Meanwhile in the Land of Oz
December 9th, 2010 at 9:31 am by David FarrarSimon Collins reports in the NZ Herald:
An alternative welfare review group will call today for raising welfare benefits by as much as 50 per cent to meet the basic needs of jobless families.
The alternative group, chaired by Massey University social policy expert Mike O’Brien and including former Green MP Sue Bradford, says current benefits of $194 a week for a single adult or $366 for a sole parent with one child are “simply too low to live on”.
It calls for restoring benefits “as a first step” to the proportion of the average wage that applied before they were cut by up to $27 a week in 1991. That would mean raising the single dole by 53 per cent to about $296 a week and lifting the benefit for a sole parent with one child to about $536 a week.
I have some questions for the alternative welfare working group:
- Is pepsi more popular than coke where you come from?
- Is the gravitational field strength also 9.81 m/s^2 on your planet?
- Is the sun a yellow sun, meaning Kal-El has his full powers or a red sun, meaning he is just a normal human?
- Does the fertile soil on your world allow you to grow the money on trees, or do you plant seeds in the ground?
- Is the speed of light 299,792 km/s in your dimension?
Related posts:
- “Vile” to make people work
- National’s welfare reform
- Hosking on Labour’s leaflet
- Labour MPs showing beneficiaries how to budget
December 9th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Any actual comment on the proposal> $366 for a sole parent with one child are “simply too low to live on”.?
Is it? Ignoring for a second the source of the $366 if you can… does that sum allow a reasonable chance for a solo parent to raise a child into a productive, healthy member of society to (help) break welfare dependancy?
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 9:49 am
^ dependency, doh.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Geez…what planet are these people living on.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Come on Whoops don’t expect a reasoned analysis from DPF, much easier just to make fun of Bradford & Co.
I’ve no idea how anyone survives on a benefit. Clearly there is no extra money that our current economy can provide for benefit increases but that doesn’t change the fact that benefits are ‘simply too low to live on’.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:00 am
I am living in Ireland and am getting €196 a week in Dole which is < $400 NZ. After a harsh budget reducing the deficit by €6 Billion I will end up getting $188 a week. I could also apply for a rent allowance as well getting more money from the Irish taxpayer.
I was listening to the radio today and there were two ladies who would be BETTER off if they were to quit work and go on the Dole. A high dole rate encourages people to stay on the dole. They have done numbers showing that Irish families earning about €30'000 will get more money in financial benefits if they were on the dole. Why get a job when the dole pays better.
One must ensure that work always pays more than the Dole or you will get more people on the Dole. The only people who deserve high dole rates are those who would be to sick to work.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:04 am
I have an idea how someone survives on a benefit. I’m doing by virtue of being a student. Its bloody hard, I don’t eat expensive food, I don’t go out and I don’t buy things I don’t need. I don’t smoke, drink or gamble.
I quite obviously have not staved to death.
Sure I would not object to having more money, the reality is I do not “need” more money to live. I certainly don’t need a 50% increase thanks.
Its not meant to be a living you idiots. Its only ever been intended to prevent people actually dying from stavation in the gutter while they get their shit together. At present levels it does that. There is no need for an increase.
So speaketh the recipient.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Does Sue Bradford get paid by taxpayers again? Maybe she should get a real job.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Maybe she should just STFU.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Well said Murray
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Was that artist on the review group?
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Bradford is and always has been a fruitloop.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:32 am
@Murray – what are you studying?
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Yes I’m deeply suspicious of any interest you show in anything – oddly enough – and the chances of me providing you with any personal information are slightly south of nil because I do not belief for a second you have any benevolent interest in me.
I will give you the following: I’m a post grad student and my comments on historical and military matters are not born of having flipped though a comando comic or having watched reruns of Saving Private Ryan.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:44 am
When you have an annual benefit of say $30k/pa, what incentive is there to work 40+ hours a week for a few extra dollars?
For many, the answer is none – and certainly not when doing so will actually incur more costs, e.g. transport, child-care, work clothes, etc.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:47 am
If Bill English is keen to cut costs there is a whole department at massey that should go. Giving everyone 50% more money and tons of liesure time would certainly stimulate the economy, and buggar the grand kids.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Why don’t you start with whitireia pongo?
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Once again Bradford and her cronies present a very confused set of justifications for a policy they dont really want to be honest about.
1. They say the wage should be a certain level to provide a basic living standard.
2. But this living standard should be determined by some relation to the average wage.
3. The average wage ratio from pre-1991 is the benchmark.
If you want to say that the dole should increase to some arbitrary level, you can argue that showing how much basic necessities cost to buy.
The average wage is based on the wages paid for productive work. It doesnt have much to do with the costs of basic necessities. You must show the relation between these two things.
If you say that ratio should be raised to pre-1991 levels you MUST also say exactly why pre-1991 was the correct amount.
They have done none of these things.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:51 am
I don’t necessarily agree that raising the benefit is the solution to the problem but let’s be honest. How many of you, especially those of you who live in Auckland and Wellington, can survive on $194 a week? That only barely covers rent. For those saying that covers basic necessities I’d be interested to know what your weekly budgets are.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 11:01 am
You missed the bus CW.
Budget:
Rent: $100 (its called flating, there is no justification for living alone when you’re single on a benefit.
Power: $11/week Shared expense, see above.
Food: $60/week
Leaving about $20/week for a fun and japes. Whoo hoo. Usually ends up going into additional food or luxury items.
Phone is a prepay mobile.
If you can’t afford to live somewhere you either get a job or you get to move so somewhere you can afford to live.
I don’t recall any law that requires the tax payer to fund your chosen live style CW. I’m from the North Shore and I couldn’t afford to even enter a cafe there now.
BTW you missed the accomadation supliment that is regional. You live in Auckland you already get a higher benefit than anyone else. Most just dribble along on $36 so the benefit is NOT $197 its more like $235.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Thanks Murray – it’s been a long time since I was a student but interesting to see the costs haven’t changed much even with inflation. Are you worse off than I was? Probably, especially with fee increases – though I understand (if you’re at UoA) the $2 budgie meals were finally banned by the UN, so you might be better off overall.
(nb; statistical sample size of one, so your comments, if truthful, aren’t conclusive)
Anyone know about the solo parent aspects?
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Self-respect, pride, mana, mental health, increase your prospects…
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Whoops most students are better off than me because they are not fussy about their living situations so their rent can be as low as $50.
They generally only eat the noodles when they are the kind that piss their money away. That type is actually in the minority and don’t last. Most I know actually work to subliment their income. This means lossing their accomadation supliment so they have to work at least two full shifts before they start making money.
I chose not to work because do so would reduce my ability to study. I chose to have less money and focus on my study. consequently my grades were good enough to get approval for honours. Others who worked are not able to continue study if they want to because their marks weren’t good enough. Its called choices and at my age a degree isn’t worth much more than the aesthetic value of the certificate hanging on the wall.
If you doubt the accuracy of my numbers by all means check them with WINZ. I’m sure they have somethign with entitlements on them.
Just out of interest I always shop at Pac N Save because I can’t afford the extortionate prices at other places.
Its not meant to be easy, just doable. Bradord and co want to make it a lifestyle choice. Bugger that.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Interesting Murray, do you believe taxpayers owe you a benefit while you are at university ? if so why ?
Would it not be more honest if one believe in making one’s own way to borrow all the money from the bank at commercial rates of interest for living expenses ?
Right wingers are amusing with their, oh lord I will be good once the mug taxpayer has paid the majority of the cost of my education.
See damn all so called right wingers ranting that tertiary education should be paid for by those getting the benefit.
Vote:Accuse right wingers of hypocrisy, oh perish the thought.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Whoops are you for or against the taxpayer funded education system you took advantage of ?
Vote:Amusing how so many so called right wingers want taxes kept up while they are at university.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Wait a conservative who argues against taking more tax payer moneyis not entitled to his opinon because hes not a greedy asshole demanding a free ride?
Makes perfect sense … if you’re a communist fucktard.
You want to know what entitled me asshole/ Over a decade of service to my nation and burrying more than one of my friends in the process at an aboslute minimum gives me equal time as the snot nosed little assholes who show up for 12 months to piss away other peoples money and free piss trip having contributed abolsutly nothing to anyone. When I’m finshed I’ll be staying here and passing on what I’ve learned to other, in fact I’ve been doing that for several years in an unpaid capacity, in fact its cost me and as you can see from above I’ve got bugger all to play with.
You commies what to provide a free ride to anyone… but only if they agree with you. I accept what I’m entitled to and don’t want anything more and that makes me evil? Do the other losers move away from you on the group W bench? you want my fathers taxes for your special friends but I’m not a,llowed any of it? I think his opinion is fuck off you parasite without any fear of contridiction there pal.
BTW I’m borrowing my living expenses so ooo look this slice “get fucked asshole” pie is all yours!
Merry Christmas dipshit.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Yes there is the accommodation supplement. But there is also under the table work, and plenty of people, on benefits or not, are supplementing their income tax free through that means. The level of cashies should not be underestimated. I know very few beneficiaries past and present not topping up their income (cleaners, hairdressers, gardening …). Certainly they may all be declaring the income to WINZ and paying tax. Or maybe not so much. There’s also taking in boarders, which does appear to be legit income from IRD perspective (up to 2 anyway) and provides an income top up. Call me a cynic but if a single person on the dole has no other source of (declared) income I would be looking pretty carefully at how they spend their day and their dough.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Murray, you produce the occasional thing on another blog, yours, yes?
And your statement about service etc is spot on. I don’t believe in the free ride entitlement concept but for the last 40 years I have had my money taken from me to fund this.
If the ,money had been left for me to choose what to to with I would have invested and saved and had sufficient available to self-fund everything I wanted.
So I would like to hear from anyone who can criticise that I am not allowed to use what I have been forced to provide. Regrettably I am no Gordon Ramsey and find it hard to produce the words that are in my thoughts to ascribe to some idiots.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Murray ; no, don’t doubt – should’ve said ‘representative’ rather than ‘truthful. didn’t mean to imply you were making it up. Again – thanks for the insight.
grumpyoldhori ; I consider myself neither left nor right. I judge (and vote) based on the merits of the issue, and I like facts (not spin…) to help me decide. Black is not always black, and white is not always white
To answer your question; I was among the first cohort not to get a universal student allowance AND to face fees. I finished with a student debt of around 25k. I acknowledge that the tax payers (of which I am now one, and a large one) stumped up a large part of the costs for my education. I am ‘for’ a tax payer supported primary, secondary education system – ESPECIALLY primary. I acknowledge there is a limit to the public purse/tax payer’s wallet however, and it is not carte blanche. at some point – one must invest in one’s own future, and largely I think that is on entry to the tertiary system.
one size does not fit all however – refer to comments above re; black and white.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Crazy indeed. Unfortunately, when the official Welfare Review Group reports back, John Key will pick a path closer to that espoused by Sue Bradford et al. “Electoral suicide”, “too radical”, “too risky”, “too hard”, “I’ve got a plane to catch, Letterman waits for no man”, “I’m all right, Jack”.
There are many similarities between the Welfare Review and the 2025 Taskforce. Both require leadership and vision and forsaking short-term gains at the polls for a better future for all NZ’ers. Sadly John Key wimped out on the former and I see no reason why he won’t do the same for the latter.
Don Brash. The best PM NZ never had.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
CW wrote
“can survive on $194 a week?”
Once again as someone pointed out, thats not the point.
Vote:I worked fucking hard for decades on low wages / student allowances and internships to reach my level of knowledge. It was hard but now it’s valuable and I get rewarded for it.
I invested in my future and I am reaping the rewards.
I am so fucking sick of the bludgers thinking they can sit around on their collective (pun intended) arses, make no effort and expect us to reward them for it.
Welfare should be a safety net, a leg up, a chance to study, help for the sick. Not a fucking lifestyle for the chronically morally impaired.
December 9th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Raising the single dole – NO. We’ll tide you over until you find a job, but it’s free money falling from the sky into your pocket so damn right you should be making very efficient use of it.
Sole parent with one child about $536 a week – I have no problem with that. It’s too late to talk haughtily about what the mother should/shouldn’t have done… the child is real and shouldn’t be on the street (or in some drug-addled inner city flat living with hoodlums) no-one wins if that happens.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Lance;
Well done, you must be very proud.
“Welfare should be a safety net, a leg up, a chance to study, help for the sick. Not a fucking lifestyle for the chronically morally impaired.”
Where do you put ‘raising a child’ in that? To keep them above the poverty line? Please refrain from ‘stupid mother spends it all on P’ type comments out of respect for solo mother and fathers out there who bust their asses to bring their kids up right.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
While it might be difficult for them to live comfortably on those benefit levels, they are still far better off than over half of the world’s population. Welfare isn’t meant to be a comfortable living, it’s only meant to be survival living. If the socialists aren’t happy with that then they can create jobs, that’s what’s lacking.
Vote:Benefit living should be uncomfortable, and should also not reward beneficiaries for having more children. Welfare parents should get vouchers rather than cash, that can only be spent on food etc. They should also be subject to weekly visits to ensure their children are being raised and fed properly. In a couple of decades we should start to see less children born into benefit dependency.
December 9th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
@Whoops
So you talking the dole, domestic purposes, sickness purposes?
The trick of the left is to drag up a few hardship cases and apply this as a example to represent the lot.
Vote:Automatically making anyone who opposes their view heartless and cruel. The tobacco companies use this technique quite well. It’s bullshit and propaganda.
Most of the people I know of on the dole are a bunch of lazy bastards, whose sole goal in life is to hang out for the next benefit payout and party hard.
The few exceptions are people studying or other wise bettering themselves. These people I applaud and am happy to support
December 9th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
This thread is a perfect illustration of a segment of our population who, put simply, are bent and twisted. Two posters even admit to receiving benefits, yet object on principle to the concept! How sick is that?
Other considerations include that we have an increasing level of child poverty (yes, the kids who comprise the bulk of those who fail at school), that the level of unemployment falls dramatically when the economy is bubbling along (thus disproving the bludger theories so popular mongst the ignorati here), and that a shallow, kneejerk reaction ignores the economic stimulus to be gained from jacking up the income of the lowest paid. This stimulus effect is well known and observable.
The lowest paid, by the way, are least likely to worsen our current account deficit as they don’t buy the expensive toys.
The US is continuing George Bush’s experiment of widening income disparities in that country (the number in poverty has increased yet again in the richest nation in the world to over 14%) even though in the whole eight years of his disastrous reign net private job creation was a grand total of zero. If it wasn’t for the Fed continuing to print money and running up its debt to China and the Middle East, the folly would be quickly apparent.
What I see here is the usual deserving/undeserving poor ranting that is so century-before-last, and plain meanness.
I would like to see our unemployed able to survive with dignity, provide well for their children (our future wealth producers) and empowered to obtain new or improved skills through free education.
Then we might stop the downward cycle we are condemning our nation to.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Murray:
For what it’s worth – we find that shopping at your local Asian market is a bit cheaper in terms of fresh foods, meats, etc. than Pak n Save. One of the things we do as well is to try and shop every day for the food for that day; so we’re only ever buying what we need. We do keep a few canned goods and dry products as backups, but generally it’s a daily shopping run. That kind of regime has helped save us about 20% on our food bill. And of course saving shower water, etc. for watering the vegetable garden, etc. Every cent saved helps.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Luc, we’ll never stop the downward cycle if we keep propagating the welfare trap. What those people suffer from is poor parenting, not lack of money. The best way to increase their lives is to have welfare paid by vouchers, not cash, and to have at least weekly visits to the home to ensure the parents are doing good by their kids. Otherwise those parents will just keep the cycle going, and people like you will help perpetuate the cycle with your attitude of ‘give them more money and everything will sort itself out’.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
@Luc
“empowered to obtain new or improved skills through free education.”
Not a bad goal.
So how do you get the underclass off their butts because I doubt very much if it was free they would make any attempt all.
What I am saying, if you can get it through your leftist head is the money they THINK they are entitled to is comes from the hard won earnings of workers. It’s that simple.
I know you lefties think nothing belongs to any one individual but that philosophy is a failure and will continue to be a failure as not everyone works for the good of the collective. It sucks but communism fell, crushed under it’s own weight.
Before you bleat on about Wall st, I think pure capitalism just as unworthy.
Everyone should be provided for, sure, but they need to earn it.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I will give you the following: I’m a post grad student and my comments on historical and military matters are not born of having flipped though a comando comic or having watched reruns of Saving Private Ryan.
Commando comics are awesome however. I have learned all the German I ever needed from them and discovered that there are “kindly” Japanese. They are usually “bespectacled” and Doctors. Another important fact is that the British agent is is always heroic but the Nazi spy is cowardly and evil.
Murray – excellent contributions on the serious stuff too.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Luc:
I tell this story all too often. My great grandfather was, in effect, a manual labourer. His son worked on steam trains. My dad became a mechanical engineer. And I became a software developer.
And guess what.
My great grandfather was poor. But instead of bleating about it he sweated and he worked and he managed to instill in his children a willingness to work, a love of life and an appreciation for what they had. That philosophy has stood our family well over all our generations and over the last few decades our relative wealth as a family has improved a fair amount. Each subsequent generation has stepped one rung up the ladder.
In 2001 I made the decision to move to New Zealand from South Africa. I arrived here with about $2000 in my back pocket and while we’re not rich now, we are paying off our own home and living alright. I’m hoping that I will have paid off the house before I die and that it will be a source of wealth for my daughters. I am working now to improve their lot in life and trying my damndest to make sure that they have the best opportunities and the best future possible – at the expense of what I want for my life. As has all the preceding generations of men in my family.
Everybody has to start somewhere. New Zealand is a land of opportunity. All the beneficiaries in this country have this limitless opportunity ahead of them. But first they’ll have to swallow that little bitter pill and realise that it’s not all about them. That there is no instant ticket to wealth and that you may have to accept that it won’t be you, but maybe your great, great grandchildren that will obtain it. And then they’ll have to start making the necessary changes in their lives to achieve that.
It is that fucking simple. They don’t need a handout. They need an attitude change.
(May have been $7000. I can’t remember. It was enough to live for about 6 months on the cheap while planning the next step)
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“I have learned all the German I ever needed from them”
Same, being that ‘die Englander’ is all the German I’ve ever needed.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
@RightNow
Vote:And “Himmel” and “Gott en Himmel”
December 9th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Oh
Vote:I forgot the best…
“Swinehund”
December 9th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
“but that doesn’t change the fact that benefits are ‘simply too low to live on’.”
Which explains the mass die off of beneficiaries in New Zealand. Oh wait….
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Lance – I’m thinking here mainly about the DBP, and ignoring those some would describe as ‘bludgers’. That’s a whole other discussion.
Is it realistic to raise a child to a standard (nutrition, education, opportunity, safety etc) where the child has a chance of, say, becoming a prime minister in 40 years on that sort of money? I’ve honestly no idea.
My wife and I are doing fine, 1 son, 1 more on the way… plenty of income (for now – things can always change) and no worries – but apparently we’re in teh rich bastards camp so must hate bene’s.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Nein nein nein – das ist Achtung Spitfeuer!
(my early childhood penny dreadfuls were more Biggles and Tintin than Commando, but I can remember some of it).
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Kiwigreg
““but that doesn’t change the fact that benefits are ‘simply too low to live on’.”
Which explains the mass die off of beneficiaries in New Zealand. Oh wait….”
…or perhaps the decline in health, educational achievement and other social indicators that NZ has seen? Or would that force you to think too hard / at all and not just rely on a dumbarse throwaway line you imagine will curry favor with the rabid facists here at KB?
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
@Whoops
“will curry favor with the rabid facists here at KB”
So are you like the self appointed voice of reason, champion of the downtrodden, a force or good…. or just a user of dumbarse throwaway lines?
Perfect irony.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
“self appointed voice of reason”
Yes, that’s me.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Pascal – agreed 100%
Luc – you’re an idiot
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
$536 a week for a sole parent with a child? You have got to be kidding. That’s equivalent to a 32k salary once you subtract tax. People earn less than this for working 40-hour weeks.
If I was a woman slogging my guts out for minimum wage, I would have to admit having a kid and going on the DPB suddenly wouldn’t look all that bad. While there is no way kids should live in absolute poverty as the result of unfortunate circumstances, there’s no way the pay for the DPB should be higher than working.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
That was the question asked by a local community to my parents, which I recall them discussing when I was a kid. I went to the local school with those children, and see the good life they have had and no worry about mortgages, jobs etc
Now I am of an age after physical hard work and later with some skills, now thinking that it is time to start the adage above, after finding my capital which is un wittingly being mortgaged by local, and regional governments and national governments looking to go into more hock based on me ( as with many others hopefully) paying there way. Unfortunately our paying the way is rather woefully short as undoubtedly they will want much more.
Thru my life I keep seeing the cycle, that if you are self sufficient, so then you have to pay for every thing, while you are still being bleed. It can be surprising what some so called mediocre rich families have to pay in Rest home fees, Hospital fees, Health fees. To just live and work there are costs of just being law abiding, with the continuing increasing regulations, laws, by- laws, and ongoing increasing fees.
A few fine bottles of wine, then woman and song and a few round the world cruises, would prove to be a more enjoyable way to go, and let the varying governmental agencies pick up the pieces, when I turn 70 as my eligibility for them would be vastly improved.
After all as one of the baby boomers we will have increasing numbers for voting effects, to finally get what we have more than paid for. After all the governments will take all in any case ! !
Well at this stage I am out of here, as the lights will be turned on later as I endeavour to finish my days work.
The adage of working and making your way in this world is nearly gone
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Nothing more sure than death and all the taxes to be paid,
I know paying taxes supposedly means you are making money wage/profit and supposedly good for the community, society , country, the world, but has it really solved any problems? and at what cost or skimoff to others in their high cost bureaucracy?
I can more personally help, spend my time /money and energy much more effectively for others?
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Whoops, I do find university types amusing, for example ask them if ALL teenagers should get the same amount of dosh doled out to them and a look of horror over comes them.
After all how could a tradesman pay a lot of tax.
It seems the definition of those who are worthy are those who attended university.
Vote:Strange how you university types are against the idea of funding only those degrees WE need.
Too many so called students believe we should educate them for work offshore no matter what the cost.
December 9th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
You see, me, I’d give everyone everything Sue Bradford is suggesting and a pony.
Why is Sue Bradford so mean? Does she hate poor people?
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Pascal, I am impressed. I have met a few South Africans in Hawkes Bay and have been very impressed with their work ethics. It is refreshing to see good working people in New Zealand. The alternative group, whatever that is, is wrong. When people work, their self esteem goes up. When they feel better about themselves, their community feels better about them and New Zealand benefits (no pun intended). They might even not vote green or labour. This alternative group and Sue Bradford is expecting these bludgers to make a life vocation out of bludging and this is morally wrong and whatever money they received for their worthless work, they should give back.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
DPF, you forgot to mention some of the other ridiculous claims they made. From the article:
“After restoring benefits to their pre-1991 levels, it says long-term rates should be based on basic needs such as “food, clothes, shoes, play, leisure, health, insurance, a daily newspaper, telephone and reasonable allowances for housing and electricity”.”
A daily newspaper? That’s a basic need huh? I’m not really convinced a phone is a basic need either. Sure, they can be useful but they cost a fair bit of $$ and I personally hate them. I’m all for health being fully covered though if you are on a benefit, and since you are then you shouldn’t have to pay extra for it.
“The current $194 dole barely covers only two of these items – food, costed by Otago University at $64 a week for a man or $61 for a woman in Auckland on the most “basic” diet, and rent, using the tenancy bond lower-quartile national average of $125 a week for a single room in a flat.”
OK that’s fine and dandy. But it doesn’t need to cover most of the others. Given that’s it is supposed to be *temporary* it shouldn’t need cover clothes and shoes since you had those already. When you get back into employment and need new clothes and shoes you can pay for them yourself.
“The group says people on sickness, invalid and domestic purposes benefits should all be offered training and personal case managers to help them get paid work, but only unemployment beneficiaries should actually be required to look for work.”
Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn’t that how it works now?
“* Pay all benefits to individuals regardless of partner’s income.”
Riight, so even if your partner is a “rich prick” then you should still get the bene.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
No one has even mentioned here that benefits are low because we do not earn enough as a country to increase them. Further, we pay billions in WFF “entitlements” and other needless items.
The really funny thing though is how those on the Left argue against GDP growth as the benchmark. There have been posts on the Standard by Marty G saying that we are overly obsessed with GDP growth. These same morons then want greater benefits, free healthcare, free education etc. They really are living on another planet.
They haven’t bothered to comment on the Retirement Commissioner’s report this week on unsustainable superannuation because they have no answer.
In short, Bradford et al want benefits to double, but don’t want GDP growth to pay for it. They actually want the top tax rate @ 65% ish to pay for it. Imagine it.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
@ch123 – some months ago, Clare Curran, over the Red Alert, argued for the internet to be a fundamental human right in NZ. In other words everyone should have it for free.
Free. Schmee.
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Double benefits? What!!!
Figures released this week already confirm that beneficiaries owe the state over a Billion dollars in overpayed benefits, and that at least half of that amount is due to errors in benefit payments made by MSD staff.
Meanwhile, our newly appointed Chief of the Defence Force is attempting to make annual savings of $400 million in order to fund new capital expenditure from within his existing budget.
Seems a sense of fiscal responsibility parallels social responsibility.
Limit payment of unemployment benefits to 6 months, and no payment of DPB to anyone with no children under the age of 5! Maybe then we won’t have to import labour to work in Hawkes Bay orchards!!
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
The welfare system should not be creating incentives for people to stay on it.
Vote: