MEDIAWATCH: The Nation – We already have a fund for rich people to pay for welfare, it’s called a tax system


What the Christ are National going on about now?

A fund that rich people pay into to fund welfare?

We already have s system for that, it’s called taxation!

National are suggesting this to inoculate themselves from their tax cut of the top tax rate that will see average workers getting $800 while Chris Luxon will get $18000!

This is bullshit!

Collect tax with a proper tax system, don’t open trusts that the rich can donate into! What is this, a plutocracy?

This is the Gothem City Charitable Trust is it?

National are out sourcing the obligations of the State to the generosity of the rich?

TDB Recommends

Fuck off.

Why are National trying right wing experiments at a time when we face geopolitical shock waves?

Didn’t Lizz Truss show everyone this kind of thing doesn’t work?

National want to implement more ‘social investment’ bullshit which is what spawned Oranga Tamariki. Why adopt more Frankenstein neoliberal experiments in welfare?

National want more neoliberal policy in welfare, it won’t work.

Nicola Willis is a Welfare Hawk and she will rip strips off beneficiaries while Luxon will offer his thoughts and prayers.


Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media


  1. Jesus. What a nest of greedy, cynical, horrible little creatures the Natzo’s are. Our right wing resemble the Tories. Slobbering, greedy, self entitled fools.
    I can’t wait for them to deflate then crawl off out the back door like truss had to.

    • Luxon and Seymour’s tax oackage is nothing like the UK’s Trussonomics.

      National and ACT in New Zealand will learn from the debacle in the UK and adjust the messaging to show the benefits of a targeted tax policy that is fully funded by getting rid of wasteful ministries.
      ACT and National’s tax cuts of 20% personal flat tax, 20% GST (except for fresh veg) and 20% business tax will be transformative for New Zealand and will make New Zealand the envy of the South Pacific’s economies.

      Stay the course Chris and David; there are many people willing to support you all the way.

  2. She has actually said a few things lately that don’t ring true. In parliament the other day she was berating the Finance Minister for people borrowing loads at dirt cheap rates in the middle of a global pandemic. It seems personal responsibility is only applied to poor people who clearly got themselves into that situation all on their (according to National). Borrow loads in a such an uncertain environment and it’s not your fault at all?

  3. “Let there be ‘Lettuce!’ And then Trickle Down Economics failed again!

    Shall RogerNomics maketh a return, doom is yee set uponeth thee fools who bringeth thee plan!”

    • Rogernomics is still in place with the 1988 to 2022 … + + + alliance between ACT (Rogernomics) and National (NZ’s born-to-rule Tories)

      Up to your old right-wing shit again Denny Paoa (Tane/Male/Man, not Female/Woman/Thinker) with your right-wing, gobshite revisionism of neoliberal history. Even Wikipedia proves you wrong on many counts Tane/Male/Man,+not+Female/Woman/Thinker.

      No argument that ACT infiltrated Labour 1984 to 1988….. SINCE then ACT and National has gone and will go hand in hand with ACT from 1988 to 2022 and will be coalition partners beyond. There were even discussions about David Seymour leading the National Party and beyond! David Seymour put out his 100 – day Coalition Plan for National and ACT:

      ACT and NATIONAL after 1988

      From 1988 on, there is a deliberate and planned symbiotic, parasitic relationship between National and ACT. Neoliberalism goes hand in hand with National and ACT. Their policies are so alike.

      The name ACT comes from the initials of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, founded in 1993 by Sir Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley….
      Don Brash National and ACT
      1988 2002 Reserve Bank Governor
      2002–2005 47th List 5 National
      2005–2007 48th List 1 National
      April 2011, still a National Party member ACT Party Leader

      Roger Douglas National and ACT
      2008–2011 49th List MP for ACT

      John Banks National and ACT
      1990–1993 43rd Whangarei National
      1993–1996 44th Whangarei National
      1996–1999 45th Whangarei National
      2011–2014 50th Epsom ACT

      Richard Prebble National and ACT
      Leader ACT from 1996 to 2004….
      1996–1999 ACT
      1999–2002 ACT
      2002–2005 ACT

      How many alliances between ACT and Labour between 1988 and 2022 NONE – ZERO – ZILCH

      You better get your right-wing pals at DPHQ (Dirty Politics Head Quarters) to delete all the links between National and ACT, that were clearly shown through a cursory glance of Wikipedia.

  4. Stupid is as stupid does.

    If the Nats took a leaf out of Boris Johnson’s policy book (smart centre-right on culture, smart centre-left on economics), they would be polling 50 %. But sadly that’s just not in their political DNA.

  5. Newshub is biased and the Panel will Hammer this Government. Don’t ask hard Questions and these hacks are ignorant.

    • I find Simon and Rebecca much more inclined to ask the ‘hard’ questions than many journo’s.
      I always wonder about National outsourcing welfare programmes to the private sector.
      In the U.S JPMorgan runs the food stamp programme,that has 40 million beneficiaries….nice earner.

    • News hub the online version is so far right, Luxon is the CEO, the left bloc have no chance for balanced journalism.

  6. Keep crying Martyn. The left have had their chance to make the lives of our most vulnerable better, but like everything else have utterly failed.

    Suck it up, change is coming whether you like it or not.

    • MicksuckeyBoyle, you must be one of the trough leeching rich pricks that are gonna benefit from these changes sensing your glee at the thought.

    • Change may well be coming but it doesn’t change the fact that your type don’t care for the vulnerable whether you like it or not. Failure left Winston going with Labour in 2017 because of the rights abject failures,whether you like it or not.

      • What and your type does?

        This government has overseen the greatest transfer of wealth in a generation. Exploded the social housing waiting list and increased inequality like never before. Oh but you’re the party of kindness right?

        You keep bitching about what National might do, whilst the party you support is recognized by commentators and people like Winston Peters, as the worst in our history.

        Anyone still supporting Ardern is a delusional moron.

          • Yes that would be MickeyBoyle certifiably insane. His broken record rhetoric should have Labours polling in the teens. Obviously they are not ” the worst govt in history” but I guess if moron MickeyBoyle says it often enough? His constant whining must be an embarrassment to all those in his life, he and his dog.

  7. Can’t you see the reason. Donations are tax deductible. Luxon can donate a couple of grand from his $18000 and get 33% of it back. So he looks good, feels happy and has screwed the bottom feeders again.

  8. A problem the National Party has, as I see it, is their Christian roots.
    Charity is part of Christian teaching and I think well meaning charitable intentions have got us into the mess we’re in.
    You want brown people to succeed? Then let them stand on their own two feet and battle like the rest of us.
    In the long term all charity (= welfare) has achieved is to infantilise them. Otherwise known as ‘paternal racism’

    • Wow Andrew that is a f’ing massive assumption. What makes you think it’s only “brown people” who are struggling? Are you also suggesting it’s only “brown people” who are getting government help….unlike “the rest of us”?

    • You must have missed the saying that “there is nothing more unequal than equal treatment of unequal people”
      Starting from birth a large section of the country is at a significant disadvantage and relying on people’s honesty to support the poor has never worked which is why we need a working tax system, yes they need to do a lot better than currently and some people just make poor choices but expecting everyone to survive without state support is only going to create conditions for a repeat of the French revolution.

      • Already 40% of the lower end of income earners effectively pay negative tax. Just how much more progressive do you want it to get?

    • The tories and right wingers better watch out or Jesus will come down and “flip their tables” of their market place riches.

      • the thing with religious fundies is they don’t actually belive in jesus, they subscribe to the angry old man with a long white beard…the cruxifix is just a logo

  9. Stupid is as stupid does.

    Faced with a government as inept and as dishonest as the present one, the Nats would be polling > 50 % if they took a leaf out of Boris Johnson’s policy book – going centre-left on economics and centre-right on culture.

    But that’s just not in their neoliberal political DNA.

  10. Willis talks up a big game, but really… so much airy fairy bullshit….she’s going to the election with a policy of lowering taxes and asking rich people to contribute to a fund, but will not give any detail on how it will work, or a cost benefit analysis on the likely outcomes until….wait for it…until the books are opened….

    That’s a huge ‘out’ she’s given herself…no mention of what the books would need to look like for said policies to be enacted upon…no detail on anything.. and this is their main election policy plank. WTF!!!

    It will be interesting to see if we have a single journalist in the country who will put the acid on her and Luxona and demand fully costed details. i mean they should drill the living daylights out of them.
    It’s got to be either put up ,or shut up!!

    • It is a year out from the election .The full story will come out closer to that time so it can be tailored to the situation then. It is apparent that the policies being followed at the moment is getting us nowhere.

      • Well Trevor the policies of the last National Govt got us into the massive infrastructure deficit we are now tackling; and evidence so far is they would continue from where Key/English left off. Objections to current policies seem to be from those wanting that to happen.

      • If they can’t fully articulate exactly how it will be implemented and lay out a costed spreadsheet right now, so the public can get a vision of how the train-wreck of an idea will stack up, then it’s not a policy…
        That’s commonly known as a pipedream or a deception.
        They are talking it up like it will be equal to the 2nd coming of Christ…
        However, they will need all the divine intervention that God can provide for that naive proposition, so i guess Luxona is your man when it comes to that.
        Get the happy clappys to save National…. now there’s a policy worthy of thought… Could be applied across all portfolios.

  11. The ‘Lettuce,’ has spoken!
    The Markets have spoken!
    The GFC has spoken!

    Rogernomics Trickle Down Economics died in the GFC!

    Do not resuscitate!

  12. I wish Labour did not give up on the employment coverage project, where workers could get additional coverage for unemployment, especially with the upcoming employment crunch.

    • The social insurance stinks.
      2 reasons.
      1 the relationship rules in welfare stink.

      Forget the bullshit headline and read the details of why they are in the position in the first place.

      This line of 1930s 50s thinking is no longer fit for the 21st century living.
      The family is defined as adults – either single or in a couple – and dependent children.
      This unit is used because it is generally accepted that families are financially interdependent – they will share resources to support each other.

      “Financial support in the welfare system is targeted to those most in need. Because of that, it is reasonable to take into account the resources of the family to assess a person’s need for financial support from the state.

      This below is bullshit right wing thinking and why Nats case managers at winz love to put the boot in.
      We cant have a so called high income (50,388 per year) family getting welfare now can we when their income gets cut 50% over night.

      “Household income is different to family income – households may contain multiple families, and these are generally not taken into account for financial support. If all welfare financial support were individualised this would result in many payments going to higher-income families and this would increase the overall cost of the welfare system significantly. The long-term welfare overhaul work programme will consider whether the unit of entitlement in the welfare system is still fit-for-purpose.”

      My answer is winz relationship rules are no longer fit for the 21st century.
      2 Make ACC a Medicare levy and that will fix the slp and Job seekers with medical problem.

  13. The problem is that NZ has fallen hook, line and sinker for not making sure that the first and best line of support should be the state and charities are funded by donations that the public gives them not taxpayer money.

    For example in the tragic case of Malachi Subecz’s abuse and murder by his caregiver while his mother was in jail, it would be pretty normal to assume that OT automatically checks on on these children of jailed children (especially if there are complaints and not family) and as suggested by the

    “A solution put forward by Children’s Commissioner Judge Frances Eivers is when a parent is likely to go to prison there should be “an automatic referral to Oranga Tamariki”.”

    But now charities like Pillars are denigrating the role that the state plays and instead expecting more money and resources for charities that are not transparent and not part of the state ….. so far that approach of the state getting less funds while business/charities get more public money that has become normalised in the last 30 years, doesn’t seem to be working out very well for NZ kids.

    Fund the state and make the state more transparent, and stop wasting taxpayers money on charities fighting each other for funding, that doesn’t seem to be working that well for kids.

    • snz the interesting thing NOT MENTIONED in any of the subecz coverage is why was that carer approved and what was the relationship with the mother we can all suppose and suspect but the silence is deafening.

  14. The rich are screwing us on wages and screwing us in housing and a govt that will bend over backwards to help them while ignoring poverty. No, Im not just talking about National….

  15. I do not think family income of $180k makes someone ultra rich. Today a couple, who are teachers, nurses, IT grads could easily earn $180k together after 4-5years with overtime & penal rates.

    However, it seems we have a big problem when a single person earns $180k, who may have a non earning partner.

    In the previous case they pay $44k in total tax and in the later scenario they pay $8k more on the same income and given the label “rich prick”.

    Any tax cut at the higher levels would benefit the later more, and that is fair.

    NZ should allow income splitting, which is allowed in Australia, to be fair to families where earnings are unbalanced. Else, we should get rid of the 39% tax at $180k.

    • I agree, everything in NZ is designed to try and split families up as you tend to be financially better off at certain income brackets to pretend that one is a single parent and the other works. Seriously know of two families doing this so that they can get the benefit – it would be easier if tax rules supported two parent families – the gang violence and mental health issues could be easier solved if there were better supports for nuclear families.

    • Agree, we are in that boat on one income. We dont mind paying the extra tax as we know that we can afford it more than others although keeping it would be nice. But we do mind that we have various neighbours who both work, most 1 part time and 1 full time and that they are better off than us to the tune of up to $500+ net? per month.

      But I guess its a bit like this ‘tyranny of the majority’ stuff, in every system there are winners and losers. I would still vote for the higher rate tax to remain and would vote for increased GST on luxury items as well.

      • Well spare a thought for the single parent families raising kids and juggling responsibilies and paying exorbitant rents, power and food bills Fantail, almost always deserted by a useless feck of a father, while you’re comparing your comfortable life with the Joneses over the fence. Many people have real existential problems despite their best efforts right now.

        • Hence why I have voted Labour my entire life whilst always being a well above average earner and marrying one too.

  16. So what, we vote Labour/Greens as that seems to have had what sort of impact again? The thing I see is, no one actually gives a genuine sh*t about those struggling no matter your political leanings. Most voting Labour/Green would sh*t the bed if a struggling brother or sister knocked at their door

    • Agree, poverty is everywhere yet govts over the decades completely ignore it and say nothing is a problem. And they all do it with a straight face.
      Cant trust em, can’t get rid of them.

    • Hang in there CB. “Pilot programs in Auckland and Waikato…” incremental bullshit imo. Notably nothing in BOP Rotorua, our skid row of the Pacific. Do whatever you can everyone as we ride this out, even if it’s just a smile to a stranger or a kind word here and there. We never really know what anyone is dealing with or going through in their personal lives, so less judgements, more empathy and if you have spare resources or time, share them. Our people are really suffering.

  17. Wah, wah, wah,

    Everyday we have a MSM article crying about NZ’s hard done by business people, trying to lower wages that are already lower than Singapore and Sydney, (not mentioning what is going up much faster, which is business rents (residential rents are lower than most other countries), interest rates, cost of food and petrol)….

    Too many people have got residency in NZ off the basis of a fake or poorly performing job or loss making sunset takeout/tourism/forestry business (essentially foreign land banking) and now everyone has to support their business. We attract failures and exploiters (billionaires to liquor kings to drug smugglers) into NZ and then everyone else has to support them going forward.

    When you lower wages but increase prices, you get London, which is a basket case – due to similar policies to NZ in terms of attracting masses amounts of low skilled people thinking it would help the economy, but instead lowered wages while increasing prices, then reacting and politicising the situation, and pushing out the professional and smarter people making them pay the taxes needed and having loopholes for those with foreign trusts attracting more to come.

    If we want to work out where NZ is dysfunctional to other countries it seems that high interest rates and high food and low wages are the big problem. Residential rents which the woke and right wingers has been saying is the issue, is the opposite – as usual NZ barks up the wrong tree for decades making things worse.

    Rent Prices in Auckland are 24.80% LOWER than in Sydney.
    Monthly salaries after tax are 27% lower in Auckland than Sydney.
    Bank interest rates in Auckland are 37% higher than Sydney.

    Rent Prices in Auckland are 38% LOWER than in London.
    Monthly salaries after tax are 2% higher in Auckland than London.
    Bank interest rates in Auckland are 61% higher than London.

    Rent Prices in Auckland are 47.38% lower than in Singapore
    Monthly salaries after tax are 25% lower in Auckland than Singapore.
    Bank interest rates in Auckland are 107% higher than Singapore.

    • SNZ, I dont know about Singapore but I have worked in both Sydney and London but take home pay especially in London, is only part of the package. I used to get petrol disounts, fully expensed car when I didnt need it for my work, full health insurance, a good, tax empt contributary pension and life insurance. Got occasional free shares as well as share options Its a while ago but I think that when you work for a corporate the other benefits can make up about 1/3rd of your package

      Australia is less generous than London but they have a great payment in kind scheme where you can move your benefits into your pay (like get your employer to pay your rent or a car) and then from what I gather, pay less tax on your take home.

      So the comparisons aren’t apples with apples. Also the transport costs and spend may well vary a fair bit too in each of those places.

      Its purely guess work based on nothing except having lived and worked in a handful of other countries but I do get the impression that the average man in the street seems to live a lot poorer here in NZ overall to other places I have lived.

      • and what exactly did you work as fantail? not a zero hours contract I’m guessing….so not really any kind of contrast with any ordinary worker is it?

        • Quite true Gaga, SNZ was giving an average I believe.

          My point was in NZ, we tend to get 1 cash sum for everything whether you are hourly paid or salaried. If you earn part time minimum wage hours or $200K a year, the level of benefits on top of salary/wage are very similar – nothing or near to it. Not so in some other countries so the balance of how well off people are may not be so readily apparent.

  18. When taxes are raised —– by Labour, who else —- the top earners pay far higher taxes than the average worker. So when taxes are reduced —- by Nats, of course, those same people gain the most, both in absolute terms. And, of course Labour hasn’t raised tax brackets in 5 years they have been in government. Tax take has incfreased for all because of tax creep.

    If the idea is to tax the high earners even harder, then one needs a higher tax rate for the high earners only.

    • Good point Frank Sharp. Robertson is losing the tax bracket adjustment argument as the non adjustment of brackets is hitting the the lower earners really hard and we are seeing very little for the extra 40% in tax collected by Labour since they came to power. I can see Robertson agreeing to lift all but the highest tax bracket before next election. It is the right thing to do and it may preserve some votes that would otherwise switch to National.

    • We have that already Frank. Labour brought in 39% for income over $180K for YE 31.3.2022. Keep up. The tax brackets do need adjusting, but only the lower three tiers of 10.5% $14,000; 17.5% $48,000 and 30% $70,000. Currently the over $70K to $180K is 33% so the bands are all far too low now. Labour will no doubt campaign on this because it is widely known the bands are so far out of date. In fact I’d wager all parties will campaign on this in various ways. Last change was 2010 I think. Company rate of 28% is too low and should be aligned with the trust rate of 33%. Too many rich pricks (receiving pensions paid for by the actual working classes) legally siphoning profits off to trusts etc and then through to various individuals at lower tax bands. I see it every day. It’s criminal from an ethical and moral view point.

  19. I have noticed over so many years that when in government National does a Copy and Paste of the failed policies of overseas governments. For example in the 80s Ronald Reagan coined and advocated the Trickle Down Effect.
    This Trickle Down Effect Theory was of the belief(goodness knows where that started)that money started at the Top Income Earners would eventually trickle down to the lower income workers. The theory however was doomed for failure because whatever money that was made at the top income earners remained firmly at the top.
    During the Bolger years of the 90s Jim Bolger advocated the Trickle Down Effect here in NZ. He learnt absolutely nothing from the failed policies of Reagan and thought we gullible and naive NZers would believe in such a theory. But like-wise with America for NZ the “Trickle Down Effect” was one that ensured the rich remained rich and the poor became what Luxon now calls Bottom Feeders.
    The Nicola Trickle Down Effect highlights to me that her theory of Trickle Down Effect is still alive and well in National. She implies the rich are ‘only too happy’ to ‘donate’ some of their wealth to those on Social Welfare.
    To me and though I am no economist or accountant I can hardly see the rich being “only too happy” to part with their wealth unless they can get something out of it for themselves eg major tax cuts or ability to ‘claim back’ the amount donated through a tax refund.
    If Luxon donated a portion of his wealth to the poor so as to appear a Plastic Christian would he be able to claim it back in tax and perhaps getting a bigger refund than if he had a tax cut? Meaning instead of him getting $18k per financial year due to a tax cut would he be likely to get say $23k each financial year due to ‘donations’?
    It’s abit like asking multi millionaire Luxon or Key to donate to the poor when both have lowly opinions of the poor anyway.
    Could there be prerequisites that anyone on a low income would need to go through in order to claim ‘assistance’ to satisfy those that will be holding the purse strings?
    I am a low income worker and am grateful for this government with the Cost of Living Payments. But if by some misfortune we had a National government I and many others wouldn’t have that sort of payment. Luxon has indicated that he would make things more bureaucratic and that could well mean we low income NZers having to prove to some Little Hitler(so to speak)our financial situation and that person would have the power to say Yay or Nay.

  20. frankly both parties learned neo-lib orthodoxy back in university….they remind me of old school marxist economists subscribing forever to failed doctrine…well now neo-lib is the washed up failed economic model and it’s proponents the dinosaurs…..time for some social democracy

  21. foodbanks in the UK and the states are short on donations ‘philanthropy’ fails in hard times that’s how state provision came about…trickledown social provision works as well as trickledown economics

Comments are closed.