|
18th August 2014, 10:01 | #1 | |
|
The Green's Robin Hood Policy
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11310271
Quote:
|
|
18th August 2014, 10:06 | #2 |
|
still one of the lowest rates in the developed world.
dont see much of a point myself.id be just as happy for their share to ACTUALLY be paid,and a CGT put in place.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
18th August 2014, 10:15 | #3 |
|
For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_tax_rates |
18th August 2014, 11:39 | #4 |
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
|
I'd like a bit more detail on this plan to "fight poverty".
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand... |
18th August 2014, 12:00 | #5 |
|
Here is more detail:
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/fai...-child-poverty
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
18th August 2014, 13:20 | #6 |
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
|
$60/week to poor families with children
$220/week to families with newborns Half a billion dollars of healthcare These are not intrinsically bad initiatives, but I don't see poverty disappearing by giving a small set of people $60/week.
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand... |
18th August 2014, 14:14 | #7 |
|
Eh, got to start somewhere.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
18th August 2014, 14:32 | #8 | |
|
Quote:
Having said that, $60 per week could get some decent shoes, breakfasts and lunches covered if it's $60 per child per week. That's got to count for quite a bit to the kids who don't have those basics to start with. My biggest concern would be the policing of the use of that additional cash, to ensure it's not spent on ciggies, scratchies, and booze =/ |
|
18th August 2014, 14:37 | #9 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
18th August 2014, 14:39 | #10 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
18th August 2014, 15:20 | #11 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
18th August 2014, 15:44 | #12 |
|
The problem isn't that the stereotypes exist, but rather they're our first port of call when thinking about these issues. Skipping to the stereotypes indicates limited willingness to engage with complex reality.
Personally I think families that spend every cent on things like alcohol, booze or gambling are still better for all of us than families without that option. Better that Mum steps outside for a ciggy than letting that stress out on junior. The majority of families aren't quite that grim and clearly giving money directly to those who need it is only part of the plan. It sounds like a large portion of the money would go towards community expertise.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
18th August 2014, 17:44 | #13 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
18th August 2014, 21:53 | #14 |
Word To Your Motherboard!
|
|
19th August 2014, 00:15 | #15 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
19th August 2014, 10:33 | #16 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. Last edited by Lightspeed : 19th August 2014 at 10:34. |
||
19th August 2014, 10:56 | #17 |
|
|
19th August 2014, 10:57 | #18 |
|
Respectfully I assume.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
19th August 2014, 11:32 | #19 |
|
people in that situation dont need more money, they need to be taught how to be people.
why exactly are classes for adults never talked about? youre on the dole and having kids? as part of getting the dole, you have to attend classes on budgeting. parenting workshops. group sessions for those from broken homes who are fucked in the head and just dont realise they are in a cycle of abuse. coping strategies. extend this into schools- you know what i never learnt in school? anything that would be at all useful in day to day life. promotoe a culture of learning in young poor people cos there sure as fuck isnt one at the moment. 60 bucks extra a week? cool, thats another couple of boxes of woodies. fucking great. how useful. |
19th August 2014, 11:38 | #20 | |
|
Quote:
The parents are the ones receiving the money, and not spending it on their kids. Thus the point of my post; either the parents need to be educated on how to spend the money (hence prioritizing and budgeting advice), and then monitored to ensure the money is being spent appropriately, or the "nanny state" will need to spend the money on their behalf to ensure the kids are receiving the benefits that they should. |
|
19th August 2014, 12:18 | #21 |
|
If you look at household economic surveys (?) most low income families aren't spending any more than other income groups on alcohol & ciggies. So for most the extra income will be used on food clothesetc. The problem spenders need more intervention, though i would say cyfs would already by involved to some degree.
Now the discussion goes to whether low income families should be spending a normal amount on ciggies & alcohol.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
19th August 2014, 12:24 | #22 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
19th August 2014, 12:36 | #23 |
|
Savage, I don't understand how you think that the most important thing missing from parents of children who live in the horrific circumstances you've described is budgeting skills. What about parenting skills? What about the belief that life is actually worth living for them, that despite all the evidence they've experience to the contrary that life can be good? The belief that their children have a happy future?
From where I'm sitting, it seems you have a big disconnect between the horrific lives that you acknowledge many children in NZ face and the adults and parents they become. If children are a family's top priority, what should our government's top priority be?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. Last edited by Lightspeed : 19th August 2014 at 12:38. |
19th August 2014, 12:40 | #24 |
|
Ottoh they're spendiang the same amount, which is a higher percentage. @savage
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
19th August 2014, 12:55 | #25 |
|
The best part about being a minority party that can only get in via coalitions with a bigger party is that you don't have to keep your campaign promises because "oh we had to drop that one due to coalition considerations, sorry"
__________________
Weak hearts I rip. |
19th August 2014, 14:50 | #26 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
19th August 2014, 14:52 | #27 |
|
So what are we talking about?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
19th August 2014, 17:16 | #28 |
|
how,unfortunately,those parents whom are the worst example of what happens when you have a few generations of hopeless,unhappy,unemployed citizens (and are a very ugly minority) seem to become the template for what a lot of voters think is the run of the mill poor person.actually most of them are reasonably decent folk.
these misinformed voters often seem to feel that it is rational to criticize parties who sincerely intend fixing the problems that these people face in defense of those who pay lip-service at best.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
19th August 2014, 20:15 | #29 | ||
|
Indeed. About the only time there's any scrutiny on whether or not more can be done to address child poverty and all the bullshit that goes along with it is to tear down any plans to try and tackle the issue.
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
||
20th August 2014, 02:25 | #30 |
|
Sorry Lightspeed, if all you're going to do is pick at semantics, there really is no point.
Have fun with the rest of the thread |
22nd August 2014, 12:53 | #31 |
|
Semantics that are central to the point of the discussion. What a tool. It's seems clear you're only willing to talk about poverty in a manner that judges the poor. Traumatised children are only to be used as a political football, all discussion ends when it comes to talking about actually investing money into addressing poverty.
It's easy enough to prove me wrong.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
22nd August 2014, 14:17 | #32 |
I have detailed files
|
Lightspeed is anti-semantic!
|