apologies lindsay, i should have said it's a very reasonable piece (actually a damn good one), written in response to something you wrote. it stands alone as a good piece of writing regardless of anything you've had to say.
given what i've read of your views on this issue, in comments here & on other blogs and the couple of posts on your blog i mistakenly read a couple of years ago, i can't imagine you said anything too different from what you normally said. but go on, surprise me. tell me that you've discovered some empathy for women who leave abusive unhappy relationships, or whose husbands leave them for someone else, or who had a contraceptive failure, or who were never given enough accurate sex education to keep themselves from getting pregnant, or who were raped. tell me you think these women and their children, and male sole-parents who may be in that situation for any number of reasons, deserve our collective support so that they can get back on their feet and so their children can also have the opportunity to succeed. tell me that you mentioned that most sole-parents are on the DPB for 4 years or less, and that an economic recession & high unemployment make it harder to find part-time work that is compatible with parenting duties. tell me you supported child-care subsideies and training allowances that would make it possible for these parents to improve their situation and get off the benefit. tell that you think parenting is so valuable that we should support parents to be able to do it when circumstances are difficult for them, and that you think financial investment in parenting and families (regardless of structure) will pay back to the society that so invests, many times over - at the very least because good parenting should produce a generation of taxpayers rather than a generation of "bludgers".
go on, lindsay, surprise me.
I have always maintained that the state should support people in the situations described above, but in general, for a limited period. There are exceptions - as there are exceptions in the US under time-limiting whereby 20 percent of cases can be exempted - for, example, caregivers of children who are severely physically or mentally disabled.
The statement that most sole parents are on the DPB for 4 years or less is inadequate, which is why I do not use it. To grasp the degree of dependence on the DPB one needs to understand the difference between point in time statistics and over time statistics. The DPB population turns over constantly and many people use it temporarily with which I have no problem. The short-termers bring down average times. Also the statement made by stargazer ignores that almost half of the people who leave the DPB will return beginning a new period. She can check that the period she refers to is 'continuous' - not 'cumulative'.
Latest research from MSD actually covers these distinctions;
On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:
• just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits
• a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.
This reflects the over-representation of sole parents with long stays on benefit among those in receipt at any point in time, and the longer than average stays on benefit for those who become parents as teenagers.
Had the research considered all people granted benefit as a sole parent, or all people who received benefit as a sole parent over a window of time rather than at a point in time, the overall profile of the group would have appeared less disadvantaged.
I do support child-care subsidies if that is what it takes to enable women to work but as I have mentioned previously, there is ample child-caring capacity within the existing DPB population with around half of caregivers being paid to care for just one child.
Treasury has shown that the Training Incentive Allowance leads to people being on benefits longer. Student loans are interest free so why should a parent get advantage over a non-parent when it comes to education?
Of course parenting is valuable but it essentially comes from motivated individuals. It isn't the prerogative of the state to pay for and regulate. Unfortunately the adults that end up costing society the most are also the most likely to have had subsidised upbringings.
And there isn't much I can say to prove that I do have sympathy for individuals whose lives fall apart through no fault of their own that doesn't sound self-serving so I'll leave that.
7 comments:
Stargazer isn't anonymous.
I don't know why you bother replying to these types.
NOTHING you say will ever change their minds or alter their world-view.
Lindsay, your strength is in clearly explaining the pitfalls of welfarism to those who have simply never given the matter much though.
The 'swinging voter' types are the ones to work on.
The usual leftist moral preening from Stargazer. Doesn't let facts get in the way of a good emotional outburst.
'Shariagazer' is a leftist, muslim, feminist. Sounds like an oxymoron but there it is.
All very clever , combining 3 giant rorts rolled into one....but then it does allow being an 'expert' in welfarism at least from the consumer's end.
The muslim rort will be the next welfare growth industry in NZ..just look at the demographics in other Western countries.
Already we are not tolerant enough of their intolerance.
In her article, Donna Wynd made the interesting observation that welfare is intended to assist those who suffer as a consequence of unforseen events.
Some circumstances are not unforseen: Not being able to work due to the effects of substances consumed voluntarily; Conceiving a child when not in a stable relationship leading to solo parenthood. If Donna Wynd is true to her word, then she might support benefit law changes which would have a positive effect upon various negative social statistics.
I give up trying to read when people leave out basic punctuation. If they are too lazy to write in a fashion that makes their points more understandable, then I'm not going to expend the effort to try to understand what they have to say. My view is that if they have so little respect for what they write, then why should I?
I wouldn't worry too much about stargazer writes. She's not even a New Zealander - just another whining muslim who needs to go back where she came from.
Poor old stargazer is such a "victim" she's been too tramatised to even find the shift key on her PC...but she can delete opinions that she can't debate against...loser.
Post a Comment