Labour announces welfare for almost everyone!

January 27th, 2014 at 1:27 pm by David Farrar

NewstalkZB reports:

’s launched its election year lolly scramble with child payments of $60 a week to all families with newborns, who earn a total annual income of up to $150,000.

My God. We’re turning families on $140,000 into beneficiaries.

should be targeted at those most in need. A family on $140,000 with one child do not need our taxes.

At the other end of the scale, this is a huge incentive to have more children if you are already on welfare.

Labour says 59,000 families – or 95 percent – would receive the payments until their child’s first birthday, and payments of up to $60 a week will continue for “modest and middle-income” families until their child turns three.

I presume this is on top of Working for Families, so in fact every extra child you have on welfare will get you an extra $120 a week.

UPDATE: Was pointed out on Twitter that backbench MPs will be eligible for this new welfare payment. Yep, if a backbench MP gets pregnant (or their wife gets pregnant), then taxpayers will be paying them $60 a week welfare because they’re in such dire need. Sickening.

UPDATE2: According to this fact sheet, a sole parent beneficiary will now get $128 a week more if they have a second child while on welfare.

Tags: ,

142 Responses to “Labour announces welfare for almost everyone!”

  1. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    Each country get the government it deserves.
    NZ is doomed if Silent T, a true economic illiterate, is elected.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Auberon (870 comments) says:

    This is monumentally dunderheaded. It might appeal to some of his core socialists (though I expect even some of them would consider it poorly thought out), but it’s not going to shift votes in his direction.

    Desperate.

    I can think of two other words that start with B and S!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rich Prick (1,553 comments) says:

    And knowing Labour, it will cost $120 to collect and distribute each wad of three $20 notes. More mindless drivel from Labour.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    WFF already made beneficiaries of people earning twice the level the tax system said was rich… Labour will do anything to get back in office….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Cunliffe is bribing electors with cuckoo land policies. Where is McCready when you want him?

    Cunliffe is so out of touch he thinks any family earning $140,000 is in poverty because they need assistance.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 62 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RightNow (6,668 comments) says:

    Hilarious parody again rossie, keep it up.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Harriet (4,522 comments) says:

    Why?

    Babies are meant to suck from their mum’s tit……not be taught by Cunliffe to suck from the public tit! :cool:

    It’s the cheapest year you will have with a child. $60 a week is twice what you would need with an infant.

    That small cost has already been covered under WFF . Labour can’t argue that it costs anymore than that.

    This is just an effort in buying the votes of unthinking emotional women! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. safesally (47 comments) says:

    Labour’s new policy and the Greens policy of feeding children is already happening; it’s called “Working for Families” and these policies are discriminatory. Why? You may ask.

    Well what do Gay and Lesbian communities, the physically impaired, ‘A’ sexuals and those who either choose not to have children or fail to attract a suitable partner get out of such policies?
    Not a thing and yet some of these people are paying very high rates of tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Zebulon (68 comments) says:

    It’s not just the waste involved in paying money to people who don’t need it. Just think of the extra bureaucracy that will be needed to administer this new social welfare scheme. What we need as a country is to dismantle much of WFF, and similar schemes, and support the needy (and others) through tax cuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Labour’s launched its election year lolly scramble with child payments of $60 a week to all families WOMEN with newborns, who earn a total annual income of up to $150,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    The thing I find the most amusing is that the threshold to receive welfare from a future Labour government is just above the amount earned by a back-bench MP; that’s how far up the scale Labour’s baby bribe will go. That’s just absurd.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Aunty Haurangi ‏@_surlymermaid

    FYI – MPs (with no extra duties) get paid $144k so I will really enjoy giving them an extra $60 for their kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. JMS (303 comments) says:

    This is great news.
    The more ridiculous Labour makes itself look, the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. stephen2d (65 comments) says:

    Hahahaha, amazing, hillarious! Facepalms in Fraser House vibrate and send Wellingtonians running for cover, thinking it is an earthquake.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Bill Ted (80 comments) says:

    Like DPF alludes to, this policy actually institutionalises poverty, it doesn’t help address it at all. All it does it encourage people who can’t afford kids to keep having them. It’s mind-numbingly stupid. More kids are going to be born into poor families as a direct result of a policy like this. The full impact will be felt when they’re at school and the costs really hit home. Unbelievable.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Mags (38 comments) says:

    And what will it cost? Where is the funding coming from? Hello tax rise, as I don’t see any Labour policy actually decreasing costs anywhere

    “Show me the money” cunners

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    So a working couple could get six months paid parental leave, $60 per week for 3 years plus Working For Families for eighteen years?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    This is good grass roots Labour policy. If they keep this up they will win the election. Kiwis love free stuff ! Especially our chronically entitled female population who have been taught the world owes them a huge favour for getting laid.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rightandleft (638 comments) says:

    On the upside this policy replaces their ridiculous policy of extending the in-work tax credit to beneficiaries. I’m fine with the rest of their package (26 weeks maternity leave, 25 hours free childcare) but this universal payment doesn’t seem like a good use of tax money to me since we already have WFF. The idea seems to be that targeting it at the poor makes them feel stigmatised so we can’t have that. Also by giving it to everyone they turn it into an entitlement that becomes politically impossible to eliminate.

