by frog
If you go to look at the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations’ debt counter, before tomorrow you will see that it is very close to ticking over to $10 billion. At the time of posting it reads $9,998,693,720. This prompted Metiria to ask a series of questions in the house today on student indebtedness. Here’s the edited highlights:
Metiria Turei: Does the Minister stand by this statement, which he made in January of this year: “Each year under Labour-led governments student support has strengthened,”; if so, how does he reconcile that comment with the fact that the latest figures show that fewer students received a student allowance in 2006 than when Labour came to power in 1999?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The proportion of eligible students who are receiving the allowance now is well over half-it is about 57 percent-about three-quarters of whom are receiving the full allowance and one-quarter of whom are on the cusp, if the member might see what I mean. That is a great many more students than when we first came into office. I cannot express the difference in a percentage, however, because I do not have the figures with me.
Eh?
Here are the numbers: In 1999 the number of students receiving allowances was 64,292. The latest data from 2006 showed 59, 431 students receiving allowances.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Parliament by frog on Wed, April 9th, 2008
Tags: $10 billion, Metiria Turei, NZUSA, Student Allowances, student debt
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
You can find the full exchange at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dayg30fj0Ks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
I already pay for other peoples families with the laughingly named working for families package, I also fund those who bludge from me by way of the DPB and now you seem to be suggesting that I pay for somebody else’s tertiary education as well.
When does the guy in middle class get a break?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I saw on Breakfast this morning that students were planning a protest where they ‘live’ in a box village…I think thats incredibly insulting to people who actually have to live in boxes, but something a little more appropriate would have been them checking in to an airport terminal to find somewhere with higher pay so they can pay off their loan…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – Um your taxes also pay for free public health system (Should you ever get sick), roads to drive your car on (or bicycle if you cycle instead), police to like police stuff, a social welfare safely net (so if you fall on hard times you don’t have to beg and live in cardboard boxes – unless your a student in which case you would have to borrow to live) regulations on the environment so you can enjoy the flora and funa, a free trade agreement so your milk can be sold cheaper in China.
The guy in the middle class in New Zealand doesn’t do to bad on the face of things. Given that having more doctors, and professionals is usually counted as a good thing (some people might argue about lawyers) helping fund their education – like previous generations were helped – might not be a bad thing. Especially if they are less likely to leave on an OE and not come back cause they have so much debt here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The taxpayer subsides tertiary 78% and the average student debt is 16K.
Hardly poverty, now is it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The ‘poverty’ part is when students are *students*, not when they’ve graduated with a debt they must pay off (here or overseas). The living conditions of students is the only thing i’m personally concerned about with the present situation, really, but the ‘living costs’ part of a loan is also part of the 10 billion figure, so i’d love to know how much of the average student debt is for tuition fees.
I’m not casting aspersions BP but where did that 78% figure come from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Official figures from stats.govt.nz “debt reached a high of $15590 in 2005, up 6 percent from $14730″
Being a student is much like being unemployed, in terms of lifestyle/spending power. As for living in boxes, that’s pretty insulting to people who actually do live in boxes.
Spoilt brats….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hm. Interesting that NZUSA conducted a study that found average student debt upon graduation – including student loan, credit cards and overdraft – is just over $28,000. The organisation also followed grads who left university in 2000, and showed that 5 years later they were earning an average salary of $32,520. Would seem to defy the assumption that students will immediately start earning heaps, though there’s still time, presumably.
That was all paraphrased/stolen from the Independent 26/3/08 (not online)
28k though! That’s nuts!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think Statistics New Zealand might be a tad more neutral than the NZUSA. How on earth can they measure credit card debt and overdrafts, for example, and how would this amount differ from the average non-student?
What students are really saying is that the current enormous amount I’m already paying them isn’t enough.
Tell you what, young ones. You can have a free education, on me, if you can figure out a way to reduce the massive tax chunk I currently pay towards social welfare. Currently around 20K a year for something I’ll never use….
And lets not even get started on WF(other peoples)F…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This amount would differ from the average non-student because many are borrowing to live, to some extent or other…I would agree about the neutrality, but it makes a good point about what StatsNZ can’t measure. Maybe the NZUSA stuff is from a survey…but the validity would depend on the sample size. Or maybe they got it from the banks who measure it from all those with ‘current student’ accounts – that would be a very good way, if it was possible.
20k…!…(you’re forgetting superannuation I suspect) I thought rich pricks like you worked hard, what’re you doing posting on a blog in the middle of the day
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ha ha! “Student neighbours can devalue a house by 10pc” http://stuff.co.nz/4473726a10.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tuatara
“big bro – Um your taxes also pay for free public health system (Should you ever get sick), roads to drive your car on (or bicycle if you cycle instead), police to like police stuff, a social welfare safely net (so if you fall on hard times you don’t have to beg and live in cardboard boxes – unless your a student in which case you would have to borrow to live) regulations on the environment so you can enjoy the flora and funa, a free trade agreement so your milk can be sold cheaper in China.
The guy in the middle class in New Zealand doesn’t do to bad on the face of things. Given that having more doctors, and professionals is usually counted as a good thing (some people might argue about lawyers) helping fund their education – like previous generations were helped – might not be a bad thing. Especially if they are less likely to leave on an OE and not come back cause they have so much debt here”
You are joking I assume.
The middle class are the ones who have been hit the hardest, as I said in my post they are the ones who are being robbed to pay for other peoples kids and to pay for those who chose to stay at home while the middle class pay.
Many of the middle class have not been to university or any tertiary institute yet you expect them to pay for those who do, students enjoy interest free student loans (an average of $16k) yet you want the middle class to pay for this as well.
Your last comment is a blatant lie or at best a gross misrepresentation, there is NO evidence to suggest that students would not go overseas if they did not have a student loan, they would still go and NZ would see no return.
As I have said before I favour free training for medical students as long as they are bonded for 7-10 years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
People with degrees are going to bugger off anyway, we have 0.2% of the world’s population and presumably there is something out there.
The middle class guy with NO KIDS might be doing it a bit rough with no WFF, but then again, you don’t have any kids to pay for. Hmm. Obviously those tax brackets haven’t moved in 9 years though! Would be interested to know what you mean by ‘middle class’ though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The middle class guy with one kid is doing it tough Stephen, the example I use is of a chap I know well, he is married with one teenage child.
He/they are sick and tired of being robbed to pay for the upbringing of other peoples kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is this some veiled ref to WFF? They would be getting it unless they’re pretty well to do…or they don’t want the tax credit…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh really?…so a couple who both work full time and earn approx 80k between them are “well off” are they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well that was my impression from the ad with the texting and ipods, but if they aren’t getting it then they aren’t, and that would seem unfair. I personally can’t get to grips with the costs of having one kid as I’m a bit young for kids. I wouldn’t have had a kid if we were both on 40k, but can’t be helped. Like I said, those tax brackets need moving upwards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stephen
“Like I said, those tax brackets need moving upwards”
Good GOD..is that now two things we agree on?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR
That is true, I don’t work hard. Well, not any more. Semi-retired….
But how does that change the fact I’m paying a lot of money for “services” I’ll never use? I’m quite happy to provide a safety net, but not a criminal breeding program.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“criminal breeding program”?? This is now way off topic but if beneficiaries didn’t get money from the government, would that equal less criminals?
Well BB it’s common sense, Labour has effectively increased income tax by not adjusting for inflation, although it has subsidised retirement and house buying through Kiwisaver and the targetting through the not-perfect WFF are both a *form* of tax relief. I don’t quite regard it as ‘theft’ though…
No more bell and sinclair tho, shame.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Also not opposed to tax cuts when affordable etc…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB- moving upwards as in a larger “envy tax” for the really rich instead of just the professionally successful? If so, count me in too.
If you’re just talking about tax cuts… I’d really prefer some sort of self-maintaining tax system that adjusts itself for inflation and progressive income, but I suppose that’s way too complex a model to apply two and a half million times.
I disagree however that middle-income earners should be the recipients of tax cuts. Middle income is a pretty healthy place to be, and can be downright cosy if you spend smart. Relieving student debt is an excellent way to increase house owners, financial independence, quality of life, and can be used as an incentive to retain our tertiary graduates in New Zealand. It’s not just populism, it’s not even just education policy- it’s a good economic policy, too.
That said, in political reality, I don’t doubt that Labour is going to be forced to give some pretty good carrots to middle-income workers. At least their good economic management has ensured that we can afford them despite the global downturn/recession.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR said: Is this some veiled ref to WFF? They would be getting it unless they’re pretty well to do…or they don’t want the tax credit…
The cut-off combined income for a family in this situation (1 teenage child, aged 16-18) to receive WFF is actually $74,000.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>would that equal less criminals
See Freakonomics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Middle income is a pretty healthy place to be, and can be downright cosy if you spend smart.
And being a university student in New Zealand is a pretty healthy place to be, and can be downright cosy, especially when compared to actually living in a box.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wouldn’t say healthy – our flat was colder inside than it was outside, bizarrely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
tinyurl.com/5xa98x
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No ‘charity begins at home’ then eh…how do you do those ‘tiny url’ things, they look handy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I go to Freakonomics and look up ‘crime’ and all I get is hamburgers and biking to work – want to be a little more specific? Was it in the book?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think you people are shouting past each other somewhat. I myself am a firm believer in the importance of the welfare state, but I don’t think this extends at all to students. Basically, the way to ensure students are well off is to make most attractive the study options those that will give them the skills to do well in the world. And I’m not just talking about sciences/accounting etc; the skills people learn doing all sorts of degrees are very useful as long as they have worked and studied hard – they aren’t so useful if they just get C passes. What we need is for there to be more reward for academic excellence, which will relieve people of the accumulated debts of studying by better incomes. The ways to achieve this are macroeconomic rather than involving micromanagement by the state. In any case, its a ridiculous suggestion that any moron who goes to uni- draws down $15O a week from the govt, gets pissed all the time, racks up credit card and overdraft debts, doesn’t work during the 20 weeks of the year that they don’t have uni (at $12.50 and hour times 40 hours times 20 weeks in $10,000)- should have their life paid for them by the state. Thats ludicrous. People need some incentive to move through the system, and I think it costing them is the right one>
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why aren’t student loans treated the same as LAQCs? Letting graduates write off their student loans against the tax on their earnings in NZ would certainly be an incentive to stay and work in this country instead of taking their 78% taxpyer funded qualification onto the international job market. Perhaps reciprocal agreements could be entered into with OZ and UK to encourage their graduates to work here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Was it in the book?
Read the book. The study on why crime rates dropped in the US is enlightening.
>>TinyURL
Tinyurl.com. I use the toolbar button (see left menu. On the following page, drag the link to the toolbar. From then on, you don’t need to return to the site, to make a tiny URL, just click the toolbar button)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I remember that there was something to do with abortion being legalised and then crime rates dropping ~15 years later…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
tinyurl.com/5jygxn
“We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime”.
There will be other factors, but I think the data speaks an essential truth. If you encourage people to have babies who otherwise wouldn’t (or would delay the choice) you increase the risk of poor childcare, leading to various social problems.
Is encouraging lifestyling on the DPB and WFF really a good idea?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not bad Ahuahu. Kevyn wasn’t that what Brash wanted to do last election? I think a lot of students didn’t actually understand what that meant when compared with Labour’s ‘just no interest’ approach.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn,
“Why aren’t student loans treated the same as LAQCs?”
That makes a lot of sense. Excellent idea.
Suprised no further comments as it is a good point for a debate. Cant see many downsides at all.
Mind you years ago before we went away from the need to file yearly PAYE returns there were tax write off available for first farm and first fishing vessel ownership. Was done back then to get more people back onto the land and onto the water in productive enterprises.
Your suggestion would work in the same manner I guess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m starting to think that the DPB is a sweet deal and that maybe I should quit my job and get on that gravy train! All i’m worried about are the children, who are very vulnerable, obviously. And WFF is based on somebody working and making it easier to stay home and take care of one’s kids, I thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>All i’m worried about are the children
The gravy trainers see them more as a meal ticket. Someone else will look after them….or not….doesn’t really matter, so long as the bene keeps comin’ in.
>>making it easier to stay home
Since when is having kids compulsory?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The benefit is so low, I just can’t get my head around it. Obviously having more kids while on it is monumentally stupid though, I just don’t see how or why when kids cost so much to er, maintain!
People complain about being under a tax burden that prevents them from having kids, then they get this…families are a Good Thing
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If people can live on the benefit for years and years then it is obviously not “so low”
Cut benefits and people go out out and find a job, its blindingly simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Have they done that anywhere else? It tends to be enough to subsist on, but extra costs do pop up…I was on it for a few months last year, and if I had to go the dentist I would have been *STUFFED*, though maybe one can apply for a taxpayer subsidy on that…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bb, says (in his usual inimitable way) “Cut benefits and people go out out and find a job, its blindingly simple.”
bb’s solution IS so blindingly simple that it seems not to allow bb and his ilk to see the real situation. So here are a few facts to add to the debate:
1) Anyone who needs a benefit of any sort and is responsible for the upbringing of young/dependent child/ren (or an elderly or disabled person etc) is put on the DPB because it is the ONE Benefit tailored to be flexible to suit changing circumstances. THUS THE STATISTICS ARE SKEWED.
2) When a person is deemed to be on a Benefit there are add ons and take aways depending on any other income earned.
(Many people on the DPB are gradually increasing their working hours, and the amount of the Benefit they receive is reduced accordingly.) THUS THE STATISTICS ARE SKEWED.
3) Many DPB recipients are students with a child/ren who are preparing themselves for careers, and would otherwise receive a student allowance.
THUS THE STATISTICS ARE SKEWED.
5) For many (most?) DPB recipients, their is a “liable parent” responsible to pay the NZ Government towards the cost of the DPB, according to income. THUS THE STATISTICS ARE SKEWED.
The DPB came into being in the first place because there are many people in our society who can’t or won’t meet their parental obligations. So stop bashing the parent who does take responsibility … Being a sole parent (or a caregiver of a “special needs” or elderly person) is not an easy task.
Likewise, other Benefits are only there because they are needed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)