Thursday, August 18, 2005

It's all so clear

Today's announcement that Labour will extend the Working for Families package to cover 60 000 more Nw Zealand families makes the choices at this election chrystal clear.

Whereas National will enact expensive tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy, Labour will invest in ordinary New Zealand families - the backbone of our economy and society. The Greens have done a comparison of what a probable tax cut package vs. the Working for Families package would mean for working New Zealand families, and it is a stark picture.

Across the board tax cuts would give Don Brash a $380/week tax cut were he (god forbid) to be Prime Minister, and just $28/week more to the average kiwi family on $50 000. Contrarily, Labour will provide $113/week assistance to that average family.

It's simple really, do we want policies that benefit the wealthy few, or average hard working families?

43 comments:

spooks said...

Labour now promising well OVER A MILLION beneficiaries is not something to be proud of, Michael. Heaven Help us. God Help Us.

Anonymous said...

National is stuck.

spooks said...

There is good news in this, especially for our host, Michael.

People will look back at this in say 15-20 years, as the time when beneficiary levels exploded to all time highs. When people look back they will ask, how did it happen.

The good news is that Michael will be able to say that he was not part of the parliamentary team that created this disgrace.

Too Right said...

Michael - Can I remind you of a previous post where you said --

"Our hard won surpluses can be frittered away on the electoral bribe"

spooks said...

"Our hard won surpluses can be frittered away on the electoral bribe of tax cuts" was Michael's exact quote. But of course, if they are Labour's tax cuts they are good and generate growth etc, etc -- but if they are Nats tax cuts, they are bad, and generate inflation etc, etc. Rave on. (Well, it is an election, after all)

The legacy of all these Labour bribes, is that beneficiary numbers will MULTPLY by FOUR TIMES from about 300,000 to WELL OVER A MILLION.

What a legacy for the country. Thanks for nothing, Labour.

Whaleoil said...

yippity dooda for the first time in my life I can be a beneficiary.

Thanks heaps Labour...I get to put on my forms under occupation "State sponsered bludger".

spooks said...

I must be getting old. I vividly remember when "welfare" was a safety net for those in need. Now we have a Labour beneficiary calculator which shows that if you are earning $150,000 and more than five kids, you qualify for welfare under Labour.

$150,000 and on a benefit.

Well, Labour, have a listen to talkback radio (I don't btw, but I listen to talkback about the talkback) you guys have gone too far this time. Thank God some NZers have some sense, and they intrinsically know this is wrong, oh so wrong.

Anonymous said...

but it's what happens in the United States, Canada, Australia and Britain, spooks.....

Whaleoil said...

Oh so now our internal policies ae dictated by what happens in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain.....hmmm who is getting their policy from overseas now huh!!

spooks said...

Whaleoil, what Nony says doesn't count as policy.

Whaleoil said...

That all depends on sho Nony is, i suspect someone in tha ministers office given the incessant left wing drivel in support of Mikey, who can never say anything with out a cut and paste fromone minister or anothers press releases.

Anonymous said...

People who try to raise a panic about New Zealanders going to Australia would presumably be interested in the family assistance provided there..........

michael wood said...

This is a good policy that will benefit many lower and middle income NZ families who are doing their best to bring up kids.

Spooks et al, I feel that your criticisms are extremely ideological. You object to the policy purely because you believe that receiving anything from the government is morally bad. I prefer to take a practical approach - identify how we can haelp families and do it.

Incidentally, are you equally critical of National's tax credits for people with student loans given that it will by your reasoning turn those people into "beneficiaries"?

spooks said...

Sorry Michael. I can't agree. Like I said above, I well remember when the welfare system was designed to help people in need. As Mickey Savage had in mind. What we are seeing here is social engineering at unprecedented levels. It has nothing to do with helping people in need. Why should I, having paid nearly a lifetime of taxes, now have to fund other people's children, the children of people who are earning far more than I ever did or will. There is a joke which has something to do with my knocking on my neighbour's door and asking for a shag, seeing as I'm paying for their kids.

And no, I don't support tax-deductibility of student loans. But I will say this. There is at least an argument for tax deductibility which has to do with interest being a legitimate self-education cost, and therefore a cost of earning income. So deductibility does not completely offend. On the other hand, Labour's giving my tax as a benefit, a handout, an election bribe, to people who will always be earning more than I ever did or will, offends me greatly. Angers me greatly. This apples to both WFF and interest on graduate loans.

(But it is no where near as offensive as your utterly rude suggestion of my being guilt ridden about the cost of my education.)

Whaleoil said...

First up Michael, when Labour was first elected on 1999 $60,000 was the evil rich so you whacked their tax rate up. Now $60,000 + is eligible for a benefit for "lower and middle income earners"???? How can you be rich and slugged for a tax hike and now be poor enough for a benefit....in fact Labour has now set the bench mark at $150,ooo for "poor" to recieve a benefit...this is plain illogical.

Even I would be eligible for a benefit now and I can tell you I sure as hell don't need it.

spooks said...

Now what, Michael, is ideological about those comments?

tincanman said...

Michael, I've made this point many times. I am trying to raise a family as well with $533 remaining in my pocket every month.

None of this helps me.

Labour does not help me.

I am definately a middle class, average New Zealander. All I want is the opportunity to take care of my family, but that opportunity is being denied me by the Labour government. Take Saturday - I went out to help a client. I'll be billing them $800 for the day's work. The Labour government takes $360 of that, leaving me with $440. How is that fair in any way - when the harder I work the harder I'm punished?

No mate, if anybody is stuck ideologically it's you who believe that it is a good thing to make beneficiaries out of hard working, middle class New Zealanders.

Free those people to do the right thing - the thing they want to do - and work. Let them keep a bit more of what they work for, rather than lying and saying "We have no money for tax cuts" and then magically finding a few extra billion.

Don't make beneficiaries of Kiwis but let them keep their own money! That's all we want.

Keep the benefit for the people who REALLY need it. Let's help those people with good, targeted assistance.

Not this truely rubbish Labour policy.

Anonymous said...

Tincanman

What is your income?
How many children do you have?
Is yours a double or a single income household?

Have you looked into how Working with Families would help you? Would you then run a comparison with National?
Tell us the result if you do.

Do you genuinely think it is shameful to receive family assistance in the same way that "hard working, middle class" people in the United States, Canada, Australia and the UK do? Working for Families only brings NZ to about the level of generosity of family assistance in the first two of those countries. We are still short of the other two.

Or have you just constructed your aversion to family assistance, tagging it a benefit for the ideological and oppositional sake of it? I think so.

Mind you I think the secondary tax question, which I take it you are referring to with the 360/800 is an interesting one.

Whaleoil said...

Anonymous, it is you and your ilk that miss the point. It doesn't matter whether we provide the same or less than any other country. Welfarism is welfarism no mater how large or small it is. The logical next step for Labour is to just tax us at 100% and pay all our bills for us, nationalise the supermarkets and dole out the food as well.

Individual responsiblity is eroded every time yougive some one a benefit.

The old saying goes "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, give him a fishing rod feed him for a lifetime."

Labour and Welfarism is giving us all fish but New Zealanders as a whole are not learning how to fish.

And let me tell you the fish are getting cunning and don't want to be cuaght anymore.

Anonymous said...

What a silly comment from whaleoil that was.

These people are working: we know they have not scaled your illustrious remuneratory heights, whaleoil, but they are working....

Whaleoil said...

Working, yet now also on a benefit!!!

In some instances getting more in a benefit than they pay in tax.....how is this sustainable...oh I know we are now also stealing from anyone not with a family, the old who have already raised their family.

I for one will not be taking up this offer even though i could easily qaulify for it. It is welfarism. I hve never ever recieved a benefit from the government and will not start now.

Anonymous said...

You've received several 'benefits' from the government in your time actually, whaleoil.....

Anonymous said...

And under National, whaleoil, those old you mention would have to wait to 68 to get National Super!

spooks said...

The problem -- and it won't happen overnight -- is the removal of incentives. But this is far too hard for the average leftie to understand.

Basically, it comes down to two camps. You are either "IN" Labour's target camp, or you are "OUT".

And either way the country loses.

If you are an "IN", then your income is pretty well determined by how many kids you have. Doesn't matter how hard you work, you'll get virtually the same money. You will turn down overtime, turn down promotion, turn down second jobs, tone down motivation, tone down output, because you will quickly learn that you get nothing for any of them. So why bother?

If you are an "OUT", on the other hand, you will find that more than half of what you earn is gone before you even see it (taking all forms of tax into account, not just income tax). It gets taken from you. Why bother to earn an extra dollar when it costs more than two dollars worth of effort to get it. So again, why bother?

So whichever way, the result is "why bother".

Which is precisely why communism does not work, has never worked anywhere any time, and will never work.

In the real world, people say how it is important that we learn from history. Problem being, they say this, then go about repeating history anyway having learnt nothing.

You know that one definition of madness is doing the same things over and over, but expecting different results. Communism, socialism will fail in New Zealand, no differently to its failure every single time it has been tried, whenever, wherever.

spooks said...

Socialism, communism has broken dozens of countries. Removal of incentives (earnings, profits, rewards for effort) kills countries. Russia, USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, half of Africa, Poland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria -- all basket cases, because they removed incentives.

I have named dozens of basket cases. Please tell me the name of one socialist success story. Any one will do. Just one. Betting you can't. Betting you won't. Betting you will try to bullshit around this.

Anonymous said...

spooks, don't be silly - no-one is talking about socialism or communism apart from you.

Labour is bringing NZ up to the levels of family assistance in other thoroughly capitalist Anglo-American democracies.
This is the third freest economy in the world, remember.

Anonymous said...

spooks do you agree with John Key when he says Labour's policy is bad because it means parents are more likely to spend Saturday morning supporting their children playing sport rather than working overtime?

spooks said...

Doesn't matter how hard you work, you'll get virtually the same money. You will turn down overtime, turn down promotion, turn down second jobs, tone down motivation, tone down output, because you will quickly learn that you get nothing for any of them. So why bother? Go and kick a football. While the geese laying the golden eggs fly off to greener pastures. No, make that CONTINUE to fly off to ... ...

Good luck, bludgers.

spooks said...

And by the way, bludgers, when you are out there having fun with your kids at everyone else's expense as you seem to think is your God-given right, just remember this. The football fields? Where the fuck did they come from? And the roads you drive on to get there? And the water systems that water the grass? And the sewered toilets at the fields? And so on and so on.

They were not bequeathed by God.

Now we want us to have the privilege of paying for your recreation as well.

You greedy, ungrateful LAZY little bastards.

Anonymous said...

yes, back to your old theme that parents aren't hard workers....

spooks said...

... ... and while you are targeting all this assistance at lazy, greedy, ungrateful LAZY, unmotivated, young parents, think about two things.

This is NOT what made this country God-zone. Laziness contributed nothing. Handouts contributed nothing to making this a great country. Hard work did.

Second, what has thirty years of targeted assistance done for Maori? Like I said, mad people do the same things over and over, expecting different results.

And you Labour lot are mad.

spooks said...

LAZY, greedy, ungrateful, unmotivated, young parents who think the world owes them something, while they in turn owe THEIR parents precisely nothing.

spooks said...

And when Spooks becomes the topic here, Spooks knows Spooks' comments have struck a blow.

I notice that your leader is the same in making things personal, rather than discussing the issues. Helen's lamebrain response to tax cuts is that it is Brash feathering his own nest, and then makes ageist comments about his 65th birthday. Hello, Brash took a $400,000 pay cut to go into politics, dickheads.

Anonymous said...

spooks, your comments speak for their unfortunate selves....

michael wood said...

Labour's policies are about investing in the future. Everyone acknowledges how important it is to raise children (they will after all pay the taxes that fund Super for everyone in the future), but only Labour is fronting up with the necessary investment.

John Key would rather that parents worked overtime on a Saturday, Labour would rather that parent spent the day with little Johnny at the rugby. Working for Families makes that all the more likely.

spooks said...

You will notice a pattern here on this blog. When you ask Spooks a question, Spooks always answers. On the other hand, when Spooks asks questions, there are never answers. So I repeat the question and offer the challenge to anyone of giving any old answer just to prove Spooks wrong. The question again -

What has thirty years of targeted assistance done for Maori? In fact, what has thirty years of targeted Maori assistance done for ANYONE?

Remember, any answer will do. Sensible would be novel, but the usual diatribe would do for the sake of the exercise.

spooks said...

Michael Wood (no poetic licence) "Labour would rather that parent spent the day with little Johnny at the rugby" as long as someone else pays for it. And the person paying, well Labour don't give a fig about them. They are only what Labour was originally set up to represent - workers. And Labour is saying, "f*** the workers." Well, for the first time in decades, Michael, workers are about to say, "f*** Labour".

spooks said...

Michael Wood (again an exact quote) "but only Labour is fronting up with the necessary investment". How exactly are Labour doing that, Michael?

Anonymous said...

Where do you get the figure of thirty years targeted assistance for Maori from, spooks?

Peter McK said...

why do you socilaists need to resort to lying and misinformation "John Key would rather that parents worked overtime on a Saturday, Labour would rather that parent spent the day with little Johnny at the rugby. Working for Families makes that all the more likely." - what absolute crap.

1. if you go to the www.taxcuts.co.nz calculator it demonstrates that under most situations a person is better off with National than labour.
2. National rewards effort - Labour's policy is just marxist communism by stealth
3. I am insulted that on an income of $90k labour wants to make me suck on the tit of the government to get some of my own money back - no incentive to work harder.

Socialism is a lie show me a socialsit experiment that has worked - there are none. societies that embrace capitalism are better off than those that don't.

spooks said...

Peter, from my experience of this blog, you can expect a reply (if any) to be abusive, and to be about as relevant to your questions as icebergs are to the Foreign Legion.

spooks said...

What has thirty years of targeted assistance done for Maori? In fact, what has thirty years of targeted Maori assistance done for ANYONE?

Still waiting ... ... ... ... ...

Insolent Prick said...

No, Michael. As with Labour's interest-free student loan bribe, your numbers are wrong on this count, too.

The maximum amount any individual will save under National is $92 per week. I strongly suggest that instead of using David Slack's calculator, which doesn't involve the moving of tax threshholds, that you use National's calculator, which is accurate.

National's tax package ensures that individuals earning $60,000 per year--about the average income for a degree-qualified worker in employment--earns $45 extra per week. Labour provides that same worker with NOTHING.

A two-income family with two young children, with one parent earning $45,000 per year and the other parent earning $30,000, spending $8,000 on child-care, will be $100 a week better off under National. Under Labour, that same family will be just $42 better off than at present.

Working families are not better off under Labour. That concept is a fraud and a lie, and you can't hide behind using false numbers to explain away that lie, Michael.