Homeless in NZ

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

Forums › Politics › Homeless in NZ

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 15

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827176 22-Jul-2017 17:15

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

The beneficiaries may not agree. Child poverty is rampant here. When inflation is extremely low, thats not too hard. The Health system is broke, only the other day DHB South I think is well behind the 8 ball. The homeless are beneficiaries generally, not good. Those that are not beneficiaries, also not good.

But hey, they have done well.

Child "poverty" in NZ is really mostly a bad parenting problem. There is no excuse really at how some parents can get away with how they just don't worry about their kids etc.

Yes some kids go to school without lunch and possibly shoes. But what parent in his right mind would ever send their kid off to school for the whole day without food. Its sick really, and sometimes I wish we took a harder stance on parents in NZ. In many other countries, parents like this would be prosecuted. A loaf of bread is $1, I fail to understand how some kids can be sent to school without lunch.

/ end of rant

Benefit or the low paid job - rent - power -clothes - basic food, and so on. Just because you, me, and many if not all on here are not affected by poverty, it exists.

Unless we regulate parents? Off course there will always be useless parents, thats humanity. But to put all parents in the same box as useless when ends don't meet, thats unfair to put it mildly

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1827177 22-Jul-2017 17:16

Wiggum:

Those jobs should never be seen as permanent. I will use the "toilet cleaner" as an argument.

Use that as an "argument" and you disqualify yourself from being able to conduct a rational discussion in these forums - yet again.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827179 22-Jul-2017 17:19

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Do you really need to ask if you think that's what I meant? Sounds like you are just aching for a reason to go and get upset. Perhaps go and read my other comments before you go and work yourself into a lather picking the worse possible interpretation of something

someone says.

We disagree on nearly everything but your comments are often intelligent and sensible, unlike some others from the 'right'. This one was not. You can always find bad examples to tar a whole group with if you go looking. It is not evidence of anything. It just gives ammunition to feed the prejudices of the feeble-minded.

It was a specific example to counter another specific example. My prior comments in the thread show I do know there is an issue (and actually if you knew anything about me personally and my history you'd know that I am familiar with these sort of issues actually), but there are things about general homelessness that a lot of people don't understand that no amount of houses or likely money will solve. The bottom line is that you can't fix every problem. Not everyone wants to live in a house, being paid a high salary doing highly qualified work. The problem also is, that even if there was one homeless person in the country, there would be people complaining the government wasn't doing enough. Unless you want taxes at 99% of incomes, there will not be enough resources to resolve every issue (Then you'll have a bunch of other horrible issues).

If you suddenly put 250,000 more houses on the market, even affordable ones, it causes all sorts of other issues like infrastructure and social inbalances. Everything is about balance, and even if the current Government doesn't have it right yet, it doesn't mean they aren't trying to do something about it.

We are a very socially conscious country, in some regards a little too much in my opinion, though, on this issue, I agree we could be doing more. The current government has had a LOT on it's plate in it's time in office, GFC's which we handled quite well, 3 Major Earthquakes, rebuilding a number of cities and areas, whilst trying to keep track of unemployment and all the social issues that people have become so much more aware of recently (that were always an issue, like mental health and suicide). More resources would help, but people also don't like massive Goverments with huge numbers of staff, who are typically paid well. Would you like the Government to ignore the South Island right now, whilst 3 major areas are in a state of emergency, so they can spend their time solving homelessness?

We need to do better, but where should it sit on the list of priorities?

Also to address your last comment, people who are prejudiced are not alway feeble minded, everyone has prejudices, it's just how they choose to display those.

Anyways, I'm going to step off this discussion, I see it's already heading in the same direction as the last 6 political threads in the offtopic area of this forum, with the same 8 people butting heads and trading insults much the same as it was before.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827180 22-Jul-2017 17:21

tdgeek:

This thread is about the homeless, the homeowners can look after themselves, as well as not being homeless, they are homeowners, a tough thing to accomplish these days.

I feel the market has cooled as the would be home buyers are now homeowners, which leaves the would be home buyers short of a deposit or the ability to fund a mortgage. I don't see the immigration has affected availability that much, as those homes are not homes that the lower down people can buy or build.

But this is a free market economy, so its then up to the Govt of the day to cater for those that cannot cope with the free market economy, but that seems a low priority.

So because someone has a house they deemed better off?

I know a lady in my street living in her own house (fully paid). She is not working, she has no access to the benefit (she owns her own home). Believe me when I tell you. This woman is poor, and she relies mostly on the generosity of others + a local paper run.

Kudus to her for doing whatever it takes to get by, and hang onto her house.

Owning one's own house is not all roses. I know some new homeowners that are living very close to the breadline, with families to support, both parents working. The point I am trying to make is that "poverty" can exist no matter what you are earning, and its got nothing to do with whether you a homeowner or not. You actually worse off as a homeowner without a job.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1827181 22-Jul-2017 17:23

Wiggum:
Those jobs should never be seen as permanent. I will use the "toilet cleaner" as an argument. This is not a highly skilled job, are you proposing we pay cleaners/toilet cleaners more money? Higher the minimum income some more? Bottom line is this is a very basic job, anybody can do it. Keep the pay low so that these people in these low end jobs have some goals to work themselves out of it.

These workers deserve to have a good standard of living like anyone else.

These jobs have to get done. We cant look at these jobs and say that its unfare for these people to not be able to afford a house etc. We all have access to the system in NZ. Anybody willing to do it, can go and upsill themselves. (nterest free?)

In reality there are many other factors at play like housing availability and cost, transport, probably a few other things. To get back on topic I'd put housing at the top of the list there.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827192 22-Jul-2017 17:28

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

This thread is about the homeless, the homeowners can look after themselves, as well as not being homeless, they are homeowners, a tough thing to accomplish these days.

I feel the market has cooled as the would be home buyers are now homeowners, which leaves the would be home buyers short of a deposit or the ability to fund a mortgage. I don't see the immigration has affected availability that much, as those homes are not homes that the lower down people can buy or build.

But this is a free market economy, so its then up to the Govt of the day to cater for those that cannot cope with the free market economy, but that seems a low priority.

So because someone has a house they deemed better off?

I know a lady in my street living in her own house (fully paid). She is not working, she has no access to the benefit (she owns her own home). Believe me when I tell you. This woman is poor, and she relies mostly on the generosity of others + a local paper run.

Kudus to her for doing whatever it takes to get by, and hang onto her house.

Owning one's own house is not all roses. I know some new homeowners that are living very close to the breadline, with families to support, both parents working. The point I am trying to make is that "poverty" can exist no matter what you are earning, and its got nothing to do with whether you a homeowner or not. You actually worse off as a homeowner without a job.

Yes, they are better off. The lady you quote is mortgage free. How would she do paying rent? Rates and Insurance are a lot less than rent.

If new homeowners are near the breadline, why did they buy at that level?

If a homeowner lost their job they can get an interest only arrangement or a mortgage holiday, what about renters?

The context of this thread, I assume, relates to the truly homeless, they got no choice. And have no ability to manage it. Others who are further up the food chain, yes, are in fact better off, including home owners.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827193 22-Jul-2017 17:28

gzt:
Wiggum:

Those jobs should never be seen as permanent. I will use the "toilet cleaner" as an argument. This is not a highly skilled job, are you proposing we pay cleaners/toilet cleaners more money? Higher the minimum income some more? Bottom line is this is a very basic job, anybody can do it. Keep the pay low so that these people in these low end jobs have some goals to work themselves out of it.

These workers deserve to have a good standard of living like anyone else.

These jobs have to get done. We cant look at these jobs and say that its unfare for these people to not be able to afford a house etc. We all have access to the system in NZ. Anybody willing to do it, can go and upsill themselves. (nterest free?)

In reality there are many other factors at play like housing availability and cost, transport, probably a few other things. To get back on topic I'd put housing at the top of the list there.

I have started to see a trend in these discussions. They mostly very anti-capitalism.

There is really a good solution to all of this. Maybe its time we started thinking about communism in NZ. It will solve a lot of these problems.

/tongue in cheek

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1827194 22-Jul-2017 17:29

Wiggum:
tdgeek:

The beneficiaries may not agree. Child poverty is rampant here. When inflation is extremely low, thats not too hard. The Health system is broke, only the other day DHB South I think is well behind the 8 ball. The homeless are beneficiaries generally, not good. Those that are not beneficiaries, also not good.

But hey, they have done well.

Child "poverty" in NZ is really mostly a bad parenting problem. There is no excuse really at how some parents can get away with how they just don't worry about their kids etc.

Yes some kids go to school without lunch and possibly shoes. But what parent in his right mind would ever send their kid off to school for the whole day without food. Its sick really, and sometimes I wish we took a harder stance on parents in NZ. In many other countries, parents like this would be prosecuted. A loaf of bread is $1, I fail to understand how some kids can be sent to school without lunch.

/ end of rant

What a load of rubbish, I am really certain you are simply trolling these threads

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827197 22-Jul-2017 17:34

Anti capitalism? Where do you get that from? because some sympathise with homeless, so that disses the better off, the horrible people with nice houses and nice cars? The ones that criticise the current Govt for not doing enough for these people or the housing issues and so on?

Perhaps some of us are little affected by such financial matters, and chose to want the worse off, to be better off. Id take that as having a conscience not being anti capitalist.

Perhaps if you stayed on topic and lessened the political rants when others disagree, there might be a more productive discussion.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827199 22-Jul-2017 17:37

tdgeek:

Yes, they are better off. The lady you quote is mortgage free. How would she do paying rent? Rates and Insurance are a lot less than rent.

If new homeowners are near the breadline, why did they buy at that level?

If a homeowner lost their job they can get an interest only arrangement or a mortgage holiday, what about renters?

The context of this thread, I assume, relates to the truly homeless, they got no choice. And have no ability to manage it. Others who are further up the food chain, yes, are in fact better off, including home owners.

No they not better off because a homeowner cannot claim welfare. Thats the point I was trying to make.

Welfare covers even rent. No ways will it ever cover a home loan, and no ways will you get any money out of WINZ if you are a home owner.

Our system really does not allow for true homelessness in NZ. It will be interesting to find out from some of these people as to why they are living in cars etc. Perhaps using their benefit payment for rent is a second priority, rent money possibly being spent on something else?

I have seen some beggars in Wellington lately. I find it interesting that some did not seem to be Kiwi. Perhaps no access to welfare due to not being a new Zealand citizen.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827202 22-Jul-2017 17:42

MikeB4:

What a load of rubbish

Please explain then how you can side with parents who send their kids to school without lunch when a loaf of bread can cost $1.

There is no excuse in NZ to send your kids to school without lunch, shoes maybe.

Biggest part of Poverty = no food

If a kid is sent to school without lunch in NZ, I'm sorry but I have to blame the parents. $1 for a loaf of bread.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1827203 22-Jul-2017 17:43

Wiggum:
tdgeek:

Yes, they are better off. The lady you quote is mortgage free. How would she do paying rent? Rates and Insurance are a lot less than rent.

If new homeowners are near the breadline, why did they buy at that level?

If a homeowner lost their job they can get an interest only arrangement or a mortgage holiday, what about renters?

The context of this thread, I assume, relates to the truly homeless, they got no choice. And have no ability to manage it. Others who are further up the food chain, yes, are in fact better off, including home owners.

No they not better off because a homeowner cannot claim welfare. Thats the point I was trying to make.

Welfare covers even rent. No ways will it ever cover a home loan, and no ways will you get any money out of WINZ if you are a home owner.

Our system really does not allow for true homelessness in NZ. It will be interesting to find out from some of these people as to why they are living in cars etc. Perhaps using their benefit payment for rent is a second priority, rent money possibly being spent on something else?

I have seen some beggars in Wellington lately. I find it interesting that some did not seem to be Kiwi. Perhaps no access to welfare due to not being a new Zealand citizen.

A home owner on a primary benefit can apply for and receive an accommodation supplement. Again stop making things up

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827204 22-Jul-2017 17:46

MikeB4:
A home owner on a primary benefit can apply for and receive an accommodation supplement. Again stop making things up

You wrong.

The first thing WINZ will tell her to do is sell her home. That is exactly what they have told this woman multiple times.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1827205 22-Jul-2017 17:46

@ Wiggum I have spent most of my working life working in social services as well as many years doing voluntary social sevices

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827207 22-Jul-2017 17:48

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Yes, they are better off. The lady you quote is mortgage free. How would she do paying rent? Rates and Insurance are a lot less than rent.

If new homeowners are near the breadline, why did they buy at that level?

If a homeowner lost their job they can get an interest only arrangement or a mortgage holiday, what about renters?

The context of this thread, I assume, relates to the truly homeless, they got no choice. And have no ability to manage it. Others who are further up the food chain, yes, are in fact better off, including home owners.

No they not better off because a homeowner cannot claim welfare. Thats the point I was trying to make.

Welfare covers even rent. No ways will it ever cover a home loan, and no ways will you get any money out of WINZ if you are a home owner.

Our system really does not allow for true homelessness in NZ. It will be interesting to find out from some of these people as to why they are living in cars etc. Perhaps using their benefit payment for rent is a second priority, rent money possibly being spent on something else?

I have seen some beggars in Wellington lately. I find it interesting that some did not seem to be Kiwi. Perhaps no access to welfare due to not being a new Zealand citizen.

I have an unemployment form online, there is no mention of exclusion for owning your own home. Under the list f non cash assets it states

land or buildings other than your home, eg holiday homes. Which means that if you have any non cash assets, they matter, but exclude "your home" so it doesnt seem to matter, and why would it? Your saying you cant get welfare if you own your home. So, unemployment, sickness, you starve? I think you have that very wrong.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 15