She's a bit of a heifer - But I think I love Paula Bennett

[scumdog]

Sounds very communistic to me. Work or have food stamps etc... if the distribution of wealth was even (ha ha ha ha) then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not... the poor tread water whilst the rich get richer (their money earns interest)... How can you force someone into a job, let's say a bin person, and then pay them a pittance... now pit that against say a politician... there are huge differences in salary... can someone explain to me why the salary's are different, because I'm still looki9ng for someone to answer that particular question for me... who's more valuable to the community and that's the people community, not the business community?

It's the way of the world.

Why can Rossi ride like he does?
Whereas I am condemned to forever ride like a nana?

[mashman]

It's the way of the world.

Why can Rossi ride like he does?
Whereas I am condemned to forever ride like a nana?

I agree. But why do we allow the govt to perpetuate that way (of the world)? there are alternatives...

[avgas]

Aaaahhhh....good old Bennie bashing

lets just say its very hard to point out flaws when there aren't any

[Skyryder]

lets just say its very hard to point out flaws when there aren't any

Riseing unemplyment........................good enough.

Skyryder

[Tank]

Riseing unemplyment........................good enough.

Skyryder

and there in-lies the issue.

As long as they are trying (properly) to get jobs then there wont be an issue. The only ones that WILL have a problem are the ones not willing (or wanting) to try.

So this really only encourages people to look and only punishes those who do not. And remember - its part of the requirements that people DO look and make themselves available for work - all they are really doing is making sure that the bene fulfills their commitments also. (not talking DPB changes there obv)

So where is the issue again?

Or do you think it should all be based on a honesty scheme?

[rainman]

As long as they are trying (properly) to get jobs then there wont be an issue. The only ones that WILL have a problem are the ones not willing (or wanting) to try.

Bollocks.

I am actively looking for work on an ongoing basis - I'm happy to take perm employment, contract employment, I'm GST registered so can do outcomes-based bill for results arrangements, whatever. Mr Labour Force Flexibility, that's me. (Can't do any heavy physical jobs as my back is buggered, but apart from that I'm good to go). My wife is also not permanently employed. I'm not on a benefit, although very nearly was, but then we both got short term contracts. Mine for about 3 weeks effort over 2 months, hers more full time for 8 weeks, but on a lower rate. We have both continued looking for other work. Properly, that is: we present well, are articulate, skilled, professional, good references, and can take full time work - don't have to do part-time (although can if it's available), etc. We've applied for heaps of roles.

There is not a lot out there, owing to the collapse of global capitalism, in case you hadn't noticed.

Where do fools like you and your babe Paula think more marginal candidates (ex-druggies, no refs, long term bennies, big health problems, and the like) will get jobs from in today's market? Go on, I'm sure you have a good answer...

[riffer]

Bollocks.

I am actively looking for work on an ongoing basis - I'm happy to take perm employment, contract employment, I'm GST registered so can do outcomes-based bill for results arrangements, whatever. Mr Labour Force Flexibility, that's me. (Can't do any heavy physical jobs as my back is buggered, but apart from that I'm good to go). My wife is also not permanently employed. I'm not on a benefit, although very nearly was, but then we both got short term contracts. Mine for about 3 weeks effort over 2 months, hers more full time for 8 weeks, but on a lower rate. We have both continued looking for other work. Properly, that is: we present well, are articulate, skilled, professional, good references, and can take full time work - don't have to do part-time (although can if it's available), etc. We've applied for heaps of roles.

There is not a lot out there, owing to the collapse of global capitalism, in case you hadn't noticed.

Where do fools like you and your babe Paula think more marginal candidates (ex-druggies, no refs, long term bennies, big health problems, and the like) will get jobs from in today's market? Go on, I'm sure you have a good answer...

I'm not sure.... maybe they're hoping a number of them will suicide. With the changes to ACC regarding payments in the event of suicide, it could be a pretty cheap option for the government.

[Tank]

Bollocks.

I am actively looking for work on an ongoing basis - I'm happy to take perm employment, contract employment, I'm GST registered so can do outcomes-based bill for results arrangements, whatever. Mr Labour Force Flexibility, that's me.

So no problems with the changes for you then. You can easily show that you have been looking for work. So - you wont be having any difficulty keeping benefit etc.

Unless you have some strange aversion to proving what you are saying to WINZ. Im guessing you dont - but there are lots that do - and they are the fuckers that should be worried.

[Scorp]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10633815

The Government has announced it will toughen criteria for people to receive a benefit.

Prime Minister John Key announced today that the Government would try to encourage beneficiaries to work with making policy changes to start in October.

Yeah, that looks like a really good financial deal for the taxpayer doesn't it. According to the article you linked, this will cost the taxpayer $88 million, and will save us all... about $10 million a year. Woo-hoo!

Meanwhile... the country is losing over $300 million a year to tax defrauders.

I guess the moral of the story is: it's okay for taxpaying workers to cheat other taxpayers out of $300 mill a year, but it's not okay for (a small minority of) taxpaying benes to cheat other taxpayers out of $10 mill a year.

Makes perfect financial and logical sense really.

[scumdog]

SOME people here thinks the country owes them......they have a right.....

[SPman]

To me, these are the real bastards... those that have $$$ to burn and still structure their affairs so that they get more from the govt... our more in fact... greedy greedy greedy fuckers... NO social conscience... granted some of the great unwashed are playing the system... but I would have a guess that they're trying to get more $$$ for food, booze etc... the simple, cheap pleasures in life... these wealthy cunts just want MORE money...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-sto...r-tax-english/

You talking about John and Paula's mates?

[Quasievil]

If you have money and have earnt it you are entitled to it and its bennifits, if you dont and dont work you deserve fuck all from anyone including the government.

If you have bad luck loose your job, sure get a welfare payment for 3 months then it STOPS !!
Have more than one kid, NO INCREASE in DPB


This National iinitiative is awesome, but Im sure it will be abolished if and when the Labour government gets back in, labour need to offer handouts to the needy and the lazy to get into power, always have and always will, they are blind to economic reality in favour of their own misguided socialist attitudes that have and no doubt will continue to keep this country over populated with lazy arse bludgers with an attitude.

Work and money makes the world go round, not bludgers and handouts

[rainman]

So no problems with the changes for you then. You can easily show that you have been looking for work. So - you wont be having any difficulty keeping benefit etc.

So that's a no to actually answering the question, then? (And, as I pointed out, I'm not on a benefit).

If you have bad luck loose your job, sure get a welfare payment for 3 months then it STOPS !!

And then what? Deal P from your back room to pay the mortgage? Rob little old ladies to feed the kids? Steal bread from the local supermarket?

It must be nice (in a way) to live in a cartoon world and have so little apprehension of reality.

[mashman]

If you have money and have earnt it you are entitled to it and its bennifits, if you dont and dont work you deserve fuck all from anyone including the government.

I find that argument hard to swallow when the government bail out banks, financial institutions and businesses... surely, using your logic, they should have gone to the wall... because life is life... but why didn't the govt let them fold?

[Scorp]

It's always interesting when these populist measures are introduced by governments (goes for both sides), that so few of the people they are trying to impress actually pause to think through the economic implications.

The fact is that zero (or even low) unemployment is very bad for free-market economies. If low unemployment comes about naturally and gradually, you end up with a seller’s market. Workers demand more and more money, causing rising wages, rising retail prices and spiraling inflation. The net result of which is that everyone suffers and nobody gains.

If benefits were scrapped altogether, and everyone currently claiming them instead got a job earning through work the money they are currently getting in handouts, they would suck $4.8 billion out of the wage market. Taxpayers would be saved $4.8 billion in tax revenue, but as wage earners, we’d all be collectively $4.8 billion worse off. Unless of course you expect people to work for next to nothing.

And if you do, the result of the above will be a sudden influx of 345,000 people into the job market who are prepared to work for peanuts. That would force the market price of labour down, meaning we’d all get paid less, eventually (market forces being what they are) to the tune of around $4.8 billion.

So whether we:

a). continue paying benefits to people who don’t/can’t work
b). force people off benefits and into equivalent paying jobs
c). force people off benefits and into crappy jobs
d). gradually build a zero/low unemployment economy

We’ll all still pay, and all still be, relatively speaking, in much the same boat.

a). is actually the most stable and sustainable route. That $4.8 billion is the price we have to pay for a healthy free-market economy. And John Key knows that. That’s why he’s put in place a measure that will simultaneously please his voters, cost relatively little, and substantively change less.