Yesterday the NZ Herald had a go at estimating the benefits going into the Kahui/King families and put it at between $845 and $1,395. That seemed conservative to me.
Rodney Hide came up with a higher figure and asked Minister for Social Development David Benson-Pope whether he agreed.
Here's another thought.
Did productive tax-payers pay for the tangi as well?
Funeral Grant
This grant may be available to the partner, child, parent or guardian of someone who has died, to help towards the cost of the funeral. The grant of $1662.58 (as at 1 April 2006) is income and asset tested.
I prefaced tax-payers with productive because yesterday family 'spokesperson', Ani Hawke told Paul Holmes that she objected to these people being called bludgers. They pay tax, she said.
Indeed. Benefits are taxed.
That was after she had said to Holmes, "Don't sneer at me Paul. I thought you had more class than that mate." She had rung him by the way.
Heartbeat – #40 – S04E10 – Arms and the Man
1 hour ago
6 comments:
Boy did she sound like a twat!
Not having been educated in that area, I could never understand why we pay benefits and then tax it. There must be a benefit (!) to it, but it seems an odd thing to do on the surface of it.
As for beneficiaries thinking they "pay tax", that's just so so so sad. They remain a 100% burden on people who create wealth for the country. And they have been brain washed into thinking they are equal to those who actually lead productive lives.
I have no problem in principle with a nationalised or private insurance scheme that provides support when you find yourself incapable to work for a genuine reason, but there must be a limit to it where it is only paid out up to a preset limit in time or dollars.
I don't think the dole should be available to anyone who hasn't worked before, and perhaps only paid for a month for every full year you did work up to a maximum of a year.
Why anyone should feel such a genuine entitlement to money they never earned in the first place, and then also feel proud to "pay tax" towards the common "burden" of Government is completely beyond me. It has to be a case of self-delusion to prevent the reality (that you're a complete dropkick) from sinking in and ruining what is left of the rest of your life.
(Where's Junior when you need him? :)
Hi LIndsay, you may want to check Big News where I have provided an estimate prior ot teh NZ Herald story - and included the funeral grants in that estimate.
http://big-news.blogspot.com
So exactly what is the point? That benefits cause people to kill their kids? That the state should not have picked up the tab for the burial of the murdered babies?
Should the Starship have tried to save the twins lives? TAfter all the family hadn't contributed their share to the national health and those damn kids sure as hell hadn't paid any taxes.
John
Benefits do not cause people to kill their kids. They can fuel lifestyles that put children at extreme risk and sometimes result in their deaths.
I don't mind the state paying for the burial of the babies but it shouldn't have been necessary - they should be alive.
Yes, Starship should give every possible medical attention to all patients. We have a public health system which most people cannot afford to avoid.
The point is that the welfare state shells out good money after bad when it comes to people who care little for themselves and even less for their children.
I believe another argument for taxing benefits is that if someone does move into employment, then their total tax "paid" can be determined correctly.
Eg. Otherwise someone getting a job would have income of (income + benefits) for the year, yet the only tax paid would be on income - they would then have a tax liability.
Yes - oculd be solved, but I think for the IRDs purposes, it easier to just pretend they paid tax.
Post a Comment