Back on the agenda
August 30th, 2005 at 1:04 pm by David FarrarSometimes a Labour MP is very honest. Take Russell Fairbrother:
” Redistribution of wealth had been off the political agenda for decades. Labour put it back on …”
The only problem Russell is Labour is now taking money from people on $45,000 and giving it to people who earn $120,000 if they happen to have kids.
Tags: Labour
August 30th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
And the message for beneficieries is…
“More children will mean more money.”
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Darren,
If you think having kids for the extra pittance a beneficiary gets is worth it, then it’s obvious you aren’t a parent. The hours worked per dollar suck.
There are rational points to make on both sides of the idea of targetting funding to families. But “Oh, it’ll encourage beneficiaries to have kids for the dosh” is not a rational point: the amount of work and money that the kids absorb far exceeds the dosh.
I’m sick, I’ve got the flu, and I was up from 3 til 4 this morning, feeling like complete hell, taking care of my sick 3 year old. Coz that’s what parents do.
Parenting is worth it. But it sure isn’t a job you’d do just for money.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Icehawk, you may be correct but I wouldn’t project your own logic on others. Having a kid on welfare isn’t a logical reasoned choice in the first place, yet it happens. Having another isn’t either, and that happens too, and so on. Many people can take control of their life, and in fact want more control of that and their family’s (in the sense of being able to make their own decisions), but not everyone does or can rationalise their decisions in such a way.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
I’m sure the bulk of beneficiaries don’t in fact have children for money. However, I had a friend who, at the age of 21, found she was pregnant with her third child (all different fathers). At the time she told me this I was at univeristy 100% funding myself through my studies. Far from being concerned for the child or her situation, my friends only comment on finding she was pregnant again was ‘oh well, now I can afford to put that dining table I want at farmers on HP with the extra income from this one’. That was the last time we ever spoke.
An extreme case I know, but also tragic for all involved. Sadly I fear Labours latest bribe will make this situation much more common place.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Icehawk:
Well, if the likes of Dr. Cullen and his ilk think being childless is 1) always a choice, and/or 2) a neverending, stress-free party, then he’s obviously very stupid or needs to widen his social circle.
And, yeah, it was great fun nursing my partner while he was convalescing from his heart attack thanks for asking… Jonathan Milne, quite rightly said that he thought it was unfortunate that much of the campaign rhetoric from all sides seemed determined to set the fertile vs. the childless. Couldn’t agree more.
Icehawk, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to disrespect people like you – and I’m sure no amount of dosh could compensate you for the anxiety (and sleep depravation) that comes with a sick toddler. I just get a little tired of being treated like the childless are second class scum – especially by politicians I wouldn’t trust to feed my cat, let alone raise functional children.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
True , I am not a parent.
Vote:However, I am concerned about the incentive effects of this policy.
Since the DPB came out, beneficiary numbers have risen dramatically.
I am happy for some of my taxes to help those who really need it. But I am not if it means subsidising those who earn twice what I do, which is what will happen under Labour’s policy.
And certainly not if it means some decide to stay at home instead of going out to work.
I also question the incentive effects if it means people won’t bother working that bit extra, say in overtime or in getting a promotion, if it means they lose half or more in tax.
Hitting families with high marginal tax rates will keep families in poverty.
Thus, I feel it is best for a government to give tax cuts so everyone gets something.
Yes, families have needs and there should be something extra for them, but everyone should share in the good times the government says we have had.
August 30th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
David
how many New Zealand families have over 3 children and earn $120000 plus ???
“The only problem Russell is Labour is now taking money from people on $45,000 and giving it to people who earn $120,000 if they happen to have kids.”
Since if you have less than 3 children, you don’t get any “tax relief” according to the Labour calculator ???
Or did you mean the offspring of goats (kids) ?
Just interested to know how many people with 3+ children fit into your statement ?
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
My wife worked in what ever Social Welfare called itself at the time for many years She can relate many a story facts not fiction that would turn even the reddest socialist redder in the face She was in daily contact with her clients many 2nd and 3rd generation families on welfare dependency Very sad stories all A circle of ever decreasing self esteem.More money was never the answer She helped many out of the hole by teaching them the basics that chadonnary socialists dont even think about.And thats what set me against the Socialists They have no genuine motivation to help these people They just want to preserve their voter fodder The last thing they want is to reduce welfare dependency Thats why they have come up with their latest little trick
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Here is the REAL story to lighten the Budget discussion! You’ve heard
Vote:>the cry from across Australia in the last couple of weeks: “It’s just
a
>tax cut for the rich!” – and then it’s accepted as fact. But what
does
>that statement really mean? The following explanation may help.
>
>Suppose that every night, ten men go out for dinner at La
Porchetta’s.
>The bill for all ten comes to $100. They decide to pay their bill the
>way we pay our taxes, and it goes like this:
>
> * The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing
> * The fifth paid $1
> * The sixth $3
> * The seventh $7
> * The eighth $12
> * The ninth $18
> * The tenth man (the richest) paid $59
>
>
> All 10 are quite happy with the arrangement, until one
>day, the owner says: “Since you are all such good customers, I’m
going
>to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.”
>
> So now their dinner for ten only costs $80. The group
>still decides to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first
four
>men are unaffected. They will still eat for free.
>
> But how should the other six, the paying customers,
>divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair
share”?
>
> They realise that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if
>they subtract that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and sixth
men
>would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggests
reducing
>each man’s bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
> * The fifth man pays nothing (like the first four)
instead
>of $1 (100%saving)
> * The sixth pays $2 instead of $3 (33% saving)
> * The seventh pays $5 instead of $7 (28% saving)
> * The eighth pays $9 instead of $12 (25% saving)
> * The ninth pays $14 instead of $18 (22% saving)
> * The tenth pays $49 instead of $59 (16% saving)
>
> Each of the six are better off, and the first four
>continue to eat for free, as now does the fifth – but outside the
>restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
>
> ” I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the
>sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10!”
>
> ” That’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved
>a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
>
> ” That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he
>get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
>
> ” Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison.
>”We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
>
> The nine men then surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
>
> The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner.
>The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the
>bill, they discovered that they didn’t have enough money between all
of
>them to meet even half of the bill!
>
> That, boys and girls, journalists and college
>professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the
highest
>taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
>attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the
>table anymore.
>
> There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the
>Caribbean.
>
>
>
August 30th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Well done bustedblonde Only problem is the Socialists are either (a) too thick to understand your story or (b) so anal retentive they just dont care Either way they are MORONS
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
woo sorry about not prefacing that comment – I’m new to blogging but David P Farrar seems to lead the charge and someone had just sent me that little gem. Yup ya right as most right thinking people are, socialists are too thick to get it. We must have a nation of socialists if the polls are anything to go by.
Vote:However the Nats need to get some discipline into the ranks. The are too far off message – too often scrapping in the corridors.Some good military hardware up their southern orifices of some of the strategists wouldnt go astray!
August 30th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
woo sorry about not prefacing that comment – I’m new to blogging but David P Farrar seems to lead the charge and someone had just sent me that little gem. Yup ya right as most right thinking people are, socialists are too thick to get it. We must have a nation of socialists if the polls are anything to go by.
Vote:However the Nats need to get some discipline into the ranks. The are too far off message – too often scrapping in the corridors.Some good military hardware up the southern orifices of some of the strategists wouldnt go astray!
August 30th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Don’t worry bustedblonde,there is hope.Not all kiwis are bluding,bottom scraping Labour scum.There are those of a higher moral order.Usually they start out as Leftys but then their long repressed minds kick in and they come across to the right side.The truth cannot be destroyed,omly supressed. It will eventually come out and people will react to it.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 12:12 am
“Not all kiwis are bluding,bottom scraping Labour scum.There are those of a higher moral order.”
Vote:And one day a strong leader will emerge from this higher moral order and exterminate these untermenschen like lice!
August 31st, 2005 at 1:25 am
Ah no Psycho…They will just make them go cold turkey,tell them to stand on thier own two feet,pull the titty from thier mouths and let them live as human beings,not drug dependant animals.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 10:00 am
Bustedblonde, Cute anecdote, but can someone tell me if its reasonable to compare society with an analogy like this?
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 10:07 am
Bustedblonde, Cute anecdote, but can someone tell me if its reasonable to compare society with an analogy like this?
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 10:13 am
Bustedblonde, Cute anecdote, but can someone tell me if its reasonable to compare society with an analogy like this?
Vote: