Tao Wells stated that he had been on and off benefit, implying that he actually does look for and undertake employment from time to time. That doesn't sound like a bludger to me. All that Wells is saying is that we should not let work dictate our lives to the extent that it does and in that regard he is correct.

I'm unemployed but I'll never get a job because I have a type of epilepsy that restricts the type of work I can do and because employers don't want unemployed people with a patchy work history and skills working for them. The only way I'm ever going to get a job is to go into business for myself but I don't have the $1000 minimum required before you can apply for an Enterprise Allowance from Work and Income. And because I have no talents to speak of that I'm aware of.

Ken Slugg #58

good post. I agree with your comments about the article being written to stir up resentment, and it seems to have done the trick!

I thought that your post #36 was slightly inflammatory however, and can't agree with your view that

"people who refuse to take part in this system deserve compensation."

If you refuse (CHOOSE NOT TO) to take part in the system, then, if you have the courage of your convictions, you refuse to accept the benefits of the aforementioned system..... you can't have it both ways.

In terms of the carbon footprint arguement that is used to justify his opting out of the system, this is idealistic and naieve in many ways. Yes, in an ideal world we would all live off the land and get everywhere without the use of the fossil fuels.

Conversely, child mortality rates would go throught the roof, basic illnesses would kill, law and order would be unenforceable, etc etc. It is not a sustainable society model.

There are plenty of jobs out there that are environment friendly (First one that springs to mind is a binman? collecting all that recycling??) this smacks a little bit of Mr wells using this as an excuse.

I stick to my view that the guy comes across as a bit of a pretentious twat based on this article, but I do appreciate it might be a bit tongue in cheek.

Cheers

@ 56 Stuart

That is your definition of benefit and one that suits those who are neither angry with Wells or who hold him in contempt - I suggest they resent Wells and his freedom.

I think the benefit is not some humanitarian gift, but a buying off of people like Tao who might pursue more malicious aims if he were not given a minimum to live on. But the point is, there is very little that we are going on from this article to indict Mr Wells as some sort of can-work but wont-work fellow who exploits the benefit system over the long term. I would suggest that is taking on the mantle of this person as a provocative gesture. The question is, what does he want to provoke? I assume he is enjoying and reading these comments, so perhaps, under the name Professor Calculus he could elaborate?

Really it is the fault of this formulaic article that tries to pit the resentment of the work-a-day tax-payer against this fellow. Look at the opening lines - even though it is mentioned that Mr Wells' work is only part of a grant to the Letting Spaces project, they emphasise the entire project's funding, which is $53,000 from the combined CNZ and WCC sources. Only later do we see that $2000 was paid to Wells for the installation.

@Busker #22

Then the solution is simple, where technology has made many jobs null and void, admit the technology is available, but refuse to use it.

Ken Slugg #54 How can you support these people in any way? Benefits are for those who need temporary help, or who really cannot work due to injury. These people are harming the people who are actually living in poverty. If people who can work, but choose not to, were removed from all benefits of society, we would have the money to spend on better health care and more state housing etc for those who are actually trying and in need.

You say that they can live on considerably less than us, and that taxpayer's money should support them. Why can't these people work part time then? Surely part time work and living off a few hundred a week would have the desirable effect on the planet. Why don't they get an environmentally friendly job? Their desire is supposedly that they wish to help the environment, so surely they can't hate every single evironment friendly job out there?

Everyone has a choice, deliberately not working is deliberately not being a part of society, and people like Tao Wells deserve none of societies benefits. No creative grants, no use of roads or healthcare, no police to defend them. Im more than happy for these people to choose not to work and not be a part of society. If they go and live off the land farming their own crops they will have far less effect on the environment than bludging off of our society using our money.

Wow. What a spectacular talking point! Personally, I couldn't agree more with this individual.

For all those that support him: find time this week to ditch work for a couple hours and go support him. I know I will!

@ ian of tawa #50 11:24 am Oct 17 2010

In reply to your serious question: "In your world, how do these people live, where do they get food and shelter from?" which was in reply to my comment #37.

I was only proposing that a small amount of my tax pay for people who can't stand the thought of participating in the current economy. The point is that they find it possible to subsist on much less than we do - say $270 per week all up - which is about a quarter of what I earn. I would not be happy if they consumed at the same level of me.

Basically it has the same logic as carbon trading - except at the consumer rather than producer level. Each person has a life and there is an environmental footprint that is sustainable for each person. All I am saying is that this is a crude means of valuing the environment and environmental choices and forcing the polluters to pay.

So in this world these people have the same choices as you and I about where they get their food and shelter from. I would suggest they probably shop at Pak 'n' Save and live in Newtown or ... Tawa.

Basically, and this is a free market argument, the environment is a common asset and suffers from the tragedy of the commons ie. overuse and exploitation. If a portion of 'the environment' can be owned and measured, then the individual owner's economic self-interest will ensure that it is protected. Now, one way of doing this would be to focus on the producers of waste, and these prohibitions and taxes are a good start, but there needs to be a way to subsidise those who choose to live in a way that avoids damage to the environment. So without dealing with all the administrative hoo-hah of evaluating all businesses products (which would probably lead to a nationalisation of production) a crude, but effective measure would be to subsidise some key areas (no GST on fresh fruit and veggies; subsidised public transport) as well as making the unemployment benefit into a citizens wage with no strings attached. And on and on.

But if you don't really accept the long term damage that is beign down to our common environmental resources, then you can consider all this as BS. But if you are serious, and I believe you are, about continued human existence on this planet then such 'radical' free-market steps ought to be considered. And for this I thank Tao Wells.

And for the record, he looks more like Tin Tins Professor Calculus than Grandfather Lenin (as we used to call him).

Everyone has a basic human right of access to food, (including water) shelter and companionship. Otherwise we are not human, and would be animals. I still have no income or accommodation and still fight for these rights for New Zealand. Fortunately there are still a few humans around who help me. I wish Tao every success.

@ Out2Lunch #47 - your comment is the funniest thing I've read all day. Good stuff :)

Genius.