Hacker News Reader

Comment by lostlogin | Hacker News Reader

Have a look at New Zealand. The current government is slashing the welfare system yet several key figures (no pun intended - PM is called Key) grew up in state housing in a welfare state. They benefitted from the system and have risen to the top of it.

View on HN

Sounds like the Australian government's ongoing siege of the tertiary education system, when they were the last group to enjoy a fully state funded university education.

Damn hypocrites.

The current NZ government is not slashing the welfare system.

I call BS - they're not keeping up with real inflation (rents in particular are going up far faster than nominal inflation), people are living in cars because Key's people are pandering to those who are raking it in from the property bubble rather than looking aftyer those who really need help

The current government took office in 2008. The following numbers are NZ Government fiscal spend on Social Security and Welfare in $NZmillion for each financial year starting two years before the present government took office. Source http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data

  2006  16,212 
  2007  17,266 
  2008  18,420 
  2009  19,844 
  2010  21,142 
  2011  22,029 
  2012  22,148 
  2013  22,737 
  2014  23,308 
  2015  23,881

Budget 2016 schedules a further modest increase in this spend. All in an environment of historically low inflation. This is entirely consistent with the nature of this government which is characterised by a steady-as-she-goes approach, with tweaks and priority adjustments much more the order of the day than dramatic policy changes.

You do not get to call steady, modest increases in real expenditure "slashing the welfare system". Sure we have a housing problem. You could make an argument that the government should be taking drastic action to address that problem, but you cannot argue that failure to take any such drastic action is the same thing as "slashing the welfare system"!

And you absolutely do not get to "call BS" when someone points out a simple statement of fact.

They are shifting people off benefits and cutting their entitlements whilst deriding beneficiaries at every opportunity. State housing is being sold off (or they are attempting too, but judging by Friday's news that they have botched it, it isn't easy to find a buyer) and much is sitting empty. Welfare recipients do not receive enough to cover living costs, and payments have not kept up with inflation at any stretch. A welfare recipient is vastly worse off now than 10 years ago. I can't tell from those figures (on mobile and the linked site behaves badly) but do they include state pensions? Also, are you sure they are right? The figures are in millions?

America too.

Paul Ryan, who never met a welfare program he didn't want to cut, received social security payments after his father died at age 16.

What a preposterous argument, that having ever received government handouts somehow disqualifies you from thinking the programs are a bad idea.

I pay plenty of money in taxes. You can bet that if I ever qualify for handouts, I'll be cashing them. You would be stupid not to.

I'm in general anti benefits myself, but I think the payments received by a minor on death of a parent are one of the most fair, and best investment for society. They're pretty hard to game (you'd have to kill your own parent to get that money) and they prevent a child from slipping into desperate poverty and crime.

I wasn't commenting on the specifics, just on the general line of attack. I'm inclined to agree with you.

So your motto is "Fuck you. Got mine." right? Should get a bumpersticker printed up!

Okay, from now on anyone who uses Facebook can't criticize Facebook. Same with Spotify, Twitter, and Apple products. Not one peep! Come to think about it, that would stop a lot of the whining around here so maybe it'd be a good thing.

Further, any advocates for higher tax rates should immediately begin to voluntarily pay the higher tax rates that they advocate for. You are allowed to donate extra money in taxes to the government if you'd please. So I demand that people put their money where their mouth is.

And while we're at it, I'm sick of these affirmative action advocates at elite universities who always want to give up other people's spots. All affirmative action advocates should immediately give up their positions at elite colleges and well-regarded employers, to make space for less-privileged people.

Can you see how this is not a reasonable line of argument?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com