The Poverty of The Penis

Every year the Herald seems to run a series of case studies where poor unfortunates volunteer their income and expenditure details to contribute to "struggle street" stories. Usually around budget time, however random spurts occur throughout the year.

The problem is that as I have analysed before the people used are one step short of having no brain matter whatsoever.

I am now starting to think these are the best most representative examples the Herald can find and that in fact there is a perfect positive correlation between stupidity and faux poverty and inequality in New Zealand.

Today's example tried to play a hardworking UK immigrant man with an idiot of a wife against a pair of breeders. A ridiculous piece by Simon Collins who is old enough to know better.

True to form politicians from the left couldn't help themselves and we were treated to some David Cunliffe incomprehensible poverty poetry right up there with his fabulous rendition "I am Harvard". An upper caps allegedly-educated attempt at something we have only seen in the blogosphere from the brilliant mangled mind of Phil Ure.



"The Strugglers" are a mis-matched 51 yo with a 29 yo who simply must be from West Auckland originally - Craig and Carla. C&C.

Right away Carla is breaking all manner of female common sense. At 29 years of age and a woman if you are to break the half + seven rule and hook up and breed with a man 22 years older then let him be one who is at least self-supporting.

Else you are better off on your own or an underachiever your own age with a chance of changing his future.

I am often chided in applying this rule for a lack of romance, however it is also a measure of your own independence as a woman. One day if you are rich enough to support a man 22 years older than yourself then this rule won't apply and you can co-habitate with any man you like. The problem at that point is you won't want to because you will pity him like you do a cold, wet Siamese kitten on a doorstep being chased by a mouse rather than see him as a useful example of testosterone capable of matching you even in the scratcher let alone in open debate.




Carla not only puts up with an underachieving bloke dumb enough to be interviewed by Simon Collins, she's got a SOCK (some other c----s kid or as the Herald terms it "Cinderella syndrome") on the scene. The good news is she doesn't have to put up with Craig around the house as he has to work seven days a week.

Sticking the harsh but wonderful Suze Orman test on them we get the following:

1. Two cars of $160 a week. Beggars belief as to what cars they bought/financed.
2. Child support for SOCK of $132 a fortnight. So Craig can't afford his first child. How on earth did Carla think this would end up?
3. Credit card debt. Go figure. Who gave them a credit card?
4. Petrol of $120 a week. So $280 a week is being spent on cars?
5. Wear shoes til they have a hole in them? Seen my shoe collection? I think most people do this. Even I resole. Especially if they are my favourites.
6. An old couch? So what most student flats have them and at 29 yo she's not much past that.
7. Laptop won't work. Cancel the broadband then.
8. Haven't had a family holiday. Hardly the biggest sacrifice. The UK immigrant couple didn't make any money for five years working all week.
9. They eat meat and veges sparingly and eat noodles, risotto or macaroni cheese. Along with most of Italy and their people seem alright.
10. At 51 years old this my very well be as good as Craig is going to get, an unskilled office furniture deliverer. Carla will have to enter the workforce at some point however with three children the welfare system heavily stacks any advantage to her doing so while they are net beneficiaries. The tax credits alone this family soak up are $211 a week from the taxpayer and Craig is only paying $132 in tax from his gross 40 hour week x $20 an hour. His child support of just $66 a week will be paying stuff all towards his other child.

The conclusion is that inequality is created by bad personal choices. No one forced these two to have three children of their own in addition to a SOCK. They didn't accidentally have three children. The only thing the taxpayer should be paying for is Craig to have the snip.

Am I picking on Craig and Carla? Yes. But only because they have been silly enough to be used for this story. They are not the only family living like this. Will this be a permanent or temporary state for these people? Hard to tell. They have chosen to make life as difficult as possible for themselves that is for sure.

Inequality and with it "child" poverty is a mathematical equation that even the most simplistic of persons can understand. The more children you are financially responsible for the less likely you are able to be financially responsible for them.

David Cunliffe says "no one wants to be poor". If this is really the case then why do New Zealanders try so very hard to be poor? That is the essence of what Labour have to get to the bottom of. For if it doesn't it risks alienating their middle class supporters who turned their back on them when they decided to adopt the mad as batshit policy to give beneficiaries welfare for families. Labour doesn't need to target the lowest common denominator anymore, these people vote Mana or maybe Greens.

Do not be afraid to apportion blame on low-income people for poor choices and being in the position they are in. No one wants to remove welfare to the most needy (by my definition Christchurch earthquake victims and those incapacitated by severe physical illness or handicaps), but families who do not help themselves should not be helped.

To humanise the problem if Cunliffe had a 29 year old daughter who brought home to his Herne Bay millionaires row a man 22 years older than herself from his electorate in New Lynn who didn't have a chance of supporting a proposed family of a dependent and four children, I bet Cunliffe would apply a calm, practical world view to matters and then stick a size 46 Brioni boot firmly up that man's backside. So why isn't he prepared to do that as a politician to the collective Craig's out there?

Until the quality of sperm improves in New Zealand even this faux poverty and inequality will be a sole function of bad breeding and poor personal choices.

New Zealand, in 125th place has one of the largest population growth rates in the OECD. Behind only all manner of terrible African, South American and Caribbean basket cases. There is only resource rich baby-bonused Australia at 101st, the tinker-ridden collapsing Irish economy at 112nd and the long slow crumbling US at 118th ahead of New Zealand in the ability to breed.

I wonder if the Herald will examine inequality and poverty with this statistic? And conclude New Zealand is a world leader at promoting people to breed who cannot necessarily afford it.