More than two million Australians in poverty

Date
    October 14, 2012


The federal government is being urged to increase Newstart payments after a damning new report revealed more than 2.26 million people are living in poverty.      :o

That’s an increase on the poverty rates recorded in 2003 - evidence that successive mining booms and sustained economic growth have done nothing to improve the lives of the nation’s poorest.      :(

The figures show that 575,000 children are living in poverty, and women are more likely to suffer poverty than men.   

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) released the findings on Sunday in its Poverty Australia report, said to be the most comprehensive snapshot of the nation’s poor since 2006.


‘‘Australia is now measured as the wealthiest country in the world when it comes to median wealth - we rank above Switzerland,’’ ACOSS CEO Cassandra Goldie said.

‘‘Yet today, this report we’re releasing says we have 2.2 million people who are living below the poverty line.

If you’re a single person that means you have just over $50 a day to cover everything.’’Single people with two children had $80 a day to pay for everything, Ms Goldie said.

ACOSS demanded that the federal government immediately increase dole payments - currently $492.60 per fortnight for a single unemployed person - and index them to inflation.

Ms Goldie said boosting Newstart rates, which she says have not increased in real terms for 20 years, would help to lift thousands out of poverty.

ACOSS also urged the nation’s billionaires, including mining magnates Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer, to pay more tax and called on federal and state governments to address expensive housing costs.

‘‘I would be delighted, we would be delighted, if this afternoon the wealthiest people in Australia came out and said, ‘We are prepared to pay more tax,’’’ Ms Goldie said.

The ACOSS report, based on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data from 2009 and 2010, says the number of people living in poverty has increased by about one-third of one per cent since 2003, despite the mining booms and years of economic growth.      :(

NSW has the highest number of people in poverty (835,000), followed by Victoria (526,700), Queensland (430,900), Western Australia (211,300), South Australia (165,200) and Tasmania (56,000).More women are said to be in poverty than men.

The report defines the ‘‘poverty line’’ as 50 per cent of the median average national household income.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/more-than-two-million-australians-in-poverty-20121014-27kou.html#ixzz2p7svXjiB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Australia

Your figures are right - amazing isn't it?  More than one in ten Australians in the Lucky Country is living in poverty.... with at least double that not far above the accepted level.

A great indictment at a time when your political masters are going out of their way to figure out how to fork the same people over for pensions, unemployment money, doctors fees and all the rest.

Me?  I've got $270 a fortnight left to buy food and petrol and cover any emergencies.  Some scumhole cut one of my tyres - I had to buy a second hand one and now I still have to get it fitted... he kind of emergency I don't need.

Meanwhile every job I could do standing on my head or half asleep or both is being handed out to anyone else.. often someone who already has a job.....

Well - I figure it's my turn at the handouts trough... and if I hear one more word about some poor woman on $500k a year not getting the top CEO job...... or some poor chick not being fork-lifted into a political seat and comfy career.....

Any changes under this lot will only be for the worse.

They not only don't care, but they actively hate the unemployed.

Kat wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 4:59pm:

Any changes under this lot will only be for the worse. They not only don't care, but they actively hate the unemployed.

One in eight according to ACOSS.....

Now - what about that proper application of affirmative action for those seeking a job - not just an upgrade in a farken job - a JOB that will provide food etc...

I go into this monthly comp for job seekers.. win a trip to some overseas destination and $20k spending money... you know who farken wins it?

Some bloke who's a farken bank manager.. some chick who works in stockbroking... some customer service sheila.. the only one of any merit so far was a 'carer pensioner'.

Hardly 'job seekers' are they?  Rule should be - no job seeker ID and card - not currently job seeking - no win!  It's a competition for JOB SEEKERS - Christ I'd love a free trip and I'm sure any of the 2.3 million others would too!

As for the government - the sooner we kick the LOT of them out the better I say.  I'm sick of hearing how many hours someone has to work, while I'm hanging out for five hours a week to supplement my pension and give me a little breathing space... literally.. and maybe a chance to go out once in a while.  It's been years since I had a bought meal.... or saw a movie....

Kick 'em all out I say.. and their fat mates with 'em, as well as their stupid policies!

500 members needed for the Grappler Party... who's on first?  We gotta get cracking....

Quote:

How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty

.

None. 

Bob Hawke said so.

Check out Greenslime, not an Australian I hasten to add, but nonetheless probably living off the Australian purse.

Kat wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 4:59pm:

Any changes under this lot will only be for the worse. They not only don't care, but they actively hate the unemployed.

but guess what ? They still want to keep middle class welfare in the form of negative gearing tax concessions so that the homeless stay homeless and funds get siphoned off from  manufacturing and used to speculate on property thus creating more unemployment as factories close down :(

The wretched and the poor are like ballast to the capitalist ship of state. It is a fact that these people spend one hundred percent of their income.

It is also a fact that the multiplier 1.6 is used to turn them into money making machines for the rich and powerful.

Whatever meagre remuneration the wretched earn is supplemented by the state to keep them just barely afloat and all the money in their possession is recycled to the rich and powerful; the owners of money. That is a 60% return on their outlay.

Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:06pm:

Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast

Actually the opposite is more true.

Shorten and his ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance otherwise they would have no one to pitch their socialism to.

Abbott's Ilk is the minority that pay the majority of tax but it's the majority that pay the minority of tax that in effect rule in our flawed democracy (Ochlocracy actually)

Abbott and his ilk are slaves of the masses.

I remember someone once recommending a good read, by Des Griffin ~ Descent into slavery.

It had me thinking, isn't that exactly what is happening, bit by bit, chipping away at us.

And they do it in ways that really hit the pocket from every angle, take for instance, the news of electricity going up 4% this year, after they have already risen quite sharply in the last couple of years that has doubled our bills, even though we have tried in vain to use less of it. Is that the reward I get for trying to budget using less of it?

And insurance, it had been going up $100 per annum, but now, it's doubled *cough, choke, splutter*.
So what was $450 ish, is now $930 ish!!  :o
I have yet to question this, as we have never made any claims.

I am stunned, to say the least, do these corporations think we grow money trees or something?
I saw a quote recently by Elizabeth Warren (The Blue Street Journal)
"Corporations are not peope. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance, they live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don't run this country for corporations, we run it for people."

Mr. Grappler, count me in for the real people's party.

Sophia wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 5:38pm:

I remember someone once recommending a good read, by Des Griffin ~ Descent into slavery. It had me thinking, isn't that exactly what is happening, bit by bit, chipping away at us. And they do it in ways that really hit the pocket from every angle, take for instance, the news of electricity going up 4% this year, after they have already risen quite sharply in the last couple of years that has doubled our bills, even though we have tried in vain to use less of it. Is that the reward I get for trying to budget using less of it? And insurance, it had been going up $100 per annum, but now, it's doubled *cough, choke, splutter*. So what was $450 ish, is now $930 ish!!  :o I have yet to question this, as we have never made any claims. I am stunned, to say the least, do these corporations think we grow money trees or something? I saw a quote recently by Elizabeth Warren (The Blue Street Journal) "Corporations are not peope. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance, they live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don't run this country for corporations, we run it for people." Mr. Grappler, count me in for the real people's party.

Hi lols

We are indeed being driven into slavery by forces beyond our control.

You should listen to Chris Hedges, he has confirmed exactly what you are saying here. A lot of informed people are saying the same thing now.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387786692


He writes columns for truthdig, some very interesting articles to read if you trying to make sense of it all.


https://www.truthdig.com/staff/chris_hedges

Swagman wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:06pm: Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast Actually the opposite is more true. Shorten and his ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance otherwise they would have no one to pitch their socialism to. Abbott's Ilk is the minority that pay the majority of tax but it's the majority that pay the minority of tax that in effect rule in our flawed democracy (Ochlocracy actually) Abbott and his ilk are slaves of the masses.

both sides of politics are in the back pocket of trans national corporations :(

Swagman wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:37am:

Quote: How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty . None.  Bob Hawke said so.

no he didn't  :D :D :D

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 4:44pm:

2.26 million people are living in poverty

Abbott will be glad to hear that ... more people for him to screw over to help him balance his budget.

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:07pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:37am: Quote: How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty . None.  Bob Hawke said so. no he didn't  :D :D :D

He said this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx0IeQQ7WjI

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:07pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:37am: Quote: How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty . None.  Bob Hawke said so. no he didn't  :D :D :D

It turns out that bob hawke introduced negative gearing. What a deadbeat of a prime minster he was. Keating tried to get rid of but the house hoarding parasite mafia cried foul and so he restored it. Little wonder we have so much poverty and homelessness. You can count on labor to give us social equity. But the libbos are not much better. They kept the scams going :(

Jeez we have had some sh.t politicians haven't we :(

Swagman wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:06pm: Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast Actually the opposite is more true. Shorten and his ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance otherwise they would have no one to pitch their socialism to. Abbott's Ilk is the minority that pay the majority of tax but it's the majority that pay the minority of tax that in effect rule in our flawed democracy (Ochlocracy actually) Abbott and his ilk are slaves of the masses.

Are you implying that the Australian system of government is dictatorship of the proletariat?

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:46am:

Kat wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 4:59pm: Any changes under this lot will only be for the worse. They not only don't care, but they actively hate the unemployed. but guess what ? They still want to keep middle class welfare in the form of negative gearing tax concessions so that the homeless stay homeless and funds get siphoned off from  manufacturing and used to speculate on property thus creating more unemployment as factories close down :(

In order to negative gear you have to make a loss.

SOB

He's not dead. 

Controlled by the British Queen, yet totally Americanized.
:D ;D ::)

Aussie wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:07pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:37am: Quote: How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty . None.  Bob Hawke said so. no he didn't  :D :D :D He said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx0IeQQ7WjI

Yes and as it's now 2014 so even the youngest child would now be at least 24 years old so nobody should be living in poverty.... ;)


Quote:

POVERTY D: The state in which people are in who have less than an income level chosen to be politically expedient for the definer. There are statements which purport to be definitions of poverty. Most of them are not absolute, or even objective. Most of them are simply relative to the median in society. They define anyone who cannot afford the necessities as poor. Then they define any product which is owned by more than two thirds of the population as a necessity .This is a meaningless measurement - defining poverty to be the bottom 30 percentile of income, and then screaming that 30 percent of people are in poverty is logically stupid, though obviously politically beneficial. A bizarre effect of defining poverty as a percentage of average weekly earnings is that poverty increases if the minimum wage is increased. Clearly this is a non-sensical definition of poverty. There is no poverty in Australia. If one uses a meaningless definition (such as poverty being an income of less half the median), then one can argue that there is poverty. But meaningless definitions can be used to argue anything. By any meaningful or objective measure, there is no poverty in Australia. Just because someone doesn't have enough money to buy food does not mean they are poor. If someone receives $10,000 a week, spends it on alcohol and drugs, and doesn't have enough left over for food, they are not poor - it's just choice. Poverty is not having enough money for food. Choosing to buy things other than food with your money is just choice. Children who don't get enough to eat because their parents spend their welfare on other things are not poor. They are victims of child abuse. There is no poverty in Australia.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 2:55am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:44pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:06pm: Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast Actually the opposite is more true. Shorten and his ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance otherwise they would have no one to pitch their socialism to. Abbott's Ilk is the minority that pay the majority of tax but it's the majority that pay the minority of tax that in effect rule in our flawed democracy (Ochlocracy actually) Abbott and his ilk are slaves of the masses. Are you implying that the Australian system of government is dictatorship of the proletariat?

You could call it that.

Our system of Govt is not a democracy but an Ochlocracy. (Tyranny of the masses / rule by mob)

The actual folk that actually pay for the cost of Govt (net tax-payers) are in the vast minority whilst those that contribute next to nothing to the cost of Govt, are in the majority.

In a democracy the majority rules.

That is why the majority pays the least tax and sponge off the minority that pay the majority of tax. 

It's a sorry fact.

In a true democracy everyone would pay the same amount of tax.

Tax is basically the fee for an individual to be a member of society. :-?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 5:26am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:46am: Kat wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 4:59pm: Any changes under this lot will only be for the worse. They not only don't care, but they actively hate the unemployed. but guess what ? They still want to keep middle class welfare in the form of negative gearing tax concessions so that the homeless stay homeless and funds get siphoned off from  manufacturing and used to speculate on property thus creating more unemployment as factories close down :( In order to negative gear you have to make a loss. SOB

yes they claim interest payments and other expenses against the income from their totally unrelated day jobs. They bid up prices at auctions and are willing to pay more than others simply because they can claim for interest payments where as joe owner occupier isn't allowed this privilege. Kind of sucks doesn't it but the corruption goes on :(

Good links there Pansi.
One of them, The revolutionaries in our midst, and and excerp from the article~

“In these times of secrecy and abuse of power there is only one solution—transparency,” wrote Sarah Harrison, the British journalist who accompanied Snowden to Russia and who also has gone into exile, in Berlin. “If our governments are so compromised that they will not tell us the truth, then we must step forward to grasp it. Provided with the unequivocal proof of primary source documents people can fight back. If our governments will not give this information to us, then we must take it for ourselves.”

“When whistleblowers come forward we need to fight for them, so others will be encouraged,” she went on. “When they are gagged, we must be their voice. When they are hunted, we must be their shield. When they are locked away, we must free them. Giving us the truth is not a crime. This is our data, our information, our history. We must fight to own it. Courage is contagious.”

Imagine trying to gag us on the internet, or limit our availability to search for info, and be able to communicate with like minded individuals, you know, the ole "divide and conquer" sceanrio.

I fear this 'gagging' is now in our own beloved country as I found this article, and as I haven't gasbagged enough to get to 100 posts to put up links, I will have to extrapolate it a bit, and hopefully some may be able to get the link set up and post it for me.

Alliance for Health Freedom Australia
Wednesday November 20th 2013
The NSW watchdog about to be turned upon an unsuspecting public.

And I think, really? What for, going forward to go backwards? Sneaking in a law behinds our very backs, and does the buck stop there?

This is against us, the people.

>:(

Swagman wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:06pm: Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast Actually the opposite is more true. Shorten and his ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance otherwise they would have no one to pitch their socialism to. Abbott's Ilk is the minority that pay the majority of tax but it's the majority that pay the minority of tax that in effect rule in our flawed democracy (Ochlocracy actually) Abbott and his ilk are slaves of the masses.

Now that is pizz funny .... ::) they have more outs for minimising (dodging) tax than any PAYG working class people.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:16am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 5:26am: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:46am: Kat wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 4:59pm: Any changes under this lot will only be for the worse. They not only don't care, but they actively hate the unemployed. but guess what ? They still want to keep middle class welfare in the form of negative gearing tax concessions so that the homeless stay homeless and funds get siphoned off from  manufacturing and used to speculate on property thus creating more unemployment as factories close down :( In order to negative gear you have to make a loss. SOB yes they claim interest payments and other expenses against the income from their totally unrelated day jobs. They bid up prices at auctions and are willing to pay more than others simply because they can claim for interest payments where as joe owner occupier isn't allowed this privilege. Kind of sucks doesn't it but the corruption goes on :(

"They" you refer to, are these houses bought by overseas investors, or by our own Australians?
Because, what is the problem with that, any improvements or profits stay in our country.

There were a lot of seminars showing people (any of us) exactly how to do this, to buy a property, alongside their job (and one had to have a certain amount of income and tax payable, to be able to benefit from this).

People want something more than a dreary 9-5 job, to then retire at 65 (if they make it) and maybe even later than 65, according to the latest news of retirment age being lifted to an even older age.

Do you really think when people reach pensioner age, after working all their lives, barely living (more like working to live) and raising a family, and going on small affordable camping holidays, to then go on the pension, really live in the lap of luxury?

Why wouldn't they take a risk to do some residential investment to get themselves a little out of the rut, if there was a chance to? And to then supply their own income later on, and even sell that residential investment, and live off that, instead of burdening the Government for yet more tax money?

You need to have a wider view of this Lastnail, although you have a right to hold your opinion, but just don't let that opinion hold you.

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:14am:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 2:55am: Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:44pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:06pm: Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast Actually the opposite is more true. Shorten and his ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance otherwise they would have no one to pitch their socialism to. Abbott's Ilk is the minority that pay the majority of tax but it's the majority that pay the minority of tax that in effect rule in our flawed democracy (Ochlocracy actually) Abbott and his ilk are slaves of the masses. Are you implying that the Australian system of government is dictatorship of the proletariat? You could call it that. Our system of Govt is not a democracy but an Ochlocracy. (Tyranny of the masses / rule by mob) The actual folk that actually pay for the cost of Govt (net tax-payers) are in the vast minority whilst those that contribute next to nothing to the cost of Govt, are in the majority. In a democracy the majority rules. That is why the majority pays the least tax and sponge off the minority that pay the majority of tax.  It's a sorry fact. In a true democracy everyone would pay the same amount of tax. Tax is basically the fee for an individual to be a member of society. :-?

That would be OK ... & regardless of the job we did ... from CEO to Garbo ..... we'd all be on the same wage/salary ..... right?

Yeah  ::)

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:05am:

Yes and as it's now 2014 so even the youngest child would now be at least 24 years old so nobody should be living in poverty....

that doesn't make your comment any more correct .. it was wrong before your pissy excuse, and its wrong after it.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:16am:

yes they claim interest payments and other expenses against the income from their totally unrelated day jobs

income and expenses are not split into categories ... total expenses come off total income .. you should learn how our tax system works. If you work as a teacher earning $80k a year, and moonlight as a stripper earning another $20k you don't pay tax on 60k and then 20k . .. you pay tax on the total 80 k. Expenses work the same way.


Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:16am:

They bid up prices at auctions and are willing to pay more than others simply because they can claim for interest payments where as joe owner occupier isn't allowed this privilege

Did your psychic tell you that? I know many investor owners, and not a single one has ever bid up the price s/he pays, each and every single one tries to get the property for a cheaply as they can.


Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:16am:

Kind of sucks doesn't it but the corruption goes on

it also sucks that you can be so bitter about investors in the property market ... that doesn't mean we get rid of you now does it!

Gnads wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 11:37am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:14am: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 2:55am: Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:44pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:06pm: Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast Actually the opposite is more true. Shorten and his ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance otherwise they would have no one to pitch their socialism to. Abbott's Ilk is the minority that pay the majority of tax but it's the majority that pay the minority of tax that in effect rule in our flawed democracy (Ochlocracy actually) Abbott and his ilk are slaves of the masses. Are you implying that the Australian system of government is dictatorship of the proletariat? You could call it that. Our system of Govt is not a democracy but an Ochlocracy. (Tyranny of the masses / rule by mob) The actual folk that actually pay for the cost of Govt (net tax-payers) are in the vast minority whilst those that contribute next to nothing to the cost of Govt, are in the majority. In a democracy the majority rules. That is why the majority pays the least tax and sponge off the minority that pay the majority of tax.  It's a sorry fact. In a true democracy everyone would pay the same amount of tax. Tax is basically the fee for an individual to be a member of society. :-? That would be OK ... & regardless of the job we did ... from CEO to Garbo ..... we'd all be on the same wage/salary ..... right? Yeah  ::)

Keep your shirt on, just being theoretical not practical Gnads.

Anyway it's not as way out as you think.

Govt is just an association only on a massive scale.

Most all democratic associations charge a fee for membership and for the use of its services regardless of the level of your income.

Everyone gets the same value for their dollar.  :-?

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:01pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:05am: Yes and as it's now 2014 so even the youngest child would now be at least 24 years old so nobody should be living in poverty....  that doesn't make your comment any more correct .. it was wrong before your pissy excuse, and its wrong after it.

What pissy excuse would you be referring to?

It was Bob Hawke's words not mine.  I guess Bob was indeed 'pissy' plenty of times so you're half right.

Gnads wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 11:30am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:44pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:06pm: Abbotts and their ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance, otherwise Abbotts and their ilk will lose control over the wretched and the ship of state would become unstable from loss of ballast Actually the opposite is more true. Shorten and his ilk don't want the wretched to ever have a positive cash flow and a savings balance otherwise they would have no one to pitch their socialism to. Abbott's Ilk is the minority that pay the majority of tax but it's the majority that pay the minority of tax that in effect rule in our flawed democracy (Ochlocracy actually) Abbott and his ilk are slaves of the masses. Now that is pizz funny .... ::) they have more outs for minimising (dodging) tax than any PAYG working class people.

It's funny but it's true.

The top 25 per cent of income earners pay 67.9 per cent of net income tax.  (Source ATO 2010-2011 Tax stats)

Arguably, the top 25% are "Abbott and his ilk"

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 10:16am: yes they claim interest payments and other expenses against the income from their totally unrelated day jobs income and expenses are not split into categories ... total expenses come off total income .. you should learn how our tax system works. If you work as a teacher earning $80k a year, and moonlight as a stripper earning another $20k you don't pay tax on 60k and then 20k . .. you pay tax on the total 80 k. Expenses work the same way. Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 10:16am: They bid up prices at auctions and are willing to pay more than others simply because they can claim for interest payments where as joe owner occupier isn't allowed this privilege Did your psychic tell you that? I know many investor owners, and not a single one has ever bid up the price s/he pays, each and every single one tries to get the property for a cheaply as they can. Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 10:16am: Kind of sucks doesn't it but the corruption goes on  it also sucks that you can be so bitter about investors in the property market ... that doesn't mean we get rid of you now does it!

Yes they just bid that little bit extra knowing they get concessions that owner occupiers don't get like the deduction of interest payments against the income from their day job and costs of repairs and maintenance :(

And try and operate on a level playing for a change instead of using a legalized tax avoidance racket to gain a competitive edge :(

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:05am: Yes and as it's now 2014 so even the youngest child would now be at least 24 years old so nobody should be living in poverty....  that doesn't make your comment any more correct .. it was wrong before your pissy excuse, and its wrong after it. What pissy excuse would you be referring to? It was Bob Hawke's words not mine.  I guess Bob was indeed 'pissy' plenty of times so you're half right.

Bob Hawke has gone to china so many times he has lost count. Every time he goes to china he sells off an additional bit of Australia to them.

Well I suppose he has nothing else to sell to them except a one off fire sale of our land and resources :(

Bob should be selling the Chinese the hordes of Australian wretched huddled masses as cheap labour.

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:05am: Yes and as it's now 2014 so even the youngest child would now be at least 24 years old so nobody should be living in poverty....  that doesn't make your comment any more correct .. it was wrong before your pissy excuse, and its wrong after it. What pissy excuse would you be referring to? It was Bob Hawke's words not mine.  I guess Bob was indeed 'pissy' plenty of times so you're half right.

what excuse? 'that they would now be 24yrs old' ... you were wrong when accredited Hawke with saying no one will live in poverty, and no attempts at muddying the waters by you will change that

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:46pm:

Yes they just bid that little bit extra knowing they get concessions that owner occupiers don't get like the deduction of interest payments against the income from their day job and costs of repairs and maintenance

no, they bid what they need to bid to buy the property ... the majority of bidders will pull out once the bidding reaches a certain limit .. it has nothing to do with claiming deductions, it's all a question of how much you want a property


Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:46pm:

And try and operate on a level playing for a change instead of using a legalized tax avoidance racket to gain a competitive edge

what, in this world, operates on a level palying field? NOTHING ... the pretty girl will get the job over the fat girl, the guy whose dad is connected will get the better job ... NOTHING on this planet has a level playing field.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 5:09pm:

500 members needed for the Grappler Party... who's on first?  We gotta get cracking....

Right, that does it. I've been thinking about this for some time now.

We simply must organise a political party. A political party that is committed to making a real difference to the lives of the unemployed in this country.

What the unemployed in this country need more than anything is a job. Not false promises of work. Not lies. Not exploitation. Not handouts. Not being victims of discrimination or hate crimes. Not being passed over for employment because they are out of work. A job. And not just a few thousand jobs when there's over a million people in this country right now who need work and cannot find it. Enough jobs so that every unemployed person in this country who wants a job can get one at the same time. These jobs need not be full time; even a part time job can be of immense benefit to someone who has none.

We must remove the numerous barriers that prevent the unemployed from finding work. Make it illegal to discriminate against the unemployed when hiring. Remove tax deductions for placing job ads unless the employer meets a quota of interviewing at least one unemployed person in four for each advertised position. Remove the restriction on education that prevents a skilled person from making a career change if they are unable to find work in their industry after six months out of work.

It is ineffective to pay subsidies to job seekers who find work because it is not the job seeker not looking that is the problem, it's employers who won't hire them. Therefore, do not pay subsidies to job seekers just because they find work. (However, subsidies which cover necessary startup costs like new work clothing must be retained.) Job seekers will be better off just from finding work. Instead, pay subsidies to employers who hire unemployed people - similar to the subsidies that Keating introduced in his Working Nation plan.

To create enough jobs to go around, we need to rethink employment in this country. A 35-hour working week. Overtime penalty rates for all employees. End the $70 billion a year of free labour that employees give their employers, often unwillingly. Forced unpaid work for other people is slavery by definition. But there needs to be give and take. Penalty rates for working weekends need to be reimplemented so staff costs on weekends can be reduced yet people are still paid more for working weekends if they also worked during the week. If overtime penalty rates were mandatory, weekend penalty rates can safely be abolished because they can be covered by the mandatory overtime penalty rates when this is applicable.

Abolishing weekend penalty rates will adversely affect young people, particularly full-time students who need these to survive. Therefore, to address this shortfall, youth allowance for full-time students living away from home should be increased by $50 a week so they aren't forced to work long hours each week in employment and studies just so they can put food on the table.

Newstart should also be increased by $50 a week because it is manifestly inadequate as it is. It is unjustifiable in a country that is supposedly as rich as Australia that our unemployed are paid a rate that in real terms is less than comparable income support in other comparable countries. It's not as if we can't afford to begrudge the unemployed a little more. It's only selfishness and greed that prevents this. Also note that if the unemployed are in work, less income support would be paid out so it is affordable.

We should also look at the taxation system at the low end of the tax scales and its interaction with the welfare system. Income support gets withdrawn at 60 cents in the dollar at the same time that tax takes away more money at 19 cents in the dollar. 67.6 cents in the dollar is the result. This is much higher than the top marginal tax rate. The highest government impost on income falls on those who can least afford it.

These and other inequities occur because the unemployed are under-represented in the parliaments of this country. That has to change.

So let's do this, and be silent no more.

Bam is right.  The same pretty much applies to pensioners.  I get $156 free of reduction, then after that it is 50c in the dollar plus tax at 15% (age bracket) - otherwise at 19%.

Now I have zero objection to going to work full time - make me an offer for a change.  I apply for every job I can do - the moment they hear:-

Age - 64

Not in a a job at the moment.

It's gimlet eyes and 'we'll call you'.. followed by the silence of the lame - they're lame losers who have no idea in reality - since they fail to see that not having more people in work means those people will buy less and therefore their business will not flourish as well.  Even those better off will not have the residual cash since they will be paying the way, and rightly so, of those they have cut out of a job by even applying for a second job.

UTTER STUPIDITY.

Now - when you all wake up - I'll be happy to stand for Il Presidente, Benevolent Diktator, Defender of the People, Upholder of the Rights of All, and Fat Cat with a Bahamas Retirement Account (oops - delete that).... and Father to the Revolution.

AND all those 'high paying tax payers.. who BTW do NOT pay the majority of the Tax Take - but ONLY a proportionately higher percentage as is right... could get on just as well on a flat tax system of say 20% for all - PROVIDED THEY TOOK A COMMENSURATE DROP IN GROSS INCOME.

They will NOT do that  because it is a STATUS SYMBOL to have the big salary and then whine about paying the big tax.

You know what I have to say to that?  bugger 'EM!  Let 'em get a real job for a change and learn how business works from the bottom up - that way they might make a success of it instead of the current disaster it is.

ALSO - average weekly earning of wage and salary earners is $1490 or so.... hads up those who get that?

The figures are fudged - and besides - those fat cats have ensured that many of the lower paid workers are out of a job so they can bloody well pay their way with higher taxation.

Productivity for all or take it on the chin... I say nationalise the lot.....

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:32pm:

It's funny but it's true. The top 25 per cent of income earners pay 67.9 per cent of net income tax.  (Source ATO 2010-2011 Tax stats) Arguably, the top 25% are "Abbott and his ilk"

They pay the most tax because they also hold most of the wealth. According to the ABS, the top 20% have 60.8% of the wealth and the bottom 60% only hold 18% of total net worth.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:05am: Yes and as it's now 2014 so even the youngest child would now be at least 24 years old so nobody should be living in poverty....  that doesn't make your comment any more correct .. it was wrong before your pissy excuse, and its wrong after it. What pissy excuse would you be referring to? It was Bob Hawke's words not mine.  I guess Bob was indeed 'pissy' plenty of times so you're half right. Bob Hawke has gone to china so many times he has lost count. Every time he goes to china he sells off an additional bit of Australia to them. Well I suppose he has nothing else to sell to them except a one off fire sale of our land and resources :(

He's not in the hunt compared to Twiggy, Gina & Clive..... & our northern cattlemen aren't averse to taking big money selling out to Indonesian & other foreign interests.

Mind you that is also helped by the inconsistency of the ACCC & FIRB.

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 2:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:05am: Yes and as it's now 2014 so even the youngest child would now be at least 24 years old so nobody should be living in poverty....  that doesn't make your comment any more correct .. it was wrong before your pissy excuse, and its wrong after it. What pissy excuse would you be referring to? It was Bob Hawke's words not mine.  I guess Bob was indeed 'pissy' plenty of times so you're half right. what excuse? 'that they would now be 24yrs old' ... you were wrong when accredited Hawke with saying no one will live in poverty, and no attempts at muddying the waters by you will change that

Sorry Smithy I forgot that it takes a degree of perceptiveness to work out that the children Hawke was referring to would no longer be children...

Bam wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:32pm: It's funny but it's true. The top 25 per cent of income earners pay 67.9 per cent of net income tax.  (Source ATO 2010-2011 Tax stats) Arguably, the top 25% are "Abbott and his ilk" They pay the most tax because they also hold most of the wealth. According to the ABS, the top 20% have 60.8% of the wealth and the bottom 60% only hold 18% of total net worth.

So what's your point?

It's ok to steal from the guy next door just because he works harder and earns more?

If you work hard and earn more you will accumulate wealth.  If you don't you won't.  That's why the 'gap' between rich and poor widens.

The more the so-called rich earn the better off the mob is because it can steal more.

It's not in the Mob's interest to kill the golden goose but it certainly tries with its petty politics of envy.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:41am:

Bam wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:24pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:32pm: It's funny but it's true. The top 25 per cent of income earners pay 67.9 per cent of net income tax.  (Source ATO 2010-2011 Tax stats) Arguably, the top 25% are "Abbott and his ilk" They pay the most tax because they also hold most of the wealth. According to the ABS, the top 20% have 60.8% of the wealth and the bottom 60% only hold 18% of total net worth. So what's your point? It's ok to steal from the guy next door just because he works harder and earns more? If you work hard and earn more you will accumulate wealth.  If you don't you won't.  That's why the 'gap' between rich and poor widens. The more the so-called rich earn the better off the mob is because it can steal more. It's not in the Mob's interest to kill the golden goose but it certainly tries with its petty politics of envy.

Ensuring that the well-off pay their fair share of tax, and ensuring that the most disadvantaged get an ADEQUATE amount of assistance, is NOT 'stealing'.

Never was, never will be.

Why do you begrudge anything to anyone but the already well-off, Swagman? It seems to be a constant theme in your posts.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:28am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 2:49pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:05am: Yes and as it's now 2014 so even the youngest child would now be at least 24 years old so nobody should be living in poverty....  that doesn't make your comment any more correct .. it was wrong before your pissy excuse, and its wrong after it. What pissy excuse would you be referring to? It was Bob Hawke's words not mine.  I guess Bob was indeed 'pissy' plenty of times so you're half right. what excuse? 'that they would now be 24yrs old' ... you were wrong when accredited Hawke with saying no one will live in poverty, and no attempts at muddying the waters by you will change that Sorry Smithy I forgot that it takes a degree of perceptiveness to work out that the children Hawke was referring to would no longer be children...

and it takes an even greater degree of perceptiveness to understand the difference between 'no child will live in poverty' and 'no one will live in poverty',

get back to me when you figure out the difference.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:41am:

It's ok to steal from the guy next door just because he works harder and earns more?

why do you assoiate wealth with work? Most of the 'rich' haven't worked any harder than most other people, they simply had a better head start ...

its easy to make a million when daddy gives you a couple million to kick start your life.

And how much has it cost Australia to get the climate change scientists back from being stuck in the "melting" ice? How much has it cost to get that Greenpeace idiot and his buddies back from Russia?

Yes how many Australians are UNNECESSARILY living in poverty?

Maybe these costs could have helped a few who are enduring hardship.

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:41am: It's ok to steal from the guy next door just because he works harder and earns more? why do you assoiate wealth with work? Most of the 'rich' haven't worked any harder than most other people, they simply had a better head start ... its easy to make a million when daddy gives you a couple million to kick start your life.

...and where did daddy get it from?  Somewhere along the line someone took a risk and / or worked damned hard to accumulate their wealth.

Some people are born with wealth, true.  So what?  Lucky them.  Doesn't mean others can steal it with petty jealousy.


John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:10am:

and it takes an even greater degree of perceptiveness to understand the difference between 'no child will live in poverty' and 'no one will live in poverty', get back to me when you figure out the difference.

Besides the obvious fact that any child alive in 1990 is now not a child you mean?

Do children live by themselves? No.  They have to live with someone don't they?  So unless no one that they live with is in poverty, you cannot say that no child will live in poverty.  Therefore by saying no child will live in poverty it is in effect saying no one will live in poverty.

Of course it depends on how you define poverty.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

...and where did daddy get it from?  Somewhere along the line someone took a risk and / or worked damned hard to accumulate their wealth.Some people are born with wealth, true.  So what?  Lucky them.  Doesn't mean others can steal it with petty jealousy.

I didn't say that ... it however makes this statement
Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:41am:

It's ok to steal from the guy next door just because he works harder and earns more?

a load of bull ... you have no way of knowing if the guy next door has even worked a day in his life.

How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty.

Too many but not as many as there will be when Tony and his various mates are finished.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

Besides the obvious fact that any child alive in 1990 is now not a child you mean?

how is that relevant to your comment? You accredited Hawke of saying 'no one will live in poverty' ... he didn't ... accept that you got caught bullsh1tting and stop making pathetic excuses

When a car costs $60 to fill while  many people are earning $550 a week it gives you some idea how badly many people are going. Registering a car is a week and a half wages for many people. Rent is most of their pay. The list goes on. Unless you are earing a $1000 a week you will struggle.

Sparky wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:50am:

When a car costs $60 to fill while  many people are earning $550 a week it gives you some idea how badly many people are going. Registering a car is a week and a half wages for many people. Rent is most of their pay. The list goes on. Unless you are earing a $1000 a week you will struggle.

what are you talking about? Andrei earns $4000 week and still struggles .... but then again, he's an accountant.

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:27am: Besides the obvious fact that any child alive in 1990 is now not a child you mean? how is that relevant to your comment? You accredited Hawke of saying 'no one will live in poverty' ... he didn't ... accept that you got caught bullsh1tting and stop making pathetic excuses

- it is in effect the same statement, why? refer reply #48


John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

a load of bull ... you have no way of knowing if the guy next door has even worked a day in his life

....don't you talk to your neighbours ?

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:10am:

and it takes an even greater degree of perceptiveness to understand the difference between 'no child will live in poverty' and 'no one will live in poverty'

Now John, you're getting it more refined of what I had thought Bob Hawke really meant at the time. I was stunned by that statement, I can remember it clearly, it just stopped me in my tracks, and thought, well, my babies will be children by the time they get to the 1990's, so they won't be in living in poverty eh?
I said to the husband with tongue in cheek when it was announced and thought some key words were not included..."No, the child won't be in poverty ... alone... but the whole family of that child will be".

So for a 'child' not to be in poverty, means that the whole family must not be in poverty either.

But as we all know, more people lost their businesses, houses and shirts during that.

And it was Malcolm Fraser, as he was doing his farewell speech and exiting as PM, did warn us, that our money would be safer if we put it under a mattress.
(something to that effect, just going by memory here rather than exact words....(writes note to self, to google it later) .... )
Then of course, all the collapses of Pyramid, and One-Tel etc etc...and ta ta people's money. I know of some that lost $300,000 they had placed temporarily in there, until they could buy a shop to support and work for themselves.
And thinking, they were safe, being Kerry Packer's son etc.

Yes, I went through the 'recession we were meant to have' and it was a dark and horrible time, the 1990's.
1991 June, interest rates were a whopping 17% or thereabouts, by December that same year, it plummeted down to 8%....the economy was so bad, and every 2nd house by then had mortgagee sale on it, and just about every 2nd and 3rd shop was empty.
And many of my gen, are never going to trust any bank or government ever again to want to go into debt.

But, the wheel keeps turning, and a new gen comes on to the scene......here we go again.
Do we learn from other's pasts, will the "child" that was a child not meant to be in poverty, actually mean, will be in poverty by the time they are old enough to leave school and work and to try and survive in the jungle?

Kat wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:06am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:41am: Bam wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:24pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:32pm: It's funny but it's true. The top 25 per cent of income earners pay 67.9 per cent of net income tax.  (Source ATO 2010-2011 Tax stats) Arguably, the top 25% are "Abbott and his ilk" They pay the most tax because they also hold most of the wealth. According to the ABS, the top 20% have 60.8% of the wealth and the bottom 60% only hold 18% of total net worth. So what's your point? It's ok to steal from the guy next door just because he works harder and earns more? If you work hard and earn more you will accumulate wealth.  If you don't you won't.  That's why the 'gap' between rich and poor widens. The more the so-called rich earn the better off the mob is because it can steal more. It's not in the Mob's interest to kill the golden goose but it certainly tries with its petty politics of envy. Ensuring that the well-off pay their fair share of tax, and ensuring that the most disadvantaged get an ADEQUATE amount of assistance, is NOT 'stealing'. Never was, never will be.

A fair share is an equal share.

Taking money off any one under duress is robbery unless the mob make it legal.

Always has and always will be.


Kat wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:06am:

Why do you begrudge anything to anyone but the already well-off, Swagman? It seems to be a constant theme in your posts.

You've previously posted that you volunteer in a bike shop?  You do it freely and for no payment by choice.

Would it be right for the Govt to make some one else do that job for no payment whatsoever against their will?

Your actions are charitable.

The latter example would be slavery.  Being made to work for nothing by force is slavery.


Quote:

ensuring that the most disadvantaged get an ADEQUATE amount of assistance

One can choose to provide monetary assistance for this to happen.  That is charity.

If the Govt garnisheers your wages against your will and by force to redistribute it for that same purpose, that is theft.  In effect such a person is being forced to work for part of the time for no payment and is therefore a slave.

The theme of many of my posts is therefore one of personal liberty.   :(

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

- it is in effect the same statement, why? refer reply #48

in effect, a load of bollocks why? because you are full of crap. The statements are different. Accept it and move on.


Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

don't you talk to your neighbours ?

it's painful, she speaks no 'Engrish' and I speak no Korean.

Sophia wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

Now John, you're getting it more refined of what I had thought Bob Hawke really meant at the time.

There is no refinment, and what you thought he said is irrelevant. He said what he said. It's on the video on the previous page if you want to hear it again.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:41am:

Bam wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:24pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:32pm: It's funny but it's true. The top 25 per cent of income earners pay 67.9 per cent of net income tax.  (Source ATO 2010-2011 Tax stats) Arguably, the top 25% are "Abbott and his ilk" They pay the most tax because they also hold most of the wealth. According to the ABS, the top 20% have 60.8% of the wealth and the bottom 60% only hold 18% of total net worth. So what's your point?

People pay their fair share of tax. What's your point?


Quote:

It's ok to steal from the guy next door just because he works harder and earns more?

This "stealing" crap is a rubbish argument. One may as well say that the rich got rich in the first place by stealing their wealth from others, or by being greedy and helping themselves to extra from the pie while others go without.

The "hard work" argument is a furphy. Someone who is earning 20 times the average income is not working 20 times as hard.


Quote:

If you work hard and earn more you will accumulate wealth.  If you don't you won't.  That's why the 'gap' between rich and poor widens.

No, that's a lie - the gap widens because the rich have more idle money that is available for investment (investment trading is taxed only lightly, eg: capital gains tax), whereas someone raising a family on an average income has to spend most of their money. Who can afford to buy shares when the kids need new shoes and the car needs maintenance?

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:33pm:

Would it be right for the Govt to make some one else do that job for no payment whatsoever against their will? Your actions are charitable. The latter example would be slavery.  Being made to work for nothing by force is slavery.

The government doesn't do that, but plenty of private businesses do. Unpaid overtime in Australia costs the Australian economy about 70 billion dollars a year.

Who benefits?

Overtime denies the unemployed jobs.

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Sophia wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:11pm: Now John, you're getting it more refined of what I had thought Bob Hawke really meant at the time. There is no refinment, and what you thought he said is irrelevant. He said what he said. It's on the video on the previous page if you want to hear it again.

"By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty."


I think the 'meaning' of that statement needed to be refined moreso. It's what I thought he "meant" that was irrelevant.

So I ask, do statistics include the number children (or miners) of impoverised families for that statement to be effective, or just the main breadwinner and/or the unemployed parent of such child?

Sophia wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 1:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:41pm: Sophia wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:11pm: Now John, you're getting it more refined of what I had thought Bob Hawke really meant at the time. There is no refinment, and what you thought he said is irrelevant. He said what he said. It's on the video on the previous page if you want to hear it again. "By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty." I think the 'meaning' of that statement needed to be refined moreso. It's what I thought he "meant" that was irrelevant. So I ask, do statistics include the number children (or miners) of impoverised families for that statement to be effective, or just the main breadwinner and/or the unemployed parent of such child?

don't care what the statisitcs say ... you seem to have misunderstood my position ... I'm not debating the merits of his comment, or if he included unemployed etc, although I think the statement speaks for itself ...

Swag accredited Hawke with saying NO AUSTRALIAN WILL LIVE IN POVERTY ... I merely pointed out the error of Swag's ways.

No worries, but that's right, Hawke didn't say "All Australians" and probably what many had thought (or hoped he meant)......so that is what needed highlighting, I did the exact wording of Hawkes statement in my last post. Hence, I thought it was quite clever, re: 'Australian children".......just how astray that comment could be taken.

Everyone's thought processes work differently, I was just suss when I heard that back then.

Swagman wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:37am:

Quote: How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty . None.  Bob Hawke said so.

Actually Bob was right Smithy.

No Australian child was living in Poverty in 1990......or Australian living in poverty for that matter.....just to split hairs.... :D

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:37am: Quote: How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty . None.  Bob Hawke said so. Actually Bob was right Smithy. No Australian child was living in Poverty in 1990......or Australian living in poverty for that matter.....just to split hairs.... :D

splitting hairs? that would work well with your split brain then !!!

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

Overtime denies the unemployed jobs.

OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country 

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:37am: Quote: How Many Australians Are Living In Poverty . None.  Bob Hawke said so. Actually Bob was right Smithy. No Australian child was living in Poverty in 1990......or Australian living in poverty for that matter.....just to split hairs.... :D

For more split hair ends....Look at the statement again, Hawke said "by 1990" and not actually "from 1990"  ;)

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country

no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs...

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country  no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs...

It wasn't clear at all.  Your post was immediately after this from Bam


Bam wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:

Unpaid overtime in Australia costs the Australian economy about 70 billion dollars a year.

To which you replied


Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Overtime denies the unemployed jobs.

Me thinks your bludging mindset kicked in before you had time to conceal it.  Sorry mate but that's what it looks like. 

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country  no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs...

Management can always employ more people and cut overtime nobody said there was any problem with that approach.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:38pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country  no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs... Management can always employ more people and cut overtime nobody said there was any problem with that approach.

Nobody but the Unions

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country  no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs... Management can always employ more people and cut overtime nobody said there was any problem with that approach. Nobody but the Unions

Rubbish!!! If you believe that its because you're believing your own propaganda

By the year 1990 no Australian child will be living in Poverty!

But Poverty - that small salt mining town just to the north of the Tasmanian border - was closed down in 1989, and is now a ghost ship town...  Pirates of the Tasman - Ghosts of Industries Past.....

**stands on sweeping vista plateau overlooking vast expanses of Inner Australia....

"One day, my son... all these ghost mining towns will be yours!".......

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:52pm:

By the year 1990 no Australian child will be living in Poverty! But Poverty - that small salt mining town just to the north of the Tasmanian border - was closed down in 1989, and is now a ghost ship town...  Pirates of the Tasman - Ghosts of Industries Past..... **stands on sweeping vista plateau overlooking vast expanses of Inner Australia.... "One day, my son... all these ghost mining towns will be yours!".......

10 out of 10 for perceptiveness Grappler... :)

I want the gigantic holes in the ground to use as trash pits. They will be a gold mine as the trash mountains of the cities become unmanageable.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 3:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country  no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs... Management can always employ more people and cut overtime nobody said there was any problem with that approach. Nobody but the Unions Rubbish!!! If you believe that its because you're believing your own propaganda

I've often seen calls by the unions for PRECISELY THAT.

It's the employers, not the unions, who are at fault here.

And it's ALL greed-driven.

But the ignorance of the Right doesn't surprise me at all.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 5:03pm:

I want the gigantic holes in the ground to use as trash pits. They will be a gold mine as the trash mountains of the cities become unmanageable.

We used to have a mine near my town, till it closed in the late 1990s.

A major local employer (I worked there myself, as a sub-contractor) and
a major contributor to the local economy.

Now, they're filling it with rubbish trained-in from Sydney.

Benefit to locals... negligible.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country  no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs... So what does "unpaid" overtime do? It denies the employed their right to be paid for their labour. It denies other businesses income because those employees have less to spend. It denies those employees time with their families. Management can always employ more people and cut overtime nobody said there was any problem with that approach. Nobody but the Unions

More rubbish...... it has been business ideology for more than 20 years to downsize & employ less staff to do more for less pay.

Your monotonous Union bashing is just the same ol specious argument of an LNP hack.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

Overtime denies the unemployed jobs.

That needs to be qualified: Unpaid overtime denies the unemployed jobs.

As long as employers are legally allowed to coerce their employees to work as slaves, they have no incentive to employ more staff.

Any form of overtime does this to different degrees, but unpaid overtime is the biggest problem for unemployment. It is a scourge that steals from employees, keeps the unemployed in poverty and for no other purpose than to enrich the company owners unjustly.

Yeah yeah ok, its the bosses and the Liberal party that have enshrined overtime and penalty rates in labour laws.

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country  no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs... Management can always employ more people and cut overtime nobody said there was any problem with that approach. Nobody but the Unions

Bet you have no example for that blooper.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:38pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Overtime denies the unemployed jobs. OMG are you saying that its OK to cheat people of their pay for the overtime they do because "Overtime denies the unemployed jobs". Why didn't you think of that before you made them do the overtime? Like I said the bludging culture is rife in the business sector in this country  no,  it was clear enough,  I said that overtime denies the unemployed jobs... Management can always employ more people and cut overtime nobody said there was any problem with that approach.

Indeed.

A company that does it properly can also keep casuals on the books so they only call extra staff in when needed. Some people do not mind this kind of casual work.

What blooper?

Have you ever read an EBA or been involved in the negotiation of one?

Employers all put ... "there is an expectation that employees will work a reasonable amount of over  time" ... never been put in by a Union to my knowledge ...

& yes the Union response to that is that if you want employees to work beyond their "normal" hours of work ... then you are expected to pay the overtime at penalty rates.

Nothing untoward or fairer than that.

So the "overtime" factor is in the hands of employers ... who want to reduce staff ... & have those remaining work overtime to cover for the reduction .... they prefer paying the overtime than employing more people.

And at every turn of the book they are trying not to pay OT penalties ..... & as has been mentioned expect their employees to work unpaid OT... that is they just don't pay it.

Ok I'll retract that statement.  My humble apologies to all unions. :(

Swagman wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:59pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 3:52pm: By the year 1990 no Australian child will be living in Poverty! But Poverty - that small salt mining town just to the north of the Tasmanian border - was closed down in 1989, and is now a ghost ship town...  Pirates of the Tasman - Ghosts of Industries Past..... **stands on sweeping vista plateau overlooking vast expanses of Inner Australia.... "One day, my son... all these ghost mining towns will be yours!"....... 10 out of 10 for perceptiveness Grappler... :)

Thank you, Suh - I try to offer a little mirth with a pointy stick....

Sadly - it's true.....

I'm afraid that Clive walking on water in the Galilee Basin will result in a railway to nowhere, and a future ghost town... one day the Outback will be filled with ghost towns.

I had a dream once that I was traveling and chanced upon one, bought it for a song, and turned it into a home for many without....

Must have been dreaming..... A Town Like Malice...

Gnads wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

Have you ever read an EBA or been involved in the negotiation of one? Employers all put ... "there is an expectation that employees will work a reasonable amount of over  time" ... never been put in by a Union to my knowledge ... & yes the Union response to that is that if you want employees to work beyond their "normal" hours of work ... then you are expected to pay the overtime at penalty rates. Nothing untoward or fairer than that. So the "overtime" factor is in the hands of employers ... who want to reduce staff ... & have those remaining work overtime to cover for the reduction .... they prefer paying the overtime than employing more people. And at every turn of the book they are trying not to pay OT penalties ..... & as has been mentioned expect their employees to work unpaid OT... that is they just don't pay it.

I have encountered exactly that - all set to start work for a summer season - last minute - oh, sorry - head office has told us not to put anyone on.  The girl working there that I was after (sadly got some loser instead) told me they were flat out and could have done with another worker...

All about cutting costs - they imagine - since it cost no more for insurance etc to put on one more, and saves in penalty rates.

There are sure some dumb bean counters around the place...

See - to understand how things like that work you need to be able to do more than sit in front of a computer and hope it will give you an answer... it won't and it can't - garbage in = garbage out.

Unpaid overtime works both ways.

As a young fella I was a bank teller.  Opening hours (as they are now) were (Mon Thur) 9.30 - 4pm (5pm Fri) but we were supposed to work from 8.30am to 5pm (45 minute lunch).

Our work hours were officially 8hrs a day and we got a roster day once a month.

Most days we'd balance and scoot by 4.15pm but technically we were supposed to work until 5pm.  So most days we got paid for 1hr we didn't work. 

I guess you'd call this paid under-time.... ;D

This never rates a mention.

:-?

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

Unpaid overtime works both ways. As a young fella I was a bank teller.  Opening hours (as they are now) were (Mon Thur) 9.30 - 4pm (5pm Fri) but we were supposed to work from 8.30am to 5pm (45 minute lunch). Our work hours were officially 8hrs a day and we got a roster day once a month. Most days we'd balance and scoot by 4.15pm but technically we were supposed to work until 5pm.  So most days we got paid for 1hr we didn't work.  I guess you'd call this paid under-time.... ;D This never rates a mention. :-?

It rarely happens in the real world and a lot has changed since you were a young bank teller all those many many years ago. And besides we all know how bankers prescribe austerity for the real workers in the community but never intend those rules to apply to themselves.   

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

Unpaid overtime works both ways. As a young fella I was a bank teller.  Opening hours (as they are now) were (Mon Thur) 9.30 - 4pm (5pm Fri) but we were supposed to work from 8.30am to 5pm (45 minute lunch). Our work hours were officially 8hrs a day and we got a roster day once a month. Most days we'd balance and scoot by 4.15pm but technically we were supposed to work until 5pm.  So most days we got paid for 1hr we didn't work.  I guess you'd call this paid under-time.... ;D This never rates a mention. :-?

times have changed to those you experienced 50 yrs ago ...... do you see a lot of that happening today?

John Smith wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:04am: Unpaid overtime works both ways. As a young fella I was a bank teller.  Opening hours (as they are now) were (Mon Thur) 9.30 - 4pm (5pm Fri) but we were supposed to work from 8.30am to 5pm (45 minute lunch). Our work hours were officially 8hrs a day and we got a roster day once a month. Most days we'd balance and scoot by 4.15pm but technically we were supposed to work until 5pm.  So most days we got paid for 1hr we didn't work.  I guess you'd call this paid under-time.... ;D This never rates a mention. :-? times have changed to those you experienced 50 yrs ago ...... do you see a lot of that happening today?

It used to happen in the 80s but it doesn't happen anymore.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:25am: Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:04am: Unpaid overtime works both ways. As a young fella I was a bank teller.  Opening hours (as they are now) were (Mon Thur) 9.30 - 4pm (5pm Fri) but we were supposed to work from 8.30am to 5pm (45 minute lunch). Our work hours were officially 8hrs a day and we got a roster day once a month. Most days we'd balance and scoot by 4.15pm but technically we were supposed to work until 5pm.  So most days we got paid for 1hr we didn't work.  I guess you'd call this paid under-time.... ;D This never rates a mention. :-? times have changed to those you experienced 50 yrs ago ...... do you see a lot of that happening today? It used to happen in the 80s but it doesn't happen anymore.

I even used to do something similar with my staff when I was painting ..... if we finished painting a house at 1pm, and I had no other work for the day, I sent them home, but still paid them up to 5pm. The flip side of that was that if they needed to stay an extra hour to finish a job the next day, they would and I wouldn't pay overtime. 

I know if worked more in their favour than it did in mine .... the most they would stay behind would be an hour, but often they would go home early at about lunch time. I didn't mind.

I remember in the 1970's we didn't get paid overtime or for working odd hours, it was called 'flexi time'.
So we worked extra time every day, up to the amount of a full day's work to accumulate to then be able to take one day a fortnight off.
It was a choice if we wanted to work the extra time or not. So it was a bonus to do so, and have a day off with full pay, which was awesome.

John Smith wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:04am: Unpaid overtime works both ways. As a young fella I was a bank teller.  Opening hours (as they are now) were (Mon Thur) 9.30 - 4pm (5pm Fri) but we were supposed to work from 8.30am to 5pm (45 minute lunch). Our work hours were officially 8hrs a day and we got a roster day once a month. Most days we'd balance and scoot by 4.15pm but technically we were supposed to work until 5pm.  So most days we got paid for 1hr we didn't work.  I guess you'd call this paid under-time.... ;D This never rates a mention. :-? times have changed to those you experienced 50 yrs ago ...... do you see a lot of that happening today?

Yes.

The assistant Swagmen get lots of paid under-time because I'm such a good boss.  :)

....and if they try to claim overtime I remind them of that. 

Good old common sense wins out. 

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:15am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:25am: Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:04am: Unpaid overtime works both ways. As a young fella I was a bank teller.  Opening hours (as they are now) were (Mon Thur) 9.30 - 4pm (5pm Fri) but we were supposed to work from 8.30am to 5pm (45 minute lunch). Our work hours were officially 8hrs a day and we got a roster day once a month. Most days we'd balance and scoot by 4.15pm but technically we were supposed to work until 5pm.  So most days we got paid for 1hr we didn't work.  I guess you'd call this paid under-time.... ;D This never rates a mention. :-? times have changed to those you experienced 50 yrs ago ...... do you see a lot of that happening today? Yes. The assistant Swagmen get lots of paid under-time because I'm such a good boss.  :) ....and if they try to claim overtime I remind them of that.  Good old common sense wins out.

not quite the same thing as simply been paid undertime. you are in effect trading one for the other ... they still get paid overtime, but by way of more undertime rather than money

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:15am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:25am: Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:04am: Unpaid overtime works both ways. As a young fella I was a bank teller.  Opening hours (as they are now) were (Mon Thur) 9.30 - 4pm (5pm Fri) but we were supposed to work from 8.30am to 5pm (45 minute lunch). Our work hours were officially 8hrs a day and we got a roster day once a month. Most days we'd balance and scoot by 4.15pm but technically we were supposed to work until 5pm.  So most days we got paid for 1hr we didn't work.  I guess you'd call this paid under-time.... ;D This never rates a mention. :-? times have changed to those you experienced 50 yrs ago ...... do you see a lot of that happening today? Yes. The assistant Swagmen get lots of paid under-time because I'm such a good boss.  :) ....and if they try to claim overtime I remind them of that.  Good old common sense wins out.

Thats called "time in lieu"

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:54am:

Thats called "time in lieu"

time in lieu.....flexi time.......paid under-time........all conveniently forgotten when unpaid overtime is brought up  :(

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:01am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:54am: Thats called "time in lieu" time in lieu.....flexi time.......paid under-time........all conveniently forgotten when unpaid overtime is brought up  :(

rubbish ... time in lieu is not a benefit, it's earned in exchange for something else, usually working extra hours. If you work overtime you should be rewarded for it, either with extra money, extra time off with pay etc. To expect people to work overtime just so that head office can meet your targets is rubbish.

John Smith wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:14am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:01am: The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:54am: Thats called "time in lieu" time in lieu.....flexi time.......paid under-time........all conveniently forgotten when unpaid overtime is brought up  :( rubbish ... time in lieu is not a benefit, it's earned in exchange for something else, usually working extra hours. If you work overtime you should be rewarded for it, either with extra money, extra time off with pay etc. To expect people to work overtime just so that head office can meet your targets is rubbish.

Hmmm, you should see someone about that Bi-polar disorder Smithy?


John Smith wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:13am:

I even used to do something similar with my staff when I was painting ..... if we finished painting a house at 1pm, and I had no other work for the day, I sent them home, but still paid them up to 5pm. The flip side of that was that if they needed to stay an extra hour to finish a job the next day, they would and I wouldn't pay overtime

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 4:44pm:

More than two million Australians in poverty Date     October 14, 2012

Needless to say, it's utter nonsense.

People are pouring into Australia to get onto the gravy train of a well paying  job, or a Paid Unemployment lifestyle, or some phoney 'Disability Support Pension' that's signed off by one of their compatriot doctors here in Australia who are regularly used for these nefarious purposes.

"Two million living in poverty" translates as two million living beyond the scope of their welfare payments, with the high probability of heavy drinking and smoking being part of their weekly budget.

I see these 'impoverished Australians' at the taxi stands every time I go to town. It's always the same spectacle ~ only different people.

Both with cigarettes in hand, he carries the carton of VB, while the pregnant girlfriend tends to the toddler and the baby in the pram.

Self-made poverty should not count in the statistics.








    They're even paying people to ship them to where the Australian navy will provide them with an escort service to temporary accommodation and meals while they're waiting to have their 'country-shopper' credentials

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:38am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:14am: Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:01am: The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:54am: Thats called "time in lieu" time in lieu.....flexi time.......paid under-time........all conveniently forgotten when unpaid overtime is brought up  :( rubbish ... time in lieu is not a benefit, it's earned in exchange for something else, usually working extra hours. If you work overtime you should be rewarded for it, either with extra money, extra time off with pay etc. To expect people to work overtime just so that head office can meet your targets is rubbish. Hmmm, you should see someone about that Bi-polar disorder Smithy? John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:13am: I even used to do something similar with my staff when I was painting ..... if we finished painting a house at 1pm, and I had no other work for the day, I sent them home, but still paid them up to 5pm. The flip side of that was that if they needed to stay an extra hour to finish a job the next day, they would and I wouldn't pay overtime

was that to difficult for you? Exchanging overtime for extra time off is not working overtime for free. It's not a benefit, it was earned. There is a difference. I have no problem with trading one hour for another, but to expect others to work overtime out of the goodness of their hearts is ridiculous. You did specify UNPAID overtime didn't you?

you said something about bi polar ..... you should check that out further.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 4:44pm: More than two million Australians in poverty Date     October 14, 2012 Needless to say, it's utter nonsense. People are pouring into Australia to get onto the gravy train of a well paying  job, or a Paid Unemployment lifestyle, or some phoney 'Disability Support Pension' that's signed off by one of their compatriot doctors here in Australia who are regularly used for these nefarious purposes. "Two million living in poverty" translates as two million living beyond the scope of their welfare payments, with the high probability of heavy drinking and smoking being part of their weekly budget. I see these 'impoverished Australians' at the taxi stands every time I go to town. It's always the same spectacle ~ only different people. Both with cigarettes in hand, he carries the carton of VB, while the pregnant girlfriend tends to the toddler and the baby in the pram. Self-made poverty should not count in the statistics.     They're even paying people to ship them to where the Australian navy will provide them with an escort service to temporary accommodation and meals while they're waiting to have their 'country-shopper' credentials

Come on Herb.  How do you KNOW these people of the VB and the fags at the cab rank are dole or pension recipients...

They could be hard working drug dealers or something.. truckie on a break from long haul - they all look the same.,...

I'm on DSP and I haven't caught a cab for years, I get 3-4 beers a fortnight, and I don't smoke and haven't had the money to even visit my two new grand-daughters.

EAT ME!

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

Come on Herb.  How do you KNOW these people of the VB and the fags at the cab rank are dole or pension recipients...

They could be hard working drug dealers or something.. truckie on a break from long haul - they all look the same.,...

I'm on DSP and I haven't caught a cab for years, I get 3-4 beers a fortnight, and I don't smoke and haven't had the money to even visit my two new grand-daughters.

EAT ME!
[/quote]

I wouldn't want to be those poor wretched creatures standing there at the taxi ranks hanging onto every mistake they ever made in life. I pity them.

And I understand perfectly why they don't want to work. I didn't want to work. I never did want to work.

8 hours a day, 5 days a week ~ is pure insanity. As a lifestyle it's the pits. I'd rather be a rustic fellow in the Middle Ages making a nice living out of poaching for rabbits and foxes on a Lord's country estate than work as we do in the West.

8-)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 4:44pm: More than two million Australians in poverty Date     October 14, 2012 Needless to say, it's utter nonsense. People are pouring into Australia to get onto the gravy train of a well paying  job, or a Paid Unemployment lifestyle, or some phoney 'Disability Support Pension' that's signed off by one of their compatriot doctors here in Australia who are regularly used for these nefarious purposes. "Two million living in poverty" translates as two million living beyond the scope of their welfare payments, with the high probability of heavy drinking and smoking being part of their weekly budget.

If you think people are "living beyond the scope of their welfare payments", I challenge you to live on $62.50 a week for a year. That is how much is left after a Newstart recipient on $250.50 a week and $62.00 a week rent assistance pays their rent of $250 a week.

Out of that $62.50, you have to buy everything else.

That's why I work.

Bam wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:44pm:

If you think people are "living beyond the scope of their welfare payments", I challenge you to live on $62.50 a week for a year. That is how much is left after a Newstart recipient on $250.50 a week and $62.00 a week rent assistance pays their rent of $250 a week. Out of that $62.50, you have to buy everything else.

Fair enough, Bam. I believe you.

Some people chose to share rent with a couple of others to bring the weekly rent for each to around $100, but I understand if that doesn't suit certain people.

I used to live in 'rooms' for many years before I graduated to a bedsitter that was just big enough to swing a cat around.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:

Fair enough, Bam. I believe you. Some people chose to share rent with a couple of others to bring the weekly rent for each to around $100, but I understand if that doesn't suit certain people. I used to live in 'rooms' for many years before I graduated to a bedsitter that was just big enough to swing a cat around.

Hmm - yes - we've all done that - but most can't afford to feed the cat.. cat stew....

I'm broke now but the neighbour's cat gets free feed and cold milk on a hot day from me....

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:44pm: If you think people are "living beyond the scope of their welfare payments", I challenge you to live on $62.50 a week for a year. That is how much is left after a Newstart recipient on $250.50 a week and $62.00 a week rent assistance pays their rent of $250 a week. Out of that $62.50, you have to buy everything else. Fair enough, Bam. I believe you. Some people chose to share rent with a couple of others to bring the weekly rent for each to around $100, but I understand if that doesn't suit certain people.

Especially Centrelink. Anyone who is sharing has to declare this to Centrelink (along with numerous red tape questions) so they can reduce their payment by just the right amount. Some of this red tape costs more to administer than it saves.


Quote:

I used to live in 'rooms' for many years before I graduated to a bedsitter that was just big enough to swing a cat around.

The rules are much stricter now.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

I'm broke now but the neighbour's cat gets free feed and cold milk on a hot day from me....

Ordinary milk for humans is bad for cats. You can buy special cat milk at any supermarket.


Quote:

When a lactose-intolerant cat drinks milk, the undigested lactose passes through the intestinal tract, drawing water with it, according to the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine's web site. Bacteria in the colon also ferment the undigested sugars, producing volatile fatty acids. All that activity might lead to an upset tummy and induce vomiting. But the most common symptom of lactose intolerance in cats is diarrhea, usually within eight to 12 hours, says Susan G. Wynn, DVM, CVA, CVCH, an animal nutritionist in Atlanta and co-author of the Manual of Natural Veterinary Medicine.

Bam wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:22pm:

The rules are much stricter now.

I've been out of the loop for yonkers now. There used to always be Greeks and Italians renting a room or two to help pay off their house.

I was never out of work for more than a couple of weeks at a time since 1962, so I can't say I have first hand experience of being unemployed for any amount of time.

When I was retrenched from my long-term job, I immediately signed on with a Casual Work agency and was run off my feet for the next 6 years doing work all over Sydney.

At the end I was doing 'voluntary' work for the Salvation army.

Cat milk, eh? I'll look into that.

Now to check on the baby swallow rescued when it fell from the nest and was put back... while mum and dad are gallivanting for food or whatever.

It's like that around here.  Rescued an entire family of wagtails once - wind blew their nest off its perch.

The cat and the birds don't share the same space.... cat in town, birds at 'the farm'.

*primps self up for public utterance a la Hawke:-

"Byy the yearr two thousand and fourteen-e NO(weh) Australian bird or cat will be living in poverty!"

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 5:04pm: I'm broke now but the neighbour's cat gets free feed and cold milk on a hot day from me.... Ordinary milk for humans is bad for cats. You can buy special cat milk at any supermarket. Quote: When a lactose-intolerant cat drinks milk, the undigested lactose passes through the intestinal tract, drawing water with it, according to the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine's web site. Bacteria in the colon also ferment the undigested sugars, producing volatile fatty acids. All that activity might lead to an upset tummy and induce vomiting. But the most common symptom of lactose intolerance in cats is diarrhea, usually within eight to 12 hours, says Susan G. Wynn, DVM, CVA, CVCH, an animal nutritionist in Atlanta and co-author of the Manual of Natural Veterinary Medicine.

Herbert is right about this. Adult cats should not be given milk.

I'm also rather sceptical about giving them fish too. How much fish does a cat really eat when so many of them are scared of pools of water?

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:20pm:

That's why I work.

That's why I look for work while on DSP - and why I filled out a survey yesterday saying the retirement age should be 65 but retirement should be optional and I would never retire given the chance.

Bam - good thought about the cat.  Hmmm.... I suppose in the wild they eat what they can get...

It's amazing how cats do like cow's milk.....but yes, the daughter is adamant that her cat be given special lactose free special cat's milk from the pet section.....still, occasionally, I have been guilty giving it a watered down version of low fat cow's milk.....when it seems too fussy for anything else. In fact, isn't cow's milk not even really suitable for humans also? If there is a milk that is more suitable for humans, I have read, it is otter's milk  :-?

Oh, and then there is the son's dog, with special dietary needs because it had ummm, whatsitcalled.....pancreaititis  :-? So when I am dog sitting, I have the strictest instructions of what I can give the dog, not even a smacko  :-/ (that's a type of beef strip thingy)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:20pm: That's why I work. That's why I look for work while on DSP

It's also why I look for work. Now, all we need to do is convince employers to hire unemployed people and not queue jumpers who already have jobs.


Quote:

- and why I filled out a survey yesterday saying the retirement age should be 65 but retirement should be optional and I would never retire given the chance.

A fixed retirement age does not take into account the possibility of unemployment during the working life. IMO retirement should be mandatory after 50 years in the workforce.


Quote:

Bam - good thought about the cat.  Hmmm.... I suppose in the wild they eat what they can get...

Try raw chicken wings. They are cheap and cats like them. Never give a cat cooked bones - they are fragile and splinter easily. But raw bones are fine, those birds and mice they sometimes catch are full of them.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

Cat milk, eh? I'll look into that.

They're on the shelves at Coles in the Pet Foods aisle / Isle / I'll.

After the initial novelty my three fleaballs didn't drink any more of the milk.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

Now to check on the baby swallow rescued when it fell from the nest and was put back... while mum and dad are gallivanting for food or whatever. It's like that around here.  Rescued an entire family of wagtails once - wind blew their nest off its perch.

Well done. Keep up the good work.

Breaking News on KRUD News Network: -

Baby swallow rescued on 2/01/2014 looks fed and fat... developing pin feathers.... think there are two in the nest - maybe three - hard to tell until you can count beaks.

The parents are up to seven already this year before this lot.

Now on International News - The Grappler is more than wary of humans, but has an amazing empathy with animals.  He is often seen talking to them in the street, to the amusement of passersby.  When questioned on this subject, he said:-

"They are more interesting company than most news crews, in my experience.  At least they pay attention when you offer them a tit-bit - unlike said film crews, who seem mainly intent on appearances rather than on issues."

Yesterday, while discussing with an elderly bull terrier the terrier's hip arthritis, he was simultaneously adored by the lady dog owner while receiving a huge question mark from the man with her. See the full story alter tonight on our Some People Are Out Of Their Depth and Class segment when we will be discussing with our panel whether or not some men should be with beautiful women.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 11:50am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 8:13am: Cat milk, eh? I'll look into that. They're on the shelves at Coles in the Pet Foods aisle / Isle / I'll. After the initial novelty my three fleaballs didn't drink any more of the milk. Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 8:13am: Now to check on the baby swallow rescued when it fell from the nest and was put back... while mum and dad are gallivanting for food or whatever. It's like that around here.  Rescued an entire family of wagtails once - wind blew their nest off its perch. Well done. Keep up the good work.

Hilarious really - picked up the wagtail's nest with one baby missing, and glued it back on with construction glue, and popped the kids back in - then screwed a piece of ply underneath in case they fell again.  Found the third baby later hiding near the shed door and put him/her back up.  They all flew off in the next day or two.

No cat here to get them or they would have been goners.

I'm trying to persuade the ex here to do a book of bird tales.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

I suppose in the wild they eat what they can get...

I hear Ratsak works well.

Bam wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:44pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:49am: wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 4:44pm: More than two million Australians in poverty Date     October 14, 2012 Needless to say, it's utter nonsense. People are pouring into Australia to get onto the gravy train of a well paying  job, or a Paid Unemployment lifestyle, or some phoney 'Disability Support Pension' that's signed off by one of their compatriot doctors here in Australia who are regularly used for these nefarious purposes. "Two million living in poverty" translates as two million living beyond the scope of their welfare payments, with the high probability of heavy drinking and smoking being part of their weekly budget. If you think people are "living beyond the scope of their welfare payments", I challenge you to live on $62.50 a week for a year. That is how much is left after a Newstart recipient on $250.50 a week and $62.00 a week rent assistance pays their rent of $250 a week. Out of that $62.50, you have to buy everything else.

Why on earth is the government propping up property hoarders and speculators with yet more middle class welfare in the form of rent assistance ?

The real welfare recipients are the people who hoard and speculate in property and the people on the dole are just the conduit to deliver the welfare to them :( Go figure

Australian society is devolving as caves are starting to become scarce and unaffordable.

Stake out your tree for the next stage of devolution before another family does.

Aspirations are under threat from the loss of iconic holden cars. Next to go will be football as Australians won't be able to afford large screen TV in their trees. The final fall will be signalled by the absence of meat pies from the menu.

The kangaroos will inherit the earth and will evolve to play a facsimile of cricket and football using the bones and skulls of the predecessor humans.

:'( :'( :'(

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

Bam - good thought about the cat.  Hmmm.... I suppose in the wild they eat what they can get...

Crows up in Queensland have learnt how to flip Cane Toads onto their back for a nice meal of intestines while avoiding the poisonous sacs in their upper skin.

Like shelling an oyster (or is that 'shucking'?)

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

Australian society is devolving as caves are starting to become scarce and unaffordable.

I don't need a cave - we have a house.


Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

Stake out your tree for the next stage of devolution before another family does.

Too late - we cut down the two trees in the back garden.


Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

Aspirations are under threat from the loss of iconic holden cars.

I don't want to knock Holden cars, but would you aspire to own one?


Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

Next to go will be football

Boring game - I wouldn't miss it.


Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

The final fall will be signalled by the absence of meat pies from the menu.

No great loss - home made meat pies are much better.


Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

The kangaroos will inherit the earth

I thought it was the cockroaches that were supposed to be the last living creatures on earth.........

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

Australian society is devolving as caves are starting to become scarce and unaffordable. Stake out your tree for the next stage of devolution before another family does. Aspirations are under threat from the loss of iconic holden cars. Next to go will be football as Australians won't be able to afford large screen TV in their trees. The final fall will be signalled by the absence of meat pies from the menu. The kangaroos will inherit the earth and will evolve to play a facsimile of cricket and football using the bones and skulls of the predecessor humans. :'( :'( :'(

;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:

Why on earth is the government propping up property hoarders and speculators with yet more middle class welfare in the form of rent assistance ? The real welfare recipients are the people who hoard and speculate in property and the people on the dole are just the conduit to deliver the welfare to them :( Go figure

That says it all, Bro! And it starts with negative gearing...THAT is the purest welfare, and has the side effect of actually putting more competition into the housing purchase market, thus forcing up prices to suit negative gear recipients who can afford it more than the ordinary home buyer.

Some say that chopping negative gearing would lead to higher rentals - I disagree - rentals would be forced - as would housing prices - to stabilise at market value - and the investors would just have to accept a lower return.

Better them than the millions of poor.

Ever notice how all these wonderful 'socialist' policies are forcing more and more of the cash/resources/wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people?  AND cutting out the majority or making it damned hard for them?

Can anyone seriously - at this important juncture in the history of Australia as a nation - continue to accept this sort of nonsense and handouts to those without need?

If you can afford to buy investment property, you do not need a handout to do it.

ANY business must survive on its own merits - same as everyone else.  If they fail - they can always accept Newstart - same as everyone else has to.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:

Some say that chopping negative gearing would lead to higher rentals - I disagree - rentals would be forced - as would housing prices - to stabilise at market value - and the investors would just have to accept a lower return

have to accept? why, you don't think there are other alternatives?

Would you borrow $200 000+ to get a return of 3% or 4%? Neither will anyone else. No investment properties, no properties avaiable for rent, of those that there are, demand will be huge ... yes, if negative gearing were abolished you can expect rent to go up.

I rented a place today, first thing I did before placing the add was check the internet to see how many available in the immediate vicinity, there were only 3 ... I increased the rent from what I had originally planned and rented it in one day.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS NO SUPPLY. CUT NEGATIVE GEARING AND YOU WILL CUT SUPPLY. CUT SUPPLY, PRICES WILL SKYROCKET.

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 9:35pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:34pm: Some say that chopping negative gearing would lead to higher rentals - I disagree - rentals would be forced - as would housing prices - to stabilise at market value - and the investors would just have to accept a lower return have to accept? why, you don't think there are other alternatives? Would you borrow $200 000+ to get a return of 3% or 4%? Neither will anyone else. No investment properties, no properties available for rent, of those that there are, demand will be huge ... yes, if negative gearing were abolished you can expect rent to go up. I rented a place today, first thing I did before placing the add was check the internet to see how many available in the immediate vicinity, there were only 3 ... I increased the rent from what I had originally planned and rented it in one day. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS NO SUPPLY. CUT NEGATIVE GEARING AND YOU WILL CUT SUPPLY. CUT SUPPLY, PRICES WILL SKYROCKET.

I've been waiting for that specious argument.  Properties were available and will remain available without negative gearing.

In that case - fewer property investors grabbing the opportunity to raise $200K (very low figure BTW these days) = LOWER PRESSURE ON RISING COST OF HOUSING = lower pressure on loans demand = more people getting home loans instead of investors and buying into their own home instead of renting = SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOMES BUT WITHOUT PAYING SOMEONE ELSE FOR THE PRIVILEGE.

If there are 2000 houses on the market for renting - what makes you imagine those will just disappear?  What?  the owners/purchasers are just going to lock them up and walk away because they can't make a zillion dollars?

In that case - let's hear it for the monkeys who have been doing an Alan Bond for years and raising equity against equity until it falls in a heap - when they escape with a few lazy mill.  Them ALL say :-  "Oh, well - if I get into trouble -I'LL SELL A HOUSE OR TWO!"

So they 'get into trouble' since their welfare is suddenly withdrawn - and they are forced to sell off a property.  the market is flooded, prices go down and more people own a home and have a chance of owning a home - and the government and the people are all better off instead of that tiny minority of vultures.  Removal of welfare from those who don't need it and a restoration of some sanity to the market.

THEN the market stabilises - and more people have a genuine opportunity in life.  Investment cash is available to put into something that will generate work etc such as an industry and not just the occasional tradesperson called in to do repair work once, more money is available for loans where they are more productive socially and economically than in buying 'dead stock' - and everyone is better off.

Business must survive on its own or it should not be there - if you find yourself out of a job - you are stuck with it - so are those who invest in property, a business, who have received far too much for far too long and who have succeeded in destroying the market, as well as the social and economic structure of this country which once offered a real chance for most to prosper with hard work and a bit of luck - and not just the few vultures, amongst whose ranks happen to be a large number of family and friends of those who make the decisions such as 'negative gearing'.

One of the best jobs in the world has been, for years, a politician using his/her sustenance allowance per diem of more than a pensioner receives a WEEK or considerably more than an unemployed person receives for a WEEK - has been to buy an investment property in Canberra or wherever... write off the costs against the rules THEY make.. and prosper greatly on the public purse (again).

A classic case was a NSW member who lives five miles out of the Sydney CBD buying a unit in the CBD on his sustenance money, and writing off heaps on negative gearing on this 'investment property' while living in it to satisfy residency requirements to offset capital gains.

Good work if you can get it..... hardly legal or anything else though.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:39am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 9:35pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:34pm: Some say that chopping negative gearing would lead to higher rentals - I disagree - rentals would be forced - as would housing prices - to stabilise at market value - and the investors would just have to accept a lower return have to accept? why, you don't think there are other alternatives? Would you borrow $200 000+ to get a return of 3% or 4%? Neither will anyone else. No investment properties, no properties available for rent, of those that there are, demand will be huge ... yes, if negative gearing were abolished you can expect rent to go up. I rented a place today, first thing I did before placing the add was check the internet to see how many available in the immediate vicinity, there were only 3 ... I increased the rent from what I had originally planned and rented it in one day. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS NO SUPPLY. CUT NEGATIVE GEARING AND YOU WILL CUT SUPPLY. CUT SUPPLY, PRICES WILL SKYROCKET. I've been waiting for that specious argument.  Properties were available and will remain available without negative gearing. its the number of properties available that I'm referring too In that case - fewer property investors grabbing the opportunity to raise $200K (very low figure BTW these days) = LOWER PRESSURE ON RISING COST OF HOUSING = lower pressure on loans demand = more people getting home loans instead of investors and buying into their own home instead of renting = SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOMES BUT WITHOUT PAYING SOMEONE ELSE FOR THE PRIVILEGE.   no matter how low the prices are, there will always be a percentage of the population that prefers to rent ... if things happened as you say, that may help those buying (I doubt it) but what happens to those left who cannot buy? If there are 2000 houses on the market for renting - what makes you imagine those will just disappear?  What?  the owners/purchasers are just going to lock them up and walk away because they can't make a zillion dollars? 1500 of them may sell to owner occupiers, the balance will triple their rent In that case - let's hear it for the monkeys who have been doing an Alan Bond for years and raising equity against equity until it falls in a heap - when they escape with a few lazy mill.  Them ALL say :-  "Oh, well - if I get into trouble -I'LL SELL A HOUSE OR TWO!" you really think someone who bought a house for eg $300 000 will suddenly sell it for $150 000 ... , most owners I know would prefer to lock it up. So they 'get into trouble' since their welfare is suddenly withdrawn  welfare withdrawn? but according to you rent has decresed, their income is lower ... welfare is increased - and they are forced to sell off a property.  the market is flooded, prices go down and more people own a home and have a chance of owning a home - and the government and the people are all better off  what people? instead of that tiny minority of vultures.  Removal of welfare from those who don't need it and a restoration of some sanity to the market. THEN the market stabilises - and more people have a genuine opportunity in life.  Investment cash is available to put into something that will generate work etc such as an industry  sounds great for China and not just the occasional tradesperson called in to do repair work once, more money is available for loans where they are more productive socially and economically than in buying 'dead stock' - and everyone is better off. Business must survive on its own or it should not be there true, and businesses are allowed to claim ALL their expenses against their income ... negative gearing is no different. - if you find yourself out of a job - you are stuck with it - so are those who invest in property, a business, who have received far too much for far too long and who have succeeded in destroying the market, as well as the social and economic structure of this country which once offered a real chance for most to prosper with hard work and a bit of luck - and not just the few vultures, amongst whose ranks happen to be a large number of family and friends of those who make the decisions such as 'negative gearing'. One of the best jobs in the world has been, for years, a politician using his/her sustenance allowance per diem of more than a pensioner receives a WEEK or considerably more than an unemployed person receives for a WEEK - has been to buy an investment property in Canberra or wherever... write off the costs against the rules THEY make.. and prosper greatly on the public purse (again). A classic case was a NSW member who lives five miles out of the Sydney CBD buying a unit in the CBD on his sustenance money, and writing off heaps on negative gearing on this 'investment property' while living in it to satisfy residency requirements to offset capital gains. Good work if you can get it..... hardly legal or anything else though.

"its the number of properties available that I'm referring too "

And these will magically disappear without negative gearing?  No - the market will re-stabilise without negative gearing and will then move one.

" no matter how low the prices are, there will always be a percentage of the population that prefers to rent ... if things happened as you say, that may help those buying (I doubt it) but what happens to those left who cannot buy? "

That number will remain static within normal expanding market numbers due to growing up, imported Australians and so forth.. he only difference will be that some who are now renting will be owning.

"1500 of them may sell to owner occupiers, the balance will triple their rent"..

And have nobody living there and a call for government intervention.  You seriously think that banishing negative gearing will lead to a rise of 300%?  If that is the case, negative gearing is way too much of a bonus for doing nothing.

"you really think someone who bought a house for eg $300 000 will suddenly sell it for $150 000 ... , most owners I know would prefer to lock it up. "

Squatter's Paradise Apartments and Houses Inc.. you beauty! Look at Britain and many European countries right now...

Their choice in a market that must collapse sometime.  who said they wouldn't receive the same rent?  Just how much do they gain from negative gearing - and if it the 30 year mortgage equivalent of $150000 in equity (nonsense - that will rise) - that's $5000 a year.

Now if they need to raise their rents 300% to cover $5000 - well - that's a pretty steep rise and totally out of synch with the real cost - so it is nothing but more gouging and one day a 'strong' government will step in and fix rents.

Again - that means negative gearing is far too much of a windfall and thus is negative in the market, which will stabilise without it.

"welfare withdrawn? but according to you rent has decresed, their income is lower ... welfare is increased"

Nope - the welfare I refer to is negative gearing - a handout to those who don't need it by government and thus unwarranted welfare - and welfare that could be better spent keeping the community viable instead of lining the pockets of few.  If they are reduced to being on welfare because their perks are withdrawn - they are in the wrong business.  It is not the business of government to rob the poor to subsidise wealth for some.

"what people?"

Those in the general community who will benefit from all that investment money going into something that creates more than wealth and perks for a few with 'dead stock' such as properties.  As for China - have you missed the entire discussion so far?  The world economy is failing because of the impoverishment of the West and the consequent failure to sustain any viable ongoing market base for Chinese etc production - at a time when the cost of living, wage rises, social divides and so forth are beginning to steer straight towards the same level as the West.

When that becomes a reality - there is nothing left for anyone - markets dry up, production stops, goods stockpile on the wharves, nobody has any money except the few, and we will be in The Greatest Depression'.

Then will follow the Four Horsemen.... trust me...

"true, and businesses are allowed to claim ALL their expenses against their income ... negative gearing is no different. "


Claiming an expense is just that - it does not receive a bonus deduction as does negative gearing.  Negative gearing is a bonus deduction on the false premise that without it housing would dry up, and is miraculously convenient for the already well-off few, thus exacerbating the already criminal social and economic divides destroying this country and which will lead us to revolution of one sort or another.

You are mistaking the current situation of negative gearing for the way it should always be - in the same way as the recipients of affirmative action assume it should always be that way as long as it suits them only, or those on nice incomes assume they should cop six months full pay to have their own kids that they should have been budgeting for in advance.

We are in a time when desperate measures are needed - and that includes no more free rides for the few, including early retirement schemes for politicians - no more until they reach retirement age.  Now watch the retirement age come down to fifty or so (but of course, mandatory retirement ages are only for the peasants, aren't they?  Not their 'betters'?)

Now - would you prefer to see the property magnate suffer a little until the market stabilises and he/she can work out how to run a business for a change - or a multitude suffer much more in proportion through handouts to those few for nothing, thus enabling them to corner the market and CREATE housing and rent crises to suit themselves - especially since the property magnate has already had his/her cut of the pie - in several ways.

Fool's Paradise.......

I thank you, suh, for your kind words.

Where there's a rort waiting to be exploited ~ it will be exploited by a sizable minority.


Quote:

Former New York police officers and firefighters are among 106 people accused of being involved in a huge fraud linked to the September 11 attacks in the city. The accused allegedly collected tens of thousands of dollars a year in social security benefits by claiming they were incapacitated by serious psychiatric disorders and other ailments. But, according to court documents, they were continuing to live their normal lives.

link

Of the 9 names published in the article, here are 6 of them ...

Mike Scialabba
Joseph Esposito
Shannon Tumminello
Jospeh Morrone
Rich Cosentino
John Famularo

There's something about these names that's playing on my mind, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Any help, any one ... ?  ::)

Yeah but - you can't just walk in and claim that stuff - you need medical backup.. a 'roof'... otherwise you get rained on..

Besides - how many of these guys/gals are now being slated as con merchants for claiming PTSD and stuff?

I've cited many times that the tail to teeth ratio of a modern army is around 10-12:1 - yet PTSD amongst Serving troops in combat zones is 32%.  Most of those are not combat troops, by simple mathematical resolution - yet - the incidence is not just those in direct combat for the simple reason that the effects cross over into many areas.

I knew a grunt who was a RAEME guy - he washed out APCs after they'd brought in wounded... he was a mess.  Medical personnel (takes a bow) in Medical Corps or similar also have a high incidence of PTSD - no problem seeing why.

It may well be that these guys/gals are merely feeling the lash of cost cuts...... we all know by now that any time an 'issue' has a political or economic 'roof' - it will be pumped vigorously.. as vigorously as those in the barrel on that day..

I have... doubts about this tale of rorting.....

I KNOW.. I KNOW.. these guys all have Mafia 'roof' connections... just a little Cosy Nostra, you know... or maybe a little Latin American connection..

Si - the beelding she is fall and Jose`- madre de dios.. he ees trap inside.  I go to help, but no bueno, you know.. ees too much and the sangre is ev'rywhere, comprende`? I cannot sleep at night, always shaking.... my doctor he say :-

"Emiliano - you must not work in this condeetion.. you will have accident or make mistake, Madre`de Dios!"

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

And these will magically disappear without negative gearing?  No - the market will re-stabilise without negative gearing and will then move one

demand is outstripping supply now, what will happen when you cut supply?


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

That number will remain static within normal expanding market numbers due to growing up, imported Australians and so forth.. he only difference will be that some who are now renting will be owning.

and those that remain renting will pay for it through their teeth


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

You seriously think that banishing negative gearing will lead to a rise of 300%?

it was an example to make a point more than what I think


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

Squatter's Paradise Apartments and Houses Inc.. you beauty! Look at Britain and many European countries right now

except that we have different laws


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

It is not the business of government to rob the poor to subsidise wealth for some.

govt. isn't subsidising anything ... did you not claim your expenses when you did your tax returns? Should the govt. rob the poor just to subsidise you?


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

Fool's Paradise.......

sounds nice, maybe I'll come visit you there some day ..

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 6:09pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: And these will magically disappear without negative gearing?  No - the market will re-stabilise without negative gearing and will then move one demand is outstripping supply now, what will happen when you cut supply? Supply will rise with lower unit cost when the bonus deduction of negative gearing is done away with.  IF negative gearing is so effective - why then is it creating this problem?  All these sub-prime investors buying properties at inflated prices is destroying the market for others and for new construction. "Negative gearing is a form of financial leverage where an investor borrows money to invest but the gross income generated by the investment is less than the cost of owning and managing the investment" Bad business sense and the result of an inflated market that will reduce with less availability of finance to fund such ventures - meaning that only those who can make it viable will invest in a HOME, thus reducing the competition in the market and prices. Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: That number will remain static within normal expanding market numbers due to growing up, imported Australians and so forth.. the only difference will be that some who are now renting will be owning. and those that remain renting will pay for it through their teeth No - the fall in competition from non-viable negative gearers and their replacement by economically viable buyers in a less competitive market will reduce prices overall and thus rentals will not need to be as high Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: Squatter's Paradise Apartments and Houses Inc.. you beauty! Look at Britain and many European countries right now except that we have different laws Laws or not - squatters will still take over empty homes when they have nothing else. Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: It is not the business of government to rob the poor to subsidise wealth for some. govt. isn't subsidising anything ... did you not claim your expenses when you did your tax returns? Should the govt. rob the poor just to subsidise you? Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: Fool's Paradise....... The point is that negative gearing is a self-inflicted loss, which by being permitted at all, artificially boosts the pressure on the market and thus prices.  It is therefore not a genuine cost of running a business properly - but one that has developed over time to enable those who are not properly running that business to profit while causing a market boom and price hikes through competing for properties they cannot legitimately afford. Do YOU see anyone buying a business they KNOW they will lose money on? Why is this different?  It is still a business, and should be run and governed in the same way. In any case, my argument is that by even being in the market in this non-commercially viable way - these investors are artificially inflating that market so as to actually create the problems within it of high prices and low availability. Something's gotta give - and this is a clear case of lenders providing sub-standard mortgages - sub-prime is the word from memory.  WHEN this house of cards - so startlingly reminiscent of the Stock Market Crash in 1929 - falls - what then?  Lots of very broke investors who should have been more sensible.  SSDD. sounds nice, maybe I'll come visit you there some day .. Too Late - Welcome To the Merry Old Land of Oz!  Not coming home on a wing or a prayer in any real sense.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 6:09pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: And these will magically disappear without negative gearing?  No - the market will re-stabilise without negative gearing and will then move one demand is outstripping supply now, what will happen when you cut supply? Supply will rise with lower unit cost when the bonus deduction of negative gearing is done away with.  IF negative gearing is so effective - why then is it creating this problem?  All these sub-prime investors buying properties at inflated prices is destroying the market for others and for new construction. "Negative gearing is a form of financial leverage where an investor borrows money to invest but the gross income generated by the investment is less than the cost of owning and managing the investment" Bad business sense and the result of an inflated market that will reduce with less availability of finance to fund such ventures - meaning that only those who can make it viable will invest in a HOME, thus reducing the competition in the market and prices. Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: That number will remain static within normal expanding market numbers due to growing up, imported Australians and so forth.. the only difference will be that some who are now renting will be owning. and those that remain renting will pay for it through their teeth No - the fall in competition from non-viable negative gearers and their replacement by economically viable buyers in a less competitive market will reduce prices overall and thus rentals will not need to be as high Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: Squatter's Paradise Apartments and Houses Inc.. you beauty! Look at Britain and many European countries right now except that we have different laws Laws or not - squatters will still take over empty homes when they have nothing else. Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: It is not the business of government to rob the poor to subsidise wealth for some. govt. isn't subsidising anything ... did you not claim your expenses when you did your tax returns? Should the govt. rob the poor just to subsidise you? Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:11pm: Fool's Paradise....... The point is that negative gearing is a self-inflicted loss, which by being permitted at all, artificially boosts the pressure on the market and thus prices.  It is therefore not a genuine cost of running a business properly - but one that has developed over time to enable those who are not properly running that business to profit while causing a market boom and price hikes through competing for properties they cannot legitimately afford. Do YOU see anyone buying a business they KNOW they will lose money on? Why is this different?  It is still a business, and should be run and governed in the same way. In any case, my argument is that by even being in the market in this non-commercially viable way - these investors are artificially inflating that market so as to actually create the problems within it of high prices and low availability. Something's gotta give - and this is a clear case of lenders providing sub-standard mortgages - sub-prime is the word from memory.  WHEN this house of cards - so startlingly reminiscent of the Stock Market Crash in 1929 - falls - what then?  Lots of very broke investors who should have been more sensible.  SSDD. sounds nice, maybe I'll come visit you there some day .. Too Late - Welcome To the Merry Old Land of Oz!  Not coming home on a wing or a prayer in any real sense.

nice thery grappler, and i'm sure it would work as you say in Narnia, but here in the real world I don't like your chances.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:44pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:49am: wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 4:44pm: More than two million Australians in poverty Date     October 14, 2012 Needless to say, it's utter nonsense. People are pouring into Australia to get onto the gravy train of a well paying  job, or a Paid Unemployment lifestyle, or some phoney 'Disability Support Pension' that's signed off by one of their compatriot doctors here in Australia who are regularly used for these nefarious purposes. "Two million living in poverty" translates as two million living beyond the scope of their welfare payments, with the high probability of heavy drinking and smoking being part of their weekly budget. If you think people are "living beyond the scope of their welfare payments", I challenge you to live on $62.50 a week for a year. That is how much is left after a Newstart recipient on $250.50 a week and $62.00 a week rent assistance pays their rent of $250 a week. Out of that $62.50, you have to buy everything else. Why on earth is the government propping up property hoarders and speculators with yet more middle class welfare in the form of rent assistance ? The real welfare recipients are the people who hoard and speculate in property and the people on the dole are just the conduit to deliver the welfare to them :( Go figure

An interesting point, considering that people out of work with a mortgage get nothing, not even a loan scheme. Rent assistance is also inadequate, for singles it maxes out at a weekly rent of about $138. It hasn't kept pace with the actual rent increases.

Rent assistance is just an admission that welfare payments are inadequate.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:

The real welfare recipients are the people who hoard and speculate in property and the people on the dole are just the conduit to deliver the welfare to them :( Go figure

It goes round and round doesn't it? Those that receive welfare and rent assistance, pay rent, then whomever it is that receives the rent (property owner)....puts their income tax in, and pays tax on that money they receive, hence, that tax money paid, goes back to those that receive welfare and rent assitance that are paying rent.

Where else does the money come from to help to pay people their welfare and/or rent assistance?

We have one such unemployed single mum with 5 kids in a house, by golly, she gets more than I do in a single week!

I pay the agent their commission, then the repair people for doing odd jobs, last job was a fence repair for some reason, and before that was a power point that burnt out other power points. I asked for a vaulation of why that happened, but it wasn't done. Typical Queenslander tradies...couldn't give a toss. And the agents are no better.
I want to know wtf is going on, why all these repair bills when the place was checked and inspected and cleaned when empty, plumber and electrician, to have these things go wrong.
So who is suffering a little here?
My income is diminishing. It's no bed of roses being a landlady.

But there is a bit of relief now, the tax free threshold has been lifted from approx $6,000 to $18,000, so I am paying a bit less tax....might balance my income a bit more now and offset all them repair bills!

Mr. Grappler and Mr. Smith, remember what REALLY fueled the real estate market in these last few short years, what really set the prices to sky rocket?

Superficially......by our beloved Government for what they thought were fixing the economy.

Can anyone remember?

Why were first home buyers going like crazy for their first homes?

How much did the amount of it go to?....the 'first home buyers grant'?....I believe it was up to and over the $30,000 mark in some cases.  :o It started out at $7,000, then doubled, then tripled, plus.

And the banks were lending left right and centre! It was 'no holds barred' !

And now, what do we have, the romance of all that has died down, and there are more people losing their homes than ever before.

So which real estate investor could have competed with that, certainly not moiye....I stepped back and gulped at it all. :o

Then something happened in all that first home buyers grab....rental properties had become more scarce, and admittedly, we had many people phoning and asking if we had a house to rent them.
We were actually able to pick and choose the tenants, the best of. Most were young working couples wanting to shift out of home, with excellent references.

My son and his partner got caught up and borrowed well over $350,000 and now, they want out, and would rather rent, as the interest rates are eating at them, and the repayments don't seem to do much difference, and they want to go on holidays and have fun but find it a drag when the 'rates and insurance and repairs' have to be paid for.
This is keeping them, well, what would one say, poor, or broke?

