Latest news with #Ruka
Scoop
2 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
2 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.
Hype Malaysia
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Hype Malaysia
(Video) YG Entertainment Introduces Evelli As The First Member Of New Girl Group
Prominent K-pop agency YG Entertainment recently revealed that it will soon debut a new girl group. Yesterday night (27th May 2025, Tuesday), the company introduced the first member of the four-member group, Evelli (이벨리). The company has been building anticipation for its new girl group, nicknamed YG Next Monster. YG Entertainment executive producer Yang Hyun Suk (양현석) previously revealed that the group will have four members, like their seniors 2NE1 (투애니원) and BLACKPINK (블랙핑크), and will begin their pre-debut activities later this month. 15-year-old Evelli was introduced as the first member of YG Next Monster through a performance video. In the video, Evelli performed a cover of 'Nosebleeds' from American rapper Doechii, showcasing her talents as a rapper. The video ended with a look at the trainee's profile, revealing her as an 'all-rounder' skilled in singing and rapping. The profile also shows that Evelli is from Australia, 163cm tall, multilingual and has trained in YG Entertainment for 2 years. Within a day, the video raked in over a million views, highlighting the interest in the girl group. However, it also drew mixed reactions from fans and netizens. Those excited about the new debut were impressed by the 15-year-old's skills, saying she seemed to have a lot of potential. Some also said Evelli appears to be a good fit for YG Entertainment, noting she has a similar aura to her seniors in BABYMONSTER (베이비몬스터), notably Ruka (루카/ルカ). However, the introduction video also drew criticism towards YG Entertainment. Many lamented the label's choice to debut someone so young, which is a common argument regarding newly debuted idols. Others argued that her rap skills are still average, noting she could've trained longer to hone her skills. Some also debated the song choice, arguing that 'Nosebleeds' contained themes and topics inappropriate for a minor. Regardless of the criticism, many said they look forward to seeing more from the new girl group. YG Entertainment will continue to reveal the other members of YG Next Monster through various teaser content. What are your thoughts on Evelli so far? Check out her video below: Sources: YouTube, Twitter
