If people want to have children, I say support them as best society can, to increase the chances of the kids being well brought-up, getting good jobs and contributing to society.

Opposing that – patently absurd indeed!

Another left-wing harebrained idea. Why do we need to support people who on their own volition have elected to have large families?

If you want to breed, OK, but don’t expect the rest of society to foot the bill.

The term absurd comes to mind.

L

As a non-economist I’d make the point that an individual no longer behaves as an individual ‘economic unit’ once they have a family. Their income is no longer their own (although some think otherwise). Decisions that affect income, how it is obtained, how it is spent, can be very different to that of the single person. I have two young kids so I’m not a complete stranger to this.

Looking at the raw tax system it seems obvious to the layperson that the progressive tax scale is designed to take more from individuals who can supposedly afford it. At least I guess that’s the theory.

It stands to reason that this assumption no longer holds when the income of an individual supports a family unit. Splitting the income puts the average and marginal rates at levels that are closer to what might be appropriate.

If IS were in place then WFF would be needed in far fewer cases and I believe the application of the tax scales would be fairer overall (it’s our job to be fair… )

Latter racket

Agree with your explication of DPB and WFF vs IS for the DINKs, too – but it affects them as soon as they become SIWKs (which is my case).

Didn’t pick you as a fundie either, fwiw.

RedLogix: Yeah, I grew up oldest in a DPB household, and it sucked, economically.

L

Captcha: `is buses’. Yes, is.

Agreed. My two children are adults now, and it’s only been the last few years that I’ve realised just how dammed expensive they were.. and I’ve enjoyed a top 5-10% income all my life. But it was not until I started working for Habitat for Humanity a few years back, that I got an authentic sense of how hard families with 2-3 kids earning below median incomes have it. On what it really is like for those 20% odd of NZ children growing up in poverty… and just how eagerly they will seize the opportunity to get out of the trap they are in.

And the trap has teeth. It’s the time poverty that does the damage. Far too often both parents are working at sub-standard jobs that mean one or other of them is working shift (or worse still split shifts), and both parents have hardly ever at home together, and the family spends even less time as a whole. It’s the sheer endless grinding weariness of their lives, that mean these kids grow up in families who with only half shadows of parents.

I could tell of numerous first hand life stories, where WFF has made a difference. Yes they are still doing it hard, its not easy and likely never will be easy being a parent… but you see kids being taken to sports, or ballet lessons for the first time. They actually go on holiday, a thing they never dreamed of at one time. The rent gets paid on time, the school fees are not always ignored, doctors visits are not always put off until the very last possible moment.

Now I’m no Pollyanna. I know they still screw up, and money gets spent on stupid things, smoking, gambling, HP on crap cars… but these are lessons we all have to learn, regardless of how wealthy we are. But WFF is changing things for families all over NZ. If you are one of those who are single, and you really are so miffed about it, there is one sure cure… get your own kids. That’ll fix you.

On solo parents: I was thinking of the solo parents than might already be in a relationship but deliberately kept at a distance so that DPB can still be claimed. At present a de-facto relationship with an earner would result in a drop of income for the potential household (even with WFF).

And, for the record, I’m not a pro-family fundamentalist. I’m just pragmatic. Those that can afford to manipulate their earnings through various entities (or ‘investment vehicles’) are already doing so.

Compared to WFF? Well, income-splitting is not really going to be of much benefit for the wealthiest double-income-no-kids couples as their marginal rates are probably the same or similar. WFF looks at gross household income so it results in the same inequity between single and double income families.

I also don’t have much time for the line that it’s unfair on individuals. I recognise that it arguably is, but I see important societal benefits from this sort of targetted support which make it worthwhile (though I don’t currently benefit from it myself).

As for your last comment: why on earth would you like to reduce the number of solo parents? Economically disadvantaging the decision to cut loose from a bad relationship will result in increased spousal abuse and relationships of convenience. There would be a bunch of other collateral effects too. This is simplistic policy.

L

As for fairness, I don’t really buy the argument that it is unfair to individuals. The same argument could be made against many govt initiatives. Any what of the fairness of tax liability for single/dual income families?

Hell, it might even reduce the number of solo parents.

Summary: 1. it’s economically illiterate; 2. it requires an ideal family type to be codified in legislation; 3. it effectively penalises anyone not belonging to that ideal family type. I’d add 4: Massive implementation problems.

http://tvhe.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/household-structure-economic-units-and-income-splitting/

L

Now, as a self-employed person trading through a company I can pay my partner $60k (soon $70k) as a part-time admin/accounts person while she looks after the kids. This saves our family $167 per week in tax under the current tax brackets (March 2008).

Is it not unfair that a regular salary earner can not do the same?

Good to know these things.

Thought those nasty newspapers have made another mistake, again.

The way I look at it as a personal thing is, that the phone bill is paid for each month which yay great for for me and it is going to get better still.

Very pleased with this but hope we haven’t left ourselves a bit short.

If Key wants to give away more, means cuts to services and/or borrowing.

Also as someone said before about Mr Key pulling figures out of the air, he now has to put up or shut up, i.e. tell us HOW he is going to do it.

Should be our catch phrase now – PUT UP OR SHUT UP, KEY