The reports states, "The fall in numbers was most rapid for those with other income in excess of $300 per week (with a 25% fall) or between $180 and $300 per week (with a 12% fall). These groups would have been the most readily able to shift off benefit and take up the In-Work Tax Credit. Some would have already have been working sufficient hours (20 hours a week) to qualify."
Now you could respond that 42% with 'no other income' also left the DPB. Yes. But a good number move to other benefits, change their marital status, go onto super, go to prison, etc. This group is less likely to have entered the workplace.
By the way, see if you can spot the error in this table.
7 comments:
2006 total doesn't tally?
8200-9000 does not equal -700
Yes. I realise that the note says 'numbers may not sum due to rounding' but it still seems a clumsy depiction.
In the early 1970's Muldoon was stumping the country with huge graphs showing the abysmal economic performance of the 72-75 Labour Government. The left-leaning Editor of the local paper in a large Labour-voting town published some of these graphs, pointing out minor arithmetic inaccuracies (as a result of roundings in the data). He was basking in the glow of his cleverness at his local watering hole until it was pointed out to him that he had published these damning graphs on the front page of his newspaper, something he would never have done ordinarily.
I didn't post the table to point out it's inaccuracies. I posted it to show that some people have been moved sideways allowing the govt to claim a drop in DPB.
I didn't wish to imply that you posted to demonstrate inaccuracies, and apologise if that is how it appears, although I must say that I examined the chart more closely given your little challenge. I unreservedly acknowledge the genuine intent of your posting. Delete my earlier posting if you wish.
Heck no. It's just my paranoia showing. Occupational hazard:-)
Post a Comment