research     parent resources     discussion     vision     mission     home     join/contact    

discussion at Parent.org

Mother Nature, in her infinite wisdom, has instilled within each of us a powerful

biological instinct to reproduce; this is her way of assuring that the human race,

come what may, will never have any disposable income.  ~Dave Barry

Money

Connecting money and parenting has always been sticky.  Peoples domestic circumstances have always been open to blame and there is still a residual culture that if people make bad decisions then they should bear the consequences.  Solo mothers are the perfect example of this - everybody's whipping post.  The latest OECD report suggested that we give them less money to drive them back to work.  The message behind this thinking is clear.  Parenting has no value - you are only useful to society if you are in the workforce.  Research supports the notion that families do better through having members work.  However, the distinction has not been made as to whether this is because of the added money the family has at its disposal.  If money is the problem, does that necessarily mean getting all the adults in a family working is the solution?  In Britain the tax system recognises that a parent committed to raising a child has value, and that children cost money. 

We have a tax system that is used to encourage certain behaviours.  The excessive duty on cigarettes are, in part, to discourage people from smoking.  Recently our Finance Minister, Dr. Cullen, approved tax breaks to encourage foreign film companies to make films in New Zealand.  Like it or not our income tax system discourages people from having families.  Our tax structure crudely taxes on the basis of income, giving no recognition to the number of people an income is supporting.

While this may lead to the argument "You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to", kids aren't something that you can return if you don't want them, and people for a variety of reasons choose to have kids when they are not in a position to afford them (If people only had children when they could afford them our population would be decimated in decades).  As a society we have to ask ourselves what we want out of this situation.  Do we want to make life difficult for that family as some sort of punishment?  In reality we need the children, and more importantly we need them to grow to successful adults. 

When young Bailey Jnr. Kurariki got sent to jail for his part in the murder of Michael Choy, taxpayers committed themselves to finding well over $100,000 per annum to keep him there.  When he returns to society, despite our best wishes, statistics suggest there is a high chance that he will not successfully integrate, becoming a threat and a recurring cost.  There are many families operating under intense financial stress, leading to poor parenting and less than perfect outcomes for the children involved.  If we want a safe society we will not get it by building more prisons and employing more police.  We will get it by ensuring that more and more children grow up feeling confident and connected with their society. 

While this might represent a short term challenge for our finances, the long term benefits are enormous.  We would begin funneling money dedicated to combating social woes to stopping them happening.  Eventually we would find that we have vast surpluses of money because our social and criminal spending will shrivel.

While we might applaud Dr.Cullen's acknowledgement in the 2004 budget of the desperate financial circumstances of many families, he chose the wrong mechanism to counteract the situation.  Taking money off people and then returning it to them as a benefit is both complicated, and derogatory.  Surely, acknowledging the cost of families and not taking the money off people in the first place is far simpler and more empowering.  Going further and making parenting books and education tax deductible would further capitalise on this - sending a clear message to parents that the government supports them, wants them to do well, and acknowledges their skills as having value. 

When the opportunity arose to begin to create a success focused parenting environment, Dr. Cullen rejected it and opted for an extension of failure focused - if you can't afford your family (because we are overtaxing you) we will turn you into a beneficiary.