Herald: You’re too poor to exist

41 comments on “Herald: You’re too poor to exist ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jeeves 1

   1 April 2009 at 9:38 am

   Well, no. It’s probably based on a 40 hour week at minimum wage earning $26,000 per annum. Sure, there are people earning less than that (eg part time workers), but not even National was claiming the tax cuts were directed at those people.
2. r0b 2

   1 April 2009 at 9:51 am

   “too” poor!

   if you’re not rich

   At 25K “rich” is going a bit far, but certainly if you’re low income, The Herald isn’t exactly batting for you is it…
3. Hilary 3

   1 April 2009 at 10:00 am

   The median income in NZ is about $28,000. That means half the people earn less than that. And they are not just part time workers. Many people are trying to support themselves and their families on very little money in NZ.

   But I see few if any of the MSM journalists and commentators have worked out the difference between median and mean and are assuming that the mean of about $48,000 (which is a number skewed by some very high earners) is a median (ie halfway) income.
4. justthefacts 4

   1 April 2009 at 10:03 am

   Except of course that dole and DPB bludgers also get a increase in their benefits as from today.

   The government should have kept the dole and the DPB at current levels (or lowered them) and passed those savings onto those who work for a living.

   I note that you also “forget” to mention that low income earners are already receiving the WFF bribe.
   • Matthew Pilott 4.1

     1 April 2009 at 10:32 am

     And now everyone gets the IETC bribe eh.

     “The government should have kept the dole and the DPB at current levels (or lowered them) and passed those savings onto those who work for a living.”

     How is it that society is judged again? I don’t suppose you’re able to provide a rationalisation for that comment either, apart from the typical nut-job ‘bludgers’ line…
     • Daveski 4.1.1

       1 April 2009 at 11:33 am

       What’s missing here? Oh yeah. Half the population.

       With respect MP, the impression given is that “half of the population” has been stiffed.

       Yet tax cuts are a poor medium to transfer income to these people. That’s what WFF is for.
       • Matthew Pilott 4.1.1.1

         1 April 2009 at 12:33 pm

         Did you reply to the wrong comment of mine?

         The article misses out half of NZ – it’s fair enough to point out that those people get nothing from these tax cuts isn’t it?

         Or can you find me speeches where Key said that the tax couts would be”North of $50, but not for people getting WFF”?

         You want to make the argument that they’re already getting WFF. That’s fine but two points:

         ~That’s not what this blog post is about, so it’s false to claim that something is missing by not includin WFF in the post

         ~National never said that they’d exclude half of the population either, until the cuts were announced, so excluding them from the article is deceptive.

         Agreed with a comment below from ebolacola – at least this one goes up to $200,000.
         • Daveski 4.1.1.1.1

           1 April 2009 at 12:51 pm

           Sorry MP yep got the wrong comment.

           I’m not denying that some people aren’t going to benefit from these tax cuts. The inference is that the Nats are deliberately screwing those that miss out. Tax cuts is not the mechanism to benefit those who are paying small amount of tax in the first place.
5. Doug 5

   1 April 2009 at 10:10 am

   People under $26000 will be on some sort of Govt handup already Working for Families rent top ups etc etc. So in efect they already get Tax Relief Govt handouts.
6. Daveski 6

   1 April 2009 at 10:25 am

   What’s missing? Some analysis that used to the strength of the Standard.

   Given that people earning less than $25,000 aren’t paying much in the way of tax anyway, the tax cut they get is pretty irrelevant compared to the other sources of Govt support they get.

   It’s hard to take this post seriously when there’s no mention of WFF.
   • Matthew Pilott 6.1

     1 April 2009 at 10:35 am

     It’s hard to take this post seriously when there’s no mention of WFF.”

     Why? Plenty of other posts don’t mention WFF.

