$86,000 a year for 15 years on the benefit
August 17th, 2009 at 6:06 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Hundreds of state beneficiaries are receiving payments totalling more than $1000 a week.
The top 50 recipients face an audit of their entitlements ordered by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett. …
They include a couple with 10 children who get $1200 a week. Both parents have been on the unemployment benefit for more than 15 years.
$1,200 a week is their net income. This is equivalent to a salary of $86,000 a year or $1,657 a week gross.
It is likely over their time on the benefit, they have had the equivalent of over a million dollars.
90% of parents choose to restrict the size of their families to what they can afford. People make rational decisions on whether they can afford a third or a forth child. There is no simple answer, but most Kiwis would be aghast at paying two parents the dole for 15 years, during which time they have 10 kids. Now there may be something unique to their circumstances, but the fact they are on the dole not the sickness, invalids or dpb suggests something very wrong. How can anyone be on the dole for 15 years?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Uh oh.
Feel the walls closing in a bit mini man-Magpie?
Palms a bit sweaty? The parchment skin a bit clammy? Need to change the undies a week early?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 6:35 am
… and btw David, good post. This should be fun!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Just wait for the knock philu!
At least with NZ’s long term unemployable, they are our own. In the UK we pay anybody.
Anybody!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 6:42 am
It’s high time for the DPB to have a time limit, something proportional to the duration one has paid tax for sounds fair.
Vote:Paul Henry might get in trouble for his little speech this morning, bloody true though…..
August 17th, 2009 at 6:45 am
… er actually GM, they aren’t necessarily our own. Have you forgotten Klerk’s cunning ploy of importing potential liabore voters who went straight onto the bludge? You know – these were the people that gave Klerk her net positive migration stats with which she explained away the fact that ten’s of thousands of skilled people stuffed off overseas because of her.
The dollars/numbers cited on this post simply validate the bludge as a career option. The little westie lady is going to score bigtime with this revelation.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:13 am
> Hundreds of state beneficiaries are receiving payments totalling more than $1000 a week.
Yes, they are and one them is Bill English, who is paid a handsome salary and owns a $1.2 million home, not forgetting that his wife is a doctor. Not to worry, eh David, because Bill is “entitled” to taxpayer handouts.
> It is likely over their time on the benefit, they have had the equivalent of over a million dollars.
And your point is? Maybe it’s that the kids shouldn’t receive any assistance but should have to look after themselves. Yeah, that’ll be it. Send the kids out to work. If only we had some coal mines for the little layabouts. The caring face of National is coming to the fore. I didn’t expect to see it quite so soon.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:17 am
I’d normally expect Roger Douglas to be ranting and raving about beneficiaries. He’s been strangely quiet on this issue. I wonder why.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Like the fact that they didn’t know what a vasectomy was.
Ross – the whole point is that people who cannot afford large familes shouldn’t have them.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:30 am
How can anyone be on the dole for 15 years?
Uhh David…where have you been?
East Coast, Northland, Wairarapa, West Coast to name just a few, are all places where being a long term bene for no reason other than you can’t be bothered, have facial/gang tats, still can’t be bothered is perfectly acceptable.
I knew a guy in Opotiki who had been on the dole for 11 years, lived on the family farm, which I admit was probably uneconomic because of its remoteness. He hired himself to prune his own pine trees and got subsidised by WINZ to do it. As far as I know NO trees were ever pruned (“pulp’s good mate”) and after 3 months on his subsidy he got his dole ‘ reset ‘ as they called it. He was stoked, good for another 10. There are literally hundreds of people like that on the East Coast if not thousands, and so on around the country.
Facial Tats are another road to the long term bene cruise, the fuck-knuckles (excuse my Swahili) know this, and can use the cultural card, even though it is a gang sign tattooed on their face, if anyone hassles them too much, and KNOW that eventually WINZ will just pay them to stay away.
It’s one big rort. Bennett needs to look at WHO was on a benefit 20 years ago and WHO is on one know, not HOW LONG they’ve been doing it.
It really shits me.
The funny thing about it all is that up the Coast those same people are invariably Maori separatists. When you point out that the Government they hate also provides them with a living they really pull out all their baldhead shit. I’ve been threatened a couple of times for pointing that out.
Luckily a lifetime of bludging also makes them slow.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Somebody out there must be able to find out the name of this couple.
PLEASE, get their names out there in the public, by any means possible. We have to bring these parasites in for all the scorn, shame, derision and contempt they deserve.
They are probably also in a state house, which would further increase their parasitical take, as well as god knows how many other blank cheques they take from WINZ over a year.
We have to make being on a benefit the ultimate shame, where you are too embarrassed to show your face in public.
Oh, and before you get on your high horse Philu – go fuck yourself.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:32 am
“How can anyone be on the dole for 15 years?”
Vote:Presumably most, if not all of the kids are under 15 and they’ve had them whilst on the dole?
…….and all the leftie bleeding hearts can worry about is smacking – when they allowed, if not encouraged this sort of child and benefit abuse
August 17th, 2009 at 7:33 am
I would be interested to see the breakdown of vasectomies across society. I’m rather confidant it would correlate to wealth. If someone could show DPB vs non-DPB for each age group and family size that would be a worthwhile service for the taxpayer.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Ross – Bill English does NOT receive a ‘handsome’ salary – he is very poorly paid for what he does compared with top state servants – even INCLUDING his housing allowance. I see that Tracey Watjkins has nothing better to do than having a picture of Bill’s house plastered on the front page of the Dom Post.
Back to topic – one of the difficulties faced is some males threaten mothers with violence if the mothers tell WINZ that they sired the children in question and hence are liable for child support payments. This puts both the mums and the case managers between a rock and a hard place. Perhaps a DNA sample can be taken from the children in question (a swab suffices, no need to take a blood sample) and checked against the criminal DNA database.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:39 am
This highlights the issue of the overly generous nature of the benefit system, and how it leads to dependency. If one of these parents actually gets a job, it would need to pay 90k to make it viable.
Having said that, a family with 10 children, on the minimum wage of 26k from one earner, would get $867 per week on WFF. and would be no worse off. The truly sad thing is that we have 10 kids who have not seen a working parent, and given that most of the last decade has been prosperous, these parents should be ashamed.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:49 am
“..East Coast, Northland, Wairarapa, West Coast to name just a few, are all places where being a long term bene for no reason other than you can’t be bothered, have facial/gang tats, still can’t be bothered is perfectly acceptable..”
provincial unemployment cd also be a factor..?
did you forget to mention that..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:52 am
“..Herman Poole (66) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 0 Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 7:33 am
I would be interested to see the breakdown of vasectomies across society. I’m rather confidant it would correlate to wealth. If someone could show DPB vs non-DPB for each age group and family size that would be a worthwhile service for the taxpayer..”
so..potential state-ordered vasectomies..?..d’yareckon..?
..based on a formula of income/children..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Oh here is the million dollar man!
Had a good toke this morning?
Been outside yet?
Must be loverly to just do what you want with everyone else paying for it!
Just wait for the knock, our very favourite parasite.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:53 am
The question was asked as to how anyone can be on the dole for 15 years.
The answer is that they voted Labour.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:58 am
and really..!..eh..?
“..Having said that, a family with 10 children, on the minimum wage of 26k from one earner, would get $867 per week on WFF. and would be no worse off..”
so..are you all going to argue the ending of yr w.f.f…?
i didn’t think so..eh..?
(and here we are..!..back in the early nineties..eh..?
it’s open season on the usual targets/whipping boys..eh..?)
btw..dpf..gonna do any stories on politicians gouging/troughing..?..ever..?
(y’know..!..one of yr in-depth/multi-post exposes..?..
..details of the soaking/rorting/gouging in wellington..?)
or is it just full steam ahead with the benificiary-bashing meme..eh..?
and hey..!..d’yareckon the timing of this announcement has anything to do with needing/wanting a distraction from that pollie-gouging..?
d’yareckon..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:05 am
How long have you been on the benefit Philu ?
Dole then DPB is longer than 15 years isn’t it?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:10 am
and where is roger dougles..?
with one of his timely rants of ‘abuse of entitlements/the-long-suffering-taxpayer’..
isn’t this his ‘patch’..?
he isn’t away on holiday .. again..?..
..is he..?
why so quiet..?
rog..!..yoo-hoo..!
(question:..why does parliament never sit during school holidays..?
answer:..’cos the mp’s need that time co-ordination for their ‘holiday-entitlements’..eh..?
..the country empties of pols…every school holiday..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Nothing like a temporary handout to get people over one of lifes speedbumps.
What is everyone complaining about?
If i chose to have 15 kids, i expect nz taxpayers to fork out. Why not?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:14 am
This ‘lady’ goes off to WINZ to get her DPB. The clerk says ‘How many kids do you have?’
Vote:’10′
’10! What are their names?’ asked the clerk
‘John’.
‘All of them?’
‘Yes’.
‘Why?’ asked the clerk getting more interested.
‘When I want to get them in for tea, I just shout ‘John’ and they all come.’
‘But what if you want only one of them?’
‘Oh, that’s easy, I just call him by his surname.’ replied the woman
August 17th, 2009 at 8:17 am
“..What is everyone complaining about?
If i chose to have 15 kids, i expect nz taxpayers to fork out. Why not?..”
did you miss the post above..?
where it was pointed out that w.f.f. would give them $800+ per week..?
(so..taking the benificiary-bashing out…
your point is..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Its gota stop. The next generation of philu’s in waiting are’nt gona have it so sweet. No one..NO PARASITE should be able to sponge for 15 years off the backs of hard working taxpayers. This is one of the big reasons National was voted in..to fix this sort of shit.
Vote:Go for it PB..knock ‘em hard…whore , hehe.. times up buddy xx
August 17th, 2009 at 8:41 am
If more people were prepared to work for volunteer organizations to help the unfortunates (like Philu here) would we need such a huge welfare state?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:44 am
eh?
eh?
eh?
I have to .. get .. a JOB!?
EH?!!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Are there any food preparation volunteer organizations out there that can help the poor?
$1000 a week buys a lot of vegetables and rice.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:52 am
“..# Simon (131) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 8:41 am
If more people were prepared to work for volunteer organizations to help the unfortunates (like Philu here) would we need such a huge welfare state?”
donation-supported institutions..?..for the poor foundlings..?
d’yareckon..?
they used to do that in victorian times..eh..?
why don’t you do some reading about that..?
with a bit of luck/application..
..it could even lead to you having an ‘informed’ opinion..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:54 am
ross
“And your point is? Maybe it’s that the kids shouldn’t receive any assistance but should have to look after themselves. Yeah, that’ll be it. Send the kids out to work. If only we had some coal mines for the little layabouts. The caring face of National is coming to the fore. I didn’t expect to see it quite so soon.”
And your point is? That this revelation is a good thing?
That in the course of 9 years, during which time this little family unit likely at least doubled in size, they kept getting money without demonstrating any of the sort of personal responsibility that Farrar referred to in his post. What are you suggesting ross? That this is a valid career option and that couple who work hard for less should pay for these indolent pricks? Well no you’re not are you.
That’s because you refuse to even address the issue. Instead you drag out the evil baby-eating mantra that is the refuge of the idealistic drongos that defend this sort of thing because they can’t bring themselves to admit that at the very least, every person in this society should at least TRY and make an effort to support themselves and not just elect a lifestyle on the bludge. So that’s right, make yourself feel good twat – we all want the kids to starve to death and move into hedge accomodation. Yeah yeah yeah. You vaccuous prat.
So what are YOU going to tell the people that slog their guts out for fuckall. Go on the bludge?
And what do you think your mob was doing over the last nine years to get at least one of these pricks off their arses and doing something useful; if only to mow the bloody lawn down at the local school.
If the statistics are anything to go by, your socially aware mates have done nothing other than to breed a good proportion of the next generation of prison statistics. A fat lot of value that will represent for $86 pa.
Whatever the answer is, it isn’t making those kids starve and it certainly isn’t giving money to people to sit on their arses and reward them for a lack of personality resonsibility. Its fuckwits like you that put these people in this position in the first place. Hell, its certainly a vote winner!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I think your being a bit conservative here. Factor in the police investigation and response, court and jail costs, as well as the dole bludging and your probably in the multi-million dollar area.
What the hell are you talking about philu, most people here think working for families is both horrible and inefficient policy. Most would argue that actual tax cuts should have been given instead.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Fking pitiful isnt it.
I remember paying off my student debt via tax while earning 2 fifths of f*&k all.
Now I have paid ait all back and it seems my strategy was wrong – I should have bludged it up to the max and claimed some kind of minority religion and claimed a whole load of cash for doing f all.
Phil, how DO I do that?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:00 am
The funny side of this story is that Old Yeller walked right in and gave this PR bonanza to Paula Bennett by asking the dumb question “How many beneficiaries receive more than $1,000 per week?”
National will be laughing their heads off as this distracts the media from the more pressing issue of who’s screwing who in the Auckland party hierarchy.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Annette King – when is the HBDHB fiasoco coming home to roost for her and her bludging husband?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:03 am
So parasitic philu, bet you smoke your evil weed indoors.
Do You?
A warm fetid smell of barbecue.
That must make the dogs and offspring quite mellow?
Eh?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:04 am
“..What the hell are you talking about philu, most people here think working for families is both horrible and inefficient policy..”
so they/you don’t claim it eh..?
pull the other one..eh..?
fucken hypocrites..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:06 am
“..Phil, how DO I do that?..”
expat..i think all education should be free..
as an essential pillar in any aspirations to drag everyone up by their bootstraps..
so maybe you are asking the wrong person..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:07 am
“most people here think working for families is both horrible and inefficient policy”
WFF seems to have been inspired by a “we won’t be told to do the decent thing with taxes, we’ll do it our own way” sort of approach. To hell with common sense.
No one seems to have mentioned that 15 years ago who was in government? Successive governments have found it very difficult to balance assisting the genuinely needy and at the same time excluding lifestyling bludgers. WFF makes sorting out our tax and benefits system properly that much harder.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:09 am
‘..this distracts the media from the more pressing issue of who’s screwing who in the Auckland party hierarchy..”
ah..!..so that’s who features in that one..
i was gonna ring some people to find out who..
..but..meh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:12 am
This may surprise you philu..
..but no..
..I don’t claim working for families..
..eh!
phil(workandincome.govt.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:13 am
In my opinion, the reports need to be re-run and this time look at all individuals receiving more weekly income than the average wage (ie $700 after tax).
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:13 am
the usual f’cking nonsense replies from the bludgers who moan about others mitigating their tax liabilities – wonder why that hapens bludger phil.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:14 am
“..his may surprise you philu..
..but no..
..I don’t claim working for families..
..eh!..”
not eligible..yet..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:16 am
While you’re at it David can you tell us WTF is up with Tara te Heke… Are her posts meant to be a joke, because they fail badly.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:18 am
“..the usual f’cking nonsense replies from the bludgers who moan about others mitigating their tax liabilities .”
is ‘mitigating their tax liabilities’ new-speak..
..for entitlements-for-others-than-benificiaries..?
is that what rog/double-dip-bill-from-dipton/carter et al do..?
..’mitigate their tax liabilities’..
..sounds quite official/approved..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Philu – I am entitled to $57 a week WFF. I dont claim it, never have and never will. I could certainly use that money, but would rather have it as a tax cut than bludge off my fellow citizens.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am
ok brian..but an exception does not the rule make.
eh..?
many of those here pouring shit on benificiaries..
..are..in a variety of ways..
sucking low-income-worker/paye taxes..
..to supplement/support themselves..
(i mean..that slug of a first year law student..has the gall to come here and talk about ‘leeching off the taxpayers’..
..when those same low-income-workers/paye-payers are supplementing/helping fund..
..his training to be a professionalscumbag..w.t.f..!)
y’know..!..the right hand points..
while the left one is held out..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I was reading the drones first comment (word used without prejudice)when the smell of something rotten alerted me and it was you know who. I started to check names again. Btw it was still sh#t.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Can anybody really say that they’re surprised by this? After working for Work and Income a few years ago I know I’m not.
These sorts of stories aren’t new and have made the front pages quite regularly over the last few years, however the question is will the politicians actually do something about it? The last lot certainly wouldn’t have as it would have impacted their core base far too much however the real question is does this lot have the intestinal fortitude to once and for all take action?
Unfortunately I suspect that they don’t and at best we will see further tinkering with a system that can only be fixed by overhauling the whole thing.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Brian Smaller said: “I could certainly use that money, but would rather have it as a tax cut than bludge off my fellow citizens.”
During the initial training for WFF this was actually argued as the more efficient method of application however we were told by the trainers that it wouldn’t help Labour with its long term election goals.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:34 am
National are window dressing. Auditing the top 50? Waste of time. Sort the whole system out. Do the hard work.
National are losing credibility fast.
Scrap the dole altogether. Replace it with a work scheme where the government becomes the employer of last resort. If you haven’t got a job, then you can go to the place each day where the WINZ vans will take you to work. Tree planting, scrub clearing, clearing rubbish off the roadside. Whatever. If you turn up for the 5 days and work OK you get paid in cash on the Friday. WINZ = Working In NZ.
Paying people to do nothing is corroding this country.
Come on National. Do something.
Oh, and John, no more touring Pacific Islands until you sort these two out.
cheers
Malcolm
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Maybe they shouldn’t have so many fucken kids? This is fucken retarded. 10 children? jesus fuck. Cut that mans balls off, he’s lost the right to bear children.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:47 am
There is certainly an element of that, Clark and Cullen had an ideological block when it came to adopting opposition policy, as they seemed to view doing so as admitting flaws in themselves.
The other aspect though is that labour under Clark tried to buy certain key vote groups in order to win. To be fair all politicians do this to some extent, but labour were particularly gratuteous in it: completely writing off certain demographs in order to buy (rather than win) others. Worse still, the net effect of many of the vote-buying policies were negative toward NZ as a whole.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:47 am
brian..for workers..what is w.f.f…if it is not a tax cut by another name..
i am on record noting what i thought was the major tactical error on the part of labour..
..in not selling it/presenting it..
..as a tax cut for workers/the middle class..
..and leaving that potent message free for national..(meh..!..idjits..!..)
..surely..it is only the means of delivery you object to..?
w.t.f..!
do you have a personal-issue..?..history..?
..with/of cutting yr nose off..to spite yr face..?
(repeat after me:..”w.f.f. is a tax-cut..for me..of $57 p.w..”)
mm’kay..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Jesus Phool, you just dont get it do you?.
Even a “first year law student” has the right to heap pile upon pile of abuse on you for the simple reason that you are scum.
These dogs of yours that you talk so much about, has it worked its way into your drug fucked brain yet that if you lived in their world/society they would have either driven you out or killed you as you would be considered a drain on their pack and one who put their survival at risk.
We humans could learn a lot from dogs Phool, scum like you should be cast our from society, if you are not going to contribute or seek to leach off the rest of us then we should be allowed to toss you out on your ear with nothing.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Phil – I would love the govt to get rid of WFF. I hate it with all my heart. I’m not a big fan of discrimination and especially when its in the goddam tax system!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:03 am
PhilU: “expat..i think all education should be free..”
Excellent. When will you start talking to the university lecturers and teachers about working for free? Or did you just mean free to the end consumer, but actually has a cost to the taxpayer of NZ? In a similar way that the rest of your lifestyle costs us all.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:03 am
“90% of parents choose to restrict the size of their families to what they can afford.”
With or without WFF? Far more than 10 percent are having kids based on what the public purse will pay them. A very poor motivation.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:06 am
phil – why do you think all education should be free? i didnt mind paying for my uni studies. its a fact that uni grads earn more than non – uni grads right? why not pay for it?
whats 20k or so in the grand scheme of things? (or 44k if youre Dime and were charged intrest from day one)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
“(i mean..that slug of a first year law student..has the gall to come here and talk about ‘leeching off the taxpayers’..
..when those same low-income-workers/paye-payers are supplementing/helping fund..
..his training to be a professionalscumbag..w.t.f..!)”
Third year phil. And the point I have made to you, multiple times, is that I would rather live in a society where the government did not subsidise tertiary education so much, I would rather live in a society where my parents had paid a flat, low rate of tax their whole working lives, so that they could save up to help fund mu university education, and I would rather live in a society where the government doesnt have its hands so heavily in my pocket for my job, so I could pay for it mostly myself. 2 points arise here phil:
1.
What is worse: Taxpayers subsidising tertiary education (which most on the left would agree is a good thing) or taxpayers subisidising lowlife, bludging parasites like yourself? In an ideal world, my dream government would tell people like you, and all those fuckwit student unions, to get fucked so they could return some of the taxpayers money to those who PAY IT.
2.
Vote:Your gross contribution to society at the moment phil is around -$500 a week or more, what makes your opinion important? I hope you have a plan B for when your door gets knocked on. Hope the advertising revenue from whoar is going well…..HAHAHA
August 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am
“..Or did you just mean free to the end consumer, but actually has a cost to the taxpayer of NZ?..”
yes paul..like it used to be..what our current political leaders got..
..it’s called an’education system’..
and is generally deemed to be a foundation stone of any society with aspirations towards ‘civilised’..
eh..?
your ‘plan’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“..Far more than 10 percent are having kids based on what the public purse will pay them..”
got any evidence of that..?
or did you just pluck that one from the orifice nearest to the back of yr knees..?
..(it’s the latter..i’m picking..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:21 am
So why do you attack it then phil?
Especially ironic that you attack me for studying law, when the taxpayer has subsidised you for a much m ore expensive…wait for it… MASTERS in political science hahahah!
Great to see you’ve moved up in life with that there phil, I’ll stick with my law thanks. Good to know that a masters in politics will set you up for a life on the dole, I will advise any friends who were going down that path. God knows why there even is such a subject, if there is a bigger waste of taxpayers money than subsidising arts and social science degrees then I dont know what it is (apart from paying philu to sit on his arse perhaps)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:21 am
So, Phil, do you think there is any private value in education? Does the person in university get any benefit at all, or does all the benefit accrue to the taxpayer? At the moment the taxpayer pays some 95% of most university education, for what reason do you think it makes sense for the taxpayer to pay the last 5% as well? Is that last 5%, with an interest free loan, really holding anyone back from getting an education?
Lets be honest, taxpayer funded university education is yet another middle class benefit, and yet another churn through the tax system. Those who are truly poor are eligible for student allowances, so everyone else who is whinging are basically middle class. They need to harden up.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“..I would rather live in a society where the government did not subsidise tertiary education so much, I would rather live in a society where my parents had paid a flat, low rate of tax their whole working lives, so that they could save up to help fund mu university education, and I would rather live in a society where the government doesnt have its hands so heavily in my pocket for my job, so I could pay for it mostly myself…”
while we’re on wishes..can i stick my hand up for a pony..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:35 am
It seems especially selfish and offensive that you say this, when the main reason taxpayers like my parents were labouring under large tax burderns was for the propping up of the monstrosity of a welfare state NZ has. That it is so unwieldy and unsustainable is due to serial parasites like yourself, who jeopardise those who are in real need.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am
If you can stomach it pop over to the EMPU and Labour party blog and have a gander at this thread’
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/let-the-bashing-begin/#comments
Comrade “Irish Bill” is in full censorship mode, anybody who dares question these low life bludging scum is banned.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Phool
If you are so proud of your lifestyle why not tell us how much you get every week?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I have commented on the matter too over at Fairfacts Media.
But did anyone also spot a story in the Dom-Post a few days back that shows a sharp rise in beneficiaries saying they cannot work due to drugs and drink problems.
http://fairfactsmedia.blogspot.com/2009/08/those-boozing-drugtaking-beneficiaries.html
The welfare state truly has become a rort for too many.
Vote:But we will have to end the troughing at the top before Bill English, Roger Douglas, etc, have a moral mandate to do what is necessary.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Comrade “Irish Bill” is in full censorship mode, anybody who dares question these low life bludging scum is banned
..just come from the strandard…my things are a bit tense there…
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Bill’s double dipping dosen’t seem all that bad in comparison!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
No philuseless u cant hav a pony I dont think you could care for it without taxpayer help and you get too much now. Before you think I have started to read your drivel, I followed from paull who I find does have worthwhile contributions here. Instead of reflectively challenging his comments try the old trick of breathing through the nose and who knows Eh.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Whats the bet that some of these beneficiaries are regular visitors to foodbanks. soup kitchens are thieves and generally reprobates who cause your insurance and tax to be even higher. The civil servants who actually help them are even more responsible for this.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
nickb
The magpie received his ‘masters’ from the University of Imagination. The only masters qualification he’s got is master of the couch.
Do you actually believe that his fetid tortured little pea brain could actually cope with any sort of educational experience? Yikes! Its all a bit self-evident isn’t it?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Hey Fairfacts I used to dish out methadone to 70 of the scum you describe, they were all on some form of benefit. None of them looked too sick or invalid to work. If there was a new source of drugs on the street, they were leading the charge.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Ring Ring………..Ring Ring…. click…
“Kia ora, Work and Income New Zealand, how may I help you?”
“Hello, any fear of work today?”
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
starboard – irish bill has to be the biggest douche bag i have ever come across online. the standard HATE freedom of speech.
Dime was banned many moons ago lol
Although i did go back election night and had some fun
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Seriously though, how many of us WORKERS could go and see our boss and get a pay rise simply because we had had another child? We can’t do that, so we have to do something that is called ‘being responsible’! After our 3rd child, I underwent a vasectomy because I was ‘being responsible!’ My wife and I both work, and make enough money to support a mortgage and 3 children, and pay our taxes, because we enjoy ‘being responsible.’ And if we are not making enough money to do something, we do not go along to some government department with our hand out. There are many options. I sometimes used to get extra work (I used to get up at 3.30 in the morning and deliver the Herald for an extra $100 – $130 dollars a week, and it’s a great way to get fit too, much cheaper than the gym!). You can prioritise (We didn’t need a flash new plasma TV straight away, the old 26 inch was fine us for another year until the price came down and we could save a bit more to buy one for cash). You budget (Make sandwiches without going to a coffee shop or such like for lunch!)
What really peeves me off though, is that these people are getting $1200 a week to stay home with the kids, yet I have been in the Defence Force for 23 years, I get about $1770 a fortnight after tax. In that 23 years, I have had to spend months away from my family, putting myself in harms way (literally!!) and I certainly don’t get anywhere near the level of financial support for my family that these bludgers get.
I don’t get a three term MP’s travel perks either, just quietly!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
So with the exception of pulling the training benefit, is this current National government going to do anything about this, don’t hold your breath, pigs might fly, two shows – no show and shits show. Please feel free to add more cliches you feel are appropriate.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I get the impression National are trying to massage public attitude towards accepting changes. Not that it should take much to get acceptance. If Labour do their standard opposition they won’t be taken seriously by many at the moment. A slash and turn your back approach could be a disaster, but I suspect that even the x% of people justifiably on benefits would accept change if it is signalled and incremental.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Incremental????
Fuck that!, people like the low life who steal $1200 a week from us , Philip Ure and Natasha Fuller should be told that their parasitic ways are over as from yesterday.
Our economy cannot afford to do anything in increments, we need to start slashing and burning today.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Funny how much trouble you guys have over following the rules while using someone elses private property, then come crying to kiwiblog about it, a bunch of Murrays the lot of you.
Anyway, in regards to this post, as yesterday, bloody maaaariis
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
So what happens to the people that suddenly have nothing bb? What happens to their kids? There aren’t enough jobs for those looking, so there won’t be enough for those newly forced even if the could instantly transform into reasonable candidates.
What about the landlords that suddenly don’t get any rent? And businesses that don’t get paid? The social and health and law enforcement services that have to try and take up the slack?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
“.Fuck that!, people like the low life who steal $1200 a week from us..”
are you talking about double-dip-bill-from-dipton..?
(and his ‘heroic’ accomodation allowances..?..)
hasn’t he been quiet just lately..?
no sermons on restraint..
then key publically slapped him down over the capital gains tax..
oo-err..!
is he on the way out..?
that double-dip-bill-from-dipton..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“# Cerium
What about the landlords that suddenly don’t get any rent? And businesses that don’t get paid? The social and health and law enforcement services that have to try and take up the slack?
”
The funny thing about people like BB is financial considerations go out the window in that kind of situation. He would much prefer $1200+ additional a week going on law enforcement, than $1200 a week in benefits.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
$1200 would be better spent buying all you non-productive parasitical low IQ commies a one way ticket to Cuba.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
i mean..there is no way he is going to be able to stand and preach on anything fiscal..
..without his audience falling into fits of derisory laughter..
..how can it not be that way..?..from here on in…?
he stands naked..credibility in tatters..
..how can he not have to step down as finance minister..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Cerium & Racer1
The $1200 would be replaced by vouchers, food vouchers, clothing vouchers, electricity vouchers etc…
I can guarantee you that the total cost would be far less than $1200 per week.
As for the “The social and health and law enforcement services that have to try and take up the slack”, given that these two bludgers have not worked for fifteen years then I would wager that “social and health and law enforcement services” are already well familiar with these parasites.
Along with the vouchers both parents should be immediately booked for tax payer funded sterilisation surgery.
Now chaps, can you come up with a better reason than “What about the landlords that suddenly don’t get any rent? And businesses that don’t get paid?” to justify this scandalous situation?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I see Sue Bradford is now on record as saying that the figures used when pointing out how much state assistance people are getting are flawed. She is pointing out that the childcare subsidy is being counted with other state entitlements even though it is being paid directly to the child care providers rather than the beneficiaries.
Now my question is, if you do not have a job, and have not had one for 15 years, why do you need childcare? It’s not like you are leaving the kids alone at home to go to work now, is it!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“Funny how much trouble you guys have over following the rules while using someone elses private property, then come crying to kiwiblog about it, a bunch of Murrays the lot of you.”
racer1, WTF, please expand on this, if you are going to use my name in vain then I feel i have a right to know WTF you are talking about.
Cerium, speaking for myself there is no way on earth I would rent a property to someone in receipt of a benefit. I would want responsible tenants, those with a sense of personal responsibility.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Personally, I think we can all agree that sometimes people need a hand-up. But it’s getting silly. I think that folk on the dole should no longer get paid cash-money.
Instead give food vouchers (that can’t be redeemed for booze or cigarettes), pay fees straight to schools, money straight to landlords, money straight to phone companies for pre-approved services. Issue specific cheques when kids require clothes or school equipment.
Offer the same to anyone out of work, which means that people who have been working can still get the odd luxury from their savings.
Don’t work? Then you get what you’re given. The dole needs to be there to allow people to live, but needs to be undesirable enough that no one wants to stay there
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Fuck what is wrong with National, would a 44gallon drum of viagra help ?. Instead of dicking around with cell phones in cars and signing up to stupid carbon ponzi schemes Key and his mates should be sorting this shit. Anyone with more then two spare braincells can see this sort of crap is unsustainable, if this bullshit continues we will all be working for the government and this fucking parasite with ten kids will well and truly have starved. Harden up Key!!!!!!!!!! you have to move now don’t wait for another two years because if your hand is forced the repercussions will be nasty. This country is on the brink of collapsing, we can either pull ourselves out of the shit or we can throw in the towel and live under the yoke of communism, there won’t be much choice the way things are moving.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Comrade Bradford is “worried” that the Nat’s are softening up the public for benefit cuts.
She should not be concerned at all, sadly the Nat’s do not have the balls to do anything like that.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Food vouchers would be hilarious!
Id buy em.. 50cents on the dollar muhahaha
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
You go Bob..!!!
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I doubt that vouchers are the answer. Otherwise they would have been tried – maybe they aren’t cost effective (administration Could increase substantially). And to those who like the total government control conspiracy theory, wouldn’t vouchers give more control?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
well dime if you would do that, then quit moaning about bludgers
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
So if Vouchers are not the answer Cerium what is?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
It can’t be easy. Ruth Richardson tried it and didn’t succeed very well, and it has blown out since then, even if you just take into account WFF. Somehow they have to help those who need it and try and filter out the users and bludgers. But those people quickly learn all the tricks to maximising the return on their laziness. It’s a good example of why communism doesn’t work.
It’s not new. I remember 25 years living in a state housing area – there were inter-generational users of state houses then, families that were “proud” of it.
No matter what you end up doing you are going to be tough on some and some will get more than they deserve.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Food vouchers could require ID to be used (dole bludgers get ID provided for them already – why not put it to use).
And extra admin would both prove jobs, and be paid for with the money you save from just throwing cash at people who never intend to work.
Goverment control? If the goverment is paying for everything you do, it SHOULD have control. It’s the rest of us that they need to leave alone.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“I doubt that vouchers are the answer. Otherwise they would have been tried”
so you didnt support an untried ETS?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
you’re not getting w.f.f. then..?..telprydain..
and is that because you are not eligible..?
if eligible..wd u take it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
In my opinion the benefit system should be revamped as follows.
General: There should be a debit card type system for food at major supermarkets that cannot be used to purchase luxuries like booze or tobacco products. Rent paid direct by WINZ to HNZ or 3rd party landlords. Power and phone bills have to be registered to a government account and only basic services supplied (Home phone, Power, Basic Dial-up or low cap ADSL). On top of that a SMALL allowence in direct payment for out of pocket expenses like bus fares or similar of say 15% of the current payment. No SkyTV, No booze or dope or P, No tobacco. Just the basics to LIVE and survive until you are clear of the situation. The idea is for state assistence to be a helping hand for those who have hit a rough patch. Not a career for those who cannot be bothered.
Unemployment: Does not apply to under 24 year olds (I will get back to this) at all. Once you have actually PAID some tax in the event that you are fired or made redundant you get up to 25% of your total input ever as above for the express purpose of finding a job. If after 3 months you do not have a job and cannot prove that you have been looking for one with interview appointments then a work scheme kicks in and you do 2 days a week as a labourer for your local council (Dirty unplesent jobs) this increases by 1 day per 2 months untill you are doing full weeks.
DPB: If you split from your partner for whatever reason with kids then a clock starts, once the youngest is in high school you have to be in part time work at least. This does NOT get extended if you have additional children nor does your benefit increase if you have additional children (exception for pregnant mothers at the time of the split).
Young People (Under 24): If you are not in full time study for something productive then a similar system kicks in for unemployment but with courses for basic employment skills that are useful in the local area. If you live rually then farming or logging or similar. If in the city then builder or plumber etc. You have to get a trade, once you have done the basic courses (12 months max) you are treated as unemployed but given assistance to find work (not enforced) if you do not take it within 3 months off to the local make work for you.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Phillu. It appears to me that you have only 3 cranial neurones. One is infarcted, one is infected and the other one is in denial. Alzo, you use up way too much space.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
In response to a simple and direct question, Delirium lurches through another coma without actually saying anything. Allow me to highlight the particular gems (that would just about be all of it):
“It can’t be easy.” duh
“Ruth Richardson tried it and didn’t succeed very well” – and??
“Somehow they have to help those who need it and try and filter out the users and bludgers.” You can sense that double digit IQ moving into gear here!!
“But those people quickly learn all the tricks to maximising the return on their laziness.” nah, surely not!
“It’s not new.” Well then. This certainly has been a day for revelations!
“I remember 25 years living in a state housing area”. Excellent. Now what can you remember from 5 minutes ago?
“– there were inter-generational users of state houses then, families that were “proud” of it.” Ah, the connection with “Its not new”.
“No matter what you end up doing you are going to be tough on some and some will get more than they deserve.” Hmm … genius at work here!
So what does it mean – translation: “I don’t know”
Listen and I’ll tell you what is self-evident to everyone else here but seems to have passed you by without registering on the snickometer. So lean back, draw another puff from your pipe, put your slippered feet on the ottoman and crease your brow with that heavy furrow that says’ I’m not gazing vaccuously off into space here; I’m actually engaged in serious thought solving the problems of the universe.” – You know the look, you practiced it all weekend.
1. Vouchers are less efficient than money. But giving money to people who just piss it up against the wall is a damn sight more inefficient.
2. The only way you will stop idiots and deadbeats from pissing it all up aganist the wall is to reduce their ability to do that. So if the money bypasses them and goes straight to landlords and energy companies and transport companies or whatever (so they can get out and try and find a fucking job or go somewhere and actually do something useful by way of quid pro quo for the benefit) then there is a higher prospect that money will get to where its meant to.
3. Ditto food vouchers that are endorsed to stop them wasting taxpayer money on smokes, piss, cat food, dog food, budgie food, coca cola, fanta, sweets, donuts, frozen mashed potatoe, TV dinners, pies, icecreams, chips and bullshit cheesey cracker crispy barbecue chicken-arse flavour bits of fuckin shit that make an easy meal for their kids. That way, there is at least some prospect that their kids will get fed AND with real food.
4. Anyone rorting the system – selling/trading vouchers can go to jail (a far more useful spend of the taxpayer bucks) and when they get out they can go live under a hedge. Because anyone that would do that to their kids isn’t worth one extra moments thought – the kids will be better off without them. State care of their kids is hardly ideal, but its better than the other alternative.
5. Along the way, they get help with learning how to take personal responsibility for themselves and their kids. They don’t want to? See (4) above.
6. Welfare is a privilege; not a right. They people who get it are accountable to the people who provide it. Anyone thinks this is demeaning and infringes their rights, or doesn’t want to pay ball – then fine. Just fuck off and live under a hedge, or worse, get a job.
7. Expensive? Yes. But so is the inter-generational decline that in soe instances means we now have 4 generations of complete and utter deadbeat losers, with grandparents in their 40s, along with other associated costs such as crime, violence, health and the other dead weight social costs.
Got it? Not perfect, and no doubt requires work, but I’m sure Delirium, that even you can get the drift.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
philu:
“”you’re not getting w.f.f. then..?..telprydain..
and is that because you are not eligible..?
if eligible..wd u take it..?”"
My wife and I have no kids, so no WFF. We are waiting for the right time.
(single parents: They are called condoms. Use them)
Would I use it if I could? Honestly, Philu, I’m not sure.
On one hand, I hate the idea of the goverment giving me money. On the other hand, it’s not a hand out – it’s just giving back some of the money that I earned. I’d like to think I wouldn’t use it unless I really needed it – if I did need it, I’d have no issues with claiming it back.
Don’t get me wrong, we NEED the dole. We don’t want to be Japan where there are rows of 56 year-old men living in boxes because they can’t earn a living. We need to support the sick and we need to look out for people falling through the cracks.
Vote:But it needs to be aid, not a life-style.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
We need to support the sick and we need to look out for people falling through the cracks.
..for a maximum 26 weeks..dpb dole and sickness benefits , after that YOU sort it out. If everybody paid less tax we could each save enough for that rainy day should it happen. Phil whore..I bet your choc starfish is pukkering loser… at the thought of havin to work..i bet your sweatin man..eh eh eh…
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
“One couple with 10 kids getting over $1200 per week and both parents unemployed for 15 years, what the hell is that about. Im sorry but thats wrong!…”
That was one, typical less-than-rational response on another Web Forum.
Well, perhaps they should be executed?
Seriously, New Zealanders know absolutely NOTHING about these families. For all we know, they may be children adopted from other, dysfunction families and have no where to go.
This sort of beneficiary bashing occurred back in 1999, under the previous National government (some things never change) when ACT welfare spokesperson, Muriel Newman claimed that a family were recieving $1230.90 a week in welfare benefits.
What she didn’t tell the public was that the couple had taken on TEN children no one else wanted, including at least one with a disability.
The $1230.90 was made up of:
* $260.94 ‘community wage’
* $524 family support
* $76 accomodation allowance
* $198.96 disability allowance
* $171 special benefit
Looking at it another way, $1230.90 divided between twelve people is $102.58/wk, which has to pay for food, clothing, medical expenses, housing, etc. Newman claimed the couple were “not working”.
Pardon?! Looking after ten children isn’t “work”???
If the same children were institutionalised, the costs would be much, much greater. We would then be paying for buildings, staff, and a bureacracy to manage such institutions – commonly referred to as orphanages.
And then there would inevitably follow the million dollars lawsuits, as the children in these institutions were inevitably abused, and compensated later, when they disclose the abuse they suffered. This is a history New Zealand (and other countries) has already lived though.
Once again, Paula Bennett is making people ‘jump’ with her misleading nonsense. She reminds me of Jenny Shipley and her ill-fated “Code of Social Responsibility” booklet.
Perhaps New Zealanders should be asking questions of our Social Welfare Minister, rather than reacting like Bennett’s own Pavlov’s dogs. The canine-like salivating by some is embarrasing. And messy.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
“Pardon?! Looking after ten children isn’t “work”???”
No it is not!, having children is a choice, being unemployed for fifteen years is a choice, demanding that I pay for your kids and your lifestyle is theft.
There is nothing misleading about $1230.90 cents per week, the money we waste on these vermin and their offspring is stolen from hard working Kiwi’s, no amount of your liberal bullshit and lies will change that fact.
People are being held back from providing for their own families because of bludgers like these people and by bleeding heart liberals like you.
When will you admit that welfare is the problem?, when will you admit that intergenerational welfare dependency is a cancer that eats away at our society day after day?, when will you fucking well wake up?
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Perhaps New Zealanders should be asking questions of our Social Welfare Minister
my question would be ” when are you gona clamp down hard on the bludgers PB? All power to her. Go back to the strandard loser.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
philu wanders into his local WINZ outlet one Friday afternoon and asks the receptionist “…do you…have any Jobs…do You?”
The receptionist looks up. “You know what, philu, we’ve just had an amazing position come up, and you’re just the man for the job. We need someone to chauffeur the Dallas Cheerleaders on their six month tour of New Zealand. You’ll drive their bus, take them to bars and clubs around the country and stay in first-class accommodation! All expenses paid for, and if you like it, you can accompany the girls on their 18 month tour of the Caribbean. You can even take your dogs.”
philu is staggered – “…wow… you’re…Joking???”
Receptionist “You started it.”
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Well the first instinct of course is cut the payments or castrate the parents. But you really need to think about how / why they are in this situation in the first place. I saw a guy busking in Cuba St the other day with a sign ‘Capatalism made me poor’. Me and my mates had a good chuckle for sure, but thinking about it he’s not entirely wrong. Money isn’t fairly distributed – there is little correlation between effort and wealth, especially at the top. Now theres a number of factors at play here, sure some people are just plain lazy, but is it perhaps because they are disenchanted in the system? If you grew up in a poor area surrounded by ‘failure’ your outlook on the future probably wouldn’t be that great either! Having 10 kids wouldn’t be my answer to it, but i’m guessing these people aren’t particularly well educated. What can we do about it? Absolutely nothing given our current system. Poverty is the price to pay for capitalism – if we didn’t have welfare there’d be rioting in the streets.
Vote:August 17th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
There is only one political party that brands all looting via the state as immoral and must stop. Whether it be looting to pay jobless people to have more children or for “free education” or “free health services” etc. etc.
Vote:And that party is NOT ACT or National.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
hope some people here are moved to a voucher sceme… one thing is for sure, there’ll be no vouchers for free weed..
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 12:18 am
I have employees who work hard for less than $1,000 in the hand a week. How the fuck do I compete with fucking welfare? Welfare doesn’t have to deliver a dividend to its investors.
This gets so up my tits, if there was an option on voting forms for “no government” I would have ticked it. Its not good enough for Paula to say she will look into those cases to make sure we are not paying these leeches more than the rules allow. She should be saying these lifestylers on the tit will be in for the bum’s rush and should be looking for the best deals on cabbages. And make them last a fortnight. Because our charity does not extend to cleaning your moats, or whatever the 50″ plasma, play-stationed, SkyHD, broadband enabled, Toyota Enema driving equivalent is.
Why is this comment being made at just after mid-night, toughers might ask, well I have just got home from fucking work. Although I suspect that our toughers won’t read it until they get up at the crack of noon.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Why is this comment being made at just after mid-night, toughers might ask, well I have just got home from fucking work. Although I suspect that our toughers won’t read it until they get up at the crack of noon.
..mate Im still at fuckin work and its 00:50 with 2hours to go…while the flu whores of the world are tucked up in bed..whos the fool now ?
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 1:45 am
“Why is this comment being made at just after mid-night, toughers might ask, well I have just got home from fucking work. ”
Or because you are a egotistic sniveling liar knowing that behind a shield of anonymity you can claim what ever the fuck you like, you piece of shit.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 1:50 am
oh racer, what would you know?
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 2:13 am
what would anyone know?
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I’m suprised you can operate a computer you write shit so dumb.
You have no rights. Except to die eventually, thats unequivocal, whether it is by hunger or cancer is up to you. Capitilism does not claim to be magic pixie dust that can change this, and you’re a fool if you think Socialism can.
What you call poverty in our capitilism is living like a king to most of human history. And inequality is required if you want to lift the wealth at the bottom.
Who ever said that the purpose of existence was fairness? or happiness even? These things are different to every living thing, so who decides who is deserving?
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 2:26 am
I’m sorry but she didn’t take on ten children. The state did, and this woman made decisions for the state that she should not be entitled to. If she want’s to look after kids she can apply for a job doing that.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Why doesn’t this lady apply for a job at said orphanage so this doesn’t happen?
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 3:43 am
braindead twat racer…” shreeeeeeek ” goes the wacer…
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Apparently Racer1 is a very popular name for girls these days.
Not a Nom de Plume at all, just a good old fashioned Girly name. Like Jordan.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:46 am
“philu is staggered – “…wow… you’re…Joking???”
Receptionist “You started it.”
Heh! Brilliant!
“What can we do about it? Absolutely nothing given our current system. Poverty is the price to pay for capitalism – if we didn’t have welfare there’d be rioting in the streets.”
Then we could shoot the filth dead……not before time.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 10:50 am
What happened to being entitled to the DPB for reasons outside your control…? not reasons of personal choice.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Ana
I am not changing the entitlement at all for DPB, just removing it as a career choice.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“What happened to being entitled to the DPB”
I am beginning to despise the word “entitled”.
The word now has a new meaning….
–verb (used with object), -tled, -tling.
Vote:1. to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim: His executive position entitled him to certain courtesies rarely accorded others.
2. to call by a particular title or name: What was the book entitled?
3. to designate (a person) by an honorary title.
4. to steal or bludge money from others.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Legionaires – direct your outrage HERE!
Vote: