Sense of Entitlement

[Sonn]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpayer-cash-for-his-home

Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Okay, so for every client turned away from WINZ who arrives at the
door wanting a food grant, or waiting the 5-6 hours for an unscheduled
appointment the same day so they can feed their kids, or pay their
power so it won't get cut off, and for every person interrogated by
WINZ staff about whether they have family members who could feed them,
clothe their kids, or pay their bills - the standard response will now
be "I'm entitled to it".

And for every person who chooses not to sell their assets to live off,
because they're are entitled to draw a benefit instead, sure, why
shouldn't they be paid from the bottomless purse. Because they're
entitled to it.

Nice one Deputy PM.

[WD]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
Okay, so for every client turned away from WINZ who arrives at the
door wanting a food grant, or waiting the 5-6 hours for an unscheduled
appointment the same day so they can feed their kids, or pay their
power so it won't get cut off, and for every person interrogated by
WINZ staff about whether they have family members who could feed them,
clothe their kids, or pay their bills - the standard response will now
be "I'm entitled to it".
And for every person who chooses not to sell their assets to live off,
because they're are entitled to draw a benefit instead, sure, why
shouldn't they be paid from the bottomless purse.  Because they're
entitled to it.
Nice one Deputy PM.

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity. I suppose it's a bad
look politically, but I honestly believe politicians for the most part
earn what they receive. They tend to work long hours in high profile
positions and many of them would otherwise be able to find more
anonymous work with higher pay rates if they were out of office. This
goes for both parties as well. This is not about politics but about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.


Weihana.

[WorkHard]

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they
can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".
Okay, so for every client turned away from WINZ who arrives at the
door wanting a food grant, or waiting the 5-6 hours for an
unscheduled appointment the same day so they can feed their
kids, or
pay their power so it won't get cut off, and for every person
interrogated by WINZ staff about whether they have family
members
who could feed them, clothe their kids, or pay their bills -
the
standard response will now be "I'm entitled to it".
And for every person who chooses not to sell their assets to
live
off, because they're are entitled to draw a benefit instead,
sure,
why shouldn't they be paid from the bottomless purse. Because
they're
entitled to it.
Nice one Deputy PM.

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity. I suppose it's a bad
look politically, but I honestly believe politicians for the
most part
earn what they receive. They tend to work long hours in high
profile
positions and many of them would otherwise be able to find more
anonymous work with higher pay rates if they were out of
office. This
goes for both parties as well. This is not about politics but
about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and
their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

Since when is a politician's 'labour' productive?

It's more about making more rules and regulations to control and
maniuplate people.

[WD]

Post by WorkHard

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they
can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".
Okay, so for every client turned away from WINZ who arrives at the
door wanting a food grant, or waiting the 5-6 hours for an
unscheduled appointment the same day so they can feed their
kids, or
pay their power so it won't get cut off, and for every person
interrogated by WINZ staff about whether they have family
members
who could feed them, clothe their kids, or pay their bills -
the
standard response will now be "I'm entitled to it".
And for every person who chooses not to sell their assets to
live
off, because they're are entitled to draw a benefit instead,
sure,
why shouldn't they be paid from the bottomless purse. Because
they're
entitled to it.
Nice one Deputy PM.

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment.  i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.  That's not
the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.  I suppose it's a
bad
look politically, but I honestly believe politicians for the
most part
earn what they receive.  They tend to work long hours in high
profile
positions and many of them would otherwise be able to find more
anonymous work with higher pay rates if they were out of
office.  This
goes for both parties as well.  This is not about politics but
about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and
their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

Since when is a politician's 'labour' productive?
It's more about making more rules and regulations to control and
maniuplate people.

I think this issue is non-political. Their job is to represent their
electorate, not to put in place rules or regulations that you or I, as
individuals, necessarily agree with. To the extent they work hard to
represent their electorate I think they deserve the salaries and perks
they get. That's their job and what they get paid for. If I don't
like the specific rules or regulations then it's *my job* to vote for
someone else.


Weihana.

[WorkHard]

Post by WD

Post by WorkHard

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they
can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".
Okay, so for every client turned away from WINZ who arrives
at
the
door wanting a food grant, or waiting the 5-6 hours for an
unscheduled appointment the same day so they can feed their
kids, or
pay their power so it won't get cut off, and for every
person
interrogated by WINZ staff about whether they have family
members
who could feed them, clothe their kids, or pay their bills -
the
standard response will now be "I'm entitled to it".
And for every person who chooses not to sell their assets to
live
off, because they're are entitled to draw a benefit instead,
sure,
why shouldn't they be paid from the bottomless purse.
Because
they're
entitled to it.
Nice one Deputy PM.

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not
the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity. I suppose it's
a
bad
look politically, but I honestly believe politicians for the
most part
earn what they receive. They tend to work long hours in high
profile
positions and many of them would otherwise be able to find
more
anonymous work with higher pay rates if they were out of
office. This
goes for both parties as well. This is not about politics but
about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and
their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

Since when is a politician's 'labour' productive?
It's more about making more rules and regulations to control
and
maniuplate people.

I think this issue is non-political.

It can't be. They ARE politicians.

Post by WD
Their job is to represent their
electorate,

I disagree. Their 'job' s to socially engineer a socialist
society the way they want it.

Post by WD
not to put in place rules or regulations that you or I, as
individuals, necessarily agree with. To the extent they work
hard to
represent their electorate I think they deserve the salaries
and perks
they get.

I don't. In general, they do not produce anything of value and
they create an overall net loss to society.

Post by WD
That's their job and what they get paid for. If I don't
like the specific rules or regulations then it's *my job* to
vote for
someone else.

Someone else? Surely it's about political philosophy. Either move
more towards communism/socialism or away from it. Leaving people
alone or telling them what they can and can't do.

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:04:54 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they
can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".
Okay, so for every client turned away from WINZ who arrives at the
door wanting a food grant, or waiting the 5-6 hours for an
unscheduled appointment the same day so they can feed their
kids, or
pay their power so it won't get cut off, and for every person
interrogated by WINZ staff about whether they have family
members
who could feed them, clothe their kids, or pay their bills -
the
standard response will now be "I'm entitled to it".
And for every person who chooses not to sell their assets to
live
off, because they're are entitled to draw a benefit instead,
sure,
why shouldn't they be paid from the bottomless purse. Because
they're
entitled to it.
Nice one Deputy PM.

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity. I suppose it's a bad
look politically, but I honestly believe politicians for the
most part
earn what they receive. They tend to work long hours in high
profile
positions and many of them would otherwise be able to find more
anonymous work with higher pay rates if they were out of
office. This
goes for both parties as well. This is not about politics but about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and
their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

Since when is a politician's 'labour' productive?

The National Party, your party, believe they are. They furthermore believe they
are entitled to high wages for doing so.

-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

[WorkHard]

Post by Mister Scooter

Post by WorkHard
Since when is a politician's 'labour' productive?

The National Party, your party, believe they are. They
furthermore
believe they
are entitled to high wages for doing so.

Not my Party. I never voted for them. They are nearly as
socialist as Labour. National are the lesser of the 2 evils.

Clark increased her own salary by 60% in one fell swoop soon
after becoming PM. All backdated of course. How come you don't
grizzle your guts out about that?

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:05:12 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter

Post by WorkHard
Since when is a politician's 'labour' productive?

The National Party, your party, believe they are. They
furthermore
believe they
are entitled to high wages for doing so.

Not my Party. I never voted for them. They are nearly as
socialist as Labour. National are the lesser of the 2 evils.
Clark increased her own salary by 60% in one fell swoop soon
after becoming PM.

Politicians have never been able to suggest what they get paid.
I suggest you aquaint yourself with the mechanics of the Higher Salaries
Commision before you shoot yourself in the foot again.

