Benefits

[mashman]

Even those on a benefit pay tax ... and as those ON the benefit cannot save much, most is put back into general circulation ...

Plus the Goverment gets the GST on the benefit money spent ... gives it with one hand and collects it with two.

Do they also give and take rental and rates costs too? Electricity if the provider is state owned? ACC Levies?

[jasonu]

and as those ON the benefit cannot save much, most is put back into general circulation ...

.

If a person on any type of benefit is able to save money then the benefit should be reduced. Benefits are ment to be temporary help and should be just enough to get by on, not a way to save for (eg.) a better car, trip or retirement. Benefits are ment to be a helping hand, not a way of life as many people treat them. It should be hard to get by on a benefit so as to encourage the recipients to try to move forward to something better paying.
I am sure there will be a few exceptions to this but I think it will apply to most froms of benefit.

[FJRider]

Do they also give and take rental and rates costs too? Electricity if the provider is state owned? ACC Levies?

GST appears in many places ...

[rainman]

Effin-oath.
And why not??

Um, I = P x A x T? Or, from the below quote, for your grand-children's sake?

And just to 'sink-the-slipper-in' - the whole world is outstripping its non-renewable resources and there's too many of us humans aboard this earth.

So enjoy the planet as it is now people - your grand-children certainly won't be able to.

Aren't you arguing against yourself here? Or are you just suffering from boomerism?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10764008

Fuck me. NZ pays out 16 billion per year in benifits? No wonder the country is going down the toilet.
How the hell can 4 million people, not all tax payers, sustain this level of payouts?

Total MSD budget is $22bn. $9.6 bn is state super - but we can't raise the pension age or mans test it, no way man that's crazy talk.

Full details at wheresmytaxes.co.nz. This table is the per capita share and % change from the budget before..$16bn (all benefits?) is only ~20% of our spend of $82bn a year. The bigger problem is that income is only budgeted to be 87% of expenses (and in recessions, income budgets are always optimistic).

$2173.65	(⇧8.4%)	New Zealand Superannuation
$430.09	(⇧7.4%)	Domestic Purposes Benefit
$360.87	(⇧0.6%)	Student Loans
$305.74	(⇧3.1%)	Invalid's Benefit
$286.99	(⇧5.1%)	Accommodation Assistance
$233.58	(⇧7.3%)	Unemployment Benefit and Emergency Benefit
$177.60	(⇧5.4%)	Sickness Benefit
$142.32	(⇧0.2%)	Student Allowances
$142.25	(⇩18%)	Debt Write-downs
$93.19	0.0%	Disability Assistance
$91.42	(⇩9.6%)	Tailored Sets of Services to Help People into Work or Achieve Independence
$74.54	(⇧0.8%)	Care and Protection Services
$65.52	(⇧4.0%)	Hardship Assistance
$42.65	(⇩0.9%)	Childcare Assistance
$40.58	(⇧0.3%)	Veterans' Pension
$38.28	(⇧2.3%)	Recoverable Assistance
$31.12	(⇧2.2%)	Youth Justice Services
$27.64	(⇧0.3%)	Employment Assistance
$27.31	(⇩11%)	Strong Families
$25.41	(⇧4.1%)	Orphan's/Unsupported Child's Benefit
$19.66	0.0%	Vocational Services for People with Disabilities
$17.34	(⇧3.1%)	Widow's Benefit
$16.32	(⇧1.3%)	Family Wellbeing Services
$14.63	(⇧4.9%)	Ministry of Social Development - Capital Expenditure
$12.13	(⇩23%)	Vocational Skills Training
$8.46	(⇩12%)	Social Policy Advice
$8.43	(⇩6.0%)	Benefits Paid in Australia
$8.38	(⇩4.0%)	Income Support and Assistance to Seniors
$8.23	(⇩1.4%)	Services to Protect the Integrity of the Benefit System
$8.02	(⇧10%)	Family and Community Services
$6.98	(⇩22%)	Study Scholarships and Awards
$5.60	(⇧9.3%)	Transition to Work
$4.57	(⇧9.3%)	Management of Student Support, excluding Student Loans
$4.04	(⇩0.3%)	Counselling and Rehabilitation Services
$4.03	(⇩2.7%)	Out of School Care Programmes
$3.82	(⇧254%)	Connected Communities
$3.74	(⇩17%)	Employment Related Training Assistance
$3.68	(⇧8.5%)	Collection of Balances Owed by Former Clients and Non-beneficiaries
$3.51	(⇧8.5%)	Management of Student Loans
$3.47	(⇩5.7%)	Independent Youth Benefit
$3.20	(⇩58%)	Special Circumstance Assistance
$2.87	(⇩58%)	Youth Transition Services
$2.05	(⇧16%)	Adoption Services
$1.97	(⇩1.0%)	Education and Prevention Services
$1.84	(⇩2.2%)	Development and Funding of Community Services
$1.84	(⇧2.2%)	Families Commission
$1.56	(⇩13%)	Services for Young People
$1.28	(⇩0.5%)	Administration of Community Services Card
$1.21	0.0%	Youth Development
$1.06	(⇧16%)	Prevention Services
$0.80	(⇧2.1%)	Mainstream Supported Employment Programme
$0.80	(⇩2.8%)	Student Placement Services
$0.54	(⇩25%)	Strengthening Providers and Communities
$0.49	0.0%	Children's Commissioner
$0.41	(⇧387%)	Trialling New Approaches to Social Sector Change
$0.33	0.0%	Assistance to Disadvantaged Persons
$0.32	0.0%	Management of SuperGold Card
$0.28	0.0%	Promoting Positive Outcomes for Disabled People
$0.23	0.0%	Senior Citizens Services
$0.20	0.0%	Youth Development Partnership Fund
$0.16	0.0%	Family Start/NGO Awards
$0.10	0.0%	Processing and Payment of Veterans' Pensions
$0.10	(⇧174%)	Administration of Trialling New Approaches to Social Sector Change
$0.07	(⇩10%)	Crown Entity Monitoring
$0.02	(⇩50%)	Property Management Centre of Expertise

[BoristheBiter]

[LEFT]


Total MSD budget is $22bn. $9.6 bn is state super - but we can't raise the pension age or mans test it, no way man that's crazy talk.

Full details at wheresmytaxes.co.nz. This table is the per capita share and % change from the budget before..$16bn (all benefits?) is only ~20% of our spend of $82bn a year. The bigger problem is that income is only budgeted to be 87% of expenses (and in recessions, income budgets are always optimistic).
]

I am all for upping the super age, it has to be done sometime.
As for the super, if you want to means test the super then the ones the never put anything in, i.e, them on benefits their whole life should get nothing.
Same as working for family's should be canned, if you can't afford to keep them you shouldn't have them.

[Usarka]

As for the super, if you want to means test the super then the ones the never put anything in, i.e, them on benefits their whole life should get nothing.

So kick beneficiaries onto the streets with no money when they turn 65? Simply isn't going to happen no matter how much you want them to die as punishment for being bludgers.

Turn it around a bit also. Means test, and if you have a trust set up then it's assumed you have assets in the highest bracket.

[oldrider]

Turn it around a bit also. Means test, and if you have a trust set up then it's assumed you have assets in the highest bracket.

You might like to reconsider that assumption.

We have a family trust and it's not because we are well off, it's because we have a handicapped family member and it's there to protect him and his brother and sister's personal equities from intermingling, should they be required to be his care persons! (PC?)

All trusts are not there just for wealthy people or the highest bracket!

[scumdog]

So kick beneficiaries onto the streets with no money when they turn 65? Simply isn't going to happen no matter how much you want them to die as punishment for being bludgers.

Turn it around a bit also. Means test, and if you have a trust set up then it's assumed you have assets in the highest bracket.

Meh, why should anybody bother? - you work hard, save, build a nest-egg then WHAMMO the Gov't wants to ding you for bothering to make the effort.

Let's ALL of us become beneficiaries....

(Or hide your hard-earned furtune so's it can't get hit by the Gov't)

[Winston001]

We have a family trust and it's not because we are well off, it's because we have a handicapped family member and it's there to protect him and his brother and sister's personal equities from intermingling, should they be required to be his care persons! (PC?)

All trusts are not there just for wealthy people or the highest bracket!

Exactly. A "Trust" is a legal structure which protects assets for the benefit of defined persons. Trusts were first created at the time of the Crusades when women and children could not hold property. A knight could be away for years so he would transfer ownership of his estates to his neighbour, local bishop etc "for the use of" his wife and children. This was later embodied in the Statute of Uses 1535.

Despite the common misconception that family trusts exist for tax reasons the correct legal position is protection of assets. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue can and does attack structures intended to avoid tax.

[avgas]

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue can and does attack structures intended to avoid tax.

Oh I love this. This is the best joke I have heard all week.
I gotta go. I laughed so hard I pee'd a little.

[oldrider]

Oh I love this. This is the best joke I have heard all week.
I gotta go. I laughed so hard I pee'd a little.

Well avgas you have lost me on your reaction to this one!

Having seen quite a few "sham" trusts exposed, especially of late, I can't quite see the joke! ... Enlighten me?

Or are you simply laughing at the pitiful consequences of some of the exposures, especially of the seemingly well healed?

[Winston001]

Oh I love this. This is the best joke I have heard all week.
I gotta go. I laughed so hard I pee'd a little.

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Penny and Hooper NZLR 2011

http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/in-print/2011/september-2011/21-september-2011/ird-victory-in-tax-avoidance-case.aspx




The real joke is the trusts weren't a sham: they were created to protect the surgeons from liability...but unhappily they also provided some tax relief which brought them to the Commissioner's attention. A cock-up IMHO attributable to their accountants.

[oldrider]

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Penny and Hooper NZLR 2011

http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/in-print/2011/september-2011/21-september-2011/ird-victory-in-tax-avoidance-case.aspx




The real joke is the trusts weren't a sham: they were created to protect the surgeons from liability...but unhappily they also provided some tax relief which brought them to the Commissioner's attention. A cock-up IMHO attributable to their accountants.

Can't get into that link Winston!

If Family Trusts (or any trust) are not put together, maintained and presented in a proper manner acceptable to scrutiny, they are at risk of being judged as a "sham trust"!

There are many pitiful examples of this that are being failed because their legal constructors have been less then professional in their duties!

Often centred around trusts intended to protect assets against being counted in retirement home expenses etc!


Unfortunately it is only the client who loses out in the long run!

[BoristheBiter]

So kick beneficiaries onto the streets with no money when they turn 65? Simply isn't going to happen no matter how much you want them to die as punishment for being bludgers.

Turn it around a bit also. Means test, and if you have a trust set up then it's assumed you have assets in the highest bracket.

So not only do we pay for bludgers while they and choose not to work we have to pay for them when they can't.

Here's a plan why not make it a choice if we pay into the welfare system, a bit like Kiwisaver. I think I know what the majority will do.

[Banditbandit]

Oh I love this. This is the best joke I have heard all week.
I gotta go. I laughed so hard I pee'd a little.

Yeah ?? Not if you had been on the recieving end of such an attack by the tax vultures ... took five years - yeah count them .. FIVE years before IRD would accept that the trust had not been set up to dodge tax - but to use the assests to pay for the education of the next generation !!!!