Log In


Reset Password

Next step in ‘rob Peters to pay Pauls’ policies . . .

Letter

Why do we bother to teach our children to be the best they can be? To have goals, aim high and achieve well in school, university and in the workforce. Why bother?

If you are a slothful, lazy Paul, it's OK. There will always be a bunch of hard-working, high-achieving Peters to pay your way through life.

Hey Greens — why wait until Peter and Paul are in the workforce, or not? Why don't you make all high-achieving students at high school and university give up 20 percent of their high grades to the lazy, bottom-dwelling Pauls? Then all the children will come out of school and university equal. Dreamers!

Kim Pittar

Leave a Reply to Kim Pittar Cancel reply

  1. David Jacobs says:

    Hi Kim – Your comments really peaked my interest so I did little research on these Peter and Paul chaps, apparently the poorer of the two (in this instance Paul) is statistically, both worldwide and in New Zealand, more likely to:

    1. Die earlier than Peter
    2. Have suffered abuse than Peter
    3. Suffer health problems than Peter
    4. Spend time in prison than Peter
    5. Be a teenage parent than Peter
    6. Have a harmful addiction than Peter
    7. Commit suicide than Peter, and
    8. Be less educated than Peter.

    There are a few more examples, all a bit depressing really. Paul should knuckle down and put in the hard yards if he is going to have enough to buy that boat.

  2. D Arthur says:

    A few facts you may like to consider;
    * this policy is not about “equalising” – it is about reducing the unfair inequalities which are continuing to increase
    * A very small percentage of individuals in the world control a very large percentage of the wealth
    * much of this wealth is not earned, and much of what is “earned” is illegal, or obtained by unfair and unscrupulous means
    * the most effective accumulator of wealth is not skill or intelligence – it is wealth itself
    *coming out of university equal? Not likely when there are countries where qualifications can be purchased, and some of the most promising young brains cannot afford to even join the competition
    * even people of less than average intelligence, if they have enough wealth available, can rise to positions of power and increased wealth at the expense of good, capable, intelligent people who don’t have this advantage – no prizes for guessing a likely contender to prove this!
    *with the continuing advances in technology and the ability to use Artificial Intelligence and computer controlled equipment there cannot logically be paid employment for everyone. We should therefore find or enable creative and fulfilling ways for people not in paid employment to contribute to society while still having an income to provide the necessities of life.

    1. Kim Pittar says:

      Your facts are all worth considering, thank you. I don’t disagree with any of them. But are you insinuating that high income earners in New Zealand, such as surgeons, CEOs of growing companies, airline pilots, leading public servants, architects, engineers and some business owners, all of whom have worked extremely hard through school, university and in their respective fields, are somehow, corrupt? They don’t have extreme wealth, but they should not be “equalised” with people who choose other paths in life that don’t require any mental or physical effort. What’s “unfair” with what they have? They have earned it.