Usually people label me as right-wing. Yet I have never been a National member, never voted for National and generally take so little interest in their party politics that I didn't even know whether Jami-lee Ross was a bloke or a girl until I googled the name and image after misinterpreting the opening line from a Standard post.
I was firmly in the ACT camp when it was classical liberal, which is not right-wing.
Classical liberal philosophy promotes above all else individual rights. It opposes the power of the state over individual rights.
On the other side are collective rights. These are pushed by left-wingers. They love the state because it promotes the interests of groups to the detriment of individuals.
But true right wingers are collectivists too. They want the state to promote the rights of groups they belong to. National has a few of those.
A lot of nonsense is talked about left and right in this country. And from time to time I even indulge in it myself for the simple reason that most people are too poorly educated to understand anything else.
There is no classical liberal party in this country currently. Some talk about National having a classical liberal wing but that's a joke. Especially when people regret Simon Power's resignation because he led their more liberal team. Power? He steered through many pieces of legislation that offended against individual rights. And plans to ram through more before November.
Some people just can't grasp the importance of individual rights. People like Sean Plunket who last week took a very illiberal position on his talkshow. He was aghast at the judge's decision about the Wanganui gang patch ban. He believes the wearing of the patch should be illegal across the country. So should gang membership and the very gangs themselves. He says that to get a patch someone has to commit a crime therefore all patch wearers are criminals.
It was gratifying to hear some people challenge him saying, punish the crime, not the process of association or expression of it. I put it to him that some gang leaders are trying to turn their gangs around, recalling an interview he did when he was still at Radio NZ. He interviewed a Sally Army rep and a gang leader over the matter of a group attending rehab at a location in Turangi. Plunket was hostile towards the gang member and seemed to be trying to stir up community unrest about the rehab activity. My point to Plunket was that some gang members do turn their backs on criminal activity but not on the gang. The gang is more than just men. It is their women and children. It is entirely possible that someone sports a patch when they are not currently criminal or have already served time for past misdeeds. I acknowledged it would be naive to believe many fitted the description. But tried to get him to see that the regalia itself should not be illegal. Still he insists that in the matter of gangs like the Mongrel Mob and Black Power there is no room for 'niceties' like freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc. On this matter he would sit quite comfortably in the ACT party.
Relating the exchange to my husband he broke into the famous passage, "First they came for ...
That is exactly why individual rights must be preserved at all cost, even when we don't like the individuals who rights we uphold.
And it is a sobering thought that there isn't a party in our parliament that bases its philosophy and actions on this idea.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Saturday, March 05, 2011
The earthquake bill
An interview with Mike Hoskings, NewstalkZB, Thursday morning, about whether or not trimming Working For Families would go any way towards meeting the earthquake bill (starts at 20:41). Pieces were spliced into subsequent news bulletins and (to my frustration) I am still being described as a 'former ACT candidate'. It'll probably get carved into my gravestone.
ACT on message
Brief and simple so re-produced in full;
Hide - Vaulting Matilda March 4
Friday, 4 March 2011, 7:53 pm
Press Release: ACT New Zealand
ISSUE 15, March 4 2011
REPRIORITISE, REBUILD
These are grim times for Canterbury, and indeed for New Zealand. Our second largest city is devastated and the people of Christchurch are enduring the hardest of times.
We are now forced to make hard choices, to focus intensely on only the highest priorities – we need to face reality.
Our starting point is not good. Our government has been borrowing a massive $300 million per week simply to keep afloat. That’s almost $200 per week for each and every Kiwi household.
And now we have Christchurch to rebuild.
However it’s not just government that overspends – as a nation we have built up overseas debt of $162 billion, 85% of GDP.
We have seen the economic and social turmoil in the most highly indebted European countries. The future has arrived for them. Those in deep trouble were the countries with the highest current account deficits, the highest levels of overseas debt and the highest levels of government debt. If you need to know what the future holds on our present track, just look at the so-called PIIGS: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain.
The reason we have so much wasteful, pointless and counterproductive government spending is that politicians have every incentive to spend more, and promise too much. As voters we encourage them.
The middle class want free childcare. Students want interest-free loans. Pensioners want pensions and gold cards. On and on it goes. Every interest group wants their own government department or agency. Helen Clark’s Labour government perfected the art of spending money on key interest groups to hold on to power at all cost.
We couldn’t afford that before the earthquakes and we absolutely cannot now. Government capital spending is going to increase as we rebuild Christchurch.
We must ensure now that the general good prevails over narrower self-interest. Government must live within a budget as tight as the budgets that ordinary households face.
Rodney Hide
Leader, ACT Party
Thursday, March 03, 2011
WFF - changes at the top-end won't cut it
Because the PM has suggested making Working For Families less generous in an attempt to find the money needed to pay for the Christchurch recovery the Labour vote-buyer is once again in the news.
Earthquake or no earthquake many economists regard these sorts of family spending programmes as highly ineffective and inefficient. As a vehicle to reduce child poverty they often result in more workless homes. Yes, the In Work tax credit (one of four WFF tax credits) was intended to get more beneficiaries into the workforce but at the same time an evaluation showed more partnered mothers left the work force. ( And then the recession wiped out the increase in single parent employment too.) At the very low income end Family Tax Credits to benefit-dependent families tend to keep people on benefits because of the high marginal tax rates they produce and the incentive that higher benefit-packages bring.
When Labour widened the scope of eligibility for family assistance and re-named it WFF they virtually doubled the cost in the interim period. In 2005, as the opposition leader John Key called WFF "a giant welfare package". And at some point "communism by stealth". That is still true but in order to win the 2008 election he decided he could not risk undoing the scheme. There are over 400,000 families with dependent children - nearly four in five - receiving an average annual entitlement of between $6 and 7,000. Obviously, however the higher up the income scale we go, the lower the payments are. So cutting them back at the top end isn't going to save the government very much money. Not when they are talking about a $5 billion drop in tax revenue due to the loss of economic activity in Christchurch.
Other reasons why WFF is a bad business include the privilege/ penalty process. Childless individuals and couples resent having to pay for other people's choices. No wonder so many migrate. Some research shows that families with children actually accumulate more wealth over a lifetime though larger homes and more constrained life styles. So why is the taxpayer expected to add to that wealth?
Churning significant amounts of income involves dead-weight loss. It is inefficient. The bureaucracy wouldn't be needed if the money was left in someone's pocket in the first instance, rather than taking it and giving it back.
Some people believe that family assistance programmes increase fertility rates but any correlation is uneven across various countries. In fact groups like the Child Poverty Action Group claim NZ puts a shockingly small amount of GDP into family assistance yet we have one of the highest fertility rates in the developed world. Many European countries they admire - Sweden, Denmark and Norway for instance - all have lower rates than NZ.
In the final analysis WFF was a vote-buyer. With NZ's current somewhat dire situation National has to persuade people of the right course of action. What is needed is not necessarily what they want. People do understand this. Key has to convince then to vote using their heads and hearts, and not through their pockets. The programme Labour introduced in 2005 should go.
(The likes of Lianne Dalziel will protest that cuts to spending are the last thing Christchurch needs. So make a temporary exception for Christchurch. The precedent is already set with special spending packages and, last year, the DPB reforms were deferred for Christchurch beneficiaries.)
Earthquake or no earthquake many economists regard these sorts of family spending programmes as highly ineffective and inefficient. As a vehicle to reduce child poverty they often result in more workless homes. Yes, the In Work tax credit (one of four WFF tax credits) was intended to get more beneficiaries into the workforce but at the same time an evaluation showed more partnered mothers left the work force. ( And then the recession wiped out the increase in single parent employment too.) At the very low income end Family Tax Credits to benefit-dependent families tend to keep people on benefits because of the high marginal tax rates they produce and the incentive that higher benefit-packages bring.
When Labour widened the scope of eligibility for family assistance and re-named it WFF they virtually doubled the cost in the interim period. In 2005, as the opposition leader John Key called WFF "a giant welfare package". And at some point "communism by stealth". That is still true but in order to win the 2008 election he decided he could not risk undoing the scheme. There are over 400,000 families with dependent children - nearly four in five - receiving an average annual entitlement of between $6 and 7,000. Obviously, however the higher up the income scale we go, the lower the payments are. So cutting them back at the top end isn't going to save the government very much money. Not when they are talking about a $5 billion drop in tax revenue due to the loss of economic activity in Christchurch.
Other reasons why WFF is a bad business include the privilege/ penalty process. Childless individuals and couples resent having to pay for other people's choices. No wonder so many migrate. Some research shows that families with children actually accumulate more wealth over a lifetime though larger homes and more constrained life styles. So why is the taxpayer expected to add to that wealth?
Churning significant amounts of income involves dead-weight loss. It is inefficient. The bureaucracy wouldn't be needed if the money was left in someone's pocket in the first instance, rather than taking it and giving it back.
Some people believe that family assistance programmes increase fertility rates but any correlation is uneven across various countries. In fact groups like the Child Poverty Action Group claim NZ puts a shockingly small amount of GDP into family assistance yet we have one of the highest fertility rates in the developed world. Many European countries they admire - Sweden, Denmark and Norway for instance - all have lower rates than NZ.
In the final analysis WFF was a vote-buyer. With NZ's current somewhat dire situation National has to persuade people of the right course of action. What is needed is not necessarily what they want. People do understand this. Key has to convince then to vote using their heads and hearts, and not through their pockets. The programme Labour introduced in 2005 should go.
(The likes of Lianne Dalziel will protest that cuts to spending are the last thing Christchurch needs. So make a temporary exception for Christchurch. The precedent is already set with special spending packages and, last year, the DPB reforms were deferred for Christchurch beneficiaries.)
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Stigmatising drink-drivers
Here's a new idea, to me anyway. Various states of America require first time drink drivers to display what are called 'whiskey-plates' on their vehicles. This marks them for the police to pay special attention to and identifies them for the purposes of public reprobation I suppose. I can empathise with the arguments both for and against;
Washington has become the latest state to see a push for a so-called whiskey-plate law to combat drunk driving, a move defense lawyers and civil libertarians say can unfairly stigmatize offenders, and sometimes their families as well, reports the Wall Street Journal.
* The law would require first-time drunk drivers to replace their license plates with easy-to-spot tags that end with the uppercase letter "Z," a signal to police to pay close attention to the car.
* Minnesota, an early adopter of such a law, uses the letter "W" -- hence the term "whiskey plate" -- on a plain white background.
* Offenders in Washington would be required to display the special plates for three years after their driving privileges are restored.
Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said whiskey plates were part of a "trend of overcriminalization" in the United States. "These sorts of laws just create obstacles to offenders getting fresh starts and moving forward with their lives," she said.
A handful of other states have adopted similar laws.
* In Minnesota, certain drunk-driving offenders are required to attach special plates to their car for a year after their driving privileges are restored.
* An earlier version of the Minnesota law was enacted in 1988.
* Drunk-driving-related fatalities have fallen steadily since.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Cactus on capitalism, caring and Canterbury
I doubt this blog can add to Cactus' traffic but I must link to her latest piece if only to recognise and acknowledge its worth.
The Left's Deluded Monopoly on Caring
...Capitalism seeks to create wealth. Socialism seeks to buy votes by spending it. For years leftist tilting welfarism has destroyed New Zealand's chance of a nest-egg for this rainiest of days. Over-generous dollops of welfarism has spent up the nations inheritance for moments like these...
The Left's Deluded Monopoly on Caring
...Capitalism seeks to create wealth. Socialism seeks to buy votes by spending it. For years leftist tilting welfarism has destroyed New Zealand's chance of a nest-egg for this rainiest of days. Over-generous dollops of welfarism has spent up the nations inheritance for moments like these...
Blow out in long-term unemployed - Australia
The Age reports a "blow out in the long-term unemployed".
I stand to be corrected but surely this was to be expected after people who had been or would have been on the Parenting Payment - DPB equivalent - were required to either go onto or move to the Newstart Allowance.
Imagine if we did the same. Those parents with children 6 or older were moved onto the Unemployment Benefit. The long-term unemployed would increase.
But the journalist makes no mention of this. It seems a shallow analysis. Hence the conundrum of rising long-term unemployment set against falling unemployment.
THE number of people on welfare benefits for more than a year has hit its highest since early 2002, with long-term recipients swelling by nearly 40 per cent since the global financial crisis.
Despite claims of skills and labour shortages, 349,806 people have been on Newstart Allowance for more than a year, according to Centrelink data for January, published by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
I stand to be corrected but surely this was to be expected after people who had been or would have been on the Parenting Payment - DPB equivalent - were required to either go onto or move to the Newstart Allowance.
Imagine if we did the same. Those parents with children 6 or older were moved onto the Unemployment Benefit. The long-term unemployed would increase.
But the journalist makes no mention of this. It seems a shallow analysis. Hence the conundrum of rising long-term unemployment set against falling unemployment.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The response to that welfare report
As the days past last week I became less and less inclined to enter the welfare report debate. Primarily because of the timing, but running a close second to that, the quality of the debate. Here is just one example;
So I apologise for encouraging people to get in and show support for reform and then failing to do so myself.
As it happens the report was overtaken by events and its opponents will be more frustrated about that than the group itself. There is good and bad in it. Now it awaits National to pick up the best and make it policy.
MEDIA RELEASE
Friday 22 February 2011
Celebrate Beneficiaries - The Heroes of the Recession
It is the government who is making bad life choices, not beneficiaries! In fact, Trevor McGlinchey from the NZ Council of Christian Social Services (NZCCSS) says beneficiaries are the heroes who are carrying the country through the recession.
NZCCSS Executive officer McGlinchey was speaking in response to today’s release of the third and final report from the government Welfare Working Group Report.
...“Last year’s Budget offered millions in tax assistance to those on mid to high incomes, many of whom pay relatively minimal tax because they know how to work the system. That leaves low income earners and beneficiaries to pay off the nation’s debts!”
So I apologise for encouraging people to get in and show support for reform and then failing to do so myself.
As it happens the report was overtaken by events and its opponents will be more frustrated about that than the group itself. There is good and bad in it. Now it awaits National to pick up the best and make it policy.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Sneaking into the supermarket to buy my porn... er sorry...wine.
Oswald blogs on the demands of the anti-alcohol apparatchiks;
Utter unadulterated hysteria.
Have these cheerless naysayers ever taken a trip to a vineyard to observe the work, the craft and the dedication that goes onto producing wine? Have they no regard for the talent brought to the label design and marketing? The jobs provided to thousands of harvesters, bottlers, distributors, and on-sellers? Have they ever entered a really first class cellar and felt the romance of wine bottled and aged for many years?
How dreadfully insulting to compare wine to "dirty movies" (and even dirty movies have a place, like them or not.)
"...Displaying alcohol in supermarkets should be treated in the same way as dirty movies are displayed in a video store, the Alcohol Reform Bill select committee was told yesterday.
Alcohol Action said the proposals adapted by the Government from a Law Commission report into alcohol reform did not go far enough.
Alcohol should not be easily accessible and should not be displayed at the front of stores or with other products such as fruit and vegetables, the group said yesterday.
"Supermarkets are treating alcohol like it's a commodity rather than a drug," spokeswoman Professor Jennie Connor said.
"It should be treated like dirty movies, they should be in one corner of the supermarket at the back..."
Utter unadulterated hysteria.
Have these cheerless naysayers ever taken a trip to a vineyard to observe the work, the craft and the dedication that goes onto producing wine? Have they no regard for the talent brought to the label design and marketing? The jobs provided to thousands of harvesters, bottlers, distributors, and on-sellers? Have they ever entered a really first class cellar and felt the romance of wine bottled and aged for many years?
How dreadfully insulting to compare wine to "dirty movies" (and even dirty movies have a place, like them or not.)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Painting and making sense of stuff
It's been a shit week. I have nothing to say about the heartache that many people have been condemned to live with. We say, life goes on. But for them, it hasn't and won't. All our moods are affected even if we are only observers. In our own ways we look for things that balance the deficit.
Here's something I have been working on for a while. This character always lifts me up. A life turned around; turning around. Certainly the proof that hope springs eternal both within, and for, seemingly hopeless cases.
Here's something I have been working on for a while. This character always lifts me up. A life turned around; turning around. Certainly the proof that hope springs eternal both within, and for, seemingly hopeless cases.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
DPB work-testing when youngest child turns three
According to the NZ Herald;
It is understood the group will tomorrow recommend solo parents get work from when the child is three years old, One News reported.
This will cause an unholy outcry.
But the recommendation is not radical by international standards.
The following table is now out-of-date but I can tell you that the trend is lowering the age of youngest child. Not lifting it. The UK and Australia have moved to 6 as has NZ. The US and Canada have a range of ages according to the state or province, with the US maximum of 1 year. Norway, France, Germany and Switzerland were work-testing at 3 when this table was published.
The Herald's Simon Collins has found a trier who can't get work, or much of it.
But this individual is not what the reforms are about. The reforms are aimed at reducing the sort of long term dependence that persists throughout periods of low unemployment. That's why the focus is on the DPB, the sickness and invalid's benefits.
Also some media commentators yesterday started talking up "benefit cuts". That is scaremongering and unnecessarily worrying those on benefits. The level of payments was outside of the scope of this report. Key has confirmed there will not be cuts.
It is understood the group will tomorrow recommend solo parents get work from when the child is three years old, One News reported.
This will cause an unholy outcry.
But the recommendation is not radical by international standards.
The following table is now out-of-date but I can tell you that the trend is lowering the age of youngest child. Not lifting it. The UK and Australia have moved to 6 as has NZ. The US and Canada have a range of ages according to the state or province, with the US maximum of 1 year. Norway, France, Germany and Switzerland were work-testing at 3 when this table was published.
The Herald's Simon Collins has found a trier who can't get work, or much of it.
But this individual is not what the reforms are about. The reforms are aimed at reducing the sort of long term dependence that persists throughout periods of low unemployment. That's why the focus is on the DPB, the sickness and invalid's benefits.
Also some media commentators yesterday started talking up "benefit cuts". That is scaremongering and unnecessarily worrying those on benefits. The level of payments was outside of the scope of this report. Key has confirmed there will not be cuts.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Maxim - a National Party caucus takeover??
Whale has this extraordinary claim on his blog.
The fundamentalist Maxim Institute have been pointed to as behind this selection jack up, as the first stage for the takeover of the National Party by fundies. Brent is apparently one of 37 candidates they have primed around the country to take over caucus between now and 2017.
The Maxim Institute seems to have abundant money and was very politically active organising debates around the country prior to the last election. I have regarded them generally as a transparent outfit which produces quite a bit of good, balanced, politically centre-right stuff. Their Real Issues weekly e-mail is usually worth a read. CEO Greg Fleming is a man I like and respect notwithstanding there are issues we would disagree on because I am not a conservative or Christian.
Fundamentalists? A caucus takeover?? Seems fanciful. But its a free country. People are free to organise and free to oppose. Any input or views people have on this matter would be welcome.
The fundamentalist Maxim Institute have been pointed to as behind this selection jack up, as the first stage for the takeover of the National Party by fundies. Brent is apparently one of 37 candidates they have primed around the country to take over caucus between now and 2017.
The Maxim Institute seems to have abundant money and was very politically active organising debates around the country prior to the last election. I have regarded them generally as a transparent outfit which produces quite a bit of good, balanced, politically centre-right stuff. Their Real Issues weekly e-mail is usually worth a read. CEO Greg Fleming is a man I like and respect notwithstanding there are issues we would disagree on because I am not a conservative or Christian.
Fundamentalists? A caucus takeover?? Seems fanciful. But its a free country. People are free to organise and free to oppose. Any input or views people have on this matter would be welcome.
Welfare recommendations out tomorrow - pitch in
Two reports herald the publication of the Welfare Working Group's final report tomorrow. Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army says radical new welfare proposals are set to become a defining moment in New Zealand's history. If only.
And, despite not knowing what is in the report, Sue Bradford is already planning her protest outside Work and Income in Henderson tomorrow.
National is taking the right line on this. Key has repeatedly identified the most important goal over the past few weeks. That is getting children off welfare. It isn't about persecuting or punishing people. And he needs to hold that line because he is in for a barrage of angry, often misguided, and often personal abuse.
What I want to see is more people actually pitching in behind Key. Because when it gets ugly those people who support reform mysteriously clam up and are happy for someone else to take the flack. If we want to see the recommendations become election policy, and in turn actual policy more people need to state the case for them. Write a letter to the editor; make a comment in a newspaper forum; make a comment on talkback; write to John Key. But don't let it look like the reforms are too unpopular to implement just because the very active and very loud left win the day.
Remember the end goal. Better futures for everyone. But especially the child who will be born into a welfare home today, and without change, will spend years living with disadvantage and dysfunction and dwindling chance of breaking the mould.
And, despite not knowing what is in the report, Sue Bradford is already planning her protest outside Work and Income in Henderson tomorrow.
National is taking the right line on this. Key has repeatedly identified the most important goal over the past few weeks. That is getting children off welfare. It isn't about persecuting or punishing people. And he needs to hold that line because he is in for a barrage of angry, often misguided, and often personal abuse.
What I want to see is more people actually pitching in behind Key. Because when it gets ugly those people who support reform mysteriously clam up and are happy for someone else to take the flack. If we want to see the recommendations become election policy, and in turn actual policy more people need to state the case for them. Write a letter to the editor; make a comment in a newspaper forum; make a comment on talkback; write to John Key. But don't let it look like the reforms are too unpopular to implement just because the very active and very loud left win the day.
Remember the end goal. Better futures for everyone. But especially the child who will be born into a welfare home today, and without change, will spend years living with disadvantage and dysfunction and dwindling chance of breaking the mould.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Welfare reform taking shape in the UK
Hat-tip to The Welfare State We're In.
There has been a lot of talk about welfare reform in the UK since the Conservatives won government. As in this country the changes take time. On Thursday the new bill (175 pages) was introduced. The following is from the Guardian's political live blogging;
The last Labour government took most of its ideas about welfare from the UK. It was always Maharey's big ambition to move to a single benefit. Politically New Zealanders seem more comfortable with following what the UK does as opposed to what the US does. And the Welfare Working Group, which I believe releases is last report next week, have already mooted a single benefit. I have been opposed to such a move in the past. And I am still not persuaded that it isn't just tinkering and political expediency.
One change that is unclear. If people can keep 35 pence of their benefit for every extra pound earned, at what point does that cease? I really hate trying to get to grips with abatement systems. Confounded complicated things. It doesn't appear that any journalist is too keen on it either because I cannot find a simple explanation of the single taper and earnings disregard system being proposed.
There has been a lot of talk about welfare reform in the UK since the Conservatives won government. As in this country the changes take time. On Thursday the new bill (175 pages) was introduced. The following is from the Guardian's political live blogging;
Cameron will deliver a speech on welfare speech at about 11.15am. Downing Street released some extracts overnight, and they show that Cameron believes that the welfare state needs to be reformed because people are less responsible than they were 60 years ago.
When the welfare system was born, there was what we might call a collective culture of responsibility. More than today, people's self-image was not just about their personal status or success…it was measured out by what sort of citizen they were; whether they did the decent thing. That meant that a standardised system of sickness and out-of-work benefits – with limited conditions – was effective.
It reached the people who needed that support, and not those who didn't, in part because fiddling the system would have brought not just public outcry but private shame. In other words, personal responsibility acted as a brake on abuse of the system.
And because the ethos of self-betterment was more wide-spread, the system supported aspiration rather than discouraging it. Now let's be honest about where we've travelled to, from there to here. That collective culture of responsibility – taken for granted sixty years ago – has in many ways been lost.
11.40am: Cameron makes the point about people being more responsible 60 years ago. I quoted this extract earlier. (See 8.35am.)
He says the welfare system now operates in such a way as to encourage people to be irresponsible.
But I know this country and therefore refuse to believe that there are five million people who are inherently lazy and have no interest in bettering themselves and their families.
What I want to argue is that the real fault lies with the system itself. The benefit system has created a benefit culture. It doesn't just allow people to act irresponsibly, but often actively encourages them to do so. Sometimes they deliberately follow the signals that are sent out. Other times, they hazily follow them, trapped in a fog of dependency. But either way, whether it's the sheer complexity and the perverse incentives of the benefits
system, whether it's the failure to penalise those who choose to live off the hard work of others, or whether it's the failure to offer the right support for people who are desperate to go back into work, we've created the bizarre situation where time and again the rational thing for people to do is, quite clearly, the wrong thing to do.
11.44am: Cameron is now giving examples of how the system encourages people to be irresponsible.
High marginal deduction rates mean that a single mum has no incentive to work if she is going to lose 96p for every £1 she earns, he says.
And the benefits system makes it sensible for couples to live apart.
You might think, no one would split up because of benefits. But in our country today, there are two million people who 'live apart together' – that is couples who maintain separate homes while being economically interdependent. Can we honestly say the signals in the benefit system have nothing do with this?
11.46am: Cameron says nothing has shocked him more since he has come into government than the situation with housing benefit.
We inherited a system that cost £20 billion a year, with some claimants living in property worth £2,000 a week in rent. That's £104,000 a year. That's the income taxes and national insurance contributions of sixteen working people on median income ...
We've been sending a signal to people that if they're out of work, or on a low wage, and
living in an expensive home in the centre of a city, that the decision to go back to work, or take a better paid job, could mean having to move to a cheaper home, in a different part of the city, in order to escape benefit dependency.
11.49am: Cameron is now talking about how the universal benefit will be. He says it will be much simpler than the current system.
With the universal credit, you would keep 35p of benefit for every extra pound you take home. And because this rate of benefit withdrawal is the same whatever you earn - it's easy to calculate just how much better off you will be.
11.51am: Cameron is now talking about the tougher sanctions that will be imposed.
So if you're unemployed and refuse to take either a reasonable job or to do some work in your community in return for your unemployment benefit, you will lose your benefits for three months. Do it again, you'll lose it for 6 months. Refuse a third time and you'll lose your unemployment benefits for three years.
11.52am: People who can't work and can't be expected to work will be supported, Cameron says. "Full Stop, end of story."
11.53am: Cameron says the government will pay companies to get the unemployed into work.
Don't let anyone tell you this happened before. Under the last government's model, some companies still got a large share of their payment – even if they didn't get someone into work. We're saying: we will withhold the vast majority of these companies' payments until they get someone into work – and they stay in work.
He says that people have been suggesting programmes like this for years. But in the past the Treasury opposed them. Now the Treasury is in favour. Cameron pays tribute to Lord Freud, the welfare minister, for helping to develop this idea. He says he is glad the Tories "poached" Freud from Labour.
11.57am: Cameron says the bill marks the beginning of "a cultural change". It will create "a new culture of responsibility", he says.
The last Labour government took most of its ideas about welfare from the UK. It was always Maharey's big ambition to move to a single benefit. Politically New Zealanders seem more comfortable with following what the UK does as opposed to what the US does. And the Welfare Working Group, which I believe releases is last report next week, have already mooted a single benefit. I have been opposed to such a move in the past. And I am still not persuaded that it isn't just tinkering and political expediency.
One change that is unclear. If people can keep 35 pence of their benefit for every extra pound earned, at what point does that cease? I really hate trying to get to grips with abatement systems. Confounded complicated things. It doesn't appear that any journalist is too keen on it either because I cannot find a simple explanation of the single taper and earnings disregard system being proposed.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Why low income teenagers become mothers
Teenage parenthood, particularly when the mother is under 18, is known to increase risk and poor outcomes for their children.
Whether low income teenagers (responsible for a majority of the births) get pregnant to receive an income and subsidised accommodation from the state is an ongoing debate. It is impossible to say that this is true or untrue given the claim concerns thousands of individuals with their own circumstances and motivations. Most people can quote anecdotal evidence that would support the notion. I tend towards thinking that many of those who get pregnant and give birth do so because there is little reason to avoid it. The upsides outweigh the down. The following passage is interesting;
In "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas report the findings of their two-and-a-half year field study of 162 young, unmarried mothers living in Philadelphia's blighted urban neighborhoods. Although considerable research has been devoted to understanding the dramatic increase in non-marital child bearing among young women in low-income communities, Edin and Kefalas saw that the "perspectives and life experiences" of low-income single mothers were mostly absent from the body of scientific evidence. In the course of their interviews and interactions with the women in their study, Edin and Kefalas found that low-income teenagers do, in fact, "knowingly" become pregnant, and many consider early, out-of-wedlock child-bearing as not only a valid life option, but a mature and responsible choice.
"To most middle class observers, depending on their philosophical take on things, a poor woman with children but no husband, diploma or job is either a victim of her circumstances or undeniable proof that American society is coming apart at the seams," the authors write. "But in the social world inhabited by poor women, a baby born into such conditions represents an opportunity to prove one's worth." While the poor women they studied perceive marriage as a "luxury" -- "something they aspired to but feared they might never achieve" -- having children is viewed as a necessity, "an absolutely essential part of a young woman's life, the chief source of identity and meaning." And while the exclusive rhetoric of Single Mothers by Choice identifies the ideal single mother as a woman who has "completed college," and is "able to support a child without recourse to public funds," the young women in "Promises I Can Keep" express a high degree of confidence in their ability to be excellent mothers despite their disadvantaged circumstances.
Whether low income teenagers (responsible for a majority of the births) get pregnant to receive an income and subsidised accommodation from the state is an ongoing debate. It is impossible to say that this is true or untrue given the claim concerns thousands of individuals with their own circumstances and motivations. Most people can quote anecdotal evidence that would support the notion. I tend towards thinking that many of those who get pregnant and give birth do so because there is little reason to avoid it. The upsides outweigh the down. The following passage is interesting;
In "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas report the findings of their two-and-a-half year field study of 162 young, unmarried mothers living in Philadelphia's blighted urban neighborhoods. Although considerable research has been devoted to understanding the dramatic increase in non-marital child bearing among young women in low-income communities, Edin and Kefalas saw that the "perspectives and life experiences" of low-income single mothers were mostly absent from the body of scientific evidence. In the course of their interviews and interactions with the women in their study, Edin and Kefalas found that low-income teenagers do, in fact, "knowingly" become pregnant, and many consider early, out-of-wedlock child-bearing as not only a valid life option, but a mature and responsible choice.
"To most middle class observers, depending on their philosophical take on things, a poor woman with children but no husband, diploma or job is either a victim of her circumstances or undeniable proof that American society is coming apart at the seams," the authors write. "But in the social world inhabited by poor women, a baby born into such conditions represents an opportunity to prove one's worth." While the poor women they studied perceive marriage as a "luxury" -- "something they aspired to but feared they might never achieve" -- having children is viewed as a necessity, "an absolutely essential part of a young woman's life, the chief source of identity and meaning." And while the exclusive rhetoric of Single Mothers by Choice identifies the ideal single mother as a woman who has "completed college," and is "able to support a child without recourse to public funds," the young women in "Promises I Can Keep" express a high degree of confidence in their ability to be excellent mothers despite their disadvantaged circumstances.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Two heading dogs
The lower dog is the mother, the upper, her son. I took the photos used outside my shop. She was very camera shy and it was impossible to get a shot with them posed together so I treated them as individual (but combined) portraits. Lovely temperaments.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Some fundamental misunderstandings about welfare
Gordon Campbell has written a piece called 10 myths about welfare. Some of it is accurate; some is not.
The "history of the last ten years" shows almost the opposite. During the economic boom numbers on the DPB dropped by a maximum of 15 percent and numbers on the sickness and invalid benefits continued to grow. Only the dole total dropped significantly.
Campbell repeats a widespread misunderstanding here. If Key's assertion is correct then we would expect to see exactly the kind of percentages Campbell describes. When people stay on welfare a long time they progressively appear in older age bands. The most important fact is that at least a third of current sole parents became parents as teenagers. I have shown that probably around a half of the DPB population first began on welfare as a teenager. The current age of a DPB recipient is irrelevant.
This claim is based on the DPB fact sheet showing 15.7 percent of recipients have 'declared earnings' for the year. It does not necessarily mean that they are currently working.
Not most. But 27,219 is significant. Certainly the public perception is grounded in reality.
Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of the data. Campbell has pulled figures from the benefit fact sheets that show current spell on a benefit. Many people have repeated spells thus increasing the time they spend dependent. MSD research most clearly explains this misinterpretation;
Inter-generational dependence is a proven phenomenon. Academic research provides evidence. Some part of it works through the much higher likelihood that a teenage parent will have a daughter who also becomes a teenage parent. Additionally it occurs because of the transmission of attitudes towards welfare.
Far from being a myth young people do need to grow up with at least one working parent to understand the value of work. Building an expectation of independence is probably one of the most important goals of reforming the DPB especially.
This claim was not intended to be a "myth" but ironically, it is. The Maori rate of unemployment in December 2010 was 15.5 percent.
Granted people are in hardship for economic reasons but also because of personal choices they make. Go back to the MSD quote. Is the economy to be held responsible for a teenage birth that results in many years reliant on a benefit?
The vast majority of people want to work. The history of the last ten years in particular shows that when jobs exist, people work.
The "history of the last ten years" shows almost the opposite. During the economic boom numbers on the DPB dropped by a maximum of 15 percent and numbers on the sickness and invalid benefits continued to grow. Only the dole total dropped significantly.
"...the NZ figures on DPB recipients do not bear out Key’s specific assertion about ‘significant numbers of very young women going onto the DPB and staying there for a lifetime.”
In fact, only 3.1 % of those on the DPB are under 20 years of age – and that figure has barely flickered since 2005, when the figure was 2.9 %. Put another way, 97% of the people on the DPB are NOT the ‘very young women’ of Key’s lurid imagination. There are in fact, significantly more people on the DPB over 55 years of age (5.6%) than there are ‘very young women’ receiving this benefit."
Campbell repeats a widespread misunderstanding here. If Key's assertion is correct then we would expect to see exactly the kind of percentages Campbell describes. When people stay on welfare a long time they progressively appear in older age bands. The most important fact is that at least a third of current sole parents became parents as teenagers. I have shown that probably around a half of the DPB population first began on welfare as a teenager. The current age of a DPB recipient is irrelevant.
"...more DPB recipients are engaged in part-time work (16%) than those on the dole."
This claim is based on the DPB fact sheet showing 15.7 percent of recipients have 'declared earnings' for the year. It does not necessarily mean that they are currently working.
Most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers – many of them teenagers – who have extra children so that they can get more money.
Not most. But 27,219 is significant. Certainly the public perception is grounded in reality.
Lots of people are on welfare for years and years, and then their children and grandchildren become welfare dependent.
This myth is based on stereotypes about the chronically shiftless and teemingly fertile poor. Lets stick with the DPB for a moment. Since the DPB involves the care of children who are dependent at least until they are 18, you’d think it would reflect lifetime dependency very strongly. Yet instead, over two thirds of DPB recipients (67.7%) are on the DPB for less than four years. More than a quarter of them (26%) are on it for less than a year, even during the recession. If this is a lifestyle choice, it is hardly a fashionable one.
Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of the data. Campbell has pulled figures from the benefit fact sheets that show current spell on a benefit. Many people have repeated spells thus increasing the time they spend dependent. MSD research most clearly explains this misinterpretation;
On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:
• just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits
• a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.
This reflects the over-representation of sole parents with long stays on benefit among those in receipt at any point in time, and the longer than average stays on benefit for those who become parents as teenagers.
Had the research considered all people granted benefit as a sole parent, or all people who received benefit as a sole parent over a window of time rather than at a point in time, the overall profile of the group would have appeared less disadvantaged.
Inter-generational dependence is a proven phenomenon. Academic research provides evidence. Some part of it works through the much higher likelihood that a teenage parent will have a daughter who also becomes a teenage parent. Additionally it occurs because of the transmission of attitudes towards welfare.
Young people need welfare reform in order to teach them the value of work.
Far from being a myth young people do need to grow up with at least one working parent to understand the value of work. Building an expectation of independence is probably one of the most important goals of reforming the DPB especially.
The current rate of Maori unemployment is a catastrophic 36.7%.
This claim was not intended to be a "myth" but ironically, it is. The Maori rate of unemployment in December 2010 was 15.5 percent.
People are usually in hardship for economic reasons, and not due to a lack of moral fibre. The churn of jobs and the likelihood of multiple careers in one’s working life – ie the labour ‘flexibility’ so beloved by Treasury and its corporate friends – means that it is more and more likely that at any given time in their working lives, more people (and their children and grandchildren ) will be at risk of needing temporary welfare assistance during thedir job transitions.
Granted people are in hardship for economic reasons but also because of personal choices they make. Go back to the MSD quote. Is the economy to be held responsible for a teenage birth that results in many years reliant on a benefit?
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Could boot camps increase the risk of re-offending?
The re-offending rate - 53 percent - after completion of boot camp is not looking promising and will probably worsen yet. The fact that it is still "early days" is not a positive mitigating factor. It is a negative. Here is Corrections description of re-imprisonment rates and ethnic breakdown;
The re-imprisonment rate over 48 months for Maori offenders (55%) is considerably higher than the rate for both NZ Europeans (45%) and Pacific offenders (36%). This difference is likely to be a reflection of a number of variables. Maori offenders as a group tend on average to be younger than Europeans (see Appendix 1). Maori are also more likely to be serving time for offences which have base-rates, especially dishonesty offences (burglary, car conversion, theft, etc) 4. Pacific offenders on the other hand tend to be in prison for offences which have relatively low base rates (violence and sexual offences). Although the high re-imprisonment rate for Maori undoubtedly contributes to the disproportionate number of Maori in prison, its impact is likely to be considerably less than that of the very large numbers of young Maori entering the criminal justice system for the first time each year.
Without knowing anything specific about the small sample that has undergone boot camp 'rehab' there is a reasonable question to be posed. Does it increase the risk of re-offending?
The re-imprisonment rate over 48 months for Maori offenders (55%) is considerably higher than the rate for both NZ Europeans (45%) and Pacific offenders (36%). This difference is likely to be a reflection of a number of variables. Maori offenders as a group tend on average to be younger than Europeans (see Appendix 1). Maori are also more likely to be serving time for offences which have base-rates, especially dishonesty offences (burglary, car conversion, theft, etc) 4. Pacific offenders on the other hand tend to be in prison for offences which have relatively low base rates (violence and sexual offences). Although the high re-imprisonment rate for Maori undoubtedly contributes to the disproportionate number of Maori in prison, its impact is likely to be considerably less than that of the very large numbers of young Maori entering the criminal justice system for the first time each year.
Without knowing anything specific about the small sample that has undergone boot camp 'rehab' there is a reasonable question to be posed. Does it increase the risk of re-offending?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The ways in which I am stupid
I don't mind being called stupid when I am. My family calls me stupid when I (re) heat the just-delivered Hell's Pizza salad along with the pizza or when I boil chillies instead of green beans and then make the gravy from the resulting vegetable water. Yes. I can be stupid.
But I don't take kindly to being called stupid over stating an opinion which is based on my own experiences as a volunteer, listening and looking, research and reading. But perhaps I should be humbled that an academic completing a thesis can spare me the time.
More
But I don't take kindly to being called stupid over stating an opinion which is based on my own experiences as a volunteer, listening and looking, research and reading. But perhaps I should be humbled that an academic completing a thesis can spare me the time.
I want to talk about Lindsay Mitchell and Dr. Paul Moon, both of whom have said some remarkably stupid things in the last few days. Moon really has no excuse for his ill-considered comments; Mitchell probably just doesn’t know better. Let’s start with her.
More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
