Jobseeker benefit rules will be hardened under new government policy, with new sanctions and obligations, but not to the extent sought by the Act Party.
Employment Minister Louise Upston unveiled a suite of new policies on Monday afternoon which are intended to push people on jobseekers to find work faster.
The unemployment rate has been climbing steadily since 2021 and reached 4.6%, or 143,000 people, in the June quarter. Jobseeker numbers have also climbed, partly due to the weaker job market, but also because of a greater emphasis on making eligible people able to access support and less strict use of sanctions.
After the pandemic, the number of people being sanctioned for not showing up to an appointment dropped by 75%. This was the most common kind of sanction.
Sanctions for jobseekers who failed to prepare for work stayed relatively steady, while those refusing work also dropped significantly.
National and its coalition partners want to reverse this trend and make people work harder for their benefits. They hope to have 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker by 2030, there are currently almost 200,000 in total and 113,000 who are work-ready.
The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has already been instructed to focus on enforcing obligations and sanctions more strictly, and a handful of new policies have also been announced.
For example, the length of time an obligation failure stays on a person’s record will increase from one year to two years. This increases the chance of a person being kicked off a benefit.
Usually, a first sanction would be a 50% reduction in the benefit payment, a second would result in a complete suspension, and a third would cancel the benefit altogether.
The new policies actually introduce softer penalties for people on benefits that are being case managed or have dependent children. These people may be put on a money management program or required to do community work, instead of having their pay docked.
For those with dependent children, half of their benefit will be paid onto an electronic card which can only be used to buy essential goods. This card already exists for youth support.
Other changes include requiring Jobseekers to reapply for the benefit every six months and have an employment profile ready when applying. There was also additional job coaching and support being made available.
Act Party leader David Seymour welcomed the changes but said the Government, in which he is a senior minister, didn’t go far enough.
He wanted all cash benefits to be time-limited and transferred onto money management cards after a few months.
Ricardo Menéndez March, the Green Party’s employment spokesperson, said the Government was more interested in punishing beneficiaries than ending poverty.
“Compulsory money management only serves to take further agency away from people who simply do not have enough to properly make ends meet and regularly have to get into debt to cover the essentials,” he said in a statement.
77 Comments
Benefits are way too low given the massive cost of living increases:
a) Power: 100,000 households in energy poverty. This is before Transpower's proposed +$15/month increase and the very high current prices flowing through into power prices.
b) Food: 5.7m+ foodbank users per year
c) Shelter: Some of the highest rent/income ratios in the OECD. Add 10%+ rates increases to the rents.
NZ has wasted $500bn+ bidding up land prices instead of it going into productive businesses and now we are paying the price.
All National can do is give landlords $3bn in tax cuts & then give also give tax cuts to everyone but the very poor. It makes me want to vomit.
You could also take off the many people who abuse the welfare system, force them to work ( I personally know of many examples of these kinds of people ), rather than the government subsidizing their lifestyle so that money is welfare made more avaliable for people who actually need it
Correction there is so few abusing the welfare system that you would expend more money trying to identify them then they would receive in the period prior to age 65.
Most of those receiving support are disabled & carers, (think of those who are elderly who need nursing support from family, disabled kids denied access to school full time, those caring for partners with critical medical conditions like cancer, ALS, early onset dementia, single parents with babies etc).
Many of the disabled & carers are on jobseekers even though the carers already have a full time nursing job that is paid below minimum wage by the govt and most disabled people are denied access to employment & transport to employment to start with.
So your target is so small it does literally seem like you are merely looking to discriminate & stigmatize those who are poor out of spite especially as we have far more tax dodgers & fraudsters in the property market (see Du Val) which we could actually see significant returns from and help prevent real community harm of local businesses, & taxpayers.
But I get it. Some people get real pleasure out of putting the boot in on those poorer then them because it makes them feel less small & simple minded.
read my comment and avoid twisting it in to something you wish i said.
I'm talking about making it harder for people who abuse the welfare system because its easier than getting a job, so that more money is made available for people who need it most.
They should also do what japan did and automatically cancel welfare if you're associated with a gang, why should the tax payer fund criminal activity?
there needs to be a change to single parents with kids so there is incentive to find work when they can, rather than just choosing to go have another kid so they can continue living for free.
it is more beneficial to be an unemployed single mum than being a single mum who is employed, it makes no sense.
Since you know all these people you could choose one of them and work alongside them to make the change. Make a difference to their life/situation and enable them to pass that on to another. You don't need to stop there. Pick another and do the same. Words of warning though. Not every one wants to participate and you will need to think why. That could be challenging for a rookieinvestor.
H K, working along-side them is, in effect, exactly what the Government is doing here. The sanctions only click in if they have on three successive occasions failed to fulfill their obligation to try to find work. If they are on a Job Seekers benefit then, presumably, they have actually accepted the fact that they need to be 'seeking work'. Part of the whole process, should a person not front up in their job seeking effort, is to work with them to help them do this. But once the carrot method doesn't work, then the stick method has to be used, I guess.
So it's all about obligation. These people have few if any saleable skills to offer an employer, are generally functionally illiterate, have no educational/work related achievements, avoid contact with agencies, have had more knock backs than you could imagine - this beginning in their preschool years and know they are at the bottom of the heap. Why bother? When you are in this situation you just accept what is being dished out to you, withdraw and make ends meet the best you can. The path I advocated above is before they get to the Jobseeker obligation state and all its requirements. Its not easy for all parties involved and there are many fails along the way.
The cost of getting a lot of these people into work would likely exceed the value they could provide. As Pacifica has stated quite a few of them will be acting as carers which has tremendous value but isn't able to be quantifiably measured when compared to other forms of work.
Sanctions on them just ends up being performative and expensive without actually changing any outcomes, so we get the exact same results as we have now whilst spending a great deal more and probably making a lot of peoples lives worse.
I feel for people in need and I'm happy my tax $ to help them out. But no one is meant to get rich by getting on benefits, nor take it for granted. every dollar from benefit is hard work from someone else.
and for the tax stuff, Labour-Green has borrowed to the nose, and taxed more than they deserve, and look what they delivered after 2 terms? Nothing! Nothing to show for it!
Look I like beneficiary bashing as much as the next guy with a pair of RM Williams boots, a Rood & Gunn collared sweatshirt, leased Ford Ranger Wildtrak and a propensity to unironically say "two ticks Blue" at his wife's friends' BBQs during electoral season ... but even if all of the beneficiaries on Jobseeker want to work are there even jobs for them? Particularly considering we seem to have imported a bunch of people willing to do the most menial of jobs with probably less "demands" than the average Kiwi.
Yes, there are jobs for them, but many choose not to work, which is why we need to bring in people from overseas to perform the jobs the jobseekers won't do. It is too easy to avoid work. I know of one beneficiary, who, is a job seeker, is qualified for work, but chooses to collect the dole and go surfing. He lives in a small town, in a state house, and he gets away with it because he says there are no jobs where he lives, which is true, but he chose to shift there to avoid work. He is an immigrant too. It is far to easy to get away with stuff like this.
Many of the disabled & carers are on jobseekers even though the carers already have a full time nursing job that is paid below minimum wage by the govt and most disabled people are denied access to employment & transport to employment to start with. In fact they make up more then most of those on jobseeker. Being unable to access work because no employer you apply to will hire you as a wheelchair user who cannot get into the office with stairs or as a blind or deaf person does not mean you are not put on jobseeker.
Considering how many people are on the benefit and my workplace has advertised for 5-10 jobs recently, all of which have only been applied for by migrants.
I would say there a enough job, beneficiaries just know what they can and have been getting away with for decades
Why apply for another job when you already have one that is effectively 24/7? (many carers tend to collapse or go past burn out to the point many consider suicide see even those caring for chronically ill elderly parents or autistic children who never get holidays or breaks or even much time to sleep). It would cost the govt far more to employ nurses in their place (and it would be a team of nurses not just one).
Most of those receiving support are disabled & carers, (think of those who are elderly who need nursing support from family, disabled kids denied access to school full time, those caring for partners with critical medical conditions like cancer, ALS, early onset dementia, single parents with babies etc).
Many of the disabled & carers are on jobseekers even though the carers already have a full time nursing job that is paid below minimum wage by the govt and most disabled people are denied access to employment & transport to employment to start with.
Actually that is provably incorrect as first and foremost you are making it far more inaccessible to those who have disabilities & carers. This is proven time and time again. Those most denied access to their legal rights & legally allowed supports even with the current system of checks are those with disabilities & their carers, (e.g. both the WINZ offices and the phone system are inaccessible by design for far too many with disabilities & carers and there is no support to manage communications with them, most medical forms are lost or ignored by case workers even if a specialist had written clearly the accurate genetic testing & diagnosis). Just try to imagine the very real threats and harms in place in an office environment with a highly autistic child who cannot even be trusted on the road or in a building with a freely opening door. Try to imagine if you have no time to sleep or even go to the doctor yourself how you could even manage to find cover to go to a WINZ appointment when caring for a client with severe dementia & violent tendencies or an autistic child. It is not easy eh.
There are far far fewer of those on a benefit when it is not applicable then the many thousands more tax dodgers and fraudsters in the community who rip off both the IRD, local and national govt and the taxpayers, costing us as a nation billions more then the very small pittance of a few years with a benefit before the free lolly scramble of the pension benefit cuts in.
Excellent, I assume money management means if you are receiving a benefit, then it makes it much harder to buy booze, smokes, lotto and play the pokies. I know it will be possible to circumvent these rules, and if beneficiaries choose to do this, then there should be more sanctions. A job seeker benefit is to allow you to survive until you find employment, not so you can sit around and smoke and drink and gamble, as many do.
Maybe they could tackle the other end of the job market too. Over 65's who can retire, but choose not to because they can double dip by receiving a pension. There's currently 235k over 65's still working. 50k of them are on over $100k p.a.
Get them out of the Labour market, freeing up jobs for other people to move into. As people progress in their career, this will free up jobs at the lower end for beneficiaries to move into.
I think you will find that most of them actually cannot afford to retire due to their lifestyle choices. Most people on here just laugh at the super payment, apparently even with a mortgage free house and two new cars in the garage and no debt its still not enough to "Have a life".
Being unable to access work because no employer you apply to will hire you as a wheelchair user who cannot get into the office with stairs or as a blind or deaf person does not mean you are not put on jobseeker.
Most want work. Try to rationalize why it is ok to discriminate against disabled people and deny them any chance of employment.
More neoliberal BS. Upston and Luxon need to resign.
National creates the recession and additional unemployment (budget forecasts) & then beats up beneficiaries.
For any given OCR and minimum wage there is a required unemployment rate. National thinks it can break the laws of physics.
What are people going to do if the benefit is removed ??? Become homeless and live on the street??? Absurd.
How is someone that is on the benefit going to get to one of the clothing shops if they live in a small town or rural area???? Absurd policy
What a great life for people on the unemployment benefit. Everyone wants to do it and live in abject poverty. Nationals policy is ridiculous
Where is the policy for government to pay for training for all unemployed to get them real jobs in the workforce like is done in Scandinavia ???
Fairness Luxon. Free capital gains for many of the asset rich. Yeah, that’s fairness.
ABSURD. The government sets the overarching policy and causes the unemployment and then bashes beneficiaries. The National Party needs to be made unemployed.
I'm alright Jack. I'm the only one that matters. Look at me me me me ....
When you get a few more decades on your body and see the same people in the same position you might think why could they not have done as I did? There is no one solution and you might be surprised by the root causes of their situation. That will require some independent thought however.
Just offer everyone a job doing something useful in the community. Pay minimum wage and give people something to do and feel good about. When the economy picks up, people can move to better paid jobs. When the economy slows, people have a working safety net. A bufferstock of employed people doing useful stuff is a far better obvious management tool than a bufferstock of unemployed people.
I used to work in a community where the career pathway for teenage woman was:
1: High school until age 15
2: Pregnant at 16
3: DPB at 17.
4: Repeat every few years...
Also, the only place I had ever met a 32-year-old grandmother.
And this seemed to be accepted within the community. It taught me that it is hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.
The days where most women were stereotypically seen as only good for being housewives, nurses or teachers, and most were discouraged in their education actively by their parents so they could not even make the low grade of teachers & nurses. Even then look at the gender % in teaching and nurse tertiary education versus STEM & higher level medicine roles. It is not because they had it as part of their genetic makeup from birth but a whole lot of cultural influence went into the career direction. I was surprised to see it far more obvious in the South versus larger cities but it is very prevalent in many areas in NZ.
I have read much research around the many social movements being generated today pushing this public image back onto women and teen girls as they are further discouraged from STEM fields due to very well researched (and legally proven) discrimination in the industry & the very present incel type social campaigns you don't need to go far to see (even in booked influencer rallies in NZ). It is actually so prevalent that many cannot go online without seeing them in advertising & many forms. Then you get to NZs very prominent record of relationship abuse and family harm which adds to the restriction of freedoms for many women in NZ (more prevalent among groups of lower socioeconomic status; the court case of the clinician who killed his wife and tried to make it look like a suicide is an outlier in his socioeconomic group but sadly not unexpected).
Given we still have a high cultural gender bias in work roles in NZ and in many community settings perhaps we could address that to improve education results & career pathways. But then hey you tell a girl 100+ times she is only good for being a mother & womb they tend to start believing that. Very few fight against parents and cultural norms. Most girls have the pressure put on them from such an early age it is not a surprise they end up more brainwashed and ready to convince the next generation of the same. It is not a matter of soaring above but literally fighting the oppressive opinions of family, church and community at every turn, to further isolate yourself from those you love, to be able to break the mould from the young age as a teen so you can fight further in what you want learn and train. Sadly most people do not fight the opinions of others they trust and love openly and there is very real discouragement in education. You don't need to go far to see typical pressure exerted on girls from a young age. Just look at most religious schools & churches where role models pushed on girls are solely mothers & women who act as surrogate wombs and family planning in their eyes is only around having more children not birth control and consent around sex.
"But then hey you tell a girl 100+ times she is only good for being a mother & womb they tend to start believing that"
I think you've hit it on the head. It was an attitude thing. These young women, never for a moment, were considering finishing school and entering the paid workforce. I don't think that the idea that other people were working to pay for their lifestyle really entered the conversation. The males were sort of similar in as much as there was no value being placed on education and getting a qualification. Just leave school and take the first job you could find.
It is a tragedy I saw played out in many low income low decile schools. That there was no potential pathway on offer that showed them they could choose a different path and the cultural influence (even that just within a family) was so oppressive. Whereas wealthy families and schools often gave their children options, encouragement to study, to go overseas to pursue more training etc. Being a girl in a wealthy more educated family is vastly different to that in a family that has a heavy cultural presence that near enforces following parents & cultural leaders directions and I think this is why people often have cognitive dissonance and a lack of understanding about why many end up where they are. If we lose the potential productivity of a significant chunk of the populace in a large way we really are crippling ourselves economically for no good reason.
I was surprised a South Auckland school, will not name it here in case of reputational damage, had a careers fair right up until I saw the only roles on offer were mostly hospitality, nursing, agricultural crop work, hair & makeup, military service, and cultural arts. As one of the 2 in STEM fields at the fair, (and I was shocked I was in such a limited group with the other just a lecturer at the polytech telling kids they needed more then 10k just to study there), I was the only one who said it was possible for anyone of low income to study and get a job in the field (they did not need the 10k upfront). I was the only one with demonstrations of many of the various work roles and how maths & science in high school directly ties into infrastructure, software & medical tech with visuals. It was sadder because we did not even get the funding for a stall, unlike the very low income subsistence career paths on offer (and most nursing roles in the country are community nursing that is shift work of low wage & the military service paths they showed were the lowest level, not the officer & high skill pathways). Even worse most the careers fair and encouragement of the students was solely towards the boys. It was like they were saying to the girls they need not bother with most areas and yes the main careers they could hope for were nursing, teaching or subsistence living.
It was tragic because questions asked by students, (some very bright and others that were completely valid but showed big gaps in education at the school) were immediately shot down by the others and mocked (egged on by the teacher too). Even though the questions answered would have been valuable for more then just that student. It was even sadder to see evidence of how little STEM was valued in these lower decile schools.
Given the exposure to the gendered influence and the vast differences between higher socioeconomic and lower socioeconomic groups it is no surprise many women are led to such lives of just rinse and repeat mothering. After all take a look at Gloriavale for how well indoctrination works if you start on the girls young enough and how few are able to leave & fight back in the community. Just tell them they will be damned if they go against the parents cultural influence and then restrict family contact. It is as tight a prison on their future as putting them in a prison.
And for many in communities in New Zealand nothing has changed. Much of this situation can be attributed to generational poverty. There is no pathway out. Weekly I deal with the 32 old grandmothers who are raising their grandchildren to the best of their ability. They have limited education, limited skills to survive in the current environment and limited future. They will be an early burden on the health system of the future. And the whole schmeer will repeat. Think about the root cause of this situation as it was in train before you became aware of it and what could have been done differently.
I've got a relative who's been a sponger all his adult life.
He's 40, lived with my mother for 17 years until I managed to get rid of him and the police put him in the slammer for the night for trespassing. Never paid any board, ate the best food, worked when he felt like it and managed to motor through around $150k of my mother's money.
He's a beneficiary, loads of convictions for drink driving, driving without a licence etc., his brains are fried after decades of drug and alcohol abuse.
It was my duty as trustee of her will to tell him he had inherited $235,000 from my mother. When I managed to contact him, he argued with me, told me how hard his life had been and turned the money down.
"his brains are fried" and you don't see that as a medical condition, or as something that would impair functioning independently or in a work role... huh ok. Here is another question, if you were an employer would you hire him with his current fried brain & skills or would you need to see him given significant medical & education intervention first before you would consider hiring him.
There are many people who I would never employ who do not have a history of addiction and medical neglect simply on the basis they have demonstrated to me in past experience they are a hazard to other staff & clients, they are fixed in their attitude of not learning new tasks, or following steps, and need constant supervision. They are often older and have significant bullying behaviour that caused not only financial damage to projects but significant reputational damage as well. Frankly even employing a drug addict in remission would have saved money compared to these people (but a drug addict would need the medical care to be in remission good luck finding that in NZ, they are more likely to end up in a permanent state of medical illness, seesawing, due to lack of medical services across NZ).
This guy has had every opportunity in life to make something of himself, it's no medical condition, it's irresponsible behaviour that's landed him in this position.
Work is something he's just not going to do, and if he inherited the money, he would probably lose the 'bene'. If you think I should sympathise with him, the answer's no.
Err addiction is a significant medical condition that needs medical invention. Not sure why you are clueless about that. Or that your "had every opportunity" ignores answering my question: Would You Hire Him Now As An Employer? The very obvious result is why he cannot get a role without the necessary medical & education support now. I take it logic does not run in the family given your answer because here is a clue: if you would not hire him, why would anyone else until he has had the medical invention & training beforehand.
Many people lose or miss opportunities because of life events. Severely abused children often fit into these groups and have significant addictions and it often takes decades before abuse comes to light (sometimes it never does because of the impacts and the lack of justice). Likewise those who have been hooked onto addictions early without the medical invention often do not have the opportunities they otherwise would have if they had never been addicted. Addiction is more of a medical condition & requires a functioning medical and mental health workforce... which NZ never had in the first place. Previously we just locked people like him up in mental institutions that cost the country a bomb and had a high amount of torture before we dumped the resulting worse issue on the community & the family to deal with (if we did not kill them inside).
But I get it, you cannot draw a line between his brain is fried & has a significant addiction issue to he cannot get steady work. Perhaps you need to visit a MHS ward first hand to see the actual medical support on offer that is often in code black status due to lack of beds & facilities. Ironically even the practitioners in the wards are so disheartened by the roles due to the actual lack of medical care available to patients they often quit, suffer burnout or end up highly depressed themselves. It would be eye opening to then see why such patients often do not magically cure themselves instantly and suddenly give themselves years of training to pick up steady employment.
If you still don't get it perhaps just wack yourself with a brick in the head a few times to reach the same level of fried brain and loss of skills. Then try to apply for work roles with brain trauma. It would be painfully obvious then. Addictions significantly affect cognitive function and decision making abilities. Often patients need the medical invention & advocacy support before they can make long term decisions that are supportive of them, even then many are already permanently impaired from birth due to FADS so they really do need advocacy support long term.
I wouldn't hire him to walk my dog he's such a hopeless case.
All other members of my family are living responsible, useful, law-abiding lives. It makes me sick that he motored through hundreds of thousands of my mother's money and I'm supposed to give him more.
I've got evidence he's turned it down, I'm going to leave it for a while and it will be my pleasure and duty to distribute it to others.
BTW, it's not a medical condition, it's self-inflicted.
A long hard look in the mirror?
I've led a very productive, useful, life like my relatives. My bludger relative has done his dash with this family, a guy who's made no effort, achieved sfa and effectively stolen from others.
Sympathy...OMG!!! Haha, can't believe you're serious.
I would be interested to hear details on how this payment card will work. It seems like it may be the same as this: https://www.youthservice.govt.nz/payments/where-you-can-use-your-paymen…
From people that I know on a benefit, more than half their expenses are things like rent and power that are typically paid via bank transfer. Rent alone may be 70-80% of their benefit.
It sounds like you can buy "prepaid power cards", is that going to limit their choice in power companies and potentially cost them money and card fees?
You mean it's someone else's fault that there's tens of thousands of kiwis that can't be bothered getting out of bed in the morning to do a day's work?
A few years ago a case made the news. A young guy was evicted by his parents for refusing to work. His justification - "work's just not for me".
This coalition really are a load of heartless, stupid, nasty buggers aren't they? $3 billion for landlords, while cashing out of the investment properties I'm sure they had "no intention of making money on, honest Mr IRD". Proper planning and thought of consequences? Nope, just cancel stuff 'cos their sponsors don't like it, and distract the populace from what they're really doing by kicking the poor (and the can down the road).
A couple of years ago you could drive through the local township and there would be signs outside looking for employees. Without much luck.
There's one down the road from me right now, it's been there for months, a guy looking for labourers. But who wants to do that, when you can score the 'bene'...right?
I get that some people don't want to work - and some do indeed take the wee - but that shouldn't be the focus of a government, nor should it be the thing they make headlines about. Sure, businesses need workers at times, but when they aren't paying enough to enable people to get ahead why do we expect any different? 40 years of neoliberal nonsense has got us to this point, houses out of reach to many (most?) of the population, those with more than enough not prepared to give anything back, and law and policy influencers getting their minions to entrench the status quo.
How about taxing the gains, the rich, the inherited advantage, and looking forward and planning for a future that is fairer, more equal and with opportunities, public transport, ferries, health, education and support for all? Grinding poverty is awful, it's hard to get out of without support. Been there, done that, didn't make me happy. I am, however, happy to pay tax for (I'm guessing) the 10% of jobseekers who want to sit around doing nothing, so there is a safety net for those who genuinely need it. I resent paying it to give to landlords and donors who bend policy to their own benefit.
Taxing the 'rich'?
Gouge the 'rich', whoever they are, and they'll be packing their bags. The 'rich' are the employers, innovators and risk-takers.
Inheritance taxes have already been tried...and failed. That's why thousands of wealthy kiwis departed these fair shores for QLD after the then Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen encouraged wealthy kiwis to move there with lower taxes. And they did, in their droves.
I can tell you right now, there's no point in going to work if we're going to be gouged for taxes. Piggy Muldoon ripped off kiwis with a 66c in the dollar 'temporary tax surcharge'. Can you believe that?
It's surprising there's so many socialists posting on a business website.
"there's no point in going to work if we're going to be gouged for taxes", what like if you do 40 hours of hard graft to take home not enough to get ahead on, you mean?
I'd love to have people's bluff called on the "Do this and I'll leave" threats, where would you go? Is the grass really greener or will you all end up in gated communities moaning about the state of the world? Plenty of rich people calling for fairer treatment of their incomes (and that's not paying less tax), and widening global thought about wealth taxes.
Perhaps having a conscience and a desire for a better community makes us socialists, that's fine by me. One can work hard, make money and be a decent human too.
Nice edit - you earlier wrote you are rich and that you'd be packing your bags if taxed more.
The rich also include rentiers, land-bankers, exploitative employers, dodgy developers, and shady-dealing ex-MPs who know the law and when to get out. They're all okay though, are they, because they're rich?
I will, my kids are already offshore.
You know what Winston Churchill said about socialists?
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” —Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948, in Churchill, Europe Unite: Speeches 1947 & 1948 (London: Cassell, 1950), 347.
A very smart guy.
Yes, he was clever. And did a tremendous job in WW2. Wasn't quite so good leading the earlier Gallipoli campaign.
He was also a committed Imperialist and Monarchist who wanted to "Keep England white"; proclaimed that the "Aryan stock is bound to triumph," and didn't believe any wrong had been done to the indigenous peoples of Australia or America. He was born in Blenheim Palace and came from a long-line of beneficiaries, the Spencer-Churchills.
The latest Duke of Marlborough has, it is alleged, been an utter hoover for mind-altering substances, spends his time lazing around and dallying with ladies of ill-repute. Hasn't worked a day in his life, yet the bludger stills wants us to pay 30+pounds to see his inherited house, gifted to his ancestor 300 years ago, and built with financial assistance from the monarchy.
You can get into the house free if you enter via the gift shop exit (just wait until a tourist comes out, then sneak in), it is alleged.
Should read up what he said on land value taxes then.
"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived ... the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
@U4mism
I am, however, happy to pay tax for (I'm guessing) the 10% of jobseekers who want to sit around doing nothing, so there is a safety net for those who genuinely need it.
I am not happy that my tax money goes towards paying 19,000 people to sit on their A** and be unproductive.
i would much rather it go to building a better country and helping people who actually need it.
instead industry tells us we need to be more productive so that we can fund other people to be unproductive.
I'm not either, but there are other things that I think we should all be concentrating on - we all know some people take the proverbial, and it rankles when we pay tax for them to do so, but benefits are there as a safety net for all who find themselves in need, and I believe we should pay for that as part of a civil society. Will the cost of implementation be less than the savings? Does it not annoy you that you pay tax for landlords to claim? That millionaires claim pensions, because they can? Totally agree about building a better country but we need vision, blinkers removed, and new thinking.
I'm far more annoyed by this shower-in-power thinking selling tobacco is more important than the nation's health; landlords more important than cancer treatments; that loading debt onto local councils and cancelling ferries is better than doing some joined-up thinking about future infrastructure problems; that maths is more important than the arts; that mining profits are more important than the natural world. Jacinda wasn't perfect, but I'd rather be hugged by her than f*#$!d by the mendacious pilgarlic and his cronies.
Selling tobacco....
Aren't people to be trusted to make their own decisions about tobacco? Do we all have to be spoon fed? What about marijuana and lung cancer? It's a fact that it causes lung cancer, something Comrade Ardern and her hopeless lefties forgot to mention.
Don't socialists just love telling everyone how to live their lives.
And mining...kiwis paying through the nose for gasoline and sending them broke, when we have a heap of our own oil right here.
The Comrade and her socialists were sending NZ broke...fast, and everyone knew it, except maybe you. And your answer to that is more taxes on people who actually work. Give it a rest.
BTW, being a landlord is like any other business, they have expenses which are tax deductible. If it's such a terrific way to get rich, do it yourself. Did you know there's 40,000 empty houses in Auckland? Fact...owned by people who can't be bothered with the hassle of tenants.
I also believe all drugs should be decriminalised, criminalising addicts is a very cruel practice and why enable the gangs to profit? The war on drugs is lost, we need policy that reflects the reality. I'm no expert, but I'd suggest a government-regulated pharmacy-type operation, free needles, injection rooms and medical staff on hand to help prevent deaths. Yes, drugs are bad for one's health, but Bishop's cynical change of the law should be seen for what it is - a sop to his lords rather than 'freedom of choice'.
I don't have the answer to our energy needs, but when a minister stands up in parliament and says he's happy for endemic fauna to be destroyed in pursuit of profit, I think he's wrong. As he is pandering to the fishing industry. I'd love to see NZ embrace its uniqueness, and preserve as much as possible as an exemplar of how to do business and protect the environment while looking after all who call Aotearoa home. We need scientists and research to do this, yet the funding is being cut.
The system we have is broken, how do we fix it without paying for the stuff we want while considering the future energy state? Fair taxation is needed, if that means CGT, wealth tax, and means-testing pensions, so be it. Even if it will cost me. And spend it wisely for the future, not to prop up the present or indulge in left/right nonsense politicking.
I'm not saying being a landlord is easy, but 40k houses lying empty when people are sleeping in cars is not something to be proud of. Are they empty because the owners want to cash in tax-free later? The extra payments from our taxes (and preferential treatment for landlords) enable higher rents, and house prices to be pushed out of reach for our youth who are leaving, yours and mine included. And that makes me sad.
I also believe all drugs should be decriminalised,
I just lost all respect for any posts you make, what a stupid belief.
Do you realize countries at war in the past have introduced addictive substances as a tactic of economic war, and you say you want to legalize that? You are basically saying it's a good idea to give people free will to have access to any addictive drug they wish, you are advocating for destroying lives. Disgusting.
Decriminalisation isn't the same as legalisation. If drug possession and personal use are decriminalised, it is still illegal to possess and use drugs. Selling and manufacturing drugs still carry criminal penalties.
The rationale behind decriminalisation is to treat drug use and dependence as a health and social issue, not a criminal justice or moral issue.
Yes, I do know that countries (including my own UK) have done such things, but there are still many countries in grinding poverty that produce various substances for the rich west to get intoxicated on - we love the stuff, haven't you noticed? There are also drug barons and importers in all western countries getting very rich from the war on drugs making everything very expensive. The last thing I'm doing is advocating for destroying lives, our policies are doing that already.
As E46 points out, decriminalisation is not the same as legalisation. Drug abuse is a health issue, and should be treated as such. Sure, it's not an easy option, but if an addict has access to healthcare and equipment to help prevent HIV, Hepatitis etc (and the associated costs of these to all of us), support somewhere they feel safe, and is able to access help when and if they want to quit surely that's better than pushing them into the arms of the evil gangs.
And let's not pretend that there is no corruption allowing the gangs to carry on as they do, why enable them to push P, fentanyl, and all the rest alongside weed? "Can't pay pretty girl? Have this one on us and we can work something out later." Why not start addressing the problems that lead people to join them as a replacement for family instead of punitive punishment, and every-three-year-idiotic-slogans?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.