Paid Parental Leave for a year
August 29th, 2007 at 6:52 am by David FarrarThere are times when the term “Labour lite” is not 100% inaccurate. Oh there will be plenty of differences between National and Labour in policy areas such as education, tax, ACC, housing, industrial relations, law & order (to name a few) but I have to say I am disappointed to see National uncritically welcome the proposal to throw half a billion a year at extending paid parental leave.
I understand the politics that no party wants to appear unsupportive to parents and families, but I have to say I do believe families first call should be on themselves, and only those genuinely in need should fall back on the state. There are dangers in having a huge proportion of the population reliant on taxpayer money.
Quite frankly if two lawyers decide to breed, I’m not convinced that people who earn far less than both the father and mother, should have to pay more tax, so they don’t have to survive on only $250,000 for a year.
I’m all for family support, so long as it is targeted.
No tag for this post.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Here pussy pussy pussy…New Zealand calling John Key. Why not flush another 1/2 bil down the gurgler – its just petty cash!
Quite frankly if two loosers decide to breed I don’t feel it is my jb to pay for it either.
BTW DPF are you going to start a thread on the rates commission report or are we expected to hijack one of these ones? Yours Porc
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I blame the damn families commision. All they think about it work-life balance for employees, they aren’t interested in the impact on employers.
The problem is that political parties will come out and support this kind of thing as they are trying to sell themselves to interest groups. This type of political capture by interest groups also annoys me, we need some new political parties.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:36 am
“I understand the politics that no party wants to appear unsupportive to parents and families, but I have to say I do believe families first call should be on themselves, and only those genuinely in need should fall back on the state. ”
When house prices rocketing and student loans mean a permanent 10% extra tax on most young people during the years they are fertile we are danger of seeing child rearing the preserve of the rich and the welfare class.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Another incentive for self reliant New Zealanders to leave our shores.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:09 am
DPF, what does targeted mean? It means that if you decide to work you lose all the free goodies you received for not working.
Why should a lawyer not received parental leave? They’re parents as well, and they pay a lot more tax.
Your targeted scheme will make sure even less people are interested in working harder. You just get punished so much if you earn a little bit more, that you better move offshore.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:12 am
More paid parental leave is a good thing – even for lawyers…
The usually sensible David Farrar, is suggesting that lawyers and other high-earning couples should not be entitled to as much paid parental leave as those who earn less than them. Targeted support is one of those idealistic things that look good on pa…
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:32 am
As an ECE provider, reduced use of ECE services by parents for their under-ones would have a significant effect on our service, given that under-twos are funded at a higher rate. I was a little more comforted to hear John Key say on Breakfast this morning that the Families Commission’s proposal is “unrealistic” to be implemented by 2015.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Its crazy, I don’t really know what else to say. All this expecting other people to pay for the natural consequences of your own actions. We encourage the very attitudes in NZ that cause our ills. Its like drinking poison and expecting to get well. We drink poison because it tastes better than the medicine even though the results are radically different.
If it feels good do it and if those poor people aren’t feeling good after doing it – ohhh deary me thats so unfair, poor wee things tis not right after all we are all born with the right to feel good all the time. Lets take from others and give to them so they can feel good again and everybody wins because those that have been taken from can feel good knowing they’ve helped the irresponsible to feel good about themselves. All is well, lifes a party because happiness is the most valued state.
Lasting happiness is earned, its the result of making the right choices, some of which often involve going through some hardship for a while. We try to give people happiness by taking away all hardship. All they get is a temporary fix and they certainly can’t ever obtain the happiness of possessing self-respect, maturity, wisdom, patience and the sense of accomplishing worthwhile goals through developing perserverance.
We’re creating a nation of adult babies. They get fed whenever they cry, we clean up whenever they mess and we pay for their toys and amusements. Too much longer and we are f’d.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Yes good point Frank. So who is meant to pay for the constant barrage of new ideas dreamed up by bureaucrats?
This is similar to the working for families – make everyone dependent on the state. those on $60,000 are deemed ‘rich’ and made to pay the top rate of 39%, but also deemed unable to fend for themselves so require a taxpayer top-up!
I shake my head in disbelief.
Again Frank, you are on the money, so to speak. Our family are self-reliant but the 40% of our working life that is taken off us by the govt is quite simply too much. I do not carry out as much business as I am capable of because of this. And I intend to carry out less.
I simply will not expend 40% of my life for the govt.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Yes perfect man – this government in particular has created a nation of ADULT BABIES.
GROW UP!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I saw what I would call was an extraordinary artical by Colin James talking about how “independent” New Zealanders are. I almost burst out laughing. We have gradually become totally dependent on the safety net provided by the government so that it has now become our right to have it. That is the ultimate state of dependence in my book.
Frankly, I find this very depressing. Personal responsibility is a very bad word in NZ. I frankly think it is rediculous that the poor long suffering tax payer will have to fork out again because people make irresponisible decisions. It may sound harsh, but Linsay Perigo’s “if you can’t feed em, don’t breed em” has some merit.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Me-too politics! National is hoping the only difference between National and Labour is their leaders – I wonder if their supporters care?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:58 am
vto: The worst aspect is that it is another incentive to discourage capital investment in this country. It encouragess the flight of capital from this country. It removes the requirement of people standing on their own two feet. The State uses our money to prop us up, and dependency on the State becomes ingrained.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:02 am
I believe all welfare payment should be targeted, handed out only to those who need it.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:06 am
If we are really concerned about our children’s future we need to ensure their parents have the chance to stay with their kids and guide them in their formative years.
Of course Mr F picks out the extreme example, but lets be clear. what is the % of lawyers or other wealthy people in the population, 5%?
If anyone wants to out an upper limit on the income to be covered, no problem (as long as it $150k pa or so)
As an aside it’s an interesting turnabout to see a bunch of conservatives deamanding women go out to work rather than look after their kids at home. We on the left believe they should have the choice.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:08 am
DPF on Monday (Air Strike): “And if you actually knew what you were talking about you would also be aware that National is not talking radical change to the ERB. In fact if you had a brain cell to spare you would work out National’s position on the ERB is far more of a u-turn than that on the strike force.”
DPF today: “Oh there will be plenty of differences between National and Labour in policy areas such as education, tax, ACC, housing, industrial relations…”
Now David, I know you national-party types are big fans of the memory-hole (and given what happened last time you were in govt I’m not surprised) but to go from IR being a “u-turn” on Monday to it being a policy difference on Wednesday is a bit rich. And you guys used to be so good at staying on message. Mojo?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:25 am
“As an aside it’s an interesting turnabout to see a bunch of conservatives deamanding women go out to work rather than look after their kids at home. We on the left believe they should have the choice.”
Heh ok that’s funny. I hope it was meant to be.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Sonic, you on the left believe that we should fund them to have a choice. We on the right believe they should have a choice, but that choice should be constrained by their circumstances. They shouldn’t have a call on the rest of us because of their choice.
Just like we also believe that people should have a choice to not work, but they shouldn’t expect us to fund their lifestyle when they choose not to work. Most of us are quite happy funding those who, through no fault of their own, cannot find work. Given the current state of our labour market, there are not many people who would meet that definition.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Paul, if you don’t fund it then for 90% of the population it is not a choice at all.
Do you really not see the benefit to society to have parents spending more time with their kids?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Sonic, your ilk live on a completely different planet to me.
But I would like to move to your planet because I would like the choice to live a different lifestyle to what I do now. Sonic, please send me a cheque for $10,000 to fund the first month of this choice.
One other question Sonic – how do you earn your keep?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I’m certainly not loyal to any particular party Robinson. I’m loyal to my beliefs and sometimes its depressing trying to find who I can honestly support in such a case. Too often to get one thing you like you must accept some other policy you hate. Bit of a weird balancing act that usually can’t be balanced these days.
Enough ranting for today…off to find some rope…
…stupid furniture delivery truck drivers. Why do they attempt driving onto and then reversing up out of a grassy downhill facing slope after rain? No other truck drivers coming here ever do that. Oops ranting…
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:40 am
DPF, the thing about targeting state assistance like this to exclude, in your example, lawyers earning $250,000pa is that it’s those high-income earners who’re actually paying for a very very large share of the income tax take. I can see what you’re getting at, but I think it’s injust to say “You’ll pay 50% of the income tax we collect, but you’re going to be cut out of the things we fund from that tax”.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Targeted family support yes. I agree that paid parental leave is necessary, and that the father should get more paid time also. I welcome this idea. Don’t worry, There are plenty of other things to ‘throw’ money at already that involve much less merit than this one, so why not concentrate on them?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Why do people not see that the ever-growing bubble of state handouts and reliance is completely unsustainable? The logical extension to this is that everyone receives state funding for their entire existence!
Can someone who favours state assistance please explain where the money comes from? It is a simple question – please answer it sonic, or lee c or similar
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:02 am
a years paid leave? are these people fucking insane????
so, i have a sales rep, she gets pregnant and takes a YEAR off????
how the hell do i fill that position with a quality employee? hi, you have the job, please work hard, build a relationship with your customers, be the best you can be!!! but in 12 mths – piss off, cause there is no job..
ohhhh look what happened, i had to employ someone crap for the job cause its only gonna last 12 mths.. then the person on parental leave phoned up after 11 months and said – im not coming back! now im stuck with a doofus..
this sounds like great policy.
i hope the parties realise this will lead to discrimination against women who are of child bearing years!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:13 am
According to the New Zealand Herald – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=1500859&objectid=10459917 – “New Zealand is in the midst of a mini-baby boom that experts say was partly fuelled by child-friendly policies.” Funnily enough, this family friendly baby boom is brought to you courtesy of the feminazi lesbian cabal of the Liarbour party, whose gay Marxist conspiracy has somehow managed to construct the most family friendly environment in a quarter of a century. Now we see yet further family friendly policy suggestions being attacked by the right! So let me get this straight. cheerleading growing wealth inequality, supporting child thrashing, cutting the incomes of the poorest New Zealand families, bemoaning any form (let alone extension of) paid parental leave and demanding tax cuts for the richest of our (largely) offshore absentee rentier class makes you pro-family on Kiwiblog?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am
how are tax cuts family friendly?? well for a start – they dont turn hard working people into beneficiaries!!!
how bout the single guy (like myself) who is working his ass off to have a solid finincial foundation before even contemplating having kids?? or am i just meant to be a slacker, have kids and be dependant on the state?
child thrashing?? im not even going to address that stupid claim
weatlh inequality?? new zealand is the new brazil BAHAHA wealth inequality stems from losers that dont want to work and rely on the state
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:30 am
If NZ was actually moving up in the OECD rankings into the top third then I guess this could be fairly debated.
But as we are trending south at a high rate of knots to the point where we are seriously challenging for the booby prize then this should consigned to the bottom of the wish list.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Funny then Ross that all of the economies above us on the OECD scale can manage to give longer family leave than us without collapsing into penury.
How do you explain that?
Dime, any chance you could stop just thinking about yourself and look at the bigger picture?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Yet again, another busy day in that Auckland office……..
Vote:G
August 29th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I quote Minister of Labour, Ruth Dyson “this is not a Government policy”.
The Families Commission comes up with ideas just like any other institute, on how best to look after families. It isn’t constrained by political reality – thats the whole of having an independent Commission.
In same the way as Treasury proposes tax flattening and rate shifting. Those policies only achieve economic objectives. Perhaps the right could frame the Families Commission plan as an “ideological burp”.
Politics is partly about the marrying and prioritizing of those objectives, and not just nationally or locally, but individually.
Some people would rank their family as a higher priority than their job/career – as if they were seperable parts. And thats their choice – I concur with Sonic here.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:44 am
This is crap. My kids were in care at an early age as my wife went back to work quite soon after the kids were born (about three or four months if I remember correctly). They are two wonderful, clever and well adjusted kids. When they were 2.5 – 3 they both went to pre-school as well. I think the interaction with other kids and adults has made them the socially well-adjusted younguns they are today.
Personally, I agree with posters above who say that the responibility of kids lies with those who have them. I didn’t want your money then and I don’t want it now.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Oh My God WTF is this country turning into? There is no personal responsibility or accountabilityin anything – nanny has built a country of bludgers.
It should be a choice to have children based on a number of factors just as it is a choice not to have children. So that individual/family that does not have kids gets discriminated against and pays for all the others? It’s mental – just like the kids that keep on breeding & abusing or neglecting their gravy train – again I as a hard working taxpayer shell out for them, hospital treatment of abused kids, then prison etc.
Again as a small business employer I am disadvantaged – with 3 employees this is a ridiculous idea.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
How about this for a novel idea…..
Vote:Let people keep more of the money they earn and then allow them to make THEIR own decision as to whether they should spend that money or perhaps save it. If they then choose they could use those savings to finance some extra time off when the children are small. I fail to see why people’s money should by filtered through the government before it comes back to them at that government’s whim.
G
August 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Sonic – i have always voted for the good of the country ove rmy own personal needs/wants. hell i voted for national and the introductions of big ass student loands back in the day (i ended up owing 30k and pay a shitload back every month).
i just dont think its fair that EVERYTHING is geared towards “the family” and people that choose to have kids when they know they cant afford them!
Sonic – can you see that a years parential leave will lead to discrimination against women when it comes to employment? or have you never run a business?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I am so angry about this. I expect this sort of bullshit from Labour, but National? What a pack of turncoats and traitors. You could never imagine Brash supporting something like this in a million years.
I am sick of paying for other people’s children. The whole pack of them should be lined up on the steps of parliament and shot.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Another busy day in your office Grant?
It’s funny, I’m sure if Mr Farrar made a list of the people who commented on his blog on a weekly basis I’d not even make the top 10, yet I’m the only one Grant and his ilk ever seem to attack for posting too much.
Perhaps if I spent my time attacking Labour they would forgive me?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Funny how the same people who insist on increasing productivity before “GRANTing” pay increases seem to get their own increase with decreasing productivity.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Yo! DPF! Mojo?! I’m still waiting to know what part of National’s IR policy changed between Monday and today. Are you providing PR advice to Key? The flip-flop tactic seems to fit…
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:13 am
What makes you think that comment was aimed at you Sonic?? Feeling guilty are we?
Vote:And it is a busy day in my office. Thanks for your inquiry.
G
August 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am
“What makes you think that comment was aimed at you Sonic??”
Oh are you claiming it was not?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am
here’s an example of how individuals aren’t encouraged to be responsible and the government/council knows best in a screwed up way. When we lived in Auckland we inherited a water feature which was a couple of feet deep ( so enough for a child to drown in) We had a lockable spa in a private fenced off area & to get to it anyone would have had to climb a flat 5m fence, throw themselves over the fence and scale down a shedload of volcanic rock into the water feature, probably breaking their leg in the process….
however we got a visit from the council telling us that we had to fence the spa off the water feature but the water feature wasn’t even considered…
When will the honest kiwi say enough is enough and that we are sick of paying for other people’s shit. I am – let people make their own decisions and then run with it. I’m sick of paying for people to breed in multi-generational welfare families – where 6 kids is the norm. My view is the benefit should stop at paying for 2 kids( 1 is a mistake, 2 would be careless) thereafter the decision to have children should be down to the people that have them with counselling of beneficiaries. We’d soon see a drop in childbirth and child mortality by abuse if the state wasn’t going to fork out for kids. We taxpayers are continually paying until it will get to the point that either a movement calling for people to stop paying taxes until the government takes notice, or we’ll run the country into the ground where talented people piss off somewhere they are appreciated and rewarded instead of being penalised.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am
No. Just asking. Bet you don’t feel guilty either.
Vote:G
August 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am
The Nats are a bit off-message on this, but I suspect Kate Wilkinson’s comments have been taken out of context. She didn’t say it would be National’s policy. Nor did Judith Collins. They said they would take the policy to caucus and discuss it, but it would have to be weighed up against other policy priorities.
I would much rather if National came out with the message: “We think hard-working families, and hard-working New Zealanders generally, should be rewarded for their efforts. The burden of central government taxation, and the massive waste in the public sector, means that far too few middle-income New Zealanders can afford to have children without making major economic sacrifices. The solution is to grow the economy, constrain government spending, and allow New Zealanders the freedom to make their own economic decisions.”
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:32 am
What IP said..
Vote:G
August 29th, 2007 at 11:43 am
if you were a nutjob social worker – now is the time to suggest new oddball policies to the media. labour arent going to say no, national will go along with it so they wont be seen as anti-family or anti-working class or whatever. dangerous times, all sorts of shit could be introduced.
im waiting for the socialist special to follow – now that we pay you to stay at home for a year, we are providing you with a govt social worker that will visit you on a monthly basis to make sure everythings “alright”.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“If we are really concerned about our children’s future we need to”
Man you’re such an ignorant prick. For a start off, there’s no “we”. There’s you. Sonic the fuckwit. You speak for yourself. The idea that you are voicing opinions that are shared by some congratulatory group is a complete delusion.
You are writing your posts here to readers of different political persuasions, and many of them disagree completely with the ideology you promote. Automatically assuming you have the right to express opinions for other readers is just so ill mannered and ignorant, it is surprising that even a dumb little fucker like you Sonic is apparently not aware of how uncivil it is.
But then, your parents must have been ignorant grunting bog farmers or the like, who laboured to educate you, (poor things, what a waste of their money that was) but failed to instruct you in basic civilized courtesies. Its the only explanation for such repeated displays of ill mannered behaviour. I guess its pretty representative of the barbaric nature of the left that so many of them (besides Sonic) use “we” where they should use “I”.
Secondly, don’t try for one millisecond to put across the lie that you care for the children. You don’t. You pretend to, and that pretense is just another part of the deceit that underpins all of Labour’s policies, where you profess to be socially caring, but said policies all have outcomes that are always in the long run negative. You don’t care for the welfare of children, you only care for political power.
Finally, the most effective event that could occur for the welfare of this country’s children would be if power obsessed scum like you with your welfare traps and your promotion of the dependency syndrome were kept light years away from government.
As for the real issue- remember what I’ve said before readers. John Key will not provide the answers to the problems that beset this country. Go ahead. Vote for him. I guess any one would have to acknowledge that he would be an improvement over the current lot of scumbags. (anyone would)
In a few years, I predict that you will be wringing your hands in despair at the disappointment this man will bring you. But no matter, from that disappointment there may spring enough outrage and enough determination to destroy the political apathy that has lead to this unfortunate circumstance. In the end, voters will demand a politician capable of providing real solutions.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“In the end, voters will demand a politician capable of providing real solutions.”
Vote bedwetter in 2009, or he’ll scream!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“It’s funny, I’m sure if Mr Farrar made a list of the people who commented on his blog on a weekly basis I’d not even make the top 10, yet I’m the only one Grant and his ilk ever seem to attack for posting too much.”
Diddums sonic. Posting too much indeed.
The only reason you come here is to take the piss and attack other posters so don’t get too upset if some people feel your time, or your employer’s time for that matter, could be more constructively used elsewhere.
Vote:G
August 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I Fully concur with those that say that this will lead to -unprovable yet real- discrimination against women. Any small businessman/woman will factor in before hiring a woman the possibility of her having a child and the consequent cost on the firm. If he/she didn’t they shouldn’t be in business.
Vote:Key’s approach makes more sense. That is we’ll work towards it. A bit like being “carbon neutral”: keep those of lower intellect happy by the inference you will do something sometime but in reality use the time to explain why it’s stupid to much at all.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“The only reason you come here is to take the piss and attack other posters”
I dont take the piss Grant, and I certainly get attacked far more than I attack anyone else.
Thanks for admitting you were referring to me with that snide comment, after initially trying to deny it.
Honesty, good for the soul eh Granty?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“Thanks for admitting you were referring to me with that snide comment, after initially trying to deny it.”
Vote:And precisely where did I deny it? Read the response again sonic. Do you ever cease trying to twist people’s words?
G
August 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“or your employer’s time for that matter”
He’ll be a public servant. Ten to one. He’s on our time.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“Grant Says:
August 29th, 2007 at 11:13 am
What makes you think that comment was aimed at you Sonic?? Feeling guilty are we?”
Is that not a denial Granty?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
No, its not a denial. And well you know it.
Vote:And altering my name is not taking the piss?? At least it is my name, care to tell me yours? Bet it’s not Sonic.
G
August 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Mr Sonic, could please answer the two questions I put to you previously?
1. How do you earn your keep? i.e. who gives you your money
2. Who pays the state when the entire population is eventually reliant on state assistance?
or ignore them if you want … that will be answer enough
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I have sent a letter to my MP
I felt compelled to write to you on the discriminatory proposal to extend parental leave for a year. As someone who has elected not to have children, why am I expected as a taxpayer to pay for someone elses? This is totally unacceptable and discriminates against me. It should be a choice to have children or not and those that decide to should bear the consequences.
Time after time again I am forced to fork out for long term muti-generational welfare beneficiaries to breed, having 6, 7, 8 children, who then are neglected or abused and then I have to pay again for their hospitalisation, legal fees for the low lives alleged to have been the abusers, and if convicted then prison.
I resent paying for the level of legal representation of previous convicted offenders – why should they get better counsel than I would have to pay for?
Enough is enough I am a hard working small business struggling to keep above water. Bringing in this ridiculous length of leave is unworkable for small businesses such as mine and the costs of compliance will put a good few out of business. I have to wonder if New Zealand wants a sucessful country or are we to have as our future a welfare dependent non accountable society? This would certainly not be a country worth remaining in with escalating violence of uneducated gangs.
Where are the incentives to reward people for their efforts? I would rather see people rewarded in hard-working families. In my view the burden of government tax and spending means that too little middle-income New Zealanders can afford children without making sacrifices. A solution is to grow the economy, constrain government spending, and allow New Zealanders to retain their own personal responsibility to make their own decisions without expecting the taxpayer yet again pay out for something which has nothing to do with them and which they do not benefit from in any way. I would be interested to see a poll on whether families would support this parental leave with a tax break or exclusion for those that have elected not to have children.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Sorry VTO, but I’m not answering your first question, thats my business.
1. Who pays the state when the entire population is eventually reliant on state assistance?
And how likely is that?
Not very I’m sure you will agree.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Thanks Sonic, of course how you earn your keep is your business. I was thinking you wold provide an indication in code. I would bet that you are an employee, probably of a govt funded outfit. From readin your posts you appear to have no appreciation, at all, of what it is like to be in business and/or have to fend for yourself.
Re who pays the state when everyone is on the govt tit – your answer avoids the question. Expected. How likely is that you ask – well of course it is unlikely but that is where it is heading.
But in order to get a sensible appreciation of this ‘ever-expanding state assistance’ issue you should answer that question – who pays the state when the entire population is reliant on state assistance?
However unlikely that is please try to answer it – it is hypothetical of course but it points to the answer for this whole issue. Go on, just for me. This is supposed to be a debating bloggy thing after all.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I can only agree with the majority of comments. I deplore National adopting this socialist nonsence. The policy may well see some racial, religious and cultural peoples being on perpetual holiday. Moslem women for instance seem to be perpetually pregnant.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I am just about ready to give up. I dont expect an answer from Sonic to my question – who pays the state when everyone is reliant on the state for their income (being a natural progression to existing and proposed policies)? The answer of course is unknown – who would pay the state ? I dont know. I wouldnt be because I would be on the tit as well. Nobody would.
It is absolute lunacy to continue down this road of state responsibility. It is simply unsustainable.
And the people who push these policies generally have NO IDEA of how money is created to fund these things. They have NO IDEA of the basics of the human character. They tend to base all their ideas and opinions on what someone else should need. It tends to never be required in their own lives. Just someone elses – someone who they dont even know – someone they see on the tele.
All this talk of the family. It gives me the shits – because that is precisely where the responsibility should lie! Leave them to work it out – it worked that way in the past.
Hasnt anyone noticed that the greater the govt involvement in anything the bigger the mess. Single parentage, health, education, general welfare, etc. Shoot the responsibility back to the family – not over to some unaccountable govt.
Imagine for an instance if the govt decided that the supply of food, for example, was too important to be left up to private entreprise and poor old families all on their own – any guesses on what the price of bread would be?
Govt interference on this scale simply does not suit the human character
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
On spanking.
On paid parental leave.
National have moved so far left they have left me no reason to be excited about them. No reason to wish them well. No reason to vote for them.
National are yet another centre party with no natural constituency and a flippy floppy Dick Hubbard (sorry non-Aucklanders) leadership style.
Why do they bother?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Have any of the people posting here every actually worked in government? I recently joined a project team in Wgtn which works across various departments. I come from the private sector…in my humble opinion boy oh boy it is scary how grossly inefficient government is, and perhaps worse, the calibre of the people involved in forming policy. Honestly, it is really quite alarming, this country needs a clean out.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
If I could replace every hospital manager with an orderly or cleaner I would make our health service at least twice as efficient.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hmm, it appears working for families didn’t buy enough votes!
I resent the fact that I had to work two jobs to support my family while my wife was off work to raise our shildren, now when they are teenagers and my wife and I both work will I have to work two jobs again to cover the mortgage, the education costs, and the addtional tax we will have to pay for these stupid schemes! I’ll accept 14 weeks, but that’s where I draw the line!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
virginblogger: A very good summation of recognised problems facing the average business man.
However there is no guarantee that your MP will ever see your letter. It has to get past the “minder” first.
Morris’s experience confirms the culture in the Halls of Power.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“most family friendly environment in a quarter of a century.”
I have only just stopped lasting toms. Being family friendly is not the same as being friendly to people who drop sprogs round the country and expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
Is that the same “family friendly” government who pays welfare beneficiaries higher than hard working people can earn? Is that the same “family friendly” government that lets its A+ students take out a $50K loan to go to university when solo parents who did not pass high school get to go for free – YOU BET – thats the state of “family friendliness in the Feminazi Repulic of Aotearoa!
Toms, one day you might get a real life and understand what we mean!
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I’ll bite – who will this politician be? From whence shall the saviour spring?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“I’ll bite – who will this politician be? From whence shall the saviour spring?”
The new party/ politician will be someone who is able to articulate ideas that challenge the tired old crap that underpins the ridiculously similar socialist electoral platforms of National and Labour. People will eventually get tired of the same old same old, politicians who promise to bring something different, and then don’t deliver. They won’t put up with theft of their earnings, rising crime and violence, collapsing government services and other forms of social diseintergration for ever. That means they’ll eventually wisen up to the fact that voting National or Labour is not going to bring them the relief they crave. That’s when they’ll start looking for a new direction. All that has to happen is for someone to step into the void. Someone able to articulate the kind of ideas that the tired and limited egos currently driving Labour/ National find impossible to confront. It’ll happen in the US before it happens here. Watch there for clues.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 8:17 am
“It’ll happen in the US before it happens here. Watch there for clues.”
Righto, got a Fox news subscription & settling in…
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
If it ups our birth rate then we will not need to import so many immigrants perhaps?
Vote: