The Key Ultimate Nanny State
Patrick FitzGerald
No one would spend all that money in developing cards and elaborate
administration procedures just for a small number of youths.
So obviously there is a secret agenda behind them. Additional evidence
for that is Paula Bennett's refusal to rule out expansion of the
Key card system.
It obvious that our Fuehrer , John Don Key, and his nasty nats have
ambitions to instantiate the ultimate nanny State by controlling all
expenditure.
Patrick
peterwn
If people cannot be bothered getting off their fat arses and helping
themselves, but want to remain on the taxpayer's tit, then they
obviously need nannying.
Pooh
"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:f5pq4751f77evarfq...@4ax.com...
The onlt obvious thing is your dementia Patsy.
Pooh
Patrick FitzGerald
<pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> It obvious that our Fuehrer , John Don Key, and his nasty nats have
>> ambitions to instantiate the ultimate nanny State by controlling all
>> expenditure.
>>
>Why not? if it saves the long suffering taxpayer money.
>
>If people cannot be bothered getting off their fat arses and helping
>themselves, but want to remain on the taxpayer's tit, then they
>obviously need nannying.
>
From your reply I see that you will not mind Shonky John Key
controlling your expenditure Peter.
Patrick
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I am sure they have said that they see this being effectively a trial
before rolling out cards to all beneficiaries - except probably
recipients of NZ Super (who most don't think of as being any more
beneficiaries than those that use our roads . . .)
Rich...@hotmail.com
When in doubt, attack the messenger, is that the reason for your
adopting abuse rather than argument, Pooh?
Do you deny that National plan to use card payments formore
beneficiaries?
It is clear that Paul Bennett doesn't support such a move, but she is
not really in charge, is she?
Pooh
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sjor47p10vg3557g3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:48:47 +1200, "Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>>news:f5pq4751f77evarfq...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> No one would spend all that money in developing cards and elaborate
>>> administration procedures just for a small number of youths.
>>>
>>> So obviously there is a secret agenda behind them. Additional evidence
>>> for that is Paula Bennett's refusal to rule out expansion of the
>>> Key card system.
>>>
>>> It obvious that our Fuehrer , John Don Key, and his nasty nats have
>>> ambitions to instantiate the ultimate nanny State by controlling all
>>> expenditure.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>
>>The onlt obvious thing is your dementia Patsy.
>>
>>Pooh
>
> When in doubt, attack the messenger, is that the reason for your
> adopting abuse rather than argument, Pooh?
>
Patty never debates on occaision he has been knowen to cut n' paste his
original bullshit. Bit like you without the cut n' paste.
> Do you deny that National plan to use card payments formore
> beneficiaries?
>
Can't see a major problem if it helps people budget better.
> It is clear that Paul Bennett doesn't support such a move, but she is
> not really in charge, is she?
More in charge than any Labour minister Richie. Can you point me to any
levels of dissent with in the former Labour government that reach the levels
of dissent within National? (Don't worry, take as much time as you like as
you usualy do. Forever is your norm so I won't hold my breath). Also while
your at it can you point me to any time Labour changed track on anything
they proposed? You call it flip flopping, the voters seem to consider it's a
sign of a party that listens to the voters unlike Labour who didn't give a
toss.
Pooh
EMB
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:48:47 +1200, "Pooh"<pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Patrick FitzGerald"<a...@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:f5pq4751f77evarfq...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> No one would spend all that money in developing cards and elaborate
>>> administration procedures just for a small number of youths.
>>>
>>> So obviously there is a secret agenda behind them. Additional evidence
>>> for that is Paula Bennett's refusal to rule out expansion of the
>>> Key card system.
>>>
>>> It obvious that our Fuehrer , John Don Key, and his nasty nats have
>>> ambitions to instantiate the ultimate nanny State by controlling all
>>> expenditure.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>
>> The onlt obvious thing is your dementia Patsy.
>>
>> Pooh
>
> When in doubt, attack the messenger, is that the reason for your
> adopting abuse rather than argument, Pooh?
Paddy is making things up again Rich.
>
> Do you deny that National plan to use card payments formore
> beneficiaries?
They say not, and their statements are a lot more credible than those of
either the last Government or the opposition.
>
> It is clear that Paul Bennett doesn't support such a move, but she is
> not really in charge, is she?
No more than any minister was in charge under Helen when Labour was in
power Rich.
Rich...@hotmail.com
>
><Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sjor47p10vg3557g3...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:48:47 +1200, "Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>>>news:f5pq4751f77evarfq...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one would spend all that money in developing cards and elaborate
>>>> administration procedures just for a small number of youths.
>>>>
>>>> So obviously there is a secret agenda behind them. Additional evidence
>>>> for that is Paula Bennett's refusal to rule out expansion of the
>>>> Key card system.
>>>>
>>>> It obvious that our Fuehrer , John Don Key, and his nasty nats have
>>>> ambitions to instantiate the ultimate nanny State by controlling all
>>>> expenditure.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>The onlt obvious thing is your dementia Patsy.
>>>
>>>Pooh
>>
>> When in doubt, attack the messenger, is that the reason for your
>> adopting abuse rather than argument, Pooh?
>>
>Patty never debates on occaision he has been knowen to cut n' paste his
>original bullshit. Bit like you without the cut n' paste.
But of course you will use any excuse to get away from talking about
John Key's plans which put making profit for private companies ahead
of treating all young people equally in helping reverse the alarming
increase in unemployed youth caused by NationalACT doing whatever they
can for the wealthy at the expense of the low and middle income
earners - leading to low demand, and few jobs becoming available. It
would have been much worse but the widening wage gap with Australia
has given record levels of New Zealanders leaving for overseas.
NationalACT have been a disaster for New Zealand - and yuo know it
Pooh
>> Do you deny that National plan to use card payments formore
>> beneficiaries?
>>
>
>Can't see a major problem if it helps people budget better.
>
>> It is clear that Paul Bennett doesn't support such a move, but she is
>> not really in charge, is she?
>
>More in charge than any Labour minister Richie. Can you point me to any
>levels of dissent with in the former Labour government that reach the levels
>of dissent within National? (Don't worry, take as much time as you like as
>you usualy do. Forever is your norm so I won't hold my breath). Also while
>your at it can you point me to any time Labour changed track on anything
>they proposed? You call it flip flopping, the voters seem to consider it's a
>sign of a party that listens to the voters unlike Labour who didn't give a
>toss.
>
>Pooh
No Pooh, the dissent within National is clear and fundamental - but it
will get covered up and Bennett will be forced to toe the line. They
care far more for Key's image than looking after New Zealand - but
National know that Key wants to go. If he loses he will go
immediately, if National are able to scrape together a governmetn he
will ot last to half-way through the term. A lot of the reason for the
dissent coming through is because they do not believe they can lose
the election, and are arrogantly ignoring governing the country while
they try to jockey among themselves for the post-Key party.
NationalACT are so arrogant about their views that they don't even
tell parliament what legislation is coming up, they put the house in
urgency far more than any previous government, and they think so
little of what anyone else thinks that they do not allow many bills to
go to a select committee, and abuse the process for those select
committees they allow to happen. At least Labour genuinely listened,
and took care to give adequate time for the public to bothprepare
submissions and to hear them, and involved all political parties in
the process.
Rich...@hotmail.com
>On 19/08/2011 4:12 p.m., Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:48:47 +1200, "Pooh"<pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Patrick FitzGerald"<a...@b.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f5pq4751f77evarfq...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one would spend all that money in developing cards and elaborate
>>>> administration procedures just for a small number of youths.
>>>>
>>>> So obviously there is a secret agenda behind them. Additional evidence
>>>> for that is Paula Bennett's refusal to rule out expansion of the
>>>> Key card system.
>>>>
>>>> It obvious that our Fuehrer , John Don Key, and his nasty nats have
>>>> ambitions to instantiate the ultimate nanny State by controlling all
>>>> expenditure.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> The onlt obvious thing is your dementia Patsy.
>>>
>>> Pooh
>>
>> When in doubt, attack the messenger, is that the reason for your
>> adopting abuse rather than argument, Pooh?
>
>Paddy is making things up again Rich.
If that was the case, we would never hear it from Pooh - he wastes his
post with abuse.
>> Do you deny that National plan to use card payments formore
>> beneficiaries?
>
>They say not, and their statements are a lot more credible than those of
>either the last Government or the opposition.
Where did they say they would notus card payments for more
beneficiaries, EMB?
EMB
> No Pooh, the dissent within National is clear and fundamental
The "dissent" within National is a clear sign that the party is healthy
and democratic, unlike Labour's dictatorship where the edict is "Do as
we say or you're history".
John Cawston
There's dissent alright:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5477561/Goff-gets-wild-at-leadership-rumours
Looks like the rumours were true.. about Phil:
"But one senior Labour MP said the conversation did happen. "[Phil] did
consult the front bench over whether he should go."
The reaction from MPs was mixed – some were "adamant that he shouldn't
quit" while others were more muted. But no one said to Mr Goff that he
should resign. "
Geopelia
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5gor47dsqiqetrr6u...@4ax.com...
Of course super isn't a benefit. A millionaire is just as entitled to it as
the poorest citizen.
But isn't it time there was an expenses card for MPs, allowing legitimate
expenses only? :-)
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
National are experts at not spending themselves, but getting other
people to spend money for them. That's why staff do all teh purchasing
(they now always have staff travelling with thenm to arrange the
payments). That's why Trusts carefully act as a cut out between donors
and the Party. If a trust decides to donate money for a Ministers
clothing, or to 'hire' a vehicle at nominal cost, those are not
policital donations, are they? If a donor happens to ask an
"independent" polling company to conduct a poll for them, they are
free to pay vastly over normal commercial prices aren't they? If that
leaves the polling company able to offer low prices to other clients,
that is their totally commercial nad "independent" decision, isn't it?
National do see NZ Super as a "benefit" - it makes it more difficult
for them to low the top tax rate still further. There is a carefully
orchestrated campaign to reduce payments, by 'floating ideas' such as
a higher starting age, changing the indexation to a measure that will
not keep up as well as AWE, means testing part of it, etc - all of
which John Key carefully says will not be done - either "during this
term of parliament", or "while he is Prime Minister" - neither of
which are likely to hold up the changes they are planning for long.
Pooh
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16ls47tkdkd1el1k0...@4ax.com...
So you post a patent lie to cover your embarasement at what a piss poor job
Labour did in boom times and still refuse to accept that Labour would most
likely have dropped New Zealand further in the crapper than their shonky
farewell policies have to date Richie.
> NationalACT have been a disaster for New Zealand - and yuo know it
> Pooh
>
The disaster Richie was being unfortunate enough to have an election given
to them because Labour knew that the recession was going to show what a
fragile condition Labour had left the New Zealand economy in.
Yet more obvious lies. Ffs Richie YOUY have been babbling estaticly at the
disent in National ranks yet still try to tell us it's being covered up.
Your new controller is a bigger moron than your last one. Or are you in fact
Phool Goof displaying your Goffzeimers for all to see?
> NationalACT are so arrogant about their views that they don't even
> tell parliament what legislation is coming up, they put the house in
> urgency far more than any previous government, and they think so
> little of what anyone else thinks that they do not allow many bills to
> go to a select committee, and abuse the process for those select
> committees they allow to happen. At least Labour genuinely listened,
> and took care to give adequate time for the public to bothprepare
> submissions and to hear them, and involved all political parties in
> the process.
If you want arrogance look at the unpopular legislation Labour forced
through because 'they had the numbers'. It's a good job your to stupid to
understand that the voters are more than happy with National despite Labours
failed efforts to besmirch their preformance. The polls show people are
happier with National ability to listen to them and change direction and
policy when it's needed. A leaaon Labour STILL hasn't learnt. All Labour and
your shit throwing has done has made you both smell to bad to be acceptable
to the voters. If you need proof just go and look at the polls, and that
includes several of Labours own in house ones!
Pooh
Pooh
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:j2mmdj$4rh$1...@dont-email.me...
Not a good look when a leader can't remember what's been happening around
him. Goff's so far past his use by date he needs to retire to a nice rest
home where he only has to worry about waking up in the morning.
Pooh
Pooh
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uoms47pqr6dkq0ea2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:33:17 +1200, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19/08/2011 4:12 p.m., Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:48:47 +1200, "Pooh"<pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Patrick FitzGerald"<a...@b.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f5pq4751f77evarfq...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No one would spend all that money in developing cards and elaborate
>>>>> administration procedures just for a small number of youths.
>>>>>
>>>>> So obviously there is a secret agenda behind them. Additional evidence
>>>>> for that is Paula Bennett's refusal to rule out expansion of the
>>>>> Key card system.
>>>>>
>>>>> It obvious that our Fuehrer , John Don Key, and his nasty nats have
>>>>> ambitions to instantiate the ultimate nanny State by controlling all
>>>>> expenditure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> The onlt obvious thing is your dementia Patsy.
>>>>
>>>> Pooh
>>>
>>> When in doubt, attack the messenger, is that the reason for your
>>> adopting abuse rather than argument, Pooh?
>>
>>Paddy is making things up again Rich.
>
> If that was the case, we would never hear it from Pooh - he wastes his
> post with abuse.
>
I give Patsy what his posts deserve Richie the same as I do with you. Patsy
is a nasty worm. The sort of arsehole who handed soap out in the Buchenwald
showers to jewish kids and acepted it as being good for the world because he
thought they were untermensch[sp?].
>>> Do you deny that National plan to use card payments formore
>>> beneficiaries?
>>
>>They say not, and their statements are a lot more credible than those of
>>either the last Government or the opposition.
>
> Where did they say they would notus card payments for more
> beneficiaries, EMB?
>
The same place they said they would Richie. You have a cite for the claim
don't you?
>>> It is clear that Paul Bennett doesn't support such a move, but she is
>>> not really in charge, is she?
>>
>>No more than any minister was in charge under Helen when Labour was in
>>power Rich.
Pooh
Pooh
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92rt4716st395ehqd...@4ax.com...
You mean they learnt something else from Clark Richie. Or do you have proof
of your current claim backed up with proof Clark PA didn't?
> National do see NZ Super as a "benefit" - it makes it more difficult
> for them to low the top tax rate still further. There is a carefully
> orchestrated campaign to reduce payments, by 'floating ideas' such as
> a higher starting age, changing the indexation to a measure that will
> not keep up as well as AWE, means testing part of it, etc - all of
> which John Key carefully says will not be done - either "during this
> term of parliament", or "while he is Prime Minister" - neither of
> which are likely to hold up the changes they are planning for long.
>
Why shouldn't the top tax rate be lowered and in the same vein those on
salarys between the minimum wage and $114,000 have their WFF either stopped
or dropped so more breeders actually pay more towards their own pressure on
the tax dollar.
Pooh
EMB
<snip drivel>
At least the reason for all the twisting, screaming and posturing from
the Labour supporters is apparent - they've been pretty much beaten at
their own game, and the public are backing National's plan.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10746185
Not only that, but they have put a CGT firmly on the table and the
public support it in the form National would be likely to favour rather
than Labour's ineffective touchy-feely version.
Rich...@hotmail.com
NOt even traditional National supporters can wholeheartedly agree
witht he government on this one.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10746188
All the mollycoddling in the world wil not put youth in jobs that are
not there. National have failed the big tasks - concentrating on a
very small number of young people doesn't fix the reality that most
are worse off, (the wealthy have made out like bandits), many many
more people are now unelpoyed and can't find jobs, wages are falling
behind Australia and many have left to find work.
Add to that John Key's lies - it is little wonderthat EMB and Pooh
only have lies to support their john Key idol.
Pooh
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ioru4753q6ai611c9...@4ax.com...
What lies are those Richie? List them please for once in your sorry attempt
to divert people away from your lies.
Pooh
Pooh
"Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote in message
news:j2mvt4$vvn$1...@dont-email.me...
Cat got your tongue or are the commissars having trouble coming up with lies
to cover your embarasment Richie/
Pooh
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> When in doubt, attack the messenger, is that the
> reason for your adopting abuse rather than argument
Were you thinking that pious thought a few weeks ago when you were
dishing out phrases like 'farty' at people, rich-bot?
Allistar
That doesn't mean it's not a benefit. People who receive super payments are
beneficiaries of state provided welfare. That makes it a benefit.
> But isn't it time there was an expenses card for MPs, allowing legitimate
> expenses only? :-)
--
Your action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is virtuous
only when it is derived from voluntary mutual consent.
Allistar
>
> "John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:j2mmdj$4rh$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Saturday, 20/Aug-2011 8:51 a.m., EMB wrote:
>>> On 20/08/2011 12:44 a.m., Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> No Pooh, the dissent within National is clear and fundamental
>>>
>>> The "dissent" within National is a clear sign that the party is healthy
>>> and democratic, unlike Labour's dictatorship where the edict is "Do as
>>> we say or you're history".
>>
>> There's dissent alright:
>>
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5477561/Goff-gets-wild-at-
leadership-rumours
>>
>> Looks like the rumours were true.. about Phil:
>>
>> "But one senior Labour MP said the conversation did happen. "[Phil] did
>> consult the front bench over whether he should go."
>>
>> The reaction from MPs was mixed � some were "adamant that he shouldn't
>> quit" while others were more muted. But no one said to Mr Goff that he
>> should resign. "
>>
>>
>
> Not a good look when a leader can't remember what's been happening around
> him.
It's not that he can't remember, it's that he outright lied.
> Goff's so far past his use by date he needs to retire to a nice rest
> home where he only has to worry about waking up in the morning.
No one will want him to because no one will be willing to step into his
shoes to only get a pummeling in November.
Pooh
"Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote in message
What lies are you lying about Richie. come on expose your bullshit and lies
again by listing them. Or did Richie v2.03 remind you what happened when he
tried backing up his lies and finished up with the shit he was flinging all
over his face.
Pooh
Pooh
"Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
news:tYudnQDt6ZAIDMzT...@giganews.com...
I've always thought of super as a return on money given to the state.
Pooh
Allistar
It's not returned in proportion to how it's given. It's welfare.
WorkHard
No! They paid a 'portion' of their income to the Govt to be saved
for their retirement. They would get it back as an annuity.
That's what they were told and were lead to believe.
No way is it a benefit. Not in the sense you are talking about.
These people (most of 'em) have worked all their lives and paid
taxes. They are getting back what they contributed.
WorkHard
In the main, it's NOT welfare. Most people get it as a return for
their payments to the Govt for their retirement saving... like an
annuity.
For some people it is like a benefit or welfare because they
never contributed.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Who said" a payment card for people on a benefit that forbade alcohol
and tobacco purchases would require moral judgments by the Crown,
would be highly intrusive, would rob individuals of freedom of choice,
and would impose an enormous administrative burden on Work and Income,
and there was no need to change the way in which welfare is paid or
assessed."?
Nanny State? no wonder you are attacking other posters as a
distraction, missy.
Rich...@hotmail.com
>Geopelia wrote:
>
>>
>> <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5gor47dsqiqetrr6u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:22:08 +1200, Patrick FitzGerald <a...@b.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one would spend all that money in developing cards and elaborate
>>>>administration procedures just for a small number of youths.
>>>>
>>>>So obviously there is a secret agenda behind them. Additional evidence
>>>>for that is Paula Bennett's refusal to rule out expansion of the
>>>>Key card system.
>>>>
>>>>It obvious that our Fuehrer , John Don Key, and his nasty nats have
>>>>ambitions to instantiate the ultimate nanny State by controlling all
>>>>expenditure.
>>>>
>>>>Patrick
>>>
>>> I am sure they have said that they see this being effectively a trial
>>> before rolling out cards to all beneficiaries - except probably
>>> recipients of NZ Super (who most don't think of as being any more
>>> beneficiaries than those that use our roads . . .)
>>
>> Of course super isn't a benefit. A millionaire is just as entitled to it
>> as the poorest citizen.
>
>That doesn't mean it's not a benefit. People who receive super payments are
>beneficiaries of state provided welfare. That makes it a benefit.
Indeed using your semantics we are all beneficiaries - if not of NZ
Super, then of roads, hospitals, justice system, laws, defence,
schools, trade assitance, bail-out of failing companies, lower top tax
rate, and the majorityof us are the "beneficiary" of lower purchasing
power to pay for the wincrease in wealth of the few favoured wealthy.
Yes, all beneficiaries of the State. How does that make you feel,
Allistar?
Rich...@hotmail.com
>Pooh wrote:
>
>>
>> "John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:j2mmdj$4rh$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On Saturday, 20/Aug-2011 8:51 a.m., EMB wrote:
>>>> On 20/08/2011 12:44 a.m., Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No Pooh, the dissent within National is clear and fundamental
>>>>
>>>> The "dissent" within National is a clear sign that the party is healthy
>>>> and democratic, unlike Labour's dictatorship where the edict is "Do as
>>>> we say or you're history".
>>>
>>> There's dissent alright:
>>>
>>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5477561/Goff-gets-wild-at-
>leadership-rumours
>>>
>>> Looks like the rumours were true.. about Phil:
>>>
>>> "But one senior Labour MP said the conversation did happen. "[Phil] did
>>> consult the front bench over whether he should go."
>>>
>>> The reaction from MPs was mixed ? some were "adamant that he shouldn't
>>> quit" while others were more muted. But no one said to Mr Goff that he
>>> should resign. "
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not a good look when a leader can't remember what's been happening around
>> him.
>
>
>It's not that he can't remember, it's that he outright lied.
This one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiZ7qXR32QE
Rich...@hotmail.com
Yes, it used to be an explicit charge, but was absorbed into general
taxation collection. It is no more a "benefit" than free roads . . .
Rich...@hotmail.com
And education and police and defence and food standards ... - are they
"benefits" too, Allistar?
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
>
Your avoidnace of your criticising others for slagging, when you
recently were doing that very thing, is noted.
Patrick FitzGerald
Your non avoidance of posting " Your avoidnace [sic] of your
criticising others for slagging, when you recently were doing that
very thing, is noted." is noted
Pooh
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vmb357h0rjp3405eb...@4ax.com...
So once again Labour good, National bad Richie. And yet another rather
pathetic attempt to cover what were outright lies from Labour.
Pooh
Pooh
"misanthropic_curmudgeon" <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com>
wrote in message
news:56f892ed-b0f8-446d...@b38g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
*************************************************************************
He's also crawled back under his rock and refusing to give me a list of my
supposed lies. Typical of the hypocritical marxist prat.
Pooh
Rich...@hotmail.com
Rather than criticise you I returned to the subject of the thread
missy. Isn;t that what you wanted?
So who is the quote from missy? - and do you think the statement is
fair comment on the proposals to impose food cards regardless of
personal circumstances?
Allistar
The portion some paid is much more than the portion others have paid.
Allistar
And those that die too soon - their estate should get the money they would
have otherwise received. Yet it doesn't work that way.
It's basically the dole, except that those that receive it are not expected
to try and find work.
Allistar
Not in the sense that the pension is a cash handouts and those things
aren't.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Insurance schemes don't work that way Allistar. If you pay for death
insurance for years and years and don't die before the insurance
stops, they will never pay a claim. Why is that principle OK with you
if its insurance but not is that insurance is paid for by the
government?
Geopelia
Quite so. Our taxes entitle us to it.
The big difference is that super is universal as of right, while a benefit
is paid only to those in need.
> It's not returned in proportion to how it's given. It's welfare.
Super is like an insurance policy of the old sort. Pay in for years and
receive a lump sum at the end, with a small life cover.
But both have one flaw. The amount received at the end, whether fortnightly
as super, or in a lump sum like insurance, may seem a lot more than was paid
in. But due to inflation the real value in buying goods and services is very
much lower than was expected at the start.
"Pay a few shillings a week and in twenty years you will receive a thousand
pounds".
"Oh goody goody, I will be able to buy a debt free home, with plenty left
over."
Some hopes!
Geopelia
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8gb35711ivtfu6gce...@4ax.com...
But anyone troubled in conscience about accepting the super can always save
it up and donate it to a good cause.
I wonder how many people who grumble about super will do that.
Will you, Allistar?
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Yes that is the problem with insurance schemes - most now encourag
people to increase premiums with inflation, but that is still not
enough.
NZ Super is a little different in that it is based on a percetnage of
teh average wage - it automatically takes inflation of wages into
account. At present that means that NZ Super lags a little behind
costs, as the government has deliberately suppressed wage increases -
average wage has not kept up with prices during the National/ACT
government due to people leaving New Zealand and more unemployed
people and prices increasing for GST - many wages were barely adjusted
for that, nd price increases ahve been higher. But over time, the
inflation problem of insurance schemes is largely overcome by NZ
Superannuation
Allistar
I am saving for my own retirement, as responsible people do. I do not intend
to rely on a pension.
Are you saying that forcing people to pay into a scheme they do not need is
ok because not enough people complain about it?
At the least it shoyuld be voluntary. They should scrap the pension now that
Kiwisaver is here.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
What we do know is that those who donate most to charity are infact
those i=on low and middle incomes - they knw what poverty is really
like. When National gave big tax cuts to the very wealthy just after
they were elected, John Key made a plea to tehwealthy to give more to
charities - as far as I am aware charities noticed no more than normal
donations coming in. More people however have been able to have
holidays overseas - some of them like John Key regularly go to places
like Hawaii.
Now we have a food bank in Dunedin running out of food - times are
very tugh for those on low incomes - while we are seeing more
expensive cars like Ferraris and Masteratis and Astin Martins on our
roads . . .
Allistar
The expectaction of entitlement to money other people have earned is a
serious problem in society.
If it were to be fair, then the amount paid would for a pension would not be
related to income, unless the amount paid back is also proportional to
income.
Allistar
What has that got to do with anything? The pension is not an insurance
scheme.
> If you pay for death
> insurance for years and years and don't die before the insurance
> stops, they will never pay a claim.
Of course they won't - because when you die you don't have any insurance.
> Why is that principle OK with you
> if its insurance but not is that insurance is paid for by the
> government?
The pension is not an insurance scheme.
Rich...@hotmail.com
NZ Superannuation is not related to your income Allistar - it is based
on average weekly earnings. That is one of the reasons National is
trying to keep average wages down - they want a low wage economy to
give more profits to overseas shareholders, and to reduce the short
term cost of NZ Superannuation.
Rich...@hotmail.com
And thankfully it doesn't operate in the way you want it to - which is
more along the lines of a private insurance scheme.
