Occupy Together!!

Forums › Off topic › Occupy Together!!

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 41

4690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#541982 7-Nov-2011 12:33

MikeyPI:
Talkiet:
[snip] I'm comfortable making a personal decision that I don't believe they are close to responsible.

So it seems you a making veiled references to specific policy / parties. Care to list for analysis?

No, see the bit of my post I have left above. The point is that there's no real objectivity. All outcomes are coloured by personal feeling or belief.

For example, you might (might - just an example) feel that it's good for the country that a government introduces a higher top tax rate while I might think that on the whole it's a bad idea. You can analyse it all you want, but you'll always be able to cite examples of why it's good and I'll always be able to find counterexamples.

Can you list 5 policies from the govt, that are economically sound (including the all too commonly left out social cost) that have benefited the majority of NZ'ers?

I was going to respond to this but I am pretty sure that many of the things I would see as beneficial (like raising GST) many people would also see as negative. It's also too hard to pick out policies that may never had had any attention from the media because they work well. I'm not a political scientist - but I do understand that if you want to spend money, you have the get it from somewhere... Just ask the US or Greece what happens when you continually overspend!

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Pluralsight

Learn cloud, mobile, security, data and web technologies with Pluralsight (affiliate link).

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#541995 7-Nov-2011 12:55

MikeyPI:

...As numerous social scientists, economists & mathematician have proved, money flows up, not down. Most people who dispute this are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying.

Well as another lot of numerous social scientists, economists & mathematicians have proved there is not much point taking the money off the rich and giving it to the poor as then "up" will be "down" and "down" will be "up" and the money will get totally confused and won't know which way to flow.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76423 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#542437 8-Nov-2011 11:00

People really don't know why they are doing it...

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

ScottStevensNZ

245 posts

Master Geek

#542457 8-Nov-2011 11:42

John2010:
MikeyPI:

...As numerous social scientists, economists & mathematician have proved, money flows up, not down. Most people who dispute this are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying.

Well as another lot of numerous social scientists, economists & mathematicians have proved there is not much point taking the money off the rich and giving it to the poor as then "up" will be "down" and "down" will be "up" and the money will get totally confused and won't know which way to flow.

I guess it would depend on if it is paper money or coins and how windy it is :)

Load & Performance Tester/PHP/JSP/C/PERL/MYSQL/LoadRunner8->11/HTML/CSS/XML/XSLT/2B|!2B/Cervelo Soloist/EMC Equip4/ Samsung Galaxy S /Darkys 10.2 Extreme

Do androids dream of electric sheep?
use strict;
my $sheepCount;

Yes, they can.

MikeB4

18135 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#542480 8-Nov-2011 12:02

They saw the Occupy this city and that park in the USA and decided yay that will fun, and rent a crowd thus convened it here . Now they are trying to come up with reasons.

gzt

15225 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#542486 8-Nov-2011 12:10

freitasm: People really don't know why they are doing it...

This one is all on one page for easy reading: http://nzhoccupy.tumblr.com/

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542548 8-Nov-2011 13:12

gzt:
freitasm: People really don't know why they are doing it...

This one is all on one page for easy reading: http://nzhoccupy.tumblr.com/

Really does bring home that they really are a bunch of pathetic lost souls seeking the meaning of life and blaming everyone else for their not finding it yet. Surprised at the age of some of them, I thought they would have grown up around age 20 or so but apparantly not.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542600 8-Nov-2011 14:20

John2010:
MikeyPI:

...As numerous social scientists, economists & mathematician have proved, money flows up, not down. Most people who dispute this are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying.

Well as another lot of numerous social scientists, economists & mathematicians have proved there is not much point taking the money off the rich and giving it to the poor as then "up" will be "down" and "down" will be "up" and the money will get totally confused and won't know which way to flow.

That makes no sense & is pure misinformation. Nothing like clouding a reasonable debate with mindless drivel. If you have nothing of value to contribute..

But to retort, if you raise the tax on someone earning 150K a year by an extra $100 week, & subsidise someone on min wage with that, how does the the 3.4% drop in high wage earners salary, and the corresponding 20% increase in the low wage salary necessarily upset the balance of things?

MikeB4

18135 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#542608 8-Nov-2011 14:31

MikeyPI:
John2010:
MikeyPI:

...As numerous social scientists, economists & mathematician have proved, money flows up, not down. Most people who dispute this are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying.

Well as another lot of numerous social scientists, economists & mathematicians have proved there is not much point taking the money off the rich and giving it to the poor as then "up" will be "down" and "down" will be "up" and the money will get totally confused and won't know which way to flow.

That makes no sense & is pure misinformation. Nothing like clouding a reasonable debate with mindless drivel. If you have nothing of value to contribute..

But to retort, if you raise the tax on someone earning 150K a year by an extra $100 week, & subsidise someone on min wage with that, how does the the 3.4% drop in high wage earners salary, and the corresponding 20% increase in the low wage salary necessarily upset the balance of things?

Why should one be punished because one earns a higher income? My wife is on an income greater than you mention, she works around 60 hours per week and paid for qualifications etc to achieve said income. She also travels every week.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542609 8-Nov-2011 14:32

Talkiet:

No, see the bit of my post I have left above. The point is that there's no real objectivity. All outcomes are coloured by personal feeling or belief.

For example, you might (might - just an example) feel that it's good for the country that a government introduces a higher top tax rate while I might think that on the whole it's a bad idea. You can analyse it all you want, but you'll always be able to cite examples of why it's good and I'll always be able to find counterexamples.

Not true at all, "real" economics has some pretty robust methods for calculating the cost / benefit of policies, and a lot of economists openly discuss them. However as they run contrary to government ideals they are often ignored.

Look at the debate during Bush's presidency, majority of independent economists rubbished his war plan, economic vision, monetary policy, arguing that it would bankrupt the nation...

While you may be able to find counter-arguments, that doesn't mean they are correct. Your art analogy is waay off because art is entirely subjective, while mathematical economic models arent.
I find the Mona Lisa to be rather dull, and wouldnt pay a red cent for it, however I do have art from both international & local artists (including youths) because Im intrigued by it and couldn't give a toss what anyone else thought.

Talkiet:
I was going to respond to this but I am pretty sure that many of the things I would see as beneficial (like raising GST) many people would also see as negative. It's also too hard to pick out policies that may never had had any attention from the media because they work well. I'm not a political scientist - but I do understand that if you want to spend money, you have the get it from somewhere... Just ask the US or Greece what happens when you continually overspend!

Cheers - N

I hazard a guess that you wont, as you cant find 5 good examples, but all you have to do is pick the ones you think are beneficial, and we can analyse them and use accepted methodology to see if they actually are.
While that may be subjective, any reasonable, logical person must be open to presenting & defending ideas, and amending their beliefs in the face of evidence.

If you use proper methods of measuring policy and it supports your position, I have no problem accepting it.

Talkiet

4690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542610 8-Nov-2011 14:36

MikeyPI:
But to retort, if you raise the tax on someone earning 150K a year by an extra $100 week, & subsidise someone on min wage with that, how does the the 3.4% drop in high wage earners salary, and the corresponding 20% increase in the low wage salary necessarily upset the balance of things?

Bear in mind you asked this question, so you should be prepared for the answers...

Well, it upsets the balance of things by rewarding the low wage earner disproportionately and teaching them that if they work harder and earn more, they have to give more away.

It also tells high wage earners that the more they earn, the more they are expected to subsidise low wage earners.

So while you have 2 people whose income is now (marginally) closer together than it was, and you could argue it will have a small impact on the high wage earner, you're now depressing the incentive for low wage earners to work harder (or upskill etc) by giving them something extra for nothing.

I know you'll hate this, and may not even see what I am saying... I DO AGREE that in the short term your idea is lovely, but I don't believe it's sustainable... Taken to the extreme (and I don't think you're proposing that) your logic should suggest that brain surgeons and burger flippers end up with the same income (after tax offsets).

However if you agree that some people do deserve more income than others (they work longer, or have specialised skills or experience etc) then now what you're saying is that the government should to some level over-ride the free market and change the effective remuneration offered to high and low wage earners...

That isn't something I'd want to do - and I wouldn't want to live in a society that embraced that any more than we do today...

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

ScottStevensNZ

245 posts

Master Geek

#542612 8-Nov-2011 14:36

MikeyPI:
John2010:
MikeyPI:

...As numerous social scientists, economists & mathematician have proved, money flows up, not down. Most people who dispute this are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying.

Well as another lot of numerous social scientists, economists & mathematicians have proved there is not much point taking the money off the rich and giving it to the poor as then "up" will be "down" and "down" will be "up" and the money will get totally confused and won't know which way to flow.

That makes no sense & is pure misinformation. Nothing like clouding a reasonable debate with mindless drivel. If you have nothing of value to contribute..

But to retort, if you raise the tax on someone earning 150K a year by an extra $100 week, & subsidise someone on min wage with that, how does the the 3.4% drop in high wage earners salary, and the corresponding 20% increase in the low wage salary necessarily upset the balance of things?

I'll put my hand up to this one. I came from a poor family, went through school, uni and came out with a $48,000 student loan - and now, $70,000 later I have paid it off. I earn $110,000 now after 9-10 years in the work force. So, given that I am still here and working, given that I have paid an extra 22k in interest, that I pay tax, have medical insurance why should I be penalised more for the fact that I have got off my butt, studied and have done well?

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542613 8-Nov-2011 14:39

KiwiNZ:
MikeyPI:
John2010:
MikeyPI:

...As numerous social scientists, economists & mathematician have proved, money flows up, not down. Most people who dispute this are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying.

Well as another lot of numerous social scientists, economists & mathematicians have proved there is not much point taking the money off the rich and giving it to the poor as then "up" will be "down" and "down" will be "up" and the money will get totally confused and won't know which way to flow.

That makes no sense & is pure misinformation. Nothing like clouding a reasonable debate with mindless drivel. If you have nothing of value to contribute..

But to retort, if you raise the tax on someone earning 150K a year by an extra $100 week, & subsidise someone on min wage with that, how does the the 3.4% drop in high wage earners salary, and the corresponding 20% increase in the low wage salary necessarily upset the balance of things?

Why should one be punished because one earns a higher income? My wife is on an income greater than you mention, she works around 60 hours per week and paid for qualifications etc to achieve said income. She also travels every week.

There we go, you see tax as punishment, i see it as equitably contributing to the country. I want EVERY one to be better off in NZ, not just the rich, or business owners like myself. I could happily push for the idiotic call of super low business taxes, would help me tremendously. Would it help the country? Or just fatten my pockets at the expense of others?

She paid for her qualifications? So she never participated for one second in our tax payer subsidised education system?

Also WTF does her travel have to do with anything? (apart from being connected to our tax payer funded roads & national airline?)

Talkiet

4690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542614 8-Nov-2011 14:43

MikeyPI:

I hazard a guess that you wont, as you cant find 5 good examples, but all you have to do is pick the ones you think are beneficial, and we can analyse them and use accepted methodology to see if they actually are.
While that may be subjective, any reasonable, logical person must be open to presenting & defending ideas, and amending their beliefs in the face of evidence.

If you use proper methods of measuring policy and it supports your position, I have no problem accepting it.

I won't - but it's because I'm confident neither of us is anywhere near as capable as the real policy people or economists paid to do this. We're sharing relatively uneducated conjecture and I've already made clear that it's HOW I INTERPRET the policies and outcomes which is important to me. I couldn't care less if you can find an economist telling me I am wrong or not. I'm confident there are approxiomately as many policy interpretations as there are economists in the world.

I am going to support a party that I believe is guided by sound principles. For me, that's an environment where businesses are rewarded for providing more employment and contributions to our GDP, it's also one where social, health and education services are maintained at least where they are today.

I'm not going to support policies that seek to arbitrarily redistribute wealth.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

MikeB4

18135 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#542615 8-Nov-2011 14:44

MikeyPI:
KiwiNZ:
MikeyPI:
John2010:
MikeyPI:

...As numerous social scientists, economists & mathematician have proved, money flows up, not down. Most people who dispute this are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying.

Well as another lot of numerous social scientists, economists & mathematicians have proved there is not much point taking the money off the rich and giving it to the poor as then "up" will be "down" and "down" will be "up" and the money will get totally confused and won't know which way to flow.

That makes no sense & is pure misinformation. Nothing like clouding a reasonable debate with mindless drivel. If you have nothing of value to contribute..

But to retort, if you raise the tax on someone earning 150K a year by an extra $100 week, & subsidise someone on min wage with that, how does the the 3.4% drop in high wage earners salary, and the corresponding 20% increase in the low wage salary necessarily upset the balance of things?

Why should one be punished because one earns a higher income? My wife is on an income greater than you mention, she works around 60 hours per week and paid for qualifications etc to achieve said income. She also travels every week.

There we go, you see tax as punishment, i see it as equitably contributing to the country. I want EVERY one to be better off in NZ, not just the rich, or business owners like myself. I could happily push for the idiotic call of super low business taxes, would help me tremendously. Would it help the country? Or just fatten my pockets at the expense of others?

She paid for her qualifications? So she never participated for one second in our tax payer subsidised education system?

Also WTF does her travel have to do with anything? (apart from being connected to our tax payer funded roads & national airline?)

What taxes go to AirNZ?

She went to private Schools

She works dammed hard for what she earns , she also does considerable voluntary charity work.

Why mention the travel, to example why she earns the rewards she gets. That travel is work related.

Before ill health forced me to retire I also were the same as her.

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 41