Yesterday Green co-leader Russell Norman had a conversation with Larry Williams about, amongst other things, child poverty. Norman was in favour of the universal child payment recommended by the Children's Commissioner report released earlier this week. When Larry protested that it would result in money going to families that don't need it Norman was unperturbed. His defence was that it was a simpler system to administer (so is flat tax) and would prevent those who needed it from falling through the cracks. He maintained it should be free like healthcare for all under sixes. He personally thinks its great he can take his children to the doctor free of charge. Williams again protested that Norman doesn't need to take his kids to the GP free of charge. He can afford to pay. It went on in this fashion. When Larry suggested to the co-leader that perhaps people shouldn't be having children that they can't afford to raise Norman replied, "But that's not the real world. That's an ideological position."
So common sense is now ideological. "But that's not the real world...." It's never going to be the real world either with politicians like Russell Norman blithely accepting that people do have children utterly irresponsibly - resulting in 22 percent on a benefit within the year - and demanding that the rest of society pick up the tab for their upkeep, education and health. Oh, and he's happy to clip the ticket along the way.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
For the love of a dog
I received this story via e-mail and it touched me.
A Wisconsin man has been thrust into the spotlight after a picture
of him and his 19-year-old dog went viral on the Internet, according to a
story from Granite Broadcasting sister station Northland's
NewsCenter.
According to the Northland's NewsCenter report:
The image of John Unger and his dog Schoep has been viewed millions of times on Facebook, reaching people across the world.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words but, it's safe to say one of Hannah Stonehouse Hudson's newest snapshot is worth millions.
"It's been viewed almost three million times; it's been shared I think 150,000 times. It's been like an incredible amount of times," said Hudson on an overcast day in Bayfield, Wis. "My mother has a saying, "For the comfort and convenience of the dog," and he is the epitome of this saying. He loves this dog, he takes care of this dog, his life is about this dog."
John Unger and Schoep have spent almost twenty years together; he was rescued as a puppy.
"We both wanted to work with a dog that had been abused and we knew this. We talked about it and that's what we wanted to do. We wanted to help out an animal and bring out his full potential," said Unger.
It's hard for Unger to talk about their time together because 19-year-old Shoep is nearing the end of his long, happy life.
"What he means to me? I can't put into words."
He suffers from arthritis and has trouble sleeping, so to ease his pain, Unger takes him swimming and Schoep will fall asleep in his arms.
"Not too many more times are we going to be able to do this. So every time now it's a pretty special feeling....the buoyancy it gives him in the water relieves the pain, or at least some of it to the point where he's relaxed," said Unger with Schoep by his side.
And there is more here about how people reacted to this story.
According to the Northland's NewsCenter report:
The image of John Unger and his dog Schoep has been viewed millions of times on Facebook, reaching people across the world.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words but, it's safe to say one of Hannah Stonehouse Hudson's newest snapshot is worth millions.
"It's been viewed almost three million times; it's been shared I think 150,000 times. It's been like an incredible amount of times," said Hudson on an overcast day in Bayfield, Wis. "My mother has a saying, "For the comfort and convenience of the dog," and he is the epitome of this saying. He loves this dog, he takes care of this dog, his life is about this dog."
John Unger and Schoep have spent almost twenty years together; he was rescued as a puppy.
"We both wanted to work with a dog that had been abused and we knew this. We talked about it and that's what we wanted to do. We wanted to help out an animal and bring out his full potential," said Unger.
It's hard for Unger to talk about their time together because 19-year-old Shoep is nearing the end of his long, happy life.
"What he means to me? I can't put into words."
He suffers from arthritis and has trouble sleeping, so to ease his pain, Unger takes him swimming and Schoep will fall asleep in his arms.
"Not too many more times are we going to be able to do this. So every time now it's a pretty special feeling....the buoyancy it gives him in the water relieves the pain, or at least some of it to the point where he's relaxed," said Unger with Schoep by his side.
And there is more here about how people reacted to this story.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Two wins for responsible people...
Three OIA tables that explain child poverty
Little commentary needed from me. The tables are self-explanatory. If you pick up slight discrepancies that is because the questions asked were slightly different; some variations in how the database is queried, and the first table doesn't include 16 and 17 year-olds. Suffice to say the numbers are shockingly high.
13,634 caregivers (and some will have added two babies) account for 22 percent of all babies born in 2011.
The single most influential impact on reducing child poverty would be the reduction in these numbers
The single most influential impact on reducing child poverty would be the reduction in these numbers
Walker takes offence at "'rape jokes"
A piece appears in the DomPost page 2 today about Holly Walker tweeting her disgust at "fellow MPs making rape jokes" prior to a select committee hearing. Her tweet included "#rapeculture #oldboysclub". She then laid a complaint with the speaker. Jamie-lee Ross subsequently put his hand up, apologised and the complaint was withdrawn. But he says his comments were misunderstood. And Walker won't repeat what she heard.
Now on one hand it's a nothing story because the complaint was withdrawn. But on the other the impression is left that Ross is a oafish, loose cannon....or that Holly Walker is particularly precious and humourless. Perhaps there is a responsibility on her, having gone public with her strong feelings of offence, to explain what caused them.
Now on one hand it's a nothing story because the complaint was withdrawn. But on the other the impression is left that Ross is a oafish, loose cannon....or that Holly Walker is particularly precious and humourless. Perhaps there is a responsibility on her, having gone public with her strong feelings of offence, to explain what caused them.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Quote of the Day
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me.
They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business
of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.
Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and
pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them.
Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing.The tenth time is
made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a
broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction
sale of stolen goods." -H. L. Mencken
- (1880-1956) American Journalist
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
David Shearer is pathetic
Here is his hot- off- the- press media statement. My italicised comments are interspersed:
David SHEARER
Labour Leader
28 August 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT
John Key in denial over Kiwis in hardship
The number of Kiwi children living in poverty has grown significantly under John Key’s watch but rather than acknowledging the problem, the Prime Minister would rather play the fool in Parliament, says Labour Leader David Shearer.
The Household Incomes report released yesterday says "Child poverty rates were flat from 2009 to 2011 – this is a good result in the circumstance"
“John Key’s flippant response to this crisis is disappointing. He refuses to accept the findings of several reports showing the gap between the rich and poor is the widest it has ever been, that inequality is rising and the number of children living in hardship is up to 21%.
Just as the level of inequality dropped in the 2009/10 year, it is entirely possible it dropped in the most recent 2011/12 year due to current economic volatility. The most recent year isn't yet available.
“John Key just shrugs his shoulders and says, oh well, ‘things are bouncing around’ for these children and their families. Apparently it’s all the fault of the global financial crisis and that’s why he hasn’t been able to deliver the so-called brighter future he’s been promising Kiwis for years.
The report says that because of the GFC, the Christchurch earthquakes, the economic downturn and recovery it cannot predict where inequality trends will go.
“That excuse and his mocking
attitude won’t wash with the many New Zealanders who are
working harder than ever but failing to get
ahead.
“Hard-working parents can’t support their family on the paltry $13.50 an hour they’re earning. But John Key’s not rushing to help them out, saying only that they’ll ‘eventually’ get a pay rise.
And a single earner family with two children on $55,000 or less effectively pays no tax.
“Children are going to school without breakfast or lunch because their parents can’t afford to feed them but John Key’s more interested in spending millions of dollars on drug-testing people.
Can't afford to feed them? Even KidsCan says it takes just $241 per year to feed each of these children, maybe a dollar a school day. DPB beneficiaries get an average of around $516 a week.
“More than 50,000 New Zealanders are leaving for Australia looking for better paying jobs every year but Bill English says we shouldn’t be crying over them at the airport.
“This Government doesn’t have solutions for these problems. It just has excuses,” said David Shearer.
And you want us to prefer your crap?
David SHEARER
Labour Leader
28 August 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT
John Key in denial over Kiwis in hardship
The number of Kiwi children living in poverty has grown significantly under John Key’s watch but rather than acknowledging the problem, the Prime Minister would rather play the fool in Parliament, says Labour Leader David Shearer.
The Household Incomes report released yesterday says "Child poverty rates were flat from 2009 to 2011 – this is a good result in the circumstance"
“John Key’s flippant response to this crisis is disappointing. He refuses to accept the findings of several reports showing the gap between the rich and poor is the widest it has ever been, that inequality is rising and the number of children living in hardship is up to 21%.
Just as the level of inequality dropped in the 2009/10 year, it is entirely possible it dropped in the most recent 2011/12 year due to current economic volatility. The most recent year isn't yet available.
“John Key just shrugs his shoulders and says, oh well, ‘things are bouncing around’ for these children and their families. Apparently it’s all the fault of the global financial crisis and that’s why he hasn’t been able to deliver the so-called brighter future he’s been promising Kiwis for years.
The report says that because of the GFC, the Christchurch earthquakes, the economic downturn and recovery it cannot predict where inequality trends will go.
“Hard-working parents can’t support their family on the paltry $13.50 an hour they’re earning. But John Key’s not rushing to help them out, saying only that they’ll ‘eventually’ get a pay rise.
And a single earner family with two children on $55,000 or less effectively pays no tax.
“Children are going to school without breakfast or lunch because their parents can’t afford to feed them but John Key’s more interested in spending millions of dollars on drug-testing people.
Can't afford to feed them? Even KidsCan says it takes just $241 per year to feed each of these children, maybe a dollar a school day. DPB beneficiaries get an average of around $516 a week.
“More than 50,000 New Zealanders are leaving for Australia looking for better paying jobs every year but Bill English says we shouldn’t be crying over them at the airport.
“This Government doesn’t have solutions for these problems. It just has excuses,” said David Shearer.
And you want us to prefer your crap?
Children's Commmissioner child poverty cop-out
The scene-setting opener:
The report just released by the Children's Commissioner asks for a lot. An awful lot.
It wants
1/ Child support payments to go to the custodial parent instead of to the government to offset the DPB (cost $159 million annually)
2/ Family tax credits to rise by an average of $17 per child and incrementally for those aged 0 - 6
3/ A new universal child payment of $125-150 per week that would be targeted to the poorer after the child reaches 6 (this could replace current forms of financial support like Family Tax Credit)
4/ To raise the take-up of other child entitlements such as the child disability allowance. It wants these rates of take-up published and the IRD and WINZ to offer performance pay for higher rates realised.
5/ More government-funded budgeting services
6/ Increased parental earnings from income and more childcare assistance
7/ A new Child Poverty Act to "embrace" targets
The list goes on but forgive me, as I stopped when it got to housing and health. I was overwhelmed. It's all been said before in one form or another. It's a depressing deterministic prescription. No rigorous analysis of why children are in poverty or why some children in poverty have perfectly good outcomes. The closest the authors get is this:
Let me leave you with this sample:
"In 1986 an estimated 11 percent of children lived in poverty. By 2011, that figure had risen to 25 percent, or about 270,000 New Zealand children."Those statistics are remarkably synonymous with the sole parent rates; between 8 and 11 percent in 1986 and 28 percent in 2006. Though not all child described as living in poverty are in single parent homes there's still substantial correlation. 65% of the 270,000 are on welfare. Most will be relying on the DPB.
The report just released by the Children's Commissioner asks for a lot. An awful lot.
It wants
1/ Child support payments to go to the custodial parent instead of to the government to offset the DPB (cost $159 million annually)
2/ Family tax credits to rise by an average of $17 per child and incrementally for those aged 0 - 6
3/ A new universal child payment of $125-150 per week that would be targeted to the poorer after the child reaches 6 (this could replace current forms of financial support like Family Tax Credit)
4/ To raise the take-up of other child entitlements such as the child disability allowance. It wants these rates of take-up published and the IRD and WINZ to offer performance pay for higher rates realised.
5/ More government-funded budgeting services
6/ Increased parental earnings from income and more childcare assistance
7/ A new Child Poverty Act to "embrace" targets
The list goes on but forgive me, as I stopped when it got to housing and health. I was overwhelmed. It's all been said before in one form or another. It's a depressing deterministic prescription. No rigorous analysis of why children are in poverty or why some children in poverty have perfectly good outcomes. The closest the authors get is this:
Social commentators often talk about child poverty resulting primarily from parents making poor decisions about how they spend their money, bad morals, a poor work ethic, bad luck, unwise lifestyle choices and so on. While some parents undoubtedly make poor choices, there is little evidence that poor people mismanage their income to a greater extent than those who are better off. This is not to suggest that we should ignore the contribution of parental lifestyle choices and various social ills (including drug and alcohol addiction) to poor outcomes for children, but the main causes of child poverty lie elsewhere. (My emphasis)That's put "social commentators" in their proper place.
Let me leave you with this sample:
It is important to recognise the impact of the experience of colonisation on Māori. The alienation of land and resources has seen the loss of a cultural and spiritual base and the loss of an economic base (Cram, 2011). Any analysis of the financial and material deprivation of whānau today is incomplete without understanding this context (Baker, Williams & Tuuta, 2012).
Contrasting attitudes and approaches to low decile school parents
When things are made free there will always be uptake and more 'need' created in the process as people's willingness to pay themselves is eroded. But these two school stories provide a sharp contrast.
On the one hand there are calls for the existing free food programmes in low deciles schools to be expanded because parents aren't providing it; on the other is an effective new e-learning programme in Auckland's poorest suburbs, where (in Tamaki) the average income is $19,000 but the parents are finding the $3.50 per week for their children to participate.
At you would expect the first call comes from government - or an agency of - the Children's Commissioner. Whereas the second expectation and request for parents to contribute is from the private sector.
It is too easy for parents to expect others to pick up the slack for them in this country. It becomes a habit. But as the second story demonstrates, not an unbreakable one.
On the one hand there are calls for the existing free food programmes in low deciles schools to be expanded because parents aren't providing it; on the other is an effective new e-learning programme in Auckland's poorest suburbs, where (in Tamaki) the average income is $19,000 but the parents are finding the $3.50 per week for their children to participate.
At you would expect the first call comes from government - or an agency of - the Children's Commissioner. Whereas the second expectation and request for parents to contribute is from the private sector.
It is too easy for parents to expect others to pick up the slack for them in this country. It becomes a habit. But as the second story demonstrates, not an unbreakable one.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Truth column August 16
My August 16 Truth column is now on-line.
I’m a non-smoker and consider my right to be free from other people’s cigarette smoke well and truly satisfied under current legislation. The anti-tobacco religionists are now starting to get up my nose far worse than cigarette smoke used to.
More
Other Truth columns here
I’m a non-smoker and consider my right to be free from other people’s cigarette smoke well and truly satisfied under current legislation. The anti-tobacco religionists are now starting to get up my nose far worse than cigarette smoke used to.
More
Other Truth columns here
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Employers take subsidy but don't uphold their end of the bargain
This issue has concerned me since learning that a Wellington/Taranaki employer subsidised by WINZ to take on young unemployed beneficiaries was paying his employees in a haphazard and suspect way. It isn't advisable to accept just one side of the story though, so I wrote to MSD and asked them under the OIA if the company was under investigation (as described to me by the mother of one of their ex-employees). I also asked if it was Work and Income practice to apply a stand-down period to those youngsters who lost subsidised jobs apparently through no fault of their own.
Their response told me that MSD was in the process of recovering subsidies from the company in question but that it was not under investigation for fraud. And that the stand-down period didn't apply in these instances.
I've since wondered how widespread this problem is. Labour MP Su'a Wlliam Sio has also asked questions and found that employers owe $800,000 in job subsidies paid out for employees that did not, in his words, "fulfil their end of the bargain".
Almost certainly there will be employers who see the job subsidies as an opportunity to advance business interests. And that's OK if ultimately the young person remains in their ethical employ. Subsidies should be the optimum win-win, despite the purist in me opposing them. The system is what it is and it's better for taxpayer money to be spent on getting someone into a job than keeping them dependent.
Their response told me that MSD was in the process of recovering subsidies from the company in question but that it was not under investigation for fraud. And that the stand-down period didn't apply in these instances.
I've since wondered how widespread this problem is. Labour MP Su'a Wlliam Sio has also asked questions and found that employers owe $800,000 in job subsidies paid out for employees that did not, in his words, "fulfil their end of the bargain".
“If Job Ops workers are sacked inside six months then employers are supposed to pay back the up to $5000 in wage subsidies they get to take them on in the first place. It is not good enough that there are currently 477 employers who owe taxpayers a refund, with a total of $814,541 outstanding."
Almost certainly there will be employers who see the job subsidies as an opportunity to advance business interests. And that's OK if ultimately the young person remains in their ethical employ. Subsidies should be the optimum win-win, despite the purist in me opposing them. The system is what it is and it's better for taxpayer money to be spent on getting someone into a job than keeping them dependent.
Quote of the day
Every
dime the government spends—whether acquired through taxation or
borrowing—is a dime that someone in the private economy won’t be
spending. If people are not spending already—which is not the case these
days—we must look to the earlier government interventions that brought
about that condition—and then repeal those anti-market corporatist
policies, regulations, and taxes.
(Hat Tip FFF)
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Banning fun and creativity
This blinkered, rigid 'philosophical' idea that food shouldn't be played with is quite awful. It pains me to read the silly opinions of people whose minds have been captured by ideas with no rational basis. These are the 'can't' people. They are everywhere but tragically they abound in education. What reasonable explanation can a child comprehend about why it is bad to play with food? Bad to make play dough; bad to use eggs or flour to make sticky pastes from which you can then create all sorts of weird and wonderful structures; bad to use food colourings and vegetables to make fantastic wallpaper; bad to use macaroni to make colourful necklaces; bad to use carrots to make snowmen noses; bad to use icing sugar to depict snow on wintry painting - the list is endless. If they don't get a good reason they either get resentful and rebellious or just repeat the stupid one and so the stupidity stretches on .
I am not at one with the world today. Probably never have been and never will be. The thinking and actions of too many people just goes from bad to worse. I'm going out with my dogs. Their behaviour makes more sense to me than that of some supposedly intelligent human-beings.
I am not at one with the world today. Probably never have been and never will be. The thinking and actions of too many people just goes from bad to worse. I'm going out with my dogs. Their behaviour makes more sense to me than that of some supposedly intelligent human-beings.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Jacinda Ardern in The Truth
Jacinda Ardern, Labour spokesperson for welfare, wrote an article , Welfare of the nation, which appeared in last week's Truth. Note she starts with her own door-knocking story which counteracts David Shearer's now infamous roof painter on a benefit (more evidence of the ideological split on welfare currently dividing Labour).
Door knocking in an area with low electoral enrolment last year, I met a woman who was ecstatic I could enrol her. When I asked what occupation she would like listed, she dropped her head and said: “I was a receptionist, but I’m a bit sick right now. I start chemotherapy soon. I’m so sorry”. I asked her why she was apologising and she replied “because I’m on a benefit”.The concept does not remain unchanged though. For starters, today "everyone" does not pay "into a collective pot" before they have access to a benefit. Thousands of teenagers start life there and stay year after year. Also, as I have demonstrated before, pre 1970s people had to be of sober habits, good moral character and not have induced their own incapacity to work. And before the 1970s the DPB - in terms of dependence, now the single biggest benefit type - did not exist. Hence it is not a "minority who don't need support" - it's a majority. Not if you define support the way it was defined at the outset of social security.
Nothing indicates to me more that something is wrong with our welfare system than when those who need help apologise for receiving it, and the minority who don’t need the support, but get it all the same, are portrayed as the norm.
The concept of the system hasn’t actually changed all that much since 1938, when the unemployment benefit was made available to anyone who was “unemployed, is capable of and willing to undertake suitable work, and has taken reasonable steps to secure employment”.
It was a social contract. Everyone paid into a collective pot, and if you fell ill or lost your job, you drew from the pot until you found work again. Simple. The concept remains unchanged, but not our perception of it. Why? And how do we restore the notion of true social security?
To say all people on a benefit have chosen welfare as a ‘lifestyle’ is way off the mark. We know Kiwis want to work – the queues of people who turn up for jobs at supermarkets are evidence of that.
There are 112,000 sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Most come off it within four years. The overall rate fluctuates very little, although the Ministry of Social Development predicts that the Government’s costly welfare reforms will still see more people on the DPB than when the Government started.
In 2009, IRD surveyed why people on government support struggle to get off it. The first reason was job availability. Numbers two and three? Whether they had the right skills, and could cover childcare costs.
These are legitimate issues. A sole parent on the DPB receives $293 per week before housing assistance. If they find part-time work, they can apply for help with child care and receive a maximum of $3.91 per hour. If you’re moving into a minimum wage job that has curious hours and requires either a babysitter or childcare, it has the potential to wipe out your wages from day one.
Who is saying "all" people on a benefit have chosen welfare as a 'lifestyle'? We all know that there are people with terminal illnesses, people made redundant or people born intellectually disabled who need support. And most people appear happy with paying taxes to provide it.
But let's get on to the DPB. There aren't 112,000 sole parents on it for starters. She's failed to identify that a growing number of DPB recipients are caregivers to people who would otherwise need to be hospitalised or institutionalised. Then she downplays the level of dependency by telling us that "most come off it within four years". But many go back on it. Her statistic conveniently masks what the government now knows to be the truth as expressed here:
" just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits."
Next, if people came off the DPB when jobs were available how come when NZ had the lowest unemployment in the world (2007) the numbers only just dipped below 100,000?
Then she emphasises the weekly payment of $293. Add to this the average weekly accommodation supplement and average family tax credit and the sum is $519 per week. And the IWTC that Labour now wants to abolish was exactly about preventing moving into work having "the potential to wipe out your wages from day one". Honestly, she is stupid.
Finally:
It’s time to revive Michael Joseph Savage’s philosophy and create a social security system minus the shame.
Be careful watch you wish for there Jacinda. Savage's system was based on the concept of the deserving and non-deserving. Whereas you and your comrade Deborah Russell want it to be free from any notion of worthiness. Make your mind up.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Childless and single are the new 'poor'
MSD has just released the Household Income Report for 2012. It's as up-to-date as it can be after surveying, analysing and publishing, and relates to the 2010-11 financial (June) year. I've pretty much copied main points:
Incomes fell for deciles 3-6 … but rose for the top decile especially. At the very bottom incomes were flat (protected by benefit rates being CPI adjusted and NZS being wage related).
Inequality rose to its highest level ever [but] redistribution through the tax and transfer system reduces inequality very significantly compared with what it would otherwise be. An example is that single-earner two-child families with income less than around $55,000 from wages pay no net income tax. They receive more from WFF tax credits than they pay in income tax and ACC.
Child poverty rates were flat from 2009 to 2011 – this is a good result in the circumstances. 50% of poor children are Maori/Pacific.
50% of poor children are from sole parent families and 50% from two parent.
Income poverty rates for single person working-age households trebled from the 1980s to 2007 (10% to 30%) and were 35% in 2011.
(The headline from Stuff is misleading: Poor get poorer, inequality reigns. In fact the 'poor' flat-lined. The middling incomes dropped. Same journalist writes, "It also painted a damning picture into child poverty, with 21 per cent of Kiwi kids living in poverty, compared to 15 per cent in 2007." See above were the child poverty rate is described as a "good result" in the circumstances.)
Incomes fell for deciles 3-6 … but rose for the top decile especially. At the very bottom incomes were flat (protected by benefit rates being CPI adjusted and NZS being wage related).
Inequality rose to its highest level ever [but] redistribution through the tax and transfer system reduces inequality very significantly compared with what it would otherwise be. An example is that single-earner two-child families with income less than around $55,000 from wages pay no net income tax. They receive more from WFF tax credits than they pay in income tax and ACC.
Child poverty rates were flat from 2009 to 2011 – this is a good result in the circumstances. 50% of poor children are Maori/Pacific.
50% of poor children are from sole parent families and 50% from two parent.
Income poverty rates for single person working-age households trebled from the 1980s to 2007 (10% to 30%) and were 35% in 2011.
(The headline from Stuff is misleading: Poor get poorer, inequality reigns. In fact the 'poor' flat-lined. The middling incomes dropped. Same journalist writes, "It also painted a damning picture into child poverty, with 21 per cent of Kiwi kids living in poverty, compared to 15 per cent in 2007." See above were the child poverty rate is described as a "good result" in the circumstances.)
Percentage of teen pregnancies aborted
Reading through a paper about the high teen birth rate in the US and why it matters, linked to by Eric Crampton earlier this week, I came across this table:
The Danish figure for percentage of teen pregnancies aborted is very high. I don't know, but it may be similar in other Scandinavian countries because they have similar low teenage birth rates.
Paradoxically it is those teenagers who stand to lose the most by having a baby that avoid giving birth. Those who believe their (economic) life chances are slender continue with the pregnancy (generalising here you understand).
Trying to slot NZ in there, in 2010 (our birth and abortion statistics have improved recently) there were 28 births per 1,000 15-19 year-olds and 22 abortions. This lines us up closely with the United Kingdom in 2003. So, assuming the miscarriage rate is also similar, 37 percent of teen pregnancies in NZ in 2010 ended in abortion. A long way off Denmark.
I am emotionally averse to abortion but when it means subsequent births result in children born to people ready, able and wanting to become parents the incidence of it is ameliorated.
The Danish figure for percentage of teen pregnancies aborted is very high. I don't know, but it may be similar in other Scandinavian countries because they have similar low teenage birth rates.
Paradoxically it is those teenagers who stand to lose the most by having a baby that avoid giving birth. Those who believe their (economic) life chances are slender continue with the pregnancy (generalising here you understand).
Trying to slot NZ in there, in 2010 (our birth and abortion statistics have improved recently) there were 28 births per 1,000 15-19 year-olds and 22 abortions. This lines us up closely with the United Kingdom in 2003. So, assuming the miscarriage rate is also similar, 37 percent of teen pregnancies in NZ in 2010 ended in abortion. A long way off Denmark.
I am emotionally averse to abortion but when it means subsequent births result in children born to people ready, able and wanting to become parents the incidence of it is ameliorated.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
"Why we are all beneficiaries of the welfare state"
This column, by Massey University tax lecturer Deborah Russell, appeared in the Dom Post yesterday under the heading, "Why we are all beneficiaries of the welfare state":
The first thing that came to mind was Benjamin Franklin's quote, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."
People are hardly free when compelled to pay tax for systems they neither approve of nor use. Those making the largest tax contribution are often also paying for private health and education and would never qualify for a welfare benefit due to means-testing. So it is farcical to claim that, " ....we are all beneficiaries of the welfare state."
Worse, many beneficiaries do not feel free; they feel trapped and forgotten. They are living at a subsistence level in substandard housing due to their safety net now being called upon by one in eight working-age New Zealanders. The welfare system has created so much contrived 'need' (consider Russell's example of teenage sole parents), real adversity and emergency cannot be adequately met.
It is not a noble idea that the welfare system is no longer based on some "notion of worthiness". It used to be. That was how the architects designed it. Otherwise the system would be open to abuse. As it now is.
But the worst aspect of this academician's position is her cautioning against criticism of the welfare system. Is this how she teaches her students?
"It's easy to criticise the welfare system. Beneficiaries get too much money, too many of them cheat, and it all costs too much. But the unrecognised reality is that our comprehensive health and welfare systems create freedom and security for us all......
But when we criticise people who receive welfare, we are not just imprudent. We also undermine the security of our friends and family members and fellow citizens who depend on the welfare system.
If we complain about teenage mothers, and insist that someone ought to control their income and make them stop having babies, we make every sole mother worry about interference....
Our health and welfare systems are based on need, not some notion of worthiness.More
The first thing that came to mind was Benjamin Franklin's quote, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."
People are hardly free when compelled to pay tax for systems they neither approve of nor use. Those making the largest tax contribution are often also paying for private health and education and would never qualify for a welfare benefit due to means-testing. So it is farcical to claim that, " ....we are all beneficiaries of the welfare state."
Worse, many beneficiaries do not feel free; they feel trapped and forgotten. They are living at a subsistence level in substandard housing due to their safety net now being called upon by one in eight working-age New Zealanders. The welfare system has created so much contrived 'need' (consider Russell's example of teenage sole parents), real adversity and emergency cannot be adequately met.
It is not a noble idea that the welfare system is no longer based on some "notion of worthiness". It used to be. That was how the architects designed it. Otherwise the system would be open to abuse. As it now is.
But the worst aspect of this academician's position is her cautioning against criticism of the welfare system. Is this how she teaches her students?
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Truth column August 9
My Truth column from August 9 is now on-line.
In 2004 the Civil Union Bill was bitterly contested. Conservatives lobbied MPs furiously to prevent gays from forming state sanctioned and recognised partnerships.
Even parties were split on the issue – ACT for example – although United Future members were unanimous in their opposition. The bill passed into law narrowly.
Just eight years later a new bill to legislate for gay marriage seems to be stirring far less division and looks like having the numbers to pass into law. Even lone surviving United future MP, Peter Dunne, is indicating support for it. That’s quite a sea change.
Society can change quite rapidly. Emotions burn out. Or people see incremental change, realise the sky hasn’t fallen and are then amenable to more. It is my fervent hope that the same attitudinal shift will have occurred to views about voluntary euthanasia. Labour MP Maryan Street currently has an End of Life Choice Bill in the ballot.
The last time Parliament debated this issue was 2003. Then, New Zealand First’s Death With Dignity Bill was voted down 60-57.
More
Other Truth columns here
In 2004 the Civil Union Bill was bitterly contested. Conservatives lobbied MPs furiously to prevent gays from forming state sanctioned and recognised partnerships.
Even parties were split on the issue – ACT for example – although United Future members were unanimous in their opposition. The bill passed into law narrowly.
Just eight years later a new bill to legislate for gay marriage seems to be stirring far less division and looks like having the numbers to pass into law. Even lone surviving United future MP, Peter Dunne, is indicating support for it. That’s quite a sea change.
Society can change quite rapidly. Emotions burn out. Or people see incremental change, realise the sky hasn’t fallen and are then amenable to more. It is my fervent hope that the same attitudinal shift will have occurred to views about voluntary euthanasia. Labour MP Maryan Street currently has an End of Life Choice Bill in the ballot.
The last time Parliament debated this issue was 2003. Then, New Zealand First’s Death With Dignity Bill was voted down 60-57.
More
Other Truth columns here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
