Too many children continue to be born into welfare dependency

If there is one statistic that epitomises the state of modern family under decades of benefit influence it's the following.

Each year I put the same question to MSD (adjusting dates obviously):

At December 31, 2014, how many benefit recipients aged 16-64 had a dependent child born in 2014?

This time the answer  is 11,149 - or 19.4% of all children born in 2014. Still nearly one in five.

While there is gradual and steady improvement (below are the percentages for the last 10 years) the pattern remains well entrenched (largely independent of the economy), a point I have made repeatedly over the years:

2005  21.5
2006  20.2
2007  19.1
2008  20.9
2009  23
2010  22.8
2011  21.8
2012  21.2
2013  19.8
2014  19.4

Between 2013 and 2014 the parental age breakdown shows little change. The past 5 years features a drop in the 16-19 bracket from 14 to 10 percent (to be expected with the falling teen birth rate), but the difference is made up amongst the 20-29 year-olds. Over two thirds of the parents/care-givers are 29 or younger.

85 percent are female indicating most of the dependency lies in single parent families.


Although the overall percentage dropped slightly, for Maori it actually increased from 34.5% of 16,643 births in 2013 to 35.2% of 15,917 births in 2014.

	Dec-13	Dec-14
Maori children dependant on benefits	5,736	5,605
Maori caregivers	16,643	15,917
	34.5%	35.2%

Half of all the babies welfare-dependent by the end of their birth year are born to Maori caregivers despite Maori making up around 15 percent of the population. Pacific Island parents are not over-represented at only 9 percent of the total (yet their unemployment rate is consistently relatively high and on par with Maori.)

Many of these children will stay benefit-dependent for years.

This statistic contributes more than any other to 'child poverty'.

National has not been lax in facing this problem. At least they won't accept this ongoing pattern.

Labour and the Greens do however, merely calling for bigger benefits to lift children's family income.

Unfortunately that will  exacerbate the problem long term by reversing the current trend.

The last 'low' of 19.1 percent in 2007 occurred when unemployment was at a record low.

Is that as good as it's going to get?

Talking tax

How marvellous it'd be to be talking about tax in this country instead of recurrent, senstionalised, media-driven melt-downs.
 

Almost exactly 20 years ago, Steven Forbes started talking about flat tax. Two decades later, the flat tax is again the rage in a presidential primary. A number of GOP candidates, including Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, are looking to go flat with a radically simplified postcard tax return. Mike Huckabee wants a low flat-rate tax too, but he would use a sales tax, not an income tax

More

Almost exactly 20 years ago, Steven Forbes started talking about flat tax. Two decades later, the flat tax is again the rage in a presidential primary. A number of GOP candidates, including Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, are looking to go flat with a radically simplified postcard tax return. Mike Huckabee wants a low flat-rate tax too, but he would use a sales tax, not an income tax - See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25609&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD#sthash.gR5HlwnH.dpuf

Flat Tax is a Fair Tax

April 29, 2015

Almost exactly 20 years ago, Steven Forbes started talking about flat tax. Two decades later, the flat tax is again the rage in a presidential primary. A number of GOP candidates, including Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, are looking to go flat with a radically simplified postcard tax return. Mike Huckabee wants a low flat-rate tax too, but he would use a sales tax, not an income tax.
The new Republican Party has been baptized in the iron logic of the Laffer Curve. High tax rates stifle innovation, work, investment and American competitiveness. The United States' absurdly high corporate tax rate (40 percent on average) is incontrovertibly sending jobs and corporations abroad, where rates are typically much lower. Just ask Burger King, one of the latest iconic American companies to flee to a lower-tax competitor.

- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25609&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD#sthash.gR5HlwnH.dpuf

Flat Tax is a Fair Tax

April 29, 2015

Almost exactly 20 years ago, Steven Forbes started talking about flat tax. Two decades later, the flat tax is again the rage in a presidential primary. A number of GOP candidates, including Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, are looking to go flat with a radically simplified postcard tax return. Mike Huckabee wants a low flat-rate tax too, but he would use a sales tax, not an income tax.
The new Republican Party has been baptized in the iron logic of the Laffer Curve. High tax rates stifle innovation, work, investment and American competitiveness. The United States' absurdly high corporate tax rate (40 percent on average) is incontrovertibly sending jobs and corporations abroad, where rates are typically much lower. Just ask Burger King, one of the latest iconic American companies to flee to a lower-tax competitor.

- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25609&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD#sthash.gR5HlwnH.dpuf

Green MP: "...social problems aren't solved one individual at a time."

Green MP Jan Logie on what won't solve social problems like child poverty and domestic violence against women and children:

It might be too obvious to say it but people aren’t widgets, and social problems aren’t solved one individual at a time. If you individualise the solutions then you leave the conditions that create the problems in place. In effect you secure the ongoing need for your service. In a business context that totally makes sense. In a social context its a disaster.
The solution to these problems will not be found in vouchers and more individual choice. The solution to these problems will not be found in more corporate business models. The solutions to these problems will not be found in less government accountability and a freer market.
The solution will be found in increased funding, more training and time for reflection, collective responsibility, expertise and coordinated responses to name just a few things that would seem harder to achieve if these recommendations were implemented.

If problems aren't solved "one individual at a time", when it is individuals who abuse or neglect each other, when it is individuals who successfully resolve to change their behaviour, what hope? And why have role models eg Norm Hewitt to show what individuals can achieve? Why have organisations like AA who focus on each individual owning and addressing their problem; in living one day at a time to break their addiction?

Logie believes in deterministic explanations for human behaviour. Causes are outside of the control of the individual. For instance, colonisation and capitalism cause social chaos to entire groups. Therefore the largest representative collective - government - must play the major remedial role.

And she has the gall to talk about private service providers securing an "ongoing need for [their] services".

When for the past forty odd years  government policy has been creating and increasing social problems through the welfare state.

Cartoon of the Week

From today's DomPost (no link available):

Well, that makes a change

An Auckland GP commenting on why his practice is still charging under 6's:

"I hate the word free, because it's not free. I think it's propaganda. As a vote-buying tactic I think it's as low as you can [get] because it doesn't cost the politicians diddly squat."

Who'd be a doctor, with the state effectively running your business?