Written By: - Date published: 7:18 am, March 19th, 2009 - 137 comments
Categories: tax -
Tags: America's culture of giving
America's culture of giving
I’m just stunned. His plan is to take money out of the pockets of low income New Zealanders to create tax cuts for the rich and then encourage those low-income Kiwis to beg for Tory charity?
Here’s a hint John. In a decent social democracy nobody needs to beg to survive. Stop dismantling ours.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
As Steve R alludes, the thing about the idea that ‘charity’ will come through takes a bit of a hit if people say, choose to save the whales instead of feeding the homeless with their super-low taxes, a lot of people will suffer…
Get the chip off your shoulder about the states. I have spent time in the states and have found they are the most generous people I have meant.
This site gets worse and worse and is really turning into gutter journalism, lose the hate Irishbill and mainstream kiwis may take this site more seriously.
So Brett, are you gonna be donating your ten-bucks-a-week tax cut to charity?
Allow me add my own immediate response to the news: taxcuts for charity. That is to say these post-April taxcuts. Wonderment is a kinder expression than bewilderment—surely Tories have a penchant for efficiency and where is the administrative efficiency in this. In practise: mishmash!
I dunno, end of the day for me.. and I roll up to find a long thread getting longer.. it’s only a problem insofar as finding a place to respond or comment for oneself.. a point made to explain why I wanted to add something to Monty’s earlier mucho — yeah professing himself rich by hard work is mucho
So also — at least putting his money where his mouth is
More to the point, Monty, as first peoples’ wisdom relates, putting his money into his mouth is the lesson to behold.
Aid to understanding (from tee shirt culture) : You Can’t Eat Money.
Addendum: apols to Julie who has made the same point re efficiency.
Brett – charity only takes you so far – without adequate social safety nets you get crime, swollen prisons, rampant prostitution, increased demand for drugs … and the list goes on and on. It’s the sadistic puritanical mentality – that people deserve to suffer, which exacerbates all these social ills. It creates a society divided – at war with itself – but that’s the brand of Christianity in the States – the focus is on punishment rather than harmony. That’s why it’s a society with such appalling social statistics (i.e. 12 times the proportion of its population in prison when compared to Scandinavian countries).
This is one of the most disappointing posts I’ve read here. But what is most disappointing, is the numerous replies in this thread with many merely using it to attack others.
Here’s an actual excerpts from the Herald article:
Mr Key said though many people needed the tax cuts to pay debt or bills, “I am just as sure there are many who are in a position to donate some.
There Key clearly states that if one isn’t using the tax cut for expenditure purposes or to pay off debt then they may consider donating some of their tax cuts to charities. Key never states that they have to. He states that they consider giving to charity.
—
Underlying the obvious ideological flaws evident here. John Key is not dismantling New Zealand’s social democracy. Indeed, no where does he speak of raiding benefits or turning the health care sector into private hands. There is really no dismantling whatsoever. So why insist on saying he is dismantling it when he isn’t.
John Key is not encouraging low income earners to go out and beg. Why you assert that is belatedly beyond me. Indeed Key isn’t even taking money away from low income earners and giving it to upper income earners. And lastly Key doesn’t even state anything about the needy.
What John Key is actually saying, is that he would like New Zealanders overall to give more generously to charities. And that the tax cuts coming into effect could go a long way to helping charity. And indeed if we as collective individuals did give more money to charity it would undoubtedly help many charities out. You know some of those charities. Some of them with long links to left organisations. The charities that go a long way to helping out those intellectually handicapped, those with cancer. Those tacking drug and alcohol problems and indeed those with Green measures. He points to how United States are generous with giving money to charity and how he would like to see some of that here. I think that is an admirable goal. Particularly, because if we gave as much money to charities as the US on top of our support in public housing, social welfare, healthcare, education and many other things. Our nation itself would be greater for it.
I’m not even sure most of you read the damn article. Because if you had, you would realise that the points Irishbill make aren’t actually true. But no instead of reading the Herald article. You all act like little kids in some supreme shouting match and use generalisations that all people that are rich are somehow pricks and are indeed selfish with their money. Of course there are many that identity with left politics that are themselves rich. Likewise, the Green voter base tends to be inner-city with very high incomes. Are these people pricks? I am disappointing with Irishbill’s interpretation of the article. And I’m flabbergasted at some of the replies I’ve seen in this thread.
‘
This is a classic argument which is entirely futile.
While we sit here and debate the role of government or the non-profit sector, services are lost and people suffer. Now more than ever is the time to give generously as a private citizen, regardless of your political view.
