Working for Families

Last updated

In 2004, the New Zealand Labour government introduced the Working for Families package as part of the 2004 budget. The package, which effectively commenced operating on 1 April 2005, had three primary aims: to make work pay; to ensure income adequacy; and to support people "into work".

Contents

The main component resembles the United Kingdom Working Tax Credit.

Both the New Zealand Ministry of Social Development and Inland Revenue have involvement in jointly delivering the package.

Components of the package

The scheme pays "Working for Families Tax credits" (formerly known as Family Assistance) to families with dependent children to help with the cost of raising a family. Dependent children are defined as aged 18 or under who are not in full-time employment. The Working for Family tax credits include four types of payments:

  1. Family tax credit: provides ongoing support for beneficiary and working families with dependent children
  2. In-work tax credit: available to working families only
  3. Minimum family tax credit: paid to working families to ensure they earn a minimum annual income after tax
  4. Best start: paid to assist with the costs of a new baby

The Working for Families package also included additional help with childcare and accommodation, with increases in amounts of the existing Accommodation Supplement and the existing Childcare Assistance.

Family Tax Credit

Formerly known as Family Support, the Family Tax Credit gets paid to families with dependent children aged 18 or younger. There is no employment requirement to qualify for the Family Tax Credit.

The amount paid depends on:

The maximum amount of family tax credit increases with the age and number of children. An eldest child garners a higher amount.

For an eldest dependent child aged 16 to 18, the maximum tax credit increases by $13 a week. For dependent children (other than the eldest) aged 13 to 15, the maximum tax credit increases by $8 a week. For dependent children (other than the eldest) aged 16 to 18, the maximum tax credit increases by $29 a week.

In-work Tax Credit

Formerly known as In-work Payment, the In-Work Tax Credit replaced the Child tax credit from 1 April 2006. It is paid to families with dependent children (aged 18 or younger) who work.

Families do not qualify if they receive a main form of state assistance through social welfare.

From 2006 this amount was paid to a maximum of $60 per week for 1 to 3 children, with an additional $15 per week for the fourth and any additional children (thus a family with five children could receive a maximum of $90 per week). The maximum amount was changed in Budget 2015 to be $72.50 per week, implemented on 1 April 2016.

Minimum Family Tax Credit

Formerly known as family tax credit, and prior to that as guaranteed minimum family income, the Minimum Family Tax Credit aims to ensure that the total annual income of a family with dependent children 18 or younger, who work the required number of hours per week, does not fall below a set level. The minimum family tax credit usually applies if annual family income is $27,768 or less after tax. [1]

Families must work at least 30 hours a week (for a couple) and 20 hours a week (for a sole parent). They do not qualify if they receive a main form of state assistance through social welfare.

The annual and weekly amounts are amended every tax year.

Families who earn a lesser amount from employment, and who are not receiving an income-tested form of social assistance, will receive a payment equal to the difference between their income and the minimum income level.

Best Start

Best Start is a payment of $60 a week for families with a new baby. Families who qualify for Best Start will get the payment until their baby turns 1, no matter how much they earn. They can still get Best Start until their child turns 3 if they earn under $93,858.

Parents receiving paid parental leave or income-tested social welfare do not qualify for this payment.

Assessment of income

The authorities assess income for tax credit purposes based on a "household", which will consist of the pooled resources from up to two adults in any family with dependent children.

Nearly all households earning under $70,000 a year, many households with children earning up to $100,000 a year, and some earning more, qualify to receive assistance. [2]

Withdrawal of tax credits

The level of assistance to individual households depends on their income and on the number and age of children.

The rate of withdrawal (the abatement rate) for the Family Tax Credit, Parental Tax Credit and the In-Work Tax Credit comprises 20%. An abatement-free threshold of $36,350 exists.

The Minimum Family Tax Credit consists of a "top-up" payment, so that regardless of the amount of income earned, it gets topped up to the minimum amount per week (currently $534 after tax). This comprises effectively a 100% withdrawal with earned income up to the set income-level.

Some New Zealand households also receive money from the increased income-thresholds and rates for Accommodation Supplement and Childcare Assistance. These two types of assistance have separate withdrawal rates.

Impact and level of take-up

Under current payment rates and abatement rates the New Zealand Government has stated that three out of four families would qualify for extra financial assistance under the Working for Families package.[ citation needed ]

In the tax year from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 approximately 285,000 families received Working for Families Tax Credits. In August 2006 beneficiary families received an average of $110 per week of tax-credits, an increase of $30 per week compared to August 2004. Families paid by Inland Revenue received an average of $138 per week of tax-credits, an increase of $54 per week. [2]

The Former Minister of Social Development and Employment David Benson-Pope stated that Working for Families had made beneficiaries better off by around $31.00 per week, and working families by around $64.00 per week, with the April 2007 increase lifting families' incomes further. Estimates suggest that Working for Families has reduced child poverty by 70% since its introduction[ citation needed ]. This would equate to at least 70,000 children lifted out of income poverty by Working for Families.[ citation needed ]

Former Minister David Benson-Pope also stated that Working for Families had made it easier for some women to start work, while in other families it had made it easier for one partner to spend more time at home. [3]

A government evaluation (see below) has found that the number of Domestic Purposes Benefit recipients since the Working for Families package has fallen by 8,000. [4]

Opinions on the package

The Working for Families package has received a mixed response. Some (such as Victoria University Professor Robert Stephens) have praised [5] the package for encouraging adults to come off benefits, and for targeting families in need.

Others, however, have criticised the package for potentially extending to the relatively wealthy and for increasing effective marginal tax rates for many people. The economist Gareth Morgan, for example, commented on how some (generally middle-income) people can face effective marginal tax rates of over 100%. [6]

The package (with the exception of the family tax credit, accommodation and childcare components) does not extend to families on the Domestic Purposes Benefit, or to families not in work. Critics say this social group will become worse off, and get left further behind (relatively speaking) by not having access to the in-work tax credit and minimum family tax credit components.

The Child Poverty Action Group has commenced legal proceedings against the New Zealand Government for discriminating against those not in employment in the "Working for Families" package. The case focuses on the In-Work Tax Credit and on the Child Tax Credit it replaced. The Action Group estimates that at least 175,000 children have been "left behind". [7] In a judgement from the Human Rights Review Tribunal, it was stated that the in-work tax credit payment is discriminatory, but in this case, is justified. [8] The Action Group are appealing the decision claiming the discrimination is not justified.

Susan St John has supported [7] poverty-prevention over poverty-alleviation, advocating policies such as a simple universal basic payment indexed to wages as well as prices for pensioners – not conditional on work. She criticises the Working for Families package for not delivering extra income until 2005, provided nothing for the poorest in 2006 and only a small increase in 2007. She states: "a large part of Working for Families is based on the flawed logic that all families need to escape poverty is an incentive to get off benefits."

Phil O’Reilly has included Working for Families in a list of alleged low-quality governmental spending that has purportedly contributed to higher interest-rates and lower productivity rates. [9]

Some find the very name of the "Working for Families" package ambiguous. While supporters portray "working for families" as meaning "making efforts for the benefit of families", others interpret the phrase as "[giving] families work to perform".[ citation needed ]

John Key called the scheme "communism by stealth" but did not repeal or cut back the Working for Families tax credits, during his time as Prime Minister. [10]

Evaluations and research

The first formal government evaluation of the Working for Families package [4] describes public awareness of the package and details classes of recipients of Working for Families entitlements to the end of August 2006. The report cites a high level of awareness of the overall package and a high level of receipt of Working for Families payments, meeting or exceeding original forecasts. Since the introduction of the package, the number of families receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit has fallen by 8,000; with 2,600 recipients cancelling the benefit since the implementation of the In-Work Tax Credit. – While awareness of the package and its advertising appears high,[ citation needed ] the evaluation-report found that only around three-quarters of people who believe they receive a tax credit actually did so when matched to administrative records. Further, of the people surveyed who did receive a tax credit only two-thirds realised that they did.

Several articles have addressed the potential or theoretical impacts of the Working for Families package.

One study by Auckland University economist Tim Maloney and American welfare-reform researcher John Fitzgerald [11] found that, on average, working mothers spent an extra three hours a week working after the 2005 and 2006 changes from the Working for Families package. Initial speculation suggested that working hours would fall as the higher income paid to families with dependent children would mean that mothers could spend less time in work. Maloney believes that "some women already working were probably increasing their hours worked in order to qualify for family assistance payments". The authors class the results as preliminary – given the relatively recent introduction of the Working for Families package.

A study found that changes in neither In-Work Tax Credit, nor Family Tax Credit were associated with any meaningful changes in self-rated health, a measure of general health status. [12] [13] However, the study found that each additional year of receiving Family Tax Credit led to a very small reduction in self-rated health, [14] but it did not impact tobacco smoking among parents. [15]

Further evaluations completed by the Ministry of Social Development and Inland Revenue include:

Timeline

October 2004

Announcement of the Working for Families package as part of the 2004 Budget. The first changes came into effect from October 2004. Changes included:

April 2005

Stage One of Working for Families implementation applied from 1 April 2005 (with a further implementation deliverable released in October 2005). The changes included:

April 2006

Stage Two of Working for Families implementation applied from 1 April 2006. The changes included:

April 2007

Stage Three involves the final components of Working for Families implementation and applied from 1 April 2007. The changes include:

April 2008

October 2008

While the package had been completely implemented with the final stage on 1 April 2007, the Income Tax Act 2007 provided for regular adjustments to rates based on cumulative movements in the New Zealand Consumer Price Index; a minimum movement of 5% was required before rates would be amended. These increases would apply from the following 1 April of a year when a change was triggered based on actual data published by Statistics New Zealand.

As part of the 2008 Budget, the Labour Government amended the Income Tax Act 2007 to increase the rates of family tax credit and the abatement-free level by an anticipated movement in Consumer Price Index of 5.22%. The increases would occur from 1 October 2008. This has required the Inland Revenue department to develop composite rates and income limits for the tax year 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 (the average between the annual amount before 1 October 2008 and the annual amount after 1 October 2008 inflation adjustment).

April 2009

April 2010

October 2010

As part of the 2010 Budget, the National Government amended the Income Tax Act 2007 to increase the amounts of family tax credit by an anticipated movement in Consumer Price Index of 2%; the expected result of the increase in GST rate from 12.5% to 15%. The increases apply from 1 October 2010. Composite amounts and income limits for the tax year 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 apply.

The indexation of the abatement-free threshold for Working for Families tax credits has been removed from the Income Tax Act 2007 and the abatement-free threshold will remain at $36,827. Future indexation of the family tax credit rates will ignore any price movement relating to tobacco in the Consumers Price Index.

April 2011

Related Research Articles

A tax credit is a tax incentive which allows certain taxpayers to subtract the amount of the credit they have accrued from the total they owe the state. It may also be a credit granted in recognition of taxes already paid or a form of state "discount" applied in certain cases. Another way to think of a tax credit is as a rebate.

Unemployment benefits, also called unemployment insurance, unemployment payment, unemployment compensation, or simply unemployment, are payments made by authorized bodies to unemployed people. In the United States, benefits are funded by a compulsory governmental insurance system, not taxes on individual citizens. Depending on the jurisdiction and the status of the person, those sums may be small, covering only basic needs, or may compensate the lost time proportionally to the previous earned salary.

Child benefit or children's allowance is a social security payment which is distributed to the parents or guardians of children, teenagers and in some cases, young adults. A number of countries operate different versions of the program. In most countries, child benefit is means-tested and the amount of child benefit paid is usually dependent on the number of children one has.

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI), also called minimum income, is a social-welfare system that guarantees all citizens or families an income sufficient to live on, provided that certain eligibility conditions are met, typically: citizenship; a means test; and either availability to participate in the labor market, or willingness to perform community services.

The Canada Child Benefit (CCB), previously the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), is an income-tested income support program for Canadian families. It is delivered as a tax-free monthly payment available to eligible Canadian families to help with the cost of raising children. The CCTB could incorporate the National Child Benefit (NCB), a monthly benefit for low-income families with children, and the Child Disability Benefit (CDB), a monthly benefit for families caring for children with severe and prolonged mental or physical disabilities.

Working Tax Credit (WTC) is a state benefit in the United Kingdom made to people who work and have a low income. It was introduced in April 2003 and is a means-tested benefit. Despite their name, tax credits are not to be confused with tax credits linked to a person's tax bill, because they are used to top-up wages. Unlike most other benefits, it is paid by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Social welfare has long been an important part of New Zealand society and a significant political issue. It is concerned with the provision by the state of benefits and services. Together with fiscal welfare and occupational welfare, it makes up the social policy of New Zealand. Social welfare is mostly funded through general taxation. Since the 1980s welfare has been provided on the basis of need; the exception is universal superannuation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Third Labour Government of New Zealand</span> Government of New Zealand, 1972–1975

The Third Labour Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand from 1972 to 1975. During its time in office, it carried out a wide range of reforms in areas such as overseas trade, farming, public works, energy generation, local government, health, the arts, sport and recreation, regional development, environmental protection, education, housing, and social welfare. Māori also benefited from revisions to the laws relating to land, together with a significant increase in a Māori and Island Affairs building programme. In addition, the government encouraged biculturalism and a sense of New Zealand identity. However, the government damaged relations between Pākehā and Pasifika New Zealanders by instituting the Dawn Raids on alleged overstayers from the Pacific Islands; the raids have been described as "the most blatantly racist attack on Pacific peoples by the New Zealand government in New Zealand’s history". The government lasted for one term before being defeated a year after the death of its popular leader, Norman Kirk.

Social security, in Australia, refers to a system of social welfare payments provided by Australian Government to eligible Australian citizens, permanent residents, and limited international visitors. These payments are almost always administered by Centrelink, a program of Services Australia. In Australia, most payments are means tested.

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was an Act of Congress providing for several kinds of economic stimuli intended to boost the United States economy in 2008 and to avert a recession, or ameliorate economic conditions. The stimulus package was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2008, and in a slightly different version by the U.S. Senate on February 7, 2008. The Senate version was then approved in the House the same day. It was signed into law on February 13, 2008, by President George W. Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. The law provides for tax rebates to low- and middle-income U.S. taxpayers, tax incentives to stimulate business investment, and an increase in the limits imposed on mortgages eligible for purchase by government-sponsored enterprises. The total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion for 2008.

The welfare trap theory asserts that taxation and welfare systems can jointly contribute to keep people on social insurance because the withdrawal of means-tested benefits that comes with entering low-paid work causes there to be no significant increase in total income. According to this theory, an individual sees that the opportunity cost of getting a better paying job is too great for too little a financial return, and this can create a perverse incentive to not pursue a better paying job.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative income tax</span> Proposed tax reform

In economics, a negative income tax (NIT) is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for incomes below a certain level; in other words, earners above that level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money, as shown by the blue arrows in the diagram. NIT was proposed by Juliet Rhys-Williams while working on the Beveridge Report in the early 1940s and popularized by Milton Friedman in the 1960s as a system in which the state makes payments to the poor when their income falls below a threshold, while taxing them on income above that threshold. Together with Friedman, supporters of NIT also included James Tobin, Joseph A. Pechman, and Peter M. Mieszkowski, and even then-President Richard Nixon, who suggested implementation of modified NIT in his Family Assistance Plan. After the increase in popularity of NIT, an experiment sponsored by the US government was conducted between 1968 and 1982 on effects of NIT on labour supply, income, and substitution effects.

Pension Credit is the principal element of the UK welfare system for people of pension age. It is intended to supplement the UK State Pension, or to replace it. It was introduced in the UK in 2003 by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been subject to a number of changes over its existence, but has the core aim of lifting retired people of limited means out of poverty.

Welfare dependency is the state in which a person or household is reliant on government welfare benefits for their income for a prolonged period of time, and without which they would not be able to meet the expenses of daily living. The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines welfare dependency as the proportion of all individuals in families which receive more than 50 percent of their total annual income from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Typically viewed as a social problem, it has been the subject of major welfare reform efforts since the mid-20th century, primarily focused on trying to make recipients self-sufficient through paid work. While the term "welfare dependency" can be used pejoratively, for the purposes of this article it shall be used to indicate a particular situation of persistent poverty.

Child benefits in the United Kingdom are a series of welfare payments and tax credits made to parents with children in the UK, a major part of the welfare state.

Family Income Supplement was a means-tested benefit for working people with children introduced in Britain in 1970 by the Conservative government of Edward Heath, effective from August 1971. It was not intended to be a permanent feature of the social security system and was abolished by the Social Security Act 1986, which replaced it with Family Credit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social Security Scotland</span>

Social Security Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government with responsibility for social security provision.

Elterngeld is a transfer payment dependent on net income as compensation for concrete disadvantages in the early phase of starting a family and thus a parent-related, temporary compensation payment. The parental allowance replaces the previous child-raising allowance. Parents who are not or not fully employed due to the care of a child or who interrupt their employment for the care of their child are entitled to parental benefit. It is intended to support parents in securing their livelihood and is therefore designed as a compensation payment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Assistance Plan</span> Welfare program

The Family Assistance Plan (FAP) was a welfare program introduced by President Richard Nixon in August 1969, which aimed to implement a negative income tax for households with working parents. The FAP was influenced by President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty program that aimed to expand welfare across all American citizens, especially for working-class Americans. Nixon intended for the FAP to replace existing welfare programs such as the Aid to Assist Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program as a way to attract conservative voters that were beginning to become wary of welfare while maintaining middle-class constituencies. The FAP specifically provided aid assistance to working-class Americans, dividing benefits based on age, the number of children, family income, and eligibility. Initially, the Nixon administration thought the FAP legislation would easily pass through the House of Representatives and the more liberal Senate, as both chambers were controlled by the Democratic Party. In June 1971, the FAP under the bill H.R. 1 during the 92nd Congress, passed in the House of Representatives. However, from December 1971 to June 1972 H.R.1 bill that included the FAP underwent scrutiny in the Senate chamber, particularly by the Senate Finance Committee controlled by the conservative Democrats, while the Republicans were also reluctant on passing the program. Eventually, on October 5 of 1972, a revised version of H.R.1 passed the Senate with a vote of 68-5 that only authorized funding for FAP testing before its implementation. During House-Senate reconciliation, before Nixon signed the bill on October 15, 1972, the entire provision on FAP was dropped. The FAP enjoyed broad support from Americans across different regions. Reception towards the program varied across racial, regional, income, and gender differences. The FAP is best remembered for beginning the rhetoric against the expansion of welfare that was popular during the New Deal. It initiated the support for anti-welfare conservative movements that became mainstream in American political discourse during the Reagan era.

The United States federal child tax credit (CTC) is a partially-refundable tax credit for parents with dependent children. It provides $2,000 in tax relief per qualifying child, with up to $1,400 of that refundable (subject to a refundability threshold, phase-in and phase-out). In 2021, following the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, it was temporarily raised to $3,600 per child under the age of 6 and $3,000 per child between the ages of 6 and 17; it was also made fully-refundable and half was paid out as monthly benefits. This reverted back to the previous in 2022. The CTC is scheduled to revert to a $1,000 credit after 2025.

References

  1. ↑ "Support for families".
  2. 1 2 "Receipt of the Working for Families Package". Ministry of Social Development. 1 October 2007.
  3. ↑ "Mothers spend longer at work". Sunday Star Times. 1 July 2007.
  4. 1 2 "Receipt of the Working for Families Package". Ministry of Social Development. 1 October 2007.
  5. ↑ "Working for Families an incentive to work". NewstalkZB. 30 March 2006.
  6. ↑ Morgan, Gareth (1 December 2005). "A Nation of Bludgers" . Retrieved 19 July 2009.
  7. 1 2 The Independent Financial Review, 26 July 2006
  8. ↑ "CPAG seeks to meet ministers following significant legal decision" (PDF). Child Poverty Action Group. 18 December 2008.
  9. ↑ "Better productivity may beat our exchange rate monster". New Zealand Herald. 24 June 2007.
  10. ↑ "Key admits support for communism". Scoop. 29 July 2008.
  11. ↑ "Mothers spend longer at work". Sunday Star Times. 1 July 2007.
  12. ↑ Pega, Frank; Carter, Kristie; Kawachi, Ichiro; Davis, Peter; Lundberg, Olle; Gunasekara, Fiona; Balkely, Tony (2013). "The impact of in-work tax credit for families on self-rated health in adults: a cohort study of 6900 New Zealanders". Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 67 (8): 682–8. doi:10.1136/jech-2012-202300. PMID   23709662. S2CID   38236708.
  13. ↑ Pega, Frank; Carter, Kristie; Kawachi, Ichiro; Davis, Peter (2015). "The impact of an unconditional tax credit for families on self-rated health in adults: further evidence from the cohort study of 6900 New Zealanders". Social Science & Medicine. 108: 115–9. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.002. PMID   24632096.
  14. ↑ Pega, Frank; Blakely, Tony; Glymour, Maria; Carter, Kristie; Kawachi, Ichiro (2015). "Using Marginal Structural Modeling to Estimate the Cumulative Impact of an Unconditional Tax Credit on Self-Rated Health" (PDF). American Journal of Epidemiology. 183 (4): 315–24. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwv211 . PMID   26803908.
  15. ↑ Pega, Frank; Gilsanz, Paola; Kawachi, Ichiro; Wilson, Nick (2015). "Cumulative receipt of an anti-poverty tax credit for families did not impact tobacco smoking among parents". Social Science & Medicine. 179: 160–165. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.001. PMID   28284145.
  16. ↑ "Summary report of the Working for Families Package". Ministry of Social Development.
  17. ↑ "Receipt of the Working for Families Package". Ministry of Social Development.
  18. ↑ "Receipt of the Working for Families Package 2007 Update". Ministry of Social Development.
  19. ↑ "Employment Incentives for sole parents summary". Ministry of Social Development.
  20. ↑ "Employment incentives for sole parents technical report". Ministry of Social Development.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.