Single child tax?

Labour (Andrew Little) has claimed Single Child Tax hidden in Budget

Buried in National’s so-called family Budget is a Single Child Tax that will hit medium to low income families, says Labour Leader Andrew Little.

“National’s Single Child Tax will see a family with one child lose as much as $830 a year in Working For Families payments.

But there is no ‘single child tax’. Labour seem to have found that in some situations (dependant on income and number of children) some people won’t benefit as much from tax changes in the budget as others.

It seems very dumb calling not as much of a reduction on tax as a tax.

David Farrar at Kiwiblog: Labour now calls an increase a cut as someone got a bigger increase

So actually they are around $750 a year better off. Claiming they are worse off is like claiming that if you win $800 in Lotto and someone wins $1,000 in Lotto you are $800 worse off.

Stuff: Govt’s income package leaves 20,000 families with one child worse off: Labour

Leader Andrew Little is calling it the “single child tax”, and says it’s the consequence of a more aggressive abatement rate that the Government also introduced to ensure the package was targeted to those who needed it most.

But it had failed to look after a large chunk of low to middle-income families, he said.

While those families would still see a net positive gain to their weekly pay packet, ones with a single child would get a smaller piece of the pie.

So Labour’s complaints are misleading and stupid. Do they think that everyone should get the exact same net positive gain (less tax taken off them)? Except rich people.

“Whenever you’re putting these packages together, there’s always a complexity about it. But I’d be surprised if they understood there’s 20,000 odd single-child families that will now be worse off – but that’s the reality. “

Joyce said those families still saw an overall gain, and Labour was failing to see the bigger picture.

“The abatement changes mean they don’t get as much from the Working for Families part of the package, but they gain more from other parts of the package, in particular the tax changes. They may also in some cases gain from the Accommodation Supplement Changes.

Farrar claims:

They are $15 a week better off as a minimum and if they get accommodation supplement may be up to $115 a week better off.

The Standard pushes the Labour line in Family package that punishes families but does include :

While those families would still see a net positive gain to their weekly pay packet, ones with a single child would get a smaller piece of the pie.

It’s notable that that post got very few comments – perhaps deflated by ‘JamieB’:

From reading the headline and first couple of paragraphs I was under the impression this was a demographic that would have their incomes reduced from the changes.

But then “While those families would still see a net positive gain to their weekly pay packet, ones with a single child would get a smaller piece of the pie.”

So they’re not actually worse off, and Labour and this opinion post are really grasping at straws to find an actual problem with this budget.

Labour have handled their budget reaction quite poorly.

It will be interesting to see if Little or Grant Robertson try to push this in Question Time today.

Leave a comment

18 Comments

  1. David

     /  May 30, 2017

    One can almost feel sorry for Labour after yet another National budget is targeted at families and children but this is really grasping. Its sad but I am not surprised at the reporting of the press release which should really read “Labours desperation to attack the budget bemoans that parents with 1 child may only be $115 a week better off but have no care for the hard working minimum wage earning taxpayers funding this generosity”

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  May 30, 2017

    David Parker is the man for Labour regarding finance.Didn’t want the job for some reason..shame.As for the extra subsidies that go straight into landlords pockets…Joyces’ comment that ‘we will keep a close eye ‘ on landlords regarding hydraulicking rents….is pure …comedy.

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  May 30, 2017

      I think it was more a case of Andy keeping his enemies close. And devaluing GR by putting him in a portfolio he is simply not up to handling.

      It’s funny how the accommodation subsidies will flow straight into Landlords pockets, but the huge extra costs Labour want to impose on landlords won’t alter rents at all.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  May 30, 2017

        but they will alter rents….if ‘investors’ get the message that negative gearing and other tax options will not apply….they will free up housing for private ownership.Property is way too favoured over productive investment and needs to be addressed.

        Reply
    • PDB

       /  May 30, 2017

      Blazer: “David Parker is the man for Labour regarding finance.Didn’t want the job for some reason..”

      Maybe he can………….count? For instance he might actually know that an increase doesn’t mean you get less.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  May 30, 2017

        look up…’ONE TRICK PONY’….and BTW…an increase in tax….means you get …less.There you learned something …new…again.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  May 30, 2017

          Straw man example from you (as usual) – we are talking about people getting an increase in money from the govt and Labour claiming that means they are somehow worse off.

          Reply
  3. Andrew Little has just been interviewed on RNZ trying to defend and explain Labour’s criticisms. Still floundering.

    Reply
    • Maggy Wassilieff

       /  May 30, 2017

      Little can’t cope when he has an interviewer that starts asking questions requiring a detailed answer.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  May 30, 2017

        He’s no Trumpster, that’s for sure.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  May 30, 2017

          He just needs better words. Unfortunately Trump has taken all the best ones.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  May 30, 2017

            Needs a signature gesture too:

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 30, 2017

              I can’t stop watching…it’s mesmerising!

            • Gezza

               /  May 30, 2017

              At first I thought it was just random weird waving his hand about, but no, I notice now that it is actually a practiced, repeated gesture he is using for subliminal effect when driving home messages.

    • Gezza

       /  May 30, 2017

      Well, after just watching Susie Ferguson put Andrew Little through the wringer in that interview, can someone explain to me how RNZ is Red Radio again ?

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  May 30, 2017

        Probably the same way despite Hosking and Larry Williams put Bill English and co through the wringer but are still right wing shills.
        There is a definite bent to the coverage. That doesn’t preclude good interviewing.

        Reply
      • I’ve just had a chance to watch the video. Ferguson was fairly easy on Little, asking some reasonable questions aggressively.

        Little looked uncomfortable and out of his depth. He’s got a lot of getting up to speed in knowledge and confidence to do before the election debates.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s