Random Politics

[Spink]

A lot. I agree that discussion is good, btw. It's fun to stimulate the mind and stuff but I mean this stuff isn't very stimulating it's mostly throwing turds and jizz around at the best of times. Well, I guess it is stimulating from a perpetual first year of university level and hey that was a fun year.

[pxpx]

The meta-thread is real.

[Spink]

When was the last time you expressed yourself enough to be challenged enough in your thoughts that you had to look something up and be like oh damn he's actually right, I didn't realise that. Most of NZG holds things pretty close to their chest because they're deadly afraid that internet men might take their precious poorly constructed opinions (oh shit you're actually human?!) and make fun of them (they definitely will) that's why f_t posts one liners instead of weighing in, because he knows Ab will swoop in on his poorly thought out post that contradicts his earlier posting and try to make him feel silly with as little effort as he can manage.

[Ab]

cunt

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Spink

When was the last time you expressed yourself enough to be challenged enough in your thoughts that you had to look something up and be like oh damn he's actually right, I didn't realise that. Most of NZG holds things pretty close to their chest because they're deadly afraid that internet men might take their precious poorly constructed opinions (oh shit you're actually human?!) and make fun of them (they definitely will) that's why f_t posts one liners instead of weighing in, because he knows Ab will swoop in on his poorly thought out post that contradicts his earlier posting and try to make him feel silly with as little effort as he can manage.

How about this thread?

[Spink]

i don't understand, it looks like:
You saying "This is a new discovery"
Ab saying "who cares, everyone already knows that"
You saying "Are you sure because I still think I'm right"

what part am I missing? Like if You said "Oh you're right, it is common knowledge" or Ab said "Oh you're right, it isn't common knowledge" I would understand.

[Lightspeed]

My mistake, this was a case where I looked up something and found I was right, not wrong. You're right, it's not often anyone communicates any disagreement sufficiently that I need to check what I know.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

I see we're having the "should we judge people by their wealth or by their income" discussion again, but you seem to have reversed your position.

Not even Ow. Last time was in the context of 65+ universal health care where most people were not extremely wealthy but rather some of them just owned their own home.

With the super wealthy I'm still saying that their income is relevant; though it would be good to tax their wealth too ie Thomas Piketty.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think f_t's post was a good play on how real concerns with the welfare of children is often responded to with "won't someone think of the children", belittling such concern.

You don't like f_t's lack of empathy for multimillionaires? Some think they deserve it more, champions of our society they are made out to be.

Yep, I guess if people blame the victim when it comes to poverty then it's consistent with their airy-fairy individualism that the super-rich deserve a break. A weird kind of Stockholm syndrome.

[Spink]

I don't think I've read this fairy tale, how does the rest of it go?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Not even Ow. Last time was in the context of 65+ universal health care where most people were not extremely wealthy but rather some of them just owned their own home.

With the super wealthy I'm still saying that their income is relevant; though it would be good to tax their wealth too ie Thomas Piketty.

I'm not familiar with the guy or his proposal, how does that work? How do you tax someone on WEALTH?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Spink

I don't think I've read this fairy tale, how does the rest of it go?

Nah, I'm not interested in the turds eye view.

[Spink]

I saw that edit and I think it's hilarious that it took you four minutes to dwell on whether to post that or not.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

I'm not familiar with the guy or his proposal, how does that work? How do you tax someone on WEALTH?

My understanding is that it involves a 'global' progressive (you'd have to have more than 1 million euro in assets to be subject to the 1% bottom rate) taxation of the value of someones assets minus their debts.

Like the spirit level it seems to be one of those things that half the people say it's an awesome idea and half saying it's a terrible idea.

[Ab]

Surely that's a pie-in-the-sky wouldn't-it-be-nice everyone-gets-a-pony theory though? To implement something like that would mean throwing out the economic and legal structures of the western world.

[Lightspeed]

Democracy is kind of like that. I think we need to aim for not an everyone-gets-a-pony society but rather a no-one-gets-the-shaft society.

[Ab]

But it's possible for not everyone to get the shaft and for there to be massive inequality at the same time.

[Lightspeed]

Indeed. I doubt it would last though with a population that has the free time to consider issues of equality rather than worrying about how to feed the kids tomorrow.

[Ab]

You're assuming that everyone who has the free time to consider inequality will react by overthrowing the state. That's not true.

[Lightspeed]

Nope. I'm assuming just like the stark choices those left in poverty have to make accumulate into social issues, the freedom to make more personal choices will accumulate into social reform. Revolution is not required.

[Cyberbob]

Problem is, the ones with the power to change it rather like it the way it is.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

The wealthiest already pay more tax than everybody else. And they have to pay more?

i can only conclude 1 of 2 things here,
a) you're full of shit
or
b)you're struggling with basic mathematics.

much as id love for it to be b),i dont in my heart believe that to be the case.
so a) it is...
fuck off whiner-your troll-fu is weak.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

You want to move to a tax model where the obligation is based on assets rather than income?

how about..'as well as'

To implement something like that would mean throwing out the economic and legal structures of the western world.

i think your dramatizing a little there,changing tax structures to ensure everyone does their part (even the wealthy) wouldnt be quite as 'far-out' as your daddys opinion there.
if a working man has to pay 28% on every dollar he earns,why the fuck shouldn't those that don't work do the same.my god..we could have everyone paying the same rate...aand we'd be better off.
uber fair.

[Spink]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Nope. I'm assuming just like the stark choices those left in poverty have to make accumulate into social issues, the freedom to make more personal choices will accumulate into social reform. Revolution is not required.

like state regulated veganism?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

A weird kind of Stockholm syndrome.

It's very weird.

[chubby]

There’s no doubt that NZ’s media in general, failed to hold John Key to account at the election. As Keith Ng writes in his excellent blog, “National’s landslide victory means that the media’s reporting of Dirty Politics has had no effect. The media had no power to punish politicians for bad behaviour.”

You can understand media relusctance to get involved. Why do the job of an opposition in disarray and undeserving of help? But it is the news media’s job to hold a blowtorch to the short and curlies of any politician caught being dodgy – no matter who benefits, whether it’s before an election or not.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/03...nalism-become/

[Spink]

Your article answered its own question

an opposition in disarray and undeserving of help

It doesn't matter what National was or is, there was no real opposition available to vote for, just a bunch of children playing dressup. It's not the media or the public's fault. It's two very shameful political parties and one even more shameful political party merger.

[Lightspeed]

It's got to be hard to build a coherent party platform when nonsense stories like that whole Lui letter are inflated by the media to absurdity, yet serious allegations are effectively dismissed.

I don't doubt for a second that National have intentionally contributed to these circumstances.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by chubby

i can only conclude 1 of 2 things here,
a) you're full of shit
or
b)you're struggling with basic mathematics.

much as id love for it to be b),i dont in my heart believe that to be the case.
so a) it is...
fuck off whiner-your troll-fu is weak.

Are you telling me the tax rate does not in fact increase as income increases?

[Spink]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's got to be hard to build a coherent party platform when nonsense stories like that whole Lui letter are inflated by the media to absurdity, yet serious allegations are effectively dismissed.

I don't doubt for a second that National have intentionally contributed to these circumstances.

Blaming the public and the media ITT

[Lightspeed]

Mostly I blame National for being a bunch of power hungry, money grubbing cunts willing to use cronyism and dirty politics to maintain their position. I don't think the same of most people voting for National, they largely were convinced to vote against their interests - those with equity in NZ are an exception.

[Spink]

Why is voting for uncertainty in my interests?

[Lightspeed]

Because the alternative was to vote for those creating the uncertainty for their benefit not yours.

[Spink]

That doesn't sound like a particularly better way to vote than just voting based on faith in the party which I imagine is what most people did.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

Are you telling me the tax rate does not in fact increase as income increases?

no.that is nothing to do with what i have said.

mebbe i should have gone with b)

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Spink

That doesn't sound like a particularly better way to vote than just voting based on faith in the party which I imagine is what most people did.

I guess we all have our own process for choosing between those we know who will fuck you and those who say they won't.

[Spink]

I don't feel very fucked but I felt like I would be fucked under labour.

[Spink]

Originally Posted by chubby

no.that is nothing to do with what i have said.

mebbe i should have gone with b)

what does "more" mean, to you? because it could be taken at least two ways in CCS' sentence, he could mean they pay a larger percentage of the total income tax (or tax in general, incl GST etc) or he could mean they pay more in terms of a percentage of their income.

I guess you probably are talking about some third way in which they (probably, I dunno?) exploit the system to actually pay a smaller percentage of their income using tax lawyers and accountants.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by chubby

no.that is nothing to do with what i have said.

But it is everything to do with what I said. Perhaps you are trying to distort my argument?

mebbe i should have gone with b)

You'd best show me show me your basic maths then.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Spink

I don't feel very fucked but I felt like I would be fucked under labour.

That's because you don't know what's good for you. Lolspeed knows what is good for you.