On 16/02/2016 4:04 p.m., Tony wrote:

Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 16/02/2016 3:51 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:10:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in
Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch >>>>> are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate . >>>>

Has there been a policy announcement that only the top tax rate will be cut?
If not, why do you mention "top tax rate" and not just "tax rate"?

Because there is more than one rate,and the focus of the 'selling' of
tax cuts is to appeal to their base, who benefit from cuts to the top
tax rate.

Do you agree with them cutting funding for mental health in
Christchurch?

You're a sad sad man.

I hope he doesn't live in Christchurch (in fact I am sure that he doesn't!) because he needs all the mental health help he can get!
Tony

Paranoia. Spends all day and every day worrying about the John Key and
the National party - trolling through every publication know to man and
if he can't find anything detrimental to post here, he puts a spin on to
make the good sound like dog shit. Difficult condition to cure. Biggest
problem is getting them to stay on medication. Often they don't even
trust that.

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

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:00:33 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in
Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch
are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate .
. . >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/76850687/canterburys-mental-health-funding-to-be-cut.html

[snip]

The article was not about mental health as such but funding of the
Canterbury DHB and the likely impact on its mental health obligations.
As a taxpayer I am comfortable that each DHB faces scrutiny of their
funding and I am also comfortable with an article like this seeking to
expose funding issues.

This is not 'hit em when they are down'. There is nothing being done
by the National party as the subject Rich has chosen implies. It is
normal financial performance scrutiny.


--
Crash McBash

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

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:10:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in
Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch
are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate .

Has there been a policy announcement that only the top tax rate will be >>cut? If not, why do you mention "top tax rate" and not just "tax rate"?

Because there is more than one rate, and the focus of the 'selling' of
tax cuts is to appeal to their base, who benefit from cuts to the top
tax rate.

That doesn't make sense. If they plan to cut all tax rates then it's
dishonest to imply that they're only going to cut the top tax rate.

Do you agree with them cutting funding for mental health in
Christchurch?

I am not familiar enough with this policy to comment.
--
"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 Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:25:34 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:00:33 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in
Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch
are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate .
. . >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/76850687/canterburys-mental-health-funding-to-be-cut.html

[snip]

The article was not about mental health as such but funding of the
Canterbury DHB and the likely impact on its mental health obligations.
As a taxpayer I am comfortable that each DHB faces scrutiny of their
funding and I am also comfortable with an article like this seeking to
expose funding issues.

This is not 'hit em when they are down'. There is nothing being done
by the National party as the subject Rich has chosen implies. It is
normal financial performance scrutiny.

You have identified the problem Crash - "There is nothing being done
by the National party" - despite evidence of growing problems in
Christchurch they are putting tax cuts ahead of looking after New
Zealanders; they are determined not to intervene to fund an
understandable increase in requirements for services.

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

"Allistar" <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote in message news:MeWdnRsQu7-PGF_LnZ2dnUU7-Y_OydjZ@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in
Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch
are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate .

Has there been a policy announcement that only the top tax rate will be
cut?
If not, why do you mention "top tax rate" and not just "tax rate"?
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

It's Rich. He doesn't like being honest about National policys. Or for that matter Labour policys :)

Pooh

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

"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n9u33k$21n$1@dont-email.me...

On 16/02/2016 3:51 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:10:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in
Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch
are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate .

Has there been a policy announcement that only the top tax rate will be
cut?
If not, why do you mention "top tax rate" and not just "tax rate"?

Because there is more than one rate,and the focus of the 'selling' of
tax cuts is to appeal to their base, who benefit from cuts to the top
tax rate.

Do you agree with them cutting funding for mental health in
Christchurch?

You're a sad sad man.

Who desperatly needs help with his phsycological problems. Probably explains why he's worried about cuts to psych services.

Pooh

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

"Tony" <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote in message news:part1of1.1.AyPRkUxtzE1Axg@ue.ph...

Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 16/02/2016 3:51 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:10:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in
Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch >>>>> are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate . >>>>

Has there been a policy announcement that only the top tax rate will be >>>> cut?
If not, why do you mention "top tax rate" and not just "tax rate"?

Because there is more than one rate,and the focus of the 'selling' of
tax cuts is to appeal to their base, who benefit from cuts to the top
tax rate.

Do you agree with them cutting funding for mental health in
Christchurch?

You're a sad sad man.

I hope he doesn't live in Christchurch (in fact I am sure that he
doesn't!)
because he needs all the mental health help he can get!
Tony

Wellington according to one of the Richies. Though considering his truthfullness I'd take that with a LARGE grain of salt.

Pooh

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

"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fp17cbp5v82fsqbtoth34gv9rj4uk9a40b@4ax.com...

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:25:34 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:00:33 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in >>>Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch
are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate .
. . >>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/76850687/canterburys-mental-health-funding-to-be-cut.html

[snip]

The article was not about mental health as such but funding of the >>Canterbury DHB and the likely impact on its mental health obligations.
As a taxpayer I am comfortable that each DHB faces scrutiny of their >>funding and I am also comfortable with an article like this seeking to >>expose funding issues.

This is not 'hit em when they are down'. There is nothing being done
by the National party as the subject Rich has chosen implies. It is
normal financial performance scrutiny.

You have identified the problem Crash - "There is nothing being done
by the National party" - despite evidence of growing problems in
Christchurch they are putting tax cuts ahead of looking after New
Zealanders; they are determined not to intervene to fund an
understandable increase in requirements for services.

You sad, sad, widdle troll Rich. Twist as much as you like. You LIED! For purely polical purposes so typical of the troll you are Rich.

Pooh

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

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:33:12 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:25:34 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:00:33 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

but why they want to apply that to stressesd New Zealanders in >>>Christchurch is a mystery - I guess a few lives lost in Christchurch
are worth it to Key and English to get a little off the top tax rate .
. . >>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/76850687/canterburys-mental-health-funding-to-be-cut.html

[snip]

The article was not about mental health as such but funding of the >>Canterbury DHB and the likely impact on its mental health obligations.
As a taxpayer I am comfortable that each DHB faces scrutiny of their >>funding and I am also comfortable with an article like this seeking to >>expose funding issues.

This is not 'hit em when they are down'. There is nothing being done
by the National party as the subject Rich has chosen implies. It is
normal financial performance scrutiny.

You have identified the problem Crash - "There is nothing being done
by the National party" - despite evidence of growing problems in
Christchurch they are putting tax cuts ahead of looking after New
Zealanders; they are determined not to intervene to fund an
understandable increase in requirements for services.

The article you cite did not mention tax cuts and although National
have signaled an intent to cut income taxes this future intent has no
direct connection to the current funding issues faced by the
Canterbury DHB under scrutiny in the article.

Here is a key statement that puts the situation in context:

"However, the Ministry of Health continues to argue Canterbury's
access rates for mental health were low pre-quake and money can be
found within their current funding."

The rest of the article covers various viewpoints on CCHDB funding.
There is nothing to suggest anything of political importance here -
simply that CCHDB funding (like all taxpayer-funded activities) is
under scrutiny. You are attempting to make political capital out of
this scrutiny simply because it gives you an angle to attack National.
Your motivation is political, as it would be if National raised taxes
to increase CCHDB funding.


--
Crash McBash

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