Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Roger Douglas explains why he should not be in Cabinet

Roger Douglas is deluded if he thinks his policy is going to assist low income earners, irrespective of what ACT's policy is.
ACT's policy has always been designed to ensure that disadvantaged people have the same opportunity, security and dignity as more affluent people do. ACT's objective is to move low-income people from a system that locks them into state dependency into a system where all New Zealanders can make constructive personal choices. Surely that is basic to the dignity of human beings.
I`m not so concerned about what ACTs policy is designed to do, I`m more concerned what it will actually do and how Douglas is misrepresenting it with the full blessing of Rodney Hide. Douglas wants to remove Working for Families and provide tax cuts instead, but for families who are getting more WFF than they pay in tax, how is a tax cut going to ensure that disadvantaged people have the same opportunity as affluent people? He continues.
What's "hard right", then, about giving all New Zealanders a tax break so they can purchase a health policy like mine and get immediate treatment when they need it?... I also suggested we might rent hospital wards to doctors, provided they could demonstrate an increase in productivity of 50 per cent and pay them a fee for services provided
. Well, that "tax break" is actually a policy providing the first $20,000 of income tax free and that won't be enough to assist low income people in paying a mortgage on a house, which is hardly giving disadvangaged people the same opportunity security and dignity as affluent people do - as affluent people will also get the first $20,000 of income tax-free while the poorest families lose Working for Families payouts.

Douglas wants the rich to get richer and the poor comparatively poorer. That's one reason why he should not be in Cabinet. Most , if not all, average families on the average family wage or under will not be be better off with WFF scrapped and a 20k tax free threshold.





Blogger Andy said...

Roger wants to put the power, and the decision back in the hands of New Zealanders. Anything else is just Nanny State hand-outs and supervision, etcetera.

March 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM  
Blogger Blair said...

*Yawn* same tired old socialist rubbish - piss off and go sing "the people's flag" somewhere.

March 24, 2008 at 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Dave,

In a country where a truck driver is paying into the top tax rate, while his family members live, each on less than a dole payment, you are correct, they'll have a hard time paying a mortgage.

Here comes Helen on her shining white Cullen, handing out dependancy to ensure 'loyalty' socialist style.

'Rich' enough to pay top tax rate, 'poor' enough to qualify for welfare. W4F = WTF?

Remember why the old family benefit was made universal? It was designed as a targetted benefit. But the people activelly cut their hours to qualify - it is human nature. So why are we repeating history's mistakes.

Meanwhile the little people are silenced.


March 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM  
Blogger Swimming said...

How are we repeating histories mistakes when WFF is targetted? Even the IWP is targetted - but the target group is too wide.

March 24, 2008 at 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because we have a productivity problem in NZ. In the need to raise productivity, NZ inflicts a benefit making it finacially advantageous for workers to cut working hours to qualify for more welfare. Administered by IRD or not, W$F is welfare.


March 24, 2008 at 7:42 PM  
Blogger Swimming said...

It is never finanially advantageous to cut working hours to qualify for more welfare. To do that would involve a marginal tax rate of more than 100 percent. A low income family who works 37.5 hours a week and drops down to 29 hours a week automatically loses $60.00 in In work Payment before the marginal tax rate on the family support kicks in.

Wrong neo girl.

March 25, 2008 at 2:03 AM  
Blogger Just my opinion said...

Wrong Dave.

Since when did WFF become such an integral part of how families got extra funding from the state? Since when did redistribution of our high tax take to primarily Labour voters be good to society?

Strip away the nonsense and put it all on the table. Low taxes will benefit everybody. Low income earners on $20k p/a paying no tax is even better.

Why is taxation suddenly so important to you? Are you arguing for the status quo?

March 25, 2008 at 2:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

March 25, 2008 at 4:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Clicky Web Analytics