Balance in the Beneficiary Bashing Debate
While the solo mothers had their "income" (and I use that term loosely) details released, by paula Bennett I ask one simple question:
Can Bennett now release the income details of the fathers (and I use that term loosely) who leave these women on their own, with children and surviving solely on benefits?
Can Bennett now release the income details of the fathers (and I use that term loosely) who leave these women on their own, with children and surviving solely on benefits?
posted by Cactus Kate at 9:18 AM
13 Comments:
nah, Bennett can't reveal the child support amounts, but Dunne could...
I don't think she should have released the exact details, release the makeup perhaps :), but it was about as subtle as a rhino in a gift shop ( happens to SA apparently ).
Anyways, you have a valid point, though if they were contributing would it make any different to the end amount the DPB beneficiary got ?, I suspect not.
( Yes I do pay my share ).
It's not income, it's a transfer payment (an economist would say).
I prefer to use "transfer payment" to show the distinction.
Though it may be relevent, it would probably be a statement too far. Those men have not publicly stated they are getting less than they are, or contributing more than they are. In short, they aren't lying. As with the Farrar research example in a later post, you could probably work out how much they should be paying and suggest it could be in addition to what the state provides. But that's as far as you could go without malice.
Anonymous
Real men don't pay minimum child support and rely on the State to top up their payments to the solo mothers. They pay a proper share of the costs of raising the children that are theirs.
If they can't see the child then I have no issue with them withholding in protest (unless they are a violent nutcase) if the woman is being unreasonable.
But real men take real responsibility and minimum child support when you can afford more is not proper behaviour.
Minimum child support as you call it in my case is well above the DPB for my ex based on my income.
Having the 'lovely people' at IRD decide the amount removes conflict and prevents constant badgering.
My ex has solved her money supply issue by:
a) getting a job?
or
b) having a child with someone else, dumping them and getting child support off them to?
I support my kids over and above this by having them stay with me three nights a week - I rather my money go directly to them rather than my ex.
Does this make me guilty of improper behaviour by your standards CK?
No as you pay more than required and not only that but take the children for 3 nights but assume you pay for them when they are with you.
Taking the children almost half the week probably qualifies you for an attempt at Sainthood.
Your only improper conduct was picking an obvious ungrateful slapper of a woman to breed with.
Standard operating mistake.
That's the whole point though, CK. You could release that info, but it would be because they pissed you off i.e. malice.
which is understandable, but not professional, and not behaviour becoming an MP. Theoretically.
The universal value of telling the truth is higher than a personal subjective value of what a "real man" does. That's where the professional line is.
But if they tried the same lies as the activist women did, you could do it in all fairness. Bennett did, and that's the only reason she's largely supported in all this - because thankfully many people still recognise the value of telling the truth is greater than legal technicalities. (Encouraging in itself, I think.)
I guess what is being missed in this incident with all the "Yeah but they did this... etc etc " arguments - and what you begin to examine with your comments about the absence of the fathers - is that welfare does not begin and end with handing someone some cash. It doesn't begin with a woman trying to get off a benefit. The causes that begin a need start much earlier in the beneficiaries life. Even as early as childhood. Some people are just waking up to the fact that the state (which in reality is them) have paid a woman increasing amounts and finally reached a point where she lives outside her means. And they're going nuts about it. At least now they know. That woman can't hope to do anything but financially crash, now. The same welfare that could have given assistence in time of need was over extended and now is going to damage her. No way out. It's done the exact opposite of what it was designed to do through over application.
This concept has serious implications for the way our systems work, our political ideologies and our cultural attitudes. It should concern every person in this argument deeply, it will certainly scare some, and that fear is illustrated in the media and political noises we hear now.
It seems to me that the door for further debate about what welfare is and should be is wide open.
I hope you are not leading that debate. That was one of the most boring comments I've ever had to read through on this blog.
Philosophy Major by any chance?
Listen: women walk out, too, and leave spouses/partners holding the babies.
Women, too, dodge paying what they should. I asked social welfare, once, whether my ex was paying maintenance and what was she paying. The prim little bureaucrat-ette behind the counter (they used to be behind counters, and she was about 18) primly told me that those matters were none of my business. "It is between us and her."
I do wish that the commentariat would include 'women' as well as men.
And I also wish that some of the fear and loathing that gets directed at solo parents was aimed at the men and the women who swanned off.
And by the way, the law REWARDS them. If Bloke A buggers off with the office receptionist and Blokette V runs off with that neat guy in Design, they are entitled to 50 per cent of the matrimonial property.
- TripeWryter
Oh dear
The price of democracy is freedom of information.
Information WILL set you free, but it will piss off a lot of people on the way!
Ah Kate , you're obviously not up with that quaint habit the sluts in Nz have and are allowed to have, and that is THEY DONT HAVE TO NAME THE FATHER on the birth certificate
Yes, stupid rule unless there is a safety risk.
And bad on the women for having it that way. Even if on birth control one should always wait until after the next period before rooting another. Common sense.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home