The right wing media’s infatuation with breeding

Written By: - Date published: 8:57 am, July 3rd, 2018 - 99 comments
Categories: abortion, babies, child welfare, families, journalism, making shit up, Media, sexism, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Labour’s family package is getting some negative comments in some elements of the media.

First up was this cartoon by Al Nisbet.

Nisbet has form.  He has peddled racist trash in the past.

But there was another recent media contribution which arguably was even worse.  It was this diatribe from Barry Soper on the evils of the Government’s Families Package.  He says this:

There’s an old story about giving a man a fish but not teaching him how to fish.

And that’s the trouble with welfare, some get so used to it, that’s the only life they know of and indeed are interested in knowing.

This Government is certainly handing out plenty fish but if the recipients can’t be bothered learning how bait a hook, or to cast a line there’s no need, or compulsion, for them to learn how to.

The father of the welfare state in this country Mickey Joseph Savage this time 80 years ago was steering the Social Security Act through Parliament.

The Act was designed to “safeguard the people of New Zealand from disabilities arising form age, sickness, widowhood, orphanhood, unemployment or other exceptional circumstances.”

So it was more of an ambulance on the way down the cliff face rather than one taking its passengers to the supermarket.

He reaches his denouement with this passage:

Surely our money they’re now spending on baby bonuses would be better spent on something like contraceptive advice, or at least on educating the young on the responsibilities of bringing a baby into the world.

There are already plenty of benefits built into the system for those who refuse to heed advice – it’s called the welfare cradle.

Shades of breeding for a business.

What utter tosh.  The payments are designed to decrease pressure on young families during what is an exceptionally challenging time.

And this is what I really don’t understand.  People like Soper are always the first to talk about tax cuts.  But give a tax cut by way of a cash grant to a select group with clearly demonstrable needs is somehow the beginning of the end of civilisation and the breeding of reliance.  Tax cut to rich businessman good, tax cut to struggling young family bad.

And the underlying message, that the bonus will cause poor people to have more babies is unfortunately based on prejudice and not on reality.  Because fertility rates have more than halved since 1961 and are now at 1.81, well below the anticipated population replacement level of 2.1 despite the existence of what the right wing think is a very generous support scheme.

Earlier this year Ewan Sargent did something dangerous, he reviewed the statistics and talked to Peter Dolan who is population statistics manager at Statistics New Zealand, and reached these conclusions:

Population statistics manager Peter Dolan said the population continued to grow because of near record levels of migration.

He said New Zealand’s “replacement level” of births needed was about 2.1 per woman. That’s the average number of children each woman needs to have over their lifetime for the country to maintain its current population.

Despite the drop, overall the fertility rate has been stable for the last four decades, ranging from last year’s 1.81 up to 2.19 in 2008.

Dolan said the big rises came following the Great Depression and World War II. The peak was 4.31 births per woman in 1961.

Australia’s latest figures are its 2016 birth rate at 1.79.

Dolan said younger women were driving the birth rate down in New Zealand. Women aged 15–29 had record low birth rates.

And teens were also having far fewer babies. In 2017 they had half the babies they had in 2008, and under a quarter of the babies they had in 1972.

I can’t reconcile Soper’s comments with what is happening.  Birth rates, particularly among the young who tend to be poorer, are very low.  There is no evidence that women will have babies because of a modest weekly amount of tax relief.

One day we will have a debate which is based on what is actually happening and where poor people are not denigrated.  That day will not be today …

99 comments on “The right wing media’s infatuation with breeding”

  1. Sabine 1

    I am sure they are not talking about that silly farmer dude with 8 kids and his need for ‘working for families’ that called J.Ardern a pretty communist.

    • soddenleaf 1.1

      Its the righteous indignation at poverty that K.Marx pointed out would lead to world revolution, as the top stops worrying at the irony. That while they despoil, bemoan, blame, they don’t,can’t,won’t acknowledge how they look by the same metrics. Simply put, a rose tinted vision stinks if itself isn’t spoken by rose. E.g guy comes up to reeking declaring the merits of tea totalism. Previous generations would name these rightards prudes. Welfare, like taxes, isnt limit to the poor, or the public. Private welfare, private taxes, abound.

  2. Stephen Doyle 2

    Data and scientific analysis are not part of the right wing lexicon. They work on reckon and prejudice. The governments scientists have their work cut out to get decent thinking through to the msm.

  3. Pat 3

    Arnt these the same clowns who worship at the altar of growth?

  4. Johnr 4

    As I said to another business owner. Think of it as a business subsidy, if welfare stopped, the cash flow in society would reduce, but more importantly it would drive your workforce straight into the unions arms, and then you could expect your wage bill to double.

    I didn’t catch his mumbled reply.

    • Bewildered 4.1

      One problem with your logic re 101 economics , if payments stopped less need for tax thus payments would flow though to workers and firms re less tax thus encouraging more investment/ work and and higher after tax income for workers but also at a lower cost re the dead weight cost of collecting tax and processing it though government departments The only real debate and I guess the left right wing devide re policy is about where those gains fall, Opponent of labour argue lower tax for workers is far more efficient and better for workers than labour scattergun untargeted welfare policies to all actually helping rich and middle class more than the poor or those needing a helping hand up

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1

        One problem with your logic re 101 economics , if payments stopped less need for tax thus payments would flow though to workers and firms…

        Yeah, that’s a load of bollocks. We had that once back in the 19th century and it was the worst poverty that country has ever seen. Capitalists paying less tax doesn’t result in workers getting higher wages. As can be seen over the last thirty years of tax cuts for the rich and the increased income share going to the already rich.

        Reality never conforms to the RWNJ’s bias’ and beliefs.

        • Bewildered 4.1.1.1

          If you read what I wrote Draco I also siad less income tax that has nothing to do with what tax the firms pay, both the firm and worker wins if government collects less tax, if any decrease in tax only refects falling company tax I am with you albeit growing firms means more jobs and more wages

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1

            I did read what you wrote – it was a load of bollocks.

            You rephrasing it slightly hasn’t changed it – it’s still a load of bollocks as thirty years of tax cuts prove.

            BTW, a well run company doesn’t pay tax.

            both the firm and worker wins if government collects less tax

            No we don’t. Workers lose out on all the government services that they need. Again, thirty years of tax cuts and badly maintained hospitals prove that.

            The rich do well though. Strange that eh?

            • Tuppence Shrewsbury 4.1.1.1.1.1

              “A well run company doesn’t pay tax”

              Spoken from the words from someone who doesn’t understand shit about the motivations of business owners.

              Businesses do pay tax. or they pay very high wages in the context of the wages argument and then pay less tax but it balances out.

              Businesses love paying taxes and bonuses. otherwise it’s just a fucking job

              • Draco T Bastard

                Spoken from the words from someone who doesn’t understand shit about the motivations of business owners.

                /facepalm

                It comes from someone who’s studied business, economics and even law.

                Businesses do pay tax. or they pay very high wages in the context of the wages argument and then pay less tax but it balances out.

                I’m quite aware of how it works hence me saying that a well run business doesn’t pay any tax.

                Businesses love paying taxes and bonuses. otherwise it’s just a fucking job

                No they don’t. If they did they wouldn’t always be whinging about it and tax havens wouldn’t exist where multi-national companies store literally hundreds of billions of dollars and probably even trillions.

            • Bewildered 4.1.1.1.1.2

              FFS Draco get your head out of Marx theoretical ideological ass he’s farting all over you and you are beginning to smell The context of my point was responding to arguement that working for families and other middle class largess is a business subsidy, If the government stopped paying it and likewise reduced income tax in kind of course worker take home pay would be better off, who the fk is talking about other government services I don’t think any one is saying no tax, but in contrast there is a point when there is to much tax as well , plus there is a deadweight loss of collecting tax and redistributing, ie every dollar collected is not redistributed, up to 30 pc can be lost in processing it

              • ropata

                Great, let’s cancel all income tax and introduce wide ranging taxes on unearned wealth: property taxes, estate taxes, LVT, CGT.

              • Draco T Bastard

                The context of my point was responding to arguement that working for families and other middle class largess is a business subsidy, If the government stopped paying it and likewise reduced income tax in kind of course worker take home pay would be better off

                I understood your context as we’ve been living in it for the last thirty years and you’re still spouting the same BS. We’ve lowered taxes and we’re worse off. Wages have stagnated while the rich made out like the bandits that they are.

                User pays costs more leaving the majority worse off and the bludging shareholders better off.

                plus there is a deadweight loss of collecting tax and redistributing, ie every dollar collected is not redistributed, up to 30 pc can be lost in processing it

                I doubt that IRD costs ~$20 billion per year to run.

                So, you’re just pulling figures out of your arse.

                Probably explains why you keep getting everything wrong.

                • Bewildered

                  There’s no black and white here draco, apart from your idiotic puratanical views

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    You’re the one spouting the BS that goes against what’s been observed.

