bb, says (in his usual inimitable way) “Cut benefits and people go out out and find a job, its blindingly simple.”

bb’s solution IS so blindingly simple that it seems not to allow bb and his ilk to see the real situation. So here are a few facts to add to the debate:

1) Anyone who needs a benefit of any sort and is responsible for the upbringing of young/dependent child/ren (or an elderly or disabled person etc) is put on the DPB because it is the ONE Benefit tailored to be flexible to suit changing circumstances. THUS THE STATISTICS ARE SKEWED.

2) When a person is deemed to be on a Benefit there are add ons and take aways depending on any other income earned.
(Many people on the DPB are gradually increasing their working hours, and the amount of the Benefit they receive is reduced accordingly.) THUS THE STATISTICS ARE SKEWED.

3) Many DPB recipients are students with a child/ren who are preparing themselves for careers, and would otherwise receive a student allowance.
THUS THE STATISTICS ARE SKEWED.

5) For many (most?) DPB recipients, their is a “liable parent” responsible to pay the NZ Government towards the cost of the DPB, according to income. THUS THE STATISTICS ARE SKEWED.

The DPB came into being in the first place because there are many people in our society who can’t or won’t meet their parental obligations. So stop bashing the parent who does take responsibility … Being a sole parent (or a caregiver of a “special needs” or elderly person) is not an easy task.

Likewise, other Benefits are only there because they are needed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Have they done that anywhere else? It tends to be enough to subsist on, but extra costs do pop up…I was on it for a few months last year, and if I had to go the dentist I would have been *STUFFED*, though maybe one can apply for a taxpayer subsidy on that…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If people can live on the benefit for years and years then it is obviously not “so low”

Cut benefits and people go out out and find a job, its blindingly simple.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The benefit is so low, I just can’t get my head around it. Obviously having more kids while on it is monumentally stupid though, I just don’t see how or why when kids cost so much to er, maintain!

People complain about being under a tax burden that prevents them from having kids, then they get this…families are a Good Thing

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>All i’m worried about are the children

The gravy trainers see them more as a meal ticket. Someone else will look after them….or not….doesn’t really matter, so long as the bene keeps comin’ in.

>>making it easier to stay home

Since when is having kids compulsory?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m starting to think that the DPB is a sweet deal and that maybe I should quit my job and get on that gravy train! All i’m worried about are the children, who are very vulnerable, obviously. And WFF is based on somebody working and making it easier to stay home and take care of one’s kids, I thought.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kevyn,

“Why aren’t student loans treated the same as LAQCs?”

That makes a lot of sense. Excellent idea.

Suprised no further comments as it is a good point for a debate. Cant see many downsides at all.

Mind you years ago before we went away from the need to file yearly PAYE returns there were tax write off available for first farm and first fishing vessel ownership. Was done back then to get more people back onto the land and onto the water in productive enterprises.

Your suggestion would work in the same manner I guess.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Not bad Ahuahu. Kevyn wasn’t that what Brash wanted to do last election? I think a lot of students didn’t actually understand what that meant when compared with Labour’s ‘just no interest’ approach.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

tinyurl.com/5jygxn

“We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime”.

There will be other factors, but I think the data speaks an essential truth. If you encourage people to have babies who otherwise wouldn’t (or would delay the choice) you increase the risk of poor childcare, leading to various social problems.

Is encouraging lifestyling on the DPB and WFF really a good idea?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I remember that there was something to do with abortion being legalised and then crime rates dropping ~15 years later…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Was it in the book?

Read the book. The study on why crime rates dropped in the US is enlightening.

>>TinyURL

Tinyurl.com. I use the toolbar button (see left menu. On the following page, drag the link to the toolbar. From then on, you don’t need to return to the site, to make a tiny URL, just click the toolbar button)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Why aren’t student loans treated the same as LAQCs? Letting graduates write off their student loans against the tax on their earnings in NZ would certainly be an incentive to stay and work in this country instead of taking their 78% taxpyer funded qualification onto the international job market. Perhaps reciprocal agreements could be entered into with OZ and UK to encourage their graduates to work here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I think you people are shouting past each other somewhat. I myself am a firm believer in the importance of the welfare state, but I don’t think this extends at all to students. Basically, the way to ensure students are well off is to make most attractive the study options those that will give them the skills to do well in the world. And I’m not just talking about sciences/accounting etc; the skills people learn doing all sorts of degrees are very useful as long as they have worked and studied hard – they aren’t so useful if they just get C passes. What we need is for there to be more reward for academic excellence, which will relieve people of the accumulated debts of studying by better incomes. The ways to achieve this are macroeconomic rather than involving micromanagement by the state. In any case, its a ridiculous suggestion that any moron who goes to uni- draws down $15O a week from the govt, gets pissed all the time, racks up credit card and overdraft debts, doesn’t work during the 20 weeks of the year that they don’t have uni (at $12.50 and hour times 40 hours times 20 weeks in $10,000)- should have their life paid for them by the state. Thats ludicrous. People need some incentive to move through the system, and I think it costing them is the right one>

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I go to Freakonomics and look up ‘crime’ and all I get is hamburgers and biking to work – want to be a little more specific? Was it in the book?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No ‘charity begins at home’ then eh…how do you do those ‘tiny url’ things, they look handy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

tinyurl.com/5xa98x

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I wouldn’t say healthy – our flat was colder inside than it was outside, bizarrely.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Middle income is a pretty healthy place to be, and can be downright cosy if you spend smart.

And being a university student in New Zealand is a pretty healthy place to be, and can be downright cosy, especially when compared to actually living in a box.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>would that equal less criminals

See Freakonomics.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

StephenR said: Is this some veiled ref to WFF? They would be getting it unless they’re pretty well to do…or they don’t want the tax credit…

The cut-off combined income for a family in this situation (1 teenage child, aged 16-18) to receive WFF is actually $74,000.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)