The birth rate in New Zealand is below replacement level like many other western countries. The government should do something to encourage New Zealanders to have more children or breed as you put it. However, the working for families welfare package is the wrong way to do.
Chuck, The govt should get out of families. The unimpeded successful economic unit is the two parent family. The govt has destroyed that by interfering with oodles of legislation and subsidies. And instead of looking to breed people who will pay our old age pensions we should be saving for it ourselves.
Lindsay, you say, “The unimpeded successful economic unit is the two parent family.” I totally agree. There are more reasons for concern over a declining birth rate than supporting those on the pension thought that is important. Democracy is not perfect but it is the best system so far. There is no way that a the New Zealand public will support a government that proposes abolishing the DPB let alone the old age pension and health case for the elderly.
The best way for a government to support families is by income splitting. This is done in the US and it is fair and does not undermine incentive for people to improve their situation as does Labour’s blatant bribe. Under Labour’s bribe the best way for many people to get ahead is to work under the table. Reduce taxes to a fair amount and only pay welfare in cases of genuine need and compliance will improve.
Chuck, Income splitting would be unecessary under a flat tax. That would be the fairest way to approach everybody regardless of whether they have children or not.
Lindsay, ACT tried for years to sell the idea of a flat tax. I am certain that it will not happen any time soon in New Zealand. I would wager if there was a poll taken far more people would support income splitting than would support a flat tax.
Gee, as someone with no children, it's good to know that my money's going to ensure that 'no child (gets) left behind'. (Bet the lefties are furious that George W beat them to that one).
Hell, if you believe that, you'll believe anything. Chuck: Lindsay's right when she says the govt should just get out of the way, period.
Truly, the last thing this country needs is more poisonous state interference.
I will never understand the obsession with minding other people's business.
But then I don't understand the philosophy that thinks it's right to steal money from Peter to give to Paul ..
There is no inherent virtue in breeding or not breeding - it depends on whether those breeding are able materially and psychologically to raise children by their own means. The state takes from some the ability to do this to help others who don't have it - if you don't have the material means to raise children then by definition you don't have the psychological means either.
Hi Berend. I note that you 'feel ashamed to admit' that you have made application to the latest govt madness masquerading as 'tax relief'. (Tax relief, my bum).
I just opened my first pay packet of the new financial year. My take-home pay has dropped - not because I've worked less or my hourly rate has decreased - but because the tax-take has increased. Presumably to fund this round of communism.
I'd expect nothing less from card-carrying socialists and those who believe they have the right to live off others, but it's interesting to learn that even those who purport to disapprove of socialism will line up when the state lollies are big enough.
Sus, For the higher earners (the bigger tax payers) it IS tax relief. Under National or ACT they would have got more back.
At some point lower down the scale people are getting back tax that was funding their share of services. That's a subsidy. Could be called welfare. Someone else is paying.
At some point even lower down the scale people are starting to get back more than they actually pay in tax. The money they receive is a hand-out - definitely welfare. Someone else is paying.
But what has changed in your pay packet? I'd be asking because tax rates haven't changed.
Lindsay, I must disagree with you (and David Benson-Pope) when you technically define this as 'tax relief' for higher earners.
I believe it to be 'welfare' because the would-be recipients have to *apply* to the state for it. That is, go cap in hand.
Real tax relief would be (rightly) leaving it in our pockets in the first place.
Some might argue that there is no real difference. I disagree; I think there is a world of difference.
Re my pay packet: I can only repeat that the PAYE has increased. Although the next one will be more enlightening, as the whole fortnight's earnings will have occurred in the new financial year.
BTW I enjoy your comments. I've followed what you've publicly said re the DPB for a number of years now, and I applaud your courage.
13 comments:
Further into the morass of socialism. Much of the west is addicted to welfare (I just posted on why). Should have called it "How the West was lost".
The birth rate in New Zealand is below replacement level like many other western countries. The government should do something to encourage New Zealanders to have more children or breed as you put it. However, the working for families welfare package is the wrong way to do.
Chuck, The govt should get out of families. The unimpeded successful economic unit is the two parent family. The govt has destroyed that by interfering with oodles of legislation and subsidies. And instead of looking to breed people who will pay our old age pensions we should be saving for it ourselves.
Lindsay, you say, “The unimpeded successful economic unit is the two parent family.” I totally agree. There are more reasons for concern over a declining birth rate than supporting those on the pension thought that is important. Democracy is not perfect but it is the best system so far. There is no way that a the New Zealand public will support a government that proposes abolishing the DPB let alone the old age pension and health case for the elderly.
The best way for a government to support families is by income splitting. This is done in the US and it is fair and does not undermine incentive for people to improve their situation as does Labour’s blatant bribe. Under Labour’s bribe the best way for many people to get ahead is to work under the table. Reduce taxes to a fair amount and only pay welfare in cases of genuine need and compliance will improve.
Chuck, Income splitting would be unecessary under a flat tax. That would be the fairest way to approach everybody regardless of whether they have children or not.
Lindsay, ACT tried for years to sell the idea of a flat tax. I am certain that it will not happen any time soon in New Zealand. I would wager if there was a poll taken far more people would support income splitting than would support a flat tax.
I feel ashamed to admit I have applied as well. Mind you, I pay the top rate. But it was too much money and I'm in desparate need of money.
Gee, as someone with no children, it's good to know that my money's going to ensure that 'no child (gets) left behind'. (Bet the lefties are furious that George W beat them to that one).
Hell, if you believe that, you'll believe anything. Chuck: Lindsay's right when she says the govt should just get out of the way, period.
Truly, the last thing this country needs is more poisonous state interference.
I will never understand the obsession with minding other people's business.
But then I don't understand the philosophy that thinks it's right to steal money from Peter to give to Paul ..
There is no inherent virtue in breeding or not breeding - it depends on whether those breeding are able materially and psychologically to raise children by their own means. The state takes from some the ability to do this to help others who don't have it - if you don't have the material means to raise children then by definition you don't have the psychological means either.
Hi Berend. I note that you 'feel ashamed to admit' that you have made application to the latest govt madness masquerading as 'tax relief'. (Tax relief, my bum).
I just opened my first pay packet of the new financial year. My take-home pay has dropped - not because I've worked less or my hourly rate has decreased - but because the tax-take has increased. Presumably to fund this round of communism.
I'd expect nothing less from card-carrying socialists and those who believe they have the right to live off others, but it's interesting to learn that even those who purport to disapprove of socialism will line up when the state lollies are big enough.
One can only wonder where it will end.
Sus, For the higher earners (the bigger tax payers) it IS tax relief. Under National or ACT they would have got more back.
At some point lower down the scale people are getting back tax that was funding their share of services. That's a subsidy. Could be called welfare. Someone else is paying.
At some point even lower down the scale people are starting to get back more than they actually pay in tax. The money they receive is a hand-out - definitely welfare. Someone else is paying.
But what has changed in your pay packet? I'd be asking because tax rates haven't changed.
Lindsay, I must disagree with you (and David Benson-Pope) when you technically define this as 'tax relief' for higher earners.
I believe it to be 'welfare' because the would-be recipients have to *apply* to the state for it. That is, go cap in hand.
Real tax relief would be (rightly) leaving it in our pockets in the first place.
Some might argue that there is no real difference. I disagree; I think there is a world of difference.
Re my pay packet: I can only repeat that the PAYE has increased. Although the next one will be more enlightening, as the whole fortnight's earnings will have occurred in the new financial year.
BTW I enjoy your comments. I've followed what you've publicly said re the DPB for a number of years now, and I applaud your courage.
You're takehome pay dropped slightly as the ACC earners levy increased by 0.1c in the dollar - from 1.5 to 1.6 cents, I think.
Now this is a tax increase because:
1. The Govt can change the rate as it wants.
2. You have no option but to pay it.
Post a Comment