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
1224456	2011-08-20 06:53:00	It depends on how much equity you have in the house also, if you owe the bank 250k your weekly payments must be around 350-400/week, 250k is not much of a house above gore	Gobe1 (6290)
1224457	2011-08-20 08:04:00	Agree. Back to the point, who should be entitled to a benefit? Speaking of most people who live in larger cities is that $400 - 600k house is ok? Or 200k in the smaller towns? And taxpayers should fund that. Properties will appreciate over time. So that is indirect income. When they sell it like later yrs (like retiring) they find they have this extra bit. And in that regard NZ doesn't have capital gain tax, so it's a given.	Nomad (952)
1224458	2011-08-20 08:08:00	It depends on how much equity you have in the house also, if you owe the bank 250k your weekly payments must be around 350-400/week, 250k is not much of a house above gore I guess it depends how they can the bank can negotiate then. But then I don't know how people can manage mortgages while on the benefit or how much the government can help them to attain ownership of a property. I've always thought the benefit should be necessity and get back into the workforce.	Nomad (952)
1224459	2011-08-20 08:28:00	I was talking about long term, if they lose their job, they need assistance, sure let them keep the house, if it gains in value, they can have it but if people have been on it for a total of 10yrs (for eg) or if they have been on and off jobs given their circumstance if they cannot get a job in another 2yr straight period (assuming they are fully able to work) should they still be able to keep their home and keep being on the benefit .... or is it that some fully able people just genuinely find themselves in 10 or 20yrs without a job.	Nomad (952)
1224460	2011-08-20 20:55:00	250k is not much of a house above gore Actually it is. All depends on which area you live in - even Auckland, and what you consider "much of a house".	pctek (84)
1224461	2011-08-20 21:51:00	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!! Which begs the question: Why is it the Governments responsibility to "nanny" a person and get them a job? Why can they not create the job for themselves?	Chilling_Silence (9)
1224462	2011-08-20 22:18:00	From personal experience. Some yrs ago, out of uni, you wanted to get your ideal job and I was stuck up :D For the months .. A consultant said to me that if something is not working why do I keep doing it, why not get a diff job or get more / diff training. She even said so what do I do every day. Esp the young people ... Then she got me into a admin role (a bit of a backstep given my prev role at the time) in a similar industry that I had a stint with before but diff company (which had a really great boss) on a 3 month fixed term which was extended many times to over a year with pay increases ... which they were happy to let me go which I got a better job to my level.	Nomad (952)
1224463	2011-08-20 22:18:00	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 LL, we were on a benefit for 19 years, income tested early retirement benefit, glad that is over and Bonus Bonds did form part of our assets, even though we had had 3 * $15,000.00 worth of prizes, way back in the 70's. House was the only thing excluded. WINZ used a very fine tooth comb on us, even had to declare "under the table" friend's accounting payments', just in case potters' put our weights up, bad as the commies, lol. Lurking.	Lurking (218)
1224464	2011-08-20 22:25:00	Which begs the question: Why is it the Governments responsibility to "nanny" a person and get them a job? Why can they not create the job for themselves? During times of high unemployment people on the dole, who find it difficult to find employment, do attempt to create jobs for themselves . A lot of small businesses are seen to be created . A lot of these businesses fail due to increased competition, inexperience or the fact that people are not spending money . For most people there is more profit in working for a wage rather than going into business and creating your own job .	Bobh (5192)
1224465	2011-08-20 23:46:00	LL, we were on a benefit for 19 years, income tested early retirement benefit, glad that is over and Bonus Bonds did form part of our assets, even though we had had 3 * $15,000.00 worth of prizes, way back in the 70's. House was the only thing excluded. WINZ used a very fine tooth comb on us, even had to declare "under the table" friend's accounting payments', just in case potters' put our weights up, bad as the commies, lol. Lurking. I had Bonus Bonds of around $8,000 when my husband died and When I went to WINZ to apply for the widows benefit, they said that they were not asset tested, but that I would have to declare any prizes. Well, I didn't get any prizes as I cashed them in for living expenses and to help with funeral costs. I still have some left but only about $200. Still haven't had any prizes. @ nomad I really cannot understand your thinking that anyone nearing retirement, or just retired would want to sell their house that they have worked so hard all their lives to get and pay for. What would be the point of that? They would have to find somewhere to rent. In the current climate, if any govt brought in a capital gains tax, there would be a glut of places for sale and very few to rent. That in itself takes away the security of having somewhere to live for the rest of their days. LL	lakewoodlady (103)
1 2 3 4 5 6