Benefits

[Usarka]

Jeez Scummy, there's an element of greeny/hippy in that! :lol:


Likewise I know of lots of (insert areas here) disabled people that can do things better than me.
OAB can wheelie better than me.

OAB can wheelie better than most people on here! :not:

The comparison with physical disabilities is a good example. To overcome, adapt, and wheelie then you're correct the right attitude and thinking is vital, and it's the brain that you use to do this.

The problem when the brain is bung is that the very thing you use to cope is the thing that's broken. Some people can, some people find it extremely difficult (especially without help), and some just can't cope. Unfortunately it's such a complex organ that it's hard to tell when it's negative thinking and attitude that's the issue or when it's actually due to the bung.....

[jasonu]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10764008

Fuck me. NZ pays out 16 billion per year in benifits? No wonder the country is going down the toilet.
How the hell can 4 million people, not all tax payers, sustain this level of payouts?

[FJRider]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10764008

Fuck me. NZ pays out 16 billion per year in benifits? No wonder the country is going down the toilet.
How the hell can 4 million people, not all tax payers, sustain this level of payouts?

Even those on a benefit pay tax ... and as those ON the benefit cannot save much, most is put back into general circulation ...

Plus the Goverment gets the GST on the benefit money spent ... gives it with one hand and collects it with two.

[Usarka]

A lot of those beneweod-wdfosjdfjdofjsdus odfj dlkgj asklhgp;dlfu[ osidgiuerhvhnauig cyhmio;u drtg idghjkldgb

[BoristheBiter]

I was going to make a Python joke about bloody vikings but what you say deserves thinking about. :niceone:

The Wall Street protests and riots in Greece are signatures of unease. Rainman has postulated that globalisation implies acceptance of unemployment and welfare in Western economies. We lose jobs but get cheap clothes and electronics.

I don't agree but perhaps he's correct as we run up against a wall of over-population and limited food. Until now, wealthy societies have provided new jobs for their displaced but maybe thats no longer possible.

See I see the modern day thought of the "world owes me something" or the "I have the right to this" groups are the biggest problem.

People just need to know their place and be happy about it and if they want to make something more of their lives then they can work hard to get it.

[FJRider]

See I see the modern day thought of the "world owes me something" or the "I have the right to this" groups are the biggest problem.

It's the "MY rights are MORE important than YOUR rights" group are the bigger problem ... in my opinion ...


People just need to know their place and be happy about it and if they want to make something more of their lives then they can work hard to get it.

They KNOW their place ... are (usally) not happy ... but the "hard work" bit stymies them ...

[scumdog]

It's the "MY rights are MORE important than YOUR rights" group are the bigger problem ... in my opinion .....

Too many expect 'rights' for no reason than they just plain want them, they expect rights as of right

'Rights"? who the eff gave you rights, show me where you got the list...:mad:

It must be an awful shock when they find out they don't have quite as many rights as they thought they had.

"Welcome to the real world suckers" is the uncharitable thought that flits through my mind at time like that.:devil2:

[FJRider]

Too many expect 'rights' for no reason than they just plain want them, they expect rights as of right

'Rights"? who the eff gave you rights, show me where you got the list...:mad:

It must be an awful shock when they find out they don't have quite as many rights as they thought they had.

"Welcome to the real world suckers" is the uncharitable thought that flits through my mind at time like that.:devil2:

People will say anything to get themselves out of the shit ... the old ... "I know my rights" crowd ... :killingme always makes me laugh ... (the "my mate told me" or I saw it on TV [Yank program])

"Welcome to the real world" ... followed by ... "Have a nice day" :devil2:

[BoristheBiter]

It's the "MY rights are MORE important than YOUR rights" group are the bigger problem ... in my opinion ...



They KNOW their place ... are (usally) not happy ... but the "hard work" bit stymies them ...

It all stated with Facebook. Everyone thinks that what they have just done is not only worth telling everyone but is more important.
Now because they all have this great feeling of self worth that they deserve something for it.

[BoristheBiter]

Too true.

As the developing countries (where no fair-headed people are natives) get financially stronger and want/expect more we will slowly slide down the standard of living shute.

And just to 'sink-the-slipper-in' - the whole world is outstripping its non-renewable resources and there's too many of us humans aboard this earth.

So enjoy the planet as it is now people - your grand-children certainly won't be able to.

See I blame it on the higher ups.
I remember when you pulled a copy of the phone book out and people twitched and coughed.
Respect of others is what has been missing for far to long, or is that fear?

[mashman]

Even those on a benefit pay tax ... and as those ON the benefit cannot save much, most is put back into general circulation ...

Plus the Goverment gets the GST on the benefit money spent ... gives it with one hand and collects it with two.

Do they also give and take rental and rates costs too? Electricity if the provider is state owned? ACC Levies?

[jasonu]

and as those ON the benefit cannot save much, most is put back into general circulation ...

.

If a person on any type of benefit is able to save money then the benefit should be reduced. Benefits are ment to be temporary help and should be just enough to get by on, not a way to save for (eg.) a better car, trip or retirement. Benefits are ment to be a helping hand, not a way of life as many people treat them. It should be hard to get by on a benefit so as to encourage the recipients to try to move forward to something better paying.
I am sure there will be a few exceptions to this but I think it will apply to most froms of benefit.

[FJRider]

Do they also give and take rental and rates costs too? Electricity if the provider is state owned? ACC Levies?

GST appears in many places ...

[rainman]

Effin-oath.
And why not??

Um, I = P x A x T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_PAT)? Or, from the below quote, for your grand-children's sake?


And just to 'sink-the-slipper-in' - the whole world is outstripping its non-renewable resources and there's too many of us humans aboard this earth.

So enjoy the planet as it is now people - your grand-children certainly won't be able to.

Aren't you arguing against yourself here? Or are you just suffering from boomerism?




http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10764008

Fuck me. NZ pays out 16 billion per year in benifits? No wonder the country is going down the toilet.
How the hell can 4 million people, not all tax payers, sustain this level of payouts?

Total MSD budget is $22bn. $9.6 bn is state super - but we can't raise the pension age or mans test it, no way man that's crazy talk.

Full details at wheresmytaxes.co.nz (http://www.wheresmytaxes.co.nz). This table is the per capita share and % change from the budget before..$16bn (all benefits?) is only ~20% of our spend of $82bn a year. The bigger problem is that income is only budgeted to be 87% of expenses (and in recessions, income budgets are always optimistic).


<tbody>
$2173.65
(⇧8.4%)
New Zealand Superannuation


$430.09
(⇧7.4%)
Domestic Purposes Benefit


$360.87
(⇧0.6%)
Student Loans


$305.74
(⇧3.1%)
Invalid's Benefit


$286.99
(⇧5.1%)
Accommodation Assistance


$233.58
(⇧7.3%)
Unemployment Benefit and Emergency Benefit


$177.60
(⇧5.4%)
Sickness Benefit


$142.32
(⇧0.2%)
Student Allowances


$142.25
(⇩18%)
Debt Write-downs


$93.19
0.0%
Disability Assistance


$91.42
(⇩9.6%)
Tailored Sets of Services to Help People into Work or Achieve Independence


$74.54
(⇧0.8%)
Care and Protection Services


$65.52
(⇧4.0%)
Hardship Assistance


$42.65
(⇩0.9%)
Childcare Assistance


$40.58
(⇧0.3%)
Veterans' Pension


$38.28
(⇧2.3%)
Recoverable Assistance


$31.12
(⇧2.2%)
Youth Justice Services


$27.64
(⇧0.3%)
Employment Assistance


$27.31
(⇩11%)
Strong Families


$25.41
(⇧4.1%)
Orphan's/Unsupported Child's Benefit


$19.66
0.0%
Vocational Services for People with Disabilities


$17.34
(⇧3.1%)
Widow's Benefit


$16.32
(⇧1.3%)
Family Wellbeing Services


$14.63
(⇧4.9%)
Ministry of Social Development - Capital Expenditure


$12.13
(⇩23%)
Vocational Skills Training


$8.46
(⇩12%)
Social Policy Advice


$8.43
(⇩6.0%)
Benefits Paid in Australia


$8.38
(⇩4.0%)
Income Support and Assistance to Seniors


$8.23
(⇩1.4%)
Services to Protect the Integrity of the Benefit System


$8.02
(⇧10%)
Family and Community Services


$6.98
(⇩22%)
Study Scholarships and Awards


$5.60
(⇧9.3%)
Transition to Work


$4.57
(⇧9.3%)
Management of Student Support, excluding Student Loans


$4.04
(⇩0.3%)
Counselling and Rehabilitation Services


$4.03
(⇩2.7%)
Out of School Care Programmes


$3.82
(⇧254%)
Connected Communities


$3.74
(⇩17%)
Employment Related Training Assistance


$3.68
(⇧8.5%)
Collection of Balances Owed by Former Clients and Non-beneficiaries


$3.51
(⇧8.5%)
Management of Student Loans


$3.47
(⇩5.7%)
Independent Youth Benefit


$3.20
(⇩58%)
Special Circumstance Assistance


$2.87
(⇩58%)
Youth Transition Services


$2.05
(⇧16%)
Adoption Services


$1.97
(⇩1.0%)
Education and Prevention Services


$1.84
(⇩2.2%)
Development and Funding of Community Services


$1.84
(⇧2.2%)
Families Commission


$1.56
(⇩13%)
Services for Young People


$1.28
(⇩0.5%)
Administration of Community Services Card


$1.21
0.0%
Youth Development


$1.06
(⇧16%)
Prevention Services


$0.80
(⇧2.1%)
Mainstream Supported Employment Programme


$0.80
(⇩2.8%)
Student Placement Services


$0.54
(⇩25%)
Strengthening Providers and Communities


$0.49
0.0%
Children's Commissioner


$0.41
(⇧387%)
Trialling New Approaches to Social Sector Change


$0.33
0.0%
Assistance to Disadvantaged Persons


$0.32
0.0%
Management of SuperGold Card


$0.28
0.0%
Promoting Positive Outcomes for Disabled People


$0.23
0.0%
Senior Citizens Services


$0.20
0.0%
Youth Development Partnership Fund


$0.16
0.0%
Family Start/NGO Awards


$0.10
0.0%
Processing and Payment of Veterans' Pensions


$0.10
(⇧174%)
Administration of Trialling New Approaches to Social Sector Change


$0.07
(⇩10%)
Crown Entity Monitoring


$0.02
(⇩50%)
Property Management Centre of Expertise

</tbody>

[BoristheBiter]

[LEFT]


Total MSD budget is $22bn. $9.6 bn is state super - but we can't raise the pension age or mans test it, no way man that's crazy talk.

Full details at wheresmytaxes.co.nz (http://www.wheresmytaxes.co.nz). This table is the per capita share and % change from the budget before..$16bn (all benefits?) is only ~20% of our spend of $82bn a year. The bigger problem is that income is only budgeted to be 87% of expenses (and in recessions, income budgets are always optimistic).
]

I am all for upping the super age, it has to be done sometime.
As for the super, if you want to means test the super then the ones the never put anything in, i.e, them on benefits their whole life should get nothing.
Same as working for family's should be canned, if you can't afford to keep them you shouldn't have them.

[Usarka]

As for the super, if you want to means test the super then the ones the never put anything in, i.e, them on benefits their whole life should get nothing.


So kick beneficiaries onto the streets with no money when they turn 65? Simply isn't going to happen no matter how much you want them to die as punishment for being bludgers.

Turn it around a bit also. Means test, and if you have a trust set up then it's assumed you have assets in the highest bracket.

[oldrider]

Turn it around a bit also. Means test, and if you have a trust set up then it's assumed you have assets in the highest bracket.

You might like to reconsider that assumption.

We have a family trust and it's not because we are well off, it's because we have a handicapped family member and it's there to protect him and his brother and sister's personal equities from intermingling, should they be required to be his care persons! (PC?)

All trusts are not there just for wealthy people or the highest bracket! :no:

[scumdog]

So kick beneficiaries onto the streets with no money when they turn 65? Simply isn't going to happen no matter how much you want them to die as punishment for being bludgers.

Turn it around a bit also. Means test, and if you have a trust set up then it's assumed you have assets in the highest bracket.

Meh, why should anybody bother? - you work hard, save, build a nest-egg then WHAMMO the Gov't wants to ding you for bothering to make the effort.

Let's ALL of us become beneficiaries....:rolleyes:

(Or hide your hard-earned furtune so's it can't get hit by the Gov't)

[Winston001]

We have a family trust and it's not because we are well off, it's because we have a handicapped family member and it's there to protect him and his brother and sister's personal equities from intermingling, should they be required to be his care persons! (PC?)

All trusts are not there just for wealthy people or the highest bracket! :no:

Exactly. A "Trust" is a legal structure which protects assets for the benefit of defined persons. Trusts were first created at the time of the Crusades when women and children could not hold property. A knight could be away for years so he would transfer ownership of his estates to his neighbour, local bishop etc "for the use of" his wife and children. This was later embodied in the Statute of Uses 1535.

Despite the common misconception that family trusts exist for tax reasons the correct legal position is protection of assets. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue can and does attack structures intended to avoid tax.

[avgas]

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue can and does attack structures intended to avoid tax.
:lol::killingme:2thumbsup
Oh I love this. This is the best joke I have heard all week.
I gotta go. I laughed so hard I pee'd a little.

[oldrider]

:lol::killingme:2thumbsup
Oh I love this. This is the best joke I have heard all week.
I gotta go. I laughed so hard I pee'd a little.

Well avgas you have lost me on your reaction to this one!

Having seen quite a few "sham" trusts exposed, especially of late, I can't quite see the joke! ... Enlighten me?

Or are you simply laughing at the pitiful consequences of some of the exposures, especially of the seemingly well healed?

[Winston001]

:lol::killingme:2thumbsup
Oh I love this. This is the best joke I have heard all week.
I gotta go. I laughed so hard I pee'd a little.

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Penny and Hooper NZLR 2011

http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/in-print/2011/september-2011/21-september-2011/ird-victory-in-tax-avoidance-case.aspx



(http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/in-print/2011/september-2011/21-september-2011/ird-victory-in-tax-avoidance-case.aspx)
The real joke is the trusts weren't a sham: they were created to protect the surgeons from liability...but unhappily they also provided some tax relief which brought them to the Commissioner's attention. A cock-up IMHO attributable to their accountants.

[oldrider]

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Penny and Hooper NZLR 2011

http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/in-print/2011/september-2011/21-september-2011/ird-victory-in-tax-avoidance-case.aspx



(http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/in-print/2011/september-2011/21-september-2011/ird-victory-in-tax-avoidance-case.aspx)
The real joke is the trusts weren't a sham: they were created to protect the surgeons from liability...but unhappily they also provided some tax relief which brought them to the Commissioner's attention. A cock-up IMHO attributable to their accountants.

Can't get into that link Winston!

If Family Trusts (or any trust) are not put together, maintained and presented in a proper manner acceptable to scrutiny, they are at risk of being judged as a "sham trust"!

There are many pitiful examples of this that are being failed because their legal constructors have been less then professional in their duties!

Often centred around trusts intended to protect assets against being counted in retirement home expenses etc!


Unfortunately it is only the client who loses out in the long run! :mellow:

[BoristheBiter]

So kick beneficiaries onto the streets with no money when they turn 65? Simply isn't going to happen no matter how much you want them to die as punishment for being bludgers.

Turn it around a bit also. Means test, and if you have a trust set up then it's assumed you have assets in the highest bracket.

So not only do we pay for bludgers while they and choose not to work we have to pay for them when they can't.

Here's a plan why not make it a choice if we pay into the welfare system, a bit like Kiwisaver. I think I know what the majority will do.

[Banditbandit]

:lol::killingme:2thumbsup
Oh I love this. This is the best joke I have heard all week.
I gotta go. I laughed so hard I pee'd a little.

Yeah ?? Not if you had been on the recieving end of such an attack by the tax vultures ... took five years - yeah count them .. FIVE years before IRD would accept that the trust had not been set up to dodge tax - but to use the assests to pay for the education of the next generation !!!!

[shrub]

getting back to benefits, did anyone see the woman in TV the other night? I think it was TV3's article about Labour offering to pay WFF to beneficiaries. She had 6 kids and was living a pretty austere life on the DPB in a state house. But I couldn't help but notice that of the kids several were preschoolers.

So the question has to be asked, how many of those kids have the same father? And how long has she been on the DPB?

I would hazard a guess there are multiple fathers and she has been on the DPB for a fair old while - she certainly didn't come across as a particularly employable prospect and the uncharitable would call her thick.

Her lifestyle looked far from pleasant, and she was certainly not milking the system and living the high life off our sweat and tax, so how the hell has she ended up in that situation? She's probably got no real education, and her only skill is attracting scumbags that get her pregnant then fuck off, but how the hell did she end up living in poverty with 6 kids?

it's mighty un-PC, but there has to be a case for compulsory sterilisation there.

[steve_t]

getting back to benefits, did anyone see the woman in TV the other night? I think it was TV3's article about Labour offering to pay WFF to beneficiaries. She had 6 kids and was living a pretty austere life on the DPB in a state house. But I couldn't help but notice that of the kids several were preschoolers.

So the question has to be asked, how many of those kids have the same father? And how long has she been on the DPB?

I would hazard a guess there are multiple fathers and she has been on the DPB for a fair old while - she certainly didn't come across as a particularly employable prospect and the uncharitable would call her thick.

Her lifestyle looked far from pleasant, and she was certainly not milking the system and living the high life off our sweat and tax, so how the hell has she ended up in that situation? She's probably got no real education, and her only skill is attracting scumbags that get her pregnant then fuck off, but how the hell did she end up living in poverty with 6 kids?

it's mighty un-PC, but there has to be a case for compulsory sterilisation there.

$550 a week in the hand wasn't it? And Labour are looking to give her more money.

You don't even need compulsory sterilisation. Offer $5000 to women to get sterilised - it'd save a shitload of money in the long term and that way they still have freedom of choice.

[shrub]

$550 a week in the hand wasn't it? And Labour are looking to give her more money.

You don't even need compulsory sterilisation. Offer $5000 to women to get sterilised - it'd save a shitload of money in the long term and that way they still have freedom of choice.

no, $560.00. She is probably doing it pretty hard, even on that amount. The problem is not how much she is getting but that she has got in that situation in the first place.

[mashman]

getting back to benefits, did anyone see the woman in TV the other night? I think it was TV3's article about Labour offering to pay WFF to beneficiaries. She had 6 kids and was living a pretty austere life on the DPB in a state house. But I couldn't help but notice that of the kids several were preschoolers.


I thought they said she had a fella that couldn't get work, wasn't paying too much attention, too busy grumbling to my wife about how she'll be "forced" into "work" should the Nats get their way. Not just baggin the Nats, but they're the ones who seem to be the more happy to ignore these kinds of people and that looks to be supported by the figures in rainman's post. Pretty much everything that's dropping looks training related. But why train them when you're going to "force" them into work that they won't do because they're too qualified.

[oneofsix]

I thought they said she had a fella that couldn't get work, wasn't paying too much attention, too busy grumbling to my wife about how she'll be "forced" into "work" should the Nats get their way. Not just baggin the Nats, but they're the ones who seem to be the more happy to ignore these kinds of people and that looks to be supported by the figures in rainman's post. Pretty much everything that's dropping looks training related. But why train them when you're going to "force" them into work that they won't do because they're too qualified.

how do you force them into jobs that don't exist? If her fella can't get work how is she meant to? All it does is add stress and more misery to their pitiful existence.

[avgas]

Yeah ?? Not if you had been on the recieving end of such an attack by the tax vultures ... took five years - yeah count them .. FIVE years before IRD would accept that the trust had not been set up to dodge tax - but to use the assests to pay for the education of the next generation !!!!
That sucks man. I had similar issues with what used to be called Studylink.

See the problem was you let IRD know about it.
I have met plenty of people whom evade tax. Contrary to what most people think, its pretty common, and the commissioner does f-all about it.
Because he does not know.
Because they don't declare it to the IRD.
Because they are EVADING TAX :weird:

[mashman]

how do you force them into jobs that don't exist? If her fella can't get work how is she meant to? All it does is add stress and more misery to their pitiful existence.

I totally agree... but that doesn't matter, she shouldn't have had them if she couldn't afford them... apparantly

[avgas]

how do you force them into jobs that don't exist? If her fella can't get work how is she meant to? All it does is add stress and more misery to their pitiful existence.
Nah she can work. She is even overqualified.
Safe for work so you can click

(http://www.labnol.org/india/interesting/infertility-surrogate-mothers-india/2040/)

[shrub]

how do you force them into jobs that don't exist? If her fella can't get work how is she meant to? All it does is add stress and more misery to their pitiful existence.

There's a huge problem with the whole idea of "getting people back into work". You may well be entirely capable of returning to work, but what if you can't get a job because every time you apply you find that there are 350 other applicants, and amongst those applicants are 340 that have recent work experience, or are better qualified, or even just interview better? Or what if they're in their 50s?

Maybe the state puts said beneficiary through extra training and coaches on interview skills etc - nice idea, but what about everyone else applying? Suddenly they are at a disadvantage because they're not on a benefit. or what if they haven't worked for 5 or 10 years and the position needs someone with recent industry experience?

Do you just look the person in the face and say "tough shit mate, you're on your own, get a job flipping burgers", but when was the last time you saw anyone aged over 20 doing that? Most of the kids working in those kinds of jobs are casual and part time. Could you bring a family up on 20 hours a week at minimum wage?

It's a great idea, and will have the National supporters nodding sagely and agreeing how well it will work over their Chardonnays, but is pretty well impossible to implement and as you say, will add misery to a lot of people's lives.

[scumdog]

I totally agree... but that doesn't matter, she shouldn't have had them if she couldn't afford them... apparantly


Too true.

Those that earn the least seem to breed the most.

And expect everybody else to support them in their chose lifestyle...:pinch:

[SMOKEU]

It's her fault for getting herself into that situation in the first place. I can understand how someone may get accidentally pregnant and end up with 1 kid, but 6?! People should not be allowed to breed unless they can prove they have the income to support themself, and the child they plan on raising.

[mashman]

It's her fault for getting herself into that situation in the first place. I can understand how someone may get accidentally pregnant and end up with 1 kid, but 6?! People should not be allowed to breed unless they can prove they have the income to support themself, and the child they plan on raising.

and what if, after undergoing and passing the smokeu sok you can have more kids test, a year later he leaves/loses his job and the money just isn't there. What does the single mum do for money then? apart from stripping that is

[MIXONE]

and what if, after undergoing and passing the smokeu sok you can have more kids test, a year later he leaves/loses his job and the money just isn't there. What does the single mum do for money then? apart from stripping that is

Prostitution.Afetr all it is the world's oldest profession...

[Ocean1]

It's a great idea, and will have the National supporters nodding sagely and agreeing how well it will work over their Chardonnays, but is pretty well impossible to implement and as you say, will add misery to a lot of people's lives.

Dude, without the benefit of the benefit they'd be too dead to be miserable.

Me, I'd take miserable. It's the natural condition after all.

[SMOKEU]

and what if, after undergoing and passing the smokeu sok you can have more kids test, a year later he leaves/loses his job and the money just isn't there. What does the single mum do for money then? apart from stripping that is

Then it's a different story. I just don't see why taxpayers should have to fund a career choice in breeding like a rabbit for those who choose to do so.

[FJRider]

Too true.

Those that earn the least seem to breed the most.

And expect everybody else to support them in their chose lifestyle...:pinch:

It's ok ....Labour have declared they wil give more money to those on the benefit ... so the kids dont go hungry anymore ... :yes:

I'm sure that will work ... :innocent:

[steve_t]

I LOL'd at Phil Goff pledging to focus on the really important issues and then announcing Labour's Broadcasting Policy which will fix the urgent matter of television advertising being louder than the programming :facepalm:

How much more is Labour going to give to the average beneficiary?

[FJRider]

How much more is Labour going to give to the average beneficiary?

They haven't said ...

But if they put the price of smokes and booze up (more tax income) WHAT WILL CHANGE ...

I'm guessing nothing ...

[Swoop]

$550 a week in the hand wasn't it? And Labour are looking to give her more money.
Remember, the article said that was AFTER the rent had been deducted.

[mashman]

Prostitution.Afetr all it is the world's oldest profession...

heh, I guess's easier than the 2nd oldest, nursing... certainly more guarantee of a job.


Then it's a different story. I just don't see why taxpayers should have to fund a career choice in breeding like a rabbit for those who choose to do so.

I'm with you on the breeding for breedings sake, have a chat with the catholic church :shutup:... but it's either all out survival of the fittest or benefits and I kinda prefer the less messy version, coz I iz a soft shite.


How much more is Labour going to give to the average beneficiary?

an extra 60 dollarinos according t telly last night

[FJRider]

an extra 60 dollarinos according t telly last night

How many packets of fag's is that ... after the pokies get THEIR cut ...

[Banditbandit]

Jeez .. I dunno - most of you focus on the parents - but you forget the kids involved ...

In the OECD we rank 29 out of 30 for child health and safety ... just ahead of Turkey and behind Mexico ...

Go here and scroll down to the first table. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/4/43570328.pdf


We don't rank very well on many of these areas ... our top ranking is 13th !!!!!! and that is a good indication of child poverty. This is the problem that needs to be looked ... Children growing up in Poverty

I'm appalled at some of these rankings .. in this country we produce food - and yet children are hungry every day .... we are happy for people to spend millions of dollars building themselves homes ... alongside people living in poverty - Every million dollar house would pay for four average homes for ordinary people ... No, I'm not jealous ... but the New Zealand I grew up in valued security and comfort for all .. this country now values wealth - but that can only be for a few ...

And if we do not do something about it then we are consigning the current generation of children to the same trap ... How do you think attacking that woman with six children and chopping the income to that family will help the children? Your own children and grandchildren will inherit a country which includes those six children and thousands more like them ... they will have grown up in poverty with poor educational outcomes, poor health outcomes, and all the issues will remain ... and possibly be worse - what a future to leave for your children and grandchildren

So what are YOU going to do about that to make sure the problem has not escalated for your own children and grandchildren?

Unemployment has increased (increasing child poverty) .. food prices have gone up (increasing child poverty) ... People can't afford to take children to the doctors ... parents can't afford to buy books for their children to improve their reading ...

So, Yes, I agree there are some irresponsible people out there who get pregnant when they can't afford to raise children ... I agree there are a few (very few) women who get pregnant to get a grerater income, I agree there are people who see unemployment as a career choice (I've met people in all those areas .. but bugger all ) .. when was the last time you rightwing beneficiary bashers actually met any of the peopel you attack??

BUT it's not the children's fault ... So, how do you plan to improve the lot of the children so they get the best start they can in life and don't continue the problems for your children's future and your grandchildren's future ???? You don't want to give more money to the parents ... you should not want to take the children away from their parents (housing and feeding them in homes is more expensive and may have other undesirable effects ...)

Any actual workable suggestions anyone???

[shrub]

Jeez .... Any actual workable suggestions anyone???

Thank you for a well worded reality check.

I think New Zealand has lost it's standing economically and socially because New Zealand has lost it's way. It started when Muldoon tried to introduce some bizarre economic policies 40 years ago and when Douglas and Lange took over they didn't put us back on the right path, they took us down an even worse path. We tried to be something we could never be, and now we are not only lost, we don't even know who we are, what we are or where we want to be.

We are no longer a proud, independent and egalitarian people that believe in justice, fair play and looking after the little guy. We are no longer a gutsy, determined and innovative nation that knows how to overcome challenges by using our brains and whatever is at hand. We are no longer a people who have the courage to own our problems and find our own solutions.

We blame the poor for not only being poor, but for stopping us being richer than we already are - that woman with the 6 kids - it's her fault I didn't get a tax cut, and because I didn't get a tax cut I can't afford a 5 bedroom house or a new Mercedes SUV. I expect her to improve herself and her situation by gaining skills and finding work, and I think it's entirely fair that if she does get part time work she has her DPB cut at a dollar for dollar rate, but I don't see why I should work any harder or earn more money without a tax cut.

We blame the children of the poor for failing at school and not becoming forex traders like John Key, we blame the poor for stealing the possessions we flaunt and we blame the poor for hiding from their problems with alcohol and drugs.

The reason we are so keen to blame the poor for so much is because they are not us. If we blame them it means the problem isn't ours and we don't have to do anything. We can agree over a glass of Otago Pinot Noir that it's time the government "took a tough stance on beneficiaries" and because the poor (especially those brown poor) are not us, they can be dealt with without impacting on our lifestyles in the slightest.

Only problem is "they" are us. "They" won't go away no matter how "tough" Pavlova Bennett is or even how much WFF Phil Goff offers. The only way to get rid of "them" is to make them into "us". It means we need to find ways to get more people working like "us", including reintroducing things like the MOW. Or maybe we need to provide extra resources for the poorer schools, and even provide food, so their kids leave school equal to our kids. It mean some of us go from having far more than we need to just more than we need. We might have to engage with "them" so they can learn the skills and develop the attitudes that give "us" what we have.

As long as "they" are the problem, and as long as we expect the government to "do something about it" things will get steadily worse, and that means all of us but a very small minority will be worse off. It means one day we will be "them".

[mashman]

a wiff of reality

Any actual workable suggestions anyone???

cannae gee ya mer bling etc...

Yes there is a workable alternative! Make the local NZ economy free. Like it or not, tis the only way every single last mutherfuckin one of ya is going to get what you "want" for your fellow country folk and the only way, given our location and position in regards to our neighbours, every body neeeds good neighb..., that every NZ'er can get a fair go. No amount of money will change the way we live, so lets use no amount of money :)

Til then, this way of life will keep on growing (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/11501626/budgeting-services-overwhelmed-as-working-families-seek-help/#)

[Winston001]

Guys - very few New Zealanders rich or poor would say "tough luck" to children living in poverty. We live in a well-off generous society which provides a social safety net for people in straightened circumstances. There is money and there is help.

The problem is the adults, the parents who are supposed to care for their children. Some of them simply don't do it. I recently heard of a school where some 5yr old new entrants can't speak, because nobody at home speaks to them. I was involved with a situation some years ago where CYPS intervened to prevent children being in a home with a child molester. The entire family put up a brick wall, denied there was a risk from the guy, and refused to cooperate.

These dysfunctional families are not rare.

There is no point blaming politicians or "the rich" - thats shallow and off target. What we need is direct and massive state intervention in families to protect the children and educate the adults. Sadly no government will do that.

There is another remedy - the Australians tried it for a little over 100 years, and are now facing decades of backlash. Its called The Stolen Generations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

[avgas]

Any actual workable suggestions anyone???
Army, Navy, Airforce and MOW

Plenty of parents in the first 3 already. Why not get more. The 4 just needs to be jump started

[avgas]

in this country we produce food - and yet children are hungry every day
I have often wondered why we have FONTERRA but we no longer have milk in schools.
Where's the love gone?

[steve_t]

Guys - very few New Zealanders rich or poor would say "tough luck" to children living in poverty. We live in a well-off generous society which provides a social safety net for people in straightened circumstances. There is money and there is help.

The problem is the adults, the parents who are supposed to care for their children. Some of them simply don't do it. I recently heard of a school where some 5yr old new entrants can't speak, because nobody at home speaks to them. I was involved with a situation some years ago where CYPS intervened to prevent children being in a home with a child molester. The entire family put up a brick wall, denied there was a risk from the guy, and refused to cooperate.

These dysfunctional families are not rare.

There is no point blaming politicians or "the rich" - thats shallow and off target. What we need is direct and massive state intervention in families to protect the children and educate the adults. Sadly no government will do that.


Well said! :yes:

[Banditbandit]

Guys - very few New Zealanders rich or poor would say "tough luck" to children living in poverty. We live in a well-off generous society which provides a social safety net for people in straightened circumstances. There is money and there is help.

Don't disgree .. just get annoyed with people who want to reduce benefits ...


The problem is the adults, the parents who are supposed to care for their children. Some of them simply don't do it. I recently heard of a school where some 5yr old new entrants can't speak, because nobody at home speaks to them. I was involved with a situation some years ago where CYPS intervened to prevent children being in a home with a child molester. The entire family put up a brick wall, denied there was a risk from the guy, and refused to cooperate.

Don't disagree - the children are not the problem - it's often the parents who are ...


These dysfunctional families are not rare.

Unfortunately no .. and they produce disfunctional children


There is no point blaming politicians or "the rich" - thats shallow and off target. What we need is direct and massive state intervention in families to protect the children and educate the adults. Sadly no government will do that.

Not blaming the rich either - except when they avoid their social responsibilites of paying tax - or demand social welfare cuts so their taxes can be reduced ... but HOW do you intervene in familes ... without creating another stolen generation?


There is another remedy - the Australians tried it for a little over 100 years, and are now facing decades of backlash. Its called The Stolen Generations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Yes .. which is why I said taking children away from these families is not the answer ...

[steve_t]

This is interesting - even Labour and Greens voters agree with it

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5935120/Nationals-welfare-plans-popular

[rainman]

Only problem is "they" are us. "They" won't go away no matter how "tough" Pavlova Bennett is or even how much WFF Phil Goff offers. The only way to get rid of "them" is to make them into "us". It means we need to find ways to get more people working like "us", including reintroducing things like the MOW. Or maybe we need to provide extra resources for the poorer schools, and even provide food, so their kids leave school equal to our kids. It mean some of us go from having far more than we need to just more than we need. We might have to engage with "them" so they can learn the skills and develop the attitudes that give "us" what we have.

That is beyond even your usual level of excellence. Well put.


Guys - very few New Zealanders rich or poor would say "tough luck" to children living in poverty. We live in a well-off generous society which provides a social safety net for people in straightened circumstances. There is money and there is help.

I'm convinced you're on Prozac. Or live in a parallel NZ universe to the one I inhabit. :)

[mashman]

Guys - very few New Zealanders rich or poor would say "tough luck" to children living in poverty. We live in a well-off generous society which provides a social safety net for people in straightened circumstances. There is money and there is help.

The problem is the adults, the parents who are supposed to care for their children. Some of them simply don't do it. I recently heard of a school where some 5yr old new entrants can't speak, because nobody at home speaks to them. I was involved with a situation some years ago where CYPS intervened to prevent children being in a home with a child molester. The entire family put up a brick wall, denied there was a risk from the guy, and refused to cooperate.

These dysfunctional families are not rare.

There is no point blaming politicians or "the rich" - thats shallow and off target. What we need is direct and massive state intervention in families to protect the children and educate the adults. Sadly no government will do that.


Sorry, but if there are children in poverty "tough luck" IS exactly what the majority are saying, or the minority are perpetuating on behalf of the majority, otherwise there would be no child poverty. I fail to see how that can be construed as anything other than that. Child poverty is nothing new and only seems to be getting worse. The social safety net is not enough if it does not grow in line with the cost of living, let alone losing access to "services" due to departmental cuts. The money and help then become less value and less value for a growing population that is increasingly struggling to "make it".

The problem isn't the adults, not wholly and not in the majority of cases either. As you have mentioned yourself, 50% of the population have access to 10% of the "wealth". I have a sneaking suspicion that that adds all sorts of problems to poor households, especially if both parents have to work to cover the childcare bills, spending less and less time with their children as they put in more and more hours to keep up with the cost of living. I agree that there will be a minority of parents that don't parent, but that has always been the case and those dysfunctional families appear across the wealth spectrum and seem to have more grave consequences given the amount of $$$ available to the family, stresse, pressure etc...

There is every reason to blame politicians. They make policy and apportion the $$$ available for the care of uncared for children and financially strapped families. They're failing and failing consistently. I care not about the rich unless, as Bb points out, they're dodging their social financial responsibilities. There's nothing shallow or off target about either of those statements in my eyes, just a pure unadulterated truth! What we need is a way to beat "the system", not move A to B, rename B to C and promote C as the next step in going forwards, when it's the complete opposite. Our representatives do not address the issues, they change their names and shift the $$$ around, always have and always will, which gives us more of the same until the dial on the twister board changes colour and the blame can be shifted. EPIC!

We're not trying hard enough by any stretch of the imagination, but that seems to be accepted because there are country's worse off than ourselves? Nothing like resting on ones laurels eh. I'm sorry, we are not a well-off generous society at all, rather a bunch of ignorants that happily turn the other cheek because it's someone elses problem.

[scumdog]

Don't disagree - the children are not the problem - it's often the parents who are ...unfortunately they produce disfunctional children who continue the cycle of same behaviour..with even more kids..
...

Completed the story for ya!:niceone:

[Banditbandit]

Completed the story for ya!:niceone:

Look I don't disagree with that .. SOME of them produce dysfunctional children because that's just what they are themselves .. Many of them produce dysfunctional children because of the circumstances they find themselves in ...

We have to deal with both senarios otherwise, yes, the cycle continues ...

How do we break the cycle? (Serious suggestions - forced sterilization is not a serious answer ... even tho' I just might be slightly in favour of that myself ...)

[BoristheBiter]

. Many of them produce dysfunctional children because of the circumstances they find themselves in ...


Bollocks, That is plain and simply a cop out.
There is no one to pass the blame onto expect the parents. Dysfunctional people make dysfunctional family's regardless of where on the poverty scale they sit.

My family came from poverty that most of these fuckers would never know. try going to shops with no food in them.
I knew no matter how much money my folks had, I knew they loved me and would do anything for me, something I feel is sorely lacking in a lot of today's family's.

[Banditbandit]

Bollocks, That is plain and simply a cop out.
There is no one to pass the blame onto expect the parents. Dysfunctional people make dysfunctional family's regardless of where on the poverty scale they sit.

My family came from poverty that most of these fuckers would never know. try going to shops with no food in them.
I knew no matter how much money my folks had, I knew they loved me and would do anything for me, something I feel is sorely lacking in a lot of today's family's.

Yeah .. Naaaa ... I remember my parents arguing about whether they could afford to buy a loaf of bread .. when half a loaf was a farthing ... so don't pull that poverty shit on me ....

Yes dysfunctional people can produce disfunctional children no matter where they sit on the poverty scale .. If you read all of what I posted and not just slectively edited I did make that point .. maybe a little subtley for badass bikers ...

My point is that child poverty does have disasterous consequences for many children ... and what are we, as a society, going to do about that ... It's your generalization that looks like a cop-out to me ... How do we stop dysfunctional parents from producing dysfunction children ??? How do we break that cycle ???

[oneofsix]

Yeah .. Naaaa ... I remember my parents arguing about whether they could afford to buy a loaf of bread .. when half a loaf was a farthing ... so don't pull that poverty shit on me ....

Yes dysfunctional people can produce disfunctional children no matter where they sit on the poverty scale .. If you read all of what I posted and not just slectively edited I did make that point .. maybe a little subtley for badass bikers ...

My point is that child poverty does have disasterous consequences for many children ... and what are we, as a society, going to do about that ... It's your generalization that looks like a cop-out to me ... How do we stop dysfunctional parents from producing dysfunction children ??? How do we break that cycle ???

stopping dysfunctional parents from producing dysfunction children isn't easy. Stopping poverty from producing dysfunction children from what would have been otherwise good citizens is what we as a society should be, and used to be, concerned about.

[BoristheBiter]

Yeah .. Naaaa ... I remember my parents arguing about whether they could afford to buy a loaf of bread .. when half a loaf was a farthing ... so don't pull that poverty shit on me ....

Yes dysfunctional people can produce disfunctional children no matter where they sit on the poverty scale .. If you read all of what I posted and not just slectively edited I did make that point .. maybe a little subtley for badass bikers ...

My point is that child poverty does have disasterous consequences for many children ... and what are we, as a society, going to do about that ... It's your generalization that looks like a cop-out to me ... How do we stop dysfunctional parents from producing dysfunction children ??? How do we break that cycle ???

Yeah... Naaaaa...UUMMM...

Shoot them?

Here is an novel idea, why not hold the parents to account??

[RDJ]

Look I don't disagree with that .. SOME of them produce dysfunctional children because that's just what they are themselves .. Many of them produce dysfunctional children because of the circumstances they find themselves in ... How do we break the cycle? (Serious suggestions)

When we reward a particular style of behaviour, we get more of it. We reward those particular styles of behaviour. With cash, taken from working people.

There are genuine cases of serious poverty, but they are largely outnumbered by cases where poverty consists of having to buy fast food because they don't have enough money to buy slow food, yet "the house" has two or more televisions, Xboxs, PlayStations, and a couple of cars. Over the same time period, the cultural, ethnic and grievance industries have combined with fiscally reckless social worker-/lawyer-staffed parliaments has eliminated one of the fundamental constraints on antisocial behaviour, shame. Too many men are no longer ashamed to not support their families.

And yes, in the so-called bad old days many men and women had to stay in a bad marriage because they couldn't afford to divorce. But now that they can afford to divorce, and it is no longer shameful to do so, "we" are doing it more. Are we happier now we have that option?

[Banditbandit]

Yeah... Naaaaa...UUMMM...

Shoot them?

Here is an novel idea, why not hold the parents to account??

Not a novel idea .. a great idea ... How do we hold the parents to account in ways that make things better for their children???? Holding parents to account by cutting benefits makes it worse for the children ...


When we reward a particular style of behaviour, we get more of it. We reward those particular styles of behaviour. With cash, taken from working people.

The payments are support for themselves and their families ... they are not rewards for behaviour ... Yesw, if you phrase it that way then the way to change behaviour is to stop the rewards ... makes it worse for the children ...



There are genuine cases of serious poverty, but they are largely outnumbered by cases where poverty consists of having to buy fast food because they don't have enough money to buy slow food, yet "the house" has two or more televisions, Xboxs, PlayStations, and a couple of cars.

Don't disagree - except I'm not sure about exactly how many we are talking about in each category ... how do we change that?

And there's a good chance that the cars, tvs, Xboxes, Playstations are paid for from the black economy - I know a few families with luxuries paid for like that ...



Over the same time period, the cultural, ethnic and grievance industries have combined with fiscally reckless social worker-/lawyer-staffed parliaments has eliminated one of the fundamental constraints on antisocial behaviour, shame. Too many men are no longer ashamed to not support their families.

Yes .. there might be answer following this line here ... How do we get people to feel shame for not working and earning and supporting their families ??? Shame comes from peer responses .. and most of their peers are in the same situationas them .. but shame and public approbation seems to be lowering the drink-driving problem ... maybe we can move that into the social field we are talking about ...


And yes, in the so-called bad old days many men and women had to stay in a bad marriage because they couldn't afford to divorce. But now that they can afford to divorce, and it is no longer shameful to do so, "we" are doing it more. Are we happier now we have that option?

No - Look I don't disagree at all ... but what's the answer???? All I've heard so far is punative responses to parents by cutting benefits. How does that help the children? How will that make a better society for the next generations? For our children and grandchildren - I do not want them growing up in a world where their are violent, antisocial classes which do not want to work and spend all day playing pokies, smoking weed, breeding and abusing/killing children ...

I know all the problems and issues as well as you do - I've lived with these people, I teach these people in my classrooms (that's part of a solution) I've smoked weed with them in the past ... I'm looking for serious solutions ... we all know and can identify the problems ... What's the fucking answer .. apart from slashing benefits !!!

[oneofsix]

Yeah... Naaaaa...UUMMM...

Shoot them?

Here is an novel idea, why not hold the parents to account??

Why should the parents be made responsible for your bad attitude infecting their kids?

[BoristheBiter]

Why should the parents be made responsible for your bad attitude infecting their kids?

My bad attitude has nothing to do with how people raise their kids.

[Oblivion]

Why should the parents be made responsible for your bad attitude infecting their kids?

I would be inclined to agree here. I know some families where the parents are shit hot. Bloody good people, offer you a cuppa when you come round, come round with a box of beer every so often for no reason at all. But their children are some of the most arrogant shits you'll ever find. Its like money is an object without limit, with the me,me,me,me attitude. Not afraid to get down on their knees to get the 300$ phone that they don't need, but want since everyone else has one.

Its not always the parents fault for the shitty attitude that's affecting the youth.

Telling of a child does shit. It never worked for me or my siblings. Only when we got a bloody good whallop did we stop, Do it once, and you'll never want it again. (Or maybe it took a few :innocent: ) Too bad the Nanny state thinks otherwise. :facepalm:

[Banditbandit]

Telling off a child does shit. It never worked for me or my siblings. Only when we got a bloody good whallop did we stop, Do it once, and you'll never want it again. (Or maybe it took a few :innocent: ) Too bad the Nanny state thinks otherwise. :facepalm:

Yeah? getting thumped on a rergular basis (for things I did and for things I didn't do) only gave me a very strong anti-authoritarian streak which I carry to this day ... 37 years later .... and sent me into the 1%er circles witha Fuck the World attitude ...

Look .... No-one's given me an answer yet - all dodging ... does that mean no one can come up with a good answer?

[BoristheBiter]

Yeah? getting thumped on a rergular basis (for things I did and for things I didn't do) only gave me a very strong anti-authoritarian streak which I carry to this day ... 37 years later .... and sent me into the 1%er circles witha Fuck the World attitude ...

Look .... No-one's given me an answer yet - all dodging ... does that mean no one can come up with a good answer?

Yeah getting the cane or strap at school only reinforced the point of they had lost the argument.

There is no great answer as great parents can still have fuckwit kids, but I still stand by the saying "you reap what you sow".

But how to fix it, IMHO it is to late. We will have to have a reverse in the morel stand point of "I can do what I like and no one can stop me" society that we have today.
FFS the top NZ made program is about lowlife scum and everyone thinks its great, everyone goes on about SOA being another great show. Soprano's, breaking bad, are other such examples of this as well as some video games. we as a society have now made it normal to be bad for so long now it has become the norm so how can you expect the kids to be any better.

And as for slashing benefits, not saying that, I'm saying make them work for it.

[scissorhands]

The State or big brother is the parent to adults, start shootin'

Create round and square holes, triangular, whatever

Diversity in culture, rather than jamming pegs in the wrong holes

monocultures like wheat, diary, pine forests, social engineering.....create many problems that are unsustainable in the long term

Correct management of people will remedy welfare issues

Teach a man to fish.....

If smellyvision today quit dumbing down peeps... within 1 year a huge drop in benefits will occur, businesses would start up everywhere...

and their would be no one left to pump gas and dig holes and buy stupid shit:msn-wink:

I think those running the show call it: collateral damage

[mashman]

Look .... No-one's given me an answer yet - all dodging ... does that mean no one can come up with a good answer?

Wasn't mine a good enough answer :innocent:

[jonbuoy]

Sorry, but if there are children in poverty "tough luck" IS exactly what the majority are saying, or the minority are perpetuating on behalf of the majority, otherwise there would be no child poverty. I fail to see how that can be construed as anything other than that. Child poverty is nothing new and only seems to be getting worse. The social safety net is not enough if it does not grow in line with the cost of living, let alone losing access to "services" due to departmental cuts. The money and help then become less value and less value for a growing population that is increasingly struggling to "make it".

The problem isn't the adults, not wholly and not in the majority of cases either. As you have mentioned yourself, 50% of the population have access to 10% of the "wealth". I have a sneaking suspicion that that adds all sorts of problems to poor households, especially if both parents have to work to cover the childcare bills, spending less and less time with their children as they put in more and more hours to keep up with the cost of living. I agree that there will be a minority of parents that don't parent, but that has always been the case and those dysfunctional families appear across the wealth spectrum and seem to have more grave consequences given the amount of $$$ available to the family, stresse, pressure etc...

There is every reason to blame politicians. They make policy and apportion the $$$ available for the care of uncared for children and financially strapped families. They're failing and failing consistently. I care not about the rich unless, as Bb points out, they're dodging their social financial responsibilities. There's nothing shallow or off target about either of those statements in my eyes, just a pure unadulterated truth! What we need is a way to beat "the system", not move A to B, rename B to C and promote C as the next step in going forwards, when it's the complete opposite. Our representatives do not address the issues, they change their names and shift the $$$ around, always have and always will, which gives us more of the same until the dial on the twister board changes colour and the blame can be shifted. EPIC!

We're not trying hard enough by any stretch of the imagination, but that seems to be accepted because there are country's worse off than ourselves? Nothing like resting on ones laurels eh. I'm sorry, we are not a well-off generous society at all, rather a bunch of ignorants that happily turn the other cheek because it's someone elses problem.

Have you ever been to a real third world country? People will do anything to get into a western society and have the opportunity of a good education and welfare system like NZ has. If you can´t make it in NZ your not trying hard enough.

[mashman]

Have you ever been to a real third world country? People will do anything to get into a western society and have the opportunity of a good education and welfare system like NZ has. If you can´t make it in NZ your not trying hard enough.

Not a real third world country, no, but I've seen enough of people drinking water out of gutters, living in the cow shed (with the cattle) etc... post war to know I've seen enough and that indeed it can be worse than that. I have more than enough empathy and know exactly how lucky I am, I don't kid myself that on the face of it we're living in a garden of eden, but I know it could be much much better. And that's all the more of a reason that child poverty and homelessness, amongst other things, shouldn't exist in NZ, yet for some very well known reason that is the case. I'm not saying that certain people shirk their responsibilities, but that's at both ends of the scale and inbetween.

[Winston001]

Diversity in culture, rather than jamming pegs in the wrong holes

Correct management of people will remedy welfare issues

Teach a man to fish.....

Nah. We've had the cultural sensitivity thing and its rubbish. Pacific Island dads thump their kids - so we should let them? Some Moslems circumcise their daughters - thats their way, so its ok?

Children deserve care and protection, love and nurturing. Its basic and its simple. Other creatures do it but some humans fail at an entirely basic level. We cannot continue to just pretend and hope it will all get better.


If smellyvision today quit dumbing down peeps... within 1 year a huge drop in benefits will occur, businesses would start up everywhere...

and their would be no one left to pump gas and dig holes and buy stupid shit:msn-wink:

I think those running the show call it: collateral damage

Not picking on you, just sayin eh.. :D An educated population would still have people willing and able to dig holes but mostly they'd use machines. We don't send children down coal mines or up chimneys anymore, yet coal still gets mined and chimneys cleaned.

[Winston001]

Look .... No-one's given me an answer yet - all dodging ... does that mean no one can come up with a good answer?

Seriously? I actually believe we need ten thousand more social workers, properly educated and trained. Integration of data between police, doctors, schools, hospitals, and the Ministry of Justice (Courts, Probation, Prisons).

Wide powers to enter homes and remove children and/or parents. Powers to video pubs and pokie machines. Establishment of secure temporary homes for children assessed at risk.

The crucial most difficult element is finding enough intelligent, dedicated, and ethical social workers and foster parents to carry out the work.

[jonbuoy]

Seriously? I actually believe we need ten thousand more social workers, properly educated and trained. Integration of data between police, doctors, schools, hospitals, and the Ministry of Justice (Courts, Probation, Prisons).

Wide powers to enter homes and remove children and/or parents. Powers to video pubs and pokie machines. Establishment of secure temporary homes for children assessed at risk.

The crucial most difficult element is finding enough intelligent, dedicated, and ethical social workers and foster parents to carry out the work.

I think they need to make people:

1) Realise how well off they are by world standards

2) Quit whining and making excuses :baby:

3) Make the most of the excellent education, health and benefits they do get from birth.

Its only now I realise myself how spoilt I was to have the option of going to school for free everyday.

[mashman]

I think they need to make people:

1) Realise how well off they are by world standards

2) Quit whining and making excuses

3) Make the most of the excellent education, health and benefits they do get from birth.

Its only now I realise myself how spoilt I was to have the option of going to school for free everyday.

Make people? :shifty:

1) To what end? To making people stop discussing the world's inequities? i.e. roll over and play dead?

2) Aye, that's a one way street if ever I saw one.

3) I agree.

I to have taken an awful lot for granted... I hope I can pay it back someday.

[FJRider]

I think they need to make people:

1) Realise how well off they are by world standards

2) Quit whining and making excuses :baby:

3) Make the most of the excellent education, health and benefits they do get from birth.

Its only now I realise myself how spoilt I was to have the option of going to school for free everyday.

1: Only if compared to third world standards ... but current welfare policy allows for those on a benefit, to make the right choices with the funding they get. Sadly too few do ...

2: It CAN'T be their fault ... regardless of the problem ...

3: Hindsight is always a wonderful thing ...

It never ceases to amaze me how many say (people in their position) ... it can't be done. When SOME people (in their position) ... HAVE ...

Making the MOST of options given is the key ... (refer to 3: )

[jonbuoy]

Benefits could easily drag what we think of as first nations down into third world status. Even in Spain you have to pay for all school text books (they aren't cheap either), you can only claim unemployment for two years, after that your on your own.

[NinjaNanna]

Maybe we're thinking about this all wrong. Human society is working hell bent to eliminate all manual work, roboticising and automating as many processes as we possibly can in the name of efficiency.

In effect we are really just bitching that the poor people get the benefits of not working first (if you can call them benefits). Currently this issue is being ignored but eventually it will affect the vast majority.

[Winston001]

Maybe we're thinking about this all wrong. Human society is working hell bent to eliminate all manual work, roboticising and automating as many processes as we possibly can in the name of efficiency.

In effect we are really just bitching that the poor people get the benefits of not working first (if you can call them benefits). Currently this issue is being ignored but eventually it will affect the vast majority.

Thats a big big topic with no agreement. Here's a quick precis:


In pre-history humans did not spend all day every day working for food, clothing, and shelter. Humans were sparse and food was plentiful. As was death - 30 years was old age.
Agriculture dramatically changed things with villages developing and populations to burgeon



Civilisation slowly developed and the amount of time spent working expanded because the opportunities were greater
Even so, human populations didn't work 24/7. Food was stored for the winter months. People weren't wealthy but the powerful lords and kings ensured there was enough food and safety so their vassals and citizens could survive. A leader without people was a nobody.
Right through the Middle Ages until the 18th century, people worked busily in the spring, summer, and autumn, and rested in the winter.
Then the Industrial Revolution arrived. Suddenly full employment - even of young children, became normal.

And that's the legacy we have today. The assumption that everyone should have a job is very new...and probably wrong. Its a new and novel idea not borne out by history.

So - where to now? You'd expect 20 hour weeks and full employment but statistics suggest we work longer hours than our parents.

Som'its wrong...

[jonbuoy]

Thats a big big topic with no agreement. Here's a quick precis:


In pre-history humans did not spend all day every day working for food, clothing, and shelter. Humans were sparse and food was plentiful. As was death - 30 years was old age.
Agriculture dramatically changed things with villages developing and populations to burgeon



Civilisation slowly developed and the amount of time spent working expanded because the opportunities were greater
Even so, human populations didn't work 24/7. Food was stored for the winter months. People weren't wealthy but the powerful lords and kings ensured there was enough food and safety so their vassals and citizens could survive. A leader without people was a nobody.
Right through the Middle Ages until the 18th century, people worked busily in the spring, summer, and autumn, and rested in the winter.
Then the Industrial Revolution arrived. Suddenly full employment - even of young children, became normal.

And that's the legacy we have today. The assumption that everyone should have a job is very new...and probably wrong. Its a new and novel idea not borne out by history.

So - where to now? You'd expect 20 hour weeks and full employment but statistics suggest we work longer hours than our parents.

Som'its wrong...

Only wrong if you want to go back to being a hunter gatherer, patching yourself up as best you can after injuries/illness. Are you sure about some of those quotes, think someone has their rose tinted glasses on when it comes to pre historic and medieval history, did they forget about the great famines and plagues, unjust laws and taxes?? Most people on this forum have a bike, probably a car, a computer housing food internet access and enough spare time to be rambling online. We´ve never had it so good.

[Ocean1]

Yes, the price of every modern facility we have is the extra income needed to maintain it. If we indulge in too many expensive, short-sighted policies for too long and we could easilly be back to the stone age.

And while we're on the olden days... Social support was either non-existant or, at best reliant on the Chief's / Lord's largess. I'd hazard a guess there wouldn't have been too many dole bludgers.

[oneofsix]

Yes, the price of every modern facility we have is the extra income needed to maintain it. If we indulge in too many expensive, short-sighted policies for too long and we could easilly be back to the stone age.

And while we're on the olden days... Social support was either non-existant or, at best reliant on the Chief's / Lord's largess. I'd hazard a guess there wouldn't have been too many dole bludgers.

And we got out of the olden days be building social systems like benefits for the unfortunate. Why do you want to take us back to the bad old days?

[Ocean1]

And we got out of the olden days be building social systems like benefits for the unfortunate.

Incorrect. We are able to afford benefits for the unfortunate because mass produced manufacturing techniques, modern logistics and, increasingly microprocessor based organisational systems make the necessities of life so affordable that the productive workforce can afford that charity.


Why do you want to take us back to the bad old days?

I don’t. But handouts are a luxury only a wealthy society can afford. If enough people believe otherwise and vote in policies we can’t afford then the first thing that’ll happen is discretionary income will be squeezed as earners focus their dwindling resources on essentials. Guess what that does to funds available to charity?

Persist with policies that represent a disincentive for the productive to produce a surplus and we’ll be back to the bad old days in a generation. Less.

[Winston001]

Incorrect. We are able to afford benefits for the unfortunate because mass produced manufacturing techniques, modern logistics and, increasingly microprocessor based organisational systems make the necessities of life so affordable that the productive workforce can afford that charity.

But handouts are a luxury only a wealthy society can afford.

Persist with policies that represent a disincentive for the productive to produce a surplus and we’ll be back to the bad old days in a generation..

Exactly. 10+

[steve_t]

No benefits to those on drugs...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/policies/5969312/National-gets-tough-on-benefits

[mashman]

Incorrect. We are able to afford benefits for the unfortunate because mass produced manufacturing techniques, modern logistics and, increasingly microprocessor based organisational systems make the necessities of life so affordable that the productive workforce can afford that charity.

Oh the irony. We wouldn't need to put so much into the "charity" pot if the "advances" in business hadn't replaced the jobs that those people used to earn a living from. Hey ho.



I don’t. But handouts are a luxury only a wealthy society can afford. If enough people believe otherwise and vote in policies we can’t afford then the first thing that’ll happen is discretionary income will be squeezed as earners focus their dwindling resources on essentials. Guess what that does to funds available to charity?

Persist with policies that represent a disincentive for the productive to produce a surplus and we’ll be back to the bad old days in a generation

Isn't that happening at the moment? We pay the "same" amount of tax, it just doesn't go as far anymore.

Is that why people choose a "career" on the dole? No incentive :shifty:

[jonbuoy]

Oh the irony. We wouldn't need to put so much into the "charity" pot if the "advances" in business hadn't replaced the jobs that those people used to earn a living from. Hey ho.



Isn't that happening at the moment? We pay the "same" amount of tax, it just doesn't go as far anymore.

Is that why people choose a "career" on the dole? No incentive :shifty:

Benefits are supposed to be an emergency fund, not a career choice.

[Ocean1]

Oh the irony. We wouldn't need to put so much into the "charity" pot if the "advances" in business hadn't replaced the jobs that those people used to earn a living from.

So let's ask the poor unemployed if they'd rather pick cotton for their benefit cheque, or not...

Dude, you need to read some history books. Big thick ones without pictures. The industrial revolution was responsible for the single biggest improvement in our working lives ever, you REALLY don't want to wind the clock back past that point, trust me.



Isn't that happening at the moment? We pay the "same" amount of tax, it just doesn't go as far anymore.

Hard to say, sure feels like less of us are paying more but the effects of the recession distorts the picture.


Is that why people choose a "career" on the dole? No incentive :shifty:

Insufficient data. You'd have to offer them that job picking cotton to find out which ones felt incentivised and which ones didn't, eh?

[mashman]

Benefits are supposed to be an emergency fund, not a career choice.

Whilst I agree with you, I know shocker eh, there aren't enough jobs and haven't been for some time and where people don't want to work, yes don't want to, for little over what the benefits provide, there's hardly an incentive for them to not make a career out of living with next to no cash. Some people may well be happy living that way, enjoying the time over the money and I can't really blame them for that as I wish I had their time. There's also the need to control inflation, and I believe one of those measures is having a portion of your population on the dole...



So let's ask the poor unemployed if they'd rather pick cotton for their benefit cheque, or not...

Dude, you need to read some history books. Big thick ones without pictures. The industrial revolution was responsible for the single biggest improvement in our working lives ever, you REALLY don't want to wind the clock back past that point, trust me.

Hard to say, sure feels like less of us are paying more but the effects of the recession distorts the picture.

Insufficient data. You'd have to offer them that job picking cotton to find out which ones felt incentivised and which ones didn't, eh?

heh, they don't have to work at all and if they do it's likely cash in hand. I guess it comes down to how much they value their time and skills. Anyways, if there are jobs picking cotton, why would they be working for their benefit? Shouldn't they be getting paid a fair rate for a full days work?

I don't need to read any history books at all (honestly not interested more than anything). I fully, well as near as dammit, understand what's wrong with "our" present situation and don't need to read history books to find out where we went wrong. I'd rather start moving forwards as we certainly haven't learned from our mistakes (over simplified I know, but from my point of view, we really haven't). I'm sure that'll be construed as conceited, I care not, I'm right :rofl:. And I see absolutely no reason why the clock would be wound back. The technology is here, may as well use it to its fullest capability... or would you prefer constant almost pointless upgrades, wasting resources and limiting engineering (amongst other things) innovation bcause there isn't the budget available to do "something", or a constant need to produce the upgrades to keep the company in profit? I think we'd leap forwards rather than go backwards.

True, and the cost of living v's rate of wage increase cutting in on that discretionary income you refer to is always gonna be felt.

Aye, or do the management thing and find out what their motivation is :killingme

[BoristheBiter]

I just can't see where these non jobs are?

Trademe jobs 9000+
nz herald 2000+
seek 14000+

sure some are doubled up but then there are the local papers.
What I see is that most are just not qualified to do anything or are plainly unemployable (Yes I know I am generalizing).

Like has been said it is now a career choice and that's is the biggest problem. something for nothing.

[Swoop]

Incorrect. We are able to afford benefits for the unfortunate because mass produced manufacturing techniques, modern logistics and, increasingly microprocessor based organisational systems make the necessities of life so affordable that the productive workforce can afford that charity.
In 1860 there was a benevolent system that catered for those less fortunate, particularly the youth. This had nothing to do with modern manufacturing techniques but was part of the social structure.
This was in the earlier days of the city of Auckland, and included the princely sum of 200 pounds. Interestingly the churches were seen as the mechanism best suited to deal with the downtrodden and unfortunate, and not the government.

[mashman]

I just can't see where these non jobs are?

Trademe jobs 9000+
nz herald 2000+
seek 14000+

sure some are doubled up but then there are the local papers.
What I see is that most are just not qualified to do anything or are plainly unemployable (Yes I know I am generalizing).

Like has been said it is now a career choice and that's is the biggest problem. something for nothing.

150,000+ unemployed, dunno what the true unemployed figure is, but even at that, there's 1 job for every 5 unemployed on those numbers. Who knows if the skills aren't there, wether the employers are picky or wether the money is shit... perhaps those advertising could offer training to sweeten the deal (if they don't already)... but there just aren't enough jobs to go around and I don't see that changing for some unknown reason :innocent:.

Yeah, but it gives people something to bitch about and everyone, bar a few, seems to love a good bene bash. Perhaps those companies that make huge profits each year could generate a few more jobs?

[BoristheBiter]

150,000+ unemployed, dunno what the true unemployed figure is, but even at that, there's 1 job for every 5 unemployed on those numbers. Who knows if the skills aren't there, wether the employers are picky or wether the money is shit... perhaps those advertising could offer training to sweeten the deal (if they don't already)... but there just aren't enough jobs to go around and I don't see that changing for some unknown reason :innocent:.

Yeah, but it gives people something to bitch about and everyone, bar a few, seems to love a good bene bash. Perhaps those companies that make huge profits each year could generate a few more jobs?

I wish could but they all want shit loads of money to work, go figure.

[mashman]

I wish could but they all want shit loads of money to work, go figure.

you must be a tight bastard then :shifty:... bloody money eh, always in the way of getting the job done.

[BoristheBiter]

you must be a tight bastard then :shifty:... bloody money eh, always in the way of getting the job done.

well duh, I didn't get where I am today by giving my money away.

[mashman]

well duh, I didn't get where I am today by giving my money away.

heh, so it's all your fault

[BoristheBiter]

heh, so it's all your fault

Isn't it always?

[Ocean1]

In 1860 there was a benevolent system that catered for those less fortunate, particularly the youth. This had nothing to do with modern manufacturing techniques but was part of the social structure.
This was in the earlier days of the city of Auckland, and included the princely sum of 200 pounds. Interestingly the churches were seen as the mechanism best suited to deal with the downtrodden and unfortunate, and not the government.

200 Pounds? Per person/PA? At a time when there was no such thing as income tax? Interesting, there must have been, oh a dozen beneficiaries or more, comparatively wealthy ones at that.

But you're right insomuch that there’s always been charity. It’s built into us. The benefits due a 17th century serf were limited to throwing himself “on the parish”, from which he could expect a set portion of the collection plate, and whatever he could gather from the Lord’s waste, (“the common”) by way of firewood and building materials for his hovel.

In NZ last century, (edit: the one before) a widower otherwise unsupported (my grandmother, for one) was entitled to consideration for support from the Mayoral relief fund. It amounted to a bag of coal and a sack of spuds a couple of times a year.

It was the charity these societies could afford. Damage our society beyond an ability to subsidise modern housing and health systems (by constitutional right) and that’ll again be what we can afford.

[Swoop]

200 Pounds? Per person/PA?
Not quite. That amount was from "officialdom" to be used to aid many individuals.