I'm certain beneficiaries are discriminated against. But it isn't usually the state doing the discriminating because the law makes that almost impossible. It's employers, landlords, retailers, service providers etc discriminating.
But here's another angle to consider. Aren't beneficiaries sometimes discriminated in favour of?
Landlords who prioritise guaranteed rent payments may prefer someone receiving a rent subsidy every week. A secondhand goods dealer may prefer a beneficiary buyer who qualifies for a WINZ grant. A youth employer may prefer a young candidate who has been through one of Work and Income's training courses or mentored by a contracted organisation.
It's conceivable that some employers may even prefer to employ someone on a benefit because of their particular type of social conscience eg the beneficiary needs a job more than the already employed applicant.
Some beneficiaries have been able to jump public waiting lists for surgery to enable them to regain capacity to work. Beneficiaries with children will take priority on Housing NZ waiting lists.
And here's an uncomfortable but feasible stretch. Female beneficiaries in the market for a partner might find potential mates discriminate in their favour because they have a secure income and home (after a fashion).
There's always more ways to look at circumstances than the one stuck under your nose by a self-interested party.
When a child is born
47 minutes ago
5 comments:
The truth is those of us who aren't beneficiaries discriminate in favour of them - by providing beneficiaries with an income, leaving even middle-to-high income earners struggling to make ends meet after the rapacious state has taken its share to fund all those benefits.
They are also discriminated in favour of by being given cheaper transport, medical care, rates and all sorts of private services (just look at all those "unwaged" discount signs around town).
"Discrimination" and "human rights" two most abused terms both used to gain advantage by throwing them around to support arguments for which there is absolutely no rational basis
Loved beneficiaries turning up to the car repair workshop. Give them a quote (slightly inflated for the tiny bit of extra paperwork, and because you knew you could slightly inflate). Beneficiary comes back with approval. Do the job with guaranteed payment by bank deposit the next day after completing the job.
The only other way of guaranteeing payment was "no cash - no car". But eventually one runs out of space (bloody Maoris).
All married and stay-at-home mothers and their children are discriminated against by the welfare system because the working father/husband should pay zero tax up to the value of the single mum's benefit, and if he doesn't earn enough then the government should top up the married couple's income with cash. This would be the only fair arrangement -no disadvantage for mum and kids just because she has a working husband/father.
Post a Comment