If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

Whose doing the robbing Fungus the people who got free education, free healthcare and now expect welfare in retirement even if they don't need it. Welfare should only be there for people who need it in my opinion. NZ Super made up 43% of the welfare spending to June 2011 and will be expected to grow in future years. I bet there could be some significant savings made there without anyone starving that could go to education and health (I wonder what age group uses up most of the health spend)

I'm not sure of your point. Is that a rhetorical question? I read it as 'Who's doing the robbing Fungus? The people who got free education, free healthcare and now expect welfare in retirement even if they don't need it?' I agree that welfare should be limited to those who need it. I'm not sure wehat you mean by welfare in retirement. Don't sickness, unemployment etc. stop once superannuation payments kick-in? Superannuation is not welfare, and those who don't need it because of other income, get very little after their marginal tax kicks in. My point was simply that socialists generally would rather put their hands out for a share of someone else's hard earned money, than pay the price necessary to generate their own. That price being working long hours, in isolated places or offshore if necessary, going without for many years, living below their means, saving, scrimping, investing, taking risks etc. None of which is a comment on those who need welfare assistance through no fault of their own.

[Pumice]

I'm not sure of your point. Is that a rhetorical question? I read it as 'Who's doing the robbing Fungus? The people who got free education, free healthcare and now expect welfare in retirement even if they don't need it?' I agree that welfare should be limited to those who need it. I'm not sure wehat you mean by welfare in retirement. Don't sickness, unemployment etc. stop once superannuation payments kick-in? Superannuation is not welfare, and those who don't need it because of other income, get very little after their marginal tax kicks in. My point was simply that socialists generally would rather put their hands out for a share of someone else's hard earned money, than pay the price necessary to generate their own. That price being working long hours, in isolated places or offshore if necessary, going without for many years, living below their means, saving, scrimping, investing, taking risks etc. None of which is a comment on those who need welfare assistance through no fault of their own.

Isn’t that one of the problems? "That price being working long hours, in isolated places or offshore if necessary" I moved offshore and more than doubled my income, but NZ'ers won’t benefit from the increased tax I and many other younger people pay (and nor should they). So Nz loses about $12k of tax, but gains only $3k or less in student loan interest (less if they don’t have a SL).
I had plans of coming back to NZ, but after living in Australia, it’s impossible for me to come back. I’m more than happy to pay a higher tax rate in Aus, of which I an ineligible for any benefits. I am happy to pay for my own health care and superannuation on top of that.
NZ needs to catch up to Australia on policy as well as financially.

[Aaron]

Maybe I'm wrong I am just not as cunning as Key & English
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/john-ke...er-plan-120247
At least it stops the debate being between old and young if everyone starts making a sacrifice to balance the books.

[craic]

Just as a matter of interest, the gross cost of Universal Superannuation is significantly reduced by the income tax we oldies pay on the Super. And just like everyone else, we have 15% GST deducted from the remainder. As a couple, we have paid out over $30,000 of our savings on urgent surgery that the public system was unable to deliver in a reasonable time. We also pay out lots of tax yearly on our investments/savings. I am fit enough to work, even in a manual situation and if I did, I would take a position and create an unemployed person who would then cost us the unemployed benefit. Adding to the super age will cause many oldies to stay in work. Not only will the have to work up to the age but the psychological effect may overcome the perceived "need to retire' for many. Key is shewd enough to read the signs but every government in the western world has been overturned at least once since 1998 except Merkels and she is about to lose her next election. Voters throughout the world are running back and forth like headless chickens and we have to live through these times.

[Major von Tempsky]

I wasn't going to claim National Super until successive governments of both stripes and CommComm confiscated most of the shareholder value from TEL without compensation.

So I decided to claim Super until I had reconfiscated my stolen shareholder value.

My grandfather lived into his 103rd year in good health :-)

[POSSUM THE CAT]

When Ruth Richardson put the means test on super a lot of accountants told all those that were not in the super high income bracket To spend up large or gamble & hope to have big win as you could not in most cases be any worse off. As in most cases you would be living on approximately the same amount as the super provided by your savings. While those that had spent everything got about the same amount from super. No wonder the savings of New Zealanders declined from this point. Go back to the two age that we used to have. One age for a means tested pension & another for a universal non means tested one.

[fungus pudding]

I wasn't going to claim National Super until successive governments of both stripes and CommComm confiscated most of the shareholder value from TEL without compensation.

So I decided to claim Super until I had reconfiscated my stolen shareholder value.

My grandfather lived into his 103rd year in good health :-)

You should be extremely grateful that dopey outfit was sold, and for huge money at the time. 22,000 employees, mostly doing next to nothing, among the highest charges in the world and still massively subsidsed by the taxpayer. If you are old enough, you will no doubt remember that toll calls were only made on special occasions. The oldies still shudder in their boots at the thought of making a toll call, ringing someone in another city, let alone another country. All phones had to be rented from the post office; we were not allowed to use our own, even those who had smuggled one back from overseas. You needed a special permit to install an answerphone, or rather to allow the post office to install one. It was a dreadful outfit. Well done to the govt. for dropping it. Rest assured, you have been well compensated. If they had given the show away we would still have won, but as it so happens, when it was sold it was one of the highest transactions in the world that decade.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

Fungus pudding I got a new phone connection faster in those days (1970) & with less hassle than in (2006). Shows you how poor the private management was. The installer moaned when he was asked to do the job properly instead of tacking wires round the skirting board in a near new house & if I remember correctly it cost $99.00. So do not tell me it was better under private management. There are still places in Auckland that you can only get dial up Internet.

[fungus pudding]

Fungus pudding I got a new phone connection faster in those days (1970) & with less hassle than in (2006). Shows you how poor the private management was. The installer moaned when he was asked to do the job properly instead of tacking wires round the skirting board in a near new house & if I remember correctly it cost $99.00. So do not tell me it was better under private management. There are still places in Auckland that you can only get dial up Internet.

Hardly typical. Thank god they diappeared before cell phones and the internet came along. New connections often took months - faster if you could get a doctor's certificate. No matter what you think of today's service, it's miles ahead of the old P+T days.

[Major von Tempsky]

On the world stage the item below is a lot more important than any temporary poll gain by Labour in NZ. Look for a famous victory by Scott Walker in Wisconsin tomorrow :-)

"Punching Out

Labor is already on the defensive. Although Ohio voters last year repealed by 61 percent a law limiting bargaining and requiring increased pension and health-care insurance payments championed by Republican Governor John Kasich, it has lost ground elsewhere. Governor Mitch Daniels and fellow Republican lawmakers made Indiana the nation’s 23rd so-called right-to-work state Feb. 1 by exempting nonunion employees from paying dues when working alongside unionized colleagues.

The rate of U.S. union membership fell to a record low in 2011, with collective-bargaining units representing just 6.9 percent of employees in nongovernment jobs, down from 7.2 percent in 2009, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Numbers Talk

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the state’s second-largest public union, fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited an anonymous source.

While membership has declined, the numbers published by the Journal are “wildly inaccurate,” Bob Allen, a spokesman for AFSCME Wisconsin, said in a telephone interview and e-mailed statement. The union doesn’t disclose its membership numbers, he said.

If Walker is recalled, it will be “a shot in the arm for labor,” said Robert Reich, who was labor secretary under Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Clinton campaigned for Barrett last week. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been part of a cadre of Republicans stumping for Walker.

Barrett and Walker hopscotched around the state today to encourage people to go to the polls. Election officials have forecast 60 to 65 percent of registered voters will cast ballots. While the recall will officially end with tomorrow’s vote, members of both parties said wounds will not heal quickly.
"