KiwiNZ:

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.

networkn:

jtbthatsme: Wow conscription now that's a good idea...just wondering who are we at war with again??? Personally like I've said I want to get back to the workforce and get back to having the semblance of the normal life I had before however I don't feel that forcing beneficiaries into volunteer work or community work is the way to go.

I think those jobs should be done for free by the criminals. Someone quoted our biggest tax spend being on National Superannuation however I would think that we would be better off having all people who end up incarcerated should be the ones out there doing the community work not just the lucky few who escape jail. It's those people costing us approx $50 - $60k for zero return. They pay no tax, cost a lot and should actually be doing something to give back not those who have worked all their lives.

I do feel that Superannuatants should be income tested as well but maybe at a lesser rate than the rest.

Putting criminals (And the ones they would allow out of prison are the ones who commit smaller crimes most likely to be attracted to these sort of people anyway) near vulnerable people, ie charities seems like a good idea to you? 

Military service helps instil discipline, fitness and provides training opportunities. It's also going to give accommodation, food etc. Doesn't really matter if we are at war.

Asset testing isn't a bad idea, though it needs to be done on a sliding scale. The vast majority of truly wealthy people I know, donate their super to charity anyway.

dickytim:

KiwiNZ:

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.

I do not disagree with you, I don't think anyone will disagree with these comments. The discussion is more around the unemployed that don't plan on doing anything about their situation.

There are plenty of jobs out there that can work around disabilities and medical issues, you might not make more than minimum wage at them but you get out what you put in.

The article that started this threat was fundamentally flawed in that the person being interviewed made some flawed arguments, which has muddied the waters here.

Welfare needs to be a short term answer to a problem, there are jobs out there if you are willing to get dirty, swallow your pride and get yourself out there.

joker97: try this http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/8929053/Former-Black-Cap-on-dole-queue

KiwiNZ:

sir1963:

dickytim: Wow, when did living on the benefit full time and not being willing to work become a right?

If I had my way they would get their food brought for them, their electricity and landline with local calls paid for and no cash at all.

There is a need for welfare, and genuine people who can't work for physical reasons but it should not be a lifestyle.

The comment in the article that sticks in my head is "that's hard." Life is hard, I hate my job, it is very stressful and difficult! 

The comments about New Zealanders having to jump thru hoops to get the benefit, damn this is how it should be! It should not be an easy answer.

Before anyone asks, yes I have been on the benefit, in Australia and it was due to my own laziness.

I have also been a very low paying jobs doing cleaning and working fast food for minimum wage in order to get myself a leg up.

Tell me, are you any good at Chemistry, physics, perhaps golf, play the piano, can you fly a plane ?

Why is it that we have compassion for the blind, the deaf, the paralysed, is it because we can pretend to know what its like by closing our eyes etc ?
Why is it that we have no compassion for those who are unable to manage their lives ?
EVERY skill has a grade.
Heck I work with people with PhDs, and see how incompetent they are with computers and technology, yet they are doing math etc,etc that I can not even begin to understand, some speak 3 or more languages.

Its easy to brush off the things you fail at as being "just a game" or "unimportant", yet at life compared to Donald Trump, Bob Jones, and millions of others world wide, you are not up there, you may well be even a bit below average, but to have an average someone MUST be below you, and these people have mental or other emotional illnesses  that prevent them from managing their lives properly.

There is a culture of taking delight in kicking people who are down in New Zealand, it is often clearly present on GZ. I guess it must make folks feel better about themselves.

joker97: try this http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/8929053/Former-Black-Cap-on-dole-queue

KiwiNZ:

6FIEND:

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.

Inphinity:

joker97: try this http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/8929053/Former-Black-Cap-on-dole-queue

The article is a big vague about how he expects to earn more this way, given he has walked away from a $60k/6month seasonal contract that he pretty much says he could've done for another 2 - 3 years, and has no skills to do anything specific else. Surely it would have been better to use he 6 months off-season for education/training to lead to a better transition in a couple years time? *confused* The dole shouldn't really be used for people who want to quit their job, imo.

6FIEND:

KiwiNZ:

6FIEND:

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.

You don't see a need to increase it?   So all the commentary prior to this about how "it's not enough to live on" and all the "extra assistance" grants for food or power bills or vehicle repairs etc. that are paid out are all without merit?   I'm struggling to understand your viewpoint here...  (admittedly, we do disagree a LOT :-)

It would cause undue hardship?  Even though the beneficiary would be fiscally better off (compared to the status quo) for over two years?   Surely long-term welfare dependency is the problem that most needs to be addressed...  using ten months of carrots before bringing out even the smallest of sticks hardly constitutes undue hardship I would have thought?

As for administration...  Well, I just modelled it in a spreadsheet in 45sec... I can't imagine that it would be anything other than automated?

The trick would be to avoid leaving a beneficiary without options... Maybe creation of 'fake' jobs could mitigate this...  Eg. After 12 months of unsuccessfully finding work, beneficiaries are provided with the option to spend 40hrs per week scanning files to /dev/null or moving piles of rocks from the south end of a quarry to the north end...  Effectively creating "100% useless" Public Service jobs(*) that JobSeekers can do for minimum wage when sitting at home collecting an ever decreasing benefit becomes insufficient.

(*) So as not to take jobs away from employed people.

PaulBags:

Inphinity:

joker97: try this http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/8929053/Former-Black-Cap-on-dole-queue

The article is a big vague about how he expects to earn more this way, given he has walked away from a $60k/6month seasonal contract that he pretty much says he could've done for another 2 - 3 years, and has no skills to do anything specific else. Surely it would have been better to use he 6 months off-season for education/training to lead to a better transition in a couple years time? *confused* The dole shouldn't really be used for people who want to quit their job, imo.

The article is also vague as to why his wife isn't working full time already given he only works 6 months of the year. Surely 2 people working a collective 18 months a year could look after themselves and two kids quite well, especially when they'd only have to pay for 6 months of child care a year. Or does he not want to actually look after his kids, only pay for them?

If he/they meet the Statutory requirements of Section 89 of the SSA then they will and should be granted Income Support.

KiwiNZ: As for administration, if you have spent many years administering welfare then I may listen to you.

KiwiNZ:
If he/they meet the Statutory requirements of Section 89 of the SSA then they will and should be granted Income Support.