Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Do you like what we've done…, in reply to webweaver,
But it does cunningly say, "in reply to [whoever]" and if you click on [whoever], it takes you back to the comment the person is replying to. A very nice balance between nesting, and keeping the conversation ordered. I like it.
-
Hard News: Do you like what we've done…, in reply to Deborah,
So does that little 'reply' button do something clever and nesty?
-
Yes. Yes, I do like it. I like the large font, because alas, these days, my eyes have issues.
-
how does this idea not impoverish all children of larger families? It's not their fault which family they're born into. And how many children are the result of planned pregnancies, anyhow?
This is why I much prefer thinking in terms of the child's entitlement. The benefit is not paid for the parents. It's paid for the CHILD. As a matter of convenience, we pay it to the parent(s)/primary caregiver(s), and ask them to spend it on behalf of the child, but it is not their entitlement. It's the child's.
I think it's so important to think in terms of the child as the rights holder. We don't assist parents to educate their children: we educate the children, direct, because they are the people who are entitled to the education. We don't get ourselves tangled up in Working for Families (the overtones of the 'deserving poor' in W4F give me the holy horrors): we ensure that children have enough resources, whether their parents are in paid employment or not.
Children are people too.
-
Oh goody! Political theory on a Friday afternoon...
Here's another thought to add to the discussion regarding large families: paying family benefit for each extra child is just a cost of the system, and we should grin and bear it, cheerfully.
I'm not a fan of Working for Families, because it excludes the children of parents who are on benefits, and because the administration cost is huge. I would far rather see a universal child benefit, paid for each child, because each child is a citizen (setting aside quibbles about permanent residents / residents). It's the child's entitlement, not the parents', though as a matter of practicality, we would pay it to the primary caregiver.
The big disadvantage of a universal benefit is that it gets paid in respect of the children of the rich too, so comparatively wealthy people get assistance they really don't need. On the other hand, that might just be a cost of having a simple, effective system. If it's really that much of a worry, the benefit could be taxed at the rate applying to the highest income earner in the family, which would at least be a nod in the direction of vertical equity (those who earn more pay higher rates of tax).
That means that Jackie's parents (as in, parents of the children at her pre-school) who are unemployed would get the family benefit too, avoiding the biggest problem with Working for Families.
Sally, I'm a bit reluctant to go down the route you suggest because it's a bit too close to children as possessions rather than children as citizens. I do see the importance of notions of desert (as in, what you deserve, not rocky barren places, nor dessert), but I don't think they should be applied to children, because as Bart says, they are the ones who suffer.
Rightyoh... I'll get back to my marking now. Political theory essays, as it turns out, 'though nothing as interesting as this discussion.
-
Proud owner of #7.
Hah. FIRST! (Thanks to being 2 1/2 hours behind most of the rest of you, so I was still up and about when the e-mail alert came through.) 'Though I have not as yet seen the book, because it has been delivered to my parents' place, for me to pick up when we move home to NZ in 41 days (not that I'm counting... much).
Brilliant snippets of lutrine information, thanks, Ian.
-
the endless march of parenting, alone
Yes. Beautifully said, Che. I've felt it myself, but only from time to time when my husband has been away, once for over a month. It was hard, hard, work. But I had support, and I knew it would end. It must be so much more difficult for sole parents.
I have a lovely, wonderful aunty. Her husband cleaned out the bank accounts and left, just two weeks after they had shifted into a new house, with the first mortgage payment looming. She had five children, from teenagers down to a five year old. Masses of family support, but she worked so very hard to rear them all. A few years ago, she said to me that the thing she found the hardest was that there was no one to share the small joys with, no one to help with the little problems. She could manage the big problems, but daily life was difficult on her own. It was soul-wearying.
And more in line with Jackie's post, sometimes I think we forget that by and large, most parents, sole or otherwise, in paid work or being helped by the state, do a fine job.
-
Thank you, Jackie.
-
Theory: the longer you attend university, the more you become convinced that you have no idea about anything. Or is that just me?
11.5 years of full time tertiary education and 3 degrees later, I know enough to know that this theory is entirely correct.
-
W.r.t. the law changes, we've already got some models for defining contract workers (share milkers, real estate agents), so it's not as if they have to start from a zero base. All the same, law made in haste is risky.
Mr Key said the changes were the "critical" issue for Warner Bros.
The Government might consider broadening the changes to include other performers such as television industry workers.
Hmmm.... a film I can conceive of as a one off project i.e. there seems to be a conceptual fit with contract work. But an on-going TV series? I would have thought that standard employee laws would be the better fit with something like Shortland Street.