Saturday, July 19, 2014

Surprising position on privilege for the elderly

Susn St John and Claire Dale, generally known as advocates for the Child Poverty Action Group,  had a piece in yesterday's NZ Herald arguing for more elderly privilege; more taxpayer dollars for certain retirees.

Yes. That's right.

CPAG's usual complaint is that NZ looks after the elderly far better than it does children.
"We could reduce child poverty dramatically if we choose to, just as we have done for elderly people."
And, Susan St John quoting Jonathan Boston:
As Professor Jonathon Boston, co-chair of the NZ Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Child Poverty says, ‘Why are so few older people materially deprived?  The answer, very simply, is that governments have implemented policies to minimise deprivation among the elderly.’
From the health spokeswoman for CPAG:
We do so much better for the elderly in New Zealand, because - thankfully - we do not discriminate against the elderly with universal superannuation. It is not targeted and is non- judgmental. 
Contrast that to today's complaint against the state's apparently discriminatory position that, "... the Government expects married people to share resources and support each other."

Back to the article:
 Tom has been a good citizen and lived here all his life and expects to get the married rate of New Zealand Superannuation at age 65.
What if Tom had been a bad citizen? Why bring his deserving status into it when usually CPAG rail against that principle:
  "We've got the deserving and the undeserving poor in New Zealand, and that's just not good enough."
I suppose they are at least being consistent in calling for more tax-payer funding to address their latest chosen cause.

1 comment:

Psycho Milt said...

I'm doing my best to work up a burning sense of injustice that this couple doesn't get a whole lot of overseas money and the full married rate of National Superannuation, but nah - it ain't coming.

Likewise with looking within myself for righteous fury that the government dares to "expect married people to share resources and support each other." This became an outlandish and ridiculous idea when, exactly?