I think we can declare Kerre Woodham’s conversion to the dark side complete. She has shown primising signs before of having abandoned latte liberal or Chardonnay socialist leanings, but her latest column qualifies her for full entry. I will arrange the initiation ceremony the next time the High Council meets.
Can anybody explain why we need these redundancy packages? Will we always have them? Or do we only get redundancy packages when recessions fall in election years?
Kerre has it in one.
One man told me it was all the banks’ fault for luring people into mortgages, so the Government should pay if people couldn’t afford to pay the bills when times got tough.
For a start, no bank staff pointed guns at homeowners and insisted they take out mortgages. People did that of their own volition.
And if you’d listened to your grandparents, they would have told you not to borrow more than you could afford to pay back.
All good points.
And for another, it’s not “the Government” that will be giving you money. It’s me. And your friends and neighbours.
The Government is not a money machine. It’s an institution that is funded by taxes taken from all of us.
And the final proof of the conversion to the dark side – the realisation that the money the Governments gives out is not their money, but your money.
Where does personal responsibility come into it? I’ve earned low wages and I’ve earned high, and I’ve learned you cut your cloth according to your income.
Heresy, heresy to the left.
One of the reasons for this worldwide recession is that people have taken on more debt than they could afford to give themselves a better lifestyle.
What the recession is doing is shaking everything and everyone up, and restoring a natural order and balance. But that won’t happen if political parties set about subverting the sequence.
This column really gets a 10/10. Not only emphasises taxpayers, and individual responsibility but also talks about long-term effects of short-term interventions. Has Kerre been doing an economics degree on the sly?
Labour’s package is particularly loopy. If a person is made redundant, they will get the equivalent of the unemployment benefit for up to 13 weeks even if their spouse or spouse equivalent is on $200,000 a year.
How does that make sense?
It is about as sensible as giving welfare through Working for Families to couples earning $120,000.
National’s is targeted at lower income earners and builds on the Working for Families scheme and is marginally more practical _ if you agree that these redundancy packages are necessary. And I don’t.
I have no problem with taxes going to people who need a bit of extra help. Who are working low-wage jobs and looking after their families and who don’t have a lot to come and go on.
But we have programmes targeting those people already. I see absolutely no point in flinging money at people who have made poor economic choices or who don’t really need it. But then I’m not a politician looking to get elected.
Kerre’s membership will be approved by acclamation I predict. You have done well young Padawan.Tags: Credit Crisis, Kerre Woodham, recession