The answer is 'no'. I will not sponsor a New Zealand child 50 cents a day so he or she can eat breakfast. I will not because
1/ Taxation already provides Family Tax Credits for that purpose
2/ It is the parent's responsibility to feed their children
3/ More handouts will further reduce that responsibility
4/ Reducing parental responsibility only teaches children they can expect the same in turn
5/ There are conflicting messages about obesity among the lowest quintile and hunger both pushed by leftist outfits who make a living out of their advocacy
6/ I choose to use my money to sponsor a child in Malawi or Mali or wherever World Vision is currently using it to improve farming methods, build community irrigation schemes, etc., to make people self-sufficient rather than dumb and dependent
Good on Countdown for pulling out. I would change my shopping habits to show my appreciation but can't. I already shop there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Good on you.
Give the kids a feed at school and their 'parents' will no longer bother to feed them.
New Zealand is rapidly becoming the Greece/Malawi of the South Pacific.
That's your choice Lindsay and I agree in principal with your reasoning, but the end result is kids going hungry.
Yes anon and I am not indifferent to that possibility/reality. But if the 'solution' will only make the wider problem worse I cannot contribute.
Withdrawing contributions, or choosing not to contribute in the first place only serves to 'punish' the children involved, as we know all to well their parents have different priorities to us regarding what they spend their incomes on. A way to put the onus back on the parents might be to record the number of meals each child receives per month and bill the parents a fixed amount per meal, say $5.
Let us rid ourselves of the decile 1 underclass by starving the future breeding stock. Further; we should mandate compulsory sterilization as a pre-requisite to receiving the DPB. Now we are well on our way to diminishing the problem....
Lindsay, you are right on the button. Putting never ending 'band aids' on a problem like hungry children does not stop the problem (if it is a problem)from becoming a habit.We have laws on hitting/spanking children, surely there are laws that would catch parents routinely starving a child? If teachers want to become cooks and nursemaids too, that is their choice. Don't ask me to pay for it,that's all.
If a child goes hungry as a result of this, then they will go hungry for one day. The next day their parents will find breakfast for them. If they don't then teachers should call CYFS and have the child removed from care so that foster parents can provide breakfast.
Why is it assumed that we should reward bad parenting? These parents don't deserve children.
I wonder how many of the parents of these children smoke, drink, gamble or all three.
"Withdrawing contributions, or choosing not to contribute in the first place only serves to 'punish' the children involved..."
This is the same argument for raising benefits, giving the IWTC to beneficiary parents, etc. Children of beneficiaries must'nt be punished.
Children are like poverty hostages, with their parents (or parent's advocates) demanding ransoms from the better-off.
Sorry, but it is the parents doing the punishing - not people who refuse to make the whole dependency problem worse.
If we were undergoing some real reform - sanctioning parents off a benefit for refusing a job for example - then I would put my hand in my pocket to feed their child.
Surely not feeding your child is child abuse? Where are CYFS in this? Perhaps it is too political, as the parents would plead poverty. Tough, they need to stop producing kids to finance their lifestyle. If I give my kid a smack on the bum all hell breaks loose CYFS, Police et al, yet not feeding a child is not a parental issue but one we all need to address? Go figure.
Well said Lindsay! Enough of the shameful blackmail as advocated by Anons 1 and 2....A short,sharp action now will have major benefit long term in changing peoples mindsets.
kids going hungry.
Kids will always go hungry. The poor will always be with you!
The question is whether we stop subsidising poverty or continue to collude in a huge moral hazard where those who chose to bludge continue to bludge from the cradle to the grace.
Frankly, the only solution to this is say a flat per-capita tax - capitalised at viability. If the parents are unable to deposit a bond for say their child from 0-25 years, abort.
If we were undergoing some real reform - sanctioning parents off a benefit for refusing a job for example - then I would put my hand in my pocket to feed their child.
What? why? that is no sanction! It is just another huge moral hazard.
A short,sharp action now will have major benefit long term in changing peoples mindsets.
yet more complete crap.
Short sharp shocks made absolutely no difference when the underlying problem remains. Welfare causes bludgerism: simple as that!
The only real welfare reform is ending welfare
Post a Comment