Entry 212, on 2005-08-24 at 15:50:32 (Rating 4, News)
I've always wanted to do a blog entry with such a snappy title! Here in New Zealand we are a few weeks out from a general election, and the truth, half-truth, and outright lies are flying thick and fast!
The National Party wants to reduce taxes, which is commendable in itself. But its not that simple. The government uses those taxes to run essential services, so how will they still run them with less tax income? They say they will eliminate trivial and wasteful services and use the savings for important services instead. Seems reasonable, but what about an example?
Today they gave publicly funded sex change operations as an example of wasteful spending which could be eliminated. No doubt most people would agree with this when they first hear it, but do they know the details?
How many of these operations have been done so far? Well, one actually. At the cost of $30,000. OK, that will make a big difference! And how many will happen in future? The funding is for 3 every two years. its not likely to bankrupt the country, is it?
OK, even if the numbers are small maybe its still worth eliminating this procedure isn't it? After all, these are just crazy freaks who want the operation as part of a lifestyle choice. Well again, this isn't true. Gender problems of this sort are caused by hormonal imbalances which affect the baby before birth. Its not their fault, and its not a choice. The least we can do as a caring society is give up a small amount each year to help, isn't it?
Did the Nats know this (in which case they are effectively cynical manipulators of pseudo-facts) or did they not even know the facts (so that they are ignorant). Either way its not a good look, and a classic example of how we need to examine the truth behind every political statement we hear from all parts of the political spectrum.
Comment 1 by OJB on 2005-08-25 at 12:43:57:
It looks like National have realised this has backfired on them a bit. Their health spokesman was on today backing away from the idea. He talked very slowly and calmly about it, but was obviously thinking "how do we get ourselves out of this one". It just shows how mean they can be, just to save a few bucks.
Comment 2 by SBFL on 2005-09-04 at 21:30:05:
Speaking of ignorance, Dr Cullen has many times put forward the notion that "The government uses those taxes to run essential services, so how will they still run them with less tax income?" and often uses the analogy of a household with its income and expenditure. He says how can the household pay its bills with less income. The fact that Dr Cullen knows that answer to his own question means he himself isn't ignorant, but he is getting his misconceived point across with those listening who are less well-informed.
A company also has income and expenditure, and when its income exceeds expenditure this is called a profit. The company can do one of two things with this profit. Keep it as retained earnings or give it back to the shareholders in the form of a dividend. This country is running a massive profit (surplus) and Dr Cullen wants to keep it for himself (retained earnings, maybe to pay for a few more sex change operations?). National, the Maori Party, United Future and Act want to give this back to the public (shareholders) in the form of tax cuts (dividend).
As the government in New Zealand is a government for the people, funded by the working people, is it not fair that when there is a massive profit, that it comes back to the workers? No one is talking about cutting essential services, only the Labour party with its typical inaccurate scaremongering tactics.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2005-09-05 at 10:29:07:
Let's stick with the company analogy (which isn't perfect, but is useful). The company only pays a dividend with money that isn't required to keep the company running smoothly. The argument comes down to where that point is. Most people can see we need more funding to keep the New Zealand "company" going. We need better health services, better education, etc. Until that's done, we can't afford to pay a dividend, no matter how much we would like to.
Think about it. It would be so easy to use taxes as a bribe like National have, and ignore the consequences. In many ways Labour have taken the more honest, but less popular route, and they may lose the election as a result.
Comment 4 by SBFL on 2005-09-05 at 19:12:47:
Yes, the argument comes down to what that point is. But throwing money at issues is not the solution. Governments have been throwing money at health for years (incl Labour in the last 6). But few who use the service would say it is fixed. As for education, one word, NCEA. Lets stop throwing money at essential services and fix them with sensible strategy and obtain efficiency (achieved result without wastage in cost).
Tax cuts are not really a bribe - they are a fundamental principle of parties of the right. It's nothing new. Left puts taxes up, right brings them down. Labours newly found funds for "tax relief" are a bribe, because that came out of the blue just before the election.
Comment 5 by OJB on 2005-09-05 at 22:53:20:
It will probably never be "fixed" but its better than it would be without the extra investment. If we want more operations we need more funding don't we? It seems to me that throwing extra money at it will help, after all.
I'm not a great fan of the NCEA. I don't think its a good system of assessment, and even if it was, it been badly implemented. But its not reasonable to concentrate on one aspect of a subject. You need to look at the big picture, as well as the possible alternatives.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
