The flawed WFF at work
July 27th, 2006 at 8:56 am by David FarrarI can’t believe this. There are over 1,000 one child families with a household income over $100,000 who are receiving family assistance from the Government.
As I have said before, I can accept paying taxes to help out the solo parent with young kids, or the family earning just $40.000 with two or three kids.
But single people are being taxed, to pay welfare to families who have a higher standard of living than those paying the tax. It’s madness – robbing the poor to give money to the rich. Labour are turning every family in NZ into beneficiaries. A family with an income of over $100,000 with just one child does not need social welfare. It’s almost obscene.
No tag for this post.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Sure its obscene. The idea was obscene from the time Klark thought of it. It was obscene when it was implemented. It is obscene now and it will be obscene in the future. However, such obscenities are of no concern to the conscienceless, immoral and Stalinist Labour party that rules NZ. They want votes. They know that they can’t get support for their ideology by reason and argument, so they cynically pervert the course of democracy and buy that support. WFF is just another instance of the left’s obscene obsession with political power. It is an example of how the left have corrupted democracy in NZ, and it is a foul Soviet style stain on this country’s electoral process.
Vote:July 27th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
“A family with an income of over $100,000 with just one child does not need social welfare”
Vote:I beg to differ. If we assume that the family contains a stay at home parent, and the other in employment, then they probably do indeed assistance. Earning 100k p.a. the family will pay $31500 in PAYE, if the income earner has a student loan then another $8283 will be deducted at source. Assuming they live in the average NZ house valued at $300k with an 80% mortgage @8% then they need to find an additional $25k to service their housing needs ($30k if you include rates, insurance and minor repairs). Out of the remaining 30k the family have to pay vehicle expenses (est 10k p.a.) food (10k p.a), school costs 2-3k, clothing 2k etc. Above and beyong this, the family are supposed to fund their child’s education, their own retirement, and if they want to be guarantee of an operation if their health packs up, then some medical insurance is a necessity too.
The reality is 100k p.a. is NOT wealthy in an over taxed society. I take your point that these people shouldn’t get hand outs, however due to the govt taking too much in the first place, these people have little alternative but to apply for the handout.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
“A family with an income of over $100,000 with just one child does not need social welfare”
Vote:I beg to differ. If we assume that the family contains a stay at home parent, and the other in employment, then they probably do indeed assistance. Earning 100k p.a. the family will pay $31500 in PAYE, if the income earner has a student loan then another $8283 will be deducted at source. Assuming they live in the average NZ house valued at $300k with an 80% mortgage @8% then they need to find an additional $25k to service their housing needs ($30k if you include rates, insurance and minor repairs). Out of the remaining 30k the family have to pay vehicle expenses (est 10k p.a.) food (10k p.a), school costs 2-3k, clothing 2k etc. Above and beyong this, the family are supposed to fund their child’s education, their own retirement, and if they want to be guarantee of an operation if their health packs up, then some medical insurance is a necessity too.
The reality is 100k p.a. is NOT wealthy in an over taxed society. I take your point that these people shouldn’t get hand outs, however due to the govt taking too much in the first place, these people have little alternative but to apply for the handout.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Clearly the whole Working for Families scheme is aimed at increasing the birth-rate, probably particularly of white New Zealanders who have a declining birth-rate. Labour are probably hoping this will boost their vote in 18+ years time, now they are losing the Maori vote.
Vote:July 27th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Clearly the whole Working for Families scheme is aimed at increasing the birth-rate, probably particularly of white New Zealanders who have a declining birth-rate. Labour are probably hoping this will boost their vote in 18+ years time, now they are losing the Maori vote.
Vote:July 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Could you explain how the poor are being robbed? Is it the poor being robbed of the money robbed from the rich? I guess those families would still be paying more into the system than the services they get in return.
Vote:July 27th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
DPF: I can accept paying taxes to help out the solo parent with young kids, or the family earning just $40.000 with two or three kids.
And that is supposedly the libertarian part of National, sigh.
Why is that parent solo? Why does she have young kids? Why does that family just earn $40,000? Too lazy to work?
We don’t have a clue. So why not support a $100,000 family? They pay enough taxes I would say.
Vote:July 27th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
The original WFF scheme had payments drop off quickly as your income went up. You said that was terrible as it didn’t give enough incentive to earn more.
So it’s been changed to now drop off quickly as your income goes up. And now you say it’s terrible as it means a small pittance is paid to some high-income earners.
Make your bloody mind up!
Do you want fast abatement (= high marginal tax)?
Or slow abatement (= a long tail of low payouts to high earners)?
Vote: