The cancer speakth

[cyc]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10813602

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has hit out at what he says is scaremongering over the pension age driven by vested interests in his speech to his party's annual conference this afternoon.


...


"They are using all sorts of scaremongering, false forecasts and spurious demographics to convince you that we have a crisis on this issue now."

Yeah everyone else is always wrong. LISTEN TO WINSTON THE SAVIOUR! Well done NZ for voting this POS back in.

Oh and anything to take another dig at the slit eyed gooks:

"An immigrant can arrive here at the age of 55, pay no direct tax for 10 years and receive full New Zealand super at 65", Mr Peters said.

"A young couple from China, where there is a limit on family size can bring in four elderly parents who don't have to work here in the 10 years before they turn 65, yet they will all receive full New Zealand super."

"New Zealand First is looking very closely at the situation. We believe the welfare of New Zealanders comes first."

To all selfish whiteys, let's keep pretending that we can keep ripping off our kids and grandkids and everything will be fine so long as we keep the Asians out!

[Ab]

Just saw that myself.

Raging hard.

[fixed_truth]

*cough*

[chubby]

and why is winston your only target of derision,if you're gonna take it to the wider topic?

[xor]

Originally Posted by chubby

and why is winston your only target of derision,if you're gonna take it to the wider topic?

I'm guessing you missed this thread? http://forums.nzgames.com/showthread.php?t=86579

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

*cough*

Is there something you don't understand?

[Deff]

I think some of what he is saying is relevant...

i.e. I'd like to see x amount of time worked/tax paid before being eligible.

Hard to implement I know and I have no idea how it could work but that small part of it has merit.

[Bent]

Screw that, they should just be jacking up the retirement age until it matches peoples actual useful life spans. And by useful, I mean it in a directly contributing to the economy kind of way.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Is there something you don't understand?

Yeah maybe I'm interpreting things incorrectly? You tell me.

I read you as previously saying that NZ's superannuation eligibly 'time in NZ' threshold was "fucking crazy". I then read you as "raging hard" when Winston suggest something very similar.

[Ab]

I was saying that NZ's superannuation system - in particular the age-65 eligibility - is fucking crazy, and now I'm raging that Winston is a fucking vampire who should have been staked.

[ChaosWulf]

Amen.

[[Malks] Pixie]

So my mum's body has been pretty much screwed since her late 50's (due to a genetic condition) yet her new neighbour has been in NZ for 3 years, has hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings and is now drawing full NZ super without having ever worked a day in NZ.

Ignoring the ethnic and racial overtones of Winnies rant I still feel he kind of has a point.

@ Bent - How do you measure non-economic inputs to the community - my mum has done heaps of mentoring of people in her field of expertise (which she has 30+ years experience in) for no pay. I could list numerous other ways in which she has improved her local community (again without being paid - sometimes at her own expense) but these shouldn't count according to you?

Pixie

[Bent]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

So my mum's body has been pretty much screwed since her late 50's (due to a genetic condition) yet her new neighbour has been in NZ for 3 years, has hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings and is now drawing full NZ super without having ever worked a day in NZ.

Ignoring the ethnic and racial overtones of Winnies rant I still feel he kind of has a point.

@ Bent - How do you measure non-economic inputs to the community - my mum has done heaps of mentoring of people in her field of expertise (which she has 30+ years experience in) for no pay. I could list numerous other ways in which she has improved her local community (again without being paid - sometimes at her own expense) but these shouldn't count according to you?

Pixie

Not for super, no. But it sounds like she should be on a sickness benefit, which I think should be at least as good as a pension (I don't know how they compare).

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Bent

Not for super, no. But it sounds like she should be on a sickness benefit, which I think should be at least as good as a pension (I don't know how they compare).

No - a genetic impairment does not qualify for sickness benefit nor ACC - this is not the point though OBVIOUSLY.

So the only value which you believe that an individual can bring to NZ is in terms of quantifiable economic input? If that is the case (which seems to be what you have stated) then the only value which people have in our society is as commodities and consumers?

What are your thoughts on her neighbour who has never worked a day in NZ and yet still qualifies for full NZ super?

Pixie

[cyc]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Ignoring the ethnic and racial overtones of Winnies rant I still feel he kind of has a point.

I couldn't disagree more. If Winston is going to run the argument that everyone over 65 should have access to a universal access to a pension regardless of merit or whether said person has been revenue neutral or worse in the past, there's no reason why immigrants should be treated differently.

Winston Peters and idiots that support him often regard being able to come to NZ as some kind of one way generosity in favour of the immigrant. WRONG! Your mother's new neighbour coming here means that he/she has made hundreads of Ks available to our banks (i.e. increasing our grotesque lack of savings) and the person has almost certainly brought other benefits to this country also.

Does this mean this person will be revenue neutral or positive after collecting a pension for X number of years. I don't know and neither do you. However, we don't require this of anyone else. Having worked here for X number of years doesn't guarantee this either, nor can we guarantee that someone working X number of years really benefits the country. Against that background, if we are to discriminate against this person solely because he/she is an immigrant, we are being (to put it politely) dicks. Either accept this person as an immigrant and treat him or her fairly or don't let the person come.

Edit: And you're wrong that a genetic impairment doesn't qualify someone for a sickness benefit. If someone doesn't qualify for a sickness benefit, it's because it's not sickness under the relevant criteria, not because of the origins of the problem. And of course ACC shouldn't cover a genetic condition -- it's ACCIDENT COMPENSATION.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by cyc

I couldn't disagree more. If Winston is going to run the argument that everyone over 65 should have access to a universal access to a pension regardless of merit or whether said person has been revenue neutral or worse in the past, there's no reason why immigrants should be treated differently.

Winston Peters and idiots that support him often regard being able to come to NZ as some kind of one way generosity in favour of the immigrant. WRONG! Your mother's new neighbour coming here means that he/she has made hundreads of Ks available to our banks (i.e. increasing our grotesque lack of savings) and the person has almost certainly brought other benefits to this country also.

Does this mean this person will be revenue neutral or positive after collecting a pension for X number of years. I don't know and neither do you. However, we don't require this of anyone else. Having worked here for X number of years doesn't guarantee this either, nor can we guarantee that someone working X number of years really benefits the country. Against that background, if we are to discriminate against this person solely because he/she is an immigrant, we are being (to put it politely) dicks. Either accept this person as an immigrant and treat him or her fairly or don't let the person come.

Edit: And you're wrong that a genetic impairment doesn't qualify someone for a sickness benefit. If someone doesn't qualify for a sickness benefit, it's because it's not sickness under the relevant criteria, not because of the origins of the problem. And of course ACC shouldn't cover a genetic condition -- it's ACCIDENT COMPENSATION.

Thank you Cyc - that's a very well constructed argument against Winnie and the best that I've read as to why he is wrong. I can certainly take the points on board - obviously the specifics of each situation make these kind of examples problematic at very least.

Anyway - in terms of the sickness benefit she has been told that she doesn't qualify (I do not know the specifics of why only the outcome - not that mum was keen on the idea of sickness benefit as it stood anyway). The reason I mentioned ACC is because the incident which led to the identification of her condition WAS an accident which ACC then chose not to cover after it was discovered (through her accident) that she had a genetic disorder.

Anyway I have to go to bed - good food for thought there anyway so thanks.

Pixie

[Oh and her neighbour is actually a lovely lady and it's great to have her next door to my mum - there was certainly nothing personal against her intended in my post - simply an example of how peoples thinking about this issue may evolve]

[cyc]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

So the only value which you believe that an individual can bring to NZ is in terms of quantifiable economic input? If that is the case (which seems to be what you have stated) then the only value which people have in our society is as commodities and consumers?

What are your thoughts on her neighbour who has never worked a day in NZ and yet still qualifies for full NZ super?

You're now contradicting yourself. If you're gonna play the "People are more valuable than their quantifiable economic output"* game, implicit in this argument is a recognition that people can contribute to society in a wide range of non-quantifiable ways and that, however difficult this may be in practical terms, we should endeavour to try and give recognition to such contributions.

Having taken that stance, you then fall back to relying on a hard-and-fast, aribitrary quantitative criterion (i.e. how long someone has worked in NZ) as a basis for judging whether someone deserves to get super. There are many problems with this: first, not all work is truly valuable either economically or socially; secondly, we don't actually require this to be measured of anyone currently claiming NZ super or anyone who's lived and worked in NZ for X years under your proposal; thirdly, if we are to measure contribution as a criteria of desert for getting super, focusing solely on contribution to the country in ages prior to 65 is arbitrary, wrongful age-discrimination, and ignores the fundamental reality that social policies aim to be fair to people across their whole lives.

The first point isn't something that anyone can seriously dispute and I've already elaborated on the second point. Let's go straight for the third. So, as an example, your mum has supposedly done wonderful things for NZ. How do you know your neighbour might not make a great calligraphy teacher, repository of sage wisdom, exemplifier of grandparent sacrifice, and what not? It is at least theoretically possible that this person -- if he or she lives to the same age as your mother when she dies -- would have by that point contributed just as much to NZ as your mother. But because he/she hasn't worked in NZ prior to turning 65, you think it's totally fair that this person should be told to fuck off in terms of getting super and that we need not think about this thorny problem. Does this REALLY sound fair to you in light of what you've said? You're really saying that the theoretical or postulated contribution by persons who have lived and worked in NZ in their years prior to turning 65 is somehow always/almost certainly likely to outdo any by people such as your mother's neighbour in both economic and non-economic terms.



* input is the wrong word in this context

Edit: Pixie, from what I can see here, you're an intelligent guy that can be reasoned with. Even if you ultimately do find Winnie The Pooh's proposal attractive after further consideration (I hope not), I think you need to do way more work than he has to make things fair to the immigrants.

[Bent]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

No - a genetic impairment does not qualify for sickness benefit nor ACC - this is not the point though OBVIOUSLY.

So the only value which you believe that an individual can bring to NZ is in terms of quantifiable economic input? If that is the case (which seems to be what you have stated) then the only value which people have in our society is as commodities and consumers?

What are your thoughts on her neighbour who has never worked a day in NZ and yet still qualifies for full NZ super?

Pixie

I think it's terrible that any quick-witted, able-bodied person automatically qualifies for money just because they hit a certain age, beyond which they are likely to have many more years of such an existence. I also think that the government should support anyone who are prevented by sickness from working, but this shouldn't be based on age.

I guess in many ways, I think pensions should be abolished completely and replaced with sickness benefits as needed. That way we don't need a definition for "useful" based on money and those who can't work but can contribute in other ways aren't impoverished.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Things I've learned (or been reminded of) in this thread.

1) Don't post to the NZgames politics threads late at night after a bottle of wine and an emotional conversation with my mother :-)

2) I still have a remarkably weak grasp on anything to do with economics - I've always known this and sometimes forget that it's a paradigm which many people use to analyse the world. For someone in their late 30's perhaps I should have a better understanding of how economic principles integrate into our society but it's always been a mystery to me.

3) If I'm going to post in a thread which Cyc is likely to post in I better make sure that my comments are thoroughly thought through (unlike my original post)!

4) Cyc considers me [reasonably] intelligent! High praise indeed (no sarcasam)!

Thanks for actually engaging with me on this Cyc, I think I've mentioned before that theres an awful lot that you can bring to conversations here and I'm glad that you actually took the time to lay out the argument without getting too personal :-)

Originally Posted by Bent

I guess in many ways, I think pensions should be abolished completely and replaced with sickness benefits as needed. That way we don't need a definition for "useful" based on money and those who can't work but can contribute in other ways aren't impoverished.

I take your point Bent, but that idea makes me very uncomfortable as there is obviously social implications and stigmatisation surrounding the sickness benefit (and both sickness and benefits as seperate issues too). I guess I've always conceived NZ super as being a repayment for the tax paid by citizens over their working life as opposed to a declaration that a person is no longer of "useful" (which is a ugly and contested word) to society.

Eitherway this has given me plenty of food for thought (which I perhaps didn't need right now as I'm supposed to be writing an essay on gender perceptions and their intersection with mental and physical illness).

Pixie

[Vrtigo]

Originally Posted by Bent

I think it's terrible that any quick-witted, able-bodied person automatically qualifies for money just because they hit a certain age

you dont think that people should be able to live the last phase of their lives without throwing the majority of it out the window? without worrying about where the next paycheck is coming from? please enlighten me as to why this is a bad thing?

[aR Que]

Because they wont be able to tax you till the day you die!

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Bent

I guess in many ways, I think pensions should be abolished completely and replaced with sickness benefits as needed. That way we don't need a definition for "useful" based on money and those who can't work but can contribute in other ways aren't impoverished.

Imo this would be ok IF NZ had a compulsory superannuation scheme (ie mostly privately funded). I value people being able to have a retirement rather than having to work until they are too sick to or dead.

Re: immigrants/superannuation there does seem to be a public sentiment that superannuation is what you get for participating in society and doing your bit by working a shitty job for half your life. So I can understand where they're coming from but I think the 10 year threshold is adequate and afaik there's no real problem with people abusing the system.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by xor

I'm guessing you missed this thread? http://forums.nzgames.com/showthread.php?t=86579

nothing to do with the superannuation issue im referring to.

[Ab]

The whole immigrants bit was a red herring by Peters to divert attention away from the age threshold because his support base is stupid old people.

A threshold which, incidentally, as a 66-year-old he's over. So he's drawing super AND a parliamentary salary while doing all this.

[Bent]

Originally Posted by Vrtigo

you dont think that people should be able to live the last phase of their lives without throwing the majority of it out the window? without worrying about where the next paycheck is coming from? please enlighten me as to why this is a bad thing?

It's a great thing! But so are money trees and rivers of gold.