Tax is forced philanthropy. Wouldnt it be better if we were all sufficiently plugged into our communities enough to recognise and assist when needed?
Could the tax breaks to the upper class be an effort to ensure they don’t take their money overseas to countries that provide better tax benefits?
Someone mentioned that 12% of the population pays 51% of the tax. If this is true, don’t we want that 12% keeping their money in NZ? Or is there a law I don’t know about that prevents the upper incomes from taking their money to Monaco? How hard would it get for our welfare system if the 12% left and the remaining 88% had to make up the loss of 51% of the tax generation?
To put my devil’s advocated spin on it, this tax break will help the poor by keeping the big tax payers money in NZ?
EDIT— Sorry Rachelr, I was meant to reply to the whole thread and not just your post.
one import of what you appear to be saying is that lower-incomed folk not give to charity and rely on upper-incomed folk to do so..
are you serious?
Snail – I’m not referring to charity at all.
I see, thank you.
So appropos.
I’m still smiling at the “devil’s advocate” in your remarks
Ordinary New Zealanders have been expected to pay for the lifestyle choices of the criminals and the beneficiaries for far too long.
Taking from the overburdened in order to give to the undeserving is inequitable. No amount of Labour spin is going to convince the electorate otherwise.
Amazing that Key has received any criticism at all over this.
When Australia was burning up a few weeks back, I am sure that plenty of contributors to this blog went to the Red Cross website and gave some money to the relief effort. No one waited around for legislative changes before feeling the time was right to make a contribution.
Key is just reminding people that you can do the same thing right now and help those people caught out by the current economic crisis.
Society’s response to trouble DOES NOT have to be state-imposed, centrally planned or uniformly collective.
When Australia was burning up a few weeks back, I am sure that plenty of contributors to this blog went to the Red Cross website and gave some money to the relief effort.
Friend, you’re in the wrong place. This is a Labour Party blog, the absolute last thing* that any of the contributors here would do is make a contribution to charity.
They’re the takers, not the givers.
(*) with the exception of getting a job.
Wasn’t this “Simon-(x)” given a permanent ban a while back?
good point. i’ll go put his ip in moderation
“John Key is a dipshit”
Gee the tone of this site his lowered since Pierson left.
Also banning HS and calling him a”smarmy fucker” for dearing to link the EPMU to labour was a joke right?
Anyone would think you lefties are stressed out or something….
Simon-5 and whomsoever et als talk of takers..
Well, just in from Huffingpost is a remarkable story of a once-was-taker giving back. Yes, this cites some very significant (devil-in-the-detail) data and insofar as the rule of law (read sanctity of contract law) those IN-laws are definitely IN.
Dah-dah — Douglas Poling, who received the richest payment of more than $6.4 million, is the 48-year-old son of a former chief executive of Ford Motor Co. At AIG he is an executive vice president with responsibility for energy and infrastructure investments. He is one of the roughly 418 current and former employees from AIG’s financial-products unit who received bonus payments.
note please do, employees of the financial-products unit. WE can leave off this ledger the fate of FMC, suffice to recognise its imperilled position along with other tranport sector folks. But get that where the money is.. and maybe wonder a little at how much you were paying for gasoline/diesel last year. Connected—you bet!
And worth looking out for huh..
Tax cuts for donating to charities now being pushed. gee that kind of throws a spanner in the works of “who will donate $10k a year to charities”.
Taken from the web:
There is altogether too much talk about the United States being ungenerous with foreign aid. We show up as 21st in the rankings, in per capita terms, according to one estimate. These figures neglect remittances, where the U.S. is a very clear first with $28.4 billion a year sent to other countries. The bottom line: when it comes to other nations, the United States is the most generous country in the world.
Are you interested in the rest of the top ten, for remittances? Saudi Arabia, with $15.1 billion a year, is a clear number two. Then you have Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Luxembourg, Israel, Italy, and Japan. The Scandinavian nations receive so much kudos for their high foreign aid per capita, but when it comes to remittances, even tiny Luxembourg, population 437,389, beats them out.
Ever heard of the widow’s mite Bretty? Or “tied aid”? Or buying influence?
BD,
you continue to amaze me.. For someone who has spent “time in the states” (you recently said this, I believe) the following strikes out — The bottom line: when it comes to other nations, the United States is the most generous country in the world.
There being no concept whatsoever in this statement or in the mindset that wrote of what it means to be a recipient of USAid.. or indeed a US aider.
as the saying goes: aint no free lunches!
Once again, James at Editing The Herald offers an interesting perspective – do we really want to be like the US with charity plugging gaps in social services?
http://editingtheherald.blogspot.com/2009/03/thursday-march-2009-charity.html