Tuesday, October 07, 2014

The real value of today's benefit compared to pre-1991 benefit cuts

In search of a child poverty scapegoat, much is made of  the comparative value of today's benefits to those pre-1991 cuts.

In 1989 the maximum DPB payment for a sole parent and two children (incl. accommodation benefit and family benefit) was $332.87 weekly.

In 2014 the equivalent sum was $680.45

The following table shows various expenditures as  percentages of those payments:

1989 % benefit 2014  %  benefit

litre milk* $1.23 0.37 $1.79 0.26
rent weekly average 3 bd house 160 48 360 53
bread* 1.65 0.5 1.1 0.16
men's shirt 55 17 50 7.3
petrol 10L 9.12 2.7 21.6 3.2
haircut (women's wet) 27.58 8.3 63 9.3
TV colour 53-65cm 1479 444 279 41
toilet paper 2-ply (4 rolls) 2.79 0.84 3 0.4
eggs (dozen)* 2.6 0.78 3.69 0.54
Fridge/freezer .32 cu mm 1187 357 479 70

*2014 - based on the cheapest available brand or variety in each retail outlet at the time of price collection.


Proportionately, low-cost groceries and clothing are lower.

TVs and whiteware are massively lower.

Petrol is higher.

Rent is also higher but only 5 percentage points ahead of 1989.


Anonymous said...

$332.87 weekly... In 2014 the equivalent sum was $680.45

more than double. That gives the lie to all those leftists who keep on yelling "undo the '91 benefit cuts" --- and surely shows the very first thing any true benefit reform would entail: chopping everything back to Ruth's '91 levels.

Jamie said...

Wow.....Just wow.....

These welfare queens are getting $680.45 per week.

Dang that was more than what I was getting paid as a soldier in 04 in the NZ Army ;(

Only earning $800 per/week after tax; truck driving 60 plus hours a week. Pay about $200 a week tax. And that's only seasonal. ;(

How am I suppose to afford a family when I'm payin for every other bludging queen in town???

Is a single man down on his lucky still even allowed the dole??? Or do you have to be a chick knocked up by some sh*t-bag first???

This situation is unsustainable, and sooo unfair. A slap in the face for a man like me.
Something has gotta give and I am done!!!

All you ungrateful Sh*TS, all you bleeding hearts, all of you commie SOB's can kiss my ass, this young returned serviceman is done carrying your ungrateful parasitic fat asses.

Anonymous said...

the rent factor is way understated as a % of income.

Hamish said...

I'm not going to work out the inflation for this period, or the extra expenditures enacted after the reforms because I fundamentally agree with you Anon, but your reasoning for your view isn't going to (and shouldn't) convince many people at all.

Anonymous said...

well Jamie..you should have gone into banking...ANZ chief 'earns' over 4 mil p.a...roughly $7000 A DAY...for producing???

Jamie said...

Some of us Spartans have our reputations to think of Anon

Anonymous said...

This situation is unsustainable, and sooo unfair. A slap in the face for a man like me.
Something has gotta give and I am done!!!

Thanks for voting National (or their bootboy ACT). The only party promising real welfare reform (cuts and termination) was the Conservatives. If you and a few more squaddies had voted Conservative, NZ would be a different country today.

Jamie said...

Hehe You're kidding right??? Your boy Colin couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag. What makes you think he's got the minerals to fight out of this???

NZ Debt $ 92,402,727,708

Interest per year:



Interest per second:

Citizen's Debt Share:

Debt as % of GDP:


That goes for this whole generation of politicians. Bunch of chicken-hawk cardboard cut-outs.

As scary as the debt level is I think we got bigger issues.
How are they gonna handle this Ebola pandemic???
Answer...They ain't. I'm already kissing my ass goodbye ;(



P.s. Corect me if I'm wrong here, things might of been different in your days but in mine, the Brit's were called squaddies, the Ausssies diggers, and Kiwis baggies.


S.Beast said...

The rent figure seems fishy. It doesn't factor in that families are moving more frequently, and that certainly is a higher cost not accounted for.