Core responsibilities are guns and gay bashing

"Ã¢â¬Â¦The government is justified in collecting tax revenue in order to fund its core responsibilities, such as defence and the maintenance of law and order. It is therefore pleasing to see the significant investment in the police force extracted by NZ First, which demonstrates that the government has not forgotten its core responsibilities. However, when it taxes to fund activities outside core areas of responsibility, more often than not, it transgresses its proper boundaries, thereby overtaxing hard-working families and denying society the chance to flourish on its own terms.Ã¢â¬Â¦" Ã¢â¬" Maxim 'Real Issues' 205

Health, Education, Welfare, Arts need not apply.

Update: It appears that most people utterly missed my brilliance with the title so now i need to explain the joke. Do you know how lame that is? It's really lame. Guns = defense. Gay Bashing = Police, a witty reference to the Ã¢â¬ÅIssuesÃ¢â¬Â. Ã¢â¬Åyou might want to loose the scarf, its a bit gayÃ¢â¬Â.

Comments

stan

definitely. health and education ought to be gradually privatised to gain maximum efficiency (but this can only be afforded if we have tax cuts to grow the economy), welfare needs reform - those on sickness benefits ought to remain but a time limit (ACT's policy is approx. two years) needs to be set for able-bodied workers. the DPB should not be increased if you have more than one child because parents have to be responsible for their families damn artists, they should have to fund their own projects just like any other entreprenuer government is like a Church you have to compulsorily donate to. why is it that we rely on them to be charitable by redistribution when it should be up to individuals to make a difference in their community?

Matt

health and education ought to be gradually privatised to gain maximum efficiency

You are aware of the state of, for instance, the (privatised) health system of the US?

damn artists, they should have to fund their own projects just like any other entreprenuer

How many artists do you know who would have enough business knowledge? That is, assuming that their art is commercially viable in the first place. What next? Scientists and Uni Professors have to fund their own research "just like any other entreprenuer"? Admittedly, we do have performance-based funding for research, but even that's a problem, where worthwhile (even important) long-term goals are already being ignored over short-term progress.

why is it that we rely on them to be charitable by redistribution when it should be up to individuals

Are you upset that Rodney won a seat democratically?

Clint: What the hell? How did you reach that conclusion. I thought my point was pretty clear, that being that Rodney's party is obviously not very popular, or widely respected, and that the outcome of the last election is pretty solid proof of that. My reference to his electorate was simply that, were it not for him winning that, his party would not be in parliament at all. (Compared to, say, the greens, who actually reached 5% of the party vote). Also, please, have a sense of humour. Rodney *does* look somewhat like a toad. I don't think any less of him because of it (that would be truly childish), but yes, his appearance does amuse me in my less mature moments. I suppose you don't approve of editorial cartoons either? I mean, caricature? How childish, indeed.

Brehaut

remarkable! still no opinions! nothing for me to censor! what is my feeble mind going to do? Notice how i mentioned the ad was on the back of chch busses rather than just say 'rodney looks like a toad har har'? amazingly thats important! He head was positioned near the bottom, causing it to roll under the back of the bus, distorting the image. Also, i suggest you start writing letters to all the newspapers and website that publish those horribly unflattering political cartoons in which they make hideous caricatures of beloved party members.

Mike

Whoaaaaa! Forgive me for interrupting this little muck-flinging fight, but I was under the impression that this post was about Maxim - not ACT. And moreso, not about who Rodney Hide looks like. Stan, I can see your point of view. I used to lean much more towards your side of the debate, but I have since changed my mind. Capitalism exists on the premise that if you give people the freedom to do what they want with their money, they will want to make more of it. Some (those with the education and ability) will make more. Others (those with not as much education) will not. You seem to understand a bit about economics - so no doubt you will be aware of the rugby ball - hourglass analogy of New Zealand family income streams. Basically a couple of decades ago, the majority of New Zealanders were in about the middle income bracket. Now, for whatever reason this has changed to an hourglass shape - with more people in the extremes of the income spectrum. This constitues a problem, as under traditional right-wing policies, this is only going to get worse. If education is privatised, what you end up with is rich kids at good schools and poor kids at bad schools. The good schools are good because they have more money to throw at things like hiring good quality teachers and having up to date amenities. This creates a disparity, as the kids from poor families grow up with less education than the kids fron rich families. In this economy - education means a better paying job (on the whole). They grow up and have kids, and because they're not so well off financially, their kids go to bad schools, and grow up just like their parents. I was initially a bit of a sceptic of the Labour government's "closing the gaps" policies, but now that I think about it, it kind of makes sense. If we end up with a binary population of educated and rich, and uneducated and poor, then the country will not function as well as it could. You could however say that the poor uneducated people can just fend for themselves, but to do that would turn this from a political/economic debate into a moral one. (And I suspect reveal more about a person's character than their politics). Personally - I think that instead of giving tax cuts, the government would do much better to use the money to put into community education about how to use money more effectively. I'm from the North Island, and it is terrifying to see some of the communities up there and see how much personal debt affects people's lives. Companies like DTR and the innumerable finance institutions have a stranglehold on the middle to low income bracket. The "buy now - pay later" mentality means that in a lot of cases these families are getting themselves further and further into debt... all so they can have a flash car or a fancy cellphone. Take a drive through the poorest districts of South Auckland sometime. You'll see people struggling to pay for power and groceries, but every house has a Sky dish on the roof. I hate to say it but giving people with little or no financial sense more money makes about as much sense as giving a monkey a loaded gun. Yes, they might do something useful with it, but more than likely it will only make the problem worse.

stan

IÃ¢â¬â¢ve always found it hilarious how ready people are to believe Ã¢â¬Åfix the economy and everything else will magically fix itselfÃ¢â¬Â. ItÃ¢â¬â¢s like itÃ¢â¬â¢s a silver bullet or something. It also sounds kindof like salesman talk Ã¢â¬Åfor one small payment of reducing taxes you can getÃ¢â¬Â¦ Ã¢â¬Â. are you willing to rebut any of it? explain why tax cuts will not result in more investment. explain why tax cuts will not give workers more incentives to get ahead. explain why tax cuts will not result in employers having lower costs to run their business. i think it's sad how you think it's hilarious, considering it makes such a difference to people's lives WeÃ¢â¬â¢ve had lower taxes in the past and if they really provided the 1001 promised magical benefits for everyone and created a utopia, then the government that lowered the taxes would still be in power. Guess what? The promised utopia didnÃ¢â¬â¢t happen. you know why it didn't happen, 'cos Roger Douglas was kicked out of the Labour party before he was able to impose the 20c flat tax rate. but you know what he DID do (along with Richard Prebble and Ruth Richardson)? remove taxpayers funded subsidies for the national agricultural sector so that overseas markets were able to enter the market and compete (resulting in lower prices for consumers). he also removed trade barriers which although were good for the local companies created a deadweight loss so that the nation's marginal profits were essentially a redistribution of wealth from the consumer to the producer (as opposed to wealth coming in from overseas). privatise the Think Big projects of Muldoon which were inefficiently run by the State because they were costing so much we had to borrow for welfare and transform them into a cost efficient private enterprises at no cost to the taxpayers (NZ Post, Rail, as examples). inflation (increases in prices) was at 15% so he introduced monetary policy (Reserve Bank Act) which decreased it down to 3%. and believe it or not, there were tax cuts (as you say) where the top rate was cut from 66% to 39%. this resulted in the 1001 benefits i explained above. so tell me, have you asked your parents about the Muldoon era and the State of the nation's wealth back in those days? are the benefits of economic growth which we reap today not a utopia compared to a country in debt? this progress has been stalled by big spending governments such as the National/NZ First coalition in the mid 90s and current Labour administration, which focus on redistributing the economic pie, rather than increasing it. i'm not saying there shouldn't be redistribution, but at the moment the tax take is too high, and productivity and growth aren't increasing as fast as it can. why is that government no longer in power? because the remains of the 4th Labour government are now in a 2% party and no-one believes in them. your argument is invalid because majority rules is not always correct. do you believe in Jesus, and if so, if He is the King of all Kings and can offer so much hope and salvation how come only a relatively small percentage of NZers are believers? does that mean He's wrong? Lol! Yeah, those non-Christians are totally ignorant of how easy it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (Mat 19:23-24) because they havenÃ¢â¬â¢t read the Bible and so donÃ¢â¬â¢t realise that justification is by faith alone (James 2:24) and that our eternal state does not depend on us being good (Rom 2:6-10). IsnÃ¢â¬â¢t it great that we Christians read the bible and so know betterÃ¢â¬Â¦ well what are you saying? that we Christians don't know better? and even so, does that make the fact that we are saved by grace, despite many thinking that it's by works, wrong? Ooooh censorshipÃ¢â¬Â¦ thatÃ¢â¬â¢s rather right wing of you Brehaut. this depends really. take race for example. left-wing liberalism will say racism is wrong and should be outlawed. right-wing/classical liberalism says you are free to choose whether you want to be racist (subject to the "harm" principle). you are thinking of conservative right, ie. National. ACT are liberal right The fact is, Stan, that for all your Ã¢â¬Åproof for your claims,Ã¢â¬Â this country seems to, on the whole, disagree. Mr ToadÃ¢â¬â¢s HideÃ¢â¬â¢s party is only in parliament because he won his electorate. On the party vote, he gained significantly less than the greens Ã¢â¬" I believe that tells us something. (Of course, you *could* claim the the majority of this country is stupidÃ¢â¬"and I wonÃ¢â¬â¢t be surprised if you doÃ¢â¬"but we seem to be relatively healthy economically at the moment, and this after two-and-some-terms of Left Wing Tyranny Ã¢âÂ¢. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. yes, the proof is in the pudding. economic growth is slowing down as a result of Labour's policies of spending and redistribution. the reason we have been economically healthy is because of the past reforms. policy effects on economic growth do not happen overnight. if you lower taxes, companies take time to develop their businesses and reap the benefits. the impact of a high tax system gradually slows their growth as they are unable to compete with overseas companies that are developing at a faster rate. name one Labour policy that increases economic growth. arguably raising a beneficiaries' standard of living will allow more people into the workforce - but why do we have so many on welfare? because there isn't enough incentive for them to get off welfare, and not enough companies are there to employ them because they can't afford them. and i know the employment statistics are high at the moment, but they do not take into account disability beneficiaries, which have increased by 60,000 over the last 6 years Labour have been in power. is this because of a change in welfare regulations, or have we all of a sudden got a lot more sicker people in the nation than there previously was? and also the DPB, are we oblivious to the fact that when it was introduced single parenting has increased? tell you what, NZ is currently 41st in the OECD competitiveness rankings, AU is 6th. the wage gap has increased from around 20% to over 30%. yes, we have experienced growth during this Labour administration (although economically not attributable to them, and also there are outside factors such as an influx of US immigration and investment after the terrorist attacks), but we could have experienced much higher growth if we allowed the production sector to grow along with the country's growth Feel free to weight in on maxims policies, or perhaps the implications of a christian organization saying that money should not be spent on help the poor, the sick or the underprivileged. is that so Brehaut? well i haven't had a look at their policies in depth but i'm sure they support private charities rather than government charity. i doubt they advocate that individuals ought not to spend money on helping the poor. by the way where do you get off saying it shouldn't be spent on the sick or underprivileged? please give us an example of where Maxim have stated this. you know Jesus said we should help the poor and disadvantaged, you know who the bad guys were back in those days - tax collectors who gave money to the Pharisees to win favour with them. do you know who Labour are bribing, middle income earners with welfare packages and students with no interest on student loans - do we need this money more than the beneficiaries? does a family who texts their daughter who is sitting on the couch in the living room to call her for dinner need that money more? Clint: What the hell? How did you reach that conclusion. I thought my point was pretty clear, that being that RodneyÃ¢â¬â¢s party is obviously not very popular, or widely respected, and that the outcome of the last election is pretty solid proof of that. My reference to his electorate was simply that, were it not for him winning that, his party would not be in parliament at all. (Compared to, say, the greens, who actually reached 5% of the party vote). let's discuss the Greens then. what are their policies for the economy? Buy Kiwi Made? that's the only one i can think of off the top of my head. well so we should not buy clothes from the Warehouse because they are imported. we should all pay for highly priced local goods. that way our local producers can make more money, despite the fact that consumers can buy them cheaper from overseas, despite the fact that we are supporting something that cannot give us the best results. think of it this way - we can buy bread from the bakery, or from the supermarket. although by doing this we are supporting the baker's family, we are effectively not allowing the market to determine what it can produce at a low cost. we are supporting the bakery at the expense of prosperity. reducing trade. why should NZ clothes/primary resource producers ever want to get into tertiary markets (eg. computers, other high technology markets) when we can always rely on the consumer to support our low level production? but by the way, ACT's policies have always been to have a flat tax of 20% since 1996 when they entered Parliament, and before that as the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers think tank. one law for all NZers regardless of race. welfare reform. tougher sentencing on crime instead of paroling to solve the prison costs issue (considering most jailed criminals are reoffenders). National took on all these policies in the 2005 election, despite not promoting this in 2002 under Bill English, but look at how the nation voted. it's similar to a small town pastor preaching about the good news of Christ, only a few hear the message and accept it. then all of a sudden someone famous becomes a Christian, a whole bunch of their fans will start thinking about it. so ACT may only be on 2% now, but their policies have made it into the mainstream Stan, I can see your point of view. I used to lean much more towards your side of the debate, but I have since changed my mind. good on you, because the more you mature the more you find the right view. this cannot happen with suppression Capitalism exists on the premise that if you give people the freedom to do what they want with their money, they will want to make more of it. Some (those with the education and ability) will make more. Others (those with not as much education) will not. You seem to understand a bit about economics - so no doubt you will be aware of the rugby ball - hourglass analogy of New Zealand family income streams. Basically a couple of decades ago, the majority of New Zealanders were in about the middle income bracket. Now, for whatever reason this has changed to an hourglass shape - with more people in the extremes of the income spectrum. the reason many are unable to come out of the lower income bracket is because there are no opportunities for them besides relying on welfare. there are no opportunities because there is not enough investment This constitues a problem, as under traditional right-wing policies, this is only going to get worse. If education is privatised, what you end up with is rich kids at good schools and poor kids at bad schools. The good schools are good because they have more money to throw at things like hiring good quality teachers and having up to date amenities. This creates a disparity, as the kids from poor families grow up with less education than the kids fron rich families. In this economy - education means a better paying job (on the whole). They grow up and have kids, and because theyÃ¢â¬â¢re not so well off financially, their kids go to bad schools, and grow up just like their parents. i have addressed this in my post above (3rd, i think) - if the country's wealth as a whole is increased, the general standard of schools will increase. you can look to poor countries and look at their State run school systems - it is the standard of the country's economy that affects the standard of schools - and privatisation is the ideal eventual outcome because everyone will be able to afford it. going to one school in one area will be like buying vegetables from one shop instead of another - there will be little difference in price because of the competition. education will be a "necessity" product (such as food, which takes up a small proportion of income), rather than a "luxury" product (such as boats) as it is now because private schools are rare, and that the people who can afford private schools currently not only have to pay for their private education, but also pay tax to fund the State system, which is why only the very rich can afford private schooling I was initially a bit of a sceptic of the Labour governmentÃ¢â¬â¢s Ã¢â¬Åclosing the gapsÃ¢â¬Â policies, but now that I think about it, it kind of makes sense. If we end up with a binary population of educated and rich, and uneducated and poor, then the country will not function as well as it could. You could however say that the poor uneducated people can just fend for themselves, but to do that would turn this from a political/economic debate into a moral one. (And I suspect reveal more about a personÃ¢â¬â¢s character than their politics). yes, redistribution helps but the point is, this current Labour government is sitting on a surplus. this surplus is not being spent on welfare, health, education - it's there for Michael Cullen to sit on. i would agree with you if current spending cannot be afforded but the fact is that there is a surplus and have been for the past few years, and the government is taking more than it needs, which stops the money being used elsewhere to progress the economy. and it's not just the rich that benefit from tax cuts, in addition to all the factors i've explained previously (investment, jobs, etc) when middle income earners have more money to spend they will spend more at shops, increasing the shops profits as well Personally - I think that instead of giving tax cuts, the government would do much better to use the money to put into community education about how to use money more effectively. IÃ¢â¬â¢m from the North Island, and it is terrifying to see some of the communities up there and see how much personal debt affects peopleÃ¢â¬â¢s lives. Companies like DTR and the innumerable finance institutions have a stranglehold on the middle to low income bracket. The Ã¢â¬Åbuy now - pay laterÃ¢â¬Â mentality means that in a lot of cases these families are getting themselves further and further into debtÃ¢â¬Â¦ all so they can have a flash car or a fancy cellphone. Take a drive through the poorest districts of South Auckland sometime. YouÃ¢â¬â¢ll see people struggling to pay for power and groceries, but every house has a Sky dish on the roof. I hate to say it but giving people with little or no financial sense more money makes about as much sense as giving a monkey a loaded gun. Yes, they might do something useful with it, but more than likely it will only make the problem worse. yes that is sad, but do you really think the way to help those poor people is to sustain them through welfare? they can't get out of that situation unless there are opportunities for them, and there won't be opportunities without increased business. i don't know what you mean by having a flash car and struggling to pay groceries - if you have to pay for necessities like that why would you have sky? what welfare does, from what i've seen in poor communities like Washington Valley in Nelson, is they rely on benefits all their lives, don't bother getting a job because there is no time limit on benefits, and their kids are raised on welfare, and then their kids go on it when they grow up 'cos it's what their parents did, they drop out of school and do drugs and spend their benefit money on drugs 'cos they get the money free with no obligations from the government, and have no sense of responsibility because it's not going to be taken away from them, and it's sad to see an endless cycle like that. Labour claim they care about those people... but what are they doing? they're spoiling them. and they don't wanna go to Church, like the Salvation Army, they only come in when they've spent their money on drugs and can't afford food so they take it free from the Sallies, and we give it to them... but they don't stay, we can't help them 'cos they just go away and don't feel like they have a responsibility to make a difference in their lives, to change, we offer them work but they're like nah it means we'll have to start doing something instead of doing nothing and getting free money (although there is lots of benefit fraud too where you get money from the government and work under the table) yes redistribution is necessary. but responsible redistribution - welfare for those in need. work for the dole for able-bodied workers. DPB for parents currently with children - they can't just keep reproducing and thinking they can afford it because the government will support them - they have to think that if they want a family they will have to be able to provide for themselves first. students don't need interest free student loans. middle income families don't need tax rebates. the government monopoly cannot just keep being subsidised - eventually we will lose our doctors to overseas hospitals where they will get paid more anyway, in case this post gets deleted read it and debate it at jesuscrux.blogspot.com (if you delete this Andrew i'd appreciate it if you directed people here)

stan

by the way, great post Mike, you get down to the issues and give sensible reasons why Left-wing ideology helps. i guess the only flaw i am debating is the fact that the current Left-wing government in this country is saying they need more, that the balance between how much money the government has (to use and develop but not use irresponsibly and wastefully) and how much the people have is not right

Clint

Um, I'm lost here. Who did that 2nd last post before me? Whoever it is I am interested (and agree) with their comparisons in the poverty in Nelson, and wonder how they know this... I have just come back to NZ and am fired up after seeing how Labour have abandoned their voters and left the poor unable to empower themselves OUT of poverty. Instead Labour want to trap even more NZers into the welfare net through WFF. But at least we are being more rational here..top job!

Mike

Stan - Your post comment was quite long and in depth - I would like to resopnd to one part of it however: do you really think the way to help those poor people is to sustain them through welfare? they canÃ¢â¬â¢t get out of that situation unless there are opportunities for them, and there wonÃ¢â¬â¢t be opportunities without increased business. i donÃ¢â¬â¢t know what you mean by having a flash car and struggling to pay groceries - if you have to pay for necessities like that why would you have sky? I may not have made myself clear on this point, I don't think that the solution is to sustain people through welfare. I view welfare as a temporary measure in the majority of cases to help people while they look for work. In saying that, you really don't get that much money on welfare. I think that you would be doing very well if you could live comfortably on it - I see two of the biggest problems as credit and lack of financial education. I quite liked the way that you phrased your comment.. "if you have to pay for necessities like that why would you have sky?". The simple reason for that is that a lot of people haven;t been given the education to deal with money well. It is a serious problem. In your drive around South Auckland, as well as Sky dishes, you will also see Xboxes and plasma TVs. It doesn't take a lot to see why this happens. If you worked a crummy low-paying job (like at a meatworks, or driving a forklift.. take your pick) that only just managed to support your family, you'd feel a bit put out that you couldn't afford the big plasma screen TVs like you see on Shortland St. So you go out and buy one on finance, or hire purchase. The TV might be worth $4000 (say). After you factor interest and repayments on that the price will be closer to $8000 (This real cost is of course hidden and obscured in small print. I went into DTR the other day because I liked the look of a CD player I saw there. They actually wouldn't give me a total price for it - all they had was a "per week cost". They were even evasive when I asked how long the repayment term was.) But in the meantime, you have this TV and for a brief while you feel successful and affluent - proud even that you can "afford" this TV for your family. But in the meantime, your budget is straining under the load of your repayments to the loan company, so you work longer hours to pay them off, which makes you feel even more depressed, so you go out and buy an Xbox or whatever. The cycle continues, so you go and get one of those credit cards and load that up, and then you "consolidate your debt into one easy loan". On and on until the repo people start taking your stuff away, by which time, due to the miracle of depreciation your TV is only worth $1000 and you end up $7000 out of pocket for a TV you don't have. As I said before - it's a lack of education. I think that programs like sorted.co.nz are great because they help people avoid being caught in traps like that. I would like to see more government funding put into more initiatives along those lines. In regard to your comment about employment - I completely agree that people need to have opportunities to work so they don't have to be on the dole. I concede that investment in the business community is a big part of that. However, unemployment is at the lowest it has been in NZ in the last 15 years. I think we're around 4%?? (Please feel free someone to look that up and quote a more accurate figure). I would argue that in the majority of cases it's not a lack of jobs that is the problem. (Some small Northland towns excepted). Industry is screaming for apprentice builders and plumbers. Heck, they make so much that I might even take up a hammer one summer. It's a culture thing - and I stuggle to see how tax cuts will change that. I would be most interested to hear any ideas you might have.

Greg

Hahahahahaha this is all too much. Brehaut, you've created a monster! Good to see that some rational discussion is poking its head above the trenches, lets hope the mud slingers have beaten a retreat.

Clint

Unemployment has gone down, but you do know that much of this has been soaked up into the sickness benefit. Labour cannot empower people out of benefits if the people don't want to get out of the cycle. And I'm speaking from plenty of experience. Tax cuts can help. Firstly it allows families more autonomy to look after their own affairs, getting people off the Govt teat is important. Less Govt meddling in our personal and family affairs will free up expenditure on those who really need it. I am still struggling to understand why WFF is giving money to people earning up to $100,000. Since when did Govt think these people need a handout?

Fraser

La vida e bella, no? I like the starfish analogy...

Andrew W

Stan, are you willing to rebut any of it? explain why tax cuts will not result in more investment. explain why tax cuts will not give workers more incentives to get ahead. explain why tax cuts will not result in employers having lower costs to run their business. Sure, IÃ¢â¬â¢m happy to tell you why itÃ¢â¬â¢s wrong onceÃ¢â¬Â¦ 1. People often forget that the government is the biggest spender. Tax cuts = govt has less money = govt spends less money. The idea that tax cuts leave more money in peopleÃ¢â¬â¢s pocket for them to spend is irrelevant because that money would be spent anyway by the government. Tax cuts are not thereby adding more money to the system. If youÃ¢â¬â¢ve studied even highschool history youÃ¢â¬â¢ll know that the solution that consistently worked for the depressing of the 1930s was for governments to increase their spending. Rich individuals with a lot of money tend to invest it carefully to get more for themselves, whereas governments tend to splash spend and the latter is far better for economic growth as it pours money back into the system rather than trying to take it out. 2. The idea that workers need tax cuts as an incentive to get ahead is hilarious. No one is going to turn down a $4000 or $10,000 salary raise no matter what the level of taxes are. Regardless of what the taxes are they still get more money. 3. I just canÃ¢â¬â¢t understand how you think lower taxes = employers having lower costs to run their business. Do you mean that employers could pay their employees less because less is going in tax to the government? But in that case the employees arenÃ¢â¬â¢t seeing much gain from these tax cuts are?! YouÃ¢â¬â¢re just reducing their total salary to remove tax cuts. From the employeeÃ¢â¬â¢s point of view the part of their salary that was going to the government to fun things like free health care and education is now going to their employer. As an employee, I would NOT be happy about that happening. remove taxpayers funded subsidies for the national agricultural sector so that overseas markets were able to enter the market and compete (resulting in lower prices for consumers). he also removed trade barriers which although were good for the local companies created a deadweight loss so that the nationÃ¢â¬â¢s marginal profits were essentially a redistribution of wealth from the consumer to the producer (as opposed to wealth coming in from overseas). Translation of your paragraph thereÃ¢â¬Â¦ they (a) screwed over local farmers in favour of foreigners. Well at least the consumers got lower prices rightÃ¢â¬Â¦ oh but wait, because local business had been screwed over they didnÃ¢â¬â¢t have as much money from their jobs now, so the lower prices were effectively similar to the old ones. Net effect of action = give our money to foreigners. (b) Removed trade barriers, screwing over the local businesses some more, all in an effort to steal money from overseas countries. well what are you saying? that we Christians donÃ¢â¬â¢t know better? and even so, does that make the fact that we are saved by grace, despite many thinking that itÃ¢â¬â¢s by works, wrong? IÃ¢â¬â¢m a Christian theologian Stan. IÃ¢â¬â¢m amused by your statement that because you read the Bible you know youÃ¢â¬â¢re saved by grace not works. ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s not at all what the Bible says, itÃ¢â¬â¢s just what youÃ¢â¬â¢ve been taught to believe the bible says. Check out the verses I quoted for starters. Client, Unemployment has gone down, but you do know that much of this has been soaked up into the sickness benefit. Yes, I do. I had a good look at the figures last year because someone then made the same claim. The answer is: Very few of those have gone into the sickness benefit. The total number of beneficiaries has been decreasing. The sickness benefit has increased due to its criteria being widened by National a decade ago.

peterquixote

jeez Rueben thank for explaining your meaning in the title. You give your readers no credit, and you give yourself none. the guy with the scarf Rueben wasn't just gay he was an obiously registered fucking effeminate whining faggot for chriusts sake, so, does NZ want him in the force,

peterquixote

I notice you decsribe yourself as , narrow minded, belligerent, immature, pinko-commie-hippy-liberal-lefty with a fragile mind who can't handle anything that contradicts his ignorant and ill-informed view of the world. not good Ruby, not good,

Matt

obiously [sic] registered fucking effeminate whining faggot

by the way Andrew you realise you've contradicted yourself by saying there's something inequitable about the US being against free trade with China. you were the one advocating that we should do everything to protect local producers - here you are saying there is something wrong with the US doing this by preventing China's prosperity and the benefit to their own consumers yeah, you're right Matt... i wish i was more concise! unfortunately i have 3 assignments on at the moment and putting effort into editing them and making them make sense takes priority! if anyone is getting confused about what i'm saying and would like better explanations with well-researched evidence and statistics etc. (because it isn't "just theory" as some of you say it is, i just don't have time to rewrite a textbook about economic history and its material results) i'm happy to send them ACT's (detailed) policy books, e-mail jesuscrux@hotmail.com

Brehaut

Ã¢â¬ÅJesus would have supported ACTÃ¢â¬Â

Yes, because jesus was all about economics and supporting the fat cats, and definitely not about paying taxes without complaint. Something about Ã¢â¬ËGive to Caesars what is Caesars...Ã¢â¬â¢ no wait, it's gone. Oh, sorry you're talking about Supply Side Jesus, i missed that somehow. Carry on, you're totally right.

Mike

Stan - I'm impressed that you have the time to write such verbose comments given how overworked you claim to be. :) Hurrah for procrastination!

Rodney Grub

Hey Stan. Keep sticking it up them. You are a true ACT man. Never give the pinkos an inch. Love to join the debate, but I must get back to the dance floor. By the way, is Parliament sitting next week? I'd really like some more time off as I just love all this extra exposure I'm getting. What is the ratio of people who watch question time to those who watch Dancing with the Stars?

Matt

I was amused to read a particular Letter to the Editor in the press yesterday. The writer, an Australian on holiday in New Zealand, said that the current "Australia is better than New Zealand because of lower tax" fuss is bollocks. In fact, he said, the Australian health system in particular is suffering greatly as a result, is in a shambles, and (I quote) "waiting list times are at an all-time high." So, maybe lower taxes and privatisation aren't the golden bullet eh?

Angus

Wow, this conversation has gone quite far in my absence! FWIW I'm posting this from Australia :). Just some random points: 1) Stan, I agree with the conciseness thing, and can you also italicise sections you quote. I found it very difficult to figure out what you were quoting in a conversation of this length. 2) Companies do pay tax on profits, not income. That's why they report EBITDA (Earnings Before Income Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation) -- you take depreciation/amortisation/expenses/etc off your income before paying tax on the remainder. I've done accounting at school and just submitted a company tax report this last weekend, so I hope my understanding is correct! 3) Public education is a good thing as like healthcare, those whom will derive the most benefit compared to the affordable alternative are those who can afford the alternatives least. 4) The "rising tide carries all boats" and "supply side" theories are interesting. They don't seem to be working too well in the USA at the moment -- by most accounts the US is leaning more towards the hourglass than the rugby ball. On the other hand Ireland has been doing pretty well for itself since its tax cuts. 5) I think NZ could indeed stand for some tax cuts across all brackets (it does bug me how the kid in the Working For Families advert has an iPod, for crying out loud!) but the "20% flat tax" and "no income tax just GST" schools of thought are probably overkill given the level of service we as a country expect from the government; tax cuts of that degree would have to be accompanied by at least some privatisation/cutbacks, I suspect. 6) Have fun everyone :).

Greg

Ok that didn't work... http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/gallery/photo/0,2540,237605,00.jpg

Tony

"National didnÃ¢â¬â¢t sell a shit load of government assets - the 4th Labour government did. National was responsible for the creation of the SOEs, tryin....." You seem to do this a lot. Your argument, while quite cohesive, actually had very little to do with the issues I put forth. The "free market crap" I put forth was the power companies...didn't want to touch that one did you? The beauty of SOEs is that they must respond to public pressure, even if in a monopolistic market. Thats better than a free-market oligopoly e.g. petrol stations - notice they all move their prices at once? Jesus is a revolutionary, a Messiah and considering he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Root of David and shall rule from the seat of David; He is the ultimate monarch. Why would he support a democratic party, let alone one that styles its self after Robbin' Good "Steals from the poor and gives to the rich" camels needles rich men and all that?

stan

been reading your posts and links to other blogs, i don't really have time to reply 'cos besides having to study full time and working i feel like youse have been ignoring most of the points i'm making, and taking selective bits of what i say and turning it into something it's not - for example linking to that supply side Jesus cartoon with him ignoring the lepers, and saying that ACT would "take from the poor to give to the rich", what the heck, completely ignores all the welfare policies i've discussed and why the current system doesn't work, and all i've said about surpluses and excess tax take, it's like painting a picture of God being all angry and ignoring the fact that Jesus' death has already been preached, and basing all your arguments on the assumption that economic theories don't work yet putting all your trust into the "constant supply of money redistribution theory" - you say give to Caeser what's his, well if you trust Caeser to be the best provider and not the people and community

stan

oh yeah i didn't mean your post though Angus, thanks for a sensible reply

Tony

I feel this comment on the Tragedy of the Commons Myspace sums everything up: "Sometimes if people are making inappropriate noises they must be out done. ie: Culprit: ahhagh Hero: BAAHHH! Culprit: Ahhhagh! Hero: BAAAAAGHHHHHH!!"