PRIVACY CONCERNS: Who is watching us? Apparently lots of people. Concerns around the issues of privacy are in focus for Privacy Awareness Week. Are we being too willy nilly with our private details? Are social networking sites opening us up for identity theft and putting our kids at risk? And what about what the Government’s role—how much do they need to know about us and how much should they know?
CHILD CARE: A report in the Sunday-Star Times revealed that families with an income between $77,000-$99,000 face cuts to their childcare assistance—affecting some 11,000 families. Labour calls this a broken election promise but Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says, “childcare provisions will be targeted at those parents who most need it.” Are we aversely affecting kiwi families?
LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 5TH of May. At 9pm but drinkers and eaters arrive from about 7pm.
The Panel: Green MP Catherine Delahunty, Labour MP Ruth Dyson, and National MP Sandra Goudie.
We should be damned worried about privacy. Look at all the changes that Facebook are making. I also think that social networking changes are ahead of leglislation. Where are the morals? Also, some people are missing out on jobs because of their profiles. And young people, say 13, are literally growing up in cyberspace and may later regret some of the info that they are giving away now. I think ethics should be a part of computer studies at high school.
Government snooping is never a good thing.
Man, child care cuts will hurt many.
Good to see a line up of chicks
But Spud, it’s a bit of a worry that they have to have a panel of women to discuss social networking and child care.
That’s a bit role-playish isn’t it? Though they are extremely important and challenging aspects of society and perhaps need the higher value that women can bring to the debate!!!
When are they having a debate on pay equity?
Woaw hold on. Those earning 77 – 99 are (said to be) getting tax cuts going from 38 to 33 (though nothin official released)
labour opposes this cut and want to raise it again to 38%
those in this bracket are the top 10% of income earners.
Given that labour wants to increase their tax, surly they would support giving the allowances to those that need it most as the minister said?
Surly these “rich people Trevor” with their tax cuts are more able to pay for their childcare than those not so well off?
I am gobsmacked that for once labour is batting away those that aren’t well off to fight for those that are, certainly a dynamic new change for labour!
Please explain to me slowly why I am subsidising childcare for those earning up to $99,000.
I thought that Labour was going to raise the top bracket so that it only applied to 100k and above?
Hey, no one in the Labour party has ever called those in that bracktet rich deleted Trevor , it was only Cullen when Key mentioned his wife.
johnbt – maybe the question is why isn’t early childhood education free?
Trevor- Nothing is free, you should know that by now. It’s just a question of WHO pays.
Trevor, Trevor, Trevor. What you mean is…. why isn’t early childhood education paid for totally by the long suffering taxpayer? In the real world there is no such thing as a free lunch or education. Someone always has to pay.
@ Spud – Are they raising the brackets? Sorry I hadn’t heard that. Hopefully they acknowledge that it is simple common sense to harmonise the company, trust, and top tax rate as well and don’t do anything too silly like alter a harmonised rate.
Hmmm, It certainly is a point Trevor – Are you saying that no one should have to pay regardless of income?
Yes I do think Early Childhood Education is a core government function. Even Treasury is convinced it is one of the best investments the state can make.
I must say I dont understand why we seem to reluctantly or otherwise accept the state (taxpayer) funds education at Primary and secondary and heavily subsidises at tertiary yet the well documented crucial time for children is pre school and we dont fully fund it?
Privacy: yes I think we all have a lot of cause for concern. Where does how information go, how is it stored, who has access to it and for how long? More information needs to be put out there so that people do more to protect their identity – e.g. with Facebook you don’t need to put your actual date of birth and you most certainly should not let anyone but your personal friends know your birthdate, current location etc. I don’t like how Facebook seems to be changing things to make it harder to retain your privacy – e.g. if a friend comments on your photo, this automatically gets posted on their wall which can then let their friends potentially view your album.
Childcare: you need to differentiate between 1 & 2 parent families and how many children they each have. Already the confusion is evident.
A single parent family of 2 kids on $70-99k will not be as well off as a 2 parent family on the same income in terms of the fact that the single parent would be taxed more due to being the sole income earner (the 2 parent family would have more income taxed at the lower rate as it is obviously split between to taxpayer identities).
Further, it must be made clear that these families are those with at LEAST 2 children – you can’t get a CCS if you are on $99k with one child! People also need to recognise that there is a HUGE difference in level of financial stability between a family on $70k and that on $99k. If you can’t afford to feed your 5 kids on $99k well then you should have had less kids!
In terms of the CCS being cut, I personally think 2 children or ore families on a combined income of less than $80k deserve to have some kind of childcare subsidy as the childcare fees themselves are roughly twice the subsidy and always go up when the subsidy goes up meaning the parent never benefits from the inflationary increase.
Having no subsidy whatsoever for these families would I imagine, completely negate the benefit of earning a higher income, particularly if part of it is due to the second parent earning.
In terms of ECE being a “core government function” – only for 3 years and up. There is no known evidence that shows children benefit from childcare under the age of 3.
The reality is no can possibly comprehend or even completely predict the financial impact that having a child has on your budget yet with the cost of living being so high, especially accommodation, more and more people are finding that they have to have both parents working or the single parent has to work full time in order for it to be affordable.
Childcare costs are absolutely outrageous with prices being anywhere from $5-6 and up per hour per child in the Wellington region with wait lists up to a year long for many centres.
If NACT tar the entire $70-99k group with the same brush they will cripple some families as they would most certainly be worse off despite say a 6c decrease in the top rate of tax.
However, childcare also has other huge issues such as the so-called 20 ‘free’ hours of ECE where you have many centres breaking the MOE policy and charging parents for the 20 ‘free’ hours on the basis that it is not free, it is merely a subsidy….
Bottomline, the poor parents are always caught between a rock and a hard place.
Apologies – didn’t realise I had written a novel!
@Oliver – Don’t want to miss quote but I thought that’s what Goff said when he mentioned putting the tax back up. Will have to watch it again. (tired brain).
@Rebecca 3.27 – Agreed, also some person take take a photo of you and you don’t know and then tag you in it. Technically FB owns this photo and can do whatever it likes with it.
@Rebecca 3.27 #2 LOL
A novel in under a minute, I’m impressed. 
Can anyone please explain to me why I am subsidising childcare for people earning $99,000? Please. I am serious.
Haha yes, speedy gonzalas…that’s me!
Re FB owning the photo – I don’t think this is quite right. They endorse intellectual property rights (e.g. photos that you have taken) in their Statements of Rights section.
Basically the person who clicks the shutter owns the photo and has complete copyright until something like 50 years after their death. The only exceptions to this is is if you expressly waive this right or are commissioned to take the photo for someone else – e.g. that is why the likes of wedding photographers get you to fill out forms. If you didn’t sign anything accepting their ownership, but still paid them money you would own the copyright, not them.
But yes, the whole FB thing is a bit of a worry really. The main thing is to just not post too much stuff online in the first place – e.g. be careful with what kind of photos you put up of your children and only declare the bare minimum by way of personal information.