NZ Superannuation Fund fraud

Think of a superannuation scheme or pension fund that you join - or rather, are forced to join.

Your contribution to the fund varies according to your income. The more you earn the more you pay.

What you receive from the fund depends on one thing: How long you live.

If you don't reach age 65, you'll get nothing, your inheritance will get nothing, in fact your contributions will just have gone to someone else.

If you do reach 65, you'll get - whatever the government thinks everyone who reaches that age will get. If you spent your life on welfare or low income jobs paying next to no tax you'll get the same as a successful entrepreneur who has spent many years on the top marginal tax rate.

You wouldn't choose such a fund now would you?

So why do you vote for political parties that set it up, want to maintain it and even want to use it to play political games as if it is a sovereign wealth fund it can throw at "investments" it makes.

National Treaty Settlement policy - support the Waitangi Tribunal

National's Treaty Settlement policy is back to the past, before 2005 that is, with a promise to conclude settlements by 2014. If this was full and final then that might be a cause to celebrate, but it is just an aim.

It seeks to "Appoint independent settlement facilitators to chair negotiations, keep the process moving forward, and ensure both parties act in good faith." a small step forward, although you may wonder who represents taxpayers in all of this.

However what's most disconcerting is its faith in the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal is little better than a kangaroo court, but it wants to provide "more support" to it.

This is a nonsense, as former Waitangi Tribunal member - ex. Labour Cabinet Minister Dr. Michael Bassett might testify:

"the industry doesn’t want the Tribunal process ever to end. After 23 years, no decision has yet been made to close off new historical claims. The major parties dither. Labour wants the party vote of Maori; National isn’t sure they mightn’t need the Maori Party’s support after the coming election. Both major political parties know that what is happening is wrong, and that ordinary Maori in whose name the claims are made, aren’t getting a cracker out of the money being spent on lawyers, researchers and Tribunal staff."

Previously he wrote "Existing claims must be settled as quickly as possible. Stopping fresh historical claims means that full and final settlements already made have a chance of working longer term. The Waitangi process was never intended as a permanent career for lawyers and under-employed “researchers”. It was to assist ordinary Maori whose interests, sadly, are too often over-looked."

National could do worse than listen to a man intimately involved in this process for years, but no - it wants power - it wants to broker a deal with the Maori Party to break Labour's stranglehold on the Maori vote - it will do that by continuing to feed the new Maori state funded aristocracy. National may not do a deal with NZ First (largely because it expects the party to disappear), but it will do one with the Maori Party.

I'll leave the final verdict on that to Dr Bassett:

"When politicians settled on land grievances as the cause of Maori problems they made a mistake. It would have made better sense to examine welfare and the huge damage it has done to Maori society. The Waitangi Tribunal should be scaled down. The industry is of no use to 99% of the people it’s meant to serve. "

Sadly the Maori Party seems unlikely to agree.

Another small hint to the Nats

So you're making everyone pay for school leavers to go to tertiary institutions to get high school qualifications. So you're saying that they wont be able to get a benefit unless they take up training.

hmmmm

Why should anyone under 18 get a benefit at all?

Why phase out national superannuation?

Read this Op-Ed from the Ayn Rand Institute published on SOLO - replace Social Security in the US context with National Superannuation in the New Zealand context.

Add in the fact that those who die before they reach retirement age get nothing, nor do their spouses or children or anyone else in their will, from the years of compulsory contribution by taxes. The state has thieved those taxes to pay for someone else or something else. This particularly affects Maori, who have lower life expectancy.

National superannuation is an enormous fraud, and it is about time that it was slowly phased out to let people choose how to save for their retirement. The most painless way would be to cease increasing national superannuation in nominal terms, and recycle the savings through tax cuts.

However I advocate a far more aggressive approach. One option is that people of certain ages are told they will receive a range from 90-10% of current national superannuation on retirement, nominally. In return, all people of those ages get a tax cut to allow them to save, invest or whatever. On retirement the state pays out the proportion that was promised and no more. A simpler approach would be to grant people a lump sum to buy a contributory pension or any investment, with provision for those too close to retirement to invest (given they spent most of their lives paying tax for others to have national superannuation).

Is it not telling that the fraud of national superannuation isn't even on the agenda in New Zealand? What other retirement fund could get away with the shockingly poor returns of national superannuation?

Reasons to be on the DPB

So here's a test I'm applying to think about this one - what of the following are a good reason to claim the DPB? I am talking of women here for sake of simplicity.

