General Debate 17 August 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment31

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (31)

Login to comment or vote

Mr Magister

“Good morning, imaginary constructs!”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 8:02am
wreck1080

Peter Dunnes income splitting idea will never be passed.

I hate the labour clowns who come out screaming that income splitting benefits only the rich. Labour give the example of a solo mother on the dpb who gets nothing in tax relief.

But, this is the wrong way of looking at it.

Look at 3 examples….
1. Single income earner family on 130k – will pay 38,950tax .
2. Dual income family on 130k (65k per parent) – will pay 29,000tax.
3. Woman on dpb. – will pay 0 tax.

So, it is patently unfair that there is a difference between 1 and 2.

As for (3), labour thinks the dpb recipient should also get tax relief. WTF? They pay no tax.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 8:13am
thedavincimode

Wreck, you forgot two.

4. A couple with no children will subsidise those in 1, 2 and 3 to have children.

5. A single person with no children will also subsidise those in 1, 2 and 3 to have children.

Its actually patently unfair that there is a difference between 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

In reality, if its financially necessary to support those with children, then it should be done through beneficiary support so that the cost is transparent and those in receipt of that family support should be subjected to the same requirements as other beneficiaries in terms of eligibility etc. Income splitting only reinforces the WFF rort.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 8:33am
Brian Smaller

The other thing is that the definition of a family now is so wide that two flatmates could say they were a ‘family’ to get their income split for tax purposes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 8:53am
wreck1080

@davinci

“4. A couple with no children will subsidise those in 1, 2 and 3 to have children.”

The couple with no children will have their old age pension provided by the children of the couple with children. The couple with no children have much lower living costs too.

“5. A single person with no children will also subsidise those in 1, 2 and 3 to have children.”

As per (4), the single person’s old age benefits will be provided by other peoples children.

The single person only has to think of themselves, they don’t have little ones to feed/clothe/educate/keep healthy. eg, just recently I had to spend $2000 for my childs medical care – a single person would not have bills such as this.

Dunne is just trying to give the people who pay the most tax anyway, a slight decrease in the amount they have to pay. They will still be paying the most tax .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 9:36am
Jibbering Gibbon

Finally, christians and DJ’s playing together in harmony. Isn’t it beautiful?

Lady Gaga meets Jesus on Italian beach

Arenzano – “Jesus Is Number One!” shouts deejay priest Don Roberto Fiscer as he lines up the latest number by Lady Gaga for parishioners gathered at a beach resort in northwestern Italy. In Fiscer’s unique way of spreading the gospels, he proclaims over throbbing disco music: “I have a message for you that comes straight from heaven: without Jesus there is no future, without Jesus we have no love, no joy.” Fiscer’s flock, ranging in age from seven to 77, go wild in appreciation.

…

“I alternate the classics that you hear in nightclubs with remixed religious music,” Don Roberto told AFP.
…

“Believing in God doesn’t mean you have to be sad,” said Don Roberto, who says his mission is to “find young sheep who have lost their way by meeting them on their own ground.”

…

Don Roberto got the go-ahead for the weekly shindig from Angelo Bagnasco, the influential archbishop of Genoa who also heads the Italian Catholic Church. “He trusts me,” Don Roberto said.

…

Alcoholic drinks are available at a nearby bar, but the participants tend to prefer sodas and ice cream. “If you knew how much the Virgin Mary loved you, you would weep with joy,” Don Roberto shouts, readjusting his headphones.

…

While dancing and music dominate the unusual event, religion is never far off. “Remember, Father Jan is available for confession over there behind the sun umbrellas,” Don Roberto says between two numbers. Father Jan, a Polish priest, doles out absolution to those who approach him on the beach chairs. Back at the dance floor, Don Roberto regales them: “With Jesus, you’re always on holiday.” – AFP
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 9:47am
Redbaiter

“The other thing is that the definition of a family now is so wide that two flatmates could say they were a ‘family’ to get their income split for tax purposes.”

Or even a lesbian in love with (or married to) her (female) dog.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 10:03am
unaha-closp

After we get loaded into compulsory super, what will be the over/under on how long it will take for the government to start stripping those funds into the consolidated account like in America or Argentina? Theoretically the best retirement insurance plan would be to make a bet on this occuring so that we’d be covered when our 9% compulsory surcharge savings plan devolves into a 9% flat tax increase.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 10:19am
MikeNZ

What about the poor families on +$140k?

Say one on $250k and the other on $20k
Bloody sad they have a limit.

Why does it have to be so complicated?
Tax should be simple and not envy orientated.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 10:30am
thedavincimode

Wreck, what a crock. You’re actually advancing a position predicated on the legitimacy of planning our lives on the basis that others should support us in our old age. Are you a pinko?

How can you possibly justify that, or is it just because you’ve had your snout in the WFF trough so that you could live in a neighbourhood or have toys that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford?

Here’s an idea. If you can’t afford have kids, then don’t. Don’t bleat that you’ve had to fork out $2k for the next generation of Wreck 1080 beneficiaries. Every dollar of WFF bludge is another dollar that some kid on $12 an hour has to pay or is a further disincentive for someone on the dole or otherwise in receipt of a taxpayer funded benefit to get off their arses and get work.

You rail against bludgers. Look in the mirror. There are working people who will need your state handout a lot more than you do.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 10:33am
Hagues

@wreck
“The couple with no children will have their old age pension provided by the children of the couple with children.”
Actually I’d prefer if the govt stayed the fuck out of my life and left us to save for our own retirement. Then those kids would enjoy the benefit of a much better economy that a lower tax regime would bring. So how about this, couples with kids don’t ask me to fund their kid’s education, healthcare, ipods, cellphones, etc and I wont ask for a pension when I’m older. Sound fair?

“The couple with no children have much lower living costs too.”
So fucking what? The point of taxation is not (or should not be) to drill out of the people as much as they can stand. If a couple choose not to have kids and spend their money on other stuff, who’s business is it? Why should they be punished with extra taxation?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 10:49am
nickb

You are not fucking serious…

Possibly the worst piece of journalism ever (that is saying something in NZ)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10666600

A sole parent says she has lost a sixth of her bodyweight because she has not been able to eat properly since the Government tightened access to training subsidies for beneficiaries last year.Sara, a 35-year-old West Auckland mother in her second year of an applied science degree at Unitec, gets $517 a week in welfare but needs $668 a week to pay rent, drive to her classes and run a home for herself and her 12-year-old daughter – a shortfall of $151 a week.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 11:26am
wreck1080

@davinci why the filthy language?

Many Kiwis plan their retirement assuming they will receive superannuation.

Todays ‘children’ will pay for more than just your superannuation. eg, heath care,education,roads, and so on. Do you really need it spelled out? Children are critical to the future.

“The point of taxation is not (or should not be) to drill out of the people as much as they can stand”

You seem to support drilling the most out of people. We’re talking about taxing household income instead of individual income. I guarantee, these households will still be paying the majority of tax. Yet, you still want to screw ’em more and more.

Another point, the government treats working parents in a family as individual taxpayers. However, if one of those working parents loses their job, suddenly they are treated as a combined unit, the person who lost the job gets no dole because their partner is still earning. This is ridiculously unfair.

A couple who choose not to have kids are not contributing to future society I’m afraid.

“couples with kids don’t ask me to fund their kid’s education, healthcare, ipods, cellphones, etc and I wont ask for a pension when I’m older. Sound fair?”

Did you pay for your own eduction. No!
DId you pay for your own healthcare as a child? NO!
Whose ipod/cellphone did you pay for? Where did this come from?

You wish to reap the benefits but not pay any of the costs.

I’ll tell you what, we reduce your tax by say 2% , and you lose your pension, but you also don’t get to use the roads, hospitals, any other publicly funded service or facility once you retire. Why should other people pay for you to enjoy these things?

My declaration of interest – I have young kids , my partner does not work so we would not benefit from income splitting. I believe in the principle though.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 11:41am
Redbaiter

As financial reality hits home, California gets set to abandon its commitment to global warming measures and other items of such worthless socialist crap-

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/15/1777426/california-landmark-global-warming.html

Meanwhile Key and Smith press on regardless.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 11:56am
eszett

Here’s an idea. If you can’t afford have kids, then don’t.

Interesting point. Actually, that’s what is happening, a lot of people decide against kids because it is such a financial burden.

They idea to encourage families to have children financially is not a bad one. And of course, if you start doing that, families without children and singles will be at a disadvantage, which their higher disposal income (relative to them having children) would compensate.

Is income splitting the right way to do it? I don’t know, but it is surely a discussion about a step into the right direction. You certainly could limit the amount of income that you are allowed to split, but that would add complexity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 12:03pm
thedavincimode

Wreck, – filthy language? Oops, touched a nerve?

The reality is that you are being subsidised by the state (taxpayers) and enjoy a better standard of living than some of those who are subsidising you. Your facile attempt to justify the recipt of what is in fact a non-transparent taxpayer-funded benefit on inter-generational grounds is laughable and only reinforces your hypocrisy in smugly slagging off bludgers. You’re telling me that you had children for the good of the country! Puhhleeze.

Like the stupid women on radio pinko yesterday who justified income splitting on the basis that she was working hard to help raise the next generation of taxpayers.

Your argument, if it can be called that, is nothing more than an exercise in self-justification because it makes you feel uncomfortable to be, in effect, a beneficiary. The simple fact of the matter is that you clearly can’t afford to support your family in the manner to which they are presently accustomed without the support of other taxpayers.

As to whether couples who choose not to have children not making any contribution to society, I’M AFRAID I don’t agree with that proposition, and nor would I agree with the proposition that couples who can’t have children, or choose not to until they can support them properly, or kids starting out in their working lives and earning fuck all but still paying tax, are not all making a contribution to society.

The principle you believe in, I’M AFRAID, is that others should subsidise your life choices.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 12:05pm
Hagues

@wreck

“Todays ‘children’ will pay for more than just your superannuation. eg, heath care,education,roads, and so on.”
All these things can be taken care of through proper planning.

“You seem to support drilling the most out of people. We’re talking about taxing household income instead of individual income. I guarantee, these households will still be paying the majority of tax. Yet, you still want to screw ‘em more and more.”
Thats a big assumption on your part. The fact that I am against income splitting does not translate into wanting higher taxes. I want lower taxes for EVERYONE. A low flat tax would eliminate the need for inefficent projects such as income splitting.

“A couple who choose not to have kids are not contributing to future society I’m afraid.”
Why do a couple with no children have a responsibility to future society? And besides can’t they make a contribution through wealth creation and leaving it to other relatives, charity etc? Can’t they start up sucessful businesses that create jobs for those with kids?

“Did you pay for your own eduction. No!
DId you pay for your own healthcare as a child? NO!
Whose ipod/cellphone did you pay for? Where did this come from?”
No my parents did, just as parents today should pay for their own kids education and healthcare. The ipod/cellphone reference is to the WFF advert that was on tv where the family communicate via txt messages and recieve taxpayer funding. My taxes have contributed to WFF payments.

“I’ll tell you what, we reduce your tax by say 2% , and you lose your pension, but you also don’t get to use the roads, hospitals, any other publicly funded service or facility once you retire. Why should other people pay for you to enjoy these things?”
Why reduce my taxation by only 2% and deny me access to things funded by the rest of my taxation? If you want to deny me access to roads, I will require all registration fees and petrol taxes etc to be removed from my taxation. Happy to not have access to public health system for a further reduction in taxation. And why do you assume that upon retirement I will stop paying tax? Do you not think that I will pay tax on the income derived through my investments?

“My declaration of interest – I have young kids , my partner does not work so we would not benefit from income splitting. I believe in the principle though.”
Huh you seem not to understand the system. The fact that your wife does not work means you would benefit since you could average out your wage between the two of you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 12:20pm
Viking2

So its true then. all you’se bloggers with time on your hands have been up to no good.
Yep you have been found out.
More blogging, less of the other!

Kiwi birth rate rebounds
NZPA
Last updated 11:58 17/08/2010

More than 64,000 babies were born in New Zealand in year to the end of June, two percent more than the year before, according to Statistics New Zealand.

There were 64,120 live births in the year ending June 2010, up from 62,960 births the year before, but similar to the 64,140 born in the year ending June 2008.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 12:28pm
Captain Neurotic

Holy fuck – has anybody seen ‘Palestine is still the issue’ a documentary by John pilger?

My lecturer described it as factual and non-biased!! I think he was
joking? I hope so…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 12:41pm
Redbaiter

Hopeless pro-Gillard propaganda from the mainstream media. Useless.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 2:21pm
WebWrat

I know … let’s show some compassion and build a mosque on Ground Zero.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/let-me-make-this-clear/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 2:41pm
david

Can’t find a shot on-line but has anyone else seen the cover of the latest Next Magazine. Features the Dear Leader and an article titled “How to run the Planet” (or very similar). Bizarre – same old airbrushed Helen.

Funny thing was llooking for it to link to took me to http://www.nextmagazine.com where the headlines were … stories from New York – the Centre of the Gay Universe.

Wonder where Chris has flown off to at the moment, I believe Helen’s flat is vacant a bit this month.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 4:30pm
roger rabbit

YES hone key thinks he has his his finger on the pulse of NEW ZEALAND (gods own) we are moving foward(NATIONAL) ps i voted national
Xtra NZ news as follows,folks DONT LOOSE YOUR JOB you might get a BIG fright
When a new supermarket opened today in Auckland it created 150 new jobs, but that was a small comfort for the 2550 people who applied for jobs there and missed out.
KEYS a dumb fucker,with $50 million things can look good, practice your dumb smile/smerk,hone ,thats all you have got going
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 4:30pm
thedavincimode

Hagues, you don’t seem to understand the Wreck model for incorporating social equity in the tax model. I think I understand it now. I paid 66% tax years ago and felt really pissed off but know I can feel good about it because that entitles me to be supported in my old age by some 16 year old kid that is struggling for motivation to stay in the workforce or get a half-way decent job.

I didn’t get it before but ya see, the tax system is like a bank; if you ever pay some then that entitles you to get some back. The great thing about this bank of social equity is that the dollars contributed don’t have to be equated with the services received or the money I take out. On that basis, the mad magpie is perfectly entitled to be sitting on his arse doing nothing because deep in the dark distant past, the odds are, as strange as it may seem, he paid at least a dollar of tax. Moreover, in line with Wreck’s model of social responsibility, he made the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of society in managing to get his leg over and produce a couple of sprogs.

Did I get that right Wreck? Correct me if I’m wrong.

But there’s just one little thing that worries me and could it be the flaw in the theory? This country is fucked and maybe its attitude of the closet pinkos of this world (Wreck?) that has helped get us here. We’ve heard that in absolute terms, there has been a 10-11% increase in the number of beneficaries over the last 30/40 years – that’s a mere 500% increase in relative terms – and that’s without counting WFF beneficiaries or those that became WFF beneficaries by investing in negatively geared rental assets or even LAQCs that owned the houses that they lived in. We’ve descended into a poverty/crime/unemployment spiral and even when Herr Kullen had primed the pump and this economy was humming on hot air, employers simply couldn’t find staff because some people that could work didn’t want to. Gee, could this be because attitudes to work and entitlement (OMG – “social responsibility”!) have changed over that time and why could that be?

Its no coincidence that this decline started with the socialist policies of the Holyoake government and one RD Muldoon as Finance Minister, and culminated in the socialist government of Klerk and Kullen.

Wreck clearly doesn’t like to think of himself of a beneficiary but maybe he should accept that he is and ask HTF this could happen. Then maybe he should think about how to address that issue without lumbering future generations with himself or me, and also without making changes in a way that return this country to the acolytes of Komrades Klerk & Kullen.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 6:03pm
Kris K

WebWrat 2:41 pm,

I know … let’s show some compassion and build a mosque on Ground Zero.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/let-me-make-this-clear/

The video entitled “Can you see me, Daddy?” is very powerful, with the little girl voicing over her memories of her father and what she has done since her father died in the 911 Islamic attacks. The image of G W Bush praying with head bowed with the words of Matthew 24:6-8 below …

Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Mat 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Mat 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

… is poignant, as is the image just before the end where you see the still standing twin towers with the sun behind and a horizontal light flare creating the perfect cross.

That the Judeo-Christian West is in a spiritual battle to the death with Islam is beyond doubt – the video and the main article preceeding remind us of this fact yet again … “Lest we forget”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 6:38pm
Chthoniid

Silly me, I thought they were building a community centre two-and-half blocks away

Oh wait…they are.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 7:16pm
Hurf Durf

“Good morning, imaginary constructs!”

Sometimes I wish this was purgatory and there was a Gene Hunt to duff up bad’uns.

Some Tuesday humour, World War One as a pub fight:

Germany, Austria and Italy are stood together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria’s pint.

Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit, because there are splashes on its trouser leg.

Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view

Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for cleaning Austria’s trousers.

Russia and Serbia look at Austria.

Austria asks Serbia who it’s looking at.

Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.

Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.

Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.

Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.

Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium.

Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.

Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.

France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.

Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings, because Britain made Australia do it.

France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.

Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.

America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.

By now all the chairs are broken, and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 7:38pm
WebWrat

Kris K.

“Lest we forget”

Give us strength!

“Oh wait…they are.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 8:13pm
MikeNZ

Hey Kris
If the Arabs have got so much money to build Mosques why don’t they help the palestinians get edcated and build a decent society for their kids?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/opinion/02karsh.html?_r=1
http://www.meforum.org/blog/karsh-chronicle/2010/08/justice-for-palestine#continued

Remember pearls before swine mate.
have a goodun.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 9:30pm
tom hunter

Hurf

Fantastic. I got tears of laughter on that one. Favourite bit – Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 9:40pm
TimG_Oz

Just voting now in my first Australian election – by Postal Vote 🙂

Lower house is a bit of a no brainer. Im in one of the safest seats, and there are only 4 candidates (including Greens and FF)

Senate is interesting – there are 60 candidates which I need to order from 1 to 60. Sure I could just vote by the party of my choice, but for all I know my preferences end up going to a wacko (which is the majority of the 60 candidates).

Here’s the choices:

– Citizens Electoral Council (safely last) – the anti-semitic cult-like follows of Lyndon LeRouche
– The unnamed anarchists of Joseph Toscano – I’ve actually stuffed up and made them 38th
– The Socialist Equity Party / Democratic Labor Party / Socialist Alliance / Greens – all pretty much the same really
– Building Australia Party (Builders) / Shooters and Fishers / Carers alliance – Industry specialists
– Family First / Christian Democratic Party – naah, except they’ve done a preference deal with the next one
– Australian Sex Party – check out the website and their ad for “Jerk Choices”
– Secular Party of Australia – Richard Dawkins worshippers
– Climate Sceptics party
– Senator On-Line – an interesting party that want to take the Senate to the Internet. OK – they get 9th spot 🙂
– One Nation – without Pauline
– Odd assortment of Independents, others, most notably Stephen Mayne (journalist)

Paul Keating famously called the Australian Senate “unrepresentative swill over there”, maybe it’s a fair assessment?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2010 10:22pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Mail delays

An NZEI Survey »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Clive Bibby: Deterrent or Paper Tiger
Breaking Views
Who Watered Down The New 3Strikes Legislation
No Minister
#ANZAC: "year after year, the numbers grow fewer, who remember what we're not forgetting"
Not PC
Climate Models Not Scientific
Utopia
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Maori Party (with “disgust”) draws attention to Chhour’s race after the High Court rules on Waitangi Tribunal’s summons
Point of Order
Die In for Palestine Marks ANZAC day – Peace Action Wellington
The Daily Blog
"Comity" versus the rule of law
No Right Turn
New Zealand Needs a Security Alliance Fast
The Standard
Jacinda’s legacy – Increasing number of abortions
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
REEFTON – THE NEW PARIS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz