WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

Forums › Off topic › WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1374065 25-Aug-2015 17:49

Geektastic:
jmh:
DizzyD:
sir1963:

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

And what are these social workers doing to up-skill themselves, and in turn obtain better paid jobs?

A lot.

Many social workers do the job because they want to make a difference. However, with low levels of funding, caseloads are so high and the stress so bad that it affects health, that the turnover in the sector is very high. Hence the job is on the long term skills list for immigration. That's a very effective way of keeping wages down in NZ - bring in cheap foreigners.

One of my best friends is a very senior social worker for a London Borough. He earns well in excess of $130,000 with 6 weeks paid holiday in addition to public holidays plus a pension scheme that will pay him 50% of his final salary, indexed for life when he retires at 60.

I suspect that we are probably operating on the 'pay peanuts, get monkeys' principle here - but rest assured bringing in talented and experienced 'foreigners' won't be cheap if you want them to move halfway round the world.

London is an expensive place to live no doubt

50% of salary pension for life from aged 60, paid by other peoples money.

with a paid vacation 25% higher than NZ and 50% higher than the US

no wonder the UK is more screwed than us.... yet.

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1374069 25-Aug-2015 17:53

networkn:

Right wing policies leads to exploitation, just look hard at Amazon.

Funny, I know 3 people PERSONALLY who work at various levels at Amazon. They LOVE it there. In any large organization you will find people who feel exploited and overworked etc.

I am not saying they are perfect, but 3 from 3 I know personally vs a few found by journalists, I'd trust the people I know.

The recent Amazon staff issues feel like a hatchet jobs.

Chuckled.

Yeah. Amazon only employs 5 people. :-P

1eStar

1604 posts

Uber Geek

#1374135 25-Aug-2015 19:19

It's the sense of entitlement that reeks. An overpriced whim purchase, then expect 'the guvment' to foot the bill. Some (especially one prolific) commentators here obviously display that same sense of entitlement. For people that work hard for what they get, the reading of this court case stinks.

samsam

167 posts

Master Geek

#1374258 25-Aug-2015 22:12

sir1963:
MikeAqua: Technically, yes. Pragmatically, no.

The government gives beneficiaries money (it's not earned) and they give some of that money back via various taxes.

Even with part time work, beneficiaries will still be net takers from the tax system.

sir1963:

But interestingly enough, people on benefits pay taxes.

40 hours on minimum wage ($14.75) = $590 a week or $30680 a year
Tax paid on that comes to $4389

HOWEVER
The employer deducts that wage at Corporate rate of 28% which is $8584.58

Making that job tax negative by $4195.58

So, even a full time employee can be tax negative.

This looks like a situation where the whole effect (on the government tax take) is trying to be looked at but is missing many factors that makes the analysis (argument) flawed. It is much simpler (with less: what if this, or what if that...) to look at what happens in the marginal case (what happens if we take someone outside the labour market, i.e not on an unemployment benefit, and give them a job).

Lets take a Company A and see what happens when they employ someone. Company A makes a profit of $X (lets say $1M) and will only hire a person if they (at worst) don't make less money after hiring that person. This assumption is valid as a company will seldom hire someone that doesn't benefit them. Now Company A employs someone, lets call them Sam, and pays them minimum wage on a full time 40 hours work week. This gives us an increase in tax takings of $4,389 a year.

Sam's income: $14.75 x 40 x 52 = $30,680
Sam's tax: $14,000 x 10.5% + 16,680 x 17.5% = $4,389

Company A profit is left unchanged after employing Same, they make the same amount of profit ($1M), and hence pay the same amount of tax ($280,000). But the government tax revenue has increased by $4,389 because Sam earns $30,680.

Even if Sam doesn't do very well for Company A. Sam must add less than $15,005 ($30,680 - $15,675) to Company A revenue before the governments tax revenue decreases. That is to say that Company A must make $15,676 ($15,676 x 28% = $4,389) less profit from employing Sam.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1374261 25-Aug-2015 22:16

nakedmolerat:
networkn:

Right wing policies leads to exploitation, just look hard at Amazon.

Funny, I know 3 people PERSONALLY who work at various levels at Amazon. They LOVE it there. In any large organization you will find people who feel exploited and overworked etc.

I am not saying they are perfect, but 3 from 3 I know personally vs a few found by journalists, I'd trust the people I know.

The recent Amazon staff issues feel like a hatchet jobs.

Chuckled.

Yeah. Amazon only employs 5 people. :-P

Not really sure what your point is

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1374267 25-Aug-2015 22:18

sir1963:
Geektastic:
jmh:
Geektastic:
jmh:
DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

I'm not unsympathetic with your view, but public spending should be on the basis on assessed need not personal opinion. A professional assessment of the situation would likely have led to recommendation of physio equipment at a much lower price, or perhaps a green prescription as mentioned by someone earlier. If the need is assessed by an expert through a fully transparent process, then taxpayers money is less likely to be needed for legal representation in court. I personally don't think this item should be paid for by the taxpayer, but my opinion is not really relevant.

What value is the tax payer getting from supporting this person though?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

We are fully supporting this person. What are we getting for our investment?

The same as we get from every pensioner.

Hardly. Most pensioners have paid tax all their lives and are no longer of working age (hence the pension...) - not the case here.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1374268 25-Aug-2015 22:20

MikeB4:
Geektastic:
We are fully supporting this person. What are we getting for our investment?

A member of our community

Not a very productive one, apparently....

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.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1374723 26-Aug-2015 16:03

A flat tax on revenue, is basically GST.

Internal licensing fees etc are subject to proof be tax payer as to how reasonable they are, the IRD can take (and do) people to task for artificially high internal costs.

sir1963:
Actually yes, a lower tax, but on the whole amount, and limit the amount you can deduct for some things.

Or do you think businesses should be able to set up shell companies in some island tax haven, then charge its NZ operations 90% of its profits as a licensing fee, thus reducing its tax liability to 1/10th of what they should pay. Small NZ businesses can't afford to do this, neither can wage workers.

The is a fault inherent in having a system based on insurance - which is voluntary. Same issue with private houses, vehicles and boats.

sir1963:
I also object to companies which have multiple branches manipulating the fire levy on insurance.
You have 10 branches worth 1 Million
You insure for a Maximum of 2 million dollars claimed in any one year
The fire levy gets paid on the 2 million insured, NOT the 10 million.
However ALL of their buildings get 100% fire coverage from the fire service.

The law doesn't require that to be an independent contractor, a person is able to work for a competing firm in the same sector, just another employer.

sir1963:
Realestate agents.
They can only work for one company at a time, yet they are classed as self employed .
Suddenly their car is deductible, so is their fuel, insurance, "home office" etc etc etc.
They are also taxed at the corporate rate, not the income tax rates so pay a lower percentage on a much reduced income.

Mike

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1374724 26-Aug-2015 16:08

I think the example you give below is misguided accounting.

However, something you may find interesting: When working for families WINZ etc is accounted for there is negative tax revenue in all annual income brackets $50,000 and below.

[edit: that's household income not individual and those earning 150k and above collectively pay 1/3 of gross income tax.]

sir1963:

40 hours on minimum wage ($14.75) = $590 a week or $30680 a year
Tax paid on that comes to $4389

HOWEVER
The employer deducts that wage at Corporate rate of 28% which is $8584.58

Making that job tax negative by $4195.58

So, even a full time employee can be tax negative.

Mike

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1375461 27-Aug-2015 23:53

Really this story is just click bait. 3k in the grand scheme of how much tax and rate payer is wasted on less important things, is just a drop in the ocean. It is not as though it is a waste of money in this case either.

Paul1977

5039 posts

Uber Geek

#1375517 28-Aug-2015 08:56

mattwnz: Really this story is just click bait. 3k in the grand scheme of how much tax and rate payer is wasted on less important things, is just a drop in the ocean. It is not as though it is a waste of money in this case either.

It may well be a waste of money, a $1000 machine might be just as beneficial for her condition - in which case $2000 has been wasted. The danger is the precedent it sets, one isolated $3000 isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but what if 1000 people did the same?

Home: Work:
Home Work

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1375522 28-Aug-2015 09:09

mattwnz: It is not as though it is a waste of money in this case either.

Thats your opinion.

My opinion is that beneficiaries should not be getting funding for this sort of stuff. Worse, is that there is an entitlement element factored into this one. At the taxpayers expense.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1375541 28-Aug-2015 09:45

DizzyD:
mattwnz: It is not as though it is a waste of money in this case either.

Thats your opinion.

My opinion is that beneficiaries should not be getting funding for this sort of stuff. Worse, is that there is an entitlement element factored into this one. At the taxpayers expense.

My opinion is that it's fine for my tax to be paying for this sort of stuff, provided the person follows due process, which I imagine should go something like this:

Beneficiary gets assessed by a medical professional,
Medical professional recommends the product as appropriate for improving the beneficiary's condition,
Beneficiary applies to the government for permission to spend the money, showing medical professional's recommendation,
Government approves the purchase,
Beneficiary purchases the product,
Beneficiary sends government the bill,
Government reimburses beneficiary.

In this case, she's gone straight to step 5 and the government are quite rightly having none of it. Next, we'll be funding everyone's NutriBullet or Bambillo or Stonedine frying pan.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1375722 28-Aug-2015 15:06

I would add to your process before step 1 a clinical psychologist's opinion that the person is emotionally/mentally up for seeking, finding and retaining employment. It's waste of time if they are unemployable.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1375731 28-Aug-2015 15:15

MikeAqua: I would add to your process before step 1 a clinical psychologist's opinion that the person is emotionally/mentally up for seeking, finding and retaining employment. It's waste of time if they are unemployable.

Get real. Half the WORKING population wouldn't pass this test. If they WANT a job, give them every possible support to get one. Plenty of unemployed people don't even WANT a job.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13