- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Slashing WFF and student loans won't rebuild Christchurch

Working for families cuts targeted
Wealthy parents receiving money from Working for Families look set to lose the funding as the Government looks to find financial relief for the Christchurch earthquake.

Finance Minister Bill English yesterday said the Government was looking at what big spending projects could wait as it faced high costs from the quake and a slow economy.

Prime Minister John Key said today that Mr English was looking at all areas of government expenditure, and that cuts to the Working for Families scheme were being considered.

"Both Working for Families and student loans are arguably broad and generous schemes and there may be the opportunity to make alterations to the generosity of those schemes, particularly in families where it reaches into very high income levels and where those people have enjoyed reasonably good tax cuts," Mr Key said.

The Government's desire to slash Interest Free student Loans and Working for families to pay for the Christchurch rebuild is as counter productive as a Charlie Sheen guide to family counseling or a Colonel Gaddafi Human Rights festival.

Interest free student loans are interest free if the student stays in NZ, we bitch all the way to the bank about NZ graduates leaving NZ, interest free loans are our one method of keeping them and the slashing of Working for families for the rich is an illusion. Back in 2008 Bill English himself said that those receiving working for families on over $100 000 were costing $1.1million. Coming up with $1.1million when you are looking for $5 billion is like Charlie Sheen offering not to smoke Crack at the Breakfast table as a viable 12 step program to sobriety.

The Government are looking for excuses to slash public welfare, they are not coming up with solutions to rebuild Christchurch.


At 3/3/11 10:01 am, Blogger XChequer said...

Great Bomber. And who's particular money tree should we raid for funds then?

At 3/3/11 10:01 am, Blogger Aly Cook said...

Well said.. 1.1 mill in the ocean is a spit and the big picture is . We all know that inagahua and napier .. never had an aftershock pattern like this. Those of us who have been in buildings in the CBD in the last months know that they all bloody rattle when a truck rolls down the road now, something bloody serious is going on underground down there. You can feel it when you visit.. They need to just be honest and serious look at WHERE they rebuild CHCH CBD

At 3/3/11 4:49 pm, Blogger sdm said...

WFF for familes earning over 100K should be capped, irrespective. But if the hard left party wants to campaign on rich welfare, go right ahead.

At 3/3/11 5:18 pm, Blogger Sam Hill said...

Is anybody going to wanna live there?

At 4/3/11 11:14 am, Blogger fatty said...

I wanna live here, dunno where Aly gets her facts from, there were loads of aftershocks in Napier. Every time a bus goes past the ground shakes...of course it does, we have had earthquakes.

Chch has an opportunity to build the inner city almost from scratch.
This is an opportunity, why would I leave that?

An emptied out city and loads of space will mean young creative people will move in to make the most of it.

We may get another earthquake, or a tsunami and people may die...I'll just get on with life...I bike every day with shitty drivers everywhere and loads of cyclists die on the roads all the time...that will kill me, not a natural disaster.

If you think nobody will live in Chch you are watching too much disaster-porn on the stuff or herald websites....try some real news or wait for 3 months and you will see your views are way off and reactionary.

Wellington could crumble any minute, Auckland could get buried under lava...
The biggest threat to Christchurch's long term future is the shit from farmers in the water supply.
The biggest threat to Christchurch's short term future is that the poor area's are not being looked after thanks to our useless mayor.
The cost of rebuilding should be to tax the rich, its simple.
But the cost should be taken over a 20-30 year period, it should include the savings in the future from energy efficient buildings, good public transport etc. The cost is not just how much money is spent...thats simplistic...so I guess thats how John Key and his mates will see it.


Post a Comment

<< Home