Preview of National’s welfare policy
The NZ Herald and Dom Post preview National’s welfare policy which will be released today. Key aspects so far:
- DPB recepients whose youngest child is six or older spend at least 15 hours a week working, training or looking for work
- Allow beneficiaries to earn $100 a week before their benefits abate – an increase $1,000 a year.
Both seem pretty sensible to me. Will be interesting to see the full policy.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: National, welfare
August 11th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Makes good sense to me, so I anticipate labour coming out against it.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:41 am
When I heard this on the 6am news, my first thought was …
“I hope the punctuation keys on philu’s keyboard can take the strain’…
…
etc…
…
August 11th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Wetter than a weekend in Westport.
Even just returning welfare spending to 1999 levels plus inflation would be enough to fund sizeable tax cuts without borrowing and have plenty left over.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:49 am
You get the DPB until your youngest child reaches six, then you have to go out and work or train for 15 hours a week.
Ummmm, I wonder what incentives that provides? My guess is that there will be a lot of four year gaps between children.
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
How about: you get the DPB for one child (or children – you might have more than one when you become single), and that’s it. And when that child, or the youngest child, gets to six you have to work for 15 or 20 hours.
That would get the incentives right.
Even now we have mothers who have been on the DPB for 20 years +. How does that happen I wonder??
August 11th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I would think that there is a risk that things will work out as freedom101 fears- it will be good to see the policy spelt out. Still, I anticipate, as slightlyrighty says, that there will be a tirade against the policy by Labour- it indicates the intent to abolish the DPB, reintroduce slavery, etc.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Oh, ok, that’s not too bad. I saw one of the NZ Herald sandwich boards outside a dairy on my way to work that said something like, “National would make solo mums work” which is really a bit misleading I think.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:09 am
As a policy, it sends a better message than what we currently had in place. There is an expectation that a single mother has to go to work when she is able. What is the current expectation for a single mother?
And yes, we have seen H1 on the tele this morning coming out against this policy as she thinks that there could well be a reason why a woman should be a full time mum as opposed to working. I’d like to know what those reasons are and how come she is so well placed to know them. As John Key was raised by a solo mother, I would say he is infinitely better qualified than Helen Clark is on this issue.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:29 am
philu must be packing a few extra cones for his bong in advance…before he begins his onslaught for the day…eh?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Time to get a job phool.
In fact I think we’ll call it “Phools Law”.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I flicked John an email suggesting that he needed to incentivise Philu to get his arse out of front of the PC during daylight hours.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:36 am
A problem Clark has this morning was mothers was diseases like autism etc being forced to work instead of caring for the kids…can’t see how Key/National could miss that in their policy…
[DPF: There will inevitably be some flexibility I am sure, where the kids don't go to school for example. The policy is about DPB recipients whose kids are not at home for seven hours a day.]
August 11th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I guess that since this is actually a topic of relevance to Phool we wont see him on this threat. Too bad I wanted so much to hear about how this policy will fail as John Key obvously hasn’t heard of school holidays and its just maskings Nationals ‘secret agenda’ etc etc
August 11th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Come on guys, be fair.
This isn’t going to impact on philu that much.
I mean surely he has someone in to look after his son while he’s got his face glued to his tax payer funded monitor?
Anybody posting 24/7 is clearly unfit to look after a child, he must have tax payer funded assistance.
The fucking loser.
[DPF: And that goes too far for 20 demerits]
August 11th, 2008 at 8:49 am
The critical bits to look for are not to do with getting solo parents to work.. that’s a given and necessary thing if the children of those parents are not to be trapped in poverty, but in what supports are offered to get the solos to work. That means a recognition that children are valuable and there are additional benefits paid to such families even when the parent works.. including really good and heavily subsidised child care whilst the parents are at work.
Just waving the arms around and demanding solo parents work is grandstanding and little use unless there are the necessary supports in place.
JC
August 11th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Steady on guys, you might not agree with a lot of what phil says but some of these attacks are getting just a little bit personal, play the ball not the man eh?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Cant see too much wrong with it. Frankly if I had my way Id get rid of the DPB and just have one benefit. If a parent wants to go solo (or is forced to by the other one buggering off) then they should be supported by the other partner, and failing that the families of them both. If that wont work then the parent gets a benefit, but the families of both parents pay an extra tax amount – even if they are on a benefit also – they will get less benefit. Works in singapore if you wont look after your aging parents, so such system do exists for making it work.
These kids are not societies direct problem – they are the problem of the parents and the wider familes. It will force some responsibility into these families.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am
“…Under the scheme, benefit names such as “DPB” and “Invalids” will be scrapped.
Instead, beneficiaries will be given a personal tailor-made scheme depending on their ability to work, or their training needs…”
Administration/case manager costs either just jumped considerably or the likelihood of these words meaning what they mean in literal english is nil.
As far as I know anyone not on a sickness benefit is rated as being able to work from 15 hours a week upward or be in related training for the same period. It’s only those on a sickness benefit that are rated below 15 hours. Most likely it means:
Things will stay more or less the same as the conditons described already exist and the cut off point for earnings while on benefit go up $20. (BRIBE! BRIBE! The socialists are BRIBING the beneficiaries! hahaha)
To my mind this kind of WINZ tinkering is a waste of time compared to what has to be done in other areas of policy. But hell, who cares. I have the option of voting National and making sure Labour get the boot, or…. or who? And National know it. hahaha. It’s a fuckin’ joke, this style of campaign is for mindless Herald readers. It’ll keep Labour screaming until an election date is set though.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Allow beneficiaries to earn $100 a week before their benefits abate is a step in the right direction. However, the current $80 figure has been in place as long as I can remember (from the mid-1980s at least). Of course $80 (or $100) is worth a lot less now than it was then. While benefit’s are increased annually according to the CPI, the abatement threshold is not. It doesn’t just need a one-off increase, it needs to be CPI indexed, which the Greens would do.
Requiring DPB recepients whose youngest child is six or older spend at least 15 hours a week working, training or looking for work is a bad idea. It will just dump many of them into $12 an hour dead end jobs. And who looks after the kids during school holidays, or if they are sick. What if a child has behavioural problems or a disability and needs parental attention during the day. I don’t think a “one-size fits all” approach like this will work any better now than it did when it was in place at the start of this decade.
The current regime under which sole parents are required to develop a “personal development and employment plan” that includes appropriate activities designed to eventually move them into sustainable employment is a far better policy. The problem is not with the policy in this instance, it is with the lax administration of it by the Ministry of Social Development.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:01 am
LMBL,
philu IS the ball.
Anyone who can sit and claim a right to welfare on the pretext of caring for a child, yet spend an incredibly large amount of time posting illegible bullshit on a political blog, day, night, weekday, weekend IS the ball.
The attitude displayed by philu and his total hypocrisy and irresponsibility is just mind blowing.
I’d love for my partner or I to raise our daughter fulltime, and spend that time educating, nurturing and providing her with the moral and ethical guidance to become a productive and positive contributor to society. Unfortunately, due to poor economic management by the encumbant government and the heavy tax burden placed on society by the irresponsible and unwilling, we both have to do our bit for the good of our family.
I can assure you that given the opportunity to have that time with my child I wouldn’t waste any of it commenting in this forum.
Shit DPF, if you think that goes to far you should hear what I really think.
20 demerits? Pretty fucking sad given your tasteless comments on a previous post, but I guess “My house, my rules” eh?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I agree with Dr Robotnik and DPF your demits are missdirected.
Stop cuddling the socialist parasite and level the playing field!
August 11th, 2008 at 9:15 am
good stuff national! managed to hear the dear leader on holmes this morning.. she was naming national MP’s from the 90′s haha
how does one become a hollow man? is there somewhere i can sign up?
im sure most will take the “i spent 15 hours this week looking for work” angle.. ya know, where the rock up to a place and ask for work “hey bro, you got any jobs?”
maybe an inuilt timer on the seek.co.nz website lol
we gotta try though!
labour will paint this as national just being mean blah blah but really, most of these people need a push.
how much dr phil can one watch anyway?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
NZ doesn’t have a welfare policy problem to solve; IMHO it has a problem with entrenched personal values that insist that the state will assume all responsibility to provide for me in return for my loyalty.
No amount of tinkering with levels, thresholds, triggers, complex entitlement rules or exceptions can do anything other than polish the welfare turd that hold people in dumbed-down dependence on the state. And before I’m pilloried with accusations of nasty right-wing beneficiary bashing, I would happily give see those in real need provided for more fairly, rather than them being treated as a single vote and ‘purchased’ at the same price as a lazy/unwilling bludger.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:24 am
As I commented over at No Minister just now, UK Liarbour has just announced its own work for dole policy.
So John Kdey is hardly the hearless evil bastard Liarbour will say he is.
Dear Leader has stolen so many policies from UK Liarbour.
For once, John Key has beaten them to it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4272773.ece
August 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Lol! So is the rule that ‘Labour’automatically becomes ‘Liarbour’ then?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Has Helen not noticed there is a labour shortage in NZ and we need to get as many fit and able people into the workforce as possible.
Telecommuting makes it much easier for DPB recipients to work provided they are properly trained and have work experience.
But some lack the computing skills.
I imagine many divorced women with children would welcome the training if it meant they could return to work using broadband to allow them to telecommute.
National should link this policy to its plans for broadband.
Cullen of course has declared that broadband does nothing for productivity which simply shows he is not fit to govern in the 21st Century.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am
seeing as so many of you seem to (somewhat) obsess about me..
i’ll tell you how my morning..(as all mornings)..starts in the dark/very early..
(no alarm clock..but i over-slept this morning..(5.30 am..)
and the fruits of my endeavours since then can be seen at http://whoar.co.nz/
..where there are 23 stories/links..presenting the (local/international) ‘essential’ snapshot of this day in history..
..and yes..i have commented there on key/nationals sole-parent..(and their children)..bashing exercise..
..(time for breakfast/dog-walk now..)
..bye..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 11th, 2008 at 9:50 am
The system has free wheeled for too long for a simple fix. As a current parent of 5 children (3 under 7) and in receipt of National Super at the reduced married rate, “working for families”, accomodation supplement and an invalidity allowance I feel that those truly in work are getting a hard time. I haven’t calculated precisely my equivalent working pre-tax income without benefits, but it would be about $55 000! The abatement regime makes it difficult to make any other choice than not seek over-the-table paid work or to be useful in such voluntary occupations as take my fancy. Any paid work in excess of $4016 pa attracts over 90% confiscation and if you have to meet any costs to do it, or get there, that is a losing situation.
The present structure cannot be unravelled without great hardship. Any major changes are going to need a transitional period of at least 5 years. If we have to bite the bullet to make a fix a 10 year progressive change may be required.
At present there is inequity between those in paid employment and those paid by the state. Part of the problem is: is there sufficient work if we are to force the issue? Farmers have had to be paid to do nothing else their excess production causes market havoc. How many more policy analysts do we require? Adding layers of administration may make some people feel good but do we gain productivity? Is GDP a sufficient measure of productivity? Another long term solution may require paying those in work a much higher premium. We may need to ration work to those most fit and able to do it.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:51 am
It is unfortunate that National thinks it wise to tinker with the DPB, this is probably the one area of the benefit where recipients require the most freedom. While it is unthinkable to allow a woman to remain on it if she refuses to name the father of her children this latest policy move is in the wrong direction.
It is an unfortunate reality that many relationships do come to an end and a woman with children needs more support than anyone. Running a household can be a full-time job, even with children over 6. Forcing these women out to emplyment or training severely hamstrings their ability to be there for their children at what is still a vital time in their lives.
It is disappointing that such a policy has come from a party led by a man brought up by a single mother. It is hard to deny that youth is much better served by a full-time parent not one who has to commit to other jobs. This is the true degradation of the family unit. No matter what makes up your family children need to have a full time parent available.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am
We don’t give a fuck about your “efforts” and I for one am tired of paying you to write shit on the net.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Good, go National, you have my vote. Get the lazy buggers working so I can get more tax back. They have to be pushed or they won’t do it, just keep bringing up excuses. Can’t believe they are offered more money as an incentive – anyone wanna offer me the ability to earn an extra $100 untaxed income a week?
And school holidays …. who looks after the kids…? For goodness sakes, pay someone, that is what normal WORKING people do. And if your kid is sick…take the day off. Hmm..very poor excuse for not working at all.
And as for “diseases” like Austism (it isn’t a disease by the way) my child has Aspergers – but goes to school, what the hell do you do all day while your kids are at school? How clean is your house aye?
Pure laziness, that is all.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Yes, good point, theodoresteel. There are issues of freedom and choice involved here. A two-parent family has the choice of both parents working, or one staying home to care for the kids and picking up the Working For Families entitlements and other assistance such as accommodation supplement that they may be eligible for with only one income. And as National has recently confirmed, it will retain Working for Families.
But a one-parent family will be denied the choice of the parent staying home to care for the kids. And this from a National Party that supposedly advocates “freedom” and “choice”.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:07 am
There is also the choice of having children in the first place. If you cannot afford then, you should “choose” not to have them until you have saved enough money to have the “freedom” to then “choose” to stay home with them.
I have another better idea!
Working people can “choose” whether they want to give money to the solo parent fund. The pool of solo parents can then share whatever has been freely given.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Well that isn’t really going to help with the hating now is it phil
August 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Ms. I point you to the case where a husband (or wife) dies, leaves their partnerdue to unforseeable circumstances. The once “affordable” children are no longer. And unfortunately they cannot be fobbed off to the SPCA as pets can.
While it is advisable for people not to have children they cannot afford, would you really suggest the best solution is to deprive the children?
If you actually gave the point some thought and looked at the many possible individualised ways in which a parent can become solo you might have a different opinion on the matter.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
toad,
they’ll have as much freedom and choice as the rest of us.
I have the freedom and choice to breed or not, then I also have the freedom or choice to meet my responsibilities and feed, clothe and educate my children.
I also have the freedom and choice to be a selfish, worthless shite and let them go hungry or cold because finding a practical and workable solution is consigned to the “too fucking hard” basket.
I could rise early, write some total bollocks on the interweb, have a cone, take the dog for a walk, have another cone, collect some taxpayers money, write some more bollocks and then feed my child.
Or I could choose a better way.
As for solo parents, if a parent can support a two adult family plus kids on one wage then surely the difference in resource required to do so and to support a single parent family would cover the necessary child care? Or families could assist each other as my family assisted my single father with 3 kids, working full time?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Bloody hell!, they way the left have reacted to this you would have thought that Key was suggesting we line up all DPB recipients against the wall and shoot them.
Their arguments are pathetic, they offer no alternative other than the failed system we have now which rewards woman for producing babies.
They are being told that they must work for 15 hours a week for gods sake and they will not have to do so until the kid is six years old.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ms – what about the situation when one parent does a runner overseas and pays no child support? Or when his partner leaves him because he is beating her or the children? It’s all very well to talk about not having children if yyou can’t afford them. But these are situations when a parent could afford them when they had them, but circumstances have changed.
I also think you miss my point about “choice”. The State financially supports low-income 2 parent families who choose to have one parent stay at home. It does so through Working for Families, a pprogramme that National now endorses. So why is it that it is okay for the state to support two-parent families in that choice, but not one-parent families?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Dr Robotnik said: I also have the freedom or choice to meet my responsibilities and feed, clothe and educate my children.
That is not a choice, it is a parental obligation. If you fail to exercise it, the State will intervene (by removing your children) to ensure they are fed, clothed and educated.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
theo – there is such a thing as life insurance. Anyone who has a family are fools to not consider it.
And becoming solo, I lost my husband in a car accident when I was pregnant.
And pets shouldn’t be fobbed off to the SPCA either – same as children you shouldn’t have pets unless you can afford them as they deserve a forever home.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
“We don’t give a fuck about your “efforts” and I for one am tired of paying you to write shit on the net.”
Me too. 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 there’s too many the same all with the vote, and all supporting Helen Klark, who desperately reaches out to these bludgers for their vote, once again putting her obsession with power above any real concerns for working New Zealanders and their families.
[DPF: And that's just a little too abusive and personal. One could make the point without the terms scum, lowlife and filth. 20 demerits.]
August 11th, 2008 at 10:27 am
If we are at all serious about preventing the cycle of families remaining poor over several generations, is forcing parents out of the home a good way to do it? Helen Clark made some salient points, what of solo parents caring for severely disabled children?
THis policy is severely misguided. National should be looking at ways to reduce those on the umemployment benefit. These people can spare the time to work. If anyone should be the target of a work for dole scheme it is them, not those who have dependents
August 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
“I saw one of the NZ Herald sandwich boards outside a dairy on my way to work that said something like, “National would make solo mums work” which is really a bit misleading I think.”
But but but, the Herald is a tool of the vast right wing global capitalist war mongering arms manufacturing conspiracy..!!!
August 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
All this talk about ‘choice’ is interesting. The issue for me is that it is not the state’s roles to insulate you or I from the consequence of choices we make.
The consequence of short-term choices become determinants of the choices that I’ll have later. Surfs up? So choose to wag school and miss important education, not even in the ball-park for good job opportunities, so have low wage role which limits my lifestyle. So surf today and live in a slum tomorrow.
Of course it’s not that simplistic, but choices have consequences and if a socialist state is determined to buy us out of those short-term consequences in return for our long term dependence/loyalty… and we accept that that’s ok, then our society is screwed.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I disagree toad, not on the obligation part (not by a long shot), but on the state intervention part.
I can only assume that you really meant was “the state will provide you with someone elses money to spend as you choose whilst interfereing in the lives of other families who, for whatever reason, do not follow their political agenda.”
And it is not OK for the state to support two person families, which is a total crock of shit anyway. They just steal less from most of them because they are unable to pay their share of state imposed commitments which they have never agreed to in the first place.
I’d love more kids, really. I just can’t afford them.
All of the fucking idiots wringing their hands about “disabled children” etc. Don’t you think they’d get a bigger slice of the welfare pie if it wasn’t being distributed amongst the undeserving?
I may be a heartless bastard but those who are in need should be cared for. But needs and desires are a world apart in this fucked up country.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:36 am
yea this policy stinks!!!
these facists are FORCING people to better themselves!!!
and the amount of time is just silly! 2 and a bit hours a day?? just unfair.
speaking as a dirtbag thats ummm spent time with many solo mothers… most have ample free time!
the left use emotive crap like “its a full time job running a household”… this appeals to people like our mothers.. who actually did spend the day raising kids and running the household… nowadays the majority are lazy bitches that watch tv all day.
15 hours a week of tarining oculd be anything. maybe some should learn how to cook real food for a start! maybe some cleaning tips!
god, wheres the pride people????
August 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Hey big bruv, you are so right…15 hours a week, that is 3 hours a day that parents are being forced out the home.
It’s like anything, think of starting a new exercise program. It’s hard in the beginning, your muscles ache, you have to force yourself out of bed it is miserable. Then all of a sudden you start to enjoy those early morning runs, your body starts to hum and feel refreshed and invigorated. You slim down (or muscle up) your self esteem rises and you can do more and more and you enjoy the challenges. and no, I am not advocating National brings in a learn to run policy, I am comparing starting exercise to starting work. In the beginning it will be hard if you are not used to it, but all new habits take a bit to get used to.
I love working, earning money and spending it!
August 11th, 2008 at 10:39 am
As toad says. increasing the amount a beneficiary is allowed to earn from $80 to $100 is a very small step, but in the right direction. I know people who would like to earn a bit more – and have been offered the work – but turn it down because the cumulative effect of the taxes and clawbacks etc mean they end up with not enough to pay for the petrol to get to work. I find that tragic.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Ms
Firstly, welcome to the forum. You appear to be the type of person for whom the DPB worked well for, in that it gave you support when you needed it, but when you were in a position to fend more for yourself, you did so. These are admirable traits.
We all want a better deal for our children, but some of us are not prepared to do what is necessary as parents to make that possible. A child needs to grow in a household where there is work, or if there is no work, then there should be a concerted effort to find work, or at least train towards that goal. A solo parent household where there are no kids for 7 hours in the day should have at it’s core a parent who exists as a role model, and who works.
People will put up arguments for why it would not work, such as special needs children, school holidays and the circumstances of becoming a single parent.
Thanks for putting up an example of why these are not arguments, only excuses.
My mother was widowed and left with 2 6 year old boys. She coped, she worked, paid a mortgage. The only government support she was entitled to amounted to about $11 a week, in 1973. I still thank her for her example to me.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Barry at 8.55AM; the researcher Charles Murray recently advocated scrapping all benefits in favour of one generous entitlement, as the savings on administration would be so great.
Toad at 9.00AM, I keep saying that abolishing tax altogether for the first fifteen grand or so, like in Aussie, would provide widespread positive incentives.
“Ms”, well said. Look, you guys who raise “what about” someone whose husband dies, etc; what do YOU say about the fact that 3 years after the DPB was introduced, there were ten times as many young solo mums who had just had a baby, on it, than the number of genuine cases who qualified for it at the outset? This in spite of some “holy fools” on a commission that “investigated” the issue and recommended the establishment of a DPB in the first place, assuring us that that would not happen, as the strength of our cultural ethics would prevent it…………hahahaha.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
A bit of sunlight…
One of Key’s better statements has been that we don’t have a debt problem but a growth problem. He could have added we have had a falling unemployment problem, that we have falling solo parent numbers. Further, he could have added that invalids and sickness benefit numbers have only risen moderately. Key has also pointed out that it makes no sense to have a ideological fight over trivialities that don’t affect the bottom line, eg, don’t privatise something that wastes time and political capital if it makes fuck all difference to the cashflow.
Every Western country has an issue of solo parentage and where an ideological or moral standard has been imposed the children of said parents are in poverty. France and Sweden have about 85% more of their solo parents in work than the US, Oz, UK or NZ, and thus they have less kids in poverty. They do it by allowing working solos to retain certain benefits and by providing very good child care facilities to the working solo parent.
Our attitude, surely, should be to forget the ideology and accept we have a third of our kids in poverty, that the vast majority live in solo parent households and that the parents need to be kicked to work, but with benefits and facilities in place that can support the family. And we should forget this crap that women shouldn’t have babies until they are financially secure.. ain’t gonna happen. Kids are kids whether in poor or rich families and each one has the potential to be a great citizen.. if only we structure work and income around the demands of parenthood and the workplace.
JC
August 11th, 2008 at 10:48 am
it is pleasing tho’ to see such a clear gulf appearing between the tweedle-dum..and tweedle-dee parties..
..this populist exercise in benificiary-bashing..going with the privatisation/secret agendas/cutting services revelations..
..shows that clearly there s the tweedle-dum party..
..and the tweedle-same-bunch-of-bastards party..
..and i think this (exercise in shame..key should be blushing…!..)..
..will be as effective for you..as was the recent immigrant-bashing try-on by peters/new zealand first..
..aside from the gibbering/feral/reactionary/hate-filled nutbars who have already commented here..
..most people out there know sole-parents..and their children..
..don’t have an ‘easy time’..
..and are our ‘underclass’..
..and not all national supporters would support making their lives even harder..
..with a draconian regime..(90% clawback on any monies earned over $100..that seems ‘fair’..eh..?..)
..also..a lot of those sloshing voters..who were ‘bored’ with clark..
..will come to their senses..and veer away from their flirtation with ‘nice mr key’..
(‘nice’mr key is appearing more and more ‘naked’..eh..?..)
..and this cruel/hateful/illogical exercise in beating up on the poorest/worst-off..
..will only accelerate your downward plunge in the polls..
..and add further assurance of a lab/grn/mp/prog govt..
..and i must say..far from the expectations of many..
..i welcome this policy from key..
..as bringing into focus..the true nature/intentions of ‘nice mr key’..(the money-trader..)
..and the gimlet-eyed/lying bastards who sit behind/beside him..
..and i am so looking forward to dancing on his/nationals’ electoral grave..
..(it couldn’t happen to a ‘nicer’ bunch of people..eh..?..)
..and isn’t this also such an exercise in men in suits…beating up on poor women/mothers..
..you have just hammered another nail into the coffin of your defeat..
..(and from my perspective..’how sweet it is..!’..)
b.tw…are there no ‘human rights’ issues with two-parent families being eligible for state aid..
..but this aid being denied to other families..solely on the grounds of their being just one parent to care for them..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 11th, 2008 at 10:51 am
getstaffed said: The issue for me is that it is not the state’s roles to insulate you or I from the consequence of choices we make.
So do you expect a woman and children who are being beaten up to make the “choice” of continuing to be beaten up in order to save you money as a taxpayer?
What about when the children’s father just buggers off and pays nothing? The mother has made no choice at all in that situation.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“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.
Kudos to National for doing what is right at the expense of votes. Mind you, its unlikely any of the people in this situation would have the nouse to vote for anybody but Helen Klark anyway. Losers most of them, and like likes like.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
See philu, it appears that your problem was being a fucking drop kick in your pre breeding years (you know, the self confessed speedball breakfast), thus meaning that when you became a solo parent you lacked, and still lack, the means or backbone to provide for your offspring.
Whereas responsible and intelligent people who become single parents, whilst not finding it easy by any stretch of the imagination, use a little initiative, pride and hard work to do whatever is necessary to succesfully parent a child (or as I have mentioned previously, three in my fathers case when my mother fucked off and offered no support, financially or otherwise).
Sitting whining about unfairness, insurmountable obstacles and those nasty workers and their sneers towards the self imposed underclass isn’t going to do anything for your situation.
I don’t even think that it is your personal circumstances that offend the most, it’s your total lack of pride, humility and decency.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am
slightlyrighlty – thank you for the welcome. For the record, I have never been on the DPB, so can’t judge for myself what it offers. I have seen real life examples though of the outcome. Example 1: 4 adult children of a benefit mother (with a very clean house), only one adult child works the other 3 are on: drug rehab, house arrest and just plain DBP. Guess staying home with her kids didn’t really achieve very much. Example 2: DPB mother of 10 and 16 year old, smokes a bit of weed, youngest just been suspended from school at 10 years of age. And please don’t anyoen say Where are the fathers, because thats just another copout and looking for other people to blame again.
Well done to your mother, she was a very good example and it would have paid off in her children.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am
philu – please explain why this is beneficiary bashing?
August 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“What about when the children’s father just buggers off and pays nothing? The mother has made no choice at all in that situation.”
This is a social state of affairs that you and your “liberal” ilk have encouraged by degrading maligning and attacking all of the factors that keep families together and functioning.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Stop posting “but what about widowed mothers”, “what about households where the dad did a runner”, and “what about special needs kids” stories. They are irrelevant.
All you know about Nationals policy is a single sentence. The formal release wont have that much detail either.
Stop wasting everyones times with questions that can only be answered in the future, or assumptions based on the popular lefty “National hates solo parents” fantasy. Take the proposals at face value and you will see that they are both good things. One increases the incentive to work, they other increases the motivation.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am
The increased abatement threshold is a great idea.
What they neglect however is the fathers of the children. If fathers have greater financial accountability and are more involved in their children’s lives, less money would be required from the government to support them in the first place. With more contact with both parents young boys especially are far less likely to end up in crime as well.
Policy needs to recognise the role of fathers.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Ms. I admittedly come from an upper-middle class suburb, but my experiences with the DPB (as a child) were that of a mother of 6 children working non-stop from the moment we left for school until we came home to keep the household in shape, look after sick children and fulfill one of the most important roles in society, volunteering at the school.
Now I am not saying the time she spent volunteering could not be spent working. Despite 15 hours a week being 3 5 hour weekdays (all the time a single parent has away from children at school), leaving only 10 hours of child-free time a week. But if she worked then we and the other children in the community would not have got the benefit of her assisting the school.
My single mother neighbour won a small amount on lotto and spent it to move out of the slums to get her children away from the gangs and no longer works. Her older child had committed suicide in their old back-yard aged 17 when her mother was at work. The younger ones and the her grandchild are now doing fine with a full-time mother.
There are ways to deal with bad parenting. But lumping all those who recieve the DPB into that stereotype is not helpful and forcing them into work will not work.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
toad:
you’re citing examples while i’m talking about principles. there will always be strong cases for remedial assistance because of situations that are beyond the control of the individual. your two examples are relevant
the issue, for me at least, becomes when the assistance provided becomes a permanent fixture in the absence of the individual recognising that shit does happen and it’s ultimately their responsibility – not the state’s – to care for themselves and their offspring.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
“Helen Clark made some salient points, what of solo parents caring for severely disabled children?”
This is a nonsense arguement designed to pull at the heart strings of the gullible. Of course there are cases where this policy is the appropriate to certain individuals. There are always exceptions to the rule, but that is why we have case mangers. The fact that a few solo parents may be looking after disabled children should not stop those who are perfectly able from getting some part time work.
The question sould be asked of an equally hypothetical situation “what of solo parents sitting around smoking dope, walking the dog, posting dribble on the web, etc all day while his or her only child is at school all day and not in need of care?”
August 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Phil.
Are you not aware that a single parent family can apply for the working for families supplement after 20 hours of work?
Now I am aware that the DBP pays $320 per week before tax. A 2 child solo parent would possibly get an additional $139 under working for families for a total of $459
A solo parent with a single child under 12, but over 6 working 20 hours on the minimum wage would get $250 but working for families, according to the website, would top that up by a further $288. Or a total weekly income of $538.
With 2 kids that goes up to $595 per week.
Of course if you areworkin in the above situation and renting and paying $350 a week in rent (about average for wgtn) you could also get a further $131 per week.
Phil. Do you really think it’s better for a solo parent to just stay at home on the DBP, or would some part time work, say as a teacher aide be a better option. Do you really think that Key is engaging in, to use your own words, a “cruel/hateful/illogical exercise in beating up on the poorest/worst-off..” Or do you think that there might just be some advantage to the parent, the child, and society in general if certain people got off their ass and started to contribute to the well being of the country, rather than just relying on the DPB to their own detriment.
Phil, $459 per week or $730 per week for working a minimum wage part time job for 20 hours a week.
Which is better Phil?
August 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“The question sould be asked of an equally hypothetical situation “what of solo parents sitting around smoking dope, walking the dog, posting dribble on the web, etc all day while his or her only child is at school all day and not in need of care?””
Damn right. Double damn right.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:51 am
And equally valid as a response: That is why we have case managers.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Where does Phul get the idea that we (the tax payers) would think that his getting up at 5am to post crap on his blog constitutes work?
August 11th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
So Labour and the Greens oppose a policy which will give beneficiaries the opportunity to earn an extra 25% before an abatement kicks in on their benefits – sounds like beneficiary-bashing to me!!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/helen-clark-betrays-low-paid.html
August 11th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Very sensible policy John Key !
Long Overdue!!!
There is no such thing as a free lunch unless your the Labour Party and even then you steal the money from the hard earning taxpayer!
The real poor will be looked after and that is an essential part of good Government but that does not include free loaders like the unemployed gangsters, beneficiary bludgers and graffiti artists etc.
If you child has gone to school you just might find it does a world of good to you to earn some money yourself!!
August 11th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I cannot understand the uproar from Helen when they’re only talking about 15 hours per week… that’s three hours a day (for those that can’t work it out)…
I would encourage of course that the scheme do take into account those at home with children with disabilities – and lets make volunteer count towards the 15 hours too…
August 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
It is worth remembering that Joe Louis’ mother was against his boxing because she thought it was not a proper way to earn money and he should work at a more respectable occupation.
Then came the depression and the family was in such dire straits that she applied for some state assistance which she received.
She was bitterly ashamed.
When Joe earned his first decent cheque for winning a fight in the ring he handed it over to her to compensate for all her hardship.
She then took the cash down to the Welfare office and paid the money back in full to restore her self-respect.
We have walked down a long road since then.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I was hoping for something a little more promising from our soon to be PM. It is unfortunate when people who have never in their lives taken any interest in behaviour modification let alone done any study of human behaviour should think that they can change human behaviour so easily. Politicians should and usually do leave this until they have gained a little more experience in the realities of the real world effect of the policies the enact. The National work for the dole scheme of several decades back fell by the wayside because it cost more money to administer than it was worth in either GDP or social benefits. The fact is, that at any time a small percentage of members of society will be incapable of productive work for whatever reason and ‘forcing’ them to work is a waste of time and money. The problem with ‘forcing’ DPB recipients to work is that most employers are not geared up for taking on employees who place their parental duties at the same level or higher than their duties as an employee. Mr Key would need to promote the creation of ‘family friendly’ jobs in the workforce if he is to make this policy work. There are some family friendly jobs in schools and supermarkets and a few other places but in general the business world is not churning out the kinds of jobs needed to make this work.
I was speaking very recently with someone who was ardent supporter of the idea that the scourge of society are the career solo parents. I challenged him with some of the realities of the complexity of society and the ramifications of human relationships and that he was just focusing on the few people who abuse the system. All systems get abused. There is a good point here: people who abuse the DPB system are a problem, but so are shoplifters, white collar fraudsters etc. Within minutes of this discussion this person was saying that the place for women was in the home, in the kitchen etc. While he may not have truly believed what he was saying, it still came out his mouth. The probably reality here is that the very people who are creating this policy are capable of the same Freudian slip and that they want solo mothers to go out and work while at the same time maintaining that the place for the woman is in the home. This creates an unnecessary tension for the great many mothers who are on the DPB who are not ripping off the system, whose spouse has died, or who had children with someone whom they genuinely believed cared for them, who subsequently abused or left them. To be sure, there are more in that category than those who are career mothers.
As slightlyrightly has pointed out, any DPB recipient with half a brain can see they are much better off working part time than relying solely on the benefit. So why are there not more of them working? That is the question that Key should be researching, rather than stimulating the excitement of the somewhat limited redneck section of the electorate into indignant self-righteousness.
About an hour after his spiel on DPB mothers, the person I was talking to above was on a rant about how city councils, in the recent downturn, are creating work for themselves in whatever way they can by by creating new and trivial plans or enforcing minor regulations, rather than laying off staff. Oh for a perfect world!
As for Key, we have a looming recession, increasing cost of living and the first piece of legislation we get any amount of detail on concerns a subject with limited financial impact, huge social complexity and in many respects irrelevant to most pressing needs. However this is unlikely to be an election issue, so it gives Key an opportunity to unravel some of the detail of National Party policies and then see what the reaction is with the minimum amount of damage should it prove to be completely unsafe (part of the John Key learn-on-the-job phenomenon). Key has already demonstrated that he is not an ideologue and is more than happy to do a complete flip flop (eg WFF) and save the taxpayer from unnecessary spending because the reality is that the cost of enforcing this policy will far exceed any financial return, the morality of children brought up by non-working parents notwithstanding.
I’m interested to see what this National Party policy will look like in 6 months time.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Very well said Owen,
She must have been operating on some fundamental guiding principles don’t you think?
Possibly another important factor to have gone west through the breakdown of the family unit, ie a father and mother who were brought up with some fundamental morals and values.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
And then we here the Dear Leader this morning on Breakfast blabbing on about the Single Parent Benefit that she holds a simple view that the best policy is what is best for the child-
Again Gobsmacking stuff
- from a cancerous and corrosive ‘woman’ who stated that “it was inconceivable for her to bear children.”
How would she know anything about what was best for children. Hollow Woman statement again.
And with the greatest respect for the genuine childless parents she doesn’t even understand what maternal feelings even are!! – she’s more into ‘consorts’ according to Mike Moore who obviously knows some things that we don’t!
She doesn’t even care to have children !!
August 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
“As for Key, we have a looming recession, increasing cost of living and the first piece of legislation we get any amount of detail on concerns a subject with limited financial impact, huge social complexity and in many respects irrelevant to most pressing needs.”
I didnt realise the election had been called. Did I miss something? Has Labour released their policy on the economy and cost of living yet?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
What’s the point in having an AJAX edit facility in Kiwiblog if it doesn’t work?
What’s the point in having ________ if it doesn’t work?
Fill the space in with whatever you fancy.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Of course it is relevant, no matter where the polls are.
What isnt relevant is someone who hears a policy on social welfare and complains that it doesnt address another irrelevant topic.
“There are some family friendly jobs in schools and supermarkets and a few other places but in general the business world is not churning out the kinds of jobs needed to make this work.”
How many jobs are needed? I dont think it would be that many. And dont forget the training element as well, this is the most likely option as study IS flexible.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
You can talk about the beneficeries but the elephant in the room are the people getting super. Half a million getting super. How about we reduce that – more bang for your buck there.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I would have thought that the number of family friendly jobs available to DPB recipients was quite relevant. No point in offering a nightshift job to the mother of a 6 year old, I reckon.
<blockquote)How many jobs are needed?
Something in the region of 38,000 according to NZHerald stats.
Yes, but when you finish training the idea is to get a job and there are many years between when the youngest child is 6 and they leave school, or at least become a more independent 14 year old.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Im on the DPB. Been on and off for 7yrs. I was a teen mum though i only have one kid. But right now im on the DPB and my daughter is 7 so that makes me have to find a job. I freeked out when i heard bout it on the news. If John Keys does make DPB parents find jobs then that will be more money he will have to give away for WORKING FOR FAMILIES payments. So i cant see it working unless he raises the tax cuts or does something else more gruesome. I do not trust him at all. But 15hrs doesnt cut it for Working For Families if your single you have to be working 20hrs to get the payment which is quite alot just a few dollars less then what you get on the benefit, so you can work and also get WFF payments. The money has to come from somewhere and that will probably be from tax or just cut WORKING FOR FAMILIES all together or healthcare. He wont be borrowing the money. He will cut something to make money. Slimy old man.VOTE LABOUR.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
gee owen..
that was a touching story/homily..
..i guess..that unlike yourself..
..joe louis’ mother had none of that sweet sweet climate-change denial money from exxon-mobil to suck up..
(which of course..you’ll be ‘paying back’..eh..?)
hypocrisy/cant..today thy name is mcshane..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
ginga
There are a very few who will be genuinely inconvenienced by the new policy from National and my sympathies go out to those people.
You however sound like the reason this policy is going to be introduced, if it means that your life has to change then great.
Get used to it.
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.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ginga
Get off your backside and give some consideration to getting yourself self-sufficient.
Why is it that you are owed a living for nothing in return? Criticism for someone who started out life with nothing, succeeded and is now putting themselves up for the top job in the country deserves respect.
Have some dignity and try to do it yourself.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
ginga I cannot understand that you are so horrified that you will have to get a job, its called earning a living. Instead of complaining, you should be thankful that the taxpayer came to your aid in your hour of need. Now you do not have a need to be home all day every day.
15 hours is the minimum, you can aim for more. 9-3 x5 is 30 hours a week no problem. Get your child into after school care and you can bump that up to 40 easy.
You can use the extra money you make to buy a MySky and series link Oprah if you are that desperate to keep watching.
Your complaining is a perfect example of those who think that welfare is some sort of right rather than a priviledge not to be abused.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I always loved working i was much happier when i was a worker. Even when i was working I always voted labour. I will be a labour supporter 4eva. I like Helen Clark shes a good women and doesnt need your abuse. Always the middle class and the rich picking on the poor. You ass wipes will never know what its like being poor living payday 2 payday so shutup go pay for your big rich houses your flash cars and your big boats. And stop making out you pay for all the beneficiarys commodities.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
So who does pay for all of your commodities you fucking whining dole bludger?
Hint: It’s NOT the fucking government. Wake up you illiterate, lazy twat.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
WOAH DR ROBOTNIK whats with the swearing. LOOK WHOS THE WHINGER ya old cunt.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Get back to your daytime TV and P habit spunkbucket.
Why is the father of your child not supporting you and the spawn? Didn’t he get your name?