Principles keep us warm

Stuff?reports: Quote.

Winston Peters says he will keep his $31.82 a week taxpayer-funded winter windfall?because it’s a matter of principle. End quote.

Nobody can justify their outrageous actions better than Winston Peters. Someone earning around $350,000 does not need a winter heating subsidy from taxpayers, but only Winston would have the gall to refer to it as a “matter of principle”. Quote:

The payment?is worth $31.82 a week to couples but people can opt out should they choose. End quote.

You might have gained just a tiny modicum of respect from taxpayers, Winston, if you had opted out. But, gee?? I was dreaming, wasn’t I? Quote:

While it is tagged?for?winter power bills, the money can, in fact, be used on anything. It was implemented as part of Labour’s 100 day plan.

As deputy prime minister, Peters receives?$334,734 a year but told reporters on Tuesday he had no plans to opt out of receiving the payment.

National has said?some superannuitants don’t need the extra money?as they are doing alright financially and the winter energy payments should be targeted.

But Peters said if that was the test National leader Simon Bridges should have handed back the tax cuts he?received under National. Peters said:

“I?didn’t?see Simon Bridges?give?back?all his tax?cuts. I didn’t?see the National Party giving back?their?hundreds?of thousands of dollars in tax cuts.” End quote.

Which tax cuts would they be, Winston? Not the ones that were cancelled by your government this year, obviously. So, you must, therefore, be talking about the reduction to the top rate of tax in 2009 and the adjustment of thresholds introduced in 2010. That’s a fair while ago now.

Tax cuts are not welfare, Winston. Tax cuts are allowing people to keep more of the money that they have earned. Quote:

Peters said universality of pensions had been a long held point of principle with him.

“I’m the person who more?than anybody else in this country?who opposed the surtax, which is a means test imposed by?the Labour party (in the 1980s). The National?party promised to?remove it. They didn’t, they put it up, to it’s?highest instance, 92c in the dollar. End quote.

I agree with you over the superannuation surcharge, Winston, because the thresholds were way too low. Back in the 1990s we had little old ladies having to pay back just about all of their pensions in tax because they had a few hundred thousand in the bank, usually from their insurance payout received when their husbands died. Remember that if you have $200,000 in the bank nowadays, you are probably only receiving $7,000 in interest, before tax. Interest rates were higher back then, but you get the picture. I agree the surcharge was unfair. But that was decades ago now.

This is a totally different matter altogether, and it is quite disingenuous to even try to compare them. One is taking away someone’s pension because they have other earnings. This is making additional benefit payments to people who do not need them. This is middle-class welfare. The deputy prime minister does not need to be paid a winter heating allowance.?The country is in a state of madness if that is where we are at now.

It shows the measure of the man though. He is quite prepared to look small and mean in the eyes of voters over $31 per week. We taxpayers are paying for this and I say that we shouldn’t be paying for it. Nothing Winston can say will justify his position. Nothing at all.