Beneficiary bashing

Yes I do understand everybody pays tax, but I only get the tax credit because I pay tax. If I didn't pay tax I wouldn't get it. EG if you walked into every single work place in an industrial area you would probably find half of them would be willing to take someone on. You might not necessarily get a job out of it but they are there. If you look on fonterra.com and click Fencepost Jobs you will find crap loads of farms looking to take on new recruits all over the country. seek.co.nz currently has 15000 jobs listed. Don't tell me there are no jobs out there.

Well, the latest unemployment figures show there are 150,000 unemployed people on the labour market. Now, my maths could be wrong, but I don't think 15,000=150,000.

Are you really paying tax if the govt gives you the money anyway?

Including the beneficiaries, too.

I think you mean income tax rather than tax in general.

The number of Kiwis arriving in Australia in the last year has been phenomenal, so I'm assuming that there are not too many jobs. However there are not that many jobs here either.

True enough. Another point to consider is of those 150,000 unemployed plenty will never be suitable for jobs offered for many reasons.
The nature of business is changing. So many businesses use new technology and require far fewer employees, so many businesses avoid compliance requirements by engaging self-employed contractors instead of employees.
Is there a growing disparity between the ideal skilled workers required by many companies and the labour pool available? i.e.  are the ideal candidates often already working for someone else?

Sorry, you're right, I meant income tax. EG I've given 3 examples of where somebody could possibly look to find a job, only one of those had a figure attached to them so saying there is only 15000 jobs available for 150000 people is rubbish. In fact it's an example of an excuse used by people who abuse the system (I'm not saying I think you are). And hamezilla I don't get all of my tax back, although I've just worked it out and it is actually a surprisingly high return. I'm not going to bother working it out but I'd say there are families out there who on a lower wage and/or with more children probably do get all of their tax back. That actually makes me feel quite guilty, we put that money straight into the savings account

I'm sorry Timmy, but is you think there are 150,000 jobs out there, then you are delusional. 

I never said there was, but there is no excuse not to be looking and applying for jobs if you're able. That's what this 'beneficiary bashing' is about and that's why I support the proposed changes. Having industry skills helps get better job opportunities but you don't need them to find employment. Maybe it should be made that if you want to claim the unemployment benefit you have to be signed on with a temp agency and you can't turn down jobs that get offered, maybe some money can be dished out in the short term to provide these people with a bike if they can't afford a car or the petrol and there are no buses in the area. Even if it cuts that 150,000 figure in half it would be beneficial in the long run.

So you're basically saying you know people aren't looking for work? I mean people jut told you that over a thousand applicants turned up for 300 low-paid positions at a supermarket in Auckland! There just isn't enough jobs around, and RedGed has rightly pointed out that there are some deeper structural issues at play here rather than people just being lazy, as you seem to imply.

Look, I'm sick of having my words spun around to make my argument look arrogant. Of course there are certain people out there who are sitting on welfare and not looking for work, and they justify it by saying there are no jobs out there. I have a friend who has been made redundant twice recently, once after the Sept quake and again after the Feb quake. He is currently in full time employment, because he applies himself and makes the effort to, 1)enquire about jobs, 2)turn up to interviews and 3)attempt to present himself as the best possible candidate. I've talked to other farmers who've gone to WINZ to look for potential employees who only turn up to the interview so they can continue to live on their welfare, they're not remotely interested in the jobs being put in front of them. For goodness sake if you apply at a super market and you don't get the job you don't just go 'Oh well bugger it' and give up. I put it to you even in Christchurch or Rolleston if I lost my job today I'd have a new job by the end of the month, even if I had to change career paths.

All I have to say is I don't see the harm in making people on a benefit look for work. I always assumed they had to do so anyway.

Good point - and it also reinforces TM's statement.  Motivated people can find or even create opportunities for work.

Its inevitable your words will be spun around though, timmymadden.
Firstly, respect to your friend. In those incredible challenging times you've all endured he's gone out and got a job.. well done and all power to him.
 'Know what farmers say too, came from a rural background myself and if a candidate doesn't have commitment, good work ethic, persistence, and particularly common sense the rural environment is no place for them. In fact they can be a danger to themselves and others.
 Fact also is, what they often will be required to do on farms, (for not much more than the dole provides for doing nothing, in some cases) means the smart decision is to stay on the dole, quite often.Its not always about willingness to work, just plain economics, all things,....stand down periods, transport, isolation and limited access to amenities, medical, schools, family etc.....considered.
Re the supermarket job..who says they give up? The majority probably looked elsewhere and kept looking.Some may have found jobs, some may still be looking.
 
Some fundamentals now,..
Yes, the motivated and committed tend to find a job, eventually.
Yes, there are long term beneficiaries who have no intention of giving up the dole and will not work if they can avoid it.
We've got opinions on here backing and bagging beneficiaries...rather than biased opinions for either side, any one got some scientific facts?

Questions,
whats the true employment situation in NZ now?
We know there's about 150,000 unemployed...how many jobs are there available right now?
Of those jobs, how many are for unskilled unqualified workers?
Of those 150,000, do we rate our unemployed on any sort of national index.. callibrated according to age, sex, skills, experience, qualifications, health, marital status, criminal record etc ?
If such an index exists, how does the actual ratio of the number of unemployed people to suitable jobs available rate now compared to 5,10,15 years ago??
 Is it (as I believe) actually worse than ever now or am I making it up?

That means you are working SEVENTY SEVEN hours a week. WHY?

Yep, sometimes slightly more, sometimes slightly less just depending on the time of year. I do it for a couple of reasons. 1) I enjoy my job and the benefits it brings, and 2) I earn respect from my peers in both the industry and socially. It's also why dairy farmers get cheesed off (forgive the pun) when people go on about how farm owners live the high life and are put in the corporate greed category. But that's a whole other topic.

Maybe the temp agency thing would be a way to go then. Work able beneficiaries would be indexed, opportunities would arise even for those who aren't looking for them, and those with trade skills could be linked up more appropriately to jobs. It would also take it out of government hands somewhat, some people would consider that to be a good thing. I thought today too, the baby boomers are about to retire, will there still be excuses for those who don't want to look? You could argue technology will be well on it's way to taking over by then but 20 years ago we were told by now most people wouldn't be working because machines would be doing it all.timmymadden2012-03-05 19:06:01

I seem to recall reading somewhere that baby boomers staying in the work force for too long is part of the problem, as it limits opportunities for younger workers further down the line. Can't remember where I read it now, but it was a few months ago.

Speaking of modernisation/technology, I know someone who used to work for Housing NZ, and they've centralised their call centre and other services, which led to a loss of a few hundred jobs in one fell swoop. This all happened a few weeks ago, the person I know lost her job and has now relocated to Auckland looking for work.

The whole government sector is shrinking under National's ongoing, "line by line" cost cutting policy. Last week's announcement:  approx. one fifth- 305 staff- of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were losing their jobs,with 600 people being forced to reapply for their jobs...and its not enough..the government wants more cuts!

Which means?

I think it brings into question how affordable it was to create and maintain these jobs. It's generally not a very good idea to borrow money to pay wages. Nor is it very wise to sell down assets to do it. So what are the remaining options? Higher taxes or job cuts. Neither will go down well. One thing which has annoyed me leading up to and after the election is the promise of more jobs from both major parties. How can a government promise something will happen in the private sector? It just isn't honest.

Looks like the cops are in the firing line this week.Just want to hear at least one of the MP'S give a reasonable answer to the question where the FK are all these jobs coming from.And cutting scrub and picking up litter dont count. Maybe if they spent as much time cutting costs in some of the departments they might be able to keep some staff.

do you care to give a source for such dubious stats?

Latest: Public TV studios to shut for casino. about right.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=public%20sector%20grew%20by%20%20new%20zealand&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQxQEwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv%26q%3Dcache%3A9a65VlaUMU8J%3Awww.national.org.nz%2FPDF_General%2FModern_Public_Services_policy.pdf%2Bpublic%2Bsector%2Bgrew%2Bby%2Bnew%2Bzealand%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dnz%26pid%3Dbl%26srcid%3DADGEEShWcs3CvkFvVMvlhiPzgN1pO5BCaoHuSAVPguCGef8WITQxxnW3ytOMd2rsnHXjBdo51w16DNKB1IW5hDrIKLxqKTiY8kp55ghOuIOEtgOkGKsEiMjBAYu0-2zaUvyJgrWHj_BF%26sig%3DAHIEtbSqYBe18NHmyYc1apYW8B-uzOZlCQ&ei=BntYT8uAFY-aiAeYnu2-DQ&usg=AFQjCNESjDDKLIzmnP3_Y2uEO4_FRCJGJwUnder Labour the state sector grew around 30% but spending went up 50% so he almost had it right.

It is typical of Labour. In Australia in the first year Rudd got in (2007) the public service increased by 20000 people.They are very good at spending taxpayers money.

Just what is "typical of Labour'?

How? Easy! Just abandon neoliberal capitalism. That's not a call for abandoining capitalism just the abandoning of a flawed and failing ideology.

'Typical' of Labour is they are very good at spending taxpayers money, go into deficit and when they get voted out the incoming Govn. has to go around making big cuts to get the country in the black and making themselves unpopular.It is just a vicious circle.

Well that would be a opinion call for people to make.  I could easily say how higher would it be if they followed Key's and English's appeals to give tax breaks to the rich because they were running a surplus.

If we want to talk in generalisations about the public service that cost money, how about this one:
National term A: 'big bureaucracies are uneconomic and inflexible and need to be broken down into smaller entities (at great cost).

10 years later...
National term B: 'small ministries are inefficient and waste money by having seperate back offices. They need to be merged into bigger entities (at great cost).

And rinse and repeat.

Perhaps the NZ Labour Gov. had better fiscal policy than their Australian counterparts.
When they got into power in 2007 they inherited a surplus of some 35 billion dollars.By May 2011 it was around 200 billion.

so the surplus has grown considerably yet you are unhappy with this.
unless you mean something else?

questionable value to who? Most punters who want the Govt Debt to GDP ratio down are also happy to work for firms who have other staff getting W4F, the biggest rort for the rich since we stole all the Maori's land.

User Pays and the Free Market! Unless of course it effects the Sate subsides that keeps my company in cheap labour....

Yip, sorry, meant it was 200 in defict.