I found this image on Mana’s Facebook page
It was fascinating to get some insights into both Mana and the people who vote for it. Based on that News page alone I have come to the following conclusions:
Mana is all about giving low income people rental housing at a ridiculously low rent.
Mana is about feeding ALL children, not just the ones that actually need it.
Mana is not about personal responsibility but about Aunty Government taking care of your responsibilities ie feeding your children.
Mana is not about addressing the core problems by giving a person a fishing rod but is about giving a person a fish, day after day after day that they took off those who made the effort to go fishing.
Mana is not concerned with responsible government such as balancing the books. They want to spend with out considering at all whether
a) It is an asset
b) It is is a liability.
Lets start with their housing policy. ‘Homes for every Kiwi family ‘ such a lovely feel good policy but one that has to be paid for. I have been a Landlord and I can tell you now that 25% of a beneficiaries ‘ income ‘ is not going to cover the mortgage let alone make me any profit. Wait you say, this is about socially responsible housing for the poor. Profit is evil. The government should provide safe and affordable housing. Okay, lets forget about the profit then. I still have to pay rates and insurance and a minimum of 6% of the rent to a Property Manager if the property is to be managed properly and the law followed for both the Landlord and the tenant. Again, 25% of the beneficiaries income is not going to cut it. I seriously doubt that any Property Manager will want 6% of 25% of a beneficiaries income so that will have to be subsidised as well. Another liability. Then there is still that mortgage to service.
Private Landlords already do a good job providing housing. It makes more sense financially, to let them do it and have laws to ensure that the homes meet basic health and safety requirements.If Mana are determined to throw tax payers money at the problem then it would be cheaper to subsidise rents rather than provide the housing themselves.
If the government is to be a landlord renting at such ridiculously low rentals then they are going to get further and further into debt. The debt will grow, it will never be paid off. This is what is called a liability. To make matters worse the cost of a state house in Auckland is going to be 5 or 6 times the cost of one in Opotiki yet the rent will be based on income not area.
Now lets talk about motivation and incentive. Currently if I am on a low income my incentive to improve my situation is that I need more money in order to live in a bigger home in a better suburb. If as my income grows I now pay more for the exact same home in the exact same suburb that already meets my needs am I going to be enthusiastic about increasing my income? Wouldn’t I be silly if I already have a nice warm, dry, new state house ( in a great suburb that others need two jobs to afford the rent in) to increase my income in order to have to pay more?
These policies have not been thought out. Why should beneficiaries ( and lets not kid our selves that this policy is for working people) get a home for life for 25% of their benefit when others have to scrimp and save and work to achieve the same.
What about feeding the kids? No one wants to see children go hungry yet some do. The government has already provided money to pay for their food but if their parents/ caregivers choose to neglect them and spend the money on alcohol, cigarettes and weed then they do go to school hungry.
Yes, this needs to be addressed but do we need to feed all school children in order to help these neglected children? No of course not. This policy is like saying some children need glasses and cannot afford them so the state will provide glasses for all children regardless of whether or not they have poor vision because something must be done! It would be a huge liability and it would take away the responsibility of caregivers to look after their children.
The money is already there for food in most cases. The problem is how the money is spent. Food stamps is one solution but they can be sold for cash and the food still may not make it to those who need it. How about schools identifying children who are arriving without lunch and the government then intervening in a number of ways.
1. Take the money for school provided lunches BEFORE the benefit hits their account unless they mend their ways. Then provide the food to those children. If the caregivers are working then forcibly deduct it from their wages. Bottom line is, feed your children or we will feed them for you with your money.
2. The government simply feeds the children but the family are given a warning. If after a certain amount of warnings and possibly after they have been given budget help they still do not feed their children they are prosecuted or the children are taken off them.This may seem harsh but before benefits poor people did feed their children. My Father didn’t have shoes but his Mum made him lard sandwiches for school. They weren’t Jam like the rich kids had but he did not go hungry. Everyone can afford to make a sandwich for their children even if it is just a butter or a marmite or peanut butter sandwich.
There is no excuse for neglecting your children.
A simple lunch