Bill Ralston blogs today;Key claims: “It’s clear that some have got too used to being on a benefit and see it as a permanent entitlement.” Clark disputes that, saying: “The truth is most people on the DPB are not there for very long.”
Who is right?
Well, the statistics show just over 38,400 single parents with kids aged over six are on the DPB. Less than 4000 have been in receipt of the benefit for more than 10 years, Key’s idea of “permanent entitlement” I presume.
Frankly, less than 4000 adhering to the government breast on a more or less permanent basis is extremely few.
The statistics he refers to only describe the current period spent on the benefit. As people cycle on and off it, the cumulative time spent on welfare will be significantly longer. Professor Bob Gregory, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, showed that Australian single mothers were spending on average 12 years welfare dependent. ON AVERAGE.
Here is the truth. Nobody knows how long single mothers are staying on welfare in New Zealand because the prevailing administrations haven't wanted to know. It's only taxpayers money after all. Same source as their wages. Don't rock the boat.
2 comments:
Well, Bill leans to the Left, I believe. Why do solo Mum's think it's their right to not work at all, even after six long years of benefit payments? That's what I don't get, the hands-out expectations, the endless reliance on the State. What sort of ethics does this teach? I wish the columnists would write with more balance and common sense. Granny Herald does not bring much balance or impartiality to political issues, Colin James being an exception.
"Why do solo Mum's think it's their right to not work at all .. the hands-out expectations, the endless reliance on the State. What sort of ethics does this teach?"
Collectivism is the problem in a nutshell. The idea that "the state" or "the govt" is there to bail you out.
The implication during (my) state school education that wealth was mildly tainted, if not downright obscene, depending upon the teacher's degree of leftness. That wealth was finite, ie person A had more at person B's expense.
That the state/govt *had* to run things to ensure 'fairness'.
And with all this, the ignorance (or non-recognition at best) that "the state/govt" is funded directly from the productive.
What does this teach? That it's destined to go round and round in ever increasing circles unless drastic steps are taken. And quickly. I wonder what Mickey Savage would think of his grand plan now.
Post a Comment