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?

Intervention in the "right to die" case

The latest release from Lecretia Seales.I suppose she would have expected attempted  intervention from various interested parties but her frustration at their being granted leave, as she runs out of 'quality' time, must be immense.

Interest Groups Intervene in Seales “Right To Die” Case

Friday, 24 April 2015, 6:30 pm
Press Release: Lecretia Seales Media Release
Lecretia Seales
Friday, April 24, 2015
For Immediate Release
Interest Groups Successfully Intervene in Seales “Right To Die” Case Under Strict Conditions
The Human Rights Commission, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand and the Care Alliance have been granted leave to intervene on a limited basis in the upcoming case of terminally ill 42-year-old New Zealand lawyer Lecretia Seales, who has petitioned the High Court to uphold her right to die at a time of her choosing with the assistance of a physician. Their intervention will give them the right to present additional evidence to the court, under strict conditions.
The news comes as Lecretia Seales is informed by her oncologist today that her latest course of chemotherapy will not be continued, as it has not been successful. Ms Seales survival expectations have been revised and notwithstanding overseas treatment options she is entering a phase of symptom management and palliative care.
Justice Collins announced his decision via written judgment in Wellington today, stating that:

“I am granting applications made by Care Alliance, The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand (Incorporated) (Voluntary Euthanasia) and the Human Rights Commission for leave to intervene in this proceeding. In order to ensure Ms Seales is not unnecessarily burdened by the participation of the interveners, I am placing stringent conditions on the interveners’ participation in this proceeding. I am exercising my discretion to grant the applications primarily because I am satisfied that I may be assisted by the conditional participation of the interveners in reaching my decision in relation to Ms Seales’ application for declarations.”

He also stated:

“The declarations Ms Seales seeks are cast very precisely and are not intended to have a wide application. Nevertheless, the issue of whether or not a person in Ms Seales’ circumstances can be assisted to end her life, or have her health professional deliberately hasten her death raises significant legal and ethical issues that are of intense public importance.”

The conditions are designed to ensure that the interveners' participation does not cause delay. The interveners are restricted to tight timeframes and must submit their evidence on specific areas which Justice Collins has identified, and within the next two weeks. The interveners will not be permitted to cross-examine any witnesses, and will only be able to make oral submissions at the discretion of the judge, at the time of the hearing. Each intervener is also restricted to written submissions of no more than 6,000 words.
The trial date remains set for the week of May 25th.
Lecretia Seales’ historic case follows a Canadian Supreme Court decision released in February this year in which nine judges unanimously found that Canada’s prohibition against physician assisted dying infringes fundamental human rights. The judgment stated:

The prohibition denies people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care.

The New Zealand case comes as a poll was released last week by Research New Zealand showing that 74% of New Zealanders support a law change allowing terminally ill patients in intolerable suffering to request assistance from doctors to end their lives. The poll was conducted over March and April 2015 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.9%.
Seales says: “I am concerned that the applicants were successful, but pleased with the restrictions. My time is limited, and additional legal counsel and evidence that is not relevant to my circumstances risk lengthening my hearing, and the risk that I will not be alive to receive a judgment. I believe that the applicants have a right to share their points of view, but I would prefer they did not do so as part of my hearing. Nevertheless, I believe Justice Collins’ judgment is a fair one.”
“I absolutely intend to encourage a conversation about euthanasia and assisted death within New Zealand, however the courtroom is not the place for that wider debate. This case is about my circumstances and my circumstances only. The debate should be held across the road from the High Court, at the House of Parliament in the debating chamber, by our politicians, where all affected parties can be represented and have their views heard.”
“I am seeking a clarification of the law in my circumstances. On this issue my lawyers and I believe the law is unclear.”
“Should my case encourage a parliamentary review of the relevant sections of the Crimes Act or the Bill of Rights, there will be time for all interested parties, including the interveners, to be heard in full as part of the legislative process. I would welcome such a review as I believe this is a choice that should be made available to all New Zealanders who are suffering from painful, incurable illnesses, without needing to follow my example of going through the courts. And as a recent poll has shown, the public overwhelmingly agrees.”
Seales and her husband are documenting her case and her illness on her blog and Facebook page.
http://facebook.com/lecretiaschoice
http://lecretia.org
For health reasons, Ms Seales is not available for interviews with the media at this time.
Ends
Related:
High Court “Right To Die” Case Commences, March 21, 2015
http://lecretia.org/press-releases/high-court-right-to-die-case-commences/

Can I touch you?

Some responses to the PM's failure to get that a waitress was not enjoying his slightly juvenile but (he thought) harmless shenanigans, have been strident and uncompromising.

Unwanted touching is assault, they say.

I touch people I barely know reasonably frequently. Something about the territory. People come into my 'studio' and we get talking about art, portraits, lost loved ones,  etc. The conversation can easily turn to personal sadness and it is my wont to touch someone's arm. Occasionally I might even hug someone. Never did I ask their permission.

Someone once asked me if it was OK to give me a hug (in the same environment). It felt weird.

We seem to have a subset of a generation that considers their right to not be touched paramount to anybody else's spontaneous demonstrations.

It's unnatural and anti-social.

Punishing smokers (of which I am not one)

Yesterday's DomPost editorial (note the hard copy edition had a slightly different title which I allude to in my response).

Editorial: Time to renew the war on smoking 

The war against tobacco needs to be renewed. It is now clear that New Zealand will not reach its target of being smokefree by 2025 without tougher measures. But will the government do what is needed?

More

My response published in Letters & Points today unedited:

 The idea that New Zealand will one day be smoke-free (Time for courage in war on smoking, DomPost, April 22) is absurd. For the best part of last century the government fought a spectacularly unsuccessful war on cannabis.
As you note, it is the poorest people who are the heaviest smokers.  Maori mothers feature disproportionately. In the near future you are likely to deliver us another pious sermon about societal responsibility for child poverty, yet today you demand the government continue to ramp up already astronomical tobacco taxes.
It is impossible not to know that smoking foreshortens lives but some still choose to indulge. To continue to financially punish these people isn't courageous - its cruel.

Child maltreatment: MSD still making excuses for Maori

Source