Geopelia
No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course people pay into what they don't
need, or think they don't. Our taxes pay for the Army whether we approve of
joining in foreign wars or not, and our taxes pay for the DPB whether we
think it is a good scheme or not.
In a free country we can say what we like about the government and its
policies.
> At the least it shoyuld be voluntary. They should scrap the pension now
> that
> Kiwisaver is here.
If they do that they will have to allow the over 65s to join Kiwisaver, with
all the benefits provided.
Do you really expect those over ninety to join Kiwisaver?
And how can those receiving no income if the super is scrapped manage to pay
into Kiwisaver?
I haven't really looked into Kiwisaver, not being eligible, but it seems to
me that the scheme relies on private financial organisations to run it, and
people have to choose without knowing much about it. The big problem of
course is what may happen in the world in the next forty years or so, wars,
earthquakes, global warming etc.
But good luck with arranging your own retirement.
WorkHard
No. You are wrong there. It is an annuity. Or that's what it is
meant to be anyway.
It is completely different to the dole.
> except that those that receive it are not
> expected to try and find work.
Because they have worked their lives and are now 'entitled' to a
return on their investment.
WorkHard
Well, yes. That's why you should update your insurance and pay
more. You need to factor in inflation.
E.g. Pay say 5% of your income into a life-assurance plan. Adjust
every year or two.
Oh yeah, it's handy to know the difference between life
'insurance' and life 'assurance'.
Allistar
In a free country we get to keep our own property.
>> At the least it shoyuld be voluntary. They should scrap the pension now
>> that
>> Kiwisaver is here.
>
> If they do that they will have to allow the over 65s to join Kiwisaver,
> with all the benefits provided.
> Do you really expect those over ninety to join Kiwisaver?
> And how can those receiving no income if the super is scrapped manage to
> pay into Kiwisaver?
Of course, they would have to accommodate people for the amount paid in
taxes towards a pension already. So basically they take all of the money
from the "Cullen fund" and put it into people's Kiwisave accounts, in
proportion to how much tax they have paid in their lives.
> I haven't really looked into Kiwisaver, not being eligible, but it seems
> to me that the scheme relies on private financial organisations to run it,
> and people have to choose without knowing much about it.
People can always find out for themselves.
> The big problem
> of course is what may happen in the world in the next forty years or so,
> wars, earthquakes, global warming etc.
>
> But good luck with arranging your own retirement.
Thanks.
Allistar
Yet the amount you are forced to pay, via taxtion, to provide for this *is*
based on your income. That's my point.
If the amount pensioners get is fixed, then the amount we pay in should also
be fixed. If the amount we pay in is based on our income, then the amount we
get back when we retire should also be based on that income.
WorkHard
You have the wrong idea.
> I wonder how many people who grumble about super will do that.
> Will you, Allistar?
There wouold be no moral obligation to do so. He has been taxed
to pay for it so is perfectly 'entitled' to receive it back by
way of the 'super'.
It would be ok if he had the choice to not be taxed for that
portion in the first place.
Allistar
I don't see that it is. It's provided for the welfare of the people that
recevie it, because they have no other form of income.
>> except that those that receive it are not
>> expected to try and find work.
>
>
> Because they have worked their lives and are now 'entitled' to a
> return on their investment.
Yet that return has absolutely no bearing on how much they have "invested".
WorkHard
Are you saying individual's can't do a better job?
Allistar
The way I want it to operate is that people are encouraged to think about,
and provide for their own retirement. Taking that responsibility away from
people is not doing them any favours.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Bugger that! You are just trying to grab a bigger share for the
wealthy. When specific premiums were paid for NZ Superannuation they
were capped, so that the very wealthy did not pay double what someone
on a lower salary paid - that reflectedthe capping of the payments.
Besides, do IRD have records back 50 years?
The government have made a commitment to pay on a certain basis - like
it or notthat is seen as a contract - especially for those already
receiving NZ Super. You just don't care about individual
responsibility and contracts and obligations, so you?
>> I haven't really looked into Kiwisaver, not being eligible, but it seems
>> to me that the scheme relies on private financial organisations to run it,
>> and people have to choose without knowing much about it.
>
>People can always find out for themselves.
Kiwisavr does not provide authomatic indexation - broadly in line with
teh level of average weekly earnings. It requires membrs to make
investment decisions - somewhat unfair on many older people.
What they will find is that it cannot replace NZ Super for many
people.
Rich...@hotmail.com
No it isn't - that is your assumption, not that of the government.
>If the amount pensioners get is fixed, then the amount we pay in should also
>be fixed. If the amount we pay in is based on our income, then the amount we
>get back when we retire should also be based on that income.
Teh amount of payments were capped when specific contributions were
required (2/6 in the pound, up to limit). The wealthy paid a lower
percentage of their earnings than lower paid people. In effect that
still happens - less of a wealthy persons taxes are required for NZ
super than from lower paid people.
Theoretical hypothecation of tax doesn't always work the way you think
it does, Allistar.
Allistar
Wealth doesn't come into it. It's fair that people that put more in get more
out.
> When specific premiums were paid for NZ Superannuation they
> were capped, so that the very wealthy did not pay double what someone
> on a lower salary paid - that reflectedthe capping of the payments.
What's the difference between paying a portion of your income into the
pension fund, or paying it into a Kiwisaver account? The key upside here is
the visibility of those payments, and the subsequent lowering of taxation.
> Besides, do IRD have records back 50 years?
I would think they would.
> The government have made a commitment to pay on a certain basis - like
> it or notthat is seen as a contract - especially for those already
> receiving NZ Super.
The transition to a fairer system would have to ensure no one is hard done
by.
> You just don't care about individual
> responsibility and contracts and obligations, so you?
Er, I'm arguing *for* individual responsibility, not against it.
>>> I haven't really looked into Kiwisaver, not being eligible, but it seems
>>> to me that the scheme relies on private financial organisations to run
>>> it, and people have to choose without knowing much about it.
>>
>>People can always find out for themselves.
> Kiwisavr does not provide authomatic indexation - broadly in line with
> teh level of average weekly earnings. It requires membrs to make
> investment decisions - somewhat unfair on many older people.
People can leave their fund in a "safe" portfolio.
> What they will find is that it cannot replace NZ Super for many
> people.
People should be given the choice. Let people opt out of super, and give
them back the money they have paid into it.
WorkHard
That's incorrect. They receive it becaue it was promised to them
as an annuity in return for the tax they paid and contributed to
it.
It's NOT there because people have no *other* income.
It's the same as buying an annuity form an insurance company.
(With the obvious differences, of course.)
>>> except that those that receive it are not
>>> expected to try and find work.
>>
>>
>> Because they have worked their lives and are now 'entitled' to
>> a
>> return on their investment.
>
> Yet that return has absolutely no bearing on how much they have
> "invested".
That's NOT the point.
Allistar
We pay for the pension scheme via taxation. Taxation (income tax at least)
is paid based on your income. It's fair then to say that we pay into the
pension scheme based on our income.
>>If the amount pensioners get is fixed, then the amount we pay in should
>>also be fixed. If the amount we pay in is based on our income, then the
>>amount we get back when we retire should also be based on that income.
>
> Teh amount of payments were capped when specific contributions were
> required (2/6 in the pound, up to limit). The wealthy paid a lower
> percentage of their earnings than lower paid people. In effect that
> still happens - less of a wealthy persons taxes are required for NZ
> super than from lower paid people.
Do you have any sites on how much of what we pay in tax goes towards the
pension fund?
> Theoretical hypothecation of tax doesn't always work the way you think
> it does, Allistar.
Even if what you say is true, the wealthy still pay more in absolute dollar
terms towards the pension fund than other people. Yet they get the same out.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:00:54 +1200, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> >WorkHard wrote:
>
> >> Allistar wrote:
> >>> Pooh wrote:
>
> >>>> "Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:tYudnQDt6ZAIDMzT...@giganews.com...
> >>>>> Geopelia wrote:
>
You'd have this 'insurance' as being compulsory, with no personal
choice, because you beleive you know what is best for other people and
that is how you justify imposing your values and morality on them.
Rich...@hotmail.com
And surveys have indicated that this is in fact what many ederly do
with large amounts to invest - they are cautious and as a result are
particularly dettrimentally affected by inflation. NZ Super is
effectively guranteed to cope with inflation - and it is in our
interests that governments have incentives to maintain appropriate
control of inflation.
>> What they will find is that it cannot replace NZ Super for many
>> people.
>
>People should be given the choice. Let people opt out of super, and give
>them back the money they have paid into it.
People would rather not have the choice - as people get older they
need a system that will provide for them even if they suffer from
Alzheimers and other ailments - NZ Super does that.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Roads are covered by just the same "insurance" from government. If a
road washes away, residents of the local area look to either local
government or central government to fix it - and the cost will not be
levied in proportion to earnings on any group int eh community. Why is
it OK for government to provide an insurance scheme for roads but not
an insurance scheme for a basic level of income in retirement?
misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your (repeated) avoidance of the point at hand (namely superannuation
being equated to (compulsory) insurance) is noted.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Raods are covered by compulsory "insurance", mis-c. Insuracne does not
have to be solely financial, but it typically invovles taking in money
from a large pool of people, and making payments to a subset of that
pool in defined circumstances. Once the money has been received, it is
no longer allocated to the individual. Almost all government ervices
are based on that principle. If you don't have serious heart disease
you gain no benefit from employing heart specialists - but you might
have a need for some other service provided by government to a greater
extent than a person with heart problems has. NZ Superannuation
started out with specific tax levies, but I do not recall any 'refund
of levies' for those that died before retirement. Certainly pensions
increased are more expensive after periods of inflation - those
retiring after a period of low inflation did not get lower NZ Super
payments. In a real sense, NZ Super is akin to an insurance pool.
Geopelia
"WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote in message
news:ldednZq6us4Fd8_T...@giganews.com...
Those schemes where a small amount was collected every week or month have
finished now.
For a short while I sold and collected that insurance, in the early 1960s.
It was quite an eye opener.
I wasn't prepared to tell half truths or worse just to get commission, so
left.
I was able to advise some folks about the surrender value of long lapsed
policies though, which would not have pleased the insurance companies!
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
That was called "collector" insurance - to both life and general
policies had premiums collected in that way.
Workshy is of course deluded - there is no difference between life
insurance and life assurance.
Allistar
You cannot speak for anyone but yourself. I would rather have a choice. And
the same applies to ACC - let me choose whether I want to be covered by it
or not.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> You cannot speak for anyone but yourself. I would rather have a choice. And
> the same applies to ACC - let me choose whether I want to be covered by it
> or not.
That would not suit rich-bot: he needs you to fund him and his mates.
For your own good.
Rich...@hotmail.com
ACC is merely an organisation established to make payments in
accordance with legislation. Are you advocating that funding for those
benefits returns to 'pay as you go', from general taxation revenue?
If the government wanted to remove some from cocverage they would need
to change the legislation - is that what you want?
Allistar
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:14:27 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
> <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 26, 12:02 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> You cannot speak for anyone but yourself. I would rather have a choice.
>>> And the same applies to ACC - let me choose whether I want to be covered
>>> by it or not.
>>
>>That would not suit rich-bot: he needs you to fund him and his mates.
>>
>>For your own good.
>
> ACC is merely an organisation established to make payments in
> accordance with legislation. Are you advocating that funding for those
> benefits returns to 'pay as you go', from general taxation revenue?
I'm saying that people should be able to opt out of paying ACC levies
altogether, with the priviso that they will not receive any payments from
it.
> If the government wanted to remove some from cocverage they would need
> to change the legislation - is that what you want?
Yes. I want choice.
Rich...@hotmail.com
>Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:14:27 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
>> <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 26, 12:02 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>> You cannot speak for anyone but yourself. I would rather have a choice.
>>>> And the same applies to ACC - let me choose whether I want to be covered
>>>> by it or not.
>>>
>>>That would not suit rich-bot: he needs you to fund him and his mates.
>>>
>>>For your own good.
>>
>> ACC is merely an organisation established to make payments in
>> accordance with legislation. Are you advocating that funding for those
>> benefits returns to 'pay as you go', from general taxation revenue?
>
>I'm saying that people should be able to opt out of paying ACC levies
>altogether, with the priviso that they will not receive any payments from
>it.
>
>> If the government wanted to remove some from cocverage they would need
>> to change the legislation - is that what you want?
>
>Yes. I want choice.
So when the next large quake strikes, there are even more people
uninsured, and with then uninsurable properties. The "free market" is
not prepared to cover all properties - but councils have approved the
subdivisions . . .
Your caring and charitable nature is evident for all to see, Allistar.
Its all about money to you, isn't it?
Even now, National are resisting a sort term tax levy to pay for
Christchurch - you want to help them kill all hope for the poor and
low paid. More profits for the wealthy few have a higher priority than
charity and human rights . . .
Allistar
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:00:05 +1200, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>>Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:14:27 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
>>> <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Aug 26, 12:02 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>> You cannot speak for anyone but yourself. I would rather have a
>>>>> choice. And the same applies to ACC - let me choose whether I want to
>>>>> be covered by it or not.
>>>>
>>>>That would not suit rich-bot: he needs you to fund him and his mates.
>>>>
>>>>For your own good.
>>>
>>> ACC is merely an organisation established to make payments in
>>> accordance with legislation. Are you advocating that funding for those
>>> benefits returns to 'pay as you go', from general taxation revenue?
>>
>>I'm saying that people should be able to opt out of paying ACC levies
>>altogether, with the priviso that they will not receive any payments from
>>it.
>>
>>> If the government wanted to remove some from cocverage they would need
>>> to change the legislation - is that what you want?
>>
>>Yes. I want choice.
>
> So when the next large quake strikes, there are even more people
> uninsured, and with then uninsurable properties.
Eh? Opting out of ACC doesn't mean you are uninsured.
> The "free market" is
> not prepared to cover all properties - but councils have approved the
> subdivisions . . .
What are you on about?
> Your caring and charitable nature is evident for all to see, Allistar.
> Its all about money to you, isn't it?
Again, you seem to be failing to miss the point. I want to be able to opt
out of paying ACC as I feel I am better placed to look after my oiwn
insurance needs myself.
> Even now, National are resisting a sort term tax levy to pay for
> Christchurch - you want to help them kill all hope for the poor and
> low paid. More profits for the wealthy few have a higher priority than
> charity and human rights . . .
You've lost the plot. I am saying that everyone should have the choice
whether they pay ACC, and hence whether ACC will pay them.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Sorry, mixing of EQC with ACC.
Much the same arguments do of course apply. Many of the events for
which ACC provides coverage are uninsurable by the "free market" of
private insurance companies.
ACC and EQC are also very very efficient at providing such a standard
level of compensation / insurance to all New Zealanders. OPting out of
ACC would just mean that as a community we are more exposed to the
ehalth claims of people having accidents - the public system would be
called on to meet the cost, without any contribution though levies to
that cost from the person incurring the accident. Those that ride
large motor-bikes would be among the first to opt out - they may well
be better off not having ACC cover and puttingthe cost ont eh taxpayer
through the health budget.
Allistar
People who have enough wealth of their own could adequately self insure,
without needing to pay any ACC levies. They should be afforded the choice.
Everyone should be afforded the choice.
> ACC and EQC are also very very efficient at providing such a standard
> level of compensation / insurance to all New Zealanders. OPting out of
> ACC would just mean that as a community we are more exposed to the
> ehalth claims of people having accidents
No - if you opted out of the system then the system would not help you if
you needed it. That's called "personal responsibility" and if you weren't
prepared to suffert hose consequences, then you would not opt out.
> - the public system would be
> called on to meet the cost, without any contribution though levies to
> that cost from the person incurring the accident.
No. Opt out means opt out.
> Those that ride
> large motor-bikes would be among the first to opt out - they may well
> be better off not having ACC cover and puttingthe cost ont eh taxpayer
> through the health budget.
There would be no "putting the cost on the taxpayer". Opting out is opting
out.