You’re both working full time in unskilled jobs. You’re only just better off doing that than being on a benefit because of Working for Families and a grandmother who takes care of the children after school. You’re still renting but trying hard to save a deposit for a house.
How would you feel about people earning up to three times what you do because they have a baby?
You’ve just graduated. You want to pay off your student loan as quickly as possible, you need to buy a car, you’re earning $75,000 and it will be a couple of years before you get much more.
How would you feel about paying more tax than you need to so a whole lot of people earning up to twice your salary can get $60 a week because they have a baby?
You’ve just bought your first house. You’re paying off the last of your student loans and servicing a mortgage. The house is a doer-upper and every spare moment either of you have is spent doing it up because you can’t afford to pay anyone else to do it.
How would you feel about some of your tax going to pay $60 a week to people living in a far newer, bigger, better house than yours, and earn far more than you do, because they have a baby?
You’ve got a couple of preschoolers. One of you works full-time, the other part-time. You’re servicing a mortgage, trying to save for much-needed alterations to your house and put a bit away for travel, retirement and contingencies.
How will you feel knowing some of your tax is paying $60 a week to people earning the same as and more than you, because they have a baby?
You’ve got a couple of teenagers. You earn a bit too much to get anything near $60 a week from Working For families. You’re servicing a mortgage, trying to save for your retirement while feeding, clothing, educating and entertaining your teens.
How would you feel about some of your tax paying $60 a week to people earning more than twice what you do because they have a baby?
You raised your children before Working for Families was introduced and never claimed welfare even though at times you’d have been better off on a benefit than in work. You’re still working, saving for your first overseas holiday and your retirement.
How would you feel about some of the money you earn and could well use towards your retirement going in tax to pay $60 a week to people earning far more than you ever have or will, because they have a baby?
You worked hard all your life, raised your family without anything to spare for extras and went without to save a nest egg for your retirement.
How would you feel about some of the tax you pay going to pay $60 to people who have and earn far more than you ever could just because they have a baby?
If you’d feel aggrieved, you’d be justified because Labour’s Best Start is a corruption of what welfare should be.
It isn’t based on need.
It’s redistribution but it’s not just taking from those who have more than enough to go to those with too little.
It will be taking for people who don’t have enough and going to people who have far more.
Labour leader David Cunliffe said in his speech:
. . . we will be unashamedly asking the wealthiest few percent of income earners to contribute to giving all Kiwi kids the best start.
But increasing tax on incomes over $150,000 is very unlikely to cover the cost of this policy.
Even if it did, it will be paying many people money they don’t need when it could be used to pay for other things the tax on those on much lower incomes has to cover.
This is a very expensive bribe which will give some more than they need while others still don’t have enough.
It’s not a best start it’s bad policy and the best way to stop it before it starts is to vote against the parties supporting it.