Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 126364	2012-08-23 05:06:00	Hey! Mr Key,have a read...	ruup (1827)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1296353	2012-08-23 05:06:00	www.nzherald.co.nz	ruup (1827)
1296354	2012-08-23 06:00:00	An average of 15 per cent of the population lived in poverty - identified as living on less than half of the median household income - at any given time. I was wondering what the level was before you were considered to be in poverty. Read here. (www.stats.govt.nz) At the end of the June 2011 quarter the medium wage for wage and salary earners was $800 per week. If you take all sources, including the over 65s into consideration the medium wage drops to $550 per week. So if you get $275 or less per week you must be considered to be in poverty. Income will have risen slightly since June 2011.	Bobh (5192)
1296355	2012-08-23 06:26:00	or maybe this... www.stuff.co.nz oh! by they way...who one the baseball?	ruup (1827)
1296356	2012-08-23 08:42:00	What would your solution be ruup? If you have some good ideas, you should share them with the rest of the country.	somebody (208)
1296357	2012-08-23 20:29:00	I was wondering what the level was before you were considered to be in poverty. Read here. (www.stats.govt.nz) This is a stupid method of defining poverty. If we could double the income of everyone in NZ we'd still have 15% of the population 'in poverty'. We could all be lotto millionaires, and we'd still have 15% 'in poverty'. Lazy statistics that just guestimate, rather than look at whether it's a sustainable living arrangement.	Paul.Cov (425)
1296358	2012-08-23 21:17:00	This is a stupid method of defining poverty. If we could double the income of everyone in NZ we'd still have 15% of the population 'in poverty'. We could all be lotto millionaires, and we'd still have 15% 'in poverty'. Lazy statistics that just guestimate, rather than look at whether it's a sustainable living arrangement. I agree 100%. I am also completely over those who seem to believe that the government owes them an income with no input from themselves. There appears to be a great jealousy of those who are either smarter or harder working and therefore are better off than average. If you want more work harder, do not blame everyone else. Having said that I am totally in support of social welfare but as temporary assistance not as an alternative life style.	CliveM (6007)
1296359	2012-08-23 22:53:00	^^ Well said CliveM / Paul.Cov / somebody It's easy to complain, but as far as I'm concerned if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I know a number of people who are quite happy to live "in poverty" as defined by this simply because they're fine being on the benefit because they're lazy and don't wanna go get a job. My brother-in-law included.	Chilling_Silence (9)
1296360	2012-08-24 00:28:00	I earn below the median....with my job. I bet loads of others do too. And whatever, chill.....not all beneficiaries are happy to be unemployed. No idea how your relative gets on, I don't know anyone that can actually live on the dole....its pathetic.	pctek (84)
1296361	2012-08-24 00:40:00	Its not the fault of the rich that some people are poor. These people are at home on a benefit, playing playstation, drinking Woodies, smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, eating at KFC. These so called poor people mainly non whites own cars and get rent relief or state houses. They arent so poor as to not keep making children, unmarried and letting the state support the kids..	prefect (6291)
1296362	2012-08-24 00:57:00	I earn below the median....with my job. I bet loads of others do too. And whatever, chill.....not all beneficiaries are happy to be unemployed. No idea how your relative gets on, I don't know anyone that can actually live on the dole....its pathetic. I know more who are happy on it than those who are unhappy on it. Usually because those who are unhappy on it do something to get off it.	Chilling_Silence (9)
1 2 3 4