Optimistic sellers

[Laava]

Maybe a different take on that would be to have free range on as many and varied different bikes as desired for a test ride and then settle on one. I can say I probably wouldn't have either of the bikes I currently ride, but for different reasons respectively.

[Voltaire]

I haven't taken one for a ride but I quite fancy a Royal Enfield Interceptor, appeal to the inner cheapskate and harks back to when you had one bike that had to do everything. I don't need more than 50 BHP as that's all my Commando and R80ST have and I've toured two up on both.

[F5 Dave]

How about only one bike for every type of riding? I mean Trail bikes make dirt riding fun and difficult terrain possible, but proper knobblies are evil on tarmac.

And Trials is really calling out for a dedicated bike despite being offroad as well.

And what if you wanted to go for a frenzied back road scratch? I mean you couldn't be expected to take your humble GSX. You'd be compelled to use a GSXR. It's only sensible.

[Scubbo]

the question which will never be answered with one bike, eh well, I've found 2 is a pretty good base to cover all

[F5 Dave]

I've whittled it down to just 4, losing the Race bikes and Trials bike, I really am a bit open . There was an RD400 scheduled but as it dragged financial priorities had to be addressed.

Man's life is full of these compromises, heck I sold the Touring bike as well a ways back. Its inhumane.

I should qualify for some form of government grant for the needy motorcyclist.

[Laava]

I should qualify for some form of government grant for the needy motorcyclist.

I agree, but you're more likely to be put in care!

[jasonu]

I should qualify for some form of government grant for the needy motorcyclist.

You're not ethnic enough

[HenryDorsetCase]

You're not ethnic enough

The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are those receiving Govt superannuation. And the biggest group of them (because they are the biggest group) are the baby boomers. More white than brown. $11B a cuple of years ago

[Grumph]

The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are those receiving Govt superannuation. And the biggest group of them (because they are the biggest group) are the baby boomers. More white than brown. $11B a cuple of years ago

And don't think we're not grateful. Thank you very hard.

[F5 Dave]

I agree, but you're more likely to be put in care!

That still sounds strangely comforting.

[HenryDorsetCase]

And don't think we're not grateful. Thank you very hard.

I'm closing in .... free money.

Another statistic-oid I read in t'paper the other day was that half of all tax payers dont actually pay any tax because they get more (Working for Families and so forth) than they pay in tax. The top 5 percent pay more than half of all income tax. Or summat. there were graphs and shit. also deciles.

[speedpro]

The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are those receiving Govt superannuation. And the biggest group of them (because they are the biggest group) are the baby boomers. More white than brown. $11B a cuple of years ago

Calling superannuation "welfare" implies you are getting something that you haven't earned. OK there's a few who are going to move from "welfare" to super but the majority have worked long and hard by the time they get superannuation

[HenryDorsetCase]

Calling superannuation "welfare" implies you are getting something that you haven't earned. OK there's a few who are going to move from "welfare" to super but the majority have worked long and hard by the time they get superannuation

You're preaching to the choir buddy. Having said that even adjusting for inflation Super recipients get back way more than they put in... what is that if not welfare?

I can't tell you how many people I know who (especially in the first few years say age 65 to 70) are comfortably earning a couple hundy k a year and not ONE of them has ever said "Yeah, I wont be claiming the Super I dont need it". I know one guy who drove his fucking Rolls Royce to the WINZ office to sign up for it.

It is unsustainable in the medium term, it is mostly about boomer greed, and yes I am arguing against self interest but: it needs to be means tested and it needs to have the age increased to 68 at least. REmember who is going to end up funding this shit - your kids.

Of course as a country we had an opportunity in the 1970's to have a self funding scheme which (like Straya) could have been the backbone of future prosperity (like Straya) but that cunt Muldoon scuppered it in a fit of political pique. That fucker caused about as much damage as Pol Pot.

[jasonu]

The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are those receiving Govt superannuation. And the biggest group of them (because they are the biggest group) are the baby boomers. More white than brown. $11B a cuple of years ago

Superannuation is earned by those that actually work and pay into the system so I don't see it as welfare.

[husaberg]

Of course as a country we had an opportunity in the 1970's to have a self funding scheme which (like Straya) could have been the backbone of future prosperity (like Straya) but that cunt Muldoon scuppered it in a fit of political pique. That fucker caused about as much damage as Pol Pot.

How Muldoon threw away NZ's wealth
Sir Robert Muldoon painted Labour's fledgling super scheme as a step on the way to turning New Zealand into a Soviet clone.
A dreadful political decision, announced on December 15, 1975, transformed New Zealand from the potential Switzerland of the Southern Hemisphere into a low-ranking OECD economy.
Without this decision we would now be called "The Antipodean Tiger" and be the envy of the rest of the world. We would have a current account surplus, one of the lowest interest-rate structures in the world and would probably rank as one of the top five OECD economies.
We would still own ASB Bank, Bank of New Zealand and most of the other major companies now overseas-owned. Our entrepreneurs would have a plentiful supply of risk capital and would probably own a large number of Australian companies.
Most New Zealanders would face a comfortable retirement and would be the envy of their Australian peers. The Government would have a substantial Budget surplus and we would have one of the best educational and healthcare systems in the world.
What destroyed this potential on December 15, 1975?
That was the day Robert Muldoon, the newly elected Prime Minister, announced the abolition of the 37-week-old compulsory New Zealand Superannuation Scheme, introduced by the previous Labour Government.
* After a short phase-in period contributions were 8 per cent of gross income, 4 per cent by employees and 4 per cent by employers.
* The scheme was not taxable except for stamp and cheque duties.
* Contributors could receive a lump-sum payment up to one-quarter of the value of their individual fund on retirement with the rest distributed as income on a regular basis. It appears the lump-sum payments were tax free but the regular income was subject to normal income tax.
here is little doubt the abolition of the Superannuation Scheme was our worst economic decision over the past 40 years. The economy would be in a much stronger position today had the far-sighted scheme stayed.
The scheme would now be worth more than $240 billion based on the following assumptions:
* An annual contribution of 8 per cent for every employee.
* A balanced portfolio of 50 per cent invested in New Zealand Government bonds and 50 per cent in the New Zealand sharemarket.
* Annual returns based on the performance of Government bonds and the NZX benchmark index.
* Two per cent of the fund withdrawn every year for retirees.
The $240 billion figure is conservative as no dividends are taken into account until 1995, offshore returns were higher over the past 30 years and no account is taken of the ability of investment managers to outperform the benchmark indices.
New Zealand would have led the world in terms of savings. Based on the $240 billion projection each worker would have $111,200 of superannuation assets compared with $6300 at present and A$74,400 ($86,821) in Australia.
Disclosure of interest: Brian Gaynor is an investment strategist and analyst at Milford Asset Management.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=10465138