Timely reminder of Labour underachievements.

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Crash

unread,
Oct 3, 2022, 7:17:51 PMOct 3
to
https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu

The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
Governments.

It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.


--
Crash McBash

Gordon

unread,
Oct 3, 2022, 7:52:44 PMOct 3
to
On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu

From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>
> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
> Governments.
>
> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.

Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.

National needs to get a brand, what does it stand for and what can we trust
them to do? At the moment it is a case of it is beer but which brand is it?

Oh well a vote for Labour it is then?

Crash

unread,
Oct 3, 2022, 9:15:30 PMOct 3
to
On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>
>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>> Governments.
>>
>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>
>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>
No - those senior MPs need to be still around and in leadership
positions with one of them as leader. They have the creds to say 'we
got stuff done, Labour have since shown they cant'.

>National needs to get a brand, what does it stand for and what can we trust
>them to do? At the moment it is a case of it is beer but which brand is it?
>
Yes - and forget tax cuts of any kind because of government debt
levels, at least for the next term.

>Oh well a vote for Labour it is then?

No.


--
Crash McBash

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 4:56:29 AMOct 4
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>
>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.

Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack I
may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.

>>>
>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>> Governments.
>>>
>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
to undecided voters.


>>
>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.

I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
implementing ideas . . .

John Bowes

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 6:08:16 AMOct 4
to
On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:56:29 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
> wrote:
> >On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
> >>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
> >>
> >>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
> >>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
> Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack I
> may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
> of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.

That's you to a T Rich. You can't abide criticism of the Labour/Green party's or in fact of your own vague and pointless whitering...
All the assertions of failure are bang on the money Rich and have been proven to you countless times. Regrettably you're incapable of accepting that the party you blindly support is incapable of actually doing anything and only excels at talking about the problems they've failed to address over the last five years :)

> >>>
> >>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
> >>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
> >>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
> >>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
> >>> Governments.
> >>>
> >>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
> I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
> necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
> much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
> have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
> to undecided voters.

Ardern a leader? You don't understand what leadership is Rich and claiming that Ardern is more than a talkie little Marxist proves it. Ardern has shown absolutely NO leadership skills and the only reason she is currently PM is because of Winston and covid!

> >>
> >>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
> >>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
> >>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
> Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
> requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
> than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
> lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
>
> I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
> - there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
> filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
> also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
> taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
> with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
> potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
> libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
> implementing ideas . . .

The worst people creating division and fake news is of course the Labour party and it's convenient fools like you Rich :)

Tony

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 4:13:27 PMOct 4
to
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>
>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>
>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
No-one here does that.
You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
> I
>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
What nonsense - rabid vitriol is your place in history.

Gordon

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 6:54:44 PMOct 4
to
On 2022-10-04, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>
>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
> No-one here does that.
> You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
> attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.

>> I
>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
> In that case tell us which are wrong and why.

Indeed. Explain/defend your point of view. It is called public debate. Do it
in a way sow the seed that may make the other person alter their position,
even if only a small amount. Accept the fact that not everyone will align
with your view point, and that is okay.


>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>>>> Governments.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>>I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
>>necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
>>much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
>>have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
>>to undecided voters.

Arden, having come out of "nowhere" and being "new" along with Covid thrown
in, was able to get going on the wave of public opinion.

In my view, Arden is the leader of the Labour party only. This too will
pass.

>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>>>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>>Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
>>requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
>>than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
>>lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.

Many are not.

>>
>>I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
>>- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
>>filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
>>also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
>>taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
>>with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
>>potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
>>libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
>>implementing ideas . . .

The point here is that we are on the wrong road. In a democracy free speech
is essential, for it allows people to voice their opinions and debate to
happen. It has been said that the strength of a democracy is the way the
country/governmet tolerates all ideas expressed.

National needs to show that it understands that a democracy is about free
speech. At the present time there is a great deal of mistrust in the
Government and politicians in general. Which is fuel for the VFF sites.

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 6:59:43 PMOct 4
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>
>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>No-one here does that.
>You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
>attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>> I
>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
I referred to unsupported assertions deliberately, Tony. vague slogans
that appeal to those inclined to believe anything - why should I
analyse any of them when Donald Brash and you were not prepared to?
No vitriol - I could accuse you of the same however - perhaps you
would like to explain what you regard as vitriol in the above . . .

Tony

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 7:12:08 PMOct 4
to
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>>
>>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>>
>>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>>No-one here does that.
>>You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit
>>of
>>attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>>> I
>>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>>In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
>I referred to unsupported assertions deliberately, Tony. vague slogans
>that appeal to those inclined to believe anything - why should I
>analyse any of them when Donald Brash and you were not prepared to?
So thanks for the proof that you attack authors but are unwilling to address
the content.
Proof p;ositive is in this post from you.
Q E D

Tony

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 7:18:14 PMOct 4
to
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>On 2022-10-04, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>> Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>>
>>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>>
>>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>> No-one here does that.
>> You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit
>>of
>> attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>
>>> I
>>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>> In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
>
>Indeed. Explain/defend your point of view. It is called public debate. Do it
>in a way sow the seed that may make the other person alter their position,
>even if only a small amount. Accept the fact that not everyone will align
>with your view point, and that is okay.
Yes Gordon, reasoning people do that. Rich does not.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>>>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>>>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>>>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>>>>> Governments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>>>I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
>>>necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
>>>much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
>>>have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
>>>to undecided voters.
>
>Arden, having come out of "nowhere" and being "new" along with Covid thrown
>in, was able to get going on the wave of public opinion.
>
>In my view, Arden is the leader of the Labour party only. This too will
>pass.
The sooner tghe better. Too much damage already done.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution
>>>>>of
>>>>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>>>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>>>Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
>>>requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
>>>than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
>>>lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
>
>Many are not.
>
>>>
>>>I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
>>>- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
>>>filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
>>>also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
>>>taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
>>>with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
>>>potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
>>>libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
>>>implementing ideas . . .
>
>The point here is that we are on the wrong road. In a democracy free speech
>is essential, for it allows people to voice their opinions and debate to
>happen. It has been said that the strength of a democracy is the way the
>country/governmet tolerates all ideas expressed.
Freedom of speech/expression is what sets us apart from tyranny.
Ardern wants to remove that freedom, hes speech to the UN confirms it.
Rich condones and even supports that direction. Hence his refusal to enter into
debate - he merely attacks people (almost anybody will do!).

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 7:46:39 PMOct 4
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 23:12:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
No, I merely observed that Don Brash had not provided evidence of his
statements. You however asked for evidence that he was wrong, and did
not provide any evidence for why you thought he may be correct.

>Proof p;ositive is in this post from you.
>Q E D
Proof of nothing - you attacked and maligned me for asking for
evidence

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 7:47:57 PMOct 4
to
You posted the assertions without evidence, Tony - up to you to
support the thread you started

Tony

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 8:21:17 PMOct 4
to
I didn't start the thread you moron.
I made no assertion either you moron.
Step up to the plate and address the article that Crash.

Tony

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 8:23:41 PMOct 4
to
No that is wrong. You are now officially proven to be unwilling to address
content and only interested in attacking authors that you disagree with (for
reasons you are reluctant to say).
>
>>Proof p;ositive is in this post from you.
>>Q E D
>Proof of nothing - you attacked and maligned me for asking for
>evidence
I maligned nobody and attacked nobody - your inability to comprehend simple
English is once more on show.

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 2:28:07 AMOct 5
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 00:21:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony
You did find assertions with no evidence to your liking however. If
you have no evidence, look to Crash or Gordon first . . .

>I made no assertion either you moron.
Of course you did

>Step up to the plate and address the article that Crash.
?????????
Would that be the plate you are avoiding?

Crash

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 2:31:44 AMOct 5
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 19:26:57 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Well this is the one you are avoiding:

https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu

As usual your only response so far is to attack the author - because
you are not able to do any better.
--
Crash McBash

Willy Nilly

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 2:43:00 AMOct 5
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2022, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.

As I said before, I'm expecting a *big* vote for ACT next election.
Would not surprise me at all if ACT becomes the senior partner in a
coalition with the Nats.

Crash

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 2:55:54 AMOct 5
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 06:41:46 GMT, willy...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:
No realistic chance of that. David Seymour as leader has the gravitas
of a stand-up comic. There is no-one else in ACT that has any other
significant public profile. It will take several more terms with
multiple ACT MPs for them to be taken seriously.

They have some meritorious ideas, but offered up in the certainty they
will never need to deliver.

To become a realistic political force they will have to break the
mould of minor parties: over 20% of the party vote, 2 or more
electorate MPs (pick one).


--
Crash McBash

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 3:28:29 AMOct 5
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 19:31:42 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
There is no confiscation of Water. For that assertion, I offer
the same amount of justification as Dr Brash, as well as Tony and
other posters to this thread.

John Bowes

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 3:34:54 AMOct 5
to
Your deluded Rich!

Crash

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 3:37:20 AMOct 5
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:27:19 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
Then you are a deluded fool. That's like me asserting that National
has no plans for tax cuts for those on low incomes, but they do have
plans to increase tax bracket income limits.
--
Crash McBash

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 5:05:07 AMOct 5
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:37:17 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
They certainly did last week, but I don;t think they know what they
want to do today:

Luxon had some useful meetings in the UK where he was told what to do
by the best, but now look what has happened:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/05/rightwing-thinktanks-government-bbc-news-programmes

The reality is that tax cuts will be quietly dropped, leaving National
with almost no policy except cutting wasted spending - which they
cannot identify . . .

Will Chris Bishop get his chance to try and do an "Ardern"?

JohnO

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 5:06:40 PMOct 5
to
Labour did an "Ardern" when they were tanking in the polls with an unelectable leader. Move to the present: Labour's polling has collapsed from something starting with 5 to something starting with 2 in less than a term... and the reality of runaway inflation and unaffordable mortgage interest rates hasn't even sunk into the voter's minds yet. By the time the election gets here people will be losing their homes because of 8% mortgage rates, and losing their savings because of inflation. You can smell desperation in Dickbot's post.

Labour is tanking in the polls again. It is Labour who need to do an "Ardern" as people are finally seeing through her phoney frowning, gesticulating, head-tilting, pearl-clutching and chin-holding act.

Crash

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 5:37:24 PMOct 5
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 22:03:57 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
Did you comprehend what I said? You said 'There is no confiscation of
water' in relation to the article I cited. My response about
National's plans for tax bracket adjustments not being called 'tax
cuts was intended to provide like-for-like lunacy comparison to your
confiscation statement.

Rich you have totally failed to address the article with any
meaningful rebuttal.
--
Crash McBash

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 6:22:18 PMOct 5
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 10:37:21 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
The adjustment of bands for inflation is a trivial matter. The
significant change promised by Luxon was to remove the top tax bracket
- exactly the same decision as turned to custard for the UK! He even
raised a lot of donations through a campaign at the time that clear
policy decision was made.

Luxon would not get $18,000 per year less tax on inflation adjusting
thresholds!

>
>Rich you have totally failed to address the article with any
>meaningful rebuttal.
I have stated facts, and given no less proof of those statements than
the unsupported assertions I was responding to.

Tony

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 8:05:26 PMOct 5
to
You wrongly said I started the thread - now piss off unless you are prepared
tro apologise. Moron!
>
>>I made no assertion either you moron.
>Of course you did
No "of course" I did not.
>
>>Step up to the plate and address the article that Crash.
>?????????
>Would that be the plate you are avoiding?
I am avoiding nothing but your stupidity and lies.

Tony

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 8:06:19 PMOct 5
to
You provided nothing as usual except abuse.

Tony

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 8:09:10 PMOct 5
to
You have not addressed the article. Period!
Therefore you have failed to gain back any of your almost completely depleted
credibility.

Gordon

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:13:29 PMOct 5
to
Nevertheless it does give an insite into Rich's thinking. To him, taking some
infastructure out of the peoples control and then using it to provide an
income to the taking party is not confiscation of water. After all people
with still have water and after all this is being done in response to the
North Havelock incident. So everything if satisfactory.

It is also about money (you wnat water then pay up) and power
(co-goverence) and democracy itself.

Gordon

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:24:25 PMOct 5
to
However it done slowly. These bands should be inflation adjusted in my view.

> The
> significant change promised by Luxon was to remove the top tax bracket
> - exactly the same decision as turned to custard for the UK!

No the UK tax rate was 45%, and only affected 1% of the poulation. NZ is
39%. I am sure the average British person would not think that the U turn was
custard.

> He even
> raised a lot of donations through a campaign at the time that clear
> policy decision was made.
>
> Luxon would not get $18,000 per year less tax on inflation adjusting
> thresholds!

Why oh why does Rich use Luxon as the example. It not as if it was he alone
would pay less tax with the Tax custs. So if we are going to use persons,
lets us say that the PM would not have received $18,000.

John Bowes

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:34:12 PMOct 5
to
Typical of Rich! The silly imp doesn't know what or who he's talking about most of the time. It could of course be dementia ...

John Bowes

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:36:04 PMOct 5
to
So typical of the little imp that is Rich. We have to take his word for things. He's so right he doesn't need to supply evidence for his political opinion because he's convinced that communism is the one true faith....

Rich80105

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 10:37:10 PMOct 5
to
And the average New Zealand person would not think it the right time
to do away with the 39% rate here, which is what Luxon has promised.

>
>> He even
>> raised a lot of donations through a campaign at the time that clear
>> policy decision was made.
>>
>> Luxon would not get $18,000 per year less tax on inflation adjusting
>> thresholds!
>
>Why oh why does Rich use Luxon as the example. It not as if it was he alone
>would pay less tax with the Tax custs. So if we are going to use persons,
>lets us say that the PM would not have received $18,000.

Quite possibly, but she is not proposing to benefit herself in that
way. I have merely copied what is being said by our jounalists in
different news media, who do look for people pushiing policies that
happen to enrich themselves. Some have for example berated Labour for
not removing the capital gains loophole for property on the basis that
many Labour MPs have investment properties; you could well ask why
National don't want consistent taxes on different investments, after
all their MPs on average own more investment properties.

John Bowes

unread,
Oct 6, 2022, 12:11:01 AMOct 6
to
Do you have evidence to support this Rich? Or is it just another unsupportable opinion from a compulsive and serial liar?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages