The Poverty Industry
April 29th, 2008 at 6:47 am by David FarrarThe poverty industry is in the news again calling for handouts everywhere as part of their mission to get rid of poverty.
However they define poverty in such a way that if the top 50% of income earners were all made bankrupt, according to their logic there would then be no poverty in NZ as no one would then earn less than 60% of the median wage.
So called poverty measures like this come from the 1970s style socialist and even communist thinking that everyone should earn around the level of income, regardless of whether they are a brain surgeon or rubbish collector.
I certainly support policies which ensure families can afford food, power, education and healthcare. But I have no truck for those groups who think that everyone should earn the same, with minimal variation. Their focus is 100% on income redistribution and 0% on creating income.
No tag for this post.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:54 am
There’s one thing missing from their list of demands: a demand to raise the IQs of those beneficiaries who continue to have more children, smoke, drink, and take on extra debt (and those who advocate on their behalf) to at least 60% of the national median.
Now, THAT would be a challenge.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:08 am
In a rare act of television viewing, I saw the news article with various politicians yapping away about split tax scenarios to help reduce poverty. All of them were concerned that people who made money could support themselves and their families and that somehow that was an evil. It really was a shocker. NZ needs to lose the idea that people who have enough money are the bad guys, in the same way as it’s thought that beneficiares are all lazy bludgers. It’s such simpleton deadend thinking, and to hear the sterotypes shamelessly promoted by politicians that are in power should concern voting people.
And if you can’t quite put two n two together: How the hell are you going to “get ahead” or even support your family if your goals of creating wealth are actively discouraged by the government? How is NZ going to grow economically when wealth is frowned apon? How is NZ going to become a “knowledge” anything when knowledge and initiative are ingredients for creating wealth? These “rulers” want the population right under their thumb and under a glass ceiling of control. Their goal is to tax everything that creates wealth so they can redistribute it themselves. So far, none of them have shown any predisposition for the intelligent thought necessary to do that. Instead, they’ve demonstrated publicly that they are corrupt fraudsters. NZ will go nowhere while they still have influence. They must be removed from power until such time as realistic modern politicians can take their place. And that means the National line up too if they don’t start to think a little better than “Labour Lite”.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Poverty is relative in all societies. Having said that however I have no doubt that there is poverty in this country, but its root cause is not lack of material assets, it’s lack of education.
For example, looking last night at the thugs and the mother of one who are currently on trial for beating those two couples on the North Shore in January, I couldn’t imagine a more poorly educated bunch of accidents waiting to happen.
Education is the answer to independence from the state, gaining respect for yourself and thereby others, and material comfort.
Nothing will change in society until education is placed as the No. 1 priority. Current forces encouraging poverty include the mistaken philosophy that capitalism is based entirely on avarice (it’s not, it’s neutral – avarice comes from a minority of humans who are poorly educated even though some of those may be highly qualified); and the mistaken philosophy that the answer to poverty is to use the power of govt to re-distribute wealth (which is based on the diabolical lefty plan to make as many people as possible dependent on govt – pure evil in my view – and don’t tell me Clark’s govt hasn’t attempted it during the last nine years).
Humans are naturally altruistic. For some of us that natural desire is changed by bad parenting, a very small minority are born without that characteristic. That’s why education, including parental education, that unleashes that innate desire, and also gives us the tools to be successful in our modern society, is the only and total answer to this issue.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:59 am
You should have tagged this post ‘nomebait’. Any bets as to how long it’s going to take for the frothing to start?
Vote:‘…. but what about the chiiiildren!’
April 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Maybe the “Child Poverty Action Group, led by paediatricians and academics” on their huge taxpayer funded salaries can afford to pay more tax but most “middle class” people can’t. This socialist country and it’s “eats the rich” mentality is becoming an embarrassment.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I’m glad to see you have finally admitted that disparity is the natural order of things, David. It must feel pretty good to be on the right side of that divide, yes? I guess it indicates you are more worthy than all those people that earn less than you (including many of the people who post comments here).
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Your example of all rich people being made bankrupt is incorrect, although the argument about equal pay for everyone is.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:20 am
The Labour Party considers poverty to be their issue so they keep redefining it and then place people on Government assistance and threaten them with starvation if they vote National.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Disparity is indeed the natural order of things For example I will never compete in the Olympics regardless of how much training I could do.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:38 am
They actually say in the article that the 60% level is ‘$510 after tax a week for a single parent with two children or $630 a week for a couple with two children’
You made up the bullshit about ’1970s style socialist and even communist thinking that everyone should earn around the level of income’ – they say nothing of the sort.
DPF, maybe you should try living on $510 for a week just to see how it feels and if you want a real test how about also feeding a couple of children on it.
[DPF: I spent several years earning well under $510 a week. And no not while studying either. But you know by working damn hard I now earn more than that]
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:57 am
My grandmother raised 8 children on her own in Christchurch during the 1940′s.
A catholic, her husband had left her, and she was forced to go out cleaning at night to feed her children.
There was no DPB in those days.
My grandmother kept a vegetable garden, an immaculate house and her children were always well clothed
and never went hungry.
Was she poor?
Yes.
Were her children neglected and sent to school hungry.
Never!
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Duxton
“There’s one thing missing from their list of demands: a demand to raise the IQs of those beneficiaries who continue to have more children, smoke, drink, and take on extra debt (and those who advocate on their behalf) to at least 60% of the national median.
Now, THAT would be a challenge.”
How about state funded sterilisations?, those identified as high risk (i.e continuous breeders of low life scum) would be encouraged with a $10,000 incentive and a guaranteed benefit for life, we could fix the problem within one or two generations.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Rocket Boy: DPF, maybe you should try living on $510 for a week just to see how it feels and if you want a real test how about also feeding a couple of children on it.
The answer to such a problem lies not in handouts. It comes from personal responsibility and a desire to do better. New Zealand, as a nation, does much, much more for parents than most nations do. It puts the tools to teach their children about saving, to educate them and to empower them at the parent’s disposal. And yet, so few parents take advantage of all these opportunities.
It is a tired old example and I’ve used it many times in these discussions, but three generations ago my family was one of those living below the minimum wage. But each generation saved, took the necessary steps to ensure their children was educated to a higher level than they were. From a great grandfather to a grandfather who drove steam locomotives, to a father who became a mechanical engineer to myself as a software developer.
I’m using what I have at my disposal now to try and ensure my daughter has a better future than I had. And that is it in a nutshell – my ancestors weren’t waiting for a handout. They did it themselves, using the tools available to them. And whilst it took three generations and our family certainly does not qualify for “rich prick” status, I’m hoping that by the time I die my daughter will inherit at least one home, a sizeable life insurance policy and a healthy savings account. Along with being well educated, those assets should enable her to achieve even more in her life.
Too many people focus on instant gratification. “I need”. “I want”. Well shit, we don’t always get what we want. But with the right decisions now you can make sure that your family’s future is assured.
Yes, I agree, we need to ensure that nobody goes hungry or sleeps outside. But we should be encouraging them to use the tools, to go out and earn, innovate, become self aware and self assured and able to improve the future of their families.
We should not be giving them money for nothing.
democracymum: My grandmother kept a vegetable garden, an immaculate house and her children were always well clothed and never went hungry.
Your grandmother sounds like an amazing woman.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Rocket Boy – If they can’t live on that then they need to earn more money. Work two jobs. I did up til two years ago. Taking more cash from me is not the way out of proverty for them. as to income splitting that is fine for parents, but what about single people with no dependents? Or are they just there to be shorn?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Yes, yes Pascal, but DPF is actually criticising the ‘poverty industry’ when, from the article he links to, there are some pretty good suggestions (lowering taxes, extending childcare provisions etc) none of which I would call ‘hand-outs’ and some things I can actually see a National government doing.
DPF is having a rant here; with zero facts, his own version of what others call ‘poverty’ and nothing that actually ties in with the linked article. His line that ‘everyone should earn around the {same} level of income, regardless of whether they are a brain surgeon or rubbish collector’ is a complete fabrication.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Leftists and their twisted thinking patterns are the cause of the very poverty they keep whining about. Go away, (to Cuba maybe) and we’ll all be richer for your absence.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Brian Smaller – did you actually read the article that DPF links to? Has anyone here actually read the article??
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
heh we should all earn the same amopunt of money… actually the guy that dropped out of school at 15, had 3 kids and now pumps gas for a living should earn more than a doctor with no kids. its only fair!
the country will be fine!!! people will still want to work hard and earn the same as others that do nothing! honest they will
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Rocket boy
“extending childcare provisions etc” and by stealth we get more of the 1960′s radical feminist agenda wrapped up as a tool to fight poverty.
There is a simple rule, if you cannot afford to feed it then do not bloody breed it!
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Just imagine how better off NZ would be if the half million or more who have chosen to live and work overseas, those driven away by the incentive destroying political outlook of the Klark government, were still living here. People who are not afraid of work, independent of government and who have initiative (I mean they got off their arses and left didn’t they) and are an asset now to whatever country they live in.
If only NZ could throw off its obsession with socialism/ Marxism, the Maori grievance industry and the need for bigger and bigger and bigger government. Imagine how different it would be without this sad backward looking obsession with race, redistribution, equality and dependency. Its a beautiful country, but its been totally defiled by ugly power obsessed socialists promoting political ideas dreamed up by an ivory tower academic German who died more than a century ago. NZers so badly need to stop drinking the commie kool aid.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Actually big bruv, child care should be tax deductible, if you go to work and have the additional cost of putting your children into child care why shouldn’t this be tax deductible? After all you wouldn’t have the cost if you where not working. I don’t necessarily agree with state funded child care but it is better than nothing.
This would help people ‘feed them after they breed them’ which you obviously care greatly about.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
The poverty industry has a vested interest in keeping people poor. Without “poverty”they would be denied their whole reason for existence. That is why it is off limits to look at the real causes of the problem. They are supported by politicians who cultivate a voter base among the poor and so have a vested interest in maintaining poverty while pretending to do something about it.
Why can we not question the wisdom of the DPB? Why can we not ask how many of these children were born into homes with a mum and dad with at least one of them working? Why can we not suggest that it is not wise to have children until you can afford to raise them? To do so is to risk the wrath of the do gooders and assorted other reef fish who feed off the problems of others.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Rocket Boy, I read the executive summary of the report (the entire report is not freely available.) Here’s the problem:
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2008/04/media-release-cpag-at-loggerheads-with.html
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I agree that as far as a poverty line goes we should have some focus on the affordability of an appropriate bundle rather than relative poverty. I also get annoyed when I hear that we base poverty on a relationship with median income – as it implies we are measuring inequality rather than any true underlying poverty.
However, relative poverty is an important issue insofar as factors such as social cohesion are involved, indicating that it is an issue the government should take into account.
I think that the sole focus on relative poverty that we hear in the media is a result of the media simplifying the issue rather than an indication that all this government cares about is relative poverty. I think both major parties understand that a relative poverty goal isn’t the be all and end all of redistribution policy – which makes me feel more comfortable with the idea that whoever is in government we will have appropriate policies regarding poverty issues in New Zealand.
[DPF: MSD developed a pretty good measure of hardship which actually measured what people wanted but could not afford. I agree income inequality is an issue with social cohesion but lets cal it income inequality not poverty]
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am
The Aussies like the NZ Poverty Making Industry…..the numbers fleeing the madness increases with every entitlement program.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
DPF, maybe you should try living on $510 for a week just to see how it feels and if you want a real test how about also feeding a couple of children on it.
Rocket Boy, stop being a loser! I used to live on well below that figure. Instead of bitching about how unfair life was, I got off my arse, went to university, took on debt and worked after hours to fund my studies. Now Ive paid off all of my student loan and am trying to enjoy my life with my family on a higher income. Forgive me for not wanting to work my arse off so someone else can have the luxury of spending more time with their family while I miss out on mine.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Comrade Rocket
Lets get one thing perfectly clear, the “state” pays for nothing, it is the likes of you and I who pay for other peoples kids to have “free” childcare.
Childcare should be something that the parents budget for, it is about time that the people of this rapidly developing third world nation start to get used to the idea of personal responsibility.
For nine years Labour have gouged the middle class, let me tell you….. they have had enough!
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Usually charge for advice Rocket Boy.
In your case I’ll make an exception.
Get a second job.
Nights.
Weekends.
Oh….I see, you’d rather have some of the money I earn at work?
Perfectly understandable.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Pascal
Thank you for your kind comments regarding my grandmother. Much loved she died about 20 years ago.
She left behind a legacy in her children of hard work and resilience.
Every one of her 8 children worked incredibly hard (2 have gone on to become millionaires through sheer hard work and determination despite a very basic education)
I remember she rose before 6:00am every morning, throughout her entire life even when her children had left home.
The benefit culture, unfortunately robs people of their self esteem and their motivation. Incredibly sad, is that when we encourage young women to raise multiple children on a benefit, we also steal these things from the very children we are seeking to protect.
Benefits must be a hand up and not a hand out!!!
They should not be used, as they have been by this government as a tool to manipulate the masses to ensure their votes.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Rocketboy – I read it. Increasing the level of benefits only increases demand for it. There will be more beneficiaries. With no time limits people stay on benefits for long periods – like decades in the case of many DPB recipients who pump out kid after kid. Go over to Wainui, Naenae or Taita any benefit day to see the results of fifty years of what you advocate.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 10:16 am
This comment earned me “-4″ so far:
Let me explain:
The point was: However they define poverty in such a way that if the top 50% of income earners were all made bankrupt, according to their logic there would then be no poverty in NZ as no one would then earn less than 60% of the median wage.
If the top 50% of income earners were made bankrupt, then presumably this means that their income would reduce substantially, but presumably it would be > 0. However, these people would likely be earning less than the median income, and probably < 60% of the median income. The median income would also reduce. Hence, by this measure, these people would be classed as ‘in poverty’ – there would still be ‘poverty’.
That said, the measure that suggests that people earning less than 60% of the median wage are ‘in poverty’ is flawed: A better analogy is that if everyone’s income was suddenly doubled (in a non-inflationary way), because the median moves as well, the impact on ‘poverty’ would be minimal, despite all these people having much more money. If you had 6 people earning $1,000,000 a year, and 4 people earning 599,999 a year, those 4 people would, by this measure, be considered ‘living in poverty’.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am
My local Labour MP assures me there is no problem at all – everything looks fine through the tinted windows of his new chauffeur driven BMW 730 Ld limousine.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I saw one of those new limos in Wellington yesterday. They’re huge.
Vote:The People’s Party. Ha ha, funny.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Sadly, if what the Poverty Child Action Group prescribes were actually to be implemented it would make the problems of poverty in New Zealand many many times worse. Unless anti-poverty programmes are constructed to deal with the reality represented by archetypes like Macsyna King–which is very real, and represents a rapidly growing underclass–what PCAG is advocating has little more utility than serving to assuage middle class guilt. Throwing money at the problem will only exacerbate it.
Vote:And Reid, let me assure you that “education” is not the answer. Your post represents a classic illustration of the fallacy of Reductio ad Educatum–as I have described in “Education: Vanity of Vanities in the Modern Word” http://jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2008/04/this-was-their-finest-hour.html
JT
April 29th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Good on ya Farrar. Good to see ya hammering this vital point. Great contributions from several above.
Lindsay Mitchell and others point out that the higher the benefit, the greater the uptake of it and consequently the less people in the workforce. I have been saying for a long time that there should be MORE difference between being on a benefit or being on a low income, not less. The best way to do this is to eliminate tax on the lowest incomes altogether. It is a fact that low income earners in NZ have the MOST to gain by moving to Aussie. Wages are higher (because of economics, not because of unions) BUT, and this is the crucial point, LOWER income earners get to KEEP SO MUCH MORE of what they earn in Aussie.
Then there is the link between fatherless households and poverty and eventually, crime. We should be INCENTIVISING dad-and-mum families, not incentivising the opposite. The madness of the policy of the last few decades is only explicable as a deliberate plot formulated by Marxist stooges to wreck Western societies.
There is hardly any woolier thinking than the thinking that equality of incomes is attainable WITHOUT massive deprivation all round, as if the proponents of it can tell us plausibly what Castro or the Kims have been doing wrong and can tell us how THEY would achieve superior outcomes for all. But many of them explicitly prefer everybody to be slaves and starving rather than that some should have more than others, such is the power of envy.
Many of them are quite candid about the fate of opposers of the great program of equality, too. All those victims of every Commie regime were just filthy capitalists anyway, even all those subsistence-living peasants who didn’t want to collectivise (Did they know something?). So to turn these people’s ethics on themselves, I would state categorically that the world would be a so much better place if all agitators for equality were locked up as enemies of society, that to do so would be just as morally justified as THEIR plans for “capitalists” are morally UNJUSTIFIED by THEIR outcomes.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 11:24 am
my 2c…
These ‘poverty action’ groups have been crying wolf so long that I think most people (other than students and similar types) just ignore them.
Most people are well aware of the amount of poverty in their communities and it is nothing like the levels these groups scream about. Basing ‘poverty’ on a %age of average income is just plain silly. Especially when my dictionary defines it as “being without adequate food, etc…”.
When groups like this scream like this all they do is weaken their own cred.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
John Tertullian (11:09am) – good link, thanks.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
A friend of mine is starting his first business. It’s all research and development at the moment but he does enough small jobs to keep the cash coming in. He earns $1200 a month after tax! He’s not going to start a family, his plan is to become very wealthy first so that he can provide for them first. I buy him a beer when we go out as he can’t afford it but as he’s working 80+ hours a week he doesn’t get out much. He certainly doesn’t get any hand outs from the government either, full doctors costs etc but no doubt, when he’s successful, the government will want 40% of his income over $60,000. Nice.
All benefits should be targeted for the benefit of the children, not for the parents. If we are to live in a meritocracy, then the children all need to have equal opportunities and this is based around good education and good parenting.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Education is something like taking the horse to water. You can let them into education, make it free to the consumer, but you cannot make them drink. Especially when you have a system of teaching the protects the dumb-arse teachers against accountability and the gifted teachers are sneered at by the flakes who are in the teachers’ Union.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“a deliberate plot formulated by Marxist stooges to wreck Western societies. ”
Egads he has discovered our secret plan, run for the hills comrades!
(And honestly I’m not being sarcastic, not at all)
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am
And speaking of poverty.
Sony’s so appalled at the plight of starving African children he’s selling his house to provide for their need.
He’s decided it’s the moral alternative to compelling the confiscation of my money for the same purpose.
Bravo. A comrade with integrity, my gasper is flabbered.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
the BMW 730ds that the Socialists are tolling around in are the 2008 equivalent of the old Communists Commissars who used to toll around Moscow in their Zils looking out on the peasants.
Nothing changes.
Back on topic.
As others have posted its all about Education Education Education.
You can give 2 families $1000 on a Monday and by Friday one would bhave already run out of money not know where it all went and the kids would be starving
the other family would have most of the money left and would have been well fed clothed and housed.
However as other have correctly stated when you have political parties academics and others who have set themsleves up as defenders of the poor the last thing they will do is get rid of the reason for their very existence.
And so alas the poor will always be with us as has been said as long as we have the poverty industry.
Take this industry out and shoot it and then and only then can we begin to solve the problem.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“All those victims of every Commie regime were just filthy capitalists anyway,”
That’s right. Here’s a photo of one of those ‘rich pricks’ receiving the last rites just before he gets what’s coming to him ( a bullet in the head) from Castro.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_91_xCGn8MXc/RXeeqAUUEZI/AAAAAAAAAAg/DVVNCa0MFDM/s320/firing-squad-confess.gif
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
John Tertullian (11:09am)
Vote:Good link, until I got to this bit.
“Only God, through Christ’s great works on our behalf, can give the lower class a future and a hope, that will take them out of themselves to live for Another and His glory, not their own pleasures.”
April 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I know, I know, “sonic”. Anyone who has actually looked into the intellectual underpinnings of the incentivising of family breakdown, the idea that all sorts of people are victims and the rest are oppressors, etc, finds that the intellectual darlings of the left who are responsible for this stuff, Marcuse, Foucault, Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, etc etc etc, just happen to be supporters of the most death-dealing type of Marxism too, and explicitly talk about bringing about “the revolution” in a different way to Proletariat workers versus Bourgoise businesses. Then we have the consequences of family breakdown and paid idleness, in rampant crime. But there can’t possibly be any connection, oh no, anyone who thinks so is a conspiracy theorist nutter.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Education is of course an important component, but the real issue is culture. We have developed a national culture that is entirely negative in terms of improving society. We need less dependency, more independence. We need less socialists telling us what to do and more individual initiative. We need less greying of right and wrong and more morality. We need less dogma and more free thinking. We need less focus on the past and more focus on the future. Under the Klark government, in respect of all of these needs, we’re heading in the exact opposite direction to the one we should be heading in.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“anyone who thinks so is a conspiracy theorist nutter”
All the silly old prick (Sonic) can ever say… his standard response to criticism of socialism.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I agree. John seems to be anti-education and pro-indoctrination. Sounds like a very backwards step for society to take.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Sonic, the losers you bow down to have had nine years to sort these problems out but year after year the figures get worst. Surly there must be something in that tiny brain of yours that questions the sanity of their polices. For fucks sake man, all is not well with the socialist way. Dear Leader and assorted tossers have enjoyed a free ride for nine years, the shit is now hitting the fan, they should have started looking after those in “poverty” nine years ago ( i.e tax cuts ). It’s to late now mate, if you think it’s bad now you ain’t seen anything. If Liarbore are returned to power this year then the words of Mr Trotter might just ring true, there will be “blood in them streets” and it will be the blood of those in this soceity that continue to take and give back nothing in return. High on this list will be the very pricks you look up to.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
There are 23% of kids classified by this submission as being in poverty, and 77% of these live in sole parent households.. in other words we know the problem. From Lindsay’s blog we know that most socialist country (Sweden) has 80% of it’s solo mothers in the workforce compared to 50% here, and that the OECD has advised NZ to follow that sort of model.
So not only do we know the problem we also have a substantial answer to it.. and a bloody sight more beneficial and cheaper it is than just simply throwing money at the sole parent and encouraging bad personal outcomes.
Something that’s been intriguing me for a while is that we seem to have a rooted objection to a service economy for and between families, ie, boys and girls mowing lawns for pocket money, students weeding gardens for money, one mum baby sitting for others so they can go to work.
Instead we place health and safety barriers to unofficial work, a deadly serious desire to capture tax on peanuts and regulate it.
And I can remember in the early 70s the Post Master complaining that the teachers at Wairarapa College would pull down PO posters advertising work as posties.. “You are better than that” the teachers told their pupils. Of course, many pupils weren’t but it nicely showed the snobbishness we have towards some jobs and the “expectations” that were being built into those students. The end result is that the lazy and not so bright are not pushed into suitable work, whether formal or otherwise, but allowed to maintain their “dignity” on the dole, DPB or sickness benefit where most supposedly have mental problems.
JC
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
+1 on the Swedish model insofar as we encourage people on benefits into the workforce. I assume this includes dealing with marginal tax rates and abatement rates on welfare – guaranteed minimum family income anyway?
While we’re at it, +1 on the Danish education system. I hear it works really really well.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Goodness you do get all upset when I merely agree with you.
Everyone in the social sector or trying to alleviate poverty is of course part of the secret communist plot to destroy civilisation as we know it.
I’m only agreeing guys, I’ll leave it up to others to smear you as insane nutters.
xx
S
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
” If Liarbore are returned to power this year then the words of Mr Trotter might just ring true, there will be “blood in them streets”
In other words if the democratic decision of the electorate goes against you then you will resort to violence?
Hmm, what an interesting admission. Thanks Side Show Bob, that comment is a keeper.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I beleive it was Sir Apirana Ngata who stated that the welfare system would be the death of the Maori people. Welfare does not cure poverty, it entrenches it. How many multi-genarational welfare dependant families are there out there?
WHilst I in no way advocate the removal of welfare, state assistance should also come with direction and assistance to direct those people in NZ towards work (not the sickness benefit!)
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
So just to be clear ROWIWOR, you guys are totally against state interference in the lives of ordinary people, unless those people are poor in which case the state should “direct” every part of their existence?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Good on ya Farrar. Good to see ya hammering children living in lower socio-economic households. As you know the greedy bastards had it too good under Shipley, and you rightly advocated that a doubling of child poverty from 1990 to 1996 wasn’t enough, and we needed to go further.
Alas now under the Labour government child poverty is estimated to have reduced by 70% – time to get stuck into those little shits again under Key. If Key wins it could be like 1990 all over again – the country just coming into a recession, the perfect excuse to cut social services and grind those kids into the ground. BTW I’ll see you at the Hilton for some caviar and pinot gris tonight at 6pm ok?
[DPF: Is he on drugs? Either that or drinking too much]
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The CPAG make some good points, but what about using contraception?
The majority of the children cited come from families receiving WINZ benefits. Isn’t there an obligation on those receiving WINZ benefits, or Housing New Zealand accomodation/allowances to use contraception like the rest of us do?
I agree we need social welfare, but there has to be a reciprocal obligation not to take advantage of it.
Birth control has enabled women to have greater equality & WINZ should be encouraging long term beneficiaries to practice it.
Increasing benefits will ultimately lead to the whole welfare system collapsing under its own weight.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I see bob wants compulsory birth control for the poor.
Always interesting to see how the right’s rhetoric on individual liberty comes to a halt whenit’s not their liberty involved.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Sonic, you really are the master of spin. You and roger “obfuscation” nome make an effective tag team.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
” If Liarbore are returned to power this year there will be “blood in them streets”
care to point out how I’ve spun that and it is in fact a plea for tolerence and understanding.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Sonic
“I see bob wants compulsory birth control for the poor”
What a great idea, actually we do not need to go that far, we just stop people having kids they cannot afford.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
sonic,
You’re deliberately misrepresenting my point. I’m not suggesting contraception should be forced on people. But, if you want to address child poverty then surely it should be encouraged (major difference from compulsory sterilisation and coercive power by the state). CPAG don’t seem to consider family planning, even though this allows women to enjoy greater equality & get out of poverty. That’s one of the reasons there is such extensive poverty in the third world, many women simply don’t have access to contraception or are not allowed to use it for religious reasons.
I also think there is a reciprocal obligation between the state providing welfare and those who receive it. If you do get WINZ payments then you should use contraception to avoid increasing the benefits you require. That view is obviously anathema to CPAG though?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
And if they dont Bob, when does “encouragement” become compulsion
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
There you go again. Asking one question whilst implying it is something else. “blood in the streets” in a modern society is highly unlikely to mean physical violence (like smacking someone in the head with a loud hailer) but is more likely to be a metaphor for social disobedience, like not paying taxes or protesting in the street with a loud hailer. However you decided that what he was calling for was aggression, that is spin and you are very good at it. You couldn’t even respond to me pointing it out without you doing it again.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“sonic”:
“Everyone in the social sector or trying to alleviate poverty is of course part of the secret communist plot to destroy civilisation as we know it.”
Theorists like Gramsci and Marcuse actually covered all this, sonic, in the context of how to frame the debate and smear your opponents. The Social engineering and “alleviation of poverty” that YOUR type happens to be advocating DOES happen to undermine the stability of society. A Fatherlessness epidemic is just about all it takes. Incentivising vulnerable girls to have kids solo, leaving large numbers of young men irresponsible and predatory, snowballing numbers of the same, increases in crime, increased welfare burden on a proportionally decreasing number of taxpayers……..hey, there is much more than this to it, but it’s all working pretty much exactly as the intellectual philosophers who designed it meant it to.
It doesn’t NEED to be a plot in the sense of being fully co-ordinated by people in the know, all it needs is IDEAS and enough wooly-thinking people to be seduced by them. In a way, it IS being co-ordinated, from Hell, like outright Communism before it.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Sonic,
Well, we live in a liberal democracy so I don’t think that kind of coercive power would ever be allowed. ‘Encouragement’ is a wishy washy term, but my concern is the whole mindset of CPAG seems to avoid the issue of family planning. It’s as though that’s some kind of taboo – probably for the reason some people might fear that’s a short step to sterilisation. I don’t think it is. As I said above, family planning is one of the ways women in the west have been able to enjoy greater equality & for families to avoid poverty. It shouldn’t be seen as a negative thing.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
The ongoing battle here between those of us from the right and the communist/socialists such as Tane and Woger does highlight something that should be a bit of a worry to all decent kiwi’s (I exclude Woger and Tane from this group)
We have always been a nation that will help or support the under dog, when we see genuine need we are quick to help out.
However I get the feeling that middle NZ is changing and the blame for this can be laid squarely at the feet of this govt, middle NZ has had enough of being gouged on a weekly basis, they have paid far more than their fare share and to be told that they do not deserve any relief by an arrogant govt is more than they can handle.
They have sat back and seen those who do not have a single shred of personal responsibility get handouts from the tax payer and now they suspect that when (or if) tax cuts do come it there will be none (or very little) for them, they have also seen Clark ignore the pain that many are suffering, she is more interested in seeing her feminist agenda pushed through.
Middle NZ is at the stage where many are now saying “stuff the poor” and really I cannot blame them, when the likes of Sonic, Tane and Woger spout their socialist crap and tell them that they do not deserve a tax cut it only hardens their resolve against the very few genuine poor in NZ
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
But for some deep philosophy from the other end of the spectrum, try THIS:
From “The Great Divorce”, by C. S. Lewis
“….the demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: till they consent to be happy – on their own terms – no-one else shall taste joy: that THEIRS should be the final power; that hell should be able to VETO heaven……..
…….it has a grand sound to say that you’ll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or you’ll make a dog in a manger the tyrant of the universe……..
…….The action of pity will live for ever: but the passion of pity will not. The passion of pity, the pity we merely suffer, the ache that draws men to concede what should not be conceded and to flatter when they should speak truth, the pity that has cheated many a woman out of her virginity and many a statesman out of his honesty – that will die. It was used as a weapon by bad men against good ones: their weapon will be broken……
……(The action of pity) is a weapon on the other side. It leaps from the highest place to the lowest to bring healing and joy, whatever the cost to itself…….but it will not, at the cunning tears of hell, impose on good the tyranny of evil. Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured, but we will not call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice, nor make a midden of the world’s garden for the sake of those who cannot abide the smell of roses….”
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Phil – that’s beautifully put, but it’s still just bed-time reading.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
” “blood in the streets” in a modern society is highly unlikely to mean physical violence ”
I note with interest that the person who made the comment is not denying what he meant, leaving it up to you guys to try and explain how saying “if you think it’s bad now you ain’t seen anything. If Liarbore are returned to power this year then the words of Mr Trotter might just ring true, there will be “blood in them streets” and it will be the blood of those in this soceity that continue to take and give back nothing in return. High on this list will be the very pricks you look up to.
Is not a threat of violence.
Phil, you mention “Theorists like Gramsci” I’ve read quite a lot of his work, can you tell me in which work he advocates ” Incentivising vulnerable girls to have kids solo, leaving large numbers of young men irresponsible and predatory, snowballing numbers of the same, increases in crime, increased welfare burden on a proportionally decreasing number of taxpayers”
Just a chapter reference thanks, no need for page numbers.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
” If Liarbore are returned to power this year then the words of Mr Trotter might just ring true, there will be “blood in them streets”
In other words if the democratic decision of the electorate goes against you then you will resort to violence?
Sonic, I think you will find he is paraphrasing Tony Milne who was the one to originally utter that phrase.
Edit: Thought it was Tony, looks like I was wrong (sorry numnuts).
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Hmmm….perhaps the blood of taxpayers being bled for the benefit of others who claim that right.
Not sony though.
Vote:He’s an honourable exception to the usual comrade, offering his house to feed the starving children of Africa as he is.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“However they define poverty in such a way that if the top 50% of income earners were all made bankrupt,”\
I know you’re a big sci-fi and fantasy fan DPF, but let’s try to stick to the real world here hey?
“But I have no truck for those groups who think that everyone should earn the same, with minimal variation. Their focus is 100% on income redistribution and 0% on creating income.”
What organisations would those be DPF? Once again I’m afraid you’re off in fantasy land.
I want greater income redistribution, but I also recognise that the productive incentives need to be there so people are justly rewarded for their efforts, and the economy functions efficiently.
But I also recognise that too much income inequality is unjust because it stifles social mobility/creates a poverty trap (yes the truth is actually the opposite of what “welfare dependency” rhetoricians would have you believe) . So for instance social mobility is lowest in countries like Italy and the USA because of their high levels of income inequality (if you’re born into a poor family you’re likely to stay poor), where as in the social-democratic Scandinavian countries social mobility is highest (if you’re born into a poor family you’ve got a good chance of making it).
(see the graph on page 46 of the following link)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf
Also – high income inequality creates many social problems, not the least of which is high crime and imprisonment rates:
http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2007/11/link-between-imprisonment-rates-and.html
Of course DPF probably knows these things, but just doesn’t care.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“However they define poverty in such a way that if the top 50% of income earners were all made bankrupt,”\
I know you’re a big sci-fi and fantasy fan DPF, but let’s try to stick to the real world here hey?
“But I have no truck for those groups who think that everyone should earn the same, with minimal variation. Their focus is 100% on income redistribution and 0% on creating income.”
What organisations would those be DPF? Once again I’m afraid you’re off in fantasy land.
I want greater income redistribution, but I also recognise that the productive incentives need to be there so people are justly rewarded for their efforts, and the economy functions efficiently.
But I also recognise that too much income inequality is unjust because it stifles social mobility/creates a poverty trap (yes the truth is actually the opposite of what “welfare dependency” rhetoricians would have you believe) . So for instance social mobility is lowest in countries like Italy and the USA because of their high levels of income inequality (if you’re born into a poor family you’re likely to stay poor), where as in the social-democratic Scandinavian countries social mobility is highest (if you’re born into a poor family you’ve got a good chance of making it).
Also – high income inequality creates many social problems, not the least of which is high crime and imprisonment rates:
Of course DPF probably knows these things, but just doesn’t care.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
You’re so predictable Roger, and prolific to boot.
Vote:If we included all of the posts you’ve made under the other discredited idenities that you were forced to discard you’d probably be up in the mid 4000′s. Sadly you’ve achieved nothing, and hardly made a single valid point. What a waste.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“[DPF: Is he on drugs? Either that or drinking too much]”
So now you’re trying to plead drunkenness/insanity as a defense for the 1990 benefit cuts DPF? How novel.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Ooh DPF he’s just tried the “I know you are but what am I” defense. Isn’t he clever?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
All we hear from fools like Woger are excuses….”we have crime because some people earn high wages”….what a lot of shit, he refuses to admit that while his corrupt lot have been in power for nine years things have not got any better.
Face it Comrade, your way does not work, it is time to get out of the way and let people with fresh ideas do their thing.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
That’s exactly the difference. I didn’t say it wasn’t a threat but you decided it was without seeking clarification. Maybe the author is too busy to clarify or just sick of dealing with your spin. You have however decided exactly what was implied. How about high on the list of corruption charges will be Helen Clark? I think she maybe one of the “pricks” he was referring too. Is that inciting violence? If you think side show bob has threatened someone with violence, report it to the police, otherwise how about clarifying someones intent first.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Bruv:
http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2007/11/link-between-imprisonment-rates-and.html
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
” I didn’t say it wasn’t a threat”
Oh dear backtrack, backtrack.
And BTW could someone buy Alces a new record? the one he/she ahs appears to be broken!
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
” If Liarbore are returned to power this year then the words of Mr Trotter might just ring true, there will be “blood in them streets”
Sonic: We shouldn’t be putting it beyond the kiwiblog right (bricks through MP’s windows anyone?) There are about 12 right-wing blogs out there that are very scarily violent in their anti-labour rhetoric, and their number continues to grow. Another three years of Labour could be enough to push them over the edge.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Woger
Why would anybody feel they had to defend the 1990 tax cuts?, they were great and one of the things that helped start the economic recovery that you govt has mostly squandered.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Roger, it’s fantasy island, internet tough talk.
I’d not worry about it, but I’ll point it out.
I wonder how long any lefty would last on here if they used similar rhetoric?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“”we have crime because some people earn high wages”
Links aren’t working too well at the mo. Otherwise I could show you how right that statement is (in a way). Of course you could always just visit my blog. But then again you would just consider that a “discredited socialist source, with all it’s facts and data referenced and easily checked”.
Edit: Actually it’s more because some subsist on a level of income that excludes them from participating in mainstream society, rather than some being “too rich”.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
We have crime Woger because some low life scum (Labour voters) cannot be bothered working for what they want.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Bruv – that’s pretty weak. i.e. you do understand that there’s such a thing as cause and effect don’t you?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
But sony, buddy…… just trying to lift the blog stocks of a comrade (yourself) who has given up stealing other people’s money (mine) instead of using his own first.
Your “house to the kids in Africa” socialist gesture is just a first step…don’t give up now.
I thought you’d made some progress on the morality of it all? The compulsion/theft thing, I mean.
We need a “Socialists Anonymous” I reckon…..a number recovering comrades can ring any time of the day for help and support.
Vote:I’m thinking Ann Coulter would be the soothing voice needed.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
But sony, buddy…… just trying to lift the blog stocks of a comrade (yourself) who has given up stealing other people’s money (mine) instead of using his own.
Your “house to the kids in Africa” socialist gesture is just a first step…don’t give up now.
I thought you’d made some progress on the morality of it all? The compulsion/theft thing, I mean.
We need a “Socialists Anonymous” I reckon…..a number recovering comrades can ring any time of the day for help and support.
Vote:I’m thinking Ann Coulter would be the soothing voice needed.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Woger
I understand that there are plenty of people who come from less than luxurious backgrounds, I am one of those, I suspect that you have never know what that is like.
Do not lecture me about cause and effect Woger, everybody has a choice, many of my school mates took the easy and lazy way out, no doubt they were helped in their decision making by people like you telling them that there was nothing they could do to improve their lot in life and that the only way things could get better was to vote Labour and wait for the handouts.
Vote:What annoys me immensely is that these people need a lot less of the likes of you, Labour voters are conned into believing that the likes of Clark care, they do not and have proven that over the last nine years, what the so called poor need is a good dose of personal responsibility.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
big bruv Your post at 3.48pm is right on target In fact id go further and suspect that many families on lower wages especially one income even though they pay no or little tax have had a gutsful seeing others sponging off the STATE.
They will be living in the same street or area paying off a mortgage and watching others living in HC houses paying low subsidised rents.
IMHO they will be feeling very let down as they struggle to make ends meet and do the right thing whilst observing others who could should be contributing with their hands out like Oliver Twist.
They may well play a part in the collapse of the Labour vote come Election 08 as they turn on a government they see as supporting the lazy and the bludgers
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Show me where I said it wasn’t a threat sonic.
I see why your psuedonym is that of a character from an imaginary world who’s primary method of attack is spinning and when that doesn’t work he resorts to jumping. Oh dear, spin, jump, spin.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
But sony, buddy…… just trying to lift the blog stocks of a comrade (yourself) who has given up stealing other people’s money (mine) instead of using his own.
Your “house to the kids in Africa” socialist gesture is just a first step…don’t give up now.
I thought you’d made some progress on the morality of it all? The compulsion/theft thing, I mean.
We need a “Socialists Anonymous” I reckon…..a number recovering comrades can ring any time of the day for help and support.
I’m thinking Ann Coulter would be the soothing voice needed.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
bruv – that’s just more weak rhetoric. I’m getting bored.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Poor labrator
Post 1
” “blood in the streets” in a modern society is highly unlikely to mean physical violence”
Post two
“Show me where I said it wasn’t a threat”
So you never said it was a threat, just that it did not mean violence?
My nickname is from a video game character, pehars you should get a new nickname too?
After today I think Chuckles the Clown would suit.
x
S
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
How droll. This thread’s about the poverty industry. I hope you didn’t impoverish yourself last weekend when you (apparently) bought enough alcohol to get yourself into a drunken stupor?
If you’re bored and have nothing better to do, you could always apologise to Big Bruv for your Downs Syndrome “joke”.
Quoting from the referenced article:
The past decade and 23 per cent of all children – better off under Labour? Your thoughts, Phillip John?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
So you’re interesting in clarifying now but just not earlier when it didn’t suit your purpose.
I thought you would have picked up my reference to spinning and jumping means that I know you’ve named yourself after Sonic the hedgehog who is “a character from an imaginary world who’s primary method of attack is spinning and when that doesn’t work he resorts to jumping”. It seems so obvious and apt I’m surprised you chose it.
Also, you’re welcome to call me anything you like but I do think name calling is rather an embarassing past-time and reserved for those devoid of anything of value to contribute. Philu likes to call me lab-rat, not as original as chuckles the clown but the time and effort he put into, like your hug (x), is endearing.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Dave…can you fix my 3x duplicate posts.
Vote:No show at the time.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
That would be when they start regulating what can be served in school tuckshops. For example.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
POC – Your constant attempts at thread-jacking through linking to irrelevant threads is pretty tiresome and pathetic. I will however address the tiny bit of your post that was apparently on topic.
“The past decade and 23 per cent of all children – better off under Labour?”
You were apparently trying to make a point. So what was it?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome
Oh diddums – I’m just pointing out that you don’t live up to the same standards you expect from others.
Do you defend Labour’s performance on child poverty, given this:
A pretty simple question really – surprising you didn’t get it.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
POC – oh the games we play.
“Do you defend Labour’s performance on child poverty given this: Despite a dramatic decline in unemployment in the past decade, 212,000 children, or 23 per cent of all children, were in families receiving benefits last September”
Do you have a context for that statistic? It’s meaningless without a context.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Oh for goodness sake – read the article DPF’s linked to. Didn’t you see my words above: “Quoting from the referenced article”?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
POC – You don’t even try to formulate an argument. You just throw a meaningless statistic out there. There’s nothing to respond to. It’s weak.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Woger
So “getting bored” is another way of you telling me that I am right and that you have no effective counter argument?
I note that you do not refute the allegation that you do not actually know what it is like to wonder where your NEXT meal is coming from, most of us who have risen above our beginnings do know what that is like Woger and the ones who have done so detest the chardonnay socialist scum like you who are only on the Labour bandwagon for your own personal gain while feigning outrage on behalf of the mugs who vote for you.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
oh forgot to comment on this also.
DPF labels his post “The Poverty Industry” – indicating that the proponents of the child poverty action group somehow have something to personally something to gain by it.
Only the Child Poverty Action Group is “led by paediatricians and academics” – yes totally self-interested these people. God DPF can be a cynical bugger some times.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
It’s not a meaningless statistic – perhaps it’s *cough* a politically inconvenient one for you in an election year.
Simple question: do you defend Labour’s record on child poverty?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Bruv:
“I note that you do not refute the allegation that you do not actually know what it is like to wonder where your NEXT meal is coming from,”
If we hadn’t grown most of our own food at the time, i dare say this would have been the case during the 1991-1992 period. However, not all low-income families would have been so lucky.
i.e. In 1990 the National Party commissioned several nutritionists to calculate the minimum amount of money a person could afford a nutritionally adequate diet on. Then they cut that by 30%, and that’s how they decided how much to cut the unemployment benefit by. Do you see what I mean now about the nastiness of the 1990s National crew?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Would it be so hard to just put forward an on-topic point of view for once POC? You know, stick your neck out for criticism? State something you personally believe in. Surely the hatchet game that you usually play can only be so rewarding?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
You’re embarrassing yourself again.
See this:
That’s from the executive summary of CPAG’s report.
I ask again: do you defend Labour’s record on child poverty?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“Despite the better economy and significant increase in paid employment, between
2000 and 2004 the proportion of all children in severe and significant hardship
increased by a third, to 26 percent.”
POC:
It is estimated that Working for Families is due to reduce child poverty by up to 70 percent (Working for Families means that most working families earning less than $35,000 will effectively pay no tax by 2008).
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0701/S00205.htm
So while Labour has taken too long to reverse the damage that National did in the 1990s it’s a vast improvement.
You will also note that when National left power 28% of children were in low-income households, whereas in 2004 this figure stood at 23%.
Page 61 of the social report
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/economic-standard-living/index.html
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Where I think the government should go further is taking tax off all benefits. It makes no sense for the government to hand out money, then take it back in tax – it’s just needless churn. I wonder if John Key would do this if he came to power?
The government could also significantly increase the amount of money able to be made in wages without it affecting a benefit. At the moment this stands as a disincentive for solo-parents wanting to get back into the work force, and so it means more children are coming from socially disadvantaged homes (with all the social problems that are associated with this). Neither of these initiatives would cost the tax payer very much, and they would certainly improve the quality of life/opportunities for many children.
Edit: In addition to this the government should also be taking the tax off the first $10,000 earned by everyone (including families working under a total of 30 hours per week – they are ineligible for WFF). This would benefit the poor the most, but would also benefit the jet-set elite like yourself POC. Do you think this is what John Key is likely to do if he gets into power though? Not a chance.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
There was nothing nasty about the 1990 Nat’s Woger, the economic recovery you falsely claim as credit for Labours years in office was started by the Lange govt and continued by the Nat’s.
By the way, who tended the garden?, was it you or did you have members of your staff do it for you, how generous of you to grow veggies for the servants.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Roger, fantastic idea. Taking the tax of benefits is gold mate.
Vote:David this is the most far sighted comment on this blog since the day before time began. I vote for Roger as poster of the week.
You are really on to something there. But why stop at benefits? Surely by your logic the working for families payments should enjoy the same forward thinking. Let’s give them tax cuts to the value of the working for families subsidy. Thus removing the crippling stigma of being a beneficiary and removing the layer of grey shoe wearing uncivil servants that administer it.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Bruv:
“There was nothing nasty about the 1990 Nat’s Woger”
Oh yes there was – they went way, way further than they needed to. Make no mistake, they were driven by abstract ideology, not pragmatism. The Employment Contracts Act proves this – at the time there was no real world evidence supporting its purported benefits (we had one of the more flexible labour markets in the OECD according to many studies), and plenty proving that it would be unnecessarily harsh on workers.
“By the way, who tended the garden?, was it you or did you have members of your staff do it for you”
What the hell? Are you asking if we had a market garden? If so the answer is no.
Barnsley Bill:
Totally agree. Where we should have strong collective bargaining (centralised collective bargaining flattens of wage differentials between low-skilled and high-skilled workers) and lower taxes for low-income people (Australia), we have government handouts. I agree that it creates a negative culture.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I did a rather long posting on this, but in summary I think (apart from the obvious that you can’t have 100% of the people above the 60% income level!) the poverty people are heading in the wrong direction. What happened to Roger Douglas’s negative income tax? It is too hard for people to work out whether to work or go on welfare,. There is a clear link between welfare and poverty, so it is probably welfare that needs to be looked at as the root cause.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Close Bill.
What we do is tax mendicants and give massive tax relief to the working poor, who vote Labour but don’t understand how they are despised by Labour.
Those who choose work over mendicant bludging for little more money in their pockets have a dignity and purpose not seen in the welfare consumers.
They deserve maximum encouragement.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“apart from the obvious that you can’t have 100% of the people above the 60% income level!”
But you can have 100% of children living in houses that are above the 60% of equivalised median net household expenditures (not income) level. If society is to be fair it should be providing decent opportunities to all its children.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Alces – Between you and the kids born into low-income households, guess who I have more sympathy for?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
The Optimist:
“It is too hard for people to work out whether to work or go on welfare,. There is a clear link between welfare and poverty, so it is probably welfare that needs to be looked at as the root cause.”
Think you’ve got your causation around the wrong way there:
But I also recognise that too much income inequality is unjust because it stifles social mobility/creates a poverty trap (yes the truth is actually the opposite of what “welfare dependency” rhetoricians would have you believe) . So for instance social mobility is lowest in countries like Italy and the USA because of their high levels of income inequality (if you’re born into a poor family you’re likely to stay poor), where as in the social-democratic Scandinavian countries social mobility is highest (if you’re born into a poor family you’ve got a good chance of making it).
(see the graph on page 46 of the following link)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
The Optimist:
“It is too hard for people to work out whether to work or go on welfare,. There is a clear link between welfare and poverty, so it is probably welfare that needs to be looked at as the root cause.”
Think you’re a bit confused there. It’s a lack of welfare that causes poverty. Not the other way around.
But I also recognise that too much income inequality is unjust because it stifles social mobility/creates a poverty trap (yes the truth is actually the opposite of what “welfare dependency” rhetoricians would have you believe) . So for instance social mobility is lowest in countries like Italy and the USA because of their high levels of income inequality (if you’re born into a poor family you’re likely to stay poor), where as in the social-democratic Scandinavian countries social mobility is highest (if you’re born into a poor family you’ve got a good chance of making it).
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
And the link for the previous post:
(see the graph on page 46 of the following link)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
There was a query about whether you are “talking your book”, rogette.
You aren’t a mendicant bludger are you?
Surely not, unworthy thought.
There’s a rumour out there rog.
Remember the “Chapaquidik (sp?) Axiom”….tell all in full detail immediately or you’ll end up like Teddy K.
And you know what that means.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Too late for all that Roger.
Multi generational welfare is firmly established now, and the bottom is breeding faster and faster.
We can argue why we have this problem. I would argue that it is the fault of woolly headed policy made by people who have never worked themselves and you no doubt would argue that all the jobs have been exported.
We would both be right.
The problem is twofold
The jobs are not coming back and the underclass are incapable of climbing out of the state funded lifestyle.
Arguing for national wage bargaining is futile, what we need is international wage bargaining.
Basically we are screwed.
Calling for more EAT THE RICH policy is all good and well, but what happens when you have eaten them all?
YOU CANNOT PUT THE SHIT BACK IN THE DONKEY.
Vote:The underclass population bomb is ticking.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Alces:
So, your life story first, then I’ll go hey?
Barnsley:
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/the-benefits-of-statistics/
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Ah…rogette is living off the work I do.
Enough said, another irrelevant loser comrade.
Bugger….means I’m really going to have to work on tax avoidance and evasion to get this slime off my back.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Keep up the smears Alces. What else can you do when you don’t have a clue.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
What else can I do?…….
Well…….. I thought I’d work for a living, rather than jump on the back of NZ working families who can’t afford any more hands in their pockets.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I’m honestly surprised that phillipjohn dared to show his face again here. I guess the self righteous misogynist alcoholics of the labour movements have fairly thick hides.
But just to remind you. You are the commenter who thinks that the best way to insult people is to accuse them of having downs syndrome, or of being gay.
You are the person who then goes and gets drunk and comes back here to have another go in the early hours of the morning.
No shame phillipjohn. You have zero credibility as a commentator on any topic, and your attempts at bludgeoning with misquoted statistics have worn pretty thin. maybe you should try apologising for your behaviour the other night.
Nobody needs to smear you sonny, you stand waist deep in ordure of your own making.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Ok so fist we find out in this thread that there’s a pervasive link between income inequality and crime, and now look what else it causes: Who would have thought?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4502125a11.html
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
the deity formerly known as nigel6888
“Nobody needs to smear you sonny”
Why is that all you do then?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I know rog…..to you living off the money other people work to produce is your right.
rog, who claims compassion for NZ’s working poor, is happy to take their money.
The scumbag says zzzzzzzzzzz.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
truth is a perfect defence you smarmy little shit.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
You’re a barking mad member of the kiwiblog right deity – right up there with redbaiter, psycho bob, and dad4justice. Can’t be bothered.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Woger
“We need a wider social and government commitment to improving the lot of all New Zealand families and communities.”
Perhaps we do, even you must admit that Labour have made a complete fuck up of this over the last nine years so based on information YOU provided it is time for a change.
Nine years of throwing my money at the problem has not worked Woger, now I understand that you are desperate not to lose your little fiefdom but the news is all bad sonny, when there is a new govt (hopefully with a strong ACT presence) then it is time for new ideas, time to replace the failed socialist policies of this Labour govt.
The new “social and govt commitment” should start with encouraging people out to work, this should be done by work for the dole schemes and cutting back on benefits and eradication of all benefits for long term layabouts.
Vote:Savage cuts must be made in WINZ spending, just today I heard a tale that made my bloody boil, a pal of mine owns a garage, he has a customer who broke down and required repairs to the value of $800, guess who is paying that bill Woger….yep we are, good old WINZ.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Roger, nowhere in your latest cut and paste were the words “parental responsibility” mentioned.
Vote:Creating an enormous number of zombies incapable of fending for themselves is the upshot of your politics.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Well, looks like the time of night when rational debate on the thread topic finishes, and the howling of the kiwiblog right begins. My cue to leave in other words.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Woger
Why do you bother getting into a scrap with Nigel, he hammers you each and every time, run on back to the mansion and pour another glass of Chardonnay.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Well dont bother then phillipjohn. You are the one who thinks accusing people of being gay, or of having downs syndrome is a legitimate way of undermining them, not me. Try thinking about it.
You might also want to look up the definition of “smear” normally it means not tell the truth, or to associate someone with a fabrication. Do you deny that you compared people you disagree with as having downs syndrome? Do you deny that you called people you disagree with gay?
Some of us regard behaviour as redolent of character. Yours is self evident.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Pop quiz.
Who said the following?
“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
Vote:You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”
April 29th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I guess if phillipjohn is leaving now, he will return at 3am with his usual drunken protestations of homoerotic love for david farrar?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Good quote Bill. Lincoln had a way with words.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Roger Nome, can you explain how it is fair that some solo ‘professional’ mother (who obviously has no elastic in her underpants) can have a production line of children at the expense of the hardworking taxpayer?
Vote:Usually that same taxpayer has also to pay for a police, court and prison system to contend with many of the products of some solo ‘professional’ mothers after that same taxpayer has been burgled by these delinquents and had his insurance premiums increased as a result.
Please explain how this system is fair?
April 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Quite right slightly righty, and he was a tory!
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Patrick Starr,
Vote:“Usually that same taxpayer has also to pay for a police, court and prison system to contend with many of the products of some solo ‘professional’ mothers after that same taxpayer has been burgled by these delinquents and had his insurance premiums increased as a result.”
Delinquents? You mean drug crazed P addicts who think the taxpayer owes them a living?
Those same delinquents will vote Liabour and bleed on WINZ and WFF to finance the habit.
Get it right, they are a festering sore that will not go away. A leech on society.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Roger you are very active on this thread!
No I meant that welfare causes poverty, that is pretty clear. The reason is that welfare is set at a low level so as there are still a few people working to pay for the it all, and if it were too high, too many people would give up work to go on the dole.
Therefore if you are on welfare you are poor. There is nothing ‘below’ welfare, so we can’t claim that having more people on welfare will increase wealth – obviously it won’t. There is no way you can advance in terms of a career, when you are on welfare.
The opposite of poverty is wealth. The only long term way to increase wealth is for people to be more productive so they earn more. This is a really necessity for NZ at the moment. But it’s a bit tricky to do if you are on welfare.
There is a very good book about the consequences of too much welfare called ‘Life at the bottom’. However I wouldn’t recommend reading it as it will just depress you.
My full post: http://savethehumans.typepad.com/weblog/2008/04/how-much-child.html
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
If they are on drugs they are probably more likely to vote the Greens, but I disagree “they are a festering sore that will not go away” All depends on what you do to make them go away.
Vote:If you look at the stats many of the P freaks are from solo parents upbringings so what’s the real issue?
Perhaps we should completely abolish the DPB and replace it with a compulsory DP Insurance that you must take out prior to having a child, otherwise you have no ability to make future claims.
Prove your ability to raise a child prior to having one, then if your marriage/relationship fails you are an insurance claimant.
No Insurance- no income,
April 29th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I’m gone.
Vote:The mendicants are welcome to Kiwiblog.
Remember, the next carbon fine you pay……
Happy trading LSES.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:25 am
It seems I may have offended a few loonys on the left with my “blood in the streets” comment. Dear Roger was upset I was not around to defend myself, I know this will come as a shock to Roger but I was working. Even Roger must realise that he can’t sit on Kiwiblog all day posting without someone paying his bills, in other words Roger I was working for you, so please show some gratitude. I just love the indignation shown by fools like Roger over the “blood in the streets” comment. That darling of the left, Chris Trotter used this comment in one of his little socialist rants last year. It would seem the left can generate fear when the socialists hold on to power is threatened but God help it one of those child eaters on the right should utter the same words. As for what I meant. Given the level of frustration now felt amongst those of us that actually do the work in this country then trotts may well get to enjoy his prophencies. So Roger you can take what I said anyway you fucking like.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 7:35 am
side show bob, do you remember Brendon Mills – the blogger? You can read Millsy’s contribution to blood on the streets here. It’s damn funny. Of course, after reading too much of Philip John’s rantings, I’m starting to think Millsy might actually be a moderate!
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 7:47 am
How much poverty (as defined by Helens friends the UN) does NZ have? Quite a lot. Fallen on Helens watch? Nope.
Family Tax Credits worked? Nope.
So the poor and the middle classes have been fucked over by Helen.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Roger: Edit: In addition to this the government should also be taking the tax off the first $10,000 earned by everyone (including families working under a total of 30 hours per week – they are ineligible for WFF). This would benefit the poor the most, but would also benefit the jet-set elite like yourself POC. Do you think this is what John Key is likely to do if he gets into power though? Not a chance.
You should vote for ACT. As I understand from Blair they want the 15pc rate abolished, which would do a great deal for those earning less than the median wage.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Poverty in NZ is horrendously overstated. While it is true that poverty is relative within a country, true poverty cannot exist in NZ. Now the lefty trolls can howl all they like about that statement, but the fact remains that true poverty cannot exist in NZ.
Now I know that there are those who live below the breadline. I know that there are people struggling. But within each person in NZ lies the means of raisng themselves out of poverty. We have free education up to but not including tertairy level. Tertiary education is readily available and subsidised, with very generous interest free loans to assist those who wish to improve themselves.
To put it in a nutshell, in NZ we have opportunity and choice. If an individual CHOOSES to not take advantage of these OPPORTUNTIES, and then find themselves in poverty, is society to blame? An individual in NZ is more powerful than those concerned with “poverty” would have you beleive
Where you live in a society without choice, where there is no free education, no pathway out of poverty and no opportunity for growth, then you have poverty. Having done volunteer work in Africa and seen it first hand, with blind beggars on the streets of Harare, with not prospect other than a handout from those marginally less worse off than themselves, then you might understand why I am partly revulsed by those who say there is poverty in NZ.
We have too many people so reliant on the state who do not need to be. These people are taking resources from those who truly need help. WFF is just another tool to perpetuate reliance on the state. We need a government is focuses on wealth creation, not wealth re-distribution.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Thanks for that Pascal, prehaps when the right holds power again we can reopen the nut houses. There sure are plenty of worthy clients out there.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
DPF: “But I have no truck for those groups who think that everyone should earn the same, with minimal variation. Their focus is 100% on income redistribution and 0% on creating income.”
Who are those groups, then? Yes I hear a lot of lobbying for increasing the minimum wage. But when someone decries “the widening gap between rich and poor” is that the same as saying “I think everyone should earn the same, and any higher income should be redistributed”? Really?
The only place I’ve ever heard about “Income Redistribution” is in comments from readers on Kiwiblog, and usually fairly rabid comments at that…
Vote: