On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:22:17 PM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 14:33:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:29?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 05:21:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:33:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>> >> >> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote: >>> >> >> >> On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz>
wrote:
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>> From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no
major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why
Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires
and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result
as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony
wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I
think. If you
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned
debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental
care?
So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question
in an unpleasant
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most
cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very >>> >> >> >> > >>>>slighly more
politely.
NZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold
Card.
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so
many problems
What problems? There is another example of your devious >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>little boy
mindset.
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>their children
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children,
to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare
payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a
bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy
will allow
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the
silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you
still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available
to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use >>> >> >> >> > >>>local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, >>> >> >> >> > >>>listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc.
Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
So based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax
cuts for
millionaires, right?
If you do not propose anything different; what are you
rabbiting on
about?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained >>> >> >> >> > >>about the
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour
have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable
fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be
offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely
but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters,
as it
does in many things in life. "
Do not be so silly.
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can >>> >> >> >>provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the
electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental >>> >> >> services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
Labour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
Which is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it >>> >> will take quite some time - it has of course already been started for >>> >> younger children and young people; this extends it - and brings us >>> >> closer to the ideal of equal opportunity that National espoused at one
time but has given up on . . .
So where are the mobile dental clinics Labour promised six years ago?! >>> >The current policy is just another election bribe by Labour who are trying
to stay ahead of ACT in the polls! A particularly callous one!
In 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes >>> >> >than ACT in October :)
If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so >>> >> upset at the great policies Labour is promising?
Not upset Rich. Just loving the way you accept an uncosted policy from >>> >Labour but get your nickers in a knot if National does the same. You Rich are
just a typical Marxist hypocrite, like your Labour/Green masters!
What uncosted policy, John Bowes?
Free basic dental care for the under 30's1
Try here: >https://www.google.com/search?q=Cost+of+Labour+free+dental+care+under+30
Which leads to: >https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_commits_extend_free_dental_care
and: >https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/02/labour-pledges-free-dental-for-under-30s-if-elected/
and: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/497233/election-2023-labour-s-free-dental-care-promise-good-step-but-has-some-challenges
Hipkins has said that the increase from those currently eligible would >have a higher cost (about 1.75 times the current allowance for
children), recognising that many in their twenties and thirties are >starting to experience larger problems through neglect at earlier
ages. There are also costs associated with expanding the education of >dentists.
And we still do not have a correction / apology / revision of policy
from National over the nonsense over-estimates of income from
foreigners purchasing property at 15% extra, (now that Willis has
asked about problems from treaties with foreign governments) or from
getting taxes from overseas gambling platforms (now that Nicola Willis >>> at last understands what a vpn does . . .)
wtf is a vpn?
https://www.google.com/search?q=vpn+meaning
Google is again your friend, John.
How big is that hole? At least $130 million? Higher?
Nowhere near the size of Robinsons hole you mendacious ywit!
Chris Luxton appears to have decided that he is no longer concerned
about any hole from Grant Robertson.
You revolt me.
Much like Rich and his feral left wing pos and Labour are doing to mainstream NZ! :)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)