Using 'rape' to attack reform

A prime example of desperate opposition politics.

The British government plans to limit tax credits to two children. But the opposition is crying foul on behalf of mothers of two who  become pregnant as the result of rape or other 'exceptional circumstances'.

Typical left-wing strategy. Try and kill the broad application of a policy at the margins.

Nobody is forced to proceed with a pregnancy.

An SNP MP says,

“We think the policy on limiting tax credits is appalling anyway, and tantamount to social engineering, but putting a woman who has been raped – and her child – in that position is shocking,”

Paying people to have children is social engineering. Not paying them is undoing social engineering.

She's not old enough to appreciate context.

Sole parents on welfare - decline continues

 

 There are a few provisos to the chart above.

 1/ This is only a count of sole parents with children aged 13 and under. Those whose youngest child is 14 or older are now in the Jobseeker statistics but unidentifiable.

2/ There will also be single parents among all the other benefits, especially Supported Living Payment.

3/ The count does not include sole parents under 18.

6 hours of work to get your kids out of poverty?

I pinched this from Utopia:You Are Standing In It, aptly named considering the table below:



It shows that a sole parent with two children receiving a benefit would only need to work 6 hours to get over the 50% of the median household income threshold. Is that right?

The median household income in NZ was $1,358 in June 2013. So the 50% threshold is $679.



The average Sole Parent Support payment is just over $600. 6 hours at minimum wage is $71 net.

The calculation looks robust to me.

6 hours of work does not affect the benefit:

You can get up to $5,200 a year (before tax) in additional money (for example from working) before your benefit payment is affected, and $20 more a week if you have childcare costs.

In New Zealand the higher threshold of 60 percent is used to define 'poverty'. That's $814.

According to Paula Bennett  if the parent worked 15 hours that would result in $750. At 20 hours they leap to $814 - bang on 60 percent of the median household income

So internationally New Zealand stacks up very well in its assistance level for sole parents - without the impending benefit increase.

Questions

On my mind.

Yesterday, on NewstalkZB talking to Larry Williams. Phil Twyford insisted that Labour had taken legal advice over the leaked Barfoot and Thompson data and were assured it was non-problematic because there was nothing in the data that wasn't publicly available.

Why, then, didn't they access it through publicly available channels?

Do you know anyone who wants to change the flag? Paul Henry obviously doesn't. I don't want to but that's apparently because I "don't like change". It is lucky for the person who said so, that I don't like change and thus have not changed him. If the status quo remains, will the only lasting legacy of the  flag debate be familial disharmony?

Speaking of which, where is John Key? He seems to have gone into hibernation.Or am I just looking in the wrong places?



Why have baby murders been relegated to small photo-less snippets while front pages are given over to poor pensioners not being allowed (or being allowed depending on which day you look) to put up curtains in council properties?

When are ratepayers going to revolt?

In my research, I have worried about having to assume that Maori caregivers have Maori children, but it is unavoidable, as MSD records only the ethnicity of the primary beneficiary. How worried would I be if I had to assume that anyone (or proportion thereof) with an Asian sounding name was indeed a non-resident, Chinese home owner?

And has Labour done any modelling on what percentage their policy will wipe off property values?

Because that's the aim. Let's be honest about that at least.

NZ First bags a performance better than its own

Reported by Three News and featured on page two of this morning's DomPost:

In 2005/06 the equivalent percentage was 35%; in 2006/07 it remained the same.

Remind me when NZ First was last part of the government?

A none-news story from CTU

The Council of Trade Unions says:

“New data obtained by the CTU shows that less than half of people who come off a benefit are known to have obtained work,” says CTU economist Bill Rosenberg. “In 2014, MSD records show only 46% obtained work. We therefore cannot assume that falling benefit numbers means people coming off benefits found work.” The data was released to the CTU last month by the Ministry of Social Development under an Official Information request.
“Even adding on the 11% going into full time study means that as many as two out of five people leaving benefits aren’t going into work or study,” says Rosenberg.

The type of benefit isn't defined. All benefits or the Jobseeker?

 Anyway, we can check whether this is worse than in the past.

In 2006/07 only 41% of working age clients leaving the unemployment benefit had obtained work.

DPB was also 41%, sickness benefit 18% and invalid, 26% .

More people leaving a benefit are obtaining work now than they were in 2007.

Mad Max not so mad in UK

Max Rasbrooke, anti-poverty campaigner has gone to the UK. He writes a column that's published in the left-wing  Guardian newspaper about what UK child poverty campaigners could learn from NZ. He begins by painting the recent NZ picture:

Consider this scenario: a centre-right party, handed an unexpectedly large majority, sweeps into government – and promptly promises to make child poverty a key focus of its next term in power, before delivering the first rise in benefit rates in over 40 years.

"Sweeps into government"?  It was already in government.

"An unexpectedly large majority"? Unexpected by Max maybe.

 "First rise in benefit rates in over 40 years"?

This conveniently ignores that second tier assistance like accommodation supplement and family support preserved the value of welfare for families. As well benefits have been constantly raised to keep step with rampant inflation. For instance, from the 1976 Official Yearbook a 15% annual increase to match inflation that year:

 In both countries,benefits are low by international standards

The benefit most pertinent to child poverty is the sole parent support. So how do they stack up :

NZ is middling and the UK is high.

When it comes to solutions, both governments are focused on forcing people off benefits, with no real monitoring of what happens to them afterwards. They are also both cutting, or looking to cut, in-work benefits, sometimes by stealth

Yet the government is increasing  in-work benefits from April next year:

Lower-income working families not on a benefit also get a boost from the Budget. Working families earning $36,350 a year or less before tax will get $12.50 extra a week from Working for Families, and some very low-income families will get $24.50 extra.

Rashbrooke continues:

 New Zealand does, however, provide a slightly more fertile climate for anti-poverty campaigners: in a country of 4.5 million people, poverty is more visible than it is in Britain...

Wouldn't overcrowding make poverty more visible? The more eyes there are, the more visible something is.

But the campaigners themselves can take much of the credit. Focusing on child poverty as having both the most serious consequences and the greatest emotional pull, they have launched what amounts to a full-spectrum attack. New Zealand’s Child Poverty Action Group (Cpag) has publicly confronted governments of all stripes, taking them to court over the decision not to pay certain tax credits to beneficiary households. While the courts ultimately ruled that this decision was legal, they also found it was discriminatory. The court case kept the issue in the media for long spells and prompted many political parties to promise to end the discrimination. Meanwhile, Cpag also delivered a stream of carefully researchedreports on the consequences of and solutions to child poverty.

Many political parties? The Greens were the only party to campaign on it as policy in 2014.

My own experience of CPAG reports is that at least some aren't particularly carefully researched and I've corresponded with them to that effect.

New Zealand’s successes should not be overstated. We are a long way from making a real assault on poverty, but it shows that the debate can be shifted. 

How rich is this observation  when recently writing for a domestic newspaper angry Max could find nothing positive to say about "successes" on child poverty here?

Punishing all of NZ for Auckland's problem

How often does Labour try on this type of approach (as does National), so let's just say governments. Punishing a majority in futile attempts to control a minority.

Think anti-smacking legislation, drink-drive laws, dangerous dog laws, alcohol restrictions, etc.

It isn't just Aucklanders who will be told they can't sell their property to the highest bidder (outright wealth confiscation); so will the rest of New Zealand. On the face of it, as per Andrew Little's policy description to Paul Henry this morning, non-residents will be banned from buying residential property. Non-residents include skilled migrants who cannot gain residency for two years.

What sort of message is this? We desperately need your skills - the health sector is a prime example - but don't  expect to be able to guarantee your family security of settlement initially. You can put your salary into rent for two years, thanks.

And I won't even start on the racial profiling 'research'. Stupid Labour backed itself into a corner again. To prove it isn't a racist policy, people coming from anywhere will be punished. There are plenty of recently-arrived  Pommie families in my neighbourhood, who've brought their children here for a better quality of life, and good luck to them. They're allowing vendors to maximise their property values (and sustaining all the local services like schools, doctors and shops).

Greens talk up beneficiary debt

Green MP Jan Logie says the government is "forcing" beneficiaries into debt to MSD.

"Nearly 60 percent of all beneficiaries – 171,000 people – now have a debt to WINZ, of an average of nearly $2500 each. Before National was elected in 2008, just 49 per cent of beneficiaries had a debt to WINZ, and it was closer to $2000."

For starters "average" debt is not useful term.  MSD explained why in a letter to me providing data on debt,

"The average amount owed does not provide an accurate picture of the majority of clients who have a debt to Work and income.  This is because the average is distorted by a few large amounts  owed by a small number of people. A more accurate picture of the 'average' value of debt is shown by the median value. As at the end of November 2005, the median value of debt owed to Work and Income was $501.82 per client."

So the Green figures exaggerate individual debt. Typical.

In any case, the straight forward solution would be not to extend any repayable assistance to beneficiaries. Is that what beneficiaries want? I very much doubt it.

Logie says that benefits are not enough to heat a house or buy good food. Yet when the lowest income people are surveyed, fewer than a third say they don't have enough money.

I get sick and tired of the Greens talking up poverty and debt for cynical self-serving reasons.

Child deaths from family violence by ethnicity

Yesterday Leighton Smith had a caller who claimed to work in advocacy against family violence. She would not accept that more Maori children were victims and insisted she had seen statistics to the contrary.

For some time Cindy Kiro put about incorrect statistics and I am guessing this was the source to which she referred. See my challenge to Kiro here. She had told the media:

But out of 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian.

Here are the statistics that prove she was wrong.

They come from the Office of Ethnic Affairs

In the period 2002 - 2008 (two years beyond Kiro's time frame) 49 children died through family violence.

17 were Pakeha, 23 were Maori.

Margin between benefit and work - take home incomes

Source


The first thing this graph highlights is how WFF and other means-tested assistance (like the accommodation supplement) reduces the incentive to work longer hours. Look how close the minimum wage lines are at 30 and 40 hours. The  wage difference is $14.75 (minimum hourly wage) x 10 or $147.50. After the means-tested tax credits are applied, the gap closes to around maybe $30. The Left would cry blue murder over someone working for $3 an hour - slave rates. Yet the wage subsidies they support create just that situation.

Second thing. Someone working at the minimum wage with no children will be earning $472 weekly ($590 less 20% tax). If they lived in South Auckland and rented at $220 a week, they would be eligible for $47 weekly assistance (using the AS calculator). Their take-home income would therefore be $519 a week.

The sole parent with two children in South Auckland  has a 'take-home' income of $642 weekly. Yes, I am comparing apples and oranges. But here's why. Before she becomes a sole parent, a young woman working and earning $519 doesn't see $642 as such a bad deal. Stay home with the babies and get paid considerably more.

Finally, I am pleased to see the actual margins here for the first time. The difference the IWTC credit has made - on average -  has always been difficult to ascertain.

In this scenario it looks like around $200 weekly, even at full-time employment. Hopefully it is enough to cover the costs of working like transport, clothing, and childcare. Some indication of whether it is might come from the sole parent employment rate over the same period.

Source:HLFS

Very slow improvement (GFC effects aside). Lets hope the benefit increase doesn't alter this rather tenuous trend.

I guess the pertinent question is, for someone who moves in low income circles, would you be prepared to forgo quarter of your income if it meant staying home with the kids and not having to go to work every day?

An unwelcome blast from the past

What should we do with people like this?

Still dangerous and dishonest. Still costing the country every day.

Terrible headline from TV3

Boy strangled at school suffering brain damage

Posted: 08 Jul 2015 12:15 PM PDT

A boy who accidentally strangled himself after jumping from a toilet window at school has suffered significant brain damage, his father says.

What did you think when you read just the headline?

"Making headway on inequality"

Yesterday Max Rashbrooke, campaigner against inequality had a column published in the DomPost.
Extract:

In a system where income goes disproportionately to the already well-off, ordinary workers are missing out on the rewards of their efforts, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. Welfare benefits, cut by a quarter in 1991 and increased just 8 per cent in the last budget, are far too low to meet people's basic needs.

The result is a doubling of child poverty and the return of childhood diseases unknown in most developed countries – a national embarrassment, as one researcher described it. Our cold, damp homes can be death traps, as a recent child fatality tragically showed. Our still-excellent schools are buckling under the pressures of dealing with children whose parents can't afford to buy them warm clothing, feed them breakfast, or provide a quiet space for studying.

I briefly considered challenging the claim that child poverty had doubled using different statistics but to be fair to Rashbrooke by the definition he used, the claim is accurate enough. So I decided to take a different tack:

A "dreadful" trend

In 2001 there were 1,814 substantiated findings of physical abuse against children.

By 2008 the number had grown to 2,232.

At March 2015 the number has grown to 3,144.

A 23 percent rise in the first seven year period.

A 41 percent rise in the latter 7 year period.

Today:

The Government's latest report card for the public service shows an increase in the number of children and young people being assaulted - a trend that Labour describes as "dreadful".

The trend was also "dreadful"  under Labour.

Perhaps less dreadful but dreadful nevertheless.

The politicisation of this awful blight gets us nowhere. Naturally any incumbent government can find explanations eg greater reporting and so greater opportunity to discover and substantiate. Naturally the opposition can discount this.

And so it goes...

42,000 fewer children on a benefit

Source for table (left click to enlarge)

Bill English says there are 42,000 fewer children on benefits since 2012.

That means there are now 184,896. That's lower than when we briefly had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. Just goes to show how unrelated the two things are.

Making a difference

Researching something else yesterday I came across this story and it really impressed me. Capitalism with generosity. While  opposed to the state redistributing wealth by compulsion, my ideal is greater redistribution through voluntary actions like those shown by Dan Price. The story is from a couple of months back so apologies if it's old news. It's still excellent and unusual news.

I am not a green eyed enviest but there are some ridiculous salaries paid in this country too - especially among those in the state sector. I am currently watching one such beneficiary to see what he does to earn his almost $1 million a year salary.

The role of contraceptives in the falling teen birth rate

From Stuff

The call from New Zealand researchers for all teen girls to be fitted with long-term contraceptive devices is not as radical as many think. In fact, a similar free birth control scheme has been a huge success in the US state of Colorado.The state saw its teen pregnancy birthrate plunge by 40 per cent from 2009 to 2013, abortion rates also saw a 42 per cent drop.Colorado health officials started the experiment six years ago. The scheme offered free intrauterine devices (IUDs) to teenagers and women in financial hardship. The implants can prevent pregnancy for up to 10 years.

For context the overall US teen birth rate was 39.1 in 2009 down  to 26.5 in 2013 - a 32% drop.

And in New Zealand it's fallen from 29.59 per 1,000 15-19 year-olds in 2009 to 21.54 in 2013 - a 27 percent drop.It dropped a further 2 percent to 19.00 in NZ in 2014.

The 'free' birth control in Colorado will have played  some role, as no doubt, have WINZ grants for LARCS in NZ.

The great thing is this significant downward trend across English speaking countries. I think it's about education, welfare reforms and contraception.

Treasury warns MSD about unsustainable spending

Out of Core Crown Tax Revenue of $61.9 billion, the largest expenditure is by MSD:

"The Ministry is forecasting to administer $24.1 billion in government expenditure in 2015/16, with departmental expenditure only six percent of the total Vote. All other areas are driven by policy settings that we are unable to change without changes in Government policy. Treasury has assessed the risk to the medium-term sustainability of the Ministry’s departmental expenses as amber. Concerns are primarily around the sustainability of New Zealand Superannuation payments and the necessity to manage personnel costs, IT spending and property costs"

 MSD continues

"...Between 2015/16 and 2018/19 the total Vote is forecast to increase by $2.3 billion. We are experiencing an increase in required support for a significant number of our clients (beneficiaries, students, retirees and vulnerable children)...Demand for our services is changing as vulnerable population groups come under increasing financial pressure, especially in relation to housing affordability. There is an increasing focus and awareness of the scale of poverty and vulnerability amongst our children and less patience with government’s strategies for addressing it. Our population is ageing, and also becoming more diverse. The move in the population away from rural areas to large urban centres has increased the vulnerability of some rural communities. Many of these communities are disproportionately or predominantly Mäori who in turn have a much younger profile than the rest of New Zealand. Twenty five percent of the population under 24 years are Māori and this proportion is expected to rise. Demand for our services has changed in response to these demographic and socio-economic trends. "

 Interesting to see MSD getting political here by commenting that, "There is an increasing focus and awareness of the scale of poverty and vulnerability amongst our children and less patience with government’s strategies for addressing it." Really? What do they base this on?

And it is then noticeable that they don't comment on the public attitude to Super spending given the Treasury warning.

MSD seems to be making a case for increasing their Vote, and, when coupled with the child poverty comment, give a direction to raise it by higher taxation.

Equally interesting is the reference to Maori rural communities which I've been banging on  about since the Jobs Jolt days when Labour tried to prevent the unemployed from moving to them but crucially didn't include sole parents. This is the first official recognition of this problem I have seen.

Grasping at straws over the suicide rate

Bomber Bradbury posts the following:

The provisional suicide toll has risen to its highest figure since the coroner’s office started releasing the statistics.From the year June 2014- May 2015, 569 people died by suicide or suspected suicide.Last year (for the year ending 30 June 2014) that number was 529.The horror of our suicide rate gives us a glimpse behind the ‘she’ll be right’ veneer of our culture and the dark torment of an alpha male macho mental landscape that is terribly fragile.
Our under funded social infrastructure, our ‘me first’ consumerism, our 30 years of neoliberal mythology, our disconnection from one another, our untreated pain, our lack of hope from grinding poverty in a first world country, our toxic masculinity, our unspoken rape culture, our inability to express emotion beyond anger – all of this demands questions we don’t want to hear as a society and the shame of suicide continues to hide and smother any healing.
We huddle frightened on these lonely grey crags at the end of a jagged world and slowly one by one slip off into the swallowing dark. Until we are prepared to confront many of the individualism-over-all myths and rebuild our tattered communities, our suicide rate will remain darkly reminding us of our whispered deceptions.

Just out of interest I went back and looked at the period before all the mayhem Bomber describes.

In 1980 there were 337 suicides - a rate of 10.8 per 100,000. In 1965 it was 9.1 and in 1945 it was 11.

In the year ending June 2014 the rate was 11.73

NZ's suicide rate is tragic and represents hellish grief for far too many. But Bomber's rhetoric about the reasons for it is over the top.