So you will find an exit of people that have bought houses for maybe that very reason. I know interest rates have come down a long way, and this is offering some relief, but should be even lower to really help all the home owners keep their roof over their heads, whilst all the rest of living has sky rocketed.

Sophia wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

Mr. Grappler and Mr. Smith, remember what REALLY fueled the real estate market in these last few short years, what really set the prices to sky rocket? Superficially......by our beloved Government for what they thought were fixing the economy. Can anyone remember? Why were first home buyers going like crazy for their first homes? How much did the amount of it go to?....the 'first home buyers grant'?....I believe it was up to and over the $30,000 mark in some cases.  :o It started out at $7,000, then doubled, then tripled, plus. And the banks were lending left right and centre! It was 'no holds barred' ! And now, what do we have, the romance of all that has died down, and there are more people losing their homes than ever before. So which real estate investor could have competed with that, certainly not moiye....I stepped back and gulped at it all. :o Then something happened in all that first home buyers grab....rental properties had become more scarce, and admittedly, we had many people phoning and asking if we had a house to rent them. We were actually able to pick and choose the tenants, the best of. Most were young working couples wanting to shift out of home, with excellent references. My son and his partner got caught up and borrowed well over $350,000 and now, they want out, and would rather rent, as the interest rates are eating at them, and the repayments don't seem to do much difference, and they want to go on holidays and have fun but find it a drag when the 'rates and insurance and repairs' have to be paid for. This is keeping them, well, what would one say, poor, or broke? So you will find an exit of people that have bought houses for maybe that very reason. I know interest rates have come down a long way, and this is offering some relief, but should be even lower to really help all the home owners keep their roof over their heads, whilst all the rest of living has sky rocketed.

Yes friend and just like I done told y'all it's getting worse. Also them rates are only going to go up. There is a thread here called Generation Tent or Rent but I can't find it.

In the UK employers are finding a whole generation of Brits who are not willing to work 12 hours a day / 5 days a week for a paltry $55 per day (30 Brit Pounds).

Comes to $4.50 an hour.

Soooo ... It would seem that those on the dole in the UK are managing very nicely, thank you.

link

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

In the UK employers are finding a whole generation of Brits who are not willing to work 12 hours a day / 5 days a week for a paltry $55 per day (30 Brit Pounds). Comes to $4.50 an hour. Soooo ... It would seem that those on the dole in the UK are managing very nicely, thank you. link

I don't blame them, either.

Try getting me to work for $4.50 an hour and see how far you get.

Sophia wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

My son and his partner got caught up and borrowed well over $350,000 and now, they want out, and would rather rent

don't do it, they'll pay for it later .... sure it may seem like the repayments aren't making a lot of difference, but I'd bet they aren't much more than tany rent they''ll have to pay either. They'll see the reward of perservering later.

I had a look through a tenants rental ledger yesterday, she's been in the one property for over 10 yrs ... paid over $200 000 in rent, I nearly cried when i saw it. If she had bought the place when she first moved in, she would now own it. Crazy .

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:

Sophia wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 10:26pm: My son and his partner got caught up and borrowed well over $350,000 and now, they want out, and would rather rent don't do it, they'll pay for it later .... sure it may seem like the repayments aren't making a lot of difference, but I'd bet they aren't much more than tany rent they''ll have to pay either. They'll see the reward of perservering later. I had a look through a tenants rental ledger yesterday, she's been in the one property for over 10 yrs ... paid over $200 000 in rent, I nearly cried when i saw it. If she had bought the place when she first moved in, she would now own it. Crazy .

I soooo totally agree with you Mr. Smith!

It makes me sick to think they are going to lose all that stamp duty, and then pay the agent, and then pay stamp duty again if they want to buy another house.
I have drilled it into them that paying rent will never stay the same, but paying off your loan will diminish in time.

They want to put the house on the market soon and shift down to the Peninsula...where they will then settle and want to bring up a family there.

Hopefully, they will only rent short term, until they find the right place...to buy...

In the meantime, yes, I have offered tenants to buy the house they so loved to live in and rent...I told them the rent they are paying, they may as well pay off the house.

They oooed and ummmed.....one such house in Montrose, at the time, I offered to them for $135,000.....they couldn't work it out whether to nor not...said they are going to go live back with mum and dad until they save money.

Lo and behold.....within 6 months, property boomed, and it went up to something like $200,000...and I get a call from  the ex tenants, if we still wanted to sell the house for $135,000......hahahaha.....missed the boat didn't they  ::)

We ended up re-renting it, until eventually, it sold for $300,000, but take away the agents fee, and capital gains tax etc, it comes to about $275,000-280,000 we actually got, less what we paid for it and all the improvements such as new water pipes, new fencing, carpets, curtains etc etc.)

So it's not to say we didn't give the tenants a chance to have their own home, or even profit from it.

I will keep you informed of what my son and his fiance get up to  :-? But not without my nagging them, no doubt  ;D

And you know what gripes me....they say our kids learn by example.....hardly!

Sophia wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

Mr. Grappler and Mr. Smith And the banks were lending left right and centre! It was 'no holds barred' ! And now, what do we have, the romance of all that has died down, and there are more people losing their homes than ever before. So which real estate investor could have competed with that, certainly not moiye....I stepped back and gulped at it all. :o Then something happened in all that first home buyers grab....rental properties had become more scarce, and admittedly, we had many people phoning and asking if we had a house to rent them.

You have it there yourself - the same as my view - banks lending when it was obvious that negative gearing would be in play and would directly affect the market availability and prices of housing.

That was the entire point of my discussion and why I reject negatively geared loans as anything viable in any genuine business sense - and these easy loans have had a terrible effect on the economy, cost of living and rental housing availability.

When a bank loans negatively geared money - it follows immediately that in order to see some light, the lendee has to raise money - and that means that rentals rose.

You see - it's a cycle - more people have to pay more to exist - wages go up - cost of living goes up to meet that rise - your tradesman follows suit and raises his costs- your net income goes down - you raise your rent - more people have to pay more to exist - wages go up - cost of living goes up to meet that rise your tradesman follows suit ..

We've been through that before.

There is a difference, as with your daughter etc - in that the home owner does not borrow on a negative gearing business principle - but on the certain knowledge that they will have to work to pay the mortgage in order to one day OWN their own home - not some 'dead stock' investment.

Most 'property magnates' are forced to work to sustain their 'investments' and this means - with rising costs in maintenance and so forth - they are forced to raise rentals until it becomes nearly non-viable.

Asset rich and cash poor.  Great business sense there.

The ONLY reason you can pick and choose is that this very policy of lending has created a lost generation of homeless people, while enriching the few - who - in many cases, are not enriched until they manage to hold on desperately for many years.

When a median mortgage in Sydney costs around $1000 to sustain - it is obvious that no renter can afford to pay that amount - ergo - the 'investor' is bound to lose some time and will have to make up the difference out of earned income from work, as I see so often with many who claim 'property investments' - and the banks will lose nothing.

Everyone seems to imagine that owning a portfolio of investment properties means you have all this money - you have - in reality - very little - and the cost of running this negative business is borne by the taxpayer.  You may have TURNOVER of cash - but it is the end result that counts - and most will only see that in thirty years or more, provided the market survives the coming economic and social catastrophes, up to and including revolution.**

Not only that, but those without lots of income - especially the poor, unemployed and the pensioners etc - will inevitably end up homeless.

Now - you can argue about availability of housing - let me try once again - without negative geared lending by the banks - more would be available for building etc - and thus would be far more beneficial.

In fact - YTF do banks not invest in building projects instead of negative gearing?  Much faster return and less uncertainty.

All I have to say to that is what I always say - the damned fools running the show have simply no idea how to do so.  In one sense - it's called 'management by ego' - I think - therefore it must be so.

Rather than 'rental properties becoming more scarce' - OWNED properties became more common - and the already existing deficiency in the availability of housing became more apparent.

It is simply not mathematically possible for the existing number of available properties to vanish simply because they are purchased to live in rather than as investments.

Argue all you like - which is preferable?  Fewer people in their own homes and better off - or tougher renting conditions which must inevitably force some positive action to resolve the current housing crisis.

Again - the lack of responsibility in those running this market will lead inevitably to a 'strong' government arising and controlling that market - same as employment and everything else.

The very selfishness and lack of responsibility of the West will lead us into Fascism - UNLESS we all do something about it NOW.

** Kinda reminds me of the film 'Paris Texas' - where the dad shows his son a photo of some land in Paris Texas... all bare dirt and mesquite.

"I've got two blocks of land in Paris Texas!"

"What are we going to do there?  Eat dirt?"

I'm afraid the 'property magnate' vanished already the moment it became too easy to obtain loans to buy property - and the prices went through the roof.

As I've said to you before - you can no longer buy a house for $7000 three hour's drive from Sydney.....  to buy now you need to mortgage yourself to the hilt and work to pay for it - who benefits?

Only the banks and real estate agents.  You go bust, they sell you up and lose noting and already have the fat end of the interest cycle

MORE:-  More people owning their own homes means a lesser burden on social security at the end of the day.

As many say -  there is NO mortgage relief for the property OWNER/OCCUPIER - there is for the investor, so what this means is a double whammy - the taxpayer - or in this case the owner-occupier - subsidises the tax relief of the investor - the investor removes owner-occupier properties from the market with too easy money from stupid banks - meaning more potential owner-occupiers will rent - and will thus be a burden on the social security net.

So - tell me again why a 'strong' government will not move in and control this market totally - housing costs, rentals, loans and so forth - in order to save the country from itself, of course.  Add in the jobs market, wages, and so forth - same deal to bring sanity to the current insanity.

And - once again - the majority of those without will cheer and applaud such moves..... as they did in Nazi-controlled Germany.

Your choice - continue or one day some 'strong' government of either the 'left' or the 'right' - either of which I deem 'socio-fascist' -will take over and run the show for you - and we already see the beginnings of this right now, and I don;t mean anything as puerile as 'Tony Abbott's government' - it is an overall illness of government, not a party thing.

THAT is why I am here.. and that is why I am so outspoken against so many things.  I simply do not trust any such 'government' to do right in any way, and it matters not one whit which 'side' they are on.

Quote:

More people owning their own homes means a lesser burden on social security at the end of the day.

It saddens me somewhat, to see my adult children, and their generation, to be caught up in a housing market that means they both have to work, and delay having babies.

It saddens me also that many are losing their homes to mortgagee auctions.
They needed to do the maths, why didn't someone show them properly, the maths of what it really costs at the end of the month? Instead of buying what they call McMansions, why not start with a small home first, that needed some painting and fixing, that's how we did it, worked our way up...not start from the top!


Quote:

there is NO mortgage relief for the property OWNER/OCCUPIER - there is for the investor

This is correct, and there should  be a new rule to help home owners offset their mortgage interest rates, against their income. Why not, if it's good enough for an investor, then why not a home owner...although for first home buyers, they did get the home buyers grant, which offset the stamp duty etc.

I think in a different country I had heard, can't remember which country it was now, where the home owner can claim the interest payments of their home morgtage against their income.


Quote:

I simply do not trust any such 'government' to do right in any way, and it matters not one whit which 'side' they are on.

And we all know when a politician is lying....their lips are moving!  ;D
Nope, I do not trust them, I feel they want what we have, and would like to see us go down the gurgler.

For instance, some years ago, pensioners that retired, living in their homes in Mornington (down by the Peninsula)...suddenly had a huge rise in rates because they lived in an area that had become fashionable, yuppy and classy......from less than $1000 to over $3000 the rates soared.
These people that lived in that area, were pensioners, and could not afford that.....it would force them out wouldn't it?

Gets me how the stats for Australia many eons ago, were that in Australia, there were more homeowners than anywhere else in the world.
Wonder what the stats are now?

In the 1970's, when we married, we both worked, and paid off our first humble abode, with second hand furnture and older cars. Who does that now?
We were lucky to be able to save as well.....something very difficult now, even though I keep harping at my kids to try and save something, save it for a rainy day, as my dad used to say to me.

So I say to the hubby, maybe we better just consider ourselves fortunate we have something, so we must try and hang on and keep it if we can, so then at least our kids and their kids may have something to live more comfortably with....because I have this feeling.....don't know why....that we are headed for harder financial callings.
Could be the shire rates rising 7% every year, or the electricity going up yet again (4%) this year, and I have already made complaints about the insurances rising astronomically....bang bang bang, hitting us in the pocket left right and centre!

All that you say is true - rates rises and so forth... yuppie paradises... I bought my small farm years ago for $42.5k - now it would be worth about $800k

Like your kids in a way - I sold it to set up the ex with the kids....and it was not a good move in restrospect.

Smith is right - if the kids drop their own home and pay rent - they might have a few more dollars in the short term , but nothing to show for it at the end.

$360k is not huge for a house these days - and it seems they are both working - and yes - it is sad that costs are so high that couples can't afford family any more unless Uncle To coughs big time with the taxpayer's cash... another pertinent issue of government propping up something that policies and other foolishness from banks has create into a nightmare.

Many couples, of course - under the never-ending strain of house payments and so forth - simply don't make it - meaning both lose at the end of the day.

Those of us who've been through that know it full well.

See - when you look at things as entities - a business is an entity, a government department is an entity.... YOU are en entity......

You suddenly see that there are some glaring imbalances between the allegedly equal treatment of all...  business for example writes off the mortgage on a home base - YOU do not.... yet both are separate legal entities according to the Law - yet decidedly not equal in treatment.

Jo and Joe Bloggs - as before - buy and pay for a home as a base from which to operate their business of making a living and providing childcare facilities etc - they get no tax deduction for mortgage payments... (lets that thought hang in the air for a moment)....

Of course - it makes sens to government that such unequal treatment should be the norm - mortgage relief would cost far too much.... (lets THAT thought hang in the air for a moment in consideration of the cost of tax relief to business)... so my point is only that the treatment is unequal here and in many other areas.

Yup - you - the ordinary person - pay the way of the rest in one way or another - even for their failed attempts.

I'm just tossing around ideas here - I have no substantial answer - that's what this is about - drawing the views out for consideration....

Night....

Sophia wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 10:04pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:16pm: The real welfare recipients are the people who hoard and speculate in property and the people on the dole are just the conduit to deliver the welfare to them :( Go figure It goes round and round doesn't it? Those that receive welfare and rent assistance, pay rent, then whomever it is that receives the rent (property owner)....puts their income tax in, and pays tax on that money they receive, hence, that tax money paid, goes back to those that receive welfare and rent assitance that are paying rent.

The trouble is, they don't.

Negative gearing is one of the biggest rorts in the taxation system. It sucks out huge amounts of money from the taxation system. It should be abolished by popular opinion. Keating did abolish it in the 1980s but had to bring it back under pressure from the real estate lobby. No government since has had the guts to take on the real estate lobby to get rid of this permanently.

Another way that property owners don't pay their way is if they sell the property. The profit they get - capital gains - is only taxed at half the rate of someone who earns the same amount of money by working for it. Keating had it right when he taxed capital gains at full value, thus bringing equality to the tax system, but Costello reduced this to half for no other reason than to line the pockets of the idle rich at every one else's expense.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

In the UK employers are finding a whole generation of Brits who are not willing to work 12 hours a day / 5 days a week for a paltry $55 per day (30 Brit Pounds). Comes to $4.50 an hour.

And you're surprised at this? Real estate prices in Britain are even higher than here. This amount of money for a week's work wouldn't even cover the rent on a bedsit on the outskirts of London.

If employers in the UK are finding people not willing to work for this low amount of money, the solution is very simple and very obvious. Offer more money.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 9:50pm:

MORE:-  More people owning their own homes means a lesser burden on social security at the end of the day. As many say -  there is NO mortgage relief for the property OWNER/OCCUPIER - there is for the investor, so what this means is a double whammy - the taxpayer - or in this case the owner-occupier - subsidises the tax relief of the investor - the investor removes owner-occupier properties from the market with too easy money from stupid banks - meaning more potential owner-occupiers will rent - and will thus be a burden on the social security net. So - tell me again why a 'strong' government will not move in and control this market totally - housing costs, rentals, loans and so forth - in order to save the country from itself, of course.  Add in the jobs market, wages, and so forth - same deal to bring sanity to the current insanity. And - once again - the majority of those without will cheer and applaud such moves..... as they did in Nazi-controlled Germany. Your choice - continue or one day some 'strong' government of either the 'left' or the 'right' - either of which I deem 'socio-fascist' -will take over and run the show for you - and we already see the beginnings of this right now, and I don;t mean anything as puerile as 'Tony Abbott's government' - it is an overall illness of government, not a party thing. THAT is why I am here.. and that is why I am so outspoken against so many things.  I simply do not trust any such 'government' to do right in any way, and it matters not one whit which 'side' they are on.

Mortgage inequity in Australia is just about the highest in the developed world.

Investment property? Sure! Here! Have bags of free money!

You're living in the property? Get lost! There's no money for you!

It's a similar situation in the welfare system. Renters get rent assistance. People with a mortgage get no help at all.

Palmer's party includes some mortgage relief in the form of tax deductions. Palmer's scheme is too generous because it is uncapped and is silent on how it is to be funded.

Nevertheless it should be possible to fund some sensible tax deductions for having a mortgage if money is taken from elsewhere. Some relief is also needed for owner-occupiers on welfare, either by giving them access to something similar to rent assistance, or at the very least creating a loan scheme.

The first place where money is available is negative gearing. It's a rort. Get rid of it. Instead, treat the property like a business. Carry forward losses against future profits including the sale of the property, but any losses are no longer tax deductible against other income except any residual losses that remain after the property is sold.

Another policy that leaks huge amounts of tax is the concessional rate of negative gearing. It's not in the national interest to retain this. Concessional rates of tax should not be permitted unless national interest can be demonstrated. This is not possible for trading in existing properties - especially when considering that any properties that are sold at a loss are tax deductible at full value of that loss. Why should other taxpayers pay for property speculation? Bring back the full rate of tax for existing properties.

We can also look at the tax breaks for families. Too much is given out just for having kids. Nothing is given out for having kids and a mortgage. We can cut these benefits and redirect some of the money to families who have a mortgage. Families with mortgages will then be better off. Families who own their own home outright will get less money, but without a mortgage they don't actually need the money.

Make mortgage interest tax-deductible for owner occupiers that is capped at repayments of $10,000 per year with the actual subsidy being equal to the applicable marginal tax rate on this amount of money.

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 6:20am:

Sophia wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 10:04pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:16pm: The real welfare recipients are the people who hoard and speculate in property and the people on the dole are just the conduit to deliver the welfare to them :( Go figure It goes round and round doesn't it? Those that receive welfare and rent assistance, pay rent, then whomever it is that receives the rent (property owner)....puts their income tax in, and pays tax on that money they receive, hence, that tax money paid, goes back to those that receive welfare and rent assitance that are paying rent. The trouble is, they don't. Negative gearing is one of the biggest rorts in the taxation system. It sucks out huge amounts of money from the taxation system. It should be abolished by popular opinion. Keating did abolish it in the 1980s but had to bring it back under pressure from the real estate lobby. No government since has had the guts to take on the real estate lobby to get rid of this permanently. Another way that property owners don't pay their way is if they sell the property. The profit they get - capital gains - is only taxed at half the rate of someone who earns the same amount of money by working for it. Keating had it right when he taxed capital gains at full value, thus bringing equality to the tax system, but Costello reduced this to half for no other reason than to line the pockets of the idle rich at every one else's expense.

Negative gearing is to help someone with a tax paying job already, to lower their tax by claiming extras, that is what all the seminars were about, for the ordinary Joe Bloggs to create their own tax relief, I thought it was always a bit of a risk if one lost their job, though.
I never liked negative gearing for us, it never worked for us, as we wanted positive gearing, as a form of generating our income, but of course, this was only possible as houses were reasonably priced end 1990's and early 2000's.

Paying tax on 50% the capital gains on a residential investment is only applicable after you have owned the property for 12 months, otherwise, under 12 months, you pay 100% tax on the capital gains.

There is another way for people to make money on the profit of a house, 100% tax free.....if you are the owner occupier...and lived in your abode for 12 months, then if you sell, and profit, you get it tax free 100%.

I recall people that used to do this, live in a place that needed doing up, they would improve it whilst living in it, then sell it for a profit tax free, and move onto the next place. And one can still do that if they wish, but depends on the area and what the property market is doing.

Another rule to remember, is, that if someone lives on a property, more than 5 acres (lets say 10-30 acres)...the rest of that property after the initial homestead and 5 acres, is then classified to come under captial gains tax conditions. So you need a valuer to consider the current market price for the rest of the acreage, unless of course, you have lived on that property for 20 years, then you don't have to pay a calculated capital gains tax on the acreage after that first 5 acres.

Oh, and one more thing, if someone has a business based in their own home, no they can't claim the mortgage, but they can claim other expenses like a percentage of electricity and telephone and internet, and office expenditure. And if travelling is required, (say mechanical services that need parts finding or a hairdresser needing to buy products to stock her home based salon etc) the kms need to be recorded and you can claim so many cents per km you travel.

Actually his is a great conversation and draws out many views - haven't heard from the "I'm fully retired on my property investments but pay no income tax and have no welfare not even a healthcare card" brigade though.  Remarkably and perhaps understandably silent.

Umm, Lols is right - upgrading/up-marketing an owner/occupier is not the same - you gain equity (hopefully) and then move up.  It's what most of us did, and what the younger ones should be looking at instead of the MacMansions lifestyle.

As before - even that is fraught with peril since most of the MacMansion development takes place in outer city areas without adequate transport etc infrastructure - and are 'dormitory' suburbs without industry - thus everyone has to travel miles to get to work - meaning that transport is an extra cost on their mortgage.

I thought it was realised in the 1970's with the Campbelltown expansion of 'dormitory' suburbs, with the assumption that people would live there and travel to work elsewhere - that this concept was doomed. 

Campbelltown in many areas is not only Teenage Wasteland but also Adult Wasteland - no work, no nothing, serious crime problems, heavy police presence.  Yet the concept continues with vast tracts under the mooted flight path for Badgerys Creek being opened up and jerry-built on.

Moves by the State of NSW to offer people incentives to move to a regional area and work fell flat - as usual.  Reminds me of the 'de-centralisation' theory of the late 60's 70's... (again - history suck)...

Anyway - the trouble - again - with Lols' point is that the number of available smaller/cheaper properties etc is declining compared to population and thee is increasingly nowhere to go but to the 'dormitory' suburbs - and take your chances on not falling through the gaps.

I dunno - I don't have all the answers (just sound sometimes as if I do) - some point to immigration as the problem; some to population expansion; some to lack of opportunity in rural/Regional areas for work (I live in one - apply daily for work at 64 and disabled); some to over-concentration in urban areas of industry, government, etc - well where are they gonna go when the railway lines have been closed in many spots and how many public servants want to re-locate to Brewarinna?

Bam's thoughts are good - I've mooted already the idea that welfare housing recipients should be offered the incentive of purchasing the home instead of renting and wrecking it... (chortles) rent/buy instead of rent/wreck.. only unlike Greek property magnate rent/buy you keep some equity if you fall through the cracks.   One of my sisters lives in HC - her lawn is manicured - her house surgically clean and tidy - her neighbours have grass three feet high and religious (holey) walls, and her huge son had to sort them out when they threatened her (he has even bigger cousins like my son the Rugby Captain).

Now - if instead of being offered cheap/free accommodation, the welfare recipient was required to enter into a purchase agreement and eventually own the home or part thereof - would this not be an incentive for them to behave and be responsible - well MORE responsible?

Would this not have significant social benefits for society overall?

Umm - at risk of dominating the conversation (nev-ah!), allo me to slang this in - got it from the head of the Republican movement:-

How Labor's policies hurt working families

    From: The Australian
    January 06, 2014 12:00AM

.

WHEN Kevin Rudd stood on the stage of the Brisbane Convention Centre, just 10 days before ballots were cast on November 24, 2007, the centrepiece of his pitch to voters was that he would "secure the future for our families, for our future and for our nation". He urged Australians to change the government because John Howard had "lost touch with working families". He said Labor valued hard work, achievement and success. Labor would protect the vulnerable. And Labor would provide a "decent standard of living for all working families". After all, that's what Labor governments are supposed to do. Six years later, after all the policy backflips, broken promises and leadership changes, the voters again cast their verdict on who should govern Australia. Labor was routed. Now the data proves what we knew all along - Labor's heartland was hurt the most.

Former Labor senator turned demographic profiler John Black crunched the numbers to discover who were the winners and who were the losers after six years of Labor in power. His findings, published in The Weekend Australian, revealed that those who did best were not Labor's traditional blue-collar working class base or the upwardly mobile working families that Mr Rudd promised to protect. They were white-collar inner-city dwellers working in education, health and public service jobs. "The biggest winners were well-paid, public-sector Greens voters living inside the goat-cheese circle of our major cities," Mr Black said. Jobs in traditional Labor voting sectors such as construction, manufacturing and transport declined between 2007 and 2013. These voters, predominantly living in the outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, were worse off after six years of Labor. Almost one million jobs were created [in the private sector of the economy] while Labor was in power; virtually none were in manual labour industries. For these blue-collar workers, their share of the labour market declined.

One of the more significant voter cohorts who witnessed their standard of living decline was young mothers aged 30-34 with two children. Many women in this demographic group simply gave up searching for work when faced with spiralling childcare costs sparked by cozy wage deals and greater regulation. If mothers did find a job, they then had to arrange hours that enabled them to effectively couple work with caring responsibilities. The freezing of the childcare rebate at $7500, Mr Black suggested, hurt single mothers badly as costs continued to increase. The future for these voters was anything but secure. "The biggest political losers from six years of Labor governments were young swinging-voter families and traditional blue-collar Labor voters," Mr Black said.

Those who benefited during Labor's reign were, not surprisingly, professionals employed in the burgeoning education, health and public service sectors. New jobs grew strongly in these sectors, accounting for 60 per cent of the total 957,000 jobs created, as the government poured money into big-spending programs and signed off on generous wage deals with unions. These voters, working in highly regulated or publicly funded industries, tend to align as much with the radical Greens party as they do with Labor. Indeed, Mr Black's analysis of federal electorates shows that the seats that saw the biggest boost to work participation rates were in inner-city Sydney, such as Grayndler, and Melbourne, such as Wills, which are heavily populated with wealthy voters, many of whom opt for the Greens at the ballot box. The seats that saw the greatest decline in work participation rates were lower-income areas on the fringes of the major cities such as Rankin outside Brisbane and Bruce outside of Melbourne. In these areas, support for the Greens is well below the state or national average.

None of these results, however shocking, should come as a surprise. It is not a coincidence that the sectors where Labor funneled large amounts of money saw jobs increase. The plethora of big-spending government programs expanded an ever-growing public service. The K-Rudd and J-Gillard governments boosted spending on education and health. Meanwhile, blue-collar jobs declined as these private sector industries faced a high-cost, low-productivity economy. Re-regulating the labour market, shackling businesses with new regulations and imposing new taxes, such as the carbon tax and the mining tax, acted as a disincentive to new investment. As we have often remarked, Labor, particularly under Juliar Gillard's leadership, became a prisoner of the unions. Too often, as a result of their political influence, they were able to extract concessions from government that served their own interests rather than the national interest. The lesson for Tony Abbott, if he needed reminding, is not to cut cozy deals with unions and to reduce regulation and taxes. The priority must be to invest in the productive drivers of the economy. This will help ALL workers, not just some.

..MORE TO FOLLOW:-

MORE:-

"In 2007, Mr Rudd said he understood "the absolute value of hard work". He promised not to be "wasteful" with public money. He promised new leadership and a new plan for Australia. The results of that leadership and that plan are now evident for all to see. Labor betrayed its heartland - the very voters who put their faith and trust in Mr Rudd and his party. They may have believed his words, uttered with hope and promise in Brisbane in November 2007, but they were badly let down. Actions, as we now know, speak louder than words.

Cheers

Michael B"

I'd like to take up this issue right here:-

"Those who benefited during Labor's reign were, not surprisingly, professionals employed in the burgeoning education, health and public service sectors. New jobs grew strongly in these sectors, accounting for 60 per cent of the total 957,000 jobs created, as the government poured money into big-spending programs and signed off on generous wage deals with unions. These voters, working in highly regulated or publicly funded industries, tend to align as much with the radical Greens party as they do with Labor."


Now - many of us speak of the evils of OVER-socialism - what I've dubbed socio-fascism - the total control over society or its components by government through funding and a form of feudal largesse (pork barreling).

The comparison with feudalism is simple - we the peons pay the overlord for the privilege of working his fields of society - the overlord in turn determines who will and who will not have handouts and in what volume (ian smalleye's 'consolidated revenue' concept of feudal largesse on whim) - thus creating a system of perpetual class structure through poverty on one side and munificence on the other.

Point it - the choosing is arbitrary and totally in the hands of the overlord, and any peon who objects will have his/her head removed by job loss etc.

(aside) Drunken Japanese Samurai:-  "You will have 500 koku!" (to drunken friend, suddenly elevated to riches at the drop of sake)...

Behind curtain, Samurai wife trembles at how to fit this new gift into the budget... laugh not - that's how it was in many ways.

Now - for those with a thinking mind - it is plain as day that the demographic most benefited by this feudal largesse has been the one described - those in controlled or government paid work, no hassles or problems of unemployment etc - and who have the luxury of holding the current yuppie or Green views of life... the recipients of the very ultra-socialism that segues so readily into socio-fascist Uberkontrol of society.

Socialism to the max.

WADR - I've cited the health professions before - a radiographer will get five hours pay for a ten minute callout - if a wharfie gets that, there is public outrcry.

NOBODY raises a scream when the nurses, police, fire brigades and so forth ask for a pay rise - yet according to the same silent majority of social deaf mutes - the biggest problem now is the peons are getting too much wages.   (scratches head in disbelief at the utter stupidity of so many - the three unwise monkeys?)

All peaches and ice cream... no idea of the real world.

That's why I'm here, Pilgrims - that's why I'm here.

ADDS:-   This country can waste MANY millions putting 25-30 women into politics  and CEO jobs - merited or unmerited - yet this government cannot support mothers of young children with a little bit more.  Plenty of meat for the 'betters' - nothing for the peons starving in the snow at the castle gate.....**

Talk about feudal values and concepts.... and they claim to be 'socialist'....

** Just went to lodge my resume` - saw a young and pretty girl - tiny thing - being advised on lodging her income with Colonel C'Link - and warned not to make a mistake.  The bastards are still at it - fat and lined with good pelts in the public service and figuring out more and better ways to shag the peons - their 'subordinates' and their 'lower' class in life.

What they do to those 'peons' would be cause for shrieks to high heaven if their department did it to them....

Just on the ABC's Afternoon show at about 3.20 pm:-  the largest part of the rise in housing sales was investors.... not first home buyers....


AND:-  On the issue of the cost of wages - remember this.

The market rose to meet the expectation that the dual income family (MADIF) would cater to it.  Thus wages rose to keep pace with rising costs (housing is one more than clear example of this).  High wages is cited as one prime reason so many are out of work.

The biggest problem is that the single person has to compete with the MADIF in that inflated market - thus the single person needs to have a higher income level - thus the need for a higher income level leads to both members of the MADIF getting the same rise - thus perpetuating the cycle of MADIF creating a need for higher individual wages.

The ONLY solution - and it will cost pain for many for a few years - is the abolition of the MADIF, which abolition will eventually restore some sanity to the wages/cost of living market - and just might put Australia back on some sort of reasonable playing field in terms of productive work such as manufacturing.

Abolition by attrition FIRST - as before - those in an already established MADIF with an income above a certain level get last billing for jobs.  First billing goes to the unemployed  and those under a specified level of income.

Now wait for the screams of Fascism and Communism.... well - I've been warning you all for a long time now that failure to control your own markets in employment, incomes, such things as rental costs created by property speculation and negative gearing, privileges for the few at the cost of the many and so on - would lead to a 'strong' government  taking control of these - for the best good of the country.

I believe I see the harbingers of this in the current move to take a long hard look at education...... just one tiny cloud on the horizon.....

Now I have to finish my coffee and go to the farm to continue with the waterfall feature in the front gardens.