Sunday, March 28, 2010

Time Treasury Got a Shake Up

Sub title:

Why NZ is F****d #15

Have a look at this little revelation of socialist group think from within Treasury.

From this morning's Q and A interview with Paula Bennett-

Bennett also denied that she had ignored Treasury's advice which recommended the work tests should not go ahead because some people would end up working for nothing.

Treasury gave the example of a beneficiary on minimum wage who would only receive $1 extra an hour.


Notwithstanding the notion that $8 per day is 'nothing,' Adolf hopes Treasury doesn't think beneficiaries should stay on the benefit when they are capable of working. It appears that is the advice our minister is receiving.

It's time to put the advisers Treasury onto the job market where they can do something useful like shovelling shit in Louisiana. (With apologies to general Patton.)

They have institutionalized the notion that a benefit somehow is of the same value as being in work. In other words, unless once can make a 'big margin' over and above the benefit, one should not feel obliged to work.

6 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

In what sense is Treasury's typically stupid advice "socialism?" A socialist view would be that people owe it to their society to do productive work for that society's benefit, whether it pays big or not. Whatever lies behind that Treasury advice, it's not socialism.

Psycho Milt said...

Actually, on further reflection, consider this bit again:

In other words, unless once can make a 'big margin' over and above the benefit, one should not feel obliged to work.

That's exactly the kind of "me first" bullshit that is the complete antithesis of socialism and has been Treasury's consistent prescription for social advancement since at least the 1980s, maybe earlier. They're just running true to form.

gravedodger said...

This is the lamentable Bull Shit welfare has delivered us.
Getting out of bed every work day and turning up to a job on time and going home in the knowledge that your toil has created wealth used to be the guiding philosophy of all but the most idle citizens and many of the jobs were boring, tiresome, repetitive and totally mind numbing. God only knows I have done too many, too painful, to recall, it was however called pride and self worth.
Alas now we have people coming here from all over the world to partake of the opportunity to work for money that is spurned by the many New Zealand citizens who prefer to sit on their arses and collect benefits.
So the difference may be extremely minimal but the mindset must be changed and woollyheaded thinking such as the crap that these employees of mine who are pontificating from the Treasury Dept is only perpetrating the decline in personal pride and selfworth.
I note that Ms Bennett also alluded to the sense of wellbeing and improvement in general and mental health that can come from actually joining the WORKFORCE.

Anonymous said...

Adolf hopes Treasury doesn't think beneficiaries should stay on the benefit when they are capable of working.

Right. It really is that simple.

If you are capable of working - no benefit



I note that Ms Bennett also alluded to the sense of wellbeing and improvement in general and mental health that can come from actually joining the WORKFORCE.

Who gives a flying FUCK about the "sense of wellbeing" or "improvement" or "metal health" of FUCKING BLUDGERS

Not me! Not anyone with any kind of self-respect.


Face it: if bennies & bludgers had an ounce of self-respect they would be working. It really is that simple.

No work? No benefits! FUCK OFF AND DIE.

Anonymous said...

In other words, unless one can make a 'big margin' over and above the benefit, one should not feel obliged to work......

Simple. Change one side of the equation. Reduce the benefit to where there is a 'big margin' for those available to work.

George

deityformerlyknownasnigel6888 said...

actually the Treasury is pointing to the high effective marginal tax rates that are a consequence of over-generous benefits and other welfare payments (like WFF).

The effect of which is to trap beneficiaries on the dole, because the additional benefit to them from going and getting a real job could be as little as $1 per hour.

Now Adolf and gravedodger can get all excited about the moral value of work, and milt can get excited about Treasury "stupidity" however he defines it this week.

But the bottom line is: Do you agree that from a beneficiary perspective $1 an hour is going to motivate them to work, when for less than the price of a pack of smokes they can stay on their arse and do what the hell they like?

Yes/No question. Think about it.