    I would have preferred their first $5,000 tax free policy over this one. At least that encouraged work, while this makes more people dependent on the state and creates a new layer of bureaucracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Harriet (4,522 comments) says:

    “….Especially our chronically entitled female population who have been taught the world owes them a huge favour for getting laid…”

    Kea….you’re not allowed to say that either. :cool:

    Babies are meant to suck from their mum’s tit……not be taught by Cunliffe to suck from the public tit.! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Raising children is an economic activity, indeed the fundamental economic activity of any society that seeks to prosper in the long term.

    Unlike a great many other things the Government in its wisdom seeks to subsidize – I am much less concerned about Labour potentially returning a taxpayer raising a family some of the money he/she earned in the first place than paying for a great many other things the Government in its wisdom spends our money on

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,065 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 42 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. BeaB (2,058 comments) says:

    It’s Bill Rowling’s baby bonus!!

    Back to the future!!

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. wf (374 comments) says:

    I despair.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Zebulon (68 comments) says:

    Harriet says: “Babies are meant to suck from their mum’s tit……not be taught by Cunliffe to suck from the public tit!” But Harriet, if we don’t teach babies to suck from the public tit we won’t breed new generations of bludgers whose only electoral choice is Labour/Green.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. flipper (3,563 comments) says:

    For those pricks, Un F B is in fact what they propose.

    Of course the idiotic TV wankers will glorify in the “humane” labour crap.

    There goes the budget surplus into deep shit deficit.

    Say,
    The only good thing is that this is January 27.

    Hopefully, by election day the “progressives will have got it into their thick skulls that it is a prescription for PIGS.

    But maybe Lorde will win big…and Cun*life will crap out – yet again.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. martinh (1,155 comments) says:

    Good points Bill Ted

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    Labour’s three priorities:

    1) Steal underpants
    2) Tax, borrow and spend
    3) ????

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    That’s hard-earned taxpayer money that National could invest in giving away to billion dollar multi-national corporations!

    Danyl Mclauchlan, I agree. Corporations that provide jobs and income that allow us to help the people who really need it.

    The key word in your comment is “invest”. Paying women to breed an entitled underclass is only an investment if you aspire to be a Labour/Green politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    taxpayers will be paying them $60 a week welfare because they’re in such dire need. Sickening.

    You appear to have a very weak constitution.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Bill Ted (80 comments) says:

    Classic Danyl, he’s been waiting for this policy so he can have a second kid after the sales of his book didn’t quite take off…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. flipper (3,563 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    Danyl Mclauchlan (1,047 comments) says:

    January 27th, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    My God. We’re turning families

    ******

    Just a dumb prick…if you are male.

    JHCon a Bike….when did you go to school?

    Never, seems the proper answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    This is not even left wing stuff. Cunliffe is in noddy land.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Cunningham (817 comments) says:

    I hope kiwis are switched on enough to realise the consequences of all this spending the communist Greens and Labour are proposing. If not we are all going to suffer in the long term.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Bob (479 comments) says:

    Typical Labour hand outs. Little said about the business people and corporations which create New Zealand’s wealth. What about farmers? No mention of the 25% or so of our wealth they supply. It was all about appeals to those who vote Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Cunningham (817 comments) says:

    National will once again be able to use the ‘Show me the money’ line this election. Do Labour ever learn from their mistakes? They are an embarassment to this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. srylands (386 comments) says:

    “It was all about appeals to those who [already] vote Labour.”

    Yes, and which may prove to be a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. slernz (28 comments) says:

    Where is the personal responsibility in Labour and Greens policy? It is not compulsory to have children. If you have children pay for them yourself, why should other taxpayers have to pay for rearing someone else’s child? We already have the unfair Working For Families and now this. What a joke this country is turning out to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RightNow (6,668 comments) says:

    Cunliffe: “For example it will pay for a weekly supply of nappies and baby food.”

    Perhaps if it was given in the form of vouchers for nappies and baby food it might.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. srylands (386 comments) says:

    Honestly, I am surprised there was not more bases covered in the speech. (I have not been able to find the text so I assume this is it.)

    I don’t think this speech will have the Government worried at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. slijmbal (1,213 comments) says:

    Read the comments on the stuff version of this story

    They are almost universally -ve.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (9,467 comments) says:

    Cunliffe: “For example it will pay for a weekly supply of nappies and baby food.”

    I think this is what people mean when they talk about chardonnay socialism…?

    How about teaching people to use cloth nappies?

    Oh and you can actually get really good baby food for free out of those two ornaments on mum’s chest.

    We have two kids under 2. I hate to think what we’d be spending if we used disposable nappies and fed them infant formula or those nasty, nasty watties cans of baby food mostly water…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. leftyliberal (642 comments) says:

    In terms of “hand outs” this has one good thing about it, in that it is (almost) universal: just about anyone that has a kid gets it. That’s a good thing as it means it’s cheaper to administer.

    I’d prefer that WFF was done in this way as well, and some of the DPB could be incorporated (as that’s what it’s aimed at). By universalising things you automatically get a greater incentive to work: You still keep your “handout” but also get to keep what you work for, rather than having it abate at an insane marginal tax rate (80% in some cases).

    At that point it’s similar to having a tax-free threshold to earn, which I’d also support in the absence of a universal benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. beautox (430 comments) says:

    That’s why I am closing my companies down. No point in taking risks, working all hours if I can simply stick my hand out. Much more relaxing life all around.

    Of course, due to the law of unintended consequences, Labour and the Grrreens in govt may very well lead to more money for the rich, the poor being screwed and the environment going down the toilet. And I can’t help thinking that it would be mighty entertaining..the sight of Green Miss Piggy being a *minister* would put a smile on my face every time she was on Campbell Live. Or a grimace maybe.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    slijmbal, I took your advice. I noted the title referred to “babies” awwwwwwwwww, what sort of monster would deny babies things ? But of course that is misleading. It is not for dear little wee tiny babies. It is for women.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    @ slijmbal – the Stuff poll now has 55.5% of respondents choosing “It’s bad”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9652164/Labour-promises-60-a-week-for-new-babies

    New Zealanders know a bribe when they see one.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Spam (593 comments) says:

    Damn. Spam’s family misses out. Oh wait – when Gareth Hughes bans all oil & gas from New Zealand, then my livelihood will be destroyed, and we will qualify! Huzzah!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Harriet (4,522 comments) says:

    ‘…I don’t think this speech will have the Government worried at all…”

    Correct srylands. This is just a way for Labour to get some WFF money to those on welfare.

    Labour can’t justify $60 a week unless it includes the cost of childcare. But childcare is also accounted for under WFF.

    And the major elephant in the room with regards to childcare is that the child careers are the low paid slaves of liberal middleclass working women. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Rightandleft (638 comments) says:

    Read the speech in whole and found it very lacking. He went on about inflation rates and the gap between rich and poor growing at the start. That’s completely disingenuous given that inflation was actually higher under Labour and most of the gap widening happened in the 80s and 90s not under Key’s govt. He again goes onto that myth of the hungry, barefoot Kiwi kid being the fault of the government not giving the parents enough money. I live in a comfortably middle class area and I’m pretty sure the kids I see walking to school barefoot do it out of comfort not abject poverty. Same thing for the kids I see at the shops buying fizzy drinks and pies before school. They may not have had breakfast at home, it may not be healthy, but they aren’t starving.

    The rest of the speech seems so limited in scope that it really can’t be called a State of the Nation address. It’s a policy speech on early childhood care. There was nothing there to answer National’s big education policy, despite what Cunliffe promised last week. Amazingly National now has more to offer teachers than Labour and Greens combined.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. srylands (386 comments) says:

    “Amazingly National now has more to offer teachers than Labour and Greens combined.”

    Critical becasuse like them or not there are lots of teachers. All with partners, friends to influence.

    My intuition is that the swing voters with kids will be persuaded by the education package from the Government and highly cynical about the baby bonus. Anyway of you have already got teen kids you have missed out on the baby bonus – your focus is on the kids education.

    So in summary I am investing more in Ipredict PM_National :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. martinh (1,155 comments) says:

    Haha 56% of people in that poll think its bad now, and only around 10 think its great.
    I hate this policy direction so much ive gone out to find my old National party members card and polish her up.
    Got to shut this Cunliffe down before he gets a chance to turn NZ into an even worse beneficiary paradise

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    @RRM How about teaching people to use cloth nappies?

    Disposable nappies are also so fucking ‘green” they have the half life of plutonium -239.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Simon (685 comments) says:

    “Disgusting! That’s hard-earned taxpayer money that National could invest in giving away to billion dollar multi-national corporations!”

    Poor DIM doesnt he understand that Sky TV, Apple, brewery & cigarette multi nationals will get most of $60.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hj (6,359 comments) says:

    Each country get the government it deserves.
    ……………………
    We get the results of group capture and knockout of commonsense (that’s where the crooked Peter Dunne comes in).

    Clearly, there are serious questions to be asked about New Zealand’s economic policy and how we got into this mess. Why was it not better designed and managed, and more focussed, coordinated and strategic? Did the electorate simply get what it voted for, without realising what was really happening, or have New Zealanders not been well served over the years?

    Savings Working Group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Steve ‏@jamsteeve

    Ok so far:

    Nats: teach the kids
    Labour: raise the kids
    Greens: watch the kids
    Mana: feed the kids
    Conservatives: beat the kids
    Act: profit!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostradamus (2,948 comments) says:

    Savings Working Group.

    That’s a double shot right there – hic!

    By way of explanation, Kiwiblog commentator Wat Dabney invented a drinking game with one rule: you have to down a shot every time hj introduces his anti-immigration views into a completely unrelated thread. I have a second rule: double shot each time hj makes an irrelevant reference to the Savings Working Group.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Longknives (4,464 comments) says:

    Scary- Is this $60 on top of the promised significant Benefit increases Labour and Greens have been spouting on about for years?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. hj (6,359 comments) says:

    I think politics starts in the faculties of universities (they are paid back) and student politics so schools develop. They then set out to capture a label “Labour” while creating cronies in the public service. The key is knocking out opposition in the party (Shearer) so certain policies don’t get near the public.
    This system has failed us over and over again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    National really dropped the ball in not trying to roll back WFF and the associated bureaucratic churn and replace it with tax cuts.

    Of course the more sinister reason this hasn’t happened (apart from political weakness) is because a huge portion of NZ’s middle class families are net tax takers, a drain on the tax system. This is what you get when dependency and huge marginal tax rates create disincentives to work.

    We reap what we sow, really.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. hj (6,359 comments) says:

    That’s a double shot right there – hic!
    ……………….
    that comment is relevant as it is generally accepted (on this blog) that Labour is out of touch with the mainstream and beholden to a group. Perhaps that isn’t a model Nostrodamus is comfortable with?

    [last argument with what was over the effect of immigration on the manufacturing sector... of course I was right :lol:]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    As expected: communists and socialists back each other.
    http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8789890/greens-back-labours-kids-policy

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostradamus (2,948 comments) says:

    hj:

    You’ve outed yourself on this blog as a Winston First worshipper. That says all I need to know about your values. Would you like to tell me about the Spencer Trust?

    Here’s a link to Cun[]life’s State of the Nation speech So he thinks delivering a lightweight speech makes him a man of the people? Ha ha ha…

    That’s why we will support our world-beating innovators and entrepreneurs, by rewarding research and development with tax credits.

    That’s why we will encourage investment away from property speculation and into our productive businesses by introducing a capital gains tax.

    That’s why we will assist exporters hit hard in the pocket by a high dollar through reforming the Reserve Bank Act.

    And that’s why we will to assist our primary industries to keep jobs and profits in this country.

    Oh dear. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    Labour announces welfare for almost everyone!

    I don’t think any supporter of the party that implemented National Superannuation is really in a position to sneer at politicians dishing out universal welfare payments…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    Comrade Psycho will defend Silent T until the very last moment.
    His loyalty to the cause of the red flag is admirable.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. slijmbal (1,213 comments) says:

    Lorde won a Grammy so silent T’s folly may not get the breadth of coverage it deserves. Damn!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. mandk (821 comments) says:

    Judging by the comments on Stuff, many Labour supporters are aghast at this policy. This is one of the most popular comments:

    “Sorry – I’ve always regarded myself as a natural-left-leaning person but this is just mindless vote buying.

    Where is the emphasis on responsibility over breeding?? How will this discourage multi-generational benefit dependence? It looks an awful lot like an excuse for the poor & ill educated to keep “sprogging off” so they keep “the benefit”.

    Where is the policy to create meaningful work that will actually give an incentive to people to get educated and participate?

    This is too late (by about 40 years since family benefit was axed!), too little (does nothing for actual employment, self respect, or any social cohesion), and too Labour (knee jerk socialism, not well thought out social responsibility!)”

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kimble (4,381 comments) says:

    I don’t think any supporter of the party that implemented National Superannuation is really in a position to sneer at politicians dishing out universal welfare payments…

    Let us know when you catch up to our century Milt.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. srylands (386 comments) says:

    “I don’t think any supporter of the party that implemented National Superannuation is really in a position to sneer at politicians dishing out universal welfare payments…”

    Well that was stupid too. What is your point? We should do stupid things because we have done even more stupid things before?

    I see on The Standard there is muted applause with many comrades questioning why the baby bonus is going to families on $149,000. Very funny.

    So by looking at the Stuff comments, the middle income voter is cynical as hell. And the comrades are disappointed. That doesn’t seem a good result.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. srylands (386 comments) says:

    BTW I see that the Ipredict price for National PM 2014 is trending up today with the price now $0.60 :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    What a flop. Everyone out there has seen through this as inane vote buying.

    No wonder Cunliffe had Ardern by his side. This seems like the kind of political masterstroke that could only have come from a person who lost to Nikki Kaye.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. hj (6,359 comments) says:

    What is the Spencer Trust?

    Sounds a bit dodgy?

    I’m only a NZ First supporter to the degree that they are maverick, having a stance in oppostion to the concensus on immigration held by [National] + [Labour / Green].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Liberty (236 comments) says:

    The reason why Cunliffe has set the parasite rate at $140,0000 is so he
    can claim he lives with poor people.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kimble (4,381 comments) says:

    Labour is absolutely idiotic.

    The country would be in peril if this lot ever gets a go at the reins.

    This is a blatant vote buy. It is so ham-fisted as to not even be funny. FS! They set the income threshhold at a level determined by the number of votes they want to buy!

    That’s is their target! How large a constituency can we tempt? Rather than how many people do we need to help?

    Anyone who works for Labour should be embarrassed.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. hj (6,359 comments) says:

    Winston’s dead. Long live Winston
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/01/winston_remains_in_charge.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    Pete George

    So a working couple could get six months paid parental leave, $60 per week for 3 years plus Working For Families for eighteen years?

    Yes… But they will vote for Labour and nothing else matters…. OK, the economy will be rooted in 1-2 terms and National will need to tighten the belt and restart the cycle we’ve seen since the 80′s – but that’s the nature of a popularity contest we call politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Inky_the_Red (736 comments) says:

    Sound like a watered down version of the old Family Benefit. The family benefit was important when I grew up hopefully this can help the next generation the same as those of us now in our 40s and 50s

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    Liberty

    The reason why Cunliffe has set the parasite rate at $140,0000 is so he
    can claim he lives with poor people.

    They are poor – they earn less than Bill Gates and any gap between the highest and the lowest is to be legislated against.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. srylands (386 comments) says:

    A very funny comment at The Standard – the media will conspire against the policy because the mainstream media in New Zealand is “far right”. Jeez that really takes the cake!

    “The media response to this package will be framed by an overt neo-liberal hostility. I would guess that editorial comment of everyone from the Dom-Post to the Herald to Mike “SkyCity” Hoskings will heap the most vindictive rhetoric they can muster against it. In short, the MSM reaction will expose how far right our media is these days.

    If the public (as in the polls) reveal the middle class hate this policy, then the left can forget about winning government with an honest policy program and [will need to start] thinking in terms of vanguard revolutionary tactics – a hidden, reverse Rogernomics blitzkrieg to be enacted once in power.”

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kimble (4,381 comments) says:

    How about this policy gets the go-ahead, but it is paid for by a massive tax on legalised dope?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. hj (6,359 comments) says:

    I see Cunliffe banging on about House Prices
    Labour/ Green Party Blamed For House Prices

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. dime (9,442 comments) says:

    I guess this is what happens when the bottom end hardly pay tax.

    The left cant just give a tax cut cause “the rich would get more”.

    what a fucking mess this would be.

    course, if youre on 140 your tax bill will probably go up by 8 under labour.. then they return 3 for being a breeder.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    All over NZ the DPB slappers will already be planning their next two or three kids should Labour/Greens be the next government.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RRM (9,467 comments) says:

    Spend taxpayers’ money like there’s no tomorrow!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    Let us know when you catch up to our century Milt.

    Oh – did they repeal that one and I missed it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. tvb (4,208 comments) says:

    You will never outspend a Labour Government. This is just the beginning. Each spending initiative Labour announces is worthy enough but the cumulative effect will bankrupt the Treasury. Labour will carry on spending until the Lenders stop lending and the taxpayers stop paying.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    What I find the weirdest is on the one hand Labour is saying 150k families need more government welfare, but on the other hand they are saying they are evil capitalists who profit off the backs of the bourgeoisie and need to be punitively taxed at 45%.

    WTF?! This is truly the biggest balls up since Dunkirk. What are they doing? Even if you accept the deeply flawed logic that raising the top tax rate will increase tax revenue, they would then undo that by compensating high earners with welfare? Are you kidding me? What fucking genius thought this up?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    From Stuff’s poll….

    It’s great….23.9%

    It’s OK………8.6%

    Total in favour 32.5%

    From the last Roy Morgan poll (22 Jan) Labour had the support of 33.5% of voters.

    Cunliffe’s brain fart doesn’t even have the total support of the backers of his own party never mind the Greens. You can’t buy much in the way of votes for $147 million nowadays. :)

    Ref: http://www.stuff.co.nz/lightbox/national/politics/9654273?KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=680

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Harriet (4,522 comments) says:

    “…..Conservatives: beat the kids…”

    Yeah PG the cops and the courts get that excuse all the time……. “I wasn’t drunk, unemployed, fatherless, stoned, aggrieved, under-educated when I hit/robbed/bashed/stole/kicked that person…….I did it because I was the victim of overbearing Christian parents.

    PG..no one is stupid enough to think that smacking children bothers society in any way – except you! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Harriet, I agree. Next thing you know they will ban you giving the missus a clip under the ear.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    Maybe this is a sop to placate those morons who bought homes above their true value and borrowed more than they could afford (Kea, please no thesis on funny money, fractional banking and the Federal Reserve).

    Today there is a story in Stuff about how interest rates are expected to rise, along with a photo of a young Auckland couple who own their home. The caption chillingly states that they may have to cut back on luxuries if interest rates rise!

    Clearly something must be done! Maybe this policy is a sop to these kinds of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    This is truly the biggest balls up since Dunkirk

    I don’t understand that analogy.

    Unless you’re looking at it from the German perspective?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ex-golfer (146 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt says:

    Oh – did they repeal that one and I missed it?

    No Psycho – the next Labour Government following its implementation didn’t repeal it – so what’s your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Viking2 (11,138 comments) says:

    Cunningham (693 comments) says:
    January 27th, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    National will once again be able to use the ‘Show me the money’ line this election. Do Labour ever learn from their mistakes? They are an embarassment to this country.
    ================================================

    They won’t, what’s the odds on Bill matching at least some of this. More parental leave, more free time at kindy while the mothers suck latte’s .

    Cunningham you are really not that observant about your fellow travelers.

    Here’s a thought. All us old buggers could help Cunny make this work. Currently there is a real man drought in NZ. so perhaps we could convince the wife to allow us a a younger model at home just so we could gather up some extra benefits. We’ve got a bit of spare room so no issue there.
    I could see all sorts of benefits for my happy self even if the old girl wasn’t that keen.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Cunningham (817 comments) says:

    Viking2 LOL!!! I admire your commitment to the cause!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. s.russell (1,563 comments) says:

    People with kids already get truckloads of taxpayer cash. As someone without, I rather resent the unstated reality that this would be me getting walloped again by having to pay for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    perhaps we could convince the wife to allow us a a younger model at home just so we could gather up some extra benefits.

    Viking2 , forget the sweet young energetic ladies.

    If Labour/Greens get in the real catch will be a big fat lazy beneficiary who has never done a days work in her life and never intends to either. She will be showered with riches and you will all live very comfortably.

    Remember its about the “children” !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mara (726 comments) says:

    A cunning stunt indeed silent T.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Viking2 (11,138 comments) says:

    Kea, you can have a fat one. The greens want to tax them. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Viking2 , Use a condom. Entileitis is highly contagious and can infect the entire family for generations. It is extremely debilitating and renders the victim totally unable to care for themselves.

    Doctors are unsure of the mechanism, but properly used birth control measures seem to radically reduce the incidence of the disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Cunliffe: “For example it will pay for a weekly supply of nappies and baby food.”

    Perhaps if it was given in the form of vouchers for cloth nappies and NapiSan.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    There could be some backlash on this for Cunliffe, some people are livid that he’s handing out baby bribes to people earing $100k plus.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Ross12 (1,149 comments) says:

    Why doesn’t Cunliffe just put all parents on a tax free basis , because for most that is it what must be close to now when WFF etc is taken into account. ( probably a lot are getting their tax back plus extra in handouts)

    As for the Greens agreeing with it to go along with their handouts — if their anti development stance is in place, where is the money coming from. The printing press !!!

    I hope DPF will do a thread which shows clearly what parents would be getting in handouts if Labour get in. It has to be shown very clearly how “bad” it would get.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. tas (596 comments) says:

    This is a stunningly unoriginal and poorly thought out election bribe masquerading as policy. It is literally throwing money at the problem. Is this the best they can think up?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. dime (9,442 comments) says:

    Stuff have changed their headline to:

    $60 a week for babies.

    I guess they arent happy the people dont agree with: welfare for people earning 140k a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. duggledog (1,358 comments) says:

    What this policy actually is, is a mechanism to get the 300,000 odd shit for brains loafers out to the polling stations. Nothing more.

    It’s a smart move from Labour. Devastating for the country but when was that an issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    Jesus wept

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    dime, indeed. I mean what sort of miserable bastard denies wee tiny “babies” things ?

    This is a direct result of what happens when you let women vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. smttc (692 comments) says:

    @ pete @6.54pm

    Gee you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Nostalgia-NZ (4,913 comments) says:

    Classic from Joyce in reply that there is no budget for the source of the extra spending which Cunliffe ‘claims’ is the result of savings on Labour dropping the free tax zone for the first $5,000 and gst on vegetables. I was wondering when he might be collared on that, not spending money you haven’t got in one area, doesn’t make the ‘same’ money available to spent else where. No doubt Cunliffe will skirt around that with his budget forecast but good to see Joyce keeping it real in election year.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. emmess (1,371 comments) says:

    This policy appears to be incredibly unpopular but I bet that’ll be nothing to compared to the tax increase policy that they will have to announce to pay for it or alternatively this policy when it is put up against a tax cut policy that National will be able to offer instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Wayne Mapp (61 comments) says:

    Well, it is quite a throw back to the Family Benefit which was canned (by Labour) in 1985. Of course back then lots of people, both Left and Right were quite supportive of the FB, which I might note was universal. A lot of families capitalized it as a deposit to get their first home. In fact I suspect $60 is pretty similar (inflation adjusted) as the level of FB.

    But have times moved on, and seemingly so have expectations. From the tone of the comments, most here seem to be completely unaware there was such a thing as a universal FB. Well, it is 30 years ago when it was stopped.

    Is it a terrible thing? Well, I can’t get quite as upset as a lot here seem to have done. But in the modern era, where expectations are quite different to 50 years ago, it seems not targeted enough. Maybe max income of $80,000 would have been more sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Wayne Mapp, I see your point. But our current economic situation means we can no longer afford it. You also overlooked Working for Families in your analysis.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Public debt climbs by $27m a day
    HAMISH RUTHERFORD
    Last updated 05:00 09/11/2013

    Government debt has reached $60 billion, having climbed $27 million a day since John Key became prime minister – and forecasts show it will rise for years to come.

    Government debt has reached $60 billion, having climbed $27 million a day since John Key became prime minister – and forecasts show it will rise for years to come.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9380846/Public-debt-climbs-by-27m-a-day

    Aside from this with NZ $60 billion in dept Labour wants the minimum wage to be $15 for everyone including 16 year old school leavers. They want $18,40 for all government local and national employees.

    I hope Key does not try to match it but points out how things work in the real world.

    Paying solo mums on a benefit is mad. They should be paying them not to have babies.

    This is worse than encouraging families of those on $100 to 140k to have more children. Their children are far more like to be a benefit to NZ than children or a solo mum with 3 kids to 3 different fathers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    “In fact I suspect $60 is pretty similar (inflation adjusted) as the level of FB.”

    @Wayne Mapp

    I do not think so. Show us your figures. I think it would be double and there was not Working for Families

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    Raising children is an economic activity, indeed the fundamental economic activity of any society that seeks to prosper in the long term.

    About the only sane comment in the thread.

    The right seem to have nothing sensible to contribute to this debate. No-one asks to be born, and given that there is no morally acceptable means of stopping people having children if they really want to, it’s simply unfair on newborns to punish them for the sins of their parents.

    I doubt very much that this will encourage the hopeless sector of the population to have more children. One of the reasons they end up having kids they can’t afford is that they are incapable of responding rationally to economic incentives. Besides, the aggravation of an extra kid is probably not worth a mere $60 a week. Even if a few do, who really cares?

    This policy, like WFF, is really aimed at working couples who are thinking about having children. Even with WFF the precarious nature of employment for many, and uncertainty about mortgage rates and suchlike means that people postpone having kids until later in life (which brings with it its own set of problems, including increased risk of Downs). This policy goes some way to showing working couples who are thinking about having kids that the rest of us have their back, and goes some way to countering the massive disincentives for having kids that modern society has created.

    If you’re a working class two income (or one and a half income) couple, Labour just made it easier for you to have the kids you want without having to worry. They’re going to help out with better paid parental leave, WFF and an allowance to help you with the costs.

    This is not really about getting beneficiaries to have more babies, but getting working people to do so by giving them some limited economic security.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    BTW the fact that 1 of 4 NZ kids lives in poverty is a national disgrace. Every government should be turfed out on its ear until one finally addresses the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    But our current economic situation means we can no longer afford it.

    Don’t be ridiculous. All this does is divert more of our total spending as a society towards goods that satisfy the needs of babies.

    If we as a society “can’t afford” things, then luxury items should go first. Nobody needs designer clothing, but babies need to be fed, sheltered and clothed.

    Get your priorities straight.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    Well, it is quite a throw back to the Family Benefit which was canned (by Labour) in 1985. Of course back then lots of people, both Left and Right were quite supportive of the FB, which I might note was universal. A lot of families capitalized it as a deposit to get their first home. In fact I suspect $60 is pretty similar (inflation adjusted) as the level of FB.

    But have times moved on, and seemingly so have expectations. From the tone of the comments, most here seem to be completely unaware there was such a thing as a universal FB. Well, it is 30 years ago when it was stopped.

    Back when I was born, a young married working class couple could have kids with the confidence that at least one of the parents could always find a job, and that the rest of society would be economically supportive of their child rearing activities, and would step up to ensure that the child had a decent shot at life should disaster strike.

    The very idea that children should be conceptualised as a private consumption good, akin to the purchase of a new car, strikes me as fucking mental.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Nostalgia-NZ (4,913 comments) says:

    I like the idea of a ‘family benefit,’ but only if it were across the board.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. srylands (386 comments) says:

    “If we as a society “can’t afford” things, then luxury items should go first. Nobody needs designer clothing, but babies need to be fed, sheltered and clothed.”

    Actually we don’t need babies. We certainly don’t need beneficiaries having babies and we should provide incentives to stop it, not increase it. We need high income functional parents to have babies. Any shortfall can easily be met through immigration.

    And lets face it babies are not regarded the same as cars. There is no end of public support for children. But it needs to have limits. Having children is primarily a lifestyle choice. There is zero public benefits in low income couples having children. There is a considerable public cost. For reasons of social cohesion we should not prevent it but we should not encourage it either.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. srylands (386 comments) says:

    “BTW the fact that 1 of 4 NZ kids lives in poverty is a national disgrace. Every government should be turfed out on its ear until one finally addresses the problem.”

    No children live in poverty in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. srylands (386 comments) says:

    “If you’re a working class two income (or one and a half income) couple, Labour just made it easier for you to have the kids you want without having to worry.”

    That is a bad thing. It is not good at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. srylands (386 comments) says:

    “This policy goes some way to showing working couples who are thinking about having kids that the rest of us have their back, and goes some way to countering the massive disincentives for having kids that modern society has created.”

    Those disincentives are the result of preferences of the many expressed via markets. The fact that people respond to such signals is a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. srylands (386 comments) says:

    “If we as a society “can’t afford” things, then luxury items should go first. Nobody needs designer clothing, but babies need to be fed, sheltered and clothed.”

    Who is this “we”?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostalgia-NZ (4,913 comments) says:

    Feel like you’re talking to yourself srylands?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kimble (4,381 comments) says:

    Disincentives for having kids? That modern society has created? Having children is a CHOICE. That is true in modern society more than at any time in the past. Don’t blame modernity for giving people the opportunity to weigh up incentives and disincentives. And dont pretend that the disincentives didnt exist in the past simply because people were unable to exercise a choice.

    This policy is taking from one group, people without children, and giving to another. And your reason for taking money from the childless? I am yet to hear anything convincing.

    Things like healthcare and education for children that are already born is one thing. There are societal benefits to having a healthy and educated populace. And more fundamentally we want to help children. The childless people receive some benefit from funding that stuff.

    There is no societal benefit enjoyed by the childless of having one more child born. Especially when that child is born to people who can’t afford it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Scott Chris (5,881 comments) says:

    Hmm maybe the Greens’ policy of free school lunches etc. isn’t such a bad idea. At least you know the money is being spent on the kids.

    But throwing more money at the middle classes is nothing short of an election bribe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    This policy is taking from one group, people without children

    WRONG.

    There are simply not enough people without children for that to work. They will have to tax the money back from people with children to pay for it.

    If they are really serious about global warming then they should put punitive taxes on people who have kids and give the money to those who don’t. No amount of recycling, organic vege eating and Prius driving will come even close to making up for the environmental impact of one single kid, even if that kid is a communist greeny.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    All this does is divert more of our total spending as a society towards goods that satisfy the needs of babies.

    Tom, Baaaaaaaabies. A craven and sickening appeal to maternal instinct to hide the lack of a logical argument. You don’t give a shit about baaaaaaaaaaabies. You simply use them as a vehicle to promote your socialist urge to control others. If you really cared you would not want those baaaaaaaaaabies growing up in a country driven bankrupt by unaffordable election bribes. Who do you think will be paying that national debt ? It will still be there long after we are gone and will be paid for by the baaaaaaaaaaabies who will have a greatly reduced standard of living as a result.

    Pay for your own fucking kids commie.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Kimble (4,381 comments) says:

    Its not WRONG.

    It is a redistribution of wealth from people who wont benefit from the policy to those that do.

    Take all the money people pay INTO it, and subtract the amount of money they get OUT of it. Childless people will NEVER receive. They will only ever CONTRIBUTE. It will always be a net negative.

    If you consider the two groups, the ones getting from the policy will just transfer wealth between each other, whereas those who will never benefit from the policy are always having their wealth transferred to the first group.

    There you go, wealth transferred from one group to the other. Taking from one, giving to the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. itstricky (1,569 comments) says:

    If you really cared you would not want those baaaaaaaaaabies growing up in a country driven bankrupt by unaffordable election bribes. Who do you think will be paying that national debt ?

    You mean like tax cuts?

    by the time of the 2014 election, the reduction of the top income tax rate for the top 10% of income earners will have cost over $4.5 billion. The asset sales programme produced only $3.9 billion worth of proceeds to the Crown to date, even before sales costs are deducted.

    And we’re squabling about $147mil?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Colville (2,081 comments) says:

    This is not really about getting beneficiaries to have more babies, but getting working people to do so by giving them some limited economic security.

    I could almost agree with this policy if as Tom Jackson has suggested that the policy is limited to working people and bludgers are banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    My God. We’re turning families on $140,000 into beneficiaries

    Firstly virtually everyone benefits from various government services and by your definition that would make them all beneficiaries.

    And second, this is not such an outragous suggestion, as it is similar policies are implemented in various European countries ( UK, Germany, Irland, Austria, Switzerland, France, etc. etc) for decades now. Also by conservative parties.

    It seems to me that your faux outrage and hyperbole is more politcally motivated than “thoughtful” commentary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    The bars will benefit as Labour/Green supporting leeches will be out pissing up, smoking dope, playing pokies, and generally having a good time, then getting up the duff for another $60 per week to waste on the aforementioned behaviour. This really elucidates the envious, useless bastards Labour/Greens are.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Kimble, I see your point and I am in your corner on this one. But we are borrowing money and will have to borrow even more if Labour got to implement this, so I question that it is wealth re-distribution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    I heard a good on Mike Hosking.

    If you want to get ahead under National open a book. If you want to get ahead under Labour open your legs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    A Public Health Warning

    Entitilitus epidemic alert

    The Ministry of Economic Health has issued a status four warning about the spread of entitilitus.

    Ministry spokesperson Dr Truly Serious said the outbreak was widespread and approaching epidemic proportions.

    “It started in deprived areas, spread to places where people have just enough and there has been an insidious spread from there to more affluent locations.

    “It appears that natural immunity provided by self reliance has been undermined by successive attacks on earnings through over-taxation. This has weakened income streams and inflated perceptions of unfairness.”

    https://homepaddock.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/entitilitus-epidemic-alert/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Better targeting the baby bonus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Pete Burdon (19 comments) says:

    Cunliffe did come across a lot better last night. His tone of voice was far less patronising than it usually sounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. you reap what you sow (29 comments) says:

    Labour / Greens offer $60 per week more for all reproducing NZers to help pay for the legal dope to help fuel the creativity of the reproduction process. The stoned heads will continue to reproduce cause they get subsidised dope.

    What NZ would do well with is a modern democratic and smart left wing party.

    This is policy by the Stupid and Dumb parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. RightNow (6,668 comments) says:

    Sign in wildlife park:

    Please don’t feed the animals, they may grow dependent and not learn to care for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.