Calls for cuts to Working For Families

Print

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 6:00a.m. EXCLUSIVE

Prime Minister John Key (file)

Prime Minister John Key (file)

By Brook Sabin

3 News has obtained figures which show higher income families are claiming tens of millions of dollars in tax credits, under Working For Families.

The Government is considering cutting back the scheme following the Christchurch quake, and will release details at next month’s budget.

But one economist says the figures show scope for saving half a billion dollars every year.

The two Canterbury earthquakes are estimated to cost the Government around $10 billion, so cuts are looming at next month’s budget.

The $2.5 billion Working For Families package is in the firing line – especially for those on higher incomes.

So how much do higher income earners cost us?

“I don’t want to go into specific details about that scheme or other changes to the budget today,” Prime Minister John Key says.

But 3 News has obtained the details for 2009 – the latest data available.

It shows:

 
  • Those with a household income of between $60,000 to $80,000 claimed $240 million on Working For Families tax credits
  • While those on $80,000 to $100,000 claimed $55 million
  • Families on more than $100,000 claimed $10 million that year in tax credits.

“Working For Families does some important and good things – it relieves child poverty and gets solo parents into work – but at the same time it’s not very well targeted, so a lot of money goes to the wrong type of people,” says Jean-Pierre de Raad of the NZ Institute of Economic Research.

While Mr Key won’t confirm cuts are on the way, he does suggest the Government is seriously considering it.

“Working For Families has a reach into very high income levels. Granted, people have to have quite a lot of children before they can get into that level of support, if they have higher incomes. I think, given the changes to the tax system and the likes it is legitimate for us to look at that area,” he says.

Critics say the Government would have to significantly reduce eligibility to make any big savings.

“The amount of money that can be saved by the small number of people with many children at the top is peanuts, the vast bulk of expenditure of Working For Families is on families who need it,” says Labour leader Phil Goff.

But the NZIER argues there is scope for huge cuts.

It classifies struggling families as those on less than $50,000 and says if the Government restricted the scheme to them, it’d save $540 million a year.

“We have to find ways of better spending the money that we spend,” says Mr de Raad.

“One way is to look at poor performing programmes – and I think Working For Families is one of those.”

But in an election year, commentators say, big cuts to the scheme which would affect tens of thousands of families are unlikely to happen.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

27 Apr 2011 01:42p.m.

Luke wrote:

Does anyone consider saving up and establishing some financial security before starting a family? Or do people now consider having children in an income generating tool? It makes me wonder how many children are being born into low income families because of policies like WFF, If it were not for WFF these people may implement restraint and not have the 2nd 3rd 8th child if they can't afford them and therefore the total number of children raised in this country below the poverty line would be vastly less. It is sad that any child be brought up in a situation of poverty but policy that intends to prevent it often creates more of the exact problem it is trying to prevent. Also how many hard working couples are being severely taxed and prevented from saving up to have a family, or delaying constantly because of policies like WFF?

20 Apr 2011 02:26p.m.

merzmac@gmail.com wrote:

So right @Heather it unbelievable!!! I can't believe how much National are getting away with. The lies about not raising GST and catching up with Australia, The BMWS, The hired spin doctor, the SCF dribble, media-works, the very controversial hobbit funding, breaches of privacy, mining our precious land, the overheard conversation about keeping wages down, hiring helicopters to go get a nice photo shot, the benefit bashing (even though many have lost jobs and next to nothing been create), the rising price of living due to the inflation and rise of GST (and lying, saying it's not their fault), rising minimal wage to a pitiful $13 hr, letting a company with a bad reputation drill off NZ, the go nowhere cycleway, one pumpkin community max scheme, National blaming Labour for their debt problems-yet stated they were in good shape when they came into office. This is to name a few. There are some good stories journalists can jump on, not quite sure why they don't. Quite frustrating. Would be nice to be informed better of what the government has been up to. This is important to ensure us kiwis and future kiwis can have a good, enjoyable life in NZ. Wolfman this was not a failed scheme, it had proved successful lifting thousands of children out of the poverty line. Problem is National have reversed all the good things it had done.

20 Apr 2011 12:03p.m.

helen wrote:

@heather your right its rich people writing all this crap about labour key just smiles and lies,whats great about people losing there jobs and getting sacked left right and center? selling everything off this country took years buying back?also the national pro mining, the oil companys drilling did we get asked for all this???

19 Apr 2011 10:18p.m.

ricsta wrote:

Does anybody else think that the last two posters are the same person?

19 Apr 2011 09:29p.m.

johnmillan wrote:

Poor mum I fully support you in what you have written,That Poor David I bleed for him??like hell I do,just another Nat supporter got hit Good luck and hope he goes down like skittles in a bowling alley.

19 Apr 2011 09:16p.m.

Kim wrote:

This isn't really that much anyway. As an example as a worker on 44g a year my in work tax credit was $32 so i'm assuming that at 60g+ is going to be a lot less than that..maybe about $20pw Considering 60+ earners got a nice tidy sum (Vairable but a lot more than $20) in the tax cuts its not really going to hurt them much is it? For those of you screaming that wwf is more than that the other part of it is called family support which is not part of wwf..anyone with kids gets it (dpb gets it as part of the entilement)And is not being targeted. Or at least not openly.

19 Apr 2011 07:50p.m.

hindu joe wrote:

national ahead in what polls,the polls of the I'm alright jack and the yacht club. take your poll down to where
500,000 are out of work. if they vote national then nz you are stuffed.

19 Apr 2011 07:21p.m.

heather wrote:

i am going to spend a large amount of cash warning kiwis they are being brainwashed by the media ,its pro national 90% of the time , its ownd by the rich and works for the rich . THEY ARE FOOLING YOU AGAIN AS THEY UNJUSTLY DESTROYED WINSTON PETERS THEY ARE GOING AFTER LAB and kiwis are to silly to see it . i said to duncan garner you were just wating for lab to make one slip up and they would be all over lab like with winston peters . and here we are . 500,000 to spend its time to get our election back its time to wake nz up .the modern media work for the wealthy end of story get ready to loose all the wealth an assets this country has built up over years .

19 Apr 2011 03:08p.m.

Lucy wrote:

There are alot of families out there strugling an if the goverment cuts the WFF for the lower income families there is going to be alot more povity in NZ an alot more people making the move over the ditch just to be able to live. Necesities are priced out of reach for the average income. once they have done there weekly/fortnightly shopping then there is nothing left for holidays, clothing ETC for the simple family. We get working for families but it goes straight into my kids accounts for there collage eduaction as that is what WFF is for your kids not you to spend on your bills that you have made.

19 Apr 2011 02:53p.m.

Kevin wrote:

I think we should start to talk about any government savings/spending cuts not just in $ but also in the amount of hours/days/weeks of borrowing it will save at the current rate of borrowing $300m a week. In this case cutting off WFF for those earning between $60-$80k will save less than a weeks borrowing, cutting off those earning over $100k will save 5-6 hours of borrowing.