Thursday, May 20, 2010

Reconciling these statements

How do you reconcile these utterings by John Key made within days of each other within the last week?

Uttering 1
Mr Key has promised that the "tax switch" will leave no-one worse off and the vast bulk of people better off.

But yesterday he began selling the need for bigger tax cuts for higher earners.

"We can be envious about these things but without those people in our economy all the rest of us will either have less people paying tax or fundamentally less services that they provide," he said.

Uttering 2
"We will be making sure that all New Zealanders, the wealthy included, pay their fair share," he told Parliament yesterday.

"The rich, by and large, do not pay the top personal tax rate. Really wealthy people will probably find they are paying considerably more tax as a result of the Budget ... not less."

9 comments:

Dave Mann said...

Yes. this is the asshole who said a couple of weeks ago publicly that (I paraphrase) there is no room for separatism in New Zealand while planning in the back rooms to give our seabed and foreshore to the maoris and has been negotiating with them to give them our national parks and gives them literally hundreds of million dollars per annum in 'settlements'.

He is also the utter shit who plans to destroy our productive base with his precious ETS scheme.

He is the arrogant bastard who thinks he knows everything about parental dicipline and the people are too stupid to handle it themselves.

This lates bullshit around the budget is what some people would call call 'spin'.... and what other, more hones people, call 'blatant lies'.

Get used to it. This is New Zealand under national Socialism.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Wot's yer problem mate?

Of course they'll be better off. Just imagine all those warm fuzzies they'll have as, for the first time in their miserable lives, they find themselves contributing fairly to the common good.

The pricks will live ten years longer as a result in their improved self esteem.

The Gantt Guy said...

The simple fact is you can't reconcile them. With the Dear Leader and her chief economic vandal, New Zealanders at least knew what they were getting; anyone who earned over $70K was a "rich prick" and thoroughly deserved to be punished for it. With Key, he encourages the unwashed masses to not be envious of the rich because the country needs them, all-the-while letting slip that he doesn't believe they have been paying their "fair share". What utter horse-shit and hypocrisy. Let me think about where I would rather be...in New Zealand earning $100K (maybe), being called a "rich prick" for building a business, working my arse off and contributing something to the econolmy, or in Australia earning closer to $200K, where I pay less tax and my contribution is not met (with thanks or gratitude, but neither) with snarling and spitting. Productive, intelligent, entrepreneurial kiwis have 2 choices: (1) stay at home, earn less for your endeavours and be pilloried for being something more than a dole-bludging scum-bag, or (2) move offshore, earn more and be left alone to get on with it. Cactus Kate got it right when she said a couple of months ago that there are only 2 reasons for expat kiwis to move home. 1 is because they've earned enough money and are content to sacrifice future wealth for New Zealand's life-style. 2 is because when parents get to a certain age there is an obligation to ensure they are taken care of. I would love to come home to NZ, but I'll be fucked if I'm going to make myself poor to do so. So thanks, John Key, for doing NOTHING to wind back a decade of rampant socialist economic vandalism.

Kevin said...

lets go with 'actions rather than words' maybe?

Anonymous said...

Because Key is a CUNT!

CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT

Which part of 198 BILLION IN DEBT doesn't Key understand?

sagenz said...

anon 3:55 seek professional help. You appear to have lost touch with reality

sagenz said...

gooner : If you are earning a level of income and not using tax avoidance to artificially reduce that income but pay the full amount due under "normal" circumstances then you would in fact get a reduction.

It is comparing intended tax with intended tax.

I see nothing contradictory in those statements.

Anonymous said...

You appear to have lost touch with reality

Which part of 198 Billion net debt don't you understand?

Which part of borrowing $250 Million a week don't you understand?

Which part of putting up benefits don't you understand?

Anonymous said...

it's that level of wilful disregard of reality (not to mention ignorance of simple mathematics)
that needs therapy.