what fun

Well, Im back. I'm a parent. I look after my kids and it keeps me rather busy with work and study on top of it.Have to sleep sometime. I have two kids and a job on a low income. Next year my tax may be paid back to me through welfare. Wouldn't it be cheaper to cut out the middle man and just not tax low income families so we can cut down the bureaucracy at the IRD?

Some people don't like the fact that some families will not pay tax. Particularly those who dont have kids, or those who have kids but don't have jobs. But do you know one reason why the Government wants to pay low income familes their tax back?

So that they can encourage both partners in these low income familes to get to work and stick their kids in Government- sponsored child care and pay their welfare cheques to state parents, irrespective of their 20 hours free childcare policy. The Government can effectively pay for the childcare while employing more people to administer that childcare. This is what it does: it takes money from rich childless people, channels it through poor families to pay for single women to work for the state in childcare.

But if that couple with two kids decides to have two more kids, gets a better job with each partner earning $35,000 and then splits up with each parent taking two kids, they`ll be able to pay their student loan off as they`ll be $10,200 a year better off. Of course if they don't have a student loan both partners will be able to continue working and the extra ten grand can go into state run child care.Yes, Child rearing is important to the government, particularly if it is the child care centres who are doing the child rearing. And if one of these partners runs a child care centre they can spend all their day parenting other people's kids and go home to feed their own kids at night after picking up their child from another state funded child care centre. Yay.

But what about your next door neighbour who gets $150,000. If they have six kids,they`ll get $45.00 a week too! If we had six kids in 2007 we`d get more rebate from IRD than the net pay from my employer, on my current income. We `d be paid for having lots of kids just because of the low income.But If I was to get a part time job to increase that income, the marginal tax rate wouldnt be worth it, particuarly on a secondary tax rate. Even if the marginal tax rates are reducing.

I guess I'd better get cracking then, and hope for triplets and if that fails, adopt. Just hope I don't lose my job, as I`ll get less in welfare.

Wow. That tax calculator is a fun toy.

And on an unrelated matter, Nationals heath policy. Its policy on primary health care is to provide subsidies for the young and the old - old being over 65 years - because the old and the young need subsidies. As Brash says

Do Helen Clark and Don Brash need a $26 subsidy each time they require the services of a GP?Does it make sense to give each of us a subsidy, when we can perfectly well afford the full price? Is subsidising us really a priority in a situation of scarce resources?

Its a pity nobody in the audience of that linked speech pointed out that Brash turns 65 next month and will be entitled to the subsidy, even though he can "perfectly afford the full price".In fact he`ll get a pay increase as he`ll get superannuation on top of his salary. What happened to policies based on need? I would say that I need health subsidies a lot more than Brash does, but his policy won't let me have them.