Why the Nats Youth Rate is just plain bollocks

20 comments on “Why the Nats Youth Rate is just plain bollocks ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   31 October 2011 at 2:51 pm

   “Many will be tempted to just get the Student Allowance and end up with double the amount of debt by the time they leave their training course.”

   Student Allowance is free and does not need to be repaid to the government. It is a benefit.

   I presume what you mean is Student Loans Living Cost. Almost all students that are renting will be getting this already (interest free, so put it in your bank for a rainy day even if you don’t need it now); introductory wages for first 6 months employment is not likely to force many extra people to take this out.
2. Colonial Viper 2

   31 October 2011 at 2:52 pm

   Bollocks? Bollocks?!!

   Choice wording written by a woman no less. This could be trouble. 😎
   • vto 2.1

     31 October 2011 at 3:40 pm

     Ha ha, yes, where is that Thorn bird and her selective outrage?

     And this one is in fact worse because it is derogatory about men’s testicles, whereas at least Goff’s reference to balls had some redeeming features i.e. implication that having balls is good cf this implication that having balls is not good.

     Outrage please someone
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2

     31 October 2011 at 3:42 pm

     A ballsy headline 🙂
3. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3

   31 October 2011 at 3:26 pm

   That post is quite long. To save time, I have redacted it below:

   Whine, moan, whine. It’s not fair. Whine
   • PJ 3.1

     31 October 2011 at 3:29 pm

     That name is quite long. To save time, I have redacted it below:

     Fool
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2

     31 October 2011 at 3:46 pm

     Well, it’s not like you were going to rebut it with evidence or analysis is it? One of the saddest aspects of the last thirty years has been watching conservative values based on genuine intellect and reason be replaced by the sort of boneheaded stupidity you display, TGFfkaO.
     • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.2.1

       31 October 2011 at 7:32 pm

       You want evidence:

       http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2011/08/further-fine-grained-results.html

       Bet I get the same response as when I was being silly.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1

         1 November 2011 at 7:37 am

         lol you wingnuts have no idea have you? I ask for evidence and you offer a blog. Next time try something from a peer-reviewed journal.
4. Galeandra 4

   31 October 2011 at 4:39 pm

   A lot of (school) kids work because they need to, to actually help keep family afloat, or to look after their own needs re clothing, stationery,entertainmment etc, because their caregivers require them to.
5. Gareth 5

   31 October 2011 at 6:52 pm

   It’s not so much about being close to the bone, only $100 per week yad yada yada.
   A large supermarket or similar with say 50 youth wage employess will save $5000 per week this is all clear profit….

   It’s all about giving even more to those who need it least…
6. Terry 6

   31 October 2011 at 6:58 pm

   Most of these comments leave one aghast. Small wonder the country is going for Key, these people have not the brain of a very stupid mouse,
   • Roy 6.1

     1 November 2011 at 3:23 pm

     It’s not their having the brain of a very stupid mouse that worries me. It’s that they are as mean as a s**thouse rat.
7. Nick K 7

   31 October 2011 at 11:25 pm

   A recent Department of Labour study estimated 9,000 youths have lost their jobs as a result of Labour’s abolishment in 2006. Those 9,000 are now earning $4 p/h sitting on the couch; instead of $10 p/h in a job.

   Why is Labour punishing those 9,000 young people so much?

   What have they done to Labour to earn a life on the couch, and on their skateboard rather than in a job?
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     1 November 2011 at 12:10 am

     Unless you can point to the direct quote you are making up bullshit and lies, and therefore you must work for John Key.

     Quite simply, work must be economic for the worker or its not worth doing.

     And if a business owner can’t pay a living wage to its workers, it should be bankrupted and room made for a business which can. That is after all, the ‘creative destruction’ of the capitalist market place.
8. (A different) Nick K 8

   1 November 2011 at 10:09 am

   If a reduction in wages from $13 to $10.40 makes the difference in a youth being employed or not what happens when they reach the end of their six months Youth rate and need to be paid the real minimum wage? Do they get sacked then instead?

   Gareth is right, its another case of directing money towards those that already have money.

   For the record I’m an employer, I don’t pay anyone less than $15/hour and a youth rate would make no difference to whether or not I hired someone. Labour’s policies would have no detrimental effect on my business, National’s will have a detrimental effect on the society I live in.
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     1 November 2011 at 3:27 pm

     Maybe if they cut youth rates to $6/hr youth unemployment would disappear permanently. Or not.
9. deservingpoor 9

   1 November 2011 at 10:13 am

   I see red every time someone trots out the line that employing people is an onerous expense to business because:
   1) The logical conclusion to that argument is to pay them nothing.
   2) It shows a complete misunderstanding of how the tax system works. Wages, including the paye paid on behalf of the employees are a claimable expense. In plain english, wages are completely offset against the income tax of the business and effectively cost them nothing.

   Whether they are paying a youth rate or a full rate makes no difference. Either way they claim a 100% deduction against their income tax.

   What this is, is another example of the contempt our society shows it’s young people and the fact that the older generations consistently allow it to continue.
   • The Pink Postman 9.1

     1 November 2011 at 3:26 pm

     Yes Im sorry to say a lot of people in my age group are in favour of low wages for youth .The same type who believe that army traning is good for youth .These bloody types embarrass me ,have they learned nothing in life or are they just naturally mean spirited and envious of the young ?
10. The Pink Postman 10

    1 November 2011 at 3:18 pm

    For the first five years I worked for a low wage .The problem is one is always hard up .Later on in life one realises how much is missed.
    I have always noticed that usually its the rich employer that wants to pay low wages,In NZ, farmers and the racing industry pay the low wages yet are making huge returns on their workers graft. I welcome a capital gains tax. Its about time these greedy bastards paid up . They are not backward in having a handout when ever possible.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS