Isn't that exactly the message our government needs to hear about New Zealand society.
Which reminds me of something else I was chewing over. The business of Working For Families and taxing those without children to support those with. The major justification given for this is those parents are raising the next generation of taxpayers. But at the rate this country is going there is no guarantee of that. Many young people leave and don't come back. Part of the reason they flee is they do not relish the prospect of being highly taxed to pay for other people's children. Here's a question. Have welfare states anywhere produced an increase in the average family size?'Supporting' families is code for vainly attempting to centrally plan society. It treats people as state lackeys, units for wealth extraction. Interfering in the structure of society has similar results to interfering in the market. Ultimately less is produced. A few inefficient industries are retained through subsidy but at a cost to those who might otherwise thrive or create new enterprises or innovations. Intervention in families has the same stifling effect as intervention in the marketplace.
They can call WFF 'tax relief' but it is just another facet of socialism.
9 comments:
Of course WFF is a socialist policy - but then what other word could be used to describe a government that recognises it takes too much tax off people, so it gives only those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder some back.
WFF is welfare, in no uncertain terms. What it does is effectively shift the tax brackets in favour of those that don't succeed financially and to the detriment of those that do. That is punitive and unjust.
When my children do poorly I don't reward them, and when they do well I don't punish them. The current government, through it's "policies of envy" do punish the successful and reward the others. Is this fair or just? Absolutely not.
Working for Families is some of the worst policy making I've seen over the last decade.
Mark Hubbard
WFF is nothing but a vote buying rort.
I have two married daughters aged in their mid 30's one with four children and one with three. Over Christmas we were talking about the EFB, the smacking bill etc and I suggested that they should consider this when the election comes round.
Both said - `we are going to vote for Labour because they give us money we don't need'.
Your daughters get money they don't need and I get nothing because I don't have enough kids for my income level to qualify. This policy hasn't given me much in the way of tax relief.
Brian Smaller
we are going to vote for Labour because they give us money we don't need.
It's that attitude that annoys me - people seem happy for other peoples' freedoms to be trampled over as long as they themselves are better off.
WFF also defers responsibility. In my opinion people shouldn't have children if they cannot afford them. There is no moral justification in having kids you can't afford and expecting someone else to pay for them.
But why not tax people less so they do not need WFF and this would remove the overheads of WFF administration so even more could be given back. I object to paying for other peoples children.
When we decided to have kids over 20 years ago, affordability was always part of the equation and we did it all by ourselves!!
Now of course we are "rich" and expected to be OK about paying for others to have kids. WRONG
But why not tax people less so they do not need WFF and this would remove the overheads of WFF administration so even more could be given back."
Ahhh and that help's entrench Socialism how exactly....? Addicted welfare addicts are at the heart of keeping Social(ist) democracy alive...
But why not tax people less so they do not need WFF
Because some people will get less income and go further into debt, thats why. Only a third of working families effectively pay tax and so their tax cut would have to be more than 100 percent just to equalise WFF.
I just cannot get over the irony of a smug bastard like Cullen getting millions in pay from the taxpayer over the years then calling me a rich when I earn about a quarter of his base salary.
Brian Smaller
Post a Comment