Bid for benefit increase rejected

The Government has knocked back a Maori Party bid for beneficiaries to get more money to cover higher power and fuel costs under plans to fight climate change.

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said the party was negotiating for higher handouts and other measures to help low-income families in return for backing the emissions trading scheme.

He refused to give details, but his comments suggested he wanted a one-off boost to cover the initial price shock when power, petrol and diesel come under the scheme on July 1.

"We're still negotiating that one, but we basically got heard at least that there should be a slight increase for the benefit ... during this period, beyond what it is now."

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith said negotiations on helping low-income families cope with extra costs were continuing, but there had been no agreement on benefits going up.

A spokesman said later there would be no increase beyond the usual inflation adjustment on April 1 each year. The 2011 adjustment would take into account power and fuel increases after those sectors were brought into the scheme on July 1 next year.

The ETS is expected to add an extra $3 a week to household power and fuel bills about half the increase under Labour's stricter scheme. At the time of the May 28 Budget, a $3-in-the-hand rise in benefits and national superannuation would have cost $54 million a year, though beneficiary numbers have since risen significantly.

Labour leader Phil Goff said the proposed scheme did not do enough to cut emissions, and Labour would change it when it returned to government.

Labour is angry that National struck a deal with the Maori Party instead of seeking broader political support. "They could have reached agreement with us. They chose not to. We certainly believe what is being proposed in its current form is wrong. That means the scheme will again be subject to change."

Mr Goff also said the scheme could cost taxpayers $1.6 billion over the next four years, four times the $400m predicted by Dr Smith.

Taxpayers must pick up the shortfall between what polluters pay for their emissions and New Zealand's overall Kyoto liability.

Prime Minister John Key rejected claims the Government had acted in bad faith, and said its position was made clear to Labour all along. He still hoped broad agreement could be reached as the scheme went through a select committee before becoming law.

News Article

when the ETS was first being discussed, I thought to myself "that will be something else I have to pay for - for me, and for all those that can't "affrd" it".

Typical - and then to hear this? I was quite stoked

Even if there is an initial cost, it will dissolve over time as that becomes normal, basically just another form of inflation.

Beneficiaries already get heaps though. 10% of the country absorbing 30% of the tax just on income. They're also more likely to go to the hospital than the local doctor. Their kids often take up more resources in schools. They are over represented in crime, absorbing more than their share of the policed and justice budgets. Many of their kids get taken off them and put in to CYPFS. I'd be willing to bet that when you add everything like that in, as a group beneficiaries could be approaching 50% of tax just spent on them.

It's a complete shambles. Chucking money that way isn't going to solve anything. What will nobody seems to know or agree on, certainly other countries with different approaches haven't found a solution. Maybe a small percentage of the population is always destined to be doomed.

GIVE ME MORE MONEY OR I WILL HIJACK TV1 TV2 TV3 AND C4 AND PLAY BOXXY VIDEOS ON REPEAT

Their kids often take up more resources in schools.

Their kids do get more resources spent on them... but that's the way it has to be... unless you want social reproduction happening.

Psalter wrote:

Their kids often take up more resources in schools.

Their kids do get more resources spent on them... but that's the way it has to be... unless you want social reproduction happening.

isn't social reproduction already happening? those who are more useless get more money, which encourages more uselessness etc etc

PS - You just lost!!

PPS - And again

Donkeycheese wrote:

Psalter wrote:

Their kids often take up more resources in schools.

Their kids do get more resources spent on them... but that's the way it has to be... unless you want social reproduction happening.

isn't social reproduction already happening? those who are more useless get more money, which encourages more uselessness etc etc

PS - You just lost!!

PPS - And again

Gah, and gahhhh.

Yes it happens, but it is much more likely to happen when education deficits in the home aren't offset by education at a school.

I still think I should breed and go on the DPB... I want to get $700 + a week too...

I do a shit load of overtime to get that now and I think laying on my back would be such a cool thing to do for a while.

Summoner wrote:I still think I should breed and go on the DPB... I want to get $700 + a week too...

I do a shit load of overtime to get that now and I think laying on my back would be such a cool thing to do for a while.

Whoring? You know it's not just missionary right?

Psalter wrote:

Summoner wrote:I still think I should breed and go on the DPB... I want to get $700 + a week too...

I do a shit load of overtime to get that now and I think laying on my back would be such a cool thing to do for a while.

Whoring? You know it's not just missionary right?

Yeah but you got my point... just think if i had of said


"I think laying on my back, on all fours, on the table, the chair, against the wall, on my side, on his side, on his back, on my knees, etc etc...would be such a cool thing to do for while"

Then that would kinda kill my point and make you men need a cold shower. hahahaha *jokes*

Mind you after the weekend I spent dealing to work in Papamoa... I have pretty much matched and doubled that $700 + a week.

And I get to be an proudly arrogant fucker because of it.

Psalter wrote:

Their kids often take up more resources in schools.

Their kids do get more resources spent on them... but that's the way it has to be... unless you want social reproduction happening.

Oh I'm not saying it isn't necessary, though most just leave at 15 and repeat the cycle. You go around state houses and see families of 8. Mum and dad are 38, the oldest kid is 22 and there's another one for each year or two downwards (22,20,19,17,15,14)

The youngest is failing at school and the rest are already on the dole.

Plain throwing money at the problem doesn't work. It needs more in-depth action. At the heart of the problem people have to want to succeed. I don't know how you fun inspiration.

Most New Zealanders don't mind supporting those who are struggling, what annoys them are the ones who don't feel like working, have heaps of kids and do nothing to positively conrtibute back to society. These ones are indeed over-represented but the fact they they exist is infuriating, ONE SHOULD NEVER LIVE PAST THEIR MEANS.

I have to admit to being rather surprised at the generalisations in this thread, especially when they come from people I consider to be intelligent. Yes, there are some people who are quite happy to live (if that's what you can call it) on a benefit, but the majority would much rather be able to, or capable of, working to take care of themselves and their children.

Certainly, I would agree that there need to be changes to the way that benefits are paid, to ensure that it is being spent on the necessities (food, electricity, clothing, etc.), but at the same time, the amounts paid DO need to be increased. The alternative will be that more beneficiaries turn to crime as a way to top up their benefit just so they can pay their power bill, or buy their kids school uniforms, etc. So then crime continues to increase at an alarming rate, which of course leads to more tax money being spent on Policing, the Courts, and Corrections etc. It is a cycle that has been going round and round for a long time, and something needs to be done to break it.

Maybe it would be more productive to discuss ways of breaking the cycle, rather than condemn beneficiaries?

Tikva wrote:I have to admit to being rather surprised at the generalisations in this thread, especially when they come from people I consider to be intelligent. Yes, there are some people who are quite happy to live (if that's what you can call it) on a benefit, but the majority would much rather be able to, or capable of, working to take care of themselves and their children.

Certainly, I would agree that there need to be changes to the way that benefits are paid, to ensure that it is being spent on the necessities (food, electricity, clothing, etc.), but at the same time, the amounts paid DO need to be increased. The alternative will be that more beneficiaries turn to crime as a way to top up their benefit just so they can pay their power bill, or buy their kids school uniforms, etc. So then crime continues to increase at an alarming rate, which of course leads to more tax money being spent on Policing, the Courts, and Corrections etc. It is a cycle that has been going round and round for a long time, and something needs to be done to break it.

Maybe it would be more productive to discuss ways of breaking the cycle, rather than condemn beneficiaries?

Ah but Tikva, that's the favourite national passtime of many! What else would be there to bleat about otherwise?
Of course there are some who are bludgers, just like there are some bludgers in high places in politics.
Incidentally, some Nordic countries with very well organised welfare policies have the lowest rates of crime. Even though they pay high tax rates those countries have strong economies, a high standard of living, low rates of crime and very strong democracies.

Ah but Tikva, that's the favourite national passtime of many! What else would be there to bleat about otherwise?

Me thinks that crime and those who commit crime would be the next on the list

To be honest, I found that living in a Housing New Zealand state housing area far more of a 'trap' that was hard to get out of than living on a benefit, although this was 18 or so years ago. Once I did get out, I vowed never to live in such areas again, and I have kept that vow, regardless of how tough things are financially.

And agreed, there are bludgers in many places.....

Blank

Benefit bashing was mentioned because of the generalisations made in some posts- eg. all beneficiaries=bludgers. Yet we never fail to have a knee-jerk reaction when there are generalisations made about race.

Which is why I believe that the way benefits are paid should be changed - to ensure that the funding goes to where it is supposed to. That being said, what actually are "basic living costs"? Who gets to decide what they should include and exclude?

I'm an ex-beneficiary, and as a single person I probably got the lowest rate available, BUT I managed. I will give the credit to my parents on that one for teaching me how to budget and live within my means. I think perhaps a course in budgeting should be compulsory for those on any benefit. I for one would like to have learnt more. Then we have knowledgable parents teaching their kids (maybe not verbally but through their actions) and that could hardly be a bad thing.

I sort of wonder at the mental gymnastics the Maori Party have to be engaging in here. They lump costs onto the people they represent. And take them off of the major polluters, amongst of course, are Big Hori.

Another triumph of expediency over principle. And sense.