30 years on the DPB

September 21st, 2011 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Waikato Times reports:

A single Waikato mother of six children has been receiving benefits for almost 30 years.

She is one of an army of long term Waikato beneficiaries revealed in information released to the Waikato Times under the Official Information Act.

Social Development Ministry statistics show 1647 people in the region have been receiving some form of benefit for 15 years or more.

A further 1500 have been on it for between 10 and 15 years, 3655 between five to 10 years, 6309 between two to five years and 12,904 for less than two years.

Nationally, payments cost taxpayers about $7.6 billion a year.

The case of the solo mum who has been on the for 30 years makes me curious. Did she have six children to the one partner, and then he left her or died? Probably not, as then you would not be on the for 30 years.

So presumably up to five of the children she has had, were while on the DPB. Not to get the DPB you have to be effectively “single” and not in a relationship with someone. So who are the fathers of the six children and are they contributing to their upkeep?

I have no problems with having the DPB available to solo parents who find themselves without a partner for reasons of death or divorce/separation. I do have a real problem with solo parents who have multiple children while receiving the DPB. Now I’m not advocating no support in these circumstances because that may punish the kids. But I do think there needs to be a disincentive to continue having children if you are unable to support them yourself.

Tags: ,

111 Responses to “30 years on the DPB”

  1. Brian Smaller (3,992 comments) says:

    As long as the ‘but we can’t do anything because it will punish the kids’ line is used, nothing will ever get done. Extra kids conceived while getting welfare should get free education, health and the things that all NZers get, but the parent should get zero extra cash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    The culture of entitlement is alive and well in NZ. Nine years of socialism have only entrenched it even further.
    Time for Labour lite to do something about it……yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wreck1080 (3,732 comments) says:

    It is disgraceful.

    What happened to social welfare being a temporary crutch to get people through a bad time.

    Now, it is a career choice.

    [edit] genuinely ill and disabled people excepted of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. cabbage (454 comments) says:

    Clothing, Food, Education and Healthcare should be provided for the child only. Payment cards are a good start, but don’t go far enough in cases like this, IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. jem (47 comments) says:

    An extended family member of my wifes, is a solo mum, who has been receiving support for her 5kids for a couple decades.

    The sad thing is that she has had these kids intentionally to keep the benefit, as soon as the kids get to an age where she will start losing the financial support , she pops out another baby… every one of these kids has a different father.

    The system is clearly at fault here for making it so easy for people like her to leach off the taxpayer in this way.

    Sterilizing these people who stay on the benefit for too long would be a good start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (10,744 comments) says:

    Closer case management and support are required for long-term beneficiaries, not more restrictive regimes for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Bring on Nationals welfare reform plans!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    I used to hear things like this and it would fire me up with righteous indignation and set me thinking on how we could sort out these parasites.

    Now it just makes me sad.

    I guess the stinking, lazy bludgers have won.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gump (1,488 comments) says:

    One of the consequences of a free society is that some people will inevitably make bad life choices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    One of the signs of an idiotic society is rewarding the people who make those bad life choices

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dime (9,442 comments) says:

    “Closer case management and support are required for long-term beneficiaries, not more restrictive regimes for all.”

    you almost make it sound like its our fault we have been paying her for 30 years to sit on her ass.

    what a piece of shit this woman is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    The DPB was a very bad piece of social engineering which illustrates the “Law of Unintended Consequences” only too well.

    BUT

    At least this woman is doing something productive ie having children which is more than can be said for a lot of the parasites this country supports eg Gender Studies Lecturers, Sex ED Teachers, Carbon Credit traders and about 90% of our MPs.

    So I don’t get too upset – DPBers are a convenient target perhaps but the middle class beneficiaries doing pointless to harmful non jobs are worse – much much worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. KiwiGreg (3,177 comments) says:

    I’d like more facts before rushing to judge, but it sure doesn’t feel like a great role model for those 6 kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mikenmild (10,744 comments) says:

    No dime, that’s not what I mean. Welfare reform shouldn’t be driven by the worst abuses of the existing system, that’s all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Jem: I think you may be speaking tongue in cheek…but assuming you are serious, it just aint going to happen. I suggested incentives to discourage child abusers from breeding further a year or so ago and the suggestion was met with scenes of the Nuremberg rallies on TV One News, and footage of the gas chambers.

    If disincentivising child abusers gets that reaction, what do you think suggestions of disincentivising those guilty “only” of abusing the benefit system will give rise to?

    The tragedy of course is that it’s the kids who suffer either way. Anyone who has done it knows bringing up kids on the DPB is a constant struggle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    And of course according to Sue Bradford, Turei and their ilk, there ARE no abusers of the DPB or any other “bene”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Scott Chris (5,881 comments) says:

    The only short-term strategy that has any chance of working, is to disincentivize having more children on the DPB by taking any subsequent children away from the mother after the first, unless or untill she can support them on her own.

    She would also be required to take a contraceptive injection to renew her benefit, ratified by her doctor.

    Couple that with better sex education and education in general.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dime (9,442 comments) says:

    mike – thats reasonable. but the left seem to govern to the lowest common denominator. govern to a few extreme examples which help justify taxing dime into oblivion.

    if youre on the dpb and you have another child you shouldnt get any more money. you should be moved to a strict budget system. food vouchers etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (10,744 comments) says:

    dime
    I’m in favour of more individual approaches rather than stricter systems overall. Some individuals would respond better to more generous approaches; while some need to be shown a harsher route. The difficult with doing such things fairly is it requires discretion from decision makers without turning them into little fascists running peoples’ live on a whim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Scott Chris: That aint going to happen either….but I shouldn’t be so negative; I’m buggered if I know what the answer is….as an earlier commenter said, perhaps the answer is that here is none, and the bludgers and social engineers have won…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. trout (902 comments) says:

    Just another case of ‘induced demand’; a policy is introduced to solve a problem (with the best of intentions) and the solution itself is like fertilizer on a plant; it makes the problem grow. One day we may learn how to avoid the phenomena of induced demand; not soon I fear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    Although I’m completely out of fresh (acceptable) ideas to stuff up the intentions of those who breed for benefits how do you see your “individual approach” tactic working?

    Without the threat of punitive sanctions how do you stop someone saying “F##k you, it’s my body. I’ll breed you pay” or something similar? Plenty of Auntie Tariana’s constituency seem to think that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tas (596 comments) says:

    I agree that we need to incentivise people on the DPB to not have more children for the purposes of keeping the benefit. In general, we need to incentivise people not to have children they cannot support. And we need to do it without hurting the children.

    I would wager that most of these children end up having shit lives and being a drain on the country. It is a cruel system that creates children for the purposes of collecting charity.

    I would support compulsory contraception. But I think that’s a hard sell politically. Does anyone have a better suggestion?

    Also, does anyone have statistics for how many children are born to DPB recipients?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Just to move this discussion somewhere…can one of the enlightened lefties who monitor this blog pinch their nose and come and explain to those of us with limited intelligence just what it is that is so wrong with an eftpos equivalent of “foodstamps” in lieu of cash? I genuinely dont understand what the objection is…..or is it really that the left think beneficiaries have a “right” to buy booze and smokes with the taxpayer’s dime? Anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    Andrei

    Please be careful when you stand up. I’m concerned that your brain may have rolled out of your ear.

    Try and maintain an upright posture at the keyboard at all times in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    DG

    Nothing wrong with that at all aside from the fact that it would interfere with their choice as to how they spend your money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (9,442 comments) says:

    mike – why do we have to be “fair”?

    fair doesnt exist. they live off handouts and should be grateful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. dime (9,442 comments) says:

    David – some of them will trade the stamps of smokes & liquor and the kids will miss out blah blah blah

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. jem (47 comments) says:

    OK, apart from people who have longterm/permanent disabilities, surely no-one believes that a person in this country can not find a job in 30years.

    Even allowing 5years for a solo mum/dad. So that the kid is now in primary school, and not in permanent care at home.
    From this point on, when our farmers are constantly importing labour from abroad in desperation, you cant tell me that within another year this person can’t find work.

    If we agree on that, then why can we not simply say after that 12month period your benefit starts to reduce , until it reaches Zero 6-12months later.
    At least you are giving them the opportunity to start looking and without just booting them out.

    This is after all OUR hard earned money, so why should we not be allowed to determine the conditions of the agreement? Seems to me that the “beggers” are manipulating those who are putting the bread on their table and showing absolutely no appreciation for it.
    Receiving the DPB should be a privilege not a right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    dime: yes I understand the problem with “food stamps” which are in effect a currency, and therefore tradeable…and I suppose logically – if you could be bothered – you could use your “food only” eftpos card to get food and then swap it for booze or smokes…but if that’s the only objection its a very poor one eh?

    I think whoever said interference with the “right” to spend the taxpayer’s dime how they like is the real and only valid objection….but who knows; “toad” or one of his toadies may enlighten us…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (10,744 comments) says:

    jem
    That prescription would work for some cases, but I’m sceptical that fiddling around with the rules will produce great results.
    For most, benefits are a temporary support while a person cannot support himself or herself. For others, it becomes too easy or turns into a lifetime of dependency. Fortunately, the latter category is a pretty small minority. The benefit system as currently structure is probably okay except to those who either abuse it deliberately or are hopeless case. For them, closer attention and possibly stricter methods are necessary.
    Broad changes to welfare to fix problems that only manifest themselves in a minority of changes won’t help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. LabourDoesntWork (282 comments) says:

    What government subsidizes, it gets more of. Observe the negative social indicators compared to a few decades ago and that’s the success of the welfare state, which has thrown money at all kinds of problems and purchased much more of the same. About as worthwhile as throwing money at failing companies to “bail them out” without seeking what a sane investor would: bankruptcy, reform, and THEN investment $$. The political class are invested in the same thing as organized crime: Corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. KiwiGreg (3,177 comments) says:

    I dont really know the rules and certainly aren’t trying to drum up support but if she had a severely disabled kid requiring life time care that might be why she stayed on the DPB that long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. dime (9,442 comments) says:

    “For most, benefits are a temporary support while a person cannot support himself or herself. For others, it becomes too easy or turns into a lifetime of dependency. Fortunately, the latter category is a pretty small minority.”

    so its either temporary or lifetime? really?

    what about the shitbags who spend ages 16 – 25 on a benefit. they aint temporary and i knew about 50 of them back in the day. they plain chose not to work.

    im over the lefty bullshit “they cant get jobs”.. no, they are either too lazy or they cant get good jobs because they are sacks of shits who wont study or train.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mikenmild (10,744 comments) says:

    dime
    I didn’t mean to imply the benefit was for a short term or for life – there are all sorts in between.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Longknives (4,464 comments) says:

    “Closer case management and support are required for long-term beneficiaries, not more restrictive regimes for all..”

    Mike- As a former Case Manager at WINZ (Worked there for 6 months or so as a ‘filler’ job when I first graduated University) I can tell you straight up that if any Case Manager even dared to question the lifestyle of these bloodsucking parasites a dropkick lawyer or local MP would be on the phone pronto screaming ‘Human Rights abuse’ and threatening you with your job… Case Managers pretty much have their hands tied, change has to come from the top- I:E NOT throwing cash at these lazy no-hopers to spit out 9 kids for a living. Some of the things I saw while working in that office sickened me and changed my political perspective for a lifetime…I worked two bloody jobs (bartended at night) and most of the clients were earning a lot more than I was!! And god help me if I dared to turn down their regular ‘emergency entitlement’ (On top of the $700- 800 or so they were getting pumped into their accounts weekly…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. jem (47 comments) says:

    At the very least, some simple things that should change, which the lefties cant tell me would be unreasonable;

    1)Beneficiaries should have to show up to their caseworker on a regular basis, whether this be weekly or monthly. Those who genuinely cant get work wont mind this . If you don’t turn up , you don’t get paid.

    2)Voluntary work. My wife was on the benefit in her youth for a short time and was refused voluntary work by WINZ because she hadn’t been bludging long enough! Street sweeping, graffiti cleaning, various community works..there are plenty things around the community that you could make them do if they cant find work, and at least they would be active, out of trouble and earning their pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mikenmild (10,744 comments) says:

    Longknives
    I’ve seen plenty of the same myself – I’m not suggesting that the current case managers do wrong -if anything they don’t have enough discretion to achieve change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Scott B (23 comments) says:

    Easy solution: Long-acting reversible contraceptives.

    Simply require an doctors certificate (say 6 monthly) confirming the presence of a LARC device to receive the DPB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. seanmaitland (455 comments) says:

    While I agree that this woman is taking the piss and should not get a cent more – can I ask, is there anyone commenting here who is a public servant?

    If so, there is about a 70% chance that you are just as bad a leech on our society, so don’t hold your heads too high….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Unless Toad is too busy spinning elsewhere I guess there ARE no real objections to a “food stamp eftpos card” as at least a major component of the benefit…

    Longknives: that’s bullshit mate; you’re making that up; no beneficiaries act like that; no-one wants to be on a benefit….

    Earth calling Sue and Meteria…and of course Hone and Auntie Tari…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    We need to get the welfare numbers down overall. An individual approach will not achieve that, or anything else. Total reform of the welfare system is needed so that it can be returned to what Michael Savage intended, a temporary safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. jem (47 comments) says:

    @David Garrett
    “Longknives: that’s bullshit mate; you’re making that up; no beneficiaries act like that; no-one wants to be on a benefit….”

    Most of your posts Ive found interesting but I don’t think you can attack Longknives on something that he has experienced first hand and you know nothing about. If anything that shows some major arrogance.

    I have a friend who is a social worker in South Auckland and what Longknives has said aligns pretty well with the stories I have heard from my friend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Scott B: Dont be so SILLY! We are not allowed to challenge the “right” of child abusers to remain fertile and thus breed more victims, so there is no chance we will ever be allowed to restrict the fertility of professional breeders who dont otherwise abuse their progeny…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***Now I’m not advocating no support in these circumstances because that may punish the kids. But I do think there needs to be a disincentive to continue having children if you are unable to support them yourself.***

    Why is it so hard for policy makers to simply make contraception a condition of welfare? The people in some cases have very low future time orientation so lack the planning ability to use protection. Accordingly, make contraceptive birth control shots a condition of ongoing eligibility to entitlements.

    http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Longknives (4,464 comments) says:

    Seanmaitland- Apologies…But yes I was a ‘Public Servant’ for a while and obviously scum of the earth…The difference being I was paid shite and had to get up at 6:30 every day, get out of bed and actually go to work- The ‘Clients’ staggered in stinking of Cannabis and Lion Red, severely hungover, mid-late afternoon demanding more cash- I hope I am marginally above them in your esteemed opinion???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Jem: look up the word “irony” son….even one of those on-line dictionaries should do….

    But in case you are too lazy to do that, I am AGREEING with Jem…and parodying the enraged responses of those who claim anyone who quotes such stories are making them up…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. jem (47 comments) says:

    David
    Sorry mate I misread your post. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Longknives (4,464 comments) says:

    Jem- I think David may have been ‘Tongue in Cheek’. Jesus I hope so…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Seriously…has anyone got an answer to this that has a snowball’s chance of being sellable to the wider public? Compulsory contraception in return for continued receipt of the DPB is a no brainer…but because our current rulers have no balls, (and the other side has neither brains nor balls) that’s never going to happen.

    There seems (at least here) to be no real objection to direct crediting rent, and a “food stamps” eftpos card in lieu of a swodge of cash in the bank every week…but I dont think even ACT is running with that…

    What else? Other than in the realms of whimsy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***Scott B (3) Says:

    September 21st, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    Easy solution: Long-acting reversible contraceptives.

    Simply require an doctors certificate (say 6 monthly) confirming the presence of a LARC device to receive the DPB.***

    ^^ A voice of sanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. jem (47 comments) says:

    David

    I think that is the problem right there…As long as politics is involved, no-one will have the courage to do it right.
    They will all compromise and tiptoe to ensure they upset the least number of people possible without actually doing what is needed.

    Maybe this is where a FPP system would be better? I don’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Jem: just to reassure you…let no-one think this phenomenon is new…When driving a cab to put myself through Uni 25 years ago it was quite common to hear conversations in the back to the effect that Krystall or Chanelle or Tyrone was about to go to school, and there was therefore an urgent need to “have anuvva one…” Usually on the way to the Bush Inn or the Aranui hotel on a Thursday or Friday night….Christchurch being a small place, it was not unknown to pick the same women up with a witting or unwitting sperm donor in tow about four hours later (pubs closed much earlier then)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***Seriously…has anyone got an answer to this that has a snowball’s chance of being sellable to the wider public? ***

    Why wouldn’t that be sellable, especially given the financial burden the country is struggling under. People resent seeing people on the DPB recklessly having further children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. s.russell (1,563 comments) says:

    I’m surprised no-one has suggested the alternative to compulsory contraception: compulsory adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Seriously…has anyone got an answer to this that has a snowball’s chance of being sellable to the wider public? ”

    Short term? No. Long term, I think that government can sell welfare reform if its careful and takes a slow and moderate approach that does not scare people who genuinely need or deserve help. There is a growing frustration with many people that there are too many people gaming the system who could work if they wanted to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Bob R: Of course its a voice of sanity! But look what happened to me (long before the passport stupidity of 25 years earlier came to light) when I suggested offering incentives for VOLUNTARY sterilization for child abusers….

