Discussion:
Finally, some common sense
(too old to reply)
Mr Scebe
2004-12-10 20:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Earlier this year, I indicated that an incoming National Government would
give priority to tax relief for low and middle income working families, with
gradual tax reductions for those earning higher incomes as fiscal
circumstances permit.

I also said the next National Government intended to reduce the tax rate on
businesses to at least match the Australian rate of 30%.

Over recent days, I have been signalling my intention to draw clear
battle-lines between the two major parties on taxation as we move closer to
the next general election.

The Minister of Finance has responded with increasingly strident assertions
that there is no room for reductions in taxation. You may note that he stops
short of absolutely ruling out tax cuts. And Helen Clark has nothing to say
on all this.

As Labour has demonstrated on numerous occasions this year, if threatened
politically, there is no part of the National Party's programme that it will
not steal.

But by now I think most New Zealanders understand that Helen Clark and her
Government are philosophically opposed to lower taxes.

I hope that I have no need to reassure you that I am very much in favour of
lower taxes.

And today I want to remind you why.

Many of you will have heard me lament the growing gap in average incomes
between New Zealand and Australian workers. Many of you will have heard me
assert the need for a long-term plan to lift New Zealand incomes back into
the top half of industrialised nations - an objective which was shared by
the current Government until it was placed in the too-hard basket about two
years ago.

If we are to do better as a nation, if we are to improve our performance, we
will need a change in culture.

A big change in culture.

If we are to improve our performance, we will need to create a culture of
enterprise, of skill, and of hard work.

And to achieve that, we must get the incentives right.

We must have a tax system which rewards enterprise, rewards skill and
rewards hard work.

Yet today we have a tax system that punishes all these things.

I am utterly opposed to the direction that Labour is taking us. Through the
combined effect of the tax and benefit systems, most working families will
receive much the same net income, regardless of how hard they work,
regardless of what responsibilities and promotion they accept, regardless of
their own efforts to better themselves.

That is a charter for the idle, and a recipe for a low productivity, low
income, society.

The tax system punishes positive attitudes, while the welfare system
encourages a set of attitudes which are utterly destructive of self-reliance
and self confidence.

These are terrible signals to send to the next generation of New Zealanders.

And it need not be like this.

If we slowly but consistently work to reduce taxes over time, large benefits
will emerge for all of us.

And so I am putting taxation policy firmly on the agenda for next year's
election campaign. I am not, today, going to release the details of the tax
policy we will take into the next election.

But I can tell you about the general shape of the concerns that we will
seek, over time, to address. And I can give you a sense of what will be at
stake in the next election.

The updated government accounts make it clear that there is room for the
government which is elected next year to deliver a tax cut for every working
New Zealander in its first Budget.

Overtaxation

No thanks to the present Government, the economy has remained very buoyant
over the past few years: international commodity prices have been firm,
there has been a strong inflow of people seeking to get as far away from
international tensions as possible, and international interest rates have
been at a level which has produced a strong rise in property prices.

As a consequence of that buoyancy, and of the increased taxes imposed by the
current Government, the surplus in the government accounts was $6.6 billion
last year, and is headed for close to $6 billion next year - and that
despite huge increases in government spending in recent years.

The very comfortable fiscal circumstances which we enjoy provide a backdrop
for an important election-year debate about the incentives New Zealanders
face, and give the prospect of real choices as we elect a government for the
next three years.

I want to stress that National's decision to retain the New Zealand
Superannuation Fund, announced last week, has no effect on what we will do.
We never had any intention of trading off contributions to the Fund against
tax cuts. The issue was always whether to pay off government debt or build a
Fund. Both required us to run a fiscal surplus.

But the current fiscal position provides the capacity to deliver tax relief
and much improved incentives for every family, and every working New
Zealander, while continuing to contribute to the Super Fund.

It is easy to get too close to these issues: too bound up in the details of
the size of the fiscal surplus, too wedded to particular habits of political
rhetoric about spending priorities versus tax relief.

So let's just step back a moment and try to register the enormity of what is
happening to the earnings of working New Zealanders.

In the year ending June 1999, tax revenues were $30 billion.

Last year, tax revenues spiralled out to $42 billion.

Since 1999, the government has taken in an additional $34 billion in revenue
above what it would have received had revenue stayed at the 1999 level. $34
billion.

This Government has had 5 years and a $34 billion increase in revenues.
Those revenues are still growing fast.

And yet none of that massive flood of revenue has been returned to the very
people who go out to work each day and earn that money.

Not one bit.

The Finance Minister was asked in Parliament recently to list the taxes he
has increased. He said there were six significant increases. In total, in
fact, there have been 30 increases, although some were quite minor. He's
certainly increased income tax rates, petrol tax, and taxes on cigarettes
and alcohol.

But asked to list the ones he has reduced, he was stumped. He couldn't think
of any. My Finance spokesman, John Key, helped him out by reminding him that
he had introduced a preferential tax rate on Maori authorities, reducing the
rate from 33% to 19.5%.

None of these tax increases had anything to do with a need for more revenue.

For this Government, it seems those revenues have developed a glittering
attraction.

The reality now is this: you earn it; we will spend it for you.

So there we have it: massive revenues, a huge surplus - and not a thought of
easing the enormous pressure on many of those who actually earn the money.


What this means for working New Zealanders

I want to focus now on some of the personal situations we are talking about,
because they reveal the damage our tax system inflicts on the incentives
people face, and the opportunities they have to get ahead in life.

Think about the person who works for years to build up a business, takes
many risks, puts their own savings on the line, and endures very low incomes
in the hope that the business will come right - and there are nearly 250,000
small businesses in New Zealand.

And if that business does come right, and all those years of effort and risk
finally pay off?

Well, this Labour Government will be there to relieve you of the burden of
your success. They may have some more hip-hop tours to fund.

Or think about those people with volatile incomes - which is pretty much
every small business. Or every tradesperson. Or every professional rugby
player. Whenever these people get a good year, Helen Clark and Michael
Cullen will be at the door to take their cut.

But they don't turn up with a refund when the bad year comes; they are not
around when an all-too-brief professional sporting career is over.

Or think about another aspect of a typical life cycle. Think of a couple
bringing up a family, paying off the mortgage, and then perhaps in their
fifties finally being able to save for retirement. They will probably still
be providing support to children in some form of tertiary education. After a
lifetime of work, this couple will probably be near the peak of their
earning power; but after all those years of doing it right, bringing up a
family, paying off the mortgage, and saving for their retirement, their
reward is that in all likelihood they will be hit by a punitive tax rate.
And to compound the pain, the return on their savings, which is so crucial
as a supplement to their New Zealand Super, will be taxed at the top rate as
well.

There is something deeply wrong here.

There is a very direct link between undisciplined government spending and
the financial pressure on households.

The reality is that our tax system is stopping people getting ahead,
stopping them paying off their debts, stopping them building an ownership
stake in society, stopping them building adequate savings for retirement.

Incentives

There is a broader set of issues behind all this.

We are moving further and further away from a New Zealand that rewards
initiative, that celebrates hard work and achievement, and that applauds
success.

It is all about incentives.

The Labour Party is schizophrenic about incentives.

They eased access to sickness and invalid benefits, and were surprised when
numbers increased sharply. Since 1999, the population has increased by just
6%. But the number of those on the sickness benefit has increased by an
enormous 33%, and those on the invalids' benefit by over 40%.

And yet they don't think incentives matter.

Except when it suits them.

Because Helen Clark has decided that incentives are important in other
areas: subsidies get handed out to carefully selected businesses, especially
when they provide photo opportunities for Cabinet ministers, and to
big-budget movies.

The same schizophrenia applies to the tax system: incentives seem to matter
when it comes to taxing cigarettes and alcohol, or fatty foods, or fossil
fuels.

But when it comes to work, to saving, to investment and to risk-taking - in
other words to all the things that are crucial for economic growth and
rising personal incomes - the Government is in denial about the incentive
effects of taxation.

They talk about the ownership society, but Labour policies cut deeply into
the very things that give people the chance to build their own ownership
stake.

Our tax system deflects people from the habits and attitudes that encourage
self-reliance.

Even more damaging, we are sending a terrible signal to the next generation
about what to do to get ahead in life.

And this is not just a matter of the tax system. It is reflected in our
welfare policies, and in our education system.

What is the message from an education system determined to make sure
everybody passes, in some degraded form?

What message are we sending our children if the option of a period, or even
an entire life, on welfare is so easy to adopt?

These issues point to the challenges facing the next National Government.

Working for Families: the 2004 Budget

Let me turn to the latest Budget. The message to working New Zealanders from
that Budget was that there would be no tax relief.

In my view, political pressures will in fact lead to some gesture of tax
reductions or bracket adjustments next year, but unless the National Party
is breathing down Labour's neck they will be small and begrudging - and, in
any case, far too late.

What the 2004 Budget envisaged was a reverse flow of benefit payments to
somewhat offset the punitive over-taxation of families. As a consequence,
middle-income families will gradually be shifted into beneficiary status.

This is the new world that Michael Cullen unveiled in the Budget this year,
with the 'Working for Families' package.

Under this greatly expanded welfare programme, your income, after taxes and
benefits, will increasingly be unrelated to what you earn. It will be
related instead to how many children you have, whether you are on one of the
various forms of benefit, and whether you are a target political
constituency.

And in this world, what is the advantage to the person who puts in the extra
hours in overtime, who studies to get new skills and a higher earning
potential, who takes on extra responsibility?

The answer is that, after all this work, these people will see precious
little difference between their after-tax-and-benefit income and the income
of those who do not put the extra hours in, who do not invest in developing
skills, who do not take extra responsibility.

The last Budget amounted to a Labour Party lifestyle guide - take life easy,
don't work too hard, don't take any personal responsibility for yourself,
and there will be minimal sacrifice of income.

It is a set of policies that is taking New Zealand into a world riddled with
perverse incentives. It amounts to a declaration to nurses, junior doctors,
teachers, builders, plumbers, engineers, the skilled and the energetic, that
you will not get ahead in this country no matter how hard you work.

You doubt that? Let me give a simple example.

Suppose you are a principal income earner on $38,000 with a partner and
three young children, living in a central Auckland suburb, and eligible for
the accommodation supplement. You decide you want to get ahead faster and
get better clothes for the kids. You get a new qualification, work longer
hours, and take on more responsibility. Your salary eventually rises to
$70,000 a year, $32,000 more than before. But your after-tax-and-benefit
income rises not by $32,000 but by just $2,856, with the other $29,144 going
to the government. Your effective marginal tax rate is 91%. The abatement of
the accommodation supplement contributes significantly to this, but even
without that the government takes 66% of the increased earnings.

So why would anybody go to all the effort?

The same sort of situation affects those on benefits looking to get into
work, where many people will lose in excess of 80% of their extra earnings.

I am deeply opposed to policies which stifle the incentives that drive
personal responsibility and self-reliance.

Problems with our tax system

Let me summarise what is wrong with our tax system.

Simply, our tax rates are too high at all levels.

And the higher tax rates cut in at incomes that are far too low. In the
United States, the top tax rate cuts in at the equivalent of NZ$450,000, not
the $60,000 in New Zealand.

Our taxation of families is punitive, and the benefit system that tries to
offset that is making most middle-income earners dependent on the State,
when they should not have been taxed so heavily in the first place.

Our tax and benefit system destroys incentives to work; it penalises those
who work hard and try to get ahead.

Our tax system punishes success, while our welfare system rewards lack of
effort.

Our tax system punishes those who save, who try to build an ownership stake
in society.

Because of this our tax system is fundamentally unfair.

Instead of re-confirming shared kiwi values of self-reliance and enterprise,
we are building a culture of self esteem without achievement, of financial
rewards without hard work, of dependence on others instead of fostering a
confident independence.

At the next election New Zealand voters face a momentous decision.

We are reaching a fork in the road, and the decision will substantially
determine the sort of country we become, the sort of attitudes and
aspirations the next generation will adopt.

National's approach to tax policy

National's tax policy will ensure that the core kiwi values of independence
and self-reliance are encouraged.

That will be one of the key choices that voters will make at the next
election: a choice between a massive extension of welfare into middle-income
New Zealand, or a future that encourages and rewards enterprise and
self-reliance.

With the biggest budget surplus in our history, there is scope for a tax cut
for all New Zealanders.

Clearly, the scale and initial focus of such cuts will depend on the state
of the economy at the time. We have no intention of triggering a lift in
interest rates with too rapid a cut in taxes. I, more than most people,
understand the connection between tax policy and interest rates!

But I part ways with the Finance Minister, who seems to have the strange
notion that if he spends your money it is not inflationary, but if you do it
is.

A significant reduction in the tax burden will take many years and more than
one term of government. But if we slowly but consistently work to reduce
taxes over time, large benefits will emerge for all New Zealanders.

Reducing the tax burden is about improving the opportunities that this
country offers those with initiative, energy, ideas, and drive.

A National Government will ensure that the benefits of hard work and
investment are largely retained by those who do the work and take the risks.

I don't believe in a culture of envy; I believe in a culture of aspiration
and achievement.

And a culture like that, when harnessed to shared values of compassion for
those in need, and a determination to take care of the weak, the ill, and
those who have simply stumbled upon bad luck, produces a society that we can
all be proud of.

It will be a society that generates the incomes needed to keep our citizens
in this country, and which has the wealth to support those in need, to help
them back on their feet, and to care for the elderly.

That is demonstrably not the society we have at present.

But it is one we could have.

Conclusion

I want to conclude by saying something about the choices we have, and the
differing goals they would serve.

As I have said on many previous occasions, I place the highest priority on
reversing the hugely dangerous and growing gap in average incomes between
this country and Australia.

Nothing threatens the prospect of this country offering a future to our
children and our grandchildren more than a growing gulf in the standard of
living between New Zealand and Australia.

That set of numbers, which measures the still growing income gap, represents
a growing disparity in our ability to resource medical care, educational
opportunities, and most of the benefits of a civilised society.

We can close that gap.

To do so, we require taxation changes that provide greater incentives for
investment, enterprise, entrepreneurship and hard work. And those changes
will involve both personal tax and company tax.

Also needed are changes to our welfare system and improvements in the
quality of the education we provide.

Another important goal of our tax reforms will be to reinforce social
stability by lessening the burden on the hundreds of thousands of
middle-income families who, under the policies of the current Government,
are taxed as if they were the new rich.

That could mean targeted reductions in tax on families, leaving
significantly more of their own cash in their pockets - as distinct from the
middle-income welfare policies announced by Michael Cullen in this year's
Budget, which will churn tax from one pocket to the other, minus a bit to
pay for the bureaucracy.

It could also mean tax relief for those who reduce the burden on the state
by meeting the costs of their own medical care, or the costs of their
children's education. That could be achieved through either tax deductions
or rebates on such expenses.

It is not at all clear to me why some New Zealanders should be expected to
pay twice for their healthcare and for the education of their children -
once through their tax and once through health insurance premiums and school
fees.

That being said, National is committed to a broad-based, but lower-rate tax
structure - that is the structure most consistent with achieving a high
income and high-growth society. The more exemptions and deductions there
are, the less likely it is that we can move to a lower rate structure.

Clearly, we cannot immediately make huge steps in all of the directions I
have alluded to.

Equally clearly, there is plenty of room to take meaningful steps towards a
number of them - unless, of course, the Labour Government opts to bribe
voters with a vast splurge of additional government spending in next year's
Budget.

Before the next election, I will outline in detail our plan to ease the tax
burden, to improve work incentives and enable people to get ahead in this
country. Our focus will be on what can be achieved over a number of years,
not just in year one.

We will not be sacrificing valuable public services in that goal, but we
will be holding the bureaucracy accountable for every dollar spent. We
believe in a strong and efficient public sector, and we will fund it
accordingly.

I believe governments should budget and spend taxpayers' money as carefully
as hardworking families have to do every week. That will be our benchmark
for reviewing spending programmes.

This Labour Government has had more than five years to provide some tax
relief but has done nothing.

Over a similar period, a National Government could radically transform the
incentives New Zealanders face, and the opportunities they have to get ahead
in life.

And we intend to do just that.
Sue Bilstein
2004-12-10 22:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Earlier this year, I indicated that an incoming National Government would
give priority to tax relief for low and middle income working families, with
gradual tax reductions for those earning higher incomes as fiscal
circumstances permit.
I also said the next National Government intended to reduce the tax rate on
businesses to at least match the Australian rate of 30%.
Good stuff, Scebe, but who said this, where and when?
Mr Scebe
2004-12-10 22:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Good stuff, Scebe, but who said this, where and when?
This is the full text of Don Brash's speech regarding the National's
taxation policy. It is available on the NBR website
http://www.nbr.co.nz/default.asp

The bit that i found most interesting was that Labour has ripped $34Bn
*EXTRA* out of the long suffering taxpayer since they came to power, but all
it's done is put the average person deeper in debt.
--
Mr Scebe
Losersh always whine about their 'besht'.
Winnersh go home and fuck the prom queen".
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"
John B
2004-12-10 23:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Sue Bilstein
Good stuff, Scebe, but who said this, where and when?
This is the full text of Don Brash's speech regarding the National's
taxation policy. It is available on the NBR website
http://www.nbr.co.nz/default.asp
The bit that i found most interesting was that Labour has ripped $34Bn
*EXTRA* out of the long suffering taxpayer since they came to power, but all
it's done is put the average person deeper in debt.
Well, one way of looking at it is that Labour have stolen the gains that belong
to ordinary NZr's. NZr's that were told things will be tough, tighten your belts
etc, you'll be alright at the other end. Well the other end is here, but instead
of receiving the rewards for having tightened their belts, Labour decides they
deserve it more than those who made the sacrifices to ensure an economic boom.
They have decided they know what to do with your money better than you.

They are thieves pure and simple. They are greedy selfish pigs. They are
leftists and supposedley opposed to greed and selfishness, but indulge in those
"qualities" more than any other group in the country. Biggest load of hypocrites
I have ever seen in this country.

And it's like Brash says. My wife and I have brought our children up, paid for
everything for them without any handouts from the taxpayer, and now it's time
for us to save and prepare for our own retirement. Time to do something for
ourselves. But we can't! Too much of our income (over 50%) is taken from us and
given to other people who have children without being able to afford to. We have
to pay for the upbringing and education of other people's children now instead
of save for ourselves.

What a truly sick fucked up govt Labour is. Greedy, selfish, miserable,
authoritarian, dictating pack of arseholes. You can be sure none of them will go
without with their ever rapidly increasing pay packets stolen from the taxpayer.

--
John B
Enkidu
2004-12-11 05:43:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:51:32 +1300, Sue Bilstein
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Mr Scebe
Earlier this year, I indicated that an incoming National Government would
give priority to tax relief for low and middle income working families, with
gradual tax reductions for those earning higher incomes as fiscal
circumstances permit.
I also said the next National Government intended to reduce the tax rate on
businesses to at least match the Australian rate of 30%.
Good stuff, Scebe, but who said this, where and when?
Sign up for the Brash newsletter.

Cheers,

Cliff
--
The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:

http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
Enkidu
2004-12-10 23:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Earlier this year, I indicated that an incoming National Government would
give priority to tax relief for low and middle income working families, with
gradual tax reductions for those earning higher incomes as fiscal
circumstances permit.
I already get these ramblings emailed to me, so bugger orf.
Post by Mr Scebe
http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
Cheers.

Cliff
--
These twin-CPU hyperthreading computers are really
great! We can wait ten to a hundred times faster
these days.
Patrick Dunford
2004-12-11 00:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Earlier this year, I indicated that an incoming National Government would
give priority to tax relief for low and middle income working families, with
gradual tax reductions for those earning higher incomes as fiscal
circumstances permit.
I also said the next National Government intended to reduce the tax rate on
businesses to at least match the Australian rate of 30%.
Over recent days, I have been signalling my intention to draw clear
battle-lines between the two major parties on taxation as we move closer to
the next general election.
Have you taken over as leader of the National Party? Brash didn't last
long did he
--
"Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
a man and a woman.

This foundation provides the best possible
environment to raise our children."

http://www.maxim.org.nz/civilunions.html
l***@yahoo.com.au
2004-12-11 01:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Earlier this year, I indicated that an incoming National Government would
give priority to tax relief for low and middle income working
families, with
Post by Mr Scebe
gradual tax reductions for those earning higher incomes as fiscal
circumstances permit.
I also said the next National Government intended to reduce the tax rate on
businesses to at least match the Australian rate of 30%.
... and that's it.

The rest is hyperbole. A long, rambling speech, most of which is
agreeable, but there's only _one_ substantive policy. Reduce company
tax to match Australia's rate.

Wow. Shock and awe.

Which, iirc, is the same as Jim Anderton's, correct?

What sort of tax policy is this?

If the Nationals truly wanted to make themselves different, if they
truly supported _incentives_, they would shift the tax burden from
productive activities to unproductive activities.

They wouldn't tax profits arising from capital investment, or from
labour. But rather they would charge for the use of natural resources.

Just try it. See what happens when you increase taxation on land by 10%
and reduce it on, say buildings, by a proportional amount.

What do you think would happen?

Of course, I suspect this won't happen. Because of the class interest
of the National Party. See, their heartland isn't working people
(that's Labour's). Nor is it the new entrepreneurial types who believe
in investment for productivity (that's probably ACT or LibertarianNZ).

No, the National Party is "father-knows-best", old-school,
landed-property. That's their heartland. They make their money from
other people's labour and investments.

I'd love to be proven wrong on this. But I suspect I won't.
Post by Mr Scebe
Over recent days, I have been signalling my intention to draw clear
battle-lines between the two major parties on taxation as we move closer to
the next general election.
Please. If reducing company tax by a couple of percent is the "battle
line" you're going to get your arse so soundly whipped you'll think
you're back in the Royal Navy circa 1700.

Regards,



Lev
Adder
2004-12-11 01:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Earlier this year, I indicated that an incoming National Government would
give priority to tax relief for low and middle income working families, with
gradual tax reductions for those earning higher incomes as fiscal
circumstances permit.
snip
Post by Mr Scebe
The tax system punishes positive attitudes, while the welfare system
encourages a set of attitudes which are utterly destructive of self-reliance
and self confidence.
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self reliant.
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't already
exist
Post by Mr Scebe
If we slowly but consistently work to reduce taxes over time, large benefits
will emerge for all of us.
Like battleshipley and ruthenasia's welfare cuts LOL
Post by Mr Scebe
What this means for working New Zealanders
Of course, only working New Zealanders. Those unable to work through no
fault of their own, as usual, get crumbs.
Post by Mr Scebe
They eased access to sickness and invalid benefits, and were surprised when
numbers increased sharply. Since 1999, the population has increased by just
6%. But the number of those on the sickness benefit has increased by an
enormous 33%, and those on the invalids' benefit by over 40%.
If Dickhead Brash got outside his ivory tower every once in the while and
breathed commoners air he might discover that his ideology does not match
real life

David Carter the housing spokesman is still carrying on the same BS about
state houseing ansd selling it off yet more than ever people are having
to live in motor camps and overcrowd to find accommodatiion they can
afford, this all started under the previous lot of Natzis

So if more people are on the sickness or invalids benefits then if they
checked they just might find that a lot of these people slipped thru the
cracks when battleshipley and ruthenasia werre slashing state welfare
back in the heady days of the Natzis early 1990s when they were pulling
woool over peoples eyes left right and centre
Post by Mr Scebe
And a culture like that, when harnessed to shared values of compassion for
those in need, and a determination to take care of the weak, the ill, and
those who have simply stumbled upon bad luck, produces a society that we can
all be proud of.
It will be a society that generates the incomes needed to keep our citizens
in this country, and which has the wealth to support those in need, to help
them back on their feet, and to care for the elderly.
That is demonstrably not the society we have at present.
But it is one we could have.
Which will never happen under a Natzional government, not while Katherine
Rich and Mooriel Newman are shooting it out see who can appeal to the
ignorant redneck anti-welfare vote the most.
Post by Mr Scebe
Conclusion
Conclusion is easy
Sack Brash who is still trying to live it up on his Orewa speech, the one
and onlty time he got any headlines or traction in the poles
Sack the buffoon Brownlee trying to ride the coattails of his inglorious
leader on the Maaori issues, trotting out ignorant one liners every time
there is a chance to pander to the redneck vote on race issues
Sack the remaining dregs from the failed policies of the last Natzional
government especially welfare electricity and other meaningless elitist
reforms that the country didn't need and the ordinary working kiwi didn't
see a cent of.

contrary to what brash implies Labour is not responsible for things like
a growing income gap, that all got a big start unde the previous nasty
natz government and brashes answer is more of the same, sensless fool
Mr Scebe
2004-12-11 02:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adder
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self reliant.
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't already
exist
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy softcocks who
want someone else to do the work for them - well wise up, buddy! The workers
are leaving for Australia in ever increasing numbers.
--
Mr Scebe
"Pershonally i think you're a fucking idiot"
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"
Adder
2004-12-11 03:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self reliant.
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't already
exist
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy softcocks who
want someone else to do the work for them - well wise up, buddy! The workers
are leaving for Australia in ever increasing numbers.
why havent you left then
Mr Scebe
2004-12-11 04:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self reliant.
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't already
exist
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy softcocks who
want someone else to do the work for them - well wise up, buddy! The workers
are leaving for Australia in ever increasing numbers.
why havent you left then
Someone's got to pay your dole money, softcock.
--
Mr Scebe
"Pershonally i think you're a fucking idiot"
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"
Enkidu
2004-12-11 07:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
why havent you left then
Someone's got to pay your dole money, softcock.
Why not leave? Then either the country will fold, or you'll be proved
wrong. Either way, we win.

Cheers,

Cliff
--
The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:

http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
Mr Scebe
2004-12-11 08:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
why havent you left then
Someone's got to pay your dole money, softcock.
Why not leave? Then either the country will fold, or you'll be proved
wrong. Either way, we win.
Ah yes, the Left's answer to everything. How's life in the gulags, softcock?
--
Mr Scebe
"Pershonally i think you're a fucking idiot"
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"
Enkidu
2004-12-11 10:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Enkidu
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
why havent you left then
Someone's got to pay your dole money, softcock.
Why not leave? Then either the country will fold, or you'll be proved
wrong. Either way, we win.
Ah yes, the Left's answer to everything. How's life in the gulags, softcock?
Either way you win too.

You leave, it's a win-win situation.

Cheers,

Cliff
--
The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:

http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
Adder
2004-12-11 09:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adder
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self
reliant.
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't
already
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
exist
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy softcocks
who
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
want someone else to do the work for them - well wise up, buddy! The
workers
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
are leaving for Australia in ever increasing numbers.
why havent you left then
Someone's got to pay your dole money, softcock.
ohhh sso you beleive in welfare
l***@yahoo.com.au
2004-12-12 07:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adder
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self
reliant.
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't
already
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
exist
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy
softcocks
Post by Adder
who
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
want someone else to do the work for them - well wise up, buddy!
The
Post by Adder
workers
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
are leaving for Australia in ever increasing numbers.
That's just a case of labour moving to the place where wages are
highest (like capital moving to where it is lowest).

The most recent figures I can find are here which pretty much endorse
what I have said;

http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/web/Hot+Off+The+Press+External+Migration+March+2002+Commentary/

"In March 2002, permanent and long-term (PLT) arrivals exceeded
departures by 1,700, compared with a net outflow of 1,900 in the
previous March month.

...

There was a net outflow to Australia of 16,100 in 2002, compared with a
net outflow of 31,600 in the March 2001 year. Conversely, there were
net inflows from China (12,500), India (5,100), the United Kingdom
(3,400), South Africa (3,100), Fiji (2,400) and Japan (2,300), in the
year ended March 2002."


NZ will always have an uphill battle because it is so isolated. Indeed,
it's an enormous success story, and a credit to NZ governments of the
20C that they managed to create a country that's so wealthy _and_ so
isolated.

What NZ needs to look for is an economic activity where transaction
costs arising from distance are effectively nullified and where it
makes use of its natural (productive landscape, breathtaking beauty)
and human resources (allegedly highly educated).
Post by Adder
Post by Adder
why havent you left then
Someone's got to pay your dole money, softcock.
An alternative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Dividend


Regards,


Lev
John B
2004-12-12 07:46:04 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com.au>

snip
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
NZ will always have an uphill battle because it is so isolated. Indeed,
it's an enormous success story, and a credit to NZ governments of the
20C that they managed to create a country that's so wealthy _and_ so
isolated.
I find it amazing that you ascribe to governments that which belongs to
enterprising individuals. Govt's have not created the "atmosphere", shall we
say, for business in NZ to flourish. Entrepreneurs and freedom does that. Govt
interference in that freedom makes things harder not easier, creates problems
where none existed, and so on.
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
What NZ needs to look for is an economic activity where transaction
costs arising from distance are effectively nullified and where it
makes use of its natural (productive landscape, breathtaking beauty)
and human resources (allegedly highly educated).
NZ doesn't need to look for anything. Business entrepreneurs do though. And
business entrepreneurs can choose to (or not) work with other like minded
individuals. Govt does nothing. It's the productive inventors of business that
are the heroes.

All govt does is manipulate, control and dominate, and usurp values from
producers. Any values govt produces are far outstripped by the values they
destroy. It's just that in the main the negatives are neatly hidden. And if they
are exposed, they are then used as an excuse for even more govt control and
domination.

The more govt is kept out of business, the better off everyone will be. Just
look at the present situation where NZ is reaping the rewards of reform
initiated by Douglas et al. Who's reaping it? Not those who earned it, but the
bloody govt. By some $34b since 1999. Imagine what NZ could be if it was given
to it's rightful owners. Imagine even how much better off nzr's could be if the
Labour Govt (Cullen) stopped stealing the gains and treating them as if they
belonged to them.
--
John B
l***@yahoo.com.au
2004-12-12 22:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
snip
I find it amazing that you ascribe to governments that which belongs to
enterprising individuals. Govt's have not created the "atmosphere", shall we
say, for business in NZ to flourish. Entrepreneurs and freedom does that. Govt
interference in that freedom makes things harder not easier, creates problems
where none existed, and so on.
Amazing or not, contrary to theory or not, that is what the empirical
evidence states.

For most of the 20th century, with apparently high levels of government
investment in capital infrastructure, education, health and not to
mention law, New Zealand's economy was one of the best in the world.

This is extraordinary for a place that is (a) so dependent on
agricultural products and (b) so isolated. Nowhere else in the world
has anything been achieved even remotely as succesful under those
conditions.

It is also however an empirical fact that governments that invest
heavily in capital (roads, ports, telecommunications etc) and social
(education, health, law) infrastructure have very high standards of
living. I suppose its a matter of "positive externalities".

On the other hand I'll agree with you entirely on matters concerning
commodity production and most likely levels of taxation as well.
Sometimes however people view things as an all or nothing equation.
Telecommunications is a good example (and equivalent arguments could be
made for electricity etc) - one side says it's best in public hands and
the other says it's best in private hands.

I actually think they're both _partially_ right. The infrastructure -
the telecommunications spectrum, the grid - is, imo, best in public
hands as they do represent a monopoly, and private monopolies are worse
than public ones. On the other side, the service/commdity side is best
in private hands so that the best result can arise from market
relations(a public monopoly on such areas is sluggish at best).

All economic models have theroretical yardsticks and to be honest I
don't have much truck with ideological reasoning. There are areas of
life where economists will agree that the market is the most efficient
and most effective way to manage activities, and there are areas where
the same economists will say that public management is the best and
most efficient. It's just a case of discerning which horse is
appropriate for which course.


Regards,



Lev
John B
2004-12-13 01:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by John B
snip
I find it amazing that you ascribe to governments that which belongs
to
Post by John B
enterprising individuals. Govt's have not created the "atmosphere",
shall we
Post by John B
say, for business in NZ to flourish. Entrepreneurs and freedom does
that. Govt
Post by John B
interference in that freedom makes things harder not easier, creates
problems
Post by John B
where none existed, and so on.
Amazing or not, contrary to theory or not, that is what the empirical
evidence states.
For most of the 20th century, with apparently high levels of government
investment in capital infrastructure, education, health and not to
mention law, New Zealand's economy was one of the best in the world.
Where did that money crme from? England? Taxpayers in NZ?
Post by John B
This is extraordinary for a place that is (a) so dependent on
agricultural products and (b) so isolated. Nowhere else in the world
has anything been achieved even remotely as succesful under those
conditions.
It's called growth. Mostly from England or Great Britain. And you think govt's
created it. Dream on. Twist the figures all you like. You are analysing after
the fact and make it look any way you want. If people didn't want to come here
with their money, it wouldn't have happened.
Post by John B
It is also however an empirical fact that governments that invest
heavily in capital (roads, ports, telecommunications etc) and social
(education, health, law) infrastructure have very high standards of
living. I suppose its a matter of "positive externalities".
Yeah right. High compared to what? What about poverty?
Post by John B
On the other hand I'll agree with you entirely on matters concerning
commodity production and most likely levels of taxation as well.
Sometimes however people view things as an all or nothing equation.
Telecommunications is a good example (and equivalent arguments could be
made for electricity etc) - one side says it's best in public hands and
the other says it's best in private hands.
Well, since it's been in private hands it has improved no end.
Post by John B
I actually think they're both _partially_ right. The infrastructure -
the telecommunications spectrum, the grid - is, imo, best in public
hands as they do represent a monopoly, and private monopolies are worse
than public ones.
Crap. Govt monopolies are the worst. Private monopolies mostly exist because of
govt regulations and favours for mates. It's called corruption.
Post by John B
On the other side, the service/commdity side is best
in private hands so that the best result can arise from market
relations(a public monopoly on such areas is sluggish at best).
Like health? You are all over the place. Lots of empty assertions and
meaningless rhetoric.
Post by John B
All economic models have theroretical yardsticks and to be honest I
don't have much truck with ideological reasoning.
Fuck the theory. It's always after the fact. That's what theory does, works out
how things work then devises a system or theory for it.
Post by John B
There are areas of
life where economists will agree that the market is the most efficient
and most effective way to manage activities, and there are areas where
the same economists will say that public management is the best and
most efficient. It's just a case of discerning which horse is
appropriate for which course.
Fuck the economists too. They have no right to dictate how others should run
their businesses. Nor do governments.

Everything you say here smacks of socialism in one form or another. You don't
appear to believe that a man's business is his own. You always seem to find a
way to reationalise interference by some authority or higher cause.
--
John B
l***@yahoo.com.au
2004-12-15 00:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by John B
Post by John B
snip
I find it amazing that you ascribe to governments that which belongs
to
Post by John B
enterprising individuals. Govt's have not created the
"atmosphere",
Post by John B
Post by John B
shall we
Post by John B
say, for business in NZ to flourish. Entrepreneurs and freedom does
that. Govt
Post by John B
interference in that freedom makes things harder not easier, creates
problems
Post by John B
where none existed, and so on.
Amazing or not, contrary to theory or not, that is what the
empirical
Post by John B
Post by John B
evidence states.
For most of the 20th century, with apparently high levels of
government
Post by John B
Post by John B
investment in capital infrastructure, education, health and not to
mention law, New Zealand's economy was one of the best in the world.
Where did that money crme from? England? Taxpayers in NZ?
*nods* From trade, yes, from NZ taxpayers yes.

But also from steering performances of collective capital and social
planning.

I readily admit if NZ's government planners were more corrupt, or were
more interested in feathering their own nest rather than building a
great economy under difficult circumstances the benefits of collective
capital and social planning could have gone very, very wrong. But they
didn't. So it is a credit to their planning - as well as to the
entrepreneurs.
Post by John B
Post by John B
This is extraordinary for a place that is (a) so dependent on
agricultural products and (b) so isolated. Nowhere else in the world
has anything been achieved even remotely as succesful under those
conditions.
It's called growth. Mostly from England or Great Britain. And you think govt's
created it. Dream on. Twist the figures all you like. You are
analysing after
Post by John B
the fact and make it look any way you want. If people didn't want to come here
with their money, it wouldn't have happened.
That's a contributing factor. But people also wouldn't have come here
if it wasn't for the planning and infastructure either. It was a
combination of factors.
Post by John B
Post by John B
It is also however an empirical fact that governments that invest
heavily in capital (roads, ports, telecommunications etc) and social
(education, health, law) infrastructure have very high standards of
living. I suppose its a matter of "positive externalities".
Yeah right. High compared to what? What about poverty?
Compared to those that don't. Have a look at the countries that spend
the lowest percentage of the GDP in social investment, like Indonesia
for example. The place is a basket-case...

Additionally, with good social infrastructure poverty levels are lower.
It's hard for real poverty to arise in a country where every third
person is a university graduate, where public transport is next to
nothing etc etc...

Standard market analysis doesn't deal with externalities (positive or
ngative) very well. Of course, they can express them graphically, but
showing some empirical figures has proven to be problematic.
Post by John B
Post by John B
On the other hand I'll agree with you entirely on matters
concerning
Post by John B
Post by John B
commodity production and most likely levels of taxation as well.
Sometimes however people view things as an all or nothing equation.
Telecommunications is a good example (and equivalent arguments could be
made for electricity etc) - one side says it's best in public hands and
the other says it's best in private hands.
Well, since it's been in private hands it has improved no end.
Post by John B
I actually think they're both _partially_ right. The infrastructure -
the telecommunications spectrum, the grid - is, imo, best in public
hands as they do represent a monopoly, and private monopolies are worse
than public ones.
Crap. Govt monopolies are the worst. Private monopolies mostly exist because of
govt regulations and favours for mates. It's called corruption.
Not according to conventional analysis (which includes, I may add,
Milton Friedman). A private monpoly is a worse monopoly because with
control over supply they can set whatever price they like. Governments
on the other hand, or democratic ones at least, are still subject to
popular pressure. The best organisation of all for managing natural
resources, for example, is public trusts.
Post by John B
Post by John B
On the other side, the service/commdity side is best
in private hands so that the best result can arise from market
relations(a public monopoly on such areas is sluggish at best).
Like health? You are all over the place. Lots of empty assertions and
meaningless rhetoric.
Being "all over the place" seems to be a euphemism for "choosing the
most appropriate method".
Post by John B
Post by John B
There are areas of
life where economists will agree that the market is the most
efficient
Post by John B
Post by John B
and most effective way to manage activities, and there are areas where
the same economists will say that public management is the best and
most efficient. It's just a case of discerning which horse is
appropriate for which course.
Fuck the economists too. They have no right to dictate how others should run
their businesses. Nor do governments.
No one is suggesting that. It when it is _other_ people's business that
it becomes an issue.
Post by John B
Everything you say here smacks of socialism in one form or another. You don't
appear to believe that a man's business is his own.
I agree entirely that a person's business is their own. But somethings
are _more_ than an individual's business.
Post by John B
You always seem to find a
way to reationalise interference by some authority or higher cause.
Tsk John... I expected a more reasonable response rather than an
hysterical ideological ranting.

In some cases things are best in public hands. In some cases they are
best left to private management. There's nothing terribly surprising or
difficult about this.

Regards,


Lev
John B
2004-12-15 01:15:08 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com.au>

snip
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
In some cases things are best in public hands. In some cases they are
best left to private management. There's nothing terribly surprising or
difficult about this.
Totally disagree. Social infrastructure, as you put it, is meeting needs that
most people appear to have. Good heath, housing, some money in your pocket,
transport etc. However, it was individuals that invented and implemented these
concepts in the first place.

Edison for example invented eletricity to power light bulbs. He also invented
the infrastructure to implement it. He also invented the marketing. He did the
whole bloody lot himself. Name one politician that could have done that, or
would have been willing to do it.

Same with invention of locomotives and railways.

But eventually, along comes a mob calling themselves government, steal the
inventions and treat them as their own. Throiughout history there are many
examples of how governments have stolen technology, through various means, from
the inventors and have manipulated that technology for their own ends.

Money is a good example too. Look what they have done to that. Look at how they
can usurp wealth from the masses at the stroke of a pen, or the utterance of a
few words (from the Governer of the Reserve Bank, or the Prime Minister for
example).

Govt interference in the natural business cycle in the end stiffles development
and slows down advancement. Look at the FDA for example.

Where would technology be today if not for govt interference?

Look at the computer industry. Look at the phenominal growth it's experiencing.
How long will that last as govt's seek to gain control over computers (OS's),
what you can do with them, and the net?

Business is ALWAYS the best place for handling all products and services people
may wish to avail themselves of. When govt's get involved, service declines,
prices rise, and development slows to a dawdle. Money is wasted in huge amounts
through buraucracy, red-tape, consultants, empire building and all the hangers
on. Money is siphoned off for other purposes etc etc. CORRUPTION. POLLUTION.
CREATION OF PROBLEMS WHERE NONE EXISTED. ETC.

Business always seeks to be more productive, delivering products and services to
the masses at ever cheaper prices for ever better quality. That's the nature of
competition.

Health, transport etc should be in private hands where competition will work to
everyone's benefit. Freedom of choice should be the rule.

Since ACC has been taken over by govt again, fees have increased dramatically.
Farmers have to pay a 43% increase in fees this year. Since Labour came to power
their fees have more than doubled. Most ACC fees have risen dramatically.

Govt do not create markets. Individuals and business does. Name one govt that
has created a market and a product to satisfy that market?

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea.
--
John B
l***@yahoo.com.au
2004-12-15 10:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
snip
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
In some cases things are best in public hands. In some cases they are
best left to private management. There's nothing terribly
surprising or
Post by John B
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
difficult about this.
Totally disagree. Social infrastructure, as you put it, is meeting needs that
most people appear to have. Good heath, housing, some money in your pocket,
transport etc. However, it was individuals that invented and
implemented these
Post by John B
concepts in the first place.
Sure, I don't have a problem with that at all. Outsource to your hearts
content to the most effective and efficient producer. But the fact is
that some goods actually return a significant positive externality
which means collective purchasing is actually the most efficient form
of expenditure. Indeed, without it, there is usually a lack of
expenditure in these areas.

Whilst what goods and services fit into this criteria is a matter of
some debate, there is no doubt that they (like negative externalities)
exist.

I would hazard to suggest that education is one example. Not just the
individual benefits, but we _all_ benefit from having a high proportion
of people who can read, write, discern right from wrong and do a bit of
civil engineering on the fly.. In other words, the profit that a
provider would make would be significantly less than the net productive
benefit if left to simple market processes.

(Of course, this is not to forget that the antithesis exists as well
i.e., public expenditure on white elephants).

In the first year of economics one usually learns how the market works.
In second and third year one learns how when it _doesn't_ work. That's
pretty interesting stuff, and an area where you would not find a single
economist on the planet who would claim "free market for everything".
That's sadly the domain of people with a little knowledge.
Post by John B
Edison for example invented eletricity to power light bulbs. He also invented
the infrastructure to implement it. He also invented the marketing. He did the
whole bloody lot himself. Name one politician that could have done that, or
would have been willing to do it.
Ummm.. Edison didn't invent electricty. Nor did he invent light bulbs.
Please check your history.

Also Edison has the dubious fame of putting commercial desire above
common sense, engineering and science. What system does your house use?
AC or DC? Which is safer, which delivers a most consisten supply of
electricity?

Now, which one did Edison promote, to the point of aiding the invention
of the electric chair - despite claiming to be morally opposed to
capital punishment! - to ensure that he received his financial
bonuses?!

Sure, in many other accounts Edison was a great individual. But to
suggest that he always did the best for society, and was committed to
the dispassionate expansion of the truth is not true by any stretch of
the imagination.
Post by John B
Look at the computer industry. Look at the phenominal growth it's experiencing.
How long will that last as govt's seek to gain control over computers (OS's),
what you can do with them, and the net?
Ummm.. What protocol suite are you using to compose and send this
message? Do you know who invented it? Who they were employed by?

Do you have any idea how this data bounces around the globe?

Let me tell you something. It has nothing to do with private
enterprise. In fact, it was the US military.
Post by John B
Business always seeks to be more productive, delivering products and services to
the masses at ever cheaper prices for ever better quality. That's the nature of
competition.
No it doesn't. It _often_, even _usually_ does. But the prime law of
business is not productivity, it is profit - and that doesn't always
arise from productivity. For example, the best form of profit is
controlling supply of a essential good.
Post by John B
Govt do not create markets. Individuals and business does. Name one govt that
has created a market and a product to satisfy that market?
The stock market.

;-)

... and secondly, the Victorian State Electricity Commission. It was
established because competing private industry couldn't agree on
standards!


Regards,


Lev
Mr Scebe
2004-12-12 09:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
That's just a case of labour moving to the place where wages are
highest (like capital moving to where it is lowest).
Which is the whole point of Brash's argument.

<snip>
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
NZ will always have an uphill battle because it is so isolated. Indeed,
it's an enormous success story, and a credit to NZ governments of the
20C that they managed to create a country that's so wealthy _and_ so
isolated.
NZ is not isolated from the effects of poor government. If we as a nation
continue to allow an ever increasing percentage of the population to become
a burden on the productive sector, there can only be one consequence. That
consequence is migration to countries where capital is welcome, where
entrepreneurs are valued, and where everyone contributes their fair share -
not where handouts are as normal as people going to work.
Post by l***@yahoo.com.au
What NZ needs to look for is an economic activity where transaction
costs arising from distance are effectively nullified and where it
makes use of its natural (productive landscape, breathtaking beauty)
and human resources (allegedly highly educated).
This will occur naturally as a consequence of the move from the industrial
age to the information age. What the "lifestylers" haven't figured out yet
is that capital can, and does, move at the speed of light, and if you don't
have the right environment to ecourage it's growth, then it will disappear
faster than the dole bludgers can get their hands out to ask for more.
--
Mr Scebe
Losersh always whine about their 'besht'.
Winnersh go home and fuck the prom queen".
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"
Brian Dooley
2004-12-12 19:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self reliant.
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't already
exist
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy softcocks who
want someone else to do the work for them - well wise up, buddy! The workers
are leaving for Australia in ever increasing numbers.
why havent you left then
He did once, but he found that he couldn't hack it and came back.

Since when he spends all his time moaning.
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
Mr Scebe
2004-12-13 04:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Dooley
He did once, but he found that he couldn't hack it and came back.
Au contraire, Gunner Dribbley. I was more than able to "hack it". So much
so, that i doubled my salary on return to this "poxy island". And have
doubled it again in the three years since. It's so easy to make money here,
why wouldn't i exploit it to the max, before i go again?
Post by Brian Dooley
Since when he spends all his time moaning.
Which is in sharp contrast to you, and all the other self-righteous
softcocks, who couldn't stop moaning during National's tenure. And you'll be
moaning again next year.
--
Mr Scebe
"Pershonally i think you're a fucking idiot"
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"
Redbaiter
2004-12-14 07:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Mr Scebe says
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Brian Dooley
He did once, but he found that he couldn't hack it and came back.
Au contraire, Gunner Dribbley. I was more than able to "hack it". So much
so, that i doubled my salary on return to this "poxy island". And have
doubled it again in the three years since. It's so easy to make money here,
why wouldn't i exploit it to the max, before i go again?
What's the pig ignorant old Castro-ite Dooley making such
hypocritical comments for anyway? Considering he came here from
the UK like a gold toothed rat deserting a ship he had sunk
himself, (and then likewise tried his best to sink this
country), he should keep his damn commie cakehole shut.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low

"Leftists- The enemies of classic liberalism"
Nomad Damon
2004-12-14 09:56:49 UTC
Permalink
On , , Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:42:26 +1300, Re: Finally, some common
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Brian Dooley
He did once, but he found that he couldn't hack it and came back.
Au contraire, Gunner Dribbley. I was more than able to "hack it". So much
so, that i doubled my salary on return to this "poxy island". And have
doubled it again in the three years since. It's so easy to make money here,
why wouldn't i exploit it to the max, before i go again?
So you went from $5 a week panhandling to $10 etc. Easier then
defrauding people you found it to be.
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Brian Dooley
Since when he spends all his time moaning.
Which is in sharp contrast to you, and all the other self-righteous
softcocks,
Why don't you just come out of the closet instead of continually
making references to male genitalia because we don't.
Post by Mr Scebe
who couldn't stop moaning during National's tenure. And you'll be
moaning again next year.
Self delusion is the most pathetic form of deceit.
Adder
2004-12-16 10:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomad Damon
On , , Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:42:26 +1300, Re: Finally, some common
Post by Mr Scebe
Which is in sharp contrast to you, and all the other self-righteous
softcocks,
Why don't you just come out of the closet instead of continually
making references to male genitalia because we don't.
Dont what? have any?

Jed Meisterdude
2004-12-13 07:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Dooley
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self reliant.
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't already
exist
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy softcocks who
want someone else to do the work for them - well wise up, buddy! The workers
are leaving for Australia in ever increasing numbers.
why havent you left then
He did once, but he found that he couldn't hack it and came back.
Since when he spends all his time moaning.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Gotta agree with the adder here. Aus is a hard as nails place where people
say what they think.

I laugh how aus kicked the kiwis off the dole over there. And, is it a myth
the maoris who go to Aus, do better than those in NZ?
Nomad Damon
2004-12-14 09:56:47 UTC
Permalink
On , , Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:51:43 +1300, Re: Finally, some common
Post by Adder
Post by Mr Scebe
Post by Adder
The welfare system is a safety net for people who can't be self reliant.
This is crap, you can't destroy something that actually doesn't already
exist
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy softcocks who
want someone else to do the work for them - well wise up, buddy! The workers
are leaving for Australia in ever increasing numbers.
why havent you left then
scabs isn't a worker.
Tilly
2004-12-11 14:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Scebe
No, the welfare system has become a lifestyle choice for lazy
softcocks who want someone else to do the work for them
That's a very blanket statement.There are bludgers, but there are also
people who *through no fault of their own* find themself in a situation
where they are truly unable to work for an ended period of time or even
permanently.. .

Want some real life examples?...Tetraplegics , psychiatric patients, for
example....I have plenty more.Many of these people thought beforehand it
could never happen to them.

- well wise
Post by Mr Scebe
up, buddy!
You need to wise up since you appear to be rather ignorant on the subject.
--
Tilly

***@yahoo.co.nz
rob
2004-12-11 02:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for that.

Its a good example of Labours attitude toward the companies and taxpayers of
NZ that we are sitting on a record surplus and at the same time they are
saying we cant afford taxcuts. Roll on the election, it cant come fast
enough
mark
2004-12-13 01:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by rob
Thanks for that.
Its a good example of Labours attitude toward the companies and
taxpayers of NZ that we are sitting on a record surplus and at the
same time they are saying we cant afford taxcuts.
Ok then.

Business A and B have a great year. Income increases 100%.

Business A decides to increase its spending budget to match.

Next year the income drops back to historical levels for both businesses.
The same occurs the next year.


Question: which business is in the shitter?
Post by rob
Roll on the election, it cant come fast enough
Matthew Poole
2004-12-11 03:33:37 UTC
Permalink
In article <9gnud.24189$***@news.xtra.co.nz>, "Mr Scebe" <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
*SNIP*
Post by Mr Scebe
As Labour has demonstrated on numerous occasions this year, if threatened
politically, there is no part of the National Party's programme that it will
not steal.
*SNIP*

Which is why National will no longer be removing the four weeks' annual
leave provision if they get elected?
It goes both ways. National have recognised that employers are not
enough of a constituency to make up for the numbers of workers who would
quite reasonably tell National to go jump at the prospect of that
particular legislative retraction.
--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
Sue Bilstein
2004-12-11 03:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Poole
*SNIP*
Post by Mr Scebe
As Labour has demonstrated on numerous occasions this year, if threatened
politically, there is no part of the National Party's programme that it will
not steal.
*SNIP*
Which is why National will no longer be removing the four weeks' annual
leave provision if they get elected?
It goes both ways. National have recognised that employers are not
enough of a constituency to make up for the numbers of workers who would
quite reasonably tell National to go jump at the prospect of that
particular legislative retraction.
That probably is the reason why they've decided not to rescind it.
And in the present buoyant economy and full employment, the effects on
ordinary workers won't be adverse.

When the economy turns down, the extra week of leave will mean more
unemployment at a given level of activity than with three weeks leave.

But that's OK eh - the taxpayers can just pay more unemployment
benefits; no problem.
David
2004-12-11 03:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
When the economy turns down, the extra week of leave will mean more
unemployment at a given level of activity than with three weeks leave.
But that's OK eh - the taxpayers can just pay more unemployment
benefits; no problem.
Mostly, it will slow down any rise in the wage rates.

The new holiday act stuff was a waste of time. This Xmas and New year
will mean huge increases because they fall on the weekend. Especially
for the likes of us who work all week this time of the year.

Consequence was we had our overtime rate cut completely.
Caused a bloody lot of agro i could have done without!

Government interference in our wages and conditions is a pain in the butt.

-D
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...