In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased >in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wagesI could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that reaches the common sense requirement.
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of >poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:reaches
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased >in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages >of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of >poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that
the common sense requirement.
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...I don't have one because it would require the wisdom of Solomon, do you have one (it needs to make sense of course unlike the one that is the subject of the thread)?
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased >> >in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages >> >of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of >> >poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >> >previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >> >poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>reaches
the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased >>> in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages >>> of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of >>> poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >>> previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >>> poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >>> --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that reaches
the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased >> >in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages >> >of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of >> >poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >> >previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >> >poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that reaches
the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty thatreaches
the common sense requirement.
Tony
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increasedI could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that reaches
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages >>> >of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >>> >previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >>> >poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >>> >--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>> >creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs. >>
the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An excellent reason to get rid of him.
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages >> > of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >> > previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >> > poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >> >
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An
excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied about,
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
increased in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly >>>> >than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in >>>> >turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to
be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from
"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>> >your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>>> reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
On 2/17/2016 5:25 PM, Tony wrote:
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that reachesIf Liebor ever get back into Government watch how quickly the 'poverty' >definition changes
the common sense requirement.
Tony
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>increased
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
wagesin the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the
ofof the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >> > people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition
wherepoverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty
inpreviously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not
about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >> >
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An
excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied
Do you think that is likely under any government,
JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that reaches
the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
-Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote:increased
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
wagesin the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the
ofof the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition
wherepoverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty
inpreviously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not
poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >> >--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >> >creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>reaches
the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
I don't have one because it would require the wisdom of Solomon,
Do you have one?
(it needs to make sense of course unlike the one that is the subjectof the thread)
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 08:22:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:in
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >> >> > people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not
socialist utopias as Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and North Korea.poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An
excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government,
No. Which makes that style of "poverty" definition all the more pointless.
JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
National? I guess you didn't realise that the judicial process of extradition has nothing to do with party politics and is entirely independent. The sort of political interference in the judiciary you insinuate is more likely to be found in such
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
increased in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly >>>>> >than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in >>>>> >turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to >>>>> >be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from
"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>> >your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>>>> reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax and >rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone >else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:20:09 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that reaches
the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
We don't need one as we don't have poverty as such.
Sure we have a few bums and vagrants But that is there life choice.
If you are very poor the State will house, feed and cloth you. The state even
Pays for your sprogs . That you have decided to breed.
All while not paying any tax in real terms.
Examples of childhood poverty may be found in Bangladesh or India or
most of the northern African countries.
There is no such poverty here
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:31:06 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>of
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 08:22:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >>>>>> people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition
socialist utopias as Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and North Korea.poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in
poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >>>>>>
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An >>>>> excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government,
No. Which makes that style of "poverty" definition all the more pointless. >>
JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
National? I guess you didn't realise that the judicial process of extradition has nothing to do with party politics and is entirely independent. The sort of political interference in the judiciary you insinuate is more likely to be found in such
Yeah, Right!
Were you aware that the New Zealand government has been assisting the
United States in their endeavours to get Dotcom exradited?
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased >>> in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages >>> of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of >>> poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >>> previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >>> poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >>>
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An
excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages >>>> of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >>>> people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where >>>> previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in >>>> poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >>>>
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An
excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government, JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
On 18/02/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:in
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:31:06 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 08:22:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >>>>>>> people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not
socialist utopias as Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and North Korea.poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An >>>>>> excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government,
No. Which makes that style of "poverty" definition all the more pointless. >>>
JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
National? I guess you didn't realise that the judicial process of extradition has nothing to do with party politics and is entirely independent. The sort of political interference in the judiciary you insinuate is more likely to be found in such
To the extent of illegal invasions of a home?Are you aware that whoever is in Govt. is obliged to do the same?
Yeah, Right!
Were you aware that the New Zealand government has been assisting the
United States in their endeavours to get Dotcom exradited?
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:51:45 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:socialist utopias as Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and North Korea.
On 18/02/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:31:06 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 08:22:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >>>>>>>> people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in
poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty.
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An >>>>>>> excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government,
No. Which makes that style of "poverty" definition all the more pointless. >>>>
JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
National? I guess you didn't realise that the judicial process of extradition has nothing to do with party politics and is entirely independent. The sort of political interference in the judiciary you insinuate is more likely to be found in such
To the extent of illegal invasions of a home?Are you aware that whoever is in Govt. is obliged to do the same?
Yeah, Right!
Were you aware that the New Zealand government has been assisting the
United States in their endeavours to get Dotcom exradited?
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:51:45 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2016 11:21 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:To the extent of illegal invasions of a home?
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:31:06 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Are you aware that whoever is in Govt. is obliged to do the same?
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 08:22:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>>> increased in the last year because the average wage rose more
quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>>>> wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered >>>>>>>> to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>>>> "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>> poverty.
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. >>>>>>> An excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being
bandied about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following >>>>>> is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and
successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government,
No. Which makes that style of "poverty" definition all the more
pointless.
JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
National? I guess you didn't realise that the judicial process of
extradition has nothing to do with party politics and is entirely
independent. The sort of political interference in the judiciary you
insinuate is more likely to be found in such socialist utopias as Cuba, >>>> Venezuela, Russia and North Korea.
Yeah, Right!
Were you aware that the New Zealand government has been assisting the
United States in their endeavours to get Dotcom exradited?
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>> increased in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly >>>>>>> than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in >>>>>>> turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to >>>>>>> be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>>> "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>>> your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>>>>> reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax and >> rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone
else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more
quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median
wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to >>>>>> >be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>> >"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and
maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty
that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax and >>rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone >>else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more
quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>> >wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to >>>>>> >be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>> >"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and
maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax and >>rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone >>else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms of someone else's wealth.
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com>
wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
increased in the last year because the average wage rose more
quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median
wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered
to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move
from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and
maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty
that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax
and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on
anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms
of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career,
he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has
only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Incidentally, he's also concerned at what he regards as an unusually--
high prevalence of clinical depression across all cohorts.
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>>>> increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>>> quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>>>>> wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median. >>>>>>>>>
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>> definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to >>>>>>>>> be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>>>>> "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>> poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>> needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>> maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>> and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax and >>>> rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone >>>> else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms of >> someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career,
he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has
only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Incidentally, he's also concerned at what he regards as an unusually
high prevalence of clinical depression across all cohorts.
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And that is the issue.
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly >>>>>> >than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in >>>>>> >turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to >>>>>> >be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>> >"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>> >your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>>>>> reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax and >>rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone >>else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
On 18/02/2016 8:22 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Surely you aren't as challenged in comprehension as you portray. I have
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >>>>> people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from "not in
poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure poverty. >>>>>
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An >>>> excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government, JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
never said that as anyone with something approaching half a brain will >understand.
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:31:06 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Well done Rich - you got it - it is right!
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 08:22:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the >>> >> >wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >>> >> > people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty >>> >> >where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from
"not in
poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty.
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An >>> >> excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied >>> >about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If we >>> >exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business owners, >>> >"poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government,
No. Which makes that style of "poverty" definition all the more pointless.
JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
National? I guess you didn't realise that the judicial process of extradition >>has nothing to do with party politics and is entirely independent. The sort of
political interference in the judiciary you insinuate is more likely to be >>found in such socialist utopias as Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and North Korea.
Yeah, Right!
Were you aware that the New Zealand government has been assisting theNonsense - any evidence of government intervention other than due process and follwing the rules of international treaties?
United States in their endeavours to get Dotcom exradited?
-Newsman- wrote:
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>>>>> increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>>>> quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>>>>>> wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median. >>>>>>>>>>
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>> definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered >>>>>>>>>> to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>>> poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>>> needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>>> maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>> and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >>>>> and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>> anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms
of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career,
he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has
only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Are people getting these diseases because other people are richer than them?
On 18/02/2016 2:05 p.m., Allistar wrote:That sounds very strange, do you have a cite for that bizarre belief?
-Newsman- wrote:The socialists of course believe we should all be equal. Since we cannot
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>>>>>> increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>>>>> quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>>>>>>> wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median. >>>>>>>>>>>
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>>> definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered >>>>>>>>>>> to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>>>> poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>>>> needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>>>> maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>> and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >>>>>> and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>>> anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms >>>> of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career,
he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has >>> only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Are people getting these diseases because other people are richer than them? >>
all be rich, we should all be poor.
If eveyrone got these 'poverty' diseases and sicknesses imagine how happy we'dall be.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And that >is the issue.
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly >>>>>>> >than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in >>>>>>> >turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to >>>>>>> >be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>>> >"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>>> >your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>>>>>> reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax and >>>rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone >>>else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Tony
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNo and there is a lot being done, I might believe that there should be more but unlike you I do not lie by saying nothing is being done. >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And that >>is the issue.
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly >>>>>>>> >than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in
turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to >>>>>>>> >be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>>>> >"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>>>> >your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>>>>>>> reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax and >>>>rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone >>>>else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
Yep, the public service part that is non political. Nothing to do with the Bational party our policy, dumbo.
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And >>that is the issue.
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>> >quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>>>> >wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered >>>>>>>> >to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>>>> >"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and
maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >>>>and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Rich80105 wrote:No, what makes you think that?
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And >>>that is the issue.
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>>> >quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>>>>> >wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median. >>>>>>>>> >
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered >>>>>>>>> >to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>>>>> >"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>> >maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >>>>>and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>>anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing?
Or you do think thatNo, but they have an obvious role to play
this problem should be solved only by the government?
If so then not only isWho are you to arrogantly make assumptions about what I do. I pay my
that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me personally") but >also callous.
People help those in need all the time.Has anyone said otherwise?
Pretending that this is theWhat rot. That is an excuse for doing nothing.
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and should >help themselves.
Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest should
be happening.
Rich80105 wrote:
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing? Or you do think that this problem should be solved only by the government? If so then not only is that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me personally") but also callous.
People help those in need all the time. Pretending that this is the governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and should help themselves. Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest should be happening.
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:21:05 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
If eveyrone got these 'poverty' diseases and sicknesses imagine how happy we'd all be.
Some want to work in the other direction to help people in poverty,
and are upset at the lying from government: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77024295/andrew-little-on-housing-crisis-no-child-should-be-living-in-a-hovel
Strange you should think that, Fred
On 19/02/2016 9:11 a.m., Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing? Or you do think
that this problem should be solved only by the government? If so then not
only is that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me
personally") but also callous.
People help those in need all the time. Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and should
help themselves. Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest
should be happening.
Those people are outliers and their actions worthy as they are are not sufficient to mitigate the effects of child poverty.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:11:40 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:No, what makes you think that?
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And >>>>that is the issue.
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty >>>>>>>>>> >had increased in the last year because the average wage rose >>>>>>>>>> >more quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the >>>>>>>>>> >median wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the >>>>>>>>>> >median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now
considered to be in poverty where previously they weren't. >>>>>>>>>> >
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>>> >maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >>>>>>and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>>>anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing?
Or you do think that
this problem should be solved only by the government?
No, but they have an obvious role to play
If so then not only is
that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me personally")
but also callous.
Who are you to arrogantly make assumptions about what I do. I pay my
taxes, I donate to charity, I work a day a week for a charity. What do
you do, Allistar?
People help those in need all the time.
Has anyone said otherwise?
Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and should >>help themselves.
What rot. That is an excuse for doing nothing.
Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest should
be happening.
Again you try to attribute false words to me. Express your own
opinions and let others express theirs.
Your posts indicate that you think the government has a major role to play
in dealing with poverty. My apologies if I have gotten that wrong. I am saying that a far better solution is one based on compassion and empathy,
the opposite of expecting the government to "fix" this problem.
-Newsman- wrote:
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com>
wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >> >>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more
quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >> >>>>>> >wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered >> >>>>>> >to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move
from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and
maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >> >>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >> >>and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on
anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms
of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career,
he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Are people getting these diseases because other people are richer than them?
In article <1rOdnfPhCbpuhVjLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >me@hiddenaddress.com says...Some real truth in that. I have never suggested that there are no impoverished people in this country and I have not suggested that none of those people (chidren and adults) suffer from diseases caused by poverty.
-Newsman- wrote:
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >> >> >>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >> >> >>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more
quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >> >> >>>>>> >wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered >> >> >>>>>> >to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move
from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >> >> >>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >> >> >>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and
maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >> >> >>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >> >> >>and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on
anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms >> >> of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career,
he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has >> > only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Are people getting these diseases because other people are richer than them?
The wealth of others is not, in isolation,causative, but that doesn't
alter the self-evident fact that the the diseases of poverty are a
symptom of poverty.
Consider the two groups, the wealthy and the poor, and the degree of
power and control each group not only posesses to determine and improve
its own economic circumstances, but also the economic circumstances of
the other.
Which of the two holds the advantage?
Absurd it may seem, but to further augment: how many of New Zealand's >deprived and diseased poor are curently serving MPs who determine the >cicumstances of their own cohort and also that of the wealthy?
He who gains (not necessarily earns) the gold holds the power, not only
over his own circumstances, but also that of others 'lower down the
ladder.'
'T'was ever thus,' the Pontius Pilate in us all.
Yet such historical anomalies cannot be so easily swept under the carpet
with any honour or conscience; so the question is simply this:
How can it be that the childhood diseases of poverty have recently
gained a foothold in a 'first world' country that tirelessly promotes
itself not only as 'God's Own' but then ladles on further self-affirming >hubris with, 'The best country in the world in which to bring up
children'?
Rich80105 wrote:No, but the government has a large part to play.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:11:40 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:No, what makes you think that?
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And >>>>>that is the issue.
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>>>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>>>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says... >>>>>>>>>>>
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty >>>>>>>>>>> >had increased in the last year because the average wage rose >>>>>>>>>>> >more quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the >>>>>>>>>>> >median wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the >>>>>>>>>>> >median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now
considered to be in poverty where previously they weren't. >>>>>>>>>>> >
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>>>> >maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >>>>>>>and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>>>>anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing?
Your posts do. You make it seem like this is the sole responsibility of the >government.
charity itself is "compassionate". Ever heard the phrase "cold asOr you do think that
this problem should be solved only by the government?
No, but they have an obvious role to play
I don't think they do because anything they do is not from compassion. Assigning motives to policitians is almost as absurd as claiming
Of course they both represent a lot of things and feelings - speak for yourself; most people willingly pay tax becasue the value the servicesIf so then not only is
that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me personally") >>>but also callous.
Who are you to arrogantly make assumptions about what I do. I pay my
taxes, I donate to charity, I work a day a week for a charity. What do
you do, Allistar?
Many things. Paying taxes is not charity or compassion. State provided >welfare is not compassionate.
The article showed that the government had promised energency fundingPeople help those in need all the time.
Has anyone said otherwise?
You said "Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing >nothing?". That sentence infers that people are doing nothing.
Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and should >>>help themselves.
What rot. That is an excuse for doing nothing.
That's exactly what I am saying.
Again you impute negative motives to others without any proof or evenThrough compassion. The opposite of what you suggest should
be happening.
Again you try to attribute false words to me. Express your own
opinions and let others express theirs.
Your posts indicate that you think the government has a major role to play
in dealing with poverty. My apologies if I have gotten that wrong. I am >saying that a far better solution is one based on compassion and empathy,
the opposite of expecting the government to "fix" this problem.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:42:08 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:11:40 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:No, what makes you think that?
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. >>>>>>And that is the issue.
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>>>>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>>>>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- >>>>>>>>>><slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says... >>>>>>>>>>>>
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty >>>>>>>>>>>> >had increased in the last year because the average wage rose >>>>>>>>>>>> >more quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the >>>>>>>>>>>> >median wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the >>>>>>>>>>>> >median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now >>>>>>>>>>>> >considered to be in poverty where previously they weren't. >>>>>>>>>>>> >
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to >>>>>>>>>>>> >measure poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to >>>>>>>>>>>> >his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities >>>>>>>>>>>> >and maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of >>>>>>>>>>>> poverty that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after >>>>>>>>tax and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not >>>>>>>>based on anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing?
Your posts do. You make it seem like this is the sole responsibility of
the government.
No, but the government has a large part to play.
Or you do think that
this problem should be solved only by the government?
No, but they have an obvious role to play
I don't think they do because anything they do is not from compassion.
Assigning motives to policitians is almost as absurd as claiming
charity itself is "compassionate". Ever heard the phrase "cold as
charity"? It was to get past that cold charity that governments
stepped in.
If so then not only is
that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me personally") >>>>but also callous.
Who are you to arrogantly make assumptions about what I do. I pay my
taxes, I donate to charity, I work a day a week for a charity. What do
you do, Allistar?
Many things. Paying taxes is not charity or compassion. State provided >>welfare is not compassionate.
Of course they both represent a lot of things and feelings - speak for yourself; most people willingly pay tax becasue the value the services
that are thereby delivered, even if they do not currently need them.
People help those in need all the time.
Has anyone said otherwise?
You said "Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing >>nothing?". That sentence infers that people are doing nothing.
The article showed that the government had promised energency funding
and 2 months later had not spent anything. Would you prefer "putting
off doing anything as long as politically feasible"?
Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and >>>>should help themselves.
What rot. That is an excuse for doing nothing.
That's exactly what I am saying.
You are in a very small minority, bu you are entitled to your opinions
- just don;t use them to attribute false motives and feelings to those
who do not agree with you.
Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest should
be happening.
Again you try to attribute false words to me. Express your own
opinions and let others express theirs.
Your posts indicate that you think the government has a major role to play >>in dealing with poverty. My apologies if I have gotten that wrong. I am >>saying that a far better solution is one based on compassion and empathy, >>the opposite of expecting the government to "fix" this problem.
Again you impute negative motives to others without any proof or even
logical connection - you are wrong to do that.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:44:15 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 19/02/2016 9:11 a.m., Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing? Or you do think >>>> that this problem should be solved only by the government? If so then
not only is that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me >>>> personally") but also callous.
People help those in need all the time. Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and
should help themselves. Through compassion. The opposite of what you
suggest should be happening.
Those people are outliers and their actions worthy as they are are not
sufficient to mitigate the effects of child poverty.
Do you think they are outliers because there is a misconception that we
pay taxes to alleviate the need of those who need help?
That is to say, if the state didn't pretend to be in the business of >>helping people do you think more individuals and organisations would >>express their compassion and empathy to those who would benefit from it?
victor wrote:
On 19/02/2016 9:11 a.m., Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing? Or you do think
that this problem should be solved only by the government? If so then not >>> only is that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me
personally") but also callous.
People help those in need all the time. Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and should >>> help themselves. Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest
should be happening.
Those people are outliers and their actions worthy as they are are not
sufficient to mitigate the effects of child poverty.
Do you think they are outliers because there is a misconception that we pay >taxes to alleviate the need of those who need help?
That is to say, if the state didn't pretend to be in the business of helping >people do you think more individuals and organisations would express their >compassion and empathy to those who would benefit from it?
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:44:15 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 19/02/2016 9:11 a.m., Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing? Or you do think >>>> that this problem should be solved only by the government? If so then not >>>> only is that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me
personally") but also callous.
People help those in need all the time. Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and should >>>> help themselves. Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest
should be happening.
Those people are outliers and their actions worthy as they are are not
sufficient to mitigate the effects of child poverty.
Do you think they are outliers because there is a misconception that we pay >>taxes to alleviate the need of those who need help?
That is to say, if the state didn't pretend to be in the business of helping >>people do you think more individuals and organisations would express their >>compassion and empathy to those who would benefit from it?
See:https://www.national.org.nz/about/about-national
Which includes:
The National Party seeks a safe, prosperous, and successful New
Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach
their personal goals and dreams.
We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the
following values:
• Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles, and our
Sovereign as Head of State
• National and personal security
• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and reward for achievement
• Limited government
• Strong families and caring communities
• Sustainable development of our environment
In article <part1of1.1.bpyOXOlWdjaVPw@ue.ph>, Tony says...<snipped for brevity>
-Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <1rOdnfPhCbpuhVjLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Identification implies finding who is affected and nothing more (followed by help of course), the rest is the role of academis and research so that we can try to avoid future issues.Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms
of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career, >> >> > he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has
only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Are people getting these diseases because other people are richer than
them?
The wealth of others is not, in isolation,causative, but that doesn't
alter the self-evident fact that the the diseases of poverty are a
symptom of poverty.
Consider the two groups, the wealthy and the poor, and the degree of
power and control each group not only posesses to determine and improve
its own economic circumstances, but also the economic circumstances of
the other.
Which of the two holds the advantage?
Absurd it may seem, but to further augment: how many of New Zealand's
deprived and diseased poor are curently serving MPs who determine the
cicumstances of their own cohort and also that of the wealthy?
He who gains (not necessarily earns) the gold holds the power, not only
over his own circumstances, but also that of others 'lower down the
ladder.'
'T'was ever thus,' the Pontius Pilate in us all.
Yet such historical anomalies cannot be so easily swept under the carpet
with any honour or conscience; so the question is simply this:
How can it be that the childhood diseases of poverty have recently
gained a foothold in a 'first world' country that tirelessly promotes
itself not only as 'God's Own' but then ladles on further self-affirming
hubris with, 'The best country in the world in which to bring up
children'?
Some real truth in that. I have never suggested that there are no >>impoverished
people in this country and I have not suggested that none of those people
(chidren and adults) suffer from diseases caused by poverty.
And I accept that I am not being accused of the above. Just making my >>position
clear.
My issue is simple - whilst we must identify and help those in that position >>we
do not know how many there are.
Identification implies verifying what kinds of poverty there are and the >severity and consequences of each. Who's going to do this, and how?
And when?
Yes it is, it is as much of an argument as saying there are so many hundreds of thousands (based on a wrong definition) in poverty.The figure of several hundred thousand is
staggeringly unbelievable and even more so because the measurement is >>patently
wrong.
"I don't believe it because it must be wrong," is not argument.
So, again - and taking into account your disbelief - what manner of >measurement would give a correct figure other than that now in use?No one has delivered one, I don't know one - that is my point!
I don't care if it is imponderable; it is truth! There is no definition of poverty that makes sense in the New Zealand environment that has been presented.If there is a correct measurement then I suggest it is yet to be
identified.
Well, that is the imponderable. A lot of governments govern on exactly
that principle, dressing up surmise conjoured out of thin air as fact,
e.g. that hoary old flim-flam crapola, "New Zealanders don't care about
that (name it) issue." - John Key.
Aee above - it is ridiculous until a measurement is provided - by definition!The problem with a ridiculous figure is that it turns off moderate
people who have enough intelligence to realise just how farcical the figure >>is.
You presume the ridiculous. Not argument in the context of what you're >trying to convey.
No I do not need to - those that are saying that there are hundreds of thousands have the burden of proof - no me!It is simply a dishonet figure without a measurement that makes sense.
Again, you presume; to validate your presumption you must show how, why
and what measurement wojld give the valid statistics you seek.
Simply non-sequitur!So there are two separaable issues which the opponents of the government >>neatly
and dishonestly add together to make some result other than two.
You now pile imputation onto assumption to manipulate your assertions
into fact: false logic of the kind so beloved of the question-begging >brigade, and therefore by its very invoking, invalid.
I do not set myself up as an expert in this area, those that do so (usually falsely) have yet to provide a measurement.1. There are real poor and they need to be identified and helped - agreed!
Assertion recognised but not necessarily agreed.
2. There are real poor and we have absolutely no idea how many.
There are statistics but, as you say, they are not assuredly 100%
verifiable. How could that be addressed?
Quod erat demonstrandum - my point exactly but for those that have no measurement but nevertheless make assumptions based on political beliefs that take pride of place over humanity and logic.This is a
meaningless and spurious diversion from what is important - see above.
I am not prepared to give details but I live in a town that has ahigher than
the national average number of people who are unemployed and we have low >>decile
schools/colleges - I am heavily involved in the community through a local
service club, a charity which I help to run and several charitable trusts >>with
which I am associated. We see real need and we address it whenever it is
identified but I do not see anything approaching the level of poverty and
related illness that the incompetent opposition suggests. In fact I will go >>so
far as to accuse those that provide this level of gross exaggeration of
actually making things worse because they are so unbelievable that moderates >> tend to ignore the problem - human nature unfortunately.
You may well be right, but until there are verifiable and indisputable
facts and figures, argument can only be based on hubris, invention,
hearsay and biassed speculation...
...while the poor still go without.Not often in my community, see above!
-Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote:had
In article <1rOdnfPhCbpuhVjLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >me@hiddenaddress.com says...
-Newsman- wrote:
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >> >> > wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >> >> >>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty
medianincreased in the last year because the average wage rose more >> >> >>>>>> >quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the
consideredwage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >> >> >>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now
povertyto be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >> >> >>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >> >> >>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >> >> >>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and
maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of
taxthat reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >> >> >>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after
them?and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >> >> >>anyone else's income.But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms >> >> of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career, >> > he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has >> > only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Are people getting these diseases because other people are richer than
impoverishedThe wealth of others is not, in isolation,causative, but that doesn't
alter the self-evident fact that the the diseases of poverty are a
symptom of poverty.
Consider the two groups, the wealthy and the poor, and the degree of
power and control each group not only posesses to determine and improve
its own economic circumstances, but also the economic circumstances of
the other.
Which of the two holds the advantage?
Absurd it may seem, but to further augment: how many of New Zealand's >deprived and diseased poor are curently serving MPs who determine the >cicumstances of their own cohort and also that of the wealthy?
He who gains (not necessarily earns) the gold holds the power, not only >over his own circumstances, but also that of others 'lower down the >ladder.'
'T'was ever thus,' the Pontius Pilate in us all.
Yet such historical anomalies cannot be so easily swept under the carpet >with any honour or conscience; so the question is simply this:
How can it be that the childhood diseases of poverty have recently
gained a foothold in a 'first world' country that tirelessly promotes >itself not only as 'God's Own' but then ladles on further self-affirming >hubris with, 'The best country in the world in which to bring up
children'?
Some real truth in that. I have never suggested that there are no
people in this country and I have not suggested that none of those people (chidren and adults) suffer from diseases caused by poverty.position
And I accept that I am not being accused of the above. Just making my
clear.we
My issue is simple - whilst we must identify and help those in that position
do not know how many there are.
The figure of several hundred thousand ispatently
staggeringly unbelievable and even more so because the measurement is
wrong.
If there is a correct measurement then I suggest it is yet to be
identified.
The problem with a ridiculous figure is that it turns off moderateis.
people who have enough intelligence to realise just how farcical the figure
It is simply a dishonet figure without a measurement that makes sense.
So there are two separaable issues which the opponents of the governmentneatly
and dishonestly add together to make some result other than two.
1. There are real poor and they need to be identified and helped - agreed!
2. There are real poor and we have absolutely no idea how many.
This is ahigher than
meaningless and spurious diversion from what is important - see above.
I am not prepared to give details but I live in a town that has a
the national average number of people who are unemployed and we have lowdecile
schools/colleges - I am heavily involved in the community through a local service club, a charity which I help to run and several charitable trustswith
which I am associated. We see real need and we address it whenever it is identified but I do not see anything approaching the level of poverty and related illness that the incompetent opposition suggests. In fact I will goso
far as to accuse those that provide this level of gross exaggeration of actually making things worse because they are so unbelievable that moderates tend to ignore the problem - human nature unfortunately.
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the
wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >>>> >people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty
where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from
"not in
poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your
needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty that >>>> reaches
the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world.
and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
On 18/02/2016 2:05 p.m., Allistar wrote:
-Newsman- wrote:The socialists of course believe we should all be equal. Since we cannot
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty >>>>>>>>>>> had
increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>>>>> quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>>>>>>> wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median. >>>>>>>>>>>
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>>> definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now
considered
to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>>>> poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>>>> needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>>>> maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>> and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after >>>>>> tax
and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>>> anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in terms >>>> of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career,
he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he has >>> only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Are people getting these diseases because other people are richer than
them?
all be rich, we should all be poor. If eveyrone got these 'poverty'
diseases and sicknesses imagine how happy we'd all be.
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:21:05 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2016 2:05 p.m., Allistar wrote:That sounds very strange, do you have a cite for that bizarre belief?
-Newsman- wrote:The socialists of course believe we should all be equal. Since we cannot >>all be rich, we should all be poor.
In article <k6GdndSlMvy_Y1nLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
me@hiddenaddress.com says...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>>>> disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman-
<slaybot@hotmail.com>
wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says... >>>>>>>>>>>
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty >>>>>>>>>>>> had
increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the >>>>>>>>>>>> median
wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>> definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now >>>>>>>>>>>> considered
to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>>>>> poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>>>>> needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>>>>> maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of >>>>>>>>>>> poverty
that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>>> and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after >>>>>>> tax
and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>>>> anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
childcare is more expensive, or .....
Sure, but the point is that your poverty should not be defined in
terms
of someone else's wealth.
A German paediatric specialist who arrived in this country about 8
months ago, has told me that, for the first time in his 25-year career, >>>> he finds he's having to deal with childhood ailments and diseases he
has
only previously ever read about.
They are, he says, the diseases of poverty.
Are people getting these diseases because other people are richer than
them?
If eveyrone got these 'poverty' diseases and sicknesses imagine how happy >>we'd all be.
Some want to work in the other direction to help people in poverty,
and are upset at the lying from government: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77024295/andrew-little-on-housing-crisis-no-child-should-be-living-in-a-hovel
Strange you should think that, Fred
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And >>that
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had >>>>>>>> >increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>> >quickly
than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median wage >>>>>>>> >which in
turn sees more people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now considered >>>>>>>> >to
be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from >>>>>>>> >"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and
maximize
your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>> that
reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >>>>and
rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on anyone >>>>else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
is the issue.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:42:08 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:No, but the government has a large part to play.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:11:40 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:No, what makes you think that?
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. >>>>>>And
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>>>>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>>>>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- >>>>>>>>>><slaybot@hotmail.com>
wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says... >>>>>>>>>>>>
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty >>>>>>>>>>>> >had increased in the last year because the average wage rose >>>>>>>>>>>> >more quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the >>>>>>>>>>>> >median wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the >>>>>>>>>>>> >median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now >>>>>>>>>>>> >considered to be in poverty where previously they weren't. >>>>>>>>>>>> >
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>>>>> >from "not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to >>>>>>>>>>>> >measure
poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to >>>>>>>>>>>> >his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>>>>> >maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of >>>>>>>>>>>> poverty
that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after >>>>>>>>tax
and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>>>>>anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
that is the issue.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing?
Your posts do. You make it seem like this is the sole responsibility of
the
government.
Assigning motives to policitians is almost as absurd as claimingOr you do think that
this problem should be solved only by the government?
No, but they have an obvious role to play
I don't think they do because anything they do is not from compassion.
charity itself is "compassionate". Ever heard the phrase "cold as
charity"? It was to get past that cold charity that governments
stepped in.
Of course they both represent a lot of things and feelings - speak for yourself; most people willingly pay tax becasue the value the servicesIf so then not only is
that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me personally") >>>>but also callous.
Who are you to arrogantly make assumptions about what I do. I pay my
taxes, I donate to charity, I work a day a week for a charity. What do
you do, Allistar?
Many things. Paying taxes is not charity or compassion. State provided >>welfare is not compassionate.
that are thereby delivered, even if they do not currently need them.
The article showed that the government had promised energency funding
People help those in need all the time.
Has anyone said otherwise?
You said "Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing >>nothing?". That sentence infers that people are doing nothing.
and 2 months later had not spent anything. Would you prefer "putting
off doing anything as long as politically feasible"?
Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and >>>>should
help themselves.
What rot. That is an excuse for doing nothing.
That's exactly what I am saying.
You are in a very small minority, bu you are entitled to your opinions
- just don;t use them to attribute false motives and feelings to those
who do not agree with you.
Again you impute negative motives to others without any proof or even
Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest should
be happening.
Again you try to attribute false words to me. Express your own
opinions and let others express theirs.
Your posts indicate that you think the government has a major role to play >>in dealing with poverty. My apologies if I have gotten that wrong. I am >>saying that a far better solution is one based on compassion and empathy, >>the opposite of expecting the government to "fix" this problem.
logical connection - you are wrong to do that.
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the
wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees
more
people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty
where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from
"not in
poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty.
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An
excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied >about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If
we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business >owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government,
JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:27:34 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yep, the public service part that is non political. Nothing to do with the >>Bational party our policy, dumbo.
Its not clear what you are trying to convey, JohnO.
Perhaps you could think about whether this one is the fault of your
Bational party dumbos, or the public service: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Apparently your National party are not allowing Housing New Zealand to
spend money even in an emergecy situation . . .
On 18/02/2016 8:22 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:56:40 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Surely you aren't as challenged in comprehension as you portray. I have
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:44:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 17/02/2016 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty had
increased
in the last year because the average wage rose more quickly than the >>>>> wages
of the lower paid. This raises the median wage which in turn sees more >>>>> people under 60% of the median.
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical
definition of
poverty has not changed, but they're now considered to be in poverty >>>>> where
previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move from
"not in
poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure
poverty.
Exactly, and if Dotcom leaves that will bring a few out of poverty. An >>>> excellent reason to get rid of him.
Isn't it extraordinary, that with the current definitions being bandied
about, the ones the lefties really like, that the following is true: If
we exile all the "rich pricks", high earners and successful business
owners, "poverty" would be reduced.
Do you think that is likely under any government, JohnO? Although Fred
points out National are trying to get rid of one . . .
never said that as anyone with something approaching half a brain will understand.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:11:40 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:No, what makes you think that?
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:28:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:14:55 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>wrote:Maybe is not a measure. There is not a reasonable measure available. And >>>>that is the issue.
Rich80105 wrote:But they may be if rents are higher . . . or if you have a sick or >>>>>disabled child, or if there is only limited work available, or if >>>>>childcare is more expensive, or .....
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:58:22 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:33 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.BBZn9u2st9t9rg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
In the Herald this morning it said that the number in poverty >>>>>>>>>> >had
increased in the last year because the average wage rose more >>>>>>>>>> >quickly than the wages of the lower paid. This raises the median >>>>>>>>>> >wage which in turn sees more people under 60% of the median. >>>>>>>>>> >
The plight of those that find themselves in this mathematical >>>>>>>>>> >definition of poverty has not changed, but they're now
considered
to be in poverty where previously they weren't.
I.e. having someone else's income increase could see you move >>>>>>>>>> >from
"not in poverty" to "in poverty".
This shows that this is a completely nonsensical way to measure >>>>>>>>>> >poverty. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>>>> >needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and >>>>>>>>>> >maximize your needs.
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty >>>>>>>>>> that reaches the common sense requirement.
So why not let us have yours?
The Formula for so called poverty is crap.
There are pensioner's who live in poverty and yet fly the world. >>>>>>>>and good on them.
So what measure should the government use?
The amount of money necessary to feed and clothe your family after tax >>>>>>and rent is taking out. It should be a fixed amount and not based on >>>>>>anyone else's income.
Someone isn't poorer because their neighbour earns more.
Tony
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing?
Or you do think thatNo, but they have an obvious role to play
this problem should be solved only by the government?
If so then not only isWho are you to arrogantly make assumptions about what I do. I pay my
that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me personally")
but
also callous.
taxes, I donate to charity, I work a day a week for a charity. What do
you do, Allistar?
People help those in need all the time.Has anyone said otherwise?
Pretending that this is theWhat rot. That is an excuse for doing nothing.
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and should >>help themselves.
Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest should
be happening.
Again you try to attribute false words to me. Express your own
opinions and let others express theirs.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:44:15 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 19/02/2016 9:11 a.m., Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
Do you think the absence of a reasonable measure justifies doing
nothing?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/296710/where's-the-$2m-for-emergency-housing
Are you using it as an excuse to justify doing nothing? Or you do think >>>> that this problem should be solved only by the government? If so then
not
only is that hypocritical ("the poor must be helped, but not by me
personally") but also callous.
People help those in need all the time. Pretending that this is the
governments role could cause the selfish to not think they can and
should
help themselves. Through compassion. The opposite of what you suggest
should be happening.
Those people are outliers and their actions worthy as they are are not
sufficient to mitigate the effects of child poverty.
Do you think they are outliers because there is a misconception that we
pay
taxes to alleviate the need of those who need help?
That is to say, if the state didn't pretend to be in the business of >>helping
people do you think more individuals and organisations would express their >>compassion and empathy to those who would benefit from it?
See:https://www.national.org.nz/about/about-national
Which includes:
The National Party seeks a safe, prosperous, and successful New
Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach
their personal goals and dreams.
We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the
following values:
. Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles, and our
Sovereign as Head of State
. National and personal security
. Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
. Individual freedom and choice
. Personal responsibility
. Competitive enterprise and reward for achievement
. Limited government
. Strong families and caring communities
. Sustainable development of our environment
Teh fact that National are failing on many of those goals does not
mean that all National party members and supporters have no compassion
or empathy
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:52:00 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2016 5:25 PM, Tony wrote:
I could not agree more. I have yet to see a definition of poverty thatIf Liebor ever get back into Government watch how quickly the 'poverty' >>definition changes
reaches
the common sense requirement.
Tony
So you support the current definition, do you geroge?
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:06:14 |
| Calls: | 2,081 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,658 |