The best way to get out of poverty is through better financial decisions, not increased welfare - it's not the amount of money you have, it's what you do with it that counts

It seems that nearly every day we read an article about child poverty and every day that article is from an apologist who says that wages are the problem (in the New Zealand media) or that the Newstart pension needs to increase (in Australia, ACOSS says this).  This is a naive view to hold.

Poverty isn't caused by the amount of money you have.  If it was then why was New Zealand Prime Minister John Key able to get himself out of poverty?  I'll tell you why.  It's because despite being in poverty his mother didn't let him drop out of school despite him having a moment during high school where he wanted to.  He ended up going on to university and became a successful currency trader despite coming from the type of background where you wouldn't expect that because the family didn't have much money.  Prime Minister John Key wanted a better life for himself and now he is a multi millionaire.  Then there is Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.  She was a solo mother but she pulled herself out of that mess and now she is a successful MP in New Zealand's parliament.  In Australia let's look to the founder of Westfield, Frank Lowy.  He originally came by boat as a refugee with nothing to escape the holocaust and now he's one of Australia's wealthiest men.  That's because of decisions that his parents made.  Had he remained in Europe he may not have made billions of dollars or founded the biggest Australasian shopping centre, but he decided not to let his early upbringing determine his future.  He made proactive decisions.

Closer to home, in Australia the Australian Council of Social Services and the Victorian Council of Social Services along with various other charities argue that the Newstart pension should increase by $50 a week.  They say that people are trapped in a cycle of poverty.  This is completely untrue.  Australia is a good country and primary education is free, as is secondary education and people have access to HECS to go to university.  It is similar in New Zealand with access to the student loan scheme through Studylink.  Regardless of your financial position or upbringing you do not have to have access to funds immediately.  In New Zealand you start paying your loan back for every dollar earned over $19,085 and in Australia it is around $50,000.  This means you can get your education today and not need to worry about paying it back until you're in a financial position where you are able to.

The Australian economy, despite reports in the mostly left wing media, is booming which means that there really are jobs for those who are truly willing to work, and wages are high enough that you can maintain a work life balance so you could have a job just to pay the bills while you look for a job in your field and you could volunteer for free to get your experience up so that you are more employable when the jobs in your field are available.  Those who are educated will always get jobs over those who aren't, and because education is available to everyone, there is no excuse for not getting an adequate education, other than making bad decisions.  

I've had numerous arguments on Facebook and Twitter with several of my friends and followers agreeing with protesters in New Zealand that minimum wage is the problem and why people are in poverty.  What they fail to say in the arguments is that if wages go up so too does the cost of doing business, which means prices will go up and therefore the wage increase will immediately be negated.  Minimum wage is not supposed to be long term.  It's only supposed to be temporary, something that those on the left side of politics never say.  Unionism is also to blame for wages not increasing, they prohibit person a getting an increase despite the fact they may be doing a better job than person b.  this is because person b will have a whinge that they're hard done by rather than working harder therefore it just isn't worth it and employers don't increase wages.

There is also a greater issue at play here and that is how people are managing their finances.  Stuff.co.nz reported earlier this week the story of Ofa Ta'ufo'ou who, with his wife had a combined income of $2000 a fortnight.  Apparently that was too low.  I worked out a budget with people on Facebook, and we came to the conclusion that he was bad with money and that the problem was not actually his income, that if he managed his money better then he wouldn't be struggling.

It's not the amount of money you get that determines your ability to save, it's your budgeting and for the most part, those who are living in supposed poverty badly need budgeting advice, not an extra $50 a week.  To put it into real terms, at the moment my income is lower than it's been earlier this year, but I'm actually getting ahead.  It should be the opposite based on what the poverty apologists say.  Apparently the more money you have the better off you have, but when you have more money you actually get lured into a false sense of security and waste money on things you don't need.  For example, earlier this year my income was just over double what I'm getting now, yet now I'm budgeting my money better.

It would actually be better if Governments, instead of giving further handouts gave people budgeting advice so they can better manage the small amount that they have and so they can get ahead.  That's the only productive action that will truly lead to the eradication of poverty, not further handouts.  All further handouts do is limit people because instead of having to make better decisions they don't bother to work hard because the welfare system is there, but with no welfare system people are forced to work harder and they're forced to take control of their futures.  In a nutshell it's a survival of the fittest rather than giving up because the safety net is there.

And on the issue of a safety net, to a degree a minimum wage is a safety net that does more harm than good.  Minimum wages actually restrict those who work harder because instead of getting the pay increase they deserve based on personal merit, those at the bottom whinge that they're being hard done by so companies can't reward hard work.  Minimum wages are only good for those at the very bottom of the ladder, not those who go the extra mile.

Basically the bottom line that the left fails to realise is that you get out what you put in and if you work very hard and make good decisions, like instead of using a tax refund on a holiday for example, using it on investments and cutting debt you'll be better off in the long term than the person who squandered it on something they don't need.  The mainstream media doesn't help teach people what they should and shouldn't do.  The new iPhone 6 is coming out in a couple of weeks time and today the Sydney Morning Herald actually encouraged people to get into debt for the phone, rather than suggesting saving for it.  Have we become so reliant on credit and want things now that we would rather get into debt which actually costs us more in the long run?  Interest is dead money,.  It's no wonder the economy went through a downturn in 2008 with the reliance on credit and not using the money we have wisely.