The Green's Robin Hood Policy

[pxpx]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11310271

Greens' policy

• 40% — top tax rate for those earning above $140,000 [3% of taxpayers]
• $1 billion to be spent fighting poverty

Thoughts?

[chubby]

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.

[pxpx]

For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_tax_rates

[DrTiTus]

I'd like a bit more detail on this plan to "fight poverty".

[Lightspeed]

Here is more detail:
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/fai...-child-poverty

[DrTiTus]

$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.

[crocos]

Eh, got to start somewhere.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

$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.

Agreed.

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 =/

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Savage

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 =/

Careful, you'll get accused of beneficiary bashing...

[Ab]

Originally Posted by pxpx

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11310271



Thoughts?

As Green policies go that one actually seems pretty uncontroversial. 40% top tax rate isn't that high.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Careful, you'll get accused of beneficiary bashing...

Haha, yeah it's expected. The stereotypes are there for a reason however, and unfortunately, despite any govt's best intentions, giving more money to people who are notoriously bad at handling money (not necessarily through any fault of their own) is not a good idea. I'm all for giving a helping hand where it is needed, but sometimes the helping hand needs to show HOW the help should be used, as well as providing it in the first place.

[Lightspeed]

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.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Skipping to the stereotypes indicates limited willingness to engage with complex reality.

I respectfully disagree. Recognizing the stereotypes and recognizing the complexity of the problem are not mutually exclusive. If the statement had been more along the lines of "all poverty stricken families are dole bludgers who don't lift a finger to help themselves, and just get pissed and gamble their kids school money away", then I could understand your view.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

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.

Again, I respectfully disagree. In a lot of those same homes, the booze and ciggies purchased with the money in question leads to health problems and drunken violence against those same kids. Mum's job for the last 18 or so years has involved dealing directly with some of the worst offenders in this example; infant deaths, kids with cigarette burns on arms and legs, broken bones, lice, no clothing of their own, no breakfasts or lunches most days, and dinners if they're lucky. These are the families that get direct paid allowances, but only a tiny percentage (if any) is spent on the kids. These are the places where I believe intervention is desperately needed to ensure that the adults in the families are taught firstly how to prioritize and budget their income (possibly by way of the community expertise you mentioned), and secondly that they and/or the kids are monitored to ensure they are getting adequate food, clothing, heath care.

[Farmer Joe]

[SickBo@Work]

Originally Posted by Savage

These are the families that get direct paid allowances, but only a tiny percentage (if any) is spent on the kids. These are the places where I believe intervention is desperately needed

So true. They ironically seem to believe in a 'free market' type ethos when it comes to the spending choices of dysfunctional parents, when 'at risk' children and families desperately require a heavy handed interventionist approach from the state.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Savage

I respectfully disagree. Recognizing the stereotypes and recognizing the complexity of the problem are not mutually exclusive. If the statement had been more along the lines of "all poverty stricken families are dole bludgers who don't lift a finger to help themselves, and just get pissed and gamble their kids school money away", then I could understand your view.

Starting with stereotypes starts at the point of least insight, I don't see the value in engaging with them except as something to overcome.

Originally Posted by Savage

Again, I respectfully disagree. In a lot of those same homes, the booze and ciggies purchased with the money in question leads to health problems and drunken violence against those same kids. Mum's job for the last 18 or so years has involved dealing directly with some of the worst offenders in this example; infant deaths, kids with cigarette burns on arms and legs, broken bones, lice, no clothing of their own, no breakfasts or lunches most days, and dinners if they're lucky. These are the families that get direct paid allowances, but only a tiny percentage (if any) is spent on the kids. These are the places where I believe intervention is desperately needed to ensure that the adults in the families are taught firstly how to prioritize and budget their income (possibly by way of the community expertise you mentioned), and secondly that they and/or the kids are monitored to ensure they are getting adequate food, clothing, heath care.

Those children that grow up in these households you talk about where they get burned with cigarettes, get beaten to the point their bones break, have to cope with infestation, don't get fed sufficiently... you think these people grow up to firstly need budgeting help?

[Savage]

[Lightspeed]

Respectfully I assume.

[leadinjector]

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.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Respectfully I assume.

I did not say the kids need to grow up learning budgeting. I said (paraphrasing) that the parents to whom the funds are being given need to be taught how to spend that money appropriately. Those stuck in a poverty cycle learn first and foremost from their parents how to spend money. If their parents (who learned from their parents before them) spend it on booze/smokes/pokies, where do you think the kids are going to learn to spend money when it's their turn?

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.

[fixed_truth]

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.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Now the discussion goes to whether low income families should be spending a normal amount on ciggies & alcohol.

There lies the crux of the issue. If they're spending the same percentage, that's bad enough given that the children in any family should really be a top priority. If they're spending similar dollar figures, that's entirely different, and a big cause for concern.

[Lightspeed]

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?

[fixed_truth]

Ottoh they're spendiang the same amount, which is a higher percentage. @savage

[Spink]

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"

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

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.

I do not know where you think I said that it was the most important. I said it was desperately needed to prevent money going elsewhere than intended - nowhere did I say it was the most important.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

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.

From where I'm sitting, it seems you misunderstood my post, and thus have the incorrect idea that I have not joined the dots. I'm pretty sure if you read my posts on this page again, you'll see I specifically mention the poverty cycle and the breaking thereof. It goes without saying that the budgeting advice would be one item on a list of many issues to be addressed with the parents in question; I'm sorry I did not specifically mention that to clarify.

[Lightspeed]

So what are we talking about?

[chubby]

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.

[Lightspeed]

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.

Originally Posted by Savage

These are the places where I believe intervention is desperately needed to ensure that the adults in the families are taught firstly how to prioritize and budget their income

Originally Posted by Savage

It goes without saying that the budgeting advice would be one item on a list of many issues to be addressed with the parents in question; I'm sorry I did not specifically mention that to clarify.

Have you considered a career in politics Savage?

[Savage]

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

[Lightspeed]

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.

[StN]

Lightspeed is anti-semantic!