1. Woman gets pregnant (accident or deliberate is neither here nor there since it is impossible to prove one way or the other), father doesn't want to know. Woman wants to keep the child (I mean as in raise, not adopt) and become a mother. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.

2. Woman gets pregnant, in de facto relationship, relationship ends for whatever reason. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.

3. Woman gets pregnant, whilst married. Couple separate or divorce. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.

4. Women gets pregnant, father of child died. ANSWER: Couple should have made provision for life insurance, other whilst welfare state remains, DPB remains until youngest child of that father, is of school age.

5. Any of the above scenarios, father too poor to pay for child. ANSWER: Father still responsible to pay proportionate child support, mother claims unemployment benefit whilst welfare state exists.

Quite simply, if people choose to breed, which includes taking the risk of breeding, they bear the consequences of it. At the moment the consequences are to be paid and to be not responsible for paying.

If this is moral then I'd like supporters of the DPB to answer why those who raise children by their own financial means shouldn't stop working and just let the state pay - except of course, there wouldn't be any money then to do so!

So what does the left DO about the poor?

National's very modest DPB policy has provoked cries from Helen Clark that it is beneficiary bashing, from the Greens that this is "denying kids having their parents at home" (because taxpayers earn money at home of course), and Idiot Savant saying it's "beating up on the poor".

Do the left really think those on the other side of the spectrum hate the poor, want to do violence to them, want to let them starve and laugh? Are they that detached from reality that they think they have a monopoly on compassion?

Well the truth is that most of them can't claim a monopoly on compassion since they themselves have none. When the Nats introduced some modest tax cuts in the late 1990s, did the left say "we'll donate our extra tax cuts to welfare beneficiaries?". No, they did their usual demand that the "state should care" and demand that everyone be forced to care.

This time it's the same old story. With some distinct exceptions, far too many on the left sit in their Wadestown, Parnell or Mt. Victoria homes, sipping fine wines, chattering amongst themselves about how "awful" those nasty National, ACT people are - how they are racist (Idiot Savant of course thinks racism is when the state ceases to care about race) and how sexist they are, and how they probably want to laugh at poverty.

You see you can take two approaches if you care about people in poverty:
a) Leave it to your taxes and the state to do a fine job of lifting people out of the cycle of poverty, despair and lack of aspiration;
b) Donate to charity, participate in charities, give of your time, money, other property, wisdom to help.

So if you care, what do you do? It's about whether you think a bureaucrat handing out a benefit is more valuable than donating a bunch of books for kids in homes without them, or more valuable than donating time to helplines for kids in need, or more valuable than teaching adult education classes in literacy for next to nothing.

So next time someone on the left says "more money should be spent" on the poor, ask what that person is doing directly for them? Ask them if they have donated every tax cut they ever got to charity. Be astonished if you get answers little more than an uncomfortable, "Umm... well" and maybe an admission to the odd donation.

Then you'll realise that the amount they care for the poor is inversely related to the amount they hate the rich.

4 point DPB policy for the Nats

1. Anyone currently on the DPB can claim no more benefit for any additional children whilst on it.
2. DPB becomes same as unemployment benefit when youngest child reaches school age (almost got that one)
3. 1 year warning that no DPB will be granted to anyone unwilling to name (accurately) other liable parent.
4. No one convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence entitled to receive any welfare benefits whatsoever.

Baby steps really

and Helen Clark? Well, when she spends any time appreciating what it is like to work, raise a family and pay taxes, then she might be someone for whom some of us think she might give a damn. Her political career is partly built on support from people who live off of the back of others, which she facilitates.

Greens ignore where welfare comes from

Sue Bradford is awfully upset that a Work & Income case manager allegedly told a welfare recipient, living off compulsorily acquired funds from other people, to "f' off" after she asked for a "food grant".

Most of the hoo ha about it is simply around her use of the "f" word, which is a bit of a yawn to me. It astounds me what offends politicians - not lying, not taking other people's money and spending it on all sorts of activities or indeed unprofitable businesses that nobody in their right mind would choose to spend it on, not the Police who pursue those who defend themselves, not calls for the state to continuously monitor the lives of every child, not giving food aid to a country that enslaves children as political prisoners.

No.

However Bradford's characterisation of the event she describes is telling in two ways.

First is her absolute abandonment of the idea that people have options other than going to the state in saying that Work and Income "has the power to grant or decline her very means of survival". Oh please Sue, she wasn't malnourished and emaciated was she? Could she not seek work? Could she not ask people to give her money or food of their own, out of their own choice? Work and Income after all isn't dishing out money it has been "given", but money that has been taken.

What it tells me is that the Greens think that the state should be the basic means for us all to survive, which works as long as the majority of mugs don't use it as such.

Second is the more telling refusal to acknowledge the other side of the ledger. Every dollar that a beneficiary receives costs more than a dollar taken, by force, from a taxpayer. The Greens ignore this, treating what beneficiaries have as "entitlements", as if you are allowed to live off of the back of others, by force. Imagine if beneficiaries asked their neighbours for help, or had to go door to door asking for assistance. No, the Greens prefer the clasped fist of the state and it threatening to confiscate your property and imprison you if you don't agree to give up some of your property to pay beneficiaries.

You see I'm more offended by the way taxpayers are treated by the Department of Legalised Theft (IRD). Behind the attempts to be friendly and helpful, IRD is an agency of threats, which it is quite willing to use to extract its cut from you. More importantly, the state treats you with more respect if you murder, rape and steal, than if you don't give it what it deems you should - in a dispute with IRD you're guilty till proven innocent. Funny how all those on the left who are so concerned about human rights and freedoms are happy for the state to live off this presumption of guilt.

See I'd rather like beneficiaries to have to ask for what they want - but not ask bureaucrats, but citizens. To go to a body where people donate money and make a case for having more, perhaps in exchange for doing something in return. I'd like the Greens to acknowledge that their big beloved Nanny State isn't some warm loving entity that can dish out prizes like Santa Claus, but an institution of violence - that takes money from taxpayers under threat of violence. The Greens want it to do more threatened confiscation of people's income and give out the cash as if it came off of some tree. It doesn't - state welfare is money taken from other people, and IRD does a lot more than say "f' off" if you ask to keep more of your own money to spend on food.

Tara Marks (the woman concerned) might think a little more about whether any should give a damn that she was "offended" compared to those who she is indirectly asking to be forced into funding her and her family. Note she is using the media to have a moan about how she was treated, rather than ask for some money - she's clearly hardly on her knees is she?

Glasgow East by-election or why socialism has failed

The Glasgow East by-election is occurring because its sitting MP, David Marshall, is standing down for health reasons. It shouldn't surprise, at 67 he is already outliving the average man in his constituency.

In the 2005 election he won with 60.7% of the vote. Yes he is one of those MPs with a strong true majority. The Scottish National Party (SNP) came a distant second with 17%, the Lib Dems third with 11.8% and the Conservative Party fourth with 6.9%. You get the picture, this is heartland Labour territory. Much of the media coverage is about whether Labour might lose, as the SNP is campaigning strong calling for nanny state to help food and fuel prices. Once addicted to nanny state, always addicted, although I hope the Tories might squeeze into third place (which happened, just, in 2001).

What's actually more telling are two sets of statistics. First, those about the constituency itself. This is a part of the UK that is not middle class, it is the absolute pits of despair - funded from the loving caring generous welfare state.

UK polling report describes the seat as follows:

"This seat contains some affluent suburban areas like Mount Vernon and Bailleston, but it is mostly made up of the post-war product of slum clearances, soul(l)ess tenements and terraces thrown up in the 1950s and 1960s into which the population of Glasgow’s substandard housing were decanted. The resulting estates, lacking employment and amen(i)ties were ravaged by unemployment, hard drugs, violence and gang culture." (sic)

It is poor white Scotland, with only 1.1% of the population not European. A quarter of the population under 18 and 20% over 60. Parts of the seat have a life expectancy for men of 62 - one of the lowest in the UK and akin to Bangladesh. Good ol' NHS doing wonders isn't it?

Only 7.6% of the population are graduates and just over 50% of adults have no school qualifications at all. Good ol' state monopoly education working then?

46% live in "social housing", about the same again in owner-occupied homes. 15.6% of homes have either no private bathroom or no central heating - in Glasgow!

Fraser Nelson of the Spectator explains further: "I once had the job of signing up the good people of Glasgow East to the electoral register — at the time, regarded as an invitation to pay poll tax. Gang graffiti scars the walls, police are virtually unseen. This no-go-zone status is new, and cost billions to achieve. Houses there are in good condition, money is being spent. But it has funded a hideous social experiment, showing what happens when the horizontal ties which bind those within communities to one another are replaced with vertical ties, binding individuals to the welfare state."

You see this is the dire world of welfare, drug and despair addicted Scotland "A boy born in Camlachie is expected to live to 64.5 — the same as in Uzbekistan. In Parkhead it is 62, the same as Bangladesh. Just outside its boundaries lies Dalmarnock where the figure is 58 — lower than Sudan, Cambodia or Ghana. The lowest is Carlton, where the figure of 54 is lower than even Gambia’s equivalent"

Nelson continues, pointing out the vile levels of dependency of those there and how irrelevant they are to Labour "It is invisible because the people in this Labour stronghold are of no use to politicians, who only do battle nowadays in marginal seats. When I last visited a pub there, to research an article, I was asked if I was a missionary — church groups are about the only people who bother with such places these days. Its horrors are hidden by statistical manipulation. Official unemployment is just 6.7 per cent. But add in such factors as those claiming incapacity benefit, and it quickly emerges that a scandalous 50 per cent of the working-age population are on out-of-work benefits."

However, you might think as a Labour heartland seat, this should be easy, this sort of seat is apparently what Labour is meant to be about.

Well no.

The people of Glasgow East have been rewarded by their loyalty with Labour by being ignored. Channel 4 reported that the party has as few as three dozen active members in the seat, and that it has never actually campaigned there in recent history on a door to door basis. After all, why would you campaign when those who vote do so as zombies, ticking the same formula as they are told time and time again that only Labour represents the working man, an irony given how the majority don't actually work. The Labour Party doesn't even have a database on the seat's demographics show where it's weakest and strongest. It has taken most of them for granted. With one part of the seat excepted, poor, destitute, welfare ridden, they'll vote Labour - nobody else will bother campaigning in this seriously dire part of Glasgow.

Of course as David Cameron says, the truth is that those in this electorate have, to some extent, given up. Although you do wonder how the inquisitive bright kid in this place fairs, when he risks being beaten up for being "smart", hounded at a school where intelligence makes you a social pariah, where one parent cynically thinks he's getting "too big for his boots", and with temptations towards drugs and other mindless decadence all around. They all vote for the status quo, and get it of course - and get it from a party only too glad that it gets a guaranteed House of Commons vote so it can have power, to look after the floating voter.

You see that's where, hopefully, all that will be proven wrong. This heartland Labour seat speaks volumes about the arrogance of many on the left for those they purport to give a damn about. Labour ignores them, doesn't even have enough local members who LIKE Labour, and the other parties completely ignore them too - until now. What has Labour done for Glasgow East? Kept the benefits flowing, kept the state monopoly schools open, refurbished some housing and left law and order to the gangs.

So the failure of socialist is apparent - starkly apparent. The formula is not more money for state monopolies and welfare. Yet this seat may offer a chance for the taste of change.

I'll leave the end to Fraser Nelson from the Spectator again:

"Labour, forced for the first time to focus attention on one of its ‘safe’ welfare ghettoes, may find it has nothing to say. Is it to promise more of the same? Or blame the wicked Conservatives? It is one thing for Labour to lose the leafy suburbs which Mr Blair won over in 1997. But to be rejected in a supposed heartland like Glasgow East would plunge the party into existential crisis, and rightly so. Because after all those years in power, and all those billions spent, its main legacy has been, quite simply, the most expensive poverty in the world."

Drug addict? go on a benefit and don't get treatment

One of the arguments given for the welfare state is how caring and compassionate it is, and how mean, greedy and nasty are the people who actually would rather have their own money back, and then choose to spend it as they see fit, including charity or other acts of genuine benevolence.

The left would argue that the state is best trusted to care for those in need, and those who want tax cuts are less compassionate and moral that they.

So you may ask yourself why, according to the Dominion Post, 5270 drug and alcohol addicts can be on sickness and invalids benefits, defined as those who identify their addiction as the reason they cannot work - AND that none of them are required to engage in any form of treatment as a condition of receiving your money.

Imagine a single charity giving out money to addicts and saying "go on, come back for more every fortnight, and we don't care whether or not you go to treatment".

What is more alarming is the number has gone up so much in a short time "there are 2540 beneficiaries who have drug abuse listed as their primary reason for being unable to work - almost twice the 1297 listed in 2004."

Apparently "case managers could not force beneficiaries into treatment programmes". I would have thought if the government changed benefit eligibility so that if you refuse treatment you cease to get the benefit, it might be an effective way of incentivising them into treatment.

Work and Income deputy CE Patricia Reade has said though that "Many had other mental or physical health problems which prevented them from working, such as cirrhosis. Alcoholism in itself was not a reason to be off work." So presumably those problems should be listed shouldn't they, not alcoholism. Alcoholism if listed shouldn't be a grounds for the benefit if that is the case.

So what to do?

Now some on the conservative right may say that everyone getting the benefit who is a drug abuser should be incarcerated. That, after all, is what the war on drugs is about isn't it? It makes it a crime to ingest banned substances, so why should people get money for being an addict, and why shouldn't those receiving those benefits get a knock on the door from the cops with search warrants with pending charges? (Then for good measure, being tough on crime and all, if they find nothing, there is benefit fraud from NOT being a drug user!).

The better solution is that, while accepting these benefits exist for now, the system should use a carrot and stick approach to treatment. Addicts who are unable to work because of their addiction should only receive the benefit whilst they undertake treatment (and have been certified as having attended). Similarly, they should not receive the benefit whilst they use. That means testing. Whilst some of those receiving the benefits are no doubt trying on the system, others will be sad cases - feeling trapped and alone, and unsure what to do. Pulling the money away unless they undertake treatment is the only kind thing that can be done in those circumstances. You'll find the ones who are trying on the system will drop out, and maybe those who are in genuine need drop out after weeks and months of help (helping their families too).

You see it's how private welfare would ultimately work.

It is kinder than the mad Green idea of throwing more money at beneficiaries, kinder than Labour's "here's the money now you could seek treatment, but if you don't just see your doctor every 13 weeks and if you're still an addict, we''ll keep paying you", and kinder than the "throw you in jail for being a (drug) addict" of the "tough on crime" brigade.

CPAG - how chardonnay socialists fight poverty

It should be no surprise that I find the so called "Child Poverty Action Group" disgusting. The one thing it doesn't do is take action against child poverty, it doesn't spend a dollar on helping kids in poor families. No. It lobbies the state to take more money off of others by force.

.

You see it doesn't actually want to alleviate child poverty directly. It says "The core objectives of the Child Poverty Action Group are: To promote better policies for children and young people; To promote awareness of the causes and consequences of child poverty"

.

This is how it achieves its goals "CPAG publishes reports, makes submissions and conducts small-scale research projects to achieve its goals." Yep, don't look for breakfast kids, don't hope that CPAG might get you a new mattress, CPAG is "publishing a report" instead.

.

Pricks. Not getting their clean little academic hands dirty actually helping people, they lobby for socialists answers - high minimum wages, compulsory taxpayer funded health and education and higher welfare benefits. You see they don't really care that people who are poor breeding isn't a good idea, they want you to pay for that. They don't promote birth control, they promote more welfare, other families and those wise enough to not breed paying for those who do. They milk stories of poverty, feeding off it for their agenda and doing absolutely fuck all themselves. Of those listed on the website, most will certainly be earning above average wages.

.

According to the NZ Herald the court case they are taking claiming Labour's middle class welfare Working for Families is "discriminatory" because it doesn't spend even more compulsorily taken money to give welfare beneficiaries something for nothing. Think how much the court case is costing CPAG, and the state - think how that could have been spent on poverty, and you'll see how much CPAG really gives a damn. It's mainly costing you according to the NZ Herald:

.

"Both sides of the legal argument are being financed by taxpayers - the action group's case through the Office of Human Rights Proceedings and the Government's defence through the Crown Law Office."

.

Nice, so you - the taxpayers (oh it's the cost of civilisation) are forced to pay for a pack of socialists lobbying to make you pay more welfare benefits, and you're also forced to pay to defend against it. Too hard for CPAG to pay for advertising to run a charity to actually help the poor of course, they couldn't screw people who actually plan their lives, look after their own kids.

.

It is one thing to give a damn about poverty and do something about it actively, like the Salvation Army actually does (regardless of any judgment of its religious agenda), but another to claim you are undertaking "action on poverty" and doing nothing but lobbying to make others pay money to help people through the state.

and that's not even dealing with the issue of welfarism as raised by No Minister. Theodore Dalrymple in his excellent book "Life at the Bottom" describes graphically the world view and culture of the "underclass" that traps so many in poverty, violence and an existence of spiritual depravation. By spirit I don't mean religion, but sense of life - sense of being and esteem. His book makes for sobering reading as someone who HAS been directly on the frontline of poverty. Comparing England's welfare state to Africa "nothing I saw... ever had the same devastating effect on the human personality as the undiscriminating welfare state. I never saw the loss of dignity, the self-centeredness, the spiritual and emotional vacuity, or the sheer ignorance of how to live that I see daily in England".

.

CPAG offers nothing to combat that, but to feed it - make it worse, to perpetuate the culture of "not my fault, not my responsibility" and "it's my right" to something by making others pay for it. It is morally bankrupt in deed and philosophy.

Not too sick to bully

The Dominion Post reports today that some GPs are being bullied by "sickness" beneficiaries particularly in smaller provincial areas, as they seek medical confirmation they can't work:

.

Dr Van Herck said... "He had seen one woman who had been on a sickness benefit for 19 years because of asthma but smoked a packet of cigarettes a day. Work and Income had offered her several quit programmes. "She admitted she was too lazy to go." Another sickness beneficiary's documented reason for not working was they "could not be bothered".

.

He continued..

.

"On the day he saw the asthma sufferer, he also saw a man whose leg had been amputated above the knee and who worked full-time, despite pain. Another woman continued to work after a stroke."

.

Here is a simple solution. State that as from a certain date, there will be no new eligibility for the sickness benefit, but that people can then buy sickness insurance from insurance providers. The sickness insurance no doubt would reward healthy lifestyles, and penalise smoking, lack of exercise, high cholesterol and the like.

.

Of course taxes would be cut to allow people to afford this.

.

Existing sickness beneficiaries would be given a year to get well, by that time they would either be deemed invalids or be transferred to an insurer, which would manage the government's liability for the person. Clearly anyone who continued to engage in destructive behaviour (e.g. smoking with asthma) would no longer be paid.

.

Of the political parties, Labour supports the status quo, the Greens want to increase benefits, National might have a policy and ACT wants to shift the system to compulsory insurance. Libertarianz would abolish the sickness benefit.

.

Of course some of us wonder how so many people are never too sick to commit crimes.

A lousy tax cut idea

Idiot Savant at No Right Turn talks of speculation in the Sunday Star Times that Cullen's tax cut might be a "social dividend" flat payout of $1000 per "low income earner" (otherwise known as the Labour core).

He describes this as "a good idea, and certainly far better than anything offered by the "tax cuts for the rich" brigade. It targets support at the needy rather than the greedy,"

Now I'm not one to look a tax cut in the mouth, but he's seriously wrong. He isn't advocating a tax cut after all. A tax cut, you see, means your net income increases as the government takes less of what you earn. You get a steady amount each fortnight or month, can afford to save it, spend it, or do as you wish. It is permanent, sustainable and reduces the size of the state (which I acknowledge isn't important to him, as he sees it as the best way to deliver health, education and social insurance monopolies).

What will happen if people on low incomes get $1000 one off? Well, there will be a lot more big TVs being sold, some fashion trips, a few more new car stereos, some trips to Australia and the rest. In other words, it will be used to buy consumer goods. Now that, in itself, isn't a bad thing, except that this dividend wouldn't be paid to everyone, especially the majority who pay 90% of income tax. Don't forget those on the top tax rates pay the vast majority of income tax, but to argue they don't deserve a dividend is grossly unfair.
.
No, Idiot Savant wants you to keep working 2 days a week for the beloved Nanny State and be grateful that with every extra dollar you earn, you only get to keep 61c of it, even before you give up a 12.5% surcharge of what you buy to the state, be damned grateful we let you keep that you rich thieving bastard (the undertone being "you don't fucking deserve what you earn, just wish the revolution would come one day and you'll get yours you bourgeoisie scum").
.
Far more generous is the Libertarianz policy announced in the weekend of immediately creating a tax free threshold of $10,000 for everyone, which would mean those lowest earners (and students, children and others earning a bit here and there) would be free of income tax, but would also be a boost to all other income earners.

You see cutting taxes does not "disproportionately" benefit the rich, given it was their money in the first place. That is the fundamental difference between statists and libertarians. Statists think taxes are "society's money" or "government money" and getting a tax cut is "taking it from society". Libertarians believe it is your money that the government has taken, and a tax cut is giving you back your own money. No pure tax cut can be disproportionate by definition.

Of course he goes on to advocate a universal basic income, a concept some libertarians advocate as a transitional step to replacing the welfare state, using Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept with a flat tax. That idea, as a transitional measure, has some merit for debate. However he sees it as basically freeing people from work "It would substantially improve the actual, substantive freedom of people to lead their lives how they wish". Well for people who want to not work. You know those useful productive dynamic people who want to live off of the back of everyone else until they decide not to, while we all pay for them. Of course it would reduce the freedom of people for the rest of us having to pay for everyone else.

So there you have it - the left want people to get an income for doing absolutely nothing - their birthright to have everyone else pay for them to live, and not just survive but to be not uncomfortable. They want everyone else to pay for it, because - well they believe once you get above average you owe it to pay for those below - and not only that, if you ask for a tax cut when you are "rich" (above average income) you're selfish and evil.

It's quite despicable.

Cruel and deliberate?

Sue Bradford, champion of those who live off of the money of others taken by force. She thinks welfare benefits should be enough to have a satisfactory lifestyle, not a last choice to cover bare necessities whilst people seeks to become independent. According to the NZ Herald she claims beneficiaries face "deepening poverty" when in fact they just don't keep up with the incomes of those who work - funny that - shouldn't welfare be enough for subsistence?

No, Bradford and the Greens think if the economy grows then so should welfare. It shouldn't just be about keeping someone fed, clothed, housed and heated, but maintaining a certain RELATIVE standard of living compared to everyone else, even though it hasn't been earned. That's the difference. The Greens are Marxists who see the welfare state as a means of taking from the rich and middle class and giving to the poor, and so they would cheer on a doubling of benefits.

However they fail to even acknowledge the absolute destitution of ambition, effort or motivation of many on welfare. Take some examples listed by bloggers:

No Minister's tale from Murupara;
No Minister's tale from Mangere Bridge;
Oswald Bastable's example of Brits on welfare.

Sue, people who work hard and save are sick of paying for those who treat welfare as a choice, who proudly do nothing. Welfarism has failed, miserably. A radical change is needed, for starters it needs to be time limited and those on welfare should receive no more for having more children.

Ultimately the whole damned thing needs to be abolished, and by the way Sue, then you and all those who care so much can do more by yourself, put your own money where your mouth is. You could do far worse than to listen to Lindsay Mitchell who knows this area only too well.

The Waitangi gravy train - who will end it

No, it's not the vivid imagination of conservative punters. A former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, Dr Michael Bassett, is hardly a paragon of conservatism, being a former Labour Cabinet Minister. He has written in his latest column about the taxpayer funded claims process:

.

"Both major political parties know that what is happening is wrong, and that ordinary Maori in whose name the claims are made, aren’t getting a cracker out of the money being spent on lawyers, researchers and Tribunal staff. The spinelessness that we have come to expect of politicians in an MMP environment assists the greedy, when it was the needy we set out to help in 1985."

.

Of course you've been paying for the "jobs" involved in this process, he continues:

.

"By the time I joined the Tribunal in 1994 hearings were awash with lawyers, most on Legal Aid, with the claims before us being funded by the CFRT or the Tribunal’s taxpayer funded resources. Virtually none of the costly process was paid for upfront by the claimants. They therefore had no incentive to be careful with taxpayers’ money, or even with the Maori money that many were eventually to receive from the CFRT. Rorting the Tribunal process has become the name of the game. A whole industry numbering somewhere around 1,000 people gathered around new grievances that keep being dreamt up.

.

When politicians settled on land grievances as the cause of Maori problems they made a mistake. It would have made better sense to examine welfare and the huge damage it has done to Maori society. The Waitangi Tribunal should be scaled down. The industry is of no use to 99% of the people it’s meant to serve. "

.

However, don't hold your breath. National of course nurtured this industry when it was in power, it will do nothing now as it anxiously seeks support from the flotsam and jetsam of anti-semitics and Mugabe appeasers in the Maori Party. The Waitangi Tribunal should be wound up, claims of state theft of land should be heard through the courts, for both Maori and non-Maori claimants. However, no doubt far too many who suckle from nanny state (i.e. you) will ensure the Maori Party holds us all to ransom for this industry - and of course call everyone who criticises this as racist.

Still going to vote National? I know Libertarianz would abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, but what will ACT push for? Wouldn't things be different if National had to rely on ACT and the Libertarianz to govern, rather than the racist party?

Taxing migrants?

The Daily Telegraph reports that the UK is considering a levy on new migrants – to pay for the substandard NHS and public education systems. This ignores the elephant in the room. The problem isn't migrants, it is how health and education is funded and how demand for the services is rationed. The model of centrally planned bureaucracy keeps failing, so why keep using it because it seems too damned hard to fix it?

Here’s an idea, it can be applied to the UK, or NZ or indeed many countries....

New migrants don’t pay income tax (or national insurance in the UK), for three years (well they can if they want, but they don't get anything more for it). After that they can choose to do so, and avail themselves of the state provided “services” or continue to opt out. Indirect taxes such as VAT/GST are adequate to cover law and order, defence and other state functions.

In exchange for not paying income tax, new migrants have no claim on the public health system or education system and would be charged on a marginal cost recovery basis with a contribution to fixed costs. New migrants could also not claim taxpayer funding housing or welfare benefits. The years they spend not paying income tax also wont count for old age pensions/national superannuation.

In short, they pay for what they consume and what their families consume. Yes some bits and pieces would need ironing out, you can’t not pay income tax and then pay only the years your kids need an education. You’d need to pay from when they are born. You can’t opt out of income tax and expect to still get access to the state social services at all, it’s like insurance, you opt out and stay opted out.

However, if the state supplied socialised health, education and welfare services appeal, then migrants can pay income tax.

Unfair? How? It stops existing citizens from subsidising new ones through taxes, means the tiresome argument about “paying for infrastructure” is up to the new migrants to pay for, and suddenly the type of migrants you get might actually be those willing to be self sufficient.

In the UK this couldn’t apply to people from EU countries of course, sadly, but it can apply more generally. Of course NZ could apply it across the board, and you’d find out how many people really think they get value for money out of their taxes. You’d also find it a lot easier to recruit overseas doctors and the like.

Socialists will huff and puff that this will benefit their great nemesis - the rich (snarling jaws dripping with envy). Rich migrants of course, bringing their wealth into the country, spending their money. Socialists don’t want to argue that their beloved taxpayer funded social services are always going to be inadequate because they have few mechanisms for accountability, cost control, rewarding good performance and behaviour and penalising bad.

Most socialists show little interest in having a transparent debate about how much of taxes should be about paying for what you use, and how much is about compulsorily paying for other people.

Now that is an honest debate I’d like to have.

Phasing out the DPB

Not PC rightly pointed out that one of the negative consequences of the DPB is that there has been a rising incidence of children being raised by parents who didn't want them, and these children end up being a problem in themselves. Now many on the DPB DO want and love their kids, after all the DPB was intended to cover a number of unfortunate events, such as death of a spouse and separation - not to fund a lifestyle choice.

~

So what could be done? It is easy to say withdraw the DPB, but we all know that wont happen, what is needed is for it to be phased out. Here are some simple steps that, dare i say it, a National government might consider if it really wants to address welfare:

~

1. Freeze the number of children current DPB beneficiaries can claim the benefit for. In other words, if you had two children when you got on it, you can't get more money for a third child.

2. Prohibit claims for the DPB for beneficiaries who wont name the other parent.

3. Replace the DPB with the unemployment benefit when the youngest (eligible) child is at school age, so that the focus moves from domestic purposes to employment.

4. Establish a legal alimony framework to allow the other parent of the dependent child to be liable to share the cost of raising the child. This will mean every separation will see this legal obligation come into effect, which will be predefined unless the parents expressly contract out of it by mutual agreement. Parents cannot rely on the state to fill any gap, beyond the unemployment benefit. This legal framework would effectively end new claims for the DPB.

~

These simple steps would have several effects. Firstly, it would replace state funded parenting with parent funded parenting. Parents would be paying for their kids, and would have to sacrifice part of their earnings to do this, even on low incomes, even on the unemployment benefit. Single parents would be treated as unemployed once the youngest child is at school, shifting the obligation towards finding employment/income. Finally, it would put a substantial new legal obligation upon both parents to share the costs of child rearing, regardless of domestic living arrangements.

~

Meanwhile, you might save enough money to knock a few more percentage points off of income tax, this in itself would also help people afford to raise their children.

~

I know this proposal is hardly that radical, and would mean the DPB is gone within five years. While it would help shrink the state, by far the biggest change would be it would destroy the incentive to have children you can't afford, and suddenly parents who get away with little (mostly men), would have to face the consequences of their breeding.

~

However, much has been written about this by Lindsay Mitchell, who has done and said more on this issue than most. If the Nats do even some of what I've listed, I'll be astounded though.