It's all so clear
Today's announcement that Labour will extend the Working for Families package to cover 60 000 more Nw Zealand families makes the choices at this election chrystal clear.
Whereas National will enact expensive tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy, Labour will invest in ordinary New Zealand families - the backbone of our economy and society. The Greens have done a comparison of what a probable tax cut package vs. the Working for Families package would mean for working New Zealand families, and it is a stark picture.
Across the board tax cuts would give Don Brash a $380/week tax cut were he (god forbid) to be Prime Minister, and just $28/week more to the average kiwi family on $50 000. Contrarily, Labour will provide $113/week assistance to that average family.
It's simple really, do we want policies that benefit the wealthy few, or average hard working families?
23 comments:
National is stuck.
Michael - Can I remind you of a previous post where you said --
"Our hard won surpluses can be frittered away on the electoral bribe"
yippity dooda for the first time in my life I can be a beneficiary.
Thanks heaps Labour...I get to put on my forms under occupation "State sponsered bludger".
but it's what happens in the United States, Canada, Australia and Britain, spooks.....
Oh so now our internal policies ae dictated by what happens in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain.....hmmm who is getting their policy from overseas now huh!!
That all depends on sho Nony is, i suspect someone in tha ministers office given the incessant left wing drivel in support of Mikey, who can never say anything with out a cut and paste fromone minister or anothers press releases.
People who try to raise a panic about New Zealanders going to Australia would presumably be interested in the family assistance provided there..........
This is a good policy that will benefit many lower and middle income NZ families who are doing their best to bring up kids.
Spooks et al, I feel that your criticisms are extremely ideological. You object to the policy purely because you believe that receiving anything from the government is morally bad. I prefer to take a practical approach - identify how we can haelp families and do it.
Incidentally, are you equally critical of National's tax credits for people with student loans given that it will by your reasoning turn those people into "beneficiaries"?
First up Michael, when Labour was first elected on 1999 $60,000 was the evil rich so you whacked their tax rate up. Now $60,000 + is eligible for a benefit for "lower and middle income earners"???? How can you be rich and slugged for a tax hike and now be poor enough for a benefit....in fact Labour has now set the bench mark at $150,ooo for "poor" to recieve a benefit...this is plain illogical.
Even I would be eligible for a benefit now and I can tell you I sure as hell don't need it.
Tincanman
What is your income?
How many children do you have?
Is yours a double or a single income household?
Have you looked into how Working with Families would help you? Would you then run a comparison with National?
Tell us the result if you do.
Do you genuinely think it is shameful to receive family assistance in the same way that "hard working, middle class" people in the United States, Canada, Australia and the UK do? Working for Families only brings NZ to about the level of generosity of family assistance in the first two of those countries. We are still short of the other two.
Or have you just constructed your aversion to family assistance, tagging it a benefit for the ideological and oppositional sake of it? I think so.
Mind you I think the secondary tax question, which I take it you are referring to with the 360/800 is an interesting one.
Anonymous, it is you and your ilk that miss the point. It doesn't matter whether we provide the same or less than any other country. Welfarism is welfarism no mater how large or small it is. The logical next step for Labour is to just tax us at 100% and pay all our bills for us, nationalise the supermarkets and dole out the food as well.
Individual responsiblity is eroded every time yougive some one a benefit.
The old saying goes "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, give him a fishing rod feed him for a lifetime."
Labour and Welfarism is giving us all fish but New Zealanders as a whole are not learning how to fish.
And let me tell you the fish are getting cunning and don't want to be cuaght anymore.
What a silly comment from whaleoil that was.
These people are working: we know they have not scaled your illustrious remuneratory heights, whaleoil, but they are working....
Working, yet now also on a benefit!!!
In some instances getting more in a benefit than they pay in tax.....how is this sustainable...oh I know we are now also stealing from anyone not with a family, the old who have already raised their family.
I for one will not be taking up this offer even though i could easily qaulify for it. It is welfarism. I hve never ever recieved a benefit from the government and will not start now.
You've received several 'benefits' from the government in your time actually, whaleoil.....
And under National, whaleoil, those old you mention would have to wait to 68 to get National Super!
spooks, don't be silly - no-one is talking about socialism or communism apart from you.
Labour is bringing NZ up to the levels of family assistance in other thoroughly capitalist Anglo-American democracies.
This is the third freest economy in the world, remember.
spooks do you agree with John Key when he says Labour's policy is bad because it means parents are more likely to spend Saturday morning supporting their children playing sport rather than working overtime?
yes, back to your old theme that parents aren't hard workers....
spooks, your comments speak for their unfortunate selves....
Labour's policies are about investing in the future. Everyone acknowledges how important it is to raise children (they will after all pay the taxes that fund Super for everyone in the future), but only Labour is fronting up with the necessary investment.
John Key would rather that parents worked overtime on a Saturday, Labour would rather that parent spent the day with little Johnny at the rugby. Working for Families makes that all the more likely.
Where do you get the figure of thirty years targeted assistance for Maori from, spooks?
why do you socilaists need to resort to lying and misinformation "John Key would rather that parents worked overtime on a Saturday, Labour would rather that parent spent the day with little Johnny at the rugby. Working for Families makes that all the more likely." - what absolute crap.
1. if you go to the www.taxcuts.co.nz calculator it demonstrates that under most situations a person is better off with National than labour.
2. National rewards effort - Labour's policy is just marxist communism by stealth
3. I am insulted that on an income of $90k labour wants to make me suck on the tit of the government to get some of my own money back - no incentive to work harder.
Socialism is a lie show me a socialsit experiment that has worked - there are none. societies that embrace capitalism are better off than those that don't.
No, Michael. As with Labour's interest-free student loan bribe, your numbers are wrong on this count, too.
The maximum amount any individual will save under National is $92 per week. I strongly suggest that instead of using David Slack's calculator, which doesn't involve the moving of tax threshholds, that you use National's calculator, which is accurate.
National's tax package ensures that individuals earning $60,000 per year--about the average income for a degree-qualified worker in employment--earns $45 extra per week. Labour provides that same worker with NOTHING.
A two-income family with two young children, with one parent earning $45,000 per year and the other parent earning $30,000, spending $8,000 on child-care, will be $100 a week better off under National. Under Labour, that same family will be just $42 better off than at present.
Working families are not better off under Labour. That concept is a fraud and a lie, and you can't hide behind using false numbers to explain away that lie, Michael.
Post a Comment