Rodney Hide on the media jihad against law-abiding citizens

Rodney Hide discusses the Media party campaign on people and companies paying their “fair share”.

The depressing thing about the Panama Papers hullabaloo is the idea we must pay what the mob demands, not our legal obligation.

There’s no principle driving the mob’s assessment of “fair share” and the New Zealand Herald has assessed income tax on company turnover.

Whose morals and whose ideas of a “fair share” do we listen to? The NZ Herald of course are the biggest hypocrites, having their journalists “investigate” offshore companies and the tax they pay in New Zealand, all without mentioning that the Herald themselves are on the hook for dodging more than $68 million in taxes.

The only sane and moral thing is to give government the absolute minimum and only that because (a) you shouldn’t lie even to the cheating state; and (b) Inland Revenue can make your life a misery without any of the restraint that should apply in a lawful and just society.

Beyond that minimum, you should pay the government nothing.

I would rather flush $100 down the toilet than gift it to government.

I’m of a similar opinion.

I also don’t like the government sniffing through my affairs and so offshore trusts have always struck me as attractive. One day I hope to have one.

Even if you did then criminals like Rawshark and the people behind the Panama Papers hack and theft will do you over anyway.

I suppose the government could get lucky and my $100 helps cure cancer, keep a murderer at bay or feed an otherwise starving mum.

But it’s more likely to fund a deadbeat, pay a teenager to have a baby, provide a grant to a competitor, incarcerate an innocent, pay a bureaucrat to hassle me, fund the Greens or buy violence in a foreign land.

I would rather invest my $100 in business or spend it myself. Such a use is unambiguously positive. The money with the government is almost assuredly a negative.

Agree. Governments have a poor habit of “investing” in useless and ineffectual projects.

That’s why the media jihad against law-abiding citizens not paying their “fair share” is so repugnant and depressing. It’s wrong at so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin.

It’s technically wrong on how tax is assessed. It’s economically illiterate on tax incidence. It’s morally wrong on what a good person should do. It’s politically wrong in equating the state with society in that somehow not paying the state its “fair share” is depriving us what’s rightfully ours.

The stories are also journalistically wrong. The Panama Papers have been stolen. They contain private and confidential information. And yet there seems no reluctance to troll through the material, publish what’s juicy, and to speculate widely what the papers might contain.

The prepared headlines suggest a dodginess without evidence and serve to justify the gross invasion of people’s private affairs.

I know this all too well. The Media jihad against me continues to this day.

It doesn’t appear to occur to reporters that they are nasty statists. That the state implicitly is everything. That it should know everything. That it should have its “fair share” as dictated by the mob despite the rules it writes and ruthlessly enforces.

And as the state’s little helpers they will make your private information public and, on the flimsiest of evidence, publicly shame you as a cheat.

It doesn’t occur to them that the intelligent and moral person’s deep and driving goal is to starve the state and then strangle it so people can live prosperously and free.

They did it to me. They claimed public interest. The real reason was political and personal. That is the problem with the current jihads and frenzy, it is all predicated on stolen documents but the Media party just laps it up.




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.

  • Cadae

    The fairest share is $0.

    • Woody

      And out of that $0, they could pay any number of the useless exactly what they are “entitled” to.

      • Rick H

        Statement of the day – -so absolutely “bang on”.

    • Mags

      I quite like driving along the highway and drinking clean water and having use of the public goods that “0” taxes would provide.
      I have got a bit stingy with giving donations recently on the basis that my taxes are a donation (although compulsary). I consider it similar to a tithe that was demanded by the church in years gone by. (? spelling). Although that was only 10%.

      • Cadae

        Private industry can do a much better job of providing roads, clean water and other services that are misdesignated as “”public goods”.
        Imagine if government ran that most important “public good” service of them all – food. Queueing up for grey goo for breakfast is what we’d get – and that’s the equivalent of what we ARE getting from other “public good” services that the government currently runs.

        • Mags

          At least there might not be a obesity problem. China provided an historical example of the state organizing the food chain during mao’s time. That didn’t work out so well with “the Great Leap Forward ” for an estimated 18-45 million deaths from famine. (Numbers From Wikipedia).
          I’m not sure how roads can be provided for by private methods. I can only imagine chaos the result. How do you exclude people people from using without huge investment in regulation and policing?

      • Old Dig

        I’m happy to pay for exactly what a government is meant to provide, that is defence, emergency services, and a justice system. Everything else could be handled much better by the private sector. Any other ‘great’ ideas proposed by government can be voluntarily crowd funded (if it’s a good idea people will fund it).

        • phronesis

          If by emergency services you mean fire / ambulance / civil defence then by far the majority of those people are volunteers and they are mostly funded by charities.

          • Old Dig


        • willtin

          I agree and we get to vote that Government in, without the coat-tailers or otherwise troughers.

        • Mags

          Agree. But everyone seems to have a different idea about what is “meant” to be paid for by government. Big govt v small government. I’m not sure if the Nats have lowered govt participation.

          • Old Dig

            National are just Labour from ten years ago. But they are (at the moment) better than any alternative. They’re still big government troughers though.

      • Rick H

        Driving along the highway – -that is NOT paid for by Income Tax.
        It is funded by taxes on petrol, and mileage if you drive a diesel.

        Clean water – -No, that is not provided by your taxes either.
        That is paid for by your rates; and if you rent, the rates are included in your rent costings.

        • Mags

          Yep and it’s all a tax and part of our tax system.

          • Old Dig

            Yes, but roads are paid for by road users, it isn’t forced on anyone. If you don’t want to pay road taxes, walk.

            As for water, private companies could easily provide it, or you could have a water tank on your property (water falls out the sky for free).

  • localnews

    Spending other people’s money, on other people, is the most inefficient type of spending that exists. We all have a duty to do everything in our power, within the law, to starve the government of money. If they had a reducing budget they would focus on the important and efficient.
    If only we had a political party that would promote such economic prudence!

  • sandalwood789

    Thomas Sowell puts it very well – “Since this is an era when many people are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice,’ what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for?”

    “Fair share” is just a euphemism for *theft*.

    • Tiger

      Correct, I would like to see some analysis on how much the SJW per head contributes to the state coffers vs how much per head those they rail against contribute. I bet that answer would put the matter to bed. In favour of the latter. What a beat up.

    • Old Dig

      My fair share of what others have worked for is exactly $0.00

      • Old Chook

        As an extended family we have paid a lot of tax over the years and collectively done a lot of complaining about the tax we have paid to support the no- hopers in society – i.e we have always had health insurance, used the private school system etc but still had to pay for the public systems BUT a few weeks ago, a prem, very sick baby became our newest family member. The care she is receiving in the public system is nothing short of amazing. As a family we have all agreed that we will never complain about paying tax again.

  • Sally

    Rodney will be soon a persona non grata in the media world if he keeps this up. He will have to join us at WO if he is sidelined.

  • Orca

    A person who earns twice as much as someone else, pays around twice as much to the government, and yet that person does not cost the government any more in required services. How could anyone call that a “Fair Share”?

  • dumbshit

    Beyond that minimum, you should pay the government nothing.
    Cue the fund that was set up by parliament, to take voluntary donations, for a public wish list. Last I heard, it was “over subscribed” to the tune of $5.00 or so!

  • Orca

    How many times have we heard the media sinking the boot into various government departments every time some personal details are accidentally leaked, such as a list of beneficiaries contact details. They usually start demanding that “heads must roll”.

    Now look at how the same “journalists” are acting like a pack of vultures, picking through the private details of individuals and companies that were illegally leaked in the Panama papers. Hypocritical vultures.

    • sonovaMin

      Also when the government wants to access suspected terrorists phones or emails to keep the country safe, all sorts of turpitude is imagined and general hysteria reigns amongst the chattering classes.
      But when journalist do the same to law abiding citizens, it all fine, as they are such morally pure individuals and doing it for the common good.

  • XCIA

    I was glad when the IRD went to electronic banking. Every time I had to sign cheques for PAYE, GST, ACC etc., I became enraged as I knew full well we were surrounded by mongrels in businesses who paid nothing and the IRD would not get up off their backsides because the ethnicity involved placed them in some sort of media sensitivity.

  • taxpayer

    Rodney Hide, hammer, nail, head, as usual.
    “I would rather flush $100 down the toilet than gift it to government”.
    My sentiments exactly, all though I would rather burn it than flush it down the toilet, at least it would give a few moments of heat and light, far more useful than anything the Govt is likely to do with it.

  • Cadwallader

    Years ago the media disaffected Lindsay Perigo had a great label for the IRD: The “DOLT Reich.” DOLT being an acronym for Department Of Legalised Theft. Reich speaks for itself.

  • Bud

    You people keep complaining about the government taking your money and giving to no hopers, but that isn’t really what is happening; you are paying the government, and the government is giving a little something to the dead beats. The primary recipient is the government, not the bums. I do not know the exact figures, but I could just about guarantee you that the government is spending two or three dollars to hand out one dollar.

    • Old Dig

      I agree, so let’s cut out the middle man (the government), If I want to give money to the poor, I will, at least then I know exactly where the money is being spent.