Archive

Posts Tagged ‘election bribe’

Letter to the editor – fiscal prudence or another election bribe?

25 August 2014 1 comment

.

Frank Macskasy - letters to the editor - Frankly Speaking

.

from:     Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to:          Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date:     Tue, Aug 26, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The Editor

DOMINION POST

.

So let me get this straight…

We have in this country, currently,

* a colossal debt estimated to rise to  $67.9 billion by  2018,

* a quarter of a million children living in poverty,

* Christchurch residents facing a critical housing shortage,

* and cuts to health and education

– and our esteemed Prime Minister is talking about tax cuts?!

Perhaps he can also tell us where the cash for tax cuts will come from? More borrowings from off-shore, as National did for the 2009 and 2010 tax cuts?

And perhaps he can tell us which generation will pay off the massive $67-plus billion debt if he’s going to lavish us with tax cuts?

National continually accuses Labour, the Greens, and Mana-Internet for being profligate spenders.

But nothing compares to this government which took us from zero debt in 2008; implemented two clearly unaffordable tax cuts funded by borrowing from off-shore banks; and ballooned debt out to nearly $70 billion dollars.

This is not prudent fiscal management. It is a very expensive election bribe.

More fool us if we take this bribe. A bribe with other people’s money. A bribe to be paid back by our children.

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

.

.

from:     Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to:          NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date:      Tue, Aug 26, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor
NZ Herald
.

John Key’s desperation is showing. How else to explain National’s dangling of a tax-cut carrot in front of voters, barely a few weeks out from the election.

As if a $67 billion debt isn’t enough, he wants to cut taxes and presumably borrow more money from off-shore to fund those cuts.

Where else will the money come from? Pixies cultivating money trees?

Meanwhile we have critical problems confronting our nation;

* over 250,000 children living in poverty,

* Cantabrians faced with a snails-pace rebuild; mounting housing shortage; and skyrocketing rents,

* cuts to social services such as health and education.

The last round of tax cuts in 2009 and 2010 were paid by increasing user-charges such as medical prescriptions and raising GST from 12.5% to 15% – increases which hit low-income earners the hardest.

National paid for the ’09 and ’10 tax cuts with massive borrowings.

How much will be have to borrow to fund these tax cuts?

Who will pay it back?

Our children?

Shame on us if we fall for this scam.

We are better than this.

-Frank Macskasy

  [address & phone number supplied]

 

.


 

References

Fairfax media:  Surplus on track, Treasury figures show

Fairfax media: National’s tax cut mixed message


 

.

Skipping voting is not rebellion its surrender

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

Letter to Radio NZ: $3000 offer to the Unemployed is a joke – and not a very funny one (v.2)

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879

.

FROM:   "f.macskasy" 
SUBJECT: National's cunning $3000 plan for the unemployed
DATE:    Wed, 07 May 2014 10:02:39 +1200
TO:      Kathryn Ryan  <ninetonoon@radionz.co.nz>

.

 

Kathryn Ryan
Nine to Noon Show, Radio NZ

.

After three years the best that the Nats can come up with is
Bennett's plan to pay unemployed $3,000 to relocate to
Christchurch to find work.

The only problem is;

1. There is no guaranteed work, as Select Recruitment
managing director Karen Bardwell has stated "the rebuild had
yet to kick into high gear and the demand for low to medium
skilled workers simply wasn't there".

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/243602/agency-questions-jobless-incentive

2. There is a critical housing shortage with astronomical
rents being demanded/paid. Where will 1,000 workers find a
place to live? Bennett doesn't say.

3. The $3,000 grant is predicated on;

3A. The job being for 30 hours per week or more,

3B. The job lasting 91 days or more

htt
p://beehive.govt.nz/release/budget-2014-%E2%80%983k-christchurch%E2%80%99-help-job-se
ekers

Item 3A and 3B are the fish-hooks. If an employer decides to
cut back a worker's hours or, initiates the 90 Trial Period
law - the workers has to repay the $3,000.

