Rodney Hide and hardworking kiwi families
From Rodney Hides site
The average household four years ago earned $60,560 gross. That income has increased $7,700 in the last four years. But a full $5,200 of that increase has been taken by Helen Clark’s greedy government in extra taxes. Helen Clark’s government has taken two-thirds of the increase.
But it gets worse. Inflation over that time has devalued the dollar’s purchasing power by more than 10 percent. That drops the real purchasing power of the average household’s net income by $4,200.
The average household is squeezed by taxes and inflation with the result being that they are more than $1,700 worse off than they were four years ago. That’s why hardworking kiwis are struggling.
Well, that’s half the reason hard working kiwi families are struggling. The other half of the reason is that some hard working families don't earn $60,560 today. Some families have hopeless budgeting skills. Some don't even earn $38,000, but they still work just as hard - if not harder - as many of the working rich. But, as struggling hard working families, they won`t get a tax cut under Act.
Acts policy was a tax cut for every worker - now the policy is a tax cut for every worker paying more than 19.5 percent tax.
Muriel Newman sees Acts tax policy is one of reducing poverty. Ha!
Act's policy focuses on workers, particularly rich workers with no dependant children. Because that’s the category Act MP's fit into. Act seems to think that beneficary and low-income families would be better off getting a well-paid lower taxed job. Of course some of them will need to take out a student loan to get that job - and study after work.
Act, Like Labour, is happy for beneficary families to get a job on the minimum wage, because working is better than being on a benefit, even if you are not getting as much income as that benefit. The difference between Labour and Act is that Labour wants to increase state assistance while Act wants to limit it.
The fact is that a family of three children with one parent working full time on the minimum wage will probably get more state assistance than a single unemployed beneficary, but in terms of disposable income will be worse off. If the family is a two parent family it will get more tax relief under United Futures policy of income splitting for tax purposes.
Someone tell me how Act's policy of a flat 20 percent tax rate is going to reduce poverty when the families in poverty won`t even get a tax cut. Most of the poor are getting less than $38,000. Act's tax policies are more about a greedy Government tax take than a concern for poverty.
update..update This seems relevant and makes a good point on income splitting:
If a couple running a business together can split their business income this way for tax purposes, why can they not do it for their household income, when bringing up a family is the most important business most of us will ever be involved in?
However Peter Dunne also says this:
A single income family on $55,000 a year will be $44 a week better off( with income splitting for tax purposes)
However, Working for Families would do more for those under $38,000, and for some, just the accommodation supplement will do the trick.