Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Plus he seems to have made the assumption that the relie would be happy to take on this responsibility.
Of course not no. Sorry. Expecting a family member to be happy or even ok to take care of another family member? In New Zealand? What was I thinking?
"Of course not never implied it". I suspect he's lost track of what he started out saying on this matter.
Sorry I'm marking. it's contagious.
Why focus on an offhand comment and ignore the substantive points Matthew made in the previous paragraph?
He wasn't addressing the cause of the problem, which is the weakness with the benefit itself.
-
Implicit in your comments is a view about extended families that sort of appeals to me; that we ought to be helping out our kith and kin. Perhaps we've gotten use to the kind of wealth that is attainable when you have one kid and two incomes. Still, they'll likely always be a number of young people who need to escape home and denying them support could well lead to far worse.
Thanks Paul, that's pretty much what I'm gunning for, In some cases that benefit is an absolute necessity, in other cases alternatives could be reached. It'd be nice to see if either Mr English or the opposition have some significant thoughts on the issue in terms of alleviating these kinds of problems in the long term.
-
Mark, in which utopia do you reside where young people have convenient relatives who can take them in?
Pretty much most countries excluding the new world.
Hell, maybe the nearest family members are no better than the parents from whom they are so eager to escape.
seems you have a problem.
To give you a succinct, and I suspect fairly widely-held within this forum, response to your position: fuck that shit!
Bill English is the man you need to speak to.
So what you're saying Mark is that...
If I had kids (which I don't) and if those non-existent kids had to stop living with me for whatever reason, you'd ship them back to the UK - cos that's where my nearest rellies live...
I don't think anyone's saying that, that would be something you'd need to take up with the immigration dept.
ww, that's certainly how it read to me. His position is consistent with an abolition of the welfare state, relying on familial charity to support those who are unable to support themselves.
Not at all. I'm a fan of the welfare state. I have no issue with the state intervening in cases where minors face hardship. I just find their intervention amounts to little more than some cash to cover food and board and little if anything is done to eradicate the underlying issues. I'd like to hear some significant arguments against Mr English's wish to scrap this benefit beyond the mandatory site 'fuck that shit', because frankly 'fuck that shit' wouldn't have that much resonance in a serious debate around the issue. I think it's no secret that the family unit has broken down in New Zealand, and the current solution while adequate is far from making inroads into curbing the larger issue.
One factor seems to be that in New Zealand a 16 year old in the 21st century is being considered mature enough to take care of themselves. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing kids, given a check and told to sort their lives out. It's all very well for people to get high and mighty about being able to "afford to feed another mouth", but essentially if Aunty can't afford to feed inconvenient neice, then how is Government feeding inconvenient niece going to make food any more affordable for aunty. it's not. It's just a bandage of tide me overs till New Zealand hits the wall.
I have no issue with that benefit as it stands. But Bill wants to scrap it, and so we want to argue in its favour by offering little more than 'we'll pay the kids so and so amount and our hands be clean'.
-
Guess your made would have to go live with a relie.
-
I know what you're saying Kyle, it'd just be nice to see these spirals moving a more positive direction.
I always love it when people say "Just throwing money at it won't cure the problem". Of course it will! It's just that we hardly ever throw enough - possibly because there isn't enough but that's beside the point.
You got my vote for PM.
-
Do we, Mark? Is that what we do, or are you just making shit up?
Sure, consider [name withheld] Independent Youth Benefit recipient (1997-1998), subsequently had a child with partner (relationship later dissolved.) The child has been more or less bought up solely by her. Although she lives in the same city as most of her family, they seldom take care of their grandchild just as they seldom took care of their child. But now [name withheld] is pretty excited because she just received the receipt for her childcare over the last two years; value $4500 and she is able to reclaim $1500 from the IRD.
The high life? I think not. I'm just not convinced that throwing money solely at the victim is the best solution for a deeper underlying problem, and if Bill is looking at scrapping it that there need to be some better arguments/solutions offered for retaining or adapting it to do what is best for all parties involved.
-
Might help with what? This benefit without significant backup plan simply perpetuates the problem. It's an easy out for irresponsible parents. It's a take the money and run option.
We say to the kids, "well you had a shitter of an upbringing, we're sorry you couldn't deal with that, we can't deal with that either. We don't expect you to have any other family, we don't expect family as distant as say an uncle or aunt to be involved in caring for you, why would they, their just your aunts, your uncles, your grandparents, we understand it's nothing to do with them. SO we have this check for you...."
-
You cannot possibly think that it's better for a teen to stay in an abusive home than live by themselves.
Of course not never implied it, did mention rehabilitation, alcoholism clinics, counselling, intervention, but heck, easy ideas to ignore, basic mistake to make. And what they hey, why try to solve the underlying problems? Why not just give the kids money!
For good reasons.
-
You really have to ask?
Let's see, Their parents;
Don't like the fact that they are gay.
Have treated them like shit since they were born.
Ran away and abandoned the kids.
They're dead.
Should I go on?.That's good? I see what you're saying, the family is basically fucked, they're cooked, it's a done deal, no hope of rehabilitation, no alcoholism clinics, no counselling, no intervention, just send the youth on their way. You're right Steve, what you have here is a grade A plan for developing a functional and harmonious society, the adj 'good' is entirely appropriate.
-
it was hard not to think that that he doesn't really understand the circumstances in which young people get the Independent Youth Benefit now: they're there because they cannot live with their parents (generally for very good reasons)
What kind of good reasons?