Working for Families and the workforce
July 19th, 2010 at 1:16 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Labour’s $1.5 billion Working for Families package has driven a net 1200 parents out of the paid workforce – achieving the opposite of its aim to “make work pay”.
An evaluation by Inland Revenue and Social Development Ministry researchers has found the $60 a week in-work tax credit lured 8100 sole parents into paid work.
And that is good. The Greens and some of the left have opposed the in-work tax credit, but I think it is a good thing that does encourage people to move from benefits into work. To give fair praise to Labour they even defended a human rights law suit against it.
But 9300 second-earners in two-parent families dropped out of work because higher tax credits let them stay home with the children.
This one is more difficult. It is good for the economy to have both parents working and earning, but it can be better for the family to have one parent not working. There is no universal right or wrong position – each family has to make up their own minds. What is most important is that at least one parent is working.
But Labour social development shadow minister Annette King said yesterday the contrasting results were “two good outcomes”.
“It enabled people [sole parents] on the benefit to go out and earn more and to reconnect with the workforce because it was worth their while,” she said. “And if people [in couples] who were doing part-time work are now able to stay home with their families, that’s a win too, because we have two groups that have different needs.”
Annette has a point here. But the money to pay WFF comes from those who are out working, and if you reduce the pool of those working, then a smaller number of workers are funding a larger number of non workers.
The most efficient tax and welfare system is one with the least churn. Taxing people more than you need, just so you can give some of it back to them as welfare is quite wasteful.
Ideally I want a system where people pay little or no tax until they are earning enough to pay for their own direct costs of living. But once they are earning enough to pay for themselves, they should receive little welfare – I don’t want people earning $100,000 receiving taxpayer handouts from those earning just $45,000.
July 19th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Those who have children are subsidizing those who don’t. The cost of raising children far exceeds any state subsidies for doing so. People who don’t breed are getting a free ride from those who do when the retire.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
let me keep some more of my income (reduce the fking tax rate) instead of churning it through multiple layers of government “efficiency” and handing it back as WFF.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Working for families is very bad policy for several reasons.
- It is highly inefficient as a distributive mechanism.
- It is structurally embedded, so it hard to adjust when times get tough.
- It promotes the idea that welfare/tax credits can compensate for low wages and high taxes.
- It is capricious and unfair, in that it gave some people tax reductions of 100%, and others nothing!
We only have to look at the entitlements and debt crisis in Greece to see the end game. Working for families is straight from la-la land; it’s tax policy that is worthy of a Teletubby.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
So if you have fourteen kids and half end up in jail and the rest on various benefits you are subsidising the greedy retired couple who worked all their lives and paid shit loads of tax for 50 years?
Whacko!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Given that the unemployment rate has been increasing, you could also argue that the number of people employed has not changed as a result of WFF – i.e. it has NOT reduced the pool of those working.
We are not in a scarce labour market, so those parents who stopped worked may well have given an opportunity for work to someone who was unemployed.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
“People who don’t breed are getting a free ride from those who do when the retire.”
Just because you fluked it once you puke, it doesn’t mean you’re doing your bit. It takes more than one child per couple to keep a race alive. Not that your genes would ever bring any benefit. If you’d have had ten kids we’d all be ten times worse off.
“The most efficient tax and welfare system is one with the least churn.”
“Churn” is a euphemism for politicians and bureaucrats taking a producer’s money, deducting a cut to support themselves, and then giving what remains to losers who vote for them and depend on them like belly crawling dogs. The most efficient tax and welfare system is one that doesn’t exist.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Is there anyone in this country not getting govt handout of some sort… Shit know wonder the governments broke.
We all live on govt benefits, govt tax cuts, and other govt handouts…. paid for through govt borrowing.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
“Is there anyone in this country not getting govt handout of some sort… ”
There’s the reason for National’s continuing popularity. If they’re not on public welfare they’re on corporate welfare.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
american gardener – gotta ask.. are you on fucking drugs?????
Dime is getting anything but a free ride!!!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
rkbee – did you just suggest a tax cut is a govt handout?? seriously??
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“Dime is getting anything but a free ride!!!”
Still using the hookers then Dime?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
bruv – always. working my way through the chicks on nzgirls
alphabetically
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Yes dime… I should have said tax avoidance… got caught up in the moment.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Phil Goff points to job creation in Aussie and oposses mining here,the Greens say leave the oil where it is etc etc etc…..yeah lets let our children grow up to be waiters and bar maids on low wages and serving wealthy, visiting foreigners,while the govt borrows to keep us living at a standard we can neither afford or deserve.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I would keep that crystal ball kowtow…. it sounds about right.
