A number the National Party will avoid this budget
A number the National Party will avoid this budget
A number the National Party will avoid this budget
Foreign policy + Intel + Security
Subscribe | Follow | Bookmarkand join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday
MIL Public Webcast Service
Yes. And they did!
Hey but look at the bright side! Most of these kids will now get free medical treatment! Their parents won’t be able to afford to feed, house and clothe their kids properly but isn’t it comforting to know that if the kids catch pneumonia, whooping cough, hepatitis and any number of third world diseases, that their parents can now afford to take them to the doctor.
The 285,000 is utter bollocks. This is based on an erroneous calculation of 60% of the median income after housing costs. If the median income goes up, the poverty line goes up…it’s totally bs.
And, for the record, even by this stupid measurement, the 285,000 is still less than the figure was in 2001 (310,000), and 2004 (290,000), both under a LABOUR Govt.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11210883
Taken from a new book published by Fat Cat Publications entitled “The National Party alternative history of New Zealand”.
“Income poverty: 265,000 children (one in four). This looks at the amount of money families have to pay bills and purchase everyday essentials. This is defined as having less than 60% of median household income, after housing costs are removed.
Material hardship: 180,000 children (17%). This means regularly going without things most New Zealanders consider essential – like fruit and vegetables, shoes that fit, their own bed and a warm house.
Severe poverty: 10% of children. This means they are going without the things they need and their low family income means they don’t have any opportunity of changing this. These are the children experiencing material hardship and who are in families in income poverty.
Persistent poverty: 3 out of 5 children in poverty are in poverty for long periods. These children are likely to live in poverty for many years of their childhoods. Persistent poverty is defined as having lived in income poverty over a seven year period.” (2013 figures)
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago060952.html
Never mind all the official reports – IV says they are bollocks. Problem solved!
Comments are closed.