Hide on “child poverty”

September 23rd, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

This is at his best as he destroys the myths around “” which brings up images of kids starving in New Zealand. Rodney says in the HoS:

“Child poverty’s terrible! Kids hungry! It’s getting worse!

“270,000 poor kids. And government? Doing nothing!”

But hang on. All kids are poor. Children typically don’t own much beyond a few toys. That’s true in poor families. And it’s true of rich families.

Children must rely totally on parents and caregivers. On their own, they’re destitute.

And yet we have a report boldly titled Child Poverty. That tugs at the heartstrings and makes great newspaper copy but it’s wrong. The report should properly be titled family or household poverty.

So the “child” part of the term “child poverty” is misleading.

But even that’s misleading. The 270,000 “child poverty” figure refers to relative poverty. Your children suffer in “poverty” if your household’s net income is less than 60 per cent of your equivalent household’s median income. The cut-off income for a couple with four children is just over $1000 a week. Net.

It’s no wonder that one child in four lives in “poverty” – $1000 a week in the hand is well above any lack of comfort let alone starvation. But for the experts, that’s “poverty”.

Raising for kids on $52,000 (net) a year would be tough and challenging. But probably not what most people think of poverty. It is also reflecting that on top of that $52,000 net a year, the family will be getting tens of thousands of dollars in “free” education and healthcare for their kids.

A windfall that doubled all incomes wouldn’t budge the child “poverty” figure. There would still be 270,000 poverty-stricken children. That’s because experts define “poverty” in reference to the middle income.

Making people richer doesn’t fix relative poverty. The only fix is to narrow the spread of income, even if that makes everyone poorer. That’s why experts recommend taking even more income from families above the median income to give to those below it. The fix follows directly from defining “child poverty” as household inequality.

This is key. By the way the poverty industry has defined poverty, the only “solution” is to tax people more and hand out more welfare. It is a front for the classic socialist agenda.

If we had a great depression which saw the top 50% of families suffer a 20% drop in income, and the bottom 50% suffer a 10% drop in income – the poverty industry would claim that fewer families are now in poverty! Seriously.

In these times of huge global economic uncertainty, the focus needs to be on economic growth, not increasing tax and welfare.

News reports now link the poverty report to children turning up to school hungry. But even the gloomiest estimates don’t have 270,000 hungry kids.

Labour leader David Shearer quoted a 2002 Ministry of Health survey to say 83,000 children aged 5 to 14 “sometimes or often went to school without breakfast”. That’s well short of the 270,000 “living in poverty”.

But even the 83,000 figure is exaggerated. The survey found the equivalent of 83,000 kids in the previous week “not” or “sometimes not” eating or drinking at home before school but 76,000 “usually” or “sometimes” eating or drinking on the way to school. Presumably, they are many of the kids who didn’t eat at home.

Data we have not seen in other media reports.

The survey found that the older the child the more likely they were not to eat at home and the more likely they were to eat on the way to school. Also, girls were more than twice as likely as boys not to eat at home. The sex and age differences suggest forces other than poverty at work.

Further, although children from poorer households were more likely not to eat at home before school, they were also more likely to drink Coke and eat chips and be fatter.

Poverty can’t be the cause. A bowl of porridge costs 10 cents. The most nutritious food on the planet is liver. It costs 70c a serve. The second most nutritious is an egg: 50c.

I have nourishing bone broth for lunch. The marrow bones for a good brew cost $10. That’s 50c a meal. Good nutritious food doesn’t cost much. It certainly doesn’t cost much compared to a Coke, a bag of chips or a burger.

The lack of breakfast is not caused by a lack of money. It’s caused by a lack of care. That lack of care can’t be fixed by giving parents more money. Handing parents more money doesn’t make them care more.

Porridge is meant to be one of the best breakfasts you can give your kid.

Tags: ,

131 Responses to “Hide on “child poverty””

  1. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    The crazy thing is that everyone knows what it costs to feed a kid breakfast. The left just willfully ignore it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rg (214 comments) says:

    Everyone loves Rodney Hide now, it is a shame more National voters did not realise the truth and the logic espoused by the ACT Party. We might even have a prosperous country now instead of what we now have thanks to Labour and National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    That lack of care can’t be fixed by giving parents more money. Handing parents more money doesn’t make them care more.

    It may even make them care less, especially if it becomes generational. It’s a good article but a line like that, even though it’s the truth, is not really the point in the whole left-right political argument about “the poor”.

    Poor people used to be the reason that lefties got out of bed in the morning. There were elections to be won and vast, government systems to be implemented on behalf of the poor, especially the working poor, from which more than the a few left-wing politicians sprang. Whatever other problems unions and “free” stuff from government might create, they helped lift wages and living conditions – for a decade or two. But all those approaches seem to have run their course.

    Nowadays it’s simply a cold-eyed, cynical exercise in gaining votes and electoral power. Once in power the left have found there’s not much they can do, and in many cases there’s not much they want to do, since they’ve supposedly taken care of the problem with government institutions. If somebody points out that the problem is still there or has even got worse, that simply becomes a lever for raising taxes on rich people. That does not solve the problem either, but it does fulfill the deepest beliefs of the left that it’s our “unequal” society that’s the real problem (to be remembered the next time a “moderate centre-letist” explains that they’re not influenced by Marxist theory)

    The poor are just another weapon at hand in attacking that issue, the left don’t really give a damn about them at all. In fact, in that fight, the more poor people there are the more entrenched the left can be in power. If people start increasing real earnings they’ll move into higher tax brackets and start bitching and moaning about it – and who needs that.

    Keep them dependent on government and you’ve got their votes for life.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    “In these times of huge global economic uncertainty, the focus needs to be on economic growth, not increasing tax and welfare.”

    Some’s finally got it. Pass the message on liarbor lite. Like that’ll ever happen…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    The crazy thing is that everyone knows what it costs to feed a kid breakfast

    Less than a packet of smokes?

    rg

    Really? I think it’s a shame the yellow canary waited until after he left Parliament before he articulated these messages. As for the logic espoused by the ACT party, I’m still waiting to hear what it was. Something about perks I recall, followed by the amusing interlude of the canary camouflage that carried a serious message, followed by an unamusing interlude in which Rodney demonstrated that he couldn’t make sound decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Azreal (15 comments) says:

    I have been waiting for someone to point out that NZ’s “Child Poverty” statistics are relative – give every kid $100,000/year and there will still be around 270,000 below the “poverty line” for the lefties to moan about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. rg (214 comments) says:

    thedavincimode “I think it’s a shame the yellow canary waited until after he left Parliament before he articulated these messages. ”

    Rodney Hide hasn’t changed what he is saying, the difference is that now he is not ACT Party leader people like you listen to him. That is the trouble with bias, it blinds and deafens you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    **Excellent** post, Tom Hunter! Tom for PM! :)
    You’re spot-on with everything that you say there, and in particular –
    “Keep them dependent on government and you’ve got their votes for life.”
    Oh, how well Labour know that – that’s for sure. The so-called “poor” are vote-fodder for them – nothing else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    @thedavincimode & @rg: Rodney and the ACT party did articulate all these points whilst in parliament, I received all the press releases as someone on their mailing list, I read all the books that the various MPs wrote. They all talked about this stuff. The media had no interest in picking it up. Whether that’s because the MPs weren’t good enough to make it compelling, or because the media had no interest in portraying ACT as anything other than a far right reactionary party it’s hard to say for sure. But I certainly have my suspicions.

    On median income and poverty, we can do some interesting statistical analysis here. If we assume income follows a standard distribution (I suspect it doesn’t, but it’s probably an OK assumption for these purposes), and we assume the median income is around $50K, then we can calculate what the standard deviation would need to be in order to make sure that less than 1% of families live in “poverty” where poverty is defined as less than 60% of the median income.

    Rodney talked about a family of 4 children, let’s assume $60K is about median for a family of 2 kids. 60% of a median income of $60K is $36K. So pretty simple maths – what standard deviation do we need to have across our population as a whole for the cutoff of 1% to be $36K. 1% is a bit over 6 standard deviations. So $24K divided by 6 gives about $4K per standard deviation.

    Interestingly, this tells us what we need the upside to be as well. So less than 1% of families would be on more than $84K. We’d be a very equal society. And probably a much poorer one – if we arrange our taxation system such that people above $84K suffer punishing taxes (so we can distribute their income to people below $60K) then you’ve got to figure that people wouldn’t be very interested in working hard.

    That’s the reality of defining poverty in relative terms – the only way to achieve reductions in poverty is to reduce incomes at the top. Or to have a very very skewed distribution where bottom half of the curve is squished and the top half very stretched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    ‘rg (93) Says:
    September 23rd, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    Everyone loves Rodney Hide now’

    I don’t know which ‘everyone’ you are speaking for, but I do like his Princess Di moment as the self described ‘people’s politician.’ It has a touching note of loneliness to it, something like a desperate 16 year old asking his mate with cool excitement what the blind date he has arranged for him looks like, only to be given the answer that she has a ‘lovely personality.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    Two adults and four kids on $1,000 a week must be very tough; Anyone that thinks it isn’t is deluding themselves.

    Not impossible, but difficult and requiring constant skills and focus to get by.

    I’m as willing as anyone to conclude that we have parents that aren’t up to the job (re M Laws in today’s SST)

    But, surely everyone can see that kids going to school hungry and failing educationally (and then educationally, then socially, then criminally) is just perpetuating a feedback loop of failure.

    Let’s not pretend there isn’t a problem, did you see the Campbell Live lunchbox example last week? The problem is self -evident.

    It’s real and it needs fixing; only the community and non-profit sector can do it I think. Some businesses do a lot it has to be said, Mainfreight sponsors a low decile South Auckland school. Other organisations should follow their lead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dog_eat_dog (781 comments) says:

    What about “If you’re on $52k a year, then try to avoid getting yourself into a situation where you don’t have six mouths to feed”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    David Farrar is at his most disgusting when we see him – unlected courtier to the National party, childless himself – doing all he can minimise the hungry tummies of thousands of children across our land. He may quote approving the sneering of Rodney Hide, curl his own lip at the udeserving poor, but who gives a fuck what David Farrar thinks is the facts? Until he he gets the balls to actually run for parliament on a “let the kiddies eat cake” platform, or to get on the bully pulpit and try and persuade voters he knows what is best for poverty he doesn’t suffer from and children and he hasn’t got, no one should pay this clown to the court of Key any attention whatsoever. Anyone who thinks it is better to cheerlead the kicking of the whimpering child that feel his role of eunech to the sublime porte of the National government come under threat has no moral authority whatsoever.

    [DPF: 50 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    doing all he can minimise the hungry tummies of thousands of children across our land.

    Anyone who thinks it is better to cheerlead the kicking of the whimpering child

    Clap ….. clap …… clap

    I knew there’d be one sooner or later. Feel the white heat of his outrage! Were fishboys writing more elegant and deft we’d probably be able to see the glistening tears on his cheeks.

    But in reality he was probably just chuckling softly to himself as he played the age-old I’m Left-Wing and I really, really care about you poor people

    Until after the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    What a nasty piece of shit you are smelly fish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Porridge is meant to be one of the best breakfasts you can give your kid.

    ah so its true then. I’m just a big kid all grown up.Still love the porridge on a cold morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    Oh fish_boy, your parodies are priceless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Also noodles and rice are cheap.

    Anyway Rodney Hide is absolutely correct in his criticism of poverty experts. A more robust definition of poverty is rigorously derived here. It fits the data better.

    Income and Poverty in a Developing Economy

    The authors have criticized the previous accepted definition of poverty by experts since they’re inconsistent (because of its arbitrariness). The definition should be data-driven (ie, empirical laws or regularities derived from data) rather than arbitrarily defining poverty line which is susceptible to manipulation by distortions to the income distribution around that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    The real problem is that many of these so called “poor kids” should never have been born in the first place. If you can’t afford em, don’t have em.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Two adults and four kids on $1,000 a week must be very tough; Anyone that thinks it isn’t is deluding themselves.

    Not impossible, but difficult and requiring constant skills and focus to get by.

    My wife and I have done this for quite some time, and sometimes on as low as 45k per year.

    The only thing you have to “focus on” is feeding your kids and taking raising a family seriously.

    We have enough to take the kids on several holidays per year, sports trips, and most other things ‘normal’ families do. We don’t smoke and we don’t abuse alcohol, which goes a long way toward paying for a tent, the family car, fishing licenses, digital cameras (I have several) you name it.

    We don’t live in a fancy house, and we don’t take the kids overseas on holiday, so quite frankly, by living in modest accommodation with a tiny mortgage we have released money for the important things in life.
    In fact, I would go as far to say we are actually better off than many families that technically have more money.

    I don’t feel poor one iota, though our income is almost out of the ‘poverty’ line at present.

    If a family of our size can’t live well on $1000 per week money is definitely not the cause of their problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. artemisia (242 comments) says:

    Alan Johnstone – re Campbell Live lunchboxes. No the problem was not self evident as the item was only part of the story. First, the kids at the high decile school were asked who had lunch money. Those at the other school weren’t asked. Secondly, the following day the reporter talked to kids outside the dairy close to the second school. There were a constant stream of them. All had money – one kid had $20 though said it was birthday money. Most of the kids asked had eaten breakfast at home. You could see what the kids were walking out with – chips, coke and similar.

    OK maybe the problem is in fact self evident. But poverty might not have much to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    THERE IS NO FUCKING “CHILD POVERTY” IN NEW ZEALAND!

    Sorry for yelling, but it just doesn’t seem to get through to some people…
    Just because our solo mums are sometimes a bit short of cash after a big taxpayer funded session on the Pokie Machines, while chuffing back smokes and swilling Cody’s Bourbon and Cola, does not mean that New Zealand is afflicted by “Child Poverty”!
    I suggest Fish Boy and co travel through Africa sometime- It might be a real eye-opener as to how cushy New Zealand’s alleged “poor” have it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nostradamus (3,326 comments) says:

    Fish_boy:

    Feeling brave behind that keyboard, are we?

    Do you remember this comment?

    fish_boy (124) Says:
    May 20th, 2012 at 11:25 am

    If Hide wants to keep his gig with the HoS he had better sort out his prose; he is a rubbish writer who doesn’t appear to be able to construct a decent paragraph.

    How about this one?

    fish_boy (124) Says:
    September 13th, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    When it comes to Paula Bennett, i think it is time the media stopped feeding the troll. Lord, she could do with a bit of a diet.

    Since you clearly rate yourself as a better writer than Rodney Hide, and a better person than Paula Bennett, how about you tell us about your solutions to child poverty? I won’t hold my breath waiting for a constructive contribution from you that doesn’t involve drive-by smears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    What I like about the definition of child poverty used is that every time a rich person comes to live in NZ, we could declare how many children that would push into child poverty. I’m sure PaulL could extend his maths above to let us know how many children will drop into poverty with the move of James Cameron to live here. We could estimate his income in the 10s of millions a year.

    How many children did Shane Jones push into poverty by giving Bill Liu his citizenship here?

    To stop child poverty growing we really should get rid of all immigration where any immigrant has the potential to earn over the median income, we can’t afford more kids going into poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Well said long knives. There’s not really even any,poor in New Zealand. You would have to work very very hard at being poor.

    One of the most despicable organisations is the Child Poverty Action Group http://www.cpag.org.nz/

    Run out of Auckland university, well funded and supported by a network of far left organisations like the nz Human Rights Network and Minto’s global peace and justice alliance, they are responsible of highly publicising this 270k figure.

    Yet these pressure groups all have charities commission status, often receive taxpayer funded grants and the so called centre right parties do nothing, despite letting Sensible Sentencing Trust loose its charitable status because they are a “pressure group”. Ask your national mps why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    Hey fish_boy come and visit me in the Philippines, you will then have some idea of what real fucking poverty is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    PaulL: 1% is a bit over 6 standard deviations.

    You lost me here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter, thor42 – Keep them dependent on government and you’ve got their votes for life.

    Do beneficiaries usually vote? Or do many of them care about politics as much as they care about feeding their children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    While left wing institutions and charities, often massively funded by the taxpayer are unchecked stopping the juggernaut to the third world is impossible.

    See Jack5’s post on general debate,for more examples of businesses and pressure groups operating as charities

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    And the well paid massed ranks of the welfare state stand and hesitate at the front door of the family home.

    With this display of ‘ambition’ directly in front of those whom they need to be helping – then it is no fucken wonder that there is an income gap!

    Poor parents have simply been less ambitious than others :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Chiz, sorry, might not have been clear.

    There are 3% of all observations that lie more than 6 std deviations away from the mean. Half of those would be at the top, half at the bottom. So 1.5% of all observations lie more than 6 std deviations below the mean. (And yes, I’m mingling mean and median, and assuming a normal distribution where that assumption has biggest impact on outliers, not the centre).

    To put it another way, on your standard bell curve, in order to draw a line that has only 1.5% of people below it, then you need to draw that line 6 std deviations below the mean. Given my other assumptions that made this not so accurate, I rounded that to 1% (rounding against my favour as it were).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Sofia#

    “…Keep them dependent on government and you’ve got their votes for life….”

    Thanks to the likes of WFF, the problem now is that those who work for an income are now outvoted by those who vote for a full or part income.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    Do beneficiaries usually vote? Or do many of them care about politics as much as they care about feeding their children?

    The answer to the former is that they care and they vote when the likes of fishboy turn up on the doorstep offering a free ride to the polling booth and the news that if National wins their benefits will be eliminated.

    Besides that, I’m not talking just about beneficiaries. It could be companies reliant on handouts from the likes of Jim Anderton, or changes to rules and regulations affecting them, or middle-class people hoping their Superannuation will be there when they need it.

    The further such dependencies on government can be extended throughout the community, deepened, and strengthened, the better for the Left. What did you think WFF was about? And it has worked in that National has not had the guts to end it and replace it with neutral-effect tax code. For the Left that’s a Mission Accomplished moment. Endless future twiddling on rebate rates and caps await – all of it dependent on keeping those nice Left-Wingers in power. People like ‘fishboy’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    fish_boy, what did that rant actually say, other than you don’t like DPF, and he doesn’t care about hungry children?

    Assuming that’s what it does say:
    1. You don’t like DPF. Not sure why we’d be interested, nor why you’d come and comment here.

    2. He doesn’t care about hungry children. Not true. He doesn’t believe that people living on 60% of the median income is a cause of hungry children. Therefore he doesn’t agree with the traditional leftie assumption that more income transfer is a solution to this problem. The reality is that whilst a benefit is hard to live on, it’s not supposed to be easy. And someone who isn’t working during the day should have a lot of time to stretch that money further. The issue here is _how_ these people are spending their money, not how much of it they have. Redistributing more income (recognising that reduces the overall wealth of NZ) only makes sense if it’s actually going to help with the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    He doesn’t care about hungry children. Not true.

    It’s very genuine of you to engage with fishboy but you need to realise two things about this “debate”

    First, explaining is losing. The effect would be the same if fishboy had called DPF or you a racist. The objective is not to enter into a debate about poor people – such as how many there really are, what poverty in NZ really means, what they’re really going through, or how to fix things. The point is to win political power by shaming and guilting out people until they vote for those nice, compassionate lefties – and poor people are the current weapon to hand for the NZ left.

    Second, you don’t actually think fishboy cares about poor people do you? You’re willing to grant him that much good faith? You might as well extend the same attitude to the likes of iPrent, Irish Bill, or Colonial Viper over at The Standard. But you already know what incredibly rotten human beings these people are from numerous other encounters over the years on numerous issues. They care about poor people in the same way Stalin cared about Polish Nationalism: as long as it keeps them fighting against the Nazis they’re useful tools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Those who are Married are richer!

    Strengthen the Marriage act.

    Thanks to ‘no-faults divorce’ when something seems optional then people concentrate on the negatives – charting a self fullfilling phropecy to getting divorced.

    The kids suffer the most – low employment, low self respect & assurance, lower education, health and wealth. Higher amounts of drugs, alcohol and transiant sexual relationships.

    Most young males in NZ prisons and other statistics are the sons of single mums and divorced women – those who have spent very little time, if any at all, with their natural father.

    No NZ male has a dungeon where he ‘keeps’ his wife, infact, in most NZ Marriages it is the woman who is in charge of the finances, bill paying, shopping and purchasing of major items.

    Those major items mostly consist of furnishings and appliances in open planned kitchens and dining rooms – the family areas.

    The NZ Police are allowed to restrain, arrest and charge any NZ male who is Married for breaking the law. This does carry a public stigma.

    There is no reason either crimminal or civil, why the Marriage Act shouldn’t be strengthened for the benefit of the children who come from those who CHOOSE to be Married.

    Marriage is a nest and has always been about the children and their development. Only an immature twit would disagree. – Like DPF…Key….and the rest of the left. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Come on let’s be serious here – who actually thinks porridge is the best breakfast? I can bet DPF has a good serving of bacon and eggs with sausages and OJ with seconds. Then after that a cup of vanilla latte with soy milk and maybe some cakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chuck Bird (4,892 comments) says:

    “Since you clearly rate yourself as a better writer than Rodney Hide, and a better person than Paula Bennett, how about you tell us about your solutions to child poverty? I won’t hold my breath waiting for a constructive contribution from you that doesn’t involve drive-by smears.”

    How about fish_boy get some backbone and tell us his full real name. It is easy to attack people while hiding behind a pseudonym.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    PaulL:There are 3% of all observations that lie more than 6 std deviations away from the mean. Half of those would be at the top, half at the bottom. So 1.5% of all observations lie more than 6 std deviations below the mean.

    You should probably look at the graphs on the wikipedia link you provided. To get 1% you are looking at roughly 2.4 standard deviations below the mean, rather than 6. Six standard deviations is less than 1 in a million. I’m guessing that you are rounding 2.4 to 3 then adding 3 on one side with 3 on the other side to get 6?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Tom Barker (143 comments) says:

    “Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.” (Herman Melville, novelist and poet)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Tom he was talking about poor people.

    Bring him here with the welfare state, so he can watch his children suffer, taking out loans for uni, not being able to afford houses, having to wait till their mid 30s to start a family, both parents having to work, losing all their assets to people on the basis of their indigeneity…

    All so some people can get paid to do nothing, start having babies at 16, get a pay rise by having another baby, go to uni for free, giving them cheap accommodation, first world education and healthcare for nothing….

    I’m sure,he’d whistle a different tune.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed

    Mt Albert Winning Candidate: SHEARER, David (LAB) Majority: 10,021

    Sorry darling, what was that you were saying? I couldn’t hear the children crying, what with the clinking of all these glasses of Felton Road

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    Do people at least accept that there are hungry kids (let’s leave the cause for now) ? Also that this is a cause (not only one) in their educational failures. Also that this failure leads directly to economic failure which leads to social breakdown, high crime and worst of all to crap parents who will perpetuate the cycle?

    Forget solutions just now, can we at least accept there is a problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Inky_the_Red (760 comments) says:

    Harriet, statistically speaking the prison population has a higher proportions of Christians and Muslim that in the general population. So evidence suggest we could tackle crime by getting reducing the numbers of Christians and Muslim in our communities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    So to sum up the child poverty industry is just an even more PC reincarnation of the oxymoronic “Workers Unemployed Rights” organisation with the same sole aim of getting beneficiaries paid more money.

    The long term aim is to continue building the social dysfunction that the benefit system is the most efficient producer of the world over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    @ Alan Johnstone. No. Or should I say Nooooooo.
    This in response to the call to caaaare. Which I don’t and I won’t cos it will not make one fucking jot of difference.
    Socialism kills. Be wery afwaid.

    I have porridge for breakfast every day. So do my kids. This is the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Alan Johnstone (136) Says:
    September 23rd, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    Do people at least accept that there are hungry kids (let’s leave the cause for now) ?

    Yes a small number but even that number is massively inflated by self serving politicians activists and charities all vying for,kudos and funding.

    Also that this is a cause (not only one) in their educational failures.

    Perhaps 1% of the few genuine cases but not the main cause of educational failure.

    Also that this failure leads directly to economic failure which leads to social breakdown, high crime and worst of all to crap parents who will perpetuate the cycle?

    Disagree. The main causes are very well set out by the other,commentators – read their lips- societal breakdown, welfare, alcohol, drug and poke dependence, lack,of disciplinary powers etc. very little to do with food or even poverty.

    Did you know: the longest you can keep the little poopsies,for a detention at many schools is 10 minutes?
    Did you know: Auckland truant officers take the little waggers out to the mall for a cup of coffee?

    Forget solutions just now, can we at least accept there is a problem?

    Now if you accept the problems i outlined feel free to offer solutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Porrwidge with banana, porridge w maple syrup, brown sugar and milk. Etc et al.
    Also: Walnuts. Best garnishment ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. DJP6-25 (1,387 comments) says:

    tom hunter 12:21. You nailed it as usual.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    No suggestions forthcoming….

    I don’t know why these people get so upset. They’ve won. It’s not like a few bloggers can stop the starlight express to the bottom of the,OECD . Leighton, laws, no amount of informed debate can do it. Remember chris carter on newstalk zb. Same issues decades ago. Nothing changes except the scenery for the lead dogs, and the inevitability of 3rd world status. Democratica republica aotearoa

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Oh forgot I eat pwidge for breakfast. Very good and all I can afford trying to stop my kids student loans esceeding 100k while they sit next to long term unemployed, solo parents, eeeeoooo beneficiaries and rich kids whose parents can hide their incomes, all being paid to go to uni. Fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Eisenhower (137 comments) says:

    “Do people at least accept that there are hungry kids (let’s leave the cause for now?”

    Of course. Kids usually wake up in the morning hungry. Then they get fed or feed themselves, or they choose not to eat. Not feeding them or having the resources available is a crime and those responsible should be catapulted into the sun. There is no excuse for not feeding your kids. Its the first fuckin thing you spend money on. Necessities of life anyone? You go without comforts and even your own nourishment first. This whole argument on feeding kids is one of abuse, nothing more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    chiz: you’re right. I used the table under “Chebyshev’s inequality”, but should have read more closely the graphs. Between 2 and 3 standard deviations.

    Which actually doesn’t change the numbers at all – so we now have a standard deviation being approximately $10K in order to have less than 1% below $36K. It therefore follows that we would have the same out the other side – less than 1% above $84K.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. duggledog (1,558 comments) says:

    Viking2: what I do is put a couple of good handfuls of sultanas into some water in a pot overnight, then in the morning they are all fat and juicy, in go the oats, with brown sugar my kids love it! (In winter) Also I dice some granny smith. Sacrilege but who cares.

    I am currently busy educating my kids, who are old enough to know now, about the world around them. You could call it brainwashing but when I was a boy we didn’t have an entire education system and media telling me bullshit

    I am pointing out to them, just quietly, now and then, those people who have clearly made poor decisions and fucked their lives up. Just so they know the difference between the fool and the genuinely unfortunate (Fish_boy doesn’t see any difference. Bet he/she has private health insurance and a large inheritance or something. They always do.)

    Shunda Barunda I think you and me are the same person

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    It is now two weeks in a row the Perkbuster has put the boot into the working class.

    People should stand up to the ‘Buster in every way they know how.

    270,000 hungry children is a national shame that has to fixed immediately. Children need three healthy meals a day to learn, not Hide putting the boot into them.

    Did the ‘Buster ever give back that taxpayer money he stole from that overseas trip? What about Bill English? Has he paid back that housing allowance?

    I can’t believe English had the nerve to say Karori was not his family home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Ham, any evidence for 270,000 hungry children? I don’t think any of the statistics say that. Nice red herring at the end there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    It’s all settled then. There is no poverty in NZ and everyone eats porridge.
    One noticeable characteristic of this conversation is that there seem to be none, or few, experiencing the life the porridge eaters have decided isn’t poverty, but I’m sure they appreciate the advice. There’s something ‘rich’ about the apparent wealthy telling the poor they are not poor and just need some simple things on their menu like porridge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Publicly funded and very well organised far left political organisations are the new elite in the establishment. The gatekeepers who govt and,business’s must cross with silver in return for freedom to operate.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tgYbFjmtCAU

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    PaulL

    http://www.occ.org.nz/publications/child_poverty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Here’s some advice from a poor working class boy..this is what I tell my kids .. If you can’t afford to raise children don’t bloody breed. HTH

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Kevin – that could be good advice for adults, but is unfair to children already living in poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    I think not having babies is very good advice for children, given that yet again nz tops the OECD in kiddies having babies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    A gambler, a drinker, a womaniser, a fat bastard, a druggo and several unemployed people were given a pay rise.

    Nothing changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Ham: that link says that 270,000 children live in poverty, using the definition of poverty as being 60% of median income or less (i.e. as Rodney points out, $52K per annum for a family with 4 children). It doesn’t say that all of those children are hungry, and indeed I’d be very surprised if they were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    If you want a good laugh http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cro08DU4omk

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    PaulL – I guess your technicalities mean everything is OK, at least on Planet Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    There was a different formula quoted on one news tonight – half the median wage which worked out around $26,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. MH (759 comments) says:

    I wonder if this Hide chap has thought about going into politics? Why can’t other”existing MP’s” tell the truth….oh yeah,that’s why they are in politics,thank God for Banksy,he’ll tell us how it is.
    Not one of these bludgers (with the poor children) are prepared to go on TV for a 3 month study to see how they live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    I wish I could find the news clip where the solo mother of one said “well I’m certainly not going to let being on a benefit stop me having more children”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Better still Ham, lots of amusing reading on how they come to 60% as being the “right” measure. Things like:

    The use of 60 percent of annual median household income on a BHC basis is consistent with much international practice, especially the European Union, although UNICEF reports on child poverty rates at 40 percent, 50 percent and 60 percent. The 60 percent threshold, BHC, was also validated in New Zealand by research undertaken as part of the New Zealand Poverty Measurement Project in the early 1990s. The OECD uses 50 percent of median equivalent disposable household income. In New Zealand, however, the relatively small sample size and thus the numbers in household categories of particular interest who fall below that standard mean that the New Zealand results for sub-sections of the population are not statistically reliable (see Perry, 2012). Accordingly, there is little option but to use a 60 percent threshold. For the reasons outlined above, the fixed-line income measure should be calculated on both a BHC and AHC basis.

    I think this says that the generally accepted measure is 50% but it’s too hard so we’re using 60% instead.

    From eyeballing the graphs they provide it looks like 60% has about 26% living in poverty, 50% has about 17% living in poverty. Seems important to me which it is, it removes about a third of the total “living in poverty”.

    They also include measures of material wellbeing, and suggest that those children who answer no to at least 6 of these are materially poverty stricken. This sounds like a useful measure, they believe on this measure 12% of the population are poverty stricken in a material well-being sense. Here are the list of things they check along with the % of people reporting they have an enforced limitation. Not clear whether the % is children or whole population who don’t have:
    – Phone. <1%
    – Washing machine 1%
    – 2 pairs of shoes in good condition 5%
    – Ability to keep main rooms adequately warm 7%
    – Suitable clothes for important or special occasions 7%
    – Home computer 7%
    – Contents insurance 12%
    – Presents for family/friends on special occasions 6%
    – Space for family to stay the night 7%
    – Family/friends over for meal at least once every few months 5%
    – Visit hairdresser at least once every 3 months 12%
    – Holiday away from home at least once a year 24%
    – Night out for entertainment or socialising at least once a fortnight 18%
    – Overseas holiday once every 3 years 39%
    – Not picked up a prescription 4%
    – Stayed in bed to keep warm 7%
    – Postponed a visit to the doctor 11%
    – Gone without or cut back on fresh fruit and vege 10%
    – Continued wearing worn out clothes 18%
    – Spend less on hobbies or other special interests than you would like 21%
    – Do without or cut back on trips to the shops or other local places 15%
    – Put off buying new clothes as long as possible 30%
    – Bought cheaper cuts of meat or less meat than you would like 27%
    – Put up with feeling cold 10%

    The data doesn't quite all correlate, in that some seem to be data points from related studies. But you'd have to be concerned, when I was a kid we definitely:
    – didn't keep all our main rooms warm (we were told to rug up)
    – visit the hairdresser (Mum did the hair)
    – Mum and Dad weren't out once a fortnight – not with kids
    – We didn't then go for overseas holidays at all, even today I know a lot of people who have never left NZ
    – Surely most people have postponed visits to the doctor or dentist to save money
    – Surely most people have stayed in bed to keep warm on the weekend at least
    – Surely most people wear some clothes long after they're worn out in order to save money
    – Hell I'd like fillet steak most nights, but we often do with chuck steak in a casserole

    In short, I'm not convinced that ticking 6 of these boxes makes you poverty stricken. Certainly people in third world countries would be surprised at our definitions.

    Oh, and Ham, pointing out that 270,000 children living in households on less than 60% of the median income is not the same as 270,000 children going hungry is not a technicality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. questlove (242 comments) says:

    I hardly think that the uninformed opinion of Rodney Hide “destroys” anything. Let alone a report put together by experts on poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    PaulL – Mickey Mouse statistics on Planet Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    At least we can thank the left for liberal abortion laws. Otherwise the problem would be much worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    PaulL

    I think we’re not supposed to be third world, if you didn’t notice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    @Ham. Statistics from the links you provided. Did you not read the documents? Seems like you should if you’re using them to support your position.

    @Nostalgia-NZ. No, we’re not supposed to be third world. But people seem to be thinking that our poverty statistics make us third world. I’m pretty sure that not visiting the hairdresser isn’t quite dropping us down into third world status. But perhaps you disagree?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    PaulL – How many people live in poverty on Planet Key?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. big bruv (13,906 comments) says:

    If Rodney had made this much sense when he was still in the house he would have been fantastic. Instead he was silenced and played by Key with the baubles of office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Ham: How many people live in poverty in NZ? What is your definition of poverty?

    Sorry, I don’t live on planet key, where-ever that may be, so I cannot answer your inane question. Although clearly you are suggesting that there is some sort of delusion going on when people point out that your use of statistics is blatantly inaccurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Just answer the question – How many children live in poverty on Planet Key?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Ham: you are an idiot if you cannot read and comprehend my previous comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    questlove said…

    experts on poverty

    Those experts you refereed to, are simply cartoonists. They’ve never seen or known what real poverty is. I have seen it first hand back in my village in the island. Some of my relatives in South Auckland whom have come to NZ to find a better life (in which your group of experts have grouped in the poverty category) are better off here (as they think they are, even living on a minimum wage) compared to their former living conditions back at the village. At least those struggled relatives of mine are able to buy a kilo of brisket meat from any South Auckland Mad Butcher shop to make stew or curry, something they couldn’t afford back in the village. They think they’re lucky that they’re able to afford that cheap meat in NZ, even they live on a minimum wage.

    There’s nothing to be an expert on, about the subject of poverty. What the experts are proposing is a feel good social engineering report and that’s it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Cartoonists ah? That’s a new one.

    Can anyone answer my question? How many children in poverty on Planet Key?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    PaulL

    I disagree with comparisons that are endlessly used to seek definitions, ones that most often here are uninformed.

    Poverty was a big issue at the last election. I recall calls for cross party talks on the matter, instead we see Hide and other lap dogs arguing definitions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Good old Hide, kicking the dog while it’s down.

    Nothing like depriving poor children some food.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    If he deprives most of the poor kids I see around Naenae of one happy meal he will be doing both them and us a bloody favour! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. big bruv (13,906 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    At the risk of repeating something that I am sure has been said before but Rodney is not depriving these so called poor kids of anything.

    The people depriving them of food are their low life parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Keep beating the drum big bruv, attacking people who you don’t know and whose circumstances you don’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    They know when KFC is offering to supersize their staple diet for free N-NZ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    It takes a sick man to attack poor children. Very sick indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Ham, if I assume by “planet Key” you mean the real world (implying that you’re living on some other planet – which I could easily believe) then I would be OK with the wikipedia definition of poverty:

    Poverty is the pronounced deprivation of well being. It is the inability to satisfy one’s basic needs because one lacks income to buy services or from lack of access to services.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

    I also agree with their distinction between absolute poverty and relative poverty, and their note that relative poverty is effectively a measure of income inequality. Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than $1.25 per day on a PPP basis, and moderate poverty as $2-$5 per day. In the USA it is defined as $15 per day per person, or about $22,000 per annum for a 4 person family.

    Wikipedia also assert that 1.29 billion people live in absolute poverty as at 2008. 400 million of them in India, 173 million of them in China. Sub-saharan Africa has the highest proportion of the population living in poverty, at around 47%. I would agree with this as a measure of the number of people living in poverty on my planet.

    My personal belief is that China is doing a good job of lifting people out of poverty, and that without the trade barriers and attempts to impose mistaken standards on China, they’d do better. Their political system will eventually hold them back, but their population is a hell of a lot better off than they were 20 years ago. I’ve visited China only once, so relatively shallow impressions of life in China.

    India is not doing such a good job in lifting people out of poverty, although my experience in visiting is that many of the very poor people are also quite happy, which is an interesting observation. Another interesting observation is that their median household income is quite low, so measuring relative poverty in India may tell you that the proportion of their population that is living in relative poverty is not dissimilar to ours. I suspect their population would be much happier living in relative poverty in NZ than in India. The key issues in India are the quality of their democracy and the level of corruption. Some of that is just the nature of being a very large country – it is my observation that massive countries are very hard to govern. Some of it is a result of institutions and behaviours handed down from the Raj (both pre and post British rule).

    Sub-saharan Africa is an institutions story, and one of war. In short their institutions are extractive and oppressive, and there are no incentives to invest in bettering yourself as you’ll almost certainly lose it to one elite or another. That is definitely not the case in NZ, and we should consider ourselves lucky and thank our forbears for creating an environment that is so democratic, and also for instilling in us the values necessary to retain things that way. Many of those values are antithical to those on the left, which makes me wonder what understanding they have of our way of life. In short, there are many on the left that want to tear down the very individualism that makes us successful.

    In NZ, everyone is entitled to a benefit if they cannot or do not work. I am not aware of any significant slice of the population whom is denied sustenance by the government. That benefit is relatively generous by global standards and by first world standards. I believe you’re not arguing that there are people who don’t get a benefit and therefore have to beg in the streets.

    As the benefit is our backstop, and everyone is entitled to it, the question then is whether it is enough. If it is enough that we don’t consider someone living on a benefit to be living in poverty, and we agree that anyone who is earning an income is wealthier than someone on a benefit, then nobody in NZ is living in poverty.

    So, the question is whether the NZ benefit is sufficient. At it’s most basic level the NZ benefit provides:
    $170 per week for a single living away from home, under 25 years of age
    $205 per week for a single over 25 years of age
    $340 per week for a couple
    $295 per week for a sole parent

    For a sole parent with 2 children, one at school and one not (but in preschool), living in PN and with $200 per week of rent, with no savings or assets, the government would provide the DPB, Accommodation Supplement, Childcare Subsidy, OSCAR Subsidy, and Temporary Additional Support (according to https://services.workandincome.govt.nz/COSAnon/ieg/Screening.do).

    This is all needs based, but some indications are:
    – Accommodation supplement – for someone in PN with $200 a week rent, $73 per week
    – Childcare subsidy – $4 per hour for childcare. Although why someone on the DPB would need childcare I don’t know – should be targeted at someone in work
    – DPB – $295 per week net ($333 gross)
    – OSCAR – same as childcare subsidy, but allows for in school kids during holidays
    – Temporary support for up to 13 weeks

    So, we’re looking around $370 net per week plus support for temporary and one-time costs for a 3 person household. That’s above the US definition of absolute poverty, and I think is sufficient that you’re not living in poverty. Do you disagree?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    How will I cope with going from $2000 a week to whatever the pension is in a couple of years though Paul L? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Nothing like depriving poor children some food.

    Please provide more details. Exactly who deprived who of exactly which food?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Johnboy – if you’re relying on the pension for your survival in old age, you better either hope that your children really love you, that you have decent savings (unlikely for most in NZ), or that we bring in euthanasia before you turn into a vegetable in a home. :-)

    But seriously, the pension is higher than the unemployment benefit, $345 per week for a single living alone. That is enough to live on, it’s not poverty stricken. I doubt you could afford an overseas holiday every 3 years though. Not sure it’s the job of everyone else in NZ to pay for that if you didn’t save enough yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. big bruv (13,906 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    How much of the responsibility do you lay at the feet of the feral parents if there are hungry kids in the house?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    I am already a vegetable sheep Paul L. :)

    We tend to take our holidays at home! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=vegetable+sheep&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=I89eUI_fLayiiAfEpICQBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQsAQ&biw=1142&bih=598

    :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Surely one of you can answer my simple question – How many children live in poverty on Planet Key?

    PaulL – The question wasn’t how many people in the world live in poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Ah, and I think you have some land too Johnboy. With a few animals around for the table, plus a decent vege garden, and a mortgage free block of land, you’d easily get by on $345 a week. Your outgoings would only be petrol and fixing or replacing machinery. If you did a few cash jobs here and there you’d have no worries – there’s always people looking for a solid bloke with a bit of experience to do a few odd jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Surely one of you can answer my simple question – How many children live in poverty on Planet Key?

    Please be more specific about the location of “Planet Key”. It’s not recognised by any authorities on planets. However I feel you are actually drunk, so I’m not hopeful for a useful answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Sorry Ham, I told you your question was poorly framed, and you chose not to reframe. Planet Key is this planet, you’re the one on a different planet. 1.29 billion people on this planet are in poverty. Approximately 65% of those are children in my assessment.

    In NZ, very few children are in poverty. The benefit system provides enough to live on, anyone on a benefit is not in poverty. Those in work have more income than those on a benefit, they’re also not in poverty. That leaves only those not on a benefit – which is largely those who choose not to receive a benefit, most of them for mental health or substance abuse reasons. Those people are probably in poverty, but there are very very few of them, and even fewer with children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    big burv – I am talking about children, not their parents.

    My own view is that I only had kids because I could afford it. Kids don’t chose their parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    “No one”. If they usefully employed as greenkeepers Hamnida.

    “Everyone”. If they are toilet attendants! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    PaulL – Had no idea I was living on Planet Key, sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    True Paul L. I’m hoping Yvette needs something seeing too! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. big bruv (13,906 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    Clearly you are not going to agree that there is any responsibility for feral parents not feeding their kids.

    Perhaps that might explain why so many Kiwis have given up on the idea of personal responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    PaulL

    I see you’ve tidied up Rodney’s figures for him. So we arrive at very few in poverty. Maybe you could count them on one hand, that would be easy for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    Thank God for McNoodles then BB! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ: how about you answer Ham’s poorly phrased question. How many people/children do you think are living in poverty in NZ? 270,000? Some smaller number? I spent some of my Sunday night answering, it’d be interesting for you to do the same.

    @Ham: I thought I’d pointed out that you weren’t living on planet Key (aka the real world). Be interesting to know what colour the sky is on your planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    That is not my question. My question is “How many children live in poverty on Planet Key?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Johnboy: Who is Yvette? I’m sure there’s a double entendre in there, but can’t work out what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    I’m not answering anybody’s question PaulL.
    I’m just not accepting your estimations of very few living in poverty. But you’re in good company because dear big bruv has delivered the punch line – ‘feral parents.’ That seems to be the deliberate sum total of your debate PaulL – diversions.
    Nothing gets settled by diversions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    Yvette n’est pas un double sens, c’est la femme de Kiwiblog de mes rêves! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, I’m sorry you find my contributions to be diversions. I thought I was pretty clear – people living on the benefit are not in poverty in my estimation, from that it follows that very few people in NZ are in poverty. Do you disagree with that assessment? Do you think that NZ benefits are set at a level such that those living on them are in poverty? I’m fine if you don’t want to engage, but since Ham is such a clown asking stupid questions then ignoring the answers, I was hoping for some engagement from someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Ah. I remember Yvette. Have you got enough money to support her as well in your retirement? I suspect she might be expensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    Johnboy has never fancied cheap women.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Hamnida – in your socialist paradise, there will be actual real poverty. In the real world (let’s limit that to NZ for this discussion), call it Planet Key if you like, there is ZERO excuse for anyone to be living in poverty. Unless you redefine poverty as someone receiving other people’s money but not enough to buy the new iPhone the day it comes out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    True Johnboy, but there’s a world of territory between cheap and expensive. Inexpensive would be nice!! Someone recently described a lady I know as being “coin operated”. Which was accurate, but probably not the sort of thing you had in mind. I suspect hanging out with Yvette would prove to be your undoing, surely you need a less demanding woman in your dotage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    I will be very happy if Yvette assists me with my undoing Paul L. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    And just reviewing that, I surely didn’t mean to suggest that Yvette was “coin operated”. Call that free association. Just in case she comes back to kick my butt!! What I meant is that she seems a high class lady, and definitely beyond your poor means.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    My Mother starved herself to give my sister and myself food.. War time..

    I drove 600klms .. Every week for the past 10 or so years to make sure that my Mother was Ok.

    Small things like the hearing had almost gone.. Every thing techinacally possible was done to ensure that my Mother could hear ..

    The delights of certain foods she loved.. were supplied..

    It was the small things that pleased her the most..

    IT WAS THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FOOD GIVEN TO ME THAT PLEASED ME SO MUCH..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    POVERTY !!..

    THEIR IS NO POVERTY IN NZ..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    I find it unbeleivable how many ingrates there are in this country..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. jcuk (689 comments) says:

    I am not sure that porridge in itself is all that wonderful but add some fruit and milk to it and it is my daily breakfast and away from home I feel slightly deprived when I have to eat cornflakes and fruit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    PaulL

    When poverty is declared an election issue and all parties make suggestions to overcome it, including offers to work cross party – then obviously there is poverty, and not for just a few. It is something that has to be dealt with in an orderly way, looking at contributing factors and how the country can improve on the issue over time – particularly so that we don’t have debates with people throwing the word ‘feral’ round and congratulating themselves on their eating habits. If there were no such extreme objections and denials we’d be half way there. based on ensuring personal responsibilty it can’t happen overnight but it can happen. We are too slack with some welfare entitlements and over a period they should changed allowing more money for fewer people who have the misfortune of being on welfare and not apparently making it a lifestyle choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Hamnida, how many people live in poverty on Planet Labour? Why won’t you answer that question? How many lived in poverty under Planet Labour, despite showering all and sundry with money?

    Because If they are really using that list provided by PaulL and 6 factors indicate poverty, I grew up in poverty, as did everyone I know. Which seems strange because I didn’t feel like I grew up in poverty.

    So Hamnida, why is it that one of my adult friends was 1 of 13 kids in a household whose only income was a janitors salary (sometimes) and their kids were all fed/schooled/in extracurricular activities, but apparently we have all this ‘poverty’ everywhere?

    You’re a jerk-off brah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Planet Key is but a dim little planet orbiting in the closed, self consistent universe that the left have created…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Griff (7,738 comments) says:

    Hamanda inhabits a lonely little outpost of the political solar system usually referred to as heranus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    By the report’s authors definition, there would probably be a lower proportion of ‘hungry children’ in North Korea than in any other country in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    :) :) lol
    Griff – she’s not alone tho’ – Nostalgia is there as head leader and dreamer in their little commie paradise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. MH (759 comments) says:

    Have some of you forgotten Poverty Bay ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide had several years in parliament to address issues such as poverty but didn’t lift a finger. His op-ed piece demonstrates that not only is he out of touch with the average New Zealander or how they live he also has no clue at all of the impacts or effects of poverty that his great leader Roger Douglas foisted on New Zealand in the 80’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote