Why housing costs are so ridiculously high

[sidecar bob]

Again you did not realise what Mike Hoskins refered to with his comment. His comment was about Man having issues paying alimony as per the new rules under which the IRD now establishes how much a divorced/seperated Father has to pay.

So while you and Oscar are going on and on about women.....having babies for fun, Hoskins is telling Man not to have children that they can afford.

Feel better now? As I said above, that would mean that before you, Oskar or humpty dumpty could even think abut finding a lovley lass to procreate about you should have at least 25 years of child rearing costs tucked away because if you can't afford your child when sick, or unemployed, or a widower, someone like Hoskins can and will call you a bludger.

And to all the blokes that think only women are irresponsibly having children, no according to Hoskins, Man do to.

If you spell a well known man's name completely wrong four times in one post when it is printed in bold letters several posts above your own, it calls your level of comprehension seriously into question & makes me wonder if anything you say is particularly well researched or worth reading about.
For fucks sake it's Hosking, HOSKING FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!

[Oscar]

After the FIRST childbirth the people involved can "normally" realise where it originated from. Perhaps we need to follow the chinese example of single childbirth - and especially so with regards to the taxpayer funding this. If people want more kids (catholics, muslims, etc) then they can finance them by themselves.

That's a tricky one.
As far as I'm concerned the DPB is to protect children.
So whereas I don't think it's appropriate for a parent to continue breeding on the taxpayer’s dollar, there are no sanctions that don't cause more problems.
If you cut the Mother's income, the child suffers, if you take the child away the child suffers and forced sterilisation or abortion is too draconian.

[Oscar]

That's not going anywhere near far enough Oscar, to make it fair any man that fathers a child with theses wanton hussies, should be made actually pay for the upkeep of that child directly rather than it being the taxpayers burden.
Failing that maybe remove their willies.
Where is a sarcasm font gone.

Another twat who hasn't seen the damge that broken families/single parents can do to our kids and obviously pays little or no tax .

[husaberg]

Another twat who hasn't seen the damge that broken families/single parents can do to our kids and obviously pays little or no tax .

For someone who nothing about me it is not that actually surprising that you are so wrong in pretty much every detail.
Nice work National blooger.......

[Oscar]

For someone who nothing about me it is not that actually surprising that you are so wrong in pretty much every detail.
Nice work National blooger.......

Au contraire, Mon ami - your post tells me quite a bit about you.

[husaberg]

Au contraire, Mon ami - your post tells me quite a bit about you.

No it doesn't but that fact that you think it does speaks volumes about you.
He's the thing Ocsar you are no where near half as insightful, as you are full of crap.
Put your glasses on before you read some posts next time.
Better still go troll another thread....or are you still hungry?
Because I already fed you once?

[Oscar]

No it doesn't but that fact that you think it does speaks volumes about you.
He's the thing Ocsar you are no where near half as insightful, as you are full of crap.
Put your glasses on before you read some posts next time.
Better still go troll another thread.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.
You seem to be slipping into a Brian de Marge-esque literacy (or lack of it).
You also have jumped to the conclusion that because you think I’m a Tory, I must be anti-beneficiary.

[husaberg]

Maybe you should follow your own advice.
You seem to be slipping into a Brian de Marge-esque literacy (or lack of it).
You also have jumped to the conclusion that because you think I’m a Tory, I must be anti-beneficiary.

No I think you are a pitiful troll, did you miss that?
What is so hard for you to comprehend about that.

[Oscar]

No I think you are a pitiful troll, did you miss that?
What is so hard for you to comprehend about that.

Oh dear, have I upset you?
You seem to have issues...

[Edbear]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/new...ectid=11431243

[husaberg]

Oh dear, have I upset you?
You seem to have issues...

Trolls like you don't upset me, why would you? you are not that important in your own right or to those around you, So why would you think you would be in mine, but after all the thread is about you, So feel free to carry on, seeing as you are still hungry.

[gjm]

Dunno about pensions but health spending has increased every year for the last decade or more. Mostly because they keep inventing new and expensive ways to keep people alive.

Annual spending on health routinely increases. Generally by around 2% less than the actual real cost of providing that health care. This is before we take into account continual population growth.
So in 'real' terms, health spending is decreasing year on year.

[Ocean1]

Annual spending on health routinely increases. Generally by around 2% less than the actual real cost of providing that health care. This is before we take into account continual population growth.
So in 'real' terms, health spending is decreasing year on year.

How do you figure that? Spending increases higher than the rest of the nation's doesn't represent a spending decrease, does it? The fact is the industry is spending more every year, indeed it's spending more per capita every year. In "real" terms that's not a budget "decrease".

[husaberg]

How do you figure that? Spending increases higher than the rest of the nation's doesn't represent a spending decrease, does it? The fact is the industry is spending more every year, indeed it's spending more per capita every year. In "real" terms that's not a budget "decrease".

he's talking per capita

[Winston001]

Annual spending on health routinely increases. Generally by around 2% less than the actual real cost of providing that health care. This is before we take into account continual population growth.
So in 'real' terms, health spending is decreasing year on year.

But today we get more bang for the buck. 21st century medicine is at science fiction levels.

In 1978 Dunedin had a major public fundraising campaign to buy a CAT scanner for the new hospital. The cost in todays money was about $850,000. It was a very big deal at the time.

Today you can buy a CAT scanner off the shelf for $100,000 - 150,000. Private medical centres have them. A friend of mine is a candidate for a heart transplant. That used to be impossible in New Zealand yet now the surgeons are quite relaxed about the procedure.

The core problem with public medicine is that science is able to repair and prolong people's lives with the effect many more old people are still alive. And they need more complex and expensive care. I know an 88yr old who went in for a hip operation recently.