“Another freedom has been lost this week,” says Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig, “as the National Government have voted to dictate to beneficiary parents how their pre-school children will be educated.”
“The Social Security Amendment Bill appears to have, as an underlying assumption, that beneficiary parents are somehow unable to make the best choices for their children. This simply isn’t true; many of these parents are doing a great job in sometimes very difficult circumstances. They don’t need a bossy government dictating their choices,” he says.
But tax-payers have to put up with beneficiaries dictating their choices. There are probably thousands of parents who would like to stay home with their children, maybe even home school them but have to go to work to pay the taxes that support single parent's freedom of choice.
Craig is putting the cart before the horse. He should be defending the freedoms of those who are forced to fund other people choices, limiting their own in the process. We need to shrink the dependent sector to increase choice across the board.
National is creating demand for the pre-school infrastructure necessary (at least temporarily) to get more women working and off welfare. The numbers can't come down without it. A social spin-off is some, not necessarily all, children are going to benefit from pre-school education.
Like Craig I'm a fan of woman staying home if they want. But not if they have to force someone else to fund it. Likewise I can sympathise with those who want to home school but not if someone else has to pay for it. 'Freedom' can't properly describe choices paid for by somebody else.
8 comments:
The home educating beneficiary parent is saving the Ministry of Education thousands of dollars per year – US$5,582 per primary school child and US$6,994 per secondary school child in 2008 (Source: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/main/resource/2043). If in the workforce working more than 20 hours per week they would also be entitled to the in work tax credit of $3,210. So by home educating their beneficiary children, a parent is contributing more than the DPB rate in savings to the taxpayer if they educate more than one child or educate one child with contribution from a liable parent earning the median wage. The more children being educated the greater the contribution to the taxpayer. This contribution is overlooked in the 15 hour work test requirement. Some of these children have been severely bullied or have learning issues (e.g.Aspergers’) which can make them unsafe in a school situation. Forcing these children back into the school system is short-sighted and potentially setting these children up for lives as future beneficiaries due to mental health issues. Benefit sanctions for these parents who are protecting their children and trying to give them the best start in life will do nothing to address the problems of beneficiary parents who neglect their children.
Unfortunately grandparents are not allowed to look after beneficiary preschool children while the parents work part time unless they become "licensed" complete with all the paperwork to document the child's learning and the requirement to provide a state approved curriculum.
that beneficiary parents are somehow unable to make the best choices for their children.
Of course they can't - if they did they wouldn't be bludging, now would they?
Bludgers by definition lose any claim to freedom or privacy.
The solution to the problem of tax credits, and "saving" the Ministry money is of course also simple.
Abolish tax credits, abolish state socialist indoctrination centres, and abolish the ministry.
problem solved.
$5,538 (NZ) annually per primary school child in 2010 give or take.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/hyefu2012/hyefu12-pt8of11.pdf
In 2010 DPB parent in Auckland with two children receives $580 per week or $30,160 and effectively pays no tax.
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/factsheets/future-focus/domestic-purposes-benefit.html
You can't win the argument on economic grounds.
You can rally support on sympathetic grounds but that doesn't deal with the philosophical argument that asks why your choice or need justifies other people having to pay for them. We are now seeing how far that assumption takes us.
"Unfortunately grandparents are not allowed to look after beneficiary preschool children while the parents work part time unless they become "licensed" complete with all the paperwork to document the child's learning and the requirement to provide a state approved curriculum."
I am sure you mean that grandparents can't fulfil the pre-school education requirement. Not that they can't look after the children while the parent works. A working parent no longer reliant on the DPB has no pre-school obligation anyway.
I can understand your frustration but go back to baics. What the government is trying to do is reduce welfare dependency. Thats what they promised to do and were voted in on the back of.
Regardless of whether they are working or on welfare they are still likely to qualify for the accommodation supplement and other allowances, so realistically, the only saving from having them in work is likely to be the DPB rate of $278.04 per week or $14,460 per year.
If paid the $5,538 for educating a child and supported by a liable parent contribution of $4,974 for a parent earning the median wage, the parent would then only have to work 6 hours per week on the minimum wage to be earning enough to be “off” the DPB. If paid $11,076 for educating 2 children with no liable parent support, the parent would then only have to work 5 hours per week on the minimum wage to be earning enough to be “off” the DPB.
I’m not trying to win an economic argument; I’m trying to demonstrate that these parents are contributing financially to the taxpayer and it would seem to me to be fair to take this into account in the work test requirements.
This analysis does not even include the health budget implications for children who would otherwise need anti-depressant medication and monitoring, counselling, etc. Some children cannot learn in the current school system with some of them being “problems” the school system would rather not have. This does not mean that they cannot become contributing members of society with support and the one-on–one teaching offered in the home. We might be reducing welfare dependency in the short term, but creating it for the next generation.
It would appear that the government has sided with you anyway:
Exemptions for home schooling
Many submitters raised the right of parents to home school their children. We wish to assure them that this bill does not propose changes to policies on home schooling school-age children. The Ministry of Education currently issues a Certificate of Exemption from Enrolment at a Registered School to parents who have met the criteria for home schooling, and the Ministry of Social Development does not intervene in decisions regarding schooling exemptions made by the Ministry of Education. However, because the legal requirement for school attendance begins at 6 years of age, the Ministry of Education does not currently provide exemptions to home school a child aged 5.
We recommend amending clause 25, new section 60RA(3) by inserting paragraph (ab), to allow home schooling to meet the social
obligation for school attendance by children aged 5 years until they
turn 6 years old if the parent meets the additional criteria set out in regulations for an exemption from work test obligations for home schooling. This would recognise that school attendance is not legally
required during this year, and a Certificate of Exemption from Enrol
ment at a Registered School cannot be obtained until a child is 6.
However, once the child turned 6, an exemption certificate would
still be required.
The proposed change should make it clear that it is not our intention
to remove the ability for children aged from 5 to 6, or older, to be
home schooled.
We also wish to note that a beneficiary can be exempt from meeting some or all of their work test obligations if they hold an exemption certificate and are home schooling a dependent or foster child who could not reasonably be expected to attend school because of, for example, learning or behavioural difficulties."
See also pg 36 of the amended legislation here:
C:\Users\David\Documents\DBSCH_SCR_5776_SocialSecurityBenefitCategoriesandW.pdf
Sorry, The on-line link is:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/BA3A8C04-EA05-454D-8875-EA715B021E0B/266329/DBSCH_SCR_5776_SocialSecurityBenefitCategoriesandW.pdf
What the government is trying to do is reduce welfare dependency.
What the government - communists all - should do is end welfare.
Do that and welfare dependency will miraculously end also!
Post a Comment