aquascoot wrote on Jun 16
th, 2014 at 6:58am:
The current welfare spend in OZ is 124 billion dollars.
if we were to say that 1 in 10 people live in poverty, then that means Jo Hockey could send each one of them a cheque for $50,000 every year.
Why do we need 40 different payments?
So that we can have policy development officers in Canberra developing one thing
Career paths for themselves that involve more and more complex payments and more and more families handing over their duties to each other to obscure public servants.
The NDIS (darling of the leftard will cost 60 cents in the dollar in administration.
So go protest if you like but remember, you are playing right into the hands of the people who wish to dissolve and destroy community bonds.
they seek not to help the poor, they seek to help themselves and control the poor.
There is some merit in what you say - the costs of welfare are blown out by the costs of running it, and not all that money goes to those at the sharp end.
However, you need to seek the balance point between costs of running and payments - and your concept of too many fat cats on a career path - the kind of people blatantly encouraged by your government and management generally (see Andrei) as some sort of 'entitlement' (as opposed to Entitlement to Social Security, for example) - tend to kick the balance towards costs rather than actual useful expenditure.
Remember that these people often fall into the Andrei class of having too much discretionary income and too much perks for free, and that their cost effectiveness is virtually nil in the real world, and they lead to Black Holes through the off-shoring and holidaying overseas and buying them big gas guzzlers for fun.
I agree - send every Social Security Entitlee a cheque for $50k each year. I'm sure they'd be happy with that.
I feel the time is almost germane for me to publish for yez the first part of my partial auto-bio.... it's about 'management' in this day and age and is a fine metaphor for the current death of business and government through an inability to manage in any real sense.
ADDS:- Oh - I posted figures before about a job cretion program for the poor in NYC - the cost of running it soaked up nearly 90% of the cash allocated.
One argument is that this means employment for some - but it is overborne by the very real issue of over-management and over-entitlement of such as 'ceos' and 'board members', and the kind of fat cats you describe.
For the sake of the living Christ - we have a 'submarine' company with a ceo and board.... now YTH do we even need that, and why do we need them at all?
(answer: to provide jobs for the cronies of politicians with a nice little earner so they don't 'suffer' from being voted out by a hostile public).
Footnote:- anyone else notice that the ceo (small letters intended) of Australia Post held a spot at Citibank - same as Bob Carr's little number on the side...
I believe there was a discussion of nepotism - well - we may be talking about an 'extended' family here - friends are, after all, the family you would choose if you could choose your family...... let us then start from that simple proposition and move forward with our discussion of nepotism.... on that basis......