That's it. Not voting for Nat

[Trudes]

Hmmm I agree it doesnt seem too much to ask to get them to work 15 hours a week after they are six, though I wonder why they are just picking on DPB? why not tackle dole as well.

They are. Unemployment beneficiaries that have been on it for more than a year and it was either the invalid's or sickness beneficiaries that will also have to be proved worthy. (I worded that badly, but I'm tired from working for my money)

[RiderInBlack]

My thought exactly. About time some people stopped thinking that having kids was a full time job. Parenting is a full-time job yes, but spitting another one out to a different fella every six years is not!

Not all solo parents have "choosen" on purpose ta have kids on their own. I know so many that have have their child to someone they thought they would be with for a long time only ta have life pull that plug out on them one way or another.

By the way, I a single 45yr old male that has not kids of my own (that is just the way life has gone for me), BUT I have so many friend that are solo parents and most of them are struggling ta get by. They do not need smart arses that have had better luck in life giving them a hard time about not pulling their weight. It will not help them and does not help their kids. Reward those that make the effort, but don't knock those that are just trying ta get by.

[Sanx]

Sounds like a bloody good idea to me, tempered only by the fact it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. I'm entirely in favour of cutting benefit to absolute subsistence levels provided in the form of food and children's clothing vouchers. There are way too many people who simply can't be arsed to go find themselves a job and are content to sit there claiming every benefit known to man. Once these people find their smokes and booze is no longer available and they have no cash at all, perhaps they'd go and find some work.

Good start National, but take it to its logical conclusion.

[davereid]

I can't even really see why we need "sit down money" benefits.

What we really need is guaranteed employment.

Got no job ? No income ?

Show up at the job centre at 8am. Get allocated a job that meets your ability. Go home at 5pm with money you earned.

Got a bad back ? No worries. Got a don't-bend-down job for you.

Got kids ? No worries, put them in the creche, like other working mums do. Maybe if you are good, you can get a job there.

[pete376403]

So where are all these 15 hour per week jobs come from? Is there a large pool of part time jobs crying out to be filled at present?

[Trudes]

Not all solo parents have "choosen" on purpose ta have kids on their own. I know so many that have have their child to someone they thought they would be with for a long time only ta have life pull that plug out on them one way or another.

By the way, I a single 45yr old male that has not kids of my own (that is just the way life has gone for me), BUT I have so many friend that are solo parents and most of them are struggling ta get by. They do not need smart arses that have had better luck in life giving them a hard time about not pulling their weight. It will not help them and does not help their kids. Reward those that make the effort, but don't knock those that are just trying ta get by.

Chill out. I completely agree that there are people that have had kids and the situation changes for them and they are left on their own to look after and provide for the children, however National are not proposing to cut the DPB entirely, merely once your oldest child is 6 you need to participate in paid employment. There are a lot of people that continue to have children to stay on the DPB and not get a job, having more and more children is not an employment option. And believe me, I know people who have done this and are still doing it!

[MSTRS:Me]

Sounds like a bloody good idea to me, tempered only by the fact it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. I'm entirely in favour of cutting benefit to absolute subsistence levels provided in the form of food and children's clothing vouchers. There are way too many people who simply can't be arsed to go find themselves a job and are content to sit there claiming every benefit known to man. Once these people find their smokes and booze is no longer available and they have no cash at all, perhaps they'd go and find some work.

Good start National, but take it to its logical conclusion.

Yep. Except those hardened bludgers (and we all know that there are entire family generations making a career that way) will just go out stealing etc.
The idea is good, you want to keep getting this or that benefit then you must be prepared to work x number of hours
The reality is that if no job happens, but the person is available for some (mythical?) job, then they will stay on their benefit at whatever level it always was. The important clause is 'must be able to work x number of hours if offered such work'...

[Naki Rat]

Not all solo parents have "choosen" on purpose ta have kids on their own............. .................... They do not need smart arses that have had better luck in life giving them a hard time about not pulling their weight. It will not help them and does not help their kids. Reward those that make the effort, but don't knock those that are just trying ta get by.

People don't just have kids by 'accident', it should be a conscious action with an awareness of its repercussions. Always consider the implications of being poked in fun being taken seriously.

"Better luck in life", is a crock in most cases, the harder you work the luckier you get. Genuine cases of bad fortune will be caught in a social safety net but the idea of the poor taxpayer having to support all in sundry is totally abhorent.

And it will help the 'paid to breed' brigade by forcing them to adopt an attitude adjustment that hopefully will be passed onto their offspring who will otherwise be raised in a house that considers sitting around as a normal way of life. Perhaps also getting in the way of the under the table jobs that beneficiaries all too often undertake as they rape the taxpayer from both ends simultaneously.

[Nasty]

Isn't it a labour policy that allows the taxpayers to support all parent with reduced childcare costs for 3 plus year olds for 20 hours a week ...

I have also known people on the DPB who have used the system to help them better themselves through training ... and that there is a HUGE benefit to them and society. They do say work OR study/training.

[Maha]

So where are all these 15 hour per week jobs come from? Is there a large pool of part time jobs crying out to be filled at present?

If someone cant find two days work per week then I beleive they dont deserve any handout/benefit/free coin, whatever you want to call it. Naturally, there are those that cant work (I am not talking about those people) but those that can?, theres work out there, most of it aint pretty, but its work.

When I left school, streight on the Dole. That was short lived, back then (late 70's) you had to accept a job offer or you lost the Dole for 26 weeks. I was put into a Parks and Reserve Gang.....cleaning creeks and pulling lake weed from the shores of Lake Rotorua. I didnt like it but I did it.

On the news tonight, a Farmer is having trouble by himself clearing debris from his fence's, needs extra hands, theres an opening for a few to get off their arse's and help a tax payer out. Who knows, it may even lead to a 'part time' job.

[Dave Lobster]

Surely they're not planning to 'force' people into work, merely take away their free money if they don't.

[DMNTD:Me]

They do not need smart arses that have had better luck in life giving them a hard time about not pulling their weight.

It will not help them and does not help their kids. Reward those that make the effort, but don't knock those that are just trying ta get by.

But so many are NOT pulling their weight Dougy.
Before I met her Miss Unit was a solo parent but still managed a full time professional job earning good money.

Kids NEED to see their parents "working" in some context of the word or they will simply think that it is "normal" not to.

I too have seen it all too much Dougy...FFS 15 hours per week?

[scracha]

Not all solo parents have "choosen" on purpose ta have kids on their own. I know so many that have have their child to someone they thought they would be with for a long time only ta have life pull that plug out on them one way or another.

Yep, people get made into solo parents for various reasons. Contrary to popular belief, most solo parents want to be out working and hate bludgers as much as the next person....it's the crazy benefits system that effectively penalizes them for working that needs sort out.

And as for deadbeat dads, make them pay for their kids. Don't pay for your kid to the best of your abilities, you don't get visitation and you get chemically castrated.

[MadDuck]

Well its about time a government made this call. There people out there working one and two jobs just to feed the kids but get such minimal help.

Personally I prefer to help someone that is prepared to help themself. Bring on National i say ....

Problem is that means voting for Lockwood Smith for our local MP and that kind of sucks

[ambler]

Hmm... I think the 'x hours a week' requirement is missing the point. Why the need to confiscate peoples time like that?
What if the requirement was to earn the equivalent of 15 hours at minimum wage per week. In most cases this would provide incentive to find a job with a better earn/time ratio, instead of just 'doing the time'.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if this is actually how the policy is intended...
Taking it one step further, the more the person earns you could increase the DPB given at the same rate (to some limit obviously). This would provide a whole lot more incentive. As long as you kept the DPB increase less than the income tax earned, it wouldn't cost anything either.