Post by WorkHard
All backdated of course. How come you don't
grizzle your guts out about that?

Because it never happened apart from in the narrow crevices of your diseased
imagination.
-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar.
That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

[Matty F]

Post by WD
This is not about politics but about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

And Bill should pay his taxes like anyone else.
I wonder if he paid gift duty when he gifted his house to his trust?
Gift duty is payable for gifts of over $27,000 in any one year.
There's not enough time since he bought the house in 2003 for $800,000
to avoid gift duty.

[EMB]

Post by Matty F

Post by WD
This is not about politics but about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

And Bill should pay his taxes like anyone else.
I wonder if he paid gift duty when he gifted his house to his trust?
Gift duty is payable for gifts of over $27,000 in any one year.
There's not enough time since he bought the house in 2003 for $800,000
to avoid gift duty.

There is no need to gift it if it was bought originally by the trust.
Quite apart from which the the "gift" is only of the equity that there
is in the house, so may be much less than the purchase price.

[Matty F]

Post by EMB

Post by Matty F

Post by WD
This is not about politics but about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

And Bill should pay his taxes like anyone else.
I wonder if he paid gift duty when he gifted his house to his trust?
Gift duty is payable for gifts of over $27,000 in any one year.
There's not enough time since he bought the house in 2003 for $800,000
to avoid gift duty.

There is no need to gift it if it was bought originally by the trust.
Quite apart from which the the "gift" is only of the equity that there
is in the house, so may be much less than the purchase price.

The owner of the house should be named on the title. If it was bought
by a trust the trust name should be there.

"A search of the title by the Dominion Post showed the Karori home was
bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003.
However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English
alone."

Besides if the trust bought the house, where did the trust get the
money? Gifted by Bill to the trust again, for which gift duty is
payable.

[R***@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Matty F

Post by Matty F

Post by EMB

Post by Matty F

Post by WD
This is not about politics but about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

And Bill should pay his taxes like anyone else.
I wonder if he paid gift duty when he gifted his house to his trust?
Gift duty is payable for gifts of over $27,000 in any one year.
There's not enough time since he bought the house in 2003 for $800,000
to avoid gift duty.

There is no need to gift it if it was bought originally by the trust.
Quite apart from which the the "gift" is only of the equity that there
is in the house, so may be much less than the purchase price.

The owner of the house should be named on the title. If it was bought
by a trust the trust name should be there.
"A search of the title by the Dominion Post showed the Karori home was
bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003.
However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English
alone."
Besides if the trust bought the house, where did the trust get the
money? Gifted by Bill to the trust again, for which gift duty is
payable.

The normal thing is for the Trust to borrow from the family to pay for
the house, with the debt forgiven by gifts each year.

The title to the house may name the trustees of the trust rather than
the name of the trust. It is possible that after John Key's
difficulties with honesty about his trust, National finally got around
to making sure others were at least legally covered, and that may have
resulted in Bill English no longer being a Trustee - hence the
apparent change of ownership.

If this is the case, it would really confirm that National had not
thought about elementary governance issues before the election.

[EMB]

Post by Matty F
The owner of the house should be named on the title. If it was bought
by a trust the trust name should be there.

No, in accordance with some weird legal dictate the name of the trustees
will be there, not the name of the trust.

Post by Matty F
"A search of the title by the Dominion Post showed the Karori home was
bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003.
However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English
alone."

Mr English may well have resigned as a trustee, thus necessitating a
change of title.

Post by Matty F
Besides if the trust bought the house, where did the trust get the
money? Gifted by Bill to the trust again, for which gift duty is
payable.

The trust may have been established for years and had significant
capital in it prior to the purchase of this property or there may be a
mortgage over the property. Or... plenty of other scenarios spring to
mind, including him lending the money to the trust and forgiving the
loan to the tune of $27000 per annum thereafter. None of the above
actually have him owning or having an interest in the property except as
a beneficiary of the trust.

It is also perfectly legal to transfer a *lot* more than $27000 per
annum into a trust without paying gift duty if proper process is
followed. I'll leave it up to you to work out how - it'll keep you
occupied between pension days.

[Brian Dooley]

Post by EMB

Post by Matty F
The owner of the house should be named on the title. If it was bought
by a trust the trust name should be there.

No, in accordance with some weird legal dictate the name of the trustees
will be there, not the name of the trust.

Post by Matty F
"A search of the title by the Dominion Post showed the Karori home was
bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003.
However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English
alone."

Mr English may well have resigned as a trustee, thus necessitating a
change of title.

Assumption?

Post by EMB

Post by Matty F
Besides if the trust bought the house, where did the trust get the
money? Gifted by Bill to the trust again, for which gift duty is
payable.

The trust may have been established for years and had significant
capital in it prior to the purchase of this property or there may be a
mortgage over the property. Or... plenty of other scenarios spring to
mind, including him lending the money to the trust and forgiving the
loan to the tune of $27000 per annum thereafter. None of the above
actually have him owning or having an interest in the property except as
a beneficiary of the trust.

Assumptions?

Post by EMB
It is also perfectly legal to transfer a *lot* more than $27000 per
annum into a trust without paying gift duty if proper process is
followed. I'll leave it up to you to work out how - it'll keep you
occupied between pension days.

I have no doubt that a Minister of the Crown from Southland can
be up to all kinds of rorts to save paying money out.

[Matty F]

Post by EMB

Post by Matty F
The owner of the house should be named on the title. If it was bought
by a trust the trust name should be there.

No, in accordance with some weird legal dictate the name of the trustees
will be there, not the name of the trust.

Post by Matty F
"A search of the title by the Dominion Post showed the Karori home was
bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003.
However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English
alone."

Mr English may well have resigned as a trustee, thus necessitating a
change of title.

toad puts it so well:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transfer of title in March was caused by “changes in the trustee
arrangements for personal and family reasons”.

Translation: “Mary and I can scam $1000 of taxpayers money a week if
the title is in her name alone. We couldn’t if we were jointly on the
title. So, in March we changed it so my name was no longer on the
title.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by EMB
It is also perfectly legal to transfer a *lot* more than $27000 per
annum into a trust without paying gift duty if proper process is
followed. I'll leave it up to you to work out how - it'll keep you
occupied between pension days.

Hmmm, sounds useful. Maybe I should have one of these trusts. How do I
transfer a million dollars to it in the next year or two?
I'm not old enough to get a pension.

[R***@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 00:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Matty F

Post by Matty F

Post by EMB

Post by Matty F
The owner of the house should be named on the title. If it was bought
by a trust the trust name should be there.

No, in accordance with some weird legal dictate the name of the trustees
will be there, not the name of the trust.

Post by Matty F
"A search of the title by the Dominion Post showed the Karori home was
bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003.
However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English
alone."

Mr English may well have resigned as a trustee, thus necessitating a
change of title.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transfer of title in March was caused by “changes in the trustee
arrangements for personal and family reasons”.
Translation: “Mary and I can scam $1000 of taxpayers money a week if
the title is in her name alone. We couldn’t if we were jointly on the
title. So, in March we changed it so my name was no longer on the
title.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by EMB
It is also perfectly legal to transfer a *lot* more than $27000 per
annum into a trust without paying gift duty if proper process is
followed. I'll leave it up to you to work out how - it'll keep you
occupied between pension days.

Hmmm, sounds useful. Maybe I should have one of these trusts. How do I
transfer a million dollars to it in the next year or two?
I'm not old enough to get a pension.

There may also be a little of the caution about insider trading given
John Key's little problem with honesty. They probably looked at the
financial arrangements for all National people to make sure that when
they rort the system it is if not legal at lest hard to prove
otherwise.

