"1pm Covid Health Update for 17th October, 2020"

 This is funny on a day when some of us will probably be in dire need a dose of levity by close.

Benefit numbers climb - a trend established pre-Covid

 

 

Since Labour took office the Jobseeker trend has been upward.

All main benefits which include sole parent and supported living payments have now exceeded GFC levels with an additional 534 recipients in the week to 9 October 2020. 

Since Covid:

The Prime Minister's Big Fail

 

(Child data not publicly available. Graph compiled from OIA responses.)

Child poverty not driven by historic benefit cuts

The impoverishment of children after the infamous, historical  benefit cuts continues to be pushed by a host of leftists including the Children's Commissioner as a sound reason to now lift benefits substantially.

Here's a breakdown of state-dependent sole parent incomes in 1989 (Q1) and 2020 (Q2):

The tables are compiled from three sources:

The NZ Yearbook 1988/89, MSD Benefit Rate information, The Reserve Bank Inflation Calculator.

The first comparison has the 2020 sole parent receiving more.

But accommodation does make up a larger % of the total sum in 2020.

If I remove accommodation...

...the 2020 sole parent receives less.

If I configure a slightly different family size...

...and again remove the accommodation aspect...

...the 2020 sole parent is receiving  just 1.6% less.

But what must also be taken into account  is the greater availability and uptake of second and third tier assistance in 2020 - Temporary Additional Support and Special Benefit receipt, and Special Needs Grants. I don't have sufficient data at hand to factor these in but know their inclusion would push today's income example over that of 1989.

The narrative that has grown up around the 'notorious' neoliberal benefit cuts driving NZ children into poverty is simply unfounded. All that leads to is wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment.

We don't need a Minister for Child Poverty.

What we need is a Minister for Child Prioritisation (and it pains me to call for any kind of Minister).

People need to hear a strong and unified message that parents must prioritise their children above all else.

If you don't like the message then don't assume the responsibility.

"Greens inviting Inland Revenue to your funeral"

Over at the Daily Blog Chris Trotter has characterised opposition to the Green's wealth tax as "the terrible power of selfishness."

Yes, the Taxpayer's Union has sent a personalised letter to people who own properties worth more than  $1 million (according to Trotter) warning about the Greens proposed wealth tax.

We don't live in a $1m house BTW but received a copy. I read through ours with interest. Here's the excerpt that grabbed my attention:

Trotter is terrified that this awareness campaign from the Taxpayer's Union could kill the Greens vote. But, he says, if it looks "over the next few days" like suceeding, Jacinda could give Chloe the nod in Auckland Central, or even tell Labour supporters to Party Vote Green. 

Problem is she's already been hurrying  her supporters to the polls and there might not be much left to manipulate come official polling day.

2 workers for every 1 beneficiary

Roger Douglas writing at the NZCPR this week:

 For the next 40 years, the number of beneficiaries will grow rapidly, whilst the number of workers, in relative terms, will decline (from around 3 workers to every 1 beneficiary now, to around 1.66 workers to every beneficiary by 2060).

I think this may be a tad optimistic.

Broadly there are 1.2 million people on either a main benefit, student allowance or super (respectively 369,300 + 40,890 + 815,391.)

According to StatsNZ:

For the week ended 23 August 2020, the 34-day series shows there were 2.195 million paid jobs, compared with 2.200 million in the previous week.

2.2 workers to 1.2 beneficiaries.

More like 2:1

To use Douglas' terminology, 2 workers for every 1 beneficiary.

UPDATE

I raised this with Muriel Newman and she clarifies:

...I think it is a question of terminology.

Roger is calling superannuitants 'beneficiaries', so he is only talking about "the costs of delivering pensions and healthcare for the retired" - he's not including people on income support.

He sort of explains it is the first bit of the quote:

"Significantly, we have begun to enter a 30-40 year welfare maturity period, where the costs of delivering pensions and healthcare for the retired is going to rise dramatically, year on year. For the next 40 years, the number of beneficiaries will grow rapidly, whilst the number of workers, in relative terms, will decline (from around 3 workers to every 1 beneficiary now, to around 1.66 workers to every beneficiary by 2060)."

It would have been clearer if he had used the terminology we are used to:

"For the next 40 years, the number of the retired will grow rapidly, whilst the number of workers, in relative terms, will decline (from around 3 workers to every 1 pensioner now, to around 1.66 workers to every pensioner by 2060)."

I hope that clarifies the situation.

I misinterpreted his meaning because his two opening paragraphs used the phrases 'welfare benefits', 'welfare crisis' and 'welfare policy'.