WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

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

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1373747 25-Aug-2015 12:10

networkn: Pension, those people have payed taxes all their lives and are entitled to it. I think it should be partially asset tested, but it is what it is.

It seems to me that these two statements would be contradictory. If we accept that those that have paid taxes all their life are entitled to it, then it doesn't take much of a leap to think that those with the most assets may have paid the most in tax during their life. Why aren't they entitled to it?

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1373750 25-Aug-2015 12:12

I guess the difference is all those examples of expenditure aim to benefit the country - employment, exposure, entertainment, skills development ... [actual benefits admittedly debatable].

Hard to see the $3k exercise under discussion here machine befitting anyone but the user and even that isn't certain.

If you look at rehabilitation stats ... after a year or more off work due to injury, most people never return, and it gets rapidly worse after that.

Simple solution:
Kill of universal pension.
If you are working, you are not retired. If you have other income, you don't need it.

NZers are paying the LOWEST taxes they have ever paid.

MOST beneficiaries are short term , however they only haul out the ones who are extreme and show the welfare system in a poor light.

Me, I did not want my money spent on Lord of the Rings movies, but the tax pay funded rich people to make them here.
Did not want all that money going to a rich boys yacht race. Or the money going to Rugby, etc
Then there is the $Billion or so the rich people got paid back with the collapse of SCF.
And the flag, and the bribe to a wealthy Arab and we still didn't get a trade agreement, or the expensive flat in NYC.
How about the 1Billion the TPPA is going to cost in pharmaceutical cost increases which the government will bury to hide the cost.

Mike

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373755 25-Aug-2015 12:19

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.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1373758 25-Aug-2015 12:19

okashiicake:
We also have relatively high unemployment and people who are recently out of university are generally not favored for positions in other work than low-rank, low wage government facilities. Surely you know that someone with an Arts degree wont be able to become a doctor or a pharmacist. Many of the high paid jobs in New Zealand aren't available for graduates, and there are so few of those jobs available that they;re normally always filled.

So, don't get an arts degree! Law of supply and demand again. We need more scientists, engineers, tradesmen, skilled technicians etc, not loads of people with arts degrees and no idea what to do with them

I don't understand what you mean by "Many of the high paid jobs in New Zealand aren't available for graduates" - are you saying that having a degree excludes you from some jobs? If you mean "newly graduated people" well then that's obvious - you start low in the tree and work up

okashiicake:

Being a social worker is hard work. You're forced to dehumanise every person you talk to and treat them like numbers on a page due to government restrictions. Its difficult to tell a family of four they wont be able to get food for this week because they forgot to sign one piece of paper/

A lot of jobs are hard work and unpleasant - have you seen what commercial fishermen do? Or plumbers, cleaning out other peoples sewage pipes?. No-one is "forced" to be a social worker

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373761 25-Aug-2015 12:24

shk292:
jonathan18:
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?

Wow... I don't know what to say!

Your posts throughout this thread have been simplistic in their analysis and understanding of this case, with a willingness willing to make blanket statements based on little knowledge of the facts or the wider context. Apparently your status as a "taxpayer" is enough to allow you to say anything without the evidence to back up your claims. I'm talking about such farcical suggestions as there being no need for a review authority to examine MSD decisions, or that such a body should be only made up of 'tax payers'. Do you seriously believe these statements, or are you baiting? If so, I took the bait...

And now this - that apparently the problem with social workers' pay is that they're lazy individuals who haven't done what they should to get a better paying job?

What??!!

From my exposure to central govt I've come to believe there's generally a strong relationship between working on the 'front line' and level of pay: the more you deal with the public in a government department, the lower your pay. Such disparity doesn't reflect the skill needed in the job, or the importance of the job - and social workers are an excellent example. The cr_p pay for what must be one of the more important and dfficult jobs in our society just highlights how much we as a society value those that manage the sh!t that no-one else wants to deal with. It's similar (but not as extreme) for workers at MSD/Work and Income (where the front-line/'back office' disparity in pay being significant).

The last time I looked, we have an open labour market. Surely this means that people select the occupation that best fits their qualifications, skills, experience and needs? Nobody has been forced to become or remain a social worker, and personally, I would rather clean toilets or sweep the streets than do that job. Sure, it's important work, but I don't think we have a shortage of them and therefore the law of supply and demand would indicate that they are being paid enough

Actually the job market is hardly open.
Economics theory demands there be unemployed. With full employment comes a labour shortage which will push up wages.
Too much unemployment depresses the market

Unemployed are like interest rates, they are a tool for maintaining some stability in the economy.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373763 25-Aug-2015 12:26

bazzer:
networkn: Pension, those people have payed taxes all their lives and are entitled to it. I think it should be partially asset tested, but it is what it is.

It seems to me that these two statements would be contradictory. If we accept that those that have paid taxes all their life are entitled to it, then it doesn't take much of a leap to think that those with the most assets may have paid the most in tax during their life. Why aren't they entitled to it?

Yup I understand, hence I said partially tested. Not all people who make lots of money pay lots of tax. I'd like to think if I had enough money subsequent to retirement I'd opt to donate my pension to charity.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373767 25-Aug-2015 12:32

networkn:
jonathan18: This thread reminds me of an interesting post I read today by Chris Trotter; while on a different topic (the popularity of Mike Hosking), there's something in it which helps explain for me the increasingly self-centredness in the NZ psyche:

"The sad fact is that Hosking is not the problem, merely its artfully tousled personification. His high ratings among 18-35 year-olds is explicable only if we accept that, in the eyes of those who have grown up under neoliberalism, being rich and famous is the indisputable desideratum of twenty-first century life. These youngsters have no wish to tear Hosking down, on the contrary, they want to be just like him. Wealth and fame have become the markers of a life well lived. By this reckoning, reiterated over and over again in Hosking’s speeches and columns: success is well-earned, by definition; and failure is merely Nature’s way of delivering her pink slip to those unfortunates on the wrong side of the Bell Curve."

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/08/19/heart-of-gold-why-mike-hosking-is-a-more-popular-broadcaster-than-john-campbell/

Equally, this reinforces to me the ever-increasing belief amongst many NZers that those 'on the wrong side of the Bell Curve" (as Trotter puts it) are to blame for their situation, and/or shouldn't expect help. More scarily, I reckon, is a total lack of interest into what causes disparity and what can be done to fix it on a systemic level.

Too often it's just easier to pick on individuals like this treadmill case and generalise about it based on one's own prejudices.

I don't believe what you are stating is even mostly true. I have no issues providing benefits to those in genuine need so long as those people understand it should be temporary and to help them survive, not a right to be for granted long term. If this woman had approached her WINZ office and explained she wanted to lose weight, resolve her health issues
and return to the workforce, and had been open to suggestions that were reasonable (like second hand treadmill or a more reasonably priced new one ($1200) and it had been handled in the correct manner, I for one, and I am happy to suggest most of the people commenting here, would have been more or less ok with it.

I can speak from personal experience (Not me) where people I know on benefits, won't get jobs because they "won't be THAT much better off and would have to work 40 hours a week". This isn't one or two opinions either for the record.

I can't stand this type of attitude, and I resent (fairly I think) anyone with that attitude.

To Reinterate; I have NO issues with providing financial assistance for those who TRULY need it.

Hmmm...last time I checked, my son who is intellectually handicapped is NOT going to improve.

And I "Know" of people who have been on the joys of zero hour contracts
I know people who had been on a benefit for 2 years, then 15 years later quit a high paying job at the BNZ to go to Australia to live
I know people who are intellectually handicapped
I know people who have mental health issues, drug dependancy, disfigurement, etc etc etc.

Then again I also see the accountants, lawyers, doctors , pharmacists, business leaders, MPs etc etc who get done for fraud, child porn, tax fraud, etc etc etc.
But then again, when you are wealthy you get judged differently.

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.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373778 25-Aug-2015 12:37

sir1963:
networkn:
jonathan18: This thread reminds me of an interesting post I read today by Chris Trotter; while on a different topic (the popularity of Mike Hosking), there's something in it which helps explain for me the increasingly self-centredness in the NZ psyche:

"The sad fact is that Hosking is not the problem, merely its artfully tousled personification. His high ratings among 18-35 year-olds is explicable only if we accept that, in the eyes of those who have grown up under neoliberalism, being rich and famous is the indisputable desideratum of twenty-first century life. These youngsters have no wish to tear Hosking down, on the contrary, they want to be just like him. Wealth and fame have become the markers of a life well lived. By this reckoning, reiterated over and over again in Hosking’s speeches and columns: success is well-earned, by definition; and failure is merely Nature’s way of delivering her pink slip to those unfortunates on the wrong side of the Bell Curve."

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/08/19/heart-of-gold-why-mike-hosking-is-a-more-popular-broadcaster-than-john-campbell/

Equally, this reinforces to me the ever-increasing belief amongst many NZers that those 'on the wrong side of the Bell Curve" (as Trotter puts it) are to blame for their situation, and/or shouldn't expect help. More scarily, I reckon, is a total lack of interest into what causes disparity and what can be done to fix it on a systemic level.

Too often it's just easier to pick on individuals like this treadmill case and generalise about it based on one's own prejudices.

I don't believe what you are stating is even mostly true. I have no issues providing benefits to those in genuine need so long as those people understand it should be temporary and to help them survive, not a right to be for granted long term. If this woman had approached her WINZ office and explained she wanted to lose weight, resolve her health issues
and return to the workforce, and had been open to suggestions that were reasonable (like second hand treadmill or a more reasonably priced new one ($1200) and it had been handled in the correct manner, I for one, and I am happy to suggest most of the people commenting here, would have been more or less ok with it.

I can speak from personal experience (Not me) where people I know on benefits, won't get jobs because they "won't be THAT much better off and would have to work 40 hours a week". This isn't one or two opinions either for the record.

I can't stand this type of attitude, and I resent (fairly I think) anyone with that attitude.

To Reinterate; I have NO issues with providing financial assistance for those who TRULY need it.

Hmmm...last time I checked, my son who is intellectually handicapped is NOT going to improve.

And I "Know" of people who have been on the joys of zero hour contracts
I know people who had been on a benefit for 2 years, then 15 years later quit a high paying job at the BNZ to go to Australia to live
I know people who are intellectually handicapped
I know people who have mental health issues, drug dependancy, disfigurement, etc etc etc.

Then again I also see the accountants, lawyers, doctors , pharmacists, business leaders, MPs etc etc who get done for fraud, child porn, tax fraud, etc etc etc.
But then again, when you are wealthy you get judged differently.

None of what you have stated changes or even puts my comments under a different light. I cannot have made more clear I fully support assisting those, like your son, who NEED our help as a community.

If you have issues with the punishments handed out, take it up with the sentencing guidelines overseers. The law is being applied to those guidelines.

I don't really get the relevance of the 2 years of benefits, 15 years at BNZ and then going to Australia. So what if that happened? That in my eyes is more or less the ideal situation that people get help when they need it, then they make something of themselves.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373781 25-Aug-2015 12:40

bazzer:
networkn: Pension, those people have payed taxes all their lives and are entitled to it. I think it should be partially asset tested, but it is what it is.

It seems to me that these two statements would be contradictory. If we accept that those that have paid taxes all their life are entitled to it, then it doesn't take much of a leap to think that those with the most assets may have paid the most in tax during their life. Why aren't they entitled to it?

They never paid into a pension fund.
When the universal pension was bought in EVERYONE got it, and the way to pay for it was taxes from the people who were working.
So people never "paid" for their pension, they paid for the generation before them.

Kiwi saver is a better idea, but that too is no guarantee, all you need is another Bernie Madolf and the pensions of thousands goes "poof.... gone"

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1373795 25-Aug-2015 12:50

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.

not a pension, its different welfare

Jobseeker support and a Disability allowance

Sideface

9351 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373798 25-Aug-2015 12:53

networkn:
bazzer:
networkn: Pension, those people have payed taxes all their lives and are entitled to it. I think it should be partially asset tested, but it is what it is.

It seems to me that these two statements would be contradictory. If we accept that those that have paid taxes all their life are entitled to it, then it doesn't take much of a leap to think that those with the most assets may have paid the most in tax during their life. Why aren't they entitled to it?

Yup I understand, hence I said partially tested. Not all people who make lots of money pay lots of tax. I'd like to think if I had enough money subsequent to retirement I'd opt to donate my pension to charity.

Some of the wealthiest people and companies pay remarkably little tax - quite legally, because of loopholes in the tax system which they can afford to exploit.

Sideface

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373804 25-Aug-2015 12:57

networkn:
sir1963:
networkn:
jonathan18: This thread reminds me of an interesting post I read today by Chris Trotter; while on a different topic (the popularity of Mike Hosking), there's something in it which helps explain for me the increasingly self-centredness in the NZ psyche:

"The sad fact is that Hosking is not the problem, merely its artfully tousled personification. His high ratings among 18-35 year-olds is explicable only if we accept that, in the eyes of those who have grown up under neoliberalism, being rich and famous is the indisputable desideratum of twenty-first century life. These youngsters have no wish to tear Hosking down, on the contrary, they want to be just like him. Wealth and fame have become the markers of a life well lived. By this reckoning, reiterated over and over again in Hosking’s speeches and columns: success is well-earned, by definition; and failure is merely Nature’s way of delivering her pink slip to those unfortunates on the wrong side of the Bell Curve."

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/08/19/heart-of-gold-why-mike-hosking-is-a-more-popular-broadcaster-than-john-campbell/

Equally, this reinforces to me the ever-increasing belief amongst many NZers that those 'on the wrong side of the Bell Curve" (as Trotter puts it) are to blame for their situation, and/or shouldn't expect help. More scarily, I reckon, is a total lack of interest into what causes disparity and what can be done to fix it on a systemic level.

Too often it's just easier to pick on individuals like this treadmill case and generalise about it based on one's own prejudices.

I don't believe what you are stating is even mostly true. I have no issues providing benefits to those in genuine need so long as those people understand it should be temporary and to help them survive, not a right to be for granted long term. If this woman had approached her WINZ office and explained she wanted to lose weight, resolve her health issues
and return to the workforce, and had been open to suggestions that were reasonable (like second hand treadmill or a more reasonably priced new one ($1200) and it had been handled in the correct manner, I for one, and I am happy to suggest most of the people commenting here, would have been more or less ok with it.

I can speak from personal experience (Not me) where people I know on benefits, won't get jobs because they "won't be THAT much better off and would have to work 40 hours a week". This isn't one or two opinions either for the record.

I can't stand this type of attitude, and I resent (fairly I think) anyone with that attitude.

To Reinterate; I have NO issues with providing financial assistance for those who TRULY need it.

Hmmm...last time I checked, my son who is intellectually handicapped is NOT going to improve.

And I "Know" of people who have been on the joys of zero hour contracts
I know people who had been on a benefit for 2 years, then 15 years later quit a high paying job at the BNZ to go to Australia to live
I know people who are intellectually handicapped
I know people who have mental health issues, drug dependancy, disfigurement, etc etc etc.

Then again I also see the accountants, lawyers, doctors , pharmacists, business leaders, MPs etc etc who get done for fraud, child porn, tax fraud, etc etc etc.
But then again, when you are wealthy you get judged differently.

None of what you have stated changes or even puts my comments under a different light. I cannot have made more clear I fully support assisting those, like your son, who NEED our help as a community.

If you have issues with the punishments handed out, take it up with the sentencing guidelines overseers. The law is being applied to those guidelines.

I don't really get the relevance of the 2 years of benefits, 15 years at BNZ and then going to Australia. So what if that happened? That in my eyes is more or less the ideal situation that people get help when they need it, then they make something of themselves.

Because "Everybody knows someone" with that example being "proof".
And of course that proof comes from not actually knowing the people, their circumstances, etc.

I also know people who tried to find work, kept WINZ informed of the hours they worked and how much money they made, doing everything they could to get off a benefit. WINZ however kept screwing up their benefit, one time after they had worked for 2 weeks (firewood contract short term) and the job finished WINZ wanted to put them on a stand down period of 3 months, no income for 3 months. How does that encourage honesty ?

And then to try and sort it, had make a booking with their case worker who could seem them in 10 days time.

So their solution was simple, stop doing the bit work and only accept a full time job, it was a lot less stressful .

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373806 25-Aug-2015 13:00

nathan:
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.

not a pension, its different welfare

Jobseeker support and a Disability allowance

Welfare is welfare.

But interestingly enough, people on benefits pay taxes.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373810 25-Aug-2015 13:05

Sideface:
networkn:
bazzer:
networkn: Pension, those people have payed taxes all their lives and are entitled to it. I think it should be partially asset tested, but it is what it is.

It seems to me that these two statements would be contradictory. If we accept that those that have paid taxes all their life are entitled to it, then it doesn't take much of a leap to think that those with the most assets may have paid the most in tax during their life. Why aren't they entitled to it?

Yup I understand, hence I said partially tested. Not all people who make lots of money pay lots of tax. I'd like to think if I had enough money subsequent to retirement I'd opt to donate my pension to charity.

Some of the wealthiest people and companies pay remarkably little tax - quite legally, because of loopholes in the tax system which they can afford to exploit.

Is that not exactly what I wrote?

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373814 25-Aug-2015 13:08

Because "Everybody knows someone" with that example being "proof".
And of course that proof comes from not actually knowing the people, their circumstances, etc.

I also know people who tried to find work, kept WINZ informed of the hours they worked and how much money they made, doing everything they could to get off a benefit. WINZ however kept screwing up their benefit, one time after they had worked for 2 weeks (firewood contract short term) and the job finished WINZ wanted to put them on a stand down period of 3 months, no income for 3 months. How does that encourage honesty ?

And then to try and sort it, had make a booking with their case worker who could seem them in 10 days time.

So their solution was simple, stop doing the bit work and only accept a full time job, it was a lot less stressful .

ANYONE with an attitude of "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit" has NO right to a benefit. There is NO excuse for such an attitude.

Yes there are sad cases of things going wrong on benefits of honest and genuine people, just as there are with any large organization filled with people. It happens in the commercial sector and in fact every walk of life. So what?

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13