Australian Politics Forum - Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #90 - May 1^st, 2011 at 3:55pm

Cutting payments to welfare recipients is both morally reprehensible and socio-economically counter-productive!

It is virtually impossible for anybody to survive in Australia in the 21st Century without access to money...

Under what circumstances could a person survive, in the here and now, without money - for starters: where could they stay and what could they eat?

In the absence of access to money, what can a person do to survive that is legal and does not rely upon the generosity of others?

What is the nett benefit to society and the economy, to have vulnerable and desperate people prostituting themselves to others, robbing the homes and businesses of others, selling drugs and/or otherwise engaging in the so-called 'black economy'!?

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Kat

Gold Member

Offline

Socialism IS the answer.

Posts: 17709
Everywhere and no-where
Gender: female

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #91 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:04pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:45pm:

Kat wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:03pm:

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

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 9:49am:

How do you work out that we didn't deserve a baby bonus?

How do you work out that the unemployed aren't entitled to
a fair rate of 'benefit'?

The presence or absence of $5k wouldn't even be
noticeable to someone on $200k+.

But it is, quite literally, the difference between life and death
to those who are genuinely deserving of welfare.

And who, at present, are NOT getting their FAIR SHARE.

While I get the major point of your various posts, 'fair share' is an odd description of welfare. Welfare is support given to the disadvantaged by a state that can afford it. It is at no time and actual 'right' or a 'fair share'. It is soemthing however that a civil and just society should give. Unfortunately there is too much expectation that welfare is some natural right to expect and it isnt - nor has it ever been. There is quite some justifiably angst among earners that they are being asked to pay increasing amounts of tax to support a welfare system that they are excluded from soley on the basis that they work hard and contribute significantly to. There are also some who simply are greedy and have little to no interest in the affairs of others. But most pople want care , compassion and equity. This however does not imply that people want welfare to be an alternative to working. Life is not fiar nor is it equitable. Welfare is not the solution to lifes problems but is simply a salve given to try and help the worst of it.

But they aren't excluded. They get WEALTHfare.

And personally, I don't really have an issue with my taxes going
to help support those who are disabled, or who cannot find
work (NOT those who won't look).

I'd rather that, than see them homeless or starving.

And, as I stated, I have NO problem with them weeding the
'bludgers' out, be they on the dole or DSP.

But to make the genuine recips suffer for the sins of a minority
is neither fair nor right. And that is the case currently, and it will
get worse after the budget.

Welfare recips are already struggling with the increased cost of
just about everything, and the last time No-Start recips got an
increase in REAL terms was 25 years ago.

Could ANY of you survive on the same wages you were getting
in 1995? I doubt it, I certainly couldn't, so why should welfare recips?

what? Do you think this is some new phenomenon? we drive at 50km/hr because of the sins of the minority (like Ernie) who cant drive any faster. Much of our society is fashioned after the lowest common denominator. why do you expect welfare to be different? Rember that welfarae is already the single biggest expense in the budget. there simply isnt the ability to pay significantly more. Look at Greece. They adoptd your position and were ridiculously gnerous in welfare and the result is that they are now bankrupt - and entire country. Welfare is being massively slashed because there is no option. Here in australia, welfare needs to be sustainable - not generous. and a sustainable figure will always been less than we wish we could get - or pay. Yes unemplyment benefits suck. but there is simply no capacity to pay significantly more and it puts at risk our future to do so. nothing is as simple as it sometimes seems.

Take non-means-tested WEALTHfare away from the middle-class
and there would be PLENTY for the GENUINE welfare recips.

The middle and upper-classes neither need NOR deserve a slice
of the welfare pie, but THAT'S where the cost blowouts are.

An example is someone like Andrei accepting a $5k baby-bonus
while pocketing $200k+ a year in salary.

A single unemployed person gets a maximum of approximately
TWICE the baby-bonus, to pay EVERYTHING for a year.

The bottom-line is that, due to greed and selfishness, the middle
and upper-classes are essentially STEALING money that SHOULD
be going to pensioners, the unemployed, and sole-parents.

NOT fair, NOT just, NOT equitable, NOT RIGHT. Never was, never will be.

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #92 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:05pm:

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:32am:

If there were fewer barriers to employment for the disabled, then more of them would be working already!

Most disabled people aren't refusing work - they're simply not being offered any! This applies to most of those who have been transferred from some other form of long-term welfare payment and effectively-'parked' on the DSP...

to have a bit of balance tho, 'disabled' does mean that there are limits on the personas abilities and capacities. In many cases this means firms simply CANNOT hire them if they cannot do the work. For example, could ANY BUSINESS hire Prevailing who is disabled in so many ways that he is unemployable in aby profession? who is to blame for that? not the firm.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:13pm:

While sympathising with your son's situation, whose fault do you think it is? with the growing demand that employers take responsibility for everythign in an employees life and being at risk for legal liability for so much they are increasingly choosing who they employ. Most people and most emplyers are good people, but when we are forced to assume risks and responsibilities that frankly arent ours then yes, we will tend to ignore the disabled.

Ironically, you have highlighted the key problem with the LibLabs embarking upon a draconian one-size-fits-all attack on welfare claimants!

Not only is it demonising and demeaning of vulnerable and disadvantaged people, but it is also a costly and counter-productive exercise to place draconian work-tests upon people who are likely to remain perpetually 'unemployable' in practice!

As for my son, he is highly intelligent but will probably take 3 years (instead of 2) to complete his HSC (partly because he is due to undergo another round of hand surgery later this year) - and, at the age of 16, it is already becoming obvious to him that he will struggle to be taken seriously in the workplace because people judge him first by the awkward way he moves - and often incorrectly assume an intellectual deficit (as has been the case throughout his life, in a range of settings)...

That said, he has no intentions of settling for the a life in poverty on the DSP...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #93 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:10pm

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:55pm:

Cutting payments to welfare recipients is both morally reprehensible and socio-economically counter-productive!
It is virtually impossible for anybody to survive in Australia in the 21st Century without access to money...

Under what circumstances could a person survive, in the here and now, without money - for starters: where could they stay and what could they eat?

In the absence of access to money, what can a person do to survive that is legal and does not rely upon the generosity of others?

What is the nett benefit to society and the economy, to have vulnerable and desperate people prostituting themselves to others, robbing the homes and businesses of others, selling drugs and/or otherwise engaging in the so-called 'black economy'!?

but only to those welfare recipients YOU deem worthy. you dont mean ALL. you mean only SOME.

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: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #94 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:15pm

Quote:

Take non-means-tested WEALTHfare away from the middle-class
and there would be PLENTY for the GENUINE welfare recips.

The middle and upper-classes neither need NOR deserve a slice
of the welfare pie, but THAT'S where the cost blowouts are.

An example is someone like Andrei accepting a $5k baby-bonus
while pocketing $200k+ a year in salary.

A single unemployed person gets a maximum of approximately
TWICE the baby-bonus, to pay EVERYTHING for a year.

The bottom-line is that, due to greed and selfishness, the middle
and upper-classes are essentially STEALING money that SHOULD
be going to pensioners, the unemployed, and sole-parents.

NOT fair, NOT just, NOT equitable, NOT RIGHT. Never was, never will be.

convenient but totally incorrect. only 4.6% goes to upper middle and uper class families. thats not going to save much. and your argument about 'deserving' can be a two-edged sword. do you really want ALL wefare recipients to be judged if they DESERVE it or not? what about if we include other characteristics beyond financial means? what about moral right, worthiness etc? Dont fling around 'deserve' so carelessly unless you want to be judged accordingly. there are many dole recipients wo do NOT deserve it by that criteria. dole bludgers, new immigrants etc. they do not 'deserve' it. but that is not how we give out welfare. it is a combo of both 'need' and 'entitlement'. to presume that it is judged entirely on one or the other is simplistic and wrong.

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: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #95 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:19pm

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:05pm:

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:32am:

If there were fewer barriers to employment for the disabled, then more of them would be working already!

Most disabled people aren't refusing work - they're simply not being offered any! This applies to most of those who have been transferred from some other form of long-term welfare payment and effectively-'parked' on the DSP...

to have a bit of balance tho, 'disabled' does mean that there are limits on the personas abilities and capacities. In many cases this means firms simply CANNOT hire them if they cannot do the work. For example, could ANY BUSINESS hire Prevailing who is disabled in so many ways that he is unemployable in aby profession? who is to blame for that? not the firm.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:13pm:

While sympathising with your son's situation, whose fault do you think it is? with the growing demand that employers take responsibility for everythign in an employees life and being at risk for legal liability for so much they are increasingly choosing who they employ. Most people and most emplyers are good people, but when we are forced to assume risks and responsibilities that frankly arent ours then yes, we will tend to ignore the disabled.

Ironically, you have highlighted the key problem with the LibLabs embarking upon a draconian one-size-fits-all attack on welfare claimants!

Not only is it demonising and demeaning of vulnerable and disadvantaged people, but it is also a costly and counter-productive exercise to place draconian work-tests upon people who are likely to remain perpetually 'unemployable' in practice!

As for my son, he is highly intelligent but will probably take 3 years (instead of 2) to complete his HSC (partly because he is due to undergo another round of hand surgery later this year) - and, at the age of 16, it is already becoming obvious to him that he will struggle to be taken seriously in the workplace because people judge him first by the awkward way he moves - and often incorrectly assume an intellectual deficit (as has been the case throughout his life, in a range of settings)...

That said, he has no intentions of settling for the a life in poverty on the DSP...

well I wish him the best of luck and hope he does not take on your counter-productive negative attitudes. they will only hinder him. If he acts like you and just puts his hand out while viciously biting that hand and complaining that the hand doesnt give more then his life will be miserable. But if his attitude is one he picks up from elsewhere then he has a chance. His intelligence can take him places his body may not. But if he runs with your attitudes then his disability wil be in his soul - not his body.

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

Kat

Gold Member

Offline

Socialism IS the answer.

Posts: 17709
Everywhere and no-where
Gender: female

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #96 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:32pm

From the ACOSS web-site......

""The two million people of working age on social security payments are rightly worried about what the budget will bring and tired of the stereotyping and blaming. They want practical help to secure employment and a decent income if they are unable to do so.

"Groups working directly with people not in paid work have been saying that people need more support, not more threats. People looking for paid work need adequate investment in case management, skills and training, a paid work experience program, and incentives for employers to take people on. We also need to address the ongoing discrimination and reluctance of some employers to give people a fair go.

"Importantly, income support levels for people unemployed must be increased to above the poverty line. At just $34 per day, the Newstart Allowance has been reducing in real value over the last 15 years. Financial crisis and homelessness are not the foundations for getting back to paid work. A more adequate income support payment would also encourage more people on the higher DSP to take the risk of looking for paid work, as recommended by the Henry Review Panel, and the OECD. A minimum increase of $50 per week is urgently needed.""

Read more here....

http://www.acoss.org.au/media/release/community_sector_calls_urgent_national_meeting_as_budget_concerns_about_wel

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #97 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:38pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:49pm:

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:43pm:

Kat wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:03pm:

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

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 9:49am:

How do you work out that we didn't deserve a baby bonus?

How do you work out that the unemployed aren't entitled to
a fair rate of 'benefit'?

The presence or absence of $5k wouldn't even be
noticeable to someone on $200k+.

But it is, quite literally, the difference between life and death
to those who are genuinely deserving of welfare.

And who, at present, are NOT getting their FAIR SHARE.

While I get the major point of your various posts, 'fair share' is an odd description of welfare. Welfare is support given to the disadvantaged by a state that can afford it. It is at no time and actual 'right' or a 'fair share'. It is soemthing however that a civil and just society should give. Unfortunately there is too much expectation that welfare is some natural right to expect and it isnt - nor has it ever been. There is quite some justifiably angst among earners that they are being asked to pay increasing amounts of tax to support a welfare system that they are excluded from soley on the basis that they work hard and contribute significantly to. There are also some who simply are greedy and have little to no interest in the affairs of others. But most pople want care , compassion and equity. This however does not imply that people want welfare to be an alternative to working. Life is not fiar nor is it equitable. Welfare is not the solution to lifes problems but is simply a salve given to try and help the worst of it.

But they aren't excluded. They get WEALTHfare.

And personally, I don't really have an issue with my taxes going
to help support those who are disabled, or who cannot find
work (NOT those who won't look).

I'd rather that, than see them homeless or starving.

And, as I stated, I have NO problem with them weeding the
'bludgers' out, be they on the dole or DSP.

But to make the genuine recips suffer for the sins of a minority
is neither fair nor right. And that is the case currently, and it will
get worse after the budget.

Welfare recips are already struggling with the increased cost of
just about everything, and the last time No-Start recips got an
increase in REAL terms was 25 years ago.

Could ANY of you survive on the same wages you were getting
in 1995? I doubt it, I certainly couldn't, so why should welfare recips?

'They' aren't being asked to pay 'extra' either - it's just that Howard, Costello, Rudd, Gillard & Co chose to cut 'their' share of the taxation pie and/or increase 'their' share of the transfer (WEALTHfare pie), without due regard to the inevitable structural deficits and inherent inequities associated with doing so!

'structural deficit' is a truly amazng term that only an economist could love (or value). it is how you call a surplus, a deficit. You look in your bank and see $22B balance. Most people call it a surplus and did for some time. Until it becomes politically expedient to redefine history and call it a 'structural deficit'.

Anyhow you define it Id rather have Howards 'structural deficit' than Swans 'actual deficit'.

For over a decade, Howard and Costello squandered the revenue windfall of the mining boom - and in their final term, they knowingly and systematically sabotaged the Federal Budget into the future - by recklessly-implementing both policies with costly and unsustainable black hole outlays others which would reverse revenue increases to create structural deficits...

The Labs made the huge mistake of almost-matching (and subsequently-honouring) the $34 Billion Tax Cuts promised by Howard and Costello in the lead-up to the 2007 Election...

The Labs have also been far too slow to plug the huge black hole caused by the Howard Govt's reverse-means-tested so-called 'Biggest Changes to Superannuation (Ever)' scam - and associated counter-productive changes to pensions...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Kat

Gold Member

Offline

Socialism IS the answer.

Posts: 17709
Everywhere and no-where
Gender: female

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #98 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:39pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:15pm:

Quote:

Take non-means-tested WEALTHfare away from the middle-class
and there would be PLENTY for the GENUINE welfare recips.

The middle and upper-classes neither need NOR deserve a slice
of the welfare pie, but THAT'S where the cost blowouts are.

An example is someone like Andrei accepting a $5k baby-bonus
while pocketing $200k+ a year in salary.

A single unemployed person gets a maximum of approximately
TWICE the baby-bonus, to pay EVERYTHING for a year.

The bottom-line is that, due to greed and selfishness, the middle
and upper-classes are essentially STEALING money that SHOULD
be going to pensioners, the unemployed, and sole-parents.

NOT fair, NOT just, NOT equitable, NOT RIGHT. Never was, never will be.

convenient but totally incorrect. only 4.6% goes to upper middle and uper class families. thats not going to save much. and your argument about 'deserving' can be a two-edged sword. do you really want ALL wefare recipients to be judged if they DESERVE it or not? what about if we include other characteristics beyond financial means? what about moral right, worthiness etc? Dont fling around 'deserve' so carelessly unless you want to be judged accordingly. there are many dole recipients wo do NOT deserve it by that criteria. dole bludgers, new immigrants etc. they do not 'deserve' it. but that is not how we give out welfare. it is a combo of both 'need' and 'entitlement'. to presume that it is judged entirely on one or the other is simplistic and wrong.

I have stated on numerous occasions thaT I have no problem with
these types being weeded out, but I maintain that to penalise the
majority (who are trying to get work of some kind) doesn't help
ANYONE. Not the recip, not society.

Nor does causing homelessness, family break-ups or mental
illness, ALL of which are likely outcomes of not raising the 'benefit'
above subsistence-level.

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #99 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:46pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:15pm:

Quote:

Take non-means-tested WEALTHfare away from the middle-class
and there would be PLENTY for the GENUINE welfare recips.

The middle and upper-classes neither need NOR deserve a slice
of the welfare pie, but THAT'S where the cost blowouts are.

An example is someone like Andrei accepting a $5k baby-bonus
while pocketing $200k+ a year in salary.

A single unemployed person gets a maximum of approximately
TWICE the baby-bonus, to pay EVERYTHING for a year.

The bottom-line is that, due to greed and selfishness, the middle
and upper-classes are essentially STEALING money that SHOULD
be going to pensioners, the unemployed, and sole-parents.

NOT fair, NOT just, NOT equitable, NOT RIGHT. Never was, never will be.

convenient but totally incorrect. only 4.6% goes to upper middle and uper class families. thats not going to save much. and your argument about 'deserving' can be a two-edged sword. do you really want ALL wefare recipients to be judged if they DESERVE it or not? what about if we include other characteristics beyond financial means? what about moral right, worthiness etc? Dont fling around 'deserve' so carelessly unless you want to be judged accordingly. there are many dole recipients wo do NOT deserve it by that criteria. dole bludgers, new immigrants etc. they do not 'deserve' it. but that is not how we give out welfare. it is a combo of both 'need' and 'entitlement'. to presume that it is judged entirely on one or the other is simplistic and wrong.

What exactly is included in these figures on Welfare v's WEALTHfare - and what has been excluded!?

I suspect that a raft of effectively-exclusive ATO-administered rorts have been excluded...

For starters, I doubt that the Superanuation Tax Concessions rorts have been included - since the top 5% of income earners have been siphoning-off around 37% of the available subsidies...

What about the Education Tax Refund - has this been included in the figures?

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #100 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:48pm

Kat wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:15pm:

Quote:

Take non-means-tested WEALTHfare away from the middle-class
and there would be PLENTY for the GENUINE welfare recips.

The middle and upper-classes neither need NOR deserve a slice
of the welfare pie, but THAT'S where the cost blowouts are.

An example is someone like Andrei accepting a $5k baby-bonus
while pocketing $200k+ a year in salary.

A single unemployed person gets a maximum of approximately
TWICE the baby-bonus, to pay EVERYTHING for a year.

The bottom-line is that, due to greed and selfishness, the middle
and upper-classes are essentially STEALING money that SHOULD
be going to pensioners, the unemployed, and sole-parents.

NOT fair, NOT just, NOT equitable, NOT RIGHT. Never was, never will be.

convenient but totally incorrect. only 4.6% goes to upper middle and uper class families. thats not going to save much. and your argument about 'deserving' can be a two-edged sword. do you really want ALL wefare recipients to be judged if they DESERVE it or not? what about if we include other characteristics beyond financial means? what about moral right, worthiness etc? Dont fling around 'deserve' so carelessly unless you want to be judged accordingly. there are many dole recipients wo do NOT deserve it by that criteria. dole bludgers, new immigrants etc. they do not 'deserve' it. but that is not how we give out welfare. it is a combo of both 'need' and 'entitlement'. to presume that it is judged entirely on one or the other is simplistic and wrong.

I have stated on numerous occasions thaT I have no problem with
these types being weeded out, but I maintain that to penalise the
majority (who are trying to get work of some kind) doesn't help
ANYONE. Not the recip, not society.

Nor does causing homelessness, family break-ups or mental
illness, ALL of which are likely outcomes of not raising the 'benefit'
above subsistence-level.

Thats a motherhood statement that contains zero practical suggestions for improving equity. And you still have not answered how increasind Welfare is to be paid for beyond your oft-stated idea of just tsaking it away from others. Good policy is a process of balancing competing needs such that no one is every happy but very few are UNhappy.

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

imcrookonit

Ex Member

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #101 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:56pm

THE Australian Greens will move to scrap the federal government's planned cut in the corporate tax rate for big business, saving $18 billion over the next decade.

Greens leader Bob Brown will tell the ACOSS 2011 national conference in Melbourne today that the major mining companies and the big four banks will be the biggest beneficiaries of a cut in the corporate tax rate to 29 per cent from 30 per cent.

"At a time of huge budget cuts in Australia, we will oppose the government's proposed corporate tax cut for big business," Senator Brown will tell the conference.

"The Australian Greens will be moving to scrap the one per cent tax cut for large businesses, while supporting the cut planned for small businesses."

The proposed cut is linked to a range of other initiatives to be funded by the government's planned 30 per cent minerals resource rent tax (MRRT).

The MRRT is due to start on July 1, 2012, when the corporate tax rate will be cut to 29 per cent for small businesses.

The tax cut will come a year later for larger businesses.

Research conducted for the Australian Greens shows the tax cut for big business will cost $2.4 billion in 2013/14 and $18 billion over the next decade, and would be equivalent to almost half the revenue expected to be generated by the MRRT.

The research shows that at 30 per cent, the Australian corporate tax is still below the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's "weighted average" of 36 per cent.

Senator Brown argues that saved revenue should be used to put in place a national dental care scheme, "or an increase of $50 a week for NewStart, youth allowances, Austudy and Abstudy and single parenting payments".

The support of the Greens is critical for the government to pass the MRRT and other initiatives linked to it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ex Dame Pansi

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24168

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #102 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:58pm

Is this the future for Australia's welfare recipients. As China gets more living space, we get less.
...........................................................................

China's 'homes' feel the squeeze

Soaring property prices in Beijing and other Chinese cities are giving rise to a new line of accommodation - "apartments" little wider than a narrow bed and hardly a meter longer, earning landlords ready cash at little cost and snapped up by young workers on low pay, often with families to support back home.

Each small apartment, at 2.4 meters long, 0.90 meters wide and 2 meters high, has space only for a single bed and a dressing table, with TV set and Internet connections.

"The rented places are just like individual toilet cubicles put in a room. How can people live there?" was the broad response from the general public who saw a picture posted by Internet blogger Zhang Qi of her living space in Beijing. [1]

Zhang, apparently the first tenant of such a compartment in Beijing, disagrees, appreciating the privacy that comes with three walls and a front door and at a price she can afford. The Shanxi native, who earns about 4,000 yuan (US$586) a month at an advertisement company in Beijing, pays 250 yuan rent monthly for the compartment in the capital city, the first of its kind in China. Before moving, she shared a flat with a roommate at 800 yuan per month.

"Now I can save more money for my mom and siblings who live in my home town," Zhang said.

The bed is placed hard between two walls in the roughly two-square-meter rented space, so Zhang has to crawl over it before she can sit in front of the dressing table. A canopy of wire netting is intended to create some air flow and make the room light.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/LD28Cb02.html

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4bd6d3627f8b9a801c360000-374-280/chinese-small-room.jpg

Back to top

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix
andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up.....

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #103 - May 1^st, 2011 at 4:59pm

Equitist wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:15pm:

Quote:

Take non-means-tested WEALTHfare away from the middle-class
and there would be PLENTY for the GENUINE welfare recips.

The middle and upper-classes neither need NOR deserve a slice
of the welfare pie, but THAT'S where the cost blowouts are.

An example is someone like Andrei accepting a $5k baby-bonus
while pocketing $200k+ a year in salary.

A single unemployed person gets a maximum of approximately
TWICE the baby-bonus, to pay EVERYTHING for a year.

The bottom-line is that, due to greed and selfishness, the middle
and upper-classes are essentially STEALING money that SHOULD
be going to pensioners, the unemployed, and sole-parents.

NOT fair, NOT just, NOT equitable, NOT RIGHT. Never was, never will be.

convenient but totally incorrect. only 4.6% goes to upper middle and uper class families. thats not going to save much. and your argument about 'deserving' can be a two-edged sword. do you really want ALL wefare recipients to be judged if they DESERVE it or not? what about if we include other characteristics beyond financial means? what about moral right, worthiness etc? Dont fling around 'deserve' so carelessly unless you want to be judged accordingly. there are many dole recipients wo do NOT deserve it by that criteria. dole bludgers, new immigrants etc. they do not 'deserve' it. but that is not how we give out welfare. it is a combo of both 'need' and 'entitlement'. to presume that it is judged entirely on one or the other is simplistic and wrong.

What exactly is included in these figures on Welfare v's WEALTHfare - and what has been excluded!?

I suspect that a raft of effectively-exclusive ATO-administered rorts have been excluded...

For starters, I doubt that the Superanuation Tax Concessions rorts have been included - since the top 5% of income earners have been siphoning-off around 37% of the available subsidies...

What about the Education Tax Refund - has this been included in the figures?

it would be pretty typical of you to reject any report or fact not to your liking. That woudl be why your opinion is so routinely discredited. take for example Newspoll. Labor in front and you love it. Libs in front and you go on and on and on about margins of error (which you dont understand) and criticsing the sampling method and analysis and reporting and the color of the font and who knows what else.

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

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Half On Disability Pension Should Get A Job.
Reply #104 - May 1^st, 2011 at 5:02pm

Kat wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:04pm:

Take non-means-tested WEALTHfare away from the middle-class
and there would be PLENTY for the GENUINE welfare recips.

The middle and upper-classes neither need NOR deserve a slice
of the welfare pie, but THAT'S where the cost blowouts are.

An example is someone like Andrei accepting a $5k baby-bonus
while pocketing $200k+ a year in salary.

A single unemployed person gets a maximum of approximately
TWICE the baby-bonus, to pay EVERYTHING for a year.

The bottom-line is that, due to greed and selfishness, the middle
and upper-classes are essentially STEALING money that SHOULD
be going to pensioners, the unemployed, and sole-parents.

NOT fair, NOT just, NOT equitable, NOT RIGHT. Never was, never will be.

When it come to the breeding bonus, I'd rather see it go to the middle income earners than to the friggen ferals. This country does not need more dole bludging ferals being born, it need more workers.

BTW, what you dikhead socialist call wealthfare is just a tax refund on our OWN money, it isn't a handout when you EARNED it in the first place.

Back to top

IP Logged