FamilyBoost payment increased, income limit raised
The Finance Minister says thousand of families will benefit from the changes to FamilyBoost revealed this morning.
Nicola Wills has announced that from the start of this month, the proportion of early childhood fees people can claim back under the flagship policy will increase from 25% to 40%.
That means a family paying $100 a week in fees will be now eligible for an additional $15 every week, she said.
The amount families can earn per year to be eligible will also be increased, from $180,000 per year to $229,000.
"IRD estimate around 16,000 more families will take it up at these different income levels," Willis said.
IRD would also continue work to see if a direct fee refund model is possible, Willis said.
A review of the early childhood funding system was under way "to ensure we are making things as simple, straight forward and effective as possible".
Ahead of the announcement, Willis said as amount of money in the scheme was not on track to all be used, there was an opportunity to spread it further.
She urged people who were eligible for Family Boost to put claims in.
"We note that only eligible families who make a claim will receive the rebate. To date, around 60,000 families have successfully claimed the FamilyBoost tax credit which is less than the number of families estimated to be eligible."
The Finance Minister promised to review the scheme which provides rebates for early childhood education, after government figures showed just 249 families had consistently claimed the full amount - well short of the 21,000 families initially estimated.
Previously, to qualify for the full amount, families had to be paying more than $300 a week in childcare costs, but also earning under $140,000 a year.
Families earning up to $180,000 a year could get smaller amounts, while those earning above that could not claim the rebate.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
26 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Capping rates rises would make things 'worse not better'
Finance Minister Nicola Willis Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Capping local council rates would make the problem of paying for pipes and other infrastructure "worse not better", Labour leader Chris Hipkins says. Cabinet will year consider options to control rate rises, including capping, later this year. Finance Minister Nicola Willis told Morning Report on Monday the government wanted councils to stick to the basics and not waste ratepayers money. "We are concerned that the rates bill is a big part of the cost of living for many households, and rates have been going up very fast and are set to keep going up very fast across many councils," she said. "Councils don't always do a great job of spending your money like you would spend it. There are wasteful projects - there is evidence of that. "We want councils focusing on the things people expect them to do, which is the rubbish, the roads, the pipes, the basics - and not all the fanciful projects. "There will be pushback because when you take candy away from kids in a candy store, they don't really like it. But at the same time, we are on the side of ratepayers." Willis said councils should also look at making greater use of other funding and financing tools to pay for infrastructure. Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins said the reason rates were going up at the rate they was because the government abolished reforms. "The biggest contributor to rates going up around the country is the fact that our water infrastructure is in such a state of disrepair, capping the rates, in order to say well we want you to not do water infrastructure, just pushes the problem further into the future," he told Morning Report on Tuesday. "If you look at my area, Wellington .... basically in the summer you can walk around and see all the leaky pipes because it's the only green spots on the grass at the side of the road. "Simply saying 'well just don't spend money on that' is going to make that problem worse not better." Hipkins was asked if he agreed with Willis, who likened a restriction on rates to taking candy away from kids, saying there was wasteful and fanciful spending going on in councils. He said this was patronising. "Having created a situation where councils are being forced to put up the rates to pay for things like water infrastructure, the government's now trying to blame them for doing something that they really don't have a choice but to do. "Ultimately if the government don't want councils to increase rates, they've got to find another way of funding the water infrastructure that we need." Local Government New Zealand president and Selwyn District mayor Sam Broughton said rates capping could be "disastrous for communities" and leave councils without the means to fund essential infrastructure. He said international examples showed the policy that "sounds cool and might win some votes" had unintended consequences on pipes and roads. "My council, we spend 80 percent of our capital on roads and pipes. On top of that, you add in the rubbish, you add in the parks, you add in the pools that kids learn to swim in - all those things add up and are expensive." In the past three years there had been a 38 percent increase in the cost of maintaining bridges, he said. He said communities did need to look at borrowing, but also needed other tools such as the return of mineral royalties, congestion charging, road tolling, the return of a portion of GST on new builds in the district. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
More money for childcare – but parents remain tied up in red tape
A revamp of Family Boost is offering higher rebates and expanded eligibility, but experts say the ECE affordability crisis needs more than quick fixes, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Family Boost gets a top-up The government's Family Boost rebate for early childhood education has been expanded, with finance minister Nicola Willis announcing that families can now claim back 40% of their ECE fees, up from 25%. At the same time, the income cap for eligibility has risen sharply, from $180,000 to $229,000 a year, meaning thousands more families now qualify. Willis says this tweak is designed to ensure unspent money in the scheme's pot actually reaches families, after figures revealed surprisingly low uptake: around 60,000 families have claimed Family Boost so far, well short of the original estimates of 130,000 additional households supported. The changes mean a family paying $100 a week in childcare fees could now get an extra $15 back each week, but the bigger question is whether this extra support will be easy enough to access to make a difference. Red tape still ties parents in knots For many families, the real barrier to Family Boost hasn't been the income limit but the paperwork. As Vernon Small wrote in the Sunday Star Times in April (paywalled), the rebate was pitched as an easy 'money in the bank' promise but has turned out to be an exercise in bureaucracy: families must keep invoices, submit them to IRD, and wait for the refund. It's hardly the 'back pocket boost' National advertised during the election. Writing in The Spinoff in 2023, Aisling Gallagher explained how countries like Australia have abandoned similar rebate models precisely because they burden parents with extra admin while delivering little on affordability. Although Willis has promised to look at direct refunds – paying rebates straight to providers – no fix has been confirmed. Until then, the burden remains on parents to chase money they're entitled to, which many simply don't have time or capacity to do. Who really benefits? Another sticking point, Gallagher argues, is that rebates can backfire if providers simply raise fees. In New Zealand's mostly privatised ECE market, any extra cash for parents risks being swallowed by price hikes. It seems the government believes that fees can be kept in check by parents' ability to 'talk with their feet' and choose a cheaper option, but that's unrealistic, says Gallagher: 'Childcare markets do not work under textbook supply and demand imperatives.' Without stronger controls on prices – or more ambitious investment along the lines of Australia's recent billion-dollar boost – the rebate risks acting more as a subsidy for the sector than real relief for parents. Family Boost does at least give IRD better access to fee data, allowing officials to track 'service provider behaviour around fee charging immediately following subsidy increases', according to the government. But many providers say they have little choice but to raise prices, with or without the Family Boost rebate. As Cate Macintosh reports in The Press (paywalled) small independent operators were already stretched thin by rising teacher pay, inflation and patchy government funding. With the budget's meagre 0.5% funding increase failing to keep pace with costs, some centres are cancelling free hours or hiking fees just to survive. An overhaul of rules – but will it ease costs? Some hope rests on recent regulatory changes, which saw associate education minister David Seymour pushing through an overhaul of the tangle of ECE rules. As we discussed back in April, the rule changes primarily involve merging or removing outdated licensing criteria, with the aim of lowering operating costs for centres and, in theory, preventing endless fee hikes. But with ECE in New Zealand more unaffordable than anywhere else in the developed world, according to the education ministry's own 2022 figures, many argue these tweaks won't go far enough. For parents still paying up to a third of their income for childcare, the promise of affordable, accessible ECE remains just that: a promise.
1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
Are NZ banks being taxed properly?
The Government is looking at whether banks in New Zealand are taxed appropriately. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said she is continuing to receive advice from IRD on how income tax laws applied to the major banks in New Zealand, particularly compared with Australia. Willis asked for the advice last year, but said no announcements would be made until Budget next year. The key issues were around how the "parent banks" and branch banks in New Zealand interacted for tax purposes. She said there was some "very arcane and complex tax law" in that area where the OECD had guidance, but New Zealand operated slightly differently. ADVERTISEMENT Willis was also looking at the Australian "major bank levy" which New Zealand did not have. This forced banks with more than $100 billion in liabilities to pay a levy to the government, raising significant sums a year. Willis would not rule out applying something similar here, but she did confirm the Government was not looking at a windfall tax. "There's a range of highly technical, highly complex issues with the way that banks are taxed, and we're just doing a check in to make sure that it's resulting in an overall fair system." Willis said it was possible more revenue could be generated for the Crown if the Government found banks were not paying the full amount of tax expected. Acting Prime Minister David Seymour was asked about the issue on Monday and said he believed banks were being fairly taxed. "Some of the biggest taxpayers in New Zealanders are banks," he said, and stated they were all paying the 28% average tax rate as their company tax. "There's nothing to suggest that they are not paying the same share that they would if they were any other kind of business." ADVERTISEMENT Asked about Willis' work, Seymour said, like most ministers, she was "always asking for advice, always tossing around the ideas". He suspected the result of that work would show banks were fairly taxed. Seymour said, from what he saw, there seemed to be a "consistent pattern" in terms of what banks paid, and the question around any proposals to change the settings would need to be based on "fairness". He pointed to a dairy, retail or manufacturing company that were doing "pretty much the same stuff, making the same profit and paying the same tax, would you treat them differently"? "One of the core principles of taxation is that 'like taxpayers pay tax alike', and 'unlike, taxpayers pay tax un-alike' based on the size of the difference. "So you'd start with fairness as your principle." He acknowledged there may be more information he was not aware of. He also wanted more information on the major bank levy. "I've seen the argument for that, and it goes something like this: Banks inevitably get bailed out. ADVERTISEMENT "If they're so big that their failure would affect the entire economy, maybe they should be putting something aside for that rainy day, if it happens one day. That's the argument. "It's, in a way, a form of de facto deposit insurance." He said it was an interesting argument, but would need to see the detail before deciding on supporting a proposal or not as ACT leader.
