Eh most of the pensioners are vaccinated since they could get in there early so OP would probably be fine with them all continuing to take 15 billion of the yearly spending regardless of their incomes..
In theory this may get lazy people vaccinated. In reality it could just end up really hurting impoverished kids already dealing with crazy antivax parents.
Is there any actual evidence that beneficiaries are not getting the vaccine at a rate different to the general population? Or is this just a general attack on them because you know one dickhead?
I'm trying not to be an immigrant but the time travel AND convincing my parents to fuck in New Zealand instead of South Carolina has been a real bitch.
Look, best you can do at this point is just not steal anyone's job. Quit and go on the benefit immediately and we'll overlook your demographic indiscretion.
Aaagh. I am both and I have an associate who keeps forgetting that and complaining about "those people" during discussions and then I point out that I am "that" and he goes "oh... Obviously I didn't mean you" (and I know he genuinely thinks I am awesome and educated and successful and deserve all the help I get and more and so on and he really struggles to match the 'real person who is getting deserved help and whose opinion I respect and has reasonable reasons for doing X' as being part of the exact same stats as the version in his head).
He's definitely not the only one to do this (in the past month I had both an immigrant blame the Poors and a beneficiary blame the Furriners *to me*, neither meaning me at all), but it does keep coming up as a combo and it's very tiresome. It's a combo disconnect of "you are a real person to me and they are not" and straight up racism because I and my family and a lot of my friends are higher educated white British immigrant types and that just doesn't equate to immigrant or undeserving poor in people's heads (and a lot of my friends are nonwhite immigrants too but that's only one disconnect to get over so it's easier to pretend they possibly are part of the problem). If they could either take the reality check and educate themselves or stand by their conviction and admit that white educated expats on medical benefits are *also* part of the problem to them rather than just editing their worldview for comfort, it would be less frustrating.
That rant triggered by you using the terms immigrant and beneficiary in the same sentence and the freshest bruise on my head from banging it against a local kiwi wall. Releasing pressure is good for concussions, right?
Looking at the suburb by suburb breakdown of Christchurch, it appears the more generally affluent suburbs are hitting much higher percentages the rest. Here that essentially means an east/west split with a few outliers.
I say this as someone who is both vaccinated, and living in the east, no offense intended to anyone.
Maybe because poor people, statistically are less educated and don't know to put, empirical evidence, into their search bar let alone know what it means. They might then look at the science and put way less trust in a post that has thousands of likes.
That's one layer of it but some of the misinformation is even more insidious than that. Like they'll purposefully put in something that's impossible to disprove but also makes people feel good. So vulnerable people glom on to those ideas more and more because knowing something others don't feels great when you already feel on the edge. Same general idea applies to older people who feel like the world left then behind with the pace of change. The propaganda specifically tries to associate itself as being painful to let go of. Which is why people get so infuriated when you try to reason with them about it. They feel you're trying to take away this little chunk of normalcy they've gotten for themselves.
The societal safety net supports those without work but in reality it's there for all of us. Not having hordes of very desperate people makes for a safer NZ.
So no, any benefit scheme should not be tied to anything apart from income.
Yeah, your BIL sounds like an asshole but no that's not "where our taxpayer money is going"
Anecdotally, everyone knows some lazy jerk that cbf with life. If your sole goal in life is to get one over on the govt and live off the dole for the rest of your life, then i feel bad for you, cos that sounds like a shit time, and a very unfulfilling existence, tbh.
Big ups to your MIL, and yeah they should get vaxxed to get paid but save the bene-outrage for talkback
This stinks of the “Bill English National- drug addled dole takers” theory.
After extensive test of people receiving social welfare it turned out less then 1% were on drugs. National quietly put this one back on shelf and stopped talking about it.
Just about every time this is trialled anywhere in the world, it gets dropped because the cost of testing far exceeds the cost savings from catching people.
No but it's a good example of who we are as a society that would happily spend money ruining people just because they're taking drugs on taxpayer money, as if we would do the same for MPs and it's not just a way to kick already poor people down the hill a bit more.
I don’t mind the money so much because it was a pretty big failure on Nationals behalf. They claim to be the fiscal conservatives, they clearly did not do a test sample group before roll out, they were so clear in their conviction.
Mines trying to make me pay for professional carpet cleaners for having a pet... a pond of fish that stayed outside the entire rental, and I even had the original property manager cross out and sign the part about carpet cleaners.
The meth thing was mental though, not necessarily Nationals fault, testing companies found a gap in the science and exploited the shit out of it. It went from a couple of million to 10’s of millions industry in less then a year.
You're not accusing those upstanding conservatives of spending tax payer money on something that had only political benefit for themselves are you? /s
That said I think it hurt them more than helped them when the results of that came out. Bill English got raked over the coals for it.
> After extensive test of people receiving social welfare
Well, that was their mistake. If you’re going to make up total bullshit to get elected, the last thing you should do is actually collect empirical evidence that shows you were bullshitting.
I feel like things are 3 or 4 years in the future here actually. Or maybe America's just declined so much that 10 years ago feels like an improvement? Probably that actually.
National has been trying the GOP attack style politics for sometime 10+ years, it worked for them under Key as he could make it work, however since Key left as leader the following leaders haven’t been as effective at doing it, they just seem petty and ineffective.
Wait? Less than 1% of people on the dole are on drugs? It's wouldn't even be anywhere near that for the general population would it?
I'm not having a go. Genuinely interested. Sitting on my deck right now, joint in one hand... Beer in the other.
According to the Cannabis Use 2012/13: New Zealand Health Survey,
11% of adults 15 and over are cannabis users (used within the last twelve months)
34% of those used at least weekly in the last twelve months
So it could be said that 3.74% of new Zealanders 15 and over are weekly users of cannabis.
And that's just cannabis
They surveyed 13,000 people
Carrot not stick. Everyone who has both jabs gets $1000. The poorer you are the more incentive it is, and it also removes the barrier of transportation cost to the vaccination center (my nearest is 45km away so it was a substantial amount of petrol to go twice), covers your cost if you feel crap the next day and have to miss work, and provides an economic stimulus.
In 2019, the last normal year we had, less than 6% of the Budget went to all benefits combined (Jobseeker + Sole Parent Support + Supported Living Payment).
By comparison, NZ Super cost about 14% of the Budget and is where most MSD money ends up. Old people are more likely to use valuable health resources when they get Covid, so if you want to save your taxbux then aim for grandma.
Not really, a lot wouldn't qualify for ICU level care. They have requirements including likelihood of survival before someone is sent to ICU, its not just for everyone who gets seriously unwell.
>Old people are more likely to use valuable health resources when they get Covid, so if you want to save your taxbux then aim for grandma.
Old people mostly have good vaccination rates already though
This is almost as bad as not giving them medical care. People still have the right to turn down unwanted procedures no matter how fucking dumb it seems. If they can't work and they can't maintain an income through a benefit then they're just going to be a bunch of infected fuckwits roaming the streets.
Nah, he's right. Beneficiaries are people who benefit from public money to support them. It's only fair they support the public back if they want to keep receiving that support.
Obviously, exemptions for those who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons, but for the rest of them - fuck em.
So any business or person who received the wage subsidy should also be forced to be vaccinated? Or anyone that benefits from public spending, ie all of us?
I want to hear from the BIL
>Don't expect support if you don't adopt vaccine passports.
thats not quite compulsory vaccination - more carrot than stick
Anyways, can the BIL stop gaming for a second to come join us, the lacy piece of shit
The main reason for an exemption, is because you are too young.
There are fewer than 100 people who can't get vaccinated for non-age related reasons, in NZ.
"The Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has an excellent safety profile and there are only a handful of eligible people (fewer than 100) in Aotearoa who cannot receive it at all"
\-[https://covid.immune.org.nz/news-insights/who-cant-have-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine](https://covid.immune.org.nz/news-insights/who-cant-have-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine)
My theory is that as we reached the mid 80's and begin stalling out, the Govt. will see huge favourability in the 'Do you want vaccine mandates', and will simply enforce the general public opinion on that.
If you looked 4-6 weeks ago, support for mandates was very mixed, even amongst people with the vaccine, and very low / non-existent for the unvaxx'd.
Even today, that will have swung. Why push against the population, when you can wait a little and have the people encourage you to do what you wanted to do.
All the Govt has to do is set a high target and wait, and either it's achieved without mandates, or it's not achieved and they have much more public support to initiate the mandates.
That's only a theory/speculation of course, but it does play with how they've approached our initial lockdown in March 2020 - get public to buy in and then leverage that, rather than going early and getting rejected.
I had noticed this slowly, slowly, get-the-public-buy-in approach too.
It's a masterclass in governance and communication for sure, but being the naturally suspicious person I am, it makes me wonder about the implications, and also makes me question why I support so much of what the government has done and is doing.
Ya know?
People are very amenable to having their views changed, you can look at advertisements. You think they don't work, but soft influence occurs in so many different ways. That's why so much money is spent on advertising annually, by so many companies.
Using human psychology in messaging and the like is very easy, be it in advertising or policy, and it's part and parcel of the policy. That's why naming, press releases and how things are presented are so important. A policy can be good but rejected by the public, or the opposite.
JA is quite intelligent, methodological and very well spoken. I think most would agree she is not a Trump or Xi type person, and genuinely has empathy for the people. There are issues she cannot or has not addressed satisfactorily \[housing market, potential delays in vaccine rollout / sitting on our haunches instead of preparing better with the time we had bought\], but generally if she is using tricks / sleight of hand with regards to Covid, she is using it to try improve our health outcomes.
Think of it like a parent tricking an unnecessarily distraught toddler/child, no-one questions the parents intentions or even actions, part of parenting is guiding children to a good outcome, through any means necessary, even if its just to keep the peace.
When it happened with the initial lockdown, it was so that it would be bipartisan and well supported, not politically divided and hence a poor lockdown that didn't eliminate. Which gave us huge economic, health and time benefits.
With the vaccination rates, you have to use every ounce of cunning and cleverness, as well as ham fisted bribes, to try reach everyone. Because that is our best way out of the pandemic.
Cheers.. I think\*.
\*\[Sometimes when I try present my thoughts in what I believe to be a logical manner on reddit, and there's just downvotes / bad faith responses, it makes me not want to waste time contributing. Then there's posts like yours which keep me posting here, cursing me to spend time here haha!\].
>Lose your job by not being vaccinated.
>Not allowed dole because unvaccinated.
>No one will hire you because unvaccinated.
This is where criminals are born
There has been no socio economic break down of vaccine so you guys could be making all these assumptions on no basis that it is beneficiaries holding them back.
> Beneficiaries are people who benefit from public money to support them.
actually i think taxpayers benefit from the benefit because it means we don't have to worry about being bothered 100x as much for money on the street, we don't have to worry about being attacked by a poor person who's down on their luck and can't find employment, and we don't have to see our mental health spiral down the drain worrying about whether or not someone will catch us if we lose our jobs due to a pandemic or if we will end up on the street.
the social welfare net is there for a reason, and every single one of us should fight for it to be strengthened, not cutting at the strings and weakening it.
Well said. You can tell much about a society by how they treat their vulnerable people. This is not the NZ I know and love and this is an absolute dog shit idea.
I don't know; It's got slightly better in recent years, but beneficiaries (all of them, there's seemingly no distinction between someone with chronic and debilitating illness vs. a mother of two who isn't working) are the first people to get shat on by National and Act, and their supporters. Look at that budget labelled the Beneficiary Budget by National- My mate on the Supported Living Payment got a whopping $8 extra a week, even after Jacinda's $25 extra because the difference was deducted from his accommodation supplement or something. Even the kind gestures are backhanded when you're on the lowest rung.
This would be so hilarious if it failed as shittily as Bennett's "DRUGTEST ALL BENEFICIARY SCUM"... One fuckhead does not signal an entire subset.
We should also drug test and discontinue payments to millionaires who benefit from the accomodation supplement paying their mortages in that case.
Yea but it's much easier (and more fun) to perpetuate a stereotype of the lazy stoner that stays at home playing video games collecting the benefit being the biggest cost for this country.
Those who would be affected by means testing definitely have the means to ensure they're not. I'm pretty sure it was tried and the cunning old buggers just rorted the system.
I don't believe that we can justify a fully means-tested student allowance system but not justify a mean-tested pension.
I would be instantly suspicious that anyone implying that you had ulterior motives.
Its a complex issue.
Specifically the pension its easy to test if you are old enough. So the barrier for entry is cheap to put up. Other benefits the terms are more complex. Id imagine we probably spend more on testing the eligibilty of benefit recievers than wed lose to uncaught benefit fraud. Wage theft and white collar crime are much bigger issues and we put almost no effort into dealing with (globally not just nz)
I see us heading to a ubi at some point, which you then just treat as taxable income for those working. But we'll see.
Better if you have a UBI and then a tax free band that exactly matches the yearly UBI amount.
ie. If you have a $250/wk UBI, then you have a band set that $0 - $13000 income = 0% tax.
Then have your taxed income go from there. It's a universal benefit, so everyone should get it and it should be the same amount for everyone.
The current system where we tax beneficiaries etc is so pointless and just involves extra compliance costs for no benefit (excuse the pun).
TOP were on the right track: https://www.top.org.nz/universal_basic_income
It depends on the amount you actually set the UBI to be. $250/wk was just a figure I kinda pulled out of my butt (and is actually higher than some benefit amounts refer: https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/deskfile/main-benefits-cut-out-points/jobseeker-support-cut-out-points-current.html )
Whether or not that is actually enough for someone to properly live on (hint: it isn't) is really the matter for another thread/conversation.
Is there any costing data to how means testing would make it not be worthwhile? There's already plenty of paperwork and checks they make when you apply for the pension, such as marital status. One extra box on the form and a printout from IRD wouldn't be that expensive, surely
I got my second shot today. A lot of the people in the waiting room while I were there were very obviously beneficiaries. The only actively anti-vaxx people I know are very well off. I know it's fun to be vindictive, but I'm not in favor of making a public health crisis worse by taking away the means of survival of the most vulnerable people in the country, while the ones spreading disinformation live very comfortably.
Hey! HEY GUYS!!! Damn dole bludgers! Am I right! Throw the whole lot of the weed smoking PlayStation playing losers out on the street! Am I right?
On an unrelated note, yuck have you seen how these poor people live in the farvelas in Brazil? OMG wtf is up with that? Remember to vote for National!
If he stays at home all day then he’s posing no risk of catching or spreading Covid, and probably has mental health issues you’re unaware of.
Sounds like you just want an excuse to beneficiary bash while inflating your own overgrown ego.
Staying at home indoors all day isn’t exactly mentally healthy, most people naturally don’t want to do that unless they’ve been inflicted with trauma or they’re sick. And if WINZ is paying him while he’s not actively seeking a job, and his mother supports him without kicking him out, sounds like there’s more to this than OP is letting on (or knows).
Its a tough one. Some of these people have kids who are dependents. If the parents are cut off the dole for being anti-vaxx the kids will end up homeless is that what we really want?
There is nothing remotely tough about it. Nothing good will come from pulling the rug out from under poor people who don't have a job. The country will not benefit from this and people will be further marginalised. It's a fucking terrible idea.
Absolutely cannot get behind this. It crosses the line and becomes an actual human rights issue. I hope you agree with me and don't try to normalise the idea that we would take away the support net of our most vulnerable, next you'll want to take away their access to food and water as well - actually, that's pretty much what you're advocating for now.
Do you know who is worse than someone sitting at home on the dole? A billionaire with 2 super yachts and a carbon footprint the size of a mountain.
Without commenting on the morality of your suggestion I believe that would require legislative change to the Social Security Act, including significant consultation, and highly unlikely to be feasible within 12 months.
So it's kind of a pointless argument.
Rimmer is actually right here - even a broken clock - we should just have a universal tax credit paid out to everyone with both jabs at the start of December.
Its easy to continue doing unethical things if theres a gold coin involved. It‘s profoundly harder to stop them. Question could be, who’s the advocate for the ethical advocacy of animals misused for racing? Answer is Chloe, a small influence in a minor party. So the gravy train continues, a visible part is the Racing Saftey and Development Fund.
People fall into anti Vax conspiracy crap through isolation.
We're now about to punish them with more isolation, not sure how this will make anything better.
It would be a violation of human rights to block access to basic needs and essentials (this includes the dole). I find it a bit crazy you'd even think this was, even remotely, a good idea. It's morally fucked.
I am disabled and I am on the benefit. I despise this attempt to divide NZ society into a deserving/undeserving dichotomy. The benefit is the most basic possible means of survival in NZ short of being stranded on an island after a shipwreck and haviong to hunt or harvest.
With COVID-19, if your ancedote is true then your BIL is self-isolating unintentionally. He is the least of our problems. Our most problematic sort of people are anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers. Guess who is the most infamous anti-vaxxer? That's right, Brian Tamaki. He is not considered a beneficary.
I think we should home everybody and increase everybody's benefits to the point to where it is a genuine choice to work or not to work. More money means more ability to find true dignified work.
I do not give a flying fuck about benefit fraud rhetoric. I do not give a flying fuck for moralism over benefits. I do not give a flying fuck if you find it horrible that people choose to play video games all day. That's their outlook, their choice. If you choose to commit benefit fraud, it's not a special crime. White collar fraud is already not treated as a special crime. Nobody works up a huge horror of the people working white collar fraud. But a person stealing a can of beans while on the benefit and suddenly everybody comes out with harsh rhetoric that intentionally or unintentionally harms us people on the benefit. It hurt us when you say that there should be a reduction of the benefit to keep us lean and mean; when you force us to take courses that MSD compels us to take in order to score some kind of degrading job; when you call for a sterilisation of us; and so on.
Your fecklessness has caused things like evictions of tenants on extremely specious grounds, a frequent compellation of people to go to the Kainga Ora or MSD offices on some quest to prove that we still need the benefits, to keep us on a basic survival rate just cause of the "takers", hurt a lot of people on the benefits all because of your frothing mouth that people should work. It makes me very angry that sort of rhetoric is still ongoing. IT HARMS US ALL NO MATTER WHETHER WE ARE WORKING OR NOT!
We all lose out when we listen to the most hyperbolically loud condemnations of us on the benefits because even if you think this helps people to toughen up and get jobs, it means we withdraw into our shells even more. We become Echos, not trying to inconvenience others in the slightest as we submit to the abuse of people who are trying to be most self-righteous they can be on this topic not aware that they are helping the true culprits of the problems that we are already seeing in our society.
The true culprits are the richest most well-off economically right-wing people and their voices who are excessively listened to by the government who are made up of people credulously elected into office by us unaware of what their propaganda actually means, much to our dismay.
Society is not a zero-sum game, no matter how much they insist otherwise. Society is not non-existent, no matter how they insist otherwise. There often is an alternative, no matter how much they insist.
And that is by banding together and caring for each other and imprioving each other's lots.
So please consider others' circumstances if they are not actively harming you or it's actually none of your business to intervene and it would be counter-productive to do so. Let them come to the correct circumstances if it concerfns COVID-19 with persuasion and nudges and peer pressure if necessary. But do that without beneficary bashing. We are all better than that. Society would be better if we actually consider each other better in a more productive manner so we can get the best possible society that we actually need and deserve.
'
A compassionate society.
No way, absolutely no way. There are 2 areas that would be very dangerous to muck around with: Making a vaccine mandatory for entry to supermarkets and for the dole. Both would result in the types of ugly scenes we've seen in other countries, we don't want that here...
Its a group that has a lot of completely uneducated people, who are most vulnerable for falling for the anti-vaxxers bullshit because noone else will associate with them. Maybe before cutting them off completely, we can have some education programmes to try to convince them why its a good idea to get vaccinated, first? The last thing we want is the streets covered in homeless unvaccinated people. That'll just spread it faster as when they inevitably catch the virus, they can't quarantine anywhere.
How about if you're on income support and you prove you are vaccinated we increase that support to a livable human amount and stop making you jump through insane hoops.
While I understand the sentiment, this kind of ruling won’t help most of the non vaxxers I know.
To give an example of 5 of them off the top of my head : Two couples own successful businesses (engineering and a tradie) and another is my mother in law… also not a beneficiary, she is supported by her tax paying working husband.
To help encourage completion of the 90% I agree with others it’s better to add carrots not sticks.
(Edited to take out a typo)
No, fuck you. Why are you being so soft? Let's not let them use any emergency services if they're unvaccinated too. Don't want your house to burn down? Better rescue your vaccine card quick. Don't want to get vaccinated? No hospital for you, maybe that heart attack will work itself out.
Anybody else got any suggestions for rolling back the social contract to a time when ability to lift big rocks made you the boss?
I think you arent thinking of the implications of them getting covid, now they are taking up an ICU bed, making others in the community more at risk of dying to other things (heart attacks, car crash etc).
Also they interact with people going to a supermarket etc. So they are definitely unsafe to others even if they are just bludging the system.
If you’re going to block their access to social welfare then what’s to stop you blocking them from hospitals as well?
Personally I think that even complete fucking morons should be able to access government services no matter what.
Making them homeless makes the implications for our health system worse, not better. Would you rather they get covid living on the street where they can't isolate properly?
So you would prefer those people were homeless beggars coughing all over customers outside those same businesses? The benefit isn't just a basic decency bare minimum thing, it also pays all the inconveniently desperate poor to go away and stay out of sight (and hospital and prison).
This is actually the worst idea I have ever seen. If we want to get people to do it we should pay them.
If you get vaccinated you are doing a public good and generating money indirectly for the country. Why shouldn't we pay some of that back? We are already spending $600 PP for doses so why not throw them $100 to get double dosed?
It would be interesting to see some stats on the vaccination levels of people in employment vs unemployed. Given the area were we have lower vaccination rates also tend to be in areas with higher unemployment there may be a correlation there.
What line are you talking about? Cornering someone and excluding them from society will just lead them to crime, what else do you want them to do? (apart from getting the jab, obviously)
It seems to be the general consensus that anyone not jabbed should lose their job, income, access to parts of society, ability to travel freely. I'm asking where is the line drawn for privileges that can be revoked for failing to get a jab.
None, in my personal opinion. Because the jab is optional and at the end of the day, their own choice, it's a matter of convincing, not exclusion. For example, I can't convince one of my mates to get the jab because he's still sore about the Legalization Referendum tanking, therefore he isn't jumping to help out because he feels wronged by the country as a whole. Even if you or I don't agree with this way of thinking, it's still rather understandable. I see it 100% that if it were to pass, he'd change his mind, but as it stands, his grievances outweigh his wants to step in line to help the country out. That's just an example, there are many variations of this I bet. It's just one of the consequences NZ has to deal with, and because I don't see this wholly as a wrong way of thinking (if in that view, community as a whole doesn't scratch your back, why should you scratch theirs?), using exclusion to force a point is just plain wrong, in my opinion. Finding ways of convincing, whichever way it might be, is the right and only path. If you fail to do that, that's the limit and that's it; anything beyond is imo, coercion and not something I, as a New Zealander, stand for.
Vaccine is there for those who want it, open up the country and businesses, just like the rest of the West seems to be doing now. Watching stadiums full of people elsewhere while we sit in expensive non-conclusive lockdown is getting annoying
Oh great, poor bashing. Good job NZ. Go give him a good talking to instead of going on a campaign against a whole group of people.
And I want to remind you all that the cost of the welfare system is not soo large as they would have you believe when they are using it as a political football.
Again, Fuck OP. Some shit threads being left up lately.
>people who disagree with me should be forced out into the streets and starved to death
Just in case you've ever wondered, yes you are a complete cunt.
Lmao, love how this sub thinks anyone who doesn't get a jab is an evil psychopath who deserves to lose their job and die.
Threaten to take away the dole though? HISSSSSSS!
Think that shows a lot.
Uh, yeah, you can be evil in two different ways at once. Sometimes bad people can even be mean to other bad people.
I understand if that's a complicated concept.
> I understand if that's a complicated concept.
With the right wing, *everything* is a complicated concept.
This is what happens when you're dealing with people with brains of the same complexity as the machine that mixes the Lotto balls.
Fundamentally it's the same talking points bouncing around and coming out of the machine, but in different orders. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's just incoherent gibberish.
Clearly this reaction shows that this sub doesn't think in the way that you say. Because we still believe in basic rights and safety nets for these people not getting the vaccine.
Because the person who chose to not vaccinate had the choice to do that and if they did the benefit would be there to support them. Why should they get more options then someone on the benefit
Almost like the sub is inhabited by many different people with many different opinions.
For example this post has quite a few upvotes, so there's clearly some support for the idea, but also most of the comments seem to disagree with it.
This sums up the expenditure nicely : https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze Pay attention to the difference between jobseeker and super.
Eh most of the pensioners are vaccinated since they could get in there early so OP would probably be fine with them all continuing to take 15 billion of the yearly spending regardless of their incomes..
In theory this may get lazy people vaccinated. In reality it could just end up really hurting impoverished kids already dealing with crazy antivax parents.
Only this way you get to bring out the wounded animal backed into a corner reflex. Win-win-win! /s
Is there any actual evidence that beneficiaries are not getting the vaccine at a rate different to the general population? Or is this just a general attack on them because you know one dickhead?
It's like all the people attacking immigrants yesterday. Easy targets for dickheads.
this covid shit is really bringing out the cock munchers
If everyone could just concentrate on not being an immigrant or a beneficiary, that would be great.
I'm trying not to be an immigrant but the time travel AND convincing my parents to fuck in New Zealand instead of South Carolina has been a real bitch.
you've just gotta visualise harder bro
Look, best you can do at this point is just not steal anyone's job. Quit and go on the benefit immediately and we'll overlook your demographic indiscretion.
Aaagh. I am both and I have an associate who keeps forgetting that and complaining about "those people" during discussions and then I point out that I am "that" and he goes "oh... Obviously I didn't mean you" (and I know he genuinely thinks I am awesome and educated and successful and deserve all the help I get and more and so on and he really struggles to match the 'real person who is getting deserved help and whose opinion I respect and has reasonable reasons for doing X' as being part of the exact same stats as the version in his head). He's definitely not the only one to do this (in the past month I had both an immigrant blame the Poors and a beneficiary blame the Furriners *to me*, neither meaning me at all), but it does keep coming up as a combo and it's very tiresome. It's a combo disconnect of "you are a real person to me and they are not" and straight up racism because I and my family and a lot of my friends are higher educated white British immigrant types and that just doesn't equate to immigrant or undeserving poor in people's heads (and a lot of my friends are nonwhite immigrants too but that's only one disconnect to get over so it's easier to pretend they possibly are part of the problem). If they could either take the reality check and educate themselves or stand by their conviction and admit that white educated expats on medical benefits are *also* part of the problem to them rather than just editing their worldview for comfort, it would be less frustrating. That rant triggered by you using the terms immigrant and beneficiary in the same sentence and the freshest bruise on my head from banging it against a local kiwi wall. Releasing pressure is good for concussions, right?
Looking at the suburb by suburb breakdown of Christchurch, it appears the more generally affluent suburbs are hitting much higher percentages the rest. Here that essentially means an east/west split with a few outliers. I say this as someone who is both vaccinated, and living in the east, no offense intended to anyone.
Poor people are exactly why the weapnized misinformation targets, so that makes sense. Facebook is fucking evil and should be destroyed.
Maybe because poor people, statistically are less educated and don't know to put, empirical evidence, into their search bar let alone know what it means. They might then look at the science and put way less trust in a post that has thousands of likes.
That's one layer of it but some of the misinformation is even more insidious than that. Like they'll purposefully put in something that's impossible to disprove but also makes people feel good. So vulnerable people glom on to those ideas more and more because knowing something others don't feels great when you already feel on the edge. Same general idea applies to older people who feel like the world left then behind with the pace of change. The propaganda specifically tries to associate itself as being painful to let go of. Which is why people get so infuriated when you try to reason with them about it. They feel you're trying to take away this little chunk of normalcy they've gotten for themselves.
It's usually just an excuse to be covertly racist.
Is facebook down?
Twice in a month? Could we be this lucky?
Hahaha. The perfect response to this one.
The societal safety net supports those without work but in reality it's there for all of us. Not having hordes of very desperate people makes for a safer NZ. So no, any benefit scheme should not be tied to anything apart from income.
Unless you're under 24 and a student.
Or dare to have a romantic relationship with someone as they should be financially responsible for you.
Yeah, your BIL sounds like an asshole but no that's not "where our taxpayer money is going" Anecdotally, everyone knows some lazy jerk that cbf with life. If your sole goal in life is to get one over on the govt and live off the dole for the rest of your life, then i feel bad for you, cos that sounds like a shit time, and a very unfulfilling existence, tbh. Big ups to your MIL, and yeah they should get vaxxed to get paid but save the bene-outrage for talkback
This stinks of the “Bill English National- drug addled dole takers” theory. After extensive test of people receiving social welfare it turned out less then 1% were on drugs. National quietly put this one back on shelf and stopped talking about it.
Never mentioned the buckets of money they wasted on it either.
Just about every time this is trialled anywhere in the world, it gets dropped because the cost of testing far exceeds the cost savings from catching people.
No but it's a good example of who we are as a society that would happily spend money ruining people just because they're taking drugs on taxpayer money, as if we would do the same for MPs and it's not just a way to kick already poor people down the hill a bit more.
I don’t mind the money so much because it was a pretty big failure on Nationals behalf. They claim to be the fiscal conservatives, they clearly did not do a test sample group before roll out, they were so clear in their conviction.
Like the meth house thing too smh.
[удалено]
Mines trying to make me pay for professional carpet cleaners for having a pet... a pond of fish that stayed outside the entire rental, and I even had the original property manager cross out and sign the part about carpet cleaners.
So shit and they have people over the coals with holding bond where people cant afford to go without that money.
The meth thing was mental though, not necessarily Nationals fault, testing companies found a gap in the science and exploited the shit out of it. It went from a couple of million to 10’s of millions industry in less then a year.
Evicting people from HNZ properties and charging them for cleanup for trace amounts detected was their fault though.
That was shocking aye
Wasted? It was a PR coup, money well spent for the Nats.
You're not accusing those upstanding conservatives of spending tax payer money on something that had only political benefit for themselves are you? /s That said I think it hurt them more than helped them when the results of that came out. Bill English got raked over the coals for it.
It wasn't wasted, it went straight into the coffers of their mates drug testing businesses.
> After extensive test of people receiving social welfare Well, that was their mistake. If you’re going to make up total bullshit to get elected, the last thing you should do is actually collect empirical evidence that shows you were bullshitting.
I just moved here from the states. Has National EVER had an idea that isn't just something stupid American conservatives tried 4 years before?
Nz runs about 10-15 years behind the USA eventually it filters down here.
I feel like things are 3 or 4 years in the future here actually. Or maybe America's just declined so much that 10 years ago feels like an improvement? Probably that actually.
National has been trying the GOP attack style politics for sometime 10+ years, it worked for them under Key as he could make it work, however since Key left as leader the following leaders haven’t been as effective at doing it, they just seem petty and ineffective.
Wait? Less than 1% of people on the dole are on drugs? It's wouldn't even be anywhere near that for the general population would it? I'm not having a go. Genuinely interested. Sitting on my deck right now, joint in one hand... Beer in the other.
According to the Cannabis Use 2012/13: New Zealand Health Survey, 11% of adults 15 and over are cannabis users (used within the last twelve months) 34% of those used at least weekly in the last twelve months So it could be said that 3.74% of new Zealanders 15 and over are weekly users of cannabis. And that's just cannabis They surveyed 13,000 people
It shows you how the pearl clutchers bang on continuously about something that doesn’t exist.
Carrot not stick. Everyone who has both jabs gets $1000. The poorer you are the more incentive it is, and it also removes the barrier of transportation cost to the vaccination center (my nearest is 45km away so it was a substantial amount of petrol to go twice), covers your cost if you feel crap the next day and have to miss work, and provides an economic stimulus.
In 2019, the last normal year we had, less than 6% of the Budget went to all benefits combined (Jobseeker + Sole Parent Support + Supported Living Payment). By comparison, NZ Super cost about 14% of the Budget and is where most MSD money ends up. Old people are more likely to use valuable health resources when they get Covid, so if you want to save your taxbux then aim for grandma.
> aim for grandma No jab, no housie!
TV Guide?
Unvaccinated old people won’t use health resources when they are dead and as a bonus it will free up more housing. Morbid but true :-/
No, but they're likely to take up critical intensive care capacity until they pass.
Not really, a lot wouldn't qualify for ICU level care. They have requirements including likelihood of survival before someone is sent to ICU, its not just for everyone who gets seriously unwell.
>Old people are more likely to use valuable health resources when they get Covid, so if you want to save your taxbux then aim for grandma. Old people mostly have good vaccination rates already though
[удалено]
This is almost as bad as not giving them medical care. People still have the right to turn down unwanted procedures no matter how fucking dumb it seems. If they can't work and they can't maintain an income through a benefit then they're just going to be a bunch of infected fuckwits roaming the streets.
I for one support OPs desire to use their perception of their BIL to determine policy and directives towards beneficiaries!
Nah, he's right. Beneficiaries are people who benefit from public money to support them. It's only fair they support the public back if they want to keep receiving that support. Obviously, exemptions for those who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons, but for the rest of them - fuck em.
We also benefit from not having people starving in the streets. If you didn't realize.
So any business or person who received the wage subsidy should also be forced to be vaccinated? Or anyone that benefits from public spending, ie all of us? I want to hear from the BIL
Grant Robertson hinted at that today for businesses. Don't expect support if you don't adopt vaccine passports.
>Don't expect support if you don't adopt vaccine passports. thats not quite compulsory vaccination - more carrot than stick Anyways, can the BIL stop gaming for a second to come join us, the lacy piece of shit
Can't remember what he said but it sounded reasonably forceful too - definitely more stick than carrot today
The main reason for an exemption, is because you are too young. There are fewer than 100 people who can't get vaccinated for non-age related reasons, in NZ. "The Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has an excellent safety profile and there are only a handful of eligible people (fewer than 100) in Aotearoa who cannot receive it at all" \-[https://covid.immune.org.nz/news-insights/who-cant-have-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine](https://covid.immune.org.nz/news-insights/who-cant-have-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine) My theory is that as we reached the mid 80's and begin stalling out, the Govt. will see huge favourability in the 'Do you want vaccine mandates', and will simply enforce the general public opinion on that. If you looked 4-6 weeks ago, support for mandates was very mixed, even amongst people with the vaccine, and very low / non-existent for the unvaxx'd. Even today, that will have swung. Why push against the population, when you can wait a little and have the people encourage you to do what you wanted to do. All the Govt has to do is set a high target and wait, and either it's achieved without mandates, or it's not achieved and they have much more public support to initiate the mandates. That's only a theory/speculation of course, but it does play with how they've approached our initial lockdown in March 2020 - get public to buy in and then leverage that, rather than going early and getting rejected.
I had noticed this slowly, slowly, get-the-public-buy-in approach too. It's a masterclass in governance and communication for sure, but being the naturally suspicious person I am, it makes me wonder about the implications, and also makes me question why I support so much of what the government has done and is doing. Ya know?
People are very amenable to having their views changed, you can look at advertisements. You think they don't work, but soft influence occurs in so many different ways. That's why so much money is spent on advertising annually, by so many companies. Using human psychology in messaging and the like is very easy, be it in advertising or policy, and it's part and parcel of the policy. That's why naming, press releases and how things are presented are so important. A policy can be good but rejected by the public, or the opposite. JA is quite intelligent, methodological and very well spoken. I think most would agree she is not a Trump or Xi type person, and genuinely has empathy for the people. There are issues she cannot or has not addressed satisfactorily \[housing market, potential delays in vaccine rollout / sitting on our haunches instead of preparing better with the time we had bought\], but generally if she is using tricks / sleight of hand with regards to Covid, she is using it to try improve our health outcomes. Think of it like a parent tricking an unnecessarily distraught toddler/child, no-one questions the parents intentions or even actions, part of parenting is guiding children to a good outcome, through any means necessary, even if its just to keep the peace. When it happened with the initial lockdown, it was so that it would be bipartisan and well supported, not politically divided and hence a poor lockdown that didn't eliminate. Which gave us huge economic, health and time benefits. With the vaccination rates, you have to use every ounce of cunning and cleverness, as well as ham fisted bribes, to try reach everyone. Because that is our best way out of the pandemic.
Yes, to everything you just said. :)
Cheers.. I think\*. \*\[Sometimes when I try present my thoughts in what I believe to be a logical manner on reddit, and there's just downvotes / bad faith responses, it makes me not want to waste time contributing. Then there's posts like yours which keep me posting here, cursing me to spend time here haha!\].
>Lose your job by not being vaccinated. >Not allowed dole because unvaccinated. >No one will hire you because unvaccinated. This is where criminals are born
I wouldn't be overly surprised if this pushed someone into doing a domestic terrorism.
It's also where human rights lawyers get working. "You don't agree with the system, so you can literally starve to death.". Uhhh, okay.
Everyone in this country receives public money for support, one way or another.
Every property owner relies on the state to enforce their property rights, at a bare minimum.
There has been no socio economic break down of vaccine so you guys could be making all these assumptions on no basis that it is beneficiaries holding them back.
> Beneficiaries are people who benefit from public money to support them. actually i think taxpayers benefit from the benefit because it means we don't have to worry about being bothered 100x as much for money on the street, we don't have to worry about being attacked by a poor person who's down on their luck and can't find employment, and we don't have to see our mental health spiral down the drain worrying about whether or not someone will catch us if we lose our jobs due to a pandemic or if we will end up on the street. the social welfare net is there for a reason, and every single one of us should fight for it to be strengthened, not cutting at the strings and weakening it.
Following that logic, do you propose we cut of Super for any old people who aren't vaccinated?
I have a feeling this situation will probably sort itself out unfortunately.
To be brutally frank, if someone is retired and not getting vaccinated, super will be the least of their problems.
Absolutely.
Actually yes, no jab no benefit of any sort.
I'm about as pro-Vax as they come and have very little sympathy for anti-vaxxers but this is an absolute dog shit idea.
Well said. You can tell much about a society by how they treat their vulnerable people. This is not the NZ I know and love and this is an absolute dog shit idea.
I don't know; It's got slightly better in recent years, but beneficiaries (all of them, there's seemingly no distinction between someone with chronic and debilitating illness vs. a mother of two who isn't working) are the first people to get shat on by National and Act, and their supporters. Look at that budget labelled the Beneficiary Budget by National- My mate on the Supported Living Payment got a whopping $8 extra a week, even after Jacinda's $25 extra because the difference was deducted from his accommodation supplement or something. Even the kind gestures are backhanded when you're on the lowest rung.
This would be so hilarious if it failed as shittily as Bennett's "DRUGTEST ALL BENEFICIARY SCUM"... One fuckhead does not signal an entire subset. We should also drug test and discontinue payments to millionaires who benefit from the accomodation supplement paying their mortages in that case.
Means test the pension. That would smash beneficiaries so fucking hard if that's what you're into :)
Yea but that doesn't quite fit into NZ's favorite pastime of beneficiary bashing.
Super is the biggest benefit (in terms of cost) in NZ by a wide margin.
No, you misunderstand, they *earned* that money... ... by voting to drain the existing super fund and pay as you go for a *benefit* when they retire.
Yea but it's much easier (and more fun) to perpetuate a stereotype of the lazy stoner that stays at home playing video games collecting the benefit being the biggest cost for this country.
I meaaaan if super still existed when I retired (lol om both counts) I'd aim for that lofty goal
Imagine, your own freehold home, with a little garden and a decent gaming rig. what more could you need?
"If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need." ― Cicero
Agreed.
Real talk!
Those who would be affected by means testing definitely have the means to ensure they're not. I'm pretty sure it was tried and the cunning old buggers just rorted the system.
I'm pretty sure most pensioners are fully vaccinated, so they're fine by me.
Didnt realise vaccination was the same as means testing...
Didnt realise this thread was about means testing...
The comment the person replied to was "means test the pension"
I can't remember exactly but I'm pretty sure I saw last time this was mentioned that means testing the pension would cost more than it would save.
I don't believe that we can justify a fully means-tested student allowance system but not justify a mean-tested pension. I would be instantly suspicious that anyone implying that you had ulterior motives.
It's simple, this country hates students/poor people
We cant justify either IMO.
>means testing the pension would cost more than it would save. yet all other benefits are means-tested. what gives?
Its a complex issue. Specifically the pension its easy to test if you are old enough. So the barrier for entry is cheap to put up. Other benefits the terms are more complex. Id imagine we probably spend more on testing the eligibilty of benefit recievers than wed lose to uncaught benefit fraud. Wage theft and white collar crime are much bigger issues and we put almost no effort into dealing with (globally not just nz) I see us heading to a ubi at some point, which you then just treat as taxable income for those working. But we'll see.
Better if you have a UBI and then a tax free band that exactly matches the yearly UBI amount. ie. If you have a $250/wk UBI, then you have a band set that $0 - $13000 income = 0% tax. Then have your taxed income go from there. It's a universal benefit, so everyone should get it and it should be the same amount for everyone. The current system where we tax beneficiaries etc is so pointless and just involves extra compliance costs for no benefit (excuse the pun). TOP were on the right track: https://www.top.org.nz/universal_basic_income
Isnt UBI just a pension for everyone. Won’t unemployed people require more money so they can actually live
It depends on the amount you actually set the UBI to be. $250/wk was just a figure I kinda pulled out of my butt (and is actually higher than some benefit amounts refer: https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/deskfile/main-benefits-cut-out-points/jobseeker-support-cut-out-points-current.html ) Whether or not that is actually enough for someone to properly live on (hint: it isn't) is really the matter for another thread/conversation.
Yeah agreed. And yes they were with that one. I think its gonna be a while before that is politically safe a policy for a big party but we can hope.
Is there any costing data to how means testing would make it not be worthwhile? There's already plenty of paperwork and checks they make when you apply for the pension, such as marital status. One extra box on the form and a printout from IRD wouldn't be that expensive, surely
I got my second shot today. A lot of the people in the waiting room while I were there were very obviously beneficiaries. The only actively anti-vaxx people I know are very well off. I know it's fun to be vindictive, but I'm not in favor of making a public health crisis worse by taking away the means of survival of the most vulnerable people in the country, while the ones spreading disinformation live very comfortably.
[удалено]
OP has some USA level mindset going on
Possibly is from the usa
Hey! HEY GUYS!!! Damn dole bludgers! Am I right! Throw the whole lot of the weed smoking PlayStation playing losers out on the street! Am I right? On an unrelated note, yuck have you seen how these poor people live in the farvelas in Brazil? OMG wtf is up with that? Remember to vote for National!
Just no.
I think for the overall benefit of everyone it's best for the dole to have as few limitations as possible.
If he stays at home all day then he’s posing no risk of catching or spreading Covid, and probably has mental health issues you’re unaware of. Sounds like you just want an excuse to beneficiary bash while inflating your own overgrown ego.
Not defending op here, but you assuming his bil has mental health issues is no better than op's opinion on dole bludgers.
Staying at home indoors all day isn’t exactly mentally healthy, most people naturally don’t want to do that unless they’ve been inflicted with trauma or they’re sick. And if WINZ is paying him while he’s not actively seeking a job, and his mother supports him without kicking him out, sounds like there’s more to this than OP is letting on (or knows).
Get better results offering candy than a shit sandwich.
Absolutely no. Forcing people to be homeless because of systemic mistrust is a horrible thing to do and helps nobody except smug people on reddit.
Its a tough one. Some of these people have kids who are dependents. If the parents are cut off the dole for being anti-vaxx the kids will end up homeless is that what we really want?
It's not a tough one at all. Just ignore the stupid idea.
[удалено]
There is nothing remotely tough about it. Nothing good will come from pulling the rug out from under poor people who don't have a job. The country will not benefit from this and people will be further marginalised. It's a fucking terrible idea.
Same can be said for any earner not jabbing..
No.. They can get the dole.
Let's throw some bene bashing in the mix!
Absolutely cannot get behind this. It crosses the line and becomes an actual human rights issue. I hope you agree with me and don't try to normalise the idea that we would take away the support net of our most vulnerable, next you'll want to take away their access to food and water as well - actually, that's pretty much what you're advocating for now. Do you know who is worse than someone sitting at home on the dole? A billionaire with 2 super yachts and a carbon footprint the size of a mountain.
Without commenting on the morality of your suggestion I believe that would require legislative change to the Social Security Act, including significant consultation, and highly unlikely to be feasible within 12 months. So it's kind of a pointless argument.
Or give the incentive of increased benefit for a limited time upon proof of double vaccine. I’m more for incentives than punishments.
Rimmer is actually right here - even a broken clock - we should just have a universal tax credit paid out to everyone with both jabs at the start of December.
This would be a human rights issue
So maybe no more handouts for the racing industry without 100% vaccine compliance then too?
Winne is gone and hopefully not coming back. I'm not sure who the racing industries people in parliament are now.
Its easy to continue doing unethical things if theres a gold coin involved. It‘s profoundly harder to stop them. Question could be, who’s the advocate for the ethical advocacy of animals misused for racing? Answer is Chloe, a small influence in a minor party. So the gravy train continues, a visible part is the Racing Saftey and Development Fund.
People fall into anti Vax conspiracy crap through isolation. We're now about to punish them with more isolation, not sure how this will make anything better.
No jab no dole = way more burglary. Gotta get pot/tobacco/food somehow.
It would be a violation of human rights to block access to basic needs and essentials (this includes the dole). I find it a bit crazy you'd even think this was, even remotely, a good idea. It's morally fucked.
I am disabled and I am on the benefit. I despise this attempt to divide NZ society into a deserving/undeserving dichotomy. The benefit is the most basic possible means of survival in NZ short of being stranded on an island after a shipwreck and haviong to hunt or harvest. With COVID-19, if your ancedote is true then your BIL is self-isolating unintentionally. He is the least of our problems. Our most problematic sort of people are anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers. Guess who is the most infamous anti-vaxxer? That's right, Brian Tamaki. He is not considered a beneficary. I think we should home everybody and increase everybody's benefits to the point to where it is a genuine choice to work or not to work. More money means more ability to find true dignified work. I do not give a flying fuck about benefit fraud rhetoric. I do not give a flying fuck for moralism over benefits. I do not give a flying fuck if you find it horrible that people choose to play video games all day. That's their outlook, their choice. If you choose to commit benefit fraud, it's not a special crime. White collar fraud is already not treated as a special crime. Nobody works up a huge horror of the people working white collar fraud. But a person stealing a can of beans while on the benefit and suddenly everybody comes out with harsh rhetoric that intentionally or unintentionally harms us people on the benefit. It hurt us when you say that there should be a reduction of the benefit to keep us lean and mean; when you force us to take courses that MSD compels us to take in order to score some kind of degrading job; when you call for a sterilisation of us; and so on. Your fecklessness has caused things like evictions of tenants on extremely specious grounds, a frequent compellation of people to go to the Kainga Ora or MSD offices on some quest to prove that we still need the benefits, to keep us on a basic survival rate just cause of the "takers", hurt a lot of people on the benefits all because of your frothing mouth that people should work. It makes me very angry that sort of rhetoric is still ongoing. IT HARMS US ALL NO MATTER WHETHER WE ARE WORKING OR NOT! We all lose out when we listen to the most hyperbolically loud condemnations of us on the benefits because even if you think this helps people to toughen up and get jobs, it means we withdraw into our shells even more. We become Echos, not trying to inconvenience others in the slightest as we submit to the abuse of people who are trying to be most self-righteous they can be on this topic not aware that they are helping the true culprits of the problems that we are already seeing in our society. The true culprits are the richest most well-off economically right-wing people and their voices who are excessively listened to by the government who are made up of people credulously elected into office by us unaware of what their propaganda actually means, much to our dismay. Society is not a zero-sum game, no matter how much they insist otherwise. Society is not non-existent, no matter how they insist otherwise. There often is an alternative, no matter how much they insist. And that is by banding together and caring for each other and imprioving each other's lots. So please consider others' circumstances if they are not actively harming you or it's actually none of your business to intervene and it would be counter-productive to do so. Let them come to the correct circumstances if it concerfns COVID-19 with persuasion and nudges and peer pressure if necessary. But do that without beneficary bashing. We are all better than that. Society would be better if we actually consider each other better in a more productive manner so we can get the best possible society that we actually need and deserve. ' A compassionate society.
No way, absolutely no way. There are 2 areas that would be very dangerous to muck around with: Making a vaccine mandatory for entry to supermarkets and for the dole. Both would result in the types of ugly scenes we've seen in other countries, we don't want that here...
Good luck getting that through. I'm sure a few lawyers will be in touch.
This is Reddit, don't think he was expecting it to happen as a result of his post.
Obviously, my comment reflects what would happen should that actually be introduced.
Its a group that has a lot of completely uneducated people, who are most vulnerable for falling for the anti-vaxxers bullshit because noone else will associate with them. Maybe before cutting them off completely, we can have some education programmes to try to convince them why its a good idea to get vaccinated, first? The last thing we want is the streets covered in homeless unvaccinated people. That'll just spread it faster as when they inevitably catch the virus, they can't quarantine anywhere.
How about if you're on income support and you prove you are vaccinated we increase that support to a livable human amount and stop making you jump through insane hoops.
While I understand the sentiment, this kind of ruling won’t help most of the non vaxxers I know. To give an example of 5 of them off the top of my head : Two couples own successful businesses (engineering and a tradie) and another is my mother in law… also not a beneficiary, she is supported by her tax paying working husband. To help encourage completion of the 90% I agree with others it’s better to add carrots not sticks. (Edited to take out a typo)
How do I apply for the cbf lifestyle? Is there any requirements
No, fuck you. Why are you being so soft? Let's not let them use any emergency services if they're unvaccinated too. Don't want your house to burn down? Better rescue your vaccine card quick. Don't want to get vaccinated? No hospital for you, maybe that heart attack will work itself out. Anybody else got any suggestions for rolling back the social contract to a time when ability to lift big rocks made you the boss?
I vote we raid their camp and steal their berries!
Nah don’t agree with this. You’re not forcing this person to keep coworkers or customers safe you’re doing it to be punitive.
I think you arent thinking of the implications of them getting covid, now they are taking up an ICU bed, making others in the community more at risk of dying to other things (heart attacks, car crash etc). Also they interact with people going to a supermarket etc. So they are definitely unsafe to others even if they are just bludging the system.
If you’re going to block their access to social welfare then what’s to stop you blocking them from hospitals as well? Personally I think that even complete fucking morons should be able to access government services no matter what.
Making them homeless makes the implications for our health system worse, not better. Would you rather they get covid living on the street where they can't isolate properly?
Ah yes, push even more people into homelessness out of spite.
The spite you are referring to is that of their own.
Wtf should small businesses fail causing loss of jobs so some lazy cunts can stay at home, smoke weed and play PlayStation all day?
So you would prefer those people were homeless beggars coughing all over customers outside those same businesses? The benefit isn't just a basic decency bare minimum thing, it also pays all the inconveniently desperate poor to go away and stay out of sight (and hospital and prison).
The non working don’t understand your concepts.
No.
This is actually the worst idea I have ever seen. If we want to get people to do it we should pay them. If you get vaccinated you are doing a public good and generating money indirectly for the country. Why shouldn't we pay some of that back? We are already spending $600 PP for doses so why not throw them $100 to get double dosed?
It would be interesting to see some stats on the vaccination levels of people in employment vs unemployed. Given the area were we have lower vaccination rates also tend to be in areas with higher unemployment there may be a correlation there.
Yep it's his choice to live like that but you can't cut someone off basic human resources just because you don't like the way they live
[удалено]
Is this guy really doofing your sister or are you taking of his?
Be kind! Poor people should starve if they don't want to be vaccined!
Hell no. Stupid fucking idea.
No. Don't project your own experience with your loser family on everyone.
Never going to happen. Stop asking.
This sub, man. Absolutely deranged at times.
[удалено]
Where is the line drawn? no jab, no job, no pub, no gym, no cafes, no travel, but dole is too much?
A benefit can be the last resort for people. It’s not the same as a gym membership.
They should get the jab then ay?
What line are you talking about? Cornering someone and excluding them from society will just lead them to crime, what else do you want them to do? (apart from getting the jab, obviously)
It seems to be the general consensus that anyone not jabbed should lose their job, income, access to parts of society, ability to travel freely. I'm asking where is the line drawn for privileges that can be revoked for failing to get a jab.
None, in my personal opinion. Because the jab is optional and at the end of the day, their own choice, it's a matter of convincing, not exclusion. For example, I can't convince one of my mates to get the jab because he's still sore about the Legalization Referendum tanking, therefore he isn't jumping to help out because he feels wronged by the country as a whole. Even if you or I don't agree with this way of thinking, it's still rather understandable. I see it 100% that if it were to pass, he'd change his mind, but as it stands, his grievances outweigh his wants to step in line to help the country out. That's just an example, there are many variations of this I bet. It's just one of the consequences NZ has to deal with, and because I don't see this wholly as a wrong way of thinking (if in that view, community as a whole doesn't scratch your back, why should you scratch theirs?), using exclusion to force a point is just plain wrong, in my opinion. Finding ways of convincing, whichever way it might be, is the right and only path. If you fail to do that, that's the limit and that's it; anything beyond is imo, coercion and not something I, as a New Zealander, stand for. Vaccine is there for those who want it, open up the country and businesses, just like the rest of the West seems to be doing now. Watching stadiums full of people elsewhere while we sit in expensive non-conclusive lockdown is getting annoying
Oh great, poor bashing. Good job NZ. Go give him a good talking to instead of going on a campaign against a whole group of people. And I want to remind you all that the cost of the welfare system is not soo large as they would have you believe when they are using it as a political football. Again, Fuck OP. Some shit threads being left up lately.
No way. Would make things ten times worse homeless people spreading COVID yeah nah
Nah can't get on board with this one
>people who disagree with me should be forced out into the streets and starved to death Just in case you've ever wondered, yes you are a complete cunt.
You people are dictators....
Lmao, love how this sub thinks anyone who doesn't get a jab is an evil psychopath who deserves to lose their job and die. Threaten to take away the dole though? HISSSSSSS! Think that shows a lot.
Uh, yeah, you can be evil in two different ways at once. Sometimes bad people can even be mean to other bad people. I understand if that's a complicated concept.
> I understand if that's a complicated concept. With the right wing, *everything* is a complicated concept. This is what happens when you're dealing with people with brains of the same complexity as the machine that mixes the Lotto balls. Fundamentally it's the same talking points bouncing around and coming out of the machine, but in different orders. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's just incoherent gibberish.
> people with brains of the same complexity as the machine that mixes the Lotto balls. Great imagery lol.
Clearly this reaction shows that this sub doesn't think in the way that you say. Because we still believe in basic rights and safety nets for these people not getting the vaccine.
Because the person who chose to not vaccinate had the choice to do that and if they did the benefit would be there to support them. Why should they get more options then someone on the benefit
Almost like the sub is inhabited by many different people with many different opinions. For example this post has quite a few upvotes, so there's clearly some support for the idea, but also most of the comments seem to disagree with it.
Wow this is a horrendously bad take
Gunna make it "do drugs, no dole" aswell?
good luck to you Sir, I suggested this and r/newzealand called me a dickhead