Politicians ripping off taxpayers

[Lilith7]

These apparently conscience-less MP's are merrily claiming up to $45 thousand a year to live in their own homes...

I think its time for change when it comes to their perks.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/3503045...rs-expense
At least 20 MPs are claiming up to $45,000 a year allowance to stay in their own Wellington homes, a perk that sees the taxpayer help politicians pay off their mortgages.
Four ministers (Duncan Webb, Jan Tinetti, Deborah Russell and Willie Jackson) claimed the capped allowance, of up to $45,000 a year, to cover living costs in the city. They then use it to pay rent on property they already own.
Four Government MPs (Arena Williams, Jenny Salesa, Jamie Strange and Sarah Pallet) claim an entitlement of up to $31,000 per year.
Twelve National Party MPs, including leader Christopher Luxon, do the same. They are: Andrew Bayly; Gerry Brownlee; Judith Collins; Jacqui Dean; Barbara Kuriger; Melissa Lee; Ian McKelvie; Mark Mitchell; Simon O’Connor; Stuart Smith; Louise Upston and Michael Woodhouse.
ACT’s Simon Court also claims the allowance and owns property in the Capital, but the party did not respond to a request for comment.
No current Green Party or Te Pāti Māori MPs from outside of Wellington listed a property on their pecuniary interest register.
The arrangements are entirely within Parliament’s rules. And neither Labour nor National have plans to change them. In fact, MPs may soon be in line for a boost to their pay and perks.
The Remuneration Authority, the independent body which sets the rates, is required to review politicians’ pay within three months of the official outcome of Saturday’s general election.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

You'd think this festering sore of corruption would've been sorted a long time ago considering how often it comes up.

Maybe this time. But don't let us hold our breath...

[Lilith7]

You'd think this festering sore of corruption would've been sorted a long time ago considering how often it comes up.

Maybe this time. But don't let us hold our breath...

Yeah, best not.. but the words 'bunch of utter bastards' does keep coming to mind...


Although... you do have to wonder how well the first party saying they'd fix this immediately on being voted in & what's more, their PM would resign if it wasn't done in their first 3 months in govt, might do in the polls & election...

[SueDonim]

An MP who receives a salary of $168k and normally loves in Wellington gets to keep their $168k.
An MP who receives a salary of $168k, normally lives in Auckland and rents an apartment in Wellington can claim the cost of renting the apparent - likely $36,000.
An MP who receives a salary of $168k, normally lives in Auckland and has had the foresight to buy an investment property in Wellington is expected (by some people) to live in that property, pay its outgoings of potentially $50k interest plus rates and insurance, etc while unable to rent it out, yet not be able to claim living costs.

How is that fair?

The "bunch of bastards" are actually people, just like the rest of us, who need to make a living with the key difference being that for three years their job is trying to do their best to balance all the needs involved with running the country.

New politicians sometimes get into the "game" because of a desire to fix things. Then when they get there they find that it isn't as simple as they thought and that things they might "fix" are not really fixable, or even a problem.

Just like the rest of the population, politicians may be good or bad people, sensible knowledgeable people or well meaning misguided fools. At least they're in there trying their best even if we might strongly disagree with the policies many want to implement. Many will have taken a salary cut to get in there and do "their bit". The least we can do is accept equitable handling of living arrangements.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

If anyone who chose a job based in another city was able to claim their rent in that city as a payout, then I might agree. Being an MP is a voluntary choice, it is a job like any other. It should be treated as such.

I would also point out that claiming this allowance is also a choice. If the salary for the job is insufficient to cover housing costs then don't take the job!

MPs would be better off understanding the conditions experienced by those they are paid to represent - including the increasing stress of housing costs. They might then be more inclined to work to reduce those stresses, for everyone, rather than simply decrease the tax burden for those who are contributing to those increased housing stresses.

Sauce for the goose...

[Lilith7]

I'm fairly sure most of us understand quite well that politicians are people.

That is the problem; people tend to be endlessly inventive when it comes to finding ways around things or ways in which to cheat, however legally it may be. The fact that they can claim this does not mean that morally, they should do so. And they're under no obligation to do so.

I've come to believe that no wealthy people should be permitted to become a politcian because firstly they haven't the least idea of the reality of life for most people these days & secondly, they'll inevitably find a way to profiit from being an MP & if at all possible, help their mates to also do so.

An allowance which is the equivalent of the lowest wage or benefit would suffice, with extra available for things such as overseae travel when needed etc.

And if they're from outside Welly, the they can be housed in Kainga Ora units for the legth of their time in parliament.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

We need to remove the ability to rort systems. Maybe we could point that ACT bloke at that challenge...

[Lilith7]

We need to remove the ability to rort systems. Maybe we could point that ACT bloke at that challenge...

I think most of us would enjoy that particular spectator sport..

[dken31]

Most people who are required to work in multiple locations, would expect to be reimbursed for their accommodation costs in the all locations other than were they "normally" live. E.g. someone who lives in Auckland would expect to have their hotel paid for if they have to go to Sydney for work. And, if their job required them to live in Auckland, but also be in Sydney several days a week (for a decent number of weeks each year), having a house rented for them in Sydney would likely be a better option all round. This is absolutely the same as the MPs claiming the accommodation allowance in Wellington. The MPs in question don't live in Wellington; instead, they live all around NZ, and pay for their own accommodation in the city/town in which they actually live. They just claim the accommodation for maintaining a 2nd home in Wellington were they're often required to be for work.

Also, this idea that poor people would make good MPs is ridiculous. I realise it will be an unpopular opinion here, however most poor people are bad decision makers which is why they are poor. Yes, some people are poor because of genuine unrelated-to-any-decision-they-made bad luck, some are poor because they chose to be and genuinely don't want that to change, however the vast majority are poor due to the choices they've made. In my line of work, I'm privy to the detailed financial situations of a lot of people, and my wealthy clients are almost all smart people that have worked hard and made wise choices, and those that are struggling have almost all repeatedly made bad decisions and ignored good advice. That's not to say that I'm not in favour of providing social assistance to poor people, even where there financial struggles are their own fault, however the idea that we should be trying to get more of them in positions of power is absolutely misguided in the extreme.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Oh come on! They get those away trips paid for anyway! We are talking about the added income they can access because they are landlords as well as MPs.

As for the poor people made bad decisions thing, that is something stupid people think. And you dickon are not stupid. Nor are you inexperienced in life events. Or at least I hope you aren't - because that can leave someone with very skewed ideas of the fairness of existence.

As for your clients - well, I'm guessing you don't have that many impoverished ones...

[Lilith7]

Most people who are required to work in multiple locations, would expect to be reimbursed for their accommodation costs in the all locations other than were they "normally" live.  E.g. someone who lives in Auckland would expect to have their hotel paid for if they have to go to Sydney for work.  And, if their job required them to live in Auckland, but also be in Sydney several days a week (for a decent number of weeks each year), having a house rented for them in Sydney would likely be a better option all round.  This is absolutely the same as the MPs claiming the accommodation allowance in Wellington.  The MPs in question don't live in Wellington; instead, they live all around NZ, and pay for their own accommodation in the city/town in which they actually live. They just claim the accommodation for maintaining a 2nd home in Wellington were they're often required to be for work.

Also, this idea that poor people would make good MPs is ridiculous.  I realise it will be an unpopular opinion here, however most poor people are bad decision makers which is why they are poor.  Yes, some people are poor because of genuine unrelated-to-any-decision-they-made bad luck, some are poor because they chose to be and genuinely don't want that to change, however the vast majority are poor due to the choices they've made.  In my line of work, I'm privy to the detailed financial situations of a lot of people, and my wealthy clients are almost all smart people that have worked hard and made wise choices, and those that are struggling have almost all repeatedly made bad decisions and ignored good advice.  That's not to say that I'm not in favour of providing social assistance to poor people, even where there financial struggles are their own fault, however the idea that we should be trying to get more of them in positions of power is absolutely misguided in the extreme.

With all due respect, that comment is utter nonsense. 

And I certainly did not say that 'poor people would make good politcians' - that's the construction you've put on my comment about preventing wealthy people from becoming politcians.

People in these times are most certainly NOT poor 'because of their bad decisions', although probably an argumant could be made that many are poor due to the bad decisions of a great many politicians over the last 40 odd years.


And if you bother to do a bit of reading on poverty, you may learn why people are actually poor. The American experience, not so differetn to ours.

http://mic.com/articles/115054/7-myths-w...ut-poverty


"Myths about the poor — that they're lazy, that they exploit benefits, that they neglect obvious opportunities to escape their fate — manufacture the idea that their lives are easier than most, when in fact their lives are exceptionally hard.
The reality is that there's a wealth of data that shows the poor are as responsible and interested in working as everyone else, and that their place on the bottom rung of the economic ladder is often due to circumstances out of their control."

[Oh_hunnihunni]

The unequal distribution of resources is responsible for the creation of both rich and poor. The rich depend upon the poor, that is where their continued wealth comes from.

And in most cases, it starts from generational inheritance, not hard work. Which is not to say some of the wealthy don't work really hard. Just as many of the poor do too. But the wealthy do not do the shit jobs they rely on having the poor to do for them...

[Lilith7]

The unequal distribution of resources is responsible for the creation of both rich and poor. The rich depend upon the poor, that is where their continued wealth comes from.

And in most cases, it starts from generational inheritance, not hard work. Which is not to say some of the wealthy don't work really hard. Just as many of the poor do too. But the wealthy do not do the shit jobs they rely on having the poor to do for them...

It wouldn't be such an unequal society if so many of us didn't have a tendency to be greedy, & want far more than we need. Perhaps, we should require everyone  of working age & able bodied, including all MP's to do some of the shit jobs for say, one week every month or so. 
It could be very interesting...

https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18...46/6646951

[SueDonim]

Very interesting article but it has nothing whatsoever to do with rich v. poor.

The problem I have is with these discussions that get wound up without anyone defining what they mean by "poor" and what they mean by "rich". I've seen people who play the "poor" card who have more income than us, and before the election the Green party was totally confused - wanting to give tax relief to the same people it was going to bankrupt with wealth tax.

The other issue is the huge over-generalisations made. The bottom line is that need v. greed has nothing to do with rich v. poor.

dken31 has some good comments that come from seeing what people actually do. It's all very well blaming political systems and economic policies, but if you go out and watch how people actually live you get the real story.

I also totally disagree that generational inheritance plays a bigger part than hard work. For some it does, but it's another unfair generalisation that belittles those who worked their way out of poverty. It's also unfair to say that people cannot understand how it is for others in a different space. Empathy is what makes us human.

We are very lucky in NZ that we do have a good welfare system and that we don't have anything like the poverty that some countries have. I stumbled in this by accident the other day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co..._2020).svg. It shows just how lucky we are.

[Lilith7]

Very interesting article but it has nothing whatsoever to do with rich v. poor.

The problem I have is with these discussions that get wound up without anyone defining what they mean by "poor" and what they mean by "rich". I've seen people who play the "poor" card who have more income than us, and before the election the Green party was totally confused - wanting to give tax relief to the same people it was going to bankrupt with wealth tax.

The other issue is the huge over-generalisations made. The bottom line is that need v. greed has nothing to do with rich v. poor.

dken31 has some good comments that come from seeing what people actually do. It's all very well blaming political systems and economic policies, but if you go out and watch how people actually live you get the real story.

I also totally disagree that generational inheritance plays a bigger part than hard work. For some it does, but it's another unfair generalisation that belittles those who worked their way out of poverty. It's also unfair to say that people cannot understand how it is for others in a different space. Empathy is what makes us human.

We are very lucky in NZ that we do have a good welfare system and that we don't have anything like the poverty that some countries have. I stumbled in this by accident the other day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co..._2020).svg. It shows just how lucky we are.

" The bottom line is that need v. greed has nothing to do with rich v. poor."

On the contrary, it has everything to do with rich vs poor. 
As it happens I (& I suspect most of us) have known both wealthy & poor people. There's a tendency for those who are extremely wealthy to become out of touch, to the point where they have little or no idea of the struggle others worse off face. 
And once that happens there can then be a tendency to then blame the poor for being poor & ignoring the reality. We live in an unfair system.

And many of us are old enough to know that it wasn't always like this. It does not have to be like this.

https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/bryanbruce

Bryan Bruce
"We don’t live in a fair and just society. It is much harder for today’s young people from our poorer homes to get the kind of start in life that I got, born as I was into a working-class immigrant family, or former Prime Minister John Key got as the son of a single mother growing up in a State house.

We both received the gift of a virtually free tertiary education from a Welfare State that was determined to give us the rights to good food, shelter and education our country had signed up for under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That isn't the case today.

Neoliberal economics, championed by US President Ronald Regan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Roger Douglas in New Zealand ,delivered a message of selfishness that fell on eager ears – that there should be less government in our lives and you should keep more of your tax money.

The result ?

A huge gap has developed between the rich and the poor in our country with diminished educational opportunities for kids who live in our poorer homes."

And its by no mean limited to this country.

“Tens of millions oif Americans do not end up poor by a mistake of history or personal conduct. Poverty persists because some wish & will it to.”
“Lets call it the scarcity diversion. Here's the playbook. First, allow elites to hoard a resource like money or land. Second, pretend that arrangement is natural, unavoidable – or better yet, ignore it altogether. Third, attempt to address social problems caused by the resource hoarding only with the scarce resources left over, So instead of making the rich pay all their taxes, for instance, design a welfare state around the paltry budget you are left with when they don't....Blame capitalism. Blame the other political party. Blame immigrants. Blame anyone you can except those who most deserve it. “Gaslighting: is not too strong a phrase to describe such pretence.”

Poverty, by America. Mathew Desmond.

We do not have 'a good welfare system'. 

"Radio New Zealand"After researching poverty internationally for over 20 years, Darrin Hodgetts finds a "victim-blaming, punitive approach" to welfare in his home country New Zealand, where the poor are punished for being poor."


https://tinyurl.com/y75aez9x


http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/progra...-big-stick'

"Statistics New Zealand’s figures reveal the top 10 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of wealth while the poorest 40 per cent held just three per cent.Evidence of growing poverty documented in the book includes more people unable to survive on welfare benefits opting for loan sharks, despite the horrendous debts they incur. They choose this rather than demeaning treatment when asking for help from Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) – a symptom of an increasingly dysfunctional welfare system, says Professor Hodgetts, a societal psychologist at Massey University’s School of Psychology."