Providing a “capital injection” for households?
Posted October 28, 2008on:
It appears that National intends to do just that following this election – providing grants to individuals who lose there job beyond the unemployment benefit, but only for “during the recession”, and only “needs based”.
This is probably one of the most ridiculous ways anyone could try to deal with the current recession – although I guess increasing taxes, slashing spending (especially on the supply side), and then hiding it under the PM’s pillow would we a little sillier.
Lets think about this grant a little – what is National trying to say? Do they think the unemployment benefit is too low? That is supported by this quote:
The support plan was designed to help them remain confident and carry them over until they got another job.
If so, why don’t they just increase it, instead of fluffing around with “grant schemes”. Or do they believe that unemployed people will be worse off during the recession than not in the recession – because that doesn’t make much sense to me. I thought the cost to households in the recession stemmed from unemployment and lower real wages – being “unemployed” is just as bad in any state.
If National actually wants unemployment benefits to be partially time limited – then introduce that scheme, instead of some fluffing grant. Either they are introducing that policy, or they are trying (unsuccesfully) to sound like they are dealing with the financial crisis.
Overall, what the hell are the parties doing – is any party actually going to try to do what is best for the country in the face of this external shock … didn’t think so 😦