Working for Families
July 28th, 2008 at 7:16 am by David FarrarIt is disappointing but not totally surprising that National is not making changes to Working for Families in its first term.
There are two aspects to Working for Families which I don’t like. They are:
- Families with six figure incomes get what is effectively a welfare benefit
- The overall tax and abatement rate for parents earning above $60,000 is around 89% (39% tax rate, 25% accom supplement abate and 25% WFF abate off memory)
Now the solution to no 1 would normally be to just abate WFF at a faster rate. But that then makes problem no 2 even worse. So the other solution to no 1 is to have it start abateing at a lower level or to reduce the level of payment for everyone.
Now if one pursues the latter possibilities, you want to do it in a way where tax cuts compensate so no one gets a take home income drop. This is not the time to be reducing anyone’s take home income.
I suspect it just got too difficult to try and design such a scheme in Opposition. I actually worked in the early 2000s with Lockwood Smith on some potential tax formulas which could take into account number of children, and hence deliver all assistance just through the tax system. The problem is many families pay negative income tax, so that wasn’t possible. Plus I am not sure IRD would have appreciated having a parabolic equation as part of the tax code 
My hope is that if National is elected, they will get officials to look at a way to restructure Working for Families and the tax system, and then go into the 2011 election with that as a policy for which they seek a mandate. The deadweight costs of high income families paying tax which just gets delivered back to themselves as WFF welfare is quite considerable. If we want to grow the economy faster than Australia we do need to reduce this “churn”.
Related posts:
- Working for Families
- Tax Cuts vs Working for Families
- Working for Families and the workforce
- Not Working For Families
July 28th, 2008 at 7:26 am
David, when you will accept that John Key is only concerned with getting elected and doesn’t give a shit about doing what is right? You must have noticed Key’s severe case of indigestion combined with a sudden drop in the country’s rat population. If you cared about policies rather than blind party loyalty you would be supporting ACT, not National.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Oh piss off Nigel. What’s to like in ACT? They can’t even retain a campaign manager months out from the election and their leader is more interested in wearing fruity clothing than actually talking policies to people. If you want to win support for your small cult of angry young men, try going out and winning votes on your own merits instead of hectoring people that they are doing the wrong thing.
However, there is a wider issue that concerns me. National does need to start making some big contrasts between itself and Labour, particularly on fiscal matters. I understand the logic behind not wanting to cause people economic uncertainty when we are heading into a recession, and its therefore important that National point out how their fiscal package will provide “cash in the hand” as well as opportunities for those who work harder.
The incentives for opportunity is the key differentiator between National and Labour, in my opinion. That means lowering the top rate, the middle rate, and also the business rate. It might also mean doing something generous with R&D, though I concede this causes all sorts of loophole issues.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
National wants to help Labour put most of the country on welfare and we’re supposed to accept this because Sushi Goblin doesn’t like the colour of Rodney Hide’s jacket. The future of our country is at stake here. How much longer can we expect hard working, creative, productive and entrepreneurial people to stick around when we are punishing them for their success while other countries are rewarding them? With National signing up to all of Labour’s spending, they won’t be able to offer ‘incentives for opportunity’ at all unless they are funded by borrowing.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Sushi said “National does need to start making some big contrasts between itself and Labour….as well as opportunities for those who work harder.”
Which is exactly what WFF discourages. WFF is not a programme for a party that purports to believe in individual freedom and choice, competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement. No way. National is becoming a joke.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Smurffette Key.
Blue on the outside, red on the inside and a bit of a girl.
Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory National.
Dicks.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Using algebraic equations in taxation will be tagged as elitist, so I’m all for it.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Cullen has labelled Key as someone who cannot be trusted to do what he really believes.
A little bit pot and kettle don’t you think Mr Tax Cuts are Unaffordable.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 8:38 am
What I hate about Working For Families is that as an independent contractor with a family not only do I not receive any payments I am forced to top up the salaries of others who make far more than I do simply because they are employed by someone other than themselves. Where is the fairness in that? I drive an old Vectra because I can’t afford a better car, yet I have to pay my neighbour who drives a new Toyota.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Why would anyone listen to a political party whose leader has such a low self-steem they have to dress oddly to get noticed?
As for the tenets of the WFF arguments, I agree that WFF is a targetted assistance package aimed solely at those with children. Now, that’s a pretty good demographic to try and assist with targetted funds, but I also agree its better to try and give tax relief to everyone. After all, single people, gays, retired and childless couples also deserve tax cuts in the face of higher living costs.
Again, I would like to see cuts to company tax, cuts to the top rate of tax, plus changes to the middle bracket (probably through more favourable brackets).
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Yes sushi punish the people responsible enough not to have kids until they can afford it.
New Zealand needs to breed more stupid people.
Not.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I agree with Nigel, John Key is a major disappointment, he has bloody well sold out.
Sushi and others are just as guilty of stupid political ideology as the pinkos from the left, any election should be about choice, Labour lite under Key are not offering any choice at all, those who keep pushing the National party are simply doing so in the hope that their team wins.
FFS people, when will you bloody well wake up?, it would be better to have another three years of this corrupt administration than to have Key continuing the failed policies of the Labour party, perhaps we really DO need to reach rock bottom before we realise that we need to change the way we do things
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
goddam im upset. this is far worse than watching the all blacks play saturday night.
i understand where National are coming from.. they looked at the last election and how they lost. they know labour would hammer them for months if they dropped this socialist welfare. but goddam grow a pair!
the left have officially won people!
the “right” are too freakin scared to upset the hysterical left and have just given into their policies.
my conscience will not allow me to vote National now.
ACT! it is. goddam i hope rodney wins epsom! hope national arent running against him there.
i would love to see a surge in support for ACT! now. 6% on election night would be lovely! Rodney could negotiate the end to working for families.. maybe thats the plan??
John – getting elected isnt worth giving up your soul!
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I agree that National SHOULD be offering an alternative based on an ideology that challenges that of the Labour party. The trouble is the Nats past inability to argue their case and their ideological incoherency makes it almost impossible for them to get any votes if they do. Its clear they should never have allowed the left to confine NZ’s political spectrum they way they have, but unfortunately, its a done deal. The Nats never fought for their beliefs and consequently the country has sunk deep into the leftist mire. Considering that leftists and pseudo liberals still hold considerable sway within the party, its unlikely that there will be much of a change in the near future.
The core of the problem lies with the National party being almost totally controlled by people whose thinking patterns are only slightly different to those of Labour people. The Nats senior people cannot articulate anything different because they don’t know how to. (They’ve never read Horowitz for example). The way to relief from socialism lies in replacing these people and reforming the party. There is no other way. Let the Nats win this election, and then give the weak traitorous bastards hell.
On the plus side, its driving the Labour Party completely nuts.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
“It is disappointing but not totally surprising”
I think that sums up every single one of the National Parties policy announcements so far.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Sushi Goblin, you seem to be wanting to target a demographic(s) but also to use that money to give across the board relief – can you really have both?
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
As Ian Wishart said in Eve’s Bite, the trouble with the Nats is when they ever get in power, they go to sleep and forget why they’re there. They almost never wind back socialist policies and allow the intelligentsia to gnaw away at them in the meantime.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sushi “Why would anyone listen to a political party whose leader has such a low self-steem they have to dress oddly to get noticed?….Again, I would like to see cuts to company tax, cuts to the top rate of tax, plus changes to the middle bracket (probably through more favourable brackets).”
Well if you want someone with the guts to make these changes you’d better start listening to Rodney regardless of what he wears.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Murray – the issue is not that working people are recklessly breeding children, but that their standards of living have dropped over time due to cost of living, higher mortgages etc. Most people responsible enough to have a full time job probably also have responsible family planning as well. But I’d also helpfully point out that you can budget as well as you can for the costs of raising children, and still be unpleasantly surprised how expensive they turn out to be! Until you’ve actually raised children, you probably don’t think about the costs of shoes, schoolbooks and lunches etc etc until they actually turn five.
stephen – Yes, I believe assistance like WFF should be targeted instead of scattershot applied across income brackets. I would personally end WFF for any two child family with more than $80,000 in income, and offer better tax cuts for higher end brackets instead.
I would draw everyone’s attention to the IR271 form on the IRD website which states the WFF dollars for each income bracket. While it’s true that WFF extends into six figure incomes, it only meaningfully does so with families with four children or more.
For most families (IE two children), WFF payments cease being meaningful at around the $72,000 for combined family income, or $85,000 for three children. I am assuming that people consider a fortnightly payment of $100 to be meaningful in the family budget.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am
“They almost never wind back socialist policies and allow the intelligentsia to gnaw away at them in the meantime.”
