No support for those who already have kids

January 28th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Here’s an interesting aspect of ’s announcement yesterday.

If a low to middle income family already has kids at school, they get nothing at all. Say you have three kids at primary school and your family income is $60,000. You get not one cent as far as I can tell.

But if you are a backbench MP who gets pregnant, or whose partner gets pregnant, in the near future, then Labour will give you $60 a week for a year.

This is why National should offer tax cuts, because all working families benefit from tax cuts, including those who have already had their babies.

Tags: ,

65 Responses to “No support for those who already have kids”

  1. Keeping Stock (10,436 comments) says:

    Just spotted this on Twitter:

    ListenerLive ‏@ListenerLive 3s

    Rt @patrickgowernz: David Cunliffe has just walked off on a press conference refusing to answer questions about the baby bonus

    It seems that Mr Cunliffe might be a bit sensitive today. So he should be; turning back-bench MP’s into welfare recipients is wrong on so many counts.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ChardonnayGuy (1,216 comments) says:

    How odd, David. One would’ve thought that you’d have welcomed such targeted and modest fiscally responsible policies :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    You’re just a useless and venal kid hater DPF. Along with all your National mates. Apparently.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/useless-and-venal/

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    Another interesting thing i dont get is why did the Herald take comments on John Armstrongs opinion on this yesterday but has never posted any comments and has barred comments on it

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rob at Polity (8 comments) says:

    @DPF: You are absolutely right, *because this particular package is for under five year olds.* Labour will be announcing its policies for school age kids and their families another day. Not that complicated.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rob at Polity (8 comments) says:

    In related news: “National’s plan to pay teachers more does nothing for nurses. Scandal!”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Zebulon (124 comments) says:

    “This is why National should offer tax cuts, because all working families benefit from tax cuts, including those who have already had their babies.”

    And also because tax cuts are less costly to administer and less discriminatory. If Labour really wants to help low income earners rather than pork barrelling, why not pledge to remove income tax on the first few thousand of income?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. stigie (1,323 comments) says:

    The stupid policies from Liarbour….. May it continue !~

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. johnwellingtonwells (137 comments) says:

    Methinks the ABC’s are trying to sink Cunliffe

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. King Kong (45 comments) says:

    PG, they are trying to put on a brave face at the Standard but you can see the wind disappearing from their sails now it has become obvious that Cunliffe has fucked this up and might not be the messiah after all.

    The Standard has become the English cricket team dressing room of the blog world. Lots of “we can do it” but no belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:

    This is why National should offer tax cuts, because all working families benefit from tax cuts, including those who have already had their babies.

    Logic predicated on an assumption no services of use to the taxpayer are diminished.

    There is a benefit in cooperation of whole populations wielding their wealth together to create scales of efficiencies they could not enjoy alone. There is a danger that the compulsive nature of taxation to such ends can be abused, hijacked to corrupted ends, and do harm. There is also a danger that the cooperative benefits can be lost and individuals set against each other if opportunity for community cooperation is refused.

    Where exactly the benefits and dangers lie in government policy are not so simple that ‘less taxation’ always trumps other options – only someone convinced that anarchy without government and no taxation at all could honestly argue so consistently.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    I think they seriously fucked this up and they starting to realise it now. Unfortunately for them, they cannot backtrack so they are stuck with a dog of a policy that doesn’t appear to have gone down well with the vast majority (well I know it’s not scientific but the stuff poll suggests this).

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Labour will be announcing its policies for school age kids and their families another day. Not that complicated.

    I don’t see any problem with targeting pre-schoolers. I do see a problem with how Labour has failed to target those most in need effectively.

    It could and should be much better done, instead of packaging for vote buying it should address the real issues and with Better targeting the baby bonus.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    I’m also amazed that Liabour think they can execute this “plan” for no cost.
    They have calculated $60 a week for 50,000 kids or $156 million for the first year (remember these are Liabour numbers)
    What about the cost of distribution and/or administration?
    Surely there will be some cost, and no doubt under a pathetic regime like a Liabour lead one it will amount to 2-3 times the cost of the actual monies dispersed.
    Can anyone not see this obvious bribe ballooning out to well over $1 billion a year in short order?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. KiwiGreg (3,259 comments) says:

    Tax what you want less of and subsidise what you want more of.

    So Labour’s policy is for less income and more babies. What could possibly go wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Allyson (47 comments) says:

    Labour’s polling says it all. Kiwis beleive we have already reached Peak Welfarism, and that any more spend is unjustified and damaging. Labour not listening again.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Who are these backbench MPs on a household income under $150,000? Can you name one?

    This is why National should offer tax cuts, because all working families benefit from tax cuts, including those who have already had their babies.

    And (strictly coincidentally, you understand) benefit those who already have shitloads of cash far more than those who could actually do with some help.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    Why don’t Labour just cut out all this arsing around and jump straight to the end state:

    1. Labour taxes everything you earn.

    2. Labour gives back what it thinks you deserve, based on factors like number of children and how likely it is that you vote for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    No one should be offering tax cuts or increased spending until we pay down the $100,000,000,000 of debt we’ve run up in the past few years.

    The tax cuts vs spending debate shouldn’t take place till we pay down the debt.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. backster (2,185 comments) says:

    Paula Bennett has done much to try and put a brake on the breeding for dosh lifestyle. The Labour Policy will reverse that and lead to an explosion in DPB numbers and the corresponding lamentable infant abuse and murder stats especially after year 3.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dishy (248 comments) says:

    One question that I have with this new policy is this: What happens when the parents split (assuming that they were ever together), and custody is shared; is the $60 shared proportionately? How much of an administrative nightmare would that be? Okay, another question: what about people who adopt? Are they covered?

    And will child support payments (which have in the past few years increased at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation) decrease in relation to the children in question?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    Public debt is increasing at $85 a second

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. alwyn (438 comments) says:

    @davidp.
    Why don’t you give their policy? The second point doesn’t need to be that long. Just say
    2. Labour gives it back to those who vote Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Linda Reid (417 comments) says:

    Why don’t Labour just announce a salary for all parents of a living wage (for each parent) and be done with it. Then they can announce lots of top-ups and extras as well, maybe three meals a day at school with free houses (in the best areas) and with the stroke of a pen get rid of child poverty forever. Or at least until NZ goes bankrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    I have a general problem with directly subsidising children, because I don’t feel like we’re short of children. I know that some people believe that we need more children so as to sustain growth, and to pay for all our retirements, but by that logic we’re expecting growth for ever, and that’s not going to work. If we accept that the world population is going to stabilise and then probably start to fall, there’s no reason NZs wouldn’t do the same.

    On that basis, I’d treat children as a choice, not as some fixed cost that the govt has to subsidise. A “family” or a “household” may get a subsidy for having low income, I’m not convinced that extra children that you chose to have should give you a greater call on the government purse than someone who didn’t choose to have extra children.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    Great idea!

    Tax cuts for workers and nothing at all for dole bludgers and DPB slappers.

    That is the way it should always be.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    Labour should be honest and just offer people a $100,000 for a pic of your voting form showing you put two ticks for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Than (499 comments) says:

    You are absolutely right, *because this particular package is for under five year olds.* Labour will be announcing its policies for school age kids and their families another day. Not that complicated.

    Oh good, billions more of spending promises to look forward to. But I’m looking forward to hearing how they will pay for these promises even more.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    Than

    Paying for it is easy – 100% tax on all earnings over what a single beneficiary earns….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    But I’m looking forward to hearing how they will pay for these promises even more.

    I’m afraid learning it may not prove very exciting. There’s these things called taxes, and most of us pay them – it gets funded from that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mandk (1,018 comments) says:

    Rob at Polity: “Labour will be announcing its policies for school age kids and their families another day”

    When John Key announced his education package last week, David Cunliffe said that Labour would be announcing something better on Monday (i.e. yesterday). Didn’t happen.

    Labour has no credible education policies because it is in the pockets of the education unions.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Labour really thinks families on 150k are in need?

    This welfare state thingy, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. OneTrack (3,233 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt – “There’s these things called taxes, and most of us pay them – it gets funded from that.”

    Lots of taxes. Lots and lots or taxes. With big numbers associated with them.

    And then the capital and people flight starts……

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. OneTrack (3,233 comments) says:

    And I thought the Greens were the only Communists to worry about.

    Oh sh**. Labour are coming out with this sort of stuff AND they are going to be in coalition with the Greens!

    This is going to end badly.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. srylands (414 comments) says:

    “Labour will be announcing its policies for school age kids and their families another day.”

    I can’t wait.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (895 comments) says:

    Say what you want DPF. Cunliffe’s policy has already won 2014 election like the dictator’s 2005 election interest free student loan bribe…..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Viking2 (11,571 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (9,509 comments) says:
    January 28th, 2014 at 11:02 am

    Just spotted this on Twitter:

    ListenerLive ‏@ListenerLive 3s

    Rt @patrickgowernz: David Cunliffe has just walked off on a press conference refusing to answer questions about the baby bonus

    It seems that Mr Cunliffe might be a bit sensitive today. So he should be; turning back-bench MP’s into welfare recipients is wrong on so many counts.
    =======================================
    So this will be all right then KS. Will it??

    Prime Minister John Key this morning hinted that National is working on its own legislation to extend paid parental leave but for a shorter period than the 26 weeks Labour is pushing for.

    Late last year Finance Minister Bill English indicated National was reconsidering its position on Labour MP Sue Moroney’s members bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

    Previously he had said the Government would use its financial veto to stymie the bill which looked like it had the numbers to pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. srylands (414 comments) says:

    “Say what you want DPF. Cunliffe’s policy has already won 2014 election like the dictator’s 2005 election interest free student loan bribe…..”

    I doubt that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Who are these backbench MPs on a household income under $150,000? Can you name one?

    Come on Psycho, don’t destroy a great headline with an inconvenient fact. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Harriet (5,132 comments) says:

    Key should double everything that Cunliffe offers – and then announce that he will pay for it all by firing public servants who are mostly lazy rich pricks – starting with the Ministry of Wimmin’s Batteries. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Say you have three kids at primary school and your family income is $60,000. You get not one cent as far as I can tell.

    The speech yesterday was about a baby bonus. The word “baby” should’ve indicated to you and everyone else that it doesn’t apply to primary school age kids. Maybe Cunliffe needs to slow his delivery for the Right. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. tvb (4,516 comments) says:

    Does this $3,000 bribe for having another child extend to those on welfare. If so get breeding chums.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    The word “baby” should’ve indicated to you and everyone else that it doesn’t apply to primary school age kids.

    It does apply to one year olds and two year eleven month year olds, they’re not babies either.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    Sometimes I just want to bash my head in with a spade when I read my fellow ‘lefties’ comments.
    Psycho’s comments here are a real worry as he/she (I’m guessing he) is usually pretty sharp.
    so here we go…..
    When a couple have a baby it is common for one (usually female) to stop working for a period of time. This removes a large chunk from a household income. So if a backbencher has a baby and they remain the ‘breadwinner’, then it is assumed their household income would drop to their salary……making them eligible for $60 a week
    this assumes Labour are not stupid enough to use the household income over the previous 12 months rather than the current living circumstances of the household

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It does apply to one year olds and two year eleven month year olds, they’re not babies either.

    Yes Pete I see a lot of one year olds and two year olds attending primary school. Not. Now go sit in the dunce’s corner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Mark (1,493 comments) says:

    This policy is sort of a dive back into the past with the universal family benefit except it is for a shorter duration and partially targeted. Cunliffe was evasive yesterday when questioned on whether the benefit would be taxed.

    Its a baby bonus – dont like it at all in concept. I would rather have income splitting if there is to be any child rearing support.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RightNow (7,011 comments) says:

    “Now go sit in the dunce’s corner.” – there’s no room, Yoza’s in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    Mark

    I would rather have income splitting if there is to be any child rearing support.

    Lol… Imagine Labour trying to appeal to a double income family … You’re a comedian surely.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Paulus (2,668 comments) says:

    How will this $60 per week income affect the Working for Families subsidy which has income abatement terms ?
    As it is income it must be abated in the WFF levels.
    Of course it really affects only those families working with a family income below $150,000 pa.
    Work that out first Mr Taxman and Winz ?
    Will be an admin nightmare but will require creeds more staff to administer.
    Can’t be that many actually working as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with universal benefits as it helps reduce the incentives to game the system. Realistically, something like the election bribe policy of $60/week for breeding should be universal. Why deny it to people paying thousands of dollars a week in tax ? You just create paperwork and loopholes when in reality it’s inconsequential to either give it or not to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    I think I see what this policy is all about, the devil will be in the detail. It will say “paid to people with a mental age less than 3″ so all Labour voters will get it. They must have a mental age of less than 3 if they think socialism works.

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

    So if a backbencher has a baby and they remain the ‘breadwinner’, then it is assumed their household income would drop to their salary……making them eligible for $60 a week

    How many backbenchers have had babies in the last 10 years? I can think of Mahuta and Walker among the current crop but there wouldn’t be many. I couldn’t imagine either being eligible for the bonus if the policy was in effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. dubya (243 comments) says:

    Mahuta had her baby to her first cousin, so no doubt we’ll all pick up the bill for the inevitable medical deformities…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    ross69

    Perhaps being Labour MPs the only reason they haven’t had babies is because they would have had to pay for them themselves ????

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Dave_1924 (121 comments) says:

    Hmmm. Welfarism for the middle class. Nice very nice.

    What would the Coal Miners of the West Coast circa 1915 think of rich bankers, accountants, MP’s etc getting a hand out they don’t need??? A safe working environment and a fair days pay for a fair days work was the original ethos, No?????

    Labour – pick up your phone, its ringing and its your original purpose calling and wanting to know what the f#ck you are doing!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    Yes, it’s a very long way from the idea of a safety net.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    So if a backbencher has a baby and they remain the ‘breadwinner’, then it is assumed their household income would drop to their salary……making them eligible for $60 a week.

    In other words, it would be possible for a backbench MP to qualify for this if they’re not getting paid a backbench MP’s salary of $147,000. Either way, DPF’s claim is bollocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    But what really bothers me is, why is this $60 going to make all the difference when the last $200 or more did not? When do you stop increasing the assistance and say “well, you’re just going to have to live on that, sorry”?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    When do you stop increasing the assistance and say “well, you’re just going to have to live on that, sorry”?

    When you have 51% of the vote !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt: I don’t follow. I think the suggestion is that if the MP’s partner has no income, then an MP on $147,000 would qualify. The only condition there was that their partner was not working – on the basis that the MP would be/remain the primary breadwinner.

    I think you’re contorting yourself to try to make some point, and I’m not really sure what that point is.

    Are you arguing that it’s a good spend of taxpayer money to provide child subsidies to people earning $150K? Wouldn’t it be easier to say “I think it’s a great idea for people earning under $80K, I’m dubious about the upper threshold”? That’d be a more logical position – can you not bring yourself to say it?

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

    The premise

    1. Affordability

    If the funding source is a CGT, this starts small and grows in annual revenue across time. Thus it covers new babies 2016/17, then 2 years of babies 2017/2018 and 3 years in 2018/19.

    2. It’s an extension of parental leave

    First its 26 weeks at MW (breast feeding period), then a further $60 a week till the end of the year (standard parental leave cover across Europe is a full year and is universal – this is the cheapest form possible).

    For those on lower incomes a second and third year at $60 a week – this helps those stay at homes and those who go back to work (they decide if it covers child care cost or to support them at home).

    3. The goal might be compatibility with DPB

    That would involve later extension to age 5 (the part-time work test for the DPB comes in when the youngest is age 5)

    PS, re benefits – whether anyone on a benefit would qualify is hard to say – under current rules when a new child is born to a sole parent beneficiary when the child is one, they would be required to look for full-time work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Or if not compatibility (as per 3) , the connection to the support developed in recent times to provide free child care education for those over the age of 3.

    This speaks to the costs of parental leave or child care (if working) to age 3 for parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Weihana (4,606 comments) says:

    burt (6,705 comments) says:
    January 28th, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    I don’t see anything wrong with universal benefits…

    burt (6,705 comments) says:
    January 28th, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    …They must have a mental age of less than 3 if they think socialism works.

    Fair point about the administrative inefficiency of schemes like this. But if this is “socialism” why is a universal benefit not “socialism”? Surely universal education and health care are also “socialism”? These things seem to work ok, whether or not this particularly policy is a good idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. lolitasbrother (751 comments) says:

    its almost hard to believe is it not,
    we want to pay you to have baby within the population crisis, world wide.

    You can see how intelligent I am Cuntliffe in a Crisis

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Rowan (2,539 comments) says:

    Labour don’t have a hope in hell and ideas such as this and the shutting down facebook business tax idea are just ridiculous. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the horrendous damage they along with the greens could do if they were in charge of the country.

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