Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 16
5237 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2377

Subscriber

  Reply # 1833331 29-Jul-2017 12:19
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


560 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 229


  Reply # 1833334 29-Jul-2017 12:27
Send private message quote this post

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.


 
 
 
 


5237 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2377

Subscriber

  Reply # 1833338 29-Jul-2017 12:36
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


560 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 229


  Reply # 1833340 29-Jul-2017 12:46
Send private message quote this post

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).


560 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 229


  Reply # 1833341 29-Jul-2017 12:50
Send private message quote this post

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.


5237 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2377

Subscriber

  Reply # 1833355 29-Jul-2017 12:58
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


560 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 229


  Reply # 1833360 29-Jul-2017 13:08
Send private message quote this post

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! cool cool cool

 

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.


5237 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2377

Subscriber

  Reply # 1833368 29-Jul-2017 13:18
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


5237 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2377

Subscriber

  Reply # 1833369 29-Jul-2017 13:34
Send private message quote this post

Wiggum:

 

We agree on something! WOW this is huge! cool cool cool

 

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. 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


628 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 276


  Reply # 1833372 29-Jul-2017 13:44
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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.


9375 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2827

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1833383 29-Jul-2017 14:13
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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.






4599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2082


  Reply # 1833444 29-Jul-2017 17:20
Send private message quote this post

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.


4599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2082


  Reply # 1834032 31-Jul-2017 08:48
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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...


1708 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 473


  Reply # 1834082 31-Jul-2017 09:36
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

 

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.

 

 


2829 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 776

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1834102 31-Jul-2017 10:00
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 16
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Public Wi-Fi plus cloud file sharing
Posted 18-Aug-2017 11:20


D-Link NZ launches professional Wireless AC Wave 2 Access Point for businesses
Posted 17-Aug-2017 19:25


Garmin introduces the Rino 700 five-watt two-way handheld radio
Posted 17-Aug-2017 19:04


Garmin announces the Foretrex 601 and Foretrex 701 Ballistic Edition for outdoor and tactical use
Posted 17-Aug-2017 19:02


Brightstar announces new distribution partnership with Samsung Knox platform in Australia
Posted 17-Aug-2017 17:07


Free gig-enabled WiFi network extends across Dunedin
Posted 17-Aug-2017 17:04


Samsung expands with connect Gear S3 Frontier
Posted 17-Aug-2017 15:55


Fact-checking Southern Cross Next cable is fastest to USA
Posted 17-Aug-2017 13:57


Thurrott says Microsoft Surface is dead last for reliability
Posted 16-Aug-2017 15:19


LibreOffice 5.4 works better with Microsoft Office files
Posted 16-Aug-2017 13:32


Certus launches Cognition
Posted 14-Aug-2017 09:31


Spark adds Cambridge, Turangi to 4.5G network
Posted 10-Aug-2017 17:55


REANNZ network to receive ongoing Government funding through to 2024
Posted 10-Aug-2017 16:05


Chorus backhaul starts with 2degrees
Posted 10-Aug-2017 15:49


New Zealanders cool on data analytics catching benefit fraud
Posted 10-Aug-2017 09:56



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.