Dom Post on welfare reform
August 17th, 2011 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarThe Dom Post editorial:
It is inconceivable that the “cradle to the grave” social security system envisaged by former Labour prime minister Michael Joseph Savage resembled anything like the welfare state we have today. He dreamed of a temporary safety net to help those down on their luck when times were tough. What we have is a system in which 10 per cent of the workforce is on a benefit, 222,000 children live in benefit- dependent homes and thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds are being paid to sit around and do nothing.
It is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue and one which National is promising to fix.
And Labour is promising to oppose. The more beneficiaries there are, the more votes they get.
Criticisms that the measures are overly-harsh or interfering ignore the fact that there is something deeply flawed with a system that hands over cash to people as young as 16 without expecting something back in return. While there are job-search requirements, they are next to useless for young people without the basic skills needed to secure employment. Requiring them to get up to speed in literacy and numeracy or to undergo trade or other training is not punitive, as some would cast it, but designed to allow them a better path through life.
Taxpayers also have every right to expect that payments to 16 and 17-year-olds are used for the purposes they are intended. It is not a “nanny state” intervention, as some would claim, given the fact that by definition IYB recipients have lost the backing of their parents or been forced to leave home and turn to the state for support.
Nanny state generally is interfering with people whom are independent and restricting their choices. Putting some rules in place for those who rely on the state for income is not in that category.
August 17th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
If the problem is ‘thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds are being paid to sit around and do nothing’, as the editorial writer says, how will these measures change that?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Mike, did you even read John Key’s speech at the weekend? Thought not. If you had, you would realise there is more than one limb to this proposed reform.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
The problem is that as always National fails to do anything to increase jobs. All that is going to happen is we’ll see an increase in job seekers onto the market which pushes up demand for work and as such reduces wages as employers can pay less because more people want jobs. Once again National looking after its mates at the expense of everyone else
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
The issue Labour have is that their first reaction is always to oppose anything and everything National puts up. Labour along with the Greens and now the Hone MoFo party have the beneficary vote locked down.
But the problem for these three parties is that a big number of beneficaries are lazy, unmotivated, and have issues. Politics is not part of their agenda. They live day to day, and can barely plan for the day ahead let alone the month or year. They vote out of self interest if they vote at all. and herein lies the problem for the left as has beeen shown by the greenies. The parasite classes can barely get off their arse to vote. That is why Greenie support slumps at each election. Too useless to get down to the polling booth.
In the meantime those of us who actually pay for the parasite classes love this latest initiative and as a result I look forward to another boost for the Nats in the next election.
National needs of course to re-introduce youth rates and you may start to see a drop in youth unemployment.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
And Labour is promising to oppose. The more beneficiaries there are, the more votes they get.
One of the reasons I am completely opposed to the Labour party, by their very definition they rely on the majority of the country to be reliant on the state for them to succeed.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Creating jobs is a key part of it, but so is reducing rampant welfare dependency. There is little point having job & training schemes if a substantial number of young people prefer welfare.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
People are always going to whinge about welfare, prisons and things they don’t know about.
Too much polishing the turd always comes from those who ‘know’
But they never part of the solution.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Here’s mike to bitch about things he claims wont work but offers NOTHING as an alternative. Usual left wing argument of tax tax tax and blame those evil succesful people who have to fund the enternal cycle of failure that socialists love so much.
And what the hell is so hard about getting a grip on the idea that the government doesn’t “create jobs”. Anything that the government funds is STILL paid for with tax dollars and creates nothing. It just moves it about.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
DPF: Putting some rules in place for those who rely on the state for income is not in that category.
1. We have 450,000 people on benefits. Not sure why National is targeting just the category that can’t legally vote. I suppose we’re just not serious enough yet, as we can always borrow more, can’t we John?
2. For the next criticism, Danyl made this astute observation:
Another non-solution from National. But it resonates with the base, they’re tough they can claim!!!! All for self-reliance, while building useless fibre to the home, and so we can continue. The National socialist party is an utter failure, and only because they can borrow to the hilt are they able to mask their utter incompetency.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Labour = a socialist government that encourages people not ot work. This is how I’m reading these events.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
berend
“while building useless fibre to the home”
Haha what a technophobic, ludite comment. What are you 80 years old?
Vote:Down with electricty, steam power was more reliable!
Do you vote for the Greens?
August 17th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
@berend – if you actually took time to think about it you would realise that if this is successful they will be rolling it out for other bene’s in the future.
