Working For Families Cuts?
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39109
Printed Date: 29 August 2025 at 10:14pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Working For Families Cuts?
Posted By: rgillespie
Subject: Working For Families Cuts?
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 2:56pm
|
Hi everyone,
This is a message we're passing on on behalf of Renee Graham a researcher for ONE News, TVNZ. They're working on a story about the upcoming changes to Working for families. The Government has signalled that families earning $100,000+ and receiving Working for Families tax credits could lose part or all of their credits. They're hoping to ask a family who’re in this situation what they think of the cuts, for instance, how would it affect your budget? Or your plans to return to work? They're pretty flexible on where you are and what details will be disclosed. It would be for a story on 'Budget Day' May 19. If you’re interested, give renee.graham@tvnz.co.nz a ring on 04 9145074 and she'll explain further. Cheers, Rochelle. |
Replies:
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 2:59pm
|
IMO I doubt you would notice .. ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year  http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: queenbean
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 3:02pm
|
I didn't realise families earning that much were eligible for anything anyway! -------------   
|
Posted By: CrazyCass
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 3:04pm
|
Neither did I - DH isnt on that but from what I've seen we'll be getting nothing when leave work at the end of the year [;s] ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 3:08pm
You get $23.00 pw if you have three kids. You get nothing if you only have 1-2 kidlets. ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
queenbean wrote:Posted By: CrazyCass
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 3:15pm
|
Then I'm sure missing $23 a week wouldnt be a big loss... ------------- http://lilypie.com">
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: BugTeeny
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 3:42pm
|
Wow, $100K.. . We'd easily be able to live comfortably if DH was on $100k without any government assistance.
No wonder they're cutting it for those earning over $100k! ------------- 
|
Posted By: myfullhouse
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 3:44pm
Same! ------------- Lindsey 
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 3:58pm
If that's all they are cutting then I don't see how that is going to make much of a difference to govt expenditure 
|
Posted By: Babykatnz
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 4:07pm
Ditto! DPs income plus our WFF (from WINZ as well as IRD) is a little more than half that and we just manage, so having $100K annually (even after the astronomical tax!) we certainly wouldnt need an extra $23 p/week! Funny cos when I had my oldest, $35K was the cutoff to recieve any WFF (we got all of $6 p/fortnight because my ex earnt slightly less), now its the minimum threshold! ------------- Brandon - 05/12/2003  
|
Posted By: tishy
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 4:22pm
Every penny counts, better they trim it in places where it's not 'needed' rather than where it is. |
Posted By: jano1
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 4:37pm
|
While we don't earn that anywhere near that much it's not a huge amount in Auckland- mortgages tend to be higher here costs so if you were both earning $50,000 and having to pay for full time childcare as well as everything else (petrol, food etc) you might notice a cut.
Food for thought |
Posted By: floss
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 5:12pm
|
I honestly think if our family were earning that much I would be embarassed to apply for working for families, cos we really wouldn't be needing any more money. ------------- My beautiful big girl Sienna 15.04.06 Double the trouble double the fun Noah & Lola 10/11/07 |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 6:04pm
It is not going to help..it will make things worse as people will have no money to spend so it will not go back into economy. What I think is F'd up is not the fact that family's that work get help (we get it) but the fact it is needed. If there was no GST on fruit, veg, milk...FOOD & if heating & housing were more affordable things would be different. If government looked at cutting from the top like their travel allowance their petrol cost (saw that in the paper) & all the miscellaneous bullsh*t they claim for then there would be more money...I mean the PM did not need all those body guards on holiday...so why should they cut the few $$ working parents get to help balance the cost of living especially when coming out of a recession. If you earn over $100k you should not be getting it..IMO |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 6:05pm
actually that's a really good point...so I would say depending of cost of living in your area also. |
Posted By: Richie
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 6:19pm
|
Gee, $100,000! Wouldn't that be nice!! I would be too embarrassed to even think of asking for govt assistance if we earned that much!!
We earn a whole lot less than that and we get a measly $5per week. Yay for us!! So damned straight they should be making cuts!! JMO lol -------------  
|
Posted By: Shezamumof3
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 6:22pm
Agreed! |
Posted By: Babykatnz
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 6:24pm
|
I guess for those in higher bracket facing loss of or cut to WFF, its more about living within your means, regardless of location? We get by and are paying mortage plus partial rent (renting from family) and if it wasnt for the mortgage we'd actually be feeling the pinch a lot less, and thats living in Auckland. We choose to live in a cheaper part of town so we can afford to live without constantly scraping the bottom of the barrel. We found it worked out better for us financially if I didnt go back to work, therefore childcare not an issue (will be looking at returning to workforce once D is eligible for 20 free hours though)
re the increased mortgage etc, thats where WINZ and their accom supplement kicks in (if your income is low enough to need that help) and ther financial help is tiered depending on your area. Jazzy thats definitely something the govt should look at, cutting or at least lowering GST on 'essentials' like fruit, veg, dairy etc, then families that need the WFF wouldnt need quite as much since the money it *should* be spent on isnt as necessary, sort of cancels the 'gain' and 'loss' out (for those who use that money for groceries anyway) which means the govt havent lost anything at the end of the day. ------------- Brandon - 05/12/2003
|
Posted By: Nothing
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 7:07pm
|
Wow $100k... a rather lot more than the benefit at under $15,000 a year.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kalimirella
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 7:39pm
|
Wow 100k, I really wish lol, my DP earns almost 30k a year, we get the full amount of WFF (148 a week) and are atm saving up for our first house.
Gosh 100k a year would get us that house! and pay it off in about 5 years too! I do agree, people earning that much really don't need govt assistance unless they are frittering it away somewhere. ------------- Kiara is 3 and Teagan is 2, now we're expecting our long awaited 3rd! http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: HoneybunsMa
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 8:14pm
|
See as was pointed out in a PP if you are earning that much your likely paying childcare which earning that much you don't get a subsidy therefore paying full rates.
And sometimes your better off earning less because after tax and what you can get from WINZ for accommodation and WFF could mean you earn more. If one person was earning 100k per year then well you can live quite comfortably, BUT you are still scrimping if you live in Auck, well the area I live in. I can't move any further out unfortunately 1)because I don't want to live out South and want to be closer to family 2)because the cost of renting out south compared to central is almost the same but with the added expense of travel. If I went back to work fulltime we would earn almost that but would be no better off! ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 8:40pm
Not debating whether or not these families deserve WFF assistance or not but people can be earning $100,000 gross per year and still miss $23/wk if it was taken away from them. It could certainly change a families circumstances. Consider that if you wanted to go back to your career after you finished maternity leave for your third child - having three children in daycare could costs upwards of $30,000 a year. Add tax, rent or mortgage to that budget. Then add groceries, insurances, petrol money and so on and so forth. You suddenly find you have very little actual spending money. Yes, as evidenced by comments in this thread - people get by on much less than $100,000 a year. But my point again, is not that people on this wage can't survive with no WFF - but they could certainly feel a loss. So comments such as the one above - saying that they would hardly be affected because they earn so much, may not necessarily be true. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: LouD
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 9:13pm
|
Didnt read the first post properly........ $100k is almost triple what we are earning......that would be a dream to even get close to that amount!!!!
But I do agree that everyone lives to what they earn......some of us just get to do it in a bit more luxury....like getting a nice house over a sh*t hole shoebox that needs a million repairs but u can barely survive each week let alone make improvements and our cars are 20yrs old!! I dont personally think that people earning $100 really should be getting anything either.....that would be better going to those who are trying to struggle on $40k and barely able to afford the bare minimum..... |
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 9:38pm
|
I'm astounded and embarrassed at the strong reactions on here. What if one spouse earns $100K but the other spouse was working pre-baby....they've already made cuts, they don't get many discounts and WINZ subsidies that others do (like the child care subsidy someone mentioned already), and not to mention being on a much higher tax rate. Any kind of pay cut affects us all, we get used to how much we earn and are able to spend. And WFF is probably the last subsidy to go for people in that income bracket. Earning $100K doesn't mean that they see all of that! If you're feeling the pinch even with a high income, don't you feel bad coz of all the comments on here! -------------  |
Posted By: julz85
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 9:39pm
|
Yea tbh i dont think families earning over 100k a year should get wff. i understand that they dont get preschool subsidys but i wouldnt get one either if i worked full time and my partner and i dont earn anywhere near that. i work part time and my partner works full time, we have one child each so 2 between us and we earn well under half that , i get absolutly no financial support whatsoever from dd's biological father and we really stuggle and thats with some wff a week and a small preschool subsidy which i wouldnt get if i worked full time . Life is hard in nz at the moment . Petrol is ridiculous (my nissan bluebird costs $120 to fill) due to the earthquake my work has moved from the city centre to the other side of town which has more than doubled my weekly petrol allowance, grocerys, power . its all very hard and expenisive and it would be an absolute dream to have $100k a year , i couldnt even imagine it . we dont even want to move out of our quake ridden rental property that has had sewerage issues and a portaloo in our street since september because rents have gone up so much in chch that we simply just cant afford to move. Just tonight my landlord called me to tell me he had been speaking to his wife and they had decided due to all our sewerage problems (and other earthquake , house related issues) that they would give us a fortnights free rent , i cant even begin to explain the relief i feel tongiht knowing that i CAN afford to easily pay all my bills this fortnight (i always pay my bills but quite often go without other things so i can ) anyway that was a bit off topic and long and i guess a bit of a whinge but i really do think this country is going down hill . i use to live in Australia and they treat their families so much better than they do here . ------------- http://lilypie.com">  
|
Posted By: LouD
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 9:54pm
Nah I dont feel bad. I bet you dont live in a 60sqm house with two kids either cos this was the only thing we could afford to buy on our income(which has since reduced more) and our cars are so old they cost us more in repairs and petrol cos of how old they are but there isnt any way we can upgrade and even down grading is impossible because we have no room to move......we all do get used to what we earn but before you made any sacrifices your income was high enough to prepare....where as a lot of others out there dont have enough to prepare for a lesser income cos they are already there. Sorry if this upsets some, I have had a bad day hoping Winz would help us since my DHs hours were cut suddenly during school hols......and We are just outside the thresholds...So yeah $100k seems like a dream come true for me right now!! (and Im sure those that earn that, have worked hard to get qualified/educated which is awesome, but some also dont get lucky breaks and still work just as hard) |
Posted By: julz85
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 9:57pm
|
i agree with you chickielou ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 10:12pm
|
Agree 100% with you busymum.
It's feeling very left wing in here around about now! |
Posted By: kiwigal
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 11:01pm
|
100K does not go far as cost of living has risen so yeah that extra few dollars will come in handy |
Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 12:02am
|
Ok, this is going to be very rough and general as I really should be in bed. But it seems some have a bit of trouble getting their head around some struggling on a family income of $100,000.
Consider the following scenario. Two families, each consisting of two adults and three preschool children. One parent works fulltime (~40hr/wk), the other parent works part time (~25hr/wk).I've a assumed for equalities sake that all four adults in this scenario have a $40k student loan to pay off. First Family has a total gross income of $50,000. ~15k/35k split (for simplicities sake). Childcare for 3 children for 30 hours per week. Gross Income - Tax - Student Loan Repayments - Kiwisaver = $39954 WFF = $11388 Childcare subsidy ($3.84*3*30) = $17971 Total: $69313 Second Family has a total gross income of $100,000 ~30k/70k split (for simplicities sake). Childcare for 3 children for 30 hours per week. Gross Income - Tax - Student Loan Repayments - Kiwisaver = $72506 WFF = $1196 Childcare subsidy = $0 Total: $73702 The Difference is $4390 $84 a week extra. Cut the WFF and it becomes $61. Hardly the huge bags of money people seem to be envisioning when they see the $100,000 figure. Does that explain better how people on that wage could still feel the effects of a $23/wk loss? *Disclaimer #1 - I'm not one of those that earns $100,000 per year, unfortunately, but I'm all for families getting ahead in NZ. I'm against all WFF tax cuts - whether it be across the board or just the top tier. *Disclaimer #2 - I apologise profusely in advance if my maths or estimates of WFF and childcare subsidy is off. Maths has never been my strong point and I just looked on the WFF website for the estimates.  ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 1:27am
| Well done Delli, you explained that better than I was going to try to. DH earns nowhere near 100k (between 50-60k depending on how his overtime has been for the year) but if I were to work & top our income up to 100k we would be far worse off financially (one of the main reasons why I don't work), so I can see how a WFF cut of 23 a week would still affect some people. I think part of the prejudice lies in people assuming all 6figure jobs are white collar 9-5, they are DEFINITELY not. |
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 1:36am
| I also agree that the economy benefits from low income people being given extra- they spend it straight away. But it's important to remember why WFF was introduced in the first place- to ensure that you are always better off working than on the benefit. If people lose the financial advantage wff & childcare subsidies give them there'll be more people forced to be one-income families to cope, less income-earners= less tax being paid, less tax = the whole country's in trouble. |
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 7:37am
|
I actually dont think 100k is that much income (especially in AKL) where costs are astronomical.
And Chickielou, many people who earn over 100k cant afford to buy a house up here, so your house although small is yours! Also, when you take other government subsidies into account for lower income earners, the gap lessens between those who dont earn 100k and those who do. Finally - When 1 person earning 100k is supporting an adult who stays at home and children it doesnt actually go that far ;) .. two adults earning that combined is not much more than the average wage which according to salaries.co.nz was 49k last year. ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: BugTeeny
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 7:54am
TBH, no, I don't feel bad. Pre-kids, DH and I were jointly earning a very comfortable income. We had Sky, magazine + newspaper subscriptions. We could buy what we wanted and were paying off larger chunks of our mortgage. When #1 came along (and my salary + benefits were gone) we cancelled Sky, the subscriptions, starting paying the minimum mortgage repayments and started to budget and learnt how to become frugal. It's all relative. So a family on $100k CAN learn to live within their means. If need be, downsize the house, cars, cut "extras" they may have as on-going weekly/monthly costs (like newspaper deliveries, Sky, etc). So I don't feel bad for thinking a family on a higher salary shouldn't be entitled to WFF. We're very lucky to receive that extra help from the government. We'd struggle a bit without it, but we still manage to make ends meet without being on the bones of our asses. So if it was cut, we'd make do. -------------
|
Posted By: ginger
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 8:45am
I'm not even going to enter into the debate at hand because it will never be resolved no matter how much people argue about it. But, this response did upset me and I just wanted to step in on behalf of busymum - unless things have changed much (it's been a while busymum!), busymum has 5 small children, has had a low income and has had for quite some time as she and her DH have worked hard for their family. She's not speaking from the perspective of a materially wealthy person and in fact is likely, overall, to be in a worse financial position than many. I admire her, her attitude and her hard work. ------------- Cuinn Lachlan 23.1.09 - 22:00 Antonia Helene 4.8.11 - 09:41 |
Posted By: BugTeeny
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 9:15am
|
Ginger, there is absolutely no doubt about that. I applaud anyone that can make do with the means they have and still remain a positive role model for their children.
However, for the most part, children are a choice. And while I don't think money makes the world go around, I do believe that without it it's very hard to provide for your children. So those on much higher salaries have the opportunity to get in a better position to provide for their children, unlike those in a lower income bracket. eg: (as stated in my above post) downsizing house/car. Making cut backs on non-essentials (who needs a newspaper delivered when you can get it online, or numerous bulletins throughout the day on TV). Anyway, don't want this thread to head south. My opinionss are my own, and I enjoy seeing differing opinions and POVs 
-------------
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 10:18am
|
I don't think 100k families should get WFF. Even in AK if you earn 100k you can choose to live a more expensive lifestyle or a cheaper one.. same with any city or town.
For Palmy standards DH earns alright, we do ok where we are because we don't live in the best area in palmy (we live in one of the middle ground suburbs), if we lived in one of the best our mortgage would be higher. We don't have things like sky sport and movies or a high internet useage, I spend all of $10 a month on my cell etc. I do think kids are a choice almost all of the time, if you choose to have them you have to figure out how to make it work. If DH's income didn't cut it and we really had to rely on WFF i'd be going back to work. |
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 10:33am
|
Delli - well done on the example. I had completely forgotten to factor in student loan payments as well. $100K is gross, not net ay.
When I said "don't feel bad" I was actually feeling for any OB member/visitor who is on $100K and still feeling the pinch - then comes in here and reads what everyone has said about them being so wealthy etc. I felt that was so unfair! Ginger - thanks. We do have 5 small kiddies and have done some foster care as well in the last 2 yrs (for close family members after a messy separation). Now all that was choice, I agree, but my DH is now not well - and we could not have forseen that before we had the kids - so we are currently on the sickness benefit. Anyway, I don't want to make a full-blown debate out of it all. Just wanted to put in something for those on higher incomes who are feeling the pinch. The fact is, we get used to our income as it is and when it gets cut - regardless of how much we earn - we all feel it.------------- |
Posted By: kiwigal
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 11:24am
|
Delli that is well thought out People who don't live in Auckland know what is truly like to live there cost of living is high like lilfatty has said. There is people who live in the cheaper areas and travel to on the other side of Auckland to work their 9-5 job. I have lived there for 11 years before we decided to move out of the area. |
Posted By: fire_engine
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 12:03pm
|
Good work Delli ------------- Mum to two wee boys |
Posted By: Nutella
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 3:01pm
|
Not sure I want to enter the debate...but....once I go back to work, we will be one of those fabulously wealthy families. Go us! Having never had WFF, we won't notice the cuts.
ETA: golly, $30,000 from the government is certainly a LOT of money. Delli's calculations really does put it in perspective. ------------- 
 Oct 11
|
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 8:47pm
|
Well between the 2 of us, we earn close to that. However, once you take my student loan repayment, childcare (20k per year), compulsory super payments for my hubby (which, while it is a saving, could really come in handy as its 7% of gross income we pay!), mortgage etc etc - it's not incredibly lucrative. I make a grand total of $150 more a week than I did on 1/4 of the income (as had WFF and childcare sub).
BUT... I don't believe we should be entitled to anything. We chose to have kids, we've done the hard yards on a much lower income (less than half we earn now) and now we need to suck it up and just deal with the cut off being where it is. I don't believe anyone on that much should be relying on $20 odd a week. And while it would be a nice bonus, that's not the point of WFF - it's supposed to be for essentials, not to cushion your lifestyle. |
Posted By: Richie
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 9:02pm
|
I'm glad someone in that wage bracket was able to come on here and say that Emz. It's what I have been thinking but didn't want to say it myself incase it was taken as 'attacking' those with higher income.
We certainly aren't hard done by but we manage, but it hasn't always been that way. When Isla was first born, DF was on $38,000yr and I got I think $180wk from WFF/Accommodation supplement. By the time you take out rent, power, phone, internet, petrol, groceries, we had nothing left. Before having Isla (when I was working fulltime) we would go out for dinner each weekend, had Sky TV and the other luxuries, but knew we would earn far less once she arrived so made whatever cuts we needed to to get by. Luckily, DF got a promotion which meant an additional $17000 a yr which was a massive help, but it didn't mean that we went out and got sky etc again. I'm now back at work (part time and my Mum looks after DD - didn't want to fork out $20-30k a year for someone else to look after her, I'd rather NOT earn that money in the first place and be at home with her myself) so we are now bringing in just over $70,000 a year. At the moment, things are tight as we are saving for our wedding this Nov but after Nov, we will get by no problem and start saving for a house WITHOUT govt help. It's all about living within your means. -------------
|
Posted By: Mucky_Tiger
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 9:53pm
|
I was looking at the tables and based on DP's income if we had one child we wouldnt get FTC, and we would get something like $40 a week IWTC...
and DP doesnt even earn that much, around 65k a year. and that doesnt include If I had any income as well. It doesnt seem much, but that $40 would be a few packs of nappies, some formula or day care. so it is needed by some families. So I can see how regardless of 'income' amount everyone still has the same kid orientated bills...some dont NEED the WFF, and others are reliant on it.... no one will ever be happy with any decisions the Government makes about it as it will mean someone somewhere always looses out, or becomes 'worse off' |
Posted By: KiwiL
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 10:00pm
|
Well done Delli. I have been thinking about this thread for a lot of the day, and wanted to say something similar.
We are one of those families who earn more than $100k. At no point have I even wanted to claim WFF because no, we don't really need it. But it's frustrating to hear how so many people consider us 'wealthy' or 'privileged', or scoff when I mention things are tight or difficult for us. If I was working full time as well as DH, our combined income would be around $170k. That's huge, admittedly. And it's worth noting that both of us have worked our asses off to get where we are - no lucky breaks or handouts (in fact, I am the first in a long line of family reliant on benefits to actually have a career). Because I don't work, that's 40% of our income gone right there. DH's salary is basically bang on $100k. This is how our money is broken down: Tax: Approx $28,000 Kiwisaver: Approx $4,000 Student Loan: Approx $8,500 Mortgage repayments: $36,000 Rates and Insurance: $5,000 Left over we have approx $18,000 per year for a family of four. This covers our food, petrol and servicing for two cars, DH's train tickets (almost $50 per week!), electricity, internet, phones etc. DH has a medical condition that we have to spend quite a bit on, as does my son. My other son has got some significant sensory issues and because of that one of our choices is to have him enrolled in day care two days a week. To maintain that, we have certainly cut back in many other areas. We're faaaaar from rolling in cash, and in fact tonight I have been crying because we have used up all of our general savings and are starting to eat into our emergency money. We planned carefully for #2 and saved hard to get us through the period where we'd be on a single income. We are incredibly careful with money - to the point of having an itemised budget where we write down every single purchase we make, every single day. We know where every cent of our money goes, because we have to. We pay a lot of money in taxes, and get not one cent back - in terms of any WFF, tax credits etc (unlike in Australia). When our income almost halves, we really notice the difference, yet DH doesn't pay any less tax. I admire what some families live on, and can not believe that they survive. I take my hat off to those who can make ends meet on meagre salaries. I am glad NZ has a system where we can provide support to those families, especially when we are on a double income. But to assume that we're not sometimes doing it tough as well is a little unfair!! |
Posted By: KiwiL
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 10:06pm
|
And I also want to say, slightly off topic, that IF they do cut ECE for higher income earners, it will be SO short sighted of the government.
At this stage, I will be returning to work 3 days per week. But if ECE is dropped, it won't be financially viable for me to do so, and the government will miss out on collecting my taxes! Silliness. |
Posted By: PorterLou
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 10:15pm
|
Emz and lisajo, so glad someone is admitting they're in that bracket. We may earn combined close to that but I know once we buy a house and have a child or two things are going to get tight. However, I also think that having children is a choice, and therefore our decision if we want to make things difficult for us financially. But I certainly will not expect assistance from the government, and would not apply for it. Just my opinion though!
Can't remember who it was but can childcare really cost upwards of $30K? Oh man... Forget wedding budget, its the baby budget I should be doing! This could lead to, if not already, a very heated debate about who should get assistance. The government is going to have to make cuts in order to get the country out of debt, and I guess its likely it may cost a fair bit to administer WFF, before we think about the money that goes out. I just don't like seeing the people who claim to be on low incomes and needing the money but can still afford to buy new cars and tvs and smoke and drink and gamble. They're the people that need to have WFF cut. Or perhaps some budgeting advice. I"ll make the cuts on luxuries if thats what I have to do to pay bills and get food on the table. Hope I'm not offending anyone. I've worked hard, and I know a lot of other people who also work hard, and do their very best even with the struggling they may have to do (I'm thinking of the mum with 5 kids - sorry, forgot your name). -------------   
|
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 10:43pm
|
Man if they cut the ECE funding for higher income earners, we're screwed this is the first time in years that I've been able to earn a decent amount (if you call 45k decent for a teacher!) and TBH the decision to work wasn't financial, in fact I'd be better off emotionally (and not much worse off financially) to not work fulltime... but I want to get ahead in my career. I couldn't do that if we had to pay an extra $70-90 a week for ECE. We can't even afford to pay fulltime childcare, 20k per year is only for 4 days per week, for 2 children. :(
It does all come down to budgeting, you need to live within your means. If you're struggling and earning over 100k, then there's something seriously wrong with your outgoings and you need to downsize your life. We live very modestly as before this year I was a SAHM and before that a student - pretty crappy house (but ours so I don't care), basic cars, no sky, 1 trip a month to a paid activity with the kids as we can't afford any more... that's just what you do. We also only buy clothes on sale or second hand - that's how we live. We live in a 'must have' society where people also feel they should be entitled to handouts simply because they chose to breed... personally, those WFF handouts were awesome while we were getting back on our feet and it enabled me to stay at home a bit longer, but if we didn't have them we would have simply sold our home and some assets to get by, or I would have gone back to work. |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 10:50pm
|
We're around the 100k with me working part time. Yep childcare is expensive when you don't qualify for help (i.e childcare subsidy) without my eldest getting some hours cheaper (we only claim 18 of the 20 hours cos you can only claim 6 hours per day and he's only in care three days a week, and I pay the "donation" on top of the free bit) I would of turned down the work when offered cos it would not have helped us out at all, I would have just been working to pay childcare pretty much. As it is I pay around $200 a week and I only work 18 hours per week, they are in care for a bit more than 18 hours as i have travel time as well of course. So working full time someone could very easily pay $30k for childcare.
I'm fine with not getting WFF, we don't *need* it. I just find it sad that any NZer does need it, if wages were not so bad in comparison to living costs it wouldn't be a necessity and I wonder why instead of applying for WFF and all the associated costs of running that they can't just have a parents tax code that means you pay less/no income tax depending on number of kids and your level of income. I would also like to see instead of schemes like WFF for tax to be taken off essential items such as healthy foods, childrens clothes etc and for doctors visits and prescriptions to be free for all children 0-18 years. Kiwilaurie, we are like you we have everything budgeted out to the last cent and we are not rolling in it. We have an average house, less than average cars, we don't have sky, we don't drink or smoke, we don't go on overseas holidays etc. We do have some very cute children though  which is far better.------------- 
 
|
Posted By: TheKelly
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 12:07am
Lol....its not the baby stage you need to save for,its what comes afterwards,school fees,uniform,stationary,school trips,after school activities... My DH earns just over $60k,we live in a reasonably nice area in East Auckland (renting) the plan is for me to go back parttime when our youngest is at school,so we will be very lucky and avoid the need for much daycare. And DH gets his petrol paid for,which makes us incredibly lucky. I don't actually know what my point is here...but everyone was talking about money,and I wanted to join in  ------------- 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Nikki
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 9:06am
|
I haven't read all the posts, but I am in the higher income bracket and I personally don't think people on over 100K should be getting WWF. I don't get it. And while I completely understand that everyone, even higher income earners (especially in ak!) are feeling the pinch right now and some may notice the loss ... I still believe we should be helping families who REALLY need the money - not just handing it out to people who do earn enough to live. The government has to do something to sort out its debt and our economy, so something has to give!
Having students pay interest on their loans (like I did!) and not giving people on over 100K handouts is better than cutting the government contribution to Kiwisaver if you ask me - as the government has asked us to save and offered incentives, but now may take some of that money away. (I'm not in kiwisaver, but would be pissed if the contract had changed after I signed up!! And think its a great scheme). If people on over 100K need to ask for governement assistance, maybe they should stop at 1 or 2 children?!? ------------- DS (5yrs) and DD (3yrs) |
Posted By: Richie
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 11:03am
|
PorterLou - We aren't in the $100k/yr bracket, we get just over $70K, but was just making mention that I am glad someone in the $100k bracket was able to come on and say that they don't think people earning that much should be entitled to WFF. My partner and I both work our arses off ang get by but by no means are we well off. If it wasn't for the fact DF gets a company vehicle, we'd be screwed.
One of the things you brought up is something that really gets to me - the people who b*tch and moan about how hard up they are yet spend their benefits on drinking, smoking and gambling. Have some priorities people! I can't remember the last time I bought something for myself, every penny we earn goes either towards bills or on things for our daughter. If I get invited out with friends, I drink water, because if I wer to get a vodka, that is $7 down the drain that could have been spend on clothes or toys for Isla. So sometimes you just have to weigh up what is more important. I grew up with 5 brothers and sister, my Dad was in the airforce and we barely saw him as he was located in the north island but we lived in CHCH, and my Mum was a SAHM. We had very limited funds and a not so nice house, but we had love from our parents and that's all that matters. Kids don't care if you have flash cars and a nice house, they don't understand those sorts of things until much later, so it's actually amazing what you can live on and still be happy. Sorry - kind of went off on a bit of a tangent there lol. -------------
|
Posted By: maysie
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 11:03am
|
We don't qualify for WFF and that's fine, we don't need it. But I wouldn't describe us as wealthy or rolling in it - we live on a budget, have a rather large mortgage, I have a student loan, we have all the insurances etc etc. We don't have any significant savings since buying our house and seem to get letters often to tell us that the things we 'use' are going up due to inflation or taxes or whatever. I think WFF is a great scheme and must make a significant difference for many families, I just sometimes get annoyed that people think it's something they are completely entitled to and sometimes can forget where the money actually comes from. And I only say this in regards to those who don't spend it on essentials relating to their children/families (which is what it's for and I assume doesn't relate to anyone who posts in here). We did notice a difference with the tax cuts though - meant we could live a bit more of the lifestyle people assumed we could have! And someone mentioned that a 100K+ income also comes with it's own stresses, not just 9-5 - DH works a 40hr salary per week and then 10 - 20 hours overtime on top of that (which is fortunately paid on an hourly rate). He is often away for work and Mon-Fri we don't usually see him between 6am and 630pm. His work environment is fairly dangerous (hence the extra life insurances we pay for) and he is having to learn to deal with stress better so he doesn't end up sick He feels the same amount of pressure to provide for his family and allow me to stay at home with our children as someone who earns 1/2 what he does.
Obviously the government needs to make significant cuts across areas and I don't envy the person who has to bite the bullet and choose where to take it from. Hopefully they can be reinstated later, once the debt is under control. It's not something you can fix short term. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: susieq
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 11:26am
|
I can do after school care for you Kelly when your youngest goes to school amd before school care if needs be
------------- susie |
Posted By: KiwiL
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 12:13pm
Jeepers, that's a bit rough! Why is it ok for low income earners to keep having children because the government will support them, but not high income earners? We have made the decision to only have 2 kids, because we can't afford more, but that comment is a bit sh*t in my opinion. I know it is not the norm, but when I was lending, I often had people calling asking to borrow money who had made lifestyle decisions to have lots of children, even though they couldn't afford to without lots of financial support. The worst was a single mum who had 5 children. While processing an application for her, I asked if she got any other sort of support from her children's dads and she told me "oh, I don't know who all of their dads are". In total, she was receiving almost $40,000 in tax free income for her 5 children. Now, I know this is extreme and I don't know how easy it would be to raise 5 children on $40k, but these sort of situations make it harder on everyone. Why should my DH study, work hard (starting at low wages and working his way up) and pay a huge amount of tax to support the lifestyle choices of others? In this case, his entire tax taking (plus more) was supporting this one family. I don't mind paying tax, and I certainly am glad our country has WFF, but it's completely hypocritical to tell high income earners to limit their children, but not expecting the same of others. |
Posted By: tishy
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 12:17pm
|
We earn over 100k and I don't think we should be getting WFF. Well we don't with 2 kids but even if we did I wouldn't take it.
What would be nice, in general, if you could share a portion of your tax credits with your working partner. I.e. If I was a SAHM I could donate some of my tax credits to DH so I could in some way provide something of financial benefit. |
Posted By: My3Sons
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 12:28pm
|
------------- Mum to Mr 10, Mr 6 and Mr 4
 
|
Posted By: My3Sons
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 12:31pm
|
and just to add my DH works HARD and our family has made many sacrifices for us to have a successful business, my kids hardly ever see him, so once again the grass always looks greener, just looking at what people earn isn't the whole picture by any means. ------------- Mum to Mr 10, Mr 6 and Mr 4
|
Posted By: tishy
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 12:42pm
|
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 1:06pm
| I think the government has a screw loose...take from others but keep themselves... |
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 1:10pm
Well said! ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: LouD
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 1:27pm
I dont think anyones DHs work any less harder than the next person. I barely see my DH, he is gone by 6am and isnt home til about 7pm but we were still just under the $50k mark, now suddenly his hours have been cut gone down to 4 days a week...so already we were struggling and now we have this sudden decrease also and Winz cant help us as we just scrape over their thresholds. Everyone works hard in this world(well most, theres always exceptions). some get lucky breaks and some make better choices career wise when they are younger.......but I wouldnt say that anyone works any less harder than the next person!! I get really upset that there isnt any help for those who have yes worked really hard and gotten ahead and never asked for a hand out but something bad happens and they have a sudden decrease in their income and there is no assistance for them.....not even a small food grant to help them while they readjust their committments or find other work. Although if my DH worked on his day off he will be stung with secondary tax which I think is wrong and families(with children of course) should have income brackets up to $100k before tax should be higher or secondary!! If a Husband wants to work two jobs to help his family get ahead, then he shouldnt be penalised, it should just count as the others adults income while we are SAHMs......... I know all of this Off topic, but I am pretty angry that we all work really hard and pay taxes for a very long time and when things get tough for us and things happen out of our control, we dont get diddly....but those who do nothing their whole lives can walk in and get a food grant or assistance with clothing and rego and petrol........how about helping those who have been helping themselves for a very long time...!! |
Posted By: Nikki
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 1:31pm
|
kiwilaurie - I wasn't meaning it is OK for low income earners to have more children if can't afford the ones they have. I don't think anyone should have children they can't afford and expect the government to keep paying out more. I am in the high income group, and one of my reasons to stop at 2 children is that we can not comfortably afford to have another child. Maybe I should have a few more so I can qualify for a benefit too?
My point was just that if you are earning that much you shouldn't need assistance. I got the impression that people with that sort of income level needed to have 3 or more children to receive any assistance, but I could be wrong. And I should add I WORK hard to earn the income I earn and have paid a huge student loan off, studied for many years, have saved for my big mortgage, and made sacrifices too. My high income is not a result of luck! So I never qualify for anything ... I just pay the huge taxes that make these benefits possible. But as a high income earner - I would not take WWF if I qualified, as we don't NEED the money to live. And calling me a hypocrite is not a fair comment if you ask me. I am in the exact same position as your DH, and I am one of the 100K+ earners that is not having another child as I can not afford it, so my comment was aimed at people like me! ------------- DS (5yrs) and DD (3yrs) |
Posted By: LouD
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 1:35pm
Wanna claim it and send it my way Nikki.....
|
Posted By: tishy
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 1:37pm
Don't you just love the fairness of a system where you are treated as individuals when it comes to paying tax, but when it comes to trying to sign on the dole you are suddenly treated as a couple/partnership. 
|
Posted By: Nikki
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 1:37pm
|
I don't qualify so you wouldn't be getting anything sorry! ------------- DS (5yrs) and DD (3yrs) |
Posted By: Nikki
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 1:41pm
|
And maybe I wasn't clear - but I was also saying it has to come from SOMEWHERE so I think those earning over 100K can better afford it than others. And that I think this idea and adding interest to student loans is preferrable over other options they have, such as reducing government funds for Kiwisaver, selling assets etc. We can't keep borrowing at the rate we are, so something has to give .... ------------- DS (5yrs) and DD (3yrs) |
Posted By: KiwiL
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 2:02pm
|
Nikki - I am with you, not against you, lol. I also have no interest in claiming WFF. At the moment we're doing it a little tough, but we manage, and things will be ok when I go back to work part time as well.I just find it so unfair that people think we're rolling in cash, when the reality is really different.
Although, yes, I have to admit it bugs me when I hear people going on about how tough life is financially and how they can't make ends meet and then they choose to have more children. Their financial situation hasn't changed, but the taxpayers pick up that tab... and that's us. And I know that life gets tougher for these people too, but they're still making a lifestyle choice IYKWIM? It also bugs me more when this money is used for things other than the children which, unfortunately, happens a lot more than you think. I'd love to see a household tax brought in - so when you drop to a single income you pay less tax, because it's tough for everyone losing an entire income. But that's a whole 'nother story altogether! |
Posted By: blossombaby
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 2:12pm
|
well said nikki "I don't think anyone should have children they can't afford and expect the government to keep paying out more" (sorry i dont know how to quote haha)
Me and Dp are young (25 and 22) with 1 child we are not entiled to any goverment payment NOT that i expect it .. we choOse to our daughter and its up to US to provide for her .. In our case .. we are'nt prepared to skimp and save so i work part time .. MOST of the people complaining about wff are people that CHOOSE to have a sahm and dad goes off to work .. that to me in itself is privilge - if you can not afford to live on the one income MAYBE you should look at EARNING the 2nd .. not expect the goverment to hand you money. I had a lady work for me once that refused to work an extra or or two or the fulltime position i offered her because it effected her WFF and said to me 'Why would i work for it when it will drop my WFF payment which i get for nothing' 
Maybe insted of writing on the internet how 'unfair it is you are a low income family' you should be out doing a paper run or somethign to earn a few dollars. NZ offers alot to low income familys that us middle - (classed and high but not even wealthy) familys aren't. and if you are a sahp why should us tax payers pay for your children to go to childcare????????????? ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 2:13pm
This bugs me as well. I am so sick of families moaning about not being able to make ends meet and then having more children AND then expecting the govt to give them handouts. Maybe if they stopped at one they wouldn't be struggling so much. Just a thought. |
Posted By: blossombaby
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 2:17pm
|
Bugs me too .. i have friends that say they have no money .. but yet they are sahm on a dpb which they shouldnt be getting and they still have money to drink alcahol and the likes off. One friend has jsut started working full time and lives with he rpartner (which is not her childs father) but claims shes a solo parents so gets all these handout and then only pays $80 a week for fulltime childcare and thinks shes hard done but .. well bugger me thats what we will be paying a day when i go back full time!
And like many people we can only afford to have one child we may have another in years to come but we wouldn't be able to pay full cost for 2 child in childcare. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: TheKelly
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 2:23pm
|
Edit. -------------
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: HoneybunsMa
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 2:33pm
I don't complain about WFF as I choose not to have it weekly because of DP working fluctuating hours and I don't want to owe the government. I do have to say though while yes it is a privilege that I am able to be a SAHM (we've made sacrifices no less having our own personal space and living with my parents which drives me CRAZY) but for our situation and probably quite a few peoples it actually makes no sense me working, for what I would lose from WFF and what I would be earning+paying childcare we would be earning maybe $40 a week more which would end up on running my car anyway. Not worth it for the stress that would come with me working. If DP worked a normal job then I would look at working when he wasn't but he is unable to physically look after DD when he is home as he is working till between 2am-7am 5nights a week. Which is alot different to a normal 9-5/7 jobber who can sleep because the kids are in bed by 7/8pm. Also wanted to say that being on $100k you can still struggle. Dad was an accountant for all my life, he would have been earning the mid-high income but with 4kids mum still would cross her fingers when the food bill went through. We didn't get everything we wanted (not many ppl do)while growing up, but we were loved. Mum did everything she could to ensure we were happy. I do get angry at ppl who seemingly piss away their income when I've sacrificed my own happiness and pastime for the benefit of my family and I've stuck my head in books for the first time in 10yrs and picked up study so that I can get a degree and earn more therefore being able to provide for my family better when I do work! ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 3:05pm
Ok I won't comment on the rest of what you wrote, but I can actually see where this lady is coming from. Why would you miss time with your kids for no financial gain at all? (unless you are one of those parents who likes sticking your kids in care 60 hours a week). I certainly did the sums before returning to work as me returning meant losing WFF and not qualifying for the childcare subsidy (which I was using whilst I studied, as I was a student as well as a sahm and now am working part time and studying part time). This is where the system falls down. I don't think she was necessarily being lazy or whatever more just making sure she gets the best for her family which in that instance was to turn the work down as it wouldn't help her financially all she would do would miss time with her kids. -------------
|
Posted By: blossombaby
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 3:08pm
|
her kids were at school... ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 3:19pm
|
Why would you not claim WFF if you were entitled to it? That's just madness the govt keeps enough of our money its nice to get a little bit back every now and again.
For us the trade off between the cost of childcare and travel to work and what my potential salary would be it isn't financially worth it for me to return to work. We live on a budget same as every other family. Living in Akl 100k doesn't go very far when the average house price is 500k ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">   [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Nikki
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 3:20pm
|
kiwilaurie - When you said my comment made you angry I thought you were against me! But yes, we are in exactly the same boat as you and feel the same way.
And I agree with blossombaby too ... if you are not working and complaining about not having enough money, then the obvious decision is to look at working. I work part time as I do want to spend as much time as I can with my kids, but we could not afford for me to be off work for longer than a year with each bub. I get no childcare subsidy so that costs me 100/day! I could not afford to be a SAHM, WWF wouldn't touch my bills! lol We are apparently in the high income bracket, but like everyone else we are certainly not feeling it with the way everything is going up right now! ------------- DS (5yrs) and DD (3yrs) |
Posted By: Babykatnz
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 3:26pm
|
While I was working f/time I still had to pay afterschool care, which isnt that much cheaper than preschool (going on an hourly rate basis) so she may still have worked out that it was no better for her family financially to switch to f/time hours with school aged kids. I can understand where shes coming from as thats where I was while TTC #2, both of us working f/time, but no better of than when I was working p/time and entitled to preschool subsidy and WFF. at down and did some numbers last week and realised that being a SAHM with 3 kids, based on DPs income, I get about the same between IRD and WINZ as what i did after tax working f/time. Thats without taking out preschool/after school fees, petrol, extra food etc. I'm not about to miss out on time with my kids while so young, when it doesnt benefit us any more than staying home with them does!
I'm not ashamed to admit I accept help from the govt, and had another child while taking that help. Dont forget that these kids will be the ones paying for your superannuation when you retire, if we all chose to only have the kids we could afford on actual income alone, there would be a massive population decrease in the next 10-20 years! ------------- Brandon - 05/12/2003
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 3:37pm
|
Don't get me started on superannuation BK! I have always been of the opinion that you should finance yourself when you retire and not have to rely on a pension from the govt. I have had personal superannuation since I was 20 which is going to give me a good nest egg when I retire, in combination with DH's, plus we will own at least one property freehold. I'm hoping to be too busy cruising around the world to worry about the poxy amount of super that the govt will be handing me
|
Posted By: AbzandH
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 3:47pm
| Just wanted to pipe in and say, we are well below the $100k salary bracket, (as in $40k below), have 1 child, mortgage, 2 cars to service, however we have no other loan repayments. Our WFF (around $55-59) isn't a necessity in our case as we are very cautious with our spending, however as we are entitled we welcome it. We use this for the likes of swimming lessons, babygym, merino clothing etc. Things that are a luxury for our little guy as if we were really tight they couldn't happen, but in everyway benefit our baby as I believe the money is intended. It wouldn't bother me so much if even our income bracket was cut down a bit, so long as these educational activities were subsidized, or the money was put back into something to benefit ALL (not just some) families. |
Posted By: KiwiL
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 3:57pm
Seriously, if government superannuation is still around when I retire, I will eat my hat. I am pretty sure it won't be, and if it is, it will be means tested and we won't get any anyway!! |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 4:08pm
|
*passes the salt to kiwilaurie* when do you want that hat? ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: KiwiL
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 4:11pm
| Well, when I am 65 of course. They've still got a good 33 years to get rid of it. |
Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 5:04pm
|
Here's my opinion on the latest tangent
Children are future taxpayers. If the only people to have more than one or two children are high income earners - we wouldn't be able to replace the population of NZ. With that comes a whole raft of problems. As NZers I feel we need to stop thinking of the individuals and start thinking as a team. Instead of getting grumpy at the family with 4 children getting WFF where others get none for their single child, perhaps a new train of thought could be that those children will be helping with their taxes to among other things - subsidise your retirement, help make schools and hospitals better places, to make our roading better and so on. Perhaps WFF does need a shake up in terms of structure but some seem to be now saying that nobody should get anything to raise children because they are a choice that only benefits the parents of those children and no one else. The Government doesn't just give out money to working parents out of the goodness of their own hearts. They do it because children benefit society as a whole in the long run. That is whether they grow up to only earn the minimum wage or whether they grow up to be high income earners. They are still paying tax. It is in NZ's best interests to try to ensure they grow up to be productive members of society. It helps keep NZ on par with other countries in terms of progress. This is why I have no problem with my tax contribution going towards schemes like WFF. I like to think it's helping NZ move forward. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 5:16pm
|
I don't know why people get annoyed at WFF someone in your family does have to work to get it, doesn't that there fore make them a taxpayer?
It's people who are on a benefit and not working and keep having more kids that annoy me. Different if you've already got the kids and your circumstances change, having my taxes go to people who aren't interested in getting off the benefit is what I'd like to see change. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: _H_
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 5:19pm
I dont have kids yet but I agree with this! Money needs to go to the future which is our children |
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 5:29pm
Agree with you there! There are women on the DPB who make it a career choice (obviously not meaning anyone here), I watched a documentary on it and couldn't believe it! And the more children they get the more money they get, it should be the other way around in those types of cases. |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 5:53pm
| Problem is if its the other way around its the poor kids that suffer as well for the choices of their idiotic parent. |
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 6:59pm
|
SH*T! We could live comfortably on 50K let alone 100!! thats ridiculous that they can still get anything, IMO (mine only) they shouldnt need any extra support and $1192 a year out of $100K is pittance really.
I do also agree that people popping out more kids when they cant afford them and relying on govt is wrong too however! -------------    CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 8:42pm
|
PouterLou - no offence taken; I completely agree!
What about people who are studying, have a couple of kids while DP is on student loan because they want their kids close in age even if it will be a little tight for a while...but of course their DP will soon graduate and hopefully get a job soon after that. If that DP then doesn't manage to land a job for a while, have they done wrong by having kids? Not at all! No one really ever knows what the future holds, all we really know is that the longer you wait to have your kids, the less fertile you're likely to be. Not everyone has the time (or thinks they have the time) to get financially stable before having kids and everyone has to make the decision they think is best at the time. In saying all that - Delli, you're absolutely right. Scotland does similar: [URL]http://www.babycentre.co.uk/baby/familyfinance/rightsandbenefits/[/URL]. New Zealand is a country of immigrants and at our current repopulation rate we will someday be "taken over". I don't think I have a problem with that but you can see how repopulating NZ with NZers could be a high priority for the Government. I put my hand out for WFF and am grateful for it. ------------- |
Posted By: Jaxnz1
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 8:58pm
|
My 2c worth - I think ALL families earning a living should be entitled to some sort of WFF assistance from the Government. Those people living on benefits and not helping themselves to go out and find employment (when they are perfectly capable) are the ones they should be targeting.
We are what you would consider just above average income earners (DH working full time and me part time). On one income we would be considered your average income earners. I can easily see that a $100k salary, while sounds alot, for someone living in Auckland wouldn't actually go that far with a family of four. At the end of the day we have paid taxes our whole working lives and WFF (which is pi** all) is the only thing we have BOTH been entitled to this whole time (including our University days). I'm not sure I see the fairness in that. While I wouldn't necessarily miss the WFF payout, it certainly would be nice to get some sort of incentive from the Government for working hard and doing the best for our kids. Just my opinion though ------------- 
|
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 9:00pm
| Definitely don't agree with whoever said to put interest on student loans! I got mine without interest, I wouldn't have studied otherwise (30 years to pay off interest bearing, vs 11 with no interest) and would therefore be on WFF as a SAHM because I couldn't get a decent paying job. I also signed a contract with Studylink for no interest repayments whatsoever. No govt will scrap that as I'd doubt they'd be elected (Labour won an election by scrapping interest, not the best move (could have been reduced or incentive-based for early repayment) but still... some of us would go under financially if we all of a sudden had to start paying interest. We have $150 a week after everything is paid (food etc) (and have no other debt other than mortgage and student loan) so we would be screwed and I'd be better to be getting more money off the govt and taking WFF. |
Posted By: PorterLou
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 9:01pm
Totally agree with this!! We are saving very hard for a deposit for a house, limiting expenditure on luxuries so we can have as small a mortgage when the time comes. Its great when the OCR is lowered and interest rates on mortgages come down (for everyone else), but it means the interest rate on our savings account is she-ite! It would be so awesome if we could something in return for making an effort to support ourselves (I'm not asking for much, maybe a couple of extra % on the interest rate.) Possibly not directly related but I'm going to mention my friend, who was 5 months pregnant when a restructure at work left her redundant. Now, she straight away went about finding another job (she did), but she didn't qualify for any sort of parental leave or anything like that, so when baby arrived they were down to one income, which was then reduced when the recession bit and they all took a pay cut in exchange for keeping their jobs. And they still qualified for nothing. Gutted -------------
|
Posted By: LouD
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 9:45pm
| yeah that sucks.....it was like that in Australia, I could only get temping job after temping job but I was consitently employed the whole time, just different jobs through a temping agency, but I didnt qualify for any parental assistance that you get over there also if you are working for 12months.....I think it should take consistently working into consideration, cos it shows that you have been paying tax that whole time.....its the grey areas!!! |
Posted By: kiwigal
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 9:48pm
|
I totally agree with you and with everything that has gone up GST, ECE, petrol, food, interest rates then I don't see the harm in claiming an extra few dollars. We have got every kind of insurance there is in case something does go wrong and still be able to provide for our two kids. |
Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 12 May 2011 at 10:56pm
|
This isn't showing on the front page for me, it seems to have disappeared - just wondering if I post whether that helps.
ETA - it did. Very strange. Must have been a glitch in the system. At first I thought it must have been deleted (until I searched for it) and I wondered why - as we are all more or less being so civil about it (for a topic that has gone on 5 pages and tends to become an emotional topic as it is about money - something close to all of our hearts, lol )------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Hopes
Date Posted: 13 May 2011 at 7:12am
|
Haha, so right about that Delli - money can be a pretty emotional topic. I honestly don't really have much of an opinion on the matter, although I do agree that where you live makes a huge difference. DH and I were doing some calculations the other day - we watched part of that TV thing where the chap and his family weretrying to live on the 'average' wage of $50,000, and I was saying that anyone could manage it... he looked up some Auckland rent prices and I had to cave and agree it could be impossible up there. On the other hand, Hamilton's pretty reasonable (and Nic, I imagine Levin is even more so!) -------------   
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 13 May 2011 at 9:05am
|
*sorry thread high jack* Congratulations Hopes what an awesome surprise! ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Hopes
Date Posted: 13 May 2011 at 9:25am
|
Thanks -------------
|
Posted By: KiwiL
Date Posted: 13 May 2011 at 9:40am
No offence, but come to Wellington then Nic! Median House Price in Wellington - $430k Median House Price in Levin - $220k Assuming a 20% deposit and a mortgage on the current floating rate, someone in Wellington is paying $250 a week more in mortgage payments alone. Factor in rates, insurance and cost of living in larger cities, and you can see why, all of a sudden, your massive income might not be going so far. And when you look at the rent figures, the divide is almost as great. Then move yourself to Auckland and see what happens!! |