Letter to the Editor: It must be beneficiary-bashing day in Christchurch today

.

.

It must be Bene-bashing Day in the Garden City today…

.

.

Specifically, Yardley wrote,

“In fact, most street walkers are really sticking it to the taxpayer, by concurrently drawing a benefit.”

To which I replied with this observation,

.

FROM:    "f.macskasy" 
SUBJECT:  Letters to the editor
DATE:     Thu, 15 May 2014 08:44:35 +1200
TO:      "The Press" <letters@press.co.nz>

 

.

The editor
"The Press"


.
Mike Yardley's diatribe against sex-workers,along with a
swipe at social welfare, reads more like a Destiny Church
sermon than any credible piece of journalism. (13 May)

His claim that "most street walkers are really sticking it
to the taxpayer, by concurrently drawing a benefit" is not
sustained by any facts or figures. He simply throws it into
the argument without any factual context.

How many are "most street walkers" - 51%? 52%? 53? etc?

And how does he know? Are there any MSD/WINZ figures he has
accessed? Or has he surveyed every single sex-workers in
Christchurch?

Or, more likely, is he simply relying on cliches and
stereotypes without any reference to facts?

I don't know what Mike Yardley had in mind when he wrote his
piece, but it certainly wasn't journalism.


-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]

.

It seems that employing the tactic of suggesting benefit-fraud is now a useful tool to validate any  argument? Is this the welfare version of Godwin’s Law?

.

---

 

References

The Press:  To clean up our streets, sex workers must go

Wikipedia: Godwin’s Law

---

 

.

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

Letter to the Editor: Kiwi style or American style? (v.2)

.

 

.

FROM:   "f.macskasy" <f.macskasy@clear.net.nz>
SUBJECT: Letters to the editor
DATE:    Thu, 15 May 2014 00:59:30 +1200
TO:     "NZ Herald"  <letters@herald.co.nz> 

.

The editor
NZ Herald
.

This is a whiff of desperation about National these days. I
refer to John Key's latest pronouncement of  "possible"
future tax cuts if his government is re-elected later this
year.

Tax cuts?

Because obviously, Mr Key does not believe we should first
pay of the $60 billion of debt that his government accrued
with two previous, unaffordable tax cuts in 2009 and 2010?

Because, obviously, after taxing children on their paper
run, and trying to tax carparks and cellphones, National has
created a rather confusing  picture of it's ad hoc economic
policies?

Because obviously, cutting more  taxes will mean less
funding for public services? Services such as education
where, every year, parents have to stump up with  $357
million in "voluntary" school fees and devote entire
weekends to fund-raiding to make up for funding short-falls?

Because, obviously, giving away taxpayer-funded subsidies to
Rio Tinto, Warner Bros, the Rugby World Cup, a golf
tournament, Charter Schools, etc, wasn't enough?

Because, obviously, corporate welfare is a good thing - but
re-building Red Zoned Christchurch houses that are now
rotting in a wintry hell, is really not that important?

And because, obviously, after two tax cuts, National had to
part-sell our power companies and Air New Zealand. Plus
increase prescription charges from $3 to $5 - just to make
life just that wee bit more miserable for the poor; the
aged; the infirm.

Now Mr Key is dangling another electoral bribe in front of
voters - more tax cuts.

I wonder what public services will be under-funded as a
result?

What state assets will be sold off?

And more importantly - will voters be silly enough to fall
for this again?


-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]

 

.

 

---

 

References

NZ Herald:  Parents fundraise $357m for ‘free’ schooling

Fairfax media: Public debt climbs by $27m a day

Radio NZ: PM John Key dangles tax cut carrot

---

 

.

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =