On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 17:00:41 +1300, Crash <
nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 08:54:29 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://briefingpapers.co.nz/2016/12/and-so-this-is-christmas/
[snip]
That is indeed an interesting article. However there is another
'elephant in the room' that the author does not tackle. That is that
the reforms introduced by the Labour Government in 1938 to provide >taxpayer-funded social support created an expectation that those who
suffer financial reversals such as job losses no longer need to look
after themselves because the state will provide financial support.
I dont think that was ever true - at various times there have been
government projects deliberately designed to provide employment to
those out of work, and training programmes for those whose industry
had declined or disappeared. Of course there have always been people
disabled through work and other accidents who may never be able to
work again, but the aim has usually been to enable where necessary
gainful employment wherever possible - regardless of the government of
the day.
In 1938 the world was emerging from the worst financial meltdown in
living memory and charities struggled to cope (as they do today) and
this was the back story to these reforms.
World governments are better at avoiding the extremes of the 1930's
depression, but for individuals the effect can be the same. You are
right that charities are struggling to cope - the article above refers
to a significant increase in the last year. We may not have had a
general financial meltdown, but the meltdown has had a similar effect
on a lot of individual families.
One of the emerging trends that has not yet got much media attention
is that charities such as the various City Missions and Salvation Army
etc. are much more efficient at distributing charity to those that
actually need the help, than civil servants. This is in part because
all funding comes from voluntary sources and their work is carried out
in a large part by dedicated and selfless volunteers.
No, charities are struggling. They do not have the ability to detect
false claimants to the extent that the government has - I know that in
my area they share information between charities, but it does not
extend very far. They do ask more questions thaan they used to, and
they have become very good at helping people make sure that they have
claimed all they are entitled to from government agencies, and some
provide budgetting assistance - but these are replacing "services"
that used to be part of the government system. They are volunteers,
and charities are very aware that they are not able to reach all those
in need, and that people in different areas will receive different
levels of assistance, based not only on need but also on the demand in
a local area. As the article points out, the priority for government
has changed from providing benefits to those qualifying through need
to reducing overall cost. The changes now have the effect of resulting
in children in different areas having different levels of opportunity
than those in other areas - equality of oportunity used to be a goal
of governments in times past. As regards the elderly or disabled,
there are similar differences - those in areas where rents for example
have increased sharply, we get much higher death rates in winter as
people are finding they cannot afford heating - churches in particular
are aware of the deprivation of the elderly.
The question is not why the Welfare State has degenerated to the point
that charities are needed to fill the gaps of need,
That seems a legitimate question to me - what do you think is the
answer?
but how do we
increase the voluntary financial contributions to charities.
Two sets of earthquakes have already made a huge call on people's
capacity for charitable donations, and more is already being given to
charities for simple poverty as discussed above than ever before, but
with many families having had no increase in real disposable income
for over 5 years, it is not surprising that charities are finding they
are unable to meet the needs they are faced with. New Zealanders are
generous, but at some stage we look to government to provide
consistent advice up to a minimum level - in a sense a decision by
governmetn to fund charities (which they do quite a bit), is a
voluntary decision on our behalf by the politicians - if they are not representing our wishes (by either providing more or less than we
collectively want) then over time we will get what we collectively
want.
Fundamentally we must acknowledge the Welfare State is not a universal >panacea to supporting those in need, and that those of us who can
should support charities more as an alternative to increased
government spending to achieve the same result.
I don't think many people would disagree - but there is not universal
agreement on the level at which the welfare state should intervene.
Personally I believe that the old objectives of equal opportunity
should still be valid - that calls for a level of income sufficient to
provide a standard of living that avoids illnesses and deaths from
poverty, lack of heating, and over-crowding. Sadly too many New
Zealanders still experience those problems.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)