Greens pledge higher taxes for higher welfare

August 18th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

A Green Government would hike the rate to 40 per cent on income over $140,000 and use the extra revenue to tackle child poverty.

The party’s $1 billion poverty package includes new tax credits for low-income families and children in their first few weeks of life. These would be extended to the children of students and beneficiaries.

The party has this afternoon launched its election campaign in Auckland and also announced plans to harmonise the trust tax rate with the top income tax rate and crack down on avoidance. Its costings say this would generate and extra $1bn a year.

Under the plans, the Family Tax Credit and the In-work Tax Credit would be scrapped and replaced with a Children’s Credit, worth an extra $60-a-week. It would be extended to those who currently miss out on the In Work credit, which is available only to parents who work more than 20-30 hours a week.

Basically a huge income boost to families not working, funded by a tax hike on some families that are working.

The welfare system is designed so there is an incentive to be in work. The want to remove one of they key incentives.

Tags: ,

65 Responses to “Greens pledge higher taxes for higher welfare”

  1. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    Why can’t these sick sad people see the obvious truth that for govt to steal money from one family and use it to make another family dependent on the state is a recipe for slow cultural and social suicide.

    The cynical power hungry politicians who offer these bribes and the unthinking voters who respond to them are unified in the gradual destruction of our society.

    An utter abuse of our democratic system and one that almost qualifies as corruption.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Tarquin North (400 comments) says:

    Why should I pay more because I work hard? Why should I pay people to have more children when they can’t afford it? Why do the Greens hate people who make a decent living so much? We should have a flat tax rate with the first $20,000 tax free, this gives people an insentive to work instead of mindlessly breeding safe in the knowledge people like me with our balls on the line will fund there largess.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. beautox (409 comments) says:

    Yeah I was poor when I was a child – because I didn’t have a job. Haven’t these idiots ever travelled to other countries other than Australia? Same sort of fucked up thinking that declares NZ to have a rape culture, a child poverty problem, and inequality problem and so on. Try going to India for a taste of child poverty, inequality and rape culture.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. mikenmild (12,390 comments) says:

    ‘Why should I pay more because I work hard?’
    You already pay more: the argument is about how much more you should pay.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 32 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    We need an Environment party. I know so many people that ‘conscience’ vote Green because they think they’re the only ones that care about the environment. If we had an Environment party whose election priorities were not ‘inequality’ and wealth destruction but actually the environment then the Greens would probably collapse back to its fringe socialist support base.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    This policy will do absolutely *nothing* to help those in so-called “poverty”.
    All it will do is give them more booze and smokes money and give them even more of an excuse to sit on their backsides and not look for work.

    The *vast* majority of so-called poverty in this country is self-inflicted. Couples having too many children that they can’t afford to feed. People spending money on booze, smokes and luxuries instead of essentials.

    The *good* news is that with this kind of utterly stupid policy, the Greens have been exposed as the “naked emperor” that they really are.

    “Since this is an era when many people are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice,’ what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for?”
    – Thomas Sowell

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. oldpark (412 comments) says:

    All voters have a choice .To vote for the Robbing Hoody Party starring Nicky Hager look-a -like Russel Norman,or Materlistiac Turei a reincarnation of Friar Tuck.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    The best way to deal with child poverty is to have parents in real jobs and earning wages. Best way to destroy jobs is to increase taxes and welfare payments.

    So what do we get – the green party hellbent on destroying jobs and increasing child poverty – pure genius.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @mikenmild – “You already pay more: the argument is about how much LESS you should pay.”

    There – fixed it for you…… :)

    Anyway – I note that the Stuff article is not allowing comments – no doubt because this braindead policy would be ripped to shreds by everyone except mikenmild.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. kowtow (8,942 comments) says:

    The more I think about it the more I think “universalism” destroys genuine democracy.

    It allows politicians to make promises to steal money from the productive and literally give it away to the lazy and feckless in order to get into power to then push their own agenda.

    We’d have saner policies and fiscal restraint if only net tax payers had the vote.

    Another benefit would be it could incentivise those outside the franchise to get off their arses and contribute to society.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    …and this is the kind of typical sympathetic article you would expect from such “journalists’ as Andrea Vance. IMHO just advocates for progressivism whose see real journalism as subordinate to promoting a political message.

    Completely sympathetic and uncritical of a plan so destructive to our social condition.

    The kind of lame reporting that ensures journalists will remain stuck at the bottom of the ladder of social regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @kowtow – “The more I think about it the more I think “universalism” destroys genuine democracy.

    It allows politicians to make promises to steal money from the productive and literally give it away to the lazy and feckless in order to get into power to then push their own agenda.”

    I’d give you 100 upvotes if I could. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mjw (401 comments) says:

    Perhaps we could adopt the Civilian Party policy of increasing taxes on the poor, so that they have in incentive to get rich?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mikemikemikemike (334 comments) says:

    Having hit their new tax bracket and with an appreciation of the effort required to get to those kinds of income levels – I say fuck you Greens, fuck you. While I get a reasonably comfortable life – in Auckland I would describe it as modest at best. We still have a mortgage the wife still works part time (yes this is more for a slush fund but still). If they get in, they won’t be getting a cent of my $142k salary or her $48k one because we will be gone.

    Up my Tax to 40% call me a rich prick and then tell me I need to do my ‘fair share’ after an 80hr week!

    And that is the thing they don’t seem to understand – people with nouse and money have choices and if you keep screwing us then that choice will be to leave.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. big bruv (14,219 comments) says:

    This is a policy that should be debated. What a pity that we do not seem Green party members coming to KB so they can defend their policy.

    And before anybody asks, you cannot go to the Green party blog and debate this with them as they do not allow dissenting opinions.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. iMP (2,456 comments) says:

    So, thinking of starting a second business in Chch, which will employ six people. But umm, come 20 Sept I could be trapped into 40% shavings off my hard graft and risk by the Greenies.

    Gee, how to vote. For more welfare redistribution or enterprise and jobs. Hard one.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. duggledog (1,625 comments) says:

    And watch nobody in the MSM challenge the thieves on the fact it’s not 40% it’s more like 65% when you add in petrol excise, GST, etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    Do the greens show us where this has worked anywhere? All that will happen is that the tax planning industry will receive a massive boost. I explained it to my 14 year old this morning. Even he gets what a whack idea (his words) it is.

    “So, I can sit on my arse and the government will give me more of your money Dad?” Pretty much mate. Explain to me again how giving something for nothing eradicates poverty? Especially when by most objective emasures we really dont have poverty, let alone the massive inequality these useless red/green bastards harp on about.

    For example, the povery measure used by the greens. It will still be the same no matter how much money they throw at the problem, becuase its a stupid measure. 40% of the median wage? Meh, meaningless. So if the median wage doubles, we still have the same level of kids ‘living in poverty’. What a fucking stupid measure.

    Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Give him a net and teach him to fish…..

    Why do the greens want to trap the “underclass” in poverty? So they will be forever grateful and vote red, er green…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    Perhaps we could adopt the Civilian Party policy of increasing taxes on the poor, so that they have in incentive to get rich?

    I know you are being cynical, but there is actually a good case for such an approach.

    One of the stark failures of the present system is that people who do not pay into the pool can demand more and more be given to them without any negative effect on their own income.

    Everyone should pay tax. Then when it is increased, everyone will share in the decision and its outcomes.

    If I was PM, I would do away with GST and PAYE and make all taxes payable by one cheque written out by each taxpayer at the end of each financial year.

    That would make the essential difference in that every taxpayer will be so much more aware of how much is being taken from them by corrupt and cynical politicians who just will not stop spending.

    At the moment, tax is collected willy nilly and in a way that camouflages just how much is being collected. Its why many poor fools think socialism is working.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. thePeoplesFlag (283 comments) says:

    “…The welfare system is designed so there is an incentive to be in work…”

    Maybe that is how a reductionist Tory thinks it should be designed.

    A social-democrat thinks it exists as a safety net for those who can’t find employment or are down on their luck.

    I guess it boils down to difference of opinion between people like David Farrar who (as Hager’s book has revealed) literally hate most of their fellow New Zealanders and demand punitive measures to keep them in line and people like me, who fundamentally believe almost everyone is a good person who just wants a job and some hope.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. mjw (401 comments) says:

    iMP – but consider how much government money goes into Christchurch. You wouldn’t have the option of starting a business there with infrastructure, a civil society, and the earthquake rebuild.

    I applaud your enterprise, but don’t forget to give credit to government expenditure in providing the society that enables that enterprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “and people like me, who fundamentally believe almost everyone is a good person”

    Everyone that is excepting those who don’t share your delusional and infantile political ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Old.Mickey.Blue.Eyes (66 comments) says:

    Some people claim that the political parties are the same, and that there is no difference between them. This is proof to the contrary. Some months ago, (I am sure it would have been posted here – hey, I’m new to KBlog), there was an even clearer example – Labour announced there baby bonus ($3K extra ?), while National announced an incentive for those moving to Christchurch to get work ($3K ?). I think I know which policy was going to make a positive difference to society.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    …don’t forget to give credit to government expenditure in providing the society that enables that enterprise.

    Where did the money for the Government expenditure come from? Hint: not unicorns.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Simon (780 comments) says:

    2008 Social security and welfare spend was $21.5 billion in 2013 it was $26.3 billion.

    This green policy is just an extention of National existing policy.

    “The welfare system is designed so there is an incentive to be in work. ” There is no evidence for this statement. National over the last 6 yrs have pissed away $150 billion on welfare.

    There is no policy difference between Greens and National. The difference is that the Greens dont lie about welfare whereas National cant stop lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    PeoplesFlag, ideally, its both safety net AND incentive. Im a firm believer that there will always be those who need our support – but we need to have very clear rules in place for when that support is needed, and those who abuse it should feel our collective wrath. It needs to be highly targeted, and thats easy to do today with data matching capability – no ‘middle class welfare’ thanks.

    And people need an incentive to get off their arses and contribute. For SOME (and only some) there is no incentive to work, hence why we have multi generational welfare families, and thats bad for everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Oh joy of joys!

    I just can’t wait for someone to announce the provision of a free baby nappies and elderly incontinence pants changing service by the government and the bastardisation of Independence, and responsibility for self, will be complete!!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Allyson (47 comments) says:

    The Govt. already rakes in over 50 billion dollars annually in taxtake. Surely thats enough to solve poverty in several countries. If childpoverty such a big issue why dont we use a small percentage of that 50 billion to eradicate it. You surely wouldnot need to spend it all. Unless of course, as I beleive governments cannot solve problems that lay at individuals level, and the Green policy is just a scam for a bigger govenrment.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rick Rowling (816 comments) says:

    Reading the MSM reports on the Green policy, hoping to find that some of the money transferred will be used to eradicate LONG TERM poverty – i.e. helping and encouraging long term and intergenerational beneficiaries into being productive members of society who can (a) look after themselves, and (b) start adding more to the community woodpile than what they take.

    Just saying “we’ll give more to those who are poor and need it” is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. Not bad in itself, but not a solution either.

    Education, training, overcoming barriers from disability, encouraging a work ethic – these are the visionary things that we need.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    The Greens are just looking to grow their constituency. More people who are dependents on others the better for the Greens. They want to keep people poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. alloytoo (582 comments) says:

    It’s worth pointing out that relationship between communism and environmental protection is an inverted one.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. polemic (460 comments) says:

    So just a reminder again………….

    A vote for the Green Party is a vote for Labour.

    Rob the workers – to feed the Bludgers

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    Whatever social “justice” outcome you are seeking by increasing the tax on work to increase the subsidy for not working, the one thing that is absolutely guaranteed is a smaller economy then would otherwise be the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. backster (2,196 comments) says:

    Has anyone checked the arithmetic that a rise to 40cents on over $140,000 brings in an extra $billion.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Changeiscoming (202 comments) says:

    Why has poverty increased over the last few decades? Because the welfare state has increased! More welfare will never help people it will only ever harm them long term. People have it back to front.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    The treasury has a table at http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/revenue/estimatesrevenueeffects/personal which shows that there is $9.1b in that income bracket. Assuming no behavioural changes (unrealistic) the income from a 7% increase in income tax would be $9.1b x 7% = 0.637b – (0.637b x 15/115) = 0.637b – 0.083b = 0.554b or roughly half a billion. (the deduct is for the GST not collected on the income no longer able to be spent by the scummy rich).

    That’s all assuming no behaviour change which of course there would be as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “Has anyone checked the arithmetic that a rise to 40cents on over $140,000 brings in an extra $billion.”

    One thing you can count on is that they have not fully accounted for the dampening effect of higher taxes. Socialists can’t do maths, otherwise they wouldn’t be socialists.

    Every dollar taken from the productive sector is another fraction of downward force on the brake pedal of our economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ShawnLH (6,671 comments) says:

    @ TheLeftyElitesFlag

    “A social-democrat thinks it exists as a safety net for those who can’t find employment or are down on their luck.”

    Not true. Social Democracy, which is Socialism under a different name, sees welfare not as a safety net for the down and out (that IS the “Tory” view) but as a right and a lifestyle for everyone who is not super wealthy, whether they need it or not.

    “I guess it boils down to difference of opinion between people like David Farrar who (as Hager’s book has revealed) literally hate most of their fellow New Zealanders and demand punitive measures to keep them in line”

    Anyone who knows or reads David Farrar would know this is a cowardly and nasty lie.

    “and people like me, who fundamentally believe almost everyone is a good person who just wants a job and some hope.”

    People like you think they are better than everyone else, including better than the poor. The left don’t want to help the poor, the Left wants to keep the poor poor, lock them into inter-generational welfare, and milk them for votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Lance (2,715 comments) says:

    @thePeoplesFlag
    I have a fundamental problem that many longer term unemployed people I know say the same thing.
    I was offered, or could have had a job but by the time I took expenses into account I was that much better off.
    No matter how hard I try to explain to them that any job is better than no job as it offers a way forward and builds in you personal discipline but they just won’t believe it.

    I suspect they will remain stuck where they are with attitudes like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “The Govt. already rakes in over 50 billion dollars annually in taxtake.”

    You’re on to it, but the $50 billion is yesterday. Today they’re taking around $80 billion and this is projected to rise to around $100 billion in the next few years.

    This figure includes around $10 billion in interest payments on money borrowed to keep the economy afloat- ie by feeding welfare money to the govt sector and other unproductive areas.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Dear “thePeoplesFlag” and other deluded lefties……

    Given that throwing more money at welfare hasn’t worked for the last 40-odd years, what makes you so convinced that it will work now?

    What makes you think that the poor will suddenly *stop* spending money on booze, smokes and Sky TV?

    It is time that you faced facts – that the government can NOT make people “equal” and nor should it try.
    It is a fool’s errand that only morons would believe would work.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. infused (583 comments) says:

    Fuck it. If the Labour/Greens win, I’m selling up and going on the dole.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. slightlyrighty (2,097 comments) says:

    Labour have alraedy pledged a highest tax rate of 36% on incomes over 150k, and have already spent that money. How will that work with the greens?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Ooh, someone with MONEY!

    [YOINK]

    We’ll take that…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. duggledog (1,625 comments) says:

    Let’s just keep in mind the massive IF. Everyone knows if the Greens (& Hone’s) wet dreams were realised, the country’s economy would be fucked in very very short order – that’s IF they get to implement 40% which is just about physically impossible, taking into account how much tax we already pay (or don’t pay at all).

    Will David Cunliffe please assure the nation he will be no part of robbing New Zealanders in this fashion?

    Labour = Greens
    Greens = Labour.

    The above is the only billboard National need to run in the campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dime (10,215 comments) says:

    40%!!!

    Disgusting.

    Plus gst if I spend it.

    It will help retail though. A sweet pay out.. Wonder how many sets if rims will be bought? iPhones, tablets etc

    As for the fat fuck that announced it with her voice of a 12 year old.. It’s only 3% of earners..fuck you. The 3% who already pay a shit ton of tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Don’t be like that Dime.

    I’ve been putting off my classic car restoration project for years while my kids are little and their needs come first.

    I’ll be able to get started straight away if the Greens / Labour rip a bit more tax out of you and give it to me ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dime (10,215 comments) says:

    RRM – unless I structure my affairs a different way ;)

    Dime will come up with a scam. But I shouldn’t have to

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    I dont think you’ll see the corporate rate stay at 28% in that scenario. But i also don’t think you’ll see the Greens in government.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. cabbage (457 comments) says:

    Do these fuckers have any idea how much tax we already pay?

    Anyway. all wealth redistribution does is stifle wealth creation, so really we should not be surprised as we all know what the communist partys main goal is.

    40%. And that will just be Phase 1.

    I LOL that they call it the robin hood tax – Robin Hood’s main victim was the Tax man.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mister nui (1,030 comments) says:

    One could possibly argue a case for a higher tax bracket on exceptionally large incomes, say those over $2million (note, I do not support that), but, the Greens bringing in a 40% tax rate on income over 140k is nothing more than an envy tax. Simple as that.

    As I said on GD: $140k is not a high income. People earning this will likely be spending most of it, saving for their retirement, having private health insurance, putting their kids’ education first, all so that they’re less of a burden on the State. Go and tax them some more, they will not be able to afford some of these things and therefore now become a burden on the State.

    Green arithmetic lunacy at its finest.

    It is a priority for everyone in the country to make sure these assholes are kept below the 5% threshold in the coming election.

    Oh and I see they’ve convinced another of the luvvies, Elanor Catton, that their policies are all about the environment. Just proves you don’t have to have a long neck to be a goose.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. KevinH (1,257 comments) says:

    Another demonstration of the Greens lack of economic nous, taxation is not the mechanism to reduce poverty, that theory has been discredited and discarded. Tackling welfare by reducing dependency and creating wealth through economic development and growth are the modern paradigms.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. soundhill1 (313 comments) says:

    RedBaiter: “One thing you can count on is that they have not fully accounted for the dampening effect of higher taxes. Socialists can’t do maths, otherwise they wouldn’t be socialists.”
    Tell me 1. what proportion of the workforce are employed in small businesses or by sole traders. 2. how many of those employers actually earn even $80k?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Longknives (4,956 comments) says:

    I worked at WINZ many,many years ago- If people knew just how much free cash was thrown at career beneficiaries they would be bloody horrified. (There is a reason they CHOOSE to stay on the benefit for their entire lives)

    The poor old working man always gets the rough end of the stick..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. soundhill1 (313 comments) says:

    @Longknives: >I worked at WINZ many,many years ago- If people knew just how much free cash was thrown at career beneficiaries >they would be bloody horrified. (There is a reason they CHOOSE to stay on the benefit for their entire lives)

    Listen to Noam Chomsky. The corporates perpetuate the welfare system as all that tax money comes back to them.

    >The poor old working man always gets the rough end of the stick..

    People go for work because it is socially beneficial and acceptable, if they can do it. Do you propose we become more like China with most in work but greater gap between rich and poor than USA?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. bruceedwards (5 comments) says:

    I’m no doubt repeating what others have, but the problem with policies such as this is that they address Adult poverty – not Child poverty. If Adults are already unable to manage money, giving them more is not a recipe for improvement.

    The benefit system is in need of a tweak or two. Seems too harsh for those in the cities (where the work is) and too generous to those in the provinces, but this is not the solution in my mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    Does anyone really think the tax changes would raise $1 billion? Do the Greens think people are stupid and like paying exhorbitant tax rates?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. FeralScrote (252 comments) says:

    Does`nt worry me ,I work for Charlie Ash.

    Yes Anthony,yes they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. SPC (5,665 comments) says:

    A 40% top rate would be one of the lowest in the OECD.

    Such a rate coming in at c 3 times the median wage is not inappropriate.

    However once we have revenue flows from a CGT it could be dispensed with.

    With a top rate of 33% and no CGT we have very low taxes on high income earners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    @SPC – you know full well that they wouldn’t dispense with it once CGT revenue starts dribbling in.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Was Robin Bain murdered or did he commit suicide?
    Blood spots from the wound in Robin Bain’s head were found on the computer alcove curtains at between 51 and 82 cm from the base of the curtain which was 25cm above the carpet which meant that his head was around one metre from the ground when that blood sprayed from his head. Peter Cropp, the ESR scientist who carried out the measurements agreed ,when cross-examined by the defence, that Robin Bain’s body could have been falling at the time. But that would have meant his body would have ended up near the alcove curtains and not in the position where it was found which lends weight to the police theory that Robin Bain’s body was moved subsequent to it falling on the carpet.
    In his book David and Goliath Mr Karam says that the direction the blood has run from Robin Bain’s wound clearly indicates his head has been moved.
    The police at the scene are adamant that neither Robin Bain’s body or head was moved by them, though one police officer did lift a flap of Robin Bain’s shirt to check what he was wearing underneath it.
    The only person that could have moved Robin Bain’s body subsequent to his death was David Bain.
    It was suggested by the defence that blood was found in the barrel of the rifle. This finding was attributed to Peter Hentschel but does not seem to appear in the notes of evidence.
    When asked at the retrial if he had formed any views about the angle of the wound or the trajectory Dr Dempster replied
    “ I formed the view that this was a very unusual wound for a self-inflicted wound. I have never seen a self-inflicted wound which is even close to this trajectory. The majority of self-inflicted wounds in the temple more of less pass across the brain from one side to the other at right angles to the front and back ,pretty much right angles, but of course with variation, pretty much right angles to the front and back axis. The other common self-inflicted wounds are in the forehead ,which tend to go more or less from front to back or through the mouth ,or even sometimes through the base of the skin underneath the chin,and those injuries tend to go more or less upwards and backwards. The location is not out of court for a self-inflicted wound,it’s at the front end of where you would expect to find self-inflicted wounds in the temple. The majority are somewhat further back, perhaps two and a half centimetres further back, but if you plot gunshot entry wounds in the temples you find they cover probably six to eight centimetres in diameter and this was in the front end of that group.”
    When he was asked if he decided to use a rifle or replica in order to determine how difficult or easy it may have been to cause a self-inflicted wound he replied
    “ Yes, I did, and it seemed to me that using this particular rifle with the silencer attached made it pretty awkward to cause that particular trajectory if it was self-inflicted. It’s not impossible but very difficult and there are much easier ways of triggering that firearm than holding it to your head at an angle of 45 degrees front to back. “
    Further examination by the Crown Prosecutor went as follows.
    Q. Doctor, you told us about the clothing Mr Bain was wearing at the time you saw him , what sort of head wear if any did you notice?
    A. There was a knitted green beanie which was tucked in the hood of his sweatshirt,it was lying behind his head when he was in the living room.
    Q. Are you able to comment ,from your experience in self-inflicted wound, whether that is usual, unusual or otherwise?
    A. Well if Robin Bain inflicted this wound on himself one would have to say it would be unusual for him to be wearing headgear. In my experience I have never come across anybody who shot themselves in the head who was wearing headgear at the time and I think it’s a pretty uncommon event.
    Q. The various considerations you have referred to such as the clothing, the position of the wound, the trajectory and the angle,were they matters which you considered ,or viewed of assistance or not of assistance in deciding whether this was a self inflicted wound or not?
    A. Well my conclusion was that it was most unlikely to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but I couldn’t exclude that possibility completely .
    Q. Why do you say that?
    A. The main reason for that was the trajectory, the difficulty of accessing the trigger with the rifle held in that position, they would be the main factors that influenced that decision.

    On top of that Robin Bain left no fingerprints on the rifle. While it is not unusual for a person to commit suicide by firearm without leaving any fingerprints on it one would have thought that in this particular case Robin Bain would have left some fingerprints. The manner in which he would have had grip [especially] the long cylindrical silencer would have been conducive to leaving good impressions or at the very least finger definitions where he gripped it’s surfaces, remembering that a print from Stephen was found on the silencer.

    In 2001 Kohlmeier et al analysed 1704 suicide deaths by gunshot,of which 30% were by rifle. Their findings relating to suicide by rifle were as follows.
    Right temple 22.9%
    Left Temple 3.3%
    Mouth 24.3%
    Forehead 15.7%
    Under chin 9.1%
    Back of head 3.8%
    Chest 15.7%
    Abdomen 1.9%
    Other 3.3%
    An impartial observer might wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple with a .22 rifle.
    The same observer might also wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached.
    And that same observer might also wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.
    Furthermore, that same observer might also wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and wearing a beanie.
    And that same observer might also wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair , wearing a beanie, and without leaving any fingerprints on the silencer.
    And, apart from all that ,a set of David Bain’s fingerprints, supposedly from the summer, were left in a pristine condition on the rifle.
    Then there is that 10 shot magazine that was found in an upright position within milimetres of Robin Bain’s right hand. Why would he have placed that magazine in an upright position on the floor when he could have just dropped it or placed it on the coffee table? Also, one would have thought that if that magazine was there prior to Robin Bain’s body falling to the floor the contact of his arm with the carpet would have been enough to cause that magazine to fall over. And there were no fingerprints on that magazine.
    A live round was found of the floor of the lounge. A Mr Philip Boyce was cross-examined about that live round. Part of that cross-examination was as follows.
    Now this bullet we know was found on the floor by Robin’s body by the rifle?
    1. Yes.
    If it was caused by this cartridge being simply loaded into the magazine as distinct from any misfeed, how would the bullet get out again to get on the floor?
    2. It would have to have been physically taken out of the magazine again.
    So can it be related to – if it’s simply gone into the magazine, can it be related to a misfire then?
    3. To a misfeed.
    Yes, misfeed sorry, not misfire.
    4. If it’s going into the magazine, no it can’t. If it’s coming out of the magazine, yes it can.
    But to get it out and get it on to the floor, explain again how you would do that?
    5. To get it out, to get it on to the floor, it would either have to be a misfeed and then cleared or the magazine would have to be physically taken from the rifle, the round simply ejected out and the magazine put back in the rifle.

    In fact there is another way that live round could have ended up on the floor. For safe unloading of a .22 semi-automatic rifle you [a] engage the safety catch [b] remove the magazine and [c] pull the cocking handle back and check that the chamber is cleared.
    If there is still a round in the chamber it will be ejected at stage [c] of the safety check.
    Because there will still rounds in the magazine the following can be concluded. If someone else had shot Robin and unloaded the rifle, then stage three of the safety procedure above would have resulted in a live round being ejected.
    If Robin Bain had experienced a misfeed or a misfire he would had to have unwound himself from the alleged contorted left-hand shooting position, cleared the misfeed/misfire, re-engage the alleged contorted left-hand shooting position ,and then tried again. All this without getting any of his prints on the rifle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. SPC (5,665 comments) says:

    Sean M, you also know very well that once there is a CGT National won’t abolish it. But they would take down the top rate and say that with a CGT in place the higher earners were (finally) paying their fair share.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Grant500 (24 comments) says:

    Can never see why people who are continually on the dole / DPB – long term bludgers – get to vote anyway. They should have to work for 6 months in the electrol term to qualify for the privelege. Is it right for people who don’t pay tax to have a say on where and how someone else’s tax money is spent. As it is now we can see they they nearly always vote for a handout party – for their own gain and our loss. I dont have shares in Trustpower so I dont turn up at their annual meeting and tell them which way the company should be headed or ask for some free shares.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. soundhill1 (313 comments) says:

    @RedBaiter: “One thing you can count on is that they have not fully accounted for the dampening effect of higher taxes. Socialists can’t do maths, otherwise they wouldn’t be socialists.”

    I got from Stats if I read it correctly about people who we presume are keeping the economy running by employing others:

    27,225 have their own incomes from $50 – $70k
    15,456 have their own incomes from $70 -$100k
    28,197 have their own incomes over $100k

    So we have to presume rather a small number of employers actually earn the $140k or over the Greens propose to increase
    the tax for. The Greens new tax regime would likely help the economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. soundhill1 (313 comments) says:

    @muggins then whoever killed Robin Bain, it cannot be said without doubt that he killed himself. His sister Colleen said she did not believe he could have done it.

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