Stop Asset Sales!

[JP]

We should definitely decide who wins elections based on who has the most competent and well funded advertising.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Yes we know - your communist ideals are evident in almost every post.

Let nobody be under any illusion otherwise - the greens are an extremist party far left of alliance of old.

And of course those with communist hopes don't want asset sales - the state is supposed to own everything isn't it?

You say "Communist" like it's a bad thing.

Idiotic statements aside, the government is pitching the idea of selling less than a majority share-hold, so the government still maintains overriding control of any asset they sell. So we're not talking about any operational changes. Blinglish is pitching the idea that "market pressure" will make these assets more efficient, but with the government maintaining a majority this is mostly voodoo economics. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself why anyone would want to buy shares in one of these assets, and the answer is of course, "To make money". With no operational changes this means that it equates to less money for the government and more for private investors. The "mum and dad" investors National are talking about already receive the benefit of these assets as NZ taxpayers, so really this is nothing but a land-grab for overseas investors.

For the record, I'm a Libertarian-Socialist/Anarcho-Communist. "State" ownership in the way you're referring to isn't really that appealing, but it would take a while to explain the nuances, You'd be better off googling it if you were interested. Not that I'm saying you are.

[xor]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

Fixed that for you.

Oh you went there!

[crocos]

Originally Posted by adonis

For the record, I'm a Libertarian-Socialist/Anarcho-Communist.

You're a student or a crackpot then? Not aware of anyone declaiming this that doesn't fit into one of the aforementioned camps.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by adonis

For the record, I'm a Libertarian-Socialist/Anarcho-Communist.

So I can pretty much ignore your opinion on anything and everything. Cool. THanks for clearing that up.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by crocos

You're a student or a crackpot then? Not aware of anyone declaiming this that doesn't fit into one of the aforementioned camps.

Well, I'm not a student. Noam Chomsky is probably the most well known left wing libertarian. I believe Bryce Edwards who writes a NZ political blog (http://liberation.typepad.com/) is a Left-wing Lib as well. We're not well represented.

Originally Posted by CCS

So I can pretty much ignore your opinion on anything and everything. Cool. THanks for clearing that up.

You were going to do that anyway.

[CCS]

No, what I was going to do is make fun of you for being a retard.

[adonis]

Sweet, I must have improved your opinion of me then. I'd much rather be ignored. It means you'll post less for starters. TBH I've done the whole board a favour, people should like.. thank me.. or something.

[CCS]

wat

crazy logic is crazy. That's probably the root of your problems right there.

[adonis]

You can start ignoring me now, you fucking douche.

[CCS]

Haha, you're so angry when you can't have your way!

Don't you have a beneficiary to go hug or something?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by crocos

35 mill to rich-guy yachties here... probably other stuff there...

(And yep, I voted National)

Blame (Labour's) Trevor Mallard if today you are one of the thousands of people annoyed Emirates Team New Zealand will use $36 million of taxpayer cash to help challenge for the next America's Cup.

Mallard was the Minister in charge when the deal with Grant Dalton was done in 2007 and told me rather gleefully last year the agreement was watertight; that there was no way the current government could wriggle out of it despite showing signs when they came to power that they wanted to.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion...chting-funding

Says it all, really...

[CCS]

He should be leader of the Labour party!

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by adonis

For the record, I'm a Libertarian-Socialist/Anarcho-Communist. "State" ownership in the way you're referring to isn't really that appealing, but it would take a while to explain the nuances, You'd be better off googling it if you were interested. Not that I'm saying you are.

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA. What a dick. You probably part of the Socialist Aotearoa/Workers Party. Horrible guy...

Also, what a douche, a labour party giving money to fucking yachties?! FUCKING YACHTIES?!!> What next, you'll tell me 100 mil to the equestrian club and a public funded stadium for fucking polo.

[GM]

Yachting is a pretty big industry in nz, like farming. We build boats, make sails, export talent, sailing plays a big part in tourism, and numerous events happen here every year. I would even go so far as to say our yachting heritage has created more jobs for New Zealanders than any other sport ever played here.

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

public funded stadium for fucking polo.

How does one play this 'fucking polo' ?

[Juju]

So the herald reported on these signs this morning:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10720868

Here are some gems:

Originally Posted by Secretary of the Labour Party Chris Flatt

"Any reasonable person would see that the nature of the writing and the 'vote Labour' on there indicates they're not traffic control devices."

Mr Flatt said the party would continue to use the signs and had told members to be cautious near roads.

"We're aware of these things but we think this is a little bit of a campaign by National Party bloggers and right-wing groups to take the issue away from the actual campaign."

[wugambino]

Originally Posted by adonis

So the 2 billion dollars in tax cuts to the top 10% of income earners isn't "billions" to you?

The top tax rate was a joke and only being paid by those who could either not afford or did not know how to structure their affairs so they only paid 33%.

I'm sure someone on 80k a year does not feel like the affluent 'rich pick' that labour paints them out to be.

[JP]

Getting increased revenue from the wealthy is a blindingly obvious necessity to any legitimate government. Focusing on cuts as somehow being a solution to anything is a red herring. Spending will grow regardless. A higher % of wealth is moving to a smaller amount of people. If they are not taxed appropriately this moves the tax burden onto those who are not getting an increase in wealth.

I just don't get how people can't look at America and see exactly where New Zealand is heading. Kiwi's are not at all smarter than Americans, just under considerably less (but growing) pressure of marketing.

Hey at least by voting for National you get like $50 extra a week right!

If I was a wealthy person in the world these days, I would just laugh my ass off. The middle class have essentially offered themselves and the poor up to the rich while being smug about it. For a chance that 1% of them might become truely wealthy and gain what exactly?

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by JP

Getting increased revenue from the wealthy is a blindingly obvious necessity to any legitimate government.

This isn't obvious at all - this is nothing more than the dreams of a communist.

The thing that is beyond obvious though is that all of those who should be paying tax must be made to pay tax. labour didn't quite grasp this and instead taxed only those who were willing to pay. The effect was that tax rates needed to be higher than they should have been. National has a different view - everyone who should pay tax must and a consequence of this is that tax rates can be lower.

Granted it's not politically possible to go the full hog because labour aren't capable of agreeing to a capital gain tax.

You can play stupid and pretend that the rich all got a tax cut, and lets be honest is many cases this isn't playing. The fact of the matter is that more of the right people are paying now and so tax rates can go to the levels they should have always been.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by CCS

Hmm... Goff's statement didn't sound much like "We certainly would not want to break any laws, this was an unintentional error and I apologise to drivers everywhere and of course we'll take the signs down." In fact, it sounded more like "You got a problem? Say it to the face of the person in charge of those signs and maybe if you're nice they'll do something about it. DO IT FAGGOT I dare ya!"

C'mon Goff, you're the boss now. Take charge of the situation and close it down now. This shit will be in the press until you act decisively.

Going back a step. Goff needs to go. Labour keep saying it is too close to the election. So essentially they are saying "We will lose, kick him out and start again".

To me, that is a stupid mentality. They are on their way of getting their asses kicked. They are going to lose so many seats, and potentially some good political people.
I can't believe they are not smart enough to roll him now. Even saying to the person that takes over that they will have a chance to still be there at the next election, and start the recovery now.
I would bet on that a change of leader right now, would give Labour a boost in the ratings
And a house that was split 70/50, would be way better than a house split 90/30. How good could an opposition be then.

[A Corpse]

Wealth works like an hourglass. No amount of fiddling will get the sand running in the other direction. You need to invert the whole structure. It has been too long since such an inversion.

No, I'm not serious GT.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by blynk

How good could an opposition be then.

About the same as now. The issue is that they are an opposition to everything - who the hell wants people who won't agree to anything having any say in what goes on?

Why do they need more than one seat? We know how they're going to vote on everything and their having too many seats simply extends time in the playground.

They deserve no seats frankly. But as there are for the greens there are people who decide who to vote for based on the colour of the party logo and red is a colour too many people like it seems.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

This isn't obvious at all - this is nothing more than the dreams of a communist.

The thing that is beyond obvious though is that all of those who should be paying tax must be made to pay tax. labour didn't quite grasp this and instead taxed only those who were willing to pay. The effect was that tax rates needed to be higher than they should have been. National has a different view - everyone who should pay tax must and a consequence of this is that tax rates can be lower.

Granted it's not politically possible to go the full hog because labour aren't capable of agreeing to a capital gain tax.

You can play stupid and pretend that the rich all got a tax cut, and lets be honest is many cases this isn't playing. The fact of the matter is that more of the right people are paying now and so tax rates can go to the levels they should have always been.

It has nothing to do with communism, nice argument there GT. There's nothing communist about what I said in any way. Communist nations faced similar issues (wealth flowing upwards). It is just a trend that will most likely end up being counter productive to the societies it occurs in. Wealth disparity leads to a degradation of society, it is not like some mystery or something that hasn't happened repeatedly.

I like how even considering the fact that a small amount of the population holding large amounts of a nations wealth may be a problem is communist to you. Shows how interested you are in actually considering things, rather than just being a cheerleader.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

National has a different view - everyone who should pay tax must and a consequence of this is that tax rates can be lower.

Who defines the "should" in this statement?

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

National has a different view - everyone who should pay tax must and a consequence of this is that tax rates can be lower.

I agree that tax avoidance is a problem - assuming that's what you're saying. However it almost sounds like you're saying that the tax intake will stay the same under National? If that's true why are they so intent to cut social services?

[Golden Teapot]

Can't you see that this is two separate issues? I can and I imagine most other people can too.

1. Getting everyone who should pay tax to pay tax is one thing. To the extent it was politically possible (restricted by the idiot labor party being incapable of agreeing to help do this properly) this is what National did.

Idiots and liars called this a tax cut for the rich; but all but the idiots know it wasn't.

2. Is deciding whether taxes should actually be cut in the sense that the intended contribution from different parts of society should be reduced with a commensurate adjustment to government spending.

National's proposition is that #2 is possible by only cutting-out dead wood. I'm, in favor of this and I'm waiting for this to materially happen. In large part the upcoming election is being campaigned upon this proposition.

Those on the gravy-train who are going to have an axe taken to them are going to scream and kick for sure. And, inevitably it will be those who pay lots of tax who benefit from the clearing the most - this is the only fair way to act and National is only about acting fairly.

You're not stupid (from my observation) and so deep down you know what happened in #1. However, your communist disposition and your demonstrable need to express everything right of the ultra-left as bad will mean you'll not admit this and in fact you'll likely argue to the contrary. This is just the way it is. It's very much like unions deriding everything National does whether it's aligned with their agendas or not.

[adonis]

Right, so you're not actually arguing against the fact's I've presented at all, just whether this is "fair" or not, and the potential flow-on effects of these policies.

I partially agree with your #1 point, even to the extent that it was one of the gaps Labour did not fill.

We agree on the facts of your 2nd point, that National intend to cut "fat" (I would refer to it as muscle) and that, "inevitably it will be those who pay lots of tax who benefit from the clearing the most".

As far as whether this is "fair" or not, well, that's a subjective argument. I would only ask that you don't try to obscure the fact that National intend to make things harder on people at the bottom of the income spectrum in order to improve the lot of the people at the top. If you wish to argue that, in the long term, this shift will indirectly improve everyone's lot by improving economic growth etc, then that is another level of argument on top of what's already been discussed.

I think you'd have an up-hill battle on your hands to present any of this as "fair", or to argue that it will improve economic outcomes for the country as a whole.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by adonis

don't try to obscure the fact that National intend to make things harder on people at the bottom of the income spectrum in order to improve the lot of the people at the top.

My perspective is that National will make it easier and fairer for people who earn less. Expectations will be realigned to a sustainable position and protection extended to smooth the reality of what the mood of the global capital market can otherwise do to people who have very little.

In the very short term I'd agree that the realignment experience might not be what these folk want. If so then blame labor for creating the expectation that everyone can live a high-income lifestyle without actually having income to support it.

[adonis]

I find it hard to believe that you believe people will act with that kind of restraint in the long term.

[Golden Teapot]

I expect labor will eventually get back into power and put our most vulnerable citizens through another roller-coaster ride. They will be given things that can't be afforded long term, they will rise to this new level of comfort and view this standard of living as their right, and inevitably a few years later it will be necessary to take this away causing hurt that could have been so easily avoided.

I view this as cruelty and it's one of the reasons I view labor as being evil at heart; you can be sure labour politicians know exactly what is going to happen yet they act to ensure their own self interests whilst pretending to those who can know no better that they're trying to look after them.

[MrTTTT]

You are a retard

[CCS]

It's interesting that MrTTTTT so relentlessly hassles those who are smarter than him. Inferiority complex?

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

You are a retard

You need shorter sentences? Four words only perhaps? I'll try for you. Perhaps you'll understand then? But frankly that's unlikely. So I'll not bother...

[chubby]

he's more creepy than retarded...

'we have always been at war with eastasia'

but he can string great sentences though,even if they start sounding more and more like beavis and butthead if read them-

'what stuff do you like?'
'cool stuff'

what's cool?'
'stuff i like'.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I expect labor will eventually get back into power and put our most vulnerable citizens through another roller-coaster ride.

Nothing you've ever said makes me think you particularly care about vulnerable citizens.

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by CCS

It's interesting that MrTTTTT so relentlessly hassles those who are smarter than him. Inferiority complex?

But GT isn't smarter than me , neither is cyc

[CCS]

No, they definitely are.

[MrTTTT]

nah, i don't reckon

[The Edge]

What are you basing that observation on?