Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The more govt gives the more people want

In a comment on this blog Dave says people are better off on a benefit because of the cost of childcare and the government has to provide more free childcare.

Let's think about this.

We are paying thousands of people (around 50) a benefit to look after just one child. There is enormous capacity there for extra private child-caring which would free up many more people to work.

Instead of 50,000 mothers looking after 50,000 children on a benefit why not 10,000 looking after 50,000 children, and getting paid for it by the other 40,000 who are working?

Sharing care of children is an age-old practice and what people do when left to find their own solutions. Why is the government the solution to every problem?

5 comments:

Spam said...

agreed - but then you get the complication that these day-care providers won't be registered / certified etc, and that they have to beto ensure that they're not all paedophiles / child abusers etc.

Anonymous said...

That would be neighbors helping neighbors. And we can't have that. It is the government's job to take care of everyone. Government: It's not just for what people couldn't for themselves anymore.

Swimming said...

Hey, I didn't actually say that the Govt has to fund free child care due to cases like the example given. I implied that if the Govt was going to introduce a policy, then it should fund it properly so it cam be implemented properly. In any case your child caring system wont work. You could use the same kind of example for a " fairer and equitable" tax system. If you were on the DPB would you like to look after 5 other kids as well when you would rather be a writer, a nurse or a graphic designer - or stay at home to look after your own kid?

Many of the 50,000 mothers already have part time jobs. Thats why their benefit is abated. Therefore they are not available for full time work with another (state funded) employer. Some get back together with their partners and go on the dole.

If 10,000 get paid by the 40,000, all it would mean is that 10,000 go off the benefit until they have another kid and then go back on. Thats not sustainable employment - particularly if they are more comfortable with the elderly or rather be in administration or reception. When the 40,000 have more kids they`d need more one child child care workers on the DPB whose numbers are already reducing.

The beneficiary child care workers probably wont be entitled to receive the OSCAR subsidy as employers. Actually, they`ll all probably be entiteld to the Job Plus subsidy, meaning that a group of people on the DPB can form a company and have the subsidy paid to that company - meaning a bigger burden on the tax payer for a year.
Oh, the irony!

Perhaps the government is the solution to this problem in the same way that they have WFF in the first place - wages are too low, tax is too high and the Govt refuses to do anything about it other than subsidise low income earners through taxation.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Dave, Reread what I suggested. I am talking about instead of the DPB.

"Many of the 50,000 mothers already have part time jobs."

A minority. I in 5 DPB beneficiaries has a current declaration of earnings certificate meaning they have worked at some point in the current year.

Swimming said...

and the rest of the workers havent declared their income to WINZ, some of them are getting paid under the table to hide it from IRD as well i betcha.