Wednesday, July 29, 2009

I have no sympathy for rich beneficiaries who lose their Training Incentive Allowance

post has been updated
I do have a problem with Social Development minister Paula Bennett releasing private details of beneficiaries to a newspaper purely because they criticised National’s policy to remove the Training Incentive Allowance (TIA) for those who are taking graduate courses. Bennett said she looked at the Privacy Commissioners website for guidance on whether to release private information. Perhaps the first time she looked at that website was shortly after 11:24am yesterday. She obviously didn’t look at the Cabinet Manual.

Mind you I also have a problem with a beneficiary Natasha Fuller who has three kids and more weekly income than our entire family. She has enough to pay for hair extensions ( which she may or may not have got when getting state assistance) but moans about how she can’t afford to study without the TIA. I am also a student with three other mouths to feed and I can’t afford $400.00 for hair extensions. But unlike Fuller I probably get 5-6 hours sleep a night and spend more hours studying than she does because I do a lot of it when the kids are school or asleep.

Natasha Fuller criticised National for removing the Training Incentive Allowance from degree courses, adding that National wanted people like her to aspire to working in a supermarket. Except that she is a trained private investigator and has done a small business course. Perhaps people working in supermarkets would aspire to be in her situation. The never-married Fuller has three kids to two different men and has been on and off the dpb for about three years. She currently gets $715.00 per week – way more than those on the average wage - but that does not include child support or any money from IRD – or food grants. I was told by the NZ Herald that the income probably doesn’t include Working for Families, either. That's questionable. So if you are working for 40 hours a week and you get less than $17.88 an hour, you are worse off than Fuller, and she doesn't even work. Fuller should go and get a partner called Bill S*it and link up surnames – Fuller-s*it.

And this from Jennifer Johnston, whose details were also made public.
But with the allowance discontinued and childcare, course materials, uniforms, transport and other costs not covered by a student loan, Jennifer has no idea if she can continue.
She can do what other people do. Go off the benefit, onto a student allowance, study a full year instead of just three papers, get a student loan for course costs, borrow $1000 for course related expenses like books, transport, and computer gear, get a grant from WINZ for second hand school uniforms. And get a part time job, and a childcare subsidy from WINZ.

Why should student allowances be taxed, whereas TIA’s are not? The only reason a university student is on the dpb is to save up to $3620 on course costs every year - and study part time to ensure course costs aren't over the allowance amount each year - and to live in the manner to which they are accustomed to. Why should they when others get student allowances?

Labels: , ,



Blogger B.S. said...

Excellent post Dave , best post I have seen so far on this particular topic.

July 29, 2009 at 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This lady wwas living with her 3rd child's father while still on benefit. While Natasha Fuller received benefit, staying with someone else in a full relationship she got a grant to start the cleaning business. I thought these grants are only for those who should be living on benefit - not those who are in a steady relatonship where the father of the children supports her.
This could be classified as fraud.

I am a taxpayer and I would like to know where my money is being spent.
This girl had a grant to start a business. She closed it down because she claimed she had breathing problems. Not true - she closed it down because she fell pregnant.
Why should we then pay more money to educate this bludger so that she can get pregnant again by a third unsuspecting male and drop out of studies or not even become a teacher.
She already gets paid for two courses as she admitted - why would we want to add more money to her pocket.
The fact that she is using a tactic calling the goverment bullies is exactly the same tactic she used with the two seperate fathers of her children - she claims both abused her and threatened her.
This lady needs phsyciatric help and not more money.
Get the children away from her because who knows what she is doing to their emotional state and also the way of thinking.
Do we really want three more Natasha Fullers unleashed on society.

And while we are at it - why not send Natasha over to Afganistan to flood out Bin Ladin - even he will give up just to get this bludger to shut up.

July 29, 2009 at 1:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let your anger flow through you.
Your hate will make you strong.
True power is only achieved through testing the limits of one's anger, passing through unscathed.
Rage channeled through anger is unstoppable.
The weak deserve their fate.

July 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Business grant, failed because of 'health' reasons, ongoing daily health care costs, training to be a nurse? WTF?

If you can't work as a domestic cleaner, how on earth can one expect to work as a nurse?

While the possibility exists that Bennett has breached some privacy laws- one has to question if the intent of those privacy laws.

There has been some accusation that Fuller has been coached by Dalzeil to go public against National Policy - who is exploiting whom?

Surely, in Bennetts defence, information is the only tool to out this scam? The half truths released by Fraser could only be refuted with actual information?

Hiding behind 'privacy laws' is a little unfair.

I just hope the $715 pw isn't going to motivate others to aspire to dependance on the DPB.


July 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Clicky Web Analytics