David Cunliffe announces family support reforms

[fixed_truth]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11192646

-parents of new born babies to recieve $60 a week until that baby turns one
-those on middle and lower incomes will continue to receive the payment until the child turns three
-free antenatal classes for all first time mothers
-extending early childhood education subsidies from 20 free hours a week to 25 hours
-paid parental leave extended from 14 to 26 weeks

He said any Government had to put its resources where they would do most good, and confirmed Labour would "unashamedly" tax the wealthiest more to help pay for it.

[Cyberbob]

I'm a full timer, and my missus is already a stay at home mum.

I'd just like _any_ paid parental leave.

[aR Que]

Do not want.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by aR Que

Do not want.

[Juju]

The $60 p/w applies to household incomes of up to $150,000 for the first year, but then that ceiling drops down to $50k as the years go by.

Weird ceilings are weird.


Edit: Oh lol - i see that their package includes 'free antenatal classes'.

They're already free.

[StN]

Do not want. wait. no. the other one.

Do not qualify, once again... No paid parental leave, no child care subsidy, no working for families (which, according to Joyce this morning is the reason that the Nats continued to borrow a gazillion dollars per week during the GFC to maintain living standards).

I do get free pharmacy perscriptions now though, so I am on the bludge a little. Even though I would just claim them back on Southern Cross anyway, which is probably saving the country some dollars on robot maintenance at New Zealand post or something. I wonder if you can scan attachments and submit claims by email now...

[Ab]

As with any proposed Labour spendup, I simply ask "how will this be paid for?"

[StN]

Apparently, but not introducing the GST exemption on fruit. And killing the first $5k tax exemption across the board that they were proposing. The logic baffles me.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

As with any proposed Labour spendup, I simply ask "how will this be paid for?"

Does Labour have a long history of being unable to balance their budgets?

[Ab]

If you could point to one moment that sealed Labour's last electoral defeat, it was "show me the money".

[Lightspeed]

Maybe they'll print some.

[StN]

Are they going that far to adopt the Green policies?

[ZoSo]

Breeding that voter base, one handout at a time.

[Lightspeed]

It's well established that the more resourced a family is, the less children they're likely to have.

[CCS]

I don't know anything about the details of Working For Families. I would have thought that WFF already did the stuff that Best Start is trying to achieve. So how are they different then?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's well established that the more resourced a family is, the less children they're likely to have.

True. If I hadn't had kids I'd be fucking rich now.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by CCS

I don't know anything about the details of Working For Families. I would have thought that WFF already did the stuff that Best Start is trying to achieve. So how are they different then?

you'd think fuel excise tax already did the same stuff as GST, but they don't, they stack. It's kinda like that, but opposite day.

I was kinda thinking labour wasn't stupid after they were like, nawwww 5g and no fruit tax is dumb, 1.4billion dumb. But nope, they just wanted a freasher carrot.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

True. If I hadn't had kids I'd be fucking rich now.

Maybe. Or maybe without the kids you wouldn't be as driven as you are, and would have long since succumbed to rock & roll with all its vices, getting by as some kind of computer janitor.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

As with any proposed Labour spendup, I simply ask "how will this be paid for?"

Once a CGT cranks up that will give at least a few billion per year. Lifting the top income tax rates. Tax evasion is approx. $3.2 billion + per annum and the hidden economy around $11billion.

Basically look out if you're this guy:

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's well established that the more resourced a family is, the less children they're likely to have.

No no no. All low income people are scum and have babies for money.

[ZoSo]

What's low income got to do with it. That shit is sewn up. This is middle class welfare aimed at women labour have lost. The new messiah is barely above Shearer and Goff levels so out comes the cash again. Where's Stn's 3k?

[fixed_truth]

Well if you're actually only referring to swinging center right voters then I don't think an extra $60 a week for a year will be enough of a "handout" for them to all of a sudden be "breeding that voter base".

The extension of early childhood education subsidies and paid parental leave will appeal to this group, but this type of investment is hardly a handout.

[ZoSo]

They're swing voters, who make poor decisions. $3k is plenty. Bob is licking his lips up there already. GT can be bought for fibre to his house. I'd even consider a green vote if I thought they actually had a chance in hell of decriminalizing cannabis within a year or two.
See, poor decisions.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Ab

True. If I hadn't had kids I'd be fucking rich now.

I'd still be at the front of the plane when I go on holiday. And, when on a cruise ship I'd be in a suite. Instead I often have to travel economy (it makes me almost choke to say the word) and I'm very definitely not in a suite on the ship either.

My eldest has developed a taste for crayfish and lobster. My youngest will figuratively speaking stop eating chicken nuggets soon and inevitably follow suit.

Kids are very expensive; but at the same time more than worth every cent.

[plaz0r]

[Ab]

Labour caught out lying in policy announcement

http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Labou...6/Default.aspx

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Juju

The $60 p/w applies to household incomes of up to $150,000 for the first year, but then that ceiling drops down to $50k as the years go by.

Weird ceilings are weird.

They're even weirder than at first glance. The household threshold is calculated at the baby's birthday. So if you're a couple each earning almost 150K for a combined 300K and then the mother takes maternity leave to have the baby, the household income drops below the threshold on the day the baby is born, therefore qualifying for the baby bonus.

And if the mother is on something even greater - a million? ten million? and takes that maternity leave, so long as the household income is one cent under 150K on birth day, the household qualifies for the baby bonus.

THANKS LABOUR, HELPING THE MOST NEEDY AMONG US

[pxpx]

It's mentioned in the article but for the sake of including it in the thread for people who don't click links.

- The $60 per week only starts after the 26 weeks paid parental leave that Labour also have promised.
- The policy doesn't kick in until 2016, 2 years after the election.

So the whole "first year" thing is total BS.

[Ab]

But look, Labour's helpful infographic for people who don't read good shows the baby bonus and parental leave happening simultaneously starting at birth.

[Juju]

What's all this shit about wellness visits. Plunket, antenatal classes, ultrasound scans and midwives are all free already.

'Our policy shows you free stuff that you get for free anyway, but it's better, because it's labour.'

[Lightspeed]

It's about our shockingly high rates of child poverty and abuse. I know, I know, less poor & traumatised children won't enhance your ability to take international holidays at least in the medium term.

National has been cutting back on community services since forever, if Labour's angle was "What's free will stay free", this would be sensible. Although I get the feeling Labour is suggesting they will be providing support additional to what's already in place.

[StN]

It doesn't show the bit where I paid for my balls to be cut off. Thanks Labour.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's about our shockingly high rates of child poverty and abuse.

hmmm, Tabacoo and alcohol abuse is a pretty big problem in NZ, according to our mates, so to kerb these issues, they are taxed heavily, taxes which increase annually.

Now i reckon a similiar theme needs to be carried on here, Tax babies. Got a baby? TAX.

Aetearoa, baby free by 2020!

Lets see the fuckers get abused then.

[Ab]

There's no such thing as "child poverty". There's HOUSEHOLD poverty. "Child poverty" is just a marketing term because won't someone think of the children.

[fixed_truth]

Well yeah, you can't just flippantly blame the child for being in poverty can you.

[aR Que]

and you can't blame the parents.... ahhh... now i see why we blame the govt.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Well yeah, you can't just flippantly blame the child for being in poverty can you.

All children are poor. Children can't own stuff. There's no level of personal income for a child to achieve that makes them all of a sudden no longer living in "child poverty".

[Lightspeed]

Are you seriously trying to use semantics to justify not giving a fuck about the most vulnerable in our (i.e. not yours, you can't even vote, lolz) community?

[pxpx]

Stand back everyone, LS is about to go full retard

[Lightspeed]

Dance monkey, dance. Let's see you do your best to keep your self worth, keep your belief that you're a "good" person, while trying to justify the horrors we make our children go through in a country as rich as New Zealand.