Page 8 of 8 First ... 5678
Results 176 to 185 of 185

  1. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    if you have a leaning to ACT I'd guess you are dead center on a rational equilibrium of logic, but not necessarily emotional need.

    for example the emotional needs of Maori for the suffering they and their ancestors have endured; I would guess isn't as much a priority for you as treating each citizen as an equal.
    Yep, idgaf about that.

  2. Post
    suntoucher wrote:
    Yep, idgaf about that.
    fair,

  3. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    if you have a leaning to ACT I'd guess you are dead center on a rational equilibrium of logic, but not necessarily emotional need.

    for example the emotional needs of Maori for the suffering they and their ancestors have endured; I would guess isn't as much a priority for you as treating each citizen as an equal.
    I'll donate some tissues

  4. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    Actually it is the middle class that feeds the rich and the poor... And this government is trying very hard the screw them at every opportunity.
    Actually it's the middle class that tries to screw the top and bottom. WFF and superannuation are good examples of middle class welfare.

  5. Post
    Anyone at the "top" will be paying a very low percentage of tax relative to the wealth they generate for themselves. Same for companies also, a huge amount of companies are trading fronts for capital investment. So we think McDonalds core business is fast food when really it's real estate.

    The middle class on average will break even.

  6. Post
    SirGrim wrote:
    You could make the exact opposite list: Socialist countries that do terribly and the list would be a lot longer than 10
    This is always a trite argument. Most of the countries down the bottom aren't socialist, but they're failed states. Most less successful socialist (or rather, communist) states became communist off the back of a violent revolution, from a failed state. Communist Russia kinda sucked, but Tsarist Russia was also pretty terrible. Most of the more successful countries have varying levels of social democracy implemented, which has evolved in unison with a bunch of other factors. You can't just change a political system and expect instant wealth and stability to magically appear.

    If you wanted to land in a random country, choosing a mixed market social democracy would be the prefered choice for most sane people.

  7. Post
    hoe_rag wrote:
    Actually it's the middle class that tries to screw the top and bottom. WFF and superannuation are good examples of middle class welfare.
    Maybe have a look at who gets WFF, it is only for low income earners, and superannuation, well everyone gets that so, yeah.

  8. Post
    Here, this should help:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...in-new-zealand

    It's the bottom 3rd that are the big net recipients on the tax front.

  9. Post
    mikedrop69 wrote:
    Here, this should help:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...in-new-zealand

    It's the bottom 3rd that are the big net recipients on the tax front.
    I don't like that article. People who exclusively receive benefits get taxed on those benefits and would show up on that graph, they're taxpayers who aren't really taxpayers, I feel that would skew the results and figure 2 and 3 proves it.

    Running on deciles including that group is a bit disingenuous if you're working out tax payment distribution, they may as well include children and tourists on there. I would hazard a guess and say the true taxpayers start at Decile 4 on their graphs. So 4-10 should be broken down and 1-3 ignored.

  10. Post
    swazi wrote:
    I'll donate some tissues
    I'm sure the Chinese will say the same if all goes to plannn