Dr David Clark is the Labour Candidate for Dunedin North. He has worked in shops, in a factory, as a Presbyterian Minister, as a University Tutor and as an analyst at the New Zealand Treasury. He currently runs a University Hall of Residence.
Red Alert readers will have noted several recent stories about the very real way in which cost of living increases are affecting middle income families. I’ve encountered a fair few in Dunedin in recent weeks with similar stories. Here’s one that stuck out for me when I was out door-knocking yesterday…
Bill and Maree (not their real names) live in their own home, and have worked hard to pay off much of their mortgage. Daughter Lisa?has recently turned 17 and is living at home with Bill and Maree. Son Darren has just finished University. Bill and Maree have always held down solid jobs and bring in an average income. This has generally been enough. They were however impressed last election by John Key’s promise of tax cuts and ‘a brighter future’, and placed their vote with him.
But things have not turned out as hoped. Prices have risen and risen, and bills are getting harder to pay. The tax-cuts they were expecting haven’t lived up to expectations. And then Lisa fell pregnant. It wasn’t planned, but she’s determined to be a good mother.? Bill and Maree want to support her, but they’re fearful they won’t be able to provide all that is needed for the new addition to the household. Having worked hard consistently down through the years, they went down to WINZ with Lisa to see what support is available. Nothing: unless Lisa is estranged from the family. Not until she’s 18.
Bill and Maree are feeling hard done by. Having worked hard and paid taxes all of their lives, they were?expecting a little bit extra from Mr Key. Instead, they’re seeing seriously rich New Zealanders enjoy the big big tax cuts, while they don’t have quite enough to make ends meet. And then, to make matters worse, when they need a bit of help, they’re realising that’s not there either.
Bill and Maree are disillusioned. They’re changing their vote. But on top of their disappointment about Mr Key’s failure to deliver them a brighter future, they’ve another concern. It’s the future of their kids. Not only are they worried about their daughter: their son Darren?is wanting to settle down too.?
Darren’s just finished a degree and has been offered a very good job in Dunedin. But his partner’s pregnant, and they’re concerned about the cuts to Working For Families. With a student loan and the cuts to Working For Families, they too will struggle to make ends meet. Darren’s mates are telling him to move to Oz. One of them has already, and he’s earning nearly three times as much doing the same job.?
This story echoes others I’ve encountered in recent weeks.??
Many ‘swing’ voters feel disillusioned with the Government that they voted in last time.? Some say the jury is still out, and they want to give Key another chance. Others are sick of him.
Not sure why the rest of NZ should fund the girls predicament, perfectly appropriate the family support her. The rules for the DPB havent changed for the last decade and Labour were right to keep the age at 18 as a very good disincentive.
Changes to WFF are only for people 100k plus so I think Darren will be ok to have the taxpayer support his choice to have a child. Wages in Aus are 30% higher on average not 3 times unless you work down a mine and if he is worried about cost of living his rent will be 6 times cheaper in Dunners than Sydney.
Gosh David this story is terrible!
Poorly written, devoid of facts in regards to what the real entitlements and opportunities are and more fictional than a Shortland St script (did you get it from Home & Away???)
Is this the sort of drivel we will see more of from Labour? Sensationalist driven half truths trying to stir up an emotive response from voters. And yet you have young Hipkins demanding integrity and honesty. Looking like a long 6 months to the election for you all and at least 3 more years looking after students for you
Bill and Maree got shafted!
!
@Darren – he did state facts, about the family’s situation!
@Dr David Clark – They have turned to the good side!
Go forth and preach the Labour way!
!
Looks like Lisa should have kept her legs crossed.
@Spud – take the rose tinted glasses off and read @David’s post re WFF. @David is telling porkies!
And whilst I feel for the ‘family’ in the story we can’t all be expected to pick up the pieces for others mistakes. Welfare is important as a last resort for the truly vulnerable. This case doesn’t meet that criteria. Welfare is not there to fund a comfortable lifestyle for those unwilling to make sound choices but to provide the basics short term for those in genuine need.
That would be @David Clark telling the porkies – just for clarification…
Im sorry but this story just doesn’t ring true. If it was true however where does personal responsibility come into it?
17 year olds don’t ‘fall’ pregnant like some kind of accident.
They get pregnant after choosing to copulate with a suitable male partner.
Again why should the tax payer have to clean after her poor choice?
Same with the partner of the son getting pregnant just after he has graduated and hasn’t been able to save up and prepare for this happy occasion – again another poor choice the cost of which they are wanting to be foisted on the tax payer.
Where does it end? Personal income tax is down a lot on several years ago – if the cost of living has risen then you make choices like growing your own veges, minimising the use of the car – up skilling yourself to get a better paying job.
But nah lets blame the government its their fault. You in Labour have bleated on about this for the last 3 years and no ones listening. Come up with some original ideas would you please and be a credible opposition for once.
Hopefully people who are struggling and haven’t seen John Key’s promises come to fruition do swing back to Labour, and don’t fall for the excuses about global financial crisis and earthquake. Obviously those things are real and are factors, but the economic mismanagement from John Key can’t be underestimated.
David at 5.12pm where did you hear changes only for 100k+, also nothing can be six times lower.
Evidence needed before this comment goes up. Trevor
@Darren – Hey at least they didn’t chuck her out onto the street, they are trying to make the best of it.
@Spud – I agree but it is still no reason for us to pick up the tab.
@Trevor – thanks for agreeing the issues in the ‘story’ are fictional. Your point that changes in WFF are yet to be confirmed is accurate therefore debunking Mr Clarke’s rather poor argument completely.
@darrenw 10.41pm.
Rubbish.
I won’t engage on all trolling aspects of your responses. But will agree that changes to WFF are yet to be confirmed. The fact that there will be WFF cuts (amounts as yet unclear) is simply adding to the uncertainty for the family at this stage. The comparison with Australia for that young family is going to get worse, not better.
Hmm, darren I don’t think Trevor agreed the issues were fictional. Key has signalled that WFF changes are likely. Rather I think Trevor was more likely to be pointing out that if they only cut to those on >100K they will only save what John Key calls ‘loose change’.
On the other hand to cut those on 100K completely out and not have ridiculous 100% marginal rates, that’s likely to involve some level of cut from 60 or 70K – ie. average household income. Which will affect a lot of people and rightly be something for ordinary New Zealanders to worry about – and there’s the threat the cuts could be much greater, adding to that uncertainty.
@Jimmie – the story rings very true to my ears. You seem to be advocating for some eugenic paradise where no-one makes mistakes and only those earning $80-100k+ have children (as they can afford it). This may save the planet with our rapid extinction, but it won’t save our economy – if you want there to be future taxpayers to pay your pension. Raising children is expensive, and it’s not unfair that those raising the next generation of taxpayers get a little hand.
It should also be remembered where there are benefits for children (DPB/WfF) – we shouldn’t punish the child for their parents’ financial situation. We need every child to succeed, and every child deserves their chance. John Key benefited from a system that supported a single mum, why should we deny future John Keys their chance to aspire?
@ Colvin 7.58pm – agree.
@ Jimmie 6.53pm – personal responsibility is fine. Lisa is choosing to have the child, knowing it will involve sacrifices for her. Likewise Bill and Maree are choosing to support their daughter, and they’re looking forward to grandchildren.
But to focus entirely on personal responsibility is one-dimensional. It takes a village to raise a child. We all have to play our part in making sure the next generation builds on the sacrifices of generations that have gone before. We need to make sure the next generation has better opportunities than previous generations have had. Poverty has no place in New Zealand.
As for Maree and Bill: they expected to be better off under a Key government if they continued to work hard at their jobs. But because GST went up to give the biggest tax-cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders, and because of inflation their experience is that prices are rising faster than wages.
They are worse off than before. They feel cheated.
I’ve just read a little of aaron gilmore…. another who benefited from living under state support (housing) and who got breakfast when his teacher gave him some, and now believes that it’s ok to kick those ladders away from others.
Because if he “can make it anyone can”, yea, but like Key and Bennett part of why he made it was state support, and that teacher (who his government continues to under value and over work).”
They all seem at the ready with their “down and under” stories to show how they understand the working man/woman and completely oblivious tot heir irony/self righteousness
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/273782
There is my evidence Trevor. You could read Micheal King’s History of New Zealand which also covers this. I noted the original poster also failed to include evidence. Although he has been a Prebyterian Minister and has also worked for Treasury so his hold on observable reality my be tenuous.