How to help stop the outflow to Australia

Not PC has said much of what I want to say about the first Rudd government Budget in Australia.

.

Difficult to argue with tax cuts that are matched by spending cuts and a budget surplus. This is the sort of language that the National Party can't understand, and this is a Labour government using it. Just shows how far to the left mainstream politics in New Zealand has been dragged by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, and how meekly John Key and Bill English have followed them there. The fact the Australian Greens are moaning that defence spending is 40x that on climate change shows the budget is still sensible.

.

Of course a fortune of middle class welfare and industrial pork is being spent too, as Australia squanders the good times, and the spending cuts are relatively modest, but nevertheless there is a lesson for National. How DO you close the gap in GDP per capita between Australia and NZ and how do you encourage NZers to stay?

.

Australia has a A$16,000 tax free income threshold. Adopting the Libertarianz (and now ACT) policy of a NZ$10,000 tax free threshold would be a start. However, what else does the Australian income tax regime show?

.

I used the Australian tax office and NZ IRD tax calculators to find out, using the 2007-08 year as my base.

.

A present it is as follows:

.

A person on A$180,000 (NZ$221,000) pay A$61,350 (NZ$75,258) in tax. In NZ the same amount (NZ$221,000) would see income tax of NZ$77,412. In other words you pay NZ$1,884 a year more in income tax in NZ compared with Australia.

.

The second tax rate is 40%, it cuts in at a threshold of A$80,001 (NZ$98,147) from this year.

A person on A$80,001 would pay A$19,850 (NZ$24,352). In New Zealand someone on NZ$98,147 would pay NZ$29,547 in income tax. You pay NZ$5,195 more in income tax in New Zealand compared to Australia.

.

If you earn A$40,000 (NZ$49,058), in Australia you pay A$7,350 (NZ$9,015). In NZ you pay NZ$11,059 in income tax. That's NZ$2,014 more than in Australia.

.

For A$20,000 (NZ$24,532) in Australia you pay A$2,100 (NZ$2,576). In NZ you pay NZ$4,784, NZ$2,208 more than in Australia.

.

You get the picture. That's BEFORE the current budget. That budget cuts the second highest tax rate from 40% to 37% in stages by 2010, and the raises the threshold for the 15% rate. Dr Cullen cannot even start to pretend that income tax in New Zealand is competitive with Australia. The left can go on about wages, but if wages increase in New Zealand so do the taxes - you are better off - dollar for dollar - earning the same wage in Australia compared to New Zealand.

.

So how DO the rates compare.

In Australia the first A$6000 is tax free, New Zealand has no tax free threshold.

After A$6000, Australians pay 15% until you get to A$34,000.

In New Zealand you pay 19.5% on every dollar up to NZ$38,000.

After A$34,000, Australians pay 30% until you get to A$80,000.

In New Zealand you pay 33% for every dollar after NZ$38,000 until you get to NZ$60,000.

After A$80,000, Australians pay 40% until you get to A$180,000, after which you pay 45%.

In New Zealand you pay 39% for every dollar after NZ$60,000.

Of course, the tax free threshold does mean that you have to earn more than A$180,000 before you pay more than you do in New Zealand. So you might wonder why tax policy in New Zealand is to penalise around 99% of the population, relative to Australia.

.

So while political parties wonder what might help stop the brain drain, they may look plainly at tax rates.

UPDATE: And the Dominion Post reports that someone on NZ$30,000 would pay 37% less in tax living in Australia compared to New Zealand following the Australian LABOUR budget. How wilfully blind can the left be that tax isn't an issue? It was also noted that with that budget, Australians have had ten years of continuous tax cuts, whereas New Zealand has had eight years of no tax cuts and one year previous of a tax increase. Nevermind, New Zealanders really don't know best how to spend their own money compared to Dr Cullen do they? That, after all, is what Labour and the Greens believe, do you?

Rapist has a right to housing in the UK

The Daily Telegraph tells the tale of Michael Clark. He is a charming fellow, he's a welfare beneficiary. Until recently, his criminal portfolio included the following:

.

- Three years for sexual assault of a woman:

- Seven years for raping a woman in her own home;

- Three years for sexually assaulting another woman;

- Conviction for assault;

- Two convinctions for assaulting police officers including biting the testicles of one.

.

After completing his sentence for the sexual assault he moved to Leeds. Like the useless man he is, he went to the local council wanting to be housed. The council refused. He hadn't been a resident before, besides his criminal record hardly made him a priority. However, the charity "Shelter", who he apparently approached, told the council that it couldn't refuse him as it could face judicial review for - wait for it - infringing upon his human rights.

.

You see, in the UK, a convicted rapist has the right to force the rest of us to provide him with housing. Whilst others struggle facing mortgage foreclosures, and paying rent, they are forced to pay council tax so criminals can have somewhere to live. That's the caring loving embrace of socialism, embracing the criminal whilst a clasped fist is ready to threaten you if you don't pay FOR him.

.

So the council found him privately provided accommodation and he went on a benefit. Parasite is the correct word. He became friends with a family two houses down from him. Although he was on the Sex Offenders' Register, they had no idea who he was. His sentence included no post release supervision or probation, so he was free. So one day, he entered the family's home, inside was Zusanna, 14, who he sexually assaulted, then he stabbed her, stomped on her head and slit her throat. After doing that he went to the Post Office to get his benefit and took a trip to Blackpool.

.

He is now doing thirty five years for her murder and sexual assault.

.

So who is responsible for this monster being funded and housed to commit crimes, again and again?

.

Well the Police claim that "regular checks" were being made on him and he was being "managed in the community". Clearly. It would be easy to blame the judiciary for not sentencing him to preventive detention with him already having a string of violent offences including those of a sexual nature. After all, how many times should someone be allowed to ruin people's lives before they should be locked away for good.

.

Leeds City Council claims it was not concerned about his rights, but mentioned that Shelter warned of judicial review if it continued to refuse to house him. So the council capitulated. Of course it should have refused, but if its legal advice was that it is futile then it had to find a place for him. Placing him close to a family could be seen as negligent, although where DO you put a convicted rapist?

.

Shelter denies asking or threatening a judicial review, although it did say "Questions need to be asked as to why this young girl and her family were housed next to a known sex offender" as it appears they moved in after Michael Clark had been housed. Why should they be the ones who are inconvenienced because of a piece of pond scum? I'd prefer if Shelter actually used its OWN money to pay for him to live somewhere if they give a damn.

.

So who is to blame? Well it is political. Politicians pass the legislation for sentencing. 35 years for murder of a young girl is a nonsense. The man should have life, the man should have had tougher sentences for being a repeat violent offender, and he should have been monitored given he was already determined to be too dangerous to release back into his home town! However, there aren't enough prisons (politicians decided that one).

.

Secondly, politicians granted everyone, including convicted violent criminals, the "right" to housing. What this means is that everyone else is forced to pay for those who aren't able and/or willing to work to make enough to pay for somewhere to live. It's not a right at all of course, because if everyone claimed it - it could never be delivered. It only "works" because the majority of people can pay for their own housing and their incomes can be pilfered to pay for others.

.

So what should happen? Recidivist violent dangerous criminals shouldn't be free -simple as that. They should be in prison, for life, to protect the rest of us. All those with convictions for violent offences should have no claim on the state for welfare or housing. You are worried they will starve or steal? Go give them some of your charity, go on, help them. I couldn't care less if the likes of Michael Clark were found drowned in a stream, he has no interest in living a peaceful existence leaving others alone - he is a threat, but if someone wants to save them, go for it.

.

However, in the UK, you can be a rapist, come out of prison and you can expect everyone else to pay for you to live and be housed.

.

Socialism is so fair isn't it?

Chavez calls Merkel a Nazi

According to the BBC he has now effectively called German Chancellor Angela Merkel a Nazi saying "She is from the German right.... The same that supported Hitler, that supported fascism. That's the Chancellor of Germany today."

.

so there are still people on the left who are sycophants to this lunatic? All she said was that he doesn't speak for Latin America, and unless Venezuela is some great new imperial power, she is right.

.

Another thieving leftwing autocratic maniac.

Why liberation from Saddam isn't enough..

Whilst one of the most widely understood mistakes of the invasion of Iraq was to fail to have a comprehensive, well armed strategy to control the country, impose law and order and confront the Islamist insurgency, a less well understood one is the more complicated one, the more delicate one - the need to confront the sexist violent culture than lay underneath. It is this that the Islamist insurgents are taking advantage of.

