Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Average DPB payment versus 40 hours at minimum wage

Some members of the public are mislead into believing that someone on the DPB only receives $288.47 per week.


The alternative group, chaired by Massey University social policy expert Mike O'Brien and including former Green MP Sue Bradford, says current benefits of $194 a week for a single adult or $366 for a sole parent with one child are "simply too low to live on".

In fact they receive considerably more because all parents or caregivers receive Family Tax credits for dependent children and the majority receive an Accommodation Supplement (or live in a subsidised state house).

Under the Official Information Act I asked what are the average accommodation supplement and family tax credit payments made to DPB recipients.

Calculated at the end of March 2011 the respective payments provided to me were $89 and $135.76

That totals $513.23 net

The minimum wage for a 40 hour week is $520 before tax

The new entrants or training wage for a 40 hour week is $416 before tax

You do the maths.

(Even this calculation is inadequate because it does not include other available allowances.)


Anonymous said...

When will you stop trying to justify welfare?

There's only one way to put back the relativity - terminate all benefits including accommodation supplement, and the minimum wage.

Of course, were I a leftist, I'd point out that min-wage and new entrants etc also qualify for WFF, FTC & Accom supplement.

Kurt said...

ACT on Campus put something similar up on their FB page a month ago. It was a real eye opener.

I am unsure how accurate it is but appears to give similar numbers to your analysis.

Don McKenzie said...

Lindsay is absolutely on the button.Have been checking Hire Purchase applications for some 15 years in South Auckland and the average DBP applicant has a higher sum left in the hand than most of the lower paid workers.The DBP is nett of tax yet the lower paid in comparison then has tax deducted.
Another factor is that the DBP person has a guaranteed regular income.With good management some of them manage to purchase and own their own home whilst on the DBP.
The system is most unfair in relation to the lower paid worker

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Yes Don. It is perfectly legitimate to use the accommodation supplement to pay a mortgage.

The welfare advocates continue to insist that there is no evidence people choose welfare as a lifestyle. With what you have witnessed, why ever wouldn't poorly educated or unskilled people take the financially better option?

I really appreciate those who don't.

brian_smaller said...

We're fucked. Can't think of any other way to put it.

Anonymous said...

This headline and story says it all. NZ Herald of 9/7/11 "NZ women promiscuous - doctor". Read the story and learn of the culture. What a sic depraved society gives young females permission to behave like what the story says. Then expect the taxpayer to pay for unwanted babies and the STD medical problems it causes as well. Get the total holistic view of the DPB. They rant on about tobacco smoking get a grip what really costs in our society. No one can defend that story as it is a revelation of the weekly outcomes of a sexually lawless society that all are forced to pay for.

Anonymous said...

Further to the blog before this one. Religious pressures and rules used to keep promiscuous activity to a minimum and obviously now doesn,t work much but electronic chastity belts enforced by law should be the new norm. The State has to pick up the chastity mantle where religion has waned out. This modern age can produce all sorts of chastity devices or implant methods to prevent future DBP outcomes. Obviously moral education is failing.Get a grip something has to be done.If we were as strict on the young in the sex behaviour area as we are in the driving licenses area, big reductions would be made in DPB numbers.

Anonymous said...

Here,s a new bit of Govt policy. All pre teen females in NZ either have an implant to control reproduction OR her parents (must be two) sign a waiver making them (parents) responsible for all financial care of any baby their female child may have before the age 30 or marriage. The waiver form showing the ird numbers, passport numbers,photos, and even fingerprints of the parents to avoid any trickery.

Anonymous said...

Lindsay, You didn't include Working for Families payments. Because of the WWF scheme someone working can earn more than someone receiving the DPB benefit. Before it was introduced, a solo mother paid the minimum or low wage would have been financially just as well off on the DPB. I pointed this out to an MP one day and was told in a dismissive tone that at least I had my self-respect.


Anonymous said...

This modern age can produce all sorts of chastity devices or implant methods to prevent future DBP outcomes

There's something so much cheaper and more effective than all this expensive intervention and technology:


Anonymous said...

Because of the WWF scheme someone working can earn more than someone receiving the DPB benefit.

No - because of WELFARE FOR FAMILIES - some ow-worth, low-value "Kiwis", even though working can still receive benefits - payed for by high-worth, high-value kiwis.

Just stop welfare.

Just stop.

Anonymous said...

JUST STOP THE MONEY is the ultimate blunt instrument solution and yet may come to that. Then there may many pregnant people on the sickness or invalids payments. The people who work in the welfare office,the front line people, are the ones who dispense govt policy. From where they are sitting,they are in the drama and facing the flack of the blunt instrument approach. Best to control and enforce contraception to age groups most at risk which is common stats these days. There must be a safety net for victims of divorce which is also the dpb. Deliberate or careless babies are different from broken marriages. Call broken marriage welfare a different name. Society would be in chaos if marriage break ups led to young children thrown to the wolves.

Anonymous said...

The "just stop welfare" idea just throws all the burden on the Salvation Army and many other charity dispensing organisations to pick up the tab for the entire community,s welfare problems. That,s abdication of a GOVT role. GET REAL. Without welfare you get an 18th century Fagan & the 40 thieves era society.That put,s the problem in the Police Force area, talk about duckshoving. Carefully weed out each and every welfare benefit that has slumped into abuse of what it,s original intention was. Have a thought conception of what society would be like if all welfare stopped next Monday. Would you want live in that society? Watching your back and worldly goods all the time? There,s enough brain power around to solve it without turning the clock back 200 years.

Anonymous said...

Just stop welfare.
---I wouldn,t want to be coming out of supermarket loaded with groceries or at a money machine or any other public purchasing place with about 400,000 angry, hungry predators or otherwise ready to rob. Change the whole face of society overnight.
Think it through.


Anonymous said...

The minimum Wage for a 40 hour week is too low.The person on this could also get accommadation benefit and working for families etc if they are elligible.You didnt mention this.Have you ever lived on this amount Lindsay?Where would you live?Would you want to live in a bad,crime ridden neighbourhood with children in your care?How would you like to live with a drug dealer across the road?A convicted paedophile next door who has just got out after 18 months in jail for raping his step children.His wife likes to invite the young children of the street in for biscuits and lollies?I bet you would not.That is the choice some have.Money can help you live in a better area and your children are then able to attend a better school.Life is nice in Eastbourne.Life is nice when you have a nice husband who cares about his family.Life is nice when nothing bad has happened to you or your family.I dont believe in long term welfare for single parents but I do believe in appropriate help to enable people to become independent.But I also dont think children should have to live in crime ridden neighbourhoods.