment from the classroom.
Get the picture????? Loser Farken Policies.
Labours leader has forged documentation
Labour is (Currently) receiving huge amounts of undecleared trade union funding.
Labour blatantly ignores the Public Opinion. %88 against Smacking Bill.
Labour lies outright to the public. Tolls purchase pricing.
Labour breaks promises - Tax cuts.
Labour has killed the overseas appeal of the education system.
Labour has resulted in the drain of New Zealand Senior Doctors.
Police aren't funded properly and crime is through the roof.
FFS - The list goes on and on....... Get my point.



At least they are doing something.

btw - thanks to Labour you need to have your home address on this post as it could possibly been seen as negative to labour and therefor falls under the electoral finance act.

[MSTRS]

I dont care about any of the sexual politics stuff, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no-ones business.

As long as you dont do it in the High Street and frighten the horses, thats OK.

To a certain extent I dont even care about the no smacking thing. I think it was appallingly handled though.

What really pisses me off is the promotion and creation of the underclass because they all vote labour.

By the way, I hate John Key as well.

Equal Opportunity voter?

[Tank]

What really pisses me off is the promotion and creation of the underclass because they all vote labour.

By the way, I hate John Key as well.

So that leaves The Maori party, Greens and NZ First.

Jezus - its fantastic that NZ has such a great list of politicians to chose from - you can hardly go wrong!

[Dafe]

I dont care about any of the sexual politics stuff, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no-ones business.

As long as you dont do it in the High Street and frighten the horses, thats OK.

To a certain extent I dont even care about the no smacking thing. I think it was appallingly handled though.

What really pisses me off is the promotion and creation of the underclass because they all vote labour.

By the way, I hate John Key as well.

Under the previous policies, what happened in ones home was just their business. Regardless of that, Labour has extensively altered NZ laws that are of a sexual content. Why????
Because we do not have a normal (or straight) leadership governing...... We have a very strong representation of gay/lesbian leadership.

Labour has introduced a law that would prevent parents from knowing any details about their 12 year old daughter going into hospital for an abortion.
It can all be done on the quiet now and without a parents consent or knowledge. Doctors must not inform parents as law states.

Read between the lines. This is all about the lowering of morals and ethics and those that don't care about such things and most likely just a well sculptured model of this labour society.

[jim.cox]

Equal Opportunity voter?

Libertarian ?

[ManDownUnder]

Read between the lines. This is all about the lowering of morals and ethics and those that don't care about such things and most likely just a well sculptured model of this labour society.

You and I draw that line in a different place but I thoroughly applaud you standing up and saying there is a bloody line.

[MSTRS]

Read between the lines....

It's about State Control.
Destroy the power of the family system.
Break the spirit of those that still show that 'individual, pioneering spirit'.
Tie any endeavour up in red tape by ensuring there are so many public servants that nothing gets by them.
Enact laws that nobody wants. And change those that were wanted.
Employ the jackboot once it's too late...
Welcome to the People's State of UnZud.

[peasea]

Let me check my diary, oh there it is.....July 14, yup that's it.
A quick sharpen up, grab the knitting......

[HenryDorsetCase]

So that leaves The Maori party, Greens and NZ First.

Jezus - its fantastic that NZ has such a great list of politicians to chose from - you can hardly go wrong!

that is the point. Ive been an ACT voter, and a labour voter and once even a National voter (that was hard, my family have been big labour people for years).

What i abhor is the fact that I give them so much of my money (fucking 39% jealousy tax and I am prevented by statute from organising my affairs to avoid, sorry, mitigate its effects) yet they spend it so unwisely.

And our economic infrastructure is in the toilet, but we import lots of useless non performers, and we also get people in with qualifications who might be useful, then prevent them from working. And we pay tax on tax (fuel tax plus GST, rates plus GST).


This is the first election in my 20+ years of eligibility to vote where I literally have no clue who to vote for. It doesnt help that I am Jim Andertons bloody electorate, so I can't even cast a quixotic vote for someone I like personally because he has his great big commie fist locked around it.

Meh.

Sure, you have to have people at both ends of the bell curve, and I am fortunate enough, and hard working enough to be at one end, but do there have to be SO many SO FAR down the other end? I mean, really?

[Swoop]

"Doctor" Cullen is a fine, upstanding member of the community. He works hard for the average person and stands behind the decisions he makes.
Someone couldn't do better to have a friend such as him.





















There. Don't ever say that I do not stand up for the mentally handicapped.

[ManDownUnder]

There. Don't ever say that I do not stand up for the mentally handicapped.

fair enough - grab a seat mate... you look tired... that must have been taxing

[AllanB]

I'd be happy if the buggers just adjusted the friggin tax brackets up. They agreeded that they need to be inflation adjusted about 2-3 years ago but it will not come into effect until 2009 or later !

Presently average earners are paying high tax on anything over 33k (Or close I'd need to check the book) and the highest tax over 60k.
middle NZ has been robbed by the buggers for the past 8 years.

And why the F do they get all that free travel after leaving the job? Tough shit see you later as it is in the real world please.

[forkoil]

Sure, you have to have people at both ends of the bell curve, and I am fortunate enough, and hard working enough to be at one end, but do there have to be SO many SO FAR down the other end? I mean, really?
By OECD standards we have a very large 'underclass', alot of which fell out of the 80's reforms. I've just returned from a few weeks in Switzerland. There everyone who doesnt go to varsity, has to do an "apprenticeship", which is for all jobs, not just manual. So their workforce is very skilled. The dole is only for 18 months max. Why do we allow pplk to live way out in the sticks away from any source of employment and draw the dole??? We are dragging around this 'underclass' like a brake on the economy.

[Jeaves]

I think i have the solution....

South Island comrades, unite and declare independence!!!!!


Oh and let me in :cool:

[idleidolidyll]

Hilarious!

Those right wing ass kissers the IMF said today that tax cuts would be a disaster unless other services were cut to compensate.

That is the unanswered question from National: How the fuck are you gonna pay for tax cuts? Which social services will lose out; education, health, law and order, aid to the poor?

Watch that space; National is asking us to go down the same failed track the Yanks went down. Trickle down was a failure and tax cuts made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[forkoil]

Hilarious!

Those right wing ass kissers the IMF said today that tax cuts would be a disaster unless other services were cut to compensate.

That is the unanswered question from National: How the fuck are you gonna pay for tax cuts? Which social services will lose out; education, health, law and order, aid to the poor?

Watch that space; National is asking us to go down the same failed track the Yanks went down. Trickle down was a failure and tax cuts made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
And how do you think we as a country are performing under the Labour Govt, well?

[Robert Taylor]

Hilarious!

Those right wing ass kissers the IMF said today that tax cuts would be a disaster unless other services were cut to compensate.

That is the unanswered question from National: How the fuck are you gonna pay for tax cuts? Which social services will lose out; education, health, law and order, aid to the poor?

Watch that space; National is asking us to go down the same failed track the Yanks went down. Trickle down was a failure and tax cuts made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Theres no excuse for your persistently bad manners and lack of imagination in constantly using expletives.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Theres no excuse for your persistently bad manners and lack of imagination in constantly using expletives.


I LOVE using expletives. REally!

and I have a very active imagination. Why just now I am imagining Jessica Alba, Sarah Michelle Gellar, me, a hot tub and a couple of bottles of champagne.

Fuck yeah!!!


;)

[peasea]

Hilarious!

Those right wing ass kissers the IMF said today that tax cuts would be a disaster unless other services were cut to compensate.

That is the unanswered question from National: How the fuck are you gonna pay for tax cuts? Which social services will lose out; education, health, law and order, aid to the poor?

Watch that space; National is asking us to go down the same failed track the Yanks went down. Trickle down was a failure and tax cuts made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Hang on man, I usually agree with most of what you post but I have to say there are way too many bludgers sucking on the teat here. We, as a nation, can afford tax cuts by cutting out the bludgers. Take a hard line and get the slackers out of bed in the morning. Some will say "where are the jobs?" but there are people sitting not too far from this keyboard who have average jobs/incomes and don't mind getting up in the morning to go do them. Jobs are out there, check the papers. In fact, I say work for the dole!

[Manxman]

The ugly truth as I see it... with very few exceptions being in Parliament is not some higher calling, some noble stand enabling those voted in to make a lasting mark in the annals of New Zealand history.

For most it's a job. A job with defined lined of responsibility, a boss from whom you must take orders, and you need to compete for business (aka votes).

You do what you can to get the business (votes) from the competition (opposition). If you come across as a smug twat then so be it - the #1 rule is KEEP YOUR JOB. Check out Winnie the poo at the last election. Beaten in his own electorate but got in as a list MP.

If that means pissing off a lot of people from time to time then they do it, so long as the ones that get them back into power on the nominated date are willing to do so. So what does that mean for a Labour Govt?

Bribe the poor. Throw them a few baubles, set their expectations low, right up until the critical date then give them $20/week. For 5/8ths of fuck all they just bought a lot of votes and - most importantly to them - kept their jobs!

Know your enemy... they're a pack of powerful, intelligent, self serving people that club together and busily scratch each others backs first... and THEN think about the country as a whole.

Don't think they're always at each others throats either... just take a quick look at how parliamentary pay rises get pushed through under urgency.

These are very astute observations, and I'd agree that this is how it works.

I recall Michael Cullen saying way back in his first term that: "The first goal of any government, is to ensure that it is re-elected.". Nuff said...

[idleidolidyll]

Theres no excuse for your persistently bad manners and lack of imagination in constantly using expletives.

there's no need for your borish ignorant attitude either but we have to put up with it

[idleidolidyll]

Hang on man, I usually agree with most of what you post but I have to say there are way too many bludgers sucking on the teat here. We, as a nation, can afford tax cuts by cutting out the bludgers. Take a hard line and get the slackers out of bed in the morning. Some will say "where are the jobs?" but there are people sitting not too far from this keyboard who have average jobs/incomes and don't mind getting up in the morning to go do them. Jobs are out there, check the papers. In fact, I say work for the dole!

why pounce on one aspect and think it's gonna make enough difference to pay for the massive tax cuts National is planning?

I also support work for the dole but in past suggested schemes, capitalists have complained that they could make money from the 'jobs' assigned and they shouldn't be done 'for free' through the government.

Besides, the ranks of people on the dole have plummeted in the last 5 years and that is just not enough to pay for the sizes of tax cut National is buying votes with. The only way they'll actually afford them is to cut other services or sell the crown jewels......again.

Again, tax cuts were what the conservative fascist wankers in yankland promised to cure their economy etc. Instead wealth gaps have grown and more people are disadvantaged.

You should all be asking National EXACTLY how they are going to pay for tax cuts; what other services will have funds taken away.

Trouble is too many people are gushing over the promise of $50 a week and not thinking where its gonna come from.

small minds are easy to fool; distract them with short term visible gain and fuck them from behind where they're not paying attention: it's the National way

[idleidolidyll]

And how do you think we as a country are performing under the Labour Govt, well?

If you've been paying attention you'd have seen me say many times that i don't vote Labour.

However, under Labour the economy has grown and the dole queue has shrunk. Could do better for sure but I've lived under antionals lies before. I know they're even worse.

Now please, don't try to blame the global issues on Labour: increasing fuel prices, increasing food prices, the finance collapses etc. Most or all of those are completely out of the hands of ANY NZ government.

Here's my prediction under National: Short term euphoria followed by long term mistrust, mismanagement, dropping wages as they sell us out to the lowest bidders, loss of assets to foreign companies and increasing racial problems. It's taken more than 15 years to drag NZ halfway out of the ECA abuses they perpetrated on us and it'll take just 3 years for them to fuck us completely over again.

[scott411]

there's no need for your borish ignorant attitude either but we have to put up with it

pot calling the kettle black isn't it

[scott411]

.

Besides, the ranks of people on the dole have plummeted in the last 5 years .


yet the sickness benefit has gone though the roof,

i do not think that national is the answer either, but i think the country is worse off than when labour took over 9 years ago, not so much financially but definatly socially,

[idleidolidyll]

yet the sickness benefit has gone though the roof,

i do not think that national is the answer either, but i think the country is worse off than when labour took over 9 years ago, not so much financially but definatly socially,

interesting

nationals legacy is to fuck over society in favour of the economy

if labour is already doing that, why vote for the party that's even worse at it?

please, be a bit more specific; exactly how is labour fucking up society?

[idleidolidyll]

pot calling the kettle black isn't it

no, the socialist calling the fascist out actually

[Manxman]

but we have to put up with it

Wrong. You have to put up with it.

The rest of us agree with him...:bleh:

[scott411]

exactly how is labour fucking up society?


your words not mine, Labour is not the root of all evil, most of our problems date back a lot longer than this goverment,


so are you saying that we are in a better place than 9 years ago?

[peasea]

why pounce on one aspect and think it's gonna make enough difference to pay for the massive tax cuts National is planning?

I also support work for the dole but in past suggested schemes, capitalists have complained that they could make money from the 'jobs' assigned and they shouldn't be done 'for free' through the government.

Besides, the ranks of people on the dole have plummeted in the last 5 years and that is just not enough to pay for the sizes of tax cut National is buying votes with. The only way they'll actually afford them is to cut other services or sell the crown jewels......again.

Again, tax cuts were what the conservative fascist wankers in yankland promised to cure their economy etc. Instead wealth gaps have grown and more people are disadvantaged.

You should all be asking National EXACTLY how they are going to pay for tax cuts; what other services will have funds taken away.

Trouble is too many people are gushing over the promise of $50 a week and not thinking where its gonna come from.

small minds are easy to fool; distract them with short term visible gain and fuck them from behind where they're not paying attention: it's the National way

Settle. Forget the figure of $50, just say 'tax cut', whatever we can afford. Maybe people are gushing over the $50p/w promise; on the face of it I would, but you're right in saying it has to come from somewhere. If it ain't done by cutting dole bludgers let's have a look at the growing numbers of sickness bennies....I doubt they're all genuine. Sorry mate, I'm a staunch believer in the 'get off your arse' philosophy. Having said that, I also think that a hand-up is way better than a hand-out; I've hit hard days and been grateful for some support, but it didn't last, I have too much pride to be a bludger and I also respect my fellow kiwis for supporting me in my time of need. I'm currently returning the favour by working hard.

However, I don't earn shitloads, just enough to appreciate what I have, pay my bills and sip a bourbon in the evening. If life is tough, I stop drinking, park the V8 and put my speeding tickets on the drip. I get bloody angry when I see people on benefits drinking piss and smoking ciggies, moaning about how hard life is. It has to stop.

Providing the basics for the down-trodden is fine, luxuries are out unless you earn 'em!

[paturoa]

People on low incomes get taxed unfairly in my opinion and then the money is plowed back into "working for families", so people feel like they owe auntie Helen something and should kiss her on the bum.

Well, in all fairness the lowest incomes should simply be tax free and people should not have to be on this kind of benefit.

Helen is not doing people any favors by taking money out of their pockets and then kindly giving some of it back.

Unfortunately this is myth but not exposed as such by the chief thief. The low income people out there in real terms pay very little of the tax. Check out this link for the stats. Note that the proportions will have swung further since the date of these stats.


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1346231&postcount=17

[cindymay]

Hilarious!

Those right wing ass kissers the IMF said today that tax cuts would be a disaster unless other services were cut to compensate.

That is the unanswered question from National: How the fuck are you gonna pay for tax cuts? Which social services will lose out; education, health, law and order, aid to the poor?

Watch that space; National is asking us to go down the same failed track the Yanks went down. Trickle down was a failure and tax cuts made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Well national have principals and the one I like most is "Personal Accountability" while Labour just have personal greed and envy.


If you've been paying attention you'd have seen me say many times that i don't vote Labour.

However, under Labour the economy has grown and the dole queue has shrunk. Could do better for sure but I've lived under antionals lies before. I know they're even worse.

Now please, don't try to blame the global issues on Labour: increasing fuel prices, increasing food prices, the finance collapses etc. Most or all of those are completely out of the hands of ANY NZ government.

Here's my prediction under National: Short term euphoria followed by long term mistrust, mismanagement, dropping wages as they sell us out to the lowest bidders, loss of assets to foreign companies and increasing racial problems. It's taken more than 15 years to drag NZ halfway out of the ECA abuses they perpetrated on us and it'll take just 3 years for them to fuck us completely over again.
Your predictions don't stack up - wages already are low and dropping - in fact most good things have dropped (productivity) and bad things gone up (sickness beneficarys, hospital waiting lists, crime)


yet the sickness benefit has gone though the roof,

i do not think that national is the answer either, but i think the country is worse off than when labour took over 9 years ago, not so much financially but definatly socially,
Financially too - wait until later in year when all that personal borrowing hits miss average.


You guys seem to forget what a great job working for families are doing and we cant have cuts on that cause how are people suppose to survive then you are all selfish the labour gov has done a great job for the last 9 year

Fark - this must be a pisstake. Please let me know you are not for real??


The ugly truth as I see it... with very few exceptions being in Parliament is not some higher calling, some noble stand enabling those voted in to make a lasting mark in the annals of New Zealand history.

For most it's a job. A job with defined lined of responsibility, a boss from whom you must take orders, and you need to compete for business (aka votes).

You do what you can to get the business (votes) from the competition (opposition). If you come across as a smug twat then so be it - the #1 rule is KEEP YOUR JOB. Check out Winnie the poo at the last election. Beaten in his own electorate but got in as a list MP.

If that means pissing off a lot of people from time to time then they do it, so long as the ones that get them back into power on the nominated date are willing to do so. So what does that mean for a Labour Govt?

Bribe the poor. Throw them a few baubles, set their expectations low, right up until the critical date then give them $20/week. For 5/8ths of fuck all they just bought a lot of votes and - most importantly to them - kept their jobs!

Know your enemy... they're a pack of powerful, intelligent, self serving people that club together and busily scratch each others backs first... and THEN think about the country as a whole.

Don't think they're always at each others throats either... just take a quick look at how parliamentary pay rises get pushed through under urgency.

There will be a few laibour hangers on looking for a real job when National kicks them off their sweet directorships on SOEs.

[HenryDorsetCase]

interesting

nationals legacy is to fuck over society in favour of the economy

if labour is already doing that, why vote for the party that's even worse at it?

please, be a bit more specific; exactly how is labour fucking up society?


I like your avatar: Merlin Newsboy? Gene Spicer Ti cruiser?

[HenryDorsetCase]

no, the socialist calling the fascist out actually


:lol:

great call.

I have had a few glasses of wine since I got home so I can now view all this with detached amusement.

Cheap but tasty aussie red? Youbetcha!

http://www.topwineries.com.au/wines.php?ID=994

[idleidolidyll]

I like your avatar: Merlin Newsboy? Gene Spicer Ti cruiser?

nope; my own design but yes, made from ti

drew it up and had 2 prototypes made then with some mods had 6 made for sale

it's called "Bad News"

[peasea]

Those figures did my head in worse than a Catherine Zeta Jones porn movie. (Was there one? Where can get it?)

Three rules:
1) Believe a politician at your peril
2) Never produce your wallet
3) Tell them nothing

'Them' being anyone.

I have imparted this philosophy to my children:
"Don't trust anyone and you'll never be disappointed."

To follow that I'll quote a Metallica line: "Sad but true".

[HenryDorsetCase]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>serious?

still got any?

what size seat tube?

I LOVE the cantilever cruiser.

(I have a bunch of them myself, and my work commuter is a Diamond Back voyager)

[idleidolidyll]

Well national have principals and the one I like most is "Personal Accountability" while Labour just have personal greed and envy.

that's just National bullshit speak. the only responsibility they have long term is to sell us out to the lowest bidder


Your predictions don't stack up - wages already are low and dropping - in fact most good things have dropped (productivity) and bad things gone up (sickness beneficarys, hospital waiting lists, crime)

wages dropped massively when the Employment Contracts Act was bought in under National; that damage has never been undone. That act all by itself set NZ wages back 20 years by allowing business to make Kiwi workers compete against Thais, Chinese etc and preventing workers and unions from having any power to stop it.

Re your other beliefs; show me the actual stats. Until then it's just hearsay, rumour and propaganda


Financially too - wait until later in year when all that personal borrowing hits miss average.

Financially the world is paying for Amerika's bills. Their failed economics are forcing our rates up.
Their terrorist attacks on the Middle East have forced oil prices to massive highs even though extraction costs have not increased much at all.
Nationals policies are pretty much following Amerika's failed ones: cut taxes, cut social spending, increase the gap between have and have not, take power away from people and give it to companies



Fark - this must be a pisstake. Please let me know you are not for real??



There will be a few laibour hangers on looking for a real job when National kicks them off their sweet directorships on SOEs.

I predict a National win: too many suckers don't think deeply enough to avoid it. Politics is cyclic. I just hope they don't get to do as much damage before they're botted out again

[idleidolidyll]

Unfortunately this is myth but not exposed as such by the chief thief. The low income people out there in real terms pay very little of the tax. Check out this link for the stats. Note that the proportions will have swung further since the date of these stats.


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1346231&postcount=17


GST is a TAX ON THE POOR. oops, caps typo.

When all your money is spent every week just paying the bills, you cannot avoid GST on almost 100% of your income.

The wealthy get to avoid it with 'tax losses', savings, 'investments', family trusts and more.
As a high income earner (and obo my wife who also is) i am happy to pay my share to keep NZ society afloat.

some complain about the drain to Australia: blame National who drove wages down massively and thank Labour for getting at least some of that wage back with the ERA giving some power back to workers and unions.

tax cutting is a cheap party trick; it can't be done without loss elsewhere but National refuse to tell us where that's gonna be from.

[Robert Taylor]

If you are labelled a fascist it also goes hand in hand that you are classed boring and ignorant, according to he who has all the answers and god help anyone who disagrees.
I dont recall being a fascist as I have helped a lot of people in my time for little or no recompense, I think that is more akin to a socialist virtue. I firmly believe in social justice, but not by the means espoused by the Labour people and those more leftward.
A month or so ago we had the official opening of our new business venture and one of the guests of honour was our local MP and Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven. A correct and proper thing to do. I was very forthright in telling Harry that I had never voted Labour in my life and would never do so, but that didnt stop us having a very lengthy and cordial conversation.
My point, you can disagree with someone without recourse to cheap and unsustantiated insults, bad manners and free flowing expletives. Nothing clever in that at all. As it happens we have all ends of the spectrum to blame for our decline, as Scott correctly points out. But I would accord the greater portion in our decline of standards more to the left leaning Governments, they always push for the more radical agendas.

[MattRSK]

Am I alone in this or do other people think M Cullen is sounding like a tired old broken record.

No. Not at all.

[idleidolidyll]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>serious?

still got any?

what size seat tube?

I LOVE the cantilever cruiser.

(I have a bunch of them myself, and my work commuter is a Diamond Back voyager)

I've got one left and it'll fit a guy from 175 to 185cm height of average proportions.
Seat tube is 27.2mm and the bike uses titanium dropouts and comes with a full set to make your bike into anything: track dropouts, singlespeed, deralliuer, hub gear, 26", 29". Vertical dropouts with a sliding mount system.

It's made in the factory used by some of those famous manufacturers of ti bikes. Not cheap though. I also have the ti "soft ride" MTB fork and ti components like bars, cranks, stems etc

PM me if you're really serious; you can have one for a test ride

[peasea]

No. Not at all.


Not at all, tic, not at all, tic, not all tic, not at all, tic

[idleidolidyll]

If you are labelled a fascist it also goes hand in hand that you are classed boring and ignorant, according to he who has all the answers and god help anyone who disagrees.

same boring whining: yawn

I dont recall being a fascist as I have helped a lot of people in my time for little or no recompense, I think that is more akin to a socialist virtue.

you don't seem to even understand what a fascist is. even franco, hitler and mussolini helped some people

I firmly believe in social justice, but not by the means espoused by the Labour people and those more leftward.

yes, we've seen your right wing view of social justice. It seems like you're keen on justice for all as long as it's all done your way without consideration of other cultures, religions or belief systems: totalitarianism again, a very fascist thing

A month or so ago we had the official opening of our new business venture and one of the guests of honour was our local MP and Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven. A correct and proper thing to do. I was very forthright in telling Harry that I had never voted Labour in my life and would never do so, but that didnt stop us having a very lengthy and cordial conversation.

yawn

My point, you can disagree with someone without recourse to cheap and unsustantiated insults, bad manners and free flowing expletives. Nothing clever in that at all.

nothing clever in people who act like pompous asses either but that's what we have to put up with. This is life, just because your conservative sensibilities are upset doesn't make anything your opposition says invalid; but that's what you suggest every time. Nothing clever in your use of ad hominem without naming names either; just cowardice

As it happens we have all ends of the spectrum to blame for our decline, as Scott correctly points out. But I would accord the greater portion in our decline of standards more to the left leaning Governments, they always push for the more radical agendas.

you'd be wrong then. the worst decline was under the odious Employment Contracts Act.
The real income of Kiwis was decimated and has never fully recovered

the label 'fascist' is assigned based on the supported policies and government actions advocated. You fit the bill particularly with your recent call for totalitarianism; that most fascist of all policies

[cindymay]

GST is a TAX ON THE POOR. oops, caps typo.

When all your money is spent every week just paying the bills, you cannot avoid GST on almost 100% of your income.

The wealthy get to avoid it with 'tax losses', savings, 'investments', family trusts and more.
As a high income earner (and obo my wife who also is) i am happy to pay my share to keep NZ society afloat.

some complain about the drain to Australia: blame National who drove wages down massively and thank Labour for getting at least some of that wage back with the ERA giving some power back to workers and unions.

tax cutting is a cheap party trick; it can't be done without loss elsewhere but National refuse to tell us where that's gonna be from.

I guess you are older than me (ECA reference) and therefore what do I know. Well I would like to live in NZ but am about to see the damage of 9 years of Labour destroy productivity and living standards - so like many others Au ls calling. When you can't afford to replace or run your mc just remember - this is NZ the way you want it.

[MattRSK]

I like New Zealand. I pay tax. Some things are more important than politics. Enjoy the moment your in.

[idleidolidyll]

I guess you are older than me (ECA reference) and therefore what do I know. Well I would like to live in NZ but am about to see the damage of 9 years of Labour destroy productivity and living standards - so like many others Au ls calling. When you can't afford to replace or run your mc just remember - this is NZ the way you want it.

i probably am older than you

did you live under the lunatic muldoon? i did

what about the disgusting shipley or any number of other national leaders who took more from NZ society for the rich than they allowed for the poor.

labour didn't destroy productivity; that's a silly myth

again, the ECA did more to ruin the wages and motivations of workers than anything labour has done

[Manxman]

what about the disgusting shipley or any number of other national leaders who took more from NZ society for the rich than they allowed for the poor.

...but didn't we get the America's Cup from this, viz Michael Fay who was the beneficiary (there's a Freudian slip if ever I heard one :yes:) on the sale of railways, scoring big, then subsidising much of the original AC campaign (which ultimately led to success in 95)???

Flippancy aside, what I'm reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand is that the Fourth Labour Govt weren't exactly lily white themselves when it came to the economy.


I like New Zealand. I pay tax. Some things are more important than politics. Enjoy the moment your in.

Actually, you're right - except, unfortunately, politics tends to influence much of 'the moment'.

[Brett]

I was tired of Cullen and the rest of the Loser party about the same time as they were first voted in.

[MisterD]

However, under Labour the economy has grown and the dole queue has shrunk. Could do better for sure but I've lived under antionals lies before. I know they're even worse.

Now please, don't try to blame the global issues on Labour: increasing fuel prices, increasing food prices, the finance collapses etc. Most or all of those are completely out of the hands of ANY NZ government.


You want to give them the credit for one, and no blame for the other? It's nothing to do with them that the country's up to it's eyeballs in personal debt, and the housing market's just gone pop?

They've been pissing the money they've robbed of us up the wall spectacularly, keeping inflation going despite the high interest rates killing our exporters, and now they've bought a friggin train set for 50% and the rest more than it was worth, that's going to be a millstone around the country's neck for decades to come.

Jesus! The board of whatever was so commercially incompetent that they couldn't even manage a simple negotiation with Toll, and now they think they can actually run a company? It beggars belief.

[MisterD]

what about the disgusting shipley or any number of other national leaders who took more from NZ society for the rich than they allowed for the poor.


Are you defining rich like Cullen does? Anyone earning over $60k?

[Robert Taylor]

you'd be wrong then. the worst decline was under the odious Employment Contracts Act.
The real income of Kiwis was decimated and has never fully recovered

the label 'fascist' is assigned based on the supported policies and government actions advocated. You fit the bill particularly with your recent call for totalitarianism; that most fascist of all policies

Thankyou, you have just emphatically proven the point I was trying to make. I take issue with the context that you use the word ''we''. I rather think on the evidence of the posts that your ( demonstrably )totally blinkered thinking is actually in the minority. You wont see it that way of course because everyone that is going to vote for National or Act is clearly a "'moron" in left field speak.
And I make no apology for a ( temporary ) call for totalitarianism, the political scene cannot become a whole lot more corrupt and self serving than it is now. It is perhaps a pipe dream to have ANY form of leadership free of corruption and a vision to do whats right for everyday folk. But were it possible a strong leader with absolute control and a conviction to put this country back on its feet would be wonderful, in doing so firmly expunging the ''world owes me a living mentality''.
I have respect for some of the viewpoints of politicians I would never ever consider voting for e.g some of the views of the late Rod Donald and Jim Andertons strong views against party pills /drugs in general. I dont swear, curse or yawn at such people because they largely have views different to mine. Maybe you should also try to be more accomodating to other peoples views. End.

[Shadows]

If you vote Labour you get what you deserve.

No... if you vote Labour then you get what I deserve.

[Toaster]

Yep, it's a no-brainer, isn't it? I'm also sick of social engineering, and the government's "when I want your opinion, I'll give it to you" attitude

Yep and big amen from the congregation for that mate!

(congregation is Toaster's multiple voices in his head)

[Toaster]

... Take a hard line and get the slackers out of bed in the morning. Some will say "where are the jobs?" but there are people sitting not too far from this keyboard who have average jobs/incomes and don't mind getting up in the morning to go do them. Jobs are out there, check the papers. In fact, I say work for the dole!

Well said!!

[Toaster]

Are you defining rich like Cullen does? Anyone earning over $60k?

Agreed.

$60k gross salary is bugger all nowdays and could hardly be considered the upper earning bracket. An average size family with a metropolitan rental or modest size mortgage on thier own home with that kind of income would seriously struggle to break even with all the hikes in prices.

There would be very few in my office floor earning less than $60k and many are struggling to afford their petrol/food/power bills with young families to support.

I personally find the strippers are getting really expensive dammit!!!!

[Shadows]

That is the unanswered question from National: How the fuck are you gonna pay for tax cuts? Which social services will lose out; education, health, law and order, aid to the poor?

Easy. Drop out of the Kyoto Protocol bullshit that the current bunch of fucktards lumbered us with and there'll be plenty to go around.

[Toaster]

Easy. Drop out of the Kyoto Protocol bullshit that the current bunch of fucktards lumbered us with and there'll be plenty to go around.

Exactly! And people forget the simple fact that tax cuts are either saved or spent - BOTH of which are indirectly taxed through GST on spending or RWT on savings. So the Govt always gets its cut and this way the money helps stimulate the economy efficiently.

[idleidolidyll]

...but didn't we get the America's Cup from this, viz Michael Fay who was the beneficiary (there's a Freudian slip if ever I heard one :yes:) on the sale of railways, scoring big, then subsidising much of the original AC campaign (which ultimately led to success in 95)???

Flippancy aside, what I'm reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand is that the Fourth Labour Govt weren't exactly lily white themselves when it came to the economy.



Actually, you're right - except, unfortunately, politics tends to influence much of 'the moment'.

yes, we did get Fay and Richwhite and the Amerika's cup. They sold the nations crown jewels to themselves for a pittance. The amerika's cup is a rich mans play thing and the only reason it gets the hype it does is because the same rich men own the media that hype it.

Yes, the 4th Labour Govt was a disaster. It was the right wing Labour Govt from hell and when Roger Douglas left and started the extreme right wing ACT party, it was clear to everyone that the party had been hijacked.
Lets hope that never happens again.
Chicago econoomics as introduced by Douglas have fucked nations up all over the world. Those policies saw almost 100 countries lose their assets to wealthy nations' companies for pocket money while at the same time losing their economies to multinationals.
National took over from the 4 Labour Govt and saw their opportunity to cement the odious policies by giving ultimate power to the corporations through the ECA and other policies.

The 4th Labour govt is a big reason I don't vote for Labour. We need something more socialist than the 'middle wing' labour just in case it decides to go fascist again as with Douglas.

[idleidolidyll]

Easy. Drop out of the Kyoto Protocol bullshit that the current bunch of fucktards lumbered us with and there'll be plenty to go around.

I see, shit in your own nest for a few dollars more.

That should be a National Party slogan.

[idleidolidyll]

You want to give them the credit for one, and no blame for the other? It's nothing to do with them that the country's up to it's eyeballs in personal debt, and the housing market's just gone pop?

They've been pissing the money they've robbed of us up the wall spectacularly, keeping inflation going despite the high interest rates killing our exporters, and now they've bought a friggin train set for 50% and the rest more than it was worth, that's going to be a millstone around the country's neck for decades to come.

Jesus! The board of whatever was so commercially incompetent that they couldn't even manage a simple negotiation with Toll, and now they think they can actually run a company? It beggars belief.

Kiwis have been mass debters since the late 60's. We were sucked into the capitalist consumer bullshit and continue to think we can spend our way to happiness without recourse. That's your fault, my fault and the fault of all the Kiwis who buy crap they don't need and submit to ass reaming by foreign lenders.

The housing collapse is partly cyclic but mainly a flow on from the collapse of the even heavier burden on the world of Yank borrowing systems. It aint the fault of Labour, National, the Greens, ACT or anyone else. They could do something to ameliorate it though; they could start to understand that a primary need for human beings is shelter and security and stop punishing us for wanting to have a home of our own instead of putting up with landlords who'll fleece us and kick us out when a buck cam be sniffed. Again, Chicago economics are greatly to blame.

The rail should not have been sold. Even National now accept that we should own rail and the price is the price in a capitalist system. In a few years or decades, another right wing party will engineer a way to sell the crown jewels again and shortchange us for the privilege.

Communication, transport, health, housing, water, energy: these are fundamental services that should never be left to market forces particularly if those are foreign market forces. The result is always us being screwed for the basics of life. Foreign owners don't give a rats arse for NZ society beyond the profit margins they see. Funding broadband so these same companies can fleece us for the asset we buy is insane: if they want it, let them build it.

[idleidolidyll]

Are you defining rich like Cullen does? Anyone earning over $60k?

No, my wife and i earn about double that amount each and we sure aint rich.

We are however, in a very small percentile of the income bracket. I'm happy to pay my taxes knowing that it helps those left wanting by free market capitalism.

That eats right wingers up I know; high earners supporting the left wing. The claim that socialists are lazy is facile.

[idleidolidyll]

Thankyou, you have just emphatically proven the point I was trying to make. I take issue with the context that you use the word ''we''. I rather think on the evidence of the posts that your ( demonstrably )totally blinkered thinking is actually in the minority. You wont see it that way of course because everyone that is going to vote for National or Act is clearly a "'moron" in left field speak.

Not at all. I know that most Kiwis think left even when they vote right; that's the politics of propaganda. Blinkered better describes you and your belief that your christian conservatism is good for everyone. That's arrogance of the highest order and a good reason to take power away from religion and from conservatism ( groups who think we should all be like them because they are the only ones with the 'word').
Unlike you I welcome diversity (conservatism rejects diversity in favour of laws that favour their own beliefs and forc3e others to obey. You've seen this in Robert Taylors calls for totalitarianism).
Multi cultural societies with a wide range of beliefs are more dynamic than mono cultures.

And I make no apology for a ( temporary ) call for totalitarianism,
(it wasn't temporary, your posts show you'd support totalitarianism any time it would place your supported people and policies at the top: that's what fascists do)

the political scene cannot become a whole lot more corrupt and self serving than it is now

(good grief!!! That's the most lame thing you've ever said!. Of course it could be more corrupt. NZ has been noted as one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. If we moved toward a Yank system we'd be more corrupt, if we moved toward a Zimbabwe system we'dbe more corrupt).

It is perhaps a pipe dream to have ANY form of leadership free of corruption and a vision to do whats right for everyday folk. But were it possible a strong leader with absolute control and a conviction to put this country back on its feet would be wonderful,

(there ya go advocating fascism again)
in doing so firmly expunging the ''world owes me a living mentality''.

(actually that attitude is something capitalists hold dear: they think we are their servants and that we owe them a living)

I have respect for some of the viewpoints of politicians I would never ever consider voting for e.g some of the views of the late Rod Donald and Jim Andertons strong views against party pills /drugs in general.

(that was a crock. Unless they also made alcohol and tobacco illegal; the worst drugs, they were hippocrates. Another typical conservative stance: "my drug is OK but yours is evil")

I dont swear, curse or yawn at such people because they largely have views different to mine. Maybe you should also try to be more accomodating to other peoples views. End.

so what? i do so BECAUSE it upsets you. prissy fascists who refuse to debate just because someone says fuck are hilarious and deserve winding up.

[idleidolidyll]

Agreed.

$60k gross salary is bugger all nowdays and could hardly be considered the upper earning bracket. An average size family with a metropolitan rental or modest size mortgage on thier own home with that kind of income would seriously struggle to break even with all the hikes in prices.

There would be very few in my office floor earning less than $60k and many are struggling to afford their petrol/food/power bills with young families to support.

I personally find the strippers are getting really expensive dammit!!!!

and yet the percentage of people earning over $60k is small. Listening to them whine about how poor they are while others earn $25k or suffer job closures and have to live on the dole makes me want to puke.

[Maki]

Unfortunately this is myth but not exposed as such by the chief thief. The low income people out there in real terms pay very little of the tax. Check out this link for the stats. Note that the proportions will have swung further since the date of these stats.


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1346231&postcount=17

A fraction of a small salary is always going to be small. Any idiot can see that. I find it morally reprehensible to tax people who are barely making enough to feed themselves and then giving them back some of it to buy votes. The lowest salaries should simply be tax free and people should not have to ask auntie Helen for part of THEIR money back.

[Maki]

and yet the percentage of people earning over $60k is small. Listening to them whine about how poor they are while others earn $25k or suffer job closures and have to live on the dole makes me want to puke.

Puke all you like. The people who make more than $60k are the ones this country afloat. You can kiss goodbye to the welfare state once you get rid of those people. There simply won't be any money left to pay for the benefits, health care, and of course aunty Helen's votes.

People get payed more than $60K for a reason. It's called getting an education and working hard. The more you punish people that work hard, the less people will feel inclined to do so.

There are some people in this country that earn more than $60K and don't deserve it. Most of them work in a place called the Beehive...

[Maki]

I came across this on the NZ Herald website:

http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/5/19/have-you-moved-new-zealand-how-do-you-it/?c_id=466

Mike B (Auckland Central)

"I get the idea that NZ leaders are very closed-minded. They have an opportunity to set NZ up as one of the worlds premium places to live, but cannot see past the issue of reducing tax rates. they are too small minded to see that if they reduce tax rates (like Singapore) then you get a lot of investment - and hence more taxes. It would not even take that much investment to makeup the lost taxes - after all, taxes from 2 million people is not much.

They just don't understand that a smaller slice of a bigger pie is more than a big slice of a small pie."

Cullen is fossilized in his thinking.

[MisterD]

What makes you think that this lot want investment? They've recently done everything they can to discourage it for short-term political gain with their intellectually challenged electors....Auckland airport? Trainset for $600M?

[Hitcher]

and yet the percentage of people earning over $60k is small. Listening to them whine about how poor they are while others earn $25k or suffer job closures and have to live on the dole makes me want to puke.

Even more reason to adopt my taxation system, where only net taxpayers get a vote. This is to stop governments and taxpayers being sodomised by the self-interest of a large and growing bunch of beneficiaries and state-sponsored bludgers. Under my system voters would also get allocated voting priviledges commensurate to their tax contributions. That would also have the benefit of significantly reducing tax avoidance.

[Robert Taylor]

so what? i do so BECAUSE it upsets you. prissy fascists who refuse to debate just because someone says fuck are hilarious and deserve winding up.

Where did I say anywhere that I was a Christian? You make too many assumptions that you feel comfortable with. For the record I only attend Christian institutions for hatced, matched and despatched ceremonies.
You know, what I really dislike are people with a smirk on their dial and he who personifies that most is Michael Cullen.
It is abundantly clear that you also enjoy winding people up with the rivers of filth that pour forth from your diatribes, thanks for acknowledging your little problem. Hilarious ( sorry I stole that )
Given that there is a ''right wing'' resurgence here and in other countries I guess thiws is what is to be expected.

[MisterD]

Kiwis have been mass debters since the late 60's. We were sucked into the capitalist consumer bullshit and continue to think we can spend our way to happiness without recourse. That's your fault, my fault and the fault of all the Kiwis who buy crap they don't need and submit to ass reaming by foreign lenders.

Don't look at me, I have no debt other than my mortgage, and 70% equity in my home.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Communication, transport, health, housing, water, energy: these are fundamental services that should never be left to market forces particularly if those are foreign market forces. The result is always us being screwed for the basics of life. Foreign owners don't give a rats arse for NZ society beyond the profit margins they see. Funding broadband so these same companies can fleece us for the asset we buy is insane: if they want it, let them build it.

Concur. 10 chars.

[Swoop]

the worst decline was under the odious Employment Contracts Act.
The real income of Kiwis was decimated and has never fully recovered
Yet the Looney Labourite Sect has had how many years to repeal or modify that ECA legislation, yet has done NOTHING?

I guess their backhanders from business, has guaranteed their complicity.

[Dilligaf]

No, my wife and i earn about double that amount each and we sure aint rich..


and yet the percentage of people earning over $60k is small. Listening to them whine about how poor they are while

Hummmmmmmmmmm....:blink:

[Hitcher]

Yet the Looney Labourite Sect has had how many years to repeal or modify that ECA legislation, yet has done NOTHING?

I guess their backhanders from business, has guaranteed their complicity.

Erm, one of the first things the Labour Government did in 1999 was to repeal the ECA and replace it with the Employment Relations Act.

[enigma51]

Yeah right :mad::mad: Like ACC for self-employed people...
:buggerd:

What because you work for yourself you should not get acc

COME ON RICHARD

[MSTRS]

What because you work for yourself you should not get acc

COME ON RICHARD

You what? Every NZer is entitled to ACC. Both for part of medical costs and for lost salary/wages. However, you obviously have never been self-employed and tried to claim ACC...

[enigma51]

If you all read the news paper you would realize that the labour goverment takes all the money from tax and put it back into the comunity where national is keeping it for themselves.


For example would national have bought back a asset like the rail system . NO

[enigma51]

You what? Every NZer is entitled to ACC. Both for part of medical costs and for lost salary/wages. However, you obviously have never been self-employed and tried to claim ACC...

I aware of that i forgot to put the "?" after my sentence

[Swoop]

Erm, one of the first things the Labour Government did in 1999 was to repeal the ECA and replace it with the Employment Relations Act.
Doh! I knew we still had some sort of legislation...


I'll go sit in the corner with the pointy hat on...

[MSTRS]

If you all read the news paper you would realize that the labour goverment takes all the money from tax and put it back into the comunity where national is keeping it for themselves.


For example would national have bought back a asset like the rail system . NO

I doubt there's many here that will want some of what you're smoking.
Did you bring that belief with you from Safaland?

[inlinefour]

Yep, it's a no-brainer, isn't it? I'm also sick of social engineering, and the government's "when I want your opinion, I'll give it to you" attitude

I thought it was "we are happy to hear your opinion and want to give you the opportunity to let us know. But really we don't give a toss and are going to dowhateverthefuckwewant"!!!

If anyone thinks that having one Govt over the other is likely to help the country, then your delusional. Same with with them all, make lots of noise about what they are going to do and what they are going to give. But at the end of the day they are more likely to take and screw things up. The whole time Ive been watching politics its the same. One govt is elected and its just a matter of time until the public has had a gutsfull of their incompitence and farck ups, then just elect the opposition to repeat the whole process again. I cannot be bothered voting again and see it just as a failed social experiment.

[Sanx]

If you've been paying attention you'd have seen me say many times that i don't vote Labour.

And you've consistently failed to say which party you do support, or even come up with a list of policies that you'd like to see enacted. As usual, you just dance around that question.


However, under Labour the economy has grown and the dole queue has shrunk. Could do better for sure but I've lived under antionals lies before. I know they're even worse.

Mainly thanks to a global economic boom, none of which had anything to do with Labour.



you don't seem to even understand what a fascist is. even franco, hitler and mussolini helped some people

the label 'fascist' is assigned based on the supported policies and government actions advocated. You fit the bill particularly with your recent call for totalitarianism; that most fascist of all policies

Well, looky here. III changes his tune. Not so long ago, you claimed that my understanding of the word 'fascist' was incorrect, despite the fact thatevery dictionary agreed with me. That, according to you, was a conspiracy by te right-wing coorporations who owned the publishing houses who wrote the dictionaries. Now, your tune has changed a bit.

But totaliarianism historically has been practiced by extreme policitcal movements on both sides of the spectrum. It's not a policy favoured only by fascists. Or wasn't Russia under Stalin a totalitarian state, and aren't China, Burma and Cuba still totalitarian? Fascist does not equal totalitarianism. Just the same as right-wing doesn't equal christian. Or left-wing doesn't necessarily equal complete fucking idiot.


The 4th Labour govt is a big reason I don't vote for Labour. We need something more socialist than the 'middle wing' labour just in case it decides to go fascist again as with Douglas.

We need something more socialist than Labour like we need a hole in the head. Or you need encouragement to come out and put forth your modest liberal views...

[enigma51]

I doubt there's many here that will want some of what you're smoking.
Did you bring that belief with you from Safaland?

Nope there we just shoot the dumb fuckers and put the others in chains :Police:

Any one see the news last night about j'burg fucking mint!

[inlinefour]

You what? Every NZer is entitled to ACC. Both for part of medical costs and for lost salary/wages. However, you obviously have never been self-employed and tried to claim ACC...

Only for accidents, if your disability is a result of a medical issue(s) then you will be getting nothing at all. I talked to a few in burwood spinal unit in the same boat up shit creek, with no paddle and a bad leak in the hull. ACC is an interesting organisation if you take the time to try to understand it. Ive studied the legislation they work on and its both confusing and makes the organisation work in some really unusual way. They are independant from the govt Ive been lead to believe and the preformers bitching about ACC are usually the ones who are not entitled. Its not ideally set up for some but excellent for many like me or the individuals who are far worse. Before my accident I had never been given anything for free and worked hard for what I had. The thing I appreciate about ACC is they clearly explain who and why the entitlements work for and exactly where "the line in the sand" is when entitlement stops. I know my situation is different than others, but even when I had a month and a half on ACC because a twat smashed me off my bike, ACC still looked after me extremely well and payed for all of my bills related to the accident. ACC is much like the govt really, working for some, but an utter frustration for many. If anyone wants full entitlement from ACC I'm happy to swap bodies, the true problem in there are many out there that want to live off ACC handouts. Its ruined it for the ones who honestly need the help. I was told that I'm the first client to decline a new cellphone and laptop from ACC. I did that because I allready had both. I also saw a few others get them then hock them off, then wonder/complain when ACC was not so forth coming the next time they needed something. If it was not for ACC I would be dead, its something that I will allways appreciate and never abuse.:niceone:

[Manxman]

The whole time Ive been watching politics its the same. One govt is elected and its just a matter of time until the public has had a gutsfull of their incompitence and farck ups, then just elect the opposition to repeat the whole process again

Dead right dude...

[SPman]

Are you defining rich like Cullen does? Anyone earning over $60k?
The average wage in Aus is now $58,250! Rich is now, defacto,a family income of over $150K or individual over $100K - but pensioners still get $238/week!!
Trainset for $600M? I'm just pissed off they had to buy back, something that should never have been hocked off, to start with!
Never mind though, National will find some mates to flog it off to at mates rates!

[Robert Taylor]

Yet the Looney Labourite Sect has had how many years to repeal or modify that ECA legislation, yet has done NOTHING?

I guess their backhanders from business, has guaranteed their complicity.

And they have done precious little to sort out our capacity to generate electricity so that we dont suffer shortages.

[Robert Taylor]

The average wage in Aus is now $58,250! Rich is now, defacto,a family income of over $150K or individual over $100K - but pensioners still get $238/week!! I'm just pissed off they had to buy back, something that should never have been hocked off, to start with!
Never mind though, National will find some mates to flog it off to at mates rates!

But now that they have Kevin Ruddiculous aka ''The Milky Bar Kid'' running the show over there they will stuff it up over time, mark my words.Hes got the same basic mentality as the Labour people here.

[Robert Taylor]

By the way, if all the posts today have not been in agreeance with a prolific contributor to these political threads expect a lecture akin to a teacher telling off some naughty children. Shame on anyone who doesnt agree!

[Manxman]

I came across this on the NZ Herald website:

http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/5/19/have-you-moved-new-zealand-how-do-you-it/?c_id=466

Mike B (Auckland Central)

"I get the idea that NZ leaders are very closed-minded. They have an opportunity to set NZ up as one of the worlds premium places to live, but cannot see past the issue of reducing tax rates. they are too small minded to see that if they reduce tax rates (like Singapore) then you get a lot of investment - and hence more taxes. It would not even take that much investment to makeup the lost taxes - after all, taxes from 2 million people is not much.

They just don't understand that a smaller slice of a bigger pie is more than a big slice of a small pie."

Cullen is fossilized in his thinking.

Yup, it's called the Laffer Curve...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve. Most lay people would recognise it by the term: Low margin, high volume (a la Pak 'N Save).

[Swoop]

But now that they have Kevin Ruddiculous aka ''The Milky Bar Kid'' running the show over there they will stuff it up over time, mark my words.Hes got the same basic mentality as the Labour people here.
Most definately. Signing up to the Kyoto Taxation scheme was the first bad move.

[cindymay]

If you all read the news paper you would realize that the labour goverment takes all the money from tax and put it back into the comunity where national is keeping it for themselves.


For example would national have bought back a asset like the rail system . NO
Yes Labour puts my money back into the community where it is wasted, after they have feathered their own nests and popular little projects. How does National keep it for themselves - unless you mean they let me keep my own money and I can decide how to spend it.

[Dafe]

Just because I'm bored........

28,000 New Zealanders emigrated to Australia last year.
If %70 were working NZ taxpayers at an average pay of $40K annual.

I estimate we have around 260 million dollars in paid taxes walking out the door to Australia, annually.

$260,000,000.00 - Why don't the government care???

[blossomsowner]

Only for accidents, if your disability is a result of a medical issue(s) then you will be getting nothing at all. I talked to a few in burwood spinal unit in the same boat up shit creek, with no paddle and a bad leak in the hull. ACC is an interesting organisation if you take the time to try to understand it. Ive studied the legislation they work on and its both confusing and makes the organisation work in some really unusual way. They are independant from the govt Ive been lead to believe and the preformers bitching about ACC are usually the ones who are not entitled. Its not ideally set up for some but excellent for many like me or the individuals who are far worse. Before my accident I had never been given anything for free and worked hard for what I had. The thing I appreciate about ACC is they clearly explain who and why the entitlements work for and exactly where "the line in the sand" is when entitlement stops. I know my situation is different than others, but even when I had a month and a half on ACC because a twat smashed me off my bike, ACC still looked after me extremely well and payed for all of my bills related to the accident. ACC is much like the govt really, working for some, but an utter frustration for many. If anyone wants full entitlement from ACC I'm happy to swap bodies, the true problem in there are many out there that want to live off ACC handouts. Its ruined it for the ones who honestly need the help. I was told that I'm the first client to decline a new cellphone and laptop from ACC. I did that because I allready had both. I also saw a few others get them then hock them off, then wonder/complain when ACC was not so forth coming the next time they needed something. If it was not for ACC I would be dead, its something that I will allways appreciate and never abuse.:niceone:



good on you........great to see someone speaking honestly and demonstrating some personal integrity instead of just trying to bleed the system dry. we can only hope some of your attitude will have a positive efffect on others.

[fridayflash]

heard d/s graeme bell yestday on radio nz,liken cullen to a terminally ill patient
running around with a credit card

[blossomsowner]

seems to me one of the problems nz has is the amount of people doing unproductive jobs. In my mind these are mainly suit wearing types that put obstacles in the way of individuals and businesses. There are whole industries of red tape and bullshit that produce nothing but headaches for people trying to earn a living. Think osh, local councils, main government, kyoto crap, regional authorities.
yes they do some good but far more problems are caused.
And businesses suffer, 4 weeks annual leave, and now the kiwisaver crap. Sure its good for the employees but makes it very hard to run a decent profit margin. Then prices go up (aren't we seeing this already)
costs 20% more to build a house now, and most of this is compliance cost related.

lets cut the red tape out.........buyer beware
lets get rid of osh.........take personal responsibility for your own welfare

must stop now


starting to get excited......................

[Toaster]

and yet the percentage of people earning over $60k is small. Listening to them whine about how poor they are while others earn $25k or suffer job closures and have to live on the dole makes me want to puke.

Try income $60k with rent of $500 a week plus 4 kids and call yourself "rich". I'd say anyone in a position similar to that would be fair to grizzle that they are struggling in the current economic environment.

Dont forget many many people who own a business or three only disclose income of $60k for tax purposes. Tax paid company distributions are not included and they actually earn a far greater sum. Some the "small" percentage you are trying to refer to is not an accurate number at all.

In fact I can think of several wealthy people who are entitled to benefits and/or pay no or little tax at all because they as individuals effectively own nothing and are unemployed despite having tremenous wealth in trusts derived from successful business ventures.... statistics are not all what they seem.

Now about a bucket for you to go puke in....... I'll sell you a plastic warehouse one for $50.

[Tumbles]

What shits me is tht Working for families has basically created an inequality where I pay more tax because I am single and don't want to get married / create screaming shit producers. As a single, white, male, earning +$63,000 I am sick and tired of supporting Samoan familes with 12 kids.

[MSTRS]

Only for accidents, ...etc...

You have been treated very well by ACC. In fact, this is the way that it is supposed to work. There would be no problem if this was how it always is/was for the injured.
However, for self-employed people, it seldom works like your experience. Just look at Shaun's situation. Which would be very typical of the self-employed.
See the difference?

[enigma51]

Yes Labour puts my money back into the community where it is wasted, after they have feathered their own nests and popular little projects. How does National keep it for themselves - unless you mean they let me keep my own money and I can decide how to spend it.

Your selfish for wanting to keep your money for yourself. sis on you!

[Robert Taylor]

seems to me one of the problems nz has is the amount of people doing unproductive jobs. In my mind these are mainly suit wearing types that put obstacles in the way of individuals and businesses. There are whole industries of red tape and bullshit that produce nothing but headaches for people trying to earn a living. Think osh, local councils, main government, kyoto crap, regional authorities.
yes they do some good but far more problems are caused.
And businesses suffer, 4 weeks annual leave, and now the kiwisaver crap. Sure its good for the employees but makes it very hard to run a decent profit margin. Then prices go up (aren't we seeing this already)
costs 20% more to build a house now, and most of this is compliance cost related.

lets cut the red tape out.........buyer beware
lets get rid of osh.........take personal responsibility for your own welfare

must stop now


starting to get excited......................

Youve hit the proverbial nail on the head but for everyone that realises the cold hard reality there are an equal number oblivious to it. Thats sad.

[inlinefour]

You have been treated very well by ACC. In fact, this is the way that it is supposed to work. There would be no problem if this was how it always is/was for the injured.
However, for self-employed people, it seldom works like your experience. Just look at Shaun's situation. Which would be very typical of the self-employed.
See the difference?

The way that ACC works for the self employed can be easily researched and although I agree that its not fair, its all there in black and white. If I was self employed, as I might have been had I completed my masters then I would have made sure I had my own insurance cover because of the problems with ACC. I feel for all those who have been treated less than fairly by ACC, but with any private venture it really pays to do your homework and not hope for the best.

[Whynot]

What shits me is tht Working for families has basically created an inequality where I pay more tax because I am single and don't want to get married / create screaming shit producers. As a single, white, male, earning +$63,000 I am sick and tired of supporting Samoan familes with 12 kids.

here's a solution for ya ....

solution (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=74221)

[Pixie]

Am I alone in this or do other people think M Cullen is sounding like a tired old broken record. "If we give you tax cuts it's just going to mean cutting down government services".

The fact is that in most countries that have offered tax cuts that reward people for working more and increasing productivity have actually seen more money coming in to the government, not less.

Is it so hard to see that a tax policy that stifles, and punishes people for working is actually going to bring less money in than a tax policy that rewards work. If you work more you get slammed with at least a double whammy, you lose "working for families" assistance and you get placed in a higher tax bracket. You may also lose other benefits because of your "high income".

How about a fair tax policy that does not punish people for producing wealth that can go into health care, roads and education.

I also want to see families taxed as a unit so that families where one of the partners decides to forgo payed work to care for children is not slammed into the highest tax bracket at an absurdly low income level if taking care of a whole family is taken into account. It's only fair, but will auntie Helen have a bar of it? No, apparently it does not buy her enough votes...

When pension time come a married couple gets less pension than individuals do. When people are working the fact that one of the partners may be the families sole support is conveniently ignored.

1.Socialist scum hate "Rich Pricks"

2. people on the bones of their arses vote labour

[MSTRS]

The way that ACC works for the self employed can be easily researched and although I agree that its not fair, its all there in black and white. If I was self employed, as I might have been had I completed my masters then I would have made sure I had my own insurance cover because of the problems with ACC. I feel for all those who have been treated less than fairly by ACC, but with any private venture it really pays to do your homework and not hope for the best.

But you don't seem to realise though, is that we self-employed still pay ACC levies regardless of whether we cover ourselves privately. What's fair about that?
Well covered in an older thread about ACC.

[cindymay]

Just because I'm bored........

28,000 New Zealanders emigrated to Australia last year.
If %70 were working NZ taxpayers at an average pay of $40K annual.

I estimate we have around 260 million dollars in paid taxes walking out the door to Australia, annually.

$260,000,000.00 - Why don't the government care???
The government doesn't care because the migration is mainly those who are not labour voters - how many beneficiaries leave for Australia?


But you don't seem to realise though, is that we self-employed still pay ACC levies regardless of whether we cover ourselves privately. What's fair about that?
Well covered in an older thread about ACC.
I pay heaps in ACC as a self employed person - when in NZ. I also carry insurance and don't rely on the State.

[enigma51]

Dont you guys love the new budget.
If your a family with 2 kids and earn $64000 a year then you will have an extra $46 EVERY week Wooo hooo

Go Labour

[Swoop]

It is an absolute joke. What is there to like.

[idleidolidyll]

A fraction of a small salary is always going to be small. Any idiot can see that. I find it morally reprehensible to tax people who are barely making enough to feed themselves and then giving them back some of it to buy votes.

So ya want it both ways? you want lower taxes but you complain when they deliver.

The lowest salaries should simply be tax free and people should not have to ask auntie Helen for part of THEIR money back.

the lowest incomes ARE tax free...............except for GST and that's a crime.

i'm happy to give them my tax cuts.

[Marmoot]

Dont you guys love the new budget.
If your a family with 2 kids and earn $64000 a year then you will have an extra $46 EVERY week Wooo hooo

Go Labour

All I can hear from this Government is "after years of overtaxing y'all, we can now give a little bit back. Well, NOT NOW, but LATER. In a few months time. And more if you get us reelected, so vote Labour. Btw, I hope y'all survive the increasing prices until the money gets to you.".

Frankly speaking, I don't like having carrot waived in front of my nose and being forced to say thank you. :angry2:


And you know who's really happy? The retailers. They'd all be saying "Dagnamit! They all have extra money to spend. Let's raise our prices!"

[idleidolidyll]

Ahh the shallow thinkers are so funny!

The tax cuts are said to cost us 10 billion dollars and you dipshits want more?

Those tax cuts the National wankers promised were in the order of $50-70; that's 40-50 BILLION dollars.

Where will that money come from little minds?

No doubt the next complaint you'll have is that education, health, infrastructure etc are underfunded........................fuckwits

For my part I'm disappointed in the tax cuts, they were too big and didn't help the poor enough by giving with one hand and taking with the other. You sheeple are such suckers

[Manxman]

Ahh the shallow thinkers are so funny!

The tax cuts are said to cost us 10 billion dollars and you dipshits want more?

Those tax cuts the National wankers promised were in the order of $50-70; that's 40-50 BILLION dollars.

Where will that money come from little minds?

No doubt the next complaint you'll have is that education, health, infrastructure etc are underfunded........................fuckwits

For my part I'm disappointed in the tax cuts, they were too big and didn't help the poor enough by giving with one hand and taking with the other. You sheeple are such suckers

Mate, why do you always seem to attack the person, not the argument???

One person's view is just as valid as yours, but you continue to 'ad hominem' as if there is no tomorrow?

Just curious.

[James Deuce]

Mate, why do you always seem to attack the person, not the argument???

One person's view is just as valid as yours, but you continue to 'ad hominem' as if there is no tomorrow?

Just curious.
Don't even go there.

He only logs in to to bear witness to his intellectual genius and mock anyone who doesn't reach his lofty standards of existentialist masturbation.

[Manxman]

Don't even go there.

He only logs in to to bear witness to his intellectual genius and mock anyone who doesn't reach his lofty standards of existentialist masturbation.

Thanks Jim2, pretty much confirmed what I was thinking...:niceone:

Sad really.

PS, you've made an assumption here that he has intellectual genius. That, my friend, is a matter of opinion.:clap:

[geoffm]

Ahh the shallow thinkers are so funny!

The tax cuts are said to cost us 10 billion dollars and you dipshits want more?

Those tax cuts the National wankers promised were in the order of $50-70; that's 40-50 BILLION dollars.

Where will that money come from little minds?

No doubt the next complaint you'll have is that education, health, infrastructure etc are underfunded........................fuckwits

For my part I'm disappointed in the tax cuts, they were too big and didn't help the poor enough by giving with one hand and taking with the other. You sheeple are such suckers

50 Billion? I think you have a few orders of magnitude out here. Let us say that there is 2 million tax payers in NZ, and we will assume that public servants are taxpayers as are WFF beneficiaries. They are not net taxpayers, but for the purposes...
at $50 each, that is $100 million. Not even 10% of Cullens new train set.
Now given that the GST rise on petrol, due to rising prices has reclaimed at least $20 per week for most people, not to mention the increased tax take on everything else due to inflation, it is no where anywhere near that much.
I bet I could find those savings - dump the humans righs commission, waitangi tribunal, families commission, minsitry of womens affairs, ministry of racing, around 200 spin doctors from helen's office for starters.

[Hinny]

50 Billion? I think you have a few orders of magnitude out here. Let us say that there is 2 million tax payers in NZ,
at $50 each, that is $100 million. Not even 10% of Cullens new train set.

That's 100 million a week
times 52
equals 5.2 Billion.

re: Cullen's new train set.
There is a reasonable amount of public support for the re-nationalisation of rail, mainly based on the premise that a strong railway will take freight off the roads.
Was/is it a good deal?
Dealing with Aussies in business is always tough. Maybe something to do with their heritage.

Railways cost 665million. (2008) dollars
sold 328million (1993) dollars NPV say (1,148million)

Other things to consider:
2002 the track infrastructure was sold back to the Crown for $1.
Ontrack, a division of the New Zealand Railways Corporation that owns and manages the rail network on behalf of the Crown now values the track at $10,648 million.
If the sale price reflected current share values say $A7.62 at April 18 This share value is nearly half what they were worth last June.$A14.36 on June 14
12.5% increase in share price day after announcement.
The question has been asked; Why do our politicians continue to offer fantastic deals to overseas investors while treating domestic companies and investors with near contempt?
Could it have something to do with the advisors they employ? Do we really disregard NZ investors.
October 28, 1990, when the core rail business of the old New Zealand Railways Corporation was transferred into the new limited liability company, New Zealand Rail Limited. As part of this process the Crown wrote off $1087 million of debt and injected $360 million of equity.The new company was created with no debt because its directors and investment bank Fay, Richwhite, the company's main financial advisers, believed NZ Rail had a better future with minimal gearing.
Bankers Trust, adviser to the Treasury, was concerned a suitable buyer wouldn't be found. But Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite spotted a chance to repeat their windfall Telecom profit, with Wisconsin Central they offered $328 million which was accepted. The consortium contributing only $105 million of equity. In June 1995, Tranz Rail made a capital repayment of $100 million that reduced the equity contribution of the original investors to just $16 million
I would say that was looking after NZ investors pretty well.
Could be why they live offshore now also.

[Hinny]

The GST rise on petrol, due to rising prices has reclaimed at least $20 per week for most people

Let's do the maths.
$20
times 9
equals $180

I don't think 'for most people' their spending on petrol has gone up $180 a week.

[Hinny]

With the outrageous price of fuel now I think my fuel bill will go up $180 this week with going to the Busta Gut.
Thanks to George Bush,his bunch of Neocons and their war profits.
Screw the world though superior fire power.
Interesting that both Clinton and Obama have talked about taxing these profiteers on their war profits. Will either of them get the chance?

[Swoop]

There is a reasonable amount of public support for the re-nationalisation of rail, mainly based on the premise that a strong railway will take freight off the roads.
It is a nice idea, but I can't see it happening.
When a gubbinment runs something, the overheads are astronomical.

Just think of the costs that will be needed to hire Turangi Lodge for NZ Snailways...

[Hinny]

When a gubbinment runs something, the overheads are astronomical.


And the evidence to support this proposition is?

[forkoil]

And the evidence to support this proposition is?
1) NZ Rail prior to sale - got a few parts for my old Norton Commando machined by a mate in the Railway Workshops in Petone, so I'm guilty of complicity. ;)

[Hinny]

1) NZ Rail prior to sale - got a few parts for my old Norton Commando machined by a mate in the Railway Workshops in Petone, so I'm guilty of complicity. ;)
On site training. Just like the flyboys fanging around in their hairy buzzers. You can't be any good without practice.
Another benefit to the taxpayers of this country. Imagine it being privately owned. They would have charged you and the profits would have gone offshore. Not a good outcome for you and not for the country as a whole.
Don't beat yourself up. You did a good thing.

[idleidolidyll]

Mate, why do you always seem to attack the person, not the argument???

One person's view is just as valid as yours, but you continue to 'ad hominem' as if there is no tomorrow?

Just curious.

perhaps its because the concepts are so simple yet the dimwits persist in ignoring the obvious.

money doesn't come from nowhere, who's gonna lose out if national rapes the purse of $50,000,000,000 to pay for tax cuts?

That's right, the poor, the underprivileged, the ordinary Kiwi who'll see everything else sold or shortchanged.

Those who will benefit will be the usual national buddy suspects: foreign businesses, the very rich, themselves, their mates.

Rape NZ! Elect National!

[idleidolidyll]

50 Billion? I think you have a few orders of magnitude out here.

Nope, Labour has STATED that the tax cuts will cost about $10,000,000,000 over 3 years. National promised tax cuts up to 5x larger.

It aint rocket science.

So tell me, where is that 50 billion coming from?

Sure makes the 1 billion to settle Treaty claims look miniscule..................

[idleidolidyll]

Don't even go there.

He only logs in to to bear witness to his intellectual genius and mock anyone who doesn't reach his lofty standards of existentialist masturbation.

i'd have thought a post with no topical content, only a blatant personal attack, was masturbation

perhaps you think it's a valid argument

perhaps you don't have what it takes to debate

[idleidolidyll]

Thanks Jim2, pretty much confirmed what I was thinking...:niceone:

Sad really.

PS, you've made an assumption here that he has intellectual genius. That, my friend, is a matter of opinion.:clap:

yeah, it takes WAY more intelligence to ignore the topic completely, ignore the points raised and argument offered and merely post a pure personal attack

ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO!

[idleidolidyll]

50 Billion? I think you have a few orders of magnitude out here. Let us say that there is 2 million tax payers in NZ, and we will assume that public servants are taxpayers as are WFF beneficiaries. They are not net taxpayers, but for the purposes...
at $50 each, that is $100 million. Not even 10% of Cullens new train set.
Now given that the GST rise on petrol, due to rising prices has reclaimed at least $20 per week for most people, not to mention the increased tax take on everything else due to inflation, it is no where anywhere near that much.
I bet I could find those savings - dump the humans righs commission, waitangi tribunal, families commission, minsitry of womens affairs, ministry of racing, around 200 spin doctors from helen's office for starters.

thanks for at least trying

now given that the 'tiny' Labour tax cuts are gonna cost 10 billion and the much larger National cuts would cost 5x as much; please go back and find another 49.9 billion dollars

remember, if there's a carrot dangling in front of you; there's probably a stick somewhere behind

[Robert Taylor]

perhaps its because the concepts are so simple yet the dimwits persist in ignoring the obvious.

money doesn't come from nowhere, who's gonna lose out if national rapes the purse of $50,000,000,000 to pay for tax cuts?

That's right, the poor, the underprivileged, the ordinary Kiwi who'll see everything else sold or shortchanged.

Those who will benefit will be the usual national buddy suspects: foreign businesses, the very rich, themselves, their mates.

Rape NZ! Elect National!

The obvious is that the Labour Government and their looney mates have deliberately over time perpetuated dependency and a perverse money go round that has a sizable amount squandered in admin costs. MUCH lower taxes and a sizable reduction in the civil service might actually create REAL and productive employment.
But I wouldnt know as Im just another tory dimwit who dares to express a viewpoint that is different to yours, and by your definition incorrect.
Feel free to respond with a foul mouthed diatribe if that smokes your tyres.

[idleidolidyll]

With the outrageous price of fuel now I think my fuel bill will go up $180 this week with going to the Busta Gut.
Thanks to George Bush,his bunch of Neocons and their war profits.
Screw the world though superior fire power.
Interesting that both Clinton and Obama have talked about taxing these profiteers on their war profits. Will either of them get the chance?

Well said; much of the problem with the world economy lies squarely at the feet of the terrorist US Govt and its wars of aggression and greed (blood money)

[idleidolidyll]

The obvious is that the Labour Government and their looney mates have deliberately over time perpetuated dependency and a perverse money go round that has a sizable amount squandered in admin costs. MUCH lower taxes and a sizable reduction in the civil service might actually create REAL and productive employment.
But I wouldnt know as Im just another tory dimwit who dares to express a viewpoint that is different to yours, and by your definition incorrect.
Feel free to respond with a foul mouthed diatribe if that smokes your tyres.

I'm sorry, looney conspiracy theories are just plain hilarious.

Don't look over your shoulder, Helen's watching...............(X Files conspiracy music plays quietly as I leave)

[Robert Taylor]

I'm sorry, looney conspiracy theories are just plain hilarious.

Don't look over your shoulder, Helen's watching...............(X Files conspiracy music plays quietly as I leave)

Well at least youve learnt something, less expletives and aggression in your posts......................

[James Deuce]

i'd have thought a post with no topical content, only a blatant personal attack, was masturbation

perhaps you think it's a valid argument

perhaps you don't have what it takes to debate

I haven't seen you debate yet, nor have I seen you "argue" in a manner that is informative, thought provoking, nor a personal attack in response to one of you "victims" shrugging their shoulders and rolling their eyes.

Have you not heard? "Middle" NZ has had quite enough of being told they're thick by intellectuals with a socialist or post-revolutionary bent.

[James Deuce]

yeah, it takes WAY more intelligence to ignore the topic completely, ignore the points raised and argument offered and merely post a pure personal attack

ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO! ROTFLMFAO!

I say, you seem to have a good grip on Parliamentary debating techniques. Are you sure you're not on the Labour or Green list?

[idleidolidyll]

Well at least youve learnt something, less expletives and aggression in your posts......................

aggression?

i'm never aggressive and besides; who gives a flying fuck? do words on a computer screen really hurt that badly?

[James Deuce]

perhaps its because the concepts are so simple yet the dimwits persist in ignoring the obvious.

money doesn't come from nowhere, who's gonna lose out if national rapes the purse of $50,000,000,000 to pay for tax cuts?

That's right, the poor, the underprivileged, the ordinary Kiwi who'll see everything else sold or shortchanged.

Those who will benefit will be the usual national buddy suspects: foreign businesses, the very rich, themselves, their mates.

Rape NZ! Elect National!

Political parties aren't elected to "power" in NZ, the incumbent merely loses the confidence of the those stupid voters you look down your nose at.

Rather than ranting at us thickies, how about establishing an education programme on how proportional voting systems can be used to the advantage of the voter? I know it isn't STV, but similar practices to those used by the major political elements of Germany might actually give us a shot at electing a government that isn't so desperate for supporting votes to shore up their policy that they have to make deals with the lunatic fringe.

[idleidolidyll]

I say, you seem to have a good grip on Parliamentary debating techniques. Are you sure you're not on the Labour or Green list?

no jimmy, that was what YOu were doing: totally ignoring the topic in favour of pure personal attack

it really handed me the point on a platter; thanks

[James Deuce]

One rather wonders just whose point is being made evident.

I'm not a smart man.

[Flatcap]

money doesn't come from nowhere, who's gonna lose out if national rapes the purse of $50,000,000,000 to pay for tax cuts?

That's right, the poor, the underprivileged, the ordinary Kiwi who'll see everything else sold or shortchanged.

Those who will benefit will be the usual national buddy suspects: foreign businesses, the very rich, themselves, their mates.


You say that like it's a bad thing...'bout time I got to keep more of my money

[idleidolidyll]

Political parties aren't elected to "power" in NZ, the incumbent merely loses the confidence of the those stupid voters you look down your nose at.

Rather than ranting at us thickies, how about establishing an education programme on how proportional voting systems can be used to the advantage of the voter? I know it isn't STV, but similar practices to those used by the major political elements of Germany might actually give us a shot at electing a government that isn't so desperate for supporting votes to shore up their policy that they have to make deals with the lunatic fringe.

such a cycnic, isn't it time you crossed the ditch?

but yes, labour has just been in power too long; the kiwi govt malaise.
although it has shortened the dole queue, increased trade and business, started a superannuation program, started a NZ bank, improved health and other services etc, voters are more interested in the latest scaremongering and propaganda than the facts
NZ politics is similar to yank politics; propaganda and media beat ups are more relevant to most people than actual actions, policies and the effects of policy.

neither of the major parties really want to educate us about politics; we'd then just realise that both are selling us out to foreign interests (albeit slower in the case of the current labour govt).

I don't know that you're a 'thickie' but if you self label I'd say catch 22 applies.

Are you really asking ME to set up a political education programme? Sorry, I'm just an ordinary working Joe, I do my bit on web sites and in person. Why don't you do it?

Agreed though, a proportional rep system more like Germany might help but only a fool would believe that would solve all or even many of our problems. The scary thing is that disaffected voters might make the ultimate cock up and reinstate the system of electoral dictatorship we had before MMP. National will be pressing them to do just that the next time it holds power.

As hated as it might be in political circles here; i support binding referenda

I reckon some issues are just too socially sensitive to allow MP's to decide on our behalf.

[idleidolidyll]

One rather wonders just whose point is being made evident.

I'm not a smart man.

one need not wonder at all, one need only read and comprehend the logic

there's that catch 22 again

[idleidolidyll]

You say that like it's a bad thing...'bout time I got to keep more of my money

those others who bleed the working classes agree with you

those leeches on society who profit from the sweat of other men and women really do believe they are somehow more deserving than all those they stand on as they reach for the pricze................maybe it's time for a revolution?

[Swoop]

And the evidence to support this proposition is?
History. Those who haven't learnt from it are doomed to repeat it... Obviously liebour think it is good enough to have another dose of "learning".

Nope, Labour has STATED that the tax cuts will cost about $10,000,000,000 over 3 years.
Labour told us that the country had a massive surplus. THEN they turn around and "oops, we're actually not as well of as first thought".
Lastly it is "oh dear, a massive surplus - treasury got it wrong - not us!"

I wouldn't trust liebour to count the change in my pocket, let alone come up with any reliable figures. Ten billion is a nice round figure, don't you think? Another guess without any backup. Sound's similar to some posts really...

[Flatcap]

but yes, labour has just been in power too long; the kiwi govt malaise.
although it has shortened the dole queue, increased trade and business, started a superannuation program, started a NZ bank, improved health and other services etc,.

Yes you are correct - the dole queue is shorter as everyone has been moved onto some other benefit.

Increased trade and business? Happened in spite of Labour policy

Started an NZ bank? It's still losing money

Improved health? Junior doctors wouldn't agree

As you say, Labour has been in power too long, and now that they can now longer run the economy on autopilot, we need to get rid of them before they totally stuff it

[Flatcap]

those others who bleed the working classes agree with you

those leeches on society who profit from the sweat of other men and women really do believe they are somehow more deserving than all those they stand on as they reach for the pricze................maybe it's time for a revolution?



That's capitalism - without the capitalist there would be no work for the working class.....the alternative is communism, and we all know that doesn't work

[idleidolidyll]

History. Those who haven't learnt from it are doomed to repeat it... Obviously liebour think it is good enough to have another dose of "learning".

Labour told us that the country had a massive surplus. THEN they turn around and "oops, we're actually not as well of as first thought".
Lastly it is "oh dear, a massive surplus - treasury got it wrong - not us!"

I wouldn't trust liebour to count the change in my pocket, let alone come up with any reliable figures. Ten billion is a nice round figure, don't you think? Another guess without any backup. Sound's similar to some posts really...

pay attention son

the bureaucracy doesn't change when the government changes (well most of it anyway).
the same bullshit happens under national and the main difference is that national policy is to permanently destroy social spending in order to hand society to its mates on a platter........just like their arse buddies amerikkka.

cynicism is good, blind or willful ignorance is not

Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations.
-- Andrew Jackson, farewell address, 04 March 1837


It's already happened in yankland and it's happening here too, National will make it happen faster on the back of bribes like tax cuts

[idleidolidyll]

That's capitalism - without the capitalist there would be no work for the working class.....the alternative is communism, and we all know that doesn't work

yawn

opinions are like arseholes, we all have em

you seem in desperate need of a good reading: i suggest you start with Karl Marx and Adam Smith

These two people are almost universally noted as the fathers of each system

[Flatcap]

the same bullshit happens under national and the main difference is that national policy is to permanently destroy social spending in order to hand society to its mates on a platter........just like their arse buddies amerikkka.


How does one permanently destroy social spending?

[Flatcap]

yawn

opinions are like arseholes, we all have em

you seem in desperate need of a good reading: i suggest you start with Karl Marx and Adam Smith

These two people are almost universally noted as the fathers of each system


Read just about everything on Marx while doing my degree in Sociology and Psychology.

Read just about everything on Adam Smith while doing my Commerce degree.

Now I prefer to read about the next toy I'm going to buy

[idleidolidyll]

How does one permanently destroy social spending?

fair cop

its more accurate to say they've destroyed many or most most social spending programes by handing those services to capitalism on a platter........with massive cost increases the nett result

in amerika corporations are superhumans; granted the status of humans but unable to be punished or checked like humans.
handing social services to those corporations has almost guaranteed they'll stay expensive and bleed people dry.

they may pay less nett tax but they pay far more for the same services we get with tax money.

example: a study last year examined health care in 1st world countries (yes, NZ was classed as 1st world).

NZ scored in the top 2 or 3 overall and scored near the top on all but delivery of the very latest technologies

amerikkka scored badly on most and particularly badly on health service delivery, accessibility, afforability etc.

they delivered in technology but as noted in the previous sentence, that was really only of benefit to the wealthy few who can afford it.

we like to complain about our health service but the fact is it's almost a world leader according to studies.

the cost per person in NZ was about US$1750 per annum while the cost per person in the US was almost double that. No wonder health insurance is so expensive in the US and no wonder more and more companies are opting out of health packages for employees there too

That's what tax cuts will buy you; they'll be paid for by cutting social spending and handing social services to capitalism; the least qualified to look after them

[Swoop]

pay attention son

the bureaucracy doesn't change when the government changes (well most of it anyway).
Agreed. Unfortunately all the pond-scum lackeys and pencil-dicked sicophants aren't expunged from the circular wind tunnel at the same time as the politicians.

The amount of compliment's that I'm getting on my age around here is surprising. I might have to stay.:done:

[Flatcap]

the cost per person in NZ was about US$1750 per annum while the cost per person in the US was almost double that. No wonder health insurance is so expensive in the US and no wonder more and more companies are opting out of health packages for employees there too


Perhaps, however a key difference in the US is the litigious nature of their society and the absence of "no fault" ACC system. To avoid being sued, Yank doctors are likely to do a raft of unnecessary tests or even treatments, thus pushing up the cost of healthcare per person

[idleidolidyll]

Read just about everything on Marx while doing my degree in Sociology and Psychology.

Read just about everything on Adam Smith while doing my Commerce degree.

Now I prefer to read about the next toy I'm going to buy

oh? why then do your posts seem to fall into the same old propaganda as so many others who think communism and socialism are one and the same and that capitalism is for the good of all?

capitalism is a system run by capitalists for their own benefit but not necessarily that of others
a capitalist is someone who believes that control of the means of production should be in the hands of the few (fellow capitalists of course; they who think they are somehow better than the rest)

some fools think that capitalism is about commerce. of course commerce exists in both extremes as well as across the middle and the idea is pure nonsense

communism is a whole other thing. a system in which the means of production is collectivized and every member of society is supposed to receive relative equality and be part of the decision making process.

Both usually end up as abuse. Power mad leaders become dictators and the systems become authoritarian nightmares. Examples: Pinochet, Reagan, Pol Pot, Monachies of old, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and many more: all categorized more by their authoritarianism than the beginnings of their political parties. They hijacked their support and abused it for their own purposes.

Smart people know that socialism is a better way. A society organised for the good of society as a whole and a mixture of both extremes allowing freedom of expression, personal wealth and continued through the use of democracy (capitalism by nature is anti democratic). Of course capitalsist hate it (socialism) because it takes some of their billions of $$$'s away as well as much of their power and gives it to the huddled masses who they see as undeserving, ignorant and pitiful if not as slaves or servants.
Commies also hate socialism; they see it as a sell out to capitalists, a system that still allows people to become wealthy while others live in drudgery.
socialism rarely ends up in dictatorship while the very definition of capitalism is an oligarchic dictatorship

i guess it's unfair to call Marx the father of communism. In fact he himself said that by the descriptions others gave of it; he wasn't one.
it's fairer to say he was the authority on communism and socialism and well deserved of his recent acknowledgment as the greatest thinker of the millenium (well something to that effect anyway)

of course many are fooled so easily by the self assigned labels people give to their parties: union of soviet socialist republics, democrats, conservatives, socialist etc. All have been used to describe parties and governments that, judged by the definitions rather than the words, didn't stack up.
Sadly that a key component of modern political propaganda; the incorrect use of terminology to distort and attack.

the word terrorism for instance was coined to describe the actions of a state against its people not the actions of individuals or small groups against the government.

if applied correctly, the US is arguably the biggest terrorist on the planet

applied in a foreign context it still is (amerika's illegal attack on iraq and terrorism of the muslim people of the ME for example)

[Hinny]

The obvious is that the Labour Government and their looney mates have deliberately over time perpetuated dependency and a perverse money go round that has a sizable amount squandered in admin costs. MUCH lower taxes and a sizable reduction in the civil service might actually create REAL and productive employment.

You are ignoring the facts.
If you were to check unemployment statistics you would see that with Tory governments unemployment goes up.
Was it John Russell who advocated an unemployment rate of 200,000 as being ideal for N.Z. Then, he said, people would value their jobs and work hard because they knew that there were plenty of other people out there waiting to take their place.
Check History. Go back to the Third Labour govt. Out of office with zero unemployment and record overseas reserves. Ousted on the strength of the charging Cossacks marching all over the country (Paid for by whom?) The message implied the govt. would end up owning everything. Getting rid of all those foreign 'investors' was portrayed as a bad thing. The baby that got thrown out with the bath water was home ownership interest rates of 2 & 3 percent and development finance for Kiwi industry and businesses that would lead to growth in the general populations well-offness.
What did we get instead?
Under Labour minister Jim Bolger the unemployment rocketed to record levels. Business liquidations hit record levels.
Home interest rates hit 25%.
They also squandered all of the country's money and by the time they were finally booted out of office they had left us with a legacy of debt that destroyed the country and impacted hugely on future generations.
It got so bad all foreign exchange dealings were halted as the country faced bankruptcy.
Do you think that any of the current crop of National politicians are of the opinion the Muldoon govt. did anything wrong?

IS the current crop not simply rehashing the same idioms and dogmata of failed administrations of the past?
That surely is why they are called CONSERVATIVES. They resist change even in the face of overwhelming evidence to show that their policies do not work.
This may be why they don't bother to formulate policies that they feel free to divulge. Release one policy to appeal to the general population's greed and you could get elected.
Look how close they came last time. On what basis? On what policies? One.
Tax cuts. The people were going to be able to do with their own money what they wanted. They were going to be able to have private health insurance, private education, drive down their user pays roads and send their mortgage interest payments offshore. And all this on fifty bucks a week.
And who was going to get the biggest tax cuts. Those paying most of course. The same policy that led to the Great stock market crash and the depression of the thirties. The same policy trotted out by George Bush. Slash spending in health and education to do it and at the same time proclaim "no child left behind". It didn't do a lot for their economy did it?
And who was the bright spark that dreamed up the idea that we could borrow the money to pay for those tax cuts?

What about the Employment Contracts Act. Sold to the public as being of great benefit to them as they could negotiate their own contracts. The public saw themselves getting more money, for fewer hours and with more holidays... Tui moment. Where did it get them?
A legacy of that has my daughter working fourteen hour days with a ten minute break and no penalty rates. (No, she doesn't work for me.)

Do you really want a government that will repeat the same old mistakes of the past? Is this the legacy you want to leave the children?
Do we need the anti-nuclear legislation gone by lunchtime? Did our economy collapse when it was introduced as the Nats said it would? Hell no. It took off. The clean green N.Z. image is now incredibly valuable. Organics are the future. (currently)
Do we really need to cosy up to terrorists like those currently inhabiting the American halls of power? Send our children off to provide cannon fodder or kill other humans at the whim of the American masters? For what benefit for us and for what benefit for humanity as a whole?? Don't forget where the current Nats stood on the questions of involvement with the US in their illegal wars. They were all for it. Do you really think that is socially and economically responsible? Remember perhaps that Iraq was our biggest sheep meat buyer and the Nats wanted to go and invade them..... because?

Please sit down and consider your responsibilities to future generations. Take the time to research history and consult with the current crop of candidates. Ask the questions. Are they going to do anything different to what they did in the past? If not, why will it work in the future when it didn't work before? How come if the other side are doing so badly do the statistics tell the exact opposite story? Are they telling Porkies or is the Dept. of Statistics telling porkies. Well I suppose the dept. is full of bureaucrats and, in your eyes it seems, the classic oxymoron civil servants,

Remember:
The growth of a nation can not be achieved by keeping the downtrodden down.

[idleidolidyll]

Perhaps, however a key difference in the US is the litigious nature of their society and the absence of "no fault" ACC system. To avoid being sued, Yank doctors are likely to do a raft of unnecessary tests or even treatments, thus pushing up the cost of healthcare per person

that may be a fact but it wasn't identified in the report as a major factor.

i wish i could remember the name of the report so i could link it

the report compared about 30 countries systems

[devnull]

Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/28/do2801.xml

[idleidolidyll]

Thanks Hinny; it's a pleasure to see another person with the intelligence and integrity to post facts unobscured by propaganda

trouble is of course the majority of people posting here seem to young to have lived those lessons.

they'll vote national in ignorance and propaganda

[idleidolidyll]

Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/28/do2801.xml


Of course it is a disappointing fact for capitalists that the most socialist countries are in fact the greatest successes in the most important statistics: health, welfare of people, happiness, equality etc

Usually Finland, Norway and often New Zealand too (but less and less if Nationa gets its way)

that bastion of capitalism amerikkka fails almost every time to make the top 20

[Flatcap]

oh? why then do your posts seem to fall into the same old propaganda as so many others who think communism and socialism are one and the same and that capitalism is for the good of all?


I just enjoy poking your socialist eyeball with my capitalist stick....:Pokey:


...plus I never said Capitalism was good for all, just that it is good for me...

[idleidolidyll]

I just enjoy poking your socialist eyeball with my capitalist stick....:Pokey:


...plus I never said Capitalism was good for all, just that it is good for me...

indeed, and i enjoy the reverse

that's the thing about capitalism; it favours the greedy above the needy

[Robert Taylor]

You are ignoring the facts.
If you were to check unemployment statistics you would see that with Tory governments unemployment goes up.
Was it John Russell who advocated an unemployment rate of 200,000 as being ideal for N.Z. Then, he said, people would value their jobs and work hard because they knew that there were plenty of other people out there waiting to take their place.
Check History. Go back to the Third Labour govt. Out of office with zero unemployment and record overseas reserves. Ousted on the strength of the charging Cossacks marching all over the country (Paid for by whom?) The message implied the govt. would end up owning everything. Getting rid of all those foreign 'investors' was portrayed as a bad thing. The baby that got thrown out with the bath water was home ownership interest rates of 2 & 3 percent and development finance for Kiwi industry and businesses that would lead to growth in the general populations well-offness.
What did we get instead?
Under Labour minister Jim Bolger the unemployment rocketed to record levels. Business liquidations hit record levels.
Home interest rates hit 25%.
They also squandered all of the country's money and by the time they were finally booted out of office they had left us with a legacy of debt that destroyed the country and impacted hugely on future generations.
It got so bad all foreign exchange dealings were halted as the country faced bankruptcy.
Do you think that any of the current crop of National politicians are of the opinion the Muldoon govt. did anything wrong?

IS the current crop not simply rehashing the same idioms and dogmata of failed administrations of the past?
That surely is why they are called CONSERVATIVES. They resist change even in the face of overwhelming evidence to show that their policies do not work.
This may be why they don't bother to formulate policies that they feel free to divulge. Release one policy to appeal to the general population's greed and you could get elected.
Look how close they came last time. On what basis? On what policies? One.
Tax cuts. The people were going to be able to do with their own money what they wanted. They were going to be able to have private health insurance, private education, drive down their user pays roads and send their mortgage interest payments offshore. And all this on fifty bucks a week.
And who was going to get the biggest tax cuts. Those paying most of course. The same policy that led to the Great stock market crash and the depression of the thirties. The same policy trotted out by George Bush. Slash spending in health and education to do it and at the same time proclaim "no child left behind". It didn't do a lot for their economy did it?
And who was the bright spark that dreamed up the idea that we could borrow the money to pay for those tax cuts?

What about the Employment Contracts Act. Sold to the public as being of great benefit to them as they could negotiate their own contracts. The public saw themselves getting more money, for fewer hours and with more holidays... Tui moment. Where did it get them?
A legacy of that has my daughter working fourteen hour days with a ten minute break and no penalty rates. (No, she doesn't work for me.)

Do you really want a government that will repeat the same old mistakes of the past? Is this the legacy you want to leave the children?
Do we need the anti-nuclear legislation gone by lunchtime? Did our economy collapse when it was introduced as the Nats said it would? Hell no. It took off. The clean green N.Z. image is now incredibly valuable. Organics are the future. (currently)
Do we really need to cosy up to terrorists like those currently inhabiting the American halls of power? Send our children off to provide cannon fodder or kill other humans at the whim of the American masters? For what benefit for us and for what benefit for humanity as a whole?? Don't forget where the current Nats stood on the questions of involvement with the US in their illegal wars. They were all for it. Do you really think that is socially and economically responsible? Remember perhaps that Iraq was our biggest sheep meat buyer and the Nats wanted to go and invade them..... because?

Please sit down and consider your responsibilities to future generations. Take the time to research history and consult with the current crop of candidates. Ask the questions. Are they going to do anything different to what they did in the past? If not, why will it work in the future when it didn't work before? How come if the other side are doing so badly do the statistics tell the exact opposite story? Are they telling Porkies or is the Dept. of Statistics telling porkies. Well I suppose the dept. is full of bureaucrats and, in your eyes it seems, the classic oxymoron civil servants,

Remember:
The growth of a nation can not be achieved by keeping the downtrodden down.

You know thats the trouble with a lot of lefty thinking, they label Conservatives ( I am proudly one ) in such a way that suits them. I am in no way for downtreading people as I believe in a fair deal for everyone but not by dragging everyone down to the same level. I embrace a system that gives people the opportunity to be successful and then applauds that very success, and not by handouts or other forms of electioneering / vote purchasing.
I dont fully agree with the free market and do think capitalism should have checks against it, just as uncontrolled socialism requires.
I will as always be voting National as the lesser of two evils, mindful of the fact that they are too close in policy to this current shonky Government. But they have people that are far more practical and it is a shame that there arent more practical everyday non pc people standing for Parliament like ''Bob the builder'' from Tauranga. I am guessing that the man is leaving in disgust and has no desire to hang in there for another six years to collect a nice cushy taxpayer funded pension.
As an aside I watched Jenny Shipley on television last night and thought heck, that woman has got decorum and has a hell of a lot more in common with ordinary everyday Kiwis than Frankensteins sister.
And I personally would like to see the nuclear legislation axed. A couple of nuclear power stations in remote valleys would solve the nations power shortages at a stroke and have much less unsightly environmental impact than hydro dams and those ghastly wind farms.
Also, gradual reinstatement of our air combat wing to show we have the intent to defend ourselves and to make a contrary statement to a problem so endemic in this country, freeloading off others.
And oh, in 1981 I emigrated to Conservative run England, 3 million unemployed after a disastrous Labour Government that had to go cap in hand to the IMF. I had absolutely no trouble finding a job, to some degree because of work ethic that was so devoid in many of their citizens. Love or her hate her Maggie Thatcher gave that country a good shake rattle and roll and put it in good stead for golden economic weather that Gordon Brown has largely squandered. I also look forward to David Cameron taking control there for the Conservatives. The cleanout has already started with Londons Communist mayor being dumped.
I believe most New Zealanders have a keen sense of fairplay, much more so than in other countries, It doesnt then matter how you are labelled, there are varying viewpoints about how you go about it.

[Robert Taylor]

Of course it is a disappointing fact for capitalists that the most socialist countries are in fact the greatest successes in the most important statistics: health, welfare of people, happiness, equality etc

Usually Finland, Norway and often New Zealand too (but less and less if Nationa gets its way)

that bastion of capitalism amerikkka fails almost every time to make the top 20

Having been to Sweden 7 times I would beg to differ that it is all a land of milk and honey. Thats a subject for another day when I can be bothered arguing with an uncompromising mindset.

[idleidolidyll]

Having been to Sweden 7 times I would beg to differ that it is all a land of milk and honey. Thats a subject for another day when I can be bothered arguing with an uncompromising mindset.

sweden?

who the fuck mentioned sweden?

i posted norway, finland and nz!

i'm sure there's an optometrist near you somewhere that can help

[idleidolidyll]

dear bob

it matters not a rats arse what you say your description of conservatism is; the DEFINITION of conservatism is a belief that it's all good right now or back then and change is scary

in fact the oxford paperback says this (politically):
conservative: disliking or opposed to change, tending to want to maintain existing institutions

your use of the word is in its propagandist definition not its actual definition and therefore your entire argument has just gone whoosh!!! right out the farkin window

[Flatcap]

that's the thing about capitalism; it favours the greedy above the needy

"It" doesn't favour anyone

Individuals are by nature greedy, and in your socialist utopia there will be those who will covet the communal pittance the neighbours have had redistributed to them.

[idleidolidyll]

Thats a subject for another day when I can be bothered arguing with an uncompromising mindset.

that's a fukkin joke coming from a conservative: someone who is by definition uncompromisingly stuck in a groove.

us socialists welcome change, change is good, change is necessary and there are far more valid elements of cultures than just the extant sets in NZ

change will embrace these and conservatives will quiver in fear

[idleidolidyll]

"It" doesn't favour anyone

Individuals are by nature greedy, and in your socialist utopia there will be those who will covet the communal pittance the neighbours have had redistributed to them.

oh dear

that old crap again

socialism is a combination of both communism and capitalism, Marx described it as the pathway between one and the other but not actually either; you describe communism and call it socialism just like those who propagandize you expect you to. is that a baaa i hear?

but yes, capitalism DOES favour the few (and the greedy), that's what it is by nature

[Sanx]

although it has shortened the dole queue

Nope, a booming global economy did that. It would be more accurate to say that the dole queue shortened despite Labour's best efforts at increasing the cost, paperwork and risk involved in employing anyone.


increased trade and business

Oh did they? If you take the large price increases in global dairy and wood prices out of the equation, you'd find that the balance of payments deficit has increased. Not a good sign of increased trade and business, is it?


started a superannuation program

A super program significantly worse than that available in Aussie and other countries, with far less tax benefits accruing to those contributing to their own future. But that's to be expected with Labour.


improved health and other services

Now that claim is just laughable, unless if by "improved health and other services" you mean increased bureacracy in those government departments responsible for providing those services. Hands up anyone that's seen a marked improvement in service delivery in this country.


Agreed though, a proportional rep system more like Germany might help but only a fool would believe that would solve all or even many of our problems. The scary thing is that disaffected voters might make the ultimate cock up and reinstate the system of electoral dictatorship we had before MMP. National will be pressing them to do just that the next time it holds power.

The problem with proportional representation is that it allows the lunatic fringe to gain seats in parliament. Like the Nazi's first seats in the Reichstag in 1928. (Godwin's law not invoked, as this is historical fact.)

One of the arguments for a FPP is that it reflects the general feeling of the country, not every feeling. There's also the demonstrable fact that pure PR systems tend to produce far less stable governments.


As hated as it might be in political circles here; i support binding referenda

And binding referenda are a form of FPP government. They're black and white. Either the referendum passes or it doesn't pass. There's no middle ground, no lunatic fringe, no alternative policies, no third way. In fact, one might argue it's the purest form of FPP.

And it's ironic that your support of binding referenda is mirrored really in only one country - Switzerland, the bastion of free-market economics. A country with very strict laws on immigration, virtually open for trade, little in the way of social services to those that cannot afford to pay, etc.

[Robert Taylor]

sweden?

who the fuck mentioned sweden?

i posted norway, finland and nz!

i'm sure there's an optometrist near you somewhere that can help

I thought that you had some level of ability to interpret the point being made and that you were actually beginning to learn some manners. Sadly I was mistaken on at least one of those counts. Sweden is a socialist dominated country that is often mentioned by socialists as a model socialist utopia.

[Robert Taylor]

that's a fukkin joke coming from a conservative: someone who is by definition uncompromisingly stuck in a groove.

us socialists welcome change, change is good, change is necessary and there are far more valid elements of cultures than just the extant sets in NZ

change will embrace these and conservatives will quiver in fear

Heck that well and truly is the most hypocritical and ( sorry ) HILARIOUS statement that you have outpoured out of yourself thus far. I am on record as giving credit to a number of socialist politicians, guys that I would never vote for but have respect for their integrity.
I just betcha that when it comes down to cold hard reality that I have more social conscience than you have, and am infinitely more polite.

[Robert Taylor]

that's a fukkin joke coming from a conservative: someone who is by definition uncompromisingly stuck in a groove.

us socialists welcome change, change is good, change is necessary and there are far more valid elements of cultures than just the extant sets in NZ

change will embrace these and conservatives will quiver in fear

Change over the decades has resulted in more violent crime and an unacceptable degradation in personal discipline and politeness. Change has resulted in a relaxation of standards. LARGELY SUCH CHANGE HAS BEEN PUSHED BY THE LEFT, they can have the ''credit'' for it. This country and others needs a return to compulsory military training for ALL school leavers so personal discipline and standards can be knocked into people. I would support such change.

[Robert Taylor]

dear bob

it matters not a rats arse what you say your description of conservatism is; the DEFINITION of conservatism is a belief that it's all good right now or back then and change is scary

in fact the oxford paperback says this (politically):
conservative: disliking or opposed to change, tending to want to maintain existing institutions

your use of the word is in its propagandist definition not its actual definition and therefore your entire argument has just gone whoosh!!! right out the farkin window

Actually, how about a return to previous institutions that werent broken and didnt need fixing.

[Robert Taylor]

Yep, it's a no-brainer, isn't it? I'm also sick of social engineering, and the government's "when I want your opinion, I'll give it to you" attitude

Like a good many I am also sick and tired of Idle Leftys ''socialists know best and conservatives are wrong wrong wrong'' preaching. Perhaps the thread should be renamed? Im indeed myself opinionated but will listen and debate calmly, I venture to say I look like a saint in comparison to this guys domineering soapbox and the rivers of filth ( expletives ) that pour forth from it. A good spanking or two when he was a child may have tempered his attitude ( pre Bradford times ) and delivered some politeness.

[Sanx]

in fact the oxford paperback says this (politically):
conservative: disliking or opposed to change, tending to want to maintain existing institutions

Would that be the Oxford English Dictionary that you once decried as a tool of capitalist corporations (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1251795&postcount=573) because you didn't happen to agree with its definition of socialism or capitalism?

Anyway - you're guilty of selectively quoting the full definition of the word. Rather like your take on most things, you quote (repeatedly and loudly) the bits that can be twisted to fit your ideology and conveniently ignore the rest. But just in case your dictionary was missing a page; the word 'conservative' has many meanings but when used in a political sense it means one of two things:

Of or relating to the political theory of conservatism; or
A member of a conservative party, group, or movement.


The meaning you deliberately misquoted does not apply to the political use of the word 'conservative'. In fact, there's very little correlation between the two meanings at all.

Just as there's little correlation between Labour, as in the political movement, and labour, as in work; something a large minority of dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporters studiously avoid.

[idleidolidyll]

Would that be the Oxford English Dictionary that you once decried as a tool of capitalist corporations (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1251795&postcount=573) because you didn't happen to agree with its definition of socialism or capitalism?



good grief man, get a grip

it was I who used the Oxford to post definitions of both systems on this forum and it was the wafflers who whined

do you need them posted again?

Socialism: A political and economic theory advocating that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, transport, property etc. A social system based on this.

Capitalism: An economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

I've never had an argument with either description from the Oxford dictionary. I posted those originally because idiots were describing the two systems from propaganda instead of from fact.

Some ignorami stated categorically (sic) that capitalism was trade and industry. Hilarious! With or without capitalism, there has always been trade and industry.

Here's some humble pie: you must be very hungry

I'll get back to your other straw men after work

[idleidolidyll]

Anyway - you're guilty of selectively quoting the full definition of the word.

Wow! I'm 'guilty' of selectively quoting the FULL definition of the word.

Indeed I am, the previous post is the FULL definition from the NZ Oxford Paperback Dictionary. ISBN 0 19 5584104

'Guilty' as charged: ha! ha! ha! ha! rotflmfao!

[idleidolidyll]

The meaning you deliberately misquoted does not apply to the political use of the word 'conservative'. In fact, there's very little correlation between the two meanings at all.

dumber and dumber

The reason that the word Conservative was chosen to describe the political ideology was that it mirrored the beliefs of the proponents: that all is good right now (because their group had power) and they didn't want that to change.

My quote yesterday was indeed the full definition from the oxford as referenced in the previous post.
Bob himself emphasizes that point in a post just a few messages ago when he advocates going backward to a time when he thought the system was better for him. That's the conservative way: "fuck the rest of you, I want what's best for me."

The supposed lack of correlation you proffer is nothing less than the propaganda aspect

[idleidolidyll]

Just as there's little correlation between Labour, as in the political movement, and labour, as in work; something a large minority of dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporters studiously avoid.

Do you know the mad hatter personally? Sorry mate, I'm a student of politics and a student of communication past and present. Your (il)logical fallacy is hilarious, a silly fallacy normally called "muddying the waters".

Mind yoyu, at least that's a change from your straw man stuff

[Flatcap]

socialism is a combination of both communism and capitalism,

So you are in support of capitalism then...?

By your argument you need us greedy capitalists, so be thankful

[Hinny]

[quote=devnull;1583608]Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.

[forkoil]

[quote=devnull;1583608]Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.
Um actually Switzerland Keith, I know it reasonably well, and NOT socialist :-) (ooops)

[Hinny]

[quote=Hinny;1584231][size=2]
Um actually Switzerland Keith, I know it reasonably well, and NOT socialist :-) (ooops)

I googled this and Switzerland did not come out on top on any list that I found.
Perhaps you could quote your information source.

[forkoil]

[quote=devnull;1583608]Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.
Well one measure of 'wealth' may be 'national GDP per capita'....?
Look at http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/viewhtml.aspx?queryname=482&querytype=view&lang=en page of OECD data and click on the 'comparison with other oecd countries' column. Only US, Norway and Lux are higher....:msn-wink:

[Hinny]

[quote=Hinny;1584231][size=2]
Well one measure of 'wealth' may be 'national GDP per capita'....?
Look at http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/viewhtml.aspx?queryname=482&querytype=view&lang=en page of OECD data and click on the 'comparison with other oecd countries' column. Only US, Norway and Lux are higher....:msn-wink:

As you say it may be one measure of wealth and is taken into account when deciding standards of living in many of the formulae that are used for this type of thing.
If you look at the UN standards of living rankings you will see that US rank above us. Analysis of the figures show that they only out score us in terms of GDP. In every other measure of well-offness we are ahead.
Large GDP doesn't prevent a country from becoming inhabited with poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people.
Minimising these numbers surely should be the focus of any society to increase their standard of living.

[MisterD]

remember, if there's a carrot dangling in front of you; there's probably a stick somewhere behind

Yet another III logical fallacy - if there's a carrot dangling in front of you, it's hanging off the f-ing stick.

[devnull]

I will admit, though, that socialism has done one thing for us.
The same thing it's done for Sweden - promote youth crime.

In 1999, Helen Clark pledged to raise NZ up in the OECD rankings.
We have now fallen to 22 out of 30 countries.

But they have raised our ranking in one area - crime.
NZ now ranks at no. 2 - right behind Dominica

[forkoil]

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.
OK then, rather than play a game of shoot the moving target, what is your target? How would you define "highest standards of living today" and then as you say, lets get the facts to support that standard.

[forkoil]

Large GDP doesn't prevent a country from becoming inhabited with poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people.
Minimising these numbers surely should be the focus of any society to increase their standard of living.
Hey, have you got something against Sth Auckland!!!
Should it be the primary focus?
What should a country do to minimise the "poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people"
Have the current Govt policies arrested or even shrunk the "underclass" in NZ?

[Hinny]

Read just about everything on Marx while doing my degree in Sociology and Psychology.

Read just about everything on Adam Smith while doing my Commerce degree.

Now I prefer to read about the next toy I'm going to buy

Yeah been there, done that.
What are you thinking of buying? I like new toys.
Bloody good job we still don't need overseas funds to buy them eh?

[MisterD]

that's the thing about capitalism; it favours the greedy above the needy

No, it favours those who want to get off their arses and make something for and of themselves.

Without capitalism, we would have had no agricultural revolution and no industrial revolution. It's simple - if there's no personal gain in doing anything, nothing will get done.

You characterise capitalists as greedy, and I would characterise someone prepared to sit on their arse and suck off societies tit in exactly the same way.

[Ixion]

No, it favours those who want to get off their arses and make something for and of themselves.

Without capitalism, we would have had no agricultural revolution and no industrial revolution. It's simple - if there's no personal gain in doing anything, nothing will get done.

You characterise capitalists as greedy, and I would characterise someone prepared to sit on their arse and suck off societies tit in exactly the same way.

I do not agree with the statement highlighted.

At the time of the agricultural revolution capitalism was almost non existent - the agricultural revolution was the work of the aristocrats and the great farmers. Coke of Holkham is of course the exemplar of the type.

As to the industrial revolution, it depends on when you define it as starting. Certainly the early industrial enterprises owed nothing to capitalists. In almost every case the mills and mines which were the enterprises of the early Industrial revolution were run and operated by their owners. By the end of the C19, yes capitalists were certainly in the picture. But I would call that post Industrial Revolution

It is the defining attribute iof the capitalist that he takes little or no part in the day to day running of the enterprises he finances. His role is to provide money and collect profits.

[Flatcap]

At the time of the agricultural revolution capitalism was almost non existent .


The Good Old Days as far as III is concerned,

when everyone had an equal chance of dying before their 20s

[MisterD]

I do not agree with the statement highlighted.

At the time of the agricultural revolution capitalism was almost non existent - the agricultural revolution was the work of the aristocrats and the great farmers. Coke of Holkham is of course the exemplar of the type.

As to the industrial revolution, it depends on when you define it as starting. Certainly the early industrial enterprises owed nothing to capitalists. In almost every case the mills and mines which were the enterprises of the early Industrial revolution were run and operated by their owners. By the end of the C19, yes capitalists were certainly in the picture. But I would call that post Industrial Revolution

It is the defining attribute iof the capitalist that he takes little or no part in the day to day running of the enterprises he finances. His role is to provide money and collect profits.

The point I am making, is that without capitalist principals ie the ability of any individual to own property, invest and make profits under the law of the land, (rather than the behest of a local king or baron who holds land under patronage because he's handy with a sword) we would not have had those two step-changes in the development of society.

I don't like the definition of capitalist that you and III are using. IMO a capitalist is anyone who believes in the principals of capitalism, which are that effectively, money and the market talks - you're telling me a capitalist is just someone who's done well out of the system? That can't logically hold surely?

[Hinny]

Hey, have you got something against Sth Auckland!!!
Should it be the primary focus?
What should a country do to minimise the "poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people"
Have the current Govt policies arrested or even shrunk the "underclass" in NZ?

We need a high level of self-knowledge and public debate if we are to accurately diagnose our current condition, celebrate success and identify failures to date and set ambitious strategies for future prosperity.
Using 2007 economic development statistics to measure our progress against other OECD countries.
The factors showing improvement in recent years are: investment; formal measures of innovation such as research and development spending; innovation within companies such as the rate of new product development; direct investment in New Zealand by overseas companies; workforce skills; university graduates as a percentage of the workforce; spending on information and communication technology; investment in energy; and the government's fiscal balance.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Four factors have fallen compared with OECD averages: personal savings rates; outward direct investment overseas by New Zealand companies; balance of payments; and the country's net foreign asset position.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
On the remaining 11 factors there is no broad change versus our competitors: financial market development; innovation linkages such as between companies and universities; international trade; management skills; school education; transport; quality of the tax system; quality of regulation; inflation rate; exchange rate stability; and real interest rates.

I'm sorry for being a bastard and arguing with facts but that's just the kinda guy I am.

[Skyryder]

Capitalism is an 'economic' system that relies on the investment of private capitol for the production and distibution of goods.

A capitalist is a person who invests his private capitol for the above/or one who believes in capitalism.


Skyryder

[forkoil]

We need a high level of self-knowledge and public debate if we are to accurately diagnose our current condition, celebrate success and identify failures to date and set ambitious strategies for future prosperity.
[ data snipped ]
I'm sorry for being a bastard and arguing with facts but that's just the kinda guy I am.
Before you congratulate yourself too much Keith, these "facts" do not address the issue that you raised as being the fly in the ointment to official economic data, ergo the "underclass" (originally relating to the US).
Also you havent answered my question as to the figures you wish to use to validate your assertion that socialism produces the winners? (that figures?)
[When in a corner, move the argument]

[Ixion]

The point I am making, is that without capitalist principals ie the ability of any individual to own property, invest and make profits under the law of the land, (rather than the behest of a local king or baron who holds land under patronage because he's handy with a sword) we would not have had those two step-changes in the development of society.

I don't like the definition of capitalist that you and III are using. IMO a capitalist is anyone who believes in the principals of capitalism, which are that effectively, money and the market talks - you're telling me a capitalist is just someone who's done well out of the system? That can't logically hold surely?

Capitalism is an economic system where control of production and resources (usually of an industrial nature, but not always - one of the earliest examples of capitalism was investment in the slave trade) is dependent on the provision of capital (money). As you say, a system where money talks.

In a Eurpean/USA context it was rare (though not unknown) before the nineteenth century

However your definition of "ability of any individual to own property, invest and make profits under the law of the land," could equally well apply to the mercantilist economies of the 15C to 18C. Or indeed the trading communities of (eg) Phoenicia several thousand years earlier. The difference between them and the capitalist is the merchant adventurer not only provided capital but actively pursued the business in person. He was a hard working man, often undertaking journies of great privation or danger. The capitalist does not play such an active part - he puts up the money and then just sits back and collects the profits.

Nor is "ability of any individual to own property, invest and make profits under the law of the land," incompatible with socialism or even communism. Neither are inherently opposed to the idea that hard work and willingness to take a risk should be rewarded . Indeed the early socialist governments of NZ had an almost Puritan respect for hard work. Their objection to the capitalist was that he was lazy, and should not clai'm the whole , or the lion's share , of the rewards when he had not exerted himself at all. Hence, capital gains taxes, for instance.

In fact your definition would exclude almost all present day capitalism since it is very rarely related to individuals. The capitalists of today are giant corporations not individuals.

An indexed fund is the most classic example of capitalism that i can think of.

[Hinny]

Before you congratulate yourself too much Keith, these "facts" do not address the issue that you raised as being the fly in the ointment to official economic data, ergo the "underclass" (originally relating to the US).
Also you havent answered my question as to the figures you wish to use to validate your assertion that socialism produces the winners? (that figures?)
[When in a corner, move the argument]

I'm sorry I don't understand.
1) the issue I raised as being the fly in the ointment to official economic data.
Que?
2) ..validate my assertion that socialism produces winners.
I made no such assertion. I asked the question. Which countries have the highest standard of living? You replied Switzerland and I said I was unable to find any information to confirm your assertion.

I don't think you were supposed to post the last line. I think that was merely the thought going through your head.

[MisterD]

In fact your definition would exclude almost all present day capitalism since it is very rarely related to individuals. The capitalists of today are giant corporations not individuals.

An indexed fund is the most classic example of capitalism that i can think of.

Corporations are not capitalists themselves, they are products of capitalism and their shareholders are the capitalists - as you note with your next (contradictory) statement....and anyway my definition does not necessarily exclude the big successful entities at the top end, I'm just arguing to keep the "grass-roots" included

[forkoil]

I'm sorry I don't understand.
1) the issue I raised as being the fly in the ointment to official economic data.
Que?


Large GDP doesn't prevent a country from becoming inhabited with poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people.
Minimising these numbers surely should be the focus of any society to increase their standard of living.
You quoted NZ economic data in answer to me saying that we have an underclass problem (in answer to you saying the US had one). I then asked you a series of questions about how to cope with the underclass problem to which you have remained .... schtum ....(silent)


2) ..validate my assertion that socialism produces winners.
I made no such assertion. I asked the question. Which countries have the highest standard of living? You replied Switzerland and I said I was unable to find any information to confirm your assertion.

I don't think you were supposed to post the last line. I think that was merely the thought going through your head.


Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.
You were implying by this question and answer to devnull that the socialist countries produce the highest standards of living, and hence my statement about Switzerland, to support which I produced figures ....
What becomes quickly evident about these "discussions" is that it just degrades into a battle of prejudice, ignore anything that gets in the way of your argument, trot out the personal bias and lets not get anywhere nearer the "truth" of the matter

[Hinny]

You quoted NZ economic data in answer to me saying that we have an underclass problem (in answer to you saying the US had one). I then asked you a series of questions about how to cope with the underclass problem to which you have remained .... schtum ....(silent)
I looked back over the posts. I cannot see where I quoted economic data nor where you said NZ had an underclass problem; nor where I said the US had an underclass problem. Nigeria would be a good example of a country with large GDP and terrible standard of living. The point I was trying to make is that GDP alone is not a measure of well-offness.
Re: the questions you asked I shall reply at the bottom.

You were implying by this question and answer to devnull that the socialist countries produce the highest standards of living, and hence my statement about Switzerland, to support which I produced figures ....
My question was not a rhetorical one. I asked which countries have the highest standard of living. If one takes the time to do the research one would find the country that has topped the charts the most is Canada (10 times) You don't find Switzerland at the top.You linked to OECD data to support your assertion that Switzerland had the highest standard of living because it had a high GDP per capita. The charts that rank countries standard of living use a considerably larger range of economic and social measures. The United Nations Human development Index is the biggie.
What becomes quickly evident about these "discussions" is that it just degrades into a battle of prejudice, ignore anything that gets in the way of your argument, trot out the personal bias and lets not get anywhere nearer the "truth" of the matter

Hey, have you got something against Sth Auckland!!! No
Should it be the primary focus? Of?...It seems they do have a number of issues that need addressing but whether their problems are worse than a lot of other places... I do not know.
What should a country do to minimise the "poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people" Obviously what we have been doing could be a good plan. As the data in the Human Development report shows NZ has been doing well in these areas and consistently improving over the last 10 years.
Have the current Govt policies arrested or even shrunk the "underclass" in NZ? Again according to the UN report we have been doing all right. If one ignores GDP one could deduce from the data that we have a better standard of living than Switzerland and that includes your underclass.

Lets look at the data regarding poverty stricken,aggressive, poorly educated and unhealthy people in Switzerland and N.Z.

Poverty Stricken: Su NZ
Share of the total income (poorest 10%) 2.9 2.2
Inequality ratio Top and bottom 10% 9 12.5

Aggressive:
Homicides / 100,000 2.9 1.3


Poorly educated:
Combined enrollment ratio for primary, 85.7 108.4
secondary and tertiary education
Percentage of total govt spend 13 20.9

Unhealthy people:
Life expectancy 80.7 79.2
Physicians / 100,000 361 237
Expenditure per capita 4,011 2,081
Hiv 0.4 0.1
Tuberculosis 6 9

So...
in Switzerland you:

- are not going to have as great an inequality of wealth over the poor people, if you are rich, as you would if you lived in N.Z.
-are going to be better off if you are poor.
-are more than twice as likely to be murdered.
-are less likely to get locked up if you are the murderer.
-are less likely to be at school, or have lower educational involvement.
-are likely to live 1.5 years longer but have to pay more than twice as much for health care. $4,011 vs $2,081. Govt spends are about the same at 6.7 & 6.5% but the private spend is 4.8% vs 1.9% of GDP
-will be less fertile but be 4 times more likely to have HIV
-be more likely to be a smoker but have less chance of getting TB

I think in all these figures NZ has performed better than Switzerland over the last ten years. The Swiss have slipped in some areas and just not advanced as fast as NZ in others.

Have the Labour govt policies arrested or shrunk the underclass?
Well we in New Zealand:-
-don't seem to look after our poor as well as the Swiss.
-Have greatly increased our spend on education over the last ten years. The Swiss have gone backwards in this area over the last couple.
-Spent more on Health and longevity have gone up. HIV is down but the scourge of Tuberculosis has revisited us. Many say as a result of immigration.They are still bringing people in and putting out a helping hand to the displaced.
The underclass are often nicotine addicts. Quite possibly what keeps them poor.
-The Labour govt. have brought in anti-smoking measures to curb the practice.
-To combat the terrible rate of child abuse the govt has removed the defense of reasonable force in cases involving people beating children.

of note also I discovered in this data that women in Switzerland were granted suffrage in 1972. In NZ women achieved this right in 1893.

[geoffm]

In fact your definition would exclude almost all present day capitalism since it is very rarely related to individuals. The capitalists of today are giant corporations not individuals.

An indexed fund is the most classic example of capitalism that i can think of.

So what are small business owners? What is the size distribution of NZ businesses? 93% have 4 or less employees IIRC, or it was a few years ago. The owners of which took the risk of investing and hard work for reqards - capitalists then. If NZ is a capitalist country, then your assertion is wrong, or your definition of capitalist is wrong

[Ixion]

Small business owners are not capiltalists becasue their income depends (usually) upon their own hard work and skill. Not upon the revenue of their invested capital (which often is not very great). They employ capital, and usually pay a rent for it (interest to the bank), but capital is not the source of their income. How many of those businessmen you cite would stay in business if they went and played golf every day , and simply relied on their capital to keep the business going? None, I venture to say.

They are , in the old terms, master tradesmen, artisans or merchants. NZ is a capitalist country because the effective control of the country is in the hands of capitalists. Not the small businesssmen you speak of, but the great corporations, The banks, the oil companies, Fonterra and such like.

Certainly, as you say the NUMBERS of small businessmen are far greater. But their influence on the government of the country is negligable (just ask any of them!). It is the multinational corporations who say "Jump" to the government .

[Robert Taylor]

Small business owners are not capiltalists becasue their income depends (usually) upon their own hard work and skill. Not upon the revenue of their invested capital (which often is not very great). They employ capital, and usually pay a rent for it (interest to the bank), but capital is not the source of their income. How many of those businessmen you cite would stay in business if they went and played golf every day , and simply relied on their capital to keep the business going? None, I venture to say.

They are , in the old terms, master tradesmen, artisans or merchants. NZ is a capitalist country because the effective control of the country is in the hands of capitalists. Not the small businesssmen you speak of, but the great corporations, The banks, the oil companies, Fonterra and such like.

Certainly, as you say the NUMBERS of small businessmen are far greater. But their influence on the government of the country is negligable (just ask any of them!). It is the multinational corporations who say "Jump" to the government .

Youve got that right in one! The multinationals do have a lot to answer for.
Also I found a memorable quote from Margaret Thatcher which I have paraphrased: ''To cure the New Zealand disease with socialism will be like trying to cure leukemia with leeches'' Wonderful quote but so sad and true. The National party have to have socialist policies because the world owesus a living mentality is now so firmly engendered in many of our countrymen.
Balance needs to be restored and that somehow also would mean nailing the clear excesses and powers of the multinationals.

[Skyryder]

It matters not one whit the size of the business or the amount of money invested in that business. If the investment is from the private sector, be it the owner of the business or an indavidual that 'invests' in the business then by definition both are capitalists The difference between the capitalist owner who works in the business and the capitalist investor is marginal at best. Both derive income from profit; the owner from goods produced or services rendered. The investor depending on the loan structure reicieves profit from dividends or from usury. As mentioned both are capitalists in that they both believe in the private funding for economic development be that on a small or national scale.

There is no need to be active in the capitalist market to be one.
Belief is all that is needed.


Skyryder

[rainman]

...it is a shame that there arent more practical everyday non pc people standing for Parliament like ''Bob the builder'' from Tauranga. I am guessing that the man is leaving in disgust and has no desire to hang in there for another six years to collect a nice cushy taxpayer funded pension.

P/T right? Bob represents the worst of NZ politics. The only disgust I see is at the complete bloody waste of space he's been in parliament.


I watched Jenny Shipley on television last night and thought heck, that woman has got decorum and has a hell of a lot more in common with ordinary everyday Kiwis than Frankensteins sister.

Another pisstake, surely?


And I personally would like to see the nuclear legislation axed. A couple of nuclear power stations in remote valleys would solve the nations power shortages at a stroke and have much less unsightly environmental impact than hydro dams and those ghastly wind farms.

Wind farms are purty. And nukes are too big for the NZ grid. And there's an inconvenient matter of what to do with their waste products (which I'm not keen to start a thread-derailling discussion on).


Also, gradual reinstatement of our air combat wing to show we have the intent to defend ourselves and to make a contrary statement to a problem so endemic in this country, freeloading off others.

Who would you expect we need to defend ourselves against?

[Robert Taylor]

P/T right? Bob represents the worst of NZ politics. The only disgust I see is at the complete bloody waste of space he's been in parliament.



Another pisstake, surely?



Wind farms are purty. And nukes are too big for the NZ grid. And there's an inconvenient matter of what to do with their waste products (which I'm not keen to start a thread-derailling discussion on).



Who would you expect we need to defend ourselves against?

We are a gateway to the Antarctic, we have abundant fresh water and are a food producer. Think about it.

[rainman]

We are a gateway to the Antarctic, we have abundant fresh water and are a food producer. Think about it.

You misunderstand. I fully accept that we might be a desirable target. I just don't accept that we could do anything meaningful to stop the most likely invaders, even if we wasted big money (nor us) doing so. To assert otherwise is just blowhard nonsense.

We are only a few million people at the bottom of the world (who have already sold off just about anything worth having). You think about it.

[Robert Taylor]

You misunderstand. I fully accept that we might be a desirable target. I just don't accept that we could do anything meaningful to stop the most likely invaders, even if we wasted big money (nor us) doing so. To assert otherwise is just blowhard nonsense.

We are only a few million people at the bottom of the world (who have already sold off just about anything worth having). You think about it.

Yes I fully agree that there is very little resistance we could offer. BUT, we should still maintain an air strike force as a primary ''signature'' ( if you like ) of defence to show that we have the intent to defend ourselves and to stop freeloading off the Aussies. I have thought about this long and hard and Frankensteins sister removing our air strike force is the single most despicable and treasonous act of her outgoing administration.

[Delerium]

If we arent prepared to defend ourselves we cant expect our allies to do it for us.

[enigma51]

Why would any country want to attack us there is no strategic gain in taking new zealand

[Steam]

Why would any country want to attack us there is no strategic gain in taking new zealand

Farmland. Lebensraum. Resources, Raw materials, Water. Coal. Uranium. A population of slaves.

[Delerium]

Why would any country want to attack us there is no strategic gain in taking new zealand

Already been said, we are the gateway to antarcitca. lots of oil there. farmland, water, large economic zone, ie fisheries. Lots of space, and oh look indonesia with one of hte largest military budgets in the world is just around the corner. Ohhh, they are over crowded and need more resources too.

[rainman]

So let me get this right. There's little we can actually achieve, in real terms, by re-establishing a strike force, but we should do it anyway? What's that going to cost then? Or are you also going to fund this by axing the embassy in Sweden?

This is indicative of the problem with current political debate in NZ - it's full of pompous ideologues who appear to not have any interest in or capability to fully think through the real issues. It's all about appearances, personalities (both hatred of and devotion thereto), and team allegiances.

I'm so not looking forward to the next few months.

[enigma51]

Farmland. Lebensraum. Resources, Raw materials, Water. Coal. Uranium. A population of slaves.

Well were fucked then :eek:

[Hitcher]

Why would any country want to attack us there is no strategic gain in taking new zealand

Coal, oil, gas. Freshwater. Clean air. Titanium, uranium, gold. Seafood (ever seen the size of our offshore economic zone?), dairy products, meat. Pine trees. I'm sure that the air space above us could also have strategic importance.

That makes me wonder why we're not doing more with this natural abundance in terms of improving the lot of just over four million New Zealanders...

[rainman]

That makes me wonder why we're not doing more with this natural abundance in terms of improving the lot of just over four million New Zealanders...

Now that is a good question.

[FLYMO]

yeah record is true
time for a change
if it were up to the greenies thought wed all have pedals

[rainman]

if it were up to the greenies thought wed all have pedals

Bzzzt. Wrong.

[Winston001]

Rainman: So let me get this right. There's little we can actually achieve, in real terms, by re-establishing a strike force, but we should do it anyway? What's that going to cost then? Or are you also going to fund this by axing the embassy in Sweden?


We are fooling ourselves if anyone thinks NZ could realistically defend itself in any military sense.

But that isn't the point. For defence we rely upon friendly Western powers, Australia, and yes, like it or not the US of A. Possibly the EU would help too but no guarantees.....

The trade-off for the tacit help of these large nations is that we have to pull our weight and make some effort in military terms. UN peacekeeping is the clearest way the NZ military can get experience, mix with other armies, and contribute to the worlds trouble spots. Never mind that we only add a teaspoon-full of logistics, stepping up to the plate and being willing counts for a great deal at diplomatic and political levels.

So....we do need a better equipped military, but a jet fighter wing just isn't practical, or necessary. Just read a book about the SAS in Afghanistan which makes the point that there is no substitute for a man on the ground. That's why the US never caught Bin Laden - they didn't want to commit their soldiers early enough, relying instead on laser bombs and satellites.