Hungry children don't learn well.
This is the rational for providing taxpayer-funded school lunches.
However, not all hungry children receive the lunches and some children whose family could well afford to provide their lunches do receive them.
The reason for that is the now caretaker Labour government's view that to give lunches only to those who need them could open them up to judgement and ridicule from other children.
The resulting policy is that either every child in a school gets a free lunch or none do. This means that there are children getting free lunches they don't need and schools with lots of children who don't get the food they need from home are missing out.
This isn't the only area where Labour prefers universality rather than need.
Universal superannuation can be defended because means testing would be a disincentive to thrift.
Wealthy retirees would be able to look after themselves. Poor retirees would get taxpayer funded superannuation.
But in the middle are the people who are too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich.
Where would you draw the line and would it be fair to not support people who through hard word and forgoing expenditure earlier had too much to qualify while helping those who through bad luck or bad management had less?
That's why I support universal superannuation but any add ones like winter heating help should be means tested and so should other government subsidies including prescription charges, dental care and school lunches.
That way there would be more to give to people who need the help rather than giving less to both hose in need and those who could and should be helping themselves.
National and Act have policies to base assistance on need which should ensure there is more for those who have less without wasting it on those who don't need taxpayer assistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment