# Beggars a sign of the times, or a sign of the welfare state?



## sptrawler (11 May 2016)

I find it rather disconcerting, seeing beggars on our streets, we have a very good welfare system and to see beggars on the street is off putting.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscri...ab7ee4514fe4164e52b3b466391&memtype=anonymous

Is it because we don't pay them enough, or is it due to their choices?

I'm sure some have mental illness, but what about those who are able bodied, but chose that lifestyle?


----------



## luutzu (11 May 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I find it rather disconcerting, seeing beggars on our streets, we have a very good welfare system and to see beggars on the street is off putting.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscri...ab7ee4514fe4164e52b3b466391&memtype=anonymous
> 
> ...




I think you'd need to have a residential address to receive/apply for welfare.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I find it rather disconcerting, seeing beggars on our streets, we have a very good welfare system and to see beggars on the street is off putting.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscri...ab7ee4514fe4164e52b3b466391&memtype=anonymous
> 
> ...




I haven't had a lot of experience of them, we get the occasional busker with the open guitar case playing on the footpath.

Is the social safety net adequate ? Even business groups say that the dole is too low. Maybe we have squeezed the lemon too much.


----------



## luutzu (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I haven't had a lot of experience of them, we get the occasional busker with the open guitar case playing on the footpath.
> 
> Is the social safety net adequate ? Even business groups say that the dole is too low. Maybe we have squeezed the lemon too much.




Uber is also a sign of our declining economy.

It's slightly above what Vietnam used to have - a lot of unemployed people with a motobike sitting around waiting for tourists or locals needing a ride.

Uber is a bit more high tech and with a car instead of a motobike.


----------



## orr (11 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think you'd need to have a residential address to receive/apply for welfare.



by the governments logic if your employed for 1 hour a fortnight they consider you employed. So by extension if it was posssible to let 1square metre of your property to a homeless person for 1 hour a fortnight that person wouldn't be homeless and there for be eligable for benefits. 
So I ask $1 from that homeless person then I can let it for every other free hour for the next fortnight to other homeless total 14 x 24= $336 / sqm ... I'll give 2 so they can lay down and rest after doing there '_brown paper_' work.
Imagine what that would cost the Government.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 May 2016)

Just another sign that Melbourne is becoming an "international city".  Along with that comes crime, violence, street gangs, traffic congestion like you've never seen before, high density living, multicultural divisions and the destruction of Medicare and welfare systems.  All good though... because now we're international.  Now we're on the world stage - we matter.


----------



## sptrawler (11 May 2016)

I wonder if they receive welfare, they have no address are usually in a derelict condition, would they have enough proof of identity to obtain a bank account?


----------



## get better (11 May 2016)

I was in Sydney over the weekend - first time visiting in years. I was a bit horrified at the amount of beggars around Central, walked past 5 beggars in 2 minutes at the train station...


----------



## sptrawler (11 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think you'd need to have a residential address to receive/apply for welfare.




Maybe if they could return empty drink containers, it would help, but then they would be taking them out of people's recycle bins and that wouldn't be fair. We would be paying double.


----------



## Tisme (12 May 2016)

Go to San Francisco and any notion of a correlation between welfare state and begging is put into context. Add to that the grifters who dupe tourists, second rate seafood and no sign of Karl Malden; the place is boring and really dangerous in spots.


----------



## Craton (12 May 2016)

Beggars have always been a part of our society, "...you gotta a smoke bud?"

Wondering if Sydney still have those pesky car windscreen cleaners that pestered you when stopped at a traffic lights?

Those beggars, or should I say buggers, would clean your windscreen even if ya told them to pee off then they'd expect payment for their "services".


----------



## Junior (12 May 2016)

Craton said:


> Beggars have always been a part of our society, "...you gotta a smoke bud?"
> 
> Wondering if Sydney still have those pesky car windscreen cleaners that pestered you when stopped at a traffic lights?
> 
> Those beggars, or should I say buggers, would clean your windscreen even if ya told them to pee off then they'd expect payment for their "services".




Still plenty of those in Melbourne.  

I had a bloke recently with a dirty rag and ciggie hanging out of his mouth, ashing all over the car.  Ended up with a windscreen in worse condition than beforehand!


----------



## ggkfc (12 May 2016)

Craton said:


> Beggars have always been a part of our society, "...you gotta a smoke bud?"
> 
> Wondering if Sydney still have those pesky car windscreen cleaners that pestered you when stopped at a traffic lights?
> 
> Those beggars, or should I say buggers, would clean your windscreen even if ya told them to pee off then they'd expect payment for their "services".




i reckon the average beggar earns more than a hard working low income earner..
welfare + donations.. ive seem some professional ones before

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rns-50000-a-year/story-e6freooo-1225765222551

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...s-intimidate-women-tourists-melbourne/6621824


----------



## basilio (12 May 2016)

ggkfc said:


> i reckon the average beggar earns more than a hard working low income earner..
> welfare + donations.. ive seem some professional ones before
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rns-50000-a-year/story-e6freooo-1225765222551
> ...




Wait a second did you actually read the ABC story ? It was a report from the Salvation Army which did identify 9 professional beggars out of a total of 135. The whole issue is a worry but it isn't true or  fair to describe all people down on their luck as professional beggars.


----------



## basilio (12 May 2016)

> Go to San Francisco and any notion of a correlation between welfare state and begging is put into context. Add to that the grifters who dupe tourists, second rate seafood and no sign of Karl Malden; the place is boring and really dangerous in spots.




San Francisco is what happens when a city becomes so wealthy the ordinary people can't afford to live in it.

Short story is that the Tech companies and their employees  are so well off the price of property and rents has soared beyond the earning capacity of any average worker. Result ? Even employed people simply can't afford a basic flat. So they end up on the streets. 

http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-problem-in-san-francisco/  Excellent analysis of the situation


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

basilio said:


> San Francisco is what happens when a city becomes so wealthy the ordinary people can't afford to live in it.
> 
> Short story is that the Tech companies and their employees  are so well off the price of property and rents has soared beyond the earning capacity of any average worker. Result ? Even employed people simply can't afford a basic flat. So they end up on the streets.
> 
> http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-problem-in-san-francisco/  Excellent analysis of the situation




The same "trickle down" approach that the Turnbull government favours.


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The same "trickle down" approach that the Turnbull government favours.




It's insane how the population could eat that "trickle down" bs.

Listen folks, we have to cut all the red tapes and work safety and cut your rights to form together to negotiate. That way, the corporations and their rich owners could earn more profit... if they earn more profit, they'll then hire more of you - and all for less pay and benefits - but mor eof you will get to work.

So more jobs, low pay... and you can work two or three jobs. Yaayy...

And on your days off to relax... well the parks and the waters and their air are all stuffed because in order for corporations to make more money, let's not allow Mother Nature to get in the way.


----------



## basilio (12 May 2016)

Interesting to see how San Francisco has reached it's current situation of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. This is the result.  Complex story but the basic facts are that market forces are allowed to run freely.


> *
> Seriously? Evicting a 99-year-old?*
> 
> This is how bad things are getting: Iris Canada could lose her home of more than 60 years, despite a lifetime lease
> ...



http://48hills.org/2016/04/12/seriously-evicting-99-year-old/


----------



## basilio (12 May 2016)

That 48 Hills paper has some very thoughtful articles. This one caught my eye because it examined some of the causes of sky high property prices and rent in SF and possible solutions.  It echoes the problems we face in our capital cities.


> Nimbys, SFBARF, and a clueless writer at the NY Times
> 
> Can the reporters who take on housing in San Francisco please take the time to understand some basic facts?
> By Tim Redmond -
> ...




http://48hills.org/2016/04/23/nimbys-sfbarf-clueless-writers-ny-times-2/


----------



## CanOz (12 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Uber is also a sign of our declining economy.
> 
> It's slightly above what Vietnam used to have - a lot of unemployed people with a motobike sitting around waiting for tourists or locals needing a ride.
> 
> Uber is a bit more high tech and with a car instead of a motobike.




Really? My opinion is that Uber is a really smart use of the smart phone. I have experienced Uber in China, Australia and Europe. All of these experiences have been 100 x more pleasant than sitting in a dirty taxi with a stinking driver that last had a bath and brushed their teeth when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth. I'm tired of paying too much money to an underpaid, under educated middle man. I'd rather have a middle class dad or mum, making a few bucks in their spare time with their new car. I have great conversations, in a clean comfortable car. They don't try and rip me off, like taxi drivers do, because they can't, they have to follow the GPS. I've been ripped off by taxi drivers in Australia, the US, China, Thailand, Germany, Canada, France, the UK, and Hong Kong. I've never had a bad experience with Uber.

Wake up to yourself.


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Really? My opinion is that Uber is a really smart use of the smart phone. I have experienced Uber in China, Australia and Europe. All of these experiences have been 100 x more pleasant than sitting in a dirty taxi with a stinking driver that last had a bath and brushed their teeth when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth. I'm tired of paying too much money to an underpaid, under educated middle man. I'd rather have a middle class dad or mum, making a few bucks in their spare time with their new car. I have great conversations, in a clean comfortable car. They don't try and rip me off, like taxi drivers do, because they can't, they have to follow the GPS. I've been ripped off by taxi drivers in Australia, the US, China, Thailand, Germany, Canada, France, the UK, and Hong Kong. I've never had a bad experience with Uber.
> 
> Wake up to yourself.




oh yea? Just your typical mum and dad who happen to be on the way to somewhere and thought to swing by a few blocks and give stranger a ride for a few bucks?

OK then.

Get real dude. Time to stop reading Uber's press release.

It's the same thing I saw in countries like VN where unemploy people work during the day and in the evening take their motobike out to earn a few extra bucks; Or the completely unemployed ones sitting on street corners.

VN shut that down some ten years ago too... for "safety" and maybe hygiene problem. Not at all because the comrades bought into a handful of taxi companies.


----------



## sptrawler (12 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> oh yea? Just your typical mum and dad who happen to be on the way to somewhere and thought to swing by a few blocks and give stranger a ride for a few bucks?
> 
> OK then.
> 
> ...




Somewhat like Singapore, where if you are an early riser as I am, you see the old people sweeping the streets.

There is no way that will happen here, our old people deserve to have a good retirement at the RSL, most have paid taxes all their lives,
Those who have saved for retirement, will pay for it.


----------



## CanOz (12 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> oh yea? Just your typical mum and dad who happen to be on the way to somewhere and thought to swing by a few blocks and give stranger a ride for a few bucks?
> 
> OK then.
> 
> ...




How many ubers have you taken? I've taken them all, taxis, tuk tuks, motorbikes, limos, xiao Fe longs....ubers still wins DUDE!


----------



## sptrawler (12 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> How many ubers have you taken? I've taken them all, taxis, tuk tuks, motorbikes, limos, xiao Fe longs....ubers still wins DUDE!




The problem with uber, in Perth, is you can't pre book them.

The other problem with a non regulated system, is it is open to corruption, as is the case with tuk tuk's in phuket.

A group takes it over, and then apply gangster tactics, to keep out competition.

There is no perfect way.IMO

The problem we have, is a rapid reduction in jobs and a rapid increase on welfare demand, both from unemployment and aging population.

It is very difficult to reconcile the two.


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> How many ubers have you taken? I've taken them all, taxis, tuk tuks, motorbikes, limos, xiao Fe longs....ubers still wins DUDE!




For the consumer, Uber is the way. Not arguing with you there.

Point I was trying to make is that it's a sign of a deteriorating economy when non-taxi people need to earn extra cash by offering what is essentially a taxi service.

For some Uber driver, it may very well be that they're on the way to some place nearby etc., for others it's most likely that it's a temporary job between jobs or a source of additional revenue after hours.


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Somewhat like Singapore, where if you are an early riser as I am, you see the old people sweeping the streets.
> 
> There is no way that will happen here, our old people deserve to have a good retirement at the RSL, most have paid taxes all their lives,
> Those who have saved for retirement, will pay for it.




I think it's only fair that the old folks should be looked after when they can't work anymore.

But the way things are going, when I am old I'll only have my kids to rely on - and so good luck with that too, ha ha.

All the taxes and medicare surcharge I've been paying but rarely if ever use all these years... I guess they all goes to the dear leaders and their lifetime pensions 

Good social contract yea?

Good things not too many Australians are rich enough to have Fonsec Monsecca calling us up - so AMP financial planners will have to do


----------



## sptrawler (12 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> For the consumer, Uber is the way. Not arguing with you there.
> 
> Point I was trying to make is that it's a sign of a deteriorating economy when non-taxi people need to earn extra cash by offering what is essentially a taxi service.
> 
> For some Uber driver, it may very well be that they're on the way to some place nearby etc., for others it's most likely that it's a temporary job between jobs or a source of additional revenue after hours.




With unemployment rising and personal debt at an all time high, people will do whatever is required, to meet their obligations.

The problem the Government has, is trying to integrate, new technology allowing a more efficient medium, and still be able to tax it.

As opposed to a century old technology, that really was a monopoly due to exorbitant license fees, which in turn resulted in exorbitant fares.

Our whole fiscal system, is really being tested at the moment.:1zhelp:


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

Getting a ride is not a matter of life and death, the consumer will decide about Uber.

Socially it seems a good system. A way to meet people other than monosyllabic taxi drivers.


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2016)

sptrawler said:


> With unemployment rising and personal debt at an all time high, people will do whatever is required, to meet their obligations.
> 
> The problem the Government has, is trying to integrate, new technology allowing a more efficient medium, and still be able to tax it.
> 
> ...




I'm sure you're right. I don't know much about the Taxi industry but it does seem to be outdated and cost way too much.

Uber is fair enough. I wasn't criticizing it. It should be adopted by taxi drivers by all means.

Was saying that its popularity among non-taxi drivers taking it up to complement their income is a sign the economy isn't going well.

We better get real serious about funding education and high skilled jobs before the gas and ore ran out. Keep this up and as Mearsheimer predicts, in 30 years China would be able to stop by to really say Ni Hao (or is it Che Che? better polish up on my Mandarin)


----------



## sptrawler (12 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I'm sure you're right. I don't know much about the Taxi industry but it does seem to be outdated and cost way too much.
> 
> Uber is fair enough. I wasn't criticizing it. It should be adopted by taxi drivers by all means.
> 
> ...




Agree with you completely, the problem we have, is we are so used to a system that does allow no  acountabilty and responsibility. 
We have lost the ability to take responsibility for our own decisions, every one thinks awe well if I ff up there will be the Government to bail me out.
The problem is, the situation is escalating at a rapid rate and like Greece, with a small population the ability to pay everyone a welfare payment becomes problematic.

The first thing we need to do, is re introduce testing of children, and find out where the education system is failing.
The adopted method of not putting the children under pressure, has resulted in a rapid race to mediocrity.IMO

If the testing shows there is a lack of teaching skills, give the teachers the opportunity to access courses to improve their skills, if that doesn't work give them the option of retraining for a different career.

Move teacher training out of uni's and back to teacher training college, where out of work engineers, geologists or any other profession, can be tested for their suitability to be teachers.

That is the key, their suitability isn't dependent on a rubber stamp, YOU HAVE FINISHED THE PRESCRIBED COURSE, YOU ARE A TEACHER.

The dumbest move ever for Australia.IMO

My rant, this week.lol


----------



## Value Collector (13 May 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I find it rather disconcerting, seeing beggars on our streets, we have a very good welfare system and to see beggars on the street is off putting.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscri...ab7ee4514fe4164e52b3b466391&memtype=anonymous
> 
> ...




Do the beggars you see have scabs on their faces, if so they are probably ice addicts.


----------



## CanOz (13 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Do the beggars you see have scabs on their faces, if so they are probably ice addicts.




There must be a decent proportion of addicts on the streets. This can be a reflection of hard times, or the rampant availability of such a destructive synthetic drug....basically a toxic cocktail of chemicals.


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Agree with you completely, the problem we have, is we are so used to a system that does allow no  acountabilty and responsibility.
> We have lost the ability to take responsibility for our own decisions, every one thinks awe well if I ff up there will be the Government to bail me out.
> The problem is, the situation is escalating at a rapid rate and like Greece, with a small population the ability to pay everyone a welfare payment becomes problematic.
> 
> ...




I get nervous when people agree with me. Have to go back and read my own rant 

I don't think welfare programmes are being as exploited as we're made to believe. Nor are they going towards the "undeserving" as we're told either.

We have this thing with our media and politicians where practically every service "they" - the gov't - provides are being made out as some act of kindness on some parasitic (coloured and bogans) people. And it ends up with vulnerable people being neglected or made to feel bad about using what is by their rights to use.

When enough people are put off and being shamed from using essential services... those that really need and deserve help either don't or get help but feel like crap getting it. That's not right.

What's the job of gov't anyway? Take our tax dollars and then what? Give themselves very generous pay and pensions, benefits and protection; then to friends and future employers... then some crumbs for the little plebs?

People aren't stupid. Even poor people. 

When they see that if they're honest and pay their taxes but don't get anything in return for it... who would pay taxes? They'd work for cash if they're "unskilled" enough... and those with enough pay and some skill go hire accountants and buy a few investment properties to make losses on them. 

----

Teachers... I've seen a few good teachers, I guess we all did.

But mostly teachers are there to indoctrinate state policies and a cheap source of day care.

That's not me saying it... that's what it is if you look into it.

So teachers are encouraged to be boring as heck; teaching some stupid syllabus in the most boring of ways possible to get proper grades... and are given less and less "teaching skills" and resources so they'd be more effective at carrying out those aims. You can't risk having too many inspiring teachers.


----------



## piggybank (13 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Go to San Francisco and any notion of a correlation between welfare state and begging is put into context. Add to that the grifters who dupe tourists, second rate seafood and no sign of Karl Malden; the place is boring and really dangerous in spots.




I was there 18 years ago and was surprised to see so much poverty in the city centre. Dozens of down and outs pushing their shopping trolley along with all their worldly goods packed inside and some having items hanging off the sides as well. It was a shock to me having been told for many years that America was the land of milk and honey.


----------



## Value Collector (14 May 2016)

piggybank said:


> It was a shock to me having been told for many years that America was the land of milk and honey.




It is the land of milk and honey, you just have to have the education, work ethic and smarts to get it. it's full of opportunity, but it's very unforgiving and will leave to behind if you don't fight to keep up.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It is the land of milk and honey, you just have to have the education, work ethic and smarts to get it. it's full of opportunity, but it's very unforgiving and will leave to behind if you don't fight to keep up.




I would say that the opportunities in the US derive from it's larger market and therefore bigger consumer base rather than from any inherent strengths of its economic, social or governmental institutions.


----------



## ggkfc (14 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I get nervous when people agree with me. Have to go back and read my own rant
> 
> I don't think welfare programmes are being as exploited as we're made to believe. Nor are they going towards the "undeserving" as we're told either.
> 
> ...




you would be surprised by the amount of people driving mercs while collecting welfare, with their cash in hand jobs


----------



## SirRumpole (14 May 2016)

ggkfc said:


> you would be surprised by the amount of people driving mercs while collecting welfare, with their cash in hand jobs




And identity theft businesses.


----------



## luutzu (14 May 2016)

ggkfc said:


> you would be surprised by the amount of people driving mercs while collecting welfare, with their cash in hand jobs




Yes, the old "just in case there are cheats and criminals abusing it, let's get rid of it altogether until all humanity are honest and fair dinkum" excuse.

I'd love to see the same thinking being applied to the paying of taxes; or politicians and parliament; or policing; or practically anything we care to name.

So let's get rid of this tax paying stuff because there are way too many Australians earning over a million a year yet could legally pay zero income tax 

wait, it's legal so that's fine.


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2016)

Haven't people realised that welfare States can't afford to keep taking in people, who pays for them?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/sri-...at-stranded-in-indonesia-20160612-gphcfe.html

Everyone is spewing about Britain wanting to get out of the EU, but no one is asking, "why do all the refugees line up at the chunnel?

There is going to be a huge people backlash, on the issue. IMO


----------



## luutzu (12 June 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Haven't people realised that welfare States can't afford to keep taking in people, who pays for them?
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/world/sri-...at-stranded-in-indonesia-20160612-gphcfe.html
> 
> ...




Can't afford to help refugees and poor Australians, but corporate tax cuts and other goodies to the rich are easy to come by though.

Big Blue doing it tough? Let's put more money into their pockets shall we.

Struggling Australians having two or more properties but the rental income aren't profitable? Let us pay your share of the tax then when you do sell the properties at a profit, all we'd ask is you'd only have half of the profit be taxable income. 

Maybe if corporate welfare stops, Australia can afford a to do a thing or two.


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2016)

luutzu said:


> Can't afford to help refugees and poor Australians, but corporate tax cuts and other goodies to the rich are easy to come by though.
> 
> Big Blue doing it tough? Let's put more money into their pockets shall we.
> 
> ...




You're probably right, we need to go down to the lowest common denominator, when we have have most with a cardboard billboard, we have reached equilibrium.

Then we can work out how to make everything equitable, we can give everyone the same whether they do anything or not, but those who work will no doubt complain.

We just have to convince them it is for the better good.

Corporate welfare is no different to social welfare, one gives money to create jobs, the other gives money for no job.
Neither is affordable in a contracting economy.


----------



## Tisme (12 June 2016)

sptrawler said:


> You're probably right, we need to go down to the lowest common denominator, when we have have most with a cardboard billboard, we have reached equilibrium.
> 
> Then we can work out how to make everything equitable, we can give everyone the same whether they do anything or not, but those who work will no doubt complain.
> 
> ...




What ? Is there a codec that comes with that?


----------



## luutzu (12 June 2016)

sptrawler said:


> You're probably right, we need to go down to the lowest common denominator, when we have have most with a cardboard billboard, we have reached equilibrium.
> 
> Then we can work out how to make everything equitable, we can give everyone the same whether they do anything or not, but those who work will no doubt complain.
> 
> ...




How's the job-creation thing working out?

Last I remember, Labor got overthrown for trying to tax carbon and the mining boom super profit. We're told that's irresponsible because, well, because jobs will be lost. Tax was repealed, jobs still goes 

If I were to tell people who work for me that they'll be richer if I pay them less, you reckon they'll buy that? Would you buy that yourself?

But yes, hand over our cash and let them make us rich.

Works out so well for every economies it's been implemened that the gov't then have to cut and cut and sell of assets after assets.


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2016)

luutzu said:


> How's the job-creation thing working out?
> 
> Last I remember, Labor got overthrown for trying to tax carbon and the mining boom super profit. We're told that's irresponsible because, well, because jobs will be lost. Tax was repealed, jobs still goes
> 
> ...




!. Well the job creation thing isn't working out well because, labour is expensive.

2. Labor were thrown out for taxing carbon which made industries that used electricity expensive, and taxing    mining super profits was a fizzog because mining has gone bust, if you hadn't noticed.

3. If you tell the people who work for you they will be richer if you pay them more, but can't sell your product, because it costs too much. do you think they will buy that?

How dumb do you think workers are, I know people are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs, you obviously think upward ever upward is the norm?

The Government will no doubt have to borrow money, to build infrastructure, to improve produductivity and reduce bottlenecks.

If they then have to sell that infrastructure to pay for further infrastructure, so be it, it isn't all about remaining static.

There will be an ever increasing demand on Government to supply infrastructure to support economic growth, as the population and economy grows.

If they don't supply it, bottlenecks and loss of productivity is the result.

It isn't all about warm feel good education, health and social spending.


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2016)

Tisme said:


> What ? Is there a codec that comes with that?




No, work it out for yourself.


----------



## luutzu (13 June 2016)

sptrawler said:


> !. Well the job creation thing isn't working out well because, labour is expensive.
> 
> 2. Labor were thrown out for taxing carbon which made industries that used electricity expensive, and taxing    mining super profits was a fizzog because mining has gone bust, if you hadn't noticed.
> 
> ...




My brother often said that if a company doesn't need you, they won't pay you even if it's for $1 an hour, won't even let you work for free either.

So what make a business needing workers? When there is demand for what the business is serving up.

There won't be much demand if the local plebs don't have much to buy with. So it's a bs argument being served up by business that they can't afford to pay more but must always pay less.


"Expensive" is relative.

If a person don't have money, something that costs $5 is way out of reach; If they earn a decent, stable income... what costs $10 could be very affordable and cheap.

So again, the argument that workers must earn less so we could all benefit is a total lie. In cases where it is not an outright lie, does the business owner/corporations also make the sacrifices too? Do they also opt to make less profit or maintain their margin at workers' expense?

take WOW or Westfarmers/Coles... They're profitable, but their workers still earn less and less. Or WalMart - the biggest retailer in the world with billions in profit a year... can't afford to pay their workers a living wage. Right.

-----

Why must national assets and utilities be sold to "afford" new infrastructures?
Do we all sell the family car, catches taxis so we could afford a new bathroom? Save up, work hard, tax properly - pay for both and still save money.

We sell the stuff that's been paid for and established as a national necessity. Once sold, we consumers keep paying higher and higher rates... and with those pay, we hope and pray those private investors keep some of the cash in the business to adequately keep maintenance up to scratch - if they wer eto do what National Pacific (as Smurf was saying a while back), or as Virgin rail did in the UK and pay themselves big dividends from reduced maintenance and safety, from emptying workers' pensions and cutting their pay and cutting their jobs.... then when the machines and the overworked and underpaid people failed, the gov't have to step in and bail them out or buy back to assets to fix again. 

---

In downturn or when business are doing it tough... owners and workers should make sacrifices. That's rarely what happen though. The way it is with "Free Trade", with removal of union or much workers' protection from anyone... it is the workers that's doing all the sacrifices. 

It's what Alan Greenspan gleefully call "workers insecurity" - something he and big business are very proud of because it keeps costs down and productivity up and profit high.

Keep unemployment at 5 to 6% is ideal, according to them... it keeps the workers on their feet.

And we're too happy to oblige. 

----

Study is not about wishy washy "arts" degree. Study is about training your people, your future electorates, future employees and employers... teach them technical skills, advanced skills to produce quality work from farsighted thinking. Not just about reading and writing poetry or literature, though that too does help a great deal.

To put moral obligation and valuing a fair go and social justice.... that's an investment worth making for a civilised society, for lack of  better word.


That or we just dump the kids down, don't teach them much, make them scare for their jobs and afraid of immigrants and refugees taking their jobs or their benefits... so remove the "benefits" so we alll are screwed too. Then we could all be happy earning less, paying more, make the rich richer so we'd all be rich - eventually.

Race to the bottom they call it. But then one must go to the bottom to get up again... so maybe it'll work.


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2016)

luutzu said:


> My brother often said that if a company doesn't need you, they won't pay you even if it's for $1 an hour, won't even let you work for free either.
> 
> So what make a business needing workers? When there is demand for what the business is serving up.
> 
> ...




I agree withy your sentiments, but the reality is a business has to sell its product at a sensible price, or consumers will buy an alternative.

As Aldi is showing, if they can source their product from a cheaper overseas source, they can then sell it here at a lower cost than Woolies and Coles. 
The local consumer will buy the cheaper product, rather than support Local business and buy the local product. This in turn makes the local product dearer, as the business has to put the price up to cover the loss of sales, a bit of a vicious circle.

With regard wages, they are dropping, due to the renegotiation of EBA's. 
Also they are dropping in relative terms, due to the devaluation of the $Aus, this in turn makes our product more competitive.

With regard selling infrastructure, it depends what it is IMO, they shouldn't sell essential services. 
However, if selling a road or bank or airline to fund required infrastructure, saves them having to increase taxes then it needs to be weighed up.
Your example of selling the family car to use taxis, IMO isn't the way I see it. I see it more like selling the family car, to buy a new one.

Just another circle really.


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2016)

luutzu said:


> My brother often said that if a company doesn't need you, they won't pay you even if it's for $1 an hour, won't even let you work for free either.
> 
> So what make a business needing workers? When there is demand for what the business is serving up.
> 
> ...





Just read  this article, it is a sign of the times, I'm not saying it is good or bad, just a sign of the times.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31821439/umpire-slashes-coal-workers-wages-by-43-per-cent/


----------



## luutzu (13 June 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I agree withy your sentiments, but the reality is a business has to sell its product at a sensible price, or consumers will buy an alternative.
> 
> As Aldi is showing, if they can source their product from a cheaper overseas source, they can then sell it here at a lower cost than Woolies and Coles.
> The local consumer will buy the cheaper product, rather than support Local business and buy the local product. This in turn makes the local product dearer, as the business has to put the price up to cover the loss of sales, a bit of a vicious circle.
> ...





One way is buy cheap stuff for cheap, the other is buy good quality stuff for cheap-still. 

Whether something is cheap or not depends a lot on our wallet. 

Your analogy is too generous Homer.  We're not selling the car to buy another car, we're selling it to rent it back, then use that money to build a bathroom. Then once the bathroom is done, we'd sell it too - just to rent it back again.

Look how much money CBA would have return to us the public if we'd held on to it. A few hundred billions... instead of going towards the public treasury they now go to "mom and pop" battling Australians who own stocks and living off the dividends. 

I'm not saying socialise and public own everything... there's a place for private enterprise, there's a place for public ownership. Politicians have to really represents the national interests and make decisions as they would for their own family.

So if I were to sell my car, believe me, the guy who buy it ain't gonna make hundreds of billions off of us in return for it.


----------



## luutzu (13 June 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Just read  this article, it is a sign of the times, I'm not saying it is good or bad, just a sign of the times.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31821439/umpire-slashes-coal-workers-wages-by-43-per-cent/




Sign of the time alright.

Where businesses are doing it so tough the workers have to have their wages cut in half.

If the business can't operate protably, shut it down.


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2016)

luutzu said:


> I'm not saying socialise and public own everything... there's a place for private enterprise, there's a place for public ownership. Politicians have to really represents the national interests and make decisions as they would for their own family.
> .




That sums it up perfectly.


----------



## trainspotter (13 June 2016)

luutzu said:


> One way is buy cheap stuff for cheap, the other is buy good quality stuff for cheap-still.
> 
> Whether something is cheap or not depends a lot on our wallet.
> 
> ...








So if the succeeding governments did not sell the following government owned utilities you are saying we all would be better off??


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2016)

luutzu said:


> Your analogy is too generous Homer.  We're not selling the car to buy another car, we're selling it to rent it back, then use that money to build a bathroom. Then once the bathroom is done, we'd sell it too - just to rent it back again..




Well that is subjective, if you don't need a car and need a bathroom, hanging onto the car and not washing may be an option, or borrow money to build the bathroom.

But what happens when you need a toilet and don't want to sell the car or the bathroom?

It is a bit like what is happening with coal fired power stations, ten years ago you would have got a zillion dollars for them, now you couldn't give them away.
But Governments own plenty of them.




luutzu said:


> Look how much money CBA would have return to us the public if we'd held on to it. A few hundred billions... instead of going towards the public treasury they now go to "mom and pop" battling Australians who own stocks and living off the dividends..




A bit like Telstra, the government sold the last tranche at $7.40, when was the last time you saw that price.
No doubt you would say they are paying a dividend, and so they are, those who receive them probably require less welfare. The Government also gets its share of the profits through company and wages tax and GST.

Also keeping it under Government ownership, would have caused huge conflict with private providers, as the taxpayer subsidy chesnut, would be rolled out endlessly.

If it hadn't been sold, the taxpayer would still have to cough up for the NBN, Telstra would still have to give overseas companies free access and value plus revenue would be crashing.

The same with CBA, if it was Government owned, they wouldn't be allowed to charge the same interest as private banks, because it would be percieved as being taxpayer funded.
Also pressure would be applied by Government to offer better interest on savings for pensioners, which again would be percieved as being taxpayer funded a no win situation.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> Sign of the time alright.
> 
> Where businesses are doing it so tough the workers have to have their wages cut in half.
> 
> If the business can't operate protably, shut it down.




A further update on the Griffin Coal situation in Collie W.A


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-...rs-fight-fair-work-commission-pay-cut/7569476

One section of the article I thought was badly reported was this.

_Griffin Coal has also asked employees to work 14 days in every three weeks, up from 10.5 days_.

It may have sounded better if they had said, 14 days in 21, up from 10.5 days in 21. 

Maybe not.:1zhelp:


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2016)

sptrawler said:


> A further update on the Griffin Coal situation in Collie W.A




Long term I think the coal mines at Collie are stuffed. No other way to put it really.

The coal is OK but it's not great (sub-bituminous). Trouble is, with the global industry downturn there's an abundance of better quality bituminous coal available to anyone who wants to buy it. So the potential for exports isn't great although it's not zero.

Muja power station is getting old and with the rise of solar generation in WA its days are likely numbered at least in terms of running at full output. Bluewaters power station (both of them) are far newer but also will have to compete with solar etc and technically aren't well suited to that.

Reserves are substantial but not massive. It seems as though there's 750 million tonnes or thereabouts but how much of that is economically able to be mined? Ask that question and the answer seems to be in the 25 - 50% range.

My guess is the whole thing will limp on for quite a long time yet but it won't be still running, at all, 30 years from now. One of those things that undergoes a slow but inevitable decline until at some point the plug is pulled (almost literally in this case) and most likely that will be whenever the Bluewaters stations become due for a major refurb and the owners decide it's not profitable. Much like what's happened with Leigh Creek and the Port Augusta power stations in SA but slower in WA's case due to being an isolated system with greater reliance on local coal to start with.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Long term I think the coal mines at Collie are stuffed. No other way to put it really.
> 
> The coal is OK but it's not great (sub-bituminous). Trouble is, with the global industry downturn there's an abundance of better quality bituminous coal available to anyone who wants to buy it. So the potential for exports isn't great although it's not zero.
> 
> ...




Absolutely on the mark smurph, perfect summation of the issue, all the ranting and marching on Parliament won't change it.
Also as you point out Collie coal isn't high quality, so is only viable for power generation.

The changing of the workers back to a 9 day fortnight, isn't an isolated case, the line crews are going through the same process, from what I've heard.


----------



## Tisme (6 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> Can't afford to help refugees and poor Australians, but corporate tax cuts and other goodies to the rich are easy to come by though.
> 
> Big Blue doing it tough? Let's put more money into their pockets shall we.
> 
> ...




Now the election activity is almost over, will be be seeing you back on the forum luutzu


----------



## luutzu (6 July 2016)

Tisme said:


> Now the election activity is almost over, will be be seeing you back on the forum luutzu




Oh I wasn't off for electioneering stuff. I knew politics isn't for me during uni when I was outraged when our student body representatives decided to use all the Assc. savings towards each of their trip to Paris "to study and learn from other student representatives" from all over the world.

And that was small time student body politics. Imagine the real world with serious money at play. :frown:


----------



## luutzu (6 July 2016)

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 67096
> 
> 
> So if the succeeding governments did not sell the following government owned utilities you are saying we all would be better off??
> ...




CBA was sold for... $8B in total? Its latest half year NPAT was $4.5B.

Good investment decision to flock that loser off ey.

I also like how Sydney Airport now put the Express Pick Up ten minutes away from Arrival gates and "give" people 15 minutes free pickup time.


----------



## luutzu (6 July 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Well that is subjective, if you don't need a car and need a bathroom, hanging onto the car and not washing may be an option, or borrow money to build the bathroom.
> 
> But what happens when you need a toilet and don't want to sell the car or the bathroom?
> 
> ...




Point was we still need the car, but sold it off (for cheap, too) just to rent it back again.

If we need a toilet but also need the car and the bathroom... then invest in the kids education, start a business, earn more money then build a toilet fit for Royalty. Til then, get a shovel and head for the backyard.





sptrawler said:


> A bit like Telstra, the government sold the last tranche at $7.40, when was the last time you saw that price.
> No doubt you would say they are paying a dividend, and so they are, those who receive them probably require less welfare. The Government also gets its share of the profits through company and wages tax and GST.
> 
> Also keeping it under Government ownership, would have caused huge conflict with private providers, as the taxpayer subsidy chesnut, would be rolled out endlessly.
> ...




If the gov't run the country for the benefit of the public/people, then they'd keep a large market share in each major industry - just to provide adequate competition. To flock it all off will mean no anchorage for privateers to compete against - look at how MBF or whatever does to health insurance premiums. The Health Minister was so happy to only allow 6% hike instead of some 12% they were demanding just one year after the sell off.

There are many ways a gov't could profit from a state-owned enterprise... and making the most out of customers and employees are not necessarily the only way. A private enterprise - the bottom line is the only figure that count, everything else are other people's problem.

So if they could make more by firing a whole bunch of people (who then either head to some other lower paid job or unemployment, that's other people's problem); or if they close branches, sell the land and make a bunch of money from that (and if customers will have to wait longer lines, travel further - that's someone else's costs, not the more "efficient" privatised corporation).


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> If the gov't run the country for the benefit of the public/people, then they'd keep a large market share in each major industry - just to provide adequate competition. To flock it all off will mean no anchorage for privateers to compete against - look at how MBF or whatever does to health insurance premiums. The Health Minister was so happy to only allow 6% hike instead of some 12% they were demanding just one year after the sell off.
> 
> There are many ways a gov't could profit from a state-owned enterprise... and making the most out of customers and employees are not necessarily the only way. A private enterprise - the bottom line is the only figure that count, everything else are other people's problem.
> 
> So if they could make more by firing a whole bunch of people (who then either head to some other lower paid job or unemployment, that's other people's problem); or if they close branches, sell the land and make a bunch of money from that (and if customers will have to wait longer lines, travel further - that's someone else's costs, not the more "efficient" privatised corporation).




I think the Government should be active in the essential services sectors, health, education, water and power. There is a requirement to maintain a certain standard at a sensible price, to do that they have to be a participant or legislate prices.

But that doesn't mean they are required to compete in all industries or institutions. Some such as Telstra were charging ridiculous fees for substandard services, probably due to lack of Government funding for updating infrastructure. While at the same time the Government would have been taking a huge slice of Telstra's profits into consolidated revenue. Post privatisation the telecommunication sector has become much better, both services and prices.

Another example is the price of air travel, pre the  1990's air travel in Australia were stupid prices, once the Government sold Australian Airlines to Qantas then Qantas was floated, prices of air travel has dropped hugely. I flew to Adelaide in the late eighties, to be best man at a wedding, return airfare Perth to Adelaide was $950. Back then that was a huge amount of money


----------



## Tisme (7 July 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I think the Government should be active in the essential services sectors, health, education, water and power. There is a requirement to maintain a certain standard at a sensible price, to do that they have to be a participant or legislate prices.




Agreed, we need to keep a floor under essential services and needs ...socialism alert. I do think there should be a critical eye on the workforce in those utilities that seem to be bloated with too many bodies aimlessly walking around or sitting at desks carrying out stupifying tasks.




sptrawler said:


> But that doesn't mean they are required to compete in all industries or institutions. Some such as Telstra were charging ridiculous fees for substandard services, probably due to lack of Government funding for updating infrastructure. While at the same time the Government would have been taking a huge slice of Telstra's profits into consolidated revenue. Post privatisation the telecommunication sector has become much better, both services and prices.





Telstra seemed to rise to cash cow status once it stopped spending on large infrastructure, but I'm not sure Allan Fel's idea of post 1999 monopoly competitive fee structures ever had a chance in the long term. The industry itself has settled into an oligopoly and Telstra keeps getting monopoly treatment for its LNP mates (e.g. NBN) ; I'm presuming to maintain surety of dividend for the "mum and dad" investors and a place where cronies go to milk a salary.




sptrawler said:


> Another example is the price of air travel, pre the  1990's air travel in Australia were stupid prices, once the Government sold Australian Airlines to Qantas then Qantas was floated, prices of air travel has dropped hugely. I flew to Adelaide in the late eighties, to be best man at a wedding, return airfare Perth to Adelaide was $950. Back then that was a huge amount of money




I remember the early and mid eighties commuting coast to coast every couple of weeks in flying prisons of cigarette smoke, aviation fuel fumes,  rancid coffee odours and chemical toilet perfume. If the shock to the olfactory and oxygen system didn't send you into semi consciousness, the added discomfort of burst ear drums and jarred teeth produced memories fro a generation lost...... no wonder the stewards were pretty and polite back then and Adelaide was a welcome destination.

I always think of Ansett versus TAA as an example of how competition doesn't necessarily equate to best pricing. I'm also mindful of how international innovation and efficiency tend to have a bigger impact on our domestic pricing than local policy. Be interesting to compare the seat pricing over time to see if the floats were preemptive bailouts or if the status quo would still be propping up the price.... Hawke and Keating certainly seemed keen for competition for some reason.


----------



## luutzu (7 July 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I think the Government should be active in the essential services sectors, health, education, water and power. There is a requirement to maintain a certain standard at a sensible price, to do that they have to be a participant or legislate prices.
> 
> But that doesn't mean they are required to compete in all industries or institutions. Some such as Telstra were charging ridiculous fees for substandard services, probably due to lack of Government funding for updating infrastructure. While at the same time the Government would have been taking a huge slice of Telstra's profits into consolidated revenue. Post privatisation the telecommunication sector has become much better, both services and prices.
> 
> Another example is the price of air travel, pre the  1990's air travel in Australia were stupid prices, once the Government sold Australian Airlines to Qantas then Qantas was floated, prices of air travel has dropped hugely. I flew to Adelaide in the late eighties, to be best man at a wedding, return airfare Perth to Adelaide was $950. Back then that was a huge amount of money




I think Telstra and the telecommunication market improved due to increased competition from overseas (optus etc) as well as new technologies more than just it being privatised. Same with airlines and other industry.

If you privatise but doesn't allow greater competition, it'll be worst than when the gov't own the monopoly. 

Maybe not having a presence in all industry, but at least the major ones. But the way things are, maybe our leadership aren't really representing our interests but their own. I mean, they might look and sounds like (you white people), but I doubt very much they see you peasants and us coolies as equals. 

As Madison, a US founding father, once said... the state is to be governed for the people who own it. Maybe Australia isn't as bad as the US, but the top 5% probably own the entire country and some. 

Since they own the whole place, makes sense (to them) that the place should be run to their interests. But since there's these democracy and stuff, gotta find ways to sugar-coat and please the peasants to "vote" and "choose" how best to give up their rights, assets and be ruled over.

One way to get the plebs to sell their assets is to spruik efficiency and capitalist enterprising this and that... put the thing they already own on the stock exchange and have a few richer plebs buying a couple of shares - they'll sell out and get with the programme. 

Watch how our education system is going to be privatised. If we think the current class of Aussies are fairly ill-educated, wait til it's moved beyond their reach and those who reached it do so with massive debt burden.


----------



## Tisme (7 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> Watch how our education system is going to be privatised. If we think the current class of Aussies are fairly ill-educated, wait til it's moved beyond their reach and those who reached it do so with massive debt burden.




Watch Medicare.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 July 2016)

On the news tonight they were saying something like 30,000 (??) people on waiting list for public housing. The numbers living on the streets have gone up about 8 times in the last decade.

A growing city will mean more people in the tails of the distribution.  Melbourne _*was *_the world's most livable city... no longer.  

200,000 new Australians per year has done enormous damage to housing affordability, traffic congestion, public schooling, public healthcare, welfare.  Many newcomers sought out Australia _*precisely because*_ of such free services, and in that sense, privatization of everything might be a necessary evil.  But I can't imagine the polarization that would happen.  That would be disastrous.

Medicare is on its knees.  Royal Children's Hospital is being absolutely swamped by demand.  Introduce a small fee and demand would shrink like nobody's business.  The "it's free, let's squeeze every drop out of it" mentality is absolutely rife.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 July 2016)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Introduce a small fee and demand would shrink like nobody's business.  The "it's free, let's use it" mentality is rife.




I don't know about you , but hanging around a doctor's office for hours is not my idea of fun.

Do you really think people go to the doctor just because it's "free" ? You are likely to pick up more illness in a doctor's surgery than you go in with.

People go to doctors because they need to, fees won't make any difference to the level of usage imo.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know about you , but hanging around a doctor's office for hours is not my idea of fun.
> 
> Do you really think people go to the doctor just because it's "free" ? You are likely to pick up more illness in a doctor's surgery than you go in with.
> 
> People go to doctors because they need to, fees won't make any difference to the level of usage imo.




People go to doctors for all sorts of reasons.  Just having someone listen and attend to you is a common motivator for those who are isolated/disadvataged.  

I know for a fact that in Melbourne's Northern suburbs, certain services have a 3 year waiting list.  This is because the people who live there are not prepared to pay for healthcare.  That's their mindset.  If they decided to pay, they could immediately access such services for under $100 per treatment.  Instead they spend that money on junk food, entertainment, car modifications or smokes.

I understand that saving up $100 is impossible for some people, but if you have even a very low paying job it's easy.


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2016)

Gringotts Bank said:


> People go to doctors for all sorts of reasons.  Just having someone listen and attend to you is a common motivator for those who are isolated/disadvataged.
> 
> I know for a fact that in Melbourne's Northern suburbs, certain services have a 3 year waiting list.  This is because the people who live there are not prepared to pay for healthcare.  That's their mindset.  If they decided to pay, they could immediately access such services for under $100 per treatment.  Instead they spend that money on junk food, entertainment, car modifications or smokes.
> 
> I understand that saving up $100 is impossible for some people, but if you have even a very low paying job it's easy.



You're wasting your time,IMO, people will pull the teats of it till it falls over.
There is no way in Australia at the moment, you are going to get people to give up anything.

Until it all goes ar$e up nobody is going to give an inch, just ask Mal and Bill, Mal wants to give it to business and Bill wants to give it to welfare.:1zhelp:

It's funny really because business wants to leave and everyone wants to be on welfare.

Shame no one can find middle ground.


----------



## luutzu (7 July 2016)

Gringotts Bank said:


> People go to doctors for all sorts of reasons.  Just having someone listen and attend to you is a common motivator for those who are isolated/disadvataged.
> 
> I know for a fact that in Melbourne's Northern suburbs, certain services have a 3 year waiting list.  This is because the people who live there are not prepared to pay for healthcare.  That's their mindset.  If they decided to pay, they could immediately access such services for under $100 per treatment.  Instead they spend that money on junk food, entertainment, car modifications or smokes.
> 
> I understand that saving up $100 is impossible for some people, but if you have even a very low paying job it's easy.




You realise that Medicare isn't "free" right? We are all paying for it. I personally paid some $2K odd a year (in my good year) and when my accountant wasn't around, paid a surcharge on top. And I hardly use Medicare.. maybe once or twice a year.

Some in the media, and the gov't, would want me to believe that I'd be better off if they tax me less on Medicare but I'd have to fork up on each visit. Some might find that fair... until they're older and sicker or lost their job.

Got to think long term on these things. We got to keep what's ours else it'd be taken away. And Medicare and other social services are ours - we the people paid for it - it's not a charity.

I've dealt with way too many doctors over the years, and none of them, well maybe one, but beside that one weird doctor, none would ever give anything away for free. I don't expect a bunch of lawyers and politicians to be giving anything away either.

What we have here is an example of self-righteous pricks taking what we paid for and make it like they're doing us a favour just the generosity can't go on.

Maybe stop waging wars abroad, stop corporate welfare and feathering their own nest... then maybe we talk about cutting essential services.


----------



## luutzu (7 July 2016)

Tisme said:


> Watch Medicare.




I get the feeling that while "Medicare" the title remains, all the lesser-known treatment and services under it are being gutted. 

By the time my generation need Medicare more frequently, we'd probably be getting to see the GP for "free" but pay through the nose for everything else.


----------



## luutzu (7 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know about you , but hanging around a doctor's office for hours is not my idea of fun.
> 
> Do you really think people go to the doctor just because it's "free" ? You are likely to pick up more illness in a doctor's surgery than you go in with.
> 
> People go to doctors because they need to, fees won't make any difference to the level of usage imo.




I think that's true.

I haven't met any doctor I find admirable or want to share a drink with. They're all in it for the money. I mean we all work for money and sure, doctors ought to be paid too... but it's not unreasonable to expect doctors to be slightly above the profit motive. None of them are... in fact, they're worst than your typical tradies when it comes to money-first, illness and whatever after.

We took all our kids to the same GP all these years and before we took off we decided to give them those travel shots. So each kid is charged a Medicare plus $20 on top for the shot. 

Alright, fair enough if we live in doctor's world where we pay for the priviledge of seeing them, then pay on top to get an injection.

But then I only had $40 and $20 x 3 isn't $40. I asked if all three could take the shot now and I'll be back later with the dole... nope. Pick the two I love the most, then bring the third one back when I have the cash. Family doctor man.


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> You realise that Medicare isn't "free" right? We are all paying for it. I personally paid some $2K odd a year (in my good year) and when my accountant wasn't around, paid a surcharge on top. And I hardly use Medicare.. maybe once or twice a year.
> 
> Some in the media, and the gov't, would want me to believe that I'd be better off if they tax me less on Medicare but I'd have to fork up on each visit. Some might find that fair... until they're older and sicker or lost their job.
> 
> ...




Maybe you should add to that, "we the people who have paid tax, have paid for that" and also we have to pay for private health cover. Which doesn't cover the cost anyway.:1zhelp:

Only those who don't pay tax are completely covered by medicare.


----------



## luutzu (7 July 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you should add to that, "we the people who have paid tax, have paid for that" and also we have to pay for private health cover. Which doesn't cover the cost anyway.:1zhelp:
> 
> Only those who don't pay tax are completely covered by medicare.




I'd rather my money go towards helping the poor than enriching the insurers though. 

But I think even those who don't earn enough to pay income tax still deserve it. I mean, kids who don't work and pay no taxes... yea, they'll grow up, earn money and tell us old folks to go screw ourselves later but til then 

I think most adults who aren't paying income tax aren't paying because they earn too little to pay. Maybe they'd rather earn more and wouldn't mind paying.


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> I'd rather my money go towards helping the poor than enriching the insurers though.
> 
> But I think even those who don't earn enough to pay income tax still deserve it. I mean, kids who don't work and pay no taxes... yea, they'll grow up, earn money and tell us old folks to go screw ourselves later but til then
> 
> I think most adults who aren't paying income tax aren't paying because they earn too little to pay. Maybe they'd rather earn more and wouldn't mind paying.




I don't disagree with you, just the bent you were putting on it, that everybody pays for it.

It just adds to that mystical belief people have, that it just happens magically.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> None of them are... in fact, they're worst than your typical tradies when it comes to money-first, illness and whatever after.




First thing that happens in a private hospital is they make sure you can pay. Only after that do you get any treatment.

Says it all really. If you were unconscious and couldn't fill out the paperwork then you'd want to be in a public hospital emergency department and not a private one that's for sure.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 July 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you should add to that, "we the people who have paid tax, have paid for that" and also we have to pay for private health cover. Which doesn't cover the cost anyway.:1zhelp:
> 
> Only those who don't pay tax are completely covered by medicare.




You don't *have* to pay for private health cover, that just gets you away from the plebs. The standard of medical service isn't much different.


----------



## qldfrog (8 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You don't *have* to pay for private health cover, that just gets you away from the plebs. The standard of medical service isn't much different.



yes I *have *Sir;
either that or I pay the same amount as fine, sorry medicare extra levy


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 July 2016)

I don't mind paying tax if it's used for something worthwhile.

As a reasonably wealthy country I think it's more than reasonable that anyone who needs medical care ought to have access to it regardless of their personal financial situation. Yes that's socialism but it seems very reasonable to me. If someone is sick then they ought to have access to treatment and I'm more than happy to pay my fair share of the cost.

Waging unjust wars and giving $ billions in tax breaks to global corporations is another matter and something I'm not at all happy to be paying for.


----------



## luutzu (8 July 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I don't disagree with you, just the bent you were putting on it, that everybody pays for it.
> 
> It just adds to that mystical belief people have, that it just happens magically.




Maybe not everyone pay *directly* for it, but they do pay for it. In sales tax, levy this and that.

But we shouldn't be arguing for only those who pay income tax can get medicare (and other services) only. That's a somewhat false choice argument.

I mean, why are we all paying taxes in the first place? Why is it that we have to pay what the gov't decided we ought to pay on our income? We earned it right? So why are they getting a cut and fine and imprison us if we don't cough up?

We are obligated to pay taxes, as the theory goes, to provide national defence/security, infrastructure and other utilities and functions of a civilised society. 

Part of a civilised society is to not tell the old widow and orphan to go screw themselves because they're not earning anything; or tell the retirees who works and pay taxes all their lives to then get on an iceberg (or an Australian made canoe) and head for New Zealand.

In other words, such thing as universal healthcare, public education, clean drinking water etc., are the rights of citizens and the obligations of gov't to provide. They provide it through the collective taxes we all pay.

If we as a nation can't afford all these goodies, as we're all being told... then maybe the first to go ought to be... I don't know... end lifetime pensions for PMs and Premiers; don't let MPs decide how much they ought to be paid; bring the troops home, end foreign adventures; end subsidies to corporations etc. etc.

If the gov't keep asking for us to pay taxes but at the same time are telling us we ain't going to get much besides fighting ISIS and Muslims and pray that the rich will trickle down... well, who's going to honestly fill out their tax returns?

America, and Europe it seem, are having serious internal revolts and revolution on its hands. Just the leadership are either too stupid or too insulated to realise it.

Spending some of the people's taxation on the people isn't being generous, it is to keep the peace (and incidentally, also increase prosperity, but hey)... To tax people but then spend it on wars and cronies... well, even dynastic imperial powers like Ancient China couldn't keep pulling that kind of stuff for too long - hence the different dynasties every couple hundred years.


----------



## Tink (18 January 2017)

I wasn't sure where to put this, but with recent events happening in Melbourne --


_A homeless camp has engulfed the Australian Open’s main gateway, stunning visitors faced with aggression and rampant drug use.

The makeshift camp outside Flinders St station — the main travel hub for those visiting the Open — was growing in Tuesday’s heat, despite attempts to remove people from the site.

Dirty bedding, rubbish, pet waste, food scraps and discarded clothes littered the site.

Several rough sleepers aggressively pursued locals and visitors.

And many were photographed using drug paraphernalia.

Council denies link between Flinders St homeless camp clean-up and Australian Open
Melbourne Council announces crackdown on homeless tents pitched in city streets
Melbourne’s city streets to be swept clean of ‘unsightly’ homeless camps
Half of people sleeping on streets not genuine homeless: Salvation Army_

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...y/news-story/67b9210712c3b496cbf0a7f7584d8680

----------------------------
_Pressure is mounting on authorities to act on the growing homeless camp at Flinders Street Station which has left visitors to the Australian Open shocked and appalled.

Tourists are still being greeted by a huge slum outside the station on their way to Melbourne park for the tennis.

The Salvation Army's Major Brendan Nottle says homelessness in Melbourne is a growing problem.

The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry says Melbourne is at risk of losing its title of the world's most liveable city due to the growing homeless camps around the city.

VECCI Chief Executive Mark Stone has told 3AW Breakfast it's not a good look and there was evidence of "blatant" drug-taking.

"We've got shoppers, we've got tourists, we've got parents with kids in the city and it's just unacceptable people are allowed to take drugs out in the open and not have some sort of sanction taken against them," he said.

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle says the council is doing what it can, regularly cleaning the camps.

The Opposition says it's time to re-introduce move-on laws and take a no tolerance approach to drug use in public._


----------



## sptrawler (28 March 2017)

I wait with baited breath, to see the outcome of this initiative.

https://thewest.com.au/politics/jobless-aussies-encouraged-to-pick-fruit-ng-s-1696788

I hope I'm wrong, in my cynical belief, no one will take it up.lol

Australia, if it smells like it, if it tastes like it, your standing in it.OMG only joking


----------



## Tink (23 February 2019)

*Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas handed life sentence*

James Gargasoulas has been sentenced to life in prison for the Bourke Street massacre.

He was handed his jail sentence on Friday.

Gargasoulas killed six people and injured dozens of others when he drove a stolen car down Bourke Street in January, 2017.

Justice Mark Weinberg described it as “one of the worst examples of mass murder in Australia’s history.”

He said he did not accept that Gargasoulas was genuinely remorseful.

A jury needed just 57 minutes to find him guilty of 33 charges in November last year.

He has a non-parole period of 46 years.

https://www.3aw.com.au/bourke-street-killer-james-gargasoulas-learns-his-fate-in-court/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...ver-james-gargasoulas-sentence-court/10835370


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2019)

There seems to be a lot of homeless on George and Pitt Street in Sydney. The cost of housing must be making it difficult to get rentals.


----------



## macca (24 February 2019)

HI SP

That is prime territory there, the beggars have fought over the best spots.

Once the weekday working crowds are gone home most of the beggars pack up and head back to their own homes and count their tax free dollars.

The social workers have offered then accommodation and jobs, they earn more begging so they stay on the streets during the day.


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2019)

Hi macca,  we are really enjoying the extra long weekend in Sydney. 
Went on the train to Newcastle on Friday, nice place looks like it is reinventing itself after the earthquake and steel closures, will end up really nice I reckon.
Saturday walked from central Stn, near where we are staying, down to and over the bridge, then headed back up Pitt St.
Today down to Wollongong on the train, magic system you have here, if I was homeless I would be heading this way.
Some great places, shame about the rain.


----------



## macca (24 February 2019)

Hi SP,

When they said they were closing BHP I was a lone voice among a weeping mob when I said "best thing ever" just buy houses near BHP and hold for 15 years.

No way a place two hours from Sydney with a deep water port, rail connections and plenty of power was ever going to "DIE" as per panic merchants

The council did there best to stop development, they stuffed people around for a decade but eventually the silent majority said enough is enough and voted in a developer as Lord Mayor.

That got things going PDQ and now it is looking pretty good but I really hate the trams going down the main street. I believe they should have had electric buses using the old rail corridor instead of narrowing the streets.

we are off topic, naughty aren't we


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2019)

I must say, they have some excellent meal and beverage deals on George St, Im feeling well watered and fed for a very reasonable price.lol


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2019)

macca said:


> Hi SP,
> 
> When they said they were closing BHP I was a lone voice among a weeping mob when I said "best thing ever" just buy houses near BHP and hold for 15 years.
> 
> ...



Yes the tram is a bit silly, we took it to the end and walked back to the train, it really doesn't make a lot of sense unless they are going to extend it somewhere.


----------



## Tink (25 February 2019)

The crime state..


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2019)

Begging a career now ?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-05/melbourne-cbd-professional-beggars-charged-by-police/11280738


----------



## Value Collector (5 July 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The cost of housing must be making it difficult to get rentals.




No, the cost of ICE, Heroin and alcohol make it difficult to get rentals.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> No, the cost of ICE, Heroin and alcohol make it difficult to get rentals.




So you are saying that everyone trying to rent a house is a druggie or alcoholic ?

That's a pretty vile statement in my view.

a. blokes who get kicked out of the house by the wife but who still have to pay child maintenance and mortgages.

b. single mothers who get kicked out by abusive partners trying to put a roof over their heads and pay child care while they are working.

Get real mate, I thought you believed in safety nets.


----------



## Value Collector (5 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So you are saying that everyone trying to rent a house is a druggie or alcoholic ?
> 
> That's a pretty vile statement in my view.




What???

We are talking about beggars and homeless people, I am saying a lot of homeless people aren’t homeless because rent is to high, it’s because they have addictions to drugs and alcohol that consume their available money.

The majority of Longterm Homeless people are either addicts or have mental problems.

Safety nets such as the dole mean no one needs to be longterm homeless if it weren’t for other vices or undiagnosed mental disability.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> What???
> 
> We are talking about beggars and homeless people, I am saying a lot of homeless people aren’t homeless because rent is to high, it’s because they have addictions to drugs and alcohol that consume their available money.
> 
> ...




Well you can't make a blanket statement like you did and ignore people that I've pointed out who don't have drug or alcohol problems but have had adverse changes in their circumstances.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (5 July 2019)

I like you Rumpy. A self funded retiree who has obviously contributed a lot to this Nation and still has concern for those battling. That's a great heart right there.


----------



## Value Collector (5 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Well you can't make a blanket statement like you did and ignore people that I've pointed out who don't have drug or alcohol problems but have had adverse changes in their circumstances.




No need to get your knickers in a twist mate, my statement was simply my round about way of pointing out that the longterm homeless rate shouldn’t be blamed on the cost of housing as much as it should be blamed on drug and alcohol and mental disabilities.

If we don’t understand the cause, how can we expect to help?

I think I must have made a 100 statements on here that I believe in social safety nets and free health care etc, if anyone wants to think that I don’t believe in helping those that get the rough end of the stick that says more about them than it does me.


----------



## satanoperca (5 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> What???
> The majority of Longterm Homeless people are either addicts or have mental problems.
> 
> Safety nets such as the dole mean no one needs to be longterm homeless if it weren’t for other vices or undiagnosed mental disability.




WOW, that has to be one of the most naive statements I have read for a long time.

Even with a diagnosed mental disability does mean you will not end up homeless, the facilities and services offered in this country are inadequate to deal with the growing mental illness issue.

Being an addict is having a mental disability/illness and without care and treatment is by definition difficult to kick.

But I ask you this; If the majority of homeless people are addicts or mentally ill, how many were not before they became homeless?


----------



## Value Collector (5 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> WOW, that has to be one of the most naive statements I have read for a long time.
> 
> Even with a diagnosed mental disability does mean you will not end up homeless, the facilities and services offered in this country are inadequate to deal with the growing mental illness issue.
> 
> ...




Mate, that’s exactly what I am saying.

I am saying that mental health is the cause of a lot of homelessness.

I perhaps should have said “untreated” and not “undiagnosed”.

But my point is simply that in Australia, there is not really any need for longterm homelessness if you are a rational clear thinking person free from mental health disorders and addictions or other similar vices.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I think I must have made a 100 statements on here that I believe in social safety nets and free health care etc, if anyone wants to think that I don’t believe in helping those that get the rough end of the stick that says more about them than it does me.




Yes, I get that you believe in safety nets, but the fact is that Australia is one of the most expensive places in the world to live, and that includes renting.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/your-budget/2014/03/05/everything-australia-expensive/


----------



## Value Collector (5 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I get that you believe in safety nets, but the fact is that Australia is one of the most expensive places in the world to live, and that includes renting.
> 
> https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/your-budget/2014/03/05/everything-australia-expensive/




Yep, but I don’t think that had anything to do with the beggars on George street we are talking about, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the main cause of their issues are either addiction or mental health problems, or both.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, but I don’t think that had anything to do with the beggars on George street we are talking about, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the main cause of their issues are either addiction or mental health problems, or both.




Most of the people I'm talking about are sleeping in cars and getting their clothes from Vinnies, but they still can't afford rent with no spending on drugs or booze.

Point is they still rely on charity.


----------



## Value Collector (5 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Most of the people I'm talking about are sleeping in cars and getting their clothes from Vinnies, but they still can't afford rent with no spending on drugs or booze.
> 
> Point is they still rely on charity.




Well we are talking about different people then.

But these people you speak of,

How much do they have to live off that they can’t afford a place to stay?

I know a few dole bludgers, and they are living in rental properties just fine, with ample money buy pot and Jim beam.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Well we are talking about different people then.
> 
> But these people you speak of,
> 
> ...




You could have a look at this if you are interested. It clearly points to high rents and shortage of affordable rental housing for the problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ess-in-australia-up-14-in-five-years-abs-says


----------



## Value Collector (5 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> You could have a look at this if you are interested. It clearly points to high rents and shortage of affordable rental housing for the problem.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ess-in-australia-up-14-in-five-years-abs-says




Do you have any stats that can run me through the numbers that shows housing is so unaffordable that a rational person free from mental illness and other vices can’t find somewhere to live longterm?

————

I am not trying to be an ass, I would genuinely like to know whether the Dole etc are viable to live on.

Because from seeing the life styles of some of my in-law relatives, and various others that I know, it doesn’t seem that much of a struggle to live on the dole, sure it’s not “easy street” but it isn’t poverty either.

Everyone I know that lives on welfare seems to know exactly how to milk the system for everything, which of course leads me to think that those that can’t get along on the dole and other welfare either are wasting the funds, or are not of the mental capacity to be able to apply and get the benefits that are available.


----------



## cynic (6 July 2019)

"There but for the grace of God, goes..."


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Do you have any stats that can run me through the numbers that shows housing is so unaffordable that a rational person free from mental illness and other vices can’t find somewhere to live longterm?
> 
> ————
> 
> ...




Average rent in Sydney $530 pw =* $1060 per fortnight.*

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...prices-drop-according-to-domain-data/10704468

Newstart Allowance , Single with children *$596 per fortnight.*

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/in...d-australian-apprentices/how-much-you-can-get

So there you go, rent is nearly double the Newstart allowance even without considering the cost of food, transport, power, ICE and booze.

You might be able to get rent assistance, but that is only $130 a fortnight.

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/in...ligibility-payment-rates/how-much-you-can-get


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Because from seeing the life styles of some of my in-law relatives, and various others that I know, it doesn’t seem that much of a struggle to live on the dole, sure it’s not “easy street” but it isn’t poverty either.





I'd be interested to know how your relatives n the dole manage. If they are single they could probably share a house or flat, but hard to do with kids as well.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2019)

The allowance I quote above was for students and apprentices, the Newstart allowance for single person with dependents is* $601 per fortnight.

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/in...elink/newstart-allowance/how-much-you-can-get*


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Average rent in Sydney $530 pw =* $1060 per fortnight.*
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...prices-drop-according-to-domain-data/10704468
> 
> ...




Average rent of $530 means that half the dwellings are below that, but also

Here you go Mate nice clean 1 bedroom flat for $200 a week, and as you said they get rental assistance also.

https://m.realestate.com.au/property-unit-nsw-liverpool-426774922


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Average rent of $530 means that half the dwellings are below that, but also
> 
> Here you go Mate nice clean 1 bedroom flat for $200 a week, and as you said they get rental assistance also.
> 
> https://m.realestate.com.au/property-unit-nsw-liverpool-426774922




Just because you can find one doesn't mean demand is satisfied by supply.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd be interested to know how your relatives n the dole manage. If they are single they could probably share a house or flat, but hard to do with kids as well.




They rent a pretty large 6 bedroom house on a hill with a  view over the water near Gosford on the central coast, she is on a single mothers pension, with four kids, and her brother rents a room.

The thing that shocks me is they don’t just get dole money, but all sorts of other benefits thought out the year that she applies for and gets, she seems to be an expert at working the system.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Just because you can find one doesn't mean demand is satisfied by supply.




There isn’t just one mate, there is heaps, I even own a unit that rents for $200.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

For an extra $50 you can get a second bedroom, so that’s $125 per week if you have a room mate.

https://m.realestate.com.au/property-unit-nsw-warwick+farm-413702739


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Average rent of $530 means that half the dwellings are below that, but also
> 
> Here you go Mate nice clean 1 bedroom flat for $200 a week, and as you said they get rental assistance also.
> 
> https://m.realestate.com.au/property-unit-nsw-liverpool-426774922




That's certainly an outlier VC. Geez, even Brissy aint that cheap.
Probably a reverse Dutch auction.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

Here is a whole page of units for rent for less than $300 a week, a lot of them are two bedrooms.

So your average rent number of $530, doesn’t in any way indicate how much rent a low income person would have to pay.

https://m.realestate.com.au/rent/pr...t-1?activeSort=price-asc&adcall=1562366853912


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Here is a whole page of units for rent for less than $300 a week, a lot of them are two bedrooms.
> 
> So your average rent number of $530, doesn’t in any way indicate how much rent a low income person would have to pay.
> 
> https://m.realestate.com.au/rent/property-unit+apartment-with-studio-in-liverpool+-+greater+region,+nsw/list-1?activeSort=price-asc&adcall=1562366853912




A lot of those are Rooms and Share Houses. One even has a picture of vacant field, nothing else lol.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> That's certainly an outlier VC. Geez, even Brissy aint that cheap.
> Probably a reverse Dutch auction.




Here is a bunch of cheap places in Brisbane, not overly far from your place.

https://m.realestate.com.au/rent/pr...t-1?activeSort=price-asc&adcall=1562367264658


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> There isn’t just one mate, there is heaps, I even own a unit that rents for $200.




So $200 pw = $400 a fornight (probably the lowest rent you can get) say a single person with 2 kids is getting newstart at $600 per fortnight, leaves $200 a fortnight or $100 a week to live on. As a single person my food bill alone is $120+ a week and I don't have to feed kids, and then there is gas, water, electricity, phone .... Could you live on that ?


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> A lot of those are Rooms and Share Houses. One even has a picture of vacant field, nothing else lol.




No, they are mostly self contained units. But remember we are talking about homeless people, so I don’t think it’s they situation to be a rental snob.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Here is a bunch of cheap places in Brisbane, not overly far from your place.
> 
> https://m.realestate.com.au/rent/property-unit+apartment-with-studio-in-banyo,+qld+4014/list-1?activeSort=price-asc&adcall=1562367264658




Rooms and Share Accommodations in there VC. Pretty far from my place, but try again.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So $200 pw = $400 a fornight (probably the lowest rent you can get) say a single person with 2 kids is getting newstart at $600 per fortnight, leaves $200 a fortnight or $100 a week to live on. As a single person my food bill alone is $120+ a week and I don't have to feed kids, and then there is gas, water, electricity, phone .... Could you live on that ?




Remember the rental assistance, and there should be child support payments, also.

As I went through in detail in another thread with you a while ago it would be possible to survive on $100 a week food budget.

But you can certainly survive a lot better than being on the streets.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Rooms and Share Accommodations in there VC. Pretty far from my place, but try again.




Are you saying it’s better to be homeless than live in a share house?

But either way, there is still non share house options there too.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Are you saying it’s better to be homeless than live in a share house?
> 
> But either way, there is still non share house options there too.




For a person on the Dole, I'd say $200 might be a limit. For a single Mother Share Houses aren't appropriate.

P.S. don't knock on the wrong Door.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> For a person on the Dole, I'd say $200 might be a limit. For a single Mother Share Houses are appropriate.
> 
> P.S. don't knock on the wrong Door.




As I said I know of a single mother renting a 6 bedroom house with water views, she gets a lot more than the stock standard newstart allowance, as I said there is all sorts of other payments that they apply for at one point she got a payment to help buy furniture etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> As I said I know of a single mother renting a 6 bedroom house with water views, she gets a lot more than the stock standard newstart allowance, as I said there is all sorts of other payments that they apply for at one point she got a payment to help buy furniture etc.




Maybe she should write a book "How to rip off the welfare system".

Would be a best seller and she'd never need welfare again.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe she should write a book "How to rip off the welfare system".
> 
> Would be a best seller and she'd never need welfare again.




She doesn’t “rip off” the system illegally she just applies for everything that they offer.

Which is a pretty common thing, as I said for my personal experience of what I have seen her and others claiming and living off, it certainly doesn’t see hard to live provided you have the mental capacity to fill out forms and apply for payments, and don’t have any addictions or vices dragging you down.

Sure they aren’t living the high life, but you don’t have to be homeless LONGTERM in Australia, of course if **** hits the fan in your life you might have to sleep in your car for a few days, but that’s not what I am talking about.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> She doesn’t “rip off” the system illegally she just applies for everything that they offer.
> 
> Which is a pretty common thing, as I said for my personal experience of what I have seen her and others claiming and living off, it certainly doesn’t see hard to live provided you have the mental capacity to fill out forms and apply for payments, and don’t have any addictions or vices dragging you down.
> 
> Sure they aren’t living the high life, but you don’t have to be homeless LONGTERM in Australia, of course if **** hits the fan in your life you might have to sleep in your car for a few days, but that’s not what I am talking about.




Ok so it seems that mental instability is an increasing problem , whether it's bought on by financial stress or is a cause of it.

What safety nets should we provide for people who don't have the capacity to "fill out the right forms" and look after themselves ?


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Ok so it seems that mental instability is an increasing problem , whether it's bought on by financial stress or is a cause of it.
> 
> What safety nets should we provide for people who don't have the capacity to "fill out the right forms" and look after themselves ?




I don’t know mate, I am no expert in it, but I would support broad based assistance to help people with mental health issues of all sorts.

It’s such a big issue, involving so many different conditions it’s easy for people to fall through the cracks.

I have no easy solutions, except to say that it’s somthing that we need to be working on.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Here is a bunch of cheap places in Brisbane, not overly far from your place.
> 
> https://m.realestate.com.au/rent/property-unit+apartment-with-studio-in-banyo,+qld+4014/list-1?activeSort=price-asc&adcall=1562367264658




So he "burnt" me and now you "burn" him by letting me know he gave you that somewhat misleading IP locality. Skinny whimps.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> So he "burnt" me and now you "burn" him by letting me know he gave you that somewhat misleading IP locality. Skinny whimps.




You lost me? What are you talking about?


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (6 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> You lost me? What are you talking about?




.......


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> .......




I think you are losing it mate, as I said before just click ignore if seeing my posts upsets you.

I barely even understand what an IP Address is, let alone care about what your up address is, you are barking up the wrong tree dude.


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2019)

Why do we always have to use the most expensive place in Australia, when we talk about anything, there are jobs in the Country where there is also cheap rentals, but no we have to say everyone has to be able to live in Sydney.
Weird reality, why not just say unemployment benefits should be enough to live comfortably in Sydney, let's just make it $1000 per week, and keep importing Labor for jobs in the bush.
I've got a son who has a licensed trade, he prefers to live with his mates on Newstart, than leave the City for a job. He finds the lifestyle is ok, you can't take overseas holidays, but they have a great time in a share house.
I have a lot of trouble accepting the situation and we always end up in an argument, but I'm obviously out of step with mainstream. I should just accept his lifestyle choices. By the replies on this thread, he is obviously doing the right thing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 July 2019)

sptrawler said:


> but no we have to say everyone has to be able to live in Sydney.



It's quite bizarre really.

Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth would all be considered as major cities in terms of their size if they were somewhere in Europe but here in Australia we have this obsession that it's Sydney, Melbourne or nothing.

Then there's smaller but still substantial places eg Launceston, Mt Gambier, Warrnambool and so on none of which are actually "middle of nowhere". They all have houses, streets, shops and so on certainly.


----------



## sptrawler (5 May 2020)

I thought this is probably the best place to place this.
The W.A Government put a group of homeless people up in a Perth hotel, to give them refuge during the virus outbreak, it has been abandoned. Most walked out.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05...-program-hotels-with-heart-abandoned/12215276
From the article:
"Their reasons for leaving included struggling with the quarantine period, being confined to the hotel, not being able to smoke when they wanted to, alcohol and drug use and family pressures.

"You can't put 20 of the most vulnerable chronic rough sleepers into a hotel and expect there to be no setbacks.

"We won't be continuing the program at this stage.


----------

