Dunne and Income Splitting
More than 300,000 families will be able to split their income for tax purposes and reduce their liability under legislation announced today by Revenue Minister Peter Dunne.
Mr Dunne has introduced the bill as leader of the United Future Party, and he has government support to get it through a first reading and into a select committee for public submissions.
It allows parents with children up to age 18 to combine their income and split it down the middle for tax purposes.
That would move each income into lower tax brackets and a tax credit would be paid out at the end of the year.
Because of the way the tax system works, the maximum amount that could be gained is just over $9000 a year.
The latest from our Child Tax Minister – meanwhile we continue to wait for reform of the child tax system.
I can imagine the child tax police taking numerous Commissioner initiated reviews to stop liable parents income splitting.
Hey if your on a high-income earner a $174.61 per week tax deduction must look appealing.Â
Regards
Scrap
oh great, so why should my new wife be financially responsible for my past children. it will break us !!!
Comment by lloyd — Mon 16th August 2010 @ 9:30 pm
P.S My Wife earns more than me .
Comment by lloyd — Mon 16th August 2010 @ 9:35 pm
Oh yes another taxpayer who wants system A this month and system b next month.
Why should you be allowed a new relationship? If you have enough time on your hands to start a new relationship clearly Child Support rates are far to low.
Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Mon 16th August 2010 @ 10:03 pm
I find this proposal grossly unfair. They quote the scenario of a couple where one is at home and the other earning $140k, and they save $9k/year.
What about a solo parent who earns $140k? They get nothing.
Comment by Rippey — Tue 17th August 2010 @ 7:53 am
lol Ms IRD Officer…funny…i like ur comments…crack me up
Comment by Ford — Tue 17th August 2010 @ 4:32 pm
At least it is a policy likely to encourage parents to stay together and continue to provide for their children the identity and security of a family unit.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 17th August 2010 @ 7:39 pm
True. But on the flip side; has anyone thought through the consequences of single parents, especially fathers whose ex decides to give up work so they can income split. Will the income split be used to calculate child support liability in a shared custody arrangement ? I’ve asked this question as it affects me and had a deathly silence back from united future….
Sounds like my ex will be given an incentive to stop work so he partner can income split with her and due to an increase in child support liability I’ll be given an incentive to leave the country….
Comment by noconfidence — Tue 17th August 2010 @ 9:50 pm
Hans,
I’m not sure I get this at all, and an explanation would be appreciated.
I don’t quite get how it would always act as an incentive for Mom and Dad to stay together.
I’m thinking about the following kind of quite typical scenario :
Dad as main breadwinner earns say $60,000
Mom as secondary part time earner gets say $20,000
Total income $90,000
Split as per Dunne’s formula for tax purposes $50,000 apiece taxable.
His tax goes down a bit, hers goes up.
End result – overall they pay less tax.
She dumps him and goes on DPB. Again pretty typical.
Then what?
They’re still classified as a family? or not?
They still do the Dunne split or what?
And what of Dunne’s promise to look into Child Support? Is this it?
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 17th August 2010 @ 11:21 pm
Hmm, good thinking. I haven’t actually read Dunnenothing’s bill so I’m not sure of all its implications. Yes, I suppose in a shared care situation a high-earning ex could use income splitting to reduce her liability and thereby increase the amount you would have to pay her relative to what she has to pay you. If in a shared care situation one’s ex did income splitting with her higher-earning new beau, she would presumably have to pay you a bit more because her share of their earnings would officially increase. But in the most common “weekend only dad” situations the ex’s income has no bearing on dad’s child tax which is based only on the liable parent’s income. If a liable parent has to pay a lot of child tax that means he is earning reasonably well, so he also might be able to reduce his official income by income-splitting with a lower earning new partner.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 18th August 2010 @ 12:41 am
Skeptik, yes perhaps there might be situations in which the income splitting did not encourage staying together, but I can’t think of any right off. I assume though that income-splitting wouldn’t be available to separated parents. In your example (actually your maths is a bit awry!) the parents would be advantaged by staying together to save some tax as a family. Certainly, the effect may not be great and incentives such as the DPB, relationship property plunder and female-biased justice might still overshadow it, but what other government policies are there that tend to push the pendulum even an inch in the direction of keeping families together? If a couple is saving quite a lot per year on tax and they know this won’t happen if they separate, then that is one factor on the “stay together” side of the decision scales, while most other government policies tend to add weight to the “trash the family” side of the scales.
I agree wholeheartedly with your point though that Dunnenothing’s income splitting does not forward his longstanding promise to make the child tax system fairer. If he had the power to obtain some supportive concession from National, why didn’t he put his priority (and energy and time) on what he has been promising for years rather than some new grandstanding idea?
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 18th August 2010 @ 1:03 am
Hans,
Sorry for the shonky math in my last posting! I’m glad you got the point though.
I’m very skeptical of Dunneothing as you are rightly entitled to label him.
After all he’s been nothing but blowing bubbles about the plight of men under the child tax regime and femily caught system since he got into office. From what I have seen NONE of the issues of such statist misandry have been addressed by him despite his many statements along the lines of ‘it’s being looked into and there will be a review in the next ‘little while’. I appreciate his hands were tied during Labor’s long stint of feminist oligarchy which duped the NZ people for 9 long years and made an exit leaving the government coffers bare due to it’s profligate spending to keep people dependent and thus vote for them. Helen Clarke feminist pork barrel politician extraordinaire. And now many seem hooked on the process of making themselves effectively wards of the state.
I’m not so sure that the income splitting will benefit folks in the marriage stakes as some make out. There’s still the elephants in the room most NZers apparently won’t acknowledge – unilateral ‘no fault’ (sic) divorce, secretive misandric femily caught, misandry of wimmins affairs, arrest the male DV police policy, Anger management (largely feminist indoctrination with many DV programs) off the top of my head which incentivize divorce. So I’d need to see the fine print of Dunnenothing’s policy. And even then I’d be Skeptical given the rife judicial activism evident in NZ.
All I can say is thank goodness I had some sense and left NZ when I did so don’t live in a place where it’s apparently the norm for folks to hanker after BIG government to nursemaid them through life. Social welfare? – Yes. But it seems it’s gotten to the point of being ridiculous what with DPB this, family tax credit that, and now Dunny’s income splitting doodad.
ALL creating dependency on the state which intrudes ever further into people most private matters.
Which Stephen Baskerville has the intellect to conceptualize and exress succinctly.
That’s why this is my favorite video at the moment:
As you’ll be aware I view myself as mature enough to take care of many of my own affairs without such co-dependency.
Looking at it all from a vantage point of time elapsed and geographical distance NZers in general seem a very odd bunch!
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 18th August 2010 @ 1:22 am
Income splitting will become an issue post seperation espically for “high” income earners.
If you are forced to pay Child Tax you will be hit with a double whammy : Assuming the income split tax credit for $140K is about 175 per week you will loose that and you will be facing a child support assessment of at least 18% (assuming no shared care) of your gross (limited by the Cap) per week.
It will also be the subject of departure order applications as if you have been income splitting in the previous tax year the mother could claim that you where understating your income.
Regards
SCrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 18th August 2010 @ 9:06 am
Hans, that incentive can be viewed both ways – good and bad. Sometimes it is a bad thing for everyone – the children and the parents – when couples end up staying together for financial reasons only. A miserable household with two parents together could well be worse for the kids than separated parents who are both happy. Its a question of balance – at what point does a reltionship get bad enough that the children are actually better off with parents who are separated?
Comment by Rippey — Wed 18th August 2010 @ 10:33 am
Rippey, that’s a very important question “At what point does a relationship get bad enough that the children are actually better off with parents who are separated?” We can’t answer that question with much precision, but a lot of research is suggesting that as far as children’s welfare goes the point needs to be at a pretty extreme level of violence or dysfunction to outweigh the damage caused by separation. Certainly, I can’t believe that the approximately 60% of modern families that are trashed through separation have reached anywhere near that point. I would estimate 2% to 3% of relationships ever get to the point where parental separation would be better for the children. In my opinion we sorely need government policies to provide some good reasons for working to overcome relationship problems rather than running away from them, often into even worse problems. If things are so bad that children would be better off without their family, then I doubt that income splitting would influence the outcome.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 18th August 2010 @ 10:09 pm
Hans,
that’s a very pertinent point you make there.
I’m afraid it’s all a bit to smoke and mirrors for my liking.
Dunnothing strikes me as much too suspect after his many years of clinging topower and many false promises of looking into it in a ‘little while’. I just plain don’t trust the guy now.
I’m glad you support Rippey as although I don’t have solid research to back up the claim, I too like Rippey would be very surprised if 50 – 60% of marriages ended in divorce because their relationship got so bad that the children are actually better off with parents who are separated. Every relationship hits a speedbump from time to time, but there appear to be far too many lucrative incentives for women especially to ‘bale out of the car and cry victim’. Never mind that many of them were being chauffeur driven in a luxury vehicle so to speak!
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 18th August 2010 @ 10:28 pm
Yes, a good point Scrap. It will make separation even rougher mainly for men. Even though the woman will also miss out on the tax savings, this may be more than overshadowed by the DPB and/or large spousal support payments dishonestly called child support that she can extract from him. Nevertheless, my simple point still stands: income-splitting, assuming it is only available to intact parental relationships, will tend to provide a positive incentive, however small, for those relationships to stay together.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 18th August 2010 @ 11:26 pm
Hans I have read that it will be available in certain cases of shared care but cant find the detail. I will follow up and see if I can get detail.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 19th August 2010 @ 9:59 am
I thought we already had income splitting.
I earn $50000; and give about $6K of it to my ex.
She earns about $50K; and gets my extra $6K.
Tax free to her, because i alreadyy payed tax.
Comment by IRD_Slave_For_Life — Fri 27th August 2010 @ 8:56 pm
I just read your comment and couldn’t stop laughing. Not at you or the circumstances. It was a nervous laugh. You’re complaining, but I make 40K (after taxes) and pay an additional 30K in child support, leaving me with 10K to live on. I also pay taxes on the child support and my ex gets child tax credits, even though she’s not the one paying taxes. LOL
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 28th August 2010 @ 12:31 am
Hans – concerning your question below about “at what point does does a relationship get bad enough that the children are actually better off with parents who are separated?”, I think current laws permit women to make the relationship so bad that they are better off separated in most instances. However, a great remedy to this dilemma that would prevent a woman from abusing the laws is to deny any woman child support, alimony and a property settlement if she divorces unilaterally. Then the issue of separation and what is better for the children is moot. The only reason separation is so bad for the children is because incentives for women to divorce in the first place and lie about domestic violence and child abuse to get custody, etc… are so great. These developments prevent fathers from seeing their children, which makes separation so bad on them. If children weren’t separated from their fathers so much after separation, then it is probably better than not, and disposition of their mother is irrelevant. These circumstances do not apply to men, of course, because, at least in the US, prior to all these crazy feminist laws, incidence of divorce was rare (less than 5% of the population of married couples), and parental alienation was even more rare (because even when a man did unilaterally divorce, he didn’t alienate children from their mothers. Parental alienation is a strategy employed almost exclusively by women (I didn’t say “exclusively”, but almost). Take away incentives for women to alienate, and the issue of what’s better goes away with it. Too bad most divorcing mothers don’t regard the well-being of their children as enough disincentive to alienate.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 28th August 2010 @ 7:54 am
Hans,
What Daryl X is saying here makes allot of sense to me –
However, a great remedy to this dilemma that would prevent a woman from abusing the laws is to deny any woman child support, alimony and a property settlement if she divorces unilaterally. Then the issue of separation and what is better for the children is moot.
Furthermore if matters were framed the way Daryl X proposes there would be absolutely MASSIVE savings to the taxpayer as the divorce industry would shrink away to virtually nothing. Just think of all those family court judges, lawyers, psychologists and counselors and their attendant staff, buildings and equipment – a huge taxpayer funded industry! and that’s before you add in supervised access centers and their staff, domestic violence programs and their staff etc etc.
I think Daryl X is also right to point out that there was a time in many living people’s memory when divorce was much less prevalent before the ‘no fault’ (sic) laws came into being in western nations.
I’ve spoken to some women about the issue of no fault divorce laws and they’ve said they’re glad the laws exist because prior to them women were economically dependent and couldn’t so easily leave bad marriages as today.
I think they either haven’t thought the issue through or they’ve keeping quiet about the privileges that come their way with no fault dovorce laws in place.
When I mention that the vast majority of women aren’t economically dependent on a husband these days, but many are in fact economically dependent on government handouts they have no counter argument.
It therefore seems not only morally wrong to retain these stupid no-fault divorce laws which incentivize women initiating divorce in staggering numbers, it’s also terrible fiscal policy; and that’s before we even factor in the immense cost to the taxpayer dealing with many children and young adults from state incentivized Mom-solo~Father-alienated households (delinquency, crime, drug addiction, teen pregnancy etc etc).
As you’ll be aware also in recent times NZ has been building prisons and other facilities to deal with these problems faster than it’s been building universities.
For a long time I’ve argued that no fault divorce is one of the root causes of many of today’s social ills.
It’s also a feminist cause celebre.
Surprise! Surprise!
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 28th August 2010 @ 10:17 am
Skeptik – Thanks for agreeing. The only thing I disagree about your last post is that no-fault divorce laws don’t just discourage women from leaving bad marriages, they mostly encourage women from leaving great marriages for frivolous reasons or for adultery or whatever. Cheers.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 28th August 2010 @ 11:22 am
Darryl X, thanks for the valuable, if radical, thinking you are introducing to MENZ.
I agree with this to some extent. It’s not only current laws but also the beliefs, ways of thinking that have become fashionable primarily because of feminist activisim, mostly based on hate speech, misinformation and unbalanced reasoning. These beliefs include notions that men will dominate and restrict women if they can, that men don’t contribute enough to housework, that men are somehow privileged by being allowed to break their bodies in order to earn money for the family, that women have a right to be made “happy” at all times by their partners and that any unhappiness women feel is probably due to the partner somehow, that women have a right to set the rules regardless of the man’s preferences, that women’s wisdom is superior, etc. Women then react to a lot of normal, innocent behaviour from their male partners as if it’s sinister, undesirable, immoral, unnacceptable or unworthy, and women fail to recognize their own controlling behaviour and the self-centredness of their assumptions. The laws have progressively fallen into line with feminist propaganda and continue to do so, treating men as unworthy of justice or fairness and further encouraging women to think that way. Yes, this has caused much unnecessary discontent and conflict in relationships, but I am not convinced that’s enough in most cases to make separation better for children.
I agree with this to a limited extent. I have long proposed that marriage contracts be given teeth again so that if either party breaches the contract for example by abandoning it, that party is penalized. However, I would propose that it’s a limited penalty yet enough to discourage breaches, for example, losing 25% of what would otherwise be an equal division of property. (Also though, I would not include wealth acquired by either party before the marriage as part of relationship property at all.) I have also long proposed a substantial stand-down, say 6 months, for any DPB support except in strictly limited circumstances, being a recent conviction against a partner for serious domestic violence or proof that the main financial provider has abandoned the family and is not available to provide half the parenting role. That will tend to discourage sole parenthood as an easy career path for teenagers, and it will provide some disincentive for breaking up established families, yet it won’t be an insurmountable hurdle in cases where it really is important for a partner to separate. Such partners might receive support from family for the 6 months, or they might be eligible for an unemployment benefit instead. I have also long supported calls for a rebuttable assumption of shared care and a nil child tax liability where equal shared care is maintained, both because that will be better for the children and because it will discourage some partners from impetuous decisions to separate.
I disagree with the fundamental assumption here. Families provide security and identity for children and there is a great deal of research showing that, on average, children do better if raised in intact families. The idea that “it’s fine to break up families as long as the separated parents cooperate amicably” was never based on good research but appears to be a feminist propaganda designed to sanitize women’s disposal of their children’s father and to lobby for state facilitation for breaking up families. Of course, when families do break up it will be better for children if the parents remain amicable, if there is no alienation, if children have full and secure relationships with both parents, etc, but none of that compensates fully for the damage caused to children through separation (except in a small proportion of cases when family violence, neglect, substance abuse etc is at a very high level of severity).
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 28th August 2010 @ 12:01 pm
Hans,
Thanks again for thoughtful comments.
Thanks too from me to Daryl X for introducing some radical new thinking to MENZ.
You say –
to which I reply ~ Spot on! So true!
For many years in NZ I got the distinct impression that certain women there KNEW of the immense power and control they had in their relationships with men being as they were aided and abbetted by a huge feminist state arsenal.
These women, whilst denying that had the upper by law, appeared to take advantage of the dilemna their male partners faced ~ having to toe the line or face the more than even odds chance of being divorced, alienated from their children and/or taken to the cleaners financially. It appears to be a form of emotional abuse I wanted no part of and was part of the reason I left NZ.
You go on to say –
Yes, absolutely.
As others commentators have said there’s no point in investing one’s life in marriage under modern western feminist laws. It’s akin to purchasing an expensive car by weekly installments which stands a 50-50 chance of being repossessed at any moment and for frivolous reasons to boot.
You add –
I agree with your ideas here in principal.
The massive breakdown of marriage initiated by women cannot but continue until something like you propose is put in place as a disincentive.
You add –
Again I agree, with a few caveats added.
I think it only fair that any serious domestic violence deemed to be reason for divorce should be proven beyond with an admission of guilt by the accused and/or forensic evidence. Anything less than this leaves the door as it currently is wide ajar for the use of false accusations used by women at the time of separation to gain financial and filial leverage over the man thereby stripping him of current and future income and children. I’m sure you know this already, but add it for those who may be reading as newcomers to MENZ.
You add –
I agree entirely with that.
You finish by saying –
That all makes perfect sense to me.
You’ve highlighted much of the emotional fallout of marriage dissolution rates under current feminist laws commendably.
What I’d love to see is an anlaysis done of such a situation, say by treasury or some other reputable body.
The analysis would compare in fiscal terms the current cost of high rates of marriage and family breakdown to society today with the fiscal costs society faced with low rates of such breakdown prior to the enactment of no-fault divorce.
Factors to be included would be ALL subsequent social welfare payments, the cost of running the family court and all attendant services including supervised access centers, CYPS, Drug and Alcohol treatment facilities, anger management and family counseling services system.
I’m no fiscal genius myself by a long chalk, but even I can tell that the savings to NZ society would be immense, and it’s not just savings I’m thinking of either.
For I imagine with NZ society returned to a sensible legal balance where family and children are protected there’s also a massive investment in NZers growth potential kicks in too.
Imagine for a moment all that currently institutionalized negative energy expended on creating marriage and family breakup being freed up to be creative and productive for the good of NZ instead!
I’ve tried that and it’s absolutely mind boggling!
So in ending I’m asking: Do you know of anyone doing such an analysis or similar?
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 28th August 2010 @ 5:02 pm
In french there is an expression, “building castles in Spain”, making grandiose plans without any thought of how to get to Spain in the first place. NOTHING at all has changed since menz was started, it has got a lot worse. Read posts from 10 years ago and then maybe you will wake up and smell the coffee.
When there is gross injustice being carried out by the state like this, it will need a colossal sustained fight to change the status quo. Only men who have experienced what we have , can understand. that is still a small number, the rest of men will simply not believe how bad mens’ position is. But our numbers are growing, Hans’ ideas are great, but at the end of the day, NOBODY IS LISTENING TO US, the media are just not interested deliberately. It will take actions by strong willed individuals to change anything, the so called leaders will chatter about the politics and theories, but activists implies people who are doing something REAL and ACTIVE, not just laying the plans for the castles in Spain
Comment by Kiwi In Thailand — Sat 28th August 2010 @ 10:42 pm
I haven’t been associated with this site long, but I have been associated with the anti-feminist movement since I was born in 1967. My earliest memories are about hateful women stalking my household and streets of my community terrorizing men (yes, it was literally horrifying – my entire life has been defined by the hate movement that feminism is). Of course, it was hard to reconcile my absolute terror of and contempt for women with my strong sexual attraction for them. I have since gotten over myself. Presently, Obama (or someone) is bringing troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan (and other places) enmasse in preparation for war in US. Militias are stockpiling weapons (including nukes) and coordinating in preparation for war in the US. Rebels are preparing to route even retreat of the President and other leadership of this country (ie their destinations have been compromised) after they defeat the gov’t. Food and housing riots have started. The gov’t is beginning to impose imminent domain upon natural resources (most local to me is the Marcellus shale, so it may extract oil from it by “fracking”) in preparation for war – in the US. The gov’ts have used feminist lies and propaganda about domestic violence and child abuse and rape and paternity fraud to take away financial means of men to buy weapons for insurgence and crush their spirits – in preparation for war in the US. What did anyone think was going to happen when all this started forty years ago? We are going to war – not just the US, but the developed world and more. There is no political, legal or social solution to our dilemma. We (you, me, everyone) are going to war. And you’re on one side or the other. And if you are on the side that took away my children, you are in a lot of trouble. I agree, nothing has been accomplished in the past forty years, but that is about to change. These kinds of circumstances happen throughout history and they change only one way – WAR!!! We (you, me and everyone) are being dragged into it kicking and screaming with great reluctance. But we are being dragged there whether we like it or not and our children and their children and their children’s children are our incentive to fight and win. My life is nothing anymore without my children, so I might just as well sacrifice it to the war effort against the people that took them away. You’re world is going to war. Flapping your gums and proposing legislation that will never be enforced will not win you anything. Our enemy doesn’t just not care, it is incapable of caring. It is not human. Fight, damn you men, fight. You don’t have a choice anymore.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 12:32 am
There are so many smart people on this site and I have learned so much since I have been here, but that experience is eclipsed by the atmosphere of inevitability always preceding war, ignored throughout history by so many until it has descended upon them with as much inevitability and certainty as night. As we correspond on this site, the US and other developed countries descend further into fascism – a post feminist dystopian police state. It will only be defeated with war.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 12:36 am
We do have democracy but we have to use it, to remember that voting for small parties with the policies we like will begin to influence major parties. It has been surprising to me that so many men complain on sites like MENZ but then don’t use real opportunities to influence the democratic system. If men continue to vote for the same old parties that have continually extended injustice against men, then I guess they deserve what they get.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 12:56 am
War War III (global war) is inevitable. It’s happening now. There is no legal system within which laws can be made to change our present circumstances. I understand it’s hard to see that. I really do. There is no longer a fabric of social cohesion within which civilization can be swaddled and nurtured. War is our only alternative to getting civilization back. I understand there are no weapons in NZ. But NZ is one of the most likely places for revolution (armed insurgence) to work for a variety of geographical, social and practical reasons.
[Edit by moderator: advocating armed insurgency is not permitted on this site – JohnP]
I’m a good resource. When opportunities present themselves, you should make good use of them. Freedom is something you must constantly fight for. Revolution is the most important tool for freedom. Your children are being taken away and trafficked and your men have been enslaved yet, but not nearly as bad as in the US – that’s coming for you soon, though. You’re already at war, and your children are the casualties. You’ve been brainwashed to believe that war is bad and it is never a solution. Today, it is your last and only solution if you want to advance civilzation – not the sanitized, Big Brother / Sister police state that the Bilderburgs and the Illuminati want to give you while they maintain absolute control, but real civilization. I would embrace it and the cooperation that is being offered you, while it is still here and while it can be offered. Things are changing fast and options like the ones you have will not always be on the table. We are brothers, whether we like it or not, and we have a common cause – our children. We know what has happened and what is happening and what will happen. We must take command as agents of the inevitable and stewards of our future – our children. As distasteful a solution and as reluctantly as I propose it, revolution is the only remaining solution. The sooner the better. NZ is our front line (whether you like it or not) – it is our ground zero. If we lose NZ, winning the rest will be much harder, if not impossible.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 1:03 am
Hi, Hans. I appreciate your post in response to my comments about marriage and children. Needless to say (I hope) agree and disagree with everything you wrote. I’m grateful you have taken time to address my thoughts. I am currently digesting some of it. As I’ve mentioned, I think much of what you’ve written is absolutely correct, but at the same time, I also think there is a point beyond which it is time to say we’re just being manipulated with a system like this and proposing changes to it is just an example of how we are being manipulated. In response to another post, I do not know about NZ, but in the US, there is NO democracy – it is a farce sold to people in propaganda, but there is definitely no democracy.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 1:09 am
Julie, Darryl W, Amfortas, Skeptik, Hans, KIT, Scrap, mits, et al…
I really am curious about the position of each of you about my position. I think I get it, but I need some elaboration. I don’t know why. Am I missing something?
Because I really am trying to figure out (along with a number of colleagues) how best to optimize allocation of our limited reource in response to coming war.
The winds of war have reached the US. They will reach NZ someday sooner than later. My interest is preempting their arrival.
In the US, 52-million (yes, fifty-two-million) children have been snatched and trafficked, more than nine-million men have been imprisoned for inability to pay child support, and another great number so big no one has even tried to count have been imprisoned for false allegations of child abuse, domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment, etc…). I suspect NZ has similar numbers of fatherless children proportionate to their population (not imprisoned men, though – yet). The gov’ts are preparing for more by contracting out the manufacture or rail cars for moving large populations of men in manacles (this recent development is well documented) and the construction of the single largest human containment facilities in the history of the world in three different states. It can be worse, but not much and if it isn’t in some places, it will be.
After fighting feminists and their male enablers my entire life, I have never seen a peaceful approach achieve anything. Ever. I resign myself to the inevitablility of war with great reluctance and sadness. But the sadness inspired by my resignation to war is not nearly as much as that inspired by loss of my children to a post feminist dystopian police state.
I want to believe that democracy and peace and reason and deliberation and compromise and negotiation are all that is needed to prevail, but history demonstrates otherwise. As I’ve explained before, each attempt to engage the system reasonably (writing letters, protesting, burning wallets, etc…) validates the success of the malignant narcissists and psychopaths you protest against and encourages their further pursuit of absolute power and control. Ignoring them allows yheir further pursuit of power. That is how malgnant narcissism works. They don’t care. They aren’t even conscious. Unstopped, they will destroy the entire world. Think Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. We are where we were in 1938. As much as you don’t like war, you’d be speaking Japanese if we didn’t defeat them with a war – and they were brutal.
These people are addicts to their power and control and exploit the sexual relationships between men and women (and now between same-sex partners) and the products of those relationships (children) to pursue that power and control. Their addiction is insatiable. They simply will not stop until you are gone and the lives of generations to come are coopted forever. This is what is happening.
I implore you to consider more immediate and dramatic measures.
Time is running out. How many fatherless children will be required to convince you that these people can’t be stopped by peaceful means? How many men in prison or dead? What is so convincing to you that I am blind to that makes you believe there is a peaceful solution to our dilemma? I don’t understand. Civilizations have gone to war before over far less (I mean legitimate war – not the US in Iraq or something like that nonsense).
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 6:58 am
I totally distance myself from those individuals who protest outside people’s homes and burn our flag etc, so it should come as no surprise I do not favour the approach you suggest. It is playing into the hands of those who want to portray men as being violent and irresponsible. It is extreme, it will win no popular support and it will turn even more people against men.
There are three main problems facing the men’s movment in New Zealand.
The first is a widespread lack of awareness of how the political system works; how to influence it; and whom, when and how to lobby.
The second is a complete lack of media skills, strategic thinking and common sense.
The third is an excess of “loose cannons”, who say and do the most destructive things, often against other men and women in the movement. Some may appear passionate and dedicated, but passion and dedication count for nothing when they are doing more harm than good. I do want to associate with such people.
These are some of the reasons why I no longer participate in politics of any kind and limit my involvement with the men’s movement to promoting pastoral care for men.
The women’s movement has long known how to work the media and the system and how to keep loose cannons out of the limelight. Until the men’s movement learns to do the same, it will get nowhere. When it does learn, it will be a force to be reckoned with.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 9:01 am
Hi Darryl. Yes, you have made similar criticisms before but criticism without constructive suggestions can do little more than discourage.
You often blame men for the fact that the media largely ignores their opinions and interests. I’m sure you will be right to some extent, but there is more to it than that. Established news media have for a long time prioritized women-as-deserving lines and have deliberately ignored men’s opinions. Stories on child tax, DPB, domestic violence, parenting matters etc typically involve comments from women’s groups but don’t bother to seek any voice whatsoever from men, as if the impact on men of those issues is irrelevant. And it’s not that the media have no men to call upon; for example, many intelligent letters to editors are written by aware men and any of those writers could have been approached for input.
Even when men’s movement people have fostered a relationship with a particular journalist who is sympathetic to their perspectives, the editors seem often to disallow the article or to feminize its content.
I don’t know whether this widespread media disregard for men’s perspectives is due to commercial reasons, or feminist indoctrinaiton in journalist training, or control by feminists of media organisations, editors etc, or government pressure, or a self-image by media as knights in shining armour riding to the rescue of those they still believe need attention, or simply that media see feminism as fashionable and men’s perspectives as old-fashioned. It may be that one of the reasons is the unattractive profile of a handful of disgruntled fathers outside Family Courts calling judges dykes etc, but angry loud hailing from extremists never seemed to inhibit media attention to feminist causes. And it remains the case that the most effective method for men and fathers to get media attention has been through provocative protests.
Ironically, news coverage of men’s perspectives would be controversial, likely to sell newspapers and will receive a lot of response from outraged feminists, so the commercial interests of media would be enhanced by such coverage.
I would value any constructive advice that you might share given your own media experience.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 9:58 am
Hi Darryl X: Even assuming such war is inevitable, encouraging or coordinating it through a public web site is obviously a foolish idea. In recent years, NZ government has taken advantage of US-fuelled fear of terrorism to introduce draconian anti-sedition laws that have already seen various groups and even whole communities descended upon, threatened and bullied by heavily-armed government agents in military uniforms.
You will hopefully understand that I and others here will distance ourselves from your call to arms. Already, our secret service organisations will have been alerted to your writing and all contributors here now stand at significantly increased risk of being raided, having our computers removed etc in an effort to find evidence for prosecution.
I am not aware of any form of communication that is now beyond the scrutiny of governments, except perhaps face-to-face meetings in places known to be free of monitoring devices. Even then, the fact and members of any such meeting will probably be known through satellite surveillance.
Please don’t take offence, but we must also be realistic in acknowledging that you are not known personally to us, you claim to be from another country and you don’t post under a full name. It’s important to be aware that your posts may well be be part of entrapment, spy activity, feminist sabotague or even playful mischief making. I am not accusing you of any of these things, but it’s important to be aware of realistic possibilities and it’s fair to say that in NZ we may be somewhat sheltered and gullible when it comes to such matters.
I note that the stated aim of MENZ is for “news and discussion” about men’s issues, but encouraging violent response will be illegal in NZ and therefore against the rules of the MENZ site.
Therefore, I herewith personally distance myself from your calls for violent insurrection. I wish to emphasize that your opinions are your own and do not reflect the views of others who contribute here. I wish to state unequivocally that I am not aware of any group associated with MENZ that supports any illegal activity of any kind. As far as I am aware, those who contribute to the MENZ site support political activity and protest only when it complies with all existing NZ laws. While MENZ does not involve any collective that can control or take responsibility for individuals’ views or behaviour, conspiracy and threats to commit illegal actions have always been strongly discouraged by the majority of contributors at MENZ.
I would ask that you take great care to avoid any appearance of encouraging illegal behaviour. Your analysis of gender matters, “news” of what you believe happening in the US and your opinions on topics discussed are valued.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 11:25 am
Hi Hans. I see your point, but given this is a public forum, I would feel not feel comfortable offering suggestions on strategy, other than making broad brush comments.
If you like , I could offer suggestions on a safe forum like pauls-news, which is free of the “gatekeepers” and “loose cannons” dominating other groups, but this would have to wait for a few days.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 11:48 am
The Central Intelligence Agency of the US funded Gloria Steinem to the nth degree to start Cosmopolitan, Red Book, and several other feminist rags approximately forty-three years ago for the sole purpose of controlling and manipulating women, who have no ability to think for themselves and exercise any analytical skills. Manipulating the female population is easy because they are herd animals – if one does something, they all do it. Doesn’t matter how stupid. From fashion to sex advice. These rags are distributed throughout the developed world. Germany’s manipulation of women throughout Europe using the media was important during WWII, and just as successful as the CIA’s manipulation of them today. There can be no responsible media as long as women are consumers of it (and they shouldn’t be allowed to consume the media because of their history with it – this is one of my no no’s when it comes to women – the three big ones are voting, jobs and property ownership). As long as women are consumers of media, you can’t control it because they are a bigger market and all that is broadcast will be for the sole purpose of exploiting the malignant narcissism of women. There is good media but too far and few between for the kinds of benefits your talking about I think. The advances we can hope for will be in the scientific literature. Malignant narcissism is a very dark pathology, and until you understand its power and abandon the belief that these people can be reasoned with (through the media or whatever), the faster a solution to our dilemma can be found. You cannot manipulate the media as long as a majority of its consumers are malignant narcissists (women). Any media company will broadcast whatever rubbish it needs to to make money. And as long as women are allowed to have jobs and buy products, the media will broadcast to them. As long as the media broadcasts to them, the media will need to appeal to their malignant narcissism. As long as the media has to appeal to their malignant narcissism, then it will have to tell lies because narcissists don’t like the truth – they are incapable of understanding truth because they lack any analytical skills. The truth will seldom be broadcast by any media company of which women are the primary consumers. Women are malignant narcissists, which is why they can’t consume media responsibly, perform responsibly in jobs, manage property responsibly, or vote responsibly. Show me a man someone complains who falls into this category and I’ll show you a woman who is controlling him. If you are trying to figure out how to use the media to communicate our dilemma, don’t. It can’t be done. First, no one cares. Second, feminists own the media. Almost all of it – on both the broadcast and consumer ends. It’s an important mechanism feminists and their male enablers use to stay in power. That’s why the CIA did what they did. This feminist-controlled media funded by the military (for all intents and purposes) was, in part, the military-industrial complex President Eisenhour warned about. He didn’t want the military or any other large group or corportation coopting our women. But they did – aobut forty-fifty years ago. We are all in a lot of trouble, and most people do not have the slightest comprehension of how much and how bad things are going to get. The media or its consumers are not turned off by people calling judges dykes or bad behavior or whatever. They don’t care. They only care about making money. Again, I admire your ability to exercise reason and indeed apply it to our circumstances but you are projecting your capacity for reason on everyone else (that’s not a bad thing). The problem is that most of these other people are not reasonable. They are malignant narcissists and incapable of reason. You can’t pander to them because you can’t satisfy their malignant narcissism with the truth. The truth is not a drug malignant narcissists get high on. The truth generally doesn’t make anyone rich or get them into power. Malignant narcissists only care about power and control (and sex). Lies give them power (or at least the illusion thereof). The faster everyone on this site understands our adversary, the faster a solution to our dilemma can be found. Our adversaries, whether they are smart or stupid, are desparately addicted to power and control (and sex), and they will stop at nothing to get it. Our adversaries have no interest in the truth of our dilemma. It does not enable their addiction. The media is a tool designed so that even an idiot can use it, so only idiots are using it. We don’t need the media. Let them have it. Eventually, it will be their own undoing.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 12:09 pm
Sorry Darryl W if I’m a loose cannon. Just trying to help.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Point taken. Distance is fine.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Hi Daryl,
Good on you for doing pastoral care with a focus on men.
I’ve been there myself in NZ at the coalface for many years.
I’m sure with the amount of distressed behavior many men act out in the current zeitgeist there’s a huge need for it.
Yet I inevitably arrived at the conclusion that until the feminist~chivalrist dominated system is overthrown I was just an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff waiting to try and catch the next man.
I agree with Hans’ perspective given in his response to your posting #8.
We are up against what Warren Farrel has called the ‘lace curtain’.
To my mind he has very cogent views about such a phenomenon. It’s a powerful reading.
For more on that go here.
I understand your reticence to air your ideas about strategy that can be taken to enhance politically the dealing with men’s issues.
However I think in all reasonableness it must be admitted that the actions of groups like Fathers 4 Justice have hugely raised awareness of some of the issues of misandry men face in UK and elsewhere.
There’s a circularity to the stance of NOT being politically outspoken too.
*1. People don’t hear what men don’t say.
*2. The mainstream media is saturated with feminism and feminist views.
*3. Avoiding making public statements (politicking)only encourages men’s voice being
ignored and only makes it harder for the next man to speak out.
*4. Return to *1
You say one of the problems men in NZ have is –
I disagree and whats more think that’s an incredibly arrogant, mean spirited and defeatist stance to take.
If men in NZ had no no common sense as you say then the case for advancing mens rights is totally hopeless.
One final thought for now.
ALL civil rights movements have had a few loose cannons (e.g. Black Panther movement). Whenever any social group forms around an issue there will always be those who are more impulsive as well as those who are less bold than others.
That’s human nature.
But it doesn’t detract from there being a just cause to be addressed and silence isn’t the answer.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 1:36 pm
Daryl X,
A reference to Malcolm X?
I think wars take a variety of forms.
Some are fought with guns and rockets, others with information.
In the latter type facts become potent ‘weapons’ which ultimately defeat the fabricated propaganda sown to create hatred and social unrest.
I’m happy to be a party to the latter informational type of engagement with enemies of men only.
I understand from reading your postings and talking to several American male friends that the situation for men in USA is dire with allot of what you report about it confirmed by those friends.
However I completely reject calls for armed insurrection.
It has also crossed my mind that the MENZ site will be under close scrutiny from secret service organizations.
If you aren’t some bogus blogger attempting entrapment of regular posters to MENZ by encouraging violence but are in fact bone fide then it surprises me you haven’t already gotten a knock on your door from the USA police / FBI issued with a search warrant to look for arms and evidence on you computer hard drive and elsewhere of promoting violence.
I note also your country (if indeed you are from the USA) has federal laws against promoting violence.
It may be that they’re just slow to react. It has been known.
I respect that the USA has a history of people overthrowing corrupt government through force of arms dating back to the armed uprising against British rule.
USA citizens right to bear arms is even still enshrined in the constitution there from what I can tell.
However, I ask you to desist from encouraging violence on threads at MENZ as I fear it despoils MENZ and endangers regular contributors by association to the possibility of unwarranted investigation (perhaps covertly already underway) and possibly even detention with personal property seized for scrutiny.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 2:58 pm
Hi Darryl X. No I am not putting you in that category, I was referring to a couple of specific individuals here in NZ.
While I may disagree with the approach you are suggesting, I am not saying you are a “loose cannon” yourself.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 7:42 pm
Good point Skeptic, I accept “a complete lack of media skills, strategic thinking and common sense” does not apply to the WHOLE movement in New Zealand.
However, it does apply to certain sections of it.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sun 29th August 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Daryl X, this video is especially for you:
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 30th August 2010 @ 9:50 am