• Full Story

ACT attacks 'wacky' Green's bill

Email
Print

ACT attacks 'wacky' Green's bill

3News NZ

Green MP Catherine Delahunty

Green MP Catherine Delahunty

A Green Party bill to extend in-work tax credits to beneficiaries is being described as "just plain wacky".

MP Catherine Delahunty's bill has been drawn from the members ballot and will be debated in Parliament.

It replaces Working for Families with a universal tax credit based on income.

Ms Delahunty says Working for Families, which pays tax credits to working families, isn't reaching the most vulnerable people because it excludes beneficiaries.

"One quarter of New Zealand children grow up in poverty and three out of five of them are in beneficiary households," she said.

But ACT leader John Banks says the purpose of Working for Families is to ensure that people who are in paid work are better off as a result.

"The Green's bill would remove the requirement to actually `be in work' to receive the tax credit," he said.

"This makes no economic sense - it punishes those who work by making them pay more to fund those who don't and it erodes the incentive for those on a benefit to move off welfare and into work.

"It's just plain wacky."

NZN

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

19/08/2012 4:03:54 p.m.

Court Jester wrote:

Are you recession proof? How about your Kids? Many Beneficiaries work part time as and when work is available. Primarily the growth in the labour market is in part time, temporary, insecure employment leaving little opportunity for marginalized families to save and improve the children's wellbeing. Presently, and insanely beneficiaries' (except retirees') income support is abated at an extraordinarily high rate that means many are financially poorer if they can-not achieve full time employment. The government talks big about encouraging beneficiaries into work, but actively discourages effort. Bennet's big stick, and rotten carrot: "Whoops, I've forgotten the family support I received that gave me a head start." Middle class employees, with excellent track records, and previously stable, secure employment are finding themselves left out in the cold following termination - loosing not only a job, but government support for their children: Is this right and good for children in our community? Not too many years ago all families in NZ rich and poor and middle class not only had access to work opportunities, but support from the community (via the government) to raise their children. Then successive government policies stripped away economic development, and family support. Now, true to form the National government is blaming beneficiaries for failing to perform in the workplace, and neglecting the very children all of us will be relying on when we retire. Wacky green policy, I think not - just sound prudential planning for very a near future (10 years) in which todays children will be either in our workforce or escaped overseas, and retirees will out-number "workers". Best policy would be to not only extend Family Support to all with children, and remove all the abatement barriers that constrain beneficiaries efforts to gain employment. Is the government really doing it's job well? Or is it harming your children's future? Does Cabinet care about your future?

18/08/2012 12:38:08 p.m.

whackybanksy wrote:

Whatever the negatives re the Greens' policy, John Banks is certainly not the person anyone should be listening to. All he has contributed so far is a tea party that turned into a shambles and a funding runaround where he suffered from a severe case of amnesia.

17/08/2012 10:34:08 p.m.

Jan wrote:

People on benefits are already included by way of calculation which I understand is based on number of dependents and circumstances, so many beneficaries are getting more in their pockets than those who are in full time employment who contribute to the entitlements paid to beneficaries - how many times do they hold their hand out. Be reasonable.

17/08/2012 7:59:09 p.m.

eddie wrote:

Ohhh PLEASE National support this bill passed 1st and 2nd readings, as long as you can really before voting against it and put it into the bin where it belongs, that way labour will be red faced with all of NZ workers pissed off with Labour/Greens...how delicious....afterall Labour suffered worst defeat in 85yrs due to these crazy policies, remember anti smacking outrage, funny how labour cops the blame for Green party bills...heehee, georgeous.

17/08/2012 6:46:47 a.m.

Wiseacre wrote:

Should the children of beneficiaries be denied support because the job market & economic climate is failing their parents? Absolutely not. It has long been recognised that denying the tax-credit to the children of beneficiaries is discriminatory and morally bankrupt. Child poverty is our most pressing social problem, with long-term downstream effects on the whole of society. Kids going to school malnourished - if they go at all - aren't going to learn and they aren't going to fulfill their true potential. Inadequate housing, heating, clothing, education and nutrition leads to increased ill-health, reduced life-opportunities, higher unemployment and more criminal behaviour. The future costs of this will be borne by all of society. This is about investing in better outcomes for the future of our society. The long term social and economic costs of childhood poverty are immense - can we really afford NOT to implement this policy?