ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Zaphod]

It will cost heaps and is more red tape.

To be honest, I do like the concept however you're right, it could cost more. If that's the case then as an alternative, the policy could be rolled out for those who haved repeatedly required emergency benefit supplements whom the budgeting service of Work & Income deem to need additional assistance.

I haven't had a chance to look at the insurance policy yet.

[Panda-NZ-]

I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.

Every dollar is spent in NZ and not on european car imports, boats and other things. This is pretty good for the economy and not a concern.

[artemis]

To be honest, I do like the concept however you're right, it could cost more. If that's the case then as an alternative, the policy could be rolled out for those who haved repeatedly required emergency benefit supplements whom the budgeting service of Work & Income deem to need additional assistance.

I haven't had a chance to look at the insurance policy yet.

Such a system is already in place, except more restrictive. It is the Young Parent Payment for teen parents, and could easily be rolled out to others, especially those not coping, as you suggest Zaphod. The scheme combines support, financial management, responsibilities and rewards for meeting them. There is a limited amount of pocket money with no strings attached.

It is expensive to run. But it was an early initiative of the last government's social investment programme, where data indicated that teen parents were the group most likely to stay on benefit for the longest. The programme is designed to cut that off at the pass.

Something is working as teen parent numbers here are half that of 10 years ago. Various reasons for that, no doubt.

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/pr...t-payment.html

[moka]

It's hardly 'their money' when it's taken by legislation from a working taxpayer and given to them. Restricting purchase of certain things, particularly casino chips, seems perfectly reasonable.
I think my party vote will go to Act in September. No point in an electorate vote in my seat. Labour, NZ First, and Greens are all definitely out this time round.

Interesting how some people think that taxes are still “their” money when it is received by the government. Try telling Inland Revenue that it is still your money. Legally it is beneficiaries’ money and they are entitled to spend it however they like just like any other New Zealander. Excessive control of people like ACT are proposing leads to dependency. People need the freedom to make their own mistakes and learn from them.

[moka]

It will cost heaps and is more red tape.

their insurance policy is poorly thought through too. imagine taxing people more in a recession and less in a boom. act is bad at economics.
The actual working people ideally should not pay a cent more in their income tax.

My first thought about an employment insurance fund was more funds for very well paid fund managers to manage. Lucky them, helping the rich get richer. And always a risk if it is not well managed and in a recession when you really need the money its value has gone down suddenly.

[moka]

I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.

It is their money, once their eligibility has been determined. There are certainly some people on here who think that beneficiaries are second-class citizens and inferior to themselves, and should be treated accordingly. Interesting that you say that hard working tax payers give them this money out of compassion. That is not how it is legally, but the ideology is still reflected in the word “beneficiary” receiving something from a “benefactor.” Beneficiaries should be grateful for whatever small crumbs they are given. What about human rights and equality?

[Balance]

People need the freedom to make their own mistakes and learn from them.

Not with our money, they don't.

[Panda-NZ-]

I don't get to decide what is spent on defence and other areas I consider a waste. Why should you have a say in this small area. It's a focus on a quite trivial issue when there are more important things.

[artemis]

I don't get to decide what is spent on defence and other areas I consider a waste. Why should you have a say in this small area. It's a focus on a quite trivial issue when there are more important things.

Not OK for people to have opinions? Or does that only apply to issues you decide are trivial?

[Panda-NZ-]

I didn't decide it, it's a fact given it's a low percentage of total crown expenses. social support for the working age population is low here.
We will likely need to transition to a form of affordable basic income in time given the technology changes which are coming. Again its easily affordable with a sovereign wealth fund