So noone wants to mention?
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: Fun Stuff
Forum Name: In the news
Forum Description: Have your say on hot pregnancy and parenting topics in the news!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32460
Printed Date: 28 June 2025 at 3:36pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: So noone wants to mention?
Posted By: emz
Subject: So noone wants to mention?
Date Posted: 24 March 2010 at 8:29pm
|
Or maybe I just haven't found anything on it.. the changes to benefits, incl DPB?
Surely it affects quite a few ladies on here, so it would be nice to be able to discuss it as adults 
I think the DPB's great and definitely has it's place. I do however find it rude that some people they have interviewed, and my god, some people on the TMMB have gone on and on about how unfair it is for parents on the DPB to have to find 15 hours work when their child is 6. IMO being able to stay home until a child is 6 is a luxury that many two parent families can't afford, so why should the government pay for it? I personally think Paula Bennett's great (and this is coming from a Labour supporter). I've always liked her since she started appearing on Breakfast with that red-headed Labour dude. One thing though - has anyone noticed how the media are finding the most pathetic excuses of beneficiaries to highlight this case? Where is SOME form of objectivity on this issue? Thoughts please, am interested to hear people's thoughts on the issue as I find politics, especially social issues, fascinating. |
Replies:
Posted By: flakesitchyfeet
Date Posted: 24 March 2010 at 8:54pm
|
Hi Emz!
I'm on the fence. I'd like to entirely agree agree with you on the luxury for staying at home thing, but then I've just been doing this parenting course, and I can't help but wonder if some of the single mums are better at home, if they genuinely use that time to manage the household and prepare fun activities etc for the kids, rather than stress and freak out at work, when there is no other parent to carry the burden and the kids wear it all, effecting their own stability, emotional health and wellbeing etc, making it easier to create well balanced kids. Of course it would be better for the mums self esteem to be finacially independant....it's a tricky one. What really got MY goat, is the way they keep talking about the single mums....there are single dads on the DPB too!!!! edited to add: WIth that last comment, it's not just the fact they mention the single mums and not the dads, its how much they place on the sterotypical dbp people, and how demeaning the releases of such policies in the media can be. Not the policies themselves as such, just the way they introduce them. Does that make sense? Probably not  -------------  http://lilypie.com"> |
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 24 March 2010 at 9:01pm
|
Yep definitely, did you watch that guy with the 2 disabled kids on TV the other night? Raised them by himself for 30 odd years. Champion.
I guess I come from the side where it's not financially feasible for me to work part time in order for us to be financially stable so I work on average 35-40 hours atm - just one of those things that has to be done. Coming from an education perspective, it's proven that someone who puts effort into contributing to society in ways like working have a higher cultural capital and therefore pass those work ethics onto their kids, thus breaking some of the 'cycles' we get in some families IYKWIM. Like I said though, it definitely has its place. I have 2 friends atm whose partners walked out on them early in their pregnancies so they'd be screwed if they didn't have the DPB, but they also believe in getting back into the work force in the near future (1-2 years) as it's not everyone's elses problem they are parents (that probably sounds harsh, but hopefully someone knows what they mean). My cousins, when living on the coast, had friends that had kids as a career choice. I do wonder how many people out there will just keep having kids every 6 years to stay on it? There's not much to do about it, but it does open up a can of worms as to whether this is going to be a step forward or back. |
Posted By: flakesitchyfeet
Date Posted: 24 March 2010 at 9:06pm
|
Dead right there. I know someone whos hobbies are listed as watching telly and then kids on fb. No other work, hobbies, or interests. I know them well enough to know they aren't working either, but I'm sure she's not going to stop at 6 kids.
As you said though, then you get the people who would be so lost without the help. I guess the genuine cases won't need this bill, they'd be doing it anyway. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> |
Posted By: HoneybunsMa
Date Posted: 24 March 2010 at 9:57pm
|
Ooh I'm kind of on the fence I do think that someone on the DPB is capable of working 15hours when their child turns 6. I saw one woman say that being a young mum means they have no work experience etc but you know what whats wrong with them volunteering for even 2hrs a week to get theskill base up and abit of experience. There are government agencies/businesses and not for profit organisations that would love someone to go in and do filing for an hour a week. Who knows it may turn into a job opportunity down the track IYGWIM. Mum volunteered for parents centre for 6years or more to keep her skill base up and help get her back in the work force when we were kids. They said the non skill specific roles were in hospitality and retail which are night time and weekend hours. Well I for one know that you have to have some sort of skills for both industries having been in both. Also you can find roles in both industries that are after people to do day shifts, cafes for one. thats just my 2 cents worth ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Posted By: rorylex
Date Posted: 29 March 2010 at 8:50pm
|
i think its a good idea i mean 15hrs is only 3hrs a day while they are at school and only half the school day.
im not on dpb and never have been. i do know what they mean about the skills part, i had my oldest when i was 17 only skills i have is to work with horses, but thats not the kind of work i want to be doing now that i have kids, id be happy with a job at the warehouse checkouts if it means a job once my kids are at school. i want to do midwifery but also something ill have to wait til they are all in school b4 i can do. also skills can be gained b4 they go to school, i am going to be doing my ncea etc through corospondence(sp) once my older 2 are both in school right now with a 9wk old and 3 preschoolers i bearly have time to eat. ------------- Mummy to 4 boys Samuel - 18.6.05 Rory - 15.7.06 Mason - 13.06.08 Emmett - 24.01.10 Baby #5 - cooking |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 1:13pm
|
I think it's a good idea in theory but the thing that worries me is the cuts to the benefit if beneficiaries don't conform. Fine if the beneficiaries see that as enough of a threat to do something but we're talking about people with dependents here and I think it could have ramifications for the children.
I hate to think of a child going without because mum has different priorities than the government assumes she has. -------------  
 
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 1:20pm
|
Well I'm in agreement with it. I don't think it is that much to ask someone to be looking for/be in employment for 15 hours or to be studying for 15 hours, which was the other option instead of working.
I really think they have nothing to complain about and most women who are married or in a relationship can't stay home even before their kids are 6 so why should single parents get to stay at home for 18 years whilst other mums pay tax for them to do so. As for taking the money off them if they are that irresponsible then perhaps cyfs should get involved anyway. I have no issue with them coming down hard on the other beneficiaries either, the free ride is over and about time. It's not like NZ is the first place to implement these types of conditions, in the UK you have compulsory training programmes and also have to prove you are actively seeking work, you are also put on a different benefit when first on the dole which I believes pays more money than those on the dole long term so as not to punish those people who lose a job through no fault of their own and are then trying to find another one. ------------- 
 
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 2:08pm
|
Where exactly are people on the DPB expected to get these 15 hour a week jobs, its hard enough to find work for those that want it. Don't know about you but I'd rather my tax payer dollars went to solo-parents than MPs! ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">   [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 2:12pm
|
I don't see why solo parent's can't be expected to start looking for work once their youngest is 3, the whole point of 20 hours free early child care is to encourage parents back to work. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 2:20pm
|
Yes but they don't need to be working, they need to be looking for work or studying. There's no excuse for not doing either of those two things when all your children are at school (which they start at 5 incidentally so they get another year free to slob around doing nothing all day with). If they truly wanted to get off the dpb they would already be doing it without a kick up the bum.
15 hours is nothing, if they had said 40 I would be thinking it was wrong, but it's 15. It's not unreasonable, it's not going to be detrimental to anybody's children if their parent goes to work/college whilst they are at school, quite the opposite actually. I'm all for helping them when the kids are little and at home full time but once they are at school there really is no excuse for not at least attempting to get a job or an education. -------------
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 2:39pm
|
Given that the tertiary sector is tightening up on enrollments, and courses this isn't an option for everyone. This also leaves beneficiaries of the added debt of a student loan. There is never any guarantees that there will be jobs when people graduate. In fact atm graduates are the ones suffering most from the recession and lack of available jobs, solo parents can't up and move their entire family to Oz in pursuit of employment in the same way a single person can. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 3:15pm
|
There are plenty of jobs around, just maybe not desirable to some. Our local papers are constantly looking for cleaners etc.
As for training, I haven't seen too much of a tightening of enrolments down here at all. Sure it's not as loose as it was, but honestly if those people that can't get in through their own merits don't go, it's probably a good thing as they wouldn't achieve anyway. Looking for work: pretty sure they've said they have to prove they've been to interviews and they will ring employers etc. Or maybe I read that somewhere else, but would be a good thing. People need to stop making excuses - contribute to society or don't get anything back |
Posted By: Cassie
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 3:36pm
|
As it is, people on benefits (not so much the dpb, but I know from awhile back when I was on a regular benefit) sign contracts that they will actively search for work - yet they never seemed to spend a lot of time checking up on that. If they don't police it currently, I can't imagine them policing those on the dpb any more effectively, it's a lot of work to constantly be checking up, and easy enough for most people to fob it off with excuses. I'm not sure those working at WINZ get paid enough to do the job effectively!
I'm all for people bettering themselves, and think encouraging people to work/train for work when their children are 6 is a good idea, though most of the single mothers I know who actually want to work DO work, even when its way more stressful and doesn't net them a whole lot more $$ in the pocket than staying at home would. As a parent in general, even not a solo parent, it can be very hard to get a job tho - I worked my ass off trying to find somewhere, anywhere that would employ me when I finished studying full time but no-one would take me, mostly because I had a small child and hadn't had any recent experience (ie: studying for the last three years/raising a child equated to 'doing nothing' in most employers eyes). I couldn't even get a job in a supermarket or fast food place. Finding work can be really tough, but as long as those who are actually trying don't get penalized, and those who aren't get some encouragement and motivation then it's all good. As someone said before, it would suck if young children were being put into even worse circumstances due to their parents choices or lack of motivation. ------------- ~Cassie~   
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 4:40pm
|
Even people hiring cleaners want someone with previous experience. I spent the best part of last year looking for work and I don't have a family to look after, I ended up working away from home for 5 months, I wouldn't have been able to do that if I was on my own.
I think the whole thing comes across as government putting in legislation and rules around benefits, and leaving those on the front lines at WINZ with a whole lot more compliance and paperwork. Is the government going to let kids go hungry cause mum hasn't been out looking for a job and they're cut her benefit. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Aquarius
Date Posted: 31 March 2010 at 9:20pm
|
i think benefits definetly have a place in our society...but i have always thought that they should be payed differently.
all essentials ONLY are payed for. rent, food stamps, power bills and the few other essentials are covered..thus making sure the money is spent on what it should be
yeah sure, many would complain..but the reality is, the essentials are covered and if they are in need of 'extra' spending money they can then do part time work to earn their own money for crap like...smokes, alcohol...etc. at least the rent is paid, the power is on and kids have food in the cupboards. what do you guys think? ------------- http://www.magicalkingdoms.com/timers/"> 
mum to mr 16 & mr 10 |
Posted By: Kellyfer
Date Posted: 01 April 2010 at 12:17pm
|
You make a good point Aquarius... in so many cases women sit at home on the DPB, spending the money that is meant to be for their kids on things like alcohol and smokes - which don't promote healthy children or families.
Women should definitely have choices regarding work/family balance, and should not feel like they have to jump straight back into work after they have popped out their kids. And it is harder for a single mother to find this balance, for sure... but it is not impossible! 15 hours work a week is not a big ask for mothers whos children are in school, and as it has been said, this 15 hours can be spent in further training or studying to make it easier to get a job. I understand that for people who maybe had their children very young and missed out on education opportunities might find this difficult, but as I said, it's not impossible. I am all for a welfare state... I am a firm labour supporter and I think labour governments in the past have achieved a lot regarding choices for families of all shapes and sizes. People who are genuinely in need of a hand up should be able to rely on the state to get it. In saying that, there are a lot of people who take advantage of this system and use it as a crutch rather than as an opportunity to better themselves and their family. And that's just it... it should be a hand up, not a hand out. Rant over... lol. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 01 April 2010 at 1:34pm
|
I'm not sure where all these jobs are going to come from .. even cleaning jobs are done outside of normal work hours (as I can imagine people wanting people vacuuming around them while they are trying to work) so then who is going to look after the children while these people are cleaning at night?
Also funding for education has decreased dramatically so I doubt these people are going to get into studying either and I dont know any courses that are only 15 hours a week. I think in theory its a good idea .. I just dont see it working "in the real world" ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year  http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 01 April 2010 at 2:46pm
|
Sometimes I think its good othertimes I think its bad. Someone I know of on the DPB sits around on her fat ass and does nothing all day and has said herself she has no intention of finding a job cause shes too lazy. Its those kinda people I hate thinking about being paid by the rest of us to be lazy sh*ts.
I don't think the jobs are out there, but if its just made to try, how are they gonna prove they are trying to find work? Is applying for one job a month enough of an "effort".. to me thats pretty pitiful effort.. or do they have to apply for loads of jobs in a month. There just seems to be so many grey areas in there. The studying thing. If you can prove to an education provider that you can do the work even if you have been out of practice they may still take a person on, even if it means they have to do a couple of papers first to prove it before starting a course full time. There are plenty of part time study options out there.. to do a degree part time is only 20hrs a week. If your kids are in school you have the time to do that easily. |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 01 April 2010 at 4:31pm
|
How are people going to pay for study if they're on a benefit? I can see the government tightening up further on who can get student loans, its hard enough managing that debt when your able bodied and willing to work.
I would like the focus to be put on the long term unemployed and possibly sickness beneficiaries, before those on the DPB are targeted. In the end solo parents are doing a job they're raising their kids. Many without any government assistance either. IMO I think those milking the system are the exception, most people I know on the benefit don't want to be there, but they'd be worse of financially if they took on part-time work, there doesn't seem a lot of incentive for them to be looking for work. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 01 April 2010 at 4:52pm
| My income as a student was less than $200 a week and I had a student loan. I still have a student loan. It just means that I'll have it longer like the mortgage. With student loans its not like a mortgage where you have to pay off x amount of dollars a week. You pay what you can manage and getting that qualification means better pay in the end so I think thats a poor excuse. |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 01 April 2010 at 6:45pm
|
I'm pretty sure there are training incentives for those on the DPB meaning they get their study paid for anyway (which is something else that irks me as I have to take a student loan to pay for my study just cos i have a husband).
I studied last year and was only required to do 10-15 hours, I am doing 25 hours this year but could do anywhere between 8-25 was up to me, 25 means I get qualified quicker. They were talking about compulsory seminars and training so those would be through winz not through other training authorities. In the UK when my dad was on the dole after being made redundant he had to take along all rejection letters, letters showing interviews offered and he had to go to all interviews that the dole office set up for him. He couldn't get a job cos of his age and took a job working abroad, cos he didn't want to be on a benefit and then used that money to buy his own business. It's just excuses as far as I'm concerned. You can get work or you could train if you wanted to and those that do want to already do, what the government is trying to do is force some motivation into the long term beneficiaries so that we get away from having whole generations of families who do nothing except take handouts. I'm sure there will be teething problems with the new rules around benefits but what is the alternative, do nothing? Personally I would prefer they brought in work for your benefit schemes but apparently they cost too much. -------------
|
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 01 April 2010 at 9:23pm
|
Well said two_boys!
I also like the idea of food stamps etc, instead of a blanket benefit. It would definitely weed out the people that are career beneficiaries. It honestly sounds like a lot of excuses to me - we aren't much better off by me working full time but I do it to further my career. I've been back since Ava was 5 months, and before that I was working part time in a job that had flexible hours. Yes I had issues getting a job but that's because I'd been out of the workforce for 5 years (although 3 years getting my degree in that time). So I am relieving to get experience, my name out there and money. It's hard being on call but as far as I'm concerned, it's not the tax payers fault that I had children, it's mine, and now that I have had them and I can continue to contribute to society instead of leeching, I will do so. |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 01 April 2010 at 9:56pm
|
I like the idea of food stamps etc. too to make sure the money is going to the right things.
I'm not so worried about the lack of jobs thing because you just have to prove you are looking. Though as someone else said it's probably not going to policed that well as it would take a lot of manpower. The qualifications thing though is a problem. Because the gvt. is cutting funding to tertiary institutions - or rather not funding it based on per capita - universities are looking at cutting down on the amount of people they accept as they just can't accept all the people that want to attend and continue to run. Popular courses such as Business Mgmt are the ones that will be affected most. I would expect that this would affect any institution that is funded this way. I'm very much a believer in welfare. I believe it is an important safety net and makes us function better as a whole society. I don't like people who abuse the system but I agree this 'good in theory' may not work in the real world. Also there are plenty of white collar system abusers out there too and the thing I hate about this whole debate is it makes it an 'us' and 'them' situation where 'them' are labelled bludgers and painted with a very broad brush. If the children are affected then what will become of them in 15-20 years? That's when we as a society will really pay for the mistakes we make now. -------------
|
Posted By: kiwi2
Date Posted: 03 April 2010 at 8:08pm
|
Heres my 2 cents.....
I was on the DPB for 3 years whilst I was a student. I was 19 and found out that the contraceptive pill is not 100% effective and although I love my daughter (and subsequent kids once married) and would not change my life for anything I had to drastically change my life plan. I hated being on the DPB. I felt the stigma of it and also the stigma of being a young mum. I was embarrassed about my situation but without that helping hand I would have been in real trouble. In saying that I breastfed even when they cracked and bled. (My mum was there saying I couldn't afford formula on a benefit as I stamped my feet and breathed thru the pain) I planted a vege garden and made my baby food from $1 pumpkins until she turned orange and did cloth nappies before they were cool. (She is 13 years old now) I beleive most people on the dpb do things like this and aren't all smoking ciggies and drinking. There is always some but not all. I also remember coming off it. Even with all the subsidies sometimes it is not in your best financial reasons to get off. Daycare and working often equates to very little more than what you get for being a stay at home mum. Being older and wiser I now see it as a drain on tax payers etc but that honestly didn't cross my young mind. I could just see a lot of effort for less or equal money. For me there was no question as I didn't like being on it and wanted all association with it gone. But that didn't stop me from moaning about coming off it. I also became non-single so that was motivation in itself. What with graduating and having a partner the workforce wasn't so scary. Now I am a stay at home mum thru choice as circumstance has changed. I think that volunteer work should be included. Since the kids are at school then why not 15 hours volunteer if they can't get a paid job. It gets people out of the house and in the mindset of working. Also it can lead to jobs. Helps with self esteem and also it may help the mindset that I am lucky to have this money and going to give a little back to the community. Afterall the kids are at school so financially there is no outlay other than transport. Just an idea. I just know how much better I feel in myself when I have a project and a purpose aside from my day to day duties. |
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 04 April 2010 at 11:42am
|
The volunteer work sounds like a good option, their are loads of organisations that could use a hand. ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: TheKelly
Date Posted: 10 April 2010 at 6:55pm
there is , well, least when I was 18 there was (long time ago now ) a girl I knew was on the DPB and got the training incentive allowance, mind you as I said that was a while ago ! ------------- 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
two_boys wrote:Posted By: james
Date Posted: 10 April 2010 at 7:53pm
Not anymore there is,nt we have to do it just like everyone else winz will pay for level3 corses but not for any uni ploytechnic stuff ------------- <a href="http://lilypie.com"><img src="http://b4.lilypie.com/nLJ5p13.png" alt="Lilypie 4th Birthday Ticker" border="0" /></a> |
Posted By: AandCsmum
Date Posted: 10 April 2010 at 8:26pm
They will not do food stamps as it does something apparently to their human rights  Those who argue the loudest are probably the laziest.
You know, it never crossed my mind to think of funding education any other way than via student loan. I'm not working as such & we scrape by, I will be finishing off my final papers soon & either I'll save up that money (from hubby's earnings) or I will get it added onto my student loan if I can. ------------- Kel http://lilypie.com"> 
A = 01.02.04 & C = 16.01.09 & G = 30.03.12 |
Posted By: _H_
Date Posted: 10 April 2010 at 8:35pm
|
I believe that the DPB has its place and is need but people shouldnt be allowed to just use it. i think its the same with all benefits. i new someone that would get food grants from WINZ (they had 5 kids and neither parent worked) and they would buy wine with it
when i have a baby i would love to stay home until baby went to school but i just cant- DP works but it isnt going to be enough. the goverment needs to do something about people sitting on a benefit (if you have worked and found yourself in a bad place you have the right to go on a benefit until you sort things out) but im not sure if this the right way to go about it ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Jaxnz1
Date Posted: 11 April 2010 at 7:29pm
|
I'm in agreement with the changes to be made. I think it's about time they did something. I also agree that Mums should be out working once their kids are of school age....I'm not entirely sure there are enough jobs out there for these people, especially finding jobs that are flexible and offer part time hours, but having said that I haven't looked at the job market for years.
As a SAHM at the moment, we are really struggling with our finances, so much so that I am returning part time in June (doing 2 days a week). As tax payers for all our working lives, where is our help exactly at this point in our lives? I'm not asking for a lot, but even a payout with your first child (as Australia do) would have gone such a long way. If the Government want Mums to stay at home with their kids for the first 3-5 years, then they need to look at living costs these days! DH is on a good income, but not so good that it supports three of us comfortably. Sure, we could live on mince and never go anywhere, but where's the fun in that? I actually want to buy things for my daughter without worrying about not having enough money to pay the power bill next month!! I really hope the changes will target those that are taking advantage of the welfare system and hope it gets the welfare abusers off the couch and out looking for work. The government needs to target the families with generations of family members simply living on a benefit because that's the norm. It also needs to change so that those who really need it get the support they need, eg parents who have kids with disabilities or have life-threatening conditions. I find it so sad that some parents who are struggling to pay for hospital care for their kids have to fundraise, when we have people out there abusing the welfare system. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Babe
Date Posted: 15 April 2010 at 8:33pm
|
Interesting reading this thread! Haven't kept up with the news so don't know a huge amount about the changes but agree that something needs to change with the benefit system. I also agree that studying or working 15 hours a week isn't alot especially if your kids are in school.
I think they need to do more to build peoples home skills - too many people don't know how to budget, cook cheap but nutritious food, grow a vege garden (I've found it suprisingly hard lol I don't have a green thumb!), etc. They should incorporate that into their requirements for benefit receivers and run compulsory courses covering all that stuff. -------------   
|
Posted By: Rachael21
Date Posted: 23 April 2010 at 9:53am
|
I don't really understand where national expect all these jobs and study opportunities to come from. I don't think it's unreasonable for beneficiaries to try to find work or study once their child is at school as long as they support them to find something suitable and they aren't punished for not being able to find something. I do love how everybody knows someone who is on the DPB and do nothing all day when in reality 95% of people on the DPB stay on it for less than five years.
Just a bit about the training incentive allowance, it works out to be $80-$90 a week so it does not pay the fees completely and many beneficiaries still have to get a student loan to cover fees. Since they criteria for the TIA has been changed if you are on the benefit and choosing to study you get nothing. Not even something to pay back like the student loan for living costs. So things like petrol and daycare has to come out of an already tight budget. If you are studying full time with kids you can't realistically work on top of that too to help cover costs. So for many studying is actually not an option as it is not affordable. So I think the TIA allowance being taken away is a bad thing and I find it really hypocritical of Paula Bennett to have used it to get where she is and then cut it when she may have not been able to get to where she is without it. And thats my rant of the day! 
|
Posted By: Delli
Date Posted: 23 April 2010 at 7:49pm
Totally agree with this statement.
I actually don't know anyone on a benefit who does nothing all day. Everyone I know who has been/is on a benefit has been/is on it temporarily, feels very guilty about it and takes any job they can get. Am I in the minority? I really have a hard time believing that people "pop out" (yeah right!) a baby every couple of years to stay on the benefit or get more money - surely there are very very few people that do that? I hear people tout that line so often though..... ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 25 April 2010 at 9:52am
|
Absolutely there are people who do this and absolutely there are career beneficaries...generations of them And BTW I am a Labour supporter and totally believe the benefit needs to be there for genuine recepients. -------------   http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Babykatnz
Date Posted: 27 April 2010 at 8:15pm
|
I concieved my first while engaged and got married... only to have the rug pulled out from underneath me when he was 15 months old... without the DPB I would have been in serious trouble! I was only on it for 12 months (I'd had to go and live in a residential parenting programme, but thats a different kettle of fish) and the stigma attached to it was so awful that I took the first job I could find within a month of leaving, the only rental home I could find while on it was a cold damp dive of a home that had me taking him to the doctors almost weekly, and he ended up with asthma... but as soon as I mentioned I was a beneficiary, they would tell me all sorts of excuses why my application was denied (one R.E agent was honest and said a lot of places wont take on beneficiaries!) .. the job was a f/time cold calling fundraising job with minmum pay and I had to travel from S Auck to Newmarket and back 5x a week at rush hour... I ended up no better off working than I was on the benefit! In saying that though, they DO make it easy to get into paid work... they give you a lump sum payment to help cover bills and costs of working (clothing, petrol etc) until you get your first paycheck. I managed to find a much better paying job with reduced hours a few months later, and stayed with them (including an internal promotion to full-time when B was old enough to go to preschool for longer!) right up until I went on maternity leave. I have never been on the benefit prior or since then, and I will be damned if I am ever going to let myself need it again... but noone knows whats around the corner... my partner could fall over dead one day (god forbid!) and as I have JUST resigned from my job, I would have no choice but to go back on it... you can be sure that I will once again take any job I can to get away from the stereotypes that people seem to place on you the minute they discover you are on any form of the benefit!
For anyone still on the DPB, you only have to work 20+ hours to qualify for WFF (if you have a live-in partner, then it goes up to 30 hours between you), and there is a seperate payment from IRD where they top your income up to app $21K (that may have gone up as it was 3 years ago that I recieved this!) called Minimum Family Tax Credit, as well as the usual family tax credit and in work tax credit. I'm another labour supporter... without the policies that they put in, I wouldnt be in the position I am now, and Jae probably wouldnt exist as we'd never have been able to afford to try for a baby! All going well, we plan for me to stay at home until Jae turns (or the next one if we can concieve before then) and is eligible for the 20 free hours... now that we are living together, we have almost nil entitlement to any WFF money, and preschool/after school care would take out the majority of my income, leaving me with about the same amount of $ as we get for me staying home and getting WFF from IRD and accom supplement from WINZ... makes it a no-brainer for me... I'd much rather stay home and enjoy the time with my baby since I can, than leave her with someone else all day and miss out on all the little things she does while I stress and scrape through the day then come home to kids who need me, dinner to cook, and a house to sort out, and be no better off financially! ------------- Brandon - 05/12/2003  
|
Posted By: deodora
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 11:20pm
|
Be warned BIG rant following so skip if you aren't in the mood.
I am confused as to where the people are that are living this wonderful life of ease - earning enough money on a benefit to spend on ciggies and booze and enough food to have fat ars**. I've worked in the sector and have encountered next to none. Most are living a life of daily struggle and stress. I think only in the mind of the self righteous- do you know what a small amount it is that people receive? I really don't understand the feeling of personal insult some people seem to feel about 'my taxes' being used. I am a tax payer, in the highest tax bracket, and I am happy for 'my money' to be used to support others through the welfare state. As is my husband, my mother, father, brother, most of my friends etc etc - Just as most people without children are happy for their taxes to be used towards the cost of me having my baby in a hospital, the schools my child will attend etc . This is the sign of a civilized society. Bitter individualism, outrage and me, me, me is not. To return to the original point - yes it is important and right to encourage people to work. However positive encouragement and opportunity rather than stigmatisim and patronising mindless rules and regulations that only exisit to satisfy the aforementioned self righteous is and will not help people into work. |
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 16 May 2010 at 5:47pm
| I was raised on dpb & yes mum struggled. But she paid bills on time, didn't have hp, credit cards or overdrafts. Yes I know people who spend their dole on smokes & alcohol- their kids go without, bills stack up, debt collectors knock constantly but the parents don't give a sh*t. I like the idea of a benefit card- like an eftpos card but can't be used for alcohol or smokes, & you can't get cash out. If you miss bills, rent etc repeatedly it should be paid from dole before you even get it. |
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 16 May 2010 at 5:52pm
| And I know that sounds a bit nannyish but perhaps it would send message home to the genuine "bludgers" that they're on welfare so their children can be provided for. And for people trying hard to do things honestly it wouldn't make too much of a difference to them. |
Posted By: IzzysMum
Date Posted: 23 May 2010 at 2:31am
|
My two cents ...
Whilst it's true that some changes need to be made to the system, these are coming at the wrong time. We're just coming out of a recession where we've seen the highest unemployment rates in 20 years. Yes, the rate has just dropped, but this is a seasonal change owing to the fact that the university/polytechnic school year begins in March. The fact is that there are still not a lot of jobs out there. The government should be creating jobs to encourage people into work, not threatening to cut benefits and force them into work. Second, in other countries, employers are far more family-friendly and more ready to embrace flexible working than the vast majority of New Zealand employers are. The problem here then, is that there are a shortage of part-time jobs around. So when you tell someone they have to work for 15 hours a week, you're effectively saying they have to work full-time because those are the only jobs that are around. So a further change that needs to be made is to either require employers, or to encourage them, to adopt flexible working policies. (These could have other benefits too, such as decreasing traffic.) Now, to those of you who are complaining about paying taxes to support solo mums on the DPB ... well, get over yourselves. I'm 31 years old and have been in constant employment since I graduated at 21; thus for the last ten years I have been a taxpayer myself. I'm now on the DPB as I have an eight-month-old daughter and her father decided he didn't want anything to do with us. In a welfare state, one of the reasons we pay taxes is so that we are able to receive help ourselves when we need it. I do not wish to return to work yet as I don't want to leave my daughter in childcare for such long periods while she's so young, but I'm aware that if I did return to work, virtually all my salary would be spent on childcare so it's pointless returning. I know many two-parent families who find that financially, actually they're no better off with two parents working than they are with one. |