Thursday, July 19, 2012

More big beneficiary families needed!

Here's a silly letter if ever I read one:

Where to start (in 200 words or less).

Dear Editor

According to Allan Kirk (Letters, July 19) New Zealand needs more children, so large families born and raised on a benefit isn't a problem. He thinks the Social Development Minister's concern should be the well-being of the beneficiary and her children, not their dependent status. Presumably that means directing rather more resources at families on welfare.  This requires either higher taxes (perhaps from parents limiting their family size to one they can afford)  or less spending elsewhere. As the government is already fighting to stave off a credit down-rating and  disastrous loss of borrowing capacity, it can hardly find millions - or billions - more to meet Mr Kirk's urging.

As it stands children who are raised long-term on welfare, often those in large families, experience inter-generational dependence, particularly  females who go on to repeat their mother's life story. It is welfare dependence that keeps people out of the labour force, non-productive and unable to make a contribution to the upkeep of an ageing population.

It is arguable anyway whether the country needs a higher birth rate to meet future demand. More immigration has got to be a better option than paying people to have children.


Mark Hubbard said...

Good one. Mind you, you're lucky to get 200 words. The Press is only 150.

Kiwiwit said...

Mr Kirk's main concern seems to be who is going to support him in his dottage. He is right to be concerned because the Ponzi scheme we call welfare is not going to be affordable in future and neither is National Superannuation. Even if the children of his large welfare-dependent families miraculously turn out to be high-earning taxpayers, there still won't be enough tax dollars to support him.

mojo said...

Yep, shonky (IMF driven (& demanded asset sales)) economic policies will ensure there is no added value to any savings over time - hence super etc is undermined, the manufacturing sector which employed most folk is undermined (deregulated economy), & hence words like 'masterly neutered' come to mind.
Greece lost its sovereignty through the implantation of a Brussels-bred clone ... we, bless our hearts, voted ours inadvertently in - firstly Douglassed or Rogered if you prefer and then the shonky (Sean key ... Jean Key ... John Key ... shonky) followers, determined advocates of the global, expediently green, money lenders friend. Increasingly it appears the only way to preserve any sense of identity/sovereignty is via the route of indigenous rights ... mmm, gotta love the large whanau.

Brendan W said...

Large families are great, but encouraging people to have large families when they are struggling to make ends meet or on the dole is just stupid.

Incentives matter because there has been the wrong incentives we have had an explosion of people on Welfare.

Anonymous said...

Allan Kirk sounds like a professional 'letter to the Editor' kind of guy; only fools argue quantity rather than quality.

If every large family - so 3 kids or more, was providing for their child's & their own basic needs completely on their own merit, and further guaranteed their child would be absolutely protected from controllable harm (is that even a real phrase?), then I would agree with him.

But idealism and reality are poles apart, especially where the 270,000 children - mostly from larger families living off the taxpayer - are concerned. Children who are reliant on local food vans dropping off meals on Thursday nights and/or the food, coats, shoes, hats & suncreens handed out by KidsCan.

Our welfare system is the bane of children's existence as it has done more harm to their wellbeing than good.

Problem is we're preaching to the converted - Lindsay kudos to you for continuing to fight this battle, it must be hard when you feel like the lone voice trying to be heard amongst the masses of fools.

Unknown said...

I find it a shame that some see the only purpose of having children to be some kind of legitimised slavery - "we must have more children because we need more future taxpayers." Just farm animals really.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I couldn't agree more Gekko. Children exist in their own right and to live their lives to their own ends. Not to serve some collective.