About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

November 6, 2007 3:55pm by David Farrar

Who said this?

“Tax cuts are a path to inequality… They are the promises of visionless and intellectually bankrupt people”

Who said this and when?

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment135

Uncategorised

Comments (135)

Login to comment or vote

Lindsay Addie

idiot,

Do you agree or disagree with this statement by Colin Espiner in his blog? The url to the complete article is at the end:

“The other noticeable change from Labour is that it’s started referring to practically any form of tax relief, rebate, or credit as a “tax cut”. Hence, Clark and Cullen have claimed of late that the Government has delivered “billions of dollars worth of tax cuts” to hard-working Kiwis over the past nine years.

This is no doubt news to many, given the Government’s tax take has virtually doubled since 1999 and many people are paying more tax now than they were when Labour came to office. But Labour now includes Working for Families as a de facto tax cut, despite the fact that in many cases those receiving substantial sums actually pay no tax at all or even receive more than they pay to start with.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2007/10/24/working-for-families-cant-be-tax-cuts-in-drag/

As far as I’m concerned WFF isn’t a tax cut it is a type of benefit as one as to apply for it. One shouldn’t have to apply for a genuine tax cut.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:18pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

And – this is esoteric, but bear with me: How come people need so much money?

Perhaps the solution is not to dither around with taxes but to find some other system of exchange? It concerns me that money seems to be the most commonly used way of placing value on an object or person.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:20pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

Just one more thing:
Nobody say “because that’s the way the world is.”

We all know that human beings didn’t spring into being with bundles of cash in their hands.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:34pm
burt

Robyn

It surprises you that money seems to be the most commonly used way of placing value on an object ???? A person – I can agree with the ethical delima. But nate money has been around for centuries, you grew up with it, you have not know any different. It’s what we use to buy things, computers to blog on etc – so yes it’s the common measure of worth of an object.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:35pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

It doesn’t surprise me – it concerns me. Time for a change, maybe. Or at least time to start thinking of ways it COULD change?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:37pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

And we’ve had love and enjoyment for a lot longer than we’ve had money.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:37pm
burt

Robyn

We spring into the world covered in goop, blood and stuff. Nobody is seriously advocating that we stay that way for ever are they?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:37pm
ManukauMum

Gee sorry Robyn but unless you have the kind of society portrayed by Star Trek (i.e.Science Fiction) you are going to need some medium of exchange. For the last few thousand years that has generally meant money.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:38pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

So you think money is evolution? In a lamarkian sense – that is, is it better that what we were born as.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:38pm
burt

Robyn

money was invented to resolve disputes about value and debasement of value by having a common commodity. It might be a good idea to talk about the structure of society and it’s values but unless you are talking about dismantling society as we know it it’s rather pointless to discuss using money as a measure of worth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:40pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

If so, is there an evolution beyond this?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:40pm
burt

ooops, it’s rather pointless to discuss removing money as a measure of worth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:41pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

It’s not pointless – because I don’t know how else to resolve the fact that whoever was around when money was thunk up got all the money.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:41pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

Which is not to say that removing it is necessary – I’m simply going antithesis in the hopes that the synthesis will present itself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:42pm
burt

For sure, who can predict. Imagine a world without oil, peace in the deserted middle east and wars around milder climates. Where do we start ? Is it on thread for tax cuts, or are they out of the equation because we have scrapped money and now trade with fertility rights for people sterile through eating too much GE food.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:43pm
hinamanu

I R D hate cash and as a result they’re working on gradually phasing it out.

Of course the politicians never talk about the cashless society even though we all know its coming. One day they’ll just do it. They’ll take the cash away and everything we buy we be recorded at p.o.s.

Big Brother will have us wrapt up.

and that is the reason for money.

Can you believe the tax system was started up just b4 ww1 because an economist told Woodrow Wilson if his people did not pay taxes they would not work. he knew that was utter horse hockey but it was all the excuse he needed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:43pm
infused

The Kyoto Protocol is bullshit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:43pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

I agree that money is useful, for one thing. But I don’t – well, I don’t need very much of it, really. I don’t buy very many things, and usually they’re second hand. I don’t really know what people would spend all that money that gets “taken away” in taxes on, if I’m honest.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:44pm
infused

Thanks for speaking for all of us Robyn.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:45pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

I’m not. I’m saying what I think. That’s why i said “I don’t really know.”
Please tell me what you think.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:46pm
Robyn E. Kenealy

Oh crap, I have to go. I’m sorry. I did want to know.

Mostly I just wanted to find out how people thought about money – and whether or not you considered it, you know, “inevitable.”

Someone has to ask this stuff sometimes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:49pm
burt

Goodnight Robyn
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:53pm
hinamanu

nice input Robyn
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 6, 2007 10:58pm
Pascal

Robyn, see money simply as a means of counting value.

Your artwork and cartoons have a certain value to you and you assign that value to it. Pak n Save has assigned a value to their eggs, bread and milk. They do not want a cartoon though, but I do. So, I give you money to the amount you have valued your cartoon at. You take that money and you give it to Pak n Save to the amount they have valued their eggs, bread and milk at. It saves Pak n Save the trouble of having to come up to Auckland with a cartoon they did not want so we could complete this whole barter process.

In that respect money is immaterial, it’s simply a unit of measurement that has no value beyond what we assign to it. We don’t need to move beyond it as there will always be a need to value what we have created.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 8:39am
david

Newsflash!!!

Labour’s new tax policy has been leaked and is “out”

A new top tax rate of 45% will be introduced at $100,000. This will officially be known as the “rich bastards’ rate” and will completely devastate any claim that the top tax rate affects more than 5% of the earning sector. MP’s income will be exempt the top rate and will be taxed at the same flat rate as Maori Trusts (19.5%) but only if they are members of the governing party or coalition. All other MPs will face a flat rate of 45% ‘cos everyone knows they are all rich bastards. The WWF payments will be raised by 20% and the whole tax system will henceforth be officially known as “more tax cuts brought to you by Labour” This title will be required to be used in full in every publication and reference to taxation (whether by the media, bloggers, teachers and men-in-the-street) but nothing in this move is designed to circumvent any electioneering legislation and any suggestion that it is will be met by the full force of the law under the Repression of Terrorism Act. end of leak
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 8:49am
Lee C

david – those b**ds!

What if I have lots of kids and don’t work?

Will I get anything?

sorry.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 9:09am
KevinOB

The statement can justified:

Everyone is to have a relative reduction in their net income after income tax by increasing the net income after income tax of those taxpayers not in receipt of any Social Welfare benefit or any other benefit subject to income tax, by a reduction in their rate of income tax, provided that there is to be no corresponding change in income tax for those taxpayers in receipt of any Social Welfare benefit or any other benefit subject to income tax, provided also that any reduction in any income tax will in any income year will not exceed one standard packet of chewing gum of 10 grams as determined by the Government Statistician for the purposes of this clause.

[H1,
This is what Treas. suggested last year.
I think we can make it 2 packets now. I hope they don´t object.
I quite like the chewing gum as we can make annual adjustments for inflation.
We could drop it if the fiscal drag doesn´t permit.
You know what to do.
M]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 9:57am
david

KevinOB
Absolutely and suitably obstruse, it sounds great, can be said with gravitas and the punters won’t understand a word of it. We will screw them while they sleep and if necessary we can repackage the gum so that there are 10 pieces per packet rather than the normally expected 12. He He He
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 10:06am
david

Or perhaps more accurately the gum weight will be determined to be have a delta that is inversely proportional to the rate of inflation calculated on a standardised 365 day year and applied on a daily basis.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 10:08am
roger nome

“A new top tax rate of 45% will be introduced at $100,000. This will officially be known as the “rich bastards’ rate” and will completely devastate any claim that the top tax rate affects more than 5% of the earning sector.”

So Labour proposes to adopt the same top rate as Australia?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 11:15am
david

what can I say? !!!!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 11:33am
Pascal

Roger Nome: So Labour proposes to adopt the same top rate as Australia?

Except they plan to introduce it at what – about half of what Australia does? So what’s your entire point there nome?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 5:04pm
Pascal

And P.S. … wasn’t Dave joking there Roger?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 5:05pm
Andrew Bannister

[DPF: Nice try but not smoking can reduce your chances of cancer by huge amounts – say 20% or so. Now if giving up smoking decreased your chance of cancer by only 0.07% then it would be a hoax]

Ah, no! If I never start smoking, my chances of developing lung cancer do not decrease. Also, if I stop smoking now, my risk also doesn’t decrease all that much (not sure where you got your 20% from, if anything, that’s probably the reduction from doing further damage). My taking up smoking or continuing to do so does however increase the probability. The point is that while Kyoto might not reduce emissions by much, it will stop the increase. There is an important difference between ‘decreasing’ and ‘not increasing’.

Try boxing and brain injuries, loud noise and hearing loss, sun exposure and skin cancer. All things that, if you reduce the cause, willl not return you back to normal, but stopping the cause will reduce further damage.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 7, 2007 7:53pm
Margaret

Farrar are you ever going to correct the appalling misquote you have (and John Key) have made the subject of this quote? To be fair you ought to give what Clark actually said back in 2000 the same prominence you gave to the misquote.

What Clark actually said was:
“How can our nation go ahead without the public resources to make huge investments in our future potential? Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people.” It’s in this Stuff article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4266154a1861.html

Your ellipsis took out the “in today’s circumstances” – NZ’s economic state has changed significantly in the last seven years, and the means Clark’s comment in 2000 is not contradictory of her stance now at all.

I really wish National people would give the NZ public the respect they deserve by actually being honest about their policies, and the words of the PM which they are trying to twist to damn her.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 10, 2007 3:38pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Interesting Questions for today

Hone Harawira on the law »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 15 November 2024
General Debate 14 November 2024
What Labour voters think of Willie
Make principals accountable
Matt Gaetz for Attorney-General must be a troll?
Marsden Fund goes even more woke
The Deeply Flawed Charter School Situation
New media vs legacy media
Another win for the FSU
How would NZ Labour do using this vision

Recent Posts

Waste, waste, waste 15 November 2024
Ad: ACT New Zealand is hiring! 15 November 2024
Another win for the FSU 15 November 2024
General Debate 15 November 2024 15 November 2024
Marsden Fund goes even more woke 15 November 2024
What Labour voters think of Willie 14 November 2024
How would NZ Labour do using this vision 14 November 2024
Matt Gaetz for Attorney-General must be a troll? 14 November 2024
New media vs legacy media 14 November 2024
General Debate 14 November 2024 14 November 2024
The German Labour-ACT-Greens coalition has ended 14 November 2024
The Deeply Flawed Charter School Situation 13 November 2024

Recent Comments

General Debate 15 November 2024
Maggy Wassilieff
Marsden Fund goes even more woke
Pope Punctilious II
General Debate 15 November 2024
judith8409121
General Debate 15 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 15 November 2024
judith8409121
General Debate 15 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 15 November 2024
judith8409121
General Debate 15 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 15 November 2024
cmm
Waste, waste, waste
cmm
What Labour voters think of Willie
Rintintin
General Debate 15 November 2024
Scooter
General Debate 15 November 2024
Mike
General Debate 15 November 2024
Jake Dee
Another win for the FSU
David Garrett

Links

Ross Meurant: ‘History can be a Bitch’ – once said Titewhai Harawira
Breaking Views
More lawlessness from National
No Right Turn
Shock & Surprise: Lawyers oppose removal of lawyers' gravy train
Not PC
Trumping the Electric Vehicle Mandate
Utopia
Seymour’s bill split the House – but (as is shown by the 68-54 vote after an ill-tempered debate) not “down the middle”
Point of Order
Thankfully we said nope to dope
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Daily review 15/11/2024
The Standard
MEDIAWATCH: Willie Jackson’s fiery speech that had Gallery cheering
The Daily Blog
Government only partially adheres to Waitangi Tribunal order, as tensions heat up
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
A NEW DEGREE COURSE FOR MASSEY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d