They are smart trying it on a small group – if they had tried to roll it out for half a million people it would’ve gone tits up.
All it looks like you are doing is criticising them for being smart and testing the water first.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Murray
When faced with a ludicrous proposal, my first instinct is a conservative one. What is the issue with young benficiaries that requires them to be issued with a payment card? Will that assist them into work or training?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
immigant, seanmaitland, please:
What does self-reliance mean guys? The National socialists built broadband for you? With an economic nonsensical rationale?
Hopefully sprinkle Bill gets the magic dust going, else borrowing will be up a lot more next year.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Mikenmild,
“If the problem is ‘thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds are being paid to sit around and do nothing’, as the editorial writer says, how will these measures change that?”
You have already been given that information. Are you a bit thick?
Which part of ” Requiring them to get up to speed in literacy and numeracy or to undergo trade or other training is not punitive, as some would cast it, but designed to allow them a better path through life.” are you finding difficult to understand?
“When faced with a ludicrous proposal, my first instinct is a conservative one.”
No, when faced with a conservative proposal, your first instinct is a ludicrous one.
To repeat what I said yesterday:
Ensuring that youth benifits go on the bills they need to pay instead of drugs or alcohol is a reasonable taxpayer expectation, and means they are job fit and ready to work.
Ensuring they are in job training and education will help them to get jobs and help them stay out of the welfare addiction rut.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Here’s an educated man who goes into jails and talks with inmates about solutions.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/defending-civil-liberties/meet-the-magna-carta—1215.html
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
berend
You are right. We should just not upgrade the infrastructure for our internet for another 10 years like Labour did, but instead buy a broken train set or do something equally productive. Clearly we will not need fast BB in the future. The digital and online industries are not growing at all and will be obsolete in a matter of months.
Now THAT’S sarcasm.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Lee
As 16- and 17-year-olds can already be required to do those things, please enlighten us on how the PM’s proposals will improve the situation. Given that it is already illegal for 16- and 17-years-old to purchase alcohol, please enlighten us on how this policy will ensure that they cannot get alcohol.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
hmmmm how will not having cash prevent underage people getting drugs and alcohol? I will field this one.
Vote:You see… Traditionally money is exchanged for goods and service. This equation doesn’t change if teh good or services for which money is exchanged are legal or illegal.
By reducing the amount of cash a person has to exchange for legal or illegal goods and services, one also reduced that person’s ability to obtain those good in services.
August 17th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
“As 16- and 17-year-olds can already be required to do those things”
As has been pointed out, the current requirements are a joke, and too easy to get around, and they are not automatically mandatory for all at this point.
“Given that it is already illegal for 16- and 17-years-old to purchase alcohol, please enlighten us on how this policy will ensure that they cannot get alcohol.”
Being illegal does not stop them, if they have the cash. Its hardly news to most people that underage youth already find it easy to get served in bars or buy alcohol in liquor stores. If they dont have the cash, then it does. This is not rocket science.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Immigant,
spot on. Perhaps we need to use smaller words or sentences for Mike’s benifit. He seems to be having some difficulty keeping up.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
mikenmild
You honestly believe that the mere illegality of under 18 years old purchasing alcohol as prescribed in the Sale of Liquor Act magically means that 16 and 17 years olds cant and wont procure booze – if you do you are utterly naive to the ways of the world. Under 18 year olds obtaining booze and ciggies in supermarkets is widespread and barely policed notwithtanding the odd token sting operation.
Its the package you silly boy – the credit card restricting tobacco and booze is but a part of it. The paying of the rent and power is actually bigger than the ‘food stamps’ because it takes away the discretionary income that IS often wasted on booze, fags and drugs. The requirements to be in training puts the onus on the receipient to take this aspect of their lives seriously on pain of having the benefit cut off.
A good mate used to be a social worker at one of these special inner city schools for naughty teens – a good chunk of these kids were on the IYB and their education was a joke. They’d come to school stoned, hung over and sleep in class or just bunk frequently and there were no consequences. Groups of them woukd share grotty flats in the inner city so there was more money for partying.
This policy won’t eliminate it completely but it will substantially reduce the abuse. And for the majority who don’t abuse it, life goes on pretty much uninterrupted.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
There are a couple of points that Lee seems to have trouble understanding.
Young people who want access to drugs or alcohol will get them. The payments card will be no barrier. For Lee, I will spell it out. A youth, who can’t buy liquor legally anyway, will lend the payment card to an older friend for cash, then use the cash to buy alcohol, or drugs or whatever. The policy may make alcohol and drugs more expensive for young beneficiaries, but not to the extent of greatly limiting use.
More importantly, where is the evidence that tobacco and alcohol are such a huge problem for these young beneficiaries? To impose a significant restriction, at a significant cost, I should have thought that we would be presented with some relevant statistics and a cogent rationale, including the difference this was expected to make. Even the boot camps idea has at least been subject to an evaluation.
I suspect that these initiatives are more about appealing to voters than actually assisting young people. That’s just sad.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Oh dear…thats just sad.
Does someone want the fun of pointing out the gaping holes in Mikes last post?
Let me start by reposting from above:
Mike asks,
“More importantly, where is the evidence that tobacco and alcohol are such a huge problem for these young beneficiaries?”
KIA says:
“A good mate used to be a social worker at one of these special inner city schools for naughty teens – a good chunk of these kids were on the IYB and their education was a joke. They’d come to school stoned, hung over and sleep in class or just bunk frequently and there were no consequences. Groups of them woukd share grotty flats in the inner city so there was more money for partying.”
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
“Requiring them to get up to speed in literacy and numeracy or to undergo trade or other training”
This is at the heart of the problem. What have they been doing at school for the past 11 years. I thought teachers were supposed to “teach” them these skills so that they are ready to face the world of potential employment.
Vote:Teachers have been fucking up the system by not doing their jobs correctly. Once these no hopers get to the age of 16 schools can’t get rid of them quick enough. Pass the buck to someone else. Its not their problem anymore.
August 17th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
immigrant, how is buying a train different from buying a fibre cable?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
“When faced with a ludicrous proposal, my first instinct is a conservative one. What is the issue with young benficiaries that requires them to be issued with a payment card? Will that assist them into work or training?”
Vote:No, it won’t. Nor will it teach them to be professional athletes, rocket scientists or macrame experts. Why? Because it isn’t supposed to. IE, that is not what it is there for. It is a small start to the process of telling beneficiaries that welfare is a two-way street. They receive and start to give something back – like setting off on a road that may lead to contributing and not just taking.
It is the start to what I hope will be a paradigm shift. In some small way it may also instill some basic life skills which may be the start of the road to employment.
August 17th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Monty says “The issue Labour have is that their first reaction is always to oppose anything and everything National puts up.”
It’s almost like they’re an opposition party eh… Damn them for giving the voters a choice!
However, they do not oppose “anything and everything” National puts up. Copyright reform? Medical marijuana? Even on law and order reform they’ve provided a pretty mellow opposition.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Lee’s evidence is KIA’s anecdote. I’dlike to think that John Key and Paula Bennett had a bit more than that when they decided on this policy, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
I agree largely with holysheet – earlier intervention and closer management much earlier are required. Teachers are not responsible for all of this – parents have a role too. But given that young people are leaving school at early ages now, it is clear we could do better. I’m just not convinced these new measures will help in that aim.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
brend
How is an orange diffirent to Wednsday?
Thats about as much sense as your question makes.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
The problem I have here is that these 16 and 17 year olds are typically not the beneficiaries you really need to worry about – it’s not as if you can get the IYB easily. It seems to me that this is the very group of beneficiaries that we have the best possible chance of improving their lot in life.
Training is certainly a part of that (and is something that is already done). If it needs tightening up then sure – but training for trainings sake is a waste of time and energy – if they don’t want to learn then it will be a waste of time. Ensuring that jobs are available is the only way things will actually improve, and the only way the training will be of any use.
I’m not convinced that removing control over the monies they receive has any particular benefits – ideally we’d be encouraging them to learn to budget well (more training) so that the meagre amounts they’re given can be spent most appropriately. After all, if you end up managing the money for them then you’re effectively admitting that training them in this area is futile – why should the teen strive to pick themselves up out of the situation they’re in?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
# immigant (328) Says:
August 17th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Labour = a socialist government that encourages people not ot work. This is how I’m reading these events.
———————————————————–
I take it you don’t make use of the “socialist” healthcare system? Your kids don’t use the “socialist” education system? Your parents/grandparents don’t receive “socialist” superannuation? You don’t make use of the “socialist” public infrastructure like roads and parks? Hope not, otherwise that might make your position somewhat…. ahh… what’s the word I’m thinking of? It’s when you criticize others for something you do yourself… I’m sure the word will come to me eventually.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
mikenmild says
“Given that it is already illegal for 16- and 17-years-old to purchase alcohol, please enlighten us on how this policy will ensure that they cannot get alcohol.”
kiwi in america says
“mikenmild
You honestly believe that the mere illegality of under 18 years old purchasing alcohol as prescribed in the Sale of Liquor Act magically means that 16 and 17 years olds cant and wont procure booze…”
————————————–
So, obviously he doesn’t believe that. He didn’t even say anything remotely resembling that.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Why is it we all receive state funded education and healthcare but no one complains about it removing incentive to work? After all, they are things people want very much and having them provided for you should reduce the incentive to work hard to pay for them privately. Why then does the public have a completely different attitude to very basic necessities like food and shelter?
Why if we instituted a basic income for everyone do we hear cries of “socialism” but hardly a whisper (aside from the libertarians) when we’re talking about state funded education and healthcare? On the political right it would seem only the libertarians can offer a consistent (albeit sociopathic) point of view.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
I think a train set is the same as a fibre cable, you can go to work on them both… except with the fibre you dont need to get out of bed to be at work.
Fibre wins!
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Weihana
The point I’m making
Vote:A real socialist government would be making sure everyone is working not fuckign around on the dole. That way we have lower taxes and more socialist freebees.
Judging by your posts you’re about 18months into some sort of political degree and don’t read much outside the prescribed textbooks.
It is obvious to me that your grasp of economics, history and politics is equal to that, that an average person could get at the public library for about $2.75 in overdue fees.
August 17th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Just love the lefty clowns, they had nine fucking years to sort this shit out, nothing, then all of a sudden they have all the answers, be fucked. High employment rates must scare the living shit out of the left, who needs the state pushers when the junkies get clean.
If the Nats were really about creating jobs for the young they would drop youth rates, they know this of course but obviously someone has hidden the Viagra.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Is there any actual evidence that the IYB is largely going towards alcohol and drugs?
If someone on the IYB is purchasing significant quantities of these things I would be expecting that they are undertaking under the table work or engaging in illegal work like drug dealing.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Weihana
Love how you shift the topic as soon as your feeble bleating is destroyed with my merciless rhetoric.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@Weihana – how does state-funded education and health remove the incentive to work? Its pretty clear that paying people for doing nothing removes that incentive.
Its also pretty damned obvious why the public is against food and shelter being provided by the government – its completely unaffordable. The government is currently borrowing $300 million a week – current welfare spending by the government is $269 million a week (i.e. $14 billion per annum). That makes it pretty obvious why its such a sore point with people who actually pay tax and contribute productively to the economy. We simply can’t afford it.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
# immigant (330) Says:
Judging by your posts you’re about 18months into some sort of political degree and don’t read much outside the prescribed textbooks.
——————————————————————–
Bzzzt. Sorry you haven’t won anything this time but better luck next time!
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
seanmaitland (44) Says:
August 17th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@Weihana – how does state-funded education and health remove the incentive to work? Its pretty clear that paying people for doing nothing removes that incentive.
————————————————————————
What is state funded education and healthcare if not a payment for doing nothing? Does it have value? Yes. Do people work for it? No. (well actually taxpayers do work for it, but the entitlement is there regardless of productivity). Ergo, it should reduce incentive to work if your reasoning is to be accepted.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
seanmaitland (44) Says:
“Its also pretty damned obvious why the public is against food and shelter being provided by the government – its completely unaffordable. The government is currently borrowing $300 million a week – current welfare spending by the government is $269 million a week (i.e. $14 billion per annum). That makes it pretty obvious why its such a sore point with people who actually pay tax and contribute productively to the economy. We simply can’t afford it.”
We have been affording it for decades. No one goes without shelter or food unless they’re some sort of idiot, mental patient or drug addict beyond help. That’s not to disregard the fact that our aging population is a problem but that is somewhat of another issue. Not that I don’t want to discuss it, but simply because most people do not demonize the elderly the same way they do with single mothers and the like. Note that 8 billion of that 14 billion figure you gave me is from superannuation.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
immigant
lol. merciless.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Weihana, State healthcare is not a payment for doing nothing like the Dole, to get state healthcare you need to do something,
you need to get sick.
State education, to get it you need to go to school.
The dole, sit on the couch and do fu*kall.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
immigrant, my question was: “how is buying a train different from buying a fibre cable?”
You apparently read this as: “how is a train different from a fibre cable?”
Please try answering the actual question again.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Also lets be completely honest about how much the government spends on “welfare”. To quote a figure like “14 billion” is quite misleading in this context. As I’ve already pointed out 8 billion of that is superannuation. Are we talking about superannuation? Is that who we are hating here? No. We’re talking about the solo mothers, the bludgers, the unemployed youth. That figure is more like 4 billion. A big number to be sure, but given that no one wants to talk about the 8 billion in super payments, why don’t we just ignore the 4 billion as well?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
weihana
“Is there any actual evidence that the IYB is largely going towards alcohol and drugs?”
mikenmild
“Lee’s evidence is KIA’s anecdote”
I chaired 2 Charitable Trusts (one after the other) for an aggregate of 7 years in NZ before I moved to the US – both specialising in adolescent drug and alcohol abuse. In that volunteer capacity I trained as an expert in adolescent A&D assessments and interventions and with that training I had the opportunity to do detailed assessments on drug and alcohol abusing young people. 95% of them obtained alcohol illegally from supermarkets and bottle stores and almost all on the IYB used a good chunk of their state benefit to procure their drugs and alcohol.
Numerous high schools across NZ had me address parent nights, Boards of Trustees and teacher and student groups on this subject including as a key note speaker at the NZSTA and SPANZ (Secondary Principals Association) annual conferences so yeah I’d say these were pretty darned accurate anecdotes. And for the record I had a 90% strike rate getting these kids off drugs and down to safe levels of alcohol use.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
berend
fair point let me rephrase my answer.
I will use the Jewish style and answer your question with a question.
How is buying something broken and usless that we sold back to the buyer diffirent to buying something new and usefull that our children will be able to use after us.
Is that better?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
DavidC (33) Says:
“Weihana, State healthcare is not a payment for doing nothing like the Dole, to get state healthcare you need to do something,
you need to get sick.
State education, to get it you need to go to school.
The dole, sit on the couch and do fu*kall.”
Getting sick is “doing something”? That’s a rather silly argument there David. Getting sick is not productive, it does not assist anyone else. Sickness is a drain, not a benefit to society. Sick people should expect compassion for their condition, not gratitude because they have “done something”.
So my position stands: healthcare is a benefit for doing nothing.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
kiwi in america – Well I can accept your anecdote as reported. I certainly don’t doubt your experience.
But “all on the IYB used a good chunk of their state benefit to procure their drugs and alcohol.” Ok, but that’s those who you dealt with. Does it reflect the situation overall?
Point is there’s nothing objectionable about limiting a beneficiary from spending taxpayer money on drugs and alcohol. But how widespread is the problem overall for the IYB and will the money spent on extra administration of the system achieve results which outweigh the added cost?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
kiwi in america:
“And for the record I had a 90% strike rate getting these kids off drugs and down to safe levels of alcohol use.”
Putting the debate to the side for the moment, well done on those results. I don’t care how much I disagree with you politically, that’s good work.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I think it would be more accurate to say that free healthcare (or any other service) reduces the the incentive to work because receiving that service for free relieves a person of the necessity to work to earn the money that would otherwise be charged.
kia – I was not attacking your expertise on substance abuse. I was just pointing out to Lee that the policy proposals did not appear to be based on evidence, or, if they were, that evidence is not being produced to justify the policy.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
immigrant: How is buying something broken and usless that we sold back to the buyer diffirent to buying something new and usefull that our children will be able to use after us.
Let me rephrase this is: how is buying some present for our children by borrowing money from those children useful? How does it rhyme with National’s lip service to private property and self-interest? Can the government pick winners? Is fibre useful? Won’t it be overtaken by the time it is rolled out?
National is buying an obsolete technology at a time where everyone is switching to 4G. Fibre is nice if you’re Weta industries, it will be next to useless for the most used communication devices in 2015 (phone, tablet, Kindle). And secondly, what use is it if you now can go through your datacap in 30 minutes instead of 3 hours?
So let me rephrase this again: How is buying something we already know will be broken and useless with the money we borrow from the Chinese and which our children will have to pay back different from buying a train set?
Or in other words: if National does the socialist running of this country, you’re happy. If Labour does it, you hate it. It’s all about the team who is in charge isn’t it? Never mind the policies, they’re indistinguishable, both throw money away that isn’t theirs, and which they don’t have. Well, that’s not true. At least Labour did have the money. National is borrowing it.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Weihana, I am glad you agree that at least 50% of your argument was false to start with, however I would contend that healthcare has zero value as a “payment”, you cannot sell it or transfer it in any other way.
Certianly cant buy a quart of vodka with a tonsilitis opperation you need!
So in fact your statement was 100% wrong.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
mikenmild – yes, that’s the point exactly. Of course the reality though is that it doesn’t reduce incentive, or if it does it’s hardly noticeable. I would argue the same would be true for a basic income which provided the bare essentials. I think for the vast majority of people they work in order to get ahead and to be able to buy the things they want. That is the *real* incentive to work.
Moreover, if everyone was guaranteed those basics then I don’t believe minimum wages would be needed to protect low wage workers from price elasticity and this would improve economic efficiency by allowing more flexibility in wages according to particular circumstance.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
The govt also needs to make contraception needs to be a condition of ongoing eligibility to welfare payments. This should just be a basic reciprocal obligation of accepting state funds while you seek employment.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
DavidC – Does it matter that it cannot be transferred for other things? It has value in its own right. Indeed people consider it so valuable that many like to refer to it as a “human right”. Therefore to provide something for free that people want so badly is clearly, if the logic is to be believed, a disincentive to work.
I do not know what you are on about with regards to my supposed agreement that my argument was false. You must have misunderstood.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Mikenmild, to answer your question, I expect that the designers of the card will be smart enough to do so in a way so that it can only be used by the holder and not traded for cash which can be used to buy alcohol etc.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
smttc
Where there’s a will there’s a way. One can always trade goods legitimately purchased for cash. Maybe this move will open a market opportunity for some niche traders.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
berend
I’ll explain myself as soon as you explain to me why you thing fiber and 4G is compareable? You’re like a little child wondering into the middle of an adult conversation i swear to god.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
smttc – ok so imagine I’m a teenager on the IYB and I want to buy alcohol and drugs. So instead of using my government cheque I just use the proceeds from drug dealing or perhaps under the table employment.
Or I simply buy food and exchange it with someone else for the alcohol and drugs. There is no such thing as a foolproof system. If they can get groceries then those things can be traded. You can just do a deal with someone. I buy the food, you buy the alcohol. Or I buy the food, you buy the dope.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Weihana, we are talking about tax payer money here. Not the proceeds of employment, under the table or otherwise.
And since when has food been currency for alcohol and drugs? Get a grib. Strawman arguments. Anything to argue the toss.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
mikenmild and weihana
If you check out the various drug/alcohol use/abuse studies done by the Christchurch Health and Development Study at the Chch Clinical School of Otago University you will know that use of cannabis by NZ teens (particularly late teens) is amongst the highest in the world (50% by aged 18 and almost 70% by aged 21 with a staggering 15% meeting DSM IV criteria for dependence on the drug)
http://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/research/healthdevelopment/publications/otago014492.html
The UN World Drug Report confirms NZ very high usage rate http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2011/Youth_tables_complete_WDR2011.pdf
Anyone who works in this field will confirm my experience – I’m not a lone voice. The government doesn’t need a double blind randomized peer reviewed study that takes years to complete and publish to confirm the bleeding obvious.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
weihana
Vote:There is no foolproof method but it will be a sufficient deterent to prevent a good chunk of the abuse. The most effective systems used in some US states require random drug tests to be clean to retain benefits of certain types. The left throws up a raft of objections in its attempts to say effectively “dont bother” and the bleatings have often been enough in the past to maintain the status quo that isn’t working. I predict this policy will be popular and reasonably but not absolutely effective. It’s success will be enough to be easily and clearly tracked and proven and it will be rolled out to even greater effect across most benefit types – again to the shock horror bleatings of the Sue Bradfords of this world.
August 17th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
smttc – I note the distinction between taxpayer money and the proceeds of employment. Point is simply instituting a “card” will not necessarily get them on track to a bright future which is the aim of these changes. Quite frankly I don’t care whether they buy health fruit and veges or forego decent food for 2 min noodles while spending the savings on alcohol and drugs. Either way the same amount of taxpayer money is spent. What will make a difference however is where they end up in the long run and reducing alcohol and drug consumption can assist them to get ahead. So IYB recipients buying alcohol and drugs with proceeds of illegitimate employment is relevant to this issue.
And contrary to your beliefs anything can be a currency for alcohol and drugs. That you refuse to believe it does not make it any less true. Indeed you offer no reason why it wouldn’t be true other than “get a [grip]“. Do you suppose that these people live isolated from the rest of the world? That they do not know anyone? That they can’t just go to a friend, “hey, can you get me the drugs and I’ll buy you lunch?”.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
The IYB people are still to get some of the money in cash form – they can still buy some alcohol and drugs – they just have to limit how much.
More interesting is how much their rent and power bills will go up – they will have no motive to flat together now to save money or to conserve power.
Of course they can take in unofficial boarders or sell use of power outlets to charge things up etc
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Weihana
Do you know what Demagogy is. You’re doing it now.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
SPC
Good point about flatting. Maybe that would be a good thing.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
SPC
Vote:The benefit rates for the IYB will remain unchanged – only the method by which most of it is paid. If the power bill or rent goes up then there would be no discretionary funds given to the beneficiary. They still have to excercise restraint over the type of accomdation they stay in, their power usage and the food they buy just as they do now. The amount of discretionary $ will be very small and won’t enable that much boozing/drugging. Same with Weihana’s drugs for lunch swap – there is not a bottomless pit of funds allocated to food and so excessive buying of food for others to swap for drink and drugs means running out of loaded funds quicker than usual.
August 17th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
kia – I’m not sure what I believe will happen, but I’m certainly skeptical it will achieve anything particularly significant. I think there’s also a fundamental difference between the US and NZ. Americans have a higher tolerance for letting people live in appalling conditions on the street who are not simply drug addicts or mentally unwell. I don’t think NZ has the stomach for these kind of consequences and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
If I was a teenager what I would do is switch to a student loan. At first glance this would seem like a good idea. Putting a young person into training on the path towards a brighter future. Except, what are the real motivations for going on a student loan? Will they actually pass? Will they actually study something worthwhile which will contribute to society down the line? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect if they were really motivated to study something they would do it anyway and if their only motivation is to receive money which they can spend as they like (i.e. student living expenses) then all that is going to happen is that they’re going to create a debt they’ll likely never pay back while creating even more cost for society through wasteful use of our educational resources.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
kiwi in america:
re cannabis use:
True, but what does that say specifically about the IYB? Most teenagers aren’t on the IYB and it’s not as though cannabis use is restricted to a certain class of people. Cannabis use is widespread amongst all sections of society from the rich to the middle class to the poor.
On another note, I wonder what the usage rates are in Portugal or the Netherlands?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
kia – you don’t know the details – Bennet said they would cover rent and power cost directly, then there would be a card which covered food buying. But on top of that there would be a fixed amount of pocket money/cash and that amount had nothing to do with what the rent or power bills were and this cash could be spent as they chose.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
KIA – “Same with Weihana’s drugs for lunch swap – there is not a bottomless pit of funds allocated to food and so excessive buying of food for others to swap for drink and drugs means running out of loaded funds quicker than usual”
—————————————
Surely if they already spend their benefit on alcohol and drugs now then they are already sacrificing their ability to afford other things like food.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
SPC
Think logically – even the Labour Party wouldn’t be dumb enough to use a policy change like this to INCREASE the benefit.
Weihana
Vote:“Surely if they already spend their benefit on alcohol and drugs now then they are already sacrificing their ability to afford other things like food.”
Precisely – a good reason for these proposals.
Netherlands youth drug use (esp cannabis) through 60′s and early 70′s was very low and stable then after depenalisation in 1976 a rapid increase through the 80′s and now high and steady. Portugal – a less pronounced post legalization leap in youth use but still noticeable. Sweden had v liberal drug laws in the 60′s with high levels of all types of drug use – big change in direction in 80′s and 90′s and drug use has plummeted and youth use of cannabis is negligible compared to Holland and NZ.
August 17th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
kia, I am just saying that this is what Bennet the government minister said would be happening.
There are consequences to covering rent andf power and that is that these costs increase
And yet sufficient for food off a card and some cash at a fixed amount for all on the IYB and DPB at age 18 will be given as well.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Weihana
Vote:After Clinton and the GOP Congress implimented the welfare reforms in the US in 1996 (ending open ended welfare entitlements) the left shrieked about people being thrown out on the streets and all kinds of ‘the sky will fall’ doom and gloom prognostications were breathlessly promoted by the usual reliable progressives. The reality – virtually none of the shock horror predictions came true and even some of the reforms most vehement critics 10 years later were grudgingly through gritted teeth admitting that their predictions did not come to pass.
August 17th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Weihana (107) :
“What is state funded education and healthcare if not a payment for doing nothing?”
Is what you said, and now we both agree you were wrong with what you said.
Neither is a payment for doing nothing.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Yeah now America is known around the world as a country where the poor are provided fo.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Problem with this crappy policy is that their will be a state empire built around a few hundred people.
Vote:2.5 mill, is the cost this year, 5mol next year and then it will be extended to everyone and next we know our own wages will be taken and dolled out.
Fucking control freaks with no ability to think properly.
August 17th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
MikenMild do you know any 16-17 year olds at all? Requiring kids to meet their financial obligations first and blocking alcohol and cigarettes is spot on. Its true some will work hard to get around it, but those kids will at least be paying their rent and will be subject to a much tighter financial constraint. This program is creating the right incentives and using just the right amount of punitive mechanisms to really help these kids. Seriously how you can’t understand why this will work shows how out of touch you are. Ultimately this will push through many more who would otherwise have fallen victim to their impulses. And as to Weihana, settings and contexts matter. A student in a University setting at least has the opportunity to come to some realisations and meet constructive people she would otherwise never find or see living in suburban New Zealand with a world reduced to smokey rooms.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 10:48 am
DavidC – you are being disingenuous and taking my words out of their obvious context. “Doing nothing” doesn’t mean the absence of any criteria of eligibility, it means the absence of productive activity in exchange for the service or good provided.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 10:54 am
UpandComer
Just saw your comment. Yes, I do know teenagers, including some spectacularly ill-behaved ones, so I’m not under any illusions about how capable they are of getting around any rules. I’ve said it before, and it’s obvious, these measures will not prove to be much of a barrier for any teenager who wants alcohol or cigarettes, or anything else. In addition, we have been presented with no evidence of how pervasive this problem might be or any indication of what results could be expected from this new policy.
My conclusion is that this is a cheap and easy announcement in election year aimed at voters’ perceptions rather than somethng actually designed to improve the welfare of young people.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 10:58 am
KIA
“Surely if they already spend their benefit on alcohol and drugs now then they are already sacrificing their ability to afford other things like food.”
Precisely – a good reason for these proposals.
————————————————————————-
But you are ignoring the point that these proposals do not appear likely to work given that restrictions can easily be got around by trading legitimate goods for restricted goods like alcohol and drugs. You just argued that “there is not a bottomless pit of funds” in an attempt to dismiss my point but clearly your criticism falls short. If boozing and drug use is a problem now then it will still be a problem when they trade their store bought goods for alcohol and drugs. The fact that this may limit how much they can spend on food does not alter the situation because they are already making that trade off.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 11:48 am
KIA
Netherlands youth drug use (esp cannabis) through 60′s and early 70′s was very low and stable then after depenalisation in 1976 a rapid increase through the 80′s and now high and steady. Portugal – a less pronounced post legalization leap in youth use but still noticeable. Sweden had v liberal drug laws in the 60′s with high levels of all types of drug use – big change in direction in 80′s and 90′s and drug use has plummeted and youth use of cannabis is negligible compared to Holland and NZ.
————————————————–
I think you need to check some of your facts as well as your hyperbole (e.g. “rapid increase”).
Drug use amongst the 13-18 year age group reduced in Portugal following decriminalization.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
(refer full report)
(Not to mention the hugely successful reduction in drug overdoses and HIV infection rates, and the significant increases in uptake of addiction treatment).
However, It would be dishonest of me to attribute trends in usage simply to decriminalization because the reality is that such trends are largely independent of drug policy and can be seen across a range of EU states regardless of their approach to drug policy.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/korf-e.htm
The point I actually was trying to make was that the usage rates themselves are lower than in other countries such as the UK, NZ and the USA where drug addiction is treated as a crime. Indeed usage in Portugal is about the same, if not lower, than that in Sweden.
It should also be considered that surveys conducted in a climate of prohibition are less likely to be accurate given the increased stigma and fear of punishment. But regardless, taking them at face value the fact remains that decriminalization doesn’t lead to the dire predictions that the fear mongers suggest and in fact when a sensible approach is implemented, such as that in Portugal, the results of decriminalization can be hugely beneficial.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 8:52 am
Based on the figures in yesterday’s herald, we are talking about a massive beauraucratic system to oversee a few million dollars a year. Surely a waste of money. And we know this is not a trial for the wider system, as the minister herself said that would be against the principles of the national party. So what’s the point?
Vote: