I think the baby bonus can be much better targeted and spread.

There’s been a lot of criticism of Labour’s proposed baby bonus, some of it justified. In particular the inclusion of payments to households earning $150,000 has incensed many.

I’ve been critical of that and other aspects, including the potential time bomb, but I’m not against properly targeted assistance for families, especially for early childhood.

I think the Labour policy looks too packaged for election appeal – to put it bluntly, voter bribery.  It has major flaws.

There are four ways I think it could be better targeted and far more effective where and when it is needed the most.

It should be extended to five years
– once children are at school parents are better able to earn supplementary income.

It should be in less frequent lump sums
so parents see it as an actual bonus and not a part of regular and relied on income. 

I suggest an up front payment at birth of the child – low income parents can have trouble setting up what they need – and then three monthly.

It needs to give more to those who need it more
using a diminishing scale as income rises, with a cutoff well below $150k.

Have a base amount and calculate a percentage off that based in family income.

For example take the previous year income off 120,000 and divide by 1000 to give a percentage. Pay that percentage of the base rate.

It needs to be gradually phased down
as the child ages so parents become less reliant on it, and they are better able to earn supplementary income.

Example table:

This is what I think is a sensible guess with more paid to those on low incomes but spread over five years, and about the same total as Labour proposes for those on a family income of $45,000.

I haven’t done any costings.

I think this targets far better and helps families more when the need it most, but allows a transition off the bonus.