I wonder what the procedure is when you're 18-19 and not on good terms with your parents?
Student allowances were also means tested when I was studying, and that didn't seem fair to me at all at the time.
It's just a strange line of thought in general, these are adults after all.
The procedure is homelessness.
Seriously though I remember for student allowances, when I was studying there were circumstances in which you could apply for a parent not to be counted (serious estrangement for example) so it actually wasn't as unfair as it seemed.
I wouldn't be surprised if all that has fallen by the wayside though.
I wonder what the procedure is when you’re 18-19 and not on good terms with your parents
I bet they haven't thought that far ahead yet. Just increasing the hoops to jump through might be enough to stop them from trying.
Student allowances were also means tested when I was studying, and that didn’t seem fair to me at all at the time.
It's ridiculous isn't it. If you commit a crime at 18 or 19 they'll try you as an adult. You can vote, drink and join the military. But if you want to further your education or require help from jobseekers while looking for employment, nope sorry! You're a child and your parents should be paying for you.
Idk I'm in two minds about that. When I was at university I knew plenty of people who were living rent-free in their parents' houses. One guy was even having his mum cook meals and do laundry.
Whereas I was just out there by myself, so without an allowance my loans would have had even more of a chilling effect. In practice most suggestions for a UBI seem to involve lowering the amount poor people get. I guess the devil's in the details.
If I were in charge I'd make tertiary free instead.
In my opinion, any kind of social safety net or financial support system will always have cases of abuse or edge cases taking advantage of it. It would be almost impossible to make it completely foolproof against abuse without having many who do need it falling through the cracks as well. Kind of like removing the benefit because some people abuse it. The vast majority that need it would ultimately suffer.
I agree on making tertiary free though.
Oh, yeah I agree with the gist of this. I think you are right. In our legal system we have the principle that jailing innocent people is worse than accidentally letting a guilty one go unpunished, and I really wish we could apply that same logic to social programmes.
The kind of witch hunting that goes on mostly affects and hurts those in need.
I think my problem is I have a mindset of scarcity and should probably study macroeconomics or something.
Sadly we can see an example of it in action with the rubbish Family Boost scheme National came up with. They've spent more money administering it than actually providing rebates. Poor people can't afford to pay for ECE first and then apply and wait weeks or months for a rebate. Was the original free ECE hours perfect? No and absolutely a lot of private ECE centers were abusing it. But Labour's plan to extend free ECE hours to two year olds would have benefited far more people.
I think my problem is I have a mindset of scarcity
I don't think this is uncommon, particularly in western culture as a lot of western society places importance on individual wealth building rather than society as a whole.
I always think of this proverb:
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
We need to try to build a future society for those that come after us. Not just to reap the benefits in our own lifetimes.
One of my parents was very fond of that proverb. <3 Literally as well as metaphorically.
I meant more I have a mindset in terms of society's scarcity.
The messaging drilled into me is always that the government can't afford to give us all the things we need. So when people say the government should give everyone, say, a UBI, part of me panics thinking at that rate the day when the government decides it can, say, finally afford to help people like me to get a wheelchair, or help the homeless people up the road get shelter, or cut hospital wait times to under 12 months, will never come because all the money will go to UBIs.
But that's a false dichotomy.
They’ve spent more money administering it than actually providing
I get the impression this happens a fair bit with change to social programmes that is designed to send project an ideology. Sometimes it almost feels like there are two NZs, one that wants to help everyone become a prosperous society and one that wants to not have social support at all.
The point is to hurt ordinary people as much as possible so that rich people can get tax cuts and billions can be handed over the American defence contractors.
I don't know why you guys don't realise this by now. Cruelty is the point and the purpose of this government. They aren't happy unless those most in need are in pain.
Maybe if you get sick or injured and are waiting 12 hours to see a doctor in the emergency room then you'll finally get a clue.
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
