Choices, choices: Farrar seeks parental leave funding

42 comments on “Choices, choices: Farrar seeks parental leave funding ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   13 April 2012 at 7:42 am

   Oh come on enough with the facts and provable costings, let’s get back to dog whistles and opinion after all it’s what this govt specialises in.
2. james 111 2

   13 April 2012 at 7:48 am

   Interesting article
   What I would like to see Labour pulling out of the private members bill hat are the following which they took to the country at Election time.Lets have a good debate about them

   1) Capital gains tax (yes even more tax we will show you how to spend your money)
   2) Pension age to 67 ( yes we are going to tax the living shite out of you while you are alive but guess what you wont get the pension untill you are older.

   I would be really interested in the debate on these two areas as they were pillars of Labours last election. Are they still important or have they gone under new Labour ? (david shearer)
   • millsy 2.1

     13 April 2012 at 7:51 am

     You do realise that taxes pay for things like schools and hospitals and other social services? Or do you want them all chopped?
     • Lanthanide 2.1.1

       13 April 2012 at 8:30 am

       Tut tut millsy. Everyone knows that taxes are just legalised theft.
     • muzza 2.1.2

       13 April 2012 at 9:06 am

       Actually income tax goes to pay the interest bill on the debt! Schools and hospitals (how many new ones have we had again), are borrowed into existence, so in a round about way Millsy you are correct!

       Lanth your comments are ignorant in this arena!
   • Colonial Viper 2.2

     13 April 2012 at 9:02 am

     1) Capital gains tax (yes even more tax we will show you how to spend your money)

     Its not your money until you’ve paid your taxes. Duh.
     • james 111 2.2.1

       13 April 2012 at 11:34 am

       Viper
       Good so when will New Labour under Shearer debate these wonderful revenue generating ideas with the general population? So they can feed the insatiable appetite of the welfare masses that they have created.

       People who now don’t now what personal responsibility ,and accountability is anymore just want the guvernment to pay for it (spelt wrong on purpose)

       Tax Tax Tax Tax, spend spend spend spend, and suddenly there is not enough people to pay the tax anymore. Is this utopia for a Labour Government?
   • mike e 2.3

     13 April 2012 at 6:14 pm

     J turd get rid of CON-sultants $600 million
     user pays booze cost $1 billion +
     User pays Gambling$1 billion +
     Tobacco $ 1 billion+
     Poverty costs $6 billion a year
     No shortage of money just lack of will
     While we subsidize alcohol gambling and tobacco.
3. Craig Glen Eden 3

   13 April 2012 at 8:40 am

   Its funny how National Party supporters are all down on what they see as bludger’s and run the personal responsibility line, yet their supporters and cheerleaders always have their hand out for Government money eg Bronwyn Pullar. I wonder how Double diptons house hold is surviving without that extra cleaning going on? Is he A picking up his own socks or B has he extended the gardeners job description responsibilities?
   • Hami Shearlie 3.1

     13 April 2012 at 6:34 pm

     Maybe Pay-My”Bill” could employ Whaleoil CGE! He’s so great at finding dirt.
4. captain hook 4

   13 April 2012 at 8:51 am

   dont tell farrar anything.
   soon he will start jumping up and down and holding his breath.
   when he turns blue in the face then job will done.
5. tsmithfield 5

   13 April 2012 at 9:04 am

   “Cancel the highways to nowhere – $1.4b a year”

   Perhaps the people at the “nowhere” end might feel a bit insulted about being considered as inconsequential. A cost/benefit analysis should be provided to back up this bald assertion.

   “No more finance sector bailouts – $335m a year average under National”

   Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the guarantee scheme introduced by Labour has now expired. So, there shouldn’t be any bailouts other than those that investors are legally entitled to due to finance companies that expired when the bail-out provisions were applicable.

   “Reverse the tax cuts to the top 1% – $600m a year”

   So the top 10% can simply leave their money in their companies to be taxed at the going company rate. Also, more tiers means more opportunities for avoidance generally, such as splitting their income by having their spouse “employed” in the company.

   “Cancel irrigation subsidies to farmers – $400m”

   Meaning less irrigation. Therefore a lower tax take from farmers.

   “Don’t extend carbon pollution subsidies for farmers – $650m a year”

   Again, increasing the costs on our most productive sector, thus likely reducing the tax take.

   “Don’t sale assets, necessitating broker and banker fees – $100m+”

   Again, a true cost/benefit analysis based on actual dividends is required to justify your argument, not one that includes one-off sales of dams etc that artificial inflate the dividend return.

   “Borrow 1% more than will be borrowed this year”

   Do we not borrow enough already?

   “Use some of the new operating spending allowance. Not every budget will be a ‘zero budget’. From 2014, the pool of money for new spending will $1.19b a year plus 2% pa.”

   If there is more money, I am sure there are plenty of more worthy causes it could be spent on.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     13 April 2012 at 9:13 am

     Meaning less irrigation. Therefore a lower tax take from farmers.

     So? Farmers run businesses right? Why are these businesses asking for Government subsidies?

     Do we not borrow enough already?

     Ask English and Key. Apparently not, since its under their watch that we’ve had the massive fall in tax revenues.
     • tsmithfield 5.1.1

       13 April 2012 at 10:54 am

       “So? Farmers run businesses right? Why are these businesses asking for Government subsidies?”

       You are arguing a point that was not made. The point argued in the article was that cutting these subsidies would offset the cost of the extend parental leave scheme. The point I made was that if it reduces taxable income from farmers then it might not.
   • james 111 5.2

     13 April 2012 at 10:04 am

     Love this comment

     “No more finance sector bailouts – $335m a year average under National”

     All of these finance companies failed under the Pathetic watch of the Labour Government National was left carrying the can for the Labour Governments ineptness.
     Michael Cullen was busily moving round the country signing people up to the scheme before he left office. He knew he was leaving a huge debt for National to pick up, and it was all due to his poor governance as a Finance Minister
     • Ed 5.2.1

       13 April 2012 at 11:00 am

       Actually none of them failed under Labour’s watch – and the biggest only failed after the scheme was renewed by National for a company that was not meeting the terms of the agreement, and against public sector advice.
   • cardassian 5.3

     13 April 2012 at 10:23 am

     “If there is more money, I am sure there are plenty of more worthy causes it could be spent on.”

     More worthy than the future of this country?
     • Colonial Viper 5.3.1

       13 April 2012 at 10:31 am

       Yeah, his rich mates next 7 series and first class tour of Europe for the family.
       • tsmithfield 5.3.1.1

         13 April 2012 at 10:56 am

         “More worthy than the future of this country?”

         If you are truly a bleeding heart socialist, then the plight of those suffering in the here and now has got to be more pressing for you than pay offs sometime in the never never, surely.
         • cardassian 5.3.1.1.1

           13 April 2012 at 12:41 pm

           “If you are truly a bleeding heart socialist, then the plight of those suffering in the here and now has got to be more pressing for you than pay offs sometime in the never never, surely.”

           Never claimed to be a bleeding heart socialist.

           However your comment appears to be saying better an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff than a fence at the top.
           • tsmithfield 5.3.1.1.1.1

             13 April 2012 at 2:06 pm

             “Never claimed to be a bleeding heart socialist.”

             I didn’t say you are a bleeding heart socialist. Only, if you are.

             “However your comment appears to be saying better an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff than a fence at the top.”

             I didn’t say anything about what I think about it. Only that solving immediate issues such as where children don’t have housing at all would surely have to a higher priority to a socialist than debatable gains at some unknown time in the future.
             • Colonial Viper …

               13 April 2012 at 2:09 pm

               would surely have to a higher priority to a socialist than debatable gains at some unknown time in the future.

               Welcome to the world of Treasury (and Bill English) forecasts.
             • cardassian …

               13 April 2012 at 2:37 pm

               “I didn’t say anything about what I think about it.”

               Seems to be denying your earlier comment.

               “I am sure there are plenty of more worthy causes it could be spent on.”

               So what are these causes that you believe are more important than giving the children of New Zealand the best possible start we can?
               • felix …

                 13 April 2012 at 8:00 pm

                 Oh I dunno. I think it’s fair to say his comments don’t imply him thinking about it much at all.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.4

     13 April 2012 at 12:58 pm

     A cost/benefit analysis should be provided to back up this bald assertion.

     They’ve been done – the RoNS have a BCR of between 0.4 and 1.1. In other words, we lose out if we go ahead with them. NACTs mates in the construction industry get lots of profits though.

     So the top 10% can simply leave their money in their companies to be taxed at the going company rate.

     This is one place where I agree with NACT – tax rates should match. Companies should be on PAYE.

     Meaning less irrigation for non-viable farming.

     FIFY

     Again, increasing the costs on our most productive sector,

     Costs do need to be covered whether we like it or not and it should be covered at the business.

     Again, a true cost/benefit analysis based on actual dividends is required to justify your argument,

     The latest one has us losing $100m+ per year after Blinglish’s guess goes through.

     Do we not borrow enough already?

     Considering that we don’t need to borrow at all it can honestly be said that we borrow too much. But, considering the borrowing that this government has forced upon us through their actions of giving our wealth to themselves and their rich mates another 1% won’t hurt.

     If there is more money, I am sure there are plenty of more worthy causes it could be spent on.

     Still grasping for straws I see.
   • rosy 5.5

     13 April 2012 at 6:57 pm

     “Cancel irrigation subsidies to farmers – $400m”

     The main reason for these subsidies is so regions that are not suitable for dairying can be made suitable. I’m sick of the country being turned into a dairy farm. It’s not sustainable in environmental terms nor is there any economic backup plan if dairy crashes. Crazy stuff.
6. Dv 6

   13 April 2012 at 9:15 am

   Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the guarantee scheme introduced by Labour has now expired. So, there shouldn’t be any bailouts other than those that investors are legally entitled to due to finance companies that expired when the bail-out provisions were applicable.

   NACTs supported the scheme.
   How about SCF extended guarantee by who – the NACTS
   • Frida 6.1

     13 April 2012 at 9:18 am

     TSmithfield: You are wrong on the guarantee scheme. The original scheme did not envisage bailing out the unsecured bondholders. But this was subsequently done post the demise of South Canterbury Finance (decision made by Mr Arrogant “Who cares about democracy” Double Dipton himself)
     • tsmithfield 6.1.1

       13 April 2012 at 10:55 am

       Link?
       • Frida 6.1.1.1

         13 April 2012 at 12:39 pm

         TSmithfield: here’s one link:

         http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/some-big-winners-south-canterbury-collapse-129218

         Many more where that came from, including the info on Treasury’s website.

         But do your own research!
7. ghostwhowalksnz 7

   13 April 2012 at 9:18 am

   Then there is ETS subsidies to important National party constituencies like farmers

   $800 + million a year.

   We now know which side National is on the war on babies. Bill English is Dr Strangelove
8. King Kong 8

   13 April 2012 at 9:23 am

   This is deja vu. I remember how angry everyone on the Standard got when Helen Clarke said that anything more than the level of paid parental leave they were introducing was unaffordable.

   Obviously just like John Key, she hated children.

   [lprent: An interesting assertion. That particular debate was well over before The Standard even started in August 2007. I can’t recall anything like that happening either in the comments or posts and can’t see it on a quick search. I’d have to call it an outright lie about the site. It annoys me.

   If you can find a post or section of discussion in comments from when Labour was in power to back up your claim, then you can get your 3 month ban removed. Of course that means you’d have to do the research you should have done before making that assertion rather than being lazy and irritating me.

   FYI: Helen liked kids, including my families rather obnoxious brood ]
9. Roy 9

   13 April 2012 at 9:27 am

   Means-test national superannuation. Stop giving it to millionaires and multi-millionaires.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     13 April 2012 at 1:03 pm

     +1
     • Colonial Viper 9.1.1

       13 April 2012 at 8:25 pm

       That’s what family trusts are for. And thanks to National, I can gift my million dollar brokerage account across to it tomorrow free-of-charge.
   • burt 9.2

     13 April 2012 at 6:40 pm

     Right, so the people who paid all the tax so we can afford it… they can’t have it. Means testing – such a tory thing to do.
     • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1

       13 April 2012 at 7:50 pm

       They may have paid the tax – they didn’t produce the wealth.
       • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1

         13 April 2012 at 8:36 pm

         Means testing – such a tory thing to do.

         Except that the Tory version is to check how poor you are, and the poorer you are, the more you get the shit kicked out of you.
     • rosy 9.2.2

       13 April 2012 at 8:03 pm

       I’d like to see just how much tax the multi-millionaires paid. That would mean opening up their tax-free trust accounts.
10. bad12 10

    13 April 2012 at 10:50 am

    Reports this morning that the Prime Minister has again blown the Police’s Diplomatic protection Squad budget would tend to suggest that having Slippery quit while the Tory,s are marginally ahead and go back to His former occupation as a leach upon the Capitalist system would free up more than enough cash to fund the proposed extension of Paid Parental Leave,

    Slippery appears to be SO paranoid that in the last year alone the DPS has overspent the budget by a couple of hundred million bucks,this on top of an overspend protecting Mr, ”National will not be raising GST”, stretching back 2 or 3 years,

    We dare say that there is the money being squandered within the present budget by the National Government to fully afford the proposed extension of Paid Parental Leave AND an extension of the Working For Families Tax Credit to the children reliant upon benefits as their sole source of our sustenance,

    Do we have an objection to the extension of the Paid parental Leave provisions???, YES WE FUCKING DO,

    We have said this here befor,if the previous Labour Government was ‘Socialist’ then that ‘Socialism’ was ‘Socialism’ of, by, and, for the middle class,

    We need remind Labour that (a),the Labour vote stayed at home last election over this issue,and (b), ‘Socialism’ is based upon NEED, do we need say more???…
11. captain hook 11

    13 April 2012 at 1:49 pm

    re kk
    john key just hates everyone.
    sad but true.
12. fender 12

    13 April 2012 at 8:39 pm

    This Farrar clown gets way too much airtime. Recently hes been on RNZ, the Court Report ch.7, Backbenches (in audience, but they interviewed him), and it makes no sense why anyone would want his predictable opinion on anything. He should be left to his crap blog and travel photo gallery hole in the ground.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS