Cactus v Cunliffe
February 8th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarDavid Cunliffe blogged:
$4.28 is less than I paid for the latte I just drank.
That is how much Craig and Carla Bradley can spend to feed each of their kids each day.
After rent, power, petrol and bugger all else.
Cactus helps with the budgeting:
1. Two cars of $160 a week. Beggars belief as to what cars they bought/financed.
2. Child support for SOCK of $132 a fortnight. So Craig can’t afford his first child. How on earth did Carla think this would end up?
3. Credit card debt. Go figure. Who gave them a credit card?
4. Petrol of $120 a week. So $280 a week is being spent on cars?
5. Wear shoes til they have a hole in them? Seen my shoe collection? I think most people do this. Even I resole. Especially if they are my favourites.
6. An old couch? So what most student flats have them and at 29 yo she’s not much past that.
She also notes:
The conclusion is that inequality is created by bad personal choices. No one forced these two to have three children of their own in addition to a SOCK. They didn’t accidentally have three children. The only thing the taxpayer should be paying for is Craig to have the snip.
Am I picking on Craig and Carla? Yes. But only because they have been silly enough to be used for this story. They are not the only family living like this. Will this be a permanent or temporary state for these people? Hard to tell. They have chosen to make life as difficult as possible for themselves that is for sure.
No one is forced to keep on having children. Of course there are situations, where even the best of planning fails, but this is the exception, not the rule.
Related posts:
- More on the Cunliffe support site
- Trotter on Cunliffe
- Cunliffe muzzled by Shearer
- What will Cunliffe do?
February 8th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Don’t have them if you can’t afford them. Is it that hard to understand?
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Cunliffe “$4.28 is less than I paid for the latte I just drank. That is how much Craig and Carla Bradley can spend to feed each of their kids each day.”
Give them some of your frikking money then, you tosser. What a patronising hypocrite. No wonder they picked the grey ghost over Cunliffe.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Cactus vs Silent T
My bet is on the Silent T to go down in the second round.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Fucking spot on Cactus!
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
“Cactus versus Cunliffe.”
Not exactly a fair fight. In fact, the TAB wouldn’t even post odds on that one….
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
I think the point is that if you’re willing to work hard – which the people in the Herald article obviously are – then having a couple of kids shouldn’t be a ‘poor personal choice’, or lead to conditions of poverty.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
“Conditions of poverty” is bullshit.
Vote:My family can’t afford to have a parent stay at home with our pre-schooler. The only complaining I do about that is when other people want me to pay more so that other people can have more choice about their lifestyle.
February 8th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
This is more pretence that labour are for the “people” ,who ever they are. And that taxpayers will bear the brunt of labours largesse.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Danyl, this dude has 1+3 kids. Did he have no choice about any of them? At least we can presume his partners had some choice.
And apparently 2x10k cars (my household has 2xcars total value less than 10k and we manage with them fine). They both had choice there.
It does sound like some not very sensible choices.
It doesn’t sound like conditions of poverty.
On their income with PAYE offset by WFF they probably aren’t paying any nett income tax. What more should they expect?
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
I dont think the Herald “article” actually tells us anything I would actually believe without verification.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
They do sound like they’re working hard and are better people than many tossers who simply walk away from the family, so I’m not inclined to be as harsh on them as Cactus, even though I see her point.
How about a plan where I’d know exactly where my money is going and feel good about it – that is, to this couple. A plan that would make a big difference to them. A plan that would result in me giving less money to the vast, grey monstrosity that I thought my taxes were paying to alleviate this sort of thing.
I give them $10,000 right now and deduct that from the gigantic amount of taxes I’ll pay between now and June alone.
No? Could they register as a private charity? No? Nothing? The status quo of government “trickle down” then.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
while I have sympathy with and acknowledge rising inequality, here’s what I say to this family: if you did your own lawns, gardening and cleaning, and have one or two less facials and overseas trips, you may not have debt on your credit card….. and if you send your kids to school instead of home schooling them perhaps you may have some time to work at a full time job to pay for the facials and overseas trips you seem to love to have, and to pay me for the budgeting advice you seem to need to get.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
It’s ok guys, while you keep jerking off about a darwinian (weird given how many of you think that we all were born from some incestual kids in a garden in mt eden but y’know) wonderland, the rational ones are leaving for places where they can be better off.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Can I get $10K if I register as a charity or do I have to get married and pop out some kids before I get sympathy?
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Tom, if you choose to help them directly they must be registered as a charity and you must get a receipt and then you can claim about $330 back when you do your tax return.
Your direct benevolence is of no use to the Labour apparatus.
To quote Cunliffe:
Vote:“The change we want is that of Mickey Savage and the New Deal.”
February 8th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
OK To quote Cunliffe, again,
Vote:“The change we want is that of Mickey Savage and the New Deal.
February 8th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Vote:
February 8th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
First principle Do not borrow to buy depreciating assets
Vote:second Put a fucking knot in it no money no kids
third Fancy possessions are but a transient pleasure as soon as you have brought them they are second hand tat
February 8th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
dont know why people have kids when it will stuff up their life. Either do it on a low income with a tough as leather attitude towards budgeting or wait for a high income. Im not having kids till I’m 35. With a 25 year old wife of course. Grin.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
The smarmy Silent T was outsmarted by CK.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
I had my first of three kids at twenty five and acquired financial (and other) responsibilities for a couple of teenagers when I was forty five. Very tight budget over much of that period.
Now my total financial or property assets aren’t as flash as for some, but my family assets are worth far more to me than money.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Obviously Mr Cunliffe forgot the bit about not picking a fight with a blogger. As he isn’t a Tory, one can assume it was a simple mistake. After all, some Tories like a good thrashing occasionally. However, they usually expect to pay for it.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Fair enough Pete George, you’re one of those guys who are great who just do it and do it well. What I don’t like are the people who have a lot of kids who then complain about their finances publically. It is very true I will be giving up some family assets, but I guess I am willing to make that decision because I want to experience what it is actually like to have money in the bank and a little bit of freedom.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
At the risk of facing poster abuse,we have two cars ,my wife starts at 6.00am(cactus probably rolls home after parting at this time )No buses 12kms to work no trains( 63 yo female) hilly country so biking would be a joke. Me i drive 17 km to open up at 7.30am(must) but without car would be bus train bus bus, so some RICH posters can dismount from their well feed high horses, and face the real world out there.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
At 6am my dear I am sound asleep because I’ve been up working late with silly time zones.
Vote:On holiday of course I am getting home at that time.
February 8th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
plebe you twit, there is nothing wrong with having two cars if you need two cars for work etc.
but buy a car you can afford.
when i am doing budgeting advice for people who earn 40K it amazes me that they owe 20-25K on a car loan, when i earn a multiple of that but am quite happy in a 5K subaru impreza (and it was 2.5 times the cost of my last car) that i paid cash for.
rather than two 20K cars, get 2 10K cars, or 2 5K cars.
live within your means, and for most people Rav 4s are not within your means (despite what driving through wainui and cannons creek implies).
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
What’s a SOCK?
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Some other citizens’ kid
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Grendel – apparently not living within their means is not their fault, or that’s the salient point I got from David Cunliffe.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
At 6am my dear I am sound asleep because I’ve been up working late with silly time zones
Vote:Catus my HARD working wife is( my dear) ,i dont think we move in the same circles.
February 8th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
umm..some other Cun*s kid..
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Rightnow
“Citizen’s?”.
In case anybody had a quick look at the link that whale provided above and could not be bothered putting themselves through another hardluck story, think again. It is well worth listening to it very carefully.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Rightnow, absolutely its your right (probably a ‘human right’) to have the latest SUV, largest telly etc and still be able to smoke, drink and do whatever you like, and if the people who earn more than you but have worse stuff complain because you want more of their money they are rich pricks who don’t understand about ‘inequality’.
This is clearly what some labour, most greens and all mana members believe thats for sure. no idea about NZ first they would have to sober up first.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
I believe no one with any compassion or empathy would deny raising a family of 2, 3, 4 is more difficult than it was say 10 years.
However, I for one am tired of subsidising others lifestyle because they choose to keep having more and more babies.
For those with 5 plus children now, keep the family tax credits at it’s current payment. However, limit the amount of entitlement to 4 children now and save us millions in future payments at the same time, make prospective parents of large families, responsible for their choices.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Northland wahine – 4 is far too many if you cannot afford them. Maximum of three which is still above the average. And that would be aggregated where there is a SOCK.
I don’t think anyone would deny children are expensive, but deciding how many children you are to have is the single most important decision a person makes in their life because it dictates how they can live for the longest period of time. As it has become more expensive to raise children due to all manner of factors, people have to adjust their expectations of how many are affordable and the State has to provide guidelines because it is clear plenty of New Zealanders don’t see a boundary and believe it is someone else’s job to pay for their lifestyle choice.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
It really is ***knuckle-draggingly*** simple.
Vote:Having children while on a benefit means the already-limited money has to go further. Therefore, it is likely that this will keep you in poverty (and will almost certainly keep THEM in poverty when they grow up).
Why no government has realised this (and moved to tackle it) is a mystery.
February 8th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Breaking News.Winz have dispensed over 200 million to beneificaries that they should not have. See tonights news for details.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
CK… Oh I agree… 1 child is too many if you can not afford one. Sadly, this is what we are fighting as taxpayers.
A 18 yr single woman renting a $300 property on the dole can collect a benefit payment of roughy $310 in total. This include supplementary assistance. This increases to almost $550 with the birth of a child. And this happens every day.
Vote:February 8th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
It annoys me how low income earners and beneficiaries invariably seem to own large petrol guzzling cars. We get up to 550kms around town on 35litres of petrol (95 Octane) in our 2000 model Echo that has 165ks on the clock.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 12:02 am
Jeez Anthony, arent you concerned about what that says about your penis?
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 1:48 am
This superficially brilliant RWNJ, too right wing even for the nutters of ACT, strikes again. I wonder if she lounges back in her lazyboy, admiring her brilliance, champers in hand, her active and agile mind already swinging into action for a valuable client who really needs, needs, to minimise his/her payment of what is owed to the state, the state whose existence made it possible for her/him to garner such fantastic wealth in the first place.
But hey, what’s mine is mine, right? But moving on…
In one brilliant line, quoted above, CK wipes the slate clean of voluminous quantities of research, covering multiple lines of evidence, that shows the single most important indicator of a child’s future is the socio-economic circumstances that child is born into, especially the indicator that the level of education attained by the parents is the single most important determinant.
Oh dear, determinism. No doubt CK will trump that with the exceptionalism that merely proves the rule. Better move on, again.
I remember reading something of CKs background, ordinary enough, and she has obviously done well, good on her, so this quote is not a perfect fit, but I think it was Bertrand Russell who said every oppressed person is but an oppressor in waiting. Or perhaps Russell would have seen the bully analogy more appropriate: have power, will exercise.
I won’t waste my time giving CK and other extremists the solution to what they see as the great insoluble because, at its most basic, it rests on the premise that capitalism, that unsurpassed, except for empire, huge engine of wealth creation will fail unless one truth is understood by the most successful capitalists – capitalism will seize up (many think it already has) if the most successful practitioners of acquisitiveness do not feed the monkeys that make it all possible (no offence to monkeys).
It’s not called a money-go-round for nothing.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 4:08 am
All those words Luc to not even bother making a point. Read the comments from others in the debate across blogs. Even Labour supporters can see the silliness of putting up as a poster boy for inequality a 51 yo unskilled furniture deliverer who has a kid from a previous relationship then hooked up with a much younger woman and decided to have three more children.
You’ve stumped yourself this time in actually agreeing with me because if what you say here is true and the single most important indicator of a child’s future is the socio economic state they were born in to then why on earth would a parent handicap a child by choosing to bring them into this world when they already cannot pay for their siblings? It is their choice and with it a bad one.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 8:16 am
“All those words Luc to not even bother making a point.”
Yup – old habits die hard.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
CK
First, I do apologise if I missed your main point; I actually thought you were putting forward a serious argument as to the root cause of inequality, not intent on just scoring meaningless political points, silly me.
Be that as it may, yes, indeed, what I say is true, and the high birth rates in lower socio-economic circumstances the world over is a constant. You can rail against it, as you do, from your lofty perch, but in that demographic it’s what people do.
And I don’t think the child would see it as a handicap, at all. I think that is just another example of the narrow view you take on life issues such as this. It’s projecting your socio-economic decile worldview on those who have a completely different take on life.
As for your point about the example being a poor one for Labour:
First, that’s the game of politics you like; I don’t much care for it. You will have missed it, most likely, but I have often made the point that nearly all European democracies are dominated by two conservative parties with a neo-liberal policy setting, so the choice of one over the other is merely one of which tribe you feel you belong to – caveman stuff.
Second, whomever Cunliffe (and did he really have to use a latte as his comparison?) chose to put up could be ripped apart by the likes of yourself and their “bad choices” gleefully highlighted. From my point of view, in time there will be three adults who will be very happy with the choices their parents made in giving them the gift of life.
Instead of demonising people, the first and most urgent action is always to ensure they have opportunities to participate in society to the fullest extent possible. If you read “The Price of Civilization” by Jeffrey Sachs you will get an idea of where to start, and, of course, “The Spirit Level.”
A startling revelation, for you, I’m sure, would be to see the evidence (unpopular word around here) that the more generous the welfare state is, the more equal and the happier a society is, as a whole. You can play the reductio ad absurdum game, of course, but the facts don’t lie.
Vote: