New Benefit Changes

Forums › Off topic › New Benefit Changes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

3265 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#857739 16-Jul-2013 22:38

jonherries:
sir1963:

A bored 65 year old will take up a hobby, not crime, a bit generalised but true.
A 65 year old will volunteer to help with meals on wheels, church groups, etc etc to keep active
A 65 year old will help look after grandkids
A 65 year old will probably still help at school with reading, school trips, etc

An 18 year old unemployed on the other hand is just wasted.

Personally I want every able bodied 18 year old employed when I choose to retire.

We should LOWER the retirement age back to 65, but not compulsory, so that those who have shagged their bodies in hard jobs can retire and spend time with their grandkids, or out fishing, or what ever, perhaps even 60 or earlier with a medical certificate
If you work, you dont get the pension, the pension is for retired people over 60/65, if you are working you are not retired.

Few thoughts:

The number of people over 65 has tripled since the 1960's (4-12%) and will grow to 25% of the population in 2051.

If we take current spend on Superannuation in 2012 - $9.5 billion (unemployment is $880 million), total spend of $77.6 billion (therefore about 12.2% of our total spending) Source: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2013/data

If we then make some assumptions, ie. cost per person of super grows at the same rate as the economy (they are linked through CPI), we can make some estimates about how big the hole Super will make in the finances in 2051 by just changing the eligible proportion at current funding levels (as all other things are equal) we analyse real vs nominal prices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_(economics)

ie. 25/12 = 2.08 * 9.5 = $18.8 billion = 24.2% of our money will be spent on NZ Super...

Worth noting, very awesome spreadsheet (not technically, just in it's transparency).

Jon

Which is why if you are working you should not get it.

insane

3242 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#857752 16-Jul-2013 22:50

KiwiNZ: The retired then as now need to be looked after. The numbers of those retiring cannot be altered so the variable that can be addressed is how it is funded.
The answer is similar to that which will deal with unemployment, that is growth, grow our economy and welfare will be taken care of.

It would be good to have greater investment in businesses, however the bug returns seem to be in property which IMO does little for the greater economy.

Bring on capital gains tax and let's start investing in export businesses

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#857791 16-Jul-2013 23:56

I disagree there is a way to decrease the number of pople retiring it's called resticting immigration at the moment we have a lot of people coming in to bring their families and their families families into NZ and although there is definietly a large number of graduates that may leave for other countries it's generally not those people we'd actually have a problem with staying and working and contributing to the country it's those that are coming and those that are not contributing causing the issues. Sorry not causing the issues but certainly not helping.

Cut immigration laws or make them truly equal instead of based on ethnicity then we'd see people who are contributing doing their part being the ones retiring and claiming NZS. Why do we allow so many people into NZ that are not being fully active members of the country and then after short periods jumping on the benefit system taking away from New Zealanders.

I am not going to single out any types of groups coming in but ultimately our immigration laws should focus on people who are willing to contribute not those who are not and then we would most definitely see a drop in the number of people retiring. Of course this will never happen, just like we'll most likely never see the incarcerated criminals working on chain gangs or the end of .....

I love NZ and it's cultural diversity but we can get that without sponges to the system, we can and should get the crims out doing menial tasks helping out our councils, cleaning streets, beaches helping build the roads or clearing scrub why should it fall on the tax payer to cover for those who are not interested in being part of this great country of New Zealand. I am a New Zealander, I am not Maori, I am not European, Pakeha or any other group. I want this country to be for and about New Zealanders if your not interested then why the hell should I be???

Our benefit system was designed as a hand up not a hand out that is a fact. The Unemployment Benefit was not designed to give you enough to live on...why because you are not supposed to be living on it. It is there to help you until you can get on to the next thing. Cutting benefits of people who warrants out for their arrest is a great step in the right direction you have no entitlement you are supposed to be in jail and when in jail you do not get a benefit.

Sickness, Invalids and NZ Super is slightly different there will always be exceptions but those on unemployment should be at all times out there doing what they can to get off the welfare system or doing their best to get educated enough to be able to do so.

Hell they had to change the law to allow IRD to give info to get people they knew to be working and receiving benefits they were not entitled to to actually be able to get them off the benefit. The welfare reforms are well overdue. Have they got it right who knows most likely not but hey one shoe doesn't fit or suit all. It is a step in the right direction.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#857804 17-Jul-2013 00:51

jtbthatsme:
Cut immigration laws or make them truly equal instead of based on ethnicity then we'd see people who are contributing doing their part being the ones retiring and claiming NZS. Why do we allow so many people into NZ that are not being fully active members of the country and then after short periods jumping on the benefit system taking away from New Zealanders.

That would impinge on humanitarian grounds for immigration. NZ would be better served if it did what many other countries do and make sponsors legally liable for supporting their imported family members. Some countries make sponsors liable for 10+ years, which means that if the person(s) they sponsored into the country go on a benefit during that time the sponsor must repay the government. If the agreement is breached the permanent residency is revoked.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#857805 17-Jul-2013 00:51

jonherries:
Mark:
jonherries:

ie. 25/12 = 2.08 * 9.5 = $18.8 billion = 24.2% of our money will be spent on NZ Super...

Hmm .. so what you are saying is we should start culling old people ? ;-)

I did suggest death committees at work, but no one wanted to go there (I work for a District Health Board)... ;)

Soylent Green ;)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#857822 17-Jul-2013 07:22

jtbthatsme: I disagree there is a way to decrease the number of pople retiring it's called resticting immigration at the moment we have a lot of people coming in to bring their families and their families families into NZ and although there is definietly a large number of graduates that may leave for other countries it's generally not those people we'd actually have a problem with staying and working and contributing to the country it's those that are coming and those that are not contributing causing the issues. Sorry not causing the issues but certainly not helping.

Cut immigration laws or make them truly equal instead of based on ethnicity then we'd see people who are contributing doing their part being the ones retiring and claiming NZS. Why do we allow so many people into NZ that are not being fully active members of the country and then after short periods jumping on the benefit system taking away from New Zealanders.

I am not going to single out any types of groups coming in but ultimately our immigration laws should focus on people who are willing to contribute not those who are not and then we would most definitely see a drop in the number of people retiring. Of course this will never happen, just like we'll most likely never see the incarcerated criminals working on chain gangs or the end of .....

I love NZ and it's cultural diversity but we can get that without sponges to the system, we can and should get the crims out doing menial tasks helping out our councils, cleaning streets, beaches helping build the roads or clearing scrub why should it fall on the tax payer to cover for those who are not interested in being part of this great country of New Zealand. I am a New Zealander, I am not Maori, I am not European, Pakeha or any other group. I want this country to be for and about New Zealanders if your not interested then why the hell should I be???

Our benefit system was designed as a hand up not a hand out that is a fact. The Unemployment Benefit was not designed to give you enough to live on...why because you are not supposed to be living on it. It is there to help you until you can get on to the next thing. Cutting benefits of people who warrants out for their arrest is a great step in the right direction you have no entitlement you are supposed to be in jail and when in jail you do not get a benefit.

Sickness, Invalids and NZ Super is slightly different there will always be exceptions but those on unemployment should be at all times out there doing what they can to get off the welfare system or doing their best to get educated enough to be able to do so.

Hell they had to change the law to allow IRD to give info to get people they knew to be working and receiving benefits they were not entitled to to actually be able to get them off the benefit. The welfare reforms are well overdue. Have they got it right who knows most likely not but hey one shoe doesn't fit or suit all. It is a step in the right direction.

Things are never simple. If you put prisoners out cleaning streets, building roads etc you will be taking away paid employment, this will increase unemployment reduce the tax take and increase benefit payments.

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#857826 17-Jul-2013 07:38

Elpie's idea was a good one. I like that idea of sponsor being responsible for the people they help bring in. That is how it should be.

As for the above yes sadly things are never that easy... as like you say it would also have negative effects but as stated the justice system discussion is off topic.

Welfare reforms are ovedue they've not got it right and never will but it's still a step in the right direction as like I pointed out it is not a handout system, it is not a right, there is a criteria and if you fail to meet it and continue to do so then of course you should and will have it cut or stopped.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#857827 17-Jul-2013 07:46

jtbthatsme: Elpie's idea was a good one. I like that idea of sponsor being responsible for the people they help bring in. That is how it should be.

As for the above yes sadly things are never that easy... as like you say it would also have negative effects but as stated the justice system discussion is off topic.

Welfare reforms are ovedue they've not got it right and never will but it's still a step in the right direction as like I pointed out it is not a handout system, it is not a right, there is a criteria and if you fail to meet it and continue to do so then of course you should and will have it cut or stopped.

Benefit payments need to be at a liveable level, take instance unemployment, it can take many months to gain new employment and in the interim food must eaten, rent/mortgage and other bills paid. Same applies to the other temporary benefit, Sickness.
The answer is programmes to move people off benefit as soon as practicable with out causing further hardship.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#857829 17-Jul-2013 07:54

by increasing benefits the negative side is it keeps 'some' there, as I understand it, it was designed as a temporary hand up but now its supposed to cover for a weekly wage.

Great answer to problem and would have thought that getting them off was obvious the how being the issue as most schemes seem to be others getting on the gravy train with programs that have little value in real life.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#857833 17-Jul-2013 08:04

jeffnz: by increasing benefits the negative side is it keeps 'some' there, as I understand it, it was designed as a temporary hand up but now its supposed to cover for a weekly wage.

Great answer to problem and would have thought that getting them off was obvious the how being the issue as most schemes seem to be others getting on the gravy train with programs that have little value in real life.

Agreed, the "work schemes" in the past have never worked. It is pointless training someone for jobs that simply do not exist. It heightens expectations and then crushes the spirit, there is only so much a person can take of that before they opt out for self protection, something I have witnessed way too much. The only effective way to reduce benefit dependency is real economic growth and sustainable employment as was witnessed in the late 90's and early 00's.

The Benefit is not a career choice but it must be liveable when needed or we end up with a lot more problems both social and economic.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#857846 17-Jul-2013 08:22

KiwiNZ: Things are never simple. If you put prisoners out cleaning streets, building roads etc you will be taking away paid employment, this will increase unemployment reduce the tax take and increase benefit payments.

I can't see it increasing tax, the benefit pays less than a job and the government pays street cleaners, road builders etc so the government would be spending less. Taking away peoples jobs would suck, but councils seldom have enough money to do everything or do it well, so I see some wiggle room there.

jeffnz: by increasing benefits the negative side is it keeps 'some' there, as I understand it, it was designed as a temporary hand up but now its supposed to cover for a weekly wage.

But not covering for a weekly wage would be counter productive. If you have people on the benefit constantly ringing around trying to make sure they don't get kicked out because they can't pay their rent or power, unable to job seek as effectively because they can't pay their phone or internet, or even so malnurished they don't have the energy to properly seek a job; then how are they actually supposed to look for work?

Edited because the copy and paste system here sucks. Why can't you just let my browser control the text box?

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#857941 17-Jul-2013 10:40

Perhaps a solution might be:

"JobSeeker Benefit" is paid at the rate of minimum wage x 40hrs. = $550 pw gross at present.

Benefit reduces at a rate of 10% per month.

That would have the following advantages:
1) Support at a "uselful" level during time of need. (sufficient to focus on gaining re-employment, etc.)
2) Would provide a regular incentive to get off the benefit as soon as possible.
3) Would provide about 10 months of support before the amount received drops below the current benefit rate.
4) It is 2yrs before the total amount paid out is less than the current rate ($221.09 pw gross)

Of course, you would need to protect against applicants 'resetting' the payment. (Eg. Make it a function of the cumulative time spent on the benefit)

Just a thought...

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#857944 17-Jul-2013 10:43

6FIEND: Perhaps a solution might be:

"JobSeeker Benefit" is paid at the rate of minimum wage x 40hrs. = $550 pw gross at present.

Benefit reduces at a rate of 10% per month.

That would have the following advantages:
1) Support at a "uselful" level during time of need. (sufficient to focus on gaining re-employment, etc.)
2) Would provide a regular incentive to get off the benefit as soon as possible.
3) Would provide about 10 months of support before the amount received drops below the current benefit rate.
4) It is 2yrs before the total amount paid out is less than the current rate ($221.09 pw gross)

Of course, you would need to protect against applicants 'resetting' the payment. (Eg. Make it a function of the cumulative time spent on the benefit)

Just a thought...

We already have that its called the Unemployment benefit and is being renamed Jobseeker Support

It's qualifications are as follows.....

You may get Jobseeker Support if:
you can work full time and you’re taking steps to look for work, OR
you are willing to work full time but you’re temporarily unable to work or you need to work fewer hours - for example, because of your health condition, injury or disability.
To get Jobseeker Support you generally need to be:
not in employment and looking for a job, OR
in part-time employment seeking more work, OR
not in work, or working less than full time due to a health condition, injury or disability.
You also need to be:
willing to accept suitable employment
aged 18 years or over, or 19 and over if you have dependent children
a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who has lived here for at least two years at any one time since becoming a citizen or permanent resident, and who normally lives here.
If you meet the above criteria except for the one about how long you’ve lived in New Zealand, talk to us.
To get Jobseeker Support, and to keep receiving the weekly payments, you’ll need to do some required activities and meet a number of obligations.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#857963 17-Jul-2013 11:31

KiwiNZ:

We already have that its called the Unemployment benefit and is being renamed Jobseeker Support

It's qualifications are as follows.....

You may get Jobseeker Support if:
you can work full time and you’re taking steps to look for work, OR
you are willing to work full time but you’re temporarily unable to work or you need to work fewer hours - for example, because of your health condition, injury or disability.
To get Jobseeker Support you generally need to be:
not in employment and looking for a job, OR
in part-time employment seeking more work, OR
not in work, or working less than full time due to a health condition, injury or disability.
You also need to be:
willing to accept suitable employment
aged 18 years or over, or 19 and over if you have dependent children
a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who has lived here for at least two years at any one time since becoming a citizen or permanent resident, and who normally lives here.
If you meet the above criteria except for the one about how long you’ve lived in New Zealand, talk to us.
To get Jobseeker Support, and to keep receiving the weekly payments, you’ll need to do some required activities and meet a number of obligations.

You seem to have missed the two key changes I was proposing?

Ie. benefit rate is significantly increased to match full time employment at minimum wage. And abates at 10% per month...

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#857969 17-Jul-2013 11:38

6FIEND:
KiwiNZ:

We already have that its called the Unemployment benefit and is being renamed Jobseeker Support

It's qualifications are as follows.....

You may get Jobseeker Support if:
you can work full time and you’re taking steps to look for work, OR
you are willing to work full time but you’re temporarily unable to work or you need to work fewer hours - for example, because of your health condition, injury or disability.
To get Jobseeker Support you generally need to be:
not in employment and looking for a job, OR
in part-time employment seeking more work, OR
not in work, or working less than full time due to a health condition, injury or disability.
You also need to be:
willing to accept suitable employment
aged 18 years or over, or 19 and over if you have dependent children
a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who has lived here for at least two years at any one time since becoming a citizen or permanent resident, and who normally lives here.
If you meet the above criteria except for the one about how long you’ve lived in New Zealand, talk to us.
To get Jobseeker Support, and to keep receiving the weekly payments, you’ll need to do some required activities and meet a number of obligations.

You seem to have missed the two key changes I was proposing?

Ie. benefit rate is significantly increased to match full time employment at minimum wage. And abates at 10% per month...

I don't see a need to increase it, I also do not support the abatement idea, administratively very difficult to manage and would cause undue hardship especially given how long it takes to find employment.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8