Party leaders on poverty measures

In their opening speeches in Parliament yesterday both the Leader of the Opposition Bill English and the Prime minister Jacinda Ardern made commitments on reducing poverty.

First was English:

New Zealand under the last Government developed the best tool kit in the world for understanding the context and culture of poverty and disadvantage. It has the label “social investment”—that’s the label it has.

The Government needs to understand that higher incomes are part of what you need to reduce poverty, but the other part of what you need is to create some stability and framework in a household, with a family working with someone they trust in order to have the behaviours that can sustain the benefits of better incomes or getting into a job.

The sad reality is that the work done by the previous Government shows a hard core of chaotic, very challenged households where they need individual attention. But you know what the Government’s doing already? It’s going to give away—it said so in the paper yesterday or today—the tool kit that enables you to know who those families are. So, oh yes, great intentions—”We’ve got great intentions. We want to help these people. We’re just going to make sure we don’t know who they are.”

The case in the New Zealand Herald today—Marie, is it?—the domestic violence death, Marie. It’s the same story—the one we tried so hard to fix, and this Government could fix, if it starts where we left off. It is a case where a terrible death occurred when lots of people knew a bit of the story, and if someone had known the story they would have stopped it.

That is what social investment delivers, and if the Government gives that away, they will cost children and families a start in life, and in fact, in some cases, their lives—in some cases, their lives.

So I just say to the Prime Minister: we will back her on child poverty, provided she gets over Labour’s problems with social investment and uses the toolkit with the intention for which it was meant, and that is to assist our most vulnerable.

Jacinda Ardern responded:

Finally, the Leader of the Opposition talked about his willingness to cooperate on child poverty if we continue to collect individual client’s data through our social agencies and our NGOs. It sounds like the trade-off that he gave to NGOs as well. The difference here, on this side of the House, is that we have listened to those concerns. Yes, we will be an evidence-based Government.

Yes, we will use data in the way we inform policy. But we will not do so in a way that jeopardises individual people’s privacy. When domestic violence groups tell you that what you intend to do puts a service at risk, this Government will listen. That is the difference in the way that we will govern.

I’ve often said I would like to do things differently. I’m going to start on a few issues dear to my heart. There should be no politics, for instance, in child poverty and child well-being. It should be a source of pride for all of us to strive to be known to be the best place in the world to be a child.

That does mean I will take up the Leader of the Opposition’s offer. I will extend to the National Party and to ACT the chance to work together on tackling those issues that matter most. What they do with those offers is, of course, each party’s call. But sometimes, in the people’s Parliament, Opposition is about more than being oppositional.

This is promising, with the leaders of the two largest parties saying they are prepared to work together to address poverty issues. They will have different approaches on some things, but debating those issues will be an important part of the process, as long as it is done with an aspiration to do what is best for children, especially children iin low income households.

Ardern has made this a major focus of her leadership.

Poverty is what a person is left with when all other options are extinguished. Now, I’ve often talked about it being a motivation for my entry here into Parliament and into politics, and it’s been what has kept me here too.

I am happy for this Government to be measured on what it does for children, which is why we will legislate not just the measures we will use for poverty but the targets to reduce it too. And we do that using a bill that I’ve had in the ballot for probably about six years now, to prove that we’ve long held the view that we need to measure and target child poverty.

I cannot fix the housing crisis alone, but we can together. I cannot end child poverty alone, but we can together. I cannot generate higher incomes alone, but we can together—together, alongside NGOs, businesses, council, iwi, and other community groups. Each and every one of us has a role to play in building a better New Zealand. I’ve always said that I believe what unites us is stronger than what divides us, and the campaign only confirmed that to me.

So here is my final promise to all New Zealanders. Whether you voted or not, and no matter who you voted for, I will be a Prime Minister for all, and this will be a Government for all. I hope we can focus on what unites us, rather than what divides us, because there is so much to do. We can be better, we will be better, and this is our chance to prove it.

Perhaps this will be a different type of Parliament that values cooperation and positive politics alongside robust debate and holding to account.

With Winston Peters out of the country Ron Mark spoke for NZ First using what looked like party prepared notes. There was only a brief mention of poverty:

The Hon Tracey Martin, in her role as Minister for Children, will work closely with the Prime Minister to help lift children out of poverty. As the Governor-General so eloquently said, if we put child well-being at the heart of we do, then the well-being of all New Zealanders will be lifted. We have to do better—it’s a moral imperative.

Martin has shown a willingness in the past to work with other parties on joint approaches to major issues – she led a cross-party group on climate change.

James Shaw also made brief mentions, well into his speech.

We are here to support families and to lift children out of poverty. We are here to save our rivers and our endangered species. We are here to solve problems that the market cannot, and the first and greatest of those is climate change.

The previous Government also knew that measurement is important. That is why they fought so hard against measuring child poverty in New Zealand. They didn’t measure it so they couldn’t, therefore, be held accountable for it. This Government will make the measure and will take the measure of child poverty. This Government will take responsibility for child poverty and this Government will reduce child poverty.

…to me it also sums up the Green Party’s way of doing politics when we are at our best: seeking to solve the great challenges of our time, putting solutions above partisanship, and focusing on the long term.

Perhaps Greens will put that approach into practice along with Labour and National.

Being in Opposition or on the cross benches for the entire 18 years of our Parliamentary history gave us a lot of time to get good at that. It is my hope that the new Opposition takes a similar approach—and a similar time scale.

If we, as a nation, are to restore and replenish our forests and our rivers and our birds, if we are to end child poverty, and if we are to lead the global fight against climate change, it will take longer than three years. It will.

Interesting that English spoke more strongly and specifically about poverty than Shaw.

Now Metiria Turei is out of the Green picture poverty seems to have slipped down their priorities somewhat. Greens did not negotiate any ministerial responsibilities directly related to children or poverty.

‘End child poverty’ is fairly meaningless idealism. Whether poverty in New Zealand can be ended will depend much on how they decide to define and measure it.

There will always be families that struggle, there will always be poor households, and their will always be children who have harder starts to their lives than others.

But if the parties in Parliament are genuine in their expressed willingness to reduce poverty and raise employment and incomes then New Zealand may make real progress in improving the standard of living for lower income families and improving the outcomes for children who have missed out  in the past.

Source: Hansard Address in Reply

93 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  November 9, 2017

    Social Investment is mere semantics.A typical right wing device to appear to be doing something.Its quite simple really….less inequality=less poverty.

    • “Its quite simple really….less inequality=less poverty.”

      It’s not that simple. More equality in Bangladesh or Ethiopia does not equate to less poverty.

      • Blazer

         /  November 9, 2017

        it does actually…what you are are talking about is comparable measures of poverty.Talking inequality is about the division of resources.If you have nothing…whether its 10 or 20 people to divy it up…its still nothing.When you have a tiny % controlling the wealth of nations…thats…inequality.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  November 9, 2017

          And yet everyone is better off under capitalist (or what passes for it) nations. If you have to live in poverty, NZ is light years ahead of most nations.
          Inequality is a meaningless construct that reflects envy more than anything.

          • Blazer

             /  November 9, 2017

            its not a meaningless construct..and the old envy/jealousy argument is b/s.Only a very cynical person would condone this..https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50
            well HFD,how do you think this occurred?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 9, 2017

              Because people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos: the founder of Amazon; Mark Zuckerberg: the founder of Facebook; Larry Ellison, chief executive of US tech firm Oracle; changed what the world does and how it does it and made billions of people better off.

              None of them come from a country where equality is placed above enterprise. If the Left had its way we would still live in caves hunting rats.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              @Al,as if any of those ,did it on their own…they needed technology,capital,shareholders and most importantly….customers…they are businessmen…every single one of them has a SX listed company.Buffett for instance says he pays less tax than his secretary.They are organisers in the main,and it doesn’t alter the facts.
              ‘the vast majority of people in the bottom half of the world’s population were facing a daily struggle to survive, with 70% of them living in low-income countries.

              It was four years since the WEF had first identified inequality as a threat to social stability, but that the gap between rich and poor has continued to widen, Oxfam added.’

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 9, 2017

              Of course they didn’t do it on their own, nor did they benefit on their own.

              The gap between rich and poor has not continued to widen. Billions have been lifted out of poverty in China, India and elsewhere in Asia. What has widened is the gap between countries that have decent governments and those run by corrupt arseholes like most of Africa and a lot of the Middle East and South America.

    • Ray

       /  November 9, 2017

      Unfortunately it doesn’t always work like that Blazer though it would be great if it did.
      The most equal states are dirt poor or taxed to the max.
      Any time you want to move to Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan I think the yournz peps would be more than happy to have whip round for a guaranteed one way ticket

      • Blazer

         /  November 9, 2017

        Stop winging it Ray.Are you saying Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are the most equal states,or have you just seen a Borat..movie?

        • Gezza

           /  November 9, 2017

          I think the jury’s out for the moment, tbh. I had a good listen to Dame Patsy reading out the speech from the throne & the aspirations did sound like they could end up being very expensive. Jacinda’s crew might yet turn out to be a luxury I can’t afford. Early days though.

          • They are acting as if money was like the paper money that one can make oneself if the bank runs out in Monopoly. No more money in the bank ? Cut up some pieces of paper and write numbers on them. Problem solved.

            i can’t believe that they are blithely cancelling the tax cuts that most Kiwis wanted if the vote was anything to go by. Tough titty suckers. And you can pay more for petrol, too.

        • David

           /  November 9, 2017

          “Are you saying Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are the most equal states,or have you just seen a Borat..movie?”

          They are not, North Korea is the most equal state on earth.

        • Ray

           /  November 9, 2017

          Here you are Blazer, I figured you would want the CIA graph.
          https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings

          • Blazer

             /  November 9, 2017

            thanks Ray…looks like good company on that..measure..
            140 Netherlands 27.99 2012
            141 Belgium 27.59 2012
            142 Kyrgyz Republic 27.37 2012
            143 Romania 27.33 2012
            144 Sweden 27.32 2012
            145 Finland 27.12 2012
            146 Iceland 26.94 2012
            147 Kazakhstan 26.35 2013
            148 Czech Republic 26.13 2012
            149 Slovak Republic 26.12 2012
            150 Belarus 26.01 2012
            151 Norway 25.90 2012
            152 Slovenia 25.59 2012
            153 Ukraine 24.55 2013
            154 Azerbaijan 16.64 2005

            no sign of…Nth Korea.

    • David

       /  November 9, 2017

      “Its quite simple really….less inequality=less poverty.”

      This is factually, and demonstrably incorrect. The evidence is clear, less poverty = more inequality.

    • alloytoo

       /  November 9, 2017

      “less inequality=less poverty”

      Nonsense.

      The equally poor are still poor, being equal doesn’t magic up the necessities of life.

  2. Gerrit

     /  November 9, 2017

    Simply question on equality. If we take two heighbours of equal age, ability and circumstance One goes out the door at 6.30 and does a days work, the other stays in bed and collects a benefit.

    What inequality is acceptable (between take home pay and the benefit payed) between the tax paying worker and the non tax contributor who says home?

    The way I see it, if we made them “equal” no one would go out to work and earn the taxes to that keeps his/her neighbour

    So we must have a level on inequality. How large or small should this difference be?

    • robertguyton

       /  November 9, 2017

      You’ve narrowed “equality” to mean “between take home pay and the benefit payed”.
      Nice try, Gerrit, but nahhhh!

      • Gerrit

         /  November 9, 2017

        What is your measure of equality? The example I have provided is one that the average person may take as a measure, another measure might be equality of opportunity, what is your measure?

        And therein lies another problem. Define inequality?

        Other issues such as should a southern lifestyler have the same “equality” as a Northland beneficiary? How would this be measured?

    • Blazer

       /  November 9, 2017

      your premise fails because it is based on the false assumption that individuals start out…equal.They do not…big time.Capitalism and wealth relies on access to…Capital,you either got it..or you don’t!

      • Gerrit

         /  November 9, 2017

        So your measure of equality is?

        • robertguyton

           /  November 9, 2017

          Not that. I’d include a raft of measures aside from income and employment. Let’s start with health, for example. Or educational opportunity. Historical factors. Gender (equal pay for male and female, have we?) that sort of thing. Trifles, I suppose, but some have more opportunity to be equal, than others.

      • Gerrit’s guys did start out equally and everybody knows these blokes out there. They’re not fully representative of the wider society but they are a part of it. Though there are glaring cases of inequality, in as much as parent’s wealth,education status, as a nation we endeavour to provide equality of opportunity by levelling the playing field.

        However it’s almost impossible to compensate for parents who don’t car, can’t care or won’t care. There’s our problem

        • robertguyton

           /  November 9, 2017

          Gerrit said (and let’s ignore the spelling whoopsie) “Simply question on equality. If we take two heighbours of equal age, ability and circumstance ”
          and Traveller says, “Gerrit’s guys did start out equally…”
          Well, nah, they didn’t, despite Gerrit saying they were equal in terms of circumstance, they clearly weren’tt; one is employed and the other, for reasons Gerrit doesn’t give, is receiving a benefit. Equal circumstances? How so?

        • Blazer

           /  November 9, 2017

          getting warmer…’ there are glaring cases of inequality, in as much as parent’s wealth,education status, as a nation we endeavour to provide equality of opportunity by levelling the playing field.’….how would you say National have ‘levelled’ the playing field?Education is a good starter.

          • alloytoo

             /  November 9, 2017

            National has attempted to level the playing field by identifying those who are disadvantaged and focusing additional resources at them…..it’s called “Social Investment.”

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              what took them so long!Its quite obvious and the way welfare has always been done.Typical National,rename and go on as usual.

            • alloytoo

               /  November 9, 2017

              It’s nothing of the sort, an you’re embarrassing yourself.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  November 9, 2017

            It also increased transfer payments to those most in need – something that has been shown to be more effective than taxation in reducing inequality & increased benefits and housing allowances.
            We won’t go into the fact they borrowed to maintain social spending at a time when austerity was being promoted around the world – something they have been repeatedly bagged for by some on this forum.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              you forgot…it has also increased funding for rapacious landlords,who recieve billions in welfare subsidies.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 9, 2017

              From what you write in your posts, I get the feeling you have never met a landlord.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              I have been a landlord and owned various properties.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 9, 2017

              Well it sounds like you could have treated your tenants a bit better. Good landlords simply don’t behave how you seem to think they do.
              And unless they already had a lot of money most landlords make very little in renting out property and plough what they do make back into maintenance. The yields are terrible,

      • High Flying Duck

         /  November 9, 2017

        Even if the utopia existed where everyone started life equally it would not take long for results and financial positions to change – career choice, work ethic, investment decisions, spending habits, luck – there are a multitude of things effecting where you end up in life, and often early decisions amplify over time.
        So unless you introduce 100% death duties I’m not sure how this equality could be maintained.
        Equality is provided to some extent through ‘free’ education, doctors visits etc.
        Wealth is required to build businesses and to create jobs. Sorting inequality by taking from the rich would have a negative effect on the amount of money to be shared around, so everyone would be worse off.
        I am all for equality of opportunity – access to healthcare, education and capital are sufficient to provide this.
        Equality of wealth and income is impossible outside of communism.

        • robertguyton

           /  November 9, 2017

          Equality is something that should be approached, HFD, as far as is possible. Your “perfect” equality can’t be achieved in a ever-changing circumstances but a caring society that values it’s members would seek to achieve as much equality as it can, for the sake of all concerned.

          • Gerrit

             /  November 9, 2017

            Providing each societal member takes responsibility to seek and achieve all they can to contribute to the caring society. Do you think that is achievable?

            Which leads to then next question and back to poverty. Can a welfare state system facilitate this caring society without reducing the self responsibility of each societal member?

            • robertguyton

               /  November 9, 2017

              Never offer anyone help, Gerrit, in case they come to hope for it from you? Man with no legs on a skateboard, stuck at the gutter, you lift him over the kerb on day one, but not the next day, in case he gets his hopes up for day three? Harsh, you are, Gerrit , leaving that poor chap wedged there (and it’s raining!) 🙂

          • High Flying Duck

             /  November 9, 2017

            You are correct Robert. But “equality” should be about equality of opportunity to the extent that can be afforded to people.
            When discussion moves to equality of outcome and equality of wealth we move in to the politics of envy.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              but what would happen to the ‘Old Boy Network’…!

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 9, 2017

              There are cliques and closed clubs in all walks of society.
              I don’t deny it’s an issue, but especially in NZ I think there is plenty of room to succeed and the “old boys network” is not something that would hold anyone back other than in rarefied old school business.

            • Equality of outcome is a nonsense unless the person involved is the decider of what value the outcome has. Results may differ, needs too and assessments of value. That said, there’s a great deal of inequality in this country. Apply a commonsense measure and ask those who believe inequality exists, rather than those who claim it doesn’t.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 9, 2017

              I have not seen anyone who says inequality does not exist. To claim National did nothing about it is simply wrong though.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              English vetoed use of the word …’inequality’.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 9, 2017

              He probably wanted to focus on the real issues and saw inequality as a distraction as so many think it is about rich vs poor.

        • Blazer

           /  November 9, 2017

          surely you understand that tax is an essential component of equality…i.e the wealthier contribute more for the greater good.This does not happen as we know…the poor do not need tax havens and accounting device to avoid and evade paying their share.

          • Gerrit

             /  November 9, 2017

            Tax avoidance is legal and if you want to change that, change the laws. Tax evasion is illegal and the IRD is pretty good at catching and prosecuting. If not give the IRD a caning.

            Still comes back to the same question, what level of inequality is acceptable? Will you tax the wealthy so that their income and assets can be evenly split between the whole populace? If not how much will you let them keep?

            Back when my kids were teens I struck a huge level of inequality in the education process. My middle child was keen to study at a technical institute and as a white tax payer had to pay $3000 per term. My factory foreman (also a tax payer) had a child going to the same tech (doing thew same course). He paid no fees being a pacific islander (and a top bloke by the way) but got treated differently due to race.

            It was not an equal education situation. To have equality in education, all forms of social engineering and positive (and negative) discrimination would need to disappear.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              you could afford the fees for your child,the P.I could not and was most probably on a scholarship or sponsered.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              Are tax havens legal?

        • Blazer

           /  November 9, 2017

          you could start by capping salaries@ say the highest paid manager getting no more than 20x the lowest paid worker…instead of 2-300 times.You could stop people using offshore tax havens,like Lord Ashcroft.You could introduce legislation that had teeth ,when it came to prosecuting white collar fraud which is endemic and goes unpunished on many occassions.Look at the big banks,absolute ..thieves that have immunity.

          • Gerrit

             /  November 9, 2017

            Be interesting if Labour will reduce the CEO’s salary of state owned KiwiRail and KiwiBank to your guidelines.

            Like to see Auckland City Counsel reduce their top salaries to those guidelines as well.

            Do you think Labour/NZFirst/Greens will bring in greater equality in CEO’s pay?

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              I would hope so.Interesting that the Aussie banks repatriate way more profit every year than..Fonterra..makes.

          • It’s virtually impossible for anybody to compensate for:

            absentee parenting
            drug addled parenting
            unemployed and not looking parenting
            ignorant parenting
            lazy parenting
            mentally deranged parenting
            rudderless parenting

            Ask Clark and co. They campaigned on “Closing the gaps” in 1999. In the final analysis they were unable to affect any change.

            ” “Closing the Gaps” was the name given to an official New Zealand government policy of assisting socially disadvantaged ethnic groups, particularly Māori and Pacific Islanders, through specially targeted social programmes. The phrase came to prominence as a slogan of the Labour Party in the year 1999 election.
            Shortly after the Labour Party came to power in late 1999, the term quietly disappeared from current official documents. Opposition politicians observed that the new government still had a “Closing the Gaps” policy objective, but no longer referred to the policy by that name.
            In June, 2000, Winston Peters, leader of the New Zealand First party, described the program as “social apartheid”.
            Over the term of the 1999–2008 Labour government, social statistics for Maori and Pacific islanders did generally improve; however, the statistics for white New Zealanders showed a greater improvement, resulting in the ‘gaps’ actually increasing. In health, such changes were observed by the Ministry of Health and Otago University’s series of ‘Decades of Disparities’ reports.”
            Wiki

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              so Social Investment is just another name for ‘closing the gaps’… through specially targeted social programmes. ‘

            • Gezza

               /  November 9, 2017

              Social Investment is what this new Government is saying it will be doing.
              It’s just a matter of having, ostensibly, a different approach to what they invest in, how they invest, how much they invest, & whether the investment produces the claimed returns.

              They’re just labels for pretty normal governmental behaviour, these terms.

            • Gezza

               /  November 9, 2017

              I was actually heartened to hear, in the speech from the throne, this government intends to continue with whanau ora. They have made a number of big promises to Maori, & I hope they deliver.

      • alloytoo

         /  November 9, 2017

        Typically in socialists states no one has capital

        • Blazer

           /  November 9, 2017

          where does ‘capital’ come from?Do you know?

          • High Flying Duck

             /  November 9, 2017

            Generally from ownership. In fully socialist states the Government controls the capital.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              generally from ownership!can you expand on that…cheers.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 9, 2017

              Here Blazer – a dictionary definition just for you:
              Capital
              “Wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available for a purpose such as starting a company or investing.”

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              ‘ available for a purpose ‘…available,herein lies the problem.Availed to ..few.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 9, 2017

              Many people have accumulated capital from humble beginnings. The fact some have a silver spoon doesn’t mean everyone else misses out on opportunities to do well.

          • alloytoo

             /  November 9, 2017

            Capital accumulates through the production of goods an services.

  3. George

     /  November 9, 2017

    You may have not noticed but these are politicians you’re talking about.
    Say anything, run enquiries and do nothing other than blame other politicians for any imagined faults

  4. robertguyton

     /  November 9, 2017

    This, from James Shaw, was funny:
    “Being in Opposition or on the cross benches for the entire 18 years of our Parliamentary history gave us a lot of time to get good at that. It is my hope that the new Opposition takes a similar approach—and a similar time scale.”

    🙂

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  November 9, 2017

      Shaw hasn’t had much time to get good at that and it didn’t seem to do Metiria much good.

      • robertguyton

         /  November 9, 2017

        Snarky, Alan. James was just raggin’ ya!
        18 years on the Opposition benches for National!
        Halleluja!

  5. Gerrit

     /  November 9, 2017

    Run out of reply options for Blazer but jeez mate

    I got paid less then the foreman, had the same number of kids, same mortgage (we lived not far apart so the same overheads) and yet the white person “can afford” to pay and the pacific islander “cant”.

    Identity politics?

    It is that type of answer that prevents any discussion on inequality and poverty.

    Racism?

    • Blazer

       /  November 9, 2017

      So why would this happen then…you must be leaving out relevant detail…was the P.I good at Rugby…that would do..it?

      • Gerrit

         /  November 9, 2017

        No I played footbal, he played league. Any other dribble excuses?

        I supported elderly parents just like he did.

        • Blazer

           /  November 9, 2017

          a faux pas on your part…your ‘story’ was about your children…now its about you…get it right…just for credibility.

          • Gerrit

             /  November 9, 2017

            Sorry Blazer I tried but your inability to discuss in depth is pitiful. You asked if he played Rugby did you not? I simply pointed out that we both played sports (both a representative level by the way) . So no his kids did not get free education due to parental sporting prowess. It is all about the kids and how by race there was inequality in education..

            Again

            Tot Ziens

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              FFS its about the sporting ability of the sons!If the P.I boy was extra good at Rugby its not unusual for them to be sponsered in tertiary studies.

  6. Gerrit

     /  November 9, 2017

    Blazer, yes tax havens are legal. Change to law if you don’t like them,

    So are commercial businesses run by charitable trusts. They pay not tax.

    • Blazer

       /  November 9, 2017

      whats all the fuss about the Paradise papers and the Panama papers..then?

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  November 9, 2017

        Lefties getting their tits in a tangle mostly, B. How many prosecutions for illegal actions were there?

        • Blazer

           /  November 9, 2017

          nothing to see there eh..Al!Its all meant to be top secret…embarrassing to have your name outed as a…bludger..I guess.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  November 9, 2017

            Dunno. Most beneficiaries seem to cope with it, B.

            • Blazer

               /  November 9, 2017

              is there a public register,you uncharitable..fellow.?

      • alloytoo

         /  November 9, 2017

        An invasion of privacy gleefully lorded over by the same people who would bitterly object if I sought to discover how much taxpayer’s money they receive from the government.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  November 9, 2017

          Schadenfreude coupled with virtue signalling and tut tutting.
          Same as the Panama papers.
          Everyone will be outraged and then move on.
          As Blazer’s (very) good friend Mike Hosking said the other day, Apple are the most egregious avoiders of paying tax, but the number of people who are outraged enough to not buy their product is surprisingly close to zero, so why would they stop?

          • Blazer

             /  November 9, 2017

            not surprised you and Hosking applaud Apples behaviour…their day is…coming.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 9, 2017

              There was no ‘applause’ for it. Just a statement that the outrage doesn’t translate into consumer action that affects them in any way.
              I’m not an Apple fanboy (just don’t like the ecosystem, not because of their tax strategies).
              I’m sure their day will come and I believe multinationals paying their fair share is an important, albeit very difficult, issue that needs to be dealt with. There seems to be some movement on this thankfully.