Don’t work and get more money
November 8th, 2011 at 2:15 pm by David FarrarIn my By the numbers blog at Stuff I write:
Up until yesterday I would have said the worst of their new policies was the return to 1970s-style national industry agreements, which would have the government impose terms and conditions on every single employer in an industry.
But yesterday Labour announced that every beneficiary with dependent children would become eligible for the in-work tax credit, and get an extra $60 a week.
You can read the rest at Stuff, and comment there.
Related posts:
- IP’s Welfare Reforms
- When should work testing apply?
- Dom Post on Labour
- Labour on the in work tax credit
November 8th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
It’s a bloody disgrace and they should never be on the treasury benches EVER
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
and $’s to donuts the desperate Labour Party haven’t finished dishing out bribes yet.
Vote:maybe for Uni Students again??
November 8th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
I predict (as opposed to iPredict) that they will release a policy of no fees for uni students.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
I disagree with you David. The industrial relations policy is so bad that it is still their worst. Although this does come close.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Where abouts is Labour getting the lollies to pay for this pork barrel politics, probably by racking up the tax rate. Crossing fingers the pollsters have got their figures right.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
@ Brian I will raise you by full foregiveness of all existing student debt.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Wahay! $60 more a week to spend on Cannabis, Woodstock Bourbon and Pokie machines-while the rest of NZ works their arse off to make ends meet and pay the bloody bills…..
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Their free dental work for pregnant women is an interesting policy. I wonder how many poorer women will take this approach:
– Get pregnant (free)
– Get dental work done (free)
– Get abortion (free I think?)
While it’s pretty horrible to think of women doing that, what other option do they have? If their in serious pain and can’t afford a dentist, is one of the only viable options. Surely Labour have considered this already.
[DPF: I think I have to defend Labour on this one. I can't think anyone would ever get pregnant just to get cheaper dental care - especially if they are in pain as the period between pain and confirmed pregnancy can be very long]
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
@DPF What other option do they have though? Say they’ve saved up, had it checked and been told there’s $2000 of work needed. Is there any other option really? I doubt it’d be hugely widespread, but it shouldn’t be an option.
It strikes me as something that should be all-or-nothing. Have skimmed this article (http://www.listener.co.nz/lifestyle/health/your-teeth-are-pregnant-too/) and it really sounds like a “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” approach. Waiting as much as a few months into pregnancy before you fix long-term issues probably isn’t in the mother’s or the baby’s best interests.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
[DPF: I think I have to defend Labour on this one. I can't think anyone would ever get pregnant just to get cheaper dental care - especially if they are in pain as the period between pain and confirmed pregnancy can be very long]
I would.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Agree with you Murray.
Vote:I lived in South Auckland for a short period a couple of years back and I can testify there are many a teeth that could do with a fixing. And as Betty White once said…. Vagina’s sure do take a pounding.
So what’s the problem with a bit more pounding, get nice teeth and abort.
Now in saying that, I do have to wonder just how many young girls would even know this was going to be a policy. Can’t really see many of them reading this blog or watching the news or cooking fucking dinner for their kids for that matter.
November 8th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Interestingly, while most of DPF’s columns for Stuff generate a lot of comments disagreeing with him, comments on this one are running about 80% in agreement with him. The usual suspects are notable by their absence.
Even Labour’s most faithful are hesitating to jump to their defence on this policy.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
@SteveO, go to The Standard, they are frothing with joy for Goff’s cunning new plan.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Well, you’re lucky not to know people like this.
Often it’s not that deliberate, but if someone’s thinking of having a kid but thinks they can’t afford it just yet, and they’ve got terrible teeth (from smoking, not brushing, and not going for relatively cheap checkups) this is likely to push people into having another child.
I just hope they get the abortion. Yep, they are free (as they should be, they’re one of the few things that a CBA is quite easy to do). We need more abortions in this country.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
From DPF’s post:
Perhaps someone better advise Goff that aspiring to Papandreou style economics (including pandering to the lowest common-denominator) isn’t the in-thing at the moment …
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Breeding more fuckups. Brilliant it.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
You can get “free” dental at A&Es cant you?
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
No you have to pay a surcharge, usually $50 or up to $100 for dental surgery and you have to be in pain. And willing to have a student present.
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
more from the Labour, how far will they go to get in to power again?
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Mick Mac
Like the last two Labour governments – far enough that a few years after being elected we will be in recession and they will be booted out so “Nasty” National need to administer the hard medicine.
I wonder if all the myopic lefties ever think about how hard recession is on all families when they are working out which families they can bribe to vote for them under the banner of helping families….. I doubt it – they whole bloody lot of them are in denial that tax, spend and big-government bloat is bad for the economy…..
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
While Labour criminally tries to buy the election with no regard for the disastrous longer term economic consequences, here’s a comment from Jin Liqun, the supervising chairman of China’s sovereign wealth fund:
“If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labor laws are outdated. The labor laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hardworking. The incentive system, is totally out of whack.
Why should, for instance, within the Eurozone, some members’ people have to work to 65, even longer, whereas in some other countries they are happily retiring at 55, languishing on the beach? This is unfair. The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/11/2011114434664695.html
Vote:November 8th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
The Labour Party’s attitude to welfare is “ask not what you can do for your country ask what your country can do for you.”
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 6:45 am
Labour has once again shown the left are absolutely clueless when it comes to how the productive sector of our society works.
What frightens me even more than their nutbar 70′s industrial relations policy is that there are still 30% of people willing to vote for them. Who are these people and why are they so mad?
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 7:09 am
It seems needlessly complex to me that benefits are taxed at all.
We give you a certain amount of taxpayer’s money as an allowance, and then we recoup some of it through taxation.
Pure churn?
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 7:16 am
RRM
I think it makes sense where beneficiaries are earning through part-time work because of our marginal tax rates. But it creates a distortion in terms of the headline costs of welfare by overstating costs to the extent of the tax take on them. It also distorts the tax take in that sense, but this is not a sensitive figure.
Vote: