Friday, June 02, 2017

"...none of the state's business."

When a sole parent refuses to name the father of her children a penalty is incurred. This is because the state is unable to recoup any of her benefit from the liable parent. But Green MP Jan Logie says:

"Is it appropriate to deprive women of essential income when the reasons people don't name a father are personal, private and, frankly, none of the state's business?"
So if the reason a mother isn't naming the father is because she has come to a private arrangement with him to  receive a sum greater than $28 (but less than his otherwise calculated child support liability)  it's none of the state's business?

It is people like Jan Logie, who believe everyone should have unconditional eligibility for state support in all its guises, that have encouraged the state to grow so big. Big states rob individuals of freedom and privacy. So I have little sympathy for her when she turns around and says some personal decision is none of the state's business.

For statists of all ilks: you cannot have your cake and eat it too.


Kiwiwit said...

She's right - the woman's circumstances are none of the state's business. At all.

Mark Hubbard said...

Better approach to protect single mum's privacy is to say you are under no onus to name father, however, not naming means taxpayer is under no onus to provide you a living. Quid pro quo.

It's then her choice.

Barry said...

Well if its none of the States business - then why is there an expectation that the State should give her ANY money - since its none of the states business.....

But it sure as hell is a lot of the TAXPAYERS business. Because its not the government who gives the money - its the taxpayer.

Anonymous said...

Does Ms Logie also believe my income is none of the IRD's business?

Kiwi Dave

Al Kida said...

This particular case is about a bit more than a "sole parent" that you so love to bash. This is about a woman who was forced into sole parenthood by a rapist. But keep on supporting deadbeat raping dads and re victimising women who try their hardest to give a kid a good life,

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Al Kida
The law already allows these victims to be exempt from the penalty. In this case WINZ made an error by not applying it. My post is about Jan Logie's statement. Do you understand that?