Let them eat cake

73 comments on “Let them eat cake ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Mr Nobody 1

   5 March 2024 at 9:16 am

   If this program is such a success why:

   1) Are the attendance rates so poor, especially in lower socioeconomic areas where "food availability" is supposedly so extreme?

   2) Again as this program is targeting these lower socioeconomic areas where there are large dependency rates on benefits are me not in effect paying for this twice? Which despite all the increases that previous governments have made to benefits has not made a difference?

   3) Why did the previous Government not provide long term funding for this program?
   • That_guy 1.1

     5 March 2024 at 9:26 am

     1) We do not know that attendance rates are poor because the study on attendance rates was conducted during a very unusual time and cannot possibly be described as the final word on the matter, unless you are a statistical illiterate or David Seymour.

     While the Treasury study did not show an improvement in attendance in students receiving free school lunches, it was carried out in 2021 "during a really bizarre time" – the aftermath of the Covid-19 lockdowns, when "it was really hard to get students into schools", she said.

     2) Because the simple fact is: it's incredibly expensive to provide a healthy diet to a family and benefits do not cover it. https://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/about-us/news/blogs/the-cost-of-a-healthy-diet

     A one-income family with two children living on the minimum wage needs to spend one-third of their net income to purchase a no-frills healthy diet. For a similar family on the unemployment benefit, it costs more than half their net income to have a basic healthy diet. Overall, families on a low income need to spend between 23-52% of net income and 43-89% once rent is deducted to purchase a ‘basic’ healthy diet.

     3) Good question.
     • Mr Nobody 1.1.1

       5 March 2024 at 10:34 am

       1) While Treasury may not have studied it the MOE has and based on the reports of the latest data from Term 2 last year its crap with 53% of kids not attending school reguarly (see link to below article).

       https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/school-attendance-more-than-half-of-students-not-regularly-attending-in-term-2-2023/QDSV6SPBWJECJC2AV4PDM23RQM/

       2) I agree, but considering the amount of money that benefits have increased by it is clear jo matter what amount of money is paid some parents still will jot feed their kids. In which case if they won't should the state be reducing their benefits and doing it themselves to ensure the kids are fed or prosecuting the parents for neglect.

       I personally don't care if the lunch program continues and happy if taxes/benefits increase accordingly as long as it a) results in kids being feed and not hungry (though if things are that bad at home how do they survive during the holidays) and b) Attendance increases accordingly, otherwise the program in my opinion is failing its purpose.
       • Nic the NZer 1.1.1.1

         5 March 2024 at 11:00 am

         We might convert the very sensitive measure to a more meaningful effective class time attended. That's worth considering in order not to blow things well out of proportion.

         Assuming that 53% are still attending 8 of their 10 days, then 90% of possible school attendance is still occurring. In fact the 53% figure is not very different to the same figure pre-covid and might well just be down to some kids being home sick from school fairly regularly (maybe some parents have become a bit more sensitive to conscientious keeping kids home with illness over the last few years). I don't think there is enough detail on the motivations of parents with kids not attending to attribute those numbers to particular motivations.
         • Mr Nobody 1.1.1.1.1

           5 March 2024 at 11:22 am

           Potentially though it could be worse. I know from my own family's school aged kids that it's common for schools these days to have quiet hubs where kids can go if stressed/not coping etc.

           As a result Kids can go to these places instead of classes until they feel able to return to class during which many are instead watching tik tok, YouTube or streaming services like Disney+ or Netflix.

           So while a kid might be attending school it doesn't necessarily mean they are attending class and learning.
           • Nic the NZer 1.1.1.1.1.1

             5 March 2024 at 11:36 am

             What is the possible relevance of this to the original statistics you raised?
             • Mr Nobody …

               5 March 2024 at 1:44 pm

               Because if as you suggest we were to convert the statistics to "meaningful class time" you then need to determine

               A) What exactly is meaningful class time eg Is for example attending a daily home class where school notices etc are usually distributed, etc?

               B) How much meaningful class time are kids actually participating in.
               • Nic the NZer …

                 5 March 2024 at 1:57 pm

                 Lol. Please do share with the MoE when you have a working predictive model of how much education kids are getting out of their schooling.

                 I also think you need to have a strong ongoing commentary on education with your choice of school regarding timeout practices. They just love engaged parents and you will probably get some kind of reputation with them no doubt.
               • Nic the NZer …

                 5 March 2024 at 3:17 pm

                 My apologies, I've been a bit mean to your comments and it was all my fault. I accidentally wrote something which could be miss interpreted and you got the wrong idea.

                 "We might convert the very sensitive measure to a more meaningful effective class time attended", this just means considering how much time kids are actually in class. I don't think its possible to measure how much of that time is actually being effective at all. Just that the statistic of 53% is a more sensitive statistical measure of high attendance rate students. Even the lowest attendance rate students some are in class up to 70% of school time. Clearly when I highlighted we don't even know why students are not in attendance (including responsibly taking absence due to illness, often while still studying online actually), I needed to take into account the lowest common denominator of people who might read this. I needed to take this into account when describing how numbers around 50% is not a number applying to any student attendance individually or collectively.
       • That_guy 1.1.1.2

         5 March 2024 at 11:53 am

         2) I agree, but considering the amount of money that benefits have increased by it is clear jo matter what amount of money is paid some parents still will jot feed their kids. In which case if they won't should the state be reducing their benefits and doing it themselves to ensure the kids are fed or prosecuting the parents for neglect.

         I'm not going to pretend I have a magic solution but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we should remove schemes explicitly targeted at kids simply because their parents are shit.

         Regarding attendance, why would attendance improve if you take away one of the benefits of school attendance?
         • Mr Nobody 1.1.1.2.1

           5 March 2024 at 2:03 pm

           I agree. However what the statistics indicate is that despite all the money and effort that had been poured into this scheme that school attendance or achievement has significantly improved.

           That doesn't mean kids aren't going hungry or that the goals aren't worthwhile it simply means the current approach isn't the answer or at least the whole answer and it should be addressed.

           Personally I think it has been over complicated and should be simplifed to target only the specific kids in need vs the entire school.
           • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.1.1.2.1.1

             6 March 2024 at 1:16 am

             "Personally I think it has been over complicated and should be simplifed to target only the specific kids in need vs the entire school."

             Avoiding the social stigma of being the only kids who need it, is hugely important.
       • Descendant Of Smith 1.1.1.3

         5 March 2024 at 12:18 pm

         So you refer to an article which specifically says this:

         The Ministry of Education said the incidence of Covid and typical winter illnesses continued to be associated with an increase in medical absences compared to 2019 (pre-Covid) and was the main driver of non-attendance in term 2 this year.

         but choose to blame bad parenting for non attendance. Fuck you're a tosser.
         • Mr Nobody 1.1.1.3.1

           5 March 2024 at 2:10 pm

           I'm sorry that is your take away and feel the need to resort to name calling.

           I have come here and engaged in civil and open conversation. I don't believe my opinion is the only one or that it is necessarily correct in which case I am more than happy to hear alternative ones so that it may be altered, shaped and refined.

           However I can't be bothered with meaningless personal attacks so will leave you to your echo chamber until I grow bored and try again.
           • That_guy 1.1.1.3.1.1

             5 March 2024 at 2:18 pm

             I personally don’t mind you being here and I value your contribution, even though I think you’re mostly wrong or have priorities I don’t share.

             People who ask questions force us to refine and reexamine our arguments. The ability to critically analyse our own ideas used to be what separated the right from the left. I’d like those days to return.
           • Descendant Of Smith 1.1.1.3.1.2

             5 March 2024 at 2:31 pm

             You cited an article as evidence that your ongoing proposition that bad parents were to blame for poor attendance at school which in fact said the opposite – that increased illness was responsible and indeed goes on further to clearly infer that parents are doing the right thing ie the attendance drop is due to good student behaviour and good parenting.

             “This suggests that students and their parents continue to follow Ministry of Health advice, ie, for students to stay home if unwell,” the ministry said.

             Your faux apology to say it's my fault, your continual use of superlatives, your seeming politeness (while at the same time drawing a completely apposite conclusion from the evidence you provide) are all the things that right wing passive aggressives do all the time. I took bets with myself that you would respond exactly in the way you did – feign offense and not address the fact that the article you cited didn't put any blame on parents and was supportive of them not sending their kids to school.

             We are dealing with three seasonal outbreaks now instead of two – cold virus, flu virus and COVID virus. Anyone with even a small amount of intellectual honesty would accept that there will be increased absences as a result.

             This stuff isn't even rocket science.
           • Incognito 1.1.1.3.1.3

             5 March 2024 at 8:56 pm

             You’re pretending to be a wronged victim but I’m not buying it from the tone & content of your commentary here, which is more alike a thin-skinned bully who likes to dish it out but cannot handle a robust response.

             In fact, when it gets too hot for you here, you do a runner in a huff & puff, after your typical spray & walk-away comments. This is not the first time (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-25-11-2023/#comment-1978097) and you seem to think that you can just come & go here on your own terms before a Mod boots you off the reserve. Each time it will take less time to get bored with you – if you don’t like ‘our echo chamber’ then don’t come here and/or stay away if you cannot lift your game.
     • Mr Nobody 1.1.2

       5 March 2024 at 10:34 am

       1) While Treasury may not have studied it the MOE has and based on the reports of the latest data from Term 2 last year its crap with 53% of kids not attending school reguarly (see link to below article).

       https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/school-attendance-more-than-half-of-students-not-regularly-attending-in-term-2-2023/QDSV6SPBWJECJC2AV4PDM23RQM/

       2) I agree, but considering the amount of money that benefits have increased by it is clear jo matter what amount of money is paid some parents still will jot feed their kids. In which case if they won't should the state be reducing their benefits and doing it themselves to ensure the kids are fed or prosecuting the parents for neglect.

       I personally don't care if the lunch program continues and happy if taxes/benefits increase accordingly as long as it a) results in kids being feed and not hungry (though if things are that bad at home how do they survive during the holidays) and b) Attendence increases accordingly, otherwise the program in my opinion is failing its purpose.
       • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.2.1

         5 March 2024 at 12:57 pm

         School attendance data for term 3 (2023) is available. Regular (>90%) attendance took a big (pandemic-related?) hit in 2022, and has not recovered, although the percentage of students with at least 70% attendance is relatively stable from 2019 – 2023 [92.7%, 91.6%, 91.2%, 87.1%, 87.7%].

         Factors affecting school attendance are likely quite complex – if poverty is a contributor, then how to 'motivate' impoverished Kiwi kids to attend school?

         Why poverty in New Zealand is everyone's concern
         Liang describes poverty as a "heritable condition" that perpetuates and amplifies through generations: "It is also not hard to see how individual poverty flows into communities and society, with downstream effects on economics, crime and health, as well as many other systems. Loosen one strand and everything else unravels."

         A Kete Half Empty
         Poverty is your problem, it is everyone's problem, not just those who are in poverty. – Rebecca, a child from Te Puru
       • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.1.2.2

         6 March 2024 at 1:37 am

         " but considering the amount of money that benefits have increased by it is clear jo matter what amount of money is paid some parents still will jot feed their kids. In which case if they won't should the state be reducing their benefits and doing it themselves to ensure the kids are fed or prosecuting the parents for neglect."

         Many poor parents try extremely hard to look after their kids, but yes, there are some absolutely negligent and appalling parents also (I've had direct exposure to quite a few).

         Often the solution to poverty is (drum roll….) to throw money at the problem. The situation with useless parents is not made better by reducing the available resources even further. In fact, vastly more resources are needed in precisely those situations (of one sort or another) – and the political forces wanting to cut lunches etc show no sign of wanting to add any such resources.

         It may seem like some waste – but remember, every one of these needy families and kids are in the poorest 50% of New Zealanders – and that part of the population owns only 3% of the nation's wealth. So they haven't been very effective at bleeding everyone else dry, with only 3%.

         Of course, the existing wealth of our single richest citizen could pay for the entire lunch program as-is, for the entire country, for 50 years – and he would still have enough money left to live a lifestyle far beyond that imaginable by most New Zealanders. Of course, he could almost certainly do it with just a portion of the annual capital return on his wealth – indefinitely, while his wealth still increased. Put another way, a 2% wealth tax on that one person would pay for it, indefinitely. That end of town gets little scrutiny, compared to someone living on a desperate benefit.
   • Descendant Of Smith 1.2

     5 March 2024 at 10:29 am

     Which despite all the increases that previous governments have made to benefits has not made a difference?

     Sadly rapacious landlords took it all and more in many cases.
     • Mr Nobody 1.2.1

       5 March 2024 at 11:02 am

       In some case I agree that could be argued but not in all cases.

       Equally thouugh didn't the last government fix the issues of Child poverty and housing as they were such important issues and seeing how they had a complete majority?
       • Descendant Of Smith 1.2.1.1

         5 March 2024 at 12:14 pm

         You have no idea in other words and are just parroting lines.
         • Mr Nobody 1.2.1.1.1

           5 March 2024 at 2:15 pm

           As we're you with you comment of "Sadly rapicous landlords took it all and more in many cases"

           If you don't want to just hear parroted lines don't offer them up as insightful commentary.
           • Descendant Of Smith 1.2.1.1.1.1

             5 March 2024 at 2:40 pm

             Here's the difference:

             Equally thouugh didn't the last government fix the issues of Child poverty and housing as they were such important issues and seeing how they had a complete majority?

             No one has ever said that, no-one believes it to be true and it is patently a false supposition.

             Sadly rapacious landlords took it all and more in many cases.

             Food banks, budgeters, research, treasury, real estate agents, etc etc are all sayings rents have risen sharply in the last twelve months.

             These increases have clearly outstripped increases in benefits.

             https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/133102811/here-are-the-regions-with-the-biggest-rent-increases-this-year

             "But rents in some regions rose more sharply over the last year.

             Northland had the biggest increase, up 14.9% to a median of $580 a week. It meant tenants were being asked to pay $75 more a week than last year.

             Marlborough and Auckland followed, with median weekly rents climbing 14% to $570 and 11.7% to $670 respectively.

             Rents in Taranaki, Bay of Plenty and Canterbury were up 11.1%, 10.2% and 10% to $600, $650, and $550. Wellington rents were up 6.7% to $640."
       • Incognito 1.2.1.2

         5 March 2024 at 8:59 pm

         And here you sound like a diversion troll with whataboutery that is off-topic with regards to the OP.
   • SPC 1.3

     5 March 2024 at 1:24 pm

     1.Poor people get moved from housing so the landlord can charge higher rent. Transiency results in homelessness. Homelessness means not being in the school zone. This impacts on accessibility to school enrollment.

     These people are dependent on food banks.

     2.Compare that to paying $1.5B per annum in super to people earning over $100,000 pa from work income. And lowering the tax bills on rent income of landlords by $700M each year.

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350177826/50000-people-earn-over-100k-get-pension-commission

     3.Programmes are funded from the annual budget as are other areas of government spending.
     • Mr Nobody 1.3.1

       5 March 2024 at 2:34 pm

       1) Agree with the premise however I don't believe that scenario is the reason behind a significant proportion of the kids turning up to school hungry.

       I suspect realistically it is: lack of money, leading to lacknof foodnin the house or a lack parents not actually making a lunch for the kids and the kids then not making it themselves (which happens frequently with my 3 kids my wife and I don't make them make a lunchbox don't ourselves).

       The second scenario I personally don't care about, the first however I believe is criminal. NO PERSON LET ALONE A CHILD SHOULD BE GOING HUNGRY IN THIS COUNTRY.

       If that means increasing taxes, putting a food stamp program in place so money can't be spent on no n essentials I don't care as long as the scheme works and I don't believe the current scheme is working.

       There is no doubt in my mind that there is a need, however I don't believe from the information I have seen that this program is addressing that need.

       2) See above.

       3) If governments or citizens see a program as critical then it should be funded long term.

       The fact the previous government clearly advised that the funding for this program ended this year makes it clear they either felt it wasn't critical or saw it as a political gotcha.

       Could you imagine a government funding health, policing, education or welfare until only the end of the year and leaving it hanging like they did this program?
       • SPC 1.3.1.1

         5 March 2024 at 2:52 pm

         1. You misunderstand my point – it was about not turning up school because they have no permanent address to enroll in one. The former school calls them truant until they enroll at a new one.

         Your point 1 was about attendance rates. This and greater focus on not spreading viruses (cold/flu/COVID) and more other problems

         https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/02/other-infections-rising-since-covid-pandemic/

         And then there are secondary school age children missing days because of employment to help families afford rent increases.

         2. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a need, however I don't believe from the information I have seen that this program is addressing that need.

         It is addressing a need, and until there is another programme that resolves the problem – sufficient income to housing cost – attacks on the programme are merely distraction to enable Seymour's agenda.

         3. Labour had funded the programme till the end of the 2024 school year – beyond the end of the 2023-2024 budget

         https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/498509/labour-promises-to-keep-school-lunch-programme

         It was in the Labour Party's plan for 2025-2026 if re-elected.
2. That_guy 2

   5 March 2024 at 9:19 am

   In times of uncertainty, I like to ask God (actually ChatGPT) for guidance:

   what percentage of food in a typical restaurant is wasted?

   The percentage of food wasted in a typical restaurant can vary widely depending on various factors such as the type of restaurant, its size, location, efficiency of operations, and waste management practices. However, studies suggest that food waste in restaurants can range from 10% to as high as 30% of total food purchased. Some larger-scale operations or buffet-style restaurants may even see higher rates of waste due to factors like over-preparation and customer plate waste. On the other hand, smaller, more efficient establishments may have lower rates of waste through careful portion control and inventory management. Overall, reducing food waste in the restaurant industry is a significant challenge and area of focus for sustainability efforts.
   • Mr Nobody 2.1

     5 March 2024 at 10:41 am

     I believe this is part of the issue. From my understanding schools can either opt in 100% or not at all.

     This means that say they have a problem with only 5 of the kids turning up without food lunches for the entire school roll have to be supplied so the 5 don't feel "different".

     The rest of the lunches are either then given to kids who may already have brought lunch from home or whose parents use to provide food from home but now accept this taxpayer subsidy, given to third party groups which range from food banks, old folks home and even Police and Fire Stations for staff or binned.
3. Mike the Lefty 3

   5 March 2024 at 10:26 am

   ACT certainly has a thing about poor people.

   It goes all the way back to early Industrial Revolution England era.

   The rich, who made maximum profits on the backs of paying their workers minimum wages, convinced themselves that if a person was poor, it was because he/she wanted to be poor.

   Alternatively they would say that if a person was unemployed it was because he/she wanted to be unemployed and/or they were idle.

   That is what ACT intrinsically believe, although they are too smart to say it openly.

   Far from the progressive libertarian image that they profess to support, most of ACT's policies come from a time when ordinary people had few social, political or economic rights.
   • tc 3.1

     5 March 2024 at 11:37 am

     Its objectivism, a randian philosophy.

     Self interest, laissez-faire capitalism i.e. unregulated, market rules, everyone out for themselves.

     The less government involvement the better for the randian acolytes. Gives capital a free reign.
4. Tiger Mountain 4

   5 March 2024 at 10:34 am

   “Atlas Dave” is possibly more concerned about ideology than cost saving. Certain Government (taxpayer) provided social services are a no no for committed neo liberals.

   Micky and That_guy are right about food wastage, it happens in institutions, private homes, and commercial settings. Expected or hoped for numbers fluctuate and so do appetites and preferences.

   Educationalists, Principals, Teachers and Teacher Aids have said for years that hungry kids do not learn or interact well socially with others. Free lunches and breakfasts in some cases, are the best or only food some kids get that day.

   There are more millions in ‘wasted’ national superannuation paid to those that do not need it–such as the current Deputy PM.

   Scandinavian countries are generally well off, and they have universal free school meals. Healthy food is a win for kids and the people and businesses that produce it.
   • SPC 4.1

     5 March 2024 at 12:04 pm

     It’s $700M in lost tax on rent income from landlords and multiple billions of dollars in payments of super to those still working.
   • Phillip ure 4.2

     5 March 2024 at 9:01 pm

     I like 'atlas dave'….I think I will start using it..

     That and Dr shane ciga-reti are the best.. so far..
     • SPC 4.2.1

       5 March 2024 at 9:06 pm

       Seemore Atlas, tour the world when you can afford to off the tenants rent and untaxed CG.
5. SPC 5

   5 March 2024 at 12:03 pm

   The logistics problem with food in schools is that provision is made on the basis of the school roll and attendance level varies (illness, medical appointments, family circumstance etc)

   Food outlets that provide for customer turn-up on the day have the same problem.

   Which is why some charity groups pick up spare food, including from schools – and otherwise some children take food home.
6. Macro 6

   5 March 2024 at 12:07 pm

   Typical Tory Govt.

   Promise you everything, deliver nothing, and before you get it they take it off you.
   • georgecom 6.1

     5 March 2024 at 6:23 pm

     typical ACT as well. If Seymour wants to save some money go and have a look at what else double dipton chris is pocketing, or scrap a $2 billion east-west motorway in Auckland. That dud of a road was forecast to cost $330 million per km back in 2017, heaven knows what now. simple simeon says $2 billion, the roads 5.5 km long, that's $363 million per km.very likely simple simeon has undercooked his figures, maybe up round $2.2 to $2.5 billion? severals tens of millions on food in schools is chicken feed for SS's new road, an easy saving there
7. AB 7

   5 March 2024 at 12:11 pm

   The coalition of crackpots can cut free school lunches – but only if they end poverty first. The primary purpose of free lunches for lower decile schools is to soften the effects of our shameful poverty and inequality levels. It's a way of indirectly doing something small but useful about poverty and inequality, especially if you lack the courage to attack those problems directly. I personally don't give a sh*t if attendance and educational performance doesn't clearly show a major short-term improvement – especially in a period disrupted by a pandemic. Why on earth would you expect a problem that has taken generations in the making to be solved in a few years by such a minor gesture? This pretense by the right that they are driven by evidence rather than by their inbuilt sociopathy is typically pernicious.
   • Tiger Mountain 7.1

     5 March 2024 at 12:37 pm

     
   • That_guy 7.2

     5 March 2024 at 12:42 pm

     Well said.

     Evidence isnt a bad thing but I know of nobody on the right who takes a responsible attitude towards evidence. As in: what are the limitations of this evidence, what are the caveats, what are the alternative explanations for this result, are the stats solid, was this data gathered in an unbiased and representative way. Nobody.

     TBH its not something the left is great at either.
   • Patricia Bremner 7.3

     5 March 2024 at 9:28 pm

     Yes they ignore the science if it doesn't suit, it also appears such inconvenient subjects such as climate change and covid impacts are to be ignored or minimised. imo
8. Reality 8

   5 March 2024 at 12:26 pm

   Many people, even if they did not vote this government in, would have hoped that some things were going to benefit people and that we would not wake up each morning with a feeling of who else are they going to "slap around the ears" today. Jacinda's time as PM is sadly long gone when we could see her charming smile and feel well things are not perfect but she gave people a sense that she cared. A robotic Luxon cares about his entitlements and one day getting a knighthood.
   • Tiger Mountain 8.1

     5 March 2024 at 12:47 pm

     Heh, arise Sir Baldrick…thanks for your service to the NZ ruling class and international capital…just like another recent NZ National PM.

     “SirKey” was on the AirNZ board for a couple of years as I recall during Mr Luxon’s time there.

     from the link below…
     “Mr Luxon in June told Newstalk ZB he was not "John Key 2.0", but added the former PM had encouraged him to stand for National. The speculation escalated when Christchurch businessman Steve Brooks took out a half-page ad in the Herald featuring an image of John Key morphing into Luxon.”

     https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/john-key-backs-christopher-luxon-as-national-botany-candidate-jami-lee-ross-issues-challenge/3GQ2QMCG363EWSXJU23JPDJRZI/
   • Michael P 8.2

     5 March 2024 at 4:37 pm

     "…she gave people a sense that she cared…"

     If she really cared about inequality she would have introduced some form of wealth tax and would have seriously looked at how to transition tax revenues away from work and towards wealth.

     But her position (as is the current leadership's) was essentially "no wealth tax" while she was Labour leader, end of story, no arguments.

     If Chris Hipkins is still leader at next election I won't be voting Labour (again) for this reason alone without even looking at any of their other policies.

     I really felt for David Parker. Having produced the report which showed how unfair the tax system is and which made a clear argument for some sort of wealth tax and / or major changes to the way tax is collected, his leader(s) slammed the door in his face without even a discussion. He would have been gutted.

     Drastically changing the tax system is the ONLY way to start doing anything about inequality in this country. Reducing inequality or at the very least acknowledging that something MUST be done to address it (Tinkering doesn't cut the mustard) is the ONLY way to avoid an economic catastrophe at some point in the (near) future.

     IMO.
     • Phillip ure 8.2.1

       5 March 2024 at 6:47 pm

       Parker is a serious man…with a big brain..

       I could see him as labour leader..

       I could see him working well with the greens/maori party..

       To bring about the changes this country needs/is crying out for..
       • Tiger Mountain 8.2.1.1

         6 March 2024 at 10:03 am

         Agree. Serious would be good after the pack of revenge merchants in office at the moment.

         All is not lost though the vandals will have done much damage by 2026. There will be a number of boomer funerals over 3 years, and more new voters open to change.

         George Galloway in the UK Rochdale by-election showed that sometimes ordinary people can win against the party machines (and yes there are many specific features to George’s win not applicable to NZ).
     • Patricia Bremner 8.2.2

       5 March 2024 at 9:32 pm

       
     • Mike the Lefty 8.2.3

       6 March 2024 at 6:12 pm

       By the way Michael P. I am still waiting for you to validate your claim that the Hurricanes Poua team receive taxpayer funding.
9. tsmithfield 9

   5 March 2024 at 1:06 pm

   From a humanitarian perspective, I don't have a problem with feeding children who are going hungry. But, what is being used at the moment appears to be a fairly blunt way of doing that.

   From a philisophical standpoint, I think this type of initiative allows parents to progressively hand more and more responsibility for their children to the state. In the long-run, I don't think this is good for children or their parents. So, I think the foood in schools is really just a band-aid solution to much deeper problems.

   We need to be finding ways of addressing the dysfunctional issues within some of these families that affects the children in more ways than just lack of food.
   • I Feel Love 9.1

     5 March 2024 at 1:38 pm

     "We need to be finding ways of addressing the dysfunctional issues within some of these families that affects the children in more ways than just lack of food." – absolutely!!!

     & in the meantime use the "blunt instrument" of feeding kids in schools.
   • SPC 9.2

     5 March 2024 at 1:44 pm

     Food to children is more efficient than money to parents (whether benefit, WFF tax credit and AS) as those payments can be leveraged by landlords to extract higher rent.

     Anyone arguing otherwise is working for the Ministry of Landlords, called NatIonal + ACT or National + NZF.

     The last time NZF was in coalition with National they allowed market rents for state houses – a boon for private landlords.

     Have we not had enough of their circular arguments – “we need a spending card for those receiving beneficiary payments to ensure support goes to children” and “food to children is wasteful government spending”.

     First world nations with less child poverty than us have universal food in school.

     The attitude behind doing that is why they have less child poverty.

     35/36 have a CGT and 24/36 have an estate/inheritance tax.
   • Descendant Of Smith 9.3

     5 March 2024 at 2:03 pm

     So it's OK for white kids at Lindisfarne to have lunch at school but not for brown kids in Porirua?

     Those Lindisfarne parents should be making their kids take packed lunches! Many private schools provide lunch and for the same reasons – to ensure students have good nutrition and can concentrate at school.

     Why is it good for one group but not for the other – the other having additional reasons such as lack of food and nutrition at home.
     • Belladonna 9.3.1

       6 March 2024 at 11:19 am

       That seems to be a very weak argument.
       The Lindisfarne parents (in general) can afford to buy whatever lunch solutions they choose. [And, given it's a boarding school, with some day pupils – it seems likely that the logistics make a school lunch option sensible]

       Whether that is luxe packed lunches or equally luxe cafeteria or set-menu options – all paid for by parents – has no bearing on whether or not the Porirua students need school lunches.

       What I don't support is government funding for the Lindisfarne lunches.
       • Muttonbird 9.3.1.1

         6 March 2024 at 10:03 pm

         Lindisfarne College students are publicly funded:

         Meanwhile, funding of state and state-integrated schools in 2019 was an average of $8475 per student.

         That's an average of state and state-integrated, but I know a similar state-integrated school in Auckland has public funding of about $6000 per student so let's call it that. Worth a lot of lunches anyway…

         https://newsroom.co.nz/2020/09/13/govt-cant-afford-to-stop-funding-private-schools-yet/
         • Belladonna 9.3.1.1.1

           7 March 2024 at 6:35 pm

           And the state funding of the State schools (being rather more substantial), would presumably fund even more lunches.

           It's a pointlessly stupid argument. None of the funding provided directly to schools in NZ (whether state or integrated) is intended for school lunches.

           All schools have more than enough uses for whatever funding they get – in actually providing education.
   • mickysavage 9.4

     5 March 2024 at 8:13 pm

     "From a philisophical standpoint, I think this type of initiative allows parents to progressively hand more and more responsibility for their children to the state."

     But at least their kids are fed and can learn.
   • Craig H 9.5

     5 March 2024 at 11:11 pm

     It's the same debate as any government support – targeted which means some level of administrative complexity to only support the targeted group, or general which means administrative simplicity and obviously supporting more broadly than is strictly necessary.

     Here, the previous government used deciles, so targeted a bit, but kept it general at the school level. It could be more granular than that e.g. community services card holders, but schools have a targeting system, and free food is not bad. I would also guess that bulk food is cheaper and easier to do than non-bulk food. The marginal cost is there, but it's not a uniform rate where the last sandwich costs as much as the first one.
     • Descendant Of Smith 9.5.1

       7 March 2024 at 9:05 am

       This has only really been a debate since the increase of the middle class who benefitted from universalism.

       My parents generation got universal family benefit, tax deductions for non-working spouses, tax deductions for life insurance, capitalisation of family benefit to purchase a house, free education, and so on. In addition they had a welfare system that had full employment as an objective which gave the unemployed and many disabled and unwell people a meaningful job in the public service. Local management and services manifested in subtle things like my grand parents washing the Ministry of Works tea towels etc for a little more money to feed their family or the railways knowing that state houses did not come with a clothes-line allowing the workshops in their downtime to make clotheslines for the tenants (this was allowed rather than a sign of theft as some have tried to portray). Targeting was done by way of having public health nurses in communities or having seven days in hospital after having birth so any additional services could be assessed.

       These things helped them (20 individuals between both sides) move from poverty to owning a house without having had any inherited wealth. The universal nature of most assistance likely made this the largest shift in NZ from renting to home ownership ever.

       The rise of the middle class however means they benefitted less and less from these things as their fortunes and wealth rose. The middle class instead of being united with the poor become critical of them and began to be manipulated to a large extent by the rich who were always opposed to welfare, who in a Orwellian Animal Farm closing scene got them to think they were just like them.

       Universalism moved to targeting. Targeting eventually moves some to the cold, cold heart of charity and religious capitalism – poor houses (social housing), foodbanks, etc

       Maybe we will never get back to universal without a middle class collapse. A willingness to pay more tax to support universal assistance is really what is needed. If we are going to do lunch in schools – fund it in all schools – rich, poor doesn't really matter. Either it is good for kids or it is not.
       • joe90 9.5.1.1

         7 March 2024 at 9:46 am

         (this was allowed rather than a sign of theft as some have tried to portray).

         I was there (NZED) and a culture of entitlement prevailed.

         Rabbits (because white rabbits disappear) were always regarded as theft but anyone who was in a position to rein in the larceny had always been part of that culture of entitlement.

         ( tea towel washing etc was usually done by the widows of former employees)
         • Descendant Of Smith 9.5.1.1.1

           7 March 2024 at 11:16 am

           Occasionally a young new staff member would try something on where I had family working. They would get a hiding out the back and told never to do it again.

           Thieving at work was detested. Most of the thieving was members of the public at night but the staff got blamed. It was harder than people think because everything down to pens and pencils was counted and controlled. It soon became obvious.

           Obviously some variation depending on where you were.

           Biggest staff thieving I believe was at freezing works according to someone who went round cleaning it up.
       • Craig H 9.5.1.2

         7 March 2024 at 4:36 pm

         Highly in favour of returning to universalism and progressive taxation over our current model of flattish taxation (when GST etc are taken into account) and targeted assistance.
       • KJT 9.5.1.3

         7 March 2024 at 8:21 pm

         “Targeting eventually moves some to the cold, cold heart of charity and religious capitalism – poor houses (social housing), foodbanks, etc”
         “Maybe we will never get back to universal without a middle class collapse. A willingness to pay more tax to support universal assistance is really what is needed.”
         

         We won’t get there if the remaining universal services/welfare is munted, as some who should know better are advocating.
         Broadening the tax base with CGT and wealthy inheritance taxes, lessons the burden of tax increases on middle income wage earners, who currently pay 60% of all taxes.
10. mary_a 10

    5 March 2024 at 3:44 pm

    Bellamys' would be a good place to begin reducing state subsidised food wastage! Not cut our impoverished children's school lunch programme.
    • Patricia Bremner 10.1

      5 March 2024 at 9:37 pm

      100% Cut Seymour’s lunch.
    • Belladonna 10.2

      6 March 2024 at 11:21 am

      Looks as though there is no longer subsidised food at Bellamys
      ” the 30 percent MP subsidy at Bellamy’s restaurant is no longer offered.”

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/484482/parliament-food-prices-spike-after-mps-reject-3-point-5m-plea
      • mary_a 10.2.1

        6 March 2024 at 2:25 pm

        I wasn't aware of that, so thanks for your info re Bellamy's.
11. SPC 11

    6 March 2024 at 9:49 pm

    

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Screenshot-2024-03-05-at-8.18.02%E2%80%AFAM-768×596.png
12. Peter 12

    6 March 2024 at 11:03 pm

    I can see the Jethro's and Goobers of Act and National fizzing about how their policies are going to reform gang members and prisoners.

    There's also probably a Simon in West Auckland who's worked out if sandwiches in school lunches are turned sideways and cut diagonally twice as many mouths can be filled.

    Be sure there'll be a David in Epsom knowing it's worth trying it as a bloody good idea.
13. newsense 13

    7 March 2024 at 8:26 am

    This is kind of annoying. Part of the blame lies with the intelligent but dumb, part with a party who refused to defend and articulate the positive work they’d done, but rather empahasised that they were cutting costs, scaling back engagement with Maori etc too.

    Here Verity gets stuck into Seymour:

    So let’s not sugar coat this. We’re not allowed to soothe ourselves with, “oh but it’ll teach these parents a lesson and they’ll change.” Nope. It won’t. If we do this, there will just be sadder, hungrier kids out there.

    And we could help them. But we’d rather not.

    The same columnist said that a vote for Labour was somehow passé and boring. But it seems obvious enough- if you want school meals which is a Labour policy, perhaps vote for Labour? Or the Greens? I understand you don’t want to reward Labour’s current leadership and their tack to the right. But you could have helped them, but it was passé or something. Sadder hungrier kids is on every non-vote or mistaken vote for wolves in sheep’s clothing as a result of this cluttered, confused thinking.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350202896/if-we-cut-school-lunches-were-not-allowed-lie-ourselves
14. randal mcmurphy 14

    7 March 2024 at 1:43 pm

    seemore is greedy beyond belief. he is a prime example of the vile maxim; Adam Smith — 'All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.'

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS