dime (5,157) Says:
December 2nd, 2012 at 8:14 pm

oh no! if lucs right then its just not fair!! i cant believe the difference in income between a hard working dime and a lazy sack of shit is growing. how sad.

Yeah we can all see how hard you’ve been working today dime:

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 9:08 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:32 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:36 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:38 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:48 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:52 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:59 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 11:00 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 11:09 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 11:14 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 11:30 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 11:57 am

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 12:04 pm

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 12:09 pm

dime (5,157) Says:
December 3rd, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Maybe for those who have left a job, and started a new one, but for folks like me, we’re lucky to get 1 or 2 percent increase, and thats not guaranteed year on year !

He he, forgive me that house prices have anything to do with the costs of buying a house.

I did hear a report on RNZ that the lowest 25% has suffered an 8% reduction for the year. (from memory)

That stands entirely to reason because they are the victims of the regressive tax changes and suffer the most from increasing unemployment.

Yes, they are victims of the fact that others are now still paying a much higher percentage tax than them, but slightly less so than 5 years ago.

They are not victims of the choices made by themselves and by their parents.

Your stats make it appear house prices in Auckland are decreasing.

Wow, first Luc & Pscyho fail basic literacy, then wreck appears to think that Housing Costs = House prices.

Nice way to prove you can spin numbers any which way.

Saying what is not mentioned – that rent costs have increased by 5% – is a problem for you? Why leave out the fact that the 35% who rent are not better off?

And why ignore the fact that the increased number of those unemployed are not doing better either, given that benefits are way lower than work incomes?

Or that those doing post graduate study will be going from $240 a week student allowance to $170 a week living cost on the student loan next year (and many are saying they will not be able to study on the lower income)?

If there are less jobs and more on benefit level income, 35% of people (unable to afford owning homes) are facing higher rents, and students are forced to end study they can no longer afford to continue – then this needs to be appreciated when promoting some achievement that is clearly not shared by all.

There is either propoganda or an informed democracy.

But you guys instead choose to hope those on the lowest incomes are worse of. You don’t actually have any data showing it, you just perversely want it to be true so you can score partisan points. That is utterly despicable.

66% of people with phd’s make less than 80k? ouch.

gazzmaniac (1,380) Says:
December 2nd, 2012 at 7:04 pm

My objective analysis is that Luc is wrong.

But that could be just your confirmation bias at work.

Those have been very poorly described here, if that is the case.

That stands entirely to reason because they are the victims of the regressive tax changes and suffer the most from increasing unemployment.

If anyone can point me to an objective analysis instead of the confirmation-bias affirming postings from DPF, I would be grateful.

$82,029 is for those households where there is someone working.

$81,067 is the figure for all households – ACC, benefits, super included.

I know it’s possible, but the idea that the average family makes a loss from a regular source of income just seems kind of F@#$ed up.

Yet there are more households where there is no job and they cannot afford a house (rising rents, rent costs up 5%).

Classic situation under a National government – those who have do better (tax cuts at the top rate), those who have less become worse off and there are more of them.

It’s possible many workers on lower incomes have not had wage increases at all and because they do not own their own home and face rent increases they are worse off.

The government is facing greater cost to government in benefits and accomodation supplement – so under budget pressure they cut student allowances for graduate students (the hand up to those in low income families who could not afford to study otherwise). Now many of them are looking at studying abroad (where there are both jobs and the higher wages help them to afford study).

Where is the trickle down from the well to do’s gain – lack of job creation and the opportunity to study being reduced?

And the average salary didnt rise as much as the median did, so what does that say about inequality?

Luc you wouldnt accept any stats that showed inequality had fallen, and Milt you wouldnt accept any stats that showed people were better off under a National government. Get over yourselves.