Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

2 Comments

  1. Here is one possibility. Self employment and voluntary work should be included in the WFF set-up. This should, obviously, also include self-employed voluntary. So someone should be able to set up a Kapa-haka group, or pick up rubbish on the beach, or weed a neighbour’s garden, or look after a working relative’s kids, or start a grocery shopping club, or whatever and still have it accounted as work sufficient to qualify for Working for Families.

    In the new work environment, it seems clear that some – even many – will find paid work hard to come by. If that is the case why should they be disqualified from the extra support Working for Families provides? On the other hand, within the definition I offer, why should they not consider it reasonable that they lend a hand to the common good in exchange for the extra income. Those who chose not to do so, and settle for a lower reward, at least will be making a real choice.

    To make such a scheme work would be easier than it appears on the surface. Verification would only need periodic spot checks, while planning, job description and declaration as well as effective work-execution would be required of the participants: all useful skills anyway.

    This kind of scheme avoids both the working-for-the-dole semi-slavery and the wasteland of purposelessness, provides a higher income, teaches organisational skills and benefits the community in whatever ways are selected or imagined by the participants. Sounds like a multi-bottom-line win to me.

    1. Hi Nick
      Good thinking there. But we are talking about money specifically for the children. Some of what you are talking about seems to leave them out. dont forget too that Looking after young children is WORK of the most socially valuable kind. Why is that not worthy of being counted.

Comments are closed.