Raise the Super Age

I have only now found time to go back now (prompted by a comment from yesterday - thanks) and have a look at the IMF recommendations to NZ.

In there is an utterly sane and inarguably sound idea. The age for Super eligibility must go up. The IMF ensconces that more neatly;

10. To address longer-term pressures on the budget, early steps should be taken to contain the projected growth in health care and pension costs. Measures could include improving the efficiency of health care spending and linking the pension eligibility age to life expectancy.

Super makes up the biggest single item of government expenditure ($7.7 billion) and it is going to rise significantly as the population ages. I would like to see a young group (supported by their parent's generation) pick up this recommendation and campaign on it.

It would be very provocative to use the moniker RSA. Some will say it is disrespectful to returned soldiers who have fought for their country, paid their txes etc but most returned soldiers will get a Vets pension anyway.

Grey Power are very strong politically and they are a pain-in-the-proverbial socialists (though not all of their members are). I imagine they would be the foremost opponents. What a bun fight that would be.

This issue needs a real push with Guy Smiley promising to do absolutely nothing about it. It would be a real polariser and sitting on the fence would get more and more uncomfortable.

Act-on-Campus?

History repeating

I have been reviewing older issues of the NZ Social Policy Journals this afternoon and realised that under the National government (of the 1990s) the contributors brought a far less 'government must' attitude. For instance there was a contribution by Gareth Morgan, and a number of people who wrote publications by the NZBR around that time. During the 2000s it was predominantly left-leaning academics contributing. But here is a statement, 17 years-old, that caught my eye.

Breaking the dependency cycle is one of the two top priority outcomes for the Department of Social Welfare in the 1993/94 year, and a number of new initiatives have recently been undertaken aimed at facilitating the “welfare-to-work” process.

During the 17 years another generation has become dependent. What is National's latest stated goal?

"...aiming to break the cycle of welfare dependency."

Previews and going off on a tangent

Well I've broken even before the exhibition officially opens. Sigh of relief. Can pay off credit card. Two paintings sold yesterday. I find the previews quite a trial. Everyone wants to talk to you and you are constantly aware of not being able to do that. So many friends come and go without my even being able to acknowledge them. This is one of the reasons I was never any good at politics because I not only let myself get monopolised by people, I enjoy it. I get easily engrossed in conversations. But frequently about stuff other than my paintings.

There are always people who will walk up and say, "Are you the Lindsay Mitchell that writes to the newspaper?" That's good. People who don't agree with my views never approach me. When I confess I am they launch forth on what they know and their perspective. Fascinating.

For instance a woman yesterday who had worked for social welfare in the early seventies said to me they never needed to introduce the DPB. "I could get a woman on the emergency benefit if she needed it," she said. But now , "the underbelly has got too big." Of course she is right about the emergency benefit. This idea that pre DPB women were forced to give up children, forced to live violent relationships is not wholly true. Help was available but not of right. That's what changed and that's what opened the floodgates.

Another person I know well who also worked in the department late 60s and early 70s, a sole parent herself at that time, has said the same thing. They didn't really need to do that. Quietly working within the existing rules help was there where it was warranted. Consequently when it was introduced there wasn't any big fanfare. Media coverage in the Evening Post was relegated to something like page 18 from memory.

Contrast that to the current climate - 'Future Focus' being a perfect example - whenever there is the slightest hint of eligibility rules for the DPB changing it dominates the media for days.

Easter exhibitions

Solo 29 opens to the public tomorrow and there are 2 previews today. I have 12 new works on display and hope to spend quite a bit of time there pasteling. People very much enjoy watching an artist working. It's the school holidays so hopefully that will boost traffic. While I was down there laying out the work I took the opportunity to have a quick squizz at the National Portrait Competition showing nearby. Some great paintings on display (although I see the infamous Clayton Weatherston depiction has been removed.) So if you are in the city over Easter drop by and check out both exhibitions.

Sentences and orders being served soar

This graph appears to be telling me that the number of sentences and orders in place has jumped by roughly 50 percent since July 2007.

Corrections - currently one of the few growth industries in New Zealand.

You own your own life

Given the very sad passing of Margaret Page I thought this quote, from the Freedom Foundation's daily update was timely;

A man has the right to dispose of his life and his property in any way he chooses, without interference from anyone else. A man has no right to dispose of any other man's life or property, no matter what his personal rationalizations may be.

— Robert Ringer

MPs square off over welfare and child abuse

Over at Red Alert MP Carmel Sepuloni has taken enormous offence at National MP Todd McClay linking welfare to child abuse. It is a fine example of why it is impossible to have an objective conversation about this issue.

McClay's comments must have occurred during the debate on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill,

Todd went down the wrong path when he disrespectfully brought Nia Glassie in to the debate. He went in to a rant abour how she was surrounded by people on benefits and therefore (in his mind) this led to her murder.

This was not only bad taste but it was offensive. Not only is the Govt trying to stigmatise beneficiaries as lazy; dole bludgers, ripping off the system BUT NOW they are adding – child abusers and even child murderers – to the stigma.

I have directed her to NZ research that shows children who are the subject of a care and protection notification are 4 times more likely to have a parent or caregiver on a benefit, adding;

You have to understand that ‘are more likely to’ can co-exist with ‘most don’t’. For argument’s sake;

8 out of 100 beneficiaries abuse their children.
2 out of 100 non-beneficiaries abuse their children.

Therefore beneficiaries are 4 times more likely to abuse their children BUT most don’t.

However, inasmuch as child murder usually occurs at the extreme end of abuse, it is more likely to happen when the parent or other caregiver is a beneficiary.

So stop taking offence and start asking whether there is a link between welfare and child abuse.

How ambitious is Heather Roy?

Is Heather Roy really angling for leadership of ACT or is she being cornered into appearing so by the media?

Having a female/male co-leadership situation is so PC. She is reported as saying that it has worked for the Maori Party and the Greens. But in what way?

In terms of actually achieving votes the single leadership of National and Labour has been far more effective.

Turia on the welfare reforms

Interviewed on Radio NZ this morning Associate Social Development Minister Tariana Turia made it clear she does not support National's DPB reforms but has to vote for them as minister. So does Sharples. But the rest of the caucus is another matter.

Initially she says she does support benefit reform (makes some interesting comments about people not understanding where benefit money comes from) but then makes it clear (as in the past) that she is only talking about the unemployment benefit. Her problems;

1/ The timing - where are the jobs?
2/ Single parents should be allowed to stay home until their children have "completed schooling."

Regarding the timing, I have blogged before about where the existing and looming shortages lie and demand will come as the baby boomers age. But as well manufacturing is picking up. Plus there is a lag in introducing reforms. If we put them off because of present circumstances, when circumstances change the new rules aren't in place.

Paying single parents to stay home until their children complete school - and if she had been asked to clarify that I am sure it would have been high school - is absurd, although, in law, what currently happens.

So how is this going to pan out? Tariana would not guarantee all her caucus will vote for the reforms. Have we heard anything from ACT about the reforms? Is their support guaranteed, bearing in mind the reforms (depending on which is under the spotlight) are a rehash, a continuation of current practice or could arguably make intergenerational dependency worse? What are the numbers needed?

If 3 Maori Party MPs and ACT didn't support the legislation, even with Peter Dunne's 'aye' the vote will be tied. Can legislation be passed under a tied vote? I don't know the answer to that.

Then again the ACT ministers of government may also be obliged to support the government in which case it is a done deal. But perhaps they should be holding out for change with more teeth - like limiting benefit eligibility to the number of children dependent when the benefit was granted. Or basing work-testing on a set period of time from when the benefit was granted, rather than on the age of the youngest child. In effect, time-limiting it. After all, ACT always claimed to be the campaigners for welfare reform and time-limits were very much part of their earlier policy.

The legislation has its first reading in parliament this afternoon.

There is none so blind...

Tapu Misa has written about National's welfare reforms in her Herald column today;

You'd think then that someone like Lindsay Mitchell, a "welfare commentator" and tireless critic of the DPB, would be celebrating.

Actually, no. The benefit changes, she blogs, "are a waste of time"; they've either been tried before (and failed) or are "a continuation of current practice dressed up as a new approach".

She points out that National introduced the same work test back in 1996, with little change in the number of DPB beneficiaries.

As for making people reapply for the dole after one year, Mitchell says 84 per cent of those on the dole don't even reach one year, and anyway, the unemployment benefit isn't the problem when it comes to inter-generational welfare dependency.

Mitchell's problem is with unwed teenage mothers who keep swelling the ranks of the DPB. She says they're the ones who find the idea of life on the DPB too seductive to pass up.

Who would choose this as a lifestyle option? Not the seventh form girls at the Auckland private school I spoke to recently. They'd never even heard of the DPB.

But that's hardly surprising. The teen birth rate of girls in the poorest decile, girls who don't attend private schools, is almost 10 times that of girls in the wealthiest. Girls attending private schools have families with high expectations of them and opportunities abound. Girls in the poorest decile will have much slimmer career prospects and motherhood rates alongside reasonably well. This doesn't necessarily mean they make an active decision to get pregnant and go on the DPB or EMA (which they can do from 16), but the availability of a benefit most certainly influences their choices.

In his book More Than Just Race (2009), Harvard professor William Julius Wilson disputes the widely-held assumption that underpinned many of the 1996 welfare reforms in the United States: that there is "a direct causal link between the level or generosity of welfare benefits and the likelihood that a young woman would bear a child outside of marriage".

Wilson writes that there is no evidence for the claims that welfare payments provide incentives for childbearing, or discourage marriage.

But there is. Research for the US department of Human and Health Services by Anne Hill and June O'Neill showed that a 50 percent increase in the value of welfare payments and foodstamps led to a 43 percent increase in unmarried births. Numerous other studies, and not just American, have identified a similar association.

Women don't need to be dragged kicking and screaming off the DPB, they need good childcare and secure, well-paying jobs.

If women want "secure, well-paying jobs" they need to plan for them. Nothing has more potential to interrupt an education or absolve the need to get an education better than the certainty of a welfare income that pays more than the minimum wage.

As Auckland University associate professor of economics Susan St John wrote last week: "New Zealand's figures show clearly that when the job conditions are favourable and unemployment is low, benefit numbers fall."

So what did we see with the DPB during the economic boom? A drop from a 1998 high of 113,000 to 97,000 in 2008. The core of long-termers, especially those who start young and stay longest, wasn't touched.

A 2002 analysis by Bob Gregory, an economics professor at the Australian National University, showed that most Australian women were constantly trying to get off welfare, but most ended up back on the benefit within a short time.

My comments on The Standard most probably led Misa to Bob Gregory's research, the most astounding aspect of which is he estimated, in Australia, women stayed on welfare for an average total of at least 12 years. This did not include benefits they might transfer to when they no longer had dependent children in their care. Which supports my assertion that welfare has transformed into far more than a last resort safety net.

I am not sure what Misa is trying to achieve with this column. Work and strong families are an integral part of Pacific culture. A denial that welfare can undermine both is self-defeating. But if she doesn't want to see the evidence then a private girls school is absolutely the best place to go looking for it.

Deja vu

Which government, and in which year, said the following?

"This government will not support unemployment as a lifestyle option. We are making the benefit system simpler and fairer, but for those who do not accept their responsibilities, there will be sanctions. Those who fail to take up suitable jobs that are offered to them will not receive taxpayer support."

The truth will out - eventually

It has been an ongoing bone of contention between myself and the Ministry of Social Development that they are unable to accurately describe how long people stay on the DPB for cumulatively. This dates back 8 years.



For two reasons yesterday the issue arose again. Firstly because a commentor at The Standard was quoting statistics relating to each continuous spell and I pointed out the these couldn't tell us anything about total dependence (to which I got the usual name calling response from the usual sources).

But more importantly I see that the economics lecturer, Susan St John, did some calculations about National's proposed savings if they could cut the number of people on the DPB.

Sole parents come off the benefit either because they go back to paid work, or they re-partner. It appears that Key is assuming, heroically, the new policy will save an average of 6.5 extra years of DPB for each of the 2150 sole parents it moves into work. This would produce a net saving of around $200 million.

The only time I have ever seen that number before was when I produced it way back in 2002.

Angry America

Here's someone not holding back. Too good not to paste in its entirety;

American Exceptionalism, RIP

By Monica Crowley

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

-Jean-Jacques Rousseau

After Sunday night's health care spectacle dressed up as a "vote" in the House of Representatives, the American people have been shackled by a new set of chains. The United States of America - once great, grand and free - is on the path to becoming just another country. We were once the beacon of liberty, a nation that didn't just represent individual freedom but celebrated and protected it. The improbable defeat of the British that led to our dazzling founding made us exceptional from the outset. Our Constitution was quickly recognized, admired and loathed as an exceptional document of freedom. We survived intact a brutal Civil War that would have destroyed another country. And then, during two world wars, we crushed tyrannical enemies that wanted to snuff out our special liberty. We emerged stronger and, in turn, strengthened our exceptional status.

We have been the "shining city on a hill" that achieved superpower pre-eminence in a very short period of time because we were unique: The American people had a fierce passion for liberty, and our political system - based on limited government and individual freedom - was great because it was good. It allowed us to thrive, prosper and set ourselves apart from every run-of-the-mill nation.

No longer.

What the Democrats did last weekend was not just pass a horrendously expensive, corrupt and destructive health care bill.

They took a big chunk out of our exceptionalism.

They are turning us rather quickly into France. Or Great Britain. Or any other Western European nation that was once great but no longer enjoys that status.

And that's the point. President Obama said last year that he believed in "American exceptionalism, the way the British believe in British exceptionalism and the way the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Meaning: he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He believes we're an arrogant nation, which is why he has been obsessed with apologizing for America and bowing before foreign potentates. He believes that the United States, with its big guns and its big money, has thrown its weight around too much, been too aggressive, pushy and demanding and too insensitive to how our actions affected others. We need to atone for that, he believes, by being taken down a notch or two. He intends to do the takedown.

According to Mr. Obama, exceptionalism is so yesterday, an uncool, antiquated and ultimately destructive notion. Rather than be first among many, we should simply be one of many. Just another country on the United Nations' roll call. Nothing special. Equal to, say, Myanmar.

He is accomplishing this by expanding government in unprecedented ways. It's unprecedented for us, although it's certainly not unprecedented in the kinds of countries into which he's trying to turn us. By expanding government into every nook and cranny of your life - through health care, cap-and-trade, and education policy - he will exponentially grow the base of people dependent on the federal government. By doing that, he will create a permanent Democratic majority. (This is why he will take up amnesty for illegal immigrants as soon as the ink is dry on the health care bill this week.)

The objective: a massive welfare state, a la France and Greece - both of which, by the way, are sinking fast under their monstrous debts. One of the keys to unexceptionalism is a crippled currency. By transferring millions more Americans to the public dole through health care entitlements, he is growing our debt to levels that will bring about the end of the dollar as the exceptional cornerstone of the world's monetary structure. We'll soon be going hat in hand to the Chinese (the way the Greeks are going hat in hand to the European Union), begging for economic salvation. America as uniquely free? Not anymore.

This is why most Americans are not going to settle for anything less than the full monty: absolute and total repeal of Obamacare. Most if not all Republicans will run on repealing it. That's swell, but we have two conditions: (1) that they actually mean it and aren't just spewing "fiscal responsibility" rhetoric to get elected and then, once in office, backtrack from working for full repeal, and (2) there are to be no exceptions in any repeal. No exemptions for subsection this or that. No "well, that part isn't so bad" or "let's only throw out the bad parts." The entire thing is the bad part. The whole bill should be deemed an unconstitutional, criminal act. It must be repealed in toto.

Health care "reform" was never about health care. It was about expanding government into every part of your life as an excuse to confiscate more and more of your private property, strip you of your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and remake America into a two-bit, second-rate, debt-laden European socialist backwater.

Sunday night, Mr. Obama said, "This is what change looks like." The change to which he refers is the change to unexceptionalism. Note to the president and congressional Democrats: We are exceptional Americans, and you are wholly unexceptional thieves of freedom. We want our liberty and exceptionalism back. We're throwing off the chains.

Monica Crowley is a nationally syndicated radio host, a panelist on "The McLaughlin Group" and a Fox News contributor.

(Hat tip The Freedom Foundation)

$4.8 billion?

The figure of $4.8 billion for welfare has taken hold over the last few days.

#New Zealand spends about $4.8 billion a year on welfare.

#The figures show 345,000 New Zealanders currently receive either independent youth, unemployment, sickness, invalid or domestic purposes benefit (DPB), and this costs taxpayers $4.8 billion a year.

#The changes, which include study loans for the DPB and additional funds for child care, will cost $88 million to implement in the first four years, but will save just $300m from the $4.8 billion benefit bill over the next decade.

#The Government says 345,000 New Zealanders currently receive a benefit, costing taxpayers $4.8 billion a year.

The total quoted of $4.8 billion covers only the basic benefit rate - not the supplementary assistance like family tax credits, accommodation allowance, disability allowance etc. The following shows that much more than $4.8 billion is spent on working age welfare.



Ball park figure - $6.2 billion

My estimates
$800 million accommodation supplement
$900 million family tax credit
$500 million incomer related rents

Add in student and disability allowances and the total climbs to over $7 billion.
That is the figure I would use for what working-age welfare costs.

(I expect that the lion share of 'other social assistance benefits' is WFF. If you want to label that welfare - and some do - then your'e looking of a welfare bill of approximately $9 billion. Considering the MSD vote is $20 billion that figure makes much more sense than $4.8 billion.)

"Unwarranted"?

The NZ Herald's editorial is about the welfare reforms. It makes this observation;

Young women who regard the domestic purposes benefit as an open-ended career choice have long been a source of largely unwarranted anguish to the party.

Naturally my response is why "unwarranted"? Has the Herald some particular insight or information that the rest of us do not possess? As I have said before at least a third of single parents currently on welfare started there as teenagers. If record keeping extended beyond 1996 the percentage would be considerably higher. Perhaps the Herald looks at the point-in-time numbers and thinks, ah, only 3 percent of DPB beneficiaries are teenagers. That is not an uncommon mistake but leads to a complete misunderstanding of the size of problem of young women treating the DPB as "an open-ended career choice."

Children who are raised long-term on welfare are at much greater risk of experiencing poor health, transience, insecurity, poor educational achievement, abuse and neglect, getting into trouble with the law, developing substance abuse problems and becoming a beneficiary themselves. Anguish about this group can never be "unwarranted".

The Bill of Rights and senseless outcomes

The NZ Bill of Rights has its place but sometimes when the Attorney General reports on an abuse of it the practical ramifications are nonsensical.

Work testing sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) is an unjustifiable breach of human rights, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson advised Parliament today.

It was against the Bill of Rights Act that a woman on the DPB with a child over six would face work testing, while women on the widow's benefit or the woman alone benefit would not, he said.

So go ahead and work test them all.

But most of the women on a widows benefit are nearing retirement age and it makes more sense to get younger women, who have years ahead of them to support themselves and their families, into the available work.

What work-testing the DPB will achieve

This is a direct quote from a letter I received from the Ministry of Social Development 13 May 2005;

Under the work test, 17.5 per 1,000 Domestic Purposes Benefit or Widows Benefit clients left benefit each month. This has risen to 18.8 per 1,000 clients in June 2004 following the introduction of enhanced case management and the personal development and employment planning process.

So the Ministry's own evidence shows that current policy is more successful than National's.

What a waste of time these reforms are going to be.

Welfare reforms a re-hash

WELFARE REFORMS A RE-HASH
Tuesday, 23 March, 2010

The National Government's welfare reforms aimed at reducing the cycle of welfare dependency and branded as Future Focus, have either been tried before or are a continuation of current practice dressed up as a new approach, according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"For instance, the Minister is promising a redesigned medical certificate for sickness and invalid beneficiaries but the current certificate was only redesigned in September 2007 as part of the Working New Zealand: Work-Focused Support Programme. Additionally we are told that applicants for the invalid's benefit who are expected to be able to work part-time in the next two years will instead receive a sickness benefit. That is the existing criteria for eligibility."

"Work-testing the DPB when the youngest child turns 6 has been tried before and resulted in a mere 2.7 percent drop in numbers on the DPB over the period it was in force. According to the Ministry a single parent with two children living in Auckland receives 14 percent more per week than someone on the minimum wage working full-time. That provides a significant incentive to avoid work-testing by ensuring the youngest child is never older than 5. So if the birth rate of welfare dependent mothers increases this policy is more likely to increase the cycle of welfare dependence. That is because children raised on a benefit are more likely to become beneficiaries themselves."

"Finally making people reapply for the dole after 1 year is not a bad idea by any means. But 84 percent of unemployment beneficiaries don't even reach a year. The unemployment benefit is not the problem when it comes to intergenerational welfare dependence."

"Where people are capable of working - and a majority are - the government should be making welfare strictly temporary assistance. That was what the original architects of welfare intended."

Benefit reforms - arguably worse than the status quo

Paula Bennett has just announced Future Focus, National's much vaunted welfare reforms designed to "break the cycle of welfare dependency".

Summarised;

Unemployment benefit

Continues to be work-tested but instead of 100 percent loss of benefit for non-compliance with work requirements, only 50 percent of the benefit will be lost at first failure.

All UB beneficiaries will have to re-apply after one year and undergo a comprehensive work assessment.

Invalid's benefit

The medical certificate is being re-designed to provide case managers with more information about the beneficiary's capacity to work.

Anyone deemed able to work in the next two years will be sent to the sickness benefit instead.

Sickness benefit

Again, redesigned medical certificate and a new requirement that a second certificate is issued at 8 instead of 13 weeks.

Like UB, a compulsory review after 1 year.

From May next year, where assessed capable of working part-time, will be work-tested like unemployed beneficiaries. Sanctions for non- compliance same as UB.

DPB

From September beneficiaries with youngest child aged 6 will be part-time work-tested. Some exemptions for parents of special needs children or those studying at level 4 or above. Same sanctions as unemployment benefit.

Sanctions

Staggered instead of 100 percent at first failure. Single beneficiaries more likely to be sanctioned than couples with children.

Hardship payments

Easier to get a small number over a year - harder to get large number

Abatement

The $80 threshold (how much a beneficiary can earn before their benefit income is reduced by 30 cents in the dollar) is raised to $100.

My response;

The Unemployment benefit.

Why reduce the sanction for failure to comply with a work-test? This weakens the effectiveness of sanctions. It seems that National wants one sanction regime so eased it in advance of extending the scheme to the sickness and domestic purpose's benefit. I note they explicitly state, "single beneficiaries with no children are more likely to be sanctioned than couples with children." There is a incentive here to make sure you have a child dependent on you.

Invalid's and sickness benefits.

MSD had already introduced a redesigned medical certificate in 2007 and the effectiveness was called into question in a recent Auditor General's report. In any event, numbers on IB and SB continued to grow.

The reforms to sickness benefits will emulate what Australia did with their disability support pensions in 2006 by introducing part-time work obligations on those assessed as able to work.

The result there?

The Sydney Morning Herald reports earlier this month;

The reforms introduced a much tougher social security regime that aimed to end long-term welfare dependency and cut the growth in welfare rolls.

But the evaluation shows the changes failed to put a brake on the high numbers joining disability pension rolls, made little progress in moving people with disabilities off benefits and into work, and made only ''modest'' gains in the work participation of the very long-term unemployed and mature-age job-seekers...

The evaluation shows that in the year after the reforms the same numbers were added to the disability pension rolls as in previous years. These rose from 712,000 in July 2006 to 757,118 three years later.

However, there was also progress with 10 per cent of new disability pension applicants on Newstart leaving income support after six months. In previous years, only 4 per cent of a similar group moved off the pension.

Clare Martin, the chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service, said: ''Although the figures show there was a small rise in people with disabilities moving into work, the policy actually left thousands of people worse off because they were diverted onto lower levels of payments. It was simply problem-shifting.''

DPB

The introduction of a work-test when the youngest child turns 6 will encourage the beneficiary to make sure their youngest child is never older than six. National says that when they previously introduced a work test on the DPB (1997-2003) the full-time employment rates of sole mothers climbed rapidly. But the number on the DPB dropped by only 3,000 or 2.7% percent. This policy could be significantly strengthened by adding a cap on the number of children allowed while on a benefit. Currently about 5,000 children are added to an existing benefit every year.

The figure the Ministry has provided for a typical DPB parent renting in Auckland is $580 per week or $30,160 per annum after tax. A full-time job on the minimum wage would pay $26,520 before tax.

That's another big incentive to keep growing a family and stay on the benefit.

Lifting earning capacity for people who are part employed and part benefit dependent seems like a good idea but may simply lead to more people staying in that position than moving into full-time work.

The reforms will enhance the motivation of those people who want to work. But are they the problem?

The Minister says they are aimed at reducing the cycle of dependency but they may well do the very opposite by increasing the benefit-dependent birthrate. Children born onto a benefit are far more likely to become adult beneficiaries.

The most pressing problem inherent in the welfare system - making children guarantors of a no-obligation benefit income - just got worse.

Forced wealth redistribution losing popularity

A new instalment of the Social Inequality Survey conducted by Massey University has just been published with some interesting shifts in respect of welfare and wealth redistribution;

The Government’s Responsibility

Forty percent of respondents agreed that it is the government’s responsibility to reduce the differences in income between people with higher incomes and those with lower incomes. However, 34% disagreed and 26% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Responses to the question of whether the government should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed showed a similar pattern: 43% agreed, 30% disagreed and 27% were neutral.

Only 22% of those surveyed agreed that the government should spend less on benefits for the poor; 48% disagreed and 30% neither agreed nor disagreed. This is consistent with the notion that the government has a responsibility for reducing income differences.

However, while there is support for the government to play an active role in protecting those on low incomes and reducing income disparity, this support is by no means universal. Furthermore, the proportion of New Zealanders who believe that the government should reduce income differences has fallen by 10% since 1992. This mirrors a similar decline in the proportion who believe income differences in New Zealand are too large. In both cases, most of this decline has occurred in the last decade.

Following the current trend those who do not think it's the government's job to reduce income differences will be in a majority within 15-20 years. Whether that will translate into government action is quite another matter.