LINDSAY MITCHELL: National trying but nowhere near hard enough
- Administrator
- Oct 6
- 2 min read
RNZ's headline reads:
"Jobseeker: Parents earning more than $65k must support 18-19yo children"
Inter-generational welfare dependence is a thing. A big thing.
2014 actuarial findings revealed:
For Youth benefit clients as at 30 June 2014:
§ 88% (9 in 10) were from beneficiary families, the majority of whom received a main benefit for most of their teen years.
§ 51% were in beneficiary families for 80% or more of their teen years.
The correlation is striking enough to believe that early entry may be a proxy for intergenerational benefit receipt (with the notable exception of teen-aged SLP [Supported Living Payment/Invalid] entrants).
A more recent Taylor Fry report for MSD found that in 2022, 69.5% of those aged under 20 on a Youth Payment or Jobseeker/Work Ready benefit had an intergenerational benefit history.
The government wants to stop this.
Kids raised on welfare, go onto welfare - often egged on by their parents wanting to grow household income.
So the government is saying, parents should continue to support 18 and 19 year-olds rather than they go on a benefit.
But the test threshold for parents deemed able to continue to maintain their young person is $65,529. It's set at the income of parents receiving the Supported Living Payment (previously Invalid Benefit) - the highest benefit income. The average benefit income for a couple or single parent with two or more children falls below that.
So what is this policy? Another go at saving a bit of money by chasing after low-hanging fruit? A pragmatic response to their middle-class voters struggling to get unmotivated kids off the couch?
As policies go, it's a plus, but barely positive and would rate a 1 out of 10 in the overall need for real welfare reform. An 8 out of 10 would be removing Ardern's Best Start cash for babies payment which has only resulted in more children being born onto a benefit, where many will remain until they are young adults.
Chris Luxon says:
"Look, we are saying we care about you, we love you, but we really want you to realise all that potential that you've got," he said. "We're here to help and support as much as we can, but you also have to take responsibility for that and actually just consigning you to a life of welfare for 18 years is unacceptable." We're not doing our job, if we're letting that happen."
By setting the threshold too high, he is doing exactly that. Giving high risk 18-19 year-olds the green light to go on a benefit.
Lindsay Mitchell blogs here
Frankly, I miss Sir Bill English. National have become a bunch of wets under lame Luxon, just about as woke and left as the Labour clan. Wet, weak, woke, they stand for nothing, and mostly change nothing. Had Winston First chosen the actual winner, English, back in 2017, we would still be New Zealand. Instead we are a festering mess, gutless, and with zero direction, and a massive divide. What a waste of potential, what a sickening shame. Avoid the Ardern propaganda film by the way, 'Prime Minister' . it was gilt laden dreck. An absolute puff piece, veiled as truth, full of obvious lies and rock solid misinformation. To be expected of course. What else!!
I think it's simple. Anyone collecting the dole must turn up to the dole office at 8.00AM and check in, late and you lose that days dole unless you are attending a job interview, this will get people out of bed and away from the TV. Those attending on time should be dressed for manual work that day. Those attending a medical must provide proof of the appointment. If there isn't work available the attendees must work as and where directed whether its removing graffiti, picking up rubbish or sweeping roads, beaches etc. Days end at 4-30pm. Failure to work the full day removes dole payments. Alternatives to these should include education in relevant subjects to obtaining work. The government…
Quite correct Lindsay, National are not trying hard enough at all.
Was I wrong to trust Nicola Willis when ,, pre election, she assured us that her people had crunched the numbers, she had double checked then and her figures were "rock solid"? Was i wrong to trust Mr. Luxon's pre-election promise that his would be the government for all hard working Kiwis?
Those promises are ringing a bit hollow in Tokoroa these days. Not very many green shoots visible down these parts.
To truly move this country forward we need a massive paradigm shift in the way we vote, because red and blue are one and the same .
The national party has shown itself to be a carbon copy of team red....but with different window dressing only, and although their coalition partners are fighting hard there is only so much that they can do to try to enact real and positive changes that will benefit this country.
To put it very bluntly, national is dragging new Zealand on a race to the bottom because it is only interested in self preservation.
Labour, on the other hand, have nearly insurmountable issues with their potential coalition partners... because labour realizes that the centre…
Look, we are saying we care about you, we love you, but we really want you to realise all that potential that you've got,"
That sounds a bit like Mr. Luxon playing "Jacinda" to me. So kind caring and GENEROUS with other people's money. We will not hear Mr. Luxon telling the productive working wage and salary earners that he cares about, loves and really wants them to be properly rewarded for utilizing their potential Who are the people that pay for this "caring" and "love" of the beneficiaries of other people's money? The wealth of a nation is created by the daily efforts of productive working people. Ordinary diligent wage and salary earners whose REAL INCOMES and standard of living have been eroded away…