well thats the same thing
"Getting a bit of the action "

Benny's little joke is of the "Play on Words" genre where spelling can be ignored and the emphasis but on words of similar sound.

Oh you mean like John Key sounds like Donkey.

Does anyone actually care what Gerry Brownlee and The National Government have done to thousands of people in Canterbury?.
This Government has been dishonest in the way it is portraying their handling of people affected by the earthquakes.They are not telling the truth.There were never 11,000 sections ready for more than 5,000 displaced households stated by Gerry Brownlee. Our Government is forcing on your behalf thousands from their land with no hope of being able to purchase new land. Rateable value is not market value.Mr Brownlees statements that the offers are extremely fair is dishonest. He has the facts in front of him and he knows that for over 2,000 people rateable value is not the value of their homes equity.The Government knows people throughout Canterbury are in major battles with their insurance companies.The Government has left them to fight the corporates on their own. Elderley New Zealanders are being slaughtered financially by corporate giants,many Cantabrians are in this terrible fightThese insurance companies who have been receiving full replacement premiums for decades are arguing over fineprint to minimise their responsibility. There is a level of dishonesty flowing through many insurance claims. They break there own Fair Insurance Code by failing to act in good faith with openness and fairness in their dealings with clients. Their secrecy and now their escalation of premiums will mean billions will flow from this country in decades to come. We need as New Zealanders to stand up and demand a fair deal from our insurance industry. We need the Government to stand up for ALL New Zealanders in this fight instead of colluding with the insurance companies in backroom deals.

Dr L
The disgraceful way the government has obfuscated the facts over Christchurch is slowly coming out and their support is dwindling rapidly.

I doubt they will do well in the next election unless they manage to pull an economic miracle out of the hat and given the tax take is still lagging well below what they expected that doesn't look very likely.

Cheers

Hero42 - you have to be educated to understand that

Post deleted at 08 May 2012 10:23pm by tahi

I wonder, Tahi? Educated? Or just interested?

Apathy I think is the great enemy.

People are being told TINA, that it's all the fault of the GFC, that it's lazy beneficiaries, and greedy old people, and lazy greedy public servants, and the government's doing all it possibly can to get us through.

If that was all you ever heard, day in/day out, you'd believe it too. Unless you were interested enough, bloodyminded enough, to say 'Well hell, that's not bloody good enough. What else is there out there?' and go looking for answers to your questions.

You don't really have to be educated you just have to be willing to educate yourself. Don't you think?

Excellent, arandar, and it would help if you comment on my answers to your posting # 10949:
1. Why NS (National Super) entitlement at 65? - Because it is a desirable security the earlier the sweeter to look forward to after a working life on a job you are not too keen (or able) to keep on until disability or death.

2. Why NS when still earning an income? -
a) Because NS should not enforce compulsory retirement.
b) For the sake of egalitarian fairness, apart from accepted tax rates,no one should be penalized for being thrifty, economically successful, or still willing and able to work.
c) Superannuitants with additional income are still contributing more to the national economy than those without it.

3. Economically it is rational and inevitable to raise the NS entitlement in relation to longevity from the moment it becomes an unsustainable burden as advised by the Retirement Commissioner (and Dr Brash from the time he entered politics) without resorting to universal retirement savings.
But - this is a defeatist admission of unwillingness or inability to raise prosperity to the level needed to keep it sustainable from age 65 , and unfair to those without a lengthened life-span.

4. The NS entitlement age can always be set upwards at short notice if inevitable - but for the reasons given at #3, it would be more constructive to try to avoid that by gradually raising our NZSF savings and investment rate which would not only help keeping NS sustainable from age 65, but actually raise general (including childhood) prosperity AT THE SAME TIME, which our current PAYGO way of financing our NS - DOES NOT!

5. There is indeed an element of unfairness if to-day's post-baby-boomers have to save into the NZSF for the benefit of only baby-boomer NS sustainabilty.
But with the NZSF amended into a PERMANENT institution (of Personal Accounts - PAs)), the more today's taxpayers save into their PAs, the less ALL of them - rich and poor - will have to pay into the Consolidated Fund - and be paid out of it - for their NS in the future.

They ALL will be more wealthy - and enjoy the sweet security of NS entitlement from age 65 WITHOUT HAVING CRIPPLED THE ECONOMY - but having enlarged it!

Apologies Arandar, I was referring to post #10956 when I made the comment about "......educated"

The Government is planning to offer free long-term contraception for beneficiaries and their daughters.

Nanny state. Of the most extreme kind.

Ah, sorry, Tahi, my mistake.

And yes, Nanny State indeed. Eugene State too. 'This group of people, unlike any other group of people, should not be encouraged/allowed to breed.' At what point does coercion become compulsion? If a woman becomes pregnant while on a benefit she will be work tested when her child turns one anyway. Where are the jobs? Where is the childcare?

4,300 children are born each year to mothers already in receipt of a benefit. Is that such a huge number? Is NZ overpopulated? What the hell is the reason for this? Apparently, most people on benefits never actually have children at all. Is that not a sadder more concerning statistic?

If all women, or even all poor women, were offered free long-term contraception I might be less concerned. And what of the men involved?

And this is a health issue not a welfare issue. It should be between a women and her health practioners - nobody else. What W&I worker is qualified to offer advice in this matter? The introduction of hormones and devices into women's bodies, more particularly very young women, is not for unqualified people to decide.