Login/Join to access your personalised dashboard now! Returning user? Log in or Register
Log in to your GrownUps

Child Poverty Reduction

This topic contains 157 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of jens jens > 7 days ago.

Discussions Politics Today Child Poverty Reduction

Viewing 10 posts - 111 through 120 (of 158 total)
  • #1669123
    Profile photo of halcyonhalcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 4332
    halcyon

    Not at all jens,  All that would be necessary would be to make employment as a Teacher’s Aide for a period of 12 months a pre-requisite to acceptance into an approved teacher training programme. That way, a potential trainee would have knowledge of the job prior to investing in training. Also it would provide an opportunity for those who lack the qualities to make a good teacher to be discouraged from proceeding.

    #1672197
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7177
    jens

    halcyon –

    perhaps the  poor  response to  the very  reasonable looking  proposition of  being a Teachers Aide  before  investment  in a full  professional  teaching  course is due  to  it  only very  indirectly associated  with  child poverty  reduction.

    Even good teachers – if  neglecting to teach the  relevant  truth –  such as child poverty is inevitable without parents  having the  chance  or will to participate in wealth  ownership  creation  –

    can  cause  widening instead  of  narrowing  child  poverty,  especially if accompanied by excessively  libertarian or irresponsible  breeding behavior  “out of  wedlock”  and  evaded  fatherhood/parenthood  responsibilities.

    The  third  way ,  while  primarily  tackling parental (and  thereby  also  child) poverty  at least on the material level  –

    may have  in the long term even  some  educational  results on the moral levels  of  prudence and responsibility, when the  benefits  of universal participation in  wealth ownership  creation become undeniable  and  experienced  by all.

    #1673072
    Profile photo of mommabear70mommabear70
    Member
    Member since: February 20, 2017
    Topics: 5
    Replies: 1048
    mommabear70

    There will be many of us who have dealt with a really tough time in our lives. The way that you deal with it dictates how you come through it. Taking responsibility is probably ‘number one’, followed by hard work and careful budgeting.

    In my view, poverty is generally more a state of mind rather than the state of one’s bank balance but, unfortunately, everything seems to be measured in money terms these days. It certainly applies to the government’s attitude… ‘Having a hard time? Right, here’s some more money’, when it should be ‘Having a hard time? Right, let’s look at how you are spending your money. Let’s put some conditions in place, conditions that must be adhered to’.

    I would say something like, ‘ We would like to assist you through this tough time. We are prepared to give you $ xxx a week as a benefit and, in return, we will expect you to remain sober, feed and clothe your children, make sure that they get plenty of sleep and regularly attend school’. Make it a contract rather than just a hand-out.

    I also would insist on a reliable contraceptive and I’m not talking about just ‘keeping your knees together’. Mindful of the fact that many of these young beneficiaries have not been taught by their mothers how to run a household and care properly for children, I would provide a mentor to teach the essentials of home care.

    It is impossible to expect a person’s behaviour to change until their attitude has changed and to change attitude, they must want to live a more disciplined, productive life. They must want a better life for their children. They must also want to achieve a better life for themselves.

    We need to have expectations of them and we need to have firm rules in place. We need to reward if our expectations are met. It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense.

    When Paula Bennett was the minister in charge of welfare, she provided mentors for the young single mothers who chose to keep their babies, a positive and successful move.

    This https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/young-parent-payment.html sets out much of the above expectations. I just wonder how committed the Work and Income staff involved in the processes are at their tasks.

    #1673097
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7177
    jens

    Yes  mommabear, all as you say  above  is right  and good  for  helping  to reduce  child  poverty.

    And as  you say, “they  (people, parents) must also  want to achieve a better  life  for themselves” especially in  earning opportunities  and old age retirement welfare  –  which if  achieved  –

    will lead  to  no children  being  born  into  serious  poverty  at all, eventually.

    Therefore – beside  what  has been  done and is  being reminded  to be done  by you –

    we should  also urge raising  NZ Super Fund  contributions at least  to the  original $2 billion a year, for  a start, and resume  the $1000.- KiwiSaver  kick-starts unconditionally  to  all who have  missed  out on it so far,  from “cradle to  grave”.

    Would that  not  energize  the  whole nation into prosperity ownership  creation ?

     

    #1673105
    Profile photo of halcyonhalcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 4332
    halcyon

    “Would that not energize the whole nation into prosperity ownership creation ?”

    Jens, no it would not. At a theoretical level your idea sounds good. But unfortunately you  show a lack of understanding about human nature. Fifteen years ago I could have introduced you to a dozen households where nothing would motivate them into prosperity ownership creation. And I know that the same type of families still exist. I see the evidence.

     

    #1673143
    Profile photo of halcyonhalcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 4332
    halcyon

    Given the importance that Labour, and especially Ardern, placed on child poverty during the election period I am surprised that they quickly implemented their policy of free tertiary education without ensuring there was adequate funding available for child poverty relief.  This makes me wonder if:-

    a}  the free tertiary education policy was a sop to the unions. Remember, the unions had been suggesting this for some time.

    b} that Labour are planning a substantial increase in taxation. It is easier to sell a tax hike if the money is going towards children living in deprivation than it is to sell the hike to benefit the children of the wealthy who will go on to well paid jobs after graduation.

    #1673146
    Profile photo of lilith7lilith7
    Member
    Member since: April 9, 2017
    Topics: 2
    Replies: 1276
    lilith7

    It might be a damn sight more useful to stop pointing the finger & give some practical help at an earlier stage;parenting classes in schools,compulsory & to include basics such as budgeting,gardening,cooking as well as the basics of parenting.

    Celia Lashlie was getting some good results from working with & supporting Mums to be better parents, & I think that’s continuing now,too.

    Mostly,we – or some of us,anyway – need a change in attitude in the way we view those having a hard time.

    http://www.timwise.org/2014/11/poverty-denialism-in-a-culture-of-cruelty-bashing-the-poor-as-right-wing-amusement/
    <h2>Poverty Denialism in a Culture of Cruelty: Bashing the Poor as Right-Wing Amusement</h2>
    “In 1981, Texas Senator Phil Gramm lamented: “We’re the only nation in the world where all our poor people are fat.” It was, to Gramm, clear evidence of how exaggerated the problem of economic hardship in America was, and how horrible the nation’s welfare state had become. Apparently, poor people aren’t really suffering or deserving of much sympathy until their ribcages are showing and their eye-sockets have all but swallowed their eyes

    America’s culture of cruelty has long been fed by this kind of thinking: namely, the belief that the poor and unemployed really aren’t suffering that badly. This “poverty denialism” rests on three claims: first, that America’s poor are fabulously wealthy by global standards and thus, should essentially stop complaining; second, that the poor buy expensive food with their SNAP benefits and have all manner of consumer goods in their homes, which means they aren’t poor in any sense that should cause concern; and third, that large numbers of welfare recipients commit fraud in order to get benefits, and then misuse the benefits they receive. In short, these are not the deserving poor—their pain is not real.”

     

     

    Obviously American but similar attitudes are found here.

    #1673182
    Profile photo of mommabear70mommabear70
    Member
    Member since: February 20, 2017
    Topics: 5
    Replies: 1048
    mommabear70

    lilith7, “Mostly,we – or some of us,anyway – need a change in attitude in the way we view those having a hard time.”
    So what do you find wrong with my previous post in which I said “Right, let’s look at how you are spending your money. Let’s put some conditions in place, conditions that must be adhered to’.

    I would say something like, ‘ We would like to assist you through this tough time. We are prepared to give you $ xxx a week as a benefit and, in return, we will expect you to remain sober, feed and clothe your children, make sure that they get plenty of sleep and regularly attend school’. Make it a contract rather than just a hand-out.

    I also would insist on a reliable contraceptive and I’m not talking about just ‘keeping your knees together’. Mindful of the fact that many of these young beneficiaries have not been taught by their mothers how to run a household and care properly for children, I would provide a mentor to teach the essentials of home care.

    It is impossible to expect a person’s behaviour to change until their attitude has changed and to change attitude, they must want to live a more disciplined, productive life. They must want a better life for their children. They must also want to achieve a better life for themselves.

    We need to have expectations of them and we need to have firm rules in place. We need to reward if our expectations are met. It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense.

    When Paula Bennett was the minister in charge of welfare, she provided mentors for the young single mothers who chose to keep their babies, a positive and successful move.

    #1673307
    Profile photo of lilith7lilith7
    Member
    Member since: April 9, 2017
    Topics: 2
    Replies: 1276
    lilith7

    The same old attitudes – “the poor:”

    are childlike & must be obliged/coerced/forced to do certain things.

    are useless at managing money & must be treated as imbeciles

    must not be permitted to experience even fleeting pleasure,because ‘everyone knows’ they’re all druggies/drunkards /lazy/smokers/gamblers/etc etc.

    The assumption that those surviving on a low income can’t manage money is laughable;while there will always be the feckless minority found in any group,most manage far better than those on an ample income can.

    Help & support is one thing,demeaning,patronising ‘help’ is quite another.

     

    When Paula Bennett was on DPB,she managed to start purchasing a house & further her studies. When Paula Bennett was a minister,she removed the supports she’d made good use of,thus making it more difficult for others in that situation to do as she had.

     

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/95211718/dave-armstrong-how-dare-a-beneficiary-buy-toffee-pops

    “Dave Armstrong: How dare a beneficiary buy Toffee Pops?

    SATIRE: As I was driving home the other day after a long morning at the radio studio, I saw a lovely solo mother who lives in our street, struggling in the rain with her groceries. Being community minded, I stopped the Audi and gave her a lift. She was very grateful, but as I grabbed one of the supermarket bags I noticed it contained a packet of Toffee Pops.

    She looked at me sheepishly then at her young son. “It’s his birthday tomorrow.” Now I’m a reasonable man despite what Lefties on Twitter say. A cracker biscuit with a celery stick is fine as a birthday treat. I could even be persuaded that a Vanilla Wine biscuit is OK, but a beneficiary buying Toffee Pops? It was obvious that this mother was defrauding our social welfare system to afford such a luxury.

    Like Metiria Turei, this woman appeared to be committing fiscal abuse and Gross Domestic Product Violence. I would even say that she was a menace to society, if I believed there was such a thing as society.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a supporter of welfare and was briefly part of the system myself when my property development company went belly-up.

    The dole saved my life until I pulled myself up by the bootstraps and got a job on the after-dinner circuit speaking about eliminating welfare dependency. (And those superannuitants who claim I still owe them money can get lost. It’s the limited liability company that I was merely part of that stuffed up, not me, and I paid back a bit.)

    But worse was to follow. When I handed the bathroom bag to the solo mum, I noticed she had bought soap that was 4 cents a bar more expensive than the cheapest, branded sanitary products, and, worst of all – a packet of condoms.

    Now don’t get me wrong – the fiscal advantage to the taxpayer of beneficiaries using condoms to avoid pregnancy is enormous. But these condoms were not the cheapest no-frills brand, they were the more expensive Pleasure Me condoms ribbed and dotted for extra stimulation.

    Since when has the poor consumer and taxpayer been in the business of providing pleasure for beneficiaries? As John Key said about foodbank users, these people have made “poor choices”. They shouldn’t have pleasure. That’s the reason, from 1990 until 2015, successive National and Labour government ensured that benefits were either cut or remained static.

    Worse was to come. Our street’s neighbourhood crime prevention group had noticed a gentleman caller had arrived at the solo mother’s flat at 7.34pm, 9.34pm, 8.03pm and 10.23pm over the last week, and left again at 6.45am, 8.45am, 6.56am and 7.03am. This technically made him a flatmate.

    A quick examination of the solo mum’s recycle bin and some surveillance by my internet consultant (and ex-detective) neighbour revealed that she was receiving the accommodation supplement, even though the gentleman was paying her some rent in cash.

    As for me, I have never claimed a tax-deductible expense to which I was not entitled, I have never paid a tradie in cash, and I have never taken a sweet from an honesty box at work when I was out of change and forgot to pay it back. I am perfect.

    When Turei admitted breaking the law and said the welfare net needed mending, she lost my respect, in the same way that Peter Fraser did when he broke the law by opposing conscription, as Nelson Mandela did when he broke the law in apartheid South Africa, and as Martin Luther King did when he broke the law and defied the Selma police chief.

    You might argue that the only people criticising cheating beneficiaries are well-off, middle-aged white men like me. That is not true: wealthy women in PR, retired elderly millionaires and advantaged millennials have all joined in.

    As for the solo mother down the road, I was waiting for Work and Income to answer the phone when she knocked on my door on her way to university. She gave me a plate of muffins and a painting from the kid to say thank you so much for helping her with the groceries. I’ll get her next time.”

     

     

     

    #1677619
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7177
    jens

    So far, all these long-winded lamentations about poverty  and (accusing) the poor do not  contain a single practical proposition on  how  to eliminate  parental and child poverty.

    With reference to human nature, halcyon might be  right in that increased NZ Super Fund  contributions (to personal accounts?)  and resumption  of $1000.- KiwiSaver  kick-starts  unconditionally “from  cradle to grave” to all  who have not received  it  yet –

    would   not enthusiastically “energize the  whole  nation into prosperity  ownership  creation”.

    But  for  practical results, a majority  vote  in  favor of that  economic  realities  based proposition is enough  to have  it  operating  with 100% of  citizen participation, including  even ideological opponents.

    The  latter, to their  dismay and grief, will  just  have to witness and experience the  gradual  disappearance  of  (child) poverty  through  widening,  increased  wealth possession.

     

Viewing 10 posts - 111 through 120 (of 158 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Advertisement
 
Join Free.  Register for newsletter updates & complete your membership for full site access.  Welcome & Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!

Close this Window
 
GrownUps

GrownUps, New Zealand’s best lifestyle website, social club & brain training hub for 50+.

Join 145,000 GrownUps for Free. Register now to receive our regular email newsletters to keep you up to date & complete your membership to access all areas of the site.  We can’t wait to meet you.

Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!