Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:09AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

the highest marginal tax rates in the land will be faced by those trying to get off the bottom rung.

No, they might be high, but the abatement on the student allowance allowance above the earning threshold is 100% (which is a decrease(!) since the last election).

Every dollar a student earns over the abatement threshold is a dollar they lose from their allowance.

Posted at 10:16AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

And, of course, the biggest group of beneficiaries face no abatement. But taking money from rich old people isn't a vote winner in the way taking money from poor single parents is...

Posted at 10:18AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

The problem with "marketing to the base" is that there might be some real-world implications once this policy is rolled out.

For example on Morning Report, when asked whether they were going to need more frontline staff, Judith Collins blithely talked about there being "quite a lot of fat" in WINZ, implying that they would somehow transmogrify their current staffing configuration to have more frontline staff at no cost.

And the organisations that will be required to provide the increase in mandated budgeting advice are asking where the funding will come from to pay for the increased output.

Posted at 10:19AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

I ranted irritably about this yesterday to anyone who would listen. Honestly, single mothers are damned no matter which way they go. Work all the hours god sends, get blamed for neglecting the kiddies; stay on the DPB and try to raise them on $200 a week or whatever it is, get blamed for being a bludger, as if raising children isn't work that should be highly valued anyway.

It should also be noted that a single woman (only a woman? Not sure) over 50 with no dependent children can get the DPB. Most of those people will be women who were out of the paid workforce for most of their lives raising kids, and who will have been divorced or widowed. They'll be in semi-retirement. What on earth kind of employment prospects will they have?

Meh.

Posted at 10:23AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

I agree about the time spent versus results back of this being all out of whack. Why not spend all that time on something useful and electorally attractive - like - for example:

I would love to see National - with their plentiful lawyers, accountants and businesspeople - -propose some solid policies to stop tax evasion and the rorting of family trust set-ups that mean so many of the property developers whose irresponsible trading caused many of the finance company collapses end up materially unaffected by bankruptcy.

Surely that would throw up more savings for the state and provide the kind of moral leadership they talk about the DPB and welfare policies providing.

That said - I didn't think there was really anything in the policy announcement that wasn't something Labour could have come up with. I mean really - if they were in for another term I wouldn't have been surprised if they got around to putting a check-up mechanism on the sickness benefit or some form of work incentive on DPB mothers. They aren't exactly nasty why don't the poor eat their babies ideas...

Posted at 10:25AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

They aren't exactly nasty why don't the poor eat their babies ideas...

DPB mothers/fathers *are already working*. They're raising children.

Posted at 10:29AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

Am I missing something here? The abatement threshold for the student allowance is $180 - considerably more generous than that for the DPB. Is tertiary study so much more important than merely raising kids? I'd love to see the policy rationale behind the disparity.

Posted at 10:29AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

Also, there are already checks on sickness benefits. You have to provide regular doctor's certificates. See here.

Posted at 10:33AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

<quote>DPB mothers/fathers *are already working*. They're raising children.<quote>

Nonsense, everybody knows that after the age of six they practically raise themselves. What with the Internet and all.

Somebody (I think the child poverty action group woman) pointed out on Morning Report that single parents on the DPB are twice as likely to be raising special needs kids than the parent population at large. The policy will feel particularly kind to this lot.

How did Peter Dunne manage to make his inane views heard so many times in the course of the last few hours I'll never know. But that's so by the by.

Posted at 10:37AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

I know a lot of people who have used the DPB over the years, men and women, and as far as I can see they usually do so very responsibly, and are very keen to get back to work when they can. the idea that there are thousands of people out there having babies as a career move just doesn't match up to what I've seen.

great dog-whistle stuff though.

The abatement rates are self-defeating, and should be higher than $100 I believe, I'd think more like $200 in today's economy.

Posted at 10:40AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

The abatement rates are self-defeating, and should be higher than $100 I believe, I'd think more like $200 in today's economy.

So, so hard for Labor to claim the moral high ground here though, it pains me to say. Did they have to wait for National to link the benefit to the freaking rate of inflation?

Posted at 10:41AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

15 hours a week at $12 an hour, multiplied by 52 weeks. $9360? Take away the abatement, I have no idea how to work that out. Take away tax. I don't know how much child care costs for primary school children, but let's say you use up 4 weeks holiday from your '15 hours a week, only in school hours job', that leaves about 8 weeks of school holidays to cover. (Remember, the nature of DPBs is that they have no partner to help.) Take that away. Transport, to and from your 'job'. (Ignore transport to childcare in school holidays, they can walk.) Take that away.(You could walk too, if Pak'n'save is handy. Although you might have to go further afield if all the DPBs from your impoverished suburb have got in before you.) What's left? A sense of achievement? Yes, that's comforting, they can eat and clothe ourselves in that...

Posted at 10:42AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

Also, there are already checks on sickness benefits. You have to provide regular doctor's certificates. See here.

I actually don't mind the idea of occasionally referring sickness beneficiaries to designated doctors, as a check on the system. Although I suspect the incidence of tame doctors signing off on benefits for people who don't truly qualify isn't really very high.

Posted at 10:53AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

Yes, as Judith Collins pointed out, the number on the sickness benefit is the highest it's every been, but so is the population -- and that population is, demographically, only going to become more infirm over the next few years.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is our aging population that is to blame for our rising rate of sickness beneficiaries?

DPB mothers/fathers *are already working*. They're raising children.

Nonsense, everybody knows that after the age of six they practically raise themselves. What with the Internet and all.

National's says that this policy will only take effect once the youngest child is six ie at school from 9am-3pm. Are you seriously suggesting DPB parents spend those 6 hours a day washing ironing, cleaning the house, doing the shopping, etc? That's 30 hours a week.

Having said that, although I like the idea in theory I know that in practice it will be completely unworkable. There simply aren't enough part time jobs out there for parents whose kids are at school. I would anticipate a proliferation in 15 Hour Weekly Training Courses as the only nett outcome with this policy.

Posted at 10:53AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

They aren't exactly nasty why don't the poor eat their babies ideas...

DPB mothers/fathers *are already working*. They're raising children.

Indeed - no argument there - never said they weren't.

It is interesting how the whole point of a post can be missed so one line that suits preconceptions can be hauled out.

Yikes.

Posted at 10:57AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

It should also be noted that a single woman (only a woman? Not sure) over 50 with no dependent children can get the DPB. Most of those people will be women who were out of the paid workforce for most of their lives raising kids, and who will have been divorced or widowed. They'll be in semi-retirement. What on earth kind of employment prospects will they have?

Retailers are still desperately screaming out for more staff; a 30-something relative of mine who suffers from a severe mental illness has a job for the first time in her life because of the dire shortage of workers in the retail sector. There's plenty of jobs out there for people with no skills who want to work.

great dog-whistle stuff though.

The selfish evil DPB beneficiary casts a large shadow over the psyches of the far right; lazy, greedy and sexually promiscuous they're kind of the conservative corporate version of the Soviet Unions wreckers and saboteurs.

Still, its worth remembering that only three years ago the National Party welfare policy was to punish women on the DPB who had additional children by totally cutting off all their benefits. Its a stark reminder of how far the party has moved to the middle, as well as how utterly batshit insane it really was under Don Brash.

Posted at 10:59AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

Although I suspect the incidence of tame doctors signing off on benefits for people who don't truly qualify isn't really very high.

not so sure. i read somewhere that the incidence of small-town doctors being bullied/harassed into siging s/b forms is actually rather hi. apparently signing is easier than dealing with the beneficiary.

which suggests two things.
1. there are obviously people who really should be on the s/b.
2. the one time i read kiwiblog seems to still haunt me.

Posted at 11:01AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

There simply aren't enough part time jobs out there for parents whose kids are at school.

Could be when they role out the Industrial relations policy.

Posted at 11:02AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

I would anticipate a proliferation in 15 Hour Weekly Training Courses as the only nett outcome with this policy.

i'm not so sure. there are lots of part-time jobs in the service industry.

but, the usual hours (in my experience) are 6-10pm fri/sat nights. and maybe sunday lunchtimes.

otoh, housecleaners are frequently in demand in hi-income households. and perhaps nannying.

Posted at 11:03AM on 12 Aug 08. Permalink.

Roll not Role.