Welfare support for those who have some money saved?

**Maki** · 5th July 2012, 16:37

Consider 2 individuals.

Individual A has a wild lifestyle of partying and drug taking. He rents a room and whenever he manages to earn any money he immediately spends it. He generally has low income jobs and contributes minimal amounts in taxes. This individual is then for some reason unable to earn money (lost his job and cant find other suitable work, twisted his ankle, does not feel like working, etc.) He turns up at WINZ (I assume that is where you are supposed to turn up), says he is going through a rough patch and cant afford to pay food and rent. He is asked if he has any assets and the answer is no. WINZ, having checked to see that individual A is indeed penniless proceeds to put him on a welfare benefit.

Individual B has gained an education and worked alongside it to pay for the costs. He plans to start a family some day and saves money for a house and everything that goes with it. He works long hours of overtime and after a few years he has $50.000 in the bank. During this time he has contributed a large amount of money in taxes. He is then hit by a car while riding his pushbike and his injuries make him unable to work. He turns up at WINZ and tells them that he is going through a rough patch and needs an income. They ask him if he has any money and he tells them he has $50.000 in his bank account. They tell him sorry, he is not eligible for any support since he has saved money and contributed to society.

Now, I have some questions.

1. Is this the way it works in NZ in 2012 or have I got it wrong?

2. What should individual B do? Take a trip around the world, spend his savings and then claim a benefit when he returns? Take the money out of the bank and bury the cash in his garden? When asked what happened to it he can say he spent it on the pokies...

3. Is punishing those who save and contribute while rewarding those who do not fair?

4. Have I got it all wrong?

**scott411** · 5th July 2012, 16:44

Originally Posted by Maki

Consider 2 individuals.1. Is this the way it works in NZ in 2012 or have I got it wrong?

i think that is how it works, i know their is a standdown if you quit the job, but not if you were fired

2. What should individual B do? Take a trip around the world, spend his savings and then claim a benefit when he returns? Take the money out of the bank and bury the cash in his garden? When asked what happened to it he can say he spent it on the pokies...

he will get 80% of his income from an ACC payment, (after a one week standdown) if he can not do his own job ever again they will pay to retrain him,

3. Is punishing those who save and contribute while rewarding those who do not fair?

yes, but we punish everyone who works, and reward those who dont, and if you question it the Sue Bradfords of this country call you an evil capitalist bastard for suggesting people dont want to work, or look after themselves,

4. Have I got it all wrong?

not at all, but its sad that someone of its true,

10 char ...............

**FJRider** · 5th July 2012, 16:46

Perhaps ... individual B should have taken out health insurance. Then there would have been no need to apply for assistance.

**Maki** · 5th July 2012, 16:47

Originally Posted by FJRider

Perhaps ... individual B should have taken out health insurance. Then there would have been no need to apply for assistance.

That's very interesting. Then why did he pay an ACC levy and taxes?

**tigertim20** · 5th July 2012, 16:58

as scott mentioned, the second guy would get ACC payments in that situation. but that wasnt really your question.

Your question would have been better if person B had been let go due to redundancy. that being the case, I imagine that he probably wouldnt get the money, but there are two sides to this.
For one, yes its sucks that it seems he cant get assistance because he has done well, but at the same time, everyone whines about how much welfare costs us, so a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Welfare, in the most basic description, is designed to make sure that people who would otherwise go hungry dont die of starvation, or exposure living under a bridge (yes some abuse it,)
If you have 50k in the bank, you arent going to starve, you have a place to stay, so no, for that reason, I dont see why you should be entitled to welfare - its supposed to be there for the point of desperation.

**FJRider** · 5th July 2012, 16:59

Originally Posted by Maki

That's very interesting. Then why did he pay an ACC levy and taxes?

There is no indication in your first post as to what (or any) ACC levy he has paid. He was riding his pushbike after all.

Even those on a benefit pay tax. And as such ... have just as much right to say how their taxes should be spent as you or I. It is up to the Goverment how taxes are spent. As you have already stated ... WINZ do have strict criterea as to whom is entitled to Goverment assistance, those that dont need (different to want) it ... don't get it.

**Maki** · 5th July 2012, 17:04

Thanks for your contributions. I suppose that if, heaven forbid, I did need help and had money in the bank I would just spend it ASAP.

**FJRider** · 5th July 2012, 17:08

Originally Posted by Maki

Thanks for your contributions. I suppose that if, heaven forbid, I did need help and had money in the bank I would just spend it ASAP.

Tie it up in trust funds .... or hide it in your mattress ...

**Usarka** · 5th July 2012, 17:17

The benefit is supposed to be a safety net so that people can eat and live under a roof when they have no other options. Yes it gets abused but does that mean you should abuse it also?

It's moot anyway, ACC pays for accidents. If they're not paying then get a lawyer. Most likely they've told you to go to WINZ in the interim while they process your claim, and you have too much of a sense of entitlement to dip into your savings even if it is only temporary and will be back paid by ACC.

**jellywrestler** · 5th July 2012, 17:21

Originally Posted by Maki

He turns up at WINZ and tells them that he is going through a rough patch and needs an income. They ask him if he has any money and he tells them he has $50.000 in his bank account. They tell him sorry, he is not eligible for any support since he has saved money and contributed to society.

That last line would make a good story on Campbell Live, however I suspect it's not actually what they said...

**Motig** · 5th July 2012, 20:49

WINZ and ACC are two completely different depts, one helping if your unemployed the other if your injured in an accident. How ever dont let the facts get in the way of a good beneficiary bash- carry on..

**oneofsix** · 5th July 2012, 21:10

Originally Posted by mashman

I don't fear losing the money that I have (my wife does), but my understanding is that you spend what you have saved first (the bank certainly wants that to happen)... I would send my family overseas with all of the money so that my kids could at least get some form of start education wise. I will then start my career as a career beneficiary and when they remove my dole because of the grass I've grown and smoked, I'll turn to crime... not sure what crime yet, but it will be high risk and lucrative and every penny I make will go overseas to my family. If I end up in jail, meh! The real losers will be my kids and as fucked up as it sounds, they'd be better off somewhere else with money we have earned than they would be with me and being penniless. At the moment the plan is on the back burner, but if things don't change, could be 6 months from now, could be 6 years, then it will become a reality. I am prepared to do it. Yes my wife is aware of this plan and hates the thought of it (can;t say I;m too fussed either), so for now I'll be a good little working boy with my alternative opinions... until the govt force my hand or I get fed up with the bullshit of those with an entitlement complex that moan and bitch about those with an entitlement complex.

Fuck you very much

Sounds like a plan but the kids are a bit old, guess I could invest in their mortgages and send the Mrs off shore but don't think she would go.
A certain house in Hawaii tempts me but I'm sure I could find something closer to home.

Suggest the OP broadens their knowledge and speak to someone trying to get a start via but stuck with have to go to WINZ to survive. Totally missed the mandatory stand down and if he thinks that bad he should look at what happens to the old aged if they require long term care, they are generally too old to start a grow business, although they would most likely have the green thumb.

**mashman** · 5th July 2012, 21:21

Originally Posted by oneofsix

Sounds like a plan but the kids are a bit old, guess I could invest in their mortgages and send the Mrs off shore but don't think she would go.
A certain house in Hawaii tempts me but I'm sure I could find something closer to home.

Suggest the OP broadens their knowledge and speak to someone trying to get a start via but stuck with have to go to WINZ to survive. Totally missed the mandatory stand down and if he thinks that bad he should look at what happens to the old aged if they require long term care, they are generally too old to start a grow business, although they would most likely have the green thumb.

heh... aye, mine says she won't go without a fight either... how selfish is that!
I'll quite happily settle for a caravan again.

Oh I dunno, I reckon he gets it but likes to run with the crowd

**98tls** · 5th July 2012, 21:37

Originally Posted by tigertim20

as scott mentioned, the second guy would get ACC payments in that situation. but that wasnt really your question.

Your question would have been better if person B had been let go due to redundancy. that being the case, I imagine that he probably wouldnt get the money, but there are two sides to this.
For one, yes its sucks that it seems he cant get assistance because he has done well, but at the same time, everyone whines about how much welfare costs us, so a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Welfare, in the most basic description, is designed to make sure that people who would otherwise go hungry dont die of starvation, or exposure living under a bridge (yes some abuse it,)
If you have 50k in the bank, you arent going to starve, you have a place to stay, so no, for that reason, I dont see why you should be entitled to welfare - its supposed to be there for the point of desperation.

Define desperation?Saigon Sally turns up gets residency then sets about bringing over the family,cant afford to feed them so down the welfare she goes and bingo theres some $ for the pokies,if there old enough they can even get the fucking pension without ever having worked a day in there life here.Desperation my arse.The whole systems fucked,how many bludging Pacific Islanders

sorry how many suburbs in Auckland are there full of Islanders on the Welfare as theres no jobs available in there area?Answer is fucking plenty,any reason they cant move to somewhere there is work because theres plenty of work out there.To the thread starter i feel your pain,thank the succession of spineless govts.

**carburator** · 5th July 2012, 21:41

Not B.S.

hit a rough patch no work.
went to WINZ applied for the dole and did all the required items

Declared i had asset's and money in the bank ( well over the 50K of person B )
Not a problem said winz you get the basic package, just no accomodation suppliment and something else.

Now here's the kicker as the case manager told me Im to bloody honest as they DO NOT CHECK ACCOUNTS.
sure I did declare the interest off the account as earnings but still was less than the weekly threshold that
they start to deduct money...

I still got the dole and did not have to live off my life savings nor sell asset's
just had to atttend two courses and show every two weeks to my case manager i was actively seeking employment.