One $ in six coming from welfare

As reported at the NCPA today;

The recession is driving the safety net of government benefits to a historic high, as 1 of every 6 dollars of Americans' income is now coming in the form of a federal or state check or voucher, says USA Today.

This prompted me to wonder how New Zealand compares. The best way to find out is through the NZ Income Survey. Unfortunately is only publishes yearly and the latest is last June 2008 - nearly a year ago. So the following will all have risen;

Of the average weekly income of all people aged 15 and over, one in 9 dollars ($8.88 to be specific) came from government transfers.

For Maori it climbs to one in six ($5.72)

For Pacific, one in six ($5.74)

For females, one in six ($5.65)

For males, one in fourteen ($14.07)

For one parent with dependent child(ren) only, one in three ($2.62)

So without the "bad economy" and high unemployment the US has experienced, our average female, Maori, or Pacific person matches their crisis-created one in six dollars welfare income. And single parents double it.

Judge and CYF at odds

A judge remanded a 38 year-old mother in custody after she beat her son repeatedly with a soup ladle. But CYF wanted her bailed to continue to care for her other children. The judge turned that down and said he couldn't understand CYF's position. He intends to imprison the mother.

"Not enough is done about this sort of thing and this is an appalling assault on this poor boy," he said. "Imprisonment is inevitable."

The judge said he did not understand the position of Child, Youth and Family, which provided supporting evidence for the bail application.

"We have an epidemic in this country and this needs to be marked."

I would very much like to have heard more about CYF's supporting evidence. On the face of it I imagine CYF have supported bail because they believe the children are best left together, in their mother's care, for the time being. It may be that there is no ready alternative. It may be the alternative poses even greater risks. It may be that the mother has a particularly difficult relationship with the son but not the other children. But it frustrates me that we get statements like these from a judge set on sending a message. At the cost of the other children's wellbeing? Who is best placed to make that assessment. CYF or the judge?

This is in no way to be interpreted as a defensive comment regarding the woman's actions. They were reprehensible. But there is clearly a clash of interests at play, one that occurs frequently no doubt. Another judge who did "understand" CYF's position may very well have granted bail.

Significant risk factor for child abuse omitted

Media Release

SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTOR FOR CHILD ABUSE OMITTED

Thursday, June 4, 2009

A report released today by the Children's Commissioner lists factors associated with fatal assault and serious injury of New Zealand children. The report is fairly comprehensive, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, but disappointingly fails to mention welfare dependence as a significant risk factor for the abuse and neglect of children.

"The overlap between Work and Income clients and CYF clients is documented. New Zealand research has revealed that care and protection notifications were 4 times more likely where children are living in a family relying on the DPB . US research showed that families receiving benefits accounted for 15 percent of Illinois children but 60 percent of cases referred to their child protection services."

"It seems to me that while identifying a factor like young maternal age as important, ignoring that most 16 and 17 year-old mothers (with children in their care) are welfare dependent is an omission. There can be no doubt that the availability of welfare benefits to very young people is a factor in their decision to have babies. Yet the report identifies their children as 8 times more likely to suffer serious assault."

"Other factors identified include exposure to non-biological parents and the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Both of these are exacerbated by welfare lifestyles whereby there is no necessity to commit to a partner or hold down a job."

"If welfare dependence is ignored there is no ensuing imperative to take any action in that arena. Unsurprisingly the report's recommendations revolve only around greater intervention after at-risk children are born. "


Data; At the end of March 2009 there were 683 female 16 and 17 year-old parents in receipt of the Emergency Maintenance Allowance.

Capital gains tax or status quo?

Treasury is proposing a capital gains tax. On reading the headline alone one would have every reason to think the Left would be jumping for joy. But read on to find a capital gains tax would be offset with drops in income and company tax. Treasury Secretary, John Whitehead;

"A key priority has to be reducing effective marginal tax rates and increasing the rewards for effort. There is a growing view that the high mobility of our skills base means high personal income taxes are especially harmful for New Zealand's growth and productivity," he said.

At the same time New Zealand's company tax rates are at the upper end of the scale by the standards of the OECD and other open, small economies. "The pressure on us will be even stronger if the review of Australia's tax system currently under way leads to further company tax cuts across the Tasman."

One of those classical 'classical liberal' dilemmas. What to support?

a/ the suggestion (because there will be less tax on individuals)
b/ the status quo (because any new tax should be opposed)

The cautionary aspect for me would be that whenever government changes the tax system it designs the changes in a way that delivers it more revenue. No reason to believe National would be any different given their commitment to leave big-ticket spending alone. And the state grows.

A first for parliament?

Has it crossed anyone else's mind that parliament might be about to witness its first case of what has plagued team sports, media celebrities and the police force periodically? On one hand I hope if Worth has (being reported) women problems they are genuine and on the other that they are not. Am I making sense? Let's hope we aren't in for a tawdry, drawn-out, unpleasantly detailed, display of he said/she said.

Some art for a change

As a self-taught artist one of the exercises I laboured over was copying. As Goldie is my favourite I chose one of his masterpieces to copy. Knowing more now than I did then, I paid no attention to the support and used a standard piece of uncoated canvas board. Goldie however coated his mounts with lead white which would conceal the texture of the canvas and produced a more fluid and flowing surface. A method I now favour.

Here is the original;

Ena Te Papatahi, a Chieftainess of the Ngapuhi Tribe, 1902



And my humble attempt....

Put up the qualifying age for Super

When the Old Age pension was introduced in 1898 the qualifying age was 65. At that time the life expectancy of males was 58.

111 years later, after life expectancy has risen by over twenty years, the qualifying age remains the same. It should go up. Key made a significant mistake in committing to keep it at 65.

And staying with the sensitive subject of Super, I didn't hear the interview but Phil Goff was apparently protesting yesterday on State Radio that, thanks to the suspension of the Cullen fund contributions, Maori would ending up paying for the Super needs of future generations because of their young population. I would advise against opening that can of worms Mr Goff. Maori are by a long shot the biggest users of working-age welfare and that usage is trending up. Analysis from around 2003 showed that the Maori economy was paying $2.4 billion in tax and receiving $2.3 billion in 'social benefits in cash'. It wouldn't be wise to go starting arguments about who is paying for who in Aoteoroa.

But it's funny isn't it? When it suits the socialists the song goes, "We're all in this together" and when it doesn't, fingers start being pointed. That's the problem with collective rights. They are never equal or fair.

New govt pushes NZ to No 1 spot

New Zealand is apparently the most peaceful nation in the world.

The rest of the world must be in pretty bad shape.

But this caught my attention;

The report, which surveyed 144 countries, says New Zealand's rise to first is partly explained by the election of a National-Act coalition last year.

"The centre-right National Party has a strong popular mandate and a robust parliamentary majority by New Zealand's standards, putting the new Prime Minister, John Key, in a good position to push through his agenda."

He has an agenda? Apart from managing the economy and public sector better?

I was talking to a friend in the US a couple of days back and we were reflecting on the similarities between the political honeymoon's of Obama and Key. People here were so glad to see the back of Clark (likewise Bush), Key can do anything. More precisely, stuff that was unpopular when Helen was boss is OK under Key. Image and personality trump action.

I can't help but suspect that if New Zealand is the most 'peaceful' it is because New Zealanders are the most apathetic, gullible, dullards.

More Maori single parents on benefits

The number of single parents on welfare is rising.

At Feb 2005 there were 102,350 on a main benefit (DPB, invalid,sickness or unemployment). At March 2009 there are 105,448. Not a huge rise - 3 percent - but a reversal in trend.

And the ethnic make-up has changed again.

2005 Maori = 39%
2009 Maori = 42%

2005 NZ European = 41%
2009 NZ European = 37%

2005 Pacific = 9%
2009 Pacific = 10%

2005 Other/Unspecified = 11%
2009 Other/Unspecified = 11%

We now have two influential Maori role models - Metiria Turei and Paula Bennett - who spent some years bettering themselves on the DPB. This legitimises and promotes taking advantage of a spell on the DPB to improve one's circumstances. Which has to be better than the alternative - getting stuck in a rut where turning out children becomes an income-increasing habit. But some thinking to follow the former route will end up on the latter. Others have no plan at all. The statistics tell us this is the case.

Best all round if they avoid welfare in the first place.

"We thought we'd got rid of you for the weekend"

The Manawatu Standard has the story behind a QSM recipient, Lew Findlay, who richly deserves the recognition. One of his efforts was setting up a volunteer organisation called Street Van which works to get kids off the streets and home on Friday and Saturday nights.

Standing in The Square, Mr Findlay mused on how much the city has changed. Glue sniffing and solvent abuse wasn't the problem it was 15 years ago today's problems were alcohol and drug fuelled.

"P and marijuana, and RTDs. They're everywhere."

He has a simple recipe to fix most of society's woes. It is that parents should love their kids.

He's lost count of the times young teens have been delivered home by Street Van volunteers, to be greeted with a blast from parents who couldn't care less.

"Twelve- and 14-year-olds being told, what are you doing back here? We thought we'd got rid of you for the weekend."

It'd make you cry.

Shocking death

I subscribe to the Feminist Majority Foundation and just received this e-mail from their President. It is shocking and terribly sad;

George Tiller, who endured countless threats, an assassination attempt, bombings and assaults on his clinic, and many legal challenges by anti-abortion extremists was murdered in his church by such an extremist today.

I am greatly saddened by his death and by the loss of a friend to me and countless women, but I am also outraged that this could have happened again. I and the Feminist Majority Foundation had the privilege of knowing and working with Dr. Tiller over the last two decades. He was a courageous, unassuming, and soft-spoken man who cared deeply about his patients and about women's rights and lives. He knew his life was in danger, but continued to provide vitally needed healthcare services to women when few others would.

Dr. Tiller expected no accolades - he was doing what he knew was right and medically needed. However, he deeply appreciated the gratitude he received from his patients and pro-choice supporters nationwide. I am glad so many of us had the opportunity to thank him -- He deserved it.

Forget the Third Way

Forget the Third Way. Next up is the Golden Rule. It is apparently France's creative response to the ongoing class wars and the so-called 'failure of capitalism';

There is an inner circle in the Elysee Palace, very close to the President, that is launching trial balloons to prepare ground-breaking legislation for a Golden Rule for a sort of purified, moralised, benevolent and above all New Capitalism to end all class wars. Its cornerstone would be the Rule of Three, meaning roughly that profit would not belong to the owner (e.g. the shareholders) of an enterprise, but would have to be divided into three equal parts, one for dividends, one for the wage-earners and one for investment. The future profit yielded by this investment would again fall under the Rule of Three, and so on to eternity. This would serve a "more just distribution of wealth".

Good God. It's almost obscene. Read the entire column here.

Children from broken homes lagging behind in education

Does Mr Driessen know what a political statement he has made? His words are not in the least sensational. His observations make perfect sense. But they will be heresy to some fanatics.

Education consultant Joseph Driessen said children who came from broken homes were typically 25 per cent behind other children in achievement.

"Boys are affected by divorce very deeply because 85 per cent of custody goes to the mother and guys just disappear. That needs to change," he said.

"We need to have a family split-up philosophy where we realise that sons need their fathers. All custody and access should be 50-50."

Many women - and some men - do not want to know, especially from an educational specialist, that children from broken homes are lagging behind. That challenges the orthodoxy that women alone can raise children (of both sexes) just as well as a couple. I am not talking here about single mums finding it a battle having been deserted by an irresponsible father; those struggling and doing their best to fill the void. I am talking about the intellectual elite who told and taught that family structure is neither here nor there. In fact a family structure free from the heavy hand of the patriarchy may be preferable. Those that purposefully set about harnessing the power of the state to replace fathers with anonymous public money.

And there is a section of the legal fraternity that would vehemently disagree. Custody battles are often about who gets the money. If a 50/50 split is assumed it is left to the parents to make their own arrangements. There would be no point in child support because they would be cancelling out each others payments. A great deal of family court work would dry up.(I always remember one unusual academic saying to me that in practice it was probably better for the father to have custody as he generally had the higher earning power. It was said with some irony because, again, it made sense but would be considered audacious in the current feminist-dominated cultural and political environment.)

So await the bru ha ha this triggers. The first objection put up will be the poverty problem. It is poverty - not lack of a father. If I had the time this morning I could write the response myself as predictable as it will be. But I don't.

"The best of times"; Labour's legacy

Yesterday's budget and the budget from 2000/01 are depicted below. The figures show that in 2000/01 social welfare made up 34.6 percent of government spending. After nine years that have been described as "the best of times" social welfare spending now accounts for 32.3 percent. Labour's three terms will be forever characterised in my mind as a negligent, colossal, wasted opportunity to pare welfare back to being what its political forbears intended - a safety net.

Budget 2009: Welfare Forecasts

Further to my post this morning - no plan, no vision, more welfare.




- A 31 percent increase in total spending forecast by 2013.

- Unemployment to rise to almost 100,000 by 2010/11.

- DPB numbers to rise by 13 percent - far too optimistic without policy change

- Accommodation supplement expenditure to rise by 45 percent.

- Childcare assistance funding to rise 41 percent - why, when unemployment and DPB is also forecast to rise? Why are we paying other people to look after children we are also paying their unemployed parents to look after?

- "Other" benefits spending to rise by 39 percent.

- Cost of Super to rise 32 percent (because there will be no lift in qualifying age despite life expectancy growing steadily).

- Income related rents expenditure to rise 47 percent.

- Spending on the "In Work" tax credit to drop by 11 percent. That's what ambition looks like.

What an uninspiring, lacklustre, roll-over-and-die bunch of figures.

(All of the above are based on actual spending in 2008 to forecast spending by 2013. The population, by the way, based on the last 5 years growth, will rise by 6 percent.)

Welfare and unfunded liabilities

As it is Budget Day let's talk about money. The discussion can be opened by Jim Powell of the Future of Freedom Organisation;

Back in 1935, when Social Security was being debated, nobody talked about billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. “Trillions” was beyond comprehension. Social Security generates unfunded liabilities because current Social Security payroll taxes go to pay for current benefits, and nothing is set aside to cover future benefits of current taxpayers. FDR’s smart advisors assumed that the number of taxpayers would increase as fast as the number of people collecting benefits, but the number of people collecting benefits has grown faster, and now Social Security is going broke.

In New Zealand the same is true. The number of people collecting benefits has grown faster than taxpayers.



This table doesn't extend to the present (unemployment well down, DPB steady, Sickness and Invalid's well up) but you get the picture.

It seems to me, and has for a long time now, that this country needs to be reforming welfare because of the damage it does first, and because of the cost second. But I grow less and less optimistic that the first imperative will be realised. Sadly it will be the second. Sadly because the second will hurt people more.

You see we could have done this in a planned and compassionate way while the economy was in good shape. Instead of saying to existing beneficiaries, there is no money available for your benefit, we should have been saying to young people, there is no money available to you if you drop out of school, don't support yourself or any child you produce. The distinction is sharp.

Let's flesh it out. For example, there are over 4,000 teenage parents on a benefit right now. They all came into the system after 2005 - during a time of low unemployment. These individuals will typically stay on welfare until their late 30s. So a crude calculation means they alone are going to cost $1.6 billion. Of course that leaves out the costs of their families health and education and other social needs which could easily double the figure.

If our politicians were prepared to bite the bullet and close the door to future long-term dependants billions could be saved. Instead John Key is acting like Obama, promising to retain all social security entitlements and even extending them.

Being in a recession shouldn't and hasn't eased the urgent need for reform. It has brought the crunch closer. But the sooner the country wakes up to that, the softer the crunch will be.

I just don't get it

I really, really don't want to be insensitive or offensive here but there is something that always puzzles me. Tragically, a keeper was attacked and killed by a lion today and the lion was subsequently destroyed.

This is a rare and valuable animal kept in captivity for the purposes of, one assumes, preservation of the species. It is commonly understood that such an animal, given the opportunity, is quite capable of killing. So when it does just that, we destroy it. Can anyone explain that to me?

Law Society Opposes Three Strikes

There is no link available yet but NewstalkZB is reporting the Law Society is opposing the three strikes bill. They want sentencing discretion to stay with the judge. A spokesperson didn't think the "blunt instrument" that is three strikes was conducive or consistent with "social development". They also believe that a three strikes policy could have the unintended consequence of encouraging criminals facing their third strike to kill any potential witnesses. Um. If judges are to continue to use their discretion I wish a few more would give public safety a higher priority.

Update; The radio report led me to assume that the Law Society had just submitted on the bill but according to this report that happened earlier in the month. I am mystified as to why it has become newsworthy again today.

A socialist wishlist

The Child Poverty Action Group has released a list of recommendations for the budget. Its a socialist wishlist and as such, a waste of their time.

CPAG has nine recommendations for the Government leading up to this year’s Budget:

1) Set a target date to end child poverty, and undertake to produce a child impact assessment for all proposed legislation.

There is only relative poverty in NZ. By definition it is impossible to end it.

2) Treat all children as deserving support and acknowledge that parenting is important work. Recognise the ‘In-Work Tax Credit’ as part of family assistance that is needed by all low-income families, as the ReStart package proves. This should be done by adding $60 to the first child rate of the Family Tax Credit.

As I have commented before if there is no financial incentive to work more people will opt for or stay on benefits. Having no working parent is bad for children.

3) Increase social assistance payments to adequate levels, and make good on the pre-election promise of raising the earned income disregard for beneficiaries from $80 to at least $100.

What is an 'adequate' level? The second part of 3 I agree with.

4) Abandon development of proposals for income splitting.

Agree. Flat tax would be better.

5) Provide free primary health care for under-18s, at all hours.

The resources aren't there. Many people can afford to take their children to the doctor but can't find one.

6) Increase the operating grants for low-decile schools to cover all children’s basic educational needs, including the provision of amenities such as swimming pools.

The grants are already heavily weighted towards low decile schools.

7) Ensure that 20 hours free ECE is extended to Playcentre, Kôhanga Reo, state kindergartens, and not-for-profit private and community-based education and care services.

As with GPs the lack of amenities is more of a problem than affordability. And already, many low-income children have a single mother who is paid to look after her children full-time and, on top of that, paid a subsidy to put them in ECE. This is a recessionary budget isn't it?

8) Urgently address the severe overcrowding and poor living conditions of thousands of children by expanding the state house building programme and providing extra funding to community housing providers.

More state housing = more ghetto-like neighbourhoods. Explain to people that having children makes them poorer (unless they are on a benefit). If they are already poor, it might not be a great idea having more.

9) Tax capital gain from residential property in a fair way, for example by using the risk-free rate of return method.

Oh yeah. Keep on taxing the 'rich' to pay for all of the above. They won't mind.

In addition, the group urges the Government to implement plans to improve children’s access to better nutrition, including making breakfast in schools available unconditionally to all children in all Decile 1, 2 and 3 schools.

If their parents can't afford to get a couple of pieces of toast into them before they go out the door they need budget advice. Not more money.

Racist law

In an increasingly multi-racial country more care should be taken with the term 'racist'. Housing NZ want to add a clause to new housing tenancy agreements requiring that permission is sought for someone to be bailed or paroled to one of its properties.

Council for Civil Liberties chairman Michael Bott said the measure was racist, as Maori and Pacific Islanders were the most heavily represented in the court and prison system.

It isn't racist. If the clause specified permission must be sought only for Maori or Pacific Islanders it would be racist. This is also a favourite with the Maori Party. To incorrectly label a law that disproportionately affects Maori as racism.

In the past genuinely racist laws have existed. Maori women were barred from drinking in pubs, Asians were barred from collecting the old-age pension. These laws were racist because they excluded someone based purely on their race.

Following Michael Bott's line of thought we would arrive at the following; Any law that Maori disproportionately break is a racist law.