Damien Grant thinks tax fraudsters are more worthy than beneficiary fraudsters

238 comments on “Damien Grant thinks tax fraudsters are more worthy than beneficiary fraudsters ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sacha 1

   9 February 2014 at 9:34 am

   “Damian Grant thinks” might be over-stating it. What a nasty little man.
2. One Anonymous Bloke 2

   9 February 2014 at 9:48 am

   One law for the rich, another for the poor.

   Good for Damien to just come right out and confess it.
   • adam 2.1

     9 February 2014 at 11:59 am

     In Roman days it was the opposite, before the rot set in that is. The rich and well educated were dealt with quite harshly as they were expected to know the law and it was assumed that for them to break the law – was a willful act.
     • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.1.1

       9 February 2014 at 12:04 pm

       @Adam

       What a very sensible idea that was – would be good if we revived that one
     • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 2.1.2

       9 February 2014 at 2:12 pm

       Citation needed
   • Damien Grant 2.2

     9 February 2014 at 1:56 pm

     thanks.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1

       9 February 2014 at 3:02 pm

       Your confession is valuable, you see, because it demonstrates the arrogance and hubris that so typifies those riding for a fall, and lends weight to the thesis that your opinions are a disease.

       Time for your medicine.
       • Damien Grant 2.2.1.1

         9 February 2014 at 5:40 pm

         yep. I expect I will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. I only hope I go with dignity.

         However, you may want to consider that, on almost all fronts, the socialist/centre-left has won. Even John Key is not unwinding key elements of the welfare state; from WFF to interest free student loans and we do have a very progressive tax and social welfare system.

         It may surprise you, but you and those who think like you are in the ascendency. Libertarians are mocked and scorned as an irrelevance, because, frankly, we are.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1.1

           9 February 2014 at 5:45 pm

           No. The policies you espouse have caused countless deaths in New Zealand and the world over, and yet no-one is advocating the death penalty for you, although I can understand the sentiment.

           Incompetent fact-free drivel has a way of becoming irrelevant on its own.
         • geoff 2.2.1.1.2

           9 February 2014 at 7:36 pm

           I only hope I go with dignity.

           Haha! you’ve got to have it before you can lose it.

           I see this “the left has already won, what more can they want??” meme is getting thrashed by you ACT wallies. All part of the inverted-reality campaign by the right this election year.
           Pissing on people’s shoes and telling them it’s raining.

           What’s really sad is that 50 years ago, when everyone got a fair lick of the spoon, people such as yourself were laughed at, even by the right. And yet today you get space in a National rag to air your filth.
         • phillip ure 2.2.1.1.3

           9 February 2014 at 10:13 pm

           vanishing comments..again..

           ..header/white-page..

           ..the usual..

           ..phillip ure..
         • Lee Churchman 2.2.1.1.4

           9 February 2014 at 10:24 pm

           Q. What’s the difference between Libertarianism and Communism?

           A. We know from experience that communism sort of worked for quite a while, at least enough to keep a society going (and enabling that society to be a military and technological superpower) and produce a tolerable standard of living for millions of people. Sure, it was far from an optimal system and had many problems, but it more or less functioned and bumbled along in its own peculiar way.

           People like you are asking the rest of us to take a punt on a system that has never been proven to work. At least the commies can tell us with confidence that we’ll have bread and toilet rolls, even if we will probably have to queue for them. Libertarianism is a faith based political philosophy by comparison.
           • KJT 2.2.1.1.4.1

             10 February 2014 at 9:55 am

             What has been proven to work is socialist and democratic mixed economies where State infrastructure is at least 50% of the mix.

             And regulation ensures cheats do not prosper.

             Only the most successful economies in History.

             New Zealand was one, once.

             “Libertarian” countries do exist. No one is preventing Grant from leaving for Somalia.

             I hope though, he is true to his principles, and leaves behind every dollar of wealth that he has because of our efforts and tax payer contributions.

             “Randian superheros”, like Grant, fondly imagine that they could be successful in a Libertarian society. The truth is, someone as gullible, dissociated from reality, and lacking in practical skills and knowledge, as your average “libertarian” would be as “successful” as Ayn Rand.
             No different from those that wish for a return of feudal society, imagining they would not be one of the serfs.
             • adam …

               10 February 2014 at 11:44 am

               The libertarian right are full of shit. Seriously you and yours say you love liberty, and yet the economic system you worship is inherently authoritarian. Your all in bed with hard core authoritarian types, indeed in NZ you need to suck on balls of them to get a seat in parliament. Coupled with this, we live in a type of capitalism which is embedded with the state and corporations – some might even call it corporate welfare.

               And do libertarians on the right criticize that? Nope don’t hear the voice of the libertarian right arguing that corporate welfare is against freedom. Don’t hear from the libertarian right on much really that goes hand in hand with freedom. Freedom to privacy, nope, one of yours voted to end that, association, not again one of yours vote to restrict that – what about the freedom to vote, on no wait again, one of yours voted to restrict voting rights – so defenders of freedom – Bullshit!

               The majority of you venture into hate politics, blame the poor, and moan like bloke who’s been kicked in the balls when the evidence is against you.

               You don’t love freedom your lying and you’re lying to yourself. You see, the libertarian left don’t envy you, we just think you’re a bunch idiots who are just like the marxist – paternalist and arrogant. Vulgar marxist is all you are, vulgar.
3. Flip 3

   9 February 2014 at 10:12 am

   What a ridiculous opinion on a MSM website. Do they have no editorial responsibility? Trolling as an article in a national newspaper website. MSM becomes less credible by the hour. And MSM pays money for this tripe.
4. phillip ure 4

   9 February 2014 at 10:14 am

   grant is indeed one of the most loathsome of the coven of rightwing/neo-lib apologists maintained by the herald..

   ..but i wd question the figures in the above graph..

   ..in the bryan bruce doco..a tax-industry lawyer/insider..

   ..estimated benefit-fraud at $21-23 milllion..

   ..and the frauds perpetrated by the wealthy/elites/corporates..

   ..at $3.5 billion…each and every year..

   ..(there’s yr ‘ending-poverty’ funding-solution..in one fell swoop..)

   ..phillip ure..
5. just saying 5

   9 February 2014 at 10:20 am

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XSvsFgvWr0&list=PL8971994E866AE08A

   Jokerman – Bob Dylan
6. Tigger 6

   9 February 2014 at 10:34 am

   The vileness of the piece is outdone only by its stupidity.

   His conclusion is that the only way we contribute to society is through tax. The rich, therefore, give the most, beneficiaries give nothing.

   Funny, didn’t a beneficiary birth and raise our current PM?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

     9 February 2014 at 11:05 am

     I’m not sure that undermines Damien’s thesis very much.
   • KJT 6.2

     10 February 2014 at 9:58 am

     “didn’t a beneficiary birth and raise our current PM?”

     Proving Grant’s point. 🙂
7. gem 7

   9 February 2014 at 10:36 am

   ”He reasons that since only 380,000 individuals pay half of all income tax then they should be treated differently. People earning more than $80,000 are in that group.”

   This is trotted out all the time, including on this morning’s Radio NZ Insight programme on inequality.
   It is usually expressed as the top 10% paying 70% of income tax.
   It ignores GST burden on low income earners. But apart from that, the left aren’t countering this argument with the obvious: That the rich pay more tax because they have too much money.
   A young person I know who went to an election candidates meeting seemed to come away having absorbed this one single ‘fact’, that the rich already pay more than their share; it appeared to have made quite an impression.
   There seems to be a reticence on the left to make this argument for fear of looking extreme.
   The case for equality has to be on moral grounds, or the right wins the argument.
   • mickysavage 7.1

     9 February 2014 at 10:45 am

     Agreed gem that we need to do a proper analysis. For instance GST is paid by corporates and the self employed so I presume is counted in this calculation but the reality is that much of it is paid by ordinary people to the corporates who then pay it on to the IRD.
     • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.1

       9 February 2014 at 11:17 am

       GST counted as an income tax? That would be creative accounting. 😉

       But yes, the point needs to be that those who have been successful have a responsibility to ensure our society is set up so that the next generation is able to have as many people with the same degree of success. If the rich don’t pay at least half of all taxes, imagine how much more the poor would have to pay. And we probably don’t want a society where people are forced to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet.
       • mickysavage 7.1.1.1

         9 February 2014 at 11:20 am

         I need more coffee and to learn to read slower …
         • gem 7.1.1.1.1

           9 February 2014 at 11:40 am

           Yep, income tax and GST are distinct.
           But the main point for me is why the left isn’t making a moral intellectual argument about inequality.
           Puddleglum on Open Mike a couple of days ago wrote an excellent post on this question of why the left needs to make moral arguments, and how they differ from value-based ones. It’s long, but worth reading.
           • karol 7.1.1.1.1.1

             9 February 2014 at 6:04 pm

             gem, the argument you refer to has been made frequently (repeatedly) by people on this blog.

             ie this one:

             .But apart from that, the left aren’t countering this argument with the obvious: That the rich pay more tax because they have too much money.

             Maybe you are thinking the parliamentary left isn’t making this point, rather than the wider left.
             • gem …

               10 February 2014 at 12:25 am

               Most people do not interact with the intellectual/activist left, and generally encounter left ideas and policies filtered by the mainstream media, which is focused on the parliamentary left, so I guess that means Green/Labour/Mana.
               The example I used was a young person attending a general election candidates’ meeting in 2011, where it seemed the left candidates had no response to the right’s zippy line that 10% pay 70% of income tax.
               Calling for the rich to pay their fair share is ineffective when it can be countered like that.
               • Sacha …

                 10 February 2014 at 12:31 am

                 “is ineffective”

                 yes the left has been, hasn’t it.
                 time to fix that.
           • karol 7.1.1.1.1.2

             9 February 2014 at 6:07 pm

             I think he ended up kind of agreeing that moral arguments are very similar to ones based on social values.

             And I also think many on the left do use that kind of framing – frequently.

             But, of course, it’s not the sort of thing picked up very often by the MSM.
             • gem …

               10 February 2014 at 12:48 am

               ‘I think he ended up kind of agreeing that moral arguments are very similar to ones based on social values.’
               Yes, but Puddleglum made a distinction that is kind of crucial when you’re dealing with politicians:

               ”However, one difference I would make between ‘social values’ (as defined in your link) and ‘morality’ – or ‘morals’ – as I understand them, is that values are ‘ends’ or ‘goals’ whereas ‘morality’ is a ‘means’ (the ‘quality’ of action, whether by individuals, organisations or states that is regulated by means of ‘sanction’, which is to say broad ‘approval’ or ‘disapproval’).
               Put simply, it seems to me that ‘social values’ state the goal by which (if the entity is being ‘honest’) people or societies will be judged, or will judge themselves. Morality, by contrast, – and this is what I was trying to say in my preceding comment – concerns how someone actually acts (i.e., not what they claim to value). In politics, morality – as opposed to ‘values’ – is what is manifested in policy and in the laws used to enact it. And that is what concerns me. I’m less interested in what a political party claims to ‘value’ than in what its policies, legislation (should it get the chance to legislate) and its executive actions sanction …”

               We have all seen this at play.
               For example, Labour highly values paying workers a living wage, but this will only happen as conditions allow (provisions for direct government employees in the first budget if possible financially, then later for indirect employees, as conditions allow …)
               In contrast Labour recognises a moral imperative in instituting a near universal best start baby and infant payment – there is a policy with a firm timeline.
               • karol …

                 10 February 2014 at 7:29 am

                 I disagree on the ends vs means differentiation re-values and morals.

                 The Greens are the better example for this – firmly based in values, which not only underly their goals, but their means – collaborative ways of operating etc.

                 Green Party Values:

                 As a party and as members of that party, we aim to:

                 1. Act according to our Charter
                 2. Respect the planet and the web of life of which we are one part
                 3. Take the path of caution in the face of serious uncertainty about the consequences of human action
                 4. Think long term and holistically
                 5. Make decisions by consensus whenever possible
                 6. Engage respectfully, without personal attacks
                 7. Support ideas on their merit, regardless of where they originate
                 8. Actively respect cultural and individual diversity and celebrate difference
                 9. Maintain a community focus
                 10. Enable participation with dignity and challenge oppression
                 11. Encourage new voices and cherish wisdom
                 12. Recognise our duty of care towards those who cannot speak for themselves
                 13. Foster compassion, a sense of humour and mutual enjoyment in our work

                 Charter
       • greywarbler 7.1.1.2

         9 February 2014 at 12:27 pm

         M Whitehead

         GST is in effect, an income tax substitution in the country’s revenue collecting. The fact that accountants don’t regard it as income tax, is merely using narrow accounting framing and designation. The effect it has is that most people pay a tax from their income. So the specialists may frown but forget that accounting methods are a human construct, not a force of nature.

         And we probably don’t want a society where people are forced to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

         Of course we already have the two-or-three job employees. Often it is because they are part time, underemployed, working poor, trying for better. But in our semi-aristocratic (not meritocratic) society, the people have again become serfs to be thrown a ‘coin purse’, not citizens.

         If you are influential in tax circles, and would like to see them become virtuous and not vicious circles, could you prevail on others to remove the secondary tax which I consider is so far outdated it could be from last century, oops back a bit, 19th century. A persistent carbuncle on the hands of the strugglers. It comes from the days when double-dipping was regarded as OTT. Now it is often needed by two-three job VIPs (very imporant parents, and singles too). Bloody ridiculous, stopping people from raising themselves from poverty.

         And if you choose to take on this task, then what about stopping the BUM (Beneficiary Ultimate Maul) whereby benefits, which for decades have been set beneath the amount needed to live at a reasonable level, and then any extra earnings achieved, apart from small earnings, has resulted in the cancellation of previous grants allowed. So ensuring that every effort to raise income and build a better life, results in being knocked back to a little above square one, with expenses incurred that diminish income to below square one. Fiendish charity with a sneer, not individual and family support for self-sufficiency and capacity- building.
         • gem 7.1.1.2.1

           9 February 2014 at 12:38 pm

           ‘GST is in effect, an income tax substitution in the country’s revenue collecting.’
           Exactly, which is why the meme that the top 10% pay 70% of income tax should not go unchallenged.
           • cricklewood 7.1.1.2.1.1

             9 February 2014 at 7:06 pm

             In percentage terms I would agree but the reality is the more your earn the more you spend hence the more gst you pay. If you’ve got 200 to spend you’ll pay 30 if you spend $1000 @ 150…
             Unless you speak in % its an argument thats hard to win.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               9 February 2014 at 7:16 pm

               What a load of bollocks.

               If you’ve got $200 and your bills are $200 then you’ll spend $200
               If you’ve got $1000 and your bills are $200 then you’ll spend $200

               Both represent $30 in GST but one is 15% of the total while the other is 3%.

               Huge fucken difference.
               • McFlock …

                 9 February 2014 at 7:22 pm

                 and X amount goes into savings, or maybe a company on the side that sorts your house, or something. Not just on retail goods.
               • cricklewood …

                 9 February 2014 at 10:19 pm

                 Got more spend more… cant have a herne bay lifestyle on a manurewa budget. Still pay gst on the cleaner the gardener the expensive wine etc.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   9 February 2014 at 10:28 pm

                   That’s an illusion. The spending may, and probably will, go up but it won’t go up by the full amount as you assume. At most it’ll probably double to $400 while the rest is invested and start to add to the exponential income increases that investing allows but, here’s the thing, it only allows it for the rich in the first place.
                   • cricklewood …

                     10 February 2014 at 8:34 am

                     No maybe and probably about it, I work for people that spend $10000 + per month on cleaners, florists, gardeners, lawn care, pool maintenance etc So in dollar terms (not as a percentage of income) they would easily pay a lot more in gst than the average person.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     10 February 2014 at 11:41 am

                     But it’s the percentage of income part that’s important. Someone paying 20% in income tax and another 10% in GST is paying 30% in income tax – the same as those in the highest bracket and the GST won’t be adding 10% of income to their tax rate – it’ll be more like 3% for those just over the bracket and less than 1% for those on over $100,000.

                     GST was brought in so that top tax rates could be brought down from the 66% that they were at. Essentially, the poor had to pay more so that the rich could get lower tax rates.
           • cricklewood 7.1.1.2.1.2

             9 February 2014 at 7:06 pm

             In percentage terms I would agree but the reality is the more your earn the more you spend hence the more gst you pay. If you’ve got 200 to spend you’ll pay 30 if you spend $1000 @ 150…
             Unless you speak in % its an argument thats hard to win.
         • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.1.1.2.2

           9 February 2014 at 12:44 pm

           +1 Greywarbler
         • RedBaronCV 7.1.1.2.3

           9 February 2014 at 8:25 pm

           Secondary tax is not an extra tax it is the PAYE tax on a second job at a flat rate in the dollar (and the IRD will adjust that rate for you if asked) – and at year end square up someone who earns $30000 from one job pays the same tax as someone who earns $30000 from three jobs. Nobody has the number of working hours they do over a year included in their tax calculation.
           If second jobs were not taxed then the high earnrs would be first off the blocks, working two hours in the morning for Coy X and the rest of the time for Coy Y untaxed but of course doing the same job the whole day. it would be far tooo easy for the wealthy to fiddle.
       • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.3

         9 February 2014 at 6:29 pm

         But yes, the point needs to be that those who have been successful have a responsibility to ensure our society is set up so that the next generation is able to have as many people with the same degree of success.

         Actually, the point needs to be made that it’s the rich that are preventing anybody else from being successful as they accumulate all the nations resources to themselves and won’t let anybody else use them.
   • Olwyn 7.2

     9 February 2014 at 11:24 am

     But apart from that, the left aren’t countering this argument with the obvious: That the rich pay more tax because they have too much money.

     Indeed. This shows up clearly if you consider that a group of people who had no money whatsoever would be paying nil tax, while those who had money could then crow that they were paying all the tax.
   • Damien Grant 7.3

     9 February 2014 at 1:59 pm

     so long as the equity is for those in New Zealand. Equity for the poor in the third world, why don’t you care about the poor in the third world?

     You take my money by force to pay for your health care but you do nothing to help those in third world nations who are desperately poor; and you call me selfish!
     • dv 7.3.1

       9 February 2014 at 2:07 pm

       >>You take my money by force to pay for your health care but you do nothing to help those in third world nations who are desperately poor

       I assume you choose to live here!!!
       • mickysavage 7.3.1.1

         9 February 2014 at 2:33 pm

         The heart of a libertarian has no space for the concept of a community.
         • Bill 7.3.1.1.1

           9 February 2014 at 6:27 pm

           The heart of a corporatist fraud – one who seeks to veil himself with carefully chosen aspects of libertarianism – nah, actually they have no heart at all, and precious little brain.
     • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.3.2

       9 February 2014 at 2:09 pm

       @ Damien Grant

       Oh you really are a moron running on a whole lot of misguided assumptions aren’t you.

       Please could you explain to me how someone on $12 000 per year or even on DPB amounts manages to rip off the system by $130 000 and how that figure of $130 000 is not an extreme case-scenario.

       No, actually forget it – you are likely to be committed to believing your delusions and you are clearly committed to misinforming as many people as possible just so that the small minded thugs you work for can get more profits despite the fact that they have already got extreme wealth.

       What a complete sham this country’s media has become.

       n.b: Usually I am reasonably polite – however I make an exception for you.
       • BM 7.3.2.1

         9 February 2014 at 3:57 pm

         You claim more than one benefit.
         Some people might use 3-4 different names to claim multiple benefits.

         This is not that uncommon.
         • Bill 7.3.2.1.1

           9 February 2014 at 4:00 pm

           really.
         • mickysavage 7.3.2.1.2

           9 February 2014 at 4:02 pm

           Citation needed. Go on BM just a little bit of proof, please …
           • BM 7.3.2.1.2.1

             9 February 2014 at 4:12 pm

             Just explaining how some one on a benefit can rack up a large amount fraud.

             Proof is just what I’ve read and heard.

             From what I’ve read the DPB is the one benefit where a lot of fraud seems to go on.
             People claiming benefits when they shouldn’t.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               9 February 2014 at 4:14 pm

               You speak the stuff you write out loud as you’re writing it?
               • McFlock …

                 9 February 2014 at 4:30 pm

                 lol
             • fender …

               9 February 2014 at 4:33 pm

               Apart from this guy , who would probably be welcomed at HSBC or some other criminal organisation, I think you are full of shit BM..
         • McFlock 7.3.2.1.3

           9 February 2014 at 4:05 pm

           “not that uncommon”

           Cite, pls, and compared to tax evasion.
         • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.3.2.1.4

           9 February 2014 at 4:40 pm

           O.k BM, thanks that is a start – now as others have already mentioned – you need to supply some links to show that this is the type of fraud that is being committed – because it is a fairly serious type of fraud and therefore serious accusation to be making

           I, however, provide an article here from Stuff which I quote:

           More than 3000 alleged welfare cheats receiving a total of $33.7 million a year have been caught in the past six months.

           [Calculations: $33, 700, 000 divided by 3, 000 = $11,233]

           This article indicates that the amount of money that the people were allegedly defrauding the system works out to be no greater than $11, 300 per person.

           **Please do keep it in mind that this is probably the amount required to pay back, not what they have ripped off .**

           So your theory doesn’t sound like it would be the most likely form of fraud going on amongst beneficiaries now does it?

           And Damien Grant’s ‘$130 000 average’ is starting to sound like a extreme case-scenario, now isn’t it?
         • freedom 7.3.2.1.5

           9 February 2014 at 4:49 pm

           I got messaged that BM was spouting rubbish beyond belief, i admit, i got curious

           guess the news is true

           BM
           Yes benefit fraud exists.
           Yes some people work systems to their advantage.
           Sometimes it is legal, what did the PM call it “legitimate tax avoidance”
           Sometimes it is not.

           Often it is proven to be an accountancy error within the departments involved.
           It has also been admitted by the MSD that in some cases the person accused was actually legally entitled to much more assistance than that offered by the department.

           Returning to your comment though,
           “Some people might use 3-4 different names to claim multiple benefits.”

           Have you any idea of what level of ID is needed to receive a benefit?
           Have you considered the cross-checking of data that is involved?
           http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/online-services/apply/index.html#Beforeyoubegin3
           http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/what-to-bring/financial-assistance.html

           This is not like signing up for a Supermarket give-away programme.

           For multiple benefits, a person must meet the obligations above for multiple identities and consequently defraud at least three government departments:
           The Ministry of Social Development
           The Inland Revenue Department
           The Department of Internal Affairs

           Other departments that are regularly involved in benefit application ID confirmation are:
           The New Zealand Police
           The Department of Justice
           The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

           A person must successfully and repeatedly negotiate this well connected web of multi-departmental fraud to continue to receive any funds.

           It is difficult to accept that even those in possession of the sophisticated personal capacity to manage so layered an activity, can achieve this without some level of direct manipulation of data from inside one or more of the departments involved.
           • BM 7.3.2.1.5.1

             9 February 2014 at 5:05 pm

             You’re right it’s certainly a lot harder to do the multiple name fraud trick this days especially with the sharing of data etc.

             I should have added that to the bottom of my original post to blue leopard.
             • freedom …

               9 February 2014 at 7:27 pm

               Ok BM, if you say so,
               but just to be crystal in my own understanding . . .

               You want the readers of The Standard to believe you would have voluntarily added information to your original post to blue leopard, that would only have highlighted its inherent implausibility.

               ( if you had only thought of it sooner )
               • McFlock …

                 9 February 2014 at 7:31 pm

                 indeed. It’s a “lot harder”, but “not that uncommon”. Shit, it’s as if as soon as one loses their job, they become a moriarty of identity theft and fraud.
               • Bill …

                 9 February 2014 at 7:33 pm

                 Hmm. Let’s try it

                 You claim more than one benefit.
                 Some people might use 3-4 different names to claim multiple benefits.

                 This is not that uncommon.

                 it’s certainly a lot harder to do the multiple name fraud trick this days especially with the sharing of data etc.

                 Not sure how that changes the assertion other than to suggest that people claiming entitlements are, not simply criminal, but smarter criminals than in ye olde days. 😉
                 • Bill …

                   9 February 2014 at 8:01 pm

                   oops. deleted misplaced comment.
               • BM …

                 9 February 2014 at 7:50 pm

                 If you look at the original post Blue leopard wrote

                 Please could you explain to me how someone on $12 000 per year or even on DPB amounts manages to rip off the system by $130 000 and how that figure of $130 000 is not an extreme case-scenario.

                 I then supplied a method that people have used to rip the tax payer off and pocket the amount of money Blue leopard was talking about.

                 That was the crux of of post.
                 • Bill …

                   9 February 2014 at 8:03 pm

                   Possibly people co-habiting, quite understandably and justifiably claiming separate entitlements. Then they get ‘pinged’ and the entire total of the two benefits + any top ups such as TAS and accommodation costs is multiplied by a large number of years WINZ claim they have been co-habiting.

                   What you did was repeat an old piece of spin about WINZ being ripe for the ripping by people who would have to obtain false identities from the Birth and Deaths register…

                   …not uncommon, according to your comment.
                   • McFlock …

                     9 February 2014 at 8:05 pm

                     well, not unheard of among former ACT mps…
                 • wtl …

                   9 February 2014 at 8:13 pm

                   I then supplied a method that people have used to rip the tax payer off and pocket the amount of money Blue leopard was talking about.

                   What a dishonest idiot you are. You have done no such thing, you have merely supplied a highly difficult or implausible method that can only be, as blue leopard originally suggested, an extreme case-scenario.
                   • BM …

                     9 February 2014 at 8:19 pm

                     http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9286027/Fraudster-avoids-jail-after-remorse-letter

                     How about this, dick face and that was in the last six months.
                   • McFlock …

                     9 February 2014 at 8:27 pm

                     at ten or twenty times the average amount, it would seem to be a somewhat exceptional case of benefit fraud.

                     Certainly nothing to indicate that the use of false identities is common amongst the few beneficiaries who are benefit fraudsters.
                   • Bill …

                     9 February 2014 at 8:31 pm

                     Oh dear, BM. Do you bother to read the links you provide to back up your arguments?

                     Dudeck defrauded Winz between February 2002 and October 2012 by not revealing that she was not only living with someone, but was also married to them.

                     Throughout period she claimed $78,321.98 from the domestic purposes benefit, $69,769.83 of invalid’s benefit and $31,921.87 from an accommodation supplement.

                     She also received several special needs grants; $1582.75 for a fence and $270 for food, along with $265.05 childcare subsidies.

                     &

                     Dudeck now claims the dubious title of Waikato’s worst benefit fraudster, after overtaking Sandra Epere, 52, who was last year sentenced for claiming more than $186,075 over 19 years after claiming a benefit while married.

                     Notice how the ‘fraud’ is the cumulative total of all entitlements claimed during the period?
                   • wtl …

                     9 February 2014 at 8:54 pm

                     Actually, no, as others have already pointed out. You’ve still done nothing more than show that amounts in excess of $100K are at the extreme end. If you can’t read, then the key word in your article is “worst” when blue leopard was talking about the average.
       • RedBaronCV 7.3.2.2

         9 February 2014 at 8:28 pm

         There have been a couple of very large fraudsters which are no doubt bumping the averages. At one stage MSD uncovered a fraudster who had invested very successfully the large sums he took and actually returned a profit to them
         • Sacha 7.3.2.2.1

           9 February 2014 at 8:36 pm

           “At one stage”

           = once
     • mickysavage 7.3.3

       9 February 2014 at 2:31 pm

       One step at a time Damien. Wanting equity in Aotearoa is not inconsistent with wanting equity throughout the world.
       • Damien Grant 7.3.3.1

         9 February 2014 at 5:46 pm

         I would disagree here Mickey.

         People around the world vote for social welfare in their nations but never care enough about poverty in their neighbours to do much about it. Think about the hostility to free trade; which benefits the poor workers in third world nations at the expense of labour in the first world.

         If you assume, as I do, that people do what is in their own interests, then this makes sense; it doesn’t matter what people say, only what they do.

         If we really cared about third poverty we would do something about it. We don’t, never have, are not likely to in the future.

         For my money, the best way to help the poor in overseas nations is to trade with them; buy their goods and encourage their governments to knock down their trade barriers and allow their people’s to buy from us.
         • srylands 7.3.3.1.1

           9 February 2014 at 5:52 pm

           Yes exactly. Most commentators here oppose both bilateral and multilateral trade liberalisation. They therefore don’t care about the poor. Or they think they do but lack the cognitive ability to make the link between policies and effects. The good news is that the world inches towards the correct policies. That includes New Zealand. If we want to remain a prosperous country there is no alternative but to continue an economically rational policy framework.

           A good outcome for New Zealand would be a Labour-National coalition. If Labour loses the next two elections that will be on the cards. But it will require Labour to return to its Roger Douglas roots.
           • McFlock 7.3.3.1.1.1

             9 February 2014 at 5:55 pm

             Or they think they do but lack the cognitive ability to make the link between policies and effects.

             That’s because we keep comparing it with reality.

             Good luck with the labnat coalition – it’d fuck both parties, leaving NZ1, the greens and mana against act and the cons.
           • Sacha 7.3.3.1.1.2

             9 February 2014 at 6:05 pm

             “require Labour to return to its Roger Douglas roots”

             Hilarious. More, more.
           • mickysavage 7.3.3.1.1.3

             9 February 2014 at 6:07 pm

             “return to its Roger Douglas roots”

             That was a mutated bastard of an offshooted root …
             • weka …

               9 February 2014 at 6:16 pm

               I would have thought more a parasite.
               • Sacha …

                 9 February 2014 at 6:29 pm

                 like the one in Alien
                 • mickysavage …

                   9 February 2014 at 7:56 pm

                   Yep the collective thought is that it should be nuked from orbit, it is the only way to be sure …
           • Draco T Bastard 7.3.3.1.1.4

             9 February 2014 at 10:32 pm

             If we want to remain a prosperous country there is no alternative but to continue an economically rational policy framework.

             We don’t have an economically policy framework.

             The block of cheese in my fridge is product of NZ, wrapped in Australia and then sold in NZ.

             There’s absolutely no way you can call that economically rational.
             • Mike S …

               12 February 2014 at 3:27 am

               +1. And it’s certainly not economical, which is what an economy is supposed to be.
         • McFlock 7.3.3.1.2

           9 February 2014 at 5:52 pm

           That’s because you don’t differentiate between exploitative neo-slavery and legitimate trade.
           • mickysavage 7.3.3.1.2.1

             9 February 2014 at 7:57 pm

             I could not have put it better myself …
     • Poission 7.3.4

       9 February 2014 at 2:39 pm

       You take my money by force to pay for your health care but you do nothing to help those in third world nations who are desperately poor; and you call me selfish!

       You set up a tax haven and you rob the third world countries,you rob the governments of first world countries (the us for instance would be in fiscal surplus if transnational income was fully taxed )

       Most third world countries would also have a fiscal surplus,and dependence on aid would be mitigated.

       The hypocrisy is evident, Macbride (The District attorney in the dotcomcase) law firm set up the offshore trusts for citigroups money laundering activities or Dunne actively resisted change to offshore tax haven legislation.

       http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/216-global-taxes/52401-how-tax-havens-plunder-the-poor.html
     • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.5

       9 February 2014 at 3:20 pm

       Damien Grant, are you a boring slogan machine that shows little capacity for thought or what?

       I don’t think you know the first thing about the developing world, let alone care.
       • Damien Grant 7.3.5.1

         9 February 2014 at 5:50 pm

         Yes, as it happens.

         I have been there, trade with people there and buy goods and services directly and import their product to New Zealand as well as pay for financial services.

         I will not claim that I care, but I do think that the small amount of business I do there makes a difference to the business owners and their staff in those nations.
     • Stephanie Rodgers 7.3.6

       9 February 2014 at 4:06 pm

       I can’t put it any better than Elizabeth Warren:

       “You built a factory out there? Good for you,” she says. “But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

       Quoted here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth-warren-there-is-nobody-in-this-country-who-got-rich-on-his-own/
       • Damien Grant 7.3.6.1

         9 February 2014 at 5:55 pm

         Stephanie;

         yes, this is a good argument in favour of a welfare state. I like it because it is not based on the assumption that because one person is poor that the state has the right to come and take my money by force to help them.

         My response, which is by necessarily going to be brief; is this;

         All of those things; roads, education, etc etc; would have happened without the state. You do not need the government to do those things.

         I am a libertarian, not an anarchist, so I do believe in the state providing law and order, but I do not think that the state should be taking my money by force to educate other people’s children, especially if those children’s parents can afford to pay for their own kids study. The fact that they have done this in the past and we have an educated workforce does not mean it is the only way to proceed nor even the best way to proceed.

         Damien
         • dv 7.3.6.1.1

           9 February 2014 at 6:00 pm

           >> All of those things; roads, education, etc etc; would have happened without the state. You do not need the government to do those things.

           Name ONE state in the world that educate all the people without state involvement.
           • Damien Grant 7.3.6.1.1.1

             9 February 2014 at 6:05 pm

             Name one state in the world in 1890 that gave women the vote.

             Name one state in the world in 1970 that allowed gay marriage.

             Name one state in the world in 2012 that legalised the sale of marijuana.
             • McFlock …

               9 February 2014 at 6:20 pm

               but today, states have supplied all of those things. And roads, etc.

               Whereas private enterprise has still never provided universal education, or transport infrastructure, without state involvement.
               • Damien Grant …

                 9 February 2014 at 6:25 pm

                 yet private enterprise delivers food, develops medicine, water, telecommunications and so much else with ease. Why do you think that education, which isn’t a difficult thing to competently deliver, would be so hard for a profit driven firm to do?
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   9 February 2014 at 6:26 pm

                   He’s an education expert now too. Not hard to deliver to the hungry victims of his banal evil? Yeah nah.
                 • mickysavage …

                   9 February 2014 at 6:28 pm

                   But Damien that is the point. Private Enterprise does not do these things by itself. It relies on state infrastructures and communities and workers to achieve this. And the quality of education delivered by state action is very good thank you very much. Why do you think that only the mighty market is capable of delivering?
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     9 February 2014 at 6:32 pm

                     He doesn’t think. He’s reading from the book of dogma.
                   • Damien Grant …

                     9 February 2014 at 6:39 pm

                     Mickey;

                     Agreed, up to a point. I am not saying that only the market could provide these things. The current system works. I am not disputing that; but if the state was not there why do you think that private enterprise would not provide it?

                     Communities, workers, business and families would all continue if the welfare state was rolled back. Parents would still want their kids to get the best education possible. Private firms, in my view, could provide quality education for a lower cost than the state can.

                     There is also a philosophical issue about how taxes are raised. I believe it is immoral to use fore to raise taxes. Despite this; I still think that compulsory taxes is the only way to ensure that there a s state able to protect its citizens against anarchy so for me there is a trade-off; the lesser of two evils.

                     At some level, you are likely to agree with me here; the use of force is immoral; but we diverge on where we draw the line on that trade off. You, if I may assume, think that use of compulsion to raise taxes to provide taxes for the poor in acceptable. I do not.
                   • Sacha …

                     9 February 2014 at 6:42 pm

                     “The current system works. I am not disputing that; but if the state was not there why do you think that private enterprise would not provide it?”

                     Because it never has. You’re a fantasist – which is fine if you keep it to yourself, or those nice men in white coats.
                   • Bill …

                     9 February 2014 at 6:48 pm

                     You’re a strange brainless creature Damien. That’s the second comment on this thread where you have demonstrated an absolute paucity in understanding with regards libertarianism – or your own positioning.

                     I still think that compulsory taxes is the only way to ensure that there a s state able to protect its citizens against anarchy so for me there is a trade-off; the lesser of two evils.

                     See – what you are stating is that the raising of taxes protects us from ourselves. But not only that, you refer to the philosophy and tradition you (in part) appropriate (and happily wrap around your misanthropic corporatism) as evil?!

                     edit – a sensible position a libertarian can take towards the state is that it protects us from corporatism.

                     edit 2. Only a corporatist would suggest the state be withered with the exception of its ‘law and order’ functions… lest people get a bit uppity about being subjected to the full ravages of corporate rule 😉
                 • McFlock …

                   9 February 2014 at 6:38 pm

                   Firstly, private enterprise only does those things with the active assistance of the public service.

                   Secondly, a firm might be able to run a school, maybe even without fucking it up. Maybe even without backhanded public assistance (although good luck on all three at the same time). But it will never be able to provide univeral education. For all children. Even the ones whose parents can’t pay.
                   • Damien Grant …

                     9 February 2014 at 6:53 pm

                     ” provide universal education”

                     McFlock; lets assume you are right.

                     If there are some children whose parents cannot provide for their schooling, and if I am being honest this is a given, then we do have a problem and the problem is larger than the individual child because an uneducated child who disengages from society imposes high externalities.

                     However, in my universe, which I admit is a long way from this one, the marginal cost of private education is going to be very low. If the state wasn’t there uncles, grandparents, whanau, church, businesses, someone will step in. As a general rule there is a huge degree of good-will and protective instincts when it comes to children.

                     As a species we derive a deep level of pleasure from helping children we have an even tangential connection with. Why this is so I am not going to speculate but there is no doubting it is the case.

                     Currently, we can ignore these children because we have abrogated our collective responsibility for them to the state; and I think that this has not worked.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     9 February 2014 at 6:58 pm

                     “Currently, I ignore these children because I have abrogated my responsibility.

                     FIFY
                   • Bill …

                     9 February 2014 at 7:02 pm

                     Hey Grant. You going to front up about your corporatist political beliefs?

                     I see your last comment falls back to the default position of ‘washing your hands’ of any social responsibility while making disingenuous appeals to private charity.

                     Your poison – please stop trying to give it an air of respectability by mislabeling it as libertarianism – is corporatism. You are a corporatist. An ideology that forebearers of many people on this blog went to war to halt and roll back. Ironically, it’s likely your own family also had members fighting against the same shit and possibly dying because of it.
                   • McFlock …

                     9 February 2014 at 7:02 pm

                     Can you show us a real-world example of any country or society that has >90% of its children made ready for tertiary-level training (incl polytech/trades) using only private education?

                     the problem is larger than the individual child because an uneducated child who disengages from society imposes high externalities.

                     Shit like that is why people think you are a broken, sociopathic failed attempt at being a person. The problem with turning out uneducated people is not the effects on us, the primary problem is because of its effects on them. Even if it had not negative externalities, it would still be a problem.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   9 February 2014 at 9:59 pm

                   yet private enterprise delivers food, develops medicine, water, telecommunications and so much else with ease.

                   No they don’t why else do you think that the government had to step in to get nation’s telecommunications updated?

                   And here’s the real kicker – it was the state that built them in the first place. All that the private sector has done since privatisation is to rip monopoly rents out of the community.
                 • Lee Churchman …

                   9 February 2014 at 10:15 pm

                   The answer is that education produces significant positive externalities and counters significant negative externalities. Everyone knows what the standard economic model says about these and market based systems. That’s why Libertarianism is generally regarded as a joke theory among politically sophisticated people these days. It’s as dead as communism, although you don’t seem to have received the news.

                   And it’s only “your money” according to your own dubious set of moral principles. Markets distribute according to supply and demand, not any moral principle of desert.
                   • Paul …

                     9 February 2014 at 10:16 pm

                     Tell that to fools like BM, Naki Man and srylands.
                     Honestly, these people…..
                 • Rodel …

                   9 February 2014 at 10:55 pm

                   Education is not “delivered” It is an interactive process requiring competent trained professionals.. Health also is not delivered..hard concept to grasp for some people.
                 • Flip …

                   10 February 2014 at 6:27 pm

                   @Damien Grant 6:25pm

                   Not universally. Only to those who could pay. It was only delivered to those who could not pay by the state and a few morally motivated organisations. Never initially by a profit motive.
             • Poission …

               9 February 2014 at 7:02 pm

               Name one state in the world in 1890 that gave women the vote.

               Pitcairn island a half century earlier
           • Tanenui 7.3.6.1.1.2

             11 February 2014 at 1:16 pm

             DG is dreaming of old days: SOCIAL OPPRESSION, private schools/teachers for the Bourgeoisie and Monarchs. If you would have studied European history you would know compulsory education was formed by monarchs and governments or do you wish ill-treatment of young children at age of around three who should work on fields and in coal mines. Compulsory schools were introduced 1592 by a monarch, followed by Norway in 1739 and 1882 by other European countries.
         • Bill 7.3.6.1.2

           9 February 2014 at 6:04 pm

           I am a libertarian (…), so I believe in the state providing law and order.

           No. That belief makes for either a statist or a parasitic corporatist. In your case, taking your other mutterings into account, the latter.

           edit. Now are you going to engage with the issues…or is it time to roll out the barely arse covering deflections and distractions?
         • karol 7.3.6.1.3

           9 February 2014 at 6:14 pm

           They are all our children. Our society would have no future without them.
           • srylands 7.3.6.1.3.1

             9 February 2014 at 7:03 pm

             “They are all our children. Our society would have no future without them.”

             Um no they are not. And yes our society would have an assured future without many of them. We (i.e the Government) should be providing no incentives for poorly educated and those on low incomes (they usually come paired – I wonder why?) to have kids.

             Any gap in our desired population can be met through skilled migration. Our future should be (1) children from high income parents who can pay for them and (2) skilled migration.

             There – problem solved.
             • McFlock …

               9 February 2014 at 8:10 pm

               Is that your final solution, as it were?

               By the way, it doesn’t count as a godw;n if you were literally preaching that society would be better off without large numbers of people from a single defineable social group. I mean, that’s just fucked in the head.

               Although in the case of john key, you might have been correct. But that’s about him as an individual.
             • Mike S …

               12 February 2014 at 3:33 am

               Right, and where are all the consumers going to come from, without whom the entire economic and financial system collapses?
         • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.6.1.4

           9 February 2014 at 6:19 pm

           Ann O’Connor couldn’t write decent fiction either.

           But what happens in the real world is that the state comes and takes people’s shelter by force, because Damien helped enable “market” rents. And desperate parents have their children taken from them by preventable infectious diseases, because Damien didn’t want to pay the taxes that he benefits from every day.

           What’s worse is that this drivel he fatuously imagines is a “school of thought” isn’t even his own creation, this preening puffed up parrot to whom, the best response, as with all Libertarian cretins is “Polly wanna cracker?”
         • Stephanie Rodgers 7.3.6.1.5

           9 February 2014 at 6:37 pm

           Damien, I wasn’t making an argument “in favour of a welfare state”. I was responding to the part of your comment when you said:

           “You take my money by force to pay for your health care”

           (And you’ve repeated that same idea above with reference to education.)

           The point was that you benefit just as much from the state as the rest of us. And one day you may need healthcare. And even if you go private, the private system is dependent on the public system, which means your costs will be lower.
           • Damien Grant 7.3.6.1.5.1

             9 February 2014 at 7:01 pm

             Ok. I understand. And about health care you are right but you are, however, responding to the system as it currently is.

             If the state did not provide universal health care the health care industry would still exist, but my real objection is about a compulsory regime where I must belong to the single payer system. It is true I may one day rely on the public health system but that is because I belong, against my will, to a collective system that I am unable to leave.

             The US is often touted as demonstrating the evil of private health care but I am unconvinced. Health care in the US is very expensive but that might be a simple matter of a wealthy society where the price of health care can be bid up in comparison to other nations where the standard of living is lover and the demand for health care lower.
             • McFlock …

               9 February 2014 at 7:07 pm

               leaving is as easy as getting on a plane.
             • Stephanie Rodgers …

               9 February 2014 at 8:33 pm

               “It is true I may one day rely on the public health system but that is because I belong, against my will, to a collective system that I am unable to leave.”

               This logic seems a bit weird. Isn’t it true that you may one day rely on the public health system because you may get sick or have an accident? Paying taxes doesn’t make you sick or injured.

               And in the mean time you get to benefit from living in a society where people don’t have to choose which finger they pay to get re-attached, or whether they have to take time off work to nurse a sick child instead of getting them to the doctor for preventative care. That kind of thing has a lot of flow-on effects in terms of productivity, stress, disposable income – and, of course, you yourself may benefit directly from it.
               • Sacha …

                 9 February 2014 at 8:39 pm

                 “you get to benefit from living in a society where people don’t have to choose…”

                 If you’re rich enough, that only applies if you believe your personal moral integrity is affected by what’s around you. Oh, and society, it helps to believe in that.
               • mickysavage …

                 9 February 2014 at 8:45 pm

                 Precisely. Damien do you think that there actually may be some benefit in belonging to a collective society?
     • greywarbler 7.3.7

       9 February 2014 at 4:16 pm

       Damien Grant
       Your money is being taken from you. Laugh. It is given to you in return for the job you are lucky enough to get in the society you live in. There are even laws in this society that you can call on if it is not paid to you. And part of a modern, advanced society’s laws and advantages are that it provides health care that everyone can access.

       You think you’re living in a global economy – you talk accusingly of third world conditions. But you yourself live right here while still enjoying the advantages of cheap goods from the third world for which you could well afford to pay full price if made here in NZ.

       Having your cake and eating it too. The way that all selfish right wingers do. You sound like a peevish little boy who has to share some things with his neighbours when they come to play.
       • phillip ure 7.3.7.1

         9 February 2014 at 5:20 pm

         “..You sound like a peevish little boy who has to share some things with his neighbours when they come to play..”

         best (non-curse-laden) description of grant..to date..

         ..phillip ure..
     • karol 7.3.8

       9 February 2014 at 6:11 pm

       It’s only YOUR money until after tax is paid – taking back the money gained at the expense of people working hard to earn far too little.

       Why do CEOs get continual bones, pay rises etc, while those slogging on lower incomes barely get any pay rises?

       If people were paid fair wages to start with, the poor would be better off, and the wealthy wouldn’t have so much.
   • srylands 7.4

     9 February 2014 at 2:54 pm

     “That the rich pay more tax because they have too much money.”

     What a bizarre attitude! New Zealand has about 10 “rich” people. Someone on an income of $200,000 is not rich. If you have 2 or 3 kids to support, and live in Auckland, that doesn’t even leave you enough to buy and maintain a decent boat.

     Stop your obsession with taking OPM. Then you might be taken seriously.
     • freedom 7.4.1

       9 February 2014 at 3:01 pm

       “Someone on an income of $200,000 is not rich. ”
       The only thing more harrowing than that statement is your [failed satirical] attempt to qualify it
       • srylands 7.4.1.1

         9 February 2014 at 3:07 pm

         There is no fucking need to qualify it. $200,000 a year to raise a family in a decent lifestyle in Auckland is an inadequate income. That is why most households need two incomes to get ahead. If you get two professionals making $180K each then you are talking comfort.

         And these people DO pay all the fucking taxes. New Zealand has a neutral efficient tax system with high compliance.

         Go find a real social problem to whinge about. Stop acting like a fucking idiot.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 7.4.1.1.1

           9 February 2014 at 3:23 pm

           Always nice to see an Objectivist get upset.

           Good on you for pointing out that wages are too low, though (well, apart from the fact that you didn’t mean to, it just slipped out when you lost your temper). Ha.
         • fender 7.4.1.1.2

           9 February 2014 at 3:29 pm

           Great you have finally seen the sense in a large increase to the minimum wage sowrylands.

           Is it ok to be rude today, but not yesterday?
           • McFlock 7.4.1.1.2.1

             9 February 2014 at 4:16 pm

             robot has incorporated new behaviour mod.

             I prefer it. The fucker can’t jump on the moral high-ground when it’s pointed out he doesn’t know even basic details of the NZ economy, like the gst rate.
             • fender …

               9 February 2014 at 4:41 pm

               “The fucker…..”

               +1
         • McFlock 7.4.1.1.3

           9 February 2014 at 4:13 pm

           kids getting skin infections so bad they need to be hospitalised is not a real problem?
           Because it’s the poor kids who are much more likely to have that happen than rich kids. Not to mention a myriad of other serious medical conditions.

           Now bitch about how uncomfortable someone is on $180k, you fucking tool.
           • Naki Man 7.4.1.1.3.1

             9 February 2014 at 6:40 pm

             I think 180k is a big income and so is 149k but labour want to turn someone on 149k into a beneficiary when they have kids, what a joke.
             • McFlock …

               9 February 2014 at 6:45 pm

               See, SSpylands? Even naki idiot thinks that $200k is a big income.
         • greywarbler 7.4.1.1.4

           9 February 2014 at 6:27 pm

           There is no fucking need for you to sit at your computer and turn out this sort of fantastical stuff Wrylands. You are trying to feed us false information or just that which your mind has skewed, so that you think it is correct. Go and do something useful, you just make us swear and you are a boil on the backside, find your own blog and put your peculiar World to rights.
           • Mainlander 7.4.1.1.4.1

             10 February 2014 at 4:31 pm

             Ha Ha what a cry baby always telling people to get of this blog, why dont you go start your own blog where you can abuse others all day long if their opinion doesnt agree with yours
             • greywarbler …

               10 February 2014 at 4:45 pm

               It wouldn’t be as much fun as doing it here I get such a good crop of spongeheads. So I’ll stay here and I don’t give my accolade of attention to everybody so you don’t need to think I’m going to bother with you again.
         • amirite 7.4.1.1.5

           9 February 2014 at 8:21 pm

           Yet those families with kids getting/earning $15,000 a year are expected to pay the rent, the health expenses, school fees, food etc etc, maybe save some and invest in sharemarket perhaps ?
           You are a fucking moron.
           • Naki Man 7.4.1.1.5.1

             9 February 2014 at 10:10 pm

             Earning 15,000 a year including tax credits and WFF? How does that happen?
         • gem 7.4.1.1.6

           10 February 2014 at 10:38 am

           ‘$200,000 a year to raise a family in a decent lifestyle in Auckland is an inadequate income.’
           Don’t complain – it is the fiscal and economic policies you champion that radically drove up the price of living to the point where you need a six figure income to have a ”decent” life.
           It is a failure.
           The kind of country where a National government minister recommends people sell their work clothes to feed children.
   • KJT 7.5

     10 February 2014 at 9:21 pm

     Income tax is only a proportion of total tax.

     Not to mention that over half of the nations wealthiest individuals pay tax on a declared income of less than 70k a year.

     In fact, most of the “total” tax paid, around 60%, comes from those on middle incomes.
8. dave 8

   9 February 2014 at 10:38 am

   its how you do crime and anyway poor people smell , this reporter is a dick. as cunliffe has signalled if your evading paying your fare share watch out!
   we need to get serious about smoking these crooks out tax evasion is theft pure and simple they are criminals and should be treated as criminals .
9. miravox 9

   9 February 2014 at 10:59 am

   Damien Grant has been convicted of dishonesty. There is no point at all in paying any attention to him.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10731661
   • tc 9.1

     9 February 2014 at 11:08 am

     Agreed but in the neolib fantasy world granny loves to project this proven dishonesty from a corporate undertaker make him ideal to be given a soapbox.

     Alongside Hide etc its quite a club granny has going, wonder how much longer mccarten will last in election year before a ‘refresh’.
   • mickysavage 9.2

     9 February 2014 at 11:16 am

     Maybe he thinks this should put him in the running for a knighthood …
     • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 9.2.1

       9 February 2014 at 2:35 pm

       …and sadly it probably will…
       • KJT 9.2.1.1

         10 February 2014 at 9:23 pm

         Steal a hundred you get jail. Steal, billions, you become Prime Minister.
   • phillip ure 9.3

     9 February 2014 at 5:26 pm

     and he is that special kind of slime-bag lawyer..

     ..the real carrion-feeders of that dubious trade..

     ..he is a fucken bankruptcy-lawyer..?

     ..raking thru the entrails/profiting from..others’ failures..?

     ..beyond fucken irony..

     ..phillip ure..
   • Sacha 9.4

     9 February 2014 at 6:37 pm

     “My failure was one of character and personal integrity. People who do not understand the drivers of their own mistakes are doomed to repeat them. My lesson was not to be smarter, but to approach life and myself differently.”

     If what you’re preaching nowadays is your idea of ‘character’ Damien then you really need to approach life rather a lot smarter and more in keeping with what other people have learned over human history about being a good person.

     Tell us about the last time you helped someone (not related to you) without a prospect of gain? And how your own motivation for that action fits with the beliefs you’re espousing publicly?
   • Paul 9.5

     9 February 2014 at 10:14 pm

     And the Herald gives him a soapbox to spread his venom and poison.
     ACT get under 1% of the vote and this rag gives supporters of their views a significant amount of column inches. He who pays the piper…
   • Rodel 9.6

     11 February 2014 at 9:11 pm

     miravox
     Yes. How come a convicted crim gets any space in a national newspaper?
     Oh I forgot hes an ACTor. Join the frauds.
     • miravox 9.6.1

       12 February 2014 at 8:49 am

       “How come a convicted crim gets any space in a national newspaper?”

       Yeah, i guess every crim deserves a second chance… if he was writing about knitting, gardening, or even straight up news I’d say fair enough.

       But he’s writing about money and linking it to an ideology that promotes greed – and that leads to financial trickery that can often lead to financial ‘dishonesty’ – of which he was convicted. I have a huge problem with him writing about that.
10. Pascal's bookie 10

    9 February 2014 at 11:25 am

    Grant is simply a fuckwit, writing shit for fuckwits. He’s not a serious commentator, he doesn;t believe the shit he writes. The arguments he makes aren’t genuinely held.

    When someone genuinely holds a belief and they change their mind on it, they explain why they have changed their mind.

    At the least, the acknowledge that they have changed their mind and address the arguments that they used to find persuasive, but have now changed their mind about.

    Grant does none of this. He makes shit arguments, because he’s a cheap intellectual bankrupt.

    He he is, arguing that tax cheats should get the book thrown at them:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/fraud/news/article.cfm?c_id=213&objectid=10744938

    I believe in lower taxes and smaller government but once Parliament sets the rules they need to be followed, even if we do not like them.

    Tax fraudsters gain a competitive advantage, hurting honest firms and creating pressure on other taxpayers to follow suit, further undermining the tax base.

    New Zealand’s tax system works on the basis of voluntary compliance and the risk of getting caught is low. If the judiciary takes the view that tax fraud should be treated leniently, then rational individuals could be inspired to take their chances.

    The extent of this fraud is unknown but there is reason to believe it is substantial.

    When the IRD focused its attention on the horticulture industry last year, tax revenue jumped from $88 million to $150m.

    If there is going to be any deterrence it would help if judges and the sentences they imposed sent a clear message that if you are unlucky enough to get caught, the consequences are to be feared.

    You’ll note that he doesn’t address any of that in this piece today.
11. Bill 11

    9 February 2014 at 11:29 am

    Beneficiary cheats, by contrast, are providing nothing to start with and seek to enrich themselves further by deception and dishonesty.

    Is the quiet (assumed?) moral underpinning that these assertions either flow from or are pinned to an example of the arguments/perspectives of Lakoff and Rosado that some have discussed in recent days?
12. bad12 12

    9 February 2014 at 11:31 am

    Yes tax fraud is an ‘industry’ for those who are in business, what is needed of course is an ENABLER, in many of the larger high profile tax rorts it is the Tax Accountants who both enable and gain the lions share of the profits from these often complex tax rorts some of which involve shifting large amounts of cash off shore,

    A classic case of this would seem to be the renowned Graham Mac,(private prosecutor of ACTS John Banks),who enjoyed a years home detention for helping clients defraud the IRD for some 180,000 dollars and according to the Court kept the lions share of the rorting for Himself,

    It’s a classic meat in the sandwich situation where once compromised ‘the clients’ hell bent on not paying tax are in effect taxed by the crooked Tax Accountants who while giving ‘the clients’ a small return of less tax paid keep the biggest wad of cash and dare ‘the client’ complain???,

    ”Lately one or two have fully paid their due”, Wellington accountants David Rowley and Barrie Skinner were jailed for 8 years for running a tax evasion scheme with multiple clients involving millions of dollars, the two tax accountants were said to have kept millions of dollars of the defrauded tax monies for themselves,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/…/accountants-jailed-for-ird-fraud

    Such tax rorting is in fact, in my opinion, ‘organized financial crime’ and in a 2013 case,(which may be the Rowley/Skinner case i highlight above), an honest tax accountant,(i kid you not),who would not indulge His clients wishes to fraudulently lower their tax liabilities was happy to refer these clients on to a firm of accountants that would showing a high level of knowledge of and organization within the accounting ‘profession,’

    The real question that needs be asked of the Herald jonolist who scripted such a bizaare attack upon beneficiaries would have to be in the vein of ”have you a friend or relative currently facing charges of defrauding the IRD”
13. Olwyn 13

    9 February 2014 at 11:41 am

    The sort of thing this man is spouting is extremely dangerous. Imagine the outrage if his accusation (a lack of contribution) was used to advocate greater punishment based on gender, race, age or such. Yet it could be the case that any of these groups would contribute less if their potential for contributing was rejected. In the main, this is the case with beneficiaries: if they contribute less in the fields that Grant sees as relevant, it is because their contribution in these fields has largely been rejected. There are no jobs for them. It is irresponsible for the NZ Herald to publish articles that declare any group of people to be legitimate targets for victimisation.
14. Stephanie Rodgers 14

    9 February 2014 at 11:44 am

    Grant’s mathematics are pretty interesting, too. Even if you ignore all the other issues with his articles and take him at face value:

    If the average fraudster taking $800k is getting imprisoned for 25 months, that’s 1 month for every $32,000 they took.

    If the average benefit fraudster (who may not actually be a beneficiary at all) is taking $130k and getting a “paltry” 17 months they’re serving 1 month for every $7,600 they took. If they were judged on the same mathematical basis as the tax fraudster, they’d only serve four months.
15. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 15

    9 February 2014 at 12:19 pm

    I really don’t understand how this sort of article by Grant is legally allowed to be printed. It really does appear to be full of shit.

    With any article conveying ‘information’ about benefit fraud I am constantly left questioning the amounts cited that ‘beneficiary fraudsters’ are ripping off the system.

    The unemployment benefit is approximately $12 000 a year (including accommodation supplement) how the heck does someone clock up $130 000? – that has to be the most extreme case.

    Is tax fraud and benefit fraud calculated in the same way?

    As I understand it anyone defrauding a benefit has to pay back the whole amount they received while doing so – not solely the amount that they ripped off.

    Is tax fraud the same? When some one is convicted of tax fraud – do they have to pay back all the wages and bonuses that they received while doing so? I don’t think so somehow

    This difference in calculation between Tax fraud and benefit fraud makes the benefit fraudsters appear to be taking a whole lot more off the system than they really are

    (Clearly it is a preventative measure to require benefit fraudsters to pay the whole benefit back (not just the amount that they ripped off ) – and probably an effective one – however to cite these amounts, as I suspect the msm/parliament/etc do, as being the amount of money that was ripped off the system is very misleading )
    • Bill 15.1

      9 February 2014 at 12:49 pm

      Another facet of this (again, just from my understanding) is that a tax dodger who gets the jail does time in lieu of repaying monies gained. But somebody scamming welfare who gets the jail then has to repay any fraudulently obtained monies to WINZ … which is an inflated calculation (if my understanding is correct)
      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 15.1.1

        9 February 2014 at 12:58 pm

        Bloody hell – the more one finds out the more it dawns on one how much of a rort against those in the most unfortunate circumstances this society has become.

        And this type of article by D’ Grunt leaves people with severely misinformed beliefs cultivating negative attitudes which are solely based on ‘made up shit’.
      • freedom 15.1.2

        9 February 2014 at 3:11 pm

        let’s not forget that thanks to recent law changes by National the spouse and/or family of the convicted benefit fraudsters can also be charged and have property/income/assets siezed, where as the spouse or family of a tax cheat get sympathy tea and choccy biscuits, usually from the accountants and the lawyers who are grateful to have escaped any liability due to their well organised profit making operation.

        All in all today’s topics are actually making me quite angry, so to avoid falling into rampant abuse cycles, logic dictates … sunshine

        catch you later, have a good day folks
      • Mike S 15.1.3

        12 February 2014 at 3:41 am

        The figures for benefit fraud also include fraud committed by winz staff which is a good percentage of the total/ They also include overpayments of benefits which are certainly not deliberate on behalf of the beneficiary aqnd always have to be paid back.
16. Bill 16

    9 February 2014 at 12:25 pm

    I could suggest that many people receiving welfare entitlements have a real need to augment their income somehow. It’s a need for many, given the scandalously low level of payments, and therefore morally justifiable.

    Can’t quite see the same moral justification for tax fraud or dodging though. Not that, that stops an inverted moral argument infecting public discourse – the worthy, generally morally upstanding earners and the feckless a-moral or even criminal poor.

    If those on welfare entitlements are scamming to get an extra, desperately needed buck, then isn’t it time for all and sundry to get up in arms about immorally low payment levels? btw – my understanding is that a fraudulent welfare claim results in the entire claim being regarded as fraudulent and then the total of legitimate and dishonest component of the claim are added together to arrive at the total $ amount of the alleged fraud.
    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 16.1

      9 February 2014 at 12:33 pm

      +1 Bill

      Yes, while dishonesty is dishonesty and a behaviour I would like to see entirely discouraged and avoided – I agree with you that there are substantial differences between someone with very little ‘working the system’ to get enough to get by on and someone with HEAPs ‘working the system’ so they can have MORE.
17. Tracey 17

    9 February 2014 at 1:43 pm

    Mickey

    Your graph needs to be a poster…

    Labour need to be shown it alot. They might finally stand up on behalf of the former workers now unlucky enough to be on benefits. Lets not tar the majority with the minority…. j less we accept all business owners are crooks cos of the tax fraudsters.
    • mickysavage 17.1

      9 February 2014 at 2:06 pm

      Sourced by the looks of it from Jacinda Ardern and I agree Tracey it should be made a poster. BLiP?
18. freedom 18

    9 February 2014 at 1:46 pm

    Should we dare mention to Mr Grant the majority of his large scale ‘benefit fraud’ is actually committed by, or implicitly involves, people employed by the Ministry or its agencies and these crimes involving tens of thousands of tax dollars are rarely crimes committed by beneficiaries of the welfare system?

    When it is a bona fide beneficiary, it has been regularly proven to be involving much smaller figures, often only a few hundred dollars and many of these are simple accounting discrepancies within the ever-changing Ministry processes.

    As we well know, when hate speech is brewing, facts will only spoil the flavour
    • Damien Grant 18.1

      9 February 2014 at 2:03 pm

      “should we dare mention to Mr Grant the majority of his large scale ‘benefit fraud’ is actually committed by, or implicitly involves, people employed by the Ministry or its agencies and these crimes involving tens of thousands of tax dollars are rarely crimes committed by beneficiaries of the welfare system?”

      I have not seen this reported anywhere; this would change the nature of the crime from benefit fraud to something like ‘theft as a servant’. It was not mentioned in the Marriott report.
      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 18.1.1

        9 February 2014 at 2:24 pm

        “I have not seen this reported anywhere”

        I don’t blame you for not reading the papers or watching TV news – I am guessing you, more than most, will appreciate how much misinformation is embedded in these misinformation sources

        http://www.verify.co.nz/news-theftnz.php#FortyFive

        “Forty-five WINZ staff dismissed for $2.2 million of fraud
        20 May 2007

        Between 2001 and 2006, Work & Income dismissed 45 of its staff for frauds committed against the Government welfare agency. In most instances the frauds involved employees claiming welfare benefits for themselves, whilst they were working for WINZ. Some staff colluded with friends and family to pay them benefits to which they were not entitled to. More than $2.2 million was stolen.”

        Also:

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4839741/WINZ-unit-fails-to-stop-staff-fraud

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9087915/Home-detention-for-Winz-fraud
      • freedom 18.1.2

        9 February 2014 at 2:44 pm

        “I have not seen this reported anywhere;”

        Odd, the NZH has printed streams of words about it numerous times, if memory serves, just last year in fact. Though usually the stories have disguised the little details, like how the crime actually transpired. Most often this bit is just left to the readers’ imaginations.

        Tiresome though they be, sometimes facts are buried in the last few lines so as not to offend those who believe headlines are more important. You are correct about the difference in offences. Those who were part of the Ministry or an agency thereof, do most certainly get charged under another crime, but the beneficiaries who were caught up in the crime, often younger family members pressured into the scam, they get charged under the benefit fraud that makes the figures you love look so attractive to those promoting the agenda of beneficiary bashing. Do you see the problem there? Without the upper level assistance, the fraud could not have happened. But to keep the hate speech growing the victims of the fraud get treated very differently than the designers of it. No-one wants to be reminded about well paid employees of the state doing bad things. Not when there are lazy bludgers to …well… bludgeon.

        Can I be bothered doing your job for you and researching the links and delivering them to your plate, frankly no. You can hire me to locate it for you. $1200 a day should do it, plus g.s.t and an allowance of $45 an hour for my computer time. Then, at least for a while I can stop receiving the $223.70 a week I survive on. I estimate a three to five week turn around for the data. In return you will get a well presented openly biased self-opined paragraph, maybe two.
        • Damien Grant 18.1.2.1

          9 February 2014 at 3:16 pm

          Dear freedom,

          I am unsure that this fact changes the thesis of my column, but in any event, I dispute that there was any hate speech. Contrast that with the ‘fraudster, moron, vile..’ that is used liberally on this site.

          In any event, thanks for your offer of assistance but I may pass up on it for now.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.2.1.1

            9 February 2014 at 3:33 pm

            Since you were unaware of this fact, how many other facts have eluded you on the short journey to your opinion? I say “your” opinion, but of course, it isn’t; you’re just another parrot, squawking away.

            Oh, and your self-confessed desire to create a class of legally defined sub-humans is well beyond the day-to-day hate speech that we get around here.
          • mickysavage 18.1.2.1.2

            9 February 2014 at 3:33 pm

            Damien I would be interested in your response to the contents of the post. Perhaps you could comment on:

            1. Your figures do not seem to match up to the research. For instance the rate of imprisonment for tax fraud appears to be a third of that for welfare fraud.
            2. Can you comment on whether the average for the amount involved for welfare fraud where incarceration happens is $67k 0r $130k?
            3. As noted by Stephanie above it appears that welfare fraudsters get much longer periods of incarceration per dollar involved than tax fraudsters.
            4. How can someone be considered to be a “net contributor” when they have taken such large amounts of money from the state?
            • Damien Grant 18.1.2.1.2.1

              9 February 2014 at 5:31 pm

              Mickey;

              1 and 2) I got the data from Lisa Marriott’s study so I can’t go further; it is a really nice piece of research; accessible and easy to read and understand.

              http://sydney.edu.au/law/parsons/ATTA/docs_pdfs/conference_papers/Marriott.pdf
              http://www.victoria.ac.nz/research/expertise/business-commerce/fraud-sentencing

              3) does not appear to be a question but a statement and yes, this was the point of the Marriott paper

              4) The debate, raised by Jacinda Ardern and others, goes beyond the obvious criminal tax activity of GST rorts etc and towards creative accounting of the sort that allows Facebook and others to pay very little tax.

              I was arguing that firms like Facebook, even if they pay little income tax, would (I am making an assumption here) pay large amounts of other tax; GST; customs etc. A wealthy surgeon, such as the likes of Penny and Hooper, were paying a lot more tax in absolute terms than the average citizen; so I was arguing that they had not actually taken anything; merely that they had failed to pay what everyone wanted them to.

              Remember; I am from the ‘tax is theft’ school of thought; so not paying tax means avoiding getting robbed. This is very different from the socialist view of the world that prevails here and I accept that; to a sense we are talking past each other because our underlying assumptions are completely different.

              I hope that helps.

              Love the vulture picture, by the way!

              Damien
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                9 February 2014 at 5:35 pm

                It isn’t a school. It isn’t thought.
              • fender …

                9 February 2014 at 5:40 pm

                “Tax is theft”

                So take the crown to court, like they took you to court (and won). If you fail to win the case, please fuck off beyond the NZ EEZ permanently.
                • srylands …

                  9 February 2014 at 5:44 pm

                  Charming
                  • McFlock …

                    9 February 2014 at 6:13 pm

                    says the robot that three hours ago typed “Stop acting like a fucking idiot.”

                    Have you switched back to insisting that people only use nice language while you advocate for policies that kill babies?
                  • bad12 …

                    9 February 2014 at 6:46 pm

                    SSLands you should go with Him, set up a little colony in Vanuatu, i hear they don’t have much in the way of a tax system,

                    They don’t have much in the way of anything else either and it will probably only take you and that other dickhead 10 or so years to make the connection between a tax system paved roads and a zillion other things that make up a functioning society far above the level of the stone-age than one that is barely two steps away…
              • Psycho Milt …

                9 February 2014 at 5:48 pm

                Remember; I am from the ‘tax is theft’ school of thought;

                I quote this in case anyone thought I was being unfair in calling you a libertarian idiot. Actually, I should apologise – based on the above, a more appropriate term would have been ‘naive, narcissistic libertarian idiot.’
              • McFlock …

                9 February 2014 at 5:49 pm

                you’re the ultimate freeloader – you get the benefits of social cooperation but try as hard as possible to avoid contributing.

                And when it comes to the crunch, you’ll be like Ayn Rand and take social welfare assistance.

                A vulture feeds on carrion – dead things. You’re more like ringworm or other parasites.

                I was arguing that they had not actually taken anything; merely that they had failed to pay what everyone wanted them to.

                So they accept the contract to do business in this country, yet refuse to abide by the full terms of that contract, and you think that’s fine.
              • Lee Churchman …

                9 February 2014 at 10:17 pm

                Remember; I am from the ‘tax is theft’ school of thought; so not paying tax means avoiding getting robbed.

                The principle here is “garbage in, garbage out”. If you start with a patently ridiculous principle, you aren’t likely to end up with a sensible political program.
              • KJT …

                10 February 2014 at 9:27 pm

                Tax is payment for living in a functioning and cohesive society.

                If you object to paying for it, then, you are, of course, welcome to leave.
          • Bill 18.1.2.1.3

            9 February 2014 at 3:33 pm

            Are you capable of engaging in any exchange around the details or substance of the argument you penned? Or is it all you can do to heft throw away lines along the avenue of – ‘didn’t know it – didn’t see it – I deny it – oh, and before I forget, did I say it’s about me, me, me, me!!!’?

            edit – i see ms has offered some concrete starting points
          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 18.1.2.1.4

            9 February 2014 at 3:38 pm

            @ Damien Grant

            Calling someone a moron is not hate speech, you moron; do you get anything correct?

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech
          • McFlock 18.1.2.1.5

            9 February 2014 at 4:28 pm

            dipshit,
            the only word in your list used against a group of people as opposed to your odious self is “fraud”. Tax evasion is fraud.

            As an accomplished fuckwit, you obviously are incapable of distinguishing “hate speech” (speech designed to encourage hate against a group of people), “abuse” (you fucking dickhead) and “avoiding euphemism” (calling it “fraud” rather than “evasion” or “technically over-reaching the bounds of legitemate minimisation”). You great steaming turd.
            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 18.1.2.1.5.1

              9 February 2014 at 5:01 pm

              Very well said McFlock
          • Paul 18.1.2.1.6

            9 February 2014 at 8:36 pm

            How on earth does the Herald give sociopaths like you a public voice?
            • McFlock 18.1.2.1.6.1

              9 February 2014 at 8:47 pm

              Because it’s owned by the rich.

              Anyone who doesn’t believe in class warfare just needs to see that the rich employ this fuckwit to make the poor feel better about being fucked.
              • Sacha …

                9 February 2014 at 8:57 pm

                Surely it’s to make the rich feel better about being selfish twats.
19. Psycho Milt 19

    9 February 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Grant’s a libertarian idiot. It’s like Shelley Bridgeman had a sex change and the testosterone made her obnoxious and overly-fond of Ayn Rand.
    • phillip ure 19.1

      9 February 2014 at 5:35 pm

      does grant know that rand was a welfare-claimant..(in her words..)..’a leech’..?

      ..and for many many years..?

      ..(kinda like marx taking up white-slavery (or becoming a bankruptcy-lawyer?)..as a later career-option..)

      ..not many rand-ites know that fact about their hero(ine)..

      ..and seeing as grant seems to know s.f.a. about not much..in total..

      ..and even gets those few ‘facts’ he has wrong..

      ..this is offered to him as an act of public-service..

      ..phillip ure..
      • greywarbler 19.1.1

        10 February 2014 at 4:56 pm

        phillip ure
        Could I have the link with that bit about AynRand being the recipient of welfare? Thanks
        • McFlock 19.1.1.1

          10 February 2014 at 5:10 pm

          here, footnote 89 for a start
          • greywarbler 19.1.1.1.1

            10 February 2014 at 5:56 pm

            Thanks McFlock and phillip for mentioning it.
    • Bill 19.2

      9 February 2014 at 6:11 pm

      PM He may be an idiot and is probably a corporatist leach. One thing he isn’t, is a libertarian. (Oh, I know that in the US, libertarianism is a label appropriated by the far right. But it’s a solidly left tradition that has fuck all in common with the professed realities and ideas of the Damien Grants’ of this world.)
20. instauration 20

    9 February 2014 at 5:49 pm

    Is this the same Mr Damien Grant – director of Waterstone Insolvency ?
    I trust the returns that he furnishes to the IRD are prepared with the same integrity as those to the Companies Office ?
    So what is this directors residential address. ? – the heart of Albany industrial and the same as Mr Khov ?
    • Damien Grant 20.1

      9 February 2014 at 6:01 pm

      why do you want to know where I live?
      • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.1

        9 February 2014 at 6:09 pm

        It’s a pretty straightforward inquiry: if your residential address differs from that supplied, that goes to your credibility, and your trustworthiness. Or criminality.
      • instauration 20.1.2

        9 February 2014 at 6:10 pm

        I just want to get a measure of your integrity with official returns to Government departments.
        • Damien Grant 20.1.2.1

          9 February 2014 at 6:21 pm

          Hmmm.

          I think that this has taken a rather unpleasant turn. You are no longer debating this issue.

          Remember, you have the advantage of anonymity, I do not. I would prefer, it is really only my preference, I cannot stop you, that we keep this debate on the matters at hand.

          There is a large difference between looking me up on various government databases and making it known to me that you are doing so.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.2.1.1

            9 February 2014 at 6:39 pm

            Things took an unpleasant turn when you suggested making untermensch before the law. Suck it up.
          • instauration 20.1.2.1.2

            9 February 2014 at 6:44 pm

            We all need to play by the rules Damien.
            Even Dame Sian has made adjustments in this regard. Lulu Zhang was rebuked too, under section 12 2(b) of the Companies Act.
21. karol 21

    9 February 2014 at 6:20 pm

    from reading Damien’s stuff, i conclude:

    He only cares about himself, and maybe also his children.

    He doesn’t give a shit if some people are struggling to survive on very little.

    He doesn’t give a shit that he could not be as well off as he is without all the infrastructure of society.

    He doesn’t give a shit about the way businesses (led by the corporates) get people to work for them for too little pay, so the corporate top dogs can siphon off more profits than any one person needs.

    Selfishness and greed.
    • Sacha 21.1

      9 February 2014 at 6:27 pm

      “Selfishness and greed” – and repeatedly promoting those is nothing but immoral. Fortunately Act’s polling suggests about 99% of New Zealanders agree. Why our major media outlets give such a fringe religion so much coverage, I don’t know. Many people deserve that megaphone far more.
    • Paul 21.2

      9 February 2014 at 6:33 pm

      And the Herald, now confirmed as a racist rag, publishes the poison he writes.
      • karol 21.2.1

        9 February 2014 at 6:37 pm

        Instead, the MSM should be publishing more stuff like this blog post; “Who needs a break?’

        It begins:

        So we have two very interesting articles in the papers today. Colin Espiner at Fairfax thinks our minimum wage should be $16 and Damien Grant at NZ Herald we should cut tax cheats some slack because they contribute to society. This divide created between the job creators and the job doers suggests that one is more superior to the others. When Elizabeth Warren in her famous quote said that the so-called job creators didn’t just do it on their own, she was telling the truth that those at the top and their advocates do not want to hear. From the day labourer to the PHD, everyone contributes to society. It’s off the backs of their hard work, their education, their brain, their hands, their words that we as society get to develop, we get to progress, we invent new things, we mass produce those inventions, we come up with new ideas, we get interesting novels, movies, tv shows and songs. Sure the marketplace has decided that laptops are more valuable than chocolate cake and maybe they are, but the marketplace has failed spectacularly when it comes to compensating for ‘hard work’ fairly. Maybe the 85 people who have the wealth of half the world’s population really work as hard as half the world’s population and had exactly the same opportunities as half the world’s population but somehow I really doubt it.
    • Bill 21.3

      9 February 2014 at 7:14 pm

      Karol, if you read the political belief’s of the 30s coming out of the likes of Germany, Italy or Spain, then you’d see exactly what Damien is channeling.

      Calling him out for being ‘selfish and greedy’ is being far too charitable.
      • karol 21.3.1

        9 February 2014 at 7:22 pm

        well, as you’ve pointed out above, so called “libertarians” these days talk individual responsibility but treat corporations as individual entities. A strange mix of contradictory beliefs used to justify the wealth and power of the corporate-backed elites.
22. Paul 22

    9 February 2014 at 6:32 pm

    Folk like Damien Grant are sociopaths.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1

      9 February 2014 at 6:36 pm

      Yes, but not all sociopaths become convicted criminals who excuse tax fraud with self-serving sophistry, like Damien.
23. Damien Grant 23

    9 February 2014 at 7:06 pm

    Have to go;

    thanks Mr Savage and Stephanie.

    Work to do.
    • Bill 23.1

      9 February 2014 at 7:10 pm

      Brown shorts need ironing, do they?
      • phillip ure 23.1.1

        9 February 2014 at 11:01 pm

        @ bill..

        ..heh..!

        phillip ure..
      • McFlock 23.1.2

        9 February 2014 at 11:57 pm

        or need washing – he might have given the companies office the wrong address.

        Anyone know how to get in touch with macready? 🙂
    • Sacha 23.2

      9 February 2014 at 7:11 pm

      Yes, and some questions up the page might take more than a quick flippant answer.
24. North 24

    9 February 2014 at 7:53 pm

    There is no such thing as a “libertarian”……….entirely fictional beast. There is however a beast called a “lubertarian”. Think about it. To do with the world readying itself to be fucked by the money man. Grant is the gleefully narcissistic exemplar.
25. North 25

    9 February 2014 at 8:07 pm

    Oh sorry, I forgot to mention the expectation of “Thank you, Sir” in the denouement.
26. irascible 26

    9 February 2014 at 9:20 pm

    I reckon this piece from The Guardian provides the perfect response to Grant’s assertions that tax fraud deserves praise from the public because by doing so they’re contributing to the economy.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/05/benefits-debate-politicians-moral-obligations
27. Murray Olsen 27

    9 February 2014 at 11:07 pm

    Damien Grant is, at best, an amoral criminal. At worst, he is a creepy sociopath who thinks the answers to any problems can be found in a cute little treatise from Bavaria. He should not be given the time of day. I can only think that he is worried about being investigated by IRD and is preparing his defence in advance.
28. Philj 28

    10 February 2014 at 7:44 am

    Xox
    I reckon Damien is trying the ‘shock Jock’ form of writing (I won’t refer to it as journalism). It’s unbalanced, blinkered and unworthy of a National publication. It also frames the issue in a distorted and mischievous way.
29. bad12 29

    10 February 2014 at 8:58 am

    The whole thrust of Grant’s argument,(if we can really call such writing that), is that those who engage in an insolvency of a company and later are convicted of fraudulent activity surrounding that insolvency should not by Government regulation be barred from practicing in the field of insolvency for life,

    Grant using the Herald as an advertorial in a fit of naked self interest,

    The second point of note, Grants assertion that those involved in the multi-billion dollar tax fraud industry should suffer little punishment can only be answered via a pointed question,

    Has Mr Grant a relative currently under investigation by the IRD for major tax fraud and if the answer to that query is in the negative, has Mr Grant a close friend or business associate suffering such an investigation by the IRD???,

    Grants, at the least stupid, more likely a smoke and mirrors attempt to hide the real intent of His Herald article, assertion that Benefit Fraudsters should face harsher consequences than Tax Fraudsters rests solely on Grants false belief that Beneficiaries Never contribute to the tax base,

    Such an assertion is patently bullshit as the vast majority of beneficiaries make use of the benefit system for short terms while between jobs thus making the whole basis of the assertion one of abject stupidity,

    But then Grant knows this, which would tend to suggest that the whole reason for penning such an article lies in Grants own naked self interest, being rational i think the ‘wing-nuts’ call it…
30. Christine 30

    10 February 2014 at 10:38 am

    People buying and selling through the shadow economy aka the cash economy is not being included in the extensive conversation about inequality and tax bludgers. The seller benefits because the income earned is ‘tax free’. The buyer benefits because the product or service is cheaper. The taxpayer (all of us) don’t benefit because no tax is paid.

    The IRD probably don’t chase it because its too widespread throughout the economy and because the amount of tax that can be recovered from any single tax payer is too small to warrant the effort to prove.

    Here’s an example from my experience. I got some work done on my house by a painter, I provided the paint. He charged me $500 under the table for his labour or $650 if I needed an invoice. Agreeing to pay cash, I got the job done for $150 cheaper. Interestingly the painter is benefiting as well. Assuming he was operating through a company, had I asked for an invoice, he would have passed on 15% for the GST portion ($84.78) and 28% for the net of GST portion in company tax ($158.26). The painter would have retained $406.96 and the tax payer would have got $243.04. Because I paid him cash, he got $93.04 more than he would have had he put it through his books.

    Think about all the people providing cleaning services, lawnmowing or gardening services, dressmaking etc. who are not operating businesses just doing some work on the side to improve their overall income. In all the discussion about inequality and income comparison, none of us know who is getting what additional income through the cash economy. We can all operate in this economy, we know it is rampart and impossible to stop. Some people will think it is morally wrong others will see no wrong in it because the taxpayer is a faceless ‘person’.

    I think it is wrong that it is not acknowledged and taken into account in the discussion about inequality.
31. greywarbler 31

    10 February 2014 at 4:50 pm

    The black economy which I understand is the one where you don’t pay tax, under the table etc. It certainly is tempting when people are short of money, both the one getting the work done, and the one receiving it.

    This is often a personal transaction.

    But businesses are going in for barter. How is that a help to the economy? I believe it is quite big in some places.
32. tricledrown 32

    10 February 2014 at 6:27 pm

    Damien Grant
    Democracy has allowed people with different viewd to you selfish trickledown policies to redristribute wealth.
    This has happened in NZ since the Sefdon govt.
    That is why NZ is famous for its caring attitude.
    Damien the Devils advocate want us to Go back to Dickensian days deliberately putting people into poverty to the same level asthird world countries.
33. NZ Jester 33

    10 February 2014 at 9:52 pm

    I love how Damien tries to make out that it is the businesses paying all that GST to tip the scales to look like the rich are paying the largest share of the tax collected by the government.
    All the business I know claim all the GST back on all items purchased in New Zealand and so pay no actual GST at all. A lot of those at the top end of a business also tend to pay out a lot less in food bills per year also by having a lot of Dinner and Lunch meeting so that the bill can be booked up to their company.
    With all the tax loopholes most rich people even though they are getting more money per head per year tend to end up paying far less per head in GST and other taxes than the average low income New Zealander has had to pay to the government.
    The majority of the GST comes from people with the least amount of money.
    • phillip ure 33.1

      12 February 2014 at 8:36 am

      @ nz jester..+1..

      phillip ure..
34. Claris Moses 34

    11 February 2014 at 8:51 am

    It is wrong that tax thieves deserve lesser custodial sentences or penalties.

    Thinking about it, they would feel harder done by if they are hit in the pockets.
    Apparently these people contribute the most to society so let them prove that.

    A plan could be that they first repay all of the tax they have stolen.

    Then we match them up with so called benefit fraudsters and they give these people jobs which pay more than the living wage of $18.40 an hour for at least a 40 hours week. The number of beneficiaries given jobs should have a direct correlation to the amount which was stolen by the tax thief.

    That way they could honestly say that both the tax thieves and the beneficiary fraudsters would contribute to society rather than be under the suspicion that they squirrel away any stolen money for a luxurious lifestyle.
35. minarch 35

    12 February 2014 at 2:02 pm

    Damien should be careful for what he wishes for

    Under a true libertarian regime there would be no regular police force to protect Damien and his privileged friends. How long do you think that electric gate and ornate high walls you live behind will keep out those bent a VERY rapid redistribution of YOUR wealth ,

    hows that for “trickle down ”

    And yes under a libertarian regime you would be able to keep firearms to defend yourself, but it takes a lot more than ideals to pull that trigger Damian, do you think your actually capable of surviving in that kind of environment, from what Ive seen I doubt it…

    Oh and how long do you think the rent-a-cops libertarians would have replace the police would hang around for when shit gets real ?
    • McFlock 35.1

      12 February 2014 at 2:19 pm

      Damien thinks the government will supply the cops to protect him. The trouble is that it’s cheaper for the government to lower crime by providing social services than it is to put armed police on every street corner, which is what you need in times of social breakdown. Because when the government does not provide those social structures, other groups step into the vacuum. CF Somalia and the West Bank vs Gaza strip.
    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 35.2

      12 February 2014 at 2:34 pm

      +1 Minarch

      I don’t think Damien has the nous to work these things out – just swallows what his masters tells him hook, line and sinker.

      How generous of spirit is was of you to have spelt these things out for him – considering he works in the media – he has probably never heard of such things – they only deal with out-dated modes of dinosaur-like thinking and slogans passed to them from powerful interests as I understand (and observe) it.
36. minarch 36

    12 February 2014 at 3:09 pm

    Damien should really pay more attention to the REST of the worlds media

    http://rt.com/news/argentina-mass-looting-police-021/

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS