Entitled
Two stories caught my eye today, both of them involving beneficiaries. The first is the story of a woman who has been battling with WINZ because she has investment properties that WINZ says count against her receiving an accommodation allowance. I note that she seems to have a fairly extensive rental property portfolio and seems to be hard up simply because she is over-extended on her mortgages. One would have thought that the sensible thing to do would be to sell her properties and consolidate them into a mortgage-free home or two. Apparently, she thinks she is entitled to expect WINZ to support her dangerous property speculation, now that she is finding it hard to get a job.
I also note that she seems to have the spare cash to fund an expensive billboard advertisement.
The second story is about a man who has dragged WINZ through up to $250,000 of (taxpayer funded) litigation in order to try and force them into paying for a new pair of shoes and a pullover. Once more I note that WINZ seemed happy to give him and interest-free loan to fund his purchases, but he seems to think that not only is he is entitled to have the taxpayer buy his shoes for him, he is entitled to have them buy a relatively expensive pair of shoes ($140 – when he could pick up a perfectly good pair of shoes for $60). I am inclined to the same opinion as Muriel Newman – Mr. Foster could easily have picked up a good pair of shoes and a pullover for about $10-15 all up on trade me or at an op shop [note to journalist Leigh van der Stoep - Muriel is a former ACT MP, not a current one, more's the pity].
Both of these stories illustrate to me the curse of entitlement. It is a blight on our country. Trinette Tawse could have rearranged her finances by now and be getting on with her life. There are thousands of opportunities out there for her to improve her income, but she is wasting them in an unlovely frenzy of entitlement. Mr. Foster’s crusade for $200 worth of entitlement has so far cost 20 people their hip replacements. And all, apparently, because he is too proud to wear second-hand clothes.
Do not mistake me here. I am happy to live in a country that has a decent safety net for people down on their luck. I am just not particularly thrilled when the people in the net start insisting on feather pillows because the net is uncomfortable. Even invalid beneficiaries deserve the dignity of work, if suitable work can be found. And, certainly, I see no reason at all why the taxpayer should go on funding drug addicts who refuse to undergo any kind of rehab and people with minor disabilities who refuse to re-train for alternative work. Welfare should be a temporary inconvenience, not a way of life.
There are people who are legitimately incapacitated and are in desperate need of extra support but this will not be forthcoming while benefits are ladled out to the able-bodied and employable.
And we will never lift anyone out of poverty by raising benefit levels. The only demonstrably successful cure for poverty is gainful employment. Unless, of course, you are the Harris family, who seem to manage quite well. thank you…
Related posts:
- Punishing the Taxpayer Once again WINZ achieves the unbelievable. The HOS reports that they paid...
- Paying For Their Sins Apparently there has been a recent surge in benefit payments...
- Nice if You Can Get It Well, Parliamentary services has opened the books and the week...
- Freezer Burn Horrible little story today about a poor woman who was...
- Drug Benefits I have to say I am amused by the frenzied...
Jan 4 10 10:43 am
It also seemed self evident that if Mr Foster had both the emotional and physical energy required to mount a defense in court, chances are he could actually manage to hold down some kind of job…….
Jan 4 10 5:48 pm
The amazing and quite funny thing about Foster, the woman property owner, the property millionaire from last year, the two DPB women from last year is/was they were almost entirely self promoting of their so called entitlements!
They weren’t “caught out” but had this loud belief of entitlement thats jaw dropping.
The following piece rather ruefully says that Americans and others might have gotten bitten by the recession, but the earlier effects of the boom raised millions in the Third World out of poverty.. and that might be the real benefit of it:
http://tinyurl.com/ybsmgyb
To which I’d add that the relative prosperity of the last decade or so has raised expectations from just a roof over the head and food in the mouth to an entitlement of the good life.. supported by the tax payer.
JC
Jan 6 10 3:34 pm
MacDoctor, I think your first option is best. This guy could have got perfectly good shoes for $60 probably at the Warehouse of cheap shoe store. I think expecting genuine people on benefits to get by with $5 shoes sounds a little harsh.
There are a few of issues here. The first one is should this guy be on the benefit in the first place? I do not know his health problem but if he can spend time on this sort of thing and cost the taxpayer thousands he could at least work part time to buy these extras.
The second issue is the attitude of entitlement. Should he have been able to appeal such frivalless case? The legal process should be able to decline such an appeal. It is a matter of balance. He was not fined $200 for something he believes he has not done. He thinks he is entitled to $140 shoes over and above his benefit.
The third issue is should taxpayer fund interest free loans for those on benefits. Most people do not have a high life on a benefit but there would be plenty on a low income who would be struggling more than some on benefits. They do not get interest free loans nor should they. Why should those on benefits?
I wonder what a $200 interest free loan would cost the taxpayer. I suspect it would be quite a lot. There is not just the interest foregone but administration costs. I also wonder how things would work on a higher loan. Say the person goes off the benefit. How much does it cost to make sure the loan repayments continue to get paid? How many of these loans do not get fully repaid? What happens if the beneficiary ends up in jail? Is the loan written off?
The government could make up for the money this case has cost. It should stop these sort of loans.
Jan 31 10 10:35 am
Media sensationalism made sure they twisted the story for ratings. If you have worked hard and have just a modicum of assets, you are refused a liveable benfit. If you can’t to get a job quicksmart, or find a business worth risking your only asset on, you have to start firesaling down to survive. Those between the ages of 45-65 make up the highest of any age group registered for a benefit. 130,00 in 2007, my age group. Unable to get a job, or a benefit, or find a business worth risking my only asset on, and still suposed to be working, and wirth the cost of property going up, I thought if I can find property that was self funding, at least I wouldn’t be loosing out all round. WINZ then tried to hook into variously, the principal , the interest , then the rental. this would have seen foreclosure. The object of the story is that WINZ are prepared to drive the hard grafter into financial jeopardybefore they’ll help them.On the one hand the govt. espouses hard work on the other they are prepared to drive you into what can amount to bankruptcy. See msd-winz-billboardprotest-webs.com for story, policy, and please register to protest
against these punitive policies. Thanks. Trinette Tawse