19 August 2014

Let's end child poverty say the Reds

Well so say the Greens, with their enormous "give free money to the parents of poor kids" electoral bribe, to be paid for by a tax hike.

It's classic dyed in the wool socialism and its central premise is that it is somehow caring to take by force from a small proportion of the population to give people money because they have children they can't afford to raise properly.

That's it.

When Russel Norman says:

Proud to pay 7c more income tax on every $1 over $140k so 200,000 kids can have food in their bellies 

It defies description.  What's he doing with the money now if he believes so much that it would be better helping poor kids?  Couldn't he just spend that money now on charities to help them?  Couldn't he convince others to do the same?  What's the mentality that says "if only the government took more of my money I could be helping the poor more"?

It's the mentality of the committed statist - the man who thinks the problems of society are solved only by the government "doing something".

Russel is hardly sincere.  For if it was, he (and all of the hangers on who are on high incomes who preach higher taxes) would be saying now he is donating that portion of his income to the poor.

Rather, it is not about achieving results, it is a fundamental socialist belief that the state should exist to give some people "free" money taken from others.  

There is not the slightest inkling of the behavioural effects of this.  The effects on those earning more than $140,000 who will look to change their affairs to reduce their tax bill, or moreso the drop in spending or investment in various areas that will hurt those who rely on income from supplying various goods and services, or who are seeking loans or equity to further their businesses.  No, Russel is quite happy to pretend that taking more money from people doesn't hurt anyone.

What about those with kids they can't afford to pay for?  The Greens believe it is a fundamental "right" to be a parent and have as many children as you like, paid for by "society" (which of course, means people not on welfare).  If you have two kids and struggle to feed them, the Greens will give them money, and give them even more if you have a third kid.  That's not going to incentivise breeding is it?  No, the Greens would blank that out, given those on welfare are important to them - because that's where they want votes.

The same Greens that bemoan that the poor disproportionately gamble, disproportionately abuse alcohol, disproportionately eat too much unhealthy food, think that the reason some kids don't get fed properly is because the state doesn't give their parents enough of other people's money.

The cruel harsh reality is that those kids have parents who at best have fallen upon hard times due to losing their job, or illness.  Quite rightly humanitarians will want to help and assist them, and this is exactly what food banks and other charitable causes do.  They provide a backstop, in addition to welfare, to help people get beyond a temporary difficulty.

However, some kids have parents who are incompetent and negligent, and the Greens want to reward them for it.  

As Lindsay Mitchell says:

the Greens see no value in paid work. No value in children growing up with working role models.No value in actually earning an income; participating, contributing and producing.

All they see is a quick cash cure (with no gaurantee the money will be spent on the children) which comes with the almighty risk that more children will grow up welfare dependent as the financial rewards of working, as meagre as they are, disappear.

So when the Greens say "Child poverty can be eliminated. We have the tools and techniques. It is simply a matter of choice"

They are right, but it isn't them giving the choice - they want to compel a minority to pay a lot more tax, to handout money indiscriminately.

The choice to end child poverty comes down primarily to those who are in poverty:

1. If you can barely get by yourself, don't breed.

2. If you are poor with kids, take whatever opportunities you can find to help your kids, extra work, help from charities, encourage them to do well with education and not to associate with any feral peers, teach them self esteem and to lift themselves up from where they are.  That will be more rewarding than any cheque from a fickle government

3. If you are poor with kids, don't get into relationships with criminals, lowlifes and other parasites who aren't going to contribute to a positive family environment.  Your kids come first, always, without exception.

4. If you want help those poor with kids, help them directly.  Give them stuff you don't need, donate to good charities who help the needy (not the ironically named Child Poverty Action Group, which is a socialist academic ginger group), volunteer and be generous out of choice, not out of guilt or because you feel forced to.

What government should do is get out of the way.  Make the first $10,000 everyone earns exempt from income tax.  That means kids no longer pay income tax, it means the poor are not hammered from the first dollar earned.  It gives a tax cut to everyone including Russel Norman (but don't hold out hope he'll use the money to help the poor).

Most of all, don't vote for the socialist lunatics whose policies will do more to raise poverty in the medium term than they will to ease it in the short term.  The policies that will kneecap industries not deemed to be Green, increase energy and fuel prices, raise taxes to spend money on so-called "Smart Green" economics (which are neither smart nor green) and to isolate the economy with protectionism.

The Greens are the anti-poverty party for people with a simple view of the world - take money from the rich and give to the poor, and we'll all be better off.

but when even their own leaders wont help the poor unless they are taxed to do so, you really do have to wonder whether it isn't just about the means not the ends.

1 comment:

Angry Tory said...

Make the first $10,000 everyone earns exempt from income tax.

No! No! NO! --- or at least, if you're going do to that, damn well better switch back to a taxpayer franchise (or ideally, large landowner franchise).

No representation without taxation!

Better to cap taxes at an income of $10,000 - everyone pays 33c from the first dollar, but no-one pays more than 3,333. It's not a flat tax, but its much closer than some essentially communist inspired tax-free loophole for bludging losers.