On 16/09/2016 11:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly >>>>>>> 5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe >>>>>> drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does >>>>>> that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all >>>>> fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion >>>>> other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done with >>>>> it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control freaks of >>>>> the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and >>>> property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to help >>>> them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol.
Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about
such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to
"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree! Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

Bullshit!

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 16/09/2016 11:46 a.m., Allistar wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take
(probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure >>>>
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly 5% >>>> presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe
drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does
that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all
fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion
other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done with
it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control freaks of
the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're proposing.

It's called hypocrisy Allistar and the left do it brilliantly.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 16/09/2016 9:44 a.m., JohnO wrote:

On Friday, 16 September 2016 09:09:56 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure >>>
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly 5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe
drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does
that to people . . .

Once again Dickbot dishonestly makes something up and presents it as a fact.

The trolling twit doesn't seem to comprehend soda is cheaper than
bottled water.....

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:49:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly >>>>>>>> 5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe >>>>>>> drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does >>>>>>> that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all >>>>>> fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion >>>>>> other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done with >>>>>> it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control freaks of >>>>>> the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and >>>>>property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to help >>>>>them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >>>Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about >>>such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >>>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree! Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty for many enabling an >>increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

Another opinion written as a statement without any evidence.
Tony

What "evidence" was there supporting an age restriction on energy
drinks?
In a conversation, opinions can be given without evidence, Tony - in
the case of the statement that I made, there is pelnty of evidence
that inequality has grown markedly, and that poverty is an increasing
issue in New Zealand. Perhaps some people have managed to avoid
reading such articles, but that does not mean that an informed opinion
cannot be made.

As far as the relative authoritarianism of the right and left, there
are a number of other examples - for instance the use of cannabis for
medical purposes, where the left takes a more libertarian view than
the current government. The fuss about the fishing industry may be
diferent - the left want laws to be enforced, but the current
government are so "business friendly" that they are spending a huge
amount of money finding that the laws are being regularly broken, but
are refusing to prosecute - and giving a government department
permission to excuse operators from the law - whether you regard the
government as incompetent or "liberal" with their ïnterpretation"of
the law may depend on your views of such stupidity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 16/09/2016 11:46 a.m., Allistar wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take
(probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure >>>>
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly 5% >>>> presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe
drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does
that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all
fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion
other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done with
it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control freaks of
the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're proposing.

It's called hypocrisy Allistar and the left do it brilliantly breath tax
to cut down on CO2?

Pooh.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly >>>>>>> 5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe >>>>>> drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does >>>>>> that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all >>>>> fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion >>>>> other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done
with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control
freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and >>>>property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to >>>>help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're >>>>proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >>Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about >>such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase in poverty?
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:45:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly >>>>>>>> 5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe >>>>>>> drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does >>>>>>> that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all >>>>>> fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion >>>>>> other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done >>>>>> with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control >>>>>> freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and >>>>>property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to >>>>>help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're >>>>>proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >>>Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about >>>such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >>>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

No, less
Al the current government has done is given sme cuts to income tax,
and an increase in GST, in exchange for a huge increase in borrowings.
Some may think that debt will be repaid mby someone else, but in
reality Nation/ACT have mortaged future tax revenue for years to repay
debt - to the extent that it is likely the income tax cuts cannot be
sustained - and yes I am aware they haven;t been; the government has
allowed bracket creep to result in a big increase in those paying the
top reate of income tax - which they called ';"stealth tax"when they
were in opposition.

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

There have been very very many - just google ïnequality New Zealandd",
or "Poverty New Zealand", but here is a recent one: http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/wages-expected-to-grow-as-gdp-growth-hits-high-2016091519

which includes:

The latest figures show gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.9 percent
in the June quarter, taking annual growth to 3.6 percent.

Driven by housing, strong demand for exports and immigration, New
Zealand now has the third highest growth rate in the OECD.

However, how much of the increased growth is getting through to
workers?

ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie says any growth flows into the
economy and eventually into wages.

"If we continue to see unemployment track down, wages will start to
move up and people will start to get ahead.

"We're seeing real wage growth at the moment of 1.5 percent, but I'm
expecting that to grow to 2.5 percent over the next 24 months."

However, critics say we're relying on immigration and on a per person
basis New Zealand's hardly growing at all.

"The biggest disappointment is the fact that it's driven by population
growth rather than by increasing the quality of what we are doing. Our productivity growth is probably going backwards," says CTU economist
Bill Rosenberg.

Finance Minister Bill English admits wage growth may take some time.

"At the moment you've got a fast growth population and that means
you're going to have per capita income a bit softer," says Mr English.

International economist Ann Pettifor says New Zealand's economy is
"hugely imbalanced".

Ms Pettifor, a UK-based economist and director of Prime: Policy
Research in Macroeconomics, told Paul Henry central banks, including
New Zealand's Reserve Bank should be managing the way banks lend
money.

"In Auckland, banks are lending crazy money on speculation -
speculating that property prices will rise.

"It's overvalued bricks and mortar and speculating that that price
will continue rising forever and of course it won't and when it starts
falling then the debt has to be re-payed and the equity in the
property falls."

She says talk of New Zealand being a "rockstar economy" was "the kind
of language we heard before the [Global Financial Crisis]".

"But what's interesting about New Zealand is that inequality rose in
this country more than in any other developed country in the world
between 1980 and the 2000s - that's extraordinary."

She says those levels of inequality lead to political instability
which has led to the rise of the likes of Donald Trump and "fascists
in Europe".

Labour's finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says everyday Kiwis
won't be feeling the benefits of GDP growth.

"The answer is because on a per person basis our economy is barely
moving.

"We have seen enormous population growth in New Zealand in the last
year and that generates economic activity. But what these numbers show
is that we are not getting the increased economic value from that to
mean real sustainable growth. This adds further to the need to review
and adjust immigration policy to ensure it contributes to real
growth."

He says real disposable income per capita fell in the past quarter,
meaning Kiwis "don't feel they're getting ahead".

Mr Robertson says the economy is being kept afloat by population
growth and an unsustainable housing bubble.

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase in >poverty?

With GDP per head being very small, and supported significantly by
increases in property values, there is not much room for any increase
in wages - and indeed we haven't seen much of an increase; whereas
there has been an increase in the wealth of those already wealthy, and
of course a lot of people in Auckland have "paper-profits"on their
homes, but they would have to sell to realise those profits. All quite unsatisfactory for most people, but great for those already wealthy .
. .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sunday, 18 September 2016 20:45:11 UTC+12, Allistar wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly >>>>>>> 5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe >>>>>> drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does >>>>>> that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all >>>>> fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion >>>>> other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done >>>>> with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control >>>>> freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and >>>>property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to >>>>help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're >>>>proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >>Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about >>such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

Maybe Dickbot is talking about how the National government has increased beneficiary income more than any Labour government? Or how the National government has moved ever more of the tax burden away from the now zero effective tax paying low income
earners and onto high income earners.

Wait... what?

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase in poverty?

Indeed. These clowns who measure poverty by how far the low income trail the high income seem to think they can end poverty by eating the rich. They don't seem to understand where their jobs come from!

--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sunday, 18 September 2016 22:48:39 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:45:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly >>>>>>>> 5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe >>>>>>> drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does >>>>>>> that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all >>>>>> fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion >>>>>> other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done >>>>>> with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control >>>>>> freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and >>>>>property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to >>>>>help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're >>>>>proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >>>Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about >>>such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >>>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

No, less
Al the current government has done is given sme cuts to income tax,

The tax burden has never been so concentrated on the high income earners. FACT.

and an increase in GST, in exchange for a huge increase in borrowings.

The only debt problem in NZ is too much private debt. The government debt is enviably low compared to mosth other countries.

Some may think that debt will be repaid mby someone else, but in
reality Nation/ACT have mortaged future tax revenue for years to repay
debt - to the extent that it is likely the income tax cuts cannot be sustained - and yes I am aware they haven;t been; the government has
allowed bracket creep to result in a big increase in those paying the
top reate of income tax - which they called ';"stealth tax"when they
were in opposition.

But you were just whining about how this government made things tough for low earners. Now you are whining on behalf of high earners?

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

There have been very very many - just google ïnequality New Zealandd",
or "Poverty New Zealand", but here is a recent one: http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/wages-expected-to-grow-as-gdp-growth-hits-high-2016091519

which includes:

The latest figures show gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.9 percent
in the June quarter, taking annual growth to 3.6 percent.

Driven by housing, strong demand for exports and immigration, New
Zealand now has the third highest growth rate in the OECD.

However, how much of the increased growth is getting through to
workers?

ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie says any growth flows into the
economy and eventually into wages.

"If we continue to see unemployment track down, wages will start to
move up and people will start to get ahead.

"We're seeing real wage growth at the moment of 1.5 percent, but I'm expecting that to grow to 2.5 percent over the next 24 months."

Thanks for posting that wage growth exceeds inflation and will improve further.
Good of you to post something authoritative to contradict yourself, Dickbot!

However, critics say we're relying on immigration and on a per person
basis New Zealand's hardly growing at all.

Ah, they found a union flunky to make up a counter story!

"The biggest disappointment is the fact that it's driven by population
growth rather than by increasing the quality of what we are doing. Our productivity growth is probably going backwards," says CTU economist
Bill Rosenberg.

Finance Minister Bill English admits wage growth may take some time.

"At the moment you've got a fast growth population and that means
you're going to have per capita income a bit softer," says Mr English.

International economist Ann Pettifor says New Zealand's economy is
"hugely imbalanced".

Ms Pettifor, a UK-based economist and director of Prime: Policy
Research in Macroeconomics, told Paul Henry central banks, including
New Zealand's Reserve Bank should be managing the way banks lend
money.

"In Auckland, banks are lending crazy money on speculation -
speculating that property prices will rise.

"It's overvalued bricks and mortar and speculating that that price
will continue rising forever and of course it won't and when it starts falling then the debt has to be re-payed and the equity in the
property falls."

She says talk of New Zealand being a "rockstar economy" was "the kind
of language we heard before the [Global Financial Crisis]".

"But what's interesting about New Zealand is that inequality rose in
this country more than in any other developed country in the world
between 1980 and the 2000s - that's extraordinary."

She says those levels of inequality lead to political instability
which has led to the rise of the likes of Donald Trump and "fascists
in Europe".

House prices rose even faster under Labour, Dickbot. And after their three terms and National's three terms to date, any talk of political instability seems rather silly, especially coming from some ivory tower on the far side of the world.

Labour's finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says everyday Kiwis
won't be feeling the benefits of GDP growth.

"The answer is because on a per person basis our economy is barely
moving.

Except the plain numbers say Robbo is lying.

"We have seen enormous population growth in New Zealand in the last
year and that generates economic activity. But what these numbers show
is that we are not getting the increased economic value from that to
mean real sustainable growth. This adds further to the need to review
and adjust immigration policy to ensure it contributes to real
growth."

He ignores the booming manufacturing (remember Labour's "crisis", anyone?), agricultural, tourism and education sectors.

He says real disposable income per capita fell in the past quarter,
meaning Kiwis "don't feel they're getting ahead".

Except the numbers say they did not. Robbo's lying.

Mr Robertson says the economy is being kept afloat by population
growth and an unsustainable housing bubble.

Well what else can he do, apart from make shit up?

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase in

poverty?

With GDP per head being very small, and supported significantly by
increases in property values, there is not much room for any increase
in wages - and indeed we haven't seen much of an increase; whereas
there has been an increase in the wealth of those already wealthy, and
of course a lot of people in Auckland have "paper-profits"on their
homes, but they would have to sell to realise those profits. All quite unsatisfactory for most people, but great for those already wealthy .
. .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 19 September 2016 07:54:22 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:

On Sunday, 18 September 2016 22:48:39 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:45:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>> wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO

<johno1234@gmail.com>

wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped

nearly

5% presumably through education and better personal choices. >>>>>>>

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason

forthe

drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty

does

that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact

all

fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a

squillion

other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done >>>>>> with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control >>>>>> freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion

and

property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to >>>>>help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're >>>>>proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >>>Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about >>>such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >>>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

No, less
Al the current government has done is given sme cuts to income tax,

The tax burden has never been so concentrated on the high income earners.

FACT.

and an increase in GST, in exchange for a huge increase in borrowings.

The only debt problem in NZ is too much private debt. The government debt is

enviably low compared to mosth other countries.

Some may think that debt will be repaid mby someone else, but in
reality Nation/ACT have mortaged future tax revenue for years to repay
debt - to the extent that it is likely the income tax cuts cannot be sustained - and yes I am aware they haven;t been; the government has allowed bracket creep to result in a big increase in those paying the
top reate of income tax - which they called ';"stealth tax"when they
were in opposition.

But you were just whining about how this government made things tough for low

earners. Now you are whining on behalf of high earners?

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

There have been very very many - just google ïnequality New Zealandd",
or "Poverty New Zealand", but here is a recent one: http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/wages-expected-to-grow-as-gdp-growth-hits-high-2016091519

which includes:

The latest figures show gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.9 percent
in the June quarter, taking annual growth to 3.6 percent.

Driven by housing, strong demand for exports and immigration, New
Zealand now has the third highest growth rate in the OECD.

However, how much of the increased growth is getting through to
workers?

ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie says any growth flows into the
economy and eventually into wages.

"If we continue to see unemployment track down, wages will start to
move up and people will start to get ahead.

"We're seeing real wage growth at the moment of 1.5 percent, but I'm expecting that to grow to 2.5 percent over the next 24 months."

Thanks for posting that wage growth exceeds inflation and will improve

further. Good of you to post something authoritative to contradict yourself, Dickbot!

However, critics say we're relying on immigration and on a per person
basis New Zealand's hardly growing at all.

Ah, they found a union flunky to make up a counter story!

"The biggest disappointment is the fact that it's driven by population growth rather than by increasing the quality of what we are doing. Our productivity growth is probably going backwards," says CTU economist
Bill Rosenberg.

Finance Minister Bill English admits wage growth may take some time.

"At the moment you've got a fast growth population and that means
you're going to have per capita income a bit softer," says Mr English.

International economist Ann Pettifor says New Zealand's economy is
"hugely imbalanced".

Ms Pettifor, a UK-based economist and director of Prime: Policy
Research in Macroeconomics, told Paul Henry central banks, including
New Zealand's Reserve Bank should be managing the way banks lend
money.

"In Auckland, banks are lending crazy money on speculation -
speculating that property prices will rise.

"It's overvalued bricks and mortar and speculating that that price
will continue rising forever and of course it won't and when it starts falling then the debt has to be re-payed and the equity in the
property falls."

She says talk of New Zealand being a "rockstar economy" was "the kind
of language we heard before the [Global Financial Crisis]".

"But what's interesting about New Zealand is that inequality rose in
this country more than in any other developed country in the world
between 1980 and the 2000s - that's extraordinary."

She says those levels of inequality lead to political instability
which has led to the rise of the likes of Donald Trump and "fascists
in Europe".

House prices rose even faster under Labour, Dickbot. And after their three

terms and National's three terms to date, any talk of political instability seems rather silly, especially coming from some ivory tower on the far side of the world.

Labour's finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says everyday Kiwis
won't be feeling the benefits of GDP growth.

"The answer is because on a per person basis our economy is barely
moving.

Except the plain numbers say Robbo is lying.

"We have seen enormous population growth in New Zealand in the last
year and that generates economic activity. But what these numbers show
is that we are not getting the increased economic value from that to
mean real sustainable growth. This adds further to the need to review
and adjust immigration policy to ensure it contributes to real
growth."

He ignores the booming manufacturing (remember Labour's "crisis", anyone?),

agricultural, tourism and education sectors.

He says real disposable income per capita fell in the past quarter,
meaning Kiwis "don't feel they're getting ahead".

Except the numbers say they did not. Robbo's lying.

Mr Robertson says the economy is being kept afloat by population
growth and an unsustainable housing bubble.

Well what else can he do, apart from make shit up?

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase

in

poverty?

With GDP per head being very small, and supported significantly by increases in property values, there is not much room for any increase
in wages - and indeed we haven't seen much of an increase; whereas
there has been an increase in the wealth of those already wealthy, and
of course a lot of people in Auckland have "paper-profits"on their
homes, but they would have to sell to realise those profits. All quite unsatisfactory for most people, but great for those already wealthy .
. .

And right on cue the MSD releases data to show that Dickbot, Robbo and all the lefty moaners are lying.

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

Since the current government took over from Labour and the GFC:
Median household disposable income - up. Compare to the OECD countries - flat.

Inequality as measured by GINI flat since the mid 90's having risen sharply before then.

Income share of the "top 1%" flat since the 90s.

Over half of households with dependent children pay *ZERO NET TAX*.

Household crowding flat since 2001.

Low income/material hardship has *DROPPED*

"There is no evidence of any rise in recent years in income poverty trends using anchored line measures, either BHC or AHC. The trends are either flat or declining, depending on the start point or measure used."

"In the seven years from just before the GFC impact (HES 2008), to HES 2015, household income growth was relatively even across the income spectrum at 10-12% in real terms, from the top of the bottom decile (P10) through to high incomes in the top decile.
"

So much for Dickbot and his mates whining endlessly about how the top earners are getting ahead at the expense of the bottom. The whiners are lying and have been since 2008.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 12:54:18 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 18 September 2016 22:48:39 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:45:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take
(probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly
5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe
drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does
that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all
fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion
other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done >> >>>>>> with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control >> >>>>>> freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and >> >>>>>property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to >> >>>>>help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're
proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol.
Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about >> >>>such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >> >>>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

No, less
Al the current government has done is given sme cuts to income tax,

The tax burden has never been so concentrated on the high income earners. FACT.

and an increase in GST, in exchange for a huge increase in borrowings.

The only debt problem in NZ is too much private debt. The government debt is enviably low compared to mosth other countries.

Some may think that debt will be repaid mby someone else, but in
reality Nation/ACT have mortaged future tax revenue for years to repay
debt - to the extent that it is likely the income tax cuts cannot be
sustained - and yes I am aware they haven;t been; the government has
allowed bracket creep to result in a big increase in those paying the
top reate of income tax - which they called ';"stealth tax"when they
were in opposition.

But you were just whining about how this government made things tough for low earners. Now you are whining on behalf of high earners?

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

There have been very very many - just google ïnequality New Zealandd",
or "Poverty New Zealand", but here is a recent one:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/wages-expected-to-grow-as-gdp-growth-hits-high-2016091519

which includes:

The latest figures show gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.9 percent
in the June quarter, taking annual growth to 3.6 percent.

Driven by housing, strong demand for exports and immigration, New
Zealand now has the third highest growth rate in the OECD.

However, how much of the increased growth is getting through to
workers?

ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie says any growth flows into the
economy and eventually into wages.

"If we continue to see unemployment track down, wages will start to
move up and people will start to get ahead.

"We're seeing real wage growth at the moment of 1.5 percent, but I'm
expecting that to grow to 2.5 percent over the next 24 months."

Thanks for posting that wage growth exceeds inflation and will improve further. Good of you to post something authoritative to contradict yourself, Dickbot!

However, critics say we're relying on immigration and on a per person
basis New Zealand's hardly growing at all.

Ah, they found a union flunky to make up a counter story!

"The biggest disappointment is the fact that it's driven by population
growth rather than by increasing the quality of what we are doing. Our
productivity growth is probably going backwards," says CTU economist
Bill Rosenberg.

Finance Minister Bill English admits wage growth may take some time.

Is he your union flunky? The reality is that the quote 1.5% wage
increase is an average across all salary and wage earners - it is well
above the level of increase for most wage earners - many of whom have
seen little or no increases for the last few years.

"At the moment you've got a fast growth population and that means
you're going to have per capita income a bit softer," says Mr English.

"a bit softer" is Nat-spin for falling or near zero . . .

International economist Ann Pettifor says New Zealand's economy is
"hugely imbalanced".

perhaps you didn't notice this reference . . .

Ms Pettifor, a UK-based economist and director of Prime: Policy
Research in Macroeconomics, told Paul Henry central banks, including
New Zealand's Reserve Bank should be managing the way banks lend
money.

"In Auckland, banks are lending crazy money on speculation -
speculating that property prices will rise.

"It's overvalued bricks and mortar and speculating that that price
will continue rising forever and of course it won't and when it starts
falling then the debt has to be re-payed and the equity in the
property falls."

She says talk of New Zealand being a "rockstar economy" was "the kind
of language we heard before the [Global Financial Crisis]".

"But what's interesting about New Zealand is that inequality rose in
this country more than in any other developed country in the world
between 1980 and the 2000s - that's extraordinary."

She says those levels of inequality lead to political instability
which has led to the rise of the likes of Donald Trump and "fascists
in Europe".

House prices rose even faster under Labour, Dickbot. And after their three terms and National's three terms to date, any talk of political instability seems rather silly, especially coming from some ivory tower on the far side of the world.

I think you will find htat false - the last few months have seen
prices continue to increase. But you are correct that it has been a
problem for longer than this government - promises to solve the
problem were given by Key before the 2008 election. What has Nat/ACT
done?

Labour's finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says everyday Kiwis
won't be feeling the benefits of GDP growth.

"The answer is because on a per person basis our economy is barely
moving.

Except the plain numbers say Robbo is lying.

Cite?

"We have seen enormous population growth in New Zealand in the last
year and that generates economic activity. But what these numbers show
is that we are not getting the increased economic value from that to
mean real sustainable growth. This adds further to the need to review
and adjust immigration policy to ensure it contributes to real
growth."

He ignores the booming manufacturing (remember Labour's "crisis", anyone?), agricultural, tourism and education sectors.

Cite?

He says real disposable income per capita fell in the past quarter,
meaning Kiwis "don't feel they're getting ahead".

Except the numbers say they did not. Robbo's lying.

Cite?

Mr Robertson says the economy is being kept afloat by population
growth and an unsustainable housing bubble.

Well what else can he do, apart from make shit up?

Like you you mean? Do you have any evidence to refute the statement?
If not, apologise.

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase in
poverty?

With GDP per head being very small, and supported significantly by
increases in property values, there is not much room for any increase
in wages - and indeed we haven't seen much of an increase; whereas
there has been an increase in the wealth of those already wealthy, and
of course a lot of people in Auckland have "paper-profits"on their
homes, but they would have to sell to realise those profits. All quite
unsatisfactory for most people, but great for those already wealthy .

. .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 19 September 2016 09:46:16 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 12:54:18 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 18 September 2016 22:48:39 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:45:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >> >>>> wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO

<johno1234@gmail.com>

wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >> >>>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped

nearly

5% presumably through education and better personal choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason

forthe

drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty

does

that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact

all

fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a

squillion

other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done >> >>>>>> with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control >> >>>>>> freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion

and

property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to >> >>>>>help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're
proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >> >>>Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions

about

such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >> >>>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

No, less
Al the current government has done is given sme cuts to income tax,

The tax burden has never been so concentrated on the high income earners.

FACT.

and an increase in GST, in exchange for a huge increase in borrowings.

The only debt problem in NZ is too much private debt. The government debt is

enviably low compared to mosth other countries.

Some may think that debt will be repaid mby someone else, but in
reality Nation/ACT have mortaged future tax revenue for years to repay
debt - to the extent that it is likely the income tax cuts cannot be
sustained - and yes I am aware they haven;t been; the government has
allowed bracket creep to result in a big increase in those paying the
top reate of income tax - which they called ';"stealth tax"when they
were in opposition.

But you were just whining about how this government made things tough for

low earners. Now you are whining on behalf of high earners?

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

There have been very very many - just google ïnequality New Zealandd",
or "Poverty New Zealand", but here is a recent one:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/wages-expected-to-grow-as-gdp-growth-hits-high-2016091519

which includes:

The latest figures show gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.9 percent
in the June quarter, taking annual growth to 3.6 percent.

Driven by housing, strong demand for exports and immigration, New
Zealand now has the third highest growth rate in the OECD.

However, how much of the increased growth is getting through to
workers?

ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie says any growth flows into the
economy and eventually into wages.

"If we continue to see unemployment track down, wages will start to
move up and people will start to get ahead.

"We're seeing real wage growth at the moment of 1.5 percent, but I'm
expecting that to grow to 2.5 percent over the next 24 months."

Thanks for posting that wage growth exceeds inflation and will improve

further. Good of you to post something authoritative to contradict yourself, Dickbot!

However, critics say we're relying on immigration and on a per person
basis New Zealand's hardly growing at all.

Ah, they found a union flunky to make up a counter story!

"The biggest disappointment is the fact that it's driven by population
growth rather than by increasing the quality of what we are doing. Our
productivity growth is probably going backwards," says CTU economist
Bill Rosenberg.

Finance Minister Bill English admits wage growth may take some time.

Is he your union flunky?

Dopn't be stupid.

The reality is that the quote 1.5% wage
increase is an average across all salary and wage earners - it is well
above the level of increase for most wage earners - many of whom have
seen little or no increases for the last few years.

Stop lying and see the MSD report. They are median numbers.

"At the moment you've got a fast growth population and that means
you're going to have per capita income a bit softer," says Mr English.

"a bit softer" is Nat-spin for falling or near zero . . .

International economist Ann Pettifor says New Zealand's economy is
"hugely imbalanced".

perhaps you didn't notice this reference . . .

Ms Pettifor, a UK-based economist and director of Prime: Policy
Research in Macroeconomics, told Paul Henry central banks, including
New Zealand's Reserve Bank should be managing the way banks lend
money.

"In Auckland, banks are lending crazy money on speculation -
speculating that property prices will rise.

"It's overvalued bricks and mortar and speculating that that price
will continue rising forever and of course it won't and when it starts
falling then the debt has to be re-payed and the equity in the
property falls."

She says talk of New Zealand being a "rockstar economy" was "the kind
of language we heard before the [Global Financial Crisis]".

"But what's interesting about New Zealand is that inequality rose in
this country more than in any other developed country in the world
between 1980 and the 2000s - that's extraordinary."

She says those levels of inequality lead to political instability
which has led to the rise of the likes of Donald Trump and "fascists
in Europe".

House prices rose even faster under Labour, Dickbot. And after their three

terms and National's three terms to date, any talk of political instability seems rather silly, especially coming from some ivory tower on the far side of the world.

I think you will find htat false - the last few months have seen
prices continue to increase. But you are correct that it has been a
problem for longer than this government - promises to solve the
problem were given by Key before the 2008 election. What has Nat/ACT
done?

The rate of rise has been declining and the rate under Labour has been posted many times. You are lying and pretty much everyone knows it.

Labour's finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says everyday Kiwis
won't be feeling the benefits of GDP growth.

"The answer is because on a per person basis our economy is barely
moving.

Except the plain numbers say Robbo is lying.

Cite?

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

"We have seen enormous population growth in New Zealand in the last
year and that generates economic activity. But what these numbers show
is that we are not getting the increased economic value from that to
mean real sustainable growth. This adds further to the need to review
and adjust immigration policy to ensure it contributes to real
growth."

He ignores the booming manufacturing (remember Labour's "crisis", anyone?),

agricultural, tourism and education sectors.

Cite?

Cite what? That these sectors are booming? How about you pull your head out of your arse first.

He says real disposable income per capita fell in the past quarter,
meaning Kiwis "don't feel they're getting ahead".

Except the numbers say they did not. Robbo's lying.

Cite?

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

Mr Robertson says the economy is being kept afloat by population
growth and an unsustainable housing bubble.

Well what else can he do, apart from make shit up?

Like you you mean? Do you have any evidence to refute the statement?
If not, apologise.

Not only I not apologise, I will call you a lying fucking retard, because that is exactly what you are, Dickbot.

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase

in

poverty?

With GDP per head being very small, and supported significantly by
increases in property values, there is not much room for any increase
in wages - and indeed we haven't seen much of an increase; whereas
there has been an increase in the wealth of those already wealthy, and
of course a lot of people in Auckland have "paper-profits"on their
homes, but they would have to sell to realise those profits. All quite
unsatisfactory for most people, but great for those already wealthy .

. .

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

Read it. Then get some counselling because it shows what a lying propagandising
little shit you are, Dickbot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:45:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html

Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped >>>>>>>>> nearly 5% presumably through education and better personal
choices.

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason >>>>>>>> forthe drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. >>>>>>>> Poverty does that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact >>>>>>> all fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a >>>>>>> squillion other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar >>>>>>> and be done with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by >>>>>>> the control freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion >>>>>>and property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order >>>>>>to help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're >>>>>>proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it
Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >>>>Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about >>>>such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >>>>"help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

No, less
Al the current government has done is given sme cuts to income tax,
and an increase in GST,

Everyone was better off because of that. That is to say, those decisions
reduce the harm caused by the government.

You are proposing that the harm be increased.

in exchange for a huge increase in borrowings.
Some may think that debt will be repaid mby someone else, but in
reality Nation/ACT have mortaged future tax revenue for years to repay
debt - to the extent that it is likely the income tax cuts cannot be sustained - and yes I am aware they haven;t been; the government has
allowed bracket creep to result in a big increase in those paying the
top reate of income tax - which they called ';"stealth tax"when they
were in opposition.

My memory isn't that short. I remember when Labour didn't reduce income tax rates for many years. "Bracket creep" was very much a Labour ploy to
increase harm.

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

There have been very very many - just google ïnequality New Zealandd",
or "Poverty New Zealand", but here is a recent one: http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/wages-expected-to-grow-as-gdp-growth-hits-high-2016091519

which includes:

[snip for brevity]

The quote you pasted doesn't mention poverty at all. It mentioned
inequality, but inequality is not related to poverty.

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase >>in poverty?

With GDP per head being very small, and supported significantly by
increases in property values, there is not much room for any increase
in wages - and indeed we haven't seen much of an increase; whereas
there has been an increase in the wealth of those already wealthy, and
of course a lot of people in Auckland have "paper-profits"on their
homes, but they would have to sell to realise those profits. All quite unsatisfactory for most people, but great for those already wealthy .
. .

You seem to be misunderstanding my question. What has that got to do with an increase in poverty?
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 19/09/2016 9:54 a.m., JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 19 September 2016 09:46:16 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 12:54:18 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 18 September 2016 22:48:39 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:45:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:05 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:46:42 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

Fred wrote:

On 16/09/2016 9:09 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

It has not reduced consumption and simply increased the tax take >>>>>>>>>>>> (probably off those that can least afford it):

http://www.fgc.org.nz/media/latest-data-shows-mexico-sugar-tax-a-failure

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/mexican_soda_sales.html >>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile in NZ, without a sugar tax, consumption has dropped nearly
5% presumably through education and better personal choices. >>>>>>>>>>>

Those factors may have also helped, JohnO, but the main reason forthe
drop is that many people just can't afford them anymore. Poverty does
that to people . . .

Why do your mates pick on soft drink? Why not apple juice, in fact all
fruit juices, breakfast cereals, jelly, confectionery, and a squillion
other products containing sugar? Why not just tax sugar and be done >>>>>>>>>> with it? It's another wanky half-baked idea promoted by the control >>>>>>>>>> freaks of the world.

The way the left exert their control over society is via compulsion and
property confiscation. They can't see that harming people in order to >>>>>>>>> help them is contradictory, and yet that's exactly what they're >>>>>>>>> proposing.

So that's why you want an age retriction on energy drinks, is it >>>>>>>> Allistar?

In the same way I agree there should be an age restriction on alcohol. >>>>>>> Children don't have the mental capacity to make rational decisions about
such things.

I see that you haven't disagrees that the left rely on harm in order to >>>>>>> "help" people.

What a silly statement - of course I do not agree!

And yet you want the government to harm us all more.

No, less
Al the current government has done is given sme cuts to income tax,

The tax burden has never been so concentrated on the high income earners. FACT.

and an increase in GST, in exchange for a huge increase in borrowings.

The only debt problem in NZ is too much private debt. The government debt is enviably low compared to mosth other countries.

Some may think that debt will be repaid mby someone else, but in
reality Nation/ACT have mortaged future tax revenue for years to repay >>>> debt - to the extent that it is likely the income tax cuts cannot be
sustained - and yes I am aware they haven;t been; the government has
allowed bracket creep to result in a big increase in those paying the
top reate of income tax - which they called ';"stealth tax"when they
were in opposition.

But you were just whining about how this government made things tough for low earners. Now you are whining on behalf of high earners?

Thje greatest harm
has been from the policies of the current National-led government
which have resulted in an increase in poverty

Cites please.

There have been very very many - just google ïnequality New Zealandd", >>>> or "Poverty New Zealand", but here is a recent one:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/wages-expected-to-grow-as-gdp-growth-hits-high-2016091519

which includes:

The latest figures show gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.9 percent
in the June quarter, taking annual growth to 3.6 percent.

Driven by housing, strong demand for exports and immigration, New
Zealand now has the third highest growth rate in the OECD.

However, how much of the increased growth is getting through to
workers?

ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie says any growth flows into the
economy and eventually into wages.

"If we continue to see unemployment track down, wages will start to
move up and people will start to get ahead.

"We're seeing real wage growth at the moment of 1.5 percent, but I'm
expecting that to grow to 2.5 percent over the next 24 months."

Thanks for posting that wage growth exceeds inflation and will improve further. Good of you to post something authoritative to contradict yourself, Dickbot!

However, critics say we're relying on immigration and on a per person
basis New Zealand's hardly growing at all.

Ah, they found a union flunky to make up a counter story!

"The biggest disappointment is the fact that it's driven by population >>>> growth rather than by increasing the quality of what we are doing. Our >>>> productivity growth is probably going backwards," says CTU economist
Bill Rosenberg.

Finance Minister Bill English admits wage growth may take some time.

Is he your union flunky?

Dopn't be stupid.

The reality is that the quote 1.5% wage
increase is an average across all salary and wage earners - it is well
above the level of increase for most wage earners - many of whom have
seen little or no increases for the last few years.

Stop lying and see the MSD report. They are median numbers.

"At the moment you've got a fast growth population and that means
you're going to have per capita income a bit softer," says Mr English.

"a bit softer" is Nat-spin for falling or near zero . . .

International economist Ann Pettifor says New Zealand's economy is
"hugely imbalanced".

perhaps you didn't notice this reference . . .

Ms Pettifor, a UK-based economist and director of Prime: Policy
Research in Macroeconomics, told Paul Henry central banks, including
New Zealand's Reserve Bank should be managing the way banks lend
money.

"In Auckland, banks are lending crazy money on speculation -
speculating that property prices will rise.

"It's overvalued bricks and mortar and speculating that that price
will continue rising forever and of course it won't and when it starts >>>> falling then the debt has to be re-payed and the equity in the
property falls."

She says talk of New Zealand being a "rockstar economy" was "the kind
of language we heard before the [Global Financial Crisis]".

"But what's interesting about New Zealand is that inequality rose in
this country more than in any other developed country in the world
between 1980 and the 2000s - that's extraordinary."

She says those levels of inequality lead to political instability
which has led to the rise of the likes of Donald Trump and "fascists
in Europe".

House prices rose even faster under Labour, Dickbot. And after their three terms and National's three terms to date, any talk of political instability seems rather silly, especially coming from some ivory tower on the far side of the world.

I think you will find htat false - the last few months have seen
prices continue to increase. But you are correct that it has been a
problem for longer than this government - promises to solve the
problem were given by Key before the 2008 election. What has Nat/ACT
done?

The rate of rise has been declining and the rate under Labour has been posted

many times. You are lying and pretty much everyone knows it.

Labour's finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says everyday Kiwis
won't be feeling the benefits of GDP growth.

"The answer is because on a per person basis our economy is barely
moving.

Except the plain numbers say Robbo is lying.

Cite?

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

"We have seen enormous population growth in New Zealand in the last
year and that generates economic activity. But what these numbers show >>>> is that we are not getting the increased economic value from that to
mean real sustainable growth. This adds further to the need to review
and adjust immigration policy to ensure it contributes to real
growth."

He ignores the booming manufacturing (remember Labour's "crisis", anyone?),

agricultural, tourism and education sectors.

Cite?

Cite what? That these sectors are booming? How about you pull your head out

of your arse first.

He says real disposable income per capita fell in the past quarter,
meaning Kiwis "don't feel they're getting ahead".

Except the numbers say they did not. Robbo's lying.

Cite?

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

Mr Robertson says the economy is being kept afloat by population
growth and an unsustainable housing bubble.

Well what else can he do, apart from make shit up?

Like you you mean? Do you have any evidence to refute the statement?
If not, apologise.

Not only I not apologise, I will call you a lying fucking retard, because

that is exactly what you are, Dickbot.

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

for many enabling an
increase in wealth for the wealthy - including overseas investors.

What has an increase in wealth for the wealthy got to do with an increase

in

poverty?

With GDP per head being very small, and supported significantly by
increases in property values, there is not much room for any increase
in wages - and indeed we haven't seen much of an increase; whereas
there has been an increase in the wealth of those already wealthy, and >>>> of course a lot of people in Auckland have "paper-profits"on their
homes, but they would have to sell to realise those profits. All quite >>>> unsatisfactory for most people, but great for those already wealthy .

. .

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

Read it. Then get some counselling because it shows what a lying

propagandising little shit you are, Dickbot.

JohnO.you forget rich only believes what he reads on the Stranded,
Polity, norightturn and other Labour controlled information sites.
Giving him cites for government departments just how your desperation to
make things look better when the loopy left know it's just WRONG!
because left thinking people know better than to believe anyone
controlled by the government.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)