Artemis, I have also done a bit more research, and apparently the WFF subsidy is an important factor at this level of family earnings, and was taken into account by the group who originally proposed a living wage. I have never claimed WFF, so I don't know much about it.
http://www.livingwagenz.org.nz/files...n%20Report.pdf
This means that a single person, who cannot claim WFF, and has no backup income from a spouse working part-time, will have less income in total. Let's say about $400 take-home at the current minimum wage of $13.50. They are obviously not going to be renting a house for themselves, they'll need to be flatting, paying board at home, etc. Even driving to work in their own car will be a major out-of-pocket expense of probably $50-$100 a week including vehicle repairs. If this minimum wage situation kept up for a long time, the person involved will not be saving much unless they have a frugal lifestyle, or take on another part-time job.
These figures focus attention on what those on a benefit are paid, by the state. It's obviously less, so more restrictive in terms of what they can do. A single person of a benefit can be stuck with a lot of time on their hands, any owned transport will be very basic and little used, rental costs normally have to be shared, and their chances of presenting well at a job interview reduce over time. Their employment record is against them.
I thought that all state house rents were now at market rates. National put this in place a few years ago, but had to backtrack after widespread protests. Here is the current deal.
NZ needs an economy so strong that employers can all afford to pay staff close to the living wage as a minimum. It doesn't mean that benefits have to go up, but there need to be credible jobs for the unemployed to apply for, with a good chance of landing one. As I have said before, well-paid manufacturing jobs close to urban centres fit the bill, exactly the sort of jobs that National's hands-off policies have usually helped to decimate. Except for the Tiwai Point smelter, and they only helped there, so they could get extra cash out of Meridian.Quote:
The Fifth Labour Government, elected in 1999, placed a moratorium on state house sales and re-established the income-related rents. In 2001, Housing New Zealand, the Housing Corporation, and part of the Ministry of Social Policy were combined into the Housing New Zealand Corporation, so that policy and administration for state housing are controlled by a single agency.[46]
A program to modernise state houses was introduced after 1999. Existing houses are insulated, the layout is improved, and in many cases the kitchen and bathroom are replaced.[47] A "Community Renewal" program, started in 2001, attempts to build supportive networks amongst residents of state housing areas, reduce crime and increase safety, and improve community services.[48]
Rents are now limited to 25 percent of net household income for tenants earning up to the rate of New Zealand Superannuation (for 2013/14, this is $357.42 per week for singles, $549.88 combined per annum for couples). For those earning more than the rate of NZ Super, rent is 25 percent on income up to the NZ Super rate, then 50 percent on income above this up to the property's market rent.[49]