Association of Conspiracy Theorists

Written By: - Date published: 7:44 am, July 25th, 2020 - 81 comments
Categories: act, benefits, david seymour, uncategorized, welfare - Tags:

Not so long ago ACT had its campaign launch.

There were a few interesting developments.

They are proposing an unemployment insurance scheme, funded by tax.  Sounds a bit like the dole but with a tax increase and higher payments for wealthier people, at least for a while until they can pull them up by their bootstraps.

They are proposing something called “Electronic Income Management” of benefits, basically treating poor people like they can’t be trusted and regulating how they spend their benefit.

The policy says:

Electronic Income Management has been successfully trialed in Australia. It issues an electronic card with tracked spending and restrictions on alcohol, gambling, and tobacco expenditure. Almost all of the benefit comes in this form, with a small amount left in discretionary cash.

The “successfully trialed” comment should be reviewed.  This Guardian article quotes data that suggests more people were worse off than better off.

And the party’s emphasis on the freedom to own guns let Radio New Zealand’s Gyles Beckford ask this pearler of a question.

ACT’s intent to make guns an issue is showed by its selection of Nicole McKee as number 3 on its list.  On current funding if National sticks to the sweetheart deal she might make it into Parliament.

She also holds strong views on 1080 saying that she despises it.  The party policy is that alternatives be researched.

I am not sure that the good people of Epsom will be into a party that is pro gun and anti 1080.  Time will tell.

81 comments on “Association of Conspiracy Theorists ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tiger Mountain 1
    25 July 2020 at 9:18 am

    ACT? oh well, even Incels deserve political representation I guess.

  2. Sacha 2
    25 July 2020 at 9:27 am

    Wild venison, big in Epsom..

    • Graeme 2.1
      25 July 2020 at 10:38 am

      Love to see how they'd react to a plague of possums or rabbits trashing their gardens

      • weka 2.1.1
        25 July 2020 at 10:54 am

        Love to see how most NZers would react to 1080 drops in their back yard. Urban and suburban possums and rabbits can easily be controlled in other ways. Plenty of current 1080 use could be too.

        • Andre 2.1.1.1
          25 July 2020 at 10:56 am

          I'd love to have them. It would save me a lot of faffing around I do now with traps and poison.

          • weka 2.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2020 at 11:48 am

            There are serious reasons for not putting restricted poisons into areas where people live.

            Faffing around is the price we pay for safety and sustainability.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2
          26 July 2020 at 1:24 am

          Plenty of current 1080 use could be too.

          No, it couldn't. If they could then the government would already be doing it.

      • Sacha 2.1.2
        25 July 2020 at 11:02 am

        Easy, the deer scare off the smaller creatures.

  3. Patricia Bremner 3
    25 July 2020 at 9:34 am

    This attitude that poor people "don't make good decisions" is a fallacy.

    Society is fighting the hugely rich who give out feel good "bandaids" while taking gold.

    The idea that the small amount of autonomy the poor have should be controlled is cruel.

    Why isn't DS talking about the "amount" rather than pretend there are ways to direct correct spending of the mythical discretionary money?

    National and Act make great noises about "personal responsibility" but then want to remove that from the beneficiaries, not very consistent are they?

    • barry 3.1
      25 July 2020 at 5:32 pm

      Actually there is evidence that the stresses of poverty do make good decision making hard. The answer is more money rather than removing autonomy.

    • SDCLFC 3.2
      25 July 2020 at 6:57 pm

      If you want innovation and entrepreneurship, look to the poor.

      Can't stand this paternalistic BS that the poor and the have nots need the well-to-do to decide for them

      I used to work in the liquor industry and would want an almighty sledgehammer taken to our drinking culture, but it needs to smash the top first – not stigmatise those without.

      [Please stick to your existing user name, thanks]

  4. Muttonbird 4
    25 July 2020 at 10:07 am

    Why stop at Electronic Income Management? These people need to be identifiable so that honest citizens can report it if they see them buying cigarettes and alcohol.

    A Yellow Star on their chest should do it.

  5. novacastrian 5
    25 July 2020 at 10:09 am

    Social welfare support payments shouldn't be used as a lifestyle choice to derive income, which too many today view with a sense of entitlement, without having ever worked or paid taxes. Rember, its those of us that actually pay taxes that provides the government with the ability to provide social welfare payments.

    Accordingly, I applaud ACT's policy to restrict non essential items like alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

    In many instances welfare is paid to support not only the recipient, but also children, and it's the latter who generally suffer because parents flitter the welfare of alcohol, tobacco, gambling and illicit drugs. Meanwhile, the children go to school without food, uniforms and the ability to engage in a raft of sporting and extracurricular activities.

    The keyboard warriors denouncing this ACT policy, have clearly never had to deal with children who go without basics, while parents indulge themselves on unnecessary expenditure from fortnightly welfare payments.

    • aom 5.1
      25 July 2020 at 10:24 am

      Why not go full authoritarian moralist and ban the use of alcohol, tobacco and gambling by everyone. A good dose of random sterilization of tax avoiders probably wouldn't go amiss either.

      • novacastrian 5.1.1
        25 July 2020 at 10:42 am

        It's easy to deflect from the issue by attacking another's viewpoint.

        I've direct daily exposure to many families and children suffering from such welfare squandering, whereas you I suspect are sitting all cosy in front of a keyboard with a soy latte in hand.

        I pose you three questions…

        1. Buying a packet of smokes a day, or providing 3 meals daily for a child?

        2. Placing a bet on the horses, or ensuring you have money for heating the home?

        3. Purchasing a carton of beer, or ensuring you child has uniforms, footwear and books for school?

        please, show us where your moral compass points @aom

        To clarify, I'm not an ACT voter, have never voted ACT, but believe a policy of this nature will help stem endemic waste of welfare payments, in turn, improve the lives of many families and children.

        • Sacha 5.1.1.1
          25 July 2020 at 10:59 am

          endemic waste of welfare payments

          What proportion are you citing?

        • Tiger Mountain 5.1.1.2
          25 July 2020 at 11:07 am

          More “Bennie Bashing” takes us no where useful. To paraphrase an oft quoted line–there is little more queasy a spectacle than the well fed and comfortable passing judgement on how the less well off should live.

          Act is employing the sadistic neo liberal attitude to welfare. It goes back to the Ruth Richardson MOAB in 1991 which slashed benefits to a level unable to provide adequate daily nutritional levels. Richardson was advised of that by officials, but proceeded anyway. That is where the real harm was done to thousands of children, and it persists to this day.

          • I Feel Love 5.1.1.2.1
            25 July 2020 at 11:58 am

            iBenefits are taxed, as well as GST. Also benefits are a pittance, no one is living a high life on one. There's a Werewolf article from Keys days that maybe you should read, I'll go find it. Beneficiaries are easy scapegoats, I'd say you are the keyboard warrior with a latte in his/her hand, punching down.

            http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/02/ten-myths-about-welfare/ there ya go.

            • I Feel Love 5.1.1.2.1.1
              25 July 2020 at 12:19 pm

              what I also never get is if it is so easy to get money for nothing, and to be living a rich lifestyle, then why don't we all go on the dole? Sounds pretty sweet! I'm just glad it ain't the 90s anymore, the bene bashing years, they're no longer the group to gang up on like they used to be, surprised to still see this attitude here, but they're in the minority, angry dudes yelling at clouds.

        • Brigid 5.1.1.3
          25 July 2020 at 12:26 pm

          You obviously are totally ignorant of human nature where poverty and addiction is rife.

          What do you suppose should be down with these people who don't behave as you think they should?

          Jail them? Fine them?

          That'll help I'm sure.

          How on earth will stemming the endemic waste of welfare payments improve lives?

          Go put your head in a bucket and leave these people alone.

          • The Al1en 5.1.1.3.1
            25 July 2020 at 12:50 pm

            While agreeing benefit payments are too low and unsustainable to sustain a healthy way of life, under the current circumstances and financial rates of support, it could be argued that those getting welfare payments who can't/won't address their addictions, or decide smoking or drinking is a basic human right that shouldn’t have to cease, who then go on to request emergency food grants to feed themselves and children are probably doing something wrong with regards to priorities.
            In times of hardship, sacrifices have to made. For the sake of a smoke, I’d have hoped more would agree the belt tightening wouldn’t be on the children’s trousers.

            • Sacha 5.1.1.3.1.1
              25 July 2020 at 12:55 pm

              And what proportion are you citing?

              • The Al1en …
                25 July 2020 at 1:00 pm

                Just one child going hungry because their parent wants tobacco over food is enough.

                Is child welfare not something you agree with? Please, state a case why they should suffer for the sake of an addict wanting a fix.

                • Sacha …
                  25 July 2020 at 1:01 pm

                  Just one child going hungry because their parent wants tobacco over food is enough.

                  So you are prepared to victimise many families to save one hypothetical hungry child? Thank goodness we have smarter people in policy.

                  • The Al1en …
                    25 July 2020 at 1:02 pm

                    I'm not victimising anyone, but am stating some children go hungry because of their parents choices. Is that not a fact? $50, $60 taken from a small budget is a huge amount to cut from a shopping bill.
                    That, to me, is a failure of priorities. One can wait around for a government to pay claimants a liveable wage, where choices are then moot, but right now, smokers can quit and make a huge impact on the well being of their children, immediately.

                    • Sacha …
                      25 July 2020 at 1:07 pm

                      am stating some children go hungry because of their parents choices

                      You need better than 'some' to justify what is being proposed.

                    • The Al1en …
                      25 July 2020 at 1:11 pm

                      No I don't, because I haven't said anything about what's been proposed, nor have I bennie bashed, nor have I shown disdain for the unemployed.

                      I have questioned the priorities of smokers who choose smokes over food, but not because they're on the dole, but because it's common sense when money is tight to protect the young ones above all else.

                    • mpledger …
                      25 July 2020 at 1:31 pm

                      I've worked with data on alcohol consumption and the vast majority of people in the lowest decile just aren't buying alcohol (or cigarettes) i.e. beneficiaries. It's the next deciles up, where people start having disposible income, that is where the problems start.

                      And issues around alcohol are primarily a European NZ problem both in numbers and proportionately – if it's about health then targeting should be there not at beneficiaries – if you're a middle class ENZ with a drinking problem then it's quite easy to blend and hide. If it's truely about taxes then put the excise up on alcohol and cigarettes. Noone who drinks alcohol at close to the recommended level is going to even notice.

                      The whole bureaucracy of these cards is a waste of time and money – if someone wants to get around then they just swap goods – you buy the alcohol and I'll buy vegetables and then we'll swap. Or the sellers make people pay extra and misreport the transaction.

                      At a time when a lot of people are unexpectedly out of work or close to it, it says a lot about the mentality of ACT to make beneficiries a target.

                    • The Al1en …
                      25 July 2020 at 2:04 pm

                      Okay, so as said above, all people faced with a finite amount of money need to make sacrifices, especially when the choice is booze/fags or food for the children.
                      That's not a a hard concept to follow.

                      National and act are experts at targeting the unemployed.

                    • Andre …
                      25 July 2020 at 3:15 pm

                      All of that is why I'm keen on feeding kids at school. Plenty of countries manage to do it, even that bastion of deliberate government cruelty the USA. I'd be keen to go a step further and provide free school clothing as well, so kids can be sure to have at least some adequate clothing and footwear.

                      Surely we can make sure kids are guaranteed at least some of the basics, independent of how feckless their caregivers may or may not be.

                    • The Al1en …
                      25 July 2020 at 3:24 pm

                      I (everyone) had free school dinners at primary school, put me off cabbage for years and I still can’t eat spotted dick and custard, but no reason why it can't be the norm today save for the money it costs, and as investments in our future go, I'd consider it a no brainer.

        • RedBaronCV 5.1.1.4
          25 July 2020 at 1:18 pm

          It must be really tough to have to defend a policy based on one group feeling superior to another and using that power perception to bully.

          Lucky all those on welfare who all pretty much passed the last Nact drug tests aren't demanding ACT members give up their vices.

          But still

          1. Alcohol, tobacco and gambling cause harm at all levels of society. Are all ACT members going to surrender their financial interests in these industries?

          2. Wealthy individuals tend to specialise in tax avoidance – are they going to fully and honestly pay their fair share because at the moment they are highly unlikely to be funding any benefits.

          3. Are all those wealthy individuals going to submit to drug and alcohol tests or blocks on their income spending to prevent them making poor decisions about employees, partners and children or in parliament.

          Please show us which way your moral compass points

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.5
          25 July 2020 at 4:58 pm

          but believe a policy of this nature will help stem endemic waste of welfare payments, in turn, improve the lives of many families and children.

