Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[Ocean1]

Fed up with the old reports telling tales of woe, there was bound to be another 2 or 3 along the way that would contain a smoothed, as it turns out here, longer term curve to negate the bad press. It's an election year innit?

Fed up with the whining from fuckwits who seem to think equality of income is some sort of measure of a just or fair society.

When you've got equality of contribution then equality of income will be just and fair.

In the meantime, if you want more money then fucking work for it.

[Ocean1]

Maybe this one is more accurate as it is more recent. Certainly looks like the gap is increasing and there are people suffering because of it. I'm not the one with my head buried in the sand son.

Bullshit, you read what you want to see.

Shorn of the Labour quoted bullshit the report finds: •Income inequality trend-line is almost flat.


Now fuck off, you whining ingrate.

[Brian d marge]

Bullshit, you read what you want to see.

Shorn of the Labour quoted bullshit the report finds: •Income inequality trend-line is almost flat.


Now fuck off, you whining ingrate.

Yes thats true since 1990 but it was much better before

Telling u that the neocon economics have just transfered wealth to a few

Which is what people are trying to

A . Point out to u
B . Trying to stop

Stephen

[mashman]

Why bother?
Exchanges at your level (like your replies to my question) are hardly cerebral.

I answered your question... sigh, unfortunately you didn't like the answer. Stop projecting.

[mashman]

Fed up with the whining from fuckwits who seem to think equality of income is some sort of measure of a just or fair society.

When you've got equality of contribution then equality of income will be just and fair.

In the meantime, if you want more money then fucking work for it.

Is that what I think? Fuckin funny considering I'm advocating there being no money at all i.e. no income, ya dumb fuck.

Equity is where it's at baby, freedom and equity. Contribution as measured by? The market? damn that's some powerful delusions yav got goin on there.

You really don't understand at all do you? ach well, you'll die out some day.

[mashman]

Bullshit, you read what you want to see.

Shorn of the Labour quoted bullshit the report finds: •Income inequality trend-line is almost flat.


Now fuck off, you whining ingrate.

No fuckin shit I read what I wanted to see... you on the other hand have decided that you know what I saw. Ultimately sad, but highly predictable and just as pathetic.

Oh good, so that means it's not an issue then

Why? I see no reason to.

[Ocean1]

Is that what I think? Fuckin funny considering I'm advocating there being no money at all i.e. no income, ya dumb fuck.

I don't believe you think at all, but at least you recognise that you're a whining fuckwit.

Equity is where it's at baby, freedom and equity.

Yep, you're free to be as equal as you want, enitrely up to the individual.

Contribution as measured by? The market? damn that's some powerful delusions yav got goin on there.

What's delusional is using the market every day and then denying it works.

You really don't understand at all do you? ach well, you'll die out some day.

Oh I got your point all along, you don't see any link between value given and value recieved. A fuckwit. But you could at least stop whining about it.

[Ocean1]

No fuckin shit I read what I wanted to see... you on the other hand have decided that you know what I saw. Ultimately sad, but highly predictable and just as pathetic.

You told us what you saw. All I did was post what you read and pointed out that you saw the complete opposite.

Ultimately wrong. But hardly surprising, it's the only consistent feature of your posts.

Oh good, so that means it's not an issue then

Don’t be silly, fuckwits wanting equal shares to the highly productive is always going to be an issue.

Just not a very important one.

Why? I see no reason to.

Just as you don’t see any need to produce anything in exchange for your lifestyle.

Or anything else, really.

[Oscar]

I answered your question... sigh, unfortunately you didn't like the answer. Stop projecting.

Horseshit.

As usual, you dissembled. You have no idea of the answer so you avoided the question.

[Banditbandit]

When you've got equality of contribution then equality of income will be just and fair.

A good Marxist idea that - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

[bogan]

A good Marxist idea that - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Problem is getting from each according to their ability, when their needs are provided for irrespective of what they do. How did marxism turn out anyway...

[Banditbandit]

How did marxism turn out anyway...

No idea ... it's never been tried properly.

[Oscar]

For everyone who is slightly shocked by a headline that says that 270,000 children are defined as being in "poverty", some thoughts from Rodney Hide:

The 270,000 “child poverty” figure refers to relative poverty. Your children suffer in “poverty” if your household’s net income is less than 60 per cent of your equivalent household’s median income. The cut-off income for a couple with four children is just over $1000 a week. Net.

It’s no wonder that one child in four lives in “poverty” – $1000 a week in the hand is well above any lack of comfort let alone starvation. But for the experts, that’s “poverty”.

Four kids on $1,000 in the hand a week would be tough (esp. in Auckland), but it ain't "poverty" is it?

A windfall that doubled all incomes wouldn’t budge the child “poverty” figure. There would still be 270,000 poverty-stricken children. That’s because experts define “poverty” in reference to the middle income.

Making people richer doesn’t fix relative poverty. The only fix is to narrow the spread of income, even if that makes everyone poorer. That’s why experts recommend taking even more income from families above the median income to give to those below it. The fix follows directly from defining “child poverty” as household inequality.

This is the question that I was asking Mashbrain. Poverty as defined statistically as a ratio of national income averages will always be evident no matter how rich the society.

News reports now link the poverty report to children turning up to school hungry. But even the gloomiest estimates don’t have 270,000 hungry kids.

Labour leader David Shearer quoted a 2002 Ministry of Health survey to say 83,000 children aged 5 to 14 “sometimes or often went to school without breakfast”. That’s well short of the 270,000 “living in poverty”.

But even the 83,000 figure is exaggerated. The survey found the equivalent of 83,000 kids in the previous week “not” or “sometimes not” eating or drinking at home before school but 76,000 “usually” or “sometimes” eating or drinking on the way to school. Presumably, they are many of the kids who didn’t eat at home.

"Not having breakfast" is not the same as being hungry.
My kids sometimes couldn't be bothered with breakfast as it meant an extra 10 minutes in bed, so they would be featured in this statistic.
I am not saying we don't have a problem with poverty in this country, but I do think that it is exaggerated for political purposes...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=10835846

[mashman]

I don't believe you think at all, but at least you recognise that you're a whining fuckwit.

Yep, you're free to be as equal as you want, enitrely up to the individual.

What's delusional is using the market every day and then denying it works.

Oh I got your point all along, you don't see any link between value given and value recieved. A fuckwit. But you could at least stop whining about it.

It comes with thinking... you may wish to try it someday instead of expecting everyone else to fulfill your entitlement complex.

If only you understood what that meant.

... if your airbed was going down, would you change/fix it or leave it until it was flat and wait for someone to appear out of the ether and fix it for you?

Wrong. You haven't gotten my point at all. Oh and BTW, my "whining" is seen as inspiration by some, so the "whining" label you attach to it is your problem, not mine. If you can wrap your head around that, which you seemed to alluded to "Yep, you're free to be as equal as you want, enitrely up to the individual.", then you may start to understand what the "whining" is about. I realise that that would have you engaging your brain and thinking, so I'm not holding out any hope that you'll ever grasp the concept. To that end I shall carry on whining and you shall carry on watching your airbed go flat.

[Oscar]

No idea ... it's never been tried properly.

No it hasn't.
It's like Christianity, great in theory but never actually properly tested as greed, ego and lust for power always turn up to the party.
Orwell knew this.