National’s welfare reform
November 1st, 2011 at 3:14 pm by David FarrarThere are three documents. The release, the speech and the Q&A. Key points:
- A new jobseeker support benefit to replace the dole, sickness benefit, widows, women alone and DPB (if children over 14)
- part-time work expectation for sole parents with children over 5 years
- full-time work expectation for sole parents with children over 14 years
- Sole Parent Support to replace DPB
- new Supported Living Payment to replace Invalid’s Benefit and DPB care of sick and infirm
- A sole parent who has another child while on a benefit will be exempt for one year, in line with parental leave, before work obligations resume
- Aim is to move 46,000 off welfare
- Cost of $130m over four years
- Estimated savings from welfare reduction – $1b over four years
This is a huge shake up. It is an end to being on the DPB meaning no need to look for work for decades, but the changes go well beyond that.
Currently 1 in 12 people of working age are on welfare. Over half have spent greater than five years on welfare.
The sickness benefit changes are also significant. If you get sick or injured, then you get a temporary exemption from job seeking obligations. But you don’t just get left on the sickness benefit for years as a de facto invalids benefit.
The Invalids Benefit basically does not change, apart from the name (which is a sensible change as the name is demeaning, as the criteria includes those terminally ill etc).
The cost of the policy at $130m is a lot, but a worthwhile investment. This will mainly be costs of helping get people into work with assistance for childcare, training, workplace support etc.
There’s also a nice incentive for those who return to work before they have to (for sole parents). If they do, then they’ll carry on getting the benefit for a number of weeks (declining at $100 a week).
Related posts:
- Welfare reform legislation passed into law
- Welfare Reform
- Treasury’s welfare prescription
- Bennett on welfare reforms
November 1st, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Ah, now they get my vote back. Good times eh phlu?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:24 pm
The only exemption that a solo parent on a benefit should get if she falls pregnant again is exemption from entitlement to that benefit. Giving a work obligations exemption will only encourage beneficiaries to breed.
[DPF: It is only for 12 months, as opposed to effectively six years at present. I like it being the same time as parental leave]
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:30 pm
On the surface these look to be very good changes. I can imagine some screaming from some quarters but many people should like this.
Name changes are good, ingrained attitude changes will be the hard part.
Two major problems remain – not enough jobs, coupled with it still being easy to be seen to be seeking work without managing to get employed.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Seems like a fair package at first glance. But if the main concern is cost it is still only fiddling round the edges. The big bills are for superannuation, not DPB. And if there aren’t any jobs, they won’t go anywhere.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“full-time work expectation for sole parents with children over 14 years…”
Heh.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Nick R: I’ve not picked up the vibe that this is being done for cost cutting reasons. I think it is a sincere belief that it is better for kids not to grow up in a household where no adult has ever worked.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:42 pm
What will the bludger Ure do? Chemists and pharmacists beware.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:48 pm
thats a great start!
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Excellent changes in my opinion – except perhaps needing a better way of discouraging having children whilst on DPB.
BUT this has to be backed up by job growth and wage increases across the board
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:56 pm
I think it is probably a good mix between being soft and being extreme. I still don’t like the idea of someone purposely falling pregnant and then getting a whole year before seeking work. I spoke to someone recently who knew a lady who just turned 40 and has had 16 children (including getting pregnant while her husband was in jail during a visit) all on the dole. She has never worked a day in her life! Don’t think these changes will force someone like this to modify their lifestyle somehow.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 3:57 pm
“Aim is to move 46,000 off welfare”
Presumably there will be 46,000 new jobs for these people to fill. Any mention of how that will be achieved, or is this rather like an optimistic treasury forecast?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:00 pm
“Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said harassing beneficiaries into low paid jobs was not the way to a better future. ”
Ha! I am all for harassing benificiaries into getting work! ANY work! just stop stealing may taxes!
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Wow! This is massive. Welfare reform is long overdue.
I hope that it involves lower marginal tax rates. Currently those on an unemployment benefit see their benefit drop 70c for every $1 they earn, not to mention income tax and loss of other benefits.
I look forward to the upcoming circus.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Under these policies, a sole parent with a four year old will not be expected to work in order to receive the DPB, but a sole parent with a 14 year old and a one year old will be expected to work full time in order to receive the benefit. How is that a good idea? Where is the horizontal equity in that?
Or is two kids 13 years apart too many for poor women to have? Is that what qualifies as “breeding for a business” these days?
[DPF: you have picked the most extreme example possibly. You have to weigh that up against the fact that a number of people on the DPB never get work tested at the moment. One famous mother profiled at last election has had three more children on the DPB since 2008, to various fathers]
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
46,000 new jobs isnt a huge number. Not over a period of time. We should start growing again at a decent rate.
Ill be creating a brand new job in January
so theres one!
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
I don’t think any political party is yet facing up to the fact that NZ will just never again have an abundance of low-skilled jobs available. They’ve generally been either disestablished through automation, or been shipped offshore.
Vote:The only realistic option is government make-work schemes, whether fully government run or in a PPP model. Perhaps areas these could be established are in the environment (e.g. picking up litter, tidying up waterways and scenic tourist hotspots) and in care – early childhood and aged care.
November 1st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Turei has never had a decent job in her life. From her bio: With a law degree from Auckland, Metiria has previously worked as a lawyer at Simpson Grierson and as an advocate for the unemployed and beneficiaries.
She’s there to secure for the Luddites the votes of as many bludgers as she possibly can. Sad, but true.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:08 pm
And with the number of jobs on the rise some people might finally decide that it pays to work.
18 OCTOBER 2011
Over the past year, the growth in online job vacancies has been positive, with skilled job vacancies up by 23.1%; and all job vacancies up by 24.9%. The number of skilled job vacancies advertised online slightly dropped (1.2%) in September.
http://www.dol.govt.nz/News/Media/2011/fall-in-vacancies-in-september.asp
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:08 pm
***» A sole parent who have another child while on a benefit will be exempt for one year, in line with parental leave, before work obligations resume.***
Unfortunately due to low future time orientation I suspect a lot of people will simply fall pregnant again. Accordingly, a simple implant, like Implamon, should be provided to protect against pregnancy for those in the Sole Parent Support category.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-implant-implanon-4243.htm
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Rob – bad luck. there will always be a few cases where you think – well, thats a genuine shame. but we cant keep governing to those few cases.
and its fair – its the same for each mum after she has her first baby. just harder for those who continue to have them.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Yee, where are the jobs?
Vote:Don’t you all know the number of jobs is fixed? That is why socialists can pick a number out of there arse that they would like the minimum wage to be and it won’t effect the level of employment.
November 1st, 2011 at 4:16 pm
dime – Thanks for your honesty. “Well, that’s a shame I guess, but fuck ‘em” might work for you, but not for me. When government gets into the business of helping folk out, it ought to help everyone who really needs help. That is not too much to ask. As for fairness, try thinking about it from the perspective of the two little kids rather than the Mums. One gets a sole Mum without much cash but able to spend time with them and cope. The other gets a completely frazzled sole Mum without much more money (seen fulltime childcare costs recently…) but totally wiped out from working 40 hours a week at some hard, low-wage work and unable to engage much. How is it fair for that kid?
[DPF: Part of the policy is to help with childcare costs.]
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Rob – I take your point but imho we have been governing like that for years. People take advantage. This country cant afford to continue with so many people living on a benefit.
Why is the mum “frazzled”? Lots of women have under 2′s and work full time. Its the way of the world.
You mention the cost of day care – if the lady isnt earning enough them im sure the govt will top her up. WFF etc.
And why do you assume shes working some minimum wage job? she will have been working part time since the first one was 5 and/ or been in training.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:24 pm
***Or is two kids 13 years apart too many for poor women to have? Is that what qualifies as “breeding for a business” these days?***
@ Rob Salmond,
Why are they having the child if they can’t support it financially? As I said above, realistically I realise there are many people who lack the capacity to plan ahead or use contraception – hence the need for contraceptive implants as a condition of ongoing welfare payments.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Heavy cloud cover at Maison Magpie.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:26 pm
@Rob
“One gets a sole Mum without much cash but able to spend time with them and cope. The other gets a completely frazzled sole Mum without much more money (seen fulltime childcare costs recently…) but totally wiped out from working 40 hours a week at some hard, low-wage work and unable to engage much. How is it fair for that kid?”
Maybe she can threaten to beat or abuse her kid if she doesn’t get more money?
Vote:Or would using a kid to extort money be blackmail?
And if so……
November 1st, 2011 at 4:26 pm
This appears to be a huge vote catcher for National on the face of it.
The general public have been hoping for something along this line since they demised Helen Clark
and her plan to have sufficient voters dependant upon the state (their fellows who pay taxes) to
ensure a labour govt for ever. ( the, turkeys don’t vote for an early christmas theory) See working for families,
interest free student loans, immigration, etc. Her shallow minion Steve Maharey sensed it wouldnt quite come off
and bailed to another good bludge just in time to save his “unblemished excellent” career of selfishment.
If she had won one one more term she would have achieved her life long goal and we would
never have been rid of her.
Full time work expectation with a child over 14 will rock the world of full time
Vote:bludgers such as philu. But don’t expect him to post a counter argument on this thread.
He will squeal like a stuck pig but is crafty enough to rely on his protegee Scot Chris to carry the torch.
Which, predictibly, he has already done.
November 1st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Rob Salmond
My reading of the policy is that it only applies if you have the child while on the benefit. It means that there isn’t an incentive to have more children.
Frankly, I don’t think single mothers should be having more children while on a benefit; it’s irresponsible.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
When are people going to get it through their heads that raising teenagers is not a full-time job? By the time they’re 14, they’ve got teachers, friends, television and internet to raise them. Your work is done.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:35 pm
I’m with Ryan on this one. TiVo has done a wonderful job raising my kids (who now answer to the names Dora and Diego)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:36 pm
***Frankly, I don’t think single mothers should be having more children while on a benefit; it’s irresponsible.***
@ Tas,
It is irresponsible, but a lot of people have low future time orientation and basically can’t help it. That’s why it’s such a no-brainer to make a match stick sized implant like this, which goes in your arm, a condition of welfare.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-implant-implanon-4243.htm
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:36 pm
@ DPF – I agree that it is better for kids to grow up in a household where people work for a living, so that is a good outcome by itself regardless of savings. But as I understand it the Govt’s main economic policy is to return to a surplus in its accounts ASAP. Fiddling with the DPB won’t make much of a difference there.
@ Manolo – trust me, working for a firm like Simpson Grierson falls into the category of a real job…
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Point of information, people don’t “fall pregnant” as if it is some sort of illness that you catch from a sneeze. There is only one recorded instance in history and many have cast doubts on the veracity of that. Getting pregnant is an event that follows a conscious (in most cases) act. It is not rocket surgery. It is about time the apologists for welfare recipients stopped making excuses for those who can’t keep their legs crossed of pop a pill once a day. Next move is to turn the screw on sperm donors.
Vote:This is a huge start and recognises that the welfare net is not there to be a lifestyle choice for life.
November 1st, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Where’s Phil Ure this afternoon? Panic attack?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:44 pm
But this is social policy, no?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:45 pm
@DPF
[DPF: you have picked the most extreme example possibly...]
This coming from a guy who did a whole post the other day on who was giving a tax cut to someone earning exactly $150,000. Cos his argument there wouldn’t work at $160,000. Hypocrite.
On the substance, I note you chose not to defend the government’s treatment of my hypothetical mother with a teenager and a little one. It isn’t a contortionist example – there will be quite a number of these families. And that non-defence seems to put you in the same “it’s a shame I guess, but fuck ‘em” camp as dime. That is a pretty shameful camp to be in. It says “I know this policy is fucking some vulnerable kids over, but what the hell.”
[DPF: I disagree it fucks over any kids. The kid will be significantly better off with the mother not having to survive on a benefit only]
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Rob – I’m a single mum, working full time since my daughter was 3, due to a marriage breakup after 10 years. She’s now 12. I would not have described myself at any time in the last 9 years as “completely frazzled” or “unable to engage much”. I think it’s insulting to assume that working parents can’t cope.
By the way, WINZ pays childcare costs when parents work. Parent/s earning under $1400 per week still get a subsidy. My daughter’s after school care costs me absolutely nothing. Same goes for preschool and holiday programmes. (I know there will be some commenters here unhappy that WINZ pays this, but I make this point as an important reply to the complaint that childcare costs mean parents can’t work. That complaint is rubbish in my view.)
Here’s the address for the WINZ rates: http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/deskfile/extra_help_information/childcare_assistance_tables/childcare_assistance_income_limits_and_rates-24.htm
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:46 pm
DPF: The cost of the policy at $130m is a lot, but a worthwhile investment.
True. Look at what we got for the $ 18.6 billion in debt!
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Over an hour now and still no comment from philu.
This has never happened before.
Is he relying on having groomed his protegee Scot Chris to step up when its too hot for him?
Also waiting for,” My Name Is Jack” and others of his ilk to start squealing.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Rob
As others have said: If that parent with the 14 year-old is still on the DPB then the 1-year provision applies. If he/she is not on a benefit then it looks like it’s back to the 5-year situation.
In either case; What the heck are they doing getting pregnant without the financial wherewithal or spousal support? There’s no getting around the fact that you have to be pretty stupid (or calculating) for that to happen.
In any case it would be easy to get around. As your youngest nears 5, get pregnant, take a job at a service station or supermarket for 4 months, reapply for the DPB as an in-work parent. Reset obligations
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:52 pm
So what we are saying is that we are not going to send our economy into recession every few years by making sure that there are sufficient beneficiaries to maintain a winning margin for the Labour party. Great!
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:53 pm
@tas: You raise a good point regarding the marginal tax rate. Having spoken to quite a few beneficiaries, this is something that often comes up: they’re not interested in part-time work as it’s not worth it. Fair enough too given the marginal tax rate that they’re on (70+% in some cases) – that $13/hr doesn’t look all that good when you get only $4 of it.
Get the marginal rates way down to something more resembling the marginal tax rate and lots more beneficiaries will be looking at part time work which is a much easier way towards a full time job than expecting them to jump into it. It’ll also reduce the work for cash jobs many beneficiaries take on as that won’t be such a big deal. It’ll cost more short term but if it gets people working, the costs long term are much lower.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:53 pm
rouppe
I think you missed the meeting – this is NZ, parental responsibility is optional and frowned upon. Vote labour and get the benefit so you don’t need to accept that having children has responsibilities.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:55 pm
rouppe
Don’t you think it is unreasonable that people need to take certain actions to maintain their benefit – the Labour system of sign on – drop out (forever) is much easier for people who don’t like either condoms or the pain of needing to be financially responsible for their own children.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Fantastic policy. Note to self.. Remember to block ears to drown out screaming from the left.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
The culture of dependancy has developed over 40 years – starting in the mid seventies. It will take a long time to phase out and we have to recognise that fact. Our approach to welfare needs a complete paradigm shift – as indicated in the change of name from DPB to Jobseeker Support. This is not harrassing beneficiaries. It is however signalling the beginning of the end of the gravy train.
Some people do need hassling. If Philu is on a DPB with a 16 year-old then its time someone aimed a sized 12 boot at his backside. I have no tolerance for his sense of entitlement and implacable determination to suck the public tit for as long as he can.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 4:59 pm
As a pre-election tune up I think this is a pretty good policy. However the DPB still sounds way too attractive. I still think a six monthly doctors certificate stating a Long Acting Reversible Contraceptive Device is in place should be a requirement to receive the DPB.
Long Term however I think we need to completely rethink how we do welfare. I quite like the Big Kahuna proposal. I think the weakness of the current benefit scheme is that there is little financial incentive for finding a job (due to benefit reductions).
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:00 pm
@burt
“I think you missed the meeting – this is NZ, parental responsibility is optional and frowned upon. Vote labour and get the benefit so you don’t need to accept that having children has responsibilities.”
And don’t forget Labour’s cheerleaders such as Rob.
“Give them money or the kid gets it.”
I suggest Rob starts a fund for “DPB mothers with a teenager and a little one..” and deposits a percentage of his own money in it. Hearing all the self-righteous Labour supporters, they won’t mind supporting the cause.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:04 pm
How about a system where if you are unemployed you get say 80% of your last 5 years average income for 6 months before reverting to the base benefit. Crazy I know that we might recognise that people who have previously paid tax but are in a short term bind should receive more benefit than long term lay-abouts… but surely there also needs to be more equity and fairness in our welfare systems.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:06 pm
leftyliberal:
Yes, a lower marginal tax rate is a much more effective incentive than being required to look for work. I’d rather the government spend more on welfare if it creates a good incentive, as it will pay off long-term.
I don’t think anyone rich or poor should be paying a marginal tax rate of over, say, 50%. And it’s insane that beneficiaries are being taxed at over twice the ‘top’ tax rate.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:07 pm
philu
…. How about a system where if you are unemployed you get say 80% of your last 5 years average income for 6 months …
Sorry mate, wouldn’t make any difference to you and possibly will never make any difference to your children – but it’s not about what is best for you – it is about what is best for NZ.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:10 pm
burt
Think of it a good training for when they get to be rich pricks. Taking certain actions to maintain your benefit is akin to taking certain actions to minimise your tax liability.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Helen Clark had a master plan.
We will put in place policies that will give enough New Zealanders money
that we appropriate (steal) from their fellows that they will never vote for anyone except labour.
The old ” critical mass ” theory.
It would have been of no moment to the socialists that this would have eventually ruined the country.
Better for the country to die under our rule than have those greedy capitalists running things.
The country dodged that bullet, just by the skin of our teeth. Thankyou John.
This is the type of reform that may prevent that sickening spectre ever arising again.
Once enacted, this type of reform will be as hard to repeal as Helens sick dream would have been .
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
When are people going to get it through their heads that raising teenagers is not a full-time job? By the time they’re 14, they’ve got teachers, friends, television and internet to raise them. Your work is done.
Nice tongue in cheek Ryan, now please inform the rest of us why solo mothers with children over 14 cannot hold down a full time job?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
doh..!..how about Mana ..eh..?
..denial…
…and as for the bene…….dpb….does not compute…
….having problems typing…..
…meltdown…….key….eh?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Replies to various folk (grouped by argument):
1. Some have pointed out the unfairness only kicks in if the mother of the teenager is on the DPB already.
That is true. But so what? Is the assumption that all solo Mums with teenagers who are out of a job during a massive global downturn are lazy good for nothing bums? I don’t see it.
2. Some of you think it is irresponsible for poor sole parents to have multiple kids.
Well I’m not sure the State should get too much into intruding on the personal freedoms of adults. Nanny State and all that, right team?
More importantly, the community has a responsibility to each kid born in NZ, regardless of any action on the part of their parents. How are we discharging that responsibility properly if we say “sorry kid, your parent is both poor and made a dumb choice once (that choice is “you”), so I guess you’ll have to put up with a worse upbringing than even the other poor kids.” Punishing the Mum (the flip side of “providing a disincentive”) also punishes the kids for having siblings.
3. One of you is a working single Mum who takes offense at my characterization of all single Mums as “frazzled” and “unable to engage.”
First, good for you for being able to manage your responsibilities and work as well. I mean that. Second, I apologize for implying that all single Mums are frazzled. I should have been more careful with what I wrote. Third, what I meant to convey was that if you imagine a particular sole Mum, without high earning capacity and stuck at the bad end of a yucky labour market, I think she would be more frazzled if stuck doing 40 hours in a low-paid job then coming home to be the sole parent to two kids including a young one than she would be if she had time to devote to her little one and did not have the work requirement.
4. And one of you thinks the DPB should come with an obligation for semi-permanent implanted contraception.
I think the day our government requires medical treatment in return for giving a kid some money for food is a scary day indeed. I think our Bill of Rights Act specifically rules that one out (NZBORA s11). Enjoy your eugenic-style fantasy.
And now, goodnight. Enjoy your commenting.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:41 pm
(I know there will be some commenters here unhappy that WINZ pays this, but I make this point as an important reply to the complaint that childcare costs mean parents can’t work. That complaint is rubbish in my view.)
I think you may find that the fact that you have used your initiative and obtained gainful employment overrides in many eyes that you get assistance from the government. And I for one would rather cover a portion of your living costs while you are working/earning and showing your kids that adversity is no reason to give up vs me covering 100% of your living expenses.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:45 pm
And now, goodnight. Enjoy your commenting.
Classic Labour tactic, drop a petulant ‘I’m-losing-the-arguement-so-I’m-gonna-get-haughty’ comment that you are leaving the debate, therefore you think you’ve won….
Wonder if we will see another comment from you tonight, or is it just home time?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Bevan – I live in the US, on East Coast time. It is 12:45am Tuesday right now. Goodnight.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Did we get compulsory drug testing? If not, why not?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Regardless of whether we take a sensible or socialist view, there are less low skilled job vacancies than there are people eligible to fill them. A few thoughts:
1) Quite a few future vacancies will occur in the aged care sector. This is usually rostered variable shift work….someone expected to work say 2pm to 10pm every third week is going to find childcare an enormous problem even if it is government funded.
2) Employers are still going to have requirements involving honesty & attitude. Take the example of our resident activist/beneficiary. Who is going to employ someone with a serious criminal record & a CV covering fifteen years that reads like a blank sheet of paper?
3) The jobs on offer in some parts of NZ are virtually nil. Are people going to be reallocated to areas where work is easier to obtain?
4) If a beneficiary is determined they will make themselves unsuitable for work. Turning up drug addled to a few interviews, having low standards of personal hygiene or getting a full facial tattoo would keep them unwaged.
I agree with the idea behind the policy but as usual the devil will be in the detail. Given that this initiative is not going to be well received by a sector of the population I’m glad I’m not involved in its implementation.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Is it true? What if someone who is pregnant loses their job when some place closes its doors and goes on the DPB before the child is born?
Vote:[edit: genuine question. I'm not sure how detailed National's policy is.]
November 1st, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Maybe Paula’s been round to give Phil the bad news in person…
Meanwhile Sure Bradford is ranting and raving about “War on the poor”; the best way to stop being poor is to get a job, and work your way to a decent wage.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:10 pm
And all the righties here can’t keep their hands off their genitals over this one.
Reality is that a package like the Green jobs package will get beneficiaries off welfare and into work.
Penalising people who “don’t look hard enough” for a job when no new jobs exist will only drive them into greater poverty and despair.
But forcing upwards of 50,000 more people into the workforce when here are no jobs for them to go to will drive wages down. The Nats have always been the leaders in the race to the bottom towards a low wage third world economy.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:11 pm
“Well I’m not sure the State should get too much into intruding on the personal freedoms of adults. Nanny State and all that, right team?”
Gotta agree with that!
Course, that all changes when you live on govt handouts. At that point i believe “ordinary new zealanders” have a right to dictate some terms.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Does anyone know National has taken govt guarantee off savings as if they are expecting terrible financial calamity soon
Yet Labour has said nothing. Even in a heated debate like last night. Reinforces the coalition tag of Nat/labour.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Not to mention savings get double taxed I find. No wonder people can’t save.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:24 pm
“Meanwhile Sure Bradford is ranting and raving about “War on the poor”; the best way to stop being poor is to get a job, and work your way to a decent wage.”
I’m not a Bradford fan but not sure if you know we in the 21st century now not the 1970′s. There’s no production lines any more and most industry has moved offshore. Even degree graduates can’t find work. Employers are fussy as. They want experienced youth …which of course is absolutely fruit loop mentality.
And I know your big empty mouth ain’t helping.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:25 pm
dime
“He who pays the piper calls the tune” is pretty good advice on most things but is not what the beneficiaries want to hear. The problem now is that benefits have been changed to entitlements & the recipients of state largess look upon changes to the conditions under which they receive their “income” as personal attacks.
The country can’t afford the status quo but expect screams from those affected by the changes to ring in your ears for a few years yet.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:27 pm
It is bloody hard living on a benefit. I have two close rellies who do.
It’s not easy.
OTOH, over the years I have come to know various of my rellies’ close compatriots and I have to say, a bigger bunch of drug-fucked self-absorbed envious angry stupid and lazy bunch of people I have never met.
Lots of these guys, that I know of, personally, sit at home, smoke dope, go to the doc every six weeks and look sad and get right back to smoking dope that afternoon.
Lots of them would work, but for the learned helplessness disguised with anger, that they have built up inside themselves, over a period of years. You think about doing nothing, not having to do anything, from when you leave school, all through your twenties and many many now, are in their thirties and forties.
Lefties when they deny this happens at all, belie reality.
Like I said however my theory is, if these guys and girls weren’t in a state of learned helplessness, they would work, just like you and I, but they are a state of fear, where they have been turned down (i.e. rejected) so many times, they’ve lost the natural confidence of just do it, that one picks up, over years and decades, in the workforce (or for that matter, when raising children – successfully I mean: i.e. being sober, etc).
It is also true that there aren’t any jobs for many of these qualification-less people, although Christchurch, used wisely, could make a huge dent there. Once a twenty-something has 18 months or so in ChCh, he’ll probably bugger off to Aus, rather than go back on the dole in Wgtn. Let’s hope so.
But seriously, dope is a big prob with beneficiaries. They all do it and they do it a lot, cos of course, they’re bored shitless. Wouldn’t you be? Of course you would. First step to getting them into work mode, is to take away the drug that in the immortal words of Southpark: “Maurijuana just makes it OK to do nothing.”
And that’s not OK. MmmmmK.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:27 pm
my personal life is out of bounds..
but this sums up one fact…
“..I don’t think anyone rich or poor should be paying a marginal tax rate of over, say, 50%. And it’s insane that beneficiaries are being taxed at over twice the ‘top’ tax rate…”
..that is one of the reasons i loath clark/labour so much..they kept the bars on that welfare-trap for nine long years….
..(would any of you seriously work for $2-3 per hr…?..or expect any member of yr family to..?..)
..another fact is that there are now 60,000 more beneficiaries..than when national came to power..
..so should this plan succeed..and get 40,000 beneficiaries working…
..there will still be 20,000 more than when key came to power…
fact three…there are no jobs…
..and as for the 14 yr olds..?
we all think it is a really good idea for the 14 -16 yr old children of the poor to run wild in the streets for six weeks over xmas…
..and all other school holidays…?
..no possible dangers there for them/society in that…?
(i call these ‘the nervous years’..i watch him like a hawk..)
..then we have the targeting of any second children/mothers have to work when child is one..?
..that of course will lift the abortion rate…as the govt effectively bears down on sole-mothers..to abort..
..the rightwing/anti-abortion christians here are all happy about that..?
(or wd they prefer to let them breed..then take the children to give to ‘good christian-families’..?..vile creatures that they are..)
then of course there is the hypocrisy/scapegoating factor..
..as in many of the cnuts here slagging sole-parents…
..have trust-funds etc…incomes hidden..to qualify for wwf-welfare/w.h.y…..
..(who can forget bloody hands bob boasting here how he has his over $600.000 a yr income hidden in a trust…so he ‘qualifies’ for working for families-welfare..)
..then of course there are people here slagging sole-parents who are like that nickb…
..he is a tax-lawyer….a hand-wringing uriah-heep-servant of the rich…specialising in setting up those tax-avoidance trusts…hiding their tax liabilities for them….
..and when he is really successful…getting them a refund…
..he criticises from a high moral ground..eh..?
..those are my thoughts..to be going on with..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:30 pm
@ Rob Salmond
Why should there be any? The notion of horizontal equality is a liberal myth.
I agree, but the State is not the community. The State is an armed gang. Communities are created by nature (families) or by voluntary association. Welfare is not the States responsibility.
Yes, BUT your context does not work. A person on State welfare, or for that matter on any form of charity, has responsibilities to those who are helping them to become self-reliant as soon as reasonably possible.
If you help a mate who is a drug addict to get clean by paying for his rehab, he has a resonsibility to get and stay clean right?
So if the State is going to help people then it, and the taxpayers who support it, have the right to certain expectations on the benificiaries.
Personally I’m relatively impressed with the reforms, though I would prefer a serious long term plan for getting the State out of welfare entirely.
But still a good start on Nationals part.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Cunningham (58) Says:
November 1st, 2011 at 3:56 pm
I think it is probably a good mix between being soft and being extreme. I still don’t like the idea of someone purposely falling pregnant and then getting a whole year before seeking work. I spoke to someone recently who knew a lady who just turned 40 and has had 16 children (including getting pregnant while her husband was in jail during a visit) all on the dole. She has never worked a day in her life! Don’t think these changes will force someone like this to modify their lifestyle somehow.
Aha, it probably won’t but menopause will. Then she can shag herself stupid and it just won’t work.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Thoughts relating to the thread:
Vote:– not enough jobs? I disagree. There are always jobs if people are willing and keen.
– “punishment” in having to get a job? So what did I do wrong to be punished these last 20 years, I’ve had a job all that time. The reality is that people need to work, there’s no lifestyle option where you just decide not to
– what about the kids. This one is actually valid – but I don’t see why we’re arguing that having to get a job is a problem – lots of people do that. The big question is what the sanction is if you don’t get a job – is the government going to kick you out into the streets with no money, or does something else happen?
– marginal tax rates. Yes. Without fixing this, the govt is fiddling around the edges. Easiest way is a tax free threshold, Labour already promised one, not hard for National to promise one too
– ACC. A big chunk of welfare recipients are actually on ACC, and anecdotally many of them shouldn’t be. Reform this too whilst we’re at it. A real insurance company would manage this, ACC just puts up the levy and doesn’t worry.
– personal freedoms of adults. Well, when the state pays, the state gets a say. Same reason the govt gets to mess with smoking (it pays for healthcare costs). And same argument applies. Get rid of state funded healthcare, people can smoke all they like. Get rid of DPB benefits, people can breed all they like. I just don’t think it’s a choice that people are entitled to make to have additional children whilst on a benefit. If they’re paying for themselves, they can have as many kids as they like.
November 1st, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Hey toad,
you are the one who cant get your hands off your genital. (singular)
Try this for a new thought. One you never have had, probably beyond your comprehension.
‘Lets grow the cake.’
Ever thouhgt of that baby ? Didn’t think so. You poor hard done bludgers can never compete in a fair society.
Because you bludgers deserve/need help. Your not up to performing like everyone else, you can’t do it.
Growing the cake is for others. Not something you can do.
Of course, how the fuck can you grow the cake when everyone like you and your sick mate
Vote:philu are sucking at the cake as you sit on your arse and suck off your countrymen.
November 1st, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Scott Chris (2,508) Says:
November 1st, 2011 at 3:57 pm
“Aim is to move 46,000 off welfare”
Presumably there will be 46,000 new jobs for these people to fill. Any mention of how that will be achieved, or is this rather like an optimistic treasury forecast?
Quite right Scott. But Key said today that Treasury(alias the Gov’ment) are going to create another 170,000 jobs in the next 4 years, that’s 170,000 that they were going to create from 3 years ago.
I have yet to see anyone put up a report that details how and where these jobs will come from. A report that is based on facts and can be rigorously critiqued.
Because Treasury doesn’t do that, it smokes pot and dreams up numbers which have never been right and are never likely to be. Worse than that politicians then use that crap to justify themselves.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:41 pm
and i reckon the most chilling fact to emerge so far in this debate..
..is that currently 1600 people a week go into work and income to sign on the dole..
..40% of them are sent away….’cos they don’t ‘qualify’ under the new/strict regime…
..where do those people go..what do they do…?..how many of them end up sleeping-rough/homeless..?
..and this is the country/society we want ..is it..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:45 pm
“..you and your sick mate
philu..”
..i think you offend both of us..by calling us ‘mates’…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Where’s National’s ‘corporate welfare’ reform?
If NZ central government figures are comparable with those of USA Federal Government – could the NZ $81 billion central government spend be sliced in half by ‘CUTTING OUT THE CONTRACTORS’?
“USA Project On Government Oversight (POGO)[1] decided to take on the task of doing what others have not—comparing total annual compensation for federal and private sector employees with federal contractor billing rates in order to determine whether the current costs of federal service contracting serves the public interest.
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/contract-oversight/bad-business/co-gp-20110913.html
Executive Summary
Based on the current public debate regarding the salary comparisons of federal and private sector employees, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO)[1] decided to take on the task of doing what others have not—comparing total annual compensation for federal and private sector employees with federal contractor billing rates in order to determine whether the current costs of federal service contracting serves the public interest.
The current debate over pay differentials largely relies on the theory that the government pays private sector compensation rates when it outsources services. This report proves otherwise: in fact, it shows that the government actually pays service contractors at rates far exceeding the cost of employing federal employees to perform comparable functions.
POGO’s study analyzed the total compensation paid to federal and private sector employees, and annual billing rates for contractor employees across 35 occupational classifications covering over 550 service activities. Our findings were shocking—POGO estimates the government pays billions more annually in taxpayer dollars to hire contractors than it would to hire federal employees to perform comparable services. Specifically, POGO’s study shows that the federal government approves service contract billing rates—deemed fair and reasonable—that pay contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees in total compensation, and more than 2 times the total compensation paid in the private sector for comparable services. ”
The implications of this both nationally and internationally are HUGE.
You see – if central and local govt departments /SOEs / CCOs / Crown Research Institutes are all defined as ‘PUBLIC- BENEFIT ENTITIES’ as defined under NZ Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (“NZ IFRS”) – then their primary objective is to provide services and facilities for the community as a social benefit rather than make a financial return.
So – how come so many services that USED to be provided ‘in-house’ are now contracted out to the private sector – whose primary objective is most certainly to ‘make a financial return’?
What magic is this that transforms public (ratepayer and taxpayer) monies into private profit?
WHERE IS THE NZ EQUIVALENT OF ‘POGO’ the USA ‘Project On Government Oversight ‘ which has just completed first-ever research which proves that private contractors cost twice as much as ‘in-house’ providers of Federal Government services????
HOW MUCH MONEY could be saved in NZ at central and local government by cutting out all the private ‘piggies in the middle’ with their greedy snouts in our public troughs?
Why aren’t the statutory ‘third party’ Public Watchdogs asking these questions and demanding this accountability?
How much public money at central and local government level could be saved by ‘CUTTING OUT THE CONTRACTORS’?
Penny Bright
Vote:Independent Candidate for Epsom (nomination accepted today
Campaigning against ‘white collar crime’, corruption (and its root cause – privatisation) and ‘corporate welfare’.
November 1st, 2011 at 6:52 pm
These amendments to the welfare culture of New Zealand are exceptional given the economic climate and the need for government to trim back. For decades now Work & Income has been one of the biggest contributions from the public purse every year. It makes perfect sense to trim excess fats from the side.
National has finally proven that it is serious about retaining the centre-right voters; quite timely given the looming election.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:52 pm
philu
You getting a bit nervous that you might need to find a job? Perhaps you will need to move? It’s not that hard to find work if you are prepared to move. People have been relocating for better resources since we first were complex enough organism to have the capability to propel ourselves toward our food. It’s really not that scary philu. People do it all the time, just think of it as therapy, the long years of enjoying the sun on the government house sitting team may be numbered.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Jesus philu,
just read the first few lines of the puke you posted @ 6.27
If that is the reason you think the rest of New Zealand owes you a living what a poor sick fuck
you are.
You really are a pathetic case mate.
Is that the best you have ?
Even a poor sick fuck like you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you had anything about you.
Which you don’t.
i note even your clone scot chris has abandoned you.
If the best you have is that you need to sit on your arse posting puke on Kiwiblog
Vote:18 hrs a day to keep your poor sprog/ mealticket off the street you are going to find
that the rest of us disagree.
i bet your anal sphincter tightens up with the thought………………..
Shit ,I might have to get a JOB………Job………. thats work isnt it ?………..work……. it cant be true…
A job is what all the losers do. thats not for geniuses like me. JOB.
go and lie down to let the horror pass.
Have another doobie.
………..eh…………………
duh………………
wor……….. contd…………
November 1st, 2011 at 7:00 pm
you seem to have missed the point there..young spurt..
..i am pointing out that about 700 per wk are turned away/refused help..
..and i am asking the open question..what happens to them..?
..and ..does anyone care..
..paula bennet said she ‘dosen’t know’ what happens to them…
..and hey burt…you and the other gloating cnuts here had better pray the fickle finger of fate dosen’t chose you at some time…eh..?
..and you are forced to become one of those seeking help…
..d’yareckon that might change yr judgemental-perspective…?
..things can change…in just a flash…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:00 pm
philu
Vote:you really are incredible mate.
Please stop using the term US to refer to New Zealanders.
You are not US
You are a bludging, smart arsed parasite.
November 1st, 2011 at 7:02 pm
“– not enough jobs? I disagree. There are always jobs if people are willing and keen.”
What justification can you offer for this proposition?
Bearing in mind that a “job” in this sense means for someone to do something of real and significant value, if at any particular moment in time there is a limited amount of value that can reasonably be extracted from the resources around us, then it is conceivable that such value could be extracted by a proportion of the population less than 100% leaving little for the remaining people to do.
It is fair to presume that the economic “pie” is not limited in the long run. New discoveries can be made, new inventions developed etc. But is it reasonable to expect that at any particular time every person is capable of increasing the “pie” in such a manner? Realistically, many people rely on what already exists and the opportunities that exist in the current market. If someone wants to pay you to flip burgers then great. But what if they don’t? What can you do, realistically?
There appears to always be opportunities out there for people with highly valued skills. But is it realistic to expect every person to be capable of having such skills? Isn’t it the case that some people are naturally less intelligent and/or less capable than others and thus rely on the opportunities that other people create for them?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Rob Salmond
I like the concept that it takes a village to raise a child. It seems anthropologically correct and I think it should be part of our social fabric. The elephant in the room though Rob is the welfare system.
I have to say Key (or his speech writers) are absolutely correct to call it abandonment. It really is.
What part of fostering the village is throwing unconditional money at people? Why is a local day care paying for plumbers, lawn mowers, cleaners, roof fixers, accountants, lawyers, cooks and possibly even staff at all when we have people who have declared they want to be part of the village by accepting unemployment welfare but not working in their community. Likewise why do we who work think it is right to give them money and no support. We don’t invite them to be part of the village, we just put food on their doorstep while they sleep. We don’t even knock to see if they are alive.
I don’t think it would be at all unreasonable to say that an adult dole comes with 10 hours of community service each week. Everybody is good at something and we owe them more than just money if they can’t find a job, we need to include them in the village.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Phool
You call these years the “nervous” years because you know you are soon going to be forced to work for a living, it has nothing to do with your child.
If you were the model parent that you claim to be you would not be spending so much time stoned out of your tiny little mind.
The rest of the reasons you offer as to why you cannot work are pathetic, plenty (indeed, the vast majority) of parents in NZ do a far better job than you at raising their kids and they manage to hold down a job, set a good example and do not deal drugs.
I really hope that Winz fuck you over big time, I have had enough of paying for your lifestyle.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Ha! Thanks for the shout out phil!
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:09 pm
..i am pointing out that about 700 per wk are turned away/refused help..
..and i am asking the open question..what happens to them..?
..and ..does anyone care..
phil, read my 6:27.
Am I wrong in my diagnosis? Note: I didn’t say “in my treatment plan,” I said, “in my diagnosis?”
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:12 pm
oh shit.
Vote:i have to give up.
When i read that the bludging parasite philu is talking about,
“and you are forced to be one of those seeking help.” forced ?
who forced you to sit on your arse for 15 long years ?
Just incredible.
This tosser has no self esteem, no Mana, no belief in himself. No effing nothing. A true nonce.
Is there a bigger loser in the whole of New Zealand ?
November 1st, 2011 at 7:12 pm
@ Phillip Ure; sorry pal, but when you spend all day on here boasting about your refusal to work, even during school hours because of a child who must now almost be of school leaving age whilst those of us who DO work and pay tax pay for your upkeep; your “private life” is up for discussion.
The fact that you consider it acceptable to use your child as an excuse to refuse to work, but that you consider it acceptable to bring up a child in a home where the law is broken repetitively (whether you agree with a law or not doesn’t come into it) devalues your opinion on this issue.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Some dob in this shameless bludger, please.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:18 pm
“Someone dob in this shameless bludger, please.”
I’m sure the resident narc will pick up the baton – as soon as he has reached his average [31+] comments for the day.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:18 pm
“..and do not deal drugs…”
david farrar…cd u plse do something about that..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Andy if the young women in question or fathers who do runners arent responsible why should I be?
Vote:Bugger her if she cant keep her legs together!
Fuck him if he cant stick around long enough to do up his belt.
I got 4 and I pay for them all.
Also did I mention Im married ,never jailed,convicted recieved a benefit in my life,lucky yes but Ive always said you make your own luck
November 1st, 2011 at 7:20 pm
“..you spend all day on here boasting about your refusal to work..”
when have i ever done that..
you just make shit up all the time..don’t you..you lying cnut…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Bereal. That’s somewhat unfair of you to criticize phils post in that way. He makes some valid points which you obviously didn’t bother to read.
Like most I skip much of what he says but sometimes he is right.
There will still be 40K more on the benefits after the 46k have gone to work than there was 3 years ago. National have had 3 years to change that and despite having as many excuses as philu the have failed to deliver.
This change won’t do what they think it will because people are going onto benefits to live.
Big hearted dime is going to create one job after New Year. I have created 4 in recent weeks and I can tell you that we have employed really good people even though it is what most would deem a low skill work for 3 of them and the other is the beginning of teaching a skilled job.
There are plenty of good young people out there wanting and willing to work but this lazy lot of incompetent managers are no better than the ones before and are wedded to the mantra that School, tertiary and university education is everything.Well no its not and until they get that shit out of their heads NZ won’t make progress.
They have ignored youth rates for 3 years to pander to the hori’s and Greens and now they have introduced a half hearted bullshit compromise that ain’t going to make any significant difference. They still want us all to get stuff made in China. Apparently in their minds that is success.
Fucking wankers.
Its interesting to note that the Business community have soundly made it clear that they don’t consider National have a plan to grow the economy and make a difference.
Finally its been surveyed and its official.
Nothing different to my view of the last 6 years.
I’m not interested in their excuses for doing fuck all and that’s about all they have done.
[DPF: 20 demerits for fucking wankers]
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:22 pm
and none of you have the intellectual abilitiies to answer/address the points i made/flaws in the plan..i pointed out…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:23 pm
reid pretty much nails the issues with the beneficiary lifestyle. While reading reid’s comments I though it was my own story, we probably all know, or have know, rampant abusers of the system over the years. Watching people spending their “govt house sitting team” pay check on alcohol, drugs and general self indulgence is painful for tax payers. It’s simply not right to have a system that allows this behaviour.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:23 pm
I’m afraid I can’t not say it anymore….
Abating a benefit is not the same as being taxed. It is reducing the benefit progressively as a person enters the workforce.
Comments that people are beng taxed at 70% or whatever is bullshit
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:24 pm
philu
Point it out coherently and some of us might engage.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Getting a hammering Phool? How sad, too bad.
Vote:You will learn soon that the TAXPAYER has had a gutsfull of shitbags like you.
Stop being kind and PC to Phool, he is a fucking leech
November 1st, 2011 at 7:25 pm
rouppe
Correct, but the real world consequence of such abatement rates is less incentive to return to work. It’s funny how the lefties know that now, while discussing welfare, but when discussing income tax they forget it again.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Consider this philu.
Vote:one day your son / mealticket will read all this.
Please don’t embarrass your self more than you already have.
i really cringe thinking about that poor sod.
He does’t deserve this.
He will have to live with this……….eh
duh…………
contd……..
November 1st, 2011 at 7:29 pm
@rouppe: One assumes you disagree with the concept of “net tax” then.
Regardless of what you call it, there is little incentive to work 10 hours a week if all you are is $30-40 better off.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Child psycology will not work bereal. He just sees you attacking his family.
Vote:His son will grow up just like his dad oi
November 1st, 2011 at 7:32 pm
They have ignored youth rates for 3 years to pander to the hori’s and Greens and now they have introduced a half hearted bullshit compromise that ain’t going to make any significant difference. They still want us all to get stuff made in China. Apparently in their minds that is success. Fucking wankers.
Clap, clap.
Well said V2. Possibly the wrong thread to start discussing it lest we divert from the bludger vs downtrodden
herovictim mentality which normally pervades this.Was extremely disappointed to hear Key say this welfare stuff is the Nats flagship policy. Well newsflash Nats, what this country needs is vision and leadership and newsflash#2, vision is not fixing the engine room. FFS Nats, Key, DPF, et al. Would someone let John know please that “a brighter future,” while “aspirational” isn’t actually a vision, in that, what the fuck does it mean, in real terms, from today, to three years, what pray tell precisely is, a “brighter future.”
This is what businesses: i.e. OUR FUCKING BASE not to mention this country’s base but that’s not important, is it, need. Perhaps business should go and occupy say, the local pub and gang headquarters and do nothing but drink their fill of gang booze till they’ve been paid back for all the dole they’ve paid these blocks for the last three years of “a brighter future.”
Seriously, the Nats, if you don’t give YOUR FUCKING BASE something this time, they’re not going to be well pleased, not for themselves but as always, for the country. For when YOUR FUCKING BASE does well, the country always is doing well, as well, isn’t it. Don’t you want that?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:34 pm
my son and i both laugh like drains at the droolings of brain-sapped morons….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Abatement rates are a problem, how do you manage the concept that effort brings disproportionate reward to people returning to work.
I see two ways;
The first is we say the benefit isn’t free money. You need to work for that too so if you want to cut back your community service hours then sure, the dole gets cut back. What would be wrong with a person working 20 hours a week and still doing their 10 hours community service to get the full dole?
The second is to say get over it – you have had no demands made on you to receive that money so suck up the abatement rates and stop moaning. If you don’t like them don’t work and live like philu!
I know which method I think works best for individuals and the community and it’s not the system we currently have.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:36 pm
@leftyliberal
“Regardless of what you call it, there is little incentive to work 10 hours a week if all you are is $30-40 better off.”
Making sure you mean this….
Vote:Do you?
This is wrong in so many ways I don’t know where to start.
Do the words……
Self-esteem
Pride
Self-reliance
Experience
….mean anything to you?
November 1st, 2011 at 7:41 pm
@toad – I just read the Green policy. It amounts too;
1) 4,000 jobs through the home insulation scheme. A short term boost, but OK 4,000 new jobs for a couple of years.
2) Incredibly optimistic goals for NZ’s share of the renewable energy market. It’s a nice aspiration, and I’d support measures trying to make it happen. But it’s not a high-probability outcome, and it has no place in a practical jobs policy for the 2011-2014 term. This is wishful thinking, not policy.
3) The claim they will support small-medium enterprises, even though all of their industrial relations policies are things that will discourage SME’s from hiring people. Things like the minimum wage being pegged at 66% of the average wage, and increased support for collective bargaining.
So to sum up, the Green’s jobs policy is to throw a few million in R&D credits, change employment law to give less incentive to hire people, and hope this will somehow generate “Green jobs”.
Unrelated to jobs policy, but one particular line in section 2 made me (literally) choke when I read it; the goal of NZ using 100% renewable energy by 2030. If you want people to still have hot water and fridges, that is completely, utterly impossible. Hydro would be the only renewable energy source that would be able to achieve this goal, but we’re already damned all our major rivers and the Greens have consistantly opposed new hydro schemes. Solar and Wind are too variable to supply more than a small percentage of the power grid. Barring a fundamental breakthrough in energy storage this is the reality of current generation technology. It is a reality the Greens just do not want to accept.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:42 pm
so..that is keys/nationals ‘flagship-policy’..?
..some benificiary-bashing…(to play/pander to the gullible crowd/reactionary-base..)
.. and selling the assets..?
..that’s it..?
..that’s all they’ve fucken got..?
..and lots more smile ‘n wave..?..(please..!..please..!..we haven’t had enough of that…)..
..but then again..key could be just ‘dynamically-environmenting’ us..eh..?
.(.what some call lying thru their teeth…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Pretty good list above.
Vote:But trying to push people of benefits is like trying to push a piece of rope.
Creating an economy where people can be employed is more successful in getting people off welfare.
Like it’s better to move a piece of rope by pulling it.
There is a genuine shortage of jobs for the lower skilled.
Or put it differently, employers would employ those people if they could make it work.
We could change that in part by giving employers the money that otherwise would go to benefits.
November 1st, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Than
Shhh, you will stir up an AGW debate followed by rabid peak oilers, following them are always the end of the world fruit loops and then in comes religion. Why oh why did you think talking economic sense to a card carrying Watermelon was a good idea. If toad was less communist and more environmentalist it might have been OK…
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:46 pm
“..Self-esteem
Pride
Self-reliance..”
so andy..you would get all that at $3-4 per hr…?
..for how long could you stick that out..?……d’yareckon..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:47 pm
‘my son and i both laugh like drains at the droolings of brain-sapped morons…. ‘
Got the boy smashed off his tits as well as yourself Phool?
Vote:You could teach him …. Quardle ardle oodle waddle doodle. If he is laughing, he could be laughing at you, not with you
November 1st, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Better dust of the real clothes philu, pyjamas aren’t going to cut it in the work force.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:51 pm
It’s simply not right to have a system that allows this behaviour.
No it’s not burt and it’s not because they abuse the system it’s because it’s cruel to allow people to live in a system that brings tens of thousands to this state of being of helplessness.
These are healthy, normal minds bereft of hope because in most cases its simply been knocked out of them. Not by the system, but by themselves. This is what lefties never understand. Lefties cannot see that these people are like this, because at some point, they gave up, when others kept fighting, they slept in, when others woke up and went out into the rain. It wasn’t anything special those other people did, it is many little things those people have done, to themselves, over the years, perhaps recently, perhaps for decades.
That’s not to say they did it on purpose and that’s not to say they knew consciously what were the consequences of their actions, but they did it to themselves, nevertheless.
But they are you and I, but for the grace of G-d.
If we’d had their upbringing, their genetics, what would we have done in their places?
These people unfortunately have had decade upon decade of emasculation, of being told “it’s not your fault.” Well, actually, it is their fault. If you ask every single long term unemployed whether every single person they grew up with is not like them, what would they say?
Lefties one imagines, would think they would say, why everyone is like me, thinking, as lefties would, of whole regions like the far north. Atypical. Most unemployed I suspect would say, why no, hardly anyone is like me, a lot of my mates got jobs in their twenties, got married, coupla kids now. Me, I just left school and fucked round. It was OK. Just didn’t really notice it.
What we as a society need to do, is find a way to get through to these people and let them know we don’t blame them – there but for the grace of G-d – but we do hold them to account. And we will help them, by teaching them, how to be accountable. Not to us, of course, but to themselves. And that starts with giving them self-respect and goes from there. That’s what we need to do, but I’m not sure anyone’s offering that, this election.
At least Paula’s going in the right direction. I just hope they don’t start yapping on about this dreadful “wrap around” crap. She started using it about six months ago and Key used it in the debate as well. I mean you can just imagine the social workers can’t you, “oh let’s have wrap-around support for these cuddly darlings…”
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:52 pm
philu 7.34
Vote:i think you are a little presumptuous to claim to be speaking on behalf of your mealticket
as well as yourself.
i doubt very much that the poor sod ‘laughs like a drain.’ other than to humour you.
Stick to trying to justify why you deserve to leech off the rest of us for your whole life.
Does he agree with that ?
November 1st, 2011 at 7:52 pm
and i’m not arguing this because of me..
..i am out of this world soon..
..i am arguing it for the scared young mums…..with young babies..
..facing a life of not only poverty…
..but of being stigmatised as a lazy/bludging leech/slut…
..by cnuts like you lot…
..and i will continue to argue for them..
..while there is still breath in me..
..to me they are heroes..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: 20 demerits for cnuts. You now that term is unacceptable, even if you mis spell it]
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:53 pm
@Than
Policies a la Obama.
Vote:You can check how that worked out in the US.
Green companies.
Big subsidies, government contracts, favourable policies and stick it to the (“carbon”) competition.
Part of the subsidies come back to the Democrats’ re-election coffers.
Obama scratches their back, they scratch Obama’s back.
How did it work out?
They are all slowly going bankrupt.
100′s of millions of dollars of taxpayers money down the drain (and in the pockets of snake-oil salesmen and Democratic officials).
November 1st, 2011 at 7:58 pm
and facing a new witch-hunt…
..from a cnut who gave himself a thousand dollar a week tax-cut..
..and who made his millions driving down the new zealand economy…
..and then betting the house on his success at doing that..
..(and wrecking how many lives here in the process..?..)
..just who is the fucken leech here..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: 20 demerits for cnut]
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:00 pm
@Other_Andy: Sure, we can talk about pride, self-esteem, self-reliance and the rest of it, but we can’t expect those that have been on the dole or DPB for years to have that anymore even if they once did. Nothing eliminates pride or self esteem faster than feeling helpless for months or years on end, and to be honest some of them probably never had much of it. The key to not having folk stuck on the benefit for ages is by making sure there’s plenty of incentives to get off it. Part of this is making sure there’s a growing economy so that decent jobs are available, part is making sure that the expectations of society are known, part is supporting people into jobs through appropriate training. Part of it is ensuring that when they do get a job, particularly if it’s part time, that they get to keep the lions share of the hourly rate in real terms so that they see the benefit of working and regain that confidence that you and I enjoy.
@reid: Some good points at 7:51pm.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:01 pm
“Jobseeker”? Obviously that’s phool ruled out…
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Selective quote Phool
Vote:“..i am out of this world soon..”
Have some plans? bridge to nowhere?
November 1st, 2011 at 8:04 pm
“..just who is the fucken leech here..?”
Vote:Well you are the leech Phool, because you do not WORK or pay TAX
November 1st, 2011 at 8:06 pm
philu 7.52
That has to be the most sickening, disgusting, pittifull explanation for your act ever.
You only do it for others………
Guess what noddy,
Vote:They dont need a suckarse like you to argue on their behalf.
They didnt ask for you
They are embarrassed by you.
You make them all sick to their guts.
That is the most risable post you have made in 10,915 sick efforts.
G’nite.
i leave it at that.
November 1st, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Philu @ 7.58
Well Phil, you had a chance to respond to everyone with a bit of humour and intelligence, instead you just proved you are nothing but an ignorant arsehole, I am now officially joining the chorus that wishes you would just fuck off.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Of course Phil, you ignore the fact that in order to have received a $1000/week tax cut, a person is already paying more than $5000 in tax per week, AFTER the tax cut; that’s a quarter of a million dollars per year in tax; more than five times the median wage. Those “rich pricks” that you so despise Phil are probably keeping you and nine others like you, just from the tax they pay.
Sorry Phil; the excuses you are making have been the same for the six or so years that I’ve been visiting Kiwiblog, and your son doesn’t seem to have aged much in that time. The clock’s ticking mate…
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:13 pm
I2
Lefties will never understand that tax cuts are a reduction in govt revenue not an increase in govt expenditure. They don’t run a business, I guess it would make them evil as well.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:13 pm
you can see how the business sector think key/this govt suck/haven’t got a fucken clue…
..a witchhunt to drive sole-parents into jobs that aren’t here..
..and selling state assets to the 1%/himself..(thru his ‘blind’-trusts..key will be in there like a fucken hungry dog..)
..the business sector are scratching their heads..and going..w.t.f..?..that’s all they/key has got..?
..and of course economically confused individuals like a rightwing taxi driver..(snigger..!..snort..!..i know..!..dumb -fuck..eh..?..)
..they aren’t down to share in the spoils..eh..?
..they are just the mugs/pawns…
..of the 1%ers..
..of the key…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:15 pm
..i am arguing it for the scared young mums…..with young babies..
phil have you ever bothered to explain to them they don’t need to be scared, this is NZ, and it’s OK. You can go to the supermarket, any day you like, etc?
Have you ever bothered to teach them how to be fearless like you are, with a just-do-it-without-even-thinking-about-it mentality, which started of course when you got sober and developed over time as you successfully raised your son? In this just do it mindset we have the same attitude phil, you and I. I personally get it from work, you have got it, from raising your child in a responsible and successful manner. That’s what people like the scared young mum doesn’t have phil, that track record and the question is, how best to inculcate her with the starting ingredients so she never looks back.
Now if you fill that scared young mum with tales of victimhood, that she’s vulnerable, not capable, needs protection since she can’t provide it herself, all that sort of stuff, which your side preaches these people are, esp people like Bradford, is this helpful or unhelpful, in terms of making her a confident, capable, self-disciplined and loving young mother, who gains enormous satisfaction out of bringing up her child, on her own?
See phil, this is Mana’s philosophy vs Nationals, laid bare. Which is better, for the scared young mother, and which does Mana preach, all the time and I mean, all the time?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:15 pm
nek minit,
Vote:waiting for the Phool supporters and it ain’t happening
November 1st, 2011 at 8:18 pm
oh paul..and you so loved me before..eh..?
and..y’know i’ve got yr card marked as a raving rightwing loon..
..so meh..!..eh..?
..and what the fuck is ‘funny/humourous’ about a witchhunt against the weakest/poorest…?
you cowardly piece of shit…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Steve
The guys down his street that run the tinny house should be joining in the debate soon, they have a vested interest in having him on a benefit. Not the same interest as Labour, but it has the same effect – they don’t want him to change his pattern.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Oh shit, maybee philu runs a tinnt house – I wonder if he hides his dac from his 16 year old ?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:21 pm
omg burt. You checked the Electoral Roll. Now everyone knows where the shitbag lives
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
“..See phil, this is Mana’s philosophy vs Nationals, laid bare. Which is better, for the scared young mother, ..”
well..seeing as mana policy is to lift those young mothers/children out of poverty..and to give them/their children that basic dignity..
..and to restore the opportunities for sole-parents to study/train that this govt took away…(!)..(and that bennet used to get off the dpb..how about that one..eh..?..whoar..!..eh..?..)
…and yes..young mothers esp. should have the option of help/support..esp. in the first couple of years…an enhanced plunket-service would do this..
..this is not making them ‘victims’..
..mounting a witch-hunt against them…demonising them..
..is hardly ‘better’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:32 pm
the 16 year old prob does the purchasing. Can you see Phool getting off his arse? he may miss something in the blog world
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Witchunt you wanker. I sincerely hope they stop any fucking income you recieve that you don’t walk out your door to earn .
Being a clean junkie doesn’t stop you being a sad fuck.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:35 pm
well..seeing as mana policy is to lift those young mothers/children out of poverty..and to give them/their children that basic dignity….this is not making them ‘victims’..
Yes it is phil. What about learned helplessness don’t you understand? Let me make it easier. Er….
What about, stand on your own two feet, don’t you understand?
How long would you give a baby, to learn to walk, before you gave up on them, and carried them everywhere, for the rest of their entire lives?
That’s what Mana’s policy is, phil. Laid bare. Learned helplessness from Bradford and Minto, with a dash of bitters, thrown in by Hone and Annette. Bless them all.
I’m surprised, with a Masters and all, you can’t or perhaps won’t, see that quite obvious reality, as in, fact. But there we are, phil. You’re full of surprises.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Your 8.30 post Phool.
Vote:Same again, young mothers victimised according to you.
WTF has this got to do with you refusing to earn a living?
November 1st, 2011 at 8:39 pm
News flash: Intelligent people need govt assistance to get off benefits…. philu told me so… see…. we like.. know this… whoar eh?
Either that or philu is a complete dip shit! Can’t talk and walk at the same time… like …eh? trouble with… them… whoar shoe laces… eh ?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Ohh err, some of the Kiwiblog Tribe are saying bad things about Philu (www.whore.co.nz)
Vote:You should complain to the host DPF, you fucking socialist sook
November 1st, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Phillip Ure said
Speaking as the owner of a medium sized business Phil (we employ 35 staff), our business has almost doubled in size since the 2008 election Phil. That’s because the Key government has created a far better environment in which to do business. IRD and ACC are much friendlier to deal with, and we have employed several staff under the 90-day work trial. They’ve all worked out well, and we haven’t terminated any of them at or before 90 days; where are all the horror stories we were promised? It hasn’t been easy financially with the global economic downturn, but the government made a conscious effort to make it easier for businesses like ours to survive, and they will be rewarded on 26 November.
So Phil; you’re full of shit. How can you claim to know how business regards the Key government when you avoid the workforce with every fabric of your being? Stick to fighting Bradford’s “war on the poor”; at least you have experience in THAT regard.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:46 pm
A little off topic, but I personally liked the image of the dole bludger in the United Future opening address – fat dude watching TV. Much lols – check it out on youtube.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Wow. All the stars have come out to shine tonight.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:55 pm
@ freddos
It is a good idea to provide a link to Youtube or even better to the original source
Busted Philu, fred is your son
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Good isn’t it East Wellington Superhero. Not even a full moon although Haloween last night.
Vote:Fun at a losers’ expense? yeah yeah exploit it
November 1st, 2011 at 9:06 pm
kill the minimum wage. DONE. I have just created 40,000 jobs.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Why can’t people focus on the system that produces welfare dependency rather than deriding those who fall into the welfare trap.
I’m sure most welfare dependents would love to be working. Man there’s a lot of hate on this blog.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 9:27 pm
and facing a new witch-hunt…
..from a cnut who gave himself a thousand dollar a week tax-cut..
..and who made his millions driving down the new zealand economy…
..and then betting the house on his success at doing that..
..(and wrecking how many lives here in the process..?..)
..just who is the fucken leech here..?
Normally I wouldn’t dare post one of your posts in full phil but I hope everyone forgives me for I come in peace, not in war, my friends.
It just seemed appropriate in this thread for phil I’m afraid it nicely encapsulates every single welfare recipients general thinking. To me phil, you are the lab. The centre of
crapulenceexcellenceresearch for everything which sucks about the whole thing.Firstly phil, re: facing a witch hunt, you are not a victim, you are a lucky recipient of a fraction of my wealth. You don’t need to thank me, but I have paid a fraction of my taxes toward you, since the first benefit you ever drew my friend, so in the real world, this means, you owe me, not the other way round and it would be good if you’d recognise that once in awhile, with every single one of us who are in the same boat as I am, re: you.
As for Key, assuming he didn’t make his money on all that Iran-Contra funny business, let’s say more probably he had a fucking massive salary in the millions, parlayed that into more using his knowledge of the markets and left, when he was OK to retire without working for the rest of his life. He did all this phil, legally, and millions of other people playing the markets just like him, also did it. The fact that you don’t have the knowledge and resources to do what he did, while you were living your by comparison, wretched life phil, does not make what Key did reprehensible in any way. As for “wrecking lives” how pray tell was he affecting the market in any way, as he quitely built his my NY standards, modest personal nest egg of approx $50m over several decades with his knowledge and skills and his own personal resources? You seem to imagine he distorted the entire NZ economy with his evil betting and wheeling and dealing.
phil, newsflash: you are “the fucken leech” you always have been. Apparently and sadly, you always will be. Fine. Do us a favour though and don’t ever try to allege other people who aren’t guilty of that, are. It’s just insulting, to almost everyone of us.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Sadly I have come to the conclusion that Phool is a DPF plant to keep the traffic count up on this blog!
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Phool
These young slappers would have no need to be scared if they kept their fucking legs closed and got a job instead of a baby.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Scott Chris
You have made 2,510 comments any you haven’t yet worked out that it not hate, it’s frustration with one example of what is bad with our welfare system. Philu (sorry about the capital letter philu) is a proud cheerleader of the “Government house sitting team” and constantly reminds people how he’s on welfare and doing drugs saying he has no option to work if he wants to raise his child right… something is amiss with that position – can you see what it is?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 9:57 pm
phil – must you call every other person a “cnut”?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 9:58 pm
@Scott
You make two assumptions….
1. Giving people welfare no questions asked, no responsibly is ‘doing good’.
Vote:2. Those wanting to give people welfare no questions asked, care about ‘beneficiaries’.
November 1st, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Man there’s a lot of hate on this blog.
Yes, DPF uses a lot of subliminals, doesn’t he.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 10:18 pm
@ Scott Chris – many welfare recipients would indeed like to be working. Phillip Ure is not one of that number. He has made it clear here that he has no intention of getting a job, and continues to draw a benefit which funds his drug-fuelled lifestyle. There’s not hate; just anger that someone like Phil can milk the system whilst the rest of us get up every day, go out and graft, and pay our taxes.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 10:26 pm
FFS philu, your 16 year old son is not a fucking ATM – get a JOB!
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 10:32 pm
A mildly apposite story:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5891027/Occupy-Dunedin-protesters-refuse-to-move
So how come the Bill of Rights gives the occupiers the right to camp, while we conservatives aren’t even allowed to do baton charges, even if only just every once in awhile?
What the hell is going on?
Where’s the quid pro quo?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 10:34 pm
This is funny…..
“Under National’s welfare reforms, announced today, many beneficiaries would be pointedly relabelled as ‘job seekers’.
But those on a benefit say just changing the name, will not make a difference and the opposition parties agree…”
I clearly remember Labour telling us that re-labelling groups makes a huge difference….
Can’t they make up their mind?
http://www.3news.co.nz/Nats-welfare-reforms-make-bludgers-out-of-beneficiaries—opposition/tabid/419/articleID/231421/Default.aspx
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 10:39 pm
DavidC
No he is a real person. His posts have his blog address cunningly obscured.
He has cunningly added an ‘s’ onto the end of his blog name… perhaps he can’t type a ‘z’ without typing an ‘s’ and that’s why he can’t get a job…
try; http://whoar.co.nz/
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 10:57 pm
philu seems to be attacked roundly for his entitlement attitude .
same as Sue of the unemployed workers rights movement.
Thats has been the problem of previous approaches to social welfare.It should be seen as a obligation to receive any benefit from the rest of society not a right.
Making benefits more onerous to receive and linking them to avenues of improvement in future prospects will encourage a more responsible attitude among many on welfare.
It will if done with vigor force many to reconsider their life choices.
It is not a matter of lack of work its many of these people are unemployable in their present state.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Making benefits more onerous to receive and linking them to avenues of improvement in future prospects will encourage a more responsible attitude among many on welfare.
I agree Griff and I propose that we make every single beneficiary perform obescience to every single net taxpayer who passes in the street.
I bet that would halve the beneficiary rate by lunchtime.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 11:14 pm
I vote for any thing that will encourage a sense of obligation including chain gangs for the unredeemable.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 11:26 pm
10 out of 10 for this policy. It is a pity is doesn’t go so far as to stop payments to baby factories who refuse to name the sperm donor for the next welfare cheque. But so be it. The fact that philu is having kittens over it just confirms that it is indeed right. Children need the right start in life, and great watse is happening in this country because of recreational breeders and their lack of access to self improvement.
And philu will have to get a job, wow!
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 4:59 am
This policy is long overdue. The 1996 welfare reforms in the US that Clinton in the end signed was one of the best things he ever did as President. The sky did not fall on welfare receipients heads as philu (and others who support the welfare dependency trap) allege. Child poverty declined as did black child poverty (one of the stats that had inexorably risen since the 60′s).
I have known many solo parents most of who work – often full time. I can compare them to the philu stay on the benefit types and the quality of the child rearing is like night and day. With work comes dignity, discipline and structure – all things that children need. The working solo parents have much to juggle and life is a struggle but almost all their children cope and grow into healthy, functional adults who get an education and emulate the work ethic of their primary raising parent and become productive members of society. With the stay at home welfare types, drug/alcohol abuse, violence and teenage pregnancy are far more prevelant. This is what I have observed both here and in NZ.
Phil squandered his prime years abusing opiates and he is now clean from that – awesome. He thinks that recreational cannabis use is ok because it is not as dangerous as the heroin. Whilst you can’t OD on dope, he forgets that regular cannabis use saps the energy of the user and so it comes as no surprise to learn that he wont work. If he was clean from this drug as well I believe he might change his thinking. The trouble is the State gives him no incentive to change his ways …up until now. The restricted debit card is a brilliant idea – in the US there is no such thing as food stamps as they used to be – literal green stamps torn from a booklet and given at the checkout. It is now a pre-loaded debit card but one that will not allow any cash advances or purchases of alcohol or tobacco products. Phil clings to his son as his safety blanket. I’ve witnessed this before – my family once tried to help a solo mum we knew well get work in fact we found her a job but she declined and stayed on the DPB “for her kids”. The result: oldest son died at 19 sniffing glue, next son by 16 was an alcoholic and left school and is unemployable and daughter got pregnant at 17 and joined mum at home on the benefit together. Had the system nudged her in the direction of work I believe these negative outcome might have been avoided.
Phil – I’m not going to abuse you like others have. I say get off the dope, get off the computer and go get a job – I’m sure you have the intellect and talent to do plenty of jobs. Your son will be fine – model to him what a real man looks like – one who can stand on his own two feet and make it in the world.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 5:03 am
It’s staggering that we don’t just admit the fact that so many people are having kids as it allows them more handouts. Forget the pussyfooting about; if we continue to pay people to breed we are encouraging these people to do this to fund their lifestyles.
And what about the old fashioned belief that you only have kids if you can afford them? Why are people so callous and selfish that they expect a handout for having kids?
We live in an age of diminished personal responsibility. Unless we are really serious about tackling it, the people paying the bulk of taxes will leave. These changes are in the right direction, but still a little too timid.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 6:13 am
I was reading a fascinating article on the value of work from a psychology point of view. It was estimated that up to 85% of an adults feeling of worth comes from doing well at their job.
85%! Extraordinary. I didn’t read the full methodology they used in coming to this figure, but I don’t think it matters. It makes complete sense to me that being successful in your employment is very good for your general feeling of worth.
To be negative for a moment however, I do hope the media holds Phil Goff to account. For example, I heard him on the radio castigating National for the shortage of work saying “He (Key) has had three years to sort this out.” Um, Phil, didn’t you just have nine years to sort this out?
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 7:20 am
A fallacy as anyone with a bit of pride in themselves and their ability to stand on their own two feet would recognise that they are NOT working for $2-$3 an hour, they are working for the total take-home amount.
And Phil there is NO WAY that your personal circumstances are “out of bounds” after you have been holding up your experiences for years on here as Exhibit A of all the deficiencies you perceive in The System.
But FWIW, my wife raised her daughter alone from birth to about the age of 4 (after the father let her down and buggered off shortly after the birth – and years before she met me.) She did a bit of time on the DPB and a lot of her observations of that are similar (I think) to some of yours:
(1) WINZ case managers treat you like dirt and destroy any sense of self-worth you may have, which is ironic since many of them are absolute bottom-of-the-heap, waste-of-space civil servants and it’s hard to imagine anyone else but WINZ ever wanting to employ them.
(2) WINZ can’t understand why it’s not helpful to offer 2hrs work, 3 days a week @ minimum wage on the opposite side of town where your transport costs will exceed your take-home pay. Because why can’t you just use your no money that you don’t have to move a bit closer to your work?
(3) On the DPB you look longingly at the real flash $2 loaves of bread in the supermarket, and you wish you could somehow afford food that would do you some good…
Yes, it is sh!t philu. But what did she do about it?
She got the best part-time work she possibly could while the daughter was small and she was breastfeeding. Then she went to tech and got started on a trade. By the time she had done that , her daughter was 3. SO she got a full-time position as an apprentice, and woke up at 5am every morning to drive daughter 30 minutes across town to daycare before bussing for 30 minutes back into town to work an 8 hour day. And then do the 1-hour round trip in reverse to get them both home again.
The daughter is now 7 and doing really well at school. My wife (as she is now) has almost finished her time as an apprentice and her boss just coughed up a $5/hr pay rise for her – out of the blue and without even being asked. Reforms to social welfare no longer concern her, because she relies on her own hard work not on social welfare.
I hope you have enjoyed this story…?
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 7:48 am
“To be negative for a moment however, I do hope the media holds Phil Goff to account. For example, I heard him on the radio castigating National for the shortage of work saying “He (Key) has had three years to sort this out.” Um, Phil, didn’t you just have nine years to sort this out?”
This simply shows Goff’s dishonesty. Key did not have three years to sort this out. He came into office to be met with a global recession and a series of disasters. Goff knows this. And didn’t labour publish a dishonest PREFU?
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 7:59 am
@RRM: “A fallacy as anyone with a bit of pride in themselves and their ability to stand on their own two feet would recognise that they are NOT working for $2-$3 an hour, they are working for the total take-home amount.”
We can’t ignore the fact that many don’t have the pride in themselves or the ability to stand on their own two feet, and these are the ones that are the problem – the long termers. Offering them some financial encouragement to get off the benefit seems reasonable. Many long term beneficiaries do cash jobs on the side for example. The motivation for this may be 2 fold: Increased pay due to their benefit not being removed at a high rate and perhaps also due to it being a short-term commitment?
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 8:29 am
@wiki…w
The government guarantee of retail deposits was only temporary. It was brought in just before te election in 2008 by our glorious leader as a response to the Australian guarantee. The bank guarantee expired in 2010 and the finance company scheme expires soon.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 8:40 am
LeftyLiberal @7:29pm
You mean other than personal standards to do whatever it takes to not be a leech?
If you remain on a benefit because that $30-$40 “is not worth it” then that is all you will ever achieve. If you want the money to buy the nice things you see around you the only way to do it is to earn more. For someone on a benefit that starts with exchanging benefit money for earned money. Once the abatement is completed, then you get to keep most (if not all when you include WFF) of what you earn.
If you are a stupid Labour supporter who says those earning above-average money “aren’t paying their fair share” and you want to tax them at 45%, 50%, 66% (as I was once paying) then after the abatement is complete, you still don’t get to keep most of what you earn.
“Fail to plan, plan to fail”. That’s the lot of those that can’t see past the abatement of their benefit to the true benefit of lower income taxes when you get out there and work.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 8:44 am
LeftLiberal @7:59am
What do you think the abatement idea is FFS? The alternative is to turn the tap off as soon as someone starts a job.
Abatement rates allow a beneficiary to transition between states in a gradual way. That is an incentive.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 9:11 am
Absolutely there should be abatement, given we don’t have a universal allowance (though to be quite honest we’re getting close to that with WFF – just not the universal bit) – the point I’m making is that the abatement rate is too high at the moment that there isn’t enough incentive to get long term beneficiaries wanting to work.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 9:15 am
Nookin asks:
Not really Nookin, which is the precise reason for the PREFU; to ensure transparency. Sure; Labour hid the hole in the ACC Earners’ Account, but the real disconnect came between Budget 2008 when Cullen forecast a surplus, and the PREFU, which forecast a decade of deficits. Thus Goff’s assertion that Labour left office with a surplus is an absolute, bare-faced lie. The economy was tanking at the time the PREFU was prepared, and had tanked even more by the time that the Key government took office and received the latest briefing from Treasury.
Of course, Phil Goff doesn’t tell lies….yeah right!
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 9:21 am
They certainly can, Bevan. But it will place limits on how well they can raise their teenagers. Three hours after school every day they’re home alone or out with friends. The mother’s doing housework in the evening when she could be sitting down with them to help with homework. If dinner’s cooked at all, it’s later into the evening, etc.
It’s not impossible for a sole parent to raise their kids well with a full-time job, and it’s far from impossible for a sole parent on a benefit to do a shit job of raising their kids. But this policy will make success that much more difficult and rarer, and will have little effect on the kids who were going to have a bad time of it anyway.
I welcome some of the other changes, cracking down on some of those abusing the benefit system, years of sickness benefits despite being fit to work, etc. I just don’t like what this policy says about the Government’s attitude towards parenting and running a household – that it’s a part-time job at most and the job’s mostly done by the time your kids hit 14.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 9:47 am
Meet Phil: http://robertguyton.blogspot.com/2010/10/while-im-at-it.html
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 9:50 am
LeftyLiberal
So you then have a situation (in fact it probably already exists) where you have two people start a job at the same place. One who was on a benefit, one who was not – maybe just out of school. The person on a benefit takes home more money per week than the person who started the job saraight out of school even though their pay rate is the same because they are coming off a benefit.
I wouldn’t see that as fair. And you want to increase that inequality by lengthening the abatement…
In my job, I sure sign that a design is poor is when more rules have to be introduced in order to compensate for deficiencies that are exposed during detailed analysis. I always counsel that the process should stop, and go back to the beginning to think about a better, simpler design. The result is almost always more robust.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 9:55 am
Ryan
I know plenty of families where the 14 year old is regularly cooking for the rest of the family. It teaches them a skill, and independance. After all they may be leaving home as soon as 2 years hence…
14 year olds can heartily contribute to the household. They can do dishes. They can cook meals. They can do ironing. They can do that to take pressure off their parent (or parents) so that when they are home there is quality time.
My 6-year old already puts his dishes in the dishwasher, cleans up after himself, pulls his bed together (sort of). Gosh we must be terrible parents…
It’s not a punishment, it’s sharing responsibilities.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 10:34 am
rouppe: Agreed that that situation is silly. It is the situation we have now however. Marginal effective tax rates are currently all over the show due to WFF and the like.
A simpler system is the universal allowance/negative income tax with a flat tax on anything earnt. It takes out a lot of the vagarities but doesn’t easily allow for differing levels of assistance. I’m not sure that that is required however.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 am
leftyliberal
Flatter taxes and less picking of winers and losers by political parties remove a whole raft of perverse incentives and disincentives. Guess that’s why Labour like things twisted and complicated – keeps people voting for them.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 10:52 am
Someone who knows the subject. Lindsay Mitchell speaks about welfare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQU3p7_Rltg&feature=player_embedded#!
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 11:06 am
I agree, and I was thinking of that sort of thing when I said that it’s possible to do a good job of raising kids while working full-time. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily very common, and I don’t think that forcing parents to work full-time will make it more likely.
We’re asking sole parents to succeed in spite of the added obstacles being set against them, rather than trying to help them succeed. I don’t like sole parents being lumped in with dole bludgers and sickness-beneficiary rorts as problems to be cracked down on.
Vote:November 2nd, 2011 at 1:43 pm
IV2
Vote:Thanks for clarifying that. I knew that they had hidden some info about ACC but thought that there was more.
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:03 am
Watch bludgers and slackers move to the street. Watch crime rise. Watch the police expenditure rise. Watch the prisons overfull. Another platform from which you ignorant people can pose your righteous indignation!
Vote:January 26th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
I agree that without the Work & Income support the unsupported will move to theft and crime without the benefit support, landlords, supermarkets etc will all suffer. I doubt that very much of a beneficeries income goes into overseas shares or gold investments. It stays and is spent in N.Z stores.
There is little incentive to create jobs for a company as this is subtracted straight from that companies profits. Where as any machine that replaces the work that a person once was able to perform can be claimed on through deappreciation of that machine over time as tax deductable. I work with machines that do the work that 30 unskilled people used to do, costing my company much less as it’s only taxed on NET profit not GROSS. Capital=assets-liabilites is the rule.
Communism didn’t work, Capitalism is flawed and maybe failing.
Vote: