Working for Families
The Government has said they will look at some changes to working for families, as one way to help free up some money for the earthquake recovery. The possible changes are to remove eligibility for higher income families to it.
At present, familes (in work) receive WFF up to the following income bands:
- 1 child – $75,317
- 2 children – $91,227
- 3 children – $107,137
- 4 children – $126,947
- 5 children – $146,757
- 6 children – $166,567
Now I have long advocated that a family earning $107k a year (let alone $127k a year) should not be receiving welfare. Welfare should be for those who truly need it.
It is also economically very inefficient to tax people, and then give them some of it back as welfare. One should minimise what they call churn.
Also on a personal level, I have no qualms about paying taxes to help a family on say $40,000 with two kids. Bit I do have qualms about paying taxes to be handed over to a family earning $125,000 a year, just because they have decided to have lots of kids.
Now National said they would not alter WFF during this term, and I believe they should honour that. The earthquake recovery will not just be taking place in the next six months. It is good that National will possibly (all they have said is they are not ruling it out) look at changes to WFF, but they should make them an election policy, and implement after the election if re-elected – as they are doing with partial asset sales. It is vital to get a mandate for this. Yes the earthquake is a game changer, and you can use it to justify a pre-election change. And if the election was two years ago, I’d argue you might not be able to wait. but the election is only six months away.
You might even announce changes in the budget to take effect on 1 April 2012, but hold off making any change until after the election, so said mandate is gained.
Now if the intent is to not have WFF, for more wealthy families, how would one do it? There are three ways.
- Reduce the base level of WFF for everyone. This means that it will abate out at a lower level. The problem is that all WFF recepients end up with less money, so it is not well targeted.
- Reduce the level at which WFF starts to abate. The family tax credit starts to abate at around $37,000 and the in work tax credit at around $59,000 (for a one child family). reducing the abatement level for the family tax credit would catch too many people on relatively modest incomes of $45,000 etc. You could arguable reduce the level at which the IWTC abates, but again this may not be that well targeted.
- The third option is to increase the rate of abatement above a certain level. The downside is that it increases the effective marginal tax rate for that family. The abatement rate is currently 20% and if paying a tax rate of 33%, means an EMTR of 53%. If they also have an accom allowance (unlikely) that abates at 25% then the EMTR is 78%.
What I would consider is increasing the abatement rate from 20% to 25% just for those earning over $70,000 a year. You see National dropped the top tax rate from 39% to 33% (something Labour vows to reverse)for those earning over $70k year so the EMTR would still be slightly lower than it was under the last Government if they are a sole income family.
Now one could say is there any point in reducing the top tax rate by 6% and increasing the WFF abatement rate by 5%. Well yes there is. It is better to have a lower tax rate and not pay a relatively wealthy family welfare, then have higher tax rates and higher welfare payments. Tax churn is inefficent and wasteful.
So what would an extra 5% abatement do for WFF maximum incomes? They would be:
- 1 child – $75,317 to $74K
- 2 children – $91,227 to $87K
- 3 children – $107,137 to $99K
- 4 children – $126,947 to $115K
- 5 children – $146,757 to $131K
- 6 children – $166,567 to $147K
It would be a small modest step in the right direction of saying wealthier families should not recieve welfare. And it would leave Labour in the ludicrous position of having to argue that a family on $120,000 should not receive a tax cut but should receive welfare.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Ohforfuckssake
New Zealand cannot afford Welfare for Fuckwits. And anybody who claims it is affordable has no place being anywhere near the country’s books.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
David,
I also don’t have too many qualms with reducing income support for those higher earning families. The clear issue though, is not to interfere with the incentive to work that low abatement rates ensure. Your argument (and, I presume judging from his comments, what the Prime Minister has hinted) that changing the abatement rate at higher incomes (ie a two part rate) to cancel out the impact of recent tax cuts, can therefore be seen as pragmatic and shouldn’t interfere with the incentive to work much.
Problem is (and I don’t have the figures of income distributions of those receiving WFFs), I don’t think that this will have a big impact, since I doubt that there are a heck of a lot of those on high incomes receiving a large amount of income support. So the impact may not be large. I don’t have a problem with such a change, but it will hardly `pay the cost of the quake’. :-/
The alternative is to increase the abatement rate for lower income earners as well. Much bigger fiscal impact, but a bit harder to defend.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
everything has changed Farrar.
Your city in the South Island has died a terrible death,
but you write ongoing NAT,
please come down her farrar and see for your self,
be brave farrar get real now
[DPF: 20 demerits off topic]
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Are we already at step 5 of the ‘rough order of priority’ after the earthquake’? Otherwise it is ‘ghastly opportunism’.
Actually I agree with the government reducing the WFF levels especially for those on higher incomes, however I do think the pain of paying for the earthquake rebuild should be spread around a bit.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I think it is very reasonable that a couple earning say $35,000 with a kid, gets some assistance, compared to a couple with no kids.
However once families start to earn a reasonable income (say the median family income) then they should be largely self sufficient.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I tend to think the same David, but even under shadow of the earthquake, a lot of middle income voters would feel that.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:49 pm
David,
What would a 5% abatement rate increase achieve in terms of money saved?
[DPF: I doubt it would be a great amount. For me almost as important is the principle - welfare should be for low to middle income families not for wealthy families]
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Forget to mention that I agree completely, that it should be announced as a policy if re-elected only.
It will be very interesting (and telling!) to see what is actually announced!
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I will ask John Key, not Bill English who is incapable of selling food to a starving person, to explain why WFF is unaffordable in the current circumstances. There is no place for “socialism by stealth” or middle-class welfare in this economic climate.
It is a matter of explaining and making the case well to the voters, the affected people, who will judge and see the merits of it. Treat the people as adults, not intellectually defective. Otherwise, to continue bribing them at the expense of the rest of the population is unwise and unethical. Not that that has even deterred any lying politician.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:53 pm
The original intent was sort of based in common sense – as I recall, it was Peter Dunne’s idea that families who work hard and produce healthy and educated children offer much more to the country than others. Therefore they should get some sort of tax relief.
Along the way this idea got corrupted through the tax and spend ideologies of Labour. Hence the ridiculous level of churn.
Income splitting is the only fair, and far less beaurocratic way of achieving the original idea. This would allow a couple earning $35,000 with one kid to pay an absolute minimal amount of tax.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Come on David. You want to give assistance to people on $35,000 who have a child (or children)? On what fucking planet do these people live where they think $35,000 is enough to raise a family?
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:56 pm
No Jimmy, Income splitting is a way for that couple to minimise the amount they contribute to society so everyone else has to pick up their slack. Fuck that, I think WFF is a much fairer system on everyone else. Income splitting is complete and utter bullshit.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Or alternatively, scrap the whole silly idea and introduce a tax free first $10k. Or something like that that gets rid of this money go round. It’s always seemed more like corporate welfare to me. With that gone, we can consider being a high wage economy. When punters aren’t hooked on WFF, they might start demanding more from their employers again.
[DPF: My preference would be to have tax free zones in exchange for WFF]
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Remove WFF completely. Rather than spending $2.5b on it, have a tax free income up to $x, and save the rest (including the money saved by eliminating churn).
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Missed my edit window but meant to add:
“When punters aren’t hooked on WFF, they might start demanding more from their employers again or even better, create or invest (time and money) into something new.”
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I was a tradesman printer before my work went to asia(redundant) to the arseholes who abuse me ALLWAYS look over your shoulder, shit could be rushing toward you , and i hope shit hits you tossers who abuse us dont top yourselfs
(Come on David. You want to give assistance to people on $35,000 who have a child (or children)? On what fucking planet do these people live where they think $35,000 is enough to raise a family?)
what world does this idiot live in, I would LOVE to earn $35000 again, and Mr Farrar worries about caps or ragheads shit,David you no idea WHAT LIFE IS LIKE in NZ these days (no gay or straight caps or neutrons were abused in this postD
[DPF: 20 demerits. Again less shouting and try posting more than just a rant]
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Good post David, and the government is definately right to look at WFF for the rich.
I agree with the idea of a higher abatement rate of 25% for income above 70k per year, even though I do not like the increase in marginal tax rates implied.The other issue is WFF is very very complex and multiple level abatement rates would add to the schemes complexity.
How about lowering the level the IWTC starts to abate to the same level of the family tax credit. This might not be too well targeted. However the lack of targetting can be amended by say reducing the bottom tax rate from 10.5% to say 9% (and maybe the 17.5% rate to 17% if affordable). Will be interesting to see a table with these changes proposed.
Definately agree that the focus should be on a tax free zone and reducing the bottom tax rates (in particular the 10.5% rate on income below 14 000) and reducing spending on WFF. However such measures can not discriminate between childless couples and those with children, plus any tax cut gives money to rich as well as poor, making targeting slightly problematic
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
How about cutting off higher limits for everything for more than two kids. If you have to have kids then two is sufficient to be receiving subsidies for, beyond that if you want to have them why should I be paying for them?
Should raise substantial amounts of revenue and would even more imprtantly remove a large number of people from welfare so that in the future a rational debate could be had without so much self interest.
1 child – $75,317
2 or more children – $91,227
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:28 pm
paws (169) Says:
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I was a tradesman printer before my work went to asia(redundant) to the arseholes who abuse me ALLWAYS look over your shoulder, shit could be rushing toward you , and i hope shit hits you tossers who abuse us dont top yourselfs
(Come on David. You want to give assistance to people on $35,000 who have a child (or children)? On what fucking planet do these people live where they think $35,000 is enough to raise a family?)
what world does this idiot live in, I would LOVE to earn $35000 again, and Mr Farrar worries about caps or ragheads shit,David you no idea WHAT LIFE IS LIKE in NZ these days (no gay or straight caps or neutrons were abused in this postD
[DPF: 20 demerits. Again less shouting and try posting more than just a rant] What rant ,opps the truth in the real world
David Farrar the face of the national party and kiwiblog.David were you one of those short fat boys bullied at school, dont get your revenge, on your blog ??most people would ask the question,
SHOUTING 7 words this includes NZ Caution folks David is having flashbacks to school bullies
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:30 pm
What has the taxpayer got to do with decisions about the numbers of kids one has? Decisions about family size should be independent of the taxpayer. Reduce tax for all, reduce welfare and encourage self-reliance. After some pain, a much more healthy society would result. And don’t get me started on the DPB, which results in some people seeing kids as bank accounts. At the most, allow DPB for one kid only (starting in 9 months time). Apologies for off topic, but same theme.
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Ditch WFF completely, and lower all current tax threshholds / %’s so noone is any worse off… getting rid of all the administration of WFF will probably save more than tinkering around the edges as they are planning currently.
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Wow david i remember family support i think it was $5 a week and under national my mortgage was 20% +(we were screwed by your beloved national party) your good mates david they really looked after us , my son works in London now hes in his 30s and will never come home and my daughter and her husband lives in Wgtn, and they are going to Australia,
and you demerit me , sad little man
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:10 pm
The elephant in the room remains interest-free student loans and sadly Key ruled that out this morning, which has always been a mistake in his govt.
WFF needs trimming along the suggested lines and I like the idea of scrapping it in favour of tax-free zones, but the big money-saver is transferring the capital cost of what – say $100 billion – into the appropriate hands. As Cactus says, why should the precise group of parents who can best afford it escape subsidising their own children’s varsity education, at the expense of all the rest of us?
People now I believe are really going to understand big changes need to happen, the political dynamics have been completely changed by this calamity. Therefore if Key is going to make a big play now is the time to do it. Not tomorrow I mean, but in this election, to put everything on the table – all the sacred cows, and let the chips fall where they may. He won’t do it though, I’ll bet.
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Why not scrap the whole working for families welfare. Put 30% of the savings into tax cuts (low/medium) , 20% into increasing family support payments (per kid for low income families) and use 50% for earthquake relief.
Oh and sack the extra staff IRD had to take on to administer the WFF welfare.
That way everyone wins more or less.
If anyone is unhappy about this there is a solution if they want more $$$. Up skill themselves, and apply for and get a higher paying job. Not hard – all that happens when the tax player doles out free $$$ is people lose the incentive to get ahead.
(Amazing how hunger is a great motivator)
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Quite right Reid. Interest-free student loans is a ridiculous policy put forward by Liarbore as pretty-much the only way to get otherwise clever, productive people to vote for them. And now the Key government, in yet another act of outright cowardice, is refusing to remove them.
paws, I’ve been through 2 major career changes brought on by redundancy. Completely different career directions. Sounds harsh, but you need to adapt or die. Blaming the government for sending “your” job overseas is a cop-out. Your former employer likely decided to take the risks of lower quality against the benefits of lower cost. In what way is that the government’s fault?
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:46 pm
David relax you are only a heartbeat away from death always , enjoy this track and relax, you seem stressed give me demerits it helps you unwind?????????????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFUEgFdP5zE
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:49 pm
None the less David he(paws), raises a serious issue that he is right about. We i.e. various powers that be and their mothers little helpers are wed to the idea that it is more efficient to produce stuff in Asian countries than it is to employ people in NZ to produce the same products. i.e. it maybe for the producers but they are the same people who SHOUT and RANT about lowering taxes after exporting the jobs that have made them the money to be in business in the first place, without a second thought about how all those displaced persons are going to buy the product. Apparently its someone else’s responsibility to pay wages so they can have wealthy customers. Is it? it seems so.
I always thought that the epitome of stupidity was when supermarkets were screwing the crap out of the wages they were paying their staff and then expecting the staff to buy their groceries at inflated prices. They continue with that stupid behavoir by importing everything at a cost to all the NZ manufacturers who paid the wages for the people who spent money in their stores., the same ones that are now on benefits whilst supermarket owners become multi millionaires.
You are a supporter of removing minimum youth rates but not many others of your clan are 113 -7 against and then they want to tinker with the tax system to support families that need to support their kids because they can’t find gainful employment.
Changing the system is needed but not necessarily the tax/benefit system. e.g. take depreciation for plant. Your great mate the financial wizard English changed depreciation in the last budget. All to do with housing and removing the abuse of that was the right thing to do but, he also removed the accelerated depreciation for new plant. What a dumb thing to do. We need new and faster and better plant and we need to replace it more often so we should be doing what Germany does. (its the world leader at the moment), and have 100% depreciation for fixed manufacturing plant.That would stop the drift of our jobs to low wage countries and require the use of the many skilled people with no jobs.
Just today was involved in a discussion with a now non manufacturer of trailers. Why non, well he gets then made in Vietnam. More profitable for him, no overheads, etc etc. We however want to manufacture an implement and want to do it in NZ. We want to build a mini plant to do the work but is it worth it for us to go against the tide. Good question.
Its long gone time we stood up for NZ businesses and made them viable and worthwhile. We don’t export crap made from crap wages and crap living conditions and we should resist the importation of the same.
NZ cannot live on milk and financial wizardry. We’ve tried and its failed.
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Yes, another bold statement from the brave and decisive Prime Minister of the nation. Sigh.
Clinging to all the votes you can get? Hanging to power at all cost, uh?
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:00 pm
WFF and interest-free student loans came about because Labour targeted floating-voter interest groups and carefully designed both policies to be hard to undo. Then they worked really hard to associate themselves with them and it worked for awhile. WFF and interest-free student loans appeals to the middle-class reef-fish and the ETS to the green-trending housewives.
Previously these have been highly capturable and fruitful markets for National and Liarbore’s dasterdly deed (they think) has locked Key out of a potential part of National’s “natural vote” and he can’t escape it. Well he could and he should have ages ago, but that’s why I think he doesn’t disturb these things, because he needs to prevent Liarbore from becoming psychologically associated with those as their flagship policy because if they do National loses them for a decade or so. Their numbers are potentially the winning difference in a medium to close election and that’s most of them.
So this is why Goff loudly defends both of them all the time at even the slightest whiff of the mere hint of suggestion they might be compromised in even the smallest way. He realises ChCh has changed the game so he’s given up on WFF but he’s been screaming like a hysterical schoolgirl about interest-free loans over the last few days and this morning Key ruled it out.
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Welfare for people earning up to $166,567. How completely f##ked up is that ?
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Dont beat my drum folks Mr farrar want rid of me, but then im 62 who wants a old shit like me?? David heres a nice track ,i work with a person whose linked to this nice track .Its called (control) fuck me days what a shock David Farrar and control or anything else, david and control.???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPV83YfKezw
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:39 pm
burt, it’s completely fucked up. Just one more example of the worst administration in New Zealand’s history. Cullen and the communist lesbian accomplished in 3 terms what Muldoon would never have managed in 30. It’s a fucking disgrace that those two haters and wreckers were punished with a plum (tax-free) job at the UN and a plum directorship of a protected species. They should be in gaol or even better, swinging from lampposts.
[DPF: 30 demerits. Advocate murder on your own blog]
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:40 pm
this government needs to grow a pair.
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:42 pm
“Also on a personal level, I have no qualms about paying taxes to help a family on say $40,000 with two kids.”
And this is the problem with the modern National party, all sense of personal responsibility has gone out the window.
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:08 pm
screw em, tax everyone the same.
some people wait until they can actually afford to have kids and good on em.
freakin breeders telling us they are more important than those without kids. the amount of tax i pay is insane. i consume bugga all. but im the one that gets screwed.
anyone accepting welfare for families should be ashamed of themselves. ashamed i tells ya!
its a shame Key doesnt think hes in a strong enough position to get rod of ths intrest free student loan garbage. i reckon he should do it next term anyway. screw mandate. labour didnt need one when they took away our right to appeal to the privy council and a million other things.
ok, rant over. im starting to sound like paws. opps.
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Viking2, so back to Juche or in a milder form, Muldoonism. Don’t let people buy what they want, force them to buy what you want them to. Nice philosophy, for those on the inside. Crap for the rest of us, those who remember what it was like under Muldoon know this.
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:33 pm
I never took you for a protectionist Viking. Most kiwis will rant and rave about “their” jobs going overseas, but they’re the same ones who will quite happily buy cheap Chinese plastic shit from the Big Red Sheds.
What I do (using groceries as an example) is buy only what I absolutely need to from the supermarket. Fruit & Veg I get from the local greengrocer (or even better, a Farmer’s Market). Meat I buy from my local butcher. In both cases the quality is better (by a mile) and the price is cheaper.
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Offshore_ Kiwi @ 9.33pm
……..Most kiwis will rant and rave about “their” jobs going overseas, but they’re the same ones who will quite happily buy cheap Chinese plastic shit from the Big Red Sheds…….
Probably because that is all they can afford since they lost their jobs.
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:06 pm
IMO Viking isn’t talking about protectionism he’s talking about directed stimulation and that’s a different thing. By using tax mechanisms you can change behaviour not just within your own market but from offshore as well and tax havens are the pinnacle illustration of that which I’m not suggesting we become, BTW.
But you can attract desirable industries to setup by favourable tax regimes provided those multi-nationals have something more than merely your own domestic market to target and ours is tiny so why the fuck would any multi-national want to setup here even if they did only pay say 10% tax?
But you have to support those industries with a capable workforce so you need to design your education system from primary to tertiary to produce such and not just by random chance but by planned targets that were monitored.
All this will never happen by accident yet precisely that did happen to the Celtic Tiger to the extent in 2001 it exported more software than the US did that year. That can’t happen without “intervention” and this is what free-marketeer fanatics don’t seem to get. The market is good for some things such as sorting efficiency, but it’s not good for everything and it never has been.
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:07 pm
How about at least partially replacing it with lower tax rates depending on how many children you have?
So it wouldn’t be available to bludgers.
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Long term it would make very good sense for there to be no increase in WFF for families having more than two children but with the current system to be grandfathered until children currently covered reach adulthood. Every extra child these families have is increasing the burden on taxpapers to provide more infrstucture … a double wammy for the tax paper, more tax for WWF payments and payments for infrastucture.
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:45 pm
“I think it is very reasonable that a couple earning say $35,000 with a kid, gets some assistance, compared to a couple with no kids.”
No working person should get welfare. That is what WFF is. Single people of couples with children should get a good tax free allowance for each child as used to be the case.
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:54 pm
“Long term it would make very good sense for there to be no increase in WFF for families having more than two children but with the current system to be grandfathered until children currently covered reach adulthood. ”
Long term if no one had more than two children there would be one one in NZ unless you want to depend on immigration to maintain the population.
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Chucky
WFF is not welfare.
It is a tax credit.
Why does John Key deserve a tax credit
cutof 1000 pw when he is a multimillionaire?OH, of course, so sorry, it’s BECAUSE he is a multimillionaire…
And that’s not welfare. It’s a cut.
Have I got that right?
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:58 pm
reid, you some good points.I fundamentally believe the government fucks up every single industry it meddles in, but since the fuckwitted “blue green” Nick Smith is already picking winners with his “green jobs” fantasy, might as well pick some winners that will actually do something for the economy instead of destroying real jobs (which “green” jobs have been shown to do everywhere else they’ve been encouraged):
“…directed stimulation and that’s a different thing. By using tax mechanisms you can change behaviour not just within your own market but from offshore as well…”
Someone (Hickey, perhaps?) had something up the other day about niche or specialised manufacturing. Highly specialised with small(ish) markets but which can bring rewards on the export market. Sounds like a good target for directed stimulation to me.
“…ours is tiny so why the fuck would any multi-national want to setup here even if they did only pay say 10% tax?…”
Four words my friend: China Free Trade Agreement. NZ should be capitalising on this relationship before China explodes (which it is sure to do).
Emmess, are you really suggesting taxing a person or family at a lower rate the more children they have? Do you not think there are already enough incentives for the poor to have more children than they can ever hope to afford?
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:01 pm
“WFF is not welfare”
Luc, if WFF was a tax credit it would be paid my IRD. It is paid by Social Welfare on the basis of need.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Luc Hansen of the Film Actors Guild says:
“Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance
Team AmericaRich Pricks, and thenTeam America goes outRich Pricks go out … and the corporations sit there in their… in their corporation buildings, and… and, and see, they’re all corporation-y… and they make money. ”ooh, evil money.
Fuckwit
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:12 pm
China Free Trade Agreement
That’s the best shot we have at present and its a temporary solution at best. We should have started pushing to multi-nationals since it was signed. Unfortunately Liarbore has an irrational political aversion to multi-nationals and the Nats have no idea what the fuck is going on, yet, apparently.
The other problem is, we haven’t selected our target manufacturing industries, which have to lie in unexploited but foreseeable long-term growth areas. The only such for-sure area I see today lies in security technology of all kinds from heavy military to light personal for both domestic and business markets but China doesn’t want a whole heck of a lot of that, it has enough.
Green technology however is the only realistic as in, acceptable-to-the-country area where I think we could over a decade or two build a competitive lead if we set our minds on it and there was cross-party long-term commitment on it. Won’t happen of course. Should happen. No reason why it shouldn’t. It would make the Greens happy, it would make Liarbore happy, it would make conservatives happy. But it won’t.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Wrong.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:19 pm
From offshorekiwi
Like the Manhatten project?
And I take it you don’t like actors?
But, Off_al, I’m not an actor.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Industry, as I intended it above, means competitive business undertaken for profit. The Manhattan Project was an effort to end a war. Slight difference there.
The government has no business being in telecommunications, power generation (or retail), insurance, banking or other competitive business. They fundamentally twist the market by picking winners (or worse, owning winners).
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Sure, Crusader, like Air NZ
And Kiwi Rail.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:35 pm
And no, as a rule I don’t like actors. Progressive green slime who see their role as shaping the public’s thinking in the socialist light. Witness Ban Ki Moon reaching out recently to Hollywood, exhorting them to do films about the climate change fairy tales.
Surely one of the greatest shames of the current government is when the PM cowered like a scared schoolgirl in the face of a couple of unemployed actresses and a few smelly eco-mentalists on the question of mining the conservation estate. Progressive green slime.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Exactly Luc, now you’re gettin’ it. Kiwi Rail is the biggest turd-in-a-flaming-bag the cocksucker Cullen left on his way out the door. His final Fuck You Very Much to the people of New Zealand. Why the fuck would the government want to own such a loss-making shitbag of a company?
