- Date published:
10:18 am, February 28th, 2008 - 13 comments
Categories: inoculation, john key, national, tax - Tags: inoculation, john key, national, tax
One consquence of the expectations around tax cuts is an examination of some of the policies already have in place – Working for Families for example.
This was the topic of a recent article from Ruth Laugesen in the Sunday Star Times.
“Coopers chairman John Shewan said that under Working for Families, many households effectively paid no tax at all.” (See table to left – click to enlarge).
So how does this “no tax” situation sit alongside what National plans to deliver? Is the roll-over of Working for Families the next dead rat for Mr Key? The ground appears to be being prepared for this “no change” outcome according to comments from Lockwood Smith in the SSTimes article. At first it reads like standard National avoidance of a policy position:
“National’s revenue spokesman, Dr Lockwood Smith, said National still had criticisms of the [Working for Families] policy, but it may be too difficult to redesign it before the election. He said National had so far failed to develop any policy “at all” on Working for Families.”
But further into the article Dr Smith goes onto say:
Dr Smith: “Clearly we won’t be dispensing with Working for Families or anything like that. I wouldn’t for one moment say the tax treatment of people with dependent children is unfairly generous.”
So is it reasonable to expect National to just adopt the Working for Families policy “as is”? Unfortunately previous criticisms of the scheme raised by Mr Key do imply that there will have to be change as some point:
Key: “National doesn’t support the current Government’s “Working for Families’ package… Policies that turn every second family with children into state dependents might be a result the Labour Party is comfortable with, but simply put, National is not.’
Key: “I personally think, of Working For Families, it seems far too high up in the income bracket… I think you should use the tax system where you can….”
And when debating legislation that extended Working for Families in 2005 (Hansard, November 16, 2005):
Key: “I want to finish by talking about the Working for Families adjustments… National members will be opposing this legislation with every bone in our bodies.”
But fortunately he has told us they will be clear about their intentions:
Key: “We’re not going to go into an election without complete and clear transparency of how we’ll handle everything from Working For Families, KiwiSaver and tax but we’ll do that within plenty of time” (RNZ, 23 May 2007)
So as we move toward announcements regarding tax policy it is clear that we should also be seeking guidance on future directions for Working for Families.
Perhaps someone should let Lockwood know.
Surely all that WFF cash would help pay for bigger tax cuts though? If they’re going to deliver on Key’s promise of big cuts the money has to come from somewhere.
Is the aptly named Dancerat trying to scare the voters with articles like this?
WFF should be shot down out and the money returned to its rightful owners, but you very well know the Nats will never do that, so don’t write in vain.
Our politicians are too scared and the population too accustomed to these sort of welfare-dependency handouts.
That aside, a drastic change is required in the NZ welfare system with a view to make it work for those who really need it, not the myriad of bludgers and freeloaders we maintain today.
How many bludgers and freeloaders do we maintain today Santi? I thought welfare numbers were going down under Labour, as opposed to National – can you back that assertion?
Your last stanement contradicts the one proceeding it. You hate WFF (which will help with our declining birthrate, and is well targeted to those who need it – people raising families), yet claim we have a welfare system that doesn’t work for those who need it.
Now I’m with you, if you’re saying WFF isn’t part of the welfare system (it targets workers, not the unemployed) but I very much doubt that’s your view.
You’ve basically said you hate WFF but want something to do what WFF does – target those who need it.
Fact check: Working for Families is actually paid out through the tax system. When people call it “Welfare dependency” it seems like wishful thinking (or effective re-positioning) to me. The attached image re-inforces the idea that it is the IRD that administer the scheme with the reminder that on 31 March many families will have their family tax bill cancelled out by the family tax credit.
The question of whether you provide recognition of the financial costs of children and how you deliver that policy is of course the question we’re waiting for the National party to answer!
Santi. Kiwiblogblog has graphs on the number of long-term beneficiares, there’s bugger all of them (and, of course, being on a benefit for a long time does not automatically make you a bludger either)
So National will:
1) Keep all the expensive things (WFF, interest-free student loans, Kiwisaver, etc)
2) Spend more (transport infrastructure, corrections, education, defence, farming subsidies, etc)
3) Cut taxes
4) Get mortgages down and wages up
5) Win Rugby World Cup.
Number five I can believe, the rest is fantasy.
Recycling, it’s good isn’t it?
You know full well National will not take any radical measures.
They may be less socialist that your beloved Labour Party, but are as afraid as the reds of breaking the socialist mindset that that has infected NZ society, i.e. political correctness, welfare dependency, lack of individual responsibility, nanny-statism, etc.)
Nevertheless, it will be a relief to see Clark packing her bags to a plum job overseas. Her cronies will be left stranded.
political correctness, welfare dependency, lack of individual responsibility, nanny-statism, etc.
Yet more fact-free cliches from Santi. Please try harder.
Santi, you really are a dull buffoon.
Michael Porton, you really are an entertaining imbecile.
Yet more fact-free cliches from Santi. Please try harder.
Let’s just settle for “Please try”
Nah – that one is fantasy as well – they don’t look fit enough. (Mind you I don’t think that any of the other MP’s are capable of doing it either…)
cap: get involved
It is targeting me…..