Interesting report on NZ by the OECD...
thingy
Clearly Rogernomics, Reaganomics, and Bushomics have failed miserably in
improving the lot of the people....Instead the UK had Blairomics and the
gaps have closed....this is the real telling point against the neo-cons...
During this time the rich have clearly got richer....and the party that
supports the rich wants them to get even richer still, all at our
expense....time for a 80% tax rate above $150k me thinks.
regards
Thing
Roger Dewhurst
Under B Liar the British got more surveillance than any other country in
the world, and got both the health and education systems thoroughly
degraded.
R
Fred
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ge5c3b$or9$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> thingy wrote:
>> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/56/41494435.pdf
>>
>> Clearly Rogernomics, Reaganomics, and Bushomics have failed miserably in
>> improving the lot of the people....Instead the UK had Blairomics and the
>> gaps have closed....this is the real telling point against the
>> neo-cons...
>>
>> During this time the rich have clearly got richer....and the party that
>> supports the rich wants them to get even richer still, all at our
>> expense....time for a 80% tax rate above $150k me thinks.
>>
That's a good thing - everybody should get richer.
thingy
Yes, but under all Govns the rich get richer...under right Govns only
the rich get richer still, the rest pay for it.
regards
Thing
A _L_ P
What a dud that fellow proved himself to be! Again that goddamn social
micro-managing.
A L P
I Love It!
Great. Just 'steal' what you want from others. Why not get off
your lazy arse and *earn* your OWN money for a change?
There's plenty of it out there and working for it honestly sure
beats stealing it like you advocate.
--
O U T W I T H T H E C O M M I E C L A R K N O W !
I Love It!
LOL Spoken like a true envy-ridden commie.
Go do some work and *earn* your own money.
vitw
> time for a 80% tax rate above $150k me thinks.
I'd favour something like:
$0 to $9999 0%
$10000 to $24999 10%
$25000 to $39999 15%
$40000 to $79999 25%
$80000 to $99999 30%
$100000 to $124999 40%
$125000 to $149999 45%
$150000 to $199999 50%
$200000 to $299999 60%
$300000 to $499999 70%
$500000 and up 80%
Rich80105
wrote:
I agree Fred - I have no problems with the rich getting richer - I
just have problems with National taking away from the poorer people to
fund it. National's top priority is reducing the top tax rate - they
do not care about anyone else. Labour's priority is to improve
everyone's standard of living (and that isn't just income).
Fred
"thingy" <thi...@nowhere.commy> wrote in message
news:4906379a$1...@clear.net.nz...
yourself, wander round the planet and find the odd society where there are
very few 'rich' and have a look at the poverty level.
BrentC
why?
Fred
"vitw" <nos...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:49064f47$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
Forget it. Every earned dollar should be taxed at the same rate.
BrentC
wrote:
Why?
Allistar
Surely that would discourage the earning of money and encourage the
avoidance of declaring income. Why punish financial success?
I'd prefer something like this:
$0 to $10000 0%
$10000 and up 15%
--
A.
vitw
> why?
To seek to level the playing field a bit. Because one's ability to
generate income increases at a much greater than linear rate; in other
words, the more money one has and makes, the easier it becomes for one to
make even more money.
I personally believe that tax structures should aim for the right mix of
incentive and equality of opportunity.
Too flat, and the gap between rich and poor will increase so much more
quickly, and the barriers to class mobility will keep getting higher.
Too progressive, and the incentive for entrepreneurship gets squashed,
which adversely affects all of us.
Fred
"Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
news:ZPSdnWD6i-pswZvU...@giganews.com...
accountants; no fiddling possible; no filing returns, no income splitting.
Little need for very small businesses, e.g. one man band tradesmen,
hairdressers etc to keep books. An incentive economy.
BrentC
So what you are saying is that there would be absolutely no reward for
the 100hrs I work a week and that I shouldn't earn anymore than stay
at home breeders on welfare?
BrentC
to low - make that $30,000 - 0% then 15%
plus bulk fund benefits - ie give breeders a one off payment of
$500,000 and a cremation token for when they have expended their
allowed hand up.
John Cawston
You don't need to wander far. After nine years of Labour, Ruth
Dyson admits that NZ beneficiaries are worse off than they were
after the 1991 benefit cuts.. thats after the best economic
conditions in a generation.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4521611a11.html
The middle income earner is also worse off than in the 1990s.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/median_incomes_over_time.html
The "rich pricks" have almost certainly done better under Labour.
That's because Labour put on the 39 cent envy tax and forced the
rich into the lower taxed trusts and companies, put the wife on
the payroll and split the income and invested in the property market.
Then along came Kiwisaver; so the rich parents joined up, joined
their low paid kids up and coined the many thousands of free
money paid by the govt.
And of course, many of the rich pricks get the WFF handout as well.
JC
>
>
thingy
URL for your stats? NZ and US stats back me up...
regards
Thing
thingy
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:51 +1300, thingy wrote:
>
>> supports the rich wants them to get even richer still, all at our
>> expense....time for a 80% tax rate above $150k me thinks.
>
>
> I can hear the shrieking and ranting (and throwing of chairs) from
> here. :o)
>
>
heh....just look at the rants.....Please dont feed the trolls.....move
along please....
LOL....
Sad thing is enough ppl will be hoodwinked to give National a run at Govn...
regards
Thing
thingy
What we are saying is where two ppl work 40hrs a week, one at $15 an
hour and one at $150 an hour there needs to be some re-balance, that is
achieved with a progressive tax rate.
Your particular case is fairly un-usual, most ppl dont work past 70hours
a week....
regards
Thing
thingy
> vitw wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:51 +1300, thingy wrote:
>>
>>> time for a 80% tax rate above $150k me thinks.
>> I'd favour something like:
>>
>> $0 to $9999 0%
>> $10000 to $24999 10%
>> $25000 to $39999 15%
>> $40000 to $79999 25%
>> $80000 to $99999 30%
>> $100000 to $124999 40%
>> $125000 to $149999 45%
>> $150000 to $199999 50%
>> $200000 to $299999 60%
>> $300000 to $499999 70%
>> $500000 and up 80%
>
> Surely that would discourage the earning of money and encourage the
> avoidance of declaring income.
Just double the imprisonment time...do tax avoidance, do 20 years....
Why punish financial success?
as in gambling in the share market you mean....we can all see how that
has bankrupted the US and severely damaged the world's economy.
> I'd prefer something like this:
>
> $0 to $10000 0%
> $10000 and up 15%
regards
Thing
Apteryx
I think that is overkill. I'd be happy if parties would just refrain from
offering to pay the mortgages on finance company executive's $6,000,000
homes if they lose their jobs as a result of the credit crisis.
--
Apteryx
tinker
> So what you are saying is that there would be absolutely no reward for
> the 100hrs I work a week and that I shouldn't earn anymore than stay
> at home breeders on welfare?
>
>
Just out of curiousity, how much work/how many hours do you think the
average parent has to do to raise their child(ren)?
BrentC
wrote:
is that relevant
just out of curiousity - do you think I should be responsible for
children I hav had no part in breeding?
Pooh
"thingy" <thi...@nowhere.commy> wrote in message
Stop being stupid Thing. The rich will always get richer because they're not
reliant on the nanny state. Your politics would be more appropriate in Nth
Korea, China or Mugabes' Zimbabwe. Now that said please point out a
*socialist* country that is as succesfull as most of the western world or
hasn't turned towards capitalism in some form or other.
Pooh
Pooh
"thingy" <thi...@nowhere.commy> wrote in message
your saying the Greens and Labour are incapable of hoodwinking the people
Thing?
Pooh
Pooh
Whats wrong with $0 and up 10 or 15%? I'd go for 15%
Pooh
Pooh
"thingy" <thi...@nowhere.commy> wrote in message
So the person who's done training to make themselves a better job prospect
should be discouraged from putting in the effort?
Pooh
Fred
"Pooh" <pooh@don'tvotelabour> wrote in message news:4906...@clear.net.nz...
>
> <Rich80105> wrote in message
> news:nrlcg4l3gb5bekqcc...@4ax.com...
> Rich? Or is it just your need for their money to support the unproductive.
>
Because like all socialists they want to narrow the gap between rich and
poor by dragging down 'the rich'. They'd be a lot better off if they worried
about closing the gap by lifting 'the poor'. It's envy. They'd be happier
if everyone was equal even if that means everyone is at the bottom of the
barrell.
I Love It!
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:51 +1300, thingy wrote:
>
>> party
>> that supports the rich wants them to get even richer still,
>> all at
>> our expense....time for a 80% tax rate above $150k me thinks.
>
>
> I can hear the shrieking and ranting (and throwing of chairs)
> from
> here. :o)
You don't think people should be pissed off when arseholes like
you want to steal their money?
If you want more money (typical commie greedy batsard that you
are), then go out and *EARN* it!
--
O U T W I T H T H E C O M M I E C L A R K N O W !
I Love It!
But then EVERYONE would be dependant upon the govt. And THAT is
what commie Clark *really* wants.
BrentC
wrote:
>BrentC wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:21:32 +1300, tinker <tin...@this.is.broken.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BrentC wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what you are saying is that there would be absolutely no reward for
>>>> the 100hrs I work a week and that I shouldn't earn anymore than stay
>>>> at home breeders on welfare?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Just out of curiousity, how much work/how many hours do you think the
>>> average parent has to do to raise their child(ren)?
>>
>>
>> is that relevant
>>
>
>You think your work of "100hrs" a week is.
yes in this circumstance because it related to income earned whilst
being
>So if they are working 100hrs/week your claims change to what?
>
are you devaluing the work I do around home as well?
>> just out of curiousity - do you think I should be responsible for
>> children I hav had no part in breeding?
>>
>>
>
>How do you claim not to be part of society?
How do you claim that me being in society means that I am responsible
for others act of irresponsibility?
I Love It!
Yep. But I see vitw has buggered off now.
I Love It!
What *I'm* saying is that you are a thieving c**t!
You want more money then go and *earn* it you thieving arsehole!
I Love It!
Well, that's their fucking business. Nothing to do with me. And I
certainly don't owe them because they chose to have kids.
They shouldn't have kids at all unlerss they can afford them and
are willing to give up 20 years of their life to them and to pay
all the costs.
Who the fuck do you think you are getting off saying everyone
else has to pay you to look after your *own* kids?
Rich80105
wrote:
>Pooh
A majority of voters have consistently supported such a system for all
of your lifetime Pooh - who are we to say they have all been wrong?
tinker
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:42:57 +1300, tinker <tin...@this.is.broken.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BrentC wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:21:32 +1300, tinker <tin...@this.is.broken.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BrentC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So what you are saying is that there would be absolutely no reward for
>>>>> the 100hrs I work a week and that I shouldn't earn anymore than stay
>>>>> at home breeders on welfare?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiousity, how much work/how many hours do you think the
>>>> average parent has to do to raise their child(ren)?
>>>
>>> is that relevant
>>>
>> You think your work of "100hrs" a week is.
>
> yes in this circumstance because it related to income earned whilst
> being
>
>
So you devalue work that is not directly associated with income?
>> So if they are working 100hrs/week your claims change to what?
>>
>
> are you devaluing the work I do around home as well?
>
Are you?
>>> just out of curiousity - do you think I should be responsible for
>>> children I hav had no part in breeding?
>>>
>>>
>> How do you claim not to be part of society?
>
>
> How do you claim that me being in society means that I am responsible
> for others act of irresponsibility?
>
>
Don't ever moan about the crime rate will you :)
BrentC
wrote:
So you are saying that I should be more responsible than those you
care to protect with my income?
tinker
So you are saying that a small payment is more responsibility than
actually raising the children?
You don't have any children of your own do you?
hellicopter
> thingy wrote:
>> Fred wrote:
>>> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:ge5c3b$or9$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> thingy wrote:
>>>>> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/56/41494435.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly Rogernomics, Reaganomics, and Bushomics have failed
>>>>> miserably in improving the lot of the people....Instead the
>>>>> UK had
>>>>> Blairomics and the gaps have closed....this is the real
>>>>> telling
>>>>> point against the neo-cons...
>>>>>
>>>>> During this time the rich have clearly got richer....and the
>>>>> party
>>>>> that supports the rich wants them to get even richer still,
>>>>> all at
>>>>> our expense....time for a 80% tax rate above $150k me
>>>>> thinks.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a good thing - everybody should get richer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but under all Govns the rich get richer...under right
>> Govns only
>> the rich get richer still, the rest pay for it.
>
> LOL Spoken like a true envy-ridden commie.
>
> Go do some work and *earn* your own money.
>
We'd all be richer if the super rich won't so rich.
If that's envy I want it, I want to be richer.
Now you might have had a point but since the
super rich have unbalanced the global economy with
their speculation they have to be brought to justice,
they have to pay compensation, they are not above the law.
Hold those responsible accountable! Crime must be punished.
Why should I suffer from their mess and they get off free.
I Love It!
> BrentC wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:21:32 +1300, tinker
>> <tin...@this.is.broken.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BrentC wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what you are saying is that there would be absolutely no
>>>> reward
>>>> for the 100hrs I work a week and that I shouldn't earn
>>>> anymore
>>>> than stay at home breeders on welfare?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Just out of curiousity, how much work/how many hours do you
>>> think
>>> the average parent has to do to raise their child(ren)?
>>
>>
>> is that relevant
>>
>
>
>> for
>> children I hav had no part in breeding?
>>
>>
>
Society does NOT exist. ALL that is, is a concept.
All that exists is each and every unique individual.
Society is not something individuals nmust be sacrificed to like
some mystical Volcano God.
We are here to make out way ibn life as we see fit.
YOU want kids? Then YOU pay for them! I have no duty, moral or
otherwise, to pay you to support YOUR kids. The kids YOU *chose*
to have.
I Love It!
Answer his question.
I Love It!
Why did you have children... so you could steal my money to pay
for them so you could spend your money on whatever you want?
I Love It!
Who are you to say they are not?
Allistar
> Allistar wrote:
>> vitw wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:51 +1300, thingy wrote:
>>>
>>>> time for a 80% tax rate above $150k me thinks.
>>> I'd favour something like:
>>>
>>> $0 to $9999 0%
>>> $10000 to $24999 10%
>>> $25000 to $39999 15%
>>> $40000 to $79999 25%
>>> $80000 to $99999 30%
>>> $100000 to $124999 40%
>>> $125000 to $149999 45%
>>> $150000 to $199999 50%
>>> $200000 to $299999 60%
>>> $300000 to $499999 70%
>>> $500000 and up 80%
>>
>> Surely that would discourage the earning of money and encourage the
>> avoidance of declaring income.
>
> Just double the imprisonment time...do tax avoidance, do 20 years....
>
> Why punish financial success?
>
> as in gambling in the share market you mean....
No, I mean where people innovate and invest hard work, effort and skills to
make their wealth.
> we can all see how that
> has bankrupted the US and severely damaged the world's economy.
Funny. I thought that was largely to do with regulation.
>> I'd prefer something like this:
>>
>> $0 to $10000 0%
>> $10000 and up 15%
>
> regards
>
> Thing
--
A.
vitw
> So what you are saying is that there would be absolutely no reward for
> the 100hrs I work a week and that I shouldn't earn anymore than stay at
> home breeders on welfare?
What the...?!?
Who injured your brain?
That is not what I said at all.
vitw
> Yep. But I see vitw has buggered off now.
Not buggered off - just less inclined to engage when my posts are
grievously mis-read and misunderstood.
Pooh
<Rich80105> wrote in message
news:nrlcg4l3gb5bekqcc...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:42:12 +1300, "Fred" <dr...@parachute.net.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:ge5c3b$or9$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> thingy wrote:
>>>> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/56/41494435.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Clearly Rogernomics, Reaganomics, and Bushomics have failed miserably
>>>> in
>>>> improving the lot of the people....Instead the UK had Blairomics and
>>>> the
>>>> gaps have closed....this is the real telling point against the
>>>> neo-cons...
>>>>
>>>> During this time the rich have clearly got richer....and the party that
>>>> supports the rich wants them to get even richer still, all at our
Fred
<Rich80105> wrote in message
news:337dg4d70h4tmtj0g...@4ax.com...
Because when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always find a heap of Pauls
in total agreement.
tinker
>>
>>> So what you are saying is that there would be absolutely no reward for
>>> the 100hrs I work a week and that I shouldn't earn anymore than stay
>>> at home breeders on welfare?
>>>
>>>
>> average parent has to do to raise their child(ren)?
>
>
> is that relevant
>
You think your work of "100hrs" a week is.
So if they are working 100hrs/week your claims change to what?
> just out of curiousity - do you think I should be responsible for
I Love It!
Your posts are very well understood. You want to have free access
to the income and wealth of other people.
Regardless of whether it belongs to you or you *earned* it.
I call that corrupt, dishonest and just downright thievery.
BrentC
wrote:
Well - actually fucker I have 2 adult children that I still help out
financially
when they were young I worked full time plus 2 week nights and all
day saturday in a pub to help pay for our house etc.
like John Key (no I don't fawn over him) I come from a single income,
mostly single parent state house in a poor area of the west coast and
then christchurch - how many times in your childhood did you have hot
milk and stale bread or crushed icecream cone seconds or crushed
weetbix seconds for breakfast - or go to school in summer in gumboots
because anglican welfare wouldn't/couldn't help out.
Rich80105
Absolutely - there is a vast conspiracy against you - oops I wasn;t
supposed to tell you. Now you know though, I'm sure it confirms all
those suspicions you have had for a long time that have made you
bitter and twisted. . .
Rich80105
Because I am one of those that has voted for a very long time to keep
a progressive tax system. I have been on the winning side for a very
long time. Now I think I recall you being proud of not voting? - or
was that when you were pretending to be John B?
I Love It!
Me stating that it is wrong to steal from one man to give to
another man just because he has children is bitter and twisted?
If I go out and *earn* money, then that money does not belog to
someone who never lifted a finger to earn it.
That's just the facts of reality.
That you cannot comprehend this shows it's you that's really the
bitter and twisted one here because it's you that doesn't want to
earn your own living. It's you that's saying that everyone else
somehow *owes* you the fruits of their labour.
It's YOU that's the parasite, producing nothing.
BrentC
That is the consequence of what you proposed
Pooh
<Rich80105> wrote in message
news:337dg4d70h4tmtj0g...@4ax.com...
It's never been a political platform Rich so NOBODY has voted for it. A vote
doesn't give government the right to do as it bloody well pleases
irrespective of your kowtowing to their every whim.
Pooh
Pooh
<Rich80105> wrote in message
news:48odg49pg36vs8ss1...@4ax.com...
How long have you been voting Rich? Ten, twenty years or more. I've been
voting for 40 years and have never seen the lowering of taxes or the
overtaxing of those on high incomes as any parties platform. From memory
Social Credit did advocate tax changes and actualy won some seats back in
the early 70's from memory.
Pooh
Pooh
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.10...@carnations.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:15:55 +1300, Pooh wrote:
>
>>> Sad thing is enough ppl will be hoodwinked to give National a run at
>>> Govn...
>>
>> your saying the Greens and Labour are incapable of hoodwinking the
>> people Thing?
>
> You're twisting his text-speak. He made no comment on the Green Party or
> the Labour Party. His text-speak was only relating to the National Party.
>
>
I asked Thing a perfectly legitimate question. Especialy when you look at
some of the stuff Labour have bulldozed through parliament on their own AND
the Greens behalf.
Pooh
Rich80105
wrote:
Governments have stood on a platform of increasing tax rates for the
highest earners and been elected. I am not aware of tax rates ever
being all of a parties political platform, but it is fair to say that
no party is campaigning for the sort of rates you now want. Does that
tell you something?
Rich80105
wrote:
>
Labour itself has not had the votes to bulldoze anything through
parliament - they have always had to get agreement from at least one
other party. That is seen by many people as an advantage. National
appear to want to be able to bulldoze things through without having to
seek any sort of consensus.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> I have no problems with the rich getting richer
Discuss with regards to you condoning of punative taxation regeimes.
Pooh
<Rich80105> wrote in message
news:s1oeg4dk1por6js9i...@4ax.com...
It confirms my opinion of politicians as self serving arseholes Rich, and
that their protestations of caring about the people and the country are just
so much bullshit!
I should point out that politicians have never advocated ditching many of
the baubles of being elected. Which also tends to diminish my beleief in
their protestaions of doing things that are good for the people.
Pooh
Pooh
<Rich80105> wrote in message
news:46oeg457f992ekh3p...@4ax.com...
BULLSHIT! They have their lapdogs the Greens and NZ1 so have been able to
bulldoze through all sorts of bullshit legislation as you well know Rich!
Pooh
Pooh
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.10...@carnations.com...
>
>> National appear to
>> want to be able to bulldoze things through without having to seek any
>> sort of consensus.
>
> environment that existed prior to MMP being introduced where they could
> shove anything they liked through irrespective of whether or not it was
> good, or constructive, or even reasoned.
>
>
Labours been doing that for the last nine years. Why shouldn't National get
a turn? ;O)
Pooh
Rich80105
I've never had a problem living with progressive tax scales, even when
I was paying 66% on the top tranche of income. I do have a problem
with the increasing disparity between the incomes of company managers
and workers.
Patrick FitzGerald
<misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>Discuss with regards to you condoning of punative taxation regeimes.
Miss Ann, Which country has punitive (sic) taxation regimes.(sic) ?
Patrick
thing
The trouble is seperating those out who do make real wealth as opposed
to the gamblers...
>> we can all see how that
>> has bankrupted the US and severely damaged the world's economy.
>
> Funny. I thought that was largely to do with regulation.
uh, no lack of it.
>>> I'd prefer something like this:
>>>
>>> $0 to $10000 0%
>>> $10000 and up 15%
>> regards
>>
>> Thing
>
regards
Thing
Pooh
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.10...@carnations.com...
>
>> Labours been doing that for the last nine years.
>
>
> The Labour-led coalition has been doing that. And the only things that I
> think were truly stupid were the Prostitution reform and the repealing of
> a section of the Crimes Act to remove the protection given to parents if
> they beat their children.
>
>
>> Why shouldn't National get a turn? ;O)
>
> that I truly _do_ _not_ _want_ _to_ _see_ considered to be normal in NZ.
>
> You may want to live in a world of selfishness and greed like that, but I
> don't - and I won't if I have any say over the matter.
>
>
So your happy with Labours selfishness and greed?
Pooh
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:53:44 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
>
> >On Oct 28, 1:07 pm, Rich80105 wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> I have no problems with the rich getting richer
>
> >Discuss with regards to you condoning of punative taxation regeimes.
>
> I've never had a problem living with progressive tax scales, even when
> I was paying 66% on the top tranche of income. I do have a problem
> with the increasing disparity between the incomes of company managers
> and workers.
I am assuming you got a an 'A+' for your 'Avoidance 101' lectures in
bot-school?
Pooh
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.10...@carnations.com...
>
>> So your happy with Labours selfishness and greed?
>
>
>
All of them Rich :O)
Pooh