HEALTH
Over the last fifteen years there has been an ever-ongoing saga of the 'Health' of the Health system in New Zealand. This has been taking the focus off the real problems. We have seen tax payers money being wasted on things like name changes, The Hospital centre in Hamilton, for example, was for many years known as Waikato Hospital, then during the 90s it was known as, Waikato Area health Board, Waiora Waikato, and many more. Each time there was a change there was the associated costs of this eating into the medical budgets. Not to mention the payment scheme foisted on customers that was started.
My point is that there has been millions of dollars spent on so-called revamps and facelifts of the health system, which were not required. Maybe it is time that the Real problems are addressed, those that have been covered up by the system revamps. I am also talking about a revamp of the WINZ system, from the ground up, no more name changes please, just ironing out the ever increasing wrinkles in the carpet, a fairer system than we have. It is time to take a step backwards so that Health (& WINZ) can then take the proverbial two steps forward. I have personally been waiting for chataract surgery for the past 2 years, and when I contacted my hospital a couple of weeks ago I was told that my surgery "would not happen in my lifetime on the public system". I have to have chataracts in both eyes and then they system MIGHT think about fixing just one eye. I already have a 50% hearing loss, and what would life be like if a person was blind as well as deaf. I can say for sure, that there is no life in a cabbage.
Beneficiaries are not second class citizens in NZ we are equal to anyone else, it is just that we are not blessed with the opportunities that other members of society are, like employment. Stop handing out millions of dollars under the excuse of "International Requirements" and actually sort out the problems at home first.
"Its broke - Lets fix it. Dammit!"
Sunday, November 12, 2006
DENTAL TREATMENT
DENTAL TREATMENT
On thing that I see evolving ever rapidly is that those on a benefit are increasingly more likely to require some sort of dental treatment. Currently Dental treatment is regulated by the person being only able to claim up to $200 for such treatment. If the treatment is under $200 then the amount is not recovered. BUT if the amount adds up to more than $200 then the WHOLE amount is recoverable. An example is that if a dental account is for say, $500 then the whole amount is recovered and not just the $300 over the non-recoverable $200. This is a totally unfair situation.
Dental treatment should become subsidised in a much better and farer way than it currently is. Doctors fees are able to be claimed much more readily and farer than are Dentists accounts. By the same token beneficiaries are increasingly being hit with higher power accounts now, and one might say, "So are we all" but then an employed person can go and do a few hours overtime, but a beneficiary cannot as any secondary income earned is penalised against the family income
On thing that I see evolving ever rapidly is that those on a benefit are increasingly more likely to require some sort of dental treatment. Currently Dental treatment is regulated by the person being only able to claim up to $200 for such treatment. If the treatment is under $200 then the amount is not recovered. BUT if the amount adds up to more than $200 then the WHOLE amount is recoverable. An example is that if a dental account is for say, $500 then the whole amount is recovered and not just the $300 over the non-recoverable $200. This is a totally unfair situation.
Dental treatment should become subsidised in a much better and farer way than it currently is. Doctors fees are able to be claimed much more readily and farer than are Dentists accounts. By the same token beneficiaries are increasingly being hit with higher power accounts now, and one might say, "So are we all" but then an employed person can go and do a few hours overtime, but a beneficiary cannot as any secondary income earned is penalised against the family income
PENALTY REGIME ON BENEFITS
PENALTY REGIME ON BENEFITS
Presently the rate of penalty or claw back on income derived not from Work & Income by a person on a benefit is 70c in the dollar for each dollar earned over $80 per week, and add to that the fact that the Inland Revenue also take somewhere in the 20c in the dollar as PAYE. If the income is reasonably regular and that the customer also lives in a State House then Housing NZ also have their hand out for 20c in each dollar earned.
In the end the person earning the income is losing $1.10 for each dollar earned over $80 a week. We then have a situation where people or families that are on a benefit decide, and quite rightly so that it is better to stay solely on the benefit and not bother to seek work at all. This does not take a rocket scientist to work out.
My idea that I would like to propose to you is that the $80 a week threshold be kept. That, what I shall call the ZERO POINT would be that point at which a person ceases to be eligible for the benefit. The zero point would be a figure adjusted and set each year on 1 April. The zero point dollar figures would be what is currently called the GUARANTEED MINIMUM FAMILY INCOME (GMFI) a figure currently touted by the IRD.
Now, the calculation goes that - Take the family's income, then deduct the $80 allowable income, and from the remainder, a set percentage of their benefit is lost.
An example of this would be - A family earns $400 NETT doing a job, from this we deduct the $80 leaving $320. If the GMFI is $500 a week then the deduction from the benefit would be that they would lose 64% of their benefit.
Another example - A family earns $100 NETT doing a job, from this we deduct the $80 leaving $20. If the GMFI is $500 a week then the deduction from the benefit would be that they would lose 4% of their benefit.
Mathematically one would say simplistically
((a - b) X 100) divided by c = e
a = family's Nett income
b = $80 allowable income
c = GMFI
e = Percentage deduction from the benefit
There is a reason why I am talking in terms of Nett income and that is because the Inland Revenue already Tax (PAYE) the gross income at its source before it is paid out. If the gross amount is used in the calculation then we have a situation bordering on "double dipping" by the NZ Govt as a whole. This may then become an issue in the future.
Presently the rate of penalty or claw back on income derived not from Work & Income by a person on a benefit is 70c in the dollar for each dollar earned over $80 per week, and add to that the fact that the Inland Revenue also take somewhere in the 20c in the dollar as PAYE. If the income is reasonably regular and that the customer also lives in a State House then Housing NZ also have their hand out for 20c in each dollar earned.
In the end the person earning the income is losing $1.10 for each dollar earned over $80 a week. We then have a situation where people or families that are on a benefit decide, and quite rightly so that it is better to stay solely on the benefit and not bother to seek work at all. This does not take a rocket scientist to work out.
My idea that I would like to propose to you is that the $80 a week threshold be kept. That, what I shall call the ZERO POINT would be that point at which a person ceases to be eligible for the benefit. The zero point would be a figure adjusted and set each year on 1 April. The zero point dollar figures would be what is currently called the GUARANTEED MINIMUM FAMILY INCOME (GMFI) a figure currently touted by the IRD.
Now, the calculation goes that - Take the family's income, then deduct the $80 allowable income, and from the remainder, a set percentage of their benefit is lost.
An example of this would be - A family earns $400 NETT doing a job, from this we deduct the $80 leaving $320. If the GMFI is $500 a week then the deduction from the benefit would be that they would lose 64% of their benefit.
Another example - A family earns $100 NETT doing a job, from this we deduct the $80 leaving $20. If the GMFI is $500 a week then the deduction from the benefit would be that they would lose 4% of their benefit.
Mathematically one would say simplistically
((a - b) X 100) divided by c = e
a = family's Nett income
b = $80 allowable income
c = GMFI
e = Percentage deduction from the benefit
There is a reason why I am talking in terms of Nett income and that is because the Inland Revenue already Tax (PAYE) the gross income at its source before it is paid out. If the gross amount is used in the calculation then we have a situation bordering on "double dipping" by the NZ Govt as a whole. This may then become an issue in the future.
HOUSING NEW ZEALAND
I am of the opinion that Housing New Zealand is meant to supply AFFORDABLE housing to low income families. It seems that Housing New Zealand are in this for the monetary profits only. We have to pay a fifth, or more, of our income as rent, but the rent we pay is based entirely on MARKET RATES. In the private sector the use of market rates is used for the same purpose, but the private sector get their assessment of market rates from the figures supplied by Housing New Zealand. so where is the justice. We tenants are therefore paying top dollar for our accommodation. Housing New Zealand also calculate as a part of the rent $11.50 of any Family Support received. This should not be, as this money is meant to be paid to a family to upkeep their children not to give away as rent to Housing New Zealand
Housing New Zealand calculates the rate of rent on gross income, in reality they should be using Nett income for the calculation of rent. There should be NO taking into account of any Work & Income allowances such as disability allowance, Family Support etc, they should also take into account and deduct from the family income, any payment being made by that family for child support.
It can be noted also that when a family income reaches $482 gross a week that the rate of rent increases from 20c in the dollar to $1 for each dollar earned. This means that the idea of 20% of income as rent is long gone as the percentage rises.
I have also noted that all of the houses in my area, to the best of my knowledge, are getting an external makeover, well that is all except ours. We have been in this house since June 1989 and just a year after we moved in the following was done – Redecoration of the hallway, bathroom, kitchen, toilet, washhouse, and one bedroom. A year later the exterior was repainted and the roof repainted. The exterior was also done to all the other four state houses in our street. Note that we have a three bedroom house and also a lounge and none of these have yet been touched. Over the past few weeks the other houses have been repainted on the outside, forn a second time, and in one house just next door to us Housing New Zealand even laid carpet right through the house for a new tenant. I am still waiting for my exterior repaint, and at least some carpet.
I am of the opinion that Housing New Zealand is meant to supply AFFORDABLE housing to low income families. It seems that Housing New Zealand are in this for the monetary profits only. We have to pay a fifth, or more, of our income as rent, but the rent we pay is based entirely on MARKET RATES. In the private sector the use of market rates is used for the same purpose, but the private sector get their assessment of market rates from the figures supplied by Housing New Zealand. so where is the justice. We tenants are therefore paying top dollar for our accommodation. Housing New Zealand also calculate as a part of the rent $11.50 of any Family Support received. This should not be, as this money is meant to be paid to a family to upkeep their children not to give away as rent to Housing New Zealand
Housing New Zealand calculates the rate of rent on gross income, in reality they should be using Nett income for the calculation of rent. There should be NO taking into account of any Work & Income allowances such as disability allowance, Family Support etc, they should also take into account and deduct from the family income, any payment being made by that family for child support.
It can be noted also that when a family income reaches $482 gross a week that the rate of rent increases from 20c in the dollar to $1 for each dollar earned. This means that the idea of 20% of income as rent is long gone as the percentage rises.
I have also noted that all of the houses in my area, to the best of my knowledge, are getting an external makeover, well that is all except ours. We have been in this house since June 1989 and just a year after we moved in the following was done – Redecoration of the hallway, bathroom, kitchen, toilet, washhouse, and one bedroom. A year later the exterior was repainted and the roof repainted. The exterior was also done to all the other four state houses in our street. Note that we have a three bedroom house and also a lounge and none of these have yet been touched. Over the past few weeks the other houses have been repainted on the outside, forn a second time, and in one house just next door to us Housing New Zealand even laid carpet right through the house for a new tenant. I am still waiting for my exterior repaint, and at least some carpet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)