Tapu Misa's constant theme is child poverty should be alleviated by higher benefits. The unfortunate family she uses to plead her case is led by a father with cancer. An unusual family but exactly the sort a state-provided safety net is there for. Could he be paid more?
Well here's a couple of ideas. If the 40,000-odd single parents looking after school-age children only and totally reliant on a benefit became at least partially self-supporting, considerable financial resources would be freed up. If benefit-dependent single parents looking after one child only (around half of DPB total) could look after the children of one or two others, releasing them to become at least partially self-supporting, again more would be available for cases of genuine need.
Tapu Misa can try laying a guilt trip on the 'wealthy', those who contribute through paying their taxes everyday. Maybe they could contribute more through charitable organisations. But it's people wringing resources wrongly out of WINZ who could really make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The unfortunate father could have taken out income protection insurance and health insurance.
Then his family will not be dependent on the state no matter what.
That he is now exposing us to a moral hazard is no reason to adopt a socialist public policy.
In many ways, this case illustrates why a transition away from state control to individual responsibility needs to be urgent, total, and not provide any other "compensating" safety nets.
But could he have afforded either or both? We live in a low wage economy partly thanks to the level of redistribution necessary to fund the overused welfare system. I am a supporter of personal health and welfare insurance plans in place of social security but we do not have them. Period.
So you would advocate no assistance for this family at all?
What about familial assistance?
What about assistance from his friends and acquaintances?
There's nothing stopping them from voluntarily helping out - except, perhaps, punitive taxation requirements already gobbled up by a greedy bureaucracy and greedier, largely ungrateful beneficiaries .. who never seem to say 'thank you' to those for the largesse provided for nothing in return ...
Anon, I have sympathy with your comments obviously. But currently taxpayers have a 'contract' of sorts with the govt. This man paid taxes for welfare cover. First we need to reform the system in regard of what is and isn't covered. Personally I don't think single parenthood should be nor self-inflicted incapacities. We can theorise all we like about how a system should work - completely private, completely public or a mix. Here I am advancing ideas for reform in the short term.
So you would advocate no assistance for this family at all?
No state assistance whatsoever.
Supply and demand: there is no demand, so there is no supply.
But currently taxpayers have a 'contract' of sorts with the govt.
Such a contract can only be change unilaterally. Richardson did it in 1990. English will do it in 2009.
We live in a low wage economy partly thanks to the level of redistribution necessary to fund the overused welfare system.
Nope. we live in a low wage economy due to the pathetic productivity of NZ workers.
"No state assistance whatsoever."
Politically unsellable.
"Supply and demand: there is no demand, so there is no supply."
There is demand but it is currently met by a government monopolising the market.
"Such a contract can only be change unilaterally. Richardson did it in 1990. English will do it in 2009."
It can be changed at any time through legislation. You have higher hopes for English than I.
"Nope. we live in a low wage economy due to the pathetic productivity of NZ workers."
You ignored my use of the word 'partly'.
This argument highlights why I left the Libertarianz. In theory your principles are correct but the application of them impossible in New Zealand as it is and has been for the last century.
Apologies/clarification. The second 'anonymous' comment was mine.
But Lindsay, you say that "in theory, your principles are correct but ..."
Surely the problems occur precisely *because* a principle is compromised. "But" is the point at which the unravelling starts.
However, you know that Libz policy with regard to dismantling welfare is transitional for reasons that include humanitarian. But it has a time limit.
As opposed to ACT, whereby the welfare policy is ongoing? I stand corrected, but I'm pretty sure that hasn't changed.
And, if that is so, your party advocates more of an 'efficient state welfare' situation, yes?
I don't believe that's possible. It is bureaucracy's nature to increase, not decrease.
I very much admire the content of your posts and, obviously, seldom disagree. But given the above, I would imagine that Libz (transitional) policy on dismantling state welfare would be more in line with your philosophy than ACT's ongoing white elephant for fear of upsetting too many.
ACT's 2005 policy reduces the scope of welfare considerably but I would go further. I don't accept the US reforms as the end point. But they have reduced the size of their problem to some degree.
But I am not convinced (and you won't like this) that there is absolutely no role for the state. I base this on what happened after Social Security was introduced here in 1938. It took decades for the abuse/ misuse to begin. The numbers were very low and steady for a long period. That was because the system and attitudes to it were morals- based. But through the spread of radical feminism, left liberalism and political emergence of tangata whenua, the rights-based mentality took a hold.
If you and I were alive in the 40s and 50s (or of an age to be politically interested) I don't think we would have been agitating about state welfare.
It remains to be seen whether state welfare can be pared back to very low levels without killing it off altogether. Paring it back is more politically feasible than killing it.
I hear what you're saying. Your reasons for the rapid rise of welfare abuse from the 70s to date, as opposed to the consistently low levels up to that time, tally with my own beliefs. No argument there.
But that society is no longer. There are still people, a lot of people, who have strong, independent values - but there are far too many who do not.
But, even if we didn't have the latter, I have a problem with two things:
1. That money is forcibly taken from me/us to fund state welfare. This is immoral.
2. That it (state welfare) is politicised and therefore subject to all the associated bullshit that comes with a centralised bureaucracy.
As previously noted: I have no problem with the concept of paring back state welfare gradually - indeed, I don't think it can be done any other way - but with an ultimate finality in mind.
Otherwise, I believe a reduction would never happen. The state bureaucracy would dig its heels in to ensure its continued existence at current or similar levels.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Cheers.
Post a Comment