Discussion:
New Zealanders egalitarian?
(too old to reply)
James Christophers
2020-09-02 01:41:26 UTC
Permalink
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
Crash
2020-09-02 03:45:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-09-02 03:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
The article appears to be talking abut wealth rather than income.
John Bowes
2020-09-02 04:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
The article appears to be talking abut wealth rather than income.
Can you explain the difference? I understand it's impossible to have one without the other.....
Gordon
2020-09-02 07:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
The article appears to be talking abut wealth rather than income.
Can you explain the difference? I understand it's impossible to have one without the other.....
A country's wealth is investment in infrastructure, the mineral wealth it
may or may not have, the digital aspect of information, capital if you like.

Income is the gains (economy) the country receives from having the wealth.

Money is a very narrow form of either income and wealth.

Also one can have wealth and no income. Although one would be "silly" to be
in this situation.
Rich80105
2020-09-02 09:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
The article appears to be talking abut wealth rather than income.
Can you explain the difference? I understand it's impossible to have one without the other.....
A country's wealth is investment in infrastructure, the mineral wealth it
may or may not have, the digital aspect of information, capital if you like.
Income is the gains (economy) the country receives from having the wealth.
Money is a very narrow form of either income and wealth.
Also one can have wealth and no income. Although one would be "silly" to be
in this situation.
Why would that be silly, John Bowes? If I own say 100 properties and
have $2 million in other assets with enough of those able to
berealised to enable me to lead a comfortable life, I may also have
costs and income relating to the properties that result in my having
negative income for tax purposes - andgiven tax laws I may do that for
a number of years. Why would that be silly?
John Bowes
2020-09-02 11:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
The article appears to be talking abut wealth rather than income.
Can you explain the difference? I understand it's impossible to have one without the other.....
A country's wealth is investment in infrastructure, the mineral wealth it
may or may not have, the digital aspect of information, capital if you like.
Income is the gains (economy) the country receives from having the wealth.
Money is a very narrow form of either income and wealth.
Also one can have wealth and no income. Although one would be "silly" to be
in this situation.
Why would that be silly, John Bowes? If I own say 100 properties and
have $2 million in other assets with enough of those able to
berealised to enable me to lead a comfortable life, I may also have
costs and income relating to the properties that result in my having
negative income for tax purposes - andgiven tax laws I may do that for
a number of years. Why would that be silly?
Try again using some sensible examples Rich. The question wasn't about taxation. It was a simple question that you have answered with yet another distraction to hide your stupidity!
James Christophers
2020-09-03 21:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
Those born into poverty and deprivation may well enjoy the same rights (an abstraction) as those born into wealth and excess, but in economic terms (practicalities) they are anything but equal. And its the practicalities, not the abstractions, that count when it comes to a child's health, education and warm, dry housing. Every time.
Crash
2020-09-03 23:02:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
Those born into poverty and deprivation may well enjoy the same rights (an abstraction) as those born into wealth and excess, but in economic terms (practicalities) they are anything but equal. And its the practicalities, not the abstractions, that count when it comes to a child's health, education and warm, dry housing. Every time.
Those born into poverty may well lack access to creature comforts and
wealth, but they do not lack access to state funded services. They
may well have parents that consider schools as nothing more than
childcare and doctors whose fees are unaffordable when there is no
money left over after paying for food, rent, smokes and the pub.

We cannot legislate parents to bring their children up properly.
Neither can we legislate that the needs of their children rank a
higher priority than non-essential spending.

The difference between a child who attends high-decile vs low-decile
schools can often be found at home in terms of what the parents do to
encourage their child to achieve in life. Egalitarianism is where any
child anywhere in NZ can achieve well, despite their background rather
than because of it.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-09-04 00:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
Those born into poverty and deprivation may well enjoy the same rights (an abstraction) as those born into wealth and excess, but in economic terms (practicalities) they are anything but equal. And its the practicalities, not the abstractions, that count when it comes to a child's health, education and warm, dry housing. Every time.
Those born into poverty may well lack access to creature comforts and
wealth, but they do not lack access to state funded services. They
may well have parents that consider schools as nothing more than
childcare and doctors whose fees are unaffordable when there is no
money left over after paying for food, rent, smokes and the pub
"May well" is all very well but, assuming it has substance, how could any of these factors be made to change in view of the long-institutionalised habit-forming mentality that characterises them?
Post by Crash
We cannot legislate parents to bring their children up properly.
Neither can we legislate that the needs of their children rank a
higher priority than non-essential spending.
See my previous reply.
Post by Crash
The difference between a child who attends high-decile vs low-decile
schools can often be found at home in terms of what the parents do to
encourage their child to achieve in life. Egalitarianism is where any
child anywhere in NZ can achieve well, despite their background rather
than because of it.
Accessibility is doubtless universal, but opportunities to take advantage of it are beset by the same long-institutionalised mentality that no child is in a position to escape. - hence New Zealand's deep-rooted inter-generational condition.

New Zealand's shameful youth suicide stats also reflect a similar, if not the same, deeply ingrained social malaise.
Meanwhile, yer zero-productivity self-employed talkback-host-for-rent will at this moment be lauding a real-productivity hard-working PAYE minion from "Struggle Street" while simultaneously savouring the taxation he evades through his 'legitimate' family trust.
Rich80105
2020-09-04 01:05:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 17:53:10 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
Those born into poverty and deprivation may well enjoy the same rights (an abstraction) as those born into wealth and excess, but in economic terms (practicalities) they are anything but equal. And its the practicalities, not the abstractions, that count when it comes to a child's health, education and warm, dry housing. Every time.
Those born into poverty may well lack access to creature comforts and
wealth, but they do not lack access to state funded services. They
may well have parents that consider schools as nothing more than
childcare and doctors whose fees are unaffordable when there is no
money left over after paying for food, rent, smokes and the pub
"May well" is all very well but, assuming it has substance, how could any of these factors be made to change in view of the long-institutionalised habit-forming mentality that characterises them?
Post by Crash
We cannot legislate parents to bring their children up properly.
Neither can we legislate that the needs of their children rank a
higher priority than non-essential spending.
See my previous reply.
Post by Crash
The difference between a child who attends high-decile vs low-decile
schools can often be found at home in terms of what the parents do to
encourage their child to achieve in life. Egalitarianism is where any
child anywhere in NZ can achieve well, despite their background rather
than because of it.
Accessibility is doubtless universal, but opportunities to take advantage of it are beset by the same long-institutionalised mentality that no child is in a position to escape. - hence New Zealand's deep-rooted inter-generational condition.
New Zealand's shameful youth suicide stats also reflect a similar, if not the same, deeply ingrained social malaise.
Meanwhile, yer zero-productivity self-employed talkback-host-for-rent will at this moment be lauding a real-productivity hard-working PAYE minion from "Struggle Street" while simultaneously savouring the taxation he evades through his 'legitimate' family trust.
There is a commercial pre-school competing in a low decile area of
Auckland for business, that offered free pick up and delivery - pick
up from 6:30 in the morning and drop off up to about 5:30 or 6pm. It
cost them a van and driver, but catered for those where both parents
had at least one job and replaced commercial day-care with some
pre-school programme, and the hassle of transport to and from the
centre. Minimum wage, high rent, 3 or 4 children; it can be tough to
ensure that children get to and from school safely when even running a
vehicle may be financially difficult.

At one time both major political parties professed to value equal
opportunity for all children. It has not been achieved in reality.
Crash
2020-09-04 02:39:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 17:53:10 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
Those born into poverty and deprivation may well enjoy the same rights (an abstraction) as those born into wealth and excess, but in economic terms (practicalities) they are anything but equal. And its the practicalities, not the abstractions, that count when it comes to a child's health, education and warm, dry housing. Every time.
Those born into poverty may well lack access to creature comforts and
wealth, but they do not lack access to state funded services. They
may well have parents that consider schools as nothing more than
childcare and doctors whose fees are unaffordable when there is no
money left over after paying for food, rent, smokes and the pub
"May well" is all very well but, assuming it has substance, how could any of these factors be made to change in view of the long-institutionalised habit-forming mentality that characterises them?
I don't know - and I suspect neither do our politicians (existing and
wannabe).
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
We cannot legislate parents to bring their children up properly.
Neither can we legislate that the needs of their children rank a
higher priority than non-essential spending.
See my previous reply.
Post by Crash
The difference between a child who attends high-decile vs low-decile
schools can often be found at home in terms of what the parents do to
encourage their child to achieve in life. Egalitarianism is where any
child anywhere in NZ can achieve well, despite their background rather
than because of it.
Accessibility is doubtless universal, but opportunities to take advantage of it are beset by the same long-institutionalised mentality that no child is in a position to escape. - hence New Zealand's deep-rooted inter-generational condition.
New Zealand's shameful youth suicide stats also reflect a similar, if not the same, deeply ingrained social malaise.
Actually I put that down to social media bullying - a relatively
recent (last 20 years or so) development. Kiddy keyboard warriors
discovering the freedom to post anonymously with tragic results.
Post by James Christophers
Meanwhile, yer zero-productivity self-employed talkback-host-for-rent will at this moment be lauding a real-productivity hard-working PAYE minion from "Struggle Street" while simultaneously savouring the taxation he evades through his 'legitimate' family trust.
I don't know about radio talk-show hosts - I stopped listening to them
when the Radio I talk back host (9-11am weekdays, don't recall his
name) left.

The purpose of most family Trusts these days is protection of property
for those marrying for a second or subsequent time. Tax loopholes are
long gone, as is the need to disguise income.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-09-04 04:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 17:53:10 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:41:26 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/new-zealands-astounding-wealth-gap-challenges-our-fair-go-identity
A typically British angle - that egalitarianism requires equality of
income. It does not. Egalitarianism espouses that we are all equal
despite our differences - that those born with nothing have the same
rights as those born with excessive wealth (in this context).
Those born into poverty and deprivation may well enjoy the same rights (an abstraction) as those born into wealth and excess, but in economic terms (practicalities) they are anything but equal. And its the practicalities, not the abstractions, that count when it comes to a child's health, education and warm, dry housing. Every time.
Those born into poverty may well lack access to creature comforts and
wealth, but they do not lack access to state funded services. They
may well have parents that consider schools as nothing more than
childcare and doctors whose fees are unaffordable when there is no
money left over after paying for food, rent, smokes and the pub
"May well" is all very well but, assuming it has substance, how could any of these factors be made to change in view of the long-institutionalised habit-forming mentality that characterises them?
I don't know - and I suspect neither do our politicians (existing and
wannabe).
Zackly.

Yet this quasi-inherited pathology-in-all-but-name lies at the core of a social malaise that successive governments have proved themselves impotent to improve or eradicate, but yet for which they know they are nevertheless held accountable at the ballot box . This is why, no matter the latest controversy concerning poverty and deprivation in New Zealand, the same naming/blaming tropes are trotted out ad nauseum. The same goes for claims about "putting more money into it than the previous government". Figleaf policies that fool no one except those complacent Pontius Pilates whose sole function is to kick yet another can down the road and tick the box marked "Done" while disdainfully reminding the undeserving poorest among us of their duties and responsibilities to the rest of society as a whole.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
We cannot legislate parents to bring their children up properly.
Neither can we legislate that the needs of their children rank a
higher priority than non-essential spending.
See my previous reply.
Post by Crash
The difference between a child who attends high-decile vs low-decile
schools can often be found at home in terms of what the parents do to
encourage their child to achieve in life. Egalitarianism is where any
child anywhere in NZ can achieve well, despite their background rather
than because of it.
Accessibility is doubtless universal, but opportunities to take advantage of it are beset by the same long-institutionalised mentality that no child is in a position to escape. - hence New Zealand's deep-rooted inter-generational condition.
New Zealand's shameful youth suicide stats also reflect a similar, if not the same, deeply ingrained social malaise.
Actually I put that down to social media bullying - a relatively
recent (last 20 years or so) development. Kiddy keyboard warriors
discovering the freedom to post anonymously with tragic results.
Regardless, of all OECD nations, New Zealand scores worst of all for its intrinsic bullying culture and worst of all for youth suicides. There has to be a reason for such a debilitating sickness. In fact, if any born and bred New Zealand adult can't bring himself to examine his own social conscience and give an honest explanation of it, then I'd like to know what, exactly, is holding him back.
Loading...