          Your belief has as much truth in it as a belief in fairies. Actually, the fairies have a higher probability of being true.

          BTW, the dividends that people get from owning shares is a greater waste than any welfare payment.

        • Bloke 5.1.1.6
          25 July 2020 at 8:31 pm

          the implicit racism and self righteousness in this post…..

    • Kevin 5.2
      25 July 2020 at 12:39 pm

      If the mandatory quarantine is anything to go by, it’s not poor people who should be having their alcohol intake monitored.

    • McFlock 5.3
      25 July 2020 at 2:10 pm

      I work and pay taxes, and I have been on the dole.

      Social security is an entitlement. People are entitled to live in dignity, and that includes the occasional light vice.

      Swipe-card paternalism won't fix the neglectful families you outline, and most families don't need it anyway – study after study shows that if you give poor families more money, is usually all goes to the kids, not the parents.

      The easy way around the cards your scenario is to give the card to someone at, say, 80% cash back value. The kids end up with even less, because the nanny-state party doesn't trust people with their own money.

    • Patricia Bremner 5.4
      25 July 2020 at 2:32 pm

      This keyboard warrior taught in a Decile 1 school for 23 years How about you? Or is your reckon based on othering?

      The benefits are set too low. Talk about that before you "other"thanks.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.5
      25 July 2020 at 4:27 pm

      Social welfare support payments shouldn't be used as a lifestyle choice to derive income, which too many today view with a sense of entitlement

      That is actually a lie.

      BTW, the biggest bludgers in the world are the capitalists who don't work and produce nothing except the destruction of society. As has happened for several thousand years.

      Rember, its those of us that actually pay taxes that provides the government with the ability to provide social welfare payments.

      1. No its not. The government can never run out of money and it can create it
      2. The biggest tax dodgers are, again, the capitalists. Biggest fraudsters as well.

      In many instances welfare is paid to support not only the recipient, but also children, and it's the latter who generally suffer because parents flitter the welfare of alcohol, tobacco, gambling and illicit drugs.

      More lies. Welfare recipients don't actually do any of that. The rich, on the other hand, do.

      EDIT:
      http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/02/ten-myths-about-welfare/

    • Gabby 5.6
      26 July 2020 at 9:36 am

      Similarly, ceos who buy alcohol should not be paid bonuses nor should their companies get government support.

  6. Barfly 6
    25 July 2020 at 10:10 am

    The Association of Callous Tyrants

    There are sadly a lot of arseholes who get their jollies from punishing people this policy is designed to win their votes.

    In one word "evil"

    • Tricledrown 6.1
      26 July 2020 at 4:57 am

      ACT are on the taxpayers teat courtesy of the National Party .

      Get rid of the loophole of being able to drag in seats from having an electorate and under 5% support.

  7. Morrissey 7
    25 July 2020 at 10:14 am

    I am not sure that the good people of Epsom will be into a party that is pro gun and anti 1080.

    The sheep of Epsom will, as ever, do precisely what they are told to do.

    • mpledger 7.1
      25 July 2020 at 1:35 pm

      The grandparents in Epsom see their grandkids suddenly out of work, not able to get jobs and not able to buy homes. They might be rich but the grandkids are having a tough time. It will be interesting to see what they choose – riches for themselves or a chance for their grandkids.

      • Sacha 7.1.1
        25 July 2020 at 1:40 pm

        More like fronting a mortgage deposit for their grandchildren vs paying taxes to support everyone else's as well. I guess we will see how much the decades of sanctioned selfishness has been eroded by our collective pandemic response.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2
        25 July 2020 at 4:48 pm

        It will be interesting to see what they choose – riches for themselves or a chance for their grandkids.

        They've always chosen riches for themselves so I doubt that that'll change.

      • Gabby 7.1.3
        26 July 2020 at 9:37 am

        Interesting, but not surprising.

  8. Sabine 8
    25 July 2020 at 12:05 pm

    Does he pay taxes?

  9. Sabine 9
    25 July 2020 at 12:10 pm

    So could we the taxpayer demand that the beige suits in parliament and on the governments tit via wages and perks have stipulated what they can and can not do with their perks ( i'll be generous and leave their wages to their own desires).

    Say, he can get a lunch re-funded as a Minister? Maybe he should only have the food refunded and any non alcoholic beverage. I don't approve of wine to be paid from my taxes. Nor do i approve of six menue dinners paid for by us the tax payers.

    So they can get their spagbowl refunded, but not the extra juicy steak with its redwine jus…..that would have to be paid by themselves.

    I guess we the tax payer could reduce our costs to feed these bottom feeders a great deal.

    • I Feel Love 9.1
      25 July 2020 at 12:23 pm

      Doesn't apply to our "betters" Sabine, I doubt the irony and double standard even occurs to them. If this pandemic has taught us anything it’s that we're all one sniffle away from calamity. But the "supermen" just think it doesn't apply to them, the real world is for other people.

    • Shanreagh 9.2
      25 July 2020 at 4:20 pm

      Unless it is changed recently PS could not claim alcohol refunds as of right. Not sure of the policy for MPS/Minister.

      Some MPs & Ministers do not claim alcohol refunds if they have paid for something. Actually some don't fully claim everything that could be due to them.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.3
      25 July 2020 at 4:50 pm

      We could help the local economy by insisting that MPs and ministers only eat from local eateries that are not foreign owned or franchises. That should limit them to the local fish and chip shop 😀

  10. Anker 10
    25 July 2020 at 12:39 pm

    Why not restrict and tax further alcohol and cigs. Both bad for everyone.
    singling our beneficiaries is disgraceful. Shame on Seymour

    • Shanreagh 10.1
      25 July 2020 at 4:16 pm

      Agree with this about upping the prices of alcohol and cigarettes.

      I too have seen the spending of money from the state spent on cigarettes, actually more than alcohol. There just does not seem to be enough to stretch to any luxuries, no matter how small, so that cigs seemed to be the best that was going. You feel a bit hopeless & helpless to be honest.

      Whether an up-tecched Nats 1990s voucher system is the best way to handle this I do not know. Intuitively the problem seems to be a lack of actual income so that hard choices do not have to be made.

      When there is a lack of income, no-one is going to give up a feel better whatever. Once the income is enough then people are more receptive to giving up these crutches and working with people to get and use nicotine patches etc.

      I have seen reported that the pool for jobs for NZers offered by ????? was diminished by those who had tested positive for drugs or alcohol, not suitable for many workplaces.

      As a single superannuitant with no extra income etc I am not looking forward to when the home energy subsidy is withdrawn once winter has passed. It was great to have the single subsidy before and this year the doubled one has seen my single income about right. I live super frugally…recycling, re-using etc camp out at my place. Those on job seeker or other benefits are on much less.

      Having a niece whose former partner would fit the 'nephs on the couch' brigade it is awful to have seen the amount that he spent on cigs, drink, drugs. He is unemployable now and fell on his feet sponging, for a time, off my niece as his benefit did not stretch to food or rent.

      If ACT proposed to deal to the payday lenders in a big way and the ubiquitous "trucks' that line up in poorer income areas the any Social Welfare policy might make more sense.

      • I Feel Love 10.1.1
        25 July 2020 at 4:33 pm

        You up the prices on ciggies and alcohol, the Act and Nats start screaming "that's war on the poor!".

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1
          25 July 2020 at 4:54 pm

          Seen more of that from those on the Left.

          • Shanreagh 10.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2020 at 5:24 pm

            Yup.

            We are head in sand though if we are trying to say the problems belong elsewhere, capitalists, low income earners.

            The hard decisions that some make are in fact cigarettes or three meals for 7 days for children. Might make one meal and hope the other meals are picked up at school or, or? Or spend on one meal of Macdonalds, overpriced rubbish, as they don't know how to cook or budget or the children are so addicted to the fat in fast food that ordinary meals taste strange to them.

            If you are addicted to cigarettes or alcohol or those plus drugs your benefit does not go far enough to put rent or food on the list. With your addiction to the alcohol/drugs you are probably unemployable anyway.

      • Descendant Of Smith 10.1.2
        25 July 2020 at 5:35 pm

        So think about the fact that super and the benefits used to be paid at the same rate.

        If you feel it is hard what about those getting so much less?

        The first thing that should happen – and Labour have had opportunities to do this over many years – would be to put the rates back to the same amount. The money spent responding to COVID and Chch both show it is a political decision – not a financial one – and don't even get me started on South Canterbury Finance – still waiting for a public list of who was paid out and when they put money in. There were people in the know who knew interest was going to be paid out.

        If I was living in abject poverty I'd probably drink as well.

        We already know some things about poverty disrupting what might be perceived as normal living patterns e.g. in abusive relationships going outside for a smoke can give some respite from being with the abusive partner or in cutting short an argument before it escalates, shopping at the petrol station around the corner with your last $30-00 after you have paid your excessive rent for some bread and some noodles (although more expensive than a supermarket) stops you from having to see people with trollies filled with groceries and meat that you can't afford and the reminder of that worsens your depression. I'd add to the mix that most people who are drug addicts on benefit got addicted while they were working/had a business. They ended up there because of their addiction – the gangs aren't making their big money from the poorest in the community. Even they will tell you that.

        • Descendant Of Smith 10.1.2.1
          25 July 2020 at 5:41 pm

          On the other hand all we have to do is follow this simple advice:

          https://www.businessinsider.com/things-people-do-2015-4?IR=T

          Excerpt:

          "The rich focus on opportunities, not obstacles.

          There once was a shoe salesman that found himself in a far-away country, trying to sell shoes to the natives. The only problem was, nobody there wore shoes and the sale was often quite difficult. The salesman soon gave up in frustration and decided to leave the area. On his way out, he met another shoe salesman. "Don't bother entering this town," said the first salesman, "These people don't even wear shoes." The eyes of the second salesman grew wide, "No one has shoes?? Then I could sell a pair to everyone in town! How fortunate we are to stumble upon an untapped market!"

          It's all a matter of perspective. The poor often see obstacles and quickly give up, while the rich see the the opportunities and enter arenas that many wouldn't dream of."

          • PaddyOT 10.1.2.1.1
            25 July 2020 at 6:40 pm

            No, that's not the message in your parable , rather, the clue is in the racist denigrating rhetoric that natives are poor and can be exploited

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1.2
            25 July 2020 at 6:49 pm

            It's all a matter of perspective. The poor often see obstacles and quickly give up,

            Not really. The obstacles are really there and they can't be shifted.

            Can't take advantage of an opportunity if you can't afford to. Can't afford smokes? Then how are the poor likely to benefit from an opportunity that they could do if they can't afford to set up the business to engage that opportunity?

            From what I can make out, the poor are kept poor so that they can't engage in a business because competition lowers profits.

            • Descendant Of Smith 10.1.2.1.2.1
              25 July 2020 at 7:13 pm

              Some of us have fond memories of the plutonomy memo that Citibank sent their investors then tried to hide for many years.

              https://delong.typepad.com/plutonomy-1.pdf

              Well, here goes. Little of this note should tally with conventional thinking. Indeed, traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that: 1) the world is dividing into two blocs – the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest. Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. What are the common drivers of Plutonomy? Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist-friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.

            • PaddyOT 10.1.2.1.2.2
              25 July 2020 at 7:48 pm

              There were thoughtful 'expert' voices on similar themes and solutions live streamed today from the "Alternative Aotearoa" conference.

              Interesting to hear many diverse perspectives from the voices of those directly affected by " the shoe salesman" system

    • Chris T 10.2
      25 July 2020 at 5:08 pm

      Kind of off topic, but I have finally decided it is time to ditch the things.

      The 30 bucks for a pack of 20 was bad enough, but the killer was having the woman who wanders round locally all day looking for fag ends, who I would normally give a cig to if I had more than then, stand in front of me till I finished so she could take the butt.

      Was a bit too depressing and eye opening.

      Champix it is I think

      • I Feel Love 10.2.1
        25 July 2020 at 5:42 pm

        good on ya Chris, my parents both smoked maybe it's why I never started, I dunno, plenty of my mates still do, never understood it, literally burning money. You'll def notice the difference, even if it's just a few extra bucks a week, thumbs up!

        • Chris T 10.2.1.1
          25 July 2020 at 5:51 pm

          yes

        • Shanreagh 10.2.1.2
          25 July 2020 at 5:56 pm

          Yes from me too. I didn't smoke generally except at parties with alcohol but did go through a time where it was my 'go to' little luxury when I was on a very small income.

          One day at a time and celebrate the milestones, set them up beforehand….one friend had a bubble bath at the end of day one just before bed…..etc etc. Others transferred the $$$ to an account to fund a little treat after so many days.

          You don't have to start saving rigorously all the money you don't use to buy cigs, that will come later…you need to be able to keep motivating yourself to stop.

          Often the adult equivalent of a stars/stickers system works for big kids just as it does for little ones. And remember that old saying about habits being changed after 7 days.

          Cheers and all the best!

          • Chris T 10.2.1.2.1
            25 July 2020 at 6:09 pm

            I don't even want to go there when it comes to how many potential holidays I could have probably afforded, burned away by a piece of plastic called Bic. It is dim to the point of insane! lol

            Oh well, What is done is done and no point in dwelling on wasted times.

      • Patricia Bremner 10.2.2
        25 July 2020 at 6:47 pm

        I went on nicotinel patches in 1990. Been smoke free for 30 years. The following may help. Say to yourself "I am a non smoker." Reward yourself for each fortnight of not smoking. Wash or air all your belongings.

        Have a nominated go-to person you can text when it gets hard, Buy Tic Tacs. Allow yourself to have one during breaks. They have hardly any sugar and are easy to carry. Especially helpful if someone else lit up.

        Good luck all the very best.

        • The Al1en 10.2.2.1
          25 July 2020 at 7:01 pm

          A couple of the good things about becoming a non smoker, health and wallet aside, happen a few weeks after you've stopped. First you actually start tasting food again – Hmm, no wonder everyone else thought my chili and curries were too hot as my spice bill plummeted, and best of all, for me, was noticing a smoker had walked past you in a non smoking environment, and thinking, shit, I must have stunk like that before.

          I'd go vape instead of patches or gum, but whatever works, works.

      • RedBaronCV 10.2.3
        25 July 2020 at 8:52 pm

        Good one . Let us know if you need a distraction- I'm sure we can think of something.

        And remember all those people who have "suggested" over the years that you give Up? Well it's your turn now. Make a list and spend at least half an hour on each boring them to tears about how you have given up etc etc…… They need to participate!

  11. xanthe 11
    25 July 2020 at 12:46 pm

    ahh those bloody flat taxers!

  12. RedBaronCV 12
    25 July 2020 at 1:01 pm

    Be more point if MP's had an alcohol block on their earnings – might stop some of the Falloon type outcomes. IIRC he was an appears to have been an ACT list candidate in 2005 and 2008.
    Seymour should have an alcohol free policy for his members.

    Or all those farmer recipients of the bovine disease assistance.

    And while I am here is that Walker MP – who leaked private data- going to resign right now rather than hang on till the election and take the taxpayer funded redundancy? I'm furious that we taxpayers are still funding this instead of Nact digging into their own coffers and he should resign right now. Why aren't the media challenging Judith on this.

  13. NZJester 13
    25 July 2020 at 2:52 pm

    Association of Conspiracy Theorists?

    I thought ACT stood for "Association of Crackpot Tories"

  14. I Feel Love 14
    25 July 2020 at 4:12 pm

    https://mobile.twitter.com/hendysh/status/1286771800601370624 according to Tweets next month ACT are hosting a Plan B Symposium with anti lockdown "experts" from USA & UK, ironic they don't go hold it in Florida or Brazil…

  15. mac1 15
    25 July 2020 at 5:13 pm

    Whenever the discussion gets to dole bludgers, I like to mention the bludgers who avoid tax to the extent of between $1.5 and $7 billion per annum in New Zealand.

    • Shanreagh 15.1
      25 July 2020 at 5:28 pm

      You don't have to be a big business bludger just set-up your vertically integrated tourism business so all profits go overseas and its perfectly legal. No hint of doing wrong in our tax laws. We need to shut these loopholes as well as delve into the tax avoiders.

  16. Stuart Munro 16
    25 July 2020 at 5:38 pm

    It's really important for ACT to focus attention on beneficiaries, and away from greedy tax-evading sons-of-bitches. That is after all their only function, they are the Advocates for Corporate Tax-evasion.

    It is even more important now, as Covid prompts a reflection on societal values and culture, that ACT prevent any mature discussion of the epic and vicious failure that was Rogergnomics and austerity in general. Their funders certainly don't pay them to serve the public interest.

  17. georgecom 17
    25 July 2020 at 7:11 pm

    what a pack of wowsers. more nanny state interfering in peoples lives. and yet another layer of costly bureaucracy dumped on the hard working kiwi taxpayer.