The welfare state
The Herald reports:
Details of state benefits received by two solo mothers have been made public by the Government after the pair criticised cutbacks to a training allowance. …
The information provided by Ms Bennett’s office shows Ms Fuller receives $715 net a week and Ms Johnston $554. Both are getting the allowance for pre-degree study. Ms Fuller gets $28 a week. She also got the allowance from 2004 to 2006, and in 2006-07 was given $9560 under an Enterprise Allowance to start a cleaning business. She said yesterday this had since closed because she had ongoing illness problems.
I think it is good the Government is disclosing the relevant information, after Labour again put case studies up.
Incidentially Labour Ministers used to do this also sometimes, and I supported them doing the same.
The $715 a week benefit is equal to a job with an annual salary of $46,700 a year. And the $554 a week equal to a job with an annual salary of $35,800 a year.
It is not a life of luxury, but it is a not an insignificant amount of money. $46,700 is well above the median wage.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Jeez, $715/week.
What kind of benefit is that, and where do I sign up!?!?
July 28th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Add to that the state house, the emergency benefits to buy expensive wide screen TVs, Community services card, discounted transport – why are we as a country encouraging these people to have babies as a lifestyle choice? At 46,700 net per year – that would be a gross of about $60,000. or $30 per hour. How many families who take responsibility for their lives are actually earning less than that – rather than being a parasite on the state.
[DPF: The $46,700 is gross - I calculated tax. And I would not use the term parasite. Many people on welfare are there temporarily and through little fault of their own. I want us to support them. It it those who choose to remain on welfare when it is practical for them to seek employment that I have a problem with]
July 28th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Indeed it is but soon to be reduced to $43,700.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Anyone earning less than $60k should have paid more attention at school. Shame they didn’t take responsibility during their early lives.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Just make them work for a living!
More Labour luvvies expecting a free ride. As normal. Do they have any undisclosed investment properties, or other “Black Income” streams?
Just crazy, how they still think that they deserve more. Frankly if they got double, it wouldn’t be enough.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Indeed. Perhaps another good thing would be for Key to read welfare analysis from Lindsay Mitchell before dismissing it out-of-hand as he did recently.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:05 am
There is insufficient information in the article for me to make much of an opinion.
eg, where are the ex-partners? What do they contribute.
Are the women caring for their children to a high standard , and instilling educational aspirations?
How much thought did these women take when deciding to have children? The aspiration for many is to have a baby and collect dpb. I hate that attitude.
You have to look at the entire scenario.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Problem is DPF, that inital temporaryness and faultlessness soon degrade become a cases of permanent entitlement syndrome. I have a number of friends who have gone this way. Genuine need which became debilitating dependence on the help that was supplied. IMO we should make all welfare beneficiaries reapply for their benefit with different entitlement durations based on the benefit type.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:10 am
hubris – Is 60k your personal cut off point for some sort of measure of a person’s worth to society?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:11 am
“There is insufficient information in the article for me to make much of an opinion.
eg, where are the ex-partners? What do they contribute.
Are the women caring for their children to a high standard , and instilling educational aspirations?
How much thought did these women take when deciding to have children? The aspiration for many is to have a baby and collect dpb. I hate that attitude.
You have to look at the entire scenario.”
Notwithstanding this information – these people are still on a pretty good wicket in terms of government support and are not really in a position to start criticising. Don’t bite the hand that feeds etc
July 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
# kaya (117) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 9:10 am
hubris – Is 60k your personal cut off point for some sort of measure of a person’s worth to society?
No.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
This is the case of the taxpayer funding losers in life, the same losers who are likely to breed another generation of people destined to be bludgers.
The welfare net should be there to protect citizens in real need, those who need assistance through no fault of their own. It shouldn’t be a lifestyle choice for idlers and parasites.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:23 am
DPF said: I think it is good the Government is disclosing the relevant information…
Without the consent of the individuals concerned DPF? I haven’t seem this sort of abuse of personal privacy since the days of Muldoon. These two women were brave enought to publicly criticise Government policy on Training Incentive Allowance, and Bennett then puts all their personal details (which are completely irrelevant to their eligibility for Training Incentive Allowance) into the public domain without their consent. Smacks of retaliation and of a breach of the Privacy Act.
I hope they both complain to the Privacy Commissioner, and while such complaints can be protracted, they follow them through.
BTW, when did Labour Ministers do similar? Not saying they didn’t – just don’t recall an instance. David B-P perhaps?
[DPF: When people are demanding extra welfare from taxpayers, I think it is entirely appropriate that we know what welfare they are already receiving]
July 28th, 2009 at 9:24 am
$9500 to set up a cleaning business?
Can only have been to buy a vehicle or pay a franchise fee.
Presumably decided cleaning was too much like hard work.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:28 am
KiwiGreg (367) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 9:24 am
$9500 to set up a cleaning business?
If I can get that sort of money, I might even think about cleaning my oven.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Ms Bennett has every right to put the full facts before the public when these women chose to give misleading publicity about their circumstances. I would be in favour of having all welfare recipients have their support published in the gazette so the public who are funding their lifestyles can see if they are getting value for money.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I’ve had the enterprise grant. It’s not easy to get. They give you $5k up front for plant costs and $4500 over 6 months (small benefit).
After that you’re cut off.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:33 am
tvp said: I would be in favour of having all welfare recipients have their support published in the gazette so the public who are funding their lifestyles can see if they are getting value for money.
And your tax payments published in the Gazette too, DPF, so the public can see if you are paying your fair share?
And just how did these two women “mislead”?
[DPF: You fail to understand the difference between money one earns and money one receives in welfare]
July 28th, 2009 at 9:33 am
IMO we should make all welfare beneficiaries reapply for their benefit with different entitlement durations based on the benefit type.
Yes yes yes !!! Outstanding idea.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Ms Bennett has every right
Well that’s the interesting thing – does she have the right or is there some sort of privacy act thingie, as toad suggested above, that says she shouldn’t?
Perhaps one of our esteemed lawyers can provide an insight?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Hrrrm March 2007 promotes herself & her cleaning business in the Te Awamutu Times, declares she’s a solo mum. 2 years on she now has another kid and is still a solo mum (must be a right bitch to live with), kids miraculously all look very similar – I wonder how that happens ?
I am all for giving people a helping hand when it’s needed, but it sounds more like shes running her own ‘free enterprise’ and working the system to her benefit.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am
If we were really serious about this welfare abuse, then Key and National would actually do something about it. Alas they won’t and the taxpayers who fund this lavish lifestyle will continue to be shafted until we get politicians in who give a toss about welfarism and taxpayers rights.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:37 am
toad
Spare us the sanctimony.
For decades, NZ’s leader of the opposition has welcomed MFAT staffers at meetings with major foreign leaders. It’s an established part of our reasonably bi-partisan approach to international relations.
Only one politician has ever sought out MFAT’s report on such a meeting and released selected exerpts. That man was Phil Goff.
If you didn’t condemn that blatant misuse of government power, then you can piss off.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:38 am
toad, are you rumpelstiltskin?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Toad – For someone who advocates complete transparency of public money you sure seem keen to conceal the funding of a select few
July 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
kids miraculously all look very similar – I wonder how that happens ?
Photoshop?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
If you are going to speak out publicly about the money you receive from the taxpayer and lie about it you shouldn’t be surprised if you are called on it.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Anybody who steals $715 a week from me and all the other tax payers is a bloody parasite.
I have no problem helping people out for a short time but lest face it, at least one of these parasites has been stealing from us for a minimum of five years.
Not long ago most companies were struggling to find staff yet these two parasites continued to bludge from the rest of us, they both should have been forced back into work years ago.
Can any of our pinko trolls tell me why I should be paying this parasite $715 every week?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Wow that’s F@#king amazing. If I recall $46K is much more than my partner earned (repeat EARNED) as a primary teacher before we moved to Oz. My god we would have been better having a couple of kids with me pretending to not live with her. We could have wangled a much better deal for ourselves than by working. Silly us I guess. It’s high time this sort of shit was brought to an end. Maybe if it was the govt could afford to pay good teachers, doctors etc more, and they wouldn’t leave in their droves.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Excellent stuff Paula.
How many kids does this woman have to pull in $715 net?????
Trough snuffling alright. And the thing that pisses me off most is that for every person like this there is a hard working middle class kiwi struggling to pay 33-38% and a mortgage etc… where I work I see this contrasted on a daily basis.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:50 am
# LUCY (219) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating1 Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
If you are going to speak out publicly about the money you receive from the taxpayer and lie about it you shouldn’t be surprised if you are called on it.
You should be surprised if it’s breaking the law to do so.
Question is, is it against the law? Maybe Paula can ask Dame Sian Elias.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:51 am
getstaffed said: toad, are you rumpelstiltskin?
Let’s just say I joined the Values Party in 1975 shortly before Muldoon became PM.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am
# big bruv (4077) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating2 Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Can any of our pinko trolls tell me why I should be paying this parasite $715 every week?
You’re paying her $715 a week? So am I! Out of my own pocket!
That bitch!
July 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am
oh no, they are losing their training allowance
the poor things!
meanwhile Dime is getting ready to celebrate paying back his student loan next month. but who am i to complain, i only paid back 44k!
fuckin scabs
July 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Come on Toad, tell us why we should be paying this lazy low life parasite $715 a week.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Those figure seem high but if its ok to publicly release the info?
Can I know how much Paula Bennet got when she was on the DBB and getting a training allowance ?
was she a parasiite? how did her children turn out ?
And if we make the assumption say, that Bennet is a good minister, would we say it was money well spent ?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am
The numbers are a bit of an eye opener. But the releasing of private information – where could this lead? IRD releasing tax information on business people that complain about tax rates?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:59 am
The rules to privacy are somewhat complex, but I suspect that the minister has done her homework on this issue first.
My knowledge of privacy rules is somewhat shaped by photography, but my nascent understanding is that you can’t expect a right to privacy for issues in the public domain. By throwing their cases into the public domain, the women had in fact, surrendered some of their privacy rights.
That sounds a little long winded, but to take an analogy, I can’t legally take a photo of you in your private home without your permission. That violates the right to privacy. I can take a picture of you walking on the street. You still have rights to privacy- they just don’t apply when you are in a public place.
My tenuous understanding is the women moved their financial affairs out of the ‘private space’ of their lives into the ‘public domain’, and in doing so, became fair game as political pawns.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:00 am
This will probably sound a bit draconian, but surely there should be some kind of cap on the benefit amount. $700+ per week seems incredible.
And more kids=more money. Didn’t National in the run up to the 05 election propose universal free contraception or something? Is this the case at the moment or not? Seems like something that could be worth trying.
IMO anyway, breeding while on the benefit with no aspirations of seeking work is child abuse
July 28th, 2009 at 10:01 am
And if we make the assumption say, that Bennet is a good minister
If. Good luck with that one.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am
infused -“I’ve had the enterprise grant. It’s not easy to get. They give you $5k up front for plant costs and $4500 over 6 months (small benefit).
After that you’re cut off.”
Using the term ‘cut off’ is a bit misleading. Hopefully the enterprise started with the grant has some revenue streams of its very own after 6 months…
July 28th, 2009 at 10:04 am
This will probably sound a bit draconian
For this blog…..nah. You didn’t demand that their arms were cut off so they couldn’t ask for a handout.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Surely being paid by the public allows the public to know how much you are being paid?
We are technically their employers.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Why should there be any privacy rules when it comes to benefits?, indeed, WINZ should publish the amount paid to each and every long term (longer than three months) bludger.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:14 am
So can, I therefore know how much Bennet got ?
Seems like a reasonable request ? It might be money well spent how do we know ? we paid for it ?
July 28th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Did she get 30 grand 40 grand 50 grand ?
July 28th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Yeah, i can’t believe it. I run a small business and am barely able to stay afloat in the current environment. I’d be better chucking it all in and going on the dole. There’s fuck all being done to help small business yet they are the major driver of the economy. TBH, i wasn’t overly happy that National quashed an inquiry into the banks, because those fuckers are driving small businesses like mine into the ground.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:17 am
How much did John key’s mother get ? did she claim all her entitlements?/ or did she abuse the system ?
July 28th, 2009 at 10:20 am
The alternative to giving these people welfare support from the taxpayer is to give them nothing. Put their children in foster homes and say “on your bike” get off the taxpayers’ back.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Shit my fingers got burnt, must be the Govt’s fault
July 28th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Chtoniid I think what you are referring to are the common law rules and torts of personal privacy- this started being developed in NZ in the case where a magazine took photos of Mike Hoskings children.
I havnt done privacy law for a while but this instance would be governed by the Privacy Act (which governs the use/retention/collection of information by organisations private and public). Now while I support what Paula Bennet has done absolutely, from my memory of the provisions of the Privacy Act, I think this would be a big no-no. The fact that she has singled out these people and released their private details into the public arena would certainly be against the provisions of the Act.
Even so, good job, and if I was incorrect here please coorect me
July 28th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Kapital – youre missing the point. Bennett (who i cant stand) is outting women who went to the media with a sob story! women that didnt disclose all the information, just tried to score points against the govt. that makes them fair game.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:28 am
big bruv said: Come on Toad, tell us why we should be paying this lazy low life parasite $715 a week.
Seems she is anything but bruv. Her only mistake appears to have been to leave school with no qualifications. Ever since then she appears to have been trying various options, including repartnering & getting some qualifications, to get off the benefit. Doesn’t appear to be the “lazy bludger” you are trying to depict her as bruv.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Give up now I say. This won’t end and this is only the tip of the iceberg. The Greens want the system to pay out MORE to the bennys, Labour want the abuse to be kept under the carpet and National will say whatever Labour say. The only way in NZ you can avoid it is to be part of it, which is what exactly WFF is all about. Now you have Labour and Nats shelling out “free money” for all.
Why aren’t we getting more grumpy about this? $700+ of your Kiwi pesos is a lot of money if you’re sitting on your ass all day pumping out kids and then complaining because you might get your evening classes in bisexual asian studies cut. NZ will never be a wealthy country while we have this abuse continuing. Whats worse, many years ago we all thought that a National/ACT Government would deal to this…. and yet John Key doesn’t give a toss. If he did, he would have given ACT a bigger role in setting policy. Instead we have Sir Roger twiddling his thumbs and Rodney facing up to lazy local politicians.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:37 am
“Whats worse, many years ago we all thought that a National/ACT Government would deal to this…. and yet John Key doesn’t give a toss. ”
Well said. Further proof the spineless National Party will never be up to the task of overhauling the welfare state.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:39 am
You’re saying she had three kids by the time she was 16? What the fuck is wrong with “the system” when we allow something like that to happen? At some point we need to stop paying for women to have children once they are on a benefit – we are sending the wrong incentives when we pay more for having more children.
In this particular instance, these children should have been fostered out or adopted. There’s no way that a woman of 16 has any chance if she’s trying to bring up three children while barely out of childhood herself.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Toad
She CHOOSE to leave school with no qualifications and she CHOOSE to have kids at 16 years old.
Why the hell should her choices result in the tax payer handing out $715 ever bloody week to this low life, for her to claim that she cannot attend because the govt cut her allowance is bullshit.
You have not provided an ounce of proof that this person is anything but a bludger, she SHOULD be looking to get a job at New World, she should be looking to take a job as a commercial cleaner or a job pumping petrol.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Dime No Key and team during the election, used the fact that he comes from a home on welfare to help paint Key as a pull up your bootstaps kinda
guy Fair enough But as we paid for it It makes her” fair game”
how much did his old lady get ? did she claim enough ? did she screw over the system ?
July 28th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Toad – so what you’re saying is that these evening classes are more important than the fact that she is stuck in this cycle of poverty in the first place? And what is “prestigious” about a BA in education, WTF is that about?
This woman is getting over $700 a week and is trapped deep inside the system and all you are worried about are a few courses. Shit mate I am more inclined to overhaul the entire system first to see why she and others are there in the first place. She needs to be working as well, not only to set an example to her kids, but to get off welfare. And the fathers of her kids should be contributing as well. The system should be there to make sure all this happens.
It all depends on how serious you are Toad about this womans situation or are you just in to kick the Nats about and tinker around the edges?
July 28th, 2009 at 10:45 am
If you are going to speak out publicly about the money you receive from the taxpayer and lie about it you shouldn’t be surprised if you are called on it.
Maybe I’ve missed something here – how have Fuller and Johnstone lied? The original SST story is here
At any rate they now seem irrelevent to the debate, either Bennett broke the law by releasing this information or she didn’t. If she did she’ll lose her portfolio, simple as that.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Err I think the article wasn’t well written guys, I think the 3 kids by 16 was supposed to be part of a list of things that are holding her back, ie; leaving school at 16, having three kids with 2 partners etc etc.
Mind you, who forced her to leave school at 16?
July 28th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Every solo mum I have ever rented a house to has one or two “high medical needs” kids that attract extra state funding. They also always seem to have a partner who lives with them. The last time I advertised a house in Wainui ten applicants were familes (Mum, Dad and kids) and all ten of them were claiming the benefit. How do I know? They only wanted the woman’s name on the tenancy agreement and the rent would be paid directly from WINZ.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Kapital – NZers understand the difference between welfare abuse/fraud and genuine need. Far from being liberating, welfare dependency is a debilitating condition that results in a tragic waste of human potential. That you socialists accept this carniage in return for increased support at the polls is nothing short of disgusting.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:06 am
$700 a week is not much. Does she have around 3 kids? I thought so but might be wrong.
Rent $350 (just my guess)
Power bills probably average $50 week.
Water another $10
Car : $80 per week
Groceries: $250 per week
That has already blown the $700, without even allowing for the usual emergencies such as car repairs.
[DPF: $250 a week for groceries is a masive amount for four people. ure you can spend that but if you are thrifty you can do half that]
July 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
clintheine said: And what is “prestigious” about a BA in education…
Guess it is by comparison with having no qualfications and on benefit. Depends where your starting point is.
She needs to be working as well, not only to set an example to her kids…
Seems that one of them is a young baby and two have “high medical needs”. Work, study, caring for the kids – where would she fit it all in?
And the fathers of her kids should be contributing as well.
Agreed. And we all know the rorts that allow then to avoid paying child support. Losses on investment properties offsetting earned income, companies that earn hundreds of thousands of dollars while the guy running them pays himself $25K etc. Any suggestions how to address these?
July 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“Work, study, caring for the kids – where would she fit it all in?”
Tough luck. I couldn’t care less.
You make your choices in life and have to pay for the consequences of your own decisions. Don’t expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Wreck
Is she paying rent or living in a state house?
July 28th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Of course they do They also know that when the state starts using personal info, illegally to have ago at critics we are on a slippery slope
I wonder if they examined her health record while they were there ? or is that to be released next week ?
If you critised Labour’s Tax policies would you be happy for them to pubiblicly release your Tax returns
which of course are all legal and above board eh ?
July 28th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Key will be happy. You guys should think of this as a nice easy way to get rid of Bennet, clearly the most incompetent minister in a very long time, good on who ever set her up for this.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:24 am
People should read http://www.privacy.org.nz/checklist-for-ministers-and-departmental-officials/
Section 3 and Example 8 are relevant.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:26 am
a nice easy way to get rid of Bennet,
Not so sure about that. She’ll be popular because of this in some quarters. And given Mr Key’s populist decision-making thus far, he might choose to give her a third chance. Or is it fourth?
July 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Section 3 and Example 8 are relevant.
From section 8:
“If the individual is not harmed, there would not be an interference with the individual’s privacy under section 66 of the Privacy Act.
Heh, does a metaphorical arse kicking count as harm?
Also, you could argue that by releasing that info, Bennet has harmed the person’s chances of seeking honest employment…..oh.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:40 am
“DPF: $250 a week for groceries is a masive amount for four people. ure you can spend that but if you are thrifty you can do half that”
Can you pop up and help my wife out then please?
[DPF: Heh.]
July 28th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Probably I spend a little over $300 a week on groceries. That is for 2 adults / 2 young children and 1 infant.
We eat OK, but do not buy the top meat cuts but includes alcohol. If we were absolutely scrimping, maybe we could save $100? So, maybe $250 is a little over the top.
Even saying $150 a week, there are still lots of expenses that would eat $100 pretty quickly. eg, i did not even include the phone bill, or the amortized costs of a vehicle/ other assets, or clothing.
Not sure about whether she gets a state house. If she gets cheap rent, then she is getting even more than $700 a week from the government.
Even so, she will be living a pretty basic life.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:44 am
” hubris
a nice easy way to get rid of Bennet,
Not so sure about that. She’ll be popular because of this in some quarters. And given Mr Key’s populist decision-making thus far, he might choose to give her a third chance. Or is it fourth?”
You are right I guess, I guess what I really mean is that this event is a quite legitimate reason to get rid of her, so that when she finally makes such a fool of her self that she becomes a blindingly obvious liability he can fall back on this as the reason for sending her the way of Worth, rather than acknowledging that PR spin isn’t a long term method of running the government\ reality hits \ people finally catch on to just how stupid she is.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
“People should read http://www.privacy.org.nz/checklist-for-ministers-and-departmental-officials/
Section 3 and Example 8 are relevant.”
That would depend on whether or not releasing the information was pertinent to the cases in question. The release of the details of the claimants is not the same as responding to a direct question in the media. The amounts that both women received would have been decided by WINZ and would conform to the law as it stands. The relevant question posed by the women in the original Herald article was regarding being able to go on to tertiary education and receiving state help to do so, not a question of them receiving too low or too high an amount of benefit. No questions were posed of the minister; the women simply questioned a policy that directly affected them. The minister released the information to show how much money the women received in state help; but that wasn’t the issue, and could perhaps be interpreted as vindictive and also as an abuse of Bennett’s own exemptions from investigations by the IC as a result of her position as an MP.
Judging by some of the responses on here, I’d say that personal harm was caused to the individuals concerned simply because their reputation has been damaged, as the information was released unqualified and was apparently an attempt to chastise the women for not releasing their own personal financial details. If that’s the case, and Bennett goes unpunished, then it sets an awful precedent for the release of all kinds of information.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Yeah, racer1, I agree it’s legitimate, but I bet Key will wait to see how his ratings are doing before deciding either way
July 28th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Wreck
“Even so, she will be living a pretty basic life.”
So she bloody should be, if she cannot be bothered working for a living then I want her to be living a less and basic life.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
The really annoying thing about this case is that most of us are moaning about it and the injustice of this parasite stealing from us yet we have a bloody National government.
If you did not know who was in power you would assume that Labour still held the treasury benches and that is what makes it all the more disgusting, a real National party government would slash benefits and force people into work or training, a real National party government would force this parasite to face up the the personal choices she made.
What a pity we still have a socialist PM
July 28th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
wreck – I normally do $140-160 for two adults and two kids. Easy. Blows out when we buy couple of bottles of wine or have takeaways. I don’t buy any pre-prepared foods at all if I can avoid it.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
DPF, what’s wrong with my message?
[DPF: Have you seen the post on the temporary moderation rules for this week? It was deemed abusive]
July 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
“How much did John key’s mother get ?”
It probably doesn’t warrant a response but….
if she was in the same boat as my mum, fuck all. Back then there was no DPB. Mum got six bucks a week in Social welfare payments per child. A small housing allowance instead of a state house but not enough to pay the rent.
Mum worked 2 part time jobs, raised 3 kids on her own without a cent from dad and had help from some people from the church. Yes Mum had a stroke at 50… but she earned it!
Now 70 and still going strong. No kids on welfare, ever.
People as highlighted by this story, make my blood boil.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I’m still wondering when Paula Bennett will give us the numbers describing how much taxpayer largesse she absorbed to get where she is now. That’s relevant to this discussion, under her own arguments.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
This woman is getting over $700 a week and is trapped deep inside the system ..
..I’ll help the poor soul …I will release her from the trap…I shall take over and receive the 700 per week , reluctantly..
July 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Outrageous – we are bickering about should we reveal details of how much some people get paid to be on the govt propogation team. Ummm, many people work 8 hours a day for less money yet this suck hole Labour supporter wants more… Must be tough times in la la land these days.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“..[DPF: You fail to understand the difference between money one earns and money one receives in welfare]..”
and you ..dpf..fail to realise that raising children..well..is worthwhile ‘work’..
(c’mon..!..say it’s not..!)
..and does benefit society…
btw..dpf..you receive large amounts of taxpayer money..don’t you..?
for the ‘work’ you do for national..
..can we have a torch on that..?
..and what has been the total..?
..over the years..?
it actualy kinda boils my blood..that sole-parents are treated like political footballs..
..and are fair game/targets..
..especially from those whose noses are deep in the wellington-trough..
..and who just lift their head to finger-wag/abuse/denigrate..
..nobody speaks up for them..
(sue bradford used to..
..but them she became an m.p..)
and bennet releasing those personal details..
..is bullying/abuse of power..in the extreme..
..and i hope the privacy commissioner nails her..
..it’s disgusting behavior..
..esp from one who benefitted from what she now ‘cancels’..
..how does she sleep..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
No burt, we are arguing about weather the government has broken the law or not.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
…the whole benefit system is flawed and long overdue for an overhaul. We have a class of people who will always be on a benefit..by choice. Lets change the rules. From January 2010 no more new DPB applications allowed. You have a kid January 2nd YOU and YOUR FAMILY will pay for it’s upbringing. No family?…tough.. should have thought of that before you bent over, or dipped your wick… You lose your job.. first 12 weeks you get the dole…after that nothin , you get off your arse and go pack shelves at New World…and so on. You never know…there may be just enough money saved to carry on payin the pension to all the good people who have paid taxes all their lifes. Now..has JK and Bill got the balls to implement such a scheme??
July 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I think it should be public knowledge how much anybody receives on welfare.
What makes me sick is we only had one child because (a) we didn’t think we could afford it (b) I was running a demanding business. These welfare recipients seem to be continuing to reproduce without any attempt to work and self-fund it.
Something is seriously wrong when you can be better off divorcing, sleeping over 4 nights a week, and pulling a benefit.
I favour the DPB being similar to a student loan, where it requires repayment.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Ha ha..
Phool has the cheek to talk about others having their heads in the trough.
How much do you get every week Phool?
July 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
The $715 a week benefit is equal to a job with an annual salary of $46,700 a year. And the $554 a week equal to a job with an annual salary of $35,800 a year.
I’m a tour bus driver on a seasonal contract on around about the lower level. For that I have to negotiate up to 50 people to Milford sound and back , start finish all hours of the day and night. meet cruise ships and manage the people to a tight schedule, find a park blah, blah
July 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Regardless of what benefits anybody gets or doesn’t get, this woman has made her choices and has to deal with the consequences. Mutliple children to multiple fathers and none of them stuck around – probably a common theme among DPB mums.
She chose the wrong men (who should be paying child support too BTW, why isn’t this disclosed anywhere?) and chose not to use contraception. As much as the left like to promote non-traditional family units it seems to be the root cause of a lot of social dysfunction.
The fathers should be paying to support these kids, not the tax-payer. I didn’t do the horizontal tango with her, why should I support her kids?
Really we need to introduce a breeding licensing scheme.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
racer1
Ask the AG if the govt has broken the law and if he says YES then pass retrospective validations and tell the people to move on. Labour showed us how it is done and how to protect the best interests of the govt de-jour when they can’t be bothered following the law.
I agree with stayathomemum, these details should be public. I think big red signs should be erected on every house where benefits are being received so that tax payers who pay too much tax to have access to welfare know where they are having their money spent.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
$715.00 a week is roughly what my wife and I pay in tax on a weekly basis. If this woman really want’s to carry on a cleaning business, she can start with my house, seeing as I have already paid her!
July 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
hj
It’s people like you who are paying for other people who can’t be bothered to do what you do.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
There are two issues here one is the amount of benefit
and the other is disclosure of personal information
Now how much beneficiaries receive is a subject that that should be debated I agree
However releasing private details by a minister is clearly wrong
If this women was complaining about some area of health funding being cut
and Tony Ryall released details of the amount of times they visited the doctor or went to A & E
that would be clearly wrong
If you criticised Labour’s Tax policies would you be happy for them to publicly release your Tax returns ?
So take your partisan hat off and see this as what it is . A blatant attack on a critics privacy by a Minister of the crown
July 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
philu said: (sue bradford used to.. ..but them she became an m.p..)
Actually, she already has today Phil.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
philu says;
…. how does she sleep???
she is possibly tired from needing to go to work each day – I don’t expect you or anyone else who thinks the country owes them a living to understand that.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
and you ..dpf..fail to realise that raising children..well..is worthwhile ‘work’..
(c’mon..!..say it’s not..!)
..and does benefit society…
at an annual price (more than many low paid workers earn) and the main benefits flow to the parent who has the benefit of a family.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
RRM…What bloody nonsense….Congratulations Paula on exposing these bludgers, it’s taxpayer money and how it is spent is taxpayer business. One suspects that this is yet another Liabour Activists setup attempt, and yet another instance of the Government spiking their guns by releasing the truth…Keep up the good work.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
btw..dpf..you receive large amounts of taxpayer money..don’t you..?
for the ‘work’ you do for national..
And there you have your explanation Phil for why DPF receives taxpayer money (if he does- not aware of your work details DPF).
The explanation is in the brackets- “WORK”.
Now tell me Phil, is there a difference between work, and what you lifestyle consists of?
July 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Kapital (56) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
A blatant attack on a critics privacy by a Minister of the crown
Wrong.
When the women allowed their situation to be used for political purposes they opened themselves to public scrutiny.
That includes details of their assaults on taxpayers’ pockets.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Yes Phil, raising a family is certailny work, and commendable at that, no one in their right mind would deny that.
The issue here is: why should other, hardworking kiwis, pay you to do it?
Most families can raise more than one child successfully while both working 40+ hour weeks.
Why can’t you?
July 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
fair do’s…toad..
..(it’s a good/strong statement..)
but..y’know..
..in general..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
July 28th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Toad
I read Comrade Bradford’s press release, I note that the best she can come up with is faux outrage that the amount of money these parasites are stealing from us has been revealed.
I assume Bradford (and the Greens) think that she should be receiving more money from the tax payer.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Phool
How much do you get ever week?
July 28th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Unless she was raped I see no reason to pay for her children when I have deliberately put off a family until I have the means to support it. If the father dodges child support then that child support needs to be payed by her and the fathers, parents. If they are not around then their grandparents and uncles. If nobody in her extended family wants to help her out then it’s their tough luck for being disfunctional.
If she had never received that first cheque at 16, she would have had a tough couple of months and figured out a way to cope. But the taxpayer has dodged the issue by putting off her day of reckoning.
Now this really pisses me off. The total cost of a 3 year degree including living expenses is well over $200,000.
What the hell are we doing investing that kind of money in someone who dropped out of school at 16.
We have small business’ in trouble. Start paying them for their unpaid admin work running the IRD’s Kiwisaver scheme.
If you’re gonna spend $200,000 you ask the person who pays the bill. Any dispensation of this amount to an individual should be put to a referendum of the taxpaying citizens in her community.
I would be happy for her if a private individual stumped up the money. But whichever numpty at WINZ thought they had the right to give away this amount of money needs to be re-educated.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Just say no to unprotected sex with people you can’t afford to raise children with. It’s not ok to expect the state to pay for your children. Why would you possibly think it was?
My partner and I both work full-time to pay to raise our two kids and we pay about $800/week in tax between us. Do I think I’m entitled to something? Yes – a tax-cut. Do I think welfare mothers should be entitled to anything? Yes – free sterilization. Do I feel guilty about the fact some people struggle to get work and some people only earn minimum wage? Not really, they’re probably the same people in school that used to piss around while I was studying – I told you so.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
how much ‘working for families’ subsidy do you get..?..bruv..?
any others..?..over the years..?
..free university education..?
..any other taxpayer-monies’..?
..y’know..!..over the years..?
bah..!..humbug..!
hypocrites..!
..all of you..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Phool
1. Nothing
2. Nothing
3. Nope
4. None
Ok Phool, I have told you how much I have received now how about you tell us all how much of our money you get every week.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
IMHO, Those who think Bennett is in the wrong, are of the same ilk as those who chose to out themselves as deprived beneficiaries.
You seem to not understand that in life, there are consequences to your actions. These women now know the consequences of their OWN actions.
Personal responsibility is a foreign concept to so many.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
If Cullen was still around these woman would be now close to knocking on the door of the”rich prick” club. What a strange country we live in. Myself and many thousands of other Kiwis must now wonder why we bother to get out of the flea sack in the morning. But I’m happy to watch the grasshoppers dance around in their fools paradise, their golden summer is fast setting and winter will be bloody cold.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Phil – i think my parents got a $200 a year in family benefit or something when i was little. went through the state schools. uni was subsidised. ummm thats about it.
i can tell you ive paid a tonne of tax though. not to mention the 45k in student loan…
then theres rates on a couple of properties etc. i consume fuck all.
anyway, the point is – shes on a SWEET deal and shes in the papers complaing about not getting extra money to study! take a fucking student loan!
when you go to the media to complain, expect to see the full story about your circumstances in print. its only fair.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
CraigM said: These women now know the consequences of their OWN actions.
Surely, CraigM, it is the consequences of their childrens’ FATHERS pissing off and not providing for their own kids. How come its always the woman’s fault. At least Clint has given some scrutiny to the responsibility of the fathers – no-one else here seems to have.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“hypocrites..!
..all of you..!”
You’re generalisations are like your life: pointless.
Like BB, I can happily say none, niks, nada. not one fucking cent from the time I started working at 16. Paid lots tho.
I had a funny upbringing. I learned that if I wanted things in life I had to earn them.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“..their golden summer is fast setting and winter will be bloody cold..”
is that the dairy industry you are talking about there..?..bob..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
so bruv..
we have established you are young/childless/uneducated..
anything else..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
toad,
Couldn’t agree more, having lived through that myself.
As soon as the fathers go public, I’ll tell them exactly what I think of them. Useless Fathers are a curse on our society.
But please don’t disrespect those who were also victims but chose to change their lives.
At least one of these women has had another baby since being on the benefit. Don’t tell me that was not a choice.
They also made the choice to out themselves and in doing so have appeared to me, to be greedy people.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
toad – one of the problems with the current system of liable parent contribution is that fathers get assessed a liability based on their incomes. If Joe Blow earns 100K a year, and his ex with 2 kids is on the DPB, he gets say 25% taken off him as his liable parent contribution at the point his income is taxed. However, that amount does not go to the mother. She gets the standard DPB, the same as a woman whose partner pays $20 a week. The father earning 100K is effectively paying for fathers who don’t pay much or at all.
I know it is anecdotal but I know of DPB mums who put down ‘father not known’ on their forms because that way the father does not get taxed for his LPC and in all probability they still live together anyway. The small amount less they get still makes it worthwhile.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
let’s force these women out into minimum wage jobs. It’s not like they have any aspirations to better themselves by getting a degree and becoming a teacher and contributiong member of society while also giving their kids a role model and an example of the how education is positive and something to aspire to. Its much better that the kids are raised in abject poverty in a poorly educated household, it’s not like they be more likely to turn to crime or anything.
Surely education and training is exactly what we should be funding to increase our productivity and get people of the benefit. Seems like this woman made some bad choices but is trying to make the right ones now. Doesn’t sound like a bludger at all to me.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
CraigM said: At least one of these women has had another baby since being on the benefit.
Not from my reading of the NZ Herald story Craig. It appears Natasha Fuller had her youngest child while repartnered and no longer on benefit, but the father subsequently left her and she had to go back on benefit.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
So why should I pay for her poor choice in men?
July 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Helen Clark barely batted an eyelid in leaping to smear and besmirch anyone who got in her way. Not to mention having to pay out for a couple of instances of slander. This is tame by comparison.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Don’t know what you are getting all excited about Phil, if the dairy industry takes a dive then you and many thousands of your brethren will have to tighten their belts to. Why do you think the welfare state is buckling at the knees. You may not consume dairy products but I bloody bet you have no problem putting you hand out for the billions of tax dollars the farmers pay. You really are a very naive person.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
[DPF: The $46,700 is gross - I calculated tax. And I would not use the term parasite. Many people on welfare are there temporarily and through little fault of their own. I want us to support them. It it those who choose to remain on welfare when it is practical for them to seek employment that I have a problem with]
My starting point.
Believe there is a debate that needs to happen on benefits in this country as we have swung way to far one way. WFF is a joke, and completely inefficient (25% of income tax absorbed in collecting / sorting it then more wastage in distributing it again). I have sympothy for where it comes from, those on median incomes raising families, but its incredibly inefficient and it spikes the marginal tax rate at an alarming rate, which is completely counter productive. Abolishing it and increasing the band of the lower tax rate would be a more efficient and less counter productive method. I hope National do this in their second term – I imagine its coming, just not this one.
Bringing this to the dole, sickness benefit, and DPB. All three need an overhaul The former needs a time limit, say 2 / 10 years. This is still substantive assistance by the government but also forces people to try and get ahead. Exceptions to the rule could be provided in times of economic stress such as the current recession.
Sickness benefit needs more comprehensive testing, and if you have been injured and cant carry out your current role you should be forced to retrain / reskill in something you can where possible. If you want more than this, get private insurance.
DPB. Largely the same as now, raising kids is important. However criteria needs to be built in, i.e. kids attending school, getting fed etc. Where tthis is not happening (can be reported by schools / health practisioner / gen public) needs to be changed to a voucher system, i.e. food / clothing / house allowance.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Incidentally, anybody know if the Natasha Fuller featured in the article is the same one who bought $400 hair extensions on Chapter 2 of this episode of Fair Go ( http://tvnz.co.nz/fair-go/2008-episode-15-video-1792010 ), they sort of look similar (except for the dyed hair) and the kids look almost identical….if so the inside of the house, general attire, etc.. would seem to support Paula Bennett’s claim that there’s more to the story than meets the eye..
July 28th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
How are the benefit amounts made up? Are all of these public figures (e.g. base amount + kids + accommodation + whatever). If so the amounts are not private information.
Can someone produce a breadown?
July 28th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Philonz – i wasnt exactly living the high life as i put myself through university!!!
we are already paying these people a decent amount of money, how about some sacrifice on their part? maybe dont smoke for a while, or play pokies, or drink or have sky or whatever!
how bout these scabs find some pride, suck it up and struggle through life like most people. we dont owe anyone a high standard of living or a free education!
July 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Phool
“so bruv..
we have established you are young/childless/uneducated..
anything else..?”
Not young but then I am not old either, I am a damn sight younger than you are.
I do have a child
Not sure what you mean about uneducated, from the claims you have made I thought that maybe I also have a degree from Auckland Uni that they have “forgotten” about, hell if they have managed to “lose” yours then there might be one with my name on it as well.
Now come on Phool, play the game, how much do you steal from us each week?
July 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
You didn’t answer my question Phil.
Why can’t you?
July 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Somewhere along the way to putting out a safety net for those falling to the bottom of the heap we ended up providing some pretty big disincentives to work (tax) and some decent sized incentives not to work (welfare “entitlements”).
July 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Holy Smoke!
These girls are earning HOW MUCH? Received wasted grants of HOW MUCH?
And complaining its not enough??
Hard working people, like the Milford bus driver above, who are on the typical wage in this country, have every right to be insulted by their outrageous claims of entitlement.
So, too, have a very large number of small business employers who are struggling to survive while paying out all kinds of mandatory taxes, and devoting hours of their time to form filling for the Government for no compensation, irrespective of whether their businesses are making a profit.
Good on Paula for revealing the reality – which seems to be far more generous than I realised.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Dime, I doubt these women are living the high life and I have no evidence that they drink, smoke and gamble. Those sorts of generalisations are a bit daft. I’m not saying we owe THEM a high standard of living, I’m saying we owe US a high standard of living. By providing some help and incentive to get educated we can motivate them to take the leap, get a student loan, get a good education and get a good job. This leads to a more productive NZ and a better standard of living for us all. I’m not sugesting we offer a free education (that’s another debate) but that we make it in their immediate best interests to get educated.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Toad you’re 100% correct, the fathers should be paying to support the kids. Unfortunately they’re probably receiving a benefit also or on very low incomes and unable to pay. So what do we do? I’m in favour of compulsory naming of the father in order to receive the DPB, and forcibly taking child support. The only thing they should get for free is a vasectomy.
Phlu, not sure why I read your response to me but since I did I’d like you to know I think you’re a very poor role model for your son. Being a dad myself I understand how chuffed you must be just to be a dad and I know you think smoking pot isn’t doing you or him any damage, but for the sake of your kid perhaps you could give up even for a couple of months just to see what it’s like. At the moment you only have the view from the stoned side, why don’t you give the straight side a chance just to see what it looks like?
And while your opinion of me makes no difference to me or my family, out of respect for you being a father I’ll answer you. There is always risk, and neither of our jobs are 100% safe, but we have comprehensive insurance to protect against risk. We pay for it, and we do so to ensure our family’s quality of life. We also pay for child-care which is another fact of life when both parents choose to work (note that we both choose to work). School holidays are awkward and we’re fortunate to have grandparents who can help out. And while you may think this is ‘riding high on the hog’ we don’t have a lot of discretionary income, our house is well below the median, and our car is a 2000 model we bought second hand. That’s the facts of life for people who choose not to be on welfare phil, we live very modestly apparently to support beneficiaries. In fact Fuck it John Key, I want my tax cut!!!
July 28th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
bruv..
you have a child..
why do you not receive working for families..?
..and you confirm that you are uneducated..
..and if you doubt my claimed qualifications..
..i suggest you check the graduate list on the auckland university website..?
..(i presume you can read..?..you reached that level of education..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Rod – years ago I had a guy working for me with four kids. He was on quite a good income for the time. He found out that if he went on the doel, collected all the various allowances he could get, he was only about $3K worse off in the hand but got back 40 hours a week that he could spend sleeping or whatever. But, he couldn’t quit and go straight on the dole without a six month stand-down or something like that. So he enrolled in Uni, quit his job and then dropped out of Uni and was able to go straight onto the dole as a student.
welfare is a lifestyle choice for many people and I suspect that every working New Zealander knows at least a couple of people who are either ripping off the DPB or bludging on a benefit (as opposed to a worker who has lost his job when the local factory closed and has started on a benfit).
July 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
yes rightnow..
and you want sole mothers ’sterilised;..?
..how about sole fathers..?
..shouldn’t they also be sterilised..?
..and gee..!..if the marriage dosen’t last..and the jobs go..
..that could be you/your wife..
..eh..?
..your combination of ignorance..and arrogance..is somewhat breathtaking..
..and i see you use the detention camps..during school holidays..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
phil – if they cant find the motivation to study without being financially rewarded, then they can live in a caravan park as far as im concerned!
example a) person does well at school. goes to uni and doesnt get a DIME from the government. basically punished for achieving and having pride.
example b) scab sits at home. doesnt thank NZ for paying to raise her kids.. oh no.. demands to get extra money to study!
why do we always want to reward the losers in our society???
at some stage, we need to say enough is enough. parasites will take advantage of your good nature forever.
$700 a week and she has the cheek to complain. my god.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Brian Smaller said: So he enrolled in Uni, quit his job and then dropped out of Uni and was able to go straight onto the dole as a student.
And should have, under the law, been immediately work-tested to determine if he was available for employment. If he got away with that, the fault is with those administering the law, not with the law itself.
BTW, anyone else noticed ‘bater’s atypical non-appearance on this thread?
July 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
oh yeah.. my guess that they consumer alcohol and/or smoke is probably on the money. even if its not though.. i bet they have sky!
just drive through low income areas and check the rooftops!
July 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Wow phil, did you actually read what I wrote? Just to dispute the last line:
..and i see you use the detention camps..during school holidays..
contrast to what I wrote:
School holidays are awkward and we’re fortunate to have grandparents who can help out.
I won’t even bother with the rest. Get off the drugs man.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The problem is Dime, if we let all these “scabs” and “losers” rot in their caravan parks with no hope of bettering themselves then we all pay the price of living in a crime riddled dung hole of a country with low productivity. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to help people to stop being scabs and losers by encouraging education. You believe otherwise, fair enough.
As I said earlier. Generalising those on welfare as all gambling, drinking smokers is daft. It contributes in no way to the debate.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Toad
You are already taking a severe battering on this thread, do you really want baiter to come and hammer you as well?
July 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Do people agree that this has all the hallmarks, (not to mention smell), of an orchestrated attempt bia Labour to try and smear the Government?
Has anybody got any evidence that these two solo mothers spoke with members of the Labour party prior to the Herald on Sunday article?
July 28th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Even if this was organised by Labour you would hardly call it a smear. It’s not like the attacks are personal, they are just disagreeing on policy. That just sounds like democracy to me.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
yes rightnow..i read what you wrote..you want women who become sole mothers ..and aren’t rich..to be sterilsed..
..what more is needed from you to stimulate a curled lip of disgust/disdain..?
..you’ve already done more than enough..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Phool
bruv..
you have a child..
why do you not receive working for families..?
..and you confirm that you are uneducated..
..and if you doubt my claimed qualifications..
..i suggest you check the graduate list on the auckland university website..?
..(i presume you can read..?..you reached that level of education..?..)
What part of “No” do you struggle with Phool?
Even if I did qualify for working for families I would not take it on principle (a concept I know you are not familiar with)
I will confirm that I did not attend university, if you say that makes me uneducated then so be it, personally that sort of attitude is something that I find unappealing about the so called educated elite.
As for your “qualifications”, are you saying that the whole sage re your “mystery” degree has been cleared up now?
There you go Phool, I have answered every question you have posed, now how about telling me and anybody else who cares how much you steal from us every week?
July 28th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Actually I agree with you Philonz. Smear is too strong a word.
I also agree that this is perfectly acceptable tactic by opposition parties to engage in. I wouldn’t expect anything less.
However if you are going to engage in this stuff one thing you should do is that the facts don’t come back to bite you on your arse.
The point I was trying to make was that these two solo mothers are not the complete innocent victims here as portrayed by some. They seem to be willing accomplices in this whole thing.
If they are then I don’t really think they can go on about how Paula Bennet has abused their right to privacy.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Just a quick question here for you all,
What do early childhood educators actually earn? Because I think it’s less then the 47k that this woman is already earning?
It would seem to me that she would be better off staying on the DPB and doing voluntary work at the local daycare then getting a BA in education. That way she gets to learn the ‘actual’ job rather then the ‘theoretical’ job she would be taught at University and make more money at the same time.
If she is currently saying she doesn’t have enough money – ironically earning her BA in education is going to put her in a worse financial position.
Just a thought.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
phlu – wrong again. bet you can’t prove I ever wrote any such thing.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Fair point Gosman, Labour seem to be making a habit of getting bitten in the arse. It’ll be interesting to see what the lawyers make of the privacy issues.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Spector – here is what Career Services suggest “Those who are fully qualified have pay parity with teachers and start on around $41,000. Senior teachers earn between $59,000 and $84,000.”
So her starting salary would likely be less than her benefit. Of course she could eventually move up the ranks. She’ll also be providing a positive role model for her kids. But the minister is right, let’s cut the part of the benefit that encourages her to get educated.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Perhaps that salary says more about how little we value teachers than it does about how high the benefits are. $41 000 is not a hell of a lot. But I digress.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I am sure there are some lawns in Mt Albert that need mowing Philu – even for someone of your advanced age. I am sure you can manage to push a lawnmower stoned.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
A minister who’s engaging in tit-for-tat retaliations with members of the public and voters, and tacitly saying that because they take state benefits they have no right to an opinion, or if they voice that opinion then they have no right to privacy. I’ve never heard such an absolute and pathetic lack of professionalism and inability to respond to criticism.
How absolutely and utterly pathetic. What a way to run a country.
By the way, everyone who’s making snap judgements against these two women should be aware that you don’t know their lives or their families. Until you do, I really would reserve opinion. Let’s not even mention that some of these comments are tantamount to libel – you actually have no idea what’s going on.
This is very, very tiring and disappointing.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“..I am sure there are some lawns in Mt Albert that need mowing Philu – even for someone of your advanced age. I am sure you can manage to push a lawnmower stoned..”
didn’t you know that lawnmowers are one of the most polluting things we use..?
i let my lawn grow..then walk it down..
..everyone else should..too..
..after a year of this..my lawn is a micro-environment..and has lots of insect action..
..hence..also lots of bird action..
free the lawns..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Well said Chris, well said.
Paula bennett – one more reason skirts don’t belong in parliament.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Chris_C – Hang on. They open the debate about how they cannot afford to go to Uni now because of the mean old government cutting $28 a week from them (or whatever it is), but already get $700-odd net a week. I think the Minister is entitled to add facts to the debate. If they cannot find $28 a week in savings from their income they are not trying hard enough.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Use a hand-mower Philu.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
philu (4840) Vote: 1 3 Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
went back and deleted it..eh rightnow..?
you must be very close to dpf..
..to have such access..
You are clearly delusional. If I was that close to DPF you’d never appear on this blog again.
The fact is you make shit up and accuse people of stuff they never said.
The drugs are using you phlu.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I don’t think that’s the issue, Brian.
I’ll freely admit that I don’t know the workings of WINZ, but to respond, it wouldn’t make sense if it were only a matter of $28 a week. Doesn’t the TIA also pay for things like course fees and course costs? Added to which, the $28 that Fuller receives is for pre-degree training, the Herald says. If they were to enter into full time tertiary education, which is just like a full time job, then the costs will change.
This is part of my point. I don’t know her outgoings, you don’t know her outgoings. The minister has released figures without qualification, for what reason, I don’t know, except that it seems she can’t find an adequate response to the criticism that the removal of TIA for tertiary education means that people are excluded.
The real point is that here’s a minister who can’t actually win an argument without resorting to splattering the details of people’s benefits all over the media. Not just their weekly income, but also their history – failed at a business? I’m sure there’s plenty of people who’ve tried and failed running a small business, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be held against them.
I’d also like to see Ms. Bennett splash her own expenses figures across the Herald with as much gusto as she has these figures. But then again, they’ve legislated you out of the right to see those, haven’t they.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Philonz,
The 41k start out rate for early childhood educators is gross so her nett take home pay would be much less. Currently her nett take home pay is 47k. For her to get into a senior pay bracket which will take her above what she is already getting is going to take a certain amount of time. And during all that time she will be earning less then she currently gets. She’s saying that she’s finding it hard to live at the moment and I wonder whether she has really thought this whole thing through.
I can understand she may have a desire to get off the DPB, but with that particular career choice, childhood education, there are going to be some financial consequences that she hasn’t thought about.
If however she is committed to doing it then I would suggest she does as many of her papers as possible by correspondence. That way she keeps her DPB, doesn’t have to pay for her kids to be in childcare while she studies, and doesn’t have to take out a student loan. I’m fairly sure most of the papers she will need can be cross credited and if she volunteers at a local daycare then that will count for some credits as well.
Either way she is still going to end up financially worse off and needs to come up with ways to manage that.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Look you guys, it should be fairly obvious that phule agrees with all your statements about his choice of lifestyle. Not so deep down inside he knows that he is not being a good role model, that he is bludging off the hard work of others, that he doesnt contribute anything to the country, and that his addiction to dope is harmful to himself and those around him.
It is that insecurity that forces him to vociferously defend his lifestyle on every forum that mentions the dole or dope.
So stop trying to convince him he is wrong, just accept that he already knows, that he agrees with you, but that he is incapable of admitting it to himself.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Fair call Kimble. It was my own fault for breaking my rule of ignoring him. I wrestled with a pig in shit etc.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Spector,
I completely agree. Perhaps we could all agree to return our taxcuts so we can pay our teachers more. I’m keen, anyone else?
July 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
@philonz – perhaps the core public service should take a 20% pay cut so we can all get the tax cuts John Key promised ? Thats what Hong Kong has done.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“The minister has released figures without qualification…”
The original information was released without qualification as well. The additional information provides more context. You are reserving judgement until you have all the info, but I dont know what else you are going to get.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
perhaps the core public service should take a 20% pay cut so we can all get the tax cuts John Key promised ? Thats what Hong Kong has done.
About 40 senior public servants in Hong Kong have taken voluntary pay cuts of 5%. If you’d gotten the name of the country wrong that would have been a stupidity trifecta.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Call me slow….. but I fail to understand these ladies problem…..
They get a benefit right, a fairly large and generous benefit right……. and as I understand they can still get student loans (as everyone else does) and if they need to put their child(ren) into daycare will be entitled to further subsidy from WINZ for this……
So……. where is the problem, just get on with it and do the study……. why do they need yet more money to do this?
July 28th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
You are slow.
“why do they need yet more money to do this?”
If silk-scarf-dying wasnt free, who would do it? Wont somebody think about the silk-scarf-dying teachers?
Or maybe you would prefer a world without dyed silk scarfs?
July 28th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Or maybe you would prefer a world without dyed silk scarfs?
Oh, the horror.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“The original information was released without qualification as well. The additional information provides more context. You are reserving judgement until you have all the info, but I dont know what else you are going to get.”
But it does nothing for the argument. So you have two sole parents with higher than acceptable – whatever that is, and again, we don’t know their lives so can’t say for sure what’s acceptable without resorting to prejudgements or stereotypes – levels of income from state benefits who say that their chances of gaining a place at university have been scuppered by a change in legislation.
And the response is not to cover the benefits of changing the legislation, or the alternative routes open, but to say, “Here’s what they get, here’s what they’ve had! Look! Get all outraged at this instead of the fact that I can’t come up with a convincing response! DOLE BLUDGERS! RAARGH!”
I’m sure it’ll be only a matter of days before someone else dishes the dirt on this crap, whichever way it goes – but it’s not the behaviour you want to see from a minister in charge of a department with such a decisive impact on people’s lives and futures.
Like I said before, it sets an awful precedent for the idea that individuals will have their private information dragged out in public because they criticise an aspect of governance. Don’t want the military in Afghanistan? You’ve never served, you have no right to speak! Don’t like the idea that you don’t get tax cuts? You’re only on the 22% rate! You don’t pay enough to demand a cut!
And if the idea that it’s a Labour smear or a Labour plan to put them up as poster children is true, then I’d rather not see a party drag an entire advanced democratic system down by stooping so low by releasing personal data in an attempt to smear the critics. That’s pure dirt politics.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
It isnt an argument about dole bludgers, it is an argument about this being the least that they are having to give up. They recieve ALL their income from the state. And it is not insubstantial. Given that the country is going through a recession and that many other peopel are tightening thier belts, is it unreasonable for this pair to tightten theirs as well?
July 28th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
@ Chris_C
If the story was purely a media one rather than as part of a political spin campaign by Labour then I would tend to agree that the release of the information is unacceptable. However I stongly suspect that Labour party functionaries were in touch with these two mothers prior to the story hitting the Herald on Sunday. If that is in fact the case then they are being knowingly used in a political attack campaing and should have been advised that things would get dirty. On top of that the entire story should have been released rather than only the spin.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
And the Craig Ranapia Award for week’s best slapdown goes to Mr Danyl Mclauchlan.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
and what are you ‘tightening’ there..kimble..?
share yr tightening-tips with us…kimble..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
All’s fair in love and war, as long as you don’t bother to actually address any issues while you’re doing it?
Again: if the response is to smear the critics, then either Bennett, the policy or both are rapidly showing themselves to be untenable. If you’re happy to see your politicians dragging themselves down to that level, then I’ll be happy to chip in for the spade you’ll need to dig that grave.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
no whore you are incorrect..I am Jono…I am starboard. You are wrong again.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Whether or not you think Bennett’s behaviour is detrimental to democracy, (I would suggest it is not), the fact is that the story as retold at the watercooler in offices is that these two solo mothers are getting a rather good deal. This is not the story that Labour party strategists were obviously hoping for.
It looks like Labour decided to use these two people for political and that they are now getting burnt because of that decision. I have little sympathy for them for this.
That said if Bennett has breached the law then this should be followed up in the justice system and not in the courts of public opinion.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Come on Phool, how much do you get from us every week?
July 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
ahh..I see censorship is in action Mr F. Do you like the power? How does it feel?
[DPF: It's a pain to be honest]
July 28th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Censoring in action, indeed. DPF’s iron fist and cutting shears!
[DPF: Yep I have deleted around 15 comments in this thread. I want people to be under no illusion what a more active moderation/censorship policy will mean if ever implemented]
July 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
starboard said: I am Jono…I am starboard. You are wrong again
I am the eggman…I am the walrus. Goo goog a joob.
BTW Idiot/Savant has a new post on the Paula Bennett information privacy issue. I think he’s spot on:
July 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I’ve just been advised by the Ministers office that the $715 does not include WFF payments or any child support. Which seems strange as WFF payments for beneficiaries are normally made through WINZ. Nor does include any food grants these people may have got.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10587131&gallery_id=106699
Paula doesn’t look comfortable
July 28th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
toad
If Idiot/Savant had anything worth saying that would stand up to scrutiny then he would allow comments. I can only assume his post is his usual standard where he takes a position so far off reality and so full of spin that to allow comments would be to make a gross fool of himself.
I once use to read his blog because there is occasionally well thought out stuff – but the spin partisan hackery with no chance for pointing out the real facts that he posts has turned me off his blog entirely.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Paula doesn’t look comfortable
That’ll be the boot that’s up her arse.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
or the burt, hubris!
July 28th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Wowy – have just watched Bennet in the House. See you later alligator – what a f*ck up!
July 28th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Ms Johnston on Natrad came across reasonably well.
Paula Bennett was full of weasly waffle, shrugging her shoulders at a bit of collateral damage in the political war.
I think Key will be squirming.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
“and what are you ‘tightening’ there..kimble..?”
Well, if you have to know, we have cut back on dining out almost completely, reduced our car usage, abandoned holiday plans, put off having a child, reduced the new clothes budget, and rented out a room. We still maintain our charitable donations of time and money, and of course we still help out the rest of the family whenever they need it.
We acted prudently when our circumstances changed. I like to think we acted like responsible adults.
I wont say this makes us better people than you, but many would.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
starboard said: I am Jono…I am starboard. You are wrong again
I am the eggman…I am the walrus. Goo goog a joob….are you feeling ok toad…eggman?..walrus? I mean , really toad..are you F I T H ?
July 28th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Phool:
“didn’t you know that lawnmowers are one of the most polluting things we use..?”
You missed the point on pollution, the brain is polluted
July 28th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
This is just another example why this country is completely and utterly fucked. Labour made hundreds of thousands more people beneficiaries with Working For Families. Bleeding hearts leap to their defence but screw anyone who actually works for a living.
Beneficiaries should have to thank taxpayers daily for their largesse.. say 10 taxpayers for every beneficiary. Oops.. the ratio is more like 1 to 1.
July 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
4 Kids, average 62 hours for 5 days a week and I take home $750 a week,and SHE is complaining.
What a joke.
This country is piss week.
If she kept her legs together …………………. well!!!!!!!!!!
July 28th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
“..I wont say this makes us better people than you, but many would..”
can anyone else see his lips pursing..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“..dave (597) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I’ve just been advised by the Ministers office that the $715 does not include WFF payments or any child support. Which seems strange as WFF payments for beneficiaries are normally made through WINZ…”
dave..benificiaries do not receive working for families..
(or child support..)
..only the ‘deserving families’ get that..
..don’t you know anyone whose been fired yet..?
..and suffered the double king-hit of not only losing their wages..
..but also having their working for families stopped at the same time..?
..’cos unemployment moves them quick smart into the ‘undeserving families’ category..eh..?
(seems ‘fair’..don’t you think..?..)
serves them right..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Put things onto perspective. That $715.00 paid on a 40 hour work week equals $17.88 per hour. Now I’ll wager that everyone of us know plenty of people who go to work for a much lesser hourly rate than that. Maybe not Auckland or Wellington but the rest of NZ.
I have been aware of a tart like this getting even more dosh per week. supplementing it with the odd paid bonk and having borders as well.
All the more reason why I structure my affairs so that I don’t pay tax. Now that might piss Bernard Hickey off but Cactus is correct in that the law allows that we can do that.
The very best way to stop this welfare behavoir is to deny the Govt. any tax. My guess is that we are very close to the point where the Govt. is going to have to face the truth and realise that being nice won’t increase the tax take but will run down the money in the bank.
Unemployment stats out later this week so we will see a lot more ordinary hard working Kiwi’s have been consigned to the system that these abusers used for their advantage. All because we simply don’t want to get the basics right because its easier to pay welfare than encourage business. So sad.
July 28th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
The woman on One News had a nice looking house.
July 28th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Toad
As per usual you seek to blame somebody else for the situation these two bludgers find themselves in, in this case you try and lay the blame on the fathers of the kids.
We know in at least one of these cases there are three kids to at least two or possibly even three dads, one of the kids is only 18 months old.
Now to me it sounds as if this bludger was beginning to get a bit worried that she might have been forced back to work as her youngest was nearing school age, so to counter that and to keep onside with all you liberal idiots she more than likely went out and screwed some poor smuck in the hope of becoming pregnant.
I would wager that she decided to get up the stick and I would also wager that she had no bloody intention of ever telling the sperm donor that there was a chance he might become a dad.
She got pregnant Toad and she is the one who should face the consequences, you liberal nut bars always tell us it it the womans choice when it comes to abortion yet when the killing of late term babies does not suit your argument you come over sounding like a bible bashing “right to lifer”.
Blame the females Toad, they are the ones who are bludging from the rest of us, speaking of bludging, how come I am paying you to spend all day on here pushing green party lies?
July 28th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
How much Phool?
July 28th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Sainsbury just told me what the response of the Greens are.
Someone should tell him and them that they are irrelevant.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
The point should be if the taxpayer is paying the costs.. Then the taxpayers of New Zealand have a right to know where their money is being spent and to whom it is going to… and how much each is receiving.. The Minister should make a list of all beneficiaries and how much each receives from the taxpayer public… The same as each Ministers and MPs incomes are declared to the public..
July 28th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
One of them claimed she has been trying to get off the benefit for years and has taken lots of courses.
Why did she decide to have another baby then? If you are serious then don’t wait still you have two school age kids and then think shit I might be forced to get a job shortly and have another one.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
PhilU asked: “how does she sleep..?”
I hear she sleeps much better since the violent gang member boyfriend of her daughter moved out. Not only is Bennett naive, but she’s also arrogant and vindictive. Will anyone shed a tear when she gets the boot? The fact that Key tolerates her reflects poorly on him.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
This is an abuse of power. Is any information that the government holds about individuals fair game and able to be released if it suits the political agenda of the government of the day? How would you feel if a minister released your tax and income details? Your medical history? There is a line here that should not be crossed. Bennett is not fit to be a minister.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
“can anyone else see his lips pursing..?”
You asked, hippy.
Its not my fault if you feel inadequate when compared to a fully functional, independent adult human.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I heard Charles Chauvel criticising Paula Bennett on Newstalk ZB.
I was so angry that I used intemperate language. Then the missus changed radio stations, offered me a cigarette and a Heineken. In her opinion smoking is bad for my health, BUT listening to cuxxs like Chauvel does nothing whatsoever for my blood pressure, and is, in all probability, worse for my health. Just as we have health warnings on cigarettes we may consider health warnings before Labour Party apologists appear on Tv.
Caution; listening to this platudinous pap may be injurious to your mental health.
Paula Bennett; a huge thank you for bringing this information to our knowledge. I had always thought that some welfare bludgers had been living high on the hog, but until Paula’s outburst I was unaware just how high they had been living.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
ross
The fact that you do not like Bennett reflects extremely well on Key.
Paula has done well by exposing these parasites for the thief’s that they are.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Tauhei
Does your Mrs have a sister?
She sounds like a top lady, I hope she opened the beer before handing it across.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Hey, toad, is this the Green Party line? The first step back to relevancy?
The Greens – the party that launched a thousand shits.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
“Ms Bennett based her decision on guidelines on the Privacy Commission website but in Parliament she revealed she not sought legal or officials’ advice.”
Paula Bennett is starting to make Ruth Richardson look like Mother Teresa. I agree that Bennett is not fit to be a Minister. She has put her Ministry in a terrible position. If I were the Chief Executive, I’d be telling her that she won’t be receiving any private info about clients in future.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
” big bruv
How much Phool?
”
Post up your full medical history, before you are anyone to claim someone else is bludging too much off the state, we need to see how much you have.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Phool is busy talking to the Americans. The magpie sends selected bits. It has to be looked at by the CIA first sshhhh.
When that is done it can be printed in the New York Times, right and ready to be read when they all go to WORK at 6am.
Geez I hope NY does not find out I had mince for dinner coz I cant afford fillet, (you know being a worker and not a bludger)
July 28th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
big bruv has asked a question Phool.
Now a lot of us ask the same question Phool.
How much? No digression, how much is paid each week to you, into your bank account, from the taxpayer?
Come on Phillip, how much?
July 28th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
racer
What I have is none of your business, all you need to know is that a lot of what I earn is stolen from me every week and given away without my consent to bludgers like Phool and the two parasites mentioned in DPF’s opening piece.
I take care of myself and my family, I have private medical insurance for us all (and our pets), I have a private superannuation fund and I can honestly say that I have never held my hand out to the tax payers of NZ for one single cent.
Being like that gives me the right to know what Phool steals from us every week, so come on Phool, tell us how much you have conned out of us this week.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
philu
Come on spill the beans, how much are us tax payers contributing to your lifestyle? Or to put it another way – how little each week has it taken to compromise your position on what is in the best interest of NZ.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
racer1
Perhaps you missed the reality of this situation racer1. Anyone who works pays tax ( some get it all back under WFF but that’s another story and a sad one at that) and therefore anyone who is earning over the average wage is paying of the average amount of tax. So therefore anyone paying more than the average amount of tax is a nett contributor to society. Less than average a weight the more than average are carrying.
The key message – many people are not a burden on the state – quite the opposite.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
We’re going to need NASA in to calculate the amount of money that Phil owes the Government. If we were to weigh the net cost vs value of Phil in our society then he would show as a huge sucking drain.
I really hope you don’t breed Phil. You are a prime case of what society does not need more of.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
This from a recent Listener article:
Viliami Haloholo, 23, was jailed in 2007 for four years for attacking a party-goer with a fence paling, leaving the victim with a broken jaw and a 10cm gash to his head. Haloholo was reportedly a member of the Thugs of Canal street gang. Bennett has worked hard to help Haloholo redeem himself, inviting him to live with Ana and his child at her house for six months before sentencing. In 2007 she wrote in support of him at sentencing, offering continuing accommodation and seeking to avoid a prison term. And in 2008 she wrote to the Parole Board offering to let Haloholo be paroled to her house again.
“He has put his mistakes of the past behind him and I believe that with the support of his partner (my daughter), his family and myself, he will lead a good life and not ever be before the courts again,” said Bennett in the 2008 letter…The Parole Board did not share Bennett’s faith in Haloholo, turning down his parole bid. It said he was “an identified drug user” in prison and had “numerous incident reports” on his prison file, one just a month before the parole hearing. Bennett has always refused to talk publicly about Haloholo, apart from releasing a statement saying it was an error of judgment not to inform Key about the matter. Haloholo is due for release in 2011. Does she plan to renew her offer of a home for him next time he comes up for parole? She initially hedges. “At the moment all you know is what you’ve read in the papers. I actually think that I deserve – you know, it’s not so much I deserve a level of privacy, I believe my family do. So I’m going to respect their privacy.”
Haha, what a clown, she has no respect for others’ privacy, just her own.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
“..I take care of myself and my family, I have private medical insurance for us all (and our pets), I have a private superannuation fund and I can honestly say that I have never held my hand out to the tax payers of NZ for one single cent..”
gee..!..let’s hope nothing untoward happens..there bruv..
..to change that ’security’..
..eh..?
..(y’know..!..divorce/disease/accidents/failing economies/lost jobs..eh bruv..?..)
..you are all hypocrites..
..whose lives/circumstances can change..
..just like that..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Philu, beneficiaries are eligible for WFF. The family tax credit portion is paid as part of your benefit.
It is the “in work” tax credit you are not entitled to, and the name of it would give away the reason why.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Just tell us Phool, how much of our money do you get every week?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Damn I’m pissed off, I got one post in at 9.10am then I had to go to work for the rest of the day. I’ve missed out on all the interesting debate. I Just sat down and ate dinner, not even had a shower yet. apparently I have some people to support……..oh well, I can happily trudge off to the grind tomorrow knowing I am doing my bit to improve the education and job prospects of those poor victims on the DPB.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Revealing how much the complainants ‘earned’ is fantastic news to the bludging economy. Just shows how much can be creamed off.
A lot cheaper than a series of TV adverts.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I have private medical insurance for us all (and our pets)
You insure your pets…. !!
ppsstt…, wanna buy a bridge..
July 28th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
haha exactly bruv.
And philu your post re bruv does not make much sense.
Sure, divorces, unforseen circumstances, recessions etc can change a family’s circumstances.
But who has the best prospects of getting through them?
A lifelong trougher, or a man who’s big enough to handle his business and provide for his family’s wellbeing and security through having a real job?
This is not a personal attack at all phil, I enjoy debtaing with people like you, even though sometimes it is like stabbing my eyeballs with needles.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
$715 dollars a week, hell with 4 kids my wife and I would be better off on the friggin dole.
The effort I have to undertake to run my business (and collect GST and PAYE for the govt) seems hardly worth it when a solo mum is more than level pegging it with me.
Lucky I have some self respect or I might actually consider it.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I’m joining the chorus here. Come on phil… how how many welfare/support dollars do you receive each week? Disclosure: I receive nil (and pay heaps of tax)
July 28th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I wanted to apply for that grant, but I was turned down because my wife worked and I am working my ass off starting a business. We are seriously sacrificing. I don’t mind because I can see the future but when I read that this woman took 10,000 and quit after only a year I see blood because she lied and ripped honest working taxpayers off!!!!! I see assholes like toad and sue bradfords protecting these bludgers that are making this country weak by the day.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
HER rights, shit what about mine?
SHIT SHIT SHIT and more SHIT.
I work and pay tax so she can do what the f***!k she wants, then she decides to change HER lifestyle ,then moans, then goes to bed with god knows who, to bloody then turn around and moan HER guts out about HER hard life with HER poor children in HER bloody house paid for by the state who just happens to tax the living shit out of me for the right and honour to turn HER life around again.
God only knows when this will end but I know that she can toughen up, for I am paying for HER to live, breath and be kept in the way she expects.
Bugger HER rights, Im off to bed, work starts at the mill at 4 am.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
jackp – good on you for having a future plan and working hard towards it. hang in there and it will happen.
the socialist scum in NZ have a vision too. it’s to incrementally move increasing numbers of us to dependence on the state thereby increasing their power.
the creeping welfare state has happened because we have allowed polititians to offer welfare to ‘edge cases’ with each passing election cycle, and over years the demarcation has moved was past genuine need to a place were we condone laziness and greed.
it has to stop, and not because we can’t afford it but because it traps and disempowers people
July 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
And in a desperate rearguard action, Labour have now revealed that they “plan” to complain to the privacy commissioner. A sure fire sign that this has blown up in their face and they’re trying to minimise the damage.
Bennett 1
Labour 0
July 28th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Getstaffed, thank you and thank you again explaining New Zealand’s major problem so well.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
The Fuller woman also got $9560 in 2006/7 to start a cleaning business (probably used it to buy a car), which has since closed because she had “ongoing illness problems”. The illness was probably the fear of having to work.
But wait there’s more. Her kids are aged 10 years, 9 years, and 17 months, so obviously she wasn’t ill enough to get pregnant again and have another child.
Any woman on the DPB who gets pregnant again should not be entitled to welfare payments in respect of that child.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
“it has to stop, and not because we can’t afford it but because it traps and disempowers people”
The great thing about NZ is we are a nation of free enterprise, if you have a good idea and the will to make it happen, our nation is very rewarding.
This is our competitive advantage on the world stage and we must regain it.
We won’t do it with a luxury welfare system.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“big bruv
racer
What I have is none of your business, all you need to know is that a lot of what I earn is stolen from me every week and given away without my consent to bludgers like Phool and the two parasites mentioned in DPF’s opening piece.”
You give your consent by staying here and continue to pay it, it is the price you pay for living in a civilized society, it is not stolen from you, get a grip.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
NeillR
The privacy rules exist for a reason, if Bennett has broken the law here then I hope National and Bennett face it with integrity and dignity rather than saying ‘The [referee] made a bad call’ and validating themselves one way or another.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“burt
Post up your full medical history, before you are anyone to claim someone else is bludging too much off the state, we need to see how much you have.
Perhaps you missed the reality of this situation racer1. Anyone who works pays tax ( some get it all back under WFF but that’s another story and a sad one at that) and therefore anyone who is earning over the average wage is paying of the average amount of tax. So therefore anyone paying more than the average amount of tax is a nett contributor to society. Less than average a weight the more than average are carrying. ”
It really is not that simple.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Shunda barunda
In some way the domestic recession that crept over NZ before the global economic crisis was fortunate but only in that it allows us to identify illness in our domestic economy before it was confused with the global crisis. Clearly with welfare increasing under Labour productivity was falling. Surprise surprise. There is mandate for change.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
No one would argue that tax is the price we pay for a civilised society racer.
The argument is over how much.
While there are battlers out there paying 38% tax (as high as 48% if paying off student loan etc) this money is going to troughers like this, who instead of getting student loans like the rest of us want us to pick up the tab for that as well.
As a question to all the trolls out here like racer, philu etc.
How much of your weekly income do you give to charity?
None?
How much does John key give, as well as a third to a half of everything he earns?
Probably in the 6 figures a year
July 28th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Perhaps, but NZers have become conditioned to seeing more and more done for them by the state. Starting to incrementally move the line back towards where only genuine need is met will see screams of injustice as edge cases are trotted out in support of the idea the any change in inhumane. That’s what Labour have started trying to do.
No, IMO we need a financial and social catasrophy large enough to force a major welfare overhaul and we need polititians with the balls to do what’s right in response. We have neither of these at the moment so all/any tinkering of be hard fought of a case-by-case basis, and will ultimately be at the mercy of re-election aspirations.
edit: o/t, anyone else getting a browser error when trying to give kama?
July 28th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
racer1
You are right, it is more complicated. High wealth individuals also normally have health insurance, send their kids to integrated or independent schools and provide for their own retirement while they pay more than the average amount of tax. They are providing capacity in hospitals, schools and other social services that may never call on. But hey, go on – tell me that are rich pricks and they can afford it.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
getstaffed
Browser error confirmed.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
> Labour have now revealed that they “plan” to complain to the privacy commissioner.
And they have good reason to. What Bennett did was despicable, the sort of thing a petulant kid might do in a fit of pique. Now that she’s shown herself to be unfit to hold office, I wonder what other craven behaviour she will resort to. Seeing her as a weak link, the Opposition will undoubtedly be encouraged to push her buttons.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
ross
I think you are spot on there. As much as I’m pleased we got the context for the ‘oh wow is me’ story the actions of Bennett look to be way out of line.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
ross – [deleted by me] nuff said.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Ross, seeing as your mates in Labour shat all over the Cabinet Manual and constitutional convention every other day for 9 years, I dont think you’ve got much moral high ground
July 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Poor Bennett, gone by lunchtime I’d say.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“nickb
How much of your weekly income do you give to charity?”
Not a lot as I earn bugger all, though I spend a lot of time charitably. How does this relate to anything? Are only the holiest of thou’s allowed to comment? In that case you lot all aught to be posting your income tax details up.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I just think it’s relevant to contrast the attitude between the average kiwi, and then the moronic communist trolls on this thread.
While Key, your favourite target, gives most of his salary to charity, you attack him for being a “rich prick”.
Meanwhile the average kiwi worker is struggling with massive mortgage, food bills etc, and their tax cuts have been put on hold to pay for the serial bludgers you stick up for.
You are living proof why socialism fucks up everything. Including the people it professes to help
July 28th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
> Ross, seeing as your mates in Labour…
Actually, I voted National at the last two elections. But if Paula Bennett stands again, it’s most unlikely I’ll be voting for them again. She is a major liability, not to mention destructive. John Key should call her into his office and say: “Give me one reason why I shouldn’t sack you”.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:10 am
http://www.teawamutu.co.nz/courier/archive/2007/2007-03-13.pdf
—-
Cleaning her way to success
A passion for cleaning has led Natasha Fuller on a new career path.
After a period receiving a Domestic Purposes Benefit, the Cambridge mother of two approached Work and Income with an idea she had for self employment.
Natasha was referred to a Self Employment Seminar conducted by Work Broker Lance Taylor, and so the journey to self employment began.
Natasha was supported by Lance to set up her business through a Work and Income Enterprise Allowance Subsidy and Enterprise Allowance Grant. To be eligible for either payment, clients are expected to prepare a business plan which is then independently assessed. It is also expected that the client will eventually support themselves through their business.
In order to develop the business plan and ensure her business idea was sustainable, Natasha was referred to a ‘Be Your Own Boss’ course. “There were a lot of like-minded people on the course who also wanted to start their own businesses. It motivated me to succeed”, said Natasha.
Natasha’s Versatile Home Service was established in November 2006 and undertakes a variety of cleaning services including home and commercial cleaning and gardening.
- MSD Report – Leading Social Development A Plan for Waikato 2007-2008
—
On a happier note Natasha Fuller, who had her hair extensions personally put in by Seductive’s Amanda Spence and suffered her worst hair day ever, has been given a replacement set by Gorgeous Hair and Headlinz in Cambridge. Nice One.
—-
Wow. She is so poor she can’t pay for training but she can pay to get hair extensions. Also she clearly doesn’t care about privacy considering she allowed herself to be in a MSD report and be in a newspaper.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:13 am
“# nickb (52) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 1 Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I just think it’s relevant to contrast the attitude between the average kiwi, and then the moronic communist trolls on this thread.
While Key, your favourite target, gives most of his salary to charity, you attack him for being a “rich prick”.
Meanwhile the average kiwi worker is struggling with massive mortgage, food bills etc, and their tax cuts have been put on hold to pay for the serial bludgers you stick up for.
You are living proof why socialism fucks up everything. Including the people it professes to help
”
Everything you have said in that post is wrong, and you haven’t got a fucking clue what I think.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Also if her business closed down due to ongoing health problems how the hell was she able to have another baby and how the hell is she expected to work with young children?Why get yourself pregnant if you’re having health problems or was the only health problem that you forgot to use condom and that is why your business failed?
July 29th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Bludge and feed an impotent opposition with cheap political shots at your peril ladies. But don’t bother comming over all the raw prawn with us who fund your lifestyle choices. Bite the hand etc.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Ok racer.
The fact is your viewpoints are out of touch. You and your communist views are consigned to at least 10 years of irrelevance.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:33 am
DBP=dollars per baby……………welfare for having kids is one thing but for having litters of kids has to FUCKIN stop.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:44 am
“nickb (53) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 29th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Ok racer.
The fact is your viewpoints are out of touch. You and your communist views are consigned to at least 10 years of irrelevance.”
The first problem you have got, as much as you’d like to imagine I am, I am infact not a communist. Your argument seems to rely on ad-hominem and ridicule. Claiming that I’m so stupid that I can’t be right requires some kind of external reference. Basically your full of shit, and you can do all the name calling and labelling you like. All in all you are just trying to run interference because you support this government in breaking the law.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:08 am
“because you support this government in breaking the law”
Which Phantom Law is this?
Prey tell. Not quite stealing alcohol, money for pledge cards, forging paintings etc.
Besides, Labour started it, with selective cautionary tales. Incomplete tosh, Spoon fed to the mates in the dead wood media.
The ‘repeaters’.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Jeez and to think that Labour always tried to argue that Helenardo was nothing like Muldoon.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:43 am
GM, is “they started this” and “they did this before” justification for any sort of crap, and don’t care about the casualties?
I don’t recall people’s private details being so openly distributed before. National need to make it clear if this is a new standard or not. Revealing all relevant details to an issue. Where could that lead them? And us?
July 29th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Jesus wept…
My partner and I alone pay ~9x the average amount of tax a year, as well as paying a helluva lot more in tax through my business, just to fund this shit, and these people somehow believe it is their divine right.
We consume zero-point-fuck-all in benefits from the state, have diesel cars, so definitely pay our way in road user charges. I have never had a grant for my business, just get out there and do it for myself. Fully private medical insurance, although I had to have a minor op a few years ago under ACC, as it was an accident, nevermind I waited a year for the op!
And then we have stupid pricks like racer telling us “this is the price I pay to live in a civilised society”.
What the fuck is civilised about swinging kids from clothelines and putting them in driers, banging kids heads together until they’re brain damaged, drug fucked P pushers shooting cops, stabbing your girlfriend 216 times et al?
Infuckinfuriating!
Someone remind me, why do I stay here? There are so many other low-tax jurisdictions out there where the society is a damn site more civilised than this one, and the people have a damn site more pride than to sit on their chuffs accepting a hand-out every week.
The Herald should run an expose on a bludger everyday, revealing everything about them: how much money they get, for how long they’ve been getting it, what they spend it on and what they do with their day. I nominate Philip Ure as first-up candidate.
Remember, we pay for these (mostly) useless pricks, so we have everyright to know what they are doing with their time to justify the “wages” we are giving them.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:48 am
“..Someone remind me, why do I stay here? There are so many other low-tax jurisdictions out there where the society is a damn site more civilised than this one, and the people have a damn site more pride than to sit on their chuffs accepting a hand-out every week…”
off you go then..!
..(can i suggest singapore.?
..that will likely appeal to/suit the likes of you..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 29th, 2009 at 7:09 am
I used to live in Singapore you fuckin dropkick, and if I had my way I’d be bringing some of their laws back here. That way, I’d have you swinging from a rope by lunchtime.
I have nothing but contempt for you and your ilk, and honestly, I often contemplate dobbing you in!
July 29th, 2009 at 7:25 am
“..I often contemplate dobbing you in!..”
who to..?..and for what..?
..(that i smoke pot..?….meh..!..)
“..I used to live in Singapore you fuckin dropkick, and if I had my way I’d be bringing some of their laws back here. That way, I’d have you swinging from a rope by lunchtime..”
(i was pretty on the money there..eh..?..singapore would seem to be your natural home..wot with the ‘ swinging from a rope’..eh..?..
..so..y’know..!..what’s holding you back..?
(i’ll donate a gold coin for a ‘goodbye-present’..eh..?..)
“..I have nothing but contempt for you and your ilk..”
and what exactly have you got against sole parents..?
..was there a trauma in yr early life you aren’t telling us about..?
..did you meet a ’scary’ sole-parent..?..when at an impressionable age..?..
(and hey..!..)
“..I nominate Philip Ure as first-up candidate..”
m.y.o.f.b…!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 29th, 2009 at 7:26 am
The original story
So she’s got three girls. I’d like to see some of my tax dollars going into a study to see how many women on the DPB are daughters of women who were on the DPB, because my guess is that Fuller’s daughters have already got their “career path” mapped out for them.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:34 am
“..I nominate Philip Ure as first-up candidate..”
m.y.o.f.b…!
..you are our business arsehole..we pay your benefit remember…
July 29th, 2009 at 7:36 am
i see you are not backward in trotting out your irrational ‘prejudices’ there neill..
..those ones that you just pluck from that orifice nearest the back of yr knees..eh..?
..your ‘guesses’..eh..?
(we will give them the respect they deserve..eh..?..)
..and gee..!
..so many of you rightwingers come across as such ‘nice people’..
..eh..?
(not at all like the greedy/selfish/smug/arrogant/willfully ignorant..and just downright hideous gargoyles of humanity..
..as you are so often ‘unfairly’ portrayed..”
eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 29th, 2009 at 7:38 am
oh..!..there’s starbored..aka bryan spondre..
(haven’t you got some trolling to do..?..
oh..!..that’s right..you are..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 29th, 2009 at 7:39 am
You just don’t fuckin get it do you?
It is my business. I am paying for you to sit on your chuff, typing incoherent dribble all day long. So, as I said before, I have every right to know how much you get, for how long you’ve been getting it, what you are doing to “earn” the right to access this PRIVILEGE and what you are spending it on.
How much a week are you spending on drugs? How much a week are you spending on food?
I have nothing against solo parents per se, I have a lot against solo parents like yourself, and the pair of useless women referenced in the story.
And if I and a lot of others in my position did sling our hooks and leave, as well as closing down our dairy industry you all too readily condemn, how would you survive?
July 29th, 2009 at 7:41 am
anyway..work/news aggregation calls..
(i’ll be back later..eh..?..
..so ..in the meantime..you all just ‘line yourselves up’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 29th, 2009 at 8:03 am
If you live by the public purse then the public have a right to know what you get. As a pensioner it is not secret what I get. Nothing like 35T or 46T let alone 60T … Jeez!
On the other hand cutting a training allowance to a potential nurse when the country is crying out for nurses is beaurocratic stupidity.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Before you go Phil, how much DO you get per week, and how long have you been getting it? Not since you were released from jail, I hope!
July 29th, 2009 at 8:07 am
anyway..work/news aggregation calls..
What’s his definition of work? His families housework (and picking up the DPB is his wage?
aggregation calls?
July 29th, 2009 at 8:10 am
# phil u Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
i don’t know how relative this is..but i can’t help but bring this issue back to the personal..
in that i have two children..to two mothers..
thru bad management..(or whatever)..both of these children were conceived in the fag-end of relationships..
..in the first case..i was a rabid junkie at the time..
..all i know is that in both cases..both mothers would in many eyes..have been quite within their ‘rights’..to have had abortions..
i am just forever grateful to them both for not doing that..
and had they done that..
..neither of my beautiful children would be here..
(and a western springs soccer team would be nowhere near as strong in defence..)
so..y know..!
life is messy/imperfect..
..and declamatory absolutes from either side..
..answer/prove nothing..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/06/11/abortion-again/
July 29th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Yes, your above post is fine phil.
The question remains though, why should we pay you for your poor lifestyle choices?