Here are the numbers for just the Invalid's Benefit 1997-2005;
The latest I have for the sickness benefit is 2004 when 2,418 people were substance abusers. So it's safe to say there are over 4,000 substance abusers on welfare. Bear in mind this is the number of people who have substance abuse listed as their main reason for being on a benefit. Others will be hidden away in categories like Depression.
And let's not forget the thousands who are reliant on the state as guests of HM.
12 comments:
And your point is?
Socialising the consequences of abusing drugs and alcohol encourages the abuse. Christ. I don't know how many times I have to say it.
I got that. I just don't see the relevance of the report you refer to. That 40% of those interviewed were on benefits is neither unsurprising nor surprising in the absence of any idea how the interviewees were selected.
The relevance is the contribution substance abuse is making to the continuing rise in uptake of invalid benefit - a subject I blogged on yesterday.
The report tells us nothing about the contribution substance abuse is making to the continuing rise in uptake of the invalid benefit and nothing about benefit dependency among drug users. ("The survey... is not intended to be statistically representative of drug use in the general population.") So it's not relevant.
I didn't say the report proves or demonstrates substance abuser's increasing reliance on benefits.
The third sentence, "Substance abuse as a reason for being on a sickness or invalids benefit is contributing to the sustained rises in reliance on those benefits," is mine. The stats I posted show that. The report merely motivated me to post those. It was relevant in that respect and that respect only.
Perhaps you have misinterpreted my presenatation of the information.
Welfare dependence is part of the problem leading to the shocking events we have seen recently.
Much as I would love to nail labour to the cross for this, non super welfare benefits have gone up at a constant rate since 1994. Under labour, despite spending an extra $20bn and 37% extra tax, none of the social indicators have changed, as Roger douglas said.
In the last 7 years we have seen a shift from unemployed to the sickness benefit so that the total direct benifit spendup hasn't changed much. but the indirect spendup has increased a lot.
Total Non-super benefits
1994 6531.319
1995 7358.437
1996 7884.794
1997 8578
1998 9366
1999 9634.295
2000 9791
2001 10263
2002 10347
2003 10657
2004 11190
2005 11466
Where are those figures from Porcupine? At a glance they look higher than the Budget figures I generally rely on.
One of the indicators Douglas used needs qualifying. General infant mortality (including Maori) has fallen but it may be he refers to infant mortality due to maltreatment.
Hi Lindsay,
I got it from the statistics New Zealand site:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/EDCF7FDF-4E0F-4AA5-BB44-84E673C5B0F8/14929/caayejun05alltables.xls
(table 5)
I cut a bit of a corner in that I assumed all social services given in kind went to non-superannuitant beneficiaries.
It would be interesting to see the numbers on the different benefits as well as the amounts paid out, but I guess thats harder to do with people coming and going on benefits all the time.
I'm also on the scrounge for hard numbers to back up Heather roys claim of the blated public health service bureaucracy, if you have anything.
cheers.
Porcupine, e-mail me and I'll send you best sources (IMO)
whats the email address?
Oh. It used to come up on the profile; dandl.mitchell@clear.net.nz
Post a Comment