Poor reports on poorest households

Things may not always be quite as they seem at first glance.

Stuff: Poorest Kiwi households face much larger cost of living increases than big spenders

A recent jump in the cost of living hit the lowest paid Kiwis much harder than the big spenders, new figures show.

In the first three months of the year, inflation for all households jumped 1 per cent, bringing annual inflation to 2.2 per cent, the highest since 2011.

On Thursday Statistics New Zealand released the household living-costs price indexes, giving a breakdown of how price increases hit different groups.

The figures showed that the rise hit the lowest earners the hardest. Beneficiaries saw their overall costs rise by 1.4 per cent, almost three times the increase faced by the 20 per cent of households with the highest spending.

That sounds like a significant disparity for poor households. But what comes next changes the perspective somewhat.

While overall inflation rose partly because of increases in the cost of fuel and food, Statistics New Zealand said inflation was especially high for beneficiaries because a greater proportion of their income went on tobacco. Each January, the excise on tobacco products increases by 10 per cent.

So inflation went up more for poor households that used a significant amount of tobacco.

Whether tobacco taxes should keep going up is another matter.

But one of the key pieces of information about households was not revealed until well into the item.

“Higher costs for cigarettes and tobacco had a greater effect on beneficiaries,” Statistics New Zealand’s Nicola Growden said.

“About 5 per cent of their spending went up in smoke, proportionally more than most other types of households spent.”

Predominantly Maori households faced a 1.3 per cent increase in inflation – higher than average – while superannuitant households faced a 0.9 per cent increase, slightly below average.

Maori are over represented in poorer households, and also smoke much more than non-Maori.

And superannuitants are also less likely to be smokers as they don’t die as young.

Meanwhile Labour’s finance spokesperson Grant Robertson put out this on the same topic.

Cost of Living increases hit those with least the hardest

Posted by on May 04, 2017

Beneficiaries, superannuitants and people on the lowest incomes continue to bear the brunt of higher inflation, according to the latest data from Statistics NZ, says Labour Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson.

So he’s also referring to the latest inflation data from Statistics New Zealand.

“Since National came to office (December 2008) inflation for those on the lowest 20 per cent of incomes has increased by 17 per cent. But for those with the highest 20 per cent of incomes, it has increased by only 10 per cent.

“The cost of core inflation items like food, fuel and rates are all soaking up an increasing chunk of the incomes of the lowest paid people. These are costs that Kiwis can’t avoid – and they are rising faster than other costs in the economy.

No mention of one of the most significant factors, tobacco use and tax.

“High housing costs, rising rents are all eclipsing the mediocre wage increases for New Zealanders. Yesterday the latest wages data showed that 67 per cent of Kiwis got a pay rise of less than inflation, which means they effectively are working harder for less.

“Rather than address these problems National doesn’t have a plan for the economy, to help boost our notoriously low productivity, nor to help Kiwi families.

“Only a Labour-led Government will help address the growing cost of living crisis in New Zealand for low income Kiwis and we’ll deliver the shared prosperity that all New Zealanders deserve,” says Grant Robertson.

Robertson either didn’t pick up on the tobacco part of the statistics, or he deliberately left it out of his post.

But the Stuff item quoted him in their article, and also managed to, eventually, highlight the impact of tobacco on poorer households.

 

Leave a comment

11 Comments

  1. David

     /  May 4, 2017

    “Robertson either didn’t pick up on the tobacco part of the statistics, or he deliberately left it out of his post.”

    He didn’t care. He knows that it is the taxes on tobacco, alcohol, fuel, energy and then rates that impact the poor the hardest, but they want to both get the votes of those people at the bottom, and all those who want higher taxes on tobacco, alcohol, fuel and energy and higher rates to spend.

    Reply
  2. Scapegoat class + scapegoat substance = What????? Big BOOGEYMAN!?

    By this logic, overweight and obese people really ought to either a) learn to control their damned eating urges, or b) pay a whole more ‘health tax’ on their food … progressively increasing until they feel they can’t afford to eat any longer … then they’ll damn well learn a bit of self-control … take responsibility for themselves …

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 5, 2017

      Sugar tax, anyone?

      Reply
      • Sugar, salt, alcohol and fat … tax the bloody lot and heavily … FORCE the plebians to become healthy citizens … We’ve done it with tobacco … Why not?

        Savings on the physical health budget can be spent on the greatly exacerbated mental health problems this will cause … but treatment will be more curative …

        Money well spent …

        Funny, isn’t it? I don’t think for one moment of manufacturers producing healthier foods … of tobacco companies producing alternative, healthier smokes … banana leaf is good …

        Adaptation isn’t the name of the capitalist food-chain & substance game … Addiction is …

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 5, 2017

          I don’t think this problem is attributable to capitalism, per se, PZ. Consumerism, Marketing, maybe. But throwing capitalism into the equation for everything you think is wrong is mistaking what capitalism is.

          Reply
          • Weeeell … A good, healthy, freely elected ‘socialist-governed’ country – like we used to be – wouldn’t devote anywhere near as much of its energy (of all kinds) producing countless amounts of cheap crap no-one really needs – and then creating ‘want’ for it – highly processed foods, some of which are poisonous, and harmful substances through which to seek pleasure and escape, now would it …?

            Hmmmm … My schematicism [Wow, check that word out!?] falls down when it comes to alcohol and tobacco though, unfortunately, which were extremely popular during our ‘socialist’ era …

            Horse-racing too … which our Wicked Neoliberal Step-Parent has transformed into casino, Pokies, TAB & Lotto …

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 5, 2017

              Come off the grass, PZ. I lived in the back of the Dairy & Tearooms my parents owned until I was about five or six. I remember regularly raiding all the sweets, fizzy frinks, chippies, chocky fish, crunchies ( yum, still love them) & had many a happy chocolate dip hokey pokey ice cream & pie – those were all happily marketed under socialist governments.

  3. Kitty Catkin

     /  May 5, 2017

    Smoking is a voluntary and unneccessary thing, and if people can’t afford to do it, the solution is in their own hands. Anyone who wants to stop enough, will. If they’d rather smoke than feed their children, that’s their choice. I’m damned if I will donate food to people so as to enable them to smoke.

    Reply
    • Why not donate food Miss Kitty? Half the food you would donate would be just as harmful or more to people as tobacco is. The only real difference is the food hasn’t been selected for the special ‘abolition by excise tax’ treatment …

      It will one day …

      Then you’ll be able to say, “I’m damned if I will donate food to people so as to enable them to eat.”

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  May 5, 2017

        I won’t donate food to someone who wants free food so that they can spend the grocery money on cigarettes, if they want food, they can stop smoking and buy their own.

        Would you give cigarettes to a smoker who has spent their money on groceries so can’t afford their tobacco, or give alcohol to someone who can’t afford it because they have bought food instead ? I wouldn’t. I will and do give money to charities like Unicef that feed genuinely starving people, but I won’t enable smokers to smoke by subbing them, that is very irresponsible

        Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  May 5, 2017

        You have no idea what I would donate, it would not be fatty, sugary things with little nutrional value-what would be the point of that ?

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s