$48,000 P.A. no skills easy hours, call me.

[davereid]

A Beneficiary is upset that the government wont pay her extra to get a degree.

...Natasha Fuller went public last week with their criticism over the scrapping of the training incentive allowance (TIA).

Ms Bennett's office yesterday released details of the Government benefits that the solo mums received - Ms Fuller received $715 net a week...

From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587191

Thats about $48,000 P.A.

Half of Kiwi workers go to work for $37,000 a year or less.

No wonder Ms. Fuller finds it tricky to find a job. She would have to find her way into the top pay brackets to get more than her current pay.

[Headbanger]

Is that the same chick who received 10 grand to start a cleaning business?

I could start a cleaning business for $200, and thats including a cooked breakfast.

[Mully]

Indeed. Looks like another (poor) attempt by Labour to have a go without giving the full story to the media. Didn't work with that property owner bloke either.

Good on Bennett for getting the full story out.

And I notice one of them had already had $10K off the taxpayer to start a business.

Seriously, they need to dump Phil Goff and Annette King. Terrible

[Winston001]

Pretty much my reaction too. However she has children with medical problems so its a complex situation. I do wonder where the father(s) of her children are though? Naturally he expects the taxpayer to pick up the tab......

Still, $700/wk is good going without having to leave the house.

[peasea]

Is that the same chick who received 10 grand to start a cleaning business?

I could start a cleaning business for $200, and thats including a cooked breakfast.

I'm hungry and my house needs cleaning. When can you start?

[Headbanger]

I'm hungry and my house needs cleaning. When can you start?

The cooked breakfast would be for me.:shutup:

[peasea]

The cooked breakfast would be for me.:shutup:

Looks like another small business down the gurgler then.

[MisterD]

Seriously, they need to dump Phil Goff and Annette King. Terrible

No, no, no, no, NO! They should be leader and deputy of the opposition in perpetuity!

Oh, and Paula...:love:

[Headbanger]

Looks like another small business down the gurgler then.

I attribute the failure of my last business to my fondness for a cooked breakfast.






The massive speed habit might have played a part as well.

[Mully]

No, no, no, no, NO! They should be leader and deputy of the opposition in perpetuity!


Oh yeah. I withdrawal my previous assertion. Keep them on.

[peasea]

I attribute the failure of my last business to my fondness for a cooked breakfast.






The massive speed habit might have played a part as well.

That's odd, I lost my appetite when I had a similar habit.
The bike was clean-as though!

[peasea]

No, no, no, no, NO! They should be leader and deputy of the opposition in perpetuity!



That's better than Punch and Judy.

[Headbanger]

That's odd, I lost my appetite when I had a similar habit.
The bike was clean-as though!

yeah, Never worked that way for me.

Think I'm just difficult.

The first time I tried ecstasy resulted in me starting a massive brawl rather then the feelings of euphoria and peace that was expected. Didn't once feel like dancing either.

[peasea]

yeah, Never worked that way for me.

Think I'm just difficult.

The first time I tried ecstasy resulted in me starting a massive brawl rather then the feelings of euphoria and peace that was expected. Didn't once feel like dancing either.

That's out of it. I waltz round the lounge with the stereo in hyper-fuck-the-neighbours-off mode laughing my arse off and wanting to root the missus non-stop but can't stop chuckling to do so.

Most people I know just drink water on the E's but I still gob the bourbons, go figure. Different things affect different people different ways I guess.

[Phurrball]

You can make what you like of the people involved, and I choose not to get into that debate, but the issue is more this:


"Paula Bennett has this afternoon told Parliament that, apart from reading the Privacy Commission's website, she did not seek any advice before releasing personal details about the benefits received by two solo mothers.

Ms Bennett told Parliament that guidelines for ministers on the Privacy Commissioner's website allow people to give "implied consent" for their details to be released."

This is a minister of the Crown who has just made a legal decision based on consulting a website. At least it was the Privacy Commissioner's rather than Wikipedia, but that's not the point.

I'm sure there are teams of experts she could have consulted with a quick phone call.

Maybe she's putting her side of the story, maybe it's fair enough, maybe not, but it beggars belief that she just went ahead and did this with no advice.

It might not be so amusing or appropriate in another context.

Epic procedural fail. The Privacy Commission will rightly spank her for this.

Full story at : NZ Herald website. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587131&pnum=0)

[R6_kid]

WTF has it got to do with the Labour party other than the fact that they want to be in power, or just make National look bad. If anyone wants to make a complaint it should be the stupid bitches that are already complaining.

Oh I forgot... Labour thinks beneficiaries are a good thing.

[Headbanger]

Maybe she's putting her side of the story, maybe it's fair enough, maybe not, but it beggars belief that she just went ahead and did this with no advice.


Tactical decision, Make the play and see how the consequences pay out.

Nothing wrong with that if your prepared to pay the price. I wouldn't let it detract from the real issue.

[reofix]

just because you say that is the issue does NOT make it so.... this is about recieving 700 a week from fellow taxpayers and being pissed off its not 800

[ynot slow]

Hate to say but how many would be happy with any politician giving out your own private business to all and sundry, which is what happened.But also why should people get hammered by an MP for speaking out.

We have privacy laws for that privacy of my personal property.

And the Greens getting in on it on TV just for their gain is a piss off.

Maybe there is more to this than first reported,as usual,get the scoop first then check the facts.

But then if she gets that amount from the govt,I sure as shit hope her kids father is paying,somehow I doubt it,she must have 5 or 6 kids in her care.

[Molly]

Maybe we should defrost Maggie Thatcher (yes, I know she's not dead but we'd still need to defrost her) and bring her down to sort out all the scroungers.

Training schemes for youngsters not in full time education or work are a much better idea than cash handouts for doing nothing.

[p.dath]

Pretty much my reaction too. However she has children with medical problems so its a complex situation. I do wonder where the father(s) of her children are though? Naturally he expects the taxpayer to pick up the tab......

Still, $700/wk is good going without having to leave the house.

All they said was there was $715 in benefit payments per week. That's not to say she is not receiving other income such as from the children's Father.

[p.dath]

You can make what you like of the people involved, and I choose not to get into that debate, but the issue is more this:



This is a minister of the Crown who has just made a legal decision based on consulting a website. At least it was the Privacy Commissioner's rather than Wikipedia, but that's not the point.

I'm sure there are teams of experts she could have consulted with a quick phone call.

Maybe she's putting her side of the story, maybe it's fair enough, maybe not, but it beggars belief that she just went ahead and did this with no advice.

It might not be so amusing or appropriate in another context.

Epic procedural fail. The Privacy Commission will rightly spank her for this.

Full story at : NZ Herald website. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587131&pnum=0)

Sometimes to get the job done, and achieve a reasonable result, you can't start by talking to your lawyers. The minister took a big risk, but got the job done.

[Hitcher]

Hate to say but how many would be happy with any politician giving out your own private business to all and sundry, which is what happened.But also why should people get hammered by an MP for speaking out.

We have privacy laws for that privacy of my personal property.

And the Greens getting in on it on TV just for their gain is a piss off.

Too many people can get away with a one-sided attack because they know that government organisations and other faceless bureaucracies like banks and insurance companies won't respond to allegations they make.

Like Minister Bennett, I believe that if anybody puts their personal circumstances into the public arena, they have forfeited any "privacy" rights they may have around the issue in question.

If you throw shit, you should expect to have shit thrown back at you. Poor fool you if any sticks.

If you let a political party parade you around for their opportunistic gain, you should expect to get it back in spades.

[marty]

All this information is available to anyone anyway - I'd be surprised if Ms Bennett got it right - she is probably shy of the true weekly total by a few cash jobs/trademe sales worth.....

[Emlyn]

I don't know all the details here.. and perhaps this is completely off topic but.. I moved away from a relatively high salary ( for a female, with no formal education) to study at university.
As a solo mum I now recieve a DPB.. and am not proud of it.. but its just while I study full time to get my degree as I have high asperations for the future.. which is definately another thread!
My point though is this.. WINZ paid my training for this year at Uni, cool.. the benefit I recieve is difficult to live on.. if you intend having any spending for 'social life' as it should be and certainly would be impossible to pay for tuition.. so I got a job.. 15 hours a week, at the Uni where I am studying... thing is.. they took so much of my benefit away that I am only better off by $50 per week (after secondary tax) so considering opportunity cost ( ie study time, time with my children and travel time).. and that I am no longer entitled to assistance with vehicle running costs etc that I would be as a 'full beneficiary' it has to be weighed up. What happened to encouraging beneficiaries to get out there and have a go??
If I have to get a student loan, and have a debt to pay at the end, fine.. but dont make it unattractive to work!! That is madness... it should be rewarded not frowned upon :) Just my 2cents :)
Cheers
Em :)

[Headbanger]

I don't know all the details here.. and perhaps this is completely off topic but.. I moved away from a relatively high salary ( for a female, with no formal education) to study at university.



Lets see, You made the choice to quit your job...

And now you want to receive the benefit and earn a wage?..all the while getting a university education at the cost of the taxpayer?

Fuck me, I should be doing that shit. Its a win,win,win.

[The Pastor]

Is that the same chick who received 10 grand to start a cleaning business?

I could start a cleaning business for $200, and thats including a cooked breakfast.
that'd be a really cheap company car, vaccume cleaner and cleaning products... and i'd hate to see where you'd get your brakefast stuff from!

[Headbanger]

that'd be a really cheap company car, vaccume cleaner and cleaning products... and i'd hate to see where you'd get your brakefast stuff from!

Already own all required items, That leaves $180 for ads in the local rag, and $20 for breakfast.

Funny enough when were broke in Sydney my wife went and done domestic cleaning jobs, she took the bus and the clients provided the cleaning products.

[buffstar]

I dont know what other KB'ers think about this maggoty wench announcing the weekly benefit rate of two ladies on the DPB but I think its f***ed!!!! How bloody rude, and what bad form. Im sure there will be a bit of beneficiary bashing started up here, but thats not really the point IMO. I have experienced both sides of the fence, I was on the DPB 6-7 years ago, and then got a job working for WINZ on the phone lines for 2 odd years.
When I was on the benefit it was a real struggle, and I made use of the Training Incentive Allowance........and its not a case of they give you extra money each week for being a good little solo mother trying to better yourself........ it pays for your fees, books etc and subsidises your childcare-not to mention you have to jump thru rings to get it.
So, because these two women have publicly objected to it being scrapped - the bitch has revealed their private information - surely that is abuse of power - well I think it is, and I'm disgusted this motherfucker calls herself a westie - It almost makes me embarrased to be one.........
:mad: :oi-grr:

[rosie631]

I agree wholeheartedly

[Finn]

I like her a lot. In fact we need more people like her in Government.

As for those blood sucking leeching bitches who spread their legs for the first guy that buys them a drink and expect the rest of us to raise their bastard children can go get fucked. Not literally though, we can't afford it.

These dumb bitches went to battle using the media and got egg on their pathetic faces.

Good on her.

[Oscar]

Err - isn't the amount of a benefit public knowledge?
What was she telling me that I couldn't have otherwise worked out myself?

[MisterD]

Get in bed with the Liarbour party and cry "I'm so hard done by, give me sympathy, the government's so nasty!" then you're asking for it...at least Paula was upfront about it, instead of just leaking the info to friendly repeaters like the last lot would have done.

The argument of these latest of Phil Gaffe's stooges are arguing that they can't afford to better their position without the allowance...we can now see they earn more than the average wage for sitting on their cans and are perfectly able to go get an interest free student loan...balance, it wasn't there before but now it is.

[Hitcher]

This issue isn't about Westie solo mums on the DPB wanting to further their studies. It's about the public being able to have all of the facts in front of them so that a balanced discussion can be had on an issue. I think that Minister Bennett made the right call on this. There will be some who question her ethics, but don't forget there is public money at issue here and taxpayers are entitled to know how their hard-earned tax-paid dollars are being invested -- wisely one hopes in these dire economic times.

[Oscar]

Hate to say but how many would be happy with any politician giving out your own private business to all and sundry, which is what happened.But also why should people get hammered by an MP for speaking out.

We have privacy laws for that privacy of my personal property.

And the Greens getting in on it on TV just for their gain is a piss off.

Maybe there is more to this than first reported,as usual,get the scoop first then check the facts.

But then if she gets that amount from the govt,I sure as shit hope her kids father is paying,somehow I doubt it,she must have 5 or 6 kids in her care.

I agree, private business should be kept private.
But how is a benefit private?
The rates are listed for all to see, surely?

This is tax payers money we're talking about here, why shouldn't we (the people who are forking out this dosh) know what these women are earning, particularly if they're trying to make a case to be paid more?

[Oscar]

I dont know what other KB'ers think about this maggoty wench announcing the weekly benefit rate of two ladies on the DPB but I think its f***ed!!!! How bloody rude, and what bad form. Im sure there will be a bit of beneficiary bashing started up here, but thats not really the point IMO. I have experienced both sides of the fence, I was on the DPB 6-7 years ago, and then got a job working for WINZ on the phone lines for 2 odd years.
When I was on the benefit it was a real struggle, and I made use of the Training Incentive Allowance........and its not a case of they give you extra money each week for being a good little solo mother trying to better yourself........ it pays for your fees, books etc and subsidises your childcare-not to mention you have to jump thru rings to get it.
So, because these two women have publicly objected to it being scrapped - the bitch has revealed their private information - surely that is abuse of power - well I think it is, and I'm disgusted this motherfucker calls herself a westie - It almost makes me embarrased to be one.........
:mad: :oi-grr:

Firstly, who paid your benefit?
What makes you think the info is private?

Secondly, why should beneficiaries get an Training Incentive Allowance?
My kid's at University on his own dollar, and he don't get one.

[Mom]

If you live in a glass house do not throw stones, or even, do not bite the hand that feeds you.

Incredible amount of money being paid out each week to that woman.

Years ago, when my marriage went splat, I was working 20 hours a week and had 3 children to support. I owned a couple of rental houses that after the mortgage was paid, topped my income up to something that was close to a living wage. I was burned out and not wanting to work any harder. I was content at the time to potter along till I got myself back on my feet head wise again.

The company I worked for was sold and there was not a job for me. I had a month to find work. Because I had the kids I did not want to be in a place where I did not have the income. I rang WINZ to see what was involved in getting some support incase I could not find another job in time.

Now dont quote me here on the numbers, but it went something like this. I was entitled to the base benefit of $150 a week. My rent was $230. I was then eligible for accomodation supplement of $100 a week. Great now I have $20 to pay for everything else. I could get family support (no, not eligible due to last years income while married and the division of property that saw my income (on paper only mind) in the top income stream. Not eligible. Then I was told I could earn $80 per week without it affecting my benefit. Great, I was now up to $100 per week to pay for food, power, phone etc. Problem was my rental income was more than $80 per week. That is when I was told as a result I was not entitled to accomodation supplement, back down to the base benefit of $150 per week with 3 kids to support.

All this and I would have to bare my soul and all my personal life to some pimply faced case manager at my local WINZ office. I told the guy, thanks but no thanks, I wa off to get a job packing shelves at the supermarket...LOL

Never came to that, but what a crock. Obviously you need to know how to play the game to earn the good money on the DPB.

[davereid]

If you start a public debate, based around the premise that the state does not pay you enough, then the figure you are paid is an essential part of that debate.

I don't see any wriggle room there. Bennet did not pick on random, anonymous bludgers and say "Hey, we pay Ms. Smith, Ms. Jones, Ms. Rangi $48,000 a year.

What happened was a response to an accusation, and IMHO the only response that actually tells the entire picture. (Good on ya Paula xxx, check yer email.)

What bothers me most, is the amount we pay.

As I pointed out in the first post, this beneficiary gets $48,000 P.A. gross.
50% of NZ workers get $38,000 gross or less., in fact under $35,000 for women.

Their is NO WAY it will ever be economic for this woman to get of the DPB, it will only happen when she loses eligibility.

[pete376403]

And of course, Paula Bennett will be publishing the amounts she recieved as a solo mother beneficiary, if only so we can see how hard done by she was back then.

[MIXONE]

And of course, Paula Bennett will be publishing the amounts she recieved as a solo mother beneficiary, if only so we can see how hard done by she was back then.

However much it was back then it's a shit load more now because she is actually working...

[Winston001]

And of course, Paula Bennett will be publishing the amounts she recieved as a solo mother beneficiary, if only so we can see how hard done by she was back then.

That's a red herring - Paula Bennet isn't doing the complaining that the taxpayer isn't paying enough to these ladies. Whatever way you cut it, that is the nub of what they are saying - they aren't getting enough from the public purse.

[Phurrball]

... Successful government ministers have to master an ocean of paperwork. They have to understand exactly what their department is doing; otherwise, sooner or later, something will blow up in their face. But Bennett, whether intentionally or not, may be cutting herself off from full information about her portfolio.

According to a variety of Beehive, public service and sectoral sources, Bennett responds best to abbreviated information. Officials within the Ministry of Social Development are making efforts to simplify information as much as possible to appeal to Bennett.

Although not all information is being condensed, several sources mentioned efforts to put information to Bennett on one page no bigger than A3 and preferably with only a few bullet points.

Graphics and pictorial representations of information are preferred. In one example, one Ministry of Social Development report was shortened several times on the request of a manager because it was believed this was the only way to get the minister to read it.

According to one chief executive in the NGO sector who met her at an umbrella meeting of welfare organisations, Bennett told them: “I don’t read. Don’t send me big documents – I don’t read them.”

The problem, says the chief executive, is that proposals put to the Government do require detail, background and explanation. “How do you convey all that detail and complexity in one page? You have got senior government officials trying to reduce complicated ideas to graphs and pictorials because they know otherwise she won’t read them. We are trying to convert quite complex ideas into flow charts and graphs and diagrams. It’s astonishing.”

Some Cabinet ministers are known to like data and statistics. Others prefer narratives and personal examples to get to grips with a policy idea. But all tend to want more written information, not less, says the chief executive, who does not want to be named because it could affect his organisation’s funding. ...

Full Listener story here. (http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3606/features/13494/outrageous_fortune.html) Some parts of it more complimentary.

Sounds about the level of some here. :chase:

[Swoop]

I dont know what other KB'ers think about this maggoty wench announcing the weekly benefit rate of two ladies...
Paula Bennett has done the right thing. Any fool can work out what a person would earn on the dole/benefit/whatever.

Another non-issue that the media is hyping up since there is obviously no other newsworthy events that require their valuable time...

Err - isn't the amount of a benefit public knowledge?
What was she telling me that I couldn't have otherwise worked out myself?
Quite so!

[ynot slow]

The thing these ladies are pissed off is,they were outed getting big dollars,sure the info is available but also extras are thrown in which adds to the final payout.

And maybe the 2 ladies should have thought what might happen if they went and chucked their toys out,but cuts both ways.

Apparently on the trade me community crap there is info on these ladies enjoying getting pissed and other shit,and from one ladies neighbour lol.

[Finn]

Full Listener story here. (http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3606/features/13494/outrageous_fortune.html) Some parts of it more complimentary.

Phurrball reads the Listener, Phurrball reads the Listener... :laugh:

[allycatz]

The problem with spouting off the figures people on benefits earn, is that is doesn't tell the true story or breakdown of figures. The benefit amounts themselves eg DPB is not high, around $270 per week. The rest of it is made up of Accom supplements, hardship benefits and family support plus a disability allowance for on going medical related costs. The latter aforementioned payments are available to ANYONE with a community service card and Family Assistance is available to incomes up to $90k per year dependant on the number of kids and their ages

[Phurrball]

Paula Bennett has done the right thing. Any fool can work out what a person would earn on the dole/benefit/whatever.

Another non-issue that the media is hyping up since there is obviously no other newsworthy events that require their valuable time...

Quite so!

Not quite - while the amounts of a benefit and the various additional support that go with it are public record, what a specific person is receiving and why are not.

Surely all the noise and fuss is not concealing anything important at all... (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10583067&pnum=0)

[smoky]

I do wonder where the father(s) of her children are though? Naturally he expects the taxpayer to pick up the tab......

he's working his arse off - earning an average wage (less than what she's getting) and pays more than his fair share in maintenance payments.

She left him because she didn't love him anymore?
Why would anyone stay married when the government makes it so easy, actually rewards you for leaving? I think she deserves a statehouse as well.

[allycatz]

She left him because she didn't love him anymore?

And how many woman find themselves on a benefit because their husbands left for that very same reason, then get crucified for living compliments of the taxpayer?

[Mr Merde]

Its a very lucrative profession in this country.

Especially if you know how to milk the system.

Do they declare on the census and their passort the occupation of

BROOD MARE

[Finn]

BUSTED!!!

The good man at whailoil.co.nz has busted this bullshit wide open. One of the welfare bitches has been bleating on TradeMe, the countries most visited website. So much for being offended for her life failures being made public. Also, this is the same bitch that made us pay $400 for hair extensions.

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/content/labours-benny-sting-explodes-their-face

[Winston001]

Full Listener story here. (http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3606/features/13494/outrageous_fortune.html) Some parts of it more complimentary.

Sounds about the level of some here. :chase:

LOL. Paula Bennett doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer but in her case, I think it works to her advantage. Mark Sainsbury got nowhere on Closeup because his questions went right by her. Plus she talks like a regular person.

Not what I want to see in a Cabinet Minister but.....:blink:

[Morcs]

Since when should a solo mum be paid 48k a year to bring up a kid whos probably going to end up in jail?

[Mully]

Full Listener story here. (http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3606/features/13494/outrageous_fortune.html) Some parts of it more complimentary.

Not sure what this has got to do with this situation, however, I don't think it's a big deal. I know several very high up, intellegent people who want reports to be on one, bullet-pointed page. The very nature of an executive summary. If they want more information on a specific point, they just ask for it. If my experience of reading reports is any indication, there's every chance that a Ministry report is full of verbiage and I'd probably avoid reading the bastards as well.

I'm not claiming she's the smartest knife in the drawer, but her desire to avoid long reports doesn't mean she's window-licking dumb, either.

[allycatz]

Since when should a solo mum be paid 48k a year to bring up a kid whos probably going to end up in jail?

Thats a rather large assumption???

[SPman]

What a vindictive, jealous,whining, non-thinking, knee jerk reactionary load of old twaddle!
"She gets more than me and shes on a benefit and Im jealous as fuck so she must be a lazy whining smoking lowlife who fucks every man she sees so she can live a life of luxuryand who took advantage of the Labour parties policies to bleed me, the taxpayer dry! Thank god she got pwned by Paula Bennet who was in exactly the same position as these people are and used the same benefits to pull herself out of the hole that these people are asking for."

Stand back and look at yourselves!

I haven't heard so much whining since the diff on the Transit shit

So - everyone on here would be happy to have all the details of their income published by the government, huh?

You're fucking pathetic !

[Winston001]

"She gets more than me and shes on a benefit and Im jealous as fuck so she must be a lazy whining smoking lowlife who fucks every man she sees so she can live a life of luxury and who took advantage of the Labour parties policies to bleed me, the taxpayer dry! Thank god she got pwned by Paula Bennet who was in exactly the same position as these people are and used the same benefits to pull herself out of the hole that these people are asking for."


Good man. :Punk: Nice bit of tongue-in-cheek speaking up for the ordinary taxpayer.

[MisterD]

So - everyone on here would be happy to have all the details of their income published by the government, huh?

That's a false analogy if ever there was one...the money I earn is my money, the government then takes some by force. The money a bene gets is not their money, it's a handout and if you want to start making political captial out of your situation then the taxpayers who foot the bill have a right to all the information.

[Oscar]

So - everyone on here would be happy to have all the details of their income published by the government, huh?

You're fucking pathetic !

You seem to have missed an important point.
The money we're speaking of is taxpayer funded and paid based on published guidelines.

[Headbanger]

So - everyone on here would be happy to have all the details of their income published by the government, huh?

You're fucking pathetic !

I would if I was be paid by the government and had decided to make an issue about the amount of assistance I was receiving, That information is the most important part of the issue, In fact the entire issues hinges of it. It needs to be known.

Too bad that info makes them look like twats aye?, which in turn means you get to label the tax payers fucking pathetic?

LMFAO.Nice logic.

[buffstar]

yes I totally understand the frustration and angst of workers taxes paying for beneficiaries. I've paid tax before being on the DPB and have been paying taxes since, theres no need to be concerned as to where my 'baby daddy' is - but its cute that your concerned.

Yes benefit rates are public knowledge - as they should be. However every family has different entitlements depending on what their assets are, how many kids per family, any income they are earning, what rent/board/mortgage they are paying - and what area they are paying it in. So although the basic rate of the DPB ($272.70 pw) is public knowlege, the rate varies hugely dependant on circumstance.

As far as fathers working their asses off - Yes, that is fucked. Firstly that anyone who bore your spawn is entitled to a % of your wage through that merit alone is utter crap. Secondly if said mother of child is on the DPB you can be paying hundreds of dollars a week to IRD but the money dosnt even go to the kid, it goes to IRD to pay back what the govt is paying in DPB.

The thing that incenses me is that these ladies privacy has been breached, and although it may be easier to label them as bitches who fucked a guy deliberately planning to have his kid so they could be a professional bludging whorebags who drink on occasion (gosh n gee hang them just for that)
Paula could just as easily have stated the base rate of benefits and what certain unnamed individuals get each week - she would have made the same point in regards to the TIA without looking like such a smug little pug dog that needs a kick in the cunt.

[Finn]

yes I totally understand the frustration and angst of workers taxes paying for beneficiaries. I've paid tax before being on the DPB and have been paying taxes since, theres no need to be concerned as to where my 'baby daddy' is - but its cute that your concerned.

Yes benefit rates are public knowledge - as they should be. However every family has different entitlements depending on what their assets are, how many kids per family, any income they are earning, what rent/board/mortgage they are paying - and what area they are paying it in. So although the basic rate of the DPB ($272.70 pw) is public knowlege, the rate varies hugely dependant on circumstance.

As far as fathers working their asses off - Yes, that is fucked. Firstly that anyone who bore your spawn is entitled to a % of your wage through that merit alone is utter crap. Secondly if said mother of child is on the DPB you can be paying hundreds of dollars a week to IRD but the money dosnt even go to the kid, it goes to IRD to pay back what the govt is paying in DPB.

The thing that incenses me is that these ladies privacy has been breached, and although it may be easier to label them as bitches who fucked a guy deliberately planning to have his kid so they could be a professional bludging whorebags who drink on occasion (gosh n gee hang them just for that)
Paula could just as easily have stated the base rate of benefits and what certain unnamed individuals get each week - she would have made the same point in regards to the TIA without looking like such a smug little pug dog that needs a kick in the cunt.

So why are you on DPB then?

[Phurrball]

Not sure what this has got to do with this situation, (snip)

I only quoted a small part of the Listener story. It is on point as the level of detail required to be on top of a 20 billion dollar portfolio is necessarily quite high, and the sources quoted suggest it cannot be adequately communicated in the way the minister desires.

@ Finn - thanks for the link.

I find WO distasteful, but if his quotes are in fact of the people concerned, he's potentially on to something WRT implied consent. Go the adversarial blogosphere for getting at the truth...maybe?

The disturbing aspect here is a minister of the Crown choosing to release information based on a decade old guideline on the internet, when many good advisers are close at hand.

Wait till she makes a really important decision... Actually, she'd make a good scapegoat for the Nats ...inexperienced first-term minister who acts without advice...they could push through some really unpopular stuff...

She should've just consulted KB really...

[Hitcher]

The thing that incenses me is that these ladies privacy has been breached

Their privacy has not been breached. They chose to put themselves and their circumstances into the public arena. You can't have it both ways.

[allycatz]

So why are you on DPB then?

Well Ive the misfortune to have been on DPB last six weeks after losing job (fortunately starting work again next week) I have to say it has been the worst six weeks of my life, not that I haven't been grateful to have some form of income. I've received $580 per week being made up of benefit, accom allowance and family assistance, both of which I received when working ,though at a higher rate. Of that $580, $340 has gone on rent each week. Sounds a high sum but hasn't left a lot to feed myself, two teens and a 20 year old student plus pay power, phone, petrol, insurances and one credit card. I've chewed through what little savings I had but somehow have managed to keep the wolves from the door. Its not all wine, roses and a giant shag fest as its made out to be

[buffstar]

So why are you on DPB then?

I'm not on the DPB. I was for about 18months when my partner went and stuck his dick in a hole that didnt belong to me. So, I kicked his ass to the curb and went and grovelled for enough money to cover my rent and power with $70pw left for food for my 2 kids who were littlies at the time. Then I used the TIA to do a computing and business skills course and got a job with..........WINZ

[Finn]

Well Ive the misfortune to have been on DPB last six weeks after losing job (fortunately starting work again next week) I have to say it has been the worst six weeks of my life, not that I haven't been grateful to have some form of income. I've received $580 per week being made up of benefit, accom allowance and family assistance, both of which I received when working ,though at a higher rate. Of that $580, $340 has gone on rent each week. Sounds a high sum but hasn't left a lot to feed myself, two teens and a 20 year old student plus pay power, phone, petrol, insurances and one credit card. I've chewed through what little savings I had but somehow have managed to keep the wolves from the door. Its not all wine, roses and a giant shag fest as its made out to be

Well done on getting a new job. This is exactly how the safety net should work.


I'm not on the DPB. I was for about 18months when my partner went and stuck his dick in a hole that didnt belong to me. So, I kicked his ass to the curb and went and grovelled for enough money to cover my rent and power with $70pw left for food for my 2 kids who were littlies at the time. Then I used the TIA to do a computing and business skills course and got a job with..........WINZ

Okay, 18 months is a bit long. Next time I'm down your way I'll stop by and you can wash my bike while I sit back and drink some of your beers. After this you can cook me a meal and we'll call it even.

[Morcs]

"She gets more than me and shes on a benefit and Im jealous as fuck so she must be a lazy whining smoking lowlife who fucks every man she sees so she can live a life of luxuryand who took advantage of the Labour parties policies to bleed me, the taxpayer dry! Thank god she got pwned by Paula Bennet who was in exactly the same position as these people are and used the same benefits to pull herself out of the hole that these people are asking for."

Wow you took the words out of my mouth.

And we have every right to be jealous and pissed off. Some of us work hard at our careers and arent even at that pay grade. What did they do to deserve that? apart from getting knocked up and ending up a solo mum- (regardless of how that happened)
Its the ones who say 'we dont need a man at all, I can bring up a child properly on my own' - well its only because of that kinda money!

[buffstar]

Okay, 18 months is a bit long. Next time I'm down your way I'll stop by and you can wash my bike while I sit back and drink some of your beers. After this you can cook me a meal and we'll call it even.

LMFAO. Your a cheeky little bastard arnt ya :bleh:

I dont wash strange mens bikes Mr Fin :laugh:

[Okey Dokey]

Too many people can get away with a one-sided attack because they know that government organisations and other faceless bureaucracies like banks and insurance companies won't respond to allegations they make.

Like Minister Bennett, I believe that if anybody puts their personal circumstances into the public arena, they have forfeited any "privacy" rights they may have around the issue in question.

If you throw shit, you should expect to have shit thrown back at you. Poor fool you if any sticks.

If you let a political party parade you around for their opportunistic gain, you should expect to get it back in spades.

Thanks, Hitcher. You saved ME typing all that.

[buffstar]

Whoops *Finn* .......... good thing getting the DPB wasnt dependant on being able to spell


N wot about all the imports that get the DPB for their funny coloured kids?

[MisterD]

LMFAO. Your a cheeky little bastard arnt ya :bleh:

I dont wash strange mens bikes Mr Fin :laugh:

A mere 37 posts and it's like she's known you for years Finn! :laugh:

[Swoop]

The disturbing aspect here is a minister of the Crown choosing to release information based on a decade old guideline on the internet, when many good advisers are close at hand.
Paula Bennett clearly stated last night, that she had consulted her advisory staff prior to releasing the information.
*Ding!* next.

[Mom]

he's working his arse off - earning an average wage (less than what she's getting) and pays more than his fair share in maintenance payments.


As far as fathers working their asses off - Yes, that is fucked. Firstly that anyone who bore your spawn is entitled to a % of your wage through that merit alone is utter crap. Secondly if said mother of child is on the DPB you can be paying hundreds of dollars a week to IRD but the money dosnt even go to the kid, it goes to IRD to pay back what the govt is paying in DPB.


This whole scenario sucks big time. As I understand it you have to tell WINZ who is the father of your child or you go on some sort of emercency benefit (it is less). WINZ, through IRD then take 18% of the fathers income as minimum and after deducting a pitiful living allowance regardless of his circumstances.

The mother receives the minuimum allowed as child support. So in essence all those poor bastards out there paying child support while the mother of their kids is on the DBP pays the maximum, the kids receive the minimum! The balance is simply taken by the government, not paid for the care of the kids.

[davereid]

Heres an interesting fact.

It takes ALL THE INCOME TAX, paid by 7 women of the same demographic as our bludger to cover her benefit.

(Based on 2008 median wages and income tax rates.)

[davereid]

The thing that incenses me is that these ladies privacy has been breached...

They started a public debate about their income. They therefore offered the data themselves, either directly or indirectly.

[Swoop]

Nice to see the Liarbour party looking like even bigger tossers today.

Go phill goff! You are de man.:Punk:

[Ixion]

Maybe we should defrost Maggie Thatcher (yes, I know she's not dead but we'd still need to defrost her) and bring her down to sort out all the scroungers.

...

Damn good idea. The welfare system was supposed to be a handup for workers, not a handout for bludgers.

What gets overlooked is that the because so much of the welfare budget goes to those who know how to grab, many genuinely deserving people are forced to live lives of deprivation and penury. (no, not me, I am indeed just a poor impoverished old man ekeing out a parsimonious existence on the smell of an oily rag, but that's because all my money goes on my bike addiction - worse than tobacco, gambling and drink put together it is)

[Winston001]

Okay, Buffstar, 18 months is a bit long. Next time I'm down your way I'll stop by and you can wash my bike while I sit back and drink some of your beers. After this you can cook me a meal and we'll call it even.

And cook the man some eggs. :devil2:

[SPman]

Paula Bennett clearly stated last night, that she had consulted her advisory staff prior to releasing the information.
*Ding!* next.
And she lied through her teeth - in best Government fashion!
The issue isn't about the benefit - it's about every person who has any confidential information held by the government having the right to have that information protected. You don't give up that right by complaining about the government!

They seem to think that a couple of lowly beneficiaries having their financial details with a government department released to the media is not going to have repercussions... wrong. That standard must be applied to everyone else having any sort of financial relationship with the State. Well... those that the National government don't like. They are mistaken - totally mistaken on the scope of this breach. The category of person that the National government thinks should not have any privacy rights - at this moment in time - are hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries.

But the question - at this moment in time - is what other categories of person does this new rule apply? Unhappy contractors? State employees in wage disputes? Patients complaining about a DHB? It's a very long list.

You start at a couple of "whinging dole-bludgers" as a target, but if consistency and principles mean anything it will also apply to every person having any sort of connexion with the government; which via taxes and assistance programmes, pensions, contracts etc. is a vast majority of the population. Complaining about your tax situation... and you don't like Peter Dunne... is it now OK for Peter Dunne to release your tax records to the NZ Herald?

If they want to start a debate about the level of legal benefit entitlements, then do just that - don't use a couple of seemingly well paid beneficiaries details as an excuse to attack the axing of vearious government education subsidies and grants.

If the benefit seems too high, then what are people doing about getting a decent living wage in NZ. Sitting back, taking what they're given and moaning about someone who gets more than they do from a benefit! Are they trying to push for higher wages? No! It's attack the beneficiary, who is classed as a lazy, useless, grasping scumbag, whatever their situation, and try and kick them down lower than they often already are.
The politicos know this, of course and Paula Bennet is yet another government patsy softening people up for cuts - appeal to the baying mobs!
Still, a country gets what it deserves and, from outside, NZ is looking worse by the week!

[Winston001]

The issue isn't about the benefit - it's about every person who has any confidential information held by the government having the right to have that information protected. You don't give up that right by complaining about the government!



Agreed and we shouldn't easily wave that right away.

On the other hand many people are sick of only hearing one side of the story and the other side being tied up by privacy and political correctness. For example we hear almost weekly about children being abused by their families but CYPS are not allowed to make the file public. At its core, that is simply wrong.

The question in this case is should the State (taxpayer) be paying more money to these ladies to let them study? Ok - how much are they already receiving, what are their other options?

Now we know and it cuts through a lot of waffle. I seriously do not think these women have lost any rights or protections.

[smoky]

She left him because she didn't love him anymore?

And how many woman find themselves on a benefit because their husbands left for that very same reason, then get crucified for living compliments of the taxpayer?

I realise women tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to marriage break ups, men get most the blame.
But I'm not arguing about that;
It doesn't matter who left who for what reason - what I was talking about was the growing trend to bugger off (male and female) and the state has to help out. As apposed to a genuine need for assistance in the case of a partner suffering from abuse or something.
Perhaps it should be compulsory to take out marriage insurance that pays you an equivalent of the salary for a year if the wage earner pisses off, or something!

[short-circuit]

Agreed and we shouldn't easily wave that right away.

:nono: it's not :wavey: The word your are looking for is waive

[allycatz]

Once upon a time WINZ paid for entire courses as well as training allowance to help with petrol, childcare and text books. Now they only pay for course related costs. I don't see why beneficeries can't use the same system as any one else...ie student loan

[smoky]

What a vindictive, jealous,whining, non-thinking, knee jerk reactionary load of old twaddle!
"She gets more Bla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla bla Bla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla blaBla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla Bla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla blaBla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla Bla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla bla herself out of the hole that these people are asking for."


So I take it you're on the bludge as well ?

[allycatz]

I realise women tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to marriage break ups, men get most the blame.
But I'm not arguing about that;
It doesn't matter who left who for what reason - what I was talking about was the growing trend to bugger off (male and female) and the state has to help out. As apposed to a genuine need for assistance in the case of a partner suffering from abuse or something.
Perhaps it should be compulsory to take out marriage insurance that pays you an equivalent of the salary for a year if the wage earner pisses off, or something!

Actually Id like to see automatic 50/50 custody of children unless there has been a protection order. Parents to share kids, no child support. Thing is, its easy to say a solo parent should get off their butts and work but reality is there arn't always the jobs and the logistics of working with kids that are often across a wide age range, school holidays etc makes it difficult. The logical single parents to work are the young unmarried Mums with one child, not woman with several kids who have often been through trauma or need retraining to be employable again

[Winston001]

:nono: it's not :wavey: The word you are looking for is waive

LOL actually no, wave is correct and what I intended. Scan it, it works. As in wave away/brush off the bothersome political correctness of protecting minor disclosures. But waive works too. :done:

[pete376403]

Actually Id like to see automatic 50/50 custody of children unless there has been a protection order. Parents to share kids, no child support. Thing is, its easy to say a solo parent should get off their butts and work but reality is there arn't always the jobs and the logistics of working with kids that are often across a wide age range, school holidays etc makes it difficult. The logical single parents to work are the young unmarried Mums with one child, not woman with several kids who have often been through trauma or need retraining to be employable again
I heard one of the women on nat radio, she says she IS trying to get off the benefit by training as a nurse, also she said she wasn't asking for a handout, but a loan, similar to a student loan. If the govt cuts the training allowance, what chance is there of anyone getting a job that gets them off benefits?
Also why the big stink about the benefit she gets - the govt sets that, not the benficiaries.

[Rayray401]

Meh, NZ benefits always been too high compared to other countries. and it is true, depending on what the solo mums said..they do waive their privacy by putting their own circumstances out to the public, in a way, Bennett was actually just stating the facts and 'supporting' the claims of the solo mums to the public. There has been no breach of privacy. (ofcourse i have no idea what the mums actually said in public that provoked Bennett?), but main thing is, if you put your own private circumstances out to the public for the public to see, the court can easily say that you waive that right of privacy as it is in the publics interest to see the full picture, not just the one sided picture.

[buffstar]

And cook the man some eggs. :devil2:

Hmmmm interesting, however seeing as I have already been a DPB bludger would you really trust any of my eggs? :shit:

[allycatz]

I heard one of the women on nat radio, she says she IS trying to get off the benefit by training as a nurse, also she said she wasn't asking for a handout, but a loan, similar to a student loan. If the govt cuts the training allowance, what chance is there of anyone getting a job that gets them off benefits?
Also why the big stink about the benefit she gets - the govt sets that, not the benficiaries.

A student loan is already available to beneficeries, just not the living costs portion. Why is a single parent any different than say a married woman reliant on only husbands income wanting to train...okay so they (the women) are asking for petrol /text book costs because their budgets are tight anyway, but that shouldn't stop them training...I know I've done it (on a student loan which I repaid) on a benefit

[Swoop]

And she lied through her teeth - in best Government fashion!
Do you have evidence that she lied? Please supply details as I am interested in seeing proof that our representatives are not being honest with the public.

[Phurrball]

Originally Posted by SPman
And she lied through her teeth - in best Government fashion!

Do you have evidence that she lied? Please supply details as I am interested in seeing proof that our representatives are not being honest with the public.

You're probably both a little off the mark, proving positively she lied is about as informative (not at all) and as difficult to prove as demonstrating the opposite.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

All this 'playing the man, not the ball' neatly diverts from the actual debate we should be having about whether the TIA should be available to certain classes of individual relying on state support. (as already stated by Winston)

I assume that 'lying' or not refers to whether advice was sought. I referred earlier to a Herald article which used the House as its source stating the privacy guidelines were consulted online. My source for the age of the information (a decade plus) was a commentator on National Radio yesterday morning. I CBF going and finding the podcast, but if anyone's in the mood go here. (feed://www.radionz.co.nz/podcasts/morningreport.rss)

Swoop earlier refers (I assume, with a 'ding') to PB's statement on Campbell live that she did speak to officials. (I didn't see the interview but have read of its contents elsewhere).

That is an oblique an uninformative statement and could mean anything, as 'officials' are undoubtedly 'consulted' in passing on almost anything due to their presence in and about the minister's office. Nowhere will anyone find a statement that the minister sought LEGAL advice, because she clearly didn't, or she'd be banging on about 'the legal opinion I received' in the media.

There has been deafening silence from PB or anyone in Government on this in Morning report...scared of being Benson-Poped by Sean Plunkett?

The issue is that the minister is primarily relying on old information, from a website in spite of the availability of quality legal advice on the matter.

The minister is relying on implied consent, which is a pretty tricky and 'grey' area of privacy law. This area will have moved since the guidelines were published, and in choosing to act in this way the minister cuts out any case law on the point. Lets not forget the cabinet manual too, which says that in matters of private information a minister should seek the advice of the privacy commissioner.

It's possible the women's publication of specific numbers elsewhere could be implied consent, or maybe not...the minister did not get up to date LEGAL advice on this, so she'll wear the consequences whatever.

The minister's decision seems like a bit of a n00b mistake at best, but in any case makes her look incautious, hasty and under-advised in a decision that could lead to a spanking from the privacy commissioner.

Everyone in talkback/internet forum/blogosphere can bleat on about whether there was a breach of privacy, and whether PB's disclosure was fair, but the only test that matters is the legal one as determined by the Privacy Commissioner - the very person PB should have consulted first in regards of both the act AND the cabinet manual.

The greatest irony of all would be if the women in question get to fund their studies via a damages payment... :rofl:

[Phurrball]

FYI from the Herald Story (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587255&pnum=2)
on point.


...Ms Bennett has told Parliament that she checked the Privacy Commission website before releasing the personal details of two solo-mothers.

An example on the Commission's website bears some striking parallels to Ms Bennett's disclosure.

Under the heading Checklist for Ministers and departmental officials, the following example is given: "Someone goes to the media about a Department's decision to stop their benefit and is quoted as saying it shows the unfairness of the policy."

The Commission advises:

"The Minister could comment in a way that discloses no further information than is already in the report (for instance explaining how the policy is designed to apply and why it says what it does). If the individual has misrepresented the facts on which the Department's actions were based, the Minister could say that there are some undisclosed facts which give a somewhat different picture and, if the individual would authorise release of further details from the Department's files, the Minister would be happy to oblige. Again, these facts could be set out in a letter to the individual and the media duly informed."

* Did Paula Bennett breach privacy rules?

The guidelines Ms Bennett was relying on when releasing the details:

GROUND ONE
Implicit consent:

"Authorisations do not have to be in writing. They may be given orally or inferred from statements made ... the minister need only believe, on reasonable grounds, that the individual has authorised the disclosure."

GROUND TWO
Where a person has released personal details to make allegations and the minister wishes to add further detail to respond.

"By releasing a large amount of personal information to the media, the individual is taking the risk that unfavourable publicity could result. If the minister releases only information which is relevant to the issues raised by the individual, that person may not be able to claim that any particular harm was caused by the ministers' disclosure rather than by the individual's own disclosure."

Source: Privacy Commission checklist for ministers and departmental officials.

[davereid]

GROUND TWO
Where a person has released personal details to make allegations and the minister wishes to add further detail to respond.


Sounds like a win to Paula to me !

[Phurrball]

GROUND TWO
Where a person has released personal details to make allegations and the minister wishes to add further detail to respond.


Sounds like a win to Paula to me !

Possibly it will be. Possibly not. It's a complex area, and the minister failed to follow correct process WRT the privacy act and the cabinet manual.

See my second last paragraph. Problem is not necessarily the result, it's the process.

[slowpoke]

.......but the only test that matters is the legal one as determined by the Privacy Commissioner - the very person PB should have consulted first in regards of both the act AND the cabinet manual........



Nope.....this is politics.....the only desision that matters comes from the court of public opinion. PB could technically be in breach, have a damages ruling ruling made against her (which the taxpayer will pick up) and still come out smelling of roses.

[Rayray401]

Nope.....this is politics.....the only desision that matters comes from the court of public opinion. PB could technically be in breach, have a damages ruling ruling made against her (which the taxpayer will pick up) and still come out smelling of roses.

I agree with slowpoke, the legal test would only really matter if someone sued her, i.e the solo mums taking legal action against her, but as phurrball said, privacy law is grey area, so PB could still win or lose

[SPman]

So I take it you're on the bludge as well ?

Yeah, I am. 75K for cruising the net all day with a bit of work thrown in occasionally........

[ducatilover]

People whinging about getting fuck all on the benefit? I was getting 180pw minus 20 for fines [shouldn't have ridden without rego then] minus board [$140] hmmm So did I play sad little man to the gubbermint? No, as far as I am concerned the DPB was an absolute last resort, I had just finished training and kept looking for a job, got job, sorted. If the gubburment isn't paying you enough, get a job....they pay fuck all for normal people such as myself. But the peoples details is a different story.

[Grahameeboy]

Pretty much my reaction too. However she has children with medical problems so its a complex situation. I do wonder where the father(s) of her children are though? Naturally he expects the taxpayer to pick up the tab......

Still, $700/wk is good going without having to leave the house.

That's the point..kids with medical problems create family problems i.e. going to work as care is not easy to get...limited funding is there but people are not...I am only entitled to 4 hours care for Nats...

Imagine being a single mum, with sick kids going too work full time...a drunk driver gets ACC benefit...all the care they need, $110,000 modified vehicle, house mods etc etc..

Perspective?

[davereid]

That's the point..kids with medical problems create family problems i.e. going to work as care is not easy to get...limited funding is there but people are not...I am only entitled to 4 hours care for Nats...

Imagine being a single mum, with sick kids going too work full time...a drunk driver gets ACC benefit...all the care they need, $110,000 modified vehicle, house mods etc etc..

Perspective?

I can't agree with you in this Graham.

It amazes me that we are paying this woman a benefit that is so generous it probably puts her in the top 10% of earners for her demographic.

Its not of case of being "nasty or nice", its simply a fact that 7 other women have to go to work full time to pay this woman.

And they end up paying her 1 - 1/2 times what they earn.

New Zealand was once a country of hard working, self sufficient people happy to support someone through hard times.

This has morphed into a country where people have the right to be supported by others. A country where your actions are un-important as other people are obligated to support you.

Somehow, both political parties, but Labour particularly, have drifted from being in support of the worker, to being in support of the beneficiary.

Who is actually concerned about the worker ?

With so much of our incomes now tied up in taxes to support others, and a massive state infrastructure, when will the worker actually get a break ?

[buffstar]

am surprised no one else has mentioned that one of our MPs travel kickbacks over a period of 6 months total 1/2 the total annual income quoted in the title of this thread...............we pay for that too

I would rather have my taxes going toward helping out a solo parent (not all are female btw) and their kid/s than flying some fatcat around.

I would also like to see a time limit of sorts put onto the DPB, my understanding is that there is sort of one imposed already, but in saying that I dont necessarily believe it.

Also I dont understand why NZ allows ppl to come over from other countries and sign up for a benefit within days of being here, once had a lady on the line (while working for WINZ) who was getting more than the $700pw lady, she was already on a bloody good wicket, had been granted special benefits on top of her "entitlements" and was ringing the call centre having a big fat cry that her close to $800 pw was not enuf - she sounded to be Arabic-ish?? I pointed out to her that she was getting more a week than I was and I was working 40hrs, also suggested that she was a tad cheeky.........all calls are recorded and I ended up being given a formal warning by my manager. Cant fuckn win with this one:bash:

[Swoop]

It amazes me that we are paying this woman a benefit that is so generous it probably puts her in the top 10% of earners for her demographic.
A "hand-up" for one of the people concerned, has eventuated in the taxpayer being taken for a fool and also a ride. The 9 grand spent on setting up a cleaning business, is a total joke.

IF she honestly intended to make her life better, and take advantage of the opportunity offered by the taxpayer, then good on her.
If she intended just to "take advantage of the taxpayer" then she should be held in great contempt by all.

[Grahameeboy]

I can't agree with you in this Graham.

It amazes me that we are paying this woman a benefit that is so generous it probably puts her in the top 10% of earners for her demographic.

Its not of case of being "nasty or nice", its simply a fact that 7 other women have to go to work full time to pay this woman.

And they end up paying her 1 - 1/2 times what they earn.

New Zealand was once a country of hard working, self sufficient people happy to support someone through hard times.

This has morphed into a country where people have the right to be supported by others. A country where your actions are un-important as other people are obligated to support you.

Somehow, both political parties, but Labour particularly, have drifted from being in support of the worker, to being in support of the beneficiary.

Who is actually concerned about the worker ?

With so much of our incomes now tied up in taxes to support others, and a massive state infrastructure, when will the worker actually get a break ?

I see so this solo Mum with a child with a medical condition should not get a benefit...but a Drunk driver can claim 80% of their salary for life, have constant care, have paid family members look after them, have housing mods and a $110,000 vehicle to get around....all paid by us...If they had not decided to drink and drive think of the saving.This women had a sick child and is not supported by the Father. Care for the child is limited so her options are limited.I have shared custody of a disabled Daughter..half the week for 3 years and then ex threw a Custody Battle at me and I get less time. I had a reasonably well paid job, made redundant, got a really well paid contract job but there was too much pressure etc and I just did not need it so got a job earning just below the average and rent out 2 rooms and use savings from last job...I have to keep my high mortgage house for Nats as it has mods...My folks are here and pick Nats up from school but that's it...it's a struggle but if I had full custody..and this is my point..I would struggle to hold down a job that suited my circumstances and finances..my folks are 70's and I would only get 8 hours care a week...Perhaps this women is in that position and we should move away from the old "scrounger argument"..money etc and look at the situation.

[Grahameeboy]

am surprised no one else has mentioned that one of our MPs travel kickbacks over a period of 6 months total 1/2 the total annual income quoted in the title of this thread...............we pay for that too

I would rather have my taxes going toward helping out a solo parent (not all are female btw) and their kid/s than flying some fatcat around.

I would also like to see a time limit of sorts put onto the DPB, my understanding is that there is sort of one imposed already, but in saying that I dont necessarily believe it.

Also I dont understand why NZ allows ppl to come over from other countries and sign up for a benefit within days of being here, once had a lady on the line (while working for WINZ) who was getting more than the $700pw lady, she was already on a bloody good wicket, had been granted special benefits on top of her "entitlements" and was ringing the call centre having a big fat cry that her close to $800 pw was not enuf - she sounded to be Arabic-ish?? I pointed out to her that she was getting more a week than I was and I was working 40hrs, also suggested that she was a tad cheeky.........all calls are recorded and I ended up being given a formal warning by my manager. Cant fuckn win with this one:bash:

I cannot get DPB that easily due to the changes in my custody...I wanted to fight and would have had a good chance of keeping my weekly custody and get some DPB but I did not want to put Nats through it all and the ex would have just hated me more....oddly she left but hey ho

[Goblin]

am surprised no one else has mentioned that one of our MPs travel kickbacks over a period of 6 months total 1/2 the total annual income quoted in the title of this thread...............we pay for that too

I would rather have my taxes going toward helping out a solo parent (not all are female btw) and their kid/s than flying some fatcat around.Well here's a classic bene-bashing thread and within days our MP's travel expenses are made public. You're all pissed off at sole parents receiving piddly benefits yet the fatcats can spend millions in 6 months and no one bats an eyelid. Taxpayer pays for pollies to fly half way accross the world to visit family and that's ok? This is on top of their fat salaries and accommodation perks. Yeah...that seems fair enuff.

[spacemonkey]

Okay, 18 months is a bit long. Next time I'm down your way I'll stop by and you can wash my bike while I sit back and drink some of your beers. After this you can cook me a meal and we'll call it even.


You ever tried raising a kid on your own?
I'm picking not.
18 months training is only say..... half an apprenticeship.
18 months study balanced with looking after kids (which shuts down a lot of your study time) would be barley enough to turn out a useable employee.

As far as I'm concerned it is a very clear cut case of abuse of ministerial power in order to intimidate dissent and freedom of speech. if nothing else it is quite breath taking arrogance on the part of the government.

[Finn]

You ever tried raising a kid on your own?
I'm picking not.
18 months training is only say..... half an apprenticeship.
18 months study balanced with looking after kids (which shuts down a lot of your study time) would be barley enough to turn out a useable employee.

As far as I'm concerned it is a very clear cut case of abuse of ministerial power in order to intimidate dissent and freedom of speech. if nothing else it is quite breath taking arrogance on the part of the government.

That's why you educate yourself before you open sesame.

[jetboy]

When will the big-wigs take a stand and stop chucking our hard earned tax dollars at beneficiaries for shit like this?!

For fucks sake if you can't afford to get a degree then get a fucking job to pay for it...or get a student loan like other people.

I'm sick of people complaining they don't get enough from the government when they can STOP BEING LAZY FUCKERS AND GET A JOB!
Same goes for subsidised/free Maori training - what makes you think you deserve any special treatment...just go to school like everyone else and if you pass then you get to go to Uni, if not then go back and get your UE instead of complaining like a whiney little prick.

FFS

:done:

that was my little rant, over and out

[ducatilover]

When will the big-wigs take a stand and stop chucking our hard earned tax dollars at beneficiaries for shit like this?!

For fucks sake if you can't afford to get a degree then get a fucking job to pay for it...or get a student loan like other people.

I'm sick of people complaining they don't get enough from the government when they can STOP BEING LAZY FUCKERS AND GET A JOB!
Same goes for subsidised/free Maori training - what makes you think you deserve any special treatment...just go to school like everyone else and if you pass then you get to go to Uni, if not then go back and get your UE instead of complaining like a whiney little prick.

FFS

:done:

that was my little rant, over and out
I couldn't afford my courses, I got a loan, then to pay off said loan I got a job, it took a while to get a job over here, but, I got a job. I think some WINZ programs are reasonable, but some aren't. Caring for solo mothers is great if you ask me, especially with kids and/or medical problems. But to be paying big tax payer dollars too get the solo mother trained without [I am assuming] any guarantee of a job at the end of the training course is bloody silly. The reason they may be receiving $700+ pw may be because of circumstances, but as it has been pointed out, it's usually quite hard to survive by youself on the benefit let alone with kids. Incentive to get a job I think?

[Winston001]

Well here's a classic bene-bashing thread and within days our MP's travel expenses are made public. You're all pissed off at sole parents receiving piddly benefits yet the fatcats can spend millions in 6 months and no one bats an eyelid. Taxpayer pays for pollies to fly half way accross the world to visit family and that's ok? This is on top of their fat salaries and accommodation perks. Yeah...that seems fair enuff.

Now now Goblin, lets not go OT...:whistle:

The cost of NZ Parliament is about $30 million/year. The cost of social welfare is.................$16 billion/year. Stopping all MPs would pay for two hours.....:wacko:

[jetboy]

I couldn't afford my courses, I got a loan, then to pay off said loan I got a job, it took a while to get a job over here, but, I got a job. I think some WINZ programs are reasonable, but some aren't. Caring for solo mothers is great if you ask me, especially with kids and/or medical problems. But to be paying big tax payer dollars too get the solo mother trained without [I am assuming] any guarantee of a job at the end of the training course is bloody silly. The reason they may be receiving $700+ pw may be because of circumstances, but as it has been pointed out, it's usually quite hard to survive by youself on the benefit let alone with kids. Incentive to get a job I think?
I definitely understand the situation with regards to a solo mother in a bad position and in need of assistance - don't get me wrong as I think that's the sort of thing the benefit should be designed for...dependant on the surrounding circumstances.

I take issue with the people who use the benefit as an excuse to have kids, for example. Some people I went to school with got knocked up early on and thought it was OK to have the kiddies whilst still at school as the benefit would be there to support them.

Plan your life out as much as you can. I'm working hard (as I am sure most of you are) to build up a foundation on which to build a life and family on. I work to pay for things I want. If I want to go to university I don't get a handout - I have to pay my way. Why? Because I paid attention in school, got a job, and didn't get anyone pregnant.

I really don't mean to offend anyone when I say this (and again I stress that this I am not referring to genuine WINZ cases), but it fucks me right off when my hard earned cash goes toward someone who had kids early on and 'never had the opportunity to go to get a degree and get a decent job'. BULLSHIT. You had the same opportunities as I did, you just chose a different path.

[ducatilover]

I definitely understand the situation with regards to a solo mother in a bad position and in need of assistance - don't get me wrong as I think that's the sort of thing the benefit should be designed for...dependant on the surrounding circumstances.

I take issue with the people who use the benefit as an excuse to have kids, for example. Some people I went to school with got knocked up early on and thought it was OK to have the kiddies whilst still at school as the benefit would be there to support them.

Plan your life out as much as you can. I'm working hard (as I am sure most of you are) to build up a foundation on which to build a life and family on. I work to pay for things I want. If I want to go to university I don't get a handout - I have to pay my way. Why? Because I paid attention in school, got a job, and didn't get anyone pregnant.

I really don't mean to offend anyone when I say this (and again I stress that this I am not referring to genuine WINZ cases), but it fucks me right off when my hard earned cash goes toward someone who had kids early on and 'never had the opportunity to go to get a degree and get a decent job'. BULLSHIT. You had the same opportunities as I did, you just chose a different path.
I couldn't agree more :yes:

[jetboy]

we should move away from the old "scrounger argument"..money etc and look at the situation.

That's the problem - the benefit should be dependant on your personal situation. The case you refer to is worthy of the benefit - a mum who can't be bothered getting out of the house to work is not.

[allycatz]

That's the problem - the benefit should be dependant on your personal situation. The case you refer to is worthy of the benefit - a mum who can't be bothered getting out of the house to work is not.

The work still has to be there to apply for though and with understanding employers with regards to possible time off for kids sickness, school holidays etc. Full-time and after school childcare is not cheap even with a subsidy so any extra money earned from working gets swallowed up

[buffstar]

That's the problem - the benefit should be dependant on your personal situation. The case you refer to is worthy of the benefit - a mum who can't be bothered getting out of the house to work is not.


ahhhhh not to mention the couples who are together but the wife/gf is receiving the DPB also......... :argh:

[DMNTD]

Full-time and after school childcare is not cheap even with a subsidy so any extra money earned from working gets swallowed up

True, however the person involved gets some work based training/work experience but more importantly their mindset changes to something a little more positive...a sense of self worth if you will.
Yes...I do have personal experience with this...

I got myself off the benefit once my physicality was sorted the best it could be. I was once told by a certain person at WINZ that I'd never have to work again due to my spine. Best motivation I ever had!


BTW....$700+ per week? WTF!!!!!!! Mine was less than half that!

[allycatz]

[QUOTE=DMNTD;1129333076][B]True, however the person involved gets some work based training/work experience but more importantly their mindset changes to something a little more positive...a sense of self worth if you will.

Yes...I do have personal experience with this

Yes so do I have personal experience, but it's kind of sad that a parent should be made to feel like the dregs of society for finding themselves bringing up a family alone when it may not of been their choice in the first place

[DMNTD]

Yes so do I have personal experience, but it's kind of sad that a parent should be made to feel like the dregs of society for finding themselves bringing up a family alone when it may not of been their choice in the first place

Agreed...but done is done and what happens from there can only be improved by one's mindset, IMO.

[jetboy]

The work still has to be there to apply for though and with understanding employers with regards to possible time off for kids sickness, school holidays etc. Full-time and after school childcare is not cheap even with a subsidy so any extra money earned from working gets swallowed up

Understandable - but why do I have to pay for it? If I have kids I don't expect you guys, the taxpayer, to fund them.

[allycatz]

Understandable - but why do I have to pay for it? If I have kids I don't expect you guys, the taxpayer, to fund them.


Does the rest of NZ have to pay for Auckland's roading system through their petrol? The average time on a benefit is two years. The tax payer can pay a lot longer for NZ super...up to 25 - 30 years...should we pay for that too? At least a beneficiery that does a good job of childcare is raising more future taxpayers to keep the elderly in care.

[Winston001]

Understandable - but why do I have to pay for it? If I have kids I don't expect you guys, the taxpayer, to fund them.

Ah well, there is the $64,000 question. :argh:

When you do have children, you will probably qualify for the Family Tax Credit which means other kiwis will be paying you for having your kids. The credit is available (depending on the number of children) for incomes up to $109,000.

I've always found this gobsmacking but its become normal. Most kiwi families are beneficiaries in this context.

Weird.

[allycatz]

I guess an alternative would be to make the benefit portion a repayable loan like the living costs in a student loan and you pay it back when you resume work

[jetboy]

Does the rest of NZ have to pay for Auckland's roading system through their petrol?


I do not believe this is fair either.



The average time on a benefit is two years. The tax payer can pay a lot longer for NZ super...up to 25 - 30 years...should we pay for that too? At least a beneficiery that does a good job of childcare is raising more future taxpayers to keep the elderly in care.

So, what you say here is that I should be happy paying tax which goes to someone on the benefit because if they do a good job of childcare then that child (that I helped pay to raise) will end up supporting me when I am older (if they are not a beneficiary themselves, that is) - where that whole situation could be avoided by me having more of my tax dollars back which I can save for my own retirement fund, thus eliminating the need for a super scheme?

[jetboy]

Ah well, there is the $64,000 question. :argh:

When you do have children, you will probably qualify for the Family Tax Credit which means other kiwis will be paying you for having your kids. The credit is available (depending on the number of children) for incomes up to $109,000.

I've always found this gobsmacking but its become normal. Most kiwi families are beneficiaries in this context.

Weird.
When I have children I will have planned and saved my arse off to have them. Screw the families credit - people who have kids should plan for them first. If you can't afford to have kids, then for fucks sake don't 'ave 'em!

[Forest]

Does the rest of NZ have to pay for Auckland's roading system through their petrol?

Historically, the overwhelming majority of road funding has been spent outside of Auckland (those state highways didn't build themselves).

Auckland's roading infrastructure has been severely under-funded over the last two decades.



The average time on a benefit is two years. The tax payer can pay a lot longer for NZ super...up to 25 - 30 years...should we pay for that too? At least a beneficiery that does a good job of childcare is raising more future taxpayers to keep the elderly in care.

We shouldn't be paying for NZ Super. State funded super is the biggest crock of crap out there (it isn't even means-tested! WTF?)

If the oldies weren't disproportionately represented in the voting stats, I am confident that universal super would have disappeared a long time ago.

[allycatz]

I do not believe this is fair either.



So, what you say here is that I should be happy paying tax which goes to someone on the benefit because if they do a good job of childcare then that child (that I helped pay to raise) will end up supporting me when I am older (if they are not a beneficiary themselves, that is) - where that whole situation could be avoided by me having more of my tax dollars back and can save for my own retirement?

Don't forget to put aside money for medical insurance so we can save on tax dollars for health spending too.....seriously in an ideal economic climate I sure most people on benefits would rather work, support themselves in retirement and so on....its not like that. Our tax dollars are spent on many things which could be deemed to have nothing to do with us.

[jetboy]

Don't forget to put aside money for medical insurance so we can save on tax dollars for health spending too.....seriously in an ideal economic climate I sure most people on benefits would rather work, support themselves in retirement and so on....its not like that. Our tax dollars are spent on many things which could be deemed to have nothing to do with us.
Public health is not in the same category as the benefit. Most NZ'ers will have no problems with paying tax for the public health system, but do have issues paying for people who refuse to earn a decent living and contribute to society instead of take take take.

I agree that our tax dollars are spent on things that won't have much to do with us directly, if at all, but that's understandable. I disagree that I should have to work to pay for someone else so they don't have to.

[allycatz]

When I have children I will have planned and saved my arse off to have them. Screw the families credit - people who have kids should plan for them first. If you can't afford to have kids, then for fucks sake don't 'ave 'em!

Hey my ex and I planned all our kids too on a six figure income....unfortunately I wasn't consulted in the planning when he took off a mid life crisis shag fest. With him went the business we had built up and my income. His parting words to me was " your too fat and stupid to get a man or a job. His 50th birthday present 12 months later was a framed copy of my new NZIM Management papers. I've been extremely grateful to receive a benefit but have to say the tax paid when I owned a business far exceeds what I received. So far I have three kids with degrees and and two more about to enter uni...I haven't wasted the tax payers money

[jetboy]

Hey my ex and I planned all our kids too on a six figure income....unfortunately I wasn't consulted in the planning when he took off a mid life crisis shag fest. With him went the business we had built up and my income. His parting words to me was " your too fat and stupid to get a man or a job. His 50th birthday present 12 months later was a framed copy of my new NZIM Management papers. I've been extremely grateful to receive a benefit but have to say the tax paid when I owned a business far exceeds what I received. So far I have three kids with degrees and and two more about to enter uni...I haven't wasted the tax payers money
I'm not launching a personal attack on you Allycatz, and it sucks to hear what happened to you.

My comment was referring to the dropkicks who don't plan for kids.

[allycatz]

Hey no offence taken, but theres an old saying "best laid plans". Its a shame we cant get marriage insurance for when it all goes belly up.

[MIXONE]

I'm not launching a personal attack on you Allycatz, and it sucks to hear what happened to you.

My comment was referring to the dropkicks who don't plan for kids.

I hate to burst your bubble there jb but not many people actually plan when thay are going to have kids.If the majority did the world would have a much smaller population.

[Oscar]

I hate to burst your bubble there jb but not many people actually plan when thay are going to have kids.If the majority did the world would have a much smaller population.

I think the figure is about 50% of all pregnancies are not planned.

[MIXONE]

I think the figure is about 50% of all pregnancies are not planned.

That explains why my mum always said I was a mistake then!:angry2:

[jetboy]

I hate to burst your bubble there jb but not many people actually plan when thay are going to have kids.If the majority did the world would have a much smaller population.
Bubble not burst at all. And if that is the case then the many people who don't plan for kids should not be entitled to any child-rearing benefits at all. I stress again (and this is where most of the world is probably fucked in the head) - WHY HAVE KIDS IF YOU HAVE NOT PLANNED FOR THEM?!

From a personal viewpoint I use protection so I don't get a girl pregnant. If that protection failed then tough shit for me, I'll have to cast aside my 'wants' in life for a bit, man up and provide for my child (assuming termination was off the table, but that's a whole other discussion).

People need to take responsibility for their actions, if you have unprotected sex then you should take responsibility if and when your seed is sown and provide for your child, do not expect everyone else to.

[MIXONE]

All I can say jetboy is that you sound like the sort of person that plans their meals a week ahead as well.

[jetboy]

I think the figure is about 50% of all pregnancies are not planned.
Well then this 50% should have used protection, and if they did and it failed well tough luck - it happens. We all know from sex-ed at school that the only thing that guarantees no pregnancy is no sex.

In either case, you made the baby so you should provide for it. Why, because your rubber broke/you're too horney to use protection/you couldn't be bothered using any/the contraception failed, should I, along with other taxpayers, have to fork out for this unplanned pregnancy? Sheesh - I didn't even get a lay out of it and I STILL have to pay!! haha

[allycatz]

Well done Jetboy....so if a lady got pregnant with your child but didn't want to cement the relationship you would pay for ALL of her expenses so she didnt need a benefit if there was no job to return to? *tui*

[Oscar]

Well then this 50% should have used protection, and if they did and it failed well tough luck - it happens. We all know from sex-ed at school that the only thing that guarantees no pregnancy is no sex.

In either case, you made the baby so you should provide for it. Why, because your rubber broke/you're too horney to use protection/you couldn't be bothered using any/the contraception failed, should I, along with other taxpayers, have to fork out for this unplanned pregnancy? Sheesh - I didn't even get a lay out of it and I STILL have to pay!! haha

Perhaps you should wait until you actually have sex before you try and comment on it.

[jetboy]

All I can say jetboy is that you sound like the sort of person that plans their meals a week ahead as well.
No, I am the sort of person who takes responsibility for my actions and doesn't expect society to clean up my mess.

At least I'm not the sort of person to crap themselves and expect everyone to wipe my arse clean.

[allycatz]

Well then this 50% should have used protection, and if they did and it failed well tough luck - it happens. We all know from sex-ed at school that the only thing that guarantees no pregnancy is no sex.

In either case, you made the baby so you should provide for it. Why, because your rubber broke/you're too horney to use protection/you couldn't be bothered using any/the contraception failed, should I, along with other taxpayers, have to fork out for this unplanned pregnancy? Sheesh - I didn't even get a lay out of it and I STILL have to pay!! haha


Jetboy if you came off your bike and were permanently disabled and unable to work, chances are the taxpayer would have to support you if you didn't have suitable insurance. Motorbikes being big boys 'babies' an all....

[jetboy]

Well done Jetboy....so if a lady got pregnant with your child but didn't want to cement the relationship you would pay for ALL of her expenses so she didnt need a benefit if there was no job to return to? *tui*
Not at all - I would pay my fair share of expenses and hope that, although I may not want a relationship with the mother, I could have joint custody or whatever it's called and both share our duties. Things would be tight financially for sure, but my kid would come first.

[jetboy]

Jetboy if you came off your bike and were permanently disabled and unable to work, chances are the taxpayer would have to support you if you didn't have suitable insurance. Motorbikes being big boys 'babies' an all....
Ahh that's the thing - I DO have suitable insurance. And we are talking about kids here not health as I already stated I support tax funding the health system.

I bought the bike and got insurance for both the bike and me....I took RESPONSIBILITY for my 'baby'.

[jetboy]

I honestly fail to understand what problem my answers are causing some of you.

My point is this: The benefit should be in place to assist people in need. I do not believe the taxpayer should contribute to the cost of raising a child if all reasonable steps were not taken by the parents of that child to support it themselves.
I also think that the logic some of you are using where "you can't plan kids" is rubbish and, quite frankly, a sad mentality. If you have sex, be prepared to accept the consequences...end of story.

I'd like to add that I was not making personal attacks of people posting in this forum, and these views are my own, personal opinions. I just feel that people need to take more responsibility for their actions.

[allycatz]

I honestly fail to understand what problem my answers are causing some of you.

My point is this: The benefit should be in place to assist people in need. I do not believe the taxpayer should contribute to the cost of raising a child if all reasonable steps were not taken by the parents of that child to support it themselves.
I also think that the logic some of you are using where "you can't plan kids" is rubbish and, quite frankly, a sad mentality. If you have sex, be prepared to accept the consequences...end of story.

Yeah, but I had twins....I planned a baby not two of the little ferkers :bash:... BUT! I did get spayed at the same time I had them

[jetboy]

Yeah, but I had twins....I planned a baby not two of the little ferkers :bash:... BUT! I did get spayed at the same time I had them
Haha fair enough!

But you mentioned earlier that you worked and planned for a kid, and it was a nasty occurence that mucked you up for a bit. As I said my entire crusade this afternoon is against people who have a kid and expect the rest of us to pick up the bill.

[ducatilover]

so is it bad that we look after two children [8 and 10] with fetal alcohol syndrome when the useless mother is having her 12th child and 10 have been taken off her? We get paid to look after them and provide them with a loving and caring home with everything they can need, especially the needed one on one attention. Are people going to say that this government funded system is bad? I do not condone what the silly bint has done, in fact I despise her :angry2: for doing such a terrible thing, and not just once. Would people rather let these mentally challenge and socially incompetent children suffer in the hands of some low life alcoholic breeding slave? Or have good people look after them and care for them and help as much as possible?

[steve_t]

so is it bad that we look after two children [8 and 10] with fetal alcohol syndrome when the useless mother is having her 12th child and 10 have been taken off her? We get paid to look after them and provide them with a loving and caring home with everything they can need, especially the needed one on one attention. Are people going to say that this government funded system is bad? I do not condone what the silly bint has done, in fact I despise her :angry2: for doing such a terrible thing, and not just once. Would people rather let these mentally challenge and socially incompetent children suffer in the hands of some low life alcoholic breeding slave? Or have good people look after them and care for them and help as much as possible?

The government needed to offer that mother $10,000 cash in exchange for getting her tubes tied. I'm sure she'd have taken the deal and the government would have saved $1000s in the long run.

[Okey Dokey]

I agree with jetboy that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. Too many people on this poor old world is a bigger problem than global warming. "Accidental / unplanned" pregnancies being 50% of total is just ridiculous.

[ducatilover]

The government needed to offer that mother $10,000 cash in exchange for getting her tubes tied. I'm sure she'd have taken the deal and the government would have saved $1000s in the long run.

I don't think she should be offered anything short of a prison sentence. 12 children, 10 of which suffer from varying degrees of fetal alcohol syndrome, it's criminal. Why should the tax payers be paying for her benefit? :angry2:

[Grahameeboy]

I couldn't afford my courses, I got a loan, then to pay off said loan I got a job, it took a while to get a job over here, but, I got a job. I think some WINZ programs are reasonable, but some aren't. Caring for solo mothers is great if you ask me, especially with kids and/or medical problems. But to be paying big tax payer dollars too get the solo mother trained without [I am assuming] any guarantee of a job at the end of the training course is bloody silly. The reason they may be receiving $700+ pw may be because of circumstances, but as it has been pointed out, it's usually quite hard to survive by youself on the benefit let alone with kids. Incentive to get a job I think?

The subject women may actually, due to her circumstances, have problems working and caring for her sick child...it is hard to get a balance in this situation whereas maybe she wanted to have her own business which would have given her some flexibility if she employed someone....but perhaps it was not her calling at the end of the day

[Grahameeboy]

I don't think she should be offered anything short of a prison sentence. 12 children, 10 of which suffer from varying degrees of fetal alcohol syndrome, it's criminal. Why should the tax payers be paying for her benefit? :angry2:

Because its really for the kids that benefit is given...they are the innocent.

[ducatilover]

The subject women may actually, due to her circumstances, have problems working and caring for her sick child...it is hard to get a balance in this situation whereas maybe she wanted to have her own business which would have given her some flexibility if she employed someone....but perhaps it was not her calling at the end of the day

I'm not relating the subject lady to the vile scum I speak of, but I thought it may be a side issue that perhaps is relevant. I would expect the subject woman is in circumstances that are not really shown to us through the media.

[jetboy]

so is it bad that we look after two children [8 and 10] with fetal alcohol syndrome when the useless mother is having her 12th child and 10 have been taken off her? We get paid to look after them and provide them with a loving and caring home with everything they can need, especially the needed one on one attention. Are people going to say that this government funded system is bad? I do not condone what the silly bint has done, in fact I despise her :angry2: for doing such a terrible thing, and not just once. Would people rather let these mentally challenge and socially incompetent children suffer in the hands of some low life alcoholic breeding slave? Or have good people look after them and care for them and help as much as possible?
Your choice of words are fantastic!! Breeding slave haha!!

No, she should be made to work and have ZERO benefit and some form of sterilisation as she has proven she cannot look after her responsibilities. You should definitely get some assistance from the government and I applaud you for being a decent human being!

[ducatilover]

Because its really for the kids that benefit is given...they are the innocent.

But why should she receive a benefit when others, like my family and myself, are caring for her children? Yes, the children are innocent and I love them, but, she is not. I do not think she deserves any government support what soever :angry: I think she, like the struggling honest mothers, should be looking at finding employment and help funding her many kids now away from her.

[Grahameeboy]

I'm not relating the subject lady to the vile scum I speak of, but I thought it may be a side issue that perhaps is relevant. I would expect the subject woman is in circumstances that are not really shown to us through the media.

I understand now....sorry....and yes what you say is relevant.

[ducatilover]

Your choice of words are fantastic!! Breeding slave haha!!

No, she should be made to work and have ZERO benefit and some form of sterilisation as she has proven she cannot look after her responsibilities. You should definitely get some assistance from the government and I applaud you for being a decent human being!

Thank you and yes she should be sterilized. We do get government assistance, more then enough, these kids are better of in some ways than I was, except for the sad mental draw backs, which can never be fixed. All because of this incorrigible tramp of a mother

[Grahameeboy]

But why should she receive a benefit when others, like my family and myself, are caring for her children? Yes, the children are innocent and I love them, but, she is not. I do not think she deserves any government support what soever :angry: I think she, like the struggling honest mothers, should be looking at finding employment and help funding her many kids now away from her.

My point is that it is not the kids fault..are you saying that the kids should be penalised because of their parents and potentially end up in Foster homes....I can hear your response but at the end of the day it is more important that the kids stay with their biological Mum and at the end of the day $47,000 = a contribution of 1c per person to care for the kids...a small price to pay I reckon...how many of us have no problem paying money to Charity's to help kids in war torn countrys because of "Innocence" but when it comes to our own doorstep...it's a different matter...almost a reverse envy...

[jetboy]

Because its really for the kids that benefit is given...they are the innocent.
This "breeding slave" should get no benefit whatsoever. End of story.

The kids should be removed from the situation and placed with people like ducatilover, who should get the assistance from the government.

[Grahameeboy]

This "breeding slave" should get no benefit whatsoever. End of story.

The kids should be removed from the situation and placed with people like ducatilover, who should get the assistance from the government.

Not Hondalovers then......See my last post for answer to rest.I don't in an odd way disagree with you but I just see things from a different perspective.

[ducatilover]

My point is that it is not the kids fault..are you saying that the kids should be penalised because of their parents and potentially end up in Foster homes....I can hear your response but at the end of the day it is more important that the kids stay with their biological Mum and at the end of the day $47,000 = a contribution of 1c per person to care for the kids...a small price to pay I reckon...how many of us have no problem paying money to Charity's to help kids in war torn countrys because of "Innocence" but when it comes to our own doorstep...it's a different matter...almost a reverse envy...

No, what I am saying is, the mother should be penalized. I would love it if the kids could go stay with their biological mother, but, she is incapable of taking care of herself, let alone 11 children [1 died playing with matches in the family home]. The children do not understand that she is their biological mother, even at 8 and 10. As far as they care, we are their real family, we have provided for them and cared for them and I think they are part of our family now. But, if the mother was not a drunken wench with absolutely no compassion for the human life she and multiple individuals have created, then the children may be safe in her care. Until then, the children will be in a home with a loving family and may very well be adopted by us.

[ducatilover]

Not Hondalovers then......See my last post for answer to rest.I don't in an odd way disagree with you but I just see things from a different perspective.

The children are in real danger if they lived with her again, she does no parenting whatsoever nor does she supervise them, which they NEED 24/7. That is why one burnt to death. I am saying they are better off in every way with us, than with her. She shouldn't be provided for, she should provide for her children, she has already fucked them by drinking whilst pregnant, why not attempt to redeem some sort of morale she lacks?

[Winston001]

I honestly fail to understand what problem my answers are causing some of you.

My point is this: The benefit should be in place to assist people in need. I do not believe the taxpayer should contribute to the cost of raising a child if all reasonable steps were not taken by the parents of that child to support it themselves.

Actually your attitudes and responsibility are refreshing and you'll find many many KBers who agree with you. All that's happening is people are saying life presents many shades of grey. Things happen.

We live in a social democracy. That means there is a social contract between each of us to protect each other in our hour of need. The government sets the policies.

Most wealthy nations are social democracies and its pretty much taken for granted world-wide.

Where the debate rages is the extent of the contract. How little should we pay? What should we pay for? Your ideas are as valuable as anyones.

[Finn]

Because its really for the kids that benefit is given...they are the innocent.

But Graham the problem is that the welfare system has allowed this to happen. It's a double whammy because it encourages the people we don't want breeding to breed like rabbits.

Remember, it's a safety net, not a friggen trampoline. All this social engineering has achieved is a massive dumbing down of the nation.

[allycatz]

The children are in real danger if they lived with her again, she does no parenting whatsoever nor does she supervise them, which they NEED 24/7. That is why one burnt to death. I am saying they are better off in every way with us, than with her. She shouldn't be provided for, she should provide for her children, she has already fucked them by drinking whilst pregnant, why not attempt to redeem some sort of morale she lacks?


Alcoholism is an illness, she doesn't sound as if she has been capable of making rational decisions for herself let alone her children. Bit like drunk drivers who make decisions under the influence they would never make when sober. Sadly what was invented as a safety net for short term welfare has become a lifestyle choice for some and repeating itself through generations and cycles of abuse, alcohol and drugs. You only have to look at the circumstances of wee babies beaten to death to see where the system is letting kids down.

[ducatilover]

Alcoholism is an illness, she doesn't sound as if she has been capable of making rational decisions for herself let alone her children. Bit like drunk drivers who make decisions under the influence they would never make when sober. Sadly what was invented as a safety net for short term welfare has become a lifestyle choice for some and repeating itself through generations and cycles of abuse, alcohol and drugs. You only have to look at the circumstances of wee babies beaten to death to see where the system is letting kids down.

Then why not provide people such as herself with some sort of rehabilitation program? It would be beneficial, humane and cheaper. Everybody wins that way, including her. But the children can never win, they are at a huge disadvantage because of her mistakes, or, illness.

[jetboy]

But Graham the problem is that the welfare system has allowed this to happen. It's a double whammy because it encourages the people we don't want breeding to breed like rabbits.

Remember, it's a safety net, not a friggen trampoline. All this social engineering has achieved is a massive dumbing down of the nation.


Sadly what was invented as a safety net for short term welfare has become a lifestyle choice for some and repeating itself through generations and cycles of abuse, alcohol and drugs. You only have to look at the circumstances of wee babies beaten to death to see where the system is letting kids down.


And this is the root of the problem...no pun intended

[allycatz]

Then why not provide people such as herself with some sort of rehabilitation program? It would be beneficial, humane and cheaper. Everybody wins that way, including her. But the children can never win, they are at a huge disadvantage because of her mistakes, or, illness.

There are systems there but people have to want to help themselves, unlike a mental illness where treatment can be imposed where the individual is in danger of harming themselves or others. CYF's are walking on broken glass in trying to remove children from possible harm and the preference is leaving kids with the parent. There does of course have to be a suitable home to remove them to and one which isn't likely to put them at further disadvantage

[ducatilover]

There are systems there but people have to want to help themselves, unlike a mental illness where treatment can be imposed where the individual is in danger of harming themselves or others. CYF's are walking on broken glass in trying to remove children from possible harm and the preference is leaving kids with the parent. There does of course have to be a suitable home to remove them to and one which isn't likely to put them at further disadvantage

So alcoholism cannot be treated unless said individual is willing? Even if they have ruined so may lives before they even started? Even thought they continue to do so and cost us, the tax payers so much money? I think it is sick how this particular person can get away with what she has done, without paying a cent lent alone have the slightest dent in her conscience. We take the kids to family get togethers, she doesn't pay any attention to them. She has given birth to so many disadvantaged children, the majority of them are mentally incapable of taking care of themselves, so we willingly look after them, they need us, not her. She should be punished for what she has done, alcoholism in my mind is not a just reason to roll around with any Tom, Dick and Harold and make poor innocent children who are so disgustingly challenged! It really winds me up how she can just carry on doing what she wants to after all this abuse! Human rights activists would have hemorrhages at the thought of such things.

[allycatz]

Hey I'm not sticking up for her at all. I'm assuming that unless she has at sometime abandoned the kids i.e home alone or physically abused the kids, then how does she be punished by the law? She must of done something wrong to have lost custody? But yes, I agree, some encouragement to have her tubes tied would not go amiss

[ducatilover]

Hey I'm not sticking up for her at all. I'm assuming that unless she has at sometime abandoned the kids i.e home alone or physically abused the kids, then how does she be punished by the law? She must of done something wrong to have lost custody? But yes, I agree, some encouragement to have her tubes tied would not go amiss

I would expect them to have been abandoned when one innocent chap went up in flames in his closet....
I know you aren't sticking up for her.
Surely the "medical" condition these dear kids suffer from is reason enough to punish her? People would punish a Dog owner for doing less! Why not a human being who has time and time again literally fucked these kids? Bit silly really.

[buffstar]

So alcoholism cannot be treated unless said individual is willing? Even if they have ruined so may lives before they even started? Even thought they continue to do so and cost us, the tax payers so much money? I think it is sick how this particular person can get away with what she has done, without paying a cent lent alone have the slightest dent in her conscience. We take the kids to family get togethers, she doesn't pay any attention to them. She has given birth to so many disadvantaged children, the majority of them are mentally incapable of taking care of themselves, so we willingly look after them, they need us, not her. She should be punished for what she has done, alcoholism in my mind is not a just reason to roll around with any Tom, Dick and Harold and make poor innocent children who are so disgustingly challenged! It really winds me up how she can just carry on doing what she wants to after all this abuse! Human rights activists would have hemorrhages at the thought of such things.

Your story makes me sad and angry - and also gives a glimmer of hope.

sad for the kiddies who have been screwed over, and so so sad for the one who died
Angry for the way this woman is carring on and destroying lives, why cant we just put the 'bad dogs' down?:angry2:
and the hope is provided from your obvious love for the kids you have with you............I take my hat off to you and your family.
as for hating hondas...............well nobody is completely perfect :whistle:

[ducatilover]

Your story makes me sad and angry - and also gives a glimmer of hope.

sad for the kiddies who have been screwed over, and so so sad for the one who died
Angry for the way this woman is carring on and destroying lives, why cant we just put the 'bad dogs' down?:angry2:
and the hope is provided from your obvious love for the kids you have with you............I take my hat off to you and your family.
as for hating hondas...............well nobody is completely perfect :whistle:

Thank you very much.
The honda part is a joke, I have had two of them and loved them...;) In fact I still own one after 3 and a half years.
I am glad I can be one of the people willing to take care of these kids, they are brilliant children and am teaching one piano, the other is getting guitar lessons.

[allycatz]

I would expect them to have been abandoned when one innocent chap went up in flames in his closet....
I know you aren't sticking up for her.
Surely the "medical" condition these dear kids suffer from is reason enough to punish her? People would punish a Dog owner for doing less! Why not a human being who has time and time again literally fucked these kids? Bit silly really.

It is wrong...you can be imprisoned for passing on Aids but essentially she has fucked up these kids lives by causing a permanent illness

[ducatilover]

It is wrong...you can be imprisoned for passing on Aids but essentially she has fucked up these kids lives by causing a permanent illness

I could not agree more. It's not good enough :angry2:

[Grahameeboy]

No, what I am saying is, the mother should be penalized. I would love it if the kids could go stay with their biological mother, but, she is incapable of taking care of herself, let alone 11 children [1 died playing with matches in the family home]. The children do not understand that she is their biological mother, even at 8 and 10. As far as they care, we are their real family, we have provided for them and cared for them and I think they are part of our family now. But, if the mother was not a drunken wench with absolutely no compassion for the human life she and multiple individuals have created, then the children may be safe in her care. Until then, the children will be in a home with a loving family and may very well be adopted by us.

Sorry you are talking about your situation..I was referring to the media case..I agree with you then

[Grahameeboy]

But Graham the problem is that the welfare system has allowed this to happen. It's a double whammy because it encourages the people we don't want breeding to breed like rabbits.

Remember, it's a safety net, not a friggen trampoline. All this social engineering has achieved is a massive dumbing down of the nation.

I see it's the Govt's fault....nothing like blaming others...sadly a trait of NZ...

[Finn]

I see it's the Govt's fault....nothing like blaming others...sadly a trait of NZ...

So you think it's a good idea for hardworking NZders to fund uneducated, lazy bitches to have 12 kids?

[Grahameeboy]

So you think it's a good idea for hardworking NZders to fund uneducated, lazy bitches to have 12 kids?

I was making a generalisation..DucatiLovers example is an extreme case...I am focusing on the subject that started thread...but having said NZ does tend to blame others...

On a side I don't get upset by this kind of thing....that's my "1c's" worth

[davereid]

We shouldn't be paying for NZ Super. State funded super is the biggest crock of crap out there (it isn't even means-tested! WTF?) If the oldies weren't disproportionately represented in the voting stats, I am confident that universal super would have disappeared a long time ago.

State-super is a strange one. I may be corrected on this, but I think it goes something like...

Historically, 6 pence in the pound was taken off wage earners to fund their retirement. About the time of the Kirk Government I think, it was no longer collected separately, it was just incorporated into general taxation. By the time of the Muldoon Government, it was spent, just keeping government alive, but workers were promised that as they had paid for a pension, it would be there for them.

Indeed the lie was made, and retained by subsequent governments that the super fund was still alive, just buried in standard taxation. Steady as she goes kind of thing.

Ruth Richardson started to increase the age of entitlement, as she was aware that the current system had already taken the retirement savings of many workers, and squandered them, so the kitty was empty.

Subsequent governments realised that future pensions were a liability, so dodged the issue big-time.

Mr. Cullens kiwisaver completes the circle. Workers now save 6 pence in the pound for retirement just like it used to be.

I wonder how long until the Cullen fund, is spent somewhere else. Or how long till a private investement company goes broke, and government picks up the tab, effectively nationalising the scheme ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Super is a limited benefit... it is set at 65% of the average wage.

That is, a couple get 65% of the average wage, a single gets slightly over 33%.

The thread shows very little problem with welfare, its just the size of the payment that causes trouble.

Possibly ALL benefits should be capped at 65%. ?

[Ixion]

State-super is a strange one. I may be corrected on this, but I think it goes something like...

Historically, 6 pence in the pound was taken off wage earners to fund their retirement. .

One shilling and sixpence actually .An I want mine.

[Winston001]

Historically, 6 pence in the pound was taken off wage earners to fund their retirement. About the time of the Kirk Government I think, it was no longer collected separately, it was just incorporated into general taxation....

Ruth Richardson started to increase the age of entitlement, as she was aware that the current system had already taken the retirement savings of many workers, and squandered them, so the kitty was empty.....

Mr. Cullens kiwisaver completes the circle. Workers now save 6 pence in the pound for retirement just like it used to be.

I wonder how long until the Cullen fund, is spent somewhere else. Or how long till a private investement company goes broke, and government picks up the tab, effectively nationalising the scheme ?


Great post Dave and pretty accurate. The tax was called social security and approximated 6%. It was generally believed in 1938 that this covered existing pension payments and always would into the future. Bear in mind people who originally received pensions had not put any money in.

I have this vague idea that by 1948 the social security tax was not enough to cover the existing old age pension so it was topped up by general taxation. Muldoon recognised this economic reality and consolidated the Crown accounts. At the same time he promised universal national superannuation.

By 1992 Ruth Richardson could see the baby boomer retirement problem looming. Michael Cullen to his great credit grasped the problem and we now have the NZ Super Fund plus Kiwisaver. Whether these will work is argued up and down the country.

The NZ Super fund is nationalised. It belongs to the nation. The managers are private. Turning them into public servants with guaranteed jobs, their own super schemes etc isn't likely to help. :D

[Mully]

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2711209/Protesters-summon-Paula-Bennett

Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Stupid Hippies. I bet they actually expect her to turn up to their "People's Court"

[Ixion]

Lese majeste , surely? And if they attempted to enforce the "summons", perilously close to treason.

[pete376403]

Great post Dave and pretty accurate. The tax was called social security and approximated 6%. It was generally believed in 1938 that this covered existing pension payments and always would into the future. Bear in mind people who originally received pensions had not put any money in.

I have this vague idea that by 1948 the social security tax was not enough to cover the existing old age pension so it was topped up by general taxation. Muldoon recognised this economic reality and consolidated the Crown accounts. At the same time he promised universal national superannuation.

By 1992 Ruth Richardson could see the baby boomer retirement problem looming. Michael Cullen to his great credit grasped the problem and we now have the NZ Super Fund plus Kiwisaver. Whether these will work is argued up and down the country.

The NZ Super fund is nationalised. It belongs to the nation. The managers are private. Turning them into public servants with guaranteed jobs, their own super schemes etc isn't likely to help. :D

Haven't you missed the bit in the middle where the Lange Govt introduced a form of compulsory saving (IIRC similar in form to Kiwisaver, ie some from the employer, some from the employee) and Muldoon blatantly bribed the electorate by saying national would provide the same level of super without employee/er contributions.
If the Labour super had kept going the fund would be worth many billions by now.

[davereid]

Haven't you missed the bit in the middle where the Lange Govt introduced a form of compulsory saving (IIRC similar in form to Kiwisaver, ie some from the employer, some from the employee) and Muldoon blatantly bribed the electorate by saying national would provide the same level of super without employee/er contributions.
If the Labour super had kept going the fund would be worth many billions by now.

Muldoon was rolled by Lange thank Christ, but it means it can't have been a Lange scheme.

Common sense indicates it would have been Mr. Muldoon who ratted any money that was in the kitty, so you are likely right about that, he certainly got all the cash, even the stuff behind the couch.

[Oscar]

Haven't you missed the bit in the middle where the Lange Govt introduced a form of compulsory saving (IIRC similar in form to Kiwisaver, ie some from the employer, some from the employee) and Muldoon blatantly bribed the electorate by saying national would provide the same level of super without employee/er contributions.
If the Labour super had kept going the fund would be worth many billions by now.

I think you are talking of the third Labour Gummint under Kirk.

[pete376403]

Yeah, my mistake sorry, Kirk super scheme.

[Winston001]

Haven't you missed the bit in the middle where the Lange Govt introduced a form of compulsory saving (IIRC similar in form to Kiwisaver, ie some from the employer, some from the employee) and Muldoon blatantly bribed the electorate by saying national would provide the same level of super without employee/er contributions.
If the Labour super had kept going the fund would be worth many billions by now.

It was the Third Labour Government under Norman Kirk. But I'm not interested in playing politics on this. Understanding the past helps to explain where we are today. Superannuation is a New Zealand problem, not a political problem.

[Ixion]

All I know is that when I started working they deducted 1/6d in the pound from my miserable pittance. And I want to know who's got it and when I get it back.

[SPman]

All I know is that when I started working they deducted 1/6d in the pound from my miserable pittance. And I want to know who's got it and when I get it back.
It was called Social Security tax. Do you feel secure, socially?

[Indiana_Jones]

It was called Social Security tax. Do you feel secure, socially?

Only when you put your middle finger deep inside me.....:love:

-Indy

[doc]

Haven't you missed the bit in the middle where the Lange Govt introduced a form of compulsory saving (IIRC similar in form to Kiwisaver, ie some from the employer, some from the employee) and Muldoon blatantly bribed the electorate by saying national would provide the same level of super without employee/er contributions.
If the Labour super had kept going the fund would be worth many billions by now.

Ferk when I got my contributions backpaid , bought my 1st bike. So it's Muldoons fault, I've been poor ever since. The bastards owe me now that you put it that way. :blink: Billions you say mmmm.