10 June 06 In
Our Hands Printer
friendly version (PDF) View >>>
New Zealand is a country where
there should be no poverty. With cradle to the grave welfare
assistance, a vast supply of available jobs, and a temperate
climate where families can grow enough food to be relatively
self-sufficient, not only should there be no poverty, but
there should be no intergenerational welfare and no underclass
either.
But
the fact that these problems do exist in spite of the massive
amounts of money that have been poured into the welfare system
demonstrates that the cause is not a lack of money, but the
system itself.
Everyone
knows that the welfare system is a disaster: plagued with
fraud and abuse, at best welfare provides a helping hand for
those in need, but at its worst it corrodes self respect,
destroys the work ethic, and undermines the family.
One
of its most damaging consequences has been the creation of the
underclass. These people - consisting mainly of chronic
criminals, never married women with children, and young men
who have no intention of finding work - exist on the margins
of society. It is from this group that the majority of our
intransigent social problems of child abuse, drug addiction,
violence and crime, emanate.
Addressing
these issues and removing the incentives that have created
this dysfunction are at the heart of genuine welfare reform
proposals, but given the entrenched nature of the dependency
problems and the massive industry that supports it, the task
of bringing about change is a complex and difficult one.
That
is why it is so interesting to read the new
book “In Our Hands”, by
the policy analyst and author Dr Charles Murray,
which outlines an innovative welfare
reform proposal that he is promoting for discussion. Dr
Murray, a Bradley Fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute, has developed a proposition
that is so stunningly simple in its concept that not only is
it worth examining in some detail, but could be worth
considering for
New Zealand
.
In
looking at the massive amounts of money spent on the poor in
the US over the decades, and the stubbornly high rates of
poverty and social dysfunction, Murray concluded that it is
“within our power” to not only end poverty, but to also
provide for a comfortable retirement and medical care, by
thinking outside the square.
His
proposition, which he calls “The Plan”, is based on the
idea of replacing the whole income transfer system - and the
industry that surrounds it - with a cash grant to every
citizen of 21 years or older of around $10,000 a year. While
some of the grant would be earmarked for a universal health
insurance policy - and a retirement savings scheme may be
recommended - the rest is up to the recipient to use as they
see fit.
However,
Murray
considers that individuals earning more than $25,000 would
need less and so he has proposed a surtax: the result would be
that anyone earning less than $25,000 would receive the full
$10,000 grant, those earning $50,000 or more would receive
$5,000 a year, and those in between receive an amount
diminishing from $10,000 to $5,000.
The
Plan will require only minimal administration and will
eliminate the massive welfare bureaucracy. There would also be
significant flow-on reductions in the bureaucracy in the
health sector, as the system is re-arranged along a health
insurance model.
Murray believes that the long-term effect of this
down sizing of the public service would be very positive as
people moved out of jobs which are a net drain on society into
jobs, which are productive and would help the country to move
ahead.
He
also proposes that his Plan would replace the present pension
system as people saved a part of their grant into a personal
superannuation plan that would, over the years, provide a
retirement annuity far in excess of the level of today’s
pension.
In
outlining the benefits of his Plan, Murray believes it will
significantly reduce the social dysfunction created by the
welfare system and lead to the eventual elimination of the
underclass: it would strongly discourage casual teenage
parenthood and unmarried motherhood, and it would create a
strong motivation for able-bodied young men who are outside of
the labour force, to get jobs.
One
of the broadest effects of the Plan would be to restore the
vitality of marriage, making it economically easier for
low-income couples to marry, and providing far greater choices
for parents over whether to stay at home to raise their
children.
Murray outlines how the Plan will replace the
welfare safety net and restore civil society: “People who
know that a net is below them do reckless things they
wouldn’t do otherwise. Under the current system that net is
there regardless of how people behave. Under the Plan, people
have ample raw materials for a net, but they must weave it for
themselves”. He further explains how voluntary groups acting
privately are far better equipped to administer to complex
human needs than government bureaucracies, which by their very
nature are driven by an underlying need to increase their
budgets and their staff.
He
concludes that while it is politically impossible today for
the Plan to become a reality, he believes that it is
inevitable, as the electorate eventually realises that a lack
of money cannot be the reason for having poverty, lack of
medical coverage or an underclass: “The problem is that we
are spending the money badly”. Ultimately he sees the Plan
as being a powerful force in progressing the dream of any free
and prosperous society: “taking our lives back into our own
hands – ours as individuals, ours as families and ours as
communities”.
When
I look at Charles Murray’s proposition, I see so many
parallels between the problems he is attempting to solve and
the problems that we face here, that I would like to see us
having a serious discussion about whether such a proposition
(my quick calculations show the numbers are feasible) would
make sense for New Zealand.
Surely
it is time that we took some steps that will get this country
back onto a common sense track that will lead to a better
standard of living and a happier life for everyone. That means
eliminating the underclass, reducing teenage parenthood,
encouraging marriage, and restoring civil society, and if
Charles Murray’s Plan gives us a guide as to how that could
be achieved, then surely we should be open-minded enough to
want to look into it.
The
poll this week asks, Do you
think Charles Murray’s Plan for replacing welfare is a
concept worth exploring for
New Zealand
?
Your comments and contributions are welcome. Send your comments here
>>>.
Opinions expressed are those of the contributors, and do not
necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff.