A seemingly biased ODT employee reports from last night's Queenstown debate:
Mr Norman had arguably the best-received and most succinct answer of the night.So it's right to reward children for the decision of their parents?
Asked why a high-earning adult who decided not to have children should have their tax dollars handed to out-of-work parents who had four to six children, Mr Norman replied: ''Because it's wrong to punish children for the decision of their parents.''
But it isn't children who receive the reward - money - it is their parent.
It's right to repeatedly reward unemployed people for having children.
That's also "succinct".
Except I forgot one word to accurately reflect Green policy.
It's right to repeatedly reward unemployed people more for having children.
2 comments:
is being able to exist a 'reward'?
So it's right to punish children for the decision of their parents?
But it isn't parents who are supposed to receive the reward - money - it is their children.
It's right to repeatedly give money to unemployed people so they can look after their children.
That's also "succinct".
Except I forgot one thing to accurately reflect Green policy.
If the parent fails to provide the necessities of life _then_ they can be punished.
You should be preaching more education than it's right to punish children who's parents did not make good decisions or enough money from low-value jobs.
Post a Comment