.

Take the case of Rand Abdel-Qader. She's 17 and dead. She used to live in Basra in Iraq.

.

As the NZ Herald reports, her father stamped on her, suffocated her and stabbed her to death. He remains free.

.

What did she do? She fell in love with a British soldier, who she had had merely conversations with over several months. She dared to talk to him in public, so, it appears under Iraqi culture, it was ok for her father to murder her for the "disgrace she brought".

.

The police approved of his actions. After he killed her, her corpse was thrown in a makeshift grave and her uncle spat on her before she was buried.

.

"it has been alleged by one senior unnamed official in the Basra governorate that he has received financial support from a local politician to enable him to "disappear" to Jordan for a few weeks, "until the story has been forgotten" - the usual practice in the 30-plus 'honour' killings that have been registered since January. Such treatment seems common in Basra where militias have partial control."

Her mother supported her, but is paying the price. "Rand's mother, 41, remains in hiding after divorcing her husband in the immediate aftermath of the killing, living in fear of retribution from his family. She also still bears the scars of the severe beating he inflicted on her, breaking her arm in the process, when she said she was going."

.

So you see that's what the insurgency brings to Iraq, but it is also what appears to be culturally and legally "ok" still. It is unclear if this young woman would be any better off under the secular government, but what is clear is that fundamental values of life, freedom and decency remain absent from many in Iraq. Short of full scale occupation and imposition of a constitution and individual freedom (ala post war West Germany and Japan), this cannot be achieved. The benefits of making Iraq into a liberal democracy that respects individual rights and freedom would be high, but the costs are also very high, and sadly US foreign policy has been obsessed with democracy as the answer - when democracy can often deliver the sad fact that a majority of people in a country may be sexist, racist and want the government to do violence to minorities.

.

Under the status quo there is no easy answer. Westerners could help fund and support Arab womens' groups and those fighting for individual rights in Iraq. Western governments could pressure Iraq's government to act against honour killings. However, one of the most important actions is to continue fighting the Islamist insurgents. They are the enemies of the West, but as importantly they are enemies of many ordinary Iraqis.

.

Of course, ignorant so-called peace loving anti-Americans who apparently care about women's rights will still support the insurgency. Barack Obama meantime would just sit by and let Iraq go Islamist.

.

Hat tip: Jameson's blog on Solopassion

Is it real?

OK, whilst Hillary Clinton has won, as expected, in West Virginia (country roads, take me home, to the place, I belong) large parts of which are the "hicksville" that Obama so deftly insulted. Hillary is claiming that working class white voters are what counts (and with a poll saying 35% of her supporters would vote McCain rather than Obama she might be right, although it may be exactly the same with Obama I suspect).

However, to digress look at this photo. Hillary constantly does this faux "grin of recognition and point" action when on a podium. I know it's petty, but the lying power hungry shrew does it EVERYWHERE, as if she has friends in every state and every town. Is it fake? Or is she laughing at the poor dress sense of her supporters, or their messianic banality to want this compulsive liar run their lives?

The murdering thieving scum in Rangoon

Associated Press is reporting the following:

.

"The United Nations said Tuesday that only a tiny portion of international aid needed for Myanmar's cyclone victims is making it into the country, amid reports that the military regime is hoarding good-quality foreign aid for itself and doling out rotten food."

.

"A longtime foreign resident in Yangon told the AP in Bangkok that angry government officials have complained to him about the misappropriation of the aid by the military. He said the officials told him that quantities of the high-energy biscuits rushed into Myanmar by the WFP on its first flights were sent to a military warehouse. They were exchanged by what the officials said were "tasteless and low quality" biscuits produced by the Industry Ministry to be handed out to cyclone victims, the foreign resident said."

.

There is only one answer - it is direct intervention. If government wont do it, why not let mercenaries? Oh that's right, it was banned by Labour, and supported by the Greens. No doubt because some mercenaries are questionable, but what would be better for Burma now than a private army going in and taking control of the devastated areas in the country, and pointing guns at the kleptocratic dictators to get them to pull back and let these destitute people be saved?

.

There is no legitimacy in the Burmese government, it deserves no respect - contrast it even to the communist party led dictatorship in China which DOES care for the people devastated in the recent earthquake. That's why, despite what is bad about China, it has come a very long way in recent decades and nothing compares China to Burma.

What did Peter Brown think before he went there?

According to the NZ Herald when asked about the junket to eastern Europe you paid for and the personal highlight of the trip, he said it was Auschwitz, and of it said:

.

"I didn't believe it would be so evil....."

.

What does it take Peter? Seriously. How fucking evil does genocide have to be? What did you think it was, a prison camp?

.

then to top it off, he just doesn't get it.

.

He said "it just reinforced for me the importance of democracy"

.

Why, because the Nazis got elected? You honestly think the Nazis would have lost elections in the 1930s? Would it have been ok had the Germans voted to gas the Jews (they voted for anti-semitic policies)? Pick up Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners... I doubt democracy would have saved the Jews Peter. The word is freedom, but you belong to a nationalist xenophobic party that has been propping up the Clark Labour government, you don't really understand that concept.

.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of one of those people you trust to make decisions on your retirement income, your healthcare, your kid's education and how to spend around 40% of your income. It's not his fault, he's just not very bright.

British Labour increases tax free threshold out of desperation

Following on from the fiasco of abolishing the 10% income tax rate (putting thousands of people on low incomes on a higher tax rate), the absolute gutting of Labour in the local body elections, polling for the Crewe-Nantwich by-election (a safe Labour seat) that shows a 7000 vote majority being overturned with a Conservative victory, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a "compensation package". He had to, as Labour backbench MPs were threatening to vote against the Budget legislation because of the abolition of the 10% tax rate, quite simply Brown's government was risking losing supply from its own party! The days of Labour being trusted with the economy in the UK are over, but it is two years till the next general election.

.

The package is simple. The low income tax free threshold is to be raised by £600 per annum to £6035 a year. However, the so-called "rich" get none of it, because the threshold for the 40% top tax rate is being reduced by the same proportion.

.

Of course none of this comes from cutting spending. No, another £2.7 billion of borrowing to fund this tax cut. Never mind, Labour wont be in forever, they can let those nasty Tories clean up the finances and get them blamed for cutting spending.

.

Labour under Gordon Brown is running bigger and bigger deficits and an ever more complicated tax system. How long can Labour in the UK overspend and overspend? Could it ever consider that its heavy borrowing programme contributes to the credit crisis and the level of interest rates?

Meanwhile, New Zealanders might wonder why neither major party believes in income tax free thresholds, when their family and friends in the UK can earn around NZ$15,000 and pay no income tax. Libertarianz and ACT are advocating a $10,000 tax free threshold and even the Greens advocated a $5,000 threshold at the last election.

The lesbian threesome that wasn't

Got to love "Flight of the Conchords" Jemaine Clement and Bret McKenzie. According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

.

"Scruffy New Zealander Jemaine Clement from the folk-parody group Flight Of The Conchords was approached by a girl at a party in Scotland, who invited him to a spit roast. She wanted to know if Bret McKenzie, his band mate, would also attend. Thinking she was referring to a barbecue, Jemaine said yes. Hey, they both liked meat. "She said, 'I wouldn't usually ask. I'm a lesbian,' and I thought, 'Why would that stop you asking for a barbecue?"' Soon after, Clement discovered a spit-roast was British slang for a threesome and declined, mightily embarrassed."

.
What can you say to that? They probably didn't want to see each other's meat or else she really wasn't worth it, plus it might have helped had she brought along three friends - you see THAT's the threesome famous guys want.

Party pill regulation continues

Having succeeded swimmingly in not reducing harm by banning BZP, the Dominion Post reports that the Health Ministry is now proposing a different approach to other party pills. Age restrictions, labelling requirements and licences to sell them (all stuff to make a bureaucrat wet himself). Now while I'd agree with an age restriction, labelling requirements seems over the top and having licences to sell something isn't proven to do much other than put up the price and start creating a black market - BUT my big question is this. Why hasn't BZP simply been treated the same way? Why not legalise BZP, put an age restriction on it and regulate it?

.

If ACC was abolished, then those who sell such products would face the risk of damaging lawsuits for causing personal injury by accident - in other words, just like most countries in the Western world. Whilst the ACC folly continues, the arguments for some regulation of substances remain.

.

However, my question remains - if party pills are to be controlled like alcohol, why not make extend this to BZP, and remove the ban?

Is ACT prepared to support a Labour government?

From ACT's website:

"Rodney Hide: Does the Minister feel so strongly against giving parents a choice of school, including independent schools, that he would resign as Minister of Education if that were a condition of support from MMP parties for a future Government?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I think the likelihood of Labour going into coalition with ACT is nil, especially with the addition of Roger Douglas to its party list."

.

According to this, Rodney Hide is teasing Labour into considering whether it engages in, at least, a confidence and supply agreement with ACT if it needed to do so to remain in power after the 2008 election. Tactically of course, given National's unwillingness to consider Sir Roger Douglas for Cabinet, this might make a little sense for ACT, so that there is some leverage over the Nats after the election. However, if you voted National in 2005 and now are contemplating ACT, because the Nats are a shoo in, Rodney Hide seems safe in Epsom and you want a CHANGE in government to implement more free market policies, you might hesitate if Rodney Hide actually keeps Helen Clark in power.

.

Now if you think this is unlikely, consider this. It has seemed both in 2002 and 2005 that Labour's natural partner would be the Greens, but it has avoided confidence and supply and coalition agreements with it after both elections. The Greens were hardly going to support National were they? By contrast, did the average Labour voter expect United Future to keep the government in power for two terms and NZ First for one? Is it inconceivable that a Phil Goff lead Labour Party (let's say Clark is rolled before the election, highly unlikely unless Labour's polling drops below 30%) would seek confidence and supply from ACT, if Labour did implement some modest tax cuts and uh.. did something else? (help me here). After all, it is far from inconceivable that National will partner up with the Maori Party, and the feelers have been out between the Nats and the Greens (although that does seem like hard work).

.

So what would be ACT's bottom line for a confidence and supply agreement with Labour OR National? Not the details, it's clear that would be worked through. However, I'd hope it included the following:

.

- A tax free income threshold, abolition of the 39% top tax rate and lowering of company tax;

- Education vouchers for primary and secondary education;

- Including private property rights in the RMA if not replacing it;

- End to the growth of the state sector and identification of opportunities to privatise by sale AND issuing shares directly to the public.

As Hillary has her last stand

It is worth reminding you all the eloquent words of Christopher Hitchens on Hillary Rodham Clinton. My favourite snippets are below:

"For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done."
.
"It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all (Bill) Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton...Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues.""

.

"During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat.... What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."

It's time to bury the attempted Clinton dynasty once and for all.

ACT's great chance

- Low flat tax;
- Choose private, integrated or state schools and funding follows every child;
- Have a health insurance account you choose to get the care you need;
- Choose the accident and sickness cover you want based on your risk;
- Pay for your own retirement nest egg that can be inherited without the state.

No it's not a libertarian agenda, but it should be ACT's. An agenda to reflect its name, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. An agenda that means school funding follows parents' decisions, that means what you pay for healthcare reflects your risk and waiting lists are traded for hospitals dealing with customers who expect service. Moving the no fault flat rate ACC model to one where people with low risk pay less premiums than those that are high risk, and finally making retirement a personal responsibility. Big tax cuts so people can pay for health and sickness insurance that reflects their risk, responsibility and what they want.

It would be a point of difference from National, but will it happen?

Following on from the Libertarianz annual conference in the weekend, some of the usual inter-necine mumblings between ACT and Libertarianz have reminded me of what we should all be arguing about - quite simply this election is the best opportunity in recent history to present freedom at the ballot box since the 1980s.

Why?

The 1990s National government once had a strong appetite for economic freedom, and was still privatising and deregulating even up to 1999 (ACC and Postal services being the last example), although it had virtually no appetite for personal freedom. ACT and Libertarianz both grew in 1996 and 1999 because of increased frustration at the limp wristed attitude to freedom of National After National lost in 1999, it struggled to regain power against Labour (which of course has no interest in shrinking the state). In 2002 National offered next to nothing and ACT had its best ever result.

However, the last election was difficult for both ACT and the Libertarianz. National in 2005 offered a semi-libertarian leader and a platform to cut taxes, privatise and abolish race based privilege by the state. Supporters of ACT and the Libertarianz voted National as they saw the chance, which appeared distant only a year before, that Labour could be defeated. Funnily enough having nearly won an election on principle, National has run a mile from it.

Labour is finished. National can almost sleepwalk to victory, and as it does so it has moved to the centre. National is Labour lite, and no one who wants a smaller state and more freedom can see a vote for National being good for anything other than replacing Helen Clark with John Key (maybe worthy but not much more than that).

So this is where ACT can come in.

Sir Roger Douglas in his widely reported ACT conference address advocated a positive agenda that is NOT all ACT Policy, including shifting healthcare to an insurance based model, education vouchers, make the first $20,000 tax free, drop the 39% tax rate, implicitly opening ACC fully up to private competition including personal accident and sickness insurance (replacing sickness benefit perhaps). Positive stuff. Frankly, with Sir Roger Douglas ACT has a chance to have a presence and to debate head on, ON PRINCIPLE, with Key and Clark. After all, Clark was in Cabinet with him.

ACT could advocate zero income tax like Sir Roger did in his book Unfinished Business, or flat tax like it did in the late 1990s. However, regardless of detail it can outline a vision of less government and substantial more choice for education, health (and ACC and sickness insurance which are ignored but directly related) and retirement. Kiwisaver for example could be shifted into private accounts that could replace National Superannuation in due course.

This agenda could inspire people to think "wow I could send my kids to private school without paying twice" or "i can live a healthy lifestyle and pay less for healthcare AND have my own insurance account to ensure I get cover when I need it". At one time Sir Roger Douglas believed 50% of voters would go for this, then he reduced his ambition to 30%. Surely 10% would be attracted by this prospect of serious reform of education, healthcare, ACC, the welfare state and cutting taxes. Especially with the credibility of Sir Roger Douglas on the ballot.

Whilst National limps to power, ACT could inspire those who want serious change to vote for it as a viable coalition partner, instead of the morally bankrupt Maori and NZ First Parties.

If not now, then when?

Oh and Libertarianz? Don't worry, there is still room there. I don't expect ACT to advocate privatising schools and hospitals, ending the welfare state, abolishing the RMA, reforming drug laws, abolishing laws on blasphemy and the rest. No. ACT is not the libertarian party. Libertarianz is a bigger package, a complete one to shrink the state on principle to its core functions. Personal liberty has never been much on the ACT agenda, although to be fair in the last three years ACT has been far better on this front than it ever was before.

ACT DOES have Sir Roger Douglas who has more political courage than virtually anyone in National, and it has Rodney Hide who, on a good day, can be quite inspiring. If you can't ride a wave of anti-Labour sentiment to grow, become a critical fixture for National and pull National towards some serious reform then you should give up. Don't be limp wristed, be bold, be like the Greens, be advocates for consumer choice, taxpayer rights and private enterprise. Attack the inability of state health and education monopolies to deal with people's needs, demand that government shrink and taxes shrink with it.

It is, after all, what you exist to advocate. After all, do you think a National Party Cabinet would be better or worse off with Sir Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide on it? How likely is it if nobody really knows what ACT is offering?

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.

Some more questions for Dr Cullen on rail

And by the way, John Key and Maurice Williamson will need to answer them too, after all if you're not going to sell it....


Who will be responsible for allocating subsidies to the "new" NZR, will it be the soon to be created New Zealand Transport Agency which will also be responsible for the state highway network (so has a conflict of interest), or the Ministry of Transport, which doesn't have a significant capability in making funding decisions?

Will the 60 year + old rolling stock for the TranzCoastal, Overlander and TranzAlpine be replaced? When? For how much and will it be subsidised?

What is the strategy for the following lines that are not used? (Taneatua, Whakatane, Rotorua, Rapahoe, Castlecliff)

What is the strategy for replacing the vast majority of the diesel locomotive fleet which has engines built in the 1970s?

Will you be owning the new trains being bought for Wellington that are partly local authority funded, or will GWRC still own them?

Will you operate a transparent accounting structure that separates overheads, fixed and variable costs for each line, so that it becomes clear what routes you subsidise and by how much?

Will you subsidise trains by paying for services to be operated or just for rolling stock and locomotive, regardless of how well used they are?

How will you ensure neutral treatment of the coastal shipping industry now you will be a major player (and competitor) with the ferries?

Will you let the "new" NZR get into road freight or not?

Will you let other companies buy their own locomotives and rolling stock to operate trains or have any restrictions other than safety, or any capacity limits? In other words, will you operate an open access railway?

Will you be building any new lines and if so, why, what are the net benefits?

What policy will you have about closing lines and stations, or are they all to remain perpetually open?

How much taxpayers' money are you budgeting for rail infrastructure, rail services and rail rolling stock, beyond what is funded from the National Land Transport Fund through Land Transport NZ?

Will the railways be transferred to NZRC and will it still be expected to make a profit (as it did when it originally ran the lot from 1982 to 1990)?

How will you ensure the subsidised railway system wont cross subsidise the rail ferries?

Will you subsidise any passenger services besides commuter services in Auckland and Wellington?

Aussies about to fritter away their surplus

It is Australia's Budget Day. The booming Australian mining sector has seen a massive tax windfall for the Australian Federal Government, with one economist suggesting A$20 billion should be put away and invested, much like Norway and other governments do, to fund future liabilities and to cover federal spending for a "rainy day". However no, the Rudd government (and it's not much worse than Howard) will spend it like the proverbial drunken sailor, although it will also give tax cuts. The result is further bloating of the Australian Federal Government, further dependency on middle class and corporate welfare, and simply sheer waste, when Australians could be enjoying low flat federal taxes and a diversifying economy, rather than one that milks commodities and keeps the rest of the economy propped up on transfers.

.

However, whilst the best time to squeeze efficiency out of the public sector would be now, the incentives to do so are the poorest. Why do politicians love spending other people's money so much, and why do people let them do it?

Boris after 1 week?

Well so far he has:

.

- Banned consumption of alcohol on the tube, DLR and franchised London bus routes (frankly I'd have left this to the operators, but it is neither here not there);

- Appointed a Forensic Audit Panel to investigate financial management at the GLA, with an interim report on how to make savings within 30 days, with a full report within 3 months of areas of spending cuts;

- Withdrawn an appeal by the Mayor to the High Court against Thames Water developing a desalinisation plant powered by renewable energy (to provide auxiliary water supply for London). Ken Livingstone opposed it because he saw the plant as a "waste of energy";

- The Mayor's newspaper/propaganda sheet "The Londoner" is to close, saving £3m p.a..

.
So within a month there may be more savings, and after 3 months hopefully a plan for more. However I'd like to see a few more zeros behind the savings than just 6.

Nepal no surprise

Idiot Savant is surprised that the Maoist Nepalese government is arresting Tibetan protestors according to the BBC.

.

Tibet, where freedom of speech has been consistently suppressed by, um, the original Maoist government and its successors (although the Nepalese Maoists condemn the current Chinese regime and vice versa). How foolish does someone on the left have to be to believe Maoists are any better defenders of freedom than Nazis? China, North Korea, Cambodia are all great examples!

..

These thugs waged a civil war in the countryside, engaged in intimidation against free speech and democracy in areas its paramilitaries controlled. Abolishing the monarchy may only be the start of a far bloodier future for Nepalis. However, they were elected so I guess it will be "ok" to the worshippers of democracy, the world seems to turn its back on people who vote for those who don't believe in democracy.

Thankless job of being a third party candidate

The Mail on Sunday describes in detail life on the hustings for Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate for the London Mayoralty (who came a distant third with 9.6% of first preferences), he wont be standing again thanks to poor support from his party and the hard work (and lacklustre response, even from members). By the way, Brian is gay and an ex. police officer and while his policies were largely mad, seemed a decent enough chap.

.

Some highlights:

.

"Meet the candidate event" in a Covent Garden bar. Not many people want to meet the candidate. A strikingly handsome man engages me in conversation. Later find out he is an ex-porn star. Thank God the Press photographer had gone. "

.

"5th It's Jewish day – so to the London Jewish Forum breakfast near Oxford Circus. Go to a cafe next door where Gary Lineker walks in, sits down and orders a fry-up. He sits with his legs wide apart and picks his nose – all previous illusions shattered. "

.

and

.

"14th Launch our transport policies at Vauxhall Bus Station – no one comes."

.

Prospective politicians should take heed, particularly anyone from a party that isn't one of the top two contenders in most seats. There are far better things to do with your time in most instances than stand for public office.

.

Hat tip: Iain Dale's diary