-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dogmeat" data-cid="582573" data-time="1464157810">
<div>
<p>Can't I simply continue to drink myself into the grave. Quick and painless just isn't the kiwi way. Stupid pointless and drawn out is far more our thing</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Did everyone else read this as "Dogmeat is shouting if you ever meet up for a beer"?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582421" data-time="1464141764">
<div>
<p>Where in the world is it good to be poor? Being poor is a relative term. The poorest in New Zealand are better off than the wealthiest in many other countries around the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Your post also confuses me. You say that some people 'just can't' get rich immediately after saying how many poor people there are. Are you saying that if we create a few more government programmes we can turn the poor into rich?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The New Zealand government <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure'>currently spends</a> 28.2 billion on social welfare with health spending and education spending on top of that. I would be thrilled to know that if New Zealand is such a bad place to be poor, how effective you think the current social welfare system is? How much more money do we have to spend before New Zealand becomes a good place for the poor to live?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I posted this on the other thread ,<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-09/from-new-zealand-to-pittsburgh-a-moneyball-approach-to-helping-troubled-kids'>http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-09/from-new-zealand-to-pittsburgh-a-moneyball-approach-to-helping-troubled-kids</a></p>
<p>They are trying a different approach, not sure how long its going to take to see the effects.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd be keen on anything program that stops us subsidising ferals like this. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'>http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="582459" data-time="1464144805">
<div>
<p>Health spending has been creeping up. IIRC, it's up to nearly 10% of GDP from ~ 8% a decade ago. <strong>That's pretty high by OECD standards.</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't know how such things are calculated and reported in NZ, nor in fact do I know anything about actual figures in the UK or otherwise. What I do know is that our reporting standards change hugely depending upon whether the reporter (i.e. Government, Opposition, third party with an agenda) wishes to increase or decrease spending on healthcare and/or welfare. The figures seem to me just complete bullshit, consequently all i want to know is whether what is being provided is fit for purpose and are we spending the money in an efficient manner. In the UK the answer to both is clearly no.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="582330" data-time="1464128918"><p>
As usual they've run out of other people's money . If only they'd followed the example of other successful socialist countries like ....um.........I'm stuck here. Anyone help me out?</p></blockquote>
Norway is the one you're looking for. They've both got oil and proximity to large markets, so Venezuela would have been a total success if it had followed the example of Norway. Oh, and been populated by nice, sensible, even-tempered, honest Norwegians.<br><br>
Instead of, you know, psychos. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="582595" data-time="1464160015">
<div>
<p>Norway is the one you're looking for. They've both got oil and proximity to large markets, so Venezuela would have been a total success if it had followed the example of Norway. Oh, and been populated by nice, sensible, even-tempered, honest Norwegians.<br><br>
Instead of, you know, <strong>psychos</strong>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What do you expect when a significant proportion of the population are unhappy because they don't get enough to eat, like this for example</p>
<p><img src="http://pnews.missuniversusa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Miss-Venezuela-2015-Favoritas1-e1442355057708.jpg" alt="Miss-Venezuela-2015-Favoritas1-e14423550"></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="582619" data-time="1464163490">
<div>
<p>She was 140kgs just a year ago. She's lost so much weight her clothes have fallen off.<br><br>
Why is that dude combing her arm?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>"It rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again"</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582449" data-time="1464144240">
<div>
<p>Your post also confuses me since it attributes things to me that I haven't said nor implied. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The current social welfare system and broader social policies don't appear to me to be doing enough - so not effective enough. $28.2 billion is just a relative number - it may be that we need to spend more, or we may need to spend what we're allocating more efficiently. Whatever the government is doing doesn't seem to be working for the poorest, so perhaps a bit less of spouting ideology on their behalf and a bit more attention to special cases.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not spouting any ideology. I just don't see the point in criticising the government for not helping the poor enough if you can't make any judgements on the effectiveness of current welfare expenditure or if you can't articulate any proposed solutions to help the poor. How can anyone rebut your criticism if you believe the government isn't doing enough but you don't know what doing more looks like? As it happens, I think a good proportion of the 28.2 billion is wasted on the middle class. I might believe Labour a bit more on helping the poor if they didn't decide to give tax breaks to people earning $150,000 just because they decided to have 6 kids.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="582647" data-time="1464167719">
<div>
<p>This is all very interesting and there's some valid viewpoints here but the flow of pictures of Venezuelan hotties in swimsuits seems to have stopped.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Someone fix that please before we proceed.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You know, they've got these sites these days with names like porno dot com. They've all the boobs you need on them, more than you can imagine.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="582649" data-time="1464168516"><p>
You know, they've got these sites these days with names like porno dot com. They've all the boobs you need on them, more than you can imagine.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I've heard that but if this is a thread about nz politics , if every fifth post was a picture of a scantily clad hottie it would be way less depressing reading it .<br><br>
Just pm me any links to those other sites you mentioned though. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="582595" data-time="1464160015"><p>
Norway is the one you're looking for. They've both got oil and proximity to large markets, so Venezuela would have been a total success if it had followed the example of Norway. Oh, and been populated by nice, sensible, even-tempered, honest Norwegians.<br><br>
Instead of, you know, psychos.</p></blockquote>
Norway would be seriously fucked without the oil. Yes the people are very nice and honest, but I would hesitate in calling them sensible. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="582459" data-time="1464144805">
<div>
<p>Health spending has been creeping up. IIRC, it's up to nearly 10% of GDP from ~ 8% a decade ago. That's pretty high by OECD standards.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Health spending has been projected to double by 2050. It is going to be one of the challenges of the century.. People are living longer but advancements in health don't really save money. We have a system right now where we seem to pay whatever possible to keep people alive for as long as possible. It will be interesting to see if people continue to value longevity ahead of other things like welfare spending.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582656" data-time="1464170027">
<div>
<p>Health spending has been projected to double by 2050. It is going to be one of the challenges of the century.. People are living longer but advancements in health don't really save money. We have a system right now where we seem to pay whatever possible to keep people alive for as long as possible. It will be interesting to see if people continue to value longevity ahead of other things like welfare spending.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In general terms less so than when it is your own longevity or those that you love, I would guess.</p> -
<p>From <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/05/better_to_be_poor_today_than_30_years_ago.html#comments'>Kiwiblog</a></p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<p class=""><em>Income <a class="" href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/inequality" title="Posts tagged with inequality">inequality</a> in the US has increased in the last few decades, but <a class="" href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/inequality" title="Posts tagged with inequality">inequality</a> and well being are different. If everyone is living better than before, the fact that some people are much better off isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The recent <a class="" href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/inequality" title="Posts tagged with inequality">inequality</a> has been a problem because, at least in income terms, a few have prospered while most stagnated. But income does not tell us much about living standards. Anecdotally it seems like living standards increased for everyone since the 1970s. Once, hardly anyone had air-conditioning, now everyone has mobile phones. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_united_states_of_debt/2016/05/overspending_isn_t_why_americans_are_in_debt_an_excerpt_from_elizabeth_warren.html'>Others argue</a> the poor are struggling like never before.</em></p>
<div><em>An article in the <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.30.2.3'>latest version </a>of the American Economic Review finds that Americans’ consumption has become more unequal too: The amount high-earning Americans spend grew much more than that of low income earners in the last 30 years. But that does not mean low earners are worse off. The figure below shows the share of low and high earners who own goods that used to be considered luxury items. Despite more inequality, low income Americans have better access to dishwashers, laundry, and entertainment goods.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Basically the conclusion is that it is better to be poor now in the USA than it ever has been. The only problem is the extent to which you believe inequality in and of itself is a problem and the extent to which you believe that measures to curb that inequality would prevent the progress which has made everyone better off.</div> -
<p>He's ok!</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/80376121/max-key-has-bleached-his-hair'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/80376121/max-key-has-bleached-his-hair</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582656" data-time="1464170027">
<div>
<p>Health spending has been projected to double by 2050. It is going to be one of the challenges of the century.. People are living longer but advancements in health don't really save money. We have a system right now where we seem to pay whatever possible to keep people alive for as long as possible. <strong>It will be interesting to see if people continue to value longevity ahead of other things like welfare spending</strong>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I assure you I do. Unless Tim controls the budget spend</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dogmeat" data-cid="582742" data-time="1464215440">
<div>
<p>I assure you I do. Unless Tim controls the budget spend</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I will institute a regime whereby retirees cannot receive entitlements if they own significant property.</p>
NZ Politics