Exactly how far out of touch...

[Scuba_Steve]

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

Sorry sarcasm doesn't come through to well in text, but the comment was not a serious one more a poke at the kind of excuses your likely to hear from Govt.

[imdying]

If I were homeless, I'd live on a base if I had to. Beats getting rained on, and I bet the parties and community spirit could be excellent if nurtured by the right people.

Sure it'd suck living in an old shit hole, but my place isn't that flash, and I don't resent those 'living on the hill'.

[mashman]

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?

I wouldn't say familiar with it, but what I do "know" is that it's closer to a feudal system than a plutocracy, by definition anyway, so can see why you say we're going that way.

[simpy1]

I'd like to see a taxation system where you get 1 vote for every $10,000 tax you pay.

Yes, only the rich should have any influence. That way, we can keep poor people out of voting and in poverty forever. Genius!

I can't believe people on here think a flat tax rate is fair!?? Let me put it this way - someone working full time on minimum wage would spend 100% of their income on necessities. Someone on $100k would spend the same amount ($26.5k) on necessities, and the rest on a) luxuries and b) investments. (I'm ignoring tax here for simplicity)

If someone working full time on a low wage never gets a chance to invest any of it, how are they ever going to get themselves out of the hole? When you have a progressive tax system, it gives a helping hand to those who need it (and still work just as hard), and takes extra from those who don't need it (it would otherwise go on luxury items, or further investments which are sensible but not a necessity).

It's not perfect but jeez, I think some of you need to realise that amongst all the "bludger!" panic and "nanny state" ranting, there are a lot of people working full time and struggling to make ends meet. It's not all about economics, some of this is about creating a society that we all want to be a part of. If Australia, the most racist country on earth, or the USA, with a 3 million-strong prison population, are your idea of good societies, you need to think again.

[SPman]

This, from those responsible for destroying thousands of jobs in New Zealand.

That would be the Nats?

I wonder about the taxpayer forking out money on state houses for "the poor". With all of the disused military bases around, surely there are a few barrack blocks going spare?

Well, they're doing that up the road from us for the "boat people" - mind you,it's going to cost $300mill because the place is so run down, they even paid the army guys hardship money to be stationed there!
You do realise that State houses were partly responsible for creating the middle class in NZ, by helping out those with crap housing, giving them a secure base and enabling a lot of them to further their aspirations by working in a stable society and improving their lot. Now, of course, it is more fashionable to denigrate everyone who has less than you (in terms of work ability, situation, education or just character) and lump them all in with the 5-10% of bludger/lazy/totally incompetent you get in EVERY society and play the politics of envy or greed (I haven't got it - why should they). If State houses are being built, obviously, a lot of people on here would seem to prefer a tin shack with a well - not a house built to current standards - as long as they don't have to pay for it - as long as they don't have to pay for anything - although those same people are quite happy to accept everything that society does give them - which makes them as bad as the "bludgers" they always whine on about!
Pah!
should have stuck to

er, er, er nah fuck it

[Hitcher]

Yes, only the rich should have any influence. That way, we can keep poor people out of voting and in poverty forever. Genius!

The have-nots need tangible incentives to improve their lot, rather than soaking up increasing amounts of taxpayer dollars and getting voting rights to maintain that position.

[mashman]

obviously, a lot of people on here would seem to prefer a tin shack with a well

have you tried it? true though, I shoulda stuck with fuck it

[Smifffy]

Only patly true ... EVERYTHING the serfs created went to the nobles ... apart from essentials to stay alive ... and the nobles were paid first - serfs got to live only if they produced a surplus ...

So that was the local tax ... paid to the nobles ... that became the noble's income .. which was taxed ....

Exactly right.

[Smifffy]

So John Key comes out and says Goff's tax ideas are fiscally irresponsible, and will align us from an overseas debt / GDP ratio alongside Spain Portugal and Ireland.

Can someone enlighten me what changed in NZ's fiscal position that Key could give his mates a large tax cut and it was fiscally responsible but 9 months later Goff's ideas are not.

I voted for the Guy and hoped he was going to bring a new era to NZ but this is just the same old same old.

edit: Just remembered its election year, John was paying back his supporters, and now has nothing more to give so is attacking Goff rather than getting on with the job. I look forward to Keys election year promises, going to be hard to justify anything now without labour quoting his own words.

I think the worst thing about Key's speech was the fact that he said the single biggest issue facing the country is the economy.

I strongly disagree.

The economy does what the global economy does, and every party has enjoyed surpluses and suffered setbacks at some time or another.

IMO, the single biggest issue facing NZ is this huge freaking divide in the social structure, which most commentators on here have already alluded to.

There are vast numbers of the populace content to simply plug into the system, switch off and leech from the workforce and the SME owners.

There are also not quite so vast numbers at the other end of the spectrum, who seem to be able to plug into the system (even from offshore) and leech from the workforce and the SME owners.

The problem is that anybody that tries to fix it will be arseholed out ASAP. The other problem is that currently, it seems that popular wisdom is that to reign in one set of leeches TPTB must pander to the other set of leeches.

[Ocean1]

you need to think again.

Did it occur to you that we may be more intimately familliar with who pays what and who doesn't than you?

And I'm very much afraid it is all about economics, that's what defines your ability to earn whatever you do. Building and maintaining a good society is an entirely different field of endevour.

It's about value. You can work hard and earn very little or rather a lot more, depending on whether the world wants what you make / do. Failing to work smart is as big a problem as failing to work hard.

Now, who's problem is that?

[puddytat]

Yes, only the rich should have any influence. That way, we can keep poor people out of voting and in poverty forever. Genius!

I can't believe people on here think a flat tax rate is fair!?? Let me put it this way - someone working full time on minimum wage would spend 100% of their income on necessities. Someone on $100k would spend the same amount ($26.5k) on necessities, and the rest on a) luxuries and b) investments. (I'm ignoring tax here for simplicity)

If someone working full time on a low wage never gets a chance to invest any of it, how are they ever going to get themselves out of the hole? When you have a progressive tax system, it gives a helping hand to those who need it (and still work just as hard), and takes extra from those who don't need it (it would otherwise go on luxury items, or further investments which are sensible but not a necessity).

It's not perfect but jeez, I think some of you need to realise that amongst all the "bludger!" panic and "nanny state" ranting, there are a lot of people working full time and struggling to make ends meet. It's not all about economics, some of this is about creating a society that we all want to be a part of. If Australia, the most racist country on earth, or the USA, with a 3 million-strong prison population, are your idea of good societies, you need to think again.

My "post of the day"
It has to be about Moral value, not monetary.

[Headbanger]

Yes, only the rich should have any influence. That way, we can keep poor people out of voting and in poverty forever. Genius!

Fuck yes.

And if they dare raise their heads out of the muck....shoot the bloody bastards.

[Headbanger]

Only taxpayers should get the vote.Its our hard work and our money that is paying for the entire shit-show, Im fucked if I should go without so I can pay some useless thick cunt to have it instead. Fuck em. Every single item in these fuckers houses is paid for by us. The KFC they live on, the booze, the cancer sticks, the fists they beat their children with.....

And tough shit if your a women, its not about your genitals, No tax, no vote.

[Winston001]

And I'm very much afraid it is all about economics, that's what defines your ability to earn whatever you do. Building and maintaining a good society is an entirely different field of endeavour.

It's about value. You can work hard and earn very little or rather a lot more, depending on whether the world wants what you make / do. Failing to work smart is as big a problem as failing to work hard.

Yes. The core issue is simple. Each of us needs to do something which enables us to survive - and prosper. Working hard isn't enough if the result is minimal. There are about 4.5 billion people who live that reality every day.

We can argue about taxation and government support until the cows come home but if our nation cannot sell stuff to the rest of the world, the arguments become meaningless. The money isn't there. Currently the government borrows $300/wk just to pay our bills. I can't even conceive how much money that is.

I honestly do not know why NZ has slipped from having one of the highest standards of living in the world (early 1960s) to around 24th today. But even 24th is magic compared with the poor sods at 100th and beyond. Somalia, Bangladesh, Angola.....

We are very well-off in any practical sense. Enjoy.

[Ocean1]

I honestly do not know why NZ has slipped from having one of the highest standards of living in the world (early 1960s) to around 24th today.

Occam’s razor. The crippling exposure to trade barriers and the much higher social support costs.

We’re small. That hurts us at the trade tables. We import unskilled immigrants to bolster our own incompetents and then insist on supporting them.