Many social problems are caused by young men with too much time on their hands and no purpose. I thought Key had the sense to realise that.

So these few (lazy fuckers) have fucked it up for the rest.

Matty, don’t let them, otherwise they win. Just get on with your life and do the best you can and make sure your own kids have good values. Maybe they will outshine those who don’t have values. That’s the best you can do. Trying to institute values through govt bureaucracy is something which has been repeatedly tried and failed. As reid points out, education is the place for values education, not WINZ.

“But, finally, you have hit the core of the matter: values. It should be obvious that a simple monetary bureaucratic measure instituted at government level is not going to change the values of a small minority who exist at the lower rungs of society, and who, like an al Qaeda IED, will simply pop up somewhere else unexpectedly. If you really care about fixing the problems manifest in the whole welfare debate then you will achieve a lot more as a social worker or street missionary than as a right wing blogger. ”

Yes, Kent, you are right – it all comes down to “values”.

But you have missed the salient point – I expect that a lot of people on the DPB already go out and get a job when they can and their child(ren) become “self sufficient”. Yet, there are a bunch who are simply plain lazy fuckers and doing nothing more than “breed for business”. So these few (lazy fuckers) have fucked it up for the rest. Happens in life all the time!

More often than not, it is the lazy fuckers screwing it up for us “rich pricks”. About time the boot is on the other foot me thinks.

You will I expect know the Maori maxim: “What is most important, it is people, it is people, it is people.”

The way to fix this problem and it is a problem, is to recognise what is the root cause here. What is the distinguishing factor in two people who grow up side-by-side in state houses and one is successful and the other isn’t?

The answer is attitude, and specifically, parental attitude.

What is it about parental attitude that is relevant?

The value they place upon education.

I don’t mean just academic learning but obviously that’s part of it. It’s the value they place on everything that education brings.

You can have love, without education. That’s a start. Love will teach a child many things, and love from a parent will entail sacrifice from that parent toward the child. It’s necessary, but not sufficient.

To be successful, parents all over the place need to teach their children in a loving way that education is the key to success in life. It’s the gift parents give to their children.

If we had ads on that instead of/in addition to, those on the family violence theme, we might get somewhere with respect to those parents who don’t know the value of education since they don’t have it themselves.

The reason for the lack of values is our current govt, simply removing them would be a massive turn in the right direction.

I’m confused. I thought the role of family and religion was to supply us with values, while the role of government was to supply laws. While those laws do reflect family and religious values they are representative of the people who exercise their democratic vote, so they are merely a reflection of you and I and the values we have in our families and religions.

I certainly don’t look to the government for guidance in moral values. I do however like the government to reflect my moral values as much as is democratically possible.

But you are right in that values are at the heart of the problem and that whatever values lead people to ‘breed for a living’ or shoplift or commit white collar crime are a burden on us all. Unfortunately these kinds of values are kind of deep seated and hard to shift.

His family had all the criteria that lefties are using to attack this policy.
Dead beet father, mother left with huge debt and 3 kids, and even a much harder political climate of the day for solo parents.
How on earth did they survive let a lone produce a centre right politician!!!!
one reason.
WORK ETHIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shunda, I’d be careful what you say. As far as I know the father wasn’t a dead beat. He was dead that is true.

But, finally, you have hit the core of the matter: values. It should be obvious that a simple monetary bureaucratic measure instituted at government level is not going to change the values of a small minority who exist at the lower rungs of society, and who, like an al Qaeda IED, will simply pop up somewhere else unexpectedly. If you really care about fixing the problems manifest in the whole welfare debate then you will achieve a lot more as a social worker or street missionary than as a right wing blogger.

If you’ve ever been in a relationship you will know how difficult it is to change another person’s behaviour, and, if you think you are special and have all the answers, good luck to you.

And why was John Keys up bringing functional?
His family had all the criteria that lefties are using to attack this policy.
Dead beet father, mother left with huge debt and 3 kids, and even a much harder political climate of the day for solo parents.
How on earth did they survive let a lone produce a centre right politician!!!!
one reason.
WORK ETHIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If only that cruel mr Key had been brought up by a solo mum in a state house, then he would understand the plight of these poor people………no…….wait!!!!!

By all accounts JK was brought up in a very functional household. Most of the households that cause us problems in terms of welfare abuse, prison numbers, teenage pregnancy etc etc are dysfunctional. Because of his upbringing Key is likely to flip flop on this policy just as he did with the WFF policy. You can bet your bottom dollar welfare agencies around the country are lining up to invite this very genial, empathic, all-embracing, centrist to see the reality of the social underbelly which he presumes to fix so easily. No, not ‘cruel’, just at this point a little ‘uninitiated’. Besides, the figures don’t stack up. Someone in the Herald thinks this will save 20 mil a year, but some of the senior managers at Treasury may have a different picture to paint based on past experience.

We’ll see what happens.

If only that cruel mr Key had been brought up by a solo mum in a state house, then he would understand the plight of these poor people………no…….wait!!!!!

“artemisia said: take a look first at the employers who cannot get staff at all

Isn’t that because they don’t offer to pay enough? ”

Maybe, but that will not be an issue for beneficiaries under the proposal as they will be able to earn $100 before their benefit starts to abate. That is an effective wage increase over non beneficiaries doing the same job.

Do the Greens want the tax payer to keep paying 30,000 people to do nothing.

And please explain where the money is going to come from.

The problem here Toad is that we allow people to make a choice, its either “shall I get off my arse and get a job, be a good example to my kids and be a productive part of society” or its “I cannot be fucked working, I will let others do it for me”

take a look first at the employers who cannot get staff at all

I would have thought this would have encouraged employers to create jobs that fit the needs of the largest group of able bodied beneficiaries not currently fully utilized: the parent of school age children. They are not necessarily solo parents on the benefit either, but any mother or father who is dedicated to their child rearing role. There are plenty of women married with children who have foregone work because it reduces their ability to carry out their parenting role effectively.

I think there is need for a culture shift in the workplace, in which it is seen as making a contribution to the welfare of the next generation to create 9 to 3 jobs for the sake of parents of school age children, with 6 weeks holiday a year (3-4 weeks paid as per employment agreement, 2 unpaid or paid for by WINZ if solo parent). These jobs would need to be clearly identified as Parent of School Age positions and to be covered by an accompanying collective employment agreement with the minimum requirements set in law. A certain number can be created by government within govt departments but the majority would come from private business. These jobs would include clerical, supermarket, factory, cleaning, hospitality (lunch) and any kind of job under the sun in which the 9 to 3 hours are feasible. In some cases teenage children could fill in for the parent during the school holidays (this does currently happen).

This would make it easier for parents (solo or otherwise) to find work and be respected for their parental role. Employers would not have to pay any more per hour than for any other employee of similar skill. They would however have to structure things a little differently and in a way that perhaps doesn’t always put the business first.

Meanwhile WINZ case managers would be able to give to DBP beneficiaries a much clearer route to employment and they would have much less excuse for remaining unemployed. Right wing bloggers would have to accept that it is not all the DPB recipients ‘fault’ and that they have a role to play.

Isn’t that because they don’t offer to pay enough?

As I posted above, forcing another 30,000 people to look for work will help to keep wages low. Is this what National wants?

Now, baxter, the single parent DPB pays $263.78 per week. Now there will be $82 a week (for one child aged under 13) Working for Families Tax Credit, so a single parent with one child gets $345.78 a week in the hand – not counting assistance targeted to particular expenses such as accommodation supplement and disability allowance.

Not exactly an opulent “lifestyle” from where I am sitting.

Now, why do you think that would be artemesia? Perhaps because benefit levels are so low that people can’t actually survive long-term on them. Perhaps also because the abatement regime applied to benefits is so severe that you’re no better off for any extra work you do if you work more than 4 or 5 hours a week.

I’m not condoning people on benefits working “under the table” and don’t declare their income, but I think I can understand why some do – it is because they don’t perceive the benefit system itself as being fair and adequate.