I’m new to politics. Until now, I never quite clicked how corrupt politics can be. I’ve learnt that most parties buy their votes. The election has become a bidding war.
Subsidising failure
Which party can use up the most of our money? Which party can make the most decisions for us? The left often reminds me of an adolescent girl with her mother’s credit card. It’s pathetic and irresponsible. With that attitude – and I don’t say this lightly – it’s no wonder we have inter-generational welfare dependency.
I’ve noticed that certain subjects make politicians uncomfortable. Race is one. Welfare is another.
I want to talk about the latter. I worked out why the left doesn’t want to touch welfare – ‘cos no one wants to be the bad guy, right?
The great Thomas Sowell once said, “Welfare is paying people to fail. Insofar as they fail they receive the money. Insofar that they succeed even to a moderate extent that money is taken away from them. We are subsidising people to fail in their own private lives, and they become reliant on hand outs.” Spot on.
It’s important to have welfare as a safety net – to help people out in their time of need, to help them get back on the horse. But the issue we have is welfare dependency. And it’s an issue that crosses generations. People choose to have children they can’t afford to bring up, both in financial and in emotional terms. These parents expect the state to take care of their children. Let’s think about these kids. What kinds of role models do they have? What kind of expectation and self-esteem do they have? Surely it can’t be a great life. Do they know discipline in work and study? Do they have ambition to reach their potential and contribute to our community? Or do they resent others who are better off, but who are working hard to succeed because they’ve had the chance to learn how? Do these children then turn into repressed, frustrated individuals who are then likely to become criminals? These are questions we need to ask.
I am a 25-year-old woman, and sometime I would like children. I know and understand that bringing up just one child takes an enormous amount of time, money, emotion, energy and determination. I know that I only want kids at a time when I have these things sorted – because any time otherwise would be selfish. I don’t expect the state to bring up my child. I know how important it is for a young person to have strong parental role models in their lives – childhood is the peak of development, where attitudes are formed and learning techniques are developed.
What Paula Bennett has done is great. We’re moving in the right direction, but we still need strong incentives for people to leave the benefit. If you were receiving $400 a week from the government to sit on your couch and watch the Jeremy Kyle Show, and you were offered a part-time job with an after tax income of $300, would the work really be that appealling?
ACT believes reducing company tax to 20% will create more jobs with more hours of employment, encouraging beneficiaries to choose work over welfare. We understand we can’t change the way people think, but perhaps we can break the cycle of welfare dependency, and live in a country where younger generations will want to be responsible individuals, working in our society and reaching their maximum potential
DTNZ: UK online censorship laws come into force
3 hours ago
8 comments:
Where to begin?
First, to repeat, that ACT supports every cent of National's welfare spend, the largest welfare spend in the history of NZ. Does Kovalenko support her party's policy?
Second:
It’s important to have welfare as a safety net – to help people out in their time of need, to help them get back on the horse.
No no no - it's really important NOT to have welfare like that, it's a really massive moral hazard. It destroys individual responsibility and individual initiative, wrecks the insurance market.
And I can't believe ACT's policy is to keep corporate tax at all, especially not at a punitive 20%?? Ireland is only 12.5% - but really there should be no corporate taxation (and no FBT) whatsoever.
This is an *excellent* article - well done to Dasha!
( I have to say she's "easy on the eyes" too....
;) )
I support "anonymous"' goals but there is one big problem - the electorate would never vote to get there in one jump.
The only way to get there is to support ACT's bite-at-a-time approach.
I think that generally she has nailed it but the left will dismiss that and say (as the Greens do) that throwing more money at it will solve the problem. Of course its never enough.... Its so depressing as I know that my parents generation would be appalled that the welfare that got them through the great depression is now inter-generational welfare that saps the brains and determination out of people.
"Its so depressing as I know that my parents generation would be appalled that the welfare that got them through the great depression is now inter-generational welfare that saps the brains and determination out of people."
The only state welfare during the depression was work schemes (apart from a widow's benefit and a small family allowance for third and following children.)
Jeremy Kyle hosts a talk show in the UK that showcases the dregs of society, who are expected to act up and demonstrate their fecklessness in every dimension of their lives. That goes from welfare dependency through to breeding, drug use, theft, promiscuity, rudeness, incest and the like.
It is broadcast at the right time for anyone not at work to see it.
Does it normalise or breed victimhood? Or both? I am having trouble envisaging it.
The only state welfare during the depression was work schemes...
and the old-age pension, and for relatively many, other government jobs (railways, post office, etc)
new to politics!the 'great Thomas Sowell....yeah right.
Post a Comment