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.
You talk a lot about managing risk with insurance.
Well I mentioned it once. But OK.
The Australian welfare system is a kind of insurance. You pay "premiums" with your taxes…
However with insurance premiums, the way it works is that higher risk individuals pay higher premiums. Are we going to tax the poor more because they're at greater risk of financial hardship in the event of unemployment/disability?
If you have a drink driving offence, I'd imagine your car insurance premiums would be pretty astronomical. Should we increase tax for people who have a child while already living paycheck to paycheck? I'm not sure that would really help.
It's not really insurance. It's a safety net for people who fall into financial difficulty.
But let's not pretend that every person who needs help has only themselves to blame.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Anyone can fall into financial difficulty, but people who are already in the high risk category that choose to put themselves at significantly immensely greater risk should not be better off (by way of welfare) than those who don't.
i wonder how many are genuinely single and not with 'ex' husband conveniently living nearby.
If you find any at all, report them. Fraud is a crime.
Agreed, pls report them, the small number doing so open the door for ignorant people on the internet to cast aspersions against the honest majority.
With 30% of the budget spent on social welfare I think Australia is more of a socialist utopia than North Korea!
Feel free to move to North Korea if you think it's a socialist utopia, LOL.
Dan- I am confused by your comments. What you said is exactly what i was saying. It was sarcasm. I was responding to comments made. Implying not everyone leads the same life or has the same circumstances. A comment was made along the lines of dont have kids if you can't afford them. It's not rocket science. I would like to think the average person doesn't bring a child into the world for the sake of it. They would do all they could to provide them with a quality of life.
You need to spell check me. One word. Well lets not focus on it being 1 word rather than most on here who do far worse. chuckles Seriously, i am not writing a thesis. I write thoughts. I wasn't aware i was being graded. If it makes you feel better go ahead. I apoligise now if this affects you. It may happen again i warn you. Is it just me or are you going to go and correct everyone elses grammar, punctuation and spelling? You demonstrated the meaning of inequality. Sure is a lot to correct on here if you have nothing better to do i suppose. Me, i am not bothered by it.
If you are referring to me, you didn't say so, so i wont ASSUME anything. Yes that was in capital letters for a reason. Where did i say child birth is inevitable? Why do people talk like only woman are single parents? I know of men too. Men find themselves in that situation also. I don't see it as just a female thing but obviously others do. Just like i don't assume only woman get abused. Would like to think i am not that naive.
Were you then referring to me as having a P.O.S partner? What i have, you have no idea? You are quite defensive. Did i say something that upset you? What has my life got to do with anything? I am a lucky one but many i know are not. Male or female. I am happy to be corrected. Educate me. I'm all for it. Where i said lets not worry about accidents, the elderly etc it was sarcasm. We never know what's around the corner and when we may need help. Help is there for just that. We shouldn't punish all because of some people doing the wrong thing.
Paragraph 1
I assumed the "don't let your parent's get old" remark was the sarcastic one, due to it being inevitable, is it not? If that is your sarcastic response to "don't have children if you can't afford it", it would seem to me as though you're saying that having children is also inevitable.
P.2
You've dedicated an entire paragraph to the most subtle of corrections.
P.3
P.4
I was hoping the quoted text would indicate that it is referring to anyone that is being abused by their partner and not you specifically. I'm not sure what it is you think I might be defensive about.
And yes, we don't know what's around the corner. So if you've done nothing to protect yourself against a loss of income and just popped out some kids, you don't deserve to be better off than someone who is having difficulty but tries to live within their means. The only reason such a person should be getting support at all is because the kids shouldn't have to bear the consequences of their parent's mistakes.
Wait, am I the only one who is shocked about this?:
Mr Hockey revealed that a shift worker he met inspired him to publish the information.
“I met a cleaner in a building in Sydney and he said, ‘I work really hard, how many people am I supporting with my tax?’. I said, ‘How much do you earn?’ and he said ‘about $70,000’, which is a bit less than average wages. And he works through the night, every night. And he said ‘Why don’t you tell me?’”
A freaking cleaner is making $70,000 a year?! I am a town planner and I earn much less than that!
And he works through the night, every night.
Night shift penalty rates.
God damn! That's it! I'm becoming a cleaner.
It's very tough at times. I was in a high paying job. Married, two children, Owned acreage & a very big house, nice cars.
The marriage fell apart for different reasons. Got screwed in court & lost 75% to my ex wife.
Substance abuse started with ex & she doesn't work.
Had to protect children & ended up in Children's court & then Family court. Spent over $80000 whilst she got legal aide.
Got custody of kids (so had to leave high paying job - Shift work) & she keeps taking it back to court even after final orders.
This is where tax payers money is wasted. They keep supporting her even though she has caused most of this drama.
I've lost almost everything & earn less than half of what I use to but I do, what is ever in my kids best interests & can't get help.
The government need to help people who deserve it. Their system is generic & doesn't treat each case on its merits. One rule goes for all.
feel for you mate, have heard of many cases similar. i am glad you have the kids as too often the system automatically defaults back to the assumption that kids always better off with mother. Vagina based legislation.
Mate there's no vagina based legislation. It comes down to the kids. Most kids at a small age want to be with their mum, it's the nature of it and if you want to look below at statistics feel free. I feel for ThePunchingBag as it sounds like he 100% got screwed over and i commend him for doing what is right by the kids - hope things go better for you mate!
"There were 901,637 Australian single parent families with children under 15 in 2011 82% or, 743,000 were single mum families, or families "headed" by mothers. Source: 2011 Census
Percentage of Australian families with children aged under 15 headed by a single mother (2008) 17.7% The Northern Territory has the highest rate of single parent families in the country (*2008) *Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008
Of the overall number of Divorces in Australia in *2009 49.1% (49,448) divorces that involved children under the age of 18yrs *Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, December 2010"
I feel that there are more people benefiting from single parent payments than should be.
In my opinion, the spirit of these payments has been lost and has become available to anyone willing to open their legs, instead of those that truly need it, like when someones partner is lost in an accident, etc.
There are too many women that get knocked up by douchebags, decide to keep the baby (yes, it's a choice) and rely on government benefits.
This is not a baseless opinion, as I have witnessed a friend of my wife do just this. She chose to have a baby with a deadbeat, caught him out lying about using drugs (repeatedly). He continued burning money on friends, alcohol and drugs, never contributed anything to her or the baby, until she finally gave him the boot (and was receiving single parenting payments the whole time). And then she chose to have another baby with him because she wanted her son to have a sibling. It doesn't make sense to be able to claim single parenting payments when you go back and CHOOSE to have another with the same guy.
I worked my damn ass off as a mature age apprentice, while my wife studied as much as she could while on a DSP, and struggled with IVF (due to her DSP related illness) to have a baby. We lived in struggle-town, budgeting every dollar to make it happen. The day I completed my apprenticeship I made sure I was off the measly sum we were entitled to.
What a load of shit.
You clearly have no idea how hard it is just survive on the dole, that entire article is a crock of shit, as expected for the daily telegraph
You aren't meant to live on the dole. It's meant to be a temporary safety net till you get employment. Dole isn't meant to be a employment type.
One thing people need to understand is that government benefits include a lot more than just cash transfer payments. I remember Mitt Romney said 48% of people get more from the government than they contribute. People working low income jobs pay some income tax, but generally get back far more from the governmet than they pay in tax (even welfare recipients pay GST and import duties, plus extra tax on the alcohol and cigarettes they so often use). A child costs the government $13,000 per year to educate, for instance (or $6,500 if the child is educated from the private system that ALP voters despise so intensely).
Governments also provide us with cops, defense forces, roads, parks, vaccines, libraries, subsidized pharmaceuticals and medical visits, free public hospitals, public housing, and so on. Plus a third of the workforce is employed by the government. It amazes me that our society isn't more in debt. As I have remarked before, bureaucratized, socialized societies are very expensive to run, hence the main reason why everything in Australia is so overpriced.
Mitt who ?
Dan,
You talk a lot about managing risk with insurance. Fair enough. The Australian welfare system is a kind of insurance. You pay "premiums" with your taxes and if you suffer an unemployment, loss-of-spouse, disability, cancer event etc then you get "paid out" in the form of treatment or some cash to support you through the event.
Did you know that in the early days, fire brigades were private, and they were run by insurance companies? If your house/business caught fire, they would only help put it out if you had the right badge displayed. Over time we all realised it was actually more efficient if the government provided fire brigade services to everybody, and they would be paid for in taxes. Do you want to go back to private fire brigades?
You'll always have some criminals who try to defraud insurance by burning their own houses down. You'll always have a few people who get lazy because they have rich parents or welfare payments are too easy to get.
But let's not pretend that every person who needs help has only themselves to blame.