Securing a Home Loan with Centerlink Payments

• 1
• 2
• 3

• 

  daven1985 on 07/08/2017 - 12:28

  +16

  I applaud the poster who being in a hard situation and trying to think of a way around it. However as a tax payer and someone who has brought a house through hard work the concept of someone doing it when they are taking government handouts offends me.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 13:03

  -1

  I don't think this is such a bad idea,
  unless you're really counting on those inflated rents to pay off you're investment home for you
  Different kind of welfare for liberal voters , so that's ok

  • 

    RockyRaccoon on 07/08/2017 - 16:22

    +3

    So its back to politics.

    Why does the "left" always say, if the libs are doing something wrong, then its ok for those of the opposite view, to then rort the system.

    Two wrongs never make a right.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 16:36

      Just recognise where your tax dollars are actually going and who is getting subsidised/welfare
      Plenty of big business, mines, and middle class working people get welfare
      But you want to kick the little guy
      Fine ,
      call it what you want,
      but class warfare
      is dividing and conquering
      Smarten up

      • 

        RockyRaccoon on 07/08/2017 - 17:43

        +3

        I am being smart.

        You just want to rip off the system because others have done so.

        We need to stop the ripoffs from both sides.

        Otherwise we will all go down the tubes while the ripoff merchants from both classes take it all.

        Remember YOU said its NOT a bad idea.

        There are avenues like Housing commission homes that are available for those who need a home under the welfare system. Yes its NEVER enough, because it cannot ever be. But those ripping off the system take from other needy people. Just like corporate fraud does as well

      • 

        whooah1979 on 07/08/2017 - 17:54

        Just recognise where your tax dollars are actually going and who is getting subsidised/welfare

        the ato now issues a tax receipt outlining where a taxpayer's personal tax was spent.

        the blue bar (welfare) is twice as long as the orange bar (health).
        https://www.ato.gov.au/uploadedImages/Content/IND/Images/Sam…

        the link shows a sample that is almost identical to the ones we have.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 12:10

        @whooah1979: funny how a liberal government controlled department is handling out info that supports liberal party policy
        And after funding has been cut to the ATO
        ATO insiders have said they want to go after big tax evaders but can't with loss of funding
        Looks like big business can just give 50g to liberal party fund instead of paying millions in tax
        Fair go all around ay

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 14:31

        We gutta tax da rich… dey earn da moneyzzzzz

        Who is "rich"? Those who have 7 figure salaries and pay no tax?

        Or those between 1-200,000 who work hard, train hard and put hours of effort to get where they are?

        The poor, those who refuse to work to get somewhere in life attack anyone above the average wage as being "rich" and needing to be taxed more.

• 

  Abcxyztpg on 07/08/2017 - 15:24

  +2

  real question is can you save deposit? does deposit affect your centerlink benefits?

• 

  photonbuddy on 07/08/2017 - 16:39

  +10

  Interesting thread. Nice to see the high horse getting a huge airing! You only get to ride the high horse if you get ZERO government welfare. As soon as you take any government welfare, other tax payers are giving you a ride.

  Firstly, OP doesn't set the pay rates they get. If they can scrimp and save enough fat from their budget to afford a 'luxury', more power to them.

  Secondly, why do people think they need to save a deposit? No-one heard of parents? An inheritance? Lotto win? I could go on.

  Thirdly, rents have become ridiculous. It's not hard to envisage a welfare family being able to pay a smallish mortgage off that has repayments not much more rent.

  Finally, unless people are advocating a system where people have no, or low, choice in how they spend their welfare payments, then this is a more than valid question.

  Think about this: A dole bludger gets his house, and can afford to meet the repayments on his welfare payments. How much more likely is he to look very hard for a job when the rates go up in 12/18 months, and it becomes impossible to service his mortgage?

  • 

    Ughhh on 07/08/2017 - 18:53

    Secondly, why do people think they need to save a deposit? No-one heard of parents? An inheritance? Lotto win? I could go on

    Yes, because everyone has rich parents, had grandparents who left them millions dollars of inheritance and the chance of winning a lotto is 1 in 10 people…

    Perhaps I should quit my job, go on the dole and you can pay for my new house :)

    • 

      photonbuddy on 07/08/2017 - 20:55

      +3

      Typical!

      I didn't say everyone had access to this, but the high horse riders obviously believe no-one on the dole has access to it either.

      How dare someone on the dole have a stroke of good fortune that gets them into a house.

      The high horse riders really do want to hope they never find themselves on the dole. Those 4 legs will buckle so very quickly!

      • 

        whooah1979 on 07/08/2017 - 21:08

        +1

        How dare someone on the dole have a stroke of good fortune that gets them into a house.

        so they got a windfall. good on them. they're now required to notify centrelink.
        https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/lump-sums…

      • 

        Ughhh on 07/08/2017 - 21:37

        +1

        obviously believe no-one on the dole has access to it either.

        Great, their parents got them a deposit. Who's paying for the mortgage? Taxpayers.

        How dare someone on the dole have a stroke of good fortune that gets them into a house.

        Yes, they're incredibly lucky to have tax payers like you (I assume you work) pay for their house, while they're not working.

        As I've said before, I don't have a problem with people on the dole. But I do have a problem with how you use it. As others have said, it's a kick in the gut for the people who work for the money to save for a house, as opposed to receiving free money. I would prefer they use that money to invest in themselves ie. Education, so you know… They have a higher chance of getting a job and no longer rely on the dole.

      • 

        photonbuddy on 08/08/2017 - 20:51

        -2

        @whooah1979:

        so they got a windfall. good on them. they're now required to notify centrelink.

        Yep. I'm sure you took the time to read that page, and discovered exactly what effect things like an inheritance or a lotto win has.

        @Ughhh:

        Yes, they're incredibly lucky to have tax payers like you (I assume you work) pay for their house, while they're not working.

        I'm happy for people to get welfare while looking for a job. Sadly, it's people like you that see anyone admitting they are on the dole making an instant assumption they'll always be on the dole.

        Almost everyone who has posted in this thread has made the disgusting assumption these people are dole bludgers. For all we know, they may have worked hard for years in a real job to save their deposit, and have now fallen out of work.

        As I've said before, I don't have a problem with people on the dole. But I do have a problem with how you use it.

        So you're the type of person that believes people on welfare should not get cash in any way, because then you have no control on how they spend it!

        Get over yourself.

        The dole is a pittance, and if people can scrimp and save on that pittance by making a sacrifice in other areas, then good on them.

        Education, so you know… They have a higher chance of getting a job and no longer rely on the dole.

        Because … you know … there are no unemployed people with a Uni degree!

      • 

        Ughhh on 08/08/2017 - 21:52

        +1

        @photonbuddy:

        Sadly, it's people like you that see anyone admitting they are on the dole making an instant assumption they'll always be on the dole.

        Aren't you making a assumption that I'm making a assumption? I have friends who have been on the dole, but they use that money to improve themselves and increase the chance of employment. Now they're no longer on the dole. Feel free to also assume that I hate penguins and I eat them for dinner.

        So I guess it's not even worth studying and trying because there are unemployed uni grads. You realise "education" was just an example… There are other ways other than uni to increase your skills and knowledge to be more competitive in the job market…
        I'm not going to repeat myself. If you can't read and want to make assumptions, go ahead.

• 

  cyrax83 on 07/08/2017 - 17:05

  +10

  Tell A and B to get a job. Typical Australian dole bludgers, want something for nothing. Yet everyone else has to pay high tax rates to support their lazy asses

• 

  [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 17:27

  +4

  Typical Australian family: piss (profanity) poor, too lazy to work, on the dole, yet own high end electronics and spend their time on ozbargain wondering how to get a homeloan on their dole…

  You are not on the "dole for lyfe". Find a (profanity) job.

  This post highlights the need for cashless welfare card, food stamps etc. People need to get their priorities straight.

  • 

    MrCAMEL on 07/08/2017 - 17:51

    +1

    What if they get their priorities right and save $200 dollars a week? I am sure banks will only consider the FTB un regards to borrowing power. So not going to happen.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 17:53

      +6

      If they had their priorities right, they would be trying to find work and stop being a drain on the taxpayer.

      I think Malcom had a good idea with the cashless welfare…

      • 

        MrCAMEL on 07/08/2017 - 18:07

        I don't know, but I'm sure there is no drain.
        Lets imagine they have 2 kids under school age that require child care when their parents are working, unless the parents earn a large amount of money, there is not really a financial reason to work. I don't know when that happened, but it did.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 18:11

        +3

        @MrCAMEL:

        Children shouldn't be a "right", they should be a responsibility.

        Financially, working, paying tax, paying childcare, etc etc is infinitely more stimulating to the economy than being on the dole; spawning children who will end up being on the dole.

        Home ownership also isn't a right. Perhaps these dole families can rent just fine. Many Australians are under the impression it is their birthright to exist. People are a commodity.

        Just saying; While you be a lazy shit and leach of other humans, there is a full island of people Australia has "imprisoned" including children, deemed by our leader to be "economic refugees", who literally give up life to try and get to Australia and work. Something the dole bludgers are taking for granted.

      • 

        ZloyKrys on 07/08/2017 - 18:53

        @eggmaster:

        Although I agree with the message (and pay for childcare for my children) but I see other examples across my social circle - I'd like to underscore that some of the "stimulating the economy" expenses are frequently beyond your control such as childcare costs, for example in our suburbia some changes lead to increase of a day in childcare from being $80/day on average to $120/day in just three years. As you can imagine, even responsible parents who planned their, say, two children when the cost was $80/day and old ccr/ccb rules that covered couples with up to $150k of combined annual salary, now are in a financial disaster through no fault of their own, and, as you can imagine, children are here to stay. Especially for people who earn under $100k and own their own home, the new rules create additional incentives to sit on benefits - the cost of childcare alone $50k/year overstimulated economy to the extent where people would rather sit on newstart than pay that amount. This has to be balanced. The government acts like CPI is 2% whereas childcare goes up 50% over three years, FTB A/B rules changes and you suddenly at fault because you thought you can afford to raise children in this country.

      • 

        MrCAMEL on 07/08/2017 - 19:06

        +2

        @eggmaster:
        It is funny. Guaranteed the people who are angry that these "invaders" are here to "take our jobs", are the people that do their best to not get a job.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 19:44

        @MrCAMEL:

        This

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 20:33

        +2

        @ZloyKrys:

        Time to downsize their life for a bit. Most people have insanely overpriced cars they don't need (no-one needs to spend over 5k on a car), spend insane amounts on novelty foods (macdonalds, restaurants, chips/chocolate/shit food) and every damn person in Australia seems to have the money for the latest gadgets.

        You can cook 12 macro efficient meals for $25. Skip the cars, car loans etc and take public transport, rent closer to a township etc. A good car can be bought for under 2 grand. There are so many ways people carelessly spend money; there is really no excuse that a family even at 70k couldnt survive.

        I really don't understand how people who "own their own home" even qualify for welfare.

      • 

        whooah1979 on 07/08/2017 - 20:58

        +1

        @eggmaster:

        There are so many ways people carelessly spend money

        you're posting on the wrong forum. please hand in your ozbargain membership. :)

      • 

        photonbuddy on 07/08/2017 - 21:00

        If they had their priorities right, they would be trying to find work and stop being a drain on the taxpayer.

        What makes you think they aren't looking for a job?

        There are a few people who seem blessed to be able to find work at the drop of a hat. Most people can't, and it can take a while to find a new job.

        I bet if you're a HR manager, you're the type to immediately toss a 'dole bludgers' resume in the bin. Can't have a dole bludger in my business!!

      • 

        ZloyKrys on 07/08/2017 - 21:01

        +3

        @eggmaster:

        It's not something I argue with, I concur with your last message and upvoted.

        However, I'd like to highlight that even families with good financial discipline and responsible parents can be hit with change in government and local policies that increase their cost of living dramatically. I know personally one family who were managing well on 85k post tax with 2 children in childcare when the rate was 80/day and compensated with a combination of CCR/CCB/FTB, now just three years later they can't do this anymore (family budget got a hit of $25,000 post-tax approximately!), the cost of childcare exceeds the earnings of one of two parents and after lay-off she did not even have incentive go back to work. So childcare lost 2 places they could sell, economy lost one productive worker and loosing more in benefits now. This is a dumb policy as it would not have happened if childcare was a bit more affordable to support the productivity.

        Speaking of their lifestyle, they have 1 car worth $5-7k and use iphones 5s three year old.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 21:52

        -1

        @photonbuddy:

        What makes you think they aren't looking for a job?

        It is easy to get a job. A basic job, paying minimum wage. Especially for people who natively grasp english and had a world class education in Australian schools. Yes it is hard work, though it is still work.

        Look at the student or working holiday crowd. If they can come here, with english as a second language, with a quite sub par education, can get a job, so can all the dazzas and shazzas out there.

        I bet if you're a HR manager

        I bet you're a dole bludger who wears your wife beater, piss and shit stains on your footy shorts and smelling like beer and puke in to interviews… It's kinda fun to make wild assumptions.

      • 

        virhlpool on 07/08/2017 - 22:43

        +1

        @eggmaster:

        It is easy to get a job.

        Ask this to your regional or non-Sydney or non-Melbourne friends. They will tell you how easy it is to find a basic job. Mate, well educated English speakers struggle for find a job in Coles or Woolies in SA. Even in NSW or Sydney it's not easy. Which world are you living in?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 23:42

        @virhlpool:

        Why don't they move to a major city? In many countries, people strive to live near the city as it is where they can find work. They attain a social status of "made it" if they can reside within the city. In Australia, people are not only contempt but choosing to live in inaccessible areas, hick areas, welfare holes etc.

        Time to ditch the idea of a house, gumtrees and kangaroos in place of high density living if people want money.

        It is time to get off the phone to Shannon Noll, stop drowning in self pity because "it isnt fair and I want my share".

        Once again, how it is that many of the student/wh visa holders who hold english as a second language, are unfamiliar with Australian culture, did not have access to the educational opportunities that we have in Australia, can get a job?

        It is fine if people want to live in the middle of (profanity) nowhere, but it is a choice.

      • 

        virhlpool on 07/08/2017 - 23:54

        +2

        @eggmaster:

        Once again, how it is that many of the student/wh visa holders who hold english as a second language, are unfamiliar with Australian culture, did not have access to the educational opportunities that we have in Australia, can get a job?

        Few fact-checks:

        • Most of those so called student visa holders and WHV holders come from countries which have higher education standards than Australia. Our qualifying exams to enter college/ uni are few of the easiest ones on global level.

        • Many of them are paid lower than minimum wages and often in cash which Australians won't accept.

        • Living in nature, with more open and green spaces should always be a preferred choice than living in high density concrete jungle. It's not something to be proud of.

        • Even the student/ WHV holders struggle A LOT to find $16/hr job. It's not easy. And despite the job, they barely manage to pay rent and have cheap food outside, leave aside savings.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 00:05

        @virhlpool:

        have higher education standards than Australia

        ohpls. The Chinese and SEA crowd? Do they have higher education standards or do the kids try hard at school because there is no "cennylink" to fall back on; knowing if they fail in school they will be forever poor.

        Many of them are paid lower than minimum wages and often in cash which Australians won't accept.

        Maybe Australians should accept it. Use it as a stepping stone to build resume, get money for studying etc.

        Australians are even complaining about working for the dole. There is always something else to complain about.

        They are even complaining about their own workplaces and joining corporate unions; in a totally hypocritical move against the paradigm they are trying to fight against.

        Living in nature, with more open and green spaces should always be a preferred choice

        Dude have you ever ventured outside Australia? Australia is one of the only countries on earth where people are desperate to live in the sticks.

        People love concrete. They love cities. You ever been to New York? London? Hong Kong? Berlin?

        Maybe a move to a hippy colony or like… Dubbo may do you good.

        Even the student/ WHV holders struggle A LOT to find $16/hr job. It's not easy. And despite the job, they barely manage to pay rent and have cheap food outside, leave aside savings.

        $16 an hour is a pushing it for greymarket labour; though dude, many are working multitudes more hours than the average Australian. Many are not renting a whole (profanity) house to themself, but sharing an apartment with many others, while enjoying eating out, shopping and sending money to their parents back home.

      • 

        virhlpool on 08/08/2017 - 00:09

        +4

        @eggmaster:

        People love concrete. They love cities. You ever been to New York? London? Hong Kong? Berlin?

        They don't love concrete. Everyone loves a spacious house on 1000 sq.mt. amidst green and open area. High-rise concrete dense is a compulsion, not choice.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 00:11

        +2

        @virhlpool:

        I love my high density apartment and the fact I don't need to own a car, or maintain a lawn, or paint walls or any of the shit like that.

        Bra… we are not farmers… Well… not all of us. Have fun growing wheat or whatever.

      • 

        virhlpool on 08/08/2017 - 02:51

        @eggmaster:

        Bra.. Not being a farmer isn't something to be proud of.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 11:24

        -1

        @virhlpool:

        Dude, you want to live in the wilderness. You are a farmer.

        1000s of square green open areas for all the sheep or 2 and a kangaroo ><

        Like the hick rednecks from the states…

      • 

        serpserpserp on 08/08/2017 - 16:42

        @virhlpool:

        What do you consider well educated?

      • 

        BartholemewH on 09/08/2017 - 23:24

        @photonbuddy:
        The fact that they are planning on paying off a house while on the dole is a give away. Any effort spent on that should instead be spent on finding employment first.

        Also saying that 'most people' can't find work in a reasonable time frame (drop of a hat is hyperbole) is a bit of a stretch imo.

• 

  realfancyman on 07/08/2017 - 18:32

  +14

  Tonight on A Current Affair:

  Dole Bludger Wants Centrelink To Pay For Their House
  Ozbargainers Outraged

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 19:07

    +3

    Nice font
    Have you thought about a career in newsprint

    • 

      WhyAmICommenting on 08/08/2017 - 07:24

      Username checks out

• 

  explosion on 07/08/2017 - 20:32

  +6

  OP is only asking if home loan can be secured with centrelink payment or not. Not about the moral right or wrong. Lot of things are morally wrong including politician and government top employees salary.

• 

  WreckTangle on 07/08/2017 - 20:59

  +1

  If you own your own home I don't think you can claim rent assistance anymore.

  • 

    photonbuddy on 07/08/2017 - 21:02

    +5

    You can't, because you're no longer paying rent.

    This would mean the dole bludgers are actually saving the government money!

• 

  aerom on 07/08/2017 - 21:07

  +5

  The moment you are on dole, suddenly everyone has the license to tell you what you should and shouldn't do.
  By the same right, me as a tax payer have the right to think of negatively geared as legal tax dodgers? Just saying out loud.
  By the way, universal basic income is becoming more pronounced in the media each day. If we believe the hype, the robots are going to take all our jobs soon. Then we all will be dole bludgers.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 21:48

    -1

    UBI (if ever implemented; even though i wont) would create an underclass like never before seen in human history.

    Ancient slaves would have a better quality of life than UBI recipients.

    People will always be willing to do stuff for money. Maybe just not Australians who all seem to be lazy (profanity) on the dole; holding out to get UBI.

    Dude robots are failing to do the most basic shit. Stop watching prime time television and study for a better career.

    • 

      MrTweek on 08/08/2017 - 12:26

      So, you are saying giving money to people will make them poor?
      Care to elaborate?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 13:22

        -2

        How about this. If we right now, gave everyone in the world 1 billion dollars. Would the world be poor or "rich n buttery"?

        The world would still be poor, everyone will 1 billion dollars would be part of a new exploitable underclass while everyone with exponentially more than a billion is instantly in a much greater position to profit and manipulate prices.

        Money isn't real. Its value comes from speculation and it's inaccessibility. You borrow money from the bank and they will charge you an interest rate based on the current value of the currency. Where does the UBI money come from? Taxing the rich? Why would the rich continue to hold a currency falling in value? Wouldn't the influx of "ubi currency" play hard with inflation?

        There is are 2 classes of people. Those who get UBI only and those who work. Assuming the argument for UBI (as opposed to job guarantee) is that there are not enough jobs, doesn't this leave those on UBI, who want more open to intense exploitation as competition for that $1 extra a month would be exponentially more intense than ever before? (Dude especially with Australians… the ones who want UBI. All in thier unions, demanding smokos, demanding rights, demanding more money… )

      • 

        MrTweek on 09/08/2017 - 01:05

        @eggmaster:
        Yeah, that's why you don't give people 1 billion, but rather something like $1500. An amount that everyone can easily survive on, but that doesn't allow any luxury.

        Inflation happens when the amount of money increases, through interest or because the RBA creates more.

        UBI needs to come from existing money. The idea is to just change the distribution. So yes, ideally by taxing the rich.
        The goal is to reduce the gap between poor and rich.

        Why would the rich continue to hold a currency falling in value?

        It won't fall in value, if you do it right.
        Also, if you live in Australia, you kinda need Aussie dollars for your everyday life.

        There is are 2 classes of people. Those who get UBI only and those who work.

        Replace UBI with the dole and you realise exactly that is the case already. The difference with UBI is that if you don't have a job (voluntarily or not) you don't constantly struggle.
        You can much easier afford to not work for a while for various reasons like having kids, being sick, having a sick family member, bad economy, going to uni, retiring, etc without having to fear a miserable life.

        Assuming the argument for UBI is that there are not enough jobs.

        It's not. Creating more jobs is much easier and a lot cheaper than UBI.
        The argument is that we are a pretty rich country, so there shouldn't be people that can't afford housing or putting food on the table for their families and things like that.

        who want more open to intense exploitation as competition for that $1 extra a month would be exponentially more intense than ever before?

        I'd argue the opposite would be the case. Nowadays it's almost socially unacceptable to not have a job. People are terribly scared of that and rather work their asses off than ending up on the dole which can make your life quite miserable.
        I'd be much more likely to quit a terrible job that makes me work like a slave if I know that I'll only loose luxuries like cars, eating out, but not my house or eating at all.
        Soo many stories in the news about employees drastically underpaying their staff. That only works because they are terribly desperate.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 12:15

        @MrTweek:

        An amount that everyone can easily survive on

        You can cook macro efficient meals for $30 a week. It would be more ideal to give people food stamps for food which they can retrieve maximal nutrition from. What happens when they go all Shannon Noll saying "awww what about me", demanding extra cash for durries.

        UBI needs to come from existing money. The idea is to just change the distribution. So yes, ideally by taxing the rich.

        The "Rich" don't pay tax.

        It is a punishment on those who spend years training, learning and upskilling. If you are single, earning over 180k, you start getting pretty much taxed at 50% once you factor in all the other taxes we face (medicare levys etc). Meanwhile Singapore is attracting more and more professionals at less than half tax rate.

        you kinda need Aussie dollars for your everyday life.

        Only because most people ask for it. Interestingly there are shops in CBD which will take other currencies. I could even buy things with online currency if the other party accepted it.

        If people decide AUD is shitty and start using another currency inside Australia, then your UBI will be worthless. Many really poor countries (many ex communist countries… theme right?) do this; prefer USD from foreiners etc over their local currency.

        I'd be much more likely to quit a terrible job that makes me work like a slave

        You assume there aren't lots of people lining up to do your job. There are thousands of people who dream to come to Australia to work. Then there are Australians who dream of sitting around drinking piss.

        It is interesting how most UBI fanatics are underemployed/poor and see it as a way out of their predicament rather than adjusting their life.

      • 

        MrTweek on 09/08/2017 - 18:44

        @eggmaster:

        It would be more ideal to give people food stamps for food which they can retrieve maximal nutrition from.

        What problem would that solve?

        What happens when they go all Shannon Noll saying "awww what about me", demanding extra cash for durries

        What do you think would happen? With UBI everyone would have enough to not need to complain, so you could just ignore them.

        The "Rich" don't pay tax.

        That's bullshit, but even if it was true, you'd have an even better reason to tax them more.

        If people decide AUD is shitty and start using another currency inside Australia, then your UBI will be worthless.

        Yeah, but then your income is worthless too. I'm not sure what that has to do with UBI.
        In any case you should try to not break your currency, that is never a good thing.

        You assume there aren't lots of people lining up to do your job.

        Why would I care who does my job after I quit?

        It is interesting how most UBI fanatics are underemployed/poor and see it as a way out of their predicament rather than adjusting their life.

        Are you referring to me? What makes you think I'm poor or underemployed?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 19:07

        @MrTweek:

        With UBI everyone would have enough to not need to complain

        How much is enough not to complain? People always want more.

        UBI, a universal "basic" income effect could be achieved with food stamps. Giving people access to basic nutrition.

        The rich pay tax

        You think those earning 7 figures pay tax?

        How much do you think is rich?

        Do doctors who spend 12 years studying to earn 200k "rich" and worthy of being taxed into oblivion? It is no wonder why we need immigrants to fill roles while our professional crowd heads overseas to work. Singapore has under half the income tax we have, and can pay many in tech considerably more - One example.

      • 

        MrTweek on 09/08/2017 - 23:08

        @eggmaster:

        How much is enough not to complain? People always want more.

        Sure, someone will always complain, but does it matter?
        Again, if someone has enough and still complains, it's fair enough to ignore that.
        Doesn't mean that the concept has failed.

        UBI, a universal "basic" income effect could be achieved with food stamps. Giving people access to basic nutrition.

        That's not what UBI is supposed to do. It should give you access to a basic life.
        Nobody gains anything if the government tells people how to spend their money (which is the only thing food stamps do).
        Why do you care whether someone spends their money on healthy food or VB and porn? It's their problem if they are hungry because VB isn't nutritious enough.

        You think those earning 7 figures pay tax?

        I fkn hope so, but even if not, that's always a problem we'd really need to fix, no matter if we have UBI or not.

        How much do you think is rich?

        Doesn't matter. The more you make, the more you can afford to pay.

        Do doctors who spend 12 years studying to earn 200k "rich" and worthy of being taxed into oblivion?

        Yes and no. If you make 200k, it won't hurt you to pay 50%.
        If you make 400k, it won't hurt to pay 60%.
        If you make 800k, it won't hurt to pay 70%.

        It's not impossible to find some values that work for everyone.

        Singapore has under half the income tax we have, and can pay many in tech considerably more - One example.

        Can't compare that. Singapore doesn't need to sustain a massive country where it's very hard to build extensive infrastructure.
        City-states are always easier and cheaper to manage and have a natural advantage.
        Australia would surely better off if you'd close down all cities but Melbourne and Sydney, but that's not a solution obviously.

        Most countries in Europe have higher taxes than Australia, yet people don't leave in masses.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 23:20

        +2

        @MrTweek:

        Sure, someone will always complain, but does it matter?

        Everyone will complain. Look at the dole.

        Look at work for the dole.

        Vb and porn

        That is no longer basic. They are idle members of society. This will only encourage more breeding of useless, stupid people.

        Most countries in Europe have higher taxes than Australia

        Though they provide better services. People speak of UBI as a priority. Australia is still spending tax money to build mines. Our public transport is a joke, we are maiming public healthcare yearly, we are cutting education yearly, we have thousands of people wanting to immigrate and live here….

        Dude we have children who's family just wants a life in Australia like you and me; who are dying on a (profanity) island we made. Human beings just like us. And meanwhile all the bogans are declaring "they" need UBI because they don't want to work.

        Also have you actually ever been to Europe? Or left Australia at all?

        Yes and no. If you make 200k, it won't hurt you to pay 50%.

        I am going to stop right here.

        I can tell you earn shit all and is probably why you (and the reason most ubi fanatics) hold on dearly for UBI.

        It is a poor persons mentality that everyone around them also needs to be poor, that they should drag others down to their level. That doctors who spend over a decade of their life; who will be paying off their education for another decade, may need to be taxed at 50%.

        That people who strive to train, learn, study should be continually punished with higher encroaching taxrates. People do not need to be taxed down to some level of poorness acceptable to the person who does not feel like working.

      • 

        MrTweek on 10/08/2017 - 00:53

        -2

        @eggmaster:

        That is no longer basic.

        My point is that everyone should be able to spend their money on whatever they want and that's not your or my business to judge.

        They are idle members of society. This will only encourage more breeding of useless, stupid people.

        So I hope you are more useful than that and never had a beer or watched porn in your life?

        Also have you actually ever been to Europe?

        Yeah, spent 27 years of my life there.

        I can tell you earn shit all and is probably why you (and the reason most ubi fanatics) hold on dearly for UBI.

        Because the idea that someone who makes decent money isn't greedy and still believes in social justice doesn't fit into your brain?

        I made ~65k in Europe and paid around 45% taxes.
        Now I make more than twice that and only pay 30%.
        I'd happily pay 50% taxes if I knew it was used for a decent social system that enables everyone in the country a decent life.

        My home country has a lot more social services that make it easier to cope with job loss, sickness, mental health issues, etc.
        And even though unemployment levels are similar, it isn't as full of homeless people and ice junkies that randomly yell at me as Melbourne and Sydney are.
        I'd be more than happy to pay for that, believe me.

        Also, high salary is worth sh*t if you work your ass off for that and can't afford taking time off and spend time with your kids. With UBI, you could.
        Yes, even high income earners can benefit from UBI, even though they'd pay more for it over the course of their lives.

      • 

        xoom on 10/08/2017 - 07:18

        +2

        @MrTweek:

        My point is that everyone should be able to spend their money on whatever they want and that's not your or my business to judge.

        Try explaining this to a starving kid who haven't had anything to eat at school because mummy and/or daddy (read as drop kick parents) has no food money for them.

        They do however have money for the cigarettes, booze and the pokies.

        But hey not anyones business right?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 10/08/2017 - 12:28

        -1

        @MrTweek:

        Kids

        Kids are a responsibility and not a right. No-one told you to have a kid and governments should stop making budgets so child-centric.

        Not everyone wants kids.

        Benefit from UBI.

        If I have less money, and money that is worth "less", I am worse off.

        I benefit from tax breaks, moving money overseas, getting paid overseas, buying things at a lower tax rate, tax credits… You see where this is heading. I haven't mentioned "free money" or "babies".

        My point is that everyone should be able to spend their money on whatever they want and that's not your or my business to judge.

        Like all the ice junkies who spend their money on ice? What happens if people just really love ice? You have even more of an issue then.

        Also, high salary is worth sh*t if you work your ass off

        What happened to "people should be able to do what they want with their money". Kinda a contradictory point.

        "You can become poorer so people don't have to work"

        What happens if people like seeing a big bank account, or buying lots of shit.

        If money is worthless, or they are getting taxed insanely their high salary; this is when their salary is ACTUALLY worth shit because it is given to people who don't want to work…

        Only pay 30% tax.

        This is why.

        isn't as full of homeless people and ice junkies that randomly yell at me as Melbourne and Sydney are.

        You want money to sit around and do nothing; yet we cant even fix our homeless solution. Lets look at Indias idea of UBI. They would give everyone a flat payment of $100 per year, aimed at reducing poverty only.

        I mean I would be up for cutting welfare by 30% and flat paying the rest out to every AU citizen equally.

      • 

        MrTweek on 10/08/2017 - 14:59

        @xoom:

        That's an extreme example and not the average dole family.
        I'd call that child abuse and possibly warrants taking their kids away from them if they can't get their act together.
        And yes, in that case, food stamps could be considered, if it helps that particular family

        Punishing everyone on the dole, including the ones that are genuinely trying won't fix that problem though. Despite that, even people with income can be gambling alcoholics.

      • 

        MrTweek on 10/08/2017 - 15:43

        @eggmaster:

        If I have less money, and money that is worth "less", I am worse off.

        Your money won't be worth less and I explained you why.

        Not everyone wants kids.

        That was one example. A lot of people want kids and every government in the world wants their citizens to have kids.

        UBI will also be there for people without kids.
        It'll be there if your job turns shit with bullying and all and you burn out and can't work for a year.
        It'll be there if you have a car accident and can't work for 4 months.
        It'll be there when you have cancer and can't work during treatment.
        It'll be there when you're mum gets Alzheimers and you need to take care of her and can't work full time for 5 years and need to spend half your salary on her care.
        And it'll be there if your job gets replaced by robots or outsourced overseas.

        Just because you make a decent living right now, there's no guarantee that this will always be the case.
        But there is a guarantee that most people will struggle to pay their rent or mortgage without a steady income.
        And food stamps won't help you out of any of these situations either.

        Like all the ice junkies who spend their money on ice? What happens if people just really love ice?

        That happens already. Food stamps don't magically fix drug addictions. It is a known fact that serious drug addicts will do everything to get money for their next shot. If there's no legal way, they find illegal ones.
        So go figure what happens if you take away their legal ways.

        No change to the dole, neither increase nor decrease will have any effect on drug abuse problems.
        That's an issue of health and education, not a financial one.

        What happens if people like seeing a big bank account, or buying lots of shit.

        I have no problem with that. As long as it's not at someone else's expense.

        I mean I would be up for cutting welfare by 30% and flat paying the rest out to every AU citizen equally.

        I'd be strongly against that.
        That would drastically increase the number of homeless people.
        It'll fk up a lot of lives and not help anyone.

      • 

        xoom on 10/08/2017 - 18:03

        @MrTweek:

        That's an extreme example and not the average dole family.

        But didn't you just say everyone should be able to spend their dole money however they like? Didnt realise your everyone had an asterisk on it.

        Extreme or not. They exist and are not an isolated case.

      • 

        MrTweek on 10/08/2017 - 18:14

        @xoom:

        Problem is that they are spending their kids dole for themselves instead of their kids.

        I guess the asterisk belongs to the "however they like".

        Make it "everyone should be able to spend their money on whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm someone else" ;)

        You should also not spend it on a huge knife to kill your neighbour or on nuclear weapons. I'm sure there are more exceptions. Add a grain of common sense ;)

      • 

        xoom on 10/08/2017 - 18:34

        +1

        @MrTweek: You know what they say about common sense. It is not common as many would like.

        My examples though extreme proves my point. That some people just can't be trusted to do the right thing.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 10/08/2017 - 18:43

        @MrTweek:

        Accident/cancer/disease

        I would entertain this idea the most, as it seemed to be your main point.

        Even if your “UBI” was 30k a year, and I was unable to work: I wouldn’t even be able to pay my rent. So what is good UBI figure then? (assuming a generous $50 a week for groceries, rent, and clothes, If you’re rent was 600/week you would need 40,000 totally untaxed). In b4 “move somewhere else”, what about if you have a 24 month contract?

        Your point is totally moot.

        Moreso, having an income would create a leverage for the poor to borrow against. There are already tonnes of pawn/gold/paydayloan shops around the welfare holes of Sydney.

        This would make it worse (Actually TBH, If UBI was implemented tomorrow, I would apply to open one of these… You suddenly have every single person in Australia as a potential customer. Maybe UBI has great potential.)

        Get insurance. It is cheap, some workplaces give you this free. I thought this stuff was common sense.

        I assume being a welfare fanatic you probably pay money to unions; life insurance is less than this.

        It'll be there if your job turns shit with bullying and all and you burn out and can't work for a year.

        I wake up in the morning, stare myself in the mirror, and tell myself that there are no wolves picking on me, attacking me, or hunting me… because I am the wolf.

        Robots

        Still waiting for robots to do the most basic shit. Robots are not taking any jobs at the moment, and even if you do believe that, there is lots of time to get in front of the robotic curve.

        I have no problem with that. As long as it's not at someone else's expense.

        Though UBI is at the expense of hard working people.

        This is the super-annuation argument. That Superannuation is helping Australia… Only because people are stupid. It is a punishment of the smart because people are stupid.

        The average dole family

        According to boscar, government policy, news and all the anti wife beating posters plastered around shitty welfare holes like Penrith:

        The average dole family wakes up, take a hit of ice, goes to the pokies while smashing tinnies in their car, then return home and beat the shit out of their family.

      • 

        MrTweek on 10/08/2017 - 19:25

        @xoom:
        Yes, proves your point. I didn't say you are wrong.
        It doesn't even contradict with my point that punishing many for few people's misbehaviour isn't an ideal solution.

      • 

        xoom on 10/08/2017 - 20:17

        @MrTweek: i was just explaining why some people need to be told restricted on what they should be spending their dole money on.

        This is not an anti welfare stance that some has commented about.

        Some people are just that thick that do not understand what that welfare cheque is for.

        Now i dont claim to have the silver bullet when it comes to better solutions.

        All i am saying is letting people use welfare money to get a mortgage is ill conceived at best and dangerous for the lendee at worst.

        If many defaulted because the interest rates goes up and welfare cheques do not follow accordingly. Then what?

        Which is a better incentive to get off welfare i ask you all.

        People on welfare who now have a mortgage and the interest rates went up. They will strive harder to look for work so they can keep up?

        Or

        Someone who cant get a loan for a house because they are on benefits. So they look for work. So they can get a steady and in some cases increasing income as they get more experienced.

      • 

        MrTweek on 10/08/2017 - 23:58

        @eggmaster:

        Even if your “UBI” was 30k a year, and I was unable to work: I wouldn’t even be able to pay my rent. So what is good UBI figure then?

        I guess if you burn through your savings, every bit helps.
        It's hard to find a good amount and much harder to find a good way to finance it.
        Should be high enough that you can somehow survive, but not as high as to make too many people stop working.

        Probably close to the dole. I threw in a number of $1500 per month before, although that was a pretty random guess.
        That could at least cover rent and food and some more basics, but not a big house or a car.

        $600 a week is a lot of rent for one person. Way too much for UBI to cover.
        So in that case, it would probably force you to move into something smaller. Still better than homelessness.

        what about if you have a 24 month contract?

        No system can cover 100% of unlucky cases. The only answer to that is, don't sign 24 months until you know you can afford it, but that's obviously quite hard.
        You can get out of most contracts at some extra cost too.

        bullying/robots/other stuff

        I tried to be as generic as possible to make clear that everyone can end up with problems that ruin their lives.
        Not every problem can happen to everyone. At least the robot thing won't come out of nowhere, that's for sure.
        Then again, as a cabbie or truckie, it might be a good time to consider other career options. At least if you are under 50.

        Though UBI is at the expense of hard working people.

        Technically, everything that is paid by taxes is.
        Not automatically a reason to dislike it.

        The richer you are, the less you need that. If you make 500k, you don't need Medicare. I'm still happy that it exists.

        payday loans

        Fair point, but not a strong one. No matter what system we have, there will always be people too stupid for it.
        The only way to completely prevent payday loans is to prevent regular income. Can't fix that.

        welfare bogans

        I know they exist, and that's sad enough. Good thing is that statistically their are actually a minority.
        The ones that do it right, i.e. manage to live their lives on that money, don't beat their family and spend their dole only on the necessities while trying to find work obviously don't make it into the news or onto posters.

        I'm not going to defend any of these idiots.
        I'm just saying, if we want to fight domestic violence, we should do so by fighting domestic violence and not by fighting everyone who is on the dole.
        You'll punish the normal dole people too and you'll also miss the domestic violence people that actually have a job.

      • 

        MrTweek on 11/08/2017 - 00:07

        @xoom:
        All good mate, I understand you.
        I'm not arguing to win anything, just to exchange and challenge opinions. I'm not expecting a silver bullet of you.
        If you had one, I'd vote for you though ;)

        letting people use welfare money to get a mortgage is ill conceived at best

        Yeah, I never really commented on the original topic.
        Partially because i think that sounds pretty crazy and kinda stupid too. Partially because I think, in the unlikely case that someone manages to somehow make it work, why not?
        Doesn't seem realistic to me though.

        dangerous for the lendee at worst

        Which is why I think it won't work because no bank will be that stupid.

        Then again, banks are some of the last institutions I'd feel bad for if they make a loss, so if they are stupid enough to give someone on the dole a home loan and then lose money, I'd find that pretty funny :D

      • 

        xoom on 11/08/2017 - 06:33

        @MrTweek:

        Then again, banks are some of the last institutions I'd feel bad for if they make a loss, so if they are stupid enough to give someone on the dole a home loan and then lose money, I'd find that pretty funny :D

        I hate banks and and financial institutions as much as the next guy but seeing their downfall could have much wider financial repercussions. Think global financial crisis. It was all started with the collapse of some financial institutions in the US.

        Almost all if not all super money we have are invested in the stock market. This invested money takes a hit everytime the stock market takes a hit.

  • 

    MrTweek on 08/08/2017 - 12:28

    +4

    If robots that do work for us make us poor, that means the whole system is terribly wrong.

    Robots don't need income, so they should ONLY take away work from us, not income.

    If we do it right, we can work less but make the same amount of money.

    The actual problem of "robots taking jobs" is that corporation replace people with robots to keep the money themselves.
    So it's still people that make money, just different people than before.

    If that happens, it has little to do with robots or UBI but a lot with corporate greed.

    Food for thought:
    Instead of "we bought robots that do 20% of our work, so we'll fire 20% of staff and give management a 20% payrise" they could also say "we bought robots that do 20% of our work, so we are cutting everyone's hours by 20% but not their salaries".

    I'm aware that this won't happen until someone forces them. But think about it, there are much better options than believing robots being a threat for your income is some kind of natural law.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 13:28

      Robots are, bar some lights out factories, really quite absent in any industry at the moment.

      Instead of "we bought robots that do 20% of our work, so we'll fire 20% of staff and give management a 20% payrise" they could also say "we bought robots that do 20% of our work, so we are cutting everyone's hours by 20% but not their salaries".

      This is a very narrow minded view of how companies are ran.

      Assuming the gaping logic flaws in how much "managers" are paid or how company budgeting works: There will be people who will happily do the 100%,200%,300% job at the same salary making you more redundant than the robot ever did.

      No corporate union will save you from that.

• 

  gstfree on 07/08/2017 - 21:22

  Centrelink payments is not enough for 10% deposits.

  Everyone has difficult time, but should not ve forever. There should be a lifetime cap on payments. People should not live on Centrepay.

• 

  virhlpool on 07/08/2017 - 22:45

  +1

  Isn't Newstart allowance means/ assets tested at the first place? Also, if once is getting family tax benefits, is he also eligible for Newstart allowance? If yes, it means A+A=2A while I thought A+A would be less than 2A when it comes to govt allowances.

• 

  David Buswell on 08/08/2017 - 10:20

  The real question is why a deposit is required at all!
  As far as I can tell deposits to buy homes are just an invention of banks and has little or no logic behind it.

  • 

    whooah1979 on 08/08/2017 - 10:52

    Funds to complete is used by lenders to assess a borrower's ability to save.

    • 

      David Buswell on 08/08/2017 - 12:44

      as i say, not much logic there. Its just a rule made up by banks, the same people who don't actually have the money themselves. If you believe the articles published by Evonomics banks just magic up money out of thin air.
      Being able to save a deposit doesn't necessarily mean you are a good money manager.

  • 

    MrTweek on 09/08/2017 - 01:12

    +4

    I guess to prevent people from taking a loan, buying a house and then stop paying back immediately.
    Bank then needs to sell the house which will cause quite a loss for them.

    Paying deposit means they have some money as a guarantee to offset any loss that may occur because the buyer is a complete idiot.

    Will also prevent most people from doing such a stupid thing as they'll lose their deposit at least.

    • 

      Jikx on 10/08/2017 - 14:30

      Correct.

      Actually the requirement are three fold.
      1. Shows saving ability
      2. Buffer Banks loss in event of default
      3. AHPRA regulation

      • 

        David Buswell on 14/08/2017 - 15:07

        -1

        All actually very weak arguments. If people can manage to pay rent then they can just as easily manage to pay of a housing loan.
        Banks don't actually have the money in hand that they lend you and from what I have read they don't borrow it from someone else. There are rules that say if they get x amount of money from a potential victim they can loan without borrowing themselves x*y the actual amount but it is something like $300000 for every $1000 which is basically what they charge for legal fees. The legal fees are actually a scam in themselves because a layer doesn't get each and every loan proposal and write up terms of contract. they are standard terms that the bank paid for once and fleece loan applicants over and over with.
        This is just one of the sources of that information
        http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-mo…
        http://evonomics.com/heck-money-printing-anyway/
        And AHPRA…is that a health professionals association?

• 

  [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 11:21

  +2

  Please feel free to PM me if you want any assistance, have helped clients in the past in similar situations.

• 

  idonotknowwhy on 08/08/2017 - 12:25

  +1

  Seems like a very heated topic.

  The answer is: Centrelink income can be counted the same as any other income.
  If you meet the requirements for a loan, in terms of income and deposit, then it doesn't matter if that income is from working at maccas, or centrelink payments.

  I've known people, who have purchased property (with a mortgage) while unemployed and on centrelink. It happens, it's their money (not yours), and they can spend it on anything they want (within the confines of the law).

• 

  4tran on 08/08/2017 - 13:16

  If home ownership was so easy, everyone would be an home owner right now. Whether it is a luxury or a right, it's the harsh reality the market is out of whack.

  So to hear that someone on the dole that want to utilize centerlink payments to buy a house yet there are hard working Australians who are still renting is mind boggling.

• 

  Irate Monk on 08/08/2017 - 13:22

  +2

  The past weekend, I got to spend some time with the couple- AB in the scenario, while they pondered the merits of the arguments put forth by OZbargainers opposing the Homeloan-on-Centerlink idea on ethical/moral grounds.

  The original question was on replacing rental payments with mortgages
  ie: where should the the current X amount from Centerlink go to. The only options they considered:

  a) The coffers of the Land Lord as rent
  b) To a bank or other lending institution as mortgage.

  How is one of the above more ethical then the other?

  If Homeloan-on-Centerlink is reprehensible on a spending-beyond-means POV, consider this:
  Say; curbing their enthusiasm for owning a home, of paying mortgage, the family considers other ways to spend a personal loan to:

  -Buy a far nicer, luxury car
  -Spend on fancy clothes
  -Pay their way to social clubs and golf buddies.
  -Treat themselves to an European holiday or cruise.
  -Get themselves a high-end TV and the whole shebang.
  -Eat lots of Pizza; take meals delivered and mostly dine out.
  -Splurge on booze and recreational drugs.
  -Get kids admitted to a fancy private school and expensive co-curricular activities.

  Which of the above are ethically more acceptable over using Centerlink pay for mortgage, instead of rent?
  And why?

  • 

    od810 on 08/08/2017 - 14:08

    +10

    Why do they only limit their options to those ones? Why don't they spend money getting education, learning other skills to help them with job market?

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 14:15

    +3

    Well you're kids definitely shouldn't be smoking recreational drugs and eating all the pizza by themselves , I know that much .

  • 

    aerom on 08/08/2017 - 15:59

    I think the real question is - Why do people feel entitled to tell others how and why they should spend their dole on?
    It is legal and we all agreed to the system. We never agreed to a system that questions how one spend their dole money. Otherwise the gubermint would be tracking that spend as well.(very easy with the present system)
    Once we pay our taxes we have really very limited ways to control how that tax money can or can't be spent.
    why "its my tax money" attitude only shows up on dole? and never do I see this militancy towards pollies or war and countless other places where our tax money disappears.

    • 

      xoom on 09/08/2017 - 07:18

      +8

      Why do people feel entitled to tell others how and why they should spend their dole on?

      Because the dole money is for someone down on their luck out of a job to get back on their feet. Believe it or not people use dole money on vices which does not help them gear towards being employable.

      As far as anyone is concern dole money should go to basic living expenses so one can stay alive. Education and or training programs so one can be more employable. Thats it.

      Anyone want more to spend on luxuries. I suggest they work like the rest of us.

      Before anyone say it. What would i know. I never been on welfare. Oh i was. This is what i used the money for. I put myself through school.

    • 

      BobLim on 09/08/2017 - 10:57

      +1

      I think I missed the consent form where we all agreed? Pretty sure elections wouldn't be necessary if everyone agreed. RE tracking spending - I'd hope that's on the agenda at least in aggregate form, as how else would the effectiveness of the system be evaluated? If we find out that 70% of Youth Allowance goes to housing for example, it might be decided to decrease the allowance and better target rent assistance for example. If 80% goes to groceries then the amount might not be enough etc.

      Most people I've ever met have a range of quarrels with many aspects of government spending, so I'm not sure where you've got it from that people only have a problem with welfare? I'd suggest that each person on the dole provides a much more visible and accessible target to complain to/about (and one that's seen as their own fault in most cases), as compared to shouting at a new speedhump for example.

      On a slightly cold-hearted macro level, systematically socially ostracising those who claim welfare might actually reduce the tendency to use it and therefore save money, but personally I'd say that's not a justifiable reason to do so. Writing to your local MP about spending too much on police cars and council newsletters is unlikely to have any effect.

• 

  Enjj0y on 08/08/2017 - 14:09

  -1

  People here may not know that everyone on Centrelink is not solely dependant on it. on paper they are on dole/assistance etc but in real life they work on cash & make good amount of cash that we can't make on TFN/ABN.

  so question under this circumstance stands valid and problematic to show income to financial institution for loan calculation.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 14:20

    And what some here also don't know (now come close cause it's a big secret no one else knows) is you can even work in real life part time and pay tax and still qualify for some assistance

• 

  Irate Monk on 08/08/2017 - 14:28

  +7

  The original query was simplicity itself.

  Now that the discussion had digressed onto the ethics of home aspiration while on centerlink pay, the question can thus be rephrased:

  How does it become unethical for a family on Centerlink support, to use that amount to spend as mortgage instead of as rent.

  Toll on the public exchequer being exactly the same, is home aspiration the evil here?
  So, if on support, lie low… and rent?

  Logic please?

  • 

    RappyGreens on 08/08/2017 - 16:45

    +6

    Shut up.

  • 

    dufflover on 09/08/2017 - 11:10

    There is still one big difference; liability.

• 

  Panda222 on 08/08/2017 - 16:45

  +2

  Wow there is a lot of heartless people out there. Why don't you think of OP point as a solution for the people who are willing to do more than public housing recipients? Deserves a bit more credit right? Free public housing VS bought public housing

  OP is actually onto a decent idea here.

  Here is how I would tweak it, Public Housing which is paid for from the Dole payments. Only small developments allowed so that assimilation occurs and the influx of low-income earners does not affect the local community.
  This public housing construction could create jobs and potently provide skills training during construction if it was integrated into working for the dole system / apprenticeship etc. (Take it easy, I am shooting from the hip here)

  For example, I could build a lovely modern double story container house with 2 bedrooms for around $100,000.00 and I could put 5 of these on my 600m2 block, repayments would be around $230 per week, not bad. Especially if it is an energy efficient property.

  Not a great idea but it could be a more efficient public housing from the Tax Payer point of view.

  OP is onto something here. Just how flexible is he/she?

  Also, there is rent to own options but those guys are mainly con men and would take advantage of the OP.

• 

  serpserpserp on 08/08/2017 - 16:59

  I find it funny that everyone gets offended by this. Someone could go to the city, work for 10 years, pay a lot of tax and move to the country and buy a house with a 100k or so mortgage left on it, refinance for 30 years and then go on centrelink and pay it off with the handouts. Wouldn't be anything wrong with that would there? They paid their taxes, their parents probably paid their taxes for 40+ years so their kids could get this benefit if they needed it.

  I'd rather people take a payout and earn themselves an asset over time then just piss it against the wall on pot & booze.

  • 

    Ahbal on 08/08/2017 - 17:52

    +1

    The problem isnt what theyre spending it on, it is that they get apparently enough to get a house, which is too much.

    I do agree with what you are saying though, that it is better than the money going to fuel addictions and so on.

  • 

    BobLim on 09/08/2017 - 11:11

    +2

    Tax is an ongoing obligation of those who are able to contribute to the economy. You don't just pay it once then 'go into credit' and become entitled to benefit indefinitely. Their parents paid taxes for 40+ years because they were required to at the time to fund the expenses of the time. That money has been spent - all of it, as with all other taxes collected.

    The only way this person would qualify for Centrelink benefits is if they're unable to work. That's the system that taxes are supposed to support. The choice for this individual is either depleting their assets over time to fund their lifestyle, or continuing to generate an income sufficient for their needs.

• 

  prinsenhof on 08/08/2017 - 18:17

  Your doing it wrong.

  Cry loud enough and you can get a free house through the housing pathways website in addition to centrelink payments.

  Just remember to apply for two houses, they have some good 4 bedroom houses in Cooma that you can use for snowboarding season (less than 2 year waiting list). Probably sub-let during summer to mountain bikers.

  But just remember to hide the audi/bmw when they come around to do inspections and don't be scared to get creative with swear words so you fit the bill. Also doesnt hurt to walk around bare foot in case anyones investigating.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 18:22

  +1

  Biggest bs I have heard this year

• 1
• 2
• 3