WINZ turns unemployed away to keep unemployment down

Work and Income has boasted that there are no 18-19 year olds on the dole in the Bay of Plenty Area because they are all in work or training. We now know why.

They applied but Work and Income said they weren't eligible because they weren't 20. So they turned them away. They wouldn`t even let these kids register as job seekers to access the courses they provide.

Yet the unemployment benefit is available to those 18 and over who are seeking work. Some have been told that they can't apply for the unemployment benefit unless they attended a course and then they could access the student allowance. This is unlawful. Particularly as some courses are dependent on registering as a job seeker with WINZ - which you can do without even getting a benefit.

Such people should be back paid benefit money from application and so benefit advocates are threatening court action against Work and Income staff who deny people entitlements. WINZ managers who blatantly deny people entitlements and access to training opportunities should be sacked if they are going to harass genuine job seekers for the purpose of denying beneficiaries their paltry $118.98 a week.

Universities defend WINZ article

Both this week's Salient editorial and the National and local student associations have come out in support of the story I did couple of weeks back entitled how to rip off WINZ.One reveals even more entitlements you can get off Work and Income, if only you knew about them...

Both VUWSA President Geoff Hayward and NZUSA Co-President Joey Randall believe that the article emphasises the inadequate support students have from the government.
“In absence of strong commitment from the government to institute a universal student allowance, students have to find these loopholes to survive,” Hayward says.

According to Randall, the best route was “students [having] access to assistance that they require and [having] food and power without working extensive hours.”

Are Samoans useless shoppers as well as useless budgeters?

I'm not one to be racist, but I can't help thinking that of the many stories in the New Zealand Herald about poverty, most have brown skin and nearly all are Samoans who are in debt and tithe - apparently excessively - to their church.

Most say they can't meet their living expenses, and all are earning more than our family. I've come to a conclusion that these people are useless at budgeting, saving and shopping. If you can't afford to feed your kids, don't have 7 kids and bring them up on credit. If you want to buy a winter coat for your kid, don't go to Pumpkin Patch - get a good winter coat second hand at the Sallies for a single digit price. Cut your Sky subscription. Stop smoking. Use cloth nappies. Learn how to catch buses instead of taxis. Insulate your house - at a cost of $300.00 with the Sustainability Trust to cut down on your power bill. Use your washing line. Pay your credit card bill off every month and if you can't do that, then cut down your spending. Don`t go to McDonalds every week. Learn how to cook. Last night our healthy meal cost a total of $6.00 - feeding four people.

If you are on a low income and have a choice between paying the power bill and food bill, don't pay both. Pay the power bill and get a WINZ food grant. If you are not eligible for a WINZ grant and you cant pay the essentials, you need to go to budgeting advice and shop the specials instead of moaning about how little income you have while paying top dollar for meat and buying processed foods instead of cooking. Make your lunch rather than buying it.. If you can't shop for a family of four for less than $130 a week, email me and I`ll tell you how to do it. If you can't think how you can cut your budget but don't want to go to budgeting advice, open your mind, close your legs and your wallets. If you must send money to Samoa, but can't afford to feed your kids or pay bills, go back there and hand it to them personally every week.

In short, get your priorities right, or go back to Samoa and be a drain on their economy.

And if you can't feed your kids, for God's sake don't tithe so much to your church. God doesn't like it. If you believe that God thinks its a higher priority to tithe to a church before feeding your family then you a misguided little Christian who needs to understand the good book you claim to believe in but don't have enough time to read. And if your church leaders think its is more important to tithe than for their congregants to feed their kids and pay their bills - but are happy in reading tithes from families who can't afford if then then they have no right to be church leaders and they should be either investigated by the Serious Fraud Office or investigated for extortion and brainwashing.

Some poor people can help themselves

The Herald's Simon Collins - one of this country's best journalists - has written several good pieces on low income earners on mounting debt.
Kanikita Mohulamu gets more in family assistance than the after tax income. They have seven kids under 15.

If you can't afford to bring up kids, don’t have seven kids in 11 years.

Sue Lafaele and Loto Kaio get $845.00 a week after tax and have one child. Both work full time. He earns $14 an hour during the day, she works 45 hours a week, getting $11.30 in her main night job. He sleeps at night - she sleeps in the evening before going to work. Their son sees both parents together max 2 hours per day.

More than two thirds of their combined income goes on rent and debt: Two cars, two personal loans taken out for two of their parents' funerals and when their power was disconnected.

Yet it appears they were not even claiming Working for Families. They foolishly turned down WFF because IRD said they were only entitled to 7.00 a week. Had they accepted it they would automatically got the 1 April increase and they would have been able to use that to buy a phone before April 1. Alternatively they could have saved that money to avoid power disconnection and the loan for reconnection.

This is tragic. She should quit her job. Her family would most likely be better off. She will have more time to spend with her son and her partner. She will be able to shop for specials, thus making her dollar go further - you can get good clothes at the Sallies or at sales and reduce your shopping bill - and taking the petrol credits - by up to 25 percent by shopping the specials. The family would be earning roughly $560.00 a week instead of $845.00 But their WFF entitlements would more than double - to around $145.00, offsetting half her income, given that she wasn’t even claiming WFF.

They would have been eligible for two funeral grants, accommodation assistance, a special benefit to cover both car loans and other essential debts, assistance for school uniforms, and any accommodation overflow, and an interest free power advance - all from Work and Income. The weekly payments would have gone some way to offset the other half of her income, but if you take the interest paid on loans taken out, a reduction in petrol costs due to her not travelling to work, fewer takeaway foods, - as well as proper budgeting advice, it all adds up. If they got a WINZ food grant every so often they could afford to reduce debt.

It's not easy living on a low income - but it is impossible when you have mounting debt and make ill-advised choices. The debt - and refusal or ignorance about state assistance - is more of the problem than the low income or the church tithing.

Tax-payer -funded theft

NZPA reportson how 15 former WINZ staff who stole from WINZ are now on benefits and repaying the money from their benefits.

As DPFsays, the taxpayer:

* paid them a salary while employed by WINZ
* had them steal an additional $1 million from us from being paid by us
* had us no doubt fund their legal aid
* are now giving them a benefit
* and we are getting repaid out of the very benefit we are giving them

Wow we lose out big don't we.

However, I would note the taxpayer:

* paid Labour MPs a salary while employed by the taxpayer
* had them steal an additional $800,000 from us while being paid by us
* had us no doubt fund their legal advice leading to a law change
* has now paid for their pay increases which could assist in paying back the money for the theft - but they conducted a tax-payer funded campaign asking others to assist in paying it back for them.
* so we were repaid out of the very money we are giving them - and NOBODY GOT PROSECUTED.

Wow we lose out big don't we.