MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Child reaches Three – Off to Work

Filed under: General — glenn @ 7:54 am Tue 22nd February 2011


Today a new way forward is being announced requiring solo parents to seek work when the youngest child reaches three years of age. Goff reckons it is a dumb idea, – well because he is in Opposition, and that is his job. He says the costs of childcare will offset the benefits of working. Assuming, of course, there are jobs out there.

I don’t suppose this new legislation will provide a further incentive for solo mums to go find another sucker sperm out there, and make sure that they always have a child under three, and someone else to fund it? The sucker donor, or the sucker Welfare system.

Nah, that wouldn’t happen. Would it?

Yeah Right.


  1. Yep brace yourself for the wails of protest from these banshees who feel that it’s their entitlement to have someone else support them. be it taxpayer or duped Dad or both.
    That goes for the solo’s who see children as a career option and the, leaving my marriage and the state can look after me because I have children mob as well.

    Comment by Mits — Tue 22nd February 2011 @ 9:14 am

  2. I just love the way that Sue Bradford claims asking a beneficiary to get a job is “harassment”.

    Comment by womble — Tue 22nd February 2011 @ 9:56 am

  3. Helen’s Labour Government regarded a womans place as in the workforce, and that a brief period of maternity leave was sufficient.
    All of my long life, it has been normal for women to consider going back to work when their youngest child started school.
    The “Beneficiary advocates” want a much longer entitlement to the DPB- until the children leave home?

    Some people wail about “where are the jobs?” as if someone should provide “Jobs” for everyone.
    Many people are going to have to find a little enthusiasm and imagination- and find ways to make money by themselves.
    It is EASY to start a successful small business, and there is a wealth of assistance out there.

    Most people could manage to mow lawns, clean cars clean boats even, do ironing. I set my sights higher as I was an engineer. Basic principles are : Be positive, Always answer the phone, Always turn up when you say, Always deliver a little extra, Keep good records (Basic- a Carbon copy Invoice book).
    Where are the jobs? Waiting for you to get out and grab them!

    Comment by John Brett — Tue 22nd February 2011 @ 4:19 pm

  4. I completely agree with you regarding the question of ‘Where are the jobs?’ John.

    However, that principle is dependent upon people being willing to levitate themselves into action. Human nature is what it is, and change requires a push over the inertia barrier.

    Perhaps my post is tainted with a little more cynicism than might have been necessary, but nevertheless, I am certain you haven’t missed my real point.

    It seems to me that this kind of legislation only adds incentive for career mothers to continue to be career mothers, and it will prove to have completely the opposite effect of what it intends.

    Comment by glenn — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 8:07 am

  5. I am very positive about a little cycnicism. I also enjoy the thought of lazy people going into panic, running round like mice in mazes, spending all their energy looking for ways to avoid having to use a bit of energy.
    I prefer the thought of the little brats growing up seeing their parents WORK, seeing this as their role model.
    Everone to their lifestyle choice, but its just that I am allergic to depressive, negative idle people- they bring me down. Why should I have to put up with them, when there are bright, positive people to associate with.

    Comment by John Brett — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 9:49 am

  6. John,

    Your arrogance is as concited as your assumptions are flawed.

    Comment by Anonymous — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 11:10 am

  7. Noble sentiments indeed, John.

    I can’t help thinking, though, that such naivete deserves an influential place on whatever the panel is, that shapes Welfare Policy in this country.

    The real world repeatedly demonstrates that people will take the line of least resistance, and if another baby keeps a DPB beneficiary on the gravy-train, then that is what will happen.

    I don’t think it is right, but I do think it is so.

    Comment by glenn — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 11:12 am

  8. The “Arrogance” is of the people who don’t want to work, but expect to be fed.
    I’ve been on the unemployment benefit, when my life was in a mess, and have worked hard to make a new life. I’ve seen the arrogant, indolent people- you arn’t one are you anonymous?

    Comment by John Brett — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 12:24 pm

  9. OK maybe you could reword that a bit but you obviously have someone specific in mind and I know exactly what you mean.
    The problem that is not addressed is this: ex goes on benefit, IRD issues formula assessment, jackboot comes down on your throat, you’re f*#%ed for up to 18 years. Ex goes back to work, refuses to negotiate so formula assessment and jackboot remains on your throat. Watching your ex squirm may seem like poetic justice but may not do you any good.

    Comment by Dan — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 1:21 pm

  10. No I don’t have anyone in mind, sorry.I was being a little cynical myself I admit.
    I thought that this thread was about beneficiaries being made to look for work. There are other threads on MENZ about Child Tax- I have made cynical comments on those too.

    Comment by John Brett — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 4:21 pm

  11. I recall just over three years ago, when talk first started of forcing the DPB mothers of school age children (over 6yrs) back to work, three DPB beneficiaries I was acquainted with expressed extreme concern about it. Coincidentally, two of them were pregnant within a year. I also know one DPB mother who (by sheer chance I’m sure) has three children, spaced 5-6 years apart, she’s been on the DPB for 13 years now!
    There are definitely women on the DPB willingly to get pregnant just to avoid working! The question is, are they willing to get pregnant every three years?

    One of the recommendations from the welfare working group, was to cut the three years down to 14 weeks if a woman has another child while on the benefit. This is actually the real key to preventing women choosing the DPB as a lifestyle. Unfortunately, the report was barely out for one day before John Key backed down and said something like “that sounds a bit harsh” (white knight?).

    On a slight side note, I know of one DPB mother who has come up with a genius plan to avoid working for another few years. Apparently she has managed to convince a doctor that one of her little darlings has a learning disability, and then she managed to convince WINZ that the little dear needs to be home schooled. (This ones been on the DPB for 15 years now.) I didn’t even bother asking how someone who failed school C could be fit to teach a child.

    As for the sort of work John is proposing, the problem is that any beneficiaries actually motivated enough to work for themselves, will probably do it under the table so they can avoid tax and keep the benefit.

    Comment by womble — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 11:25 pm

  12. Watching women on the DPB squirm may not do me any good, but it will do their children, and my children good.

    Often the DPB is portrayed as an alternative to working. This is not accurate, from its very inception the purpose of the DPB was for the state to replace a husband and father. Easy access to the DPB, and the comfortable lifestyle it provides have been one of the key factors in devaluing working class men in our society, and forcing them out of their children’s lives.

    A man on minimum wage ($13/hr) brings home about $430/week after tax. Why would any women even consider marrying him, when the government will pay $550+/week to kick him out.

    Comment by womble — Wed 23rd February 2011 @ 11:52 pm

  13. I raised and supported my family of four children for 23 years. At about the 15 year mark, it occurred to me that my wife might be better off on the DPB (I didn’t mention this to her)
    If you took my net earnings (about twice the average wage), subtracted costs for me, food, clothes, transport to work, then compared that with DPB, supplements for children, discounts for this and that, it worked out that I had to maintain my income at about 1.75 x the average wage for her to be better off being married than being solo.
    Guess what happened when I found myself unemployed?
    UEB vs DPB? no choice really.
    The marriage was ‘Restructured’ and ‘downsized’, and redundancies announced.
    Cleared away any illusions that I might have had about my marriage!
    I was expected to just slink away.
    The pity was that she was coaxed into making allegations against me to attempt to gain custody, and force me out of our children’s lives.
    It destroyed her, and any possible parenting relationship we might have had, when it all failed, and sole custody denied.
    For me it was a great result, and a pity it hadn’t happened years before.
    I have created a prosperous new life- she remains a beneficiary of some type even 15 yrs later.

    Comment by John Brett — Thu 24th February 2011 @ 8:12 am

  14. 1. I think that the number of women prepared to have a child every 3 years is much smaller than if it was 6 years or 19 years as now.
    2. Women get most hand outs for this life style choice if each child is to a different father. Once a woman has 3 children to 3 different fathers you would think that fewer men would be willing to go there. Hence after 9 years the game will be up for all but a few of them. Whereas at the moment they can set themselves up for life.

    Comment by Dave — Sun 6th March 2011 @ 7:12 pm

  15. heya, I SEE A POINT HERE, .. but set up for life? more like nine years at the most.
    Im interested in substance on here please.

    Comment by rex — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 12:19 pm

  16. John…. I have mates who are stay at home dads, and it is work.
    Your out dated comments about people who chose not to work, shouldnt get fed, are nieve and condecending. This site is about engageing with yr kids isnt it? I think your too old for this site, as your kids are young adults now, old timer. 🙂

    Comment by rex — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 12:26 pm

  17. sigh.. whtas this site about please? are any of you lot interested in being aprnets or is this all about making our exs struggle while raiseing our kids?

    Comment by rex — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 12:29 pm

  18. Some people are SOO touchy about their benefits!
    It is Damn hard work raising children, especially if there are illnesses, or disabilities as my 4 had.
    It is Damned EXPENSIVE raising children, whether working or not.
    I wanted to make the point that a sole parent on a benefit is usually FAR better off money-wise than a married couple with one wage, plus have more time to spend with the children.
    Separation makes thing even more expensive- so why have all the Government agencies been so busy encouraging it?
    Why has the Inland Revenue been so busy lining its coffers with “Child Tax” which has nothing to do with supporting children?
    Rex- when did it become a good idea to feed people who CHOOSE not to work?
    Perhaps I should choose not to work, and choose YOU to support me, you can also come round and mow my lawns as well!

    Comment by John Brett — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 1:47 pm

  19. If you have children Rex- it should be YOU raising them. Don’t just leave it to your ex, and walk away.
    For money- that should come from you and from your ex- What makes you think that anyone else cares a damn about your children? You wantus to tell our children “Sorry, can’t pay your school fees/donations, because we have to pay for Rex’s Ex, who doesn’t want to work”

    Comment by John Brett — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 2:05 pm

  20. JB Id say that Rex is on a wind up. Just trying to get a reaction.
    I said in the very first post of this thread, “brace yourself for the howls of protest from these entitlement princesses” (actually I said banshee’s but am trying to be less inflamertory)
    Im surprised Kya was the only one to howl. But maybe that’s a good thing as, if the only dissenting opinions are Kya and Rex then maybe the truth is finally getting out there.

    Comment by Mits — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 2:14 pm

  21. I am reminded of a friend I used to have many years ago when we were 17. She was attractive, intelligent and had a good career in front of her. From a good family. She explained to me that she worked out she would be far better off to have 5 kids to 5 different fathers then to pursue her career. At the time I thought she was joking.
    5 years later she already had 3 kids to 3 fathers and was doing very nicely. She looked set to ditch the latest bloke and find number 4. I refused to stay in contact with her after that so I don’t know if she reached 5. I suspect she did.
    However the reality is that she did her homework and the numbers were overwhelmingly in favour of that life style. So that is what she chose. The incentives were simply too attractive.

    Comment by Vman — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 3:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar