I was working on a standard-of-living case and was shown figures prepared by an approved budget advisory service for Meg and her daughter Stacey (I have simplified some detail and changed their names).
Meg’s chronic health condition ruled out paid employment, so she was on a benefit.
The budget recorded the family’s 2012 weekly income as $484 and proposed the following spending:
• Food: $130 for simple but nutritious meals recommended by the University of Otago Department of Human Nutrition.
• Housing: $119 for a state house at a subsidised rate.
• Household energy: $40 – the house was neither warm nor in a good shape; it may have been condemned shortly after – sewage flowed outside when it rained.
• Medical and educational costs: $53, despite our providing “free” health care and schooling.
• Transport: $97 – high because the house was badly located and they needed to travel for health care.
• Phone: $26.
These amounts total $465, leaving just $19 a week for everything else, including clothing and footwear, entertainment, recreation, dental care, consumer durables, insurance and a variety of things that could be considered normal, such as haircuts, presents, school trips and pets.
There’s no allowance for alcohol or tobacco, you’ll note. Continue reading.
Dr Brian Easton has written an economics column for The Listener for 30 years, holds positions at four NZ universities, and has advised the NZ government.
Source: The Listener
Image: Emma Beer/Stuff
Related Posts:
News category: Analysis and Comment.
