National’s Benefits Policy

August 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pm by David Farrar

John Key has just delivered a speech, where he outlines ’s Policy. A summary is in this press release, and also they have released the full 11 page background paper. Very pleased to see the full papers released.

So the major aspects:

  • Paid work is the best way to reduce child poverty
  • A part-time work obligation on DPB recipients whose youngest child is six or older
  • A part-time work obligation on those (5,600) sickness and invalids beneficiaries who have been assessed as capable of working part-time
  • No work for the dole
  • Any long-term unemployed (one year or more) will have to reapply for the benefit and undergo a comprehensive work assessment
  • Case Managers to be given more options rather than just stopping benefit payments, such as a graduated reduction as an interim sanction
  • Increase in the earnings threshold before abatement from $80 a week to $100 a week
  • Anyone on the sickness benefit for more than a year will be sent to a designated doctor for an assessment
  • CPI adjustments to benefits to be enshrined in law (as it is for Super) rather than merely being convention
  • Those who frequently need benefit advances to attend (at taxpayer expense) a budget advisory service to help them manage

Looks to me a very good moderate policy, with the right mixture of carrots and sticks. The left all too often go all carrot and no stick, while the right do all stick and no carrot.

Tags: , ,

117 Responses to “National’s Benefits Policy”

  1. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    yay for detailed policy!

    Benefit levels tied to CPI is worthwhile, but wouldnt it be better to tie it to a beneficiary specific basket of goods? (Yes, I mean smokes, pokies and booze.) (No, I dont:)

    Raising the level from $80 to $100 is good, but surely this could be tied to inflation as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. insider (990 comments) says:

    wait for the cries of beneficiary bashing…whoops The Standard beat me to it. Now there’s a surprise

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    “wait for the cries of beneficiary bashing…whoops The Standard beat me to it. Now there’s a surprise”

    How were they able to read the 11 page document so quickly?

    Just kidding. We all know they were sitting on their boilerplate response for months.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    nice! seems a well balanced policy.

    the way the left go on youd think we were abandoning the welfare state

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Graeme Edgeler (3,216 comments) says:

    CPI adjustments to benefits to be enshrined in law (as it is for Super)

    I thought Super was adjusted to the wage index, rather than CPI. Indeed, National introduced a CPI adjustment to Super when they were in office and were attacked by Labour for it, and we saw them reverse it.

    [DPF: Graeme - it is both IIRC. So if wages drop, but costs go up, pension still increases]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. djm210 (16 comments) says:

    http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0808/e2939b9cdccc8c977d65.jpeg

    Whose the Donkey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Monty (947 comments) says:

    The sad and predictable cries of welfare bashing are ringing loud from those parasites who want to waste their lives while sponging on the hardworking and long suffering taxpayers.

    Their pathetic cries of wanting “to be there for the children” are pathetic. To have the choice for both parents not to work is now the privilage of the rich. My wife and I both work and pay the highest tax rates so the parasites can take no responsibility for their lives. Good policy John Key – I look forward to more that force self responsibility upon the parasite classes.

    Clark of course hates it – and her whinging this morning was typicl of being snookered yet again. Will the leftards now stop crying no policy? I doubt it – but iin the same breath they will moan about th epolicy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    Good balanced policy from the right, unbalanced response from the standard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    I see that there is mention of the discretion that WINZ case managers already have to exclude parents who look after disabled/sick children from job seek obligations, and that National will continue that. So there shouldn’t be any more wailing about parents with autistic children being thrown onto the street. Oh but wait yes there will, because MSM won’t report the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Right of way is Way of Right (1,125 comments) says:

    I heard Hulun on Newstalk this morning going on about National targeting beneficiaries, and so on. Now, at the release of this very sensible and moderate policy, where can she go on this. She was on radio this morning making a point that under a Labour led Government, the unemployment rate was still less than 4%. I think she was wearing Ruth’s Rose Coloured Glasses!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Reb (249 comments) says:

    Good balanced policy from the right.

    You mean good balanced populism?

    “National will not be introducing a ‘work for dole’ or ‘community wage’ scheme. Instead, we will be going one better and will focus on long-term unemployed by requiring them to get paid work and get off the benefit. Within 12 months of taking office, National will require everyone who has been on the dole for more than a year to re-apply for their benefit and undergo a comprehensive work assessment”.

    What’s wrong with having reapplications with assessments, and work for the dole? Oh yeah that’s right, work for the dole sounds too evil/harsh/Right Wing/90s National/Tory/ACT. Can’t offend the ignorant dumbass centre voters for the sake of the economy, aye John.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    monty said..

    “.To have the choice for both parents not to work is now the privilage of the rich. My wife and I both work and pay the highest tax rates so the parasites can take no responsibility for their lives..”

    do you know what i hope/wish for you..?..

    ..i hope/wish this current economic unravelling blows away/destroys your ‘world..

    ..that your/any marriage blows up in the nastiest way..for you..

    ..and that you are left..with no income/assets..to pick up the mess..

    ..i hope/wish..that later in life..everthing turns to absolute shit for you..

    ..you need to learn some fucken lessons..eh..?

    .ytou arrogant/ignorant piece of shite/wanker..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: And that is 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    take a break, philu.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. reid (15,541 comments) says:

    phil, that’s a most unreasonable response.

    You may dislike monty’s use of the word parasite but you must recognise that some people believe legitimately that able-bodied persons should be expected to pull their weight in society.

    It’s clear you have above average intelligence and, notwithstanding the fact you have in a former life been caught up in chasing the dragon, why should that entitle you to a lifetime of benefit which is paid for by others?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Right of way is Way of Right (1,125 comments) says:

    Interesting vitriol Philu, but before you continue going off half cocked, please engage brain.

    There is multi-generational welfare dependancy in this country, and people are selecting the benefit as a way of life. National understand this, and wish to return the welfare system to the temporary arrangement it once was. As it is a system funded by the taxpayers of the country, of which I am one, there is an inherent responsibility of those who receive a benefit to return to being a productive member of society wherever possible.

    Where a genuine need for long term reliance on the state exists, I am happy to see my tax dollars going to assist those who need it, but the freeloaders, of which there are many, need to re-engage with society to make this country better. The vast untapped potential out there needs to be focused and directed, not just transferred to a sickness benefit to make the figures look better!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Grendel (873 comments) says:

    C’mon DPF, you gave someone else demerits for a lot less relating to phool, surely when phool does the same thing (though much worse) he deserves the same fate?

    hell, phule is wishing someones life to be basically over, when all the people who comment on phil want is for him to contribute to society. some what different attitudes there i think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    that is nasty and uncalled for phil. push back and take the dog for a walk. and perhaps have a think about what kind of paid employment you’re keen to take on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    scum like mr & mrs monty..and many of you..would tear away the whole social support system..if you could..

    ..they/you would step over starving widows/orphans in gutters..

    ..this is the real face of ‘nice’ mr key/the national party/your foul rightwing ideology..

    ..something else that may not have registered with you one-eyed numbnuts yet..

    ..is that you have just pissed away any chances of the greens supporting your odious regime-wish..

    ..and as one who has..over the years..long railed against them for being so anti-national in such a strong way..

    ..i feel i now owe them an apology..

    ..after the election..you will be well under 50%..

    ..and you will be coalition-partner-dateless..

    ..just you and the germ in the yellow jacket..(if he gets lucky..)

    ..i can’t wait..!

    (oh..!..you probably haven’t done your chances of/for maori party/people support much good..eh..?..)

    ..y’know what amazes me about this..?

    ..on a ‘political science’ level..?

    …is that..obviously..none of you ‘thought this through’..

    ..you have brought in contentious/easily attacked policy..

    ..that will win you no new votes..

    ..will drive away many of those who were looking at ‘nice’ mr key in a favourable way..cos’ they were/are ‘bored’ with clark..

    ..will drive away much ‘maori’ support..

    ..and will make you totally untenable to two (long-shot) potential coalition/arrangment ‘partners’..(grns..maori party..)

    ..you have adapted/enacted an old-school national ‘wishlist’..

    ..and in doing so have shot yourself in the feet..with a double-barrelled shotgun..

    ..how key/national ‘lost’ this election..

    …..will be fertile grounds for study..

    ..for future politics students.

    ..bah..!

    ..fools..!

    (and ‘all your own work’..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. reid (15,541 comments) says:

    phil many if not all commenters above have stressed their agreement that a safety net is required. The argument is around the point at which a safety net turns into a lifestyle choice. So far you haven’t addressed that point and I for one am interested in your perspective on that specifically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mike12 (183 comments) says:

    “Good balanced policy from the right, unbalanced response from the standard?”

    Damn my companys new web filter, I can get onto most blogs including Whales but get this when I try and access the Standard:

    “The web site was restricted by the rule ‘Block Access\Blocked URLs\Block – Legal Risk Sites (includes criminal, violence, obscenities)’.”

    I don’t like not knowing what the enemy are up to..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    See the typical lefty response, people? Phule is putting on a good display.

    Say anything, absolutely ANYTHING that questions the current direction of welfare in NZ, and all you get is vitriol. No reasoned analysis, no counterpoints, just a bunch of unobjective hate-boys accusing you of not caring about poor people and wanting them all to starve to death.

    It doesnt matter how you phrase your point, you wont get an intelligent response. Just a pile of lefty-wank about widows, orphans, beaten wives, etc.

    How long before we are once again told that the National reforms of the 1990′s caused all these problems in the first place? Cant be long now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dave (985 comments) says:

    DPF, as someone who as worked within the welfare system the policy is not as good as it could be. There is a focus on work , with increased abatement thresholds, but its work for the dole in drag because the focus is not working off the benefit but working for pay while on the benefit. One wonders why those on the invalids benefit are required to work “at least” 15 hours a week or more when those who do word 15 hours a week or more should be on the sickness or dole unless they are blind.

    If paid work is the route to independence, sure ly that means that one should be off a benefit not havinga benefit topped up. Where’s the National policy on that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    Philu.

    In an earlier thread I supplied you with an analysis of how much better off a solo parent with 2 school age children under 12 would be working part-time for 20 hours a week.

    I asked you if a solo parent with 2 school age children, existing on the DPB at $459 per week for the base rate of DPB and WFF support would be better off on no DBP, working at minimum wage for 20 hours, getting $730 per week by way of Wages, WFF top up and Accommodation Supplement.

    I have derived these figures using calculators on government websites.

    Is it better for a solo parent to undertake 20 hours of part time work Phil?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Reb (249 comments) says:

    Many if not all commenters above have stressed their agreement that a safety net is required. The argument is around the point at which a safety net turns into a lifestyle choice.

    Here’s a good point: http://www.geocities.com/betterisonehope/Welfare.txt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    “Is it better for a solo parent to undertake 20 hours of part time work Phil?”

    But who will update their websites?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. big bruv (12,357 comments) says:

    Phul

    20 + 20 + 10 + 10 + 20 + 10 + 20 = 110 Demerits.

    Enjoy your break.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    jesus phil! thats a bit harsh

    need a hug???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Lucyna (35 comments) says:

    Making DPB mothers get a job when their youngest turns 6 won’t work. All a woman has to do to get around this is to have another baby. I predict more children born into poverty, not less, with this policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. emmess (1,333 comments) says:

    90% support on the Herald poll/78% on Stuff
    Where as there was 43% that thought the “secret agenda” would hurt them
    Which effect will help or hinder more in the polls?
    Not to difficult to guess I suspect?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Murray M (455 comments) says:

    Philu said:
    ..after the election..you will be well under 50%..

    ..and you will be coalition-partner-dateless..

    I’ll add another line,

    ..and if this happens, I can foresee a lot of the people currently paying for the welfare state, fucking off to Oz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    i cannot understand the unwashed useless shitters who are sickness??? 6ft druggie benificiers, fuck i WORK travel have a life OPPS silly me clarks govt pays for tossers to live the dream without HAVING TO WORK, GASP, you DUMB educated NEVER WORKED helen davis/clark,pm??????? THEY GET THE GOOD LIFE with no sweat or effort LIARBOUR vote for nothing WAVE AS THE BRIGHT HARD WORKERS GO TO THE PROMISED LAND AUSTRALIA, helen loves the unwaged crap. her level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. big bruv (12,357 comments) says:

    Now that we have seen a bit more detail I am of the opinion that this does not go far enough, it is typical John Key don’t scare the horses policy.

    Anybody who is a long term dole bludger SHOULD be made to work for their benefit, give them three months to find a job under their own steam and after that you report for work at 8.30am Monday to Friday like the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    “All a woman has to do to get around this is to have another baby.”

    This is not a significant problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Lucyna (35 comments) says:

    Kimble, I suppose if we have mandatory sterilisation of DPB parents, it won’t be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    20 + 20 + 10 + 10 + 20 + 10 + 20 = 110 Demerits.
    Enjoy your break.

    His son and his dog will see more of him, while we’ll see less.

    This is probably a win win, but can’t survey the dog to confirm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,668 comments) says:

    The designated doctor is long overdue. Will they be given police protection from mob heavies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    “Kimble, I suppose if we have mandatory sterilisation of DPB parents, it won’t be.”

    No need to be deliberately inflamatory, Lucyna. I just dont think many people are going out getting pregnant deliberately to stay on the DPB. Sure there may be a few isolated examples, but it isnt the major rort of the system that the sickness benefit is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Whatever this cowardly bludger does with his time, not much of it seems to be dedicated to his child. Its clear that this scum merely uses the child as an excuse to avoid work and enjoy a lifestyle provided to him by those who do work and have their own children to care for. Shameless parasitical lowlife. I’d almost vote National just to see this useless piece of filth get what is coming to him..”

    and redbaiter can say that about me..this morning..

    ..and nary a chastening word from dpf..

    ..i get called every vile name under the sun here..you do/say nothing..

    ..whatever..!

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. reid (15,541 comments) says:

    That’s actually a fair comment there phil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    It’s just occurred to me who the real authors of the Nats’ welfare policy are – McDonalds! Wonder how much they donated to National for this policy?

    Just think about it – Mum’s got nowhere in the school hols to park Junior during her compulsory 15 hours a week employment at the local McDonalds. So Junior comes along too. Mum serves the food, while Junior wanders around binning all the wasted and unnecessary packaging that’s left on the tables.

    Two workers for the price of one! And there’s a play area for Junior during the times business is slow.

    Mmmm! I’m lovin’ it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    Phul

    20 + 20 + 10 + 10 + 20 + 10 + 20 = 110 Demerits.

    Enjoy your break.

    I hope that doesn’t mean we see more of him over at frogblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Redbaiter-isms are like water off a duck’s back – once you’ve been called a half-educated knuckle-dragging indoctrinated socialist halfwit a hundred times, it’s just like “Nya-nya-nya-nya-nya” over and over again.

    I think people get very anti-PhilU in part because they are usually pretty incisive points that he makes. Then there is the abiding sentiment that he should be ashamed of his lifestyle (often this is stated even on threads where he hasn’t made any comments) and I think he takes that in far better humour and shows a lot more restraint than a good half-dozen other KB commentators I could name would do!

    But then, playing the man not the ball is acceptable when the man’s PhilU, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Monty (947 comments) says:

    Thanks Phil for the endorsement with why parasites on welfare need to work rather than sponge off hard working people such as myself. Don’t worry – my marriage is very strong and safe – because we both do work hard, take responsibility for our lives, are careful with our money (and we do have a fair bit of money). We also spend a lot of time with our three children and are teaching them responsibility – they are of course fit healthy and have good role models. They will not become welfare parasites in the future. Miss 10 is already planning to be a Lawyer, Miss 8 wants to be an artist, and Master 4 wants to be an All Black. They may not acheive their current ambitions – but at least at their young age they have ambbition.

    Ambition is something the parasite classes do not have.

    we both have skill sets that are highly in demand and this year our house hold income will top $400k. Of course we deserve every cent we earn, but the problem with that Helen will rob me blind with 40% tax – so i am seriously considering like so many others to take our skill sets and go where I can be appreciated and earn even more.

    At least John Keys policy of self responsibility will make those welfare parasites feel better about themselves. If someone is able bodied then of course they should take responsibility for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,668 comments) says:

    Poor old phil! Even the lefties are giving you the heave ho.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Toad – and then Junior goes out back to see mummy, and knocks a frier’s worth of oil at 300 C on himself, and there is an OSH/ACC disaster. Yeah, McDs would be right into that.

    Where I can see them lovin’ it is when mum asks for different hours for the next two weeks (while she has to look after Junior during the day) and Ronald gives her a big grin and says “SURE you can, but you’ll have to agree to do the 2am lockup shift for the rest of… your time with us basically. SUCKS to be you.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Monty – Miss 8 will be seeing quite a bit of the Artist’s Wage then, surely?

    PS: And Master 4 will be jumping on people’s cars after a big night on the turps.

    Tell me what your values are if you like. Please don’t try to tell me how much better they are; I’ll make my own mind up, thanks. And don’t presume that Philu’s child is unmotivated low life. Our Hero Mr John Key was a child of A state House & the welfare state don’t forget!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    gee monty..i knew a hell of a lot of rich-kid junkies/whores..

    ..back in the day..

    (y’know..those whose parents ‘gave them everything’..?..)

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    From the tail end of the earlier thread: I’d like to toss this in here now.

    # PhilBest (2174) +0 Says:
    August 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Redbaiter (3332) Add karma Subtract karma +2 Says:
    August 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am

    (Quoting Dr Robotnik) “I’d love more kids, really. I just can’t afford them.”

    “Lots of parents feel the same. The reason they can’t afford them is because they’re paying for the offspring of all the Philus all over the country as well- all Labour voters, and there are thousands of them taking money shamelessly from working families….”.

    Yep, AND can ANY of our morally liberal leaders get their heads around the idea that there might be people who have spent years working and saving money and having NO children “until they can afford them”, and their goal has only gotten steadily further away from them thanks to “income redistribution” and rises in housing costs?

    FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    Guys, there is a world of difference between the name calling and so on that RedBaiter engages in (distasteful though it is), and actively wishing someones marriage to break up, and all sorts of unnamed evil to befall them. Sure, RedBaiter wished that a National govt would get in and force Phil to get a job, but that isn’t exactly wishing evil to befall him.

    As for the blithering about how solo parents will have problems in the school holidays – there are an awful lot of solo parents in NZ who work – it isn’t like every solo parent is on the DPB. And there are many families who have two working parents. They all manage to work around this without taking their kids to work with them. Why are those on benefits special, and get special treatment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    Further to my comment above: Not just morally liberal leaders, either; their morally incorrigible followers as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    “As for the blithering about how solo parents will have problems in the school holidays – there are an awful lot of solo parents in NZ who work – it isn’t like every solo parent is on the DPB. And there are many families who have two working parents. They all manage to work around this without taking their kids to work with them. Why are those on benefits special, and get special treatment?”
    good point
    but these are the people who will have to take the least flexible jobs

    Wow Monty. If my wife and I pulled in 400k we wouldnt care about “parasites” bludging money off us
    mind you, we dont care now

    Doesnt inflation need people living off lowly incomes in order to stay down
    face it, capitalism needs people who can survive being the dregs of society
    it keeps wages lower and house prices down
    why do you hate them so much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    adolf..the lefties gave me the heave-ho a long time ago..

    “neither left..nor right..

    ..just out in front”

    ..eh..?

    anyway..toad lives in remuera..and is an (old) green tory in drag..

    w.t.f..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    And now we see the high and mighty phule as good as saying that Monty’s kids will turn into whores and drug addicts.

    What a role model.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    Adolf Fiinkensein said: Poor old phil! Even the lefties are giving you the heave ho.

    Adolf, there is a difference between “lefties” and “Greens”, although some on this blog can’t spot it.

    Phil purports to be a green (small “G” because he is not a Party member). Frankly, I think his often barely incomprehensible and vitriolic rants do a total disservice to Green politics, part of which is about the Green Principle of non-violence. This means more than just not engaging in physical violence, it means trating your political opponents with some respect and politeness (a few right wingers like Murray and d4j could learn a little about this too).

    Comments like:

    ..i hope/wish..that later in life..everthing turns to absolute shit for you..

    ..you need to learn some fucken lessons..eh..?

    .ytou arrogant/ignorant piece of shite/wanker..!

    from Phil are the absolute antithesis of what being Green is all about.

    Sure, I take the piss responding to people advocating unsustainable or exploitative policies on occasion, but in good humour. It is very un-Green to engage in outright abuse.

    Which does explain a little about why Phil is not a member of the Green Party – “behavioural issues”, Phil!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    “Doesnt inflation need people living off lowly incomes in order to stay down”

    Nope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that I’m a solo parent working full time, and doing quite nicely thank you.
    Sure you have to juggle things around but anyone who says they can’t manage a job, and raise a school aged child is either lazy or incompetent. FFS even when my kids lived with their mum she was working as well.
    There’s absolutely no excuse!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “gee monty..i knew a hell of a lot of rich-kid junkies/whores..
    ..back in the day..
    (y’know..those whose parents ‘gave them everything’..?..)”

    so you were sucking off the wealthy mans teat even then aye Phule?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    Why are those on benefits special, and get special treatment?

    As George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Monty (947 comments) says:

    I laugh at the losers on benefit – they are so stupid they are incapable of making any intelligent life decisions. Phil you fool – I was raised in a working class Irish family with five other brothers and sisters. Phil you display all classic traits of a loser. Jealous of anyone successful. You clown. I have been given nothing except values. The same sort of values that John Key wants the whole country to enjoy.

    While my father was a typical Irish drunk, our mother instilled the values of self responsibilty, hard work and the importance of good decision making. All six of us went to university, married well and are still married with very stable happy children. My mother takes pride in the fact that all her grand-children are happy well balanced and will generally very healthy. There are no drugs, broken marriages, financial stresses, or parasites.

    All my brother and sisters despise welfare parasites, but also are happy to support those in genuine need. Of course there is not a single Labour voter in my wider family.

    Nationals policy is just the stick some parasites need to make for themselves a better life. I believe what will happen is that Ms Parasite will get a job in a factory (all they are probably capable of doing) and will work the 15 Hours ad then find they can earn more money by working longer hours and eventually they could earn a real living and then joy of joys – a few less parasites to support and then the rich can have even further tax cuts they so richly deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    toad is an ex-executive member of the green party..

    he is one of the screaming incompetents who have had a stranglehold on that party..

    ..and are directly responsible for their lamentable record of ‘unachievement’ of the last nine years..

    ..he is one of the ‘ditherers’..

    ..aren’t you darling..?

    incompetent fool..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    philu said: anyway..toad lives in remuera..and is an (old) green tory in drag..

    Actually, Phil, I live in West Auckland and have never voted for or been a member of either of the National Party or ACT. So you don’t know jack shit about me. In one misguided moment as a youngster back in 1984 I voted for Labour, but never again. As you might recall, subsequent to that election, we got Rogered!

    And telling lies about me on blogs doesn’t help you either Phil – go and see if Winston wants to share a spliff (yours) or a whiskey (his).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Grendel (873 comments) says:

    >>It is very un-Green to engage in outright abuse.

    thats right, just lies, fabrications, distractions, hyperbole etc

    “now our children will be safe”
    “peak oil is coming”

    etc, and don’t forget to add crocodile tears as a green staple.

    scaremongering and bribing people with other peoples money, purporting to be liberal while being in favour of more laws restricting personal life than any other party, thats the green way!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    Patrick Starr said: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that I’m a solo parent working full time, and doing quite nicely thank you. Sure you have to juggle things around but anyone who says they can’t manage a job, and raise a school aged child is either lazy or incompetent.

    Patrick, I’ve been there too. The circumstances were when my partner was dying and after she died from cancer. I spent arounf 18 months on the benefit, because I thought it was important for me to be available to provide some stability in my 9 year old son’s life – going on school trips, going away together in the school holidays etc. I wasn’t completely idle workwise, I ran my own business and continued to keep it ticking over with the odd contract, but overall felt I needed the benefit to have the time to spend supporting my son over that difficult period.

    Then I returned to full-time work, and became, as you are, Patrick, a sole parent working full-time.

    It’s not often I put my personal stuff out into cyberspace for everyone to share, but have done so because I think my own experience exemplifies why “one size fits all” policies, such as that released by John Key today, can do significant harm to families in precarious situations.

    I don’t think that is either lazy or incompetent – just doing what was in my son’s best interests.

    [DPF: Thanks for sharing your story. It does occur to me though that by running your own business, you would not have had a problem with part time work testing, as you were working part-time.

    Where National may need to be careful is situations where people suddenly become solo parents. If you become a DPB recepient when the kid is three, you have three years pre-knowledge that you may need to start looking for work at six. If the kid is already over six and you suddenly become widowed or split up, then the last thing you need is someone nagging you about work within days. I presume there will be some sort of time period between going on the DPB and having to look for work - maybe three to six months?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Grendel (873 comments) says:

    You can count me as one of those people who cannot afford to have kids, so currently is not, and then i get abused by people who had kids they can’t afford anyway, becuase its ‘not fair’ to take away their money.

    what about the money taken away from me, stopping me doing what i want?

    i grew up with a mother on the DPB, and for the first 6-7 years until i was around 12, i saw every opportunity to rort the system ,working under the table, growing drugs, living with an undeclared partner. everything to maximise money for no work.

    it was only by, ooh lets see the early 90′s that she got her act together and started working properly, and started to contribute, while actually feeling better about herself as she stopped associating with the dropkick bludgers she knew.

    of course it was too late by then, and my sisters, who had grown up only seeing her do nothing, have now ended up basically the same.

    the benefit system needs a rocket up it asap, so that there is a chance of stopping the cycle of generations of dpb bludgers.

    National does not go far enough, but its a start.

    oh and before fool gets his oar in, i genuinely support a safety net for those in dire need. but if you can spend 20 hours a week blogging, you can get a job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Grendel (873 comments) says:

    >>Patrick, I’ve been there too. The circumstances were when my partner was dying and after she died from cancer. I spent arounf 18 months on the benefit, because I thought it was important for me to be available to provide some stability in my 9 year old son’s life – going on school trips, going away together in the school holidays etc. I wasn’t completely idle workwise, I ran my own business and continued to keep it ticking over with the odd contract, but overall felt I needed the benefit to have the time to spend supporting my son over that difficult period.

    so you were probably working about 15 hours a week right? so it seems like nationals policy is not aimed at someone like you, its the people who have no justifiable reason for not working (and grief is a very justifiable reason, for a time at least), who need to be prodded to do the 15hrs. sounds like the system worked as it should for you, and would do so for someone in your situation under national as well.

    there will be justifiable exceptions to all rules, and sick children, grief etc will be some of them. not that some people don;t have to keep working during that time now anyway, without any chance or desire for a state payout, but apparently thats not a problem, as long as you can find one potential example of the policy not working.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    Grendel said: thats right, just lies, fabrications, distractions, hyperbole etc

    Distractions and hyperbole are part of normal politics. All parties do it, and I make no apology if the Green Party does it occasionally.

    Lies and fabrications are a different story. Let’s just say we’ll leave them to Winston.

    As for suggesting “peak oil is coming” is on some list of lies, fabrications, distractions, hyperbole etc, well, if anything that assertion is an understatement. All the evidence would indicate is already happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Toad, The description only fits if you don’t do it “anyone who says they can’t manage a job, and raise a school aged child” whereas you obviously made the choice

    In this case the one size does fit all, otherwise everyone gets dumbed down to the lowest common equation, which is what happens now. What motivation is there to work when you see a bunch of solo mums on the benefit?

    I can certainly understand where your coming from with the death of your partner but you obviously made the right choice in getting back into work (no, not politically)
    tis what separates those with, from those without

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Southern Raider (1,371 comments) says:

    Toad how come it is okay for two parents to work fulltime, raise children and pay tax, but its not okay to ask solo parents to contribute?

    Alos my wife pointed out a good point about all the lefties crying about 20% of children living in households earning 1/2 the average wage. If you raise the minimum wage then the top wage will go up and you still have the same result. Thats why these comparisons should be based on actual figures not relatives.

    Also shopping at Pak’n’Save yesterday it raised a thought seeing PI families with six kids (obviously some of the groups referred as living below the poverty line). Why does the Govt promote smaller families? $200 per week spread between 6 kids doesn’t go very far, but $200 shared between two kids would be a lot better.

    If you can’t afford to have kids don’t have them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Southern Raider (1,371 comments) says:

    I meet a friends half sister a few months back after a funeral. She was early 20′s and come from up North. One child had just dies (not sure how) and she was about 6 months pregnant.

    She spent the afternoon telling me how she can’t understand how women would work when you can have a baby and get paid to go to the beach and hang out at the shops all day. This is the ingrained attitude some of these people have.

    As an aside she spent the rest of the day getting trashed on wine even though the baby was due in a few months.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Strutta (67 comments) says:

    philu…

    …i’m still waiting for your list of economic qualifications
    …eh?
    (idjet)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. big bruv (12,357 comments) says:

    Toad

    You voted for Roger Douglas and were disappointed in the outcome!..what the hell did you think you were going to get?

    I am also unsure if you McDonald’s scenario has more to do with the Green party any USA stance or your parties hatred of multi nationals.
    Another way of looking at it could be that when Junior sees his mum or dad working for a living at McDonald’s (and there is not a lot more arrogant that those who look down their noses at people who happen to work at McDonald’s) it is setting a bloody good example for Junior, at least he might think there is more to life than the dole and the DPB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    It surprises me that so many people think that picking on the most disadvantaged in our society is going to lead us to prosperity, but I suppose that is what happens when the nation is entering into a recession and no one has any ideas.

    It reminds me of the preparation for D-Day: Allied troops interviewed all men beforehand and any that were unwilling or in anyway unfit to go were pulled out and did not take part in the Normandy landings. The Bell distribution curve is a scientific fact: most people will fall in the middle of any population distribution (in terms of work opportunities, upbringing, health etc, or fitness to partake in a massive military event) and there will always be outliers: those who are extremely successful (John Key) and those who are extremely unsuccessful and in many ways unfit to serve in society. Just like it was unwise to force unwilling and unfit men to partake in the Normandy invasion it is equally unwise to force the unwilling and unfit to partake in employment. It can do more damage than good to the business environment.

    If National does succeed in implementing this policy it will do wonders for wage deflation by forcing into the workforce extra employees to compete in a diminishing market and thus realise the ‘hidden agenda’ of lowered wage rates. But in order to get there he has to run the hoops of MMP, and then overcome the sheer mass of accumulated social knowledge that permeates the social institutions he would hope to perform his tricks and which support the status quo. Meanwhile the real rascals in the social welfare rip off stakes will find a way around any measures put in place and the costs of attempting to implement it will far outweigh the benefits.

    This is an extremely uninspiring policy detail for a man who describes himself as ‘ambitious for New Zealand’. I would have hoped for something more along the lines of “Let’s aim to hold the Olympics in NZ in the year 2020″, which while it may seem unrealistic, it is at least positive and inspiring. As for this welfare policy, it’s not so much that there is a strong likelihood that similar things have been tried before and didn’t work, it is the fact that it is not new or inspiring or in anyway fresh and enlivening which we might have been led to believe we were going to get from Mr Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. big bruv (12,357 comments) says:

    You have to laugh at (yes AT not with) the left, Key’s policy has been out for six hours or so and the best the pinkos can come up with in answer to this is bluster, rage and a string of lies and bullshit.

    Not ONE of them has offered any alternative so we can only assume that they are happy to continue dishing out more of MY money to these useless bastards.

    We face a crime epidemic in NZ, we also have intergenerational welfare and the left think things should just go on as they are, while I do not think Key has gone far enough he is at least making a start, it is blindingly obvious that kids who come from homes where nobody has ever worked or intends to work are going to end up as criminals of benefit bludgers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David Farrar (1,810 comments) says:

    Both Phil and Redbaiter have broken the 100 demerit barrier, so both have a week’s break from commenting. It was in fact Redbaiter’s first demerits in several months I think, but he had a lot accumulated from ages ago.

    Things would go easier if people did keep the vitriol down against Phil U. Yes it is legitimate to point out he is able bodied and choosing to be on the DPB, when he could work. And yes he posts in an aggravating style. But one can have robust debate without attacking his fitness as a father, which will inevitably lead to derailing the thread into a flamewar.

    For his part, Phil could reduce the level of patronising he does to others, and going off topic constantly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Southern Raider (1,371 comments) says:

    Kent so having thousands of people with no ambition in life then going on to raising kids and passing on those same values is a good thing of NZ.

    Get off your liberal horse and actually look to the benefit that having a job brings to someone from a happiness and fulfilment perspective.

    You sound like Sue Bradford on the news saying there is no jobs for the beneficiaries and then followed by the head of the retail association saying even in a recession they need a steady flow of new staff. What is Bradfords excuse then about why this wasn’t implemented by Labour/Greens when the economy was racing along?

    Also what is wrong with McDonalds? I’ve seen high school dropouts go from till staff to management. If you work hard and have a good attitude McD’s and KFC can offer people a good career path.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Southern Raider (1,371 comments) says:

    Not all beneficiaries are crininals, but most criminals have parents that are beneficiaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    Well, well, well –

    Phule does one of his bi annual spins for all to see. Anyone who’s been here long enough has seen them before. Goes like this – Spit dummy – Sulk for a couple of months – and then he’s back….eh

    From that, Big Bruv just got a week of the Sundays he was wishing for yesterday.

    Toad appears to be trying to develop a sense of humour.

    And its only Monday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. big bruv (12,357 comments) says:

    DPF

    Its your site and you make the rules however when one looks at your demerit page you say that demerits will be given for repetition (or something like that), if that is the case then Phul would be banned every single day.

    He adds NOTHING to this site and despite your assertion that one can have a “robust debate” with him that proves near impossible, for a start his contributions are illegible, anybody who does try and read them ends up with bleeding eyes, any attempt at a debate results in a string of abuse and ridiculous accusations being fired back at you so ( as you will have noticed) most do not bother.

    Finally……Are you sure one week is long enough for Phul to sit in quiet contemplation?, what about extending that for say six months?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Inventory2 (9,789 comments) says:

    It would seem as though the PM’s self-proclaimed Court of Public Opinion views National’s policy very kindly – in fact, overwhemilgly so!!

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/court-of-public-opinion-speaks-again.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    It surprises me that so many people think that having a rational discussion about changing the state of welfare in NZ is somehow “picking on the most disadvantaged in our society”, but I suppose that is what happens when people dont want to discuss things in an adult fashion and would prefer to view people who hold a different opinion to their own as evil or uncaring.

    And it is about all you can expect from a moron that is still trotting out the “Key wants to lower wages!” lie, and sees nothing wrong with putting forward the argument that “if those on the benefit were worth anything as employees, they would be employed by now”. Or to put it another way, “will always be outliers, … who are extremely unsuccessful and in many ways unfit to serve in society” and “it is equally unwise to force the unwilling and unfit to partake in employment.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    Get off your liberal horse and actually look to the benefit that having a job brings to someone from a happiness and fulfilment perspective.

    Yes, I agree, employment is self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing, so there should be no need to meddle with it. If you start to interfere and socially engineer the workforce then you are going to end up with having to deal with unpredictable side effects. Prior to the 4th Labour govt the ‘idle’ were kept occupied leaning on a shovel by the Ministry of Works in permanent ‘employment’ from birth to death. In order to keep wages down you need about 6% unemployment, otherwise you get a wage war. This is the current economic model and one which our welfare system supports.

    Bradford is correct in that the jobs do not exist for these 38,000 people and to create training as a compulsory alternative for DPB recipients is going to cost a whole lot more. Economically the balance of this policy is negative. It may satisfy the moralistic tendencies of a few, but in the end all that we would get out of it is an unnecessary experiment in social engineering.

    People on benefits are the weakest and most disadvantaged. Sometimes lack of work might be the least of their worries: abuse, psychological disorder, drug addiction and other personal problems may overwhelm them. Some manage to pull their lives back together, others may not. These people always have existed and always will exist and there are professionals who train in psychology and social work who attempt to deal with them and help them heal their lives and become semi useful citizens.

    If Key was to lead from the front and create the conditions for economic prosperity then he would not need to worry about the ‘rear’. That would look after itself. But instead, in this particular matter he has chosen to lead from the rear. Julius Caesar would frown upon that. I could think of two positive ways to approach this issue:
    1. would be to screen glossy ads which point out to the uninformed, slightlyrightly’s message regarding the benefits of working under WFF
    2. promote businesses to create family friendly jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Southern Raider (1,371 comments) says:

    Agree Kimble.

    Strange to see the parallels between welfare and global warming.

    Maybe those on the right like us will soon be called “Diadvantaged Beneficiary Deniers”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    And it is about all you can expect from a moron

    is this part of

    having a rational discussion about changing the state of welfare in NZ

    ??

    the “Key wants to lower wages!” lie

    Actually this is something that was promulgated by the media. I have, like most others, little idea what Key stands for. He has flip flopped on so many issues and revealed so little detailed policy that we should continue to have a healthy amount of cynicism for what he says.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    Yes it is Kent, you are a moron if you think you can retain credibility when you blatantly lie like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    big bruv said: You voted for Roger Douglas and were disappointed in the outcome!..what the hell did you think you were going to get?

    No. Actually, as a naive young fellow, I voted against Rob Muldoon, because he had stuffed up the economy. And by me (and lots of others) doing so, we got a Government that was hijacked by Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble and Michael Bassett that stuffed it even worse. Then we really plumbed the depths under the Bolger-Richardson-Shipley government.

    The only thing I can say for the current lot, is that at least it hasn’t got any worse, unemployment rates are down (although that is a response to economic circumstances exteral to Government policy) and at least here have been some (minimal) increases in the minimum wage. The worst thing though, is that we are still a low wage economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. cubit (356 comments) says:

    Father/Daughter Talk

    A young woman was about to finish her first year at university. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a Labour supporter and very liberal. Among her other liberal ideals, she was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

    She was deeply ashamed of her father who was a staunch Nationalite, a feeling she openly expressed.

    Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor (who sported a full beard), she felt that her father had for years, harboured an evil selfish desire to keep what he thought, should be his.

    One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes for the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.

    Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had passes in 4 subjects, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many varsity friends because she spent all her time studying.

    Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Clarrisa doing?’
    She replied, ‘Clarrisa is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she has only 2 passes. But she is ever so popular on campus; varsity for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.’

    Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Chancellor’s office and ask him to deduct 1 pass off you and give it to your friend who only has 2 passes. That way you will both have 3 passes and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of passes’.

    The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Clarrisa has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!’

    The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the National party.’

    If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between National and Labour then I’m all ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Steve (4,323 comments) says:

    Back on topic now after who gets demerited for whatever.
    Benifits.
    The word “WORK” is slowly becoming a repugnant swear word for some who are addicted to the welfare system.
    They think the Govt/Taxpayer owes them a living.
    Sure we need to look after our disabled, blind, deaf, elderly, insane, terminaly ill, etc.
    We do not have to give the dysfunctional drug addicts, criminals, murderers, rapists etc, any sort of welfare.
    There is a portion of society who refuse to WORK and they will find any excuse to bleed off the Govt/Taxpayer.
    The maggots are in for anything and everything they can get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Southern Raider (1,371 comments) says:

    Cubit thats brilliant.

    The only one that comes close is the story about the freinds having dinner who share the bill by income and then one day beat up the rich guy and then complain about how their share of the restaurant bill has sky rocketed.

    Toad thats right Douglas, Richardson did nothing. I feel a Tui coming along. “NZ’s economy has been great for the last nine years solely due to the wiseness of Clark and Cullen. Yeah Right!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Inventory2 (9,789 comments) says:

    Great story cubit – I’ll remember that when my Darling Daughter comes back from her first year at varsity next year!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    It’s all very well Kent to say JK should lead from the front and create the conditions for economic prosperity but this is so very hard to do in a country that spends more time chasing it’s tail then moving foward. Welfare has become a millstone around our necks. The socialists work themselves into a lather everytime reforms are mentioned but they have no real wish to see this country better itself, why, well the more the people depend on the government the more government we need. It’s got to a stage in this land that many are beyond help and like it this way. When we are forced to subsidize poverty and dependence we just get more of both. I just fear we may be to late to change this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Chris2 (704 comments) says:

    I would vote for the party that introduced a policy where if a woman on the DPB chooses to have another child then there is no extra taxpayer funding for this additional child. It is utterly irresponsible for people on welfare to have more children at the State’s expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Southern Raider (1,371 comments) says:

    Chris2 apparently Bill Clinton introduced a 1 child policy and it worked very well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    Yeah thats right toad, Labour’s reforms in the 1980′s and National’s in the 1990′s stuffed up the economy. You keep telling yourself that. We would be an economic powerhouse if only we had a more restrictive, unproductive, straitjacketed economy. If only we had the unions to cripple internal and external trade whenever the whim arose. If only we had the government there to tell us that after filling in three forms, one of which asked how our actions were going to be beneficial to New Zealand, and then waiting six weeks for approval, yes we could spend precious New Zealand currency and subscribe to an international magazine. Woe is us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Chris2 (704 comments) says:

    Southern Raider – a good idea. Clinton is damn lucky he didn’t bring in more children to the world himself. Oh that’s right, he only had a cigar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. BR (78 comments) says:

    Gee Phil, I had no idea that gainful employment was so frightening for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Charlie Tan (255 comments) says:

    So, in order to administer this policy John Key is going to hire more “bureaucrats”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Southern Raider (1,371 comments) says:

    Maybe National could get the DPB women to replace the current bureaucrats, they would probably do a better job and produce more meaningful output.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    DPF said: Thanks for sharing your story. It does occur to me though that by running your own business, you would not have had a problem with part time work testing, as you were working part-time.

    Yep, but I was lucky that I already had a business to run, and could just downsize it, and go on the benefit, and declare incomeon an annual basis. And I was lucky that I could claim some of what would otherwise be my houseold costs if I were not running a business as business expenses, so they were tax deductable and exempt from Work and Income benefit abatement.

    And I had the nous to go onto the Work and Income website before I went to see them, just to know exactly what I might be entitled to receive.

    I pity some poor person, in the same personal circumstances I had, coming into Work and Income with no business and a life experience of 15 years working in KFC and Burger King though. They will not have the options I did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    Toad: I think you are missing what really happened under the Lange/Douglas government. We were pretty screwed beforehand – the government was basically bankrupt thanks to Muldoon. We went through significant reforms that made our economy more flexible, but towards the end of the Lange govt (without Douglas) things started to go a bit adrift. The incoming National government was faced with the BNZ crisis, amongst other problems. The groundwork for where we are as a country today was laid by those governments, and they created the prosperity that you are seeking to spend.

    I continue to believe that a fundamental problem with the Green party is your focus on left wing politics rather than environmental politics. Environmentalism has a hell of a lot more votes in it than hard left politics. Like I’ve said before, no problem with your politics being hard left – my problem is the sullying of the Green brand with red politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    Yes it is Kent, you are a moron if you think you can retain credibility when you blatantly lie like that.

    The last person who called me a moron with as much passion as you was a Texan trying to defend the invasion of Iraq a few years back, well before it became widely accepted as a bit of a disaster. I guess that he was using the same “rational discussion” method as you. That could be prescient.

    I can see where side show bob comes up with observations such as this:

    but this is so very hard to do in a country that spends more time chasing it’s tail then moving foward.

    This whole topic is very much a ‘rear end’ issue and moving nothing forward, but instead as Ruth Dyson suggests, chasing a tail that wagged briefly in the 1990′s.

    Perhaps Southern Raider has got it right with:

    Maybe National could get the DPB women to replace the current bureaucrats, they would probably do a better job and produce more meaningful output.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Great Policy, with some fine tuning this could be the best wefare policy NZ has had for a long time.
    It deals with the most important aspect of welfare which is the culture of welfare dependancy rapidly developing in this country.
    Put an axe to the root of that tree and a whole lot of other problems will start to come down also.
    Beneficary’s may not like it to start with, but with the $100 earnings threshhold and the self respect that comes from working for a living will ensure those who can be reformed, will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Charlie Tan (255 comments) says:

    My oh my.

    Both social engineers like our good Helen and free market vampires like Mr. Key alike believe that people respond to economic incentives and inducements, right? So here’s a question:

    If you truly believe that certain disadvantaged members of society pop out children because the state provides them with cash, and then tell them that they will have to go to some shitty, useless course if they don’t have any children under six, then isn’t it likely, under that set of assumptions, that those disadvantaged people will have an incentive to just pop out a kid every six years?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Charlie
    If people in NZ reason that way, no wellfare policy can save us, we would already be to far gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    holy shit, did toad just say the 1980′s labour government made things worse?

    worse for who???

    we wouldnt have a country if it wasnt for that govt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    “I guess that he was using the same “rational discussion” method as you.”

    Nice try, but trying to link my argument to something as irrelevant as the war in Iraq just reeks of desperation. You havent exactly taken me on about what I said, you have just focussed on a single word and ignored the rest. You have nothing, Parker, no argument, no point, no justifiable opinion, no spine. You lied and instead of standing behind your words you are running scared. You lose.

    “holy shit, did toad just say the 1980’s labour government made things worse?”

    Yep. That is the really troubling thing. There are actually people who think the country was heading down the right track with Muldoon.

    “then isn’t it likely, under that set of assumptions, that those disadvantaged people will have an incentive to just pop out a kid every six years?”

    Well, they will have an incentive, in the same way that saying you will pay someone $5 to hit their head against a wall also has an incentive to do so. Doesn’t mean they will do it. I think you have worded your point wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,786 comments) says:

    Why doesn’t National farm out the administration of “Welfare Benefits” to the private sector. The private sector would get paid for delivering results.

    That will cut the number of bludgers and public sector employees (Two sides of the same coin) at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    dime said: holy shit, did toad just say the 1980’s labour government made things worse? worse for who??? we wouldnt have a country if it wasnt for that govt

    You obviously were not one of those who lost their job then dime. And Kimble, I didn’t think the country was heading down the right track under Muldoon. The economy wasn’t sustainable then, wasn’t sustainable under Douglas, and isn’t sustainable now.

    BTW, I see the NZ Herald, not normally a bastion of far-left thinking, isn’t very impressed with National’s welfare policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    The fact is Muldoon turned the entire political landscape on it’s head. It is now widely accepted that under Muldoon, NZ had the most left wing, socialist economic policies we have had in modern times, and it nearly bankrupted us. It took a right wing Labour government to get us out of the crap. To do it as well as they did, in the time that it did, was breathtaking in hindsight.

    Be that as it may, at the time I admired Muldoon for his leadership (I was 12 at the time though and took my parents lead on this) but it became apparent that there was a lot more going on behind the scenes. I get the same sense from this current labour administration. They hide behind bluster and are ideologically opposed to the policies that we need to put in place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    Nice try, but trying to link my argument to something as irrelevant as the war in Iraq just reeks of desperation. You havent exactly taken me on about what I said, you have just focussed on a single word and ignored the rest. You have nothing, Parker, no argument, no point, no justifiable opinion, no spine. You lied and instead of standing behind your words you are running scared. You lose.

    Umm, Kimble, I’m not clear on what you are saying here:

    And it is about all you can expect from a moron that is still trotting out the “Key wants to lower wages!” lie, and sees nothing wrong with putting forward the argument that “if those on the benefit were worth anything as employees, they would be employed by now”. Or to put it another way, “will always be outliers, … who are extremely unsuccessful and in many ways unfit to serve in society” and “it is equally unwise to force the unwilling and unfit to partake in employment.”

    The argument is that tinkering with the free market system, by forcing people into work when the jobs don’t exist is likely to have a downward trend on wages. Key has been unwittingly captured saying he supports a decrease in wages (probably taken out of context by the media) just has he has been caught out saying he will lead the ‘Labour Government’ into victory. So 1+1=2: This policy definitely supports lowered wages.

    I suspect that you, like John Key, who has lived in the rarified atmosphere of financial institutions most of his life, have very little understanding of social issues and why people end up at the bottom of the heap. I wish him all the best in the method he has chosen to go about attempting to solve society’s problems and I wish you all the best in your attempts to ‘win’ arguments and make yourself feel better.

    Anyway, I’d say Charlie Tan has got it pretty much right: the career DPBers will just churn out a baby every 5 or 6 years or so until they are in their 50′s and all the right wing social saviours will be left with their fingers burnt and the cash register empty a la George Bush (Yes, comparative arguments are relevant).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    zzzzzz. Kimble, your making stuff up. Like Nome and Philu…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    Good link, Toad. Totally agree with the Herald:

    Single mothers with good earning capacity are normally anxious to return to paid work as soon as child care allows. National’s efforts will be felt mainly by those with few skills and poor earning capacity and, frankly, Mr Key ought to have more important things to do. This policy does more to stroke the shibboleths of party supporters than meet any pressing social need. He should return to topics that count.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. big bruv (12,357 comments) says:

    Toad

    “wasn’t sustainable under Douglas, and isn’t sustainable now.”

    Proof please Toad, and real proof please not a regurgitation of the climate change con and peak oil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Dr Robotnik (533 comments) says:

    Monty you complete and utter bastard.

    How dare you have kids, money and a job.

    Let’s face it. The only people who are going to really moan about this are lazy cunts who don’t want to work.

    The “safety net” is still there. The cripples and coffin dodgers are still going to be “cared for”. Be fucking grateful. Some may be in a situation not of their choice or making, but fuck me with a strap on, aren’t we all to some degree?

    All the fucking lefties and bleeding heart liberals want “society” to care for everyone, shit, don’t they have families? Charity begins at home. Unfortunately the only charity that my family can afford to support right now is the “Red Cross Dressers”, and those commie wankers don’t give us a choice.

    Piss and moan all you want about the level of welfare available to you but at least have the decency to be grateful that there is any. And those who are too proud to work in a job that is “beneath them”? Stop their benefits straight away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    Come ON, I keep posting this and although I get good Karma, the point just doesn’t get discussed:

    # PhilBest (2181) Add karma Subtract karma +6 Says:
    August 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    From the tail end of the earlier thread: I’d like to toss this in here now.

    # PhilBest (2174) +0 Says:
    August 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Redbaiter (3332) Add karma Subtract karma +2 Says:
    August 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am

    (Quoting Dr Robotnik) “I’d love more kids, really. I just can’t afford them.”

    “Lots of parents feel the same. The reason they can’t afford them is because they’re paying for the offspring of all the Philus all over the country as well- all Labour voters, and there are thousands of them taking money shamelessly from working families….”.

    Yep, AND can ANY of our morally liberal leaders get their heads around the idea that there might be people who have spent years working and saving money and having NO children “until they can afford them”, and their goal has only gotten steadily further away from them thanks to “income redistribution” and rises in housing costs?

    FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    “I suspect that you, like John Key, who has lived in the rarified atmosphere of financial institutions most of his life, have very little understanding of social issues and why people end up at the bottom of the heap.”

    And there we go again. “You dont understand what it is like to be poor.” Bullshit. I know perfectly well. But that doesnt change the fact that you said that beneficiaries are beyond help and time shouldnt be wasted on getting them off the benefit.

    “… the career DPBers will just churn out a baby every 5 or 6 years or so until they are in their 50’s…”

    That is complete bullshit. Even if there are people who would do such a thing their numbers would be so small that it isnt even worth addressing.

    “You obviously were not one of those who lost their job then dime.”

    And toad, this is just as moronic as anything Kent had to say. Do you think that the only people who see the “truth” about the reforms in the 1980′s and 90′s are those that were temporarily out of work? You are completely ignoring the jobs that would not have been created without those reforms.

    You guys need to learn what creative destruction is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. freethinker (648 comments) says:

    I like the idea of encouraging the unemployed but employable into work but does this policy achieve this? If you work 15 hours at say $14 per hour you gross $210, assuming $100 is an exemption then if $110 is abated at 70% you have increased gross income by $33 before tax – $2 per hour effective rate. So after expenses you are worse off so if I am correct it is actually an incentive to earn $99.99 – Spencer trust springs to mind! Surely the incentive should be a progressive abatement after index adjusting the expemtion from when it was last increased to achieve a real increase in after tax/expenses income from which the recipient would contribute Gst on spending and the economy benefit from increased capacity but without the need for increased beauracracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Oldlogan (1 comment) says:

    I read with interest the policy statement by the National Party. My concern is not the statement, but the level of payment once a person (or a couple) have qualified to receive assistance.

    For example, if you a medical problem (like a heart attack or a stroke) you can seek payment for a ‘sickness benefit’. If the partner of the sick person is nursing the other, the benefit they jointly receive is a total of $278.22 per week.

    This amount is not sufficient to live and certainly not enough to pay the rent.

    If you agree with me, I’d appreciate your comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.