Wednesday, January 26, 2011

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Goff robbing the rich to bribe the poor

Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath ransacks the newspapers for stories and headlines affecting our freedom.

This week:  Goff proposes robbing the rich to bribe the poor

  • DOM POST: “Tax The Rich, Help The Poor, Says GoffLabour’s leader suggests making the first $5k of income tax-free, while increasing tax rates on high earners and setting up a Tax Avoidance Taskforce. . .

    THE DOCTOR SAYS: This is one step forward and several backward. Goff has taken the first step in the Libertarianz Party’s income tax policy, and despite chopping a zero off the end makes a positive move. Leaving the first $5,000 of people’s income unmolested is a good idea; allowing people to keep the first $50,000 would be better – and achievable, if governments simply stopped spending other people’s money on things that are none of their business. So far, so good.
        Goff then reverts to the standard left-wing politics of envy as he bashes successful people and suggests stealing more of their money. It appears he wants to raise the top tax rate to around 45 cents in the dollar. When you factor in GST and ACC levies, self employed people will end up paying about 60 cents in the dollar in tax. That’s heading back into Muldoon territory. 
        Goff also wants to set up a Tax Gestapo which he calls an Anti-Avoidance Taskforce: a government office with the specific purpose of stopping New Zealanders from structuring their income in order to best protect their assets. That’s disgusting, Phil. The ghouls from Inland Revenue have already driven people like Ian Mutton to suicide; why give them even more power to destroy lives and families?
        Will the Labour Party please release a statement, pledging that all its MPs are paying the maximum amount of tax possible, and are not using any legal means of tax avoidance. If not, could Phil Goff explain why he hasn’t got his own house in order first before attacking other people who are legally trying to stop their money being redistributed? 
        I am heartily sick of the success-bashing engaged in by people like Phil Goff and Winston Peters. They always view high earners as undeserving of the money they make. For some reason that doesn’t apply to people on low incomes. Those people, according to Goff and others, deserve everything they get, and more.
        The Libertarianz Party believes in the sanctity of private property, and abhors attempts by the envious to punish success. We believe that income tax should not only be abolished, it should be criminalized as another form of extortion.

 Mr Goff said 'rebalancing' the tax system would ensure
everybody paid their fair share.”
    - New Zealand Herald

“I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word ‘fair’
in connection with income tax policies.”
-
William F. Buckley, Jr.

Labels:

5 Comments:

Anonymous Rich Prick said...

Goff was spinning on National Radio last night (yes, I do feel dirty) that anyone earning more than $100k was in receipt of a "windfall" which should be taxed harder. That's right, rich pricks don't earn their income, they seem to win it, and that to Labour is unfair.

I was expecting the reporter to call him out on that, but alas it was let slide.

1/26/2011 02:36:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Left-wing NZers have a long unhealthy socialist history with the definition of equality. Many still believe that equal rights also mean equal rights to some imaginary collective money bag. They confuse access to making money with actual access to the money – as if it’s some birth right to share in others hard-work.

Being smart or hard-working (both being the ultimate sin) is “unfair advantage” so they should give back more or have it taken from them... Everyone should share equally of the wealth… because everyone has equal rights… it’s such a very strange definition of equality – and their solution? Even the playing field by attacking the inequality of wealth.

Left wing NZers have a died in the wool problem with “fairness.” They spend hours around kitchen tables illogically arguing equal rights must mean equal share. The pill they refuse to swallow is that we are not all equal.

We have equal rights - but we are not all of equal ability. The fact that unequal ability translates to unequal wealth is abhorrent to their utopian left-wing NZ society where everyone should get paid the same. (Let’s call them homogenized Citizen-B shall we?)

If someone has more money than you, then they MUST have obtained it by dubious means. If we are equal in ALL things, then surely I should have more money too? If I don’t, then it’s not my fault - those other people had some other advantage that I wasn’t offered. So, I’ll sit here and cry about the sate of welfare until I get my “fair” share.

After all, anyone earning more than me is simply greedy, so it should be wrestled from them to assuage my inferiority complex about inequality of abilities.

KSKiwi.

1/27/2011 06:49:00 am  
Blogger Dinther said...

Like the bleating about the income gap. Everyone takes it as gospel that an income gap between rich and poor is bad. Everyone accepts it as a given that the income gap needs to be reduced.

In a discussion recently I blatantly challenged that position claiming that an income gap is the best possible motivator to get off your lazy ass and work to try to obtain "what he's having"

Immediately the lefties pounced on me of course claiming the crime rate would go up and did I want to live in a violent society.

I asked: "Are you blackmailing me with a crime threat?"

Those discussions stop dead in their tracks at those points. I wish I knew how to actually engage a lefty and make them think.

1/27/2011 11:36:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How? Take away the drug.

The drug has always been the enabling politicians who tell lefties that they will be "taken care of."

Once they are detoxed and weaned, they will fend for themselves and sever the parent/child relationship they so desperately want from their government.

KSKiwi.

1/27/2011 11:58:00 am  
Anonymous B Whitehead said...

It's notable that the left never define what they consider an 'acceptable' amount to earn. It's probably defined something like "the less you earn, the more 'honorable' you are".

1/28/2011 03:04:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home