tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post6941749228615110024..comments2024-03-04T16:39:30.609+13:00Comments on Lindsay Mitchell: Ignorance or dishonesty?Lindsay Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-86435177018088758372015-05-25T11:16:43.093+12:002015-05-25T11:16:43.093+12:00Perhaps you should have set out what the same pers...<i>Perhaps you should have set out what the same person <b>should</b> get on the minimum wage to make the point clearer.<br /></i><br /><br />Easy. $0. <br /><br /><br />As it is, we're back to Muldoonism. We need another Lange, another Roger, and most of all, another Ruth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-77044883374239538412015-05-24T08:26:32.500+12:002015-05-24T08:26:32.500+12:00David, I considered it but by the same token, that...David, I considered it but by the same token, that would be understating income also. A sole mum on the minimum wage would also get the same top-ups, but they would be adjusted according to her income from work. It's all so messy. I have a friend who went from DPB to work and when I listen to her talk, she really has no idea what she gets or why. But she does know she now gets a tidy sum from the IRD once a year which I am guessing is the IWTC paid in a lump sum. I'm not even sure if she is financially better off on a weekly basis but she likes working. Enjoys the company (as in mateship).Lindsay Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-70267552911492465972015-05-24T00:17:05.915+12:002015-05-24T00:17:05.915+12:00Lindsay
Perhaps you should have set out what the s...Lindsay<br />Perhaps you should have set out what the same person would get on the minimum wage to make the point clearer. davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00312282243883488495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-45023474287386000202015-05-23T13:53:08.952+12:002015-05-23T13:53:08.952+12:00"over many years" benefits have remained...<i>"over many years" benefits have remained flat, going up only with inflation.</i><br /><br />Well which is it? Have they remained "flat" - the same level that Ruth set in '91? Or have they gone up.<br /><br />Let's see: in '91 the bludger-mom benefit was something like $100 per week. Today as Lindsay points out, it's closer to $1000 per week than $100.<br /><br />All the hard work done by Ruth Richardson (and to a lesser extent, Roger Douglas) has been undone by successive governments. More than ever, NZ needs to look back to '91 and take its medicine all over again: charter all the schools and permit full fee recovery; turn the "DHBs" back into CHEs, Health Enterprises that make profits; stop kidding ourselves about super; and above all, get the benefits back to where they were in '91 in dollar terms, and then rid of them altogether.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com