Exactly how far out of touch...

[avgas]

Well ??? Don't you ??? Want money based on how hard you work, that is ...

Even a leach takes a set quota from its victim. The leach does not get proportionally bigger if your a body builder.
Govt doesn't like to follow this rule.

[riffer]

I can't believe no-one (else) spotted this little gem. Have another read and understand what's subtly NOT said.

You mean that the top 8% of taxpayers EARN more than everyone else combined?

[MSTRS:Me]

You mean that the top 8% of taxpayers EARN more than everyone else combined?

He said the top 8% of taxpayers PAY more than...etc. True.

You cannot say that for the top 8% of EARNERS...

[Ocean1]

You cannot say that for the top 8% of EARNERS...

So they didn't earn the money upon which they paid that tax?

Whereas the 92% of the rest did?

Including the beneficiaries of such largesse?


Jeez, you can't claim we orta seen that one coming, what from sooooo far out in left field, there.

[imdying]

And when you are no longer an earner and tax-payer? When you go on Government super and become a beneficiary ??? No votes for you then ...

Both of those groups pay tax, but I get your point and agree with it. I'm sure thousands of housewives would like to burn hitcher.

[mashman]

or are we already borrowing 250million a week to cover his gift to the boys.

last news report I saw, they quoted that we're up to 300 mil per week...

[riffer]

So they didn't earn the money upon which they paid that tax?

Whereas the 92% of the rest did?

Including the beneficiaries of such largesse?


Jeez, you can't claim we orta seen that one coming, what from sooooo far out in left field, there.

No I think what John's trying to say is that the top tax payers aren't necessarily the top earners.

[Ocean1]

Both of those groups pay tax, but I get your point and agree with it. I'm sure thousands of housewives would like to burn hitcher.

Meh. Never mind the vote, we orta never have given 'em shoes.

[Ocean1]

No I think what John's trying to say is that the top tax payers aren't necessarily the top earners.

Then he orta use different words.

He's right, but I suspect not as right as he believes.

[MSTRS:Me]

No I think what John's trying to say is that the top tax payers aren't necessarily the top earners.

That is exactly what I'm saying.
The waged and salaried get taxed at source and therefore 'pay their share'.
Who can say the same for those like, say, Michael Hill (and no, I'm not suggesting he is like that) who can arrange their income affairs to look like they earn WAY less than they really do.

[Hitcher]

I'm sure thousands of housewives would like to burn hitcher.

If by "housewives" you are referring to that endangered species of home-based, non-income-earning females, then if their non-beneficiary-earning husbands are paying more than $10,000 in tax they could use one of his votes.

[shrub]

Sounds a little bit too much like feudal Europe for my taste.

I also shudder to think what the country would be like when in days of boom, the like of Petrecivic et al would be calling the shots in Parliament.

No thanks.

But we're moving back into a feudal system where corporate giants are becoming more powerful than governments, and people are willingly seeking to transfer more and more control to a decreasing number of corporate entities. And these corporate overlords will use their power and influence to ensure that the citizenry have to purchase services from them (at a profit) instead of purchasig those services from the government with taxes. It's called privatisation, and John Key is planning it now.

[mashman]

But we're moving back into a feudal system where corporate giants are becoming more powerful than governments, and people are willingly seeking to transfer more and more control to a decreasing number of corporate entities. And these corporate overlords will use their power and influence to ensure that the citizenry have to purchase services from them (at a profit) instead of purchasig those services from the government with taxes. It's called privatisation, and John Key is planning it now.

isn't that called a Plutocracy

[shrub]

isn't that called a Plutocracy

It is, and plutocracy has a lot in common with neo-feudalism to the point where they can mean much the same thing. I remember reading something by one of the 20th century political phiosophers (I thing it was either Arendt or Haseler, but I'm not sure) argued that human society was reverting to a form of feudalism based less on the mediaeval concept of military and hereditory power but on accruded economic power, and that we are in the final days of democracy.

Are you familar with Michel's iron law of oligarchy?

[Swoop]

Im sure there's some "security" reason why we can't reuse those buildings, god forbid the Govt did anything sensible

What security reasons would there be on a disused military base?

I can answer this. The defence housing isnt up to the minimum standard required by housing NZ. So the members of the defence force who work hard and often in harsh environments get to live in conditions that are deemed not up to the standard needed for the bludgers.

See above. Bases that the military have moved out of (quite a few around) could be used to put a roof (in whatever condition it was left in) over some heads.