                    And now that you’ve completely run out of arguments you come up with BS about things not being black and white.

    • Tuppence Shrewsbury 4.2

      So really, left wing governments with welfare largesse in mind are the enemy of a unionised work force, not big business.

      The cracks appear in the lefts logic

      • Funny that. When its the usual big business crowd crying about unions and higher taxation brackets…

        Then I’m sure it was the workers and unions who were simply crying out for the long awaited Employment Contracts Act 1991 and their hero Ruth Richardson to deliver them safely to working class Nirvana…

        You really do talk shit.

        They say there’s a nice little apartment in Long Island NY reserved just for you . Take a plane trip back home. You know you really want to.

        • Tuppence Shrewsbury 4.2.1.1

          Just pointing out the inherent flaws in your base line logic.

          don’t get too sensitive about it.

          think it through. maybe sit down first. Take your socks off too maybe. remember to breathe while you are chewing it over

          • ropata 4.2.1.1.1

            Unfortunately the Employment Contracts Act made it a lot less likely that workers will run off and join a union. They are much more likely to dumbly accept wage theft and exploitation. Do you really think that workers need to resort to guillotines to get paid a fair wage?

            RWNJ’s – arseholes who enjoy making people suffer

            • Tuppence Shrewsbury 4.2.1.1.1.1

              So left wing governments are there to give welfare to dumb workers so they don’t unionise?

              Ok, the plot thickens

              • McFlock

                It’s not actually a new idea – even Marx posited it.

                If you’re roughly within the range of being a social democrat (very roughly, don’t really need a semantic debate on labels), then the welfare state provides relief to the poor while enabling society to produce and prosper.

                If you’re a total Marxist who believes that the communist utopia is an historical inevitability that will come about via workers revolting against the capitalist overlords, then things like democracy, health&safety laws, and the welfare state are essentially overlord-sanctioned ameliorations of the abusive conditions of workers. These crumbs thrown back to the workers are a futile attempt to forestall the inevitable revolution.

                So yeah, from a fundamentalist marxist perspective the welfare state and even unions are actually delaying the communist objective, rather than enabling it.

                Personally, I’ve always found the ‘things will suddenly be awesome if they can only get bad enough’ position to be a bit too all-or-nothing for the real risk to lives in the real world.

      • ropata 4.2.2

        True, welfare is there because of the inherent need of capitalism to screw the working class and its demands for a ready pool of cheap labour. The wealthy class can’t bleat about welfare and then bleat about wages being too high. What the fuck do they want, slave labour?

        The naked grasping greed of RW logic

        • soddenleaf 4.2.2.1

          It’s the spectacle, designed to talk about distractions while neolib carve up the public purse for themselves.

    • soddenleaf 4.3

      yeah. small business owners overwhelmingly like poor people who dispose of the I income immediately, not rich people who hoard and then buy one off big ticket rarely.

  5. marty mars 5

    Nisbet hates those worse off than him it seems – and then hides it within art – the refuge of cowards imo.

    And soper is only given airtime because of longevity – his content is well below any meaningful line – sadly all his boats are lowering as his water receeds.

    Personally this increase will make a HUGE difference to us and it is so welcome. Thank you labour and partners.

    • Nisbet and Soper,… two featherbrains, big as buffaloes , but not too bright…

      The Featherbrain Championship – YouTube
      Video for front bar featherbrained kevin bloody wilson you tube▶ 4:20

    • patricia bremner 5.2

      Thanks Marty Mars We need to hear how the changes have helped. I remember someone saying they could save the “winter warmth payment” for new glasses.
      I seem to remember Jacinda saying “It is yours to spend how you like”

      • Bill 5.2.1

        Would have been nice if the restrictive and demeaning bullshit put around obtaining glasses by Paula Bennet had been reversed, Patricia. Meanwhile, it’s not as though those claiming entitlements are suddenly in the fucking pink, with a raft of options due to six(?) weeks of “winter warmth payment” being about about to land.

        • patricia bremner 5.2.1.1

          Bill, Jacinda is trying to make a difference to lives.

          It was someone on this site who mentioned the new glasses, I am not sure where Bennett comes in. ……
          Something to do with WINZ I guess. I know many like Marty who are so relieved and happy. Yes they are not “In the pink” but they are feeling cared about.

          I know the sums are not great, but they are an important start.

          • Bill 5.2.1.1.1

            See, that’s the problem is right there. As you say “the sums are not great”. But $20 or $40 makes a huge difference.

            A bit like how a $5 note to a beggar is quite a big deal, yes?

            Glasses. Until Bennet changed things, a person claiming entitlements got an advance loan to pay for glasses that were needed (repaid at mbe $5 per week).

            Now WINZ pays for the glasses, but…well, here’s the fcked off post I did on it.

            • patricia bremner 5.2.1.1.1.1

              Hi bill, I didn’t see your 2016 post as I joined the Standard last year.
              An interesting case in point. I understand your ire now. Thanks PULLA BENNeFIT for nothing.

      • marty mars 5.2.2

        Thanks Patricia,

        I’d forgotten about the increase and then my love told me about them – we both smiled because as very low income earners every little bit make real differences to us.

        All of these incremental improvements make real differences in peoples lives – that is why I vote for the left.

    • Ankerrawshark 5.3

      Marty mars that is so great these changes are going to make such a difference to you. This one of my hopes from supporting labour

      • gsays 5.3.1

        Heh, I am still working on getting Mum to turn her heat pump up a couple of degrees.
        I tried to tell her Jacinda would be disappointed seeing her in wool jacket and scarf sitting in the lounge.

  6. Brigid 6

    It is odd that the well healed are so jealous of those that are not, especially when the not so well off may get the opportunity to reduce the wealth gap between the two groups.

    Will Soper, Nisbet et al be worse off because the family package allows some to increase their incomes? Of course not.
    What goes on inside their heads?

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1

      They see other people having money as them not having it.

      To put it another way, they think they should have all the money and wealth and everyone else can fuck off.

      • ropata 6.1.1

        The myth of the welfare queen vs the deserving poor.

        Often turns out to be a racist view – similar to who goes to prison vs who gets a second chance

  7. indiana 7

    “The payments are designed to decrease pressure on young families during what is an exceptionally challenging time.”

    I guess that is where the debate lies…how long is “an exceptionally challenging time”?

    Putting aside the racial overtones of the cartoon, the point being made is that while the government continues to hand out money or increase the level of welfare because they perceive you to be suffering from “an exceptionally challenging time” – why wouldn’t you increase your family size?

    • AsleepWhileWalking 7.1

      Because the WFF increase will mean you can just get by again.

      NZ is a punitive country.

    • sabine 7.2

      because 60$ would not even cover the cost of pampers?

      • AB 7.2.1

        True.
        But although RW ‘commentators’ know this perfectly well, they like to believe that the poor/brown are just too lazy, lascivious and thick to do the maths.
        You can easily sense that little frisson of mixed disgust and excitement when they level the accusation – the thought of all those dirty poor people having sex and babies and stuff gets them worked up.

  8. cleangreen 8

    Yes Mickey,

    ‘Deranged media’ is rife in NZ now.

    The media think they are the only ‘intellegent source’ we have.

    Get a real life media.

  9. Brigid 9

    “why wouldn’t you increase your family size?”
    Is that action you would take?

  10. Observer Tokoroa 10

    Soper Kicking his boots into Micky Savage

    Where do we get nitwits like Soper from ? Who breeds them?

    Sopers great friends, the Landlords don’t get booted in the guts by Soperists. For the Landlords are addicted to wealth they take via Rents from the poor.

    Newstalk ZB constantly displays the BRAIN CRISIS that our Media is suffering. The Right are so sick. They cannot even look after their own slaves properly.

    Keep kicking the guts Soper. You good boy. Kick kick kick Boots Boots Boots. That’s the boy.

  11. Sanctuary 11

    “…One of the opponents of Savage’s Act, seen as giving birth to the cradle to grave mentality, said it penalised the thrifty and rewarded the spendthrift. And that’s a sentiment that could equally apply today…”

    A piece of writing that shows Barry Soper is intellectually firmly rooted in 1934.

  12. Tricledrown 12

    Bewildered we have had lower taxes for 30 years if employers paid a living wage govts wouldn’t need to keep topping up Wff etc.
    It’s a subsidy by employers who pay decent wages to poor employers who pay minimum wages.

    • Enough is Enough 12.1

      It is paid to everyone though. I am not sure why rich parents get this.

      I would prefer the same pot of money is used, but is better targeted so that poor families get a substantial boost to their take home incomes.

      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1

        I am not sure why rich parents get this.

        Because universality combined with much better progressive taxes is a better idea and more easily administered.

        • Tricledrown 12.1.1.1

          DTB correct having big drop offs in taxes or benefits reduces incentives for employees to earn more which reduces the numbers receiving family assistance and increases govt tax take in the long run.

        • Enough is Enough 12.1.1.2

          Progressive tax is a much better idea.

          Not sure why you think giving some of that tax back to rich families is a good idea. If they are not entitled to WFF they should not be entitled to this. Its analogous to corporate welfare.

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.2.1

            Not sure why you think giving some of that tax back to rich families is a good idea.

            Good progressive taxes would have the rich still paying more than they’re getting while the poor are still better off.

            And universality prevents the beneficiary bashing that we see. It’s difficult to bash someone for getting something that you yourself are getting. It also cuts down on administration.

      • Tricledrown 12.1.2

        Enough is Enough So what do you call rich parents.
        Wff is not paid to rich families it starts reducing at $42,000 for a family with 2 children.

  13. Al 13

    Barry Soper – Mike Hosking – Mark Richardson – Cameron Slater – David Farrar … all cheerleaders for the liberal right (an ironic term given the lack of liberty it provides to those in society who simply can’t afford it) – anything you hear from these people needs to be independently verified, otherwise you can assume it is neoliberal propoganda without factual basis (Trump’s fake news)

    • bwaghorn 13.1

      Your being to hard on richardson and garner . They were happy with the Queenstown mayor wanted the gov to change the law so he could make a new tax for tourists . The irony that the spend much of their time attacking labour on tax was probably lost on them though.

      Am show yesterday

      • ropata 13.1.1

        Different taxes, the Queenstown bed tax is targeted a lot better and won’t adversely affect the working poor. Unlike the blunt instrument AKL petrol tax

    • Hongi Ika 13.2

      All LRWNJ’s neoliberals who do not understand the real world, these guys have been locked up in the closet for too long and have never lived in the real world, let alone get their hand’s dirty ?

  14. Observer Tokoroa 14

    Soper being Thrifty

    If Soper could handle money in a thrifty way he would have used his wonderful ability to explain why his very lovable friends borrowed in excess of $100 Billion Dollars during their 9 years of utter mess.

    Or is that too much for your brain to get around Mr Thrifty ?

    No worry. The poor will pay it for you Soper. Kick the Poor Soper. Do it boy. Do it now.

  15. Draco T Bastard 15

    There’s an old story about giving a man a fish but not teaching him how to fish.

    So, he was particularly effusive about Labour’s and the Greens’ free education policy?

    No?

    This Government is certainly handing out plenty fish but if the recipients can’t be bothered learning how bait a hook, or to cast a line there’s no need, or compulsion, for them to learn how to.

    I’m pretty sure that most of them would love to bait a hook and cast a line but we’ve taken that ability away from them with high tuition fees, reductions in apprenticeships and having to borrow to live while learning.

    I can’t reconcile Soper’s comments with what is happening.

    That would be because Soper needs to peddle lies to help get National voted back in because reality doesn’t fit the RWNJ’s ideology.

  16. Neil 16

    Baseless Right wing dog whistle waffle is the best tired old Tory Soper can manage at the National-aligned NZ Herald this morning.
    Just don’t ask for any actual data or research, because Barry has not a shred of evidence to back up this simplistic populist propaganda.

    #nzheraldwherebalancedjournalismgoestodie #TheDailyReckon
    #politicaljournalistoftheyear? Or #NationalPartysisteroftheyear?

  17. Bill 17

    I’m with Johnr on this.

    I’ve no idea how a government goes about back-peddling on all these indirect subsidies that are going to business. But something has to give on the wage front. A problem (as explained to me by someone caught out by this) is that some workers can find themselves in positions whereby they’d lose money if they got a wage increase because they go over certain thresholds.

    It’s a shite state of affairs that’s been created by successive governments.

    And the Soper’s or who-ever of this world who would now demonise people who’ve been disempowered because governments have given succour to business interests, need to be fed a huge meal and then put in public stocks to be pelted with their own shit.

    • ropata 17.1

      Without their slippery skills at externalising costs and capturing regulators, a lot of NZ big business would be basket cases. A few notable exceptions but the only real growth is due to immigration. Milk, meat and timber are not the high tech value added industries of the future. Just more cheap extractive commodities that are barely worth it if all costs were properly accounted for.

    • patricia bremner 17.2

      Perhaps the tax review panel may fix some of those anomalies Bill.

      • Craig H 17.2.1

        Unfortunately, the Tax Working Group terms of reference specifically excludes interactions with other government transfers such as Working for Families (WFF) and Accommodation Supplement (AS).

        I don’t think people can lose more money than they make if they are not on a benefit, and are employed, but the effective marginal tax rate can easily top 90% for student loan (SL) borrowers who receive WFF and AS because they each have 25% abatement rates which are cumulative, plus SL repayment rate is 12%.

        For example using a salary of $50,000, the tax rate is 30% + 1.39% ACC = 31.39% PAYE on every $1 above $48,000. Add 12% for SL repayments and 25% each for WFF and AS, and each dollar extra loses 93.39%…

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 17.3

      Simple really. Increase progressive taxation and make assistance for children fully universal like NZS or how family benefit used to be.

  18. Soper and Co’s arguments are all arse about face and based on false premises anyhow.

    Fact is , – IF wages were not suppressed in this country ( due in large part historically by Ruth Richardson’s 1991 Employment Contracts Act ) , – and IF we had not had our SOE’s ( which employed tens of thousands on good wages ) sold off for a song to politicians mates…

    Then we wouldn’t have ended up with family’s living in cars and needing as many benefits. And even if we did,… a prosperous population of working people ( and of course the corporate’s and banks who do not pay their share ) could of easily have handled the taxation loading.

    The neo liberal wants a bob both ways.

    Cant have it , I’m sorry.

    Now you either get used to paying up or just shut up.

  19. Kat 19

    The most important next step for the coalition govt is to reinstate a 21st century Ministry of Works……sooner than later. There is lots to be done in this country and it is doable that everyone has a decent job with decent pay and given the opportunity to contribute. Thats the way it used to be way back when Barry Sopers parents received the universal benefit. Oh the irony, and Barry himself receiving free education, tertiary and beyond. Time to call it a day Barry, after 40 years your “opinion’s” are nonsense.

    • … ” Oh, and Barry himself receiving free education, tertiary and beyond. Time to call it a day Barry, after 40 years your “opinion’s” are nonsense ” …

      ———————————————-

      Yes. So glad you made this point.

      This is something that all these neo liberal liars always conveniently tend to forget to mention.

    • Draco T Bastard 19.2

      The most important next step for the coalition govt is to reinstate a 21st century Ministry of Works……sooner than later.

      Yep. The loss of the MoW and other government departments that provided huge amounts of training and opportunity across so many industries is becoming painfully noticeable.

      There is lots to be done in this country and it is doable that everyone has a decent job with decent pay and given the opportunity to contribute.

      It is but we must needs get rid of the capitalist banking system and the belief that the delusional belief that the private sector is the source of all wealth to do it.

      • Kat 19.2.1

        The private sector have proven now for thirty years or more that they are totally unable to replicate what the MoW used to achieve, socially, economically and politically.

        The anti govt mantra in support of the private sector was purely about transferring wealth and power completely to the few. And we all know who.

        • Draco T Bastard 19.2.1.1

          The private sector have proven now for thirty years or more that they are totally unable to replicate what the MoW used to achieve, socially, economically and politically.

          The whole reason why the government departments were set up was because the private sector wasn’t providing the necessary services and training. So, it’s not 30 years – it’s three hundred. In fact, at no point in history has capitalist like systems ever been able to provide the services that a society needs.

          The anti govt mantra in support of the private sector was purely about transferring wealth and power completely to the few.

          QFT

          It was never about making society better off but about making rich people richer and the only way to do that is to take from the poor.

    • patricia bremner 19.3

      Kat. Yes I agree 1000% The MOW was a great training ground.

  20. saveNZ 20

    People on NZ wages can’t afford to have children. So the new lie is that the government needs to bring in migrant’s who are under 30 who of course are going to have kids here (apparently it’s a surprise to immigration that young low wage migrants are gonna have kids and probably stop work and qualify for WFF and accomodation supplement) but all they think about is ‘cheap workers help business’, not really about how these people will live their lives and is there enough resources for their income level if they have children and so forth and where the money for the WFF, hospitals, new schools, new subsidies and new low cost housing and new public transport and new roads are coming from as well as what happens to all the other resident low wage workers under increasing competition in that niche. There is a lot of social welfare to provide when a person is living off $20p/h or under in Auckland in particular. Often so some exploiter can profit further on their hotel, liquor store, retirement village or construction site business.

    Statistic already show migrants of the last 5 years are less qualified often with few if any tertiary qualifications and working low waged jobs as part of the fake degrees and fake cafe jobs for residency scams blooming. They join the richer migrants to have satellite families here and invest in property and build retirement villages or run scam businesses and seem to have free rein to travel in and out of NZ for decades. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12077932

    Offering the $60 that probably would have been useful for the past 30 years for Kiwi beneficiaries, working and middle class parents and children to have that payment rather than user paying the crap out of them, making them pay massive student loan interest rates, and then lowering their wages in real terms. Now they can’t afford to have children they bring in the payment? Saying that, I think this is a group (new parents) that need more support financially but maybe too little too late for Kiwi families?

    The dimwits need to upgrade their pathetic cartoon. It’s more like somebody working a gig economy with a family of two kids and having 4 jobs between them and insecure work from the above policies commoditising workers, rising health problems and a government that is out of touch with what has been done, some of it under their watch!

    National are bad, throwing ‘targeted’ money at a massive fuck up is probably pointless as this point. Like Kiwibuild, too late, for Kiwis to get into their own housing in Auckland. Labour needed to get wiser 4 years ago and take the immigration stance in the election rather than ignore the rising problems and say it was ‘landlords to blame’ and a capital gains would do it. Weird that landlords were the problem when 70,000 new migrants were coming into NZ, 180,000 overseas work permits given out per year and free rein for any foreign buyers to buy property here with 0% tax havens , each year for years and actually no houses to rent.

    Also this is not about new migrants vs Kiwis it is about bad government policy that is turning people into commodities while subsidising private company profits with taxpayer money that should be going towards improving NZ not taking it to the bottom of OECD tables.

    Oh well, the lies seem to serve the same sectors well, again and again.

    • Many , many good points.

      Yet no matter how we cut it ,… the problem always come full circle back to the root cause : neo liberalism.

      You know it , I know it , Jim Bolger admitted it and everyone else knows it.

      Except Soper and Nisbet.

      Except in their case they wont admit to knowing it, – they just apologize for it, and if that is their excuse for ‘apologizing ‘,… then pity help us all.

      • ropata 20.1.1

        Neoliberalism is the religion of greed and NZ has embraced it wholeheartedly. Only now we are realising we were sold a few trinkets and our country has been stolen.

        The ‘liberal’ part means deregulating all sorts of exploitative industries and allowing the banksters to run off with super profits. It is also useful to pretend to have a social conscience by signing up to trendy identity politics that wealthy urban liberals think is so important – while a whole generation of their fellow kiwis is rendered homeless, thrown off the property ladder, and forced into a lifetime of dependency and unstable residence at the whims of the landlord class.

        This is a gross injustice and a blot on the soul of our nation

        • Draco T Bastard 20.1.1.1

          +111

        • Hongi Ika 20.1.1.2

          Milton Friedman and the Neoliberal Experiment is dead and buried.

          It has been an absolute disaster and social & economic f&ck up ?

    • Draco T Bastard 20.2

      “Why we can’t afford the rich” by Andrew Sayer, Richard Wilkinson

      “As Benjamin Kunkel comments:

      A far simpler and more effective monetary policy would have been for the government to print a new batch of money, distribute an equal amount to everyone, then sit back and watch as stagnant economies were stirred to life by the spending and debts were paid down and eroded by temporarily higher inflation. The inconceivability of such a policy is a mark not of any impracticability, but of the capture of governments by a financial oligarchy.”

      My bold.

      • ropata 20.2.1

        And these parasites are not easily removed. They hide themselves and pretend to be doing a public service. All while asset stripping and financialising the productive economy.

        Libertarians talk about "self ownership", but my boss owns my labor, my landlord owns my apartment, and twitter owns this fucking tweet.Unless production, housing, and infrastructure are public, property owners get to carve up every meaningful part of you. You don't own shit.— Existential Comics (@existentialcoms) July 1, 2018

      • solkta 20.2.2

        We could do that, but then the rest of the world would say fuck off your money is not worth anything. You should start a political party with “Serious” in the name.

        • Draco T Bastard 20.2.2.1

          We could do what?

          Also, the rest of the world telling us to fuck off would, as far as I can make out, force us to develop our economy which would actually make us better off and probably sustainable as well.

          • Bewildered 20.2.2.1.1

            Maybe in la la land, meanwhile in the real world

            • Draco T Bastard 20.2.2.1.1.1

              Capitalism is lala land.

              In the real world we need to be sustainable and live within our own resource base. This is not optional.

  21. Observer Tokoroa 21

    Will Soper demand his Pension ?

    I think there there is a strong case for excluding capitalists from receiving a single cent of the peoples money. From this day on.

    For the capitalists have done nothing but ridiculed and degraded normal humans.
    They have gleefully shoved thousands upon thousands into poverty! They are Trumpists.

    If you do not know what a capitalist is – think of the three words: ‘ Selfish Cruel Bastard’ . Add ‘Brainless’ – to those words.

    We could give them advice on contraception. But no pension.

  22. James Brown 22

    My wife and I have 6 children and the increases are going to help but what (some) people don’t seem to appreciate is that even with WFF payments our decision to have a large family (or kids at all) has ensured that our income is much less than it would have been if we didn’t have children i.e. having children is a massive financial sacrifice and any WFF payments only serves to lessen the impact of this.
    For a start we are down to one income instead of two and on top of that we have to cover the never-ending costs that comes with raising children . . at times I do think of how easy life could be if we had no kids / 2 incomes / spending a week in Fiji every winter etc just like childless couples we know but that is just not our reality and despite the constant financial pressures these are consequences that we accept willingly.

    • Brigid 22.1

      There are tremendous benefits though. I wouldn’t give up my four awesome kids for the career I might have had, the wealth I might have had, the travel, and parties, and cars, and all the things (including new clothes once in a blue moon).

      But to suggest our (or anyones) decision to have kids was driven by the notion that we would benefit financially is outrageously stupid and ignorant.
      It’s a damned hard job bringing up a family but generally you don’t complain.

      The complaints invariably come from those morons who, in their bigotry, ignorance and brainlessness think they are missing out and
      It actually shows, for those who are parents, how much actual parenting they, themselves, do.

    • BM 22.2

      If you received no WFF how would you get on supporting your family?

      • Kat 22.2.1

        Let them eat cake………………

      • Brigid 22.2.2

        Did I say I received WFF?

      • halcrown 22.2.3

        BM @ 22.2 wrote

        “If you received no WFF how would you get on supporting your family? ”

        Funny that BM I was thinking on very similar lines My concern is how was that beneficiary Jackson going to afford and support another aircraft if he and Warners had not received some of the 600 mil ” film industry” welfare payments.

  23. Rob 23

    One assumes that the opinion Soper writes about here means his opinion on the previous 9 yrs of blow out of inequality in our society was just great and hunky dory

  24. the other pat 24

    “and without any expectation from those receiving it to get off it, simply entrenches the poverty cycle.”………..there maybe an expectation but its not voiced IMHO………i know of many who are on a benefit just because they can and there-in lies one problem.
    as for WFF…..WTF?……We are such a great country the the govt pays the populace this because wages are too low and costs are to high??.
    Welfare in this country has lost its original purpose…..Dont get me wrong i support the welfare system but something is fundamentally wrong with it and the system.

    • SPC 24.1

      When the nation chose neo-liberalism, the market economic model, it resulted in the haves bidding up the value of property and forcing down the value of labour.

      Inequality. Growing numbers of working poor (more on the MW as it is increased to levels closer to the LW) – people needing AS to afford rentals and those choosing families struggling to afford home ownership.

      WFF tax credits are just the necessary extension of help to those adversely impacted by the adoption of the market model.

    • Janet 24.2

      You are right. Its been extrapolated so many times its become foolish. Bring on UBI.

    • solkta 24.3

      WFF…..WTF?
      …Welfare in this country has lost its original purpose

      New Zealand first payed a Family Allowance in 1926. In 1946 this became the Family Benefit and made universal:

      Between 1945 and 1960 parents living on a mid-range wage with two children would receive through family benefit payments and income tax relief about 50% of what a single old-age pensioner received.

      https://teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-4

      https://teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-3

      The Labour government elected in 1984 restructured many aspects of the state but family welfare did not undergo major changes. However, payments to families were increased through a means-tested per-child weekly tax credit called ‘family support’.

      https://teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-6

      In 1991 universal family benefit payments were incorporated into means-tested family support tax credits. In 1996 a $15 child tax credit was introduced, but was only available to parents in paid work. Although other liberal states such as Canada also changed their family support programmes at this time, the changes in New Zealand were particularly swift and severe. They were less generous and more targeted to low-income families in paid work (rather than beneficiaries) than either the UK or Australia.

      https://teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-6

      In 2004 a Labour-led government announced the ‘Working for Families’ programme, which raised parental income support, the accommodation allowance and childcare subsidies from 2006.

      https://teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-7

  25. SPC 25

    Barry Soper is simply engaging in class war – on the side of the haves, against the have nots.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    1 week ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    2 weeks ago