I get sick of the constant loser-driven cry to ban all benefits to those who dont need them as if 'need' is some kind of absolute definition. The classic photo I saw recently was Michelle Obama at a soup kitchen helping the 'poor' who all had mobile phones. 'Poor' is often synonymous with 'loser' and 'hopeless manager'. I have no problem with the govt supporting the poor - even those who are poor because they are lazy morons. we as a society accept that obligation without qualification. But to seek to penalise those who fund the majority of this welfare seems not only strange but decidely nasty. What exactly is the problem with letting the well-off have a few of the hundreds of welfare benefeits available to others? A very small amount of money flows to the well-off and when compared to the amount of money that is generated by these same people it is curious that some people think they should be penalised and abused for it.

This is the core of the loser/failure mentality: to attack those who do better than you do rather than to seek to be successful yourself. You could double the taxes of the successful and they will continue to be successful. You could double the welfare of the poor and they will continue to be poor. Success is defined and delivered by what is inside you, not by the welfare cheque.

A final example to think on... I knew a woman who was legally blind with less than 1% vision. She was offered the opportunity to have her sight restored, but refused saying 'then I wouldnt be able to claim welfare'. The loser mentality in all is inglorious ugliness.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:




You WILL get it
Even a single person with no dependents on up to $75,000 pa will STILL get the FULL 30% rebate

Quote:


I lean more towards labor than the other way.
I don't think that what you said is quite true. Although I can see why you might want to pull your hair out.

Should We Get Rid Of The Private Health Rebate ???


Absolutely not.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 8:18pm:



Buzz i'd like to personnally thank you for my $12:00 per fortnight Vet Affairs pension I receive because of my military service.  

Let me get this right. If you don't have private health insurance you have to pay 1% surcharge on your medicare levy.

Where is you free will on not wanting private health insurance? Isn't that controling the people?

You would expect that from a Socialist/Communist Goverment not from a rightwing/liberal goverment.

So everyone that is defending the health insurance must have left leaning veiws.

I never though I see andrei leaning to the left

 

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 11:16am:


If I recall rightly, a $150k gross salary gets you about A$8,500 per month after tax.

Now think of a family of 4 with two children and one income of $8,500 per month.

Mortgage is about $3,000 per month.
Bills (utilities, car registrations x2, clothes, food etc) - another $1,500 per month in a good month.

That leaves only $4k per month left.

Petrol of $600 per month?
School fees?
Healthcare?
Rates?

All of a sudden it makes people talking about these families being 'rich' a little silly.

Wayne Rooney earns $240,000 per week.
Who is rich? Rooney or the family above?

Please delete wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 11:43am:


To the lower income earner, anyone earning well over what they earn may seem rich.
This is a mistake we all seem to make. We get a new job earning 10k more than our old job, and we have to spend it.