National Thus Far

[crocos]

Lightspeed you fucking commie

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

So you reckon all our factory workers, cleaners, retail staff, etc., should just upskill and get better jobs, easy as that?

I'm sure our economy would be fine without people to clean up after us or run our factories.

It's ok man, we removed all tariffs on importing so there's no necessity to manufacturer in NZ any more - all our factories have moved to Fiji.

[David]

It makes me laugh, people get uptight about "only 20% really benefit from this tax break" - when everyone receives some benefits and the reformation to the tax structure should mean more money from indirect tax sources, i.e you consume, you pay for your consumption.

If you fuckers were paying upwards of 50k per annum in tax, I doubt you'd have the views you have.

[FaTBoB]

David you do realise that this tax refund GST increase is a kick in the nuts to all the working families recipients?

A family on $40,000 will presently get 100% of their tax back under "working for families" this is a "tax credit" ie you can't get back more than you pay, so reducing their tax rate is a zero sum game, then hit them with 2.5% increase in GST, fucken clever National.

Now about your bitch arse whining David, any market will find it's level, so if you pay a large sum of tax, your employer will be forced to increase your wage to a level that works for both parties, this has happened, but now National have stepped in and changed the fundamentals, a quick tip of the playing field, Key is right a "once in a lifetime opportunity".

Bill English and his "eat less cake" comments to the poor are classic.

[CCS]

You sound like a whiny bugger who resents having to pay any tax at all, ever.


Tax, death, etc.

[BoyWonder]

Tax don't keep BoB FaT. No sir.

[David]

Originally Posted by FaTBoB

David you do realise that this tax refund GST increase is a kick in the nuts to all the working families recipients?

A family on $40,000 will presently get 100% of their tax back under "working for families" this is a "tax credit" ie you can't get back more than you pay, so reducing their tax rate is a zero sum game, then hit them with 2.5% increase in GST, fucken clever National.

Now about your bitch arse whining David, any market will find it's level, so if you pay a large sum of tax, your employer will be forced to increase your wage to a level that works for both parties, this has happened, but now National have stepped in and changed the fundamentals, a quick tip of the playing field, Key is right a "once in a lifetime opportunity".

Bill English and his "eat less cake" comments to the poor are classic.

This is the type of nonsense propogated by people who do not feel they should have to work in order to facilitate the standard of life they've become accustomed to.

By moving to a system that taxes more from consumption, you're getting a wider range of taxation into the coifers. You're putting money onto what people purchase which gives them a choice on how they purchase, how they invest and how their money is ultimately used.

Only people who want the government to do everything for them don't want this movement to occur, because they're the ones worried that their consumption will simply increase to meet the tax returns.

Working for families is a naff system and nothing more than blatant wealth distribution.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by David

Only people who want the government to do everything for them don't want this movement to occur

Holy shit you're an amazing troll and/or retard. Fun fact, people who spend most of their income on essential costs are unable to "choose to save instead of consume". So they can't avoid it. However, the people whose income greatly exceeds their necessary expenditure - that is, the rich, can make that choice.

These basic facts are acknowledged by everyone who isn't a right wing idealogue troll. And especially by the people who wrote the last review for the government.

[xor]

meh, bourgeois blah blah change when it suits them blah blah blah crumbs. The wage earners will always get fucked no matter which way you look at it.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by crocos

Lightspeed you fucking commie

Nah, more of a socialist-capitalist, a la Denmark.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by xor

The wage earners will always get fucked no matter which way you look at it.

I'm sorry, does the world owe you an income or something?

[xor]

Originally Posted by Ab

I'm sorry, does the world owe you an income or something?

Nope. Just stating an observation.

[Ab]

What about an instance where a company pays its best and brightest good salaries because it recognises the value that those employees add to the business? Are they getting fucked?

[David]

Originally Posted by Ab

What about an instance where a company pays its best and brightest good salaries because it recognises the value that those employees add to the business? Are they getting fucked?

Pretty different to people who negatively gear their assets in order to qualify under Working for Family returns when they're not really entitled.

Look at the minimum wage this country pays, then look at our GDP and how high of a percentage our minimum wage is to that, it's unsustainable as it is, yet we somehow think these people are bound in poverty and that their right to take out meals and sirloin steak is absolute.

I'll commend anyone who uses their hand out to step up, but most don't, because they don't see that they should.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ab

What about an instance where a company pays its best and brightest good salaries because it recognises the value that those employees add to the business? Are they getting fucked?

Pretty different to people who negatively gear their assets in order to qualify under Working for Family returns when they're not really entitled.

Look at the minimum wage this country pays, then look at our GDP and how high of a percentage our minimum wage is to that, it's unsustainable as it is, yet we somehow think these people are bound in poverty and that their right to take out meals and sirloin steak is absolute.

I'll commend anyone who uses their hand out to step up, but most don't, because they don't see that they should.

[Juju]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Fun fact, people who spend most of their income on essential costs are unable to "choose to save instead of consume". So they can't avoid it.

Yes they can avoid it.
They can:

1) STOP HAVING BABIES.
2) Not buy a $15k WRX with blow job valve on instant finance.
3) Smoke any wage earnings they do earn away in a P pipe.
4) Not commit crime and get a history, stopping their employment potential.
5) Work hard at school.
6) Gamble their money away at the TAB.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

I'm sorry, does the world owe you an income or something?

If the world is dependant on you for their income, then yes. If you live in a cave, off moss and creek water then no.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Juju

Yes they can avoid it.
They can:

1) STOP HAVING BABIES.
2) Not buy a $15k WRX with blow job valve on instant finance.
3) Smoke any wage earnings they do earn away in a P pipe.
4) Not commit crime and get a history, stopping their employment potential.
5) Work hard at school.
6) Gamble their money away at the TAB.

Which everyone is completely capable of, reality notwithstanding.

[fixed_truth]

It's pretty easy to get financial capital & buy the means of production. All the rich kids are doing it.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Ab

What about an instance where a company pays its best and brightest good salaries because it recognises the value that those employees add to the business? Are they getting fucked?

What do you think si?

[Ab]

I would think no, they're not getting fucked.

[xor]

Yes but I sense you're leading onto something else. It was a statement. I'm not trying to say free markets are bad or anything if that's what you're getting at. Just stating it's always the wage earners and lesser skilled people that generally get a raw deal.

[JP]

The "rich people pay the most tax" argument is a poor one. I mean come on, one, the super rich pay an effective tax rate that is way lower than someone on PAYE. People on PAYE pay a higher percentage of their income plain and simple.

People who earn 20 times more money aren't working 20 times harder or something. It's just a symptom of the system and I can live with it, but rich people whining about 'poor cunts' is pretty short sighted.

[fixed_truth]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10648512

National take a 10% dip (5 points) in the polls but Labour support remains unchanged lol. When are they gonna make the move and replace Goff?

[gentle]

When they find someone who is more charismatic than a damp piece of toast. Not Darren Hughes in other words.

[fidgit]

Wtf are the greens doing climbing - this can only be a result of Labour being so ineffective at the moment that there's a bunch of swing to the Greens as the next-closest-ideology.

IMO the Maori should be climbing higher at the moment, they're getting out there and trying to do things, the Greens seem to be willing to sit back and pick up Labours drop-offs from people that are fed up with Goff (6%?! That's got to be a record low for leader of a major party...).

I can't see Labour finding anyone to wow us Lefties before the next election, but then Key kind of came from no where to lead the Nats to a win so who knows.

[CCS]

Only lefties think Key came from nowhere. Lefties think this this because they were so confident Labour would win the 2008 election that they didn't pay attention to the opposition. National nearly took it in 2005. The margin was narrow. That was with that colossal dork Don Brash as leader of the National party (oh yeah, Exclusive Brethren didn't help). If National got 39% to Labour's 41% in 2005, just think what they could do with a leader who had charisma! Labour should have seen the writing on the wall but they didn't. Helen was arrogant and instead of leading the country she was ruling it. And then Labour lost by about 11% to some guy whom they think came from nowhere. "How could this happen?!"

Now Goff has 6% compared to Key's 40% for preferred prime minister. That's pretty lolable. I think if you asked the electorate who they would prefer as Labour party leader instead of Goff, most would shuffle their feet and look around a bit and then shrug. Labour has a serious lack of depth of talent and they should have been thinking about who could take over from Helen since 2005 but all the old players in Labour wanted to have a go at being captain. Those that didn't, left.

So we're 18 months away from the next election and Labour has the same amount of support now as it did when it lost the last election. National is polling at 4% higher than last election.

Bang-up job you're doing there, Goff. That Axe The Tax bus? Yep, really spoke to the people.

[Lightspeed]

I think you're taking the views of two or three people you've met with this perspective and have made this perspective fit a large swath of society you dub "lefties".

When reality is that there is a diverse range of views/opinions/ideas/perspectives.

But it's easier to live in a world where everyone is understood by simple definitions, isn't it?

Labour are pretty useless at the moment. Helen Clark's biggest failing I think was not having someone to replace her when she left.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think you're taking the views of two or three people you've met with this perspective and have made this perspective fit a large swath of society you dub "lefties".

When reality is that there is a diverse range of views/opinions/ideas/perspectives.

You can dress it up how you want but Labour still lost.

[ZoSo]

I put it mainly down to the mining, the idea that Bethune should be held up as a hero (lol), & Kiwibank scaremongering. The Labour rent-a-crowd will run the lines of "trust" (yawn) again on Key and "tax swindle" re budget.. but for mine, the average 'greeny on the weekend', started stroking it to Malcom & Lawless fronting the mining stuff and the idea that the govt should do more to help this fool on the seas. Chuck in a bit of patriotism re keeping kiwibank in kiwi hands and you've got an instant recipe for a bit of a green shift.
Take those things out of the mix and the other parties probably still wouldn't have got a look in.

Goff is pretty lol getting hammered on pretty much anything he says due to his previous baggage.

[JP]

Originally Posted by CCS

You can dress it up how you want but Labour still lost.

Wow, way to miss the point. CCS, nzgames own version of fox news.

[CCS]

Lol. You make comments like that and it shows you up for the retard you are.


If you know what lolspeeds point is, please do tell the rest of us.

[Ab]

Blogger Danyl Mclauchlan of Dim-Post has a theory that polls are always 4-6 weeks behind the actual events they reflect. Something about it sounds plausible to me, although I'm not a pollster. So at a guess I'd say that the dip for National in that poll is a reflection of the mining debate back in April.

[fixed_truth]

If that's true I wonder if the budget will bring them back up some or not?

[Ab]

I think it will. National is being ably assisted by the Labour Party though. Normally the Opposition would have some alternative financial strategy to present as a contrast to the Government budget in order to highlight the Government's shortcomings. However Labour's counterpunch seems to have been "AXE THE TAX! (Disclaimer - I cannot confirm that we would axe the tax)" from Phil Goff, and "Ooga booga winery ooga booga investments ooga booga Mole Men" from Pete Hodgson.

Seriously? That's all that Labour can come up with?

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Juju

Yes they can avoid it.
They can:

1) STOP HAVING BABIES.

If you were unable to perceive anything beyond your own selfish needs, you'd realize that no they can't. Not until us middle class fuckers start popping out more kids. You should check out which way birth rates are going and decide if you want crippling social breakdown due to high migration a la Europe, or poor people having babies.

Originally Posted by Juju

2) Not buy a $15k WRX with blow job valve on instant finance.
3) Smoke any wage earnings they do earn away in a P pipe.
4) Not commit crime and get a history, stopping their employment potential.
5) Work hard at school.
6) Gamble their money away at the TAB.

Oh fuck me, how does one start arguing with a person who prefers their comforting myths instead of reality. But yes, every poor person ticks up a car, smokes P and commits crime. I am amazed at how clearly you perceive their problems. Gosh darn it, basically, they're poor because they're bad people!

New Zealand: first and last conquest of the glorious Scottish Presbyterian Empire.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Cynos

New Zealand: first and last conquest of the glorious Scottish Presbyterian Empire.

You're forgetting Northern Ireland

[Juju]

Originally Posted by Cynos

If you were unable to perceive anything beyond your own selfish needs, you'd realize that no they can't. Not until us middle class fuckers start popping out more kids. You should check out which way birth rates are going and decide if you want crippling social breakdown due to high migration a la Europe, or poor people having babies.

I should extrapolate. When I said stop having babies, I meant don't have babies when you are in a financial situation where you can just afford to supply your own lifestyle, let alone another's. Eg: 15 years old just out of school. Or 35 years old with a family of 5 already and you have a 6th.

Oh fuck me, how does one start arguing with a person who prefers their comforting myths instead of reality. But yes, every poor person ticks up a car, smokes P and commits crime. I am amazed at how clearly you perceive their problems. Gosh darn it, basically, they're poor because they're bad people!

But you would agree that someone who ticked most of those boxes would likely be quite poor?
Of course not all poor people follow that list like a shopping list.

I would find it very difficult for someone to be considered "poor" (And when I mean poor, i mean absolutely scraping the barrel to feed themselves each week) if they did not produce kids outside of their means, held down a full time job, did not gamble their money away or use it to buy drugs, did not buy an overly expensive toy (car, plasma etc), and didn't live in a house that was way out of their budget (Ie: pak n save worker living in Paratei Drive).

If you believe someone could still be poor after adhering to those requirements, please explain how.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

You can dress it up how you want but Labour still lost.

I doubt anyone's disputing that, and that's not what you're talking about. You're making a blanket statement about what Labour supporters make of the loss, not the actual loss itself.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

Lol. You make comments like that and it shows you up for the retard you are.


If you know what lolspeeds point is, please do tell the rest of us.

His point(s) was fairly self explanatory.

A. None of the lefties I know, including myself, were confident that the left would win in 2008. Three terms is a good run, it was expected that the right would get back in.

B. Key was known to myself and at least some of my lefty friends before he became PM. His views on the Iraq war and climate change were known and provided a bit of a "WTF" moment when he became leader, considering those views would have made him unelectable if he hadn't twisted his original words to make them more palatable.

His previous occupation was a bit of a talking point as well. A party that promotes economic productivity being run by a former money trader, an occupation which doesn't produce anything of value and in my opinion does little but exploit a weakness in our economy I thought was quite indicative of what the National party is really all about. Making the rich richer, under the guise of doing it for everybody's benefit.

I think it was mainly the swing voters who voted for National this time around who didn't really know much about him prior to him becoming leader.