Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Paula Bennett: scum

That's quite a precedent that's been set today. I look forward to the howls of anguish the next time we have a Labour govt and right-wingers start to complain that we're paying too much tax. "Oooh, implied consent! IRD, please send me Mr Asshole's income statements and tax returns for the last few years, for immediate release to the media..."

33 comments:

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Are you stirring trouble PM?

Doug said...

Psycho
You will be waiting a good many years to see another Labour Govt in power my guess 15 years.

KG said...

By the time that pack of socialist assholes are back in power we'll have teleported whining bludgers to Venus PM.

KG said...

And since when was a complaint about paying too much tax the equivalent of complaints about not getting enough of other people's money? Socialism has addled your brain.

Barnsley Bill said...

PM, you raise a very good point. It would also be very fair if a persons PRIVATE INCOME WAS PROVIDED WHOLLY BY THE TAXPAYER.
Personally as somebody who is becoming more and more libertarian as they age I feel quite uncomfortable with govt ministers doing this type of thing. It almost makes me misty eyed with longing for labour to be back in power where we could have had the minister leaking it anonymously to get the same result without us feeling nervous. This is another labour attack line that has blown up in their faces. We are all playing the Goff is a chump line for all it is worth. What we really should be doing is shutting the hell up in case he realises that his entire comms and strategy team are clueless fukwits who seem completely disconnected from middle NZ.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Even the lovely Fran Mould referred to Liarbour's past practice of anonymous tip offs in the news tonight.
National, by contrast, are being up front an dsupplying all the details so we can have a fair debate.

Psycho Milt said...

It would also be very fair if a persons PRIVATE INCOME WAS PROVIDED WHOLLY BY THE TAXPAYER.

You might want to point me to the bit in the privacy legislation that strips beneficiaries of the right to privacy. Fact is, how much income a person declares to the IRD is as much a matter of public interest as how much a person receives in benefits - ie, none.

Psycho Milt said...

You will be waiting a good many years to see another Labour Govt in power my guess 15 years.

The wishful thinking and capacity for self-delusion of the right never cease to amaze me. Does your memory extend back to the Labour disaster of 1975, Doug? How about the Labour disaster of 1990? Maybe you would have given the Tories 15 years those times too - if you had, it would have been with more reason than your comment here...

Barnsley Bill said...

Pm, you are right... It is not on. Breaking convention in this way is not quite crossing the Rubicon but it is not far from it. As I said before, Much better if she had just had it leaked the way labour would have done it.

KG said...

How much a person receives in benefits is a matter of of interest to those who pay the bills ie the taxpayers.
If it's none of our business then it's also none of our fucking obligation.
These women chose to go public in order to complain about how much the taxpayer is paying them them and to subsequently claim some 'right to privacy' about the true amount is laughable.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Poppycock Milt. They made themselves fair game.

The damage is done. Labour come out of this branded as the mob who want to give welfare to beneficiaries on over $50 grand. Worse still, they've branded themselves as the party which set up these particular beneficiaries in their extremely comfortable lifestyle.

No Milt, it's Labour who deserve the sobriquet 'scum.'

Danyl said...

How much a person receives in benefits is a matter of of interest to those who pay the bills ie the taxpayers.

I guess that means you think your medical records are fair game. The taxpayer foots the bills after all.

KG said...

Wrong, Danyl. Wrong on two counts. Firstly, any medical treatment I may receive through the public system is paid for by me, as a taxpayer.
Secondly, I have private medical insurance to cover anything which may take too damn long outside of emergency care.
Now go back to wanking over your Che' poster. :-)

dad4justice said...

As a solo dad I get fuck all from the twisted government. $715 a week for a bitch. Oh well Aunty Helen had fun spending billions on welfare.This is a welfare state just ask McDonalds where all the kids have birthday parties.What a sick country.

Lindsay said...

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

...including your privacy.

I have no sympathy for them.

Psycho Milt said...

They made themselves fair game.

As has anyone who in future complains that taxes are too high under a Labour govt. Are you really, really quite sure you're happy that precedent has been set?

Firstly, any medical treatment I may receive through the public system is paid for by me, as a taxpayer.

By you alone? No other taxpayers involved? That's a pretty unusual arrangement you've got with the govt there. Again, are you really glad this precedent has been set?

KG said...

You really are a bit thick, aren't you?
As a taxpayer, I contribute to my health care. (and given just how little health care I've needed from the public or private systems, yeah, me alone)
As beneficiaries, these women don't. Furthermore, if I didn't have to support bludgers I could afford a higher level of private health insurance.
The bottom line is: Those who are supported by the taxpayer have no reasonable right to privacy when it comes to the sources or the amounts of their income. Personally, I'd make them queue up on the footpath every fortnight in order to receive their charity, if they're on the dole for more than three months.

Anonymous said...

School teachers salaries are all public info, MP's salaires are public info, and frankly there is a good arguement as to why all tax payer funded salaries should be pubic info.
But for sure when someone goes public with a complaint (like these two did about tax sourced money) then the full facts should be out there.
There are many people - with a family - on salaried less than $715 a week. Its a scam

Sally O'Brien said...

Indeed taxpayers are entitled to know details of how much state employees and beneficiaries recieve.
Now we have been reminded that beneficiaries ore often on a better income than the low to middle income taxpayers who contribute let us hear what the National government is going to do about it. Cutting terciary education suppliment is just a start one hopes. Or will National yet again show that they are not much different from Labour.

Heine said...

Paula made a big mistake, she wasn't as sneaky as her predecessor and fronted up.

Labour leaked like a sieve to the media, the Nats have much to learn.

Psycho Milt said...

The bottom line is: Those who are supported by the taxpayer have no reasonable right to privacy when it comes to the sources or the amounts of their income.

Well, I tell you what - if National shares your view that people currently accepting taxpayer assistance (ie, a huge number of people from superannuitants on downwards) lose their citizenship rights, let them come out and say so. Then people can vote accordingly.

Anonymous said...

Of interest: This post was published on the Herald online "your views" section. The strange thing about it is that it exceeds the character limit for posting in that section. The limit is 1200 characters, the post is 3,100 characters. Who is D-V of Wellington that they can get their post inserted against system limits at the Herald? Looks like the propaganda machine is running overtime.

Link here:

http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2009/7/27/was-paula-bennett-right-release-income-details-two-solo-mothers/?c_id=1501154&objectid=10587070#message

Actual posting here:

"Lets put things into perspective:
1) No minister has the right to release any information without the express permission of the client. Privacy Act. Its law. There can be no justification for disclosure at all, regardless of what the information holds.
People here are making a dangerous mistake in using the released information as a justification for disclosure.
2) As to the actual amount of $715, bear in mind, this is to help clothe, feed, and house 3 (Three) people, not one.
Basic Weekly Expenses. (I'm guess-timating here as I am not in possession of all the facts.perhaps the kind minister would like to release the expenses of the client too?)
I think these are reasonable costs, no frills, just the bare necessities.
$300 Rent (small 2 bedroom place)
$200 Food (Food For 3 people)
$60 Petrol (Or transport)
$30 Phone (LandLine or Mobile)
$30 Electricity (or Gas)
$95 Misc (Misc expenses for example but not limited to: School Clothes/Shoes, Books, School excursions, and a hundred other things).
Not much left to put in the bank for that European Holiday.
This woman is bringing up 2 kids through school, who, in all probability, will go on to work and pay taxes. On top of that, its not as if she is saving it, the money goes back into our economy, and that money is taxed all the way down the line, so we get a big chunk of it back!
To all those high horse moral crusaders who are questioning the family circumstances, please, people in life are subject to many different factors, some of which are beyond their control. It is not our place to judge.
I am speaking from painful experience. 6 Months ago, my wife and I were successfully employed, making some good money. Working hard. Putting money in the bank. Enjoying life, getting ready to have kids, because we could afford it. I even paid cash for a sports car I had always wanted. And paying taxes. When the company we worked for closed overnight (owing pay), we were both out on our ear. Being well educated, experienced, we expected to back in employment with a week somewhere else, so we lived off savings. We cut back, to keep expenses down. Despite looking, applying, being interviewed, neither of us have had offers. 6 months later, the car and the savings are long gone, rent isn't being paid, basic bills are barely covered.
Prior to this situation, I would have been shocked to even consider going to Work & Income for assistance. I used to think people on the benefit were no hoper, drug addicts, with 10 kids. In the end, we did, and receive $196 a week to help us through, for which I am, like 99% of beneficiaries, truly grateful.
While I would never wish a similar set of circumstances on anyone, its funny how a change of situation beyond your control can change your attitude and open your eyes. I am just very thankful that I live in a country where the people and government respect people that have fallen on hard times, or been dealt a bum hand, and help them through, helping them get back on their feet and preserving their dignity. We don't need politicians undermining these principles by wrongfully disclosing private information for others to judge people by."

Danyl said...

You really are a bit thick, aren't you?
As a taxpayer, I contribute to my health care. (and given just how little health care I've needed from the public or private systems, yeah, me alone)
As beneficiaries, these women don't.


What you don't understand is that you don't get to make the rules here, the government does. Bennett's precedent means that if a future Labour Minister decides that the Privacy Act doesn't protect your medical records then that's how it is.

This isn't an issue of Labour vs National or beneficiaries vs taxpayers, this is an issue of the power of the state over the rights of the individual. You clowns are cheering the power of the state on because National happens to be governing it, and because you're not very bright, but make no mistake that you are taking the side of state power over individuals

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Danyl, go back to scrubbing test tubes. Like ALL lefties you cherry pick a few truths to support you flawed argument. The elephant in your room is that these two idiots went public on a blog. Labour compounded the transgression by parading their details through the house. didn't. Only trouble is, the details were carefully selected to hide the true extent of their remarkable generous state support and the actual amount of their middle class incomes.

The whole nation is cheering because, for the first time,the lid has been lifted off the ridiculous gravy train into which social welfare has been turned during Clark's tenure.

Contrived and bogus PC concerns about privacy have been brushed aside. Not by National but by your fools in Labour, who simply forgot about 'implied consent.'

Anonymous said...

people currently accepting taxpayer assistance (ie, a huge number of people from superannuitants on downwards) lose their citizenship rights


Yes indeed. The most important idea for the future of NZ! Bludgers,bennies, slackers, civil servants, teachers, etc etc None of them deserve civil rights once NZ accepts that theN we will start to make real
progress. Not before.

Falafulu Fisi said...

PM said...
right-wingers start to complain that we're paying too much tax

PM, complaining about paying too much isn't the same as funding bludgers too much. Moaning about paying too much tax is a right, because something (your property) is taken off from you by the state. Giving too much to bludgers is not a right, because they never earned it? Do you get the difference?

I bet you that even higher eaners won't moan if the IRD reveal how much they steal off those high earners since it will prompt the general public to cry in support of the high paying tax moaners, Oh my fucking God, those high earners deserved to be heard or be revealed by the IRD in their complaint about paying higher taxes.

The high earners are very happy for the IRD to reveal how much tax they're over-paying in order to fund bludgers and that's a fact. It makes the IRD look bad and on the other hand, the overtaxed high earner look good.

It is clear that your comparison of Paula Bennett & the IRD is definitely a primary school example. They are not the same.

Falafulu Fisi said...

Danyl said...
What you don't understand is that you don't get to make the rules here, the government does.

Danyl, have you heard of the mob rule? Yep, when the government makes all the rule without the approval of its people, then that's what you end up with. Do you want me to give you some examples? Look no further than Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran and many others.

It doesn't mean that everything the government put into law then that means its right. The rights of the individuals and his properties must be first & foremost protected. In this case, the 2 solo mums didn't earn with the labor of their hands of what they have been earning. The money was/is taxpayers (ie, properties belong to others who have been taxed by the state) and the rightful owners of that money have a legitimate right to know how their (properties) tax dollars are being spent.

Now, check your premise then reach for a conclusion, rather than the other way round and stop being a state-worshiper.

Psycho Milt said...

Do you want me to give you some examples? Look no further than Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran and many others.

Now this is getting just plain weird. You seem to be saying that if the govt ignores the law relating to privacy for the sake of embarrassing people you hate, it's a good thing. In fact, not only is it a good thing, but if our govt weren't to ignore the rights of its citizens in this manner we might as well be living in North Korea.

Honestly, it's like blogging at the Mad Hatter's tea party...

Sus said...

'“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

...including your privacy.'

Absolutely.

The Tomahawk Kid said...

The following two posts are absolutely brilliant - thank you to those two people for getting it so RIGHT

Oh for a country full of people who think like THAT
*****

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

...including your privacy.

I have no sympathy for them.

*******

How much a person receives in benefits is a matter of of interest to those who pay the bills ie the taxpayers.
If it's none of our business then it's also none of our fucking obligation.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

PM, since David Benson-Pope revealed Fuller's income detailsa two years ago, can we assume that you believe the former minister is scum too?

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

I look forward to your post on this.
I am sure you can get some decent pics of tennis balls somewhere.

Anonymous said...

The two women complained publicly, taking their case to the public, so the public deserve to know the whole truth.

They said they may not get enough money to pursue their education. Now we have the facts to answer whether their complaints were reasonable.