According to a DomPost journalist;
One in five Kiwi children are now being raised in households reliant on benefits, sparking fears that children are "starving in the age of the recession".
The number of children living with beneficiaries is up 15,000 in the past year to 226,000 in April 2009.
The rise has concerned doctors, child welfare groups and academics, who say living with beneficiaries increases the risk of leaving school early and health effects including hospital admissions and deaths."
I have more recent figures;
What this shows is that "children were starving" all through the economic good times and record low unemployment.
That is because most of them are on the DPB and reliance on the DPB is only slightly affected by the unemployment rate. And that is because people on the DPB are not generally looking to work, especially when their children are young.
Yes, more children will end up on benefits during a recession but for many of those, it will be a temporary experience while Mum or Dad finds another job. It's the entrenched, often intergenerational group producing chronic health problems. Here's an honest doctor;
Wellington Hospital paediatrician Brendon Bowkett said child health was "a basketcase well before the recession".
Let me quote an even more honest doctor, NZ Medical Association deputy chairman Don Simmers (2006);
"Too many women are contemplating pregnancy on a benefit and we need to do better than that."
The problem is not the recession. The problem is the DPB.
7 comments:
And as I have said before, the result not only shows up in health, a substantial number of these welfare dependents also end up in the Family Courts fighting over their little cash cows. That not only causes a lot of stress for all involved, they'll all be using legal aid and are putting a further strain on the taxpayer, which is a multitude of the benefits they receive.
It's pretty obvious one of the fundamental problems
(or "imbalances" to use the in phrase") in the NZ economy is that vast numbers of people who make no contribution to the economy are NOT starving
Fixing that problem should be job #1 for any government who wants to make any improvements to NZ's economy.
Starving!
Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall for a while!\
Those figures speak volumes. Why? because frankly I don't believe that one out of every five childrens' parent's want to go without sex or the support of a male partner. Long term most woman couldn't survive alone. Few people are totally self reliant and those who are, are normally financially secure so they wouldn't be reliant on the DPB. Even if you had supportive families and friends they can't always be there and I'm betting not many people wouldn't try to go it alone for too long, especially those financially strapped. The number itself of those on the DPB is evidence that they have partners. These woman will probably never live with their partners so long as the DPB is responsible for enabling their lifestyle. I don't think that these woman are single but for some reason it is not in their best interests to live together with their partners.
Gloria
Few people are totally self reliant and those who are, are normally financially secure so they wouldn't be reliant on the DPB.
What you completely fail to recognise is that there is an entire underclass in New Zealand who considers a life lived between dole and DBP to be financially secure --- in fact, they find it both more secure and much easier than actually having to work for a living
Like I said: the biggest problem with NZ is that no-one is starving in this recession, and the problems won't go away - or the economy be "rebalanced" until somewhere between 500,000 and 2 Million people are starving
No what you totally fail to comprehend is that I was saying that technically to have to be single to be on the DPB but in reality that is very seldom the case because of human nature. So for a dsyfunctional reason or not they choose to live apart. So in a way you can argue that the state is adding fuel to their dysfunction by encouraging them NOT to have a normal relationship. I am not condoning benefit fraud but I am pointing out that the state is in effect paying people to have hidden secret relationships. What the government does by paying a benefit doesn't help them to become a financially independent couple.
Gloria
Gloria - I think that more women on the DPB than not have a partner - most living with them. DPB has not been a 'safety net' but a secure income for many.
Post a Comment