Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | ... | 161

6836 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3204

Subscriber

Reply # 1920415 15-Dec-2017 23:29

Geektastic:

The problem with that is that it simply ensures that people who cannot afford children will have them anyway, secure in the knowledge that the government will simply hand them other people's money to pay for their behaviours.

Doesn't matter. It is not the children's fault where they came from. They are going to be here for 70 years or so, so doesn't it make sense to try to do everything possible to make good citizens of them and ensure they don't repeat the mistakes of their parents?

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

networkn

16507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4608

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1920425 16-Dec-2017 00:24

One person supports this post

Geektastic:

The problem with that is that it simply ensures that people who cannot afford children will have them anyway, secure in the knowledge that the government will simply hand them other people's money to pay for their behaviours.

I would suggest there is a pretty small number of people who think like that, who plan to have kids for the "benefits", there is a higher number of people who just don't think about the consequences of unprotected sex enough.

All of that being said, I don't believe you believe it's reasonable to let a kid go hungry regardless of how crap it's parent is.

Unless we can put birth control in the water, and allow those who are suitable candidates for parents (which I don't believe is primarily money) have an antidote for a period of time enough to conceive and produce 1 child at a time, we need to deal with the realities of the parasitical nature of humans.

Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software

Geektastic

11034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3466

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1920500 16-Dec-2017 10:33

networkn:

Geektastic:

The problem with that is that it simply ensures that people who cannot afford children will have them anyway, secure in the knowledge that the government will simply hand them other people's money to pay for their behaviours.

I would suggest there is a pretty small number of people who think like that, who plan to have kids for the "benefits", there is a higher number of people who just don't think about the consequences of unprotected sex enough.

All of that being said, I don't believe you believe it's reasonable to let a kid go hungry regardless of how crap it's parent is.

Unless we can put birth control in the water, and allow those who are suitable candidates for parents (which I don't believe is primarily money) have an antidote for a period of time enough to conceive and produce 1 child at a time, we need to deal with the realities of the parasitical nature of humans.

I don't necessarily believe that, although it does not bother me as much as it appears to bother Jacinda, I do however believe that we cannot simply continue to use that as an excuse to take money from one set of people and hand it to another.

We simply have to find a way to apply some sort of control. Morals and social mores - the shame of being a single parent - used to do that, but now it does not for the majority of people. With that brake removed we are now expected to pay for other people's choices to breed, in a world in which we need no more children and indeed probably rather less. There is plenty of research showing what a threat the burgeoning human population is to the ecology of the planet.

Handing over money is a band aid solution to a problem that needs much wider and more in depth consideration as to how to prevent it being necessary in the first place.

I would certainly be looking at compulsory sterilisation in some circumstances as well as a tax regime that actually increased tax paid after a certain number of children (and certainly ceased benefits after a certain number) and I am sure that there are other measures that can be taken elsewhere.

networkn

16507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4608

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1920510 16-Dec-2017 11:04

2 people support this post

Geektastic:

Handing over money is a band aid solution to a problem that needs much wider and more in depth consideration as to how to prevent it being necessary in the first place.

I would certainly be looking at compulsory sterilisation in some circumstances as well as a tax regime that actually increased tax paid after a certain number of children (and certainly ceased benefits after a certain number) and I am sure that there are other measures that can be taken elsewhere.

You are a harder man than I, if under *any* circumstances, you would allow a child to go hungry. Children do not have any say over how parents behave, so if you let them go hungry, they underperform and the cycle of undereducated badly behaved groups is almost guaranteed. Crime will almost certainly increase. This will require additional prisons, police, judges, courtrooms, and your hard earned tax dollars are likely to be leaving your pocket even faster. It's proven over and over, that taking these issues at the source is much more cost-effective.

I don't believe there will ever be compulsory sterilization here, nor in any first world country. Not unless something seriously bad happens in the world (Such as food or water running out).

The idea of increased taxation of people with lots of kids, is only going to make the parents have even less money and the first thing that suffers in the households you refer to, is the kids will go without.

The reality is, both major parties in NZ are centrist so none of the measures you indicate a preference for are ever going to happen here, and I suspect even *hard* right parties would have a hard time passing legislation in those countries.

rjt123

311 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 98

Reply # 1920536 16-Dec-2017 12:09

One person supports this post

networkn:
Sending your child to school with no breakfast or lunch or shoes etc. is probably the result of a bad choice of the parents (how much money did they spend on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol on the weekend?). Is it my responsibility as a tax payer to fund the poor choices of those individuals?

I used to feel a similar way till someone said this to me..

You simply cannot punish children for the sins of their parents. It doesn't matter that the kid's parents didn't spend money wisely, are you seriously going to let them go hungry?

As much as the parent's behaviour annoys me, I'll always support helping the kids.

I probably came across a little cynical. No I have absolute empathy for children growing up in a less privileged family than myself ( not that our family was particularly well off). However, will more money in the hand actually fix anything for those children/families? It'll probably work for 50% of households.

I don't have any solution, but in the other 50 percent, do the parents actually care? Are we really getting to the root of the issue. If they truly cared for the well-being of their children, shouldn't they have considered that before they decided to have them? Shouldn't they have said, unless I work hard and get off the dole and get a job I'm not gonna be able to give my kids the life and future they deserve.

Some families start at the bottom of the ladder and work hard, but never really get a lucky break and stay there all their life, and the state needs to support them. Others start off at the bottom and decide life will be easier if I just stay down here cos the govt won't let me fall right off. Should they get the same benefits as everyone else?

Pumpedd

1474 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Reply # 1920540 16-Dec-2017 12:28

One person supports this post

rjt123:
networkn:

Sending your child to school with no breakfast or lunch or shoes etc. is probably the result of a bad choice of the parents (how much money did they spend on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol on the weekend?). Is it my responsibility as a tax payer to fund the poor choices of those individuals?

I used to feel a similar way till someone said this to me..

You simply cannot punish children for the sins of their parents. It doesn't matter that the kid's parents didn't spend money wisely, are you seriously going to let them go hungry?

As much as the parent's behaviour annoys me, I'll always support helping the kids.

I probably came across a little cynical. No I have absolute empathy for children growing up in a less privileged family than myself ( not that our family was particularly well off). However, will more money in the hand actually fix anything for those children/families? It'll probably work for 50% of households.

I don't have any solution, but in the other 50 percent, do the parents actually care? Are we really getting to the root of the issue. If they truly cared for the well-being of their children, shouldn't they have considered that before they decided to have them? Shouldn't they have said, unless I work hard and get off the dole and get a job I'm not gonna be able to give my kids the life and future they deserve.

Some families start at the bottom of the ladder and work hard, but never really get a lucky break and stay there all their life, and the state needs to support them. Others start off at the bottom and decide life will be easier if I just stay down here cos the govt won't let me fall right off. Should they get the same benefits as everyone else?

My point way back was that the money and a lot of money is not targeted at all. Sure the lesser fortunate will get some benefit if they spend it wisely, but most of the millions is going to those that don't need it. Like the heating subsidy for winter is going to every person in NZ who is over 65 regardless of need plus the beneficiaries who actually do need it. Just a total waste imo.

I would think that 50% of the billions is going where needed and the rest is a windfall to those that do not need.

When the Government spends so much of the taxpayers funds, it needs to be targeted to where it is most needed.

networkn

16507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4608

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1920551 16-Dec-2017 13:04

I probably came across a little cynical. No I have absolute empathy for children growing up in a less privileged family than myself ( not that our family was particularly well off). However, will more money in the hand actually fix anything for those children/families? It'll probably work for 50% of households.

I don't have any solution, but in the other 50 percent, do the parents actually care? Are we really getting to the root of the issue. If they truly cared for the well-being of their children, shouldn't they have considered that before they decided to have them? Shouldn't they have said, unless I work hard and get off the dole and get a job I'm not gonna be able to give my kids the life and future they deserve.

Some families start at the bottom of the ladder and work hard, but never really get a lucky break and stay there all their life, and the state needs to support them. Others start off at the bottom and decide life will be easier if I just stay down here cos the govt won't let me fall right off. Should they get the same benefits as everyone else?

At the end of the day, even if it helps the 50% of people who are trying their best and not getting ahead, that's a pretty worthwhile improvement.

I agree it would be nice if it wasn't such a lolly scramble, but that is what Labour is all about. No thought, just throw money at the problem. Same with the education policy. 20 seconds of thought would have meant the money was well spent, and appeased a considerable number of people who feel throwing money at potential students in an uncontrolled manner is shameful.

Bottom line is you can't eradicate poverty as it's a % of the lowest earners, and unless you give everyone the same amount of people, then there will always be 10% of people much worse off than others.

Sadly for the other parents who don't give a toss, who are terrible parents and no amount of money would fix it, you will have to wait till they die out. Education around life skills (eating properly, being a good world citizen, being careful of the environment) in schools is seeing improvements that I believe mean that each generation will have less and less "losers"

I believe the parents of tomorrow, and their children will be better in every one of those areas. It can't come soon enough for my money.

Geektastic

11034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3466

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1920553 16-Dec-2017 13:23

2 people support this post

networkn:

Geektastic:

Handing over money is a band aid solution to a problem that needs much wider and more in depth consideration as to how to prevent it being necessary in the first place.

I would certainly be looking at compulsory sterilisation in some circumstances as well as a tax regime that actually increased tax paid after a certain number of children (and certainly ceased benefits after a certain number) and I am sure that there are other measures that can be taken elsewhere.

You are a harder man than I, if under *any* circumstances, you would allow a child to go hungry. Children do not have any say over how parents behave, so if you let them go hungry, they underperform and the cycle of undereducated badly behaved groups is almost guaranteed. Crime will almost certainly increase. This will require additional prisons, police, judges, courtrooms, and your hard earned tax dollars are likely to be leaving your pocket even faster. It's proven over and over, that taking these issues at the source is much more cost-effective.

I don't believe there will ever be compulsory sterilization here, nor in any first world country. Not unless something seriously bad happens in the world (Such as food or water running out).

The idea of increased taxation of people with lots of kids, is only going to make the parents have even less money and the first thing that suffers in the households you refer to, is the kids will go without.

The reality is, both major parties in NZ are centrist so none of the measures you indicate a preference for are ever going to happen here, and I suspect even *hard* right parties would have a hard time passing legislation in those countries.

I tend to view it as more mathematical sort of problem; my Aspergers means that I do not really understand empathy: things like this are more like practical puzzles requiring solving not moral dilemmas for me.

An example of compulsory sterilisation would include (at my wife's suggestion!) any woman or man who is convicted of cruelty or harm to children they have already produced although I appreciate that is not exactly related to tax etc.

I'd feel a lot better if, rather than money (which can be spent in a variety of ways that are not likely to be of any assistance to the child) assistance was provided in terms of (for example) food for the child, delivered direct to the home (this can include such things as nappies etc where the child is of that age). If the children are getting "free" food every week which the parents do not even have to shop for, then there ceases to be any excuse for children to be hungry.

Likewise, compulsory hot meals for children at lunchtime in schools etc etc.

I just think there are far better ways than simply handing out cash like lollies with absolutely no guarantee at all that it will lift a single child out of poverty or hunger.

Pumpedd

1474 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Reply # 1920556 16-Dec-2017 13:31

One person supports this post

Geektastic:

networkn:

Geektastic:

Handing over money is a band aid solution to a problem that needs much wider and more in depth consideration as to how to prevent it being necessary in the first place.

I would certainly be looking at compulsory sterilisation in some circumstances as well as a tax regime that actually increased tax paid after a certain number of children (and certainly ceased benefits after a certain number) and I am sure that there are other measures that can be taken elsewhere.

You are a harder man than I, if under *any* circumstances, you would allow a child to go hungry. Children do not have any say over how parents behave, so if you let them go hungry, they underperform and the cycle of undereducated badly behaved groups is almost guaranteed. Crime will almost certainly increase. This will require additional prisons, police, judges, courtrooms, and your hard earned tax dollars are likely to be leaving your pocket even faster. It's proven over and over, that taking these issues at the source is much more cost-effective.

I don't believe there will ever be compulsory sterilization here, nor in any first world country. Not unless something seriously bad happens in the world (Such as food or water running out).

The idea of increased taxation of people with lots of kids, is only going to make the parents have even less money and the first thing that suffers in the households you refer to, is the kids will go without.

The reality is, both major parties in NZ are centrist so none of the measures you indicate a preference for are ever going to happen here, and I suspect even *hard* right parties would have a hard time passing legislation in those countries.

I tend to view it as more mathematical sort of problem; my Aspergers means that I do not really understand empathy: things like this are more like practical puzzles requiring solving not moral dilemmas for me.

An example of compulsory sterilisation would include (at my wife's suggestion!) any woman or man who is convicted of cruelty or harm to children they have already produced although I appreciate that is not exactly related to tax etc.

I'd feel a lot better if, rather than money (which can be spent in a variety of ways that are not likely to be of any assistance to the child) assistance was provided in terms of (for example) food for the child, delivered direct to the home (this can include such things as nappies etc where the child is of that age). If the children are getting "free" food every week which the parents do not even have to shop for, then there ceases to be any excuse for children to be hungry.

Likewise, compulsory hot meals for children at lunchtime in schools etc etc.

I just think there are far better ways than simply handing out cash like lollies with absolutely no guarantee at all that it will lift a single child out of poverty or hunger.

I agree with everything except the compulsory steralisation....hurts just to think about it. No need for this or capital punishment.

networkn

16507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4608

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1920557 16-Dec-2017 13:35

Pumpedd:

I agree with everything except the compulsory steralisation....hurts just to think about it. No need for this or capital punishment.

Can you *please* quote intelligently/Sparingly!? It's just laziness to quote entire blocks of text. JUST quote the section you are replying to, as I have, UNLESS the section above it pertains directly and only to the discussion. An example of this was if you quoted a section of the discussion from 10 pages back, where the context would not be clear.

tdgeek

11636 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1997

Trusted

Reply # 1920689 16-Dec-2017 22:49

Pumpedd:

rjt123:
networkn:

Sending your child to school with no breakfast or lunch or shoes etc. is probably the result of a bad choice of the parents (how much money did they spend on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol on the weekend?). Is it my responsibility as a tax payer to fund the poor choices of those individuals?

I used to feel a similar way till someone said this to me..

You simply cannot punish children for the sins of their parents. It doesn't matter that the kid's parents didn't spend money wisely, are you seriously going to let them go hungry?

As much as the parent's behaviour annoys me, I'll always support helping the kids.

I probably came across a little cynical. No I have absolute empathy for children growing up in a less privileged family than myself ( not that our family was particularly well off). However, will more money in the hand actually fix anything for those children/families? It'll probably work for 50% of households.

I don't have any solution, but in the other 50 percent, do the parents actually care? Are we really getting to the root of the issue. If they truly cared for the well-being of their children, shouldn't they have considered that before they decided to have them? Shouldn't they have said, unless I work hard and get off the dole and get a job I'm not gonna be able to give my kids the life and future they deserve.

Some families start at the bottom of the ladder and work hard, but never really get a lucky break and stay there all their life, and the state needs to support them. Others start off at the bottom and decide life will be easier if I just stay down here cos the govt won't let me fall right off. Should they get the same benefits as everyone else?

My point way back was that the money and a lot of money is not targeted at all. Sure the lesser fortunate will get some benefit if they spend it wisely, but most of the millions is going to those that don't need it. Like the heating subsidy for winter is going to every person in NZ who is over 65 regardless of need plus the beneficiaries who actually do need it. Just a total waste imo.

I would think that 50% of the billions is going where needed and the rest is a windfall to those that do not need.

When the Government spends so much of the taxpayers funds, it needs to be targeted to where it is most needed.

I agree, Im disappointed it is less targeted than what I would have hoped. But compare that to Nationals $20 per week tax cut, $2040 p.a., for pretty much everyone.

tdgeek

11636 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1997

Trusted

Reply # 1920693 16-Dec-2017 23:03

Geektastic:

An example of compulsory sterilisation would include (at my wife's suggestion!) any woman or man who is convicted of cruelty or harm to children they have already produced although I appreciate that is not exactly related to tax etc.

I'd feel a lot better if, rather than money (which can be spent in a variety of ways that are not likely to be of any assistance to the child) assistance was provided in terms of (for example) food for the child, delivered direct to the home (this can include such things as nappies etc where the child is of that age). If the children are getting "free" food every week which the parents do not even have to shop for, then there ceases to be any excuse for children to be hungry.

Likewise, compulsory hot meals for children at lunchtime in schools etc etc.

I just think there are far better ways than simply handing out cash like lollies with absolutely no guarantee at all that it will lift a single child out of poverty or hunger.

I like the idea of food stamps. Unsure if the US still does this, but give food stamps, that apply to certain foods only. Not just no smokes, no booze, but to certain foods ranges that are healthy breakfast, lunches or dinner. It seems so obvious, and it gets mentioned every now and then, but nothing happens. The Govt of the day can decree "these foods" Supermarkets can tag them in their software. No crinkle cut tips and aoli, but basic, healthy food that is targeted at kids breccy, school lunch, and dinner

When I used to go to the US every year, the kids I was with got lunches. 75c a day. Ok, sometimes it was tacos or pizza, but in NZ we wont do that. (We better not)

Geektastic

11034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3466

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1920694 16-Dec-2017 23:07

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

Pumpedd:

rjt123:
networkn:

Sending your child to school with no breakfast or lunch or shoes etc. is probably the result of a bad choice of the parents (how much money did they spend on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol on the weekend?). Is it my responsibility as a tax payer to fund the poor choices of those individuals?

I used to feel a similar way till someone said this to me..

You simply cannot punish children for the sins of their parents. It doesn't matter that the kid's parents didn't spend money wisely, are you seriously going to let them go hungry?

As much as the parent's behaviour annoys me, I'll always support helping the kids.

I probably came across a little cynical. No I have absolute empathy for children growing up in a less privileged family than myself ( not that our family was particularly well off). However, will more money in the hand actually fix anything for those children/families? It'll probably work for 50% of households.

I don't have any solution, but in the other 50 percent, do the parents actually care? Are we really getting to the root of the issue. If they truly cared for the well-being of their children, shouldn't they have considered that before they decided to have them? Shouldn't they have said, unless I work hard and get off the dole and get a job I'm not gonna be able to give my kids the life and future they deserve.

Some families start at the bottom of the ladder and work hard, but never really get a lucky break and stay there all their life, and the state needs to support them. Others start off at the bottom and decide life will be easier if I just stay down here cos the govt won't let me fall right off. Should they get the same benefits as everyone else?

My point way back was that the money and a lot of money is not targeted at all. Sure the lesser fortunate will get some benefit if they spend it wisely, but most of the millions is going to those that don't need it. Like the heating subsidy for winter is going to every person in NZ who is over 65 regardless of need plus the beneficiaries who actually do need it. Just a total waste imo.

I would think that 50% of the billions is going where needed and the rest is a windfall to those that do not need.

When the Government spends so much of the taxpayers funds, it needs to be targeted to where it is most needed.

I agree, Im disappointed it is less targeted than what I would have hoped. But compare that to Nationals $20 per week tax cut, $2040 p.a., for pretty much everyone.

There is, of course, a fairly fundamental difference between the government graciously allowing workers to keep more of what they personally earned and the government taking money from said earners and handing it out to some other people. There must also be a cost saving, because not collecting money the worker already has must be cheaper than collecting it, processing it, working out who can have it back and then giving it to them...

Geektastic

11034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3466

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1920696 16-Dec-2017 23:12

2 people support this post

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

An example of compulsory sterilisation would include (at my wife's suggestion!) any woman or man who is convicted of cruelty or harm to children they have already produced although I appreciate that is not exactly related to tax etc.

I'd feel a lot better if, rather than money (which can be spent in a variety of ways that are not likely to be of any assistance to the child) assistance was provided in terms of (for example) food for the child, delivered direct to the home (this can include such things as nappies etc where the child is of that age). If the children are getting "free" food every week which the parents do not even have to shop for, then there ceases to be any excuse for children to be hungry.

Likewise, compulsory hot meals for children at lunchtime in schools etc etc.

I just think there are far better ways than simply handing out cash like lollies with absolutely no guarantee at all that it will lift a single child out of poverty or hunger.

I like the idea of food stamps. Unsure if the US still does this, but give food stamps, that apply to certain foods only. Not just no smokes, no booze, but to certain foods ranges that are healthy breakfast, lunches or dinner. It seems so obvious, and it gets mentioned every now and then, but nothing happens. The Govt of the day can decree "these foods" Supermarkets can tag them in their software. No crinkle cut tips and aoli, but basic, healthy food that is targeted at kids breccy, school lunch, and dinner

When I used to go to the US every year, the kids I was with got lunches. 75c a day. Ok, sometimes it was tacos or pizza, but in NZ we wont do that. (We better not)

Quite; school dinners have been a source of jokes and shared misery for generations. We got breakfast, lunch and dinner at school since we lived there 36 weeks a year but the day pupils still ate lunch with us and my wife, who attended state schools, also got lunch. I do not know if that is still the case in state schools in Britain or not.

If all this is about children not being hungry, the obvious solution seems to me to be 'feed them' rather than 'rely on the parents who so far have failed in their primary duty of care by not feeding them'.

networkn

16507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4608

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1920764 17-Dec-2017 12:33

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

I agree, Im disappointed it is less targeted than what I would have hoped. But compare that to Nationals $20 per week tax cut, $2040 p.a., for pretty much everyone.

Tax cuts generally cause spending to increase which improves tax take. I didn't need a tax cut, didn't really even want one, but I don't agree with how the money is being spent. It's a lolly scramble without forethought and as a result, I expect a lot of the money spent to be wasted.

I wouldn't have wasted the $4040 that would have come into my household.

1 | ... | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | ... | 161