So very true Grant. The Nats are too damn stupid to understand that when the left are in power they put so much effort into building blocks designed to maintain that power in future. Its so frustrating to see the weak and politically ineffectual Nats pledge to maintain those blocks, apparently in complete ignorance of why such blocks exist.
At the very least they could undertake to disassemble Radio New Zealand and TVNZ, the most openly politically partisan of all government owned enterprises/ departments, and with their unrelenting leftist propaganda and their captive audience, a serious restraint on the political diversity that should exist in a healthy democracy.
There’s a score of other government departments/ initiatives that also exist just to further the cause of socialism/ leftism that need to be shut down, but the Nats just seem so bereft of any long term (or even short term) political strategy. Useless political infants.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:30 am
“I would draw everyone’s attention to the IR271 form on the IRD website”
FFS, Sushi, you don’t debate these fucken communist ideas, you throw them out of the fucken arena.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Is it really that difficult to design a scheme while in Opposition? REALLY? I don’t think so. I am growing a little tired of hearing Nationals announcements that it keep almost everything Labour does. I will not vote for socialism in drag.
Voter: I’d like to vote for a political party please”
Waiter: ” Certainly sir. You can order anything from the menu sir, as long as its socialist. Now, would you like your socialism colored blue or red?”
When is Rodney going to do some public meetings in Christchurch? I would like to attend.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
What I’m really hoping (and I may be too optimistic) is that there’s a deliberate strategy by National to open up space on the right for ACT to provide them more leverage in a potential coalition. National would capture the centre and ACT would capture the right. Then National can say, “Well, we did want to keep [insert Labour policy here], but our coalition partner insists we review it.” That’s what I’m really hoping. But I may be too optimistic.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:36 am
We need to remember the words of John Tamihere when we consider what Klark and co are doing.
In his famous interview with Ian Wishart he mentioned that the sisterhood were well used to playing the long game, those of us who have read Michael Bassett’s fantastic book “working with David” will see that Tamihere is right, Klark had her people in positions of power well before she ever became leader and eventually PM.
She is doing it again now, Labour are stacking every board in the country with their stooges, I believe they are resigned to losing this election but they are working on another “long game” in as much as they are prepared to sacrifice one term to gain another three or four, whats worse is that Key is playing right into her evil hands.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“What I’m really hoping (and I may be too optimistic) is that there’s a deliberate strategy by National to open up space on the right for ACT to provide them more leverage in a potential coalition”
ACT have some good policies but unfortunately allowed themselves to be screwed up by Catherine Judd’s “The Liberal Party” experiment.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
big bruv: but they are working on another “long game” in as much as they are prepared to sacrifice one term to gain another three or four
It is of course possible that National is doing the very same thing. Playing at being Labour Lite for this term and perhaps the next one to dethrone those useless socialist bastards only to gradually bring change to New Zealand.
Their previous strategies have not been successful. Maybe something like that will.
Either way. Vote for ACT
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
This a huge disappointment and a flip-flop of the highest order. John Key and the Tories have shown again their jelly-fish spine, and their lack of principles and conviction.
ACT is rightly denouncing this sudden change of heart in support of the loathsome WFF policies.
It’s enough to make you vote Libertarianz!
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“It’s enough to make you vote Libertarianz!”
Not quite that bad. If there’s one thing I’ve had enough of, its power tripping homosexuals
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Heh heh, the Libz will be thrilled to know someone equates their name with power.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
“It is of course possible that National is doing the very same thing.”
That’s true, but going on past performance, not all that possible. In their previous nine years of power, when they could have actually done so many things, they did nothing but set up house for Helen Klark.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Sushi the ISSUE is that money is being taken OFF me and given to OTHER people how already have a shitload more than me for the vitue of them having been unable to work out how a condom operates.
I want Helen Clark out of my wallet, out of my home, out of my life and definately out of my pants!
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:11 am
It’s the politics of safety for the Nats on this one. I disagree completely with WFF and Key has dropped the ball totally. It gives Labour another opening to snipe away at him. I wonder whose idea it was, Key or English?
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Guys, National is the party with the policy to provide affordable camp sites for Kiwi families. No party with such policy will be any different than Labour. Why do you think that people still leave this country in droves? The two major parties are content to be just another pacific island. And the reason why the all blacks lose? Same thing, just no drive.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Susshi said…
the issue is not that working people are recklessly breeding children, but that their standards of living have dropped over time due to cost of living, higher mortgages etc.
I know a Tongan family (relatives of mine) in Mangere with 7 kids where they’re on the WFF and on one weekend they (both parents & 7 kids) caught the bus to Manukau City. When they got into the bus, there were only 8 seats available because the bus was almost full. The family were taking all the remaining available seats except the father who didn’t get one, since there were only 8 available. The father just stood behind the driver near the front door to chat with him (during the whole duration of the journey) because they knew each other from church. The driver advised the father of this family about the bus timetable and pointed out which ones to catch to Manukau, that would guarantee them seats (for everyone), because those runs are almost empty. The father said that it was Ok, not a problem, since he likes to stand anyway, if there is no seat available, since it is only a short trip. The driver replied, don’t you realize that you’ve fucked (breeding) yourself out of a bus seat, but thats your life-choice and don’t expect any of the younger passengers to offer you their seats, since they have no obligation to do so.
The point is, if you have big family, that is entirely your life choice and why would the taxpayers funded those choose to reproduce at will. If their standard of living have dropped as you suggested, then that is not my problem, since I didn’t encourage those people to breed.
Only ACT will move the country away from socialism since National will continue on Labour’s policies if they win the next election.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Damn you hard righties are funny
Vote:Key has to implement ‘left’ policy because Act-type policy is not popular
The left has won in terms of social policy
you’re outnumbered
get over it
July 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
So Key likes welfare now? I love it.
Is that the sound of a poll slide, or pole dance?
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Falafulu
Vote:that story was weird for two reasons
1/ the guy had no problem standing, so why the lecture
2/ children pay a ‘half-fare’ which is suppose to be conditional on them giving up a seat when required (over an age of 11 or so)
well thats what it use to be
its a pity if drivers dont even know that
July 28th, 2008 at 10:30 am
“you’re outnumbered”
So were the Jews under Hitler. Having a majority is no proof of superiority you ignorant little coward. Go back to cuddling your wife, but don’t squeeze her too hard, you might pop the bung out of her inflation port.
[DPF: Let's tone the rhetoric down a bit]
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Short Shriveled and couldn’t you have chosen a fucking shorter username: The left has won in terms of social policy
Only because the Left has managed to convince the majority of people in this country they need no ambition and they should be reliant on the State for their livelyhood. Hardly a glowing endorsement of a policy built on lies and the destruction of initiative.
But hey. If being a loser makes you proud – who am I to argue. I’d rather not win at such a high cost though.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Forgive me if I sound a bit paranoid, but others have referred to “the long game” of the sisterhood. Here are my suspicions of the role of “Working For Families” in that long game (not that I think the sisterhood will get away with it in my lifetime).
24-hour free childcare in State institutions is the next building block. Strictly voluntary, of course. (At least to start with).
Then, at some stage, once the maximum possible number of parents have become utterly dependent on WFF money, the pretext will be found to abolish WFF, because it has become unaffordable or something. It will be “spun” as something that is not all that harsh, really, because the State has already provided the safety net for your children if you can’t afford to provide for them any more………..
You can go on all you like about my paranoia, but you can’t convince me that this idea is not already at least a “gleam in the eye” of the sisterhood………..it really, really helps if you KNOW the strategy these people are working to, and unfortunately, people like Wishart who provide the best information for us to be able to tell, get dismissed as “fundamentalist ight-wing nut-jobs”, and the marginalisation of such people BY the “establishment” (“Left”, of course) is meekly acceded to by the “center right” “moderates” like David Farrar and the Nats.
Hint to DPF: You’ve seen through the left on Horowitz. Time to see through them on Wishart.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Redbaiter
Comparing NZ to Jews under Hitler
Wow, congratulations, that could be a new low for you.
I dont squeeze my wife too hard anymore.
Vote:Takes me forever to blow her back up
July 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am
if Labour did win the next election.. how long till they float that ” a social worker for every child” policy again.. urgh.
the only way national could get me back is if they offered people a choice.. “keep your stinking working for families, or take this juicy big tax cut”
im sick of being discriminated against for being a single white straight male dammit!
do i have a case to go to the UN? “im not allowed a decent tax cut cause i dont have kids”
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Falafulu (10:23) I know of a simular situation, except this time when the family went to get on a blind man also wanted to get on. Since there weren’t enough seats the father offered to wait with the blind man for the next bus if his wife and kids could get that bus. Every body was happy with this arrangement. But as they waited the blind man kept tapping his cane. After ten minutes of tap…tap…tap the father finally yelled out in frustration “FFS couldn’t you put some rubber on the end of that thing?” to which the blind man replied “Sir if you had put a rubber on the end of your stick we both would have been on that first bus!”
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I suspect a problem many people would have with withdrawing support from such people is that it is possible or even likely that the innocent i.e. the children will suffer as a result, especially if, whatever the family’s circumstances, they are barely subsisting anyway. I suppose this is the argument that ‘vouchers’ resolves.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Nope. In fact, their research (informal or otherwise) would likely show that scrapping WFF would scare the horses. The political mood at the moment can be characterized as, “We’re sick of Labour, but don’t want to upset the apple cart.” National’s campaign seems to be reflecting that.
New Zealand has never had an appetite for radical political change. The policies of the mid 80s and early 90s were largely surprises. At this stage, promises of radical change might please some of us, but we’re not the political demographic that decides elections.
This is how you win an election, boyos. The right needs National to capture the centre if we’re to see any change and we need a strong ACT to influence post-election policy. ACT certainly can’t form a government by itself and any talk of Libertarianz is just silly.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am
[DPF: Let's tone the rhetoric down a bit]
OK, fair enuff. I could have put it better.- take two:
Merely saying that because a government is supported by a majority is not an argument that demonstrates any intellectual courage. Neither is it an effective argument, as for example Castro, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and various other totalitarian dictators all received majority support even while they were engaged in such repugnant immoralities as long term genocide.
…and I’m so worried about your welfare Shorty, squeezing that wife of yours too hard means you’re going to end up putting serious stress on your lungs.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am
A leftie is calling conservatives “out numbered”.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Glen
“New Zealand has never had an appetite for radical political change. The policies of the mid 80s and early 90s were largely surprises.”
Really?, Douglas signaled well in advance what he intended to do, the reelection of Labour in 87 (with an increased majority) was an endorsement of the polices of Douglas, indeed the only reason Labour lost in 1990 was due too the disgusting actions of Lange and Pope in going against the wishes of the people, the public WANTED change and they wanted it fast.
“This is how you win an election, boyos. The right needs National to capture the centre if we’re to see any change”
Thats the very point Glen, there is going to be NO CHANGE under a National govt, Key has said as much.
Its not about “my team winning” its about the future of our country, if you are dumb enough to vote blue just because they are not led by Helen Klark then you are a fool
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Richard Hurst: The next ACT conference in Christchurch is on September 7. It is the Upper South Regional Conference:
Venue: Westminster Room, Cotswold Hotel, 88-96 Papanui Road, Christchurch
Vote:Time : 11.00 am to 4.00 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“The next ACT conference in Christchurch is on September 7.”
Can I hurriedly suggest a theme?
Forget all that “liberal” gobbeldy gook. Forget the 20 point plan. (Jezuz..?? TWENTY points???) Keep it simple.
The slogan- ‘ACT- for government with a small g’.
Sub title- “We want to help you get both Helen Klark and John Key out of your lives.”
Or something like that, that simply latches on to the current disillusionment with both big government parties without being too harsh on National.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Oh FFS. I had hoped that this might have been a line in the sand issue for National. It seems that the context of ideas in poitics is fading fast. You do make a good point about how bloody difficult it would have been designing something close to income neutral for families.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
With the slippery Crazy and Cullen the Nats are best to just go with the flow
Then just like the Socialists did in 84 reverse all the crapola Socialists policies when they have a majority.
Worked a treat for those who were there in 84 . JK and BE just keep on rolling out the new policies and rolling back the Socilaists.
Hit em hard Hit em low Hit em often.
Lower tax rates to a 30/30/30 regime effective immediately.
Scrape WFF immediately
Make all Benies reapply on their birth date or the beeny stops
Send 20% of the civil servants home on 3 months full pay and tell them to get a proper job
Move out of the existing buildings to ones that only hold half the staff so they have to reduce numbers
Ohhh Yesssssssss get the country back on its feet and working Know what working is PhilU Thought Not
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
deleted post
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Nigel:
“If you cared about policies rather than blind party loyalty you would be supporting ACT, not National.”
heh – but DPF isn’t that stupid. There’s a reason why Act’s polling at 1%. New Zealand has learned that free market = pain – something people don’t tend to vote for.
National will try to liberalise markets in sneaky under-handed ways. They won’t campaign on it, and when they bring it in, they won’t publicise it much, and each Act will achieve its intentions through complex legal-speak that most people can’t understand (think Employment Contracts Act). This is the smarter, if less honest way to go about achieving the same agenda as ACT.
The problem is, the people will realise what’s happening sooner or later, and National will be back to square one.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Roger
You seem to forget that the people endorsed the policies of Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, you also refuse to admit that those same policies saved NZ (only temporarily it seems) from becoming a third world nation.
Sadly Cullen and dear corrupt maggot leader seem hell bent on leading us straight back into the financial shit.
I can only hope that the Nat’s do indeed have a hidden agenda, history has taught us that once Kiwi’s are told the truth (something that has not happened for the last nine years) they can and will support a govt that takes the hard decisions.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“You seem to forget that the people endorsed the policies of Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson”
lol!
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The strategy that John Key is using is working just like Robbie Deans strategy!!
Mr Key just keep going and undermine all their arguments in fact it does’t matter if she calls you you a copy cat because the most important thing at present is to get into Government and the nuts and bolts of adjusting some of the awful divisive “cancerous and corrosive” legislation from Helengrad that has been put on policy such as WFF can be corrected in Government but it cannot be corrected while still in opposition.
Next policy should be WFD
Working for Dole- Simply put offer more for those that are prepared to do some community work for the dole!!!
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Statement of fact Roger, you should try it some time, its quite refreshing.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
eg – everyone loved the Employment Contracts Act
“in the week prior to the implementation of the Act, 500,000 people out of a population of 3.2 million (nearly one sixth of New Zealand’s inhabitants) demonstrated against the ECA (Danin, 1997: 6).”
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Also:
“Conceived and ratified within a closed system, without consultation of any groups (other than the employer’s associaion and the NZBR), the ECA was an elitist piece of legislation that lacked popular mandate. Of those responding to a survey carried out on the eve of the passing of the legislation, 46 percent opposed the Act, 29 percent supported it and 24 percent were unsure (Cregan, C. et al., 1996: 761).”
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
And how about this one bruv?
“For example, in 1992, 81 percent of New Zealanders considered parliamentary politics corrupt, 90 percent thought that all donations to political parties should be declared and 57 percent thought that business donations to the major parties should be banned (National Business Review cited in Roper 1993: 165).”
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Or what about this one?
“a 1992 Heylen poll showed that only 4 percent of New Zealanders expressed confidence in the government whereas this figure was 32 percent in 1975 (Sinclair 2000: 349).”
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Roger both you and your failed ideologies incl your pig leader Napoleon (H2) are now fatally damaged.
Perhaps you could now start looking for a job beyond your varsity theories.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I never like to disagree with Redbaiter, but I don’t know about THIS:
“……Neither is it an effective argument, as for example Castro, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and various other totalitarian dictators all received majority support even while they were engaged in such repugnant immoralities as long term genocide….”
I don’t believe that any of these people would have won a true, free election after they had seized power by either non-Democratic or at least constitutionally disputable means. The thing is that they did not at all rely on electoral approval for their programmes. I don’t know if we can find any examples anywhere of tyrants of the first order who remained in power by winning elections. Perhaps Vladimir Putin is the worst (best?) example today. Note how things are turning to custard for Chavez. He will need to bite the bullet like Mugabe before long, if he is not to be turfed out by popular vote.
The problem that people need to realise is that there are politicians they might put in power by way of an election, who might then cancel all future elections or at least “stack” them, and assume hitherto unprecedented powers of control, by which time it is too late. We don’t seem to have had this sort of occurrence in Christendom in the last few decades and I don’t know if we ever will, people do seem to wake up at least at the last minute, and maybe Thatcher/Reagan revolutions are destined to come round again. I certainly hope so. The Victorian era, mocked now for its “prudery”, actually represented considerable advances re moral issues like prostitution, so its not as if the progress of our civilisation has been one broad sweep from de facto theocracy to liberalism.
I do agree with the analysis that points to a “decadent” phase in our civilisation, and with the analysis that increases in vice lead to society needing protection from the consequences of that vice, in the form of limitations on the freedom of all citizens (rather than the elimination of more recent “freedoms” that led to the problem in the first place!). But this should not result in the cancellation of democracy itself, rather that voters accept those limitations, that being still preferable to them, to the reassertion of moral values. Theodore Dalrymple and Charles Murray are both outstanding on this, as you probably are aware.
But to return to the original point, far too much Leftist analysis takes Castro, and Mao, and the Bolsheviks, and so on, as “popular” movements, just because of their platform of “equality”, when the truth is that they were just terrorists who succeeded in seizing control. That certainly goes for Saddam and other “non-Communist” dictators as well, Hitler being an exception in terms of at least some electoral process being involved but nonetheless manipulated, and of course abolished altogether very quickly. Such regimes of course were masters at creating an illusion of majority populism, but I don’t believe we can be guided by that.
Having said all that, I still agree with what you said, that for a majority to be in support of something doesn’t mean it is right. There are probably better examples, though, than dictatorships that ruled by the gun and the torture chamber.
Another point is of course that the number of people under those regimes that actually did not support it could never be determined, as to state one’s position in that sense, was to incur unthinkable consequences. It is rare to have large numbers of a nation’s citizens declare themselves in those conditions regardless of consequences, in spite of the depth of immorality to which they were dragged. Are people to be condemned because they live a lie rather than opt for torture and death? I do think that people are to be condemned for remaining ignorant in our day and age, of forces that could one day place them and their descendants in situations of much greater moral agony.
I think Winston Churchill made some great speeches at the time of the Bolshevik seizure of power, to the effect that the community of free nations should learn one day that to intervene at the outset to prevent a terrorist minority from imposing such conditions in any nation, was the far lesser evil than allowing it to establish itself. I believe that he could hardly be more correct, with the benefit of historical hindsight that we do have. But the prevailing Leftist political “establishment” cannot bring itself to ever deplore anything other than the lesser evils of such intervention.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
RogerNome: how many people had any intelligence about what legislation like the Employment Contracts Act actually does for the economy and for the future prosperity of all? How well informed on this are they, by the MSM?
As for your bit on what Kiwis thought in 1992 on the funding of political parties, do you mean that as a condemnation of everything Labour has done since, not just the Nats? What might they have said about the use of THEIR money by political parties for advertising purposes? Such a notion would have been unthinkable to the framers of any poll up till recently……..
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“As for your bit on what Kiwis thought in 1992 on the funding of political parties, do you mean that as a condemnation of everything Labour has done since, not just the Nats?”
Well, National more so than Labour (labour did introduce a $10,000 threshold for anon donations, which National never would have). If they’d had the chance, the Greens would have delivered what the public wanted in 1992 in that respect though.
“how many people had any intelligence about what legislation like the Employment Contracts Act actually does for the economy and for the future prosperity of all?”
Not sure. But there’s a segment of 500,000 people that the ECA certainly hasn’t brought prosperity for. Check out the graph at the following link.
http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2008/07/national-prepares-to-make-war-on-poor.html
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Phil:
“What might they have said about the use of THEIR money by political parties for advertising purposes? Such a notion would have been unthinkable to the framers of any poll up till recently……..”
Yes, because we all know how much the National Business Review hates businesses.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
The strategy that John Key is using is working just like Robbie Deans strategy!!
Vote:Mr Key just keep going and undermine all their arguments in fact it does’t matter if she calls you you a copy cat because the most important thing at present is to get into Government and the nuts and bolts of adjusting some of the awful labour slant that has been put on policy such as WFF can be corrected in Government but it cant be in opposition.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Roger
I see that you have once again refused to answer any questions or debate the issue, why are you such a gutless prick anyway?
Mind you, if it is percentages that you want them how about these; 83% of Kiwi’s did not want the anti smacking legislation, a similar number did not want homosexual law reform.
I am glad that you mentioned corruption, I am sure that any poll that asked “Do you believe Helen Clark and Labour are corrupt” would return an overwhelming YES.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Big bruv (BTW -did you steal “big bro’s” identity, or was it the other way around? I notice that philU has asked you many times in the past, but you refuse to answer, showing that you’re a “gutless prick”).
“83% of Kiwi’s did not want the anti smacking legislation”
Sure, but I would argue that’s rather insignificant. i.e. it will end up with perhaps 10 people being prosecuted that wouldn’t have otherwise over the next 10 years. The ECA on the other hand meant lower wages for hundred of thousands of workers.
“a similar number did not want homosexual law reform.”
Reference please – not that I’m holding my breath.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Roger
It is not often that I read anything Phul has to say and given that he never answers questions I am hardly likely to do anything that bludger asks of me, however he should by right do as I say as I am the one paying his wages.
You seem to be saying (in typical corrupt left wrong fashion) that it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the wishes of the public just as long as it is Labour who are the ones in power, well its good to know that you and Comrade Trotter think along similar lines, no doubt you also feel that lying, cheating , corruption and deceit is perfectly acceptable just as long as dear corrupt sexually confused leader is the one who is in control.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
“t is perfectly acceptable to ignore the wishes of the public”
No – I just think that it was something of a non-issue. Its impact on society will be minimal. The ECA was arguably, THE central plank of National’s policy agenda. There’s no comparison between the two.
Anyhow, answer the question you truculent arse …
did you steal “big bro’s” identity, or was it the other way around? I notice that philU has asked you many times in the past, but you refuse to answer, showing that you’re a “gutless prick”).
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Roger
What have you got against the ECA?, remember it was a Labour govt that first identified the need to take away the corrupt power of the unions.
Perhaps you are a bit young (which might explain your stupidity) to remember the days when the communist unions would go on strike at peak holidays times to say nothing of the way they crippled the countries ability to grow.
Since the demise of compulsory unionism most workers have found that their bosses are not the evil and nasty bastards that the corrupt union movement painted them to be, most workers now see no need to belong to a union.
Vote:July 28th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
nomes in spaaaaaaaaaaaaace.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Ahhh Rogernome, care to enlighten us on how many people chose not to join a union when the ECA was introduced… as far as I saw, it was a highly popular and successful policy. Back in the days when National had balls, a penis and a backbone.
There is no better example than what we see from National today that a vote for ACT will save them from becoming Labour altogether. We want the party vote in Epsom and why not give Douglas one in Hunua? That will put the shits up both National and Labour.
What a sad day indeed… however I feel completely vindicated. Lets see how many of the Nats are really committed to change and who are only interested in power.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Big call clintheine…55% today…although that’s pre-Key throwing another principle out the window. But by now, does that really matter?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:24 am
As I called months ago
Nats 55%
Liarbore 22%
Watch Liarbore crash and burn over the next month.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:48 am
that’s nice but Labour are at 30, I would think the rest are pretty hardcore supporters….
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Working for Families should be scrapped. It’s an albatross around the New Zealand economy’s neck.
Looks like I’ll have to vote ACT to get any real change in New Zealand.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Bludging for families, what’s up with that? What a rubbish policy to adopt. The outcome doesn’t affect me because I’m not paying for that rort. All I’m interested in is making Hels and Cullen unemployed. It is however in National’s interest to scrap this welfare con before it becomes ingrained.
National does appear to be hampering itself in its ability to deal with the recession that is currently occurring in New Zealand. It looks like it is calculating that it can ride out its first term in office without taking any of the economic blame and then taking all the correct positions it believes in during its second term.
If National is firefighting an economy in ruins it doesn’t want to in the same position as the pier fire at Weston-super-Mare. Only having one hose to spray in the general direction of the burning economy but not being able to put out the fire. They find themselves just standing there watching the fire burn itself out.
If ACT form part of the Government then National might get to implement more sensible policies during its first term rather than wait three years as a caretaker before it rolls its sleeves up and gets down to business.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
WFF is a vote loser for National. There are more taxpayers out their than bludgers sucking off the state teat.
National could have squared the difference between WFF welfare and tax cuts. It didn’t and ACT are laughing. More votes for them.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 3:36 am
Colin Espiner sums it up in his blog on the possible impact of National retaining the WFF here:
The fall and rise of Rodney Hide
He notes that the policy isn’t that popular with a sizable chunk of National voters and that ACT will be the beneficiary of this policy.
Vote:September 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Interesting story about Families missing out on millions in tax refunds.
IRD – It’s our job to be fairly aggressive at getting your money into the state coffers.
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Raise the GST rate to, say, 35%, and kill the personal income tax and the company tax. Reduce all benefits by 35%. Collect GST on all imports. Pay $100/week to every legal resident of the country. All immediate expensing of all business capital expenditures, and indefinite carryforward of all tax losses. Watch the economy streamline.
Vote: