“Vile” to make people work
May 31st, 2011 at 10:07 am by David FarrarKate Chapman at Stuff reports:
Proposed welfare reforms that aim to push people into work are “vile” and the punitive sanctions on beneficiaries will only put further strain on community organisations, advocates say.
Eight Cabinet ministers have been appointed to the ministerial group that will consider the Welfare Working Group’s 43 recommendations.
That advocate is of course Sue Bradford.
Prime Minister John Key said yesterday that National would campaign on any changes the ministerial group decided on.
Excellent. People will have a clear choice.
Some of the recommendations are:
Providing beneficiaries with long-term reversible contraception.
Requiring single parents to look for 20 hours work a week once their youngest child is three and 30 hours a week when the youngest turns six.
Tying the benefit to a requirement that solo parents ensure their children go to school and get regular health checks.
Requiring 16 and 17-year-olds on a benefit to be in education, training, paid work or a combination of the three.
Providing teen parent facilities so teenage mothers can continue their education.
Requiring beneficiaries aged under 18 to live with a responsible adult or under adult supervision.
Cutting benefits for people with drug and alcohol problems who refuse to attend treatment and counselling services.
Beneficiaries who do not meet work test, drug and alcohol and other requirements would have their payments cut for two weeks by 25 per cent for the first breach, 50 per cent for the second and completely for the third. A fourth failure would result in a 13-week stand-down.
Yes very vile – will no longer pay people to remain a drug or alcohol addict for the rest of their lives.
May 31st, 2011 at 10:08 am
quardle ardle oodle ardle wardle doodle ….
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:15 am
supporting teen mums so they can upskill and not spend a lifetime on the benefit…. vile indeed…
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:16 am
A bludgers’ revolt.
Vote:Some of these bloody flaneurs should be forced to work in return for the benefit they receive.
May 31st, 2011 at 10:18 am
This is a selective look at some of the WWG recommendations. While the Stuff article is unbalanced quopting of Sue Bradford, that doesn’t make her points wrong. For a careful analysis of the WWG’s desire to punich beneficiaries, see http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/02/24/gordon-campbell-on-the-welfare-working-group-final-report
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:21 am
The government announces some really vague stuff about a working committee and looking at the recommendations of a task force, basically they are testing the water to see what the reaction will be before putting the boot into the bulging beneficiaries.
DPF digs up the most extreme response he can find to the governments announcement.
I guess this is one of those issues we don’t need a reasoned debate on.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:21 am
milkenmild
I would have looked, but then I saw ‘Gordon Campbell’ and I thought: why bother?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:22 am
“I guess this is one of those issues we don’t need a reasoned debate on.”
Correct. The working group has already done that far more exhaustively and on a far more informed basis than will be achieved here.
Cheerleaders only please.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:26 am
Had to laugh, as usual The Substandard is in meltdown mode but even funnier some are talking about moving to Australia, where people can get a fair go, priceless, they will be very disappointed if they think the Aussies will wipe their sorry arses. The reality is the country is broke and even the total nationalisation of the whole joint would no longer pay the bills. Time for some tough medicine. Should also limit the DPB to one child only. No more baby factories.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:27 am
I support the ideas in broad principle. The catch is the dearth of jobs which is compounded by older people working longer than they used to, and I suppose the disruption in Canterbury.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:28 am
So side show bob, please explain why the ‘tough medicine’ is only being prescribed to those already at the bottom of the heap?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:32 am
side show bob:
How can you limit the DPB to only one child in the instances of a parent with children and has been dumped by the other, leaving her, or him, holding the babies?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:39 am
Started reading Gordon’s post then came to this:
In passing, one should add that this recommendation came encrusted with the sort of conditions you’d normally expect to find in a work of medieval theology.
At that point I thought “yea, let’s not.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:41 am
This is in essence a plan to run the lives of people in the welfare system for them with every more rules, imposition and bureaucracy. Essentially, beneficiaries will be made to act like people looking for work through massive rule making, in spite of the incentives put before them. That is a recipe for failure. The bureaucracy required will be overwhelming, costly, and, as always, ineffective. This is just ever more of the same. No employer will take a person who plainly doesn’t want to be there.
The fallacy here is that, this time, government will be effective in getting people back into work.
No, it won’t. So long as the government is fighting incentives, it will lose. The only question is how much poorer it will make NZ in the process.
An alternative is to set a 2 year lifetime time limit for benefits. In those two years, government will provide training and rehabilitation. After two years, that’s it. That fixes the incentive problem right there and eliminates the need for massive intervention by officials.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:42 am
When we have these discussions, I always have a feeling that we’re talking about two different sorts of people. Because there is a whle spectrum of people on the benefit, and that spectrium most certainly does include people who just want to work, just as much as it includes people who won’t work, don’t work, and don’t care if their kids have a better life if they do – or anything about their kids for that matter.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:42 am
please explain why the ‘tough medicine’ is only being prescribed to those already at the bottom of the heap?
Incorrect, some of us slightly higher up have been doing it hard for ages with little relief while others have enjoyed the lollie scramble.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:45 am
I don’t usually care for Campbell, but in his piece (written in February, by the way) he makes good points with these two paragraphs:
“Making contraception available and affordable is a good idea, but for other reasons. Within the welfare debate, the reality is – forgive me for repeating this – only 3.1% of the DPB population was under 20 in December 2010, virtually the same ratio as in December 2005. Moreover, the recent Salvation Army report Stalled shows that teenage pregnancy rates are actually reducing significantly. Can’t we celebrate the integrity and morality of today’s young people for once? On the whole, they put their parents’ generation – all those hippie, free love types – to shame.
“Even so, the WWG try to sustain the myth of teenagers getting pregnant to get on the DPB, and then having more children to stay on it. If true, that should mean that more teenagers would be flocking to jump on this alleged gravy train – but no, there’s no sign of that. It should also mean a rise in DPB numbers of recipients with two or more children. But no, that ratio is actually falling. Finally, if people are moving on and off the DPB and back again in significant numbers you’d think that would show up in the WWG’s own tables for the duration of time that beneficiaries have accessed the DPB for five years, over the course of the past ten years.”
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:45 am
The bureaucracy required will be overwhelming, costly, and, as always, ineffective.
No, it’s not. It’s actually quite simple. Beneficiary has scheduled meeting. Beneficiary doesn’t turn up to scheduled meeting. Benefit cut.
Simple, and it’s already saving millions of dollars as we speak.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:46 am
tripe – how about if they have any babies while already on the DPB they dont get an increase.
Personally, after umm “dating” (yeah lets call it that) a bunch of trashy solo mums over the years, i think a portionof the benefit should be paid in vouchers.
yeswedid – which part do you disagree with? which part is the tough medicine?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:46 am
YesWeDid
Vote:Some questions – and they are not piss-taking.
1. Is it acceptable that welfare is, effectively, a career choice or way of life for some people? I do not mean people who have relationship breakdowns and who are suddenly without means of support. I mean those people on a benefit who continue to have more children in the expectation of receiving ongoing state support. I also mean people who are long term unemployment beneficiaries.
2. If the answer to (1) is “No” what will it take to reverse the embedded culture that has brought about the state of affairs that exists now? This cannot be a short term fix because of the way that we have developed a state dependant mentality that has led to long-term beneficiaries. It will need a complete change of social philosophy in some areas.
In short, what do you propose as the starting point?
May 31st, 2011 at 10:47 am
Da Vinci
Cheerleaders only? Comments section on a blog not the place for a debate?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:50 am
YWD please explain how we as a country can continue to pay billions in welfare, let me guess, more wealth redistribution, this hasn’t work even when the economy was strong. We need to look after those that will never be able to look after themselves but both you and I know welfare is a lifestyle choice for many. The simple fact is as a country we can no long support our welfare system. Is it not better to do something now rather then see a total collapse of the whole system. You are quick to defend the bottom of the heap, unlimited welfare as put more on the bottom of the heap then any other government policy, it has to change.
TypeWryter, yes of course you are right and I realised this but we have to set new rules . The limiting of one child only would apply only to solo mothers entering the system from when new legislation has been put in place. We have to change the culture behind welfare handouts.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:55 am
Dime, I’d go further and develop labour camps for those females who get pregnant while on a benefit (Rape convictions the only exception).
These camps would provide work producing food and clothing for those unable to support themselves.
The females would attend these “camps” five days per week, eight hours per day and work while there or lose any benefit payment.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 10:56 am
I have long wondered if the first DPB child should entitle the mother to a relatively generous payment, with subsequent children receiving rather smaller ones at present.
The idea being that with say, 4 children you have the same benefit level as at present but there’s a real disincentive to go from 3 to 4 or 2 to 3 children.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:03 am
There is a huge welfare underclass who abuse drugs and alcohol. They live from day to day. Blow their benefit on benefit on “bene” day typically on alcohol. Boxes of beer are bought. You see them in the supermarket.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:06 am
A beneficiary who is not looking at how to get off the benefit should be encouraged to do so, and that may not be palatable to some. So what? There are those who see the benefit as a lifestyle choice. Sure these are a minority, but they need to be identified, and challenged.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:12 am
Apparently making the rest of us work to support long-term bludgers is not vile, but having them actually work to support themselves is.
Sue Bradford really does have the morals of a slave-owning, plundering thief. Little wonder that she herself has been a parasite on the workers all her life.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:18 am
You should see the shopping trolleys of these fat,useless Solo Mums on benefit day…Booze, Chips, Cigarettes and more Booze…The drain these people and their inbred,feral children have on the New Zealand economy is horrific….
Vote:Yet Bradford thinks we should encourage them to breed further??
May 31st, 2011 at 11:19 am
Sounds like Dime has seen a few of their shopping trolleys??
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:23 am
I was a solo parent, and on the DPB. Changing the culture of welfare payments might be useful.
Another change could be taking a hard look at the men and women who dump their spouses and bugger off with someone else, leaving other people (including the taxpayer) to clean up the mess. Your mate who dumped his wife/partner and left her with small kids so he could shack up with that hot little designer 10 years younger …
Or, the woman who dumps her husband for that sales manager ‘who just seems to “get” me, you know?’ and walks out leaving the kids behind, and then they bugger off to Australia where IRD can’t be bothered pursuing them for liable parent contributions.
I over-simplify, I know. Marriages can break up for all sorts of reasons. But I think that some of the remarks here are punitive. The people who get left behind and take responsibility for the mess they’re left in get blamed for it. Those who torpedo their marriages/relationships seem to get away with it.
Twenty years ago Ruth Richardson thought that if the Bolger government cut benefits then the total would go down. It didn’t.
Being punitive doesn’t really work, I think.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:24 am
@side show bob & Nookin – welfare should be a safety net and should not be a life style choice. I don’t have an issue with time limiting some benefits, like the unemployment benefit, or setting the level of some benefits just above the poverty line so that people are encouraged to look to family for support or make better decisions in their life.
However I think you have to accept that with any welfare system you are going to get people who abuse it and it is unfair to concentrate on these people when there are a far greater number of people who are helped by our welfare system and genuinely want to pick themselves up and make a better life for themselves.
I also think that any ‘medicine’ the government hands out needs to be evenly spread, why only cut back on the DPB when there are plenty of people receiving the ‘super’ and still working? Why hand generous tax cuts to the top income earners when you are herding people off the sickness benefit when there are no jobs?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:29 am
How about a disincentive that doesn’t involve punishing children for their parents poor choices.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:32 am
Having worked in the retailing of liquor I know how much the dole bludgers love Thursdays. There are a hard core of bludgers that socialise together and on “bene” day, they all trapse down to the local wholesaler / supermarket to buy their ciggies and box of cheap beer. Usually their benefit is spent by Sunday morning and the rest of the week is just spent looking forward to midnight on Wednesday night.
A simple solution to this would to have all beneficiary payments paid on random days. i.e you stagger everyone’s payments for different days randomly, avoiding the culture that exists around “bene day”. Trust me, there is nothing more stingy than a bludger who may have to give his booze and ciggies away to someone to tide them over for a few days. Break the merriment and watch the bludgers kill each other over vice repayments.
You cant tell me that in the day of IT this cant be done. It can be and should be. Bludgers should smoke and drink alone.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:32 am
Welfare dependency creates a tragic loss of human potential as lives are wasted away in the ‘care’ of the state. This, of course, is what comrade Bradford and her ilk promote as a means of control. Their ideology is sick, failed and sadly well entrenched in NZ.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:34 am
“It’s likely that a substantial part, if not all, of the (Working Welfare Group chair Paula) Rebstock recommendations will form part of National’s welfare strategy for the election.”
….
But not the Tax Working Group: land tax, capital gains tax or Savings Working Group :
Savings Working Group – Final Report | 47
The relationship between migration flows and housing prices has been analysed by Coleman and Landon-Lane (2007). They found that a net immigration flow equal to 1% of the population (10 per 1000 inhabitants) is associated with an approximately 10% increase in house prices. This relationship has existed since the 1960s. Limiting immigration swings could therefore lead to a substantial reduction in future house prices and housing debt.
Migration and total private-sector debt
Vote:New Zealand’s population growth rate in recent decades has been rapid by international standards;from 1990 to 2007 it was the third fastest in the OECD.
A country with a rapidly growing population needs to devote resources to building more roads, schools, shops, houses, factories and so on than a country with a low rate of population growth. In a country with a relatively low national savings rate, rapid population growth will put sustained upward pressure on real interest rates and, in turn, the real exchange rate, making it harder to achieve the per capita income gains that people (and the government) aspire to.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:37 am
questlove (155) Says:
May 31st, 2011 at 11:29 am
tripe – how about if they have any babies while already on the DPB they dont get an increase.
How about a disincentive that doesn’t involve punishing children for their parents poor choices.
I agree completely.
Shoot any sheila who gets pregnant while on the DPB thus eliminating the brats as well.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:41 am
Good idea, but where are all these jobs supposed to come from?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:44 am
[RING RING] [RING RING]
Vote:… hello?
Mr Ure?
Yes.
It’s Paula Bennet here, I’ve got some bad news for you…
May 31st, 2011 at 11:46 am
Welfare is not meant to be a lifestyle choice, and that’s the key to the issue. Some people DO elect to go on welfare, not because they have to. I don’t resent supporting people in genuine need, and by cracking down on those NOT in need we free up more for those who ARE in need.
And it’s simple: do not give cash to beneficiaries!! No money for tobacco, booze, gambling, recreational drugs.
Vote:Issue a ‘credit’ card or vouchers that are restricted in what they can be used for. Doctor’s visits, healthy food, public transport, clothing.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:46 am
@Murray – would that be the phone call they make right after talking to whaleoil?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:46 am
Being punitive doesn’t really work, I think.
Who’s being punitive? The simple reality is that we can’t afford the welfare system we have. I try not to get too enamoured of material things, but gee, I get steamed when I see people on the DPB with $10k car, 40″ telly, Sky TV & broadband for their new laptops (Yes, I actually know someone who got all this while on DPB & other assorted handouts), when the other half and I work bloody hard and cannot afford such luxuries.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:52 am
It would be the phone call they make after talking to any kiwi who is sick to bloody death of the snotty leftie choosing to use our money to fund his choise of dugs and idleness yes.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:55 am
***Providing beneficiaries with long-term reversible contraception.
Requiring single parents to look for 20 hours work a week once their youngest child is three and 30 hours a week when the youngest turns six.***
I would make reversible contraception a condition of getting welfare.
http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Questlove: and MT_Tinman: I’m not sure what you mean. Whose poor choices?
If you mean the ‘poor choices’ of a man or woman who married in good faith, started a life together, and then one of the partners does as with examples I gave in my earlier post … all I can say is that you don’t know you’ve made a ‘poor choice’ until 10-20 years later it happens to you. Once again, your comment implies blame for the person left behind holding the babies. Correct?
I married in good faith. I was not accorded the gift of prophecy. Very few are.
Some other remarks here are inaccurate: as far as I know, ‘bene day’ is not Thursday. And you’ve never had to go to the WINZ office to collect it. For at least 25 years it’s been deposited in your bank account.
As for fat, lazy solo mums. I can’t speak with the authority of dime, who says he dated some, but I was in circumstances (e.g., school, kindergarten) where the ones I knew were hardworking, caring, superb mothers doing their best for their kids at great cost to themselves and in difficult circumstances.
Their kids were often better adjusted than the ones who came from better-off homes, where both parents pursued their careers, leaving kids trailing along with ever-changing nannies and ‘caregivers’.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Well aren’t you just the superior individual of the nation Bob all hail bob, hes got a job so everyone just shut the hell up and do what Bob says so there.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:04 pm
It’s a fair question. If the government regulates to increase the minimum wage there will be fewer jobs. So they could do the opposite. FWIW I believe the whole concept of minimum wage denies people choice. It stymies a dynamic labour market where people have wide choice of employer, where employers have a choice of employees and where people might choose to go into their own business and provide more employment.
Of course the fewer jobs there are, the better for Bradford et al. Unemployment, whether a lifestyle choice or forced on people by employment-unfriendly regulation, provides a solid voter base for the left.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Yes We Did – 11.24am says: “..why only cut back on the DPB when there are plenty of people receiving the ‘super’ and still working? Why hand generous tax cuts to the top income earners when you are herding people off the sickness benefit when there are no jobs?”
This is a typical socialist attitude of envy, based on the principle of ‘take, take, take’ from those working and earning and then giving the farm away in order to create a dependent underclass of voters.
Well YWD, I think you’ll find that most earners have no problem with their tax dollars going to someone who needs short term assistance (welfare). But that’s the key – it should be short term assistance and not the life style choice that is prevalent today.
But come the election, your adored Labour party will offer bribes galore – based on their main policy to tax the hell out of the ‘rich pricks’ so they can throw money at their prime voter targets in the form of welfare. Some things just don’t change.
But of course, the professional bludgers in our society will keep trying to defend the indefensible…
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:08 pm
” … but gee, I get steamed when I see people on the DPB with $10k car, 40″ telly, Sky TV & broadband for their new laptops (Yes, I actually know someone who got all this while on DPB & other assorted handouts), when the other half and I work bloody hard and cannot afford such luxuries.”
Ciaron: I would get steamed up, too. I never got anything like that, nor would I have asked for it. I splashed out on a TV and a video recorder so that my kids could watch videos, which was cheaper than going to the movies then. The money for that came from my share of the property split.
I don’t know how anybody on a benefit can get WINZ for all those things.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:10 pm
@Murray – would that be the phone call they make right after talking to whaleoil?
You are confusing welfare with insurance.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:15 pm
YesWeDid
You appear to accept the principle, but you’re missing the point. This will be a package that is intended to help people who want to work. It doesn’t follow that the existence of sanctions for those that don’t will harm those who do. It isn’t aimed at the lowest common denominator per se, but will hopefully influence the behaviour of some of them. It doesn’t compromise the safety net but will hopefully compromise its use as a mattress and lifestyle option.
As to the availability of jobs; there is still demand for skilled people despite the circumstances. Its clear from the announcement that there will be training and provision for upskilling. The sad reality is that some people are simply so dis-interested and unmotivated that they can’t even turn up for work on time or consistently every day. That shouldn’t be surprising where indolence is an inter-generational practice within families.
Furthermore, even assuming that there were no jobs, there are plenty of useful things that can be done in the community. Finally, if it was good enough for the unemployed up to and beyond the middle of last century to uproot themselves and move in order to get work, then its good enough for today’s beneficiaries to do the same. The notion that beneficiaries are for some reason entitled to live where they choose at the taxpayers’ expense and not follow work is one that needs to disappear. People who actually have jobs do it; no reason for those without not to.
Beyond that, there will be some who either simply can’t work or cannot cope with even the most modest of responsibilities. When we’ve done all we can to help them, and they’ve done all they can to help themselves, then I think you can finally say that you’ve arrived at the point where there is actually something in the suggestion that society (taxpayers) should assist in support. We all know that we are a long way from that position.
Why should higher income earners support people who have no inclination to help themselves? Why??
Why should the recipients of charity not be required, as a condition of that charity, to do something to help themselves and not piss the money up against the wall on cars, smokes, booze and Sky TV? Why shouldn’t they get provided with vouchers and be required to show that the hand-out goes on the kids and not on a night at the pub, fizzy drink and smokey barbecue crusky snacko 100% unnatural shitto synthetic crap masquerading as snack food. Why should they not be required to demonstrate that they are making an effort and taking advantage of ALL the help available; not just the money? Beneficiary rights? What about taxpayer rights to know that the people getting their charity actually need it and are doing something to try to fend for themselves?
You are right that some will always abuse welfare and right that those who genuinely need it shouldn’t be disadvantaged because of the measures that are targeted at those who do. That issue reflects difficulties in drawing the boundaries. However, we seem to be along way from that at the moment. We see welfare whingers who grab headlines whose paradigm is one of entitlement and that needs to change to one of personal responsibility and gratitude that society chooses to help them. Instead we see bullshit about not being able to get to courses on basket weaving and aromatherapy because the givermint doesn’t pay enough. We see those dozy bitches that Bennett had to deal with. Fuck them; I don’t want them to have my money. They can fuck right off. Please give it to someone who actually needs it. We can also likely do better to improve processes behind welfare delivery to accomodate situations where genuine disadvantage will arise.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:18 pm
I’m talking in the context of women getting pregnant while already on the DPB.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Tripe
I don’t think anyone’s denying that the mothers you speak of exist, or that things are difficult for them. I don’t have a beef with them. But equally, there are plenty who have a different ethic and outlook on life and we read about them in the paper every other day. Goff likely met one of them the other day on his little walkabout. Or likely he didn’t – no doubt he steered clear to avoid the bad PR.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Tripewriter, you have me wrong.
I’m not opposed to the DPB, in fact many many moons ago I was, while I retrained, a beneficiary.
I was also for many years a single parent while earning a living.
I am though, against beneficiaries breeding and would, whether through contraception, crossing of the legs or compulsory corks, like to see this cease.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I don’t know why sue would be opposed against able bodied people being made to work for a living, instead of relying on others to pay for their lifestyle.
That, is vile.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I think Welfare needs to be reformed. But where the hell are the bloody jobs coming from, Mr Key? I have been looking for 6 months and have only found 3 days work!
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:30 pm
ross
Then keep looking. Or move if you can find work elsewhere. Retrain? Sorry, I’m not unsympathetic despite the rant. But this is serious stuff and above all else you need to do something positive even if it is only to help keep you feeling good about yourself. A lot of us have been in your position. And in the mean time, go help out at the local school or something.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:34 pm
new laptops and broadband are a human right
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Fantastic Ross.
I’ve been looking for a good, honest, reliable night driver for months.
Why haven’t you applied?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Person 1 says:
tripe – how about if they have any babies while already on the DPB they dont get an increase.
Person 2 says:
How about a disincentive that doesn’t involve punishing children for their parents poor choices.
Person 1 says:
I agree completely.
Shoot any sheila who gets pregnant while on the DPB thus eliminating the brats as well.
~~~
Can we also shoot the man who impregnated her as well.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:40 pm
There are beneficiaries, ably represented by Sue Bradford & her ilk, who simply will not work, have no intention of working & thus create a hostile environment for the rest. It is difficult for those writing out cheques for massive amounts of tax on moderate incomes to be reading in the paper of the need to issue work permits for foreigners to pick fruit or harvest asparagus.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for those who ask “where are the jobs”but as long as seasonal work attracts so few workers there must be expert slackers conning us.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:43 pm
rosscalverley, “I have been looking for 6 months and have only found 3 days work!”
Vote:At least you have a new iPhone:
http://rosscalverley.blogspot.com/2010/03/blogging-on-my-iphone.html
May 31st, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Bloody hell, I’m in the busiest game going (apart from dime & his hookers
) and I can’t afford an iPhone!, you must be doing something right Ross.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“new laptops and broadband are a human right ”
Exactly dime. Just like taxpayer-funded courses in colour therapy to enable a career earning approximately fucking nothing.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:03 pm
“An alternative is to set a 2 year lifetime time limit for benefits. In those two years, government will provide training and rehabilitation. After two years, that’s it. That fixes the incentive problem right there and eliminates the need for massive intervention by officials.”
Unemployment as a disease needing “rehabilitation”? And it only takes two years to train someone to never become unemployed again, throughout the whole of their lives? I know you guys like to say “PC gone mad” but that kind of thinking is ideology turned religion gone mad. If such a method existed, for anything, wouldn’t life be SWEEEET.
“…both you and I know welfare is a lifestyle choice for many. The simple fact is as a country we can no long support our welfare system…”
I think if you take a look at life anywhere outside of Auckland and Wellington CBD, you’ll find that welfare is filling the gap for a system that could never work here. The fact it is a “lifestyle” (which conjours up glossy magazine type images, doesn’t it? Happy blondes and sunglasses, drinks on the yacht and azure blue sea…) is because it’s either that or starvation. It’s not the welfare system that has the problem.
“Apparently making the rest of us work to support long-term bludgers is not vile, but having them actually work to support themselves is.”
Expecting people to magic resources out of the air is not so much vile as moronic. It only becomes vile if it’s applied with knowledge, forethought and malice. Vile is just plain ignorance if a person thinks their way of life is the only way of life, their ideas the only ideas, their politics the only politics, their truth the only truth. So it’s a lot of things, but I agree it’s unlikely to be vile.
“Furthermore, even assuming that there were no jobs, there are plenty of useful things that can be done in the community.”
If there was, it would be called “a job” and you’d get paid for it. Even shoe-shiners get paid. Beggars sometimes blow a light hearted whimsical tune for a few coins. Anyone wandering round picking up rubbish would eventually starve without payment. We could have homeless people picking up rubbish for free. All we need do is lower our public standards to dirty pig level and drop our expensive trash everywhere. Vile will become morally superior. Hey I’m warming to your world view… it’s all topsy turvy and giving me a headspin.
“Finally, if it was good enough for the unemployed up to and beyond the middle of last century to uproot themselves and move in order to get work, then its good enough for today’s beneficiaries to do the same. The notion that beneficiaries are for some reason entitled to live where they choose at the taxpayers’ expense and not follow work is one that needs to disappear.”
You’ll have five families living in tents in your backyard, of course? Because that’s what pioneers did, for years. Lived in wet tents. I can imagine employers lining up to hire someone with pnuemonia, mouldy clothes and worst of all “bad hair”.
“People who actually have jobs do it; no reason for those without not to.”
People who have jobs a have the money to do it. Otherwise you just move poverty, on foot, from the county to the city. Sounds delightfully 18th century England, doesn’t it? Which won’t bother those retiring to “lifestyle blocks”. Create concrete slums during a working life for poor people to be forced into when the builders retire? At least it’s honest.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:08 pm
***Murray (7,702) Says:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Well aren’t you just the superior individual of the nation Bob all hail bob, hes got a job so everyone just shut the hell up and do what Bob says so there.***
If only they would! If welfare was conditional on using contraception you would see:
- massive drop in crime
- massive drop in future welfare dependency
- massive drop in CYFS cases
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Questlove and MT:
Thank you both. I’m clearer now.
This is how I see it. If you’re receiving the taxpayers’ coin for the support of you and your family then you have a responsibility to those taxpayers.
After that sentence I wrote a longish paragraph, which when I looked at it again was waffle. So I deleted it.
I guess I am agreeing with you, but … On the face of it, if a woman gets pregnant again while she is on the DPB it does seem reasonable to say, you’ll get less support from the state.
But: that has to be clearly set out from the very start. So that she knows what will happen.
Another but: She should not have to assume all the responsibility herself. What about, as someone earlier called him, the ‘impregnator’? I believe there has to be greater effort made in this country to make men responsible for whom they sire.
Otherwise, the whole burden and the moralising social odium (as is being displayed in this thread, for example) is on the woman.
That’s not fair. To repeat an awful cliche: it does take two to tango.
A couple of years ago I was doing some work in the National Library, going through magazines from the late 60s. This was when we had about 6000 unmarried mothers, and the community was getting very agitated and finger-pointy. The fingers were pointed mostly at the ‘girls’; very few at the men and boys who did their part to get them pregnant.
Another but: I would hate for the situation where a woman on the DPB became pregnant again and she felt the only way out was an abortion.
By the way, I remembered that when I went on the DPB I found that my oldest child was worth more than her siblings.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Nice theory K Reed.
It fails because you ignore the other side of the coin by implicitly refusing to acknowledge that the system we have is abused for a host of reasons. You also refuse to acknowledge that some people simply don’t want to work, despite the standard of living that flows from that decision, or that they don’t know any better, or that they might have no aspiration because they are in fact, victims of inter-generational dependencey. Its all they know. So your solution is?? Pay them more? Two years not enough? You mean two years isn’t long enough to learn sufficient skills and self discipline to get a job? Are you suggesting that beneficiaries are entitled to 7 years at medical school? That families shouldn’t try to help their kids who don’t have jobs? That having spawned an unemployed, the parents’ job is done and the taxpayer takes over from there?
Your perspective is as valid as that of those who say that they should be no welfare assistance at all and we should all get used to people living in our hedges.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Bob R
It might be that your proposals wouldn’t be as all encompassing as you think. Agreed it would stop the “baby factory” career solo mothers but in many cases the beneficiaries with say five kids may have had multiple short/medium term relationships. In each case, she has in her naivety, believed that she has met ‘Mr Right’ & to cement the relationship in the only way she knows how has a kid to him. It’s, of course, the last thing he wants so he ups & leaves & she’s back to WINZ & back on the benefit until next time.
It’s more common than you think & it contributes in a massive way to the problems you think your proposal would stop.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:25 pm
“By the way, I remembered that when I went on the DPB I found that my oldest child was worth more than her siblings.”
I hope you kept her tripe.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:31 pm
@ nasska,
It might not be all encompassing but it would curb the problem to some extent
Particularly, for teen mum’s who are at high risk of raising criminals.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Quick TradeMe Query returns 9882 Job listings. Thats nearly Ten Thousand Positions currently waiting to be filled. On one site alone.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:34 pm
“But equally, there are plenty who have a different ethic and outlook on life and we read about them in the paper every other day.”
davinci: Yes, you read about them every day and they get brought up on radio talkback (“I know this solo mother, and she drives around in this flash car and she’s turned out to the nines, but her kids go without …) because it makes such good copy.
It inflames and arouses the hard-pressed working, battling Kiwis who are paying for it all. I understand that.
It’s harder work to find the men and women who just get on with trying to make the best of the situation they’ve been left with and raise kids who will be productive, contributing, and hardworking.
The taxpayer helped me raise good kids, who all have good, high-paying, managerial jobs, and a superb work ethic.
They’ve never forgotten where they came from. Rather, it probably spurs them to achieve.
I know kids — they’re in their late 20s and early 30s now — from solo parent homes who have university degrees, have jobs, and when I see their FB pages they’re now all over the world.
One is even a candidate for Parliament.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:39 pm
There is a fallacy that men are responsible for sheilas getting pregnant.
With the exception of rape they ain’t and rape is, of course, a punishable offense.
Males may play a part in conception but any female wishing to can simply and cheaply ensure that their sex life does not produce offspring.
If, for some reason (medical, superstition etc.) they don’t want to use some form of contraception abstinence is available.
There is therefore no reason why beneficiaries can not be punished for breeding while receiving state support to the extent that this breeding no longer takes place.
If that means abortions, so be it.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:41 pm
davinci:
Yes, she grew to be a kept woman.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Have condoms gone the way of the moa?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Tripe
Those are the stories that we never hear, other than through the people we know or the people we are. Its always the lowest common denominator that grabs the headlines.
You never hear of the solo mums who decide, when their kids are school age, buggar this I’m going to get a job (when they presently don’t have to) and do because they were fortunate and sensible enough to have done something useful in the way of skills training when they left school. Improvements in education and getting kids to learn something useful are, I think, a big part of the solution to all this.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:48 pm
cabbage
There may be nearly 10K jobs available but most would be for tradespeople or for those with some specific ability or qualification. The people we are discussing here would have a CV which read more like:
“Left skool at 15, worked for three weeks once for cash on building job, functionally illiterate, multiple drug habits, no reliable transport.”
These are the people you are trying to get into work. In most cases take away their benefit & they’ll go out stealing & eventually end up in prison at a cost to the taxpayer of $100K/yr.
I know that answers have to be found & that NZ cannot afford the status quo…..it’s just that this forum, so far, hasn’t provided the solutions.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“You also refuse to acknowledge that some people simply don’t want to work, despite the standard of living that flows from that decision, or that they don’t know any better, or that they might have no aspiration because they are in fact, victims of inter-generational dependencey. Its all they know. So your solution is?? ”
I do not ignore it, I explicity say it: welfare is not the problem. You clearly wish I ignored it, but then life isn’t fair. The portion of people who don’t want to work is almost none. Even criminals must apply some thought to their occupations – therefore, they are working. I think what you class as “working” – in the context of offering work to the unemployed – is actually forced labour or slavery, which is what is happening overseas and would have to happen here to fulfill Nationals slogan, courtesy of Bennet, of “any job is a good job”. Slavery incarceration and forced labour requires no thinking on the part of government, which you demonstrate well, but if you choose that option you can’t say you give damn about social issues, at all, which was also my point about “one truth”. The rest of the “problems” you offer are symptoms of a badly constructed education and economic system. A person does not need to aspire to work. But even that thought will send your belief system into apoplexy, won’t it? I say explicity, so you don’t believe I’m refusing to acknowledge it: Solving unemployment in NZ cannot be done by eliminating welfare. If we could, we could also shut all hospitals and put an end to disease.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:11 pm
K. Reed- “The portion of people who don’t want to work is almost none. Even criminals must apply some thought to their occupations – therefore, they are working”
Have you ever visited Planet Earth mate?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:22 pm
K Reed
I accept that the issue we are facing is in some instances a product of circumstances. I know that some people who don’t have to work actually want to work and have their benefits reduced accordingly. I agree that welfare is not THE problem; but in its present from it is PART of THE problem that ultimately stems from a range of factors that might or might not include parenting and the individuals themselves, and in turn is manifested in education and skills.
Requiring unemployed on benefits to try to get work or do something that will help them get work, or something otherwise useful when they are not working isn’t forced labour or slavery. That is just silly. It is elective. You don’t have to take my charity. You can starve if you prefer not to do your best to help yourself while I’m helping you.
Suggesting that the thing who is the mother of the girl that Key made a fuss of in Meehan place or wherever actually wants to work, or that the maggot mother of the killer of that Hawke’s Bay farmer wants to work is just laughable. I know that not everyone is like that. Why do you deny that anyone is like that?
The mere fact that people in these situations might often be a product of social disadvantage is not a good argument for a free ride. The answer is to help people so they can do something useful. I really just wonder what planet you come from.
And as for people not needing to aspire to work, are you serious? How does that work? Does an entitlement to rely upon others to support you because you prefer to sit on your bottom drawing clouds and pansies reflect a well constructed economic system? Fuck that; if you want my money you bloody well better aspire to working. Otherwise I’ll fuck off overseas and leave you and you mates to sit around scratching your arses while you wait for someone to get off his arse and go kill a wildebeast or something.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:31 pm
I don’t get why upskilling has to be so difficult. All you need is access to a basic computer and an internet connection, and a truckload of time.
I would LOVE to have the time to spend a month learning to do something new, write a book, start a blog, setup another internet business, get myself fit and strong, etc etc.
There’s this expectation that it’s the government’s responsibility to find everyone jobs. Bullshit. Beneficiaries (in general) have untold free time and with the help of the internet + the library, you can learn to do almost anything for cheap or free. So use that time to learn a skill, get good at something. I mean, if you fancy a job working at the garden centre, then realistically you need to know lots about plants and be able to lift heavy stuff. So instead of complaining that you don’t know enough about plants to get that job – why not spend 2 months beefing up, reading the Yates book and participating on gardening blogs/forums etc and you’ll easily be able to explain what kind of soil to plant a lemon tree in or which tomatoes grow best in Hamilton.
For some reason people associate upskilling with courses and formal training – and don’t do it because it’s expensive and requires transport + babysitters etc. But there’s so much that you can learn without all that, and these skills can be applied to employment in any number of ways.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Phil Goff’s latest catch phrase seems to be “paying your fair share”. How about “Do your fair share”.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:37 pm
K Reed – A person who needs not aspire to work needs also not aspire to have money. No problem reconciling that.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Sadu
Believe it or not, assuming even that they can read or write enough to use the library internet, some kids are just so hopeless that they don’t even know that its important to turn up on time or let your employer know if you aren’t going to be at work, or that if you are working the next day maybe you shouldn’t be sniffing glue until 5.00am, or that if you want to keep your job you shouldn’t pinch things from your employer. We are talking deficiencies in some pretty basic required behaviours here. But then that’s OK because K Reed says you don’t have worry about that because nobody should have to work.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:40 pm
This government’s approach is based on the belief that bringing up a family isn’t real work and is of no value to the nation.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Correct. Whereas you Maggie, you only lie on your back with your legs waving in the air for the good of the country. Thanks for that.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Sadu
Good points & no doubt a certain degree of self upskilling is possible as you suggest but I have to rain on your parade. There are believe it or not people who couldn’t read the label on a packet of seeds, they have never used a computor for anything other than basic games & they don’t get out of bed until midday (other than benefit day). They have wasted ten years of their lives at state funded school, They have probably been on numerous courses & probably been forced to attend a few work schemes.
Still they are unemployed, maybe unemployable yet are capable of severely disrupting society. They use a major part of our taxes in the form of welfare payments, medical subsidies, justice costs, police time & more.
What do you do to manage this segment of our population?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:54 pm
thedavincimode
“Maggie” is a male, 60+yr unionist who lives in Australia from whence he sends out helpful advice to the comrades he left behind. Sticking his legs in the air may not improve the country, nor the scenery.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Maggie,
Vote:“This government’s approach is based on the belief that bringing up a family is primarily the responsibility of the parents and isn’t the financial responsibility of the net taxpayers of the nation.”
FIFY
May 31st, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Calm down. The misunderstanding is a misplaced comma: You do not need to aspire, to work.
Aspiration is not a pre-requisite to working, but those who believe in social climbing and “getting ahead” believe it is. They think people must have a five year plan for their lives; that if they believe something can happen, it will, and that it’s an indesputable truth – for everyone. If that was truly the case, everyone who gets a divorce must have known beforehand that marriage wasn’t forever and they lied on their wedding day. Or that everytime a car accident happens, it wasn’t an accident but a predestined event. A factory floor worker doesn’t have to aspire to management, or a company of their own. They simply don’t. And if they don’t, it doesn’t mean that they then cannot do their job with any degree of skill. An potential candidate for employment does not have to believe in any economic models to be an effective worker. The employment contract is an agreement to meet goals with skills. Nothing more. The problem with most government policies is they incorporate personal ideology, philosophy and religion into legislation, instead of creating a playing field that supports the game. What we have now is much like a rugby field where one half is three times as long as the other and occasionally small hills are bulldozed onto the losing sides space.
But anyway, that there are people who kill who have been on benefit, yes it’s true. You give two examples. Hardly a basis for scraping the whole welfare system though is it? PErcentage of population? Almost none.
NZ has reached the point where they’re discovering that they cannot expect a continuing increase in living standards for the same amount of effort. National think the way to continue the increase (or “progress” if you like) is to cut lose (or sell) unproductive elements. Labour think wealth redistribution is the answer. Both are ridiculously short sighted for strategy and will only ensure the politicians who enact these stop-gap measures live out their lives with no inconvenience. If they last that long. Eventually, the rules of the game must change.
It’s not good enough to cry: they don’t want to work! They smell funny! They think differently to me! One of them is fat! He’s a criminal!
I reply: learn to motivate them. Learn to look past appearances. Familiarise yourself with the smell of humanity. Accept he paid his price to society.
I don’t know why someone would think that they can reach a level of material possessions and cultural status symbols and then not have to face a world of change again, until they die. The world is not fair. All your good deeds, all your playing by the rules, it won’t stop the way the world is, it won’t protect you – quit your bitter sobbing. It’s toddler-esque thinking and unbecoming for the otherwise intelligent minds that it seems to invade. If that’s who you insist on being, then I’ll give you a lift to the airport, before returning to face the future in my own country, instead of running like a greedy self interested coward.
The purpose of government should be to maintain an environment where people can participate equally in the resources they choose, to the extent that their continuing development can produce, resulting in a strong economy (or nation, if you prefer). You do not do reach that point by cutting anything loose. And you do not reach it personally by believing you’re above redefining your role in society. Welfare cuts are like sending sick people to prison as punishment, or never changing the flat on your car because it should have stayed inflated. When you cut things loose, you get class systems, slavery, the untermench, and finally, various forms of societal cleansing… human misery.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:09 pm
As usual some here seem to think childish abuse and right wing cliches are a substitute for intelligent debate. We all share responsibility for the welfare of children, that is part of being a community.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Good stuff K Reed. Nice to read some rational comment.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:12 pm
How much central government expenditure currently goes to corporate welfare beneficiaries; consultants and private contractors, across all state sectors, doing work that used to be carried out ‘in-house’ under the ‘public services’ model?
Where is the ‘cost-benefit’ analysis which proves that public money spent on corporate welfare is more ‘cost-effective’ for the public majority than former ‘in-house’ provision under the ‘public service’ model?
Where are the ‘Corporate Welfare Working Group’s recommendations to cut back corporate welfare dependency?
Oh – there ISN’T a ‘Corporate Welfare Working Group’?
WHY NOT?
No one is investigating /reviewing the arguable wastage of potentially billion$ of public monies currently being spent by central government on private ‘piggies-in-the-middle’ consultants and private contractors?
How ‘vile’ is THAT?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
May 31st, 2011 at 3:13 pm
nasska
My turn to stand in the corner.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:21 pm
LSD makes a come-back.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Oh oh… the blog blight is back. There goes the neighbourhood.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:27 pm
“This government’s approach is based on the belief that bringing up a family isn’t real work and is of no value to the nation.”
In the context of compensation, no, bringing up a family isn’t “real work”, because you are not providing a service to other people. So there’s absolutely no reason why they should give you money for doing it, any more than they should give you money when you wash your own car, do your own washing up or mow your own lawn.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Maggie says: “As usual some here seem to think childish abuse and right wing cliches are a substitute for intelligent debate”
What a complete muppet. His outlook on life has been repeated ad nauseum here and is based on the socialist premise that you can happily sit on your arse and do nothing whilst accepting handouts from others who have managed to be productive in life.
There is never any mention by ‘Maggie’ about personal responsibility. No mention about the need for good parenting either. Definitely nothing about what Maggie could do to contribute to society.
Nah – the traffic in Maggie’s pocket is definitely ‘one way’ – its always the same “lets throw [other people's] money at the problem and it will all go away” mentality.
Sheesh…
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Heck, I’d love it if the government paid me to raise my kids. I can provide invoices for 44+ (waking) hours per week.
I’M ENTITLED!!!
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Penny my darling.
How is my barbed wire coming along?
No pressure you understand.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Wow Wat, do you really think that bringing up a family is of no value to the nation? I would have thought it is about the most valuable thing many people do. I have no interest in whether you wash your car or dishes; the results of that can have no impact for me. I am, however, interested to know that your children are housed, fed, clothed and educated, because failures in those areas can very well affect my own, and other people’s welfare.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:43 pm
You can be as interested as you like mikenmild. But it doesn’t follow that its any of your business, nor does it follow that you have to give him your money because he got his leg over.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:44 pm
This time I am in Penny’s corner.
Look no further than the “one.govt” network, which through (no doubt) great intentions has led to the situation where the government has awarded a contract to a consortium (of 2) that is effectively a monopoly.
Their ‘brochure’ states their services are ‘Lowest price on the market’, and that the ‘Lead agency, the Department of Internal Affairs, has already determined that one.govt is the best offer available, removing the need to go through a costly, time-consuming tender process.’ http://www.datacraft.co.nz/pages/mm_download_ok.asp?t=r9gyx7&page=483
Yet when one government agency went to market for competitive pricing, one.govt miraculously managed to drop their pricing from over $350k p/a for WAN services, to $250k p/a. This was still over $50k p/a more than the best competitive quote, but it was deemed too much hassle to change from one.govt, so the agency settled for saving over $100k p/a and staying with one.govt.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:50 pm
“As usual some here seem to think childish abuse and right wing cliches are a substitute for intelligent debate. We all share responsibility for the welfare of children, that is part of being a community.”
If you adopt the principle that it takes a village to raise a child then there is no argument. Unfortunately that statement is somewhat esoteric and is difficult to translate into measurable contributions. I do not think that Maggie will argue when I interpret his approach as saying that the wealth of a community is a shared wealth to be distributed according to need.
Given that our whole approach to property rights is based on individual ownership Maggie has to rely on some unwritten duty (enforced by taxation) whereby assets are prised from the haves and allocated to the have-nots in shares determined from time to time according to needs. If one accepts this approach then it must be fair. One must therefore ask what contributions the have-nots will make and why they have no obligations to contribute. This complete absence of responsibility and accountability is exactly what causes the anger from the more vociferous “rights”.
Vote:You cannot say that we all share responsibility on the one hand and focus solely on financial contributions of one sector on the other.
May 31st, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Until welfare is provided by the private sector and people get to choose who and how they help nothing will change…..
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:57 pm
DaVinci
Missed the point, again. It’s really about what wecan agree that welfare can provide. Provide nothing and we merely punish the most vulnerable. Provide too much and we encourage dependencyand discourage self reliance. Like most problems and solutions, the devi lis in the detail. For me, the WWG leaned much too far to the punitive, with far-fetched numbers to buttress its case. Unless its true mission was to allow the government to propose some more ‘moderate’ reforms.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
I agree that a good dose of motivation is mostly what is needed. However, this isn’t the kind of thing that can be administered in a Sue Bradford-approved way.
I would give work-capable beneficiaries 2 years max on the dole to sort their shit out themselves. Then, there are 2 options. Either the government accepts that this person is a worthless piece of meat and should stop spending money on a lost cause – which means substantially reducing their bene so there’s no ciggie money, paying the landlord directly from the WINZ office, replacing cash payments with a weekly delivery of chick peas and potatoes, and cancelling all the expensive training courses and schemes for this person that they aren’t getting value from.
Or, the government pays to give this person a shot of motivation and self-dicipline. This would mean getting them away from their no-hoper friends and family for a while, away from the drugs and alcohol, and into an environment where they can learn self-respect again. Where they can experience achievement again. I haven’t done outward bound yet but everyone I know who has done it comes back bouncing off the wall with motivation and ideas.
I don’t know if this approach works with long-term beneficiaries or not, this isn’t my area of expertise. How do you motivate someone who is resigned to a life on the dole and doesn’t have the skills to be competitive? Indeed, how do you have a chance of getting a half-decent job when you can’t read? But the softly-softly PC bullshit approach we have now doesn’t work. While there are plenty of beneficiaries who have a genuine illness or whatever that prevents them from working, I’d think many actually need a bloody good kick up the bum to re-instill that basic work ethic that is a core requirement with all employers. This path of rehabilitation is not going to be easy so if we are talking about not giving up on people and re-instilling these basic skills, then it’s going to mean some major life-changes for the beneficiary. And I wouldn’t expect them to be happy about it. Learning to read and learning work ethic isn’t impossible, but it requires a serious change in habits – a bit like a fat person needing to lose 50kg.
I’m all for helping people get out of a bad situation rather than giving up on them. But sometimes the medicine that works doesn’t taste good.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Just a thought – kind of goes back a step, to the start of a child’s education. Children do learn at different stages, instead of dividing a primary school up by year group, the children move through the school at levels applicable to their ability. Less chance of a child being left behind, as they are concentrated on achieving one level at a time. The educators can concentrate their time on one level instead of the current 4 – 6 levels within one class. Also at the primary level should be language skills – ie. spoken English, form filling as part of comprehension and budgeting as part of Maths.
Personally, I wouldn’t actually mind if the DPB mother was in the home till the child was 5, as long as that child (note – I’m talking child) is provided with a loving, social, educational and supportive environment. Perhaps the Mum should be in day care along with their child learning parenting skills.
I think most people would agree that supporting the deserted/widowed parent – even an accidental parent in the first instance – is the intended purpose of the DPB, not the lifestyle choice that many seem to take. As a further incentive to shared responsibility – father’s name must be made available that he may pay his “fair share”.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Shady
For what it’s worth I agree wholeheartedly on your comments re education. There was a bit of a discussion about that on GD yesterday. Having a student automatically moving from one grading to the next without any regard for their level of attainment in the previous level is ridiculous & a recipe for failure.
As usual we can thank the theory ridden, “know it all”, leftist retards for this situation. If ever there was a time for a pragmatic approach to education it is well & truly with us now.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 4:48 pm
mikenmild
No, I’m sorry but you’re missing the point. There is no issue regarding what “welfare can provide”.
Welfare provides money. Full stop.
Education, health, skills training, personal responsibility provides an opportunity to work, and having half-way decent parents or being fed as a child puts you in better shape to take those opportunities and do the things that need to be done to get and keep a job. Breaking the cycle of inter-generational deadbeatism avoids learned bad habits. But these things are not welfare. What you describe as punitive measures are there to mark the demarcation line for the people who refuse to make some effort to help themselves and do the right thing by their children.
This has nothing to do with “providing nothing”. Its about adding something else to the mix to try and modify behaviour in a positive fashion. This will not be 100% successful; but that fact is not a measure of whether it will be a success. You ignore the fact that some parents and family members are simply an abomination and this will always be so. The most vulnerable are at risk now irrespective of this proposed policy. That’s why babies get put in washing machines and hung on the clothesline. It simply means that in the worst cases, there needs to be co-ordinated intervention with other social agencies.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Hey Elaycee: “There is never any mention by ‘Maggie’ about personal responsibility.”
Perhaps if the so-called superior gender put a raincoat on their lovetoy, and/or coughed up what they are supposed to so that the taxpayer doesn’t fork out the full cost, then you could lecture about “personal responsibility”. Until then, crawl back in your hole.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Robboy, I’m in general agreement about the lowlife fathers. They need to be tracked down and have the child support extracted forcibly from them. As a bonus we should probably sterilise them too, save everyone a lot of future grief.
I don’t see anywhere that Elaycee has excluded the men from needing to take personal responsibility though. Perhaps you’re just an arsehat who made it up? You should just stay in your hole next time.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 5:36 pm
K.Reed are you completely bonkers? I doubt even you know what your point is, you seem to be spinning your wheels just for the sake of hearing your own voice. “Learn to look past appearances. Familiarise yourself with the smell of humanity. ” No one gives a toss about someone else’s appearance or personal habits as long as they pay their own way. But if anyone wants my tax dollars to pay for their benefit, then their appearence and personal habits will be whatever is most conducive to finding a job. If they don’t want to do that, they are not looking for a job and I don’t want to waste my money on them.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Robboy – have you just woken up? May be an idea to look back at this thread again – and make sure you read it slowly.
My comment to Maggie related to the payment of welfare and the expectation by socialists that they can happily sit on their arses and do nothing whilst accepting handouts from others who have managed to be productive in life. I also pointed out that there is never any mention by ‘Maggie’ about personal responsibility. No mention about the need for good parenting either. Definitely nothing about what Maggie could do to contribute to society.
So Robboy,it had nothing to do with the use (or otherwise) of condoms – but now that you mention it, its a pity that I didn’t have the opportunity to talk to your father some years ago…
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
thedavincimode (1,849) Says:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:15 pm….
Agree 100 % well said. Sue Bradford you are a p.o.s. Having just returned from Thailand ( unemployment 1% ) there is practically no welfare available to anyone , don’t work you don’t eat…getting pregnant and having babies is for happily married couples. Thais ( and most asian cultures ) have a different way of thinking to us westerners… they take pride in themselves , would never think of going out on the piss and ” scoring “…getting pregnant and going on the DPB. I also noticed a distinct lack of murdered/beaten children around me. Children in Thailand are revered and if you were to beat , torture , or murder a child there you would be lynched. Welfare in NZ has ruined us. It needs to change and it needs to change NOW.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 8:27 pm
why are we listening to some American tart? Surely it would make sense to follow a country that has things right. Do we really want ”tent cities” in New Zealand??
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Elaycee, I would appreciate it in future if you would cease telling lies about me. Thank you.
Also less name calling might make you appear a trifle more rational. Take some personal responsibility for your actions.
Don’t thank for the advice, just learn from it.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Maggie – I’d happily take advice from you if you made sense, but as you generally talk socialist crap, no thanks.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Saw Close up tonight, Bradford and Newman. Our Sue does not give the impression of a champion of the poor undernourished “we want to work but there are no jobs” looks more like Jabba the fucking Hutt. NZ’s answer to the Fat Slags.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“some American tart”
That’s a lovely phrase to hear from the mouth of a socialist!
Emily Panckhurst will be spinning in her grave.
Sonja Davis will be trying to climb out of her’s and come back to Hutt South.
Come to think of it. That’s not a bad idea really.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Megatron – 9.00pm. Brilliant – Hahaha.
That’s the biggest laugh I’ve had since I watched Klark’s ‘resignation’ speech on TV – election night 2008.
Vote:June 1st, 2011 at 12:35 am
Elaycee apparently thinks taking personal responsibility is ‘socialist crap’ – me thinks he’s going to be barred fom the Conservative Club at this rate………….how sad.
Vote:June 1st, 2011 at 5:22 am
The only thing that’s “horrifying” in that article is a picture of Sue Bradford.
Vote:June 1st, 2011 at 7:48 am
Maggie – you have proven once again that your reading skills are at the same level as your IQ – not exactly at the top of the class, are you? Please go and read the series of posts and check what I said again – you’ll get it eventually.
Vote:June 1st, 2011 at 11:17 am
Elaycee, about the only thing I could get from you would be the intellectual equivalent of herpes.
Vote:March 5th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Means test the pension this is where the biggest part of the welfare bill goes. People like winston peters should not get it as of right as he recieves a parlaimentary salary and gold plated pension scheme .
Vote:March 5th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
MEGATRON look at paula bennett shes 10 times the size of sue. Must be all the cuts john key is making to the public service more people for the dole que. GOOD GUESS TO WHERE ALL THAT BENNY MONEY IS GOING RIGHT YOU BRUNCH OF RED NECKS. HOPE YOU LOSE YOUR JOBS SOON SO YOU GET TO LIVE THE LIFESTYLE CHOICE OF 201.40 IF YOUR OVER 25.
Vote:March 5th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Rock Star 4
2011 called, they want you to leave their threads alone.
Vote: