Dear Mr English, I don't want a tax cut

[Oscar]

??
Surely the above average wages are the drawcard? Who else would employ Nandor or Sue Badford, especially on an MP's wage?

The wages aren't above average for the type of people we need in the job.
We pay peanuts and get Nandor.

[SPman]

I think it was Rodney Hide that made a comment about why we should be grateful that the Govt. is giving us back our own money...

Giving it back in the same way "Mr Perksbuster" is being squeaky clean, honest and above board?

The wages aren't above average for the type of people we need in the job.
We pay peanuts and get Nandor.

Nandor was actually a far more competent and effective MP than most of you shrills gave him credit for - but - you prefer MP's of the competence of Paula Bennet, Judith Collins, Nick Smith, David Garrett, Bill English, etc.. They are obviously far more moral, intelligent, concerned for the well being of the population of the country as a whole, both rich and poor .......

[Oscar]

Giving it back in the same way "Mr Perksbuster" is being squeaky clean, honest and above board?

Nandor was actually a far more competent and effective MP than most of you shrills gave him credit for - but - you prefer MP's of the competence of Paula Bennet, Judith Collins, Nick Smith, David Garrett, Bill English, etc.. They are obviously far more moral, intelligent, concerned for the well being of the population of the country as a whole, both rich and poor .......

Shrills?
I've been called many things but not shrill.
Bit grumpy today aren't you? Perhaps you should check your vagina for sand.

Firstly I was already saying that most of the current crop are useless.
Notwithstanding that, what did Nandor ever do?
Apart from advocating ganja lifestyle and being banned from every School in NZ?

As far as Mr. Hide is concerned, all I said was I liked the quote - shit Jim Anderton could have said it and I still would have applauded.

[Jonno.]

Well at least you've got one thing right. It is tough being smarter (I don't claim to be "righter"), when you try to get people to debate specific questions and challenge them to think about things in a new or different way, and they simply refuse to engage in that debate, but continue to repeat a tired old mantra. Case in point: I have repeatedly said that the decision to stick with a single-rate GST is a policy decision that puts the convenience of business ahead of the needs of the people. Has anyone debated/refuted that proposition? All I get is endless examples of why it would make our GST scheme more complicated to have exemptions or differential rates (I've never denied that). My suggestion that the more complicated schemes adopted by other countries such as France serve a useful purpose despite their higher compliance costs is ignored.
As for being condescending - yes, I admit I don't suffer fools gladly. Nor do I subscribe to the current view that all opinions are valid. If you can't or won't think logically, analytically and deeply about something you shouldn't expect to be treated as an equal by those who do.

You'll have no difficulty answering me then.

[Jonno.]

Giving it back in the same way "Mr Perksbuster" is being squeaky clean, honest and above board?

Nandor was actually a far more competent and effective MP than most of you shrills gave him credit for - but - you prefer MP's of the competence of Paula Bennet, Judith Collins, Nick Smith, David Garrett, Bill English, etc.. They are obviously far more moral, intelligent, concerned for the well being of the population of the country as a whole, both rich and poor .......

Nandor and 90% of the Green party couldn't get a job outside of parliment much less one that payed anything close to parlimentary salary + perks.

[davereid]

Nandor and 90% of the Green party couldn't get a job outside of parliment much less one that payed anything close to parlimentary salary + perks.

They arent that silly... they all hang around for long enough to qualify for the M.P.s gold plated superannuation scheme and travel perks before they resign.

[Winston001]

I have repeatedly said that the decision to stick with a single-rate GST is a policy decision that puts the convenience of business ahead of the needs of the people. Has anyone debated/refuted that proposition? All I get is endless examples of why it would make our GST scheme more complicated to have exemptions or differential rates (I've never denied that).

My suggestion that the more complicated schemes adopted by other countries such as France serve a useful purpose despite their higher compliance costs is ignored.

Ooer Ah loves a challenge.

But first, please paragraph your posts. Effective communication in a news-bite world requires ideas to be expressed in clear quanta. Saying 2 or 3 things in one paragraph loses the reader and many people won't even bother when confronted with a slab of text. One idea at a time.

Now - you believe the simplicity of our GST system is driven by a govt agenda to reduce business costs. In part, you are right. Businesses are people. They are not some amorphous machine or dark satanic mill where we each grind away in servitude. Most NZ businesses are mum and dad, plus a handful of employees if they are lucky. So reducing administrative burdens for all of those people is beneficial to society. Its non-productive work.

There isn't a scintilla of evidence that any govt - remember GST was introduced by Labour - wants to harm the average person in order to favour a business owner. Indeed the growth of state impositions on business over the past 25 years shows the very opposite (OSH, complex holiday rules, Kiwisaver etc)

I don't mind your forth-right position but you descend to ad hominen attacks which obscure the issue. Furthermore, is it just possible that the "tired old cliche" counter-arguments might be correct?? This GST on/not for food has been argued for decades by greater minds than ours.

[MikeL]

I don't mind your forth-right position but you descend to ad hominen attacks which obscure the issue. Furthermore, is it just possible that the "tired old cliche" counter-arguments might be correct?? This GST on/not for food has been argued for decades by greater minds than ours.

I accept that my comments about sheep were perhaps a bit below the belt. But you might see there a hint of the frustration I feel when people consistently fail to see my point.

I would still like to see an intelligent reply to my question about the benefits and disadvantages of differential GST rates. I fully acknowledge the points you make about business costs; FWIW my wife and I ran a small business until very recently, doing 2-monthly GST returns. When GST was introduced we were at first annoyed that we had to do the IRD's work for them, but I now accept that, just as I accept the need for the government to keep more of "my" money than some people think right.

To rephrase the basic question (as a sound-bite): Do you accept that in principle it might be better to accept higher compliance costs if there is a demonstrable social advantage?

[davereid]

Do you accept that in principle it might be better to accept higher compliance costs if there is a demonstrable social advantage?

No. In fact, I don't think social policy is a justification for any tax.

Capitalism may result in the unjust use of force. But its not an inherent part of the system, its more related to individual human greed.

Basic capitalism offers willing buyer, willing seller, no use of force required.

But socialism is based on violence. It cant exist without it, as if you give people the choice as to who they give their money to, you have capitalism.

There is a man begging for money at the side of the road.

The capitalist speaks to him, and if convinced of the genuineness of the man's plight will give him some of his own money.
The socialist speaks to him and if convinced of the genuineness of the man's plight will steal money off other people and give it to him.
The communist is the man begging.

Like all socialists, you love to talk of social justice, equality etc etc. Yet, socialisim is just violence. Thats how it works. You use force, to take money and resources off people who dont want to contribute it, and justify it by saying "but we are doing good things with it !"

So no, I don't accept that "social justice" can be achieved by force. I don't accept that "increased compliance costs" might make the theft of money more acceptable, and I dont accept that "social advantage" is a reason to steal.

[Jonno.]

I accept that my comments about sheep were perhaps a bit below the belt. But you might see there a hint of the frustration I feel when people consistently fail to see my point.

I would still like to see an intelligent reply to my question about the benefits and disadvantages of differential GST rates. I fully acknowledge the points you make about business costs; FWIW my wife and I ran a small business until very recently, doing 2-monthly GST returns. When GST was introduced we were at first annoyed that we had to do the IRD's work for them, but I now accept that, just as I accept the need for the government to keep more of "my" money than some people think right.

To rephrase the basic question (as a sound-bite): Do you accept that in principle it might be better to accept higher compliance costs if there is a demonstrable social advantage?

Read my post.

Until you can understand that
1) removing the GST on food would cost shitloads and have to come from somewhere.
2) We're borrowing shit loads of money.
3) Businesses employ people.
4) Removing GST would would be negative as the supermarkets would absorb it into their profit and the govt would be out of pocket.
5) The labour party didn't introduce it either.

It's funny, everytime I come into this thread I see MikeL viewing but he hasn't responded.

[mashman]

No. In fact, I don't think social policy is a justification for any tax.

Capitalism may result in the unjust use of force. But its not an inherent part of the system, its more related to individual human greed.

Basic capitalism offers willing buyer, willing seller, no use of force required.

But socialism is based on violence. It cant exist without it, as if you give people the choice as to who they give their money to, you have capitalism.

There is a man begging for money at the side of the road.

The capitalist speaks to him, and if convinced of the genuineness of the man's plight will give him some of his own money.
The socialist speaks to him and if convinced of the genuineness of the man's plight will steal money off other people and give it to him.
The communist is the man begging.

Like all socialists, you love to talk of social justice, equality etc etc. Yet, socialisim is just violence. Thats how it works. You use force, to take money and resources off people who dont want to contribute it, and justify it by saying "but we are doing good things with it !"

So no, I don't accept that "social justice" can be achieved by force. I don't accept that "increased compliance costs" might make the theft of money more acceptable, and I dont accept that "social advantage" is a reason to steal.

Ok, so from my perspective...

Social policy is THE justification for every tax... otherwise why do we pay taxes? if not to pay for services that help us all (as well as subsidising those industries that can't afford to run themselves (to the tune of millions(billions???), free loading bludgers)

Capitalism always results in the use of unjust force. Trade is not a social "activity" anymore, it's a bullying tactic using a moral and financial value system as a weapon... i'll give you this, for that, or you won't get it... who cares if you need it to survive (a big capitalist FUCK YOU)... meet the price!!!!

Basic Capitalism ignores those that can't buy because they don't have the correct "currency"... you say that socialism results in violence... what do you expect when capitalisms tactics are used to rule... that violence, I call it crime... money the object of all needs...

Socialism ends in violence, it's not part of the journey, because we live in a capitalist society and the capitalists don't like having their "authority" and rules challenged... and defend it using the policing force...


This morning my Daughter in the car

The capitalist, daughter, says that she won't give her friend her party bag, because 3 weeks ago the friend didn't give her a present for her birthday.
The socialist, me for the purposes, speaks to the capitalist and explains that not everyone can afford to give presents to every friend for their birthdays (20 a season), potentially because they can't afford it, and that it would be a nice gesture to give the party bag for free... after all they are supposed to be friends.
There isn't a communist in sight, just some kid who can't AFFORD to buy her friend a present... just like the man who has to beg form money, otherwise he's bin raiding etc...

My daughter won't budge, still holding the party bag ransom... and that's a 7 year old kid... Now imagine her generation in 15 years...
I'm fucking disgusted and fully intend to have a serious chat with my daughter in regards to her shitty attitude... she's 7 and needs to understand why these things happen...
The friend is heartbroken because she's been singled out for not brining a present and therefore hasn't got the party bag that everyone else did... and may have lost a friend, injustly, because of it.

Like all capitalists, you love to talk about money fixing things etc... etc... Yet Capitalism is just violence... Thats how it works. You use force, to take money and resources off people who who dont want to contribute theor fair share, and justify it by saying "but we are doing good things with it !"

So yes, I do accept that "social justice" can be achieved by force (because capitalists use it every day to brow beat the sheople). I do accept that "increased compliance costs" might make the theft of money more acceptable, and I don't accept that "social advantage" is a reason to steal (again, capitalists do this every day).

IMHO

[davereid]

Your daughter is just selfish, not capitalist.

Its not correct to assume that capitalists wont support the poor or needy. The selfish ones may not, but there are plenty of capitalists who generously share their money.

The same occurs in any system - plenty of people are starving in North Korea, just a few miles from the "peoples palace". Thats an issue of greed, and is not unique to capitalist systems.

Capitalism can survive without violence, its a world of willing buyer, willing seller and freely negotiated price. It will need rules to ensure the larger players don't play the game unfairly, but it can be done.

Socialisim on the other hand requires violence. It doesnt end in violence or just use it as part of the journey, socialism by its very nature is about violence.

Two of the three kids in the playground vote for socialism. They beat the third boy up, and take his lunch (democratically).

The boy in charge eats the sandwich, sharing the crust with the boy who voted for him, and the boy they stole it off.

Thats socialism, thats how it works.

But you are right. The third boy may have chosen to eat his lunch and not share it.

Socialists think that justifies stealing it. I don't.

[SPman]

They arent that silly... they all hang around for long enough to qualify for the M.P.s gold plated superannuation scheme and travel perks before they resign.

Not so - Nandor deliberately resigned and left parliament before he qualified for all the perks. Unlike most in there, he does have some moral scruples......

Your daughter is just selfish, not capitalist.

Is that not the way of the world though! Show me a big time capitalist who isn't selfish! You talk about capitalism as a pure theory in a perfect world, yet rankle at "impure" socialism - which in a perfect world, is also not violent - in the real world each appears to be equally violent depending on who stands to gain the most from them. Capitalism appeals more to the selfish among us by it's very nature.

God help us from those who try to implement "pure" theory, capitalist, socialist or religious - amongst that lot, pure socialism (not despotic communism, as many like to equate it with) is more beneficial to the population at large!

Thats socialism, thats how it works.

see above. It could equally be applied to capitalism!

[mashman]

Your daughter is just selfish, not capitalist.

Its not correct to assume that capitalists wont support the poor or needy. The selfish ones may not, but there are plenty of capitalists who generously share their money.

The same occurs in any system - plenty of people are starving in North Korea, just a few miles from the "peoples palace". Thats an issue of greed, and is not unique to capitalist systems.

Capitalism can survive without violence, its a world of willing buyer, willing seller and freely negotiated price. It will need rules to ensure the larger players don't play the game unfairly, but it can be done.

Socialisim on the other hand requires violence. It doesnt end in violence or just use it as part of the journey, socialism by its very nature is about violence.

Two of the three kids in the playground vote for socialism. They beat the third boy up, and take his lunch (democratically).

The boy in charge eats the sandwich, sharing the crust with the boy who voted for him, and the boy they stole it off.

Thats socialism, thats how it works.

But you are right. The third boy may have chosen to eat his lunch and not share it.

Socialists think that justifies stealing it. I don't.

I wouldn't say selfish, but certainly expects the "norm" to be adhered to... and is penalising someone because of it... time for an education from the hippy side man...

All capitalists, are by definition (in my book), inherently selfish... after all the whole point behind capitalism is the accumulation of wealth to sustain yourself and your family...

True, there are capitalists that share their money... some even do it for a tax break...

Plenty of people are starving around the globe, but that's the fault of their respective governments, not the people themselves... missiles don't pay for themselves ya know...

Willing buyer, willing seller, but at a price dictated by the capitalist market (not all prices are negotiable)... hardly fair to those who don't have, becuase the greedy do haves (those with the POWER) won't share becuase they earned it... pathetic. Rules... ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... why after all of these thousands of years aren't these rules in place? Because you'd kill the capitalism that the have's revere so much. Capitalism is doomed to fail quite dramatically in any number of ways, we can all see it and theres no money to throw at it because the markets need to be controlled. It certainly can't be done, else they would have done it by now. It's just a series of short term strategies to make some more money...

As for the violence. Socialism doesn't require it at all. Neither does capitalism... but if i put them both in a room and saw what each did to the people of the planet, i know which would be more likely to explode violently... and it ain't socialism... why do you think that socialism is inherently violent? Just curious


Two of the three kids in the playground vote for capitalism. First they offer to buy the lunch with money borrowed from another student, offering the other student a part of the lunch. The boy still says no, he earned the lunch. The boys then use the money to bribe the school bullies to get the lunch. Lunch obtained, lunch divided into parts according to effort imparted in the lunch "acquisition"... the new boy gets the crusts, but has to pay for them, again, because the original money that he could have used to buy his lunch with, was used to pay someone else for the lunch...

Capitalism, thats how it works.

Capitalists think that justifies stealing it (and then ask for more). I don't.

there's no such thing as a free lunch or is there...

Socialist girl comes over the following day and gives the boy a kiss because he's sad and injured... he shares his lunch with the girl because the bullies have stolen hers...

[Swoop]

4) Removing GST would would be negative as the supermarkets would absorb it into their profit and the govt would be out of pocket.
5) The labour party didn't introduce it either.

They introduced 2.5% of GST though.