Sunday, August 10, 2008

4 point DPB policy for the Nats

1. Anyone currently on the DPB can claim no more benefit for any additional children whilst on it.
2. DPB becomes same as unemployment benefit when youngest child reaches school age (almost got that one)
3. 1 year warning that no DPB will be granted to anyone unwilling to name (accurately) other liable parent.
4. No one convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence entitled to receive any welfare benefits whatsoever.

Baby steps really

and Helen Clark? Well, when she spends any time appreciating what it is like to work, raise a family and pay taxes, then she might be someone for whom some of us think she might give a damn. Her political career is partly built on support from people who live off of the back of others, which she facilitates.

4 comments:

Ruth said...

What of the men Scott?

I hope you think that the least they can do is to provide for their offspring.

It's not virgin births we are talking about.

I agree with you, but you don't mention the male responsibility - to take the consequences of THEIR unprotected sex.

Your policy needs fleshing out.

Lindsay said...

Ruth, I would be all for men taking financial responsibility if there was no DPB. But until then it is a system stacked towards the female. The state promises to replace the male as father (very attractive to some women) but still sends him a bill. Best he just zips it up I think. The DPB discourages commitment; discourages trust. Very sad.

Anonymous said...

How about one point plan:

* DPB is abolished

or even better, a two-point plan.

* DPB is abolished
* the Net Present Value of all moneys received via the DPB, Dole, Student allowance, Student Loan, or any other benefit are immediately repayable

best thing about this plan is a) it's a civil debt, and b) failure to repay is a criminal offence. This means (unlike student allowances) the debt goes down as part of your estate: the only way to escape it is to go bankrupt, when all your assets are sold!
(yeah, probably better fix the bankrupcy law so the house can be sold!)

Then, I'd just remove the franchise from anyone who has ever been bankrupt: if people cannot take responsibility for themselves, they sure should not be allowed to take responsibility for anyone else by voting.

libertyscott said...

Ruth, well yes of course they should. Child support should simply be a matter of course, leaving the DPB as little more than a widow's benefit. The fathers should have continuous financial responsibility (as would mothers if roles are reversed which they are at times).