Was it the intention of politicians to segregate us into groups that won't complain for fear of offending each other? Thus allowing them to buy, and continue to buy, our votes accordingly?
For example, students have to pay to use public transport (in Wellington at least) and Superannuitants do not. But which group has an income? Students are reticent about complaining, though I note a new group has formed. Without researching them, I'm willing to bet they are calling for free or subsidised fares. Not for 65 plus to pay their way.
The pollies have got us right where they want us. It vexed me greatly when standing for ACT, that the idea of not dispensing privilege was so misunderstood and consequently, unpopular. The state has us pitted against one another in the never-ending scramble for a free lunch. And levering off this set of circumstances (which we call 'democracy') are armies of people researching and justifying those free lunches.
Compounding the reluctance of people to speak out is the fluidity between groups. We will all be in one of the groups age-wise before we kick the bucket. Perhaps people in their 50s have less interest in stating that the age of Super needs to rise. But they bloody well should knowing, as it stands, the tax burden on their children will be greater than it was on them.
Youth have trouble speaking against privilege for the 'golden oldies' because they've got grandparents affected. Do over 65s show concern or empathy for youth who are expected to incur debt to a degree that would have horrified them? I don't hear them.
Those same people though look at their grown-up children demanding Working For Families and Paid Parental Leave and wonder why they've become so self-righteously expectant of state largesse.
Unfortunately, to give voice to such sentiments isn't going to make for a conducive family get-together. Those are times for appreciating and enjoying each other.
So voters put up and shut up. Be it from self-interest or fear of offending.
We are divided and conquered. The systematic auction of goodies called 'elections' can persist unchallenged...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe it was the intention, and that it was done with malice. Hanging is too good for the average politician.
I doubt it was the intention of any individual of the universal franchise - i.e. so-called "democracy"
In 1776 the cry was "No Taxation without Representation"
Today the cry is "No Representation without Taxation"
Only those few high-value, high-worth families deserve representation - the 5% who pay for everyone else deserve a vote - especially on levels of taxation and spending. The rest just don't.
Perhaps people in their 50s have less interest in stating that the age of Super needs to rise. But they bloody well should knowing, as it stands
No Lindsay - I thought much better of you than this. The Codger-Dole, as effectively the only completely bloody universal benefit needs to be abolished. Not by pushing the age up to 67 - which, God knows how, still remains official Labour party policy --- not pushing the age up to 70 (which I think is was ACT policy) --- not even a "the age rises 3 months every year in perpetuity" so a long and slow phase-out which is probably the libz "policy"
National's policy - Key's policy - change the age and I'll resign is just a joke. Almost as much as them flushing billions we just don't have on train loops!
(ironically, the policy difference over super between National+ACT and Labour is enough to make Labour the most rightwing and fiscally prudent party in NZ.)
But it's still nowhere enough the Codger-Dole should just be abandoned in toto, immediately
morally it's wrong. economically its a huge disincentive to saving for retirement and directly responsible for the bank crashes over the entire west. politically it ensures everyone votes for communism because everyone gets old.
But please explain why one day you're a "jobseeker" on an "allowance" - basically you're a bludger --- and then by the magic of a birthday you're suddenly an honoured super annuitant, able to pontificate at lenght about how you "paid taxes all your life" and now "deserve something back"
there isn't any money in government coffers. For the last 5 years at least every dollar spend on benefits including the codger-dole has been borrowed. The only rational policy was to terminal all the benefits back in 2008.
It is just as urgent now.
Post a Comment