$150,000 and on welfare
August 21st, 2009 at 10:00 am by David FarrarThe Dom Post reports on Labour’s legacy:
Thirty-five families with a household income of more than $150,000 are pocketing Working for Families cash.
Welfare should be for those on low incomes who need support to cover the essentials. Not to give rich people extra money because they choose to have some more kids.
Labour revenue spokesman Stuart Nash said families earning more than $150,000 were not the type envisaged for the scheme.
If there were abuses, then loopholes should be closed.
But Working for Families had lifted thousands of children out of poverty and it was the most effective income-redistribution policy “ever”.
Over-taxing New Zealanders so you can give them some of their own money back as welfare is now what I call effective. Well it is effective at turning more families into welfare recipients I guess.
Related posts:
- Closing the loopholes
- Dom Post on Welfare
- Why Welfare Reform is a Win Win Win
- Large welfare families
August 21st, 2009 at 10:05 am
Abolish WFF and reduce income tax.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:09 am
You may think its smart to call it “labour’s legacy”, but what has the Notioanl Government done to end this abuse?
And before the -ve karma comes my way, I will remind others that I have been a constant critic of WFF since its inception.
farrar, time to stop bleating about what Labour did and remind Notional it is their turn to DO.
[DPF: I have said many times what I want National to do with WFF]
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:18 am
“effective at turning more families into welfare recipients” – and better at changing more people to the “entitlement” ethic – where it’s no longer about need, take it because you’re “entitled”.
(cf Jonathan Hunt and his entitlement to UK pension.)
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:27 am
Hang on while I have my heart attack!!
I don’t know how these families live with themselves. I couldn’t accept welfare if my income was $150,000 and sleep at night. Is there no shame?
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:29 am
The WFF TV ads were clearly aimed at people who already had far more than basic essentials.
It may be the best way to help low income working families but turning middle and upper income earners into benficiaries invites them to take what they can get regardless of whether they need it.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:31 am
If you want to improve poorer people’s income either reduce tax rates at the lower end of the scale, or increase benefits and the minimum wage. Why bring in a whole new redistributive scheme?
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
[DPF: I have said many times what I want National to do with WFF]
the stop referring to it as labour’s legacy and start referring to it as Notional’s electorate bribe.
[DPF: That is like describing the 1991 benefit cuts as Labour's attack on the poor. You really are desperate]
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:48 am
Is there no shame?
I can imagine many people out there happy to get their taxes back in any way possible.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:50 am
But households with a hundred grand income and with four kids are? The whole scheme is a farce. Come on National – Just give us tax cuts and simplify the whole system.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 10:53 am
MyNameIsJack – well, it *was* Labour’s electoral bribe first.
But yes, National’s “me too” on WFF before the last election was pants, too.
Hopefully this recession will break the cycle of the last 3 or 4 elections where it’s the lolly-scramble that decides it (e.g. the interest free student loans bomb).
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Well it is effective at turning more families into welfare recipients I guess.
More specifically, it is effective at turning them into Labour voters. Hard to imagine anything more cynical. Actually, not hard, there was the EFA, the Winston saga, the Taito Phillip Field saga, the rail boondoggle, and the spend-every-last-dollar-before -departing budget from Cullen.
Never has so much been sacrificed for the sake of so few. Cynical, cynical, cynical Labour.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Then Stephen the tax should not have been taken off them in the first place. Redistributing it wastes an extra 1-2% of the total, something Cullen was dismissing as negligible at the time WFF was introduced.
Vote:I think the attitude that you are “entitled” to this and that just because you pay some tax is very poor. I think it is a undesirable trait that has crept into NZ society, and socialism just encourages and feeds it further. I believe you should only accept welfare if you genuinely need it, many recipients obviously don’t.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:08 am
DPF, while this nonsense (WFF) is Labour’s legacy in NZ, it is exactly the same as the “Family Tax Benefit” BS that Howard and co implemented in AUS. In fact, in AUS one part of the “Family Tax Benefit” is specifically targetted at high income-earners; Part B gives the most money to those who earn $0, and since it is applied to personal income and not family income, it is received mostly by the stay-at-home wives of high income-earners (since they’re the only ones who can afford not to work).
I freely admit I am in this category (this is for you, stayathomemum) simply because I pay 40% tax on much of my earnings!!! 40%!!! That’s not including GST (which Howard blatantly lied over, and which I’ll rant abut in my next paragraph). It means I work Monday and Tuesday for the Federal Government, and only Wednesday, Thursday and Friday for myself. It also means that if I can get some back, I’m damn well going to take it!
As to the GST, I agree with DPF (in his post on Vernon Small’s column) that it’s OK to add a new tax, or increase an existing tax, provided there is a counter-balancing reduction somewhere in the system. I don’t necessarily object to a land tax, or (preferably) a Cap Gains Tax, as long as it is accompanied by a reduction in personal income taxes. In AUS when the GST was introduced, Howard did a deal with the States and Territories to reduce the other taxes and rorts (such as Stamp Duty – remember that one, Kiwis?). The GST went through and guess what, none of the counter-balancing reductions ever happened. Be watchful of any new impost.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am
Clarification for any Nats pollies reading this: Fix the tax system by making it fair. Reduce rates. Get rid of the middle class welfare of WFF. Most people I know (mostly of the middle classes) do not want welfare. In fact they want as little to do with their government as possible. Do everything you can to get out of their lives and out of their wallets. Take the minimum possible to ensure you can provide a safety net (note: not a mattress or a trampoline) for those who really, genuinely need it. Having done that, LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE to get on with the business of bing productive and making money.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am
National, gutless wonders. Nearly in power for a year but lacking the gonads to do the right thing and kill this monster. Everyday another family signs on to WFF everyday WFF strives to equal that other out of control money grab the DPB. If National fails to slay this beast the beast will slay us. Everyday this task grows harder and come next election welfare will have enslaved the people. Come on National you are no better then the stinking socialists you have replaced or do you as I fear want it this way. Will this be Nationals legacy to NZ, the government that could or the government that wouldn’t.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am
What a pity that Clark did not win the last election.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The real problem here is that we regard 150k a year as “rich”. By international standards (developed world) it is a pittance and little wonder more families on such incomes don’t need welfare given the tax, rates, power, phone and other outgoings required. Good on them if they can get a break from the government but lets concentrate on moving those families up to 200k a year..get more on 150k and stop fighting amongst ourselves using the politics of envy
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
stoliver – you are right. Most of my 20-something nephews in Australia are making $100-120K Aussie (sparkies, IT techs that sort of thing).
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
WFF is disgusting. Has turned many of the 33-38% bracket (say 48-$100,000.00) into a pack of needy, emasculated beggars. Most people would rather provide for things themselves, so dont take their money off them in the first place.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Socialist govts the world over regard any generated income as their first, to be requisitioned by statute, and then re-issued based in ‘need’. The primary ‘need’ of course is the continued dependency of the voting public on the faux-magnanimity of the state.
Read Augus’s post here about the Cloward-Piven strategy of creating benefits and beneficiaries that didn’t previously exist. WWF is part of that strategy family.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Bastards. But what about the bastards who are wealthy and clever enough to rort the system of student allowance for their kids so that they can get FREE money when its meant to be designed for people who genuinely have total household income <$65K
Of which I know plenty of people and I find that fucking disgusting aswell as these WFF rip offs.
Im still voting to keep WFF though, just change it so this cant happen
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Of course the 35 families figure will not include those channeling their income through Family Trusts or companies in order to qualify for the free lucre.
Vote:August 21st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Chris, why is WFF a thing worth keeping?
The govt takes ~$1.00 in tax and returns ~$0.25 in WFF ‘benefit’. (estimates)
This is great socialism, not great economics.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 2:49 am
I think your last sentence say it all DPf.
Vote:How we are going to change this I don’t know.
some of the middle class benefits earners I know essentially get their tax back.
I always understood that money that went through govt always lost some.
so this is so inefficient, why not just give a tax cut?