The welfare state

[scumdog]

Phil the Greek?

No, Phil the Whole..

[BoristheBiter]

I got an Indian ex-telemarketer selected over me for a job at Bunnings despite my having more experience and him only being able to name half the tools and shit because he was mouthier. All the people saying the dole is comfortable and should be cut etc should go and put their money where their mouth is: Try living on less than $200 a week assholes. It's almost impossible to do anything other than exist.

Have you ever thought that that is all your worth?
What an ungrateful little wanker you are. You do fuck all, get paid for it and have the audacity to complain about. Stop thinking that you are owed something get off your arse and better yourself if not shut the fuck up and stop bagging people that have made something of themselves.
Maybe if you got some qualifications you might be able to apply for ans get a job that pays better than $200 a week.

[rainman]

Equality and fairness. Really? The first debate that would rage for weeks would be what constitutes fair - let alone equality.
...
Anyone who honestly thought they had all the answers and was actually prepared to answer that question without access to detailed financial and statistical data or very careful consideration of all ramifications simply doesn't have a fooken clue what the issues are.
...
For example - the more you tax something, the less of it you get. The more you subsidies something the more of it you get. ...from a purely economic perspective it is a maxim.

But like the maxim above - quite simply, poor vote Labour. Career politicians are in it for their careers - not you or I. How does a Labour politician keep its job?

Same way any of them do. By being elected. No difference for Nats or Act or Peter Dunne or whoever, even the Greens. I think it's hard to attribute motive to people, decide what they're "in it for" without knowing them though - all you can infer is what they have to do to play by the rules of the game they're in. Not sure I understand your point.

But to your main content:
- yes we could analyse this to the ends of the earth first, but we'd achieve little. Rather better to focus on getting some shit done. And our role in that is to think about the kind of society we want, and elect the government most likely to give us that. (Or revolt... nah, just kidding. Never happen, here). Me, I want a better one than we have, where more people participate productively towards the common betterment of society.
- The tax comment is true as far as it goes, no arguments here, but for financial elements only. And that's not the whole cake. Is this an obscure attempt to justify lower income taxes on your part, in some "trickle down" scheme? 'Cos I can't see a way to tax indolence and unemployment. Taxing the crap out of ciggies, booze and KFC? No worries.
- There are a number of people who have had a good long scientific look at fairness and inequality, with real scientific methods and lots of data, and the conclude it's a Very Bad Thing for all of us, not just those at the bottom of the heap. But their conclusions are inconvenient, so typically get ignored.

Hold up there, you're getting waaaay ahead of yourself. What makes you think we want equality and fairness? What makes you think people deserve it? And what the fuck makes you think it's even the best way forward? There are plenty of people who are never going to be anything other that bottom feeding scum, why should be wasting our limited resources trying to elevate these people?

Just because they're people?

Yes, because they are people, part of our society, and our world. And see my comment above: it's the best way forward because the science says so. Yes, there are some scumbags and some real no-hopers, and some people that have very limited capabilities. (Some scumbags are poor, some rich, of course). But the alternative to providing them some support needs careful thought.

BTW, I love the fact that many well-meaning middle-NZ tryhard righties rail against the poor with the "wasting our limited resources" logic.I suspect the amount of money soaked up by the worthless needy at the bottom pales in comparison with the amount hosed off by the wealthy elite at the top.

[rainman]

Have you ever thought that that is all your worth?

Aren't you a nice person? I take it you know Mr Sable, then, or are you just assuming that because he's on a benefit he's worthless?

You do fuck all

Ah, clearly you must know him to be able to make a comment like that. Otherwise you'd just be a bigoted git....

Stop thinking that you are owed something

Sheesh! You must know him well - you even know what he's thinking!

No?

get off your arse

Ahem. I do believe he did, this being the point of his anecdote about Bunnings. Y'know, he tried to get a job, like you and others keep saying these filthy bennies should do. So how about a little support and encouragement? Kinda like The Stranger's punishment-and-reward model of taxation - perhaps you might see the relative benefit of helping a battling bene, and the total worthlessness of the more typical slag-and-bash fest (to anyone except you, and other insecure people, that is). People tend to do ore of what they get rewarded for. Just a thought.

Oh, and it's "you're", by the way. As in "all you're worth", or "You're part of the problem". It is short for "you are". Your is possessive, like as in "your meanness of spirit is disappointing"..

[avgas]

How does a Labour politician keep its job?

The same as any politician. By rigging a system up that says people have to vote for one of them and that a "non-vote" of confidence doesn't count......according to them.
Kinda scary as 20% of NZ didn't turn up last election, but then again when I caught some of that beehive stuff on TV seems that on average 20% of politicians don't turn up for work either.
Shame we have to pay the bastards whether they turn up or not.

[Brian d marge]

But to your main content:
- There are a number of people who have had a good long scientific look at fairness and inequality, with real scientific methods and lots of data, and the conclude it's a Very Bad Thing for all of us, not just those at the bottom of the heap. But their conclusions are inconvenient, so typically get ignored.

A nice man called F.A Hayek did just that and a whole lot of big countries took him serious like ......


BTW, I love the fact that many well-meaning middle-NZ tryhard righties rail against the poor with the "wasting our limited resources" logic.I suspect the amount of money soaked up by the worthless needy at the bottom pales in comparison with the amount hosed off by the wealthy elite at the top.

I think 24 billion in 2010 http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme...d/jun10/15.htm

health ..13 billion
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/f...fu2011/093.htm

• Social security and welfare: $24.2 billion
• Health: $12.7 billion
• Education: $12.4 billion

Thats a hell a lot of KFC

Next question Why ???? is it larger

Stephen

BTW

who bought what in 1999 http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme...s/saleshistory

[rainman]

I think 24 billion in 2010
...
Why ???? is it larger

About $10b of that is super...
http://wheresmytaxes.co.nz/

Good linky to the asset sales info, btw. Thanks.

[Brian d marge]

About $10b of that is super...
http://wheresmytaxes.co.nz/

Good linky to the asset sales info, btw. Thanks.

Be interested to see the updated asset sales for 2010.... So its the old people that cost the money ..Right

Nail em up ....Nail em up

Stephen

[The Stranger:Me]

But to your main content:
- yes we could analyse this to the ends of the earth first, but we'd achieve little. Rather better to focus on getting some shit done. And our role in that is to think about the kind of society we want, and elect the government most likely to give us that. (Or revolt... nah, just kidding. Never happen, here). Me, I want a better one than we have, where more people participate productively towards the common betterment of society.
- The tax comment is true as far as it goes, no arguments here, but for financial elements only. And that's not the whole cake. Is this an obscure attempt to justify lower income taxes on your part, in some "trickle down" scheme? 'Cos I can't see a way to tax indolence and unemployment. Taxing the crap out of ciggies, booze and KFC? No worries.

Hmm, you seem hell bent on making this about Labour and National ACT.

When you asked "So what do you think we should do to get better equality and fairness?" I had anticipated you were asking my recipe for a better fairer system, but I see from your post above it was actually a multi choice question.

An example of what I would do would be to create many additional jobs - so an answer to my question to Howie in post 201.
It's quite simple. Get rid of company tax and increase income tax across the board and GST to 20% to recover the lost income tax take.
Can you imagine how that would go down if people stick to their ideologies?
But let's look at that.
Under the present system my company sells you KFC. Who pays the tax?
That's right you guessed it, you do right. My company only collects it, processes it and passes it on to the government. So hello, you're paying the tax now, like it or not. Not the company.

So now lets implement a 0% company tax.
I'm not paying tax now, so KFC goes down in price by 30%. You buy KFC 30% cheaper but your income tax has gone up by the same dollar value so nothing has changed really.

Except you argue - companies are greedy and wont drop their prices, they'll just make big fat profits and it will cost us more.
True - they exist to be "greedy" that's what a company does.
Many (say take away foods) will be constrained by competition and will have no option but to drop their prices. Many will see stiff competition from other entrants when they see the profits to be made in field and some (mostly monopolies or near monopolies) will not have sufficient competition to force them to drop prices.
But let's look at that.
Now that I'm making big fat profits what do I do with the money my business makes?
If I return it to me I get taxed at the now higher income tax rate. What to do, what to do? How do I avoid that damned higher rate. Well I keep the profit in the company and, and, and - I know, I'll open a new KFC store and make twice the money, that'll offset the additional income tax and then some. But I'll need more staff. Where do they come from? The unemployed of course. NOW the govts outgoings go down, therefore their need for tax take reduces. Not only does the need for tax take reduce due to people not needing the dole, but they are adding to the tax take now - double whammy!

But wait, there's more.
Foreign company x has heard about a land of milk and honey where there is no tax. WTF? really, no tax. That's right. So why set up in Australia and pay tax when you can set up in NZ and pay no tax. Hmm, let me think?? Nope can't think of a reason.
But they will need employees right. Where will they come from?
Can you imagine the downward pressure on unemployment and upward pressure on wages under such a scenario?

Ok, now to be sure, there are many holes in this scenario which would need plugging up. Hence my initial reluctance to get into it from the get go. Hell it may be better to look at tax breaks to companies for additional employment. As noted, every new job is a double helping to the poor tax payer.
Lets face it, straight to zero would be a disaster - it would need to be staged and in reality would never reach zero.

So, put your ideology aside and once again - think outside the square!!
If we keep doing the same thing every time are we going to get a different result?

Oh and The maxim "the more you tax something, the less of it you get. The more you subsidies something the more of it you get." refers quite simply to the fact that we tax the rich and subsidise the poor. In doing so, we get fewer rich and more poor.
If we continue to do so over a long period it becomes unsustainable. It really is that simple.
This is regardless of if National, ACT, Labour or any other party.

[James Deuce]

But wait, there's more.
Foreign company x has heard about a land of milk and honey where there is no tax. WTF? really, no tax. That's right. So why set up in Australia and pay tax when you can set up in NZ and pay no tax. Hmm, let me think?? Nope can't think of a reason.
But they will need employees right. Where will they come from?
Can you imagine the downward pressure on employment and upward pressure on wages under such a scenario?

Umm OK, you really can't see what will happen there? That will drive wages down. Employment stats will improve but your plan will simply accelerate NZ's downward spiral into a cheap source of skilled labour.

[scissorhands]

Didnt the numpty say "leave it to the experts?"

[BoristheBiter]

Aren't you a nice person? I take it you know Mr Sable, then, or are you just assuming that because he's on a benefit he's worthless?
Ah, clearly you must know him to be able to make a comment like that. Otherwise you'd just be a bigoted git....
Sheesh! You must know him well - you even know what he's thinking!
No?
Ahem. I do believe he did, this being the point of his anecdote about Bunnings. Y'know, he tried to get a job, like you and others keep saying these filthy bennies should do. So how about a little support and encouragement? Kinda like The Stranger's punishment-and-reward model of taxation - perhaps you might see the relative benefit of helping a battling bene, and the total worthlessness of the more typical slag-and-bash fest (to anyone except you, and other insecure people, that is). People tend to do ore of what they get rewarded for. Just a thought.

Oh, and it's "you're", by the way. As in "all you're worth", or "You're part of the problem". It is short for "you are". Your is possessive, like as in "your meanness of spirit is disappointing"..

Yep I am a nice person, I just don't like people who 1) cry about how poorly they have it on the dole, 2) Cry about not getting a job for some reason that may or not be true and 3) have a dig at someone just because the have worked hard.

People need to stop thinking they should be rewarded for doing nothing. Just a thought, but that is where society is today, want everything and get someone else to pay, and most are just plain scared of doing some hard work.

And 4) spelling Nazis.

[rainman]

Hmm, you seem hell bent on making this about Labour and National ACT.

Not at all - was just countering your jab about how Labour pollies keep their jobs.

what I would do would be to create many additional jobs

Excellent, I agree with that wholeheartedly. The argument against "dole bludgers" is pretty hard if there are clearly too few jobs. When we have lots of opportunity, then there is little excuse for not working (excluding disability etc) and the issues gets to be clearer.

It's quite simple. Get rid of company tax and increase income tax across the board and GST to 20% to recover the lost income tax take.

OK let's see. I'm basing this off 2009 numbers as that's what's easily available, so some reality distortion may occur, but:
- you want to take the roughly $9b company tax and pass it to consumers instead
- you would compensate for this by raising GST 5% (which ceteris paribus would only raise about half of the $9b, btw, so you'd have to up personal tax or cut $4b spending somehow - about the same size as the secondary and tertiary ed sectors, or the total of DPB+UB+ accommodation allowances, just to give you an idea)

Now (in 2009), companies made $569b in revenue, claimed $533b in expenses, and paid $9.8b in tax on the resulting $36b EBIT. (6.3% return on revenue on average?) Meaning they paid, on average, tax at 27%. I'm excluding GST as it just washes through.
Households, on the other hand, paid 36.5% on income only, and 49% if you include their share of GST, which doesn't wash anywhere but back to government.

Who're the bludgers, here, really?

So in your scenario, households would get hit with a lift in total tax take % to 61.5%, including your GST to 20%. Can't be bothered to work out what that would do to the top tax rate but it would be positively Scandinavian. No-one could run on that platform and win. (It sounds a lot like ACT policy, now that I mention it...)

To equalise tax take % between business and household you'd have to make both 42%, btw. Meaning an increase of $5b for the busniess sector (offset against the households, of course).

But let's look at that.
Under the present system my company sells you KFC. Who pays the tax?
That's right you guessed it, you do right. My company only collects it, processes it and passes it on to the government. So hello, you're paying the tax now, like it or not. Not the company.

True for GST, but companies pay tax on their earnings, although at a disproportionally low rate.

Now that I'm making big fat profits what do I do with the money my business makes?

Send it overseas?

Can you imagine the downward pressure on employment and upward pressure on wages under such a scenario?

No, I can see both going down, just like Jim says below.

Oh and The maxim "the more you tax something, the less of it you get. The more you subsidies something the more of it you get." refers quite simply to the fact that we tax the rich and subsidise the poor. In doing so, we get fewer rich and more poor.
If we continue to do so over a long period it becomes unsustainable. It really is that simple.

Tell ya what, let's not make you Finance Minister, eh?

That will drive wages down. Employment stats will improve but your plan will simply accelerate NZ's downward spiral into a cheap source of skilled labour.

Wot 'e sed.

Even Paul Holmes in the Herald today says:
'my former colleague John Pagani told me on the radio last weekend, everyone trawls the orchard of welfare to try to reduce the bill, but they all find that "there are no low-hanging fruit."'
'In other words, it's pretty much a hopeless cause trying to reform and reduce welfare.'

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=10731487

[Ocean1]

Umm OK, you really can't see what will happen there? That will drive wages down. Employment stats will improve but your plan will simply accelerate NZ's downward spiral into a cheap source of skilled labour.

Why? What's the factor driving that?

[Ocean1]

To equalise tax take % between business and household you'd have to make both 42%, btw. Meaning an increase of $5b for the busniess sector (offset against the households, of course).

You failed to address the effect of initial cheaper product / services.

And why there should be “equality” in tax harvested from commercial entities vs. individuals. The “advantages” each gain from the “deal” are almost completely unrelated.

There’s another difference between businesses and households. If you tax business beyond a certain point they simply go away, the resources that formed them just either perish or go somewhere else. Conversely; if you tax them less, it stays, they proliferate. Unfortunately taxes that fund the cost of government services aren't often regulated by affordability. If you applied the same Darwinian imperatives to social support systems there’d be a bunch less of them dependant on the efforts of others I promise you. But we don’t.

Nor should we. But then neither can we afford to support too many for too long, the burden on other tax payers drags more of those on the fringe into the same trap. It’s become a self-perpetuating death-wish for any viable self-perpetuating creative economic nation we might otherwise hope to be.

Send it overseas?

So encourage local investment in the local economy. Let's just completely reverse the complete national current policy set affecting local investment markets, eh? that should come close to it. And while that's taking time to have some effect let's tax it less here than it would be off shore eh? then we'll see how much of it fucks off to be spent overseas.

Tell ya what, let's not make you Finance Minister, eh?

I think a finance minister that understood Stranger’s maxim would be a vast improvement on one that fails even to understand the necessity of spending less than one earns.