Labour on the in work tax credit

August 17th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

My Herald column:

If vote for Catherine Delahunty’s bill, it will give National a very significant weapon to use at the 2014 election. They will portray it as making it more attractive for people to remain on , rather than enter the workforce.

The alternative is for Labour to vote against the Delahunty bill. That may be better for them in the long-term, but will pose short-term challenges for them. Firstly they will be criticised for doing a u-turn, and having their third policy in two years on this issue. They will have been against the policy, before they were for the policy, before they were against the policy again.

And Steven Joyce will be delighted to read:

Labour will vote for the initial stage of a Green Party bill to extend ’ tax credits to beneficiaries, but will not commit to supporting it further or keeping the policy that was one of its main election pledges last year.

There is no way it will pass first reading, so Labour will go on record as having voted to give beneficiaries an extra $60 a week and working parents $0 a week.

 

Tags: , , , ,

29 Responses to “Labour on the in work tax credit”

  1. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    Slime ball beneficiary bashing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Can Paula Bennett confirm that she will release the private details of beneficiaries who come out in support of the Bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. trout (944 comments) says:

    I am not so sure a State handout is a ‘private income’, but it would certainly be helpful if beneficiaries were more honest about their living circumstances (like living de facto and collecting the DPB at the same time) before they sounded off about the lack of State assistance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Cunningham (845 comments) says:

    fish_boy (112) umm so you would prefer to bash people who are working?? The question I have for you is how much money should be given? Do you want beneficiaries to be paid the exact same amount as someone working? if so then how do you think that would possibly make them motivated to move off the benefit? I am sick of fucking people like you. You don’t give a fuck about the poor and would rather see them stuck on the benefit. Trust me the more you pay people to do nothing, they more motivated they will be to do just that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > so you would prefer to bash people who are working??

    Except this Bill does nothing of the sort. Aren’t John Key and his Ministers striving to close the wage gap with Aussie – how’s that coming along?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Ross69 must be annoyed when the entire working population of the country bar some Labour activists/academics is right behind the Minister.

    fish_boy doesn’t know many beneficiaries. He thinks that our welfare issue can be solved by giving beneficiaries more of other people’s money. Fish-boy thinks that jobs paying $12.50 are beneath the dignity of ‘kiways’, and beneficiaries should be able to walk right into 20 dollar an hour jobs.

    Fish-boy thinks that any criticism of our current piece of shit welfare system (undergoing wonderful visionary changes under National) is ‘bene-bashing’.

    Fish-boy doesn’t understand that long term beneficiaries often have depression, autism and other learning disabilities, violent homes etc so just giving faceless individuals $60 more per week is retarded. Fish-boy doesn’t even know the details of National’s welfare policies, and thinks that there are ‘no jobs worth doing’ – mean attitude there mr perennially outraged and perpetually patronising.

    Sure, let’s give beneficiaries regardless of their circumstances a blanket $100 increase, that will really solve the problem huh fish-boy.
    Fish-boy needs to get a clue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Rick Rowling (815 comments) says:

    > so you would prefer to bash people who are working??

    Except this Bill does nothing of the sort

    So, who’s taxes fund additional benefit payments?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lance (2,704 comments) says:

    @ross69
    Closing the wage gap would be a whole lot fucking easier if it wasn’t for the leftards opposed to wealth creation.
    You know like mining, oil exploration etc.

    The left are attempting to stop economic development and blame the centre right for the poor economy. Heads I win, tails you lose…
    assholes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Ah John Key. You were very effective in noting 16 job creating policies of the National party, every single one of which is opposed by Labour. Sixteen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. 2boyz (263 comments) says:

    I guess they are wanting to look after their voter base, which is crazy. To get ahead in life nothing beats hard work, you should of course get the support you need when you cannot but sitting on your butt and getting an extra $60 bucks a week for nothing sucks. Better fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Oh dear, Ross69 thinks that increasing the minimum wage to $20 via decree will bridge the wage gap with Australia. He has some fuzzy notion regarding the circulation of the money supply and that the real value of money and employment would be unaffected. He thinks wages aren’t tied to anything in particular. Oh dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    Throwing money at this particular problem not only wont solve it, it will actually make it worse. And I challenge anyone who deals with some of these families to deny that.

    I work with a number of charities who support the long term unemployed. Many are unemployable, for a variety of reasons, including mental health issues, physical health and well being, IQ, you name it. One of those charities is seeing thrid and now fourth generation from the same family whose only contact with the state is to be given money, and with the police and related welfare agencies. Adding extra money to this problem changes nothing. They do not have the skills to deal with it, and literally end up pissing it up against a wall, or gambling it away.

    So, ross, fish, your ad hom attacks come from a base of zero real world experience – but do feel free to correct me. When you can tell me how this money will be beneficially applied to benefit families who think nothing of letting the kids go to school hungry because they know the teacher will buy them food, so they can buy another slab o’ piss, Im happy to listen.

    Otherwise, fuck off back to your socialist utopia – it doesnt exist and thats because it doesnt work. And take Hamnida with you, you can all rail against da man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Ross69 thinks that increasing the minimum wage to $20 via decree will bridge the wage gap with Australia

    Would you care to explain what this government is doing to bridge the wage gap? Or do you agree with Bill English who thinks that being a low wage economy gives NZ a competitive edge?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > your ad hom attacks

    Nothing ad hom about my comments, but obviously the truth hurts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    A young Nat on Facebook to Peter Dunne:

    Mark Currie: Peter, can you vote for it in the First 2 readings to put Labour under the pressure 3 times, then vote it down in the 3rd to quash it? :)

    They probably deserve it, and it could be a useful distraction from their current implosions at The Standard (or not), but parliament has better things to do, I hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. PaulL (6,040 comments) says:

    I think National should vote for it at first reading “to allow it to be discussed”. Better still if UF did it I guess. But it will keep the issue alive until the election if they drag out the process. Delahunty would be happy with that – suits her agenda. National also would be happy. It’ll be Labour who’s squirming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. speters (108 comments) says:

    “There is no way it will pass first reading, so Labour will go on record as having voted to give beneficiaries an extra $60 a week and working parents $0 a week.”

    No they wont. I would have expected your knowledge of the legislative process to be better than that. Voting for a bill at the first reading does not indicate support for the bill at all. It simply indicates that the bill merits further consideration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    lol, so, to comment on dishing out extra money to beneficiaries, we get:

    “Slime ball beneficiary bashing”
    and
    “Can Paula Bennett confirm that she will release the private details of beneficiaries”

    And thats not ad hom. Your an arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Ross_69

    The govt has 16 policies that focus just on the Labour market and corollary sectors. You can get them from John Key’s excellent post budget speech.

    Wages are tied to productivity and GDP. Wages correlate directly with productivity, and where there are time lags artificial increases can be catered for through GDP growth. Every single one of National’s sixteen policies which will all provide growth in every time phase are opposed by Labour. Labour and the Greens think they can ‘pick winners’ and that David and Russell can re-design our monetary infrastructure.

    They (you) are living in fucking la la land. What’s it like? Is there dissonance when you see the yawning chasm between your thoughts and reality?

    You think it’s bad that an aspect of our economy (wage profile) will attract Australian companies to New Zealand to provide jobs. Well whoop dee do, that’s pretty fucking useless isn’t it? So the wages are what they currently are, but now those 5000 jobs aren’t here. Oh well huh Ross? There’s no jobs hurr durr.

    You also have seemingly accepted the retarded nature of the benefit increase. Why don’t you head down to Rata house in Invercargill and provide those adults with learning/other mental disorders and hand them 60 dollars and say good luck. That is what Labour’s policy is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. PaulL (6,040 comments) says:

    speters: they’ll go on record as having voted for it. And in an election campaign, that’s all that matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Meanwhile Bennett suggests we don’t have a problem with poverty. “I think children move in and out of poverty pretty much on a daily basis…One week they can be in poverty, then their parent can get a job or increase their income, and they are no longer in poverty.”

    Clearly beneficiaries don’t stay on the benefit long, seeing as their kids move out of poverty on a daily basis. I would’ve thought Kiwiblog commenters would be rejoicing at this news!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Jinky (188 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, maybe I’m a bit slow but scoring points around child poverty and cracking jokes about moving in and out of poverty on a daily basis seems petty and mean to me. Just because our politicians behave like 3 year olds doesn’t mean evryone on this blog has to join in. I meet poor and disadvantaged people on a daily basis as part of my job. It really isn’t a subject which in my opinion is much to laugh about. Addressing poverty and the associated problems which causes it needs to be taken seriously by the Govt and the opposition parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    Talking about a wage gap with Australia, misses the point.

    We have a skills and hence a productivity gap with Australia.

    talking about a “wage gap” as an issue put the horse after the cart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @Jinky – I don’t think anyone commenting here says that poverty is a laughing matter. What we **DO** say (and say bloody strongly) is that so-called poverty WILL NOT BE FIXED by simply throwing yet more money at beneficiaries.

    The benefit system ***was designed*** as a short-term safety net. Instead, it has become a very comfortable waterbed.
    Proof? Farmers and orchardists around the country have to get workers in from Fiji and the Philippines because local beneficiaries can’t be arsed working (and what’s worse, WINZ does **nothing** about this.) There are also many tales of beneficiaries deliberately “stuffing up” when given a job, so that they will be fired and can then go back on the dole.
    *** Why would they do that if the dole weren’t a cruisy option? ***
    Leaving people to rot on a benefit is not “kind”, Jinky. It is bloody **cruel**.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Slime ball beneficiary bashing.

    Teenager smugly regurgitates stock answer he learned from the TV.

    Bless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    thor… if you’re sacked, it’s called a 13 week stand down. No assistance, not even a food bank letter. Of course, you could always shack up with someone and bludge off them. From my working experience, even a long term beneficary dpber won’t feed the father of her children if he isn’t recieving a benefit, legally or illegally…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    “Slime ball beneficiary bashing”

    Count me as one who is more than happy to bash slime ball beneficiaries. The few genuine ones deserve our sympathy and our support to be funded back into work.

    The slime ball, the Fullers and the Ure’s deserve every ounce of abuse that comes their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    David Shearer wrote about Labour’s approach to this bill in his new weekly newsletter:

    Parliament will get a chance to debate child poverty after a bill was drawn from the members’ ballot to extend the universal in-work tax credit.

    Labour will support the bill through to select committee because we are committed to reducing child poverty and this is a useful opportunity to debate new ideas about how to help the 20% of children living in poverty in New Zealand.

    Extending the in-work tax credit was our policy at the last election. We are looking at a range of ways to address the issue but in the meantime we support all attempts to highlight the issue and the Government’s failure to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Pete,

    He could have saved electronic ink by simply saying we are just figuring out how to justify a flip-flop on this policy and will pretend to support it in the meantime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote