Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 119975	2011-08-19 08:09:00	Benefit changes	Nomad (952)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1224446	2011-08-19 23:19:00	You have benefit and a house, you would have a $400-600k market value house depending where you live that's convertible to cash at any given time. The benefit should be a needs basis or is it not.	Nomad (952)
1224447	2011-08-20 00:16:00	Hi Guys At the moment, I'm receiving ACC, Wife, myself and the bank own a house. Not unemployed, but have been in another life and got the dole then. Could say I know a bit about the benefit system. What really bugs me is, every election year, we hear the politicians bashing up the unemployed or others on a benefit. What surprised me is the majority of the population falls for it. This takes the spotlight off the politicians and how much they take out of the pie. Remember one of them, owned a house in Wellington, rented it back to his family, then claimed further benefits from the Government. Of course, it was entirely legal but was it moral? This brings me to the so called benefit changes. If the government bring in the nanny state to stop young people spending money on cigarettes and booze it will cost a fortune to administer and won't stop nothing. The 16-17yr olds will simply trade food for booze and tobacco. Next election, we will be told how much the so called bludgers are costing the country and something must be done to stop it!! The general population will fall for it again and a new cycle will begin. I can tell you from personal experience, most people would rather work than get the dole. The best way to reduce the welfare costs is to create meaningful jobs - something New Zealand Governments either Labour or National fail at. This is what New Zealanders should want from their Leaders. Remember, unemployment is not working!! BURNEE	Burnzee (6950)
1224448	2011-08-20 00:59:00	You have benefit and a house, you would have a $400-600k market value house depending where you live that's convertible to cash at any given time. The benefit should be a needs basis or is it not. Not sure if you are referring to my or Gary67 situation, but my benefit is because my husband died and I haven't been able to get paid work; besides, I start getting NZ Super next year when I turn 65. Heaven help the people and the country if they make you sell your house to live. I think it is a different case where people have lots of rental properties as well as owning their home and are living off the rent and claiming benefits. My house value? About $285K at last valuation. LL	lakewoodlady (103)
1224449	2011-08-20 01:28:00	If you lived in the UK, then of course there was always the Workhouse to go to if you could not afford to live..... "................. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir." "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not." "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. "Both very busy, sir." A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens But, the Poor Law and the Workhouses still went on. My grans' brother "rescued" his wife to be from a workhouse in the 1920s or 30s. The last work houses did not close until well into my lifetime.....like 1948 :rolleyes: "It was not until the National Assistance Act of 1948 that the last vestiges of the Poor Law disappeared, and with them the workhouses." en.wikipedia.org www.victorianweb.org	Terry Porritt (14)
1224450	2011-08-20 01:47:00	every election year, we hear the politicians bashing up the unemployed or others on a benefit . What surprised me is the majority of the population falls for it . The best way to reduce the welfare costs is to create meaningful jobs - something New Zealand Governments either Labour or National fail at . Yes . The very few that do rip off the system cause the rest to be lumped in with them = all beneficiaries are bludgers having a great life . WINZ Website: Assets we count include: cash or savings investments or shares loans made to other people (including family trusts) boats, caravans and campervans investment properties your car (under certain circumstances) . Assets we do not count include: some outstanding debts personal belongings such as clothing and jewellery household furniture and effects . As for selling the house an renting - it's false economy . We rented for a bit before buying this place - the rent was $340 . The mortgage on this is far less . Take a look at market rents these days, pretty horrible really .	pctek (84)
1224451	2011-08-20 03:44:00	Right there PCTek, renting is dearer as you up paying someone else's mortgage, rates and insurance plus a return instead of your own.	Whenu (9358)
1224452	2011-08-20 05:06:00	Hi Guys What really bugs me is, every election year, we hear the politicians bashing up the unemployed or others on a benefit. What surprised me is the majority of the population falls for it. This takes the spotlight off the politicians and how much they take out of the pie. Remember one of them, owned a house in Wellington, rented it back to his family, then claimed further benefits from the Government. Of course, it was entirely legal but was it moral? BURNEE It's quite understandable that the majority of the population falls for it because we pay high taxes and a large part of it goes to those who don't work and those who abuse the welfare system. The 'unfair' part is that, as you mentioned, the politicians themselves abuse quite a large share (if not larger share) of our taxes. They just sit there doing practically nothing but warming up their ar*#*. This is especially true for those young politicians (in their 20s) sitting there doing nothing. They are the ones who should go out and get a real job! In my opinion, they are worse than those beneficiaries. Of course, we don't expect any of the politicians in the beehive to bring up this issue! It's a sad story, really.	bk T (215)
1224453	2011-08-20 05:42:00	I believe that the benefit should be income tested. Assets that produce an income should be considered. Your house should not be brought into the equation if that is where you live and you are not making an income from it. People need a place to live. The bank and myself own the house that I am living in. My mortgage payment is less than what I would be paying if I was renting.	Bobh (5192)
1224454	2011-08-20 05:57:00	All benefits are income tested! Also any assets from which income is derived. That includes rents, dividends from shares, bank account interest, plus income from any part time work. Things that are not tested are Bonus Bonds and your house if you own it and live in it. There may be others as well. LL	lakewoodlady (103)
1224455	2011-08-20 06:00:00	.. Your house should not be brought into the equation if that is where you live and you are not making an income from it. People need a place to live. ... Agree.	bk T (215)
1 2 3 4 5 6