Student loans safe but Working for Families changes possible - PM
Interest-free student loans are safe but changes may be made to working for families as the Government looks for money after the Christchurch quake, Prime Minister John Key said this morning.
Finance Minister Bill English yesterday said the Government was looking at what big spending projects can wait as it faced high costs from the Christchurch earthquake and a slow economy but said it would not "slash and burn"
Questions have been raised about the future of road and rail projects as well as entitlements.
Asked on NewstalkZB about working for families and interest free student loans Mr Key said changing the loans was unlikely but suggested changes to working for families were possible.
"There are areas where the eligibility of them is too generous and I think there are savings we can make and we will work on those... I don't anticipate interest going back on student loans for instance."
Mr Key said a cautious approach was needed.
"If you suck a lot of money out of the economy you ultimately slow the economy down. That is the advice from Treasury and that will be right."
Suggestions have been made that a levy be imposed to cover costs but so far the Government is looking at cuts and borrowing.
Changes would be reflected in the May budget.
Labour leader Phil Goff yesterday said there was no need for the Government to panic because Canterbury's recovery would take years and costs could be spread out over time.
"It would be wrong to cut financial assistance to families and students who rely on that support, especially when the cost of living is sky high," Mr Goff said.
"That would simply slow the economy down -- we must keep money in the pockets of people who will spend it."
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions31
So does a family with taxable income of $50,000 with two children need assistance from WFF?
Interesting to hear views? Personally I think this government spending can be better directed to Christchurch rebuilding.
The problem is that families have adjusted their spending to take into account the extra WFF handouts, and could be squeezed by a sudden change. Perhaps an announcement that it will change from 01 September 2011?
WTF - nice attitude Phil generations of Kiwi's afetr us can pay .. is that the message? I'm guessing thats always the labour messag eleave the mess for someone else!!! FFS .... children of this country take note!! Labour leader Phil Goff yesterday said there was no need for the Government to panic because Canterbury's recovery would take years and costs could be spread out over time
$50K is too low. We should be targetting people with $100K or more income and who are on WFF.
This Govet is using this earthquake to justify doing things it wants to do but thought there would be resistance. Yes a family with 50k per year and 2 children need assistance. They can only afford to by a150k house - and how many of those are around? If we want to make working worthwhile and invest in our children for the future then we need to keep this assistance going. I am absolutely convinced that our future prosperity is tied up these families. I am less convinced that the weirdo broadband approach which is costing us a bomb is helpful or the money being spent on widening roads that did not need widening (the profits of which are going into a tiny number of businesses) or buying a new set of BMWs for Ministers of the Crown will inspire economic revitalisation. Finally, think of this. The people who are most affected by the earthquake in CHCH are most likely to be supported by Working forFamilies. Do we really want to take from them in a pretence we are helping?
Its not rocket science. It would be VERY tough on families earning $50k to not receive WFF with food/petrol prices increasing as fast as they are. For the life of me, however, I don't know why one of the main political parties hasn't suggested a broadbrush taxation/welfare approach to supporting the ChCh recovery. Raise company and top personal tax rate by a bit, drop state support by a bit. Only then will you get a buy-in by (most of) the public and stop the politicising of this whole issue. This is not a time for left and right leanings - its time for a practical approach and EVERYONE stepping up to help the disaster effort.
K Smith - why Is a family with a net income of 50k p.a. even CONSIDERING purchasing a house?...
Some may even ask why on $50k p.a. a family decided (it is a choice) to have two kids?!?!
I agree that National probably want to change WFF but are afraid of the public backlash.
Firstly targetting 100k+ WFF is not going to save significant sums of money, so the discussion has to be at the 50K level.
Interesting point about house affordability. I don't think people should include WFF credits in their calculations on whether they can afford a house. If so then house prices will be be higher due to demand for people with WFF handouts being able to pay for them - this distorts the housing market. In this case the WFF credits end up being paid away as bank interest. Should everyone in NZ be entitled to afford to buy a house? Should we not look to address tenancy laws instead if you wish to ensure children in lower income families have a higher quality of life in their childhood years.
I would dislike taking a regional approach to WFF (making Chch exempt from the change) so any changes would apply to Chch. There are regional assistance packages in place - they could be modified slightly.
I agree that broadband and other infrastructure projects should be delayed - but this is just effecting the timing of the expenses... Or is the suggestion to cancel some projects altogether?
Re house buying - I am not sayong that $50k do or should buy houses, what I am trying to point out that these familuies are being referred to politically as wealthy. They are clearly not wealthy, they have no access to anything that wealth would bring them (like for instance getting a mortgage to buy their own home). Families with children are struggling even with this support. This is a generational thing. 30 yrs ago families with this relative level of income would have been able to get a mortgage and buy a house. They can't now. So my point AJ is despite this group being called wealthy - they ain't. And re the choise to not have children, actually those who have children do us a favour - No children then no one to buy stuff in the future, no business, no economy and noone to look after you - AJ - in your old age.
AJ get ur dam head out of the sand!!! some people may not choose to have 2 kids sometimes these things happen. taget 100k WFF not 50K. families on 50k wont be able to support 2 kids on a single income. if the govt takes that Away im sure they are guna see an increase in "solo mums" claming for the DPB. people will do what they have to do to support there kids!!! even if that means claming to be a solo parent just to poket over $500 a week...
Hear hear. Life's a struggle on 50k. We're a childless couple - can't claim a bloody thing. But people earning $100,000 & claiming WFF is disgusting - but naturally, they do it coz they can (wouldn't you?)...must be a lovely life.
Hear hear. Life's a struggle on 50k. We're a childless couple - can't claim a bloody thing. But people earning $100,000 & claiming WFF is disgusting - but naturally, they do it coz they can (wouldn't you?)...must be a lovely life.
Hear hear. Life's a struggle on 50k. We're a childless couple - can't claim a bloody thing. But people earning $100,000 & claiming WFF is disgusting - but naturally, they do it coz they can (wouldn't you?)...must be a lovely life.
All NZers must unite and tighten our belts, and this is one way....
Agree - I can see the argument of the govt at this stage - the money has to come from somewhere, but they need to be careful that those that lose WFF don't also get hit with other "tax" increases, levies or income decreases that will be introduced to foot the bill. As long as we all contribute.......fairly.
Ahh... yes you can. It is called the independent earners credit.
So why do NZers get benefits for having children?
clearly the welfare system has got out of control and if the chch earthquake is an excuse to make some changes govt should proceed
Why have wff with all the unproductive government workers pushing paper around. If you want to give people more money, take less from them. Lowering taxes is the most effective way to achieve this.
Children are the future of NZ....
Working for families is absolutely wrong, it is a populist rort introduced by Peter Dunne. It has nothing to do with "children" and everything about vote getting.
If Parliament was serious about helping NZ children they would not encourage women to have children they cannot care for them as they should be cared for. It is just plain wrong for peeps to have children because children represent a meal ticket or a tax break.
Money spent on allowing middle and upper income families to maintain or improve their lifestyles has came at the cost of their independence and public goods, services and infrastructure the country and its poorer citizens really needed.
That need is even greater now.
If you're not convinced, picture the television ads which implored people to claim WFF.
They showed well dressed people in an attractively furnished home with the father texting to get the teenage daughter to the table while she lounged on a sofa listening to an iPod.
Did that look like a family in need of public money? No and it wasn't meant to. The advertisements were aimed at middle and upper income people who ought never to have considered themselves in need of a benefit and probably never did until they were targeted by the ads.
Do families like that need public money when others don't have food, shelter, water, sewers, roads and other essential goods, services and infrastructure?
Well your see alot of families either end up Bankrupt as they rely on this extra money,then it is taken away.maybe John key needs to give families a few years to sort out there financial situation,then cut it.It wouldnt be just families but the enconomy wen these families cant afford to pay off debt.Head for Australia,families might have too.
So we have a Mum and a Dad. They both bribe their kids for their affection. They promise the kids more and more. Only in the end its the kids who are going to pay for the lollies Mum and Dad are promising.
Ring any bells you dingalings all living in Disney World.
So a guy on 100k gets working for families? A solo mum with half a dozen kids gets how much from the government per week?
The guy earning 100k is paying for the lot through his tax and probably works 60+ hours a week.
Who is hard done by?
The trouble with WFF is that only some people get it. You can be on a low wage with one child and not get it so therefore families need two incomesto survive. On the other hand if you have a high income and several kids you do get it. I dont get a cent for my preschooler and yet my friend gets 200 a week for 4 kids, 3 of which are at school. and her husbands brings in 1200 a week in the hand!!!!
The trouble with WFF is that only some people get it. You can be on a low wage with one child and not get it so therefore families need two incomesto survive. On the other hand if you have a high income and several kids you do get it. I dont get a cent for my preschooler and yet my friend gets 200 a week for 4 kids, 3 of which are at school. and her husbands brings in 1200 a week in the hand!!!!
We all should beware of Polititions who promise us something for nothing... our children will end up paying for this bribery.
OH WELL...WHATTA U KNOW THE ONLY BUILDING TO SURVIVE THE QUAKE WAS THE IRD BUILDING...
HEY AUCKLANDERS.,...WHOIS...PICKING UP THE BILL ...
HELOOOOOOO..
OH INSURANCE COMPANIES KEEP WRITING OFF THOSE AUCKLAND CAR CRASHES.....
I THINK ILL MOVE TO THE SOUTH ISLAND IN 10 YEARS WE WOULD HAVE LOST OUR ASSES ...BY THEN
Why should we pay? Isnt that why u pay insurance?
We are a family with two young children, my husband brings in 52k before tax we would be screwed with out our wff, living prices are sky high as it is take away or decrese wff would make living near impossible, especially going in to a cold winter.
So Someone thats earns under 50k should be intiltled to buy a house think of the future not your wallet,
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below