Why is the state funding the raising of beneficiary kids?

 

Genuine accidents aside, people on benefits should stop making children.  It is not a human right to have the tax payer pick up the tab for your decision, especially at around $500,000 per child.

The cost of raising a child has soared by 63 per cent over the past decade to $500,000, researchers say.

A study found parents now spend on average nearly a third of their pre-tax annual salary on just one son or daughter. Childcare costs have risen significantly.

Two-thirds are incurred before a child starts primary school, during which time the average parent spends $85,000.

Education costs, including school uniforms, books, trips and university tuition fees are the biggest expense for parents, said the study, based on figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

On average, a child’s education costs $150,000 if they attend state school and university – a sum that has more than doubled since 2003.

The report, from insurer LV=, said that the cost of raising a child in Britain from birth until the age of 21 has climbed at twice the rate of inflation since 2003 to $500,000.

Myles Rix, at LV=, said: ‘Having children has never been more expensive and, with costs such as childcare and education continuing to rise, for many families across the UK this is set to remain a pressure point.’

Even thought those numbers come from the UK, ours would be similar.  And it makes you think about life-style DPB parents that just keep popping them all out because the tax payer will help house, clothe, feed and educate their children.

Is it a human right to raise children and have someone else pay for it all?   $500,000 per child isn’t chicken feed.

 

– Daily Mail

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • LabTested

    4 years ago I was working in China. My Partner got pregnant & we decided to have the birth there. We signed up with a top private hospital. Their policy was:

    all births by cesarean
    if this is the mothers 2nd child she gets the sterilised as part of the cesarean operation.

    I’m sure the public hospitals were doing the same.

    • Bill Hanna

      Now that’s a MSD policy I’d support, heck id even comsider working in a Govt Dept if policies like this were being deployed.

  • Bill Hanna

    It never cease to amaze me the people I know, who don’t have $2 to their name think they’re in a financial position to have a kid. So they say “this month things are tight after Christmas” but hohoho I can now afford $1400 a month to raise a kid to primary school.

    • mommadog

      For many I really don’t think they think about it in cost and monetary terms. Its the same I want mentality. They want the big TV, latest iPhone and everything else now including baby. I have a niece with an under one year old who fits your category nicely. She has an 8 year old daughter from previous partner (who unfortunately died), has a full time job so is currently on maternity leave but still living payday to payday as paying student loans, new partner/Dad has a job but his income goes on car payments, gym membership and maintenance to ex for his previous 3 or 4 kids and so on and so forth. Outcome is this couple have to speak of but still decide to have another baby. Planned so no accident.

  • john Doe

    Allow one mistake and following the birth issue a final written warning that the state will fund no more. These people need to take some responsibility for bringing a being into this world.

    • Bartman

      National can point to the well understood (but rarely mentioned in MSM) the glaring issue of global overpopulation, and the responsibility we have as a nation to manage within our means and set a great example etc etc

  • MAWG

    Getting the snip after #2 is proving to be a better decision by the day!

  • petedude

    A Herald article in 2009 stated that an IRD study showed it costs $250,000 to raise a child in NZ to age 18 (excluding loss of one parent’s income and childcare costs). That’s about $270 per week per child.

    Kids are expensive. I would guess that poverty in families worldwide is very strongly correlated with the number of children they’ve chosen to have.

    Interestingly, an article last year reported that very few beneficiaries had taken
    advantage of National’s free contraception for beneficiaries (introduced
    in 2012 amid much controversy and howling).

  • The UK numbers will be higher than NZ and our relative income differences need to be factored in. As I’ve said before, raising kids in NZ is generally cheaper, as you don’t get hit with a number of expenses which are more common in the UK (hey, kids need to take school trips to the South of France, right?), along with housing costs which are astronomical (even the mere rental value would be astronomical, even compared with Auckland). So I’d like to see NZ data, but I agree, leaching off the taxpayer to have children is absurd (people who already have kids are a bit different).

  • Whitey

    Contraception is easy to use and readily available to everybody in this country. There is no excuse for people having kids they can’t afford to raise. My view is that WINZ should refuse to give parents more money if they have a kid while on the benefit. I also like the ACT party’s policy of putting a lifetime cap on the amount of time an individual can spend on the DPB.

    I guarantee beneficiaries will stop having kids as soon as the supply of WINZ money dries up.

    • Albert Lane

      It would be much easier if Winz required all beneficiaries (male and female) to go on a course of contraceptives for the entire time they are on a benefit. If they refused, no additional payments would be made for any children conceived while on the benefit. What’s difficult about that?

      • Whitey

        A good idea, but it would take a lot of effort and resources to enforce it and the whole thing would become a bureaucratic nightmare. You’d need to have some way of certifying that approved contraception was being used, for starters. If pills are an approved option, what happens when a woman “forgets” to take her pill? If she’s on the jab she has to have one every so many months so WINZ would have to collect a doctor’s certificate every time she gets the injection – and monitor whether she was up to date with her injections. The implants that WINZ currently funds are the best option, but some people can’t use them for medical reasons.

        Requiring men to get the snip is probably a bit harsh, because it can’t always be successfully reversed and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t have kids once they’re off the benefit and can support children. But I don’t know how else you could guarantee a man was using contraception. As with women, you can’t just rely on the honour system.

        I still think the better option is for WINZ to just say no extra money for any kids people have while on the benefit. It is very easy not to have kids and I think that beneficiaries will manage not to have kids if there’s no incentive for them to do so.

        • Reaper

          I don’t see that it would be that hard to implement a system whereby a woman provides a doctor’s certificate every 12 weeks to show she has had the injection, or the benefit stops. ACC works like this.

      • I.M Bach

        And drug/alcohol testing.

    • I.M Bach

      Don’t you dare come on here with sensible solutions. Who do you think you are? Oh, hang on, you’re on the ‘right’ blog, as you were. That’s mighty Whitey of you,

  • KQ

    I believe it is mainly because we do not have political leaders with the intestinal fortitude to implement incentives to reverse the problem. Fear of oblivion at the polls is always uppermost and overrides most sensible but tough policy decisions.

    • Bartman

      As a third term government National should focus on sending clear signals to the electorate that it is all over this travesty, and will haul it back into line. I think that would fly with the majority – again. Removing WFF and reduce the tax thresholds, make some other adjustments, and you cut out the majority of the money-go-round.

      • KQ

        Sounds great. It will never happen under John Key. I doubt it would ever be contemplated under any National government.

  • Keanne Lawrence

    There have already been some constraints on the DPB but for far too many it remains a lifestyle choice at the tax payers expense.
    Unfortunately the generous benefit is all too frequently allowing the parent to reduce their “want” lists as their children’s “needs” lists grow at a greater rate as they get older.
    Then we hear the bleeding hearts about the increasing number of “hungry” children turning up at school from having to wait at the end of the gravy train.
    Yet basic food items are the cheapest items in the shopping cart as we experienced on our recent vacation back home in NZ. Good honest white bread at $1 a loaf can fill a lot of hungry bellies.
    But they keep on banging out babies to boost their income and over 40% have additional children when on the DPB. Ostensibly introduced to “provide for the children” it has been continuously abused by the recipients and with 3 or more generations of some families choosing it. Time for a rewind.

    • Albert Lane

      How much does one cigarette cost? 75 cents? Two cigarettes would pay for a family’s lunch. $1 for a loaf of bread (I buy $1 multigrain loaf and love it), 30 cents for spread. 50 cents for home-grown tomatoes and some salt and pepper.

  • mommadog

    Families got raised without the state before the welfare system came into play in NZ and we managed as a country to develop an epidemic of entitleitis.

    Two neighbour houses – both state houses with welfare tenants. Next door Mum has older primary school child with previous partner, a 2-year old with current partner and a 6-8 month old with current partner. Baby conceived between jail holidays for dad and he got out again at Christmas so I fully expect another baby in 9 months or so. What do they do all day – sit on the porch and smoke and every now and again argue between them or with visiting relatives. Loudly and to the point other neighbours have called police in the past.

    House across the road, single dad with 2 school aged girls. Also not working (as far as I know) but he has a large veg garden he put in, an old run around car. I’ve seen him out washing the house windows, keeps the lawns moved and so on. Hasn’t had any more kids. Don’t know him well but we say hello and I’ve given him some extra plants for his garden when I had too many for my veg patch. House two is trying to get life together and I don’t mind the hand up. House one is just lost with no intention of doing anything except keeping the hand held out for more. I would totally support stricter terms and saying no more in this case.

  • mommadog

    I will support working for families when I can claim it for my dog. She is a member of the family who just happens to be a bit hairy and have four legs. Her food and vet bills are not cheap. I have to work to be able to afford her food and treats and the petrol to take her to a nice dog park on the weekend. If I cant get it for her then it needs to go away because I am being penalised for not having a child.

    • The Accountant

      And I imagine your dog wouldn’t be afraid of hard work either, chasing pests, providing guard duties and cleaning up scraps?

  • El Diablo

    The way things are going, the only people who can afford to have kids are benficiaries.

  • Coffee Connoisseur

    Under a better system this wouldn’t be an issue.

  • McGrath

    Benefits over a certain amount should require compulsory temporary contraception while said individuals remain on the benefit. This would save the state a significant amount, lower the numbers of underclass, and reduce crime in the long term.

  • damm good thrashing

    Could someone explain what a ‘genuine accident’ is in relation to making children.

    • The Accountant

      A rubber blow out.

  • botti

    Economist Eric Crampton had an excellent piece about making contraception a condition of welfare.

    http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/coercion-everywhere-welfare-edition.html

  • I.M Bach

    A child $500,000. A packet of condoms $10. A quandry? Not.

33%