So long as you're happy with your temporary refund adjustment I guess.

Hey, I'm not the one claiming that tax cuts for the rich were funded by service cuts.

Do you have a hypothesis of how the tax cuts were funded?

I think John Key personally fucked a bunch of poor people for their money and then handed it to the rich and said "Here, have some more money!"

Yep, he's just that good in bed.

I imagine the naughty rich who weren't paying as much tax as morally they should have entirely made up for those rich who weren't hiding income. My point being the rich didn't really get a cut.

Anyone can dig up statistics that quietly neglect to take the full picture into account to disprove this but if honesty prevails (not a quality of the left) then we can move away from this nonsense claim that the poor were shafted here.

It will be better still when labour come to the table and accept that a capital gains tax is needed. But there's not a chance of this happening any time soon now is there?

Are you daft? I've already stated the massive increase in infant mortality, lower life expectancy, etc. That essentially = people dying.

In fact, you've selectively taken out the part of my quote where I do mention that.

What I love is how some of you guys arrogate yourself to 'experts' of, e.g. Russian political economy, having absolutely no clue of what's gone on there. I'll bet GT wasn't even aware of the woeful slide on almost all indicators (economic and social) in Russia until I mentioned it.

So, how many?

30 million and 1.

mmkay... and a major policy plank of NACTS too i notice.

This sounds like a pretty accurate account to me, assuming it's not meant to be taken literally. He's had a fair amount of experience doing this already as a currency speculator. His former occupation would have given him more than an adequate amount of preparation for the task.

Somehow I don't think you're being serious though, so how about you answer the question?

GT seems to think the rich didn't effectively GET a cut, do you agree with that?

Is that just one item on your list? I ask because it's not clear you're not counting infant mortality twice. Plus it's very unlikely the impact is across all demographics - perhaps you have a very serious problem in a small demographic that needs fixing? Or maybe it's that records are now accurate and under the dishonesty of the past in their countries they didn't count all deaths?

Plus you know it's actually pretty difficult to measure mortality at the ages that are interesting here and maybe they have simplify modernized their techniques?

wat? That's his argument, not mine.

Hence the request you answer the question...

Why am I answering a question about GT's argument now?

Because Lightspeed is trying to set up a faux argument where your failure to answer his question indicates that somehow you have something to hide.

Yeah, I've noticed that about lolspeed and people like him. Trying to attribute to you an argument you've never made. Dirty.

Well, my understanding was you were being asked your own opinion, if it was distinct from GT's, which I guess is unclear to some.

I have no opinion on GTs' opinion. Happy?

This was the question you were asked initially, I'd like to see a serious response to it. I added the question about GT's opinion on top of that.

Please can we not have this thread go to shit too?

Say what-now?

You seem unfamiliar with political discussion...

Who's shitting up another thread again?

I already answered that.

If this is the answer you're referring to I'd like to see a serious response. This answer is nothing but a cop-out.

I made it pretty clear for you. Obviously I overestimated your intelligence. Also, don't try to use the cop out line on me. That's for lolspeed.

Once again, for your benefit.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10723146

I can't say I disagree with that.

I'm not sure why this is relevant.

Two-thirds of the tax-cuts went to the top third of earners. So the difference is that these "rich" people won't be subject to the implications of cutting public services.

But maybe that's not what you were getting at?

Except that doesn't really answer the question.

Income tax was reduced, GST was put up. The government is borrowing more, and cutting public services. Borrowing effects everyone, both GST and service cuts disproportionately affect the poor. While your answer is technically correct, it's such a half assed response that it doesn't really tell us anything.
Really? No fucking shit.

Yes but you're not bothering to add on the extra tax paid by this same group through the other changes introduced are you? There's not that much difference in the total tax paid by the top third of earners. What changed was the share being paid by individuals within the group.

What changes are those?

How do you deal with high levels of child abuse and younger and increasingly violent offenders? Apparently, reducing the role of Children's Commissioner to a part-time position is a step in the right direction.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...part-time-role

that's just crazy, now the commissioner has more time on his hands to molest children.

The NZ police - being useless even in the political arena
 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...social-dealers

How any self-respecting institution can possibly oppose the ending of the ban on drug utensils, in light of the obvious harm-reduction benefits, is just beyond me. And opposing the proposed introductions against presumptions of imprisonment is another classic "boys in blue" crap.

Anything to give us more power!

Over 4 years this top one-third income group will pay approx. 14.6 billion less in income tax. What "extra tax paid" is funding this?

I assume the harm-reduction benefits you are referring too is the medical use of marijuana for pain relief?
If so - and without knowing the full report so basing this on speculation - then I would imagine they are opposing it on the basis that p pipes, spoons that have obviously been used for p/heroin, and other Class A/B utensils etc are a bad thing.
Not necessarily basing their argument on bongs and spotting knives (Which would obviously be tarred with the same brush in this context).

No, not quite. My argument (and the LC's argument, based on what someone I trust who's read the report told me) is that even if people think we should criminalise drugs or at least the possession of small quantities for personal use, there's no point in effectively putting disincentives in place for people having their own drug utensils to use, in order to prevent the spread of diseases.