Work and Income are offering financial assistance to people affected by the drought. No doubt it will be strictly means-tested. If the drought results in people having no work then I guess the assistance is similar to the dole. Leaving aside any comment about what might be an improvement on our mandatory taxpayer-funded unemployment insurance scheme, I don't have much problem with genuinely warranted financial assistance.
BUT stress counselling???
Who’s More Stasi: Britain or Germany?
39 minutes ago
8 comments:
Lindsay,
I grew-up on a farm, and have lived through a number of severe droughts. I can still recall skin-and-bone sheep being given only 2 hours a day in a paddock that had stalks of grass, and spending the rest of the day in a paddock that was flat, rolled mud. The sheep couldn't be sent to the freezing works, because for financially strapped farmers, it cost more to send them their than they were worth back as payment.
This type of thing for many months on end, or even years in some cases, IS stressful. Its not like the farmer can just go home at the end of the day and forget about it like a white-collar worker can - its their livelihood at stake.
I would be one of the first to agree that the world has gone mad in terms of stress counselling for every minor issue, but this is one area where I would have to agree that counselling is actually appropriate. The fact of the matter is that many farmers have been driven to suicide by drought. Compounded by very high interest rates and a high dollar, the stress is compounded.
Spam said "The fact of the matter is that many farmers have been driven to suicide by drought. Compounded by very high interest rates and a high dollar, the stress is compounded."
Sadly, Lindsay, this is all too common in circumstances such as these. Often they are too fiercely independent to accept help. They are simply destroyed by the relentless grinding down of their commitment to animal welfare.
While I feel for the farmers and wouldn't want to be in their position, I don't think there is any moral or ethical justification to give them money that have been confiscated from other taxpayers.
What these farmers need is a) appropriate insurance and b) compassion from others. The thing with compassion is that it's a voluntary act. Forcing someone to pay tax to support them is not voluntary, and as such is not compassionate.
The problem with the current system is that the government greatly limits my ability to be compassionate by forcing me to give them a large chunk of my money. Money that I would be more than willing to hand over to worthy causes. Compassion and socialism are orthogonal. The latter diminishes our ability to do the former.
Do I support the government giving farmers money it has taken off others? No. I don't. Do I support the government funding counseling for said farmers? Again, no. Do I support the government taxing us much less so *we* can decide what to do with our own property? Absolutely, yes!
Farmers are self-employed and understand that you take the good with the bad. They do not expect taxpayer largesse.
Federated Farmers, a couple of generations ago, used to be known as the Farmers' Union (may have involved a name change). It has modified its approach to be an in-house support system for members as well as a lobby group. It endeavours to explain a very complex industry to a generally ill-informed and unsympathetic public. The lack of sympathy for farmers is by and large of their own making. They are seen to be constantly complaining, mostly about the weather,product price or exchange rates.
Urban dwellers enjoy the golden summer weather, the ski conditions in the winter, and the wet weather filling the hydro lakes. None of this seem to fir with what farmers want.
Farmers are seen as driving big new cars, having very valuable properties, massive annual incomes, and boats and baches at the beach. And pony club for their kids.
Whilst farmers need large reliable cars for carrying stores and farm supplies, have huge mortgage commitments, their payouts are gross income (before all interest and running expenses, including wages and housing for staff), the perception of an elite sector is nevertheless excusable. And farmers tend to be their own worst enemy in this regard.
However, counselling is about preventing suicides in mostly small,interdependent communities where being on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is part and parcel of the rural family.
A little compassion in times of extreme circumstance is not an unwelcome human reaction, is it?
correction above - "None of this seems to fit........."
It has always seemed to me that farmers and their employees would reflect the general populace with a range of incomes and outgoings. My reaction to 'stress' counselling would be the same regardless of the recipient it was being offered to. I guess its a personal 'stiff upper lip' response from someone who, if truth be told, has thankfully faced very little hardship or grief on the scale of such. But now I understand better why it is warranted (if accepted) in these circumstances. Thanks for the comments.
The counselling will not actually reach the stiff upper lip characters of your mould, Lindsay.
These farmers do not discuss their stress, but when they let go they let go bigtime, and no-one sees it coming. We not talking sleeping tablet overdose here, we're talking the search after dark for the non-returned. The rope over the rafter in the woolshed, or the firearm at the back of the farm. How many times has the first alarm bell rung when the faithful dog arrives home alone, fully aware its master has answered a call of his own.
A little compassion in times of extreme circumstance is not an unwelcome human reaction, is it?
I agree completely. However, there is nothing at all compassionate about forcing the taxpayer to hand over their money to the IRD (under a threat of force) and then have that money given to farmers.
Compassion is a voluntary act. Taxation is not voluntary, and so any use of that tax money can not, by definition, be considered "compassionate".
What we need is compassion of the kind that doesn't involve the government having it's hands deep in our pockets.
Post a Comment