Poverty Watch 24

28 comments on “Poverty Watch 24 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. just saying 1

   23 March 2013 at 8:41 am

   At what age do children develop their innate immunity to poverty? Eighteen?
   • McFlock 1.1

     23 March 2013 at 5:43 pm

     People don’t develop an immunity to poverty.

     But the earlier an intervention occurs, the more effective it is and the easier it is to give them the tools to keep out of poverty. E.g. learning to read at 5 rather than at 25. The most practical interventions are often the earliest.

     Helping our kids today is helping our pensioners in 60 or 70 years.
     • just saying 1.1.1

       24 March 2013 at 8:33 am

       People don’t develop an immunity to poverty.

       No shit, Watson?

       That is the point I was making.
       Adults, and not just parents of “innocent children”, also suffer the violence of poverty.
       And they matter too.
2. Harriet 2

   23 March 2013 at 9:37 am

   Child poverty is just a re-definition of unmarried parent poverty.

   Those who are Married are healthier and wealthier. It’s just the way it is. It’s just the facts!

   No one would seriously believe that a free health system, free education system, near free public housing, plus tax funded welfare could ever produce ‘poverty stricken children’ – but if it does – it is then good enough reason to privatise them!

   “….definitions / measures of poverty, the first based on whether a household’s disposable income falls below a certain threshold (often 50% or 60% of the median for the country), the second based on the proportion of the population that cannot afford specific “essentials”….”

   Parents are responsable for their own children – not responsable for the children of others. But if you want to help so-called ‘children in poverty’ then you would first look at BOTH parents and see what they are lacking in behaviour – as any change in their behaviour would be an immediate improvement!

   Or in other words – if single mums are good mums, and are doing the right thing, but the ex isn’t – then the responsable thing to do is get a partner/husband if they are that CONCERNED about ‘child poverty’.

   Otherwise I call bullshit with regards to ‘measurements’ ! 😎
   • AsleepWhileWalking 2.1

     23 March 2013 at 10:42 am

     Ahhh, the fundies and their “facts” have arrived.
   • Colonial Viper 2.2

     23 March 2013 at 10:54 am

     No one would seriously believe that a free health system, free education system, near free public housing, plus tax funded welfare could ever produce ‘poverty stricken children’ – but if it does – it is then good enough reason to privatise them!

     Privatisation? The medicine which is making more and more people sick as individuals fall behind and are left behind, so you want to prescribe a double dose?

     Good one.
   • RedBaronCV 2.3

     23 March 2013 at 12:00 pm

     “if single mums are good mums, and are doing the right thing, but the ex isn’t – then the responsable thing to do is get a partner/husband if they are that CONCERNED about ‘child poverty’.”

     Women have throughout the centuries used their bodies to gain food for their children. Look at the aftermath of any war.

     So you are suggesting that the answers are:
     – the pack of deadweight males who dump their responsibilities on the general community should be encouraged by the rest of us ignoring their lack of contribution. At the very least sholdn’t they pay money for their kids?
     – she should provide um “sex” to some nice bloke so he supports the kids. Prostitution and exploitation 101 perhaps?
     – As societies have tend to have roughly equal numbers of both sexes until the older years, if there are a % of dead beat males then there will also be an overhang of unpartnered women. How do you propose to solve this small problem.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1

       23 March 2013 at 9:15 pm

       As societies have tend to have roughly equal numbers of both sexes until the older years, if there are a % of dead beat males then there will also be an overhang of unpartnered women.

       And the faster that the women get away from those deadbeat males the better for society.
   • Murray Olsen 2.4

     23 March 2013 at 7:05 pm

     Good to know that the solution to poverty is marriage. Does this apply to all marriages, or just good Christian hetero ones? Will straying outside the missionary position result in a loss of income?
     Bishop Tamaki is certainly wealthy and probably happy. Can gay couples find the same happiness and wealth enhancement opportunities at the altar as well?
   • karol 2.5

     23 March 2013 at 7:34 pm

     Parents are responsable for their own children – not responsable for the children of others.

     Really? As someone with no children, and an ex-teacher, I’m staggered. “It takes a village to raise a child”.

     I’m sorry neither your parent/s nor teachers taught you to spell. Education is a fine thing.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.6

     23 March 2013 at 9:08 pm

     No one would seriously believe that a free health system, free education system, near free public housing, plus tax funded welfare could ever produce ‘poverty stricken children’ – but if it does

     Good job they don’t then. What causes poverty is the privatisation of the commons in line with capitalist ideology. That’s why poverty has been increasing in NZ over the last 30 years – after the 4th Labour government brought in neo-liberalism (turbo-charged capitalism) and privatised a large chunk of the state. Telecom alone has pulled $17b dollars out of our economy resulting in us having to pay even more tax payer money to properly upgrade the network and that’s on top of being overcharged for telecommunications already.

     Parents are responsable for their own children – not responsable for the children of others.

     Wrong, the community is responsible for ensuring that no one within the community is in poverty.

     Otherwise I call bullshit with regards to ‘measurements’ !

     That would be because it contradicts your ideology. You quite literally cannot accept reality because it refutes everything you believe.
   • rosy 2.7

     24 March 2013 at 9:01 am

     “Child poverty is just a re-definition of unmarried parent poverty.”
     No, it isn’t

     If we were serious about lifting children out of poverty we would address at least three fundamental issues. The most serious cause of poverty in today’s New Zealand is the high rate of unemployment
     … The second essential step to reduce child poverty is to improve the living standards of those in work. The working poor are a drag on our economy as well as a continuing reproach to our society.
     …The third priority should be to recognise that poverty is a particular feature of families with small children because bringing up children is an expensive business.
     …
     We have, sadly, abandoned such efforts, often on the ground that it is up to parents to provide for their own children – a sanctimoniously rigorous thesis which ensures that it is the children who must bear the burden if it proves to miss the point in practice.

     When a parent becomes unemployed the WFF tax credit is lost – a double financial blow. When companies tender contracts at the lowest possible price the wages of parents fall. Where parents may have been able to afford kids the race to the bottom, in terms of wages and the casualisation of the workforce, means they can no longer cope financially with the kids they had in more financially stable times. These are families in poverty, whether the parents are married or not.
3. Jenny 3

   23 March 2013 at 10:50 am

   One of the main causes of poverty and hardship in New Zealand families is recurrent or pervasive unemployment by the main breadwinners.

   In a terrible failure of New Zealand political and economic policy direction reminiscent of the 1930s depression – The shameful phenomenon of hundreds, even sometimes, thousands of working people applying for and failing to get, even low paid menial work is being reported.

   As a cover for failed neo-liberal economic policy direction, Narelle Henson a journalist linked to the well funded lobby group, the Maxim Institute, has penned a propaganda piece based on negative and unsubstantiated employer anecdotes attacking the unemployed, to explain away this phenomenon.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8463033/Dole-queues-long-but-bosses-can-t-get-workers

   “Dole queues long but bosses can’t get workers”

   Narelle Henson

   New Zealand’s most famous beneficiary, turned Minister, Paula Bennet has contributed to this attack propaganda piece, that tries to put the blame for mass unemployment onto the unemployed.

   Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the latest round of welfare changes were aimed at addressing some of the problems employers were seeing.

   Paula Bennet

   After shamelessly laying off tens of thousands of working people. New Zealand’s stellar performing employers have joined the Maxim Institute in scapegoating the unemployed, for mass unemployment.

   The problem of course is not with the unemployed but with the shortage of jobs.

   This is self evident.

   There can be little doubt that Paula Bennet’s welfare cuts will make poverty worse. By taking part in the Maxim Institute’s scapegoating of the unemployed is the Minister hoping to wipe her hands clean of any personal responsibility for increasing poverty?

   The Minister should be questioned in the house as to her links to this shadowy extreme right wing political group.

   Did she not know, that Narelle Henson was a paid hack of the Maxim Institute?

   Did Henson make this clear to her when she was being interviewed for this piece?

   Even if she gave her support to this attack unknowingly……

   The Minister should be asked before the house to apologise to the families of the tens of thousands of unemployed working people laid off from their jobs during this government’s term, for causing them extra unnecessary distress.
   • ghostrider888 3.1

     23 March 2013 at 1:25 pm

     Excellent Jenny
     From Todays Herald-Amelia Wade
     “1 in 3 NZers believe they are worse of than two years ago and have less disposable income; 43% , the same as two years ago, and an entire 18.1% better off.

     Food costs up, power costs up, housing costs up, car costs up, Unemployment up.

     Low and middle-income FAMILIES feeling the increases more than those at the top; (“average wage ” skewed by high earners).”
4. AsleepWhileWalking 4

   23 March 2013 at 10:51 am

   I’m about to go on a benefit rights advocacy course. This is because unlike our fundie friend above I believe children are a joint community responsibility.

   Once I am trained my aim will be to help alleviate child poverty by ensuring as many parents as possible are getting the support they are legally entitled to, but nobody has helped them access or made them aware of. It’s a small start and will be somewhat dependent on the financial viability of the Wellington Benefit Rights Service who don’t receive much (if any) in the way of government funding.

   In my opinion NZ child poverty is best tackled through access to:

   1) affordable and stable housing
   2) affordable medical care
   3) access to full and correct entitlements under the Social Securities Act which also supports low income earners
   4) understanding our tax system and knowing when you are better off a benefit, and when it is better to remain on one (refers to working for families entitlement)
   • AsleepWhileWalking 4.1

     23 March 2013 at 12:02 pm

     Further to my comment above, here is an excerpt from the training advertisement:

     The welfare training provided by the Benefit Rights Service focuses on the legislation that governs
     the administration of social welfare in Aotearoa, the Social Security Act 1964, as well as associated
     Ministerial Programmes and Directives. The training also examines the practices and methods that
     enable people to deal more successfully with the department of Work and Income.

     The training is aimed at equipping advocates so that they can empower people to access their
     rightful entitlements from Work and Income – a department that historically has paid scant attention
     to people’s rights. This history was illustrated in the Wellington People’s Centre’s Special Benefit
     Report: 1995-2000, that showed that at least 159,000 of New Zealand’s poorest families were not
     receiving all the welfare assistance to which they were legally entitled.

     The training course is a comprehensive introduction to welfare law and covers most aspects of the
     current benefit system including:

     • An overview of the benefit system
     • Familiarisation with the Social Security Act
     • Making an application (which is not as simple as it sounds)
     • How to commence a benefit
     • How to calculate accommodation supplements, stand-downs and the effect of income on
     benefit entitlement
     • Applying for a review of decision; the review and appeal process
     • Special Benefit/Temporary Additional Support
     • Debt recovery and information matching
     • Assistance for children
     • Tax credits

     The training requires a lot of teamwork and participation. Contact (04) 210 2012 for the April course
     • AsleepWhileWalking 4.1.1

       23 March 2013 at 12:08 pm

       That’s right, 159,000 families not receiving their full and correct entitlement under the law. An outrageous number but also a precursor to so many other social issues. Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, surely this is of interest?

       The situation may have worsened since then as staff cuts have occurred and lower income families particularly in the last decade have suffered from a lack of stable rental accommodation resulting in some children moving schools 10-15 times before they reach college, and very likely different Work and Income service centers.
       • ghostrider888 4.1.1.1

         23 March 2013 at 1:26 pm

         More Power to You (and those whom you advocate on behalf of AWW)
5. Lindsay 5

   23 March 2013 at 10:55 am

   What is your graph based on – fixed line or moving line median?

   If you look at the graph here – http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php – you will see that depending on which definition you use, the picture changes significantly.

   In Brian Perry’s most recent report he makes the point that child poverty rates were flat between 2009 and 2011,“…a good result in the circumstances (Global Financial Crisis, economic downturn)”. That is never reported.

   And regarding how NZ compares to OECD/EU countries, “On the latest available figures (2008-09) New Zealand’s population and child poverty rates are close to the overall medians for both measures.”

   Finally you have used the child poverty definition that produces the largest possible number. The OECD uses 50% and UNICEF’s last report card put the number of NZ children in poverty at 118,000.

   (Harriet is largely correct. Two thirds of the children – as measured at below 60 percent fixed line median AHC costs – are on benefits and most of those are on the DPB.)
   • karol 5.1

     23 March 2013 at 7:37 pm

     (Harriet is largely correct. Two thirds of the children – as measured at below 60 percent fixed line median AHC costs – are on benefits and most of those are on the DPB.)

     And the percentage is so high because a lot of employers are not paying a living wage. Taxpayers are subsidising employers.
6. Psycho Milt 6

   23 March 2013 at 2:11 pm

   At one consultation seminar participants were asked:‘what is the one thing you think the Prime Minister should do to address child poverty?’ A woman stood up and responded vigorously: ‘come and live my life for a while’

   So, seminar participants were asked for the one most important thing the PM should do to address child poverty, and the response was some meaningless rhetoric? I have to agree with you that that does pretty much set the tone for ‘expert’ reports on child poverty.

   … I believe children are a joint community responsibility.

   Believe what you like about your own kids. Mine are the responsibility of their parents – what the community might believe about them counts for a fraction of fuck-all.

   …Narelle Henson, a journalist linked to the well funded lobby group, the Maxim Institute, has penned a propaganda piece based on negative and unsubstantiated employer anecdotes attacking the unemployed…

   It’s called journalism – you may have heard of it? This may come as an astounding shock, but the fact that crap governmentt policies have increased the number of unemployed doesn’t rule out the possibility that a significant proportion of the unemployed are unemployable wasters. If you try and pretend the wasters don’t exist or are only a tiny fraction of beneficiaries, “propaganda” stories like the one mentioned are going to continue putting a fly in your ointment.
   • Murray Olsen 6.1

     23 March 2013 at 7:18 pm

     Funny how the proportion of society that are “unemployable wasters” always goes up when a conservative government applies austerity policies. Can you stop frothing at the mouth long enough to explain why this is so? I’m assuming it must either be something in our genes, or to do with sunspot activity, because it happens all over the world wherever these policies are applied.
     If your kids are your responsibility and that’s the end of the story, please keep them away from any public schools, parks or beaches. These are cared for by the community. Keep them in your back yard, maybe on leashes, so that no one else can have any influence on them. Or maybe find a piece of bare rock somewhere and raise them on that. You could carve out a statue of John Galt with the edge of your hand.
     • Psycho Milt 6.1.1

       23 March 2013 at 8:20 pm

       Funny how the proportion of society that are “unemployable wasters” always goes up when a conservative government applies austerity policies.

       It does? Got a link? I’m fairly confident it goes up as long as wasters are having more than one child apiece, but that’s an assumption based on the well-known principle that people tend to raise children to be much like themselves. I’ve never seen anything to suggest it has something to do with who’s in government.

       If your kids are your responsibility and that’s the end of the story, please keep them away from any public schools, parks or beaches.

       Why? Schools, parks and beaches, unlike my children, are the responsibility of the community, of which I am a member. Also: there’s nothing even vaguely Randian about the idea that parents are responsible for their children – it’s a historical and legal commonplace.
       • locus 6.1.1.1

         24 March 2013 at 8:52 pm

         Psycho, if you can step back a moment from self satisfied prejudice about how people with no work or with large families should be responsible for the poverty they may find themselves in, you’d recognise that thread is not arguing that the state should take over the responsibility of parents. Rather it’s about recognising that child poverty is a serious and unacceptable problem which is growing in our country with consequences for all of us.

         you may personally be doing a wonderful job of providing for your children and have the privilege of a secure and well paid job, but just suppose for a moment you lost your job and/or became to ill to care for them. What now? Or does your ideological standpoint reject any kind of social security for the children who haven’t enough to eat, insufficient clothing, no way of getting to school, are orphans, or who have none of the extra curricular support most other children get from their parents because theirs have fallen on hard times etc.
       • rosy 6.1.1.2

         24 March 2013 at 11:15 pm

         ” Schools, parks and beaches, unlike my children, are the responsibility of the community, of which I am a member. “

         So, when your child is on a beach, on the way home from school, in a park and s/he falls, chokes, is chased by a dog, is hit by another child, pokes a tongue out at an old person, the public can just turn away, do nothing, because you as a parent have responsibility for your child. Good to know… it only takes a parent to raise a child, the rest can butt out.
7. Psycho Milt 7

   25 March 2013 at 10:57 am

   So, when your child is on a beach, on the way home from school, in a park and s/he falls, chokes, is chased by a dog, is hit by another child, pokes a tongue out at an old person, the public can just turn away, do nothing…

   They could choose to do that, yes – no-one will hold them accountable. That’s because they’re not responsible for the child, unlike its parents. Fortunately, most people will help a child regardless of whether or not they get to claim the credit for raising it.

   … if you can step back a moment from self satisfied prejudice about how people with no work or with large families should be responsible for the poverty they may find themselves in…

   And likewise, if you could step back a moment from mawkish sentiment about the poor, what to do about them could be considered a bit more rationally. We have to provide a social welfare system that keeps people out of poverty, but we also have to make sure it doesn’t provide a career path.

   Rather it’s about recognising that child poverty is a serious and unacceptable problem which is growing in our country with consequences for all of us.

   Well, yes. I don’t think there’s anyone who’s ever commented on this series of posts who doubts that it’s a serious and growing problem. The difficult part is how to deal with it. It’s like we have someone bleeding to death, and all the right-wingers are shouting “Stop the bleeding” while all the left-wingers are shouting “Start a blood transfusion.” Doing the one without the other isn’t a good idea.
   • rosy 7.1

     26 March 2013 at 11:23 pm

     “no-one will hold them accountable. That’s because they’re not responsible for the child, unlike its parents”

     Sharing space = sharing responsibility in my book. Yes, parents are primarily responsible, but if they are unable to respond it’s up to someone else to step up. Expanding that a little further extends to all children of parents who are unable to respond, for whatever reason, to their children’s needs.

     I’m guessing we’ll never agree on that point.

Links to post

1. GPJA #457: | GPJA's Blog: posted on 27 March 2013 at 12:23 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS