Labour Election Bribes

This flyer was being circulated at the Upper Hutt markets at the weekend.

Labour had these pamphlets face down, so the punters could only see the $100 notes.

They’re campaigning heavily on their election bribes – so much so, here they are again bragging about giving taxpayer money away.

But when you read the small print you can see they’re targetting a family of 5, with 3 kids, where both adults are on the minimum wage.

They’re clearly desperate to lock down their core voters, with a set of flimsy promises that the country can’t afford.

Next time you hear them say Labour’s policies will give them more money, Kiwis should be very suspicious.

What’s missing from this pamphlet?

Doubling the cost of the ETS (that means petrol & power will go up). Regional fuel taxes.  Increasing rents as a result of capital gains tax. The 4,000 to 6,000 job losses that are forecast from raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour (the family of 5 might lose one of the earners). The complexity of fruit and vege exemptions from GST – will canned and frozen be exempt too? – and how will Labour account for seasonal price variations?

This is classic Labour.  If they know how to do one thing well, it is spend other people’s money on election bribery.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

Tagged:
  • Simon Arnold

    Not to forget putting a capital gains tax on rental properties, so lifting rents for low income families, while making home owners better off.

  • jabba

    Vote to put more money in your pocket .. vote Labour.
    I would suggest that would be a lie as it implies it relates to everyone .. that would be false advertising

  • Dave

    There is also a chance they are breaking the law by reproducing the $100 note.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0157/latest/DLM200018.html

    If as you say they were being presented in such a form that only the banknote part was visiable, that could be construed as “likely to be confused with or mistaken for it.”

    • David

      I agree, and could have been easily avoided by adding the word “not” in the “This note is legal tender for”…

39%