Even MPs may become beneficiaries
March 30th, 2006 at 7:06 am by David FarrarBad enough we have middle class welfare but Labour even has welfare for the rich. Yes even MPs on $113,000 can now get working for families welfare.
The Government’s $15 million propaganda campaign is ironically so true. It shows the “needy” family as living in a $700,000 house, and having all the latest gadgets such as Ipods.
This is not what Michael Joseph Savage intended I am sure. A safety net for those in need is one thing. Taxing the hell out of those NZers who earn money so the Government can hand it out and turn almost every NZ family into beneficiaries is quite another.
No tag for this post.
March 30th, 2006 at 7:30 am
The actual parliamentary exchange is very revealing when read in its proper context:
“Heather Roy: Does the Minister believe that a back-bench MP with five children, like myself, should qualify for additional welfare payments; if so, why?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I do believe that the application of support of this kind should be done fairly. The unfairness of any other application is obvious. Across-the-board tax cuts, as suggested by the ACT party, for example, give no regard to circumstance, and deliver the biggest benefits to the people with the largest incomes.
Heather Roy: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister made absolutely no attempt to answer my question, which was very specific.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister might like to clarify what he was saying.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I would simply add that if that member has an entitlement and has enough children, then she should quite properly receive those payments.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Will the Minister tell the member who asked that question that if she feels embarrassed about receiving those payments she does not have to apply for them?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It is certainly the case that people need to make application for those support payments. If that member were, indeed, not deserving of them, then I assume she would not apply for them.”
Has the basis for Government support shifted from financial need to *perceived* financial need? In other words, if you feel like you need a hand-out and satisfy the friendly criteria, then be Helen Clark and David Benson-Pope’s guest!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 7:45 am
@Graham –
The other point of interest is that the speaker actually made DBP attempt the answer the question, rather than just “address” it.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 7:47 am
They just dont care they are using other peoples money. Its so wrong it hurts.
Yes Savage would be rolling in his grave.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Dr Cullen has given you the answer below if you feel you don’t need the payment why bother applying. It will be interesting to see if Mrs Roy does apply?
“Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Will the Minister tell the member who asked that question that if she feels embarrassed about receiving those payments she does not have to apply for them?”
I myself believe the govt took the best option, of a Tax Rebate instead of a Tax Cut. At least this way it is easier to regulate than the complications of a tax cut across the board, should our economic circumstances change in the future.
As Dr Cullen said no one is forcing you to accept the tax rebate if you don’t want it.
Vote:I take it those on this board will stand firm in their principals and reject the Tax Rebate ?
March 30th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Cadmus –
Why is a tax rebate (that has all the overhead needed to administer it) better than a tax cut where there is no overhead? – you just don’t take the money in the first place.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:01 am
of course an MP can only get WFF if their partner does not work and they have enought kids…. Pity, though that a family on 37,000 with two kids gets less than a family on 100,000 with six kids through WFF
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Spam: I was initially inclined to agree but, on reflection, I still stand behind my previous analysis that Parliament’s Standing Orders only require a question to be *addressed*.
The requirement is that there be a clear linkage between the substance of the answer and the subject-matter of the question – but that’s all. In this case, thankfully, Heather Roy had the political smarts to ask a simple question – without unnecessary surplusage. This required a direct response from David Benson-Pope, which wasn’t forthcoming in his first attempt.
Cadmus:
I much prefer it when you debate these issues on philosophical grounds (in your case, socialism) – rather than personalities (anti-Brash, anti-Hide) – so thank you for this.
A tax rebate is, in economic substance, a tax cut less the cost of Government collection and redistribution. This shows up the flaw in your analysis that a tax rebate “is easier to regulate than the complications of a tax cut across the board, should our economic circumstances change in the future”. The marginal tax rates are changed by legislation; so too are the tax rebate thresholds. The only difference is that we pay the Government for the privilege of a tax rebate.
You might argue that people at the high end of the income spectrum are not in need of tax relief, but this in no way addresses the unfairness of the tax rebate thresholds as they are currently set.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Paying people extra money in a tax rebate just for having kids is wrong headed. If you’re a high salary earner with a modest 3 kids, you can now pop out a couple more & collect a tax rebate so they wont “starve”. Nice. I might invest in a disposable nappy company now before the stocks surge.
Maybe it’s to increase the population birth rate so they can afford to pay for the welfare state in the future (more workers = more tax revenue) and this is part of Cullens grand plan to make Super work after all -pay people to have kids!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Cadmus don’t fool yourself it’s a welfare payout not tax rebate.
Was listening to the Rock on the way to work and they were getting people to ring in and they would calculate how much they are going to get.
The only one I heard was a guy from Rotorua on combined income of $75K with five kids. He will get an extra $210 pw
Now Rotorua isn’t an expensive place to live. $75K is a very good household income. They chose to have 5 kids. Why am I paying for these people? They’re not poor, they’re not on the bread line, he didn’t sound like he was struggling because he joked that this would top up his beer fund.
All this is going to do is increase consumer spending and once again we get a false economy from Labour.
What is there mitigation plan for if the top 10% left the country and they lose 50% of the personal tax take and all the related company tax?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Graham, southern Raider. I see it this way if it was a Tax Cut, the country would be tied into fixed International Investment/ Banking, loans, etc, for a number of years. We could not really change the tax structure if economic events threatened NZ. With the tax credit it is internal and gives the govt more fexibility to turn the tap on and off at it’s will.
I note National’s position is also now to keep the tax rebates.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Why don’t we get real about what this is: A massive bribe for affluent baby boomers who’ve always been happy to pass on the bill for their engorged sense of entitlement. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose…
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:40 am
“Make them fat and lazy, then they shall not look to oppose us”.
These are the same tactics used to keep the Maori people in a vegetative state for so long, now they are turning it on the rest of us. Maori realised they where getting shafted with the same tools that were keeping them passive and are now asking the question, now Labour have turned this thing on the rest of the population. History has shown those that govern and treat their countrymen as imbasils, end up hanging by their heels in public arenas, food for thought!
My god this is social engineering at its best, and it smells. How much input did Margaret Wilson have on this legislation?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Southern Raider, that’s a damn fine point you made in closing. And that old and much touted restaurant example is a good one to illustrate it.
The reason why certain people get a bigger tax break is because they pay more of it. Comparing exact dollar values there is retarded, to say the least.
But I’d be keen to know what the plan is when the top 10% have left. Who is going to feed the starving masses then? Will Helen and Cullen just print more money?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Michael Savage would indeed be turning in his grave.
You’re poor in this country if you and your kids don’t have cell phones, IPods and the latest gaming consoles etc.
In the old days you were poor when you really couldn’t find work (i.e. there just weren’t any jobs at all during the depression) and people were literally starving.
It was then necessary to provide people with money, food and housing. Which they accepted with some degree of embarassment and got themselves on their feet as soon as they were able and moved out.
Today the attidue is more like “The government owes me a living – it’s my right! Make those rich people who don’t pay any tax pay for me, I’m poor and disadvantaged…”. And this attitude is endemic.
The trouble is, if it was all reversed (only the truly needy got help) and people had to take responsibilty for themselves, the government of the day would be chucked out. People don’t want responsibility, they want a saftey net.
Nice big comfy nanny state, aaahhhh.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:44 am
These Socialist bastards wont rest until they have every citizern on some form of welfare Why? Cause then they can command and control them. They remind me of the old time Lord of the Manor where all the people were dependent on him for their lives.Thats the difference between Socialists and Freedom Fighters.FFs want to control their own lives.They want to make their own decisions based on choices.The Socialists have instilled a degree of fear of decision making so they can say “Dont worry give us your money and we will take the problem off your hands” Yeah right What they mean is We will make the decision that suits us not you and you will be a grateful little bastard and vote for us.What a bunch of suckers most Kiwis are They cant see how they are being conned
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:45 am
I thought the last exchange was the most telling:
John Key: Does he think the architect of New Zealand
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Why don’t we be done with it and give these stealing bastards all our income because that is what they live for.
WFF may be the tipping point that finally sinks this country as this will do nothing to premote growth or give lower to middle income earners incentive to better their lot in life. Once again we have to rely on less tax payers carrying a greater burden, this will only end in tears.
I thought Dr Cullen was well versed in history, every history class I took at school that dealt with socialism proved what an abject failure this had been for both the country and their populations-have we not learned anything.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Cadmus – Can you please explain these international banking arrangements that lock tax cuts in place?
It seems you’re trying to say that a tax cut would require borrowing etc, and so shouldn’t occur. But, that doesn’t make sense…
I don’t see how borrowing would lock the lower tax in place. I also don’t think anyone is advocating borrowing. It has been shown that we could go to a 20% flat tax without costing the government any more than the current *surplus*. Wow! I’m not advocating a particular tax rate… it just shows how much surplus we have to play with, even if you like to ‘save some for a rainy day’ (which is also economic lunacy).
Also, why would a tax cut require borrowing where a tax ‘rebate’ of the same dollar ‘cost’ (payments + overheads) doesn’t?
Surely a tax cut, due to less overhead, is a better option since it leaves more money in the hands of the people for the same dollar impact on the government coffers (ceterus parabis)? The tax cut need not be ‘across the board’ or ‘flat’… it could hit approx the same targets as WFF (if that’s the intention) by tickering with the marginal rates.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Just went through the calculator to see I am eligible for a whopping $1 a week.
A warm fuzzy feeling… But I do have to go to Social Welfare now to apply for my One Dollar a week Benefit. I think I will !
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:18 am
I think Heather Roy and Bill English are both intelligent people who chose to have large families and knew that their familiy income would allow them to do so without causing hardship.
It’s an insult to them to say ‘you can’t support your family on $115k p.a., we’ll have to help you’.
Let’s face it, if your family income is over $60k then your smart enough to understand the consequences of your actions – you don’t need the Government busybodying in your life.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Ok, you want to get angry? How about this…
I earn $45000, have a stay-at-home wife, and 2 pre-schoolers.
$45,000 is round about the average family income, I’ve been lead to beleive?…. strangely (not) I’ve been earning around about the average family income for the last 15 years…. (ie. not $45k, but always near the current average at the time). When I was single, this was a huge amount, I was ‘rich’, bought expensive toys and a sportscar, went overseas regularly, etc. In my current situation, things are not dire-tight, but we have to be careful, and non-essential spending is limited to 2 bottles of cheap wine and one takaway dinner a week. Things are made easier by the fact I bought my Blockhouse-Bay house 11 years ago when single, so my remaining mortgage is relitively minor (about 60k owing)…
We could get by on my income alone, but family asstance is appreciated (was $46 a fortnight, now going up to $250 a fortnight). Whether you belive I should be entitled to this or not is a point for debate along the lines of this thread, and fair enough…. depending on your political leanings I can see where you might think I WAS in need of financial assitance, or you might indeed think I was in a position of my own making and am not truly in need… (and before you all start shouting about election bribes, National was promising MORE)
We’d prefer not to be a beneficiary, but enjoy the extra comfort it affords us… Its uncomfortable (psychologically) but not outrageous (to me)….
Here’s what outrageous…
I looked into the accomodation supplement or whatever they call it… In my financial situation as outlined above, and a $750 per month mortgage payment, I do not qualify for accomodation assistance. (and fair enough, too).
But we are looking at buying a new house (because the current one is no longer big enough for us)…
If I buy a more expensive house, with a bigger mortgage payment, I will then qualify for an accomodation supplement!
Not enough to pay the entire increased mortgage payment… but a signifigant chunk of it (approx half the increase).
Its enough that I can consider a house price jump of $100k instead of $70k !
This, I find truely Bizzaire… I dont like it philosophically/politically… but its too hard to turn down “free” money. (and yes, I know it “enslaves” me to the govt, etc.)
Sorry, I’m not signing a name simply because people I know read this…
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:40 am
My partner and I have chosen not to have kids yet because we want to provide them security and a stable environment. I guess I was wrong to assume that working hard, getting an education and taking into account consequences of my actions would benefit both myself and my country.
My father left school at 14 with no qualifications and started off sweeping floors in a factory. He rose up to management through working hard. We lived in a modest house on a middle income and turned out alright. We never had any of the luxuries that people have now days.
I wonder where we would be at if he was able to claim all these extra benefits and whether he would have instilled in my brother and I the merits of working hard to achieve what you want and not expecting hand outs.
We were always made to work and save for things we wanted as my parents told me you respect something more when you have achieved it, not been given it.
I despair for were NZ is going under Labour and I think left wing supporters like Cadmus need to look 10 years out at the effect on the NZ economy, culture and state of mind of WFF and other Labour policy.
I’m off to buy some Apple shares as those iPOD sales are going to take off after 1st April.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:52 am
I don’t qualify for anything under this as my wife and I both work and we only have two kids. However, the father of a kid in my boy’s rugby team who earns about $35K a year and has seven kids (with another on the way) is taking home more than I do. How is that fair? I get taxed and get nothing from WFF and pay someone to have a higher income than me. His choice to produce more kids than he can feed and clothe – not mine.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Did’nt we just spend 20 years rolling back the welfare state – it all looks like a big bad cycle to me.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:58 am
David, there is no difference between a ‘safety net’ and what we have now, merely several decades of inevitable growth.
de Tocqueville observed that democracy cannot survive once the people realise they can vote themselves money from the public purse. He was correct.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:00 am
@anonymous: Does this mean that if you increase your mortgage payments, you will get an accomodation supplement? Not sure how much the supplement actually is, but would it make this worthwhile?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Bloody hilarious. Can’t get much worse right. Take a look at France & Germany cause that’s where NZ is headed. Carefully (there are sharks about) buy property in Aust, enjoy the ride and have a few laughs.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Is Heather Roy’s hubby a non-earning house-husband, then?
No? Well, even a household as large as hers will earn too much for WFF, clearly. (Our two-child, two-income household misses out by miles.)
And would you be saying she didn’t “need” the money if it was given as a straightforward tax cut? Hardly. That would be crazy socialist talk.
Labour bollocksed up its tax policy; it should have dealt with the high end via tax cuts, and kept WFF for the lower household income range; but let’s not be silly here.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
March 30th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Southern Raider, you say:
All this is going to do is increase consumer spending and once again we get a false economy from Labour
I agree, and this was always my point with the tax cuts suggested by National. An election bribe by any other name is still a bribe.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Apparently I’m rich, so they take half of what I earn, which makes me poor, so I need a handout.
This is just really, really bad policy.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:22 am
they take half of what I earn
Are you sure?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:29 am
add it up – income tax, gst, petrol tax, extra taxes on alcohol and tobacco, rates, fees, levies, etc… Let us keep more of our own money and we won’t need a handout – and won’t need to have our affairs examined by another govt dept.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:30 am
At last the poor will be able to afford all the cigarettes they wish to smoke, and not have to bother with those nasty roll-ups!
Thanks labour!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Russell – what was that?, after reading your entry I think “So What”, this is another dip shit example of interventionist BS, they just can’t help themselves. What do you achieve by removing money’s from general circulation?
1 – you have to EMPLOY more people to monitor it’s extraction. IRD
2 – you have to EMPLOY more people to re introduce it back into the system. WINZ
These are unnecessary activities, bought about by interventionist polocies, can’t keep their bloody hands off others money.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Andrew how is tax cuts a bribe when it has positive effects on the economy and is recommended by treasury and follows the same path as most western countries (except those Socialist Scando nations). There may be some inflationary effects, but it least it is up to the people who earnt the money to spend it. Personally mine would have been going into the mortgage and savings. Isn’t that what NZ needs a better savings record.
What I want to now is that will all the State Housing tenants have their situations reviewed now they will be “earning” more money. I would expect half of them will be able to move immediately into privately held accomodation.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:45 am
It is good policy to give families tax breaks,
as home ownership and successful families provide the glue that holds a society together. The kids of today will be paying for your pensions tomorrow, and society has a duty to invest in them now for its own survival later.
With the hyperinflation of house prices, many young families are stretched to breaking point even on an above average income. The only other option would be massive immigration to prop up the falling birthrates, but that is its own can of worms.
I support the policy but question the way it was done- sure it may be re-instating the historic NZ family benefit of days gone by, but was that ever an effective way to do it?
Either way it should make the Christians happy
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Can someone explain to me WHY those of the right can identify that removing money from the economy and then reintroduce it back can’t be done at no cost. Isn’t this the difference between a “TAX CUT” and labours “WFF”, actually a more accurate name would be “Working For IRD”
Vote:I am obviously not that clever and need guidance. I think I may whip out and buy Helen’s autobiography “IMCAMP”
March 30th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Southern Raider, my point was that more money in the pocket will lead to increased spending. In one breath you say this will lead to increase consumer spending and once again we get a false economy from Labour and in the next breath you say that it has positive effects on the economy. Which is it?
Blue Tune, I did add it up and for an income of $100,000 I get to about 40% max. At $200,000 it does get closer to the 50% mark (about 45%), but PaulM isn’t in that group, because if he was, all that tax wouldn’t make him poor, as he claims.
ps, smoking and drinking are a choice behaviour, that have very high social costs. Seems fair that the users pay!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Spam said- @anonymous: Does this mean that if you increase your mortgage payments, you will get an accomodation supplement? Not sure how much the supplement actually is, but would it make this worthwhile?
Without reading the exact policies, its hard to know…. the web-site calculator does include the warning that it is indicative only, not gospel.
They use the wording “minimum payment” which would suggest that voluntarily paying extra off the capital would not get you to qualify….
But what if I signed up for a fixed-rate, on a voluntarily short term? I’d then be compelled by contract (that I voluntarily signed up for) to pay more… thus, it IS the minimum payment (and the maximum without incurring penalties) for the new mortgage?
They do take into account your cash and non-cash assests… so if you’ve already got yourself a second home or other investments, you wont qualify…
It still seems wrong…
in my situation, a $750 monthly mortgage payment entitles me to nothing.
$900 per month = $47 per month assitance
$1000 = $117 assistance
$1100 = $186 assiatance
$1200 = $260 assitance !
I stopped there, it was just getting too scary to see how much they are encouraging me to spend more than I can afford…
I guess if the interest rates go up, they’ll give me more? But if policy changes, its mortgagee sale time?
Astounding.
I wonder if any political party’s going to promise mass mortgagee sales as an election platform?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:56 am
@andrew:
A lot of this WFF money WILL be spent on such things as smoking & drinking.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:57 am
UK Kiwi I presume from your id you are living abroad.
If this is the case unless you wish to come back and actually live in the shit that Labour is creating I suggest you keep your fucked up social views to yourself.
Hard work and incentive create social fabric. This system worked bloody well for my grandparents and parents even though they lived through some hard times.
WFF will turn Kiwis into an island of bludgers. If you don’t have the incentive to create wealth for yourself and control how that is spent then you cease to exist and become a drone to the Govt. These people will become reliant on this money and then every time we disagree with a new policy they will threaten to take the money away to shut you up.
WFF is no better than P. Give you a little to get you hooked and then your fucked.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Southern Raider
Could you whinge any more?
The fact that you don’t agree with the direction this country has chosen does not make it an island of bludgers, nor does it make it a bad place to live. I suggest to you that the majority of NZers are pretty happy with their lot. I know the people that I work with, socialise with, and regularly meet are certainly satisfied with their lives.
But stick to the angry hyperbole if it makes you feel better. Or go overseas, that way, acording to your own criteria, you’ll stop bleating.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:21 am
@Anonymous:
payment: 750, suppliment: 0; net payment = 750
payment: 900, suppliment: 47; net payment = 853
payment: 1000, suppliment: 117; net payment = 883
payment: 1100, suppliment: 186; net payment = 914
payment: 1200, suppliment: 260; net payment = 940
So: If you can fin an extra $190 a month, you can increase your mortgage repayments by $450 a month – Nice!
Interesting to see that for people moving to increase payments from (say) 1100 – 1200, the government will pay pay 74% of the costs. Not bad, is it? (and if the trend on the previous payment brackets extends, then it looks like they may pick-up even more at higher repayment amounts).
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:23 am
“People should not fear their Governments,…..Goverments should fear their people!”
V for Vendetta starts today….get along and see it, ….before its too late! (which Im thinking it is!)
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Coming from the UK, I am familiar with mortgages being offered tax relief.
Vote:But I understand this was either kicked in the head completely or minimised substantially as it was costing the government too many billions in tax revenue.
But can anyone justify why taxpayers should be subsidising a larger mortgage for anonymous?
I cannot.
I earn $55K, my partner is on $32K and I would love for us to be able to afford our own place.
Other than some poky inner city shoebox, home ownership is out of the question.
We both bust our asses off at work yet have little to show for it.
Were I not supporting other people’s families, were I not, as I have now learned, paying other people’s mortgages (not just my landlord’s), then we just might make some progress in life.
I am in my late 30s and yet bar a few thousand dollars in the bank, which I hope one day will make a deposit for a property, I have nothing to show for my efforts.
I have always believed in standing on your own two feet but the burden of supporting so many others is becoming too much for me that we just might as well bugger off to Australia.
Not only are the wages higher, but outside Melbourne and Sydney, you can get a half-decent brick-and-tile bungalow for $200-250K.
And that would be a vast improvment on renting the tiny but nice inner-city shoebox I currently have.
I am increasingly becoming ever more disgusted with Helengrad and my love affair with this country is fading fast thanks to the idiotic polices of this Liar-bour government that will ultimately wreck New Zealand.
Policies like subsidized mortgages and working for families just make my blood boil.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Has anyone ever thought about yet another consequence of tax rebates/WFF instead of tax cuts? We have a fine parallel economy running – ie – working for cash. People continue to take all sorts of benefits while working for cash and not declaring that income. Most work even below minimum wages. People are on ACC, and other benefits and earning cash on the side.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Andrew Bannister wrote:
ps, smoking and drinking are a choice behaviour, that have very high social costs. Seems fair that the users pay!
I reply:
Welcome to the 21st century, Andrew, where more and more women regard child-bearing as “choice behaviour”.
Weizguy wrote:
Could you whinge any more?
I reply:
Vote:And could you be any more patronising? I know there are folks on all sides of the political spectrum who think a democracy is no place for dissent or opposing points of view, and they really need to get over themselves. Why don’t you put up an argument instead of sneering?
March 30th, 2006 at 11:41 am
weizquy – you may think SR is a whinger, but at least he’s not a fuck wit, unfortunately the same can’t be said for yourself.
This place has been a breeding ground for bludgers for some time, Labour have now created an imbalance for the sole purpose of getting re elected.
Look at the present Govt, most would not be a miss at a village idiot convention, and the rest don’t do enough to register above the radar.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:44 am
anonymous: “I guess if the interest rates go up, they’ll give me more? But if policy changes, its mortgagee sale time?”
No, if policy changes, you go back to your bank and lower your repayments…
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:44 am
It is nothing short of outrageous that the “WFF” non sense has gone so far. I am not one of the far right or libertarians who think that government has ‘no place’ in people’s lives…. however, I do believe that the meddling authoritarian nonsense that Labour’s policy has become will eventuall ruin this country completely.
In the ’30s labour’s introduction of the welfare state (and the family benefit etc) adressed a very real need in society AT THAT TIME and it was a noble and farsighted social development.
Now, however, government has squeezed so far up its own backside in its attempts to control our every move that the whole mess has gotten out of hand. Instead of concentrating on the core business of providing (through out taxes) the basics of a civil society, this Labour party seems to want total control of every facet of society.
These paternalistic asshole ned to be voted out before they destroy what was once a proud and capable country.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:49 am
All conscious behaviour is by choice, unless coerced (e.g. if a woman has a child, it’s by her choice, except if she is raped in a country where abortion is completely illegal).
If you want to have children, fine. Just don’t expect me to pay to raise them.
If you want to smoke, fine. Just don’t expect me to pay for your healthcare.
Etc., etc., bloody etc. The principle here is *really* easy to identify and apply.
Anway, most of the people commenting on this thread are missing the point.
The second you say that people are *entitled* to charity, and set up a welfare state to provide charity through compulsory taxation, you *will* wind up where we (not just NZ, the US is almost as bad) are now: rampant welfarism, irresponsibility, and a constant demand for more welfarism.
Arguing about the mechanics of the welfare state is a little like arguing with your mates at the pub about whether you’d rather die of thirst or hunger.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am
“It is nothing short of outrageous that the “WFF” non sense has gone so far. I am not one of the far right or libertarians who think that government has ‘no place’ in people’s lives..”
Just what place does Government have in peoples lives then Dave? Honest question and one I think a lot of people need to stop and really think about.Why do we need a Government? Whats its legit role? When has it over stepped its bounds?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 11:59 am
In the 1950′s novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, her novel that showed what happened when the creators of wealth stopped producing and departed from the parasitic society that leached on them to survive and then treated them with contempt into the bargin.Once the creators were gone the whole rotten Socialist edifice collasped under its own contradictions. Why does this story resonate with me more and more as time goes by in this country…..?
Would it be possible to get the remaining Atlas’s here to just stop and thereby deliver a massive jolt to the parasitic thieves that form our current Government and a wake up call to whats left of humanity in the NZ people? …..sigh!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Newsflash James: they already are … just look at the emigration stats
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Craig
I’m not arguing against dissent, i’m arguing against arguments like the one put forward by Southern Raider. UK kiwi isn’t allowed to comment on NZ tax policy because SR assumes he/she is in the UK? How does that work? I recognise that SR doesn’t agree with WFF, it’s not my favourite policy either, but I can hardly support the description that SR gave of a country I love.
I read a post with which I disagreed, and commented on it. I was simply pointing out what I thought was a problem with SR’s position.
Why haven’t I weighed in about the WFF v tax cuts debate? Probably because I don’t have a huge love of either option. You’re not suggesting I do a Cadmus and support every single thing the Government does are you?
Perhaps I was patronising, but SR’s comment pissed me off, so I decided to weigh in.
culma
I simply don’t support the contention that every person who accepts a benefit is a bludger. I find that characterisation offensive. We have benefits for a reason. Why do you have so much hatred for someone who requires a little bit of extra help so they can support themself, their family, their children. In an ideal world, there’d be no need for benefits, but until we get to utopia, i’m happy with making sure everyone has the support they need.
Nice ad hominem by the way – very clever.
Oh, and I am so sick of the oft repeated “Liar-bour” and “Helengrad”. They were funny the first time. Now they’re just juvenile.
That is all. For now.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Having a whistful moment Duncan….thanks for the reality check.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I wonder if we could set up a site where people emigrating from N.Z. could state their reasons for doing so?
A lot of people emigrate for economic reasons, but there’s little media attention on the issue – much easier & safer to cover a speeding motorcade than a country in tatters …
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
We are stuck with WFF i am afraid.
Once a Benefit is given, it is very difficult to withdraw. Even though National might abhor the WFF benefit, they wont be able to scrap it in their first term back in power.
Things will have to get REALLY bad before the majority of NZer’s would accept the loss of that income source. But, just because we cant scrap it immediately doesnt mean it was a good idea to start with.
I have to ask though, where did the name Working for Families come from? I mean, who is supposed to be doing the working? Is Labour saying that THEY are working for families? Are they claiming that THEY earned that money being handed out?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
“I wonder if we could set up a site where people emigrating from N.Z. could state their reasons for doing so?”
Nice idea….it might make the pricks in office squirm.And asking them what would have to change for them to decide to return would be good too…;-0
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Yeah, National doesn’t even have the balls to roll back Labour’s welfare state growth …. some opposition
I wrote about their policies here:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/618
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
It baffles me to think that WFF also applies to richie rich in a 3 peice suit with a high income, a classic example you can see is that WFF ad with the ‘well to do family’ getting dinner ready, the daughter has all the accesories of a well to do family – cellphone, ipod and the families kitchen is spruced up to that of a family earning in xs of 100k per year, WFF should only apply to those on a low income ie. under 35K not those in the high earners bracket.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
It seems odd that WFF will subsidise mortgage payments. Won’t that just contribute to house price inflation as people decide they can afford a bit more, as Anon has suggested he is thinking, as the Govt will pay the rest? Will it push rents up as well?
What will putting even more money into housing do to allay Cullen’s and Bollard’s concerns about lack of savings?
It seems to be sending some odd financial signals, let alone the social ones being debated above.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Chris,
Your argument assumes that need creates a right.
Sure, a family on $35K may *need* charitable support, whereas a family on $113K is unlikely to.
But neither can demand charity as a *right*, i.e., demand that others be *forced* to pay for it.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
It has nothing to do with not having the balls to do roll back WFF, duncan. By the time National DO get back into power, the people receiving WFF benefit payments may feel they deserve them. They will have lived with the payments, and would no doubt have reshaped their lives around the payments. The WFF benefit would be entrenched.
But, I am sure if National thought they would only have one term, they would get rid of this and the RMA within a week.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I think anonymous’s tale ( guy on 45k ) illustrated perfectly how these benefits ( incl. accomodation benefit ) distort purchasing/spending.
Personally I think we should have wefare, but it should be for those really in need and focused on improving their welfare.
But this sort of wefare state is frankly out of control, surely the best way too support a person on 45k a year when you have a 6+ billion surplus is tax cut’s not benefits.
I’m growing appalled at how all the work of Roger Douglas/Ruth Richardson to create an open transparent economy is being ruined by the current government.
Nigel
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Working for Families is seriously sinister policy, not because it was a blatant election bribe, although it was, and not because its social engineering, although it is.
It’s because it reveals that Labour now see welfare not as a necessary evil that, in a perfect world, we would not require, or a compromise with poverty, or the least worst solution to the problems of social inequality – something to be gradually phased out as the wealth of that society increases, but as a panacea that should be extended to more and more recipients.
Someone mentioned ‘Atlas Shrugged’ above and although most it is tedious gibberish it does contain a grain of truth – people will not endlessly go on creating wealth if more and more of their returns are confiscated and redistributed to those that the state feels are more worthy (or more likely to vote them back into power).
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
“But, I am sure if National thought they would only have one term, they would get rid of this and the RMA within a week”
God I wish! A National goverment that said ” damm the torpedoes! Lets make hay and burn this thing down while we can” would get my vote!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Nigel,
If you think welfare (by which I take it you mean that people should be taxed, compulsorily, to fund it) … how would you go about preventing the inevitable growth of the welfare state?
I put it to you that there is no way to do so, save for preventing welfare recipients from voting.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
weizquy – we have gone past the point of what benefits were introduced to achieve, they were a stop gap measure to get people over a hurdle, now they are a career, those that are now 3rd and 4th generation bennies, don’t know any different. They think that $200 bucks a week is the grand slam, and this is where the term Oxygen Thief comes from.
The most brain dead comment I’ve heard recently was made by Trevor Mallard, he commented, that the NZ athletes at the commonwealth games needed to get tougher. This coming from a Govt that has done more to minimise the fortitude necessary to gain excellence, rather following the path of mediocrity, (everyone gets a medal irrelevant of where they finished), of course you aren’t going to promote excellence. This is what WFF will achieve, people towing the party line, and all finishing somewhere in the middle. at least a tax cut gave us the opportunity to direct spending in the best direction for the individual and family.
I’m glad you picked up that wee stab at our Helen.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
“Someone mentioned ‘Atlas Shrugged’ above and although most it is tedious gibberish it does contain a grain of truth – people will not endlessly go on creating wealth if more and more of their returns are confiscated and redistributed to those that the state feels are more worthy (or more likely to vote them back into power).”
While disagreeing with the gibberish comment its good to see that the point of the book was understood Danyl.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Well, this is all rather amusing for me as I don’t pay tax in New Zealand, nor do I receive handouts from the NZ government.
The Labour side of the argument assumes that people are stupid, useless, pathetic and need assistance.
The National / ACT side of the argument assumes that people are hard-working, able, intelligent, and able to make their own decisions for themselves.
…and they are both right, some of the time.
But you can’t win, no matter which policy you choose.
If you choose the National / ACT side of the argument you’ll inevitably have some needy people struggling, because they fit the mold that Labour’s argument subscribes to.
If you choose the Labour side of the argument you’ll inevitably have productive, valuable people saying “f u” and heading off overseas (excuse my arrogance), or simply saying “f u, why not be less productive and sponge a little bit myself” (Hell, if I were living in New Zealand I’d be so inclined).
Under Labour you have a shitty lazy society (oh but at least it’s “fair”), and under National / ACT you have more people enjoying higher standards of living, but some people miss out because they are left behind.
This is the ridiculous thing about having one set of rules for all. ACT talk about choice in education, because parents are able to best recognise how their children will be able to become the best they can be. Different teaching styles can be suitable for different children, because, hello, one size does not fit all.
There needs to be some realization of this in the adult world as well. The sooner people realize that both policies are doomed to fail some people, and thus the nation as a whole, the better, and all these endless unproductive arguments of Left vs Right / Socialism vs Capitalism can end once and for all. Imagine if the same amounts of thought energy were spent on thinking up a new paradigm! New Zealanders would have been first to Mars years ago
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Spam- yes, $450 extra mortgage payment if I can find $190 (about the limit of what I really can “find”) more than that would be too tight… EXCEPT, dont forget the family assistance just went up too… if I put half of that towards easing our lifestyle, and half towards repayments, thats $700 extra a month (nearly double my current payment).
This means if I can find the cash to support an extra $30k mortgage over my present one, I could actually make payments, with assitance on $100k more !!!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Danyl beat me to it – Atlas Shrugged is a tedious bore of a book that takes 1000 pages to say what could have been said in 200, and I am especially referring to D’Anconia’s rant halfway through the book. However, the central tenet of the book – that the producers of wealth and capital should be respected and admired, not punished.
In a sense, the withdrawal of labour and capital from New Zealand that Rand suggested would happen does reflect the modern economy where economic opportunity means that businesses, capital and labour are going to where they will be appreciated better – Australia being the most obvious example.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Camryn. If you look at Republic of Ireland the offered incentives via tax breaks for companies, local/international to set up businesses. Anyone that did set up with staff would be expecting the tax rate not to go up over night. The Irish govt know this and the likelyhood of either political party in Ireland of throwing out the goose that lays golden eggs, via vast tax increases is next to nil.
In MZ are markets are further away, we rely on foriegn investment which we are getting plenty of, and those International Investors are happy with the tax rates we have at the moment just like new immigrants who want to start a life/Business here. I’m sure todays immigrant knows enough about NZ economy before they pack up and move over, than in the past.
How I see it the govt of NZ is more cautious about tax incentives. Who knows what could happen in the world in these uncertain times, terrorism, Pandemics, etc. Once we open the doors to major tax cuts, we can’t go back on deals with International Financiers/Business who would expect those incentives to be in place for a number of years. The govt of the day through factors beyond it’s control could not directly increase the tax rate. With the WFF package you are getting the best of both worlds, NZ still getting plenty of overseas investment and business at the current tax rate, We are also running a surplus with our present tax laws. The WFF package is internal and has no effect internationaly, if things change it is easier to deal with changes to WFF than losing credibility on the world economic stage especially if we start chopping and changing the tax laws all the time. In the end NZ priority is NZ. International people are happy enough how we run our country. I can’t see your problem.
BTW I’m not getting anything from the WFF either.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Darren- Justify it? Theres no way I can justify it, I can fathom no reason WHY I should be entitled to this much (if indeed any) assitance… you’re damn right its not fair.
On the other hand, would/could you refuse if you found yourself in the same situation? Its very difficult to deny your own personal quality of life in favour of the good of the nation or similar lofty ideals.
Graeme Edgeler- How do you lower your repayments on a fixed interest loan thats already the maximum term the lending institute is prepared to give? Such a loan is probably only reducing the capital borrowed by $100-$200 a month, so even if the policy doesnt change for 5 years… the actual principal has been reduced so little as only a very small extension is available. If the assitance levels were reduced more than nominally, mortgagee sales would indeed become likely rather than possible
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Cadmus,
You speak as if the money in question belonged to the Government.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Weizguy wrote:
Why haven’t I weighed in about the WFF v tax cuts debate? Probably because I don’t have a huge love of either option. You’re not suggesting I do a Cadmus and support every single thing the Government does are you?
Perhaps I was patronising, but SR’s comment pissed me off, so I decided to weigh in.
I reply:
Ah, I know what you mean – but sooner or later you have to decide not to feed the trolls, or just waste a lot of time and energy on people who are utterly immune to rational argument.
Anyway, I get pissed off at the nasty strain of born to rule arrogance in Labour circles were any criticism of their policy is “talking New Zealand down”; or if you have a problem with WFF then you desperately want to see children living in Dickensian squalor. No, when this policy was announced The Herald ran a lachrymose piece about how hard it was to live on two-incomes of $100K – well, yes, I guess it’s pretty tricky when you’re young, tertiary-educated, middle class and CHOSE to have three children AND take out a substantial mortgage to live in a rather expensive – but highly fashionable – part of inner-city Auckland. Just don’t expect me to get the sympathy glands pumping too hard for the fiscal angst of the urban bourgeoise with their hands out for the kind of middle-class welfare that would have made Savage puke. I’ll serve that for kids in Northland who are living in the kind of conditions you’d be prosecuted for keeping pigs in.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Ayn Rand, thats a hoot, even her own Husband Frank Connor didn’t know what she was on about most of the time.
Vote:To rate Rands work read “The night of January 16″ Rands attempt at breaking into the fiction market, the trouble was most thought all of her work was fiction in the first place. Poor soul died with only a paid nurse as company.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
@anonymous – My advice would be that rather than put your money into a bigger mortgage, use it to pay-off you current one faster.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Congratulations Cadmus – you’ve proved yourself capable of writing a first-rate ad-hominem attack against a dead lady.
Now, care to address the validity of her ideas?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Duncan, The value of your NZ $$$ to buy items/services is the responsibility of the govt. Or do you prefer to use another “GOVTS” currency?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Duncan, If Rand had all the great ideas why did the US govt have to bring in the social security act of 1964?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Anonymous, yes, I don’t blame you for taking free money.
The blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Helen Clark’s government.
And the bludgers who voted her back in.
As for WFF, I have no problem with extra help for those at the bottom end.
Vote:I would cheerfully strangle that obvnoxious girl in the tv ad with her ipod earpiece, as I feel like I paid for the bloody thing.
While I have a cheap 3 year-old Nokia phone, I have no ipod.
Craig is right. There are much more deserving cases for welfare, as he has highlighted. The prosperous middle classes, who can get WFF, are not needy of it.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Cadmus,
Perhaps you should read up on commodity-backed currency. There is no reason the Government should have anything to do with banking or money, and in fact, their intervention in that field is the cause of the business cycle.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Craig
post election NZ has been an interesting time. It’s far easier to assess policies when you’re no longer knee deep in the mire of pre-election fervour. I find that it enables one to properly review the pros and cons of what was promised to us. I’m still assessing WFF, but I don’t think blind partisan vitriol is of assistance to anyone.
I don’t think the born to rule attitude serves anyone well. Not National in the 90s, and not parts of Labour now… My particular area of interest is justice/corrections – consequently, i’d rather see money spent on increasing lower incomes, we’ll see.
How much of the bourgeoise is actually clamouring for this extra cash?
How many people are actually having more kids so that they can get access to WFF top-ups?
Isn’t this just a case of the blogosphere getting all het up about things that most people don’t really care about?
I prefer to look at it as a distibution of funds to those who need – and i’m not talking about the parents. I’m talking about the kids. I’m not throwing out tear stained epithets about starving children, just a plea for children to be well fed, educated, and happy. Though I recognise that throwing money is not necessarily the answer…
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Craig said:
Welcome to the 21st century, Andrew, where more and more women regard child-bearing as “choice behaviour”.
Sorry, Craig, not sure I get your point with this.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Duncan, I worked as a commodity trader with a CFTC licence for Jardine Matheson in the US yers back. I have a rough idea how things work
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Anonymous asks: “Graeme Edgeler- How do you lower your repayments on a fixed interest loan thats already the maximum term the lending institute is prepared to give?”
You don’t. If that’s the situation then you’re likely right. I was considering what I thought the most likely example of people taking advantage: that is, people with a mortgage already (say at the maximum term) who realise that if they now bump up their repayments part-government-assisted to pay it off quicker. If the government assistance stops they can return to paying off the mortgage at the rate they were before they bumped up their repayments.
This is a good idea; buying a house more expensive than you can really afford in reliance on perpetual government handouts is not.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
“The govt of the day through factors beyond it’s control could not directly increase the tax rate.”
This sentence proves you dont have a clue about how things work. Once taxes are cut they can never go back up?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Cadmus,
Given your background, why do you assume the Government should take responsibility for the value of the dollar (i.e., reserve banking & fiat currency)?
Why not deregulate the market for money entirely? I have seen Dr. Brash arguing against such deregulation, and the only arguments he had were that:
– someone has to set the value of money
– the Government needs to control which organisations can use the name ‘bank’
Why not have a free market for money, as existed for a very long time in the U.S.A.? Note that the Depression only happened after a switch to fiat currency & Govt. interventionism in the currency market.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
“Duncan, The value of your NZ $$$ to buy items/services is the responsibility of the govt”
No its not and the fact that they are trying to do this is the cause of the problems Cadmus.Government has no legimate role IN the economy….its proper role is like that of a linesman in rugby, to stay on the sidelines and ONLY to penalise illegal play,otherwise its should be silent.As to Atlas Shrugged….well its huge popularity and its place as probably the most inspirational work in the lives of so many pro freedom activists says it all…As well as Rands now growing influence in academia nad indeed popular culture.Tv in the US is loaded with references to her.It is because Rand put her ideas into novel form that she has been so widely read and understood when other Liberal works by other great freedom fighters have not.
As to “D’Anconia’s Rant” Aaron, I say until the day that that ode to the spirit of money and those who create it is emblazoned on the wall of every National MP and Businessman in this country nothing will change and Socialism will keep on winning…Without a pricipled, philosophical foundation to base its policies on the National party is pointless.I wish it were otherwise….see what some principle nearly got you last election…into government!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Kimble of course govt can put tax rates up, I never said they couldn’t, but not as quick as the govt may like, unless they are prepared to pay the price. With WFF package it is internal policy which can be changed at the govts will.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
“Duncan, If Rand had all the great ideas why did the US govt have to bring in the social security act of 1964?”
Maybe to help fix the damage of FDR’s New Deal in the 30′s Cadmus….and that Depression he caused to linger on far longer than was nessessary …?
Government running the economy..Jesus!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
So you are saying that it is politically easier to cut benefits than it is to raise taxes?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
James,
Exactly.
Even ignoring the immorality of central planning, von Mises proved that Government is *incapable* of running a national economy in any way except to destroy it, because of the scale of the data it would have to process in order to do so.
There’s a reason there were shortages of cars in Soviet Russia – and it’s the same reason there are hospital waiting lists in New Zealand.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Weizguy I was simply stating my displeasure at overseas based people making decisions on what affects the people that live here. This is the same for that guy whi gave Labour a big donation before the election because he liked what he had read about Labour, but hasn’t lived in NZ for 20 years.
And don’t question my loyalty to NZ. The reason I’m so pissed off with this Govt and WFF is that I love NZ, but it’s getting shafted by these socialist policies.
Just have a look at how well France is going at the moment.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
“There’s a reason there were shortages of cars in Soviet Russia – and it’s the same reason there are hospital waiting lists in New Zealand.”
So what you are saying is, that time travellers went back to communist russia, stole the cars, brought them back to the future and ran over innocent new zealanders with them?
Sorry, but that is a bit of a stretch.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
James said : “Without a pricipled, philosophical foundation to base its policies on the National party is pointless”
Oh, so what does that make ACT, who now teeter on the brink of invisibility in polls? What to make of a party who hasn’t made a serious stab at policy promotion but would rather run scandals?
I get the impression you (meaning many in ACT, not you particularly) would rather sit around in small groups drinking wine and whine about philosophy than actually go out and knock on doors to tell people about what your party is about.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
“I was simply stating my displeasure at overseas based people making decisions on what affects the people that live here.”
He wasn’t making decisions – he was commenting. Surely that’s allowed?
“This is the same for that guy whi gave Labour a big donation before the election because he liked what he had read about Labour, but hasn’t lived in NZ for 20 years.”
Isn’t he rightfully allowed to donate as he wishes? Surely your not trying to impinge on his property rights?
“And don’t question my loyalty to NZ.”
I didn’t – I questioned the way that you posted, not the content.
“but it’s getting shafted by these socialist policies”
I disagree. Assertions aren’t facts. I was simply pointing out that most people don’t feel like they’re getting shafted (in my experience). Oh, and I disagree with your assumptions about the causes of french unrest.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Kimble,
ROFL! I think you know what I mean
Thanks for cheering me up though.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Duncan I did it for a 2 yrs, I learnt more in that outfit than I think I have learnt until this day, concerning how the economy of the world works. Off course things change and time moves on, but the principles never ever change.
True for once I agree with DR Brash..
- someone has to set the value of money
- the Government needs to control which organisations can use the name ‘bank’
Before that, the theory was it worked on the countries gold reserves, they could tell porkies of course. It won’t go back to that.
Duncan you miss one word out of your equation “Sovereignty” the people want to know who is running their country.
Vote:The world was a simpler place back before the depression, what happened in the past cannot be bought back today.
March 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
James ranted (about Rand)
Tv in the US is loaded with references to her . . .
You got that right.
Dwayne: [giving a tour of the underground mutant city in the sewer] This is our library.
Bender: Nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
– Futurama
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
kimble, lets say its easier to “Adjust” benefits than cut taxes in the short term.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
“Off course things change and time moves on, but the principles never ever change … The world was a simpler place back before the depression, what happened in the past cannot be bought back today.”
Right. Moving along …
You haven’t exactly addressed my question though: why does Government need to be involved in setting the value of money, when a free market for currency (which would presumably be commodity-backed, as no-one would be stupid enough to voluntarily buy fiat currency) could do it instead, and do it better?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Again “Sovereignty” what happens if a large producing country doesn’t want a part of your concept
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Cadmus,
Then it doesn’t have to be a part of it.
But which would you rather invest in: a country with a competitive currency market, with a number of well-established commodity-backed currencies … or one run on a Reserve bank and fiat currency, where the Government can print more at will?
Consider that when the US moved to fiat currency, it forced people to accept it, and made stockpiling of certain commodities (gold, e.g.) illegal.
Why? Because otherwise people wouldn’t have been at all keen on their worthless money.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
why does Government need to be involved in setting the value of money, when a free market for currency . . . could do it instead, and do it better?
I’d much rather have the value of our currency being determined by a (largely independent) central bank, the head of which is appointed by politicians answerable to the electorate than have it being screwed by a bunch of FX traders and currency speculators who aren’t answerable to anyone.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Danyl,
The system you are supporting was responsible for the Great Depression. Like welfarism, fiat-currency Reserve Banking is a broken system; there is no way to make it work.
Taking the US as an example again, inflation of fiat currency has been responsible for loss of an incredible amount of wealth by US citizens.
The Ludwig von Mises institute covers the issue of fiat vs. commodity-backed currency in detail here:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/moneyback.asp
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Duncan, Again you’re talking history, and only looking at one piece of the puzzle. There is an old saying…good economics isn’t necessarily good politics. Your theory is flawed by having a divided world economy, you’re forgetting we live in a world of different ideologies. Playing one country off against another for a better deal won’t work, thats how conflicts are caused.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
“Oh, so what does that make ACT, who now teeter on the brink of invisibility in polls? What to make of a party who hasn’t made a serious stab at policy promotion but would rather run scandals?”
Leaving aside the fact that ACT has been putting out policy until blue in the face and getting dick all credit for it (bar National who swiped it and damm near won an election with it
) I agree Aaron.ACT’s current blood letting and shake down is the end result of having tried to marry up contradictions in the views of its people for far too long.Conservatism vs Liberalism in the same party was always going to come to a head and it has.ACT will either grow now the baggage (you and yours) are gone or it will die.NZ needs a Liberal/ libertarian party on the job to counter the Socialist damage inflicted by Labour on purpose and by National in ignorance.We have enough parties wanting to rule over others….can’t we have even one that stands for freedom?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Cadmus,
Are you saying that NZ should keep fiat currency & reserve banking, despite it being a bad idea, just because everyone else is doing it and might get pissy with us if we provide a more attractive market for investors?
‘Cos that’s sure what it looks like you’re saying.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
“James ranted (about Rand)
Tv in the US is loaded with references to her . . .
You got that right.
Dwayne: [giving a tour of the underground mutant city in the sewer] This is our library.
Bender: Nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
- Futurama”
Its still a reference Danyl!
And I await to see you put up a philosopy for living that comes close to the non contradictory one Rand created…
You appear to favour “Please nanny wipe my botty! ” socialism…which is your right but says much about your lack of any self esteem.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
The biggest problem with WFF is the effective marginal tax rates. Great idea for “growing the economy”, giving 20c of your benefit back for each extra dollar earned, plus all other benefit rollbacks and income tax.
Perhaps we should be a bit more cautious at throwing money at children through their parents. Maybe we don’t need to go so far as socialising births (so you can’t have your own children when you want, the state organizes births), but if you want to get paid for having children, you have to have some kind of evidence that you’re actually doing some good for this. Perhaps a “Child-Rearing” degree. Also could remove stigma, “I’m a *professional* mother”.
You can’t choose your own parents. If you get bad ones, you’re screwed. Of course, getting bad genes is even harder to solve, but if we can avoid the effect mediocre parents have on their kids, all the better.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Now that’s what I call a nanny state!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Duncan, I’m saying NZ is a small player in a rough & tough game. Providing a more attractive market to investors may not be the ideal thing to do if we want to keep our friends. They may have a different idea on how they see their little brother participation in the game. Your argument in my view is far to simplistic with the reality of the real world.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Now that’s what I call a nanny state!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
James, I meant to add you to my posts,
I went and saw an advanced screening of “V” for Vendetta, on Tuesday. Guy Fawkes is the main character…with “Please remember the 5 th of November” his catch phrase. When I watched the movie I thought that’s what we would be in for if Brash/Hide were running the country.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Duncan,
To some degree you are right, WWF is what annoys me most, adding additional benefits vs tax cuts.
But the alternative to centralised welfare is a system akin to the US, where you have haphazard poorly co-ordinated efforts, which don’t work real well & cost alot anyway, welfare doesn’t have to be bad & I think NZ generally does ok, I’m just really concerned about it’s current expansion.
Nigel
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Singapore doesn’t have a welfare state and they’ve flown past NZ. Remember the days we used to give them aid money.
Yes they are autocratic, but there is also a govt focused on productive growth and investment (in infrastructure).
Weizguy I don’t know where you work (it might be Winz), but everyone I work with is spewing over WFF.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I can see a business opportunity here… clearly, having more children now is the equivalent of a big fat pay rise.
Most people however quite understandably are reluctant to procreate just to increase family sizes.
So, importing children which are then sold to families wishing to enrich themselves through adoption is a great idea.
Perhaps they could pay for the children through a 30% cut of the increased WFF benefits… or 45% if the children are to be managed as well. It’s a no-cost option for the WFFamilies.
And definitely get into the mortgage brokering business. This will set the market on fire, that’s for sure.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
I went and saw an advanced screening of “V” for Vendetta, on Tuesday. Guy Fawkes is the main character…with “Please remember the 5 th of November” his catch phrase. When I watched the movie I thought that’s what we would be in for if Brash/Hide were running the country.”
Hardly Cadmus…the totalitarian system depicted is the inevertible result of pursuing a Socialist course.Socialism paves the way for totalitarianism by sweeping aside all forms of individual rights and action…in “the common good”.See what happened to the Russian revolution once Stalin took over.All the ground work for his tryanny had been done for him by Marx, Lenin et al.Its interesting that both the religious Right and “liberal” Left in the States are panning the film…maybe its a bit too close to home for them…?
Personally I belive Rodney is the closest thing we have to to V here…just not in tights hopefully!
(Libertarians are loving it by the way!)
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Oh my god – I actually agree with cadmus:
kimble, lets say its easier to “Adjust” benefits than cut taxes in the short term.
Only because you have lefties bleating about how its “tax cuts for the rich” and completely ignoring who actually pays the tax in the first place.
Just because its easier doesn’t mean its better or the right thing.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Usual partisian hackery.
All that matters is your nett income, your gross income (before tax and benefits) is irrelevant. A benefit is nothing more or less than a negative tax. For the employed who are paying PAYE tax, WFF is simply a tax cut.
Which is exactly what you asked for….the only trouble is, because most you right wing nutjobs posting here do not appear to have children, then you do not qualify for the tax cut. Tough…grizzle and whine all you want, I do not give the proverbial.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
WFF is a tax cut, our resident rightie Logix says so, must be true.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
No Logix – WFF is NOT a tax cut. If it were: 1.) I would benefit; 2.) Tax-cuts don’t come with an admin overhead.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
With the abatement, WFF is enssentially income bracketing, bonding people into a set income band.
rightie – as in always right
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Red tape don’t come free! By cutting tax you get the obvious benefit of less admin as well as more money in your pocket.Last time I looked it cost the NZ taxpayer $2:70 odd to get $1:00 back in State sevices….please explain how thats a good deal someone…
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
“All that matters is your nett income, ”
To you maybe. For some of us government wastage is important, and WFF may be a tax cut in effect but it is a ‘tax cut’ which costs more than a tax cut should.
Also, it makes the recipient dependent upon the state for part of their income. This is not insignificant.
If your starting point is “all wealth and income belongs to the government and individuals only get the wealth the government lets them have” then you will not percieve any problem with WFF.
On the other hand, most on the right believe that “the government relies upon the production of the individual to fund itself and public goods”.
Do you want to live in a country where the assumption of those in charge is that you work for the State and you only get what the State decides you should get?
Who do you work for?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Well the state IS sovereign according to Helens infamous quote of a few years back Kimble….so head down,arse up and pick that cotton boy!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Logix wrote:
Which is exactly what you asked for….the only trouble is, because most you right wing nutjobs posting here do not appear to have children, then you do not qualify for the tax cut. Tough…grizzle and whine all you want, I do not give the proverbial.
I reply:
*grr* Sorry for responding in kind, Logix, but why don’t you go stick you presumptuous, condescenting breeder head up your double-wide arse? I don’t have a problem with WFF because I’m gay, sterile and my partner is over sixty – mye odds of fathering, or adpoting, a child are roughly zero – but because I believe it’s bad public policy, fiscally irresponsible, and designed to largely privilege the affluent who neither need nor deserve middle-class welfare.
I’m just grateful that I’m never going to have to look my children or grandchildren in the eye, and tell them why my generation (and yours) lived under the delusion that someone else was always going to pick up the tab.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Logix you complete cock.
Ever heard of something called personal responsibility ie you don’t go off and start a tribe until you can afford to look after them yourself.
You sum up Labour supporters. Fucken bludgers!
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
so call it a targeted tax break.
Vote:It’s targeted at the lower end of the after kids income scale, so no the higher wage earner or people without kids don’t get the break.
Well tuff titty, when tax breaks are given as a %%% as they usually have been in the past, the winners have been the higher income earners.
The WFF was touted for those with lower incomes or for people with larger families. To take advantage of one needs to have a family that fits the criteria.
Though it is of no advantage to me as my kids are now working, it has to be worth a try.
Not all of us are such greedy sods that every tax break has to go our way.
As said once before go back to Muldoons day and pay $0.60c in the Dollar at the higher tax rates as it was. Then you might have something to cry about.
March 30th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Logix wrote:
A benefit is nothing more or less than a negative tax. For the employed who are paying PAYE tax, WFF is simply a tax cut.
Simply not true.
1. As many have pointed out, the cost of collecting, distributing and administering this process hugely reduces its value. Advertising, software, helplines, forms, policing, offices etc. etc. – none of which are needed for a tax cut.
2. More importantly, tax cuts always increase the incentive to create wealth. Transfer payments create the opposite incentive. The effect of which is that, over time, those who remain in this country will tend to work less hard. Economic growth falls, and everyone is worse off, even the beneficiaries.
Why do the Left not see this? History demonstrates it again and again.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
JohnD not every one has or wants to have children, it’s a personal choice. Why should these people have to support those that do?
You call us selfish. Do you think people fall out of bed into high paying jobs? There will all was be some exceptions, but the vast majority have got where we are through education, get up and go and a shit load of hard work.
Your the one that seems to have a chip on his shoulder about past changes to tax brackets. You will see under Labour that between tax rate changes, tax brackets and inflation it’s been all bad news for us.
What is your issue with people with drive and ambition and personal responsibility?
Your not in a union are you?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Craig,
I may be a condescending breeder, but I assume it was some “breeder” that brought you into this world? Look around you mate, every single one of the people you know, work with, sleep with and who are part of this world you live in….was created by one of us “breeders”. I really do not think we have anything to apologise for.
And if you have not managed, nor plan to raise children to adulthood, then good luck to you I really have absolutely no quibbles with your choice. But it is richly presumptious of you to tell me how “condescending” I am for telling you that raising kids is EXPENSIVE…in the order of 200-300k per child from zero to 20yrs….and you get sod all thanks for it.
Having children is both a responsibility to the parents and society as a whole. It is no longer acceptable in a modern nation such as ours to raise children in the kind of poverty and servitude that is common in the Third World. If you attempted to do so, you would be rightly charged and condemmed for child abuse. I repeat, having children, feeding, housing, doctoring, educating, and entertaining children even to a minimum acceptable standard, can no longer be done for nothing.
Now unless you want to argue that it would be a good thing that everyone simply made the economic and environmentally sane choice to simply have no children at all…and allow the human race to die off simply because it became all too expensive…then you are faced with the prospect of needing some of us “double wide arsehole breeders” to actually have children.
As one of my acquaintances put it just today…he is on a good salary in the order of 80k plus a car and full benefits, but with his wife at home looking after three young boys, he only just makes his way each month. I assure you, he is a careful and sensible man who does not waste his money. When I was in his position decades ago, I too was always financially stretched. And if you really think parents are all bludgers, then answer me this. If both parents both work, then they are taxed as individuals, but if only one parent works, and the other devotes themselves to raising the children, then that parent is classed as a “dependent” and is entitled to nothing.
Souther Raider,
Personal responsibility? Of course parents take responsibility…it is you who is being a total cock…99.999% of parents do their best to love, nuture and bring up children as best they can, and in doing so shoulder a huge burden of responsibility, one that they willingly accept with few regrets.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Logix if “99.999% of parents do their best to love, nuture and bring up children as best they can, and in doing so shoulder a huge burden of responsibility, one that they willingly accept with few regrets” then why do they need to put their hand into my back pocket?
My partner and I intend to have kids some day. It will be our decision and I expect to take into account the costs. Because it is my decision I don’t expect anyone else to have to pay for my decision.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
1. As many have pointed out, the cost of collecting, distributing and administering this process hugely reduces its value. Advertising, software, helplines, forms, policing, offices etc. etc. – none of which are needed for a tax cut.
No problem at all with this reasoning. There is a simple mechanism to get around this question. It is called Universal Basic Income. However we do not have it, and any attempt to introduce it would be killed off by the right wing. In the absence of the correct solution, we are have to use the tools available to use, namely IRD and WINZ. IRD is a blunt non-targetted tool, whereas WINZ can be targetted. Therefore if you want a targetted tax cut, you have to use the WINZ benefit mechanism. Less that ideal, but it is what we have.
If you want a better system, then UBI is the way to go….but you would never go there, so why should I bother trying to explain it to you.
2. More importantly, tax cuts always increase the incentive to create wealth. Transfer payments create the opposite incentive. The effect of which is that, over time, those who remain in this country will tend to work less hard. Economic growth falls, and everyone is worse off, even the beneficiaries
Myth. Economists have been arguing the merits of this for decades, with no clearcut answer. But go ahead and believe whatever you want… makes no difference to reality.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Southern Raider: You continually repeat half-baked libertarian talking-points about freedom et al, yet when someone disagrees with you, you deny their right to speak! Nice one.
Like it or not, families are the building blocks of society, and giving them support where needed is good policy, as the children of today are the workers and leaders of tomorrow. Maybe it could have been done with a simple tax deduction without the administrative overhead, I agree. But no man is an island, unless maybe you live in that libertarian paradise of Somalia.
And it works for the Aussies.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
My partner and I intend to have kids some day. It will be our decision and I expect to take into account the costs.
Please feel free to get back to us after the reality has kicked in. And btw….good luck…sincerely.
I repeat my original point….all that matters is your nett income. WFF is nothing more than a tax cut for parents, given in partial compensation for their substantial extra costs, AND the fact that they as far as the tax system is concerned, they are not the equivalent of two independent earners, because as a couple, one is always a dependent of the other.
You and your partner may well both have incomes at present. Fine…now wait until you only have one, it may be your choice, it may be forced on you….but do not think to line up the help that would be available to you if you were NOT a couple.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Logix how is WFF targeted if people with incomes well inexcess of $80K can receive payments. I would agree with your targeted bit if it had a upper limit cut off of $45K. No this is simply locking middle income earners into a benefit mindset.
Since your so wise on all things family can you please explain the reason why people seem to need more than two children in a family.
If your 200 to 300K per child is correct and we have some families on $35K with 8 children. How would these economics ever stack up. At your modest figure of $200K * 8 thats $1.6M or 45 years on that salary just to pay for the kids and nothing else.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Southern Raider, No i don’t have a problem with people making the choice not to have children or not being able to have children for what ever reason.
Vote:And no i am not upset about not getting much benifit from tax breaks Etc. I am of the opinion that you pay things forward, some one always misses out on tax breaks, targeted funding, or what ever else comes along.
Thats just a fact of life, someone gains and someone loses.
We all have done or are still doing the hard yards in life thats a given, but not everyone in life gets or takes the chance to inprove their curcumstances for loads of reasons i’m not going to go into.
Why do i say about Muldoon and the tax rates at the time. Only to point out that high income earners in the past also paid a high price in taxation.
And no i am not a union member.
There anticts leading up to the Dougles/Richardson reform was just a load of crapand they could go to hell.
But things go around and some of the gains that have come from that period of reforms have not trickled down to the lower waged workers.
Hence the reserection of union activity that we are seeing lately.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
JohnD – percentage cuts do not neccesarily make “the rich” “winners” (yeah, lots of “” required). I’m not going to say your statement is 100% wrong, because I base my comments on reality and critical analysis… but you sound like you’re parroting something some other leftie said once without putting in any thought at all. A few things: (1) keeping a little more of your own money doesn’t make you a ‘winner’… people who live off welfare they don’t need are ‘losers’ though; (2) a % tax cut makes a bigger difference to people on lower incomes whose situation is tighter; (3) wealthy people might just spend their tax cut on goods and services, creating jobs to get poorer people off demeaning welfare and onto their own two feet.
Cadmus – I guess you mean that international investors might be more turned off if we had to put tax up (for some reason) than if we had to cut rebates. One looks bad for business, whereas the other looks like sensible cost cutting that doesn’t effect business. That has a type of logic, but it doesn’t stack up against the incentive-distorting, bureaucracy-fuelling, horrific national-soul-destroying mess that *is* WFF. We’d be better off long-term as a nation with more self responsibility and a less controlling government, irrespective of the odd future investor that might get annoyed with taxes that we *might* have to put up. NB. We shouldn’t put up taxes even if the government needs cash… it’s like applying the brakes because the car isn’t going fast enough.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
I love this… Logix said,
Personal responsibility? Of course parents take responsibility…it is you who is being a total cock…99.999% of parents do their best to love, nuture and bring up children as best they can, and in doing so shoulder a huge burden of responsibility, one that they willingly accept with few regrets.
Come and do a tour of the West Auckland pub circuit. God dammit Logix, you are such a naive fool.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Logix wrote:
And if you have not managed, nor plan to raise children to adulthood, then good luck to you I really have absolutely no quibbles with your choice.
I reply:
Yes, Logix, you are a patronising git.
First, if you think I “chose” to be gay or went out and “chose” to get cancer so I’d end up sterile, then you’re a bigger ignoramus than I suspected.
Second, I was awake during high school biology so thanks for the heads up on the whole sexual reproduction thingy. And being a good Catholic, I believe that the last (and only) virgin birth occurred a little over two thousand years ago.
Look, I respect your real choice to have children, but I don’t respect you being a sneering idiot. It’s just not amusing when you have to resort to cheap scaremongering – I’m now not only a bitter spinster, but I won’t be happy until I see children living in Dickensian squalour? – and shrill ad hominem attacks. I don’t have children, and it’s not by choice. What’s your point? – that I’m not allowed to have a point of view on this issue, because I don’t have children. Well, using that twisted logic neither should Helen Clark or Michael Cullen. Or are their opinions valid because they conform to yours?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
The bribe of making middle class people dependent on the state for income assistance, so they always vote Labour – instead of letting people keep the money they earn.
If only Atlas would shrug and the productive people would all take 6 months off and go overseas, pay no taxes and let the snivelling little parasites who claim “entitlements” force funded by everyone else see how useful they really are – see if they get off their arses and produce something, sell something and make a living, instead of claiming it from everyone else, by force.
Welfare was once the last ditch social security for those desperately in need – Labour has mainstreamed it so most people are dependent on the state and dependent on politicians and bureaucrats giving them money back after taking it from them in the first place.
Funny also how socialists think families are so important and children important, when they also want to be environmentally friendly, yet the single most environmentally unfriendly thing anyone can do is breed. Government subsidises it.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 2:39 am
Yeah Cadmus Foreign Investors are really impressed with the way we are running our country as evidenced by the 15% fall in the $NZD over the last month…bit like rats leaving a sinking ship. Ipod’s will be going up shortly so all the “poor” people will “need” their shot of feel good goverment sponsored monetary methadone to get over that bummer trip.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 5:39 am
James wrote:
the totalitarian system depicted is the inevertible result of pursuing a Socialist course . . .
This argument is from another right-wing bible, Hayeks ‘Road to Serfdom’, and I have to concede that Hayek is a much more intelligent and articulate polemicist than Rand. The problem is, history has proved him spectacularly wrong. The social democracies of Europe have not crumbled into totalitarian nightmare states – on the contrary they’re widely regarded as the best countries in the world to live in. New Zealand has had almost 100 years of government intervention in the economy, and except for a brief stint under Muldoon our personal freedom has increased, not declined.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 6:51 am
Craig,
First, if you think I “chose” to be gay or went out and “chose” to get cancer so I’d end up sterile, then you’re a bigger ignoramus than I suspected.
Of course I do not imagine it is always a case of choice, I was really not saying anything about whether your life situation was a matter of your choices or not, I was simply saying I have no quibble with it…and you know that perfectly well.
And your strawmen are getting tiresome…I was not scaremongering about raising children in squalor, merely pointing out that the modern state madates that raising children on the cheap, as can be done in a Third World country…cannot be done here.
SouthernR
If your 200 to 300K per child is correct and we have some families on $35K with 8 children.
How about doing some elementary googling on the topic before sounding off about it?
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 7:46 am
I’ve just had a thought. If there are some MPs entitled to these handouts, guess what will come next.
Vote:They’ll be claiming that they are underpaid, and deserving of a pay rise to get them off the breadline.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:08 am
James “V” for Vendetta, the setting is an Ultra Rightwing govt, running the UK. It just reminded me if Brash/Hide were in Charge.
I thought “V” was more like the RT Hon Winston Peters.
It’s not a bad movie, I suspect Oswald Bastable maybe looking for throwimg knives on Trade Me after he sees it.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 8:19 am
Now there’s two classes,
Working Class
Welfare Class
Mission accomplished. Divide to rule. Look out for the next generation.
“Kids in TV land, you been duped”, Bart Simpson.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 8:24 am
Southern Raider, you seem very bitter about people having children, that you don’t think are responsible.
We have a case here of poster Ben Wilson who has a very sick new born baby. Ben & his wife would expect the hospital to give their baby every assistance possible. It seems you and Brash/Hide types would turn the health supply tap off if Ben & Wife didn’t have the money to pay for those services themselves ?????
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 9:11 am
Pull your head in Cadmus. I’m not bitter just pissed off.
I’m talking about people who have too many kids and can’t provide for them properly.
Ben’s is a completely different case and I think it’s very sad that your trying to make a political gain out of his situation.
I’m sure Ben took into consideration the cost of having a child and made a logical judgement. Ben and no one else can forsee that their children will have health problems.
Thats were the Health system comes in and is available to everyone. National has never talked about reducing the ability of people to access the Health system. Quite the oppoosite they would improve it. At the moment funding has increased dramatically and the number of operations has decreased. How does this equate?
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 9:13 am
I feel like I’ve wandered into a sci-fi convention.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 9:14 am
Danyl said: “The social democracies of Europe have not crumbled into totalitarian nightmare states – on the contrary they’re widely regarded as the best countries in the world to live in.”
Oh please fuck say what!!!??? Who are you kidding you doorstop…? Turn on the news sometime and see whats happening in France.The “Social democracies “you speak of are in serious trouble as years of joke economics come home to roost.These welfare states are crumbling as we speak and the only options left to Governments there are to either move towards a more free Market model…fat chance!,or increase taxes and the size of the State which will mean an advance towards the totalitarian conclusion….rather likely!
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 9:21 am
“James “V” for Vendetta, the setting is an Ultra Rightwing govt, running the UK. It just reminded me if Brash/Hide were in Charge.
I thought “V” was more like the RT Hon Winston Peters.”
And the difference between a Ultra Rightwing Government and an Ultra Left one is what Cadmus?, different wallpaper in the cell blocks…? I said before that both ends are panning the moviein the states because it attacks the evil ideas and actions that are common to both.
The RT Hon WP is the one V would be most likely to stab as he is the combination of the worst of both Left and Right.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 9:46 am
Southern raider, I’m not at all trying to make any gain from Ben. Most can relate to Ben because he posts her. I sincerely hope everything turns out OK for ben & Family.
Vote:The Trouble is Southern Raider that is how your ACT Party friends come across to the average NZer…Stuff you, what’s in it for me! attitude.
WFF is here to stay. Even your friends in National have no plans to scrap it.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:47 am
Southern Raider,
Singapore doesn’t have a welfare state and they’ve flown past NZ
Would you want to live in Singapore?
When Brash first crawled out from under his rock he used to constantly compare us to this Asian economy or that Asian economy. Quite frankly, I like living in NZ. It isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty fucking good. Of course, the grass is always greener …
By the way, you claim to be such a very hard worker. How come you have so much time to vent your anger here?
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 9:51 am
I have an alternative way of looking at it – possibly not what its architects’ intended, or, perhaps it forms part of some hidden agenda?:
In the face of a declining population growth – due to falling birth-rates, migration, and international competition for skilled migrants, the govt needs to take active steps to reverse the trend (hence the student loan scheme, changes to immigration rules etc). Increasing families and the sizes of families is therefore beneficial to the nation – thus families are rewarded with tax breaks. This is not beacause they are poor or to trap them into a benefit cycle – it is because they are providing a much needed service to the nation (they will help to support you retired baby-boomers).
I believe the Soviets used to reward mothers of ten or more children with a medal and the title of heroine of the nation. Is this where we are heading?
Life is definitely stranger than fiction.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 10:14 am
The “Social democracies “you speak of are in serious trouble as years of joke economics come home to roost.
James – you asked me earlier what my philosophy was. And my answer is that I don’t have a philosophy. I don’t believe anything, because once you start believing you tend to stop thinking. Your insistence that Europe is burning while back on Earth its nations enjoy some of the most robust economies and the highest standards of living in the world is a great example. A philosophy is often just a mechanism for people to filter out great chunks of reality that they find objectionable.
I can keep on giving you examples of how the Ayn Rand theory of history has failed to play out – the dot.com boom of the 90′s is a great example, it was mostly funded by government investment in research and universities in the 60′s and 70′s, and by a massive military build-up that poured staggering amounts of money into fledgling technology companies in the 80′s. And the fastest growing economy in the world is currently ruled by a communist dictatorship – how the fuck does that square with an Objectivist model of history?
Do yourself a favour James – put down that copy of ‘The Fountainhead’ and pick up this weeks Economist. You’ll quickly find that the world is a much more complex and interesting place than is dreamt of in your philosophy.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Sam, you needn’t go far. Australia also pays cash for babies. It is called a maternity payment.
Maternity Payment is paid to families following the birth (including stillborn babies) or adoption of a baby. It recognises the extra costs incurred at the time of a new birth or adoption of a baby and is not income tested.
Maternity Payment is a one-off payment of $3,110.00 for each child and is paid as a lump sum. It is payable for each child in a multiple birth. If there is a change in care during the 13 weeks eligibility period, the payment may be apportioned between two carers.
That should make a few heads spin!
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:18 am
Danyl,
It was recently reported that Norway (one of those great socialist models you aspire to) is forecasting to be in deep shit. They have relied on extreme incomes from North Sea Oil reserves and have been using this money to subsidise all the social reforms and welfare state.
Guess what the oil is running out and now they’re not sure how the real economy is going to be able to keep up with the bulging price tag of the Govt services.
Its nice to have great ideals when you live in a unreal situation and rely on a false sense of security like a finite resource.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:32 am
Try and keep up, ‘Southern Raider’ – the debate is about whether Socialism leads to Totalitarianism – and in the case of the Scandinavian democracies it has conspicuously failed to do so – not how Norway is going to pay its pensions in fifty years time.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:47 am
Sam said : I believe the Soviets used to reward mothers of ten or more children with a medal and the title of heroine of the nation. Is this where we are heading?”
I doubt it, Sam. The WFF rewards only those mothers who go out and work, as long as their combined income with their spouse is low. Helen has said that she does want mothers out there working for the GDP. I think WFF is designed to do that.
If Southern Raiders comments about the guy with a combined income of $75,000 who gets $210 pw in Rotorua for two children are correct, then that family is financially better off than the family with one working spouse on $95,000 with two children.
If NZ really wanted to encourage families and children, the easiest financial way to do that would be to allow income splitting. Treat the income of a sole earner as if it were earned by two people with the corresponding lower taxation. Labour will NEVER do that.
BTW, Poland currently has a medal for couples who have been married to each for 50 years and have raised a child (theirs or adopted) during that time.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Andrew, the critical thing about the Australian maternity payment is that it is NOT income tested. Everyone faces additional costs when having a new child – not just the ‘poor’.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:58 am
Toby1845, when I lived in Australia and was pregnant just over five years ago, it was income tested (you had to be on a combined income of $70,000 or less). I looked into whether we were eliglible, and yet again, we earned too much money to qualify.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
toby1845, that may be true, but the poor are going to struggle with their thier kid-costs, whereas the rich won’t. Anyway, that wasn’t my point, I responded to someone suggesting that the Soviets were paying for kids and I was merely pointing out that they also do that in Oz, under a conservative government.
Quick question Toby1845 or anyone else:
Vote:If the Oz government had decided to make the maternity payment a tax break instead (say a 12.5% reduction of the total anual tax bill), or instead of WFF here in NZ, we went for the same option (i.e. 12.5% tax reduction) what would you think of that?
March 31st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Most misguided 2006 Award.
Vote:Logix & Cadmus in a two way tie.
Coutesy of Ten Cents
March 31st, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Lucyna thank you for raising income splitting I was wondering when that would come up.The only arguments against it come from the anti family brigade.Its a simple way to recognise and encourage families.Its easy to administer.The irony is the Sisterhood who are against it dont see how they are refusing to recognise its usually the woman who stays home so her contribution is being recognised by the device.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Michael Cullen, has Treasury costed WTFF and what are the projected costs? I seem to recall MC being unable to give any cost projections.
Is this responsible behaviour? How can WFF be evaluated, and what is the objective again? There is none, is there?
See, we argue the toss while we forget the game. I suspect NZ is bleeding money and talent at a faster rate than can be sustained.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 3:30 pm
“toby1845, that may be true, but the poor are going to struggle with their thier kid-costs, whereas the rich won’t.”
That’s not the point. How would you feel if your employer decided to shape this year’s pay round on his/her perception of what you could afford.
“Well, Andrew, you’ve got a nicer car than Mary, so you can miss out on a pay rise and she can have your share.”
I take it that you would be happy about that?
As to your question (“If the Oz government had decided to make the maternity payment a tax break instead (say a 12.5% reduction of the total anual tax bill), or instead of WFF here in NZ, we went for the same option (i.e. 12.5% tax reduction) what would you think of that?”) – I’m not sure that I understand your point.
The fairest option would have been to make the first (say) $15,000 tax-free for everyone. That would ensure that those who work all get a break.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 4:12 pm
That’s not the point. How would you feel if your employer decided to shape this year’s pay round on his/her perception of what you could afford
But that IS the point – trying to help out those who might be struggling to bring up their kids. As for the comparing a hand-up to a salary – that is just stupid.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Andrew
On the one hand you are saying that the state can determine who is “in need” by using the bluntest of instruments (they have kids) while on the other you decry the suggestion that someone who has eyeballed you and your circumstances could make a value judgement as to your need.
IMHO there will be as many variations on the degree to which people might be “in need of assistance” however that may be defined, within any income band you care to name. It is the apparent arbitrariness (spp?) or randomness of WFF that is getting up a big lot of noses.
As one example, those who are in a position to manage their salaries (self employed, farmers etc) will be able to place themselves into a position to take advantage of this scheme. A blunt instrument as I said.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 6:54 pm
No Andrew, it is you that is stupid.
The hypothetical question I posed is exactly what this is all about.
Who are YOU to say that I don’t need/deserve a tax break?
Who are YOU to say that I don’t work hard enough?
Who are YOU to say that my contribution to this country is less tha some solo parent’s?
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Southern Raider: Now I’ve seen it all. Are you seriously saying that Norway, the richest country in the world, with the world’s largest single retirement fund (some $US200 billion) is an economic failure because they are somehow too ‘socialist’?
Wow. That denial of reality must take some doing.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Uknz I didn’t make that up just to amuse you.
This was from a report I read about Norway and how they are the ones now having to face reality about how to fund future social expenditure when the oil drys up.
Just think of how much construction wouldn’t be happening in Dubai without oil.
You socialists may scoff, but the money you like to throw around so easily has to come from somewhere and it’s not the unproductive elements of society that you tend to bend over backwards to appease.
Vote: