Latest news with #Working
Scoop
18-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Do People Earning $200,000 Need Help With Childcare?
Government "choices" mean some of the families now receiving Family Boost payments for their early childhood education are among the 10 percent wealthiest in the country, an economist says. A revamp to the Family Boost programme means those with household incomes up to $229,100 a year are now eligible for support with their childcare fees. The available rebate is also increasing to 40 percent of fees paid, or a maximum of $1560 a quarter. The change applies to fees paid in the September quarter, and from then on. But Craig Renney, policy director of the Council of Trade Unions and an economist who was previously a senior economic adviser to then-Finance Minister Grant Robertson, said there were "choices" being made. He said those on the highest incomes, in the top 10 percent according to the Stats NZ Household Expenditure Survey, were benefiting the most from the change. "If your household earns $60,000 a year, you can get up to an extra $2340 annually in new support. If your household earns three times that, $180,000 - you will get an extra $3440 annually. That's 47 percent more. For exactly the same thing - having children in early childhood education." The difference was because the higher earners were previously not eligible at all. Renney said data also showed higher-earning households tended to spend more on early childhood education anyway, which meant they would have larger fees to claim rebates on. Most were already spending the money without the government's assistance, he said. It could have been better used to help make early childhood education more affordable or accessible to low or middle-income earners, he said. "Instead of having a 40 percent cap across the piece that could be claimed, you could have said for very low income households we'll make it 50, 60 or 100 percent. "Because this is a rebate scheme, those on low incomes don't have the money to be able to afford it in the first place to then get the rebate. "I'm not saying these families don't need the money but I'm saying if you were making choices about where to spend, for a government that's focused on value for money - you may get better outcomes for your dollar if you were actually spending it on expanding ECE provision in low-income communities." Asked whether the adjustment would affect the number of families who could receive the full $250-a-fortnight relief that National campaigned on before the last election, as a combination of the Family Boost package and tax cuts, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said that data was not available. "The National Party campaigned on a tax relief plan that included multiple elements - shifting tax brackets to compensate for inflation, expanding tax credits to reach more modest income earners, increasing Working for Families tax credits and introducing the FamilyBoost childcare tax credit. "We delivered on these policies in our first Budget. We made clear that the impact of these policies would vary according to family circumstances and encouraged people to use our tax calculator so they could find out what it would mean for them." She said the $250 example was a family with a household income of $120,000 split across two earners spending at least $300 a week on childcare. "We did not model how many families would match that scenario. "Inland Revenue is not geared up to calculate how many people would have matched that scenario in the past 12 months or will match it in the coming years. This is because some elements of the tax plan are calculated on an individual basis while others, including FamilyBoost, are calculated according to household income. Inland Revenue does not routinely collect information on household incomes." She said about 60,000 families had received the full FamilyBoost payment they were entitled to. With the scheme expansion, she said, about 16,000 more families would probably benefit. "The amount of rebate they receive will vary according to the fees they pay and the income they earn each quarter. The maximum a family can now receive from FamilyBoost is $240, an increase on the $150 that National campaigned on. "To receive that amount, a family would have to be spending at least $300 a week on childcare and have a combined family income of less than $140,000 a year. Inland Revenue does not calculate how many families find themselves in that circumstance." Rebate most flawed part - advocate Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson Isaac Gunson said his organisation's position was that the rebate was the most flawed part of the Family Boost programme because it relied on families having the money in the first place to pay the fee then wait to claim it back. "The direct fee refund model, which IRD is looking into, is where we see the real solution being. Placing the responsibility on the profit-driven providers to claim the money back lifts the burden off low-income families who need the support the most. "While larger rebates would deepen the support available to low income families, it doesn't really address the accessibility of the support, whereas a direct fee refund model would solve the issue the rebate presents to many families: they don't have the money and can't wait that long to see any of that money come back in."
IOL News
17-07-2025
- IOL News
Department held liable for crop damage caused by Working for Water
The Department of Environmental Affairs has been found liable for damages suffered by two Limpopo farmers. Image: Nicola Mawson The Department of Environmental Affairs has been found liable for damages suffered by two Limpopo farmers after herbicide used in the Working for Water (WfW) programme contaminated their irrigation system and destroyed their crops. The North Gauteng High Court ruled that the Department was responsible for the contamination of dams on farms in the Alma district in Limpopo, where Petrus Johannes Barnard and Nicolaas Röntgen were commercial farmers. They were cultivating a variety of crops such as pumpkins, watermelons and tobacco for commercial gain, as well as raising livestock such as cattle and sheep. WfW allegedly used a harmful chemical called picloram, without following instructions, to remove alien vegetation from the farms. In the ruling, the court found that 'the plaintiffs suffered damage as a consequence of wrongful action' and that 'the persistent nature of picloram toxicity implies that... they may continue to suffer damage for an undefined period into the future'. Agriculture was the driver of the 0.1% first-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) gain, which defied expectations. Barnard applied for assistance from the WfW programme in January 2015 to clear the alien vegetation from the farm. An agreement was signed, but work only started in October 2015, which was beyond the six-month timeframe set out in the agreement. A follow-up treatment to completely rid the farms of alien plants took place in June/July 2016. The court stated that 'the agreement had lapsed after a period of six months' and noted that the follow-up work was 'performed in a grossly negligent and unlawful manner by applying the dangerous herbicide, Kaput 100 Gel, containing picloram' near dams used to irrigate crops. During their testimony, the plaintiffs argued that the follow up treatments, during which WfW used picloram label, was illegal and was tantamount to 'criminal conduct'. Expert witnesses for both plaintiffs agreed that the herbicide was applied in a sensitive water catchment area, and 'the presence of picloram in the irrigation dam was confirmed by a South African Bureau of Standards report'. The pesticide contaminated the water. The court also noted that 'irrigation of the plaintiffs' tobacco plants with the contaminated water destroyed the plaintiffs' crop' and 'very low concentrations of picloram are known to destroy such crops'. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The Department argued that the work was carried out by an independent contractor and that a tacit agreement revived the original terms, including a clause indemnifying it from liability. But the court rejected this defence, stating that there was 'no evidence of any joint inspection including all the parties' and that the inspection report provided was 'a disputed document, fraught with contestation'. One of the Department's witnesses, who claimed the work was signed off by the plaintiff, was found to be unreliable. The court said that 'this witness did not come across as credible'. The court also found that the Department 'did not, itself, comply with the terms of its own purported contract' and 'had not requested its representative to do any rehabilitation work on the farm, although [one of its representatives] had been informed of the complaints'. The ruling confirmed that 'there can be no doubt that there was damage to the plants, soil and irrigation water on the farm' and 'that the source of the damage was the application of Kaput 100 Gel, with the active ingredient picloram'. The court concluded that 'the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiffs' damages, both past and future,' as a result of the work by WfW. The amount of compensation will be determined in a separate trial. IOL Business
Scoop
26-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Tax Justice Aotearoa Welcomes IRD Discussion Document On Tax Reform
Tax Justice Aotearoa has welcomed the release of Inland Revenue's draft Long Term Insight Briefing, which looks at the possible future directions for New Zealand's tax system. The discussion document suggests a stable core structure of main bases that 'comprehensively taxes the factors that are sought to be taxed', coupled with the ability to 'change rates on main bases to change the level of revenue.' 'We welcome the release of the draft LTIB as a useful contribution to the debate about what kind of tax system we want for the future,' says Glenn Barclay, Chair of Tax Justice Aotearoa. 'Tax has become a hot topic and this document demonstrates some of the challenges we face.' 'We look forward to hearing more from the IR officials and giving the public the opportunity to question their thinking at our upcoming briefing event*,' says Glenn Barclay. 'This is part of the consultation process so everyone who would like to make a submission on the LTIB should come along.' The LTIB notes the fiscal challenge we face as a country as expenditure increases, largely as a result of an ageing population. 'Tax Justice Aotearoa agrees with this observation but an ageing population is just one of the many problems we have stored up for ourselves by failing to invest in both social and physical infrastructure - the challenges of poverty and inequality, as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation also come to mind', says Glenn Barclay. The LTIB also demonstrates that New Zealand is an outlier in the extent to which it relies on tax revenue from labour income and GST and that we under tax capital income. 'These are the taxes that impact most on working people and the poor,' says Glenn Barclay. 'We need to address this imbalance by ensuring those who can afford to pay more are required to do so, and also that the regressive nature of GST can be addressed. The permanent GST-offset credit suggested by the LTIB, is a proposal worth considering.' "There are limitations to the document, for example it does not address the interface between the tax system and the Working For Families tax credit, which is a fraught issue for those who are dependent upon WFF, but we look forward to the debate that the document will provoke,' says Glenn Barclay. Note: * Tax Justice Aotearoa will be hosting speakers from Inland Revenue at one of its 'Tax on Tuesdays' events on Tuesday 1 July at 12.30pm* - members of the public are welcome to attend. It will be a hybrid event with an in person session at Rutherford House in Wellington, which will be live-streamed. Where: Rutherford House Lecture Theatre 2 (RHLT2), 33 Bunny Street, Wellington. When: 12.30-1.30 pm Tuesday, 1 July 2025
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
At Surat airport, height obstacles and flight operations coexist
Surat: The Flight AI 171 crash in Ahmedabad has brought air transport hazards into the spotlight. The airport in Surat has been subject to neglect in this regard for decades. It first took a public movement to make the airport operational, while later gaining notoriety when it became perhaps the only airport where an aircraft hit a buffalo on the runway. There are shrimp farms near the airport on one side, which attract birds, and an underground gas pipeline on the other side which prevents the runway from being extended. Another issue concerning citizens and hampering full-fledged operations is nearby buildings allegedly breaching the Height Obstacle Surface — an imaginary surface extending outwards and upward from the runway — within which can pose a hazard to aircraft. This matter is now being adjudicated in court. The developers of the buildings concerned say they followed all the proper procedures and while the buildings still stand, flight operations also continue. The height obstacles are a concern for the aviation fraternity and for those who campaigned to make the airport operational. There have been many representations and discussions among stakeholders, but no solution has been found. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo "A few of these buildings were developed even after the height issue came to light. How did the authorities permit the development of these buildings? This highlights the negligence of the authorities," said Sanjay Jain, a member of the group 'We Work for a Working Airport at Surat'. Top Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) officials were not available for comment. The SMC issues 'Building Use' (BU) permission after a building is found to comply with standards and get approval from all the authorities concerned. These buildings allegedly breaching the airport's Height Obstacle Surface have BU certificates. On the lack of clear guidelines on development around the airport, aviation enthusiast Rajesh Modi, said, "Why have the five Obstacle Limitation Surface surveys not been done for the full length of both runways, existing and proposed? If they are not doing the survey for the full length, the 'No Objection' certificate application system restrictions should be scrapped." Developers of various buildings facing the height obstacle issue say they built the structures after getting the approval from the Airports Authority of India (AAI). "All the buildings have the required approvals. We submitted documents to the concerned authorities to prove our claims. Only after obtaining the necessary clearances and approvals did we construct the buildings," said Shivlal Ponkia, a developer. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
The Hindu
06-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
India, Italy agree to enhance agriculture and energy cooperation, investments
Following Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal's two-day visit to Italy, the two countries have resolved to work together on enhancing cooperation in a number of sectors, including various agricultural and energy sectors, the government said on Friday (June 6, 2025). Mr. Goyal completed a two-day visit to Italy on June 5, following a three-day visit to France. During his time in Italy, he co-chaired the 22nd session of the India-Italy Joint Commission for Economic Cooperation (JCEC) along with Italy's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Antonio Tajani. 'Several concrete outcomes emerged from the JCEC,' the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said in a release. 'India and Italy resolved to strengthen cooperation in agriculture and food processing, and to set up Joint Working Groups in the automobile and space sectors.' The two leaders and their teams also identified several opportunities for collaboration in sustainable agri-value chains, agri-machinery, food packaging technologies, and renewable energy. 'They also agreed to work together in areas such as green hydrogen and biofuels and expressed intent to facilitate movement of skilled professionals between the two countries,' the release added. According to the government, a delegation of leaders from about 90 companies accompanied Mr. Goyal on his trip, during which they visited Italian industries and held several meetings with local companies. 'Shri Goyal also held one-on-one interactions with Italian corporate leaders and welcomed their plans to expand operations, manufacturing, or office presence in India,' the release said. Data from the Department for the Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) shows that Italy accounts for 0.49% of all the foreign direct investment into India since 2000, at $3.6 billion.