    No political party is going to run with “a jab or no DPB” or any permutation of it….

    So what does that leave?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    Unless Toad is too busy spinning elsewhere I guess there ARE no real objections to a “food stamp eftpos card” as at least a major component of the benefit…

    One that I’ve heard is that the cheapest place to buy fresh fruit and vegetables are weekend farmers’ markets. Which sometimes rely on cash, and even if they have EFTPOS, probably wouldn’t be able to sign up to a system that could distinguish between “good” purchases and “bad” ones. Food stamp-style cards may prohibit the poorest from buying the cheapest food.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***I’m surprised no-one has suggested the alternative to compulsory contraception: compulsory adoption.***

    On what basis would the children be removed, let alone adopted? Who would they be adopted to? The process now with adoption tends to involve the biological parents in any case, they can have ongoing contact.

    Far easier to just have an upfront requirement to have a contraceptive injection for continued entitlements. It is a reasonable reciprocal obligation for accepting ongoing living costs from the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    “At least this woman is doing something productive ie having children”

    No, having babies is not being productive. Being productive is doing something which is of value to someone else. Popping out children is not of value to anyone except the child’s family. Children do not represent value to other people they represent a burden when the parents of such children do not work or contribute to government revenue.

    The main problem here is not the fact that they are unemployed, it is the fact that they are having children they can’t support thereby increasing the financial burden on the taxpayer beyond what it costs simply to support an unemployed adult. This is a huge cost which covers education, health and all the rest.

    Aside from a rather callous minority, we need to remember that we are not prepared to let anyone starve no matter how useless and irresponsible they are. With that in mind it makes sense for the government to institute a basic income for every individual thus avoiding the need to administer a complex welfare system, enabling the removal of price floors on wages and ensuring that employment will always make a person better off.

    We then need to limit the amount of extra money that is given for having children and also I agree that any such extra money should be controlled via special debit cards or some similar scheme.

    I don’t think the answer is employing more bureaucrats and case managers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “No, having babies is not being productive. Being productive is doing something which is of value to someone else. Popping out children is not of value to anyone except the child’s family.”

    Its of value to the nation. I just wish she was married and being supported by someone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Bob R,

    “Far easier to just have an upfront requirement to have a contraceptive injection for continued entitlements. It is a reasonable reciprocal obligation for accepting ongoing living costs from the state.”

    Absolutely. Reasonable and only a temporary obligation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Having babies and raising children is an economic activity – perhaps the most important economic activity of any society.

    It is a crying shame the middle classes have abrogated their responsibility in this area and are leaving it up to the under classes to do.

    No babies today, no people to wipe your wrinkly old bottie when you are in your dotage so you’ll have to stew in your own shit.

    My goodness kiwis are dumb

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Lee01: I would dearly love to think you are right….but my (admittedly very short) time in politics suggested strongly to me that no matter how sensible and reasonable an idea is (such as the jab in return for the DPB) for a whole host of reasons its extraordinarily hard to get such changes made.

    I dont want to turn this thread onto three strikes, but ponder this: 1) 87% of those polled (both by the Nats and by us) supported it; 2) once we had demolished the made-up supposed impact on prisoner numbers, it was established that the increase in prisoner numbers would be minimal 3) all evidence from overseas jurisdictions was that such measures reduced crime sharply….and STILL it was one helluva task to get the Nats on board…and that was for a policy what was massively popular…

    In my view, compulsory contraception in return for the DPB would be about 20 times harder to achieve than 3S…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    1)Beneficiaries should have to show up to their caseworker on a regular basis

    Exactly correct.

    I’d suggest 07:00 each weekday morning for those on the dole or sickness benefit (and not bedridden), 08:30 for DPB recipients – no excuses!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    Anyone have an idea about how many breeders are likely to discover that they have some medical reason why they can’t tolerate Depo-Provera? As with any drug there are some people who’ll have adverse reactions to their six monthly shot but anything that comes between a career baby factory & the WINZ office is going to be challenged.

    For that matter how many will discover a deep catholic faith which prevents them using contraception?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    I can just see and hear Sue Bradford, Minto and Hone and his constituents demonstrating outside the “compulsory injection” clinic! No nurse let alone doctor would do it lest their houses got bombed by the supporters of the “right” to have six kids supported by the taxpayer…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler (2,060) Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Unless Toad is too busy spinning elsewhere I guess there ARE no real objections to a “food stamp eftpos card” as at least a major component of the benefit…

    One that I’ve heard is that the cheapest place to buy fresh fruit and vegetables are weekend farmers’ markets. Which sometimes rely on cash, and even if they have EFTPOS, probably wouldn’t be able to sign up to a system that could distinguish between “good” purchases and “bad” ones. Food stamp-style cards may prohibit the poorest from buying the cheapest food.

    Mr Edgeler, with one exception (in a rich area) all the farmers markets I know of operate in the mornings so I think we can be sure they will not be visited by your average beneficiary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    Thirty years with her legs in the air. And it seems like Andrei was busy holding them apart.

    Why wasn’t some use made of this? They could have been used as a cellphone tower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    nasska (1,671) Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    Anyone have an idea about how many breeders are likely to discover that they have some medical reason why they can’t tolerate Depo-Provera? As with any drug there are some people who’ll have adverse reactions to their six monthly shot but anything that comes between a career baby factory & the WINZ office is going to be challenged.

    For that matter how many will discover a deep catholic faith which prevents them using contraception?

    Now you know why I’ve long advocated compulsory corks. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Andrie

    “Having babies and raising children is an economic activity – perhaps the most important economic activity of any society. It is a crying shame the middle classes have abrogated their responsibility in this area and are leaving it up to the under classes to do. No babies today, no people to wipe your wrinkly old bottie when you are in your dotage so you’ll have to stew in your own shit.”

    I totally agree with you. However, doing so as single parent on the DPB is not the right answer, let alone doing so for thirty years.

    We need a family focused economy that supports mums staying home. Niether “free market” corporate capitalism nor socialism has the right answers to the economic problems faced by families and the Wests catastrophic population decline.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Lindsay (141 comments) says:

    tas,

    Stats you requested:

    http://ips.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/MSD-Women-receiving-DPB-with-additional-newborn-children-included-in-benefit.pdf

    The following is from the WWG recommendations:

    “Addressing unintended consequences from incentives for parents to have additional children

    We have heard a concern among some people that setting a work expectation for parents when their youngest child reaches three years or six years may create an incentive for a small minority of parents to have additional children to avoid this work expectation. Should this eventuate, this would likely contribute to worse outcomes for the parents, their existing children and the family as a whole, and make it even harder for parents to regain their independence from the welfare system. The Working Group considers that one component of addressing this incentive is to provide support for people on welfare to manage their fertility, including through contraception and information about expectations.
    The Welfare Working Group also proposes a change in the conditions of eligibility to address this issue. The majority of the Working Group recommends that a work test in the case of parents having an additional child while on welfare should be aligned with paid parental leave provisions (when the youngest child reaches 14 weeks). A minority of members felt that the work-test in the case of parents having an additional child while on welfare should be aligned with parental leave employment protection provisions (at 12 months). The Working Group is of the view that if the changes to the work test do not address the incentives to have additional children while reliant on welfare payments, then it may be necessary to consider additional financial disincentives in the future. There was agreement that should such provisions be introduced emergency and exemption provisions would be critical.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Andrei (1,028) Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Having babies and raising children is an economic activity – perhaps the most important economic activity of any society.

    It is a crying shame the middle classes have abrogated their responsibility in this area and are leaving it up to the under classes to do.

    No babies today, no people to wipe your wrinkly old bottie when you are in your dotage so you’ll have to stew in your own shit.

    My goodness kiwis are dumb

    ————————————–

    No it is not. Economic activity or “being productive” is producing things of value to other people. Babies are not of value to other people. They are a financial burden. We do not require more children to look after old people.

    First of all we are able to import people from overseas without having to pay a lot of money to feed, house and educate them and who are of a higher quality than those children who are raised in the homes of beneficiaries.

    Secondly what we need is for people to save for their own retirement rather than relying on a flawed pyramid scheme which is highly susceptible to changes in the birth rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # David Garrett (528) Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    I can just see and hear Sue Bradford, Minto and Hone and his constituents demonstrating outside the “compulsory injection” clinic! No nurse let alone doctor would do it lest their houses got bombed by the supporters of the “right” to have six kids supported by the taxpayer…

    ————————-

    I doubt it. Bombing clinics is usually the preserve of the fanatical religious right. Also any compulsory injection scheme would have to have exceptions if significant adverse side effects are experienced and if such exceptions are in place any protests against the scheme wouldn’t have much to complain about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “First of all we are able to import people from overseas without having to pay a lot of money to feed, house and educate them”

    Yeah, because that has worked SO well in Europe.

    You mean more of these people Weihana? http://forladiesbyladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pack-o-burqas.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    Weihana is absolutely right. The one thing that is not in short supply in NZ or the rest of the world is people & certainly not those who have been dragged up on a benefit to ensure that their worthless parents don’t have to look for work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    lol. No, not those people. Those types of people are largely as a result of taking on asylum seekers and family reunification policies. The focus has to be on skilled migrants. We can’t save the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Wiehana my dear…just because, on an objective test, someone has nothing much to complain about doesn’t mean they wont!

    Think about the outrcry that greets ANY suggestion of a “work for the dole” programme, no matter what type of work is offered, or how much of it is required. Despite their being indisputable evidence that it is better for people to be up and doing something – anything – rather than lying abed until 10, and then watching dvd’s all day, Sue Bradford and her mates Hone and Minto will scream into their mikes defending the “right” of the unemployed to do just that, and castigating anyone who dares suggest such an idea as an unfeeling swine…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***Having babies and raising children is an economic activity – perhaps the most important economic activity of any society.It is a crying shame the middle classes have abrogated their responsibility in this area and are leaving it up to the under classes to do.***

    True, although because talents are partly heritable, plus the underclass tend to have dysfunctional behaviours, you’re only going to increase the underclass. That is why Steven Levitt found the Roe v Wade decision increasing access to abortion for poor people was also linked to a drop in crime rates 20 years later. Those groups were far more likely to have children who ended up in crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    You know Lee01 I agree with you, the whole DPB thing is a huge mistake but so is the attitude that kids are a burden – they are our future. We need to get back to the Mum, Dad, three kids and a dog thing (this is heteronormative apparently and discriminatory so it can’t be done.

    The nongs on this thread seem to want to hand the future over to Somalis or something – most odd

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    Leeo1

    You rascal you. When did you take up online dating?

    Weihana

    You’re perhaps too new to the sandpit to appreciate that comments in support of breeding being in itself, a productive economic activity, tend to come from those who enjoy some form of state subsidy for doing so; be it DPB or WFF. I can only assume that it is dragged out to assuage some sense of guilt at making others pay for their personal lifestyle choices. Human nature being what it is, that guilt then morphs into moral outrage at the non-breeding fraternity or those who are careful to make careful choices about the timing of the breeding choices.

    It’s interesting also that someone like Andrei, by all accounts a severe God botherer, prefers to support the lady (snort) who has spent the last thirty years on the bludge with her legs in the air, rather than advocate the importation and adoption of children from rather more extreme circumstances who are faced with the daily prospect of sand for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

    But that’s Andrei’s brand of religion for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    @ Andrei,

    I agree, making it practical and affordable for educated women to have children is hugely important. National IQ is actually more important in some ways than macro-economic policy :)

    “It’s not just how free the market is. Some economists are looking at another factor that determines how much a country’s economy flourishes: how smart its people are. For a study published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, researchers analyzed test scores from 90 countries and found that the intelligence of the people, particularly the smartest 5 percent, made a big contribution to the strength of their economies….

    They found that intelligence made a difference in gross domestic product. For each one-point increase in a country’s average IQ, the per capita GDP was $229 higher. It made an even bigger difference if the smartest 5 percent of the population got smarter; for every additional IQ point in that group, a country’s per capita GDP was $468 higher.”

    http://www.parapundit.com/archives/007974.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    My word Andrei.

    “The nongs on this thread seem to want to hand the future over to Somalis or something – most odd”

    That’s a rather nasty poisonous little mind you have there. Can I suggest you polish up the act a little before your interview with St Peter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    @ thedavincimode,

    What is wrong with that statement? That would be a rather dystopian future, don’t you think? Albeit less of a concern for NZ. It is more pressing for Europea and Asia. Israel recently built a fence to prevent border crossers from Africa too.

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/03/china-and-interesting-times-part-iii.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    C’mon, davincimode. Andrei is right, so stop being a soft-cock, will you? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    Not a soft cock any more Manolo. I’ve found the hair spray.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. gump (1,488 comments) says:

    David Garrett said:

    “Unless Toad is too busy spinning elsewhere I guess there ARE no real objections to a “food stamp eftpos card” as at least a major component of the benefit…”

    —————–

    Ok I’ll bite.

    The cost of building, maintaining, and administering a nationwide electronic payment system would cost orders of magnitude more than any savings that would be generated. Please don’t forget that the payment card networks that handle electronic POS transactions are privately owned. The government can’t nationalise the payment card networks and neither can it regulate the network owners to force the implemention of your proposed second-tier payment system.

    Your idea has theoretical appeal. But the implementation requires ‘magical thinking’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. mikenmild (10,744 comments) says:

    Go the Somalis – we could do with a more enterprising, maybe piratical, approach here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Ah gump, how nice of you to contribute.

    Now I myself have very little knowledge of computer technology…enough to comment on the interweb and create documents in Word but that’s about it…so someone help me out here…Is gump right? Would it be prohibitively expensive to set up a system where the “food card” works through an eftpos terminal only for items on a list, or is he bullshitting?

    (You’ll excuse my cynicism gump, but when a member of your party is prepared to make a maiden speech containing completely false statements, and after yesterdays con in the Waikato, I dont take much the watermelons or their supporters say at face value…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    gump

    The Government would only need to buy into the payment card system for the payment card idea to work. After all the system can already handle cards on behalf of banks & various merchants. What’s the difference if the amount of the DPB is loaded up onto say a “benecard” but restricted so that it only works at retailers who have agreed not to allow it to be used to buy cigarettes or alcohol?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    As the United Kingdom demonstrates, a determined state can change the character of a people in the space of a generation or two. When William Beveridge laid out his blueprint for the modern British welfare state in 1942, his goal was the “abolition of want,” to be accomplished by “cooperation between the States and the individual”. In attempting to insulate the citizenry from the vicissitudes of fate, Sir William succeeded beyond his wildest dreams; want has been all but abolished. Today, fewer and fewer Britons want to work, want to marry, want to raise children, want to lead a life of any purpose or dignity.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100104043/britain-is-a-cautionary-tale-to-america-to-not-go-down-obamas-path-to-statism/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    The situation with the DPB really pisses me off. What also pisses me off is the alcoholics and drug addicts that I have witnessed as a pharmacist being on invalid and sickness benefits for years. One guy has been receiving methadone for the 25 years I have been on the pharmacy register and I know for a fact he has never had paid employment. I had a bloody good laugh when the A&D clinic decided that clients not in employment would not receive take home doses, he was complaining to me that he was self employed so how could he prove to the clinic he was working. I said quite simple, show them the assessment from the IRD you will receive after you have filed your IR3 return. The useless bastard didn’t even know what an IR3 was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. hj (6,359 comments) says:

    I’ll speak for Meteria Turie:

    “There can be no other interpretation except that if a woman gets pregnant while on a benefit, she must accept state enforced contraception if she wishes to continue to receive her $194 per week social support. Despite dog whistling to misogynists everywhere, most New Zealanders would consider it abhorrent that the state would force women into contraception. This is an extreme form of state violence against women. The state has no right to control a woman’s fertility, under any circumstances.”
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/03/08/the-welfare-working-group-and-the-injection/

    Green Party of Canada:
    “Family Planning Key to Maternal and Child Health

    “Women need to be able to delay pregnancy, space out their births, and limit their family size. We have these options in developed nations and we now need to work together globally to extend the same options to developing nations, where they are urgently needed,” said Wilcock.

    “With the growing environmental crisis, the impacts of which will be particularly severe in poorer nations, family planning is even more important in terms of stabilizing global population,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May.”
    http://greenparty.ca/media-release/2010-03-19/family-planning-key-maternal-and-child-health

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    >Having babies and raising children is an economic activity – perhaps the most important economic activity of any society.It is a crying shame the middle classes have abrogated their responsibility in this area and are leaving it up to the under classes to do

    The middle classes (economically productive) don’t breed like rabbits because they can’t afford to and are too responsible to live beyond their means. (unless your definition of ‘middle’ is actually ‘higher earners’ – which of course isn’t the middle at all).

    The underclass produce kids whose only contribution to society will be to drain resources, and produce more kids whose only contribution to society etc, etc.
    Lot of them never get jobs because they don’t see why they should do anything that requires effort. Lot of them are totally unemployable.
    Because their parent will teach them only a sense of self-entitlement, how to screw the system, not to respect anyone…

    jem (16) >Maybe this is where a FPP system would be better? I don’t know.

    I think you’ll find any country with a welfare state has exactly the same problems, regardless of their political system.

    wat – Sure, but that’s what this thread is asking. How do you find a balance between welfare state as safety net without encouraging it as a lifestyle choice?

    The alternative being no welfare state and the poor living on rubbish tips and in shanty towns, like so many countries in the world.

    US doesn’t have the answers. 15% living below the poverty line, it was reported last week. Widely reported, so link at random: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/13/national/main20105376.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    No Nasska – Gump is right

    As it is today when you use your card it is

    either a Debit Card in which case money is (ultimately) transferred from a bank account linked to that card and the merchants account

    Or

    a credit card in which case the credit card company pays the bill and you are effectively borrowing the money.

    This system would at a minimum require a new type of bank account meaning existing banks would have to buy in and agree to operating restrictions on those accounts as well as setting up the processes to enforce those operating restrictions.

    Could be done but its not a small job

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    The middle classes (economically productive) don’t breed like rabbits because they can’t afford to and are too responsible to live beyond their means. (unless your definition of ‘middle’ is actually ‘higher earners’ – which of course isn’t the middle at all).

    It is all a matter of priorities – I had four, I didn’t dine in fancy restaurants that often or drink fine wines. A hedonistic selfish culture wastes its inheritance living for today.

    That’s where we are at and as the population ages, which it is, the chickens will come home to roost

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    Ok…if the foodstamp card is really too hard (or not cost effective), then why not the old fashioned food stamps? Yes, they can be traded for things for which they are not intended, but that is no worse than the situation we have now, where the money can be and is spent on booze and smokes and gambling.

    As for Turei’s comment, no big surprise…translates as “how dare the taxpayer try and dictate how many brats the woman produces while she is being supported on the public tit?” Totally consistent with the watermelons’ view that wealth should be totally redistributed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    Andrei, you’re talking hogwash!

    Any “benecard” will in fact be a specific product credit card.

    My fuel card allows me (or an employee) to only purchase fuel, oil and a cheap car-wash from a particular merchant. A “benecard” will do the same thing for specified grocery products only.

    Not hard to organise nor police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Your fuel card, Mr Tinman, unless I’m very much mistaken is issued by the Oil company where you can use it and is a credit card with you receiving a monthly bill.

    Thus apart from checking the fact that the card is valid there is no real check on your balance being as you are borrowing the money you are spending and providing you pay your account regularly the fuel company does not give a toss how much you spend – the more the better for them in fact. Which of course is why it makes good business sense for them to run such a system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    Andrei

    Thanks for your input but I had envisaged it along the lines in MT_Tinman ‘s comment. Think say a fuelcard.

    Something similar is already available as there is some sign at the local Pak & Save to the effect that funds on an “emergency” card cannot be used for alcohol or tobacco products.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    Andrei >It is all a matter of priorities – I had four, I didn’t dine in fancy restaurants that often or drink fine wines.

    Average household income in NZ $67,973, if one accepts Wikipedia. That’s the middle.

    Saying you HAD four suggests you bought a house when housing costs relative to income were a lot lower and families could manage on one average-for-one-person wage.

    Perhaps there are those who’d rather enjoy the fruits of their hard work now, having earned it, and take their chances on a future they might not even live to see. For instance, elderly relatives of mine saved all their lives for good pensions. One wishes she’d had a bit of fun while she was young and fit enough to do so. Another died at 60 and all those savings were pointless.

    But any couple having two kids has replaced themselves for the future. What more is needed?

    And the main point remains: underclass turning out kids the state has to provide for all their lives isn’t productive. And it’s the hard-working middle who are paying for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Nasska – Pak n Sav run their own card system which is used for people who want to self scan and Pak n Sav can and do put restrictions on what a particular card may be used for as do the fuel companies.

    And Banks could do the same with their cards but the systems would have to be built by every bank and then accounts to which the restrictions apply would have to be tagged and the merchant systems would have to be jigged to recognize the restrictions etc.

    Pak n Sav can do it for their cards in their stores. BP can do it for their Fuel cards but you want it done globally which can be done but it will cost money to build the systems and it wont be done over night

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. noskire (832 comments) says:

    I think there’s an argument for capping the DPB allowance – it shouldn’t be based on how many rugrats you spit out. My income doesn’t automatically go up if I decide to breed like a rabbit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    In this world Mary Rose you figure out what you value and what are mere baubles and cut your cloth accordingly.

    People make their choices wise or foolish – my kids are doing well and that seems like a good deal to me and a good choice to have had them – its not been without its costs though

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    I do think the DPB was a huge mistake though subsidizing pathological fatherless families at the expense of the traditional ones.

    Totally arse about face – that’s feminism for you. How you fix it now? – the big question

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. noskire (832 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,035) Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    I do think the DPB was a huge mistake though subsidizing pathological fatherless families at the expense of the traditional ones.

    Totally arse about face – that’s feminism for you. How you fix it now? – the big question

    Raise the age of entitlement to any benefit to 25 (with some degree of flexibility around the invalids benefit).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Dazzaman (1,123 comments) says:

    This woman is a thief & thoroughly selfish cow. She should be set to work cleaning sewers for the next few years & made to donate half the wage to paying back most of the 30 years benefit.

    Can’t say us working class battlers ($26,500) are moaning & claiming victim status due to having to pay for this dishonest twits thieving….not like the “middle” moaners. Ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Rich Prick (1,553 comments) says:

    Easy fix. No DPB to any baby factory who will not name the father. When she does he will have his salary deducted per the liable parent scheme. If neither of these things happen, no DPB and food stamps issued. End of.

    We are too busy paying for all sorts of more important things than bitches riding the system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. leftyliberal (642 comments) says:

    Regarding payment schemes (debit card etc.) IMO the costs wouldn’t be great from a banks perspective: After all, you could just give them a traditional eftpos card for their “food only” DPB account at WINZ. The trick would be ensuring it was restricted to only food. This would be relatively straight forward in some cases, such as ensuring you couldn’t just get cash out from an ATM.

    The trickier case is ensuring it’s only used for approved food purchases: Effectively you’re relying on the retailer policing the system when there is little incentive for them to do so: You’d have to essentially provide disincentives like there is for selling alcohol or cigarettes to those under age. There may also be hard to define situations as well: Do you stop them purchasing glue? Methylated spirits? Cleaning products that may be used for some habit?

    As others have pointed out, you also restrict them from cash-only purchases such as farmers markets. Though they may not currently use these sources, no point in forcing them to not do so.

    Instead, we need to be educating them so that they budget well and spend their (our) money appropriately. Get a beneficiary budgeting well and living within the meagre amounts they receive and they’ll be more likely to value things appropriately and thus more likely to get off the benefit.

    After all, if we don’t think this will work then we may as well admit that nothing that can be done about long-term benefit reliance at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. tas (596 comments) says:

    Isn’t there already a benefit card system? That’s what I heard.

    The implementation of the system depends on the merchants. The merchants are not allowed to sell alcohol to people paying with a benecard. So the simplest implementation is just an eftpos card with “BENEFIT CARD” written on it in big red letters and a fine for merchants selling cigarettes to people using such a card. Easy!

    Longknives: Your story sounds awful. I think we should have a bit more “tough love” for beneficiaries. As such, I’m partial to ACT’s suggestion of private welfare provision. I think the salvation army are less of a pushover than WINZ, so I’m all for funding them instead.

    Lindsay: Thanks for the link! 1 in 4, that’s terrible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. katmac (1 comment) says:

    Before anybody judges me – Yes, I believe in getting off my butt and TRYING goodness knows I’ve been trying and trying and been tried over the years, but I have been met with a ‘system’ that is just unhelpful when you need a hand up (not a hand out)…I am a solo Mum of two, my oldest has significant special needs and my youngest is not challenging so I’m evenly balanced. My eldest child’s father totally abandoned us 18yrs ago saying ‘see you after work’ and unbeknown to me got on the first plane to Australia and has proven elusive ever since. Six years later I believed I had finally settled down with ‘Mr Right’ who ended up treating me very poorly so decided for the sanity and sake of myself and my two children to ‘go it alone’. I had to shift from my hometown (and my support network) to put my eldest into a special school at the time. Although my Son is no longer at school or home I still have my other minor child but still not able to go home where the support network would be easier as my youngest is settled here where we currently are with her friends!! Over the years since my eldest was born I have been met with challenges such as…Raising two on my own, raising one with special needs, significant physical health issues, major surgeries and ongoing health issues in myself. I have not been able to work a full-time or consistent career let alone try and train for one. Every time I’ve tried either medical issues, childcare issues or child with special needs issues would arise. I find it hard to find an employer who will take on all that. During this time I have still managed the odd jobs of housekeeping for others while my children were at kindy, have managed a small business for a period until the elderly owner closed the shop. He offered to me but at the time I didn’t have $21,000 for stock and plant. I have trained and worked in resthome care but a major surgery took me out of that profession for ever. That’s just a couple of the things I have done here and there. I have begged and pleaded with WINZ for a program to help someone in my situation figure it all out so it all ‘rhymes’ – A job I can physically cope with, hours that suit a solo mum with no support network, an employer who will care about me if I find myself back in surgery (not like my last employer who treated me very poorly when I found myself a very ill lady) – so I can ‘get off the benefit and not be a burden on society anymore’ and they showed me the door. They’re not interested in my plight. They wouldn’t even help me with my CV when I was having trouble uploading to a potential employers website when I was having techno difficulties. I went in three times and told WINZ the employer is soooooo keen to hear from me but I need to get him my CV but I’m having struggles with that and they wouldn’t help (three times!!) To top my long (but significant to me story off) I survive on $35pw after costs (rent etc) and out of that $35 I have to pay still for power, phone and food, clothing, petrol, etc. I don’t sit on my butt, I job search like mad I volunteer in the community, I keep job searching and sending out CVs (manually lol). I have even just worked a week at an annual sale where I was able to earn enough to get me off the benefit for those days and ended up back in hospital for a few hours because the position I undertook exacerbated my medical conditions and I was not a well lady at the end of the week. I knew I would struggle physically with the position but I needed the money and wanted to work. The end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.