ACT, National could govern...the stuff of nightmares

[SueDonim]

Seriously, how far do you think the money will really go,  paid to "the far too many whose laziness and greed is just taking money away from where it's really needed" ?  

Even if ALL the unemployed in NZ (currently around 102,000) are the lazy yobs you make them out to be, that is probably only 30-40 million...    Not really sure that will be enough to "afford the levels of health etc that we theoretically have paid for."  It's a drop in the bucket...

I wasn't really meaning those on unemployment benefit. By definition they are looking for work. It's all the others. The need for sickness and disability benefits for people who do really need them is greatly clouded by those who sit on benefits doing nothing useful when they could actually be a lot happier and healthier if they overcame some discomfort and got up and out. It's a serious social problem that is just getting worse.

But even if only $30-$40m was saved, it would still be more useful to everyone, even those with the most need if it were invested somewhere useful, like health, education, roads, etc.

---

I'm well aware you used the usual disclaimer of there being 'some who really need help in the form of benefits.' But as usual, while also disparaging all those on benefits by implying that there are plenty who could do better.

There aren't 'plenty' - too many people are seriously struggling these days.


I'm really not at all sure exactly why it is that some people insist that people aren't contributing to society, are effectively 'giving nothing back' since I'd imagine that those cast aside & continually disparaged by society might just possibly be ever so slightly reluctant to do so & with some justification.

But the reality is that almost everyone does in some way contribute to society, however small that may be.

And seriously - 'the hard working rich?!'   No doubt working out exactly how much more they can squeeze from their tenants without them giving notice  could be a tricky thing to work out for those landlords..

As it happens though I'd rather see us all pay more tax; imo we should as far as possible emulate those Nordic countries which have high taxes which cover things like health & education etc. etc. & whose people are invariably at the top of those happiest people surveys.

"disparaging all those on benefits by implying that there are plenty who could do better". I'm not disparaging anyone who needs a benefit, just trying to get through that many who have benefits don't actually have a real need.  The biggest disparagement going on here is that of those who have worked for what they have and have paid their taxes and therefore their dues to society, but are somehow greedy just because the reward for their work has been a comfortable lifestyle.

"But the reality is that almost everyone does in some way contribute to society, however small that may be". The majority of people do, but there are plenty who only fill the coffers of KFC or the local pub.

And then you get back to disparagaing landlords again. Think about how bad the housing problem would be without any rentals.

[SueDonim]

I'd like PAYE tax payers have some some of the benefits of the rich - the ability to claim ''legitimate''  expenses and other means to pay less tax than we are actually taxed. We have to keep the system ''fair.''

Absolutely; that's the problem with the present situation because its so weighted in favour of those already well off.

Over my 40+ years on my very average salary I used to think how it would be great to be able to claim some of the costs of going to work but of course it never happened.

It wouldn't do much to help the poor v. rich argument. Salaries run from small to huge so any benefit from being able to claim anything would probably be of little to benefit to those on at the low end while those at the upper end would likely have higher expenses and would get to claim more. The opposite of the case you are trying to make here.

Some of the most hard-up people are those who are running small businesses where everything goes against them and they struggle to survive. They are the people who most need a break. And if they overcome the often insurtmountable odds and succeed enough for you to call them "rich", they don't deserve to be disparaged for their efforts.

[Lilith7]

I've no quarrel with those who do well through working hard & who treat their tenants fairly; as I thin k I've said before the landlords I refer to are those who are in it solely to make a profit & to hell with anyone struggling.

Most of those on a sickness or invalids benefit tend to be there because they need it, because their condition prevents them being able to earn a living.

Contrary to the much loved right wing view, those on benefits - & particularly sickness/ invalids benefits - are fairly constantly monitored & their conditions checked lest there be a miraculous recovery from terminal cancer or whatever.

Those on low incomes tend to also be those who have to use all their income just to get through each week, & use all their income in their community, (which benefits their community) while those on larger incomes do not always do so.

[R2x1]

- - -  break. And if they overcome the often insurtmountable odds and succeed enough for you to call them "rich", they don't deserve to be disparaged for their efforts.

"Overcomeable" odds cease to be insurmountable,

Help desks and their triple dammned answering machines however should be mountable (by excited porcupines).  Often.

I've had one of those days again. "Your call is important to us . . . ."   Ad Nauseam.