A number of people have already mentioned this today, but it bears repeating as it is just so silly.3.13 MTV converter
Working for Families is being exposed as disincentive that it really is. The Dominion Post has the example today of a family with four kids. The father works full time. If the mother works 51 hours per week - the amount of time she was working as a manager in her current job - the family gets $1029.67 per week net including WFF.3.13 MTV converter
If she works 30 hours per week, the net weekly income goes up to $1077.35. If she only works 23 hours per week, it goes up again to $1109.91. Fortunately the absurdity stops there - if she doesn't work at all they would get $972.75.3.13 MTV converter
The Dominion Post makes a lot of the fact that if she worked 51 hours, she would be only earning $1.12 per hour. As bad as that is, it misses the worst of it. For working an extra 28 hours, the difference between the 23 and 51, she has to pay $2.87 per hour. That's right. She would be paying to go to work.3.13 MTV converter
And then we have a quote from the Social Development Ministry claiming that WFF (or should it be WTF) does not discourage people from working.3.13 MTV converter
I feel a Tui billboard coming on... How can having to pay to do more work not discourage you from working?3.13 MTV converter
Hat Tip: Whale Oil3.13 MTV converter
Comments
True, true... However, I can't imagine it being a bad thing for a family of 6 to have Mum at home for a few more hours to look after the kids when they come home from school etc. It would definitely be a stress relief for a busy family to have a parent with more time to spend on their household duties, especially in the modern environment where time is a precious commodity and family values seem to be going out of fashion.3.13 MTV converter
That said, this would work well in the ideal scenario of a family who are steeped in family values, rather than in that of a benefit bludging, substance abusing type whose kids all have different surnames.3.13 MTV converter