New Benefit Changes

Forums › Off topic › New Benefit Changes

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

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#858097 17-Jul-2013 15:32

6FIEND:
KiwiNZ: As for administration, if you have spent many years administering welfare then I may listen to you.

So - unless someone is an expert in the "old way" of doing something, they cannot possibly have anything helpful or insightful to say about a new process?

At least I can now filter your commentary in the context of a known level of closed-mindedness...

Administering welfare is simply not just spreadsheeting, there are many variables and people involved.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#858099 17-Jul-2013 15:34

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

See, this is one of the bits I disagree with. To me, "I quit my above-average-paying job without having organised any other source of income" shouldn't qualify, but it does, when I feel it should be better targetted but more effective, though specifically how to do that is obviously a big debate.

From a Media article it is not possible to know all the circumstances so making a judgement on that is wrong. That is why I wrote that "If he/they meet the Statutory requirements of Section 89 of the SSA then they will and should be granted Income Support" this of course will be determined by their case manager
not a reporter.

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#858102 17-Jul-2013 15:54

KiwiNZ:

From a Media article it is not possible to know all the circumstances so making a judgement on that is wrong. That is why I wrote that "If he/they meet the Statutory requirements of Section 89 of the SSA then they will and should be granted Income Support" this of course will be determined by their case manager
not a reporter.

I agree, media are not reliable. My point stands, though, that (regardless of the actual facts of this particular instance) the circumstance of having quit a reasonably well paying job with no plan for what to do next should not, in my opinion, qualify one for welfare assistance. I suspect at the very least there is (or should be) a stand-down period involved, which I believe is even the case for redundancy (or used to be, certainly). Anyway, if that is not what happened in this instance, then of course the outcome may well be justified. I wasn't specifically saying that Sinclair should not be eligible, just that people choosing to leave paid work of their own free will should at very least have far tougher criteria to meet to receive welfare than those who are trying unsuccessfully to find work.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#858107 17-Jul-2013 16:00

Inphinity:
KiwiNZ:

From a Media article it is not possible to know all the circumstances so making a judgement on that is wrong. That is why I wrote that "If he/they meet the Statutory requirements of Section 89 of the SSA then they will and should be granted Income Support" this of course will be determined by their case manager
not a reporter.

I agree, media are not reliable. My point stands, though, that (regardless of the actual facts of this particular instance) the circumstance of having quit a reasonably well paying job with no plan for what to do next should not, in my opinion, qualify one for welfare assistance. I suspect at the very least there is (or should be) a stand-down period involved, which I believe is even the case for redundancy (or used to be, certainly). Anyway, if that is not what happened in this instance, then of course the outcome may well be justified. I wasn't specifically saying that Sinclair should not be eligible, just that people choosing to leave paid work of their own free will should at very least have far tougher criteria to meet to receive welfare than those who are trying unsuccessfully to find work.

Again if the Statutory requirements are met a grant of benefit will be made, there are provision under the legislation to impose voluntary unemployment stand downs, if the circumstances warrant that then a stand down will and should be imposed.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#858117 17-Jul-2013 16:12

KiwiNZ:
The level of benefits now compared to average incomes is "liveable".

In many cases, it's not. A friend of mine was made redundant and, at age 55, cannot find other work. He was the sole breadwinner of the family and has a mortgage. The basic benefit covers their food but not insurance, rates or mortgage costs. The allowance for housing costs is $15 a week. He is not able to claim additional help from WINZ and I've watched as they have been selling off pretty much everything they can dispose of just in order to live. Their house is on the market now. So, in three years thats one family that went from being secure to losing everything.

One can argue that people who own houses should sell them if they lose employment. I would argue that if benefits are really a hand up, and supposed to help people out of temporary holes then they shouldn't end up losing everything. I know that both this guy and his wife go into WINZ every week religiously to see if any work is available. At one stage she was stacking shelves in a supermarket starting at midnight each night but that didn't help them as the money she earned was deducted from the benefit.

The problem with a set scheme for benefits is that its dealing with individuals who each have individual needs. Some people can manage, others can't and as long as there is a one-size-fits-all scheme there will be people who aren't getting what they need.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#858120 17-Jul-2013 16:14

Elpie:
KiwiNZ:
The level of benefits now compared to average incomes is "liveable".

In many cases, it's not. A friend of mine was made redundant and, at age 55, cannot find other work. He was the sole breadwinner of the family and has a mortgage. The basic benefit covers their food but not insurance, rates or mortgage costs. The allowance for housing costs is $15 a week. He is not able to claim additional help from WINZ and I've watched as they have been selling off pretty much everything they can dispose of just in order to live. Their house is on the market now. So, in three years thats one family that went from being secure to losing everything.

One can argue that people who own houses should sell them if they lose employment. I would argue that if benefits are really a hand up, and supposed to help people out of temporary holes then they shouldn't end up losing everything. I know that both this guy and his wife go into WINZ every week religiously to see if any work is available. At one stage she was stacking shelves in a supermarket starting at midnight each night but that didn't help them as the money she earned was deducted from the benefit.

The problem with a set scheme for benefits is that its dealing with individuals who each have individual needs. Some people can manage, others can't and as long as there is a one-size-fits-all scheme there will be people who aren't getting what they need.

Elpie . Please look at your private messages

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#858262 17-Jul-2013 19:07

There is a lot of hot air here, and little discussion of the actual changes. What are they anyway? I only know one, cutting a benefit/assistance for anyone with an arrest warrant, and they say 8000 people will be affected by that. My guess is a substantial number will not even know they are subject to a warrant until this occurs. Most of it will be traffic type stuff imho. 8000 in one day would be kind of crazy. If you add children that could be higher. Either way I'm not convinced of the wisdom really.

Sharesies

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

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#858272 17-Jul-2013 19:26

gzt: There is a lot of hot air here, and little discussion of the actual changes. What are they anyway? I only know one, cutting a benefit/assistance for anyone with an arrest warrant, and they say 8000 people will be affected by that. My guess is a substantial number will not even know they are subject to a warrant until this occurs. Most of it will be traffic type stuff imho. 8000 in one day would be kind of crazy. If you add children that could be higher. Either way I'm not convinced of the wisdom really.

well if they don't know they soon will when the bene is cut, maybe a large majority are aware of the warrants as well, not all are as innocent as some would like to make out. So what if its traffice or minor offences unless they are innocent how is it an issue.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#858273 17-Jul-2013 19:27

@gzt

I'd assume that WINZ would send the person a letter stating that their benefit is at risk because of an outstanding arrest warrent. Of course, it's up to the beneficery to ensure that WINZ has their current address.

A previous partner of mine's mother was on a benefit and went overseas without telling WINZ. She got a letter from them asking for an explanation, as she was required to inform WINZ if she went overseas, among other conditions.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#858325 17-Jul-2013 21:27

So with the money "supposedly" being saved from cutting people benefits are they going to employ more police to cover the increase in crime??? probably not

KiwiNZ:
The level of benefits now compared to average incomes is "liveable".

really so your saying you'd have no problem living on $206 (basic benefit payment) a week which you'll need to cover rent, food, phone, power, insurance, travel cost, oh and heaven forbid you get ill and have to go see a doctor you'll have to rob Peter to pay Paul GOOD LUCK with that

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#858354 17-Jul-2013 21:48

Athlonite: So with the money "supposedly" being saved from cutting people benefits are they going to employ more police to cover the increase in crime??? probably not

KiwiNZ:
The level of benefits now compared to average incomes is "liveable".

really so your saying you'd have no problem living on $206 (basic benefit payment) a week which you'll need to cover rent, food, phone, power, insurance, travel cost, oh and heaven forbid you get ill and have to go see a doctor you'll have to rob Peter to pay Paul GOOD LUCK with that

I'm pretty sure people on the benefit don't pay for insurance and where are they travelling to that costs money?

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#858356 17-Jul-2013 21:52

lokhor:
Athlonite: So with the money "supposedly" being saved from cutting people benefits are they going to employ more police to cover the increase in crime??? probably not

KiwiNZ:
The level of benefits now compared to average incomes is "liveable".

really so your saying you'd have no problem living on $206 (basic benefit payment) a week which you'll need to cover rent, food, phone, power, insurance, travel cost, oh and heaven forbid you get ill and have to go see a doctor you'll have to rob Peter to pay Paul GOOD LUCK with that

I'm pretty sure people on the benefit don't pay for insurance and where are they travelling to that costs money?

Travel? Try job interviews, shopping, Doctors, life.......

Oh and yes they do have insurance

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#858359 17-Jul-2013 22:01

KiwiNZ:
lokhor:
Athlonite: So with the money "supposedly" being saved from cutting people benefits are they going to employ more police to cover the increase in crime??? probably not

KiwiNZ:
The level of benefits now compared to average incomes is "liveable".

really so your saying you'd have no problem living on $206 (basic benefit payment) a week which you'll need to cover rent, food, phone, power, insurance, travel cost, oh and heaven forbid you get ill and have to go see a doctor you'll have to rob Peter to pay Paul GOOD LUCK with that

I'm pretty sure people on the benefit don't pay for insurance and where are they travelling to that costs money?

Travel? Try job interviews, shopping, Doctors, life.......

Oh and yes they do have insurance

What about all the money they make from selling pot?

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#858361 17-Jul-2013 22:03

On a more serious note, $206 isn't really enough for anyone to survive. Solo mothers on the DPB get ~$500 a week with one infant

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#858366 17-Jul-2013 22:13

lokhor: On a more serious note, $206 isn't really enough for anyone to survive. Solo mothers on the DPB get ~$500 a week with one infant

$206 is for single 25 year old without supplementary support. No dependants. A sole parent, 1 child getting $500 plus per week would have to have high outgoings qualifying for considerable extra support

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