Universal benefits ensure no-one misses out.
But they also ensure those in most need don’t get enough because people who have more than enough get money they don’t need.
I suppose if you live in the leafy suburb of Herne Bay and you’re on an Opposition leader’s salary of nearly $263,000 – topped up with whatever salary your clever wife brings home – you might assume that those on $150,000 are wondering where their next bottle of pinot gris is coming from. But most people – including the 150k-ers – would surely think the money could be put to better use.
It’s not just the people on $150,000, it’s all the others former Finance Minister inelegantly described as rich pricks.
The so called living wage which the left have adopted as gospel is around $38,000 for a couple with two children.
Labour’s baby bonus has substantially inflated that.
In doing so it would spread money too thinly, giving to those more than capable of looking after themselves and their families which would leave too little for those in genuine need.
Homepaddock 
The discussion should revolve around what the benefits of this policy are and what it is supposed to achieve.
But if such a benefit is granted it should be universal.
It is all well and good to look at the extremes where a “rich” family is given money which to them is pocket money
But to “target the most needy” or what ever the phrase is increases the administration costs, introduces its own anomalies and will never in any real universe increase the amount available for those deemed most worthy.
And this is because the number of recipients at the top end will be trivial compared to those at the bottom end.
LikeLike
Labour’s proposal has met with widespread approval from those agencies who are close to the problems it describes. Naturally, your crew tried to cry it down (then, oddly, assimilated it!). The Greens added their proposals, strengthening the programme and the support received, so your team attacked Metiria’s dress-sense.
These are desperate times for you folk. The polls are going the wrong way for you and your only real hope is WINSTON.
John Key’s romancing of Winny is going to be the entertainment highlight of the year for everyone, though I don’t think you’ll be amused.
LikeLike
Dream on Robert I will spare myself worrying about your friends getting their sticky fingers in the nations till until it actually happens.Therefore dont include me in any broad flailing about predicting something that may not happen.
I have an inherent faith that the financial management of English coupled with the transparent laudable and forward looking efforts of the others of the executive under the political management of John Key ,there is a much better than even chance that your dream that is my nightmare wont happen this year.
I do not say it wont happen there is no limit to the stupidity of the voters or the ability of the socialists to bribe, god knows there are examples aplenty but the tiredness and lassitude that eventually afflicts then destroys administrations that do not legislate themselves perpetuity in office, is somewhere in the future still.
BTW I am yet to hear JK actually include WRP the individual in his post election plans, referring to NZ First and Peter,s Party is as far as it goes yet and that is just keeping his options open.
LikeLike
Gravedodger, your self-delusion is strong today! You imagine, perhaps, that Key will clutch the NZFirst MPs to his bosom, while at the same time pushing Winston away?? Some sort of “deal”?
That is funny and big ups to you for your creative denial-of-the-obvious, that being, Key has only one option, Winston Peters, his and your, pal.
I think the polls are inexorably moving to a place where National is finished. Don’t feel too bad though, you had 2 terms in the driver’s seat, but now it’s the trunk for the Blues and it’s windows wound down, shades on and pedal to the metal for the Red team, with the Greens in the front passenger seat, giving directions (cause they’re better than any party at reading the landscape). Hone’ll be in there too, grinning. Winny? He’ll have earned a place too, thanks to the reaming he’s going to deliver to John Key, who after all, spurned him publicly, demeaned and insulted him so who would blame Mr Peters for taking a little utu?(bye bye, John)
How’s Mr Banks faring, btw? Hope he’s not losing sleep over that up-coming court-case. Kim Dotcom’s someone to be factored-in too. He seems very confident that Mr Key is set for a big fall. Wonder what’s behind that?
Then we’ve the jacket-attack from Tolley and Collins. The public haven’t thought much of that, so far as I can tell. Catty doesn’t win votes, someone should tell the National Party ladies.
So there it is, Gravedodger, Winston Peters holds the Key – ha!
Winston Peters holds the key – your worst nightmare, realised. Key’s worst nightmare too, so it’s unhappy times in the Blue camp now, and from this point on, I suspect.
Beautiful sunny day down South.
I might open a celebratory cider in honour of Winston.
LikeLike
Oh, and Genesis.
Good grief.
LikeLike
Have you any idea how you come across?
LikeLike
Confident, assured, buoyant, bouncing from cloud to cloud, optimistic, devil-may-care, provocative, on-the-up, that sort of thing.
Any idea how you come across?
LikeLike
Yes. Genuine, open, honest.
LikeLike
Oh, and…sincere.
LikeLike
“…you might assume that those on $150,000 are wondering where their next bottle of pinot gris is coming from.”
I enjoyed that! LOL
LikeLike
I note that no one has challenged my assertion over the fruitlessness of means testing this type of benefit – which is fine by me.
But also that nobody is really interested in addressing the real issue – which is how do we as a nation ensure that we can provide the best possible start to life for all our junior citizens?
We all realized fairly quickly I think, that Mr Cunliffe’s contribution with the $60 baby bonus was paying mere lip service to the problem – which realistically cannot be solved by handing money out willy nilly.
And we all expect that Mr Key or one of his underlings will in the near future trump Mr Cunliffe with a reworked version of Mr Cunliffe’s ill conceived offering but again unless I’m much mistaken it will be an election year handout of some description which at best will be a band aid on what is a gaping wound.
And strongly suspect that no politician wants to talk about the core issues surrounding lifting our young born into poor circumstances out of that state, in election year, particularly but at any other time either.
.
LikeLike
Universal benefits, such as WFF and this “baby payment”, send the wrong signal. The number of affluent receiving them may certainly be small, by proportion, as you say. But this portion (as you also say) hold disproportionate power compared to the masses at the bottom who remain largely unspoken and outside roles of influence (purposefully, I might add). I’m sure you can see the long term issue, Andrei.
LikeLike
I have a post under construction on universal vs targeted help.
National hasn’t announced its welfare policy yet but I hope it will address some of the core issues about helping children born into poverty.
Doing that is the main reason for welfare reforms already undertaken.
Children in families dependent on benefits have poorer outcomes than those where at least one parent works, even when the income is the same.
Apropos of that Lindsay Mitchell has an interesting post: http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/single-parent-children-lack-upward.html
LikeLike
Yes Lindsay has been on the case for many years from the welfare perspective and has contributed a great deal from this POV.
Here’s something I want you to ponder, part of the mess we have created.
A young man gets a young woman pregnant. In days of yore he would have most likely married her and taken financial responsibility directly for her and their child. If marriage wasn’t possible for whatever reason the child would have most likely been adopted – a sad situation.
But today the most likely outcome is for the young woman to go onto the DPB and if the young man is at the start of his working life and on low wages it is a financial no brainer for her to do this, she’ll get more money and retain “her independence” – well sort of, not really but it will appear that way.
But the young man – well he is in deep do dos. See he is wacked by the IRD for the upkeep of his child and the mother of said child cannot maintain a romantic style relationship with him without breaking the law and risking her benefit and therefore must distance herself and child from him.
And in a great many cases that young man is now better off not working because the reward for his labours is so low, and the money taken from him while in principle is for his child, his child who he might never see, is no better off no matter how hard he works or doesn’t.
And young men caught this way find themselves in a poverty trap with no way out except perhaps absconding to a place where the IRD can’t find them.
I know three young men in this position and there is no way forward for them – and no chance of ever starting a regular family
LikeLike