Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
Your definition of old changes the more you live. To a five year old you are old in not ancient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gO7u...yer_detailpage
This would have to be one of your dumbest statements yet. How can a pension be risk assessed??
How do you define a productive members of society? I know many people over 65 that a) are still working and b)work a dam site harder than a lot of 20 year olds.
So under that statement you agree with my earlier post of no welfare hand outs at all to anyone.
But that is the problem isn't it?
With so many now getting hand outs it would be political suicide to say that you will stop them. so we just end up with more of the same.
As most vote either National or Labour it won't change.
The only way to make change is to completely change the voting structure so only one party governs as with so many deals to be done the status quo is the easier and better political option.
the possibilities here. "As you earn big money and work in a low physical impact job we asses your risk of requiring a pension as low Mr Financier" a few years later the conversation continues ... "What do you mean your business went bankrupt and now you don't have a penny and it all happened the day of your 65th birthday? Oh and I see your house, car and boat are all own by your children's trust"
![]()
Hang on a sec, within the Tax I pay isnt there a component that is attributed towards retirement/ namely my retirement? yes would be the answer to that so on the basis of what youre saying I want one of two things
1/ the pension
or
2/ a refund of all that which I have paid, and a deduction of tax !!
fucking government would love to take the same yeild while reducing its services, fuck them I want what I pay for and demand it!
Like i said just too simplistic as there is also health, having to pay for health care would make us end up like the USA and i for one don't want to see us go down that road.
We have had this discussion many times but i have just realised that your pooling of resources and my no benefits are exactly the same idea but looking from different points of view.
The end result will still be the same you either let the non productive's get an easy ride or you let them fend for themselves and this is where we differ, you are using the whole country where i am using only the family.
If we pool the whole country, whole family's get a free ride and in so doing train the next generation to be the same something like we are doing now, where if it is only the family's resources they will quickly change to having to fend for themselves or at least change the mindset of the next generation.
I reckon you're taking the piss.
Given that any pension I'm likely to get ammounts to a pittance I've been trying to put a bit extra away for my dotage for a couple of decades. It's a pointless excercise, unless you earn many times the average income or earn it without paying tax on it you're fucked. Taxation is structured in such a way as to mop up pretty much everything you might have put aside.
So the best strategy there looks very similar to those that've fucked our economy through the working years: If you can't hide your income then don't bother trying to provide for yourself beyond the absolute minimum, they'll just take at off you and give it to those who've contributed fuck all.
But hey, you roll us back 30 odd years and change the tax structure so it's actually possible to save for your own retirement and give me a call eh?
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Go down to your local SPCA, Red cross, Salvation army, YMCA, Marae, church, community garden, volunteer organisation of choice, and find out how many beneficiaries are there putting in a solid effort to help out. Compare that with the number of willing workers there, who are either supported by a spouse/partner in the workforce, or workers who are there during their time off. Then tell me again how deserving most of these beneficiaries are.
When my g/f at the time moved in with me, she was not on a benefit, but had no work, having left her home town. She went and volunteered at the SPCA cleaning shit from cages, smiling nicely at cunts who were abandoning their 'pets', and doing the run to the vets for the euthing. She'd drop in to feed the critters on Xmas day. Within a couple of months someone came in and offered her a job.
It was one of those jobs that nobody really wanted to do, and she literally wore through the soles of two pairs of shoes doing it.
Yeah I married her![]()
Keep on chooglin'
yes we have. I see how you could see it that way. How are they exactly the same ideas? I understand the different points of view, but I don't see the similarities at all.
The end result will be MASSIVELY different. When I was talking about high unemployment rates before, I was talking about it being in the millions, not just a couple hundred thousand that don't want to work, but people who don't have to work. Your way requires 0 unemployment. Sure there will be perceived easy rides under both systems, but in my version the lazy still get fed and noone would really notice them amongst the millions of unemployed, "bludger" problem solved (amongst many others). Your way penalises families for perceived lack of effort, irrespective of hardship or circumstance and smacks of resentment and pettiness... and all because you perceive that you are doing more work than someone else?
...
That's a mighty negative way of looking at it (They can eat themselves to death on KFC for all I care)...... you've not lived amongst unemployed people for extended periods of time have you? I have seen some of the kids from the street go to jail, some that went on to further education, some that headed off abroad to work, some head down souff (UK), some become gang members, others join the long family tradition of screwing the system
... they are not stupid prople, they are all intelligent smart bastards in their own ways. They are not lazy, they are efficient with their time, they realise that a low paying job isn't a fair trade off in regards to time v effort they'd have to put in re: cost of living etc... so figure out a smarter way to achieve their level of cashflow... in essence their children want more for themselves... it isn't just the family that guides the child
So please, show me where the similarities are again?
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
See .. there's the problem right there .. the Pension was supposed to be for people who needed it - then the non-needy middle class began to demand it on the basis that they had paid taxes all their lives and deserved it - not needed but DESERVED it ...
So people like Don Brash and other rich Capitalist fuckers get a pension because of entitlement - and cost us millions ...
Pensions for those who need it - not for those who don't - Means test the Old Age Pension .. or whatever it's fucking called nowadays ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks