Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Are we suffering from a surplus of children in the country? No.
I agree this country has no surplus. But I disagree that this planet has no surplus. I am reluctant to ignore the planet as a whole simply because our little bit of it is jus’ fine. I'd also note that almost everything we describe as being good about New Zealand is as a direct result of our population being low.
While I’ll argue vehemently that we ought to provide better for all the children regardless of how big the family is, I’ll also argue that those people who do have big families are doing some harm to our planet – less harm than any merchant banker but more harm than a family of 2 or 3 children.
-
Ok I have a niggle about these reproductive rights. As far as I can tell there is no such thing. There is a reproductive ability, which is not equal at all, I have friends who struggled to reproduce at all and it had nothing to do with the laws or benefits.
If you are referring about some natural right to have lots of babies then are you including or excluding the right to die in natural childbirth etc etc. The point is reproducing is a responsibility and and not a right. It isn’t something to protected legally.
What is to be protected is the child. Which is where this began.
-
Why do we always have to frame our arguments in terms of making some niggardly, meanspirited douche grudgingly accept something?
Because I want to have these discussions with open-minded thinking nice people so I can understand the complexities of the issues.
If we don't have these discussions then the only time I ever have them is with assholes and then it isn't a discussion but simply an argument.
On that note I apologise in advance for the multiple posts that follow but you guys raised some really cool thoughts that are worth following. -
"the things the child should be getting" are really free-
is a whole ball of worms:
Didn't say it would be easy
-
Hiya Sally, I did have your name in there but then it felt to me that I was attacking your idea rather than just playing with it and I really don't want to attack the idea, or you. So I took the name out and tried instead to discuss the idea.
You make good points and always there is the issue of saving the life of the diabetic (hip replacement) versus giving a child better schooling.
My point is we should be doing both and the only way to do that is to put more money in the pool and I really don't think we should be afraid of doing that.
As for how you give money to families to make sure children get the best ... everything. The complaint is always about the 6/8/10/14 child family with unemployed parents. An example that really is hard to demonstrate. The vast majority of the benefit goes where it is meant to without supporting "bludgers". It is the point I make any time I'm arguing this with folks "show me the bludgers" and most times they can't because they are mythical.
The problem with grading the benefit down for each subsequent child is that you harm the child by doing that, sorry I just think that cost is too great in the long term. Instead why not make sure the things the child should be getting are really free. Free healthcare, free education free pre-school care (yes that means Jackie gets paid a good salary by the government aka us taxpayers). If those things are really free and I mean really free, not with hidden administration fees and school uniform charges then the child directly benefits and you don't need to give the family as much cash.
Note by doing that I tend to think you aren't valuing parents over non-parents. Instead you are valuing children. If you did make those things genuinely free you might find that families really could afford to choose (their own choice) to have one full time parent.
But whatever way you look at it, it will cost more money, more of our money, more of my money ... and I really think it's worth it. Because this current system ain't working as well as we'd hoped and I really really don't want to go to the American user pays model, I would much rather emulate the Northern European models, including the higher tax rate.
-
sign-o-rama or inscript-o-rama
I've been shopping for art (birthday soon) and this sounds very much like what we've seen lately. It turns out shopping for art isn't easy, who knew?
-
But what I would like to see are more support services. More drop in centres, with social workers and school homework helpers; more free budget services around low income areas; more green spaces (maybe even with community vege gardens) and better communal playground areas and sports fields; district nurses doing the rounds again; supported community centres with cheap/free exercise groups and 'healthy cooking on a budget' lessons; safe and healthy evening/weekend entertainment ('blue light discos' and the like) - more uplifting, genuinely helpful stuff
THIS
and more people like Jackie, articulate, dedicated, talented.
and we need to suck it up and pay for it.
-
I don't think it's a question of dividing up the same pool of money between those with and those without children, or comparing their value.
With any finite pool of money if you make decision to fund one thing then you are by default choosing not to fund something else. Inherent in that decision is a value judgement. There is nothing wrong with making value judgements. My problem is when people make decisions without taking the time to make the value judgement.
But before we start making those judgements we need to accept that we must have a bigger pool of money. And that means more tax. Anyone advocating user pays is simply saying poor people don't deserve to have good child care etc which is also a value judgement (one that says rich people are more important).
You seem to be interpreting my comment as saying we shouldn’t fund early childcare because some people don’t have children and hence they get nothing. That is not at all what I believe, as a non-parent I desperately want the very best education for children, including pre-school. It is simple logic for me that says those children need to be productive and creative in order to keep me in my dotage. But more importantly it is simple morality that demands those children be given the best care possible. That said there are childless families who need and deserve care as well.
But the fact that we're stuffed as a society if no-one makes this choice, or if there is a substantial reduction in the number of people who continue to make this choice
This is something that gets said a lot. Essentially the thesis is that if we don’t keep growing our population then we can’t keep growing our productivity. It is a holdover from manual labour days and the times (and places) when children died a lot. The idea that the planet can sustain a continually growing population has been well and truly debunked. But the economic ideas around growth have yet to adapt.
I believe we can have a healthy productive society that does not have a continually growing population, I actually believe we must find a way to do that or the planet is stuffed. That means having families with one or no children accepted as normal and valued. A declining population is not something to be feared, but included in that is that those children we do have should be cared for as best we can and we'll need more money in the pool to do that.
-
An email went out to previous PA Books buyers last week
There are disadvantages to cash transactions in bars, though I treasure the inscriptions..
Same problem here.
Of course it could simply be that David hates us - yeah that'll be it.
-
Tolley is elsewhere for a while
Pretty certain she has always been on another planet