Warning: Rage Ahead - Campbell Live and childhood poverty

Forums › Off topic › Warning: Rage Ahead - Campbell Live and childhood poverty

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 16

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1120526 2-Sep-2014 14:54

charsleysa:
KiwiNZ:
charsleysa: So I see no one has really brought up the issue of what poverty means.
New Zealand has a pretty screwed definition of poverty.

From otago University :
"This is defined as having less than 60% of median household income, after housing costs are removed."

The median weekly income last year was $844, so that means if you have less than $506 remaining of your weekly income after housing costs you are classified as living in poverty.

We use the UN definition of poverty.

The UN definition of absolute poverty is living on less than $1.25USD per day, that's roughly $38USD per month.

The UN definition of relative poverty is the similar but they note that it's susceptible to income distribution and even if you were earning $100k per year, if the income inequality is big enough then you will be classified as living in poverty.

Poverty is relative to where you live and the cost of living where you live which is logical.

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1120533 2-Sep-2014 15:03

KiwiNZ:
charsleysa:
KiwiNZ:
charsleysa: So I see no one has really brought up the issue of what poverty means.
New Zealand has a pretty screwed definition of poverty.

From otago University :
"This is defined as having less than 60% of median household income, after housing costs are removed."

The median weekly income last year was $844, so that means if you have less than $506 remaining of your weekly income after housing costs you are classified as living in poverty.

We use the UN definition of poverty.

The UN definition of absolute poverty is living on less than $1.25USD per day, that's roughly $38USD per month.

The UN definition of relative poverty is the similar but they note that it's susceptible to income distribution and even if you were earning $100k per year, if the income inequality is big enough then you will be classified as living in poverty.

Poverty is relative to where you live and the cost of living where you live which is logical.

The current definition of relative poverty doesn't take into consideration the cost of living nor does it take into consideration spending habits so it isn't an accurate representation of poverty.

Under the current definition, if I was to purchase a $500k house then I would start living in poverty since my remaining income after housing costs will be less than 60% of the median income.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1120547 2-Sep-2014 15:31

So a couple of the fridges they looked in on the program were supposed to feed 7 people for a week on $120. I wish they had gone to the trouble of explaining (deidentified) how much money was coming into each household and what it was being spent on. Then I might have a better understanding of why kids are going to school hungry. My guess is a huge amount disappears in accomodation costs. But I would rather make up my own mind than trust agenda driven TV shows.
One fridge had a huge tin of cat food so obviously the pet wasn't going to go hungry.
Just as an aside, most of the fridges reminded me of my student flat days.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1120552 2-Sep-2014 15:44

charsleysa:
KiwiNZ:
charsleysa:
KiwiNZ:
charsleysa: So I see no one has really brought up the issue of what poverty means.
New Zealand has a pretty screwed definition of poverty.

From otago University :
"This is defined as having less than 60% of median household income, after housing costs are removed."

The median weekly income last year was $844, so that means if you have less than $506 remaining of your weekly income after housing costs you are classified as living in poverty.

We use the UN definition of poverty.

The UN definition of absolute poverty is living on less than $1.25USD per day, that's roughly $38USD per month.

The UN definition of relative poverty is the similar but they note that it's susceptible to income distribution and even if you were earning $100k per year, if the income inequality is big enough then you will be classified as living in poverty.

Poverty is relative to where you live and the cost of living where you live which is logical.

The current definition of relative poverty doesn't take into consideration the cost of living nor does it take into consideration spending habits so it isn't an accurate representation of poverty.

Under the current definition, if I was to purchase a $500k house then I would start living in poverty since my remaining income after housing costs will be less than 60% of the median income.

Of course it takes into account cost of living that is why it is relative.

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1120558 2-Sep-2014 15:55

KiwiNZ:
charsleysa:
KiwiNZ:
charsleysa:
KiwiNZ:
charsleysa: So I see no one has really brought up the issue of what poverty means.
New Zealand has a pretty screwed definition of poverty.

From otago University :
"This is defined as having less than 60% of median household income, after housing costs are removed."

The median weekly income last year was $844, so that means if you have less than $506 remaining of your weekly income after housing costs you are classified as living in poverty.

We use the UN definition of poverty.

The UN definition of absolute poverty is living on less than $1.25USD per day, that's roughly $38USD per month.

The UN definition of relative poverty is the similar but they note that it's susceptible to income distribution and even if you were earning $100k per year, if the income inequality is big enough then you will be classified as living in poverty.

Poverty is relative to where you live and the cost of living where you live which is logical.

The current definition of relative poverty doesn't take into consideration the cost of living nor does it take into consideration spending habits so it isn't an accurate representation of poverty.

Under the current definition, if I was to purchase a $500k house then I would start living in poverty since my remaining income after housing costs will be less than 60% of the median income.

Of course it takes into account cost of living that is why it is relative.

Cost of living includes things such as housing, food and water, and utilities. The definition only includes housing cost and not cost of living.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

Item

1717 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1120569 2-Sep-2014 16:26

NZCrusader:

The lefties can abuse or cry foul all they like at my statement, but at the end of the day I believe I should have the right to voice some input, as to where my tax dollars go.

I think its a slippery slope to allow the public to pick and choose where taxes end up...

"I don't believe in abortion, so none of my taxes should go to funding health centres which carry out terminations"

"Vaccinations cause autism, so none of my taxes should fund school immunisations"

"I have a nice car so none of my taxes should fund public transport because I don't use it"

"Junkies are a blight on society so none of my taxes should fund rehabilitation programs"

"I burn all my trash so none of my taxes should go to waste collection"

...etc etc.

Like it or not, we are all part of a wider society and have to take as holistic a view as possible in order to cater for a greater good and maintain an environment which benefits the widest number of people.

Not saying that those in power necessarily get it right of course, but I would hazard Joe Public has very little clue as to what goes in to managing a safe, solvent and functional country/city/village etc.

hangon:

What I'm trying to say is, there is no real "child poverty". Either the families have decent income, or the government is handing out, there'd be enough to feed and cloth each and every child in NZ - whether they bring lunch to school or have breakie and a bite after school

So it's acceptable to let those children who are living miserable, hopeless lives fall through the cracks over a point of semantics?

hangon:- if parents are putting their kids first.

Yes but parents don't always put their kids first do they. Surely society should be helping break these children out of the cycle?

Even if one wanted to take a completely self-serving view, the more children who manage to raise themselves up, the healthier, better educated and happier they are, the less likely you are to get mugged/burgled.

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1120577 2-Sep-2014 16:33

Item:
hangon:

What I'm trying to say is, there is no real "child poverty". Either the families have decent income, or the government is handing out, there'd be enough to feed and cloth each and every child in NZ - whether they bring lunch to school or have breakie and a bite after school

So it's acceptable to let those children who are living miserable, hopeless lives fall through the cracks over a point of semantics?

not saying it's acceptable, kudos to the school and I'm happy the government giving school more money to feed them, out of our pockets; apparently the school is more caring than their parents.

Item:
hangon:- if parents are putting their kids first.

Yes but parents don't always put their kids first do they

And guess what would happen if we simply just give those parents more handouts.

That's why I'd also like to see if government giving school money to feed the kids, the handout given to the parents which was supposed to be spent on the kids, should be taken back.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1120581 2-Sep-2014 16:37

Taxes should be paid depending on the size of your family. A base tax per adult plus an additional tax per child to reflect the extra costs your choice places on society in the form of education, health etc.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1120583 2-Sep-2014 16:38

trig42:
(also, why will the Greens never work with National? Surely they are about the environment, not left wing politics? I think the Greens have lost their way).

This so much! If MMP works then why does one minority party rule out ever working with another? Same goes for Act. The whole point is that different views can be represented in government yet they just divide themselves down the middle. It's pathetic.

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1120584 2-Sep-2014 16:39

hangon:
Item:
hangon:

What I'm trying to say is, there is no real "child poverty". Either the families have decent income, or the government is handing out, there'd be enough to feed and cloth each and every child in NZ - whether they bring lunch to school or have breakie and a bite after school

So it's acceptable to let those children who are living miserable, hopeless lives fall through the cracks over a point of semantics?

not saying it's acceptable, kudos to the school and I'm happy the government giving school more money to feed them, out of our pockets; apparently the school is more caring than their parents.
Item:
hangon:- if parents are putting their kids first.

Yes but parents don't always put their kids first do they

And guess what would happen if we simply just give those parents more handouts.

That's why I'd also like to see if government giving school money to feed the kids, the handout given to the parents which was supposed to be spent on the kids, should be taken back.

The food in schools programs will only be useful up to a point.

Children need sustenance outside of school hours as well, and the problem lies that we need to provide a way for the parents (no matter how awful they are) a way of feeding their children.

One possible way is Food Stamps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program#State_implementations) it would benefit the children without the risk of parents spending money on frivolous things.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

Item

1717 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1120586 2-Sep-2014 16:43

hangon:
That's why I'd also like to see if government giving school money to feed the kids, the handout given to the parents which was supposed to be spent on the kids, should be taken back.

In an ideal world it might be a "just" approach to do this, but it isn't just about feeding the kids during the day - they need food at home, they need light, medicine, power, heat, access to the internet etc.

Afraid I don't have a fix-all solution and I am willing to bet there isn't one, but in an example where a single mum blows 80% of the weeks benefits on fags, booze and bingo but the rest does find its way to her 3 kids, then it is better than nothing IMHO.

Item

1717 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1120587 2-Sep-2014 16:44

Geektastic: Taxes should be paid depending on the size of your family. A base tax per adult plus an additional tax per child to reflect the extra costs your choice places on society in the form of education, health etc.

Because that would magically grant those who are "poor" and have large numbers of kids the additional money to pay these new taxes?

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1120588 2-Sep-2014 16:45

charsleysa:
The food in schools programs will only be useful up to a point. Children need sustenance outside of school hours as well, and the problem lies that we need to provide a way for the parents (no matter how awful they are) a way of feeding their children. One possible way is Food Stamps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program#State_implementations) it would benefit the children without the risk of parents spending money on frivolous things.

which I agree

also when school is feeding some kids lunch, I'm not saying all of the credits should be taken away - just the portion that was supposed to be feeding kids lunch.

the rest of the working for families package or whatever they are entitled should be put into food stamps or other means that cannot be spent on booze, cigarettes, tab/lotto or sky sub.

budgeting classes should be mandatory, if through budgeting, true difficulties are identified (medical dependencies that cannot be coped with assistance they already receive) then they should receive special grants directly paid to the recipient.

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1120591 2-Sep-2014 16:52

Item:
hangon:
That's why I'd also like to see if government giving school money to feed the kids, the handout given to the parents which was supposed to be spent on the kids, should be taken back.

In an ideal world it might be a "just" approach to do this, but it isn't just about feeding the kids during the day - they need food at home, they need light, medicine, power, heat, access to the internet etc.

Afraid I don't have a fix-all solution and I am willing to bet there isn't one, but in an example where a single mum blows 80% of the weeks benefits on fags, booze and bingo but the rest does find its way to her 3 kids, then it is better than nothing IMHO.

for that particular case I'd rather see the 3 kids taken away and the government spent 100% on raising them.

it may be extreme cases and it may have been over simplified. each time i see a kiwi kid suffer on TV, no reporter dares to speak out it's mostly the parents' fault.

show me the budget, breads $1 a loaf, milk $1 a litre.

SepticSceptic

2186 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1120596 2-Sep-2014 17:08

Personally, I blame rodgerednomics.

Export of manufacturing, etc, has left us with an underclass with no meaningful work. Sure, it was low-ish income, and probably not that efficient in NZ, but sure as heck kept food on the tables, and contributing to society at large.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 16