Comments on: Comparing the tax relief

By: wizban

wizban — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:47:43 +0000

It seems that all those lazy single parents are the problem again!
- Instead of blaming the parent that is looking after the kids, – why don’t we punish- sorry “dissinsentive” the ones that leave (or are left by) the one that takes custody of the kids.
When you see a separated parent without kids, they are the bludger not the one that has the kids!
If you have sex, you run the risk of being a parent, if your a man, that desision may be out of your control, so I want to urge all the men out there. Be responsible, If you have sex, you could be a dad. Be prepared to PAY!!!

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Bernard Woolley

Bernard Woolley — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:13:08 +0000

Joy and Millsy – there are still a lot of irresponsible people out there too, the ones that don’t make educated choices about their lives. Pick an issue – speeding, crime drugs, health – people know the consequences but still make poor decisions. Just because people may be educated against having large families, doesn’t mean that they will actually have smaller families. Education nearly always needs to be combined with very real incentives (be they postive/negative). Which is why a program like WFF needs to taper off financial support rapidly after the third child.

I agree that in an ideal world education would be all we need, but currently it isn’t enough – not judging by many other issues in society right now.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: joy

joy — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:35:57 +0000

Millsy,

Indeed you are correct. Responsible people making educated choices in their lives. Joy.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Millsy

Millsy — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:37:17 +0000

RE: DPB.

I would rather that we educate people to refrain from having kids at an early age than trying to meddle with the DPB.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: joy

joy — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:22:14 +0000

Just for the record. I had 3 children way back in the 60’s. All 3 have married. One couple cannot have children. The other two couples have, 3 and 2 children each, and can support their children OK.

Sadly Paul & I do not have children.

Someone mentioned DPB. That is an area we feel strongly about. Continuing to breed, as a sole parent, whilst on govt support IS irresponsible. Joy.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: joy

joy — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:18:19 +0000

Bernard,

Your comment about small/moderate sized families is worthy and one that my partner Paul & I support. Unless parents are seriously wealthy and can independently support their extra children then yes, responsible moderation should be the order of the day if parents expect govt help.

Millsy,

How about no gst on locally produced food? Joy.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Millsy

Millsy — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:16:44 +0000

Bernard, I am fully aware of the implication of population growth, and it is an issue that needs to be discussed.

I belive that educating people from an early age – in the schools, about the cost and responsibilites of having children is much better than putting financial penalties of those who have (too many) children. It is a measure that I support to solve the DP/single mother problem as well.

And – in case you were wondering – I do not have children, and I do not intend to have any, that is due to the fact that I am not a “kid” person more than anything else.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Millsy

Millsy — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:05:12 +0000

The irony is, Joy, is that by international standards, we are lightly taxed. Even the free market paradise, the good ol’ USA has higher tax rates than us (and more taxes).

I would prefer more spending on the things I mentioned above to tax cuts anyday.

However, I belive a cut in GST would do a lot for low and middle income earners. Reducing GST to 10% would be a good move in my reckoning..

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Bernard Woolley

Bernard Woolley — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:56:03 +0000

Millsy – encouraging population growth with a policy like this will only put even more pressure on public services, not ease them. The way society is going, there will be less workers out there to generate the taxable base required to support more children in society. Education and health costs at a minimum will go up as well.

Everyone – I find it interesting that the Greens are supporting a policy that encourages population growth. From a party that suports Populations Action International and Zero Poluation Growth, I don’t think that WFF should provide any additional benefits to more than 3 children. Up to three, I don’t have a problem with, but any families bigger should not be supported by government. That is inefficient and a waste of what are becoming scarcer international resources. I would have expected more from the Greens on this point. People should not be encouraged to have large families in this day and age.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: joy

joy — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:41:14 +0000

Millsy,
Thank you. I have just been reading the comments on DF’s blog on this subject. Your comment here is what was running through my mind as I read whinges from people who wanted THEIR MONEY to do with as they please. Just how far do such people want to go in cutting out government services? Their points do not seem logical to me, not when I consider the whole picture of NZ as a community. Joy.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Millsy

Millsy — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:31:17 +0000

You know, people whine about having to pay taxes without realising that taxes pay for schools to educate our young, hospitals to treat our sick, cops to protect us from crime, prisons to lockup rapists and murderers, fire brigades to protect our properties from fire, housing to shelter the homeless, defence to protect us from invasion, biosecurity to protect our farms from nasty bugs, etc and so on…

Cut taxes, you cut those services.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Toa Greening

Toa Greening — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:39:27 +0000

Thanks for that. I did some calculations on DPF’s discussion and came up with 1-1.2 billion per year for the under 35K families.

http://blognz.com/mt/mt-com.cgi?entry_id=11589

If I reverse the calculations, there are 660,000 families (Dept Stats) in NZ. Proportionately (2005 Budget) about 2/3rds are in the under 35K income or 440,000 families. Now using $440,000,000/440,000 Families = $1000/Family , or $19.23/week Family. As a median I would expect it to be $60-$70/week and not the $19.23/week. As you can see it does not add up and Labour is seriously underestimating the cost of this policy. The real concerning aspect is whether this is intentional (eg $600 Million for roading) or not (eg Kyoto).

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Hard News

Hard News — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:22:22 +0000

The Breeder Bounty

Now, well, take a look at Frogblog’s swiftly-assembled tax comparison table, taking into account yesterday’s announcement of a $400m programme of targeted tax relief for families via Working for Families.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: frog

frog — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:47:00 +0000

Toa: The 1.3 billion cost is over three years… The annual cost is $440 million.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Toa Greening

Toa Greening — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:44:19 +0000

Hi Frog, I am curious about where you got the 400 million cost from? The media are reporting this policy to cost 1.3 billion.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Huskynut

Huskynut — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:18:44 +0000

And yeah, the fixation with families disadvantages all minorities.. since the greens are champions of the underdog, perhaps this is another good cause Frog..?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Huskynut

Huskynut — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:06:13 +0000

Agree Craig.. truth is, this is another carefully-calculated plank to buy the election, and if they lose my support in the process it’ll be compensated for by the many they’ve bought.
In the bigger picture, if this is part of the cost of a Labour victory then I’ll pay the price rather than see Nat/NZF in power, but meanwhile I’ll begin to protect myself as far as possible financially and otherwise, as it’s clear Labour are unsymapthetic to my interests.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Craig Ranapia

Craig Ranapia — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:52:34 +0000

Huskynut:

Indeed. And may I also note that not having children isn’t always a “choice” (Lifestyle or otherwise): My foster brother and his wife (who had a totaly hysterectomy in her early 20’s) are in the process of adopting and they’d make wonderful parents. I’m looking forward to being the eccentric uncle.
But my same-sex partner and I can’t even adopt – and the various ‘gayby’ options aren’t acceptable. (Not least my partner wouldn’t want to start a family at 60!)

Just because David and I don’t have biological children, doesn’t mean our family – who are involved with our extended whanau and communities – is any less valid or worthy of respect. I would have thought Helen Clark, of all people, would understand that.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Huskynut

Huskynut — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:32:52 +0000

Bernard – I have a strong visceral reaction to this policy, which is just like yours. As I said on NRT, this will push me to investigate trusts and other tax structures, something I’ve avoided on principle up till now.
I acknowledge so many families do struggle and should be supported, but it’s their *choice* to have children.
One friend of mine sees red over all the other ways individuals in family relationships get benefits that single people don’t, eg if one of her married colleagues wants to work part-time to spend time at home with the kids, then HR are very quick to support this, but if she wants the same for study, travel or just to work less, there’s minimal cooperation.
Families are just one social unit/structure, yet they’re frequently supported and promoted in unique ways. This sucks, basically. I may wind up choosing not to have children and invest the time into the community in other ways.. I don’t expect to be a second-class tax citizen as well for that choice.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Craig Ranapia

Craig Ranapia — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:09:52 +0000

BTW, Frog, it’s nice to see that Labour and the Green have forgotten that not every family has children in it. Some, like Helen Clark and Peter Davies, choose not to have children. Some, like my partner and I, can’t.

Guess we just don’t count.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)