When should work testing apply?

February 29th, 2012 at 1:34 pm by David Farrar

At I blog on when work testing should apply.

For my part I support having just a 12-month suspension of work testing for sole parents who have further children while on the DPB. There is a wealth of research that children who grow up in households where no adults are in paid employment do far worse than other children in other families – even those of the same income level. The DPB should be temporary assistance for parents who find themselves without the support of a partner. Too many recepients remain on it for well over a decade.

You can comment over at Stuff.

Tags: , ,

8 Responses to “When should work testing apply?”

  1. Nick R (497 comments) says:

    After the startling revelation that the opposition opposes Government policy, we now learn that a Government-aligned blogger supports Government policy! It’s just one jaw-dropping bombshell after another round here… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Well spoken by a single adult male with no responsibilities and a large income.

    To many brains in the Wellington Water these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. JeffW (320 comments) says:

    The DPB should be available for one child only. Then to work when that child is five, or earlier if child care is available.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    I sometomes get Moroneys twitter comments .. here is what she just said
    Sue Moroney says “Judith Collins says that requiring sole mums to look for jobs (what jobs?) is about choice. No, Judith. Choice is when they decide.not you”.
    Imagine if everyone decided not to work .. that’s why her and her nutjob party should never be Govt again

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (22,753 comments) says:

    jaba – I’m looking forward to Labour campaigning next election on choice taxes, when we decide, not them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    ow it’s all on in America.

    8. ‘The richer you are the less ethical you are’ – Wired’s Brandon Keim reports on a UC Berkeley study showing the richer a person is the more likely they are to be unethical.

    The study included seven different experiments that spanned real-world and laboratory settings, from rude San Francisco drivers to test subjects given a chance to take candy from children.

    “Occupying privileged positions in society has this natural psychological effect of insulating you from others,” said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley. “You’re less likely to perceive the impact your behavior has on others. As a result, at least in this paper, you’re more likely to break the rules.”

    The findings, announced Feb. 27 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, come at a moment when historical tensions over wealth and class have reached a fever pitch: Is greed good, and extreme wealth a sign of virtue? Does wealth corrupt, and should a society strive to be egalitarian in income as well as principles?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. thor42 (903 comments) says:

    JeffW has it bang-on! Support for ONE child only. If you have another child while on the benefit, you’re on your own. Don’t expect working taxpayers to fund your lousy life-choices.

    The reforms are bloody fair. Childcare support while a beneficiary goes to uni or polytech – sounds good to me. No more excuses for bennies to sit on their bums and watch TV all day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. MikeS (20 comments) says:

    We have means testing for benefits such as the unemployment benefit so we should have means testing for all benefits (including the pension) and we should eliminate corporate welfare altogether.

    Off topic about cutting government spending, I think some sort of regulations on public sector hiring of contractors should be put in place too. I can think of 2 examples off the top of my head where people I know are contracted , for many years so far, at outrageous rates for doing sweet f a (eg $45 an hour for basically a co-ordinator or admin role with no qualifications required) where an actual employee would be way way cheaper.

    On a side note, will be interesting to see how unemployment figures are handled after all the reforms take place. When DPB recipients, Sickness Beneficiaries and the unemployment benefit are lumped together under one benefit you would expect the unemployment figure to take a massive sudden increase to double figures?

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.