CTU’s Vote Fairness video :
CTU’s Vote Fairness video :
This entry was posted on Saturday, November 5th, 2011 at 4:56 pm and is filed under CTU, Elections, Fair Share, humour. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
@Tracey
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/deskfile/benefit_rate_summaries/BenefitRateSummary_2011-04-01.pdf
This shows the rates on page 1 for the main benefits and the amount of family tax credits that are added on are on page 2.
The ‘In Work Tax Credit’ is the one that is families currently employed only. Accom sub comes under Working For Families too as does childcare/afterschool care.
‘It was specifically ruled out by Labour (Cullen) to exclude beneficiary families.’ No, it was the In Work Tax Credit that was, not the main tax credit.
“If Labour did all that between 1999 and 2008 they don’t appear to have been very successful.”
It’s on the record OldGeorge and if you say they didn’t, please show me your proof.
You didn’t say what it is, other than those things I listed that National is planning to do or that you would have them do? It’s exactly what you believe most people want them to do though, wasn’t it?
“There is a huge majority of people in the country who believe that the benefit system is being abused. Much of that belief comes from the evidence of their own eyes.”
Wrong much of it comes from what they are told, not what they see or experience. Like seeing one person in a beneficiary office smoking and extrapolating that all waste their money.
C’mon OldGeorge be fair, front up to your own statements;
WHAT is it you believe everyone wants done that hasn’t been tried yet, and EXACTLY what steps are National taking to address it?
Thanks for the info and link A Mother (as always).
It’s not enough to say “they are wasting our money it must stop” Be specific man or you will be killed by the frustration of your attempts to grasp smoke.
You are playing smoke and mirrors OG
Spud, don’t be paranoid, it is me, the original me, I have seen no Tracey posting who isn’t me. Cybe rhug, and hope your brother still fairs well.
OldGeorge
Yes I agree with you. We should shoot them. Actually I don’t agree with you. I was just parodying your position!
As John P in his stuff blog says – 55,000 kids go to school without breakfast everyday, but there’s absolutely no explanation for it other than parents or ‘caregivers’ who couldn’t give a f**k about their kids. As he points out, it doesn’t cost a fortune to provide a couple of Weetbix.
OK, Old George, how much does a 1 kg packet of weetbix cost?, and for that matter how much is a jar of marmite, i cant remember the size, was stunned at the price though.
And while we are on the matter what is the cheapest evening meal you could supply your children with some nutrition?, lets see if you actually know what you are talking about and if youve actually been to the supermarket of late.
Old George doesn’t eat Weekbix. He never had to stoop that low as to eat peasant food. He eats caviar for breakfast, thats why he doesn’t care about the rising cost of weetbix!
not fair ed and one of the reasons their poor reasoning “works” is because they can always find one or two examples of poor parenting, or fraudulent beneficiaries and leap to a greater conclusion than is warranted. I’m prepared to bet OG has eaten weetbix and his children have eaten weetbix. I’m also prepared to bet that he has never let his children go hungry.
We have a representative of the group being pilloried that posts here and she has often said SHE has gone hungry before letting her children go so. I believe that the majority of benefit recipients are like A Mother.
Yes, one good for nothing recipient is one too many BUT the Government job is to prioritise and use time, effort and money in the most effective way. By perpetuating a myth they are diverting that time attention and money away from areas of great need.
Dave and OG have not been able to spell out National’s plan in this area, with timelines and research supporting its efficacy.
Agree or disagree Labour has provided that.
There are programmes that have worked, and some of these have been cut by the government that says it wants to get young people from benefits into jobs and training. That seems counter intuitive to me, but apparently not to OG and Dave.
Front up boys, outline the party of your choice’s PLAN, TIMELINE and basis for success. Failing that, supply your own.
Then we can all move from identifying a problem (regardless of its real size) and move to solving it.
Dumping 80% of current welfare recipients off their benefits has consequences that have been raised in this thread but addressed by no one.
What I’m saying is that they clearly weren’t successful, not that these ‘initiatives’ weren’t put into place. We still see kids not being properly provided for, but ‘caregivers’ who’ve been on benefit long term.
I’d have them focus very hard on those ‘caregivers’ who clearly aren’t giving care. If there are 50,000 kids going to school without breakfast we should send in intervention workers to those families to take their family budget to pieces and see why they can’t afford to feed their kids. If it’s a case of lack of skills in how to run a home / cook etc then we should provide (compulsory) training in the required areas. If it’s because of addictions then we should consider moving the kids to a place where they would be better cared for.
Not National policy, I know, but more likely to get on the agenda eventually from a centre right government than one who sees this sector of the population as a power base.
Stand in a queue at a supermarket in one of the ‘poorer’ areas. It’s not that difficult, with a 90% chance of being right, to identify those who are on some kind of benefit (may be ‘money for doing nothing’ or WFF, but it’s benefit nonetheless). Look at the number who are buying smokes, or who are queuing at the lotto counter, or have a trolley full of bad choices. All fully or partially funded by the efforts of other people.
Whilst that’s happening people won’t accept that there’s a problem with the level of benefit. Poverty, as understood by most people, exists when people have stripped all luxuries from their life and yet still can’t make ends meet.
I don’t buy Weetbix – we always have whatever is on special at the time. But I’m sure that you can give a child a breakfast of Weetbix for less than a dollar a head. How many ciggies does that equate to? How many people who ‘haven’t got enough’ to give their kids breakfast strangely do have enough to puff their way through the day? (I bet this sort of statistic can’t be collected because it’s ‘too intrusive’).
Would be well below $10 for a family of 4. We managed that last night.
I’m the main shopper for our family, so am very aware of what things cost. I’m also well practiced at buying the loss leaders and putting together meals from whatever we then end up with. There’s always some meat, and some fruit and veggies in that category. Driving to work today I see the Mad Butcher has pork roasts at $5 a kilo this week.
Actually Old George grew up on a bleak council housing estate in the English midlands so knows a great deal about not having two pennies to rub together. That’s why I’m so careful about how I spend my own cash today, putting what’s left over into savings for our retirement. And why I get so cross when I see what I believe to be people abusing benefit paid for by others.
I don’t assume to know anything about your upbringing/background or current situation so I won’t make any snide comment, but I would be surprised if you’ve experienced anything remotely like the poverty I did when I was growing up.
I’ve actually only had caviar on about half a dozen occasions in my life, and each time it was behind the old Iron Curtain, comrade!
(Whilst I didn’t find it repulsive, it wasn’t the sort of thing I could imagine paying a lot of money for).
Old George, i dont think you do have any idea, We are a family of four, both work, do not receive any susbsidy and are struggling.
We do not smoke, dont drink other than on special occasions and definately not at a pub.
So if we can barely cope, how on gods earth are you expecting people on benefits to be able to cope, meanwhle business people claim gst back on things that they know is morraly wrong but do it anywhay because they can.
Wages are to low in the country, prices for basics (not luxurys, they are still cheap) are too high. To be honest the logical and responsible option for giving kids a better life is moving to Aussie.
When was the last time anyone not living in a poor area went to shop in a super market in a poorer area to observe how they shopped? Yet somehow the invented stereotype exists all the same.
Of course for those blinded by ideology, anyone receiving an income transfer – 80% of parents are on WFF has something in their trolley that should not be paid for by others.
Interesting that wine botles are so often left off that list, as if such middle class behaviour spending should not be seen in the same way as buying a lotto ticket. Funny that someone as working class as old george claims to be would adopt that distinction.
In the end old george is simply someone without dependents in the home who does not like supporting other people raising up children on WFF or benefits, maybe we should bring in a card for those receiving super – coz why should we pay for the spending choices of anyone not working for their money. Or is that his point and if so what is it, we are all to be independent of each other and provide for ourselves – what is that but Ayn Randian libertarianz ideology?
“I don’t assume to know anything about your upbringing/background or current situation so I won’t make any snide comment,” yet you presume to know alot about people by the supermarket they shop at or how they look.
“I’d have them focus very hard on those ‘caregivers’ who clearly aren’t giving care. If there are 50,000 kids going to school without breakfast we should send in intervention workers to those families to take their family budget to pieces and see why they can’t afford to feed their kids. If it’s a case of lack of skills in how to run a home / cook etc then we should provide (compulsory) training in the required areas. If it’s because of addictions then we should consider moving the kids to a place where they would be better cared for.
Not National policy, I know, but more likely to get on the agenda eventually from a centre right government than one who sees this sector of the population as a power base.”
Given National is cutting services, and looking to cut welfare, and to save money, they are LESS likely, in my opinion, to introduce those kinds of things than labour.
“old george is simply someone without dependents in the home ” I think he has, and even refers inhis post to feeding them all for $10 last night.
I do not believe there are no problems I DO believe OG’s attitude doesn’t advance the situation and move us any closer to a solution. It does, however marginalised and devalue any number of our fellow citizens on nothing more than assumption and shallow belief.
I shop all over town, buddy, depending on where the best deals are to be had. (It would be different if Chch had a Fortnum and Mason’s, of course, in which case I’d always shop there…)
I believe I’ve included the more generic ‘booze’ in my list of items that are luxuries / non-necessities in many postings. For the avoidance of doubt: this covers everything from neat alcohol through beer and alcopops and wine to the finest single malts. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here…
Again someone who claims to know my personal circumstances…
I don’t think many like supporting other people with whom they have no family connection. This is, of course, totally different to accepting that there will be instances when this is necessary, but like many others I expect that the call on this sort of assistance is minimised, and when it is provided that measures are taken to ensure it is used for the purposes it was intended.
And I’d contend that, in most people’s minds, if you’ve got kids then feeding them would be paramount and that anything that wasn’t essential – which includes using your dosh to buy any kind of smoking material and any kind of booze – would be take a back seat until that fundamental obligation was met. Don’t you agree?
@Stephen Jones, once again you are confused. Logic is fairness, because empirical facts are indisputable. When people get hysterical and try to dogmatically justify the unjustifiable, is where logic goes out the window and pants-wetting comes in.
Please explain to me why 17% of New Zealanders should have to support and pay 97% of the tax take on behalf of the other 83% of earners? Where is the fairness in that or the logic? Any tenuous justification would be welcomed.
Your world view is what it is, and hopefully only a minority of people will share it in the future, coz even now National feels unable to tamper with WFF.
WFF is based on the idea that income transfers (earlier Family Benefit and the family home mortgage tax rebate) are required to help people raise up families and own their own home.
This help has not been given to just a few needy families, but to most or all families and this is what establishes equality of opportunity in a society and a classless egalitarianism (whatever income gap and wealth gap exists otherwise).
The same principle underpins provision for those retired so there is now little old age poverty in this country.
Affording what we have regarded as the basis of what this country is about, and has been proud of being, is not something to be liked or disliked, but proud of. The haters and wreckers trying to destroy it with their greed for themself ideology are the problem.
If I was convinced that the situation is as bad as some claim it is, and that the measures proposed to be put in place would actually improve matters, I’d be willing to pay more tax. Thing is I don’t believe either of these things.
ANd what I certainly don’t believe in is the idea of using the tax and benefit systems to support some sort of socialist inspired wealth redistribution scheme. We need more incentives for people to get on rather than the disincentive of knowing that you’ll get hit by progressively higher levels of tex the more you achieve.
SPC – your last posting seemed quite well balanced until you started frothing at the mouth and talking about haters and wreckers and suggesting that those who expect to hold onto a good proportion of what they earn are guilty of greed. It’s a pity that so many can’t debate without becoming agressive.
Some agression to a perceived threat is inevitable, you said many people did not like supporting others raising their children, that is not thinking in accord with the values this society was built on.
Do you really believe that the founding principles of New Zealand included a consensus that people could have as many kids as they liked, irrespective of their ability to support them, and that everyone else would pick up the tab?
Your questions were never raised then, it was presumed that everyone would have a job (there was virtually no unemployment) that jobs would come with a wage that was sufficient to live on without accomodation supplements and that parents needed income transfer to enable them to raise up a family in their own home – this was unchallenged as the idea that super should be provided to old people.
OG do you consider dropping “pants-wetting comes in.” to a discussion is “frothing at the mouth”?
… and now that the question is being raised. Do you have an answer to it? Should people be allowed to have as many kids as they wish, with the expectation that the NZ taxpayer picks up the tab for meeting the shortfall between what they can afford and what they can’t?
Sorry?
The “foundng principles” of NZ were formulated by a distinct group from that community, not a representative group at that. I believe 99% of the population at that time were Maori.
Dave’s post immediately above SPC’s which you suggest shows signs of frothing at the mouth
It’s a ridiculous question, most people would need income transfers to help them raise up children while they are young enough to be parents.
The number of children to feed and house is the variable influencing how much income transfer would be required – are the numbers of children to be allowed parents to be rationed by some sort of state intervention?
Clearly you see support to families as socialist redistribution but not super, I’m guessing you’re without children in the home want lower taxes on yourself and yet still get socialised super.
“If I was convinced that the situation is as bad as some claim it is,” You seem to be at the head of the group bemoaning how bad it is, without the evidence, seemingly, to support the view?
Wrong on both counts, actually…
Let’s put that the other way:
You haven’t provided me with compelling evidence to reject the view that, used wisely, living on benefit doesn’t equate to living in poverty.
No it’s not a ridiculous question.
I think you’ll find that there are many people who limited or who are limiting the size of their families to what they can afford.
I can state categorically that we would have at least tried to have twice as many kids if we’d felt we could have supported them adequately. (And before you jump to yet another incorrect conclusion, we didn’t look at it in terms of raising ‘princesses’ who had to have every expensive luxury going).
OG, how many people on various benefits had their children before they began on the benefit?
I have no idea.
I was expressing a principle, that one should be responsible in one’s breeding habits. (One that is being acknowledged in National’s policy release on DBP whereby those who have additional children whilst on that benefit will in furture only have one year’s exemption from the requirement to be looking for work).
Where people’s circumstances change radically AFTER producing children it’s another issue altogether.
Same sort of distinction as between accident and self-inflicted injury, really.
“I have no idea.”
Agreed
I hate to say it, Tracey, but I think you just lost…
Wrong on what count?
You said you opposed progressive taxes, does this not mean tax cut for yourself, you claim to be an “old” guy questioning subsidy of family as socialist redistribution, but somehow you are still young enough to have children in your own home.
So you oppose socialised super?
Sorry, but I’ve debated with someone elsewhere who claimed to be a European Jew and an Israeli Jew (at different blogs) and thus not an anti-semite, just anti-Zionist (he was not Jewish).
Old George, someone agreed that you did not know the answer to the question they posed.
Where?
I’m using the moniker ‘Old George’ because someone hijacked my original ‘George’.
Something that confuses me about that if you have another child while on the benefit debate is;
What if you have one child, your partner runs off and you are pregnant? That child will be born after you go on the DPB.
I think it should be worded as if you have another child after 10 months (38-42 weeks is considered normal after that you are induced so have rounded it from 9 1/2 months to 10 so that if induced on the 9 1/2 month mark and have the baby after midnight so ‘after the 9 1/2 month mark you are safe)
That is what they have in Aus. If you have another child after 10 months to cover this exact situation, but here, there doesn’t seem to be any cover for this type of delema with this new policy. What is the clarification with this?
I think people may think I’m just being extremly picky but its a gap that others just do not seem to see.
Dave
You obviously do not understand logic, it is a property of arguments, some arguments are logical and others are not; read some philosophy, this fact has been accepted for over 2000 years. What you think is fair need not, and in your case does not because it is immoral, correspond with what is logical. The reason why the few have to pay is because a flat tax rate demands that the tax take be determined by what the lowest earner can afford; only thereby can everyone be paying the same amount of tax. But you cannot afford to run a country with such a low tax take as that imposition would dictate. If you think it a good idea, then you had better be a very big and strong person, or you had better own a very evil little empire, because without the social services in place there is nothing to stop bigger and meaner people than you taking 100% of what you own.
OldGeorge
“If I was convinced that the situation is as bad as some claim it is, and that the measures proposed to be put in place would actually improve matters, I’d be willing to pay more tax. Thing is I don’t believe either of these things.”
In that case you do not believe what the scientists are telling us when they report that evidence suggests Scandinavian countries provide the best model for social and financial health and wealth. Furthermore, you do believe that the American puritanical model of beat them and oppress them until they behave themselves works. And you believe this in the face of all evidence to the contrary; the huge numbers of drug addicts living homeless in American cities; justice systems there that strain at the seams; an incarceration rate that even beats our appalling statistics; indeed state murder of criminals does not even stem this tide. Hark! There was once a fool named Galileo who proposed the earth moved around the sun. Sillyly enough he even provided evidence. But the wise men who knew better, knew that the sun moved around the earth. Today we deride those wise men.
Not at all picky. Very sensible suggestion.
And on the other hand we have Singapore, which has a very severe justice system, good old fashioned discipline in school, and has managed to create a clean and safe society and an economy which has soared in the last half century.
” think you’ll find that there are many people who limited or who are limiting the size of their families to what they can afford.”
OMG the first thing ive heard OLD George say that i agree with. We had to do this, and a number of our friends are in the same boat, its the responsible thing to do, what doesnt help is when you work out how to cope money wise then the ball park changes with wages not going up, but the price of the basics needed to live do go up.
OldGeorge
I know little of Singapore, a little more of Japan, and bit more still of China. In Japan and China you still have traditional family ties that bind society in a way they do not in New Zealand, or at least Pakeha NZ. Furthermore crime, as far as I understand it, is business and you tread on other’s turf at your peril. These are not simply attitudes that the people have consciously taken up, they are behaviors that have been ingrained for centuries. While Asian countries may have a free side behind the facade, the facade itself is one of authoritarian respect, the downside of which I am sorry to say, is questionable attitudes toward human rights and authority over reasoned judgement. The reason the Scandinavian countries work is because they premise themselves upon the notion that all people are reasonable beings that innately want the best for themselves and realize that can only come about by allowing others the same autonomy even if you don’t agree with or understand their choices. To remake NZ in the style of Singapore, assuming it adheres to the general Asian authoritarian facade, is a huge move away from at least the European roots. I can’t say that it won’t work, but I can’t say I like it particular.
@Waterboy
Did you not use your crystal ball to see what the future is before you had children??????? How irresponsible of you! I am shocked! I thought I was the only one that forgot to do this!
*hanging head in shame that I didn’t see what was in the future before hand*
For those interested in how well Singapore is doing
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/truth-about/106-poverty-in-singapore
George that you think I “lost” because I agreed you had no idea of the factual foundation of one of your arguments underpins why I stopped discussing it with you. For you it’s about winning and losing an argument, for me it’s about trying to get to the facts and make an analysis and then form an opinion. This involves looking beneath the surface of information and exploring wider implications.
Tracey – I retorted that you’d lost because you deliberately misinterpreted those four words of my response in a snide manner. I did think that was out of character with the way in which you generally engage in debate and at the time it seemed as if you had nothing better to add to the debate.
I certainly don’t see the debate that takes place here as a win/lose thing, and I think that often the unpleasantness into which exchanges descend can be put down to people losing sight of why they engaged in the first place and falling into the trap of turning things into some sort of game. This polarises things and has the effect of pushing us towards one extreme or another when the reality is that there’s some truth in most points of view. As a former Labour supporter I certainly understand what many posters are getting at, even if I can see the problems with their comments.
I’ve followed the link you’ve posted. It seems odd that a political party should be using such out of date statistics in their propaganda. Are there no more recent updates? It’s possible to find examples for every society of where it falls short of perfection. (Even, gasp, in the scandinavian icons…) But what would be more telling is how Singapore, as a result of the way it organises its society, has fared over the last fifty years compared to other countries that were performing in a similar manner back then.
Tracey
Thank you for that. Sorry OldGeorge, I have to take back any concession I made. I know of no instance where beating the peasants worked! And the Scandinavian countries are the only working capitalist systems operating.
So you don’t accept that the capitalist system has created a situation where vast majority of New Zealanders are far better off than they would have been under any other system that has been attempted in the modern world?
The problem with the alternatives is that they guarantee equality of poverty.
Rather than getting my fair share of a tiny pie I’m happier with a smaller proportion of a bigger one. I don’t have the stats, but I’d put money on most people feeling the same.
I travelled extensively in Eastern Europe in the 1970s and I can confirm that the Iron Curtain wasn’t built to keep refugees out of the Peoples’ Democracies!
OldGeorge
” the Iron Curtain wasn’t built to keep refugees out of the Peoples’ Democracies!”
Of course it was not, it was to stop people running away from the those who dictated their lives. National are proposing we suffer the dictates of foreign investors. National implement policies tourist investors demand upon the locals they pretend to govern/protect. Which policies see the implementation of a tax regime that cannot cover the debt and provide the services modern sovereign people’s demand. To whit, the people leaving NZ are the workers leaving the impoverishment forced upon them by a tourist investors’ greed.
Now while a local economy might not have been possible with a population of 1.5 million, this limit no longer exists. With government redistributing a greater proportion of wealth back into the local economy via wages, infrastructure; a coherent and aggressive savings plan to offset any tourist investment that might flee if taxes were raised, Labour would be building local economies and communities. As is quite obvious, Labour would be building a future; National are simply stealing the silver while the boat sinks.
“Did you not use your crystal ball to see what the future is before you had children??????? How irresponsible of you! I am shocked! I thought I was the only one that forgot to do this!
*hanging head in shame that I didn’t see what was in the future before hand*”
@A Mother, Maybe Old George could lend us his one, he seems to have one that works for people thinking about having children, the one that John Key gave us that told us of a Brighter Future seems to not be working no matter how much i shake it.
@Waterboy
I think we might do.