Thursday, October 01, 2020

Academia discovers reality

A comment on Kiwiblog and my reply:


Labour made it so solo Mum’s don’t have to name the father’s of their children was the most stupid thing they have ever done. All it has done is encourage baby farming women to use children while on a benefit as income makers for them. A woman could have a child every couple of years to prevent them from working,all while the guy lives with them. At least that is what my neighbour has admitted to me. She said she has told MSD and HNZ she is a solo Mum while the 3 kids father is living there working full time(they are not married) So now she will never get caught doing it. She even tried to have a 4th kid last year but lost it. Then she’s always claiming poverty and not being able to afford to put the internet on there or to buy her 2 high school aged kids laptops or to fix their car. She is also driving unlicensed at 39ys old after being caught again recently. But she also said they spent 10k last year on a trip to Samoa for the 5 of them. She said she doesn’t working at the moment……makes me so mad but I can’t say anything since she told me not to.


Claiming sole parent benefit while partnered is widespread. In fact Auckland University of Technology knows it. Here they comment on the Growing Up in NZ longitudinal study which kicked off ten years ago: 

"The GUiNZ sample seems to have low sole-parent status compared to a 2009 study that found one-third of families with dependent children were headed by sole-parents (Ministry of Social Development, 2010). This could be because being partnered in the GUiNZ data is not the same as their domestic-purposes benefit status, from which partnership status is inferred by other studies. We find that 70% of those who say they receive the domestic-purposes benefit also answer yes to the question of whether they have a partner – confirming that the sole-parent status derived from GUiNZ is essentially different to those studies which rely on benefit status to infer partnership status.” 



Mark Wahlberg said...

Lindsay, while I accept the subject matter under discussion is very real, the reality is living on welfare is a lifestyle choice which won't change anytime soon. But its election year and I get the feeling Catgurl13's comment is a set up designed to elicit a desired response to stimulate debate.
My antenna started to vibrate when I read Catgurl13 proclaiming "makes me so mad but I cant say anything since she told me not to."

Back in the 1970's when i was living in Upper Hutt I was friendly with a chap who was the local Social Credit candidate in the 1975 election.
He would write semi literate letters to the local paper bad mouthing the Social Credit Party and its policy of "Funny Money." He would sign the letter with the sobriquet " Old Digger."
My friend then replied to "Old Digger" and pointed out the errors in the old soldiers thinking.
People thought my friend was most courteous and helpful to the arm chair Anzac and I'm sure this tactic won him votes.
My wife suggests I'm just bored and need a new hobby.

Sam said...

If it were up to me, you would receive no additional benefit for any children conceived outside of marriage. It's not up to everyone else to pay for other people's irresponsibility.