Glad to see this issue is being seen as an economic as well as social problem.

Instead of investing billions into a fund for payout in 30 years let's invest those billions in pre-school child care, post natal parenting support and recognise that by the time most kids get to school their life outcomes are reasonably predictable.

Easy, Mark. Or you'll bust sumthin'....
But we could always bring in that new fangled profelactic that their testing in the States? You know. That one where all men could be chemically sterilised at maturity ,and unless they take an antidote they won't be able to procreate? Positive breeding, rather than negative...? But, again, maybe that's a little too much State control over the polygynous?

"You mean to say that the Bradford anti-smacking bill didn't stop child abuse in our country"¦"¦"¦"¦..Well, knock me down with a feather. Who'd a thunk it would be so !"

And this load of politically correct fancy words strung together looks good and says nothing other than a bit of the obvious, and employ more fell good do gooders.

"Large-scale programmes can succeed if they have the following three features:

The programmes focus on at-risk children and encourage direct parent involvement.
There is a long term commitment to reducing the incidence of child maltreatment, including changing attitudes about physical punishment.
The programmes reward successful outcomes in order to encourage high quality and innovative practices.
A way of maintaining commitment would be to create a public endowment that would fund the provision of child and parent support services. A fund would clearly signal an ongoing commitment to reducing the incidence of child maltreatment, a focus on service rather than bureaucracy, a reassurance to service providers that there will be consistent demand for their services, and a willingness to fund effective, specialised and innovative services."

Sort out the P, drug and alcohol problems, HARD. Sunday trading and get families back to Sat sports, Sunday family days out..picnics... Abuse is far more than just wacking the child around the head, it is lack of support for homework and similar stuff.
Have a look around, the families that play together, the children do ok.

I most certainly never advocated that familytime. Mine is a perfectly reasonable, and 'the' moral position. And it is also the position of the most compassion.

We need to get back to average family sizes of 4-5 children - what we need to do is think of social/economic policies that will achieve that.

God. Unbelievable. I'm assuming you're from the far, far, far, Christian Right? Yes?

Children are our future

Not if they're thieving little shits brought up by parents on the State, neither children nor parents with respect for property, or the rights pertaining thereto.

And those little middle class toerags known as boy racers are not part of any future I want either!

Kate, to continued my holy brow beating, some pertinent quotes for you to consume from Lindsay Mitchell's blog (social welfare commentator):

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2009/06/significant-risk-factor-for-...

Quote:

"A report released today by the Children's Commissioner lists factors associated with fatal assault and serious injury of New Zealand children. The report is fairly comprehensive, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, but disappointingly fails to mention welfare dependence as a significant risk factor for the abuse and neglect of children.

"The overlap between Work and Income clients and CYF clients is documented. New Zealand research has revealed that care and protection notifications were 4 times more likely where children are living in a family relying on the DPB . US research showed that families receiving benefits accounted for 15 percent of Illinois children but 60 percent of cases referred to their child protection services."

"It seems to me that while identifying a factor like young maternal age as important, ignoring that most 16 and 17 year-old mothers (with children in their care) are welfare dependent is an omission. There can be no doubt that the availability of welfare benefits to very young people is a factor in their decision to have babies. Yet the report identifies their children as 8 times more likely to suffer serious assault."

But wait, there's more:

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2009/05/children-from-broken-home-la...

Quote:

"Education consultant Joseph Driessen said children who came from broken homes were typically 25 per cent behind other children in achievement.

"Boys are affected by divorce very deeply because 85 per cent of custody goes to the mother and guys just disappear. That needs to change," he said.

"We need to have a family split-up philosophy where we realise that sons need their fathers. All custody and access should be 50-50."

Now, Kate, tell me how I'm wrong?

WFF is one of the obscene policies on the books today.

Having a child is a life choice that should be made with the utmost responsibility: starting with an assessment of 'can I afford to bring this child up'.

While everyone has a right to have a baby, no one has the right to expect me to pay to bring it up if I and my wife have chosen not to have children.

A policy that pays people to have children, such as WFF, punishes those of us who responsibly choose not to have children.

Again, having a child is a life choice: no government has the moral right to force me to finance the life choices of complete strangers. (I like Great Dane dogs, that's one of my life choices - why shouldn't you be subsidsing that for me then? Answer that please.)

There are families earning up to $120,000 getting WFF welfare payments financed at the point of a gun by me. Amoral and abhorrent.

familytime: it is the welfare state creating the underclass. As it will always do.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/2462359/Simple-message-Lov...

Quote:

"Lew Findlay never forgets the night he and two friends were approached by young teenage girls in Palmerston North, and offered sex.

It was midnight, they'd just come out of a Star Wars movie and the three fathers were honestly shocked that youngsters were prostituting for drug money.

"We told them off and sent them home," Mr Findlay said. "But that incident is what made us start Palmerston North Street Van, to get kids safely home and out of trouble."

Fifteen years on, Mr Findlay's seen just about every sort of idiocy that drunken and drugged youngsters can commit.

He's helped hundreds of kids and adults get safely home through the Street Van's Friday and Saturday night work, organised counselling and addiction drug and alcohol programmes, set up a boarding house for the homeless, instigated a Saturday "bread run" to take leftover perishable supermarket food to the needy, been elected as a Palmerston North City Councillor, been named the Manawatu Standard's Person of the Year in 2006 and nicknamed the city's conscience and now he's been awarded the Queen's Service Medal for services to the community.

Standing in The Square, Mr Findlay mused on how much the city has changed. Glue sniffing and solvent abuse wasn't the problem it was 15 years ago today's problems were alcohol and drug fuelled.

"P and marijuana, and RTDs. They're everywhere."

He has a simple recipe to fix most of society's woes. It is that parents should love their kids.

He's lost count of the times young teens have been delivered home by Street Van volunteers, to be greeted with a blast from parents who couldn't care less.

"Twelve- and 14-year-olds being told, what are you doing back here? We thought we'd got rid of you for the weekend."

It didn't really surprise him that teens starved of love and affection at home went out looking for it wherever they could get it."

I agree there are many parents out there who should not be, but in my experience this is across soceity as a whole and not just from the financially deprived.Having spent many years working in one of Nz's most affluent suburbs i have seen financially priveleged children plyed with alcohol and and fobbed of with flash cars as a way of getting them out of their parents hair.
I certainly dont suggest that WFF is the answer to solve all the problems of the under priveleged and it clearly has some targetting problems,but whats the alternative in the short term?I see it as a fudge from the previous labour party to avoid the real issue which is chronic low pay and a lack of people being trained to better themselves(not just lawyers,accountants and real estate salespeople-however noble those careers are).
Soceity generally gets what it deserves and until we address the issues of self worth and respect for others we will continue down a slippery slope.
It may seem like pc claptrap but I think manners,respect and care for others is vital.

WFF was another piece of stupid middle class welfare. It (plus many other silly like policies) know mean that 50% of the tax paying population effectively pay no net tax. The top 10% of taxpayers however pay 50% of all tax...

All this policy did was reward people for the number of children they had, rather than what economic advantage they provided to the nation. It has also imposed high effective marginal tax rates destroying productivity for those on lower wages, when the rebate plus tax bracket creep comes into play.

Lastly it may have solved the short-term issue of child poverty via extra cash up front, but it has done it the wrong way. The best and only way to sort out low wages is by increasing those wages via either higher pay or less tax...

As Mark H has pointed out, how insane is someone on $120k getting govt support when a childless person on $40k is paying their bill for their offspring. Esp. if said 120k person's partner may have been previously working....

PS ... no, I am not from the far, far Christian Right. I'm spiritual, but not organisaed religious (although was brought up in the Catholic faith).

I'm actually a businesswoman who has been paying the highest rate of tax payable since before the age of 30.

I have been very lucky and privileged in my career.

But, I also know what it's like to have been raised on (what folks like you) would likely consider the wrong side of the tracks. And I've also worked with alot of families who would have considered my upbring as wealthy. The difference being, when my Mom raised us on a low wage - it wasn't so low as to not be able to adequately feed and cloth us. We were poor, but we did not live below the poverty line - becuase in those days when unions were prolific and strong - no one did. Everyone got paid a liiving wage. Such is not the case today - NZ is full of working poor families unable to make ends meet.

You can hardly blame WFF on anything other than the low wage economy NZ has become.

Kate: your parents were in university, thus, had the future expectation of above average earnings: so a logical assessment would say they could afford to have children. Yes?

Now what of a 16 year old pregnant school girl starting a career on the DPB? Answer that please, remembering keeping the child will doom both child and mother to a life on welfare.

And now actually answer the below questions I raised from the stand point of morality. Not one person here has engaged me on the actual argument I have made, which is a moral argument. Again:

While everyone has a right to have a baby, no one has the right to expect me to pay to bring it up if I and my wife have chosen not to have children.

A policy that pays people to have children, such as WFF, punishes those of us who responsibly choose not to have children.

Again, having a child is a life choice: no government has the moral right to force me to finance the life choices of complete strangers. (I like Great Dane dogs, that's one of my life choices - why shouldn't you be subsidsing that for me then? Answer that please.)

Answer exactly to those, in relation to morality and WFF and DPB.

And note, I have given statistical evidence above to support my thesis that welfare creates the underclass it was supposed to be raising up, that is leads to violence, out of control children, and is a drain on the corrections system. Which is a cold blooded way of saying a child was born with no hope, and it was because of welfare.

If you look at the arguments against mine, and the statistics I have given as facts, you will see they only break down to platitudes and warm fuzzies, but are all flying in the face of the facts of reality, which I have given and are indisputable.

And that, again, is why welfarism is destroying the West: and it's down to NON-classical liberals, in other words, air-heads. And in my mind it's criminal.

Mark, I haven't the energy, nor the inclination to try to change your worldview.

But I assume you take your moral/philosophical position from reading of Adam Smith? but I don't believe his position on moral philosophy was as rigid and narrow as your own. Many have said that he has been deliberately misinterpreted by neoliberal, laissez-faire political supporters, as explained in Wiki thus;

The Wealth of Nations includes the following statement on the payment of taxes:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

(So, he supported progressive taxes - which implies a notion of the redistribution of wealth)

Noam Chomsky argues that several aspects of Smith's thought have been misrepresented and falsified by contemporary ideology, including Smith's reasons for supporting markets and Smith's views on corporations. Chomsky argues that Smith supported markets in the belief that they would lead to equality. Economic historians such as Jacob Viner regard Smith as a strong advocate of free markets and limited government (what Smith called "natural liberty") but not as a dogmatic supporter of laissez-faire.

Kate, I haven't the energy, nor the inclination to try to change your worldview.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

(So, he supported progressive taxes - which implies a notion of the redistribution of wealth)

Umm, I don't think you can make that leap, firstly you would have define "supporting" government, which is only arguable if you have a socialist, spin doctoring state and secondly a flat tax would meet the above requirements, which hardly meets your "eat the rich" leanings.

As for families of 4 children (ala the 60-70's when I grew up), The US (and NZ by association) were in an oil fueled frenzy post WWII, with near 6 billion in the world now (an the UN saying we can't support more than 9 Billion) this is just socially irresponsible.

I think someone should send Mark some prozac and Kate a copy of "Limits to growth"

A good read for both is here

Neven

Ah yes, the notion that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest. "The Virtue of Selfishness". Ms Rand.

Got it.

No: you decide to have a child. I don't know you from Adam Smith; for all I know you might be a dreadful parent (from your posts, I know you're not, but stick with me). My wife and I have our own life, not connected to yours in any way. We have decided not to have children, with the sacrifices that entails, so we can pursue our own goals.

Now, why are my wife and I forced to have our efforts taken from us, to financially bring up your child?

Why are you not forced to contribute to the food bill of our Great Dane? Because our life choice to have a dog, and your's to have a child, are for this purpose, no different.

And remember, the same shameless law that makes me finance your child, also makes us both finance the Chris Kahuis' of this world bringing poor sod little children into the world who don't have a chance and who will be the reason we have to hide behind barbed wire fences when we retire.

Kate

Did you read the steady state economy link, I particularly like the idea of charging states penalties on surpluses

Neven

legitimse your selfishness to me.

You must have a funny definition of selfishness.

I just want to keep what I have earned, and I and my wife decide what we spend that on.

You want to take what I have earned from me, and by force, to spend it on one of your own choices, yet I don't even know you.

Please explain how I am the selfish one?

And financing the Chris Kahuis' of NZ to have children: please explain to me how that is any part of a compassionate society?

Mark H : we have just endured 9 years of socialists running every aspect of our lives (1999-2008) , have you not learned that you cannot argue with them. They are not listening. 'Cos in their sad little world, they know everything, and you don't. Save your breath, old son ! You are right in what you say, but it shall remain our secret , ........ they're still not listening !

This is the problem with Objectivism ala Ayn Rand. Followers have turned her fiction (sci-fi) into a sort of religious movement where they feel the need to convert the unenlightened "one by one". With rhetoric such as "... violence of the selfish spawn of the welfare state..."

No, I'm not into the philosophy of warm fuzzies - whatever that might be! I assume it's really just more religious rhetoric.

As to moral philosophy I am most aligned to Aristotle's concept of the 'golden mean' - human happiness being achieved through the pursuit of the mean between excess and deficit. Where compassion for other humans is concerned, for example, one should not be so philanthropic as to reduce oneself to poverty, but neither so greedy/selfish as to promote the notion that the only role for the state is to ensure the personal security of its citizens and to defend individual property rights.

Perhaps we could take a look at where our increasingly permissive society has got us?
Many of these unwanted and therefore abused children are the result of individual actions within a society where stigma has been rigorously removed.
In the 60's I was all for the new philosophies, make love not war, freedom of choice, abolish discrimination, liberate women etc
Now what have we wrought? Did sexual freedom bring freedom from violence as the freedom philosophers promised? Did the universal use of "the pill" prevent unwanted children? Were our hopes for a better society realised? At least we had ideals then even if they have since proved to be misguided!
I think the permissive sexual revolution has failed miserably and unleashed violence and poverty on uneducated women and children, and loneliness on the educated. Women have been liberated all right...liberated from the protection, support and respect that they and their children need. It is men who have gained from our so-called liberation, they have freedom from commitment, freedom from the obligation to care financially for their children, freedom of the fist.
The welfare state is not, in itself, to blame for the breakdown in society but nonetheless
has taken it upon itself to pick up the tab for this breakdown.
Unfortunately, there will never be enough money, police, social workers to combat this ugly aspect of NZ life until we reconsider some pretty ingrained asumptions about the
"rights" of individuals.

Mark, I think you will find that there was no state support for unmarried mothers or separated women in the 60's...well I didn't get any!
I can only explain the increasing problems we are facing now in the context of "dismantelling"or "unravelling". We set out to change society in a way we thought
would improve life. In fact we inadvertantly made a hole in the fabric of society which still continues to unravel. Enshrining personal freedom as the highest goal of ones life
has certainly contributed to that unravelling.
In regards to freedom , for me its a balance between rights and obligations.
Take a violin, if one of the strings wants to be completely free of the constraint of being part of the violin, then it can, but instead of being able to make music, it ends up just a piece of wire which can't fulfill its purpose, which is to make music with the other strings.
We are free individuals but we need to live in society....I suppose Boy Racers want to be free to race their cars, drunk people want to be free to drive...they have become loose
strings and society's music is more discordant because of their freedoms.

I suppose Boy Racers want to be free to race their cars, drunk people want to be free to drive"¦they have become loose

A society enshrining the non-initiation of force stops this. As a society that demands personal responsibility stops this. As I said, no individual is free, unless every other individual, and group (especially government) is bounded by the non-initiation of force.

So long as there is that, I can do anything I like, so long as I'm hurting no other - and thus a legal system is required where that maxim is tested. For me, nothing wrong with the sixties as far as that goes. It was just that the welfare state came along and taught 'you lot' :) you didn't have to be responsible for your actions in your ultimate state of freedom, the state would pick up the pieces. Perhaps that is precisely where it did go wrong (so are we in agreement?). If the individuals lives had been radically changed by having to live with the legacy of their decisions then, and not me bailing them out, then we would not be here.

Gotta go. Friends coming for tea. But that name of your's?

Mark, your question is intended to be inflamatory through singling out one aspect of the use of your taxes...

No, my question was meant to get to the heart of the matter, the position and freedom of the individual in relation to the State. Which it does.

Is it moral, or immoral, if I have chosen not to have a car, to force me to provide the roadways to service the cars of strangers?

Immoral. I believe in private ownership of roads.

(Although I also might say that a truant unloved child is a threat to society; to their own sad and tragic life, and the children they will have 'for' the welfare cheque, of a whole order of magnitude greater than a badly made road. You are aware we're not comparing apples with apples here?)

Is it moral, or immoral, if I have chosen not to play rugby, to force me to provide the playing fields to accommodate the sporting activity of strangers?

Immoral. I certainly believe people should fund their own recreational pursuits, including rugby injuries not be treatable under ACC.

Is it moral, or immoral, if I have chosen not to study accountancy, to force me to provide the university to provide the educational facilities for the education of strangers?

Immoral. I most certainly believe that the State should not be involved in education. As evidential proof the quality of students leaving our secondary schools, but my answer is driven by the immoral claim on me.

The world can no more do without children than it can do without roads.

So if we don't subsidise children, people won't have children! Hell. I thought having children was about natural love and affection. Do you see now the evil of the welfare state.

Kate : who asked for "subsidies provided for by the state" ? Where do they get off, thinking they know what we want or need, and providing "it" at a cost far in excess of the private sector. I'm happy to pay for what I use. Not happy to be taxed to supply "services" I don't use. Nor to subidise delinquents who effectively use the IRD to pick my pockets.

Interesting thread.

As part of a programme at Uni I chose the topic of 'Teenage Pregnancy' for the exercise of some techniques we studied. It was short project and certainly didn't make me an expert. I recall, the UK rate was higher than the US, but the Dutch rate was much lower than both. This appeared counter-intuitive at first, given assumptions about liberal attitudes to sexual relations associated with that country. It was concluded the rate was lower because in Holland the occurrence of teenage pregnancy is generally frowned upon. In other words it is regarded as socially unacceptable and a consequence is shame, and this was determined to be a significant deterrent. In comparison to UK it appeared there was little similar consequence and particularly with the ready availability of benefits, with same probably acted as a subsidy for harmful behaviour thereby incentivising, rather than deterring it.

As I've said elsewhere Mark, you views may appear extreme, but like all extremes they are useful in defining boundaries in a frame of reference. I mean this sincerely, I neither strongly disagree, or agree with your core beliefs, but I do appreciate the directional value they can give to the trajectories in topics discussed. In this case for instance, given my meagre appreciation of the topic of 'Teenage Pregnancy', I have a deal of sympathy with the notion that dependency can begat yet more dependency. IMHO the problem is not just recognising this as a societal 'addiction cycle' type problem, but as always the slightly more challenging job is finding a workable 'How2' solution to break the cycle and dependency, and therefore recover from the cause. I guess that is where leadership and vision comes in.

Absence of compulsory third party auto insurance is similar. Harmful behaviour is subsidised by those who do insure and the ACC road user levy. If the latter were removed and the risk cover aggregated into compulsory third party auto insurance to cover both personal harm and property damage, I think we'd find those creating risk would pay more and those not would pay less. Subsidisation reduced to zero and with it a reduction in harmful behaviours we all know exist.

Absence of effective asset/property taxation is similar. I also see our penchant for passive asset/property investment as an equally harmful behaviour, addiction, societal dependency, that is to a degree also subsidised and incentivised, by features of our tax system, we all know exist. As you know, I and others*, would be keen for a simple flat and lower tax rate, effectively encompassing capital gains, so that a lower flatter tax of low to mid-20's is possible, for the reasons well described on this website and by people like John Whitehead. Like you I believe if government were smaller the tax rate could be lower still. Whether we would achieve the kind of end state you would prefer, I don't know, but a broader, flat and lower tax would be a step toward your goal I think. Who knows, once at that point on the trajectory, your boundary might look attractive, sufficient for many to be led there. [Not sure if Diamond Harbour would cope, but it'd be good for the hotel and the ferry!!] Again, I guess that is where appropriate leadership and vision comes in, because to break addictions/cycles, small self-reinforcing steps to break dependency are probably best, and have to be taken with a degree of courage.

* well said Bernard:

http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/show-me-money/2009/6/7/ten-tips-tax-nz-...

I thought this bit was quite feisty:

"Farmers and property owners would scream blue murder, but they have made out like bandits for decades."

However, as we've seen elsewhere in discussions on this website some would not be screaming blue murder, as some also think change of asset/property/land taxation is necessary. But,

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/cf29c914/key-rules-out-new-capital-ga...

I guess that is where leadership and vision comes in?

Mark - valuable comments/observations. From:

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421

"To summarise: the world is currently undergoing an economic shock every bit as big as the Great Depression shock of 1929-30. Looking just at the US leads one to overlook how alarming the current situation is even in comparison with 1929-30.

The good news, of course, is that the policy response is very different. The question now is whether that policy response will work."

Look what happened next?

Let's hope we are getting it right this time around, I've got flat feet now.