Four North Shore households talk to Simon Collins about which party offers them the most - and who will be getting their vote
KEY POINTS:
Minor parties are offering the most to many voters in tomorrow's election, even though polls show the vast majority will vote for one of the two main parties.
The Herald has calculated what each party's policies would mean for four households spanning the socio-economic scale in Auckland's marginal
seat of Northcote, where the party vote split at the last election 43 per cent for National and 39 per cent for Labour.
The Greens, United Future and the Maori Party offered the best deal for the poorest household.
Act topped the offerings for all three households sampled on above the average income, but this outcome was ambiguous in two cases because no one knows the level of premiums that people would have to pay for unemployment, health and accident insurance in return for a promised drastic cut in taxes.
SOONHUI AND TIMOTHY STERLING
Low-income working families who have done best out of Labour's Working for Families scheme proved hard to find in Northcote.
Instead, Soonhui and Timothy Sterling support themselves and their 21-month-old daughter Sophia on a student allowance, which pays just under $19,000 before tax for a student with a dependent partner and child.
Mr Sterling, 30, missed the last election because he was teaching English in Korea. He still does some part-time teaching, but his primary job is now looking after Sophia while Mrs Sterling, 28, studies nursing.
The couple, who are expecting a second child in April, rent a two-bedroom basement flat in Hillcrest for $230 a week.
They get a small accommodation allowance, which is capped at a maximum of $60 a week for students, and their Working for Families allowance for Sophia went up on October 1 to $86 a week.
After tax, Mr Sterling puts the net household income at $450 a week, leaving only $220 to live on after rent.
On such a low income, the family would gain nothing from the tax cuts proposed by either Labour or National.
They would gain $60 a week if the Greens or the Maori Party persuaded one of the major parties to extend the controversial $60 "in-work tax credit" under the Working for Families scheme to all low-income families.
The Greens also propose to cap and reduce student fees, and United Future would abolish fees altogether.
But Mr Sterling is voting for the long term and leans towards National or Act for their tough stance on crime.
"Yeah, we're going to be on student allowances for two years," he said, "but once we're working, National will be much better."
Couple: One child aged 21 months; household income $19,000.
Best off with: Greens, United Future or Maori Party.
Voting for: National or Act.
HAYWARD JOYCE AND BEV RICHARDSON
Hayward Joyce, 58, earns the biggest income in this sample ($160,000) by working overseas as a ship's master, currently for a New Zealand company running offshore oil vessels in the Gulf. He spends seven weeks at sea, then seven weeks at home in Hillcrest.
Bev Richardson, also 58, has also worked at sea as a cook but is not working at present.
Act would be best for them if they were younger, but at their age their likely premiums might more than offset Act's planned tax cuts.
They would then be best off financially with the political minnow of United Future because of its policy of "income splitting", allowing a couple with dependent children to split their income between them.
With a 16-year-old still at home, this would let this couple split Mr Joyce's $160,000 into two incomes of $80,000 each, keeping both below what would be the top tax bracket of $80,000-plus by 2011 under Labour.
The couple have traditionally voted Labour but are now leaning to NZ First.
"Labour has walked right away from working people who they used to support, and I really don't trust National," Mr Joyce said.
"That leaves us with Winston Peters. He looks after the old people. At least when we get to retirement we know he'll be there to look after us."
Couple: One child aged 16 still at home; household income $160,000.
Best off with: Act or United Future.
Voting for: NZ First.
EDWARD DELAMARE
At 29, Birkenhead architect Edward Delamare already has two investment properties which he is paying off at the rate of $2000 a month. He can afford it because he is still single, lives with his parents and earns "in the top tax bracket".
He hasn't joined KiwiSaver: "I think I could do better myself."
He would be best off with Act because it would slash income tax to 12.5 per cent up to $20,000 a year and then a flat tax of 15 per cent, abolishing all the higher tax rates which are now 21, 33 and 39 per cent.
Taxes would be largely replaced by insurance schemes for healthcare and accidents and a personal savings scheme to replace KiwiSaver and NZ Superannuation.
The savings scheme has been precisely costed at $30.80 a week from individuals, a matching $30.80 from the Government and half that ($15.40) from employers, building up lump sums which the party says could replace NZ Super by 2046.
The cost of insurance for healthcare, accidents and income maintenance in the event of sickness or unemployment has not been costed, but would almost certainly be low enough for a healthy young man to make Mr Delamare best off with Act.
He plans to vote for Act's senior coalition partner, National.
"I like their policies on the economy," he said. "I'd like to have more of an incentive to do well in business, less of a nanny state."
Single: No children; income "top tax bracket" ($70,000-plus).
Best off with: Act.
Voting for: National.
PAT AND TOM DIXON
Superannuitants Pat Dixonand husband Tom are in their early 70s, but Mr Dixon still works as an architect and the couple have income from investments on top of their NZ Super.
Mrs Dixon, a former special education teacher, estimates the household income at about $100,000.
They would be best off with Act if you simply applied Act's low tax scale and averaged out the current cost of healthcare and accident insurance across the population.
However, premiums for older people under an insurance scheme would be much higher than average.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Maori Party might be their best bet financially because of its policy of abolishing tax on the first $25,000 of annual income.
But that calculation is based on the probably unrealistic assumption that the party wouldn't need to raise taxes anywhere else to pay for its generosity for the lower incomes.
If both Act and the Maori Party were ruled out, NZ First would offer the next-best deal because it would raise the net married NZ Super rate from 66 per cent of the net average wage to 68 per cent, as well as scrapping tax on the first $5200 of income.
Despite all these blandishments, the Dixons are voting National and always have. "Old habits die hard," Mrs Dixon said. "The general economy and overseas partners are far more important than my personal situation."
Couple: No children at home; household income $100,000.
Best off with: Act, Maori Party or NZ First.
Voting for: National.
