Metiria Turei's confessed benefit fraud

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Metiria Turei's confessed benefit fraud

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 18

Awrrr
19063 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1833331 29-Jul-2017 12:19

Geektastic:

This is more about the morality of having children you cannot afford as far as I am concerned.

TL/DR but if she knew she had insufficient income to support herself and a child, why did she have one?

You have made it clear that you don't like children anyway. People make mistakes. It is not like women carry an 'off' switch around with them. Maybe that should be the man's job.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1833334 29-Jul-2017 12:27

Rikkitic:

Why have a system that punishes people for being dependant by giving them just enough to stay alive, but not enough to ever have a life? Why shouldn't a beneficiary be able to go one night a week and have a good time? Why shouldn't her kids be able to enjoy school trips or activities that other kids can?

Why should I as a taxpayer have to work my butt off, so that a beneficiary can go one night a week and have a good time? There are working, honest taxpayers in this country, that are not on the benefit, and who don't have those luxuries you talking about. Its ridiculous that you expect the taxpayer to fund all of this. I want my taxmoney used for the basics only, nothing more. Anybody stealing from WINZ to fund a lifestyle, which some working New Zealanders don't have, needs to be put in jail.

The system is not punishing anybody, if anything its giving plenty of handouts, Imagine NZ without it. Yet its the evil here??

Rikkitic:The usual response to these questions seems to be the right-wing knee-jerk about people having to earn whatever they get through work, but what if that isn't an option for everyone?...

There you go again. Anybody that disagrees with you seems seems to be a right-winger with knee problems.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19063 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1833338 29-Jul-2017 12:36

Wiggum:

There you go again. Anybody that disagrees with you seems seems to be a right-winger with knee problems.

Feel free to explain what is wrong with my analysis. I am listening.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1833340 29-Jul-2017 12:46

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

This is more about the morality of having children you cannot afford as far as I am concerned.

TL/DR but if she knew she had insufficient income to support herself and a child, why did she have one?

You have made it clear that you don't like children anyway. People make mistakes. It is not like women carry an 'off' switch around with them. Maybe that should be the man's job.

Dad should pay too and should accept some responsibility, at least 50%

WINZ feels the same, therefore they request the details about Dad. In this case Metiria refused to give fathers details despite that she knew very well who he is.

The money pot for beneficiaries is not a bottomless bucket, the money needs to come from somewhere. I find it very interesting that many beneficiaries (including Metiria) believe Dad should not have to pay. Taxpayer/WINZ is more liable, its an entitlement? But Winz is the evil. Not the Dad (who may be making plenty of money).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1833341 29-Jul-2017 12:50

Rikkitic:

Wiggum:

There you go again. Anybody that disagrees with you seems seems to be a right-winger with knee problems.

Feel free to explain what is wrong with my analysis. I am listening.

The problem with your analysis, as always is the name calling. The last thread was closed because of the labels. Sure I was guilty of that too, but lets try and keep them out of this one please.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19063 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1833355 29-Jul-2017 12:58

Wiggum:

Dad should pay too and should accept some responsibility, at least 50%

WINZ feels the same, therefore they request the details about Dad. In this case Metiria refused to give fathers details despite that she knew very well who he is.

The money pot for beneficiaries is not a bottomless bucket, the money needs to come from somewhere. I find it very interesting that many beneficiaries (including Metiria) believe Dad should not have to pay. Taxpayer/WINZ is more liable, its an entitlement? But Winz is the evil. Not the Dad (who may be making plenty of money).

As a point of principle I actually agree with you here. I don't see why the impregnators should get off scot-free. If you father children, you have a responsibility to them.

Her point (as I understand it) is that she doesn't feel women should have to be subjected to humiliating interrogations about the most private aspects of their lives just because they are receiving a benefit. I agree with here there, but I don't see why there should not be an obligation to name the father and if he objects there should be a requirement to undergo a DNA test.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1833360 29-Jul-2017 13:08

Rikkitic:

Wiggum:

Dad should pay too and should accept some responsibility, at least 50%

WINZ feels the same, therefore they request the details about Dad. In this case Metiria refused to give fathers details despite that she knew very well who he is.

The money pot for beneficiaries is not a bottomless bucket, the money needs to come from somewhere. I find it very interesting that many beneficiaries (including Metiria) believe Dad should not have to pay. Taxpayer/WINZ is more liable, its an entitlement? But Winz is the evil. Not the Dad (who may be making plenty of money).

As a point of principle I actually agree with you here. I don't see why the impregnators should get off scot-free. If you father children, you have a responsibility to them.

Her point (as I understand it) is that she doesn't feel women should have to be subjected to humiliating interrogations about the most private aspects of their lives just because they are receiving a benefit. I agree with here there, but I don't see why there should not be an obligation to name the father and if he objects there should be a requirement to undergo a DNA test.

We agree on something! WOW this is huge!

In your view, who is the real evil here? WINZ or "impregnator"? I don't know all the details about "impregnator", but lets just say he was able to support his kids. Do you believe that its a crime that she lied to receive a benefit? And do you think its right that Metiria received the benefit, and would not disclose who the dad is? In other words, tax payers were liable, not the Dad.

Personally I believe WINZ should be able to go after Dads like this, even after all these years, and claim back the money thats owed to them. With interest.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19063 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1833368 29-Jul-2017 13:18

Wiggum:

The problem with your analysis, as always is the name calling. The last thread was closed because of the labels. Sure I was guilty of that too, but lets try and keep them out of this one please.

I have a certain style of writing but I will try to restrain myself. My serious point is that the world is changing. We are approaching a time when full employment will no longer be possible. Technology enables increased productivity from fewer workers. This will be the basis of wealth in the future. Taxation based on income will no longer be viable so your 'hard work' will cease to be a basis for benefiting others. More likely will be some form of environmental consumption tax. These huge changes in society will require similar changes in the thinking of people who currently cling to what are generally regarded as politically conservative ideas. The important issue to me is not Metiria Turei's dishonesty, but the movement towards a political and social system, as advocated by the Greens, that treats beneficiaries in a more equitable and humane fashion and encourages their development as human beings, not merely as life-long economic units in a hamburger joint.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19063 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1833369 29-Jul-2017 13:34

Wiggum:

We agree on something! WOW this is huge!

In your view, who is the real evil here? WINZ or "impregnator"? I don't know all the details about "impregnator", but lets just say he was able to support his kids. Do you believe that its a crime that she lied to receive a benefit? And do you think its right that Metiria received the benefit, and would not disclose who the dad is? In other words, tax payers were liable, not the Dad.

Personally I believe WINZ should be able to go after Dads like this, even after all these years, and claim back the money thats owed to them. With interest.

You keep trying to bring this back to her 'crime'. I don't know if it is a crime or not, and I don't really care. I think there are much bigger things to worry about. I believe she was fully entitled to a benefit, and I think she concealed some details to get more than she was entitled to. Maybe she was genuinely struggling, maybe not. I don't know the details. I don't know why she wouldn't identify the father. I think she should have.

I don't think WINZ is evil. It represents a system that is less than ideal and needs to be improved. I think that is happening now. It is a long, slow, gradual process.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1833372 29-Jul-2017 13:44

Rikkitic:

She may have well been greedy and maybe it wasn't an innocent crime, but I would rather focus on another comment of yours, which she also says she was trying to highlight. I think it is much bigger and more important than one person's dishonesty.

Why should the DPB system not be designed to give people as much choice as she took? This is the very point she has tried to make. Why have a system that punishes people for being dependant by giving them just enough to stay alive, but not enough to ever have a life? Why shouldn't a beneficiary be able to go one night a week and have a good time? Why shouldn't her kids be able to enjoy school trips or activities that other kids can?

The usual response to these questions seems to be the right-wing knee-jerk about people having to earn whatever they get through work, but what if that isn't an option for everyone? Communism died because the modern version was based on a 19th-century idea that lost its relevance to contemporary reality. Maybe modern capitalism is undergoing the same process, but those in love with it just can't see that? Political conservatives have an ideological aversion to government regulation or control, but we are entering a future where AI automatation will increasingly take over our jobs and there will not be enough work for everyone. Maybe there are other virtues that will have to fill that gap. There is already talk of a universal basic income that is not tied to work or doing anything else to 'deserve' it. Perhaps this will be the economic model of the future?

I believe that parties like National and those who support it need to evolve their ideas along with the evolution of society. Working for a living may well soon sound quaintly old-fashioned. Of course people shouldn't just blob out and spend their days smoking dope, which will be legal by the time universal incomes are introduced, but forms of persuasion other than starvation through lack of income will have to be found. And how will it all be paid for, comes the right wing lament? That is what AI automation is for, people. Economies evolve along with societies and technology. Now for the politics.

Because the DPB system was meant to be a stop gap system not a lifestyle system. I am all for a decent social welfare system that provides an adequate safety net for those that need it. Currently as she has highlighted, it is not decent for a lot of recipients. It has been eroded to close to irrelevant as it has not kept up with real inflation.

In any case she clearly cheated the system by lying to the State about her position many times as she would have had to declare her earnings and relationships at least annually. If she wasnt a politician earning close to $200k/annum I would agree that she should just pay the money back with penalties and let that be that. But she is a politician drawing a high income from the taxpayer to help make legislation for the people of NZ. There can be no letoff for her, she needs to resign before the election or it is just going to be a joke.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1833383 29-Jul-2017 14:13

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

This is more about the morality of having children you cannot afford as far as I am concerned.

TL/DR but if she knew she had insufficient income to support herself and a child, why did she have one?

You have made it clear that you don't like children anyway. People make mistakes. It is not like women carry an 'off' switch around with them. Maybe that should be the man's job.

There's always a solution.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1833444 29-Jul-2017 17:20

Pumpedd:

Rikkitic:

She may have well been greedy and maybe it wasn't an innocent crime, but I would rather focus on another comment of yours, which she also says she was trying to highlight. I think it is much bigger and more important than one person's dishonesty.

Why should the DPB system not be designed to give people as much choice as she took? This is the very point she has tried to make. Why have a system that punishes people for being dependant by giving them just enough to stay alive, but not enough to ever have a life? Why shouldn't a beneficiary be able to go one night a week and have a good time? Why shouldn't her kids be able to enjoy school trips or activities that other kids can?

The usual response to these questions seems to be the right-wing knee-jerk about people having to earn whatever they get through work, but what if that isn't an option for everyone? Communism died because the modern version was based on a 19th-century idea that lost its relevance to contemporary reality. Maybe modern capitalism is undergoing the same process, but those in love with it just can't see that? Political conservatives have an ideological aversion to government regulation or control, but we are entering a future where AI automatation will increasingly take over our jobs and there will not be enough work for everyone. Maybe there are other virtues that will have to fill that gap. There is already talk of a universal basic income that is not tied to work or doing anything else to 'deserve' it. Perhaps this will be the economic model of the future?

I believe that parties like National and those who support it need to evolve their ideas along with the evolution of society. Working for a living may well soon sound quaintly old-fashioned. Of course people shouldn't just blob out and spend their days smoking dope, which will be legal by the time universal incomes are introduced, but forms of persuasion other than starvation through lack of income will have to be found. And how will it all be paid for, comes the right wing lament? That is what AI automation is for, people. Economies evolve along with societies and technology. Now for the politics.

Because the DPB system was meant to be a stop gap system not a lifestyle system. I am all for a decent social welfare system that provides an adequate safety net for those that need it. Currently as she has highlighted, it is not decent for a lot of recipients. It has been eroded to close to irrelevant as it has not kept up with real inflation.

In any case she clearly cheated the system by lying to the State about her position many times as she would have had to declare her earnings and relationships at least annually. If she wasnt a politician earning close to $200k/annum I would agree that she should just pay the money back with penalties and let that be that. But she is a politician drawing a high income from the taxpayer to help make legislation for the people of NZ. There can be no letoff for her, she needs to resign before the election or it is just going to be a joke.

AFAIK one of the criticisms of changes to DPB was removal of eligibility for the benefit if in training - something I believe that Turei would have had access to (but she's trying to make a point that it was inadequate),

Over a period of time - well since the '80s reforms - there has also been a decline in basic wages relative to the median, compounded by elimination of penalty rates and a general casualisation of the work force.

That's probably made finding a job - any job - easier, but also probably contributed to the possibility of a poverty trap. Once upon a time, without formal qualifications, by turning up on time and working with the right attitude, then promotion to a position where better wages were paid was almost a given. Now I suspect it's a struggle - I don't say impossible - clearly not - but rather an exception.

Much of the welfare paid out today is actually to working people - not "professional solo mums and bludgers", by way of Working For Families, accommodation supplement etc. IMO that's just not how it should be in a well-functioning society.

She probably should resign. Not for penance for her "crime" - but for political naivety in doing what she has in the way she did - sabotaged any chance for debate on the subject as half the population seem to foaming at the mouth about her. Failure to see that makes her truly unsuitable for leadership.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1834032 31-Jul-2017 08:48

So much for the idea that Metiria Turei's admission would cost the Greens on the polls.

Colmar Brunton poll gives them the highest poll result ever - and a 4 point gain since the last poll.

Of course the only poll that matters is the one on election day, and Colmar Brunton don't have a good record for accuracy, but still...

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#1834082 31-Jul-2017 09:36

Rikkitic: I don't know if it is a crime or not, and I don't really care. I think there are much bigger things to worry about.

You've said this, or a variation of, a few times. You don't think that stealing $50,000 is a big deal worth worrying about?

Regardless of "need", you can't just help yourself to other peoples money - and that is exactly what she did.

Perhaps some hours working a part time job instead of wasting time as a member of the McGillicuddy Serious Party and she wouldn't have needed to commit fraud to get by.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1834102 31-Jul-2017 10:00

Rikkitic:

Wiggum: Dad should pay too and should accept some responsibility, at least 50%

WINZ feels the same, therefore they request the details about Dad. In this case Metiria refused to give fathers details despite that she knew very well who he is.

The money pot for beneficiaries is not a bottomless bucket, the money needs to come from somewhere. I find it very interesting that many beneficiaries (including Metiria) believe Dad should not have to pay. Taxpayer/WINZ is more liable, its an entitlement? But Winz is the evil. Not the Dad (who may be making plenty of money).

As a point of principle I actually agree with you here. I don't see why the impregnators should get off scot-free. If you father children, you have a responsibility to them.

Her point (as I understand it) is that she doesn't feel women should have to be subjected to humiliating interrogations about the most private aspects of their lives just because they are receiving a benefit. I agree with here there, but I don't see why there should not be an obligation to name the father and if he objects there should be a requirement to undergo a DNA test.

MT has said she received support from the child's father and family. To me, that indicates financial support, as opposed to a phone call once a week saying "awesome work with that child, you go girl".

If she named the father any financial support would have been made official and counted against the actual payout from what is now known as WINZ - she would have received the same amount of money, just not as much of it would have been from the taxpayer. By not naming him she would have been able to hide any financial support and keep it as an added benefit. So, addresing the notion the father may have got off scot-free, I don't believe he has, I rather think his contributions (which may or may not have been 'sufficient') have merely been kept from view.

On top of this she's under declared the amount of flatmates she had over a five year period where she lived in five different flats, so it's a sustained period of time she's continued this lie.

Now she's refusing to cooperate fully with the investigation claiming questions around whether or not one of those flatmates was a partner is invasive and unfair and that it's no-one's business but her own. Wrong. She rorted the system and the system has a right to be able to determine by exactly how much (or at least calculate to the best of it's ability) which requires all the facts. Those facts include whether she's telling the truth about her hardship or not. Given that during the time in question she chose to voluntarily work on political causes rather than seek paid employment and given her attitude towards questions, I don't think her hardship claims should be given much, if any, weight.

Thus her lies from 20 years ago continue into today.

What her flatmates of the time have to say about her lifestyle is still to come out. They'll need to be tracked down and interviewed, if they're willing to be cooperative.

I don't see why she should be given any special exemptions or privileged treatment just because she's trying to curry political favour with a particular segment of society. Once an investigation is complete (which could take many months) if there's enough evidence to support a prosecution she needs to be put before the Courts for a final determination on her culpability and her non-cooperation should count against her, just as it would for anyone else.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 18