pickle wrote:Sorry to say this but I cannot stand you spreading misinformation around here. At a time in difficult economic conditions obviously the amount on welfare must increase not decrease.
Yes, but on people who need it, not people who are in the middle classes (and most definitely not
for people in the top tax bracket).
pickle wrote:Working for families has been a major success and has definitely been a factor in controlling poverty and crime within the country.
It definitely worked - the fertility rate skyrockted.
pickle wrote:You obviously seem to think its as simple as just cutting it and having a whole lot of extra money. Welfare is something worth paying because it has great benefits, a motorway that has a BCR of 0.3 is worth it.
So, you would rather have hundreds of trucks driving through the streets of Plimmerton, Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki then?
scooter wrote: locost_bryan wrote:
Maximum gradient 8% NZTA
. That is the same as sections of the Mangaweka deviation on SH1 (Toe Toe Stream), which hasn't deterred truckies
in the slightest. Auckland Harbour Bridge is 5%, iirc ALPURT was designed to not exceed that.
They dont really have any alternative to that massively long drag up the hill heading north from Mangaweka, and that was a vast improvement on what the road was before the huge realignment between 1972 and 1980. So whats there now is faster than what there was. I don't know if compared the current coast road if TG offers the same improvement to transit times for the truckies
For that matter, how long is the drag up Mangaweka. The rail equivalent might be comparing that short portion of 1 in 33 on the line to Helensville with the Otira Tunnel.
scooter wrote:Who said anything about lavish? I have sympathy for those who are on welfare through no real fault of their own - thats the safety net to prevent utterly abject poverty. Those who make lifestyle out of it and show no sort of personal responsibility - none at all.
Precisely, and for that matter, welfare for people who are on the top
tax bracket. I'm sorry, but $70,000 per annum doesn't make you poor.