Saturday, March 06, 2010

DPB - an investment?

Colin James looked at the recommendations of the expert panel on child abuse in his Press column this week and made this observation;

... Bennett -- a rarity in a National cabinet -- knows social assistance can be an investment. She got educated while on a domestic purposes benefit.


The problem is while Bennett used her time on the DPB wisely, most do not. Those who use it wisely, and temporarily, then make much of defending its very existence despite the evidence that long term dependence is bad for parents and children. Encouraging and allowing long term dependence is not an investment. Long term dependence is encouraged by admitting people into the system as young as 16 with no limit on how long they can stay there.

Personally I do not see why the taxpayer has to fork out for someone's living costs because they have a child and no partner and want to participate in tertiary training or education. Single mothers used to do things like put themselves through teacher's training college with the support and help of their families. Having a child young posed a difficulty but families managed.

However if someone is going to be on the DPB (and it isn't going away any time soon) it is better that they use that time wisely and come off it better equipped to provide. But that could happen within a regime of strict time limits.

What really annoys me is when women who have been on the DPB fight for its retention on a status quo basis because it helped them. They are not prepared to acknowledge and accept that it isn't helping a great deal of others who are still stuck there.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

What really annoys me is when women who have been on the DPB fight for its retention on a status quo basis because it helped them.

It may annoy you, Lindsay, but you know why they do it.
Every socialist in the country will beat them about the ears for denying others the same opportunity as they had, and so destroy that person's voice.
Of course that is to deny that the DPB is a short term opportunity to escape any economic trap the recipient may be in.
But, simply, the socialists wish to defame anybody who dares question the "rights" of their ilk to live off the largesse of "rich pricks".
Denigration of the messenger is the only arguement they have to constructive debate.

kurt

Anonymous said...

Denigration of the messenger is the only arguement they have to constructive debate.

That's because the arguments are unassailable. The exception does not prove the rule. Just because Key or Bennet eventually gave up welfare doesn't mean that they should support it now.


The only way to end welfare dependency is to end welfare.


if someone is going to be on the DPB (and it isn't going away any time soon) it is better that they use that time wisely

It's far far better that they are off the DBP!

In this case all it goes to show is the Bennet is - strictly speaking - an idiot. Her private benefit
was tertiary education. That's got nothing to
do with the DPB! If we really want to subsidise private benefits like tertiary education, we can
do that directly: we don't need to DPB!

Biorealist said...

***The only way to end welfare dependency is to end welfare. ***

The trouble is that low future time orientation individuals will continue to have children they can barely support. For that reason I think it is more compassionate to provide the DPB on the condition that you have a birth control shot every three months. This protects against further pregnancy.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html