Show me the numbers / A comparison of circumstance

[marsden_online]

Update 21-02-2102 - story clarifying gross vs net appears in the Herald. Win :)
Minister spells out $43,000 'salary' claim for solo mum
~~~

"Gone all the way to the media" story of the week.
Mum: Prostitution to pay for studies
Mum's $43,000 benefit 'sufficient'
From the second (more recent) story

A domestic purposes beneficiary who is considering prostitution to pay for childcare and transport costs to attend a Unitec study course receives the equivalent of a $43,000 salary a year, Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows told Parliament yesterday.
...
"I think most New Zealanders would find that an equivalent salary of $43,000 is sufficient, or at least reasonable," Mr Borrows said.

The first story includes a breakdown of what I am assuming is Ms Wysoki's personal finances, but could easily be in part publicly available benefit entitlement information. It is given as weekly but simple multiplication gives ~$37,630 a year. Which using the tax calculator at IRD is about right for a -gross- salary of $43,000, but nowhere near as much money -to spend- as the article repeatedly implies.

I felt sufficiently strongly about this misrepresentation that I sent an email to the "author" of the article about it.

And how much money would be sufficient? I can only work from my own very different situation. Looking at my 2011 accounts and stripping out business and house-related related expenses
- but not mortgage payments as I noted they approximate what Ms Wysocki spends on rent
my Christchurch based, single-white-male, frugal but comfortable, healthy, dwelling-in-middle-class-privileged self still goes through $600-700 a week*. I think Ms Wysocki is doing bloody well as a single mother with two small children on a bit over $700 per week in the upper-north-island.

*1 I could halve this for a while if I had to just by stopping voluntary payments on the mortgage. Not a luxury available to Ms Wysocki with her rent. There are other things I could cut back on as well - moving from "frugal but comfortable" to just "frugal".
*2 Ok the utility bills are for two but they only come to about $60 a week - how much of a small child would you like to equate my flatmate to? :p

~~~
"You keep using those numbers. I do not think they are as big as you think they are." (apol. Inigo)

Comments

[jomas-45.livejournal.com]

And it will have to be prostitution, as you need a damn good job to be able to get $43000 a year. I'm on $30000 a year at an entry level job, which she'll be stuck in unless she has some good qualifications that employers want. That said, sometimes the above can just be a two week course! I think it's single parent, three kids, and then you're better off on the dole as you have to pay for child care.

I think her benefit changes to less as soon as she starts studying as well. Perhaps she should look into an Open Polytech course? Then it's only once a week that she has to go into town.

Jonathan

[(Anonymous)]

I've just re-read the article a couple of times, and I'm not seeing what is annoying you. As you said yourself, Mr Borrows statement is perfectly correct - this woman is recieving the equivalent of somebody on a gross salary of $43,000. Salaries and annual incomes are always stated as gross (at least I've never seen one given as net) so anything else would be misleading.

[niennahirilfea.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine getting that much money, I get under $17000 a year. But I'm only looking after myself (plus cat), I imagine that $43000 would be woefully inadequate for 2 kids, especially in the North Island. Also, the changes they made to the training incentive allowance are rubbish, the government just doesn't seem to grasp...anything.

(edited because I get less than I thought, lol, maths fail.)

[twoswords.livejournal.com]

There's a breakdown of income vs expenses in the second article you linked to. The figures are incredibly conservative - $150/week for groceries and $55/month for power especially stand out as very low.

The problem is that Mr Borrows doesn't give two hoots about whether 43,000 is enough for Ms Wysocki to bring up two children - his intention is simply to get the ear of every family earning the same or less from working, in order to pit them against her. Hell, she's not even asking the govt for more money, just talking about getting a part-time job.

[jomas-45.livejournal.com]

Also, I would like to point out that you need either nothing, level 1 NCEA or a tertiary education to get into a job. The years in between you only need to get into University. There are a couple of exceptions, but there aren't many!

So removing the right to training allowance for tertiary education is not helping the economy at all, especially since we are trying to move away from manufacture, according to lip service.

[marsden-online.livejournal.com]

Comments closed due to spam.