International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Welfare in the News


I just realised something after writing up the previous post.

The woman in this story on Close Up the other week gets $480 “from the government”.

This page gives the DPB at $288.47/week after tax at the “M” rate.

That gives a base income of $16,994.64 before tax. Using that we look up the WFF rates, and discover she is entitled to $394/week from that scheme. (She’d get an additional $105/wk if she were working 30 hours or more.)

So we add that all up, and we arrive at $682 per week.

Now, this does not include any accommodation supplement which I can’t even guess at because it depends on circumstances. I read that can be up to $125. I would be very surprised if she’s not getting it. From the sounds of it several kids might also be entitled to the Child Disability Allowance, which is $44.55 per disabled child.

It seems odd that such a low income is quoted. It seems like there’s about $200 missing, minimum. It could in fact be as high as $900 – after tax. (When I added the tax onto that, using the IRD tax calculator I arrived at an income of $58,593 PA – within sneezing range of what Labour told us was “Rich Prick territory”)

My best guess is that the phrase “From the government” was intended as a fudge to imply that $480 was her income not just what she gets from WINZ. Certainly the item mentions child support, so my guess is that this means her benefit is cut somewhat when she recieves that.

I’m very reluctant to be seen as beneficiary bashing. This woman clearly has many disadvantages in her current situation, and were I her neighbour I would offer my assistance to her whenever possible.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Welfare in the News" (2)

  1. If you don’t want to be seen as a beneficiary basher then dont write this sort of stuff.

    I see you have come to your conclusions using figures from WINZ. So in theory you have come up with a figure which is still just a wild guess eg Child disability is not a set amount. It is supposed to cover extra costs that are a result of the disability and often does not. therefore if the costs are less than $44.55 the payment is less and if the extra costs are more than the disability allowance, its too bad
    This lady may or may not receive an accommodation supplement. It looks to me that she may be living in government housing ( I am guessing here) in which case the rent would be adjusted according to her income.
    I presume someone at WINZ will know her circumstances in order to see that she receives the payments she and her family are entitled to.

    It is too easy to ‘read between the lines’, and ‘jump to conclusions’. We are all entitled to opinions but it is good to bear in mind that it is opinion rather than fact before we put it out there.

    • I’m questioning the figures given as they do not make sense to me. If you want to call that beneficiary bashing then you don’t know the meaning of basic English words. I am in fact bashing the media in this instance, I suppose to be charitable I got bogged down in the detail and that became less clear.

      Yes, I use figures from WINZ. What next, you complain about me using wordpress for blogging?

      As for the CDA, do your homework – it is most certainly a fixed amount, paid regardless of other circumstances and does not count against income for pretty much any purpose. On that one you are 100%, flat-out wrong. There’s also a disability allowance, which may be what you are thinking of. That can be paid at the same time as the CDA (i.e in addition) and depends on costs.

      Yes, I agree she looks to be in government housing. The end result is the same – she is better off financially. That’s the entire reason for for the AS. If you recall under the previous National government all assistance was made under the AS.

      It was not my intention to suggest that her income is $900 – only that it’s theoretically possible. Nor did I ever suggest that such an amount would be undeserved. My main beef is that it seems very clear that her income must be at least $200 more than that implied. Most people would not realise that, since most people think that the W in WFF means that people must be working to receive the money – they don’t.

Comments are closed.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: