Govt’s hallmark income insurance scheme faces stiff political and business opposition
The Government’s hallmark scheme to insure New Zealanders against unemployment is gathering political and business opposition before a law can be drafted.
Finance Minister Grant Robertson this week said the Government would pass law by the 2023 election, enacting the Government’s proposed income insurance scheme, to be funded by employers and employees through an ACC-like levy system.
He said the Government would not have the scheme up and running until 2024 at the earliest.
But the Government faces cross-party opposition as it moves to legislate, and the political opposition was bolstered in submissions on the proposed law from some of the country’s major employers, released on Tuesday.
The outrageous Unemployment Insurance being touted isn’t just the creation of a two tiered welfare system for the middle classes to enjoy, it’s a self interested horse trading scam between the CTU and PSA to get support for the Fair Pay Agreement.
The PSA is the largest and most powerful public sector Union, the Fair Pay Agreement is a de facto universal unionism that would water down PSA influence.
Enter the Unemployment Insurance. It enables Wellington’s bureaucratic class to just tag in a 6 month State paid sojourn on top of their holidays when you want to take the next deck chair shuffling redundancy package.
This is effectively maternity leave for that second baby the Professional Managerial Class want.
It’s PSA members and white collar workers who benefit from this outrages public policy package!
The self interest dripping here masquerading as workers rights is as audacious as the Taxpayer’s Union calling itself a Union!
Unemployment Insurance doesn’t help workers on the ground floor, this is for the elites!
Hilariously Michelle Duff demands ‘where were the women’when constructing this. Oh ‘Chelle, the women in the Union’s were there, they cooked this up and as Eric Crampton points out,pregnant Woman in the Wellington Bureaucratic Class get to use this most for their pregnancies.
This is obscene middle class welfare for the Wellington Bureaucratic Class, it’s a political sop to the PSA to get the Fair Pay Agreement passed.
The bad faith Grant Robertson is pushing here is extraordinary. He argues that most people can’t access welfare when they become unemployed.
That’s true, and it’s true because WINZ are spiteful pieces of shit who make the unemployed crawl over broken glass with enormous stand downs and a pittance at the end. To avoid the poor widdle Wellington Bureaucratic Class having to go through the trauma of visiting a WINZ Office, we are going to give them a 6month taxpayer holiday they can easily manipulate for their benefit.
If only Labour cared about the actual poor the way they care about the Wellington Bureaucratic Class.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
Keith Rankin’s analysis in February is still the best I’ve read:
“The government’s latest scheme is a form of government unemployment insurance. Interestingly, both the anti-poverty groups and the neoliberal New Zealand Initiative think tank see this scheme as problematic, very much as a ‘solution looking for a problem’. In other words, its ideology. In this case it’s not capitalist ideology; it’s labourist ideology. Indeed the scheme has been cooked up with the collaboration of the CTU (Council of Trade Unions) and is fully supported by the E tū union.”
https://eveningreport.nz/2022/02/10/keith-rankin-analysis-unemployment-insurance/
Of course, the alternative is for people just to lose everything if they get laid off, or cannot work because they have cancer.
Workers can take out their own private unemployment insurance to cover being laid off, or being unable to work because of illness. They can join a union and negotiate redundancy and illness insurance with their employer. There is no reason for the state to be involved.
Where the state should very definitely be involved is to provide assurance (assurance, not insurance) for everyone, by introducing an unconditional basic income, a UBI, for every adult, regardless of whether they are fully employed, precariously underemployed, or unemployed.
TOP, The Opportunity Party, wants the state to provide a $16,500 tax-free annual income ($316 a week) to every adult, plus $45 a week to parents for each child.
TOP believes the UBI will give power and dignity to people by:
Recognising the precarious nature of modern work.
Removing the welfare trap, because people won’t lose their UBI when their earnings increase or they have a relationship.
Recognising and rewarding critical work such as childcare and voluntary work.
Enabling people to train or retrain.
The UBI would be balanced by a flat 35 per cent tax on all other income, and paid for by a countrywide tax on residential land.
private insurance is typically more expensive and less generous than this scheme. This will ensure that people are protected from poverty and homelessness and people who get cancer, or any similar malady, will ensure there living standards hold.
If you an enemy of this scheme, you are an enemy of the people and society.
Rich pricks like you have had it way too good for way too long.
Did you bother to read what Keith Rankin wrote, or do you just like calling people rich pricks and enemies of society. Here is what he says, again:
‘Nowadays, old-fashioned workers have become the cost-accounted precariat. And the remaining salariat are their bosses and managers. Unemployment insurance is a new benefit that will mainly be paid to the salariat; that is, the new beneficiary salariat. It will be largely funded by the precariat. In this respect the new social insurance levy will be like the unemployment tax that all working women and girls paid during the Great Depression, even though they did not quality for the benefits. Another analogy is the taxes paid by New Zealand working denizens in Australia; taxes that fund benefits only payable to Australian citizens. For the new scheme, many precarious levy-paying employees will not qualify for payouts; their work will not be structured in a way that allows them to qualify for benefits. And those low-paid workers who do quality will receive only a small share of the total paid-out benefits.’
The precariat will benefit from this as much as anyone else. They will be paid out a decent income if they get sick or laid off, and not just left to subsist on a benefit
The differences between the 2 major parties get greater and to me it is easier to choose . One seems intent on making life harder for any business owner while doing nothing for the poor and giving the opinion that only a over blown Wellington buracrats can run the country whether it is water housing or employment.
Business owners just want to milk the country, and it’s people for what they can get. All they care about is profit, and nothing about well being. They would close down every single hospital in the country for a tax cuts
I bet you business pays it’s worker bigger all and works them into the ground.
Most business owners these days know happy workers are better workers . It may be a dirty word to you but profit is what keeps businesses going only the government has the advantage of not needing to bother about the bottom line .
Most bosses I know are happy to pay tax if it is spent wisely .What is frustrating is when the government waste money like the millions spent on selling 3 Waters to reluctant councils and the money spent on the revamp of the health system.
You lose your case when you say anyone would want to see hospitals closed and holidays stopped it is just stupid talk.
I am retired now but any business I ran always paid top dollar and when I worker ed for a boss I was a good employer tnat expected top dollar for my effort .If I did not get it I left which was rare.
Sadly, you are blinded by bitterness and envy Millsy.
Time for a reality check.
We had a business for 21 years. Never once in that 21 years did we earn more per hour than our lowest paid staff member.
In our first 20 years in the business we would have had less than 100 days holiday although admittedly did make up for it in our last year.
All our staff had far better vehicles than us and in fact we were afraid to park our cars on the street when it was hard rubbish collection day.
In an industry rife with turnover we had the grand total of 11 staff over that 21 years many of whom remain close friends.
We were far from alone in treating our staff as our most valuable resource.
Still doesnt give you an excuse to rape and pillage New Zealanders for a quick buck, and sit by while PUBLIC services are closed down by the dozen.
When did we ever “ rape and pillage New Zealanders for a quick buck”?
We worked bloody hard for our money, paid our taxes, employed staff and I dare say gave more back to our community than you as recognised in the Queens honours.
But dream on Millsy.
By voting for National and supporting tax cuts, service cuts and the weakening of employment law.
I know you want to reduce wages and conditions for your staff and you are hanging out for a National government so they can let you do that.
And charity is no substitute for PUBLIC SERVICES. Stick your charity up your ass.
Your workers work bloody hard as well, Just because you own a business and get a medal doesnt make you better than anyone else.
Public services has been slashed in this country over the past 30 and its people like you who have benefited from it in lower taxes and the freedom to rip off your workers.
And you do what for your community?
What does it matter to you. You are the one who begrudges having to pay tax, or give your workers pay rises or even sick leave and paid holidays, and now you begrude having to pay a small levy so your workers don’t have to lose everything when they cannot work due to sickness or disability.
I bet you would impose US style health system if it meant a tax cut.
You presume a great deal Millsy.
I am retired and living on the pension.
Retirement gives me the opportunity to spend over 100 hours a month helping those less fortunate.
Take your blinkers off and recognise that there are hundreds of thousands of people like me helping our community.
As you did not answer the question ICAN only assume your answer would be “ nothing”.
A bit hypocritical of you therefore to rail at people who are part of the solution.
But you obviously oppose expanding the social safety net, or public services, so you stick your Tory charity up your arse. Tory charity didnt help Rau Williams when he was left to die like a dog when the National governement you loved so much withheld dialysis.
In my opinion this scheme is just a glorified excuse not to raise benefits and more neo liberal user pays bullshit.
I’d say that’s a fair assessment
Well put Martyn.
“He argues that most people can’t access welfare when they become unemployed.”
It’s as if Labour are not in government and they can’t do anything about that sad situation. This actually sums this government up nicely.
And we wonder why Labour are so useless?
That is correct because of the winz relationships rules which both labour and national refuse to do a damn thing about removing.
How churlish you are Millsy.
Do you seriously think that people who do not share your politics of envy should not give up time and money to make their community a better place?
If these generous people took your advice will you take their place?
I think not.
You need to get out a bit more I think.
I am sure you are a barrel of laughs at a party.
Do you want spending on social services to be reduced: YES OR NO?
Right there. Its oviously you would chop social services and replace with charity.
I will fight for our public services to the last breath. They matter more to me than some greedy business owner, like you.
Once again you are guilty of making assumptions based on your bitter and twisted world view.
As it happens I do not want to reduce expenditure on social services.
As it happens I support some form of asset tax.
As it happens I am not and have never been a greedy business owner, rather one who cared for his employees treating them with respect and knew they were my best assets.
You obviously read what you want to read. I am retired and living on a pension and not “ a greedy business owner”.
Comments are closed.