The Government has made a start on the problem of child poverty. It is not a big step, because the cupboard is bare, but it is something.More
And if Prime Minister John Key is serious when he says benefits are now too low, then he should follow up with greater increases next year.
The rhetoric is striking: a National government is saying that benefits do not provide children with "a decent upbringing". That's because "over many years" benefits have remained flat, going up only with inflation.
The benefit increases themselves are modest. A sole parent who survives on $300 a week will now get $325. This is a useful sum for someone with so little, but it does not put an end to their hardship; it merely softens it.
I have written a response (as yet unpublished):
Your editorial about the budget (DomPost May 22) said that, "A sole parent who survives on $300 a week will now get $325."
No sole parent is expected to survive on $300 a week. First, they receive a Family Tax Credit for each child ranging between $64 and $101 depending on number and age of children. Next, the majority get an accommodation supplement to subsidise rent. In 2013, then Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, wrote, "An average sole parent with two children under thirteen, living in South Auckland would receive around $642 on benefit, including accommodation supplement and a minimal extra allowance for costs."
In order to have a honest debate about child poverty, the facts should be on the table. At $642 weekly - admittedly still hard to live on if rent is high - it becomes clearer why poorly educated, unskilled parents, and their children, get trapped on welfare. It may seem a kindness to raise benefits but the unintended long-term consequence could be greater state dependence - work obligations or not.
I hope I am wrong.
4 comments:
"over many years" benefits have remained flat, going up only with inflation.
Well which is it? Have they remained "flat" - the same level that Ruth set in '91? Or have they gone up.
Let's see: in '91 the bludger-mom benefit was something like $100 per week. Today as Lindsay points out, it's closer to $1000 per week than $100.
All the hard work done by Ruth Richardson (and to a lesser extent, Roger Douglas) has been undone by successive governments. More than ever, NZ needs to look back to '91 and take its medicine all over again: charter all the schools and permit full fee recovery; turn the "DHBs" back into CHEs, Health Enterprises that make profits; stop kidding ourselves about super; and above all, get the benefits back to where they were in '91 in dollar terms, and then rid of them altogether.
Lindsay
Perhaps you should have set out what the same person would get on the minimum wage to make the point clearer.
David, I considered it but by the same token, that would be understating income also. A sole mum on the minimum wage would also get the same top-ups, but they would be adjusted according to her income from work. It's all so messy. I have a friend who went from DPB to work and when I listen to her talk, she really has no idea what she gets or why. But she does know she now gets a tidy sum from the IRD once a year which I am guessing is the IWTC paid in a lump sum. I'm not even sure if she is financially better off on a weekly basis but she likes working. Enjoys the company (as in mateship).
Perhaps you should have set out what the same person should get on the minimum wage to make the point clearer.
Easy. $0.
As it is, we're back to Muldoonism. We need another Lange, another Roger, and most of all, another Ruth.
Post a Comment