Newstart and Pension Recipients to Get $500 Stimulus Payment (Update: $750)

jimbobaus on 11/03/2020 - 15:05
Last edited 12/03/2020 - 11:42

The government is set to announce a range of methods to stimulate the economy
among the expected announcements is one off payments of $500 to Newstart and pension recipients

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6140338515001

"Australia’s battlers on Newstart or the pension will each get a one-off $500 payment from the Coalition’s multi-billion-dollar coronavirus stimulus package"

Update : Those on government payments including Newstart, FTB, pensions and carers allowance will get one off payments of $750
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/c…

Financial

Comments

  • ProlapsedHeinous on 11/03/2020 - 15:07
    +30

    Trickle up economics for the win!

    • Sofie519 on 13/03/2020 - 18:41
      +2

      I consider this More like trickle out economics. Our economy is highly reliant on imports, many (except small businesses) outsource or are multinationals. Much of the stimulus money ends up overseas or for the purchase of non productive goods that don’t subsequently create jobs in Australia.

    • skullster704 on 11/03/2020 - 15:56
      +20

      Tories

      What does the UK Conservative Party have to do with Aussie social policy?

      Edit: not my neg btw

      • pupdog on 11/03/2020 - 20:08

        I think he's referring to the Aussie Libs.

    • Lastchancetosee on 12/03/2020 - 08:11
      +2

      OK. I'll bite. Which of the poor are deserving, and how do you propose to differentiate between them and the undeserving?

      • Bullion78 on 12/03/2020 - 16:22

        Same question i had when anybody that was "inconvenienced" by the fires that lived with a certain distance were entitled to payments. Also those receiving aid.. no way You can differentiate between a farmer that has millions in the bank and his next door neighbor young farmer who's in debt up to his eyeballs.

    • Bren20 on 13/03/2020 - 11:09

      Ah, my memory is that it went to people on benefits… I remember you could double dip on it, if you had a salary between 18000-80000 you got it, and you also got it if you were on youth allowance (and I would imagine other benefit types). I got it for youth allowance and just missed out on the taxable income, but friends of mine got double payouts, and I think one friend managed to get a triple payout because of another eligibility critera - maybe farming related but I'm not sure.

  • GG57 on 11/03/2020 - 15:49
    +3

    Is this accurate? It is reported from 'Sky News' and doesn't quote any government source.
    Labor are still criticising the LNP, and I can't see any similar report on other news outlets, so obviously no formal announcement as yet.

    • shaybisc on 11/03/2020 - 15:56
      +24

      Sky News Murdoch write most of the Coalition's scripts. Take it as gospel.

      • GG57 on 11/03/2020 - 16:01
        +4

        True.
        I suppose they still have those 'surplus' bushfire relief funds available.

    • Sensiekatie on 12/03/2020 - 11:37

      The government is announcing the stimulus package today. I had heard a one-off payment as one if the contents but no amount. Wait for the announcement and we’ll all know.

      • GG57 on 12/03/2020 - 11:40

        It has been announced earlier today

    • Zachary on 14/03/2020 - 19:40

      It is now: https://au.yahoo.com/finance/news/centrelink-recipients-to-r…

      Yahoo news is mostly trustworthy since they run channel 7 news which is broadcasted all over nationally, on TV….unless I'm wrong…

      • callum9999 on 15/03/2020 - 19:17
        +7

        You're incredibly wrong if you think being broadcast on TV is a good way to decide if something is trustworthy or not.

        • Zachary on 20/03/2020 - 23:00

          Then what news delivery method is most trustworthy if not by TV that most families have access to?

  • spackbace on 11/03/2020 - 15:53
    +24

    Flat screens for all!

    • skywards on 12/03/2020 - 23:50
      +1

      Scomo should do a k-Rudd! Please!?!

  • EDM on 11/03/2020 - 15:55
    +1

    Yay, good to see the government focusing on the right issues. /s

    • resisting the urge on 15/03/2020 - 13:35
      +1

      It is in the pollies best interest that they appear as large as possible in everyone's lounge-rooms, not just those with enough cash splashed already on a big flatscreen

      EDIT: Pork barelling + Lamb screening = Next election won?

  • WreckTangle on 11/03/2020 - 16:00
    +61

    Good news for bottle stores and drug dealers

    • GG57 on 11/03/2020 - 16:02
      +15

      Actually, if this is real news, that scenario at least gets some money into the economy, as opposed to reducing debt.

      • geoffs87 on 12/03/2020 - 17:40
        +4

        Yep, money back into the economy is exactly what this is for. Whether it be flatscreen tv’s or bottle shops… it’s back in the economy!

      • gromit on 12/03/2020 - 18:11
        -2

        Money in the economy is not the problem. It is supply that is the issue. More money with buyers won't magically solve the issue, it just buys votes, basically an expensive PR campaign. This is same stupidity we saw with Rudd

            • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/03/2020 - 06:53

              @gromit: The supply shock is not universal: it only applies to import dependent sectors. A cash injection that will allow people doing it tough to get an overdue haircut, buy some more nutritious/enjoyable food, get their car serviced, buy some new clothes will all stimulate the economy, and only the clothes are affected by the supply issues, but still not an issue atm.

            • Boioioioi on 14/03/2020 - 11:19

              @gromit: This has nothing to do with the supply issues lol, I think you're the idiot arguing the wrong point.

              This is to prevent us going into a recession. It worked when Rudd did it. We were one of the only countries to not go into recession during the global financial crisis.

              Giving poor people money will put it back into the economy and get the wheels turning as that money trickles through.

              • Mrgreenz on 15/03/2020 - 12:05

                @Boioioioi: Rudd was wearing purple socks when he announced it, I believe that was why no recession occured

          • trapper on 13/03/2020 - 14:10
            +1

            @counterbargainglobal: They should just send out everyone a special card that only works for one month, use it or lose it. :)

        • FallaM on 13/03/2020 - 09:45
          +8

          "Sane stupidity we saw with Rudd" Oh, you mean the time where we were one of the only countries which got through the last GFC?

    • [Deactivated] on 11/03/2020 - 16:27
      +29

      Good one. Paint everyone with the same brush, much?

      • SlickMick on 12/03/2020 - 17:09
        -1

        Are you suggesting that it isn't an accurate statement? No one said other industries might not also prosper, but I agree that those 2 stand out.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/03/2020 - 17:18
          +4

          It’s nothing more than a stereotype. Sure the are people who will use it that way. It would the minority.

    • HighAndDry on 11/03/2020 - 18:06
      +31

      Honestly if you need a shot-in-the-arm economic stimulus, you'd want to give it to less financially responsible people who'll spend it immediately on goods and services, than more responsible people who might put it aside for a rainy day.

      Ideally you'd want to inject money directly into productivity-increasing investments instead of dead spending like retail, but it's easier to give money to people to spend, than to give money to people and force them to invest it.

      • gyrex on 12/03/2020 - 12:11
        +9

        This. How the government isn't using this money for some large scale investment projects which will have a trickle down effect to other businesses, employees etc. and we'll actually have something to show for it at the end is mind boggling. This is Rudd/Gillard brand economics and it's fundamentally asinine in my opinion.

        • RecklessMonkeys on 12/03/2020 - 13:26
          +8

          The thinking would be that large scale is too slow to address the systemic shock that is underway.

          • gyrex on 12/03/2020 - 13:33
            +1

            @RecklessMonkeys: While it might be a tad slower, nothing is going to save us from the inevitable recession we're heading into but at least there's local economic multipliers in effect with larger scale investment projects, rather than the cash money being spent potentially being shipped straight to China. The larger scale projects would deliver more in the long run which would mean that any recession we do suffer would be less severe and as I said, we might have some functioning dams, roads etc. to show for it.

            • RecklessMonkeys on 12/03/2020 - 13:36
              +1

              @gyrex: Yeah, we should already be doing long term stuff. It takes time to plan it, lest we get roads to nowhere.
              Perhaps the spend should have been conditional on buying Australian made products?

            • SlickMick on 12/03/2020 - 17:13

              @gyrex: You're right - $750 won't save us. $900 saved us last time. /s

              I totally agree with what you're saying. In the past, governments would build good infrastructure that couldn't be justified until the need for stimulus made it feasible.

              Now they splash cash around and I would really like to know what portion of it actually helps.

          • wiipantz on 12/03/2020 - 14:59
            +7

            @RecklessMonkeys: Almost like 6+ years in office and no planning these large scale things is showing? LNP Worst economic managers consistently.

            • cwongtech on 13/03/2020 - 02:03
              +1

              @wiipantz: Don't worry, they'll sell your kidneys next in the name of budget repair.

            • RecklessMonkeys on 13/03/2020 - 10:04

              @wiipantz: The free market sorts these things out. Just look at it now. :)

      • [Deactivated] on 12/03/2020 - 16:12
        +1

        A lot of the retail spending is going to be on stuff not made in Australia too. That is going to dilute how much the money will help Australia directly.

      • sarahlump on 12/03/2020 - 23:16
        -2

        can we please not use responsible as a synonym for rich. they aren't the same thing.

        • HighAndDry on 12/03/2020 - 23:31
          +2

          In this case, wealth doesn't matter. If you're rich and financially irresponsible, you'd also be a good target for fiscal stimulus handouts.

          Though financial responsibility does correlate with wealth.

      • mskeggs on 11/03/2020 - 20:30
        +4

        Yeah, my Nan is fully scum (eye roll)

        • oscargamer on 11/03/2020 - 20:49
          -1

          Like I said, only 99%. Your nan is cool.

      • jackspratt on 12/03/2020 - 12:03
        +9

        Neg me please.

        With pleasure.

      • samcro on 12/03/2020 - 12:54
        +7

        As you wish…

      • Incrediho on 12/03/2020 - 16:01

        Given only ~12% of the recipients are on Newstart - even if you wanted to classify them all as "dole bludging scum" - I find that hard to believe.

        • SlickMick on 12/03/2020 - 17:16

          Yeah, 87% of people are on casual underemployment and Newstart won't acknowledge them

    • WT on 12/03/2020 - 08:32
      +1

      you forgot big tobacco

    • LFO on 12/03/2020 - 13:06
      -1

      You must be one of the contributors to know so well.

    • cameldownunder on 13/03/2020 - 13:56

      Or the pokies at the RSL

  • Blue Cat on 11/03/2020 - 16:07
    -4

    Yes, just print more money! That worked perfectly for Zimbabwe and Venezuela to restore stable economy!
    Finally our government is starting to think!

    • TEER3X on 11/03/2020 - 16:13
      +16

      Yeah because our economies are directly comparable to those two countries.

      What could happen though is that we could get high inflation and consequently much higher rates, but that won't happen because we need to protect property prices so that they continue to be out of reach for the average Australian

    • kahn on 11/03/2020 - 16:36
      +4

      It's not that simple and you probably know it. A devalued currency often leads to increased exports but a country like Venezuela has had sanctions placed on it by America so it lost out on the benefits.

      Were you also critical of the Australian and American approach to dealing with the GFC? How about the more recent US federal reserve injecting hundreds of billions of USD in the interbank repo market or China's ongoing efforts to increase liquidity by tens of billions?

      • Blue Cat on 11/03/2020 - 16:54
        -8

        @TEER3X: I know it is not comparable, but once the inflation starts ramping up, everyone's Superannuation will become useless, prices of everything will go up but your salary will stay the same.
        I am super skeptical of any "free money" initiatives form any government, it never ends for the better

        @kahn: OK I admit I didn't know about sanctions in Venezuela, I guess we do have more chances to avoid hyperinflation.

        US federal reserve injecting hundreds of billions of USD

        Yeah I read about it. The thing is, USA is a world superpower and they can pretty much get away with anything (somehow), whereas normal countries like Australia are very fragile and prone to be easily abused.

        Worst of all, the average working Australian will get shafted by the government again if they do start giving away cash for pensioners and/or welfare recipients. Pensioners I could give a pass, but it is unfair to give even more free money to dole bludgers while you are instructed to work more hours so you can pay someone's $500 booze and cigarette fund. And probably start paying more tax.

        • sir_bazz on 11/03/2020 - 17:24

          Could you please explain how inflation will ramp up, without wage growth?

          • HighAndDry on 11/03/2020 - 18:03
            +2

            @sir_bazz: People have more money. Production isn't increasing.

            More money = more demand.

            Combine with same supply.

            The same goods and services get bid up and prices increase.

            Inflation.

            • sir_bazz on 11/03/2020 - 19:14
              +2

              @HighAndDry: @highanddry

              Thing is though man, people don't have more money in their pockets without wage growth. Or looking at it another way, consumer spending has no scope increase.

              It's actually wage growth that should fuel inflation rather than the other way around.

              • HighAndDry on 12/03/2020 - 09:52

                @sir_bazz:

                Thing is though man, people don't have more money in their pockets without wage growth.

                The $500 is the "more money in their pockets" here.

                • sir_bazz on 12/03/2020 - 10:18
                  +1

                  @HighAndDry: Ohhhh in context of the $500 ?

                  Agree…..that's exactly what it's designed to do.
                  But the total amount of spend here is a "once only" event so will only increase inflation, (or more correctly, boost GDP), for the one reporting quarter.
                  It's just a sugar hit.

                  It's intended this way in order to keep GDP from going negative. ie. Recessionary.

                  • HighAndDry on 12/03/2020 - 10:31

                    @sir_bazz: Oh yeah, I agree with you. I'm not too worried about the inflationary pressures of a one off $500.

        • outlander on 11/03/2020 - 18:07
          +11

          The previous liberal government gave 500million to a phony "save the reef" foundation. I doubt giving $500 to the ~700,000 people on newstart is going to break the bank.
          At least this money has a chance of getting back in your pocket

          • Tonyh87 on 12/03/2020 - 21:37
            +1

            @outlander: And that foundation didn't even ask for the money

      • thirtysixd on 14/03/2020 - 10:46
        +2

        The reality is that China pulled Australia out of the GFC
        It wont happen again so we are screwed

        There is really nothing that can be done anymore other than delay the inevitable
        The current worldwide driver of economic growth is debt but there is already too much in the system
        Interest rates are already zero so the only tool left is qe

        Itll be ugly but we need a big reset in order to grow again

    • HighAndDry on 11/03/2020 - 18:02
      +3

      Wait, this isn't printing more money - the government is going to be paying for this out of the budget.

      • resisting the urge on 15/03/2020 - 14:00
        +1

        This isn't, but QE planning is already well advanced. Only .25% more to go before the RBA will have little else it can do than bonds and fiddle around the edges. After all, Philip Lowe considers a cash rate of .25% to be the floor.

        When money needs to be spent to keep the status quo in power, it will find ways to do it- no matter who's money it turns out to have been

  • PensionerXXL on 11/03/2020 - 16:13
    +21

    a one-off toilet paper allowance? cheers!

  • Colin2905 on 11/03/2020 - 16:19
    +24

    Which electorates?

    • xuqi on 11/03/2020 - 18:15
      +19

      Awaiting colour-coded spreadsheet.

  • Godric on 11/03/2020 - 17:46
    +12

    O Interesting, the working class miss out, cool!

    • TheBilly on 11/03/2020 - 18:27
      +23

      Yes it would've been nice to get $500 of my $50k in PAYG back but I won't hold my breath I'll just keep clenching. I would've spent it on Ansell lube anyway to ease the pain of social reaming as it is getting a bit dry down there.

      • Sage on 11/03/2020 - 20:02
        +4

        I earn about 35k annually…
        I'd spend the $500 on bills, or getting my car serviced.

      • plmko on 11/03/2020 - 20:35

        Yes imagine a world where we had an increased low income tax offset that netted an extra $500 of PAYG back for middle income earners.

      • Ash SA on 12/03/2020 - 18:49
        +1

        Imagine if all honest tax payers decide to clinch the fist and reduce spending to match those 750?
        Would be a great match and lesson to government at the cost of economy though.

        • TheBilly on 12/03/2020 - 21:45
          +2

          I agree … if an individual so much as goes 'boo' the ATO will ruin your life and most likely you'll get arrested and sent to jail. It's ok if you are a corporation though do what you like, claim what you like, send all your profits overseas. But just make sure your lobbyist lines the pockets of politicians post retirement and it's all good.

    • brendanm on 12/03/2020 - 17:36
      +1

      The people paying the bills don't deserve to get anything, silly.

    • gazzathegreat on 12/03/2020 - 19:09
      -8

      Working class didn't miss out. What about the tax cuts you just got? Pensioners and self funded retirees have just finished paying full tax all their working years.Plus we never got 3% house loans or maternity leave or house grants etc. Consider yourself the lucky generation.

      • Ash SA on 12/03/2020 - 23:11
        -2

        No one is contesting seniors did a lot of hard work and made Australia what it is today. Kudos to all of them.

        Contrasting our life as easy is also bit toad fact. It is not.

        There are some freeloaders and some shady peeps who show far less income to qualify as “poor”, own houses and inv prop and on top of that still getting paid from my tax bill. Shame on them and shame on govt not to weigh the scale appropriately.

        Populist paradigm is all these politicians are attracted to.

      • wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww on 13/03/2020 - 21:21
        +1

        I'm sure house prices were well below the current amounts for you to be ahead despite the current sub 3% house loans.

      • tarb on 14/03/2020 - 02:10
        +2

        My mum loves saying this. How hard they had to work to pay off their first house with >20% interest rates. It took them almost 2 years of rough scrimping and saving… almost 2 whole years!

  • Diji1 on 11/03/2020 - 17:52
    -2

    Instead of nationalising ports and electricity because privatisation of these two sectors is "severely damaging" the economy.

    What a national disgrace.

    The "damage" in electricity is literally your money being removed and not spent in the economy. BTW, try tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars removed by electricity per
    person. Not FIVE HUNDRED. What a joke.

    The morons voting Laberal would rather lose their money, severely damaging the economy by doing so, than vote Greens.

    • sir_bazz on 11/03/2020 - 17:57
      +1

      Genuinely curious, how would the Greens stave off a technical recession, if not doing the same/similar as the Libs or Labs?

      • HighAndDry on 11/03/2020 - 18:07
        +1

        You're asking someone who doesn't realise that electricity company profits go to paying Australian employees and shareholders too…

        • Almost Banned on 11/03/2020 - 18:47
          +8

          Shareholders - sure. Employees - no. Employment costs are deducted BEFORE profits are determined.
          However revenue does go to employees, and suppliers, and all sorts of other places, including tax.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/03/2020 - 20:13
        +24

        The Greens would use the money to buy back all necessary infrastructure, higher welfare and pensions, increase hospital funding, remove unemployment by increasing the solar installation nationwide.

        We will have zero carbon footprint and have space to accommodate all of the world's refugees and eliminate all criminal activity with inclusivity.

        So simple.

        • Dovrick on 12/03/2020 - 15:54
          +4

          This is one of those rare comments where I can't tell if people updoot for the comedy and the /s or because they took it at face value…

          Either way take my updoot.

        • brendanm on 12/03/2020 - 17:38
          +1

          Wow, that's amazing, greens are getting my vote

    • WreckTangle on 11/03/2020 - 21:17
      +6

      Don’t agree with voting Green, but renationalising electricty isn’t a terrible idea

  • TheBilly on 11/03/2020 - 18:25
    -1

    The economy is all fake any way and money is just printed when required. Why don't they just ask our financial slave masters (you pick who you think they are) to just authorize the mass printing of money and just open the book start throwing around cash to everyone, forfeiting all debt and loans, cancelling all restrictions on leveraged investment and turn the global economy into the circus act, casino, cock fighting ring that it already is.

    • zawarudo22 on 12/03/2020 - 14:26
      +3

      lol

      Money Heist Theme Song Starts

  • FromAtoZ on 11/03/2020 - 18:27
    +16

    Hows about single people, who also pays tax and receives no centrelink?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join