Who will win the 2011 election?

[puddytat]

If you could figure out how the Nats could do what the Labour party did and breed it's own electorate (by paying single mothers to drop sprogs), I'd be pleased to hear it.

Somewhat pompous dont you think.....

[oldrider]

A good reason to include "No Confidence" tick box on a ballot paper ... and have no election if No Confidence is the highest polling one ..

I'll vote for that! Consider my box ticked!

[Oscar]

Somewhat pompous dont you think.....

Pompous?

Affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.

How is that remark pompous?

The habit of left wing Governments encouraging their own voters to breed at the taxpayers expense is obvious. Third generation DPB Mums are depressingly common in this country.

[shrub]

The habit of left wing Governments encouraging their own voters to breed at the taxpayers expense is obvious. Third generation DPB Mums are depressingly common in this country.

You are of course kidding. Please tell me you're kidding.

The reason they're a problem is because they don't know any better - if everyone you know does something it becomes normative behaviour. My kids think education and making something of your life is just what you do, like brushing your teeth and eating healthy food because that's all they know.

[Oscar]

You are of course kidding. Please tell me you're kidding.

The reason they're a problem is because they don't know any better - if everyone you know does something it becomes normative behaviour. My kids think education and making something of your life is just what you do, like brushing your teeth and eating healthy food because that's all they know.

I'm not kidding, and you're right - they don't know any better because successive Govts have been to scared to address the issue..
We need to do something about the inter-generational social welfare dependancy in this country. Hell, it's not so long since there was a stink about how long the DPB should be paid for. Mothers were saying as how it was their right to have the DPB paid until their youngest child was 15 years old.

‎Why do we countenance paying for second, third and fourth children for people on a ‎benefit? ‎The DPB is a safety net, not a career.


And then there's taxes.
I think I read somewhere that 50% of NZ families don't pay any income tax. Why?
Why "Working for Families"? Apart from being a spectacular vote catcher, as I’ve mentioned here before, this is discriminatory – there are plenty of people who ‎choose not to, or can’t have children. ‎

At the risk of sounding waaay to the right, we should have a national conversation about where our population is coming from. Why are we paying the dregs of society to bred? Even ignoring the benefit situation, why are we giving tax breaks for children to the people who can least afford to have them?

[shrub]

It may not guarantee success, but if it stops a few from becoming welfare dependent and developing a sense of personal responsibility, it's a start.

Riiiight.... I might just head down to Aranui or Otara and recruit a few forex traders.

One of the biggest reasons John Key is successful is his background. The National spin doctors have told us all that he came from a state house and his mother was a solo mum, so the right whingers all puff their chests out and say "if he could do it, anyone can" which neatly segues into "it's their own fault for being poor therefore why the hell should my taxes pay for their luxurious and indolent lifestyle?".

But let's look at Uncle John's background: In the 60s and 70s a hell of a lot of very ordinary middle class kiwis lived in state houses because we had a welfare system that looked after everyone. Plus his mother was not a "solo mum" in the way we talk about them today - she was a widow on the widow's benefit, which was pretty liveable back then. She also had a strong work ethic and worked evenings so her kids could have whatever they needed and encouraged them to work hard and succeed. They lived in a good area and he went to a very good school, so while he did not come from money, he had a bloody good foundation.

And that's what we need to do. Give kids a good start, teach them that work is a normal part of life, help them get an education and most of all, help them believe in themselves.

Blaming and condemning the poor achieves nothing other than to make the right whingers feel better.

[Banditbandit]

If you could figure out how the Nats could do what the Labour party did and breed it's own electorate (by paying single mothers to drop sprogs), I'd be pleased to hear it.

HUH? That's crap and you know it ..

I'm not kidding, and you're right - they don't know any better because successive Govts have been to scared to address the issue..
We need to do something about the inter-generational social welfare dependancy in this country. Hell, it's not so long since there was a stink about how long the DPB should be paid for. Mothers were saying as how it was their right to have the DPB paid until their youngest child was 15 years old.

‎Why do we countenance paying for second, third and fourth children for people on a ‎benefit? ‎The DPB is a safety net, not a career.

If you do not pay the solo mothers who feeds the kids? THis is a fair question, because I do understand where you are coming from. The benefit is not for the benefit of the mother it is for the benefit of the kids ... and under your concept you punish the kids as well as the mother - you need to come up with a way to look after the kids - not punish them - and taking them off the parents just adds costs to the system, it doesn't save them.

And your "successive Governments" includes national as well as Labour ..

And then there's taxes.
I think I read somewhere that 50% of NZ families don't pay any income tax. Why?
Why "Working for Families"? Apart from being a spectacular vote catcher, as I’ve mentioned here before, this is discriminatory – there are plenty of people who ‎choose not to, or can’t have children. ‎

Love to see where you read that .. even beneficiaries pay taxes .. it comes out of their income .. their benefit ..

(So - the benefit is what you need to survive on .. and absolute minimum .. then our dickhead Government takes out tax .. Doh ... no wonder there is child poverty in GodZone ...)

At the risk of sounding waaay right, we should have a national conversation about where our population is coming from. Why are we paying the dregs of society to bred? Even ignoring the benefit situation, why are we giving tax breaks for children to the people who can least afford to have them?

Again - we are not paying the dregs of society to breed - we are paying for the care of the kids ... You need to keep that in mind ... in the very front of your mind ..

[Oscar]

Riiiight.... I might just head down to Aranui or Otara and recruit a few forex traders.

One of the biggest reasons John Key is successful is his background. The National spin doctors have told us all that he came from a state house and his mother was a solo mum, so the right whingers all puff their chests out and say "if he could do it, anyone can" which neatly segues into "it's their own fault for being poor therefore why the hell should my taxes pay for their luxurious and indolent lifestyle?".

But let's look at Uncle John's background: In the 60s and 70s a hell of a lot of very ordinary middle class kiwis lived in state houses because we had a welfare system that looked after everyone. Plus his mother was not a "solo mum" in the way we talk about them today - she was a widow on the widow's benefit, which was pretty liveable back then. She also had a strong work ethic and worked evenings so her kids could have whatever they needed and encouraged them to work hard and succeed. They lived in a good area and he went to a very good school, so while he did not come from money, he had a bloody good foundation.

And that's what we need to do. Give kids a good start, teach them that work is a normal part of life, help them get an education and most of all, help them believe in themselves.

Blaming and condemning the poor achieves nothing other than to make the right whingers feel better.

You have missied the point (again).
I'm not blaming the people concerned, I'm blaming the people that enable thier behaviour. The people structured laws that make it impossible for a state agency to evict gang scum from a state house. The people that allow the granting of benefits with no personal responsibilty attached. The people who talk about the "right" to spend a benefit anyway that the beneficary chooses.

[shrub]

You have missied the point (again).
I'm not blaming the people concerned, I'm blaming the people that enable thier behaviour. The people structured laws that make it impossible for a state agency to evict gang scum from a state house. The people that allow the granting of benefits with no personal responsibilty attached. The people who talk about the "right" to spend a benefit anyway that the beneficary chooses.

The problem is not in having benefits or even in how they're granted - the problem is that we need benefits in the first place, and then that people see life on a benefit as being preferable to life working.

The problem is that there isn't enough work because we have an economy that is struggling and is not business-friendly. The problem is that we have people who don't know any better, and who's kids are learning from them that life on a benefit is the best option for them.

The problem is that we don't care enough to sacrifice our lifestyles to create work, better fund lower decile schools and intervene early in people's lives so they can see an alternative. Maybe we need to bring back things like the MOW, Railways and Post Office where there are jobs for everyone, even if that job is leaning on a shovel all day. I would rather that than have kids hanging around the malls.

[oldrider]

.. even beneficiaries pay taxes .. it comes out of their income .. their benefit ..

No they don't .... they simply forfeit some of their benefit, calling it tax is bullshit!

It's an illusion created to disguise the reality of an unequal society! (feel good crap)

The tax is paid by somebody else who has actually produced something .. I.E. goods and services!

Real taxpayer's pay tax and carry the beneficiaries .... that's why they are called beneficiaries, they don't contribute anything! They just receive!

[Banditbandit]

No they don't .... they simply forfeit some of their benefit, calling it tax is bullshit!

It's an illusion created to disguise the reality of an unequal society! (feel good crap)

The tax is paid by somebody else who has actually produced something .. I.E. goods and services!

Real taxpayer's pay tax and carry the beneficiaries .... that's why they are called beneficiaries, they don't contribute anything! They just receive!

I agree it is an illusion - but it does mean that those on the benefit are classed as taxpayers and would not show up on any information that suggests 50% of New Zealand households pay no tax ... which was the point of my post ...

So .. all those who pay PAYE tax and all beneficiaires pay "tax" ... what 50% of NZ househiolds pay not tax ? I don't believe the stat ...

[Oscar]

I agree it is an illusion - but it does mean that those on the benefit are classed as taxpayers and would not show up on any information that suggests 50% of New Zealand households pay no tax ... which was the point of my post ...

So .. all those who pay PAYE tax and all beneficiaires pay "tax" ... what 50% of NZ househiolds pay not tax ? I don't believe the stat ...

You've fallen into the same trap I did - of course they pay tax, it's almost impossible not to pay GST. The stat is 50% of NZ Families pay no income tax. I assume that this is based on whatever statisticians define as a family unit and reflects the working for families tax credit.

[SPman]

A good reason to include "No Confidence" tick box on a ballot paper ... and have no election if No Confidence is the highest polling one ..

It would be better than not voting, which is the only other option...

(So - the benefit is what you need to survive on .. and absolute minimum .. then our dickhead Government takes out tax .. Doh ... no wonder there is child poverty in GodZone ...)

The benefit was set by Ruth Richardson at 40% less than was calculated you need to survive on - as an incentive to get the "bludgers" back to work (that sounds familiar), and has not regained it's parity, even under a 3 term Labour government!

[Oscar]

I tried to source the "50% of families pay no tax" quote.

I didn't, but I did find this:

http://http://www.grownzeconomy.co.n...ew_Zealand.pdf

Some interesting things in it:


• Households with an income of $50,000 or below pay no net tax at all. They ‎actually receive approx. $4.40 for every $1 of tax paid. That is –they pay ‎‎$1.7b in tax and receive $7.7b in welfare.‎
• ‎44%of households are net tax recipients. ‎
• ‎17% of households are paying 97% of net taxation.‎

[shrub]

I tried to source the "50% of families pay no tax" quote.

I didn't, but I did find this:

http://http://www.grownzeconomy.co.n...ew_Zealand.pdf

Some interesting things in it:


• Households with an income of $50,000 or below pay no net tax at all. They ‎actually receive approx. $4.40 for every $1 of tax paid. That is –they pay ‎‎$1.7b in tax and receive $7.7b in welfare.‎
• ‎44%of households are net tax recipients. ‎
• ‎17% of households are paying 97% of net taxation.‎

Dead link, sorry