Sue Bradford must be seriously 'conflicted' over Jeanette Fitzsimons position regarding topping up low income people for extra power/petrol costs created by Labour's carbon trading scheme. Fitzsimons is opposed because the incentive to save power would then be removed.
Compare this to Sue Bradford's demands that the In Work payment also be paid to beneficiaries with children. Notice that then there would be no incentive for those beneficiaries to get a job.
[Fitzsimons] believes that subsidising low income earners to help them pay for higher power bills which will be a consequence of the scheme, destroys the whole purpose of placing a price on carbon.
Can you imagine Bradford saying, "I believe that subsidising beneficiaries to help them pay for child costs destroys the whole purpose of paying working parents more."
When hell freezes over......
A whale on a prediction market
38 minutes ago
7 comments:
Logic is a very unattractive quality.
But only in lefties aye
Logic,commonsense,lefties. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Since when did Sue Bradford give a damn about the environment?
Bradford has never been a "true" greenie. She's a socialist using the Green Party to advance her own agenda.
However, the two are united in the belief in the expansion of the welfare state. The free market is another common enemy.
I detest and despise these people.
But they keep the others honest.
Her statement also contradicts their eco-tax policy of placing carbon charges on products in return for creating a tax free threshold of $5000 (returning about $1000 to every tax payer)
The tax free threshold position is at least more sensible as it talks about "shifting tax" to the 'bads' from the 'goods', but I didn't actually expect the Greens to push that hard because even the rich (those earning over $60K according to the tax tables) get the benefit of a tax free threshold. And that seems to be a crime amongst lefty circles.
Post a Comment