Outrageous; teenage mothers stay home to care for children
National’s Judith Collins used the weekend to talk about this year’s favourite electorally marginal group of people; young people. Specifically this week we as country are moving on from taggers (who I note have made their thoughts clear on government’s latest anti-tagger policy down in Timaru) and switching focus to that regular talkback show stalwart, teenage mothers.
Collins criticised the number of 16 year old solo mothers or fathers on the DPB, failing to note that in fact that most 16 years olds can’t go on the DPB. She then says that too many of those former 16-19-year olds are still on the DPB when they are aged 20-24. Given the earliest most would have gone on the DPB was when they were 18, that means those mothers going from one age bracket to the next might well have been receiving the DBP for 2 years, and possibly 6.
Which begs the question, how old should a child be before the state should start putting pressure on her or his mother to get out of the house and find a job? Should we deprive 2-year-old children of having their mother or father to save $255 a week?  Or should we wait until they are the self supporting, independent age of 5? What if a ‘DPB mother’ has more than one child - does her time still expire and subsequent kids miss out on support?  Should we only measure how long each mother has been on the DBP, (like an overdue library book) or should we instead be looking at the age and needs of her children - for whom the benefit is for afterall?
February 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Maths frog: $255 pw (one child) + $250 worth of housing supplement + $100 supplementary benefits and benefits “given in kind” = ca $600 pw = $30K pa NET.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Now we are talking!
As soon as the child is old enough to attend day care then the mother should be out working, I would not be against state funded day care as long as the mother (or father) of a one parent family was working.
Those mothers who are on the DPB and then go on to have another child should not receive any further funding if they continue to chose not to work.
Take away the DPB and you take away the lifestyle choice.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Replace the DPB with compulsory income insurance/fund. You can only draw down what you’ve put in. They have a similar system in Japan.
Want a child? Fine. Plan for it and fund it yourself.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ah, BluePeter, but what if you had planned for it, with a partner who could afford to fund it, and the partner then takes off to Australia, or starts to give you the bash and you have to chuck him or her out, and you’re left holding the baby?
That’s actually the circumstances of the vast majority of DPB parents - the “under-20, never partnered” group that Judith Collins and the National Party love to highlight actually amounts to just 3.3% of all DPB recipients.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Why the pro-tagging link? Unless it’s a subtle way of revealling how Green supporters can dodge the EFA.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“pro-tagging”??!
The only thing remotely close to pro-tagging has been the Maori Party’s (Turia?) take on tagging as a ‘form of resistance’ etc..
February 25th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Toad,
At that point, they’d start drawing down on their unemployment fund. The fathers fund can also be used by the mother if he abandons kids. The fund isn’t transferable to Australia, and ultimately the government would have control of it.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
But BluePeter, what if there’s hardly anything in the father’s fund? What’s to stop people from just taking off and stopping paying - just as they do with Child Support now?
February 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
The fund accumulates from when a person first starts paying tax. The fund is held by government and invested. Perhaps we’d eventually need a reciprocal
agreement with Australia.
For those children genuinely in need, then the welfare state would kick in. The child becomes a ward of the state, and the state is responsible for education, welfare, food and housing. The parent has these expenses paid directly, but she is not given cash.
The aim is to remove the lifestyle option, whilst ensuring children are cared for and not neglected. At present, we throw money at people and leave them to rot.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
As to the issue of incentives and justice fior all.
All non working partners should have access to the dole/living allowance/social wage - until there children are 5, or they commit to seeking work.
Then those single parents who raise up children under 5, are in the same position as all other mothers - exceptthey would have extra support from the state for raising up their children - the partnered parent receives their extra support from their partners wage income and the state’s WFF.
At the moment, increased child care (free education for 20 hours) support, and an increasing minimum wage is resulting in more women on the DPB and more non working partner parents moving into the workforce.
The correct extra economic incentive to parents, is a yet higher minimum wage and no tax on the first $10,000.
kevyn
Your’e just making it up.
$255 is the amount they receive.
As to housing assistance, that depends.
If it’s a state house (join the waiting list), they pay rent out of their $255. If it’s private accomodation - they pay rent (out of their $255) and ask for accomodation supplement which is only a very partial subsidy of the rent they pay (out of their $255, which is also required to cover food, clothing and power etc).
The same access to accomodation supplement is available to all those who pay rent while living on other benefits or low wage incomes.
Is there one solo parent with one child in the country receiving $250 a week in housing - just one? The correct answer is no and the average is way way less - possibly little more than $50.
Possibly most solo parents with one child live with another is a shared private rental.
The “$100 supplemetary benefits and benefits in kind” …?
Are you also claiming that an unemployed couple with one child receive more than $30,000 pa because there are two non working adults? I dioubt there are any who do.
The minimum wage increased $12 (1 April) - $480 a week gross with no tax on the first $10,000 (as in Australia and if National likes their tax rates so much they know what they should do first) and then the WFF top up would leave a solo parent with one child over $25,000 NET.
That would ACTUALLY be a large increase on what she would be getting now (it would be c17,500 including housing support).
So National knows the way to resolve their problems with DPB. And of course if school leavers had an income of over $20,000 available to them when they got their first job at minimum wage (with no housing costs living at home, or with added accomodation supplement), why would they go onto the DPB for c17,500?
February 25th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
SPC said: kevyn Your’e just making it up
SPC, it was actually Kevin, rather than Kevyn. And he was making it up - no-one gets $250 accommodation assistance. The most anyone on DPB can get in accommodation supplement is $225, and that is restricted to those with 2 or more children who live in Auckland’s Central City and North Shore.
The maximum rates vary from $165 to $75 anywhere else you live, depending on location.
As for the “$100 supplementary benefits”, the only way anyone would get anywhere near that level would be if they had very substantial disability-related costs.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Frog- minor quibble, as someone who’s done a lot of philosophy, “begging the question” is actually a technical term for when someone makes an argument that presupposes their conclusion to be true, (which is a pretty big mistake to make) and the colloquial replacement of “raising the question” with that term can become confusing in certain circumstances
Kevyn: Because enforcing the EFA on taggers would be so easy and all
I referred this to my brother and his comment was pretty enlightening- “Married single mothers at 16? What, so they’re upset with like three people?” National really needs to stop its idealistic welfare-bashing.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Rubbish SPC this has been argued many times and the minimum the vast majority of solo parents would be on is ca $30K along with housing (factored in at market rental that everyone else has to pay)
If should be compulsory for them to put in a tax return with all “benefits given in kind” added as income at market rates.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“As for the “$100 supplementary benefitsâ€?, the only way anyone would get anywhere near that level would be if they had very substantial disability-related costs.”
such as needing their car fixed, their pet treated by a vet or a new washing machine.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
SPC - Here are the Aussie tax rates as far as I can find:
Tax rates 2007-08
Taxable income: Tax on this income
$1 – $6,000: Nil
$6,001 – $30,000: 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$30,001 – $75,000: $3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000
$75,001 – $150,000: $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000
$150,001 and over: $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000
The above rates do not include the Medicare levy of 1.5% (read What is the Medicare levy? for more information).
Tax offsets reduce the tax payable. Tax offsets based on taxable income levels apply to a range of circumstances. For more information read About tax offsets.
This is from:
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm
There are further ‘tax offsets’ available, but the few I have read do not add up to much, but would certainly be welcomed by our teenage mothers example.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
No, Kevin - the types of costs described here, and only in the circumstances described in the links from that page.
It really very restrictive - I think overly so.
And do I take it that your silence re the first part of my post about the level of accommodation supplement implies that you accept that you were making up the $250 figure? In case not, the formula is set out here.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
But we can’t let the facts get in the way of a bit of good right wing beneficiary bashing, can we?
February 25th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
toad
But we can’t let the facts get in the way of a bit of good old left wing beneficiary support can we?, after all, they vote for you.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
What facts are these big bro? I don’t see you linking anything.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Ari
Are you seriously suggesting that beneficiaries vote National?
February 25th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Maybe you could push your preconceptions (right or wrong) on another thread big bro? Use ‘reason’ eh
February 25th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
If a teenage mother can’t care for a child without handouts the child should be taken away and put up for adoption.
Problem solved.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
toad
Confusing kevyn with Kevin, what was I thinking.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Kevin
You provide no evidential support for your claim that those on the DPB effectively receive $30,000 pa net income.
And there is no such thing as the “minimum for a vast majority” you refer to. There is an actual minimum - $255 a week to a parent with one child(the amount that would paid to someone owning their own home, or lviing with their parents or in a free board situation).
You refer to a market rental - but no one on a benefit gets the market rental paid for them - they pay most of the rent themselves and only get a partial subsidy - now how much rent could you pay out of $255 a week (when some of that money is spent on food and power etc). This limits the amount they can pay for rent and the amount of the rent subsidy they can receive.
You also assume all those on the DPB are living alone in a market rental - many of those with one child share with others and most of those on the DPB are ex wives (or de facto) and some continue to live in the family home.
Your assumption that the access to special grants (money paid back) occurs every week and is taxable income is silly.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
frog
It would cost us up to near $2billion to emulate the Australians and have no tax on the first $6000. That would be near $20 a week for all taxpayers.
But as we know, when National talks of cutting taxes they usually focus on removing the top rate (which would cost about a $1billion.
Given the rising food and power and housing costs being faced by low income earners, if the under $6000 area is not where tax cuts occur, there is going to be hardship - not just for those on benefits, but also those on low wages.
One can only hope Labour in their desperation to compete in the centre and close the poll gap don’t neglect the low wage earners - for if they do by 2014 and after 6 years of a National government we may return to the poverty levels of 1999. It’s important that tax cuts to help the poor face up to rising food, power and housing costs are a central focus of this years budget and or election campaign.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Big bro: Huh? Toad was talking about the statistics being provided. I was asking where you have statistic that indicate the facts are otherwise. I wasn’t even talking about your cheap comment about appealing to certain voters- even if it is a fact, it’s unrelated to the necessity of benefits- if we need them, we’ll need them regardless of Labour or National or whoever else is calling the shots.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
All notional income should have to have the tax added to it and go down on the person’s IR12. Then you would have all the evidence you need that I am right. Or do us workers get tax free handouts - where can I get some?