This is a classic case of paying attention to what isn't being said.
However, thanks to recent increases in charges, and a five-year $85 million investment in new mail processing facilities, the domestic letters business remained profitable, unlike similar services overseas including Australia, Allen said.
A further rise in the standard domestic letter rate, which rose 5c to 50c last year, was unlikely for some time, he [NZ Post chief executive John Allen] said.
This is a statement from last Wednesday.
Sure enough. When I went to buy stamps for my business this morning the postage charge for a standard envelop had not gone up. Unfortunately I use more by way of A4 size envelopes so you can imagine my disbelief when I was told that instead of $1 stamps they would now require $1-50 stamps.
"Do you think I could get away with putting my prices up 50 percent?" I enquired of the somewhat apologetic assistant.
Of course I couldn't. While I am in the position of providing a monopoly service people do not have to use it.
It's an outrageous price hike which will cost certain businesses dearly.
Monday, March 31, 2008
New Zealanders worth much more than Australians
Road deaths in New Zealand numbered 442 at the end of February 2008. According to the DomPost,
The costs are huge - over $4 billion a year, equal to about a third of Government spending on health.
That's $9 million per death.
Let's double-check that. According to the Ministry of Transport in 2001,
The estimated social cost of a road death in New Zealand is
$2.485 million.
That's $5.3 million per death. Looks like the DomPost used the cost of all accidents - not just deaths.
But look at the most recent research I can find from Australia. This breakdown put the cost at $2.92 billion for 1700 deaths in 1996;
Cost of crashes by injury category were:
Fatal crashes:
$2.92 billion
Serious injury crashes:
$7.15 billion
Minor injury crashes:
$2.47 billion
Property damage only crashes:
$2.44 billion
A diagramatic analysis is shown here. Apparently,
Each fatal road crash costs the community more than $1.7 million.
Why the huge anomaly? I haven't the time to figure it out. It sure as hell isn't inflation. All I know is that the difference amounts to some $3.6 million a life. How we manage to be so much more valuable than the Aussies is something of a mystery when we earn considerably less. Perhaps our bureaucrats (propagandists) are simply more ambitious.
The costs are huge - over $4 billion a year, equal to about a third of Government spending on health.
That's $9 million per death.
Let's double-check that. According to the Ministry of Transport in 2001,
The estimated social cost of a road death in New Zealand is
$2.485 million.
That's $5.3 million per death. Looks like the DomPost used the cost of all accidents - not just deaths.
But look at the most recent research I can find from Australia. This breakdown put the cost at $2.92 billion for 1700 deaths in 1996;
Cost of crashes by injury category were:
Fatal crashes:
$2.92 billion
Serious injury crashes:
$7.15 billion
Minor injury crashes:
$2.47 billion
Property damage only crashes:
$2.44 billion
A diagramatic analysis is shown here. Apparently,
Each fatal road crash costs the community more than $1.7 million.
Why the huge anomaly? I haven't the time to figure it out. It sure as hell isn't inflation. All I know is that the difference amounts to some $3.6 million a life. How we manage to be so much more valuable than the Aussies is something of a mystery when we earn considerably less. Perhaps our bureaucrats (propagandists) are simply more ambitious.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
And we are so much more civilised
Trotter writes that the money you earn is not yours.
To concede that everything the citizenry receives by way of wages, revenues, interest, rents and dividends belongs to them and to them alone is to accept the Right's assertion that "all taxation is theft".
According to this argument, people only put up with paying tax because, by allowing the state to transform their hard-earned cash into publicly-provided health care, education and other essential services, their individual interests are better served than if they attempted to acquire all these things out of their own pockets.
But, even this refinement of the "taxation is theft" argument leaves the sovereign individual at the centre of the fiscal equation. The money taken in tax is still his money.
But is it his money?
The social-democrat would say "no, it isn't".
Money is simply the mechanism advanced societies have developed to enable their citizens to enjoy a more varied and expansive life. In this respect, money is no more individual property than the language we use to communicate with our neighbours. It is a crucial adjunct to our social existence, whose value just like language manifests itself in the processes of exchange.
While they remain unspent, the notes we carry in our wallets are no more than pieces of paper. We can't eat them.
If you doubt the truth of this argument, then I'd invite you read up on the history of the Weimar Republic. There you will discover what happens to people when the state pretends that money can be separated from its social function.
You will also understand exactly what the US Supreme Court Judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, meant when he said: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation."
So as taxation has risen, we have become more civilised. What bull.
'Civil society' (a nebulous term I loathe) is the sum of individual VOLUNTARY effort and exchange. When compassion becomes something that government forces out of us through taxation it is no longer a virtue (thank you Michael Tanner). Civil society turns on virtues and constructive values. People act through mutual self-interest. People treat each other the way they want to be treated.
Does that sound like present day New Zealand?
People like Trotter have a very dark view of the world. They think so little of their fellow citizens that they cannot believe anything charitable or philanthropic will emanate from them by choice, so government must extract it through compulsion. And why do they think that way? It must be because they judge others by their own standards and impulses.
OK. The money the government takes off me is effectively not my own because to withhold it would be to break the law. But the social democrat is saying more than this. He is saying it belongs to the public as of right. The state can nationalise third of my effort and transfer it to someone making no effort. That is what it does. Is either party incentivised by the transaction? No.
Not only does Trotter ignore the damaging effects of redistributing effort, he would like to step up the pace. If taxation is the price we pay for civilisation, why not take two thirds of the fruits of people's effort? We could be even more socially advanced.
No wonder people are leaving in their droves.
To concede that everything the citizenry receives by way of wages, revenues, interest, rents and dividends belongs to them and to them alone is to accept the Right's assertion that "all taxation is theft".
According to this argument, people only put up with paying tax because, by allowing the state to transform their hard-earned cash into publicly-provided health care, education and other essential services, their individual interests are better served than if they attempted to acquire all these things out of their own pockets.
But, even this refinement of the "taxation is theft" argument leaves the sovereign individual at the centre of the fiscal equation. The money taken in tax is still his money.
But is it his money?
The social-democrat would say "no, it isn't".
Money is simply the mechanism advanced societies have developed to enable their citizens to enjoy a more varied and expansive life. In this respect, money is no more individual property than the language we use to communicate with our neighbours. It is a crucial adjunct to our social existence, whose value just like language manifests itself in the processes of exchange.
While they remain unspent, the notes we carry in our wallets are no more than pieces of paper. We can't eat them.
If you doubt the truth of this argument, then I'd invite you read up on the history of the Weimar Republic. There you will discover what happens to people when the state pretends that money can be separated from its social function.
You will also understand exactly what the US Supreme Court Judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, meant when he said: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation."
So as taxation has risen, we have become more civilised. What bull.
'Civil society' (a nebulous term I loathe) is the sum of individual VOLUNTARY effort and exchange. When compassion becomes something that government forces out of us through taxation it is no longer a virtue (thank you Michael Tanner). Civil society turns on virtues and constructive values. People act through mutual self-interest. People treat each other the way they want to be treated.
Does that sound like present day New Zealand?
People like Trotter have a very dark view of the world. They think so little of their fellow citizens that they cannot believe anything charitable or philanthropic will emanate from them by choice, so government must extract it through compulsion. And why do they think that way? It must be because they judge others by their own standards and impulses.
OK. The money the government takes off me is effectively not my own because to withhold it would be to break the law. But the social democrat is saying more than this. He is saying it belongs to the public as of right. The state can nationalise third of my effort and transfer it to someone making no effort. That is what it does. Is either party incentivised by the transaction? No.
Not only does Trotter ignore the damaging effects of redistributing effort, he would like to step up the pace. If taxation is the price we pay for civilisation, why not take two thirds of the fruits of people's effort? We could be even more socially advanced.
No wonder people are leaving in their droves.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The churches are wrong
Church leaders want benefit levels raised. Do they also want to see benefit numbers grow? Because that will be one result of lifting benefit payments.
Various US studies have shown a percentage rise in welfare payments equates to an equal or greater percentage rise in beneficiary numbers. It stands to reason. People on benefits weigh up the costs of working compared to being on welfare. The smaller the gap between working and welfare, the more likely they are to choose the second.
Treasury addressed this in its 1996 Briefing to the Incoming Government; “If there were to be an increase in benefits, it would narrow what is already, for some families, a rather small margin between the income a household receives when it is on a benefit and what it might receive at the point of entry into full-time employment, particularly when the additional costs of employment are taken into account. This could discourage a movement off benefit into employment.”
Another important consideration is the effect of welfare on children. American Robert Rector summed it up well when he said, "Higher welfare payments do not assist children; they increase dependence and illegitimacy, which have a devastatingly negative effect on children's development."
In New Zealand it is estimated around 5 percent of families with children are in trouble. That is, they are affected by domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse and addiction, and excessive gambling. These problems lead to enormous economic stresses. Many are reliant on welfare (although there is often male with income from work on the scene but not pulling his weight.) Raising benefit levels for these families will not improve their situation.
On the other hand, it is also clear that a good percentage of people on benefits are managing. In 2007 55 percent of people on the DPB were in debt to Work and Income. Forty five percent were not. On other benefits the level of indebtedness drops.
Because the church social workers are dealing with the grinding everyday slog of beneficiaries scraping by (for whatever reason) their reaction is to solve the problem the quickest and easiest way. Get government to pay them more.
But we all know that easy solutions are not usually effective or lasting. It is deeply troubling that these church leaders now seem to be out of step with what government has being trying to do - albeit with limited success. The best income- earning potential must come from working. That is why the In Work payment was introduced.
New Zealand's big economic problem is low productivity. That is why we are in a poor comparative position internationally and why so many are leaving the country. Higher wages and better skilled people will not come from making benefits more attractive. The churches need to look at the bigger picture and longer term. New Zealand enjoyed its greatest prosperity when very few people were dependent on welfare. Before the decline of the two-parent family and widespread resort to welfare as a long term option.
Increasing welfare payments would ironically have the opposite effect from that the churches expect. They would find even more people lining up for their services. That is surely not what they want.
No normal human being wants to see people suffering. Neither do they want to increase suffering inadvertently. The church is virtually bribing politicians emotionally by inferring increasing benefit levels is the only "just and compassionate policy." They are wrong. Perhaps this is a good example of when politics and religion shouldn't mix.
Various US studies have shown a percentage rise in welfare payments equates to an equal or greater percentage rise in beneficiary numbers. It stands to reason. People on benefits weigh up the costs of working compared to being on welfare. The smaller the gap between working and welfare, the more likely they are to choose the second.
Treasury addressed this in its 1996 Briefing to the Incoming Government; “If there were to be an increase in benefits, it would narrow what is already, for some families, a rather small margin between the income a household receives when it is on a benefit and what it might receive at the point of entry into full-time employment, particularly when the additional costs of employment are taken into account. This could discourage a movement off benefit into employment.”
Another important consideration is the effect of welfare on children. American Robert Rector summed it up well when he said, "Higher welfare payments do not assist children; they increase dependence and illegitimacy, which have a devastatingly negative effect on children's development."
In New Zealand it is estimated around 5 percent of families with children are in trouble. That is, they are affected by domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse and addiction, and excessive gambling. These problems lead to enormous economic stresses. Many are reliant on welfare (although there is often male with income from work on the scene but not pulling his weight.) Raising benefit levels for these families will not improve their situation.
On the other hand, it is also clear that a good percentage of people on benefits are managing. In 2007 55 percent of people on the DPB were in debt to Work and Income. Forty five percent were not. On other benefits the level of indebtedness drops.
Because the church social workers are dealing with the grinding everyday slog of beneficiaries scraping by (for whatever reason) their reaction is to solve the problem the quickest and easiest way. Get government to pay them more.
But we all know that easy solutions are not usually effective or lasting. It is deeply troubling that these church leaders now seem to be out of step with what government has being trying to do - albeit with limited success. The best income- earning potential must come from working. That is why the In Work payment was introduced.
New Zealand's big economic problem is low productivity. That is why we are in a poor comparative position internationally and why so many are leaving the country. Higher wages and better skilled people will not come from making benefits more attractive. The churches need to look at the bigger picture and longer term. New Zealand enjoyed its greatest prosperity when very few people were dependent on welfare. Before the decline of the two-parent family and widespread resort to welfare as a long term option.
Increasing welfare payments would ironically have the opposite effect from that the churches expect. They would find even more people lining up for their services. That is surely not what they want.
No normal human being wants to see people suffering. Neither do they want to increase suffering inadvertently. The church is virtually bribing politicians emotionally by inferring increasing benefit levels is the only "just and compassionate policy." They are wrong. Perhaps this is a good example of when politics and religion shouldn't mix.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Perigo prediction
Just putting this comment from Lindsay Perigo on record here.
One great thing about Sir Roger, as I argued recently, is that he's a conviction politician. But his convictions are not libertarian. If anything, Roger's return opens things up even more for Libz. Rodney's born-again soft-cockery and Roger's compulsionism mean the chasm between Libz and ACT is greater than ever. We are unique.
And no way will ACT get 130,000 votes. They'll be lucky to get 30,000.
130,000 votes based on 2005 results is about 5.7 percent - 30,000 around 1.4 percent.
I won't be making any predictions about whether the Libertarianz can get any more than the 946 votes they received in 2005.
We shall see.
One great thing about Sir Roger, as I argued recently, is that he's a conviction politician. But his convictions are not libertarian. If anything, Roger's return opens things up even more for Libz. Rodney's born-again soft-cockery and Roger's compulsionism mean the chasm between Libz and ACT is greater than ever. We are unique.
And no way will ACT get 130,000 votes. They'll be lucky to get 30,000.
130,000 votes based on 2005 results is about 5.7 percent - 30,000 around 1.4 percent.
I won't be making any predictions about whether the Libertarianz can get any more than the 946 votes they received in 2005.
We shall see.
Happy memories
And now for something completely different. I'm a big fan of the UK version of The Apprentice with the acerbic Sir Alan Sugar. For some reason he has always seemed vaguely familiar to me but having spent a lot of time around East-enders I brushed it off as a generic thing. Then I was reading this very entertaining interview and discovered he flys planes. Flys planes and he comes from Hackney?In the late eighties and early nineties I was learning to fly at a North East London airfield called Stapleford. To pay for my lessons I would work in the bar/restaurant during the weekends. It was pretty much my life for a number of years. So I searched Alan Sugar Stapleford and sure enough, he has a plane based there. I probably served him the odd pint or two.
But I never got to fly his plane. Unlike other nouveau riche East-end lads who were always happy to let a young barmaid with her pilot's licence at the controls. They were good times.
The past can hold solutions
The health and welfare of aboriginal children in the Northern Territories continues to come under the spotlight. Here's a man with a new (old) idea about what is needed.
Remote indigenous communities in the Northern Territory need missionary-style dormitories to make sure children are fed, clothed and clean, according to the territory's most powerful Aboriginal leader.
Galarrwuy Yunupingu says a return to mission-style days is needed because thousands of children are still going without breakfast nine months after the $1.5 billion federal indigenous intervention began in the territory.
Community-run dormitories with cooking, showering and sleeping facilities should be built near schools, he told The Age.
Here's the telling statement;
"The missionary days were good. The missionaries looked after the kids much better than the Government does today."
Perhaps a similar idea could work in some of our most isolated and dysfunctional communities?
Remote indigenous communities in the Northern Territory need missionary-style dormitories to make sure children are fed, clothed and clean, according to the territory's most powerful Aboriginal leader.
Galarrwuy Yunupingu says a return to mission-style days is needed because thousands of children are still going without breakfast nine months after the $1.5 billion federal indigenous intervention began in the territory.
Community-run dormitories with cooking, showering and sleeping facilities should be built near schools, he told The Age.
Here's the telling statement;
"The missionary days were good. The missionaries looked after the kids much better than the Government does today."
Perhaps a similar idea could work in some of our most isolated and dysfunctional communities?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Health Douglas-style
Another full house for ACT at the Museum Hotel last night. It was SRO shortly after I arrived to take what looked like the last available seat in the front row. Being in the front made it difficult to assess the crowd size but I think easily over 100 people came to hear Roger Douglas. There were many faces unfamiliar to me and some I did know who hadn't been near ACT in years. Roger and John Ansell expanded on what they had delivered at the conference and it is clear they are very much enjoying their work and growing in both confidence and expectation. It is infectious.
Roger again brushed aside the label of 'hard right' reminding us that his old electorate was Otara. When people died on waiting lists it wasn't the 'rich'. It was his constituents. He is determined to make access to operations for all people a reality. His plan (although not official ACT policy) includes a tax-free threshold of $30,000 with the saving going into an individual health insurance policy. Yes, it's a big idea. But the state of the public health service is a big problem. No, it still doesn't remove the government completely because they are controlling the funding through taxation. But that's where the control stops and the market steps in.
Yes, the bogie of compulsion rears its head again. I am not going to ignore that. But some time ago I conceded this; I would rather be compelled to pay for myself and my family than compelled to pay for someone else. It's not a matter of being selfish. It's about getting the incentives right. We have seen the results of 70 years of socialised welfare and health and it is not a pretty sight.
Roger again brushed aside the label of 'hard right' reminding us that his old electorate was Otara. When people died on waiting lists it wasn't the 'rich'. It was his constituents. He is determined to make access to operations for all people a reality. His plan (although not official ACT policy) includes a tax-free threshold of $30,000 with the saving going into an individual health insurance policy. Yes, it's a big idea. But the state of the public health service is a big problem. No, it still doesn't remove the government completely because they are controlling the funding through taxation. But that's where the control stops and the market steps in.
Yes, the bogie of compulsion rears its head again. I am not going to ignore that. But some time ago I conceded this; I would rather be compelled to pay for myself and my family than compelled to pay for someone else. It's not a matter of being selfish. It's about getting the incentives right. We have seen the results of 70 years of socialised welfare and health and it is not a pretty sight.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Singing from the same song sheet - again
More synchronicity from National and Labour. This time in the form of Richard Long, prominent Key supporter and Michael Cullen.
In today's Dominion Post Long writes,
"The return of Roger Douglas. You have to admit to a touch of nostalgia. The architect of the 80s reforms suddenly looms. Dracula-like from what everyone assumed was a retirement grave...."
Contrast this to Michael Cullen,
"Just when everybody thought it might be safe to vote National out of the box, like something out of an old horror film, comes Roger Douglas."
Arguably the most important thing Roger's return has achieved is to show up the National Party for what it is. Labour with a different leader. At best a variation on the 'muddle-way' theme.
In today's Dominion Post Long writes,
"The return of Roger Douglas. You have to admit to a touch of nostalgia. The architect of the 80s reforms suddenly looms. Dracula-like from what everyone assumed was a retirement grave...."
Contrast this to Michael Cullen,
"Just when everybody thought it might be safe to vote National out of the box, like something out of an old horror film, comes Roger Douglas."
Arguably the most important thing Roger's return has achieved is to show up the National Party for what it is. Labour with a different leader. At best a variation on the 'muddle-way' theme.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Dodgy Dyson
National MP Judith Collins made a calculating error, according to Minister for Social Development Ruth Dyson. She took total the total number of beneficiaries in debt and divided it by the total number of working-age beneficiaries. Dyson labelled this 'New Maths'.
Dyson prefers to count in superannuitants, of which there are around half a million, even though the vast majority have no debt to Work and Income. The predictable result is that the percentage of beneficiaries in debt is a modest-looking 19.8 percent.
In reality the number of working age beneficiaries in debt is almost half. On the DPB it rises to 60 percent.
Dyson's creative maths is more devious and dodgy than Collin's 'New' maths even if it is statistically correct.
Dyson prefers to count in superannuitants, of which there are around half a million, even though the vast majority have no debt to Work and Income. The predictable result is that the percentage of beneficiaries in debt is a modest-looking 19.8 percent.
In reality the number of working age beneficiaries in debt is almost half. On the DPB it rises to 60 percent.
Dyson's creative maths is more devious and dodgy than Collin's 'New' maths even if it is statistically correct.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Refuting Rogernomics myths
I listen to a lot of talkback radio because it gives me a feel for where people sit. It's reasonably representative politically. The conversation about the return of Roger Douglas has been substantial over the past week. As you would expect the positions are polarised. But the support is higher than I expected. Sometimes my view of the average intelligence of voters is tarnished by the seeming preponderance of political ignoramuses but this week my faith has been rekindled by the callers who can talk knowledgeably about economic philosophy and are prepared to debate the ideas. What is also needed are a few facts and figures that squash the mindless myths that have grown up around Rogernomics.
Some callers, especially to Willie Jackson, have talked about suicides due to redundancies, the hearts being ripped out of small town New Zealand, with Jackson running the line that Douglas is a 'mongrel'. (The 'mongrel' had the guts to ring in by the way and will appear for a question and answer session some time in April.)
But let's have a look at the claim that Rogernomics caused widespread and devastating unemployment.
Clearly New Zealand was not alone during the early 90s and not the worst-off either in terms of unemployment. None of the other countries experiencing high unemployment had implemented the sorts of economic reforms NZ had. Roger Kerr talks about the effects of 'disinflation' being significant during this period. Why did new monetary policy focus so heavily on controlling inflation? Rampant inflation during the 70s and 80s had a lot to do with the employment slump of the early 90s.
Another caller talked about how New Zealand's GDP per capita tumbled due to Rogernomics. "Rogernomics is why we are now 22nd in the OECD", he said.
We had already fallen from being near the top in the 50s to 18th by 1982.
I don't want this election campaign to be about fighting past battles but ACT must be able to quickly and simply refute the claims made by those who will attack them. Candidates should remember a few statistical facts that can be absorbed and are indisputable.
Without the reforms things would have gotten a lot worse. With them New Zealand's recovery was faster. What a shame Douglas never got the chance to finish the job. What a shame he never got his flat tax in. What a shame Labour have managed to undo much of the achievement by ramping up government spending and regulation.
And isn't it great to be having some real debate between left and right economic theory, debate about the future of the country, instead of a personality contest between Helen Clark and John Key?
Some callers, especially to Willie Jackson, have talked about suicides due to redundancies, the hearts being ripped out of small town New Zealand, with Jackson running the line that Douglas is a 'mongrel'. (The 'mongrel' had the guts to ring in by the way and will appear for a question and answer session some time in April.)
But let's have a look at the claim that Rogernomics caused widespread and devastating unemployment.
Clearly New Zealand was not alone during the early 90s and not the worst-off either in terms of unemployment. None of the other countries experiencing high unemployment had implemented the sorts of economic reforms NZ had. Roger Kerr talks about the effects of 'disinflation' being significant during this period. Why did new monetary policy focus so heavily on controlling inflation? Rampant inflation during the 70s and 80s had a lot to do with the employment slump of the early 90s.
Another caller talked about how New Zealand's GDP per capita tumbled due to Rogernomics. "Rogernomics is why we are now 22nd in the OECD", he said.
We had already fallen from being near the top in the 50s to 18th by 1982.
I don't want this election campaign to be about fighting past battles but ACT must be able to quickly and simply refute the claims made by those who will attack them. Candidates should remember a few statistical facts that can be absorbed and are indisputable.
Without the reforms things would have gotten a lot worse. With them New Zealand's recovery was faster. What a shame Douglas never got the chance to finish the job. What a shame he never got his flat tax in. What a shame Labour have managed to undo much of the achievement by ramping up government spending and regulation.
And isn't it great to be having some real debate between left and right economic theory, debate about the future of the country, instead of a personality contest between Helen Clark and John Key?
Friday, March 21, 2008
Hallelujah
So Roger Douglas would abolish Working For Families. Fantastic. There is so much wrong with that grand redistribution scheme;1/ Redistribution always involves privilege for one and punishment for another with the government deciding who is the winner and who is the loser. It accords too much power to the state.
2/ The dead-weight cost of redistributing money is utter waste.
3/ When people receive money without commensurate effort they work less. That is bad for productivity.
4/ As an attempt to boost fertility rates redistribution to families with children has not been successful. Note some of the most 'family-friendly' European countries have low fertility rates. The US has the highest in the OECD.
5/ WFF has created very high effective marginal tax rates. In fact some people are no better off if they boost their income through advancement or longer hours, as they move into the top tax rate bracket and lose WFF benefits. WFF dulls ambition.
6/ WFF is the hallmark of Labour governments. It is all the old schemes dressed up in new cloths. These schemes have never achieved their stated goals.
7/ Redistribution creates resentment amongst those who are not beneficiaries. In this case young, childless people. It contributes to their motivation to leave New Zealand.
8/ With WFF being used as a voting bribe, the cost of promoting it has been enormous including ridiculous expenses like megabucks to commission a musical theme.
9/ WFF acts as a subsidy to employers. The wrong people (not those targeted) end up benefiting.
Look. It is simple. Let everybody keep more of their own money. Let individuals take responsibility for their own decisions. The flow-on will be far more beneficial than any government attempts to grand plan society. Thank God someone of influence is talking sense at last. Again - hallelujah!! It's a good day.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Media Release
COMPULSORY DNA TESTING ANOTHER UNWELCOME CONSEQUENCE OF DPB
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The need for compulsory DNA testing to establish paternity is a further unwelcome consequence of the DBP system, says Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator.
"Since the introduction of the DPB in 1973, more and more women have resorted to welfare to raise their children. The application process involves naming the father of their child or children, with the state seeking recompense from him by way of child support payments. The father is responsible for these payments, which are calculated by way of an iniquitous formula, until the child turns 18 (and sometimes 19 according to circumstance). Naturally, cases arise whereby the father wishes to confirm his paternity. To deny him this right is indefensible. However that is what the courts have been doing if the mother refuses consent to a DNA test."
"Before the DPB, income for single mothers came from work or temporary social security assistance. There was far less incentive to have a child alone or leave a relationship. Whereas in 1966 only 7.5 percent of families were single parent, today the figure has grown to 28 percent. Consequently the number of disputes over parentage has also risen."
"Fathers should financially support their children. But while we have a system that encourages women to have babies on the back of welfare, with the estranged father expected to recompense the taxpayer, it is imperative he is able to confirm that he is indeed the biological father. "
"If state assistance was returned to a short term hand-up, far fewer people would become single parents and far fewer paternity disputes would occur."
Background; United Future MP Judy Turner is promoting a bill to allow courts to order compulsory DNA testing to establish paternity
COMPULSORY DNA TESTING ANOTHER UNWELCOME CONSEQUENCE OF DPB
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The need for compulsory DNA testing to establish paternity is a further unwelcome consequence of the DBP system, says Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator.
"Since the introduction of the DPB in 1973, more and more women have resorted to welfare to raise their children. The application process involves naming the father of their child or children, with the state seeking recompense from him by way of child support payments. The father is responsible for these payments, which are calculated by way of an iniquitous formula, until the child turns 18 (and sometimes 19 according to circumstance). Naturally, cases arise whereby the father wishes to confirm his paternity. To deny him this right is indefensible. However that is what the courts have been doing if the mother refuses consent to a DNA test."
"Before the DPB, income for single mothers came from work or temporary social security assistance. There was far less incentive to have a child alone or leave a relationship. Whereas in 1966 only 7.5 percent of families were single parent, today the figure has grown to 28 percent. Consequently the number of disputes over parentage has also risen."
"Fathers should financially support their children. But while we have a system that encourages women to have babies on the back of welfare, with the estranged father expected to recompense the taxpayer, it is imperative he is able to confirm that he is indeed the biological father. "
"If state assistance was returned to a short term hand-up, far fewer people would become single parents and far fewer paternity disputes would occur."
Background; United Future MP Judy Turner is promoting a bill to allow courts to order compulsory DNA testing to establish paternity
Paternity testing
In light of the post below it is entirely reasonable to expect that a good number of children have mothers who have lied about their parentage. It is sad that social policy which encourages such exploitation had led us to a situation whereby courts now need to be able to issue DNA-testing orders that confirm a child's biological father.
It's a simple matter. Fathers have a right to know. Well done Judy Turner. And Judith Collins, if this law change is what you "have been talking about it for a long time" why didn't you draw up a bill? Don't try and steal United Futures's thunder.
It's a simple matter. Fathers have a right to know. Well done Judy Turner. And Judith Collins, if this law change is what you "have been talking about it for a long time" why didn't you draw up a bill? Don't try and steal United Futures's thunder.
The fairer sex
In this land where feminist doctrine dominates public policy, where men have supplanted money as the root of all evil, where the bond between biological mother and child is sacred but bond between father and child is disposable, isn't it surprising to find that women are almost 3 times more likely to defraud Work and Income? Perhaps the women who cheat and steal are models of good behaviour in every other respect.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Wilfil ignorance
National MP Judith Collins is attempting, with a series of WPQs, to ascertain how many people on the DPB began there as a teenager. As part of her answer, the Minister for Social Development, Ruth Dyson, has written,
"I am advised that the Ministry of Social Development's current statistical system only holds complete benefit history for people who commenced their first benefit since June 1996."
This is a departure from their last letter to me (on this subject) dated December 2006;
"The following tables only record benefits that commenced after January 1 1993. As I advised you in my previous response....the Ministry does not hold accurate electronic information on benefit recipients granted benefit prior to this date."
What a piss-poor performance this is. At this rate they will soon hold no data. Or none they are obliged to release.
Based on my information, at December 2006 at least 37,600 or 37 percent of current DPB recipients had first received a benefit as a teenager. If complete benefit histories could be accessed the percentage is likely to be much higher.
The DPB is a trap for teenagers. And it produces families from which much social dysfunction emanates. The emotional and economic costs incurred by these families could be significantly curtailed but nobody has the guts to do anything about current policy.
"I am advised that the Ministry of Social Development's current statistical system only holds complete benefit history for people who commenced their first benefit since June 1996."
This is a departure from their last letter to me (on this subject) dated December 2006;
"The following tables only record benefits that commenced after January 1 1993. As I advised you in my previous response....the Ministry does not hold accurate electronic information on benefit recipients granted benefit prior to this date."
What a piss-poor performance this is. At this rate they will soon hold no data. Or none they are obliged to release.
Based on my information, at December 2006 at least 37,600 or 37 percent of current DPB recipients had first received a benefit as a teenager. If complete benefit histories could be accessed the percentage is likely to be much higher.
The DPB is a trap for teenagers. And it produces families from which much social dysfunction emanates. The emotional and economic costs incurred by these families could be significantly curtailed but nobody has the guts to do anything about current policy.
Breaking the monopolies
First, an explanation of why so little blogging. As mentioned earlier I took a local shop to have a painting sale two weeks ago. The sale went moderately well but the interest in commissioned pastels was enormous. Hence I have extended the arrangement and am working there every day.
But I did want to respond to this comment from yesterday.
Did anything come out of the ACT conference, or from Douglas's mouth to say you're going to reduce the size of the State? NO! Like the socialist Key, you're still talking about merely curtailing it at the level it is now.
The media, as I pointed out yesterday, didn't report on the content of Rodney or Roger's speeches.
The major thrust of Roger's speech was getting politicians and bureaucrats out of education, health and welfare by breaking state monopolies. It was all about competition and choice. I had never heard Roger speak before and was impressed with his conviction about how much better services could be with private providers. This is his holy grail. If ACT is no better than National I am missing something (and so is the PM who yesterday said, "....the National Party only stands for power and people in ACT at least have things they believe in and they believe in them quite passionately....they're not my beliefs, in fact I am quite strongly opposed to them, but I do credit them with having a belief system and that I think is something National just puts aside as being desperate for power.")
While some policies will not go as far as I and other libertarians want them to, a gradualist doesn't take an all or nothing approach. The education policy, detailed in Rodney's speech, doesn't abolish state schools but it does open the door to more private schools and deal with the inequity of taxpayers paying twice for their children's education. Parents would no longer be forced to send their children to substandard schools. It wouldn't be just the 'rich' who would have choice.
National, on the other hand, can't even lend their support to bulk funding any more.
But I did want to respond to this comment from yesterday.
Did anything come out of the ACT conference, or from Douglas's mouth to say you're going to reduce the size of the State? NO! Like the socialist Key, you're still talking about merely curtailing it at the level it is now.
The media, as I pointed out yesterday, didn't report on the content of Rodney or Roger's speeches.
The major thrust of Roger's speech was getting politicians and bureaucrats out of education, health and welfare by breaking state monopolies. It was all about competition and choice. I had never heard Roger speak before and was impressed with his conviction about how much better services could be with private providers. This is his holy grail. If ACT is no better than National I am missing something (and so is the PM who yesterday said, "....the National Party only stands for power and people in ACT at least have things they believe in and they believe in them quite passionately....they're not my beliefs, in fact I am quite strongly opposed to them, but I do credit them with having a belief system and that I think is something National just puts aside as being desperate for power.")
While some policies will not go as far as I and other libertarians want them to, a gradualist doesn't take an all or nothing approach. The education policy, detailed in Rodney's speech, doesn't abolish state schools but it does open the door to more private schools and deal with the inequity of taxpayers paying twice for their children's education. Parents would no longer be forced to send their children to substandard schools. It wouldn't be just the 'rich' who would have choice.
National, on the other hand, can't even lend their support to bulk funding any more.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Hell, yes
For the media the ACT conference was all about the return of Roger Douglas. That is what they have covered, speculating on his reasons for returning and the possible implications. The media are not particularly interested in ACT ideas and ACT policies. Or one would have to make this assumption based on their coverage. It's personalities and political shenanigans.
Roger Douglas laid out clearly in his speech what is wrong with this country. As I listened it struck me that Labour has done an awful lot of damage in nine years. But nine years is a long time and much of it has already receded into the murky past and we've forgotten. The results are low productivity, low wage growth, huge rate rises, substantial increased costs to doing business; we trail most other OECD countries in many areas - not just GDP per capita - then we have violent crime increasing, social problems escalating, the loss of so many skilled people. It doesn't have to be like this. But people get up and go, admittedly to countries with some of the same problems, but they feel emotionally disconnected from those problems. It's a relief not to have to care in the same way because it isn't your country that is failing to deal with problems that are fixable.
So am I standing? Hell yes. I don't want to. But I have no choice. As Roger put it, we can't keep standing on the sidelines. And if he can find the energy and time to make a commitment to make New Zealand a better place for everybody then so can I.
Roger Douglas laid out clearly in his speech what is wrong with this country. As I listened it struck me that Labour has done an awful lot of damage in nine years. But nine years is a long time and much of it has already receded into the murky past and we've forgotten. The results are low productivity, low wage growth, huge rate rises, substantial increased costs to doing business; we trail most other OECD countries in many areas - not just GDP per capita - then we have violent crime increasing, social problems escalating, the loss of so many skilled people. It doesn't have to be like this. But people get up and go, admittedly to countries with some of the same problems, but they feel emotionally disconnected from those problems. It's a relief not to have to care in the same way because it isn't your country that is failing to deal with problems that are fixable.
So am I standing? Hell yes. I don't want to. But I have no choice. As Roger put it, we can't keep standing on the sidelines. And if he can find the energy and time to make a commitment to make New Zealand a better place for everybody then so can I.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
ACT is back
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
