Does a family earning $115,000 deserve help? It's a slippery issue.

WITH three children, a mortgage, two cars and a small business, Liz and Phil Murray may be the typical Australian working family.

Mr Murray, 39, is a full-time IT consultant, while Mrs Murray, 37, runs a speech pathology business, which employs three other people. Officially, she is part-time, but jokes she is on ''48 hours a day''.

To cut childcare costs for Jessica, 3, and Catherine, six months, Mrs Murray works on Saturdays, and her mother babysits one day a week. But even so, the bill for childcare, and after-school care for Thomas, 5, is about $800 a fortnight.


''We work every day, come home, and do the best we can,'' Mrs Murray says. ''There are families that do it a lot tougher, but we pretty well battle day-to-day.''

The Murrays may be the sort of people Julia Gillard was thinking of when, in March, she spoke of Australians who work hard and set their ''alarm clocks early''.

But with a family income of about $115,000 a year - which will rise to $150,000 a year when Liz returns to full-time work - the Murrays are also in the government's firing line.  

Not only does their income place them squarely in the middle class, they also rely on various forms of ''middle-class welfare'' to make ends meet. They receive the health insurance rebate, a $1600 childcare rebate every three months, and - depending on how much Mrs Murray earns - family tax benefit A. They also receive $105 a fortnight for Thomas, who has Asperger's syndrome, and a grant for speech and behaviour therapy.

Without the help, Mrs Murray says she would struggle to keep working, jeopardising her business. Even now, Mr Murray says, they feel as if they are caught in a vicious circle. ''Liz is basically working so the kids can go to childcare,'' he says.

Having foreshadowed a tough budget for May 10, Labor has been flirting with a crackdown on middle-class welfare as it looks to meet its promise of returning the budget to surplus by 2012-13.

There are suggestions of plans to means-test the childcare tax rebate for families earning more than $150,000, along with another attempt to means-test the private health insurance rebate for families earning more than $160,000.

If successful, it would be the latest ALP move to means-test a range of Howard-era payments. These moves are backed by such groups as the Australian Council of Social Services, which has called for ''bold action'' to cut payments to high-income earners, and economists such as Saul Eslake from the Grattan Institute. ''In my view, there's little good done by giving people who are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and their dependents money raised by higher taxes on other people,'' Mr Eslake says.

But middle-class welfare is a slippery issue - derided in some quarters, but defended by many who benefit from it.

An outcry from businesses, unions, childcare centres and parents followed reports of a new means test for the childcare rebate. Despite its calls for Labor to rein in spending, the opposition criticised the measure.

In a country where almost everyone considers themselves middle class, it can be hard to define middle-class welfare, and at what point it should cut out. In its attempts to means-test various benefits, Labor has returned to a household income of $150,000 a year as the threshhold.

But Mr Eslake says this should be lowered, perhaps to about $125,000, adding that all households should still have access to Medicare and other support if they have high medical bills.

But some believe $150,000 is too low, especially with the rising cost of living and housing affordability problems. With average full-time earnings about $68,900 a year, a family with two parents on average salaries would come very close to this threshhold.

''It seems that families who have struggled and worked hard to get themselves into good positions are the ones who are being targeted,'' says Gwynn Bridge, president of the Australian Child Care Centre Alliance.

The Howard government used middle-class welfare to achieve various ends, such as greater uptake of private health insurance. The family tax benefits were billed not as income support but a ''recognition of the costs associated with being a parent''.

For critics such as Mr Eslake, this philosophy is the problem. ''People should get assistance from the government not because of what they are - people with children or people over the age of 65 or people who choose to take out private health insurance - but because of their income,'' he says.

Some, such as Gerry Redmond of the University of New South Wales' social policy research centre, warn that cuts to family assistance could have unintended consequences, such as deterring people from earning more. In Liz Murray's case, withdrawing the childcare rebate could force her from the workforce, destroying a small business in the process. As she notes, it wouldn't be such an issue for those on far more than $150,000 a year. ''It is the families in the middle that get impacted the most by these sorts of decisions.''

With a family income of about $115,000 a year - which will rise to $150,000 a year - the Murrays are also in the governments firing line.

You really do have "everything envy", don`t you.

How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!?

I posted these comments elsewhere - and they are equally relevant here...


Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:18am:

Much so-called 'middle-class welfare' is delivered outside of Centrelink - and is effectively-reverse-means-tested - hence it is better termed as 'WEALTHfare'! Most Centrelink 'clients' must regularly jump through ridiculous 'mutual obligation' hoops and consent to draconian privacy invasions - whilst non-Centrelink WEALTHfare is delivered without much socio-economic scrutiny and with little intrusion. The WEALTHfare payments are largely automatic, single tick-a-box items (with corresponding $ entries) and administered either directly by the ATO or cross-referenced to the ATO - there are no 'mutual obligation' requirements and claims are rarely audited for accuracy or fraud.  The benefits are often large and lump-sum and the mechanisms are distortionary. One thing that commentators serially fail to acknowledge - and cost-cutting pollies have neglected to 'sell' to the electorate - is that the rise of WEALTHfare has also been accompanied by massive middle-high-end tax cuts! The Labs ought to have tied the 2007 tax cut promises to the tightening (better still, the removal) of a range of effectively-exclusive and reverse-means-tested tax concessions, deductions and rebates - along with a Carbon Tax - but they foolishly missed the opportunity to do so. One anomaly in public policy that I still don't get, is that the Howard Govt increased the Dependent Spouse Rebate (paid mostly to working men on behalf of to non-working women) at the same time that they introduced Welfare to Slavery work-test requirements for single women with dependent children to claim Parenting Payment/Newstart!? The LibLabs have been complaining of skills shortages for years but surely, one of the biggest untapped workforce sections is that of kept women who either don't have dependent children or don't qualify for welfare payments because of high household income - who are effectively-rewarded for staying at home by our tax and transfer system!?  WTF!?

Maquarie Links are very wealthy people, they even have a security guard at the gates of their exclusive Golf Course suburb.
Across the rail line is Maquarie Fields (scene of a riot not so long ago) a place of Housos and drop-kicks.
...latest finding has found that most of the daughters of Maquarie Links have fallen pregnant to the rogues of Maquarie Fields.
"It was our only chance to have children" they state, "Because the boys of our area are too Career focused to care about having kids."

...everything balances out in the end between the Haves and Haves Not. ;)

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:24am:

How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!?

Damn these $150k millionaire families eh??

Some of you guys really do have NO idea.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:59am:

Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:24am: How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!? Damn these $150k millionaire families eh?? Some of you guys really do have NO idea.

Ironically, so says the git who also claims that it is 'easy' for families on far lower incomes to budget to live within their fundamentally-insufficient means...

::)

<<...latest finding has found that most of the daughters of Maquarie Links have fallen pregnant to the rogues of Maquarie Fields.>>
...........................................................................

LOL....did you see that andrei, I bet their parents would never have thought it. You too, might be the granddaddy of a black baby one day. I love karma!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:59am:

Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:24am: How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!? Damn these $150k millionaire families eh?? Some of you guys really do have NO idea.

Says someone who begrudges welfare recips their
paltry $13,000 a year.

The Murrays can hardly be considered as average, because the majority of the Australian families are not in receipt of this income, and they ar not workers but Business professionals.
They claim that they work hard, but so do others, or have worked hard before they retired, like retiree one in the following case and are then forced almost to the verge of poverty in retirement, like retiree 1.


Here are my calculations how the current retirees are treated
Take retiree: 1)
Worked for 45 years and paid taxes, but did not accumulate enough assets to be completely independent of the age-pension. For every dollar of extra income for him and his wife above $6,500, the couple loses $0.50 of age pension, and if their income exceeds $45,000 per annum, the couple will pay tax of $0.315 in the dollar including medicare levy, leaving them with an income of $0.185 from every dollar extra income. For the defined benefit income a 10% tax-offset applies if paid from an Australian super fund, but not if the income comes from an overseas fund.

Retiree 2)
Has accumulated assets of $1.5million and the assets are in a so-called taxed Self Managed Super Fund. To be very conservative, the assets are in a term deposit earning 7.0% income of $122,500 per annum and even if the retiree is single, he/she will not pay a cent of tax.
Now if the assets are in fully franked shares, like banks and return $100,000 worth of franked dividends, he/she will again pay no tax on the dividend, and the government will send him/her a cheque of $30,000 for the franking credits.

Retiree 3)
Is an ex-politician or highly paid public servant, in receipt of a defined benefit pension of $100,000, on which he/she will have to pay tax, but he/she gets a 10% tax offset, which equals $10,000 after reaching retirement age, but before retiring, the public servant can establish a SMSF and contribute into it extra with tax concessions if the $25,000 total for under fifty and $50,000, if over fifty is not exceeded and in addition he/she can contribute $150,000 from after tax income, and the earnings from the SMSF will only attract 15% tax, and when the person reaches the age of 60 even the income will be completely tax-free for  the SMSF.

What Ken Henry should have recommended is, abolish all tax concessions for super, abolish the means test for the age pension so that even millionaires get the full pension, but then the retirees should pay the same tax as do the workers.

I have made submissions to the Ken Henry Tax review and the Jeremy Cooper Superannuation review.

I would also like to refer you to my website Hawilspoint “The Great Australian Super Fraud”

Yours truly
Hawil

Kat wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 12:59pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:59am: Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:24am: How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!? Damn these $150k millionaire families eh?? Some of you guys really do have NO idea. Says someone who begrudges welfare recips their paltry $13,000 a year.

The difference - and something you clearly have no idea about - is that one works for their money and the other does not.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 2:18pm:

Kat wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 12:59pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:59am: Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:24am: How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!? Damn these $150k millionaire families eh?? Some of you guys really do have NO idea. Says someone who begrudges welfare recips their paltry $13,000 a year. The difference - and something you clearly have no idea about - is that one works for their money and the other does not.

Er, actually, I have a very good idea.

And WHY THE smack won't people understand that, JUST because someone
is unemployed, it DOES NOT mean they never
have worked, OR never will?

As long as they are TRYING to find work, getting up-skilled, doing WfD, or
undertaking voluntary work, then they ARE 'having a go'
and DO deserve a better deal than they are currently getting.

And for politicians to use them as a political football to get
votes or to divert attention away from the REAL rorters
is contemptible in the extreme.

Whether they deserve help is the wrong question. The right question is whether they need help or whether they should get help. The right answer is no.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:51pm:

Whether they deserve help is the wrong question. The right question is whether they need help or whether they should get help. The right answer is no.

That should read 'The right-wing answer...'

They DO deserve it, they DO need it, but they AREN'T getting it.

Because of people with attitudes like that.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:51pm:

Whether they deserve help is the wrong question. The right question is whether they need help or whether they should get help. The right answer is no.

even that is simplistic. you can save and work hard all your life and then when life hits you hard and you are unemplyed you cannot claim benefits because you have cash - cash you worked hard for. Same with the pension. It is paid to people without adequate super or assets yet denied to people who went without during theur lives to prepare for it.

It is wrong to assume that 'need' is the only issue at hand. it is nauseating to many hard workers to see the profligate and lazy benefit from their sloth and stupidity while they are themselves are denied anything because they did the right thing.

both the 'need' and 'entitlement' positions are by themselves wrong. the difficulty is finding the mix that worke, is affordable yet remains essentially fair. 'fairness' isnt the right of just the poor. It is EVERYONES right.

Quote:

even that is simplistic. you can save and work hard all your life and then when life hits you hard and you are unemplyed you cannot claim benefits because you have cash - cash you worked hard for.

Is this a bad thing? Saving for a rainy day? Or are you complaining of the disincentive to save? Note that this disincentive only increases the more you hand out.


Quote:

It is wrong to assume that 'need' is the only issue at hand.

It is once you acknowledge you are taking money away from other people to give the handout. These people work hard too.


Quote:

it is nauseating to many hard workers to see the profligate and lazy benefit from their sloth and stupidity while they are themselves are denied anything because they did the right thing.

So it is the disincentive you dislike? Why then do you want to increase the disincentive?


Quote:

both the 'need' and 'entitlement' positions are by themselves wrong. the difficulty is finding the mix that worke, is affordable yet remains essentially fair. 'fairness' isnt the right of just the poor. It is EVERYONES right.

Taking money from one person against their will and handing it to another is never going to be seen as fair. Fairness is a nonsensical standard to apply to taxes or handouts.

Kat wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 12:59pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:59am: Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:24am: How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!? Damn these $150k millionaire families eh?? Some of you guys really do have NO idea. Says someone who begrudges welfare recips their paltry $13,000 a year.

I agree Kat...a lot of IT consultants can work from home via the internet, and an income $115,000 pa works out to $2200 per week gross.....so $800 per week for child care is a 'stretch'????.....Not unless they're paying 50% tax it's not...

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:10pm:

Quote: even that is simplistic. you can save and work hard all your life and then when life hits you hard and you are unemplyed you cannot claim benefits because you have cash - cash you worked hard for. Is this a bad thing? Saving for a rainy day? Or are you complaining of the disincentive to save? Note that this disincentive only increases the more you hand out. [quote]It is wrong to assume that 'need' is the only issue at hand.

It is once you acknowledge you are taking money away from other people to give the handout. These people work hard too.


Quote:

it is nauseating to many hard workers to see the profligate and lazy benefit from their sloth and stupidity while they are themselves are denied anything because they did the right thing.

So it is the disincentive you dislike? Why then do you want to increase the disincentive?


Quote:

both the 'need' and 'entitlement' positions are by themselves wrong. the difficulty is finding the mix that worke, is affordable yet remains essentially fair. 'fairness' isnt the right of just the poor. It is EVERYONES right.

Taking money from one person against their will and handing it to another is never going to be seen as fair. Fairness is a nonsensical standard to apply to taxes or handouts.[/quote]

There is barely a real-world position in your post. Life is a balancing act between competing forces. If everyone had the compassion and selflessnes of Christ, the longevity of the Queen Mother and the financial savvy of Warren Buffet then your position might work. but in the REAL world a lot of people DO get annoyed at the lazy being rewarded  - especially at their expense. it is justfied? who knows. the point is that it doesnt matter. these forces and opinions exist in a soceity and have aright to be heard - and met.

and i totally disagree on your 'fairness' argument. you simply dismiss it out of hand and the result will always be worse for it. if you exclude fairness then many of the unemployed deserve NO assistance. unwed mothers deserve nothing in such a society nor do the disabled.  You wil never define fairness to everyones satisfaction. This does not mean you shouldnt try. even your poorest efforts will be worse than none at all.

Just because you see attitudes in poeple that you dont like doesnt automatically make them bad attitudes or ones you can ignore. balance and fairness demands people be heard even if ultimately not acted upon.

This reminds me of your recent Athiest thread where you and 3 others spend several hundred posts debating the most insignificant aspect of a truly huge question.

Hmmnnn....how easily 'Chinese Whispers' creeps into these sorts of debates...



wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:14am:

To cut childcare costs for Jessica, 3, and Catherine, six months, Mrs Murray works on Saturdays, and her mother babysits one day a week. But even so, the bill for childcare, and after-school care for Thomas, 5, is about $800 a fortnight.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 5:10pm:

Kat wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 12:59pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:59am: Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:24am: How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!? Damn these $150k millionaire families eh?? Some of you guys really do have NO idea. Says someone who begrudges welfare recips their paltry $13,000 a year. I agree Kat...a lot of IT consultants can work from home via the internet, and an income $115,000 pa works out to $2200 per week gross.....so $800 per week for child care is a 'stretch'????.....Not unless they're paying 50% tax it's not...

Quote:

and i totally disagree on your 'fairness' argument. you simply dismiss it out of hand and the result will always be worse for it.

I do not. It is simply not possible to pay any serious attention to it. No matter what the decision, you can always argue it both ways from fairness. So it doesn't boil down to fairness at all, no matter how hard you try. It just boils down to who can make the most noise about fairness.


Quote:

if you exclude fairness then many of the unemployed deserve NO assistance.

But they still get it, regardless of how fair it is.


Quote:

You wil never define fairness to everyones satisfaction. This does not mean you shouldnt try.

Try all you want. It won't get you anywhere.


Quote:

even your poorest efforts will be worse than none at all.

No Longy. You seem to be assuming that we will be left with nothing if we don't rely on fairness. This is simply not the case. There are far more sensible ways to judge taxation and welfare.

even that is simplistic. you can save and work hard all your life and then when life hits you hard and you are unemplyed you cannot claim benefits because you have cash - cash you worked hard for. Same with the pension. It is paid to people without adequate super or assets yet denied to people who went without during theur lives to prepare for it.

I agree once with you, pay everyone of pension age the full age pension irrespevtice of his/her assets or income.
To do this the government will need to abolish all tax concessions for super and tax the pensioners the same way the workers are taxed.

The article "Cut your tax bill with careful planning" the AFR April 30/May 1.2011 by Bina  Brown describes how to accumulate wealth at other taxpayers expenses.

Currently the government provides everyone of pension age the safety net of the basic pension, if their income or assets fall below a certain level.

longweekend 58, if you read my previous post on this subject, would  you agree that retiree worked hard in his/her life and contributed enough to society to be treated better than he/she is treated by the Australian government.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 6:06pm:

Quote: and i totally disagree on your 'fairness' argument. you simply dismiss it out of hand and the result will always be worse for it. I do not. It is simply not possible to pay any serious attention to it. No matter what the decision, you can always argue it both ways from fairness. So it doesn't boil down to fairness at all, no matter how hard you try. It just boils down to who can make the most noise about fairness. [quote]if you exclude fairness then many of the unemployed deserve NO assistance.

But they still get it, regardless of how fair it is.


Quote:

You wil never define fairness to everyones satisfaction. This does not mean you shouldnt try.

Try all you want. It won't get you anywhere.


Quote:

even your poorest efforts will be worse than none at all.

No Longy. You seem to be assuming that we will be left with nothing if we don't rely on fairness. This is simply not the case. There are far more sensible ways to judge taxation and welfare.[/quote]

I am sure we could do this to-and-fro act forever and based on your athiest thread that is a proven fact. Let me just say that your  dismissal of 'fairness' as a factor in policy making to be truly breathtakingly stupid. Fairness is a foundational aspect of much policy. the inabilty to totally achieve that does not stop that being a goal - aspirational or otherwise.

If all you are going to do is play with semantics and major on the minors then why dont you just move this thread somewhere else. that is after all the extent of your 'moderating' and I use the term with all the mocking i can muster.

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 5:24pm:

Hmmnnn....how easily 'Chinese Whispers' creeps into these sorts of debates... wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:14am: To cut childcare costs for Jessica, 3, and Catherine, six months, Mrs Murray works on Saturdays, and her mother babysits one day a week. But even so, the bill for childcare, and after-school care for Thomas, 5, is about $800 a fortnight. gizmo_2655 wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 5:10pm: Kat wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 12:59pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:59am: Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:24am: How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!? Damn these $150k millionaire families eh?? Some of you guys really do have NO idea. Says someone who begrudges welfare recips their paltry $13,000 a year. I agree Kat...a lot of IT consultants can work from home via the internet, and an income $115,000 pa works out to $2200 per week gross.....so $800 per week for child care is a 'stretch'????.....Not unless they're paying 50% tax it's not...

Come on Thy...do the math...I know lots of people who've raised a family of 3 or more children on $60,000 per year...It seems apparent that family is well and truly 'over committed' on their lifestyle...They're making a combined wage that's well into 'upper middle class'......so the only excuse is that their mortgage and/or expenses are too high, or they shouldn't have start a family ....YET.

Quote:

I am sure we could do this to-and-fro act forever and based on your athiest thread that is a proven fact. Let me just say that your  dismissal of 'fairness' as a factor in policy making to be truly breathtakingly stupid. Fairness is a foundational aspect of much policy.

Not taxation. Not handouts. Instead of arguing about it in general terms, try to come up with an example where you think it makes most sense, and I will demonstrate how it is in fact not fair.


Quote:

the inabilty to totally achieve that does not stop that being a goal

I am not saying you are unable to achieve it in total. I am saying you are unable to even start.


Quote:

If all you are going to do is play with semantics and major on the minors then why dont you just move this thread somewhere else.

I am saying your approach is fundamentally flawed. So flawed you are unable to apply it to a single example in a sensible manner.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:01pm:

Quote: I am sure we could do this to-and-fro act forever and based on your athiest thread that is a proven fact. Let me just say that your  dismissal of 'fairness' as a factor in policy making to be truly breathtakingly stupid. Fairness is a foundational aspect of much policy. Not taxation. Not handouts. Instead of arguing about it in general terms, try to come up with an example where you think it makes most sense, and I will demonstrate how it is in fact not fair. [quote]the inabilty to totally achieve that does not stop that being a goal

I am not saying you are unable to achieve it in total. I am saying you are unable to even start.


Quote:

If all you are going to do is play with semantics and major on the minors then why dont you just move this thread somewhere else.

I am saying your approach is fundamentally flawed. So flawed you are unable to apply it to a single example in a sensible manner.[/quote]

define 'fair'. since you are going to be pedantic at least give me a definition. But I am assuming you cant find a definition you'd be happy with and you will just end up saying that 'fairness' doesnt exist.

No. I merely intend to point out that any example you give is not fair. How can you even begin to argue fairness in taking hard earned money from one person and giving it to another that did not earn it?

So try giving us an example that you think it fair.

This media release provides some insight into what the ACCI's definition of 'fair' pay is: -

http://www.acci.asn.au/Research-and-Publications/Media-Centre/Media-Releases-and-Transcripts/Workplace/A-$9-50-Increase-Will-More-Than-Compensate-Low-Wag

http://www.acci.asn.au/Images/header-media-release


Quote:

A $9.50 Increase Will More Than Compensate Low Wage Earners 18 March 2011 On behalf of its 350,000 members and the small and medium business sector, Australia’s largest and most representative business organisation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, will tell this year’s Annual Wage Review that a $9.50 increase to the minimum wage, with carve-outs for disaster affected regions, more than compensates low income earners against cost of living rises under the government’s fair work system. ACCI's Chief Executive Peter Anderson, “A $9.50 rise with carve-outs for disaster affected regions and underperforming industries is the fairest result. Wage reviews are not just about wage rises and the cost of living, but also about jobs, the pressure on small and medium employers, and the integrity of a wage system that intended most wage rises to occur through productivity bargaining.” “At a time when productivity growth is only 1%, it is foolish to order economy-wide wage rises much past this level or anywhere near last year’s rise or the ACTU claim.” ACCI’s submission to Fair Work Australia, being lodged today, proposes that:    * Minimum wages not be increased by more than $9.50 per week    * Exceptional circumstance powers in the wages system be used to defer the rise across Queensland, and in other natural disaster affected regions of the nation    * Support for lesser increases where specific industries make out a case for reduced economic capacity given the uneven nature of the recovery "The ACCI submission gives weight to feedback from employers on the impact of last year’s decision that saw wages rise by a record $26 per week, almost double the rate of CPI. More than half of employers surveyed by ACCI (51%) support an increase below $10 per week, or no increase. Less than one quarter (21%) support an increase above $10, and 18% are undecided," Peter Anderson said. “The ACCI proposal, if adopted, is fair to low income earners as well. It would see the minimum wage having risen by 6.5% in the two years of the government’s fair work system – a full 1% more than rises in the cost of living.” "The ACCI proposal is designed to minimize the risk that one person’s wage rise comes at the cost of another person’s job," Peter Anderson said. "In contrast, the ACTU’s claim of $28 per week (ranging to upwards of $38  and $40) would add at least $3.6 billion to the annual wages bill of Australia’s small and medium employers and is totally out of step with the uncertain and uneven trading conditions confronting those required to foot this bill," he said. “In pursuing a manifestly excessive wage claim the ACTU is simply treating Australian small and medium businesses as cash cows ready to be milked, rather than respecting them as key players in the economy employing hundreds and thousands of Australian employees, including union members.” "The Australian economy is recovering from the depths of a global downturn, and there are clear signs of a two and three speed economy. There is also strong evidence of differences across regions. The ACTU needs to understand it is not the robust resources sector or big corporates who fund these claims. Most of the award reliant businesses that bear the brunt of the ACTU’s claims are in regions and industries locked in the slow lane of the recovery." “At a time of stalled productivity (only 1% in the year to December 2010) the wages system needs more than ever to encourage enterprise bargaining in individual workplaces, instead of economy-wide wage rises ordered by tribunals on a one size fits all basis and not conditional on productivity trade-offs," Peter Anderson said.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 6:27pm:

Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 5:24pm: Hmmnnn....how easily 'Chinese Whispers' creeps into these sorts of debates... wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:14am: To cut childcare costs for Jessica, 3, and Catherine, six months, Mrs Murray works on Saturdays, and her mother babysits one day a week. But even so, the bill for childcare, and after-school care for Thomas, 5, is about $800 a fortnight. gizmo_2655 wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 5:10pm: Kat wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 12:59pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:59am: Equitist wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:24am: How can an income threshold $150,000 be too low, when that is 3-5 times what the majority of families with children are forced to live on in this country!? Damn these $150k millionaire families eh?? Some of you guys really do have NO idea. Says someone who begrudges welfare recips their paltry $13,000 a year. I agree Kat...a lot of IT consultants can work from home via the internet, and an income $115,000 pa works out to $2200 per week gross.....so $800 per week for child care is a 'stretch'????.....Not unless they're paying 50% tax it's not... Come on Thy...do the math...I know lots of people who've raised a family of 3 or more children on $60,000 per year...It seems apparent that family is well and truly 'over committed' on their lifestyle...They're making a combined wage that's well into 'upper middle class'......so the only excuse is that their mortgage and/or expenses are too high, or they shouldn't have start a family ....YET.

I wasn't arguing for or against that position - just pointing out that you had unwittingly misrepresented the facts purported in the original example...

Actually, it is bloody annoying that they chose to quote a fortnightly figure in a paragraph that made a reference to a weekly situation - as is common when journos (and others) try to create a particular impression in their reporting (e.g. it is ludicrous to quote weekly wage figures but refer to fortnightly welfare payments)...

Moreover, the couple in question obviously have access to a range of (conveniently-ignored) tax lurks and perks that many other families wouldn't have...

$115,000 per year??? LOL

50% of workers in Australia earn $24,000 or less

80% of workers in Australia earn less the $58,000

Only about 5% of Workers earn more than $105,000 per year

About 25% of workers in Australia earn less than the poverty line - which is about 11,000 per year

THE LUCKY COUNTRY

THE FAIR COUNTRY

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:13pm:

No. I merely intend to point out that any example you give is not fair. How can you even begin to argue fairness in taking hard earned money from one person and giving it to another that did not earn it? So try giving us an example that you think it fair.

I honestly think you lack the capacity to understand 'fairness' in context. You do realise that fairness is a contextual not absolute term right? even an obligation can be fair. Taxation for example is not intrinsically unfair just as welfare is not intrinsically fair. It is the context that makes those definitions and they move over time and cicumstances. True fairness is a goal - an essentiall unacheivable one in a governmental context but it is the aspiration of good policy to be fair.In that context 'need' and 'entitlement' are two competing forces that need to be equalised.

I read into your comments that because fairness is unacheievable then it is not worth trying. That is an appalling attitude as well as wrong.

Now why dont you mosey on back to the atheist thread where you can debate your worthless minutae to your hearts content while leaving the rest of us to at least TRY and discuss some thing of value.

I agree completely with FD, and I think of it in terms that welfare decided on any other basis than need, is not welfare.

Now while I know that $2000 per week is no princely sum to raise a family on, it is still perfectly achievable, and if a family happens to need more, then you need to ask why, and if the answer is to pay the mortgage on a million dollar property, then I don't think it is the governments role to help them with that, if it is because they have children with special needs, and I don't mean a pair of $200 runners every second month by that, but physical needs, then in such cases assistance should, and would be available.

While we do see some on the right stereotyping unemployed people as no good wasters, spending all their money on alcohol and tobacco, and using that as reason to deprive them of any assistance, I have to wonder if they hold a similarly harsh view for middle income earners who struggle to make ends meet because they divert so much income into asset building?

Foolosophy wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:26pm:

1115,000 per year??? LOL 50% of workers in Australia earn $24,000 or less 80% of workers in Australia earn less the $58,000 Only about 5% of Wrokers earn more than $105,000 per year About 25% of workers in Australia earn less than the poverty line - which is about 11,000 per year THE LUCKY COUNTRY THE FAIR COUNTRY

Evidence from the ACCI's Minimum Wage submission: -


Quote:

51. The Minimum Wage Panel also stated at [237] “[i]n considering relative living standards and the needs of the low paid, we have focussed mainly on those receiving less than two-thirds of median adult ordinary-time earnings (currently about $700 per week) and its equivalent hourly rate (about $18.50).”

Source: http://www.acci.asn.au/getattachment/e70d4112-6341-4d6b-87b1-5363783aa687/Submission-to-Fair-Work-Australia---Application-fo.aspx

Foolosophy wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:26pm:

1115,000 per year??? LOL 50% of workers in Australia earn $24,000 or less 80% of workers in Australia earn less the $58,000 Only about 5% of Wrokers earn more than $105,000 per year About 25% of workers in Australia earn less than the poverty line - which is about 11,000 per year THE LUCKY COUNTRY THE FAIR COUNTRY

your figures are complete rubbish.I even defy you to find many jobs that PAY under $24,000 a year nevermind your absurd belief that half the country earns LESS than that.

Longy, I find those figures surprising also, but I do realise that very many people are under employed, and do not work full time jobs, so on that basis it may be possible, but I too would be surprised if it not actually an error.

mozzaok wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:29pm:

I agree completely with FD, and I think of it in terms that welfare decided on any other basis than need, is not welfare. Now while I know that $2000 per week is no princely sum to raise a family on, it is still perfectly achievable, and if a family happens to need more, then you need to ask why, and if the answer is to pay the mortgage on a million dollar property, then I don't think it is the governments role to help them with that, if it is because they have children with special needs, and I don't mean a pair of $200 runners every second month by that, but physical needs, then in such cases assistance should, and would be available. While we do see some on the right stereotyping unemployed people as no good wasters, spending all their money on alcohol and tobacco, and using that as reason to deprive them of any assistance, I have to wonder if they hold a similarly harsh view for middle income earners who struggle to make ends meet because they divert so much income into asset building?

If I thought we could give ALL welfare to just those that need it I might agree with you. But how do you define 'need'? based on income?? hardly. but your argument is very simplistic. what about the family that has has paid taxes for 20 years and then hits hard times. do you determine that their assets are adequate to be sold and so give them nothing until their poverty equals that of the loweset denominator? does the mere existence of a lot of children imply need?

it is a very narrow defiition that you employ and I am facsinated that you too would reject 'fairness' as even an issue in welfare.

and where does responsibility enter the equation? You simplify this subject to a point where if only 'need' is the demand for welfare then surely there should be NO welfare at all other than one single payment paid entiredly on the basis of your circucmstances. no dole, no disability, no single parent payment. everything based on an actual measure and determined 'need'.  Is that ok?

you might find some surprising results out of using actual unequivocal 'need' as the sole criteria.

mozzaok wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:34pm:

Longy, I find those figures surprising also, but I do realise that very many people are under employed, and do not work full time jobs, so on that basis it may be possible, but I too would be surprised if it not actually an error.

like all statistics, they can be misused. you need to use FULLTIME earnings if you are going to compare apples to apples. And to prove the point, see how many jobs you can find that pay under $24,000 and for every one I will find you one that pays twice that or more.  the average wage is $67000 when half the people are eanring a third of that.

Foolosophy wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:26pm:

1115,000 per year??? LOL 50% of workers in Australia earn $24,000 or less 80% of workers in Australia earn less the $58,000 Only about 5% of Wrokers earn more than $105,000 per year About 25% of workers in Australia earn less than the poverty line - which is about 11,000 per year THE LUCKY COUNTRY THE FAIR COUNTRY

$24,000 per year is $461 per week. Considering we have more casuals, part-time workers and seasonal workers than full time workers it makes sense that more people would be well under $50,000. If the average wage is $52,000 your estimates sound about right. It is a myth that half the workforce is on $50,000 and more. Haven't you righties heard of the working poor?

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:30pm:

Foolosophy wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 7:26pm: 1115,000 per year??? LOL 50% of workers in Australia earn $24,000 or less 80% of workers in Australia earn less the $58,000 Only about 5% of Wrokers earn more than $105,000 per year About 25% of workers in Australia earn less than the poverty line - which is about 11,000 per year THE LUCKY COUNTRY THE FAIR COUNTRY Evidence from the ACCI's Minimum Wage submission: - Quote: 51. The Minimum Wage Panel also stated at [237] “[i]n considering relative living standards and the needs of the low paid, we have focussed mainly on those receiving less than two-thirds of median adult ordinary-time earnings (currently about $700 per week) and its equivalent hourly rate (about $18.50).” Source: http://www.acci.asn.au/getattachment/e70d4112-6341-4d6b-87b1-5363783aa687/Submission-to-Fair-Work-Australia---Application-fo.aspx

For those who doubt the stats, I just googled this: -

http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESij6LQMl-QRhFJ9yCdPn5yX708Eri0jJ-Fg8Yu3sEtsIzdnlQ00DkPiwOkQa8PLXLL6x3FLYzDJKbU4lcBetc07lv2rQo6-_mBMPyrY9mPsPi5-yG6rUOthKjyh8WUJm5tC2hoQ&q=cache%3AShIRdG4g3FoJ%3Awww.treasury.act.gov.au%2Fsnapshot%2FAWOTE.pdf%20median%20adult%20ordinary-time%20earnings&docid=c365e665bbcef8a38a51bc358854886d&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=778http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESij6LQMl-QRhFJ9yCdPn5yX708Eri0jJ-Fg8Yu3sEtsIzdnlQ00DkPiwOkQa8PLXLL6x3FLYzDJKbU4lcBetc07lv2rQo6-_mBMPyrY9mPsPi5-yG6rUOthKjyh8WUJm5tC2hoQ&q=cache%3AShIRdG4g3FoJ%3Awww.treasury.act.gov.au%2Fsnapshot%2FAWOTE.pdf%20median%20adult%20ordinary-time%20earnings&docid=c365e665bbcef8a38a51bc358854886d&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=778

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:45pm:

Foolosophy wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 7:26pm: 1115,000 per year??? LOL 50% of workers in Australia earn $24,000 or less 80% of workers in Australia earn less the $58,000 Only about 5% of Wrokers earn more than $105,000 per year About 25% of workers in Australia earn less than the poverty line - which is about 11,000 per year THE LUCKY COUNTRY THE FAIR COUNTRY $24,000 per year is $461 per week. Considering we have more casuals, part-time workers and seasonal workers than full time workers it makes sense that more people would be well under $50,000. If the average wage is $52,000 your estimates sound about right. It is a myth that half the workforce is on $50,000 and more. Haven't you righties heard of the working poor?

havent you heard of the huge numbers of people working fulltime well paid jobs? not everyone is a checkout chick or an unskilled process worker. in fact, most people HAVE skills and salries that match.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:45pm:

It is a myth that half the workforce is on $50,000 and more. Haven't you righties heard of the working poor?

Well it's actually pretty close. By definition, 50% would earn more than the median wage as opposed to the average (mean) wage.  

You arrive at the average or arithmetic mean by taking the total earnings and dividing by the population. On the other hand, the median is the point at which exactly half of the data are above and half below. These halves meet at the median position.

According to a report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics*, released in February 2010, the average weekly full-time ordinary time adult earnings in Australia are $1,234.10. This would mean an average annual salary of $64,461.20. This average salary increased from the previous year, by 5.9% for males and 4.5% for females.

The median figure is actually lower than that. It's about $47,000 (for 2010) as far as I can work out.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0/

<<havent you heard of the huge numbers of people working fulltime well paid jobs? not everyone is a checkout chick or an unskilled process worker. in fact, most people HAVE skills and salries that match. >>
...................................................................

I beg to differ. Most people don't, unless you call selling telco products and working in call centres skills.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:38pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 7:29pm: I agree completely with FD, and I think of it in terms that welfare decided on any other basis than need, is not welfare. Now while I know that $2000 per week is no princely sum to raise a family on, it is still perfectly achievable, and if a family happens to need more, then you need to ask why, and if the answer is to pay the mortgage on a million dollar property, then I don't think it is the governments role to help them with that, if it is because they have children with special needs, and I don't mean a pair of $200 runners every second month by that, but physical needs, then in such cases assistance should, and would be available. While we do see some on the right stereotyping unemployed people as no good wasters, spending all their money on alcohol and tobacco, and using that as reason to deprive them of any assistance, I have to wonder if they hold a similarly harsh view for middle income earners who struggle to make ends meet because they divert so much income into asset building? If I thought we could give ALL welfare to just those that need it I might agree with you. But how do you define 'need'? based on income?? hardly. but your argument is very simplistic. what about the family that has has paid taxes for 20 years and then hits hard times. do you determine that their assets are adequate to be sold and so give them nothing until their poverty equals that of the loweset denominator? does the mere existence of a lot of children imply need? it is a very narrow defiition that you employ and I am facsinated that you too would reject 'fairness' as even an issue in welfare. and where does responsibility enter the equation? You simplify this subject to a point where if only 'need' is the demand for welfare then surely there should be NO welfare at all other than one single payment paid entiredly on the basis of your circucmstances. no dole, no disability, no single parent payment. everything based on an actual measure and determined 'need'.  Is that ok? you might find some surprising results out of using actual unequivocal 'need' as the sole criteria.

I think you will find, Longy, that the current welfare system pays no heed to the historical circumstances of a family - nor of their financial commitments...

Most welfare payments are mean-tested to the nth-degree - on both cash income and deemed earnings from assets - and calculated on the basis of income in the prior 2 weeks...

That said, Family Tax Benefit payments are mostly paid fortnightly but then adjusted annually - and entitlements are calculated down to the dollar!

You are fecked if you lose your job, receive a redundancy and/or have more than a few thousand dollars in the bank - regardless of how large your commitments are and how quickly your reserves dwindle...

Notably, you do not receive any accommodation assistance unless you are a renter (in order to help you to pay off your landlords mortgage) - as there is no allowance made for your accommodation expenses if you have a mortgage...

Control-link pays no heed to your past 20-odd years of employment - and the policies of the Gillard Govt and Abbott Opposition seem to be trending towards making life harder for mature aged people who suddenly find themselves on the unemployment scrapheap...

muso wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 8:15pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 7:45pm: It is a myth that half the workforce is on $50,000 and more. Haven't you righties heard of the working poor? Well it's actually pretty close. By definition, 50% would earn more than the median wage as opposed to the average (mean) wage.   You arrive at the average or arithmetic mean by taking the total earnings and dividing by the population. On the other hand, the median is the point at which exactly half of the data are above and half below. These halves meet at the median position. According to a report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics*, released in February 2010, the average weekly full-time ordinary time adult earnings in Australia are $1,234.10. This would mean an average annual salary of $64,461.20. This average salary increased from the previous year, by 5.9% for males and 4.5% for females. The median figure is actually lower than that. It's about $47,000 (for 2010) as far as I can work out. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0/

This is where the problems come in - because, as has already been pointed out: a significant (and increasing) proportion of the population is not employed on a full-time basis.

Don't you think it odd, that it is extremely difficult to find a figure for the actual median income - which is the basis of annual Minimum Wage decisions - rather than an arbitrary headline full-time figure!?

Could it be, that the median income level is an inconvenient truth!?

According to this, the Median is closer to $37,000 than $47,000: -


Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:30pm:

Evidence from the ACCI's Minimum Wage submission: - Quote: 51. The Minimum Wage Panel also stated at [237] “[i]n considering relative living standards and the needs of the low paid, we have focussed mainly on those receiving less than two-thirds of median adult ordinary-time earnings (currently about $700 per week) and its equivalent hourly rate (about $18.50).” Source: http://www.acci.asn.au/getattachment/e70d4112-6341-4d6b-87b1-5363783aa687/Submission-to-Fair-Work-Australia---Application-fo.aspx

A family on $115,000 does not deserve punitive tax treatment.

I would introduce an increase of the tax free threshold for each child and abolish all the baby bonus nonsense. Add $10,000 to the tax free threshold for each child and you will encourage working people (those who can actually pay for their kids because they are employed) and you will have just the kind of kids a society wants: kids born into whole families.

Mum, dad, 3 kiddies = tax kicks in after $ 50,000 income is reached.

BTW, according to the ABS March 2011 figures: -


Quote:

# Employment increased 37,800 (0.3%) to 11,457,100. Full-time employment increased 32,100 to 8,105,600 and part-time employment increased 5,700 to 3,351,500. # Unemployment decreased 10,200 (-1.7%) to 592,900. The number of persons looking for full-time work decreased 3,100 to 414,600 and the number of persons looking for part-time work decreased 7,100 to 178,300.

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 8:29pm:

muso wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 8:15pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 7:45pm: It is a myth that half the workforce is on $50,000 and more. Haven't you righties heard of the working poor? Well it's actually pretty close. By definition, 50% would earn more than the median wage as opposed to the average (mean) wage.   You arrive at the average or arithmetic mean by taking the total earnings and dividing by the population. On the other hand, the median is the point at which exactly half of the data are above and half below. These halves meet at the median position. According to a report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics*, released in February 2010, the average weekly full-time ordinary time adult earnings in Australia are $1,234.10. This would mean an average annual salary of $64,461.20. This average salary increased from the previous year, by 5.9% for males and 4.5% for females. The median figure is actually lower than that. It's about $47,000 (for 2010) as far as I can work out. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0/ This is where the problems come in - because, as has already been pointed out: a significant (and increasing) proportion of the population is not employed on a full-time basis. Don't you think it odd, that it is extremely difficult to find a figure for the actual median income - which is the basis of annual Minimum Wage decisions - rather than an arbitrary headline full-time figure!? Could it be, that the median income level is an inconvenient truth!?

Well I don't know how you'd go about calculating it. You could work  out a median hourly rate, but as you say, that would over estimate given that many people work reduced hours.

There is the added complication that some people choose to work reduced hours(rather than have reduced hours imposed on them). It's quite common for family reasons for example.  One member of the family works full time and the other member chooses to work part time.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but there are some figures  available on the ABS website on an age basis, based on States and based on Capital Cities.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 8:18pm:

<<havent you heard of the huge numbers of people working fulltime well paid jobs? not everyone is a checkout chick or an unskilled process worker. in fact, most people HAVE skills and salries that match. >> ................................................................... I beg to differ. Most people don't, unless you call selling telco products and working in call centres skills.

According to a recent report by an employer lobby group, a significant proportion of the population don't have work-ready maths and literacy skills: -

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/millions-behind-on-basic-skills-threatens-australias-international-competitiveness/story-fn59niix-1226032957469


Quote:

Millions behind on basic skills, threatens Australia's international competitiveness    * Sid Maher    * From: The Australian    * April 04, 2011 12:00AM AUSTRALIA'S international competitiveness is under threat because up to eight million Australian workers don't have the reading, writing or numeracy skills to undertake training for trade or professional jobs. The nation's 11 Industry Skills Councils will today call for a new campaign to tackle endemic numbers of workers with poor reading and writing skills, launching a report detailing the problems being faced by industry training bodies. The bodies say they are confronting inadequately prepared school leavers, an ageing workforce struggling to cope with technological advances and overseas-born workers with English as a second language. The report, No More Excuses, calls for the Council of Australian Governments to develop a national "overarching blueprint for action on language, literacy and numeracy". The report will reignite the skills debate at a time when industry is warning of the re-emergence of shortages of trained workers and Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have thrust workforce participation and getting the long-term unemployed into work to the front of the political debate. The report says "the situation looks as if it could be getting worse, not better" in terms of the language, literature and numeracy skills of workers. "International studies have shown that over the past two decades, Australia's literacy and numeracy skill levels have stagnated while those of other countries, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, have improved. "By continuing to accept the current levels, we are limiting the future success of individuals, businesses and our economy," the Industry Skills Councils say in a joint statement to be released today. The report calls for industry training programs to be provided with specific funding to tackle language, literacy and numeracy gaps faced by students and overseas-born workers with English as a second language. It also calls for recruits to be given better advice about the language and maths requirements of training courses. Forest Works chief executive Michael Hartman, who runs training programs for the forest, wood, paper and timber products industry, said literacy and numeracy were the "foundation of productivity". A failure to improve skills among both school leavers and experienced workers would see Australian businesses fall behind international competitors. Electrocomms and Energy Utilities Industry Skills Council chief executive Bob Taylor told The Australian a decade of calls for skill-ready school leavers had failed to achieve any tangible improvements. And the resources and infrastructure industry skills council, SkillsDMC, writes in the report that some indigenous recruits on resources projects have learning levels as low as primary school grade four. This means that providing them with literacy and numeracy skills "is costly and time-consuming, and often results in the employee spending more time at training than at work". Mr Taylor said industry had been complaining about the poor quality of literacy and numeracy among school leavers looking to enter the trades for more than 10 years and there had been no improvement. He said the report was aimed at ending the "blame game" and incorporating basic reading, writing and numeracy skills into preliminary training courses. He said lack of skills in this area was a "real issue" in terms of drop-out rates of apprentices and schools needed to become more focused on providing the relevant skills to the 70 per cent of students who would not attend university and seek work in a trade. Mr Taylor said preliminary training courses to allow regional workers access to jobs on the National Broadband Network included facets of basic literacy and numeracy training. He said it was "quite frustrating" that basic maths and physics of the 15- to 16-year-olds seeking trades in the 1960s was superior to today's 18-year-olds seeking trades. Mr Hartman said his industry was confronting literacy and numeracy problems among older workers who had been long-term employees in industries that were suddenly facing technological change. He said under current training arrangements, there was not a lot of money available to enable trainers to help students struggling with basic literacy and numeracy skills and this needed to be addressed: "It is a major problem in our society; unless we tackle it, we'll fall further behind in terms of international competitiveness and the skills of our people."

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 8:18pm:

<<havent you heard of the huge numbers of people working fulltime well paid jobs? not everyone is a checkout chick or an unskilled process worker. in fact, most people HAVE skills and salries that match. >> ................................................................... I beg to differ. Most people don't, unless you call selling telco products and working in call centres skills.

you social circle must be composed of a very low socio-economic group.  do you know ANYONE with a profession or skill? this might explain why your opinions on so many things is so flawed.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:28pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 7:13pm: No. I merely intend to point out that any example you give is not fair. How can you even begin to argue fairness in taking hard earned money from one person and giving it to another that did not earn it? So try giving us an example that you think it fair. I honestly think you lack the capacity to understand 'fairness' in context. You do realise that fairness is a contextual not absolute term right? even an obligation can be fair. Taxation for example is not intrinsically unfair just as welfare is not intrinsically fair. It is the context that makes those definitions and they move over time and cicumstances. True fairness is a goal - an essentiall unacheivable one in a governmental context but it is the aspiration of good policy to be fair.In that context 'need' and 'entitlement' are two competing forces that need to be equalised. I read into your comments that because fairness is unacheievable then it is not worth trying. That is an appalling attitude as well as wrong. Now why dont you mosey on back to the atheist thread where you can debate your worthless minutae to your hearts content while leaving the rest of us to at least TRY and discuss some thing of value.

So you can't give a single example of fairness in practice?

[/quote]


I think you will find, Longy, that the current welfare system pays no heed to the historical circumstances of a family - nor of their financial commitments...

Most welfare payments are mean-tested to the nth-degree - on both cash income and deemed earnings from assets - and calculated on the basis of income in the prior 2 weeks...

That said, Family Tax Benefit payments are mostly paid fortnightly but then adjusted annually - and entitlements are calculated down to the dollar!

You are fecked if you lose your job, receive a redundancy and/or have more than a few thousand dollars in the bank - regardless of how large your commitments are and how quickly your reserves dwindle...

Notably, you do not receive any accommodation assistance unless you are a renter (in order to help you to pay off your landlords mortgage) - as there is no allowance made for your accommodation expenses if you have a mortgage...

Control-link pays no heed to your past 20-odd years of employment - and the policies of the Gillard Govt and Abbott Opposition seem to be trending towards making life harder for mature aged people who suddenly find themselves on the unemployment scrapheap...
[/quote]


And neither do some of the more rabid 'righties' posting here.
They can't get over their silly little prejudiced mind-set that
no-one on the dole has EVER worked, OR ever will.

I've worked, and paid tax, for most of my working life, and
yes, I've been unemployed, too. But I eventually found more work.
It is quite conceivable that I may find myself unemployed again in
the future, but, again, I will probably find more work. AS DO MOST.

Didn't stop the dumb-asses from throwing the offensive and
untrue 'bludger' epithet around, though.

To insinuate (or state) that someone is a bludger simply because
they are out of work is offensive to those who want to work.
And I feel sure that many who make these comments (including some
who post here) do so INTENDING the comments to be offensive. Others
make the comments due a misguided belief in the systemic and
long-term vilification of the unemployed by Mr Howard. And still others
due to sheer, blind pig-ignorance.


Regarding the mature-aged, they've ALREADY PAID THEIR SHARE, how
anyone can sit there and say that they haven't contributed, so deserve
nothing is completely beyond understanding.

I've given up on the brain-dead of the right, they'll never learn, unless
and until THEY are in the same boat. And I hope it'll be sooner, rather
than later.

At present, however, they simply don't have a clue, all they can do is
denigrate and vilify.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 9:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 7:28pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 7:13pm: No. I merely intend to point out that any example you give is not fair. How can you even begin to argue fairness in taking hard earned money from one person and giving it to another that did not earn it? So try giving us an example that you think it fair. I honestly think you lack the capacity to understand 'fairness' in context. You do realise that fairness is a contextual not absolute term right? even an obligation can be fair. Taxation for example is not intrinsically unfair just as welfare is not intrinsically fair. It is the context that makes those definitions and they move over time and cicumstances. True fairness is a goal - an essentiall unacheivable one in a governmental context but it is the aspiration of good policy to be fair.In that context 'need' and 'entitlement' are two competing forces that need to be equalised. I read into your comments that because fairness is unacheievable then it is not worth trying. That is an appalling attitude as well as wrong. Now why dont you mosey on back to the atheist thread where you can debate your worthless minutae to your hearts content while leaving the rest of us to at least TRY and discuss some thing of value. So you can't give a single example of fairness in practice?

of course I can. But not to your absurd standards. Since a standard of fairness will always be contextual and debatable thats all you will do - debate it. I dont wish to be sucked into your infinite vortex of pointlessness where you talk endlessly on the least important aspect of a topic.

You don't even know what my standards of fairness are. Do you think there are different standards of fairness? If so, why are yours suddenly beyond question? Why would you put more effort into avoiding examination of your 'fairness doctrine' than defending it?

There is only ONE answer to this question.

NO.

As for the early example of the working couple, with children ' needing' all this government assistance - the couple where the 'wife' is working (in her own business) to pay for childcare - it's disturbing.  I mean - who loves money so much ?? for what??  shows what foolish ways the holy doctrine of economics has brought us to.!!  These types of people need to realise they bought into a pile of shite, and re-arrange their lives.
People who REALLY need the assistance should NOT be further disadvantaged to shore -up such blatant capitalistic foolhardiness and inequity.

OK ? so if it comes to a choice between using taxpayer funds to look after the poor - or the well- off, the choice is clear.  ::)

Emma wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 3:29am:

There is only ONE answer to this question. NO. As for the early example of the working couple, with children ' needing' all this government assistance - the couple where the 'wife' is working (in her own business) to pay for childcare - it's disturbing.  I mean - who loves money so much ?? for what??  shows what foolish ways the holy doctrine of economics has brought us to.!!  These types of people need to realise they bought into a pile of shite, and re-arrange their lives. People who REALLY need the assistance should NOT be further disadvantaged to shore -up such blatant capitalistic foolhardiness and inequity. OK ? so if it comes to a choice between using taxpayer funds to look after the poor - or the well- off, the choice is clear.  ::)

Well, it is for conservatives.

They'll help the well-off.

At the expense of the poor.

The real question here is why can a family earning $115,000 a year not be able to survive without government help?

The government is telling us that people on less than $150,000 need bonuses and tax breaks etc. It makes you wonder what the problem is within the government that they could even think this way. The government is supporting BIG lifestyles at the expense of the people living below the poverty line.

How can they then sit there and hit welfare recipients on less than $20,000 when they have admitted that the $150,000 earners need assistance.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:30am:

The real question here is why can a family earning $115,000 a year not be able to survive without government help? The government is telling us that people on less than $150,000 need bonuses and tax breaks etc. It makes you wonder what the problem is within the government that they could even think this way. The government is supporting BIG lifestyles at the expense of the people living below the poverty line. How can they then sit there and hit welfare recipients on less than $20,000 when they have admitted that the $150,000 earners need assistance.

A single No-Hope recip gets approx $13,000 p.a.

No-one can seriously believe that this is anywhere NEAR adequate.

And only a sociopath could seriously suggest that it should be CUT.

I suspect a lot of it is down to disincentives - effective marginal tax rates. If you cut out middle class welfare completely, then poor people would face a very high effective marginal tax rate. They might lose for example over 50c out of every dollar they earn to tax and the reduction in their welfare. So you get people who feel 'better off' on welfare.

Not sure what the actual numbers are.

I am starting to like the idea of 'quarantining' welfare income. This helps you get around the disincentive issue without making the unemployed suffer the indignity of actually being poor.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:35am:

I suspect a lot of it is down to disincentives - effective marginal tax rates. If you cut out middle class welfare completely, then poor people would face a very high effective marginal tax rate. They might lose for example over 50c out of every dollar they earn to tax and the reduction in their welfare. So you get people who feel 'better off' on welfare. Not sure what the actual numbers are. I am starting to like the idea of 'quarantining' welfare income. This helps you get around the disincentive issue without making the unemployed suffer the indignity of actually being poor.

A contemptible and blatantly discriminatory idea.

And simply another way to marginalise and vilify the unemployed.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:35am:

I am starting to like the idea of 'quarantining' welfare income. This helps you get around the disincentive issue without making the unemployed suffer the indignity of actually being poor.

I would agree with this idea.

The point some people fail to understand is that when people are given unemployment benefit - they haven't actually done any work that week/month to receive this benefit.
It's in effect charity at our expense to help them.

Now that's fine but I would like to see it used that way we intend - i/e maybe give them credits or food stamps.

When people EARN money through working - then they have the right to spend as they like.

When they are given money by us for nothing - then we have the right to ensure it is spent correctly - not on booze or gambling for example.

Low earners, unemployed miss out as 'rich' get $900.   :o  

5/03/2009 1:00:00 AM

Low-income earners will be shocked when they miss out on the Federal Government's one-off tax bonus of $900, but high-income earners could score an unexpected windfall, a specialist tax consultant says.   :(  

Mike Bannon, of Duesburys Nexia, Canberra, says the Government's formula for determining who is eligible for the payment will disqualify many low-income earners from the keenly awaited second economic stimulus payment.

To be eligible, a person must have paid tax for the 2007-08 financial year.

Their ''adjusted tax liability'' must be higher than nil.

However, many low-income earners receive offsets, such as the senior Australians' tax offset, or low-income rebates. Their adjusted tax liability is nil which disqualifies them from the payment.   :(

Anomalies were raised during negotiations among political parties to approve the package, but now the Government's focus is on getting money quickly into the economy.

Payments begin next month.

Centrelink told a Senate committee hearing any significant change to the package would delay payments by about four to six weeks.

Mr Bannon said many retirees who paid tax all their working lives would also miss out.   :(

''This is just not being talked about,'' he said.

''People on low incomes who can ill afford to miss out will.

''And the real anomaly is the unexpected beneficiaries. If you were a bit smart and salary sacrificed into fringe benefits and superannuation you may get the bonus if your taxable income is less than the $100,000 threshold.

''A person could be on $200,000 a year and get the bonus by receiving fringe benefits and salary sacrificing to the value of $100,000.''

He said the income determination was inconsistent with that used for child support and Centrelink purposes which required the addition of fringe benefits and superannuation contributions.

Welfare Rights Network spokesman Gerard Thomas said the package was delivered with such massive fanfare, low-income earners and unemployed would be planning how to spend their cheques.

They would be left angry and with a bitter taste when it did not arrive. >:(

Mr Bannon said, ''People sitting in their lounge chairs waiting will receive no notification. The ATO [Australian Taxation Office] will be flooded with inquiries.''

Catholic Social Services spokesman Frank Quinlan said he understood an agreement was reached between the Greens and Prime Minister's office that enough discretion in the legislation would enable low-income earners to receive payments.

The legislation was prepared quickly and now negotiations would be under way.

A spokesman for Treasurer Wayne Swan said about 95 per cent of Australians earning under $100,000 would receive a payment in either the first or second stimulus packages.

Those who missed out would likely receive a payment under other schemes such as training or student allowances.

Australian Council of Social Service chief executive Clare Martin said the stimulus package wasn't designed to help people on income support or very low wages.

ACOSS was pushing for future remedies.

''In particular, unemployed people largely missed the bonus payments in both stimulus packages,'' she said.   :(

''An increase to the Newstart Allowance would be good for the economy people on this low payment are more likely to spend on essential items.''   ;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:49am:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:35am: I am starting to like the idea of 'quarantining' welfare income. This helps you get around the disincentive issue without making the unemployed suffer the indignity of actually being poor. I would agree with this idea. The point some people fail to understand is that when people are given unemployment benefit - they haven't actually done any work that week/month to receive this benefit. It's in effect charity at our expense to help them. Now that's fine but I would like to see it used that way we intend - i/e maybe give them credits or food stamps. When people EARN money through working - then they have the right to spend as they like. When they are given money by us for nothing - then we have the right to ensure it is spent correctly - not on booze or gambling for example.

No, you don't.

Nor SHOULD you.

A typically arrogant and offensive conservative idea designed
to do nothing but discriminate and marginalise.

And deny the unemployed the right to decide for themselves.

But we CAN'T have them getting new electrical goods, internet,
or daring to want the occasional night out, can we? They don't
have the RIGHT to things like that, do they?

The ONLY winners in such an offensive scheme
would be Coles/Woolworths etc.

I could NEVER vote for a party which introduced
such a CONTEMPTIBLE scheme. EVER.

<<When they are given money by us for nothing - then we have the right to ensure it is spent correctly - not on booze or gambling for example.>>
.....................................................................................

I'm sure that a person on $13000 a year would have a real big booze and gambling problem. Get real. The people you see on the pokies would more likely be full time workers, retirees or part-time/casual workers having a flutter. The idea that a person on $200 a week can sit around gambling all day is a myth. Have you seen the price of booze? what they'd get for their $200, I could drink in a day lol

Then after the booze and ciggies, they have food and accommodation to pay for. If you look at rent prices, take $100 out for the cost of a room.

The homeless ones that don't have to pay for a room.....let them smoke and drink......so what.....it's no skin off your nose.

The people on benefits spend all their money on ciggies and booze myth is just an excuse to take the heat off the growing poverty in this country.

So a few, very few live with family and do ok on $200 a week, mind your own business and worry about how you can make ends meet on your $150,000 a year.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:05am:

<<When they are given money by us for nothing - then we have the right to ensure it is spent correctly - not on booze or gambling for example.>> ..................................................................................... I'm sure that a person on $13000 a year would have a real big booze and gambling problem. Get real. The people you see on the pokies would more likely be full time workers, retirees or part-time/casual workers having a flutter. The idea that a person on $200 a week can sit around gambling all day is a myth. Have you seen the price of booze? what they'd get for their $200, I could drink in a day lol Then after the booze and ciggies, they have food and accommodation to pay for. If you look at rent prices, take $100 out for the cost of a room. The homeless ones that don't have to pay for a room.....let them smoke and drink......so what.....it's no skin off your nose. The people on benefits spend all their money on ciggies and booze myth is just an excuse to take the heat off the growing poverty in this country. So a few, very few live with family and do ok on $200 a week, mind your own business and worry about how you can make ends meet on your $150,000 a year.

Of COURSE it's a myth.

But the conservatives have never let the truth stand
in the way when it comes to vilifying the unemployed.

Quote:

And deny the unemployed the right to decide for themselves.

They have that right. They can choose not to accept the welfare. The idea that it is a fundamental human right to take someone else's money from them so you can spend it on beer and cigarrettes is absurd. It is not disrimination and it is not a violation of human rights to attach conditions to money you give to someone. People who actually work have conditions attached. They don't get a handout. They have to turn up at work or they don't get paid. It does not make sense that the unemployed get the money with fewer conditions than those who actually earn it.

Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.  

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:11am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:05am: <<When they are given money by us for nothing - then we have the right to ensure it is spent correctly - not on booze or gambling for example.>> ..................................................................................... I'm sure that a person on $13000 a year would have a real big booze and gambling problem. Get real. The people you see on the pokies would more likely be full time workers, retirees or part-time/casual workers having a flutter. The idea that a person on $200 a week can sit around gambling all day is a myth. Have you seen the price of booze? what they'd get for their $200, I could drink in a day lol Then after the booze and ciggies, they have food and accommodation to pay for. If you look at rent prices, take $100 out for the cost of a room. The homeless ones that don't have to pay for a room.....let them smoke and drink......so what.....it's no skin off your nose. The people on benefits spend all their money on ciggies and booze myth is just an excuse to take the heat off the growing poverty in this country. So a few, very few live with family and do ok on $200 a week, mind your own business and worry about how you can make ends meet on your $150,000 a year. Of COURSE it's a myth. But the conservatives have never let the truth stand in the way when it comes to vilifying the unemployed.

What mystifies me is that if the unemployed have got it so good, and all these hard workers are profoundly jealous of their lifestyle.....why not get unemployed and join the fun.

I don't see anyone jumping hoops to join the queue....why not?

Oh! it mustn't be all it's professed to be. No one's in a hurry to live on $200 a week.....surprise! surprise! well why don't you shut up and let them get on with their miserable lives.

It's going to be so funny to see these people when they are forced onto the dole queue when the next global financial crisis strikes.....the laughs on you.

We saw the American's reaction....not pretty when the arrogant tumble. No slaves to make you rich next time around.

wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:21am:

Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.

Yes it is a handout.

These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it.

That is a handout.

When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout.

wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:21am:

Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.

We are wasting our breath on these people, Imcrook.

They are congenitally incapable of understanding.

Of course it is a handout. Just because you think they should get it does not make it something else. Would you redefine handout to only include payments you don't support?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:24am:

wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:21am: Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.   Yes it is a handout. These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it. That is a handout. When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout.

They must meet the obligations to get the payment. They earn the money. The work they do is looking for work. Looking for work is physically tiring, mentally draining and a sh1t job, so don't tell me they don't earn it.

You accepted the $5000 baby bonus, yes it is a handout, you hypocrite. Don't tell me it was your taxes blah blah.....unemployed people have paid taxes too.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:24am:

wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:21am: Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.   Yes it is a handout. These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it. That is a handout. When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout.

Still can't get your head around the fact that these people may have
(and probably did) worked for most of their lives BEFORE
becoming unemployed, eh?

Why do you persist with the offensive and INCORRECT view
that the unemployed HAVE NEVER, and/or WILL NEVER work?

OR that they have NEVER paid tax?

The right's WHOLE ARGUMENT is based on misconceptions
and out-and-out lies.

Yes that is partly right.  (They are existing, and only just).  As far as doing nothing that is not so.  They are looking and trying to find work.  Sorry but I don't see it as a handout.  It must also be remembered, those that are working today, could be the ones that are unemployed tomorrow.   :(    

Of course it is a handout, and why be so precious as to care to define it as something else?
It is money collected by the government, which is then handed out to those who meet certain criteria, and is just as much a handout as the super contributions that Howard pumped into the accounts of our very wealthiest people.

It is a good and necessary part of our system that we support those who cannot support themselves, but their are a few people who will never earn any money, and go their entire lives, surviving on financial assistance from the government, so be it, they need a handout to survive, they get it.

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:24am: wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:21am: Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.   Yes it is a handout. These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it. That is a handout. When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout. Still can't get your head around the fact that these people may have (and probably did) worked for most of their lives BEFORE becoming unemployed, eh? Why do you persist with the offensive and INCORRECT view that the unemployed HAVE NEVER, and/or WILL NEVER work? OR that they have NEVER paid tax? The right's WHOLE ARGUMENT is based on misconceptions and out-and-out lies.

What they did before is not relevant is it?

It is what they are doing now.

So say in this month of May, a person is not working all month and is given unemployment benefit - what exactly have they done in May to justify getting it?

What service have they provided in return for us giving them money?

Precious little - it's a handout.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:30am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:24am: wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:21am: Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.   Yes it is a handout. These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it. That is a handout. When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout. They must meet the obligations to get the payment. They earn the money. The work they do is looking for work. Looking for work is physically tiring, mentally draining and a sh1t job, so don't tell me they don't earn it. You accepted the $5000 baby bonus, yes it is a handout, you hypocrite. Don't tell me it was your taxes blah blah.....unemployed people have paid taxes too.

Unemployed people by their very nature do not pay income tax.
They may have paid at some time - but right now, when they are unemployed - they pay none.

I never mentioned my baby bonus did I?
That's totally different. I agree that was a handout, I also state it was a handout to which I was entitled.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:35am:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:31am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:24am: wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:21am: Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.   Yes it is a handout. These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it. That is a handout. When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout. Still can't get your head around the fact that these people may have (and probably did) worked for most of their lives BEFORE becoming unemployed, eh? Why do you persist with the offensive and INCORRECT view that the unemployed HAVE NEVER, and/or WILL NEVER work? OR that they have NEVER paid tax? The right's WHOLE ARGUMENT is based on misconceptions and out-and-out lies. What they did before is not relevant is it? It is what they are doing now. So say in this month of May, a person is not working all month and is given unemployment benefit - what exactly have they done in May to justify getting it? What service have they provided in return for us giving them money? Precious little - it's a handout.

Why bother. Someone gets paid $13,000 a year to not work, and someone else gets paid $100,000 a year to 'work' but sits on message boards all day.......I'm telling your boss lol

It is quite amazing the amount of time the 'workers' spend on this forum. I think at least half of them are in the very same queue they are condemning others for.

Well some say it is a handout, I say I don't see it as a handout.  Unemployment can happen to anyone, anytime.  I see it more like an insurance policy.  Hopefully people  will not need it, but never the less it is there for people if they do need it.

wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:42am:

Well some say it is a handout, I say I don't see it as a handout.  Unemployment can happen to anyone, anytime.  I see it more like an insurance policy.  Hopefully people  will not need it, but never the less it is there for people if they do need it.

You make it seem as if nobody who works has spent any time looking for a job.
How do you think people change jobs?

I spent 3 months looking before changing my role - its not exactly something foreign to people.

I am simply pointing out that unemployment benefit is a handout - these people do nothing to earn what they are given, other than they are down on their luck and need help.

However I state that they lose the right to demand how to spend it - unless they have earned it - hence food stamps, energy credits etc is a better way to go.
I am sure the majority spend it that way, but this way we can ensure that is exactly how it is spent.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:35am:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:31am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:24am: wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:21am: Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.   Yes it is a handout. These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it. That is a handout. When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout. Still can't get your head around the fact that these people may have (and probably did) worked for most of their lives BEFORE becoming unemployed, eh? Why do you persist with the offensive and INCORRECT view that the unemployed HAVE NEVER, and/or WILL NEVER work? OR that they have NEVER paid tax? The right's WHOLE ARGUMENT is based on misconceptions and out-and-out lies. What they did before is not relevant is it? It is what they are doing now. So say in this month of May, a person is not working all month and is given unemployment benefit - what exactly have they done in May to justify getting it? What service have they provided in return for us giving them money? Precious little - it's a handout.

Actually, it is quite relevant.

Because it refutes the oft-stated claim that the
unemployed don't/won't work.

So, I'm not surprised that it gets brushed aside.

You DO persist in twisting the truth to suit the
anti-unemployed agenda, don't you?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:36am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:30am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:24am: wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:21am: Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.   Yes it is a handout. These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it. That is a handout. When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout. They must meet the obligations to get the payment. They earn the money. The work they do is looking for work. Looking for work is physically tiring, mentally draining and a sh1t job, so don't tell me they don't earn it. You accepted the $5000 baby bonus, yes it is a handout, you hypocrite. Don't tell me it was your taxes blah blah.....unemployed people have paid taxes too. Unemployed people by their very nature do not pay income tax. They may have paid at some time - but right now, when they are unemployed - they pay none. I never mentioned my baby bonus did I? That's totally different. I agree that was a handout, I also state it was a handout to which I was entitled.

As are the unemployed to their pissant 'benefit'.

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:46am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:35am: Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:31am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:24am: wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:21am: Unemployment benefit-  IS NOT A HANDOUT.  There are already conditions imposed on people in order for them to get their benefits.  So please do not call unemployment benefit (Newstart) a handout.   Yes it is a handout. These people are doing nothing more than existing and getting paid for it. That is a handout. When you work for it in return - then it is not a handout. Still can't get your head around the fact that these people may have (and probably did) worked for most of their lives BEFORE becoming unemployed, eh? Why do you persist with the offensive and INCORRECT view that the unemployed HAVE NEVER, and/or WILL NEVER work? OR that they have NEVER paid tax? The right's WHOLE ARGUMENT is based on misconceptions and out-and-out lies. What they did before is not relevant is it? It is what they are doing now. So say in this month of May, a person is not working all month and is given unemployment benefit - what exactly have they done in May to justify getting it? What service have they provided in return for us giving them money? Precious little - it's a handout. Actually, it is quite relevant. Because it refutes the oft-stated claim that the unemployed don't/won't work. So, I'm not surprised that it gets brushed aside. You DO persist in twisting the truth to suit the anti-unemployed agenda, don't you?

I have no anti-unemployed agenda. I don't know any unemployed people and I have nothing against those that are.

I do however believe that we, the people who pay their handout, have a right to know that is spent correctly.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:45am:

wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:42am: Well some say it is a handout, I say I don't see it as a handout.  Unemployment can happen to anyone, anytime.  I see it more like an insurance policy.  Hopefully people  will not need it, but never the less it is there for people if they do need it. You make it seem as if nobody who works has spent any time looking for a job. How do you think people change jobs? I spent 3 months looking before changing my role - its not exactly something foreign to people. I am simply pointing out that unemployment benefit is a handout - these people do nothing to earn what they are given, other than they are down on their luck and need help. However I state that they lose the right to demand how to spend it - unless they have earned it - hence food stamps, energy credits etc is a better way to go. I am sure the majority spend it that way, but this way we can ensure that is exactly how it is spent.

And I still say that the idea is offensive, discriminatory, and will
help NO-ONE but the big supermarkets.

And a method to deny the unemployed things that YOU deem
that they should not have.

And you reckon that's NOT elitist?

smack me!

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:52am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:45am: wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:42am: Well some say it is a handout, I say I don't see it as a handout.  Unemployment can happen to anyone, anytime.  I see it more like an insurance policy.  Hopefully people  will not need it, but never the less it is there for people if they do need it. You make it seem as if nobody who works has spent any time looking for a job. How do you think people change jobs? I spent 3 months looking before changing my role - its not exactly something foreign to people. I am simply pointing out that unemployment benefit is a handout - these people do nothing to earn what they are given, other than they are down on their luck and need help. However I state that they lose the right to demand how to spend it - unless they have earned it - hence food stamps, energy credits etc is a better way to go. I am sure the majority spend it that way, but this way we can ensure that is exactly how it is spent. And I still say that the idea is offensive, discriminatory, and will help NO-ONE but the big supermarkets. And a method to deny the unemployed things that YOU deem that they should not have. And you reckon that's NOT elitist? smack me!

What am I denying them?

I am simply pointing out that unemployment benefit is a handout - these people do nothing to earn what they are given, other than they are down on their luck and need help.

However I state that they lose the right to demand how to spend it - unless they have earned it - hence food stamps, energy credits etc is a better way to go.
I am sure the majority spend it that way, but this way we can ensure that is exactly how it is spent.    ( Code for give the unemployed less? ).  :(

wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:54am:

I am simply pointing out that unemployment benefit is a handout - these people do nothing to earn what they are given, other than they are down on their luck and need help. However I state that they lose the right to demand how to spend it - unless they have earned it - hence food stamps, energy credits etc is a better way to go. I am sure the majority spend it that way, but this way we can ensure that is exactly how it is spent.    ( Code for give the unemployed less? ).  :(

It would be difficult not to construe it that way.

wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:54am:

I am simply pointing out that unemployment benefit is a handout - these people do nothing to earn what they are given, other than they are down on their luck and need help. However I state that they lose the right to demand how to spend it - unless they have earned it - hence food stamps, energy credits etc is a better way to go. I am sure the majority spend it that way, but this way we can ensure that is exactly how it is spent.    ( Code for give the unemployed less? ).  :(

No.
I am not saying reduce the overall value of the benefit but provide it in more secure terms to ensure it is spent correctly.

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:52am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:45am: wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:42am: Well some say it is a handout, I say I don't see it as a handout.  Unemployment can happen to anyone, anytime.  I see it more like an insurance policy.  Hopefully people  will not need it, but never the less it is there for people if they do need it. You make it seem as if nobody who works has spent any time looking for a job. How do you think people change jobs? I spent 3 months looking before changing my role - its not exactly something foreign to people. I am simply pointing out that unemployment benefit is a handout - these people do nothing to earn what they are given, other than they are down on their luck and need help. However I state that they lose the right to demand how to spend it - unless they have earned it - hence food stamps, energy credits etc is a better way to go. I am sure the majority spend it that way, but this way we can ensure that is exactly how it is spent. And I still say that the idea is offensive, discriminatory, and will help NO-ONE but the big supermarkets. And a method to deny the unemployed things that YOU deem that they should not have. And you reckon that's NOT elitist? smack me!

It is about removing the disincentive to work and thus middle class welfare. It has nothing to do with what I 'deem' necessary. I think they should have what they want and pay for it with money they earnt themselves.

And I say again that the idea is discriminatory and offensive.

On what basis does it discriminate?

Its easy to point and say "Look, its $115k, thats heaps" but its still only $57,500 each, not much over the median wage.

Hardly makes them stand outs does it.

I do a bit of simple maths here.

$57,800, tax of $11,960, so that leaves
$45,540.

Child care of $800 a fortnight.

That leaves $23,040.00

Not hard to see where is there isnt much incentive to go back to work at times is there.

After child care it still only leaves them with $68580 combined, which isnt huge money.

Oh, and anyone begrudging them the private health rebate, if you nongs bothered to look they wouldnt be paying the medcare levy surcharge anyway.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:36am:

On what basis does it discriminate?

Well, THAT'S a no-brainer.

It arrogantly assumes that the unemployed are incapable of managing
THEIR OWN finances, for one.

And it discriminates by making the unemployed show ID (presumably)
and coupons in order to purchase items. May as well tattoo 'BLUDGER'
across their foreheads (conservatives would love that).

It restricts what they can buy, and where.

And would deny them the right (and it IS a right, like it or not) to
be able to afford things like a computer, internet, new electrical
items, a day away, a night out, etc, etc. Again, the conservatives
would love it, as they believe the unemployed are entitled to none
of these.

And that's just for starters.

As I said, a filthy discriminatory contemptible scheme, and one
designed solely to further denigrate, stigmatise and marginalise
the unemployed.

Nothing more.

Nah.

I don't owe it to anybody to fund their unsustainble lifestyle.  If they find it hard to stand on their own two feet, they'll need to rethink their priorities and make some sacrifices.  If you can't make ends meet, you can do 2 things - increase your income, or reduce your spending.  I'm afraid your average joe just doesn't give the latter option a try.

... wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:27pm:

Nah. I don't owe it to anybody to fund their unsustainble lifestyle.  If they find it hard to stand on their own two feet, they'll need to rethink their priorities and make some sacrifices.  If you can't make ends meet, you can do 2 things - increase your income, or reduce your spending.  I'm afraid your average joe just doesn't give the latter option a try.

The unemployed cannot do that, they are already going
without most things that others take for granted.

And the govt and oppn would have them go without even more.

And increasing their income requires jobs. Jobs which, despite
the spin and lies from both sides of politics, simply aren't there.

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:34pm:

... wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 12:27pm: Nah. I don't owe it to anybody to fund their unsustainble lifestyle.  If they find it hard to stand on their own two feet, they'll need to rethink their priorities and make some sacrifices.  If you can't make ends meet, you can do 2 things - increase your income, or reduce your spending.  I'm afraid your average joe just doesn't give the latter option a try. The unemployed cannot do that, they are already going without most things that others take for granted. And the govt and oppn would have them go without even more. And increasing their income requires jobs. Jobs which, despite the spin and lies from both sides of politics, simply aren't there.

True: -

http://www.smh.com.au/money/life-on-234-a-week-20110105-19ffv.html


Quote:

Life on $234 a week Adele Horin January 5, 2011 If your income was cut to $234 a week - the unemployment payment - what would you choose to go without? Almost 60 per cent of Australians who were asked this question in a recent poll said they would stop buying fresh food and half said they would not visit the doctor when sick. Maree O'Halloran, president of the National Welfare Rights Network, said yesterday that 551,000 single people aged over 21 relied on the $234 a week Newstart Allowance to cover all expenses, an unemployment payment that was ranked the relative lowest of 30 OECD nations. In November, the network asked 1294 Australians to nominate items they would have to forgo if they lived on the sum, finding half would pull out of education and 75 per cent would stop driving. Two-thirds would have to stop paying other bills and more than 90 per cent said they would have to forgo at least one of a nominated list of essentials. Ms O'Halloran said that while politicians and others were enjoying a well-earned break, for Australians on the unemployment benefit there would be no hope of a holiday. In the survey, 86 per cent of respondents said they would cancel holiday plans if forced to live on $234. The OECD recently warned that Australia's unemployment benefit was so low as to ''raise issues about its effectiveness'' in enabling people to find work or study. It recommended the payment be increased, at least in the initial stages of a person's unemployment. Research by the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of NSW in 2008 found Newstart recipients were highly like to miss out on what other Australians considered the essentials of life. Twenty-three per cent lacked a decent and secure home, 28 per cent were unable to pay utility bills, 56 per cent lacked $500 in emergency savings, 56 per cent lacked home contents insurance, 17 per cent could not afford prescribed medicines, and 45 per cent could not afford dental treatment when needed. Ms O'Halloran urged the federal government to increase the Newstart Allowance and the Youth Allowance by $50 a week. She said the government resisted calls to lift the payment on the basis that extra dollars would pose serious disincentives to work or encourage laziness. Welfare Rights agreed the best solution was to help unemployed people gain work. But this did not preclude providing a payment that enabled the unemployed to re-enter the workforce and to live dignity. ''It's a bit rich for ministers on an annual salary of $235,704 to condemn an unemployed person to $234 a week; unemployed people need access to real doctors not spin doctors,'' she said. STRAPPED FOR CASH     * Newstart Allowance for single people is $130 a week less than the aged pension.   * Two million Australians - or one in 10 - live below the poverty line.     * 54 per cent of adult unemployed people cannot afford at least three essentials of life, such as dental treatment.     * 74 per cent of people below the poverty line are from jobless households. Source: ACOSS

I do not believe that Middle class parasites whose salaries and mortgages are already Tax payer funded at the illegal expense of people who really need it should be assisted with further benefits FFs just how far are these people allowed to go in robbing the productive workers? 8-)

Verge wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:53am:

Its easy to point and say "Look, its $115k, thats heaps" but its still only $57,500 each, not much over the median wage. Hardly makes them stand outs does it. I do a bit of simple maths here. $57,800, tax of $11,960, so that leaves $45,540. Child care of $800 a fortnight. That leaves $23,040.00 Not hard to see where is there isnt much incentive to go back to work at times is there. After child care it still only leaves them with $68580 combined, which isnt huge money. Oh, and anyone begrudging them the private health rebate, if you nongs bothered to look they wouldnt be paying the medcare levy surcharge anyway.

Actually, it is so far over the real-world median wage (not the arbitrarily-touted headline full-time wage) that the excess for each member of that couple exceeds even the highest income support payment available...

As per the Fair Work Australia submission stats quoted by me yesterday, the median real-world wage is under $37,000...

If these people are feeling like they're struggling at their level of above-median wage disposable income, then it stands to reason that those families who have household incomes far below the median wage level are really struggling...

It's not that people are begrudging these people their earnings - nor are they begrudging them access to welfare subsidies - rather that people are trying to highlight how unfair and inadequate the welfare payments are to those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum...

Given that some of our pollies are squawking about waste, debts and deficits - and repeatedly demonising and vilifying some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged welfare recipients - it is relevant that people are seeking a fairer reallocation of those monies which have been, in recent years, increasingly-siphoned-off into the hands of the already-relatively-well-off (often in the form of non-means-tested or reverse-means-tested perks and payments)...

The term "unemployed", is generally a description of a voluntry, easy lazy lifestyle, rather than a description of an unfrotunate circumstance.

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:34pm:

... wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 12:27pm: Nah. I don't owe it to anybody to fund their unsustainble lifestyle.  If they find it hard to stand on their own two feet, they'll need to rethink their priorities and make some sacrifices.  If you can't make ends meet, you can do 2 things - increase your income, or reduce your spending.  I'm afraid your average joe just doesn't give the latter option a try. The unemployed cannot do that, they are already going without most things that others take for granted. And the govt and oppn would have them go without even more. And increasing their income requires jobs. Jobs which, despite the spin and lies from both sides of politics, simply aren't there.

I'm assuming somewhere over the 7 pages of this thread, the topic changed from people earning over $115,000 to the unemployed.  The above post was about people earmning $115,000K.
I'd prefer the unmeployed got considerably more money each fortnight, but the time they could spend on the dole was limited to maybe 6 months or a year.

mavisdavis wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:51pm:

The term "unemployed", is generally a description of a voluntry, easy lazy lifestyle, rather than a description of an unfrotunate circumstance.

Grrrr....it is not surprising that this is the common connotation, given that the Federal Govt uses the demeaning name 'Work for the Dole' for the draconian and largely counter-productive participation/work-test associated with welfare payments to the "unemployed"!?

... wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:56pm:

I'm assuming somewhere over the 7 pages of this thread, the topic changed from people earning over $115,000 to the unemployed.  The above post was about people earmning $115,000K. I'd prefer the unmeployed got considerably more money each fortnight, but the time they could spend on the dole was limited to maybe 6 months or a year.

How can you discuss the question - as to whether a family earning $115,000 is deserving of [welfare] help (in the context of purportedly-scarce Welfare dollars) - without referring to those who are really struggling to survive but are being systematically-deprived of a subsistence level of income support!?

I agree that Newstart (and other) payments need to be increased - but it would be socio-economic folly, to deprive vulnerable and disadvantaged people of a regular income for any period of time (much less a full 6 months)...

When you actually split out a $115,000 wage for a family - it really doesn't leave much free cash to save whatsoever!

Particularly bear in mind these people have mortgages!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

When you actually split out a $115,000 wage for a family - it really doesn't leave much free cash to save whatsoever! Particularly bear in mind these people have mortgages!!

Has it not occurred to you, that many people on income support payments are also struggling with mortgages - after an unforeseen change of live circumstances!?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

When you actually split out a $115,000 wage for a family - it really doesn't leave much free cash to save whatsoever! Particularly bear in mind these people have mortgages!!

true, it may not leave much to save, but who's responsibility is that? It's not meant to be easy - if you want to get ahead, some sacrifices must be made, and this would mean they shouldn't take out half-a-million dollar mortgages when a quarter-mill mortage on a lower spec home would suffice.

When we are talking about Middle class welfare parasites we are not talking about the unemployed - we are talking about Australias over inflated Middle Class that is entirely funded by robbing the taxes of productive work.  The type of salaries procured through the Private "welfare and job network" industries, the wealth transfer scams like gambling, pay tv ect are all strait out robbery and economically unsustainable.  Now the reality is the parasites already benefiting from this middle class tax revenue rorting on huge salaries and mortgages have their hands out for all kinds of extra welfare perks as well. 8-)

mavisdavis wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:51pm:

The term "unemployed", is generally a description of a voluntry, easy lazy lifestyle, rather than a description of an unfrotunate circumstance.

But it ISN'T. It is incorrectly PERCEIVED to be, by the
ignorant, the selfish and the unemployed-haters.

But it is NOT a fact.

THAT'S the issue.

And one that some of you REFUSE to understand.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

When you actually split out a $115,000 wage for a family - it really doesn't leave much free cash to save whatsoever! Particularly bear in mind these people have mortgages!!

True Andre ... and let's face it .. the tax payable on a 115 K salary is another consideration which needs to be factored in ... ie their tax obligations help prop up our economy and help fund those who are not participating in the workforce for whatever reason.

Also .. to earn 115K (as a salary) is NOT equal to a simple 9 - 5 pm job.

A pound of your flesh WILL be required.

So in answer to the topic title .. yes these income earners and their family more than deserve help. We need to make sure they stay where they are in the workforce so the govt can continue extracting the taxes they do.

From the ACOSS website.....


""Because the government indexes pensions differently, people on Newstart are only receiving $5.20 increase fortnightly compared to $13.20 for those on pensions. This raises the already staggering gap between these payments to $127 per week, with people on Newstart to receive $238 per week from March 20 compared to $365 per week for those on the pension.

ACOSS has consistently called on the Government to index all pensions and allowances in the same way - cost of living index and wages - so all people on income support are treated fairly and given the same level of lifeline support to meet the growing costs of essentials like rent, utilities and food.""



But the Govt and the conservatives would deny them this.

For NO VALID REASON.

They are utterly contemptible, selfish and greedy.

People need to understand and accept the importance of keeping these types of income earners where they are ie in the work force. They are already highly taxed and they work hard to earn what they do at that level.

Once these people reduce .. govt income (through tax) will also reduce.

Guess who will suffer the most once that happens? Those who don't work for whatever reason and rely on govt income payments ie Centrelink benefits.

Quote:

It arrogantly assumes that the unemployed are incapable of managing THEIR OWN finances, for one.

No it doesn't. The point is to remove the disincentive and reduce middle class welfare, not to babysit.


Quote:

And it discriminates by making the unemployed show ID (presumably) and coupons in order to purchase items.

That is not discrimination.


Quote:

And would deny them the right (and it IS a right, like it or not) to be able to afford things like a computer, internet, new electrical items, a day away, a night out, etc, etc.

Those are not rights.

... wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:03pm: When you actually split out a $115,000 wage for a family - it really doesn't leave much free cash to save whatsoever! Particularly bear in mind these people have mortgages!! true, it may not leave much to save, but who's responsibility is that? It's not meant to be easy - if you want to get ahead, some sacrifices must be made, and this would mean they shouldn't take out half-a-million dollar mortgages when a quarter-mill mortage on a lower spec home would suffice.

I agree people should budget.
Incidentally my mortgage was half a million dollars!! LOL

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:18pm:

From the ACOSS website..... ""Because the government indexes pensions differently, people on Newstart are only receiving $5.20 increase fortnightly compared to $13.20 for those on pensions. This raises the already staggering gap between these payments to $127 per week, with people on Newstart to receive $238 per week from March 20 compared to $365 per week for those on the pension. ACOSS has consistently called on the Government to index all pensions and allowances in the same way - cost of living index and wages - so all people on income support are treated fairly and given the same level of lifeline support to meet the growing costs of essentials like rent, utilities and food."" But the Govt and the conservatives would deny them this. For NO VALID REASON. They are utterly contemptible, selfish and greedy.

Unemployed needs are just not the same as Pensioner needs and to equate them is absurd - the disabled have all sorts of specialist needs and expenses they have to take care of and not the capacity of the unemployed to get that accomplished through employment!!!!!

If the unemployed are looking for a better deal they need to come up with a better claim than parity with Pensioners which is not helping their credibility or cause. 8-)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:49am:

When they are given money by us for nothing - then we have the right to ensure it is spent correctly - not on booze or gambling for example.

I would suggest this should apply to ALL incomes

If someone is needing government assistance to enable them to take out private health insurance - or $5000 in welfare to assist in having a baby, they could otherwise not afford - where are they getting money for alcohol and dining out ?

Just finished reading through this topic ..  way too many short sighted people.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:30pm:

Quote: It arrogantly assumes that the unemployed are incapable of managing THEIR OWN finances, for one. No it doesn't. The point is to remove the disincentive and reduce middle class welfare, not to babysit. [quote]And it discriminates by making the unemployed show ID (presumably) and coupons in order to purchase items.

That is not discrimination.


Quote:

And would deny them the right (and it IS a right, like it or not) to be able to afford things like a computer, internet, new electrical items, a day away, a night out, etc, etc.

Those are not rights.[/quote]



Sorry, but I cannot agree.

It is merely a tool to victimise the unemployed.

And SHAME on ANYONE who supports such a move..

Prevailing wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:46pm:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:18pm: From the ACOSS website..... ""Because the government indexes pensions differently, people on Newstart are only receiving $5.20 increase fortnightly compared to $13.20 for those on pensions. This raises the already staggering gap between these payments to $127 per week, with people on Newstart to receive $238 per week from March 20 compared to $365 per week for those on the pension. ACOSS has consistently called on the Government to index all pensions and allowances in the same way - cost of living index and wages - so all people on income support are treated fairly and given the same level of lifeline support to meet the growing costs of essentials like rent, utilities and food."" But the Govt and the conservatives would deny them this. For NO VALID REASON. They are utterly contemptible, selfish and greedy. Unemployed needs are just not the same as Pensioner needs and to equate them is absurd - the disabled have all sorts of specialist needs and expenses they have to take care of and not the capacity of the unemployed to get that accomplished through employment!!!!! If the unemployed are looking for a better deal they need to come up with a better claim than parity with Pensioners which is not helping their credibility or cause. 8-)

Don't agree with that, either. Sorry.

It amazes me how blind some of you are.

And all because of prejudice, selfishness and greed.

And the arrogance born of an unjustifiable feeling of superiority.

The problem is mate, a lot of us struggle in this world.

We all have tough times, me included, but its about getting on with things - not sitting around getting a handout.

All of the Middle class on incomes supported from the public purse should have there finances managed including the Politicians.  I want to see all employees in welfare and Job agencies who are funded from Tax payer funds have their salaries managed as well until they get real jobs not bull dust scam jobs. 8-)

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:19pm:

Prevailing wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:46pm: Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:18pm: From the ACOSS website..... ""Because the government indexes pensions differently, people on Newstart are only receiving $5.20 increase fortnightly compared to $13.20 for those on pensions. This raises the already staggering gap between these payments to $127 per week, with people on Newstart to receive $238 per week from March 20 compared to $365 per week for those on the pension. ACOSS has consistently called on the Government to index all pensions and allowances in the same way - cost of living index and wages - so all people on income support are treated fairly and given the same level of lifeline support to meet the growing costs of essentials like rent, utilities and food."" But the Govt and the conservatives would deny them this. For NO VALID REASON. They are utterly contemptible, selfish and greedy. Unemployed needs are just not the same as Pensioner needs and to equate them is absurd - the disabled have all sorts of specialist needs and expenses they have to take care of and not the capacity of the unemployed to get that accomplished through employment!!!!! If the unemployed are looking for a better deal they need to come up with a better claim than parity with Pensioners which is not helping their credibility or cause. 8-) Don't agree with that, either. Sorry. It amazes me how blind some of you are. And all because of prejudice, selfishness and greed. And the arrogance born of an unjustifiable feeling of superiority.

Yeh - right like the unemployed have the specialist mobility, medical and access expenses that the disabled have and so they should get that money too - Riiiiiight!

talk about having your hand out for money for nothing. 8-)

Prevailing wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:44pm:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 2:19pm: Prevailing wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:46pm: Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:18pm: From the ACOSS website..... ""Because the government indexes pensions differently, people on Newstart are only receiving $5.20 increase fortnightly compared to $13.20 for those on pensions. This raises the already staggering gap between these payments to $127 per week, with people on Newstart to receive $238 per week from March 20 compared to $365 per week for those on the pension. ACOSS has consistently called on the Government to index all pensions and allowances in the same way - cost of living index and wages - so all people on income support are treated fairly and given the same level of lifeline support to meet the growing costs of essentials like rent, utilities and food."" But the Govt and the conservatives would deny them this. For NO VALID REASON. They are utterly contemptible, selfish and greedy. Unemployed needs are just not the same as Pensioner needs and to equate them is absurd - the disabled have all sorts of specialist needs and expenses they have to take care of and not the capacity of the unemployed to get that accomplished through employment!!!!! If the unemployed are looking for a better deal they need to come up with a better claim than parity with Pensioners which is not helping their credibility or cause. 8-) Don't agree with that, either. Sorry. It amazes me how blind some of you are. And all because of prejudice, selfishness and greed. And the arrogance born of an unjustifiable feeling of superiority. Yeh - right like the unemployed have the specialist mobility, medical and access expenses that the disabled have and so they should get that money too - Riiiiiight! talk about having your hand out for money for nothing. 8-)

Talk about completely missing the point.
The living-costs for the unemployed are the same, the costs
of searching for work etc are higher.

Considering that you yourself are a pensioner, and therefore
KNOWING that the rate of pension is insufficient, how can you
then say that it is wrong for the unemployed to want a raise?

They ALREADY get $300p/f LESS than the pension (near enough)
how can ANYONE genuinely begrudge them a FAIR, JUST and
OVERDUE increase?

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 3:16pm:

Prevailing wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 2:44pm: Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 2:19pm: Prevailing wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:46pm: Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:18pm: From the ACOSS website..... ""Because the government indexes pensions differently, people on Newstart are only receiving $5.20 increase fortnightly compared to $13.20 for those on pensions. This raises the already staggering gap between these payments to $127 per week, with people on Newstart to receive $238 per week from March 20 compared to $365 per week for those on the pension. ACOSS has consistently called on the Government to index all pensions and allowances in the same way - cost of living index and wages - so all people on income support are treated fairly and given the same level of lifeline support to meet the growing costs of essentials like rent, utilities and food."" But the Govt and the conservatives would deny them this. For NO VALID REASON. They are utterly contemptible, selfish and greedy. Unemployed needs are just not the same as Pensioner needs and to equate them is absurd - the disabled have all sorts of specialist needs and expenses they have to take care of and not the capacity of the unemployed to get that accomplished through employment!!!!! If the unemployed are looking for a better deal they need to come up with a better claim than parity with Pensioners which is not helping their credibility or cause. 8-) Don't agree with that, either. Sorry. It amazes me how blind some of you are. And all because of prejudice, selfishness and greed. And the arrogance born of an unjustifiable feeling of superiority. Yeh - right like the unemployed have the specialist mobility, medical and access expenses that the disabled have and so they should get that money too - Riiiiiight! talk about having your hand out for money for nothing. 8-) Talk about completely missing the point. The living-costs for the unemployed are the same, the costs of searching for work etc are higher. Considering that you yourself are a pensioner, and therefore KNOWING that the rate of pension is insufficient, how can you then say that it is wrong for the unemployed to want a raise? They ALREADY get $300p/f LESS than the pension (near enough) how can ANYONE genuinely begrudge them a FAIR, JUST and OVERDUE increase?

I don't kick the unemployed at all until you start talking about Parity with the Elderly and disabled pensioners who have entirely different needs and allowances specifically to meet those needs.  I cant even get the mobility allowance because of the Middle class welfare psychopaths think its their duty to deny me it so they can keep it for themselves.  The unemployed are paid about right - I dont want them to reduce or withhold their payments but lets not get greedy... 8-)

It's not just me, mate. ACOSS, and most other social services groups
are calling for essentially the same thing. ACOSS are pushing for a
minimum $50 p/w increase. They are also pushing for better training
and a PAID work-experience scheme, which is a good thing.

And, note, I at NO stage suggested that the u/e should get the rego
concessions, travel concessions, utility allowance medical etc that
pensioners DO get (AND deserve). The u/e do not need OR
deserve these.

I don't think it's being greedy, just realistic.

Sorry if I offended.

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:38am:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:35am: I suspect a lot of it is down to disincentives - effective marginal tax rates. If you cut out middle class welfare completely, then poor people would face a very high effective marginal tax rate. They might lose for example over 50c out of every dollar they earn to tax and the reduction in their welfare. So you get people who feel 'better off' on welfare. Not sure what the actual numbers are. I am starting to like the idea of 'quarantining' welfare income. This helps you get around the disincentive issue without making the unemployed suffer the indignity of actually being poor. A contemptible and blatantly discriminatory idea. And simply another way to marginalise and vilify the unemployed.

why? Everyone still gets the same amount but they have to 'shock horror' spend some of it on food. who exactly doesnt spend money on food? hmmm.  druggies, child abusers and drunks... Not sure where I see the problem there!

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 5:28pm:

It's not just me, mate. ACOSS, and most other social services groups are calling for essentially the same thing. ACOSS are pushing for a minimum $50 p/w increase. They are also pushing for better training and a PAID work-experience scheme, which is a good thing. And, note, I at NO stage suggested that the u/e should get the rego concessions, travel concessions, utility allowance medical etc that pensioners DO get (AND deserve). The u/e do not need OR deserve these. I don't think it's being greedy, just realistic. Sorry if I offended.

ACOSS is a LOBBY GROUP - nothing more. their position will ALWAYS be for more for their particuar interest group. that does not grant them credibility of any form above that of a union pushing for a 30% pay rise or an employer group calling for wage cuts. it is all exactly the same thing.

longweekend58 wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:05pm:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:38am: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:35am: I suspect a lot of it is down to disincentives - effective marginal tax rates. If you cut out middle class welfare completely, then poor people would face a very high effective marginal tax rate. They might lose for example over 50c out of every dollar they earn to tax and the reduction in their welfare. So you get people who feel 'better off' on welfare. Not sure what the actual numbers are. I am starting to like the idea of 'quarantining' welfare income. This helps you get around the disincentive issue without making the unemployed suffer the indignity of actually being poor. A contemptible and blatantly discriminatory idea. And simply another way to marginalise and vilify the unemployed. why? Everyone still gets the same amount but they have to 'shock horror' spend some of it on food. who exactly doesnt spend money on food? hmmm.  druggies, child abusers and drunks... Not sure where I see the problem there!

Well, THAT was rather offensive, wasn't it?

I don't like ANYONE insinuating that I, OR the unemployed, are
inherently druggies, drunks, OR child-abusers. Nor, I daresay,
would anyone.

There would be no more OR less of these people among the
unemployed, than in ANY other random group of people.

But, hey, let's just run them down a bit more, eh?

And, FYI, I am NONE of the above. And YOU have just shot
to pieces ANY credibility you may have had.

longweekend58 wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:06pm:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 5:28pm: It's not just me, mate. ACOSS, and most other social services groups are calling for essentially the same thing. ACOSS are pushing for a minimum $50 p/w increase. They are also pushing for better training and a PAID work-experience scheme, which is a good thing. And, note, I at NO stage suggested that the u/e should get the rego concessions, travel concessions, utility allowance medical etc that pensioners DO get (AND deserve). The u/e do not need OR deserve these. I don't think it's being greedy, just realistic. Sorry if I offended. ACOSS is a LOBBY GROUP - nothing more. their position will ALWAYS be for more for their particuar interest group. that does not grant them credibility of any form above that of a union pushing for a 30% pay rise or an employer group calling for wage cuts. it is all exactly the same thing.

Doesn't mean they can't lobby, nor that they are wrong.

I happen to believe that they are correct in what they are lobbying for.

And will continue to support them.

But, of course, YOU'D knock them simply because they want
to help, rather than penalise and vilify, the unemployed.

People  certainly seem very polarised on this topic, ie. unemployed!! It sort of left  'the well off receiving taxpayer funded benefits' to pensions then the unemployed.

I have to suspect that folk like a hicks -longy et al. are pulling your leg - KAT, with their 'push all your buttons' tactics.  So don't get too pissed off.  Much of what has been on this thread is clearly inflammatory,and not related to the question asked.
Certainly comparisons are useful- to HIGHLIGHT the correctness of MY REPLY earlier.  NO. To the question. ......Seems no point commenting further.

Why bother Kat?  The fascists won't listen. :(.

Emma wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:43pm:

People  certainly seem very polarised on this topic, ie. unemployed!! It sort of left  'the well off receiving taxpayer funded benefits' to pensions then the unemployed. I have to suspect that folk like a hicks -longy et al. are pulling your leg - KAT, with their 'push all your buttons' tactics.  So don't get too pissed off.  Much of what has been on this thread is clearly inflammatory,and not related to the question asked. Certainly comparisons are useful- to HIGHLIGHT the correctness of MY REPLY earlier.  NO. To the question. ......Seems no point commenting further. Why bother Kat?  The fascists won't listen. :(.

Maybe I wouldn't bother, except that I personally suffered through
a long period of unemployment under the Howard regime, so can
empathise with what the u/e have to go through, and what a
struggle it is to get by.

Plus the fact that very few others seem willing to go in to bat
for them...:-(

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:17pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:30pm: Quote: It arrogantly assumes that the unemployed are incapable of managing THEIR OWN finances, for one. No it doesn't. The point is to remove the disincentive and reduce middle class welfare, not to babysit. [quote]And it discriminates by making the unemployed show ID (presumably) and coupons in order to purchase items. That is not discrimination. [quote]And would deny them the right (and it IS a right, like it or not) to be able to afford things like a computer, internet, new electrical items, a day away, a night out, etc, etc.

Those are not rights.[/quote]



Sorry, but I cannot agree.

It is merely a tool to victimise the unemployed.

And SHAME on ANYONE who supports such a move..[/quote]

So all the facts and genuine issues are irrelevant - all that matters is how you frame the issue?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:32pm:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:30pm: Quote: It arrogantly assumes that the unemployed are incapable of managing THEIR OWN finances, for one. No it doesn't. The point is to remove the disincentive and reduce middle class welfare, not to babysit. [quote]And it discriminates by making the unemployed show ID (presumably) and coupons in order to purchase items. That is not discrimination. [quote]And would deny them the right (and it IS a right, like it or not) to be able to afford things like a computer, internet, new electrical items, a day away, a night out, etc, etc. Those are not rights.

Sorry, but I cannot agree.

It is merely a tool to victimise the unemployed.

And SHAME on ANYONE who supports such a move..[/quote]

So all the facts and genuine issues are irrelevant - all that matters is how you frame the issue?[/quote]


It is not I who is ignoring the facts and genuine issues.

Far from it.