Trying to make reality fit the theory

Having argued that the generous income top-ups available under the Working for Families package meant that workers would have little incentive to improve their pay, the National Party is now trying to argue that those same generous top-ups mean that workers should not bother pushing for a wage-rise. Talk about trying to make reality fit the theory...

As usual their example - a teacher on $50,000 a year with two kids - is carefully chosen for maximum effect. But this is fairly high up the payscale. The average wage is only around $35,000, and the median wage - the point at which half of all wage and salary earners earn more, and half earn less - is lower than this. While workers on lower incomes still have their top-ups abated as their income rises, the effect is significantly less. And of course not every wage-earner has children.

But underneath this is a principle which the unions seem to grasp and which National doesn't: that generally speaking, in a market economy, employers should be paying for people to live. Yes, people may not be as well off from an increase as they think due to the abatement regime. But they'll be earning that money rather than getting it from the government. Isn't that something the National Party, with its constant harping on about personal responsibilitiy, "middle-class welfare", and government expenditure, should support?