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 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 16

2095 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 509

Reply # 1120395 2-Sep-2014 11:44

3 people support this post

First I think the govt needs to define what a parents responsibilities are in a definitive way.

FOR EXAMPLE

For a primary school student

Breakfast (1 cup of cereal+ milk/two pieces of toast) Packed lunch primary(1 sandwich, 1 fruit, one snack) Dinner (meat/high protein/iron vegetable, 2 + vegetables)

cold weather/rain jacket, labelled with child name and school telephone number

covered shoes, labelled with child name and school telephone number

Bed time by 8.30PM

etc
etc

Low income families issued tokens which they give to children to take to school to exchange for said lunch

Parents exchange breakfast/dinner tokens at school for specific amount of essential vegetables once per week.

Fee for tokens per child, per week $50 (issued at discount with community service card / those on benefit have these given out)

Schools have basic medical supplies to solve most child sickness' issued by school nurse

School stocks cheap disposable ponchos (rain coats)

Non compliance results in unavoidable consequence for parents that somehow doesn't effect child (put on your thinking cap)

I don't think some folks understand what it takes to raise a healthy child, a fair bit of knowledge and effort is required to do it. New Zealand's she'll-be-right attitude means that we place bets on the future being better than the present without any future planning.

Dingbatt

3401 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 587

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1120398 2-Sep-2014 11:47

One person supports this post

MaxLV:
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.

Social welfare 33%
Health 21%
Education 18%
Government services 7%
Law and order 5%
Defence 3%
The rest 13%.

(I resisted the temptation to shout in capitals.) I have yet to find any evidence in the various posts you quote where people claim they get nothing for their taxes.

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

hangon

382 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39

Reply # 1120421 2-Sep-2014 12:31

One person supports this post

"give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

ok a dead man can't learn fishing

but no one in NZ starved to death lately, I believe.

kudos to the schools who feed the kids, but that's also sad

I don't mind government giving more money to schools to feed "poor" kids. at the same time, I'd like to see any benefits supposed to be spent on the "poor" kids taken back from those sending their kids to school without breakfast or lunch.

Demeter

709 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 404

Trusted

Vodafone NZ

Reply # 1120423 2-Sep-2014 12:39

2 people support this post

I watched them checking which kids took lunch to school. My 17 year old is still at school and she sometimes has breakfast before going to school, sometimes not. I can't eat first thing in the morning, it makes me feel ill and she's the same. If she does have breakfast, she won't take lunch to school. She says she'd rather wait and have something decent and fresh when she gets home at 3:45pm rather than having a manky sandwich. We have dinner pretty late (usually 7:30pm at the earliest) so she's got her little schedule she sticks to.

I think the point I was getting at is that not all the kids without lunch are going hungry or have poverty-stricken families.

http://community.vodafone.co.nz
onlinecare@vodafone.co.nz

hangon

382 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39

Reply # 1120431 2-Sep-2014 12:47

2 people support this post

I think the point I was getting at is that not all the kids without lunch are going hungry or have poverty-stricken families.

Good to know - I would have no idea.

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 - if parents are putting their kids first.

tardtasticx

2883 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 376

Reply # 1120440 2-Sep-2014 12:52

One person supports this post

MaxLV:
tardtasticx:
nathan: Raise taxes off all these rich pricks and redistribute it too these poor families who cant say no to having more offspring even though they are already not well off

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not?

Raising the taxes won't benefit the poor at all. Sure it'll give some assistance in the short term but what about the future?

I'm studying full time right now, and trying to find work that has a super flexible schedule is near impossible with the amount of students wanting the same thing. But because my parents both earn over the top tax bracket, and pay over 1/3rd of their income to the government, I don't see a single cent of that as assistance from the govt/studylink. Parents can't afford to pay my gas to and from uni each day, or pay for rent closer to campus. I now have a near 40K student loan as a result, and all because I chose to get qualified and make something of my life. When I start working, I'll be paying tax which some will go to those who don't work. Then on top of that I have to pay back every single cent the government has given me.

I think instead of punishing those who chose to make something of themselves, we should be developing ways to get everyone qualifications, or start making community jobs to let those who are on benefits earn their way and maybe some more. That way people get work experience and skills under their belt to help make finding jobs easier, and hopefully start more businesses as a result.

And of course you believe you, and your parents are paying the *full* cost of your lifestyle choices dont you. You no doubt believe that you and your parents dont benefit in any way at all from the tax you do have to pay....

I never said we don't benefit in any way. We get some benefit but in no way are we getting our fair share. Most of my friends at uni get student allowance (like a benefit) every week. Their parents earn way less and some of them don't even work at all. They freely admit their parents are DOL bludgers and they don't want to follow that path. So even with their parents paying no tax what so ever, they get free assistance for their weekly costs where as my parents pay their fair share of taxes and the only cent I get from that in terms of my study is a discount to my course costs that every NZ National student receives.

Bachelor of Computing Systems (2015)

Late 2013 MacBook Pro with Retina Display (4GB/2.4GHz i5/128GB SSD) - HP DV6 (8GB/2.8GHz i7/120GB SSD + 750GB HDD)
iPhone 6S + (64GB/Gold/Vodafone NZ) - Xperia Z C6603 (16GB/White/Spark NZ)

Sam, Auckland

shk292

1502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 777

Reply # 1120453 2-Sep-2014 13:20

Dingbatt
Social welfare 33%
Health 21%
Education 18%
Government services 7%
Law and order 5%
Defence 3%
The rest 13%.

(I resisted the temptation to shout in capitals.) I have yet to find any evidence in the various posts you quote where people claim they get nothing for their taxes.

Actually Defence was 1.1% in 2012 (latest figure I could find); one of the lowest in the OECD. Bear that in mind if you're considering voting for a party that advocates both cutting defence spending and damaging alliances to friendly powers (eg GIMPs)

Dingbatt

3401 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 587

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1120465 2-Sep-2014 13:28

shk292:
Dingbatt
Social welfare 33%
Health 21%
Education 18%
Government services 7%
Law and order 5%
Defence 3%
The rest 13%.

(I resisted the temptation to shout in capitals.) I have yet to find any evidence in the various posts you quote where people claim they get nothing for their taxes.

Actually Defence was 1.1% in 2012 (latest figure I could find); one of the lowest in the OECD. Bear that in mind if you're considering voting for a party that advocates both cutting defence spending and damaging alliances to friendly powers (eg GIMPs)

My figures are for 2013. Not likely to vote for anyone that advocates cutting Defence any further having spent 15 years in the NZDF. It just happened that that was where I got to on the list before I couldn't be bothered working out the percentages any more. The fact that welfare makes up a third of the budget and that I do know what benefit (no pun intended) I get from my tax dollars was the main point.

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

k1wi

467 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 100

Reply # 1120470 2-Sep-2014 13:36

One person supports this post

One thing that I will say is that I do believe that there is a desire to fix inequality and improve the lives of the poorest members of society across the political spectrum.

Where there is a deviation is in the how.

For example, the left (generally) want to improve services, while the right (generally) aim to reduce the welfare trap...

BarTender

2421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 820

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1120483 2-Sep-2014 13:53

macuser: First I think the govt needs to define what a parents responsibilities are in a definitive way.

FOR EXAMPLE

...

Non compliance results in unavoidable consequence for parents that somehow doesn't effect child (put on your thinking cap)

I don't think some folks understand what it takes to raise a healthy child, a fair bit of knowledge and effort is required to do it. New Zealand's she'll-be-right attitude means that we place bets on the future being better than the present without any future planning.

I would love to know what the unavoidable consequence would be for parents who are "non-compliant". Taking them back into state care? Fostering them out? Putting the parents in Jail (since it costs $100k to house someone per year. Just think where that $100k could be spent elsewhere?)

Anyone here put their hand up to foster a child? Me personally no, good friend of mine yes and it's dammed hard word considering the significantly disadvantaged position they arrive in.

Isn't there a saying that goes "it takes a village to raise a child", what did you do last time to assist your village helping the needy children?

I agree raising children is an extremely difficult task, but if you are dealing with the lowest socioeconomic group within the country that is rapidly growing the tools to be better parents.

I don't see any of that going on right now at all.

Inphinity

2518 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 937

Subscriber

Reply # 1120495 2-Sep-2014 14:14

BarTender:
I agree raising children is an extremely difficult task, but if you are dealing with the lowest socioeconomic group within the country that is rapidly growing the tools to be better parents.

I don't see any of that going on right now at all.

You can lead a horse to water...

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

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 132

Reply # 1120502 2-Sep-2014 14:22

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.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

MikeB4

12846 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6068

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1120507 2-Sep-2014 14:27

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.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

gzt

10117 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1539

Reply # 1120510 2-Sep-2014 14:28

tardtasticx: I never said we don't benefit in any way. We get some benefit but in no way are we getting our fair share. Most of my friends at uni get student allowance (like a benefit) every week.

Yeah there are many issues. To some degree it's giving parents a lot of leverage over the course of study for students who are essentially adults by this time. I think the only fair way to do it is make it universal or almost universal.

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 132

Reply # 1120518 2-Sep-2014 14:39

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.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 16