According to Stuff, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has won its bid to take legal action against the Government's Working for Families package.
....in a reserved decision in the High Court today, Justice Ronald Young dismissed the (government's)challenge to the case going ahead.
Simply, Working for Families introduced an In Work payment that only single parents working a minimum of twenty hours or partnered parents, 30 hours, would qualify for. CPAG claim this discriminates against children of beneficiaries. I argue against the proposition here.
Just this morning I read a statement by author Margaret McClure. "As early as 1979 the New Zealand Planning Council had feared that 'the welfare state faces a built-in problem that it is almost impossible to stop doing what has been done before.'"
Ain't that the truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So - if it discriminates against children of people who aren't working, then the logical extension is that it discrimiates against children of parents who earn too much.
Yes folks, the way to a better life is to have kids and go on the DPB. Live off the taxpayer; you can earn as much as some menial jobs. Why work? And if you have more kids you'll get more help... why stop?
Gloira
Brian, I go into homes like this. I think the inhabitants live their lives inside the TV enabling them to ignore the dirt and chaos that surrounds them. What a meagre way to live. You are right. It's very depressing to behold. One of my jobs is to try and turn the chaos into structure. But what people don't get is cleaning has to be done more than once. There seem to be more mental deficiencies behind this inability to live "normally" than physical ones. Some I have genuine sympathy for. Others......
That's right. If we have to pay people to bring up their kids and the kids grow up knowing only WINZ as an income source, what chance they will go on to break the mold? It's about 50/50. We have already guaranteed another generation.
Does it make much difference if the combined income figure from WINZ/IRD is higher than the income source from employment.
Has anyone got any figures as to what percentage of the population is earing less net imcome than the combined WINZ/IRD source (including accommodation as a non beneficiary)?
For example if you have four kids under 12 on $30,000 salary and high accommodation costs you could be getting about $380-400 a week from the state - which is less than the net income from full time work.
Post a Comment