     This is about The Herald’s graphic on tax cuts. Can you give me an example of how you’d add something about WFF into it, that adds to commentary on the topic of the post (as opposed to what you’d like the topic to be, which is clearly something else), because I can’t really see how it is relevant.
7. justthefacts 7

   1 April 2009 at 11:00 am

   Pilott

   “How is it that society is judged again?”

   You and I judge society differently, you believe that a “just” society is one where we reward low life for doing nothing, in NZ we even reward them for doing nothing more than opening their legs to produce more kids.

   I believe we should reward people for their effort, all those who want money from the tax payer should be made to work for it.

   Now, how about you provide a rationalisation for the way we currently do things?, tell me why it is a good idea to be paying people to stay home and do nothing, tell me why this is a good example for young kids?
   • SjS 7.1

     1 April 2009 at 11:36 am

     Because if they have no ‘safety net’ to provide life’s basics they would have to resort to crime, etc.

     Your ‘utopia’ of a country where everyone is rewarded for their efforts, and no one gets a state hand out already exists in India, Mexico, Brazil, Thailand … perhaps you should go a spend a bit of time in these places before judging social welfare the way you do. No one is saying that it is perfect, but it’s better then most places in the world! And as a result EVERYONE’s quality of life is the better for it.

     Also, all the money you as a taxpayer would save on removing social welfare would be far less than the amount you would need to spend on putting metal bars on your windows and barbed wire around your house to keep yourself safe. If you don’t belive me, go and check out the homes of the middle to upper classes in the ‘developing’ world.
   • Bill 7.2

     1 April 2009 at 12:08 pm

     “I believe we should reward people for their effort, all those who want money from the tax payer should be made to work for it.”

     That would be the bankers and shareholders your referring to there would it? Or the free-loaders who latch on to the final results of publicly funded research to spin privatised profits?

     Both you say?

     Well, well whoever would have thunk it?
   • Matthew Pilott 7.3

     1 April 2009 at 12:24 pm

     It’s actually a fairly universal refrain, you idiot. You clearly don’t know it. I’m not going to put you out of your self-inflicted misery, it’s funnier to see you try and make things up in ignorance.

     Your moniker is more oxymoronic today. But let’s have a wee think about things, shall we?

     Unemployment’s been bad lately, I’d guess that the percentage of people receiving a benefit has doubled recently. You’re saying that all of these people are being rewarded for doing “nothing more than opening their legs to produce more kids.” or are “low life [who] do nothing” since you want benefits cut and these are the reasons you give.

     Good luck peddling that nonsense around to the recently unemployed.

     You don’t believe in the idea of a safety net for people who are temporarily in circumstances that are beyond their means to support themselves. My rationale for supporting that is that it is a system that supports a lot of people without excessively burdening anyone, and helps them get back on their feet, is abused by very few (given your pseud is an inversion of the truth, I doubt the facts will appeal to you, such as the low numbers on long-term benefits) and means the most unfortunate aren’t abandoned.

     It’s a society that kids can look up to, even if poeple like you are too ignorant to recognise the reality beyond the talk-back-fuelled ignorance around ‘bludgers’ and people’ breeding for business’.

     In short, you’ve a narrow and bigoted viewpoint that you blindly apply carte blanche to the welfare system and ignorantly rail against it because you’re too stupid to realise the effects of the actions you call for.

     The last time someone in power shared your stupidity a recession was padded out by five years. I doubt you’re vaguely aware of what I’m referring to though.

     I’m just happy you’re part of a minority, even if it is profoundly ignorant, bigoted, oblivious to history and excessively vocal in relation to intelligence.
8. roger nome 8

   1 April 2009 at 11:04 am

   Here’s the distribution of income for NZ.

   http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-incomes/quickstats-about-incomes.htm?page=para002Master

   The Herald has written about 50% of the adult population out of existence. No mention at all. Quite staggering..

   Oh and “Jeeves” – there are plenty of people working full time and earning less than $25,000. If you knew what you were going on about, you would know that full-time is defined as 30 hours per week or more.
   • Chris G 8.1

     1 April 2009 at 7:20 pm

     Its interesting that ‘justthefacts’ didnt dig out these facts before anyone else.

     Bit of a convenient mistake eh?
9. roger nome 9

   1 April 2009 at 11:12 am

   “where we reward low life for doing nothing”

   See that’s where I can’t respect you. You ascribe people value solely according to their market value. It’s a rather sociopathic way to look at people. According to you, people only have value as commodities. That’s why your view is irrelevant.
10. BLiP 10

    1 April 2009 at 11:13 am

    You and I judge society differently, you believe that a “just’ society is one where we reward low life for doing nothing, in NZ we even reward them for doing nothing more than opening their legs to produce more kids.

    Interesting how the right has such a deep and abiding insight into the thinking of the left.
    • Daveski 10.1

      1 April 2009 at 11:35 am

      And back at you BLiP. One person is not representative of a group of people on either side.
      • BLiP 10.1.1

        1 April 2009 at 12:38 pm

        Its the meme so often repeated not just by Justhefacts.
11. Stephen 11

    1 April 2009 at 11:35 am

    Yeah, so what if they don’t have money to feed and clothe their kids, cry me a river! Consequences eh.
    • BLiP 11.1

      1 April 2009 at 12:36 pm

      Suffer little children, and forbid them to come unto John Key: for of such is the kingdom of National
12. Stephen 12

    1 April 2009 at 11:36 am

    And back at you BLiP. One person is not representative of a group of people on either side.

    So typical of the entire right/left/southern hemisphere/northern hemisphere.
13. Gustavo Trellis 13

    1 April 2009 at 11:41 am

    Try looking at household income instead; the view that a household only has one income is blatantly sexist.
14. Ebolacola 14

    1 April 2009 at 12:05 pm

    honestly you should be congratulating the herald for showing how big the tax cuts are for those earning over 100,000, during the election campaign none of the MSM showed the tax cut for those earning over 100,000 which made labour and nationals packages look more similar than they actually were.
    • Draco T Bastard 14.1

      1 April 2009 at 5:24 pm

      That’s been a pet peeve of mine for the last 5 years. These types of graphs need to go to about $5m to get anywhere close to the truth.
15. Jeeves 15

    1 April 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Roger nome, I am “going on about” whether or not the table is a fair means of conveying the impact of National’s tax cuts. Most people consider 40 hours to be a full working week (although many of us work more than that), regardless of the statistical definition. Even then, I’d be curious to know, Roger nome, how many people work more than 30 hours a week and earn less than $25,000? “plenty”, you say. Well, go on… how many?
16. justthefacts 16

    1 April 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Roger

    I respect your opinion even though it is wrong, so how about you try and explain to me why we should pay people to sit around doing nothing?

    How is that good for society?, you can say they would resort to crime if they did not receive any money from the tax payer but the reality is that a high percentage of them are already involved in crime.

    I really would love to hear your argument.
    • Matthew Pilott 16.1

      1 April 2009 at 12:39 pm

      You’re talking about an absolute minority here. Long term unemployment was well under 5,000 people recently, so it seems you’re attacking our entire welfare system because there are a few people who take advantage, or aren’t working for some reason or another.

      I don’t really support those people, but I don’t know why those people are in that situation and unlike you would prefer to have some information before commenting. However I agree to an extent – you shouldn’t be able to claim an unemplloyment benefit for years if you have no reason. Not sure what would happen to the completely unemployable though…

      Most people prefer to be working, and benefits are to support people while they are looking for work, or when they can’t work, because they’re studying, sick or looking after children. I don’t see what’s so awful about that.
    • Bill 16.2

      1 April 2009 at 12:43 pm

      “…you can say they would resort to crime if they did not receive any money from the tax payer but the reality is that a high percentage of them are already involved in crime.”

      This is back to bankers again, innit?
17. justthefacts 17

    1 April 2009 at 12:39 pm

    Pilott

    It really would help the discussion if you did stuck to the truth.

    How about you break the habit of a lifetime and deal in facts.
    • Matthew Pilott 17.1

      1 April 2009 at 12:58 pm

      As far as I am aware tehreare no false statements, or incorrect facts in anything I’ve said. Feel free to point them out and prove me wrong though. You never know, you might even be able to make you agree with you if I’m barking up the wrong tree somewhere..
18. Stephen 18

    1 April 2009 at 12:40 pm

    ‘justthefacts’ sounds awfully like that wiley ‘bruv’ character, but that’s just me.
19. justthefacts 19

    1 April 2009 at 12:45 pm

    Pilott

    Thanks for that;

    Like you I have no problem helping out people who through no fault of their own find themselves on the dole, I am happy to pay a bit of tax to look after them while they search and find another job.
    I am also happy to help out (temporarily) those parents who need to claim the DPB, what I do object to is the shocking number of long term dole bludgers and those women who stay on the DPB for years and years.
    It does not matter what your political persuasion these people are bludgers.

    Why not have a time limit for the DPB, six months should suffice, the same should apply for the dole.

    As for the long unemployed, well they should be made to work for the money they receive, if they refuse to work then they should not be paid.
    • Matthew Pilott 19.1

      1 April 2009 at 1:12 pm

      Interesting – a substantially more moderate statement there.

      A couple of points…

      What would happen to people when their payment runs out? I accept that it means there’s less incentive to get a job, but I’d say that problem is more than balanced out by two things: people’s natural inclination to get work, and the cost to society if people had that net pulled out from under them.

      DPB – bringing up a child is a full-time job in of itself. If you cut that benefit at any stage while the kid is still a dependant, they’ll suffer, with fewer opportunities for education and a stable family life. That alone would ouytweigh the short-term benefits of giving that money to taxpayers.

      I think you’ll find people relying on a benefit to raise a child are not usually considered bludgers by a majority on the Left and Right. That’s just a perception I have, but ‘breeding for business’ seems to be a fringe and fairly mad view. At the very least it’s detached from reality.

      And I’m sorry, it seems my rant above wan’t justified after all, even though you need to look a bit more into the DPB question. Imagine if your mother was left alone to look after you when you were 6 months old, and that she had no job, and hadn’t had one for the last few months of pregnancy. By your reckoning, by 12 months, she should be working to support herself fully, or be abandoned by the state. Harsh. How would that improve society?
    • DeeDub 19.2

      1 April 2009 at 4:14 pm

      You’re real big on tory rhetoric there, buddy?

      Please provide us with a source of stats that prove the veracity of statements like “shocking number of long term (sic) dole bludgers”?

      The facts please, sir?
20. justthefacts 20

    1 April 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Pilott

    “Interesting – a substantially more moderate statement there”

    Rubbish, I have not moderated anything, you jumped to conclusions as per usual.
    • Matthew Pilott 20.1

      1 April 2009 at 3:14 pm

      You did bring yourself to admit that there are uses for benefits, which is a substantial improvement over stating that everyone on a benefit is either an undeserving “low-life”, or someone doing “nothing more than opening their legs to produce more kids”.

      You don’t understand what ‘jumping to conclusions’ means, do you?

      Given there were two statements publicly available, and the ‘conclusion’ was my stated opinion of a comparison of the two, I could hardly be said to be jumping to conclusions.

      You’re starting to sound pythonesque. (“no I’m not!” blusters justthefacts)
21. Jasper 21

    1 April 2009 at 2:00 pm

    WFF didn’t increase.
    Or did it, and I just can’t find it?

    MSD and IRD have updated everything else but not WFF payments. Which makes sense

    JK “We’ll be keeping WFF as is”
22. infused 22

    1 April 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Get some education and get a better job.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS