Joined: Dec 25, 2001 Posts: 32,977 Location: Liberty City
Posted: Mon 30th Jun 1:29pm Post subject:
j2hyde wrote:
Tama wrote:
That's because "Working For Families" is in effect a tax cut for people with jobs and kids.
Which discriminates against those that don't have kids - ie the young knowledge workers most likely to drive to future productivity gains and co-incidently most likley to bugger off overseas for better money.
According to the Child Poverty Action Group it also discriminates against people who have children but do not have jobs. So they've taken it to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
As a side note, talking about taxes, I had a look at the working for families website the other day, I'm sure Labours taking the ssip, you can get a benefit if your income is upto $71000, WTF!!
Is that a combined income (both parents working prior to the baby arrival) or just the 1 breadwinner after mum quits work?
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 1,262 Location: I used to have tourettes, now I'm rolf harris
Posted: Mon 30th Jun 2:03pm Post subject:
Tama wrote:
j2hyde wrote:
Tama wrote:
That's because "Working For Families" is in effect a tax cut for people with jobs and kids.
Which discriminates against those that don't have kids - ie the young knowledge workers most likely to drive to future productivity gains and co-incidently most likley to bugger off overseas for better money.
According to the Child Poverty Action Group it also discriminates against people who have children but do not have jobs. So they've taken it to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
So you can't win, can you
as much as I dislike the govt way of doing things, I thought the end thrust of the working for families thing was to encourage people to stay in work by allowing a payout to offset the cost of daycare etc, giving an incentive to stay in work, rather then throwing it in and going on the DPB ( or what ever its called these days )
to hand it over to beneficiaries on the grounds of discrimination appears to defeat the purpose.
Joined: Sep 23, 2005 Posts: 3,392 Location: saving the world
Posted: Mon 30th Jun 2:06pm Post subject:
Tama wrote:
According to the Child Poverty Action Group it also discriminates against people who have children but do not have jobs....
So failing to give those on the dole a "payrise" is a breach of their human rights? Those elohssas should be put on a plane and sent to Burma or Sudan so they can see what a breach of human rights actually looks like. And they should be left there.
Joined: Aug 15, 2003 Posts: 16,221 Location: Opawa
Posted: Mon 30th Jun 3:35pm Post subject:
j2hyde wrote:
Tama wrote:
According to the Child Poverty Action Group it also discriminates against people who have children but do not have jobs....
So failing to give those on the dole a "payrise" is a breach of their human rights? Those elohssas should be put on a plane and sent to Burma or Sudan so they can see what a breach of human rights actually looks like. And they should be left there.
as long as its in a Herc.......in real cattle class!!
Our productivity is low, but the measure used is US$ and we are a weak dollar economy, so places like the UK (which is full of badly managed lazy basdrats) have an advantage.
We have an economy with large numbers of small/medium enterprises which are intrinsically inefficient when it comes to productivity increasing infrastructure like i.t. investment. Our wage growth (which links to productivity) is low and this started with the employment contracts acts. And as R-Ed pointed out we have parc R&D investment.
The govt shares some blame but principle blame lies with NZ's business community... [/url]
High electricity costs are a big problem aswell. Big businesses are being crippled because they have to spend too much to run their factories,mills etc..
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest ℗ 2000-2008 by Tama Easton.
Extra design ℗ by Scotty Lane and Nathan Whitley. Photos and written work on this site are property of their owners, do not use them for commercial purposes.
Developed for Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 and Mozilla Firefox 3.0
