Thursday, 20 May 2010

Now, THIS is a Decent Budget! [updated]

I’m very pleased to see a budget released today that frees New Zealanders instead of shackling them further.  I’m talking of this one:


Libertarianz Alternative Budget 2010

    "I'm pleased to present a real alternative to the tax-and-spend budget that National will present today," Libertarianz leader Richard McGrath said today.
    "Unlike other political parties, Libertarianz believes your money belongs to you," explains McGrath. "That's why our budget is designed to slash taxes and let you keep far more of your own money."
    "National is making a big deal about finally offering you a tax cut this year. But keep in mind that National's income tax cut will be much reduced by an increase in GST.  This isn't a tax cut, it's a tax shuffle. Libertarianz policy has always been and will always be to cut taxes as fast and as hard as possible."
    "Libertarianz will make the first $50,000 of income tax-free immediately. This means that the average New Zealand household, with an income of $68,000, would keep an extra $403 per week, going a long way to offset rising food, electricity and fuel prices."
    "We will also immediately scrap GST, knocking $27 off a $250 grocery bill and ten dollars off the price of a tank of petrol."
    "The government will say they can't afford this – but it's not their money – it's YOURS. You have the right to spend your money however you wish. Libertarianz is pro-choice when it comes to your money."
    "Of course you can't cut tax without cutting government spending – and we're happy to oblige. Education, health, and superannuation are far too important to be left in the hands of politicians."
    "We will allow people to spend as much or as little of their money on these as they wish. It is up to you to decide how much to spend on your family's healthcare, your family's education and your family's future."
    "Schools and hospitals will be given back, as shares, to all New Zealanders. All other state assets not required for the essential functions of government (law and order, and defence) will be sold.  The proceeds will be used to fund superannuation and healthcare for the retired, along with residual obligations such as ACC, invalids benefits. The DPB will continue for three years."
    "With the Libertarianz budget, the churning of money through the government's sticky fingers will be almost eliminated by the tax-free threshold. A flat tax on income over that $50,000 threshold of 25%, reducing 5% per year for 5 years, will fund a smooth transition. After 5 years, no more revenue will collected from the citizenry by coercion or force. The government will have to ask you nicely if they want your money."
    McGrath concludes, "It's enough to make you vote Libertarianz!"

For more information, see or contact:
Dr Richard McGrath
Libertarianz Leader

POSTSCRIPT: Questions?  You have questions? 

Fear not: Your questions about the 2010 Libz Alternative Budget will be similar to questions about previous Libz Alternative Budgets, which all seek to wean New Zealanders from the state teat.

So here are some answers to frequently asked questions about a previous model.


UPDATE: Matt Nolan at The Visible Hand of Economics gives the Libz budget the standard mainstream critique:

“…far too extreme – even if solely on efficiency grounds.”

There’s more.


Greig McGill said...

Am I reading this right? Under a Libz budget, the wealthy still pay more tax? That seems somewhat counter to principle? Wouldn't a single flat tax, of say, 10% work better as a transition measure than "first $x is tax free"?

What's the thinking behind this? It seems to disincentivise hard work - much like the existing tax system.

Peter Cresswell said...

NO, everybody would pay less tax than they are now, even those who admit to earning over $50k:

"A flat tax on income over that $50,000 threshold of 25%, reducing 5% per year for 5 years, will fund a smooth transition..."

Greig McGill said...

I'm still missing something. The person on $49k is still paying zero tax under this system, while the person who worked harder/smarter/whatever and is now earning $70k is paying 25% on $20k of his/her income.

I know it's only a transition, and yes, it's a zillion times better than the status quo, but I'm not sure how this doesn't penalise the higher earner more than the lower earner in that five year timeframe. I'd like to hear more about the thinking behind this.

Peter Cresswell said...

@Greig: Yep, in 2010 she'd be paying $5000 on her salary of $70,000 (and just $5000, since she wouldn't be paying petrol taxes, alcohol taxes, carbon taxes pr GST). And in 2011, she'd be paying $4000, in 2012 $3000, and so on all the way down. Very much less than she's paying now, and getting less with each succeeding year.

Meanwhile, everyone earning under $50,000 would be paying nothing. In fact, everything everyone is earning under $50,000 would see them paying nothing.

Is that so bad, given that most of what people under 50k are paying now isn't really worth paying anyway? The highest-earning 20% pay around 80% of the whole tax bill (or even more, according to recent estimates)

Essentially, it's simply a recognition that it's the first $50,000 of everybody's income from which they'll now be paying for their own health and education and so on.

So everybody should get a break on this first $50,000.

And we should recognise that those costs (at least initially) are going to fall most heavily on those with fewer savings. Who, for the most part, are those on the lower incomes.

So it seems logical therefore to give them as much assistance in becoming independent as possible--and by "assistance" I mean not stealing their money from them so that they can afford to build up some savings ASAP.

In the long run that real financial independence will repay all of us.

Greig McGill said...

Thanks for that. I appreciate the explanation, though it still doesn't quite sit right with me. I'd need to nut it out with someone knowledgable over a beer I think. :)

twr said...

Greig, I think what is being suggested isn't an ideal situation (ie yes there are disincentives and yes some people pay more than others), but it's seen as a more palatable compromise than other options during the transition to the purer zero tax system.

Unfortunately there are so many vested interests in the current lolly scramble that we're unlikely to ever see any of the parts of this implemented.

Dave Mann said...

I find libertarianism so frustrating. You make all kinds of sense on a huge number of levels politically, economically and socially.... but then you come up with this utter crap.

Hardly abybody I know would disagree that the state is far too omnipresent in our lives and it wastes shitloads of our money with a bloated bureaucracy which spends in the wrong areas etc etc etc... blah, blah....

But the solution to all this waste is NOT to completely DELETE the state and government entirely; the answer is to severely CONTROL the state and DIRECT its expenditure into PRODUCTIVE areas for the BENEFIT of its citizens.

The reason you will never be electible is because your policies are just as stupid (albeit at the other end of the continuum) as, say, North Korea which has total state control.

If only you Libz could rein in your fantasies and get real for a moment you would have the chance to do some real good for this country. Such a waste.

ACT Youth said...

I second to that Dave Mann. This zero tax via voluntary is the most idiotic & stupid proposal from the Libz.

Richard McGrath said...

@Dave Mann:

Dave, don't you think a lot of libertarians have thought long and hard about how The System could be fixed? Eventually most of us have come to the conclusion that things work best when people have more control over their money and the freedom to improve their lives in their own way.

You concede that the bureaucracy of the Nanny State wastes truckloads of people's money and time. Then in the next breath you suggest controlling the state and directing its expenditure into productive areas for the benefit of its citizens.

But isn't that what bureaucrats are officially supposed to be doing now? And why shouldn't people be left to decide how their money should be spent? Under your system would bureaucrats sit down and consult with each individual taxpaying New Zealander, with a mediator and with the meter running for that taxpayer's time, and come to a decision about how their taxed money will be spent?

Libertarians do not want to delete the state and government entirely; that would create a power vacuum and lead to anarchy and gang warfare. I think you are being intellectually dishonest here. You know very well that Libz have ALWAYS advocated a role for the state: protecting the inidividual rights of New Zealanders via a police force, defence force and justice system. That's not anarchy.

The state does not know how to direct expenditure into productive areas efficiently, even monstruos bureaucracies like the Soviet Union and China failed, and starved or murdered tens of millions of people in the process.

You refuse to accept that deregulated markets (limited only by the requirement for participants not to initiate force against others) are the most efficient and humane way of allocating scarce resources.

Bureaucrats simply cannot digest all the information required to set prices and respond to changes in demand and supply. In part that's because bureaucrats, for the main part, are people whose level of intelligence and work ethic makes them ill-suited to working in deregulated markets.

Government departments have traditionally been sheltered workshops for the mild to moderately mentally challenged, with low to zero productivity.
This sort of protection does a disservice to its employees - it renders them increasingly incapable of working in the private sector which, regardless of what they may feel, is the real world.

Richard McGrath said...

@ACT Yoof:

Just what is it you guys are scared of?

I think part of the answer is that you, Dave Mann, and others, don't trust people to spend their own money the way you think it should be spent.

You think if someone is going to just throw away the money they have earned on booze, cigarettes, gambling, drugs, pornography or ACT Party membership, then they should be stripped of that money for their own good. In other words, they should be treated like children.

One problem that arises when people are treated in this way for generations is that they lose the capacity to think for themselves, to make provision for that rainy day when their health starts to fail, or when other life emergencies crop up. By deliberately blocking them from reality and allowing them to experience the consequences of their freely chosen actions, you are disempowering them. But that's what you want: a nation of children who will do what Nanny tells them to do.

Libertarianz merely wants the government to start treating adults as adults. Yes I guess that's an idiotic, stupid fantasy and we should not even consider it - couldn't possibly work, people couldn't cope with that much freedom.

Deep down, people who advocate pro-active state control over people's lives must have a low opinion of humanity. They believe people can't be trusted - only politicians and bureaucrats know what is right for the country. That's sad.

MarkT said...

@ Dave Mann: Last time I looked it was not Libertarianz policy to "completely DELETE the state and government entirely" - but to to restrict it to its legitimate functions.

What is it's legitimate function? Well according to you, it's to "DIRECT its expenditure into PRODUCTIVE areas for the BENEFIT of its citizens."

Right then. Let's "get real" and try and apply that principle and see where it gets us.

Does buying Kiwirail qualify for government involvement? After all, it's productive isn't it? (it carries good and passengers up and down the country) - and it's for the benefit of NZ citizens. Right?

You may counter that this is not "productive", because the cost outweighs the revenue. But what about all the intangible benefits - less trucks on the road, a shiny train set all NZ'ers can be proud of, etc? Everything is not about the dollar, you know...

In fact can't a similar argument be used to justify almost all manifestations of the welfare state?

Where do you draw the line?

Is this the way you think you can role back government? Fighting every new manifestation of the welfare state on a case by case basis - with you asserting something is not "productive", but an array of leftists and their consultants arguing it is?

If so then good luck you to you. But I know what horse I'd rather back!

Richard McGrath said...


Yes, I guess, strictly speaking you are right re Libz suggesting the govt should tax the rich more during the transition period to zero tax. That is what we propose.

But as PC pointed out, it is a lesser initiation of force than currently exists because everyone would get a tax cut. Don't forget, Libz didn't put the "progressive" tax scale into place - we want to dismantle it. The way we have chosen is to give everyone a tax break. And for those earning under $50k there is still plenty of incentive to work harder.

I know, high earners are still punished under this transitional system, but every step on the way is still positive progress on the way to zero income tax.

@Dave Mann: The reason Libz struggle electorally is that our ideas are radical, just like the thought of freeing Southern U.S. slaves was so radical in the 19th century that the United States had a civil war over it (and other issues, but that was a major part of it). Because I view accepting a little bit of statism into civil society as analagous to accepting a little bit of sewage into the town water supply, I will oppose every incursion by politicians and bureau-rats into my wallet and thereby my life where I do not give consent.

To accept taxation as valid is to recognise a degree of slavery as a good thing. I'm sorry, but I just won't roll over and lick the hand of my would-be master.

Dave Mann said...

@ Richard:

Of course "monstrous bureaucracies like the Soviet Union and China failed, and starved or murdered tens of millions of people in the process". I am not contesting that simple fact, nor am I asserting that we should have such a monstrous bureaucracy.

What I am contesting, however, is that governments per se are by their nature incapable of acting for the good of the citizens. It is obviously ridiculous to expect every minor clerk to make individual decisions by consulting with each individual taxpaying New Zealander and nobody with any intelligence would expect government to operate this way. You are being disingenuous to suggest that this is my position.

What I am suggesting however is that if government interference and nannying were severely curtailed and the focus redirected into core areas instead of wasted on bullshit we could have world-leading education, public infrastructure, health, superannuation, military, justice and police. And this could all be achieved on lower taxes too, if only the stupid fucking parliamentarians had the intelligence and courage to cut out the waste and corruption which currently consumes our taxes.

I haven't done the research (sorry), but my gut feeling is that if we focused properly we could improve all the above areas while spending a third less, simply by deleting crap like Womens Affairs, the Families Commission, the Department of Conservation, OSH, the Childrens Commissioner, Human Rights and all the other non-productive nannying bullshit.

Believe me, you are not doing yourself any political favours by sticking so closed-mindedly to your extremist anti-government stance.

Your policies remind me of the idiots who, 15 or so years ago, when faced with inefficiency and patient abuse in the mental health service decided to shut all the bloody hospitals and turn the patients out on the street rather than do the obvious thing which would have been to fix the problems and make the mental health services better.

Can't you see that you are advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater and that the electorate won't buy that?

You write extremely well in many other areas and you either have a PhD or a medical degree so you must be intelligent with a capacity for hard work and application..... but why do you deliberately seek to hobble your political chances with unworkable dogma at the expense of plain everyday commonsense?

Dave Mann said...

@ Richard

Your slavery illustration was rather an unfortunate one and altogether counter to your argument.

Often held up as a tax free utopia, Dubai is almost entirely tax free, but it is dependent on a slave class of immigrant Indians, Fillipinos and others who do all the menial work like road building, construction work and domestic service for subsistance wages. These slaves are denied even the basic services of health and schooling let alone any of the benefits of belonging to society proper like citizenship. Their masters (employers in modern jargon) are the private corporations which secure government contracts through bribery and finacial fiddles to build their houses, literally, on sand.

I would much rather have a government which is properly answerable to the citizens than a cabal of private corporations running on slave labour.

Shane Pleasance said...

Dave, it is also a moral issue. In fact it is ONLY a moral issue.
Civilised people do not use force upon one another.

Libertarianz (and Libertarians) know this, and will not compromise those morals.

To do so, to 'water down' the only right way forward would be deceit.

New Zealand deserves and can do so much better.

Dave Mann said...

@ PC:

Didn't you publish a list some time ago of all the useless nannying government departments and organisations?

I wonder if one could list them all along with their budgets and come up with a reasonable concensus of your general readership would call 'core functions of government'?

I realise of course that you and Richard would probably settle on NIL (hahahaha OK I exaggerate!)..... but it would be an interesting excecise would it not?

I bet New ealand could effectively scrap two thirds of its government expenditure, put half the savings into boosting the really important core functions and give the other half back to the citizens and we would end up living in a really worthwhile society.

Luke H said...

Hi Dave,

It is worth noting that we are not totally anti-government. We want some parts of the state to be stronger and better funded (justice, law-and-order, defence).

Here's the list of government departments, ministries and QUANGOs; we call it the 'gone by lunchtime' list.

Gone By Lunchtime List

I have already started working on a giant spreadsheet with the budget of each department (and how many full-time equivalent workers they employ). This is, however, a mammoth (and boring) task. Any help would be appreciated.

Dave Mann said...

Hi Luke:

Thanks! This is exactly the list I remember having seen somewhere before! I've put your great efort on my favourites to peruse in more detail later.

You have done a lot of good work here but I don't understand a lot of your thrust or how it might work practically. For example, I cannot agree that we don't need any sort of state education or health or any local government councils and I can't imagine who would be stupid enough to buy something like the Accounting Standards Review Board or the Earthquake Commission; how would they be a good buy for anybody?

OK, so allowing that we might disagree on some important details, I think your basic premise is still very sound.

Roughly what percentage of government expenditure goes on the organisations on your 'Gone by lunchtime' and your 'gone ASAP' lists do you think? Obviously you would need a lot of research to make this an exact figure..... but can you give us a reasonably accurate approximation?

Greg said...

All other state assets not required for the essential functions of government (law and order, and defence) will be sold.

And when you're ready to sell off the rest, I'll get behind you. Until then...well, you have my vote, but only as the least-worst place to put it...

Am I reading this right? Under a Libz budget, the wealthy still pay more tax? That seems somewhat counter to principle? Wouldn't a single flat tax, of say, 10% work better as a transition measure than "first $x is tax free"?

How does a single flat rate of 10% not end up with the wealthy paying more? A single flat rate of $x is the only way to be "fair"! (And it could even be a good policy: the majority of the population would revolt and demand lower taxes, for once!)

But the solution to all this waste is NOT to completely DELETE the state and government entirely;

Well, actually, yes, that is the answer. But that's not what the Libertarianz are suggesting.

Greg said...

I think you are being intellectually dishonest here. You know very well that Libz have ALWAYS advocated a role for the state: protecting the inidividual rights of New Zealanders via a police force, defence force and justice system. That's not anarchy.

Neither is anarchy.

Anarchy does not mean lawlessness.

Peter Cresswell said...

@Greg, you said, "Anarchy does not mean lawlessness. "

Specifically, it means a market in force.

Nothing could be more absurd.

Peter Cresswell said...

@Greg, you said, "Anarchy does not mean lawlessness. "

Specifically, it means a market in force.

Nothing could be more absurd.

Dave Mann said...

Hi Luke.... I didn't mean you to be sweating over detailed figures with a slide rule or anything..... just an approximation would be interesting... :-)

V said...

I have one question.
Whilst I agree this Liberterianz budget proposal has considerable merit, and would eliminate the giveth with one hand and taketh with three hands nature of government, why do these policy proposals not resonate with any section of the electorate? A comedy duo received 11x more votes in 2008.

Hide Fan said...

I agree there V. The Libz hasn't worked it out that persuasion is the name of the game. They know what persuasion is, because they advocate between free action of man via persuasion and not coercion. KG had asked Richard McGrath on his blog, if the Libz wants to continue to exist as a party or perhaps give that up and become a pressure group. Richard replied that Libz still wants to be a party. The reality is, that's not what they're doing and as you pointed out, a comedy duo got more votes in the last election.

In short, the Libz can't get laid if they go to a bar to pick up some chicks. They don't know how to persuade a girl (metaphorically). They have alienated many people who would have supported their ideas. They get trapped in the mentality of don't compromise your principles. But that's exactly what a pressure group should be doing, because they're wasting their time in trying to be a party, since they don't have any support at electorate level.

It’s better for the Libz to wake up and realise that they should only exist as a pressure group and not a party. Fact, you have alienated people that would have been your supporter. Deregister your party and just exist as a pressure group, because you don't know what persuasion is.

Sean Fitzpatrick said...

@ Hide Fan et al

Fair comments but the art of persuasion is not helped by being uncertain and flaky about what you are trying to persuade people to do. If you think Libz could do with some improvements in that area (and many within the party do) why not get involved and bring your ideas to the table?

As for Libz polling worse than B+B a few points. Firstly so did other parties such as ALCP. I don't see people advising them of the need to alter what they stand for because they received less votes than a comedy duo. Principles are costly things to have and the line between moderation and cowardice is a fine one.

Secondly it is easy to get attention when you are a media personality as you are paid to be regularly in people's faces on TV - unlike Libz who are not allowed to buy TV advertising time, refuse to accept state sponsored TV time and have limited funds to do any campaigning whatsoever. Like it or no, the majority of folk rely on mainstream media for their political information and the media tends to ignore any party outside of parliament. Libz may be part of the regular scenery on the political blogsphere but 99% of the population probably never reads political blogs. More people probably watch 'Pulp Sport' on a single night than read any given blog in a week. This I think is the major reason for the low Libz vote take; walk down any street and ask people what the policies of the Libertarianz party (or the RAM or Democrats for Social Credit or a few others) are and I will wager almost all won't know - in fact most would have probably never heard of the party/ies.

In short you have to be able to say that a majority of the people have heard your message before you can seriously judge if they dismiss it or not.

As for potential supporters being alienated you are probably right - I was nearly just such an alienated potential supported myself - but I got over it and focused on the issues at hand.

Lastly I think Liberty Scott best summed up the B+B success at the 2008 election when he said that all it proves is that there really are that number of people out there who just don't give a damn.


Sean Fitzpatrick - Libertarianz Deputy Leader

Luke H said...

Hi Dave,

I am still working on figures over all government spending, but I have done some rough-and-ready figures for the core government departments. Their budgets total $11.5 billion.

Of the departments we would keep, their 2009 budgets come to $5.4 billion.

Of the departments we would scrap, their budgets come to $6.1 billion.

So, just considering the core government departments, and keeping their spending at current levels (mostly we would ruthlessly slash spending) more than half of government would be gone.

Once you start counting the useless guff like the "Overseas Investment Commission" and "Creative New Zealand", not to mention local government, you can see that the burden on all New Zealanders to support our bloated state would be much, much lighter without all of this crap.

Anonymous said...

Fact, you have alienated people that would have been your supporter

I don't think so.

Well know US blogger Ed Brayton says:

My former colleague Dave Weigel reports an interesting poll result, offered without comment:

Overall, 38 percent of Americans view "libertarian" favorably to 37 who view it unfavorably. Democrats (39-37) and independents (44-32) view the term most favorably, while Republicans view it negatively by a 13-point (31-44) margin.


"KG"'s blog has commenters by the lovely names of "Go White Boy" "White Supremacist" and "National Front". And that's just in the last 4 days.

Support libertarians can do without, I think.

Greg said...

"Anarchy does not mean lawlessness. "

Specifically, it means a market in force.

No; it means a market in defense.

Nothing could be more absurd.

On the contrary. It's utterly illogical to think that a monopoly on force could ever restrict the use of force against innocents: all it can do is empower criminals (both in and out of government).

Imagine just breaking up the police in much the same way it is done in the US, where cities have their own police forces (LAPD, NYPD, etc): we could have Wellington (area) Police independent of Auckland Police, etc., instead of a national police force. How would this generate a "market in force", from your viewpoint?

KG said...

""KG"'s blog has commenters by the lovely names of "Go White Boy" "White Supremacist" and "National Front". And that's just in the last 4 days."

Are you dishonest, obsessed or just plain stupid, Ruth?
Commenters are free to use pretty much whatever nick they like, and if you were honest you'd point out that regardless of the nick used, racist comments mostly get deleted.
Also, the occasional such comment is left up so our readers can mock and revile them. And they sure do.

Your attempts to paint me and the majority of CR's readers as racists are pathetic. How come you never mention our support for Allan West (black) Thomas Sowell (black) and so on?
I'll take "pathetic" back--"slimy and dishonest" are a much better fit.

Anonymous said...

National Front got deleted - others were not - in fact far from being mocked they were aplauded. Anyway readers here can make up their own minds as to who is dishonest.

I'd stick to mopping floors if I were you, you nasty old man.

Oswald Bastable said...

Guilty by association is it?

I hope the hell YOU don't call yourself libertarian!

KG said...

lol! You'll have to do better than that, Wuthie.
Your comprehension skills seem to be lacking, which is perhaps why you didn't address our support for black writers and political candidates.
And you have no idea how many racist commenters are deleted over at CR, so you're talking out of your ass, as usual.
I assume your definition of a nice old man is one who treats your drivel with polite indulgence-in which case you picked the wrong target.
Next time you're having dinner with Key and who else was it...ah yes, the American Embassy's resident spook--perhaps you should complain to them?
The "racist" epithet is one of the more simple-minded and cowardly tricks in the statist book, as is assuming guilt by association. If the opinions of trolls are to be used as evidence of a blog owner's leanings then your attitude fits better with the worldview of Marxists and their assorted fellow-travellers than any other.
That's my last words on the subject. Talking to you makes me feel as though I need another shower.

Sarah.M said...

You don't get many more vile, ignorant, bigoted blogs & followers than Crusader Rabid. The funny thing is most of them call themselves Christians but you wouldn't know it from reading the hate they spew.

I wouldn't necessarily term KG a racist, despite his support for the English Defence League. He's more just a sad old man with a very fixed world view.

MathewK said...

""KG"'s blog has commenters by the lovely names of "Go White Boy" "White Supremacist" and "National Front". And that's just in the last 4 days."

So what's wrong with "Go White Boy", "White Supremacist" and "National Front". Is no one allowed to encourage white boys? Is no one allowed to believe that whites are supreme? Would you whine with quite the same vigor at a 'black power' commenter? National front, sounds like a patriot, is one no longer allowed to love ones country now. What is it with these people seeing racism in every closet and under every bed.

I wonder if ruth has attacked the racism of non-whites with quite the same vigor. Yeah i'm sure she has, i'm sure there's plenty of evidence of that, keep fighting the racists girlfriend.

"Anyway readers here can make up their own minds as to who is dishonest."

I'm glad that at least that is allowed. Though i'm sure sarah wouldn't like that sort of thing.

"You don't get many more vile, ignorant, bigoted blogs & followers than Crusader Rabid."

Left some leftist stupidity and it got deleted isn't sarah, try voltaren for the back aches caused by that enormous axe you're carrying, the ads say there's nothing like voltaren.

Anonymous said...

Did I say KG was a racist? No I did not. He protests too much.

Anyway, he is not the only uneducated old man in a menial job who strides about the poop deck as a virtual admiral on the internet, with a chip on his shoulder about immigrants and so on. It's very common.

Actually I feel sorry for him.

MathewK said...

"Did I say KG was a racist?"

So are you saying he's not?

"Anyway, he is not the only uneducated old man in a menial job...."

Ah the bigotry of the elitist snob, i guess uneducated floor moppers aren't entitled to an opinion, such peasantry should just shut up and stick to mopping whilst elitist, know-it-all bigots like you decide what's best for all right.

Would you like to deny him the vote too, all uneducated old floor moppers denied the vote, women too, or just those that you don't agree with?

What about daily life, should he enter via the back, sit in the back of the bus, only allowed to the front when he's mopping it?