Latest news with #IRD
Scoop
3 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Couple Owes $20,000 Working For Families Debt ‘Through No Fault Of Our Own'
Article – RNZ , Money Correspondent Just a quarter of 'squared up' Working for Families recipients are getting the right amount. Phoenix Ruka says he and his wife owe about $18,000 to $20,000 in Working for Families debt, despite always doing their best to ensure that they supplied the correct details about their income and circumstances. 'We've always stayed up-to-date with my salary and what we received from them and updated my salary every time it went up and down,' Ruka said. 'What were receiving was what they assured us we were entitled to. But then we got a massive bill saying they had overpaid us.' He said his wife had been 'relentless' in trying to work out what had happened. It was discovered that a couple of years they had been underpaid, by many thousands of dollars, which they were reimbursed, but one year they were paid too much, which left them with the debt. 'I think the really frustrating part is that it's through no fault of our own. We owe a substantial amount of money. Now they're taking $350 a fortnight out of our bank account,' Ruka said. 'We've gone back and forth and shown them our expenses, that we actually can't afford the amount they're taking. We've shown them our bills, our mortgage – they told us that they can't keep taking money if we can't afford it but we can't.' He said there had been multiple times where the money that was being taken to repay the debt was all that was left in their bank account. It's an issue the government is attempting to tackle with proposed changes to the way that income is assessed for Working for Families. As part of the Budget, it was announced that the threshold at which entitlements start to abate was to be increased slightly, and the government would look at options to help avoid the issue of Working for Families debt. Inland Revenue's discussion document said 85 percent of Working for Families households received their payments weekly or fortnightly during the 2022 tax year, based on an income estimate. Only 15 percent were receiving their credits annual based on the family's actual income once income tax had been assessed. Those who were being paid weekly or fortnightly were subject to an end of year 'square up' process by Inland Revenue, the document noted, although they were expected to update IRD with any relevant changes during the year. In the 2022 year, only 24 percent of households receiving weekly or fortnightly payments and squared up by IRD had received the right amount of Working for Families credits. Those who were overpaid are left with a debt to repay. The document said debt was a particular problem for low- and middle-income families because it reduced their ability to meet their day to day costs in the future. 'Debt undermines the intent of the Working for Families scheme to support low to middle income families to meet basic needs and incentivise work.' The amount owed by Working for Families recipients has been steadily increasing over the years. The document noted that in June 2024, 56,800 accounted for $273.5 million of Working for Families debt. There were 21,418 instalment arrangements in place to clear $50 million of debt. 'Having to estimate annual income in advance is the most common reason why families do not receive the right amount during the year,' the document said. 'For many families, estimating yearly income is difficult to do with any accuracy. Under the current income estimation model, families can still be overpaid when their income increases unexpectedly. For example, something as simple as a promotion or starting a new job towards the end of the year could cancel out their Working for Families entitlement and leave them in debt.' But the document said assessing people's income very regularly could mean a lot of changes in what people received. If someone was paid fortnightly, some months could have two paydays and some three. Someone who was paid every four weeks would occasionally be paid twice in one month. 'Families would need to check in more often to report or confirm their income so that Inland Revenue can recalculate their payments. This would mean an increase in time spent interacting with Inland Revenue and its systems. This could also mean payments would vary every week or month, making it harder for families to budget and plan.' The discussion document said the government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. It was seeking feedback on the idea. The government also suggests a shift from calculating a recipient's Working for Families on the recipient's estimate of future income over the coming year to basing the calculation on past income they actually received. This would help to prevent people going into debt. It is also proposing to simplify the residence criteria for Working for Families and require both caregivers and children to be physically present in New Zealand to qualify. Susan St John, associate professor at the University of Auckland and Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson, said she thought the review was limited. 'There are huge difficulties for self-employed in more regular assessment. For income that is not earned regularly it can cause volatility and add to the admin or compliance load. There are other ways – in Australia they hold a portion back until the end of the year.' She said the review did not address the problems of Working for Families in a meaningful way. 'They arise because the threshold is way too low and the rates of clawback way too high.' She said the scheme was confusing with the different types of credits available, and the poorest 200,000 were excluded from the full package, missing out on about $5000 a year. Revenue Minister Simon Watts said the government knew that it could be distressing to have debt to Inland Revenue. 'We are interested in what people think of the proposals.' Another woman, Amy says she's still paying off the $12,000 in Working for Families debt she was landed with three years ago, amid a messy divorce. She and her husband were shareholders in a business and, she says, he incorrectly reported some of the business profit as income in her name. That prompted the government to think she had been overpaid credit and she was landed with a bill. She now can only receive $172 a week in Working for Families credits for her three children because she is paying back the debt. She is a single parent also paying a mortgage.
1News
3 days ago
- Business
- 1News
Couple owes $20k Working for Families debt 'through no fault of our own'
Just a quarter of 'squared up' Working for Families recipients are getting the right amount. Phoenix Ruka says he and his wife owe about $18,000 to $20,000 in Working for Families debt, despite always doing their best to ensure that they supplied the correct details about their income and circumstances. "We've always stayed up to date with my salary and what we received from them and updated my salary every time it went up and down," Ruka said. "What we're receiving was what they assured us we were entitled to. But then we got a massive bill saying they had overpaid us." He said his wife had been "relentless" in trying to work out what had happened. ADVERTISEMENT It was discovered that a couple of years they had been underpaid, by many thousands of dollars, which they were reimbursed, but one year they were paid too much, which left them with the debt. "I think the really frustrating part is that it's through no fault of our own. We owe a substantial amount of money. Now they're taking $350 a fortnight out of our bank account," Ruka said. "We've gone back and forth and shown them our expenses, that we actually can't afford the amount they're taking. We've shown them our bills, our mortgage — they told us that they can't keep taking money if we can't afford it, but we can't." He said there had been multiple times where the money that was being taken to repay the debt was all that was left in their bank account. Change proposed It's an issue the government is attempting to tackle with proposed changes to the way that income is assessed for Working for Families. As part of the Budget, it was announced that the threshold at which entitlements start to abate was to be increased slightly, and the government would look at options to help avoid the issue of Working for Families debt. ADVERTISEMENT Inland Revenue's discussion document said 85% of Working for Families households received their payments weekly or fortnightly during the 2022 tax year, based on an income estimate. Only 15% were receiving their credits annual based on the family's actual income once income tax had been assessed. Those who were being paid weekly or fortnightly were subject to an end of year "square up" process by Inland Revenue, the document noted, although they were expected to update IRD with any relevant changes during the year. In the 2022 year, only 24% of households receiving weekly or fortnightly payments and squared up by IRD had received the right amount of Working for Families credits. Those who were overpaid are left with a debt to repay. The document said debt was a particular problem for low- and middle-income families because it reduced their ability to meet their day-to-day costs in the future. "Debt undermines the intent of the Working for Families scheme to support low to middle income families to meet basic needs and incentivise work." ADVERTISEMENT Debt increases The amount owed by Working for Families recipients has been steadily increasing over the years. The document noted that in June 2024, 56,800 accounted for $273.5 million of Working for Families debt. There were 21,418 instalment arrangements in place to clear $50 million of debt. "Having to estimate annual income in advance is the most common reason why families do not receive the right amount during the year," the document said. "For many families, estimating yearly income is difficult to do with any accuracy. Under the current income estimation model, families can still be overpaid when their income increases unexpectedly. For example, something as simple as a promotion or starting a new job towards the end of the year could cancel out their Working for Families entitlement and leave them in debt." But the document said assessing people's income very regularly could mean a lot of changes in what people received. ADVERTISEMENT If someone was paid fortnightly, some months could have two paydays and some three. Someone who was paid every four weeks would occasionally be paid twice in one month. "Families would need to check in more often to report or confirm their income so that Inland Revenue can recalculate their payments. This would mean an increase in time spent interacting with Inland Revenue and its systems. This could also mean payments would vary every week or month, making it harder for families to budget and plan." The discussion document said the government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. It was seeking feedback on the idea. The government also suggests a shift from calculating a recipient's Working for Families on the recipient's estimate of future income over the coming year to basing the calculation on past income they actually received. This would help to prevent people going into debt. It is also proposing to simplify the residence criteria for Working for Families and require both caregivers and children to be physically present in New Zealand to qualify. Review limited - advocate Susan St John, associate professor at the University of Auckland and Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson, said she thought the review was limited. ADVERTISEMENT "There are huge difficulties for self-employed in more regular assessment. For income that is not earned regularly it can cause volatility and add to the admin or compliance load. There are other ways — in Australia they hold a portion back until the end of the year." She said the review did not address the problems of Working for Families in a meaningful way. "They arise because the threshold is way too low and the rates of clawback way too high." She said the scheme was confusing with the different types of credits available, and the poorest 200,000 were excluded from the full package, missing out on about $5000 a year. Revenue Minister Simon Watts said the government knew that it could be distressing to have debt to Inland Revenue. "We are interested in what people think of the proposals." Another woman, Amy says she's still paying off the $12,000 in Working for Families debt she was landed with three years ago, amid a messy divorce. She and her husband were shareholders in a business and, she says, he incorrectly reported some of the business profit as income in her name. ADVERTISEMENT That prompted the government to think she had been overpaid credit, and she was landed with a bill. She now can only receive $172 a week in Working for Families credits for her three children because she is paying back the debt. She is a single parent also paying a mortgage.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Couple Owes $20,000 Working For Families Debt ‘Through No Fault Of Our Own'
Article – RNZ 'Now they're taking $350 a fortnight out of our bank account .. we actually can't afford that,' says Phoenix Ruka., Money Correspondent Just a quarter of 'squared up' Working for Families recipients are getting the right amount. Phoenix Ruka says he and his wife owe about $18,000 to $20,000 in Working for Families debt, despite always doing their best to ensure that they supplied the correct details about their income and circumstances. 'We've always stayed up-to-date with my salary and what we received from them and updated my salary every time it went up and down,' Ruka said. 'What were receiving was what they assured us we were entitled to. But then we got a massive bill saying they had overpaid us.' He said his wife had been 'relentless' in trying to work out what had happened. It was discovered that a couple of years they had been underpaid, by many thousands of dollars, which they were reimbursed, but one year they were paid too much, which left them with the debt. 'I think the really frustrating part is that it's through no fault of our own. We owe a substantial amount of money. Now they're taking $350 a fortnight out of our bank account,' Ruka said. 'We've gone back and forth and shown them our expenses, that we actually can't afford the amount they're taking. We've shown them our bills, our mortgage – they told us that they can't keep taking money if we can't afford it but we can't.' He said there had been multiple times where the money that was being taken to repay the debt was all that was left in their bank account. It's an issue the government is attempting to tackle with proposed changes to the way that income is assessed for Working for Families. As part of the Budget, it was announced that the threshold at which entitlements start to abate was to be increased slightly, and the government would look at options to help avoid the issue of Working for Families debt. Inland Revenue's discussion document said 85 percent of Working for Families households received their payments weekly or fortnightly during the 2022 tax year, based on an income estimate. Only 15 percent were receiving their credits annual based on the family's actual income once income tax had been assessed. Those who were being paid weekly or fortnightly were subject to an end of year 'square up' process by Inland Revenue, the document noted, although they were expected to update IRD with any relevant changes during the year. In the 2022 year, only 24 percent of households receiving weekly or fortnightly payments and squared up by IRD had received the right amount of Working for Families credits. Those who were overpaid are left with a debt to repay. The document said debt was a particular problem for low- and middle-income families because it reduced their ability to meet their day to day costs in the future. 'Debt undermines the intent of the Working for Families scheme to support low to middle income families to meet basic needs and incentivise work.' The amount owed by Working for Families recipients has been steadily increasing over the years. The document noted that in June 2024, 56,800 accounted for $273.5 million of Working for Families debt. There were 21,418 instalment arrangements in place to clear $50 million of debt. 'Having to estimate annual income in advance is the most common reason why families do not receive the right amount during the year,' the document said. 'For many families, estimating yearly income is difficult to do with any accuracy. Under the current income estimation model, families can still be overpaid when their income increases unexpectedly. For example, something as simple as a promotion or starting a new job towards the end of the year could cancel out their Working for Families entitlement and leave them in debt.' But the document said assessing people's income very regularly could mean a lot of changes in what people received. If someone was paid fortnightly, some months could have two paydays and some three. Someone who was paid every four weeks would occasionally be paid twice in one month. 'Families would need to check in more often to report or confirm their income so that Inland Revenue can recalculate their payments. This would mean an increase in time spent interacting with Inland Revenue and its systems. This could also mean payments would vary every week or month, making it harder for families to budget and plan.' The discussion document said the government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. It was seeking feedback on the idea. The government also suggests a shift from calculating a recipient's Working for Families on the recipient's estimate of future income over the coming year to basing the calculation on past income they actually received. This would help to prevent people going into debt. It is also proposing to simplify the residence criteria for Working for Families and require both caregivers and children to be physically present in New Zealand to qualify. Susan St John, associate professor at the University of Auckland and Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson, said she thought the review was limited. 'There are huge difficulties for self-employed in more regular assessment. For income that is not earned regularly it can cause volatility and add to the admin or compliance load. There are other ways – in Australia they hold a portion back until the end of the year.' She said the review did not address the problems of Working for Families in a meaningful way. 'They arise because the threshold is way too low and the rates of clawback way too high.' She said the scheme was confusing with the different types of credits available, and the poorest 200,000 were excluded from the full package, missing out on about $5000 a year. Revenue Minister Simon Watts said the government knew that it could be distressing to have debt to Inland Revenue. 'We are interested in what people think of the proposals.' Another woman, Amy says she's still paying off the $12,000 in Working for Families debt she was landed with three years ago, amid a messy divorce. She and her husband were shareholders in a business and, she says, he incorrectly reported some of the business profit as income in her name. That prompted the government to think she had been overpaid credit and she was landed with a bill. She now can only receive $172 a week in Working for Families credits for her three children because she is paying back the debt. She is a single parent also paying a mortgage.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Couple Owes $20,000 Working For Families Debt 'Through No Fault Of Our Own'
, Money Correspondent Just a quarter of 'squared up' Working for Families recipients are getting the right amount. Phoenix Ruka says he and his wife owe about $18,000 to $20,000 in Working for Families debt, despite always doing their best to ensure that they supplied the correct details about their income and circumstances. "We've always stayed up-to-date with my salary and what we received from them and updated my salary every time it went up and down," Ruka said. "What were receiving was what they assured us we were entitled to. But then we got a massive bill saying they had overpaid us." He said his wife had been "relentless" in trying to work out what had happened. It was discovered that a couple of years they had been underpaid, by many thousands of dollars, which they were reimbursed, but one year they were paid too much, which left them with the debt. "I think the really frustrating part is that it's through no fault of our own. We owe a substantial amount of money. Now they're taking $350 a fortnight out of our bank account," Ruka said. "We've gone back and forth and shown them our expenses, that we actually can't afford the amount they're taking. We've shown them our bills, our mortgage - they told us that they can't keep taking money if we can't afford it but we can't." He said there had been multiple times where the money that was being taken to repay the debt was all that was left in their bank account. It's an issue the government is attempting to tackle with proposed changes to the way that income is assessed for Working for Families. As part of the Budget, it was announced that the threshold at which entitlements start to abate was to be increased slightly, and the government would look at options to help avoid the issue of Working for Families debt. Inland Revenue's discussion document said 85 percent of Working for Families households received their payments weekly or fortnightly during the 2022 tax year, based on an income estimate. Only 15 percent were receiving their credits annual based on the family's actual income once income tax had been assessed. Those who were being paid weekly or fortnightly were subject to an end of year "square up" process by Inland Revenue, the document noted, although they were expected to update IRD with any relevant changes during the year. In the 2022 year, only 24 percent of households receiving weekly or fortnightly payments and squared up by IRD had received the right amount of Working for Families credits. Those who were overpaid are left with a debt to repay. The document said debt was a particular problem for low- and middle-income families because it reduced their ability to meet their day to day costs in the future. "Debt undermines the intent of the Working for Families scheme to support low to middle income families to meet basic needs and incentivise work." The amount owed by Working for Families recipients has been steadily increasing over the years. The document noted that in June 2024, 56,800 accounted for $273.5 million of Working for Families debt. There were 21,418 instalment arrangements in place to clear $50 million of debt. "Having to estimate annual income in advance is the most common reason why families do not receive the right amount during the year," the document said. "For many families, estimating yearly income is difficult to do with any accuracy. Under the current income estimation model, families can still be overpaid when their income increases unexpectedly. For example, something as simple as a promotion or starting a new job towards the end of the year could cancel out their Working for Families entitlement and leave them in debt." But the document said assessing people's income very regularly could mean a lot of changes in what people received. If someone was paid fortnightly, some months could have two paydays and some three. Someone who was paid every four weeks would occasionally be paid twice in one month. "Families would need to check in more often to report or confirm their income so that Inland Revenue can recalculate their payments. This would mean an increase in time spent interacting with Inland Revenue and its systems. This could also mean payments would vary every week or month, making it harder for families to budget and plan." The discussion document said the government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. It was seeking feedback on the idea. The government also suggests a shift from calculating a recipient's Working for Families on the recipient's estimate of future income over the coming year to basing the calculation on past income they actually received. This would help to prevent people going into debt. It is also proposing to simplify the residence criteria for Working for Families and require both caregivers and children to be physically present in New Zealand to qualify. Susan St John, associate professor at the University of Auckland and Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson, said she thought the review was limited. "There are huge difficulties for self-employed in more regular assessment. For income that is not earned regularly it can cause volatility and add to the admin or compliance load. There are other ways - in Australia they hold a portion back until the end of the year." She said the review did not address the problems of Working for Families in a meaningful way. "They arise because the threshold is way too low and the rates of clawback way too high." She said the scheme was confusing with the different types of credits available, and the poorest 200,000 were excluded from the full package, missing out on about $5000 a year. Revenue Minister Simon Watts said the government knew that it could be distressing to have debt to Inland Revenue. "We are interested in what people think of the proposals." Another woman, Amy says she's still paying off the $12,000 in Working for Families debt she was landed with three years ago, amid a messy divorce. She and her husband were shareholders in a business and, she says, he incorrectly reported some of the business profit as income in her name. That prompted the government to think she had been overpaid credit and she was landed with a bill. She now can only receive $172 a week in Working for Families credits for her three children because she is paying back the debt. She is a single parent also paying a mortgage.
Scoop
5 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
On Wealth Taxes And Capital Flight
In the wake of the Greens' alternative Budget – and the criticism levelled at it – it seems pretty obvious that when it comes to tax policy, Labour's only election campaign concession to left wing voters is going to be a capital gains tax (CGT). A wealth tax is not on the cards. Yet in the run-up to next year's election, even a CGT is going to be demonised as a plunge into radicalism. It is a sign of just how restrictive the politics of progressive taxation are in New Zealand, that a tax seen to be an utterly conventional tool in every other developed country in the world is still widely regarded here as being a surrender to the 'tax and spend' forces of radical left wing extremism. On the evidence, a wealth tax would be entirely justified on the grounds of fairness and equity. Only two years ago, IRD research showed that the income of the wealthiest New Zealanders is being taxed at less than half the average rate of ordinary wage and salary earners. Not surprisingly, the coalition government quickly shut down this IRD line of research. If, in future, a meaningful attempt was ever made to correct that injustice by way of a wealth tax, one immediate concern is capital flight i.e. the tax will allegedly cause the wealthiest Kiwis to up stakes and move to tax havens elsewhere. To some extent, that concern looks bizarrely misplaced. Right now, an estimated 191 New Zealanders are leaving this country every day, for what they regard as greener pastures elsewhere. This is happening without any meaningful response from the government presiding over this outflow of the best and the brightest, the hopeful and the desperate. Yet if a few billionaires left in high dudgeon after being asked to pay a little more tax for the general good? Perish the thought! Moreover, how transferable would these riches actually be, given that much of the wealth in question is sunk in property empires or in neo-monopoly businesses firmly located here. Even more to the point, many of the possible socially desirable destinations operate a capital gains tax and have other revenue gathering taxes comparable to, or in excess of, what we have here. Not everyone – and their sack of gold – can get into Switzerland. That said, there is overseas evidence of a link between a net wealth tax and significant levels of capital flight. There's a reason why the number of OECD countries with a wealth tax has shrunk from 12 to 5 over the past 20 years. Norway's experience – where its expected revenue gains were well outweighed by its losses via capital flight – is a sign that creating more fairness in the tax system will almost certainly come with a price tag: In 2022, Norway's Labour-led government raised the wealth tax to 1.1%, hoping to boost annual revenues by $146 million. 50 of Norway's richest citizens packed their bags and left, including high-profile investors and founders of tech firms. Switzerland emerged as a favoured destination, thanks to its lenient tax regime and predictable fiscal policy. The net effect? A reported $594 million loss in tax revenue—four times the projected gain. Other reports on Norway's capital flight experience can be found here. And also here. How the Norwegian wealth tax is structured, and how the Swiss tax system operates – and how it benefits the ultra-rich – is outlined here. Yet evidently, even Switzerland has a capital gains tax on transactions involving Swiss real estate. (New Zealand's lack of a CGT on property transactions in particular has made this country a bizarre outlier, for decades. ) In sum, a significant extent of capital flight is likely to be the transitional cost of arriving at a more equitable system of taxing wealth as much as we tax wages. Would those fleeing billionaires be a loss felt by many ordinary citizens ? Chances are, some of those departing tycoons may not have enhanced the lives of ordinary Norwegians all that much, and it cannot be assumed they will be conferring added value to the lives of the Swiss either, or to wherever else they land. Meaning: the social argument for a wealth tax remains, whatever the transitional costs may be: 'If you have enjoyed success and become rich in Norway, we hope you will stay and continue taking part in the Norwegian society,' Erlend Grimstad, an official in Norway's Finance Ministry told the Guardian: 'We do encourage Norwegians to succeed in creating value and become rich. And we believe the Norwegian model with a strong public welfare system and high education levels are important factors in making that success possible. The model in Norway is that everyone should contribute relevant to ability, and therefore those that have a greater ability to pay taxes, should pay a little more.' Exactly. People who become wealthy owe something more to the society in which their success was possible. The Norwegian annual 1.1% added tax on the very high layers of accumulated wealth and assets hardly seems exorbitant. Neither, in New Zealand, does the 2.5% rate the Green Party advocated (in its alternative budget) on assets above a personal threshold of $2 million for individuals, and $4 million for couples. To repeat: in a situation where, as the IRD found, the ultra-rich people are currently paying less than half the taxes on their sources of wealth as average Kiwis are paying on their wages, such a tax looks entirely fair. To anyone willing to abandon this country if asked to contribute a little more of their wealth to serve the greater one could easily be forgiven for saying: 'Goodbye, and good riddance.' Trump: No Joke Laughing at the latest weird utterance of Donald Trump may provide us with a brief sense of superiority, but we were never the intended audience. Treating Trump as being deranged at worst or not very bright at best, tends to obscure the logical consistency of his positions on the wars in Ukraine and in Gaza. Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu are hearing the same message loud and clear: Trump is solidly in their corner, and the US is giving them the greenlight to proceed as they wish, without fear of the US imposing any meaningful sanctions, and without the US joining up with any sanctions regime initiated by the Europeans, either. With Trump's help, Putin's stated goal of splitting up the old trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and Europe has been achieved. If we regard Trump as a Russian proxy – and there is plenty of evidence for why we should – then the fatuity of Trump's criticism of Putin makes perfect sense. The 'Vladimir: STOP! ' text from a month ago came in response to a massive Russian attack on civilian centres in Ukraine. It was a signal that the US was A-OK with those military actions. Similarly, last weekend's Trump's comment 'I don't know what the hell happened to has gone absolutely CRAZY' followed on from unprecedentedly heavy drone attacks on Ukrainian cities. To Putin, the fatuity of Trump's language makes the pantomime of concern reassuringly obvious. (Just kidding, Vladimir.) To the MAGA faithful, the inflated rhetoric sounds like the Big Man is talking tough. In reality, Trump has refused to impose US sanctions on Russia and consistently refused to join in any EU sanctions regime. Only days after last week's 'excellent' phone call between Putin and Trump that – according to Trump, was going to be directly followed by peace negotiations, Russia carried out its heaviest ever drone attacks on Ukraine. As the New York Times pointed out yesterday: Trump has never linked the attacks with his own decision, reaffirmed last week, to refuse to join the Europeans in new financial sanctions on Russia, or to offer new arms and help to the Ukrainians. The result is a strategic void in which Mr. Trump complains about Russia's continued killing but so far has been unwilling to make Mr. Putin pay even a modest price. This is a very familiar pattern. As the NYT added: Trump signals he is pulling back from a conflict he often describes as Europe's war, then expresses shock that Mr. Putin responds with a familiar list of demands that amount to a Ukrainian surrender, followed by accelerating attacks. Mr. Trump episodically insists he is 'absolutely' considering sanctions, including on Sunday. Yet each time when he is forced to make a decision about joining Europe in new economic penalties, he has pulled back. The US stance on a ceasefire and on peace negotiations involves striking the same zigzag path between feigned concern on one hand, and absolutely no follow through actions on the other. Only a fortnight ago, Trump was saying that peace in Ukraine would only be achieved until he and Putin talked. After they did, Trump's line has been that peace can come only after the leaders of Russia and Ukraine conduct direct negotiations. And so it goes. At some point, Ukraine's allies – including New Zealand – are going to have to summon the courage to call out the Trump administration for its bad faith expressions of feigned concern, and its related willingness to aid and abet Putin over Ukraine, and Netanyahu over Gaza. Laughing incredulously at Trump may make some people feel superior, but he – and his pal in the Kremlin – are having the last laugh. Kneecapping The criminal prosecution of a member of the Irish rap trio Kneecap for displaying a Hezbollah flag thrown onstage at a London gig will go to a hearing on June 18. In their press release, the band defended their actions in these terms: 14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us. We deny this 'offence' and will vehemently defend ourselves. This is political policing. This is a carnival of distraction. We are not the story. Genocide is... What's the objective? To restrict our ability to travel. To prevent us speaking to young people across the world. To silence voices of compassion. To prosecute artists who dare speak out. Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries. Then, like now, they claim justification. The IDF units they arm and fly spy plane missions for are the real terrorists, the whole world can see it. WE STAND PROUDLY WITH THE PEOPLE. YOU STAND COMPLICIT WITH THE WAR CRIMINALS. WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY. YOU ARE NOT. WE WILL FIGHT YOU IN YOUR COURT. WE WILL WIN. Kneecap's new single 'The Recap' – which alludes to their current legal troubles - can be found by scrolling down at this site. Kneecap also have starred in a critically acclaimed semi-biographical film. Here is the trailer:
