Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The Phil U Bill

Further to Adolf's post below on the wonderfulness (is there such a word?) of John Key, we really do have a wonderful thing National is bringing in - courtesy of the soon-to-be ex MP for Waitakere (if the labourites are to be believed) - the Phil U Bill:
The Government is taking aim at 43,000 solo parents who it says should go back to work.

Prime Minister John Key and Social Development Minister Paula Bennett have this afternoon unveiled a major package of welfare reforms.

Ms Bennett said that for some beneficiaries "the dream is over".

There were 43,000 single parents on the domestic purposes benefit whose children were of a school age and who were ready to transition back to work.

"We expect those people to be at work for at least 15 hours a week," Ms Bennett said.

Polish the shoes and buy a new tie Phil. You're off to work.

18 comments:

KG said...

Fat chance...he'll invent some mental condition which prevents it and gives him a sickness benefit instead.

Barnsley Bill said...

KG beat me to it. sickness benefit here he comes. Addiction to cannabis is one of the easier scams to pull apparently.
Or alcoholism.
I know of one scumbag who is pulling this one. An ex jailbird whose sole function in life is to milk his partner and avoid working.

Steve Gorman said...

I hope the bludging Whaleoil has to find work.

Cactus Kate said...

Perfect name for it as well. Can we get that enshrined in Statute?

Murray said...

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

If hes that brain dead he can work for Phil In speech writing.

Seriously who is Goff paying to keep himself polling single digits?

Oswald Bastable said...

Don't need a tie at the Red Shed. Chemical impairment shouldn't be an issue either!

Inventory2 said...

Paula Bennett has uttered seven words today which will have sent Phil's bowels into uncontrolable spasms, and turned his legs to jelly

"Welfare should not be a lifestyle choice"

She's coming for you Phil. Be afraid; be very afraid.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Is Whale on the sickness benefit or is it an Income protection insurance "remuneration/ recompense" that he lives on? If it is income protection related then those above have nothing to complain about, as it was a contractual thing the insurance company agreed to cover w.O for, and one would more than reasonably assume banked the premiums for (thus accepting responsibility). The fact that his physician believes he is impaired for work is for W.O the insurance company and The GP/psychiatrist to sort out.

Babylon and On said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Steady in there, Babylon.

A dispute about whether one is disabled is one thing but to suggest one who is suffering from depression should NOT be eligible for a sickness benefit is nonsense.

Babylon and On said...

Anonymous asked a legitimate question. I answered it for him, which I believe was pretty damn accurate.

Man, this blog is going down hill.. with 'lil hall monitors like Milt & BB, don't tell me you're doing the same AF.

Barnsley Bill said...

Nope. it was me. if you are going to write shit like that use your real name.

Simon said...

These 43,000 are unemployable. Who is going to employ them?

Steve Gorman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WAKE UP said...

I once watched the guy downthe road, on sickness benefit (in a backblocks part of the country) singlehandedly build a two storey house.

Anonymous said...

The article is about DPB recipients being able to work 15 hrs a week while the kids are at school. Which should be too hard an ask.
How many lawns around the country could be mowed, shirts ironed, windows cleaned, cars washed etc? You can hardly argue that those sorts of jobs are hard to skill for. There will be employment available for these people, but the govt has to get rid of the ridiculous rates of progressive taxation that entraps people in welfare.
Personally I think that there should be a wind down in the amount of benefit available starting once the youngest or 4th kid hits 6 years of age, and then have zero taxation on earnings upto $150 above what their previous hand out enabled them to claim from the generosity of their fellow citizens.
yes people do have multiple births, and so either the adoption market would become a whole heap more active or you could have a leniency for that sort of event.

Anonymous said...

shouldn't*