Really? That's bizarre, given that benefits aren't taxed.
They are indeed taxed. You'll pay the M code - 19.5% up to $38,000.
It is bizarre and byzantine, but it comes from wanting to have one of the simplest tax regimes in the world.
Why we can't have the Green's (and Australia's and many other places) tax free bracket on the first x,000 earned is beyond my comprehension (clearly). It would give to everyone, but the marginal utility would be greatest for the lowest income earners.
Meanwhile, the Dom Post online's top story is... a man pissing on a parking meter.
Let me know when he's found pissing on a 'journalist'. (assuming its not a watersports story - I'm not interested in that kind of reporting either)
Increasing the level paid to those on the unemployment benefit would also induce flexibility in the workplace, by giving people a measure of security that allows them to switch jobs with lower risk.
If National was innovative, and actually wanted to be Labour + rather than just appearing so, they might promote 'flexicurity'. Instead they're raising the corpses of Richardson and Shipley.
once your child turns six, or having another baby, a teenage DPB mum will always choose to get herself knocked up again.
For her to be a "teenage DPB mum" with a six year old, she would have to have been 12-13 at the age of her first pregnancy. I assumed it was sarcastic, since no-one sane would make this assertion so boldly.
I'd rather they just showed the sport, and did away completely with the talking to people before and after the events.
Indeed. I just hate how they poke a microphone under the nose of someone still gasping for air, after the swim (run, cycle...) of their lives. Give them a couple of minutes and they might have something rational to say.
I suppose what gives is that they might have escaped the pesky interviewer by then, but most athletes seem pretty happy to give short interviews in good time.
do i really want a society brought up thinking that the answer to resource scarcity is redistribution?
Three words: Diminishing marginal utility.
In a society of scarcity, making sure that those who have a very small slice of the pie (of whatever size) is a priority. They are able to generate much more good from that small amount than those with more.
first-world societies need children, so you're investing in the taxpayer of tomorrow
Wouldn't it be cheaper to educate children in a developing country, and then bring them over when they're of working age?
There's some tongue cheek irony in there, but to an extent that's what we already do (although our foreign aid is pitifully low, so we're not holding up the first half of the bargain very well).
How do you make that kind of suspicion the basis for welfare policy?
Quite easily, from experience.
If we're going to be strictly economically rational, might we also ask what economic benefit there is to funding the poor (especially children) out of significant poverty.
The Danish, the Norwegians and the Swedes are some of the richest countries on earth and who have for the last 60-80 years made social assistance a core priority. But these examples don't fit well with the party base, and I dare say they don't fit well with the class of 99 either.
Craig, I thought I made it clear, but I'll quote myself to make it doubly so.
Most won't, but don't pretend there aren't people who will.
Probably the great majority of employers are decent people who want the best for their employees.
There are however enough out there (a small minority, but not so small as to be inconsequential) who feel justified for what ever reason in exploiting their workers that removing fundamental protections for several months is A Bad Idea.