The latest research shows that 52% of those currently on the DPB went onto it when they were a teenager.
Now I find this fascinating because I have tried to tease out this number for years. The Ministry has always maintained their records do not allow a definitive answer given they don't track back further than 1996. Then MSD researchers tried matching dependent children's birth dates against the age and benefit status of their mothers but even this wasn't satisfactory because some older children were no longer dependent and the data was still confined to a ten year period. So their best estimate was at least a third. My best estimate is higher. Probably a half. And just the other day I came across this fact from Michael Tanner's, The End Of Welfare;
As New Zealand has the second highest teen birth rate only to the US (of developed countries) it stands to reason that a similar figure might apply here.“…nearly 55 percent of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamp expenditures are attributable to families begun by a teen birth.”
I've asked David twice for the source of his quote but haven't recived a reply. I note someone in the comments section of his column has also asked, "What research?"
Maybe he has pre-empted the release of new research. I hope so. It was always possible for the Ministry to put together a sampling survey that would provide a fairly accurate answer.
It is anyway a powerful piece of evidence that highlights exactly why welfare reform efforts need to be targeted at the young. Stop incentivising them to become mothers and see where that takes us.
5 comments:
Still no comments.....
No, Lindsay - welfare reform needs to be "target" at bludgers - at anyone and everyone who gets a check from the taxpayers' largesse.
Stands to reason NZ has far more teenage bludger-moms than even in the US - you can't visit any US citiy without seeing lots of bludgers starving on the sidewalk - that's a powerful disincentive to bludging & teenage moms!
Whereas in NZ being a bludger gets you a house, an income, school and even uni for you kids, GP visits & hospital care - we'll even pay for carseats, nappies, and a decent funeral when the time comes!
In the US: it's pretty clear: you die in the gutter.
That's why the US economy, still in a second great depression, still leads that world.
Stop the benefits for the young.
Stop the benefits for the old, so they will be an example to the young as they starve in the streets!
Who needs an extended family, social network, church or local community when the State will provide everything for you and your children to get by?
I agree, Lindsay.
**No benefits** to anyone under the age of 20. You either study or work.
**No benefits** to anyone under the age of 20
was and remains Labour party policy. But it doesn't mean what you think. Especially when you add
You either study or work.
And who pays for that "study" - fees, institutional grants, not to mention "interest free" loans or straight student grants. Oh oops that's a benefit
Or "work" - you mean on one of the subsidized "apprenticeships" or "job training schemes' or "green workforce" Oh oops that's a benefit too
Not to mention the ACC when you break a leg snowboarding, the EQC when your house collapses, the GP if you need it, the roads, railways, the KiwiSaver you are compulsorily signed up to, the WFF you get as soon as you get kids, their schools & healthcare & CYFS & the airline & the power companies and and and the super when you turn 65.
Let's try that again:
**No benefits** to anyone
Post a Comment