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:42 pm
And your take on Air NZ?
Keep it colourful, please.
So entertaining!
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:48 pm
My take on Air NZ is that it was a commercial enterprise so badly run it was about to go broke. The government got sucked in by the koru on the tail and decided it was worth saving. Suckers.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:52 pm
I thought it did go broke!
Now it’s a Jewel in the Crown.
Ask JK why he still keeps it as a govt owned company.
I’ll give you a hint – returns.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Yep, Returns. The big power generators gave the communist lesbian great returns as well. By gouging $4 billion more from consumers than was reasonable. Thanks to Max Bradford fucking the “market”.
March 4th, 2011 at 4:29 am
Bludging for Families should be scrapped. Wind the clock back to before 2005.
March 4th, 2011 at 6:56 am
Although interest free student loans may remain, nothing to stop the government adjusting the level of repayments, eg by setting repayments at say 12 cents in the dollar of income above the minimum (repayments are currently 10 cents in the dollar over a minimum of about $20k).
About WFF and number of children – bear in mind that some larger families are blended families in which the children are arguably better off having two parents caring for them, at least one of which is working.
March 4th, 2011 at 7:37 am
And the Labour-lite government said thanks by appointing this despicable individual to the boards of Kiwi Rail and NZ Post. That’s how incompetency and plain stupidity are rewarded in today’s NZ.
March 4th, 2011 at 7:45 am
so why not;
ditch WFF, adjust income tax thresholds and allow income splitting for families.
March 4th, 2011 at 8:25 am
What if the family is on a single income?
March 4th, 2011 at 9:04 am
The generosity of WFF is astonishing.
I cannot imagine why someone on $74,000 let alone $75,317 needs any welfare.
Working For Families – if it has to be retained at all – should be a simple, sliding per-child grant. That grant shouldn’t extend above family incomes of $40,000 to $50,000, and should top out at around 4 children.
Families should take responsibility for their breeding habits. Having 5, 6, 7, 8 children when you are on a low income is reckless and endangering the health of those children
March 4th, 2011 at 9:07 am
My 2cents… I think that the entire concept of abatement rates is inapplicable in the case of WFF. (Just as it is with some other ‘handout’ policies such as the First Home Buyer’s Grant in the Kiwisaver legislation.) Abatement rates ought only be a consideration in instances such as the Unemployment Benefit or Sickness Benefit, where an *individual* is receiving welfare, and we the taxpayer do not want to disincentivise them to ‘work’ their way out of a bad situation.
Putting to one side the rights or wrongs of WFF as a concept, it would be better if there was a 100% abatement rate at a reasonable level. (Again, going back to the Kiwisaver example, a couple earning $99k between them can be eligible for up to a $10,000 taxpayer funded grant towards their first home. ($1k per year each for 5 yrs) but if one of them gets promoted in the 5th year and their income climbs to $101k, then they’re not eligible for any taxpayer contribution whatsoever.) Nobody (nobody with a reasonable head on their shoulders at least) is likely to argue that taxpayers should continue to fund these peoples property purchase at a gradually reducing rate until they earn $250k pa for example… Why the difference with WFF? The only *bad* thing about a situation where you have a couple of kids and earn $80k is that you might feel a bit miffed to be paying the top tax rate and be ineligible for welfare… It’s not exactly likely that you’ll actively seek lower paying work (or give up working altogether) just so you can get a handout.
Some will argue that it better enables a family to cope on a single income enabling one parent to focus on parenting. This is admirable, but really… if that’s all it is – why don’t we make WFF and 20hrs free ECE mutually exclusive opt-in programs?
Just another case of back-to-back welfare systems that enable people to have their cake and eat it too by spending other peoples money. (The big injustice of all this, as alluded to by Cactus Kate, is the Opportunity Cost to NZ of all that wasted revenue)
March 4th, 2011 at 9:09 am
>>>Chuck Bird (1,441) Says:
Long term if no one had more than two children there would be one one in NZ unless you want to depend on immigration to maintain the population.<<<
Typical uninformed nonsense or is it stupid scaremongering? With the number of unemployed currently and likely to continue we need fewer people in the country so that all can have a meaningful working life. The endless propagation of humans is a capitalistic oriented scam with no long term benefit …. instead of more MORE we have to adjust our society to less LESS. That is assuming the human race wants to remain around … perhaps we don't in this lemming like rush for extinction through over-breeding.
March 4th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Hear, hear.
The concept of personal responsibility comes to mind. Why do I have to pay for others’ excessive breeding?
March 4th, 2011 at 9:13 am
WFF is a political scam by the Labour Party to have more people on a benefit [ a rose by any other name ...] indebted to them and hopefully voting for them. Fortunately it didn’t work last election but…..
March 4th, 2011 at 9:20 am
>>>I cannot imagine why someone on $74,000 let alone $75,317 needs any welfare.<<<
becuase people do not have self control inthe face of excessive consumerisation.
Helped by the lack of adequate controls on the cowboy stock market which means it is usually much safer to save through property than shares. It is tragic and dsigusting the amount of smallperson savings that has been lost from them in recent years.
March 4th, 2011 at 9:23 am
>>>Kiwi Rail is the biggest turd-in-a-flaming-bag the cocksucker Cullen left on his way out the door. His final Fuck You Very Much to the people of New Zealand.
And the Labour-lite government said thanks by appointing this despicable individual to the boards of Kiwi Rail and NZ Post. That’s how incompetency and plain stupidity are rewarded in today’s NZ.<<<
I call it excellent foresight from which we will benefit from in the future … should never have been sold to the asset stripers in the first place …. strippers should be kept for night clubs not railways.
March 4th, 2011 at 9:55 am
I hope any fiddling around the edges of the WFF mess doesn’t divert steam from the badly needed reform of the wider welfare system. And no decent reform would leave WFF in place. National have been useless and have now missed the opportunity to make changes on their own terms and sell the vision to NZ. Their hand has been forced. They should have scrapped WFF hand-in-hand with a more radical flattening of the tax bands.
Fortune favours the bold. Unfortunately this government will be remember as, well, unmemorable.
March 4th, 2011 at 11:57 am
My family is probably eligible for working for families but we’ve never applied, or whatever, because we don’t need it. I suspect that there are many families like mine who don’t apply for it even if they are eligible because they don’t need it.
It’s not mandatory to avail yourself of the money if you meet the criteria and that’s why I am not so fussed about the high limits. What would be really interesting data is what proportion of people who are eligible actually take up the money by family income and children. From data I have seen, I suspect it really is low income people by and large.
March 4th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
“My family is probably eligible for working for families but we’ve never applied, or whatever, because we don’t need it.”
That, quite simply, makes you a fool. The government steals much more than it needs from your pocket, and for you to not take some back when it’s offered is plainly silly.
March 4th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“My family is probably eligible for working for families but we’ve never applied, or whatever, because we don’t need it.”
That, quite simply, makes you a fool. The government steals much more than it needs from your pocket, and for you to not take some back when it’s offered is plainly silly.
It’s only foolish if you intend to live you life with the goal of optimising your wealth. There are many things that people would like to optimise and, if people have sufficient, then optimising your wealth may not be one of them.
March 4th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
My understanding is that WFF is meant to be looked at as a targetted income tax reduction rather than welfare. To me wholesale lowering of tax rates regardless of your accepting the responsibilities of continuing the Kiwi races has less merit.
March 5th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
You might be right Mcos, but for the first time in awhile I agree with David Ferrar. Make income fax free up to a certain amount. This would have two benefits…those on the benefit would work their way out, make more then they are getting and hence they would be more productive. Yes, the government wouldn’t be making money off of them but taxpayers wouldn’t be handing out free money either. Also, WFF could be dumped or lowered. But if you make income up to 5000 tax free like what Goff wants to do, it won’t do much. I think Goff set that amount because he is incapable of actually thinking things through and is desperate for votes…The amount needs to be higher.