Welfare Reform
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:55 pm by David FarrarThe PM has announced some welcome reforms:
- Part-time work obligations for DPB recipients whose youngest child is aged six or over (to be referred to as the Phil U clause)
- Part-time work obligations for people on a Sickness Benefit who have been assessed as being able to work part time
- More graduated sanctions for people who don’t comply with their work obligations such as a reduction in benefit rather than just cancellation
- An increase in the amount that people on the DPB and Invalids Benefit can earn each week, without affecting their benefit, from $80 to $100
- Change the rules around the Unemployment Benefit so it can only be granted for a 12-month period, and then one has to reapply and undergo a comprehensive work assessment
- More frequent reassessment for people on the Sickness Benefit
Now these are not radical reforms. But they are good sold steps in the right direction, reinforcing that welfare should generally be temporary assistance, not a lifestyle choice.
Related posts:
- Welfare reform is coming
- National’s welfare reform
- Treasury’s welfare prescription
- Dom Post on welfare reform
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
The Phil U Bill.
The free ride is over loser.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I guess I wouldn’t make for a very popular PM…..
Vote:I’d cancel all bloody welfare except for “serious” sickness folk and super.
Oh and I’d also make prisoners break a few rocks for their dinner and bed.
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:10 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more DPF. I think that welfare reform is the critical difference between National and Labour. For National the big concern is getting people off the welfare rolls and into productive employment. For Labour the big concern appears to be making welfare entitlements as generous as possible, in the name of “compassion”.
In my view “compassion” is actually getting involved with poor people and trying to help them. This will involve local and community initiatives that will target those in need, will be personal as opposed to bureaucratic, will involve shared responsibility and obligations, and will require something from the person being helped.
The current welfare model appears to be to dish out money from a central bureaucratic agency in an impersonal manner, requiring very little from the person being ‘helped’, and doing very little to encourage personal responsibility and initiative. In fact welfarism as it is today seems to discourage personal and family and community responsibility. We say we are “compassionate” when we fund through our taxes an ever increasingly bloated welfare monster that discourages personal responsibility and acts of personal charity.
With this reform the government in my opinion appears to be encouraging personal responsibility and a hand up rather than the previous model of welfarism in perpetuity. We can only hope that individuals and families and communities respond and look to take initiative for themselves, rather than expect the government and the taxpayer to continually bail them out.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
About time.
Have to say its timing is more than a coinincidence. Smart politics, but think this time the mining issue is to big to bury with another more popular policy announcement.
As a serious side note on the testing, the major review should have to be done by a different doctor than the previous major review. There is a reason for this in that I have heard some are intimidated into giving sickness reports. This would hopefully help catch those ones.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
This is a very good first step in reducing the “benefit as a career choice” pool of time wasters etc.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
And enjoy the outbreak of crime as people stole to survive.
Vote:As kids starved in the streets.
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:17 pm
The outbreak of crime as opposed to the tranquil happy lah lah existance we experience now Jeff?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Get real Jeff, who do you think does all the crime now?
Vote:Those that go to work each day or those that sit at home wondering how to pay for their next fix?
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
AND JUST MAYBE JEFF….. Some of those starving kids won’t be born because the lazy arsed to be mothers won’t be getting a free hand out.
Vote:Just maybe Jeff we would get some more educated kids out there and crime may decrease.
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Or maybe there will be a lot of families with kids 5 years apart.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Maybe they’ll get off their asses and work. Its a concept.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
I’m now waiting for Phil Goff to announce this is an outrage and will repeal any changes when he is Prime Minister.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
I’d personally like to see a bit more, but it’s a good step in the right direction – away from the ‘entitlement’ attitude.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
SGH, not Goff, Mallard does the announcements.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Is there any way we can let Paula Bennett know that the first person she should be going after is Phil U?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
You can’t STOP Mallard for making announcements.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
We just did BB
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
This is why it needs one more provision. “DPB will be locked at the number of children at first application (Pregnant mothers get a review once the baby(s) are born), no increases for further children.”
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I’m interested in the costs associated with a 12-month limit. Won’t forcing people to reapply and undergo a comprehensive work assessment require a rather hefty increase in organization and administration?
Not that I’m against it, it just sounds like they’re going to need an abundance of capable bureaucrats able to assess the fitness of each claim which just doesn’t seem to fit with Nationals public service cost cutting.
Still I’m sure they’ll catch the odd drug dealer cheating the system which will look nice in the papers for them.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
True Murray, but funny when Helen was around he didn’t.
Vote:The Labour Party must be a ball to be in at the moment, everyone just doing their own thing and partying along.
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Very thoughtful Scott.
to me one of the big “evils” of universal state welfare is the way it has crowded out private provision of welfare. It creates a (quite legitimate) “I gave at the office” mentality when folk see people in need. Private charities are suborned by the state to operate within the framework of state direction (for example as providers of services under state mandate or as supplicants to state agencies like the Lotteries Commission).
Having said that there are no easy fixes. I look around and I see a bunch of folk who really are not equipped (by nature or nuture) to function effectively in a modern society.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Given that some women use the DPB as a meal ticket – what’s to stop them waiting until their oldest child turns
Vote:6 and then starting the process all over again?
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
I would rather have a minumum time entitlement for DPB whatever the youngest kid’s age is (below adulthood). When one parent dies or leaves, the other parent has a lot of financial and legal stuff to sort out and that has to be done during work hours.
IIRC the average time spent on the DPB recipients is about 18 months i.e. most people don’t actually want to be on it anyway.
But it’s not like anything is going to change that much. You can say people have to look for part time work but if there is none then …
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
God help us…..
They’re going to spend $88mm (which needs to be borrowed!) for a return of $200mm over 10 years!!!
Any wonder Key no longer works for Merrill Lynch, one would have to assume he was shown the door if this was the extent of his financial acumen.
Key and Bennet need to borrow the plowshares scythes, and start slashing dramatically at the benefit system.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
A change in the culture of entitlement democracymum. Its a long term alteration in peoples attitudes thats needed. Make it no longer sociallly acceptable and pile on some stigma, next thing you know its gone.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:36 pm
25 posts in, and not a word from Philip Ure yet. Should someone in Auckland go and check on him, and make sure the bad news hasn’t been too much for him?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
“This is why it needs one more provision. “DPB will be locked at the number of children at first application (Pregnant mothers get a review once the baby(s) are born), no increases for further children.” ”
And how about some cost imposed on the father of the child. It’s all very well to punish the mother who is bringing up the children but what about the father’s who walks away.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Nothing. That is why it is a joke. There needs to be a rule that says having more kids once you are on the dpb will not attract more money.
When renting houses I was amazed at how many dpb Mums in the 35-45 age group had new babies to replace the ones who were turning/had turned 16 or 18 or whatever the age where they no longer generate income from welfare.
What the government needs to do is crack down on all the welfare recipients who are living with their partners while collecting the dpb. Nearly every dpb Mum I ever rented to had a dead-beat partner or even working partner living with them.
And finally – a lifetime time limit for all types of non-disability type welfare (ub, dpb, sb). Something like five years.
And … get after those dead beat Dads.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
“And how about some cost imposed on the father of the child. It’s all very well to punish the mother who is bringing up the children but what about the father’s who walks away.”
It’s called Child Support.
I’m not sure I’m willing to tar and entire bunch of (mainly) woman on DPB with a few anecodtal “the had babies to get welfare” stories.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:47 pm
The cost IS imposed on fathers, if the mother is claiming DPB the state collects the family support that is due. To be fair there needs to be some more rigor around closing the loopholes that some fathers use to lower their income, but if Stuff is to be believed (Always with a grain of salt
) the tax loopholes will be closed soon and hopefully that will extend to family support payments.
Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/personal-finance/3495511/English-signals-tax-crackdown#share
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Unfortunately the whole ‘average time on the dpb’ thing is bogus. If you get cancelled for some reason, ring up or go in and see your case worker and get the benefit reinstated, then your clock is reset. You can be on it for a decade but your ‘average’ may only be a year, 18 months or whatever.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Benefits should be treated as a loan. They could be paid back in the same way as Student Loans. This would help reinforce that a benefit is an emergency safely net, not a life style choice.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Jesus, this is weak stuff.
What does this really mean? Will it be like the obligation for people on the unemployment benefit to look for work? I.e. nothing more than an unenforceable requirement which is readily sidestepped by someone simply being useless (or having another baby, as has been noted above).
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:19 pm
democracymum (646) Says: @3:31 pm
Given that some women use the DPB as a meal ticket – what’s to stop them waiting until their oldest child turns
6 and then starting the process all over again?
Good point… thats Maori Party co-leader Tauriana dream of speeding up the browning of the nation.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
If one was to make such a provision re: no more funding of further babies once the youngest child is aged six or over, there should also be more provisions as to the well-being of the further children.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Believe you me that people at the bottom of the heap who are not employed are either suffering from a form of illness or carrying a disease like obesity and diabetes. That doesn’t stop them from seeking work, but guess what, employers will not employ them.
Now tell me Ms Bennett that this policy is not is pushing some people over the edge.
Sanction employers instead to give everyone a chance, and stop being bloody racists!
Yeah you heard me, stop being bloody racist!
[DPF: This must win the hysterical prize. If someone has spent years on a benefit, it is the fault of racist employers]
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
The DPB proposal will be counter productive and an incentive for solos to reproduce. Lindsay Mitchell on ZB today mentioned that a solo with two kids at present receives more than a full time worker on the minimum wage, and she hasn’t got the expenses of going to work.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
“..Part-time work obligations for DPB recipients whose youngest child is aged six or over (to be referred to as the Phil U clause)..”
really..?
while we’re on the bill/clause subject/personal attacks….
..i’d like to introduce an anti-obesity/troughing bill..
i’d call it the david farrar bill..
(this would both ban over-eating/greed..
and all companies earning more than 25% of their income from taxpayer funds..
to be subject to rolling audits/total public transparency..
how would you like them berries..?..mr farrar..?..eh..?
eh..?
that’s a fucken good idea..!..isn’t it..?
but hey..!..what’s new..?
big tax cuts for the richest..whilst kicking the crap out of/demonising the poorest..
they are fucken scumbag tories..!
what else did you fucken mugs expect..when you voted for them..?
eh..?
welcome back to the nineties..!..plus mining..!
whoop-de-doo..!
eh..?
bring on the fucken bulldozers..!..eh..?
if we have to fight that battle again..we will..
one-term-key…eh..?
i reckon the ak super-city shit-fight..and mining the coromandal/gt barrier..
..should just about see that confirmed..eh..?
btw..happy to do 15 hr wk a week..as wd many others in my position..
whaddayagot..?
(will they still claw-back 85 cents on the dollar..?..after tax..?.
..probably..eh..?…)
ah well..i guess the question:..’could they be worse than labour..?..has been answered..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
“..For Labour the big concern appears to be making welfare entitlements as generous as possible,..”
outright..fucken lie..
but hey..!..yr a fucken tory eh..?
you can”t fccken lie straight in bed..
labour did not raise benefits..in nine years..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Wow…Phool is in a mad panic at the prospect of working for a living.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Working for Families? KiwiSaver? National Super is indexed. Did DPB, sickness and unemployment not go up at all in nine years?
I think the intentions of this are ok, but if there aren’t enough jobs it could just add to administration.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
“Now tell me Ms Bennett that this policy is not is pushing some people over the edge”
Thats the plan.. get beneficiaries to the edge.. so they can jump of …. the benefit.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
mmm!!..the anti-troughing bill..
..transparancy/rolling audits for those feeding fulltime at the trough….
the idea has merit..!
eh..?
do i smell a private members bill..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Welfare culture is now deeply ingrained in the Western psyche. So much so that the 3rd world is on the move to benefit from it.
Just look at western Europe and human rights legislation there that prevents any change ,that is our future.
These changes will do nothing. Earlier on another post some one was praising Cullen and our unprecedented period of wealth etc etc,well during the boom how many bludgers were moved from unemployment to sickness? It’s all a game.
Free education till 18 we have here,and yet there’s legions of no hopers out there who didn’t embrace the wealth spent on them as youngsters. They get that benefit as a right and what do they do with it? Hopeless. It starts young and just grows bigger and nastier.
Welfare was a safety net now it is a lifestyle choice ,not a smart one but a choice all the same.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
shit..pete george..for a (pretend) leftiie..you don’t know shit..!..eh..?
working for families..was not for sole parents..!..got that..?
they passed on the inflation-increases..
but did absolutely nothing to undo what shipley/richardson did..
i loath them only slightly less than i dislike you pricks..
greedy/shortsighted scumbags..
all of ya..!
who get a kick..out of kicking the worst off/poorest..
you truly are vile pieces of shit..aren’t you..
and i hope every fucken one of you..has a drastic change of fortune..
(as the coming crash will likely deal you..)
you deserve nothing better..
rot in fucken hell..!..all of ya..!
(and..’have a nice day!’..eh..?
and..spend some time contemplating what the future will deal you up..eh../
and if you think i am ‘wrong’..in that prediction..?
i wan’t wrong’ about the 08 crash..(the crash..part one..)
eh..?
think on..!..morons..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Hey philu,
.and all companies earning more than 25% of their income from taxpayer funds..
Vs you on 100%.
At least David is providing a service for his income – what are you providing? Other than sweet fuck all?
Get a fucken job looser.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:05 pm
***mpledger (43) Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Or maybe there will be a lot of families with kids 5 years apart.***
Few people would consciously do this, but they’ll lack the control to avoid getting pregnant so will just stay on welfare. This is why you need a contraception requirement for ongoing receipt of DPB.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
farrar does ‘surveys’..p.r..
wtf use is that..?
he sits there like a fucken incubus on the body politic….
got a grand total for what you have managed to suck from the trough..?..farrar..?
eh..?
it’d be a fucken tidy sum..eh..?
and..exactly how have your ‘surveys’ benefited the nation..?..eh..?
nah..!..transparancy coming up for you..boyo..!
think on that one..eh..?..(a cold sweat forming there..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz..
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:10 pm
and hey bevan..i am raisinfg the generation that will look after you when you are an old fuck,,eh..?
or are you already there..?
like most here..?
phil(whooar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:10 pm
You said “labour did not raise benefits..in nine years..” Phil, so I was querying that. Some people benefit out of WFF. In your post you didn’t specify only sole parents.
And now you say they did raise benefits with inflation anyway.
Unemployment and sickness and DPD are supposed to be backstop assistance benefits, not an entitlement to a certain quality of life for as long as you want it.
I don’t mind people getting taxpayer funded assistance when they really need it, but I like many others are sick of people just taking it when they want it – and then expect more.
Not if they use taxpayer money for a lifestyle rather than earning wages and paying tax.
Vote:Multi generation benefit lifestylers are a major burden.
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:11 pm
farrar does ’surveys’..p.r..
wtf use is that..?
Obviously there is a need, as someone is willing to pay him for it.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:16 pm
and hey bevan..i am raisinfg the generation that will look after you when you are an old fuck,,eh..?
Not yet, I’m 30, and I’m raising my own kids – unlike you my wife and I manage to do that while holding full time employment as well.
Also on our modest incomes, we are still managing to save a deposit for a house, pay rental accomodation, feed/clothe and educate our kids as well as put a little aside for our eventual retirements. I dont need your kids for nothing – and with the example you are setting them, they are likely to be welfare recipients anyway.
Forgot to add the daycare charges we have to make as well..
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:23 pm
“..For Labour the big concern appears to be making welfare entitlements as generous as possible,..”
“outright..fucken lie..
but hey..!..yr a fucken tory eh..?”
The statements don’t follow. Opposition to Labour with negative, from Scott’s perspective, generalisations which may or may not be backed up by the facts do not mean that one is a Tory. I know you have only implied it, but the correlation is not implied by the statement that was made (given the particular meanings of “Tory” in a political sense even if Scott were a National, ACT – or whatever, really – party supporter).
“big tax cuts for the richest..whilst kicking the crap out of/demonising the poorest..”
I’m assuming this is a response to the welfare reform announcement.
” 1. Part-time work obligations for DPB recipients whose youngest child is aged six or over (to be referred to as the Phil U clause)
2. Part-time work obligations for people on a Sickness Benefit who have been assessed as being able to work part time
3. More graduated sanctions for people who don’t comply with their work obligations such as a reduction in benefit rather than just cancellation
4. An increase in the amount that people on the DPB and Invalids Benefit can earn each week, without affecting their benefit, from $80 to $100
5. Change the rules around the Unemployment Benefit so it can only be granted for a 12-month period, and then one has to reapply and undergo a comprehensive work assessment
6. More frequent reassessment for people on the Sickness Benefit”
These are all fairly moderate. First clause: if your child is at school, as most who are six or over are, then you have greater ability to work part-time if you can find the work, so why not? Second clause: if you have been assessed as being able to work part time, you have the ability to work part-time, so why not try and work part-time? It will decrease your burden on others and maybe even give you a sense that you’re doing something for yourself. Third clause: graduated sanctions sounds less harsh and devastating than just a straight loss of the benefit. Fourth clause: will probably make a lot of people on the benefit quite happy, if they are inclined to work already, as they have more funds. Fifth clause: reapplication and a work reassessment after twelve months. Well, it’s a bit of a bitch doing the paperwork, but it doesn’t say payments will be cancelled automatically if you’ve been on the benefit for twelve months. Sixth clause: if people are unable to work because they are too sick, then yes, it may be an inconvenience, but it is targeted to stop those who may be abusing the system by not working when they could.
I don’t see it, so would you care to explain how the poorest have been demonised or had the crap kicked out of them by these? Ignore the comments that have been posted here. They’re not relevant to my question.
Have the actual figures for the tax reforms been announced yet? I can’t remember. I remember seeing suggested figures but not actual.
“one-term-key…eh..?”
The signs don’t indicate that as yet. An effective alternative could have potential, but at present Labour are not. And remember the eighties, Labour had two terms there. Despite your disdain for the nineties (as indicated by “welcome back to the nineties..!”), National had three terms there.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:26 pm
hey shit bevannthirty..eh..married..?..right ho..!
so..in yr smug/arrogant little world..nothing bad will happen..?..eh..?
shit..Bevan..!..imagine if something did happen..eh..
and you were left to raise yr children..on yr own..
d’ya reckon you’d be quite so smug/arrogant..?
and so dismissive of those doing just that..?
good luck with that assumptuion/prediction for yrself….eh..?
just know..that shit you can’t imagine now..cd likely happen..
and put you amongst those you sneer at..
gee..!..that wd puncture yr smug/arrogant balloon..wouldn’t it..?
good luck in the crash..(pt 2)..eh..?
let’s hope it all holds together for you..eh..?
stupid fucken twat..!
yr ignorance/arrogance is as wide as it is deep..eh..?
(and ‘working class’..are you..?..and voting/supporting tories..?
(‘aspirational’….is it..?..
actually..it’s a benchmark for the braindead..eh..?)
you’d like to be a rich/exploiting cunt too..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I never knew that you could watch somebody have a mental breakdown on line!.
It is scary just how much the prospect of working for a living scares the hell out of Phool.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I think the more relevant point is that today’s announcements add little to what is already the practice. It’s gesture politics, essentially. Bennett’s claim today that the measures will “break the cycle of welfare dependency” was meaningless tosh.
The problem is less the chronically workshy than a fairly obvious shortage of jobs, especially for the untrained and those coming back into the employment market. We don’t have 7% unemployment because people don’t want to work.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
i get up every mornin..early..and work on whoar..compiling the days’ news..
and just because i am calling you lot for the cunts you are..
..dosen’t mean i am having a ‘breakdown’…eh..?
but hey..!..you’d use any sneer..?
eh..?..you animal-abusing fucken hypocrite..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: 20 demerits for calling people cunts]
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
so..in yr smug/arrogant little world..nothing bad will happen..?..eh..?
shit..Bevan..!..imagine if something did happen..eh..
and you were left to raise yr children..on yr own..
d’ya reckon you’d be quite so smug/arrogant..?
and so dismissive of those doing just that..?
Phil, there are a million violins playing just for you.
Yes I can phil, I would be fine, but not arrogant. What can I say – some of us are just made from sterner stuff.
Many of us have had bad shit happen, not everyone gives up on life as a result. If something was to happen to my wife, then I would cry about it when the kids are asleep – what they would need is a strong parent who can provide for his kids – not some basket case thinking woe is me!
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:39 pm
heh ya shitbag whore…ya really got ya tits in a tangle havent ya eh ! eh !…start learnin to cut ya lunch dickhead..ya goin to have to work…heh…
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
and yes..!..i am me..using my name..(unlike you craven tosspots..)
and i wd say this to yr faces..anytime..
wanna public debate..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
1930 all over again
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
i get up every mornin..early..and work on whoar..compiling the days’ news..
Thats a hobby, not a job.
and just because i am calling you lot for the cunts you are..
What a terrible thing to say phil – do you kiss your children with that mouth?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:44 pm
“We don’t have 7% unemployment because people don’t want to work.”
There will be a range of reasons (noting of course that many of those receiving benefits dont count as “unemployed”). State mandated minimum wages will prevent those who want to work but lack marketable skills getting jobs; the indolent who dont want to work; those between jobs (the short term unemployed) and so on. I would no more claim that all unemployed we useless layabouts then I would accept an assertion that all unemployed are somehow victims of forces beyond their control.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
oh..!..would you bevan..?
you’d be a regular rock in a storm..? ..eh..?
right ho..!..carry on..!
when exactly does smug/arrogant/self-belief slip over into delusion..eh..?
you could be a case-study..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
***I think the more relevant point is that today’s announcements add little to what is already the practice. It’s gesture politics, essentially. Bennett’s claim today that the measures will “break the cycle of welfare dependency” was meaningless tosh.
The problem is less the chronically workshy than a fairly obvious shortage of jobs, especially for the untrained and those coming back into the employment market. We don’t have 7% unemployment because people don’t want to work.
***
And that will worsen as low skill jobs are outsourced or replaced by improved technology. So the need to lower the number of people being born into welfare is increasingly important. They will create an unsustainable underclass.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
hey..bevan..if you walk like a cunt..talk like a cunt..
i’ll call you a cunt..eh..?
(disclaimer:..i do like vaginas..eh..?..but i don’t like ‘cunts’..
talk the talk..and you’re it..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: And another 20 demerits. That word, when used against people, has always attracted demerits and you know this]
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Allow me to sneak past all of the usual “she said he said nonsense” and cut straight to the chase here:
As a moderate, I acknowledge and welcome the changes to NZ Welfare that National has decided to adopt. When we refer back to the origins of the Socialist Welfare Structure we need to acknowledge that its roots exist in what is known as a temporary assistance by the state in order to get back on track (in terms of unemployment). It often seems today that most administrations care little about this and care little about the need to address this, because as it stands people in this country (and many others) are bludging off the system and have little interest in seeking paid employment – knowing full well that the state will not “make” you work.
This mentality must change and these introduced proposals are a step in the right direction.
Sadly, the welfare state is a reality that we need to accept – it no longer exists in reflection of its origins: to provide temporary assistance in those of need. It now exists to serve a culture of bludgers, that most sociologists would argue becomes generational – generational welfare bludgers must be stopped.
It makes economic sense to do this immediately after an international recession: less money spent on welfare is more money spent in other sectors.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
“Bennett’s claim today that the measures will “break the cycle of welfare dependency” was meaningless tosh.”
Agree with that. There’d probably have to be a societal shift to break the cycle of welfare dependency, but both major parties are typically too concerned with giving token gestures to long-term problems than actually solving them. Not all that surprising, really, given the way the electoral cycle works and that potentially there’d have to be cross-party support for such long-term focused policies to work. And hey, we love our partisanship, and waiting until things are utterly fucked before trying to give more than a token gesture to sort it. Trying to sort it in the present would just be too hard, I guess.
“We don’t have 7% unemployment because people don’t want to work.”
Decent jobs are bloody hard to come by at the moment, that is true, and even less appealing jobs have quite a lot of demand for them, it seems, even if you’re qualified, or precisely because of that (it’s expected you’ll leave as soon as you can and you’re more likely to be able to leave if you’re qualified). Not a good time to be a recent graduate.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
oh..!..would you bevan..?
you’d be a regular rock in a storm..? ..eh..?
Would have to be, if my wife died – someone has to provide for the family – cant do that blubbering into a bong.
when exactly does smug/arrogant/self-belief slip over into delusion..eh..?
Probably when you start thinking you have a right to collect welfare for the rest of your life, while the rest of us work our butts off to provide for our familys, and your own!
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:54 pm
I do declare. If he keeps this up his feathers really will drop out. And then he will look like Gollum.
But he wins line of the day:
“i get up every mornin..early..and work on whoar..compiling the days’ news..”
Work! WORK!!!
qwardle awdle …. SCREEEECH … hoppity hop hop SCREEEECH!
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:54 pm
“..farrar does ’surveys’..p.r..
wtf use is that..?
Obviously there is a need, as someone is willing to pay him for it…”
yes..the taxpayers ‘pay him for it’.(haven’t you worked that out yet..?..)
he has been spectacularly successful in ‘working the trough’..
..and wd be a prime/first target for those rolling audits/public transparancy..
it’s a good idea..eh..?
keeping the bastards honest..i think it’s called..
thanks for confirming/underlining my point..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Phil Ure wouldnt work in an iron lung.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
philu said
Phil; when you’re getting your CV prepared, it might pay to get someone to proof-read your grammar and spelling. If I received a CV in the style you use, it would head straight to the shredder.
BTW – sorry to be pedantic but it’s “fucking”; not “fucken”
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:07 pm
and if you earn any more than $100..work and income claw back 85 cents in the dollar..
that’s fair..!..motivating..even..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Phool – now the mining industry is cranking up you could consider work there?
maybe be the canary in a coal mine?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:18 pm
What about the elephant in the room…Super…clearly the biggest welfare expense. Shall we lift age/reduce payments? Do really thorough means testing?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
“Phil; when you’re getting your CV prepared”
I’ll do a quick mini CV for phil right now if you don’t mind IV2.
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
* Got into opiate drugs.
* Assisted in the robbery a pharmacy.
* Spend most of adult life on some form of benefit.
PERSONAL:
Vote:* Enjoys smokin’ ganja.
* Enjoys daytime TV and general indolence.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
But absolutely overwhelmingly, it does serve people who need a temporary safety net. The very long-term unemployed are a tiny minority.
In the Dec 2008 Household Labour Force Survey the proportion of unemployed people who’d been unemployed for two years or more was a whole 1.3%. That’s more than doubled with the recession but it’s still a very small number. To say that the system “exists” to serve such bludgers is patently illogical.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“Phool – now the mining industry is cranking up you could consider work there?”
The meat industry could use a few good men too. To be fair to phil, a compassionate soul wouldn’t expect a vego like him to work on the kill floor, but I’m sure he could be suitable placed in the deboning room or packing hall.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Weak stuff from National. Something is better than nothing I guess… but I’d like to see a business case that doesn’t show $88m in cost for a $200m recovery over 10 years as noted by mattyroo at 3:33
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
philu said
Let me see if I’ve got this right. If you work, you get your wages (less tax), and 15% of your benefit. If I work, I get my salary (less tax). That doesn’t seem fair, does it?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
So, we have a point of difference.
Labour will see the unemployed, and throw money at them, then hope the problem goes away.
National see long term unemployed and engage with them to improve their prospects and lives.
So, who is the peoples party then??
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Lindsay Mitchell has a worthwhile commentary on the flaws in Paula Bennett’s plan. (Just bear in mind that she’s a libertarian and they do have a strong propensity to whinge.
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2010/03/benefit-reforms-arguably-worse-than.html
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Phool
I cannot believe that you have the bare faced cheek to come on here and champion the ‘poorest and most vulnerable’ given that many of them are actually working for a living.
The money you fucking steal from them every week could go along way to alleviating their poverty.
You are nothing but a parasite and a hypocrite.
I hope you are the first case that Paula Bennett and WINZ look into.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:41 pm
“and if you earn any more than $100..work and income claw back 85 cents in the dollar..
that’s fair..!..motivating..even..!..eh..?”
There it is, its that sense of absolute entitlement that pisses me off
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:43 pm
still got those basic comprehension issues..?
eh..?
you with the funny-name..(inventory2..snigger..!..)..?
and how is the vulture-capitalism business going..?
still making lots of money from the miseries of others..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:46 pm
@Inventory2: “philu said
and if you earn any more than $100..work and income claw back 85 cents in the dollar..
that’s fair..!..motivating..even..!..eh..?
Let me see if I’ve got this right. If you work, you get your wages (less tax), and 15% of your benefit. If I work, I get my salary (less tax). That doesn’t seem fair, does it?”
With this, Philu displays a bit of understanding of economic theory regarding motivation. There’s the problem with two effects here: you’re pretty much incentivised to either work to the $100 and stop, or to get a job. The hope is that people who can will get a job – the job incentive effect is stronger. As to whether it is, I don’t know. Probably for the short-term unemployed? (Of course, there are a whole bunch of other incentive effects going on.)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Decsent Jobs are hard to come by. Completely correct and one recalls not so many weeks ago about 3000 applicants turned up for a few jobs in a supermarket in Auckland. Tells the real story doesn’t it. Especially considering the we only really measure the unemployed the state pays and not those that are a party of a family where one remains working.
This in mostly bullshit from Key and whats her name. Its all be run out before by Shipley and Richardson. It didn’t wok then and it won’t work this time. Last time it was the straw that broke the camels back for many NZ businesses. Ah but most of you won’t know or are to dull to member that and its much easier to bag the unemployed like the youth of today who no employer can afford because this same socialist pair of twats insist that the youth must be paid adult rates.
This morning DPF you made a comment about feeling the despair over Cullen being given his new job. Well relate that despair to the thousands of people in SME’s that are struggling to remain viable while the govt fiddles, fails to engage on the job creation front,(except for a pathetic cycleway), and is busily screwing the crap out of the banks via the tax dept and Bollard such that the banks are now pushing business into a corner until business squeals hard enough that those in charge begin to realize they cannot win against the banks and actually need their cooperation to make NZ prosper.
Almost daily we have men knocking on our door looking for work, men skilled in engineering who have spent a lot of years contributing to NZ with their skills but the work is just not there.
Why, because companies just cannot get the money they need to expand and grow because English in his lack of wisdom has attacked those owning property i.e. the 80000 owners of sme’s who rely on their property for the collateral for their business overdrafts or the mortgage money that they use for their business. English is captured by Bollard who declares that all mortgage money is used for holidays and toys and that’s what’s made NZ broke. He cannot substantiate that in any way as the banks simply do not keep that statistic and won’t because ti would require then to declare the money use and then they would have to change their ratio’s to meet Basel 2 .
Until English and Key remove the uncertainty around the treatment of property the businesses will continue to lose confidence and once lost will take a long time to recover.
Vote:Its all incongruous really with jobs being shed daily and the Govt. stamping their little two shoes and telling the unemployed to get a job.
Better that the fingers pointing back were recognized for what they are.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:53 pm
**Russell Brown wrote:
..In the Dec 2008 Household Labour Force Survey the proportion of unemployed people who’d been unemployed for two years or more was a whole 1.3%.**
Does this include DPB figures? Also, I think there has been a significant shift sickness benefits in the last 10 or so years.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 pm
We live in a small to medium sized rural town, the nearest “city” is an easy 20-25 minute commute.
Just last week Mrs Bruv advertised for a part time receptionist, given that there are apparently many people out there desperate for work she thought that she would be inundated with applicants.
We imagined that there would be applicants from single parents as the hours on offer were ideal for those with young kids in tax payer funded child care or at school.
So far we have received a grand total of five applicants, not one of whom can follow basic instructions (i.e please reply in your own writing).
So when I hear that there are thousands and thousands of people ‘desperate’ to get off benefits I simply do not believe a word of it. There are plenty of jobs out there, all one has to do is fucking well look for them.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
I just read a report that said over the past three months 38% of people applying for unemployment benefits were deemed ineligible for assistance.
It seems that the 12 month re-assessment will become a default cut off point, this will create misery and crime.
The police will have to be armed.
Oh and dont credit Paula Bennet with these changes blame John Key.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Phool is in the midst of changing his benefit type from DPB to Sickness Benefit.
Vote:This explains the intended mental breakdown on Kiwiblog. Then he has evidence to show Paula.
Give it shit Phool, you have waited a long time for this ….. so have we ….. eh?
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:12 pm
go and watch close-up at tvoneondemand..
bennett does a classic interview..
where she dosen’t answer any of the questions she was asked..
even the one she was asked three times..
“3,000 people turned up for 100 jobs in a supermarket..
where are the jobs for these 120,000+ people you are targeting..?”..
and..this..(asked twice..)
“those with children whose benefits are cut..who will feed those children..?”
and this is the woman..who has slammed the poverty-trap even tighter on sole-parents..
by denying them the education support..that she herself received..
(what do you call that..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I switched off RIP just to see Phil’s rant. Fucking priceless! Phil, in case you’re wondering the WINZ office for Mt Albert is on New North Road.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Another bong soon, then start ringing up Radio Yackback
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Maybe Phool could bong plasticman Mr Key on the head&. Great, now the mob will be working at the supermarket,
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Everyone should switch off RIP, this is gonna be far better than watching TV
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
is that what you do..steve..?
and..do you get a certain frisson..from being called a cunt..?..holllywood..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Expect sideshowbob with a 12 gauge soon … hunting magpies
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
What do I do Phool?
Vote:I work
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Good. About time.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:22 pm
see steve..!..you silly rip-people..!
you miss this all the time..!
it must be eye-wateringly boring without me..eh..?
i’m the only mildly interesting thing on this site..
all else you’ve got..is just the dronings of these senile old knuckledraggers..
(i’m looking at you..!..smaller..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Phillip’s wailing is like listening to an animal dying. It knows it’s fucked and it knows its lifeline’s being pulled soon.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm
My word phool take a chill pill and then watch Kill Bill, oops I mean John.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Good flame war, the only one using the real bad words is you Whore
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm
great comeback there..steve..?
with a name like ‘steve’..are you a male hooker..?..or a stripper..?
‘here’s steve..!..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I have hooked a few things, some not that nice
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Lost concentration? go back half a page
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:28 pm
“Lost concentration?”
Poor phool is lost in space.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Only his own space D4J
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Here ya Phil, being a good cunt I’ve looked up the address for you.
WINZ
Vote:Shop 2 and 3
945a New North Road
Mt Albert
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:32 pm
See Phool, you just don’t get it.
Sainsbury can ask dumb questions about three thousand people turning up for jobs as much as he likes but the reality is that none of those three thousand people are the ones in the gun sights of Key and Bennett.
You can try and hide behind them as much as you like Phool, those people are decent Kiwis, they are the ones who are out there looking for a job, for you to try and blend in with them is a fucking insult of the highest order.
Our welfare system is designed for those type of decent Kiwis, the poor sods who through no fault of their own are on the dole, I do not mind my tax dollars going to help them along until they can find a job and Bennett has never said she is out to target them.
The people Bennett is after (and the ones tax payers like me hate with a passion) are the parasites like you, the scum of the earth who steal from hard working Kiwi families.
What you do not get Phool is that scum like you give decent Kiwis who are looking for work a bad name, these people are desperate for work and the last thing they need or want is vermin like you claiming to fight their cause.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Hear hear big bruv
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:35 pm
“it must be eye-wateringly boring without me..eh..?”
Oh I dunno about that Phool, there are enough examples of the ‘c’ word in this thread to see you banned for a very long time.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:37 pm
so..you really hate sole-parents there..eh..?
“..the scum of the earth..”..eh..?
y’know what i hate..?
animal-abusing/hypocritical ‘scum’ like you..eh..?
..and i just piss on what you ‘think’..eh..?
have a nice day..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Says who blouse?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:39 pm
“and if you earn any more than $100..work and income claw back 85 cents in the dollar..
that’s fair..!..motivating..even..!..eh..?”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all that’s left of phool’s work ethic, sense of common decency, personal responsibility, and desire to be useful human being, after years of welfare dependency. Jesus wept. Phool, get off the fucking dole before you start finding it too much effort to breathe.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:40 pm
That’s what he wants big bruv, online breakdown to prove he is unstable and shift to the Sickness Benefit.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Piss off D4J, the adults are talking.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Get stuffed blouse you insane cowardly creep.
Vote:Who the hell do you think you are?
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
gee put it away..are you terminally stupid/uncomprehending..?
you work..you earn more than $100..85 cents in every dollar..after tax..is taken away from you..
so..you are working for nothing…plus you have the travel/child-minding expenses..etc..
you would be happy under a regime/poverty-trap like that..?
would you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:44 pm
D4J
Vote:“Says who blouse?”
um Dad, DPF will decide the limit.
Save big bruv for another day
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Steve
The tragic thing about Phool is that in a few short years the bastard is eligible for national superannuation.
Just think, he will continue to steal from us (and real superannuatints’s who have contributed to the system) for many years to come.
There should be a way of stopping vermin like him from getting the pension, if you have not paid in you should not receive a thing.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Don’t agree with u often Bruv, but do on this one. Its the poor bugger who does whatever it takes to keep themselves and their family fed that gets screwed in recessions, not those who are the third generation in their family on welfare.
How do you break the cycle? not by paying them to have more kids, thats for sure. There are many ways of providing positive incentives to work, but mostly in comes down to developing self-respect IMO.
The only concern I have with changing the system of registering is whether WINZ are capable of administering the system. Some people are very good at covering their tracks.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Once again, the concept of earning some dignity and self respect sails right over phool’s head. He has genuinely forgotten what it means to be a useful and functional part of the adult world. Kids, just say no to welfare.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:49 pm
WINZ are quite capable of administering the system. You have to be known first, then the family, then the relatives …
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:51 pm
‘online breakdown’..?
you are mistaking me articulating my seething contempt for you all and all you stand/crawl for..for something else entirely..
eh..?
and the eyeblinding hypocrisy..
of farrar..that incubus on the body politic..
who has got ..continues to get(financially) fat on the taxpayers..
(‘recession..?..what recession..?..i wallow in gummint money..!..it’s guaranteed..!..no matter who is in power..!
watch me ‘work’ that seam…!)
watching him doing his witches of salem number..on sole-parents/the poorest..
does ratchet that ‘seething contempt’ up a few more notches..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Phool
“you are mistaking me articulating my seething contempt for you all ”
Harness that contempt, multiply it by a couple of thousand (at least) and you may have some idea of the way many of us feel about you and your sickening attempts to ingratiate yourself with real Kiwis who are desperately looking for a job.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
You’d be doing yourself better by using your anger to sharpen up your CV, Phillip.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:01 pm
i mean..you truly are vile people..!..eh..?
but you already know that..eh..?
(i mean you are fucken tories..eh..?..the party/ideology of me/greed..eh..?..the ‘nasties..’)
y’know..to have such hateful/loathsome attitudes towards the worst-off/children suffering in/from real poverty..
also usually indicates a high degree of self-loathing/insecurity..in the hater..eh..?
i know i should feel sorry for you all..wot with the seething hatreds/anger..
and no sense of humour to boot..!..eh..?..(that must hurt..!.)
i know it must be a fucken hard life for all/most of you..
but at times like this..when you hang it all out..
..i lose my usual charity towards you all..
..and just feel a visceral loathing..
..y’know..!..the skin-crawly-one..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:03 pm
He is not angry Hurf Durf. He is justifying the “Rich Pricks Owe Me” a living, or trying to. Not his fault that workers made money an he got nothing because he won’t work. Share your money with him, like fuck!
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:03 pm
I thought you were about to sell off Whore to a powerful American media conglomerate. You’re hardly worst-off if that happens.
Steve – Phillip will be claiming “no childcare” even when his son turns 40.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Phil – there’s no need for you to be poor. Any day, you could choose to get off your backside and find a job. The choice is yours; for the moment. Very soon, that choice is going to be taken out of your hands. And do you know what? It can’t come quickly enough.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“..i lose my usual charity towards you all..”
…and youre about to lose our charity too you parasite
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Americans should stop reading his daily blog, it is stuffing up the World.
Vote:whoar dot com, yeaaahhhh!!
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
“..are you a male hooker..?..or a stripper..?”
now dont count those out either Phool, it’s only 15 hours a week!
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I’ve found PhilU’s rants kinda entertaining over my years of lurking – but I don’t think I’ll seeing his contributions any more after this thread. I think his toy throwing has pretty much hit every DPF demerit button. See ya Phil – it’s been emotional.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Philu: you haven’t answered my question as to how these relatively moderate changes to the welfare system have demonised and kicked the crap out of, or will demonise and kick the crap out of, the poorest?
I ask this question seriously as I don’t see it.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:15 pm
“Knock, knock”
Vote:“Who’s there?”
“Whoar”
“Whoar who?”
“Wharfull time to be doing a drug bust”
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
starr..when i was a junkie..desperate-days..i offered my scrawny body to the australian pornography industry..
they said..’thank you..but no thank you..!’..
(understandable..really..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 pm
wot – not even in the sheep videos?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:23 pm
jive-kitty..
sorry..missed yr serious question..
answer:..this will likely do s.f.a..as far as the stated intentions are concerned..
reasons for that?:..
there are no jobs..
..there are no jobs..
there are no jobs..
and no end to that in sight..
it is all just window-dressing..
designed to pander to the minds/prejudices of the scum here who howl in support of bashing-beneficiaries..
and that is what i am reacting against..
the ‘scum’ here..and their vile attitudes..
as for welfare-reform..?
this does nothing..
it is just a chimera..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:24 pm
SEEK would like a word with you, Phillip.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:25 pm
right on cue should be johnboy, very knowledgible about sheep
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
aw fuck thats really pushin it now whore…offering your drug fucked body to the porno industry…thats funny , real funny..” Phil Homes…
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Stop telling lies Phool.
The only reform most of us want to see is an end to scum like you stealing from hard working Kiwis and an end to intergenerational welfare bludgers (I suspect you may well be raising one of them)
As I said before, for you to try and lump yourself in with those who are desperately seeking work is despicable and just proves once again what a piece of human waste you really are.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
“there are no jobs?”
Vote:who takes your rubbish out for collection? That’s a job, except we pay you to do that Phool.
Get off your arse and work
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 pm
there are no jobs..
..there are no jobs..
there are no jobs..
You mistake me (and many others I suspect) for people who give a fuck if the likes of you cannot find work and end up with no benefit.
You can sleep in the street as far as I am concerned Phool, the money you steal from me every week can be divided up among the real Kiwis who are looking for work.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
ah big bruv..getting desperate..eh..?
have to have a go at my boy..
you sad fuck..
that sorta fits with the animal abusing piece of scum you are..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 pm
any other benificiaries around..?
up for taking the punches for a few rounds..?
no..?
ok..i’ll carry on then..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Not having a go at him Phool, I do not believe in attacking peoples kids.
However, I do worry about the atrocious example you are setting for him, no doubt he already sees it as the states job to provide him with a living and accommodation.
I hope I am wrong, I hope he can make up for the way you have abused your fellow Kiwis and be a valuable member of our society.
The poor kid is sure starting with one hell of a handicap though.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
if / when people die from lack of support I think the majority of folk in this community will say they deserved it and brought it upon themselves.
For your sakes I hope none of you need social support because it will kill you if you take it and you will die without it.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Have a go at my boy?
Vote:A boy that is almost able to get a Driver’s License?
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“any other benificiaries around..?
up for taking the punches for a few rounds..?”
Why do you keep trying to claim you are a victim Phool?
You are bludging because you cannot be bothered working (your words not mine)
If I was on a benefit I would be the first one to tell you to STFU and go away.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“The poor kid is sure starting with one hell of a handicap though.”
Who says blouse? Do you know the young fella Mr Tuff Guy!
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:41 pm
“..Why do you keep trying to claim you are a victim Phool?..”
where have i said that..?
and..btw..is this a conversation about the welfare ‘reform’ policy..?
or is it about me..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:47 pm
i am arguing for fair and equitable treatment for the poorest/worst-off in society..
(nothing more..nothing less)
this is what the ‘happiest’ countries do..
look after all their citizens..irrespective of circumstances..
but selfish/greedy rightwing scum can’t see that..
that’s likely ‘cos they are ‘selfish/greedy rightwing scum’..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
“i am arguing for fair and equitable treatment for the poorest/worst-off in society”
And that is what they already get in New Zealand.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
It’s both Phil. You come on here as a poster child for the Welfare State, so don’t moan when those of us who work or who have invested in our own businesses have a go at you.
If I lived in Auckland, I’d offer to change places with you for a week. You could come and do my job – minimum of 60 hours for the week, probably more. I could have your lifestyle for a week. I’d guarantee one thing; the standard of grammar on whoar.co.nz would improve.
No, on second thoughts, I’d rather not have you anywhere near my business ….
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
D4J: You start with a quote that answers your question:
““The poor kid is sure starting with one hell of a handicap though.”
Who says blouse?”
Big Bruv says so. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know, but you didn’t ask for justification for the statement.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
“..No, on second thoughts, I’d rather not have you anywhere near my business …”
precisely..’cos i wd expose the vulture-capitalism you profit from..
..eh..?
couldn’t have that..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I did some research a while back about the impact of DPB on welfare rates. If the previous welfare payments for unwed mothers existed today, on a population basis, there would only be 30,000 women on the benefit. Currently there are around 70,000 (100,000) more on the DPB (population wise) than was the case in 1973.
That extra 70,000 has cost the taxpayer around $2bn a year. That $2bn a year could have been spent on infrastructure, reduced balance of payments, reduced borrowing, better education, more healthcare and other more essential services by successive governments. Universal entitlement to welfare has been a blight on this country and held it back economically since the failed socialist experiment of the Kirk government.
As a small nation at the arse end of the planet, we simply can’t afford to pay out so much to so many who do so little. It’s simple and if National was to research the numbers properly and do the sums on what welfare costs us, they would have no trouble selling welfare reform to those of us who haven’t already left the country.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Ah philu, that phone call is getting closer…
And not before time, either.
Vote:Let this be a lesson to you in karma, all those years of leeching off your countrymen is coming back to get you.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:02 pm
“Big Bruv says so.”
Haha that was my point, that wacko blouse is a angry and twisted twit. At least phool doesn’t hide his identity.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
@Philu: “jive-kitty..
sorry..missed yr serious question..
answer:..this will likely do s.f.a..as far as the stated intentions are concerned..
reasons for that?:..
there are no jobs..
..there are no jobs..
there are no jobs..
and no end to that in sight..
it is all just window-dressing..
designed to pander to the minds/prejudices of the scum here who howl in support of bashing-beneficiaries..
and that is what i am reacting against..
the ’scum’ here..and their vile attitudes..
as for welfare-reform..?
this does nothing..
it is just a chimera..”
I agree that it will do little to solve the major problems (benefit dependency, job creation, etc), but I don’t see how it’s going to make things worse for the poorest people (unless the clauses re: part-time work are “you have to get it”, rather than “you have to look for it and if you find something fitting around your child’s care, take it”). They seem to me to be very moderate yet fairly sensible changes although some of them may have problems in implementation, primarily the clauses around sickness beneficiaries (depending on the level of fraud in this area, it may or may not be worth making these marginal changes: it’s more likely there’ll be fraud in non-sickness areas, I would’ve thought, because it’d be harder to get on the sickness benefit fraudulently, so I can see cost-saving reasons for having more deterrents in place against non-sickness benefit fraud).
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Anyone going to Offer Phill a Job?
Vote:If you are interested Phill you can earn some good money cleaning apartments, 1k a week if you put your back into it, i can see if there is any vacancy’s for you.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:06 pm
D4J sitting in Phool’s corner, who would have thunk it?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Haha blouse I detest you more than Satan himself. Got NO TIME for blowhard cowards.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 pm
D4J
What is your problem?
You come here and start abusing me for no reason at all, I had not commented on any of your ‘contributions’ yet for some reason known only to yourself you feel the need to bash out one of your abusive rants?
Now, I cannot claim that they bother me as I see them as nothing more than the ravings of a man with huge anger issues, however, before you bash out another abuse filled reply can you answer these two questions.
1. Should dad’s be forced to pay child maintenance when they are denied access to their kids by the courts or do you support these dead beats leaving it to the rest of us to cough up just because they have had a fall out with the ex Mrs.
2. Is it not better for the kids to have their parents deal with their ‘issues’ in a mature way rather than let it develop into a spiteful battle where the kids are used as nothing more than a way of getting back at your ex partner?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Haha I do not have anger issues you deranged cowardly creep. Come on blouse front up for a coffee and chat. You can talk with my four children. My twin sons would love a wee chat with Mr Internet Tuff Guy.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:18 pm
“Haha I do not have anger issues you deranged cowardly creep.”
Really?…despite a mountain of evidence that would suggest otherwise?.
Oh well, I will take your word for it D4J.
Now, how about giving me an answer to those two questions?
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
BB your 7.32pm was spot on.
Just read this thread fully, I have to say watching the parasite have a full on meltdown is quite amusing.
Vote:Better dust off that CV phil
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Your “mountain of evidence” can be explained at a face to face meeting. Come on Tuff Guy. What’s your real name. You are the most twisted blogger on this site. Your negative attitude is both repulsive and vile.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
phil u
Posted June 11, 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/
He’s a beautifull human being
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 pm
‘i am arguing for fair and equitable treatment for the poorest/worst-off in society..
(nothing more..nothing less) this is what the ‘happiest’ countries do..”
ummm you’ll find thats what we are all after. Its just you definition of fair and equitable is you sticking your hand in my fucken wallet at will!
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:30 pm
You guys are well ahead of yourselves if you think these ‘radical reforms’ will see DBP bludgers like Philu out working. What is Paula going to do with people like Philu who are unemployable or make themselves unemployable by their attitude? Nothing. There will be an obligation to look for work, but no recourse for those who do not.
This is all hollow rhetoric. Now if Paula had said that the DBP will cease after the youngest child is 6 and you will be ineligible for any other state assistance until you’ve had 5 years without any state assistance. Then that would be worth talking about.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:44 pm
“I heard Key say on TV tonight.. its the Hard working man going to work and paying his taxes is whats paying for those on welfare.”Make’s for a good sound bite for TV and he makes a good point…. But I can’t help but think it’s also the 250 million the government is borrowing each week.. Hitting or cutting welfare.. always has a down flow cost.. of more crime therefore more police and so on.. I can’t help but feel for old people living on their own.. with a lot more desperate scum roaming the streets looking for easy pickings… because they don’t work or have income… The 65.000 beneficiaries looking for part time work alone will be a problem… without the hundreds of thousands still on full time benefits looking for full time jobs.. and where are the prisons to hold the fall out of crime.. that is coursed from the down flow effects of most of them not finding work. Someone has not thought this through… or maybe the plan is to have everyone looking for a job working in the new DoC land mines the government hopes to pull the country out of the shit with.. either way good luck.. what so often sounds good .. in reality is a disaster.. I’m of to get my gun licence renewed tomorrow.. no desperado phil type is going to steel from my vegie patch or mess with my house and property.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 pm
No point changing the DPB rules if no restrictions are put in place.
I have no issue with people going on the DPB for good reason, but if you have any additional kids while on it
- you don’t get paid any extra for them
- they don’t count towards being your youngest child under the proposed work or train programme when the youngest reaches school
Any other changes are useless unless the above is also adopted.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
@Southern Raider: you then need further policies as to maintaining the welfare of extra children who’ve been had by DPB parents as there is a strong likelihood they will slip through the cracks. (I’m not holding illusions about child welfare agencies being particularly effective at this point in time, and I’m not sure as to the likelihood that other people pick up on the majority of parents failing children, and even if they do, do something about it. Extended families haven’t exactly been reliable for sorting problems – see Nia Glassie and numerous others.)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
i had better not get hungry around r.k.bee..
‘cos he would rather shoot..than feed me..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 pm
“Part-time work obligations for DPB recipients whose youngest child is aged six or over. ”
Vote:This would suggest there will be a bady boom three months from September.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
listen..rk bee..you silly posturing little person..
if you shoot someone for knicking yr vegetables..
you’ll do time for murder..
as i said..
“..you silly posturing little person..”
go and oil yr barrel..
and give it a good stroke..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 10:23 pm
firstly 2/3 of the welfare budget goes on super & is only ever going to increase.
Vote:secondly your average beneficary is not going to get rich
yes bludgers piss me of, how the fuck do you get a sickness benefit for being an addict? necessity would dictate that to be an addict and unable to operate as a human being your daily habit (p for eg) would cost more than you could ever expect to get from a weekly benefit. Therefore any benefit an addict gets is only supplementry income & they shouldn’t get a dime.
Also on this site “how to earn 100k but only pay 10k tax” this pisses me almost as much as the addict, the difference being that as a middle income earner I one day aspire to be in the position to only pay 10% tax as opposed to being beneficary recieving fuck all.
And that to my mind that is why we as the middle class pick on the poor beneficary as opposed to the rich pricks(not saying a 100k makes you rich) because one day we want to be rich pricks ourselves
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:32 pm
In my defence.. I truely believed I was saving man kind.. Your Honor.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
ps I see little difference on the surface between phil & whale, 2 over inflated egos contributing sweet f.a. to society except to leech of a different tit.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 10:36 pm
I loathe the phrase “rich prick”. As if there’s something wrong with being rich in and of itself. But yeah, edhunter, Super needs to change.
And for those, or the person(?), who mentioned drug dealers on benefits, maybe some of the less harmful drugs could do with legalising. Then we could tax their profits, stop their benefits and regulate the trade in certain substances which are currently illicit (pending cost-benefit analyses for society, of course).
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Hmmmm….Part-time work obligations for DPB recipients and potential new mines opening across the country. Yes. I see the plan now. Excellent.
No seriously, Labour sat around in govt allowing people to sit on benefits for 4 years and longer without making the effort to get them off the benefit. Basically just left them there to rot. Good on National for giving a damn and taking some action even if its at first unpopular.
Vote:Allowing more graduated sanctions for people who don’t comply with their work obligations such as a reduction in benefit rather than just cancellation is far more realistic and practical than simply temporarily cancelling benefits.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 pm
it’s a slippery slope when you start trying to tax a once illicit commodity, always thought it should be decriminalised as opposed to legalise. But would be interested in learning what the tax gathered from the oldest profession has been since it was legalised.
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 10:54 pm
You’re onto it, Richard. Now I know why Coromandel and Barrier were specifically mentioned. Two of our greatest Meccas for the unemployed. It’s a brilliant jobs creation scheme funded by the mining industry at the behest of the Gummint.
The brilliance of John Key knows no bounds.
hattip: Keywiblog
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Totally agee Richard… but its hard to be serious when you have rot like Phil on the Blog…
Vote:March 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
You’re not six years old, Phillip. You can feed yourself.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 2:12 am
The fact we werent doing all these things already is kind of an epic fail.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 7:58 am
Just a couple of opinions regarding medical reviews for sickness benefit -
1. A person’s primary doctor has a duty of care to that person, and a duty to believe what they say – this conflicts with any state policing role. To over-ride that, a doctor’s services need to be engaged directly by the outside agency, and the patient informed that during any review by that doctor, the doctor is acting for WINZ and not for the patient.
2. Independent medical reviews should not be done by doctors who take underpaid state work because they can’t generate a decent income any other way. State agencies/ACC also tend to prefer to use doctors who decline cover for patients, whether the illness is genuine or not. And unfortunately, a spot of social prejudice can come into assessment sometimes – brown people or those with tats might not get the impartial hearing that another person would.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 8:13 am
This just in from phool Waaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Off your ass drug boy, start looking for a job.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 8:54 am
I don’t know why this tweak to policies should worry any beneficiary with any sort of self and social responsibility. It doesn’t force anyone who wants to do as much as they can for themselves (and kids if applicable) off a benefit. Those with a reasonable attitude should be no worse off and potentially they will be better off.
I realise there is more of a shortage of jobs than there has been, but that is no reason to delay moves like this – in fact doing it now makes sense – as more jobs (hopefully) become available it is an advantage having people willing and ready to take them on.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 9:00 am
“I don’t know why this tweak to policies should worry any beneficiary with any sort of self and social responsibility.”
That why phool is spitting tacks Pete. His sense of entitlement is so highly developed that he should be able to live off otehrs indefinately without being questioned. Look at his first reation, attack fat people. WTF is that all about?
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 9:11 am
I’m a big believer in raising the age of entitlement for the DPB and unemployment benefits. I’m not sure what it is at the moment (?16) but I think it should be 21 or something – and the responsibility of supporting the mother/child/unemployed be that of the family. Why should the state be paying accommodation allowances when there is a bedroom at home with the parents? Isn’t it better socially for a young mother to have her own mother’s support on hand?
Vote:Some families just don’t take enough responsibilty for their individual members, fobbing that responsibility onto the state instead.
There is an internal familial pressure that obligates members to take responsibility – for the child’s care, for seeking employment, for helping around home, etc, and this same pressure does not exist when the state provides handouts – some people think they are ‘entitled’ instead.
Delaying the age where teenagers can receive welfare will help to stop them getting into the welfare trap in the first place, and they will be more likely to pursue a working lifestyle.
There will be a few dysfunctional families where this won’t work, but for most families it would be a much better option. I mean – isn’t that what families are for?
March 24th, 2010 at 9:11 am
He spat the dummy, tacks, and just about everything else.
This has RB type ironies. If income earners/taxpayers have a drastic change of fortune and crash, who will pay his benefit then?
Vote:Most people don’t want to kick the worst off/poorest, they want to give the laziest/bludgingest/entitlest a good kick up the metaphorical bum.
March 24th, 2010 at 9:12 am
William Blake
For your sakes I hope none of you need social support because it will kill you if you take it and you will die without it.
Stop being disingenuous and dishonest, you know perfectly well the problem isn’t people who NEED social support, they will still get it. The problem is people who WANT support because they prefer not to work when work is available. And if any of us honest taxpayers who have been contributing to the system all these years ever genuinely find ourselves in a situation through no fault of our own where we NEED social support ( unlikely, since most of us are taking some thought to our future, and not just smoking up every dollar we get) , we will would be perfectly morally justified in getting back some of our contribution.
I’ve re-framed your question honestly for you:
“For your sakes I hope none of you turn into lazy no-hopers who believe the state should support those who choose not to work, and get upset that the state requires you to make some honest effort to look for work before you get any tax money from the people who believe it is their responsibility to pay their own way in life.”
Thanks William, your concern has been noted.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 9:14 am
pete george..
the rightwinger in denial of being a rightwinger..
meh..!
(why do you think muzza ‘likes you’..eh..?..)
stop pretending pete..
just embrace yr dark-side..eh..?
the suspense is killing us..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 9:28 am
What are you going on about Phil? This has nothing to do do with right/left. Rorts of “the system” happen all over the spectrum, from benefit abuse to tax avoidance to criminal theft to finance company scams to “professionals” who promote and enable the diddling of fellow citizens.
In this country there is a widespread attitude of “get away with what you can and fuck everyone else”. Younger generations are talked about as super selfish, well, they learnt if from somewhere. If the time and effort spent on fiddling “the system” was spent on being productive this country could be a hell of a lot better off.
And it could afford to pay those who really deserve the social welfare safety net better.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Given the number of times I’ve shit all over Pete you claims of my liking him seem a little far fetched. Like everything else out your tax payer funded mouth.
Embrace the work ethic phool. Free loading is free loading and time is up. You don’t like you can go anywhere else in the world where they’ll let people smonge off the tax payer for life. Try Obamaland, he just pissed away three trillion dollars so he might be able to fit you in.
Stupid little left winger tosser.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Welfare dependance is no different from chemical dependance in that before an addict can be successfully treated, they must first admit that they have a problem.
As evidence I cite this post and phil’s shrieking defence of his situation and his absolute and inalienable right to receive welfare.
He obviously does not recognise in himself, the symptoms and attributes of the true addict (albeit to something quite different from earlier in his life) and will continue to defend, attack those who really have his best interests at heart, obfuscate and dissemble and will go down screaming when his life support is cut-off.
sad really
close file
extract from the patient file notes of:
Vote:Dr David
March 24th, 2010 at 10:22 am
i’m not just talking about yr attitudes here..
to any reader of yr comments..taken as a whole..
it’s been apparant for quite some time..that you are a closet-rightie..
posing/pretending..to be a centreist..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Cowardice is not honour.
Those afraid refuse to see what it is they fear because they use another battlefield by which to kill an alleged opposition. The posts here are riddled with bullet holes of blame and superiority from an economy that is being treated in this regard simply because it is in a state of collapse. Capitalism in its purity cannot withstand the nature of truth – just the same as is suffered through socialism or communism or any other prism of ism…
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 10:52 am
At least it’s good to see you have retained your sense of humour.
I don’t pose or pretend to be anything. I call things as I see them. I don’t bother to pause first and wonder if it will fit any label I’ve been given by someone who disagrees with me.
I think you’ll find there are lot of people on the right, on the left, and in the centre, who have had a gutsful of people who choose to sit on a taxpayer funded lifestyle – and they have had more of a gutsful of those who claim it as a right.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am
@ Pete George
If you call things as you see them, then what happens to the society you would protect if you are blind to those things you do not want to see?
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Sounds like a grand statement of little significance PB.
I don’t see myself as a protector of “the society”, although I try and do my bit to help make a better society.
Vote:If I don’t want to see something I must be aware of it so can’t be “blind” to it.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
You say ‘lifestyle’ and then you say ‘claim it as a right’. What do you see then as the alternative arguments coming from those you conclude occupy this status of their function?
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Any person on DPB, unemployment and Sickness should always be looking at what it would take to become self supporting and strive as much as possible to achieve that. They will be better for it, taxpayers will be better for it, and the country will be better for it.
I think you and Phil are guilty of the same thing, you have both thought that it is ok to get ongoing taxpayer assistance and try to justify it by claiming you are doing work of value. What if everyone jacks up their own “work of value” and claims a wage off the taxpayers? No one will have anything of value.
Many New Zealanders earn enough to support themselves and their families and still have time to contribute unpaid “work of value”. In those cases it is of nett value, not gross deceit.
Vote:March 24th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I am not certain about Phil’s purpose or achievement but I am certain about mine. Paula Bennett, I presume under cabinet instruction, has excused the information I bring to parliament and over the three year period. This information at minimum for a responsive government would demand an investigation into the allegations against the judiciary. Unfortunately their role has been to protect an executive acting outside constitutional requirement and this action has been supported by a bureaucracy surrounding. What I am stating is it is time for change and no longer can the nation’s administrators pretend that they are not living in fiction.
However, the point I make to you now, now that I put something before you to see and you seem capable of seeing it, what will you do with it – will you begin to argue that there is no such thing as a whistle or any requirement for it to be blown – or would you argue that you only want to hear the kind of whistle that is sensitive on your ears?
Vote:March 26th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Wow this is outstanding! You are all showing what wonderfully educated articulate and humane people you are. I suggest you all take a look at the real welfare numbers rather than just reacting to National nonsense and urban myth.
I was once a single mother and for a time I needed the assistance of the dpb. Like the majority of single mothers I found myself alone with a 2yr old when my sons father left me. I have never ever met a single mother who deliberately got her self pregnant just to go on the dpb. This would be foolish and clearly would show that our schooling system does not work because clearly she would not be able to add. The cost of raising a child is high and certainly not covered by dpb payments.
Whilst on the benefit I received $220.00pw this includes family support which all low income families receive. I also received a housing allowance of $55pw which all low income families can receive. With a total of $275 pw I had to pay my rent $150pw feed my son and myself $80 (think about how much you spend on groceries) pay for phone and electricity $40pw pay for clothing, school fees, school trips, school books, bus fare, shoes and the list goes on I think if you can add you can see quickly that this doesn’t add up. There isn’t enough money to pay for these things! And you don’t get another similar amount if you have another child it only goes up a little.
Now I tried for a long time to get a job, most job descriptions state “must be available in school holidays”, thats code for single mothers need not apply. But lets say I do get a job and then what does happen during school holidays, then I have to pay for care at on average $5.50 per hour. So I’m in a minimum wage job earning for arguments sake $12.50 per hour I can’t remember what it was then about $10 I think. I earn $12 per hour I lose most of that to tax because the job is taxed as a secondary job (the benefit is my first job – yes thats how the govt class it) so now I have about $9 per hour then I lose $1 in every 10gross dollars from my benefit so now I’m working for $8 per hour and then I pay $5.50 per hour in child care so now I’m earning $2.50 per hour. Would you put your child into care so that you can earn a whopping $2.50 per hour? I did, do you know why? Because when your on a benefit that extra $20 a week can be the difference between eating and not eating.
It’s ultimately futile thought because you aren’t really bettering your situation and then you have no time to find a way to do so, you are stuck in a poverty loop.
All I am trying to point out is that being on the dpb is not an easy option. But do we really want to go back to a society where women have no options if they are on their own with a child? Where a woman has to have a man in order to be financially secure.
I know you are all going to attack me know for having been a dpb mother! Thats fine what ever makes you feel better about your position in this world, but I hope some of you will take a look at what I have said and realised forcing women into non existent work and then cutting their benefit by 50% is not the answer. Perhaps if jobs weren’t taxed as secondary tax and there were better provisions for childcare, it would be much easier for the single mother to better her situation and find good sustaining work.
Personally I couldn’t get a job no one would hire a single mother, and I always got into trouble when my son was sick. So I had to start my own business, you will be surprised just how many single mothers become self employed because they have no other option. There are many examples of this, some quite famous ones including JK Rowling, but no one is interested in the success stories only in bashing those who are still stuck in the gutter.
Vote: