Metiria Turei
Make Working for Families work for all families

In 2005, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) was granted access to the Human Rights Review Tribunal for a case in which they claimed the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) component of Working for Families (WFF) family assistance package unjustifiably discriminated on the grounds of employment status in providing significantly less assistance to families on benefits than to those in work.

In late 2008, the Tribunal found that the package did, indeed, amount to prima facie discrimination on the ground of employment status, but that such discrimination did not impair the right to freedom from discrimination more than is reasonably necessary for sufficient achievement of its legislative purposes (being to incentivise beneficiaries into work and to minimise complex assessments of need).

In making that finding, the Tribunal commented:

We accept that issues of child poverty are real and pressing in New Zealand; no other conclusion is possible on the evidence that we heard.

The reality, however, is that any scheme that includes financial incentives to encourage those who are on benefit incomes to move into work necessarily involves conferring financial advantage on those who can make the move. To the extent that people in that class have families, it follows that their children have the chance to access the advantages as well. At the same time the children of those who cannot or will not make the move will miss out. That is so whether or not there is a formal connection between the incentives and children (as there is in the case of the IWTC). Unless one takes the extreme view that the Government cannot create financial incentives to work at all – because they infringe the right to freedom from discrimination on grounds of employment status, and are inherently unjustifiable – then a level of harm to that right (here, experienced in the sense that those who do not qualify will be ‘left behind’) is inevitable.

The current proceedings are an appeal against the Tribunal’s finding that the infringement against the right to freedom from discrimination is justified.

I agree with CPAG’s argument.  I fail to see how providing lesser assistance to someone who cannot work because of their own disability or because they care for a disabled or young child can be justified. It is ridiculous to argue it provides an incentive to work to someone who simply cannot work, and it denies additional assistance to those who have the least capacity to improve their financial circumstances.

Working for Families can be made to work for all families, without the discrimination against those who need it most, while still retaining incentives for those who can work to do so.

Last month, I announced how the Green Party would do this, and bring 100,000 children out of poverty in the process through extending the IWTC part of WFF to beneficiary families, while increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour.  That would put an end to the discrimination in WFF, while maintaining, or in some cases increasing, the financial incentive for those beneficiaries who can work to do so.

65 thoughts on “Make Working for Families work for all families

  1. One problem with the appeal approach is that if successful it may further encourage an already stated NACT government commitment to work testing more and more of those on benefits, placing more and more on benefits into the category of those “with an incentive to work via the In Work Tax Credit”. Thus not so many familes raising children on the benefit would benefit, once more and more were work tested to reduce government IWTC liability. The impact of this on DPB parents may be quite extreme – so I’m not sure winning this case would be without consequences. .

    The other is that it risks the future of the IWTC programme in the future – as the Key commitment to continue with the WFF programme is not universally popular on the right. The idea that people should afford their own children and children should be left to suffer poverty rather than encourage parents to have more children by providing support is now standard on the right.

    Sure we really do need to increase help to those raising children on a benefit – but on sites such as the Herald there is consistent animous to supporting the children in poor (brown and large) working families, let alone those on benefits and even opposition to government support to food in poor area schools programmes – as if children of “poor” parents should suffer this rather than be helped.

    We can probably still make some progress in reducing child poverty via food in schools and via insulation of rental property as conditions for support for a future government, my point being we should not expect progress on the WFF front. We can do little more than use the issue to highlight why there is child poverty and then seek alternative answers that we can get implemented.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  2. @SPC – “People should afford their own children”

    Gee now there is a novel idea!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 (+1)

  3. Yeah, the right constantly argues that people should afford their own children while at the same time arguing that employers can’t afford their own workers, and can’t be expected to pay a wage that would allow wiorkers to afford their children.

    So the government has to subsidise wages through WFF, subsidise childcare and education, subsidise vocational training etc. while employers grumble that wage costs are too high and that they can’t get the skilled workers thay need.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 (+5)

  4. rjs131: Extending the IWTC would cost approximately $300 million net per annum. The Green plan to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour would result in net increased tax revenue of approximately $150 million per annum. More details are here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  5. The CPAG definition of poverty is flawed, and means that people living in subsidised houses with access to free medical care and receiving hundreds of dollasr a week are in ‘poverty’.

    The CPAG definition of overty is at odds with the UN, and just about every credibible organiation working on real poverty (where people are freezing, starving, and dying from quite prevantable issues like dysentry.

    The only way to resolve ‘poverty’ as CPAG see it is to have complete income redistribution. Even giving more money to the poor simply raises the median/mean income, and these poor will still be below it, and therefore still deemed to be ‘in poverty’ by the CPAG. Even giving them all $1000/wk extra would not solve ‘poverty’ as CPAG define it.

    Because CPAG are not about children or poverty (for if they were they’d be campaigning on dystentry in Africa and the like. The CPAG is about imposing a tax-and-redistribute model on NZ, and emotive heartstring pulling phrases like ‘children’ and ‘poverty’ are but a means to that end.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 (+4)

  6. This doesn’t sit right with me. Getting 100k out of poverty is critical, but doing so through extending something called Working for Families to families not in work is just going to get exploited by opponents.

    “Greens make a mockery of work by giving in-work tax credits to the unemployed”
    “Greens disincentivise work”
    “Where is the money coming from?”
    “Greens think they have a money tree”
    “How does this grow the economy?”

    It doesn’t even matter if it’s costed and will help in the long term. We’ve seen how the merits of Labour’s CGT are so easily discredited through the MSM and the same will be done with this. The terminology of it all is ripe for the picking. Perception is unfortunately reality and Nats have an unassailable lead on managing perceptions in the MSM at the moment.

    For me, what really needs highlighting is the simple fact that WFF doesn’t work.

    Greens ideally want a universal base income, but I don’t see how extending WFF to those not in work is a policy step in that direction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 (+4)

  7. WFF has reduced poverty amongst children of the working poor and delivering tax cuts in the form of tax credits was a realistic way to build support to take children of the working poor out of poverty.

    It’s just that now delivering the IWTC to families supporting children while on benefits is a bridge too far – it had to have been done at introduction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. Decanker mentions how “the merits of Labour’s CGT are so easily discredited through the MSM. That would quite a feat, and yet also so simple, because Labours CGT (which would also have applied to the family hones despite labousr protestations it would not) had no merit!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  9. The public prefer Labour’s economic plan including CGT to National’s including asset sales.

    And some of the criticism of Labour’s plan was that the CGT did not (and does not) apply to family homes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  10. MC

    You claim that increasing support for the poor would not reduce poverty the way it was measured – can you explain why the In Work Tax Credit alone was sufficient to take the working poor out of poverty as evidenced by this same measure?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  11. Curmudgeon, thanks for your input on the merits or otherwise of a CGT, but I think I’ll stick to my own opinion and the opinion of most economists and virtually all OECD countries.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  12. The public prefer Labour’s economic plan including CGT to National’s including asset sales.

    And yet SPC, Labour are on their way to a result as bad as 1996 (if not worse).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  13. @Misanthropic Curmudgeon 11:27 AM

    The CPAG definition of poverty is flawed, and means that people living in subsidised houses with access to free medical care and receiving hundreds of dollasr a week are in ‘poverty’.

    The CPAG poverty measure relates to income after housing costs, so subsidised housing is taken into account in the measure. And no family has free medical care. Sure, we have subsidised medical care, but that is available not only to people on benefits and low incomes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  14. Sure the public likes to have confidence in the government they elected until it’s proven otherwise.

    But a future CGT is now inevitable with the next Labour government, there is sufficient support.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. But a future CGT is now inevitable with the next Labour government, there is sufficient support.

    What with the omission of the family home from CGT makes it the unfairest tax of all.

    By the time Labour next get into power (which is at least a decade away, and maybe two) CGT will have been forgotten about.

    What beats the hell out of me is why Labour didn’t come out with “no asset sales” as their big idea. That is a plan everyone with a brain could get behind.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. Nearly all OECD nations have a CGT tax (not the Swiss or Turkey) but many exclude the family home. Exclusion does not make it unfair as there is no income gain from selling a family home when the family home has to be replaced.

    A CGT will now be in the Labour manifesto at every election.

    Labour will be back in power in either 2014 or 2017.

    Key has remained popular despite his asset sales plan, apparently people have decided to accept his leadership, assets sales and all, because he won’t touch WFF or Super and seems to block a more extreme right. There is no strategy to defeat this attitude, but building support for policies such as CGT before Labour returns to office is what can be achieved meantime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  17. @decanker 11:47 AM

    Greens ideally want a universal base income, but I don’t see how extending WFF to those not in work is a policy step in that direction.

    I agree that a universal basic income should be the preferred option. But the reality is that unless the Green vote gets above 25%, it isn’t going to be something that the Greens have any chance of negotiating into a confidence and supply agreement.

    Whereas, extending IWTC to beneficiary families is something that another party (most likely Labour) could be persuaded to buy into if they needed Green support to form a government, especially if accompanied by an increase in the minimum wage which would still provide an incentive for those beneficiaries who can work to do so.

    Also, there’s a lot of work to be done on developing a universal basic income model. That advocated by Gareth Morgan, for example, while good in principle would still leave many families, particularly single parent families, below the poverty line.

    And there is the issue is how to fund it. If it were funded wholly from income tax, it would require a tax rate of around 40% on earned income to provide a level of UBI that doesn’t have families living below the poverty line. That would be very hard to sell politically, both to other parties and to voters, as it would be perceived as a disincentive to paid work.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. if mana do well..mana and the greens together wd be a powerful bloc…

    ..able to achieve much…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  19. This one is going to go down a treat with the usually Labour voting battlers and middle class mums you are currently attracting. ‘Greens want beneficiaries to get Working for Families’. Just watch your polling return back to your usual 6-7% levels. Still, reasonably smart publicising the tricky ones on opening day of world cup

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  20. Ah yes, the great confusion and contradiction of all things ‘green’ continues.

    Mean while the sun is out and my dole bludging neighbours are out white baiting to make their fortune (all tax free of course!) while I am at home on the phone begging the IRD to forgive me for an accounting error (like hell).

    Sorry Met, you have lost touch with the real world.

    Some people are poor because they choose to be, the rest go on the dole and go whitebaiting ;)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 (-3)

  21. insider, Shunda, you are (perhaps willfully) missing the point that raising the minimum wage as the Greens propose would maintain (or in some cases increase) the incentive for people on benefits to move into work.

    If there are people on unemployment benefit who choose not to work rather than cannot find a suitable job (and I accept there may be some – every right winger seems to somehow know at least one) all that is indicative of is that Work and Income are not administering their legislation adequately. There is a statutory requirement for people on unemployment benefit to be available for and take active steps to obtain suitable employment. And if they don’t, there are statutory sanctions that Work and Income should be imposing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  22. @ shunda

    I may be mistaken but a few years ago the Greens seemed very small entrepreneur oriented. Lots of their candidates seemed to come from that background but their policies now seem more concerned about people who probably largely won’t vote for them, except for the unemployed activist fringe.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  23. @ toad

    I’m only wilfully missing it if you are willfully ignoring the absence of a magic money tree that will pay for that. Forcing increases is not without potential downsides in terms of employment growth and cost of living increases.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  24. insider..this is old-school labour policy…

    ..(and what they failed miserably at during the clark years…

    ..clark/labour must take at least the same responsibility for getting us to this world-beating horrendous place…

    ..this exploding underclass…

    ..the results/human-victims of the neo-lib-experiment…)

    ..and where they claim to have gone back to..

    ..but hard to tell from their policy..

    (the first $5,000 tax-free..to be phased in over three years..

    ..that $3.33 a week..each year…to a whopping $10 per week..

    ..after a three year labour government..

    ..they lack courage…

    ..and their policies do not grab the imagination..

    ..they are just more of the same..

    ..whereas the mana policy is even more old school labour..

    ..and is directed at/to the working poor..

    ..(first $15,000 tax-free)

    ..and the real poor/suffering..the sole-parents/sick/unemployed…

    ..(the restoration of the benefits-cuts that got this poverty/underclass ball rolling…

    …and free medical/dental/eye/hearing care…)

    ..labour need to be dragged to that same place..

    ..and a strong/united mana party and green party….

    ..could do just that….

    ..we have the opportunity this election to effect real change for good in new zealand…

    ..to have our revolution at the ballot-box..

    ..we just have to seize the moment…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. and shunda is just one of those people who are sure there are people somewhere else having a better time than him…

    ..and it pisses him off…

    (i wonder if the neo-lib inside him wrestles with his meaner spirit over this…?

    ..pointing out that these people are eating whitebait ‘cos they got off their arses..and used/showed some initiative…?..)

    it wd be so much easier for him to focus/hone his hatreds if they just stuck to the stereotype-script..eh..?

    ..it must be/get quite conflicting for him..

    ..the poor luvvie..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  26. @insider 5:20 PM

    The Greens package contains a $20 million subsidy targeted to small entrepreneurs to assist them through the transition to a higher minimum wage without constraining employment growth in SMEs. That said, most minimum wage workers are employed by big companies, often transnationals, who make massive profits.

    And, yes, there will be some small cost of living increases resulting from increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour. But the negative impact of that for low income workers will be far less than the positive impact of having more money in their wallets each week.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. I may be mistaken but a few years ago the Greens seemed very small entrepreneur oriented. Lots of their candidates seemed to come from that background but their policies now seem more concerned about people who probably largely won’t vote for them, except for the unemployed activist fringe.

    Yes, interesting observation.

    It is very easy to interpret this WFF policy as an election year bribe, and hey, it will work to some extent for the Greens.

    But let’s not pretend that it is fair or sensible policy, because it isn’t, it is completely illogical.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  28. @Shunda barunda 5:32 PM

    Do dole bludgers exist? yes or no?

    As someone who spent around 15 years working for agencies working with beneficiaries, I accept that there are some people who simply don’t want to work. But they are a very small minority. In my experience, most people on the dole are very keen to find work, but just can’t find a job.

    And until there are more than enough jobs vacancies to meet the employment aspirations needs of everyone who wants a job, it doesn’t have any macroeconomic impact if there are a few people who could work but make no effort to find a job.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 (+5)

  29. i refuse to engage in yr beneficiary-bashing exercise/campaign..

    ..you are just the latest echo in that vile campaign of stigmatisation..

    ..invariably reinforced with anecdotal-tales such as the one you are peddling..

    ..you and your type really love sitting on judgment on others..eh..?

    ..(christian..?..are you..?..)

    ..and you live in an area where there are plenty of jubs..do you..?

    ..and you know all the personal circumstances of the neighbours you have as yr current target…

    ..eh..?

    ..to be able to sit in such judgement..?

    ..and of course..if ‘justified’..yr example can be used as the rationale to screw everyone else..eh..?

    ..you have a mind so small..it must rattle as you walk..

    …and a meaness of spirit..that is comprehensive..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  30. Key has remained popular despite his asset sales plan, apparently people have decided to accept his leadership, assets sales and all … There is no strategy to defeat this attitude, but building support for policies such as CGT before Labour returns to office is what can be achieved meantime.

    If Key is the problem, and Labour (or make that those left of National) think that CGT is the answer, then I dispair for these people; they are committing us to more Key, and thus more reaming. As I have noted before, this is deckchair rearrangement whilst the boat is going down.

    People are happy to take a reaming to keep Key, however non-sensical that is. Thus if Key is to be deposed in the next decade or two, then the parties other than national had better get their heads on.

    CGT is not an answer, or even a part of the answer, its a sideshow issue, and frankly, one that Key can continue to deflect trivially. Or adopt.

    If folks think labour will be back in power in 2017, then labour had better get planning on what it is going to present. They have a very very big hill to climb, and only six years in which to do it.

    Remember: Key didn’t win his first term, Helen handed it to him on a plate. Heck, even if Brash was still at the helm, they would probably have still got in, so desperate were the people to see the back of the Labour administration.

    Had Helen’s government not got mad cow disease they would still be in the big house in Wellington. Key wont make the same mistake.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  31. It’s actually not sensible to lack a policy to reduce child poverty, or to attack proposals to combat this without suggesting a better alternative – because something needs to be done. Our poor child health is one consequence and it’s no coincidence that the 20% failing in schools is exactly the same rate as we have for child poverty.

    Insulating rental property and getting healthy food meals into low income area schools does not cover all children in need and is not enough by itself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  32. dbuckley, I actually think Labour will win in 2014, and the CGT is a symbol of a fairer deal in tax and in other areas of policy. You earlier refer to a Labour showing similar to that in 1996 without noting that they won easily enough only 3 years later.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. @Shunda barunda 5:36 PM

    But let’s not pretend that it is fair or sensible policy, because it isn’t, it is completely illogical.

    So is the current WFF policy fair? How can it be when it discriminates against children on the basis of their custodial parents’ employment status?

    And is is having up to a quarter of NZ’s kids growing up in poverty sensible policy?

    If you think not, what’s your solution, Shunda?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  34. “..I’m only wilfully missing it if you are willfully ignoring the absence of a magic money tree that will pay for that…”

    go and look at the mana policy..insider..

    ..a hone heke/tobin tax on financial transactions is a major revenue-gatherer..

    ..with no individual pain..

    ..a capital gains tax on all but the family home..

    ..that means shares/w.h.y..

    ..the reversal of the key cuts for the richest..

    ..the ending of trusts being used as tax-avoidance tools..

    ..is that enough to be going on with..?

    ..as i said..go read the policy…

    ..this isn’t pie-in-the-sky…

    ..this is the beginning of the reversal of the corporatist-polices that have dominated these last decades…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  35. the economic rationale of ending the poverties of the working poor..

    ..and the worst off..

    ..is that such policices will be a kickstart for the economy..

    ..as all income for the poorest will go straight back into the retailers’ tills..

    ..for goods and services..

    ..this ecomonic ripple effect from benefit change was proven when shipley/richardson cut the benefits-levels..

    ..ask any retailer from the time..

    ..that money was ripped straight out of their tills..

    ..and we had another national party-policy induced recession..

    ..as i said..ask any retailer from the time…

    ..so if those business-leaders were economic-rationalists..

    ..as opposed to the ideologues they are…

    ..they also would support such ending of poverty measures..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  36. SPC:

    You earlier refer to a Labour showing similar to that in 1996 without noting that they won easily enough only 3 years later.

    I think politics and the way people vote has changed since then.

    Key is such a nice bloke he’ll be here until he pisses the electorate off, or at least that percentage of the electorate it is important to keep onside, which is the swing voters, those who actually vote for something. Those who always vote the same way will always vote the same way anyway, so their opinions dont really count.

    Its a new world out there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. People tend to say that it’s somehow different now, but government’s lose support over time – even those that get re-elected comfortably soon come back to electoral reality. The personal leadership qualities that were earlier seen to be attractive then repel (sometimes they simply get tired of people), and all the decisions taken that alienate some of the people start to mount up etc.

    However Key’s model is said to be Holyoake and that does speak to some ambition to beat the odds on the usual two or three term maximum. That he favour’s a return to a more MMP style SM electoral system is indicative that he appreciates how difficult the task might actually be.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. You earlier refer to a Labour showing similar to that in 1996 without noting that they won easily enough only 3 years later.

    Don’t forget that a similar thing happened to National – they had their worst showing in 2002 and went from that to very nearly becoming the government in 2005 (and they would probably have been had Brash not tried to sidestep the Exclusive Brethren issue).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. SPCs suggestion that Labours “CGT did not (and does not) apply to family homes” is wrong.
    If you run a business from the family home, CGT applies.
    If you inherit the family home, CGT applies.

    Labours claim that their CGT “never” applies to the family home is flawed. And every CGT plan overseas has cavernous holes, exemptions and loopholes all through them. Quite why anybody would want to complicate a taxation system and enrich tax-lawyers and tax-acountants (by having a CGT) is fancinating.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  40. Toads defence of CPAG’s poverty measure (being a portion of the median/mean income) is doubly insulting to those in real (starving/freezing/dying-fromdystenry) poverty, because Toad dismissess subsidised housing and health care which addresses those three things.

    I’d wager half of Africa and Bangeldesh would love to be able to dismiss those things as easly as Toad does. But their proverry is real, not some CPAG fiction, and they have more pressing matters at hand.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 (0)

  41. Toads defence of WFF could be easily addressed by removing this welfare payment, and reducing taxes.

    Why do some people think taxing people, channeling it through the IRD, and then giving (a smaller portion of) it back through a benefit is a good thing?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  42. MC

    1. Saying that the CGT applies on family homes, because it might apply on the “office in the home” expense claims of small businesses, is like saying a country does not have income tax because it does not tax the first $10,000 of income and some people don’t earn that much working part-time. It’s a stupid position to take and only a political hack would bother to make it.

    2. If you are unaware of the reasons why nearly every country in the OECD has a CGT, it’s either due to ignorance or a monumental level of political bias.

    3. WFF was designed to support families – our taxes on families are now one of the lowest in the world.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. MC

    I suppose you are just playing thick but whatever …

    1. the measures of poverty in the third world and first world (OECD)are different.

    2. toad explained the “limited” relevance of subsidised housing and health care to our first world measure of poverty.

    “The CPAG poverty measure relates to income after housing costs, so subsidised housing is taken into account in the measure. And no family has free medical care. Sure, we have subsidised medical care, but that is available not only to people on benefits and low incomes.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. 2. If you are unaware of the reasons why nearly every country in the OECD has a CGT, it’s either due to ignorance or a monumental level of political bias.

    There is a single reason why many governments have enacted CGT? Prey tell what that single reason is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. SPCs defence of the lie that ‘Labours CGT will never apply to the family home’ when in fact it will apply to the home of many small entrepreneurs, businesses, lawn mowing companies, cleaning franchises, taxi-drivers, plumbers, electricians, tradesmen, in-home child carers et al is disingenioous to say the least. To dismiss these thousands of people as not mattering to the ideology of a CGT borders is niave and boreders on reprehensible propaganda.

    The simple fact is that Labpours CGT will apply to thousands of small entrepreneurs, businesses, lawn mowing companies, cleaning franchises, taxi-drivers, plumbers, electricians, tradesmen, in-home child carers et al. Not matter how dismissive SPC id fo them. And their home.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. SPCs claim that “our taxes on families are now one of the lowest in the world” is simplistic: families on less than 50kpa pay no tax in NZ dies to Welfare For Families, but the 10% or so familes on a couple of times that pay 80% of the tax.

    Quite how SPC thinks that 10% or so familes paying 80% of the tax is fair is staggering.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. SPC appears to concede logical defeat by acknowleging (CPAG) ‘poverty’ is not (real) poverty.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. SPCs suggestion that because many other countries have a (flawed, cavernous, loop-hole laden) CGT (that enriches tax-accountants and tax-lawyers, and flies in the face of the notion of a simple equitable taxation structure) that NZ should also hgave one conjurs up memories of my primary school teacher, and her chiding comment of “just because everybody else jumped off a cliff, would you do that too?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. Other countries have a CGT because it closes a big loophole that taxable income can jump through. Why should someone who gets 100k in earnings from Capital gain, without working not be taxed, when someone who works for it is taxed on all of it.

    My only compliant with Labour’s CGT is they had to have exemptions for it to be politically palatable. Why exempt someones Million dollar home?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  50. MS. As 60% of total tax is paid by middle income earners, between 50k and 100k and half of the top earners pay no tax.

    WHERE DO YOU GET “THE TOP 10% PAYS 80% OF TAX” FROM?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. um..!..he just makes shit up…

    ..he has a pattern of behaviour doing that..

    ..and when challenged/presented with disproving evidence..

    ..he/she just runs away..

    ..he/she is a bundle of ill-thought-out prejudices..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. Kerry asked for some family tax datadata, which is displayed graphically at http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png (No doubt some readers will spit tacks because the date is cited on DPFs blog, but it is the result of a parlimentry question and has not been disputed)

    This shows clearly that:
    1) Households with income of $50,000 or below pay no net tax at all.
    2) Households with income of $50,000 or below receive around $4.40 in benefits for every $1 of tax they pay.
    3) 44% of households are net tax recipients.
    4) The 9.7% of househods (with income of over $150,000) fund 71% of net taxation (And Labour and The Greens want them to pay even more!?!?!)
    5 ) The 17% of households earning over $120,000 pay 97% of net taxation. (And Labour and The Greens want them to pay even more too!?!?!)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  53. and of course..

    ..because he/she can’t drive up the road..

    ..and see children/the poor living in/on the edge of sewerage-filled drains..

    ..there is no poverty in new zealand..

    ..(he is an r.w.b.b.b…a rightwing bumptious blowhard bullshitter..)

    (he/she is not alone..)

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  54. Name names Te Phil – whose are these three people? – think I can pick the Gravitron and Dr.Barroom Tan out – but the third had me flummoxed I say – flummoxed!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  55. Hey Phil, so much for http://blog.greens.org.nz/policies/, eh,which discusses “Comments that attack others in a grossly offensive way” vulgarity and self-promoting of your own website.

    Did you reflect on these polices before you called me “a rightwing bumptious blowhard bullshitter” “thick of girth and florid of face”, prejudiced, and that I just “makes shit up”.

    I take it you could not grasp the nettle of table of data I presented in resposne to Kerrys’s question? Does it undermine your own prejucices a little too much for you lown liking?

    Stoop to incoherent insults if you must, but at least acknowledge that is all you can do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  56. MS. Those of us at the top 10% of income should be paying the most tax. We have benefited most from the infrastructure and benefits provided by taxpayers.

    But we don’t.

    It is disingenuous and typical of RWNJ’s use of statistics to give a table, like Farrer’s, that only mentions income taxes.

    Forget about GST, which is strongly regressive, did you!

    AND. Taxes on fuel, alcohol, tobacco, etc, etc, which impact on low to middle incomes the most. Without even going into hidden taxes like the corporatism and profit taking from power companies and other “user pays”. $4 Billion overcharged, wasn’t it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  57. Having said that. I personally do not like working for families.
    It is effectively a subsidy from employers and their staff who pay decent wages to employers who do not.
    It is one of the things which enable employers, to keep wages down, to add to profits leaving New Zealand. If the difference was paid as wages, instead, we would all be better off.

    A GMFI is a much better idea. For many reasons. But it has to be set at a liveable level.

    One good economic reason that is ignored, is that it enables entrepreneurs. Most would be entrepreneurs only have the mortgage on the family home as collateral. If they know their family will still survive, if they do their dough, they are much more willing to take a punt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  58. If MS and other were really concerned about people wanting to get off benefits and into work they would be demanding a change from exporting all our jobs.

    AND demanding decent minimum wages so there would be no such thing as “working poor”.

    What they really hide, amongst all the bullshit, is their real agenda.
    They want to benefit from the type of country we have built with our taxes and efforts, without having to contribute themselves.
    They are the free riders, not beneficiaries.

    Most welfare beneficiaries have been or will eventually have jobs and pay net taxes.
    Unlike many wealthy people with their trusts and offshore income.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  59. m.c..yes…the ‘“thick of girth and florid of face”..(you left out ‘lack of hair’..) is all just a figment of my fevered imagination…

    but going on yr input here..that you are “a rightwing bumptious blowhard bullshitter” is undeniable..

    (c.f..yr cliched neo-lib bullshit about ‘the poor’..as just one of many examples..)

    and yes..you are one who “makes shit up”. (cf..about anything vegan..as just one example of many..)

    ..so..yr a slim/hairy/fine-of-face kinda creature..?..are ya..?

    ..kinda like a hero from an ayn rand fantasy-novel..?

    ..(stifles snorts of derision..)

    oh..and i am not a member of the green party..eh..?

    ..so don’t try to taint them..with me..eh..?

    ..that’d just be even more ‘bullshit’..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  60. Kerry’s claim that “Those of us at the top 10% of income should be paying the most tax. We have benefited most from the infrastructure and benefits provided by taxpayers. But we don’t.” Is wrong.

    The top 10% of income earners in NZ not only pay the highees percentage of taxatin in this country, but they also pay a disproportionally large amount of tax in this country.

    And youwant them to pay even more?!?!?!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  61. Kerry mentions “Most would be entrepreneurs only have the mortgage on the family home as collateral. If they know their family will still survive, if they do their dough, they are much more willing to take a punt” but in doing so fails to factor in Labours and the Greens lusted for CGT, which would apply to these entrpeneurs family homes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  62. “..but they also pay a disproportionally large amount of tax in this country…”

    no they don’t…

    just making more ‘shit up’…eh..?..m.c..?

    ..the day must be one ending in a ”y’..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>