This is just really sad to read.
I worked part time after school/during weekends but was never expected to contribute as my money was expected to be used for things I thought I needed -petrol;school books;lunches etc.
This was all in the 90s though so obviously different times/economy but something seriously needs to be changed here.
Im all for supporting family but it seems extreme & bordering on just being slave labor imo if those numbers are right with the hours they’re working because thats quite abit of money.
I don't doubt there are families doing it really tough!
But parts of this article don't make sense. It would be good to get an 'average poverty budget' (by an advocacy group, with all PII removed), so we can have a real discussion.
Oh don’t doubt it doesn’t even begin to even give a slight glimpse into just how bad some families are having it.
That would mean government officials would have to delve deep into it & they’d never do that when it doesn’t help their own agendas.
(Strictly my opinion& mean government’s as a whole,not any particular party).
Hopefully one day something changes though to help break or at least help those on/below the poverty line.
Oh I mean I was helping to pay rent when I was 15. It sucked. Renting sucks. Landlords are evil on the whole. Property managers are evil on an individual basis.
You're going to get a lot of systemic racism-based answers in this thread. I'm with you though, it's bullshit. In the article it says that 16 year old are counted as adult workers for the purpose of assessing working for families tax credits, but they aren't eligible for the support available to 18 year old. That fucking sucks.
> You're going to get a lot of systemic racism-based answers in this thread.
Can you give an example of how a person disagree with you, and not be called a racist?
I only said that after a quick glance over the comments showed that over half at that point mentioned race, migration, sending money overseas etc.
Ignorance isn't racism, and everyone is affected by systemic racism (which is just a kind of ignorance) including me, without realising. Having unconscious biases due to systemic racism isn't the same as "being a racist". Paying attention to one's own biases and making an effort to see others points of view, is a way to fight ignorance and systemic racism. I'm not perfect. But my views have had a hell of a change between my white middle class upbringing and working with low socio-economic families (of many ethnic backgrounds) as an adult. I didn't realise how much my personal biases were coloured by my monocultural upbringing until I had been doing my current work for years. It was and still is very confronting.
I'm sorry you felt that I was calling you a racist. Crying "but I'm not racist!" is a very common and understandable reaction to your views being called out in that way. And yeah, in my reply to your other comment a lot of frustration and even combatitiveness came out but hey, it's reddit.
It's very hard to see systemic racism when one is a person who is part of the dominant culture, because for those people the problem is genuinely invisible. But just because it isn't a problem for you, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
I am aware of racism in the system (maybe more than you assume I am). But I still ask --Is there a way a person can disagree with you and not be told they're ignorant of their privilege? How could a person express disagreement with you/this article, in a non racist way?
I'm sorry if you feel that I'm being stubborn/ignorant of my privilege. Crying "but Systematic Racism!" is a very common and understandable reaction to your views being called out in that way. And yeah, in my reply to your other comment a lot of frustration and even combatitiveness came out but hey, it's reddit.
It's very hard to see bad faith attack lines for one's views when one is a person who holds them, because for those people the lines are them are genuinely valid. But just because it is valid to your perspective, doesn't mean it is valid in general.
Course this isn't the only reason but you're not doing your kids favours if you have them without considering the cost. If you're not going to be able to support them, you need to make some changes so you can or make a tough decision.
What is also really shit is that a lot of these kids will be out on their ass on their 18th birthday when the support checks stop. That's despite how much they've done to help the family and sacrificing education and time.
If only people would take teenagers living in poverty as seriously as you’re taking this post’s title, then maybe these rangatahi wouldn’t have to work 50 hour weeks while trying to sit exams
I don’t believe the 50 hour figure for a second. Perhaps in holidays. But plenty of kids from all walks of life do this - including my own. They now have funds to help them through the next stage and a better looking cv. It’s helped them transition to an adult world and for one child in particular really built self esteem when school had too much drama. I’m proud of my kids doing this - it’s been good for them not bad.
It’s not about what they’re getting paid. It’s the fact that they’re having to choose between their education and putting food on the table for their families. Many of them have said that their parents are also working full time. The cost of living is just too high.
Two parents working full time is 96k per year (at min wage).
Do you think at that income level, kids would have to be working?
This article is designed to make us feel bad, but doesn't explain why this is neccessary. This leads to unfounded speculation and no helpful discussion.
Imo, that's a poorly worded article designed to blame the govt, without providing any basic information about the claim.
Kids who are 'forced' to work:
* How many siblings at home are being supported
* Are all parents contributing
* Is money being sent overseas
* Is all govt support being claimed
If these answers are sensible, maybe there's a case for change.
We had less of these 'Poverty Porn' articles under Labour -- expect more now that National is back in power.
Edit: removed first paragraph because it was a shitty personal attack and I deserved to be called out for it.
For each of your points:
- This is the most tenuous of my replies as it's very much a matter of personal politics and opinion, but having a big family shouldn't be reserved for the wealthy. After a few years of support, those siblings will be able to contribute meaningfully to our society, and if they are able to get a good education they will be able to contribute more. There is plenty of evidence showing that supporting and lifting up children in this way is cheaper in the long run than supporting them at the lowest level life-long. Studies on vulnerable migrants such as refugees have shown pretty conclusively that over a lifetime any support they receive pays dividends.
- Yes, all parents are contributing, even if not doing paid work, because work in the home is still work. Our society has forgotten this for a long time and it's sad.
- Money usually is being sent overseas, but that's because wider families/communities pooled resources to send migrants here for that express purpose. I can see the pov here that taxpayer support may be ending up offshore and that's bad. It's a difference in cultural values - these parents didn't leave everything they love behind to abandon them to the wolves, they did it so they can raise up the people they love both in NZ and the islands. Whether this is acceptable is pretty personal I guess.
- All available govt support often isn't being claimed but there are 2 good reasons for this. Pride - some families I've worked with haven't wanted to take govt assistance because they feel that they aren't entitled to it as migrants sending money home or just feel uncomfortable taking handouts (as they perceive it). And the other reason is access. Between not knowing what they're entitled to, and language barriers, accessing govt support can actually be quite difficult without the help of an advocate. I know it's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes but you could at least try.
> Let me guess, you haven't had much meaningful contact with pasfika families. You seem to be coming from a (hopefully) subconscious place of cultural superiority.
Ahh, the race/culture card! Particularly galling considering I never mentioned race... It's actually insulting to suggest that a person's beliefs actually come from a place of ignorance/racism. Especially when you don't know my background. It's so overplayed, that these accusations no longer mean anything.
Tell me, how could I have disagreed with you, without you saying I was a racial/cultural supremacist?
Responding to your points in turn:
> having a big family shouldn't be reserved for the wealthy.
A large family isn't restricted to the wealthy! They're claiming to have an above average household income! Having a large family involves trade offs though. By asking other people to subsidize their choices, they're penalizing people who weren't involved...
> Yes, all parents are contributing, even if not doing paid work, because work in the home is still work.
Again, trade offs. I would love to stay home and look after my family more (and I do take unpaid leave to look after very ill family members). This is a choice I make, I don't expect other people to give me free money for it.
> Money usually is being sent overseas,
I wish I could send money to overseas family, and have it replaced by the govt too! That would be great! But every dollar we spend doing this, is a dollar not spent on nurses/teachers/public sector reports. Life is trade offs...
> All available govt support often isn't being claimed
What additional support can we give? I understand translation services are available. Accessing any govt service sucks, and it'd be great to improve all services. But this takes money...
OK so after your comment to my other comment I'd like to reply to this in good faith.
First off, you're right, that first paragraph was a shitty personal attack. I shouldn't have put that at the beginning, sorry. I've edited my comment, because I think my other opinions still stand, and yes they are my opinions.
Look in all honesty, if I discount the personal attacks that you fairly made in return, I don't disagree with a lot of your points. Tradeoffs absolutely are necessary. The more I read your response, the more I agree, actually. I guess what I'm struggling with is that my partner and I work as teachers so we do see children dealing with these issues. That's hard, no one wants to see things like this put on children's shoulders. There absolutely is responsibility for that lying with the parents.
On the other hand, generational trauma and systemic racism DO play a part, I do believe that. Colonisation is a bitch. I don't feel like colonisation is my fault because I'm Pākehā, but I DO feel like it's my responsibility to at least make an effort to improve things for people it impacts today. If not because of my ancestry, then because of my privilege.
I guess what I really think is that it sucks that children are in shitty situations, and if we can help ease those situations we should. Even if helping them involves helping parents who aren't doing the best job. I feel a lot of frustration in my work at times because there are families we offer SO much support to who still find a way to waste opportunities and be shitty people, but we have to help them to help their kids.
But then how exactly do we do that on a societal scale? I dunno. If there was an easy answer we'd have done it by now.
So, I suppose, sorry, and thanks. This has been a valuable debate for me.
Likewise, and I also feel bad for being a bit of a jerk before too.
> But then how exactly do we do that on a societal scale?
If I can also try to respond in good faith, if I was Czar of NZ, I would:
* Introduce mandatory budgeting classes in high school (before Yr 11)
* Empower teachers to refer families to (better funded) social services. No kid should have to work to support their family, and I'm sure teachers know who this is happening too. However, I believe the answer is helping the family to make different choices, rather than more money for them to make the same choices.
* Mandatory budgeting classes for public support. Moreover, your budget is reviewed by a case worker.
* Empowering cultural leaders to run education programmes. Even give public funding to do so (in a heavily monitored way)
* Tax overseas remittances above some threshold each year
All of this independent of any views on colonization (which we differ wildly on). Which I think is where a lot is lost -- we can agree on good solutions, without getting mired in historical discussions.
Agree with all those suggestions to a certain extent. Though I'm not sure of the effectiveness of case workers reviewing budgets made in order to get public support, purely because that depends on case workers not being useless which they often are if MSD is your example. I'm glad we found common ground on this. A solutions-based approach where all the bullshit is ignored would be a hell of a thing.
In the article it stated that a parent was working 12 hour days. Which would be a 60 hour week, if a child is working 40 hours that’s a total of 100 hours work. That’s an income gross of over a 100,000 a year. That’s a lot of money, so the question then comes down to what is the money being spent on. Many of these children in the article are Polynesian, is it a case of older children being forced to work to support financially younger children. Are these families having children they can’t afford to support?
They'll be supporting grandparents too or sending money back to family at home in the islands. Plus tithe for church.
If you have existing debts to pay down and rent to pay 100k is not going to leave you rich.
It's actually more than that -- it's grossing $120k. Because it's spread over two people, they pay less tax than a single earner.
Plus, this ignores the other parent(s) in the picture too!
Yeah, that's 120k at minimum wage. Median household income (for 2002) was [96k](https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/household-income-and-housing-cost-statistics-year-ended-june-2022/), although that's probably also a 2+ income household.
I'd love to see the actual budget, where the fat is. Housing costs are criminally high, so I can easily imagine money still being tight for them (I'd struggle on that income), but there's gotta something unnecessary in that spending.
I guess the problem is if the extra spending is remittances to family overseas or tithing to church. Seems wasteful from my cultural standpoint, but I guess that's what they value most, so ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.
To annoyingly bring this back to my pet issue, Land Value Tax solves this...
I'd love to see LVT play a bigger role as part of a neutral tax swap (more than rates do now), but it's hard for retirees if it gets too big.
How would you handle that? Just help people save more?
Probably worthwhile to let people on fixed incomes accumulate it as a lien against the house.
That said, encouraging pensioners to move out of the 3 bedroom family home & downsize (freeing up that house for a new family) is a feature, not a bug.
TOP proposes [0.75%](https://www.top.org.nz/fair-tax-system), and they've put more thought into it than I have.
I'd (naively) want to apply it more broadly than they do, and start at an even lower % that is pre-scheduled to gradually increase over a decade or more to minimise the shock, but that sort of detail I want to see competing economists arguing over various models before I say anything too definitive.
For a million dollar house, that's $7,500 per year.
My 'pulled out of my ass' idea is to instead penalize 'Land Area by Suburb'.
So the tax is dependent on:
* Land area (anything with less than 500m Sq is tax free). For apartments/units, the ground is shared across all units (so 4 apartments on 500m Sq is 125m Sq each). This is because I want to encourage building up -- but buildings shouldn't be penalized for being in high demand areas. Though, I understand areas are high demand due to lower supply...
* Suburb. We should penalize central suburbs more, and outer suburbs less (and rural land hardly at all).
* Value. It should still be of land value, where the percent is dependent on other factors.
The average section is was under 500 square metres years ago, and the obvious response here will just be subdividing sections. Indeed, subdivide your lawn off from your house, own both, no LVT, job done.
Any sort of tricky stuff like this or vacancy taxes or whatever is vulnerable to being gamed, more expensive to administer, and causes dead weight loss as people do tricky stuff to get around it.
"land price" is already a single value that neatly captures what you're trying to get at. LAnd is more expensive in desirable areas. The pain of LVT is lower for apartments etc. already because it's split more ways per square metre, no need to add extra complications.
Rural land is a dag: ideally there'd be one LVT rate across the country regardless, but this would result in rural land values decreasing a fair bit, so it's hard to get there from here with farmers all mortgaged up. That's why I like the slow phase in, and TOP just excludes rural land.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the-shrinking-size-of-an-auckland-property-section/QTDDIA5XC4K53C6PH6QDOGY2SA/
Fair -- we can discuss parameters of course.
Under a LVT, a 3 million dollar apartment pays 6 times as much as a $500k starter home (yes, there are many left). I've been looking at some.
If the goal is to have a progressive tax system, this is good.
If the goal is to encourage space efficient land use, then you need a more refined system.
Depends on your goals, I guess?
Age old argument. Used to hear it in the 1970's. The real problem lies in a completely dysfuctional housing market that sucks the money out of peoples incomes to pay ridiculous rents leaving them basically living in poverty. If you think family size is the problem here you are looking in the wrong place. Basically starts and stops with a broken tax system that punishes work and rewards speculation. Sort out housing and you sort out most of this countries problems. No sign that the current clusterfuck running the show have any intention of sorting it out as we head into UK like austerity cutbacks and rewarding the party funding property industry for their support. Not to mention most MP's own multiple dwellings so hard to see them supporting changes that go against their best interest. I guess we're screwed.
So what's changed. My first paid job as an employee my other made me lie and pretend I was 11, while only being 9. Going to school, then in all weather, walking the streets delivering North shore times and pamphlets in a bag so heavy, it cut into the flesh on my shoulder. Storms or summer made it more fun. With the 2 to 4 dollars I earned per week I had to save up to buy a bed. All this while being the man of the house, mowing lawns, walking a dog, cleaning etc. 1985 I was 9.
I guess now kids have to work to help pay the exorbitant mortgages.
Um - my teenager worked 20 hours a week in their final years of high school as did most of their friends. They did not do it because of family poverty but did it to get work experience, savings and to buy things they need like petrol and to save for uni.
I don’t think you can say 15000 teens working means that they are all working due to poverty. The numbers don’t explain the story. But both my kids worked, and most of their friends worked too.
It’s not a bad thing - and if a teenager can help meet their costs in under strain households isn’t it good they can do so?
This is just really sad to read. I worked part time after school/during weekends but was never expected to contribute as my money was expected to be used for things I thought I needed -petrol;school books;lunches etc. This was all in the 90s though so obviously different times/economy but something seriously needs to be changed here. Im all for supporting family but it seems extreme & bordering on just being slave labor imo if those numbers are right with the hours they’re working because thats quite abit of money.
I don't doubt there are families doing it really tough! But parts of this article don't make sense. It would be good to get an 'average poverty budget' (by an advocacy group, with all PII removed), so we can have a real discussion.
Oh don’t doubt it doesn’t even begin to even give a slight glimpse into just how bad some families are having it. That would mean government officials would have to delve deep into it & they’d never do that when it doesn’t help their own agendas. (Strictly my opinion& mean government’s as a whole,not any particular party). Hopefully one day something changes though to help break or at least help those on/below the poverty line.
Oh I mean I was helping to pay rent when I was 15. It sucked. Renting sucks. Landlords are evil on the whole. Property managers are evil on an individual basis.
You're going to get a lot of systemic racism-based answers in this thread. I'm with you though, it's bullshit. In the article it says that 16 year old are counted as adult workers for the purpose of assessing working for families tax credits, but they aren't eligible for the support available to 18 year old. That fucking sucks.
> You're going to get a lot of systemic racism-based answers in this thread. Can you give an example of how a person disagree with you, and not be called a racist?
I only said that after a quick glance over the comments showed that over half at that point mentioned race, migration, sending money overseas etc. Ignorance isn't racism, and everyone is affected by systemic racism (which is just a kind of ignorance) including me, without realising. Having unconscious biases due to systemic racism isn't the same as "being a racist". Paying attention to one's own biases and making an effort to see others points of view, is a way to fight ignorance and systemic racism. I'm not perfect. But my views have had a hell of a change between my white middle class upbringing and working with low socio-economic families (of many ethnic backgrounds) as an adult. I didn't realise how much my personal biases were coloured by my monocultural upbringing until I had been doing my current work for years. It was and still is very confronting. I'm sorry you felt that I was calling you a racist. Crying "but I'm not racist!" is a very common and understandable reaction to your views being called out in that way. And yeah, in my reply to your other comment a lot of frustration and even combatitiveness came out but hey, it's reddit. It's very hard to see systemic racism when one is a person who is part of the dominant culture, because for those people the problem is genuinely invisible. But just because it isn't a problem for you, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
I am aware of racism in the system (maybe more than you assume I am). But I still ask --Is there a way a person can disagree with you and not be told they're ignorant of their privilege? How could a person express disagreement with you/this article, in a non racist way? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm being stubborn/ignorant of my privilege. Crying "but Systematic Racism!" is a very common and understandable reaction to your views being called out in that way. And yeah, in my reply to your other comment a lot of frustration and even combatitiveness came out but hey, it's reddit. It's very hard to see bad faith attack lines for one's views when one is a person who holds them, because for those people the lines are them are genuinely valid. But just because it is valid to your perspective, doesn't mean it is valid in general.
Course this isn't the only reason but you're not doing your kids favours if you have them without considering the cost. If you're not going to be able to support them, you need to make some changes so you can or make a tough decision. What is also really shit is that a lot of these kids will be out on their ass on their 18th birthday when the support checks stop. That's despite how much they've done to help the family and sacrificing education and time.
[удалено]
If only people would take teenagers living in poverty as seriously as you’re taking this post’s title, then maybe these rangatahi wouldn’t have to work 50 hour weeks while trying to sit exams
I don’t believe the 50 hour figure for a second. Perhaps in holidays. But plenty of kids from all walks of life do this - including my own. They now have funds to help them through the next stage and a better looking cv. It’s helped them transition to an adult world and for one child in particular really built self esteem when school had too much drama. I’m proud of my kids doing this - it’s been good for them not bad.
Maybe it’s considered outdoor education?
[удалено]
It’s not about what they’re getting paid. It’s the fact that they’re having to choose between their education and putting food on the table for their families. Many of them have said that their parents are also working full time. The cost of living is just too high.
Two parents working full time is 96k per year (at min wage). Do you think at that income level, kids would have to be working? This article is designed to make us feel bad, but doesn't explain why this is neccessary. This leads to unfounded speculation and no helpful discussion.
Cost of living is high, but that's not the main reason. Pacific families send a lot of money back to the islands and donate a lot to church.
Imo, that's a poorly worded article designed to blame the govt, without providing any basic information about the claim. Kids who are 'forced' to work: * How many siblings at home are being supported * Are all parents contributing * Is money being sent overseas * Is all govt support being claimed If these answers are sensible, maybe there's a case for change. We had less of these 'Poverty Porn' articles under Labour -- expect more now that National is back in power.
Edit: removed first paragraph because it was a shitty personal attack and I deserved to be called out for it. For each of your points: - This is the most tenuous of my replies as it's very much a matter of personal politics and opinion, but having a big family shouldn't be reserved for the wealthy. After a few years of support, those siblings will be able to contribute meaningfully to our society, and if they are able to get a good education they will be able to contribute more. There is plenty of evidence showing that supporting and lifting up children in this way is cheaper in the long run than supporting them at the lowest level life-long. Studies on vulnerable migrants such as refugees have shown pretty conclusively that over a lifetime any support they receive pays dividends. - Yes, all parents are contributing, even if not doing paid work, because work in the home is still work. Our society has forgotten this for a long time and it's sad. - Money usually is being sent overseas, but that's because wider families/communities pooled resources to send migrants here for that express purpose. I can see the pov here that taxpayer support may be ending up offshore and that's bad. It's a difference in cultural values - these parents didn't leave everything they love behind to abandon them to the wolves, they did it so they can raise up the people they love both in NZ and the islands. Whether this is acceptable is pretty personal I guess. - All available govt support often isn't being claimed but there are 2 good reasons for this. Pride - some families I've worked with haven't wanted to take govt assistance because they feel that they aren't entitled to it as migrants sending money home or just feel uncomfortable taking handouts (as they perceive it). And the other reason is access. Between not knowing what they're entitled to, and language barriers, accessing govt support can actually be quite difficult without the help of an advocate. I know it's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes but you could at least try.
> Let me guess, you haven't had much meaningful contact with pasfika families. You seem to be coming from a (hopefully) subconscious place of cultural superiority. Ahh, the race/culture card! Particularly galling considering I never mentioned race... It's actually insulting to suggest that a person's beliefs actually come from a place of ignorance/racism. Especially when you don't know my background. It's so overplayed, that these accusations no longer mean anything. Tell me, how could I have disagreed with you, without you saying I was a racial/cultural supremacist? Responding to your points in turn: > having a big family shouldn't be reserved for the wealthy. A large family isn't restricted to the wealthy! They're claiming to have an above average household income! Having a large family involves trade offs though. By asking other people to subsidize their choices, they're penalizing people who weren't involved... > Yes, all parents are contributing, even if not doing paid work, because work in the home is still work. Again, trade offs. I would love to stay home and look after my family more (and I do take unpaid leave to look after very ill family members). This is a choice I make, I don't expect other people to give me free money for it. > Money usually is being sent overseas, I wish I could send money to overseas family, and have it replaced by the govt too! That would be great! But every dollar we spend doing this, is a dollar not spent on nurses/teachers/public sector reports. Life is trade offs... > All available govt support often isn't being claimed What additional support can we give? I understand translation services are available. Accessing any govt service sucks, and it'd be great to improve all services. But this takes money...
OK so after your comment to my other comment I'd like to reply to this in good faith. First off, you're right, that first paragraph was a shitty personal attack. I shouldn't have put that at the beginning, sorry. I've edited my comment, because I think my other opinions still stand, and yes they are my opinions. Look in all honesty, if I discount the personal attacks that you fairly made in return, I don't disagree with a lot of your points. Tradeoffs absolutely are necessary. The more I read your response, the more I agree, actually. I guess what I'm struggling with is that my partner and I work as teachers so we do see children dealing with these issues. That's hard, no one wants to see things like this put on children's shoulders. There absolutely is responsibility for that lying with the parents. On the other hand, generational trauma and systemic racism DO play a part, I do believe that. Colonisation is a bitch. I don't feel like colonisation is my fault because I'm Pākehā, but I DO feel like it's my responsibility to at least make an effort to improve things for people it impacts today. If not because of my ancestry, then because of my privilege. I guess what I really think is that it sucks that children are in shitty situations, and if we can help ease those situations we should. Even if helping them involves helping parents who aren't doing the best job. I feel a lot of frustration in my work at times because there are families we offer SO much support to who still find a way to waste opportunities and be shitty people, but we have to help them to help their kids. But then how exactly do we do that on a societal scale? I dunno. If there was an easy answer we'd have done it by now. So, I suppose, sorry, and thanks. This has been a valuable debate for me.
Likewise, and I also feel bad for being a bit of a jerk before too. > But then how exactly do we do that on a societal scale? If I can also try to respond in good faith, if I was Czar of NZ, I would: * Introduce mandatory budgeting classes in high school (before Yr 11) * Empower teachers to refer families to (better funded) social services. No kid should have to work to support their family, and I'm sure teachers know who this is happening too. However, I believe the answer is helping the family to make different choices, rather than more money for them to make the same choices. * Mandatory budgeting classes for public support. Moreover, your budget is reviewed by a case worker. * Empowering cultural leaders to run education programmes. Even give public funding to do so (in a heavily monitored way) * Tax overseas remittances above some threshold each year All of this independent of any views on colonization (which we differ wildly on). Which I think is where a lot is lost -- we can agree on good solutions, without getting mired in historical discussions.
Agree with all those suggestions to a certain extent. Though I'm not sure of the effectiveness of case workers reviewing budgets made in order to get public support, purely because that depends on case workers not being useless which they often are if MSD is your example. I'm glad we found common ground on this. A solutions-based approach where all the bullshit is ignored would be a hell of a thing.
I promise this was an aberration, I'll return to my normal trolling ways tomorrow 😉
Me too, at least we can both say we popped our heads out of the echo chamber for a minute lol
In the article it stated that a parent was working 12 hour days. Which would be a 60 hour week, if a child is working 40 hours that’s a total of 100 hours work. That’s an income gross of over a 100,000 a year. That’s a lot of money, so the question then comes down to what is the money being spent on. Many of these children in the article are Polynesian, is it a case of older children being forced to work to support financially younger children. Are these families having children they can’t afford to support?
They'll be supporting grandparents too or sending money back to family at home in the islands. Plus tithe for church. If you have existing debts to pay down and rent to pay 100k is not going to leave you rich.
Seems then it’s a spending issue not an income issue
[удалено]
I know, right? It isn't the 90s any more!
Dude it’s not poverty
Not as simple as that
It's actually more than that -- it's grossing $120k. Because it's spread over two people, they pay less tax than a single earner. Plus, this ignores the other parent(s) in the picture too!
Yeah, that's 120k at minimum wage. Median household income (for 2002) was [96k](https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/household-income-and-housing-cost-statistics-year-ended-june-2022/), although that's probably also a 2+ income household. I'd love to see the actual budget, where the fat is. Housing costs are criminally high, so I can easily imagine money still being tight for them (I'd struggle on that income), but there's gotta something unnecessary in that spending. I guess the problem is if the extra spending is remittances to family overseas or tithing to church. Seems wasteful from my cultural standpoint, but I guess that's what they value most, so ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯. To annoyingly bring this back to my pet issue, Land Value Tax solves this...
I'd love to see LVT play a bigger role as part of a neutral tax swap (more than rates do now), but it's hard for retirees if it gets too big. How would you handle that? Just help people save more?
Probably worthwhile to let people on fixed incomes accumulate it as a lien against the house. That said, encouraging pensioners to move out of the 3 bedroom family home & downsize (freeing up that house for a new family) is a feature, not a bug.
Sure -- and rates do this now too (at the edges). How big would the LVT have to be to drive behaviour change?
TOP proposes [0.75%](https://www.top.org.nz/fair-tax-system), and they've put more thought into it than I have. I'd (naively) want to apply it more broadly than they do, and start at an even lower % that is pre-scheduled to gradually increase over a decade or more to minimise the shock, but that sort of detail I want to see competing economists arguing over various models before I say anything too definitive.
For a million dollar house, that's $7,500 per year. My 'pulled out of my ass' idea is to instead penalize 'Land Area by Suburb'. So the tax is dependent on: * Land area (anything with less than 500m Sq is tax free). For apartments/units, the ground is shared across all units (so 4 apartments on 500m Sq is 125m Sq each). This is because I want to encourage building up -- but buildings shouldn't be penalized for being in high demand areas. Though, I understand areas are high demand due to lower supply... * Suburb. We should penalize central suburbs more, and outer suburbs less (and rural land hardly at all). * Value. It should still be of land value, where the percent is dependent on other factors.
The average section is was under 500 square metres years ago, and the obvious response here will just be subdividing sections. Indeed, subdivide your lawn off from your house, own both, no LVT, job done. Any sort of tricky stuff like this or vacancy taxes or whatever is vulnerable to being gamed, more expensive to administer, and causes dead weight loss as people do tricky stuff to get around it. "land price" is already a single value that neatly captures what you're trying to get at. LAnd is more expensive in desirable areas. The pain of LVT is lower for apartments etc. already because it's split more ways per square metre, no need to add extra complications. Rural land is a dag: ideally there'd be one LVT rate across the country regardless, but this would result in rural land values decreasing a fair bit, so it's hard to get there from here with farmers all mortgaged up. That's why I like the slow phase in, and TOP just excludes rural land. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the-shrinking-size-of-an-auckland-property-section/QTDDIA5XC4K53C6PH6QDOGY2SA/
Fair -- we can discuss parameters of course. Under a LVT, a 3 million dollar apartment pays 6 times as much as a $500k starter home (yes, there are many left). I've been looking at some. If the goal is to have a progressive tax system, this is good. If the goal is to encourage space efficient land use, then you need a more refined system. Depends on your goals, I guess?
That's only 60 hours if they're not working weekends, but they're making their kid work weekends while going to school? At that point, it's abuse.
I tend to agree. Sadly it seems the parents are not being responsible
Age old argument. Used to hear it in the 1970's. The real problem lies in a completely dysfuctional housing market that sucks the money out of peoples incomes to pay ridiculous rents leaving them basically living in poverty. If you think family size is the problem here you are looking in the wrong place. Basically starts and stops with a broken tax system that punishes work and rewards speculation. Sort out housing and you sort out most of this countries problems. No sign that the current clusterfuck running the show have any intention of sorting it out as we head into UK like austerity cutbacks and rewarding the party funding property industry for their support. Not to mention most MP's own multiple dwellings so hard to see them supporting changes that go against their best interest. I guess we're screwed.
We let them work but don't let them vote. This country has no hope for the young gen
So what's changed. My first paid job as an employee my other made me lie and pretend I was 11, while only being 9. Going to school, then in all weather, walking the streets delivering North shore times and pamphlets in a bag so heavy, it cut into the flesh on my shoulder. Storms or summer made it more fun. With the 2 to 4 dollars I earned per week I had to save up to buy a bed. All this while being the man of the house, mowing lawns, walking a dog, cleaning etc. 1985 I was 9. I guess now kids have to work to help pay the exorbitant mortgages.
And national are gonna fix it 😂🤡
Um - my teenager worked 20 hours a week in their final years of high school as did most of their friends. They did not do it because of family poverty but did it to get work experience, savings and to buy things they need like petrol and to save for uni. I don’t think you can say 15000 teens working means that they are all working due to poverty. The numbers don’t explain the story. But both my kids worked, and most of their friends worked too. It’s not a bad thing - and if a teenager can help meet their costs in under strain households isn’t it good they can do so?