The Largesse

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, April 3rd, 2018 - 51 comments
Categories: benefits, capitalism, class war, cost of living, Economy, poverty, Propaganda, tax, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, useless, welfare - Tags: ,

April the first and second mark the days when those receiving entitlements receive a yearly increase in line with the CPI, and this year, the governments increase to Accommodation Supplement also comes into effect.

The government has announced that there will be an average increase of some $35 in accommodation supplement. The CPI is currently sitting below 1%, so that won’t be stacking very much onto peoples’ taxed payments.

What’s pissing me off is that many people who are not eligible for entitlements will be of the persuasion that payments have just gone up by a reasonable amount given the bump in Accommodation Supplement – ie, thirty odd dollars. Those of us receiving monies from our public purse know better (and those that don’t know better are about to)

I’ve a request to make with regards this post. Please keep general comment and opinion for other posts on this topic that will be going up. In comments, simply indicate the weekly increase in your payments. I’m not saying it will read like a catalogue of indictment. That’s just a suspicion.

Thanks.

 

51 comments on “The Largesse”

  1. weka 1

    Here is the Accommodation Supplement calculator (this can be used by all beneficiaries not just those with childcare costs),

    https://www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz/calculators/

    If you receive Temporary Additional Support (TAS) here are the links for calculating that,

    https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/extra-help/temporary-additional-support/calculating-the-rate-of-payment-01.html

    Check these links too https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/extra-help/temporary-additional-support/introduction.html

    People without entitlements who don’t understand this, have a look through those links, especially TAS and see what it is like.

  2. patricia bremner 2

    GSF pension was lower last year, at 1.5%, this year 1.98%. With these cumulative small CPI rises it has, according to their letter risen 45% since 20001. I have about half of a normal pension (21 years worth of saving,) so actual cash rise half a dozen eggs in 2016, a week and a loaf of bread in 2017 lol. But we are pleased we went without for the 11 years buying back at 18%., as it does make a difference.

  3. Kay 3

    As I said in OP yesterday, grand total of 31c increase.

    AS cap in Wellington increased $5 to $105 (wow, have they seen reality lately?). Nearly every beneficiary in private rental already getting the max AS, plus TAS. If I wasn’t getting TAS I’d have got at least the extra $4 for SLP “cost of living” increase. Maybe even a bit more on AS. But had about $9 docked by virtue of it being cancelled out by the TAS cut.

  4. mac1 4

    My two brothers live singly in similar accommodation. One rents a Council flat for $130 pw, the other privately for $185 pw. The former might get $21 as accommodation supplement, effectively $109, depending upon whether or not his landlord, the CCC, is a social housing provider; the latter will get a $60 supplement, effectively paying $125 pw.

    Both live on superannuation alone, at $400 pw after tax.(new rate is $801 per fortnight). For a couple superannuation brings in $616 per week.

    My brothers will be entitled to a winter warmth subsidy of about $260 this year. A couple will get about $400 from July 1 to September 30.

  5. JanM 5

    It would help to understand better if the full names were given. Although I am a superannuation recipient I have, so far, thank goodness, kept out of all the other stuff because I live in my motorhome, so I don’t understand what all these letters stand for!

  6. koreropono 6

    One person I know receiving accommodation supplement will gain $5.00 in accommodation allowance, but this will be negated by a subsequent drop in Temporary Additional Support (TAS) – effectively a nil increase.

    Similar happened when National claimed they’d raised benefits for families with children by $25 per week, this of course was another illusion, particularly for those who received TAS (and in my opinion most beneficiaries should be receiving TAS).

  7. adam 7

    Ummm you missed on thing Bill, my rent went up by $25 dollars on the back of this increase in accommodation supplement. Yes my landlord know I get disability allowance, and a accommodation supplement. So whatever the increase I’m negative $25 to begin with.

    • weka 7.1

      That’s the one that is worrying me. It’s shitty politics because Labour are presenting it as something it is not. But worse is that not only will some people be worse off because that’s how the benefits are designed, on top of that there will be landlords who don’t understand how it works and think they can just make an extra $35 from the govt and this will be a net decrease for the bene (sometimes a double net decrease).

      All of that was known and predictable.

      • adam 7.1.1

        Brave politics would be to remove the accommodation supplement totally, and tell landlords the state will no longer support them.

        But we are bereft of brave politicians.

    • mac1 7.2

      Adam, your rent went up $25 so that means that you will be able to claim for an accommodation supplement based on that new amount. You won’t get all of it, but should get most. The supplement is based on rental paid, and figured out on various factors including assets, income and money in the bank.
      https://www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz/calculators/

      • adam 7.2.1

        Why is my rent go up 8% in a low inflationary period (what official rate 2% or some such b.s) ? MMM I wonder.

        So mac1 why did you go for defence of the landlord and them gouging the taxpayer?

        Why should taxpayers pay for landlords rising rents above inflation? What is wrong with landlords when they never got so much rent in a low inflation, low interest rate period? We now have blatant greed on display, coupled with abject failure of successive governments in relation to housing.

        This government can’t deal with that greed it’s not actually possible. Nor can this government cope with the housing crisis, they lack the framework to actually get it done, let alone getting past a hostile media at the beck and call of cupidities worst elements.

        • mac1 7.2.1.1

          Adam, I made no defence of landlords raising the rent above what is fair and reasonable.

          I pointed out what your landlord’s $25 increase should mean to you. The supplement reduces it to something like a $7 increase to you. I detected from your statement that you did not understand that the supplement would also increase, regrettably not by the same amount.

          If rental increases were fully subsidised by the tax-payer via accommodation supplements then you’d see a lot more than 8% increases by some landlords. It’d be a gravy train. I see you argue above at 7.1.1 that the supplement be abolished. What would happen then, now that this taxpayer subsidy is in place?

          I would hope that this government protects renters even more by limiting increases in rents to annual adjustments. That this government reduces pressure on rental housing by building more houses, thus controlling rental increases by lessening demand. That pressure comes off by limiting housing speculation. That landlords are monitored by authorities for providing safe, warm, reasonable housing, regulated and inspected.

          I’d hope that lower paid workers and beneficiaries alike get paid a decent living wage. Then the distortions caused by such subsidies would be no longer so needed, if at all.

          Then, this taxpayer funded subsidy, be it of of low income renters or of landlords, could be removed appropriately.

          • adam 7.2.1.1.1

            You seem to again come at me like I don’t know how the system works, you might want to ask where I do volunteer work. Funny been quite open about some of the places- for example the “impact” at work and income in Mangere – just a little hint sunshine.

            Also you deliberately missed my point twice, funny that. Again you defend landlord rights and greed, why is that?

            Not a socialist then I take it. More like a leftist liberal who thinks by nice thoughts people lives will be better. Hopes and dreams buddy, your offer little but hopes and dreams. Action speak, try some, you may you take to it.

            Then you might just join the ranks of the socialists. But then again, raising up the labour movement, it was a bit much for CV, is it a bit much for you?

            • mac1 7.2.1.1.1.1

              Adam, I feel your reading of what I wrote is clouded by your obvious despising of another left-wing point of view which does not accord with yours.

              You fired an accusation at me that I was a defender of landlords and rack renting.

              That is not my position. I am sorry you think so, or that you think I am attacking you, or even disagreeing with you when you criticise the ills of this society.

              But you’re right. I have missed your twice made point. I’d appreciate your quickly pointing out exactly what it is.

              In response to your criticism of my choice of language. I’ll ask you this. What drives action as you demand, but hope?

              Can you answer without the name-calling and aggression, please.

              • adam

                The point is simple, it’s economics. It’s always economics, it’s economics till the cows come home. That’s why people call it political economy.

                A left wing view, well is liberalism left wing? I’d argue it is not, becasue of economics. I’d be happy if you even offered up social-democratic views, but in my view you’re not. Well not economically anyway, which at this point I think is the a pretty low point to argue from for what is left wing. Being Socially liberal is not enough, we had a socially liberal PM (ponytail puller) for years, and never for one day did I think he was left wing.

                Secondary, if I was not clear, and it seems I was not. My issue, was you used these words over and over “I would hope” or “i’d hope” which are virtually meaningless, becasue those words are the goto allusionary tool of the centre right. Hence my invitation to you actually act. Not on hope, but somthing concrete.

                We have a system, which repeats the same thing over and over, and the only people who win are speculators, gangsters, and those who inherited a bank load of cash. Personally, I can’t see any real difference between those three groups these days. One upside of Russia, the gangsta, speculator, and inherintator all blur together.

                So in housing, and indeed welfare. People live on the bones of their collect asses, so when the dice is rolled over and over again, and the same group rob the poor, and disabled don’t you think it’s about time we change what we do? Rather than hope for better, act for the better.

                • mac1

                  Act, Adam? I’ve done that most of my life.

                  I stuck up for my disabled cousin as a little boy and have acted thus since for sixty years.

                  I rather think I’d fall off a barricade now, so forgive me if I don’t join you there.

                  • adam

                    Fair enough.

                    Talk like a social democrat at least, the politicians need to know they lost your passivity.

                    • mac1

                      Adam, I engage with politicians on a regular basis, at central and local government level as local president of a large advocacy organisation. They know I, and my team, are not passive around issues of social housing, Abbeyfield, loss of social services, treatment of patients, hospital transport, for example.

                      Again, I challenge your dislike of the concept of hope. Some leaders have espoused hope and then dashed the hopes of people who followed them. I know that. Dash them.

                      But, hope is what drives change. Without hope, we have hopeless apathy or hopeless desperation. With hope we have positivity, not passivity.

                      I can even hope to persuade you of that. 🙂

      • AsleepWhileWalking 7.2.2

        “You won’t get all of it, but should get most.”

        That is untrue. You only receive a fraction of the increase.

        • mac1 7.2.2.1

          I had been to the website I cited and put into the calculator two sets of figures.

          A single super annuitant with a $1000 in the bank and no assets as they define them, paying $185 weekly rent, in this region will receive $60 in accommodation supplement.

          The same man paying $210 in rent would receive $77 in accommodation supplement.

          Of the extra $25 paid in rent our man gets an extra $17. That is a fraction of the increase, but not as you use the word. He gets 68% of the increase.

          68% is ‘most’. It’s more than two thirds.

          Please do not tell me that what I say is untrue. Before I pronounce, I calculate. I do the sums.

          Upon what evidence do you, AsleepWhileWalking, base your assertion that what I say is untrue?

          I do have to say that the standard of debate, comprehension, decorum and research on the Standard amongst newer commenters is slipping.

          Come back, Felix.

    • Bill 7.3

      Yeah, I’m aware some landlords will be using the apparent boost in accommodation supplement to hike rents and leaving people markedly worse off than before.

      I was just lumping them in with people who are not eligible for entitlements will be of the persuasion that payments have just gone up by a reasonable amount .

      • adam 7.3.1

        When does hard core ideologue of the liberalism persuasion, admit market failure?

        Seems we may never know.

        8% across Auckland seems about standard this time of year. With wages a 1%-2% increase if your in a union, virtually nothing if your not. I’m beginning to wonder if landlords are completely delusional or just plain old stupid?

  8. weka 8

    has anyone come across this before?

    The rate of payment for Temporary Additional Support is the lesser of the:

    deficiency or
    upper limit

    unless the client qualifies for a disability exception amount, in which case they will receive the disability exception rate.

    Do you know what the disability exception amount is, and what the qualifications are?

    https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/extra-help/temporary-additional-support/calculating-the-rate-of-temporary-additional-suppo-01.html

    • Kay 8.1

      Weka, that is complete and utter gobblygook to me, and no, never heard of it. Whatever it is, I don’t think it’s designed to be understood.

      What I’m still trying to work out is how my TAS has been calculated based on my disability costs as well as my rent, even though I’m not getting maximum Disability (I should be if it was safe enough to get it reviewed but I’m not risking it). I’d have thought TAS would have been for rent only but trying to work out the logic isn’t worth the grief.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 8.2

      Hi Weka,

      TAS picks up disability related costs over and above the DA limit.

      Can’t remember the disability exception amount but it kicks in with so few people its hardly ever applied. This info should be in the TAS regulations. From memory (and don’t quote this) it is an agreed disability cost of 160/wk (+ yr regular DA if around $62ish/wk). Since doctors will often refuse to give beneficiaries the opportunity to apply for amounts higher than the DA it is almost redundant.

      ***when I look at the TAS calculation it appears the architects made a critical and somewhat dangerous assumption – that people with high disability related cost ate in social housing. The system has a redundancy built it to protect and support those disabled not in social housing in the form of special needs grants. Sadly this is almost impossible or impractical to access meaning MSD office policy turned TAS into a form of eugenics.

      Dramatic? Well if by definition you cannot pay your medical costs…

      This is just my opinion and I have never heard anyone else view it in this way. I can’t find info in Hansards because I haven’t the time to look.

      • AsleepWhileWalking 8.2.1

        To understand why I think the assumption regarding social housing has been made compare how they treat hire purchase agreements vs disability costs.

        Hire purchase agreements for essential items (eg a bed) are covered with matching dollars up to a set limit. These are contractual obligations made that could have been avoided (save up, sleep on couch, second hand instead of new).

        Disability costs are only included if WI agree to them. They are by definition of “necessary and therapeutic value”. Yet only a fraction of this cost is covered.

        The only way this would make sense is to make the social housing assumption as this comes with the higher IRR subsidy.

        Edit: sorry Bill. Carried away

        • weka 8.2.1.1

          Interesting. I think both Labour and National threw disabled people under a bus. The way I understand Labour is they think about ‘families’ and people who can work. So there are all these other ways that people with kids can access support, and Labour see job creation as solving a lot of welfare issues. I don’t see any kind of plan for people with disabilities who need long term benefits. The removal of Special Benefit was the point where Labour redesigned around families and work but essentially said to people with disabilities who need long term benefits, get fucked. Here we are 15 years later and people in desperate poverty who aren’t even on the radar yet. I guess 15 years ago we didn’t have the same kind of housing crisis.

          “Can’t remember the disability exception amount but it kicks in with so few people its hardly ever applied. This info should be in the TAS regulations. From memory (and don’t quote this) it is an agreed disability cost of 160/wk (+ yr regular DA if around $62ish/wk). Since doctors will often refuse to give beneficiaries the opportunity to apply for amounts higher than the DA it is almost redundant.”

          Thanks, I will see if I can look it up. Lots of people would have DA costs of $160/week if properly counted. Think ICT costs for a start.

  9. james 9

    “What’s pissing me off is that many people who are not eligible for entitlements will be of the persuasion that payments have just gone up by a reasonable amount given the bump in Accommodation Supplement – ie, thirty odd dollars.”

    You would be right on that – I know that’s what I thought, and just asked a couple of the others here – and they all thought the same as well.

    Wekas comment about it being presented as something its not – or not giving ‘real world examples’ (for whatever reason) leaves a false impression and people act on that accordingly.

    edit – sorry just noticed your comment at the end – so I will repost in other threads for any discussion then.

  10. veutoviper 10

    It’s shitty politics because Labour are presenting it as something it is not.

    There is just one fundamental thing wrong with this, weka.

    The changes to Accommodation Supplement, the Areas, Family Package etc that took effect on 1 April 2018 are NOT a Labour initiative.

    These particular changes were a National Party initiative which was part of their 2017 Budget last year for effect from 1 April 2018.

    https://2017.budget.govt.nz/budget/2017/family-incomes-package/accommodation-supplement.htm
    https://www.interest.co.nz/property/87906/budget-2017-%E2%80%98families-package%E2%80%99-includes-accommodation-supplement-boost-more-auckland
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/331568/budget-2017-lower-income-families-are-the-winners
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92983398/The-Government-has-re-written-the-rules-of-the-accommodation-supplement-creating-some-big-winners

    Labour eg Little and Robertson spoke out against the effects it would have last year. See the Stuff article above. As did many other not-for-profit organisations etc.

    Labour’s own family package changes which were part of their later 2017 election campaign are not due to come into effect until 1 July 2018, as part of the coalition government’s 2018 Budget.

    By the time the new government was in place last October, the changes to WINZ and IRD juggernaut computer programmes etc to put the changes into effect from 1 April 2018 would have been well underway, with probably millions spent. As a result, they may well have had to work around those changes going ahead ‘as is’ in the meantime in terms of the coalition government’s own proposed changes.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11959462
    https://www.parliament.nz/mi/get-involved/topics/all-current-topics/families-package-budget-bill-aims-to-support-kiwi-families

    I know how other people are feeling because I am in the same situation re the changes that took effect on 1 April; and re the fact that the Labour package for 1 July basically ignores those of us who do not have dependent children, with the only thing we will get being the Winter Energy Payment.

    But lets get the fact right and not blame the current 1 April changes on Labour, or the coalition government which includes NZF and the Green Party.

    The blame for the 1 April changes lies squarely with the previous National government.

    • Bill 10.1

      How hard would it be (or have been) to raise Temporary Additional Support limits by the same amount as Accommodation Supplement?

      Seems to me T.A.S. rules are just a roundabout way of ensuring benefit levels stay as low as politically possible.

      • Kay 10.1.1

        No different to Special Benefit in the old days Bill. Every April 1 a token CPI increase on the core benefits and SB cut and some years I’d be worse off. Mine went from $30-something down to $5 over a few years; I gave up then and voluntarily surrendered it rather than go through the paperwork hassle every 3 months.

        This is simply the way they can say how benevolent they’re being whilst remaining cost neutral.

      • veutoviper 10.1.2

        I have no idea, Bill. It is not an area of government that I ever worked in. But I do know that those computer systems take months to set up changes etc.

        For some years when I was fully employed, my only contact with WINZ was as a CAB volunteer assisting others with their dealings with WINZ. Then my own circumstances changed leaving me to have to retire earlier than planned due to major health problems; at the same time as I lost the vast majority of decades of saving for my retirement to a corrupt financial adviser/lawyer. Hence Super is my entire income now, plus AS. I am eligible for Disability but almost two years down the track with doctors/specialists signing forms, letters etc every few months I am still waiting – and keep getting told they cannot find the forms etc. despite these being delivered and signed for. So I do know the frustrations of others here.

        Sorry to clog up your post with my comments at 10 – but people need to be clear who is responsible for the 1 April changes.

        And I do agree that the TAS rules have been used in the way you suggest. Its a catch 22 situation (ie AS is considered income – yeah right; to landlords) . IMHO a major overhaul over the whole system is really required. That was never going to happen in a few short months, and would require years. I have always been opposed to the way WFF was structured from the get go; and believe that WFF as structured has been a major factor in the catch -22 situation re housing etc that we now find NZ in.

        • Brigid 10.1.2.1

          I know this is a bit off topic and I apologise in advance but it does point to the abomination that WINZ is.
          Since the Accomodation Suppliment and Temporary Additional Support were initiated some time ago the software that calculates these allowances was also written some time ago.
          It’s a simply a matter of changing the value of attribute, i.e. date of change, value of supplement etc.
          Therefore if these changes take months to set up, why? (rhetorical)

          • weka 10.1.2.1.1

            TAS wouldn’t be that hard to change. They could just reinstate Special Benefit. The reason they won’t do that is ideological. It would mean beneficiaries could access more money based on need and Labour would have to budget for that. This is why the AS rise is so annoying. Giving the money to landlords instead of the people in greatest need.

    • adam 10.2

      DUMB, DUMB, DAAA

      And here we have the party hack on que.

      Alright, good to know a government can’t act to fix a obvious imbalance in the months it has been in office.

      Shesh who would have thought a incoming government had so little power to act.

    • Kay 10.3

      “But lets get the fact right and not blame the current 1 April changes on Labour, or the coalition government which includes NZF and the Green Party.
      The blame for the 1 April changes lies squarely with the previous National government.”

      In that case, all they have to do is make a public statement along those lines and let us know that they have begun the necessary action to rectify the unintended consequences, and they apologise sincerely to people who are not getting the rise they are entitled to/promised but it is coming, and they will of course be back paid.

      yeah right.

    • weka 10.4

      There is just one fundamental thing wrong with this, weka.

      The changes to Accommodation Supplement, the Areas, Family Package etc that took effect on 1 April 2018 are NOT a Labour initiative.

      Yeah, nah,

      Today, the increase to the Accommodation Supplement comes into effect. An estimated 135,000 households will benefit by an average of $35 per week.

      We have increased the Accommodation Supplement

      NZ Labour Party twitter account on the weekend.

      Also,

      Labour has designed a Families Package that delivers more money to families with children and reduces child poverty while freeing up more than $2 billion over four years to contribute to our investments in housing, health, education, and other priorities.

      Labour will…

      Boost Working for Families to all those who currently receive it and extend it to 30,000 more families, in addition to the Working for Families changes announced in Budget 2017.
      Introduce a Best Start payment to help families with costs in a child’s early years.
      Introduce a Winter Energy Payment for people receiving superannuation or a main benefit.
      Reinstate the Independent Earners’ Tax Credit.
      Implement the Accommodation Supplement increases announced in Budget 2017.
      Introduce 26 weeks paid parental leave to ensure that families are provided with vital support at a crucial stage in their children’s lives.

      … *This date has been updated following the release of Labour’s Fiscal Plan in July 2017.

      http://www.labour.org.nz/familiespackage

      That very clearly shows that Labour not only agree with National but have included it in their own planning. That Little was saying something else a year ago is just another example of Labour’s unclear messaging. At best all that has happened is that Labour are trying to make the best of a situation they couldn’t change this year (not entirely convinced about that). I guess we will see this changed in the budget then right?

      But that’s not the real problem here. The real problem is that it’s a shitty policy and if Labour believe it is a shitty policy and care about beneficiaries then they should be telling NZ citizens that this is an interim policy they inherited, there are big problems with it, and that they are going to fix this as part of the welfare plan they have for this year.

      Instead we have Labour skiting about it on social media.

      But lets get the fact right and not blame the current 1 April changes on Labour, or the coalition government which includes NZF and the Green Party.

      The Greens aren’t part of the coalition, and their welfare policy was sidelined by Labour and NZF, so don’t try running that one.

  11. veutoviper 11

    Lost in the mass of different pages on the WINZ website on the 1 April changes is this page that clarifies when you will see the full effects of the 1 April 2018 changes.

    https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/about-work-and-income/news/2018/benefit-and-payment-rates-2018.html

    In particular, this bit is relevant if you are just looking at individual pre 1 April payments compared with any post 1 April payments, and haven’t received a letter or other form of your individual changes. Eg I could not find my changes on my own ‘myMSD’.

    Your first April payment

    As 1 April is a Sunday, you will only get the increased rate for 1 day when you get paid in the week of 2 April. This is because you get paid for the week that’s just been.
    Note: if you’re paid on Tuesday 3 April, you’ll get this payment early on Friday 30 March because of Easter.

    You’ll see the full increase when you get paid in the week of 9 April onwards (or 17 April if you get paid fortnightly).

    How to check your payments
    To check your payments, you can either:
    log into MyMSD
    call our Service Express self-service line on 0800 33 30 30

    • Kay 11.1

      Oh goody- $2.17!!
      Thanks VV- didn’t see that.
      I’m so thrilled 🙂

      • adam 11.1.1

        Won’t quite buy a decent loaf of bread, but look on the bright side, Oh yeah, struggling to find one.

    • Bill 11.2

      That’s interesting (payment early on Friday 30 March…). I get paid on a Tuesday. Just checked. Nothing there from Friday. 🙂

      Are you suggesting that people who have received 30c should be content because next week they will be in receipt of a whopping $2.10 – or if payment calculated over 5 days $1.50?

      Bullshit either way.

      You think any worker who won a pay rise recently has received 5c an hour by way of an increase?

      • adam 11.2.1

        labour’s new motto – be grateful for the 5 cents!

      • Kay 11.2.2

        Bill, I’m paid on Tuesday too. If Monday’s a public holiday then Tuesday payments go in on the Friday before. Over Easter it goes in Thursday. If you’d checked your account over the weekend it would’ve been there since Friday.

      • veutoviper 11.2.3

        NO, Bill I was not suggesting that anyone should be happy with this situation. I am in the same situation myself. Its disgusting.

        But you wanted people to say what their situation was. To be meaningful, this information needs to take into account what is said on that WINZ page. I was just trying to be helpful.

        Re the early payments, that applies to Super which is paid fortnightly on Tuesdays, but actually goes through on Monday nights to some banks. Mine is usually in my ANZ account consistently at about 8.45pm on a Monday night. Super also goes in earlier on quite a few instances affected by Public Holidays – eg always when there is a Monday public holiday before a Tuesday payment day. They always put a intro re early payments on the Super phone number, and there is a general statement re this on the Super website page on Super payment dates. Super also went through early before Xmas for the last couple of years.

        I don’t know your situation but if your payments are technically Weds benefit payments, I know the times of payment differ by bank so maybe yours go through on Tuesdays.

    • jcuknz 11.3

      But also what I have been doing these past years is to go to a handy money machine and request ‘last ten payments’ of the account your Super is paid into….ANZ work this way and it is worth checking what you got paid into your account …. bearing mind until they pay a full two weeks at the new rate [in my case] you will not get the proper figure [ to repeat what Veutoviper wrote ]

      So soon after the start of the new regime and so little hard knowledge I think this thread should be on hold until at least another 14 days when we will really know what a dogs breakfast has been served up.

  12. Jesters & Clowns point the finger 12

    These National Government established “increases” and the CPI will do little in real terms for most beneficiaries.
    A better initiative would have been to raise the thresholds at which support is withdrawn. And reducing the abatement rates, or at least abating benefits based on net income, rather than gross income.
    These initiatives would be easy to set in regulation. And easier to programme into the computer.
    Both would do more to address the long running historical shortfall arising from poorly measured CPI.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago