Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 16
12149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3965

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1120317 2-Sep-2014 10:47
Send private message

sir1963:
kawaii: Just watching Campbell Live now: http://www.3news.co.nz/TVShows/CampbellLive (article not up on the website yet).

They were going from family to family checking out their fringes and what they had inside - I thought to myself "this will be interesting".

The first was a solo parent with two kids, no smokes, no alcohol - just the bare necessities and not even a car. All good, a legitimate example of someone struggling and trying to make ends meet and someone I have no problem helping out because it appears she is what I'd call 'the genuinely needy'.

Then the next two families, parents plus five kids followed by another family of parents with six kids; do the parents even think of asking themselves whether they had the means to support their kids before having them? I can understand wanting to help the kids but here are two problems:

1) If you're not going to address the bad decision making then you'll have the next generation repeating the same mistakes their parents made and the cycle will repeat indefinitely.

2) Parental accountability to send a clear message to the community that you don't just go out, make lifestyle choices then expect the rest of society to pick up the pieces - it isn't fair on tax payers and it isn't fair on the kids who are born into such a situation.

Just had to vent because it frustrates me no end when I see these stories on Campbell Live.

Oh, and I'm not an ACT/National Party voter.


Did YOU ever think the did have jobs when they had the kids and had been laid off

As for being FAIR on the tax payers, how about that 5+ BILLION that large corporates have failed to pay in taxes.

OR if you want to aim lower, how about all those who still work or have sizeable incomes and still get the pension.


Why should they not get the pension they paid for?





18748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5377

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1120318 2-Sep-2014 10:48
One person supports this post
Send private message

Fred99: This topic always enrages me:
Many of the suggested "solutions" aren't possible to discuss without invoking Godwin's.
I lament the loss of what used to be a generally accepted principle that creating an enviroment to foster equality of opportunity for our children was a good thing, and worth some cost.
Now all I seem to hear is whining about how the cost of supporting the poor is preventing the already advantaged from becoming even more advantaged.


Yet strangely not a sentence in there about personal responsibility. 

I see PLENTY of commentary from people willing to increase taxation or help in various ways. I also see an expectation of people trying to help themselves and make better choices.


 
 
 
 


12149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3965

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1120319 2-Sep-2014 10:50
Send private message

Fred99: This topic always enrages me:
Many of the suggested "solutions" aren't possible to discuss without invoking Godwin's.
I lament the loss of what used to be a generally accepted principle that creating an enviroment to foster equality of opportunity for our children was a good thing, and worth some cost.
Now all I seem to hear is whining about how the cost of supporting the poor is preventing the already advantaged from becoming even more advantaged.


I don't even regard creating children as a good thing per se, personally, so their environment is a bit secondary...!

IMV they are a luxury not a right, as well as increasing the largest blight on the planet.





709 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 404

Trusted
Vodafone NZ

  Reply # 1120320 2-Sep-2014 10:52
One person supports this post
Send private message

MaxLV:
NO I wont sell my 'assets' few that they are, but neither do I begrudge a significant portion of my tax dollar going to help those less well off than I am. Why? because I KNOW that most of the tax that you, me, and every other tax payer in NZ pay subsidises yours and  my lifestyle choices a damned site more than it does than those that are less well off than me. You're a bigger drain on the tax dollar than any beneficiary and their family will ever be! And you want to minimise the tax *YOU* pay?  


What? I don't... what?




3574 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 680

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1120321 2-Sep-2014 10:52
Send private message

MaxLV:
Dingbatt: My only real complaint is when a safety net becomes a hammock. Campbell could have just as easily found examples of abuse of the system as he did deserving cases. But that doesn't fit his agenda. It is human nature for some to rort the system while the majority are grateful for the assistance.
As someone who pays about 50% of my salary already in taxes (PAYE, GST, fuel excise, LB rates) and additional supplementary fees (school donations, medical insurance, etc) I object in equal parts to:
The money wasted on the feckless (not the deserving),
and to those, who through loopholes, don't pay their fair share.
I for one am sick of bearing more than my fair share of the burden such that it becomes difficult to support my family and plan for my own future. So Campbell's push for for me to give even more sticks in my craw I'm afraid.
 

All the while you *ignore* the benefits *you and yours* get from the taxs you *have to pay*.

If you REALLY believe you dont benefit in any way at all  from the taxes YOU personally pay, then you have no clue on where your tax dollars go and what tax is for. I'd like to see you try to pay the real cost of the lifestyle choices you make for yourself and your 'dependants'.  You're a bigger dependant on the tax system than any beneficiary and their families will ever be. 



Swing and a miss!
Where in anything I posted did I claim I received nothing for my tax dollars?
You entirely miss the point I'm trying to make. I want everyone to pay their fair share, from the largest corporates to the house renovators that make $100k in 6 months and pay no tax on their gains. I'm not saying I should pay less, I'm saying I shouldn't need to pay more until the load is still more evenly spread than the quarter of the population that pay three quarters of the tax (approx).




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

646 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 228


  Reply # 1120325 2-Sep-2014 10:56
3 people support this post
Send private message

JimmyC: Feeding kids at school IS the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It's much needed in some places but it sets a bad precedent in my view. It's yet another thing some parents will view they don't have to worry about, and something many of the kids getting fed will assume will just happen for their kids too. 

The focus of the fix needs to go back on the parents.


This.


The problem:
There is a few sides to this, but essentially for us, we are trying to start our own family.
I work hard for my money (no I am not rich) and the thought of my tax dollars being given out to feed others children annoys me, especially when I have not yet had the chance to have my own yet.

If these parents can't or won't feed their own kids then they should not be allowed to have children, let alone have existing children under their care.


Now if we create a safety blanket for these people and just go "its ok, don't worry we will feed them" then its creating a bad precedence.
This is part of the reason I vote National as I prefer a "hand up" as opposed a "hand out" type of society (give a man a fish cliche again  -  http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/give-a-man-a-fish.html ).




The problem lies with the parents and only by fixing the problem at the source will a resolution ever come.





How can we resolve the problem?
-Prevent and remove children from problematic parents.
-Subsidize training programs to help get the parents into paying jobs, that they may support the families they create. (As oppose to reinforcing the behaviour by feeding their children.)
-Promote hand up programs as opposed to hand outs.
-Create negative experiences for problematic parents in the form of punishments etc.





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.




NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

12149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3965

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1120347 2-Sep-2014 11:02
One person supports this post
Send private message

NZCrusader:
JimmyC: Feeding kids at school IS the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It's much needed in some places but it sets a bad precedent in my view. It's yet another thing some parents will view they don't have to worry about, and something many of the kids getting fed will assume will just happen for their kids too. 

The focus of the fix needs to go back on the parents.


This.


The problem:
There is a few sides to this, but essentially for us, we are trying to start our own family.
I work hard for my money (no I am not rich) and the thought of my tax dollars being given out to feed others children annoys me, especially when I have not yet had the chance to have my own yet.

If these parents can't or won't feed their own kids then they should not be allowed to have children, let alone have existing children under their care.


Now if we create a safety blanket for these people and just go "its ok, don't worry we will feed them" then its creating a bad precedence.
This is part of the reason I vote National as I prefer a "hand up" as opposed a "hand out" type of society (give a man a fish cliche again  -  http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/give-a-man-a-fish.html ).




The problem lies with the parents and only by fixing the problem at the source will a resolution ever come.





How can we resolve the problem?
-Prevent and remove children from problematic parents.
-Subsidize training programs to help get the parents into paying jobs, that they may support the families they create. (As oppose to reinforcing the behaviour by feeding their children.)
-Promote hand up programs as opposed to hand outs.
-Create negative experiences for problematic parents in the form of punishments etc.





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.


Hear hear.





7593 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4009


  Reply # 1120348 2-Sep-2014 11:03
Send private message

networkn: I also see an expectation of people trying to help themselves and make better choices.



This is undeniably multi-generational.  I have little doubt that limitations on opportunity start being cast in stone from a very early age.
Children aren't capable of making the decisions / choices you seem to expect.
The stats speak for themselves - I don't expect to need to look far to find data to show that the strongest correlation between "measures of success and failure" of children and young adults is something as simple as parental income.  Of course the public loves anecdotes - "poor child makes good" is popular, as is "rich kid goes off rails".  These are the exceptions - not the norm.

gzt

10311 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584


  Reply # 1120355 2-Sep-2014 11:08
Send private message

I care little about this talk of bad precedent and moral hazard in relation to feeding hungry kids.

It's a more of a bad precedent and a moral hazard to avoid doing anything about it.

18748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5377

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1120356 2-Sep-2014 11:11
2 people support this post
Send private message

Demeter:
MaxLV:
NO I wont sell my 'assets' few that they are, but neither do I begrudge a significant portion of my tax dollar going to help those less well off than I am. Why? because I KNOW that most of the tax that you, me, and every other tax payer in NZ pay subsidises yours and  my lifestyle choices a damned site more than it does than those that are less well off than me. You're a bigger drain on the tax dollar than any beneficiary and their family will ever be! And you want to minimise the tax *YOU* pay?  


What? I don't... what?


LOL you too ? I had to read it 5 times to believe it was actually written. I thought my response was restrained :) 


2527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 939

Subscriber

  Reply # 1120370 2-Sep-2014 11:23
Send private message

networkn:
Demeter:
MaxLV:
NO I wont sell my 'assets' few that they are, but neither do I begrudge a significant portion of my tax dollar going to help those less well off than I am. Why? because I KNOW that most of the tax that you, me, and every other tax payer in NZ pay subsidises yours and  my lifestyle choices a damned site more than it does than those that are less well off than me. You're a bigger drain on the tax dollar than any beneficiary and their family will ever be! And you want to minimise the tax *YOU* pay?  


What? I don't... what?


LOL you too ? I had to read it 5 times to believe it was actually written. I thought my response was restrained :) 

 


I have no idea what it was about either... is simply emphasizing *YOU* somehow supposed to add logic and validity to rambling?

 

As to the more pertinent topic, I tend to sit on the fence in some ways. Yes, something needs to be done to help the kids whose parents don't help them (whether because they can't or simply won't, is not the childs fault). But something also needs to be done to prevent the cycle repeating. Unfortunately, simply feeding the kids just leads to more kids who need feeding (for example "Sallys kids get free food at school so why are we buying food for our kids, ours should just get the free food too" can and does happen). Band-aid the problem in the short term (feed the kids), but there needs to be a reassessment of the parents in these situations. If they genuinely *can't* feed the kids, and are actually trying and prioritising properly, then further support could be offered. Where they simply don't feed them because of poor planning or prioritisation, then some assistance with this could be offered. Where they simply don't care (or don't take the help offered in previous steps), take the kids off them and put them in the care of those who actually want to help these children.

Some of these people just need to be given a chance to make things better (few will have the initiative or spark to go and create the chance themselves, but many will go down the right path when the help is there). Others are just downright too worthless.




Windows 7 x64 // i5-3570K // 16GB DDR3-1600 // GTX660Ti 2GB // Samsung 830 120GB SSD // OCZ Agility4 120GB SSD // Samsung U28D590D @ 3840x2160 & Asus PB278Q @ 2560x1440
Samsung Galaxy S5 SM-G900I w/Spark

652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


  Reply # 1120376 2-Sep-2014 11:31
Send private message

networkn:
MaxLV:
networkn:
 


NO I wont sell my 'assets' few that they are, but neither do I begrudge a significant portion of my tax dollar going to help those less well off than I am. Why? because I KNOW that most of the tax that you, me, and every other tax payer in NZ pay subsidises yours and  my lifestyle choices a damned site more than it does than those that are less well off than me. You're a bigger drain on the tax dollar than any beneficiary and their family will ever be! And you want to minimise the tax *YOU* pay?  


Please explain your claims?


They're not claims. Do you even have a clue how the Government spends your tax dollar?


Yes I do, hence the question for an explanation from you.


If you have to ask, then you dont (have a clue how your tax dollar is spent)

Hint look at the annual budget the government tables in parliament each May. And then tell me how YOU PERSONALLY dont benefit from that budget.

2527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 939

Subscriber

  Reply # 1120390 2-Sep-2014 11:42
Send private message

MaxLV:

Hint look at the annual budget the government tables in parliament each May. And then tell me how YOU PERSONALLY dont benefit from that budget.


Your 'point' keeps changing. I don't think anyone is going to argue that they don't in any way benefit from tax expenditure. You previously said that we were a bigger 'drain' than a beneficiary, though, and have thus far completely failed to explain your point.




Windows 7 x64 // i5-3570K // 16GB DDR3-1600 // GTX660Ti 2GB // Samsung 830 120GB SSD // OCZ Agility4 120GB SSD // Samsung U28D590D @ 3840x2160 & Asus PB278Q @ 2560x1440
Samsung Galaxy S5 SM-G900I w/Spark

2027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 791

Trusted

  Reply # 1120391 2-Sep-2014 11:42
4 people support this post
Send private message

LOL @ people that watch Campbell Live.

1528 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 790


  Reply # 1120393 2-Sep-2014 11:42
2 people support this post
Send private message



How can we resolve the problem?
-Prevent and remove children from problematic parents.
-Subsidize training programs to help get the parents into paying jobs, that they may support the families they create. (As oppose to reinforcing the behaviour by feeding their children.)
-Promote hand up programs as opposed to hand outs.
-Create negative experiences for problematic parents in the form of punishments etc.





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.

Agreed, and add:
 - where beneficiaries cannot provide for their families from the funds allocated, then a proportion of benefits should be paid in kind (eg food parcels) or using controlled payment methods (eg grocery cards)

The reason I say this is that surely the combination of benefits, accom allowance etc etc are calculated to allow the recipients to provide for their family.  So rather than allowing them to abrogate themselves from this responsibility, we should ensure the assistance given is used for the intended purpose

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 16
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.