My first poll for the NZ public

[gwigs]

Good onya. But you know this... how?

Same place you get your info from..guessing..

[Ocean1]

Same place you get your info from..guessing..

Oh I know full well that I don't work as hard as my grandparents did.

I know what it took for them to achieve the standard of living they did at the time, and I know damned well that I don't have to work that hard now to live twice as well.

So no, no guesses required.

[gwigs]

Oh I know full well that I don't work as hard as my grandparents did.

I know what it took for them to achieve the standard of living they did at the time, and I know damned well that I don't have to work that hard now to live twice as well.

So no, no guesses required.

Humble apologies , I get what you are saying....

[mashman]

So, to paraphrase: Waa, waah, I don't want to work hard enough to earn the good life. I want to change the rules so that everyone can have what they want without having to work for it. Waah waa.

That about cover it?

More, oh FFS, it doesn't have to be this hard in the slightest and I don't mind earning my way in a society that makes certain things easier and less of a chore. I want to change the rules so that everyone can have a decent standard of living without having to face death due to a lack of money or have to take a what is classed as a shitty job by a bunch of elitist entitlement ridden dipshits and end up having to struggle through life because said dipshits don't know any better. FFS, we're all just human beings. More along those lines. You must take some form of perverse pleasure out of knowing that large numbers of people, quite possibly half of the planets population, have a real fight for survival on their hands. Pity really, coz you would probably be quite useful on "our" side of the fence.

[mashman]

Yup, where is the incentive? Who is going to make sure everyone pulls their weight?

It will be a fuck up.

Some day you kids are going to have to put on some big boy pants. I honestly wish it was sooner rather than later, but meh, I'll not be holding my breath.

In answer to your question: The incentive is to get rid of the financial system and to start taking responsibility for our choices. As said, that's going to require big boys pants. People don't pull their weight in the current system (that includes those who purposefully limit their tax obligations), and that has a detrimental affect on other peoples lives... be it being battered by someone who wants a phone or your money, be it digging in the sand to find fresh water risking illness, be it not having enough funding for what is a needed cause etc... Big boy pants is where it's at, I suggest a few of you try putting some on instead of hiding behind piss poor pathetic excuses and archaic thinking that fucks with the lives of others. Who gives a shit if 0.0001% of the population are lazy cunts? Give them food and a roof and by all means apply some form of "austerity" on them, but they are not a reason to not get the fuck on with doing thing properly. Pathetic.

Where there's a will, there's a way. There is no spoon. Do, or do not, there is no try etfuckinc... We can do anything, but the choice, as always will be yours. Big boy pants v's too hard basket.

[YellowDog]

I live in a mini barter system. Services for fish, eggs, meat, fruit etc. The guy at the Caltex service station just won't play ball though

[Ocean1]

More, oh FFS, it doesn't have to be this hard in the slightest and I don't mind earning my way in a society that makes certain things easier and less of a chore. I want to change the rules so that everyone can have a decent standard of living without having to face death due to a lack of money or have to take a what is classed as a shitty job by a bunch of elitist entitlement ridden dipshits and end up having to struggle through life because said dipshits don't know any better. FFS, we're all just human beings. More along those lines. You must take some form of perverse pleasure out of knowing that large numbers of people, quite possibly half of the planets population, have a real fight for survival on their hands. Pity really, coz you would probably be quite useful on "our" side of the fence.

Correction: Every person on this planet faces death if they fail to produce something useful.

And those of us that have done that, and more, know exactly how much of a chore that is, and see no reason that others should have to work less to achieve the same.

And us "elitists" are indeed entitled to the standard of living our income allows. It's our income. We earned it by producing something others wanted to buy.

So you're ill-considered plan to divest us of the results of our ability to make ourselves useful and to select our particular "chore" with some foresight is patently unfair.

You presumably have no problem with deciding what you should pay for what you buy, so I can't imagine why you've got a problem with everyone else doing the same thing. And that's what establishes not just the value of the product but the income of the guy that made it. So rather than changing the rules, learn to equate productive effort with it's market-driven income and then work as hard as you need to in order to gain the lifestyle you want.

And don't come bleating to those that have done so that it's all too difficult and you can't be fukt making the effort.

Some day you kids are going to have to put on some big boy pants. I honestly wish it was sooner rather than later, but meh, I'll not be holding my breath.

In answer to your question: The incentive is to get rid of the financial system and to start taking responsibility for our choices. As said, that's going to require big boys pants. People don't pull their weight in the current system (that includes those who purposefully limit their tax obligations), and that has a detrimental affect on other peoples lives... be it being battered by someone who wants a phone or your money, be it digging in the sand to find fresh water risking illness, be it not having enough funding for what is a needed cause etc... Big boy pants is where it's at, I suggest a few of you try putting some on instead of hiding behind piss poor pathetic excuses and archaic thinking that fucks with the lives of others. Who gives a shit if 0.0001% of the population are lazy cunts? Give them food and a roof and by all means apply some form of "austerity" on them, but they are not a reason to not get the fuck on with doing thing properly. Pathetic.

Where there's a will, there's a way. There is no spoon. Do, or do not, there is no try etfuckinc... We can do anything, but the choice, as always will be yours. Big boy pants v's too hard basket.

Who gives a fuck if 0.0001% of potential tax isn't actually collected? I understand that you don't like tax evaders, but their lack of contribution to the consolidated fund doesn't affect anyone who doesn't rely on hand-outs. It doesn't affect those who do rely of hand-outs to any measurable degree either.

Neither are they responsible for the actions of those who steal phones or other people's money. That'd be the people who stole phone's and other people's money. Starting to see how this personal responsibility shit works now?

So, grow up a bit so you'll fit those big boy pants currently bunched up around your knees, get off your arse and earn your own life like an adult.

[scumdog]

I have worked hard all my life and I,ll bet I,ve worked harder than you in one year than you have in your whole life,I,m talking physical work not behind a pen..and worked just as hard as my Grandad
Thanks...

Glad you don't think that applies to me....I think...

[mashman]

Correction: Every person on this planet faces death if they fail to produce something useful.

And those of us that have done that, and more, know exactly how much of a chore that is, and see no reason that others should have to work less to achieve the same.

And us "elitists" are indeed entitled to the standard of living our income allows. It's our income. We earned it by producing something others wanted to buy.

So you're ill-considered plan to divest us of the results of our ability to make ourselves useful and to select our particular "chore" with some foresight is patently unfair.

You presumably have no problem with deciding what you should pay for what you buy, so I can't imagine why you've got a problem with everyone else doing the same thing. And that's what establishes not just the value of the product but the income of the guy that made it. So rather than changing the rules, learn to equate productive effort with it's market-driven income and then work as hard as you need to in order to gain the lifestyle you want.

And don't come bleating to those that have done so that it's all too difficult and you can't be fukt making the effort.

That's a correction? It ignores so many facets of every day life that it's an exceptionally laughable position to take. However I do understand what you mean, even though I think it's a shortsighted position to take.

You didn't get to where you are today entirely on your own merit... and without a doubt there are people who have worked by far harder than you but earn far less than you because people like you do not value what they produce. So work ethic does not directly equate to achievement, because that achievement is valued financially. To that end you treat their effort as a chore. The only difference between your 14 hours a day and their 14 hours a day is the value of their output. There is no difference otherwise and to write those people off is disingenius at best as it assumes that hard work = rewards similar to yourself.

You only earn more than someone else. As stated above, people put in as just as much effort as yourself, yet do not receive the same rewards. Can you explain to me how that is fair in human terms, not in market value terms?

What do you perceive you are going to lose given my better thought out plan than the current one we work to? Unfair? Seriously? You haven't got a clue of what unfair is.

I get the market and how you see it and it does absolutely nothing for makind as a whole. Moreover it throws people into poverty, limits education options, limits the positions available that command a liveable wage etc... but you ignore that as a valid side affect of your economy. Again, hard work does not equate to the lifestyle you want because of the way your precious market economy is structured. No man is an island, yet you seem to think that that is exactly what you are. You believe that everything you have achieved is all down to you. You're wrong, hugely so.

Sigh. As I have repeatedly stated, this has fook all to do with my situation. I'm alright jack, but see that too many aren't, and not through lack of effort or work ethic.

Who gives a fuck if 0.0001% of potential tax isn't actually collected? I understand that you don't like tax evaders, but their lack of contribution to the consolidated fund doesn't affect anyone who doesn't rely on hand-outs. It doesn't affect those who do rely of hand-outs to any measurable degree either.

Neither are they responsible for the actions of those who steal phones or other people's money. That'd be the people who stole phone's and other people's money. Starting to see how this personal responsibility shit works now?

So, grow up a bit so you'll fit those big boy pants currently bunched up around your knees, get off your arse and earn your own life like an adult.

You've got to be shining me on. You call me an economic illiterate and come out with that little beauty. It doesn't affect anyone who doesn't rely on a handout? That goes way beyond short sighted. You've rationalised a concept to a finite point and I suggest you take another look at your logic. Who pays for the infrastructure you rely on? and where does that money come from? Seriously dude, you may want to revist your vision of the economy, because it's about as far from reality as I've seen yet as it ignores absolutely everything that NZ society pays for and that the private sector take full advantage of. You obviously have no idea why I dislike tax evaders, because you only see things to a finite point.

You get the society that you are willing to pay for. Yes, we are just as responsible as the thief, because we create a society that makes that situation tenable. As I said before, remove the financial system and those behaviours will all but vanish. Your financial system relies on that behaviour.

Again, I'm alright jack and you're about as far from the mark as you could possibly be... that and you are obviously missing the point entirely. I have been where you are in regards to definding the financial system and it's supposed workings and it's wrong, seriously fuckin wrong given what it is supposed to be achieving. In comparison to the big boy pants you and I are wearing, yours are more akin to a boob tube that's obviously so tight around your neck that it's cutting vital oxygen off from your brain and reducing your capacity for rational thought. But that's alright, at least I understand why you are so set in your ways and are unable to change your own mind. Kind of sad really, my condolences.

[Ocean1]

You only earn more than someone else. As stated above, people put in as just as much effort as yourself, yet do not receive the same rewards. Can you explain to me how that is fair in human terms, not in market value terms?

No problem. I make products and provide services valuable to others in society. Others produce stuff or services worth more to others in society. Yet others produce stuff or services worth less to others in society. That's perfectly fair, everyone has the choice to pay whatever they think is reasonable for anything they want, and everyone has the choice whether they want to provide that item for the market price. If you decide you want to provide goods or a service that others want to pay lots for then you might want to do something about acquiring the wherewithal to enable you to do that.

As I said before, if you want to spend your working day producing stuff nobody wants then don't expect people to pay very much for you to do that. And if you think being "human" means you have the right to expect that someone actually does pay you more for your work than it's worth then you're approximately as wrong about that as every other loser that want's something for nothing.

It doesn't affect anyone who doesn't rely on a handout? That goes way beyond short sighted. You've rationalised a concept to a finite point and I suggest you take another look at your logic. Who pays for the infrastructure you rely on? and where does that money come from? Seriously dude, you may want to revist your vision of the economy, because it's about as far from reality as I've seen yet as it ignores absolutely everything that NZ society pays for and that the private sector take full advantage of. You obviously have no idea why I dislike tax evaders, because you only see things to a finite point.

It affects public funding no more than does your supposed fraudulently claimed 0.0001% of the welfare budget.

As for who pays for infrastructure, I do, along with every other tax payer, including the private sector. The fact that a small percentage of high earners manage to pay less than the government claims they should and the fact that a small percentage of losers defraud the taxpayer is of little consequence. The facts are inescapable. As is the logic.

That's the actual, real reality, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with my perception of it, a perception, I add nowhere near as divergent from that of the vast majority of tax payers as is yours.

Welcome to the real world.

[mashman]

No problem. I make products and provide services valuable to others in society. Others produce stuff or services worth more to others in society. Yet others produce stuff or services worth less to others in society. That's perfectly fair, everyone has the choice to pay whatever they think is reasonable for anything they want, and everyone has the choice whether they want to provide that item for the market price. If you decide you want to provide goods or a service that others want to pay lots for then you might want to do something about acquiring the wherewithal to enable you to do that.

As I said before, if you want to spend your working day producing stuff nobody wants then don't expect people to pay very much for you to do that. And if you think being "human" means you have the right to expect that someone actually does pay you more for your work than it's worth then you're approximately as wrong about that as every other loser that want's something for nothing.

Perfectly fair? But you said that those who earned less must work less hard. It's not fair at all if that's going to be your measure because you're not giving everyone the ability to have the same purchasing power. Like I said, disingenious at best... especially when the goods/services are produced to maximise profit which isn't returned to the employees as a fair wage for hard work.

Being human means just that. You are born into a world to live a life, why should you have to live your life as a lesser human because the elistist entitlement brigade decide that what you produce is not of any great value. You don't understand what it means to be human, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion and carrying on with your calling people who earn less than loser highlights just how inhuman you are. You're an automaton at best.

It affects public funding no more than does your supposed fraudulently claimed 0.0001% of the welfare budget.

As for who pays for infrastructure, I do, along with every other tax payer, including the private sector. The fact that a small percentage of high earners manage to pay less than the government claims they should and the fact that a small percentage of losers defraud the taxpayer is of little consequence. The facts are inescapable. As is the logic.

That's the actual, real reality, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with my perception of it, a perception, I add nowhere near as divergent from that of the vast majority of tax payers as is yours.

Welcome to the real world.

bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... 100,000 people have supposedly squirreled away $32 trillion in offshore accounts and you reckpn that's akin to several billion people who claim the dole? given that $32 trillion is double that of the entire debt of the US I think you're seriously deluding yourself into believing that the drag is coming from the people at the bottom of the pile. Sure they don't help, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the fraudulent few.

What facts? what logic? You've got none. Again, what's with the loser comment? Actually, can you give me a definition of what you consider to be a loser? I gotta hear this.

Your perception denies the fallout that that reality produces. Hence why you disagree with my viewpoint. You haven't got a clue what the vast majority think and neither do I, but given the result in the poll, it looks as though it'll be much closer than you think... that and the demographic in here are those with money (dat's why bikers are targeted). I betcha once I get into the lower decile areas the numbers are going to swell and that "my" view will become the majority view. People haven't been offered a choice yet and you're claiming that you know what the majority would choose? As per, you're wide of the mark with your justification.

Welcome to World 2.0

[Ocean1]

Perfectly fair? But you said that those who earned less must work less hard.

Nope. I said those who earn less earn less. That is to say they produced goods or services others were willing to pay less for. How hard you chose to work is just a small part of that.

It's not fair at all if that's going to be your measure because you're not giving everyone the ability to have the same purchasing power. Like I said, disingenious at best... especially when the goods/services are produced to maximise profit which isn't returned to the employees as a fair wage for hard work.

Of course it's fair. If they wanted to earn more then they should produce goods or services of more value.

As for employees, you're exposing your native prejudices again. How the fuck would you know whether any given employee had earned his pay or not? As a rule employees earn a metric shitload more than business, is that fair?

Nah, don't bother, your ideas about what's fair are so far from reality your opinion isn't worth shit.

I'll stick to the current deal, where they guy that earned the cash in his pocket gets to decide what to use it for, and those who want more get to earn it.

The rest of your post is so far from relevant to NZ it's not even worth the time it took to read it.

[Oscar]

bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... 100,000 people have supposedly squirreled away $32 trillion in offshore accounts and you reckpn that's akin to several billion people who claim the dole? given that $32 trillion is double that of the entire debt of the US I think you're seriously deluding yourself into believing that the drag is coming from the people at the bottom of the pile. Sure they don't help, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the fraudulent few.

How many of those 100,000 people live in NZ?
What relevance do they have to the average Kiwi dole bludger?

[mashman]

Nope. I said those who earn less earn less. That is to say they produced goods or services others were willing to pay less for. How hard you chose to work is just a small part of that.

So it has nothing to do with hard work then and all to do with what value the market puts on your effort (which is something we cleared up eons ago). In other words the market can't produce enough well paid jobs because people just simply wouldn't buy the goods and services at just any price... and then you decide that those who are losers or lazy are at fault based on the value that they they produce, where in reality it's the market and its valuation of their effort that is the issue. Hardly a fair assessment.

Of course it's fair. If they wanted to earn more then they should produce goods or services of more value.

As for employees, you're exposing your native prejudices again. How the fuck would you know whether any given employee had earned his pay or not? As a rule employees earn a metric shitload more than business, is that fair?

Nah, don't bother, your ideas about what's fair are so far from reality your opinion isn't worth shit.

I'll stick to the current deal, where they guy that earned the cash in his pocket gets to decide what to use it for, and those who want more get to earn it.

The rest of your post is so far from relevant to NZ it's not even worth the time it took to read it.

But the market decides what their effort is valued at, not them. Again, not exactly something I would call fair.

They turn up and they do as they're told within the bounds of their contract. Otherwise they get removed. Where's the prejudice?
How can the employees earn more than the business? It's the business that "earns" the money and then it pays its bills to the "contractors" who made that revenue generation possible. Fair would be a floating rate wage and a business operating as a cooperative. Anything other than that is unfair.

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... all I'm doing is suggesting that we remove the financial system and its limitations and leaving everything else to run as it does. The reality stays, but the rules can change to suit the individual. I would have thought that would have appealed to you for some reason, after all, every worker would then be able to look after themselves.

But those who want more don't get to earn it because the market only makes a certain number of positions available that command that "more" and iffen you take another person's job, then that person falls back to where the previous person was. Sounds like a lolly scramble to me, hardly what I would call a sound basis on which to run an economy.

baaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... Oh god, you've got Oscaritis. Talk of the devil...

[mashman]

How many of those 100,000 people live in NZ?
What relevance do they have to the average Kiwi dole bludger?

Dickhead. What does the G stand for in GFC? I suggest you start there.