Hard News: Is that it?
327 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
I’ve no quibble with the Govt tackling youth unemployment, but it seems like this is an attack on the young unemployed. They think micro-managing the finances of young people will help them become empowered and self-supporting??
ETA: and
the choice to continue parenting children full-time after they’re able to walk on their own would become the preserve of the employed. Compulsorily.
Seems rather circular...how many young people would qualify for parental leave even if employed??
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Well that would certainly answers my question as to what purpose this policy serves.
It is also consistent with National’s approach to government responsibilities – sell them off to the highest/lowest bidder and then turn your back on the problem.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
100% dog whistle.
-
Andre Alessi, in reply to
When is nanny statism not nanny statism? When it's paternalism.
The right has always been very good at making exceptions for people that upper middle class pakehas don't like. "One law for all-unless you're brown, poor or brown & poor".
I've been looking at going back to university, but honestly the idea of living on a student allowance, even with part time work as a supplement, is terrifying. I'm hardly rolling in dough at the moment, but the current student allowance would only just barely cover my rent in a pretty modest flat on the Shore-no food, no utilities, no transport. It's even worse for people on unemployment, so I don't really understand how National can think most people would choose to live on a benefit if they had other, genuine options.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I don’t really understand how National can think most people would choose to live on a benefit if they had other, genuine options
+1
-
Lilith __, in reply to
maybe national should go all the way and simply categorise beneficiaries as
- deserving poor
or
- undeserving poor
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=EP19070730.</q>
Sue, your link seems to be broken? -
Sue,
-
43y/o finance directors are good rational economic actors who must be given freedom over their finances because Govt would get it completely wrong
17y/o people unable to land a job in a recession must give up freedom over their finances because only Govt knows how they should be spending it.
I was considering the youth minimum wage arguments the other day and thought why don't we run a Govt job subsidy program that effectively provides employers with cheaper youth employment but allows the yoof to receive regular minimum wage in total? Horribly costly perhaps? -
BenWilson, in reply to
I was considering the youth minimum wage arguments the other day and thought why don't we run a Govt job subsidy program that effectively provides employers with cheaper youth employment but allows the yoof to receive regular minimum wage in total? Horribly costly perhaps?
Not sure about that. It does encourage businesses to set up and run profitably without even being able to pay the minimum wage. They become the actual beneficiaries, and the youths have to do all the work. People who are not youths would simply not be hired at all, so it would put huge downwards pressure on wages.
-
Gareth Ward, in reply to
It does encourage businesses to set up and run profitably without even being able to pay the minimum wage. They become the actual beneficiaries, and the youths have to do all the work. People who are not youths would simply not be hired at all, so it would put huge downwards pressure on wages.
How does that differ from an actual youth minimum wage? (But entirely open to the fact I've misjudged something here, because it was a 2sec thought!)
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
How does that differ from an actual youth minimum wage?
The govt subsidy to the youth to top up the wage is the major difference.
In impact on the economy, it's identical - and one of the arguments by which we removed the youth wage not so long ago.
Man, it's almost like there isn't a quick and easy solution to this problem. That can't be right, it's an election year!
-
Jolisa, in reply to
Now this last bit is where I jump the genetically engineered super shark into conspiracy:
Would the company town concept not make a profitable model for a service provider?
Company town, or sink estate?
-
basically, the government paying private providers to “look after” beneficiaries, instead of paying the beneficiaries directly.
The government can the cut funding to the private provider, thus freeing up funding for more tax cuts for the rich. The private provider will then be “incentivised” to get people off the benefit. The private provider (inevitably run by government cronies – either John Keys or Tariana Turias, the effect will be the same) can then aggressively cut people from benefits, and, like some medaieval tax farmer, pocket the difference as “profit”.
the private provider is immune from OIA requests, the government gets to slash social spending, there is a wealth transfer from taxpayers to government cronies, and they get claim beneficiary numbers are dropping at the same time as a bonus.
Lots of Tory love all round.
-
I'd agree with this https://twitter.com/samfromwgtn/status/102838514730795008.
Srsly, I'd be happy to facilitate anyone who wants to swap their food coupons for something they feel they want.
-
This may simply be because a demographic bubble, that of the children born in the early 90s "baby blip", is moving out of that age range.
Which will make it easy to claim the policy's success - just like Judith Collins trumpeting a reduction in boy-racers since 2008 without mentioning the shrinking cohort, or the impact of higher petrol prices and cost of living.
(and a Cactusrequest: can we please have a Reply button on the original post, with the same auto-quoting and back-linking features)
-
izogi, in reply to
We used to have a block of 6 rental units where a large majority of the tenants were on benefits and getting the rent paid could be tough.
Sorry if I’m missing something obvious, but is there any clarity over what happens when the sum of someone’s essential bills get higher than their welfare allowance? Will part of this plan be to allocate money to people variably depending on how much electricity they need to stay warm and the cost of their rent? Or do the young and job-less all get forced to live in a small town with a 4-square and a closed meat-works factory, because that’s the only place where rent is low enough for the allowance?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Oh how I wish that was satire.
-
Sacha, in reply to
[Businesses] become the actual beneficiaries
That's likely to be the end-game for these clowns in any case.
-
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1108/S00176/gordon-campbell-on-the-plans-to-americanise-welfare.htm
As usual Gordon Campbell articulates most of the thrust of what I was thinking better than I said it.
-
Sacha, in reply to
My Ben’s theory is that it’s a pilot scheme tested on a small number of people that noone will kick up too much of a stink about, with the ultimate intention of privatising the welfare system
I'd say he's right (smart man, that). This also fits this govt's pattern of floating part of a policy and testing public reaction before tweaking the rollout politically.
And it's working very well for them in the absence of coherent opposition. I thought Labour's youth employment spokesperson Jacinda Ardern's repsonse was admirably clear on the main TV news bulletins. Sadly at least one of her colleagues undermined that with more of the usual feral online bitchiness fixated on Key, which does anything but build trust and respect. Message discipline is pretty basic politics, surely, especially in an election period.
-
barnaclebarnes, in reply to
Sorry if I’m missing something obvious, but is there any clarity over what happens when the sum of someone’s essential bills get higher than their welfare allowance?
No idea. It is bloody hard to live on the benefit (I did it myself for a few months). The whole package is of course hair brained but parts of it may be of use to people. In our instance with the flats I think it did come down to a budgeting issue and not a case of not having enough money if they did pay the rent. I know my mum spent a lot of time with our tenants working through their budget but it was a a case of if the cash for the rent stayed in the pocket for a few days it would simply be spent on 'stuff'. $2 here and $5 there and $3 dollars somewhere else and all of sudden you have spent 5-10 percent of your benefit. Hats off to people who do manage on a benefit as it ain't easy.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Will part of this plan be to allocate money to people variably depending on how much electricity they need to stay warm
That will be speculation and what the market offers, (bit like Enron eh). We already have the ability to gamble on our electricity needs being advertised on TV at the mo. Once the power companies are all "jointly owned" by Key's mates, and paid into by the government to monitor welfare dependants,the world will be their oyster, and one will be told they are warm,whether they feel it or not.
-
Jacinda Ardern’s repsonse was admirably clear
I was disappointed. Didn't feel the passion or the clarity of argument. I keep on getting the feeling Labour are phoning it in this time. Examining the polls rather than their consciences.
Makes me angry. -
If they're bringing in food stamps, then I hope they're keeping an eye on the food cost survey, rather than just the CPI.
Of course, it will be inevitable that there'll be complaints further down the road whipped up over what some beneficiaries buy with their food stamps.
-
JLM, in reply to
To get votes from old people who hate young people. It is that simple. Whether these measures target an actual social problem, or even do so effectively, is irrelevant.
That's what I wanted to say. I guess you could call it the "politics of envy".
Post your response…
This topic is closed.