Stupid World

[Akzle]

I blame his parents.

his parents probably blamed hitler, or communism or something.

[Ocean1]

no. you actually do. you voted yourself a great big chunk of the 18 odd billion that "nz" "owes"

why job? snowboarding is more fun.

and still with a thorough lack of explanation as to the remedy here... what, with "owing" more than exists, and the whatnot.

'Fraid not chump.

But you're obviously happier little dole bludger for believing that, so you go right ahead.

[Akzle]

'Fraid not chump.

But you're obviously happier little dole bludger for believing that, so you go right ahead.

thanks for that concise explanation. that cleared it all up:
your a fucking moron.

[bogan]

Of course the lazy are making a contribution. They're passing money on to businesses that otherwise wouldn't receive that money. Ya know, just like them other hundreds of thousands of people who aren't lazy and work exceptionally hard but are still a net tax burden. They are a tax burden, which does not mean that there is no contribution in any terms other than financial.

The straw man was your creation of an argument that states that nothing is put back into the economy which it most definitely is irrespective of whether it's a positive contribution or a negative one. The contribution exists.

Out of interest, what term would you use for the bit where they lazy take money through benefits?

To remove ambiguity around the word 'contribution' I would instead say the lazy are creating demand, but not adding any production. Similarly to throwing 10% of production into a fire, the demand increases, but does anything else?

Net tax burden has little to do with contributions in the way you are using the term. People who are a net tax burden, can still create production, so can give back all they are given, and some that they have created.

That was never my argument. I clearly said 'net' income/contributions/production, and also discussed there being no net return on the work input.

[Ocean1]

thanks for that concise explanation. that cleared it all up:
your a fucking moron.

Thanks dude, I pitched it at exactly the level you're most likely to understand.

Still all a bit over your head though eh?

Seriously though, stop pretending you have anything vaguely intelligent to contribute, stick with parroting fuckwit conspiracy theory blogosphere, there's a good chap.

[Akzle]

Thanks dude, I pitched it at exactly the level you're most likely to understand.

Still all a bit over your head though eh?

Seriously though, stop pretending you have anything vaguely intelligent to contribute, stick with parroting fuckwit conspiracy theory blogosphere, there's a good chap.

oh no need for more words YAFM, you've done all you possibly can, i'm sure.

[mashman]

Out of interest, what term would you use for the bit where they lazy take money through benefits?

To remove ambiguity around the word 'contribution' I would instead say the lazy are creating demand, but not adding any production. Similarly to throwing 10% of production into a fire, the demand increases, but does anything else?

Net tax burden has little to do with contributions in the way you are using the term. People who are a net tax burden, can still create production, so can give back all they are given, and some that they have created.

That was never my argument. I clearly said 'net' income/contributions/production, and also discussed there being no net return on the work input.

Wealth redistribution.

From my perception we're throwing a good 80% of production into a fire already. As such the lazy aren't contributing anwhere near as much to that in comparison to yer average non-lazy person. To consume is to produce in the financial economy. Without your consumption there is no production. So by default the lazy are produsing less, but are still producing. That's just A perception though. One which blames everyone equally, irrespective of how much they produce. But I take your meaning: The lazy don't produce in order to "earn" and therefore offset some form of societally perceived responsibility to produce in order to be allowed to consume that which they consume. Close enough?

A net tax burden is just that. Everything after that is $ amount and perceived output measures in some form of mad attempt to righteously justify anothers consumption. They're still a net tax burden irrespective of their production.

"your post said they contributed by spending the money back into the economy; taking net income into account means they contribute nothing, a direct contradiction of what you wrote.". Make your mind up bogan. How am I supposed to keep up when you haven't got a clue what you're talking about?

[TheDemonLord]

Wealth redistribution.

And everytime it was tried - it ended up so well didn't it.

Something like 100-150 million people dead?

[bogan]

Wealth redistribution.

From my perception we're throwing a good 80% of production into a fire already. As such the lazy aren't contributing anwhere near as much to that in comparison to yer average non-lazy person. To consume is to produce in the financial economy. Without your consumption there is no production. So by default the lazy are produsing less, but are still producing. That's just A perception though. One which blames everyone equally, irrespective of how much they produce. But I take your meaning: The lazy don't produce in order to "earn" and therefore offset some form of societally perceived responsibility to produce in order to be allowed to consume that which they consume. Close enough?

A net tax burden is just that. Everything after that is $ amount and perceived output measures in some form of mad attempt to righteously justify anothers consumption. They're still a net tax burden irrespective of their production.

"your post said they contributed by spending the money back into the economy; taking net income into account means they contribute nothing, a direct contradiction of what you wrote.". Make your mind up bogan. How am I supposed to keep up when you haven't got a clue what you're talking about?

Nothing more specific than that? Does the lazy's 'contributions' just mean partial reversal of this wealth redistribution then?

That may be as depends on your perspective, but the lazy offer nothing in return for the things they throw on the fire; they could be replaced with a simple fire, when those others could not. The production / consumption balance could be maintained if they were removed, it could not be if they were all that were left. The lazy are not producing, by default or otherwise. Production is not consumption when looking at it in that narrow a scope.

Which is why tax burden is irrelevant to the point of who is contributing or producing what.

"Taking net income into account" This means we add together what is taken, and what is put back; the result can only ever be a net loss, or 0. For any 'contributions' by your strange definition of the term are cancelled out by the wealth redistribution they have taken, meaning there is clearly no net contribution. Didn't you concede this point only a few posts ago? I have never stated that nothing is put back into the economy, that you claim I have, shows that the only straw man here is your own.

[Brian d marge]

And everytime it was tried - it ended up so well didn't it.

Something like 100-150 million people dead?

I thought it was only 6 ,

[mashman]

Nothing more specific than that? Does the lazy's 'contributions' just mean partial reversal of this wealth redistribution then?

That may be as depends on your perspective, but the lazy offer nothing in return for the things they throw on the fire; they could be replaced with a simple fire, when those others could not. The production / consumption balance could be maintained if they were removed, it could not be if they were all that were left. The lazy are not producing, by default or otherwise. Production is not consumption when looking at it in that narrow a scope.

Which is why tax burden is irrelevant to the point of who is contributing or producing what.

"Taking net income into account" This means we add together what is taken, and what is put back; the result can only ever be a net loss, or 0. For any 'contributions' by your strange definition of the term are cancelled out by the wealth redistribution they have taken, meaning there is clearly no net contribution. Didn't you concede this point only a few posts ago? I have never stated that nothing is put back into the economy, that you claim I have, shows that the only straw man here is your own.

Nope. Not a clue what you're talking about regarding reversal.

You cannot produce without consuming.

Ok.

Yes, from a financial perspective it's a zero sum game (nothing is ever lost). Although they could win on the horses or sommink lol. But, there is still the contribution (wealth redistribution) given to business to be taken into account. That is a positive contribution by the lazy, else 0 would be passed on.

[mashman]

I thought it was only 6 ,

You missed the zero's lol.

[bogan]

Nope. Not a clue what you're talking about regarding reversal.

You cannot produce without consuming.

Ok.

Yes, from a financial perspective it's a zero sum game (nothing is ever lost). Although they could win on the horses or sommink lol. But, there is still the contribution (wealth redistribution) given to business to be taken into account. That is a positive contribution by the lazy, else 0 would be passed on.

But you can be a consumer, and not a producer. That is the scope we are discussing when talking about the lazy. Were they removed, there would be no loss of production, in fact those that are left could reduce their production and become more efficient.

It is not a net contribution though; and it is giving things back, so the ROI on the 'wealth redistributed' to the lazy is always a loss.

[mashman]

But you can be a consumer, and not a producer. That is the scope we are discussing when talking about the lazy. Were they removed, there would be no loss of production, in fact those that are left could reduce their production and become more efficient.

It is not a net contribution though; and it is giving things back, so the ROI on the 'wealth redistributed' to the lazy is always a loss.

You can indeed. That may well be your scope, but it isn't the whole story by any means. As mentioned, remove the 8 people who have half the worlds wealth and you could easily keep those several billion people and use their collective effort to do far more than that 8 people. There's also the question of cutting a life short that may well have gone on to be exceptionally productive. But no, you'd rather cull the lazy, coz at the moment and under the current circumstances, they're lazy.

There is no ROI. The money is given freely. There is no loss. As mentioned, without the lazy passing that money on, the businesses that they support won't be as profitable. I thought you understood what comprised the velocity of money.

[bogan]

You can indeed. That may well be your scope, but it isn't the whole story by any means. As mentioned, remove the 8 people who have half the worlds wealth and you could easily keep those several billion people and use their collective effort to do far more than that 8 people. There's also the question of cutting a life short that may well have gone on to be exceptionally productive. But no, you'd rather cull the lazy, coz at the moment and under the current circumstances, they're lazy.

There is no ROI. The money is given freely. There is no loss. As mentioned, without the lazy passing that money on, the businesses that they support won't be as profitable. I thought you understood what comprised the velocity of money.

Which is the point I am making, the lazy consume, but produce nothing. Of course it is not the whole, but the story it tells is that they are the members most suited for removal as they do not produce (same as daddy trust fund/inheritance lazy rich fucks). And by this I'm not talking about culling them, not all problems should be solved by such extremism mashy.
I think you need to focus less on the money, and more on the resource and production contributions of people. Just because the lazy keep money velocity up, does not mean they provide any meaningful service.

ROI is not affected by whether the money is given freely or not; money is given (wealth redistributed) to the lazy, and money is returned when they spend it, they do not return more than they are given, therefor the ROI is always a loss, it is simple maths.