
The young need state support just as much as the old
While this view may resonate with some, all developed countries have variants on state policies like Working for Families to support children, and a version of New Zealand Superannuation to support the old.
Typically and confusingly it is often argued that Working for Families is either 'corporate welfare' (letting businesses get away with not paying workers enough for their families to live on), or 'communism by stealth' that puts 'the whole population on welfare'. By similar logic it could be argued that NZ Super puts everyone on welfare at 65 or is a form of corporate welfare because wages should be high enough so people can save for a pension for themselves.
Mid-last century, in a world long gone, wages were set by arbitration to ensure that one full-time male breadwinner earned enough to support a 'typical' family with a wife at home, and several children. Even so, tax breaks and a family benefit for children were also necessary. In the 21st century we have very different family structures including two-earner families. It is ludicrous to expect employers to meet the needs of both low-income adults and their children.
For example, a very low-wage worker with four children currently receives an extra $610 per week from Working for Families. If cut completely, the net wage would have to rise by around $32,000 a year to make up for it, by Hooton's logic. The increase in the gross wage rate would cripple employers, be too much for workers without children, and not enough for larger families.
There is the argument that by wiping Working for Families, the money saved be given back in tax relief to workers. That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. If families were to be compensated, it would require a complex package of abating tax credits. Oh, but isn't that that what Working for Families currently is? It all becomes so circular.
One million superannuitants are collectively paid $20b after tax each year. Around one million children are given just $3.3b in Working for Families each year. You read that right. Each year around one million superannuitants are paid around six times more than one million children through Working for Families.
But it is true that Working for Families is badly designed and does not meet the main goal of child poverty prevention. It doesn't reward paid work, as it is intended to. It is in desperate need of reform.
It's often said that Working for Families is all Labour's fault, but it did not magically come into being fully formed under the Helen Clark Government in 2004. The universal weekly family benefit and tax breaks for families in the 1950s evolved by the 70s and 80s to become a complex mix of family benefit and different family tax credits. In 1991 the National Party folded the universal family benefit into the targeted tax credits to become one weekly targeted payment per child called Family Support.
There were further changes under National in the mid-1990s, and rewarding paid work became elevated as a fundamental principle. All that the Clark government did in 2004 was to change the name to Working for Families, then build on and expand the existing complex structure, with even more emphasis on paid work as a criterion. Then, the Ardern government introduced an additional significant payment, called Best Start, for children under three years old, universal for the first year.
As a policy, Working for Families is a mess. In contrast NZ Super is a simple, unconditional universal payment indexed to wages. It is easy to access and, until the housing crisis, has been enough to prevent poverty in old age. It is a basic income floor that does not disincentivise paid work. It has a very gentle income test though the tax system, so that the very highest income earners still get around three quarters of a pension paid when there is no additional income.
The extra assistance for families to meet the basic income needs of their children is a very different story. Working for Families is tightly targeted and assists only children of low- and middle-income parents. Moreover, the full payment is conditional on parents having paid work and receiving no core benefit or part benefit. These conditions result in 200,000 children in the worst-off families being excluded from around $5000 per year, or more for larger families. With this division between deserving and undeserving children it's no wonder child poverty is so intractable.
Working for Families payments are not annually indexed and are increased only when cumulative inflation exceeds 5 percent. There is no wage link as for NZ Super. Furthermore, payments are subject to a draconian clawback equivalent to an extra tax of 27 percent from a very low base of joint parental income. That threshold will be lifted marginally next year to $44,900, but to pay for it, the rate of abatement rises from 27 percent to 27.5 percent and Best Start becomes income-tested.
This very 'tight targeting' ensures child poverty persists for many families in paid work. The overlap of tax, Working for Families clawbacks, student loan repayments and loss of accommodation assistance, and now Best Start clawbacks, confirms for too many, that extra work effort does not lift them out of poverty.
Children are invisible: that is the problem. Fundamentally we need to understand that low-income wages, benefits, and paid parental leave are for the income needs of adults, but children also have income needs.
I would argue that rather than take more from children we take more from the top end of NZ Super through the tax system and direct the revenue for fixing not just Working for Families but also the other failing welfare measures such as the accommodation supplement, benefits and disability support. We do want to grow the economy but should not be done at the expense of the wellbeing of both our current and future workforce.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Nicola Willis criticised for cost of living ‘sermon' during post-Cabinet press conference
'Spending more, taxing and borrowing more as Labour and other parties advocate for, didn't work in the past and it won't work in the future,' Luxon said. Finance Minister Nicola Willis during the post-Cabinet Press conference at Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'The most important thing we can do to make you better off is to double down on our economic plan,' he said. Hipkins called Willis' and Luxon's address a 'sermon' that showed the pair was out of touch with the daily reality of New Zealanders. Although the party said they were going to get 'New Zealand back on track' as per their election campaign slogan, Hipkins claimed 'across the board, New Zealanders can see the country is going backwards.' 'Yet Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis just say – 'oh, that's all part of the plan, we've got this' – they haven't got it. 'Things are getting worse for the vast majority of New Zealanders and no amount of spin from them is going to change the reality that things are getting worse for New Zealanders under their leadership. 'I think we should start calling them Fisher and Paykel because they've got more spin than a front load washing machine.' Tax relief was a major part of National's 2023 election campaign amid flaring inflation and a cost of living crisis. The party campaigned on a series of policies aimed at helping the 'squeezed middle', including adjusting tax rates, increasing tax credits and FamilyBoost. These policies came into effect in July last year. Willis said today the average household is $1,560 better off after the Government's tax relief package. 'We have also introduced FamilyBoost, which with the latest expansion gives families up to 40 per cent off their childcare costs. 'We have removed the Auckland fuel tax, introduced 12-month prescriptions, increased the rates rebate for 66,000 seniors and increased Working for Families payments.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon arriving for the post-Cabinet Press conference. Photo / Mark Mitchell Luxon stressed that a year and half into the term, he and his party were still fixated on improving the economy and the cost of living. Things were still tough for many families but the economy was 'expected to grow on average 2.7% per year creating 240,000 jobs over the next four years. 'In the short term we are pulling every lever we can to help Kiwi families with the cost of living.' The Government also announced the scrapping of surcharges at the till, such as when a customer uses PayWave or their mobile phone to make a payment. 'New Zealanders are paying up to $150 million in surcharges every year. That's money that could be saved or spent elsewhere.' Luxon also said the changes the Government were making to construction would help reduce costs for businesses and New Zealanders. Earlier in the day, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced she would review safety rules for scaffolding, saying she had received many complaints from the construction industry that current regulations were too complex and expensive. Van Velden was light on the details of what specifically would be reviewed, but said officials would consult on proposed new rules that would give people a selection of safety options depending on how dangerous the job was. 'If it's not very risky, they will not need to use expensive scaffolding. 'For example, they will be considering whether a ladder could be used instead of scaffolding for a simple roof gutter repair or minor electrical maintenance when working at height.'


NZ Herald
4 days ago
- NZ Herald
Passport redesign and Hulk Hogan dead at 71
Government plans to redesign the New Zealand passport to put English before te reo, and professional wrestling icon Hulk Hogan has died aged 71. Video / NZ Herald


NZ Herald
6 days ago
- NZ Herald
Watch: Christopher Luxon mouths off at ‘frickin' Chris Hipkins over lack of policy
But that has not stopped inflation becoming a political problem, with Hipkins and Edmonds rounding on the Government for high prices this week. Luxon said the Government cared about people on low and middle incomes and helped those people through tax relief using fiscal policy to help the Reserve Bank fight inflation. Annual inflation in the past full quarter before the change of government was 5.6%. Luxon said Labour's outrage over high prices was 'crocodile tears'. 'This is the party that didn't support tax relief - moving tax thresholds. That's not deeply ideological, it helps low and middle income New Zealanders.' Luxon listed his Government's cost of living measures. 'They didn't support FamilyBoost, they didn't support Working for Families credits, they don't talk about helping construction workers by getting on board and u-turning on Fast Track [which Labour opposed, although not for supermarkets], they've got a gazillion positions on PPPs [Public-Private Partnerships], they're all over the place. 'They have no idea what to do - they put us in this mess, we are cleaning up the mess,' Luxon said. Labour leader Chris Hipkins hit back. Photo / Mark Mitchell While Labour opposed these changes in Parliament, it took to the election its own early childhood education policy, extending 20 hours free care to children under 2 years old. It also proposed a more generous Working for Families policy. National copied that policy on the campaign trial, but watered it down during coalition negotiations, costing some families $38 a week. Changes made in the 2025 Budget reduced some of this loss. Hipkins hit back at Luxon, noting that figures obtained by Labour and published on Tuesday showed the full $75 FamilyBoost tax credit was only claimed by a tiny number of households. This means few, if any, households are getting the $252 a fortnight National promised some would get from its tax plan. The Government subsequently changed settings of the policy, meaning more people will start getting more money from it. Willis said about 16,000 more families will get the tax credit. Hipkins defends lack of policy Hipkins defended Labour's light policy slate saying 'we're not even close to an election at the moment'. 'Unlike [Luxon], when we go into an election next year, I will make sure the policies that we have add up and we can actually deliver on them. They didn't actually do that and now they are suffering - and New Zealanders are suffering as a result,' Hipkins said. He said one of the reasons Labour was waiting to unveil policy is the Government has one more budget to deliver. That budget will detail how much money Labour would have to spend if it took over in 2026. 'Before we come out with significant policies that are going to cost money for example, we want to see what the shape of the Government's books are,' Hipkins said. 'I want to know we can afford what we promise,' he said. Hipkins would not say whether the party would have any policy before the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election in September. He has promised a tax policy before the end of the year. Willis also attacked Labour's 'crocodile tears' on the cost of living. Finance Minister Nicola Willis attacked Labour for its lack of policy. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis took to social media on Monday to note Edmonds was unable to list any cost of living policies. 'I thought it was the most telling thing ever when Barbara Edmonds came down here to do a stand-up lashing us for a 2.7% inflation rate... when asked what specific policy she had to address the cost of living she said 'none' - none, none, none. 'Now that is to me, the boy crying wolf,' Willis said. In the stand-up, Edmonds gave no policy suggestions, she did not literally answer 'none'. Willis said Labour was gripped by 'shallow attack politics which doesn't put bread on anyone's table'. She alleged Labour was 'bereft of ideas' and 'internally divided on what the way forward for New Zealanders is. How much policy is normal In December 2022, the Leader of the Opposition was asked about his own lack of policy and gave a very similar answer to the one Hipkins gave on Tuesday. 'Look, we are one year out from an election ... rest assured, we will have policy,' the leader said. The leader of the opposition back then was Luxon himself. As political campaigning shifts to embrace 'small target' strategies, releasing lots of policy before an election campaign has become less and less common. Assuming the current Parliament runs a roughly full term and there is an election at the end of next year, we are about halfway through the term. At this point in the last Parliament, National had released a tax policy - however, it was careful not to promise that this would be the policy it would take to the election. That policy, published just prior to the 2022 Budget - the middle-Budget in Labour's second term - called on the Government to increase tax thresholds to deliver tax cuts to people to compensate for the higher taxes they were paying because of inflation. Later that year, National confirmed that this particular policy was only a suggestion for the 2022 Budget, but the party committed that its final tax policy would deliver at least the same level of tax cuts as the earlier plan. The final tax package was not announced until the end of August 2023 - less than two months before the October election. National had a handful of policy promises by this stage in the last cycle, including lifting the super age and reintroducing boot camps. Labour has also made some promises, including repealing the Three Strikes law, the future Regulatory Standards Act and reinstating the old Pay Equity Scheme in some form. That last commitment will come with a roughly $13 billion price tag, which will need to be paid for with some kind of tax increase, spending cut, or borrowing. National is keen to pin Labour down on just what combination of those three things Labour is planning. The Simon Bridges-led National Party took a different approach. In its middle year, it released several 'discussion documents' to members and the public testing potential policy ideas and giving a sense of where the party was headed. These discussion documents were meant to form the basis of National's 2020 election policy platform, however, that changed when the party imploded. Hipkins said the party was working on policy internally, but he would not say anything more. 'We haven't released discussion documents but that is the work we have been doing,' Hipkins said. 'We've got to make sure all the pieces of our policy fit together,' he said.