Reading beyond the headlines
May 30th, 2009 at 10:54 am by David FarrarThe Herald has a story that opens:
The pension minus essential living costs equals a deficit of $129 a week for Papatoetoe superannuitants John and Marian Laurie.
Then later on we see:
They spend $120 a week on food, $30 on petrol, $40 on other personal needs and $150 a week paying off their credit card, which is the only way they have been able to cover their deficit.
Now it is quite misleading to include paying off the credit card as part of essential living costs. And I note that without the $150 a week towards that, then there is a $20 a week surplus.
My comments are in no way a criticism of the couple, who seem very reasonable – more a criticism of the story.
The couple also qualify for an accommodation supplement and a disability allowance, which bring their total income from Work and Income up to $633.50 a week.
This is an annual income from the taxpayer of $33,000 a year. An economy our size is never going to be able to offer much more than that to a retired couple – especially as the population ages.
Related posts:
- $75/week for $1m state house
- The living wage campaign
- Labour on housing
- Reading between the headlines
May 30th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Why do we persist on calling them superannuitants as though they paid into a fund and are now getting their money back. They are old age pensioners being paid a welfare benefit. A welfare benefit that those still working or receiving large superannuation payouts should not be getting!
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 11:13 am
unfortunately for you, we live in a society that supports the poor, the old, the sick and the weak. Besides, Credit card debt is essential to pay off because if they don’t the interest accumulates and some people have lost everything due to credit card debt. In my mind it would be essential to pay that off.
[DPF: You miss the point - twice. I'm not saying we should not support the poor. And as I said we are paying $33,000 a year supporting them. Credit card debt is not a normal weekly expense - the story was misleading.]
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 11:14 am
The first thing they should do is cut back their life insurance to $10 per week. $1,740 per year is outrageous for people such as this. Then reduce the card reduction to $50 per week. Problem solved. Budget balanced. Go find another sob story, Herald.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I tend to agree about the life insurance. I have it to cover costs of my kids education and support if I snuff it before they are 18 and out on their own. Not much point after that.
Kingi – Getting rid of the cc debt is very important – why I don’t have one any more. I use a visa debit card. No interest because you never spend dosh yo udon’t have.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 11:30 am
This is the outcome of socialist indoctrination process that has existed over the last three of four decades, where people are brainwashed into thinking that there is no other option but state dependence.
This process is designed to take away peoples ability to be self reliant, to remove from the thoughts of the citizenry the idea that they can prosper as individuals, and care for themselves as individuals. They must succumb to the idea that without the state looking out for them, their comfort and health and financial security and overall future is in doubt.
The people in the story are decent NZers. They would have made good on their own if the left had not indoctrinated them with the ideas above. Created the dependency and collectivist mindset that afflicts so many NZers.
Why do the left so this? Why do the left work so assiduously to make NZ’s dependent on the state?
It is their key to political power.
The more people who surrender to the idea that the state will look after each and every need, the more people will fall for the lies and propaganda of the left and vote them into power. In the belief that they offer a helping hand.
So that’s the trade off. Surrender your pride and independence and individuality and succumb to the myth that you need the left to look after you. Go fill in your forms. Subject your self to the means test. Grovel to the bureaucrats. Beg for your bowl of soup. Swim like a whitebait. Trek like a lemming to the abyss.
Utterly disgusting what the power seeking socialists have done to this country. What we have let them do. The sad plight of John and Marian Laurie is only the tip of the iceberg.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I note that they’re living in a rental yet have no income from investments; there may be all sorts of reasons why they didn’t buy property or save some of their income throughout their working life (maybe they gave it all to Hanover?) but that alone makes them highly unusual compared to most New Zealanders of a similar age.
[DPF: I agree. I also could have raised issues about the amount spent on power and food, but didn't want to focus on the couple (as not all facts known) but more the premise of the story that you can not survive on $33,000 a year in welfare]
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Anthony I get a reasonable amount of private super, care to tell me whu I should not get national super ?
Vote:This is one bloody reason why i dislike rentals because it takes such a bloody big chunk of dough to service when people retire.
Far rather see people being helped into their own homes as much as that would make the private rental sector whine.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Checking my emails this morning I see one in my junk box offering bulk viagra, shall I order a gross for the National Party as they surly need to harden up. For fucks sake this country is on the path to self destruction. What do we get but more of the same socialist shit we have been forced fed for the last few decades. I have no wish to see the old and the poor destitute but unless we can increase our overall wealth by putting more in the hands of those that actually pay the bills of this country we will all end up like John and Laurie, only a bloody site worst off. National is pissing around at the edges but lacks either bulls or vision to make the hard choices. They are gambling that things will come right, what if they don’t. If you are going to gamble why not go the whole hog and try a NEW approach. I would have gone for a low flat tax rate and the dropping of the GST rate also. Yes there would be pain but how long can we sustain our current government spending programs without dying a slow and painful death. I believe we must make the country “VERY” attractive to those who produce wealth but more importantly we must demand less government as they are the real problem.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I have the answer!
Logan’s Run!
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“I have no wish to see the old and the poor destitute but?”
Sums it up really
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“I have no wish to see the old and the poor destitute but?”
Sums it up really”
What? Your continued attempts to quote people out of context to make your silly points?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Well considering that these poor buggers probably handed over 1/3 of their income to socialist governments of New Zealand to misspend for the bulk of their productive years I’d say overall they probably have gotten a raw deal.
May I remind you it was a National Government that promised universal super funded on a pay as you go basis more than thirty years ago now.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Maslo’s order of needs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg
Of the basic needs,
a) Breathing
b) Water
c) Food
d) Shelter
and so on and so forth.
Credit Card use, Cars, Petrol, Insurances are not really in there.
Instead of saving, or securing a mortgage. I know a lot of folk that lived day to day without any regard for their future when they would become retired.
Spending money on smoking, drinking, socialising, pokies, betting on gee gees.
Rent is really dead money, if you can secure a mortgage. But it is a cost through time, which some choose to take, and others choose to avoid.
Why should it be up to the State to subsidise folk who made no provisions for their eventual retirement?
Sorry, but I just don’t get it.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“Your continued attempts to quote people out of context to make your silly points?”
Exactly. Almost all he ever does.
..and of course its the religion he believes in and promotes and preaches so endlessly that is responsible for generating far more poor and destitute citizens than there would be otherwise.
While his like communist mungbeans posing as journalists attempt to make political capital by lying about these poor dupes and their situation.
Here’s what the headline should be if journalists were honest reporters and not slimy sly advocates for collectivism-
Pathetic Creatures of Socialism Unable To Support Themselves.
By line- where once NZ pioneers went into the bush, cut down trees and cleared a space and built a house, and lived there in peace and self reliance, modern day NZer’s, their minds poisoned by decades of socialism, can’t exist without begging from the state.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The Nats. have thrown in the towel and have obviously decided its easier being a socialist. The budget was their first attempt to begin change and set out a plan for the future, but no they decided that it was better to make the right noises to stay in power rather than tackle the issues. Didn’t trust them before the election and my instincts are right on the money (or lack of it).
The Treasury research that was used in the budget lacks any quality and indeed is already out of date which brings into question why anybody listens to them for they are just never right. Haven’t been for years ( even got it wrong for Cullens budgets.) Time there was a huge clean out in their advice department.
Now if you don’t get the basics right how in God’s name is the rest going to be right. Who is in charge of that.
You have to say that it is the Minister Of Finance. The Hon Bill English.
Judging by his efforts to date I have to say that he lacks the intellectual capacity to do the job.
Indeed lacks the world view to do the job and certainly fails in his knowledge of current NZ economics.
Had he had a better knowledge then he would be able to question the advice given him. Might make him look a bit more sensible.
http://www.sra.co.nz/pdf/TreasuryForecasts.pdf
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
We miss the point when debating if the credit card debt is essential or not. WHAT WAS THE CREDIT CARD USED FOR to incur the debt.
If it was used for essential living stuff, I have a little more sympathy with the couple but they are on a path to nowhere. Or was it used for other things e.g. travel, holidays, new (expensive) car etc. In that case they only have themselves to blame. We just don’t know.
Let me assume they are paying the debt off over a year. That means the debt level on the card was over $7,000 – that’s a lot for a retired couple. More information please!
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
These guys have a very nice car. Either that or their insurance company is ripping them off. One wonders why they didn’t buy a house when they could – and why the limit on their credit card is so high.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I haven’t seen the story, there was no link included but $120 per week for food?
Do they live on fucking caviar and champagne?
They don’t work (apparently) , spend $30 on petrol and yet can’t grow or source food for half that?
Someone’s pulling someone else’s tit here.
There probably are poor people in NZ, this couple ain’t.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
What about the families responsibility to care for their parents? A lot of people are too self centred or like Kingi believe the Govt should pay for everything.
My mother in law hasn’t reached pension age yet (not far off though) and we help out by giving her a bit extra a week to save up for trips to see the grandkids and help out towards some purchases.
I think it is completely rediculous to assume it is all up to the Govt.
The other problem is promoting people should retire at the minimum age like alot of these people did and so any savings is long gone. The wake up call is people aren’t going to die automatically within 5 years of retiring anymore.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
This is another reason to look after yourself instead of expecting the government to help paying this miserly sum. The more incentives offered to people to save for retirement during their working lives, the better.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I wonder if I said, “I don’t believe that terrorism is justified, but….” what the response would be.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
$33,000 a year for a married pensioner couple is unsustainable into the future as a ‘pay-as-you-go’ scheme but no-one wants to face the truth. What was the ‘old age pension’ was renamed ‘superannuation’ as some sort of PC attempt to change the concept from ‘welfare’ to ‘entitlement’. My take on the recent Budget provisions is that the ground is being prepared to scrap the Cullen fund and distribute the money into personalized Kiwisaver accounts. There is no way the economy can support Governmant payments into 3 schemes; Superannuation, Kiwisaver, and the Cullen fund. I am sorry the Nats did not have the balls to modify the super scheme now (like raising the entitlement age to 67 as in Oz, and means testing) when the country accepts the need for austerity, because they are going to be forced to do it later when they will be electorally vulnerable.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“I wonder if I said, “I don’t believe that terrorism is justified, but….” what the response would be.”
You’d be laughed out of town. All of your totalitarian dictator heroes specialized in terror, from Stalin to Guevera/ Castro and Mao.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“$33,000 a year for a married pensioner couple is unsustainable into the future”
Why? the country is wealthy enough to support that level, or even higher easily.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
They call this the sandwich generation for good reason.
If this couple never had children, why no savings?
If there are children, where are they?
We have given heaps of help willingly to both our sets of parents to get them on comfortable holidays.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Why, because this country could afford to pay $100k for every retired married couple? How rich are we?
Lemon!
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Q/ Is sonic one person or is there a rota system in place at the auckland central young labour party that is drawn up by someone during the ad breaks in shortland street?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Sonic is the game they all play incessantly, whilst contemporaneously watching back to back Shortland Street episodes. Along with Young Doctors. Neighbours, and Corrie.
What a group of useless bludging wastrels!
Ideal for Politics really.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I see that neither expat or stupidus actually disagree that we can easily afford old age pensions.
I better watch out though or old maximus will challenge me to a fight and expat might hit the Karma button!!!
Got a point guys?
Thought not.,
xxx
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Ok Sonic you intellectual genius what would you have done if you were drawing up the budget. I mightn’t be the brightest light on the tree but at least I stated what I would have done. You on the other hand would rather play silly buggers and snivel away in the corner because you are not getting your way, whatever that might be. Please enlighten us on how you are going to save our butts and no I don’t want to become a communist.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
MT Tinman, $120 a week is bugger all for food these days. If you were eating cheap mince or sausages every night as your only source of dinner time protein, that alone would cost $35-$40. 4 litres of milk per week = $8. 2-3 loaves of bread per week = $6-$12. The bare minimum of fruit and veges for two people would be $15-$20. A block of cheese is $8-$10. So that’s between $62-$88 right there. Then throw in some toilet paper, cleaning products, shampoo and conditioner, rubbish bags, lightbulbs, fly spray, a packet of Superwine biscuits and some teabags and you’re lucky to scrape in under $120. And you don’t even have butter for your bread yet.
When did you last go to the supermarket? 1955?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Well thats a big question side show, I’m merely making the simple point that a nation that cannot look after it’s old people has no right to call itself civilised.
If that is “communist” then so be it.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
any one else hear an annoying whining noise? kinda small and high pitched and buzzy?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Stealing my lines now expat, what a flatterer you are
xxx
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
What about the people that have never contributed? 45 years on the benefit and then another 20 on the pension. Thats what you call taking the country forward.
Does anyone here disagree that the pension age shouldn’t be pushed to 67 and that by 2030 it won’t be 70?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
And what proportion of the elderly population do you think that is Southern, 0.001%?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
This is an annual income from the taxpayer of $33,000 a year. An economy our size is never going to be able to offer much more than that to a retired couple – especially as the population ages.
The main reason for our economy being the size it is is that the tax take as a % of GDP is far too high: the govt is a parasite bleeding the economy dry. Adopt a flat tax rate of 5-10% and we will be able to afford superannuation (not that the government has any business providing superannuation).
More details here:
Vote:http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/budget-2009/
May 30th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
This is an annual income from the taxpayer of $33,000 a year. An economy our size is never going to be able to offer much more than that to a retired couple – especially as the population ages.
The main reason for our economy being the size it is is that the tax take as a % of GDP is far too high; the govt is a parasite that is bleeding the economy dry. If we had a flat tax rate of 5-10% superannuation would be easily affordable (not that the state has any business providing superannuation).
More details here:
Vote:http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/budget-2009/
May 30th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Sonic, my ire is reserved for the darling of the bullying class. You know the one that escaped an assault charge.
Got thrown out of the House, and doesn’t appear to be very honorable at all.
Your idealist diatribe is simply amusing. No thought as to funding or basic economics.
Tell me again where you got so much knowledge about nothing?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
So can I take it Sonic given your view on life you are more then happy to give the state a 100% of your income, I mean how do you sleep at night knowing that the poor and old are doing without. But I suspect you see yourself as some socialist intellectual and giving the state ones entire income does not involve the ruling elite or academics. Look at the Dear One, how many properties did she own, was it six?. She really knew how to spread wealth didn’t she Sonic, the trouble is Sonic like every socialist I have ever meet it’s always someones else wealth they are talking about. Anyhow if you think the old and poor are suffering now this will be nothing if we continue down the same path.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
# sonic (2307) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 9 Says:
May 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Why? the country is wealthy enough to support that level, or even higher easily.
”
How? What are you going to cut from the budget to pay for this increase, or how do you otherwise plan to raise the money?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
” idealist diatribe”
Keeping our old people out of poverty is now “idealist”? Arguing for it makes you a communist?
That tells us much about the decline of parts of the conservative movement into deranged ideologues.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
“That tells us”
Learn some manners commie. You don’t speak for any “us”. Ypou speak for one silly little socialist dropkick who likes to see himself as part of a big collectivist herd.
“much about the decline of parts of the conservative movement into deranged ideologues.”
You’re the damned ideologue. You cannot seem to think any means of escaping “poverty” other than by means of subscribing to your discredited and outdated state worshiping religion. Boring shallow little loser.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I still hear an annoying whining noise? kinda small and high pitched and buzzy.
Anyone else hear it too?
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Trolls like Sonic aka Catatonic aka Insanic aka Sosick exist only while we acknowledge their presence. Ignore them, and pop they are gone.
What Sonic? I see no Sonic nor anything from such a poster. Perhaps it’s a troll over at the Standard you guys are thinking of. They say there’s a gurgling sound over there.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Balls!
I shop for myself, eat what I want, when I want (and since I’m regularly working that tends to be the expensive faster type stuff – not take aways) and I’m buggered if I could approach $100.00 per week.
If you’re on a budget and crying poor $120 pw for food for a non-working older couple is excessive.
Incidentally I’m not keen on eating “toilet paper, cleaning products, shampoo and conditioner, rubbish bags, lightbulbs, fly spray” but with sensible purchasing they would cost about $100-150 per year.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I see our Tory chums are still in denial.
Just ignore contrary arguments and they will go away eh Jack?
As for ratbiter, are you guys not embarrassed to have him on your side? Clearly not as 6 of you have given him that big thumbs up.
earlier I said “That tells us much about the decline of parts of the conservative movement into deranged ideologues”
Point proved I think.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Sonic – didn’t you this morning claim you don’t waste you time looking at karma votes?
“Does anyone seriously waste time with them?”
had you been drinking?
Vote:May 31st, 2009 at 1:53 am
NO David, I did not miss the substantive points. I was simply raising the fact that we have superannuation as we support the elderly. I didn’t claim that your post somehow claimed you didn’t support the two people mentioned. As for the other comments by certain ideologues…
“boring shallow little loser” are you serious? Is this the best you can do? Who is the real shallow one?
The right stooping to low grade attacks as per usual.
hahahaha.
Vote:May 31st, 2009 at 9:59 am
I read the same article and I was thinking:
(a) rented house, and on the reported facts no income earning assets at all – what were they doing all their lives?
(b) $30 a week on life insurance? WTF? Given their age that is the last thing they should be spending money on.
(c) $23 a week on telephone? Whip down to Vodafone and get a prepay phone and disconnect the land line
I could go on but none of it rang true. Either there are more facts or something is mis-reported.
Obviously going to the media and having a whine about how miserable your life is was easier than actually trying to do something about it.
Vote:May 31st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
The telephone bit refers to the emergency line that they have in their house – reasonably essential if you have any elderly person prone to falls. They wear a button around their wrist which will connect immediately to the ambulance. Most people get one after they’ve spent a day lying in their bathroom yelling for help after a slip. I don’t think Vodafone offer this service.
The life insurance bit is silly and unnecessary at their age. They’ve obviously been badly advised by some unscrupulous insurance seller. Remember though that elderly people are particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing.
Plenty of factors can add up to a hard-working person being in a rented house at the end of their life. If it were your parents, would you have more sympathy? Hard work is not the only variable in this life, and it’s crap to think that it guarantees you anything. Luck plays a part as well, that’s simply undeniable.
Vote: