How to: Pick an Excuse for Not doing Anything About Poverty

Written By: - Date published: 11:08 am, December 12th, 2013 - 97 comments
Categories: benefits, capitalism, class war, cost of living, Economy, economy, employment, poverty, socialism, tax, uncategorized, welfare - Tags:

Right wing, excuses reasons, for not doing anything about children in poverty.

1. “It costs too much”.
2. “Taxation is theft”.
3. “They are not as poor as they are in (Insert a third world Nation with less than half our GDP, and a 10th of our resources per capita)”.
4. “The statistics are wrong”.
5. “It is not as many as they claim”.
6. “You can’t get rid of poverty by giving people money”.
7. “I was in a poor persons house and they had “Chocolate biscuits, a colour TV, or, horrors, a bottle of beer”!!
8. “It’s all those solo mothers on the DPB breeding for a living”.
9. “I know a person who…………..”
10. “It is a choice they make”.
11. “It is people who make poor choices”.
12. “They shouldn’t have had kids they couldn’t afford”.
13. “Why should “I” pay for other peoples kids”.
14. “The centre will never vote for it”.
15. “We will do something if finances allow”.
16. “Giving them money made them poor”.
17. “Those socialists made them poor by giving them benefits”.
18. “I pay enough taxes”.
19. “There are no poor in New Zealand”.
20. “Not now, later!”

97 comments on “How to: Pick an Excuse for Not doing Anything About Poverty ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. scotty 1
    12 December 2013 at 11:35 am

    21. Not educated.

    Cos if everyone had a degree , the wages for lowly paid service jobs would increase overnight.

    • phillip ure 1.1
      12 December 2013 at 1:57 pm

      um..!.just as a bit of an historical-tidy-up..(just so we can get things/nationals’-inaction into some kind of perspective/context..)

      ..how about a listing of the excuses from labour/those who were there…

      ..for those nine long years of the clark govt/labour doing nothing about poverty..?

      ..that could be both useful and enlightening..

      ..eh..?

      ..and while we are there..cd anyone give us the date that labour renounced/denounced that poverty-neglect/inaction..?

      ..what’s that i hear you say..?..they haven’t yet..?

      ..they are..to date..a mea culpa-free zone..?

      ..that’s a bit of a worry..eh..?

      ..phillip ure..

      • phillip ure 1.1.1
        13 December 2013 at 8:46 am

        and of course..that decade of labours’/clarks’ inaction/stigmatising of the poorest..

        ..could not have prepared the ground better – for what then bennett wrought..

        ..eh..?

        ..phillip ure..

    • Francis 1.2
      14 December 2013 at 12:21 pm

      Yep. Instead of having a minimum wage job, they’d have a minimum wage job and a huge student debt.

  2. Paul 2
    12 December 2013 at 11:40 am

    22. The money will trickle down…

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    12 December 2013 at 12:07 pm

    23. I was poor too once, but after a bit of honest hard work I’m now a multi-millionaire.

  4. Rogue Trooper 4
    12 December 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Midday Report:
    Reserve Bank- Interest rates highly likely to rise in March, or thereabouts. Will continue to rise in the order of 2% over the next two years; rising consumer spending and construction activity. “Inflation pressures building” -Wheeler
    Here’s some ‘excuses’-
    Grocery price rises this year
    -Milk 67%
    -Butter 23%
    -Cheese 5%
    -Chicken 8%
    -Beef / Lamb around 4% (was distracted by the implications).

    The squeeze is tightening it’s grip, as those cups are applied to more udders.

    PS, encouraging quote heading your blog KJT

    • KJT 4.1
      12 December 2013 at 12:31 pm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderata

      I try to live up to it. Not always as successfully as I would like!

      I also like the seafaring version of Kipling.
      “If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs” You don’t know what the fuck is going on!

      • Rogue Trooper 4.1.1
        12 December 2013 at 12:39 pm

        helpful to have some guidance when all at sea. Minimises the frequency of ‘rants’, although, they relieve the boiler pressure . 😀 : aye aye , it’s a sailor’s life to be.

  5. Balanced View 5
    12 December 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Until initiatives are put in place to restrict welfare abuse, the wider public will forever be reluctant to support the poor, especially when they are struggling themselves.
    I haven’t met anyone that isn’t prepared to help someone that is willing to help themselves, and this would include the right wingers you refer to in your unhelpful article.

    • KJT 5.1
      12 December 2013 at 1:25 pm

      Yeah. Right!

    • KJT 5.2
      12 December 2013 at 1:32 pm

      Welfare abuse.
      Less than 0.6%. And most of it was by WINZ staff, or someone who forgot to tell them a minor detail. A few mill a year.

      Tax dodging. By those who refuse to pay their fair share. No one knows, but definitely in the billions.

      No 24. ” There are thousands dishonestly ripping off the welfare system”.

      Complaining about a person who, mostly mistakenly, gets a few hundred more in welfare than their measly entitlements, often because of a WINZ staff mistake, compared to someone who rips us off for hundred of thousands by fudging their tax accounts.

      • phillip ure 5.2.1
        12 December 2013 at 1:47 pm

        welfare rip=offs = $23 million per yr..

        ..tax-rip-offs by corporates/elites/1% = $2.5 billion per yr..

        (there is yr ending/solving-poverty-solution right there..)

        ..phillip ure..

        • Balanced View 5.2.1.1
          12 December 2013 at 1:50 pm

          This is a separate argument. And one I agree with.
          But this should not be aligned at all to the poverty debate.

          • McFlock 5.2.1.1.1
            12 December 2013 at 2:40 pm

            It’s relevant in that it illustrates how some people advocate the complete elimination of an already small rate of welfare offending, yet ignore a substantially larger rate of white-collar offending.

            But I guess that just as they believe in the “deserving poor”, they also believe in the “deserving criminal”.

          • Frank Macskasy 5.2.1.1.2
            13 December 2013 at 12:05 pm

            “But this should not be aligned at all to the poverty debate.”

            Rubbish.

            It is INTRINSIC to the poverty “debate”. Though why anyone would be debating poverty rather than addressing it escapes me.

            It is intrinsic because the above are excuses employed by those with rightwing inclinations to choose not to address this growing problem.

            It is intrinsic because these are all cliches which give those who parrot them an excuse to do precisely nothing.

            Your ‘beef’, BV is that KJT has called you and others like you on these cliched excuses and you can’t handle it.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 5.2.2
        12 December 2013 at 1:59 pm

        No 25. The wealthy in society must be given freedom to make money on their money and do whatever they want because we depend on them for our wellbeing

        …we depend on them because they have so much money because we give them the freedom to increase their wealth regardless of what effect that has on the rest of us.

    • Arfamo 5.3
      12 December 2013 at 1:33 pm

      The problem is how do you define welfare abuse?

      Giving tax breaks to corporates, bailing out failed finance companies with taxpayer money, giving tax cuts to the wealthy, lowering real incomes in the face of cost increases as well as reducing job protections and conditions and effectively increasing taxes (with hidden levies and gst increases) on those who have the lowest incomes is basically abusing their welfare.

      • Rogue Trooper 5.3.1
        12 December 2013 at 1:35 pm

        Key, Joyce and Bennett would say “it’s all semantics”.

        • Arfamo 5.3.1.1
          12 December 2013 at 1:37 pm

          So – fine, I’m anti-semantic, and I don’t mind admitting it. 🙂

          • Rogue Trooper 5.3.1.1.1
            12 December 2013 at 1:38 pm

            to the point. I experience a regular struggle to not loathe, despise and critique Tories, Conservatives and Libertarians, yet I overcome it. 😀

            • Arfamo 5.3.1.1.1.1
              12 December 2013 at 1:53 pm

              Fair enough. Can I interest you in a tumbril or a guillotine? Just as a possible investment for the future. Get in now while they’re cheap. You can maybe onsell them or rent them out to disgruntled mobs at some point in the maybe not too distant future?

              • Rogue Trooper …
                12 December 2013 at 2:56 pm

                ‘tumbrel’; reluctantly, even Ellul had to reconcile his Christianity with revolutionary violence. Could need troopers to lead the horses. 😉

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 5.4
      12 December 2013 at 1:48 pm

      @ Balanced View
      Until people realise the interconnected nature of our society where one person’s freedom can affect another’s freedom then we will continue to have people who don’t understand that there is a large chunk of people in this country who are not placed in a good position to create a ‘good life’ for themselves due to our enabling of licentious behaviour for a few in our society.

      Realising the interconnected nature of our circumstances leads to the realisation that helping people in poor circumstances lifts the quality of life of most people in society (apart from those who are creaming it as things are now)

      Whereas when ‘competition’ and ‘dog eat dog’ are the standard messages we receive and live by then there will continue to be only a few ‘dogs’ at the top and increasing numbers of people who are at the bottom of the heap ‘competing’ with one another and suffering for no reason other than the misguided and alienating attitudes we are fed and believe by those who are ‘winning’ as things stand and that are creating this state of inequity – because they benefit from it.

      So ‘Balanced View’, why do you mention welfare abuse and not have tax evasion foremost in your mind – because if everyone paid their fair share then there would be more money flowing to create jobs and less being hidden away doing jackshit apart from raising prices of everything via the futures market and there would not be a problem with joblessness nor welfare ‘costs’.

      • Balanced View 5.4.1
        12 December 2013 at 8:31 pm

        I’m pointing out WHY a lot of people are reluctant to provide additional welfare, after all, that’s fundamentally what this article is about.
        I wasn’t discussing HOW to pay for it, or HOW to reduce poverty.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 5.4.1.1
          12 December 2013 at 10:40 pm

          Yes Balanced View I did get what you were saying, and I am asking why you [and others] don’t focus on things that would actually serve people.

          • Balanced View 5.4.1.1.1
            12 December 2013 at 11:34 pm

            Why the assumption that I don’t?
            In fact that is why I commented on this. Articles like this are inflammatory and tend to polarise opinions on both sides of the argument, making the solutions harder to achieve.

            • Colonial Viper 5.4.1.1.1.1
              12 December 2013 at 11:47 pm

              Articles like this are inflammatory and tend to polarise opinions on both sides of the argument

              Fuck off, there is no “other side of the argument” relating to ensuring economic justice for all NZers.

              You either hold that as a value, or you don’t. And you don’t.

              • Balanced View …
                12 December 2013 at 11:57 pm

                Clearly there is an opposing view, or you wouldn’t be so angry all of the time 🙂
                If there’s no willingness to understand each other’s view in a sensible and pragmatic way, the gap between views will never be bridged.

                • McFlock …
                  13 December 2013 at 12:02 am

                  we understand your view.

                  You oppose the microscopic amount of welfare fraud, but seem to ignore tax evasion.

                  • Balanced View …
                    13 December 2013 at 12:08 am

                    Obviously you don’t understand my view, I don’t ignore tax evasion, executive salaries, monopolistic industries or any other facet of inequality.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:16 am

                      You don’t seem to oppose them, though, especially compared to your comments on welfare fraud.

                    • Balanced View …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:24 am

                      Actually I don’t think I mentioned welfare fraud.
                      But anyway, Your mistake is thinking that a comment about wishing that some of the poor would make better decisions is somehow endorsing corporate tax avoidance. That is incorrect.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:30 am

                      sorry, welfare “abuse”.

                      Fucking obnoxious, people getting their full legislated entitlements.

                      I never said you “endorse” tax evasion (not “avoidance, which is also shit, “evasion”). But you’re always so quick to raise the matter of welfare “abuse”/fraud, displaying a keenness that you don’t similarly show when white collar fraud comes up.

                      Anyway, I’m off to bed too.

                    • Balanced View …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:34 am

                      Ahh we’ll i do that as a lone voice on right leaning blogs like whale oil. No need to do it here, 40 others would beat me to it.
                      Goodnight Flocker.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 December 2013 at 12:38 am

                  If there’s no willingness to understand each other’s view in a sensible and pragmatic way, the gap between views will never be bridged.

                  And thus it shall be. So?

                  • Balanced View …
                    13 December 2013 at 12:55 am

                    And that CV, in my opinion is your problem. You’d rather have a “hung jury” in holding out for what you see is right, than compromise a little in order to make progress on the issue.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 December 2013 at 1:27 am

                      Huh? Are you an MP with a casting vote in Parliament?

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      13 December 2013 at 11:49 am

                      @ Balanced View
                      Oh well…I missed that conversation, however if you are still around Balanced View – I made no assumption re your not focussing on things that would actually serve people – you chose to write a comment to point out an issue regarding welfare abuse, however made no mention of the much more costly phenomenon of tax abuse.

                      To be frank I agree that what you wrote is probably how some people think and I was suggesting that instead of buying into this way of thinking it might be more helpful to look at what can be done to really improve things. Informing those who hold such views on what is really going on would be a good start.

                      It really isn’t reasonable at all to say ‘Until initiatives are put in place to restrict welfare abuse’

                      Where have you been in the last year [even]??

                      There are plenty of initiatives in place to restrict welfare abuse and if people are still thinking there aren’t or want more then it really seems like some type of obsessive-compulsive disorder going on in the way such people are thinking.

                      Here is an initiative that has been in place for decades. If you rip off the system for $20 such as work a few hours and not let Winz know and are caught you are expected to pay back the entire benefit you’ve received – not solely the $20. This is why the cited dollar ‘amounts’ of benefit fraud are so high. People aren’t physically ripping off the system as much as is stated- what is stated is the amount they have to pay back. This in itself is a huge deterrent from not declaring what one has earned.

                      When the amounts of dollars in tax fraud is cited I suspect [unclear – but think this is so] that the amounts cited – 1-6 Billion- is the amount being ripped off – unlike benefit fraud where the amounts are deceptively inflated – so the real costs to this country re tax fraud is even greater than that of welfare fraud than has recently come to light.

                      It was interesting to hear on parliament channel last week a Labour member (Andrew Little if I recall correctly – yet might be wrong!) explaining that benefit fraud has commonly been targeted because it is easier to discover – tax fraud is trickier to uncover. I emphasise the point that it is not because welfare fraud is more damaging or a greater problem that there has been a focus on it – simply [according to that speaker] that it is easier to uncover and ‘score points’ with. ‘Look we are doing something’.

                      Sadly this has the effect of making the general population believe that there is a huge problem with welfare recipients and creating very little awareness on how vast the problem is with tax abuse. A very false fixation has developed.

                      You and others can carry on explaining why welfare abuse is worth commenting on whenever poverty comes up -yet I hope what I write goes some way to helping you understand such explanations provide very little progress when poverty is being discussed or on what is causing the most damage to general wealth in this country. You would be better speaking with those of your friends who hold such views and informing them on how small the numbers really are.

                      [lprent: He picked up a ban in the post about Jason Ede and Cameron Slater.

                      He was trying the plausible deniability technique (“I didn’t actually state what it looked like”) whilst trying to tell us how to run our site – which is on the list of self-martyrdom offences.

                      Plausible deniability may be a good trick in political forums and debating. But it is bloody lethal when I look at it. I also look at why they feel the need to use it and I usually come up with the answer of “troll”. It is actually safer to say what you think here than it is to try to insinuate it.

                      You’ll notice that Balanced View always tries to insinuate a viewpoint than simply stating his own views? ]

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      13 December 2013 at 11:42 pm

                      guess your “Balanced View” balanced you off the pendulum.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      13 December 2013 at 11:42 pm

                      Thanks for the explanation lprent – I had been reading that thread, however must have missed the banning of Balanced View.

                      Rogue Trooper LOL!

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      13 December 2013 at 11:48 pm

                      I only returned to read your comment and acknowledge the thought that went into it. (now I’m getting tired, gardening in the hot sun ….)

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      14 December 2013 at 10:36 pm

                      Thanks Rogue Trooper 🙂

            • Arfamo 5.4.1.1.1.2
              12 December 2013 at 11:48 pm

              The problem is BV telling us some people are reluctant to provide more welfare for whatever reason is stating the obvious. So unless you have some solutions to propose what is the point of commenting? If you don’t have any practical suggestions for how to reduce poverty why bother.

              • Balanced View …
                12 December 2013 at 11:54 pm

                Did you read the article? Why bother? My point exactly.

                • Arfamo …
                  12 December 2013 at 11:58 pm

                  Yeah, I did. Before I replied to you. I wanted to see how many you ticked off.

                  I reckon yours are 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17.

                  • Balanced View …
                    13 December 2013 at 12:04 am

                    Excellent, then you’ll agree that the article by Karol was pointless.
                    Actually, I would in some part tick off all except 1,2,15,18,20

                    • Arfamo …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:07 am

                      Well, no, I think the article was on point. And you are the perfect illustration of the point. But you can’t see that. Do you see what I mean?

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:12 am

                      If you’re that predictable, then it seems some do understand your point of view.

                      Unfortunately, your point of view is a promontory overlooking a sea of despair and self-absorption. If you look to your left you’ll see a flower-laden path to a distant but sunny field where children play and lambs frolic to the sound of Beethoven’s Pastorale.

                  • McFlock …
                    13 December 2013 at 12:04 am

                    tory bingo 🙂

                    • Balanced View …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:12 am

                      Arfamo – so me pointing out reasons why some people are reluctant to help children in poverty is pointless, but an article pointing out reasons why some people are reluctant to help children in poverty was on point? Hmmmm

                    • Arfamo …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:14 am

                      Yes. Exactly. But I see that the significance of who these “some people” are escapes you, and it is late, very late. So I will bid you good night.

                    • Balanced View …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:31 am

                      Goodnight, thanks for the debate

            • Frank Macskasy 5.4.1.1.1.3
              13 December 2013 at 12:12 pm

              “In fact that is why I commented on this. Articles like this are inflammatory and tend to polarise opinions on both sides of the argument,…”

              Oh, BV, you have such a blinkered view. I’d say opinjons are already polarised – especially on right wing websites where commentary on welfare beneficiaries can only be described as hate speech.

              The polarisation is there for anyone with the eyes to see and the neuron-connectivity to understand.

              KJT has taken many of the comments used in polarised comments and shown them up for what they are; mindless cliches to be parrotted ad nauseum, in lieu of actual thinking.

              You can’t for one moment tell us that you’ve never seen those remarks made on websites like Trademe, Whaleoil, Kiwiblog, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…

              What is really troubling is that you’re more interested in KJT’s insight rather than what this whole issue is about; growing poverty and income inequality in this country.

              Wait, let me guess “throwing money at the problem, yada yada yada…”

        • Colonial Viper 5.4.1.2
          12 December 2013 at 11:43 pm

          I’m pointing out WHY a lot of people are reluctant to provide additional welfare

          Social welfare for corporates and big investors is OK though, just so we are clear.

          • Balanced View 5.4.1.2.1
            12 December 2013 at 11:55 pm

            Off topic here CV. Another issue entirely.

            • Colonial Viper 5.4.1.2.1.1
              13 December 2013 at 12:23 am

              Rubbish. The topic is social welfare. You begrudge a beneficiary getting an additional thirty dollars pw but suddenly have no comment when it comes to corporates getting millions in sweetheart deals, or big investors getting bailed out 100 cents on the dollar plus interest.

              • Balanced View …
                13 December 2013 at 12:27 am

                Wrong and wrong

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 December 2013 at 12:32 am

                  You have a problem with a $200,000M GDP country spending a measley extra $300M pa on welfare to lift NZers and their children out of poverty?

                  What the fuck is your problemo?

                  • Balanced View …
                    13 December 2013 at 12:39 am

                    No, I don’t think I ever said I have a problem with the cost. I’d happily pay 100 times that if it was going to people in genuine need.
                    But I do have a problem with it going to people that continue to make decisions that restricts their own ability to move out of a vulnerable position. Fix/prevent that and I’ll support it all the way.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:56 am

                      Bull shit.

                      Anyways your support is neither requested nor required.

                    • infused …
                      13 December 2013 at 1:10 am

                      Nope, can’t have people accountable.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 December 2013 at 1:21 am

                      Fine. Provide 100,000 new decent paying full time jobs and make people fully accountable for performing in the roles, then.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:23 pm

                      But I do have a problem with it going to people that continue to make decisions that restricts their own ability to move out of a vulnerable position.”

                      What is the percentage of those people you refer to?

                      If you can’t provide that data, then you position is untenable as it relies on prejudice, not reality.

                      The fact is that that sentiment of Un-deserving Poor vs Deserving Poor is one of the cliches used by those who have a resentment against the welfare system, and denigrate all recipients based on a stereotype rather than reality.

                      Let me frame it this way; if we had enough jobs (and jobs with decent hours and pay, not McJobs that keep people trapped in poverty) for everyone – how many Deserving Poor would be employed, leaving only Undeserving Poor left?

                      (I seriously doubt you can answer that question in any meaningful way that provides actual figures – but I thought it only fair to ask. Surprise me.)

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      13 December 2013 at 11:44 pm

                      so productive of excuses; Post’s objective achieved.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.4.2
        13 December 2013 at 6:34 am

        Balanced View is delusional: pays lip service to the Tory mantra of “poor choices” – a callous and utterly discredited meme that only a dupe or a liar would still trot out.

        Which is it BV: are you too fucking stupid to understand that “poor choices” are not the reason for poverty, or do you know that and lie about it like low-life trash? Where’s your personal responsibility for your mendacious drivel?

      • Lloyd 5.4.3
        13 December 2013 at 11:20 pm

        Actually even the people who are creaming the top of the economy may well be better off in the long run if they give a little of the cream to the poorest in the economy. This can be by taxes or by benevolence.
        Social welfare prevents social instability. You can’t enjoy your excessive profits if a revolution occurs triggered by gross inequities.
        Even before such massive social upheavals inequities drive crime and even the super-rich are affected.
        Poverty is a reservoir for all those third world diseases we hear New Zealand shouldn’t have. The thing about infectious diseases is that they are infectious. Again even the mega-rich are more likely to get the diseases of poverty if they are rife in the poorest classes.
        When an economy is booming the richest get richer, as does everybody else. The best way to get an economy humming is to make sure the poorest in society have enough money to spend on all their basic needs, as the poor have to spend the money straight away, which gets the economy spinning.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 5.4.3.1
          13 December 2013 at 11:38 pm

          I thoroughly agree with you Lloyd and find it odd that the wealthiest ( who are the ones benefiting the most from this system) are trashing the system by their insistence on not sharing and having it all!

  6. Balanced View 6
    12 December 2013 at 1:35 pm

    I didn’t say dishonestly ripping off the system. It’s about taking actions to improve your position, or to reduce your dependence on others. Your stats don’t include that.

    • Rogue Trooper 6.1
      12 December 2013 at 1:37 pm

      for a start, you equate poor with welfare recipient…, and that’s just for starters.

      • Balanced View 6.1.1
        12 December 2013 at 1:48 pm

        Not necessarily, but including welfare yes.

        • Rogue Trooper 6.1.1.1
          12 December 2013 at 1:51 pm

          Balanced View, or bay view? Furthermore, concerning “improving their position”, we live a comparatively unforgiving and risk-averse ‘market’ environment, wherein folk face many external barriers to “improvement” beyond their own efforts. Can be very difficult for people with episodes of “going off the tracks” in their history to re-enter the employment market, regardless of how extensive their CV, qualifications, experience and obvious talent.

          • Balanced View 6.1.1.1.1
            12 December 2013 at 8:38 pm

            And I’m sympathetic to these people, and would have no problem in supporting them.
            However, I am less sympathetic to people that are struggling that choose to spend unwisely, or decide to have children etc.
            A lot of people like myself are concerned that increasing welfare support (however funded) encourages dependence and a sense of entitlement. I don’t believe that this is healthy for society.

            • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.1
              12 December 2013 at 11:48 pm

              You’re not their Mum, but out of their lives.

              A lot of people like myself are concerned that increasing welfare support (however funded) encourages dependence and a sense of entitlement.

              Then ensure that there are enough decent paying full time jobs to go around, instead of soap box moralising with your croc tears like a dick head.

              • Balanced View …
                13 December 2013 at 12:18 am

                So you don’t believe that people should be allowed to express opinions on how others choose to spend their (or others) money?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 December 2013 at 12:20 am

                  What, you still want to be every poor person’s Mummy?

                  • McFlock …
                    13 December 2013 at 12:22 am

                    well, maybe their Big Brother.

                  • Balanced View …
                    13 December 2013 at 12:30 am

                    Not really, but did want to point out the hypocrisy of allowing the poor to make unhelpful decisions for society, but decrying corporates when they do the same

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:35 am

                      but did want to point out the hypocrisy of allowing the poor to make unhelpful decisions for society,

                      So you decide to wail on the most powerless, under-represented, financially weak and victimised sections of NZ communities for the “unhelpful decisions” they make on behalf of our whole society?

                      What the hell are you smoking?

                    • Balanced View …
                      13 December 2013 at 12:50 am

                      We’ll your assumption that I ignore the contribution the wealthy have to this issue is incorrect.
                      And two wrongs don’t make a right. So your position of ignoring the issue I’ve raised is really no different than someone like Cameron Slater ignoring yours.

            • Frank Macskasy 6.1.1.1.1.2
              13 December 2013 at 12:40 pm

              However, I am less sympathetic to people that are struggling that choose to spend unwisely, or decide to have children etc.

              BV, are you aware that the numbers on DPB are dropping, not increasing?

              And what does a worker with three kids do when the Global Financial Crisis made them redundant? Slit his children’s throats so that opponants of welfare can sleep easy knowing that their aren’t more families with kids going onto a benefit?

              So how does a worker look into the future to see if they’ll have a job, before deciding to have a family? How does one predict something like that?

              And why should workers with children who are made redundant, and happen to have children, be blamed for shenanigans on Wall Street and City of London? That’s 95,000 people here in NZ you’re trying to blame for events out of their control.

        • Rogue Trooper 6.1.1.2
          12 December 2013 at 2:05 pm

          Personally, I’d love to be offered part-time employment to “improve my position” (I possess no money from Friday till the following ‘pay-day’), yet despite how wonderful the mainstream believe John Kirwan to be, experiences of mental-unwellness still attract more stigma than merely being on a benefit.

    • BM 6.2
      12 December 2013 at 1:40 pm

      This.

      People being lazy useless pricks really chaffs peoples balls.

      • Arfamo 6.2.1
        12 December 2013 at 1:44 pm

        Not enough. Key’s still the PM.

      • KJT 6.2.2
        12 December 2013 at 1:45 pm

        Yes it does mine. Especially when they are in Parliament getting 300k a year.

        Or a Manager who just got a bonus after he lost the company owners 34 million and counting.

        Someone who is out of work because said Managers and politicians have ensured there are NF Jobs. Not so much!

      • Rogue Trooper 6.2.3
        12 December 2013 at 1:47 pm

        and why’s that? Are they not happy in themselves such that they reference themselves to others.
        Of course, a literate chappie such as yourself would be aware of The Fundamental Attribution Error , correspondence bias-attribution effect; ” One of the root principles of social psychology” and regularly assess your own ramblings through such a filter?, or maybe not it appears.

      • Frank Macskasy 6.2.4
        13 December 2013 at 12:45 pm

        People being lazy useless pricks really chaffs peoples balls.

        Posted by BM at 1.40pm. Shouldn’t you be at work, mate?

  7. Ake ake ake 7
    12 December 2013 at 1:37 pm

    Sharp title.

    As an aside, should there be a post about –

    “How to: Pick an Excuse for Not Prosecuting a Company where 29 Lives Have Been Lost”

    • KJT 7.1
      12 December 2013 at 1:52 pm

      I don’t think it is the company that should be in the gun so much as the regulators and politicians who allowed it.

      A large fine/compensation is appropriate for the company management, unless negligence is proven.

      Those with the real power should get jail terms.

      • Arfamo 7.1.1
        12 December 2013 at 1:58 pm

        The problem I suspect is that the deficiencies in the regulatory departments are the result of the cost-cutting, corporate style way both national and labour administrations have governed their departments. No one could isolate which Ministers or Senior Executives were the most culpable in all probability.

        One of the things I remember most about the report into those departments is how the reviewers found that the DoL’s ordinary business plan risk assessments were mainly about managing the risks to their reputation, not the risks to workers.

  9. mike 9
    16 December 2013 at 9:58 pm

    there are no children in poverty just totally neglectful parents. Sort this out and the problem goes away

    No 27? (KJT)