Say what you mean, and mean what you say
Who's Online
There are currently 1 user and 12 guests online.
Online users
Who's New
Linz's Mario Book—Updated!PollCan Trump Redeem Himself Following His Disgusting Capitulation to the Swamp on the Budget?
No (please elaborate)
0%
Yes (please elaborate)
43%
Maybe (please elaborate)
57%
Who cares? (My blood doesn't boil and I'm a waste of space)
0%
Total votes: 7
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
NZ Politics: I Have a Cunning Plan - Tax Childbirth Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Sun, 2011-11-06 19:36
I know! I'm suggesting a tax. Bear with me ... On TV3 Firstline this morning, after picking myself up from the floor when political reporter Patrick Gower dropped it so casually into his 'reportage' that the Green's idea of Government setting up its own Kiwisaver scheme to distort the free market even further was a fabulous one, and he couldn't understand why Labour and National hadn't thought of it, it was then reported that pursuant to some overseas agency of or other that one in every four New Zealand children was living in poverty. I don't think it is then spurious to draw the logic line to the social welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell statistic that 23% of all babies born over 2010 (for the State educated, that's almost one in four) were in 'homes' reliant on a hard benefit to live by the end of the first year of life. Mmmm. That has set me to pondering. Rather than the Save the Children lady's solution, when she was then interviewed, of spending yet more money on welfare, and creating yet new layers of bureaucracy, and working on the theory that you can't fix the problems of welfare by more welfare, I think a radical rethink is necessary. Hence my proposal to fix this problem in just one generation: rather than taking from all taxpayers as we do currently, and subsidising childbirth, which I pose has led to these two related statistics, I think we should be doing the reverse - taxing childbirth. This would force parents to assess their financial ability to have children, and only start families when they could afford to. This will mean within one generation, we will have virtually wiped out the horrendous 23% statistic, and with it, child poverty, in the one blow. Further, the childbirth tax could be put toward the State functions that those children will be using: education and health. There will be a hue and cry, obviously: babies for the rich only, Occupiers in maternity wards, all founded on the protest that governments should not decide such important lifestyle choices as who has babies and who doesn't. The last of which I entirely agree with, whether it be via a subsidy or a tax, for therein lies my cunning plan Postscript: it appears that one member of the Left, at least, didn't get this. A little clarification is given here: http://www.solopassion.com/nod...
( categories: )
|
User loginNavigation
More SOLO Store  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Syndicate |
You're cute gregster napster
Don't like, don't read. Simple.
Can't stop? A pity.
She's not unemployed
She's working very hard. Onher back.
She's a breeder.
John Fowles: If people are going to breed like rabbits, then they are going to die like rabbits.
Cormac McCarthy: The Road
This post features on the
This post features on the Left blog Kiwipolitico: http://www.kiwipolitico.com/20...
I've put the below comment up for author Lew to reply to:
And given Totalitarian Trev's
And given Totalitarian Trev's one year ban of my posting on Red Alert, this is what I would wish to post to this nonsense thread of Grant Robertson: http://blog.labour.org.nz/inde...
Let's see, unemployed mother
Let's see, unemployed mother of five on TV1 last night and the reporter never asked 'why do you have five children when you are so young and have no job'?
Now, mother of eight on TV 3 tonight and the reporter never asked why she has eight children and no job. Why?
I work too hard to pay for this stupidity.
Why are our MSM reporters so inane and irresponsible in their jobs?
Good. The 'family' on TV1
Good. The 'family' on TV1 last night, per my last post below, is doing a lot of damage to Labour this morning, as it should be.
Mark
Set that end up as a private charity, Gregster, and I'd donate to it.
And, thanks to Peter Dunne, your donations would be fully tax deductible.
Labour's policy announcement
Labour's policy announcement on extending WFF was as irresponsible as it was ludicrous.
I don't know if anyone else caught the TV 1 coverage of it tonight, but it was accompanied by a piece about a couple who were both unemployed, with five children. I thought that was bad enough, but there was no way the mother was older than twenty, indeed I'd put her around eighteen, yet she had five children and her and her partner were unemployed. I suggest the one thing they'd cottoned onto was having children earned a pay cheque from the taxpayer, and that throwing money at them like the Labour policy today is just straight damned evil.
Again, my policy above, written satirically, would in actual fact do more to solve child 'poverty' than Labour's policy of more welfare to fix the problems of welfare.
Set that end up as a private
Set that end up as a private charity, Gregster, and I'd donate to it.
Another great idea
"They still don't tax cigarettes enough."
They should slam a punitive tax on Janet's posts. Win - win.
Overpopulation is the scourge that faces us. As John fowles said
if people will breed like rabbits, then they shall die like rabbits."
Very good idea. And make the tax significant or you don't get the baby out of the hospital. This will mean more home births with no birth certificates. And a higher death rate for infants. Maybe.
They still don't tax cigarettes enough. More more more. And grow hemp and legalize pot and tax it tax it tax it.
Sweden has such an alcoholic problem that liquor is prohibitively expensive.
Because my point, Burnsy, as
Because my point, Burnsy, as you can tell from my final paragraph, is that the State should not be involved in decisions around either childbirth or abortions.
So, to be clear:
Should the State be involved in decisions around abortion: no.
Should abortions be legal: yes, of course.
While you're at it
I know! I'm on about abortion. Bear with me ....
What about taxing abortions?
There will be a hue and cry, obviously: E.g: abortions for the rich only, from the "Family Planning" Ass'n, The well funded (by tax payers) abortion industry and Sue Bradford etc, all founded on the protest that governments should not decide such important lifestyle choices as who has babies and who doesn't. The last of which I entirely agree with, whether it be via a subsidy or a tax, for therein lies my cunning plan.