Goffs gaffe
Yesterday I covered the story of Bruce Burgess and how he has threee properties, no job and was turned away from WINZ because his wife earned $21k. I broke the news yesterday that Burgess is entitled to some benefit from WINZ - and not just temporary access.
It could well be that Labour - who leaked the story - knew all along that Burgess was entitled to WINZ support. Perhaps that is why yesterday's media release said:
It appears his wife’s income, under $30,000, disqualifies the couple from any temporary access to the unemployment benefit.Even if the Burgess' income was $28k they would not have been entitled to an abated benefit, Thats why they used the $30k figure and the word " appears" in the media release - to decieve, when the real reported figure was $21k.
What dorks Phil Goff and his staff are. What's the point of having researchers and media people, Phil Goff, when you make Gaffes like this?
Labels: Phil Goff
1 Comments:
Being a state funds provider since I was old enough to pay tax, and never a state-teat-sucker (except for my means-tested student allowance while at Uni) I genuinely wonder if WINZ support is dependant on assets...? Does Bruce miss out because of his assets (properties) or does he miss out because of combined income from wife+rent received minus rental outgoings, or simply because of his wife's mere 21K income (and assets and net rental incomes are ignored)?? If the first point then fair enough because he can sell and have support, if the second point then maybe fair enough assuming the total net is reasonable to live on, and if the third point then Goff is correct technically but at the end of the day this is unreasonable because i am sure the IRD/WINZ consider net rental income just as good as any income from salary or investments.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home