The implications of this are obvious. 

Not only is a worker in a precarious position to keep
his/her job - but has a potential $3,000 debt hanging over
their head.

The potential for abuse by manipulative, exploitative
employers is obvious.

The risk is all on the unemployed, and very few people would
be willing to put themselves into such a vulnerable
situation.

Pity. It was the 'germ' of a fairly good idea. But as usual,
National hasn't thought it through.

Or was it designed to fail by making it so unattractive that
no one in their right mind would take it up, and Bennett
could once again bang on about "lazy benes"?

It wouldn't be the first time.



-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]

.


 

References

Beehive.govt.nz:  Budget 2014: ‘$3k to Christchurch’ to help job seekers

Radio NZ: Agency questions jobless incentive


 

.

Skipping voting is not rebellion its surrender

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

Letter to the Editor: $3000 offer to the Unemployed is a joke – and not a very funny one!

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879

.

Paula Bennett

.

6 May, 2014

.

Budget 2014: ‘$3k to Christchurch’ to help job seekers

.

The Government is providing further support for the Canterbury rebuild with $3.5 million of new operating funding for 2014/15 in Budget 2014 to assist beneficiaries to take up work in Christchurch.

“We’re offering up to 1,000 beneficiaries a one-off payment of $3,000 each if they have a full-time job offer in Canterbury and are ready and willing to move there,” Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says.

“The rebuild is creating thousands of jobs in Christchurch, and there are people around New Zealand ready to take them up, but who don’t currently have the means to get there.

“With an unemployment rate in Canterbury of 3.4 per cent – lower than the 6 per cent rate nationally – there are plenty of opportunities. There is demand not only in construction, but in hospitality, retail and many other industries too.

“Work and Income will be working closely with employers to connect them with beneficiaries who’d be suited to work for them, and I’m confident this incentive will provide a boost for the rebuild, and for the employment prospects of beneficiaries,” Mrs Bennett says.

The $3,000 payment will help beneficiaries with the move to Canterbury, sorting accommodation, clothing, tools and any other purchases they might need to make when getting settled.

This offer will be open to beneficiaries of all ages, but a particular focus will be placed on young people aged 18-24 years, as the rebuild provides the opportunity for them to gain employment skills that will set them up for life.

To qualify, the job offered must be for over 30 hours a week, and for longer than 91 days. The payment will be non-taxable, and exempt from an income and asset test.

If the recipient goes back on benefit within three months of the payment without a sufficient reason, then the payment must be repaid.

This initiative will cover jobs within the geographical areas of Ashburton, Hurunui, Selwyn, and Waimakariri District Councils, and the Christchurch City Council.

 

.

An interesting idea… until one read the second-to-last line. Which prompted this response from me;

.

 
FROM:   "f.macskasy"  
SUBJECT: Letters to the editor
DATE:    Wed, 07 May 2014 00:52:23 +1200
TO:     "The Press" <letters@press.co.nz>

.

The Editor
THE PRESS

.

When I first heard that National's Paula Bennett was
offering $3000 for unemployed to relocate to Christchurch to
find work, I thought it was an interesting idea with merit.
Though one wonders why it took three years for National to
come up with it. An election year bribe?.

Upon closer inspection there are two fish-hooks in this
plan.

A job has to be over 30 hours a week, and  longer than
ninetyone days, or else the $3000  must be re-paid.

Should an employer reduce those thirty hours, or use the
government's own Ninety Day Trial Period to sack the worker
-  that $3000 must be repaid.

The unemployed person takes the risk in taking up the $3000
grant, but their fate is in the hands of the employer, whose
decisions can result in the worker having to repay the
money.

The plan's sheer inherent contradictions undermines any
potential effectiveness.

In fact, it seems designed to fail.


-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]

 

 

.


 

References

Beehive.govt.nz: Budget 2014: ‘$3k to Christchurch’ to help job seekers


 

.

Skipping voting is not rebellion its surrender

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =