The Child Poverty Action Group begins its case against the government tomorrow. They want the In Work payment (now In Work Tax Credit) paid to beneficiary families as well. They claim the exclusion of beneficiary families is discriminatory.
This is my argument against the CPAG (repeated);
If the CPAG win, essentially we will see an increase in benefit levels. An increase in benefit levels leads to an increase in the number of people going on or staying on benefits. CPAG want a short term gain and refuse to see the long term cost which cannot be in the best interests of children.
There is no guarantee the money reaches the children anyway.
And, most obviously, the incentive effect of the In-Work payment will be nullified if it is extended to non-working families.
The Greens and the Maori Party are supporting the CPAG.
Who is going to win? We have seen the Ministry of Social Development forced to settle out of court previously for discriminating against a single male parent who had full custody of a child (the mother had full custody of the other child/ren) by not allowing him to be on the DPB. But in this case, should the government lose, there would be a significant financial impact. Around $3-400 million more would be paid to parents on benefits. (From the beneficiaries point of view that's about a 14 percent pay rise.)
Beneficiaries already receive family support for each child. It varies according to age and ranges from $57 to $95 per week. Payments increased in April 2005 and April 2007. I wonder if I could take a case to the Human Rights Tribunal claiming discrimination because I do not receive these payments?
Or, more to the point, perhaps I should try discrimination on the grounds that I do not receive the In Work tax credit. The government has set arbitrary conditions on who receives them. The one that excludes me is an income test. The one that excludes beneficiaries is a work test. If the CPAG can get the work test removed perhaps I can get the income test removed.
UPDATE: A couple of months back I put out a media release about the CPAG being "at loggerheads with the OECD" on the matter of what strategy is most effective in reducing child poverty. I was pleased to read in the Dominion Post this morning that the government will be calling two representatives from the OECD as witnesses in its defence against the CPAG.
Bob Ekelund Remembered
14 minutes ago
6 comments:
Well, there are two ways to remove this particular 'discrimination'.
1.) Pay everyone the benefit.
2.) Pay no-one the benefit.
I favour the latter.
And if the CPAG wins, then I really hope you use the same arguments to get it paid to people with higher incomes (just to make a point).
If the CPAG wins, as I have stated, what's to stop students and Grandparents on the student allowance and super respectively claiming the In work tax credit for parenting kids?
Yes, lets increase the benefits of families like the Kahui's and Kings. You can guarantee it won't make any difference to their children.
And as far as discriminatory goes, how is it that a couple with one child, the mother on paid maternity leave, and a combined income of $60 to $70 thousand in their own home receive the accommodation allowance, yet a single person with no children on $30 thousand in a rental property receives no accommodation allowance, yet the mortgage repayment is similiar to the rental?
..or a couple who get off the benefit and work 29 hours a week can't get the tax credit and if the CPAG win their case beneficiaries will be able to but not the hard working family who has worked themself off a benefit but are still poor.
If this were a Hollywood movie, it would be called 'The Rebellion of the Bludgers'.
No one has an entitlement to the wealth of another man. That is why welfare paid for by government confiscation is unethical.
It's sadly amusing to see organisations squabbling over the scraps of confiscated property as if the people they represent have some right to it.
They only have a right to the wealth that *they* create.
Post a Comment