Not Working For Families

November 8th, 2011 at 8:20 am by David Farrar

’s latest bold policy is to borrow $2.6b and spend most of it on paying people not to work.

Labour says it will effectively extend the in work tax credit to, well parents not in work. Ironically in Government they refused to do so, even in the face of legal challenges to the policy.

Labour had already pledged to give all beneficiaries an extra $10/week. This would give a DPB recepient an additional $60 a week on top of that. While National is working on incentives not to remain on the DPB, Labour is getting rid of one the few existing incentives to be in work.

In fact Labour’s policy is unfair to working low income parents. Because if you work, you have additional costs such as travel to work, work clothes etc.This policy makes it harder for someone to go from into work.

Incientially this is not the first time Labour have pledged to end child poverty. They said in 2002 that if they got re-elected, “ending child poverty will be its top social policy“. Not as bad as their policy to have no one under 18 not in work, study or training – that particular policy they had announced five times previously.

So with this policy working families will have to pay the interest on Labour’s extra borrowing, while a sole parent on the DPB will get an extra $70/week in the hand.

Tags: ,

90 Responses to “Not Working For Families”

  1. ben (2,280 comments) says:

    Anybody who thinks, or believes a politician who says, the solution to poverty is more welfare spending in a country with what is already an enormous welfare system needs their head examined.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. immigant (950 comments) says:

    What makes me very, very sad about the future of NZ is that this policy was concocted not by students, or mentally disabled, but by adults, alleged leaders of our country and those who have experience and understanding of ‘life’.

    Also, Labour just once again proved to every – single, working adult with no kids that they are not teh party to vote for.

    If any Labour supporters are reading this, I have a question I’d like answered.

    I’m a single, white male, 25-30. Earning a little under 50K a year. I have no children and no ‘partner’ to support. 2 Uni educations. Made more or less all the responsible decisions in life. What policies do you have that will benefit me and others like me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,803 comments) says:

    How does “borrow and bribe” stack up as a sustainable political plan?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    Labour knows they cannot win so this is their plan to get rid of ACT. A few more dopey policies like this and they will push National over 60%. The may end up with only beneficiaries voting for the left.

    If ACT disappears National will be struggling in 2014 and for a long time after.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lance (2,719 comments) says:

    @immigant

    You should just accept that you are colonial exploiter, a rich prick and should live your life in shame forever as a guest in Aoteroa. To atone just a little for your mountain of shame you need to be taxed heavily with no benefits in return.

    Voting for the extreme left will help a little in your re-education, but only a little

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

    Pro rating the payment for part-timers would provide an incentive to increase work hours, and extending it to those on the new-look invalid benefit would also be fair – genuine invalids dependent on a benefit have a shocking standard of living – being unable to work is compounded by also being unable to do a lot of things for themselves and also higher expenditure related to their disability.

    Otherwise we are cementing in an entitled beneficiary class and actively discouraging work. We’ll end up like Greece if Labour get into power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tvb (4,560 comments) says:

    This is a policy from a party that does not expect to be the Government for some time. This is because the start dates stretch far into the future, like their tax increases and old age adjustments. Indeed whenever they get asked were the money is coming from they mention the capital gains tax, or increase in the top rates. They have spent that money many times over. So people who are successful get tax increases, people who sit at home on welfare get increases with no questions asked. They just give them money to spend on drugs and alcohol. That is why children are starving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tknorriss (327 comments) says:

    Labour have gone into damage control with this policy. They have thrown in the towel and are trying to minimise the damage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. freedom101 (513 comments) says:

    While I disliked most of what Helen Clark did, the latest raft of Labour policies actually scares me. If they were implemented then there really would be no future for the country and I would move to Australia. I have never thought that I would consider moving, but if you think about the consequences of Labour’s policies the future of NZ would be terminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nookin (3,573 comments) says:

    If the labour pollies were company directors they would be forever banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Michaels (1,233 comments) says:

    This is downright disgusting. It is many times worse than their free student loan bribe.
    Here is National trying to cut our handouts and here is Labour trying to encourge it.

    If I hear Goff say one more time that it’s for our children and grandchildren I’ll fucking scream.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. James Stephenson (2,268 comments) says:

    Labour have gone into damage control with this policy. They have thrown in the towel and are trying to minimise the damage.

    You’re not wrong, this is nothing more than a cynical shoring-up of their client state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Falafulu Fisi (2,141 comments) says:

    Kiwiblog resident leftist RRM would be delighted with the Labour’s policy as his girlfriend/de-factor/wife or whatever, is/was on the state’s teats sucking the DPB.

    [DPF: 20 demerits. Don’t attack someone unprovoked]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tas (655 comments) says:

    Labour have gone further left since 2008. That has left the centre entirely for National. When will they learn that elections are won in the middle? Appealing to your tribal supporters is a waste of time–they’ll vote for you anyway. You need to appeal to the swing voters.

    The big issue with unemployment is marginal tax rates: If you are on the benefit and start working, how much better off are you? The complexities of the various benefits and schemes make this question hard to answer. By my calculations, if you are on the unemployment benefit with no kids and start working part time at minimum wage, you only get to keep about $3.50 per hour. That’s already a slim marginal gain, and I oppose anything that lessens it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    The socialists will promise heaven on earth while throwing bags of money to the bludgers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Mike Readman (353 comments) says:

    Not one positive comment on Labour’s wall – and this was supposed to be the game changer so they could win the election!

    http://www.facebook.com/NZLabourParty?sk=wall

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Fletch (6,532 comments) says:

    It was interesting flicking on the TV this morning to Breakfast and seeing just how many kiwis are making the comment (either through text/email or being interviewed on the street) that it could be a good idea but that the country can’t afford it.
    If even the man in the street can see it as bribery, it’s not going to do Goff and Labour any good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. KiwiGreg (3,279 comments) says:

    subsidise what you want more of and tax what you want less of. Simple really

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Michaels (1,233 comments) says:

    How about a stupid thing called personal responsibilty?
    My wife had a child 24 years ago in South Africa. She received 6 weeks leave. She was also paid for this. HOWEVER, she was paid out of her OWN super fund.
    Same sort of thing if you have an accident and are off work.

    Now sure, maybe we don’t need to go that far but surely if a “married” couple choose to have a child, they budget for it out of their own money NOT what they can get from the Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fisiani (1,052 comments) says:

    $70 a week to non working beneficiaries to be paid for by the hard working people of New Zealand.

    Borrow Tax and Spend. The Labour Mantra.

    Labour believe this will make people vote for them and not for the Greens or Mana.

    Labour always do what is best for Labour. Labour always do what is best for Labour

    Labour always do what is best for Labour. Labour always do what is best for Labour

    Labour always do what is best for Labour. Labour always do what is best for Labour

    Labour always do what is best for Labour. Labour always do what is best for Labour

    National do what is best for New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Mr Nobody NZ (365 comments) says:

    Freedom101 Said: “If they were implemented then there really would be no future for the country”

    I completely agree and National need to be taking a long hard look at Labour’s latest election bribes and the consequences of them if they are ever allowed to be in a position to implement them. To date National have played a long game figuring that they will be able to gradually shift peoples expectations around welfare and government support, however post election I think National needs to revise that thinking and starting ensuring that by the end of the next term the changes are so far advanced and entrenched that Labour would find it virtually impossible to reverse them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Monty (899 comments) says:

    classic pork barrel politics to shore up the support from the parasite classes for a party that does not want to bleed more support to the Mana and Greenies.

    However it already seems to have backfired – on the stuff poll this stupid and desperate policy has only 14% support-

    Labour know this is a policy they will never have to implement

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. s.russell (1,650 comments) says:

    I watched the report of the policy launch on TV3 News last night and my jaw dropped. After a week in which Labour got crucified for recklessness with public money they announce a policy for spending an extra $713m a year… on bigger benefit payments.
    That was suicidal enough. But then the report went into the details of how implenetation would not occur for x years. So not only are Labour spendthrift, they are also weasels.
    What on earth were they thinking? Well, as Tracey Watkins says on Stuff (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/5923425/Labour-digging-deep-to-avoid-rout) it isn’t about winning votes from National – it is all about shoring up the Labour bedrock of people who care only about lining their own pockets and bugger the country (as Fisiani and several others say above).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. slightlyrighty (2,098 comments) says:

    I was talking about this policy in the staff caf this morning. On the basis of this policy, one lady who I work with, who has always voted Labour, told me that she will not vote labour this time, and said that she will vote National this time round.

    She does not want to be identified, but if people knew who she was, and who her sister was, they would be VERY suprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. wreck1080 (4,001 comments) says:

    $60 a week will buy a lot of beer……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ste3e (119 comments) says:

    Labour’s new policies are the sorts of policies NZ used to run prior to the 1980’s. They are the sorts of policies socially and financially successful countries such as those in the Netherlands run. We can either bury our heads in the sand and persist throwing human potential on the scrap heap (and paying the prison fees for the privilege) or we can move in a direction scientific evidence suggest works. What crocodile tears these, that cried over the Kahui twins while voting for their back pockets!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. jaba (2,146 comments) says:

    appalling but cunning .. it’s all about the children
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    TV1 news last night interviwed a young mother with 5 kids and a partner not at work welcoming this assitance, I guess No 6 will be coming soon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    The incentive to move off benefit and into low-paid work comes from raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That more than offsets any incentive to stay on benefit in extending the full WFF package to beneficiary families.

    Incidentally, raising the minimum wage and extending WFF are both Green policies that Labour have now nicked, despite refusing to have even consider them when Labour were in Government and the Greens were advocating them. Seems like the only original idea they can come up with this election is their stupid policy of taking GST off fruit and vegetables.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Much as I agree with most of the above, the fact is that WFF remains in place and will do so for the foreseeable future.

    This means that Labour will have this mechanism in place from which to deploy this bribe, or something like it, next time – “when the country can afford it”.

    The same applies across a raft of government institutions, some of them like WFF, quite recent. But National is not only unwilling to make fundamental changes to these things, it’s not even prepared to argue against them.

    Ratchet socialism at its finest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    This makes me so angry – didn’t Labour used to be the party for the working person? Now what do they represent?

    If this lot get in (which they won’t), our country will be totally bankrupted to pay for these stupid bribes.

    Already WFF is 2.5 billion a year, how much more is it going to be? As a young parent, who works 60 hour weeks to look after my family, without relying on anything from the government, this is nothing but a cheap slap in the face. Why should I work my butt off and then have dero muppets like the chick on TV1 news last night who has 5 kids and her and her husband don’t work and use my tax to pay for their kids?

    Fuck you Labour, and Fuck you Annette King!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (743 comments) says:

    I just have no one to vote for this election. Labour’s retirement policy had me keen to ignore their other crap but this is just a joke, I can’t vote Green cos of Delahunty…. NZ First? just for fun?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ed Snack (1,941 comments) says:

    Toad, and yet Green policies are all about reducing employment, reducing living standards both absolutely and relatively. Except of course for that minority who can suck off the government teat at the expense of others. Now that’s the real Green message, “We’ll pay you from the sweat of others, and we’ll all get poorer together”.

    Green Jobs is a kind of oxymoron given that they have been shown to reduce employment elsewhere in the economy by a factor of between 2 to 3 times. Although of course in NZ the greens are sooo clever that they can avoid that trap and find the solution to providing more jobs for all. (Of course this is contingent on them finding the magical unicorn shit that is needed for the incantation to work, but it’s out there somewhere…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “Incidentally, raising the minimum wage and extending WFF are both Green policies that Labour have now nicked”

    lol you must be devestated someone stole your country wrecking policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    ste3e what the fuck makes you think the worthless piece of shit who killed the Kahui twins would have treated their children any better with an extra $70? What about the animals who put their child in a dryer? Would they have not done those things if they had a buit of extra cash? People like that are the scum of society. Giving them extra cash will do NOTHING to stop child neglect. All it will do is allow them to spend more money on themselves. What a stupid bloody thing to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Falafulu Fisi (2,141 comments) says:

    DPF, I didn’t attack a person. My comment was targeted at the pseudonym RRM, which is not a real person. We all use pseudonyms, but to say that someone attack a pseudonym as if it is a person is I think misguided. Pseudonym Falafulu Fisi has been attacked a few times here at Kiwiblog such as labeling it as fella full feces, but that’s fine with me, since it is only a pseudonym and not a person. I didn’t see those commentators in the past labeling the pseudonym Falafulu Fisi as fella full feces given demerits? Anyway, its your blog (your property rights – I’m a big supporter of that).

    Its election time and we need to get nasty with all those lefties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. joe90 (273 comments) says:

    immigant (369) Says:
    …..
    November 8th, 2011 at 8:29 amI’m a single, white male, 25-30. Earning a little under 50K a year. I have no children and no ‘partner’ to support. 2 Uni educations. Made more or less all the responsible decisions in life. What policies do you have that will benefit me and others like me

    But you said…

    immigant (369) Says:
    July 6th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
    Who ever told me to go back to Jerusalem

    I fought them in Chechnia you antisemite peice of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    the 2.6b – how many years is that? not per year i hope

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kiwi in america (2,314 comments) says:

    When Tracy Watkins says this about Labour’s policy, you know they are rooted:
    “If Labour wants to win the argument over whether the country can afford bigger benefit payments, it should have won the argument over debt and spending first.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/5923425/Labour-digging-deep-to-avoid-rout

    This is a bone to the base to get them out to vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    FF – getting nasty is the worst thing to do. Really. We should be above that sort of crap, shouldn’t we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    getting nasty is the worst thing to do. Really. We should be above that sort of crap, shouldn’t we?

    No, we should not. Instead, offering the other cheek to the lefties is the crap we should be afraid of.

    In times like these a bit of political intestinal fortitude is advisable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    These socialist fucks need to be beaten to within in an inch of their miserable lives. They are evil self serving pricks who would gladly sell their souls for a whiff of power, no sorry their souls where flogged off years ago. Ah but it’s about the children, no it’s about a bunch of corrupt socialist gagglers and self serving unionists who wish to finally kill off NZ. Shame on the lot of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (743 comments) says:

    “These socialist fucks need to be beaten to within in an inch of their miserable lives.”
    You’re tuned to Kiwiblog

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. smttc (767 comments) says:

    But but but ……… Annette King says this policy represents unfinished business for Labour. Lying cow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nick K (1,259 comments) says:

    Labour’s welfare policy unsurprisingly sees a further $800million (or so) being spent by the year 2019 on numerous extra benefits.

    You know that Capital Gains Tax that Labour says is going to be used to repay debt, stop our assets being “flogged off” and “grow” the economy? Well guess how much Labour estimates it will raise by 2018/19?

    Oh, about $800million.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    Annette King says this policy represents unfinished business for Labour.

    ‘Full Moon’ King is right: Socialist Labour’s business of lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    ste3e what the fuck makes you think the worthless piece of shit who killed the Kahui twins would have treated their children any better with an extra $70?

    Cunningham: I would not get too upset about it. The original comment –

    What crocodile tears these, that cried over the Kahui twins while voting for their back pockets!

    – is simply par for the course.

    It’s the left-wing version of getting nasty – but because it’s framed as an implication, involves no swearing, and is used so often that it’s merely the constant undertone reinforcing the narrative that the right-wing are mean, nasty and lacking compassion, it’s not often commented upon or confronted.

    And of course – compared to the public bar crudity of Fuck off, you useless, thieving bastard – it’s a far more sophisticated form of getting nasty, which is its crowning glory.

    The left-wing love sophistication.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    There’s a big difference to standing strong and being nasty. The nastiness I see here is no better than what I experience at The Standard – and it achieves nothing but nastiness and is a sign of weak or no argument.

    Strength is expressing strong views reasonably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Someone must think of teh children!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. KiwiGreg (3,279 comments) says:

    is this Labour’s baby bonus moment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. s.russell (1,650 comments) says:

    It is far more effective to destroy the lefties’ arguments than attack their bowel motions. Let them wallow in that kind of stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    It’s just another moment, their campaign seems to be pelting Hail Mary policies.

    Did English’s campaign go into such a flailing failing frenzy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left:

    I just have no one to vote for this election. Labour’s retirement policy had me keen to ignore their other crap but this is just a joke, I can’t vote Green cos of Delahunty

    Why not vote National? Seriously. They’re more than slightly to the left. They’re keeping benefits and WFF, healthcare is subsided, education free. The other parties are extreme left. ACT was the only right-wing party, but they’re not a player this time.

    Or, like many, do you just hate JK because he’s rich and thus cannot vote National?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    ***, “ending child poverty will be its top social policy“. ***

    I agree, but this should be done by making contraception a condition of receiving welfare.

    Another point is that Richard Lynn & Tatu Vanhanen pointed out in IQ & the Wealth of Nations, the cognitive ability of the population is a very significant factor in economic growth and wellbeing. Making contraception a condition of welfare would have the added benefit of raising the national IQ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    jaba

    “TV1 news last night interviwed a young mother with 5 kids and a partner not at work welcoming this assitance, I guess No 6 will be coming soon”

    You omitted a couple of relelvant facts.

    First, she was a lardarse – a genuine two bagger. So her worries about feeding her kids are, in reality, more likely a consequence of stuffing food down into her fat guts at the expense of the kids.

    Second, she looked extremely young to be a mother of five. That was disturbing.

    All in all, she was the poster girl for all who rail against career beneficiaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. DrDr (113 comments) says:

    We do need to get people out of the poverty trap. I think this is best done by getting people into work and ensuring that their families have a decent roof over their head, nutritious food in their belly and a good education under their belt. However, by increasing WFF, I think that any incentives to work are pretty much out the window. We need to focus our energies on job creation, these jobs will no doubt be in the private sector, so that’s where the incentives must be focused. As a long term taxpayer, I know that part of my taxes must help prop up the poor and elderly, but I object to shelling out money to the lazy and degenerate. The DPB is a good back-stop, but it should not be used as a career pathway. Unfortunately the Labour WFF policy indicates that they accept that it will be for many. I saw the solo mother with 5 kids on TV3 last night and I had to wonder where the $560 she had left after her rent was paid went and of course, where the hell was the kids’ father/s?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    Where have alll the Fathers gone,
    Long time passing
    Where have alll the Fathers gone,
    Long time ago
    Where have alll the Fathers gone,
    Where have alll the Fathers gone,
    Girls have picked them every one
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?
    Where have all the young girls gone?
    Long time passing
    Where have all the young girls gone?
    Long time ago
    Where have all the young girls gone?
    Taken husbands every one?
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?
    Where have all the young men gone?
    Long time passing
    Where have all the young men gone?
    Long time ago
    Gone to Australia every one?
    Where have all the young men gone?
    Gone to Australia every one?
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. XChequer (298 comments) says:

    Brilliant!

    Absolutely brilliant!

    Great strategy to splinter the middle to lower income vote.

    Labour buys enough votes to be able to conjure up a Labour/Greens/Mana/ NZ First (you really think Winston won’t accept a bauble or two if his “people demand it”?) government then when this highly effective and stable coalition “reveals the books” find that in fact they can’t institute this promise because they didn’t know how bad things really were or one of their coalition partners objects – well thats all a bit poor really.

    The fact they have no real intention of implementing this patently stupid policy will be forgotten by all but a few of the VRWC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    I was talking to a taxi driver the other night and he was from Cambodia. When I asked him how he felt about the poverty in NZ he laughed at me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mickrodge (27 comments) says:

    What’s the answer though?

    I saw the TV3 story & thought the same things.

    Why keep breeding? Where is the father(s)? What is the money being spent on?

    I guess it’s easy to pass judgement when you’re one of the “haves” but I do wonder what is the answer? I don’t envy these people & to class them as bludgers is solving nothing.

    I just struggle to believe that throwing more money at the problem will make it go away. If these people don’t have the sense to plan a family within their means & circumstances then what makes you think an extra $60 a week is going towards food & clothing for their children?

    Cap the benefit at $50 a week. Put the rest towards free food, accommodation, clothing, medicine & education for all children in beneficiary households. As a society we need to absolutely support the most needy & treat them with dignity & respect but that philosophy should go both ways. Can that be achieved?

    Social welfare should not be a lifestyle choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Why do people presume that women on the DPB are making a lifestyle choice? Most were formerly married or in defacto relationships, many had trained for work and had careers before having children with partners – they do not become untrustworthy as parents by having a failed relationship. There is no need to sentence their children to poverty.

    Sure, there is a case for balancing out this policy by saying that where a person going onto the DPB had their child as a sole parent then they will have their benefit paid via a card, similarly those who have further children while on the DPB.

    This allays public concern about the use of the increased benefit in some cases – most parents on the DPB are just sole parents between jobs and or relationships for a few years and are not there because of some lifestyle choice.

    Is the extra support to all children not worth it, if there can be bi-partisan support for targeting cards for some recipients of the increased payments?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. KiwiGreg (3,279 comments) says:

    @ SPC actually the parent’s choices and abilities “sentence” kids to be poorer than others (there is no poverty in New Zealand, except perhaps a poverty of ideas). The “public concern” is the idea that people who work should be taxed to pay people who dont, many of whom ARE making just that lifestyle choice.

    From a policy perspective increasing the rewards for not working (higher welfare) relative to working will of course result in more people being on welfare, and indeed some in current work would move to welfare as the rewards are higher (not everyone, some people take pride in not being on welfare even if they would be “better off”). These are the consequences of this type of moronic policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Talking about Child Poverty

    “Child Poverty” has nothing to do with “poverty”.

    From the Children’s Commissioner
    http://www.occ.org.nz/home/childpoverty/about_child_poverty

    In 2006/07 230,000, or 22 percent, of New Zealand children were still living in poverty. That is, in households with incomes below the 60 percent median income poverty line.

    From the Children’s Social Health Monitor
    http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php

    Proportion of children with equivalised disposable household income < 50% or <60% current median

    Using this "definition", "child poverty" and poverty as such will probably NEVER be solved unless we are all either equally rich or equally poor.

    As with "Global Warming", there is an underlying agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Kiwi Greg,

    In an economic climate where there are not enough jobs, incentives are moot.

    The policy (in tandem with an increased minimum wage – $15 an hour) would not increase the numbers on welfare as there are not enough jobs for those looking for work.

    Bi-partisan policy is required to lift children out of the poverty that handicaps the health and education outcomes for the underclass children – for most on the DPB more money is all that is required, for others a card system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    Has anyone dared do any research on proportions of beneficiaries who are genuinely unable to work, those unable to find work despite genuinely looking for it, and those who are abusing the system?

    It would make a big difference if the hardcore abusers were 1% or 10%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. KiwiGreg (3,279 comments) says:

    @ SPC can you really believe anything you write?

    In an economic climate where 94% of people who want jobs have them you think incentives are moot?

    You think raising welfare will be Ok because you are going to raise wages too to maintain relativity? gosh free money for all. Where do you think the money comes from for the welfare? Where do you think the money comes from for the higher wages?

    It may be that “for most on the DPB more moeny is all that is required” – required for what?

    These are the policies of the intellectually dishonest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    mickrodge

    The answer?

    The tension is between the kids are healthy, educated, safe and fed, but at the same time ensuring that the lifestyle choice is less appealing than present.

    I run out of ideas after the following: no benefits in cash, beneficiary card system that prevents the purchase of luxuries – ie no SKY, booze, fags, cars, pets, TV, computer, internet. These are not necessary items, just as they were not necessary forty and fifty years ago. We might have to be prepared to also do their shopping for them if they aren’t sufficiently responsible. So they buy actual food and don’t load the kids up with the lardarse cruncho BBQ flavoured synthetic cracko shit puffs and 2 litre coke.

    I wouldn’t necessarily go to that extreme after kid number 1, but at kid number two, or at the signs that there was no effort being made towards genuinely trying to make some effort, I would definitely be tightening the screws.

    Even doing that wouldn’t stop it, but its hard to see how you can go further without compromising the kids. Beyond that, we’re fucked. All you can do is hope that the kids turn out better. I don’t hold out much hope for the kids of that lardarsed slapper on the news last night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    tas

    “The big issue with unemployment is marginal tax rates: If you are on the benefit and start working, how much better off are you?”

    Precisely what the fuck has being “better off” got to do with it? If you can work, you can get work, then – WORK! Don’t bludge.

    Your hand-wringy wishy washy namby pampy attitude is at the core of the problem. This has nothing to do with being “better off”. The issue is that you should be doing everything in your power to reduce the burden you impose on your fellow citizens. That means if you can work for one hour for one dollar, then you should fucking well go and work. With a minimum wage, the risk of transfer pricing benefits into employer wage costs through articifically low wages is reduced.

    It is that simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Yeah sure – they are moot because the only people influenced by any perverse incentive are sole parents on low wages. This is only a sub-pool of those in work. The numbers in this category are below those on the UB and SB being work tested and unable to find work.

    With a higher minimum wage some of those people receiving WFF will lose some of their tax credits, and those who are single will pay more tax – this helps offset the cost of increased DPB provision. Higher wages will reduce company profits or increase prices. Essentially there is a transfer to those on lower wages from the rest.

    Bi-partisan policy is required to lift children out of the poverty that handicaps the health and education outcomes for the underclass children – for most on the DPB more money is all that is required to do this, for others a card system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    Precisely what the fuck has being “better off” got to do with it?

    That’s one of the main problems – attitude. It’s common to hear beneficiaries saying it’s not worth them working. They are saying that on purely dollar terms – it’s known that people in employment on similar ‘incomes to beneficiaries are generally healthier and happier.

    One of the biggest problems at the bottom end is lack of ‘education’ and dare I say it, intelligence. I’ve been severely ciriticised elsewhere for suggesting some beneficiaries (and wage earners) would benefit from learning budgeting and other basic life skills, but it’s a fact, a lot of money isn’t used wisely.

    It is not just a problem of insufficient money. It is a deepseated generational problem of low life skills and education, and just upping the benefit is not going to address that at all, it might help a little, for a while, but it won’t solve anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. KiwiGreg (3,279 comments) says:

    “Higher wages will reduce company profits or increase prices.” you left out reduce employment which will also occur. Let’s run with increased prices as capital is globally mobile so there wont be a reduction in profits. So seriously….that’s your solution? Inflation is going to make everyone richer???

    your third paragraph is just a repeat – I assume you are cutting and pasting talking points from your party handbook, you need to pay more attention.

    as I said, the policitcs of the dishonest. A pretense for caring about those not as well off, coupled with policies designed to increase their numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    PG

    I don’t agree that root cause is life skills and education. I think it is just a combination of attitude and an increasing tacit acceptance of that attitude by the welfare system. The inter-generational decline in attitude exacerbates the problem over time.

    Based on employer experiences I’m aware of (second hand) these attitudes are eventually manifested in the work-place for those that actually make it that far (inability to even turn up on time or even assume the most modest levels of responsibility).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    @Other_Andy: “Proportion of children with equivalised disposable household income < 50% or <60% current median

    Using this "definition", "child poverty" and poverty as such will probably NEVER be solved unless we are all either equally rich or equally poor."

    This is the second time you've said this, but it shows a basic misunderstanding of statistics and variation. It's quite possible to have no one less than 50 or 60% of the median even in a very right skewed population. The only requirement is that the bottom 50% is not too widely spread – the top 50% can do whatever you want.

    As for WFF, part of what makes this sound silly is the idea that WFF was for working families (i.e. you got it because you were working). Rather, the idea is that it's an allowance for families with children over and above what they earn (or are given via the benefit if we're to take this extension). Personally I prefer a universal allowance for all in the form of a negative income tax or similar – make it much simpler and less open to silliness in marginal tax rates etc.

    Either way, we cannot afford this as things currently stand, so promising it is stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Kiwi Greg – clearly inflation is universal, but those receiving the minimum wage increase would be better off unlike those meeting the extra costs at the supermarket or retail. The government would be better off as tax revenues improve and debt to GDP declines.

    I had to repeat the paragraph because you did not respond to it, but only your deliberate misinterpretation of it.

    You really could not work out that the requirement was to lift children out of poverty and associated underclsss outcomes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    PG you say that it’s known that people in employment on similar ‘incomes to beneficiaries are generally healthier and happier – care to show what this opinion is based?

    As for incentives there was no reduction in the DPB numbers when the payments were reduced back in the 90’s – they have only gone down a few times and usually when unemployment is low.

    So the key determinant of numbers is not payment level but employment opportunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ste3e (119 comments) says:

    Cunnigham

    I don’t buy your assumption that there has been an increase in genetic material responsible for the increase in “pieces of shit”. As soon as you deny that premise you have to blame the pieces of shit running right wing agendas who have created an underclass. One isn’t going to remove the underclass by providing the option of getting a non-existent job or living on the street (and watch these numbers increase!)

    The whole debate is absolutely stupid anyway. Every one of you, I suspect, is a bludger upon those who actually pay for the services that you use. Are you really earners of the ilk, paying tax in the quantity that you cover the hospitals and all the services they provide that one day you might require? The schools, the roads, the legal and criminal justice systems that keep the underclass from your throats. Bullshit, the majority of the tax is paid from the wealthiest few.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. KiwiGreg (3,279 comments) says:

    @ SPC ok you ARE seriously advocating inflation as a means of reducing “poverty”. I have no response to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi 9.50
    try and take your medicine like a man, don’t whine.
    The umpires decision is final.
    Suck it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg, I guess I now realise you are not someone who debates an issue, jut spins them.

    PS Governments use inflation to reduce debt to GDP all the time (the alternative is market pressures on government debt to force budget restraint), historically fiscal drag was a term for how governments used inflation to increase taxes and afford promises without officially increasing taxation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    Jeez…you tightarses would begrudge a struggling family $60 a week in 6 yrs time ?

    Even though by then, under Key and Englishs wizardly economic management, the rest of us should all have ponies and eating cake every day.

    Given peak oil by 2018, $60 won’t even be enough to get down to the lotto shop to buy a ticket on the offchance…

    you guys are COLD like dead fish !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    BWAV

    I’ve never wanted a pony. Can I have a Ferrari instead?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    TDM – Good idea. Make mine a GT3 (in Carerra White). :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    Sure

    I don’t think it’d be hard getting Key to promise Ferraris or Porsches for teh laydeez as election bribes for in the not too distant future. Maybe Ponies for te maaori ?

    It’s not like he’d honour the promise anyway

    Though you might have to wait til we republicanize and he’s running for President. 2018 sounds just about right…don’t you think ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Come on. Surely you can do better than that. I’m disappointed. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    I’m disappointed.

    If you vote Key, you’d better get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Henry64 (83 comments) says:

    It’s the principle of promoting a welfare ethic over the work ethic that is the worst factor here. That was the whole reasoning behind WFF – to promote work as a means of getting ahead. Way to go in further embedding welfare dependency within NZ society.

    Now all you need to do is get on a benefit and breed like rabbits, under Labour. Also with ramping up even more costs in the shape of extended maternity leave I forsee a growing number of women in the unemployment queue and a diminishing number of men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ste3e (119 comments) says:

    Henry64

    The fact of the matter is that New Zealand has never seen a time when the government did not supply a large proportion of employment; health, education, public service, criminal justice, to the late ministry of works, work schemes, etc. Unemployment is the government employing people to do nothing for a fraction of the minimum wage. Now if it were the case that the private sector had jobs enough for everyone, then it would be reasonable to expect that all capable unemployed people be employed. But the actual case is that there is not jobs, the historic fact is that there has never been the jobs, this government has made it its business to remove a heap of jobs, this and previous iterations of right wing knuckleheads have found it economically prudent to ship all the decent jobs offshore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    “If you vote Key, you’d better get used to it.”

    Better. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    Worse !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Henry64 (83 comments) says:

    Ste3e

    Did you actually read what I said earlier? Promoting a work ethic is much more important than the welfare ethic that Labour is promoting. Unemployment will always be a factor in a country’s economy, depending on its economic performance, the pool of available labour/skills and the skills/experience that are in demand. ‘Full employment’ does not mean 100% employment and the amount of unemployment will fluctuate – it is a fact of life.

    I’ve been working on and off for 30 years. During this time I have been in between jobs three times, made redundant once, or studying – part-time on one occasion and full-time on the other occasion. I’ve worked for the public and private sector. I’ve been grateful for the temporary support I’ve had from the welfare system when I’ve been in between jobs and looking for work, as well as during the times I was studying, plus taking out a student loan – one with interest and one without.

    The primary focus during my working life has been to work and I’ve taken the opportunity to up-skill or re-qualify where necessary to make myself a more marketable proposition when looking for work.

    As for saying all of the decent jobs have been shipped offshore? Bollocks! I’m working for a local Engineering consultancy here in Christchurch and my company is employing extra engineering staff hand over fist – 7 in the last two months, plus 3 students as interns over the summer.

    There are jobs out there and it’s a challenging market but you have to stick at it. have a plan, spread the net wider and have a plan B or a plan C etc. if your first plan isn’t working out.

    Labour’s policy of extending WFF to beneficiaries with children is basically saying – “its ok you don’t have to work” and that will just serve to cement the underclass further and the welfare/handout mentality.

    You get where you are by the choices you make in your life – not all choices work out in the long run but you learn from what works and what doesn’t. It’s called being independent and responsible. Labour wants dependency and bugger the consequences, as long as you vote for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. ste3e (119 comments) says:

    Henry64

    I have no problem if a government sidles up to beneficiaries and figures out how it can assist them into work. I have a lot of trouble with a government that threatens and bullies some of the least able to handle that pressure in the mistaken belief that it will lead to them smelling the coffee and pulling the oar. I say the belief is mistaken because such pressure leads to family violence, etc, etc, and that in itself nullifies any few who might be turned.

    Furthermore, the way National are going about this is appalling. They ship off the building of train carriages for a couple of hundred thousand savings thereby removing jobs from the economy, which jobs lie in the sort of engineering sectors this country should be up-skilling in. They talk of plans to remove percentages of beneficiaries off benefits as if they were solid figures without solidifying the figures regarding the number of jobs that will be available. Which is to say, they will be kicking beneficiaries onto the streets.

    Ultimately, however, the main reason I disagree with it is because the policy direction is 180 degrees off the policies that are run in the only working capitalist societies we know, the Scandinavian countries. America has already tried these “puritan” policies and they failed to deliver to any but the wealthiest. We have all seen have we not, the human cost littering American cities, justice systems straining at the seams. Just because something might seem to make sense to you does not mean it is the case, try looking to the facts of the matter as they reveal themselves in real situations.

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