JK has no doubt the wealthy will be the Chinese..
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
American Gardener
Whatever it is you are growing in your garden, get rid of it quick before the coppers come ’round; or even worse, the mad magpie.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
First a message to the whingers about those who have children vs those who dont.
the Western world is about to find out what happens when a successive generation fails to reproduce . In Italy the birthrate is down to 1.4 You need 2.1 to allow for deaths until working age.
Second. And dont blabble on about asking me to produce the reports. Most women prefer to be able to raise their children especially pre school full time at home and not have to go out to work.
Third. And try and resist the usual craploa when you are wrong. Kids raised in a family where Dad goes to work and Mum stays at home are far less likely to have problems either when young or older.
If we had a government that really cared instead of having a fixation on alternatives to the traditional family unit and fixated about wrecking the traditional family unit we would have a pay and tax system that allowed Mum to stay at home with the kids and Dad to work and all have a good standard of living
But we dont and then the pillocks who support the status quo wonder why we have so many social problems
Are you eyes and ears painted on dipsticks
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
the Western world is about to find out what happens when a successive generation fails to reproduce .
And the whole world is about to find out what happens when successive generation have reproduced to much.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
… ahh, now I understand. Procreating isn’t a lifestyle choice; its really a selfless service to society. That’s why its subsidised by all those naughty people who aren’t out rooting up large for the common good.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Don’t worry. Aren’t we all going to die prematurely from obesity, diabetes, booze and nicotine, not to mention road accidents? The longer we keep taking from the low paid to reward the other low paid and, worse, higher paid, the longer we shall stay in this ridiculously depressed economy. I believe a low flat rate for everyone would reward effort, motivate greater effort and cut down on the madness of the enormous bureaucracy.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
RKBee Think who will pay the taxes to provide the superannuation and medicare for the retired. When there is 1 on welfare for every 2 paying taxes as is the prediction for 2050 there will be a small problem for the retired if the taxpayers tell the government to Foxtrot Oscar for demanding more tax.
The welfare class in NZ and other Western countries are going to get a big wakeup call.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
The chameleon-like, flip flop king and consumate liar John Key speaking on WFF:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3571934
“National’s deputy finance spokesman, John Key, said the result of the Budget’s Working for Families package was “communism by stealth” and the impact was much larger than he had expected.
Mr Key predicted the new system would have “huge behavioural outcomes” and he was concerned that employers would find workers refusing to do overtime or weekend work.
The effect of the Budget had been to push the disincentive far into middle New Zealand, he said.
“They’ve got the vast majority of people now trapped in a one-size-fits-all. We all pay one rate – it’s communism by stealth.
“It didn’t work very well for Eastern Europe and it won’t work very well for New Zealand.”
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
… of course, I hadn’t realised that it was also kind of like the national super plan. But if that’s the case, why did liabour invest in the super fund – why not just pay everyone to get rooting?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
“But the money to pay WFF comes from those who are out working, and if you reduce the pool of those working, then a smaller number of workers are funding a larger number of non workers”
Raising children *is* work. This simply serves to illustrate that not all work which contributes to society can be captured in the financial economy without government intervention. Obviously, we live in an overpopulated world, and we don’t want to go too overboard in encouraging people to have children – but we don’t also want to disparage people from raising a small number of children well.
That said, I don’t agree with paying individuals who work full time a government subsidy – instead, the minimum wage should be raised so that working full time on minimum wage guarantees you are paid more than the unemployment benefit. I do agree with paying people who work less than full time and raise kids.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Is this not a simple issue?
Scum are breeding because the government pays them to do so, sadly,as it has been shown, scum who breed normally turn out the next generation of scum.
Those who believe in personal responsibility do not have more kids than they can afford.
Before we have the debate about WFF (which should be abolished) we need to do end the DPB immediately, or, at the very least, tighten it up considerably.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
lastmanstanding..RKBee Think who will pay the taxes to provide the superannuation and medicare for the retired.
JK hopes Chinese and Indian kids…
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
The sad and compounding fact is that National is continuing the Labour policy of denying the oncoming generation the right to work experience and employment by insisting they be paid as much as an experienced worker.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
RKbee – obsessed with China much?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
The most efficient tax and welfare system is one with the least churn.
** Coughindependentearnersrebatecough **
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
– why not just pay everyone to get rooting?
They do.. thats Tariana Turia and the Maori Party’s policy..
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
26 comments in and I’m dizzy: scum breeding scum, people rooting up large; others pumping out kids to subsidise god knows what; welfare class getting a wake up call; blood running in the streets; 1.4 to 2.1 and painted italian dipsticks; and now chinese and indian kids in on it too.
cheaper than drugs I guess.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Dime… I believe in the future… thats our future.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
A1kmm
“Raising children *is* work. This simply serves to illustrate that not all work which contributes to society can be captured in the financial economy without government intervention. ”
You’ve been around at Amercan Gardener’s haven’t you. Did you leave any for the stupid magpie?
Here’s a deal. I pay to have my kids and you pay to have yours. I don’t want to pay for you to have kids and I can’t imagine why a single kid starting out would want to pay for them either.
These farcical attempts to justify a taxpayer subsidy for breeding as being born of some greater social good and noble sacrifice are just that. Just accept that you wanted to have kids for your own selfish reasons, as all parents do, and which, incidentally, is perfectly natural and normal, and then acknowledge that you got a taxpayer hand-out for doing so. But don’t bullshit by way of self-justification because you took the money.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Here’s a deal. I pay to have my kids and you pay to have yours. I don’t want to pay for you to have kids and I can’t imagine why a single kid starting out would want to pay for them either…
Hell… do you realize how much the govt would save.. if they just let people be personally responsible for their own actions… I don’t.. but I bet the govt wouldn’t need to be borrowing as much as $240.000.000 a week…
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Kids are a joy, and any stingy arsehole who thinks they gummint should pay them something for what is already an unbelievable gift from God clearly doesn’t appreciate their kids enough.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
We will see what the Government comes up with when the credit markets freeze and little Bill can not steal any more money from Asians. I know Bill often looks off colour, but a pale deathly grey may appear very soon.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
RKBee I paid twice for my 2 children to go to school Once thru taxes and again to send them to a school where they would get a decent education to become worth while members of society which they both have.
Aside from that I welcome Indian and Chinese young people. Both groups work hard dont bludge on welfare and pay their taxes. I regard them as a great asset to our society rather than (cough) certain other ethnic groups whose sense of entitlement is only matched by their lack of contribution.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
New Zealand’s fertility rate is below replacement at 1.96. Which means Redbaiter & his buddies have a choice: pay parents to reproduce or let in more migrants from countries that have much higher birth rates. Given that these countries are in North Africa and Muslim I can’t see the mouth frothing right wing bigots wanting that.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
N Ranking Country Fertility rate
Vote:(2000-2005)
(births/woman) Fertility rate
(2005-2010)
(births/woman)
1 Niger 7.45 7.19
2 Guinea-Bissau 7.10 7.07
3 Afghanistan 7.48 7.07
4 Burundi 6.80 6.80
5 Liberia 6.80 6.77
6 Democratic Republic of the Congo 6.70 6.70
7 East Timor 6.96 6.53
8 Mali 6.70 6.52
9 Sierra Leone 6.50 6.47
10 Uganda 6.75 6.46
11 Angola 6.75 6.43
12 Chad 6.54 6.20
13 Somalia 6.43 6.04
14 Burkina Faso 6.36 6.00
15 Rwanda 6.01 5.92
16 Malawi 6.03 5.59
17 Yemen 6.02 5.50
18 Guinea 5.84 5.44
19 Benin 5.87 5.42
20 Equatorial Guinea 5.64 5.36
21 Nigeria 5.85 5.32
22 Ethiopia 5.78 5.29
23 Zambia 5.65 5.18
24 Tanzania 5.66 5.16
25 Mozambique 5.52 5.11
26 Palestinian territories 5.63 5.09
27 Eritrea 5.53 5.05
28 Kenya 5.00 4.96
29 Togo 5.37 4.80
30 Madagascar 5.28 4.78
31 Gambia 5.16 4.70
32 Senegal 5.22 4.69
33 Central African Republic 4.96 4.58
34 Republic of the Congo 4.78 4.49
35 Côte d’Ivoire 5.06 4.46
36 Mauritania 4.83 4.37
37 Cameroon 4.92 4.31
38 Comoros 4.89 4.30
39 Iraq 4.86 4.26
40 Sudan 4.82 4.23
41 Guatemala 4.60 4.15
42 Djibouti 4.52 3.95
43 Samoa 4.42 3.93
44 Solomon Islands 4.36 3.87
45 Sao Tome and Principe 4.34 3.85
46 Ghana 4.39 3.84
47 Tonga 3.73 3.83
48 Papua New Guinea 4.32 3.78
49 Vanuatu 4.15 3.74
50 Federated States of Micronesia 4.23 3.71
51 Haiti 4.00 3.54
52 Pakistan 3.99 3.52
53 Bolivia 3.96 3.50
54 Swaziland 3.91 3.45
55 Lesotho 3.79 3.37
56 Cape Verde 3.77 3.37
57 Saudi Arabia 3.81 3.35
58 Tajikistan 3.81 3.35
59 Honduras 3.72 3.31
60 Nepal 3.68 3.28
61 French Guiana (France) 3.67 3.27
62 Philippines 3.54 3.23
63 Laos 3.59 3.21
64 Namibia 3.58 3.19
65 Zimbabwe 3.56 3.19
66 Cambodia 3.64 3.18
67 Jordan 3.53 3.13
68 Paraguay 3.48 3.08
69 Syria 3.48 3.08
70 Gabon 3.39 3.06
71 Oman 3.70 3.00
72 Belize 3.35 2.93
73 Botswana 3.18 2.90
74 Egypt 3.17 2.89
75 Bangladesh 3.22 2.83
76 Dominican Republic 2.95 2.81
77 India 3.11 2.81
78 Nicaragua 3.00 2.76
79 Fiji 2.98 2.75
80 Israel 2.91 2.75
81 Libya 3.03 2.72
82 Western Sahara 3.01 2.70
83 El Salvador 2.88 2.68
84 Qatar 2.93 2.66
85 South Africa 2.80 2.64
86 Maldives 2.81 2.63
87 Malaysia 2.87 2.60
88 Ecuador 2.82 2.58
89 Panama 2.70 2.56
World 2.65 2.55
90 Venezuela 2.72 2.55
91 Guam (US) 2.74 2.54
92 Peru 2.70 2.51
93 Turkmenistan 2.76 2.50
94 Uzbekistan 2.74 2.49
95 Kyrgyzstan 2.50 2.48
96 Jamaica 2.63 2.43
97 Suriname 2.60 2.42
98 Algeria 2.53 2.38
99 Morocco 2.52 2.38
100 Réunion (France) 2.46 2.36
101 Guyana 2.43 2.33
102 Kazakhstan 2.01 2.31
103 United Arab Emirates 2.52 2.31
104 Grenada 2.43 2.30
105 Brunei 2.50 2.29
106 Bahrain 2.51 2.29
107 French Polynesia (France) 2.39 2.26
108 Argentina 2.35 2.25
109 Colombia 2.47 2.22
110 Mexico 2.40 2.21
111 Lebanon 2.32 2.21
112 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.30 2.19
113 Bhutan 2.91 2.19
114 Kuwait 2.30 2.18
115 Saint Lucia 2.24 2.18
116 Indonesia 2.38 2.18
117 United States Virgin Islands (US) 2.23 2.15
118 Turkey 2.23 2.14
119 Vietnam 2.32 2.14
120 Uruguay 2.20 2.12
121 Guadeloupe (France) 2.06 2.11
122 Costa Rica 2.28 2.10
123 New Caledonia (France) 2.23 2.08
124 Myanmar 2.25 2.07
125 Albania 2.25 2.06
126 United States 2.04 2.05
127 Iceland 1.99 2.05
128 Aruba (Netherlands) 2.12 2.04
129 Iran 2.12 2.04
130 Bahamas 2.11 2.02
131 New Zealand 1.96 1.99
132 Ireland 1.97 1.96
133 Chile 2.00 1.94
134 Tunisia 2.04 1.93
135 Martinique (France) 1.98 1.91
136 Brazil 2.25 1.90
137 France 1.88 1.89
138 Sri Lanka 2.02 1.88
139 Mongolia 2.07 1.87
140 Mauritius 1.91 1.86
141 Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands) 2.06 1.85
142 North Korea 1.92 1.85
143 Thailand 1.83 1.85
144 Norway 1.80 1.85
145 Montenegro 1.83 1.83
146 Puerto Rico (US) 1.84 1.83
147 Finland 1.75 1.83
148 United Kingdom 1.70 1.82
149 Azerbaijan 1.67 1.82
150 Denmark 1.76 1.80
151 Sweden 1.67 1.80
152 Serbia 1.75 1.79
153 Australia 1.76 1.79
154 People’s Republic of China (mainland only) 1.70 1.73
155 Netherlands 1.73 1.72
156 Luxembourg 1.67 1.66
157 Belgium 1.64 1.65
158 Trinidad and Tobago 1.61 1.64
159 Cyprus 1.63 1.61
160 Canada 1.52 1.53
161 Barbados 1.50 1.50
162 Cuba 1.63 1.49
163 Estonia 1.39 1.49
164 Portugal 1.45 1.46
165 Macedonia 1.56 1.43
166 Switzerland 1.42 1.42
167 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) (UK) 1.41 1.42
168 Austria 1.38 1.42
169 Spain 1.29 1.41
170 Georgia 1.48 1.41
171 Moldova 1.50 1.40
172 Armenia 1.35 1.39
173 Italy 1.29 1.38
174 Malta 1.46 1.37
175 Germany 1.35 1.36
176 Croatia 1.35 1.35
177 Russia 1.30 1.34
178 Greece 1.28 1.33
179 Bulgaria 1.26 1.31
180 Romania 1.29 1.30
181 Latvia 1.25 1.29
182 Hungary 1.30 1.28
183 Slovenia 1.23 1.28
184 Japan 1.29 1.27
185 Lithuania 1.28 1.26
186 Singapore 1.35 1.26
187 Slovakia 1.22 1.25
188 Czech Republic 1.18 1.24
189 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.28 1.23
190 Poland 1.25 1.23
191 Ukraine 1.15 1.22
192 South Korea 1.24 1.21
193 Belarus 1.24 1.20
194 Hong Kong (PRC) 0.94 0.97
195 Macau (PRC) 0.84 0.91
July 19th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Subsidising raising kids from 0 – 18 is done for the same reason we subsidise tertiary education. Everyone benefits from a well educated population and everyone benefits from healthy kids who become healthy adults.
Given your mum would have received a family benefit to raise you Redbaiter you are being hypocritical. Of course maybe the outcome proves the contrary.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
/facepalm
If there was a Kiwiblog Dumb Comment of the Year Award, that would be on the shortlist.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Crap. We subsidise them because people with votes have children that they can’t afford to support.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“If there was a Kiwiblog Dumb Comment of the Year Award, that would be on the shortlist.” Why ?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
“If there was a Kiwiblog Dumb Comment of the Year Award, that would be on the shortlist.” Why do you say that ? What is your reasoning ?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I’m certain American Gardener is a troll. His method seems to be to pick the stupidest possible position 180 degrees from the truth on any subject and attempt to defend it by the weakest possible argument ( usually some form of airheaded pop psychology ).
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
What is a childless couple, working hard and paying tax, entitled to in the way of state support?
Unemployment benefit? Perhaps, but only possible if one partner is on a very low income.
What is a couple with two children on say $50K going to be receiving in the way of state support? Well….
Subsidised/free early childhood care
Free schooling for 13 years from the age of 5 to the age of 18
Working for Families (at $50k the payment is $155 per week, and the family’s PAYE is only $202, leaving their net weekly tax contribution as $47)
Community services card depending on income
Accomodation supplements depending on income
Free doctors visits until the age of 5
DPB if the parents separate
Interest free loans for their children
Heavily subsidised tertiary education for their children
So you still think that the first couple is subsidising the second couple?
Yes, I stand by my statement that your comment was the dumbest I have read on this blog all year.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I agree put it away.
Truly New Zealand’s first successful brain donor.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
So girls , what happens if we don’t reproduce as a species ? (Hint: somewhat of a decline in taxpaying workers & consumers)
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Why don’t you ask someone from the top one hundred or so countries on your list that have absurdly high birth rates despite basically non-existent government handouts ? People in this country or any country who want kids will still have kids whether there’s money in it or not. Might mean they buy a second hand car instead of a new one and they might have to cancel the Sky TV subscription, but if they love kids, these types of sacrifices are worth making. And if they don’t believe children are worth making sacrifices for, they are exactly the wrong sort of people to have them.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Duh!!! The reason their birth rates are so high is because of poor education for women and availability of contraception. When women get educated they they stop getting pregnant. The same reason our average age for first life birth is getting older and is now over 30.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
American Gardener said:
Well AG, all those useless fucks, like yourself, that didn’t save throughout their productive years, will have to sit freezing their asses off in some squalid resthome, because they cannot afford the trappings of a comfortable lifestyle. A comfortable lifestyle that would have continued on until their deathbed, had they saved and not LIVED BEYOND THEIR MEANS!
Having children that you cannot afford, and expecting the state to subsidise you to have those children, is living beyond your means.
How much state assistance do you receive each week Spondre?
Why should I, someone who works hard, saves and invests money, have money forcibly removed from me to pay for the kids you have that you cannot afford?
Why can I not use that same money to invest in the future of my children, in a way I see fit for them, as opposed to you using my money to drag up kids in a way I fundamentally disagree with, ala, 99% of dole bludgers in this country?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Slow down there cowboy – you are making some interesting assumptions.
So this morning that you are investing. Exactly how much return would you get on your investments if there wasn’t people to either buy products , use services or rent property ? We need to keep on turning over those new little humans or we don’t have an economy.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Dead right, we need humans to sustain an economy, but that economy can be significantly enhanced by removing the state from it, thereby allowing people to spend their own money as they see fit.
Oh, and my investments are manged by myself, so have the flexibility to adapt to where the money is. Whatever new ideal the left is pushing, I make money on, scalping the likes of you Spondre as I go.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
If you are so well off why are you such a grumpy fucker ? Relax.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
American Gardener,
I think those birth rates should be taken with a HUGE pinch of salt in the form of infant mortality rates.If you think that every single Afghani woman is reproducing 7 more healthy, long-lived Afghanis then you’re f’ing myopic.
The people in those countries are simply playing the odds. Sooner or later, one or more of their offspring will survive, and in turn, look after their ailing parents who bore them into the harsh cruel world. Lucky them.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
American Gardener
FFS, when woman get educated they stop breeding, so lets give them education and welfare so they keep breeding but breed smarter children… Wow who the F is going to pay for that generation of high sense of entitlement educated little snots who think a woman’s job is to stay at home being a mum but wonder why they are so fabulously educated by the state to breed more beneficiaries for what ?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
American Gardener
Can you guess I think WFF is social engineering and intolerable. How can you justify selectively paying welfare to someone earning twice the rich prick level in the tax system?
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 1:17 am
Burt asks how you can justify paying welfare to someone earning a good salary.
The reason I’ve heard is that it is highly inefficient to pay for the bureaucracy needed to means test people and accurately target the welfare to the people who really need it. It’s cheaper to just pay welfare to everyone, but then charge more tax to the high earners. I understand this was the argument for the universal child benefit in the 1970s. But then if you tax and give back you get “tax churn”.
Isn’t this is a factual question? Assuming you don’t want poor kids to starve, which approach is more efficient? How much money is wasted through tax churn as opposed to costly means testing? I haven’t seen the evidence so I don’t know the answer.
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Actually I suspect WFF might incorporate the worst of both worlds in this respect. Doesn’t it have expensive means testing and targetting, BUT also still give some money to the well off? It seems to me we should go for one approach or the other. But I’m no expert.
Still, I’d be interested in seeing some evidence from some of you who confidently pronounce that tax churn is such a massive problem. Is it a bigger problem than an expensive means testing bureaucracy? Can you back up your position with facts (as opposed to ideology or un-supported statements)?
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 5:50 am
A more critical perspective: http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2010/07/national-scrap-wff-or-endorse-annette.html
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 6:41 am
I don’t think we will see National’s real intentions with WFF until their next election manifesto or until their next term. They came into this term with a major commitment of don’t-scare-the-horses. They knew they had to drop income tax a bit at least, and were severely constrained by the recession.
Scrapping WFF altogether is not going to be easy, most families now rely on the income levels it helps provide, and especially in tight economic times a quick cut of it would inflict severe hardship on many. I don’t see any option but to ease it off, or do it in bigger steps when they can afford to provide compensatory tax cuts (they will affect more than just families so cannot be completely balanced).
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Pete George
About 5 years ago we didn’t have WFF, now we can’t live without it…. So it is confirmed, Labour policies are about welfar dependency… vote buying welfare dependency that destroys the economy.
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Working for Families……hmmmm…….remind me, is this the policy Key described as “Communism by Stealth” and then adopted to get himself elected?
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Maggie
I thinik he said he wouldn’t remove it in the first term. Now that you have bagged him for keeping it I assume you will support him removing it ?
Vote: