- #1637447Critic August 18, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Jens … you keep making out that the economy (which is infested with inequalities) can resolve the problems such inequalities has produced…
You reckon a savings plan will provide a solution to poverty yet you have not indicated just how a savings plan is going to solve the problems.
This is not the political thread where “spinners” can tell you that a sows ear is really a silk purse (meaningfully).
So I can just be honest without offending you when I suggest you indicate to us how such “savings” will eliminate poverty when we are all fully aware that there are already a variety of savings plans and yet “Poverty is escalating”…
You have not really offered something to discuss of any substance until you can get right past the savings stage because we are adults that wouldn’t be here if we didn’t know how to save money.
How about indicating to us just what it is that we need to save up for, how much, whats the time frame in which the savings will be required, etc….. and how you see the potential results to have the potential to eliminate Poverty as you profess.
I presume you have something unique to share with us that we can make sense of (in your own words?) and perhaps you can explain just why it hasn’t been thought of before.
I have would like to take you seriously “but” at this point it would just be an “Act”
A master of misdirection you are not my friend 🙂#1637488jens August 18, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Critic – total equality is even artificially impossible, and you will have to admit that a society with personal capital ownership by all is basically more equal than one divided into haves and have-nots, and that at least a minimally meaningful level of property ownership by all is economically superior to any sort of monopolist wealth ownership with most equality only in wealth ownership-less poverty.
Yes Critic – you are obviously among the NZ majority of “enlightened” ones who know how to save, and therefore not in poverty.
But you have failed to notice that if everyone – including government – practiced the economics of saving for profitable investment and wealth reserves ownership creation, poverty would be reduced only to cases of serious mistakes and unforeseen calamities, all of which up to a point can be alleviated by capital (wealth) reserves.
If we all agree on that, then we can shift to the Politics Forum, where on the thread “The Third Way” (or any other eventually chosen or created) – there is ample material for starting off discussions on the best ways to apply the economics agreement achieved here.
The only reason why this economic fundamental so well known among the prosperous majority of us has not been universally applied so far –
I can only see in conservatively sectional economics interests having been dominating and raising more passions than innovating and progressively (“third way”) universal economic interests, with participation by and for all.#1637492Critic August 18, 2017 at 9:17 pm
Jens I disagree with your opinion about “Equality” but perhaps you are confusing “Equality” with that saying “one size fits all?”.
You missed the whole point though Jens …. you are professing that a savings plan will eliminate poverty and yet you have not indicated just how.
There are many savings plans and not one of them has actually resulted in a reduction in the escalation of poverty …. the facts speak for themselves.
You may well have some good ideas about the need for saving but this is the poverty thread not “economics or saving”
How about indicating to us just what it is that we need to save up for, how much, whats the time frame in which the savings will be required, etc….. and how you see the potential results to have the potential to eliminate Poverty as you profess.#1637529jens August 19, 2017 at 3:44 pm
Yes Critic – there are as many savings plans as there are people who have taken up one, which means the overwhelming majority, including you or your parents, if you are not a capital-less have-nothing, or i.e, a poor.
True, even if you have saved, then apart from unforeseeable disasters you can still remain poor if you saved only for big splashes of consumption, say, on overseas trips.
The fact why relative poverty has widened among generally increasing prosperity and wealth creation is in the priority of many poor in wishing to consume like the prosperous without the effort of useful wealth ownership creation for themselves first.
If you cannot produce an example of wealth creation without someone’s contributions or savings at the expense of hand-to-mouth consumption, then I take it you understand that the spreading of relative poverty can be stopped and reversed through a universally systematic effort of specific long term national and individual wealth creation with participation by and for all, which is entirely possible through the universal taxation system.
Once you accept that, we can go to the Politics Forum and debate the priorities of what to save and invest for, and at what rate, and how it would eliminate poverty eventually, when parental wealth ownership has reached the level where no children or grandchildren are born into poverty, despite the fact that a few breed already (voluntarily as intellectually or emotionally immature ignorants ???) at age 14.#1637557Critic August 19, 2017 at 7:55 pm
How about indicating to us just what it is that we need to save up for, how much, whats the time frame in which the savings will be required, etc….. and how you see the potential results to have the potential to eliminate Poverty as you profess.#1637591jens August 20, 2017 at 1:46 pm
Critic – For a start, the primary goal of the widening and raised savings rate promotion is in initiating application of the principles of poverty prevention and elimination on a universal, all-inclusive scale.
Since there is no mystery and no need to explain how someone with a reasonable income is able to prevent poverty (???) – by saving some income for security reserves and profitable, useful investments ownership (such as home ownership potential), your concern is obviously about how the poor with lowest incomes can be elevated into the “haves” with more economic security and higher consumption potential – and incomes – eventually.
Since it is an almost universal human dream to be able to retire in “freedom from want”, our priority would be in securing that – at least for those deserving or needing and wishing to retire from a life time of work especially if that was not exactly in the line of a “hobby” for them.
Resumption of NZ Super Fund contributions at least at their original rate of $2billion per annum (2%of GDP?) as a permanent basic savings rate with participation by and for all through the taxation system – would be a very effective start to secure a possibly better than the current rate of NZ Super sustainability from age 65 also for our descendants beyond the BBB (Baby Boomer Bulge).
This would also raise the national economic growth rate by increasing our capital ownership and investment rate per citizen, without which we have no show of catching up with those ahead of us in that, including Australia – and which, by raising also our taxable income earning rates, generate a practically self-perpetuating sequence of universal prosperity generation.
With the introduction of universal active or passive KiwiSaver participation through the $1000.- unconditional kick-start to all from “cradle to grave” who have not received it yet, the path is set for no one left without some meaningful (retirement) wealth ownership before long.
Please let me know, Critic, if and in what way this does not answer your question sastisfactorily on the prevention and elimination of poverty, into which we are all born by nature, unless our parents own some material (or knowledge) wealth.#1637607TedEMemberMember since: May 6, 2006
Replies: 2003TedE August 20, 2017 at 3:36 pm
What is money?
Where does it come from?
Who owns it?
Why does it work?
TedE - Papakura -#1637639Critic August 20, 2017 at 8:02 pm
So Jens you reckon that having money in the bank (which you cannot touch until you are eligible for superannuation) is going to remove a family from being considered as “living in poverty” because they have a bank account with money in it…. yep sounds really logical (after a quantity of alcoholic beverage … and a “saved” joint?)
That probably would make sense on the political thread but it is much more fun to practice being realistic here … have you got anything?#1637656jens August 20, 2017 at 10:04 pm
TedE – From memory and as I understand it, money is a token of value that serves also as a measure and store of value at any given time, and thereby it is also the most efficient and popular medium of exchange between all imaginable goods and services “on the market”.
It comes from a trustworthy authority that guarantees its value, originally generally with an amount of gold or silver for a certain nominal value of the token or currency issued.
The money belongs to whoever owns it at a certain time.
It works because it makes the exchange of goods and services much more easy than iF you had only one or a few lines of goods to barter, not to speak of its ease of portability, that can be done now, thanks to the banking system – even by the stroke of a pen.
Just think of it if you had to carry it with you in the form of gold, or in huge wads of untrustworthy inflationary currency, which would soon develop into a barter or “black market” economy.#1637674jens August 20, 2017 at 10:45 pm
Yes, Critic –
just money in the bank alone is not a good long term investment, because in the case of serious inflation it may lose more value than what income taxed interest can earn for it.
But in KiwiSaving and the NZ Super Fund most of it is invested in tangible assets, whose values most of the time for most assets keep up with inflation, beside usually also earning more than average bank interst rates. (?)
Well, so with money in the NZ Super Fund and KiwiSaving, the poor will be better off at retirement, won’t they ?
But as I have said before – the poor will be even more better off than what their modest savings rates can deliver in retirement welfare, because the substantial national wealth and productivity increase through participation also by higher income earners in the universal basic NZSF savings rate –
will also deliver noticeably more domesticlly financed jobs and earning opportunities.
With that, steady development towards at least a minimally meaningful level of weath ownership by all wll have begun, which can be accelerated with rising incomwes.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.