Spin-busting: ‘Hardworking kiwis’

180 comments on “Spin-busting: ‘Hardworking kiwis’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. T-rex 1

   9 June 2008 at 2:18 pm

   Have you read ‘Affluenza’?

   It goes into some detail about the Howard governments use of the term ‘Aussie Battler’ for much the same ends.

   Tell people they’re unfortunate, tell them it’s not their fault, and give them a scapegoat. So much easier than telling them they’re actually pretty well off, especially when every marketing graduate is trying to convince them of the opopsite.
2. Steve Pierson 2

   9 June 2008 at 2:23 pm

   Been meaning to get round to Affluenza.

   telling a group they are victims, even if they are privileged, and creating an ‘other’ is an age-old mobilisation tool for policies that will benefit that group at the expense of the ‘other’.

   I’m not going to win the Godwin award by mentioning the most obvious example.
3. Steve Pierson 3

   9 June 2008 at 2:25 pm

   Don’t know if it’s happening to anyone else but, Lynn, when I submit a comment it goes to a page that tells me there’s been an error (error 403, to be precise).

   The comment has actually posted but I see it until I go back and refresh.

   [lprent: A 403 is one of the warning codes. A bit unusual – let me see (I don’t have the 400 series in my head) http://www.checkupdown.com/status/E403.html
   Interesting – I’ll have a look at the server]
4. andy 4

   9 June 2008 at 2:29 pm

   I have to say it does resonate with me to a degree, more from the perspective that:

   Don’t have kids – no WFF.

   No mortgage – could not save fast enough for deposit/left behind by prices (no LAQC).

   minimum wage rise – not for me, wages stagnating compressing difference between me and minimum wage.

   so National will come to my rescue, If only I knew their policies!

   After all, wages are set by a market

   are you sure! minimum wage?

   captcha; flames kenny (south park)
5. Steve Pierson 5

   9 June 2008 at 2:39 pm

   Well, the minimum wage sets a floor price on the market(s) for labour, but it remains true that if you have commmon skills you’ll have to work hard and get minimum wage or close to it, whereas if you have rarer skills you get better conditions and pay.
6. lprent 6

   9 June 2008 at 2:52 pm

   
   Complete sidetrack here.

   1. The Akismet anti-spam has decided that links are spam. It will probably take me until sometime this evening to re-educate it. Missing comments from rOb, highs, and bryan got caught (I’ve let them loose now). If the moderators could have a peek in the spam trap and despam the ones that shouldn’t be there.

   2. The 403 is caused by a odd file that didn’t used to be called. I’ll put a dummy in its place in an hour after I get my new tires.

   3. I’ll get them fixed, but it may take a bit longer than usual. It is a busy day (coding, tires, meetings, etc).

   4. I think it is all from akimet getting some kind of update, sigh!

   Lynn
   
7. Matthew Pilott 7

   9 June 2008 at 2:56 pm

   testing (I can’t post at all at present). CENSORSHIP! heh..
8. andy 8

   9 June 2008 at 3:01 pm

   lprent

   thanks for all your hard work 🙂

   deep breaths.
9. Robinsod 9

   9 June 2008 at 3:16 pm

   Andy – maybe you should join a union and/or ask for a pay rise and/or swap up jobs.
10. ants 10

    9 June 2008 at 3:29 pm

    I am one of the lucky ones with the so-called rarer skills, being a software developer.

    Good thing that I have an LAQC setup so that I only pay a flat 7c tax per dollar across my whole 110k income, as that is a more equitable and fairer amount, as I need to support my family, save for retirement and pay my mortgage off – and the government isn’t interested in helping out with those.

    If Labour do manage to put together another coalition, in a way I will be glad, because house prices will further plummet and it will make it nice and easy to get another investment property for a great price, so I can push my tax rate towards 0c in the dollar – where the only tax I pay is consumption related taxes such as GST and petrol excise.

    If National get in, there will be many long term economic benefits for me. This is excellent – its a win-win situation for me.

    If any of you guys want to know how to keep more of your tax let me know and I can do an article for the site =)
11. T-rex 11

    9 June 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Ants – indulge my curiousity – what kind of software development do you do?
12. Robinsod 12

    9 June 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Hey ants – Get the fu*k off my roads and stop using the rest of my fu*kin infrastructure! You fu*kin thieving parasite!
13. andy 13

    9 June 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Robinsod, right out of chicago school. 🙂

    Am working on it!

    Let me add, things that labour has given me:

    Interest free student loan.
    Kiwisaver govt contributions.
    big shiney new motorways (in Auckland).

    so all is not lost, but, but what is national going to give??

    If Labour do manage to put together another coalition, in a way I will be glad, because house prices will further plummet

    So Ants, does supply and demand, econ101 only work when and if a national govt gets elected. Or are you saying that house prices rose because everyone was happy to have a Labour govt, but then they got unhappy thats why prices have fallen. I am confused so many mixed theories?
14. T-rex 14

    9 June 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Andy – Definitely scope out Nationals policy carefully before you decide they’re coming to your rescue. If it really looks like it’s going to give you a better life in the long term then… well, more power to you really.

    I suspect Nationals core policy, once it appears, will lean heavily towards screwing anyone on less than $60k to the wall. As always.
15. Policy Parrot 15

    9 June 2008 at 3:42 pm

    No hattip?

    http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/does-national-know-what-hardworking-means/
16. T-rex 16

    9 June 2008 at 3:42 pm

    You captured my feelings quite well there ‘Sod.
17. BeShakey 17

    9 June 2008 at 3:45 pm

    ants does make an important point. The more money people have the more resources they have to structure their finances in ways that reduce (or even eliminate) their tax payments. That is one of the important reasons why we don’t have any tax free income.

    On topic: if you look at the upper middle classes (the kiwi battlers) the main impact on them of tougher economic times has been to reduce discretionary spending. While the fact that you are spending more on milk and cheese may mean you have to get a 42″ TV rather than a 46″, and thats pretty agonising, it isn’t quite the same as the people that have to make more fundamental choices between food, accomodation, clothing, heating etc.
18. andy 18

    9 June 2008 at 3:47 pm

    T-rex

    irony does not translate well, was trying to show that I can’t compare.
19. Steve Pierson 19

    9 June 2008 at 3:48 pm

    andy. skirting tax is morally repugnant. Tax is the price we pay for a civilised society and those at the top of a society (ie. those of us on high incomes) should be happy to contribute given that society is working best for us. And tax avoidance is a rich man’s game – you or I can do it but most can’t, that’s not just.

    If you’re not willng to pay for part you are just free-riding off everyone else.
20. Steve Pierson 20

    9 June 2008 at 3:50 pm

    sorry, PP, I hadn’t seen that post, although I had been told I should read it. I’ll give you a link at the bottom.
21. ants 21

    9 June 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Ha ha RobinSod – the only way to respond to a troll article is with a troll of my own. I couldn’t resist.

    10 years of paying the top tax rate was enough for me – so I got into the whole investment property thing last year. In 2006 I paid 27k in PAYE tax and then was stung at 39% across all my savings and unit-trusts (probably ~5k in RWT).

    Why should I have to pay that amount of tax to the government every year when I’m struggling to even pay my house off and look after my family at the same time?

    I do enterprise development – mainly SOA – web services and J2EE development. Have been doing it for 9 years.
22. andy 22

    9 June 2008 at 4:03 pm

    andy. skirting tax is morally repugnant.

    Yes.

    Doesn’t stop those that can though.

    Those that can’t (me) have to pay regardless. Not opposed to paying my fair share, is just that the playing field is tilted heavily in others favor.

    WFF – if you have more children than you can afford.
    LAQC’s – if you speculate on property. Both if your clever.

    Sorry, sometimes it does all get too much, my crappy car needs a new warrant $$, rent just went up, blah, blah…

    Gets to the point when I really do feel like I am missing out on the Govt gravy train…
23. ants 23

    9 June 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Robinsod – the petrol excise tax I pay and my car registration fees cover my road usage. My health system usage is in the most, covered by work provided health insurance. I pay for health insurance my other family members. My child goes to a private school so I don’t get any benefit from public-sector-provided education. My council rates pay for my water usage. The price I pay for power and phone utilities is enough to cover infrastructure investment in those areas. On top of this I also have enough left over to give $500 a year to Save the Children.

    IMO, Labour take away the incentive to work harder for those who are struggling or on lower incomes. For such people (i.e. those who are receiving benefits), the result of them working harder to better their career or job will often mean they get less net income after their benefit is taken away.

    Additionally, when people who are on higher salaries are taxed heavily, it either removes their incentive to work harder OR they find ways of avoiding that tax – such as an LAQC or simply leaving the country.
24. Steve Pierson 24

    9 June 2008 at 4:44 pm

    “For such people (i.e. those who are receiving benefits), the result of them working harder to better their career or job will often mean they get less net income after their benefit is taken away.”

    ants- you sound just like the stereotype based on flawed premises that I discuss in the post.
25. darryl p 25

    9 June 2008 at 4:57 pm

    To be fair to Ants, nothing he’s doing is illegal – actually it’s completely legal. Like it or not he is following the law as structured by the government.

    He would be foolish to pay more tax then he needed too, just as a student would be foolish to not take advantage of an interest free loan or a family to not take advantage of WFF.

    Any tax savings he is making with his LAQC on his investment property will be offset if/when he comes to sell the property. You’ll find most MPs on all sides of the house will have a similar arrangement on their investment properties as well.
26. BeShakey 26

    9 June 2008 at 4:58 pm

    ants – so many things wrong with your post but I’ll just tackle one. Assuming you are right (which I doubt) about you paying the real costs of all the various services provided by the government (or not using those services), that still leaves a lot of other people who are important to you and who rely on those services – police, doctors, nurses, builders, etc etc etc. Many of whom you would encounter and even rely on. Many of whom wouldn’t have private insurance or send their kids to private schools. And who are able to continue in their jobs (and in relevant cases charge you less for what they do) than if the situation was as you seem to suggest it should be.
27. Phil 27

    9 June 2008 at 4:59 pm

    I think it’s amusing that you challenge National’s “hardworking kiwi’s” image, and then update with a link to another blog which portrays exactly the same stereotype, just in the other direction.

    You probably won’t be shocked, but I side with the Nats on this. When I worked through Uni, I had some truly crap jobs, with shit pay. But, was I still in the office or on the floor/site at 10pm? Nope, not a chance. Was the boss? Yep.

    [goddam, that’s simplistic. You can do better than this Phil. Realise that most people aren’t uni-grads in office jobs like you and I. Nor can they be in an economy at our technology level. Maybe in the future we can all sit in offices and sip lattes but that’s not the case in real economies today. SP]
28. Felix 28

    9 June 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Where do you live ants?

    I only ask because you sound like you might have some nice stuff and I’m assuming you won’t call the police if I steal some of it.

    What sort of car do you have?
29. ants 29

    9 June 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Steve – thats what it looks like to me – it may be different in reality, but know personally a couple of people in such a situation – where their WFF gets taken off them if they get their pay above a certain level, but it also means their net income also decreases.

    Thats not a flawed premise – its actually a reality with the current system – it may only be a minority of people, but it may also be a disincentive to a lot of people.

    Felix – I live in the northern suburbs in Wellington, in an average 1970s house and I drive a 1990 Corolla that I can’t afford to replace until my mortgage has been paid off. Me and my wife have $100 a week for food and groceries between us, and we get $100 a month for the power bill. This is by choice so I can pay my mortgage off in 7 years.

    You won’t find much at our house that you would like stealing unfortunately. Try again in 3 years when my house is paid off.
30. dave 30

    9 June 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Policy parrot rightly says “Why is child-raising not considered “hard work’ under National’s criteria – especially considering it is probably one of the most vital and necessary jobs.”

    To that I would add, why does Labour have the same perspective on this?
31. vto 31

    9 June 2008 at 5:14 pm

    The more I read this site the less time I have for it. What a terrible article and thread.

    And the most out of touch one of all is Mr Pierson, witness: “In reality, it is the low paid jobs that usually require the hardest work (try being a minimum wage labourer for a month).” How old are you? I guess maybe scraping 30 if you’re lucky. And always been an employee, when not in some sort of education.

    There is no compassion for anyone other than your own types. In fact there is a simmering hatred from what I can sense. Which is as was always suspected.

    At least over on kiwiblog the author puts in well reasoned articles and gives credit to opposing ideologies from time to time.

    This site simply regurgitates boring and useless old platitudes that simply expose the prejudices and blinkers of a small number of haters and wreckers.
32. Policy Parrot 32

    9 June 2008 at 5:18 pm

    “To that I would add, why does Labour have the same perspective on this?”

    Labour has a far different perspective from National on the contribution of people who raise families make to the economy. Three iconic measures first introduced under this government, and opposed by the National Party (when introduced – i.e. pre-flip flop days) are:

    – Working For Families (not ideal as subsidising low wage employers – but money is money)
    – Paid Parental Leave (overseas was commonplace in civilised society, NZ has joined the fold)
    – Kiwisaver (ending the political football on super, and relieving the minds of now, that there is something else beside super when one reaches entitlement)

    Each in their own way, all these measures demonstrate that Labour at least cares about the burden of child-rearing. I do not dispute however, that there remains much more to be done. That is why it is imperative Labour is reelected in October, so we at least remain headed in the right direction.
33. ghostwhowalks 33

    9 June 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Ants says ..My health system usage is in the most, covered by work provided health insurance.

    No it doesnt.

    Australia requires working visa holders to buy FULL health insurance which works out at $4900 pa per family.

    http://www.austhealth.com/?gclid=CMes3pbP5pMCFQ77iAodIyGfVw

    Would be a similar cost here, but no health insurance company offers it. The only cover some elective care.

    Plus most private schools are funded by the taxpayer to a greater ( catholic) or lesser (kings etc) extent.

    So sad to hear that both of your parents are dead and didnt recieve any super. And no they didnt pay for it from their taxes
34. Anita 34

    9 June 2008 at 5:24 pm

    ants,

    Your health insurer bases their premiums on the knowledge that many of your health costs are government subsidised (including prescriptions, emergency and critical care, GPs, tests) – your health costs are part paid by the government.

    Your children’s school is almost certainly heavily funded by the government (state funding is provided to both independent and integrated schools).

    Anita
35. Felix 35

    9 June 2008 at 5:54 pm

    ants it sounds like it must be absolutely awful for you.

    Imagine living within your means and having nothing to show for it at the end of 7 years except for a house.
36. Dean 36

    9 June 2008 at 5:56 pm

    “goddam, that’s simplistic. You can do better than this Phil. Realise that most people aren’t uni-grads in office jobs like you and I. Nor can they be in an economy at our technology level. Maybe in the future we can all sit in offices and sip lattes but that’s not the case in real economies today. SP”

    I hate to have to break it to you Steve, but not everyone who qualifies for rich prick status was educated at university. Nor, in fact, are an awful lot of people in office jobs university graduates.

    For someone claiming someone else is being simplistic youve got an awful lot of looking in the morror to do on your own part, I think.
37. travellerev 37

    9 June 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Steve,

    -Andy. skirting tax is morally repugnant.-

    Until a year ago I could not have agreed with you more.
    I have always been meticulous about my taxes and I believed that since I was part of civil society this was one of my responsibilities.

    This was before I learned about reserve banks, fractional banking and Money as debt.

    Most of our taxpayers money goes to a small groups of criminally rich individuals and very little can be used to assist our local population and it has changed my view a great deal.

    Am I against a just taxation that helps my fellow man and goes to schools, hospitals, infrastructure and yes, poor people? Hell no but I refuse to pay the international banking cartel parasites a single cent.

    Oh, and this is not a conspiracy theory but very much out in the open and documented.

    And for those of you who believe that we don’t have the same system as the US. Don Brash prepared the Federal reserve act (it even has the same name for pete’s sake) 1989 in which the kiwis (under labour I’m afraid) signed away their sovereign right to control their own currency.

    I don’t have a paying job but the money my husband earns covers all our needs that can not be bartered for and yes we pay tax over that and I grow food, make clothes and that sort of thing and pay my dues to our community through working in a communal garden, volunteer work, writing my blog to inform my fellow citizens without earning a farthing. And boy, is life rich and rewarding that way.

    If you want to learn about the unsustainable system we are living in Watch;[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en]
38. ants 38

    9 June 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Felix – having a freehold house after 7 years and before I turn 34 is an awesome goal for me. That means my wife will never have to work again. It means I won’t have to pay rent again. Having a mortgage feels like a weight around my neck – I can’t wait to be rid of it.
39. ghostwhowalks 39

    9 June 2008 at 7:15 pm

    ..means my wife will never have to work again!!

    Poor thing to hear about her severe brain injury.
    But if not What will she do after 20 years. Cook your dinner everynight and clean and wash your house as an unpaid servant ..Uggh
40. burt 40

    9 June 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Robinsod

    Hey ants – Get the fu*k off my roads and stop using the rest of my fu*kin infrastructure! You fu*kin thieving parasite!

    Since ants said he was paying about 7C in the dollar, just what sort of denigration do you dish out to people who receive WFF and pay no tax at all?
41. randal 41

    9 June 2008 at 7:52 pm

    peace brothers…learn the new ways and life will be fruitful.
42. dave 42

    9 June 2008 at 8:01 pm

    Policy Parrot
    You mentioned that Labour assists people with child rearing – like stay at home mums for example – by WFF, Kiwisaver and Paid Parental leave. But whats Kiwisaver got to do with child rearing? whats WFF got to do with parents who dont work? How on earth is Paid Parental Leave leave going to help stay at home mums who have more kids when they re not even entitled to it? As for Kiwisaver, that’s got nothing to do with kids or child rearing.

    Don’t be daft. Next thing you`ll be telling me that 20 hours Free helps with the hard work of child raising as well – and that it’s free!
43. burt 43

    9 June 2008 at 9:27 pm

    Policy parrot

    “Why is child-raising not considered “hard work’ under National’s criteria – especially considering it is probably one of the most vital and necessary jobs.’

    Why can’t all families get WFF? Is it only hard work for some?

    Dr. Cullen spoke at Drinking Liberally about inherent equality of all, irrespective of their financial circumstances. I don’t see that core value represented in policies like WFF, neither do the CPAG and it will be interesting to see what the courts decide on that one.
44. Harpoon 44

    9 June 2008 at 9:41 pm

    John Key regularly uses neuro linguistic programming in his speeches and appeals to voters.

    (1) The “YES SET” — statements that prompt agreement; they might even unknowingly nod their heads in agreement.
    (2) TRUISMS — facts that could be debated but, once Key has his audience nodding, the odds are in his favor that they won’t stop to think for themselves, thus continuing to agree.
    (3) SUGGESTION — This is what the politician wants you to do and, since you have been agreeing all along, you could be persuaded to accept the suggestion.

    Key wants to Kiwis to think nice thoughts about him and National, forget the bad times in the 90s, forget all the good things the current government are doing, perceive themselves as victims, even if nothing bad is happening to them. He’s not yet asking for an actual decision to go out and vote National; it’s all emotional prompting right now. Nothing anyone can pin down (“I just reckon is the other lot’s turn, it’s only fair”).

    “Hardworking Kiwis: are you angry about high food prices? Are you tired of astronomical petrol prices? Are you worried about out-of-control inflation and your investment in your home going down the plughole? Well, you know the Labour regime has actively encouraged an XYZ percent increase in seat-warming lazy pen-pushing Wellington bureaucrats in its term in office; you know violent crime has increased XX percent nationwide in the last 12 months, and you know your wages hardly cover your expenses any more. Well, the answer to resolving these problems is to join me, John Key, in my ambitions for a better New Zealand.”

    Yes-set. Truisms. Suggestion.
45. Paul 45

    9 June 2008 at 9:43 pm

    So I earn a lot of money, probably a lot more than Ant – and I pay ALL my tax at the correct rate – like him I have a company purely for tax reasons – but it’s so I pay tax in NZ where the high marginal rate is lower 39% – in California it would be 33% federal + 10% state + 6% social security (only on the first 1/2 of my income) (to compare with Australia where I’d be paying 45% federal + 5% state payroll tax) – the whole NZ taxes are high meme is IMHO only because people don;t count all the taxes in other countries

    I live in NZ and believe in paying my taxes, all of them – I think that Ant’s behaviour is selfish and anti-social
46. burt 46

    9 June 2008 at 9:57 pm

    Paul

    I think Ant’s behaviour is commendable. He’s paying almost $8,000 a year in tax, which is more than most people do. He could probably drag it down lower if he wanted to, or he could be like Owen Glenn and shift his wealth to entirely tax free structures, making donations as he see fit.

    We don’t really want Ant’s to take his $8,000 in tax revenue away, or the spending he is doing in our economy. He’s got kids too, we pay some people tens of thousands a year to have them and he’s bringing his up on his own.
47. dave 47

    9 June 2008 at 10:03 pm

    Dr. Cullen spoke at Drinking Liberally about inherent equality of all, irrespective of their financial circumstances
    Equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, or equality for all. I bet you it wasn’t the latter, if it was, Cullen obviously had far to much to drink.
48. Quoth the Raven 48

    9 June 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Ant
    Qui vult dare parva non debet magna rogare
    He who wishes to give little shouldn’t ask for much

    You’re disgusting.
49. burt 49

    9 June 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Anita

    Can you elaborate on your statement;

    Your children’s school is almost certainly heavily funded by the government (state funding is provided to both independent and integrated schools).

    The integrated schools, yes I agree there is substantive state funding, but the independent schools? Can you supply a link or some figures to discuss?

    You see I like the ACT ‘education voucher’ idea and it seems you are implying it’s already happening.
50. burt 50

    9 June 2008 at 10:18 pm

    Quoth the Raven

    Don’t be a dim bat, Ant’s is paying more tax then the median wage worker in NZ. He’s in the top half of tax payers. He’s a champion providing for himself and more than most for all.
51. burt 51

    9 June 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Quoth the Raven

    Don’t make him get on a plane to Aussie! There is enough skilled intelligent people doing that already, come now, he’s contributing more than 50% of NZ people – you don’t have to be nice to him, but leave him alone.
52. Felix 52

    9 June 2008 at 10:51 pm

    I don’t see what’s so heroic about someone who earns $110,000 paying “more tax then the median wage worker in NZ”. Of course he should pay more than a median wage worker.

    I doubt he’ll be getting on a plane to Aussie either unless he feels like paying a lot more tax than he does now.

    But that’s right, New Zealand sucks and the upper-middle class are the hardest done by and it’s never been this bad and tax is evil.
53. burt 53

    9 June 2008 at 10:54 pm

    I wouldn’t go that far Felix, I’d just stop at the question.

    Is he operating within the tax laws?

    You could add to that – Do any Labour MP’s have LAQC’s? If you wanted a moral barometer.
54. Felix 54

    9 June 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Legality was never in question.

    The morality of someone trying to “push my tax rate towards 0c in the dollar” and justifying it by claiming not to use any state resources, still is.

    Labour MPs? I’d apply the same standard to anyone taking a similar stance on tax. Why do you mention Labour MPs? I’m sure many MPs from many parties have morally questionable tax practices. I don’t care which party they belong to and I doubt that you do either.
55. burt 55

    9 June 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Felix

    Ant’s presents a morally sound position. He’s contributing more than an average wage worker and he’s not claiming any benefits – how can we have a problem with this?

    If all NZ people operated exactly like Ant’s our economy would be rocking along very nicely and the govt would be rolling in cash. I don’t quite know how everybody would own more houses than they live in, however that’s a quirk of the particular example Ant’s presents rather than something that is symptomatic of people contribute more than average amounts of tax and not claiming any benefits.

    And no I don’t care which parties MP’s have LAQC’s. And no I don’t have one myself, never have had one either.
56. r0b 56

    9 June 2008 at 11:28 pm

    If all NZ people operated exactly like Ant’s our economy would be rocking along very nicely and the govt would be rolling in cash.

    A 7% flat tax rate would see the govt rolling in cash would it Burt. You’re demonstrating your usual facility for maths again.
57. burt 57

    9 June 2008 at 11:32 pm

    rOb

    All people contributing more than the average person pays today and none claiming any welfare benefits. Ummm, gee, how poor would we be in that situation rOb ?

    You tried so hard to discredit, sad really you feel so compelled to try and twist the focus from the issue to the person. It’s not about the 7% tax rate rOb, it’s about how much hard cold cash is contributed. Doooh.
58. r0b 58

    9 June 2008 at 11:41 pm

    Burt – can everyone have a job earning over 100K?

    If yes, welcome to La la land – enjoy your stay!

    If no, then I guess it is about the tax rate after all isn’t it. A 7% flat rate = rolling in cash – pardon my mirth.

    Please Burt, consider a course in remedial sanity would you?
59. Felix 59

    9 June 2008 at 11:45 pm

    Sorry burt but I don’t accept the moral soundness of it at all. But then I favour a progressive tax model and I gather that you don’t.

    I don’t buy ants’ estimation that he doesn’t use any govt services without paying for them directly. Over our lives we all do.

    Anyway it’s late and I’m going to bed, have a good ride to work tomorrow 🙂
60. jbc 60

    10 June 2008 at 2:27 am

    It seems to me that the OP tries to divide New Zealanders more than the term “hardworking kiwis” does.

    The way I read the term is that it applies to anyone who wishes to identify with it. That would include all hardworking mums, hardworking students, ex-hardworking kiwis enjoying their retirement (or are otherwise unable to work), and wannabe hardworking kiwis scouring the job ads.

    The OP plays on the fallacies that poor people will always be poor and lazy and should not aspire to anything better (otherwise they would be scabs), and that wealthy people’s purpose is to look down and trample on the poor. I don’t even need to look outside my own extended family to find many counter-examples to both of these stereotypes – and those qualities (poverty/wealth) can be quite independent of political leaning as far as I can tell.

    I’d just like to see a government that recognises that ALL workers, no matter what their income, deserve equal attention and encouragement. High-earners are no less important than beneficiaries.

    “Hardworking kiwis” is as inclusive as your own mind dictates.
61. Paul 61

    10 June 2008 at 5:50 am

    $8000? I pay more than that every 2 months (I know, I writethe checks) – I reiterate: Ant is being selfish and not paying his share – in fact as far as I can tell he’s doing so by having us pay for his real estate losses
62. jcuknz 62

    10 June 2008 at 7:30 am

    My impression of the ‘kiwi’ was that he was the lazy wanker and it was the immigrant who struggling to establish themselves in the new country who got on with the work. I formed this impression following my arrival in the fifties. The climate has changed post-Roger Douglas somewhat I think.
63. travellerev 63

    10 June 2008 at 7:50 am

    jcuknz

    This is what the NZ herald had to say about it this morning
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10515407
64. RedLogix 64

    10 June 2008 at 7:50 am

    Ants is just cranking your collective handles with his silly 7% tax claim. The truth is that LAQC’s are simply a cash flow smoothing mechanism… nothing more, nothing less.

    The ONLY reason why Ant is able to claim a reduced rate of PAYE tax is because his property company has a tax credit from three main items:

    1. Mortgage Interest. With rental returns at 4% and mortgages at 10% you do the maths. Even if he had no mortgage and had invested his equity in the bank he would still be getting a much better return.

    2. Depreciation. Ants is feeling real smart right now because his depreciation in the first few years of his investment is quite high. It won’t look so good in a few more years time. And if he ever sells the property, he will have to pay back ALL the depreciation he has claimed.

    3. Expenses. Things like rates, insurance, maintenance, business related travel. He’s had to pay hard cash for these standard business related expenses… claiming them off his income tax still means he’s had to shell out the other 60-70%.

    In the last few years Ants has been able to discount all this because his property has been increasing in value so rapidly… I doubt very much that he is feeling so happy about this right now.

    In fact Ants is paying his full whack of tax alright. Just not all as PAYE. What he is really doing is paying a massive accomodation subsidy directly to his tenants. Far from being ahh..antsy …about this, we should be applauding the man for his fine sense of socialist responsibility in housing those less fortunate than himself.
65. burt 65

    10 June 2008 at 8:00 am

    rOb

    Burt – can everyone have a job earning over 100K?

    If yes, welcome to La la land – enjoy your stay!

    rOb – should everybody pay more tax then they are legally obliged to?

    If yes, welcome to La la land – enjoy your stay!
66. r0b 66

    10 June 2008 at 8:47 am

    I get the impression that Burt still hasn’t worked out the problem with his 7% flat tax = government rolling in cash claim. It’s right up there with his plan to give everyone a $75 / week tax cut.

    Let’s hear it for Burtonomics!
67. ants 67

    10 June 2008 at 9:09 am

    Paul – congratulations do you want a medal or something? Its people like you that keep the benefits rolling in for WFF.

    I still end up paying 8k PAYE a year plus council rates, GST, RWT, petrol and alcohol excise etc etc. All up I’m still probably contributing 15-20k to government coffers. That is MORE than enough to cover infrastructure usage. I also donate spare money to charities (around 1k a year).

    You can call me greedy – but thats pretty rich when half of you are taking other peoples money as a benefit. I work bloody hard, I pay enough tax – the rest is for my family.

    “ghostwhowalks” – my wife wants to stay at home so she can be a fulltime mother instead of dumping our kids in daycare as most people are forced to do these days. That way they won’t grow up to be a prick like you are.
68. r0b 68

    10 June 2008 at 9:32 am

    instead of dumping our kids in daycare as most people are forced to do these days. That way they won’t grow up to be a prick like you are.

    We could all do to leave off the personal insults eh?

    Anyway, not wishing to comment on the morality of tax issues, but just in terms of the daycare ants, it’s actually pretty good for kids’ socialisation. Do a bit of reading on this before rejecting it out of hand.
69. higherstandard 69

    10 June 2008 at 9:59 am

    rOb

    Daycare is indeed good for kids socialisation I think you would agree however that it should not be forced upon children or parents from 7.30 to 6pm Monday to Friday.

    Captcha Sincerely Jordan (close but no cigar)
70. burt 70

    10 June 2008 at 10:04 am

    rOb

    We could all do to leave off the personal insults eh?

    Yes indeed. But out of interest, do you ever comment on the topic of the thread or are you just here to distort what people are saying?

    I never said we should have a 7% tax rate while everybody earns $110K. You said that, I did say that if everybody paid more tax than an average wage earner pays today and nobody consumed any welfare then the NZ economy would be very different. Do you disagree with this or are you stuck in ‘denigtate burt’ mode and therefore are unable to consider the issue?
71. Joel 71

    10 June 2008 at 10:18 am

    But quite frankly you do live in Lala Land Burt if you think it at all possible that no-one consumes welfare. Some people are inherently ALWAYS going to be worse of. The Structure of our capitalist society does not provide for total equality nor does it provide for equal opportunity. That’s where state intervention comes in and thats why we pay taxes. Is that so hard to understand?
72. burt 72

    10 June 2008 at 10:53 am

    Joel

    Exactly, there are always going to be people consuming welfare, this is the point I was making before rOb distracted the thread and made it all about me, twisting what I said to imply I think we should all earn exactly $110K and pay 7% tax which is la la land stuff and not what I was saying at all.

    Ant’s is contributing more than an average worker in tax, he’s not consuming welfare (although he probably is consuming some social services which he is also paying more than average for). The point is that Ant’s has been denigrated for paying more tax than an average worker, sure he could do more, but so could a family on WFF paying no tax at all!

    This thread is a good highlight of the policies of envy in full flight. Ant’s is contributing but according to some people he’s not contributing as much as he should. To add another twist to la la land, imagine if everybody paying circa $8,000 in tax picked up sticks and left NZ how would we pay welfare to people who needed it if that happened?

    The real issue is should we have the LAQC structure available, no good will come from getting all wound up because somebody is using an LAQC and legally reducing their tax burden.
73. ants 73

    10 June 2008 at 11:05 am

    The point I was making earlier on about WFF and other benefits in NZ making it more attractive for people to not better themselves, or they risk ending up with less net income once their benefits are removed is an important one also.

    I think this is a real issue (as I know people in this situation) – but Steve dismissed it as being based on a flawed premise.
74. burt 74

    10 June 2008 at 11:12 am

    ants

    With unemployment picked to rise to 6% over the next couple of years life is going to get interesting for people who have been enjoying WFF and subsequently end up unemployed.

    Having elevated their lifestyles beyond their own means at the expense of people like you paying more than an average amount of tax, these people are going to be struggling big time. Guess people in this position will understand why some people don’t like WFF sure it’s short term gain for some people, but creating a whole new class of financial out patients at the expense of productive tax payers is always going to end in tears.
75. r0b 75

    10 June 2008 at 11:31 am

    Burt, your original claim: “If all NZ people operated exactly like Ant’s our economy would be rocking along very nicely and the govt would be rolling in cash.

    I queried this: “A 7% flat tax rate would see the govt rolling in cash would it Burt.”

    You replied: “All people contributing more than the average person pays today and none claiming any welfare benefits. Ummm, gee, how poor would we be in that situation rOb ? … It’s not about the 7% tax rate rOb, it’s about how much hard cold cash is contributed. Doooh.

    Burt, the only way everyone to operate exactly like ants (7% tax) and contribute as much cold hard cash as ants is for them to have the same salary as ants (over 100K). The La la land you are proposing only works if everyone has a salary over 100K. Do you really not understand this?
76. r0b 76

    10 June 2008 at 11:34 am

    HS: Daycare is indeed good for kids socialisation I think you would agree however that it should not be forced upon children or parents from 7.30 to 6pm Monday to Friday.

    I don’t recall making such a suggestion HS.
77. burt 77

    10 June 2008 at 11:41 am

    rOb

    Keep trying, you might convince some people that I was suggesting everybody pay 7% tax and earn $110K. I suspect most people will understand, especially in the context of my previous comments, that I was talking about people paying more than an average worker (today) pays in tax being something that would benefit the economy. (as Ant’s is doing)

    Perhaps it was the wording – I agree that “exactly like” is a little misleading and provided a great oportunity to accuse me of saying something I wasn’t.

    Sorry I confused you.
78. r0b 78

    10 June 2008 at 12:13 pm

    I agree that “exactly like’ is a little misleading and provided a great oportunity to accuse me of saying something I wasn’t.
    Sorry I confused you.

    Ahhh – Ok.

    I was talking about people paying more than an average worker (today) pays in tax being something that would benefit the economy.

    Yup, it’s all clear now. What you were proposing was massive tax increases for low paid workers so that they all pay more tax than the current average. I’m sorry I was so rude Burt, that’s just an amazing idea. Truly amazing.
79. higherstandard 79

    10 June 2008 at 12:19 pm

    r0b

    I didn’t suggest you did – however the point that ants was making is that kids shouldn’t have to go into full time daycare all day everyday so the parents can earn a living, some daycare is no doubt good for socialising children full time daycare at the expense of time with Mum and Dad is not something that I would want for my kids or my Grandkids
80. r0b 80

    10 June 2008 at 12:24 pm

    however the point that ants was making is that kids shouldn’t have to go into full time daycare all day everyday

    Ants suggested that kids who go to day care grow up to be pricks. I was responding to that (rather bizarre and unpleasant) suggestion with an invitation to consider the benefits of day care, that’s all.
81. higherstandard 81

    10 June 2008 at 12:33 pm

    r0b

    Are you sure you’re not in politics full time you seem to be able to lie very easily.
82. Felix 82

    10 June 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Surely if they stay at home being raised by pricks they’re quite likely to grow up to be pricks too?
83. higherstandard 83

    10 June 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Fair comment Felix but the nature vs nurture debate is probably best undertaken at another time in another place.
84. Quoth the Raven 84

    10 June 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Ants you have a lot of admirable goals like allowing your wife to retire and you probably work very hard. However you must recognise that the state has provided with so much. So you send your children to private school, but did you go to a private school or a state school? What about university? Was it free when you went? You pay for health insurance now, but have you ever recieved healthcare from the state before you did?
    I notice that you doubled the amount you give to charity from $500 in one comment to $1000 in another. What’s the real amount? $0.00?
85. Draco TB 85

    10 June 2008 at 1:30 pm

    I wouldn’t go that far Felix, I’d just stop at the question.

    Is he operating within the tax laws?

    And then I would ask if those laws are just because most people can’t take advantage of them. And then I would change the laws because they’re obviously not working as they are.

    If all NZ people operated exactly like Ant’s our economy would be rocking along very nicely and the govt would be rolling in cash.

    Actually, I think you’ll find that society would collapse because there wouldn’t be enough money for the government to operate.
86. r0b 86

    10 June 2008 at 1:38 pm

    HS: Are you sure you’re not in politics full time you seem to be able to lie very easily.

    I actually take offence there HS. I many be many things that you don’t like, but I am not a liar.

    My post on childcare is above above at 9:32am and says exactly what I said it says.
87. higherstandard 87

    10 June 2008 at 1:50 pm

    I’m sorry you take offence, perhaps if you would care to review who Ants was calling a prick and the point both he and I were trying to make you might take less offense

    ghostwhowalks
    June 9, 2008 at 7:15 pm
    ..means my wife will never have to work again!!

    Poor thing to hear about her severe brain injury.
    But if not What will she do after 20 years. Cook your dinner everynight and clean and wash your house as an unpaid servant ..Uggh

    ants
    June 10, 2008 at 9:09 am
    “ghostwhowalks’ – my wife wants to stay at home so she can be a fulltime mother instead of dumping our kids in daycare as most people are forced to do these days. That way they won’t grow up to be a prick like you are.

    higherstandard
    June 10, 2008 at 12:19 pm
    r0b

    …. the point that ants was making is that kids shouldn’t have to go into full time daycare all day everyday so the parents can earn a living, some daycare is no doubt good for socialising children full time daycare at the expense of time with Mum and Dad is not something that I would want for my kids or my Grandkids

    r0b
    June 10, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Ants suggested that kids who go to day care grow up to be pricks. I was responding to that (rather bizarre and unpleasant) suggestion with an invitation to consider the benefits of day care, that’s all.
88. Clunking Fist 88

    10 June 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Paul pays more than $8000 every two months? That’s $48,000 a year. Congrats on being a rich prick! :^)

    However, I suspect that is GST you are paying and that it’s NOT you paying it, it’s your CUSTOMERS paying it.
89. r0b 89

    10 June 2008 at 2:11 pm

    I’m sorry you take offence, perhaps if you would care to review who Ants was calling a prick

    It matters not a jot who ants was calling a prick, the point is that he stated or at least very strongly implied that kids who go to daycare grow up to be pricks, viz: “instead of dumping our kids in daycare as most people are forced to do these days. That way they won’t grow up to be a prick”

    I very politely (and for the good of no one but his children) invited him to consider the benefits of daycare (socialisation). You then called me a liar. So as well as taking offence, I’m also rather confused – what exactly was I supposed to be lying about?
90. Pascal's bookie 90

    10 June 2008 at 2:21 pm

    r0b, I’m also confused as to what exactly you are accused of lying about. JFTR.
91. higherstandard 91

    10 June 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Perhaps we should let Ants clear it up then r0b if he comes back.

    You chose to selectively cut and paste Ant’s comment as having a go at children in childcare as growing up to be pricks.

    I clearly disagree as per my understanding of Ant’s comment and clarification thereof hence my comment with you lying and being intimately involved in politics.
92. r0b 92

    10 June 2008 at 2:23 pm

    You chose to selectively cut and paste Ant’s comment as having a go at children in childcare as growing up to be pricks.

    How else can it be interpreted?

    (Edit – cheers PB)
93. Pascal's bookie 93

    10 June 2008 at 2:28 pm

    No worries r0b. Apparently words mean what HS wants them to mean. To disagree is a lie.
94. lprent 94

    10 June 2008 at 2:29 pm

    From my scan here it seems like this thread is getting excessively acrimonious at a personal level. Should I start taking notice?
95. higherstandard 95

    10 June 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Rob – it can be interpreted as I did as I said let Ant’s clarify

    PB – I hope you can see the irony of your comment
96. r0b 96

    10 June 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Should I start taking notice?

    No need Lynn, I think I’m done here, apologies if we shadows have offended (but do I feel more sinned against than sinning!).
97. higherstandard 97

    10 June 2008 at 2:43 pm

    r0b

    While I’m tempted to a diddums.

    I do apologise if I’ve upset you.

    I don’t agree with you on much but you do appear to be a good and committed citizen and it’s not a crime to be passionate about what you believe.
98. NX 98

    10 June 2008 at 2:46 pm

    It’s ironic that a thread about Labour’s vision turns into a debate about child beating.

    Epitomises why this government is in trouble.
99. r0b 99

    10 June 2008 at 2:47 pm

    While I’m tempted to a diddums.

    Heh!

    I do apologise if I’ve upset you.

    Thanks HS. And bravo, friend and foe alike might take note of how an apology can be offered even in the hurly burly world of a political blog.
100. Clunking Fist 100

     10 June 2008 at 3:52 pm

     Paul
     If I’m wrong, you earn about $146,000 a year. Mate, you need to vote for less waste and less taxes!

     Thankfully, the Sullen one has caved in and given me a tax cut (soon). Losing the grip of the levers of power has a funny effect on folk.
101. ak 101

     10 June 2008 at 3:57 pm

     To err is human..

     As HS showed…

     to forgive, divine.

     and rOb is God.

     (Speaking of Whom, heard about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac? Lies awake at night wondering if there is a dog)
102. higherstandard 102

     10 June 2008 at 4:15 pm

     ak

     I apologised for causing offence to rOb I still don’t think that ant was saying that all kids who go into day care will turn out to be pricks.

     Better watch out calling rOb GOD not only might he get ideas above himself you may draw the ire of some religious zealot.
103. r0b 103

     10 June 2008 at 4:20 pm

     Well cheers ak, appreciate the sentiment, but if I was God shouldn’t I be able to smite? I mean, smiting, how cool is that, and there’s folks as need a good smiting, but I just can’t figure out how it’s done. Sigh. Perhaps it’s for the best.

     On the other hand, I did have a dog once.
104. ghostwhowalks 104

     10 June 2008 at 4:29 pm

     Ants wife ( washing ironing food entertainment) will have to work again sometime
     But she only needed for full time childcare . Well they are off to school at 5 years.
     So she only doesnt have to work for about 14 years , then will have no marketable skills, and if ant wants a new model will be cast aside like many others since child rearing wont be his new priority..

     imagine having your life like something out of desparate housewives.
105. higherstandard 105

     10 June 2008 at 4:45 pm

     Nice to know you have such a low opinion of stay at home mothers and their husbands GWW.

     As you’re so keen to pigeon hole Ant and his wife let’s try the same with you……. late teens early twenties, just out of university after a social sciences degree, no girlfriend…..
106. ants 106

     10 June 2008 at 5:36 pm

     Get over yourself Rob, and stop selectively posting stuff.

     Someone has a go about me and my wife and so I called them a prick. Thats it.

     I said that I’m fastracking my mortgage so that my wife can stay at home and raise our kids instead of her having to go straight back to work and dumping the kids in daycare for 30-40 hours a week, as a lot of young couples are forced to do these days.

     Do you want me to spell it out more or can you comprehend what I said this time?
107. Phil 107

     10 June 2008 at 5:53 pm

     “no girlfriend…”

     You can tell by the way he holds the mouse
108. Anita 108

     10 June 2008 at 6:49 pm

     burt,

     The independent schools receive $40 million per year, and have been doing so since 2000.

     Integrated schools get the same per student funding as state schools.

     The ministry of education provides useful definitions of the difference.

     Anita
109. Anita 109

     10 June 2008 at 6:56 pm

     ants,

     Good on you for fast tracking your mortgage – I’d love to pay mine off faster too 🙂

     Does it bother you at all that you’re able to do this because you’ve structured your finances in a way that means that I (and the rest of NZ) pay for your family’s education and healthcare (plus security and various other things) because you don’t want to?
110. Hamish 110

     10 June 2008 at 7:06 pm

     All you pinko’s do is complain.
111. Policy Parrot 111

     10 June 2008 at 8:04 pm

     “Does it bother you at all that you’re able to do this because you’ve structured your finances in a way that means that I (and the rest of NZ) pay for your family’s education and healthcare (plus security and various other things) because you don’t want to?”

     I’ll answer that for him – No it doesn’t – as long as I pay less tax. I also bet that when he is finished paying off the mortgage, there will no change back to the previous arrangement. Therefore, any arguments that the structure was temporary to pay off the mortgage was faux.

     These type of tax arrangements are part of the reason why I am studying Chartered Accountancy – so I can lobby they be legislatively closed.
112. vto 112

     10 June 2008 at 8:40 pm

     I posted way up the top somewhere that I thought this was a terrible post and thread. Having had a brief look through all posts since, my suspicioun has been confirmed.

     This entire thread exemplifies what I consider the deep divisions in social and political outlook in New Zealand.

     This person Ants gets shit from all you so-called left lot for working hard and looking after his family. This is exactly why Clark is gone-burger. Ants sort of behaviour should be applauded. But it is not – and the people, the actual people in the street who go to work each day that you all seem to despise, recognise that sheer horridness that seeps between the rivets of the current left (Cullen “rich prick”). I cannot believe the crap some people have posted. Examples;

     GWW said of Ants wife “imagine having your life like something out of desparate housewives.” Nasty bones you’ve got GWW.

     Robinsod of Ants 7c in the dollar tax “Hey ants – Get the fu*k off my roads and stop using the rest of my fu*kin infrastructure! You fu*kin thieving parasite!” So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit? I always thought the extreme left and extreme right are one and the same.

     Quite simply – the hatred directed towards what Ants has described of his situation confirms the nastiness and bitterness that infiltrates so much of todays left thinking. You know, its not ‘left’ thinking at all, its just self-hatred, bitterness and envy.
113. burt 113

     10 June 2008 at 9:20 pm

     What vto said.

     I’ll now wait for rOb to tall me that when I said “what vto said” that I was actually saying that my hovercraft is full of eels.

     Ok, we have worked over the LAQC’s – anyone want to talk about trading trusts?
114. T-Rex 114

     10 June 2008 at 10:41 pm

     my hovercraft is full of eels

     Love it 🙂

     GWW said of Ants wife “imagine having your life like something out of desparate housewives.’ Nasty bones you’ve got GWW.

     Agreed – that’s pretty venemous, not to mention totally unjustified.

     I haven’t actually decided what to think about your approach ants. As long as you’re operating within the law, which will (as far as my understanding of it goes) ensure that you pay the appropriate level of tax in the long run then I withdraw what I said earlier about agreeing with ‘sod and applaud your ambitions at least.
     I just don’t like it that you seem to think tax is something you should resent when you do pay it. Do you not think you’re getting anything for your 7%?
115. r0b 115

     10 June 2008 at 11:31 pm

     Get over yourself Rob, and stop selectively posting stuff.

     Careful, I’ll smite you!

     Do you want me to spell it out more or can you comprehend what I said this time?

     Nothing selective, here’s your full quote, and I think that I comprehend it very well: my wife wants to stay at home so she can be a fulltime mother instead of dumping our kids in daycare as most people are forced to do these days. That way they won’t grow up to be a prick like you are.
116. r0b 116

     10 June 2008 at 11:35 pm

     my hovercraft is full of eels
     Love it

     T-Rex, you’d probably enjoy the rest of Monty Python’s lines too.

     Burt’s just grumpy because his plan for massive tax increases for low wage earners isn’t getting much traction.
117. G 117

     11 June 2008 at 1:09 am

     I think vto has made an excellent point here, which no-one seems to want to address:

     “Robinsod of Ants 7c in the dollar tax “Hey ants – Get the fu*k off my roads and stop using the rest of my fu*kin infrastructure! You fu*kin thieving parasite!’ So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit?”

     Good question.

     Also, SP’s comment: “If you’re not willng to pay for part you are just free-riding off everyone else.”

     I don’t ever hear Social Democrats level these sorts of criticisms at those who not only avoid contributing to the country’s upkeep, but also get a weekly allowance from those who do; in fact, with respect to the beneficiaries all I ever hear from you guys are cooing noises of sympathy.

     Forgive me if I say this sounds like a dreadful double-standard.
118. Draco TB 118

     11 June 2008 at 2:08 am

     Those who genuinely can’t find a job need help and should receive it. Unfortunately there are some people who will abuse this generosity but, thankfully, they are a very small minority of the populace. When they are caught they will be dealt with appropriately by the police.

     The opposite is also true where those who abuse the tax system will also be attended to by the police.
119. T-Rex 119

     11 June 2008 at 8:04 am

     Rob – yup, I caught the reference, just thought it was well delivered. Well. Inasmuch as you can by email.

     Actually, was it Python or the Goons?

     On the issue of no tax paid through tax avoidance (avoidance? evasion? I can never remember which is the one you go to jail for… though I’m reminded of a quote from ‘The Firm’) vs no tax paid through being on a benefit… obviously in both cases the people involved are not contributing and hence yes, freeloading could be a reasonable perception, but in the latter case it’s a bit like accusing Bangladesh of selfishness for failing to donate sufficient international aid.

     So I do view the two quite differently. I don’t think you’ll find anyone on this site who’ll be overly apologetic for those on the dole who are truly bludging, but I think they’re probably a minority.

     I’ll have to check, but I’m pretty sure the long term tax implications of what Ants is doing are fairly neutral. It’s the intent, to the extent of “damn government has no right to steal my money” that bothers me. I usually only see it in people who don’t really think that hard about what the govt does with their money. At some point though, Ants is going to either a) get done for tax avoidance and have to pay up or b) come out the other side of a usual tax deferral mechanism and have a bill.
     Assuming he’s got a competent tax lawyer, the latter is more likely, and does actually mean he’ll be paying tax at some point.
120. RedLogix 120

     11 June 2008 at 8:09 am

     The real issue is should we have the LAQC structure available, no good will come from getting all wound up because somebody is using an LAQC and legally reducing their tax burden.

     When will you guys get it? (Well t-rex has worked it out above.)

     An LAQC is NOT a tax reducing mechanism. What is allows you to do is to anticipate a tax credit in one entity (your property company) and then use that amount to reduce PAYE that you are incurring as an employee in another entity.

     If the LAQC did not exist, then the tax credit in the property company would simply be accumulated and then reduced off future profits. (Or paid out as a tax credit at the end of the tax year in some cases.)

     In other words an LAQC is simply a cash flow smoothing mechanism. In the long run the total tax paid is pretty much the same whether you use an LAQC or not…but in the short term it helps enormously with the cash flow and for this reason it helps keep rents down.

     At present a typical tenant is only paying between 40-60% of the cash they would have to pay if they were actually owning the same hold with an 80% of equity mortgage. Without the LAQC landlords would be uniformly forced to increase rents substantially.

     If ants looked at his total CASH position, he would realise that yes he is only paying 7% PAYE, but if he includes the actual cash he is pumping into his property (and treats this as an accomodation subsidy paid directly to his tenant) then his total effective tax burden will be similar to what he would have been paying without the LAQC.

     In the long run ants is paying all of his tax… and the purpose of investing in property is the long run gain in equity.
121. higherstandard 121

     11 June 2008 at 8:16 am

     r0b

     It seems you need to refer to PBs comment of

     June 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm
     No worries r0b. Apparently words mean what HS wants them to mean. To disagree is a lie.

     On the contrary apparently words mean what you what them to mean even after the original poster has told you exactly what his words were meant to imply.

     Poor form r0b very poor form !
122. r0b 122

     11 June 2008 at 8:37 am

     Give it a rest HS.

     Ants denies slagging off childcare. In the immortal words of Mandy, well he would, wouldn’t he.

     His original words are his original words, anyone can read them and decide for themselves what a straight forward reading implies about childcare. If Ants didn’t mean to suggest that the kids that go there grow up to be pricks then he needs to be a lot more careful about how he expresses himself.

     Y’all have a nice day now.
123. higherstandard 123

     11 June 2008 at 9:02 am

     rOb

     Your refusal to accept what Ant’s meant is very similar to the continuous arrogant approach taken by the party of which you are a member. They continue to be convinced that no one but no one knows better than they do.

     Thank goodness they will be removed if they ever get around to having an election this year.
124. r0b 124

     11 June 2008 at 9:19 am

     They continue to be convinced that no one but no one knows better than they do.

     Governments are elected to govern HS, and if Labour didn’t govern then you would be in here whining about how they were weak and showed no leadership. Whined if we do, whined if we don’t. All politics as usual and so on, jolly good, but you should also experiment with some more productive hobbies.
125. Pascal's bookie 125

     11 June 2008 at 9:20 am

     Sorry Iprent, but…

     HS, Do you accept that Ants comment:

     That way they won’t grow up to be a prick like you are.

     directly implies that childcare leads to prick formation?

     Because if it doesn’t then his comment literally makes no sense. This is the comment r0b is talking about. Nothing else. You claimed that r0b lied. He did not. Everything else Ants and yourself talked about is irrelevent to your accusation of r0b being a liar because r0b was talking about the belief that childcare turns kids into pricks.

     You have not denied that Ants claim implies childcare makes pricks. Nor have you substantiated your claim that r0b lied.

     Instead, you, politician like, apologised for the offense caused rather than for your actions that lead to the offense. This is the type of non-apology apology that I don’t let my kids get away with. r0b however was gracious to you, and you respond by accusing him of poor form.

     Dr. heal thyself.

     ps are you aware that you share a punctuation tic with a very well known troll?
126. higherstandard 126

     11 June 2008 at 9:33 am

     Clearly you both refuse to accept Ants clarification of what he meant which was clear to me from the first read.

     Congratulations with such outstanding blinkered behaviour you both appear to be the sons that the Prime Minister wishes she had.

     captcha companions all Yes most of the posters here do appear to be.

     Wake up you’re in the minority and if you don’t listen to the other side your precious party will get more of a drubbing than even the current polls predict.
127. Lew 127

     11 June 2008 at 9:35 am

     Interesting thread which says more about the entrenched nature of the division Steve illuminates than anything else. What I get from coming to it late is that everyone feels they are a `hardworking kiwi’, but most people seem to think that some others aren’t.

     This division is precisely the point Steve was trying to make and y’all have demonstrated it most admirably.

     Much of the thread has concerned ants – not whether he’s a `hardworking kiwi’ but whether he’s a tax cheat. I suppose I have an unusual perspective on this because on the one hand I believe paying tax is a moral and civil responsibility which allows society to function – the price of civilisation, as people say, and in the rights of people to legally minimise their own contribution. This is part (but by no means all) of the reason I support agressively progressive taxation regimes – to offset the extent to which those on high incomes can structure themselves out of the tax take.

     By my reading, ants is doing the rational thing, and also the moral thing: he is structuring his income legally to enable him and his family to get financially secure and raise a good family, which will have significant social and economic benefits a generation from now, and he is still paying above the median tax. In addition, once his LAQC is no longer losing money (they don’t do so permanently; as RedLogix says they’re mostly a means of deferred payment), he’ll likely be in the position of either paying more tax, or providing a revenue-generating role of some sort by, for instance, investing in rental property.

     Ultimately the guy is going to have to pay one way or another – the only significant loophole is the lack of a capital gains tax (though this is a significant one, it’s been enjoyed by plenty of low-to-moderate income folks in the past, before it caused the housing bubble). If you think what ants is doing is wrong, I suggest you lobby for change. Until then, let him pay his mortgage off, release his wife to look after the kids if she wants to, and get on with his life. He shouldn’t have to put up with the sort of invective seen here.

     L

     HS: Your bringing back any perceived personal failing back to Labour is getting tiresome, as well.
128. burt 128

     11 June 2008 at 9:36 am

     rOb

     Burt’s just grumpy because his plan for massive tax increases for low wage earners isn’t getting much traction.

     I’m saying “lost in translation” – pretty obvious I though.

     It’s interestingn that I’m not the only person in this thread that thinks you pick some irrelavent issue from a post and blow it out of proportion to distract the thread and turn the attentin from the ball to the player.

     When you address the issues of the thread and offer your own opinions you are usually interesting and insightful, sadly that’s the minority of your comments and the bulk is distraction and denigration pushing the “status quo good”, “labour good” line.

     Have a nice day rOb.
129. Pascal's bookie 129

     11 June 2008 at 9:44 am

     HS I fully accept Ants ‘clarification’.

     It doesn’t contradict his implication that childcare turns people into pricks however.

     Do you deny that that implication is obvious from what he wrote?

     Can you quote r0b’s ‘lie’? Do you know that a lie is a deliberate telling of an untruth? Or is that another word that you have your own definition for?

     Why didn’t you respond to my post with anything other than politician style personal attacks and irrelevent blather about the election.

     The point is you called r0b a liar and you can’t substantiate that claim, except by saying that you understood Ants to mean something more than what he wrote.

     Which JFTR does not make r0b a liar. (but it does make you one, insofar as you are maintaining that r0b is a liar when r0b didn’t lie)

     Or are you denying that Ants syllogism implied that childcare turns people into pricks after all. Are you that stupid?

     But I’m done with this. Unless you’d like to apologise for calling r0b a liar or substantiate the claim with quotes and an explantion of why it is a lie.
130. r0b 130

     11 June 2008 at 10:08 am

     Have a nice day rOb.

     You too Burt my dear.

     PB – cheers for telling it like it is. You have more energy than me!
131. G 131

     11 June 2008 at 12:22 pm

     Once again:

     I think vto has made a very valid point here, which no-one (with the exception of T-Rex who at least made an attempt) seems to want to adequately address:

     Despite Ant’s honourable self-reliance, Robinsod viscously laid into him: “Hey ants – Get the fu*k off my roads and stop using the rest of my fu*kin infrastructure! You fu*kin thieving parasite!’

     SP also had a go: “If you’re not willng to pay for part you are just free-riding off everyone else.’

     And Paul: “Ant is being selfish and not paying his share…” & “I think that Ant’s behaviour is selfish and anti-social…”

     Ants rightly asks: “So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit?’

     Social Democrats are so quick to jump on hard-workers like Ants who’s doing his best to provide for his own family, contributes 7% more than any beneficiary, AND pays 12.5% on everything he purchases… but we don’t ever hear you level ANY criticism at those who are – in the purest definition of Robinsod’s abusive epithet, ‘parasite’ – literally living off the labour of others.

     Personally I think Ants deserves and apology. And a thanks from all those who benefit from the 19.5% tax he does pay.
132. higherstandard 132

     11 June 2008 at 1:02 pm

     PB

     You’re right I withdraw my accusation of r0b being a liar.

     Labour toadie is far better description.

     Lew point taken to yourself I do indeed apologise
133. G 133

     11 June 2008 at 11:18 pm

     Anyone coming back to address vto’s excellent question…?

     “So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit?’
134. r0b 134

     11 June 2008 at 11:24 pm

     So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit?

     I say, if you can work and if you can find work, get out there and work because society doesn’t owe you a living. But if you can’t work, then I’m glad to live in a humane country that will spend my taxes to extend to you the support that you need (only, be careful because if the Tories get in again you’re screwed mate).
135. G 135

     12 June 2008 at 12:21 am

     Thanks for coming back, Rob…

     Your response rather proves the point of the double-standard:

     Social Democrat says to the beneficiary (who doesn’t support himself or his dependents, and doesn’t pay any tax): “I say, if you can work and if you can find work, get out there and work because society doesn’t owe you a living.”

     Social Democrat says to the hard-working Ants (who does support himself and his dependents, and does pay some tax): “Hey ants – Get the fu*k off my roads and stop using the rest of my fu*kin infrastructure! You fu*kin thieving parasite!’

     How do you (or more critically, Robinsod) account for the stark difference in attitude?
136. r0b 136

     12 June 2008 at 12:47 am

     Thanks for coming back, Rob

     No problem G, if you don’t start repeating nonsense like a broken record I’m always happy to chat.

     How do you (or more critically, Robinsod) account for the stark difference in attitude?

     Thus: They don’t make we Social Democrats at some kind of clone factory. We have different opinions and personalities. ‘Sod is the rude, witty, handsome one. I’m the boring, serious, grumpy one. Posh Spice and Ringo quit the group over creative differences, but we might do a reunion tour next year some time.

     Goodnight.

     Oh – PS, I don’t even think ‘Sod is an SD, I think he’s a Greenie. Go Green!
137. vto 137

     12 June 2008 at 8:13 am

     G, seems no adequate answer is available. And that is answer enough.
138. r0b 138

     12 June 2008 at 9:30 am

     What’s the matter vto, you don’t like my answer? What’s wrong with it?

     What’s your answer by the way?
139. vto 139

     12 June 2008 at 9:38 am

     Perhaps you missed G’s question rOb. He was questioning the stark difference in attitude between what the ‘social democrat’ says to the beneficiary and to the hard-working Ants, in his post at 12:21.

     That question has been there for a long time through this thread and imo nobody has explained it.

     I dont have an answer because I too am asking the same question as G.
140. higherstandard 140

     12 June 2008 at 9:40 am

     VTO

     If one agrees with the general political skew of posters and commenters on a blog you’re generally treated rather tamely if you take an adversial or any position to the contrary you are likely to be treated far more poorly.

     I expect it is no different on political blogs of any ilk – it is the nature of most people and particularly people on blogs who want to put their opinion about.
141. r0b 141

     12 June 2008 at 9:45 am

     vto, you asked a question which G repeated, I answered it 11:24pm above.

     Then G asked a question, I answered it, 12:47pm above.

     G’s question isn’t really very interesting (sorry G) because s/he compares two very different people’s comments on two very different issues and wonders why they aren’t the same. Hmmmm.

     Your question is Ok as far as it goes I guess, and I have answered it 11:24pm above. Don’t like my answer? What’s wrong with it? What’s your answer by the way?
142. vto 142

     12 June 2008 at 9:47 am

     HS, ta but I suspect the invective directed at Ants runs deeper than merely blog show-boating, and it has been the subject of many of my posts. It is a character of the current left that I have noticed since this govt came to power. Personified in Cullen’s “rich prick” comment. And his inaugural speech in actual factual.

     (now of course that is not say that other political colourings dont have similarly distasteful, if different, traits)
143. vto 143

     12 June 2008 at 9:55 am

     Oh rOb, you mean what’s my answer to “what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit?” following robinsods crappola post re f…..g parasite etc?

     My answer – I don’t actually say anything to them. Provided people are acting within the laws put in place by Parliament then fine. People can do whatever they want with their lives – with just one proviso that people must be good to others. And it is this proviso where both the dole bludger and the white collar crim fall down – both bludging off society. Can’t stand bludgers.
144. r0b 144

     12 June 2008 at 9:57 am

     So vto, it seems that for you no adequate answer is available. And that is answer enough.
145. G 145

     12 June 2008 at 9:58 am

     [deleted – I’ve just seen there’s further responses…] 🙂
146. vto 146

     12 June 2008 at 10:07 am

     oh forget it. we keep sailing past each other.

     the ‘no adequate answer’ was in relation to G’s question as to the difference in approach. different question.

     Sheesh, its like some school debating chamber sometimes with all sorts of schoolground tactics employed to divert and confuse to avoid the difficult questions.
147. r0b 147

     12 June 2008 at 10:22 am

     I answered G’s question at 12:47am above and repeated it a bit more seriously at 9:45am above.

     You can’t even answer your own question.

     Sheesh, its like some school debating chamber sometimes with all sorts of schoolground tactics employed to divert and confuse to avoid the difficult questions.

     At least you got that bit right! But yeah, let’s forget it, life’s too short.
148. G 148

     12 June 2008 at 10:25 am

     Okay, now that I’ve caught up with matters…

     Rob, you really are missing the point. The general attitude by Social Democrats towards the successful hard-working citizen and the beneficiary are, to even the casual observer, two entirely different attitudes.

     I’d go further by saying it’s actually quite twisted.

     The beneficiary who is entirely dependent on the labour of the hard-working is let off with some gentle encouragement.

     Ants on the other hand, who is entirely self-sufficient and helps support the beneficiary, gets called a ‘parasite’, a ‘free-rider’, ‘anti-social’ and ‘selfish.’

     This may not be very interesting to you, Rob, but VTO and I are fascinated by what even the most casual of observer can see is dreadful double-standard.

     While you might not share Robinsod’s venomous nature you nevertheless applaud his attitude: “‘Sod is the rude, witty, handsome one.”
149. r0b 149

     12 June 2008 at 10:42 am

     Rob, you really are missing the point. The general attitude by Social Democrats towards the successful hard-working citizen and the beneficiary are, to even the casual observer, two entirely different attitudes.

     G, you are making a logical error known as the “spotlight fallacy”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample#Spotlight_fallacy
     – the same essential fallacy actually appears in different forms eg –
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

     Or in other words, don’t mistake ‘Sod’s opinions, or the opinions of anyone nutty enough to post comments on a blog, as the opinions of Social Democrats in general. (Sod is even an SD, he’s Green from memory).

     So if you want to know SD’s attitudes to various classes of people in society, look to the actions of the government, not one liners on a blog.

     While you might not share Robinsod’s venomous nature you nevertheless applaud his attitude

     Certainly wouldn’t want to agree with everything he says, but Sod is a smart guy and he has a way of cutting right through the BS to make his point. Plus he’s funny, which is all too rare, wouldn’t you say?

     TTFN.
150. G 150

     12 June 2008 at 10:51 am

     Let me help you, Rob, by reframing this into a simpler question:

     Do you accept, that on this blog, beneficiaries who don’t contribute to the economy are treated more kindly than hard-workers like Ants who do?
151. vto 151

     12 June 2008 at 10:57 am

     Good question G. And good luck with trying to get the last word with rOb – she’s a tough nut to crack.
152. Matthew Pilott 152

     12 June 2008 at 11:41 am

     G and VTO, you’ve picked two stupid examples – someone stating how they are reducing their present tax as much as possible (a structure that is perhaps not well understood) and your definition of a beneficiary as a ‘dole bludger’. Apples and plasterboard.

     “Do you accept, that on this blog, beneficiaries who don’t contribute to the economy are treated more kindly than hard-workers like Ants who do?”

     No. I am a hard worker and I am treated very well. A few other cats about the blog put in an honest day’s work and are treated well also.

     I haven’t seen anyone on this blog who has said that they are: a beneficiary, able to work and that they choose not to because they are too lazy (I’m using the stereotype here, somehow I doubt you’re talking about the beneficiary who has been out of work for less than 6 months and is looking hard for a job).

     If such an event was to occur, I’d tell them to go and fuck themselves, get a job and stop bludging off my taxes.

     Does that suffice?

     Perhaps you’re mistaking people encountering opposition because of their views, with people encountering opposition because of their job/income etc.

     Now, a question for you, G (and you, vto, since you’re “asking the same question”)- do you accept that when you’re talking of beneficiaries, you’re trying to play on a bigoted stereotype-minority of long-term deliberate beneficiaries, with the following quote (emphasis added):

     “I don’t ever hear Social Democrats level these sorts of criticisms at those who not only avoid contributing to the country’s upkeep, but also get a weekly allowance from those who do; in fact, with respect to the beneficiaries all I ever hear from you guys are cooing noises of sympathy.”

     Not to mention your talk of beneficiaries who “don’t contribute to the economy” – you’re implying they’ve never had a job, all of them. That may be taking it the wrong way, but saying they ‘avoid’ contributions…

     Unlike you two and others like you, Social Democrats tend to recognise that a system will always be abused by a minority, but that does not mean you should punish everyone for it.

     It maybe took so long for someone to reply to your questions because this much is probably self-evident to most S-D readers – I’m just the only one who bothered to write it up. Enought with the pretentious “why is no one answering me” schtick.
153. r0b 153

     12 June 2008 at 11:42 am

     Good question G. And good luck with trying to get the last word with rOb – she’s a tough nut to crack

     I’ll keep chatting if it’s still interesting, and when it gets boring (other person is just repeating selves with nothing new to say) I’ll stop (eg just recently here and here).

     Do you accept, that on this blog, beneficiaries who don’t contribute to the economy are treated more kindly than hard-workers like Ants who do

     Ahh no I don’t agree at all. If you ask an even more specific question and ask if ‘Sod was rude to Ants, then I certainly agree with that.

     Perhaps we could start comparing with the attitudes of some of the right wingers on this blog:

     Monty
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2139#comment-59154 and
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2151#comment-59604

     Personaly i do not give too much of a shit about the lower clasess – I am not one of them but i never planned to be

     Yes – the poor people can go screw themselves.

     Barnsley Bill
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1258 and
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1255

     I never said it was a bad thing Steve, but then I would happily see most of the country castrated and force fed valium.

     The good news (for me anyway) is that key is likely to steal less money from me in the form of tax. And that my friend is the only thing that matters to me and many like me.

     Joker
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1948#comment-43716

     I was just trying out the compasionate tory thing for size but who am I kidding screw the poor.

     From which we can conclude that the National Party hates the poor and wants them to go get screwed, right?
154. vto 154

     12 June 2008 at 12:05 pm

     Well Mr Pilott, you made a few assumptions in there about me which are false, but never mind. Bogged in details.

     Both you and rOb seem to be saying the same thing – that hard-workers like Ants are in fact treated the same by the left as a beneficiary. Well that’s fine, but it does not read that way. And several other posters made that point as well.

     And rOb your comparison with the right is fine, but avoids the question to a large extent. Of course all shades have their bad sides – called human nature. And I acknowledged that somewhere else this morning. But just because everyone is naughty does not mean that the one who is naughty at any particular time should not be hauled across the coals for it.

     And imho the left is naughty on this issue – hence some vehemency on my part on this thread as this thread exmplefied the issue.

     Peace. Out.
155. r0b 155

     12 June 2008 at 12:30 pm

     But just because everyone is naughty does not mean that the one who is naughty at any particular time should not be hauled across the coals for it.

     I quite agree, as long as the coal hauling is applied to that individual for that event, and not taken to be proof of the wickedness of some mass of people (like “Social Democrats”).

     Peace. Out.

     And to you and yours.
156. G 156

     12 June 2008 at 1:14 pm

     So, Matthew, like Ants, you are also reducing your tax as much as legally possible?

     If not, then I believe you’ve fallen into Rob’s “Spotlight Fallacy” trap – http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2150#comment-60377 – and have failed to address the point with the proper context.

     Also, you appear to have fallen into Rob’s “Cherry Picking” trap with this tangent:

     “Now, a question for you, G… do you accept that when you’re talking of beneficiaries, you’re trying to play on a bigoted stereotype-minority of long-term deliberate beneficiaries… saying they ‘avoid’ contributions…”

     The word ‘avoid’ was carefully chosen to make the distinction between those beneficiaries who can’t work and those who choose not to work.

     Now a challenge: I bet none of you can find a single criticism made by anyone of you with anywhere near the same venom as “fu*kin thieving parasite!” directed at ANY beneficiary before you were asked to comment on your double-standard attitude.
157. G 157

     12 June 2008 at 1:26 pm

     BTW, Rob, we only repeat ourselves when we have to: VTO and I had to ask the question four times before you finally answered it.

     And while we’re on the subject, you still haven’t answered this point with anything close to a reasoned substantiation: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2141#comment-59656

     It appears that when you fellows are faced with an unreconcilable contradiction you get bored and become disinterested…
158. Matthew Pilott 158

     12 June 2008 at 2:07 pm

     G, I did the opposite of the spotlight fallacy! The exact opposite. Instead of picking one example and taking it as a representative of all examples, as you did with ants, I opened it out to the general attitude towards all working people. You thoroughly missed the point(s – r0b’s and mine).

     If you want to reduce it to a comparison of ‘hard working’ people who do everything they can to avoid paying taxes and beneficiaries who are true bludgers, you’re welcome, but you won’t see my participation in such a trivial and narrow debate. Vto – perhaps that addresses your point. It “may not seem that way” but you have not looked at it with any sense of perspective, and have put this thread in a vacuum.

     I repeat, g, – I am a hard worker, as are many others on this blog – are we all castigated as you presume? I think not. So are you doing exactly as I said – mixing criticism of ideas with criticism of income?

     As for your language and vto’s comment about assumptions, let’s look at comments regarding beneficiaries:

     “beneficiaries who don’t contribute to the economy”

     “says to the beneficiary and to the hard-working”

     “who doesn’t support himself or his dependents”

     “those who not only avoid contributing to the country’s upkeep”

     “”So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit?”

     I have not cherry picked with that ‘tangent’ – there is a persistent theme from you two against beneficiaries; it implies they don’t work, have never worked, are lazy, can’t provide for themselves and seem to have no intention of doing so.

     So you’re wrong with both of your points, G, and haven’t addressed my question or either of my points – though you have tried to bluster around them. Don’t start demanding answers from other people until you show a bit more substance in your own replies. Give me a reason to carry on contibuting here!

     I’ll put in a little disclaimer here – I don’t think either of you truly have those attitudes towards beneficiaries – but perhaps your opinion of the minority of those who rip the country off has coloured your view of beneficiaries as a whole, and that’s manifesting itself in your language.

     “Now a challenge: I bet none of you can find a single criticism made by anyone of you with anywhere near the same venom as “fu*kin thieving parasite!’ directed at ANY beneficiary before you were asked to comment on your double-standard attitude.”

     False dichotomy. You are comparing any/every beneficiary with one commentor’s treatment of someone they believed was free-loading.

     Why would you expect to see such a reaction as that? there is no logicval equivalence that I can follow, that would lead to the lack of an example being a double standard.

     Do you think the two are equivalent? Perhaps you need to pay special attention to my disclaimer – and perhaps it was incorrect.
159. vto 159

     12 June 2008 at 2:28 pm

     you again make assumptions re my thoughts on beneficiaries. I have made one statement (“So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit?’) which needs to be read in context and is completely void of any labelling or anything even remotely like what you have accused me of. weak mr pilott weak.
160. Matthew Pilott 160

     12 June 2008 at 3:00 pm

     vto – you said, I quote (emphasis added), “I dont have an answer because I too am asking the same question as G“! Do I have to imagine that you were asking the same question, but with more flowery prose, that didn’t have negative connotations towards beneficiaries?

     A case of ‘be careful what you ask’.

     I take it I’ve answered your points though, if that’s all you have to say – a weak protestation to disassociate yourself from G.

     To carify matters, let me clear something up. Your comment in question above, the one that “needs to be read in context and is completely void of any labelling or anything even remotely like what you have accused me of” – it is not my assumption of your thoughts, I’m talking about how I have interpreted those comments. If you read the ‘disclaimer’ you’d see I explicitly stated this.

     You said “those who pay no tax at all” – I see that as a referece to ‘bludgers for life’ – otherwise they would be people who are between jobs or whatever, and are on benefits temporarily – they pay taxes, just taking a hiatus if nothing else.

     If you can’t see any of that, how easy it is to interpret such comments as brazenly anti-beneficiary, nor apply it to the other comments made by G then I further refer you to my disclaimer.
161. G 161

     12 June 2008 at 6:25 pm

     Matthew: “I repeat, g, – I am a hard worker, as are many others on this blog – are we all castigated as you presume?”

     No. I specifically said hard-workers LIKE Ants. That’s a very specific group, Matthew, referring to those who do everything they can to hang on to their hard earned cash and get slammed by you guys as selfish, anti-social, free-riding and parasitical. You have taken it upon yourself to include yourself in that group – not I – and in doing so have clouded this debate in a wash of verbiage.

     You have also misrepresented me in the specific group of beneficiaries to which I’m referring. I’m not sure how, but let me restate what I said:

     G: “The word ‘avoid’ was carefully chosen to make the distinction between those beneficiaries who can’t work and those who choose not to work [edit for absolute clarity: who could work but don’t – and while doing so do not contribute to the economy, to their own upkeep, or that of their dependents].”

     Matthew: “You are comparing any/every beneficiary with one commentor’s treatment of someone they believed was free-loading.”

     Misinterpretation. Let me be specific:

     I bet none of you can find a single criticism made by anyone of you with anywhere near the same venom as “fu*kin thieving parasite!’ directed at a beneficiary [who could work but chooses not to work].

     In other words, Matthew, hard-working guys LIKE Ants are heavily criticised by you lot, while the beneficiary who bludges, who is the literal definition of the word ‘parasite’, gets off lightly.

     THAT is the double-standard that you and Rob refuse to see…
162. Matthew Pilott 162

     12 June 2008 at 9:45 pm

     Ok G, I see where you are coming from – you’re not interested in looking at this from a useful context, but want to trap me into admitting a double standard because I would criticise someone who seems to dodge their taxes but wouldn’t criticise a beneficiary who deliberately avoids working.

     So I will say what I said earlier – I have yet to see a single person on this site who have said they are on a benefit, can work, but choose not to and have no good reason for such behaviour.

     If I did, well, I told you what I would have to say to them. I have no tolerance for such behaviour.

     So at the end of all this, you’re trying to accuse r0b and I of a double standard over something that has not happened before, but based it upon your assumption (that we wouldn’t criticise said beneficiary) which I have already explained was false.

     We haven’t even had the opportunity to set a double standard!! No wonder we ‘refuse to see’ it.

     Funny that you don’t seem interested in discussing hard workers who make no effort to avoid taxes, or beneficiaries who can’t work for good reason. Nor your commentary around beneficiaries in general…
163. vto 163

     12 June 2008 at 10:31 pm

     mr pilott, you tie yourself up in knots. Another weakness of the ‘left’

     “I posted way up the top somewhere that I thought this was a terrible post and thread. Having had a brief look through all posts since, my suspicioun has been confirmed.

     This entire thread exemplifies what I consider the deep divisions in social and political outlook in New Zealand.

     This person Ants gets shit from all you so-called left lot for working hard and looking after his family. This is exactly why Clark is gone-burger. Ants sort of behaviour should be applauded. But it is not – and the people, the actual people in the street who go to work each day that you all seem to despise, recognise that sheer horridness that seeps between the rivets of the current left (Cullen “rich prick’). I cannot believe the crap some people have posted. Examples;

     GWW said of Ants wife “imagine having your life like something out of desparate housewives.’ Nasty bones you’ve got GWW.

     Robinsod of Ants 7c in the dollar tax “Hey ants – Get the fu*k off my roads and stop using the rest of my fu*kin infrastructure! You fu*kin thieving parasite!’ So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit? I always thought the extreme left and extreme right are one and the same.

     Quite simply – the hatred directed towards what Ants has described of his situation confirms the nastiness and bitterness that infiltrates so much of todays left thinking. You know, its not ‘left’ thinking at all, its just self-hatred, bitterness and envy.”

     Is`that better for you ?
164. G 164

     12 June 2008 at 11:22 pm

     Matthew, I don’t want to trap you into anything; I just want you to see the twisted view of the world, held by the likes of Robinsod in particular. The fact is, Ants pays his own way, and pays his petrol tax which pays for the roads, and (some) income tax and GST which pays for his share of the infrastructure – and yet he’s the “fu*kin thieving parasite”?

     And not one objection from any of you.

     You guys are quick to jump on the smallest fallacy from the rest of us, and yet you give Robinsod’s wholly inaccurate and vicious invective a complete pass. I’m sure if anyone of us called a dole-bludging beneficiary a fu*kin thieving parasite – who’d far more deserving of the epithet – you’d be all over us like a rabid Human Rights Commissioner.

     This double-standard comes all the way down from the top. “Rich prick” was not a brain fart; it’s how Dr Cullen really truly feels about the wealthy – and you only have to look as far as his tax policies to see who he favours. It’s an endemic attitude that permeates through his supporters right down to the bottom where Robinsod operates.

     This isn’t about how I feel towards beneficiaries in general; it’s about how you guys generally feel about ‘selfish,’ ‘anti-social,’ ‘free-riding’ guys like Ants.
165. Matthew Pilott 165

     13 June 2008 at 9:35 am

     ok VTO, I’ll keep this one simple for you, seeing as you can’t keep up.

     At the start of the comment you say “…all you so-called left lot…“, later on “…so much of todays left thinking.”

     At the end you say “…You know, its not ‘left’ thinking at all…”

     Great, so those comments about ants aren’t representative of the left; I know you won’t be so foolish, vto, to take one or two examples as representative of an entire political ideology. Oh wait…

     Talk about tying yourself up in knots (it is left thinking, it’s not left thinking, make up your mind). Nice to see you studiously avoiding my points on your own “self-hatred, bitterness and envy” towards beneficaries though – it’s not like it’s not obvious.

     G – same goes for you, I’ll keep it simple.

     This last while you’ve been banging on about a double standard – that’s been your whole point. Now it’s barely even mentioned. So this whole debate has been largely worthless: you make a point, were proven entirely wrong and don’t even acknowledge that’s I’ve shown it to be tripe. Even then you still say it exists – I’ve just shown you it doesn’t. No wonder why r0b gives up, most commentators have the decency you’re lacking here.

     “I’m sure if anyone of us called a dole-bludging beneficiary a fu*kin thieving parasite – who’d far more deserving of the epithet – you’d be all over us like a rabid Human Rights Commissioner.”

     This stupid assumption only shows you’re less intelligent than I thought. Strongly resisting the urge to call you names for such a trivialised, bigoted generalisation. Especially since I just said that I’d say the same thing to said beneficiary. Do you honestly think anyone would complain if you criticised someone who said they were deliberately bludging? Unbelievable, champ.

     If someone from the left says something bad, I generally leave it to the right to disagree, and it’s patently obvious the same happens the other way around. I have only so much time to spend here, and as you’ve shown, that comment has been well critiqued. Why you condecend to judge everyone by what they don’t say is beyond me – perhaps you’ll get it eventually.

     I’m not going to criticise vto for not calling out your bigoted opinion of the left regarding beneficiaries above, nor criticising you for doing the same of his comments I’ve pointed out above. And why would I expect you to – you know I will do so.

     Off your high horses guys.
166. vto 166

     13 June 2008 at 10:07 am

     Mr pilott, I despair. I have given plenty of examples of where this envious nasty trait of the left exposes itself (robinsod, cullen, etc). You need to take your blinkers off.

     You, on the other hand, take my statement ;
     “Robinsod of Ants 7c in the dollar tax “Hey ants – Get the fu*k off my roads and stop using the rest of my fu*kin infrastructure! You fu*kin thieving parasite!’ So what do you say to those who pay no tax at all and are on a benefit? I always thought the extreme left and extreme right are one and the same.”
     and take that as me hating on beneficiaries. What a joke Pilott. An actual joke – your cred = zip. There is no such link. Direct your accusations at robinsod, he is the one hating on people who pay no or little tax. Or perhaps this is all just a game to you and you simply exaggerate and make things up to get a bite.

     Or is it perhaps like another facet that constantly comes up with the left – the instant the white collar expresses an opinion on beneficiaries the label ‘beneficiary-basher’ is thrown at them, no matter their opinion. And the instant someone of ‘non-ethnic’ background expresses an opinion on race issues they are labelled a racist, no matter their opinion.

     Look, you keep believing whatever you want. It has become abundantly clear that many of the people on here are set in their ways and resist at all costs any challenge. This is a heavy left wing site – recognise that you are right at one end of the spectrum and that most NZers disagree with you and your politics.
167. Matthew Pilott 167

     13 June 2008 at 10:55 am

     vto – what a crock. plenty of examples = three. If you want to take those as typical examples of the left then you need to recognise that you have an extreme view that I doubt many will follow.

     Note, this has nothing to do with ‘spectrum’, what we’re talking here actually has little impact on such a question so I’m not sure how you can deduce I’m very left wing from this – I don’t think you know what you’re talking about to tell the truth. E.g you resort to a general attack on the whole site and every proponent of left wing ideas, because you don’t like what I’m saying.

     I did not only take your statement quoted above as you ‘hating on beneficiaries’. It was the ‘paying no tax at all’ part and the implication of someone being a beneficiary for life. It was also where you said you are asking the same question as G – and the way G asked the question had repeated similar anti-beneficiary overtones. Stop lying because you don’t like the implications of language you use, and language you choose to associate yourself with. Personal responsibility, vto…

     See, you don’t realise that what you’re doing here is the same as you’re doing with the ‘left’ as well – the parallels are striking (r0b provided you with some pretty examples of what you are doing, which you of course chose to ignore – again I don’t blame him for leaving this debate – why bother when such discourse isn’t recognised?).

     You’ll notice that here I have never associated your poor behaviour with that of the ‘right’ in general – why is it that you must associate what you perceive to be poor behaviour of (three) individuals as representative of ‘the left’, a loosely termed and widely divergent ideology that encompasses a multitude of ideals and beliefs? Don’t tar an entire ideology with your blinkered brush, thanks.

     I doubt you could describe what ‘left’ thinking is, outside of making a few petty jabs at percieved individual transgressions, given you think the ‘left’ is a monolithic entity represented by The Standard. Now this is a personal comment, but one I think is useful to make: You’re symptomatic of someone whose entire political experience is blog-based.

     Get out there and do stuff for a party that best represents your personal ideology, and you’ll find your horizons of ‘left’ and ‘right’ broadened – I can’t recommend this enough if you really want to be engaged in politics.

     I also don’t think you are one to ‘rate’ others’ credibility, when you can’t maintain a reasonable level of debate without to resorting to petty personal attacks and baseless sweeping generalisations. Stop doing that, and you might find you don’t have to make demands for people to respond to your posts, as seems to be your latest tack.
168. G 168

     13 June 2008 at 11:05 am

     Hells bells, Matt, do you even read my posts?

     – Matthew: “This last while you’ve been banging on about a double standard – that’s been your whole point. Now it’s barely even mentioned…”

     – G: “This double-standard comes all the way down from the top.”

     – Matthew: “… you make a point, were proven entirely wrong…”

     Right, and Ants was treated with kindness and respect by The Standard regulars.

     – Matthew: “Do you honestly think anyone would complain if you criticised someone who said they were deliberately bludging?”

     Yes. I made it clear I was talking about that specific group of beneficiaries with the verb AVOID, and your knee jerk response was: “… do you accept that when you’re talking of beneficiaries, you’re trying to play on a bigoted stereotype-minority of long-term deliberate beneficiaries…”

     – Matthew: “If someone from the left says something bad, I generally leave it to the right to disagree…”

     Nevertheless, the question remains: do you agree with Robinsod that Ants is a “fu*kin thieving parasite!’?
169. Matthew Pilott 169

     13 June 2008 at 11:15 am

     your last question, G: I don’t know enough about the type of tax system ants is using. I don’t support measures to reduce tax paid and choose not to take advantage of them even though I probably could benefit. I would not use such strong language in my criticism of someone. Ok?

     I do read your posts (the same one seems to pop up again and again, irrespective of why I say). You main point is that we’re all living to a double standard, us lefties. I think I demonstrated that wasn’t the case, you ignored that point and carried on as if I never made it.

     One last time:

     1 – there’s a ‘standard’ – some people’s treatment of ants.

     2 – There’s no ‘double standard’ because there’s no second ‘incident’ you can point to (i.e. us ‘lefties going easy on a ‘bludger’).

     3 – It can’t be a double standard by definition.

     4 – That’s what you said was a double standard and it just doesn’t exist.

     There’s no way I can really explain this point any further.

     Your double standard is to accuse me of not reading your posts, but I’m too weary of bashing my head against the unyeilding entity that is G to push that point.

     *tags r0b in*
170. r0b 170

     13 June 2008 at 11:30 am

     r0b … again I don’t blame him for leaving this debate – why bother when such discourse isn’t recognised?.

     I’m not posting in this thread any more MP, but I’m still reading it. I admire your energy and passion in this debate!

     ‘Sod expressed a complicated idea in a short, very rude personal attack – this is his style. vto and G are so excited to have a quote that they can genuinely get self righteous about that they have whipped themselves into an orgiastic frenzy of indignation. Eeew!

     I have nothing further to contribute here and will not post again in this thread under any circumstances. On my way out the door I’m going to be really annoying, and repeat that if we want to start going crazy deconstructing the attitudes expressed by extremes of left of right, then we have plenty of material to work with:

     Monty
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2139#comment-59154 and
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2151#comment-59604

     Personaly i do not give too much of a shit about the lower clasess – I am not one of them but i never planned to be

     Yes – the poor people can go screw themselves.

     Barnsley Bill
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1258 and
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1255

     I never said it was a bad thing Steve, but then I would happily see most of the country castrated and force fed valium.

     The good news (for me anyway) is that key is likely to steal less money from me in the form of tax. And that my friend is the only thing that matters to me and many like me.

     Joker
     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1948#comment-43716

     I was just trying out the compasionate tory thing for size but who am I kidding screw the poor.

     From which we can conclude that the National Party hates the poor and wants them to go get screwed, right?
171. G 171

     13 June 2008 at 11:34 am

     Okay, Matt, I accept that while you might feel some animosity towards the likes of Ants you wouldn’t be nearly as vicious as Robinsod in your criticism; indeed you have been reasonably polite despite your obvious frustrations on this thread.

     I have noticed, however, that you’re quick jump on people who even smell like beneficiary-bashers, while you remain conspicuously silent on the treatment of poor ol’ hard-working Ants.

     Forgive me if that carries the whiff of a double-standard.

     Where’s Robinsod? He’s the one with whom I have the biggest stink…
172. Matthew Pilott 172

     13 June 2008 at 11:58 am

     I’ve happily admitted my flaw – I generally only post on transgressions from comentators I think are of the right, because I know that others will take care of bad comments from the left.

     You have pointed out that it is indeed a double standard (or a standard with a whiff thereof), but in reality it’s only a double standard in relation to what I post on, not what I actually think. Since people can’t comment on everything, I think there’s little to be gained by noting what people do and don’t post on – I’d use this thread as evidence…

     The ‘sod got banned yesterday for making such comments as the one to which you refer, now that I think about it.
173. r0b 173

     13 June 2008 at 12:01 pm

     Well this is going to look really silly if the earlier version of this post shows up, but it does appear to have been genuinely swallowed by the system somehow.

     And in passing “Where’s Robinsod? He’s the one with whom I have the biggest stink ” – G, ‘Sod got banned for a week for bad behaviour in another thread. Interesting eh.

     Anyway – everything below is a post written before MP’s post at 11:15 am, and it is my last contribution on this thread

     ===

     r0b … again I don’t blame him for leaving this debate – why bother when such discourse isn’t recognised?.

     I’m not posting in this thread any more MP, but I’m still reading it. I admire your energy and passion in this debate!

     ‘Sod expressed a complicated idea in a short, very rude personal attack – this is his style. vto and G are so excited to have a quote that they can genuinely get self righteous about that they have whipped themselves into an orgiastic frenzy of indignation. Eeew!

     I have nothing further to contribute here and will not post again in this thread under any circumstances. On my way out the door I’m going to be really annoying, and repeat that if we want to start going crazy deconstructing the attitudes expressed by extremes of left of right, then we have plenty of material to work with:

     Monty

     Personaly i do not give too much of a shit about the lower clasess – I am not one of them but i never planned to be

     Yes – the poor people can go screw themselves.

     Barnsley Bill

     I never said it was a bad thing Steve, but then I would happily see most of the country castrated and force fed valium.

     The good news (for me anyway) is that key is likely to steal less money from me in the form of tax. And that my friend is the only thing that matters to me and many like me.

     Joker

     I was just trying out the compasionate tory thing for size but who am I kidding screw the poor.
174. Matthew Pilott 174

     13 June 2008 at 12:43 pm

     r0b – think the links were under moderation in your earlier post. But I think I’m done as well!
175. G 175

     13 June 2008 at 4:37 pm

     Lovely. I like having the last word.

     ” ‘Sod got banned for a week for bad behaviour in another thread. Interesting eh.”

     Deserved it. Would like to have seen his outrageous comments moderated on this thread, but we didn’t even get any serious objection to them. You’ll have to forgive vto and I for thinking they were endorsed with your silence.

     “‘Sod expressed a complicated idea…”

     Oh yeah, real complicated – I had to go brush up on my Marx to get my head around “Fu*kin’ thieving parasite.”

     “… this is his style. vto and G are so excited to have a quote that they can genuinely get self righteous about…”

     Genuinely self righteous… well thanks, at least, for the validation.

     “… that they have whipped themselves into an orgiastic frenzy of indignation. Eeew!”

     Perhaps next time if you were to answer the question the first time, Rob, rather than the fourth, these debates wouldn’t be so boring or repetitive – or seem so ‘orgiastic’.

     BTW, I don’t support the bad attitudes of right wing bastards either; those three you’ve quoted above are scum in a bucket.

     [lprent: It depends on if and how we see it. Frankly there are too many messages to read each one. Personally I scan and if I see something that looks like one of the patterns I’m interested in, then I read it. Then I have a peek at the thread for context and take what looks like the appropiate action. You note the ‘sod didn’t get done on the language – because we don’t moderate on that particularly if it is in context.

     He origionally got warned for suggesting harm to a third party (someones mother). And then suggesting a novel new approach on another thread – at which point I lost patience.]
176. G 176

     13 June 2008 at 4:50 pm

     Matthew, your concession was happily received.

     “I generally only post on transgressions from comentators I think are of the right, because I know that others will take care of bad comments from the left.”

     Yeah, except some healthy criticism of bad left-think would make you a far more objective commentator. 🙂
177. Paul Robeson 177

     14 June 2008 at 5:33 pm

     I haven’t really read the thread- but isn’t John Key on record as saying that the quality he admires most about Helen Clark is that she is hard working?

     In other words the leader who typifies hardworking kiwis is the one we currently have. She is kiwi endeavour, in her field.

     Surely this could be tracked down as a rebuttal to this spin?
178. G 178

     15 June 2008 at 2:07 am

     Yes, Paul, very hardworking. For the last nine years Helen Clark and her right hand man, Dr. Cullen, have been working overtime spending the huge surpluses reaped from over-taxation. In their three terms they’ve doubled government spending, and plan to make sure there’s nothing left when the new government takes over:

     “The cupboard is bare”… “I’ve not merely stolen their fox I’ve eviscerated it, strangled it and thrown it into their back garden.’

     – Finance Minister Michael Cullen during the Parliamentary Debate on the 2008 Budget.
179. expat 179

     15 June 2008 at 7:44 am

     Nice passive aggressive attempt to paint key as a racist.

     Why would you do that?

     [lprent: I’d suggest that you fix your e-mail. The spam filter thinks that you are trying to spoof it, and throws you into moderation]

Links to post

1. The Standard Week - 06-13 June at The Standard 2.01: posted on 14 June 2008 at 7:29 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS