Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Raising benefits increases the rate of unmarried birth...


...which increases dependence on welfare.

Extending the IWTC to beneficiaries increases benefit payments.

If you want some evidence go the my Welfare Reform website and click on 'recommended books' in the lefthand column.

Then click on Michael Tanner's The End of Welfare and go to page 78. He cites 8 studies that show the correlation.

If you don't like US research go here.

8 comments:

Tribeless said...

I don't understand why the Left don't get this. It's so self-evident.

It's either they're so bound by ideology they'll enslave the taxpayer to the violent society that creates poverty, for the sake of it, or, cynically, it's about a cushy sinecure in Parliament with a golden nest egg (stolen from me), people, including children, and liberty be damned. They're a very dangerous lot.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

EVEN if we accept that they are well-intentioned - and I can - it must be a case of believing this time the outcome will be different (as in there was nothing wrong with communism - jusy the way it was implemented) or meeting instant need outweighs the strong probability of creating more long-term. I think they are gambling big time. And yes they are dangerous.

Tribeless said...

Actually, there's a Mencken quotation on Roosevelt up at Cafe Hayek that sums this policy up well:

Roosevelt transformed millions of Americans from citizens into clients. The direct effect of this was evil, and the indirect effect was even worse, for all these people were robbed of their self-respect.

Re-writing:

'Welfare transformed hundreds of thousands of Kiwis from citizens into clients of the State. The direct effect was evil, and the indirect effect was even worse, welfare dependency and all these people rubbed of self-respect, their children of a future.'

unsolicitedious said...

We do most definitely have to meet the needs of children in poverty right now, but that doesn't mean to say we need to have policy that continues to perpetuate a lack of personal responsibility and a huge sense of entitlement.

The best way to do this is to make sure the money does go on the children -e.g. as I have suggested before we could make the kids Wards of the State feed & clothe them through their school & their parents can get their assistance through the form of vouchers or a payment card that bans cash withdrawals, alcohol & ciggys & have power etc paid via direct debit.

You can't ever stop people being losers but you can ensure that they don't purchase things at the expense of their child/ren.

Interestingly Labour's new welfare policy has started to turn off even their own supporters.

I have to say I am surprised they came out with this - while well intentioned (I hope - skeptical about the 1980s group)...I am not sure if they are just so completely naive, stupid or heartless (adopting a greens policy in the hope of securing more votes).

Either way they have put another nail in their coffin...thank goodness!

Tribeless said...

Interestingly Labour's new welfare policy has started to turn off even their own supporters.

For now. I fear for the election after this, though: too many people are kept by our Gulag of Good Intentions and Labour plays on that (and grows it).

Anonymous said...

as in there was nothing wrong with communism -

Welfare - unreformed or reformed IS communism. Lindsay. Pure & simple communism.


The only way to get out of this mess is very very simple: Stop paying bludgers "welfare" or any other sort of benefit.

From the Super to the Dole to the WFF to the ACC to the EQC to the Sickness to the Special - STOP THE LOT

We do most definitely have to meet the needs of children in poverty right now,

No we DO NOT! And most certainly the state does not. Which part of the only way to end welfare dependency is to end welfare don't you understand?


You can't ever stop people being losers

Of course you can!! You just stop the benefits and the losers go away!

unsolicitedious said...

Anon re (We do most definitely have to meet the needs of children in poverty right now) No we DO NOT! And most certainly the state does not. Which part of the only way to end welfare dependency is to end welfare don't you understand? "

You're awful. Do you have any concept of what these families are like? Have you any idea? Have you personally seen that for many, depravation and violence is all any of them - including past generations, have known? Clearly you have not.

It is inhumane, amoral and cruel to knowingly allow children to continue to starve because their useless egg/sperm donors fail to provide them with the necessities of life. What you propose is not civilised. It is just plain wrong.

There are many ways to meet the needs of the child without further enabling welfare dependency.

All you have to do is change the way it is handed out and the incentive to treat it as a way of life disappears.

They only become dependent because they are given the cash to do whatever they like whenever they like.

Make their kids Wards of State and feed & clothe them through the schools, reduce their parents benefits accordingly (e.g. by $69 p/w per child or whatever it is) then put the remainder on a payment card that bans alcohol, ciggys & cash withdrawals with utilities being paid via direct debit.

These 2 things would generate a change in attitude.

What you are proposing just creates hate & resentment and would translate into us becoming a nation that despises children just because they had the misfortune to be born into crap families.

twr said...

Unsolicitedious, you said: "Make their kids Wards of State and feed & clothe them through the schools, reduce their parents benefits accordingly (e.g. by $69 p/w per child or whatever it is) then put the remainder on a payment card that bans alcohol, ciggys & cash withdrawals with utilities being paid via direct debit."

It's all very well to suggest these things, but as with most well intended policies of big government, it doesn't work.

For example:
- "feed & clothe them through the schools". So all schools need to be set up to not only teach, but have full kitchens that the kids need to somehow get to for three meals a day, including weekends, and also need to be fully equipped clothes shops.
- "then put the remainder on a payment card that bans alcohol, ciggys & cash withdrawals". So then all retailers throughout the country need systems in place to determine which of their stock items is on a banned list, and link that to the payment on the card. They also need inspectors to check it, and some way of making sure that they don't buy something else and then barter it with a non-beneficiary for ciggies or alcohol.
- "utilities being paid via direct debit". So there's no motivation to limit consumption of utilities, and no way of stopping people selling their free phone calls to others for cash or contraband.

In practice, these sorts of things are just impossible to implement. You can't assign some mythical entity called "the state" to raise kids whose parents happen to be out of work.