Thursday, 18 September 1997 11:51

Keith Rankin writes:
>
> While it is true that Accommodation Supplements are higher in Auckland for
> high rental properties, it is not true in general that Auckland supplements
> are higher.
>
> Take the example of a couple with an income of $400 per week with one child
> living in a two-bedroom apartment, paying $190 per week rent. By my
> calculation, the AS will come to $68.72 per week wherever in New Zealand
> they live.
>
> Of course the quality of accommodation at that price would typically be
> somewhat lower in Auckland than in, say, Dunedin. The Dunedin family could
> economise by selecting a cheaper property, whereas the Auckland family
> might be obliged to incur higher rental costs, only about 70% of which
> would be covered by a higher AS.

Another thing I find bizarre is that the government decides to set state house

rentals at the market rate, and then supplies an accomodation supplement to

state house tenants. Isn't this taking with one hand and giving with the other?

The only problem is I suspect the government's taking hand is bigger than the

giving one.

I see absolutely no reason why state house rentals should be set at the market

rate. True, people in private rental accomodation may have been relatively worse

off compared to state house tenants, but is the solution to drag all people down

to the lowest common denominator? Why not set state house rentals based on income,

and only provide an accomodation supplement to people in private rental houses?

Tim Hume