These are good questions, so I went looking for some answers.
With the first, how does this work if the individual starts working part time? Does the payment reduce dollar for dollar, meaning anything less than full time work isn’t worthwhile?
The don’t give specific details on how the abatement process works, so I have to assume it’s the same as currently, with slightly different numbers.
For unemployment (and students), the abatement threshold is $190pw, and the rate is 65%. This means, you can earn up to $190 per week from part time work with no change in your benefit. Anything earned over that will reduce the benefit you receive by 65c for every dollar earned. This means if you earn $250 per week from work, your benefit will reduce by $39.
This is the exact same system we have now, with slightly different numbers. ($160pw threshold and 70% abatement rate).
For child support (called Family Top-Up in their plan) the current abatement threshold is $42,700 annually and the abatement rate is 27%. The Greens want to change this to $60,000 and 18%.
Basically still plenty of reason to work, even part time.
And with the rent caps, what are the exceptions? Will this make it uneconomical to renovate or improve a property? Will rental properties in areas where house prices have risen significantly be sold in favour of properties that will generate a better return?
Again I had to look at the actual policy document for details. I have to admit it is well presented and seems well thought out.
Rent caps are set at 3%. This figure is considered every year, and lowered (or I assume raised, but it doesn’t explicitly state that) based on current economic conditions.
There is also an exemption for properties that have had ‘significant improvements’ above the minimum required by legislation.
They also want to encourage more development by development bonuses for buildings that meed certain criteria (such as warmth, energy efficiency etc). At least one of these bonuses is a 33% increased height restriction on the building. I think it is to encourage more medium and high density developments in large cities.
ETA: I am less convinced by their housing policy than by the income support stuff. However, they have clearly given a lot of though to it. This article of theirs has a very thorough discussion about the problems and possible solutions to housing problems, and gives plenty of examples from around the world. Worth a read.
These are good questions, so I went looking for some answers.
This information is found in the actual policy document.
The don’t give specific details on how the abatement process works, so I have to assume it’s the same as currently, with slightly different numbers.
For unemployment (and students), the abatement threshold is $190pw, and the rate is 65%. This means, you can earn up to $190 per week from part time work with no change in your benefit. Anything earned over that will reduce the benefit you receive by 65c for every dollar earned. This means if you earn $250 per week from work, your benefit will reduce by $39.
This is the exact same system we have now, with slightly different numbers. ($160pw threshold and 70% abatement rate).
For child support (called Family Top-Up in their plan) the current abatement threshold is $42,700 annually and the abatement rate is 27%. The Greens want to change this to $60,000 and 18%.
Basically still plenty of reason to work, even part time.
Again I had to look at the actual policy document for details. I have to admit it is well presented and seems well thought out.
Rent caps are set at 3%. This figure is considered every year, and lowered (or I assume raised, but it doesn’t explicitly state that) based on current economic conditions.
There is also an exemption for properties that have had ‘significant improvements’ above the minimum required by legislation.
They also want to encourage more development by development bonuses for buildings that meed certain criteria (such as warmth, energy efficiency etc). At least one of these bonuses is a 33% increased height restriction on the building. I think it is to encourage more medium and high density developments in large cities.
ETA: I am less convinced by their housing policy than by the income support stuff. However, they have clearly given a lot of though to it. This article of theirs has a very thorough discussion about the problems and possible solutions to housing problems, and gives plenty of examples from around the world. Worth a read.
I’m begrudgingly impressed actually, their economic policy seems to be well thought out.
I wouldn’t consider voting green for other reasons, but I’ll give them this.
Thanks! I’m already over it with this election but your summary has helped detail one of the parties I was considering