Fairness analogy flawed

Academic Deborah Russell delivers a lecture in taxation fairness in today's Herald on Sunday. She argues for progressive tax as opposed to flat. She says she asks her students to suggest what a fair tax system would look like and then uses this analogy to prove her answer is the right one:

Think of it like this. Imagine three people wanting to look over a fence to see a parade: a short person, a middling person and a tall person. If we find a box of exactly the same size for each of them to stand on, then the short person still can't see over the fence, and the tall person has a great view. That's "fair" because we made sure each of them had the same size box — but the short person is left staring at the fence.
Then imagine if we gave two boxes to the short person, and the tall person just stood on the ground. Each person could see the parade because we made sure that we took their individual needs into account. That's being fair, too.
So which sort of fairness is best? Treating everyone exactly the same or treating people according to their needs? The right of politics prefers people to be treated the same. The left thinks we ought to take some account of individual needs so everyone can get a fair go.

I hope at least some of her students have the wits to point out that height is an accident of birth. I am myself the person who would need two boxes to see over the fence.

But in real life I've never be needy in terms of tax redistribution because before marriage I was almost constantly employed. After marriage we had children we could afford, didn't spend what we didn't have, and have stayed together.

Some degree of good fortune, maybe. But where people fall in the "individual needs" stakes is very much influenced by factors within their control. Unlike race, gender or ...  height.

Half a million children known to CYF?

This is an interesting statement contained in the budget announcement about extra funding for vulnerable children

“One per cent of children known to Child, Youth and Family – around 5,000 children –  go on to cost New Zealand $550,000 each by their early 30s in corrections and welfare services.

Half a million children are known to CYF?

Over what period I wonder.

According to an MSD research paper one in five born in 1993 became known to CYF over their childhood to the age of 17.

Cost of marginalising Labour

The $172 million extension of Paid Parental Leave, said to be electorally popular,  is one of the big-ticket items in today's budget. Based on Treasury advice, there was no case for the government to extend Paid Parental Leave (beyond buying votes and sidelining Labour.)

Here's what I wrote about it in December 2013:

...last year Treasury analysed who was using paid parental leave, labour market outcomes, and child health outcomes. It found that, "...there is not a strong evidence-based argument to support extending the length of paid parent leave."

Treasury's report states, "...the majority of mothers return to work when the baby is six months old...". Marginal benefits to labour market participation and child health and well-being would therefore be small. Additionally, it notes, "...the most vulnerable children are likely born into families where parents are not eligible for paid parental leave...".

In a discussion about improving income adequacy it found that the arguments are "weak" as "the current access group are likely to be middle and high income women with stable employment." Of the 32,000 paid parental leave recipients in 2011/12, 58 percent were earning over $40,000; 27 percent were earning over $60,000.

Treasury also noted a possible negative impact for employers, particularly small to medium enterprises, as their costs are, "...likely to be more significant as the length of parental leave increases." This could give rise to greater discrimination against child-bearing age females in the labour market.

A fine example of the irrational policies thrown up by redistributive democracies.

Australian welfare spending

Australia needed to cut their welfare spending.

Although government spending overall is a smaller proportion of GDP than New Zealand's, 41 percent goes on  Social Security and Welfare

In contrast New Zealand's Social Security and welfare spend makes up 32 percent of the total.

One of the measures Australia is taking is pushing up pension eligibility age to 70:

"Over the past 100 years, there has been little change in the Age Pension eligibility age; however, over the same period the average life expectancy has increased by 25 years to around 85 years."

A point I have been making about NZ Super for a long time.

When the first Old Age Pension was instituted in 1898 the qualifying age was 65. Today it is unchanged. In his 1997 work Reforming New Zealand Welfare, Michael Jones wrote,

“If the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation was adjusted to equal average periods on the aged pension in 1900, the eligibility would now be 75 for men and 80 for women.”

Winston denial about horse ownership is not adding up

Winston Peter's name is still listed in the ownership of Bellazeel.

It was winning only 5 months ago but Winston says:

"I only had an interest for a short time, but it's been out to pasture for years." 

Bellazeel, a 5 year-old Zabeel mare, would be extremely valuable as a brood mare, especially with her 3 win record. Even if Peters relinquished his share I doubt it would be without return.

Update: Peters says he had a short term leased share in the horse purchased at a charity auction in 2008, which is when the horse would have been born. Seems odd to me because a horse isn't going to return anything until it is at least a 2YO. You'd want to be in for the long haul, particularly as a propsective broodmare.

Update 2: Stuff reports, " New Zealand Thoroughbred confirmed this afternoon that according to its records, Peters continued to part-own a racing lease on the horse"

Media bias

Not aided by an interviewer determined to make ACT's budget look bad, Jamie Whyte was eventually able to make some valuable points.

He told Espiner that to argue that people should be allowed to consume things without paying for them is a ridiculous argument.

If Whyte needs some training in how to handle hostile media Guyon would be the perfect person to provide it. Seems to be the go according to Karl du Fresne.

David Cunliffe and his sappy comments

On-line over on The Standard yesterday David Cunliffe made this comment:
 

Our priority is to get kids out of poverty – that’s why our Best Start payment includes the children of beneficiaries; they shouldn’t bear the brunt of their parents’ misfortune.

Misfortune? What does that mean? Bad luck? An accident?

When one in five babies is either born onto a benefit or arrives there shortly after, how much of an accident is it?

Obviously some children will have a temporarily unemployed parent. Or a parent who has been abandoned. I accept some parents may have suffered a degree of misfortune.

But when nearly 11,700 of the babies born last year were welfare dependent by the end of December, I can only conclude something beyond bad luck is the cause.

I don't want to 'beat-up' on parents on benefits, but if we don't understand the nature of the problem, how will we ever address it?

CPAG making false claims again

According to the NZ Herald:

University of Auckland senior lecturer and Child Poverty Action Group spokeswoman Susan St John said tax credits should be extended to beneficiary families and indexed to inflation.

"A lot of newborns get nothing - they get nothing from paid parental leave or tax credits. The most cost-effective way is to give all low-income children the same weekly assistance."

That's bull.

Family tax credit (FTC) is paid regardless of your source of income.

I read the above quote out to my husband. He accepted it. He said he didn't realise children on benefits got more than just their parent's benefit.

The Family Tax Credits, plus accommodation supplement (or income related rent), plus the basic benefit rate all add up to make welfare a viable option.

CPAG want to make is even more viable.
 

Income redistribution is great ... but not by government

The NZ Herald reports the Spirit Level authors are in New Zealand to lecture us about inequality, no doubt to boost the electoral chances of the left. Simon Collins writes:

But in New Zealand, the Labour Party is struggling to get inequality off the ground as an election issue. Professor Hazledine points to a 2006 survey of 32 countries which found New Zealanders were less supportive of redistributing income from the rich to the poor than people in any other nation.

The question asked was, "Do you think it should be the government's responsibility to reduce income differences between the rich and the poor?"

But I notice in Simon Collin's description of the finding he has ommitted  word 'government'. He talks about redistribution with the implicit assumption it's a  function of government. For the left 'income redistribution' and 'government' go hand in glove.

I am all for income redistribution. But not by the government. By unfettered exchange of goods and services and formation of family units that endure, and build wealth.

Government has made people poorer than they would have been through too much welfare, too much employment legislation, and too much taxation.

There must still be some sense of this amongst the population, reflected in NZ's position at the bottom of this table. Let's hope a similar or better response would occur in 2014.

A breath of fresh air

ACT's alternative budget is a desperately needed breath of fresh air:

This alternative budget highlights how far

National, Labour, The Greens and New Zealand

First have moved from sound economic policy.

These politicians peddle the self-aggrandizing

fantasy that if only they had a bigger role in the

economy, it would grow faster. If only they took

more of our money in taxation, spent it for us,

decided which businesses we should invest in,

who we should sell our products to, how we

should use our property, the terms on which we

may be employed and almost everything else,

then we would all be better off.

ACT is the only party that utterly rejects this

foolish and ugly idea.

For all seventeen pages go here.

One measure made me scratch my head. Abolishing the Ministry of Pacific Affairs. Only because there is no accompanying  abolition of Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of  Maori Affairs. Under Jamie Whyte ACT has indicated it wants to steer well clear of any perceived anti-Maori feeling. Fair enough. But this approach is hardly a principled, consistent rejection of publicly-funded ethnic collectivism.

Labour's attitude to other people's money

Labour MP Sue Moroney says:

“The select committee report shows the impact of the Bill would be just 0.05% of the crown funds being spent in this year's budget."

What is .05% of $72 billion?

I make 0.05% $36 million

Extending Paid Parental Leave to 6 months is calculated to cost $138 million according to Treasury.

Oh what's a mere $100 million.

Quote of the Day

What ... can the government do to help the poor? The only answer is the libertarian answer: Get out of the way.
 

– Murray N. Rothbard

(Hat-tip FFF)

The Labour government was tougher on the unemployed

A NZ Herald editorial this morning says:

The Government says it had briefly considered making it compulsory for beneficiaries to move to Christchurch when their skills and a job could be matched. Wisely, that was discounted....The compulsory uprooting of men and women and, conceivably, families in a manner such as this is clearly a step too far.

Why? Labour did it. Has everybody forgotten Jobs Jolt.

 

Jobs Jolt made people move to where the work was without a $3000 financial incentive.

2003:

The Government would pay the moving costs.
But it would not continue benefits forever for those refusing to shift.
The package would reinforce that those receiving the dole had clear obligations under the law to be available for work and to take reasonable steps to find a job.
Mr Maharey said the provisions available to suspend benefits would now be used more frequently.

Roy Morgan's unemployment rate confirms trend

National down (48.5 to 42.5%)  in today's Roy Morgan Poll - the one that is usually friendly to Labour. Pretty much a reversal of the last poll when National was up 5.5%.

Roy Morgan also surveys on the topic of unemployment. Their rate is always above the official rate. Their sample is smaller than Statistic NZ's and I suspect changes with every wave.

Their March quarter rate was 8% (compared to the HLFS rate of 6%) but most importantly the trend is the same. Reducing.

Baby or a job?

Labour policy: $3,000 to have a baby

National policy: $3,000 to get a job

Good on the government

The plan to pay $3,000 to beneficiaries who move to Christchurch to take up a job is another positive incentive aimed particularly at young people. It's another positive incentive (funding someone into work) rather than an negative one (funding someone into parenthood). And I could hardly find fault after supporting Duncan Garner's sentiments back in March when the DomPost published this letter:

Duncan Garner has a point about the dichotomy between high labour needs in Christchurch and the 67,000 young Kiwis not in training, education or work. While only 40 percent of those are actually on the "dole" that number is still unnecessarily high. The government has put some effort into getting locally unemployed into jobs, but there are still around 1,600 benefit-dependent unemployed 18-24 year-olds in Canterbury alone.
Perhaps the problem is skills are required now and apprenticeships divert qualified tradesmen away from the job at hand? But I agree with Garner. There appears to be a golden opportunity going begging. The same can be said about job opportunities the needs of our ageing population will present; more residential carers, in-home carers, various health workers, home maintenance providers, etc. While the government funds much of this, it makes total sense to be diverting dole money into training for these roles. How hard can it be?
The answer must be 'very'. It's easier to import able and willing workers and hope their productivity and taxes will support the unemployable.

So good on the government for this initiative.

Labour's response is weak. Very. From Ruth Dyson:

“Where are these people, coming into the region to take up paid work, going to live?  There is an increasing shortage of affordable rental properties, more people moving in from overseas to take up work, and more Cantabrians moving out of their homes for repairs or rebuild.
“ There is just nowhere for these new people that the Prime Minister is paying to come to Canterbury, to live. That is a recipe for disaster."

Up to 1,000 young people present much less of an accommodation problem than the non-beneficiary inflow already occurring. They present an opportunity as boarders and flatmates. More negativity from Labour for the sake of it.

Govt goes into competition with loan sharks

Just one of three already announced pre-budget MSD initiatives:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett announced today a new community finance partnership that will see interest free and low interest loans made available to New Zealanders who need them.
The Government is partnering with Bank of New Zealand, Good Shepherd NZ and The Salvation Army to develop a finance initiative that will offer people on low incomes affordable and sustainable credit. Good Shepherd will bring many years of delivering community finance programmes in Australia to the table.
“People on low incomes are vulnerable in their credit options with many tempted by easy finance. The initiative will see sustainable loans available for some people that might not otherwise be able to service a loan with high interest rates and hidden fees,” says Mrs Bennett.
Beginning with a one-year pilot, BNZ is committing $10 million to the initiative for up to five years that provides a real alternative to loan sharks and pay day lenders.

Hard to comment without detail beyond the obvious observation of more subsidy. In terms of moral hazard, not the worst sort of subsidy though.

And they can claim to be promoting choice...

There's a chance the expenditure might be budget neutral. When beneficiaries get into financial trouble the state ultimately wears it (or shares it) even if paltry repayments are deducted from benefits.

Not a good result for MSD

Principals are not particularly impressed by attendance service providers or CYF support:

69 percent said CYF were 'not useful' or of 'mixed use' and 77 percent thought the new attendance service providers were not useful or of mixed use.

Dealing with truants and dysafunctional kids is probably a thankless task much of the time. But I shouldn't think MSD will be very happy with these survey results. You would hope this data is identifiable by school and can be used to assess which service providers/ CYF agencies are getting it right and which aren't.

Criticism from the left for the 'big new tool'

Auckland University associate professor Susan St John writes:

...inflation is actually very low.  What is the demand that actually fuels the current account?  It is not the spending of the low income families that are barely surviving. Forcing them into KiwiSaver is going to reduce the very demand that keeps their local economies going. Making them save even more to balance the economy in boom times is a bizarrely regressive idea for a Labour government-in-waiting.

More

inflation is actually very low.  What is the demand that actually fuels the current account?  It is not the spending of the low income families that are barely surviving. Forcing them into KiwiSaver is going to reduce the very demand that keeps their local economies going. Making them save even more to balance the economy in boom times is a bizarrely regressive idea for a Labour government-in-waiting. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/02/let-them-eat-cake/#sthash.rIe2dsQW.dpuf

Prose par excellence

Prose par excellence from Rodney Hide in the Herald on Sunday this morning describing the legal highs market:

 Out on that chemical frontier we had a wild, wild west.

And the politicians confusion over how to tackle the problem:

Part of the problem with the new regime is Prime Minister John Key's reluctance to authorise testing on puppies and bunnies - but he's thinking that rats and mice might be okay. Mickey can get high but not Peter or Pluto.

More

Regarding Rodney's suggestion (channelling the populist vote), "We don't want drug-taking out in the open", I was reminded that my husband has twice put the question during Campbell Live, Why don't they take their cameras and microphones and stand outside a tinnie house?

Crime: 1978 versus 2013

Earlier in the week I took issue with Judith Collins' remark about crime now being at 1978 rates.

In 1978 according to the NZ Yearbook there were 282,656  offences reported to the Police. Statistics NZ Infoshare however shows a considerably lower number of 245,640. Apparently 1978 for the first year of Wanganui computer-generated statistics which had an "inflationary effect". In 2013 there were 360,411 offences. But what about the nature of the crime?

I've used the categorisation from the 1978 Yearbook to make a comparisons between then and now (p7).

Under violence I have included homicide and related offences; acts intended to cause injury; dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons; abduction, harassment and other related offences against a person. No surprise that violence is much higher. Property damage in 2013 also includes environmental/pollution abuses. As mentioned earlier, traffic offences do not form part of the 2013 total.

Another point that hasn't been raised in regard to falling crime - the ageing population. Most crime is committed by young men. That group is shrinking proportionately. So current demographic trends would lead to an expectation of falling crime rates when measured per head of population (which is what Collins is doing).

UK: Neuroscience and intervention policy

An interesting debate at the Guardian has caught my attention this morning. In a nutshell the journalist is questioning the neuroscience that finds neglect of babies retards brain development and leads to intervention policies:

Is misused neuroscience defining early years and child protection policy?

The idea that a child's brain is irrevocably shaped in the first three years increasingly drives government policy on adoption and early childhood intervention. But does the science stand up to scrutiny?

A letter was published from a responding Harvard Professor:

Early neglect does affect brain development

• Zoe Williams's article (Is misused neuroscience defining early years and child protection policy?, 27 April ) brought much disappointment and dismay. The author misrepresents the current state of knowledge of how experience impacts the developing brain.

The ramifications of policy predicated on science is the real sore point. The journalist concludes with quotes from a critic of intervention, Sue White, but does not describe her capacity or profession:

Attachment is fascinating as an idea; when it hardens into science, which is inchoate but treated as fact, its consequences can be devastating. White concludes: "There is an argument for removing children, a precautionary principle argument. You can say, 'Right, let's remove all children who are in suboptimal parenting situations.' You can do it. Regimes have done that, over the years. But we're not having those debates. What we're having is this misuse of the neuroscientific evidence, to suggest that it's very dangerous for children to be left in certain situations. I'm not talking about leaving them in situations where they're at risk of injury or sexual abuse, more: 'Your mum's in a bit of a mess, she's drinking a bit and not interacting with you optimally and she's also poor, which is why she's not been able to keep the state out of it.' It's only when the children who've been removed grow up, and ask, 'But did anybody try to help my mum?' That's what you would ask, isn't it?"

A reasonable question. But should the child remain in her care whilst she is receiving assistance which may or may not be successful? I am reminded of the approach with Northern Territory Aboriginal children. I may be doing it a disservice but in some cases the parents have been written off and their children put into the care of grandparents. Removal of children is such a difficult area. But the child's interests must trump the parent's in my view. The opposite view puts the parent's - usually the mother's interests and rights - first. But even separating the interests of both is fraught.

Cartoon of the Day

Dealing with bigots

My kids have been interested in the Clippers controversy. The 15 year-old thinks Sterling should have either  been laughed off the planet or ignored. The 20 year-old is worried about the 'thought police' and privacy  issues. As awful as Sterling's sentiments are - and we are all staggered by them - does he have a right to express them privately? Do we all say things to family that we wouldn't say publicly? Programmes like Family Guy and The Simpsons, Little Britain and even Seven Days encourage politically incorrect humour. In our house we laugh about all sorts of things that accepted modern 'wisdom' would have us cringe at. Occasionally someone says something outrageous in the act of caricaturing a bigot. The next person will looked stunned momentarily then we'll fall about.

Joking aside - and Sterling wasn't - I can't resolve the issue of privacy invasion and when it is justified.

Anyway the following is a good column about how to deal with bigots. Readable and hard to argue with:

Statists have long taken libertarians to task for opposing mandatory integration laws and defending the right of bigoted owners of business establishments to discriminate against people on the basis of race. They inevitably accuse of libertarians of being racists themselves or supporting racial bigotry by virtue of libertarian opposition to mandatory integration laws.
What statists just don’t get, however, is: one, the importance of principle when it comes to individual liberty, and, two, that the free market, not governmental coercion, is the best way to deal with racial bigotry.
No better example of the libertarian position can be found than the current controversy surrounding Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. Sterling was caught on tape making prejudicial remarks against blacks to his girlfriend, even exhorting her to not associate with blacks.
Yet, let’s notice something important here: Most of the Clipper team is composed of blacks!
How is that possible? Here you have an owner who is clearly prejudiced against blacks and who obviously does not want to associate with them. Why in the world does he have so many blacks on his basketball team? Why not instead hire mostly whites?
The answer is very simple: Sterling’s love of the color green trumps his dislike of the color black.

More

Who is Judith Collins kidding

According to WhaleOil:

Post of the Day – Judith Collins

by Cameron Slater on April 30, 2014 at 5:30pm

Judith Collins posted to Facebook this photo of herself in 1978…the last time that crime rates were as low as they are now.

OK. We are not stupid.

In 1978 the population was 3.1 million. Today it is 4.4 million.

In 1978 there were 282,656 crimes  reported to police.

In 2013 there were 360,411 recorded crimes.

So allowing for population growth, Collins' claim  is feasible

But what kind of crime are we talking about?

While it is impossible to make 'apples with apples' comparisons due to changes in crime categorisation, some broad comparisons can be made.

Assuming imprisonment reflects severity of crime,

At January 1 1978 there were 2,860 "persons in prison".

At December  2013 the prisoner population was 8,223.

In 1978 14 individuals were sentenced for murder in the Supreme Court.

In 2013 there were '83 homicides and related offences'.

In 1978 traffic offences were still included in recorded crime statistics - 17,626 of them.

Is there any reader who remembers 1978 and believes that NZ was a more lawful, less violent country in 2013?

210,000 children on welfare

At the end of last year 210,000 children were on welfare. The NZCCSS has the breakdown in its latest Vulnerability Report.

There are around 1.07 million children aged 17 and younger. So roughly 1 in 5 is dependent on a benefit.

In the poorest deciles maybe 2 or 3 children  in every five. And the younger the child the higher the likelihood is.

It's been worse in the past, but for a long time now, it hasn't been much better.

Even in 2007/08, when NZ had really low unemployment, the number still failed to drop below 200,000.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed. National has made, as Don Brash puts it, "a useful beginning".

The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, by the way, wants more 'children' on benefits:

“NZCCSS members are beginning to see a greater number of young people appearing at their centres seeking support”, says McGlinchey. “This indicates there is likely to be more young people who are not receiving the support they need from the social welfare system. These young people may be relying on their parents’ and friends’ already stretched resources, or just going without. They should have access to good quality education, training and jobs – or if this is not available a liveable benefit”.

Sue Bradford - capitalist mouthpiece?

When you think about the extreme Left in New Zealand, who comes to mind? John Minto, Hone Harawira, Metiria Turei, Annette Sykes, Sue Bradford?

Comically, the World Socialist Web Site views these individuals as psuedo-leftists at best. Capitalist sell-outs otherwise. In an article about the prospective Mana/ KimDotcom alliance, which Sue Bradford cotinues to shun, the writer foams:

Bradford’s entire political history has been as a mouthpiece for a succession of capitalist parties, including the Alliance, the Greens and now Mana.

Who knew it?

But I feel sympathy for Sue getting bagged. For those who live politics and dream change BUT try to work within the bounds of reality, it's a thankless task.

She has my respect. More than she can get from the Marxists.

Who won't be advantaged by the VSR?

  Kiwiblog posts:

Labour proposes a cut in everyone’s after tax income

April 29th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar David Parker has announced:

Introduce a new tool – a variable savings rate or VSR – allowing the Bank to vary KiwiSaver savings rates (which would be universal under Labour) as an alternative to raising the OCR to take the heat out of the economy. This VSR would mean Kiwis would pay money to their retirement savings instead of higher mortgage payments to overseas banks.

Something that people should be aware of is that only a relatively small proportion of households or earners have a mortgage. While a VSR will impact every single person who earns money, by lowering their take home pay to reduce inflation.

I heard Larry Williams make a similar remark tonight so wanted to verify what a "relatively small" proportion is.

According to Families Commission research, Beyond Reasonable Debt:

Relatively few families have mortgages (26 percent of single families and 55 percent of couple families).

So three quarters of single families and nearly half of couple families will be disadvantaged by the VSR in the short term (and there is no cast-iron guarantee KiwiSaver will deliver in the long-term).

Lost location

Having finished my last commission I found myself with studio time to fill and nothing in particular to paint. I found a photo on the Internet and thought I'd have a crack using a palette knife and crescent board. That absorbs the oil from the paint very quickly and thus dries fast. Here's the result. It's only small, around A4. Problem is I don't know what to call it because I can't find the photo again. Anyone recognize the river and backdrop?

Recent portraits

Just updating my artist blog so have cross-posted here.

I was proud to call Wim Verhoeven  a friend of mine. A gentleman of  enormous integrity and kindness, and a staunch, active believer in individual rights and freedom. I am sure some of my blog readers will remember him with fondness. Here's a pastel I did for his son Terry late last year.

Then, Mrs Connell, whose portrait I painted for her lovely husband. He came to collect it last week and was thrilled. I didn't know her and worked from a small photo on funeral service memorial notes creating a 500 x 400mm oil. She looks like she made the most of life.

"Teaching men to respect women a priority - Davis" TV3

TV3 is reporting on an interview with Kelvin Davis this morning.

Kelvin Davis is "determined" to lecture men on how to treat women properly, as he prepares to take his seat in The Beehive.

The Labour list candidate is due to replace outgoing MP, Shane Jones, just months out from September's general election.

Mr Davis says the recent Roastbusters' scandal has highlighted major failings in men's treatment of women.

“Men don’t have conversations with their sons about how to treat, love, and respect women,” he says.

Questions for Kelvin.

Do women have converstaions with their daughters about how to treat, love and respect men? Further, do they demonstrate those behaviours?

I always bristle when the finger points one way.

(I also wonder how men can have conversations with sons they have no knowledge of or relationship with.)

So poverty doesn't matter after all?

Conservative Perspective drew my attention to research reported in The New Zealand Herald. I cannot find any mention of it at the NatCen website.

Children raised by a single parent are no less happy than those living with two biological parents, a study has found.
Researchers from NatCen Social Research found family composition has "no significant effect" on the happiness of children. Rather, it is the quality of relationships at home which are most strongly linked to a child's well-being.
The results challenge the popular conception that children in two-parent families are more likely to be stable and content than those raised in "broken" homes.
Researchers analysed data from the Millennium Cohort Study, which was made up of 12,877 children aged seven, in 2008, from across the UK. The children came from three family types: those living with two biological parents; those living with a step-parent and a biological parent; and those with just a single parent.
The seven-year-olds were asked the question: "How often do you feel happy?"

Of the children living with a lone parent, 36 per cent said they were happy "all the time" while the remaining 64 per cent reported being happy "sometimes or never".
Exactly the same percentages were recorded when the question was put to children from the other family types.

Why weren't percentages for "sometimes" and "never" reported separately? That's what would interest me. That nearly two thirds of all children are "sometimes or never" happy tells us very little. Also how would the responses differ amongst, say, a group of 12 year-olds?

The results were largely unchanged when other factors which could influence a child's well-being - such as their parents' social class or the affluence of the area in which they live - were taken into account.

So poverty doesn't matter after all. Poor children are just as happy as rich children, so that's that.

Jenny Chanfreau, a senior researcher at NatCen, said that a "happy, harmonious family dynamic" was crucial for child happiness, adding: "It's the quality of the relationships in the home that matters, not the family composition."

I am sure that is correct, but that quality rests largely on the well-being of the adult. It is a fact that single parents suffer more stress and mental ill-health (often linked to financial worry.)  One result is the higher likelihood of children in a single parent home being abused or neglected.

Ms Chanfreau told the British Sociological Association's annual conference in Leeds: "Getting on well with siblings, having fun with the family at weekends and having a parent who reported rarely or never shouting when the child was naughty were all linked with a higher likelihood of being happy."
The study's findings contradict previous research which indicates that family division is likely to have a detrimental effect on children.

Not on what we know of the "study's findings" so far, it doesn't. The many studies that have shown poorer outcomes for children in single parent families are based on actual findings in later life. That just over a third of single parent children say they are happy "all the time"  does not nullify the abundance of evidence that finds they tend to suffer more physical and mental ill health, substance abuse, interaction with police and justice systems, poorer academic achievement and broken relationships.

One 2008 report, based on figures from the Office for National Statistics, claimed that children whose parents had split up were four and a half times more likely to develop emotional problems than those whose parents had stayed together.
- The Independent

National Statistics is the equivalent of Statistics NZ. They deal with reality as conveyed by statistics reported by many government agencies and gathered through various surveys. They are non-partisan and don't seek answers that fit a particular worldview.

Absolutely the same applies in this country

NCPA again  highlights how much single parent families ahve contributed to inequality. Then they ask the question, why don't politicians talk aboiut it?

How much do single-parent households matter?

• University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox determined that children in high-income households who experienced family breakup fared less well emotionally, psychologically, educationally, and ultimately economically than their peers in two-parent families.
• Children of single or cohabitating, but not married, parents experience abuse, behavioral problems and psychological issues at higher rates than children of married couples, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control.
• Just 2 percent of children raised in two-parent families experience poverty long-term, while more than 20 percent of children in single-parent families live in long-term poverty.
• Penn State sociologist Molly Martin estimated in 2006 that 41 percent of economic inequality generated between 1976 and 2000 was the result of changed family structure.
• According to researchers at the Brookings Institution, the U.S. poverty rate would be a full 25 percent lower today if the U.S. family structure resembled that of 1970.

While the mainstream media and research groups have been focused on inequality, they have largely ignored family breakup. Why? Maranto and Crouch point to three reasons:

• First, leftists do not want to side with social conservatives, despite the plethora of evidence.
• Secondly, minority families have experienced the worst family breakup, and bringing up the issue leads to fears of charges of racism.
• Lastly, because there is no immediate or quick fix to the family breakup problem: such a societal transformation will take decades.

Source: Robert Maranto and Michael Crouch, "Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families," Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2014.

Regarding the second reason I remember getting it in the neck from Tau Henare when the NZBR released my paper on Maori and Welfare in which I pointed out the correlation between the high rate Maori welfare dependence and ex-nuptial births. He wrote me a letter saying I was Maori bashing. In other words, racist.

Let's just blame the perpetrator

Conservative Perspective blogs about ACT's Three Strikes for Burglary policy. He remarks about 'Gavin' who has been burgled 5 times.

"I’m sure Gavin represents a good percentage of the population when he suggests that the causes of burglary are ‘poor education and the wealth gap between rich and poor.’  But is that really the case?"

People who blame burglary on poor education and the gap between rich and poor are often equally quick to highlight white collar crime - theft via solicited dodgy financial investments, corporate fraud etc.

Can't blame those on poor education.

There's a perversion or rejection of values at all levels of society.

Remedying problems would be much simpler if we just started blaming the perpetrators - period. Let's proceed from that position and then, maybe, permit mitigating factors.

As it is, too many look first for the fashionable, extraneous causes of crime because they've been - and continue to be -  well-versed in them. Right from school.

An American guy rang Sean Plunket yesterday and said that NZ is a great country but we are too nice to our bad people. Not like you Yanks, went through my mind, thinking large-scale imprisonment for drug offences and capital punishment.

But he has a point. Our Kiwi tolerance (and Christian forgiveness) sometimes extends into damaging excuse-making for deeply immoral, unacceptable behaviour.

What I do like about any 3 Strikes philosophy is the inherent expression of clemency and redemption - TO A POINT.

Questions about Jones' successor

Excuse my ignorance about  Labour Party developments and electoral law.

I do know that Shane Jones was a list MP and assume  his departure requires a replacement for the months between June and September. But I may be wrong, in which case the rest of this post is redundant.

	Labour Party List 2011 General Election
1	GOFF, Phil
2	KING, Annette
3	CUNLIFFE, David
4	PARKER, David
5	DYSON, Ruth
6	HOROMIA, Parekura
7	STREET, Maryan
8	COSGROVE, Clayton
9	MALLARD, Trevor
10	MORONEY, Sue
11	CHAUVEL, Charles
12	MAHUTA, Nanaia
13	ARDERN, Jacinda
14	ROBERTSON, Grant
15	LITTLE, Andrew
16	JONES, Shane
17	SIO, Sua William
18	FENTON, Darien
19	MACKEY, Moana
20	PRASAD, Rajen
21	HUO, Raymond
22	BEAUMONT, Carol
23	DAVIS, Kelvin
24	SEPULONI, Carmel
25	BARKER, Rick

So, I know Prasad is still an MP because of his Easter outburst over Nigella Lawson.

I had to wiki-search the next too. Yes, they are MPs.

But I do know Kelvin Davis is not. One of the few that should be.

He has been selected for the Te Tai Tokerau but somewhere I read he isn't available for campaigning yet? So will he be available to make a swift trip south to replace Jones in the House?

And how will that affect Hone's chance of keeping the seat? Will Davis find himself in parliament for just a couple of months if he doesn't win Te Tai Tokerau,or will Labour sensibly push him up the list this time?

Or can he turn it over to the next party-lister, ex MP Carmel Sepuloni?

Who would think a sane person wanted a bar of Labour but he has put up his  hand for candidate selection. Good Guy in my opinion.

Cell phones for ex-prisoners and misplaced outrage

I cannot believe the naysayers on the business of equipping released prisoners with mobile phones that have "pre-programmed numbers for police mentors and other support services."

The Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesperson is "outraged".

 "This is like giving a reward to offenders for completing their sentences," she said. "If free mobile phones are being handed out to anyone, it should be to victims, not criminals."

First, they have served their sentence. Second, it isn't victims who need rehabilitation assistance. Help and support yes, but not mobile phones. Thirdly SST should be supporting attempts to rehabilitate. Their attitude increases risk.

And Jacinda Ardern is just as loopy. She believes "...Vodafone should provide offenders with jobs or training rather than cellphones."

Well that's a slap in the face. It would be great if any potential employer takes on a released prisoner but they do not have an obligation.

I think it's a great idea (still only a pilot at this stage) and couldn't agree more with the sentiment expressed by Serco's director of operations Scott Nairn

"If it prevents just one person from becoming a victim, it will be worth it."