Hard News: Just marketing to the base
337 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
:squint:
What do other taxations have to do with ending welfare funding taxes?
Of course we need law enforcement and certain other things supported by tax. What we do not need is welfare.
What percentage of people on welfare do you imagine are in genuine need of it? I would say the number is well below 1%.
End welfare and looking after the 1% would be relatively simple.
-
End welfare and looking after the 1% would be relatively simple.
Yes, Grant. Because things are so great in societies where women and children just fend for themselves.
I am struck by the way you replace faith for logic in every argument.
-
A S,
I/S. That looks about right on the abatement of benefit.
There has always been a concern that full time work should pay better than a benefit/part-time work mix, and that flows through to the abatements you mention on earnings over $10k. No govt has done anything meaningful about discussing whether this is appropriate.
Joe:
You're right, in the dark with the light behind them the present government can appear comparatively mean and punitive.
So the National govt of the 90's is the light that makes labour look mean and punitive?
Then again, the kinder 'n gentler initiatives from Bolger's time could be seen as token palliatives for the Ruth Richardson - Bill Birch-driven benefit slashing of the time.
These were at pretty much the same time.
In general:
if she wasn't usually at home for her now early teen, seriously wonders whether she'd be sometimes searching the streets or mall. Or whether that is still to come.
As someone who was raised by a sole parent who worked full time, I just want to point out that those of us raised by a working parent don't actually all turn out to be mal-adjusted criminal delinquents.
-
What percentage of people on welfare do you imagine are in genuine need of it? I would say the number is well below 1%
Where the hell did you get that batshit statistic from?
Well below 1%???Truly, did you just have a quick imagine and decide, "ummmm, well below 1%"??
-
Truly, did you just have a quick imagine and decide, "ummmm, well below 1%"??
Tony, meet Grant. His 'arguments' largely consist of fucking idiotic, fact-free assertions repeated over and over.
(I was raised by a sole parent who worked full time from the age of ten. But I missed out on becoming a criminal delinquent. I feel cheated!)
-
A S,
Danielle: I feel a bit cheated too. Minor delinquency would have been a lot more fun than looking after siblings and studying.... Maybe I can make up for that in future :-)
-
So the National govt of the 90's is the light that makes labour look mean and punitive?
Take it that way if you wish. It's a very indirect reference to a line from Gilbert & Sullivan, that's all.
__Then again, the kinder 'n gentler initiatives from Bolger's time could be seen as token palliatives for the Ruth Richardson - Bill Birch-driven benefit slashing of the time.__
These were at pretty much the same time.
What I said.
-
Tony, meet Grant. His 'arguments' largely consist of fucking idiotic, fact-free assertions repeated over and over.
Yeah, I am familiar with Grant's modus operandi but I still feel that he needs to be called on it. Even if only occasionally when the nonsense overwhelms my ability to ignore it.
If we don't remind people like Grant of the existence of the world of facts and measurements every so often I hate to think what new heights of delusion they might reach.
-
I can't really imagine what it would have been like as a kid to have grown up feeling a bit like a stigmatised powerless political football.
My wife, a lot of her friends, and a lot my friends in the UK all grew up in one parent households (maybe a dozen people in all that I know?). In all cases, the 'one parent' was the mother, the dad being a feckless idiot who was usually drunk, abusive, or both. Either way, hardly ever around or providing any assistance of any sort.
Anyone who thinks bringing children up by yourself isn't a full time job needs a big cup of wake the fuck up.
Anyone who thinks that there won't always be quite a few people (mothers) in the same position due to the inherent messy nature of human existance and reationships needs a second cup.
Most of the people I know from single-parent families grew up in the days when the UK Tories were spinning the line that single-mothers-on-the-dole were responsible for all of societies evils.
Being of the generation that I am, we all started getting interested in politics/voting/etc around the same time (mid-'90's).
The UK Tories have been out of power since 1997. Funny that.
As i said in another thread, I'll be voting for a yellow dog before the National party gets my vote.
-
Tony, meet Grant. His 'arguments' largely consist of fucking idiotic, fact-free assertions repeated over and over
meh.
check out his gravatar. he's obviously a robot in the real world too.
As i said in another thread, I'll be voting for a yellow dog before the National party gets my vote.
ACT is putting up a dog in which electorate exactly?
-
As i said in another thread, I'll be voting for a yellow dog before the National party gets my vote.
I'm with you there, but I wish there was a great deal more differentiation between the respective policies of our two major parties on this. We've talked about hijacking of the platform on the part of the Nats, but on this one it's Labour that has ceded all the ground, it seems to me.
-
Anyone who thinks bringing children up by yourself isn't a full time job needs a big cup of wake the fuck up.
Thanks, Rich, and I'd like to order a round of fuckupachinos for the folks who just trot out another guilt-trip on sole parents who do work and aren't miserable abusive monsters.
-
Housekeeping:
Please tell me there's a missing sarcasm tag attached to this.
Yup. What's the netiquette here? Should I add 'LOL' or :) or ;)
For her to be a "teenage DPB mum" with a six year old, she would have to have been 12-13 at the age of her first pregnancy. I assumed it was sarcastic, since no-one sane would make this assertion so boldly.
Yup, see above. Altho' my dig was more at the ppl who perpetuate the myth of the teenage DPB breeders. They don't do the maths, as you have done.
What percentage of people on welfare do you imagine are in genuine need of it? I would say the number is well below 1%.
We're not in Taipei now, Dr Dexter.
-
As you can see, earning over $180 a week - the minimum you can legally get from 15 hours at minimum wage - puts you in the 70% clawback zone. Throw in 21% PAYE, and you're looking at 91%.
But it's not quite that simple. It's 19.5% PAYE at that level of income, for one thing, and for another there's a diminishing rebate for incomes below $38k (that abates nicely back to zero by the time you earn $38k), that comes in at 4.5c/$ when you're getting a whole $9,360. The low-income rebate for incomes below $9,880 isn't available to these people because they'll be working under 20 hours per week. Of course as soon as they pass that point they'll be getting well beyond $9,880 and thus won't be eligible for it either. But they still have rebate they can claim, that claws back 4.5%. Meagre, but better than nothing. Of course, they don't get it until the following tax year.
-
Something else "magic" happens at 20 hours a week too..... a single parent becomes eligible for Working For Families assitance....
I wonder if this is part of why they want the DPB'ers to only find 15?
-
No-one seems to have made the connection with the It's not ok campaign. Let's say a woman wishes to leave a relationship that is abusive to herself, and/or her children - before it gets really nasty & into the courts. I'm sure many PA posters would help that woman find a home and get set up and maybe even invite her & the kids over for a bbq sometime. But you are exceptional. Usually what happens when the 'A' word is mentioned to family and friends is instant denial (you're lying/exaggerating/mental) or instant withdrawal (don't want to get involved in this mess). So, really her only option is the Refuge - and the humiliation of being a loser. The children, of course, will be traumatised because the break-up won't have been pretty. Those kids usually desperately need security and stability - and their mums. Not childcare centres.
Because the woman has brought shame upon the families concerned, unless they are exceptionally supportive and caring, she will likely be raising those kids on her own. no help for sick days (kids or her own) or school holidays. Three months' holidays plus sick days a year. I promise you - DPBers are harassed to work now and if you have a part time job, they want to know when you're getting a fulltime one.
And the ultimate job choice for Winz for DPBers is not hospitality - it's rest home caregiving - where nights, weekends and split shifts are the norm. And usually minimum wage. They don't care if the woman is better educated or once had a decent qualification - remember the average useful life for a degree is six years, so I've been told, so if you haven't used it while you've been having babies.....Remember, too, that the Liable parents pay the govt 21% of their earnings for the first child, rising to 24% for the next, to offset the DPB. This in effect means the base rate (not WFF or A/S which is universal) is subsidised by the father, often to a high level. So, the DPB is actually much less of a burden on the general taxpayer.
It just suits people to scapegoat single mothers.
-
Can I just confirm - the 15hr work obligation is currently in place for one partner where there is a married/defacto/etc partnership? And this is extending that policy to sole parents?
Does it also require both people in a partnership to then seek 15hrs work? Or is it just a "someone in the family has to be doing 15hrs work and we don't care if there's only one of you" type thing? -
But it's not quite that simple. It's 19.5% PAYE at that level of income, for one thing
Actually, if you're on a benefit and working part time, that part-time income is taxed at a secondary rate.
Add to that having a student loan, and things get real interesting real fast.
-
Hmmm... Unrelenting focus on DPB, invalids and the sick. Such a caring guy;);)
-
Che
Want to acknowledge your doing well out of a sort-of Once Were Warriors background. You obviously have grit and brains. Others of you, who were brought up by working solo mothers who did well, that's great: the John Key experience, and I mean that sincerely. If the mother has a work ethic and values education, solo motherhood is not a disaster for children. I hope my son is not going to be statistic either.I brought up a child (from when he was 3) as a working solo parent, but often wished I had opted for the DPB.
From the age of 5, my kid was at school from 9 till 6, when I would rush to pick him up in time from Oscar (after-school care based at the school). If late, you pay $10 per 10 mins. If our school had not had an Oscar programme, I would have been stuffed.
My son hated it and could never do any sports or music, etc, after school because I couldn't take him there. He managed a term each of soccer and swimming when we depended on the kindness of strangers (well, other parents we didn't know very well at the school), but it was an enormous hassle and required continuous organisation and wrangling.
We could never have his friends over to play after school, which puts you in social debt. People in our lower middle class neighbourhood were helpful, but you don't always want to be owing.
I dreaded my son getting sick, and forced him to school on many occasions, urging him to man-up, only to be rung by the school and asked to come and get him cos he was fluey, whatever. Work gets pissed off if this happens too much in one term.
When you have finished a hard day's yacker, you have to rush to get your kid, cook their dinner and be the good-enough parent with time, homework, reading, etc.
The exhaustion and stress of this lifestyle is huge and you give up a lot of your own life to work while working and raising a child on you own. I'm not bitching cos I chose to work rather than get DPB, but I often think it would have been better for my son to have had me there as mother during his childhood.
-
I'm not bitching cos I chose to work rather than get DPB,
And that choice is what I think is definitely of benefit to our single parents. Time seems to be spent in Parliament on "truent/unmanagable/tagging/sickly poor uneducated children with uncaring parents and all that there is for National to offer is send them to boot camp,fine them, or take the parents away from their children if they like the choice to care for them, and ,make any sick or invalids regularly visit winz to make sure their "designated doctor" (at whatever price said doctor wants to charge) will allow them to stay on their entitlement.Shit I mean designated doctor sounds like more jobs for the boys to me. Seriously my first thought here was, when I got a bit sick, I had to arrange help to get to Winz, I couldn't walk, I could have an epileptic fit at any time. My head was bolted together, My brain was still coming to terms with being alive and all the pills I was popping to stay this way.Really, which designated doctor would I have been sent to? Or would I have 4? I actually like the ones I chose myself. Well, I suppose that could be lots of jobs for the boys at the tax payers expense. Sounds wrong to moi!
Also, one day it's Labour, skull and cross bones mamby pamby, nanny state , then it's National, we know whats best for anyone that wants any assistance. Then it,s don't tell schools what their kids should eat at tuck shops (as a preventative measure against our ever increasing problem with Diabetes) but National says if you don't do as your'e told ,3 strikes and your'e out. Starve! grrrrrrr..... Bully boys. (serenity now...) -
Actually, if you're on a benefit and working part time, that part-time income is taxed at a secondary rate.
Really? That's bizarre, given that benefits aren't taxed.
Add to that having a student loan, and things get real interesting real fast.
Indeed. Though you're going to be seeing a lot of benefit abatement by the time you cross the repayment threshold anyway.
-
Really? That's bizarre, given that benefits aren't taxed.
I was told they are taxed by Winz, although I think supplements (accomodation at least) are not.
-
Really? That's bizarre, given that benefits aren't taxed.
They are indeed taxed. You'll pay the M code - 19.5% up to $38,000.
It is bizarre and byzantine, but it comes from wanting to have one of the simplest tax regimes in the world.
Why we can't have the Green's (and Australia's and many other places) tax free bracket on the first x,000 earned is beyond my comprehension (clearly). It would give to everyone, but the marginal utility would be greatest for the lowest income earners.
-
:squint:
Who said anything about leaving women and children to fend for themselves. Why would anyone want that to happen?
I think it's quite clear that there will never be a statistic showing who is in genuine need of welfare. If you do not like one person believing that it is less than 1% of the current population of welfare recievers then an opposing opinion is just as valid, if not believable.
If one was prepared to consider the consequences of ending welfare I'm sure one would quickly see its huge benefits ... uh, yeah I guess that's a pun .. or else one could just react in caustic fashion because one does not like the way other conversations turned out.
I guess that's something you could all do instead ..
Post your response…
This topic is closed.