Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Graceless carping

There has been a lot of reaction today to the Minister of Social Development releasing information about the incomes of two beneficiaries to the media. The story in the NZ Herald is light on facts but the two net weekly incomes given - $715 and $554 - are no doubt correct. It appears the Minister is attempting to expose the culture of moaning that typically emanates from middle-class Pakeha women on the DPB. Here's a comment from another blog which is more of the same;

Also for peoples information those benefits have multiple layers to it.. your core benefit is only about 460, IRD give ALL parents between one to two hundred per week depending on numbers of children and the rest is accomodation that ALL low income earners are entitled too. My benefit is 620 (including ird) with two kids and my rent in Auckland is a cheap (??) 360 per week.. i cant have flatmates, i dont have a partners pay packet and i tell you its fricken hard work.. try feeding two growing kids and the rest in whats left. Im at uni and claim another 80 for transport and pay all my own fees and books.. its all for you to see and if you'd like to walk a few days in my shoes your more than welcome.

That's another receiving $700 a week and resenting it. Someone put a pertinent question to me this morning. How are people like this ever going to get off a benefit because, even armed with a degree, no entry level job in the private sector is going to pay that much? Is that what the public service is for?

So much for a welfare safety net. This isn't somebody experiencing a crisis. It's somebody who has gotten the pieces of her life in the wrong order ie got kids before qualifications, and gracelessly expects the taxpayer to sort it for her. I wonder how those workers who are being made redundant only to find they have no unemployment entitlement would view this outburst?

About the release of the information, Sue Bradford says;

"This form of silencing opposition is simply not acceptable in a democratic society and I hope the Government will urgently reconsider its intimidating tactics," Ms Bradford said.


Nobody is being silenced. They are simply being encouraged to tell the truth. If the full facts are used to protest there is nothing further the government can add.

19 comments:

Luke H said...

Well said Lindsay. It is very difficult to not read their description of their living situation without interpreting it as a whingeing entitlement mentality.

"Try walking in my shoes" - with a bit of forethought and contraception ('family planning'), I'll never have to.

Luke H said...

More ranting:

One also has to ask why someone on such a limited income is choosing to live in what sounds like a nice part of Auckland. Move to a cheaper part of town, or a different province, and see how much further your dollar goes.

All of these solo parents on welfare make substantially more than I currently do in a fulltime job. In University I lived on less than $300 a week, in Wellington no less.

And why can't they get flatmates? I know a couple with two small children who lived with flatmates for years.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Here's the killer punch. These foolish broads gave away their privacy rights when they bleated to the media.

http://nominister.blogspot.com/2009/07/dont-mess-with-this-mama.html

See the latest update from question time and the ministerial advice from the Commissioner's website.

Apologies Lindsay, I rarely linkwhore.

Sus said...

Agree with Lindsay and Luke, of course. But this tickled me:

* peoples information
* accomodation
* partners pay packet
* whats left
* Im at uni

I'd say 'sic x five' but I don't think it would register. :/

Oswald Bastable said...

That's the trick with feasting at the public trough- it is public.

backin15 said...

How about all your personal details are released by Ministers who don't like you Lindsay... you've not bothered to talk about this element of the situation.

Shane Pleasance said...

I am utterly flabbergasted at this sense of entitlement. $715! $715?!

And this is just some woman who decided to whinge! How much are the happy ones on?
Excuse me I just have to do my GST returns.

Shane Pleasance said...

Seriously, $715?

Shane Pleasance said...

NET WEEKLY? I I have only just read this bit properly. NET?

Shane Pleasance said...

My GST returns can wait.

Mark Hubbard said...

Good post Lindsay.

And I'm not National Supporter, but good on Bennett for not backing down and offering any form of apology over this.

If you living off the State, then why shouldn't this aspect of your life, how much the State if giving you of my money, be under scrutiny.

Mark Hubbard said...

Apologies for the typos.

Anonymous said...

I hope none of you condemners ever have the misfortune of bad luck in your life which could potentially lead to needing state assistance.

Fundamental Attribution Error.

Lucy said...

Truth Lindsay? It seems to be a foreign concept to some. Especially those with an entitlement mentality.

Shane Pleasance said...

Thank you for your well wishes, Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

All those fearmongers worried that the Govt will now release private data of those they don't like - it's highly unlikely. Why would they, considering the furore this incident seems to have caused? Where would the benefits be for such a Department?

I say good on Paula. She's not hounding these 2 silly women, or attacking them because she doesn't like them, she just released some info to set the record straight.

Labour, and these 2 silly, silly women, tried to present case with selective info. Paula filled in the gaps so NZ could judge the merits of the case more clearly.

Labour would have done the same, just sneaked some papers out the back door or something.

Anyway, they started it - in public BTW.

R

Dave said...

Paula filled in the gaps so NZ could judge the merits of the case more clearly
Well, some of the gaps Here's a few more

The Tomahawk Kid said...

In reply to "backin15"

The right to privacy is directly related to the rights of property!
Lindsay earnings are a private matter between her and the person that pays her wages.

The people who pay the wages of those on benefits are the TAXPAYERS, and they surely should have a right to know where the money taken from them is spent.

You lose the right to privacy the moment you start dipping your fingers into my wallet.

Somebody said on the radio yesterday that "a lot of good has been done with these benefits" - that is great, but a lot of good could STILL have been achieved with that money for MY children should I have been allowed to keep the money that I earnt.

James said...

Somebody said on the radio yesterday that "a lot of good has been done with these benefits" - that is great, but a lot of good could STILL have been achieved with that money for MY children should I have been allowed to keep the money that I earnt."

Yes....its another example of Bastiats "That which is seen...and not seen" in economics.

For every path taken there is another one that is not....a wise person reflects on that alternative and costs it against the choice made.Someone needs to explain this to National so we don't get more cycleways and other socialist bullshit.