In his speech he made the following observation:
"Kids born this year will be turning 16 in 2040."
Well, because I can tell you something about them, let's look at the children born in 2022 who will be turning 18 in 2040.
By the end of their birth year 12,639 of them were dependent on a benefit provided to their parent or parents. That's 21.5% of all babies born that year. Over one in five.
Then consider that the link between a child's early entry into the benefit system and later benefit dependence in their own right, is strong.
MSD's own commissioned research showed:
Well, because I can tell you something about them, let's look at the children born in 2022 who will be turning 18 in 2040.
By the end of their birth year 12,639 of them were dependent on a benefit provided to their parent or parents. That's 21.5% of all babies born that year. Over one in five.
Then consider that the link between a child's early entry into the benefit system and later benefit dependence in their own right, is strong.
MSD's own commissioned research showed:
- Nearly three quarters (74%) of all beneficiaries up to age 25 had a parent on benefit while they were a child, and just over a third (35%) had a parent on benefit throughout their teenage years.
- The greater the family benefit history the longer the client tended to stay on a benefit, particularly for the Jobseeker benefit.1
It's laudable to talk about getting 18 year-olds off welfare. Better still though to discourage their entry into the welfare system in the first place.
The focus of reforms must be two-fold. Dealing with 40,000 young people on Jobseeker right now is critical. But so is looking to the future and turning off the tap that feeds inter-generational dependence.
Labour's soft-on-sole-parents approach has to go. That means ending the nonsense of not naming fathers and reintroducing work obligations for parents who add children to an existing benefit.
But more broadly, the cash-for-kids scheme has to stop. The assistance provided to unemployed parents who refuse jobs should be through 'money management' - a system used for youth beneficiaries. The rules are:
-your rent or board and things like your power bill and any debts will be paid straight from your payment. You won't get this money yourself.
-you will get paid a weekly allowance of up to $50 into your personal bank account.
-any money left over will be put onto your personal payment card. This is like a debit card that you can use to buy your food and groceries at approved stores.2
Until cash incentives that equal incomes from work are removed, the inter-generational problem will continue to plague New Zealand. Yes, there will be downsides to money management. But will they be any worse than the devastating social outcomes that come from unconditional welfare?
1/ https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/media-releases/2015/taylor-fry-key-findings.pdf
2/ https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on-a-benefit/payments/money-management-youth.html
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE. - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Lindsay, good article. Stunned by the actual number of ppl on benefits. I will believe your figures before i believe any numbers the left provide, they have proven to be liars. Agree with your solution, it's good and will help the country become more productive and everyone contributes....nothing wrong with that.
Just one question- what are the downsides to money management that you refer to?
Regards
I was in a shop the other day and all the assistants were South African, Philippino, Indian, there where no New Zealander’s at all.
Made me think are all the NZ’ers so smart they don’t need these jobs?
Not according to the education stats.
Then I was informed that there is no benefit system in any of these countries. You work or you starve.
They cannot comprehend getting paid to do nothing.
100%
Sole parenthood is the proven driver of much our society's dysfunction.
This is necessary. I know of a two parent family on job seeker welfare who believe in being law abiding citizens yet even they have slipped into welfare dependence. It is just too easy to be captured by it,it seems.
Of course I do have to mention the drastic need for educational standards being lifted as well .Our schools should drop the current ideology which does not include a strong work ethic. The play way philosophy along with condtructivism ( do -it -yourself learning) is very destructive to producing citizens who contribute to society rather than be parasitic on it.
Anon 1, The Greens would trot out concerns relating to abuse of human rights, and risk of increased crime. But the 'downside' that concerns me most is that even money management is still potentially a welfare trap and a cost to the taxpayer. The best outcome for all concerned is independent, productive, self-sufficient people.
Families on benefits which includes a woman capable of child bearing, should be given benefits on the condition that they have given a temporary contraception inplant. If they don't agree, they shouldn't get benefits.
Lindsay - fine, except people want to have faith in a non apartheid society and where their taxes are going. And they need faith that everyone will contribute best they can and not call on imaginary rights to enable them to be lampreys and leeches.
Yes, definitely. No to incentivised breeding and benefit collection. Yes to naming father's, education (including budgetting), personal responsibility, and the creation of a
work ethic by no money for doing nothing. Time for tough love and stuff the Benefits/Spend Other's Money/Virtue Signalling/Identity is everything/Green Party & their equally corrupt public-teat-sucking mates.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.