LINDSAY MITCHELL: The other side of the story
- Administrator
- 4 hours ago
- 2 min read
The Latu family first appeared at RNZ pleading poverty. Their household consists of mum, dad, eight children and two relatives.
They have now reappeared in the NZ Herald. You can read the details at those two links.
What frustrates is that the two reporters who have written up the Latu family's plight have seemingly asked no questions about how much income the family actually receives and how they budget it.
Mr Latu cannot work due to a knee injury and neither does his wife.
A couple on welfare with two or more children receives on average $1,244 net per week. Here is a chart from the 2024 Total Incomes Report issued by MSD:
The green portion - tax credits - refers to what is paid for the children. In the chart above, the average for two or more children is $397. But because there are eight Latu children that sum would rise to $967 weekly. According to MSD the first child receives $144.30 weekly and each subsequent child $117.56. You can do the maths.
So the Latu family's weekly income is now in the territory of $1814. The children each receive a further $50 monthly from the charity Variety through sponsorship, effectively adding another $100 onto the family's weekly income.
The chart above does not include the Winter Energy Payment which is $31.82 a week.
If you are following the calculation, the sum has reached $1,946 weekly during the winter months. Or $101,192 annually. After tax.
Additionally there are two relatives living with the family who will also bring in income but one can only speculate about what that is.
What can be safely stated is this. In New Zealand in 2025 the 'poverty' threshold is very high.
Now obviously I do not know what the family's outgoings are; whether they live in a state house and pay income-related rent, in a subsidised private rental or pay a subsidised mortgage. They may have high-interest debts; they might tithe to their church.
All we get with these types of mainstream media reports is emoting over unfair hardship and helplessness. One might wonder how much of the story was written by the charity and how much the journalist contributed.
In fact the redistribution of wealth into these families is substantial, by some people's standards, possibly eye-watering.
After nearly ninety years of social security it would be reasonable to conclude that the state cannot solve 'poverty'. Indeed, the more the state does, the more the state is expected to do.
Lindsay Mitchell blogs here
I think it is time, particularly for unemployed, to have a time limit on the benefit they receive..
And none of this leaving school and straight onto the benefit. Also as far a the solo parent is concerned, name the father, (he must contribute) and one is enough. There are so many readily available methods
To continue to be eligible for unemployment benefit after a maximum of six months, one must have to work for at least two years before receiving further access to the unemployment benefit.
They are parasites with boundless appetites for other peoples' money. Benefits should be capped at 2 children. Sore knee? You can still perform work with your hands. No doubt we will see more of these shameless bludgers wheeled out by the Far Left media scamsters as the election nears. Disgusting.
I read that in the Polynesian cultures names are often chosen to reflect courage and resilience.
Okay.
In this example multiple benefits reflect the situation: non-working parents, 8 x children, and two relatives living with them…almost $2k per week, perhaps more.
An idea for a cartoon: in a field there’s an emaciated cow trying to feed (NZ) covered in ticks, plus flies hovering around (various parasites), and the cow emits a weak fart. Behind it are Green leaders (wearing Hamas scarfs) pointing at the cow’s butt whilst shouting outrage to a MSM reporter.
If the media are going to write these stories you would think they would tell the whole story not just the sob bits. Would expect it from RNZ but thought the "new" Herald would be more objective. Seems that all the income this lot are getting (not disclosed by either article) comes via the taxpayers of NZ but instead of being grateful all they do is moan that we're not giving them enough.
I'm looking for the bit where you suggest a solution. The children did not ask to be born. If you manage to put the parents on the scrapheap the children will go with them. Are you willing to take over the children's welfare? Well ... no .. not really. Are you willing to toss them on to the scrap heap with the parents when the benefit is slashed? Do I hear "yes" or even "maybe"?
I think the situation is bloody awful. After we finish with the advice about how the children should not have been born and the (frankly ludicrous) suggestion that it was all a cunning plot to attach to the taxpayer tit forever .... then what? Then…