Hard News: On benefit fraud
83 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Universal Basic Income would definitely stop all this penny-ante nonsense.
-
weka, in reply to
but then what it did do was free people up to make their own life decisions.
It would do that for some people. Others would be pushed into worse poverty, and have less autonomy and self-determination. That's not a universal scheme.
I'm not sure there are many other policy answers to a UBI.
At the moment we are using a very dysfunctional, monkey-wrenched welfare system. I'd like to see that put right first, structurally and culturally. Trying to build a UBI out of the mess we have now is fraught (hence the problems intrinsic to TBK). I like the idea of a UBI, but it really comes down to how it is designed. I'd prefer to see it designed by people with social justice in mind rather than economics first.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
At the moment we are using a very dysfunctional, monkey-wrenched welfare system. I’d like to see that put right first, structurally and culturally.
Agree with that too - do you think the Green's proposal comes close to what is needed?
-
There are WINZ employees who do a good job, then there are some who stuff up the lives of their clients due to their incompetence (normally blame the system), and those who get a reputation as Welfare Nazis may even be using the bureaucracy to discriminate against their clients. The whole department ought to be disestablished via switching to a suitable UBI. No leftist party with sufficient courage currently.
Re giving the rich an unnecessary payment, a suitable design for UBI could negate that criticism by defining it as a universal entitlement based on citizenship and adulthood, but including the right for the government to withold it from those who don't actually need it. The deciding criterion would be income from paid employment above the current cost of living, utilising the currently popular concept of a living wage. A bureaucracy would still be necessary to administer it, but smaller, and with a simpler job to do.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I was standing exhaustedly ironing one day when I was on the DPB and on the radio was Parliament, and there was my PM Rob Muldoon declaring that women on the DPB who took money under the table were worse than tax evaders.
These were the days when my neighbours were encouraged to snitch if men stayed too many nights with me, and when mortgage interest rates were capped, but not mine because I'd owned a house with my husband and couldn't get an institutional loan - mine was 19%.
I didn't take Muldoon's assessment of me and my kind - I knew I wasn't trash as he implied - but it was mighty memorable.Has the IRD ever promoted dobbing in tax cheats as widely as dobbing in benefit fraud has? I remember under the Shipley Govt, the "Benefit fraud. It's a crime" and ACC's "someone else's money" TV adverts were frequently promoted.
And it sounds like WINZ's culture of punitivity goes back long before Christine Rankin became its CEO. In any case, the time seems right to rethink the existing orthodoxy, now that the Great Recession and acts like Theresa May's effective bribe to the DUP have made a complete mockery of the austerity mantra.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
It’s quite exciting how popular the idea of a UBI has become even in the last year. Of course a major problem is how to do top ups for those who need a bit more than the basic UBI. I wrote about the UBI after Guy Standing visited last year. I suggested then – and still believe – that there is a great deal of expertise out there to be harnessed from those who have navigated the welfare system. Collectively we could sort out the issues around fair top ups to a UBI.
https://publicaddress.net/access/the-universal-basic-income-and-its-implications/
-
weka, in reply to
Agree with that too - do you think the Green's proposal comes close to what is needed?
I think their general Income Support policy along with the announcement on the weekend is very good in terms of addressing the changes that need to happen in the culture, the structure, and the income rates at WINZ. They also want to take the UBI to the country and investigate whether it's a good idea. Given the social intelligence displayed by Turei on Sunday, these are the people I'd want in charge of this stuff.
-
weka, in reply to
Re giving the rich an unnecessary payment, a suitable design for UBI could negate that criticism by defining it as a universal entitlement based on citizenship and adulthood, but including the right for the government to withold it from those who don't actually need it.
Some UBI models balance this out by having a higher tax rate for people on higher incomes i.e. they don't literally get the extra $ in their bank account. But if for any reason their income drops, then like everyone else they have a universal entitlement and the UBI comes to them without fuss. It's administered by IRD.
-
weka, in reply to
The whole department ought to be disestablished via switching to a suitable UBI
We will always need welfare because not everyone's income needs or abilities are the same. And that necessitates an administering department. I'd be ok with dismantling WINZ if it were replaced by a smaller Dept of Social Welfare and a socially designed UBI.
-
linger, in reply to
Agreed that there needed to be more actual opposition from the Opposition this last couple of terms, but the Greens have consistently done more than Labour there, and you'd be hard pressed to conclude they're as baselessly poll-driven as either National or Labour. On balance, the Greens, having put in more work, should be in charge of social policy; the practical question (given the most likely range of election outcomes) is whether Winston First would allow that.
-
Tom Semmens, in reply to
while now WINZ feels like weaponised war on the poor.
Chris Trotter describes it as an "Empire of cruelty" and, having had some interaction with them in the last year I can see why. I did OK - for reasons to do with race and privilege - but even then, after being employed for a six months I got a letter from section of WINZ or another demanding repayment of $200. I knew they were in the wrong. I had carefully ensured my benefit ended exactly when it should of and I had the bank payments to prove it. I couldn't be bothered going through the rigmarole of fighting them, so I just coughed up. The sooner tey are out of my life the better, I reasoned.
But the atmosphere of the average WINZ office lingers. They are not places of social security, where sympathetic staff help the worst dregs, the down and out, the defeated, the sick, halt and lame, the temporarily embarassed and the middle class redundancy victims. They were places of colonial administration of a class of people all branded indolent and hopeless . Like all colonial officers they were protected by security guards, the state as an occupation administration of it's own people. And like all colonial governments, the cruelty was casual, normalised, and in the best interests of the natives.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Benefit levels were quite deliberately set below subsistence level.
Still at this level, right (or is that just without kids)? Labour never reversed Richardson's benefit cuts, and still haven't promised to.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
To be fair there has been a lot of opposition this term, but much of it happens in Parliament and not many people are watching.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
an “Empire of cruelty” and, having had some interaction with them in the last year I can see why.
Absolutely, as if inflicting trauma in the community must be an unavoidable byproduct of dispensing assistance.
-
Sacha, in reply to
To be fair there has been a lot of opposition this term, but much of it happens in Parliament and not many people are watching.
If it is not competently publicised, it didn't happen.
-
As I watch the somewhat predictable cries of "pay it back now" from those with too much moral outrage on their hands, I keep thinking that they really have no idea. How exactly is this magical mythical amount to be instantly calculated?
It is far more likely that the presence of occasional flatmates would result in a diminution of the weekly benefit, not a total loss of benefit. So there would still have been some entitlement. Now W&I systems are mind-bogglingly Byzantine, and they have complex mathematical formulae to apply to virtually everything- accommodation supplement springs to mind as one of their more straightforward examples.
There would be all sorts of complex calculations to be made, then probably challenged at benefit review, as not every W&I operative gets things absolutely right, and the amount owed as calculated by them could well require adjustment and possibly re-re adjustment.
Meteria Turei is sensible to await what the functionaries of W&I have to say about amounts. If they do come up with a figure, she will do many other beneficiaries a favour if she has some of the excellent benefit advocates to check out their determinations, and perhaps challenges it. It will encourage others to hold them to account. -
nzlemming, in reply to
How exactly is this magical mythical amount to be instantly calculated?
As a victim of the system, I have no doubt that MSD have a formula ready at hand. Bastids.
-
Moz, in reply to
As a victim of the system, I have no doubt that MSD have a formula ready at hand. Bastids.
Oh, they have a formula all right "your money. Hand it over. Fuck you".
I'm not sure I have the order of phrases exactly right, though.
-
Moz,
In Australia some wonk did the numbers and came up with a very detailed explanation, but in short: if every single person getting a non-pension benefit was actually entitled to nothing at all, the level of fraud involved would still be less than the amount of tax fraud detected.
That's something to keep in mind, and ideally in the headlines, whenever the topic of benefit fraud comes up. Doesn't stop fraud being committed against beneficiaries by the government, as the ongoing "Centrelink Debt recovery" scam/scandal here shows.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Some UBI models balance this out by having a higher tax rate for people on higher incomes i.e. they don’t literally get the extra $ in their bank account.
To finance anything like a functional livable ubi, a lot of people would need to pay a heap more tax. Some would get it all back, and more; some would get some back, but the wealthier folks would have to take a hit. If it's not a wealth re-distribution system, it's not working (or workable.)
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Yeah. Places of casual humiliation and institutionalised cruelty. A long time since I’ve been personally on a benefit, but I’ve been close enough to get the vibe. Still possible to meet someone decent working there. But social welfare is the last thing they seem designed to foster.
-
I want to live as part of a society that does its best to care for everyone. And I'll vote to achieve that if I can.
We don't currently live in such a society. We as a nation have a government that is comfortable having citizens suffer. And suffer simply because of lack of money. I don't want to be part of that.
Ms Turei made a choice to deceive an inhumane government out of need. And for those demanding she pay it back I'd argue she already has. She's paid tax at well above the average rate. She's actually given her time to her communities in a direct way.
But even if she hadn't I would give a damn because what she received was what we should have been willing to give - if we were humane.
-
well conveyed Russell, the “Burn Shipley Burn!” 90s were not golden years for many,
as the initial 80s wrecking ball Roger Douglas swung through the provinces in particular, morphed into the Richardson MOAB, and union busting Employment Contracts Act, this country’s once fairly benevolent Social Security system became more a sadistic punishment maze, and productivity and wages diverged as workers power lessened
I like the US saying “if you make it to the top floor, don’t forget to send the elevator back down…” and hope it applies this election to 90s alumni voters that are doing better now
-
Moz, in reply to
“if you make it to the top floor, don’t forget to send the elevator back down…” and hope it applies this election to 90s alumni voters that are doing better now
Isn't the famous former solo mother who got a degree while on the benefit and eventually made it into parliament still there? Since she's (in)famous for not just pulling up the ladder of opportunity but smashing and burning it, I can only think that a change would require a Green majority in parliament, not just a few tweaks to the composition.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
To finance anything like a functional livable ubi, a lot of companies would need to pay a heap more tax.
FTFY
Post your response…
This topic is closed.