So Steve Maharey is placing the growing number of those on sickness
and invalid benefits under fresh scrutiny.

In this regard Cliff (Enkidu) will be spot on with his signature line:
<
The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:

http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
>

as Labour is pre-empting a possible National . Labour is between a
rock and a hard place on this - go easy on beneficieries to keep the
beneficiary vote or get tough on them and lose the present Labour
voters who do a hard days work and who resent lifestyle beneficiaries
being on the taxpayer's tit.

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:41:32 +1300

In article <41f0b3b4.1329368@news.paradise.net.nz> in nz.politics on Fri,
21 Jan 2005 07:56:56 GMT, Peter says...
> So Steve Maharey is placing the growing number of those on sickness
> and invalid benefits under fresh scrutiny.
>
> In this regard Cliff (Enkidu) will be spot on with his signature line:
> <
> The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:
>
> http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
> >
>
> as Labour is pre-empting a possible National . Labour is between a
> rock and a hard place on this - go easy on beneficieries to keep the
> beneficiary vote or get tough on them and lose the present Labour
> voters who do a hard days work and who resent lifestyle beneficiaries
> being on the taxpayer's tit.

the right wing partys see beneficiarys as an easy target so as to play
for votes from the redneck community

while there are some "lifestye beneficiaries" all you have to do is live
for a while in the poorest part of your town with all the losers and
dropouts from society to understand that society often doesnt give a shit
about its most lowly members

its just so easy to forget about the psych paitents and IH and alcoholics
and Maoris and etc when they all conveniently live far away from the
flashest part of town where the Act supportes live and where Moriel
Newman never goes and doesnt have a clue about life there

From:	Peter
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:02:57 GMT

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:41:32 +1300, Adder wrote:

>the right wing partys see beneficiarys as an easy target so as to play
>for votes from the redneck community

And a similar claim can be made for left wing paries - playing for
votes from beneficiaries including not worrying too much whther they
should be on a benefit.

Interestingly, Labour realises that it is dependent on redneck support
as is shown by law and order and other policies.

>
>while there are some "lifestye beneficiaries" all you have to do is live
>for a while in the poorest part of your town with all the losers and
>dropouts from society to understand that society often doesnt give a shit
>about its most lowly members

Agreed. But the point of concern is not beneficiaries as such, but
why there has been a significant increase in sickness and invalid
beneficiaries in the last few years.

From:	Brian Dooley
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:41:17 +1300

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:02:57 GMT, peterwn@parazzdise.net.nz
(Peter) wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:41:32 +1300, Adder wrote:
>
>>the right wing partys see beneficiarys as an easy target so as to play
>>for votes from the redneck community
>
>And a similar claim can be made for left wing paries - playing for
>votes from beneficiaries including not worrying too much whther they
>should be on a benefit.
>
>Interestingly, Labour realises that it is dependent on redneck support
>as is shown by law and order and other policies.
>>
>>while there are some "lifestye beneficiaries" all you have to do is live
>>for a while in the poorest part of your town with all the losers and
>>dropouts from society to understand that society often doesnt give a shit
>>about its most lowly members
>
>Agreed. But the point of concern is not beneficiaries as such, but
>why there has been a significant increase in sickness and invalid
>beneficiaries in the last few years.

No doubt the numbers are easily accessible, so you will have no
problem in providing a brief run-down. I ask because I'm not sure
what you call "the last few years".
--

Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand

From:	John B
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:56:38 +1300

"Brian Dooley" wrote in message
news:ngd6v0lc3nb4nvc2869mkqvmhbub43ulv0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:02:57 GMT, peterwn@parazzdise.net.nz
> (Peter) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:41:32 +1300, Adder wrote:
> >
> >>the right wing partys see beneficiarys as an easy target so as to play
> >>for votes from the redneck community
> >
> >And a similar claim can be made for left wing paries - playing for
> >votes from beneficiaries including not worrying too much whther they
> >should be on a benefit.
> >
> >Interestingly, Labour realises that it is dependent on redneck support
> >as is shown by law and order and other policies.
> >>
> >>while there are some "lifestye beneficiaries" all you have to do is live
> >>for a while in the poorest part of your town with all the losers and
> >>dropouts from society to understand that society often doesnt give a shit
> >>about its most lowly members
> >
> >Agreed. But the point of concern is not beneficiaries as such, but
> >why there has been a significant increase in sickness and invalid
> >beneficiaries in the last few years.
>
> No doubt the numbers are easily accessible, so you will have no
> problem in providing a brief run-down. I ask because I'm not sure
> what you call "the last few years".

Don't lie Dooley. You are so transparent.

--
John B

From:	Warwick
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:09:38 +1300

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:02:57 GMT, Peter wrote:

> Agreed. But the point of concern is not beneficiaries as such, but
> why there has been a significant increase in sickness and invalid
> beneficiaries in the last few years.

Another poster said recently in another thread that the bottom 2% of the
labour market is essentially unemployable. Whether that is because they are
sick or simply do not care for material possessions I wouldn't like to
guess. But one way or another we will always have them. Labelling them as
sick or unemployed is largely a semantic matter. The two benefits only
differ slightly in their basic rate, except that sickness beneficiaries can
claim costs related to consulting with medical specialists, fees and
travel.

It has occurred to me, that in historical times, some of these people would
have become monks.

From:	Bob Howard
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:08:15 +1300

"Warwick" wrote in message
news:1anuv3m3bu66v$.e27hgtmvecbe$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:02:57 GMT, Peter wrote:
>
> > Agreed. But the point of concern is not beneficiaries as such, but
> > why there has been a significant increase in sickness and invalid
> > beneficiaries in the last few years.
>
> Another poster said recently in another thread that the bottom 2% of the
> labour market is essentially unemployable. Whether that is because they
are
> sick or simply do not care for material possessions I wouldn't like to
> guess. But one way or another we will always have them. Labelling them as
> sick or unemployed is largely a semantic matter. The two benefits only
> differ slightly in their basic rate, except that sickness beneficiaries
can
> claim costs related to consulting with medical specialists, fees and
> travel.
>
> It has occurred to me, that in historical times, some of these people
would
> have become monks.

I quoted 2%. I got that from 1972 coments when we last had full employment.
The last 2% or so are no-hopers who don't want to work and are useless to
employers. You must know there are no-hopers in our society. You must have
come across some yourself or been told of some, someone who deals drugs
instead of working, someone who goes through a number of jobs none ever
lasting more than a couple of months. I remember a lady telling me her 20+
son lay around the house all day doing nothing. If WINZ directed him to a
job he made sure the employer wouldn't want him. I have been told by
employers they have given up posting vacancies on WINZ notice boards because
of the low quality of those who turned up.

Bob Howard.

From:	John B
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:23 +1300

"Bob Howard" wrote in message
news:csvi72$854$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "Warwick" wrote in message
> news:1anuv3m3bu66v$.e27hgtmvecbe$.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:02:57 GMT, Peter wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. But the point of concern is not beneficiaries as such, but
> > > why there has been a significant increase in sickness and invalid
> > > beneficiaries in the last few years.
> >
> > Another poster said recently in another thread that the bottom 2% of the
> > labour market is essentially unemployable. Whether that is because they
> are
> > sick or simply do not care for material possessions I wouldn't like to
> > guess. But one way or another we will always have them. Labelling them as
> > sick or unemployed is largely a semantic matter. The two benefits only
> > differ slightly in their basic rate, except that sickness beneficiaries
> can
> > claim costs related to consulting with medical specialists, fees and
> > travel.
> >
> > It has occurred to me, that in historical times, some of these people
> would
> > have become monks.
>
> I quoted 2%. I got that from 1972 coments when we last had full employment.
> The last 2% or so are no-hopers who don't want to work and are useless to
> employers. You must know there are no-hopers in our society. You must have
> come across some yourself or been told of some, someone who deals drugs
> instead of working,

But someone dealing drugs is working. They are supplying a demand.

> someone who goes through a number of jobs none ever
> lasting more than a couple of months. I remember a lady telling me her 20+
> son lay around the house all day doing nothing. If WINZ directed him to a
> job he made sure the employer wouldn't want him. I have been told by
> employers they have given up posting vacancies on WINZ notice boards because
> of the low quality of those who turned up.
>
>
> Bob Howard.

--
John B

From:	Peter
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:17:46 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:23 +1300, "John B"
wrote:

>But someone dealing drugs is working. They are supplying a demand.
>
But:
1. They do not pay tax on the drug profit.
2. They most probably claim a benefit not available to ordinary
working people.

From:	John B
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:19:46 +1300

"Peter" wrote in message
news:41f36b6c.14709437@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:23 +1300, "John B"
> wrote:
>
> >But someone dealing drugs is working. They are supplying a demand.
> >
> But:
> 1. They do not pay tax on the drug profit.
> 2. They most probably claim a benefit not available to ordinary
> working people.

Clever buggers.

--
John B

From:	Brian Dooley
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:29:04 +1300

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:09:38 +1300, Warwick
wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:02:57 GMT, Peter wrote:
>
>> Agreed. But the point of concern is not beneficiaries as such, but
>> why there has been a significant increase in sickness and invalid
>> beneficiaries in the last few years.
>
>Another poster said recently in another thread that the bottom 2% of the
>labour market is essentially unemployable. Whether that is because they are
>sick or simply do not care for material possessions I wouldn't like to
>guess. But one way or another we will always have them. Labelling them as
>sick or unemployed is largely a semantic matter. The two benefits only
>differ slightly in their basic rate, except that sickness beneficiaries can
>claim costs related to consulting with medical specialists, fees and
>travel.
>
>It has occurred to me, that in historical times, some of these people would
>have become monks.
>
>
Some, yes, but far from most.

Instead they would have become lay brothers/sisters.

One of the little known results of the Henry VIII dissolution of
the monasteries was the destruction of what was in effect a
massive social security system based on the inherited wealth of
the Church. The 'religious' received pensions but the thousands
of lay persons supported by the Church were thrown onto the
street and the Church's charity to the poor practically
disappeared for lack of resources, all of which resulted in a
great increase in crime, and finally the Elizabethan Poor Law.

I keep telling you guys that there is nothing new, nor is there
anything original in the various proposals to attack social
problems.
--

Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand

From:	Bob Howard
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:56:39 +1300

"Adder" wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5c05f9eba34b959898f2@news.paradise.net.nz...

>
> the right wing partys see beneficiarys as an easy target so as to play
> for votes from the redneck community
>
> while there are some "lifestye beneficiaries" all you have to do is live
> for a while in the poorest part of your town with all the losers and
> dropouts from society to understand that society often doesnt give a shit
> about its most lowly members
>
> its just so easy to forget about the psych paitents and IH and alcoholics
> and Maoris and etc when they all conveniently live far away from the
> flashest part of town where the Act supportes live and where Moriel
> Newman never goes and doesnt have a clue about life there

Isn't that just what Labour is doing by throwing them a benefit and leaving
them to it? I have seen intellectually disabled people going to work in a
sheltered workshop every day. They show that doing something, earning a
little money is better than being shut away on a benefit. Nobody including
ACT wants to take away the benefit from the sort of people you describe if
they are incapable of doing anything. But shouldn't we pick up dropouts and
losers and give them a chance even if a little force has to be used to get
them out of their lethargy?

Bob Howard.

From:	Mr Scebe
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:59:19 +1300

"Bob Howard" wrote in message
news:csvhha$7nm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

> Isn't that just what Labour is doing by throwing them a benefit and
> leaving
> them to it? I have seen intellectually disabled people going to work in a
> sheltered workshop every day. They show that doing something, earning a
> little money is better than being shut away on a benefit. Nobody including
> ACT wants to take away the benefit from the sort of people you describe if
> they are incapable of doing anything. But shouldn't we pick up dropouts
> and
> losers and give them a chance even if a little force has to be used to get
> them out of their lethargy?

Too true, Bob. Surely in this age of computing, we should be able to
cross-reference school attendance against benefit claims - if it's found
that someone's been absent from school for a large percentage of the time,
they should be shown the door. That is a quick win, and one that guarantees
that the "true workers" of this country aren't paying for the bludgers.

--
Mr Scebe
"We were on four continents. America, Africa, London and Asia"
~ Oliver Stone in "The making of Alexander"

From:	Mr Scebe
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:31:33 +1300

"Adder" wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5c05f9eba34b959898f2@news.paradise.net.nz...

> the right wing partys see beneficiarys as an easy target so as to play
> for votes from the redneck community

What a bunch of bollocks. It's got nothing to do with "targetting"
beneficiaries, but more to do with spending priorities. There is only so
much tax that can and should be paid by the workers of this country, and
whether it is spent on hospitals or new roads, or even America's Cup
regattas are decisions that are made by the government of the day.

When Universal benefits were introduced by Labour in the early 70's, NZ had
full employment and strong overseas earnings. No-one at the time thought
that the benefits would be abused to the extent that a quarter of the
population would be holding their hand out, thus depriving the country of
much needed infrastructure.

Since then, NZ has slipped down the ladder on every ranking that could
possibly be measured - crime, health, infrastructure, education, and wealth.
It's time that the situation changed, and if someone has to rattle the cage
of benefit fraud, well good on them. The biggest problem that i have is that
Labour often talks tough, but when the legislation comes out it's weaker
than dishwater.

--
Mr Scebe
"Pershonally i think you're a fucking idiot"
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"

From:	sidproquo
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	21 Jan 2005 11:24:14 -0800

Adder wrote:
> In article <41f0b3b4.1329368@news.paradise.net.nz> in nz.politics on
Fri,
> 21 Jan 2005 07:56:56 GMT, Peter says...
> > So Steve Maharey is placing the growing number of those on sickness
> > and invalid benefits under fresh scrutiny.
> >
> > In this regard Cliff (Enkidu) will be spot on with his signature
line:
> > <
> > The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:
> >
> > http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
> > >
> >
> > as Labour is pre-empting a possible National . Labour is between a
> > rock and a hard place on this - go easy on beneficieries to keep
the
> > beneficiary vote or get tough on them and lose the present Labour
> > voters who do a hard days work and who resent lifestyle
beneficiaries
> > being on the taxpayer's tit.
>
> the right wing partys see beneficiarys as an easy target so as to
play
> for votes from the redneck community
>
> while there are some "lifestye beneficiaries" all you have to do is
live
> for a while in the poorest part of your town with all the losers and
> dropouts from society to understand that society often doesnt give a
shit
> about its most lowly members
>
> its just so easy to forget about the psych paitents and IH and
alcoholics
> and Maoris and etc when they all conveniently live far away from the
> flashest part of town where the Act supportes live and where Moriel
> Newman never goes and doesnt have a clue about life there

Alternatively ms Newman like many kiwi just gets tired of these lazy
bludging no-hopers who make an art form out of being generously
supported by the rest of us.

From:	sidproquo
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	23 Jan 2005 11:52:43 -0800

Mike Parsons wrote:
> Bob Howard wrote:
> > But shouldn't we pick up dropouts and
> > losers and give them a chance even if a little force has to be used
> to get
> > them out of their lethargy?
>
> Yeah, put them to work in the salt mines. And if they don't work,
whip
> 'em.

What!!!!, have a Labour government pick on its most ardent supporters
and main power base, the beno's and crims, give us a break who are you
kidding.

From:	Mike Parsons
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	23 Jan 2005 02:50:16 -0800

Bob Howard wrote:
> But shouldn't we pick up dropouts and
> losers and give them a chance even if a little force has to be used
to get
> them out of their lethargy?

Yeah, put them to work in the salt mines. And if they don't work, whip
'em.

From:	John B
Subject:	Re: Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:54:06 +1300

"Mike Parsons" wrote in message
news:1106477416.408814.127420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Bob Howard wrote:
> > But shouldn't we pick up dropouts and
> > losers and give them a chance even if a little force has to be used
> to get
> > them out of their lethargy?
>
> Yeah, put them to work in the salt mines. And if they don't work, whip
> 'em.

No need for that, just don't give em anything.

--
John B