The baby bribe goes mainly to the rich and beneficiaries

January 31st, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

As we all know now lied when they said 60,000 families a year will get ’s promised $3000 or “Best Start Payment”.  We now know that the 25,000 families who get paid parental leave will not get it for a year, just six months. So they’ll get $1,500 only – not $3.000

But the fine print also reveals that the 15,000 families who get the Parental Tax Credit of $1,200 will lose that, so their net gain will be a mere $1,800.

The PTC goes to families who do not get paid parental leave, are not on a benefit and earn under $80,000 to $110,000 (depending on number of children).

So that means only around 20,000 families will get the full $3,000 that Labour claimed 60,000 families will get.

So who are those 20,000 families. They are either beneficiaries or those earning around $100,000 to $150,000. They are the only ones who get the full $3,000.

Not exactly well targeted support. And very different to what Labour’s speech and advertisement said.

If Labour hadn’t wanted to deceive, they would have done tables showing how different families would be impacted – what they gain and what they lose. But instead they did tables just showing what they gain.

Tags: , ,

35 Responses to “The baby bribe goes mainly to the rich and beneficiaries”

  1. Tauhei Notts (1,724 comments) says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive.
    –Bill Shakespeare

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Amateur hour.

    Baby Bonus, confusing revenue with profit…and these people want to be in charge of spending our $60b+ annual tax take?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Paulus (2,632 comments) says:

    Haven’t you heard it is now

    “KIWISTART”

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    It’s unlikely to go to “the rich” too, if Labour’s inevitable tax increases outweigh the baby bribe.

    So Labour’s plan will be just what the country needs – incentivising people to remain on benefits and have kids they themselves cannot support.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. anonymouse (717 comments) says:

    @paulus, nope, official internal Labour code is KIWIBABY

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    I can’t remember a party having such a bad week for a long time. The baby bribe policy is in tatters, is polling badly in the papers, the party were found telling lies, and the leader had no idea what was going on or what the policy was. They announced the Facebook ban, and then reversed the policy after even the Greens worked out how hopeless it was. They announced an antenatal care policy that was exactly what the government is doing now, and the leader was confused about that too. And to top it off, they advocated the Defence Force should buy third rate equipment, as long as it is made in NZ.

    Labour are a shambles. They were disorganised and bewildered when Shearer was in charge, but this is much worse.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Labour’s slogan – KiwiCockup.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Baby bonus – they are like kids in a candy store !

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    Indeed davidp. Cunliffe’s smarm offensive has turned into a right clusterfuck. Two dead fish for the “Lord”.

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

    Will Cunliffe now hold up in the House debate, two dead flounder?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Cunliffe’s pratfalls come as no surprise. The man is intellectually lazy and was buoyed by false hope and arrogance from travelling the country preaching to his base and then believing the left leaning media’s fawningly positive coverage of the primary. All the while the NZ economy went from strength to strength rendering his every economic criticism moot.

    Labour is bereft of any depth of economic talent and merely attracts to its Parliamentary offices and research unit like minded fellow travelers having long since burnt off the small business owners who operate in the real world and whose input into policy in previous generations kept Labour from teetering too far over the left wing ledge. Cunliffe got what he wanted – a more red Labour party which managed to do little more than win back some votes off the Greens. Now that he is trying to tack to the centre, Labour has become weighed down by yeah nah flip flops and poorly thought out populist sounding policies that get trashed within a week of launch. Its efforts are now further undermined by rookie marketing and presentation flaws that Cunliffe’s elevation to the leadership over Shearer was supposed to overcome.

    If the buyers remorse inside the Labour caucus and some even in the wider party was a listed company on the NZSX, it would be overtaking Xero in value!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    So, the latest desperate propaganda spin is that for some families, the $3000 won’t be additional to benefits/credits they’re already getting, but inclusive. Oh no! Those people will only get $3000, not $3000 plus other cash! Those lying Labour bastards! Won’t someone do something?

    Seriously, this policy must have you guys shitting yourselves if you’re falling back on this kind of sorry-ass weaseling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    …this policy must have you guys shitting yourselves…

    I think you mean pissing ourselves…laughing.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lucia Maria (2,468 comments) says:

    Strange that people who earn $100 to $150K are being considered, “rich”. I thought this was a right-wing blog, David.

    Rich is people who own their home outright. Who don’t worry that the car needs a warrant and a service. That don’t freak out if dental work needs to be done, or if the Reserve Bank is about to raise interest rates and they still need to do more work on the house, or that their kids are going back to school and they have to spend money on uniforms, shoes and a computer. Rich is being able to afford to go on overseas trips without being concerned about loss of income from the time taken, and the cost involved, which might be better spent on the mortgage.

    You’ve bought into the Marxist definition of “rich”, which is really a way of keeping the middle class down. For a single person, $100 to $150K could be rich, I don’t know, but it’s not for a family.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Seriously, this policy must have you guys shitting yourselves

    I think you may be mistaking something for the sound of a Labour win this year being flushed down the toilet.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. radvad (767 comments) says:

    All of this means, not only a public more suspicious of Labour’s claims, but perhaps more significantly, a sceptical media. Couple this with a Green coleader (Maori or not, who cares?) lecturing us about poverty while wearing a designer jacket and living in a castle and it is obvious the left are in very deep doo doo.

    Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Psych Milt

    This is classic Labour policy – buy the votes and work out how to pay for it later. One day… in a parallel universe… there will be a Labour government that actually implements sustainable policies rather than short term vote winning BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Lucia

    Where were you when dim-bulb Cullen claimed $60K was rich !

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    From the Labour Party website, Labour Best Start Payment Fact Sheet –

    Will the Best Start Payment help to address child poverty?
    Yes. There are about 50,000 children under the age of three living in poverty in New Zealand households. The parents of these children will all receive the full $60 per week Best Start Payment.

    When will families become eligible for the Best Start Payment?
    Funding for the Best Start Payment will be introduced via Budget 2015 and it will come into effect for children born on or after 1 April 2016.
    https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/labour_best_start_-_best_start_payment_factsheet.pdf

    “… it will come into effect for children born on or after 1 April 2016
    So the statement “The Best Start Payment provides desperately needed support to the estimated 50,000 children under three who are currently living in poverty.” is a simple fucking lie.
    Or can anyone explain it otherwise?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “Or can anyone explain it otherwise?”

    They’ll be along shortly to try. I’ll by trying too… not to piss myself laughing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. alloytoo (546 comments) says:

    @Sofia

    Nicely spotted.

    I guess all those currently poor children will have to make do with basic Sky until their parents pop out a sibling after April fools day 2016.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Lucia Maria (2,468 comments) says:

    Burt,

    I was around. Probably on Sir Humphrey’s. Yes, that was a joke, to consider 60K, “rich”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. pcplod (29 comments) says:

    Sofia
    “So the statement “The Best Start Payment provides desperately needed support to the estimated 50,000 children under three who are currently living in poverty.” is a simple fucking lie”.

    I transferred a similar comment to yours onto the Standard. Wow! did they go feral. Shows just how accurate your comment really is.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. greenjacket (466 comments) says:

    As most parents know, babies grow – they eat more, they wear out clothes, and now there are sports fees, socialising, etc to pay for. Children cost more as they get bigger.

    So why haven’t Labour targeted the policy at where the need is (i.e. parents with school-age children)? Answer: because a “baby bonus” is warm fluffies – it is crappy policy but Labour think it will get them votes.

    But Labour have probably really pissed off families who have older children.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    greenjacket

    So why haven’t Labour targeted the policy at where the need is

    I’d be guessing that internal polling shows double income couples about to have children are not supporting Labour….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. alloytoo (546 comments) says:

    @ Burt & @ Greenjacket

    A good way to ensure that babies grow up to be constructive members of society is to encourage the current generation of productive hard workers to have children and instill those values in them.

    Labour’s policy should exclude beneficiaries and be part of extended parental leave policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Oliver Hartwich of the New Zealand initiative today ACCURATELY sums up Cunliffe’s absurd policy in a manner that can be understood by everyone:

    “But since every spending measure has to be financed out of tax revenue, this means that this policy will be paid for by the same people who also receive it. It’s not a policy that robs Peter to pay Paul. It’s a policy that robs Peter to pay, well, Peter. ”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    LMAO so after labour/greens/mana/maori/nzfirst/united introduce their new “punishment tax” for high earners, the only ones left getting this thing are those on a bene? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RF (1,407 comments) says:

    Buy buy baby. A silent t clusterfuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Paulus (2,632 comments) says:

    SHOULD GreenLabourManaWinston get the Kiwi Baby scheme actually does not start until 2016.

    Didn’t the idiot Cunliffe qualify this “as and when financial circumstances permit”

    He says that to ever spout he makes in small print.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    I must admit, I did smile at Toby Manhire’s line in the Herald today:

    Cunliffe: “We call it Best Start and we will not stand idly by and allow it to be abbreviated to its initials.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11194518

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Has DPF forgotten that the $60 a week payment lasts for 3 years? The second two years is where there is income testing.

    Do you or National object to the universal nature of parental leave?

    Do you or National object to the existing $150 a week, no income testing, of the parental tax credit?

    Parental leave costs $500 a week for 14 weeks – that is more than $60 a week for one year. And no income testing. And National is proposing to increase the period this is paid on a universal basis.

    Oh where is the consistency?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    SPC

    A 2 second search of this site reveals this.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/08/paid_parental_leave_for_a_year.html

    Quite frankly if two lawyers decide to breed, I’m not convinced that people who earn far less than both the father and mother, should have to pay more tax, so they don’t have to survive on only $250,000 for a year.

    So yes, DPF did object, some time ago

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Thanks Zapper …

    so we can all await a post from DPF saying that the main beneficiaries of an extension of parental leave from 14 to 16 or 18 or 20 weeks by the National government are the rich …

    The rich being those of two income families getting preference over one work income families … and how it would have been better if the payment was restricted to those with a working partners of an income below $100,000 …

    Maybe this is an issue of tax spending waste for some group to look into.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Maybe we will see such a post, although he’s already done one. I can’t imagine his opinions have changed. I wouldn’t try to speak for him though, just enjoy the consistency we’ve seen so far and keep an eye out for the next post on paid parental leave. Don’t get annoyed about a post that hasn’t happened yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote