Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The scandal that keeps on giving, in reply to Jonty,
A contributor to BBC’s World Have Your Say predicted that little will come out of the H of C committee hearing as the interviewees know where all the members’ skeletons are buried :–)
And in a different week I would have agreed with you. But this week ...
-
What has left me shaking my head in shear wonder is the apparent depth and breadth of the corruption.
I really can't guess what will come next, how many MPs will be named or will they quietly not be selected in the next candidacy round? Will similar hacking be uncovered in the US? Hard to imagine that it isn't happening there as well and equally hard to imagine that someone won't blow the whistle. Will other newspaper companies be exposed as well?
We've seen policemen resign and incredibly powerful business people fall, what is next?
One very interesting question is will the culture change as a result of this? Will people start to make the connection between buying newspapers with gossip and scandal and the appalling behaviour of the industry that produced the gossip? Will people actually change? The cynical in me says no - but the cynical in me would never have believed this story could destroy business careers the way it has.
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Christopher Nimmo,
They voted in all those other governments as well
You're quite right. But pretty much everyone was stunned by the decision(s) to stop superannuation by those other governments. They didn't campaign on that policy and when the public realised what had been done to their future they booted the pricks out.
That at least is the one thing that is better about this National government they at least are being open about their intent to sell off assets. Hopefully the public will decide that it's a bad idea but if not then the majority will have chosen and being able to say "I told you so" at some later time will offer no comfort.
-
Up Front: P.A. Story, in reply to Islander,
stretching the syntax just a weeeee bit there
You say that like it's a bad thing
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to BenWilson,
because we OWE them
You're missing my point. It isn't because we owe them. Nor is it because we are morally compassionate, although I'm happy to have people help the old for that reason too.
It is because it is their money . They entered into a contract with their government. They voted pretty explicitly for a government that established and then reestablished superannuation. It is not their fault that some governments in between forgot that and spent the money on other things "it's OK we'll pay it back later".
You can argue that we pay for them. But in reality they expected some of their taxes to be set aside for them. And by the way as it stands today we currently expect that some of our taxes will be set aside for us. That makes it doubly galling that in order to give tax cuts and buy votes the money that I trusted a government to keep safe for me is now being threatened.
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to BenWilson,
I will pay for the oldies
no, a thousand times no.
You will pay for yourself, if you live that long, and while the govt is holding the money for you they will invest it in infrastructure and business in New Zealand. And yes, I remember at least two elections won/lost on precisely that promise.
You are not paying for old folks, they have already paid for themselves but someone nicked the money.
You could do this by a direct contribution scheme, oo look, just like kiwisaver or by a compulsory scheme, or you could do all of the above because each has their plusses and minuses and in combination they form a pretty decent method of supporting the old folks.
-
Struggling to figure out how this could be incorporated into the narrative.
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to mattgeeknz,
one of which the under-65s pay for with their income tax
Because those over 65s have never paid tax in their lives?
Superannuation was a very simple contract between the voters and the government ... voters paid taxes that the govt would set aside and invest and then pay back to those lucky enough to live past 65 years.
Raising the age to 67 is reasonable.
Stealing that money to provide tax cuts and buy votes is unreasonable.
The problem has simply stemmed from unscrupulous politicians (redundant I know) who used that money as a private piggy bank promising to pay it back when it was needed - yeah right.
Sorry just dislike it when people misrepresent the superannuation argument as poor workers supporting lazy old folks who never contributed anything anyway.
-
Up Front: P.A. Story, in reply to Lilith __,
a stetson
Are you suggesting it was a simple typo?
Nah I'm sure there is a reason for the Swedish golfer I just want to understand it.
-
Up Front: P.A. Story, in reply to Phil fryer,
an a stenson on his head
I'm confused, why is he wearing a Swedish golfer on his head? Not that I'm worried about the concept just trying to get to grips with the imagery.