Sunday, August 06, 2017

Green's irresponsibility can't even be costed

The Greens want to stop what they call punitive sanctions on benefits and raise core benefit payments by 20 percent. The sanctions abolished include drugs-testing and requirement to name the father of a child.

Many low-skilled, low-pay jobs are currently drug-tested and the trend seems to be for the practice to expand. Consider a scenario whereby the worker can fail an employment drugs test but receive a commensurate non-drugs-tested income from a benefit (the Green's benefit package will push many incomes above minimum wage). It's not hard to envisage which way the foot traffic will be flowing.

And when mothers are no longer required to name the father/s of their children, you can bet many more won't. Why would they? With no financial penalty, there is no economic reason to.  So the money currently collected in child support will reduce. This is effectively a further debit on the welfare bill.

Have we seen any modelling of the possible effects of these policies? You bet we haven't.

But a lift in taxes in higher earning brackets won't cut it.



4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think I found this twitter post recently from Red's feed, which I thought summed up the end game pretty well.

https://twitter.com/CatMacLennanNZ/status/887599175013064704

Greens will remove current relationship in nature of marriage benefit test. Women will have independence.

I'm not sure if the issue really is just about not being able to hold the fathers accountable, rather it's about not holding anyone accountable for their irresponsible actions. Women will finally be free from men (yet dependent on the state) when everything they need is paid for.

macdoctor said...

But a lift in taxes in higher earning brackets won't cut it.

Depends on the size of the lift (and on the definition of "higher earning"). I have an old Beatles tune running through my head "There's one for you, nineteen for me - 'cause I'm the Taxman..."

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I referred to their published policy increase. Otherwise, you are quite right.

david said...

I think at the time of the Beatles, the top rate was 19/6. No wonder they moved to the US.