How to better fund our poor

It's interesting to note that Treasury is doing some "crowd sourcing"  for proposals to improve outcomes for those in need - as well as for taxpayers... An interesting idea, even if the time frame is pathetically short.

Did they get a nudge from minister Paula Bennett before he news release a few days ago? Or did she pick up a bit of political capital from being aware that they were exploring the issues?

At least the Treasury invitation seems to leave fewer questions answered before they are actually asked. And it is clear that interested people and groups may make submissions.  I hope that there will be a flood of creative and compassionate suggestions.

I guess a bottom line for me is that the basic level of benefits, reduced so dramatically over twenty years ago, is simply not adequate for the huge majority of those who depend on them these days.

A New Criterion of Social Need?

I guess I'm as keen as the next taxpayer to get value in government spending. But Minister Paula Bennett's "wraparound" support for at-risk groups might be better expressed if it were prioritised around their need rather than what they might otherwise cost us.

The way her policy was reported this morning one gets the feeling that the priority is to direct priority spending towards people who are likely, if not helped out of their situation, to cost the state the most. People who, if somewhat neglected, won't cost us so much in the long term, are given lesser priority in social spending. So we will offer a person assistance if it will ultimately save us $246,000 rather than others who might cost us only $116,000.

The way the minister argues the case, it doesn't sound much better to me than the days when assistance would be given to the "deserving" poor rather than those who were just poor.

I know we have to impress the bean-counters, but let's focus on the magnitude of the need, not on what we can potentially save.