There was recently a hot topic here debating on welfare management (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/192729)
And this came out today -
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/joe-blasts-welfare…
I'm gutted. So I am that hardworking guy who works his arse off and get the same amount of disposable income as the blob next door who does nothing but reproduce and smoke weed.
Nice.
The article clearly shows the single parent having $30,000 of private income, and that parent went to work to earn that $30,000. Hardly as you put it, never having to work an honest day in their life.
I'd like to see you go to work and look after two children without having to lift a finger, as you so make it out to be.
You're making it sound like that person is set for life when the reality is far from that.
Are you really this far disconnected from the real world around you?
Just watch anyone that stands up against this stupidity get neg voted into oblivion.
Mod: Removed personal attack
what about the single parent who has to go to work? same income there?
oh my bad, i thought they were debating a single parent staying at home on centrelink Vs a single person who works.
That is exactly what they want people to think, knowing full well that most people will skip over small details like that.
"The point is, the 'single' parent doesnt have to move a finger"
can we assume that you or your household aren't parents of any infants under or over the age of two?
parents of an infant (let alone two) under the age of two are on a 24/7 hour job. parents don't "clock" in at 0900 and out at 1700.
Being a parent is a choice. No one puts a gun to your head and force you to reproduce.
If you want a family, work harder, spend less and pay for your kids. Why should someone else (who chooses not to have kids/can't have kids for some reason or another) pay for your bills?
Peoples situations change, the single parent could have been in a relationship and their partner may have left, or even died.
They could possibly be facing other hardships which came out of the blue after they became parents.
Who are you to put out a blanket judgement across all single parents?
Our social support structure is what makes Australia the great country that it is today.
Mod: Removed personal attack
yes, you are right being a parent can be a choose. being single can also be a choose.
you claiming that a single parent doesn't have to move a finger to support or care for their infant/s is incorrect.
Im so sick of hearing this comment. I don't have kids but I understand that the population does need to grow. I have no reason not to work, im not studying, I don't have a disability, why should I receive payments from the government?
Instead I benefit from government funded (tax payer) services, and also contribute to services that I don't need or use. This attitude that you should only have to contribute to what is relevant to you is ridiculous. Think about it.
@tm87: Being a SINGLE parent is rarely a choice. Every single parent I know works themselves to the bone to give their kids the best. This is Hockey stirring up more contempt for mothers with his careful choice of words and omissions.
Notice how they fail to write that the sole parent's income has come from working…and yet apparently the single person is working "full time". And the payments made to childcare WHILST THE MOTHER IS WORKING are counted against her as 'welfare benefits' as though she gets them directly. Which makes a total farce of her apparently 'disposable income'.
The government's comments and attacks on women over the past few days have been absolutely disgusting.
Wow… I'm lost for words.
You do realise than people leave their partners, and it is often through no choice of the person being left nor can they stop it.
I'm not even going to address the other points you've raised in your post, its going to be a waste of everyones time as you'll never get it.
Sure No Probs - I spent a grand total of $50 on my wedding including rings. I've been very happily married for over 15 years. We chose not to have kids. I spend very little money on alcohol. I don't confuse want with need. I don't smoke. I exercise regularly and haven't touched junk food in 20 years. I contribute $$$$$ towards social welfare and I'm in a group that benefits the least from govt spending compared to what I pay in taxes. I think 10 times and act once. I have ZERO sense of entitlement. etc etc…. oh and I've lived in 3rd world conditions for many years and gained some real perspective.
Noone can see into the future but there are MANY MANY MANY steps one can take to minimise the risk.
"Why should someone else (who chooses not to have kids/can't have kids for some reason or another) pay for your bills?"
We have an aging, decling population. Businesses like to expand, which is hard with an aging, decling population. If we don't have more kids, businesses will push for more imported labour. Many Aussies hate imported labour more than they hate Aussie kids, so the government gives tax breaks to parents.
If you think being a single, working parent with two kids under two is so great why don't you do it?
@gimme: id say heartless, clueless & stupid.
Coming From a full time working mother who gets $0 benefit. But it's not a black & white issue. Yes tighten welfare but welfare is there for a reason. People used to leave their kids because they were so desperate they couldn't feed them! My grandmother grew up in an orphanage, not because she didn't have parents but because they couldn't afford to keep them. A lot of children grew up unloved and suffered abuse.
@gimme:
Do you read what you write?
Are you suggesting people who are victims of domestic violence (for example) should stay with abusive partners? If they made a "poor decision" by entering that relationship, should they never be offered any assistance to leave it?
Is sending the tax payer funded police around allowed?
How many beatings is a reasonable number to endure before you consider they have paid for their poor choice and might be entitled to help?
Are there other circumstances where you would insist people suck it up? Perhaps if there is a partner molesting the kids? Or abusing drugs? Or involved in crime?
I just shake my head at attitudes that forbid the minimal assistance available via welfare.
@Roll Eyes:
Good on you that you're working hard like most of us here.
Now I am not implying that we should remove ALL welare. But does it need restructuring and tightening its eligibility? yes. For example: weeding out those who abuse their welfare money on alcohol and drugs (by completely taking it away or restricting to food stamps equivalent). Make those who can work (mild disability, parents) work (at least part time). Restrict welfare benefits to a minimum (so they cant afford to buy luxuries, go on a holiday etc) and reduce the tax on hardworking people (so they enjoy a little more of what they earn).
I have not problem paying tax because like you said, I benefit from it as well. Right now such a big proportion of our tax is going to welfare. I would certainly like to see more go to infrastructure, health etc which we all contribute to and enjoy.
@l2argain:
The solution to that is education and contraception, not welfare.
And good on you for working hard for your kids. Not taking anything away from you.
Being a parent is a privilege.
You're right despite you other comment above. Some people shouldn't reproduce :/
That said, there are some people who are genuinely in a tight spot. Bad marriage, or widow/er.
Cant just lump everyone together.
@tm87:
Society..
Society benefits from there being new generations to work and pay taxes into the future.
In fact our current economic system is a Pyramid scheme… without more consumers to "grow" the economy, everything falls over!
As such, "paying" for kids is investing in the future. The kids will (likely) pay themselves off and more over their lifespan.
Your parents likely benefited from support to raise you (free education, cheaper bus fares, tax benefits) and now it's time for you to pay it forward to the next generation.
The system (like any) isn't perfect and undoubtedly there are some rorters who slip their way through the cracks, but they're the exception to the rule.
Peoples situations change, the single parent could have been in a relationship and their partner may have left, or even died.
They could possibly be facing other hardships which came out of the blue after they became parents.
Vote Dan for Prime Minister and there will be a licensing system for people to become parents. This will require people to pass three tests:
As you've acknowledged; "people's situations change". But for some reason people are still in a hurry to have children thinking they're somehow immune to this. And then suddenly it's: Oh poor me, what did I do to deserve this?
Sure, some people have made the appropriate preparations and are in tough situations due entirely to misfortune. But don't tell me no one has ever dived head first into parenthood without considering their ability to raise children.
@tm87: I have no kids want no kids. But do know that where Tax payer come from people have kids. if people do not have kids who going to pay for your in your old age.
@Dan_: I generally agree with this, but giving the government (yes Dan, even your government) more power, never turns out well. It will always end up being an us vs them situation or to the worst side of the spectrum, eugenics.
In a perfect world it would be work exactly as intended, but we are nowhere near that utopian state
@Drew22: People whose partners have left them can claim child support from the partner who left but is still responsible for creating that child. Why should someone else have to pay for that kid?
Would you rather they don't have any welfare and have the children go comletely disadvantaged or feral?
That's the sad reality. It's Social Blackmail of sorts as the kids aren't at fault.
I would rather welfare is restricted to necessities rather than given as cash whre they can spend on themselves rather than their kids.
While I agree that the money should be set on necessities, the debit card scheme the government are trying to introduce is a terrible idea. A lot of places do not except card e.g. cultural supermarkets, farmers markets (e.g. paddys flemington) and stalls where you can actually get a lot of your food produce for a lot cheaper.
Also having two kids is no cake walk, I don't have kids, but having helped my cousin (single mum with twins) I was done after only babysitting for a couple of hours, and they are some of the best mannered independent kids I have dealt with. Being a mother is a 24/7 job and stressful as hell. They have started school already, and she has got a job, but is definitely not back at her peak performance.
Maybe next time you go about judging someone else, take a step back and try a look at it through they're shoes. Maybe give it a try first, cause I'm certainly glad I am not in her shoes, she's much stronger than me.
Single parent with two kids under two.
Newborns require constant attention, often only settling for an hour.
Many of these parents will be women, who have just had their body destroyed twice in two years.
Let's face it; if you are single with two kids under two, you aren't the most employable person so any work you find will be at a rubbish rate and hard.
If you really think all this is worth the tax break you are free to try to find a surrogate mother. I whole heartedly hope you don't.
Warning: We welcome discussion and appreciate differences in opinion but please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks. Further attacks against other users will result in the penalty bin.
mate I can understand your frustration.
My point of view is that its not about being a prent or not..
I think we're not against the welfare system, but rather the abuse of the welfare system.
We pay so much tax and end up with more debt - probably as a result of the abuse, not the welfare system itself…
Cheer up.. life goes on…
Lifestyle choice
Gotcha. Everyone earning $30k raising two kids on their own has chosen that, and given the option of an $80k income would refuse it.
I've yet to meet such a person, how about you?
I've yet to meet such a person, how about you?
Ever heard of the saying; You can't have the cake and eat it too?
For most, that choice would have been available to them before they had kids. 80k isn't exactly enormous. They just lacked the foresight to understand that is what they were giving up to have kids.
Is it not also a lifestyle choice to live in a country with a welfare system?
Is he asking you to subsidise his lifestyle choice?
Well yes. My taxes pay for the roads he drives on, the healthcare he uses, the education he had, the politicians who run his country etc etc. Is it not a lifestyle choice to choose which country to live in? He's chosen a country that supports it's citizens through welfare.
@lemc6125:
But at the same time his taxes pay for the roads you drive on, the healthcare you use and the education you had as well. So in what way are you subsidising him?
You are reading a rant from a man who claims $270 a night allowance for living in his wife's house, citing a welfare payment loosley based on an assessment of what would be available to a woman who had had one child a year every year for the last six years.
It wouldn't be the first time that a Murdoch tabloid article turned out to be a baseless right-wing rant, or Eleventy Joe had demonstrated his inability to comprehend year seven mathematics.
Many corporate welfare giants are richer than you. You and the lying Liberals are attacking the low hanging fruit.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/the-global-warming-subsidy-t…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/nrn-dist-mining-subsid…
http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/gina-rin…
corporate welfare should be stop. business should be made to stand on their own two feet.
If the rich pulled their weight and paid their fair share of tax, welfare recipients wouldn't have to endure a bludgeon every time there is any talk about reaching a budget surplus.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tax-of…
I find it funny that Hockey does this (comparing a single income earner with a low income single parent with two kids) when every budget I can recall has been "Families families families!" and nothing of note for those single income earners!
He created this, now he wants us to be angry about it?
I just want to point out that Hockey definitely didn't create the situation he is complaining about. Tuesday's budget was only his second budget, and his first included no middle class welfare either.
Is giving welfare to a single parent earning $30k middle class welfare now?
If they have more disposable income than someone making $80k/a, then yes they are easily middle class.
Hockey has been in parliament since 1996 and was a minister from 2001 to 2007. He might not have introduced anything in the last 2 years, but he was part of a government that helped to create the problems he's now complaining about.
I know right. A single person has a disposable income of $60,853 and a person with 2 kids has one of $66,304 according to the article.
But anyone who can raise 2 children for less than $6,000 a year (the difference between the two), must be doing a lot of Ozbargain-ing :P
Well, its not just Hockey, it is about thinking of many Australian Tax Payers. People want to know whom and how much are they subsidising.
Just remember Joe Hockey is working for Australian Tax Payers and if people ask him a question they should get an answer. Even though I think they may be 'Dorothy Dixen' question.
It is just amazing how quick people are in terms of blaming Labor and Liberals. Just remember they all are part of Australian Society and they don't get vaccinated to turn them into Labor or Liberal, Even though I reckon green must have some sort of indoctrination process ;-)
This issue is how they present their position, the comparisons they make are grossly unfair.
If they REALLY want to show where the money is going, compare a single person with a job and a single person without a job.
Do not show me comparisons between a single person with a job and a single person with two children.
Why is it so hard to make a like for like comparison?
Why is it so hard to make a like for like comparison?
Ask Today Tonight that or any commercial news channel
I would hope that the government would be a little better than that.
Well done, @tm87, for building a hypothetical scenario based on multiple dreamt up assumptions and then raging against some of society's least fortunate.
Here is a better article for you. Also Murdoch press, so you can rest assured it is a "credible source" for almost any right wing self hating Aussie bogan.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-affluent-…
Disagree. This article forgets the fact that every business who does what Gina Reinhart do can access the same "subsidies" the author is talking about. Negative gearing rant the author spoke against is also ignoring the fact that it is a deductible expense as per ATO definition AND also ignoring the fact that when the property is sold, there will be Capital Gains Tax applied to it albeit at 50% but still significant.
The Brisbane Courier Mail is a Left-of-Centre publications even though sharing the same News Corp banner. So is News.Com.Au. Nothing wrong with that so please don't start talking about "Murdoch being right wing" nonsense. John Lyons/Paul Kelly/George Megalogenis are all Left people but they work for News Corps too.
most people will be able to access both 50% discounts which in essence takes the cgt tax to 25%.
The rental property area will be reviewed in th next few years as its currently an area which presents the wealthy with an incredibly easy way with making even more money.
"The Brisbane Courier Mail is a Left-of-Centre publications"
hahaahahahaha
not even going to bother reading what Murdoch has to say. such a dangerous man. hope that one day his self serving election determining paper is gone. hope its tomorrow.
tm87 just be thankful for what you have. it could all be gone when you wake up tomorrow.
people bag welfare till they need it. anyone at any time could lose their partner, assets, mental or physical health through misfortune. I m happy to pay tax to welfare, as long as people aren't sitting around smoking, and playing pokies… i would hate to be unemployed, not for the money factor, but purpose factor..
Apparently those misfortunes are lifestyle choices that would make you a weed smoking blob.
I appreciate what you've said, but often people's attitudes toward, long-term unemployed, single parents, disabled doesn't incorporate an understanding that just like regular working people, non-workers need fun, have stress, may want to take drugs including cigarettes or alcohol. They might want to surf or gamble just as a means to cope with their lives.
Just realistic.
This is the precise reason why I (and many else) are so sick of the current welfare system
One of the things I like about the AU system, compared to the USA, for example, is that giving direct cash income support allows recipients to retain dignity (they don't have to pay with a special card that marks them out as on welfare) and it leaves them open to getting the best deal, rather than shopping in prescribed ways.
In the USA, where TANF/SNAP (food stamps) operate, you can only buy certain items. No birthday cakes, for example.
And the benefit cards can only be used at participating places. So if you pass a roadside stall selling honey for $6 per kilo you cannot buy it, instead you must buy what is available at a participating supermarket, even though it costs more.
And people use the cards to buy fungible goods they can exchange for cash. A 24 pack of coke cans bought for $15 at Coles might yield $10 when sold to a non-welfare getting neighbour. That $10 cash can then be used for any purpose.
So you have not prevented anyone getting access to things you disapprove of because of your moral judgements, but you have made the life of well meaning welfare recipients harder.
How would you feel if you were an 11yro in the checkout queue if your mum has to use the "poor people" welfare card and your friend's mum doesn't?
@mskeggs:
All good and well on paper we have to maintain dignity of people on welfare etc.
So how do you propose to tackle the drug and alcohol problem related?
If your coke example is true - they now have $15 to spend on drugs. With the food stamps/welfare card they have $10 to spend on drugs, $5 less. How is that not better?
Do you think they are going to still spend $10 and keep the $5 for food for their kids? No way mate.
Police can intervene if there are illegal drugs being used.
If alcohol is being misused it is possible for Family Services/DOCS to become involved if it is detrimental to children.
As I said before, the solution of restricting benefits does nothing to improve moral outcomes, but makes it more difficult for the large majority of people on welfare.
I personally would like to see welfare recipients banned from donating funds to churches, or buying Nestle products because I am opposed to some of Nestle's practices, or brand name sugar/flour/butter because it is so much dearer than homebrand.
But that is nonsense, because welfare isn't a gift from me, it is an entitlement open to all Australians whose circumstances become such that they are eligible.
@mskeggs:
To suggest that the police or any other authorities can do anything to stop drugs and alcohol use is laughable and naive. I'm pretty sure they would have done so long ago. Go spend a day sitting in the ED of a large public hospital - you will know how deep and serious the problem is.
Introducing the welfare card is not taking any dignity away from them. They still have a choice - homebrand or nestle. But it does restrict someone from buying alcohol/drugs (directly at least) or luxuries (iphones, movies, nikes/adidas).
A genuine welfare dependant should have no problem with this, because that's what welfare is for - necessities.
@tm87:
And as for the drug an alcohol "problem"?
Would you be ok with the government monitoring your (earned) spending to stop you buying alcohol/drugs? Why is it ok for you to buy alcohol but a problem for somebody accessing welfare? You get lower tax on any super contributions, an entitlement from the government. Should the government be able to forbid you from spending some of your super on alcohol because some people have alcohol problems?
The disability pension is around $20k p.a. It isn't going to go far on alcohol and drugs. Do you think somebody regularly taking drugs is going to shrug and say "oh, my welfare can only buy food now, I'll quit the heroin." Or is it much more likely they will buy the slabs of coke and sell what they can then rip off your VCR for the rest.
@tm87:
I agree that drugs and alcohol abuse are a difficult problem. I guess that is one reason I don't think restricting welfare payments will do anything to fix those problems, but will inconvenience the bulk of people receiving welfare.
Do you include the age pension/disability pension as well?
Are the old age pensioners allowed to go to the movies in your world?
The tax on cigarettes are so high in Australia and UK that people have actually quit because they couldnt afford. So why wouldn't the same apply to drugs.
@akula:
Drugs expose the limits of economic policies. The cost for heroin, for example, is stunningly high. In financial terms it is crippling, and the penalties if caught can be extreme (see the news lately).
But people still do it.
I really understand the argument that says "harsher penalties, more control etc" as it would work on me and probably you, but the real world result is more crime, fear, violence etc. as people decide they have little to lose.
We don't need to speculate on this.
The USA has a culture not too dissimilar to ours, but with dramatically harsher welfare policies and criminal punishments. If you are an adult in the USA and you lose your job, you get unemployment insurance for a set period (usually around 52 weeks). If you fail to find a job in that time, you will have no welfare afterward. You will literally have to beg or turn to charities to avoid starvation. (there are programs in place for people with children and the disabled).
That it is government policy to allow starvation in a rich country boggles my mind, but that is the end result of policies that penalise people on welfare.
People in the USA live in a society with a lot of problems we have on a much tinier scale.
I don't want to repeat their mistakes.
@tm87: Well since you bring up the issue of drugs, it should be a medical issue and not a criminal issue. Education and regulation.
The welfare card as I stated in another comment is a terrible idea, not only is it degrading, it will not be available at every store. E.g. paddys flemington markets, they're produce is a lot fresher and cheaper than regular supermarkets, BUT is cash only.
Also you are saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have luxuries. I've been on youth allowance welfare, living by myself for uni. I also had a part time job and still barely had enough to live on. I bought in bulk and budgeted to hell so I could try and have a social life. I'd probably properly have gone out once a month max. It is no way to live. I hated it and I hated being on welfare.
Alcohol and drugs are just one of the many coping mechanisms to deal with life (not counting addiction, as that is separate and a medical condition)just as movies, and other hobbies are.
Services to help them off welfare is what is attempted, there will always be the few that don't want to help themselves but majority of people do not want to be dependent.
Just want to say I appreciate your point of view, and you're absolutely right about the USA, I've dated a couple of Americans. A guy I was friends with while I was over there— he lost his job at one point, and got a set amount of unemployment benefits until they ran out. If I recall correctly unemployment benefits are through your ex employer. When the benefits were up, he was pretty much screwed.
He was a college grad linguist with almost native fluency in Japanese and he was applying to about 10 jobs a day in a busy capital city, and there were (and are still, I believe) no jobs to be had. He had absolutely no money to eat. His car died at this moment, too, a leak of some kind— and I remember he had to beg for favors to get it running again just so he could even go to job interviews. He didn't do drugs, he didn't drink, he did smoke, but it was a habit started back when he had money and was younger. He didn't smoke much.
I helped him out because his choice that month was rent (300 a month in a really disgusting studio apartment) or eating, and he couldn't do both. There was nothing available to him in terms of government help. His only options were actually a homeless shelter and giving up his (again really crappy) apartment. He couldn't even pay his cell, which meant his interview calls weren't getting through, which meant he had to give out a friends number.
And when he finally got his tax break back? Government took it away because of his college student loans he owed. If he didn't have me as a friend he'd have lost everything.
He has a job again now, but it took him a good six months, and since then has only had temporary contracts because of the economy. He occasionally goes without a job, and we lost touch but I believe he went another six months without a job at some point.
This is a college educated guy with a decent head on his shoulders. He didn't want to be dependent. Incredibly intelligent. Really high IQ. There are just no jobs out there in the US right now. I feel like its getting that way here.
There's a reason it's called the cycle of poverty. I agree the current system isn't ideal in Aus, but the harsher system of the USA isn't either. All it does is makes things harder to get back on your feet and are incredibly counter productive to what the government hopes with happen. It's really not as black and white as people make it out to be.
I've known of more persons including gp's, salesman & tons of ordinary workers such as labourers who take a LOT of drugs or abuse Alcohol (eg. beer by the case). Possibly no difference really than the % of unemployed involved in substance abuse. Why label the poor, unemployed, disabled etc with untrue stereotypes and generalisations?
I wasn't advocating drug use above, it's a reality. I don't personally drink, smoke etc, but understand social pressure and general life can leave people needing something to lean on.
Why would I care what they do with their OWN hard-earned money? They could wipe their bottoms with cash if they like.
What I am against is welfare recipients using SOMEONE ELSE's hard earned money to abuse alcohol and drugs.
There's a massive difference there.
As has been pointed out already, it's not your money. In fact you are effectively a slave in a long established system. You have no real choice or control over yourself or your prefabricated life. You are basically property of the state, and in having this status you have no real ownership, you are a value-adding commodity, no more, in the eyes of social controllers.
Furthermore, weigh up the 'real world' contribution you make as a consumer, and as has been stated elsewhere, your overall contribution may be greatly 'detrimental', when compared to those persons you consider blobs (a more fundamental measure) that choose not to or otherwise can not, contribute to the measurable negative output produced by western society.
In other words, stop being such a small minded little angry man please. And if you choose to support and /or defend a negative system which disallows your own growth as a human being, I think you're truly a bloody fool, but that is your choice and is very common, consider that others may in fact know better than you. So please try not to be a brainwashed slave picking on other people you know very little about.
No offense.
@NOYANONO:
Like what? I think you're the one making a fool of yourself here. Mate, find yourself a cave and live in there, happy ever after. No offence too.
@tm87: I hope you some point in your life need centrelink learn how much of shit fest it is. why do you have idea all poor do is abuse alcohol and smoke and take drugs? It far from the case.
@nikey2k27:
i hope so too. Because when the time comes, i'm pretty sure I wont get any - as I have been working too hard all my life to have too much savings, as rightly pointed out by Level380 below.
Welfare is for those who hasn't worked a day in their life.
Welfare is for those who hasn't worked a day in their life.
When you make comments like this it comes across like you are posting in bad faith to stir up anger.
There are 2.4million people on the welfare payment called the age pension, including my grandmother before she died. She worked bloody hard all her life.
There are about 1.2million people on the disability support pension, including my friends brother who has a substantial intellectual impairment. He would love to work, and volunteers at an animal shelter, but his disability is such that he struggles with even the jobs at assisted workplaces.
My sister-in-law has a learning disability. She is a good Mum with a hard working husband, but has had long periods of unemployment as she struggles with the dynamics of most workplaces. She works as hard as she is able, but has previously relied on the disability support pension.
I know a woman in her 30s with kids aged 4 & 9. She had a partner who grew increasingly dominating and eventually physically abused her (or as we used to say, thumped her till she had bruises and cuts on her face). The single parent pension gave her the financial opportunity to leave this person, and that plus Austudy allowed her to train for 2 years to become a physical therapist who now works full time and pays plenty of tax.
I am sure there are people you can find who you would choose not to offer any support to, maybe all four of the people above are undeserving to you, but the majority of society sees welfare as an important part of a rich, civilised country.
@mskeggs:
Please note I am not including pensioners (who has contributed before retiring) and those on DSP (for genuine reasons) in this discussion.
And yes I have probably made a wrong generalisation in saying welfare is only for those who's never worked - I correct myself on that statement. But there's no denying that these people DO form a huge part of welfare recipients.
And the system is flawed that it is unable to 1) differentiate those who can't from don't want to work; 2) stop the abuse of welfare on alcohol, drugs and luxuries ; 3) be fair to those who have contributed significantly by spending so much on welfare that health, education and infrastructure is neglected. - do you not agree mskeggs?
@tm87: I look at it like that to apply for dole one time go you have to much money. if you go USA have a look around at homeless on street i don't know about you. i am happy to pay my tax know that do not have to see that.
Agree target people who abuse the system and not who genuinely need it.
Unfortunately there are a lot of generalisation where there shouldn't be.
Happy for my tax dollars to go who truly need it.
@tm87:
The welfare system does currently differentiate between those who can't and those who won't.
If you are capable of working but lie to get on disability payments, you can be charged with fraud. This happens sometimes, but the main avenue is that it is very difficult to get and maintain disability benefits unless you are legitimately disabled.
Eligibility criteria here, but at a minimum requires a medical report:
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink…
Newstart is equally stringent to receive. As comments in this thread attest, you need to have exhausted nearly all your resources and even extremely low earnings, like from a part time job disqualify you. Eligibility here:
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink…
You also have to demonstrate you are actively looking for work and jump through a bunch of administrative hoops.
For this you can receive $259.60 per week, which is hardly a lavish lifestyle.
It seems you feel there is a large pool of people getting lavish benefits from the government while not contributing. I suggest there is a tiny pool in this set, and that the government already makes it very hard for them, including stiff penalties.
The reality is the people getting the highest dollar benefit from the government are:
- wealthy people getting reduced taxes thanks to concessional super taxes, negative gearing etc.
- followed by middle class people who get benefits such as subsidised private health care, subsidised private child care, subsidised private school education, subsidised tertiary education, family benefits and likely a part pension when they retire
- lastly, direct welfare recipients like somebody on newstart or the disability pension.
You could massively ramp up enforcement to monitor these last group and seek to restrict their access to alcohol & luxuries, but if it costs more to police that, why make life unpleasant for all the 'deserving' welfare recipients? And are you happy to pay more tax to have an welfare alcohol prohibition squad to visit the people on welfare?
You keep saying that drug/alcohol/luxuries are a huge problem on welfare, but the evidence shows we are spending little on welfare as it is, and attempts to do the kind of things you are suggesting would be costly, increase crime and decrease everybody on welfare's freedoms.
Some more numbers.
Newstart costs about $9b per annum. About 2/3rds of recipients receive it for less than 12 months and less than 1/4 receive it for more than 2 years.
http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-vol-1/9-11-unemployme…
I assume you accept there is a role for newstart, and presumably the longer term unemployed are the issue? They are responsible for about $3b of expenditure.
The age pension costs about $40b each year, but you are ok with it (even if old people drink or buy luxuries I presume).
Reduced tax on super costs us $35b, again, dramatically more.
Citation: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/its-su…
I am not in favour of drug abusers, and I feel people claiming benefits should be strictly entitled to them, but I think it is a terrible idea to spend money trying to enforce an alcohol/drug/luxury ban on welfare recipients when we don't enforce such a ban on the other beneficiaries of our country's wealth.
People on welfare have a hard time as it is, stopping somebody on a disability pension from going to the movies on cheap Tuesday because you feel they should live in penury on welfare is mean spirited.
but the evidence shows we are spending little on welfare as it is
Wrong. 30% of the entire year's (14-15) budget was spent on welfare and social services. Comparatively, 11% on health and 7% on education and training.
Source: http://theopenbudget.org/
Welfare for pensioners and the disabled - many are deserving and many arent'. But that's a topic for another day.
And yes, I would absolutely be willing to pay a little more if we can effectively govern use of alcohol and drugs among welfare recipients. That will help reduce violence against women and children (and hopefully a lot less 'single parents') and help those who genuinely require the welfare.
"why do you have idea all poor do is abuse alcohol and smoke and take drugs?"
That's my key point to this guy.
IE. Some disabled and unemployed I know or have known do volunteer work (eg fishing 4the disabled) or constructive hobbies inluding keeping fit and studying uni/tafe. None I've known, maybe barr 1, are vegetable sponges on drugs. It's not real for vast majority. Most people cold never live the way you describe.
Please come off your isolated cloud tm87.
Maybe only 1% of these described villains deserve the criticism.
I too hope you require a long a spell unemployed to gain some humility and understanding.
@NOYANONO: No mate do not think all poor people do is abuse alcohol and smoke and take drugs. i like pay tax to know medicare and centrelink so we donot turn into USA so many poor people on street in New York and LA .
@tm87:
Agreed, 30% of the budget is on welfare programs, but not the ones you feel are problematic:
the total budget spending (2014 figures) is $415b
of that:
- age pension - $39b
- disability support - $16b
- job seekers - $10b
- family tax benefit - $20b
- private schools - $8b
- private health insurance - $6b
- parents income support - $5b
Cite: http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst6-0…
Just from that smattering, we can see the people you are critical of, job seekers and single parent pensioners, get a combined $15b. About the same given to private schools and private health insurance. We can be certain that at least some of the people getting Newstart and Parental support must be deserving, even by your standards, so it must be that the 'undeserving' people are in receipt of less than $15b, or less than 3.7% of the total budget.
I still fail to see why this is a big problem, but welfare to wealthier people sending kids to private schools or buying private health cover (to pick roughly equivalent expenditure) isn't.
And remember, this is just expenditure. There are government gifts of tax breaks disproportionately benefiting the rich:
- super tax concessions - $35b
- negative gearing $3.7b
- Capital gains concessions - $4b
(cite for the last two: http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/2015/04/29/lib-voters-proper…)
It is reasonable to look at the whole list if we are concerned about finances.
I am pleased you are keen to fund extra government supervision of people abusing drugs and alcohol. I assume you would like to see it across the community, as the numbers abusing outside welfare recipients dwarf those on welfare.
I personally think the gov already does plenty for drugs and alcohol regulation, but I am open to being persuaded on how it could be improved.
@nikey2k27:
No worries, I think you misunderstood my comment. The 1st line was just 'quoting' your comment to someone else.
I'll leave it there.
That so true apply for job without one was low part of my life.
As someone who has been out of work for 7 months, I still haven't gotten welfare as I have too much savings.
Silly me for working all these years, paying taxes and saving up money. Now when I wanted to draw on some of my 'taxes' I get told stiff, use my own cash first!
So I feel happy that I can 'bag out' welfare people. The ones who haven't worked a day in their lifes are just a drain on the tax system!
least you can take comfort in the fact someone who has never worked there whole life must be bored as.
I fully agree with you on this.
All us middle of the road people - worked all our lives but never got rich - have worked really bloody hard to make life better for ourselves and what is there if something happens to us? Absolutely NOTHING - use your own money first.
Meanwhile, the government and all you other bleeding hearts are giving away that tax we paid for years to multiple generations of the never-worked.
Until we have NOTHING, we won't get anything. And when we get to nothing, they will take our house. They will orchestrate legislation to take everything we ever worked for and in the end, we will turn into these very same welfare recipients - something that drove us for years to work, to be self supporting, to scrimp and save, to do without, so we could relax at the other end. What for?
I can see where this is going and everyone in the middle is going to miss out. My reward for working all my life and doing the right thing is to have everything taken from me. Seriously?
That being the case, what is the point in working at all? Welfare as it stands today DOES NOT WORK.
Good job on comparing apples and pork.
Single person vs a single parent with two children?
So we are comparing how much money one person has versus three people?
Typical from the current government.