On Monday, 16 January 2017 15:12:15 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called
'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some

themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by

executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth level. For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no
longer in poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called
'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some >>>themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by >>>executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of >>>hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage of the >median income then you would support the idea that "removing" the earners at >the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people would agree that reducing >the income of top earners would *not* reduce the poverty of lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist
wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage
rates! Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because
National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase
in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts
and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

So what do you think Allistar - would higher wages work for reducing
poverty?

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

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:19:46 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 15:12:15 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called
'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth level. For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no

longer in poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

That is however a semantic argument - try answering hte question using
a definition of poverty that you favour - or are you like National
that can count rats but not count poor people?

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

Seeing how you are a bit thick you should go back and reread the thread slowly.

I already cited the poverty definition and another poster already agreed.

The current operator of the dickbot account seems denser than usual.

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

On 16/01/2017 7:36 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called
'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some
themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by
executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of >>>> hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage of the >> median income then you would support the idea that "removing" the earners at >> the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people would agree that reducing >> the income of top earners would *not* reduce the poverty of lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

Don't be such a disingenuous cunt Rich! JohnO pointed out that stupid
marxist muppets would be happy to execute them. He didn't propose it!

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist
wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage
rates! Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because
National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase
in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts
and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

So tell us why after 100 years of the Labour party being government for somewhere like half that time we still have poverty and their grandiose
schemes to take money from the successful and give it to the financially illiterate they haven't managed to lessen poverty but are still playing
the poverty card in the vain hope they can suck the dumb asses into
voting Labour back into power?

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

So what do you think Allistar - would higher wages work for reducing
poverty?

Not a chance! Most of those bleating about poverty are in fact financial illiterates Rich and the worst ones are marxist muppets like you and
Labour who are to dense to understand that just giving people more money they've taken from the successful isn't going to solve the problem! It
takes a LOT of hard work: something else you and many currently ruining
the Labour party have ever done!

Pooh

p.s. can you either take a spelling course or get yourself a bloody
spell checker!

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

On 16/01/2017 3:12 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called
'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

You wouldn't you'd distribute it among all the so called poor with the
end result that nobody would have anything and the likes of Hart and
chandler would build their fortunes again while the rest and Rich would
sit around bleating about poverty with their hands out waiting for
another hand out!

What amazes me Rich is that after 100 years Labour is still bleating
about the same problems now as they did in 2016. After all their hand
wringing and crocodile tears they haven't turned a single bludger into a
worthy member of society taking responsibility for their own actions.

Pooh

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

On 16/01/2017 7:41 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:19:46 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 15:12:15 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called
'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth level.

For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no
longer in poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

That is however a semantic argument - try answering hte question using
a definition of poverty that you favour - or are you like National
that can count rats but not count poor people?

Semantic arguments are all you give us Rich! I'm still waiting after
about five years for a definition of poverty! Yet you're ramble on about
as though you believe you understand what is going on.

Pooh

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

Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called
'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some >>>>themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by >>>>executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of >>>>hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage of
the median income then you would support the idea that "removing" the >>earners at the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people would agree >>that reducing the income of top earners would *not* reduce the poverty of >>lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

You have completely side stepped the point. Do you agree that basing the poverty level on a percentage of the median income means that removing top earners from an economy (let's says they move overseas) will mathematically reduce the number of people in "poverty"?

Given this mathematical fact do you then agree that using the median income
as a basis for determining poverty is a nonsensical method?

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist
wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage
rates!

Are you an employer? If so then you are free to increase wages. As are other employers.

Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because
National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase
in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts
and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

What makes you think that the government has any control over what employers pay employees? Is your mind in a communist utopia where the state is the
only employer?

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

What has wage rates in general got to do with the government? How do you suggest that the government force employers to pay their employees more?

What other areas of private and free barter should the government force its
way into in your opinion?

So what do you think Allistar - would higher wages work for reducing
poverty?

People having more money in their hand would reduce poverty somewhat, though
it would also increase inflation. The best way to ensure people have more
money in their hand is to let them keep as much of what they warn as
possible.

The government cannot directly control how much an employer pays their employees, but the government *does* directly control how much wealth is confiscated from people via taxation.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:40:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

Seeing how you are a bit thick you should go back and reread the thread slowly.

I already cited the poverty definition and another poster already agreed.

Who was that? And did they agree with your conclusion about the effect
of removing two wealthy people from the calculation? Perhaps you could
post what that poster allegedly said . . .

The current operator of the dickbot account seems denser than usual.

I can understand why you would want to distract from your previous
posts - clearly you are embarrassed, but you have asked for them to be
read again, so I will oblige:

You said:

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

Except you presumably realise that the concentration of wealth in the
two individuals is historically rare - in reality many people,
including you, have not made similar levels of wealth for themselves -
perhaps we are still a long way from the National party expressed
ideal of equal opportunity . . .

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

So we have now established that you are unable to identify anyone
other than yourself who has expressed such a bizarre view - are you
the self-idenitified poverty dimwit, JohnO?

Cashing up the assets of those two people would not be a trivial
exzercise - even done over time it would probably result in at least
some purchases of New Zealand assets by overseas investors - you may
want to think about how making more of our enterprises overseas owned
helps anyone in New Zealand.

Lets also leave aside the idiocy of thinking there are even enough
hundred dollar bills to represent that wealth - and the government are
unlikely to want to go to the expense of printing more, or even to
issue government stock to that extent. You really didn't think it
through, did you?

But we can look at the impact of those two and their wealth being
removed from the calculations you outlined:

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth
level. For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By
reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see
the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no longer in
poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

So what happens to median income by removing all wealth (and
presumably income) from two wealthy people? How much does the line
move? Think about it JohnO (you may want to google "median"), and let
us know . . .

Yes, JohnO, you have confirmed your self-identification as poverty
dimwit . .

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

That is however a semantic argument - try answering hte question using
a definition of poverty that you favour - or are you like National
that can count rats but not count poor people?

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

On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 10:26:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:40:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

Seeing how you are a bit thick you should go back and reread the thread

slowly.

I already cited the poverty definition and another poster already agreed.

Who was that?

Allistar

And did they agree with your conclusion about the effect
of removing two wealthy people from the calculation?

Yes.

Perhaps you could
post what that poster allegedly said . . .

Go back and read it you lazy worthless waste of oxygen.

The current operator of the dickbot account seems denser than usual.

I can understand why you would want to distract from your previous
posts - clearly you are embarrassed, but you have asked for them to be
read again, so I will oblige:

You said:

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some

themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

Except you presumably realise that the concentration of wealth in the
two individuals is historically rare - in reality many people,
including you, have not made similar levels of wealth for themselves - perhaps we are still a long way from the National party expressed
ideal of equal opportunity . . .

You are dribbling incoherently and making no point whatsoever.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by

executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

So we have now established that you are unable to identify anyone
other than yourself who has expressed such a bizarre view - are you
the self-idenitified poverty dimwit, JohnO?

<Sigh>. You can patiently lead a dickbot by the nose to the facts, but nothing you can do will help the dickbot understand the facts.

Cashing up the assets of those two people would not be a trivial
exzercise - even done over time it would probably result in at least
some purchases of New Zealand assets by overseas investors - you may
want to think about how making more of our enterprises overseas owned
helps anyone in New Zealand.

Lets also leave aside the idiocy of thinking there are even enough
hundred dollar bills to represent that wealth - and the government are

Oh, you are so dimwitted as to miss the entire point? Sad.

unlikely to want to go to the expense of printing more, or even to
issue government stock to that extent. You really didn't think it
through, did you?

You actually went there and discussed the logistics of getting the notes and burning them? This is just too funny - your interpretation is so literal and without nuance - it is as if you are trying to convince us that you really are an algorithm and not
a sentient human being!

But we can look at the impact of those two and their wealth being
removed from the calculations you outlined:

In your headlong rush to miss the point, you are missing the simple fact that myself and Allistar are holding in front of your nose: The most commonly held poverty definitions are based on being at a percentage of the median. Remove wealth at the top and
the median value becomes lower, meaning less people in "poverty".

This is so simple as to be obvious, even to a child. Why is it so difficult for
you to grasp this that you continue to bleat for cites?

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth >level. For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By
reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see
the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no longer in
poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

So what happens to median income by removing all wealth (and
presumably income) from two wealthy people? How much does the line
move? Think about it JohnO (you may want to google "median"), and let
us know . . .

Wealth is income for these people you tool.

Yes, JohnO, you have confirmed your self-identification as poverty
dimwit . .

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

That is however a semantic argument - try answering hte question using
a definition of poverty that you favour - or are you like National
that can count rats but not count poor people?

The definition I favour is not related to relativity at all so is not relevant to this discussion. But apparently you are unable to grasp the distinction.

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:37:28 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 10:26:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:40:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

Seeing how you are a bit thick you should go back and reread the thread slowly.

I already cited the poverty definition and another poster already agreed. >>

Who was that?

Allistar

And did they agree with your conclusion about the effect
of removing two wealthy people from the calculation?

Yes.

Perhaps you could
post what that poster allegedly said . . .

Go back and read it you lazy worthless waste of oxygen.

The current operator of the dickbot account seems denser than usual.

I can understand why you would want to distract from your previous
posts - clearly you are embarrassed, but you have asked for them to be
read again, so I will oblige:

You said:

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

Except you presumably realise that the concentration of wealth in the
two individuals is historically rare - in reality many people,
including you, have not made similar levels of wealth for themselves -
perhaps we are still a long way from the National party expressed
ideal of equal opportunity . . .

You are dribbling incoherently and making no point whatsoever.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

So we have now established that you are unable to identify anyone
other than yourself who has expressed such a bizarre view - are you
the self-idenitified poverty dimwit, JohnO?

<Sigh>. You can patiently lead a dickbot by the nose to the facts, but nothing

you can do will help the dickbot understand the facts.

Cashing up the assets of those two people would not be a trivial
exzercise - even done over time it would probably result in at least
some purchases of New Zealand assets by overseas investors - you may
want to think about how making more of our enterprises overseas owned
helps anyone in New Zealand.

Lets also leave aside the idiocy of thinking there are even enough
hundred dollar bills to represent that wealth - and the government are

Oh, you are so dimwitted as to miss the entire point? Sad.

unlikely to want to go to the expense of printing more, or even to
issue government stock to that extent. You really didn't think it
through, did you?

You actually went there and discussed the logistics of getting the notes and burning them? This is just too funny - your interpretation is so literal and without nuance - it is as if you are trying to convince us that you really are an algorithm and not

a sentient human being!

But we can look at the impact of those two and their wealth being
removed from the calculations you outlined:

In your headlong rush to miss the point, you are missing the
simple fact that myself and Allistar are holding in front of your
nose: The most commonly held poverty definitions are based
on being at a percentage of the median. Remove wealth at the
top and the median value becomes lower, meaning less
people in "poverty".

This is so simple as to be obvious, even to a child. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this that you continue to bleat for cites?

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth
level. For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By
reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see
the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no longer in
poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

So what happens to median income by removing all wealth (and
presumably income) from two wealthy people? How much does the line
move? Think about it JohnO (you may want to google "median"), and let
us know . . .

Wealth is income for these people you tool.

So what happens to median income by removing two very wealthy people
from the calculation of median income, JohnO?

Yes, JohnO, you have confirmed your self-identification as poverty
dimwit . .

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

That is however a semantic argument - try answering the question using
a definition of poverty that you favour - or are you like National
that can count rats but not count poor people?

The definition I favour is not related to relativity at all so is not relevant

to this discussion. But apparently you are unable to grasp the distinction.

So what is the impact of your proposal in relation to the current
definition?

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

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:09:39 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called >>>>>> 'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some >>>>>themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by >>>>>executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of >>>>>hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage of >>>the median income then you would support the idea that "removing" the >>>earners at the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people would agree >>>that reducing the income of top earners would *not* reduce the poverty of >>>lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

You have completely side stepped the point. Do you agree that basing the >poverty level on a percentage of the median income means that removing top >earners from an economy (let's says they move overseas) will mathematically >reduce the number of people in "poverty"?

No I don't - can you explain how you think that would affect low
earners? Or beneficiaries?

Given this mathematical fact do you then agree that using the median income >as a basis for determining poverty is a nonsensical method?

What mathematical fact? - you have not given one.

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist
wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage
rates!

Are you an employer? If so then you are free to increase wages. As are other >employers.

Among those employers are the government and local authorities - some
have in fact made the step of increasing the number of people having
their income increased to the living wage - as have some private
employers - it is a start, despite opposition from the National Party
. . .

Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because
National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase
in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and
immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts
and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

What makes you think that the government has any control over what employers >pay employees? Is your mind in a communist utopia where the state is the
only employer?

The minimum wage has some impact at the bottom end, Allistar.

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

What has wage rates in general got to do with the government? How do you >suggest that the government force employers to pay their employees more?

What other areas of private and free barter should the government force its >way into in your opinion?

Have you advocated removing Working for Families in the past,
Allistar? What do you think the impact of such removal would be?
Perhaps such considerations are why National, after vigouously
opposing the legislation whie inopposition, have not changed it in 8
years of National-led coalition government . . .

So what do you think Allistar - would higher wages work for reducing
poverty?

People having more money in their hand would reduce poverty somewhat, though >it would also increase inflation. The best way to ensure people have more >money in their hand is to let them keep as much of what they warn as >possible.

Why would it increase inflation? Some others would have less in their
hands; would that not have a corresponding decrease in inflation?

The government cannot directly control how much an employer pays their >employees, but the government *does* directly control how much wealth is >confiscated from people via taxation.

Indeed a New Zealand government did at one stage impose taxation on
elements of wealth other than income, but the general exemption from
taxation of most vcapital gains is now a characteristic of our
definition of "taxable income". Are you advocating a return of
inheritence taxes, and rates based on capital values?

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:36:20 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called
'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is
affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some >>>>themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by >>>>executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of >>>>hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage of the >>median income then you would support the idea that "removing" the earners at >>the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people would agree that reducing >>the income of top earners would *not* reduce the poverty of lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

Rich you appear to believe that JohnO was seriously suggesting this.
Perhaps JohnO could assist by using emoticons to clarify his intent
;-)

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist
wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage
rates!

So why is this not being done? I will give you a clue - because for
most businesses an increased wage bill without increased productivity
is the pathway ultimately to failure.

Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because
National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase
in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and >immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts
and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

Blah Blah Blah. This is not an issue caused by National-led
governments any more than it is caused by past Labour-led governments.
There is nothing to suggest that any political party has any real
commitment to addressing this issue, let alone solving it.

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

The majority of NZ businesses employ less than 20 employees IIRC. Even
if your assertions are true can you cite examples of companies owned
by rich-listers collectively employ enough workers such that a wage
increase as you claim would cause a shift in the distribution of
wealth to those that are 'poor'?


--
Crash McBash

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

On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 11:09:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:37:28 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 10:26:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:40:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

Seeing how you are a bit thick you should go back and reread the thread

slowly.

I already cited the poverty definition and another poster already agreed.

Who was that?

Allistar

And did they agree with your conclusion about the effect
of removing two wealthy people from the calculation?

Yes.

Perhaps you could
post what that poster allegedly said . . .

Go back and read it you lazy worthless waste of oxygen.

The current operator of the dickbot account seems denser than usual.

I can understand why you would want to distract from your previous
posts - clearly you are embarrassed, but you have asked for them to be
read again, so I will oblige:

You said:

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some

themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

Except you presumably realise that the concentration of wealth in the
two individuals is historically rare - in reality many people,
including you, have not made similar levels of wealth for themselves -
perhaps we are still a long way from the National party expressed
ideal of equal opportunity . . .

You are dribbling incoherently and making no point whatsoever.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by

executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

So we have now established that you are unable to identify anyone
other than yourself who has expressed such a bizarre view - are you
the self-idenitified poverty dimwit, JohnO?

<Sigh>. You can patiently lead a dickbot by the nose to the facts, but

nothing you can do will help the dickbot understand the facts.

Cashing up the assets of those two people would not be a trivial
exzercise - even done over time it would probably result in at least
some purchases of New Zealand assets by overseas investors - you may
want to think about how making more of our enterprises overseas owned
helps anyone in New Zealand.

Lets also leave aside the idiocy of thinking there are even enough
hundred dollar bills to represent that wealth - and the government are

Oh, you are so dimwitted as to miss the entire point? Sad.

unlikely to want to go to the expense of printing more, or even to
issue government stock to that extent. You really didn't think it
through, did you?

You actually went there and discussed the logistics of getting the notes and

burning them? This is just too funny - your interpretation is so literal and without nuance - it is as if you are trying to convince us that you really are an algorithm and
not a sentient human being!

But we can look at the impact of those two and their wealth being
removed from the calculations you outlined:

In your headlong rush to miss the point, you are missing the
simple fact that myself and Allistar are holding in front of your
nose: The most commonly held poverty definitions are based
on being at a percentage of the median. Remove wealth at the
top and the median value becomes lower, meaning less
people in "poverty".

This is so simple as to be obvious, even to a child. Why is it so difficult

for you to grasp this that you continue to bleat for cites?

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth
level. For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By
reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see
the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no longer in
poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

So what happens to median income by removing all wealth (and
presumably income) from two wealthy people? How much does the line
move? Think about it JohnO (you may want to google "median"), and let
us know . . .

Wealth is income for these people you tool.

So what happens to median income by removing two very wealthy people
from the calculation of median income, JohnO?

Already explained. More than once. I will not repeat myself again so go back and have another go at reading.

Yes, JohnO, you have confirmed your self-identification as poverty
dimwit . .

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

That is however a semantic argument - try answering the question using
a definition of poverty that you favour - or are you like National
that can count rats but not count poor people?

The definition I favour is not related to relativity at all so is not

relevant to this discussion. But apparently you are unable to grasp the distinction.

So what is the impact of your proposal in relation to the current
definition?

There is no "current" definition. There are many definitions. What specific definition are you referring to? Better not be the CPAG one I already referred to as that has been covered.

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

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:09:39 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called >>>>>>> 'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is >>>>>>> affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some >>>>>>themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by >>>>>>executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile >>>>>>of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage of >>>>the median income then you would support the idea that "removing" the >>>>earners at the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people would >>>>agree that reducing the income of top earners would *not* reduce the >>>>poverty of lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

You have completely side stepped the point. Do you agree that basing the >>poverty level on a percentage of the median income means that removing top >>earners from an economy (let's says they move overseas) will
mathematically reduce the number of people in "poverty"?

No I don't - can you explain how you think that would affect low
earners? Or beneficiaries?

I have not mentioned low earners of beneficiaries. I am talking about the poverty level. If someone earns less than this magical number then they are considered by be living "in poverty". Do you agree that this is a
nonsensical way to determine poverty?

Given this mathematical fact do you then agree that using the median
income as a basis for determining poverty is a nonsensical method?

What mathematical fact? - you have not given one.

If you have a distribution of earnings and you remove a number of top
earners then the median earning will be reduced. That's a mathematical fact given how the median is calculated. This reduction in the median wage would mean that someone that was previously considered to be in poverty may no
longer be. This shows the nonsensical nature of using a median to determine
the poverty line.

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist
wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage
rates!

Are you an employer? If so then you are free to increase wages. As are >>other employers.

Among those employers are the government and local authorities - some
have in fact made the step of increasing the number of people having
their income increased to the living wage - as have some private
employers - it is a start, despite opposition from the National Party
. . .

Can you provide a cite showing the National party opposing private employers increasing the amount they pay employees? Or is this another case of you
making shit up?

Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because
National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase
in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and
immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts
and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

What makes you think that the government has any control over what >>employers pay employees? Is your mind in a communist utopia where the
state is the only employer?

The minimum wage has some impact at the bottom end, Allistar.

If you make the minimum wage equal to 60% of the median then you've
magically removed all poverty in NZ. Of course, those that are reasonable
know that this is a bullshit measure.

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

What has wage rates in general got to do with the government? How do you >>suggest that the government force employers to pay their employees more?

What other areas of private and free barter should the government force
its way into in your opinion?

Have you advocated removing Working for Families in the past,
Allistar?

Yes.

What do you think the impact of such removal would be?

A considerably lower burden on the state and hence greatly reduced taxation.

Perhaps such considerations are why National, after vigouously
opposing the legislation whie inopposition, have not changed it in 8
years of National-led coalition government . . .

They are a centre-left government after all.

So what do you think Allistar - would higher wages work for reducing
poverty?

People having more money in their hand would reduce poverty somewhat, >>though it would also increase inflation. The best way to ensure people
have more money in their hand is to let them keep as much of what they
warn as possible.

Why would it increase inflation? Some others would have less in their
hands; would that not have a corresponding decrease in inflation?

Are you asking why having greatly more people with disposable income
increase inflation? Really?

The government cannot directly control how much an employer pays their >>employees, but the government *does* directly control how much wealth is >>confiscated from people via taxation.

Indeed a New Zealand government did at one stage impose taxation on
elements of wealth other than income, but the general exemption from
taxation of most vcapital gains is now a characteristic of our
definition of "taxable income". Are you advocating a return of
inheritence taxes, and rates based on capital values?

I advocate for greatly reduced taxation across the board.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

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

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:34:06 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:09:39 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called >>>>>>>> 'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is >>>>>>>> affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some >>>>>>>themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by >>>>>>>executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile >>>>>>>of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage of >>>>>the median income then you would support the idea that "removing" the >>>>>earners at the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people would >>>>>agree that reducing the income of top earners would *not* reduce the >>>>>poverty of lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

You have completely side stepped the point. Do you agree that basing the >>>poverty level on a percentage of the median income means that removing top >>>earners from an economy (let's says they move overseas) will >>>mathematically reduce the number of people in "poverty"?

No I don't - can you explain how you think that would affect low
earners? Or beneficiaries?

I have not mentioned low earners of beneficiaries. I am talking about the >poverty level. If someone earns less than this magical number then they are >considered by be living "in poverty". Do you agree that this is a
nonsensical way to determine poverty?

Given this mathematical fact do you then agree that using the median >>>income as a basis for determining poverty is a nonsensical method?

What mathematical fact? - you have not given one.

If you have a distribution of earnings and you remove a number of top
earners then the median earning will be reduced. That's a mathematical fact >given how the median is calculated. This reduction in the median wage would >mean that someone that was previously considered to be in poverty may no >longer be. This shows the nonsensical nature of using a median to determine >the poverty line.

Certainly mean (average) earnings will be reduced, but it is unlikely
median earnings will be changed at all significantly. In a fairly
large population of taxpayers, there will be few at the extremes of
income, but many at any particular point around the middle of the
range. First we do not know what the taxable earnings of these two
individuals are - for all we know they may have made overall taxable
losses for quite a few years. You appear to be assuming that they have
very high taxable earnings. If that were to be the cases clearly the
median will not change.

Let us then set that aside and assume for argument that they do have
very high taxable earnings. The median is that number which has 50%
lower and 50% higher. Chances are there are many with taxable earnings
within a small range of the current median, and it is possible that
taking two people out of the population that the median will not
change - or if it does change, by possibly less than a dollar, and
certainly not in any significant way.

So either way, poverty is most unlikely to be affected by JohnO's
suggestion of killing two wealthy New Zalanders, converting the value
of their assets to cash and then burning the cash. Do you agree?

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist
wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage >>>> rates!

Are you an employer? If so then you are free to increase wages. As are >>>other employers.

Among those employers are the government and local authorities - some
have in fact made the step of increasing the number of people having
their income increased to the living wage - as have some private
employers - it is a start, despite opposition from the National Party
. . .

Can you provide a cite showing the National party opposing private employers >increasing the amount they pay employees? Or is this another case of you >making shit up?

Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because
National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase
in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and
immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts >>>> and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

What makes you think that the government has any control over what >>>employers pay employees? Is your mind in a communist utopia where the >>>state is the only employer?

The minimum wage has some impact at the bottom end, Allistar.

If you make the minimum wage equal to 60% of the median then you've
magically removed all poverty in NZ. Of course, those that are reasonable >know that this is a bullshit measure.

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

What has wage rates in general got to do with the government? How do you >>>suggest that the government force employers to pay their employees more?

What other areas of private and free barter should the government force >>>its way into in your opinion?

Have you advocated removing Working for Families in the past,
Allistar?

Yes.

What do you think the impact of such removal would be?

A considerably lower burden on the state and hence greatly reduced taxation.

Perhaps such considerations are why National, after vigouously
opposing the legislation whie inopposition, have not changed it in 8
years of National-led coalition government . . .

They are a centre-left government after all.

So what do you think Allistar - would higher wages work for reducing
poverty?

People having more money in their hand would reduce poverty somewhat, >>>though it would also increase inflation. The best way to ensure people >>>have more money in their hand is to let them keep as much of what they >>>warn as possible.

Why would it increase inflation? Some others would have less in their
hands; would that not have a corresponding decrease in inflation?

Are you asking why having greatly more people with disposable income
increase inflation? Really?

The government cannot directly control how much an employer pays their >>>employees, but the government *does* directly control how much wealth is >>>confiscated from people via taxation.

Indeed a New Zealand government did at one stage impose taxation on
elements of wealth other than income, but the general exemption from
taxation of most capital gains is now a characteristic of our
definition of "taxable income". Are you advocating a return of
inheritence taxes, and rates based on capital values?

I advocate for greatly reduced taxation across the board.

Which does not answer the question. For many years individual taxes
are seen as part of an overall package of taxes to raise the amount of
revenue the government needs to provide services it is committed to
providing. If a form of wealth tax were to be introduced (or
re-introduced) it may be possible to reduce income taxes, or GST, or
excise taxes, etc. Whatver the mix it is desirable that it does not
distort investment markets by allowing substitution of taxable income
for non-taxable benefits, such as happens at present for many6
property investments.,

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

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:36:59 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote far too much.

What is the purpose of taxation?

Bill.

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

On 17/01/2017 5:05 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:34:06 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:09:39 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so called >>>>>>>>> 'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it.

I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is >>>>>>>>> affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some >>>>>>>> themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by >>>>>>>> executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile >>>>>>>> of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning >>>>>>> paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage of >>>>>> the median income then you would support the idea that "removing" the >>>>>> earners at the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people would >>>>>> agree that reducing the income of top earners would *not* reduce the >>>>>> poverty of lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

You have completely side stepped the point. Do you agree that basing the >>>> poverty level on a percentage of the median income means that removing top >>>> earners from an economy (let's says they move overseas) will
mathematically reduce the number of people in "poverty"?

No I don't - can you explain how you think that would affect low
earners? Or beneficiaries?

I have not mentioned low earners of beneficiaries. I am talking about the
poverty level. If someone earns less than this magical number then they are >> considered by be living "in poverty". Do you agree that this is a
nonsensical way to determine poverty?

Given this mathematical fact do you then agree that using the median
income as a basis for determining poverty is a nonsensical method?

What mathematical fact? - you have not given one.

If you have a distribution of earnings and you remove a number of top
earners then the median earning will be reduced. That's a mathematical fact >> given how the median is calculated. This reduction in the median wage would >> mean that someone that was previously considered to be in poverty may no
longer be. This shows the nonsensical nature of using a median to determine >> the poverty line.

Certainly mean (average) earnings will be reduced, but it is unlikely
median earnings will be changed at all significantly.

Bollocks! Nice of you to demonstrate once again your lack of
mathematical knowledge as comprehension.

In a fairly

large population of taxpayers, there will be few at the extremes of
income, but many at any particular point around the middle of the
range. First we do not know what the taxable earnings of these two individuals are - for all we know they may have made overall taxable
losses for quite a few years. You appear to be assuming that they have
very high taxable earnings. If that were to be the cases clearly the
median will not change.

What the fuck are you blabbering about now Rich? Or is this just another
of your futile attempts to distract from your ability to comprehend nothing?

Let us then set that aside and assume for argument that they do have
very high taxable earnings. The median is that number which has 50%
lower and 50% higher. Chances are there are many with taxable earnings
within a small range of the current median, and it is possible that
taking two people out of the population that the median will not
change - or if it does change, by possibly less than a dollar, and
certainly not in any significant way.

Yet more bullshit along with a lack of comprehension. Ffs if you're
talking about the two businessmen taking them from the equation will
result in changes of far more than a dollar or two. Besides the point
that one of them is based in Singapore as stated in my cite!

So either way, poverty is most unlikely to be affected by JohnO's
suggestion of killing two wealthy New Zalanders, converting the value
of their assets to cash and then burning the cash. Do you agree?

JohnO suggested no such think you mendacious twit! you repeating the lie
only proves that your just a bloody marxist oxygen thief!

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist >>>>> wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage >>>>> rates!

Are you an employer? If so then you are free to increase wages. As are >>>> other employers.

Among those employers are the government and local authorities - some
have in fact made the step of increasing the number of people having
their income increased to the living wage - as have some private
employers - it is a start, despite opposition from the National Party
. . .

Can you provide a cite showing the National party opposing private employers >> increasing the amount they pay employees? Or is this another case of you
making shit up?

Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because >>>>> National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase >>>>> in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and >>>>> immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts >>>>> and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

What makes you think that the government has any control over what
employers pay employees? Is your mind in a communist utopia where the
state is the only employer?

The minimum wage has some impact at the bottom end, Allistar.

If you make the minimum wage equal to 60% of the median then you've
magically removed all poverty in NZ. Of course, those that are reasonable
know that this is a bullshit measure.

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

What has wage rates in general got to do with the government? How do you >>>> suggest that the government force employers to pay their employees more? >>>>
What other areas of private and free barter should the government force >>>> its way into in your opinion?

Have you advocated removing Working for Families in the past,
Allistar?

Yes.

What do you think the impact of such removal would be?

A considerably lower burden on the state and hence greatly reduced taxation. >>

Perhaps such considerations are why National, after vigouously
opposing the legislation whie inopposition, have not changed it in 8
years of National-led coalition government . . .

They are a centre-left government after all.

So what do you think Allistar - would higher wages work for reducing >>>>> poverty?

People having more money in their hand would reduce poverty somewhat,
though it would also increase inflation. The best way to ensure people >>>> have more money in their hand is to let them keep as much of what they >>>> warn as possible.

Why would it increase inflation? Some others would have less in their
hands; would that not have a corresponding decrease in inflation?

Are you asking why having greatly more people with disposable income
increase inflation? Really?

The government cannot directly control how much an employer pays their >>>> employees, but the government *does* directly control how much wealth is >>>> confiscated from people via taxation.

Indeed a New Zealand government did at one stage impose taxation on
elements of wealth other than income, but the general exemption from
taxation of most capital gains is now a characteristic of our
definition of "taxable income". Are you advocating a return of
inheritence taxes, and rates based on capital values?

I advocate for greatly reduced taxation across the board.

Which does not answer the question. For many years individual taxes
are seen as part of an overall package of taxes to raise the amount of revenue the government needs to provide services it is committed to providing. If a form of wealth tax were to be introduced (or
re-introduced) it may be possible to reduce income taxes, or GST, or
excise taxes, etc. Whatver the mix it is desirable that it does not
distort investment markets by allowing substitution of taxable income
for non-taxable benefits, such as happens at present for many6
property investments.,

Shit Rich you show yet again what a stupid Stalinist wanker you are. Go
get a four year old to explain what 'I advocate for greatly reduced
taxation across the board'! Just because you and your inglorious Liebor
party believe that depriving successful businessmen of money they have
made so it can be given to useless pricks like you who blindly vote
Liebor doesn't mean others believe it!

Now go back to my original post and give me some answers that pertain to
the subject at hand which is NOT poverty but the so called 'poverty gap'
so beloved of fuck wits like you and your inglorious Liebor party!

Pooh

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

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:46:47 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:36:59 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote far too much.

What is the purpose of taxation?

Bill.

Google is your friend:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/taxation http://wizznotes.com/pob/role-fo-government-in-an-economy/purpose-of-taxation https://www.reference.com/business-finance/purpose-taxation-e92f3d32b1947bd6 http://www.shmoop.com/finance/taxes/purpose-of-taxes.html http://www.mbaknol.com/business-taxation/functions-of-taxation/ http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/government/taxation/taxation-objectives-top-6-objectives-of-taxation-discussed/17450
etc

Why do you ask?

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

On 17/01/2017 9:48 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:46:47 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:36:59 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote far too much.

What is the purpose of taxation?

Bill.

Google is your friend:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/taxation http://wizznotes.com/pob/role-fo-government-in-an-economy/purpose-of-taxation https://www.reference.com/business-finance/purpose-taxation-e92f3d32b1947bd6 http://www.shmoop.com/finance/taxes/purpose-of-taxes.html http://www.mbaknol.com/business-taxation/functions-of-taxation/ http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/government/taxation/taxation-objectives-top-6-objectives-of-taxation-discussed/17450
etc

Why do you ask?

Because you NEVER give a straight answer dumbo! We all know you along
with your inglorious Liebor party believe it is a means to extract the
maximum from the top 10% of earners so they can give it to lazy fuck
wits like you who blindly vote the party line!

Pooh

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

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:34:06 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:09:39 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:10:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 16 January 2017 11:38:10 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88439032/two-mens-wealth-equal-to-the-poorest-30-per-cent-of-kiwis-oxfam-research

So what? Proves to me that those supposedly caught in the so >>>>>>>>> called 'poverty trap' are just to lazy to do anything about it. >>>>>>>>>
I wonder how a very successful businessman based in Singapore is >>>>>>>>> affecting poverty in New Zealand.

Pooh

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some >>>>>>>>themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty >>>>>>>>by executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge >>>>>>>>pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning >>>>>>> paper money would reduce poverty?

If you support a definition of poverty that is based on a percentage >>>>>>of the median income then you would support the idea that "removing" >>>>>>the earners at the top would reduce poverty. Most sensible people >>>>>>would agree that reducing the income of top earners would *not* reduce >>>>>>the poverty of lower earners.

So just to be clear, no-one other than JohnO suggested that burning
hundred dollar bills would reduce poverty. He also suggested
executing two wealthy people - that would just trigger the wealth
being passed on to others, and not reduce poverty either.

You have completely side stepped the point. Do you agree that basing the >>>>poverty level on a percentage of the median income means that removing >>>>top earners from an economy (let's says they move overseas) will >>>>mathematically reduce the number of people in "poverty"?

No I don't - can you explain how you think that would affect low
earners? Or beneficiaries?

I have not mentioned low earners of beneficiaries. I am talking about the >>poverty level. If someone earns less than this magical number then they
are considered by be living "in poverty". Do you agree that this is a >>nonsensical way to determine poverty?

Given this mathematical fact do you then agree that using the median >>>>income as a basis for determining poverty is a nonsensical method?

What mathematical fact? - you have not given one.

If you have a distribution of earnings and you remove a number of top >>earners then the median earning will be reduced. That's a mathematical
fact given how the median is calculated. This reduction in the median wage >>would mean that someone that was previously considered to be in poverty
may no longer be. This shows the nonsensical nature of using a median to >>determine the poverty line.

Certainly mean (average) earnings will be reduced, but it is unlikely
median earnings will be changed at all significantly.

Regardless, it will change and fewer people would be caught by this poor definition of "poverty".

In a fairly
large population of taxpayers, there will be few at the extremes of
income, but many at any particular point around the middle of the
range. First we do not know what the taxable earnings of these two individuals are - for all we know they may have made overall taxable
losses for quite a few years. You appear to be assuming that they have
very high taxable earnings. If that were to be the cases clearly the
median will not change.

Sigh. In this hypothetical I was talking about the top earners. How can a
top earner make a loss? I didn't mention wealth, only income.

Let us then set that aside and assume for argument that they do have
very high taxable earnings.

As they must by the very definition of this example. FFS.

The median is that number which has 50%
lower and 50% higher. Chances are there are many with taxable earnings
within a small range of the current median, and it is possible that
taking two people out of the population that the median will not
change - or if it does change, by possibly less than a dollar, and
certainly not in any significant way.

So either way, poverty is most unlikely to be affected by JohnO's
suggestion of killing two wealthy New Zalanders, converting the value
of their assets to cash and then burning the cash. Do you agree?

I am not talking about removing wealthy people, only people with a high
income. There is a difference. Follow the hypothetical through a bit more. Remove the top 20% of earners. Has the "poverty line" now changed? Do you
think the people that were below that line but now are not have had their material circumstances change? If not, how can you support such a
meaningless definition?

Turning now to "most people", as distinct from the childish terrorist >>>>> wet dreams, there are plenty of ways to reduce he regrettably
increasing poverty of low earners. The obvious one is to increase wage >>>>> rates!

Are you an employer? If so then you are free to increase wages. As are >>>>other employers.

Among those employers are the government and local authorities - some
have in fact made the step of increasing the number of people having
their income increased to the living wage - as have some private
employers - it is a start, despite opposition from the National Party
. . .

Can you provide a cite showing the National party opposing private >>employers increasing the amount they pay employees? Or is this another
case of you making shit up?

Didn't think so.

Remember how it was a goal of National to "catch up with
Australia" on wage rates? We don't hear much about that now, because >>>>> National didn't mean it. National do however talk about the increase >>>>> in GDP - they don't mention it largely comes from building values and >>>>> immigration, but the lions share of that increase is going to the
wealthy - helped by the "go-slow" by National on fixing foreign trusts >>>>> and fair taxes - they need those political donations and have sold
their u-turn on wage rates.

What makes you think that the government has any control over what >>>>employers pay employees? Is your mind in a communist utopia where the >>>>state is the only employer?

The minimum wage has some impact at the bottom end, Allistar.

If you make the minimum wage equal to 60% of the median then you've >>magically removed all poverty in NZ. Of course, those that are reasonable >>know that this is a bullshit measure.

If wage rates were higher, the profits to the wealthy would be
marginally lower, but ownership would continue to give quite large
gains to them; but the government could reduce costs on Working for
Families, accomodation supplements etc, and local businesses would
find that domestic sales would increase, sharing profits further -
small business has been hurt hard by NAtional's love-fest with the
biggest donors.

What has wage rates in general got to do with the government? How do you >>>>suggest that the government force employers to pay their employees more? >>>>
What other areas of private and free barter should the government force >>>>its way into in your opinion?

Have you advocated removing Working for Families in the past,
Allistar?

Yes.

What do you think the impact of such removal would be?

A considerably lower burden on the state and hence greatly reduced >>taxation.

Perhaps such considerations are why National, after vigouously
opposing the legislation whie inopposition, have not changed it in 8
years of National-led coalition government . . .

They are a centre-left government after all.

So what do you think Allistar - would higher wages work for reducing >>>>> poverty?

People having more money in their hand would reduce poverty somewhat, >>>>though it would also increase inflation. The best way to ensure people >>>>have more money in their hand is to let them keep as much of what they >>>>warn as possible.

Why would it increase inflation? Some others would have less in their
hands; would that not have a corresponding decrease in inflation?

Are you asking why having greatly more people with disposable income >>increase inflation? Really?

Really?

The government cannot directly control how much an employer pays their >>>>employees, but the government *does* directly control how much wealth is >>>>confiscated from people via taxation.

Indeed a New Zealand government did at one stage impose taxation on
elements of wealth other than income, but the general exemption from
taxation of most capital gains is now a characteristic of our
definition of "taxable income". Are you advocating a return of
inheritence taxes, and rates based on capital values?

I advocate for greatly reduced taxation across the board.

Which does not answer the question. For many years individual taxes
are seen as part of an overall package of taxes to raise the amount of revenue the government needs to provide services it is committed to providing. If a form of wealth tax were to be introduced (or
re-introduced) it may be possible to reduce income taxes, or GST, or
excise taxes, etc. Whatver the mix it is desirable that it does not
distort investment markets by allowing substitution of taxable income
for non-taxable benefits, such as happens at present for many6
property investments.,

People that trade in property and make a profit pay income tax like anyone
else that sells goods for a profit.

Confiscating wealth from people simply because they have it is immoral.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

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

On 17/01/2017 10:26 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:40:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

Seeing how you are a bit thick you should go back and reread the thread slowly.

I already cited the poverty definition and another poster already agreed.

Who was that? And did they agree with your conclusion about the effect
of removing two wealthy people from the calculation? Perhaps you could
post what that poster allegedly said . . .

Perhaps you could get someone with english and comprehension skills to
reread what was actually said Rich. Preferably someone without the
marxist bigotry to successful people.

The current operator of the dickbot account seems denser than usual.

I can understand why you would want to distract from your previous
posts - clearly you are embarrassed, but you have asked for them to be
read again, so I will oblige:

Now go and get someone with some comprehension skills to explain them to
you Rich!

You said:

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

Except you presumably realise that the concentration of wealth in the
two individuals is historically rare - in reality many people,
including you, have not made similar levels of wealth for themselves - perhaps we are still a long way from the National party expressed
ideal of equal opportunity . . .

Go look at the two examples Rich and tell us how much they started with
and whether they got help from wealthy parents. If you weren't such a
stupid stalinist sot you'd know that many people in New Zealand are not
stuck in your mythical 'poverty trap' but have through hard work have
got out of it. One classic example is John Key! There was one once in
the Labour party who left because they were useless who was Jim
Anderton. Both started for so called lowly beginnings and were
successful AND raised themselves out of poverty. So you see Rich there
is equal opportunity in New Zealand for those prepared to work and not
sit and gather their 'entitlements' so lovingly bestowed on them by the
ever useless and greedy Liebor party!

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

So we have now established that you are unable to identify anyone
other than yourself who has expressed such a bizarre view - are you
the self-idenitified poverty dimwit, JohnO?

No Rich. YOU are the only dimwit in this ng.

Cashing up the assets of those two people would not be a trivial
exzercise - even done over time it would probably result in at least
some purchases of New Zealand assets by overseas investors - you may
want to think about how making more of our enterprises overseas owned
helps anyone in New Zealand.

Lets also leave aside the idiocy of thinking there are even enough
hundred dollar bills to represent that wealth - and the government are unlikely to want to go to the expense of printing more, or even to
issue government stock to that extent. You really didn't think it
through, did you?

But we can look at the impact of those two and their wealth being
removed from the calculations you outlined:

Does your stupidity come naturally Rich or do you have to work at it?

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth
level. For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By
reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see
the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no longer in
poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

So what happens to median income by removing all wealth (and
presumably income) from two wealthy people? How much does the line
move? Think about it JohnO (you may want to google "median"), and let
us know . . .

Yes, JohnO, you have confirmed your self-identification as poverty
dimwit . .

Again you accuse others of your own shortcomings Rich. Guess that's all
we can expect from a moronic marxist muppet like you.

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

That is however a semantic argument - try answering hte question using
a definition of poverty that you favour - or are you like National
that can count rats but not count poor people?

Try practising what you preach for once in your useless life Rich and
answer the questions from the original post instead of wandering off on
some lying,ramble that only proves what a non comprehending marxist
muppet you are!

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

On 17/01/2017 11:51 a.m., JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 11:09:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:37:28 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 10:26:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:40:09 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

Seeing how you are a bit thick you should go back and reread the thread slowly.

I already cited the poverty definition and another poster already agreed. >>>>

Who was that?

Allistar

And did they agree with your conclusion about the effect
of removing two wealthy people from the calculation?

Yes.

Perhaps you could
post what that poster allegedly said . . .

Go back and read it you lazy worthless waste of oxygen.

The current operator of the dickbot account seems denser than usual. >>>>

I can understand why you would want to distract from your previous
posts - clearly you are embarrassed, but you have asked for them to be >>>> read again, so I will oblige:

You said:

Wealth is not a limited or scarce resource - anyone can go make some themselves, even a former tow truck driver like Graham Hart.

Except you presumably realise that the concentration of wealth in the
two individuals is historically rare - in reality many people,
including you, have not made similar levels of wealth for themselves - >>>> perhaps we are still a long way from the National party expressed
ideal of equal opportunity . . .

You are dribbling incoherently and making no point whatsoever.

But according to the poverty dimwits, we could just reduce poverty by executing Hart and Chandler, cashing up their assets into a huge pile of hundred dollar bills and burning it!

Can you cite any person other than yourself that believes burning
paper money would reduce poverty?

No need.

So we have now established that you are unable to identify anyone
other than yourself who has expressed such a bizarre view - are you
the self-idenitified poverty dimwit, JohnO?

<Sigh>. You can patiently lead a dickbot by the nose to the facts, but nothing you can do will help the dickbot understand the facts.

Cashing up the assets of those two people would not be a trivial
exzercise - even done over time it would probably result in at least
some purchases of New Zealand assets by overseas investors - you may
want to think about how making more of our enterprises overseas owned
helps anyone in New Zealand.

Lets also leave aside the idiocy of thinking there are even enough
hundred dollar bills to represent that wealth - and the government are

Oh, you are so dimwitted as to miss the entire point? Sad.

unlikely to want to go to the expense of printing more, or even to
issue government stock to that extent. You really didn't think it
through, did you?

You actually went there and discussed the logistics of getting the notes and burning them? This is just too funny - your interpretation is so literal and without nuance - it is as if you are trying to convince us that you really are an algorithm and

not a sentient human being!

But we can look at the impact of those two and their wealth being
removed from the calculations you outlined:

In your headlong rush to miss the point, you are missing the
simple fact that myself and Allistar are holding in front of your
nose: The most commonly held poverty definitions are based
on being at a percentage of the median. Remove wealth at the
top and the median value becomes lower, meaning less
people in "poverty".


This is so simple as to be obvious, even to a child. Why is it so difficult

for you to grasp this that you continue to bleat for cites?

Common definitions of "poverty" include being below a relative wealth >>>>> level. For example CPAG use 50 or 60% of the median income. By
reducing the wealth at the top then people just under that line see
the line moved down below them. Voila, they are no longer in
poverty simply by burning some rich prick's money!

So what happens to median income by removing all wealth (and
presumably income) from two wealthy people? How much does the line
move? Think about it JohnO (you may want to google "median"), and let
us know . . .

Wealth is income for these people you tool.

So what happens to median income by removing two very wealthy people
from the calculation of median income, JohnO?

Already explained. More than once. I will not repeat myself again so go back

and have another go at reading.


The trolling twit will fail yet again because of his total lack of comprehension skills JohnO.

Yes, JohnO, you have confirmed your self-identification as poverty
dimwit . .

Such is the stupidity of common poverty definitions.

That is however a semantic argument - try answering the question using >>>> a definition of poverty that you favour - or are you like National
that can count rats but not count poor people?

The definition I favour is not related to relativity at all so is not relevant to this discussion. But apparently you are unable to grasp the distinction.

So what is the impact of your proposal in relation to the current
definition?

There is no "current" definition. There are many definitions. What specific

definition are you referring to? Better not be the CPAG one I already referred to as that has been covered.


Give up JohnO. The poor brainwashed (and I use the expression very
loosely in Richie's case) twit is incapable of rational discussion. He
only does marxist diatribe and lying.

Pooh

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

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:48:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:46:47 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:36:59 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote far too much.

What is the purpose of taxation?

Bill.

Google is your friend:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/taxation >http://wizznotes.com/pob/role-fo-government-in-an-economy/purpose-of-taxation >https://www.reference.com/business-finance/purpose-taxation-e92f3d32b1947bd6 >http://www.shmoop.com/finance/taxes/purpose-of-taxes.html >http://www.mbaknol.com/business-taxation/functions-of-taxation/ >http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/government/taxation/taxation-objectives-top-6-objectives-of-taxation-discussed/17450
etc

Why do you ask?

OK, let me rephrase that.

What do you believe is the purpose of taxaton?

Bill.

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

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:34:14 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:48:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:46:47 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:36:59 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote far too much.

What is the purpose of taxation?

Bill.

Google is your friend:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/taxation >>http://wizznotes.com/pob/role-fo-government-in-an-economy/purpose-of-taxation >>https://www.reference.com/business-finance/purpose-taxation-e92f3d32b1947bd6 >>http://www.shmoop.com/finance/taxes/purpose-of-taxes.html >>http://www.mbaknol.com/business-taxation/functions-of-taxation/ >>http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/government/taxation/taxation-objectives-top-6-objectives-of-taxation-discussed/17450
etc

Why do you ask?

OK, let me rephrase that.

What do you believe is the purpose of taxaton?

Bill.

Why do you ask?

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

On 18/01/2017 7:41 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:34:14 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:48:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:46:47 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:36:59 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote far too much.

What is the purpose of taxation?

Bill.

Google is your friend:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/taxation
http://wizznotes.com/pob/role-fo-government-in-an-economy/purpose-of-taxation
https://www.reference.com/business-finance/purpose-taxation-e92f3d32b1947bd6
http://www.shmoop.com/finance/taxes/purpose-of-taxes.html
http://www.mbaknol.com/business-taxation/functions-of-taxation/
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/government/taxation/taxation-objectives-top-6-objectives-of-taxation-discussed/17450
etc

Why do you ask?

OK, let me rephrase that.

What do you believe is the purpose of taxaton?

Bill.

Why do you ask?

Because you ALWAYS avoid answering pertinent questions like that like
the trolling Trotsky twit you are Rich.

Now how about straining your last surviving brain cell and give us an
answer so we can have a good belly laugh when you expose again what a
stupid Stalinist sot you are Rich.

Pooh

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