Nz Super should be it’s own category, and then the rest of social welfare could be shown to be lower than a lot of things. I hate how people see “social welfare is our biggest ticket item” and start bagging on unemployed. If it was shown regularly that every year super is our biggest expense, we could start to have an intelligent conversation about putting some restrictions on it (or income testing it!)
This is a great way of explaining in a very simple way public accounting (noting the assumptions make it fairly inaccurate at an individual level). I think it could help build better understanding and perspective around some very political really nothing announcements vs tangible changes (prescriptions charges for example are a fairly cheap in the scheme of things policy for huge net social and health benefits).
I would say, however, that it’s useful when mentioning “public servants” to be more descriptive and add to the discourse to enlighten the general public that human staff employed by the Crown are much much more diverse and wide than people providing say, policy advice to ministers. They could be teachers, nurses, doctors, health assistants, cleaning staff, police, airport security, some defence roles, security intelligence keeping NZ safe to name just a few. It’s very easy for media to contribute to the false narrative that “public servant” spending is solely on those who sit in nice buildings at a desk trying to provide free and frank advice on how to govern in challenging times.
This is great, thank you! I knew NZ Super was a big expense, but I had no idea how it looked as a proportion of total spend against other budget items. This should be shared more widely!
I was quite surprised how little family tax credit ie "Working for families" costs given it's such a flagship policy - and also how relatively expensive the winter energy payment is. If you told me WFF is a mere 4x WEP I would have been skeptical.
Nz Super should be it’s own category, and then the rest of social welfare could be shown to be lower than a lot of things. I hate how people see “social welfare is our biggest ticket item” and start bagging on unemployed. If it was shown regularly that every year super is our biggest expense, we could start to have an intelligent conversation about putting some restrictions on it (or income testing it!)
This is a great way of explaining in a very simple way public accounting (noting the assumptions make it fairly inaccurate at an individual level). I think it could help build better understanding and perspective around some very political really nothing announcements vs tangible changes (prescriptions charges for example are a fairly cheap in the scheme of things policy for huge net social and health benefits).
I would say, however, that it’s useful when mentioning “public servants” to be more descriptive and add to the discourse to enlighten the general public that human staff employed by the Crown are much much more diverse and wide than people providing say, policy advice to ministers. They could be teachers, nurses, doctors, health assistants, cleaning staff, police, airport security, some defence roles, security intelligence keeping NZ safe to name just a few. It’s very easy for media to contribute to the false narrative that “public servant” spending is solely on those who sit in nice buildings at a desk trying to provide free and frank advice on how to govern in challenging times.
This is great, thank you! I knew NZ Super was a big expense, but I had no idea how it looked as a proportion of total spend against other budget items. This should be shared more widely!
I was quite surprised how little family tax credit ie "Working for families" costs given it's such a flagship policy - and also how relatively expensive the winter energy payment is. If you told me WFF is a mere 4x WEP I would have been skeptical.
For whatever it’s worth, explanation and example of the Aus tax receipt https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Your-tax-return/Check-the-progress-of-your-tax-return/Tax-receipt/