Spare us the wailing from sheilas who haven’t checked what the PM said about Working for Families

Poverty affects rugby, too - these poor buggers can't afford togs.

A couple of sheilas up Waikato way are complaining about the Government giving money to the Rugby World Cup ahead of poverty-stricken women.

But Alf has cause to seriously question their grasp of things after reading a media statement they have issued.

The buggers are bothered about gender equality.

And they are hostile towards Government plans to chip in a bit more money for the Rugby World Cup, although this seems an extraordinarily worthy cause.

Their hostility towards this expenditure amounts to hostility towards rugby, which Alf is sure would be a treasonable offence in their part of the country if Waikato was a sovereign state.

So what did they say? Here are the first few paras of their statement –

As the world marks 100 years of celebrating International Women’s Day next Tuesday 8th March, in Aotearoa New Zealand the Prime Minister has announced possible funding cuts to Working for Families and increased funding to enable rugby world cup games to be played in earthquake affected Christchurch.

“Where is the equality in this? The boys play on, while women and families lose.” says Rose Black and Anna Cox, researchers for Poverty Action Waikato.

The commercial enterprise of the Rugby World Cup is seemingly more valued than the everyday benefits many hard working people experience through Working for Families.

Let’s try to prod this garbage.

The first nonsense is to suggest the world is (or will be) marking 100 years of International Women’s Day.

Lots of sheilas with nothing better to do will get awfully excited about the occasion in some countries.

But Alf will put his money on hundreds of millions of women around the globe being totally unaware that International Women’s Day is marked once a year, let alone that this year’s absurdity is the 100th anniversary.

Having thus demonstrated a capacity for serious exaggeration, the Waikato wailers proceed to dish up more nonsense.

Yes, the Prime Minister has announced possible funding cuts to Working for Families.

And yes, funding will be increased to enable Rugby World Cup games to be played in earthquake affected Christchurch.

But then the sheilas ask –

“Where is the equality in this? The boys play on, while women and families lose.” says Rose Black and Anna Cox, researchers for Poverty Action Waikato.

But women and families enjoy rugby too, and some of the women and their families who enjoy (and play) rugby are low-income earners.

The two researchers should engage in some research by wanding town to the park while Waikato is playing and counting the numbers of women and kids who are cheereing their local heroes, and maybe chatting with them about their wealth.

Then these researchers tell us in their statement –

The commercial enterprise of the Rugby World Cup is seemingly more valued than the everyday benefits many hard working people experience through Working for Families.
Related Stories on Scoop

Governments cut backs on family support and spending in the social service sector leave women and children to carry the biggest impact of stretched Government resources. People and families living on the average wage or less face increasing difficulty meeting rising food and energy costs such as power and petrol.

Hold it right there.

Alf has a very different understanding of what might happen (and he emphasises might because everything and anything is up for grabs as the Government reviews its Budget in the light of the earthquake).

Here’s what the Herald reported –

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.

Get that?

Let’s say it again.

Wealthy parents receiving money from Working for Families look set to lose their funding…

John Key made no announcements.

He said only that Bill English is looking at all areas of government expenditure, and (as a logical consequence of all areas of government expenditure being examined) cuts to the Working for Families scheme are 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.

“I don’t think there will be significant changes, but because the schemes are so large and, arguably, expensive in nature, quite small changes can deliver quite reasonable savings.”

Alf checked with his colleague, David Bennett, and established that – yes – most women in Waikato can read.

Maybe they don’t all read the Herald.

But the sheilas who are spreading this nonsense about rugby and welfare are researchers, and – Alf would like to think – bothered to research what the PM had actually said.

They might also have (and indeed should have) consulted Kiwiblog on the subject.

Having set out the data that demonstrate how wealthy families become entitled to Working for Families, David Farrar compellingly says –

Now I have long advocated that a family earning $107k a year (let alone $127k a year) should not be receiving welfare. Welfare should be for those who truly need it.

It is also economically very inefficient to tax people, and then give them some of it back as welfare. One should minimise what they call churn.

Also on a personal level, I have no qualms about paying taxes to help a family on say $40,000 with two kids. Bit I do have qualms about paying taxes to be handed over to a family earning $125,000 a year, just because they have decided to have lots of kids.

Farrar has some good ideas for cutting back the entitlements of the fecund wealthy.

It would be a small modest step in the right direction of saying wealthier families should not recieve welfare. And it would leave Labour in the ludicrous position of having to argue that a family on $120,000 should not receive a tax cut but should receive welfare.

On Alf’s reading of their media statement, the two sheilas in Waikato are in much the same boat.

They want to wipe out poverty but they don’t want wealthy families to lose their welfare.

This is about as absurd as celebrating International Women’s Day.