New Welfare Policies Only Raise More Questions
It will move people around in the benefit system rather than out of it.
It will move people around in the benefit system rather than out of it.
Dragging eyes away from aimless, spirit-sapping, benefit-dependence towards resented superannuitants might play well politically, but it won’t address the disaster that welfarism is. Who is going to talk about it?
Different rules for Māori only exacerbate frustrations and add further potential for conflict. There is a lesson here with wider implications that too many seem determined to ignore.
Most people will take this at face value but I have just explained why that is a mistake. And if the reporter understood the difference, it’s an outright misrepresentation.
At every election, Labour promises to solve the problems of its own making. And sadly, many Māori keep believing the promise.
A government that wants better for children whose parents can’t or won’t care for them properly would ensure that the substantial resource going into these homes was practical and effective.
If someone under 20 cannot find a job, they should be training for one. The late teens is a crucial time. The last thing they need is to be derailed with ‘free’ money to stay in bed.
If the left (Labour, the Greens, TOP and the Māori Party) was sincere about reducing child hardship they’d stop ignoring crucial evidence.
Claire Achmad has no understanding of behavioural economics. Or any other kind of economics.
National doesn’t save us from ‘communism by stealth’. It enables it. Only principled opposition, with enough power to be effective, will lead us back towards personal responsibility and prosperity.
Interviewed about the report, a Salvation Army spokesperson said, “Around 10 per cent of those needing food support are in employment.” Meaning 90 per cent are on welfare.
It’s worth remembering the clarion cry of the American Founding Fathers – no taxation without representation.
Nobody can look at the evidence and deny a problem. Too many are languishing on benefits when the best thing for their mental health would be a job: a purpose, companionship and more money.
TOP just wants to redistribute more than ever before, with no strings and no obligations, all the while pretending they have a magic bullet to do away with complexity, EMTRs and to fire-up the economy. I don’t think they understand human nature.
It's appalling that a quarter of a million children now need an income from the state to feed, clothe and house them.