Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Welfare: Back to the Future?

203 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

  • nzlemming, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    I’ve also long lost the naive idea that folks around here are going to coo and kiss my arse any time soon.

    Thank Christ for that. There are things I'll do for my nation but, really...

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2080 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to nzlemming,

    Sweetheart, that's the first laugh I've had for eight hours or so. I love this place and every one of you, more often than not.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11933 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I don't mind the government offering free contraception of various types to beneficiaries. Beneficiaries get offered a lot of things - WINZ grants for clothes and appliances, cheap loans, one off grants for special needs. Something that gave them family planning options would be good as well.

    To me it really depends how it is presented. Options good, any compulsion of bonuses/penalties for doing so.... not.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6165 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Free voluntary contraception made available to a group of people that otherwise couldn't afford it is all good - but when delivered as a recommendation in a report that also clearly pushes for a coerced reduction in births of people receiving benefits it really is creepy...

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1721 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    On one hand, being able to access free contraception for anyone is good. On the other hand, having to talk about your contraceptive arrangements as part of the process of applying or reapplying for income support? Horrific.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 810 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to B Jones,

    In just one word: crypto-eugenics. As said above, options are one thing. Pressure is quite another.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4261 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    ugh from my limited reading (the whole thing is more than my brain can process) it reads like a really bad self help book with words like 'empowerment' .

    and since winz have in my past experience been incredibly bad at telling me what I'm eligible for benefit wise the idea of various flavours of supplementary payments sounds like clusterfuck waiting to happen

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 473 posts Report Reply

  • Tamsin6,

    What happens to DPB parents with youngest child over 3 with no childcare? Do they lose all benefits, or do they get transferred to unemployment/jobseekers? I know that over here, my husband who is a 'jobseeker' is automatically not considered work ready as he is caring for a child. But we can't get childcare organised until we know he has paid work. So Catch 22 - how is that explained in NZ proposal? Are you automatically excluded from DPB when youngest turns 3 but then also excluded from jobseeker/workseeker type benefit because you are not able to start work without childcare?

    I hesitate in a serious thread to say this but - 'Won't someone please think of the children'?

    London • Since Dec 2007 • 123 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    I hesitate in a serious thread to say this but – ‘Won’t someone please think of the children’?

    The children are just the tip of the iceberg. Rebstock wants to transfer all 85,000 people off the invalids benefit, classify them as unemployed and then actively manage them back into the workforce, with financial penalties after six months if they're still jobless. If the penalties don't work then they could be transferred to a government work scheme.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 901 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,

    If the penalties don’t work then they could be transferred to a government work scheme

    At the risk of Godwin, they do say "Work shall make you free". Of course, that depends on who you think "they" are...

    cue HORansome ;-)

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2080 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,

    That's actually sadistic. How disgusting.

    (I'm starting to feel like Butch and Sundance, because I'm asking "who ARE these guys?" in tones of horror so often.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3653 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    In the WWGs defence, they do concede that people with terminal illnesses should not be incentivised to re-enter the workforce.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 901 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,

    How magnanimous.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3653 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Their productivity is not up to snuff

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Sacha,

    Ow. That one hurt bad, you evil, evil man! :-D

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2080 posts Report Reply

  • Katita,

    transferred to a government work scheme

    and access to free contraception - sounds like something Alfred Rosenberg (responsible for the racial policies of the third reich) could have written.
    But one thing I'm really not sure on - we don't actually have an over-population issue right? So why is contraception for those on benefits seen as a desirable thing? Because poor people make worse parents? It's not just creepy it's disgusting.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Katita,

    Well, poor people are less intelligent, genetically. According to Peter Saunders. So naturally they shouldn't breed as much as the upper classes.

    (I am not kidding. He actually thinks this.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3653 posts Report Reply

  • andin, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,

    classify them as unemployed and then actively manage them back into the workforce, with financial penalties after six months if they’re still jobless.

    So thats how Nacts are going to get the country out of debt? Here's my suggestion all people with income or assets of over 5 mill will be classified as an arsehole. And the rest of the population can nurse them back to becoming a better human being.
    (Or an arsehole with just one arsehole not two.) The second is usually used just for spouting shit anyway. By the judicious use of financial penalties. And if, after six months, they still refuse to join the human race, they will be sent to a nice little island I know of in the middle of the South Pacific. Difficult to get to but lovely when you are there. There they can spend balmy nights at the bar making themselves pina colada's. Then again there might not be a bar.
    <sarc>

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1212 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to Danielle,

    Well, poor people are less intelligent, genetically. According to Peter Saunders. So naturally they shouldn't breed as much as the upper classes.

    And he's also an Glenn Beck type who's written what is tantamount to the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca.

    If people already in work see the alternative as living on a park bench or in a tent, you can be sure they'll be a lot more bolshie in redundancy negotiations.

    And I can see all this being taken to the ILO. Oh that's right, the usual suspects think the ILO is a Muslim terrorist group.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4261 posts Report Reply

  • recordari, in reply to DeepRed,

    And he’s also an Glenn Beck type who’s written what is tantamount to the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca.

    This from the readers feedback;

    Saunders, if I can put this succinctly, is a nut job...To put it kindly, the book is a mélange of right wing paranoia, and Islamophobia (Gordon Campbell, New Zealand)

    Tell us what you really think.

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,

    In the WWGs defence, they do concede that people with terminal illnesses should not be incentivised to re-enter the workforce.

    Unless their life expectancy exceeds 90 days that is...

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4816 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    The National Government are fuckers. That is all.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    From the Herald

    The group proposes a range of "carrots" to help people back to work.

    The benefit clawback rate would be cut from 70c for every dollar earned above $80 a week to 55c for every dollar above $20.

    That means if you were one of those people disincentiveised by the 70% marginal tax, twice the maximum taxrate for "working" people, to earn more than $80 then you would, in fact be $33 dollars worse off. To get back to the princely sum of $80 take home pay you would have to earn $133.30 which is about half a day on the m/w.
    Nice, that should help...
    ETA. Considering that to take home $80 on the m/w at the moment means working 6.4 hours that extra 4.2 hours is quite step up in terms of being away from your 14 week old....

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4816 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    The group proposes a range of “carrots” to help people back to work.

    The benefit clawback rate would be cut from 70c for every dollar earned above $80 a week to 55c for every dollar above $20.

    Using calculations of ((income-abatement point)*abatement rate) to determine how much benefit abatement each rate incurs, that doesn't become a "carrot" until the beneficiary's income exceeds $300 per week, which at $13 minimum wage is a shade over 23 hours.

    Clearly their calculation is 20 hours a week at $15/hour, which is just not going to happen. And for many beneficiaries who are on less than $300 in benefit income, they're far worse-off under the proposed scheme than the current one.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3908 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Danielle,

    Well, poor people are less intelligent, genetically. According to Peter Saunders. So naturally they shouldn’t breed as much as the upper classes.

    (I am not kidding. He actually thinks this.)

    Who do we think this style of politics is designed to captivate? The educated middle classes, the filthy rich or the working poor?

    Since Nov 2006 • 2712 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.