Australian Politics Forum - Middle class welfare

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51899
At my desk.

Middle class welfare
Feb 12^th, 2011 at 1:43pm

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/middle-class-welfare.html

The Sustainability Party of Australia supports help for those in genuine need. However, we oppose the bloated middle class welfare that has been built up by both major parties and the Greens. This ‘tax churn’ amounts to little more than taking with one hand and giving with the other (after a significant amount has been wasted on bureaucracy). High taxes harm the economy and remove a lot of the incentives to create jobs and improve efficiency and productivity, but give little social benefit in return. The motivation for these handouts often revolves around vote buying rather than genuine welfare.

In particular, we oppose the baby bonus and think it is short sighted from a sustainability perspective. The economic implications of an ageing population pale into insignificance compared to the problems associated with overpopulation. Furthermore, if our population was genuinely low (we do not think it is), we would be better off with well targeted immigration policy rather than the ‘reverse eugenics’ that inevitably result from the baby bonus.

Most forms of government assistance are extended to those not in genuine need. The maximum income at which people still receive assistance should be decreased.

We oppose the first home owner’s grant. This grant has backfired and had the opposite outcome to that intended, as is so often the case with ill-considered, populist economic policy. It has caused a significant increase in house prices. This, combined with the high taxes required to support it, has made housing less affordable for Australian families.

There should be no handouts for rainwater tanks. These breed mosquitoes and homeowners need to carefully consider their options rather than taking whatever the government will pay for. Instead, we should increase the price of water so it reflects the cost of the infrastructure required to supply it, the scarcity of the water, and environmental harm caused by sucking our rivers dry. People faced with the true cost of water wastage can then decide how best to save water. It is far more likely that they will simply choose to use less water rather than spend a small fortune so they can tip it on the ground in their garden. There are many options for capturing and storing water in the suburbs. Individual rainwater tanks for each household is one of the most expensive. Hauling a fraction of a cent worth of water round in a bucket to save the ‘precious’ resource is not a rational response.

We oppose handouts for retrofitting rooftop photovoltaic cells (solar panels). Again, this is one of the most expensive options for reducing greenhouse emissions and was only implemented because of the vote buying potential. Subsidising electricity leads to waste. Instead, the price of electricity should reflect the greenhouse emissions it causes. There are far cheaper ways to reduce greenhouse emissions (eg, stop wasting electricity) and a price on emissions is the only way for the government to promote these options.

Cutting middle class welfare, the introduction of taxes on greenhouse emissions and an honest price on water will allow for a significant reduction in income tax, GST, rates bills and other taxes.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

mellie Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 8142 Sydney Gender:	Re: Middle class welfare Reply #1 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 1:47pm The only problem I have with this FD, is the lack of 'incentive' factor...you will get people who will choose to remain in the low-income bracket so they don't lose their benefits, my mother cant get female carers to work more than 18 hours a week as it is, on account of their not wanting their benefits cut. So...
Back to top	All together now Labor voters.......&&&&lap-tops, pink-bats refugees and Clunker-cars&&&&insurance.AES256 IP Logged

mellie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8142
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #2 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 1:57pm

And as far as means-testing youth allowance, why should someone else's salary, determine what someone else is entitled to/worth/need?

What if the parents are gamblers, despite earning $600,000 p/a between them... how is the kid supposed to pay for school books?

The reason I ask is because a friend of my sons who's parents are, habitual consumers of alcohol shall we say, whereby one of them threw up in their sons school bag recently, this and did not replace his bag or schoolbooks, too busy apparently... Angry

This couple run a thriving business, earn much much more than I do, though I went out and bought him new school books, and gave him my sons old school bag from last year.

I hope they look at his new things and feel ashamed of themselves!

This kids not entitled to youth allowance.

Back to top

All together now Labor voters.......&&&&lap-tops, pink-bats refugees and Clunker-cars&&&&insurance.AES256

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51899
At my desk.

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #3 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:04pm

mellie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

The only problem I have with this FD, is the lack of 'incentive' factor...you will get people who will choose to remain in the low-income bracket so they don't lose their benefits, my mother cant get female carers to work more than 18 hours a week as it is, on account of their not wanting their benefits cut.

So...

Roll Eyes

Good point. It is a genuine problem, though not for the baby bonus type handouts. If welfare is such a disincentive to work that we need to give welfare to the middle class also, then perhaps it is too high at the bottom end also. I would certainly cut the more recent 'one-off' handouts like the baby bonus first. For the more traditional types, we need to trade off the cost to society of providing middle class welfare against the impact of denying people these incentives and/or the impact of lowering welfare.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

mellie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8142
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #4 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:04pm

And I will just add, they have him working FREE for the family business, he was even installing those toxic insulation bats with his father a year or so back, (wanted to install them in our house), and he doesn't even get enough pocket money to top-up his phone credit, he calls us reverse charge.

So not all parents are responsible, even if they earn a good living.

I worry about kids with parents like this being deprived on account of what their parents earn and squander.

Angry

Back to top

All together now Labor voters.......&&&&lap-tops, pink-bats refugees and Clunker-cars&&&&insurance.AES256

IP Logged

mellie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8142
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #5 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:10pm

See, with this grading of benefits, people are wilfully remaining under or unemployed, simply because there is little incentive to put in the hard work and agree to overtime.

As a result of this FD, my mother has to sort agency staff, and they cost a fortune.

Mum has plenty of workers, who are willing to work longer hours, but refuse to do so because they wont go past their 18 'safe' hours.

____________________________

Anyway, speaking of mum.. I'm off to a concert with her tonight, so had best go get ready if I'm late, she'll murder me ...lol

Cheers, I'll pop back on tonight, when I get home.

Back to top

All together now Labor voters.......&&&&lap-tops, pink-bats refugees and Clunker-cars&&&&insurance.AES256

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #6 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:15pm

mellie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

The only problem I have with this FD, is the lack of 'incentive' factor...you will get people who will choose to remain in the low-income bracket so they don't lose their benefits, my mother cant get female carers to work more than 18 hours a week as it is, on account of their not wanting their benefits cut.

So...

Roll Eyes

Are the 'female carers' being asked to work at a job, in addition to being carers, or is the job being offered that OF a 'carer'???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #7 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 4:04pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:15pm:

mellie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

The only problem I have with this FD, is the lack of 'incentive' factor...you will get people who will choose to remain in the low-income bracket so they don't

lose their benefits, my mother cant get female carers to work more than 18 hours a week as it is, on account of their not wanting their benefits cut.

So...

Roll Eyes

Are the 'female carers' being asked to work at a job, in addition to being carers, or is the job being offered that OF a 'carer'???

you have a point gizmo..some are expected to get dinner ready and do the ironing.. it goes with the territory..my daughter in law does cleaning and does private houses here and there.. and one of her customers started leaving a little list of extras.. put washing out bring washing in. that escalated to sorting the washing and emptying the dishwasher, when she started ringing her at home asking her to pick things up from the shop on the way over.. thats when my d.i.l. woke up to herself.

it creeps up on you..what you think is a one off turns out to be the norm.

most people do the right thing though its just the few that take advantage

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Middle class welfare Reply #8 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 6:40pm stop the presses...!!! this is an important topic. so much so that it must be the exact same one as being debated in another thread. Maybe a moderate should move or merge them together!!
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #9 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 6:51pm

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/middle-class-welfare.html

The Sustainability Party of Australia supports help for those in genuine need. However, we oppose the bloated middle class welfare that has been built up by both major parties and the Greens. This ‘tax churn’ amounts to little more than taking with one hand and giving with the other (after a significant amount has been wasted on bureaucracy). High taxes harm the economy and remove a lot of the incentives to create jobs and improve efficiency and productivity, but give little social benefit in return. The motivation for these handouts often revolves around vote buying rather than genuine welfare.

In particular, we oppose the baby bonus and think it is short sighted from a sustainability perspective. The economic implications of an ageing population pale into insignificance compared to the problems associated with overpopulation. Furthermore, if our population was genuinely low (we do not think it is), we would be better off with well targeted immigration policy rather than the ‘reverse eugenics’ that inevitably result from the baby bonus.

Most forms of government assistance are extended to those not in genuine need. The maximum income at which people still receive assistance should be decreased.

We oppose the first home owner’s grant. This grant has backfired and had the opposite outcome to that intended, as is so often the case with ill-considered, populist economic policy. It has caused a significant increase in house prices. This, combined with the high taxes required to support it, has made housing less affordable for Australian families.

There should be no handouts for rainwater tanks. These breed mosquitoes and homeowners need to carefully consider their options rather than taking whatever the government will pay for. Instead, we should increase the price of water so it reflects the cost of the infrastructure required to supply it, the scarcity of the water, and environmental harm caused by sucking our rivers dry. People faced with the true cost of water wastage can then decide how best to save water. It is far more likely that they will simply choose to use less water rather than spend a small fortune so they can tip it on the ground in their garden. There are many options for capturing and storing water in the suburbs. Individual rainwater tanks for each household is one of the most expensive. Hauling a fraction of a cent worth of water round in a bucket to save the ‘precious’ resource is not a rational response.

We oppose handouts for retrofitting rooftop photovoltaic cells (solar panels). Again, this is one of the most expensive options for reducing greenhouse emissions and was only implemented because of the vote buying potential. Subsidising electricity leads to waste. Instead, the price of electricity should reflect the greenhouse emissions it causes. There are far cheaper ways to reduce greenhouse emissions (eg, stop wasting electricity) and a price on emissions is the only way for the government to promote these options.

Cutting middle class welfare, the introduction of taxes on greenhouse emissions and an honest price on water will allow for a significant reduction in income tax, GST, rates bills and other taxes.

so in summation: make everything more expensive. not a policy that woudl ever be popular or necessarily even good. I agree with increasing the price of water but the rest is a bit draconian. We have a shortage of water. we dont have a shortage of power.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51899
At my desk.

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #10 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 7:55pm

Quote:

so in summation: make everything more expensive

No. Quite the opposite actually. I am suggesting the replacement of broad and fairly arbitrary taxes with more targetted taxes. Most things will become more affordable.

Quote:

I agree with increasing the price of water but the rest is a bit draconian.

What is special about water? Wasn't there only one other thing I suggested increasing the price of?

Quote:

we dont have a shortage of power.

I am not suggesting we tax power, nor am I suggesting a shortage as a justification.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 61014
Here
Gender: male

Re: Middle class welfare
Reply #11 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 8:39pm

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:04pm:

mellie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

The only problem I have with this FD, is the lack of 'incentive' factor...you will get people who will choose to remain in the low-income bracket so they don't lose their benefits, my mother cant get female carers to work more than 18 hours a week as it is, on account of their not wanting their benefits cut.

So...

Roll Eyes

Good point. It is a genuine problem, though not for the baby bonus type handouts. If welfare is such a disincentive to work that we need to give welfare to the middle class also, then perhaps it is too high at the bottom end also. I would certainly cut the more recent 'one-off' handouts like the baby bonus first. For the more traditional types, we need to trade off the cost to society of providing middle class welfare against the impact of denying people these incentives and/or the impact of lowering welfare.

I was unemployed at one time and getting unemployment benifits. Got some part time work at around $14 hour, If I went past about $70 at the time the reduction to my payment was reduced by about $12 for each additional hour worked. This means that additional hours were worth $2 before tax.

The problem is with the manner in which this cut off works, it is a disencentive for people to work additional hours. I did work the extra because the work needed to be done.

The penalty for earning a rather pizzling amount extra which does not really help much is excessive, there is a disencentive to taking this type of work at all as there is no point.

I think this is a different problem to what was said it does not relate to remaining in low paid positions by choice, going past $70 is hardly a move to unlimited wealth.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 12^th, 2011 at 8:56pm by Dnarever »

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51899 At my desk.	Re: Middle class welfare Reply #12 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 9:47pm Do you think you were getting to much welfare to start with?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Kat Gold Member Offline Socialism IS the answer. Posts: 17709 Everywhere and no-where Gender:	Re: Middle class welfare Reply #13 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 11:15pm freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 9:47pm: Do you think you were getting to much welfare to start with? *NOBODY* on unemployment 'benefit' gets 'too much welfare. In fact, quite the reverse. They do NOT get enough.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 61014 Here Gender:	Re: Middle class welfare Reply #14 - Feb 12^th, 2011 at 11:41pm freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 9:47pm: Do you think you were getting to much welfare to start with? If you are normally employed you do not get enough to survive, the benifit is inadequate for a normal person. The vast majority hate to be unemployed for any period of time.
Back to top	IP Logged