Good for the goose

Written By: - Date published: 7:04 am, April 2nd, 2013 - 90 comments
Categories: class war, wages - Tags:

As you know, the Right says more money incentivises harder work. John Key felt he wasn’t working very hard when he first became PM on a net $250,000 a year, so he gave himself tax cuts and pay rises worth $100 a day. Just look at the results!

But I’m confused: why’s he cutting our pay with youth wages, higher Kiwisaver, and higher student loan repayments? Is it that rich people work harder when they get more money and poor people work harder when they get less?

I guess the elite really do see us as a different species – mules, I suppose. And I see them as a different species but for different reasons and as a different species – leeches.

90 comments on “Good for the goose ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. halfcrown 1
    2 April 2013 at 7:15 am

    That’s an insult to Leeches, They are just blood sucking arseholes

    • The Al1en 1.1
      2 April 2013 at 7:50 am

      The twilight saga characters that never made it past the cutting room, but weta workshop have the rights to the animated movie.

  2. Ennui 2
    2 April 2013 at 8:04 am

    What is sauce for the goose will definitely be sauce for the gander, and if you read Kunstler this morning you will realise that nobody will be incented by working harder soon because there wont be much money to spread around and suck up.

    Myself, I am off to work this morning to look hard at the books, the annuity and sales revenues, the cost lines and how we can extend our profitable existence into the financial storm…which means who has to go, what can and cant be done etc. Employees will suffer first, then the owners pockets will suffer. The whole thing focuses the mind on thinning blood.

    Our story is the same as most employers. As those on this site line up to demand work, demand how the tax on non existent profit is spent, how to ameliorate social conditions, and how to carry on sucking on the diminishing public purse for pet projects,: you might want to consider that the motor is misfiring and may soon stop.

    In short, all leeches, left or right ought to suck hard and fast in the near future because the blood is drying up.

  3. vto 3
    2 April 2013 at 8:12 am

    .
    The creed espoused by the right and the National Party is dishonest and bankrupt.

    • Tim 3.1
      2 April 2013 at 10:03 am

      Indeed! As Zetetic makes the point – in NActs creed, High pay = Hard work. Minimum pay simply means we’re not working hard enough (just like all those aged care workers, nurses, road workers, etc.)
      Their creed also states that Shrewd gamblers = shrewd negotiators (as the likes of Paddy Gower keep trying to push whilst advocating for them).

  4. Chris 4
    2 April 2013 at 8:48 am

    Why is higher Kiwisaver suddenly a bad thing according to Labour and now apparently people on this site. Labour orignally set it at 4% and complained when National dropped the rate.

    I’ve always thought that even 4% was too low – does anyone know what Australia’s rate is? I have a feeling it’s like 7% or something similar.

    • shorts 4.1
      2 April 2013 at 9:15 am

      its no bad thing, it is a political thing…. National “backing down” and labour trying to make hay of that fact

      • Joe Bloggs 4.1.1
        2 April 2013 at 2:04 pm

        such hypocrisy from the Left…

        Labour complained bitterly about National dropping the minimum contribution from 4% to 2%

        And Labour’s policy is to make contributions compulsory so struggling workers have no choice in the matter.

        • Chris 4.1.1.1
          2 April 2013 at 2:58 pm

          You could at least change the words a little bit when copy and pasting from Kiwiblog

          • QoT 4.1.1.1.1
            2 April 2013 at 8:02 pm

            Typical leftie, expecting Joe Bloggs to work for free.

          • Joe Bloggs 4.1.1.1.2
            3 April 2013 at 11:20 am

            why change the wording? It remains rank hypocrisy no matter how much icing you smear over it.

            Incidentally I see David Shearer endorsed the Kiwisaver contribution increase on this week’s Breakfast programme, and he endorsed National targeting science and engineering in its loans and education policies.

            If it’s good enough for Shearer to endorse then it good enough for me. Enough arse-kissing – can I have my hidden offshore bank account now?

  5. infused 5
    2 April 2013 at 9:04 am

    When a youth doesn’t have a job, how is it cutting their pay?

    It’s funny how kiwisaver at 3% is now a bad thing eh? Chris their rate is 8%

    Student loans, maybe they should get such big loans then. The repayment incentive should have been kept though.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 5.1
      2 April 2013 at 9:31 am

      There’s no minimum amount employees have to pay in Australia. Employee contributions are voluntary.

      The 9% is paid by the employer. This was lifted to 9% when employers got tax cuts. The tax cuts were moved into compulsory super payments for their staff.

      I’m more than supportive of employers paying 9% in line with Australia. Reminder too that NZ employers have already had the benefit of the tax cuts for a number of years now.

      http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/pathway.aspx?pc=001/002/064&alias=super

      • freedom 5.1.1
        2 April 2013 at 2:52 pm

        “had the benefit of the tax cuts for a number of years now.”
        SNAP QUIZ
        What do you get if you multiply the tax cuts by four years?

        yes, that’s right kids
        No credible reason to sell the Assets and incontravertable proof that NActs are treasonous scum

    • Richard Down South 5.2
      2 April 2013 at 11:40 am

      Higher kiwisaver alone, isnt a bad thing, however, when minimum wage rises by 25c, you get a 1.85% increase in your wages, but over 1/2 of that goes to kiwisaver…

  6. TightyRighty 6
    2 April 2013 at 10:11 am

    So saving for your own retirement, paying back the loan you took to earn the higher wage in the first place and pricing the youth back into the job market are “cutting your pay packet”?

    Saving for your own retirement – this will give you a nest egg later in life. which can supplement your super. and afford you a better quality of living at a time in your life when you deserve to enjoy the fruits of your labour. Remember a dollar saved today gives you a dollar + X in the future. This will also help reduce our reliance on the foreign banks you are so fond of hating.

    Paying back the loan you took to earn the higher wage – this will reduce the outstanding loan amount sooner. enabling more money in your pay packet later in life. Wow, paying back something you owe, what a novel thought. Being interest free and all, the actual value of your loan is decreasing by 2.5% roughly any way. increasing the payment amounts by 2% is a fair way to claw back the inflation loss for the government without charging interest.

    Pricing the youth back into the market – not really cutting there pay packet is it? sort of giving them a pay packet really.

    • millsy 6.1
      2 April 2013 at 10:48 am

      Youth need to be able to pay bills, rent etc. Youth rates will not make them able to do that. All they will end up doing is slogging their guts out, and barely getting enough to pay for the gas to get them to work.

      And we need to keep the costs down for students, education is a social good, right wing scum.

      • Lanthanide 6.1.1
        2 April 2013 at 10:56 am

        Youth Rates only apply for the first 6 months.

        Actually Youth Rates already existed anyway, but they were capped at something like 140 hours or 3 months, whichever was the latter. Imo they should have moved it to 140 hours and 6 months whichever was the latter.

        • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1
          2 April 2013 at 11:24 am

          Er, it was previously something like 140 hours or 3 months, whichever was the earlier.

          IMO it should have been changed to 140 hours or 6 months, whicher was the earlier.

      • TightyRighty 6.1.2
        2 April 2013 at 12:07 pm

        Dozy left wing loser. You call that an argument? If you have a student loan you are a prime reason to claw the monies back faster. So stupid you’ll forget to breathe

        • Tim 6.1.2.1
          2 April 2013 at 2:34 pm

          And you’d call foul if we clawed back the cost of all those who benefited from Tertiary Study pre-student loans period would you? I’m picking that would be a YES

          • Tim 6.1.2.1.1
            2 April 2013 at 2:37 pm

            I’m hoping you’ll say yes on the basis of it “being a matter of principle” – ESPECIALLY in light of the ‘principle’ applied to events since this term of government [read reality TV show] has taken place.

          • TightyRighty 6.1.2.1.2
            2 April 2013 at 3:04 pm

            No, I wouldn’t cry foul. I don’t really see how it would be workable though. I have a student loan, i’d love to share some of the burden. I have a funny feeling that any government that proposed that wouldn’t be a government for long. Maybe its why this government wants more people to contribute to their retirement? in the past they’ve benefited from government largesse before.

            Stop guessing my opinions on things. You lefties are very quick to ascribe a certain outcome of opinion to people that you don’t even know. I don’t even know what your comment below means. Fucking numpty.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      2 April 2013 at 12:11 pm

      This will also help reduce our reliance on the foreign banks you are so fond of hating.

      No it won’t due to the vagaries of a debt based monetary system. Every dollar saved is a dollar taken out of circulation which means that another dollar plus interest will need to be borrowed taking us even further into debt.

      Paying back the loan you took to earn the higher wage

      IMO, Society benefits more from the person being educated than the person does and so that education should be freely available.

      Pricing the youth back into the market

      Doesn’t happen. This has been proved a number of times now – a low minimum wage and lower youth wages result in higher unemployment due to less demand.

      The problem with reducing everything to money is we forget the true value of things.

      • TightyRighty 6.2.1
        2 April 2013 at 2:42 pm

        I completely disagree with all your assertions Draco.

        A dollar saved is not a dollar taken out. the most basic premise of economics, the opportunity cost tells us this is wrong. The opportunity cost of spending the dollar we have to today is not having that dollar + x interest in the future. Interest is earned for you by the banks loaning the money out. So every domestic dollar saved is one less domestic dollar we don’t need to borrow offshore. Also, as consumer based lending gets tighter due to the increased saving, we see the effect of increased investement in capital producing items. which then means a dollar saved is worth to society 1 + x(y) in the future. Yeah!! economics bitch.

        Society benefits from having all these marketing and arts grads how? Nurses, doctors, Lawyers, financial geniuses absolutely. History masters, yes. philosophy doctorates, brilliant. but the sheer quantity of BA and BCA grads? just pouring off overseas to not pay back their loans? Your opinion, while you are entitled to it, is wrong.

        Youth wages encourage youth employment, especially for menial jobs like flipping burgers and cooking chips. filling grocery bags. Your theory on a low minimum wage may have some merit in small economies, but it doesn’t flow through to youth wages which price inexperienced workers out of the market.

        The problem with thinking in fuzzy non-quantifiable terms is that you forget the true cost of things. things with no cost can’t achieve any value.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1
          2 April 2013 at 2:45 pm

          They’re not assertions – I’ve linked to the research several times before.

          As for having too many artists (which I don’t believe) then we should probably to something about our woeful R&D and manufacturing. As long as we continue to only do farming in the country then people doing studies that don’t want to do farming will look for alternatives and not find any.

          • TightyRighty 6.2.1.1.1
            2 April 2013 at 3:01 pm

            I agree with that. But how are we going to fund these things? maybe an investement by a mysterious institution with money looking to make a return? Maybe groups of investors can invest in capital increasing mechanisms then spare some of the increase in capital to fund research and development of newer, better capital producing products. WOW.

            at least your arguments, even if wrong are better than millsy. Stupid fucking left wing toady loser.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2013 at 4:42 pm

              maybe an investement by a mysterious institution with money looking to make a return?

              You mean like the taxpayers through their agent the government?

              • TightyRighty …
                2 April 2013 at 4:48 pm

                Taxpayers through the government mandated scheme using third party vehicles that possess the right expertise and incentives? Yes

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  2 April 2013 at 4:56 pm

                  Sounds good, doesn’t it? “The right expertise and incentives” – I think you may have meant to say “correct”, because let’s face it, if they were “right” they’d probably be a bit challenged.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  2 April 2013 at 7:46 pm

                  Why go to the added expense of using third party vehicles? Just hire the expertise directly – far cheaper as it doesn’t have all that dead weight loss of profit.

        • One Tāne Huna 6.2.1.2
          2 April 2013 at 3:21 pm

          “Society benefits from having all these marketing and arts grads how? ”

          So you think The Hobbit is a waste of society’s time now, yeah? So hard keeping up with those shifting goalposts.

          PS: What Sir Bob said.

          • TightyRighty 6.2.1.2.1
            2 April 2013 at 3:31 pm

            What have BA’s got to do with the hobbit? Jesus wept, this will be a stretch.

            I agree with Bob to. I’d rather hire someone with a BA than a BCA if it’s a general position.

            • One Tāne Huna 6.2.1.2.1.1
              2 April 2013 at 3:41 pm

              Um, computer graphic design and model making/sculpture are two examples. Don’t you know anything?

              PS: scriptwriting, makeup, lighting, special effects, the fucking novel…

              PPS: perhaps poor Tighty thinks lawyers and accountants did all the work 😆

              PPPS: I agree with Sir Bob *too, you illiterate gimp.

              • McFlock …
                2 April 2013 at 3:46 pm

                not to mention all that acting, filming, writing/adapting for screen – you know, arts.

                Next TR will ask what BComs have to do with tax dodging.

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  2 April 2013 at 4:03 pm

                  PPPPS: What’s the matter Tighty? You’re very quiet all of a sudden 😀

                  • TightyRighty …
                    2 April 2013 at 4:57 pm

                    hey lprent, you hate it when people call people out for not lurking moar on the standard all day. Guess the rules do not apply to the tards like this idiot who thinks using a post script abbreviation so many times has a place outside a romcom.

                    Calling me out me out for using to instead of too. Maybe I should lurk moar, answer your internet tough guy challenges and proof read all your comments? Use some more emoticons spud the 2nd. They really emphasize your internet awesomness. Is this what using your expensive degree that you don’t want to pay back has brought you too? being a grammar dick?

                    A lot of them actually got intern jobs, at youth rates, to get the experience to do these things properly. degrees don’t guarantee jobs. That’s why overseas talent has to be trucked in sometimes.

                    [lprent: What are you talking about? What are you asking for (apart from a spelling check). I just looked at the context for several levels up and it still makes no sense.

                    Ummm – I guess you’re trying to refer to the owned/pwned whatever stupidity. But if you are referring to the comment you replied to, he (very carefully) did not claim victory – he asked a question. In fact you could have asked the same question of me since it is 4 hours since you commented. However I run moderation sweeps usually between 4 and 6 hours apart, so you can imagine what answer I’d give.

                    Explain what you are appealing about next time and don’t waste my time trying to read your mind. ]

                    • McFlock …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:06 pm

                      lol
                      Still unclear of what BAs have got to do with the Hobbit, then?

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:14 pm

                      I’m going to agree with Tighty on this one. My response to his attack on fellow citizens was indeed vituperative and unnecessarily belittling.

                      I apologise unreservedly.

                      Do you understand why the Arts are valuable to society yet Tighty?

                    • TightyRighty …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:25 pm

                      I do get why already, having studied economics, philosophy and politics, all humanities subjects. It’s the quantity that we are churning through our universities. Some of them then sit around on left wing blog sites pontificating about shit they know nothing about. All the while imagining they are dead cool and important, yet not understood by the world because the real world won’t hire substandard pontificating arse holes.

                      You and McFlock, if that’s the arts societies dream team, Bob Jones just might be wrong. Makes me wish I took a BCA. oh wait, did too.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:39 pm

                      “It’s the quantity that we are churning through our universities. ”

                      [citation needed]

                      Let’s imagine it’s 2007, and New Zealand has it’s highest employment rate in recorded history. Obviously the academic imbalance was just lying there waiting to trip us up.

                      Subtle, Tighty, almost sophisticated.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:40 pm

                      lol

                      so basically you made a full of shit comment, and are miffed that we didn’t take it as gospel.

                      Two degrees? Wow, that’s unheard of. You must be smarter than I thought, or indeed your best IQ tests indicated.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:47 pm

                      I do get why already, having studied economics, philosophy and politics, all humanities subjects. It’s the quantity that we are churning through our universities. Some of them then sit around on left wing blog sites pontificating about shit they know nothing about.

                      Shit the irony makes me piss my pants.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:48 pm

                      “substandard pontificating arse holes.”

                      Thanks Sweety I hoped I’d touch a nerve.

                      Stop attacking New Zealanders and you won’t find me in your face so much 😀

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      2 April 2013 at 6:14 pm

                      I’m in love with TightyRighty,
                      I’m in love with TightyRighty,
                      I’m in love with Righty T!

                      Oh, TightyRighty is so sexy,
                      He’s the girl for you and me,
                      I go red when he’s on the telly,
                      ‘Cos, I think, he fancies me…”

                      Apologies to The Notsensibles.

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      2 April 2013 at 6:35 pm

                      Being a grammar dick is better than being semi-literate methinks.

                      Literary misunderstandings can make you both non-sensical and angry.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/the-many-bail-out-the-few/#comment-245107

                      I do notice though that the right pointing out that the super contributions were much higher in Oz have fallen silent since it was pointed out that the contributions were paid by the employer.

                      One can only guess that their enthusiasm to match Oz has waned.

  7. aerobubble 7
    2 April 2013 at 12:52 pm

    Fonterra is a collective, the combining of milk producers has meant better supply consistency, quality, price for consumers. so meat and wool producers want in too. What next? Students demanding fee education to deal to the exploitation they meet at the university gates?

    More kiwis would get wealthier quicker, and return to NZ faster, to buy homes, grow kids, if higher education were free. Look at Key, returned a multimillionaire. What has Key got against more Keys?

    The GFC is due to a mismatch between market valuations and real value. Real value in the great depression was represented when oil put a generation out of work due to the effects of oil on productivity (and took two world wars to unseat the systemic view that held back the market from finding real value again). Similarly today, the web is reshaping the nature of value, markets are weaken and unable to match real value sue to all the systemic interests. Take climate change, the National party denied it, and now farmers are paying the price because of the flawed incentives National feel farmers need (no CGT and water rights forever). More diary isn’t the way forward.
    More collectives in farming is!!!

    The world debt is the symptom that shows neo-liberalism up as a market failure.

    • aerobubble 7.1
      2 April 2013 at 12:53 pm

      The biggest type of market failure. Market mismatch with the underlying realities of the global economy.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.2
      2 April 2013 at 2:48 pm

      What has Key got against more Keys?

      The same thing that capitalists have against competition – it lowers profits.

  8. cricklewood 8
    2 April 2013 at 3:03 pm

    I don’t get it,

    On one hand (on Labour.co.nz) David Parker last year said…
    “That’s why Labour supports a universal KiwiSaver scheme. After five years KiwiSaver has proved a huge success. Expanding it to every employee will increase savings, which will help to grow our economy and reduce overseas debt and the current account deficit.”

    Now they are criticizing an increase in Kiwisaver contribution as taking money from those who can’t afford it, I don’t see how making it compulsary won’t have the same effect for many who have opted out because they need that $20 now.

    Has Labour’s policy changed/changing? I can’t tell from the website as it doesn’t seem to say much. Would I be correct to presume that they will make kiwisaver and the employer contribution compulsary again as well as lift the contribuiton back to 4%?

    So many conflicting messages…

    • burt 8.1
      2 April 2013 at 3:26 pm

      It’s not about what is good policy for Labour – It’s about being popular… Sadly the muppets think that all they need to do is oppose the government and they will be popular.

      Somebody should have told them the editor isn’t filtering the letters for them them anymore and their stupidity flip flopping to stay popular is laid bare in the blogs – has been for years…

      But they are dinosaurs… just waiting for their retirement doing what they have always done – say what the you think the people want to hear…..

      • cricklewood 8.1.1
        2 April 2013 at 3:44 pm

        You’re probably right, and I think people see through it and in the end they are put off more than anything.
        Would be best if any public comment was filtered through the ‘say what we mean and mean what we say.’ standard.

        For my 2 cent’s worth ,
        I would have been issuing a release saying that Labour supports the governments desicion to increase kiwisaver contributions but they don’t go far enough. Then something along the lines of Labour will be reinstating the compulsary employer contribution and increasing it in step with the employee contribution.

        It’s positive and gives a clear point of difference…

        • burt 8.1.1.1
          2 April 2013 at 9:45 pm

          Exactly, takes balls though and isn’t much chop for winning votes off National. So easier to bank on the short memories of the voters and oppose what would most likely be your own policy if in government.

          Another good example of this was the tax deductibility of donations. Labour poo-poo’d it as Nationals proposed policy referring to it as a Tory tax cut prior to an election then implemented it themselves 2 years later. Party faithful supporting them in both situations…

          You don’t need policies, just a charismatic leader and good polling information. Pitiful isn’t it.

  9. One Tāne Huna 9
    2 April 2013 at 3:39 pm

    “…elite really do see us as a different species ” Zet.

    It really bugs me when left wingers buy into right-wing frames.
    \
    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being a member of an “elite”. Excellence must be encouraged wherever it is found.

    The right, of course, want “elite” to become synonymous with “wealthy”, so as to perpetuate the myth of the deserving rich. Don’t help them.

  10. Transient Viper 10
    2 April 2013 at 4:12 pm

    The left needs to stop making this about John Key. Make it about National. As soon as we make it about JK, it forces the comparison with David Shearer.

    John Key gives that money to charity. Shearer paid NO tax, and was earning in excess of US$500,000. (Which he still has a lot of sitting in an overseas bank account.)

    • One Tāne Huna 10.1
      2 April 2013 at 4:33 pm

      Shearer paid NO (sic) tax

      [citation needed]

      Am I missing something? Has Captain Mumblefuck been cheating on his taxes?

      • unpcnzcougar 10.1.1
        2 April 2013 at 5:35 pm

        Shearer’s income from the UN was tax free. He also received free accommodation and meals, transport etc. Which begs the question – how much do you think it is possible to save over 10 years with no tax and living expenses. I think that is why he won’t disclose how much is in that US bank account.

        • One Tāne Huna 10.1.1.1
          2 April 2013 at 5:59 pm

          Citation still needed. Do you know what “citation” means? It means I don’t take random anonymous interwebz person’s word for it. Please link to a source.

          Captain Mumblefuck worked in some pretty hostile places. Are you sure “tax free” is good characterisation? It strikes me that working in such environments might be “taxing” enough to cause a man to stutter. Post traumatic stress disorder, etc…

          • unpcnzcougar 10.1.1.1.1
            2 April 2013 at 6:06 pm

            https://careers.un.org/lbw/home.aspx?viewtype=SAL

            If this one doesn’t work for you I will find some more references.

            • One Tāne Huna 10.1.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2013 at 7:22 pm

              Now be a good little wingnut and remind me who would collect the tax paid by UN workers.

            • GregJ 10.1.1.1.1.2
              2 April 2013 at 10:12 pm

              You haven’t dug deeply enough – all UN staff salaries are subject to a Staff Assesment that is deducted from their gross salary – info here and here. It can be anywhere from 25-40% of the salary.

              The raison d’être behind the Staff Assessment is explained fully here but to quote directly from the document:

              “… noted that the GA, in establishing staff assessment, had recognized two purposes: one, conceptual, i.e., given the principle that UN salaries should not be subject to national income taxation, UN staff should not be seen as a privileged group exempt from any form of income tax; and the other, practical, i.e., given the fact that some Member States nevertheless continued to impose national income tax on the UN earnings of their nationals, to provide a source from which the amounts paid by those staff members in taxes could be reimbursed to them, so as to ensure equality of treatment as between staff members, regardless of their nationality, while not imposing any additional financial burden on those Member States which did not reap returns on their contribution to the budget in the form of income taxes.”

        • felix 10.1.1.2
          2 April 2013 at 8:08 pm

          “I think that is why…”

          That’s not what “think” means.

    • idlegus 10.2
      2 April 2013 at 4:35 pm

      what charity is that then?

    • Transient Viper 10.3
      2 April 2013 at 7:52 pm

      I don’t have a citation – but that’s the perception. I’m not even sure it’s true (about John Key), and I’m sure the amounts Shearer was getting is just hearsay – but I’m sure that the chance of getting Shearer’s bank statements is as likely as John Key giving his charity receipts.

      • felix 10.3.1
        2 April 2013 at 8:14 pm

        He doesn’t have any.

        I’ve been asking people on this blog and others for five years to provide a quote, a reference or a citation from John Key (or anyone else who would have reason to know) to indicate that he donates his salary to charity.

        In five years no-one has come up with a damn thing.

        Doesn’t happen.

    • karol 10.4
      2 April 2013 at 8:18 pm

      Shearer declared the UN money to NZ IRD. I think that means, even though he pays no tax to the US on it, it still gets included in his total income and tax band in NZ.

  11. big bruv 11
    2 April 2013 at 7:04 pm

    But I suppose this is OK?

    “NZ Nurses Organisation loses $1.1M but Union staff get paid nearly $900,000.00 more – Observation by the Owl

    The NZ Nurses Organisation have just posted a $1,108,073.00 LOSS – yes $1.1M, I repeat $1.1M loss.

    Yes the NZ Nurses Organisation has lost $1M plus but its all OK – Union staff wages went up from $9,242,906.00 to $10,134,451.00.

    An increase of $891,545.00”

    • One Tāne Huna 11.1
      2 April 2013 at 7:16 pm

      Citations needed, trash. You think your word is good enough?

      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1
        2 April 2013 at 7:56 pm

        Google only reports WhaleOil, ergo, not credible.

          • big bruv 11.1.1.1.1
            2 April 2013 at 8:38 pm

            Goodness me. It is indeed all there.

            Typical union low life feathering their own nest at the expense of the workers.

            • One Tāne Huna 11.1.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2013 at 8:56 pm

              More like typical wingnut trash making false and malicious allegations if you ask me. Still, Capill, Garrett and Banks have set the benchmark so what can you expect?

          • BM 11.1.1.1.2
            2 April 2013 at 8:41 pm

            From what I’ve just read the nurses union has 60 staff and has a wage bill of over 9 million dollars.
            There’s some really shonky shit going on here.

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 11.1.1.1.2.1
              2 April 2013 at 9:06 pm

              So if the 19 staff listed in the report were at the maximum of the range declared over 100,000 the wage bill for those staff would come to 2.080 million.

              That would leave 6.920 million divided by 41staff which would equal over $168,000 each which funnily enough means they would be listed in the numbers receiving more than $100,000.

              Methinks common sense would say they have employed much more than 60 staff during the year.

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 11.1.1.1.2.2
              2 April 2013 at 9:16 pm

              You realise reading is not the same thing as comprehending don’t you.

              • BM …
                2 April 2013 at 9:20 pm

                A 9 million dollar wage bill is completely ridiculous.
                The year before it was 8.5 million, what excuses have you got for that?
                Utterly disgraceful.

                • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                  2 April 2013 at 9:38 pm

                  Even if no additional staff were employed, and I think it’s likely they were given the Earthquakes, that’s a 5% increase.

                  If only you were so vigilant questioning much larger increases in the private sector when companies made massive losses but CEO’s got large pay increases and bonuses.

                  It’s another reason I think business should be taxed at gross. You dumb asses think it’s about taxable profit while the executives of those companies rip shareholders off all over the place.

                  If shareholders focussed much more on actual expenses within businesses they would be a darn sight better off.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 11.1.1.1.3
            2 April 2013 at 8:49 pm

            Doesn’t seem particularly rank.

            Association is solvent with good asset base
            The nurses association was celebrating it’s centenary
            The association rightly would have incurred more cost supporting staff affected by Chch earthquakes – most organisations with significant numbers of staff affected have incurred additional costs. Unions in particular needed to support their own union staff in chch as well as members
            They hosted the South Pacific Nurses forum which would be a one off cost for the year

            It does seem quite a jump of staff into 100,000 bracket but without knowing why – they might have all been previously sitting on or around $99,000 and normal pay increases may have just jumped them over – I wouldn’t be drawing too many conclusions.

            I certainly don’t see anyone being paid 3.2 million dollars per annum.

      • felix 11.1.2
        2 April 2013 at 8:05 pm

        It’s a whaleoil story: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/03/nurses-union-loses-1-1m-but-union-staff-get-paid-900000-00-more/

        And the reason bruv didn’t link to it is because it also contains no citations, quotes or references and was written by Cameron’s top investigative reporter Brian Toldme.

        Hilarity in the comments though:

        my wife hates being part of the union, but not being in it means a very hard road which noone can be bothered with and you actually end up with many times less than the union tax so its not even a smart move. Very annoying.

        Yeah bloody unions, making your job easier and saving you money.

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 11.1.2.1
          2 April 2013 at 9:12 pm

          Should be likely “I hate my wife belonging to the union cause I’m a patriarchal RWNJ. I’d like to believe she does under protest but in reality she’s much smarter than me, puts up with my mouthing off about unions and has learned to nod and say yes dear in all the right places when I utter forth my hate speech against those communist bastards.”

    • BM 11.2
      2 April 2013 at 7:50 pm

      Typical rich pricks screwing over the worker.

  12. RedBaronCV 12
    2 April 2013 at 8:57 pm

    Actually Labour are not being that inconsistent about kiwisaver. When they set it up originally the employer share was to be over and above the wages paid to employees and was to try to move the wage & salary share of the National income from around 45% up towards the 55% that is the equivalent Aussie figure. The employer share was deductible from entity profits but not taxed as part of an individual’s income. It had controls so shareholder employers couldn’t game the system but it did result in a lot of shareholder employees going onto their own PAYE payroll.

    Nact slayed all that by effectively allowing employers to take the employer share off someone’s wages and then the final insult was taxing it as employee income before it goes to the kiwisaver fund. Bill English made a lot of tax out of that little scam.
    It also means that unless people have a particularly good employment contract then the whole extra 2% comes off an employee’s gross wages.

    So under Labour someone with a gross wage of $100 put $2 into kiwisaver and then got another $2 from the employer so $102 in total and and a gross after KS of $98.

    Under Nact both of the $2 come out of the gross so the $100 is now $96 and from today will be $94. Calling anything an employer contribution is largely nonsense but Bill is loving this.
    Wage and salary earners are now funding KS schemes that keep his mates in high paying jobs and that will bear the risk of meltdown or Mighty River shares falling.

    Okay that’s a bit long winded.

Links to post