NSW liberal party has proposed Kids Future Fund
Sounds like a good idea in theory that it is going to our kid's future. However, reading finer detail, the proposal is that the government will give $400 initially, then match whatever the parents/ grandparents put in extra (up to $400 per year government contribution). Therefore obviously, more wealthy families can put more in and gain more/maximum for their children whereas poorer families may struggle to max out the benefit. Now it doesn't seem to help with equality and makes it worse. Am I looking at it incorrectly? Why don't they just help with housing and education directly for all our kids?
NSW Kids Future Fund- who will benefit most?
snugglepuff on 20/03/2023 - 16:02
Last edited 20/03/2023 - 17:40
Last edited 20/03/2023 - 17:40
Poll Options
- 108Rich benefit most
- 11Equally benefitting
- 1Poor benefit most
Comments
400 bucks a year makes you Rich? my God….
If you read some of the other comments in the thread you'll be exposed to ideas such as poorer people having debt and maybe not being able to prioritise savings.
Of course this means you have to understand people have different lifestyles and circumstances (which brings with it the risk of having perspective).
Personally, I prefer to be ignorant and assume everyone's exactly like me and anyone who can't do what I do is obviously doing something wrong, of their own (bad) choices.
Better luck next time, everyone else!
Why don't they just help with housing and education directly for all our kids?
If you were in a system that benefited your kids more than other kids, why would you want to erase or limit that advantage? If you were part owner of a goose that laid golden eggs, why would you want those eggs given out for free?
The real question is if governments are elected by and meant to represent the majority of us, why is our system beholden to the minority who are wealthy. We have compulsory voting so you'd think the system would be self correcting. But at Greens current growth rate it'll be 40-50 years before they can replace the liberal party in share of representation.
I think we should make it fashionable for politicians to not own investment properties and for them to send their kids to public schools, even selective public schools would be a move in the right direction.
If you wanted politicians to not do all those things it's better to just make it mandatory. It's going to be hard to make it unfashionable to do all those rich people things.
Who knows what will become fashionable after Rupert Murdoch dies.
The reason is a lie founded by John Howard when he coined the term 'aspirational' voters.
Essentially it means voting against your own self interest on the myth if you vote for policies that benefit the rich, one day you might be rich as well and benefit.
A complete lie that ensured wealth continued to only flow upwards to the already wealthly and not down.
Greens current growth rate it'll be 40-50 years before they can replace the liberal party in share of representation.
LMAO no one with common sense votes the Greens they do not help poor people they help minorities there is a huge difference
Facts are elections are won and lost by getting the middle class to vote for you - the media has dumb people convinced the middle class is still households who earn < 100k where due to cost of living pressures the middle class is around the 100k-250k region for households now
the LNP and ALP both understand this the Greens dont there is a reason 'young' people vote greens and after people hit around 30 the Greens vote falls off a cliff as people realise life is expensive and the media reports on 'inequity' incorrectly
It’s just another north shore, middle class, private school sending, Range Rover driving, last minute appeasement clutch at straws by an out of touch corrupt bunch of arseholes.
So the people that need it the most, won’t be able to afford it, and the people who can most abuse it, will be stashing their hidden cash in there and getting the government to match their already outrageous wealth.
hmm seems like you are not happy and wont vote liberal
u not happy with 250 for looking at energy website?
how about 500 bucks for voting liberal
ok
okhow about 500 bucks for just mention liberal to a friend.
ok
ok
still not enough. if you think liberal we will send you 1000 dollars!
Not clutching at straws, clutching the pearls.
Liberals were never about looking after the future generations.
This is a drop in the ocean as to the amount of making up they need to do.They managed to disenfranchise an entire generation and now they're paying for it.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/nsw-premi…
New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet has confirmed he won’t be investing in his Kids Future Fund pledge when it comes to his own seven children.
When asked during a media conference on Thursday, the Premier said, “I won’t be taking it up, I already have accounts for my kids – every one of them”.It's better bang for buck if they made childcare free or low cost, that way the middle or lower income parents can benefit a lot more. But no, come up with a stupid scheme.
The journalist should have followed up with "If your family is entitled to it (as is every family), why won't you be taking it up? What's wrong with free money? Why would it be a bad look for you to participate?". Make him say the quiet bit out loud.
But if you don't need it then why potentially disadvantage others?
- The rich have already paid for it with their tax dollars
- The government intends the rich to be able to use it (which is why the payments aren't means-tested).
- The scheme isn't limited to a set number of people
How does any of that "disadvantage" other people if the rich participate?
@EightImmortals: Apples and oranges. The government has committed to spending on the Kids Future Fund as stated above, and they will fund every child, without means testing. Not participating so that the government "could" spend the money on something else is nonsense. They're running an election on a stated policy that they want the rich (as well as everyone else) to be able to do this.
It's like deliberately leaving deductions you're entitled to off your tax return to make sure you pay extra tax so the government "could" spend the money on something. It doesn't make sense - let the people with the money setting the budget and the rules on how the money is spent run the things. That's their job.
Pushing the "ah but are you going to morally participate" back on the individual is making the individual do the governments' policy work for them.
Because they are scrounging money that could be spent elsewhere?
Uh, see point 1 above, most of the tax money is their money. The people who are scrounging are the ones who demand other people's money… then still complain when they get it…
It's better bang for buck if they made childcare free or low cost,
How? Please show your working.
Giving away money to fix affordability is usually a bad idea because all you are doing is artificially boosting demand, which simply drives up prices and then leaves back where you started except now you have less public money to spend on other things. A good example of this is the first home owners scheme. You give first home owners $10k, then overnight prices go up by $10k because now the market suddenly has $10k more to spend.
that way the middle or lower income parents can benefit a lot more.
Give me free stuff. Now!
Several studies have shown that childcare and nursery exposure to young children yields long term benefits in later life (better mental health, improved social skills, lesser chance of criminal activity, better productivity at work), not to mention allowing primary carers (usually women) to re-enter the workforce. All of society benefits. Affordable childcare is one of the best investments governments can make for society as a whole.
- https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/childcare-re…
- https://healthland.time.com/2010/05/14/high-quality-childcar…
- https://www.bestchance.org.au/blog/young-learners-reap-long-…
Give me free stuff. Now!
It's hilarious that you're using this mocking tone to respond to suggestions of affordable/free childcare when in fact the future fund is the actual free money giveaway to richer families. Families who can afford to put away $400/yr without worries don't need such a scheme. Families who cannot afford $400/yr won't participate and so won't benefit. So it's just a case of LNP handing out money to well off families. You don't have to believe my word, just read scrimshaw's comment below: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/13521189/redir
Several studies have shown that…
You misread the question. You said it was 'better bang for buck'. Show me the economics that support the claim of better value of one scheme over the other.
So it's just a case of LNP handing out money to well off families
By 'well off' you mean the 99.9% of families that can afford $7/week? Grasping at straws much?
@1st-Amendment: https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/8/23/econo…
Means-tested targeted childcare reduces the program’s cost while still increasing labor supply and productivity, such that GDP increases by 0.3 percent in 2031. By 2051, GDP is larger than baseline by 0.1 percent.
This is a US study and an increase in GDP is listed. Not to mention non-tangibles like lower crime rate and better mental health.
Here's another US focused one: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/20…
A recent Economic Policy Forum projection shows a gain of nearly 2.3 million jobs on average, per year, for the first five years of the BBBA—including jobs directly in the child care and education sectors and among support industries, like child nutrition and public housing. In fact, 17 winners of the Nobel Prize in economics point to the supply-side nature of the plan as a benefit that would reap large dividends in years to come. Canada’s investments in child care, for example, generated 200,000 new jobs in the child care sector (plus 100,000 in related support industries), and nearly $30 billion per year in government revenue from tax dollars.
Do you have the numbers to show the economic benefits of the future fund?
By 'well off' you mean the 99.9% of families that can afford $7/week? Grasping at straws much?
LOL What's your source for the 99.9% estimate? I'm not the one grasping at straws here.
This is a US study and an increase in GDP is listed…
Still doesn't answer the question
Do you know what the words 'BETTER bang for buck' mean? Because it sounds like you don't. I'll give you a tip, it means you COMPARE two or more things and rank them based on some reliable data, you don't just say 'this one thing is good, therefore by default the other must be bad'.
Do you have the numbers to show the economic benefits of the future fund?
No, because I'm not the one claiming that it is "better bang for buck" than your fully undocumented and uncosted proposal.
What's your source for the 99.9% estimate
I estimated the bottom 1% from ABS figures, so I could be out by a little bit, but it's somewhere around the bottom 1%, which makes your definition of well-off apply to at least 99% of the population:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-workin…
Are you still sticking with this definition?
I'm not the one grasping at straws here.
When you claim that a family with more than $7/week to spend on their child's well-being in now considered "well-off" you are.
which makes your definition of well-off apply to at least 99% of the population:
So it's 99% now, not 99.9%? Even if it's 99%, why ignore the remaining 1% poors. Are they not people who deserve care like the rest of us "well off"?
you don't just say 'this one thing is good, therefore by default the other must be bad'.
When there's a limited amount of money in the budget, some ideas should be pursued in preference to others. So yes, this future fund is a stupid idea in my opinion, compared to many other schemes which deserve funding.
So it's 99% now, not 99.9%?
Reading isn't your thing is it? No wonder you struggle with life…
Reading isn't your thing is it? No wonder you struggle with life…
LOL I'm doing well for myself but thanks for your concern.
7???
Yep. He and his wife have seven kids.
They have a similar scheme in Canada called RESP
As to how that works
* You contribute money into your child’s RESP. The government will then contribute an additional 20% on the first $2,500 contributed annually, up to a maximum of $500 a year. That can add up to $7,200 over the lifetime of your RESP, per child, in grant money through the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG).
* Your earnings are all tax-deferred. When withdrawn, the earnings are taxed to the child, who may pay little to no taxes on them as a student.but as you'd expect, it drew criticism because it favours higher income families and this study also confirms that
so if their two families in NSW
family A : rich as balls, contributes $10000
family B : poor, contributes nothingfamily A has $20400
family B has $400both families share the tax burden of $10000
rich get richer, poor get poorer
so if their two families in NSW
I think you mean 'there are'?
family A : rich as balls, contributes $10000
family B : poor, contributes nothingThere is a limit of $400/year. If your child is not worth $7/week to you then you have bigger problems.
both families share the tax burden of $10000
Well the lowest incomes pay no income tax (up to $18200) so the the burden is not the same at all.
rich get richer, poor get poorer
Everyone actually gets richer, but good news doesn't sell: https://shortfall.blog/the-deep-optimism-manifesto-262f273c9…
God the correction of my there/theirs/they'res is getting old.
I am from f….ing Iceland, my English is not perfect, I get it.
I doubt someone earning $18200 per year will be able to put anything into this fund at all after their living expenses. Why should rich kids get paid by the government if their families can contribute, and poor kids get nothing from government if their parents cannot contribute to this fund?
The “poor kids” still get the first $400 every year.
They don’t get “nothing”.@Ugly: No, I'm afraid it only says MATCHED contributions after the government's initial $400. If you don't put in anything they won't contribute after the initial $400.
@Ugly: Unless it’s changed, those on family tax benefits get 200 each year without it being matched. There will be some not on those benefits but still on lower incomes who may not be able to afford to contribute.
I would benefit from this scheme for my kids and will participate if liberal win, but I’ve already voted Labor and would prefer it doesn’t go ahead for the reasons of equality people have raised.
Why should rich kids get paid by the government…
Not 'paid by the government', paid for by taxpayers. Why should anyone been given any money taken from one person under force and given to someone else. That is literally the definition of theft.
and poor kids get nothing from government if their parents cannot contribute to this fund.
If you have a child and cannot afford to spend $7/week on their future then you will always be poor regardless of what the government does to try and help.
@1st-Amendment: Yes, we as taxpayers pay taxes to the government to provide services and support to residents. The government do their job to manage the country's affairs.
Money from taxpayers goes to the government and then government distributes/PAYS these funds to initiatives and programs.
What point are you trying to make?
Umm, if people are struggling to put food on the table I can understand they might not be able to spend $7 per week on their kids future when they need money and help NOW! Maybe go volunteer in a food bank and try to understand this concept.
Umm, if people are struggling to put food on the table
Aussie Battlers on struggle street getting shafted by fat cats in the big end of town! These sorts of cartoon slogans don't help anybody…
they need money and help NOW!
Why don't you give them your money if you feel so strongly about it? They need it NOW!
@1st-Amendment: Yes, I am a taxpayer and don't want my tax money to go to the rich instead of the poor. That's why I am questioning this policy. I think the rich already have money, hence they are called rich.
It would be good to let kids have the best chance to break the poverty cycle if they are in it. They didn't choose their parent's financial situation or circumstances and deserve a chance for the best in life and their future.
Yes, I am a taxpayer and don't want my tax money to go to the rich instead of the poor.
To many people YOU are the rich person, so why don't you give these poor people your money?
I'm also a taxpayer and I want the government to steal less of my money.That's why I am questioning this policy. I think the rich already have money, hence they are called rich.
Define 'rich' in more exact terms so we know what you mean. Is $7/week the new rich? Because that is sounding quite preposterous right now.
It's easy to shout 'eat the rich, feed the poor', but in reality these cartoon slogans are ignorant.It would be good to let kids have the best chance to break the poverty cycle if they are in it.
What poverty cycle exactly? What is stopping any person from getting an education and lifting themselves up a rung or two on the ladder?
I think you've been watching too many movies or buying into the victim culture that is all the rage now. Australia is the wealthiest nation on earth. We have the highest rates of employment with the highest minimum incomes. The fact that you live here means YOU are one of the 'rich' people.
This is just yet another Liberal attempt to pump money into the housing market. Kid turns 18, goes to uni, are they going to use their $30k in their "future fund" to pay HECS upfront or put it towards a house?
No mention on the taxation on these plans either, has it been vetted by the ATO? Is it just a tax dodge for the middle class, a way back to being able to shuffle investments under the kids to dodge tax? Once they turn 18 they can keep putting money into it, might be a tax dodge for the 21st century. Otherwise little Jimmy is going to go buy a house and learn all about the tax system very quickly.
That it's not means tested and the only safety net for those on low incomes is the govt will put in $200 for those on Family Tax Benefit A each year is a kick to the teeth.
Why don't they just help with housing and education directly for all our kids
Can't buy votes with sensible policy, people have to think they are getting something for free.
then match whatever the parents/ grandparents put in extra
Parents will be able to contribute to the fund each year, with payments matched by the Government up to $400 per year" source
Thanks for pointing out, I will update my post.
Dominic Perrottet’s kids. Talk about a glaringly massive conflict of interest.
"Rich benefit most"
What? $400/year is a smidge over$1/day. I don't understand how that is out of reach for the 'not rich'
.
Whoa, something that helps out the middle class with kids. How outrageous.
I believe we are comparing rich vs poor in this one, not so much the middle. But middle is important too!
I mean you are, which is a dumb comparison in the first place. $400/year is $1.10/day/child.
Why is it a dumb comparison? I can believe some people living in poverty might actually be in debt and therefore zero money to spare. Is this a farfetched concept? Do u believe anyone could be in debt and unable to contribute? And should children suffer because if it from no choice of their own?
Why is it a dumb comparison?
Because this helps the middle class. Sorry not sorry that this isn't just another free handout to those on the lower end of the scale. There's already a range of benefits for them.
This encourages parents to put money aside for their kids to help them when they become adults.
This encourages parents to put money aside for their kids to help them when they become adults.
Yeah, but why are my tax dollars paying for them to do their parenting job etc etc. Why don't we pay them to make sure they're brushing their teeth while we're at it.
Government has no place in this. The idea a 'let the free market decide, minimal government' Liberals are toying with this sort of thing shows how desperate they are. Bread and circuses.
Government has no place in this. The idea a 'let the free market decide, minimal government' Liberals are toying with this sort of thing shows how desperate they are
Maybe they are just trying to appeal to voters who don't usually vote for them, the ones that love government involvement and "free" money.
Just a few things I’d like to know -
- what will the government invest this fund in - the portfolio?
- tax implications on the earnings - as pointed out above as well
- deets about how this will work - bank account in kids name etc. is this inspired by the infamous CBA Dollarmites program?This is a great idea and anyone who doesnt see how this can benefit young people is clearly bias or plain stupid
things that encourage people to save/invest are far better then giving handouts
- no one is saying a gift of free money to someone isn't a benefit to that person (the nuance is whether it's suitable government policy - should the government be giving money to children for no reason)
- it's literally a handout, chief
No it is saving 'match' most people do not understand how compounding returns working over the long term this actually teaches kids and parents the math and importance of compounding returns over the long term
It is a very good idea im not from NSW but i hope all states take this up
You can teach someone compounding by drawing a graph on a piece of paper.
At no stage of the education process does the government need to reach into my pocket and give my tax money to people who weren't interested in looking at the graph in the first place. "hurr durr i ain't going to do compound interest unless i get extra free cash".
Saving is a great idea in principle. I don't see why they have to do it with someone else's money.
You can teach someone compounding by drawing a graph on a piece of paper.
you can teach someone to drive on a piece of paper too but you learn best via application boss - it is a positive idea that people who want to give their kids a better future can do even if they are not 'wealthy' - id argue it is probably the best policy the LNP has come up with at a state level in 20 years
Also most people do not understand compounding returns, we have a treasurer who doesnt understand the importance of indexation….est ~50k by the age of 18 could give the young generation the confidence to invest or pay for further study that perhaps they might not of had - it gives a small amount of freedom back to young people something i feel people have forgotten is important
@Trying2SaveABuck: I agree entirely with you it's important to get financial literacy and understand the value of compound interest.
Now, why are we giving tax money to children to do this? Don't their parents have any money? If their parents wanted them to do this, wouldn't the parents have spent their money doing this? etc.
Focus on the actual things I am saying to you. This is a really simple concept.
Financial Literacy, like brushing your teeth, is an overall good that improves society - but why are we giving public money to private people to make them do it (if it's something they should be doing anyway)? This is money that's not being spent on more nurses or cancer research - it's being literally given to children. How is that a way to run a state infrastructure?
This is money that's not being spent on more nurses or cancer research - it's being literally given to children. How is that a way to run a state infrastructure?
This. issue is actually help solved by this policy….a lot of young people struggle to get though uni due to the 'extreme' cost of living issues esp in Sydney
Investing in Children is not a waste of money - the issue isnt hiring nurses it is the 'lack of them'
i know this is 'hard' for you to understand but you planet seeds for now to improve the later - this policy does that.
You might have a point in the question 'is this is best use of tax payer money to achieve said goal' that is debatable but to me there is no debate that is a good policy for a number of reasons - it is probably the best policy i have seen to encourage financial illiteracy that can benefit even lower income families.
This. issue is actually help solved by this policy….a lot of young people struggle to get though uni due to the 'extreme' cost of living issues esp in Sydney
It just seems daft if that was the stated outcome of the policy (which of course it isn't) - because paying rent and buying food for a single semester or two if you choose to study in ten years' time isn't exactly "cutting edge 2023 government policy" now, is it?
The reality is the kid will be able to spend the money (say $10,000) on whatever they want when they hit 18. You know, the age when they're thinking about schoolies week and jetskis and cars and drugs and all the fun things. And there won't be any rules to prevent them from doing that either.
But why should there be? Only half of it is our tax money, after all, and they've learnt a valuable lesson in saving along the way. (Alternately they could put that $10,000 down for a deposit on a house in Sydney, that's also a thing, right?).
It just seems daft if that was the stated outcome of the policy (which of course it isn't) - because paying rent and buying food for a single semester or two if you choose to study in ten years' time isn't exactly "cutting edge 2023 government policy" now, is it?
it seems 'daft' not to accept having 50k at the age most Aussies go to uni dont help our skills shortage.
Anyway im happy to agree to disagree
to me it is a good policy i dont think it matters as the NSW LNP probably wont be in power to implement it but it is a better policy then anything the opposition has put up
@Trying2SaveABuck: fair enough. not sure what you mean by "50k" but we can probably put that in the 'agree to disagree' thing.
you can teach someone to drive on a piece of paper too but you learn best via application boss
probably the stupidest thing I'll hear this week. I mean, it's only Tuesday but … lock it in, Eddie.
I mean, showing someone simple versus compound interest is literally a chart or a graph.
How the Christ would you teach someone to drive a car using a drawing on piece of paper?
Why couldn't you have picked something normal, teachable on paper like 'learning a foreign language' or 'how to misunderstand basic concepts and speak without thinking'?
@Trying2SaveABuck: "Here's a webpage with a dozen paragraphs of text and more than twenty pictures, most of which are animated … this is basically the same as a diagram on a piece of paper" -someone lacking basic thinking skills.
It’s all borrowed money, we all will be paying interest for years to come, and will add to inflation.
Just some votebuying. This is about as close as the Liberal party will get to 'socialism' as well, I'm guessing ("free money for children, especially the richer ones").