Benefits, allowances, the minimum wage and super all go up today.
The cost of living rise is 2.63% but superannuitants are receiving more. Working for Families increases child tax credits by $10 per child. Beneficiaries do not receive the additional $10 per child which is why the Child Poverty Action Group is taking the government to court. 4 weeks leave kicks in and the minimum wage rises.
"Taken together, these initiatives and adjustments amount to a massive delivery on this government's commitment to families and to improving the living standards of all New Zealanders," David Benson-Pope said.
Not that I want the government to go anywhere near trying to influence my living standard but has any of the above enhanced your's? Someone will have to pay for the extra week's leave and minimum wage rise. The most likely candidate is the low wage worker when he loses his job.
And who foots the welfare bill?
Sorry, but there are no free lunches.
NZCPR Newsletter: Coalition Promises
13 minutes ago
4 comments:
"No free lunches" also applies to those who benefit from unearned income due to asset inflation (ie) property investors). Someone else pays in the end.
We don't always look at the full picture; this morning i was watching a Sunday? item about Douglas Myers. I was impressed by his philanthropy, but I couldn't help seeing an image of a flying beer bottle
My wife and I don't benefit. Only one child, so no welfare for families. Jobs pay above the minimum wage, so no increase (although mine increased by inflation this year). Government spending, plus giving lots more to people who won't save will push interest rates up, so there goes our mortgage. We both already got 4 weeks annual leave, but this isn't increasing. And to top it all off, my student loan wasn't interest free, and I scrimped & saved to pay it all back ($16k in 2 years whilst earning $14 an hour).
So I'm in that special slice of NZ society affectionately known as the governments tax cow.
I would like to see governments more acountable (Ie) how about a structured account: You paid $x, followed by a pie chart of where it goes. People are very complaicent re tax, I think. They take your money and later in live your a "superaniuant" (gee thanks).
When ACT started I thought it was about evaluating government in a direct sense of paying taxes and getting less crime for it(for instance). What went wrong?--- the "lifers" in the govt departments wag the dog???
I wont benifit, but as I just got married,& my wife wants kids (I don't as I'm 50+) I may. She has a friend who has a baby to a man who has fathered two children to two different women. I'm waiting for her to say "but you'll get plenty of money from the government"
Anon 2, I don't know what your personal financial circumstances are but if you don't want kids be very very careful. To be honest I am surprised you got married with such a 'significant' difference of opinion.
I only joined ACT in 2002 and didn't pay much attention prior. I gather Roger Douglas' idea were based on personalised savings accounts from which people 'draw down' for their own health and welfare needs. (like they have in Chile). But this involves a degree of compulsion about what you must do with your money. That may have been the sticking point with some ACT members.
Post a Comment