If anyone hasn't noticed the climate is changing. Parents, as much as anyone, should be concerned about it. It will be tempting to try to ignore the problem. But it won't go away. It means we will have to change the way we produce energy. It also means we will need to reduce our level of energy consumption. Here's a perspective on Climate Change that you don't hear too much these days.
No Right Turn: Climate change: costs and benefits
Showing posts with label parents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parents. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Income Splitting Discussion Paper misses main point
It shouldn’t really have come as a surprise. The government’s Discussion Paper on Income Splitting couched the issue in terms of what single tax policy is best for families in New Zealand. Almost as if it was Income Splitting or everything else the government is doing.
The real question should have been “Would Income Splitting be a helpful option for parents?” You don’t have to abolish all other measures to introduce Income Splitting.
At the moment we have a variety of welfare payments, income support and Working for Families programmes in place. These cater for most low and middle income families where both parents work. However the group that is visibly overlooked at the moment are at home parents who choose to forego career development and wages or salary to invest in the next generation of New Zealand citizens. Not all of these families by any means are high or even middle income earners. Income Splitting would provide an option of paying tax as a couple rather than individually and thereby recognise the work of the at home parent.
In its recent submission Parents’ Choice ’08 set out some of its reasons for supporting Income Splitting:
Negative impact of overemployment on families: in recent years there has been a growing understanding about the longer term costs of overemployment. Today it is not uncommon for parents to be jointly working 90 hours or more per week. Such absence from the home takes its toll on families.
Large numbers of ordinary NZ families would benefit: Two parent families with children who would benefit from Income Splitting numbered 447,894 in the 2006 census.
Treasury papers have alluded to research which points to the negative impact on 0-3 year olds of having both parents working full time. “Nechyba, McEwan and Older-Aguilar (1999) briefly reviewed a range of studies using the US NLSY that consistently (but not without exception) relate early maternal employment to poorer behavioural and cognitive outcomes during early childhood for most children” http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2003/03-26/03.htm
Treasury also mentioned that there was “…some evidence suggests the effects of parental employment on adolescents may be harmful, and may be arise from reductions in parental supervision” (Lopoo 2002, Paxson and Waldfogel 1999) http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2003/03-26/03.htm
Many OECD countries provide tangible support and recognition for the work of at home parents without harming their economy. Indeed countries that usually tax couples rather than individuals (such as Ireland, Germany, and Norway) tend to be countries that also perform well in a range of social and economic performance indicators. While there may or may not be a causal link we can say that income splitting does not appear to have hurt the countries economic performance.
The real question should have been “Would Income Splitting be a helpful option for parents?” You don’t have to abolish all other measures to introduce Income Splitting.
At the moment we have a variety of welfare payments, income support and Working for Families programmes in place. These cater for most low and middle income families where both parents work. However the group that is visibly overlooked at the moment are at home parents who choose to forego career development and wages or salary to invest in the next generation of New Zealand citizens. Not all of these families by any means are high or even middle income earners. Income Splitting would provide an option of paying tax as a couple rather than individually and thereby recognise the work of the at home parent.
In its recent submission Parents’ Choice ’08 set out some of its reasons for supporting Income Splitting:
Negative impact of overemployment on families: in recent years there has been a growing understanding about the longer term costs of overemployment. Today it is not uncommon for parents to be jointly working 90 hours or more per week. Such absence from the home takes its toll on families.
Large numbers of ordinary NZ families would benefit: Two parent families with children who would benefit from Income Splitting numbered 447,894 in the 2006 census.
Treasury papers have alluded to research which points to the negative impact on 0-3 year olds of having both parents working full time. “Nechyba, McEwan and Older-Aguilar (1999) briefly reviewed a range of studies using the US NLSY that consistently (but not without exception) relate early maternal employment to poorer behavioural and cognitive outcomes during early childhood for most children” http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2003/03-26/03.htm
Treasury also mentioned that there was “…some evidence suggests the effects of parental employment on adolescents may be harmful, and may be arise from reductions in parental supervision” (Lopoo 2002, Paxson and Waldfogel 1999) http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2003/03-26/03.htm
Many OECD countries provide tangible support and recognition for the work of at home parents without harming their economy. Indeed countries that usually tax couples rather than individuals (such as Ireland, Germany, and Norway) tend to be countries that also perform well in a range of social and economic performance indicators. While there may or may not be a causal link we can say that income splitting does not appear to have hurt the countries economic performance.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
New Parents Group Wants Income Splitting
Media Statement
Saturday 9 February 2008
New Group Wants Income Splitting For Parents
A new lobby group – Parents Choice '08 – has today announced that it will campaign this election year for tax reform to allow parents to split their incomes for tax purposes thereby recognising the contribution of the "at home" parent.
"Parents want their role to be recognised by society. They are tired of being undervalued simply because they work with children at home" says Parents Choice Chairman, Roger Ellis.
"Income Splitting would allow a parent at home to share their partner's income for tax purposes. This means that a parent earning $60,000 per year could split the income with their partner so that each was taxed on $30,000. This could save the couple up to $123 per fortnight in tax" said Mr Ellis.
"We should not underestimate the importance of children bonding with parents – especially during the early years of development. Families today are being taxed without any recognition of the contributions made by at home parents. If Income Splitting were introduced it would restore some measure of value to at home parenting" said Mr Ellis.
"The pressures pushing both parents to hurriedly rejoin the workforce need to be relieved. Our labour force participation rates are already among the highest in the OECD. Better economic performance will come from higher productivity and improved social cohesion. Income splitting could help make the difference for many families. Families choosing to look after their own children at home should be free to make their own choice as to when they rejoin the workforce. Income Splitting will help them do that" said Mr Ellis.
Parents can show their support for Parents Choice by emailing: parentschoice08@gmail.com or comment via the blog at www.parentschoice08.blogspot.com
ENDS
For information:
Roger Ellis, Chairman, Parents Choice '08
ph: 021 526 264
email: parentschoice08@gmail.com
www.parentschoice08.blogspot.com
Saturday 9 February 2008
New Group Wants Income Splitting For Parents
A new lobby group – Parents Choice '08 – has today announced that it will campaign this election year for tax reform to allow parents to split their incomes for tax purposes thereby recognising the contribution of the "at home" parent.
"Parents want their role to be recognised by society. They are tired of being undervalued simply because they work with children at home" says Parents Choice Chairman, Roger Ellis.
"Income Splitting would allow a parent at home to share their partner's income for tax purposes. This means that a parent earning $60,000 per year could split the income with their partner so that each was taxed on $30,000. This could save the couple up to $123 per fortnight in tax" said Mr Ellis.
"We should not underestimate the importance of children bonding with parents – especially during the early years of development. Families today are being taxed without any recognition of the contributions made by at home parents. If Income Splitting were introduced it would restore some measure of value to at home parenting" said Mr Ellis.
"The pressures pushing both parents to hurriedly rejoin the workforce need to be relieved. Our labour force participation rates are already among the highest in the OECD. Better economic performance will come from higher productivity and improved social cohesion. Income splitting could help make the difference for many families. Families choosing to look after their own children at home should be free to make their own choice as to when they rejoin the workforce. Income Splitting will help them do that" said Mr Ellis.
Parents can show their support for Parents Choice by emailing: parentschoice08@gmail.com or comment via the blog at www.parentschoice08.blogspot.com
ENDS
For information:
Roger Ellis, Chairman, Parents Choice '08
ph: 021 526 264
email: parentschoice08@gmail.com
www.parentschoice08.blogspot.com
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Five Reasons to Support Income Splitting
Income Splitting is a policy which allows parents to split their household income so that they pay less tax overall. It means that families which choose to have one parent at home caring for their children will have that worked recognised as being socially useful.
It sends an important signal that parenting is valued.
In brief there are five key reasons to support income splitting. They are:
1. It sends a signal via tax policy that parenting is recognised as valuable. Currently many policies such as subsidisation of child care for parents in paid employment, parental leave for full time employees, and the discrimination against working parents compared to self-employed parents regarding tax treatment, all combine to slant the playing field towards getting parents out of the home and into the workforce. Parents Choice believes that policies to encourage people back to work should not be at the expense of those parents who want to spend time at home with their children - especially during the crucial early years of a child's development.
2. It empowers parents and helps strengthen families. It allows parents to choose whether they will have one parent at home full time for a number of years or whether some other work pattern suits them best. Either way parents should make these decisions without government policies pushing them both into the workplace. It should be a parents choice.
3. It builds social capital. Having a greater number of parents choosing to parent fulltime means more opportunities for voluntary and charitable organisations to benefit from having bright, capable and often highly-educated people able and willing to volunteer to work part time in the community or in charitable or religious organisations - all of which is likely to build social capital - the glue that holds society together. Prof. Robert Putnam (author of "Bowling Alone") has provided substantial evidence on the benefits of boosting social capital in a community.
4. It boosts the economy. Income splitting holds the promise of helping strengthen families, strengthen communities and boost social capital. The cost of weak families, communities and the erosion of social capital is all too apparent when one looks at the social, economic and emotional cost of family breakdown, juvenile delinquency, vandalism, gang-related activity, crime, distrust and division. If we can go to the core of the social causes of such breakdown then the economic cost savings in police, social work, court time, and broader strengthening of social capital is potentially immense. In any case most economists now agree that the real solution to better economic performance is not in higher labour rate participation or longer working hours but in higher productivity. New Zealand already has one of the highest participation rates in the OECD. The solution is in working smarter not forcing more and more parents to get into the workforce or for those already there to have to spend even more hours at the office.
5. It places the wellbeing of children at the centre of economic and social policies. Good economic and social policies need to ensure that parents and children are kept "front and centre" when designing a sound policy framework. To ignore the development stage of the next generation of human capital is foolish in the extreme. People remain our greatest asset. We need to ensure that all children get off to a good start in life - through both their home life and school life. Income splitting says that the relationship between a parent and child is very important, at least as important as that between an employer and employee, and that our laws should recognise this and allow parents to spend more time with their families.
Its time for New Zealanders to join Parents Choice and show their support for income splitting in the 2008 election year. Now is the time to show your support. Email us today: parentschoice08@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