Since he is o longer a Trustee he can get his wife to make some
investments that just happent o do well - while remaining of course
totally uninvolved . . .

It seems Paula Bennett is also a trough-feeder. What about other
National MPs living in Wellington? Is Chris Finlaysin getting a
"subsidy"?

[R***@hotmail.com]

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
Okay, so for every client turned away from WINZ who arrives at the
door wanting a food grant, or waiting the 5-6 hours for an unscheduled
appointment the same day so they can feed their kids, or pay their
power so it won't get cut off, and for every person interrogated by
WINZ staff about whether they have family members who could feed them,
clothe their kids, or pay their bills - the standard response will now
be "I'm entitled to it".
And for every person who chooses not to sell their assets to live off,
because they're are entitled to draw a benefit instead, sure, why
shouldn't they be paid from the bottomless purse.  Because they're
entitled to it.
Nice one Deputy PM.

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity. I suppose it's a bad
look politically, but I honestly believe politicians for the most part
earn what they receive. They tend to work long hours in high profile
positions and many of them would otherwise be able to find more
anonymous work with higher pay rates if they were out of office. This
goes for both parties as well. This is not about politics but about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.
Weihana.

It is certainly technically legal, but you are right that it is a bad
look for a government that has embarked on beneficiary-bashing to
distract from their own shortcomings.

Does Chris Finlayson get a similar payment for living in his house -
or did he move to a rental property do that he can get a payment
'ethically'?

[-Newsman-]

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Exactly. But note the wording:

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.

The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English. The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important difference:
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?

Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.

English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".

He disgusts me.

[Me]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English. The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

Well said.
I hope he has to 'fess up about the impact the change in the title of
the property "for family reasons" on the amount he could claim on
mortgage interest paid on the property. My guess - between Bill and
Mary, there probably wasn't a "need" for a mortgage at all, just
convenient (and perfectly legal - as he was "entitled") to get the
taxpayer to fund house repayments, while he and Mary used their own
money for other stuff.

[liberty]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment.  i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.  That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**.  So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance?  None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them.  This is not the case with English.  The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*.  IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed.  Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

Almost as bad as being a civil servant. Spending the day playing CDs

[Brian Dooley]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:29:28 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by liberty

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment.  i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.  That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**.  So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance?  None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them.  This is not the case with English.  The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*.  IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed.  Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

Almost as bad as being a civil servant. Spending the day playing CDs

Cite please.

[Sailor Sam]

Post by Brian Dooley
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:29:28 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by liberty

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English. The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

Almost as bad as being a civil servant. Spending the day playing CDs

Cite please.

Perhaps he means "EMB"

[WorkHard]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

[-Newsman-]

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel instance of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English and I'll
let you know.

[WorkHard]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

[-Newsman-]

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English and I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

[WorkHard]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of
his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel instance of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.

That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.

But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the "corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.

There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in too.

I'm asking, are you disgusted by them too?

Perfectly reasonable question.

[liberty]

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of
his
employment.  i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**.  So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance?  None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them.  This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*.  IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed.  Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel instance of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the "corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in too.
I'm asking, are you disgusted by them too?
Perfectly reasonable question.

One would expect an answer from Lord Toff
I suspect he has crawled under a rock.

[-Newsman-]

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=

xpa...

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

Post by WorkHard

Post by WD

Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel instance of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the "corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Post by WorkHard
I'm asking, are you disgusted by them too?
Perfectly reasonable question.

Very well.

English has been entrusted with the stewardship of the nation's
finances at a time when stringency at every ministerial and
departmental level should be setting examples in fiscal prudence and
personal financial probity to every New Zealander. Indeed, National
assumed power saying that what they considered increased public sector
waste and excess under Labour should be severely curbed.

No bad thing.

But what we *actually* have is the steward of the nation's finances
nakedly exposed for exploiting every advantage he can to milk the
taxpayers of New Zealand of every last dollar he can *solely for his
own personal gain, advantage and pleasure*, including a tax-free
annual sum of c$50,000 nominated as an expense where - demonstrably -
no such expense has been incurred. Remember it well: this sum is not
a one-off but an ongoing annual tax-free windfall salary enhancement
equivalent to what would otherwise be a taxed sum of $80,000.

This is a blatant rort and English knows it.. Agreed, the rort is
sanctioned under Speaker's Rules, but that is not what matters where
English is involved..

1. As it stands, the parliamentary remuneration system is
demonstrably corrupt.

2. English is **knowingly** and **deliberately** exploiting a system
he knows is corrupt.

3. By knowingly and deliberately exploiting the system English is,
ipso facto, corrupt.

It can be no other way, and you cannot show otherwise.

I regard English's behaviour in this matter as a gross and shameless
abuse of his minsterial position. If you can show how either Clark or
Cullen have previously abused their ministerial postions in a like
manner and for similar tax-free sums **where no expense whatever has
been incurred**, then do so and I may possibly respond accordingly as
and when I may choose..

But I already know you can't, and so do you, so yours is nothing but
the envious choking of a frustrated malcontent who, in his own
grinding inadequacy, desperately wishes he could have his own snout
deep in the same minsterial trough. There is nothing you'd like
more..

One would expect an answer from Lord Toff
I suspect he has crawled under a rock.

I invariably respond to posts as and when I choose, and certainly
never at the feeble-minded behest of bored and semi-literate pond life
like you.

[A _L_ P]

Post by -Newsman-
English has been entrusted with the stewardship of the nation's
finances at a time when stringency at every ministerial and
departmental level should be setting examples in fiscal prudence and
personal financial probity to every New Zealander. Indeed, National
assumed power saying that what they considered increased public sector
waste and excess under Labour should be severely curbed.
No bad thing.
But what we *actually* have is the steward of the nation's finances
nakedly exposed for exploiting every advantage he can to milk the
taxpayers of New Zealand of every last dollar he can *solely for his
own personal gain, advantage and pleasure*, including a tax-free
annual sum of c$50,000 nominated as an expense where - demonstrably -
no such expense has been incurred. Remember it well: this sum is not
a one-off but an ongoing annual tax-free windfall salary enhancement
equivalent to what would otherwise be a taxed sum of $80,000.
This is a blatant rort and English knows it.. Agreed, the rort is
sanctioned under Speaker's Rules, but that is not what matters where
English is involved..
1. As it stands, the parliamentary remuneration system is
demonstrably corrupt.
2. English is **knowingly** and **deliberately** exploiting a system
he knows is corrupt.
3. By knowingly and deliberately exploiting the system English is,
ipso facto, corrupt.
It can be no other way, and you cannot show otherwise.
I regard English's behaviour in this matter as a gross and shameless
abuse of his minsterial position. If you can show how either Clark or
Cullen have previously abused their ministerial postions in a like
manner and for similar tax-free sums **where no expense whatever has
been incurred**,

That's the nub of it, isn't it!

Back to the former beneficiary-bashing theme, WINZ can and does demand
that any investments are not minimised so that the recipient of a
benefit gets the maximum from the state. E.g. if money is loaned to a
grandchild at no or very low interest, or is in a bank account
attracting a very low interest rate, they can demand that the
beneficiary either invest at a higher rate or count as income the
reasonable interest that they would have received from the grandchild.
To me, lending money within the family is what families do, it's part of
family caring for one another. How often does a child or grandchild
help the elderly ones without claiming a payment from the State, unless
they become full-time care-givers? It's what families do.

Yet when it comes to this example of deliberate divesting of property in
order to claim a benefit [income] to which one would not otherwise be
entitled, it's OK.

Post by -Newsman-
then do so and I may possibly respond accordingly as
and when I may choose..
But I already know you can't, and so do you, so yours is nothing but
the envious choking of a frustrated malcontent who, in his own
grinding inadequacy, desperately wishes he could have his own snout
deep in the same minsterial trough. There is nothing you'd like
more..

A L P

[Kerry]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=

xpa...

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

Post by WorkHard

Post by WD

Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel instance of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the "corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Post by WorkHard
I'm asking, are you disgusted by them too?
Perfectly reasonable question.

Very well.
English has been entrusted with the stewardship of the nation's
finances at a time when stringency at every ministerial and
departmental level should be setting examples in fiscal prudence and
personal financial probity to every New Zealander.  Indeed, National
assumed power saying that what they considered increased public sector
waste and excess under Labour should be severely curbed.
No bad thing.
But what we *actually* have is the steward of the nation's finances
nakedly exposed for exploiting every advantage he can to milk the
taxpayers of New Zealand of every last dollar he can *solely for his
own personal gain, advantage and pleasure*, including a tax-free
annual sum of c$50,000 nominated as an expense where - demonstrably -
no such expense has been incurred.  Remember it well: this sum is not
a one-off but an ongoing  annual tax-free windfall salary enhancement
equivalent to what would otherwise be a taxed sum of $80,000.
This is a blatant rort and English knows it.. Agreed, the rort is
sanctioned under Speaker's Rules, but that is not what matters where
English is involved..
1.  As it stands, the parliamentary  remuneration system is
demonstrably corrupt.
2.  English is **knowingly** and **deliberately** exploiting a system
he knows is corrupt.
3.  By knowingly and deliberately exploiting the system English is,
ipso facto, corrupt.
It can be no other way, and you cannot show otherwise.
I regard English's behaviour in this matter as a gross and shameless
abuse of his minsterial position.  If you can show how either Clark or
Cullen have previously abused their ministerial postions in a like
manner and for similar tax-free sums **where no expense whatever has
been incurred**, then do so and I may possibly respond accordingly as
and when I may choose..
But I already know you can't, and so do you, so yours is nothing but
the envious choking of a frustrated malcontent who, in his own
grinding inadequacy, desperately wishes he could have his own snout
deep in the same minsterial trough.  There is nothing you'd like
more..

One would expect an answer from Lord Toff
I suspect he has crawled under a rock.

I invariably respond to posts as and when I choose, and certainly
never at the feeble-minded behest of bored and semi-literate pond life
like you.

Poneke said:

The deafening right blog silence over Bill English being paid to live
in his own home
from Poneke's Weblog by poneke

Gosh. The Dominion Post revealed today that Bill English — he who
preaches cutbacks and redundancy for most of us – is getting a
taxpayer subsidy close to $1000 a week to live in his own home in
Karori with his wife and children.

These ministerial subsidies are meant to be paid for ministers who
live outside Wellington, but who need to have accommodation in the
capital for their ministerial duties at the Beehive and in Parliament.

English says he is the MP for Clutha-Southland and thus is “entitled”
to claim the ministerial allowance to rent a home in Wellington.

I love that word “entitlement.” The other day, another slash-and-burn
MP, Roger Douglas, was revealed as having taken a holiday in London
with his wife at taxpayer expense. He was “entitled” to do so by
virtue of the system, he said.

But Bill English is not just renting any home in Wellington. Taxpayers
pay him to rent his own home, which he and his wife (or their family
trust, which is the same thing) have owned, and lived in, for many
years. His wife is a respected Wellington GP and their children attend
Wellington schools. Their principal home is the one they live in in
Karori, not their occasional weekend property in Dipton, Southland.

Early in the term of the Clark Labour Government, it was revealed that
the Alliance Party trough-feeder Phillida Bunkle was claiming this
very same out-of-Wellington allowance while actually living in
Wellington. So was Labour cabinet minister Marian Hobbs.

At the time, what became the right wing of today’s blogosphere
attacked Bunkle and Hobbs mercilessly, and with solid justification.
Bunkle was scamming the taxpayer, shamelessly. Hobbs was not much
better.

Today, it is revealed Bill English is doing the same thing – but at a
cost many times higher – and the silence of such blogs as Kiwiblog,
Rust Never Sleeps and Whale Oil – is deafening, even though all three
are actually voting delegates at the National Party conference, where
this bombshell must be the talk of the floor.

http://poneke.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/h/

Deafening silence

Do as I say, not as I do.

Tighten your belt, but dont expect me to tighten mine

[WorkHard]

Post by Kerry

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence
of
his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e.
the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the
MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate"
him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW, this
is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption
that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel
instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as
English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements'
even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the
"corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt
have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English
is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in
too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Post by liberty

Post by WorkHard
I'm asking, are you disgusted by them too?
Perfectly reasonable question.

Very well.
English has been entrusted with the stewardship of the
nation's
finances at a time when stringency at every ministerial and
departmental level should be setting examples in fiscal
prudence and
personal financial probity to every New Zealander. Indeed,
National
assumed power saying that what they considered increased
public
sector waste and excess under Labour should be severely
curbed.
No bad thing.
But what we *actually* have is the steward of the nation's
finances
nakedly exposed for exploiting every advantage he can to milk
the
taxpayers of New Zealand of every last dollar he can *solely
for his
own personal gain, advantage and pleasure*, including a
tax-free
annual sum of c$50,000 nominated as an expense where -
demonstrably -
no such expense has been incurred. Remember it well: this sum
is not
a one-off but an ongoing annual tax-free windfall salary
enhancement
equivalent to what would otherwise be a taxed sum of $80,000.
This is a blatant rort and English knows it.. Agreed, the rort is
sanctioned under Speaker's Rules, but that is not what matters where
English is involved..
1. As it stands, the parliamentary remuneration system is
demonstrably corrupt.
2. English is **knowingly** and **deliberately** exploiting a
system
he knows is corrupt.
3. By knowingly and deliberately exploiting the system English
is,
ipso facto, corrupt.
It can be no other way, and you cannot show otherwise.
I regard English's behaviour in this matter as a gross and
shameless
abuse of his minsterial position. If you can show how either
Clark or
Cullen have previously abused their ministerial postions in a
like
manner and for similar tax-free sums **where no expense
whatever has
been incurred**, then do so and I may possibly respond
accordingly as
and when I may choose..
But I already know you can't, and so do you, so yours is
nothing but
the envious choking of a frustrated malcontent who, in his own
grinding inadequacy, desperately wishes he could have his own
snout
deep in the same minsterial trough. There is nothing you'd
like
more..

Post by liberty
One would expect an answer from Lord Toff
I suspect he has crawled under a rock.

I invariably respond to posts as and when I choose, and
certainly
never at the feeble-minded behest of bored and semi-literate
pond
life like you.

The deafening right blog silence over Bill English being paid
to live
in his own home
from Poneke's Weblog by poneke
Gosh. The Dominion Post revealed today that Bill English — he
who
preaches cutbacks and redundancy for most of us – is getting a
taxpayer subsidy close to $1000 a week to live in his own home
in
Karori with his wife and children.
These ministerial subsidies are meant to be paid for ministers
who
live outside Wellington, but who need to have accommodation in
the
capital for their ministerial duties at the Beehive and in
Parliament.
English says he is the MP for Clutha-Southland and thus is
“entitled”
to claim the ministerial allowance to rent a home in
Wellington.
I love that word “entitlement.” The other day, another
slash-and-burn
MP, Roger Douglas, was revealed as having taken a holiday in
London
with his wife at taxpayer expense. He was “entitled” to do so
by
virtue of the system, he said.
But Bill English is not just renting any home in Wellington.
Taxpayers
pay him to rent his own home, which he and his wife (or their
family
trust, which is the same thing) have owned, and lived in, for
many
years. His wife is a respected Wellington GP and their children attend
Wellington schools. Their principal home is the one they live
in in
Karori, not their occasional weekend property in Dipton,
Southland.
Early in the term of the Clark Labour Government, it was
revealed that
the Alliance Party trough-feeder Phillida Bunkle was claiming
this
very same out-of-Wellington allowance while actually living in
Wellington. So was Labour cabinet minister Marian Hobbs.
At the time, what became the right wing of today’s blogosphere
attacked Bunkle and Hobbs mercilessly, and with solid
justification.
Bunkle was scamming the taxpayer, shamelessly. Hobbs was not
much
better.
Today, it is revealed Bill English is doing the same thing –
but at a
cost many times higher – and the silence of such blogs as
Kiwiblog,
Rust Never Sleeps and Whale Oil – is deafening, even though all
three
are actually voting delegates at the National Party conference, where
this bombshell must be the talk of the floor.
http://poneke.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/h/
Deafening silence

Not from me. I agree it is disgusting.

Post by Kerry
Do as I say, not as I do.
Tighten your belt, but dont expect me to tighten mine

Just as Labour have said. Just as Cullen said when giving
themselves huge increases in income. Telling everyone else to
seek no more than 0.5 - 1% pay increases while he scopoped an
extra 15Billion in taxes for his pet tax and spend projects.

It is NOT exclusive to National. It is something politicians of
ALL parties indulge in. Not just this housing thing either.

The sooner people like you are honest about this and stop using
it to push your own political affiliations/biases the better.

[liberty]

 If you can show how either Clark or

Post by -Newsman-
Cullen have previously abused their ministerial postions in a like

Lets start with the stealing of the $800,000.
Then using their position to legalize it.
Labour only won the 2005 election by a very small margin . The
Spending of the $800,000 might have made the difference.
Therefore there is a very big possibility Clark, Cullan and the gang
of thieves did very nicely by being in government.

[R***@hotmail.com]

Post by -Newsman-
 If you can show how either Clark or

Post by -Newsman-
Cullen have previously abused their ministerial postions in a like

Lets start with the stealing of the $800,000.
Then using their position to legalize it.
Labour only won the 2005 election by a very small margin . The
Spending of the $800,000 might have made the difference.
Therefore there is a very big possibility Clark, Cullan and the gang
of thieves did very nicely by being in government.

Kerry posted an article from Poneke's Weblog which covers the
situation quite well:

http://poneke.wordpress.com/

The far right apologists for English benefitting personally from a
loose interpretation of the rules will try and raise other issues to
try and mask this - but never do they try to explain how someone doing
something you disagree with excuse what English has been caught doing.

When 2 Labour members did something similar on a smaller scale
National were up in arms - and Labour stopped the rort.

National are clearly hypocritical about offences by their own people -
soft on decemcy. soft on ethics. The only rule they care about is
don't get caught - and even then they demonstrate that they have no
shame at ripping hte public off for their personal benefit.

[liberty]

Post by R***@hotmail.com

  If you can show how either Clark or

Post by -Newsman-
Cullen have previously abused their ministerial postions in a like

Lets start with the stealing of the $800,000.
Then using their position to legalize it.
Labour only won the 2005 election by a very small margin . The
Spending of the $800,000 might have made the difference.
Therefore there is a very big possibility Clark, Cullan and the gang
of thieves did very nicely by being in government.

Kerry posted an article from Poneke's Weblog which covers the
http://poneke.wordpress.com/

Poneke is nothing of the sort.
Lord Toff wanted and example of Clark and Cullen using the system
for their own betterment.
I gave him one.
Another example was Peters.
Clark gave him a patsy job. Just so she could stay in control.
I am not impressed with the deal English has arranged.
But for Labour apologist to be all righteous. While their central
committee reigned for 9 long bleak years.
Without saying a word. Gutless or Mindless comes to mind.
It is typical of a country living under a communist. The Russian
people couldn’t or wouldn’t speak out about Stalin in the 1930s

[WorkHard]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the
MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW, this
is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption
that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel
instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the "corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in
too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Quite. And you NEVER acknowledge them, or complain about them, or
say THEY disgust you.

You avoid anything and everything that proves Labour are the
worst offenders of these rorts.

All your pontification and rhetoric <snipped> does not alter this
glaring fact! Instead you prefer to be very selective about who
exactly you choose to single out as an example. And it's NEVER
Labour, Clark, Cullen, Mallard etc that you criticize. Never!

That makes you a two-faced forked-tongued hypocrite in the
extreme.

It is NOT specific to English/Douglas. It is very MORE specific
to Labour, Clark/Cullen etc.

If you are not prepared to criticize them, then keep it general
and do not specifically name individuals (you just happen to
personally hate) because they stick in your parasitic craw.

By NOT acknowledging Labour are amongst the worst offenders and
that they too disgust you you may as well be saying Labour can
never do any wrong. You know, ascribe Godhood to them.

You're a fake, Newsless.

[-Newsman-]

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the
MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW, this
is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption
that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel
instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as English and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the "corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in
too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Quite. And you NEVER acknowledge them, or complain about them, or
say THEY disgust you.

Why keep a dog (you) and bark one's self?

Moreover, with the stunningly incisive analytical powers that you
bring to bear on any Usenet topic, who would have the timerity to dare
augment - nay, seek to surpass - the wisdom and erudition of an
intellectual giant like you?

Do tell!

[WorkHard]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

On Aug 1, 11:28=3DA0am, Sonn

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family
home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed
for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence
of
his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e.
the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the
MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's
home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that
no
recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate"
him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption
that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in
this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about
Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel
instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as
English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements'
even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the
"corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt
have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English
is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Quite. And you NEVER acknowledge them, or complain about them, or
say THEY disgust you.

Why keep a dog (you) and bark one's self?
Moreover, with the stunningly incisive analytical powers that
you
bring to bear on any Usenet topic, who would have the timerity
to dare
augment - nay, seek to surpass - the wisdom and erudition of an
intellectual giant like you?
Do tell!

Simple. YOU are a communist and you think Clark/Cullen have never
done any of the things you so ardently call others on. Even
though that is demonstrably untrue.

In others words, you are simply a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and a
charlatan. You defend fellow communist thieves and liars.

[-Newsman-]

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

On Aug 1, 11:28=3DA0am, Sonn

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family
home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed
for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of
his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e.
the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the
MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's
home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that
no
recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate"
him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption
that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in
this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about
Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel
instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as
English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements'
even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the
"corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt
have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Quite. And you NEVER acknowledge them, or complain about them, or
say THEY disgust you.

Why keep a dog (you) and bark one's self?
Moreover, with the stunningly incisive analytical powers that
you
bring to bear on any Usenet topic, who would have the timerity to dare
augment - nay, seek to surpass - the wisdom and erudition of an
intellectual giant like you?
Do tell!

Simple. YOU are a communist and you think Clark/Cullen have never
done any of the things you so ardently call others on. Even
though that is demonstrably untrue.
In others words, you are simply a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and a
charlatan. You defend fellow communist thieves and liars.

So now you're drunk 24/7 to the point of self-deluding fantasy.

Get help.

[R***@hotmail.com]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

On Aug 1, 11:28=3DA0am, Sonn

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family
home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed
for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of
his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's
home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in
this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about
Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel
instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as
English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements'
even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing, talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the
"corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt
have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort English is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Quite. And you NEVER acknowledge them, or complain about them, or
say THEY disgust you.

Why keep a dog (you) and bark one's self?
Moreover, with the stunningly incisive analytical powers that you
bring to bear on any Usenet topic, who would have the timerity to dare
augment - nay, seek to surpass - the wisdom and erudition of an
intellectual giant like you?
Do tell!

Simple. YOU are a communist and you think Clark/Cullen have never
done any of the things you so ardently call others on. Even
though that is demonstrably untrue.
In others words, you are simply a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and a
charlatan. You defend fellow communist thieves and liars.

So now you're drunk 24/7 to the point of self-deluding fantasy.
Get help.

His posts have ever given that impression - and it may well be a
reality

[WorkHard]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:18:54 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

On Aug 1, 11:28=3DA0am, Sonn

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family
home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an
official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed
for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a
consequence
of
his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his
job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's
home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case
with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW,
this
is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in
this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about
Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel
instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as
English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements'
even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort"
as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt
rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the
way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing,
talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the
"corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt
have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort
English
is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour
Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved
in
too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Quite. And you NEVER acknowledge them, or complain about
them,
or
say THEY disgust you.

Why keep a dog (you) and bark one's self?
Moreover, with the stunningly incisive analytical powers that you
bring to bear on any Usenet topic, who would have the
timerity
to dare
augment - nay, seek to surpass - the wisdom and erudition of
an
intellectual giant like you?
Do tell!

Simple. YOU are a communist and you think Clark/Cullen have
never
done any of the things you so ardently call others on. Even
though that is demonstrably untrue.
In others words, you are simply a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and
a
charlatan. You defend fellow communist thieves and liars.

So now you're drunk 24/7 to the point of self-deluding fantasy.
Get help.

Piss poor sidestep.

[-Newsman-]

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:18:54 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

On Aug 1, 11:28=3DA0am, Sonn

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family
home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an
official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a
consequence
of
his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his
job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's
home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case
with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW,
this
is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in
this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about
Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel
instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as
English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any 'entitlements' even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt rort" as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt
rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the
way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing,
talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the
"corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their Govt have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort
English
is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour
Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are involved in
too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Quite. And you NEVER acknowledge them, or complain about
them,
or
say THEY disgust you.

Why keep a dog (you) and bark one's self?
Moreover, with the stunningly incisive analytical powers that you
bring to bear on any Usenet topic, who would have the
timerity
to dare
augment - nay, seek to surpass - the wisdom and erudition of an
intellectual giant like you?
Do tell!

Simple. YOU are a communist...

Simpler still, you're a drunken idiot.

(rest of Bilderbeck's self-deluded crap dumped)

Post by WorkHard

Post by -Newsman-
So now you're drunk 24/7 to the point of self-deluding fantasy.
Get help.

Piss poor sidestep.

In fact, simply a direct. truthful response to your increasingly
chaotic state of mind.

[WorkHard]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WorkHard

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 17:33:36 +1200, "WorkHard"

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:18:54 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT), liberty

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:45:12 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

On Aug 1, 11:28=3DA0am, Sonn

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-ta=
xpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week
for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family
home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules.
...
They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an
official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and
reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be
reimbursed
for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a
consequence
of
his
employment. =A0i.e. He earns it as a part of his
job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an
official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for
under
the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* -
i.e.
the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of
the
MP's
official
duties**. =A0So, what exactly are English's
home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? =A0None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is
that
no
recipient
should profit from them. =A0This is not the case
with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to
"compensate"
him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. =A0IOW,
this
is
nothing
less
expenses are not taxed. =A0Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular
corruption
that
characterises the self-serving nature of the
closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt
it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about
Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

To compare like with like, simply show me a parallel instance
of
either of them exploiting the same corrupt rort as
English
and
I'll
let you know.

Are you saying they are not getting any
'entitlements'
even
though they are no longer employed by the taxpayer?

FFS, read what I have written.

I did. You were careful to state "the same corrupt
rort"
as
English.
That avoided Cullen & Clark and the specific "corrupt
rort"
English is using, which I agree with you about, by the
way.
But you always have a habit of never ever exposing,
talking
about, or complaining about, showing disgust for the
"corrupt
rorts" Cullen and Clark, the Labour Party and their
Govt
have
committed. Which amount to many millions. The rort
English
is
partaking of is obviously part of the previous Labour
Govt
policy.
There will be many rorts Labour politicians are
involved
in
too.

Nowhere have I suggested otherwise.

Quite. And you NEVER acknowledge them, or complain about
them,
or
say THEY disgust you.

Why keep a dog (you) and bark one's self?
Moreover, with the stunningly incisive analytical powers
that
you
bring to bear on any Usenet topic, who would have the
timerity
to dare
augment - nay, seek to surpass - the wisdom and erudition
of
an
intellectual giant like you?
Do tell!

Simple. YOU are a communist...
Simpler still, you're a drunken idiot.
(rest of Bilderbeck's self-deluded crap dumped)

Post by WorkHard

So now you're drunk 24/7 to the point of self-deluding
fantasy.
Get help.

Piss poor sidestep.

In fact, simply a direct. truthful response to your
increasingly
chaotic state of mind.

LOL All you have isn't it, abuse and ad homs. Lies about it too.

There's not even one tiny little thing about any part of you to
like. No sense of humour, nothing. Just a sour, bitter and
twisted pommie communist parasite full of hatred and envy.

You are pathetic Keith Warren!

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

[WorkHard]

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

Tailgunning for Newsless.

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:05:51 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

Tailgunning for Newsless.

I have no idea of what he writes, I kill filed him over 3 years ago for his
superciliousness.

-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar.
That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

[R***@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:24 +1200, Mister Scooter

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:05:51 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

Tailgunning for Newsless.

I have no idea of what he writes, I kill filed him over 3 years ago for his
superciliousness.
-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar.
That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

To killfile Newsman while enthusiastically responding to and
encouraging JohnB is just bizarre, Scooter.Are you trying to have
nz.general descend into the cesspit that is characterised by JohnB's
posts?

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:47:03 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement,

Post by R***@hotmail.com
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:24 +1200, Mister Scooter

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:05:51 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

Tailgunning for Newsless.

I have no idea of what he writes, I kill filed him over 3 years ago for his
superciliousness.
-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar.
That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

To killfile Newsman while enthusiastically responding to and
encouraging JohnB is just bizarre, Scooter.Are you trying to have
nz.general descend into the cesspit that is characterised by JohnB's
posts?

(If you promise not to tell anyone I'll let you into a secret.
All of what I am doing is performance art.
You don't seriously think I am genuine and for real in what I say and post, do
you?
I'll be making an announcement some time soon, but until then it's full steam
ahead.)
I am quite happy to killfile people while replying to others. I am bizarre as
well as a lot of other things.
I'll give you an example of Zeugma right now: "She departed in a flood of tears
in a taxicab." to paraphrase Dickens.
As long as John replies to me I'll reply to him.
Nothing other than a full profuse apology on his part will divert me from my
chosen course.

-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar.
That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

[WorkHard]

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:47:03 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by R***@hotmail.com
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:24 +1200, Mister Scooter

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:05:51 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of
his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

Tailgunning for Newsless.

I have no idea of what he writes, I kill filed him over 3
years ago
for his superciliousness.
-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar
after
cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.",
Winston
Churchill

To killfile Newsman while enthusiastically responding to and
encouraging JohnB is just bizarre, Scooter.Are you trying to
have
nz.general descend into the cesspit that is characterised by
JohnB's
posts?

(If you promise not to tell anyone I'll let you into a secret.
All of what I am doing is performance art.
You don't seriously think I am genuine and for real in what I
say and
post, do you?
I'll be making an announcement some time soon, but until then
it's
full steam ahead.)
I am quite happy to killfile people while replying to others. I
am
bizarre as well as a lot of other things.
I'll give you an example of Zeugma right now: "She departed in
a
flood of tears in a taxicab." to paraphrase Dickens.
As long as John replies to me I'll reply to him.
Nothing other than a full profuse apology on his part will
divert me
from my chosen course.

This is Peter, whom you call John.

I am so very very sorry you are such a mentally-diseased
dickhead, Scooter. But really, you brought it upon yourself. It
really is no fault of mine in any way.

But I most humbly and most profusely aplogise on behalf of the
entire nation for the injustices you have perpetrated against
your brain.

May your success continue.

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:31:21 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:47:03 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by R***@hotmail.com
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:24 +1200, Mister Scooter

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:05:51 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home.
...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for
under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen
and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

Tailgunning for Newsless.

I have no idea of what he writes, I kill filed him over 3
years ago
for his superciliousness.
-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar
after
cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.",
Winston
Churchill

To killfile Newsman while enthusiastically responding to and
encouraging JohnB is just bizarre, Scooter.Are you trying to
have
nz.general descend into the cesspit that is characterised by
JohnB's
posts?

(If you promise not to tell anyone I'll let you into a secret.
All of what I am doing is performance art.
You don't seriously think I am genuine and for real in what I
say and
post, do you?
I'll be making an announcement some time soon, but until then
it's
full steam ahead.)
I am quite happy to killfile people while replying to others. I
am
bizarre as well as a lot of other things.
I'll give you an example of Zeugma right now: "She departed in
a
flood of tears in a taxicab." to paraphrase Dickens.
As long as John replies to me I'll reply to him.
Nothing other than a full profuse apology on his part will
divert me
from my chosen course.

This is Peter, whom you call John.
I am so very very sorry you are such a mentally-diseased
dickhead, Scooter. But really, you brought it upon yourself. It
really is no fault of mine in any way.
But I most humbly and most profusely aplogise on behalf of the
entire nation for the injustices you have perpetrated against
your brain.
May your success continue.

Did a pig just fart or did John open his mouth and try to speak?

-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar.
That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

[WorkHard]

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:31:21 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:47:03 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by R***@hotmail.com
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:24 +1200, Mister Scooter

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:05:51 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence
of
his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e.
the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the
MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate"
him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption
that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

Tailgunning for Newsless.

I have no idea of what he writes, I kill filed him over 3
years ago
for his superciliousness.
-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar
after
cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.",
Winston
Churchill

To killfile Newsman while enthusiastically responding to and
encouraging JohnB is just bizarre, Scooter.Are you trying to have
nz.general descend into the cesspit that is characterised by JohnB's
posts?

(If you promise not to tell anyone I'll let you into a
secret.
All of what I am doing is performance art.
You don't seriously think I am genuine and for real in what I
say and
post, do you?
I'll be making an announcement some time soon, but until then
it's
full steam ahead.)
I am quite happy to killfile people while replying to others. I
am
bizarre as well as a lot of other things.
I'll give you an example of Zeugma right now: "She departed
in
a
flood of tears in a taxicab." to paraphrase Dickens.
As long as John replies to me I'll reply to him.
Nothing other than a full profuse apology on his part will
divert me
from my chosen course.

This is Peter, whom you call John.
I am so very very sorry you are such a mentally-diseased
dickhead, Scooter. But really, you brought it upon yourself.
It
really is no fault of mine in any way.
But I most humbly and most profusely aplogise on behalf of the
entire nation for the injustices you have perpetrated against
your brain.
May your success continue.

Did a pig just fart or did Peter open his mouth and try to
speak?

You got your apology, on behalf of the whole nation as well. Live
up to your own words, now.

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:52:35 +1200, Re: Sense of Entitlement, "WorkHard"

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:31:21 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:47:03 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by R***@hotmail.com
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:24 +1200, Mister Scooter

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:05:51 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

Post by Mister Scooter
On , , Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:30:02 +1200, Re: Sense of
Entitlement,

Post by WorkHard

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for
Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National
is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state
that
where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable
expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence
of
his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job.
That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence
they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that
a
member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e.
the
reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the
MP's
official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living
*expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with
English.
The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate"
him
*solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is
nothing
less
than a salary emnhancement, but with one important
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned
$50,000
per
annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption
that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the
shamelessness
and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it
under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

To be consistent you must feel the same way about Cullen and
Clark, surely?

No, they have never done anything quite that slimy.

Tailgunning for Newsless.

I have no idea of what he writes, I kill filed him over 3
years ago
for his superciliousness.
-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar
after
cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.",
Winston
Churchill

To killfile Newsman while enthusiastically responding to and
encouraging JohnB is just bizarre, Scooter.Are you trying to have
nz.general descend into the cesspit that is characterised by JohnB's
posts?

(If you promise not to tell anyone I'll let you into a
secret.
All of what I am doing is performance art.
You don't seriously think I am genuine and for real in what I
say and
post, do you?
I'll be making an announcement some time soon, but until then
it's
full steam ahead.)
I am quite happy to killfile people while replying to others. I
am
bizarre as well as a lot of other things.
I'll give you an example of Zeugma right now: "She departed
in
a
flood of tears in a taxicab." to paraphrase Dickens.
As long as John replies to me I'll reply to him.
Nothing other than a full profuse apology on his part will
divert me
from my chosen course.

This is Peter, whom you call John.
I am so very very sorry you are such a mentally-diseased
dickhead, Scooter. But really, you brought it upon yourself.
It
really is no fault of mine in any way.
But I most humbly and most profusely aplogise on behalf of the
entire nation for the injustices you have perpetrated against
your brain.
May your success continue.

Did a pig just fart or did Peter open his mouth and try to
speak?

You got your apology, on behalf of the whole nation as well. Live
up to your own words, now.

You are even sicker than I thought.
I'm sure Missy has a .303 vaccination that will help you, and us, more than you
could imagine.
-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar.
That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

[John Cawston]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English. The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.

Agreed. But how is it different to the Mother Of All Parliaments?
Or Congress or any of the other democracies?

JC

Post by -Newsman-
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

[-Newsman-]

Post by John Cawston

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English. The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.

Agreed. But how is it different to the Mother Of All Parliaments?
Or Congress or any of the other democracies?

Why compare, or are you satisfied that such behaviour - solely at the
expense of the taxpayer, to boot - is to be condoned simply "because
everyone else does it"?

Post by John Cawston
JC

Post by -Newsman-
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

[John Cawston]

Post by -Newsman-

Post by John Cawston

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English. The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.

Agreed. But how is it different to the Mother Of All Parliaments?
Or Congress or any of the other democracies?

Why compare, or are you satisfied that such behaviour - solely at the
expense of the taxpayer, to boot - is to be condoned simply "because
everyone else does it"?

Agree again. But why make out its a peculiar NZ issue when its not?

JC

Post by -Newsman-

Post by John Cawston
JC

Post by -Newsman-
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

[-Newsman-]

Post by John Cawston

Post by -Newsman-

Post by John Cawston

Post by -Newsman-

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can
claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member
of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the reimbursement
of **costs incurred solely in the performance of the MP's official
duties**. So, what exactly are English's home-living *expenses* in
this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English. The man
is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him *solely for
the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW, this is nothing less
expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.

Agreed. But how is it different to the Mother Of All Parliaments?
Or Congress or any of the other democracies?

Why compare, or are you satisfied that such behaviour - solely at the
expense of the taxpayer, to boot - is to be condoned simply "because
everyone else does it"?

Agree again. But why make out its a peculiar NZ issue when its not?

To confirm - as if it were needed - that New Zealand is not immune
from such rorting by those at the highest levels; and this, I might
add, in the light of the crass, inane smugness of some on this group
who would tout New Zealand's supposed high standing in the
international corruption rankings.

Post by John Cawston

Post by -Newsman-

Post by John Cawston

Post by -Newsman-
English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

[WorkHard]

Post by John Cawston

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:39:10 +1200, John Cawston

Post by John Cawston

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family
home.
... National is defending the payments as within the
rules. ...
They state that where a minister chooses not to take up an
official residence they can claim "the amount of the
actual and
reasonable expenses that a member of Parliament is
entitled to
be reimbursed for under the Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's
not
the same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official
residence they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement of **costs incurred solely in the performance
of the
MP's official duties**. So, what exactly are English's
home-living *expenses* in this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The
man is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW,
this
is nothing less than a salary emnhancement, but with one
important
difference: expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000
per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.

Agreed. But how is it different to the Mother Of All
Parliaments?
Or Congress or any of the other democracies?

Why compare, or are you satisfied that such behaviour - solely at the
expense of the taxpayer, to boot - is to be condoned simply
"because
everyone else does it"?

Agree again. But why make out its a peculiar NZ issue when its
not?

It's only English who disgusts him. He refuses to say that Clark
and Cullen disgust him for their rorts. Or he himself, for his
own.

[WorkHard]

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:39:10 +1200, John Cawston

Post by John Cawston

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state that where a minister chooses not to take up an
official
residence they can claim "the amount of the actual and
reasonable
expenses that a member of Parliament is entitled to be
reimbursed
for under the Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's
not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement of **costs incurred solely in the performance
of the
MP's official duties**. So, what exactly are English's
home-living
*expenses* in this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The
man is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW,
this is
nothing less than a salary emnhancement, but with one
important
difference: expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.

Agreed. But how is it different to the Mother Of All
Parliaments?
Or Congress or any of the other democracies?

Why compare, or are you satisfied that such behaviour - solely
at the
expense of the taxpayer, to boot - is to be condoned simply
"because
everyone else does it"?

Oh? Mr hypcorite. You pretended to only be concerned about the
"corrupt rort" of English. Refused to say if the rorts Cullen and
Clark use disgust you.

You disgust me.

Post by John Cawston

English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

[-Newsman-]

Post by WorkHard

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:39:10 +1200, John Cawston

Post by John Cawston

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance
Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ...
National is defending the payments as within the rules. ...
They
state that where a minister chooses not to take up an
official
residence they can claim "the amount of the actual and
reasonable
expenses that a member of Parliament is entitled to be
reimbursed
for under the Speaker's directions".

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity.

Where a minister chooses not to take up an official residence
they
can claim "the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses
that a
member of Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under
the
Speaker's directions".
The message is unequivocally about *expenses* - i.e. the
reimbursement of **costs incurred solely in the performance
of the
MP's official duties**. So, what exactly are English's
home-living
*expenses* in this instance? None whatever.
The accepted principle lying behind expenses is that no
recipient
should profit from them. This is not the case with English.
The
man is pocketing up to $50,000 per annum to "compensate" him
*solely for the privilege of living in his own home*. IOW,
this is
nothing less than a salary emnhancement, but with one
important
difference: expenses are not taxed. Nice, eh?
Entitlement or no, this is an officially condoned $50,000 per annum
tax-dodge rort dreamed up in the circular corruption that
characterises the self-serving nature of the closed
privileged
trough-snouting that is New Zealand politics.

Agreed. But how is it different to the Mother Of All
Parliaments?
Or Congress or any of the other democracies?

Why compare, or are you satisfied that such behaviour - solely at the
expense of the taxpayer, to boot - is to be condoned simply
"because
everyone else does it"?

Oh? Mr hypcorite. You pretended to only be concerned about the
"corrupt rort" of English.

No pretence at all. If the facts about English are true, then disgust
is the word for it. Of course, you're also disgusted by English's
rorting of the taxpayer, aren't you?

Post by WorkHard
Refused to say if the rorts Cullen and Clark use disgust you.

Cite my refusal, verbatim only.

Post by WorkHard
You disgust me.

First take a look at yourself to recognise your own disgustingly base
and self-demeaning behaviour on this group. But you dare not since
the very thought of it can only drive you even deeper into your 24/7
agony of envy and self-loathing.

Post by WorkHard

Post by John Cawston

English is a knowing and deliberate participant in this
offical
tax-dodging rort and, like Douglas, has the shamelessness and
arrogance to profit from it and publically flaunt it under
the
official "rules".
He disgusts me.

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT), Re: Sense of Entitlement, WD

Post by WD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".
Okay, so for every client turned away from WINZ who arrives at the
door wanting a food grant, or waiting the 5-6 hours for an unscheduled
appointment the same day so they can feed their kids, or pay their
power so it won't get cut off, and for every person interrogated by
WINZ staff about whether they have family members who could feed them,
clothe their kids, or pay their bills - the standard response will now
be "I'm entitled to it".
And for every person who chooses not to sell their assets to live off,
because they're are entitled to draw a benefit instead, sure, why
shouldn't they be paid from the bottomless purse.  Because they're
entitled to it.
Nice one Deputy PM.

Though these perks are entitlements as a consequence of his
employment. i.e. He earns it as a part of his job. That's not the
same as receiving a handout out of necessity. I suppose it's a bad
look politically, but I honestly believe politicians for the most part
earn what they receive. They tend to work long hours in high profile
positions and many of them would otherwise be able to find more
anonymous work with higher pay rates if they were out of office. This
goes for both parties as well. This is not about politics but about
the fact that being a politician is a job like any other and their
labour should be appropriately compensated for.

I can't understand why they stay on in the job then.
They could always get jobs as lawyers or merchant bankers or company directors
and earn so much more.

-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill

[peterwn]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ...

Labour obviously fed this one to the main stream media as a
distraction from the nats' conference. Leftie journos could not
believe their luck since it saved them from the dreaded task of saying
something about the Nats conference.

If the journos had done their job properly they would have found that
the same matter was discussed in 2000 or so, but, hey, that would get
in the way of a good story.

By the way, if the Guv was not temporarily using Vogel House, Bill
would have had 'first refusal' on that as a Ministerial House.

Bill's home is in Dipton, Southland so he is entitled to housing/
accommodation in Wellington. His situation is also no different from
church ministers who nowadays prefer to live in their own houses (and
be paid an allowance accordingly) rather than live in church owned
vicarages/ manses.

[Brian Dooley]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 02:42:55 -0700 (PDT), peterwn

Post by peterwn

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpa...
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ...

Labour obviously fed this one to the main stream media as a
distraction from the nats' conference. Leftie journos could not
believe their luck since it saved them from the dreaded task of saying
something about the Nats conference.
If the journos had done their job properly they would have found that
the same matter was discussed in 2000 or so, but, hey, that would get
in the way of a good story.

But is it true?

Post by peterwn
By the way, if the Guv was not temporarily using Vogel House, Bill
would have had 'first refusal' on that as a Ministerial House.
Bill's home is in Dipton, Southland so he is entitled to housing/
accommodation in Wellington.

But does that normally include the wife and half-dozen kids.

Post by peterwn
His situation is also no different from
church ministers who nowadays prefer to live in their own houses (and
be paid an allowance accordingly) rather than live in church owned
vicarages/ manses.

And are their own houses 500km away from their homes.

[Mister Scooter]

On , , Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Sense of Entitlement, Sonn

Post by Sonn
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpayer-cash-for-his-home
Taxpayers are stumping up nearly $1000 a week for Finance Minister
Bill English to live in his $1.2 million family home. ... National is
defending the payments as within the rules. ... They state that where
a minister chooses not to take up an official residence they can claim
"the amount of the actual and reasonable expenses that a member of
Parliament is entitled to be reimbursed for under the Speaker's
directions".

Does he and his wife have all of thier eleven children in the home with them?

-
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.", Winston Churchill