Bouncing from cloud to idiot cloud

21 comments on “Bouncing from cloud to idiot cloud ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Concerned of Tawa 1

   24 April 2009 at 6:46 am

   Great post! John Key = very bad man.
   • Maynard J 1.1

     24 April 2009 at 10:15 am

     Great Comment: Concerned of Tawa = much insightful.
2. jcuknz 2

   24 April 2009 at 8:36 am

   Article? You are as bad as RNZ News talking about freight train ‘carraiges’ being derailed on the NIMT …. or yachties ‘stranded’ in the middle of the Pacific Ocean …. URRGH!
3. TightyRighty 3

   24 April 2009 at 8:50 am

   I noticed phil goff called it “creating two classes in society” by not offering a nine-day fortnight to the public sector. no wonder he’s viewed by the voting public. Labour, of which phil has been a member of right through, has done that for nine years.

   those who get welfare, middle class or otherwise, and those who pay for it. or those who suck on the public teat, and those who have to have their teat sucked involuntarily. what a git. not surprised you left that doozy out of this piece.
   • ripp0 3.1

     24 April 2009 at 9:42 am

     TR,

     do I read you as laudable support for public, as in public anythings(modesty and maturity omitting your 4-letter word).. ?
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     24 April 2009 at 10:56 am

     The only reason why we have welfare is because of the capitalists.
4. TightyRighty 4

   24 April 2009 at 9:38 am

   terrible sentence construction on that last comment. should have read “no wonder the voting public view as a non-entity.”
   • BLiP 4.1

     24 April 2009 at 10:17 am

     yep – terrible sentence construction and complete lack of sense.
     • TightyRighty 4.1.1

       24 April 2009 at 10:36 am

       oh yes, thats right, anyone who takes an opposing view here is lacking in sense. argue the topic you blight on the landscape.
   • Maynard J 4.2

     24 April 2009 at 11:03 am

     It wasn’t just the sentence, TR, the whole bloody comment was terrible – you reckon welfare is the cause of a two-class society apparently. Maybe you’re right, without welfare there would be a few more than two classes. The newly created ones wouldn’t be much fun. I guess you’re implying without welfare there would only be one class – how so?

     People working in the public service, whatever you think of what they do, should have at least the minimum support given to the private sector by the govt. Should we stop anyone in a govt dept call centre from getting tax cuts or the IETC because we (read: National) hate them?
     • TightyRighty 4.2.1

       24 April 2009 at 11:13 am

       i have no problem with welfare as a sefety net. i do not approve of middle class welfare like working for families. it’s discriminatory against those who work just as hard, yet maybe through nature or otherwise cannot have children. i don’t see why those without kids should have to pay extra tax to give middle class kids ipods.
       • Maynard J 4.2.1.1

         24 April 2009 at 12:08 pm

         So you want a punitive abatement rate for WFF. Ok. That’s pretty demotivating though, as Bill said (when he was telling some fashionable ‘young nat’ that Johnny didn’t understand it).

         If you don’t have a kid, then by definition you don’t work as hard, but that’s a flawed view from the outset – WFF isn’t recompense for hard work.

         If you’re going to reduce WFF to some form of glorified ipod distribution scheme there’s not much point talking with you about it. But I’ll inject some stats in to see if your jest bears out:

         You, TightyRight are now working 40 hours a week at a paper mill. You are paid $47,000, $22 or so an hour. Not bad, mate. Anyway, Mrs Righty is at home with the two Master and one Miss Righties.

         You get $227 from WFF, which is pretty good. Pretty much means youpay no tax. But your $900 a week goes down to $500 with a mortgage, $350 after utilities, rates and such. $350 becomes $100 after you’ve fed the Righty Clan. $100 a week will buy an ipod every four weeks, if’ you’re after a 120GB classic, or 8GB Touch, if you have no incidentals, are adequately clothed and groomed, and forgo any form of entertainment expenditure, and don’t need to save for anything like a fridge or a holiday to see Grandma Righty back home. If TightyRighty spent the family’s $100 a week on ipods, Mrs Righty might not be so thrilled.

         Of course, sans WFF, you’re going to be $127 short on your food bill, or power bill, or whatever bill is more avoidable, and would have to sell one ipod every three weeks or so, assuming you keep all the money and got it for free off the back of a truck to make ends meet.

         Maybe we should leave ipods out of it.
         • jarbury 4.2.1.1.1

           24 April 2009 at 12:20 pm

           Excellent response. WFF is a crucial policy in that it helps those who need it most. It has reduced child poverty more than any other government policy ever I think, and encourages people to work while also making it possible for parents to actually stay at home and raise their kids, rather than having to dump them in day-care from when they’re a few weeks old.
         • TightyRighty 4.2.1.1.2

           24 April 2009 at 1:45 pm

           well, in your pleasant little calculation, you seem to be inferring that the taxpayer who does not overstretch themselves should be made to pick up the bills of those who do.

           if, as you say, this one income household household has a mortgage bill of over 1/3 of their gross income alongside three kids, then i would say whoever gave them budget advice, bank included for overselling them on the mortgage, needs a stern talking to. i don’t see why i should have to save for an extended period for my own property when i am subsidising those who have overstretched going for theirs. thats a harsh penalty for living within my means.

           edit: wff originally was advertised as being for the families who could afford ipods. so lets bring ipods into it.
         • Maynard J 4.2.1.1.3

           24 April 2009 at 2:05 pm

           Don’t worry, TR, chances are you’re being equally subsidised by a whole lot of other people, you are also eligible for WFF should you have a kid yourself, and the added productivity to our nation from ensuring our kids are well brought up will more than make up for it, if you can allow yourself to think past the next few pay cheques. Think of it as a personal investment in some slaves who will pay your super bill in a few decades, if you only ever consider yourself and can’t think beyond that.

           Sure, stick to the ipods if your views on government policy are dictated to you by people in advertising and what you see on tv. They are also people (according to you, as per your views programmed by saachi and saachi) who have couches, and dinner, from reasonably nice dinnerware. Dinnerware!! Bastards!!
5. infused 5

   24 April 2009 at 10:43 am

   blip could never do that.
   • BLiP 5.1

     24 April 2009 at 11:28 am

     Infused, you’re confused – how are things in your beloved service sector, the one you said was expanding? Ooops, was that another of example of BLiP arguing the topic. Would you like some more examples or do you prefer to snipe?
6. jarbury 6

   24 April 2009 at 1:52 pm

   Tighty Righty, make it too financially difficult for people to have kids and you end up in a situation where your country’s birth-rate is 1.2 and you’re facing population decline in a few decades. Whose taxes are going to pay your pension and required future healthcare?
7. TightyRighty 7

   24 April 2009 at 1:59 pm

   I will, nobodies taxes will be required thank you very much. through saving for my own retirement and having enough to afford health insurance through that time, i don’t aim to be a burden. all those who lived within their means and can then afford to do the same, should. that way those people who really need the help can get a better standard of help.
   • Maynard J 7.1

     24 April 2009 at 2:07 pm

     that way those people who really need the help can get a better standard of help.

     Like a tax credit aimed at people who most need it, such as those bringing up children. Great idea. I’ll pass that one on, if you don’t mind.
8. TightyRighty 8

   24 April 2009 at 3:38 pm

   no, like the poor unfortunates who, for whatever reason were or are not able to fend for themselves. that is what social welfare was created to do, before it became an economy within an economy. lower taxes across the board, with an extra higher income bracket around the 35% for $200k +, would be fairer and more equitable.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS