Misunderstanding the investment approach

May 12th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s neediest could miss out on taxpayer-funded homes under a proposal being put forward by Work and Income, an expert says.

The Ministry of Social Development is considering applying an “investment” approach to social as Labour claims state stocks are expected to drop by more than 2000 in the coming decade.

A similar “investment” approach, taken from the insurance industry, has already been adopted for beneficiaries to help target groups that are expected to cost the state big money in future and push them into work quickly.

MSD, through Work and Income, took over assessing rent subsidies from Housing NZ this year, as part of a push to get more private players involved in social housing.

MSD general manager Damian Edwards said it was early days in the switch and adopting the for housing was far from a done deal.

But Victoria University public policy professor Jonathan Boston said while it was “perfectly reasonable” for the Government to seek independent advice, using an insurance model for housing would produce “perverse incentives”.

If the Government was trying to minimise its long-term cost this could push them toward prioritising families and people in high incomes over lower incomes, undermining the whole purpose of state housing, he said.

“Those on higher incomes would be eligible for a smaller state subsidy, thus reducing public funding costs. Yet it is those on low incomes who have the greatest need for social housing.”

I think this is totally misunderstanding the investment approach. This approach doesn’t just look at direct spending, but looks at the long-term costs and benefits. Families most in need will get the most benefits from housing support – it can lead to better health and education outcomes for them. To suggest the investment approach would see state houses go to wealthy families is ridiculous.

In fact this Government has been saying that when a family is no longer poor, then they should give up their state house for a family that is more needy – a policy which incidentally is opposed by the opposition who think that once someone gets into a state house they should never ever be required to leave it – no matter their income.

Tags: ,

6 Responses to “Misunderstanding the investment approach”

  1. JC (909 comments) says:

    Thats interesting.. lefties believe its an injustice to push a now wealthy family out of a state house, but a now wealthy pensioner in his own home should be means tested and his income reduced.

    Thats where you get “perverse” outcomes.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rick Rowling (801 comments) says:

    *BREAKING NEWS*

    A university academic disagrees with a National Party policy

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    I’d like to see more than one sentence of Professor Boston’s comments before dismissing them. He’s a very smart guy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (3,168 comments) says:

    The ‘expert’ wants to see a left wing government in power. His theories AFAIK includes the ‘Robin Hood’ economic model.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MT_Tinman (2,995 comments) says:

    I notice all the “experts” quoted by the slime are institutionalised school teachers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Johnboy (15,021 comments) says:

    I think we should declare a cultural revolution and ship all the Profs, Lecturers and Experts down to Christchurch for five years to dig drains so they can get a more focused view on reality! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.