Stupid World

**mashman** · 11th March 2014, 19:13

Originally Posted by carbonhed

Quitting smoking? Your government is here to help.................

Yeah right!

So much for choice huh... but we should trust them coz they know what's best. I'm sure the lung cancer rate has nothing to do with land mass v's population and amount of traffic on the roads. Nah, that'd be silly.

**Ocean1** · 11th March 2014, 19:56

Originally Posted by carbonhed

Quitting smoking? Your government is here to help.................

Yeah right!

And EQUALLY interesting... http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...n-poverty.aspx

**bogan** · 11th March 2014, 20:11

Originally Posted by Ocean1

And EQUALLY interesting... http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...n-poverty.aspx

That's some damn good perspective.

"If you measure consumption inequality, it is far lower than pre-tax income inequality, because the top 40 per cent of earners pay more in than they get out, while the bottom 60 per cent get more out than they pay in. Indeed, in Britain the top 1 per cent generate about 30 per cent of the total income-tax haul. After such redistribution, the richest fifth of the population has only four times as much money to play with as the poorest fifth."

**mashman** · 11th March 2014, 21:33

Originally Posted by Ocean1

And EQUALLY interesting... http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...n-poverty.aspx

Awesome... we can look forwards to getting rid of inequality and poverty in the next, oh, despite all of that research there's no timeline. I love that they use statistics to draw factual conclusions. A man after my own heart.

**Brian d marge** · 13th March 2014, 00:01

Snip
Genesis Energy's chairwoman, former prime minister Dame Jenny Shipley, and chief executive Albert Brantley came before the Commerce Select Committee in Parliament today, just weeks ahead of the company's partial float.

what does one say ....lost for words

Stephen

**avgas** · 13th March 2014, 05:09

Originally Posted by Brian d marge

Snip
Genesis Energy's chairwoman, former prime minister Dame Jenny Shipley, and chief executive Albert Brantley came before the Commerce Select Committee in Parliament today, just weeks ahead of the company's partial float.
what does one say ....lost for words
Stephen

Shame really. She knows nothing about power systems. May as well hire Donald duck

**Ocean1** · 13th March 2014, 06:17

Originally Posted by mashman

I love that they use statistics to draw factual conclusions.

That's what facts are, dude, if you don't got numbers you've just got opinions.

Numbers, for example demonstrate that western economic systems provide enough opportunities that absolute poverty is non existent, a distinction unmatched in human history. The UN had to invent a whole NEW IMPROVED meaning of poverty in order to be able to continue to believably blame them for having "poor" people.

**mashman** · 13th March 2014, 07:19

Originally Posted by Ocean1

That's what facts are, dude, if you don't got numbers you've just got opinions.

Numbers, for example demonstrate that western economic systems provide enough opportunities that absolute poverty is non existent, a distinction unmatched in human history. The UN had to invent a whole NEW IMPROVED meaning of poverty in order to be able to continue to believably blame them for having "poor" people.

So probability is fact? I'd take opinions over number crunching everyday of the week please. Such a lazy way to make the wrong decisions.

Aye, best to calculate the probability instead of going out and checking by eye. Normal poverty exists though, it's not predominant by any means, but it exists. It needn't.

**Ocean1** · 13th March 2014, 08:12

Originally Posted by mashman

So probability is fact?

In this case the fact is backed up by actual numbers.

Originally Posted by mashman

I'd take opinions over number crunching everyday of the week please.

Which is why you're wrong about almost everything you believe.

Originally Posted by mashman

Aye, best to calculate the probability instead of going out and checking by eye.

If you're on about that UN formula defining "poverty" then it's nothing to do with probability, it's just a piece of socialist bullshit.

Originally Posted by mashman

Normal poverty exists though, it's not predominant by any means, but it exists. It needn't.

Of course it exists. In NZ it's a lifestyle choice the productive element of society pays dearly for, but y'know, just keep biting that hand, that'll fix it.

**Banditbandit** · 13th March 2014, 08:42

Originally Posted by Ocean1

That's what facts are, dude, if you don't got numbers you've just got opinions.

Numbers, for example demonstrate that western economic systems provide enough opportunities that absolute poverty is non existent, a distinction unmatched in human history. The UN had to invent a whole NEW IMPROVED meaning of poverty in order to be able to continue to believably blame them for having "poor" people.

As far as the properties of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain: and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

**avgas** · 13th March 2014, 08:48

The problem with statistics is intangibles can not be measured.

While I agree with all the stats, I recently had a lovely wake up call to what it was like to have no income, living off savings for 4 months, in a country with no benefits for people like me. While some may argue that being poor is a choice, I simply raise the point "does it matter?".

Sometimes empathy can be quite humbling. There is no measure for that. I hope it stays with me for a while. But I doubt it. Now I am back earning, I have to remind myself that others have it worse than I, and my life isn't that bad.

I suspect that forcing politicians to earn $40K/year would make an interesting perspective change.

Rich : "I pay my taxes, my debt to society is done"
Poor : "Why does society tax me?"
Really Poor : "They owe me this"

Neither is the right attitude. Does tax improve anything? I don't know.
But having a scaled tax system doesn't make any sense to me. Instead I recommend the opposite. Flat tax ABOVE a living wage.
Taxing below the living wage simply removes the incentive to work. Taxing more (multiple brackets) as you go simply removes the incentive to earn more.
What if we simply taxed people so they would earn enough to live? - and if they wanted to earn more, they pay the same rate up.

Would at-least stop the rich from trying to avoid extra tax, and the poor from claiming back the tax. Might even balance the equation?

**bogan** · 13th March 2014, 09:20

Originally Posted by avgas

The problem with statistics is intangibles can not be measured.

While I agree with all the stats, I recently had a lovely wake up call to what it was like to have no income, living off savings for 4 months, in a country with no benefits for people like me. While some may argue that being poor is a choice, I simply raise the point "does it matter?".

Sometimes empathy can be quite humbling. There is no measure for that. I hope it stays with me for a while. But I doubt it. Now I am back earning, I have to remind myself that others have it worse than I, and my life isn't that bad.

I suspect that forcing politicians to earn $40K/year would make an interesting perspective change.

Rich : "I pay my taxes, my debt to society is done"
Poor : "Why does society tax me?"
Really Poor : "They owe me this"

Neither is the right attitude. Does tax improve anything? I don't know.
But having a scaled tax system doesn't make any sense to me. Instead I recommend the opposite. Flat tax ABOVE a living wage.
Taxing below the living wage simply removes the incentive to work. Taxing more (multiple brackets) as you go simply removes the incentive to earn more.
What if we simply taxed people so they would earn enough to live? - and if they wanted to earn more, they pay the same rate up.

Would at-least stop the rich from trying to avoid extra tax, and the poor from claiming back the tax. Might even balance the equation?

You'd probably just get a money-go-round with the super rich not paying as much. I mean the 'living wage' now is inclusive of tax paid, gst that needs to be paid etc; and minimum wage reflects that. Take either of those out of it, the living wage goes down, as does the minimum wage. Meanwhile the flat tax above that, means those earning a bit more than minimum, have to pay more tax, while those earning a lot more than min, pay less tax than they do now. A scaled tax system makes perfect sense to me, it's just the loopholes etc within it that need to be addressed.

**mashman** · 13th March 2014, 10:10

Originally Posted by Ocean1

In this case the fact is backed up by actual numbers.

Actual numbers? you mean it's a theory that has been accepoted as fact because the statistics used in the probability calculation came out at 51% or above right?

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Which is why you're wrong about almost everything you believe.

No I'm not, not even close.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

If you're on about that UN formula defining "poverty" then it's nothing to do with probability, it's just a piece of socialist bullshit.

Yeah, but the have factual numbers to back up their position and you've made it clear that facts are facts on that basis. Are you changing your opinion?

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Of course it exists. In NZ it's a lifestyle choice the productive element of society pays dearly for, but y'know, just keep biting that hand, that'll fix it.

Awwww, poor NZ'ers, if only they knew.