The Dim-Post

November 2, 2011

Eh

Filed under: policy — danylmc @ 6:31 am

My initial impression of National’s welfare reform policy is that it looks more like a routine department-level re-branding than an election policy from an incumbent government. The name of the DPB changes to the ‘Sole Parent Support’ benefit. The Invalids Benefit is now a ‘Supported Living Payment.’ Sickness beneficiaries go on the unemployment benefit, which is now the ‘Jobseeker Benefit’, but sickness beneficiaries still get exempted from job seeking while ill.

I like the financial incentives to encourage people back into work – but if you’re placing an expectation on solo parents to get back into the workforce, you really need to have a concrete child-care policy in place and National doesn’t – according to Bennett’s FactSheet they’re still working on it.

Some of the entries in the ‘Fact Sheet’ are bleakly funny due to the absence of any actual facts:

What medical evidence have you based the policy of putting work obligations on
sickness beneficiaries on?
Society’s expectations about work have changed. Not only can many sick and disabled
people contribute through employment, there is evidence that points to improvements in
health and wellbeing through taking up appropriate work.

It’ll be interested to see how many sickness beneficiaries transition to the Invalids Supported Living benefit.

Update: Rob Salmond at Pundit points out a huge inconsistency in National’s new benefits package:

Consider these two families:

Mary and Bob have been married for 16 years. Bob is the breadwinner, Mary stays at home. Mary becomes pregnant, and at the same time the marriage breaks down. Mary has few skills and has a tough time getting a job in this economic environment. She is initially on the unemployment benefit, but transfers to the DPB when her first child is born.

Jane and Jim have been married for 16 years, and have a 14 year old child. Jim is the breadwinner, Jane stays at home. Jane becomes pregnant again, and at the same time the marriage breaks down. Jane has few skills and has a tough time getting a job in this economic environment. She goes on the DPB, and remains on it when her second child is born.

Because of the new incentives scheme, Mary is eligible to receive the DPB without a work requirement for five years, while Jane is expected to find work after one year – even though their situations are basically identical.

About these ads

55 Comments »

  1. I think the “rebranding” is very important. There are quite a lot of people who view benefits as something society owes them, and weight up what they will get from the government (ie taxpayers) versus what they can get with their own efforts – the “is it worth it to work” attitude.

    Presbytarian Support Otago has just released a booklet called Wheels of Poverty. One quote from it:
    “WINZ said all I have to do is 20 hours a week to be better off than I am now, but I don’t want to be just better off, I want to have a wee bit more to make it worthwhile.”

    Comment from a job broker – “That’s what we are fighting all the time. It’s the attitude”.

    They don’t think “22 hours will give me that extra”, they compare what they get given to them versus the minimum ‘required’ of them, and many choose the ‘easy option’ of not working, which consigns them to a continued life of not getting anywhere.

    Comment by Pete George — November 2, 2011 @ 7:04 am

  2. you really need to have a concrete child-care policy in place

    As well as covering pre-school care, you will need much better provision of affordable and accessible after-school and school holiday care programmes. And you will need a concrete flexible work policy. And you will need lots of employers who can cope when their employees have to take leave to care for sick children.

    Also, you will need jobs. Not so many of those around at present…

    Comment by Deborah — November 2, 2011 @ 7:07 am

  3. I’ve been on the bones of my arse during my life, by some measures I would have grown up in poverty. And when my third daughter was three months old I worked days and my wife started working night duty. We did what we could, we didn’t rely on ideal jobs and support facilities and benefits being perfect.

    Comment by Pete George — November 2, 2011 @ 7:16 am

  4. This will make people feel like its their fault they are on a benefit shame. We should not try and help people off the benefit.

    Comment by fil — November 2, 2011 @ 7:19 am

  5. Good on you Pete George, Heroes like you deserve a medal. Where do you want me to stick it – up your arse is probably the best place, if i shove it up far enough it might even sparkle from the back of your throat when you talk.

    My parents grew up in abject poverty to. Real, grinding poverty – and yes, it was in New Zealand. The difference between them and you is the lesson they learnt is that the many and routine humiliations of being poor, the restricted choices and despair of poverty and the drudgery of low paid work isn’t a virtue that should be inflicted on others. I guess, from your response to the Occupy Dunedin movement, you are an authoritarian sociopath seeking peverse pleasure in controlling the lives of those who you perceive as your inferiors. I can proudly say my family has never behaved like that, despite poverty, despite everything.

    When i was made redundant I sure as hell saw the dole as something the state owed me. After paying lots of taxes for twenty years I told the lovely lady at WINZ I knew the social contract and it was time for some government largesse in my direction, and I also told her not to give me any bullshit about me getting it. I was in and out of the dole office in about an hour with a all entitlements.

    I had a job again within about six months, after I had a little time to get over losing being made redundant and sloth about enjoying not having the stress and pressure of my previous job.

    “…Presbytarian Support Otago has just released a booklet called Wheels of Poverty. One quote from it:
    “WINZ said all I have to do is 20 hours a week to be better off than I am now, but I don’t want to be just better off, I want to have a wee bit more to make it worthwhile.”

    Comment from a job broker – “That’s what we are fighting all the time. It’s the attitude”…”

    GOOD GOD!!! The impertinence of it all. Not wanting to work 20 hours a week for, well, effectively nothing?? Off to the work house for the likes of them! We’ll have no indolent poor clogging the up THIS country!

    Besides, Pete George, I am sure you will agree that the suffering is good for the soul, that toiling for hours at menial jobs for an un-livable wage (AND BE GRATEFUL FOR IT, YOU CUR!) whilst your children are factory farmed somewhere improves the moral being and the ritual humiliation of instrusive, judgemental and punitive state oversears is the only way for the savagery and animal wantoness of the underclass to be curbed, controlled and hopefully improved.

    Comment by Sanctuary — November 2, 2011 @ 7:48 am

  6. @Pete – the fact that there were two of you suggests you wouldn’t be eligible for the Sole Parent Benefit, perfect or not.

    Comment by danylmc — November 2, 2011 @ 7:52 am

  7. Top marks to National for learning about timing. After the premature ejaculation of the Orewa One Maori-bash, the timing of this latest cynical demonisation of the worst-off is impeccable – even down to a few jackboots held in reserve if needed over the next four weeks. Nice, Johnny. Mum would be proud.

    Comment by ak — November 2, 2011 @ 7:58 am

  8. Sanctuary, you highlight a major problem very well – with your attitude.

    Patting the povertarians on the head and throwing even more money at the ‘deserved’ is a futile approach, as has been proven over the last decades. A class war (as proposed by Occupy Dunedin) won’t solve anything. It’s a very complex issue with opposing forces of society pulling in all directions.

    Abuse and major mis-assumptions aren’t going to get us far, are they?

    Comment by Pete George — November 2, 2011 @ 8:12 am

  9. Jesus Christ, the sociopathic socialist lurks in shallow waters at the DimPost. I hope you aren’t employed by the State what with all the arsing around you do on the internet all day because you’d thieving off the workers if you were.

    Comment by fil — November 2, 2011 @ 8:15 am

  10. 63% of Stuff voters approve.

    Usual caveats about self-selecting samples apply, but plenty of New Zealanders like this nasty shit. They tend to be older, whiter, richer, and maler. The stereotypical young female Maori they imagine breeding for profit is their absolute antitheses. Nevermind that she hardly exists, and if she does she and her child definitely need the help.

    *Male, mal. I can’t tell.

    Comment by George D — November 2, 2011 @ 8:18 am

  11. Who the fuck reads Stuff? And more to the point, who the fuck comments on Stuff except the terminally bored and the rightly unheeded? Holy shit, it’s a repository for all that is crap about New Zealand, right from the pathetic pseudo-journalism (Meet the pollies’ WAGs!) down to the comments sections that reveal pretty much only the vapid, moronic, racist, xenophobic, mean-spirited side of New Zealand, with an occasional normal person that’s wandered in off the street and got hopelessly lost. Same fucktards, over and over again, posting the same mean-spirited, badly spelled, grammatically poor, uninformed bullshit over and over again.

    Stuff, of course, lap it the hell up, because those page refreshing wankers throw the pageviews and the ad revenue up, so they actively encourage it rather than attempting to fire up reasoned debate. God help us if you should actually try and display some reasoned intelligence up there, or if you should have an article that attempts to fire up some lonely, dumb, unused neurons in someone’s brain, because if the rampant anti-intellectualism in the editorial staff doesn’t fuck you over, then you’re sure as hell going to encounter a bucket full of spiteful bile when they open up comments on the article about your research pleading for a reasoned approach to a real problem.

    Sanctuary’s a welcome relief, even if he is a bit dumb sometimes. At least there’s someone in New Zealand who doesn’t want to be treated like shit for the sake of a bare minimum because you should be grateful for it, don’t you know how luck you are, stop complaining (sic), you just want everything handed to you on a plate, it’s tall poppy syndrome, MY TAXES, MY TAXES, MY TAXES, I work for other people to sit around and smoke drugs, John Key’s great, he’s one of the lads, I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH THINGS. GIVE ME MORE THINGS.

    What a bunch of self-serving, sanctimonious pricks. All of them.

    Oh, and just for some relevance, 70,000 more people on all benefits now since National took power. And the plan is to change the names of them and get people into jobs that aren’t there. How the fuck did they manage to propose that as a policy? Oh, that’s right. Stuff readers.

    Comment by Dizzy — November 2, 2011 @ 8:37 am

  12. What medical evidence have you based the policy of putting work obligations on sickness beneficiaries on?

    I think my brain popped a bleed just reading that tortuous syntax.

    As a former unemployment benefit recipient I like the idea of changing the focus of those receiving a benefit from ‘can’t work’ to ‘looking for work’, though I’m not fond of the idea of people losing half the benefit at their first stumble. It seems a too-blunt instrument to get the results that National want.

    Comment by Ataahua — November 2, 2011 @ 8:52 am

  13. What shifts people off benefits isn’t all that amenable to govt control. We had good times under Labour, numbers were down, bad times now numbers are up and it could all get a lot worse.

    Still, on the upside there should be some very good holiday deals in Greece coming up.

    Comment by NeilM — November 2, 2011 @ 8:52 am

  14. What shifts people off benefits isn’t all that amenable to govt control. We had good times under Labour, numbers were down, bad times now numbers are up and it could all get a lot worse.

    Actually, if we wanted full employment, there are plenty of policy settings that could get us closer, including direct intervention in the labour market. But we don’t, principally because it causes inflation, and containing wage inflation is still a major objective of New Zealand government. We’re still stuck with 1986 concerns. (I know, 20 years of low inflation etc, too much inflation is a bad thing for everyone). However, we’re quite happy to allow asset bubbles which are equally harmful, because their benefits flow to the rich.

    Comment by George D — November 2, 2011 @ 9:01 am

  15. Which is to say, as well as being nasty as hell, cutting benefits of those at the bottom is pretty inefficient. An indirect intervention with pretty hefty externalities is much worse than a plain direct one.

    But since the indirect one is ideologically coherent, it’s the one that National approves of. No doubt DPF is cheering it as compassionate and sensible.

    Comment by George D — November 2, 2011 @ 9:08 am

  16. A sole parent of a fourteen year old who has another child will return to a full-time work expectation after one year.

    That seems a little harsh no? Solo parents back to fulltime work when their baby is 12 months old?

    Comment by garethw — November 2, 2011 @ 9:41 am

  17. My parents grew up in abject poverty too

    Funny that, so did mine – my father was the child of a single mother in 1940/50’s NZ, except dear old grandad just buggered off in ’48 rather than having the decency to die in the war effort, like so many others of the time.

    What intrigues me most is that the same childhood poverty produces such different outcomes in the adult – you couldn’t have manufactured a political opinion more cliched than my fathers “pull yourself up by the bootstraps, no-ones going to hand you anything on a plate” view. And yet roughly the same factors clearly produced a very different result in Sanc and his/her parents.

    Comment by Phil — November 2, 2011 @ 9:52 am

  18. We will never have “full employment”. Some people will always be virtually unemployable, and there will never be enough of the right sort of jobs in the right places for everyone else.

    We have conflicting pressures – sustainability suggests a stop to growth, that means further job pressure. One of the biggest pressures is advertising coupled with a consumer mentality of ‘need’ that is actually ‘want’.

    We have to learn to live smarter, and that’s got to come from people, from communities. We can’t just sit waiting for government to ‘fix’ it. It can’t be imposed by government.

    Comment by Pete George — November 2, 2011 @ 9:53 am

  19. @Pete – the fact that there were two of you masks the impossibility of this for sole parents. I love the way couples tell single parents how they manage, as if one person can replicate what 2 do. Yup. Raise kids and run a household and commute and work enough hours to pay the bills (’cause part time work doesn’t do it) and get time off when the kids are sick.

    But then you’re a candidate for a party that thinks solo parents should pay higher tax than non-solo parents (aka income splitting).

    Comment by MeToo — November 2, 2011 @ 9:53 am

  20. My comment #19 @Pete #3

    Comment by MeToo — November 2, 2011 @ 9:54 am

  21. A sole parent of a fourteen year old who has another child will return to a full-time work expectation after one year.

    That seems a little harsh no? Solo parents back to fulltime work when their baby is 12 months old?

    @garethw – Agreed, but this situation would be an outlier, surely?

    Comment by Gregor W — November 2, 2011 @ 10:12 am

  22. But then you’re a candidate for a party that thinks solo parents should pay higher tax than non-solo parents (aka income splitting).

    That’s not what that means at all. If non-solo parents can income split they pay the same tax rate each a solo parent who works. And income splitting gives one parent an easier choice to stay at home to look after the kids – so there would be more jobs available for solo parents.

    How many solo parents pay no nett tax?

    Comment by Pete George — November 2, 2011 @ 10:12 am

  23. What do you do for a living pete?

    How do you manage to spend SO MUCH time showing up in every corner of NZ political internets?

    Comment by Chris Bull — November 2, 2011 @ 10:14 am

  24. @petegeorge “We have to learn to live smarter, and that’s got to come from people, from communities. We can’t just sit waiting for government to ‘fix’ it. It can’t be imposed by government.”

    and you’re standing for parliament because?

    if you’re really wanting to encourage people to vote for you you need to fix your major attitude problem of ‘government can’t help, it’s the people who need to fix things’.

    Comment by nommopilot — November 2, 2011 @ 10:15 am

  25. @phil at 9.52am – They have a simple view. having had first hand experience, they don’t ever want anyone to have to grow up like they did.

    Comment by Sanctuary — November 2, 2011 @ 10:30 am

  26. My guess is that for a solo parent the endless constant responsibility of taking care of a child or children could be just huge. To be made to feel guilty as well must be crushing. And if you are not made of stern stuff what will your destiny and that of your kids be? Help ‘em don’t bash ‘em!

    Comment by ianmac — November 2, 2011 @ 10:32 am

  27. @ garethw

    It may seem harsh but I know plenty of non solo mothers who have put their kids into care and are working full time as are their husbands, to make ends meet and try and ensure successful futures. Now if they are willing and can successfully do that, I’m not really sure I have much sympathy with the ‘seems a bit harsh’ argument when it involves those extracting a taxpayer funded benefit.

    We’re also forgetting that most children of solo parents actually have another parent who is involved financially or more fully with shared care. And full time work is defined as 30 hours, which is like a 9-3 job.

    Comment by insider — November 2, 2011 @ 11:43 am

  28. > We will never have “full employment”.

    Of course we won’t, not when there are fatalistic and defeatist attitudes like yours in Parliament. We did have full employment in the past, notwithstanding that some people didn’t want to work. Of course there are still some who don’t want to work but I’d hazard a guess that 99.9% of people do want to work. You talk about conflicting pressures, whatever that means. The main issue is that neither Labour nor National are committed to full employment.

    Comment by Ross — November 2, 2011 @ 11:49 am

  29. Thank you for your noting of the Voices of Poverty, Pete George. You quoted from it:

    “WINZ said all I have to do is 20 hours a week to be better off than I am now, but I don’t want to be just better off, I want to have a wee bit more to make it worthwhile”

    There is this bit too tho…

    “I have to pay for child care and all those outgoings as well”

    The above if the full quote from the report. The emphasis in on the just better off…the person wants more just better off…they want to be properly better off.
    That someone misses parts of quotes is…frankly, dishonest.

    The full report :https://ps.org.nz/voices-of-poverty-2011

    Comment by Peter Martin — November 2, 2011 @ 11:49 am

  30. “That someone misses parts of quotes is…frankly, dishonest.”

    Pete George is an aspiring politician and so finds himself in a “dynamic world”…

    Comment by nommopilot — November 2, 2011 @ 12:58 pm

  31. @Pete #22

    “If non-solo parents can income split they pay the same tax rate each a solo parent who works. And income splitting gives one parent an easier choice to stay at home to look after the kids – so there would be more jobs available for solo parents.”

    “How many solo parents pay no nett tax?”

    I get really sick of sole parents being stereotyped as unskilled young and breeding for business. I earn enough to pay the top tax rate and receive no benefits from the state (WFF, accommodation, childcare subsidies etc). Under income splitting, my colleague who earns the same amount as me and supports a family of the same size, pays less tax than me because his wife chooses to stay home in unpaid work. Not only do they pay less tax but he has a much easier time with his career because he his wife does all the childcare and domestics, and he never has to take time off work when his kids are sick.

    Incomes splitting seems very fair if you are one of the people who benefit from it. And it seems very unfair if you don’t.

    Comment by MeToo — November 2, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

  32. As someone who has been a parent for three whole weeks, I’ve already often found myself thinking, ‘how fucking hard would this be if you were on your own?’ So the people who think, ‘How can we make life even harder for people who are on their own?’ really astonish me.

    Comment by danylmc — November 2, 2011 @ 1:51 pm

  33. The fact that under National solo parents will have to seek work once their first child turns five and once their second child turns one, is grossly unfair and represents the start of a ‘tier’ system that we will have to endure under National, whereby solo parents are limited to one child, those on low working incomes who receive child support payments from the Government will be able to have two or three children, and those who are wealthy will be able to have as many children as they like.

    I suggest that solo mothers be required to seek and be ready for any hours of work once their second child turns five. This combats the National Government’s tier system and is still fair and not harmful or nutritionally or emotinally unsound for the second child in his or her primitive years. Every person in New Zealand should continue to have the right to have two children. Otherwise this is ethically wrong and will place a strain on our younger generations in years to come as they will have to support more adults than they can afford.

    Comment by Betty — November 2, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

  34. ‘I suggest that solo mothers be required to seek and be ready for any hours of work once their second child turns five.’

    It’s something like that now isn’t it?…except it’s when the child is six ( which would be when they must attend school).

    Comment by Peter Martin — November 2, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

  35. 32.As someone who has been a parent for three whole weeks, I’ve already often found myself thinking, ‘how fucking hard would this be if you were on your own?’ So the people who think, ‘How can we make life even harder for people who are on their own?’ really astonish me.

    Wait til it’s mobile.

    Comment by Simon Poole — November 2, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

  36. “Wait til it’s mobile” and talks! And is hyperactive! We had one who as a toddler slept for only 2 or three hours a night. And what happens when he keeps asking questions, which is great but not when you are tired and worried about getting a job. Admire the solo mums and solo dads.

    Comment by ianmac — November 2, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

  37. I think you lot are being unfair to Pete.

    His grandad didn’t damn well get bayonet-to-bayonet with the Hun so that solo mums with 17 kids to 28 different fathers could fleece his hard eared wages!

    Comment by Gregor W — November 2, 2011 @ 3:07 pm

  38. Just went through and read ianmac’s comment at 10.32 as well – Parenting is a massive responsibility. My only child (would love more but can’t afford them at the moment, unfortunately) turned 2 in July and is a full-time job by himself. He sleeps well, but has more energy than a dozen puppies and is down to one 90 minute nap in the day.

    My partner and I are lucky enough that we both are able to work part-time and put him in care for 2-3 afternoons as well. However, we have fought so incredibly hard to be in a position to do this – many employers are not flexible and there is a massive shortage of suitable part-time work that is willing to be flexible around childcare and university.

    I really struggle with the idea that we need to ‘punish’ solo parents. The DPB is there to support the child – and they’re the one that will suffer when their parent gets stressed.

    Comment by Simon Poole — November 2, 2011 @ 3:11 pm

  39. Dear Danyl: please introduce a FB style function where I can “like” comments. I want to be able to make approving gestures without actually spending any time or effort in doing so.

    Sincerely,

    Comment by Simon Poole — November 2, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

  40. Isn’t the abatement for wages still 80%? So on the fun new proposed $10.50 an hour wage a young person can work for a gain of $2.10 an hour. While the government would pay the abated benefit back to the employer for training them? So when you get a four hour shift, that’s $8.40, which won’t even pay for petrol, let alone child-care. More fun, haven’t got a regular 20 hour week, so you have to keep searching for more jobs too, including getting yourself to job interviews.

    Hooray! Why, if you sack a 30 year old with three kids, the government will pay you to replace them with part-time teenagers, who you can just keep sacking every 90 days without cost. What a brilliant idea!

    Comment by tussock — November 2, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

  41. They could always go one-up and take a leaf out of Alberto Fujimori’s book. But then again, it came back to bite him in the arse big time.

    Comment by DeepRed — November 2, 2011 @ 4:16 pm

  42. Gregor, one of my grandfathers got metal pinned on his chest in France, and the other got hot metal in his chest. But as you know that has nothing to do with this. Conclusion jumping seems rife here today.

    It can be bloody hard managing to get by for solo parents, And couples. And pensioners. And others. But it doesn’t help them at all if you attach demeaning labels on them and tell them it’s not their fault and that they deserve to have a good standard of living.

    On average someone on a benefit with the same “income” as someone who is working will have lower self esteem, poorer health, their kids will do less well at school etc etc.

    Apart from it being better for them everyone should take responsibility for themselves as much as possible. Shouldn’t they? Encouraging them and helping them to be self sufficient should be the priority rather than feeding the woe.

    Comment by Pete George — November 2, 2011 @ 4:27 pm

  43. Pete, I was only teasing. It think everyone’s great / grandpa (except Phil’s, the bloody shirker) had a crack at whatever enemy the King told them to.

    Raising kids can be tricky and it doesn’t help if you don’t have the coin.
    The upshot being, a policy that skews social benefits away from those who potentially need it most financially (i.e. low income solo parents) isn’t doing anyone any favours.
    There is no net benefit to any of us as citizens to have other peoples kids living in poverty, even if you could concievably point the finger directly at the parent(s) for their poor choices.

    The policy is ideological; lipstick on the pig, not substantive.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 2, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

  44. Pete, I’m not going to vote for you or anyone associated with you because you’re a huge dick who uses selective facts to prove a point that isn’t there to be made. And you’re right, I could apply that label to anyone, but at least the majority of actual politicians don’t spend their time arguing the toss on blogs and claiming to be hardworking Kiwis. Except David Garrett, of course, but he’s just a classless, jobless cunt.

    Comment by Dizzy — November 2, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

  45. The policy is ideological; lipstick on the pig, not substantive.

    If that’s the case we need it to be more substantive than that. We need to encourage a substantial change in attitude, Too many people have an entrenched “poor us” and/or “we deserve”.

    Life is tough for many people, but relative to many other countries, and relative to the not too distant past in New Zealand, most people have it anywhere from a bit better to much better. If you think life is tough for some solo parents now it was a hell of a lot tougher 50 years ago, Or 80 years ago during the time we had an even worse recession than now.

    I know it’s popular to feel sorry for ‘the poor’ and all we have to do is change of government and throw more money at the problems thinking we can achieve some sort of society with no ‘poverty’ or inequality, but it’s a hell of a lot harder and more complicated than that. And if I get abused for pointing this out so be it, it’s how i see it. I find that those who abuse most are least likely to have any realistic solutions.

    Comment by Pete George — November 2, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

  46. Indoor plumbing’s too good for ‘em.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 2, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

  47. I don’t think it is ‘popular’ to feel sorry for the poor Pete, I think it is human.

    Comment by M — November 2, 2011 @ 6:35 pm

  48. Pete, I don’t feel sorry for poor people. My pity won’t put food on their tables.
    But some of my taxes will.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 2, 2011 @ 9:24 pm

  49. @pete george…if when your 3rd daughter was 3 months old your “night duty” lady had shot through on you and you were faced with raising your girls alone how would that affect your empathy for some of the unfortunate people in godzone? How would you have coped with this situation? Suicidel? Nervous breakdown? Or nah sweet as I’ll just wear ear muffs whilst making redneck comments on some blog and pretend it never happened while the girls run riot and your house gets sold?
    p.s. Further to a previous bloggers inquiry into your blog campaign….is there any non-internet based campaign activity from you and the kronic guy? Word has it Ohariu dont want your hairdo fella no more(?)

    Comment by marshall — November 3, 2011 @ 12:41 am

  50. Some of my taxes will pay for food for poor people too. And donations.

    Labour are promoting ‘A fairer system where everyone shares the load’.

    That’s an odd claim when everyone doesn’t share the tax load. How many people will pay no nett tax under Labour? More than half?

    Comment by Pete George — November 3, 2011 @ 4:57 am

  51. If a family, as John Key pointed out, earn $50,000 a year with two kids and effectively pay no income tax…

    …good. You’re an idiot if you think $50,000 is enough to raise two kids on.

    But fuck, no. Let’s make sure they pay at least 20%, and then 15% GST on spending the entirety of their income, because there’s someone earning $500k that desperately needs another $500 a week to heat his third swimming pool. It’s frightfully cold in winter.

    Comment by Dizzy — November 3, 2011 @ 10:02 am

  52. Regarding comment #40 by Tussock:

    By abatement, I assume you mean when someone is receiving a benefit and working part-time and can only earn $80 gross before being made to pay WINZ back some of the rest?

    You receive your benefit, about $65 in the hand, then after that you typically pay 20% in tax and 70% to WINZ, leaving you with a paltry 10%. It has advantages and disadvantages as well.

    National want to implement $10.65 per hour to encourage employers to take on youth in full-time permanent positions because we have the highest youth unemployment rate in the OECD. This is considerably lower than the $13.00 adult wage and, yes, there is no point in gaining a $10.65 part-time position whilst still on a benefit, if you only end up with 10% of the surplus over $80 gross.

    Therefore, because this is a youth initiative and not a tax garnering idea, it may be prudent for the tax and abatement rates to be reduced if the $10.65 idea goes ahead. Otherwise it’s pointless. Unfortunately both parties haven’t picked up on this yet and offered us details that would actually work.

    Because the tax rate would be reduced in these circumstances, it doesn’t mean that the Government will be out of pocket. In fact it is a brilliant idea to reduce the tax considerably because working youth usually have a lot of discretionary income (they board at home, have cheap rent because of flatmates, etc) and so the reduction in personal income tax is reimbursed by an increase in GST revenue derived from an influx of extra income for our youth.

    Comment by Betty — November 3, 2011 @ 10:10 am

  53. George D @ 10 “The stereotypical young female Maori they imagine breeding for profit is their absolute antitheses.”

    I don’t know about Maori, but the fair-headed, blue eyed solo mum living in the state house next to me is pregnant again… to the same man. Can you see why some of us get a bit angry sometimes? Doing nothing is not an option: as each passing year seems to increase the sense on entitlement.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — November 4, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

  54. From Deepred’s link @ 41 “Most of the victims lived in rural areas, were poor and barely educated or illiterate.” Surely that last word should be literate? As in “barely educated or barely literate”? Or am I the illiterate one?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — November 4, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

  55. To spell it out to the parties further:

    Adult Wage: Raise it to $15.00 per hour. Tax rate: 20%
    21/22/23/24 year olds: $14.25 per hour. Tax rate: 18%
    18/19/20 year olds: $13.50 per hour. Tax rate: 16%
    16 and 17 year olds: $12.75 per hour. Tax rate: 14%

    Comment by Betty — November 4, 2011 @ 3:47 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 389 other followers

%d bloggers like this: