MPs eligible for the baby bonus

January 28th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

have said if you earn under $150,000 a year you need payments from the Government if you have a baby. The following MPs have a salary below $150,000 so if their partner is not working and they (or their partner) has a baby, taxpayers will have to fork out a baby bonus to them under Labour.

  • Grant Robertson, Labour
  • Shane Jones, Labour
  • Jacinda Ardern, Labour
  • Chris Hipkins, Labour
  • Nanaia Mahuta, Labour
  • Phil Twyford, Labour
  • David Shearer, Labour
  • Su’a William Sio, Labour
  • Phil Goff, Labour
  • Louisa Wall, Labour
  • Andrew Little, Labour
  • Moana Mackey, Labour
  • David Clark, Labour
  • Kris Faafoi, Labour
  • Carol Beaumont, Labour
  • Megan Woods, Labour
  • Darien Fenton, Labour
  • Trevor Mallard, Labour
  • Poto Williams, Labour
  • Clare Curran, Labour
  • Rajen Prasad, Labour
  • Raymond Huo, Labour
  • Rino Tirikatene, Labour
  • Meka Whaitiiri, Labour
  • David Clendon, Greens
  • Denise Roche, Greens
  • Gareth Hughes, Greens
  • Holly Walker, Greens
  • Jan Logie, Greens
  • Julie Anne Genter, Greens
  • Kevin Hague, Greens
  • Mojo Mathers, Greens
  • Andrew Williams, NZ First
  • Richard Prosser, NZ First
  • Brendan Horan, Independent
  • Phil Heatley, National
  • Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, National
  • Ian McKelvie, National
  • Simon O’Connor, National
  • Paul Foster-Bell, National
  • Claudette Hauiti, National

So the question I would ask each of those MPs is if they agree it is a good use of taxpayer money to give them a welfare payment of $3,000 a year if they or their partner chose to have a baby? Do they think that on their salary of $147,800 that taxpayers should be giving them welfare payments if they or their partner have a baby?

Tags: ,

48 Responses to “MPs eligible for the baby bonus”

  1. MPH (12 comments) says:

    Except most of these people have a partner that earns more than $3000 a year … so this is a bit deceptive.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. labrator (1,691 comments) says:

    All of Labours’ policies are about how to get more people on welfare. Free student loans (get them young), WFF (snare the middle class), this one (grab Cullen’s rich pricks). They should just put income tax at 100% and then form some committees to determine what you’re allowed to spend their money on.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    No wonder Labour MPs think this is good policy !

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (12,626 comments) says:

    To paraphrase JK: it is communism by stealth (a bit more blatant this time).

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    It just shows how out of touch Labour and Cunners are. That is usually the tag put of sitting governments unheard of to label the opposition out of touch.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dubya (200 comments) says:

    Did Trev and Clare abort their love child when they found out what with the double income, they wouldn’t be eligible?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. iMP (2,153 comments) says:

    The same arguments apply to universal superannuation. I still think Ruth R’s abatement regime made sense; just wasn’t palatable to the cargo culture we’ve built and Bolger wanted to get re-elected.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    The same arguments apply to universal superannuation.

    That’s a different fight.

    Drawing that equivalence will just put Grey Power on to the other side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rich Prick (1,321 comments) says:

    Ah ha! So it’s all about welfare for Labour and Green MP’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    » Grant Robertson, Shane Jones et al

    Yeah I think any of the male MPs you’ve mentioned will struggle to have a baby. And as I commented on your other thread – you might have been too busy writing this one – from later in the year a backbencher’s salary will almost certainly exceed $150,000. In other words, no MP will qualify for the baby bonus.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    To paraphrase JK: it is communism by stealth

    Yeah he was talking about WFF…which he criticised but failed to change. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Psycho Milt (1,975 comments) says:

    How many of them have:

    1. No partner, or one who earns nothing at all.
    2. No other income such as dividends, interest etc.

    Face it, you’d be pushed to find a single backbench MP with a household income under $150,000 – this is just desperate propaganda.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    this is just desperate propaganda.

    Of course it is. But it deflects attention away from John Key’s announcement that he supports extending paid parental leave. How dare he support a Labour policy! Righties must be turning in their graves…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. igm (864 comments) says:

    Irresponsible, fiscally illiterate bastards trying to get people under their welfare wings to ensure votes . . . don’t think Kiwis will buy this crock.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. davidp (3,320 comments) says:

    This baby bonus could end up being a cheap method of contraception. I read through the list, and the very thought of having sex with many of the Labour and Green MPs has led to me taking a vow of celibacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. alwyn (359 comments) says:

    @ross69 at 2.31pm.
    You seem to be saying that Grant Robertson “would struggle to have a baby”.
    I happen to live in his electorate. In his occasional “here I am” blurb he sends out he commented last year on the fact that he had just become a Grandfather. DPF is also in the electorate I think and may remember the claim.
    Miracles do happen don’t they?

    @davidp. Shane Jones has about 7 kids I think, so someone was willing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. igm (864 comments) says:

    Don’t tell me “The Horse” (Ardern) is in foal.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    Ah. Now I see the argument (continuing from the other thread). We’re attempting to focus on DPFs specific people that he named, and point out that most of them won’t end up eligible. In so doing I think we’re trying to ignore the underlying concern – that someone / a household on $150K per annum is doing way better than most NZers, and that it makes little sense to tax most NZers so as to give money to this person/family.

    Is there a reason some (looking at you Psycho Milt and Ross69) are ignoring that?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Steve Wrathall (207 comments) says:

    The fact that so few lab/Green MPs earn/produce anything outside of their parliamentary existences, shows how disconnected they are from how real wealth is produced & encouraged. Hence the policies they throw up.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    1/ not that it matters……but if Labour implement this they are in power and those Labour MP’s above would be paid over $150,000?
    2/ if there is a baby then it’s assumed one of the parents will cease work….so forget this double income bullshit

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    You seem to be saying that Grant Robertson “would struggle to have a baby”.

    Unless he acquired some female sex organs, he would definitely struggle! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    Ross @ 2:39pm
    POW! – sit the fuck down

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Psycho Milt (1,975 comments) says:

    Is there a reason some (looking at you Psycho Milt and Ross69) are ignoring that?

    DPF seems to have decided “backbench MPs qualify for this” is a good attack line, and I’m pointing out why it isn’t. Whether a household on $150,000 needs welfare payments is a separate issue – I don’t think they do, but then the games of politicians often see them doing things I don’t think are necessary (eg tax cuts for rich people, asset sales etc). What the political game here for Labour is, you can see over at the Dim Post.. I think he’s bang on the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    someone / a household on $150K per annum is doing way better than most NZers

    True but then they won’t benefit as much as those earning less than 150K.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. igm (864 comments) says:

    Steve: There is one who tried to earn a real living, David Parker. Guess what? In the good old days when making a buck was relatively easy, he went belly up, ruining his business partner big time, then denying the fact in Parliament. Clark demoted him for telling lies. Now he is involved as a financial spokesman in the party and responsible for this sort of fiscally dyslexic crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    DPF seems to have decided “backbench MPs qualify for this” is a good attack line, and I’m pointing out why it isn’t.

    It doesnt matter if the individual MPs have spouses that earn money or not! Most of them wouldn’t be looking to have a baby! David Shearer is 56!

    It’s an example of the absurdity of the policy, and is perfectly fair. As are the questions being asked to those MPs named.

    Imagine an MP with a non-earning spouse. Add a baby. How does the picture change? Does it break your heart and have you screaming, “Get that couple a benefit payment!”? No. That’s the point.

    Where Labour will scrounge around to find some activist in their ranks to play the role of “victim” of any National policy, in this case the illustrative example can be the MPs who would have to vote on the measure!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    Loving watching Ross defend welfare for people in the top 5%

    My bros having another one soon, he’s feeling left out. No love for the dude on 225k. He must be the last of the rich pricks…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    Would a company car impact this?

    Cause my buddy is on approx 140 with car.

    Looking to have another bub soon. Stay at home chick…

    He said the $60 a week will cover his rental top up..

    Course, labour aren’t saying how much they will punish him for being a high earner. Wonder if they will give percentages? Probably just go through the election banging on about fair share..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. nickb (3,629 comments) says:

    This entire policy is really just laughable.

    After all the intimidation of the overgeared Grey Lynn six figure family by David Cunliffe, and the threats of busting down their doors for more taxes to help support the “deserving”, his flagship policy is instead giving 150k earners a year long baby bonus.

    This given a vast number of potentially popular policies they could have campaigned hard on (though not that I agree with them), like a tax free threshold, increasing Working for Families, a capital gains tax, reducing GST or fuel taxes, etc.

    Do Labour even want to win the election? This really is so bad it reeks of matchfixing. How much of the Key.PM2014 iPredict stock does Cunners own?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    ross69 (3,352 comments) says:

    January 28th, 2014 at 2:31 pm
    » Grant Robertson, Shane Jones et al

    Yeah I think any of the male MPs you’ve mentioned will struggle to have a baby.

    Are you saying that all male Labour MP’s “fire blanks”?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC (4,669 comments) says:

    Look on the bright side, this means that the top rate of tax is going to come in at $150,000.

    Those arguing for a lower rate for the baby bonus should consider what you are asking for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    Spc – hope so. I figured it would be 65 under labour cause that would be fair

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Roflcopter (397 comments) says:

    I dunno why you put Chris Hipkins in there, at this stage they should still be giving it to his mum.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. davidp (3,320 comments) says:

    SPC>Look on the bright side, this means that the top rate of tax is going to come in at $150,000.

    Are you saying that Cunliffe lacks the ability to simultaneously claim that someone lives in poverty and needs a benefit, but is also a rich prick who should have every last dollar squeezed out of them?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    SPC

    I wouldn’t be so sure. With the rich prick threshold set at $60K we still had WFF implemented with $120K as the upper limit.

    So I wouldn’t be surprised to see the rich prick threshold being $75K

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Socialism is great till you run out of other peoples money !!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sofia (780 comments) says:

    Labour 24 ; Greens 8 ; NZ First 2 ; and National 6

    QED

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    MPH & others are on the money and no one has a coherent reply. What 120k is the WFF limit? You mean you are sqwaking over an extra 30k? DPF – can you spell ‘induced hysteria’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Some of the MP’s listed, (apart from being LIST MP’s) are homosexual, so their partners having a baby is a physical impossibility. Mind you, there is no way I would want them to breed anyway!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    Labour 24 ; Greens 8 ; NZ First 2 ; and National 6

    Surely when this is policy and National become opposition it’ll be 24 of them. I look forward to that list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    Are you saying that all male Labour MP’s “fire blanks”?

    No I am suggesting you need to be a female to give birth. I guess I was too subtle for you. :)

    DPF listed several male MPs and said “so if their partner is not working and they (or their partner) has a baby”. I’m not sure why he suggested men could give birth…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ByterNZ (24 comments) says:

    120k is the WFF threshold for a family with *6* children. Not that I agree that we should give benefits to people with 6 children, but trying to say that this threshold is only 30k more than the WFF threshold is disingenuous. From memory, the WFF threshold for a 1 child family is a much more reasonable 70k.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    This brain fart by Cunners and the fall out has touched a raw nerve with some of our chardonnay socialists like Ross69, they should at least have the nuts to say, its a fucking stupid statement , but the left are so follow the leader they can’t think for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    Byter, it’s not disingeuous if you genuiely don’t know what the limits are. I’m asking, not telling. It’s still hysteria from the host – $150k is the household income, not the income of an indvidual. And it *is* disingenuous to try to paint it like that.

    Speaking of asking…

    DPF – are you there? Anyone home? Any update on NATIONAL’s Baby Bribe? The one they “stole” from Labour?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11193114

    When’s the post on that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Duxton (546 comments) says:

    Jacinda Adern having a baby? Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    $150k is the household income, not the income of an individual

    It’s quite ironic that Mr Farrar and others regularly tell us that an income of 75K is not high and certainly doesn’t make someone a rich prick. But now the same people are saying that if you’re on 75K you’re extremely well paid and shouldn’t be getting a baby bonus!

    The Right need to get their story straight lest they be seen as rank hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    Oh and it’s been estimated that having a baby can cost parents about 250,000 by the time the child has reached 18. That’s about $14,000 per year. The baby bonus is a mere $3000 per year and only for the first three years – so about $9,000. In other words parents will have to pay the remaining $240,000! For the Right to say that people will be popping out babies to take advantage of the bonus demonstrates once and for all just how economically illiterate it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    @Ross69: I think that Eric Crampton has already demolished that argument. Of course, understanding of economic theory isn’t strong amongst the left. The point is that someone who thought about having another baby but couldn’t quite afford it now might – so people making a decision at the point of the “marginal baby” would change their decision. It’s not really that complex a concept.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.