Page 1 of 8 1234 ... Last
Results 1 to 25 of 185

  1. Post
    #1

    Our institutions still assume an obsolete family model

    Just something that's occurred to me is, IMO, how much of NZ culture is still designed around an idea of the family that hasn't really been true since the 80s.

    Basically, it's the idea that a family is either a single income / stay at home parent one, or a single parent on the benefit.


    School holidays - 12 weeks long. A 2 income family only has 8 weeks annual leave. A working single parent has 4. And yes I'm implying that schools are obliged to act as childcare for working parents. It's the implicit social contract. But the holidays are no problem if Mum is at home.

    School hours - they usually start after the work day and end well before.

    Shop/bank hours that assume that everyone shops during business hours. This is why malls are killing your CBD btw Christchurch. They're open when people want to go out.

    At least for tax purposes we're all equal lol.

  2. Post
    #2
    Edward Diego wrote:

    At least for tax purposes we're all equal lol.
    Wrong. The Tax system is again assuming a old household model.
    A single person household earning $100k pays far more tax than a couple or family working household earning $100k ( lets say $50k each person)
    They also then spend more of their money proportionally on GST and cost of living like rent.

    In the current tax system, you are better off financially if you forgo your earning potential by focusing less on your career and more on getting married so you can pay less tax.

  3. Post
    #3
    SirGrim wrote:
    Wrong. The Tax system is again assuming a old household model.
    A single person household earning $100k pays far more tax than a couple or family working household earning $100k ( lets say $50k each person)
    lol how. I had a single income household, paid the exact same tax as a single person.

  4. Post
    #4
    SirGrim wrote:
    In the current tax system, you are better off financially if you forgo your earning potential by focusing less on your career and more on getting married so you can pay less tax.
    I'm going to need to see some numbers on this. If you mean that two people earning 50K pay less tax than one person earning 100K that's the thing - IRD doesn't care that it's two people, they're all about dat individual.

  5. Post
    #5
    What do you mean obsolete? If anything, there's a huge wave of going back to stay at home parents and refocusing on child wellbeing.

  6. Post
    #6
    I was talking about this on the weekend to the Mrs. The government has agreed to an EXTRA 8 teacher only days per year as well, this means that you need to also find another week + in leave between you.

    For the record Edward, I agree with you, but at the same time, I am not sure that more time at school is the right answer. In this day and age of working remotely, and potential for different hours most things are workable. I work from 5:30am - 2:00pm and the Mrs. works from 9am - 5pm for example. She drops off, and I pickup.

    As for how to divide tax for a household, that is a tricky one, as it leads to miss-declaring living status ,like some beneficiaries do already.

  7. Post
    #7
    dickytim wrote:
    I was talking about this on the weekend to the Mrs. The government has agreed to an EXTRA 8 teacher only days per year as well, this means that you need to also find another week + in leave between you.
    LOL teacher only days. WTF do they think the school holidays are?

  8. Post
    #8
    Vulcan wrote:
    LOL teacher only days. WTF do they think the school holidays are?
    This is word for word what my Mrs. said.

  9. Post
    #9
    well.. after you remove the immigration away, that obsolete model is going away in terms of population replacement as well so yeah it is definitely going obsolete or extinct ?

  10. Post
    #10
    Iíd like to add that 90% of existing homes are probably also designed for 1 stay-at-home parent, in terms of ensuring good ventilation, etc and not suited to being shut up all day for security and all night on cold winter days.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. Post
    #11
    Bloody wrote:
    well.. after you remove the immigration away, that obsolete model is going away in terms of population replacement as well so yeah it is definitely going obsolete or extinct ?
    Who is removing immigration? Labour might have hinted they were going to slow it down, but they in fact haven't, it is in no-ones interest to slow immigration.

    KiwiTT wrote:
    I’d like to add that 90% of existing homes are probably also designed for 1 stay-at-home parent, in terms of ensuring good ventilation, etc and not suited to being shut up all day for security and all night on cold winter days.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I dispute this finding, I have no data to back this up but the assertion that 90% of homes are existing old stock, from 25+ years ago doesn't seem legit. I have tried to look for the answer to this but without going over every month for the last 20 years and adding them up it is not easy to find.

  12. Post
    #12
    dickytim wrote:
    I dispute this finding, I have no data to back this up but the assertion that 90% of homes are existing old stock, from 25+ years ago doesn't seem legit. I have tried to look for the answer to this but without going over every month for the last 20 years and adding them up it is not easy to find.
    We could do some sums to get an idea.

    How many houses do we have? 2 million plus
    How many have we built? Not many considering we canít build even 100,000 in 10 years (ref: kiwibuild)

    So an estimate of 200,000 builds in the last 25 years is probably not far off. Which is about 10% of our stock. So that leaves 90% of homes built the old fashioned way. However, I am sure a large number of these may have been retrofitted to more modern standards.

    So yeah. A numbers game, but not a bad estimate.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. Post
    #13
    KiwiTT wrote:
    We could do some sums to get an idea.

    How many houses do we have? 2 million plus
    How many have we built? Not many considering we can’t build even 100,000 in 10 years (ref: kiwibuild)

    So an estimate of 200,000 builds in the last 25 years is probably not far off. Which is about 10% of our stock. So that leaves 90% of homes built the old fashioned way. However, I am sure a large number of these may have been retrofitted to more modern standards.

    So yeah. A numbers game, but not a bad estimate.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You are confusing your beloved Labour parties failure as a statistic for builds, the housing consent for 2016 - 2018 were over 92,000. Apparently the statistic is that about 10% of consented properties are never built.

    From 01/01/2011 - 01/07/2018 = 183,817 consents

    Guess not estimate

  14. Post
    #14
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I’d like to add that 90% of existing homes are probably also designed for 1 stay-at-home parent, in terms of ensuring good ventilation, etc and not suited to being shut up all day for security and all night on cold winter days.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Do people not have/use security stays on windows? Or even dehumidifier. First thing I do in morning is open bedroom window.

  15. Post
    #15
    mintyOnion wrote:
    What do you mean obsolete? If anything, there's a huge wave of going back to stay at home parents and refocusing on child wellbeing.
    Is there a huge wave? Or is it a wave amongst the middle class who are lucky enough to be able to afford it? I mean, hey, if you can afford it, then do it.

    But, I severely disagree with your implication that working full-time means you're not focused on child wellbeing. That reeks of middle class bias. One of the biggest coefficients for child wellbeing is household income.

    I will admit, I also have trouble watching any movie that involves ennui, because ennui is a luxury of the bourgeois.

  16. Post
    #16
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I’d like to add that 90% of existing homes are probably also designed for 1 stay-at-home parent, in terms of ensuring good ventilation, etc and not suited to being shut up all day for security and all night on cold winter days.
    That's a very good point.

  17. Post
    #17
    dickytim wrote:
    This is word for word what my Mrs. said.
    Also my sons school has a half day on Wednesdays. So you have a 6 hour school day, less lunch = 5 hours of teaching. We've had a couple of weeks recently with teachers only days, so he has ended up with a total of 17.5 teaching hours for each week.

    ...then they get school holidays.

  18. Post
    #18
    swazi wrote:
    Do people not have/use security stays on windows? Or even dehumidifier. First thing I do in morning is open bedroom window.
    Dehumidifiers cost money to run. And security stays on windows - well tbh, I don't open windows while I'm feeding my kids in the morning, because it's ****ing freezing out yo. I open windows before I leave if I remember, but that is seldom, I'm usually dealing with some kind of toddler inflicted catastrophe.

    KiwiTT is right, if I had a partner at home, then opening the windows would be trivial. But if I forget, then they're shut for 8 hours.

  19. Post
    #19
    SirGrim wrote:
    Wrong. The Tax system is again assuming a old household model.
    A single person household earning $100k pays far more tax than a couple or family working household earning $100k ( lets say $50k each person)
    They also then spend more of their money proportionally on GST and cost of living like rent.

    In the current tax system, you are better off financially if you forgo your earning potential by focusing less on your career and more on getting married so you can pay less tax.
    Huh?

    You won't pay less tax getting married. Your spouse doesn't declare half of your income. And you'll have more outgoings as you're supporting a second person.

    Although that concept could be good for a laugh for a single earner couple, "I run a home business, I pay my wife 50k in wages. I've no revenue. So I declare income of 50k, and so does she."

    Boom, saved yourself 6.5k in income tax and you'd both qualify for that $500 a year middle income return. So 7.5k.

    I don't actually see any legal issues with it.

  20. Post
    #20
    Vulcan wrote:
    Also my sons school has a half day on Wednesdays. So you have a 6 hour school day, less lunch = 5 hours of teaching. We've had a couple of weeks recently with teachers only days, so he has ended up with a total of 17.5 teaching hours for each week.

    ...then they get school holidays.
    It's easy to criticize from ones armchair. Need to talk to a teacher really. Last teacher I spoke to said they worked most of the holidays catching up and preparing for next term, and that during term they basically worked 6 days a week, 12hrs a day just to keep a float. Not only that, they were paying out of their own pocket for school supplies. They were hella stressed and it did not sound like a job I would want.

  21. Post
    #21
    ...you said most. They worked most of the holidays. Not all.

  22. Post
    #22
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Is there a huge wave? Or is it a wave amongst the middle class who are lucky enough to be able to afford it? I mean, hey, if you can afford it, then do it.

    But, I severely disagree with your implication that working full-time means you're not focused on child wellbeing. That reeks of middle class bias. One of the biggest coefficients for child wellbeing is household income.

    I will admit, I also have trouble watching any movie that involves ennui, because ennui is a luxury of the bourgeois.
    I don't know that it's tied so closely to middle class, or that middle class is what it was last century, but that's a discussion on its own.

    I think it's more a matter of priorities, y'know? A lot of families I know have both parents working, even though one of them essentially works to pay off childcare/school expenses. It's all about independence and maintaining the lifestyle like before kids were born.

    It's a bit of generalising, but just an example of a modern family model. Kids in institutions since the age of 2-3, spending more time learning how to be part of a system than with parents.

    Obviously it's infinitely harder for solo parents to even think about staying at home, unless it's a job with incredible freedom and pay. But for couples, it's (just) doable and very rewarding.

    I hope none of this comes across as a personal attack on anyone.

  23. Post
    #23
    suntoucher wrote:
    Huh?

    You won't pay less tax getting married. Your spouse doesn't declare half of your income. And you'll have more outgoings as you're supporting a second person.

    Although that concept could be good for a laugh for a single earner couple, "I run a home business, I pay my wife 50k in wages. I've no revenue. So I declare income of 50k, and so does she."

    Boom, saved yourself 6.5k in income tax and you'd both qualify for that $500 a year middle income return. So 7.5k.

    I don't actually see any legal issues with it.
    I said married because I assume you would share income.

    Essentially any couple where income is shared has a massive tax advantage to a single person who isn’t sharing the tax burden. This would all be fixed with a flat tax rate on income tax and only then can you see everyone in on a equal tax income footing

    As for living costs - yes they are higher on a nominal basis but on a per person they are lower. The more working people sharing income, the lower the per person costs are - that’s why people flat together, there isn’t enough affordable 1 bedroom properties so they flat. This is off topic but with long term economic forecasts showing that 30% of the working population is expected to be single in this country, it would pay for Auckland to build 20-30sqm single apartments with shared communal facilities, thus keeping rents very affordable

  24. Post
    #24
    SirGrim wrote:
    I said married because I assume you would share income.

    Essentially any couple where income is shared has a massive tax advantage to a single person who isn’t sharing the tax burden. This would all be fixed with a flat tax rate on income tax and only then can you see everyone in on a equal tax income footing

    As for living costs - yes they are higher on a nominal basis but on a per person they are lower. The more working people sharing income, the lower the per person costs are - that’s why people flat together, there isn’t enough affordable 1 bedroom properties so they flat
    Ahahahahahahahahaha, this was all building up to a flat tax?

    Seriously?

    Flat taxes are just a method to screw over the poor and line the pockets of the wealthy.

    Yeah, **** the poors. I feel hard done by on my single earner 100k, while that couple over there is paying 7.5k total less tax on 50k each. Of course that secondary person consumes far more than 7.5k to live but they're obviously much better off and it's unfair.

    I want to be able to afford a family home to myself.

    I just realised you're probably trying to drum up support for ACT. I like ACT, but not that policy. It's vote-grabbing garbage. I saw a Facebook thread on it, all of these lower income people and business owners going on about how much better they'd be off on the lower tax rate without really thinking about what a flat tax entails and seeing the difference between a policy that would give THEM a lower tax rate, without giving EVERYONE a lower tax rate.

  25. Post
    #25
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Dehumidifiers cost money to run. And security stays on windows - well tbh, I don't open windows while I'm feeding my kids in the morning, because it's ****ing freezing out yo. I open windows before I leave if I remember, but that is seldom, I'm usually dealing with some kind of toddler inflicted catastrophe.

    KiwiTT is right, if I had a partner at home, then opening the windows would be trivial. But if I forget, then they're shut for 8 hours.
    But would she open the window, or keep them closed because it is cold out y'all and she is home to feel it. Don't fall for KiwiTT's lefty/communist logic.