These income support payments are means-tested. If their wages go up they stand to lose assistance $1 for $1. This is a simplistic but valid supposition.
But the likes of Laila Harre have a passion for sticking it to the employer first and failing that, the taxpayer second. It isn't really about the employee, who gains nothing. I will never forget her comment when it was pointed out some people were ripping off Paid Parental Leave by taking it and not returning to work. So what. It's paid for by the state, she said.
And Sue Bradford says she doesn't want the taxpayer subsidising the employer but have you ever heard her calling for less income support? No. Her answer would be to raise the thresholds for qualifying. That way she can hit up the employer and the taxpayer.Without these infernal interferers, wealth-sapping bureaucracies, dole for deadbeats, witless politicians, the meddling masses of non-producing parasites, we would ALL be better off.
2 comments:
Lindsay, whats your point, if locked out (not striking) workers are getting WFF and accommodation supplement, they are still fighting low wages and will be getting it even if they get a pay rise. If their wages increase, sure they are less reliant on the state as WFF will go down, but accommodation supplment wont change much at all.
The employee gains as a result of a wage rise - many are not entitled to recieve assistance at all, and in the case of accommodatin supplement any assistance will be way be less than the in work payment.
Now, do you know if locked out workers are entitled to the in work payment?
I have no idea, Dave.
My point - that income support is intended to augment low wages. Then the extreme Left complain about it subsidising employers but never speak against it in any other respect.
Post a Comment