Naturally it has now dawned that Working For Families will discourage partnered women from the workforce. There is no consensus over whether that is a good or bad thing. Conservatives tend to like women to be in the home raising their children and leaving more employment opportunities open for men. The social democrats still believe strongly in equality and choice for women. The second part of the social democrat goal is about where I sit EXCEPT it must not be achieved through redistribution. Simply, if women want choice - home or work - they can pay for it.
Anyway, today's NZ Herald editorial has this to say;
The drop in employment can be greater than the rise in unemployment because the latter excludes people who are not actively looking for another job.
So long as those people are not urgently in need of a paying job - the greater number of them are women and the decline follows a rise in the "working for families" benefit - the figures are less of an economic concern and may even be a plus for the economy in present circumstances.
The trouble is, with WFF, all we are doing is dividing up the pie instead of growing it. There is at least a consensus (barring the Greens) that we do need economic growth. So I do not accept that the figures constitute "less of an economic concern". And neither would it seem do the new Australian government which is promising "a giant review of tax and welfare."
Effective marginal tax rates are a particular problem for partnered women with children, who see little value in working when their family benefits are withdrawn. The Government aims to get more of these women into the workforce.
I remain convinced - though the chances of ever proving my instincts are right are remote - that governments should just butt out of social arrangements. The more they try to centrally plan societies the more they stuff them up. They get caught on a never-ending see-saw of readjustment, wasting enormous resource and energy in the process. A low flat tax and the minimum of social assistance would see people organise themselves into situations that are beneficial both economically and socially.
Point of Order: Buzz from the Beehive - 19/4/24
50 minutes ago
7 comments:
My concern with this policy that if a relationship (married, de facto) breaks up and one partner has been out of the workforce they are disadvanted in their future earnings in the workforce.
As it is often women who stay at home, it's women who bear this burden.
Also less people working means less economic growth and employers have less opportunity to pick the most skilled workers out of the pool of people.
With more women than men going onto higher education that will mean that our productivity will be lower.
Some women - and men - who want choice in the workforce are paying for it. Its called education. And if they are studying full time - and working part time on top of that - to get a better job to feed their kids and pay the mortgage;and their partners income is, say 37k - how are they going to make ends meet without redistribution.
Answer that one, Lindsay.
Dave, Why should other people pay for someone else's decision to have children and buy a house before they finished their education? It's not that I have no sympathy for their situation but it is of their making. Nobody else's.
And what would happen if everybody decided to arrange their lives in this order?
The most important results on education are in an interesting result from the CIS - basically most tertiary education in NZ and AUS has no private benefit to individuals and no public benefits. Add in the costs and the overall results are negative.
Clearly people only go to universities because the state is foolish enough to pay them.
Removing the state from education, both provision, funding, and control, should be a high priority for an incoming government.
Here is a thought- sort out the income before starting with the kids & mortgage.
But feel free to dig into YOUR OWN wallet & contribute to those who can't prioritize or plan.
Why should other people pay for someone else's decision to have children and buy a house before they finished their education?
Some people dont know when their education is "finished". The type of people who finish their education, get a job, have kids, buy a house and get made redundant and have to retrain.... and go back to education again.
It's not that I have no sympathy for their situation but it is of their making. Nobody else's.
Bullshit. Why shouldn't these people get support? I suppose you think they shouldn`t even get a student allowance....
Dave
Bullshit. Why shouldn't these people get support? I suppose you think they shouldn`t even get a student allowance...
Yep. But no-one should get student allowance.
Post a Comment