Is poverty the Government's fault?

Forums › Off topic › Is poverty the Government's fault?

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

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#899238 20-Sep-2013 21:03

KiwiNZ: For those genuinely interested in poverty in New Zealand there are various Government agencies that have considerable data and information on this.

Yeah, government data, and studies are just so much more 'real' that the people having to live the 'statistics' politicians and those that say it's not my problem love to quote.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#899253 20-Sep-2013 21:44

Geekamouse:
sdav: This is as simply as I can put it from where I see it:

Poverty is not the governments fault. It's a community issue that needs a community solution. Just like we shouldn't expect people to have hand outs we shouldn't expect the government to solve the issue alone. Everyone has a role to play and your job doesn't end with paying tax - everyone pays tax, including the poor.

Bleating that "The government should do something about it" carries the implication that I'm not prepared to put my hand in my pocket or give up my time. It's unreasonable to expect an unwieldy and politically driven beast like the government to solve all community problems. How many of us regularly contribute time or money to community initiatives to alleviate the effects of poverty? What would happen to a government at election time if it promised to raise income tax by, say 5%. to pay for poverty relief? Nah, probably not.

So, everybody out there whose seriously concerned about poverty in our society: when will you sign up to or start a simple local community poverty relief action group to identify and help the poor and needy in your locality.

I don't think it needs to be a "do something about it or don't voice your opinion" sort of situation.

I feel if everyone at least gave themselves any opportunity to get involved, something as simple as delivering clothing or meals or just observed a charity working for a day I'm sure that would be enough. I think it's too easy to be emotionally detached from the situation and therefore come up with opinions not based on experience.

As an adult aged between 20 to 50 you have effectively 10950 days (including work days). Is it possible to get out in to a community for at least one day and shadow a charity and see the people they are helping? I'm not saying everyone needs to be a superhero and give up all there spare time. I think at this stage it's merely about informing people.

What I find interesting is the number of people that volunteer to assist charities on Christmas Day, yet the rest of the year charities struggle to find people. Why is that?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#899285 21-Sep-2013 00:09

KiwiNZ:
1080p:
KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ: @ 1080p. The minimum wage only applies to those who are earning.

Agreed

But for everyone else there is WINZ
Check what you might get

There really is no excuse for living in "poverty" in NZ
We have a world class social welfare system that other countries can only dream of

there are those that for various reasons do not qualify for income support.

So there are people who do not have jobs, do not qualify for assistance (health, inability to find work, etc...). What is one reason this might occur? I cannot think of a single instance that this kind of situation would arise.

if you read the Social Security Act it is actually easy to work out.

I asked for a reason, not a vague reference to an irrelevant act.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#899287 21-Sep-2013 00:26

Geekamouse: The Gene Pool debate very quickly got mired in the poverty issue. As usual it was suggested that people can't be held resposible for their lifestyle choices, decisions or behaviour. The government is responsible. But is it really? Let's take it right back to basics and imagine that we had a scrupulously fair government that passed laws that said everyone was equal, couldn't own property and must be paid exactly the same amount of money irrespective of their job or role in society or otherwise. That would be fair, right? Nobody would be poor any more or be disadvantaged by societal factors.

We'd all be happy.

Really?

Poverty exists whether there is a government or not.

Poverty has always existed and poverty will always exist.

1000 years ago in Europe, the gap between the very poor (almost everyone) and the very rich was so enormous you probably could not quantify it sensibly in terms most people today would relate to. Imagine 99% of EVERYTHING in NZ being owned by perhaps 6 -12 people. They have almost all the money, land and commerce.

You cannot own property at all and must work a number of days for free for them every year in order to continue to live in your wattle and daub hut and tend your meagre acre or so of land. Your hut door has leather hinges, because steel ones cost more than you would earn in 6 months. When your oxen die unexpectedly, you must pull the plough as your 9 year old son steers it or starve next winter because you cannot afford a new ox.

No one in NZ has to live in poverty.

When I first arrived here, I will admit to offering a woman in the supermarket $20 because her children had no shoes on and where I grew up only beggars and the like would go into a shop without shoes on.

There are plenty of people here with less money than they might wish for, but you make choices. We chose not to have kids because we wanted to concentrate on other things. That may mean we have more cash spare (I doubt it though - we either save it or spend it on something else!) than people who have many kids. If you breed 'em, you feed 'em as the saying goes and if you cannot afford it, well contraception is neither complicated nor expensive. We drink very little alcohol and that eats money in NZ faster than pokies. If you go out and have 4 beers in Wellington that will cost $40 or thereabouts. If you do that once a week, you are spending $2000 a year on booze, not including taxis. If there are two of you on average wages, allowing for a bit extra that is say $5000 a year on booze. On average wages of around $50k you are spending 10% of your gross income each year making expensive urine.

I will accept that some people need help. What I will not accept is people with 7 kids claiming they cannot feed, clothe or get them to school whilst at the same time chugging Woodys from sunup to sundown and smoking 40 a day at $20 a packet. If those people want government help, my government would deliver that by having their children taken away and adopted and then having them sterilised and placed in a work camp for re-education!!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#899295 21-Sep-2013 06:31

1080p:
KiwiNZ:
1080p:
KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ: @ 1080p. The minimum wage only applies to those who are earning.

Agreed

But for everyone else there is WINZ
Check what you might get

There really is no excuse for living in "poverty" in NZ
We have a world class social welfare system that other countries can only dream of

there are those that for various reasons do not qualify for income support.

So there are people who do not have jobs, do not qualify for assistance (health, inability to find work, etc...). What is one reason this might occur? I cannot think of a single instance that this kind of situation would arise.

if you read the Social Security Act it is actually easy to work out.

I asked for a reason, not a vague reference to an irrelevant act.

the reasons people may not qualify are many and complex it would take pages to list here. How on gods green earth is the Social Security Act irrelevant to Benefit entitlements? Its the Act that authorises them for goodness sake.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#899362 21-Sep-2013 10:48

KiwiNZ:

the reasons people may not qualify are many and complex it would take pages to list here. How on gods green earth is the Social Security Act irrelevant to Benefit entitlements? Its the Act that authorises them for goodness sake.

nonsense

The only thing I can think of is non residents. Those on working visas etc ... Rightly so, and I fully agree that these people should not qualify for benefits.

Even Non New Zealand Citizens (With PR) qualify for WINZ.

Put down 3 other examples of those that can't qualify.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#899388 21-Sep-2013 11:58

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

the reasons people may not qualify are many and complex it would take pages to list here. How on gods green earth is the Social Security Act irrelevant to Benefit entitlements? Its the Act that authorises them for goodness sake.

nonsense

The only thing I can think of is non residents. Those on working visas etc ... Rightly so, and I fully agree that these people should not qualify for benefits.

Even Non New Zealand Citizens (With PR) qualify for WINZ.

Put down 3 other examples of those that can't qualify.

A person who is fired, with or without cause (13 week stand-down)
A person who takes "voluntary" redundancy (which usually isn't all that voluntary in this day and age - 13 week stand-down)
A person the Commissioner of Police claims is a "risk to public safety" - a simple letter from a constable to MSD and that person's benefit gets the chop
A person who has an arrest warrant (yes, even for unpaid parking fines - and sometimes people aren't aware they even have these!)
A patient in a public hospital for more than 13 weeks (benefit gets chopped down to $40/week. Never mind that their rent and other bills aren't)
A woman who fails to take "reasonable" steps to obtain maintenance from the father of a child who disappears (and no, "reasonable" isn't defined. Interestingly, this clause only applies to women!)
A person who fails a drug test (because let's penalise them, rather than try help them through what may actually be a real problem!)

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.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#899394 21-Sep-2013 12:19

Kyanar:

A person who is fired, with or without cause (13 week stand-down)
A person who takes "voluntary" redundancy (which usually isn't all that voluntary in this day and age - 13 week stand-down)
A person the Commissioner of Police claims is a "risk to public safety" - a simple letter from a constable to MSD and that person's benefit gets the chop
A person who has an arrest warrant (yes, even for unpaid parking fines - and sometimes people aren't aware they even have these!)
A patient in a public hospital for more than 13 weeks (benefit gets chopped down to $40/week. Never mind that their rent and other bills aren't)
A woman who fails to take "reasonable" steps to obtain maintenance from the father of a child who disappears (and no, "reasonable" isn't defined. Interestingly, this clause only applies to women!)
A person who fails a drug test (because let's penalise them, rather than try help them through what may actually be a real problem!)

Fully agree with all of them
Thanks for clearing them up.

None of them cause "poverty"

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#899399 21-Sep-2013 12:38

Kyanar:
Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

the reasons people may not qualify are many and complex it would take pages to list here. How on gods green earth is the Social Security Act irrelevant to Benefit entitlements? Its the Act that authorises them for goodness sake.

nonsense

The only thing I can think of is non residents. Those on working visas etc ... Rightly so, and I fully agree that these people should not qualify for benefits.

Even Non New Zealand Citizens (With PR) qualify for WINZ.

Put down 3 other examples of those that can't qualify.

A person who is fired, with or without cause (13 week stand-down)
A person who takes "voluntary" redundancy (which usually isn't all that voluntary in this day and age - 13 week stand-down)
A person the Commissioner of Police claims is a "risk to public safety" - a simple letter from a constable to MSD and that person's benefit gets the chop
A person who has an arrest warrant (yes, even for unpaid parking fines - and sometimes people aren't aware they even have these!)
A patient in a public hospital for more than 13 weeks (benefit gets chopped down to $40/week. Never mind that their rent and other bills aren't)
A woman who fails to take "reasonable" steps to obtain maintenance from the father of a child who disappears (and no, "reasonable" isn't defined. Interestingly, this clause only applies to women!)
A person who fails a drug test (because let's penalise them, rather than try help them through what may actually be a real problem!)

I can't say I am too upset that no one like you list there can get free money from taxpayers.

I would also suggest that for a Commissioner of Police to believe you are a risk to public safety, a letter from said Commissioner would be required rather than one from a Constable. The only people I can think of likely to be in that bracket are escaped prisoners, those evading arrest or escaped lunatics. Permitting such persons to claim public funds seems pretty odd to me.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#899414 21-Sep-2013 13:52

Klipspringer:
Kyanar:

A person who is fired, with or without cause (13 week stand-down)
A person who takes "voluntary" redundancy (which usually isn't all that voluntary in this day and age - 13 week stand-down)
A person the Commissioner of Police claims is a "risk to public safety" - a simple letter from a constable to MSD and that person's benefit gets the chop
A person who has an arrest warrant (yes, even for unpaid parking fines - and sometimes people aren't aware they even have these!)
A patient in a public hospital for more than 13 weeks (benefit gets chopped down to $40/week. Never mind that their rent and other bills aren't)
A woman who fails to take "reasonable" steps to obtain maintenance from the father of a child who disappears (and no, "reasonable" isn't defined. Interestingly, this clause only applies to women!)
A person who fails a drug test (because let's penalise them, rather than try help them through what may actually be a real problem!)

Fully agree with all of them
Thanks for clearing them up.

None of them cause "poverty"

Not by your definition - of course not.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#899416 21-Sep-2013 14:22

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

the reasons people may not qualify are many and complex it would take pages to list here. How on gods green earth is the Social Security Act irrelevant to Benefit entitlements? Its the Act that authorises them for goodness sake.

nonsense

The only thing I can think of is non residents. Those on working visas etc ... Rightly so, and I fully agree that these people should not qualify for benefits.

Even Non New Zealand Citizens (With PR) qualify for WINZ.

Put down 3 other examples of those that can't qualify.

I only dealt with it for 24 years what the hell would I know

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#899418 21-Sep-2013 14:25

Klipspringer:
Kyanar:

A person who is fired, with or without cause (13 week stand-down)
A person who takes "voluntary" redundancy (which usually isn't all that voluntary in this day and age - 13 week stand-down)
A person the Commissioner of Police claims is a "risk to public safety" - a simple letter from a constable to MSD and that person's benefit gets the chop
A person who has an arrest warrant (yes, even for unpaid parking fines - and sometimes people aren't aware they even have these!)
A patient in a public hospital for more than 13 weeks (benefit gets chopped down to $40/week. Never mind that their rent and other bills aren't)
A woman who fails to take "reasonable" steps to obtain maintenance from the father of a child who disappears (and no, "reasonable" isn't defined. Interestingly, this clause only applies to women!)
A person who fails a drug test (because let's penalise them, rather than try help them through what may actually be a real problem!)

Fully agree with all of them
Thanks for clearing them up.

None of them cause "poverty"

Of course having no fiscal means to house, clothe, medicate blah blah doesn't cause poverty hardship only happiness and fulfilment

Good grief

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#899432 21-Sep-2013 15:25

KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

the reasons people may not qualify are many and complex it would take pages to list here. How on gods green earth is the Social Security Act irrelevant to Benefit entitlements? Its the Act that authorises them for goodness sake.

nonsense

The only thing I can think of is non residents. Those on working visas etc ... Rightly so, and I fully agree that these people should not qualify for benefits.

Even Non New Zealand Citizens (With PR) qualify for WINZ.

Put down 3 other examples of those that can't qualify.

I only dealt with it for 24 years what the hell would I know

You dealt with this kind of situation for 24 years and can't name a single reason a NZ'er would fail to qualify for either help from welfare or be able to maintain at least a minimum wage job?

If there are so many reasons that this situation can occur surely it is possible to succinctly note a few of them here to further the discussion.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#899445 21-Sep-2013 15:47

Kyanar: A person who is fired, with or without cause (13 week stand-down)

This is a temporary situation and not poverty.

Kyanar: A person who takes "voluntary" redundancy (which usually isn't all that voluntary in this day and age - 13 week stand-down)

Once again, temporary only.

Kyanar: A person the Commissioner of Police claims is a "risk to public safety" - a simple letter from a constable to MSD and that person's benefit gets the chop

If a member of the police has reason to contact the MSD with regard to a person that person would have chosen to ignore multiple opportunities to avoid poverty and not break the law. The State supporting a person who has chosen to ignore their responsibility to law abiding citizenry is not something I can, in good conscience, support.

Kyanar: A person who has an arrest warrant (yes, even for unpaid parking fines - and sometimes people aren't aware they even have these!)

This makes sense, if a person is unaware they have outstanding arrest warrants then this measure will encourage them to resolve the situation. Once again, the situation is temporary and a benefit will be restored to anyone who qualifies afterward.

Kyanar: A patient in a public hospital for more than 13 weeks (benefit gets chopped down to $40/week. Never mind that their rent and other bills aren't)

This is a very specific situation and probably incredibly rare. In this situation it would be ideal for family, friends or other community groups to assist. In this situation maintaining a rental property may be unnecessary until the patient is healthy enough to return home.

Kyanar: A woman who fails to take "reasonable" steps to obtain maintenance from the father of a child who disappears (and no, "reasonable" isn't defined. Interestingly, this clause only applies to women!)

I'm sure a moment with a WINZ case worker would make 'reasonable' clear for a person's specific circumstances. Defining 'reasonable' in legislation is not possible due to the hundreds of different possible situations people can be in.

Kyanar: A person who fails a drug test (because let's penalise them, rather than try help them through what may actually be a real problem!)

Do you think the State should subsidise the illicit drug market? Passing a drug test is a reasonable expectation if you wish to have State support. Obviously you can choose whatever lifestyle you'd like when you have a way to support yourself.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#899464 21-Sep-2013 16:07

KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

the reasons people may not qualify are many and complex it would take pages to list here. How on gods green earth is the Social Security Act irrelevant to Benefit entitlements? Its the Act that authorises them for goodness sake.

nonsense

The only thing I can think of is non residents. Those on working visas etc ... Rightly so, and I fully agree that these people should not qualify for benefits.

Even Non New Zealand Citizens (With PR) qualify for WINZ.

Put down 3 other examples of those that can't qualify.

I only dealt with it for 24 years what the hell would I know

We don't know, because you make short or vague statements and don't eleaborate.

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