This entry was posted on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 8:11 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
I had an idea today that I thought may have had some merit in a recession.
What if the government was to put the minimum wage down to say, $11 per hour.
Then the government sets a tax free threshold of say $10-15,000.00, enough to exactly compensate the worker from the fall from $12.50 to $11.00? Theres more maths involved here than I am capable of, but basically at the moment the first tax bracket is $0-14,000 at 12.5%, what say we just abolished this and reduced the minimum wage by 12.5% also?
This would reduce wage bills by a large amount for small business, and result in workers having no less (maybe even more) in the hand.
I’m not sure about the affordability of this now, but I’m pretty sure it could have been done instead of the accross the board tax cuts in April. In this way everyone would have received a tax cut, and most people in the lower bracket are probably negative taxpayers anyway, so would reduce some churn.
Oh and forgot to add- would clearly be job-creating, as the minimum wage is known to be harmful (to a certain extent) to job creation
If it is not out of line of me to ask, can I request a post from you?
I’m interested in your views on National and ACT’s decision to oppose a Bill that would have prohibited the importation of products made using slave labour. As I understand it, that really is all that the Bill did – there were no other nefarious clauses hiding in the Bill.
If you disagree with their decision to vote against this Bill, why do you think they opposed it? If you support their decision, what is the rationale for wanting to facilitate slavery through allowing trade in slave-produced products?
I should say that I am aware any enforcement of this kind of prohibition is likely to be imperfect. No doubt. But surely when it comes to slavery some enforcement is better than no enforcement, especially if you rely mainly on “fire alarm” monitoring mechanisms that cause minimal fixed cost to the government.
For my part, I think it is especially sad that the Bill was voted down even before a select committee could consider practical issues about regulatory regimes.
Looking forward to hopefully hearing your views.
Cheers,
Rob
[DPF: I understand the reasons they voted against was that there was no practical way to implement it. Regardless though I disagree with that rationale as I think those arguments are best examined at select committee. My general policy is to vote for most bills to select commiittee unless you are actually oppossed to the objectives of the bill (eg a bill to remove remove reserve bank independence) or it is too fundamentally flawed to be fixed by select cmte (eg EFA).
I will blog on the bill with my views. However might wait until I can see the Hansard. Depends how busy I get today. Have lots of non blogging work on today
Oh finally while no problems making the request in general debate, in future prob a good idea to e-mail me a copy to make sure I see it. I don't always read all of general debate]
Lets ban imports from countries that don’t meet human rights conditions set out by the UN, or countries that don’t meet Kyoto emmission targets, or that fall below UN child poverty levels ….. its all so subjective I could just yawn, roll over and open another beer and book a flight somewhere cheap.
Expat – I can accept that there is a serious debate on a number of the issues you raise. If you ban imports from countries with lots of poverty, are you hurting or helping the people concerned, etc. But I was under the impression that we are all on the same page when it comes to slavery. Surely there isn’t disagreement on that one?!
Rob – I’m sure we are on a similar page, slavery is bad. Does banning imports from countries that have (defn?) slavery hurt the country, help the country, hurt those (defn?) enslaved, help those (defn?) enslaved, hurt the rest of the populace, help the rest of the populace, act as a catalyst for +’ve/-’ve change?
It’s all so chin scratchy and vague and SST’ish.
Not1 – You been to Fiji in the last decade?
NB: Will you people lay off the karma buttons, FFS! If youve got something to say, say it (or kindly fuck off!)
Expat – the Bill, as I understand it, would not have banned imports from countries with slave labour, it would have banned the products of slave labour. Only those products themselves. (And there are plenty of internationally accepted definitions of slavery, like in the UN conventions declaring it illegal, immoral etc) Link to Bill: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2009/0057/latest/whole.html#dlm2233203
But it does come down to a defn. ‘a of product of’ and policing it etc etc. It sounds fine in principle but the monitoring and policing, what a nightmare.
Anyway, this type of thing is exactly what the UN are paid to do, arent they?
Out of interest, which particular imports (from which countries) would you think would be hit if this type of legislaton was introduced?
Expat – I agree the enforcement is potentially tricky. That is what select committees are for. I heard that the US passed a similar law, so it seems they think they can do it. But even if the government did nothing at all to set up a monitoring program, wouldn’t it be good if when somebody discovers that product X was made by slaves the government could legally stop it from sitting in our shops? Right now, the government would have to shrug and say “nothing we can do,” leaving the product on the shelves to enrich slave owners with New Zealand dollars.
As for which products would be hit, I honestly do not know as I am new to this issue. You might ask Maryan Street or somebody about that part.
Of course if there is sufficient evidence of something being the product of slave labour for one importer (or a group) to lay a compliant against an importer, then there is sufficient evidence to make the claim in public and for consumers to avoid purchasing those products. The general law of defamation applies against false and misleading complaints in that case.
Why do we need new special rule and all the accompanying costs associated with that in addition to the fact that the rule will elicit anti competitive behaviour; lodging a complaint creates delay and therefore advantages competing products in the market, whether the compliant has merit or not.
I assume there is no economic sanction proposed for laying false complaints under the Bill – no counterweight to ensure that only complaints that can be actually proven will usually be laid. Or is that you want the cost of unmeritorious complaints to be entirely born by the importer (who might be put out of business) and the taxpayer?
It is probably a wise Parliament turns down the opportunity to send such poorly crafted legislation to select committee, particularly when there is a consumer driven mechanism for dealing with any real problems with the products of slave labour.
There are two obvious flaws in the bill – goods made wholly or in part is just code for trace your entire supply chain and if we can find one tree chopped down by a “slave” the whole lounge suite is banned. The definition of slave labour is also capable of broad definition what exactly is meant by “slave labour means labour by persons over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.”
Fundamentally this is an anti-trade bill. If you are against slavery, there are other actions which can be taken.
@ Chris – agree – it’s real easy to talk about “setting up systems” and ignoring all the costs and market effects. The consumer has the ultimate power and there are plenty of examples of major companies voluntarily adopting policies (which actually in practice are not against “slavery” but things like age of workers, minimum pay etc.
It’s very easy to sit in the first world and get all sanctimonious about what 3rd world countries have to do to get ahead while at the same time trying to fuck them over by conceiving local job protection schemes. Dont forget the UK in the 19th centure would have had a lot of labour which might have fallen foul of this bill.
I think expat makes a fair point when it comes to the policing of such a bill. It would be another layer of bureaucracy that would add more cost to imported items. The UN needs to start giving such countries a kick in the bollocks not appointing them to chair committees.
I’m only commenting because expat doesn’t like karma
Rob – “That is what select committees are for”, arf arf! I thought they just collected airmiles and cholesterol.
Anyway, I’m sure the US introduced the bill as a method of tightening the noose on ‘terror’ regimes rather than any good spirited attempt to crack down on slavery per se, but hey, call me a cynic.
It really is an area that the UN should be leading, setting agreed standards and protocols on, and then nation states can act in unison.
Chris – The current Act treats products of prison labour in exactly the same way as the new Bill proposed to treat products of slave labour. It seems you and I might disagree here, but I for one think that New Zealanders should never have any legal opportunity to profit from the enslavement of human beings. Any system that relies on consumer boycotts (which never work perfectly) allows that legal opportunity. As to your other point, I costs can be awarded in the event of meritless claims, and repeat filers of meritless claims can be declared vexatious litigants. This system has worked in relation to prison labour since 1996 without, to my knowledge, much outcry or distortion of markets.
You’re one to talk of slaves philu.
Every kiwi taxpayer is a slave to our high tax regime, to pay tax for perfectly able people like you to sit on your arse all day
Given Phil’s predilection to that most blessed of herbs, I am astounded he would be in favour of prohibition; if as consumers we cannot be trusted to freely reject the products of slavery then surely we also cannot be trusted to decide what recreational drugs to use.
Philu could you provide a link. Earlier I started to read No right turn but everything he disagrees its automatically is a slave state so switched off.
A penal institution is a physical place it’s easy to determine what products are leaving it. It’s also very clear on what basis someone is an inmate (not freely). The fact that the law in this regard is little used probably suggests that the problem isn’t significant.
Slave Labour is a concept not a place ipso facto the uncertainty is much higher.
It’s very very odd that you make the distinction between the right to profit from the sale of products of slave labour yet you also conclude that consumer boycotts are far from perfect (do they need to be to make a business uneconomic?).
It’s really a very dismal view about the nature of your fellow New Zealander. You actually assume someone could profit from the importation of the products of slave labour in New Zealand. I strongly doubt that is so. Given the fundamental values of most New Zealanders (which are also reflected in their consumer choices) most would avoid the products of slavery. Problem solved. The simple economic consequences of consumer choice fix the problem.
Why pass a law. Why not simply get the information out there; identify the products made by slave labour so we can all avoid them.
What are the products coming here made from slave labour that are being sold but for a law preventing this?
It’s heartening to see Labour addressing the real live concerns of everyday New Zealanders; not for Labour the prospect of feel good legislation to address phantom problems.
First, on a minor point, the kind of countries that use prison labour to make consumer goods do not tend to put “proudly made in prison X” on the product, and probably do not like NZ customs officials investigating around, so finding those goods is not as simple as you might presume.
On the major point, your argument appears to be: “the New Zealand parliament should not ban New Zealanders from profiting from slavery, because the market will sort it all out.” I think that is an overly rose-tinted view of how markets operate in the real world. Sometimes markets fail (say through lack of the perfect information throughout the economy that consumer boycotts need to succeed) and that is where legislative action can help.
Given his firmly held conviction that the September the 11th attacks were an inside job due to the fact that a BBC reporter stated on air that the WTC 7 had collapsed when it was still standing, what do you make of the following?
I am not sure arguing that establishing whether a product originates from a penal institution (a discreet physical place) is very difficult actually helps your case.
For however difficult that is it’s an order of magnitude more difficult to establish something is the product of slave labour.
As to your substantive point; you keep repeating the spin about profiting from slavery. What profit – I would have thought slave made products where inconsistent with profit making in a New Zealand context – assuming the slavery was known to the consumer.
Are you seriously maintaining that the vast bulk of New Zealanders would knowingly purchase the products of slavery? That but for a law of the New Zealand Parliament slaveholders worldwide and their importing agents here will be enriched because New Zealanders would be entirely unconcerned about the morality of this?
You cannot be serious.
What are the products we are currently consuming that result from slave labour – I would be interested to know the extent of the problem and whether it deserves legislative time. I suspect there isn’t much of a problem that cannot be remedied by getting the information out there.
We don’t need state determined rules based moral repugnancy when individual moral repugnancy will do the trick.
Things like this make me furious.
Goff is so concerned about the plight of poor beneficiaries, that in 6 months he has spent enough on expenses to fund the benefit for 10 people for a year!
Apparently a salary of $200k+ isnt enough to fund your own accomodation in Wellington either.
Maybe he should get an accommodation supplement?
What a hypocritical idiot.
Chris – Your argument relies on perfect or nearly-perfect information, which clearly does not exist because neither you nor I know which products in NZ right now were produced by slaves. On that score, I would suggest you ask Maryan Street over at Red Alert. If you want to argue that NZ should allow slave-produced products on our shelves because the market will fix it, then go ahead and enjoy yourself. But be prepared to lose, because I think most NZers had enough of believing tidy models of markets always work in the real world some years ago. Markets fail, often for informational reasons. That is where legislation helps.
(Also, I do not have to believe that most NZers would knowingly buy slave-produced products to argue for a formal ban. One NZer knowingly or inadvertently importing and selling one slave-produced product is one too many. By your logic on this issue there should be no fraud laws either, because the perfectly informed market will learn over time steer clear of fraudsters. Good luck with that argument, too.)
I’ve decided that I don’t like the new moderation policy. It is just not fair on the righties, banning them from being rude and abusive is like banning lefties from using words more than 4 syllables long.
racer1 said “I’ve decided that I don’t like the new moderation policy. It is just not fair on the righties, banning them from being rude and abusive is like banning lefties from using words more than 4 syllables long.”
racer – don’t you mean – words more than four LETTERS long???
Oh dear if that is the quality of public policy advice offered by the Labour party and its boosters then they will need a long time in opposition.
You claim that one importer (or group) can have sufficient knowledge about a product to conclude it is made my slave labour in order to lodge a compliant to get the importation of the good prevented. I assume the product must already be in the market since importers don’t helpfully pre identify themselves as “importers of the finest slave made products” – strangely is isn’t good for business.)
Thus the product is here already as is the information that it is slave made. Why not simply make the knowledge public thereby ensuring both the importers and retailers don’t get any further sales. The great advantage of this scheme is it is quick and efficient. Both importers and retailers would only ever do this once – they would get financially punished for not knowing to origins and circumstances of manufacture. You are also assuming that they would not be hit up for refunds for returned products.
There is no need for perfect knowledge and all that – a little knowledge of slavery would do the trick.
It is odd that the lack of information about slave made products will be automatically remedied by making a rule, but otherwise we cannot know what is slave made or not.
Are you honestly maintaining that the importation and sale of slave made products would be un-newsworthy in New Zealand assuming we could know this absent a rule?
Again Rob why make rules when most New Zealander’s personal sense or morality would fix the problem if you make the information notorious (the same information needed for the application of any rule)
I find it interesting that as a booster for this Labour party nonsense you cannot identify any slave made products in the New Zealand marketplace. I am really interested to know what they are so as to avoid them; given that Parliament has not passed this law.
So Mr Goff is the biggest expenses ‘piggy’. Am I surprised? No, not really – the old addage – ‘he who makes the most noise usually has the most to hide’ will always apply, and Phil does have rather a lot to say doesn’t he?
Any bets that the MSM will say absolutely NOTHING about this matter – or, at best, it will warrant only a very, very small sub-paragraph, and that they will hone-in on Murray mcCulley?
Chris, the informational difference between our solutions is that you need to wait for the information to disseminate far and wide to basically all the potential consumers in NZ for your solution to work, whereas my solution relies only on the information getting to Customs. Occum’s Razor suggests that the simpler solution, mine, is probably the best.
As I suggested earlier, I think Maryan Street is in a better position than me to describe the scope of the problem.
Actually Philu it was you implying that the collapse of the WTC7 was some kind of smoking gun which was irrefutable proof in your eyes of how the attack was not all it seemed.
All I have done is point out to you that there is another possibity, one that seems to make more rational sense. That is the WTC7 did not get blown up at all but collapsed as a result of damage when the North Tower fell.
Yesterday you were having a debate with Mr Buchanan about how could the BBC journalist make a report about the collapse of the building when it was still standing. I will give you the scenario.
New York Fire Department is checking WTC7 out to try and find any persons still in there and to fight the fires that have broken out as a result of the collapse of the North Tower.
The team on the ground note that the structural integrity of the building looks to be failing. They advise the new head of Department on the ground, Daniel Nigro, of the situation.
A decision is taken by Mr Nigro to evacuate the building because it could collapse at any time.
The message to evacuate is spread and the building is evacuated. As a result the message becomes slightly garbled.
A media desperate for information from the site and broadcasting live picks up the call about the imminent collapse of WTC7 and misinterprets it as that the building has already collapsed.
The BBC reporter on the scene then reports this incorrect information as fact.
Now isn’t that a more believable story than they rigged the building with Thermate explosives in the weeks before September the 11th and then got the second in charge of the New York Fire Department (the actual head died whjen the Towers collapsed) to agree to cover up the story?
It’s naiveté is the extreme to assume that anything involving Government is the simplest solution.
Rest assured Government will be last to know if something is slave made or not.
Are you seriously suggesting importing and retailing slave made products here would not be lead item in the news (all other things being equal).
Perhaps you cannot nominate slave made products in the New Zealand marketplace because they don’t sell that’s why there aren’t any here. In short Labour is attempting to legislate for a non problem.
Patrick Star, good idea but Philu doesn’t eat meat so fur burgers would be off the menu maybe Natasha won’t mind. But if they do get together maybe they could advise WINZ on how they milk the system, in much the same way as computer hackers advise computer companies on how to combat hackers.
Just differentiating from voting for RAM in 2011, where they win the election and immediately turn the country into a Chavista paradise. Trust me, I know. I’m from 2015 and I’m here to warn you allllllll!
Also, Soylent Green isn’t really made of people, so you don’t have to worry when it’s introduced in 2012.
Roger Douglas entitled, funny how Douglas wants lower taxes after we the taxpayer paid for him and his wife to take a bloody holiday in the UK.
Strange that we are told we need to tighten our belts, but it does not apply to bloody MPs or ex MPs it seems
And Roger Douglas, if you and your party are going to rail against government waste, it’s probably not the best look to lead with the biggest spending of any list MP.
I’m supportive of most ACT policy, but smacks of a bit of hypocrisy to me.
Would of love to seen his face when the reporter asked him if he was a hypocrite. haha
The anti smacking guy, said that we must have the antismacking law because so many children are killed in this country.
What a lunatic. I seriously doubt smacking my children on the hand is going to kill them.
This is what annoys me, the anti smackers continually use cases of extreme child violence in mostly maori households to justify the banning of light smacks.
Haha agreed. Did anyone see the letter Bob McKoscrie (?) presented to john key?
Talk about state sponsored terrorism on families by CYFS and the police…
You would have to be a special sort to work and CYFS and invade outrageously into people’s lives so much everyday
And talk about a trougher Roger Douglas, jeez never thought I’d lump philu and roger douglas in the same sentence, but I am now!
Sounded like he got mad over this when questioned, as if he ‘deserved’ to use this much travel- gee, you know the entitlement culture is getting bad when it spreads to the ACT party!…
Haha thats true.
Maybe we could afford it if we follow Philu’s 4-point plan to rejig the economy…
1. Set DBP to 110% of the average wage
2. Legalise marijuana, heroin, meth, and cocaine
3. Top tax rate of 93% for income earners over $60,000 (in this way only the rich pricks are being penalised)
4. All meat to be classified as a Class A substance, with its use, dealing, or consuming to be criminalised.
I would support it to an extent as well phil, i’m just taking the piss
I guess the question of whether I would support drug legalisation would turn on the question of whether you would class drug use as a “victimless crime”, and this is something I haven’t really made my mind up on yet.
Hard libertarians would argue that it is, and the state has no right to tell us what we can put in our bodies.
On the other hand, if a parent gets hooked on smack and starts neglecting his kids, and families start breaking down (as happens with prohibition) I guess it’s not victimless anymore..
Phil WFF IS PAID TO BENEFICIARIES!!!
You must know this. You may not realise it, but the family tax credit is paid as part of your benefit.
You are getting WFF confused with just one part of it- the “in work” tax credit, and, as I have already explained to you, the reason why you don’t get this is summed up in its name.
A heroin addict a totally functioning human being?
Yes phil, parents who abuse alcohol and let this affect their children are wankers, and piss poor parents.
But someone abusing heroin is a better functioning human then a junkie? Think there’s a tui billboard coming..
Yes phil, as I say, you are completely confusing the WFF package as a whole, with just one part of it- the “in work” tax credit. And as it is clearly paid as an incentive to be in work, why would the state give you more money to perpetuate your cycle of dependency, instead of leaving it there as a carrot for you to get off your arse?
@nickb – when you understand how outrageous levity can be taken seriously by phool (especially when there is more in it for him ) you learn not to get his hopes up.
Are you saying that the only money you receive, is just the base benefit rate for one person? Say $190? Without any extra at all?
You are receiving more than that, and the DIFFERENCE IS YOUR WFF
As a long serving MP, he has already qualified for cheap airtravel for the rest of his life. This is part of his package, and Helen Clark and others are also entitled to the same benefits.
The real issue, is should long term service benefits continue to be bestowed to MP’s? I think not. It is a relic of the past, for the times when an MP and a cop were paid the same. MP’s salaries have leapt, so they should forgo air travel perks.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Michael Schumacher is making a comeback
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/07/hes-back.html
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Todays Maori Language week lesson from the NZ Herald
“3. Smash ‘em bro! (Turakina e hoa!)”
………and they wonder why?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587508
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:24 am
I reckon Paul McCartney is dead
He was killed in a car crash in 1966 and replaced by a look-a-like, one William Shears.
There’s tons of supporting evidence – if you want new a conspiracy theory to fill this thread that is.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:25 am
What are you getting at Patrick? You don’t support encouraging your team to tackle the oppostion in a game of rugby? Clearly not a fan!
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:25 am
I had an idea today that I thought may have had some merit in a recession.
What if the government was to put the minimum wage down to say, $11 per hour.
Then the government sets a tax free threshold of say $10-15,000.00, enough to exactly compensate the worker from the fall from $12.50 to $11.00? Theres more maths involved here than I am capable of, but basically at the moment the first tax bracket is $0-14,000 at 12.5%, what say we just abolished this and reduced the minimum wage by 12.5% also?
This would reduce wage bills by a large amount for small business, and result in workers having no less (maybe even more) in the hand.
I’m not sure about the affordability of this now, but I’m pretty sure it could have been done instead of the accross the board tax cuts in April. In this way everyone would have received a tax cut, and most people in the lower bracket are probably negative taxpayers anyway, so would reduce some churn.
Oh and forgot to add- would clearly be job-creating, as the minimum wage is known to be harmful (to a certain extent) to job creation
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Paula Bennet was wrong yesterday and shes still wrong today.
I don’t care how many cups of coffee she has with who, she played it like a labour party MP.
I obviously I also have no interest in saying the accepted thing just for the sake of positive karma. Its almost like I have a principle or something.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:28 am
@ NOt1tocommentoften
Vote:an ex player actually. what about you?
July 30th, 2009 at 8:31 am
As am I. What’s your problem with what’s in the Herald then? You’re clearly insinuating something or rather. What is it?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:35 am
if you believe I’m insinuating ‘something’ then you dont need it explained
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:35 am
DPF,
If it is not out of line of me to ask, can I request a post from you?
I’m interested in your views on National and ACT’s decision to oppose a Bill that would have prohibited the importation of products made using slave labour. As I understand it, that really is all that the Bill did – there were no other nefarious clauses hiding in the Bill.
If you disagree with their decision to vote against this Bill, why do you think they opposed it? If you support their decision, what is the rationale for wanting to facilitate slavery through allowing trade in slave-produced products?
I should say that I am aware any enforcement of this kind of prohibition is likely to be imperfect. No doubt. But surely when it comes to slavery some enforcement is better than no enforcement, especially if you rely mainly on “fire alarm” monitoring mechanisms that cause minimal fixed cost to the government.
For my part, I think it is especially sad that the Bill was voted down even before a select committee could consider practical issues about regulatory regimes.
Looking forward to hopefully hearing your views.
Cheers,
Rob
[DPF: I understand the reasons they voted against was that there was no practical way to implement it. Regardless though I disagree with that rationale as I think those arguments are best examined at select committee. My general policy is to vote for most bills to select commiittee unless you are actually oppossed to the objectives of the bill (eg a bill to remove remove reserve bank independence) or it is too fundamentally flawed to be fixed by select cmte (eg EFA).
I will blog on the bill with my views. However might wait until I can see the Hansard. Depends how busy I get today. Have lots of non blogging work on today
Oh finally while no problems making the request in general debate, in future prob a good idea to e-mail me a copy to make sure I see it. I don't always read all of general debate]
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Lets ban imports from countries that don’t meet human rights conditions set out by the UN, or countries that don’t meet Kyoto emmission targets, or that fall below UN child poverty levels ….. its all so subjective I could just yawn, roll over and open another beer and book a flight somewhere cheap.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Good on you expat – too hard, can’t be bothered, don’t care. People die, environment destroyed, nice car, another beer. Cause and effect. Well done.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Expat – I can accept that there is a serious debate on a number of the issues you raise. If you ban imports from countries with lots of poverty, are you hurting or helping the people concerned, etc. But I was under the impression that we are all on the same page when it comes to slavery. Surely there isn’t disagreement on that one?!
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Rob – I’m sure we are on a similar page, slavery is bad. Does banning imports from countries that have (defn?) slavery hurt the country, help the country, hurt those (defn?) enslaved, help those (defn?) enslaved, hurt the rest of the populace, help the rest of the populace, act as a catalyst for +’ve/-’ve change?
It’s all so chin scratchy and vague and SST’ish.
Not1 – You been to Fiji in the last decade?
NB: Will you people lay off the karma buttons, FFS! If youve got something to say, say it (or kindly fuck off!)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Expat – the Bill, as I understand it, would not have banned imports from countries with slave labour, it would have banned the products of slave labour. Only those products themselves. (And there are plenty of internationally accepted definitions of slavery, like in the UN conventions declaring it illegal, immoral etc) Link to Bill: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2009/0057/latest/whole.html#dlm2233203
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Rob – fairish ’nuff.
But it does come down to a defn. ‘a of product of’ and policing it etc etc. It sounds fine in principle but the monitoring and policing, what a nightmare.
Anyway, this type of thing is exactly what the UN are paid to do, arent they?
Out of interest, which particular imports (from which countries) would you think would be hit if this type of legislaton was introduced?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I love Paula Bennett. So un PC. It makes me smile!
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Expat – I agree the enforcement is potentially tricky. That is what select committees are for. I heard that the US passed a similar law, so it seems they think they can do it. But even if the government did nothing at all to set up a monitoring program, wouldn’t it be good if when somebody discovers that product X was made by slaves the government could legally stop it from sitting in our shops? Right now, the government would have to shrug and say “nothing we can do,” leaving the product on the shelves to enrich slave owners with New Zealand dollars.
As for which products would be hit, I honestly do not know as I am new to this issue. You might ask Maryan Street or somebody about that part.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Rob:
Of course if there is sufficient evidence of something being the product of slave labour for one importer (or a group) to lay a compliant against an importer, then there is sufficient evidence to make the claim in public and for consumers to avoid purchasing those products. The general law of defamation applies against false and misleading complaints in that case.
Why do we need new special rule and all the accompanying costs associated with that in addition to the fact that the rule will elicit anti competitive behaviour; lodging a complaint creates delay and therefore advantages competing products in the market, whether the compliant has merit or not.
I assume there is no economic sanction proposed for laying false complaints under the Bill – no counterweight to ensure that only complaints that can be actually proven will usually be laid. Or is that you want the cost of unmeritorious complaints to be entirely born by the importer (who might be put out of business) and the taxpayer?
It is probably a wise Parliament turns down the opportunity to send such poorly crafted legislation to select committee, particularly when there is a consumer driven mechanism for dealing with any real problems with the products of slave labour.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:24 am
There are two obvious flaws in the bill – goods made wholly or in part is just code for trace your entire supply chain and if we can find one tree chopped down by a “slave” the whole lounge suite is banned. The definition of slave labour is also capable of broad definition what exactly is meant by “slave labour means labour by persons over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.”
Fundamentally this is an anti-trade bill. If you are against slavery, there are other actions which can be taken.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
@ Chris – agree – it’s real easy to talk about “setting up systems” and ignoring all the costs and market effects. The consumer has the ultimate power and there are plenty of examples of major companies voluntarily adopting policies (which actually in practice are not against “slavery” but things like age of workers, minimum pay etc.
It’s very easy to sit in the first world and get all sanctimonious about what 3rd world countries have to do to get ahead while at the same time trying to fuck them over by conceiving local job protection schemes. Dont forget the UK in the 19th centure would have had a lot of labour which might have fallen foul of this bill.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I think expat makes a fair point when it comes to the policing of such a bill. It would be another layer of bureaucracy that would add more cost to imported items. The UN needs to start giving such countries a kick in the bollocks not appointing them to chair committees.
I’m only commenting because expat doesn’t like karma
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:31 am
andrei said “Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash in 1966″
It is also possible that Heather Mills had a personality transplant in 1968 – but the personality rejected her.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Rob – “That is what select committees are for”, arf arf! I thought they just collected airmiles and cholesterol.
Anyway, I’m sure the US introduced the bill as a method of tightening the noose on ‘terror’ regimes rather than any good spirited attempt to crack down on slavery per se, but hey, call me a cynic.
It really is an area that the UN should be leading, setting agreed standards and protocols on, and then nation states can act in unison.
It’s not an area for partison politics, IMHO.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:35 am
have we gone back centuries here..?
are we having a rerun-abolitionist-debate over whether it is ethical/’good’..or not..
..to purchase goods made using slave labour..?
..be that ‘only one slave’..or not..?
..and gee..!..just think..!..before the election..some people said national was/is the ‘nasty’ party..
..others went ‘no..no..!..they’re different now..
..they have ‘that nice mr key’..
..i think i’ll believe their election promises..
..and vote for them..
..what harm can that do..?
..it’s time for a change..
..for changes’ sake..)
..so..slaves/slavery are ‘ok’..and must not be allowed to interfere in/with ‘commerce’/business..
..what’s next..?
..organ trafficking..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:36 am
A compelling argument that Barack Obama is not a US citizen.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:37 am
And what about the 111 Maui dolphins left
Vote:Seems like National doesn’t give a flying fuck about them too
July 30th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Chris – The current Act treats products of prison labour in exactly the same way as the new Bill proposed to treat products of slave labour. It seems you and I might disagree here, but I for one think that New Zealanders should never have any legal opportunity to profit from the enslavement of human beings. Any system that relies on consumer boycotts (which never work perfectly) allows that legal opportunity. As to your other point, I costs can be awarded in the event of meritless claims, and repeat filers of meritless claims can be declared vexatious litigants. This system has worked in relation to prison labour since 1996 without, to my knowledge, much outcry or distortion of markets.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:42 am
You’re one to talk of slaves philu.
Vote:Every kiwi taxpayer is a slave to our high tax regime, to pay tax for perfectly able people like you to sit on your arse all day
July 30th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Is there relationship strain in the right blogoshpere? I might be reading this completely wrong but over at whaleoil…
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:46 am
“I love Paula Bennett. So un PC. ” Political Coherence?
You mean you like what she did? She might shoot the messenger behind the scenes but she doesn’t speak like a straight shooter.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Given Phil’s predilection to that most blessed of herbs, I am astounded he would be in favour of prohibition; if as consumers we cannot be trusted to freely reject the products of slavery then surely we also cannot be trusted to decide what recreational drugs to use.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am
and werent things coherent before the fuckwits arrived.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I just saw a pro labour ad on the right of KiwiBlog – “not yours to sell – labours campaign to save aucklands assets”. Lol.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am
National and ACT support slavery.
Absolutely appalling that they refuse to support concrete acts against it.
[DPF: this is like saying you support rape because you don't support increasing the maximum penalty to 50 years jail, Try a non hysterical approach]
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Philu could you provide a link. Earlier I started to read No right turn but everything he disagrees its automatically is a slave state so switched off.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Rob
A penal institution is a physical place it’s easy to determine what products are leaving it. It’s also very clear on what basis someone is an inmate (not freely). The fact that the law in this regard is little used probably suggests that the problem isn’t significant.
Slave Labour is a concept not a place ipso facto the uncertainty is much higher.
It’s very very odd that you make the distinction between the right to profit from the sale of products of slave labour yet you also conclude that consumer boycotts are far from perfect (do they need to be to make a business uneconomic?).
It’s really a very dismal view about the nature of your fellow New Zealander. You actually assume someone could profit from the importation of the products of slave labour in New Zealand. I strongly doubt that is so. Given the fundamental values of most New Zealanders (which are also reflected in their consumer choices) most would avoid the products of slavery. Problem solved. The simple economic consequences of consumer choice fix the problem.
Why pass a law. Why not simply get the information out there; identify the products made by slave labour so we can all avoid them.
What are the products coming here made from slave labour that are being sold but for a law preventing this?
It’s heartening to see Labour addressing the real live concerns of everyday New Zealanders; not for Labour the prospect of feel good legislation to address phantom problems.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:49 am
If we were to give our prisoners work to do, would any products they were involved in producing be made from slave labour?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Chris
First, on a minor point, the kind of countries that use prison labour to make consumer goods do not tend to put “proudly made in prison X” on the product, and probably do not like NZ customs officials investigating around, so finding those goods is not as simple as you might presume.
On the major point, your argument appears to be: “the New Zealand parliament should not ban New Zealanders from profiting from slavery, because the market will sort it all out.” I think that is an overly rose-tinted view of how markets operate in the real world. Sometimes markets fail (say through lack of the perfect information throughout the economy that consumer boycotts need to succeed) and that is where legislative action can help.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Question for Philu when he eventually shows up.
Given his firmly held conviction that the September the 11th attacks were an inside job due to the fact that a BBC reporter stated on air that the WTC 7 had collapsed when it was still standing, what do you make of the following?
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am
There is some good to come out of this foolishness then.
Now I know what they’re yelling in downtown Wellington on Saturday nights.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Rob:
I am not sure arguing that establishing whether a product originates from a penal institution (a discreet physical place) is very difficult actually helps your case.
For however difficult that is it’s an order of magnitude more difficult to establish something is the product of slave labour.
As to your substantive point; you keep repeating the spin about profiting from slavery. What profit – I would have thought slave made products where inconsistent with profit making in a New Zealand context – assuming the slavery was known to the consumer.
Are you seriously maintaining that the vast bulk of New Zealanders would knowingly purchase the products of slavery? That but for a law of the New Zealand Parliament slaveholders worldwide and their importing agents here will be enriched because New Zealanders would be entirely unconcerned about the morality of this?
You cannot be serious.
What are the products we are currently consuming that result from slave labour – I would be interested to know the extent of the problem and whether it deserves legislative time. I suspect there isn’t much of a problem that cannot be remedied by getting the information out there.
We don’t need state determined rules based moral repugnancy when individual moral repugnancy will do the trick.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
What a surprise- a Labour MP is the biggest trough snuffler.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/goff-tops-mps-expenses-bill-106741
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587565
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Things like this make me furious.
Goff is so concerned about the plight of poor beneficiaries, that in 6 months he has spent enough on expenses to fund the benefit for 10 people for a year!
Apparently a salary of $200k+ isnt enough to fund your own accomodation in Wellington either.
Maybe he should get an accommodation supplement?
Vote:What a hypocritical idiot.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
It’s more like saying you support drug use because you don’t think selling drugs should be illegal — only growing/producing them..
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
The jury’s out in the Taito Phillip Field case – and interestingly, TPF has been remanded in custody whilst the jury deliberates …
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
And mouldy wonder why they “don’get no respeck”
The jury in the former MP Taito Phillip Field trial has retired to consider its verdicts after a delay following a disruption by Maori protestors.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2704291/Maori-elder-disrupts-Taito-Phillip-Field-trial
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Roger Douglas is a hypocrite as well. His expenses are huge.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Repeating the question for Philu
How does the following link tie in with your 911 conspiracy?
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Chris – Your argument relies on perfect or nearly-perfect information, which clearly does not exist because neither you nor I know which products in NZ right now were produced by slaves. On that score, I would suggest you ask Maryan Street over at Red Alert. If you want to argue that NZ should allow slave-produced products on our shelves because the market will fix it, then go ahead and enjoy yourself. But be prepared to lose, because I think most NZers had enough of believing tidy models of markets always work in the real world some years ago. Markets fail, often for informational reasons. That is where legislation helps.
(Also, I do not have to believe that most NZers would knowingly buy slave-produced products to argue for a formal ban. One NZer knowingly or inadvertently importing and selling one slave-produced product is one too many. By your logic on this issue there should be no fraud laws either, because the perfectly informed market will learn over time steer clear of fraudsters. Good luck with that argument, too.)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I’ve decided that I don’t like the new moderation policy. It is just not fair on the righties, banning them from being rude and abusive is like banning lefties from using words more than 4 syllables long.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
racer1 said “I’ve decided that I don’t like the new moderation policy. It is just not fair on the righties, banning them from being rude and abusive is like banning lefties from using words more than 4 syllables long.”
racer – don’t you mean – words more than four LETTERS long???
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
this one is for the deniers..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/global-warming-to-get-worse-sooner-than-expected/
(and could someone email this to nick smith/key..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Rob:
Oh dear if that is the quality of public policy advice offered by the Labour party and its boosters then they will need a long time in opposition.
You claim that one importer (or group) can have sufficient knowledge about a product to conclude it is made my slave labour in order to lodge a compliant to get the importation of the good prevented. I assume the product must already be in the market since importers don’t helpfully pre identify themselves as “importers of the finest slave made products” – strangely is isn’t good for business.)
Thus the product is here already as is the information that it is slave made. Why not simply make the knowledge public thereby ensuring both the importers and retailers don’t get any further sales. The great advantage of this scheme is it is quick and efficient. Both importers and retailers would only ever do this once – they would get financially punished for not knowing to origins and circumstances of manufacture. You are also assuming that they would not be hit up for refunds for returned products.
There is no need for perfect knowledge and all that – a little knowledge of slavery would do the trick.
It is odd that the lack of information about slave made products will be automatically remedied by making a rule, but otherwise we cannot know what is slave made or not.
Are you honestly maintaining that the importation and sale of slave made products would be un-newsworthy in New Zealand assuming we could know this absent a rule?
Again Rob why make rules when most New Zealander’s personal sense or morality would fix the problem if you make the information notorious (the same information needed for the application of any rule)
I find it interesting that as a booster for this Labour party nonsense you cannot identify any slave made products in the New Zealand marketplace. I am really interested to know what they are so as to avoid them; given that Parliament has not passed this law.
What are the slave made products?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
gosman..
a statement..from some years ago..from a person dealing with the outcomes..
..hardly puts the issue to bed/answers the many questions..
..eh..?
and as i said..that is only one of the many many ‘anomalies’..
..there are more than you can poke a stick at..
..(i suggest people do their own readings..?
..and hey..!
..does anyone remember when anyone who suggested oswald didn’t assasinate kennedy..and definitely not on his own..
..was scoffed/sneered at..?
do your own research..!
don’t be lazy..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
So Mr Goff is the biggest expenses ‘piggy’. Am I surprised? No, not really – the old addage – ‘he who makes the most noise usually has the most to hide’ will always apply, and Phil does have rather a lot to say doesn’t he?
Any bets that the MSM will say absolutely NOTHING about this matter – or, at best, it will warrant only a very, very small sub-paragraph, and that they will hone-in on Murray mcCulley?
Now had it been a National-party Minster . . .
(Anyone got expense-figures for the ‘Greens?)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“..What are the slave made products?..”
are you talking about human ‘slaves’..?
..or the animal ‘slaves’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Chris, the informational difference between our solutions is that you need to wait for the information to disseminate far and wide to basically all the potential consumers in NZ for your solution to work, whereas my solution relies only on the information getting to Customs. Occum’s Razor suggests that the simpler solution, mine, is probably the best.
As I suggested earlier, I think Maryan Street is in a better position than me to describe the scope of the problem.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Phool
How much of our money did you get today?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Actually Philu it was you implying that the collapse of the WTC7 was some kind of smoking gun which was irrefutable proof in your eyes of how the attack was not all it seemed.
All I have done is point out to you that there is another possibity, one that seems to make more rational sense. That is the WTC7 did not get blown up at all but collapsed as a result of damage when the North Tower fell.
Yesterday you were having a debate with Mr Buchanan about how could the BBC journalist make a report about the collapse of the building when it was still standing. I will give you the scenario.
New York Fire Department is checking WTC7 out to try and find any persons still in there and to fight the fires that have broken out as a result of the collapse of the North Tower.
The team on the ground note that the structural integrity of the building looks to be failing. They advise the new head of Department on the ground, Daniel Nigro, of the situation.
A decision is taken by Mr Nigro to evacuate the building because it could collapse at any time.
The message to evacuate is spread and the building is evacuated. As a result the message becomes slightly garbled.
A media desperate for information from the site and broadcasting live picks up the call about the imminent collapse of WTC7 and misinterprets it as that the building has already collapsed.
The BBC reporter on the scene then reports this incorrect information as fact.
Now isn’t that a more believable story than they rigged the building with Thermate explosives in the weeks before September the 11th and then got the second in charge of the New York Fire Department (the actual head died whjen the Towers collapsed) to agree to cover up the story?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Philu, Natasha Fuller is apparently on findsomeone looking for a partner. You’d be perfect for each other
Vote:(and then one of you could go and get a job)
July 30th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Rob:
It’s naiveté is the extreme to assume that anything involving Government is the simplest solution.
Rest assured Government will be last to know if something is slave made or not.
Are you seriously suggesting importing and retailing slave made products here would not be lead item in the news (all other things being equal).
Perhaps you cannot nominate slave made products in the New Zealand marketplace because they don’t sell that’s why there aren’t any here. In short Labour is attempting to legislate for a non problem.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
bruv..are you spondre..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Keep going with your simplistic ideological mantras and suppositions Chris. I hope they make you feel better.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Philu,
You keen to see if people think my version of events on September the 11th is more likely to have occured rather than your one?
Ask around amongst some rational people you might know. Could be difficult I admit but I am sure someone, (perhaps your caseworker), might help.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Patrick Star, good idea but Philu doesn’t eat meat so fur burgers would be off the menu maybe Natasha won’t mind. But if they do get together maybe they could advise WINZ on how they milk the system, in much the same way as computer hackers advise computer companies on how to combat hackers.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
how many animals did you hurt/abuse/kill today..?
bloody-hands-bob..?
(and..how is that bank manager..eh..?..
..getting antsy..?..yet..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
DPF – wassup with the karma function?!?
I’m using IE7 and any karma activity raises a browser error thus:
Error: document.getElementById()… is null or not an object.
I breaking in to a sweat… so many philu posts and nil scope to -ve karma them. Help!
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Why?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
@side show bob. I doubt Natasha would smoke his crusty old peg anyway so they’d balance each other out – as I said…’purrfect’
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
A patch for this problem is available here.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I ran into a mythical beast today: someone who actually seriously thought he’d vote for RAM in 2008.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Voting for RAM in 2008 is so last year.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I’ll be here all week. Tip the waitresses. Try the veal.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Just differentiating from voting for RAM in 2011, where they win the election and immediately turn the country into a Chavista paradise. Trust me, I know. I’m from 2015 and I’m here to warn you allllllll!
Also, Soylent Green isn’t really made of people, so you don’t have to worry when it’s introduced in 2012.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Hurf,
Who plays Doctor Who in 2015?
Is it Anthony Stewart Head? Please? And if it’s not, is that why you’ve been sent back? Please?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
It’s James May after Hammond dies in his second freak crash in 2014 and the show is axed.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Roger Douglas entitled, funny how Douglas wants lower taxes after we the taxpayer paid for him and his wife to take a bloody holiday in the UK.
Vote:Strange that we are told we need to tighten our belts, but it does not apply to bloody MPs or ex MPs it seems
July 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
And Roger Douglas, if you and your party are going to rail against government waste, it’s probably not the best look to lead with the biggest spending of any list MP.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I’m supportive of most ACT policy, but smacks of a bit of hypocrisy to me.
Vote:Would of love to seen his face when the reporter asked him if he was a hypocrite. haha
July 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Another Green party lie has been exposed.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/2704553/Organic-food-no-healthier-study
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Wait for phil to crawl out from under his rock with his tinfoil hat and challenge you on that bruv.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Phool has a rock? Some of these pet rocks can be quite expensive. Who paid for this? Taxpayers again I guess
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Anti smacking debate on campbell live.
The anti smacking guy, said that we must have the antismacking law because so many children are killed in this country.
What a lunatic. I seriously doubt smacking my children on the hand is going to kill them.
This is what annoys me, the anti smackers continually use cases of extreme child violence in mostly maori households to justify the banning of light smacks.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
..remember..karma whore…karma…its comin….
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Exactly wreck.
It isnt the 99% of loving parents that smack or don’t smack that are the child abusers in this country.
It’s scum who breed and then beat their kids up because their bludging fuckwits.
Vote:To solve this however the government criminalised everyone
July 30th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
“To solve this however the government criminalised everyone”, sorry to be the bearer of bad news nickb but this law hasn’t solved anything.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Haha agreed. Did anyone see the letter Bob McKoscrie (?) presented to john key?
Talk about state sponsored terrorism on families by CYFS and the police…
Vote:You would have to be a special sort to work and CYFS and invade outrageously into people’s lives so much everyday
July 30th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“It’s scum who breed and then beat their kids up because their bludging fuckwits”
be good to see the stats on how many are on the DPB
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
the organic food tests only involved the nutritional content of both..(no debate there..)
..if you want the added chemicals…not to mention the no taste..?
..(have you never eaten an organic apple..?…and then one of those foul/watery/tasteless/chemical-riddled ones..?
..organic anything..?..)
meh..!
your call..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“..(have you never eaten an organic apple..?…”
– every organic apple I’ve seen is motley and has worms in it
(I didnt think you were a meat eater phool?)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Philu, what do you think of the leader of your party spending enough on travel in 6 moths to pay your benefit for 10 years?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
And talk about a trougher Roger Douglas, jeez never thought I’d lump philu and roger douglas in the same sentence, but I am now!
Vote:Sounded like he got mad over this when questioned, as if he ‘deserved’ to use this much travel- gee, you know the entitlement culture is getting bad when it spreads to the ACT party!…
July 30th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
And the Obama BC debate trundles on.
The main concern that I have, is that this is so easily resolved by ‘The One’ producing the Birth Certificate. Simples.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100005100/what-if-barack-obama-was-in-fact-born-british/
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
@nickb – phool thinks he needs a bigger benefit
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
i am actually even less impressed with the fact she seems to exult in draping her body in dead animal skins..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Haha thats true.
Maybe we could afford it if we follow Philu’s 4-point plan to rejig the economy…
1. Set DBP to 110% of the average wage
Vote:2. Legalise marijuana, heroin, meth, and cocaine
3. Top tax rate of 93% for income earners over $60,000 (in this way only the rich pricks are being penalised)
4. All meat to be classified as a Class A substance, with its use, dealing, or consuming to be criminalised.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“..– every organic apple I’ve seen is motley and has worms in it.”
obviously..you need to get out and about more..
..and ‘motley apples’..?..heh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
“..2. Legalise marijuana, heroin, meth, and cocaine..”
portugal did it..a few years back..
..and all in all..
..it has been a raging success..
..and theft/petty-crime/property-crime stats have gone thru the floor..
..but hey..!
your/the prohibitionist way…huge enforcment/prison costs..funding of gangs..high rates of petty/property-crime..
..eh..?
way to go/stay..eh..?
(better hurry up and tell the portugese..eh..?
..how ‘wrong’ they are doing it..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I agree that beneficiaries be allowed # 2. “Legalise marijuana, heroin, meth, and cocaine” (provided they agree to be sterilised)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I would support it to an extent as well phil, i’m just taking the piss
I guess the question of whether I would support drug legalisation would turn on the question of whether you would class drug use as a “victimless crime”, and this is something I haven’t really made my mind up on yet.
Hard libertarians would argue that it is, and the state has no right to tell us what we can put in our bodies.
On the other hand, if a parent gets hooked on smack and starts neglecting his kids, and families start breaking down (as happens with prohibition) I guess it’s not victimless anymore..
Not too sure
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
“..1. Set DBP to 110% of the average wage,,”
no..but working for families should be extended to benificiaries..
..this would also mean the tens of thousands of families yet to be made unemployed..
..would not have the double-killer-blow of also losing their w.f.f. payments..
3. Top tax rate of 93% for income earners over $60,000 (in this way only the rich pricks are being penalised)”
..the first 15 grand should be tax free..(that’s act policy..?..isn’t it..?)
and yes..the scandanavian-model of higher taxes/higher rates of social/health support would seem to be the enduring one..
“..4. All meat to be classified as a Class A substance, with its use, dealing, or consuming to be criminalised..”
..the cancer-causing properties of meat will become more clearly defined..
..this..and the environmental costs of growing it..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/veganisms-essential-role-in-preventing-an-unprecedented-global-catastrophe/
..will see the wholesale consumption we see now now drop away..
..(but people still smoke cigarettes..so the health message won’t work for all..)
there is also on the horizon..meat grown in labs/vats..
..(links at whoar..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Phil WFF IS PAID TO BENEFICIARIES!!!
You must know this. You may not realise it, but the family tax credit is paid as part of your benefit.
You are getting WFF confused with just one part of it- the “in work” tax credit, and, as I have already explained to you, the reason why you don’t get this is summed up in its name.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
“..On the other hand, if a parent gets hooked on smack and starts neglecting his kids,..”
um..!..a heroin addict receiving clean/measured doses..is a totally functioning human being..
(eg..alcohol ..as one example..is far more debilitating/neglect-inducing..drug
..the same as tranks/sleepers..
..all worse than ‘clean’ smack..
..i mean..methadone is a worse/much more addictive drug than heroin..f.f.s..!
..and even so..any issues are a health-problem..not a crime/justice one..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
oh..!..i must have imagined the labour pollies standing up in parliament..explaining how/why w.f.f. was not for benificiary families..
..gee..!..i’m sure i blogged on it..too..
..quite a few times from memory..
..and tell that to the newly unemployed..eh..?
..y’know..!..those who have lost it..?
..but hey..!..you’d know..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
A heroin addict a totally functioning human being?
Yes phil, parents who abuse alcohol and let this affect their children are wankers, and piss poor parents.
But someone abusing heroin is a better functioning human then a junkie? Think there’s a tui billboard coming..
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Yes phil, as I say, you are completely confusing the WFF package as a whole, with just one part of it- the “in work” tax credit. And as it is clearly paid as an incentive to be in work, why would the state give you more money to perpetuate your cycle of dependency, instead of leaving it there as a carrot for you to get off your arse?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
@nickb – when you understand how outrageous levity can be taken seriously by phool (especially when there is more in it for him ) you learn not to get his hopes up.
(He’ll be you best friend now)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Let me explain it to you this way.
Are you saying that the only money you receive, is just the base benefit rate for one person? Say $190? Without any extra at all?
Vote:You are receiving more than that, and the DIFFERENCE IS YOUR WFF
July 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Haha I can’t keep up this argument Patrick- got study to do.
Vote:Tag in for me?
July 30th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
ncea..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
No phil. University degree. like the one you’ve apparently got? Related to Mary-Anne Thompson by any chance?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
woohoo…bitch slap….
…eh…?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
ist yr..?..b com..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
aww..!..isn’t that cute..?
pat and nic thumbs-upped each other.
..that’s called a mutual-thumbing..
..or being thumbed..
..(it’s still legal..as i understand it.)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
haha not bad phil not bad.
Nup, 3rd year law, not one of those wishy washy management types.
Now phil, are you ready to tell us why you feel you are entitled to be paid a living by the taxpayer as opposed to earning it?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I am going to defend Roger Douglas.
As a long serving MP, he has already qualified for cheap airtravel for the rest of his life. This is part of his package, and Helen Clark and others are also entitled to the same benefits.
The real issue, is should long term service benefits continue to be bestowed to MP’s? I think not. It is a relic of the past, for the times when an MP and a cop were paid the same. MP’s salaries have leapt, so they should forgo air travel perks.
Vote: