# Punish the poor, reward the rich!



## krisbarry (11 May 2005)

Another year, Another budget and another ****-up for the government.

80% of workers will get that sandwhich and milkshake offer again, (Approx $6 a week more) Should be a good run for the snackbar owners of Australia,come July 2005! LOL

Still no real incentive for people to get off welfare and into work.  

Tax rates in Australia are still way too high, especially for the poor.  How can the tax free threshhold be $6000, when it is said to be living under the poverty line if you earn under $20,000 per year.

Low Income earners get $60 to $240 tax cut and high income earners get $4,000, yes another true ****-up!


----------



## clowboy (11 May 2005)

I guess the write up will be in today's paper, I havent paid to much attention to it all becuase it wont really change my life in any great detail.

Is there an online link?


would be far better to abolish the tax free threshold and lower the middle tax bracket IMHO.


----------



## krisbarry (11 May 2005)

Here is a link to the Budget 2005

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/infocus/0,9004,10101%5E28097%5E36139%5E10101%5Ebudget05,00.html


----------



## krisbarry (11 May 2005)

Looks like the market doesn't like the budget either, All ORDS trading in the red...booo hooo!

Doesn't help when the DOW is down too.


----------



## clowboy (11 May 2005)

ha ha ha

I quote that link

"THE 17 per cent marginal tax rate will be cut to 15 per cent for people earning $60001 to $21,600;"

60,001 nice.......Ill get another $50 a week

Ha ha ha


----------



## taurus (11 May 2005)

Now to get my income up to $94K, or $188K and somehow try & artifically split it  : (95,000 marks the 47c/$ bracket now right?).

I guess if you're on the big money, you won't be complaining; but you're not paying tax anyway are you   

Can anyone point out the advantages/disadvantages of a FLAT tax system (if my terminology is correct)?  I don't know much about it, other than the fact the rich won't evade it as easily.

T.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 May 2005)

taurus said:
			
		

> Now to get my income up to $94K, or $188K and somehow try & artifically split it  : (95,000 marks the 47c/$ bracket now right?).
> 
> I guess if you're on the big money, you won't be complaining; but you're not paying tax anyway are you
> 
> ...




A flat tax is advantageous to the rich as the poor pays more tax. That's why the US has it.

I thought the budget was good. The funny thing is that he government will have paid off all its debt next year and on the following year with the selling of Telstra will have $45 billion! to win the election. Also just like to point out that the future fund should also have an upward effect on investment and the stockmarket. The US and British and Japanese economies are struggling under debt and we have none. We are becoming one of the richest countries in the world. They will have to give us more tax cuts and more services.  We all get tax cuts and everyone whinges, human nature. The average wage is above $50,000 by the way.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2005)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> The average wage is above $50,000 by the way.



Median average or mean average? (Yes it matters - a lot  )


----------



## mime (11 May 2005)

I'll tell you something I learnt about Labor.

Their goal is to break the people financially so they are more dependent on them. Just look at all the Labor states. They still have taxes which were supposed to be abolished with the intro of the GST.


----------



## WaySolid (11 May 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Another year, Another budget and another ****-up for the government.
> 
> 80% of workers will get that sandwhich and milkshake offer again, (Approx $6 a week more) Should be a good run for the snackbar owners of Australia,come July 2005! LOL
> 
> ...



High income earners will of course get a bigger tax cut in dollar terms as they pay more tax, simple maths. Looking at it from a percentage term is perhaps more relevant, I would dispute that many people earning around 60k a year are rich and yet they were near the top tax band. Long overdue step in the right direction with the correction of the top marginal rate.


----------



## WaySolid (11 May 2005)

Perhaps a read of the following fable will help.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/72003rck.asp


----------



## Milk Man (11 May 2005)

The new tax cuts are a great idea.

Bigger tax breaks to higher income earners is a better idea than giving low to middle income earners the better end of the stick for 2 reasons off the top of my head

1- It motivates people people to work harder: who wants to do all those hours of overtime on average Joe's payrate to get into the top bracket only to have half of it taken away again? Most tradesman, truckdrivers, farmworkers and any other long hour-working employees are going to reap the rewards of this system. 

2-Hard workers and highly paid professionals deserve a bit of a break from the tax system. Why should they have to foot the bill for the doll bludgers and the pensioners that were too stupid or ignorant to save for their future?


----------



## ghotib (11 May 2005)

Let's just clear up a little fuzziness that often gets into these discussions. 

There is no direct relationship between hard work and high income. It's perfectly possible, and some would say highly desirable, for people to work their ****s into the ground for very low wages. It's also possible to be highly stressed while working your **** into the ground for very low wages. 

Personally, I think the gummint has missed one action that would instantly boost the productivity and the well-being of the nation. Offer tax incentives to all companies that replace their telephone menu systems with human beings. Enough human beings that customers are no longer forced to wait 25 minutes to, say, query a phone bill. 

After that they could outlaw all telemarketing and there'd still be jobs for students. 

Ghoti


----------



## Rexer (12 May 2005)

The usual bleating comes out at whenever tax cuts for those of us on higher incomes are contemplated.

I'll share something with you all.

Last year I paid $75k in PAYE income tax alone.  I paid another 10% on pretty much every $ I spent.  I bought a block of land and paid another $20k in stamp duty on that.  I travel >25000 km in my car every year and about half the petrol that I buy is actually tax.

I'm sure that others on here have similar stories to tell.

The government decides to alter the tax rates marginally, I'm still going to be paying about $70k in PAYE tax.  I use effectively zero government services other than driving on the road.

Don't start telling me I'm getting such a fantastic deal.


----------



## wayneL (12 May 2005)

Rexer said:
			
		

> The usual bleating comes out at whenever tax cuts for those of us on higher incomes are contemplated.
> 
> I'll share something with you all.
> 
> ...




And this is exactly what our delightful media fails to mention, how much tax high income earners are paying in comparison to low income earners...the whole equation is never revealed.

....and to truncate a potentially extended rant, I'll leave it to others to pick up the baton here.

Cheers


----------



## krisbarry (12 May 2005)

Well last year I payed a total of $25,000 back to the ATO and my income was a $20,000.  How did I end up paying so much back you ask?

Try.... 

HECS  &  Student Supplement Loan 
(thought I should pay it off after having this debt for more than 10 years)

I think the tax cuts would have been better of spent on our Universities and Hospitals.  Rather than jackin' up the HECS fees 25% and growing the public hospital waiting lists


----------



## Milk Man (12 May 2005)

ghotib said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the gummint has missed one action that would instantly boost the productivity and the well-being of the nation. Offer tax incentives to all companies that replace their telephone menu systems with human beings. Enough human beings that customers are no longer forced to wait 25 minutes to, say, query a phone bill.
> 
> 
> Ghoti




that and not outsource their callcentres to India!


----------



## Milk Man (12 May 2005)

WaySolid said:
			
		

> Perhaps a read of the following fable will help.
> 
> http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/72003rck.asp




couldn't have put it better! and keep in mind that a lot of well off people draw income from their companies- who havn't brought a mention in the new tax scheme.

it would take a lot more to give low and middle income earners a bigger break anyway: there's probably 25 to get a 2 dollar cut for every fifty dollar cut. You can see what a huge difference that would make even if they got 10 dollars instead of 2! thats what labor does and thats why they always put the country into debt and the economy into recession.


----------



## mime (12 May 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Well last year I payed a total of $25,000 back to the ATO and my income was a $20,000.  How did I end up paying so much back you ask?
> 
> Try....
> 
> ...




Why are you ****ty about paying for your education? Nothing is free in life.

I think Goth Whitlam we the last guy to offer free uni education and the impact on the economy. I hate it went people praise Goth as a hero when so many families went bankrupt because of his actions.


----------



## mime (12 May 2005)

BTW nice artical WaySolid it explains the tax cuts nicly.


----------



## krisbarry (12 May 2005)

You missed the point, I was simply stating that it is possible to pay lots of money back to the ATO and be relatively poor off.  AND it is possible to be very wealthy and pay very little back to the ATO (people workin' the tax system in their favour) eg deductions, write-off, black market trade, under the counter wages, tax offsets. etc.

I never said uni should be free, I agree students should pay thier way in life too.

My argument lies with the fact that there was no need to raise HECS fees 25% (More than 5 times the CPI)  When the government is sitting on a 9 Billion surplus.  On a side note, there was no 25% increase in Austudy payments to offset the increased costs.

My second argument is with the crises faced in our public hospital system.  Longer waiting queues, poor instruments/equipment, lack of doctors and nurses.  I work in one, so I know full well the filfth that linger within.


----------



## Rexer (12 May 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Well last year I payed a total of $25,000 back to the ATO and my income was a $20,000.  How did I end up paying so much back you ask?
> 
> Try....
> 
> ...




Well, for a start Barry, you're actually paying back *loans* by the sounds of it associated with your education.

And, if my memory serves me correctly if you only earn $20k per year you are well under the threshold for actually *having* to pay your HECS back.  So you've made those payments entirely voluntarily.

For one year.

That's not tax.

I'm going to be paying $70k per year (at least) in PAYE tax for the next 30 years.

That's an entirely different beast and I don't find your argument particularly persuasive!

Best
R


----------



## Rexer (12 May 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> You missed the point, I was simply stating that it is possible to pay lots of money back to the ATO and be relatively poor off.  AND it is possible to be very wealthy and pay very little back to the ATO (people workin' the tax system in their favour) eg deductions, write-off, black market trade, under the counter wages, tax offsets. etc.
> 
> I never said uni should be free, I agree students should pay thier way in life too.
> 
> ...




Barry, 
as you would know funding public hospitals are a *state* government function and actually have *nothing* to do with the federal budget.

R


----------



## tech/a (12 May 2005)

Politics!!!!!!!!

Just get down and do it.

Pay the tax or dance with it.

Peoples whinging,wining,postulating and hypothosising wont change a damned thing.

Tax is a cost of Living OR cost of Doing business it is smart to minimise BOTH!


----------



## Rexer (12 May 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Politics!!!!!!!!
> 
> Just get down and do it.
> 
> ...




Exactly.


----------



## mime (12 May 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> My second argument is with the crises faced in our public hospital system.  Longer waiting queues, poor instruments/equipment, lack of doctors and nurses.  I work in one, so I know full well the filfth that linger within.




Something is wrong. How could uni students be so ignorant of governments responsibilities and obligations? They are supposed to be the most educated people around. So often I hear many young students blaming the federal government about heath, education ect when they are the states responsibilty.

As stated health is a state responsiblity not federal.

I was shocked when Labor wanted to take money from private schools to give to public schools when they don't really have to power to do it.

Another thing. The federal govt is raising the fees to push people out of overflowing uni's and into TAFE and trades.


----------



## Milk Man (12 May 2005)

mime said:
			
		

> Another thing. The federal govt is raising the fees to push people out of overflowing uni's and into TAFE and trades.




tried to get a plumber lately? can't get one for weeks! yet try to find someone to write a ten page essay on the description of the smell coming from the busted septic is comparatively easy.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 May 2005)

The way government wastes money is shocking. 

I have first hand experience of a situation where government decided that the latest management fad ought to take precedence over a highly skilled group of tradesmen. That fad was "outsourcing" and the plan was to replace this group of people with contractors. Never mind that the contract (cheapest quote which was totally unsuitable anyway) was THREE TIMES the cost of doing it in house (including the cost of the building they were in etc.).

Ideology must prevail and the skilled people must be lost in favour of a bunch of temporary contractors. Or so the goverment thinks anyway. Thankfully the plan was scrapped when an election was called but other very similar proposals went ahead. Now there are problems because even though the expenditure has been greatly increased since outsourcing of those functions (so we pay MORE after the government sacks its own workers), the public is complaining that the work is not being done. That and the fact that what used to last 10 years is now lucky to last literally 6 months due to the contractors ALWAYS being able to find some new way to cut corners. Of course I don't blame the contractors, their responsibility is to themselves but the bottom line is that  outsourcing costs a fortune when government is the customer and we all pay, pay, pay for this nonsense.

And in the process of all this outsourcing we have effectively abandoned the public sector training of skilled trades people which used to occur on a very large scale. Another loss for which we are all now starting to pay.

I have no real objection to paying taxes but I object to handing my money over to the various overcharging / underperforming contractors which the various governments (state and federal) employ to do the actual work for which we are paying. If it's cheaper to employ the people directly, which is often the case when all the costs are included, then that's what should be done. The way for the government to help the private sector is not by directly providing work but rather by getting its own work done cost effectively and using this to reduce taxes.

Rant over.


----------



## bvbfan (12 May 2005)

I remember the Libs sold some government property during the 2nd term in Canberra for about $170million and leased it back from the new owner at $190million for 9-10years I think it was
Thats a smart move (of course I don't know what the maintainence costs were)


Oh and on this talk on petrol
We must be the only country in the world where there is a tax on a tax
The government don't want pump prices to go down too much for fear of losing the GST revenue
At 1.00 a litre your paying 9c in GST on top of the excise tax already around 50c

Only way to stop the whinging is to have a flat tax rate
IMO about 30% and increase the GST component, end up being a user pays system for goods and services
Of course I'm not an actuary so I dont have figures for any of the tax revenue so my figures may be way off the mark


----------



## explod (13 October 2018)

Interesting to think about those at the bottom.  A large percentage are separated women in their mid 50/60s, who after supporting their husbands and raising the children are now alone, broke and sleeping in their cars. If they have one.  And the increase in young fellows came after the closing of Tech Schools.
"
The Daily Telegraph and the Murdoch press in Australia are targeting low-income Australians as “bludgers” again - but who are the REAL bludgers?

Let’s look at the facts:

The Newstart allowance is nearly $200 per week below the poverty line.

Over 730,000 children are dependent on welfare payments to their parents/careers.

32% of people receiving Newstart allowance are over 50.

50% of Australians and 70% of households have accessed welfare at some time in the last 15 years.

'Welfare dependants' (people who relied on welfare for most of the last decade) make up 0.3% of welfare recipients.

The portion of Australians on welfare today is the lowest it has been in 20 years.

Out of 30 OECD Countries Australia ranks 25th for welfare spending.

The Newstart allowance has not increased in real terms in over 2 decades. In 1997 MPs salaries were twice the average wage, today they are 3 times the average wage.

MP’s claimed a total of over 8000 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. The minister responsible for welfare at that time, Alan Tudge, claimed the equivalent of 39 years’ worth of Newstart payments.

In 2016 Tony Abbott's expense claims were the equivalent of more than 37 years’ worth of Newstart payments, Peter Dutton's were more than 55 years’ worth, Scott Morrison more than 61 years’ worth and Malcolm Turnbull more than 105 years’ worth!

The biggest claimant for 2016 was Julie Bishop with nearly 113 years’ worth of Newstart payments. Bear in mind, these are expense claims only, they do not include salaries and other allowances.

That year Andrew Robb, the former Trade minister, walked into an $800,000 a year job with a Chinese company for whom he had previously approved a 99-year lease on Darwin Port. Robb claimed 38.5 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. He resigned from Parliament mid-February that year!

According to 2014/15 tax estimates, negative gearing costs more than $3.6 billion a year in lost revenue.

That's about as the same as the government spends on assistance to jobseekers and vocational training, and twice what it spends on assistance to Indigenous Australians.

Federal MPs own 524 properties. Most of them are negatively geared.

It costs the equivalent of 156.75 years’ worth of Newstart payments to maintain a single federal MP for one year.

In 2015/16 our 226 Federal MPs cost us the equivalent of 36,120 people on Newstart.

Also in 2015/16, the estimated cost of tax evasion in Australia was the equivalent of nearly 400,000 years’ worth of Newstart payments.

The fossil fuel industry in Australia receives the equivalent of more than 350,000 years’ worth of Newstart payments in annual subsidies.

In 2015 it was estimated that Rupert Murdoch’s US media holdings had siphoned off more than 321,226 years’ worth of Newstart allowance from his Australian media businesses virtually tax free.

(Thanks to Richard O’Brien for the original post and image - figures are his, unverified)"

#PutLiberalsLast
#DrainTheBillabong
#BringFairnessBack


----------



## SirRumpole (13 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The way government wastes money is shocking.
> 
> I have first hand experience of a situation where government decided that the latest management fad ought to take precedence over a highly skilled group of tradesmen. That fad was "outsourcing" and the plan was to replace this group of people with contractors. Never mind that the contract (cheapest quote which was totally unsuitable anyway) was THREE TIMES the cost of doing it in house (including the cost of the building they were in etc.).
> 
> ...




2005 and just as true today as it was then.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 October 2018)

explod said:


> Interesting to think about those at the bottom.  A large percentage are separated women in their mid 50/60s, who after supporting their husbands and raising the children are now alone, broke and sleeping in their cars. If they have one.  And the increase in young fellows came after the closing of Tech Schools.
> "
> The Daily Telegraph and the Murdoch press in Australia are targeting low-income Australians as “bludgers” again - but who are the REAL bludgers?
> 
> ...





This may be of interest as well.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...land-tax-evasion-and-offshore-wealth/10359142


----------



## Klogg (13 October 2018)

explod said:


> The Newstart allowance is nearly $200 per week below the poverty line.
> 
> Over 730,000 children are dependent on welfare payments to their parents/careers.
> 
> ...




_"50% of Australians and 70% of households have accessed welfare at some time in the last 15 years."_

This is disgraceful. How freely do we give access to welfare? This should be a last resort, not something that's available to 70% of households.


_"The Newstart allowance is nearly $200 per week below the poverty line."_

That's good. Every time we give welfare, it's someone ELSE paying for that person's life. It's an incentive not to take control and solve the issue. Granted, there are times when it's not possible, hence our social safety net. But if this was above the poverty line, there would be no incentive for people to improve their position in life.


_"32% of people receiving Newstart allowance are over 50."_

I understand some of these have unfortunate events that lead them to this point, but for the most part, if you're 50 with nothing to your name, you don't deserve a large amount of welfare. Sure, we should do all we can to get the person back into productive work, but we shouldn't go out of our way to pay for their lifestyle. A 50 year old should well and truly be in a better place than this.


_"MP’s claimed a total of over 8000 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. The minister responsible for welfare at that time, Alan Tudge, claimed the equivalent of 39 years’ worth of Newstart payments.

In 2016 Tony Abbott's expense claims were the equivalent of more than 37 years’ worth of Newstart payments, Peter Dutton's were more than 55 years’ worth, Scott Morrison more than 61 years’ worth and Malcolm Turnbull more than 105 years’ worth!"_

While the current state of politics does not impress me, you do realise we hire these people to set the legislation for the country, right? Comparing their income or benefits to those on Newstart is ridiculous. I want to attract the best into politics, not just anyone. If I don't offer these benefits, I won't get the best... (I would argue politicians should be paid more, not less)
_

"The fossil fuel industry in Australia receives the equivalent of more than 350,000 years’ worth of Newstart payments in annual subsidies."_

The fossil fuel industry, as bad as it may potentially be for the environment, provides energy to all Australians. Those on Newstart do nothing (whilst they are on welfare), and are a drain on our country's resources. They may end up in a great, productive job (I'm all for this), but let's not compare Newstart payments to energy providers.


_"According to 2014/15 tax estimates, negative gearing costs more than $3.6 billion a year in lost revenue. That's about as the same as the government spends on assistance to jobseekers and vocational training, and twice what it spends on assistance to Indigenous Australians."_

Whilst the benefits of negative gearing are debatable (I tend to think it's not practical and makes housing unaffordable), let's not compare those who produce something in the economy, to those who don't. 
As it stands, negative gearing is essentially a cost of doing business (the cost of maintaining your investment property) and is offset against the person's income. Much like a business takes out a loan, then claims the interest expense. That's hardly the same as handing out welfare to the minority group that shouts the loudest.
However, I agree that training and assisting jobseekers is paramount.

As for payments to the indigenous, on a per capita basis they already get MORE than everyone else:
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/ind...015/contents/expenditure-workforce-key-points

_"On a per person basis, government welfare expenditure was $13,968 per Indigenous Australian, compared with $6,019 per non-Indigenous Australian in 2012–13—this equates to expenditure of $2.32 per Indigenous person for every $1.00 spent per non-Indigenous person."
_
I think you can agree that spending MORE on aboriginal welfare won't necessarily solve the problem. Not to mention that the system is basically racist, because it intentionally spends more on Indigenous Australians. I'm all for helping people at a basic level (food/shelter), but intentionally targeting a specific race is by definition, racist.

_
"That year Andrew Robb, the former Trade minister, walked into an $800,000 a year job with a Chinese company for whom he had previously approved a 99-year lease on Darwin Port. Robb claimed 38.5 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. "
_
Andrew Robb also served as a Trade minister for the country, and has served in politics for decades. I think he's earned the benefits.
As for the job w/ a Chinese company - if there's anything illegal there, I'm all for making him pay. But innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone.


Let's not compare outcomes, without comparing the behaviors/outputs of each of the parties involved. Otherwise we may as well stop hiding it and just turn to communism.


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The way government wastes money is shocking.
> 
> I have first hand experience of a situation where government decided that the latest management fad ought to take precedence over a highly skilled group of tradesmen. That fad was "outsourcing" and the plan was to replace this group of people with contractors. Never mind that the contract (cheapest quote which was totally unsuitable anyway) was THREE TIMES the cost of doing it in house (including the cost of the building they were in etc.).




This happened a lot in the 1980's in Power Stations, the Routine overhaul of the Turbine's, Generators and Boilers, was farmed out to contract.
  The skill's required to align a steam turbine/ alternator set were very specialised, so the highly skilled fitters, moved over to the contractors. They did't train up new people, the Power Stations no longer trained the people, so the result was turbine specialists have to be flown in from O/S for outages.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> That's good. Every time we give welfare, it's someone ELSE paying for that person's life. It's an incentive not to take control and solve the issue. Granted, there are times when it's not possible, hence our social safety net. But if this was above the poverty line, there would be no incentive for people to improve their position in life.





John Howard and the Business Council don't agree. They want an increase in NewStart.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...alls-for-a-dole-increase-20180509-p4ze83.html


----------



## Klogg (13 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> John Howard and the Business Council don't agree. They want an increase in NewStart.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...alls-for-a-dole-increase-20180509-p4ze83.html




That's fair enough. He's talking about removing the freeze on Newstart. I don't know the appropriate level for Newstart, but moving above the poverty line is probably a little too far...
It's not meant to be permanent, nor comfortable.


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> _"50% of Australians and 70% of households have accessed welfare at some time in the last 15 years."_
> 
> This is disgraceful. How freely do we give access to welfare? This should be a last resort, not something that's available to 70% of households.
> 
> ...




Wow. Just wow.

I guess there are who deserve welfare - politicians, corporations, rich people. Then there are those who doesn't deserve it - the poor, the old, the sick, the lazy. 

If more than half the country get welfare at some point over the past x years. It is a disgrace but disgrace in that our servants, living on our largess, hired to do a job... somehow create an economic environment where people are so poor they qualifies for welfare. 

btw, why are incentives always reversed?

To lift the country up, the make everybody rich... give more money to the rich and corporations.

BUT... but to lift the poor, let's give them incentive them by not giving them food or shelter.  Cut everything. 

Ey rich people, you got lots of money. Now, it sounds like you like money or very good at your job. So here's more money for you. Now go and not do as much work? Oh, go and do more work with more money.

Poor sick people... you're broke, living hand to mouth. Why so lazy and unskilled? Let's cut every freakin thing you need to help you through so you will go work harder?


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> That's fair enough. He's talking about removing the freeze on Newstart. I don't know the appropriate level for Newstart, but moving above the poverty line is probably a little too far...
> It's not meant to be permanent, nor comfortable.




Tough love for the poor. Gentle backrub and fine dining for the rich. 

That's how you motivate people ey. 

It sound almost like the poor is a different kind of species to the rich.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> That's fair enough. He's talking about removing the freeze on Newstart. I don't know the appropriate level for Newstart, but moving above the poverty line is probably a little too far...
> It's not meant to be permanent, nor comfortable.




As long as the requirements for Newstart remain, like actively looking for a job or undergoing training then I see no reason why the rate shouldn't be increased to enable people to fulfill the requirements, like actually being able to afford to travel to interviews or courses etc, not to mention paying the rent and light bills.


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> John Howard and the Business Council don't agree. They want an increase in NewStart.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...alls-for-a-dole-increase-20180509-p4ze83.html




Of course they do. It's how they socialise expenses. 

They're copying the WalMart, Amazon model where they pay their employees and "contractors"/"associates" so little that without gov't assistance, their employees will not work for them at all.

So they pay just enough knowing that with gov't assistance [i.e. taxpayers paying the bill]... their employees will not all die or starve. 

There are some who call that "entrepreneurial blah blah".


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> As long as the requirements for Newstart remain, like actively looking for a job or undergoing training then I see no reason why the rate shouldn't be increased to enable people to fulfill the requirements, like actually being able to afford to travel to interviews or courses etc, not to mention paying the rent and light bills.




Why the luxury? Paying rent for housing and bills for lighting? 

You're too idealistic Rumpole.


----------



## Klogg (13 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Tough love for the poor. Gentle backrub and fine dining for the rich.
> 
> That's how you motivate people ey.
> 
> It sound almost like the poor is a different kind of species to the rich.




How so? The rich aren't requesting handouts from the tax payer, and likely contribute more than their fair share in taxes. 

Those that are rich (other than those who inherited their wealth) are there because they have largely provided significant value to society. That's how capitalism works for the most part.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2018)

I’ve never been on the dole (under its various official names over the years) and have no intention of ever claiming it. I also aim to avoid the old age pension in due course and be self funded.

I will however very willingly march through the streets in protest should anyone attempt to abolish welfare payments. I am also none too keen on the repeated “bashing” of those on welfare by politicians, an act which ensures I will not vote for those doing so or their party.

Providing welfare for those in need is one of the costs of a fair, civilised society and I’m more than happy to pay taxes to fund it. Sure there will be some abusing the system and that should be dealt with but never at the price of cutting off payment to those in genuine need due to whatever circumstances.

In an effort to avoid long term reliance on welfare I do think that employers ought to be incentivised to offer vacant positions to people who have not been employed in the past 12 months (including those not claiming welfare for whatever reason). That’s incentivise not compel and my thought is along the lines of some sort of grant or tax rebate. I think that would help break the cycle at least for those who genuinely do want to work.

The other one is that those who refuse to employ local workers in their businesses should be cracked down on very firmly. A special high tax rate may help improve their attitude.


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> How so? The rich aren't requesting handouts from the tax payer, and likely contribute more than their fair share in taxes.
> 
> Those that are rich (other than those who inherited their wealth) are there because they have largely provided significant value to society. That's how capitalism works for the most part.




Do you live in the real world or some imaginary economic textbook?

All corporations and its investors gain from gov't subsidies. It's called corporate welfare... or in capitalist lingo... "incentives", "security", "job creator", "trickle down economics".

It might suprise you that quite often, those who are rich got rich because they do not give a damn about anybody. They put money first. Social well being; fairness; safety; best interest of their customers... way, way down somewhere.

Look at Bezos and his Amazon. Freakin forcing his (non) employees to work like dogs on pay so low they qualifies for food stamp and gov't assistance. 

Or look at his Blue Origin space programme. Yea, to fly tourists into the stratosphere to see bugger all for a small fee of $200K a pop... and oh look, it just won a Pentagon contract for about $2.5B to use its high tech rocket engines, delivering payloads instead of stupid people.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> You're too idealistic Rumpole.




And you may be a bit cynical luutzu.


----------



## Klogg (13 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Do you live in the real world or some imaginary economic textbook?
> 
> All corporations and its investors gain from gov't subsidies. It's called corporate welfare... or in capitalist lingo... "incentives", "security", "job creator", "trickle down economics".
> 
> ...




Bezos is forcing people to work? Here's me thinking they had the right to quit and find another place of employment... Oh that's right, the market sets the price of labour, and if Amazon were underpaying, people would quit. Or are we now saying people are too stupid to find another job when they're underpaid?

Amazon don't have the right to enslave anyone to work. Just because the media reports they're an evil corporation, it doesn't make it so.

I might also mention that 44 million people (approx) are on food stamps. That's over 13% of Americans. Maybe the problem is that food stamps are too easy to get? 

As for Bezos, he has provided products at a significantly low cost to people, raising living standards by making everyone's pay cheque go that little bit further... In other words, increased productivity, passed on to the masses.

Let me also bring up the fact that Bezos lives and dies by customer satisfaction. Amazon have been the number 1 rated company by consumers for thirteen years running in the US. Not by putting profits first, but by putting the customer first. They provided value in many transactions to a large number of people.

You can argue that he's underpaying people, but it's markets and free trade that got us to where we are now. Burning it now because you want the same outcome for everyone will just take us back many years.


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And you may be a bit cynical luutzu.






A bit disillusioned. 

See, I took a second degree in business because I wanted to be really rich by creating something of great value, showing off my talent and genius. Then as I go into it, it seem like it's mostly just one big welfare programme. 

That'd be fine too if only I was invited to join but nope. So maybe it will take genius afterall? 

Reading this thick about about Japan's Mitsui. The author quoted Meiji Japan's first, or second, prime minister conclusion from his various travels and studies of Western empires - to make Japan great again - was that all western industries were made possible from their government subsidies. That is, there would not be any industrial powerhouse in the West if the government does not support it.

This is the same guy that, like the great men in our modern era, believe that peasants are stupid know nothing... peasants... who ought to leave the governing of the state to wise and intelligent (rich) people. 

But he believe in corporate welfare. Hence, massive subsidies were put towards a few selected loyalist. Such as the Mitsui, some dude that established Mitsubishi etc. etc.

Through government money, easy regulation on them but tough taxation on foreign (mainly US) corporations... Japan managed to create an industrial manufacturing society, ready and able to literally take on all of Asia in a couple decades.


In the West, especially of late... corporation still get subsidies and protection. BUT they no longer pay taxes on their earnings. Shifting it offshore to lower tax countries, lobby for tax loopholes only they and their rich friends could manage to hire consultant to get through... and so all we're getting now is the shifting of wealth from the poor and working class upwards, with little if any being trickled down. 

Heard a recent interview, I think it was Bill Black, saying that Apple set up a subsidiary in Ireland where the topline tax rate is 15%. To pay that rate they would have to produce their gears there, right?

Well, apparently no. They simply ship their entire inventory to Ireland first, put a sticker on it or something superficial... then claim that it is in Ireland that their product came to life. Hence, lower tax on profit.


----------



## Darc Knight (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> I might also mention that 44 million people (approx) are on food stamps. That's over 13% of Americans. Maybe the problem is that food stamps are too easy to get?




When I read that sentence about 44million people being on Food Stamps I was shocked. But not as shocked as when I read your heartless statement about them possibly being too easy to get geez!
The is the USA right? Where people die from homelessness every cold snap and where the Rich get Tax cuts.


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> Bezos is forcing people to work? Here's me thinking they had the right to quit and find another place of employment... Oh that's right, the market sets the price of labour, and if Amazon were underpaying, people would quit. Or are we now saying people are too stupid to find another job when they're underpaid?
> 
> Amazon don't have the right to enslave anyone to work. Just because the media reports they're an evil corporation, it doesn't make it so.
> 
> ...




They're being underpaid at Amazon (and places like WalMart). But then in them having a job and a low income, they are qualified for government assistance. Without a job, no assistance. With a job that's low paid plus gov't assistance, bills get paid and caravan get fuel.

And it is through rigging for gov't assistance to low income workers that the likes of Amazon can get away with paying a low, not liveable wage. They pass the cost onto the Amercan taxpayers.

And that is why they also offer a service to their employees on how to apply for gov't assistance. Isn't that nice? You get a job and it also teaches you how to apply for "entitlements" because you're so poorly paid.
-------------

Most of Amazon's profit comes from, get this, not Amazon the ecommerce site itself; but from its web services/data centre. Guess who subsidise most of that? The gov't and its many intelligence agencies. 

Customer satisfaction does not always equate to value creation now does it? There are the underpaid workers, the taxpayers whose tax subside them because of their low income (even though they're fully employed)... So if you extract the savings that way... sure, maybe a bit of it goes towards good prices.

But that's why you, or Amazon, wanted to monopolise the market. Then customers will take what's given. 

---------

You're misreading the statistics. Just because there are a high number of those on food stamp does not then mean it's easy to get food stamp. It simply mean there are too many poor people being eligible for it.

There is no such thing as a "free market", or "free trade". 

The only time corporations cry for such nonsense is when they want third world countries to open up their market for proper exploitation and decimation of the local small time operators. For example, Mexico. Their small local farmers got properly stuffed when NAFTA was introduced, allowing cheaper US (gov't subsidised) grains to flow south. 

With the US gov't guaranteeing big Ag a profit, "free trade" then set about flooding Mexico with US grown grains, destroying local farmers. Some of whom then head over the border to rape everyone before getting to an American farm to work as cheap, exploited labour. 

Same with the US auto industry. Free Trade through NAFTA allow US auto makers to shift their manufacturing to Mexico where the labour is cheap and the environmental protection zero. 


So you're right that free trade and capitalism makes the world what it is today... Just that today... how are things today for most people around the world? 

Is life better or are we on the verge of WWIII?

More equal or 8 [? seriously 8?] people have as much wealth as half the world population?


----------



## Darc Knight (13 October 2018)

I can't believe anyone thinks the USA is a just and fair Nation to its poor and sick etc!


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)




----------



## PZ99 (13 October 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I can't believe anyone thinks the USA is a just and fair Nation to its poor and sick etc!



I can't believe some of the idiots that want Australia to take the same path. Workchoices was a clear step in that direction. It's almost as if some rich people aren't happy with their lot in life. They just can't get enough so to increase their financial superiority they advocate for everyone else to earn / have less.

Murdoch labelling low-income earners as bludgers is hilarious given that he is an A-Grade tax avoider.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Well, apparently no. They simply ship their entire inventory to Ireland first, put a sticker on it or something superficial... then claim that it is in Ireland that their product came to life. Hence, lower tax on profit.




You might like to read the link in Post #32 of this thread.


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You might like to read the link in Post #32 of this thread.




Nice.

That concept of "offshore" meaning "not here"... I didn't see it that way but now that it's mentioned... remember when Trump gave US multinational a "tax holiday", reducing their offshore profit tax to something like 15% if they bring it back? Creating jobs and all that?

Saw an interview where the guy said most of those money are already in the US. It's literally sitting in a bank account in the US. It's just "not there". So when Trump said to bring it back, he just gave them more tax cuts... and with that, they simply use it to buy back stocks because there's not a lot of consumers and demand out there to invest in productive industries.

I think the US buyback this year, so far, just reached $1 Trillion. 

Imagine what a Trillion could do... The Chinese spent about $1Trillion over the past decade on high speed rail. Reducing the time, distance and pollution across their cities. The US spent it buying electronic money.


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You might like to read the link in Post #32 of this thread.




The double Irish Dutch sandwich. 

Apparently the Trump clan use something similar like that in the 80s and 90s [?] to avoid paying inheritance tax. Getting away with about $500M.

They've pulled other similar schemes way, way back when the Donald was 3 years old. Apparently his genius starts early when pappa somehow create a company for 3 year old Donald to run. The guy charged his old man a few hundred percent on everything... hence no profit. No tax.

Then.. get this.. Trump snr., use the fact that his expenses are getting way too expensive to claim against the government to allow him to increase his rent on those low-income slumps he own. 

It's quite something.


----------



## luutzu (13 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I can't believe some of the idiots that want Australia to take the same path. Workchoices was a clear step in that direction. It's almost as if some rich people aren't happy with their lot in life. They just can't get enough so to increase their financial superiority they advocate for everyone else to earn / have less.
> 
> Murdoch labelling low-income earners as bludgers is hilarious given that he is an A-Grade tax avoider.




Saw a doco where this lady living in a gated community said her richer neighbours wanted a second gate in that gated community. 

It's not for safety or such... just to show how much better they really are.


----------



## Klogg (13 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I can't believe some of the idiots that want Australia to take the same path. Workchoices was a clear step in that direction. It's almost as if some rich people aren't happy with their lot in life. They just can't get enough so to increase their financial superiority they advocate for everyone else to earn / have less.
> 
> Murdoch labelling low-income earners as bludgers is hilarious given that he is an A-Grade tax avoider.





Work choices was great. It allowed an employer and employee to decide on their own contractual agreement, within the confines of the law. 

If both parties consent to the arrangement, how is it bad? 

The one thing I'll say is there are varying degrees to all of this. An entirely free market is bad, just as a dictatorship is bad. We're debating changes that take us a fraction toward the "left" or "right", practicality over ideology.
On this point, I think Australia's health care system is great. Not perfect, but I'm happy to fund it, given the alternatives.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> If both parties consent to the arrangement, how is it bad?




Depending on individual circumstances the employer may have an order of magnitude more power in the relationship such that the “consent” is not voluntary in practice.

There are some top notch employers and managers out there but there are some real shockers too.

Put youself in the shoes of someone who works for company x, all is great and then new management comes in which brings misery to everyone. Employees who leave won’t get a reference from the boss and anyone who resists change will be managed out one way or another. End result = those who can’t afford to leave  have no choice other than to “consent” to anything the management proposes.

So it’s like most laws. Necessary to protect the innocent from those who seek to do bad things even though such people are a minority. Same with most laws.

Through my working career thus far I’ve had mostly excellent managers but I’ve also, quite some time ago, had one who proudly boasted to the entire workforce that he was a steamroller and staff were the road about to be flattened. Those are the type who make such laws necessary.


----------



## Klogg (13 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Depending on individual circumstances the employer may have an order of magnitude more power in the relationship such that the “consent” is not voluntary in practice.
> 
> There are some top notch employers and managers out there but there are some real shockers too.
> 
> ...




I have changed jobs tens of times (IT contractor) and need a reference for each one. Not every manager gives me a reference, it doesn't mean it's the end of the line. Every time I don't like the job due to change in management, I leave anyway.

The difference is I back myself, and realize it's my responsibility to change my circumstances. Sure, **** happens and sometimes it negatively impacts your life. But don't take it lying down.

As soon as you tell someone they're a victim and need protection, it reinforces the belief. I don't doubt some people need a form of protection, so Workchoices wasn't completely correct, but it seemed like a step in the right direction.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> I have changed jobs tens of times (IT contractor) and need a reference for each one. Not every manager gives me a reference, it doesn't mean it's the end of the line. Every time I don't like the job due to change in management, I leave anyway.
> 
> The difference is I back myself, and realize it's my responsibility to change my circumstances. Sure, **** happens and sometimes it negatively impacts your life. But don't take it lying down.
> 
> As soon as you tell someone they're a victim and need protection, it reinforces the belief. I don't doubt some people need a form of protection, so Workchoices wasn't completely correct, but it seemed like a step in the right direction.





Klogg said:


> I have changed jobs tens of times (IT contractor) and need a reference for each one. Not every manager gives me a reference, it doesn't mean it's the end of the line. Every time I don't like the job due to change in management, I leave anyway.




That’s all well and good but without being personal how big’s your mortgage and how many kids to suppoort?

For many, they’ll need the new employer to be pretty keen to make it work and that’s where things get difficult. Some will, many won’t.

I’m fortunate in that I can choose what I do and for whom with self employment as a fallback option but many are not so fortunate. They need that next pay and they need to keep some agreement regarding time of work or leave arrangements or whatever. That makes jumping ship a major exercise unless they can find a suitably agreeable employer who’ll bend the rules for a new employee in a run of the mill role. Some will, many won’t.

I do agree that being a victim is never helpful. That isn’t always the easiest thing though for those in that situation though.


----------



## Klogg (13 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That’s all well and good but without being personal how big’s your mortgage and how many kids to suppoort?
> 
> For many, they’ll need the new employer to be pretty keen to make it work and that’s where things get difficult. Some will, many won’t.
> 
> I’m fortunate in that I can choose what I do and for whom with self employment as a fallback option but many are not so fortunate. They need that next pay and they need to keep some agreement regarding time of work or leave arrangements or whatever. That makes jumping ship a major exercise unless they can find a suitably agreeable employer who’ll bend the rules for a new employee in a run of the mill role. Some will, many won’t.




I'm 32, have no mortgage (don't own a house) but will be buying in cash quite soon, in Melbourne's inner east. Wife and 1 child to support.

I can go without a job for minimum ten years at this point, without a problem. I've put myself in a position where I've saved the majority of my income precisely so I'm not so dependent on my employer.

And anyone can do it. Mr money mustache is a great place to start, if you're interested.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 October 2018)

I think the thing is that the economy has to work for everyone, not just a few .

Some people don't seem to realise that the economy runs on consumer spending, if people don't buy, business fail. Of course there is the export industry where consumers are overseas , but the majority of the economy is down to our domestic consumption. If people are just scraping by in their employment then they are not spending as much as they could be to keep the economy going, and while I admire thrifty people who save as much as they can and invest it, the circulation of money via spending is important to the economy too.

Business tax cuts might produce the expected results in 10 years time although I have my doubts on how much of those will go on employment of people and how much on machines/software .

If tax cuts are to be given they should go to the consumers first who will spend in the economy and create demand and therefore jobs. And the lowest income earners will spend more of any tax cut because they haven't got the things they want at the moment. Business income will therefore increase as consumer confidence increases.

Demand usually generates supply, not the other way around.


----------



## IFocus (14 October 2018)

Hey Klogg
"Work choices was great. It allowed an employer and employee to decide on their own contractual agreement, within the confines of the law. "

I went through this period as a supervisor for a multinational American based chemical company who embraced Non Work Choices........there were no choices seriously.

How do you think a semi skilled or tradesperson is going to fare negotiating an agreement against a multi billion dollar companies HR department backed up with consultants and lawyers?

My experience was they are not going to do to well and all contacts are the same with a few bread crumbs thrown around for people to fight over.

Like Amazon the law / rules favored the company not the employee the whole point of the exercise is to weaken the workers power to negotiate  and to suppress wages / conditions and we know this works very well this is not a free market mechanism its a dictatorship.

All this before we even get to safety standards being by passed for production rates complain and you're fire not pretty in a highly hazardous chemical plant.

A simple test for this is to measure which way the transfer of wealth is travelling and we all know how that's going.


----------



## tech/a (14 October 2018)

I’m a small business owner 
The more I reward my employees
By wage,commissions,incentives,and 
Bonuses.
The more profitable my company is.
The more loyal my employees are

This attracts a superior work force and
Clients like a moth to a light.


----------



## PZ99 (14 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> Work choices was great. It allowed an employer and employee to decide on their own contractual agreement, within the confines of the law.
> 
> If both parties consent to the arrangement, how is it bad?



Because a lone employee doesn't have the strength to negotiate anything other than what the employer is offering. Take it or leave it. That's your work choice. So it all comes down to how decent and reputable the employer chooses to be. Having seen the behaviour of the banks of late, the supermarkets, the 7/11's, the Dominoes pizza's and the like... they are anything but decent employers. So if we ever take that Workchoices path again eventually a large chunk of the workers in this country will simply go broke... then probably spend the rest of their life on welfare.

I had a mate who lost his house because of Workchoices. Nothing great about that. Anyway I've discussed this at length in other threads so I won't go into it here because this is an obvious troll thread designed to antagonise and I don't think it's worth the airtime that it's getting quite frankly...

So I'll just sign off by wishing you well with your future IT endeavours


----------



## Klogg (14 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Because a lone employee doesn't have the strength to negotiate anything other than what the employer is offering. Take it or leave it. That's your work choice. So it all comes down to how decent and reputable the employer chooses to be. Having seen the behaviour of the banks of late, the supermarkets, the 7/11's, the Dominoes pizza's and the like... they are anything but decent employers. So if we ever take that Workchoices path again eventually a large chunk of the workers in this country will simply go broke... then probably spend the rest of their life on welfare.
> 
> I had a mate who lost his house because of Workchoices. Nothing great about that. Anyway I've discussed this at length in other threads so I won't go into it here because this is an obvious troll thread designed to antagonise and I don't think it's worth the airtime that it's getting quite frankly...
> 
> So I'll just sign off by wishing you well with your future IT endeavours




_"Because a lone employee doesn't have the strength to negotiate anything other than what the employer is offering. Take it or leave it."_

This seems like victim mentality. If I'm providing more value than other workers, I'll get paid more. Three times I've handed in my resignation and received a counter offer with a 15% increase or more - and there are many far better than me... 
This is not because Workchoices are BS, but because the employer thought I was providing value.
If you've restricted your realm of employment to 7/11, where you're easily replaced with 2 hours training, then why should you be paid more? Put in some effort, up-skill yourself, then maybe you have a leg to stand on when bargaining. Basically, take responsibility for yourself, because no-one else will.


_"I had a mate who lost his house because of Workchoices."_

I don't know much here, but I can only assume that his employer either bargained him down to lower pay, or removed him from the company because he could be replaced more cheaply. I'm only guessing.
If either of these are true, WorkChoices is not to blame. If this is the case (big if), then your mate clearly over-leveraged himself, bought a house he could not afford, then blamed the changing terms of employment for losing his house. But, I'm guessing, and if you would like to discuss this point further, I'd love to hear more detail.

_
"I won't go into it here because this is an obvious troll thread designed to antagonise and I don't think it's worth the airtime that it's getting quite frankly"_

Because people don't agree with you, it's an obvious troll? Please, get off your high horse. It's been a relatively clean thread up to this point...


----------



## Klogg (14 October 2018)

IFocus said:


> I went through this period as a supervisor for a multinational American based chemical company who embraced Non Work Choices........there were no choices seriously.
> 
> How do you think a semi skilled or tradesperson is going to fare negotiating an agreement against a multi billion dollar companies HR department backed up with consultants and lawyers?




If that person is delivering well above the average, I'd say they're paid well above the average.

Sales roles are typical in this manner. If you sell, you get commissions, because you're more valuable to the company. This applies to other roles as well.
There are times when people go too far (e.g. Freedom insurance), but sooner or later, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences...


As for quality/standards - if the company breaches these a few times, the company goes under. Quite simple really. We all saw what happened with the rockmelon listeria outbreak. Supermarkets were throwing them out by the tonne...


_"I’m a small business owner 
The more I reward my employees
By wage,commissions,incentives,and 
Bonuses."_

Great way to put it. It's reciprocal. If the employee gives effort over and above expectations, they'll be paid over and above the standard.
If they're no good, they'll eventually be asked to leave the company.


----------



## sptrawler (14 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Murdoch labelling low-income earners as bludgers is hilarious given that he is an A-Grade tax avoider.



Any income earner, is 'worth their weight in gold', these days. We put too little emphasis on any wage earners and way too much emphasis on those on welfare. IMO


----------



## sptrawler (14 October 2018)

tech/a said:


> I’m a small business owner
> The more I reward my employees
> By wage,commissions,incentives,and
> Bonuses.
> ...



I bet you get rid of the lazy ones, pretty quickly and reward the hard working conscientious ones.
Also I bet you help the conscientious ones, who stuff up, but are trying to do the right thing.

That is the benefit of a small company.
In a large company, it is difficult to reward endeavour.
They are usually under a group agreement, the useless ones get the same as the best ones and it is impossible to get rid of anyone.
So in the end the good ones leave, because you can't reward them, and the useless ones stay and bitch about management.


----------



## CanOz (14 October 2018)

Every economy needs taxpayers to avoid a default on sovereign debt. Developed nations with a high level of welfare and entitlements need even more. They should be welcome in the form of:

1.) Children, lots of kids, offspring from the citizens!
2.) Immigrants, smart, ready to work and start businesses and buy houses!
3.) Lots of citizens willing to work later rather than retire.
4.) Big Businesses should be welcome and pay a competitive rate of tax that attracts them and keeps them.

Its just math....nothing more.


----------



## sptrawler (14 October 2018)

CanOz said:


> Every economy needs taxpayers to avoid a default on sovereign debt. Developed nations with a high level of welfare and entitlements need even more. They should be welcome in the form of:
> 
> 1.) Children, lots of kids, offspring from the citizens!



That's exactly what Costello said, and introduced the baby bonus, he was bagged for middle class welfare. Much better, just to allow anybody that arrives in a boat access.



CanOz said:


> 2.) Immigrants, smart, ready to work and start businesses and buy houses!



No much better just to let anybody in even if they are on welfare for the rest of their lives, it is numbers that matter, we need to get to 50million ASAP.

3.) Lots of citizens willing to work later rather than retire.
That is easily fixed, raise the retirement age, they've already done that. Those who save and think they are going to be self funded, just take money off them. 
4.) Big Businesses should be welcome and pay a competitive rate of tax that attracts them and keeps them.
They should be taxed by volume, on the finite resources they remove, no one on either side of politics wants to do that, because both sides are paid by the same masters IMO.

Its just math....nothing more.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2018)

Thankfully I’ve had mostly excellent managers throughout my career but one bad experience years ago taught me a lot.

Sociopaths are a small % of the population but such people are disproportionately attracted to positions of power over others. As such they are a greater, still small but greater, % of managers.

As I and the entire team discovered, the absolute worst thing to do should you find yourself working for such an individual is demonstrate high performance. That’ll paint a great big target on your back, note back not front, and you’d better be moving on real quick should that occur. Note that any chance of a positive reference is already gone at that point so don’t bother asking.

With a bit of luck you never encounter such a person but there’s a few of them around.

It was years ago but I remember that meeting as though it were yesterday. I am the steamroller and you are the road about to be flattened. That’s an exact quote by the way said to the entire staff at the time by a new senior manager.

Changed my world view somewhat. I’ve been more to the political Left ever since. Had this experience not occurred then I’d be more inclined toward supporting things like Work Choices. I have however seen how that sort of thing could be massively abused and I will not forget.

No comment as to where other than to say it wasn’t the power industry and this was years ago although to my understanding the same individual is still doing much the same.

At a personal level in hindsight it was a blessing in disguise but for others it was the opposite.


----------



## sptrawler (14 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Thankfully I’ve had mostly excellent managers throughout my career but one bad experience years ago taught me a lot.
> 
> Sociopaths are a small % of the population but such people are disproportionately attracted to positions of power over others. As such they are a greater, still small but greater, % of managers.
> 
> ...




Funny that our profession must attract them, I have had a Manager that I told was a  F&$*# disgrace, and I've had a shop steward tell me that if it was the last thing he did he would have me sacked. Same era.
I don't know where the Manager is now, but the shop steward is now a Manager. 
That's why I lean slightly right, too many incompetent workers, put their hope in the hand's of people who in actuality don't give a $hit about them IMO.
Having said that, generally I have found all but two of my managers, to be excellent, especially those that came through the engineering ranks.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Having said that, generally I have found all but two of my managers, to be excellent, especially those that came through the engineering ranks.



All the best managers I’ve had, had some sort of practical background.

Engineering, trades, one was media, but they were all from a background where things needed to be done and deadlines were driven by real factors not just what someone decided.

The dud had a degree in business, an incredible degree of arrogance, and upon investigation a history of running things down not growing them.

No comment as to who or where other than emphasising that it was not a state owned electricity generation business and it was years ago.


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> All the best managers I’ve had, had some sort of practical background.
> 
> Engineering, trades, one was media, but they were all from a background where things needed to be done and deadlines were driven by real factors not just what someone decided.
> 
> ...




Well my manager was party to setting our KPI's for our bonus, to higher efficiencies, than were achieved on commissioning 40 years prior.
The shop steward, who was the biggest bully I've ever met, when he left one of the top executives said "it is a sad day, to see him go". I thought WTF.
Yet he had all the muppet's in the work place, eating out of his hand, go figure.
Maybe independent thinking is a thing of the past.


----------



## luutzu (15 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Well my manager was party to setting our KPI's for our bonus, to higher efficiencies, than were achieved on commissioning 40 years prior.
> The shop steward, who was the biggest bully I've ever met, when he left one of the top executives said "it is a sad day, to see him go". I thought WTF.
> Yet he had all the muppet's in the work place, eating out of his hand, go figure.
> Maybe independent thinking is a thing of the past.




Who did that muppet shop steward bully? You lazy no good plebs right? 

So the exec weren't kidding to miss him and his tough love for the workers. 


Geez man, whatever happened to the old Aussie past time of cutting down those over achieving (or just lucky sperm) tall poppies?

Talk about over breeding and being on welfare. How's that Queen's grand daughter's wedding ey? Or that state funeral (i.e. taxpayer's funded) for Kerry Packer some years ago... 

I guess we prefer our welfare recipients rich.


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Who did that muppet shop steward bully? You lazy no good plebs right?



Typical of you, I never said he was a muppet. But when you are bullying, who cares about accuracy?



luutzu said:


> So the exec weren't kidding to miss him and his tough love for the workers.



The exec's didn't miss him, he is now a manager.



luutzu said:


> Geez man, whatever happened to the old Aussie past time of cutting down those over achieving (or just lucky sperm) tall poppies?
> 
> Talk about over breeding and being on welfare. How's that Queen's grand daughter's wedding ey? Or that state funeral (i.e. taxpayer's funded) for Kerry Packer some years ago...
> 
> I guess we prefer our welfare recipients rich.




Well I'm not too worried about ending up an a pension, it doesn't sound too bad to me.


----------



## IFocus (15 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> If that person is delivering well above the average, I'd say they're paid well above the average.
> 
> 
> _"I’m a small business owner
> ...




The US has been promoting this ethic for decades and for decades wages growth have been flat the numbers just don't support your position for the majority.

I too have been a top earner (oh to be humble) for what I did but I appreciate that was the exception everyone else didn't.

Again wealth transfer has been from people like us to the top .5%.

As PZ said this has been done to death before   cheers


----------



## PZ99 (15 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> _"_
> This seems like victim mentality. If I'm providing more value than other workers, I'll get paid more. Three times I've handed in my resignation and received a counter offer with a 15% increase or more - and there are many far better than me...
> This is not because Workchoices are BS, but because the employer thought I was providing value.
> If you've restricted your realm of employment to 7/11, where you're easily replaced with 2 hours training, then why should you be paid more? Put in some effort, up-skill yourself, then maybe you have a leg to stand on when bargaining. Basically, take responsibility for yourself, because no-one else will.



Most large employers don't care about your work ethic. They just want to maximise their profits by paying you the least amount they can get away with.
Who's playing the victim? Last time I checked, it was the employers doing all the whinging about pay rates. Most people don't have the luxury of just resigning and job hopping - they need stable employment, especially when applying for a home loan. Your situation is vastly different to most.



> I don't know much here, but I can only assume that his employer either bargained him down to lower pay, or removed him from the company because he could be replaced more cheaply. I'm only guessing.
> If either of these are true, WorkChoices is not to blame. If this is the case (big if), then your mate clearly over-leveraged himself, bought a house he could not afford, then blamed the changing terms of employment for losing his house. But, I'm guessing, and if you would like to discuss this point further, I'd love to hear more detail.



It was a transport company with about 200 workers and when their agreement finished in 2007 they were offered a crappy deal where weekend workers were around $300 a week worse off. Workchoices was entirely to blame because it allowed that deal to eventuate. It's a bit unrealistic to say he over-leveraged himself when the IR laws were subsequently changed without being taken to an election and no prior warning given.



> Because people don't agree with you, it's an obvious troll? Please, get off your high horse. It's been a relatively clean thread up to this point...



That's a dishonest assertion and I didn't say anything remotely like that - you just invented it and used it to gain a quasi brownie point for the sake of nothing.

The reason I said it's a troll thread is because the original poster was baiting others by linking tax cuts from a budget statement to robbing the poor to pay the rich. Read the thread and see the responses.


----------



## Klogg (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Most large employers don't care about your work ethic. They just want to maximise their profits by paying you the least amount they can get away with.
> Who's playing the victim? Last time I checked, it was the employers doing all the whinging about pay rates. Most people don't have the luxury of just resigning and job hopping - they need stable employment, especially when applying for a home loan. Your situation is vastly different to most.
> 
> 
> ...




_"Most large employers don't care about your work ethic. They just want to maximise their profits by paying you the least amount they can get away with."_

Not true, I've always worked for large employers. In fact, the large banks are almost always willing to bid more for you, _if you're providing value_.


_"Most people don't have the luxury of just resigning and job hopping - they need stable employment, especially when applying for a home loan. Your situation is vastly different to most."_

It's different because I made it that way. I don't know if you've noticed, but people overpay for security in many industries (IT especially, contract rates are 30-40% above the full-time equivalent). The only time you'd need to overpay for security is when you NEED the steady paycheck... like when you have a mortgage. 
There's nothing special about what I'm doing.


_"It was a transport company with about 200 workers and when their agreement finished in 2007 they were offered a crappy deal where weekend workers were around $300 a week worse off. "_

I agree, it sucks given he was already in the situation. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Did any of the workers try to get an additional source of income before **** hit the fan? (online business, weekend work, etc.). Did anyone factor this in before getting their mortgage, instead of assuming their pay would only ever stay the same or go higher?

I can go on, but you get the point.


_"The reason I said it's a troll thread is because the original poster was baiting others by linking tax cuts from a budget statement to robbing the poor to pay the rich. Read the thread and see the responses."
_
I'm sorry, I completely missed that. My apologies.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

The thing I find interesting about this debate, it seems to be built on the premise, all Companies want to rip their workers of and all workers are hard working and conscientious.

It obviously isn't true, but only one side gets airplay.


----------



## tech/a (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Because a lone employee doesn't have the strength to negotiate anything other than what the employer is offering.




Employees (Like employers) have to understand that to outperform competition you
need to stand out from that competition.
If your a stand out then you can negotiate more than you think! Employer And Or Employee.

I want you Ill pay you for outperformance---show me!

You want to work for me because as leaders in our field I pay well and give you job security
challenging projects and great equipment. We *BOTH* stand out!

Why would I or *my employees* want me to pay someone who isn't a stand out ---- more than them?

I give people bonuses out of the blue.
If a client mentions someone positively and personally Ill flick them $500
You'd be surprised how often I here directly from clients that one of my people has excelled.
Word travels fast both internally and from clients mouths.
Bonus payouts increase each year as does my company. Its all correlated.

*YOU CONTROL YOUR DESTINY*


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

tech/a said:


> Employees (Like employers) have to understand that to outperform competition you
> need to stand out from that competition.
> If your a stand out then you can negotiate more than you think! Employer And Or Employee.
> 
> ...




I agree with you T/A, I mainly worked for large Companies, during my working career. Most of them had provisions in place, whereby any one with initiative, ability and ambition could reach their potential.
Actually a lot of the tradespeople with ability, enthusiasm and aptitude, became Operations Managers one I know is the current CEO of a top 200 Australian Company.
They finished their apprenticeships and then went on to further studies, to either become technicians or production controllers, the other stand out tradesmen usually became team leaders, supervisors or even superintendents.
There are of course others who either don't have the desire, application or ability to further themselves.
I'm not critical of them, it is their choice, a friend did his apprenticeship with me he has been a council waste collector ever since. his choice and he is happy, we're still best mates nearly 50 years later.

Like I said I worked in mainly large Corporations, some private some Government, I always availed myself the opportunity to improve my career path by studying, moving for  employment opportunities and applying for promotions.
The opportunities are there, it takes sacrifice, effort, drive and ambition something that sadly not everyone has. We can't all be held responsible, for someone else's choices.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

tech/a said:


> Employees (Like employers) have to understand that to outperform competition you
> need to stand out from that competition.
> If your a stand out then you can negotiate more than you think! Employer And Or Employee.
> 
> ...



So you're still doing these good deeds yes? 

Flicking employees $500 for positive feedback?

Paying bonuses out of the blue?

So... you don't need the laws to change right?


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> The thing I find interesting about this debate, it seems to be built on the premise, all Companies want to rip their workers of and all workers are hard working and conscientious.
> 
> It obviously isn't true, but only one side gets airplay.



Have you tried changing the channel?


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

Klogg said:


> Not true, I've always worked for large employers. In fact, the large banks are almost always willing to bid more for you, _if you're providing value_.



 I've witnessed the opposite on many sites, usually factories, warehouses and the like. If you're a good worker you'll get over used and abused because that's how the manger gets their KPI targets. That same manager was a lazy worker prior to that. Rinse wash repeat - on many sites.



> It's different because I made it that way. I don't know if you've noticed, but people overpay for security in many industries (IT especially, contract rates are 30-40% above the full-time equivalent). The only time you'd need to overpay for security is when you NEED the steady paycheck... like when you have a mortgage.
> There's nothing special about what I'm doing.



But it's not the norm. I'm not criticising that - all credit to you, but it's not the situation most people are in. I agree, you have to cater for some future events such as higher taxes or interest rates, but the bank would have already done that for you prior to approving your home loan. Back in 2007 they usually added a 2.5% interest rate buffer.

But obviously a $300 a week loss is just too much.



Klogg said:


> I'm sorry, I completely missed that. My apologies.



Nah - it's all good. I should have made that point more clearly


----------



## tech/a (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> So you're still doing these good deeds yes?
> 
> Flicking employees $500 for positive feedback?
> 
> ...




Bonuses aren't out of the blue
clients don't comment about your staff unless
they are exceptional---would you? 

I don't care what laws are changed.
Nor do those who work with us.
We will continue looking after our people and they will look after
the company and their interests!
I cant do anything to influence
law changes one way or the other.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

tech/a said:


> I don't care what laws are changed.
> Nor do those who work with us.
> We will continue looking after our people and they will look after
> the company and their interests!
> ...



Right, and that was my point. Australia was doing just fine and there was no need to change the IR laws by removing basic protections for employees.


----------



## tech/a (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Right, and that was my point. Australia was doing just fine and there was no need to change the IR laws by removing basic protections for employees.




And my point is control your own destiny


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2018)

I have never robbed a bank.

I have also never driven whilst drunk, raped anyone or committed murder.

Despite not having done these things I have no objection to society having laws precluding them and police to enforce those laws. This is because whilst I and indeed most people have no intention of doing the wrong thing it is reality that a small % of society has a very different view.

So we have laws which at least attempt to keep your business’s money safe from thieves. We have laws to reduce the chance of you being killed on the road. We have laws to protect your daughter from a minority of men with bad intentions. We have laws to protect your father from being shot by whoever doesn’t like him. And so on.

Likewise it seems entirely reasonable to me that we have laws to protect innocent people from the small % of bad employers and managers who exist. I see no harm in that.

That said, I do agree with those saying to control your own destiny but at the same time I’m well aware that not everyone is in a position to do so.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

tech/a said:


> And my point is control your own destiny



Most people don't have that luxury.


----------



## HelloU (16 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I have never robbed a bank.
> 
> I have also never driven whilst drunk, raped anyone or committed murder.
> 
> ...



simple rules to offer basic protections ..........imagine what it would be like if simple minimum rules were only applied in an adhoc manner ........but I digress from your bucket list thoughts.



(joke mate if u did not get that .... the bucket bit that is, the following the minimum rules bit I am all for ....like with competition entries )


----------



## tech/a (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Most people don't have that luxury.




Everyone was born naked and penniless

So everyone controls their destiny.
It’s not until they look back at the 
Decisions they made that they realise 
How good or bad those decisions were.

Controlling your own destiny isn’t a luxury.
Certainly not in this country.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

"Everyone was born naked and penniless"

That doesn't mean anything.

I didn't control where I was born, what school I went to, how rich / poor my parents were.

I had no control over my destiny until I was at least in my 30's.

I had no control over Govt policy.


----------



## Skate (16 October 2018)

tech/a said:


> Everyone was born naked and penniless
> 
> So everyone controls their destiny.
> It’s not until they look back at the
> ...




Hi tech/a

A great read with a different perspective on what controls our destiny...

*Fooled by Randomness - *The hidden Role of Chance in life & in the Markets
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Fooled by Randomness is an investigation of luck, uncertainty, probability, human error, risk, and decision-making in a world we don’t understand.

Skate.


----------



## tech/a (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> "Everyone was born naked and penniless"
> 
> That doesn't mean anything.
> 
> ...




Ok

You controlled how much you were involved in life
You don’t need successful parents
You don’t need a private school
It doesn’t matter where you were born ( in Australia )

Your destiny need not be controlled by any Govt if your in Australia

Have it and two others of teleb


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2018)

If your job is common, you are located in a city and there is a shortage of the skills you have then you’ve got a fair bit of control.

If you have an unusual combination of skills or abilities then you may have a huge amount of control.

On the other hand, well if you’re a Police Officer then you’ve got precisely zero alternative employers without relocating or changing career.

If you’re in a country town then any full time employment is hard to come by.

If you’re a tradie and need a start after 9am each day due to family responsibilities then good luck. Hard to believe though it is, even in 2018 there’s still an awful lot of employers with rigid hours that aren’t at all family friendly.

If you work in oil refining, media, airlines or countless other things moving to an alternative employer means relocation and actually getting a job with the one or two other companies in the industry.

There are certainly some who can call  the shots but many who would face considerable difficulties in practice.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

tech/a said:


> Ok
> 
> You controlled how much you were involved in life
> You don’t need successful parents
> ...



So you're saying that someone from Mt Druitt with a broken family and a poor upbringing along with a simplistic education could've had the same control over their destiny as someone with an exemplary education in an elitist establishment school leading to a career commensurate with all the right connections?

It's a perfect world right?


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

All this makes the assumption that all workers are good and just want to help the employer, I have had several instances of workers that take great joy, in causing mayhem in the workplace. 
If it is a large organisation getting rid of them is near on impossible, it brings the moral of the workplace down, it brings the productivity down and it ends up with the better workers moving on.
But I guess that isn't what the debate is about, it is about bad employers.
It is a bit like, you never get bad tenants, only bad landlords.
Just the way life is in Australia these days.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> So you're saying that someone from Mt Druitt with a broken family and a poor upbringing along with a simplistic education could've had the same control over their destiny as someone with an exemplary education in an elitist establishment school leading to a career commensurate with all the right connections?
> 
> It's a perfect world right?




Well the CEO I mentioned earlier, came from the poorest area of Perth, left school at 15 and did an apprenticeship. So where you come from has less impact than you think, everyone is looking for a reason to excuse poor application and performance.
But like I said that is Australia at the moment, we are sliding down the slope and everyone is making excuses for not putting on the brakes and demanding better. IMO
Working conditions have improved a huge amount from the 1970's, our wages are near the highest in the World, we have to import labor because unemployed don't want to go bush. Yet all we do is bitch and complain.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> If you’re a tradie and need a start after 9am each day due to family responsibilities then good luck. Hard to believe though it is, even in 2018 there’s still an awful lot of employers with rigid hours that aren’t at all family friendly.




I might also add that the construction industry has a disturbing record of deaths in the workplace and while some of the union leaders in that industry might be malcontents out to cause trouble safety should come first in any workplace and without those unions there may be even more deaths and injuries.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

All workers are good and all employers are bad?

Who is making these ridiculous assumptions? 

People get sacked all the time at my workplace, stealing, DNA, bullying. Nothing new there.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Well the CEO I mentioned earlier, came from the poorest area of Perth, left school at 15 and did an apprenticeship. So where you come from has less impact than you think, everyone is looking for a reason to excuse poor application and performance.
> But like I said that is Australia at the moment, we are sliding down the slope and everyone is making excuses for not putting on the brakes and demanding better. IMO



Yeah, I do occasionally see these happy stories about people with a poor background reaching the top of the corporate ladder or some other success. The media are always looking for exceptions to make the rest of us feel good


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah, I do occasionally see these happy stories about people with a poor background reaching the top of the corporate ladder or some other success. The media are always looking for exceptions to make the rest of us feel good



He is seen very little in the media, I had to google his name to find anything, so that isn't the case.
He was just a hard working, level headed get on with it sort of person.
I haven't talked to him in 40years, but when this topic came up, I thought I would google his name. As I thought he has done extremely well for himself.
From my perspective, I came from England as an 8 year old, went to one primary school to grade 7. 
After that we moved a lot, I did year 8 by correspondence in the NW of W.A, year 9 in Bunbury and year 10 in Kalgoorlie.
I have found Australia to be the land of opportunity and contradiction. 
I was told poms were just whingers, but I have found Aussie's to be the worst whingers in the World, with the least to whinge about.


----------



## Darc Knight (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah, I do occasionally see these happy stories about people with a poor background reaching the top of the corporate ladder or some other success. The media are always looking for exceptions to make the rest of us feel good




"Parable of the lucky git" Delboy calls them 

Some people just haven't got the IQ, physical abilities/health, emotional stability, reasonable upbringing etc and spend a lot of their early adult years and even lives just battling to keep up, let alone becoming CEOs.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> All workers are good and all employers are bad?
> 
> Who is making these ridiculous assumptions?
> .




Most large employers don't care about your work ethic. They just want to maximise their profits by paying you the least amount they can get away with.

I think you will find, you said that.
The posts since then, address that aspersion, but I can tell it is pointless.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Most large employers don't care about your work ethic. They just want to maximise their profits by paying you the least amount they can get away with.
> 
> I think you will find, you said that.
> The posts since then, address that aspersion, but I can tell it is pointless.




I think that is a huge call to compare:

"_Most large employers don't care about your work ethic_" with 
"_All workers are good and all employers are bad_" and suggest it's the same statement.

But that's your call, you're entitled to it.

NAB are letting 7000 people go to replace them with technology. They obviously aren't putting profits before people. They are a very good employer. Just ask 'em


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> That is a big call to compare
> 
> "_Most large employers don't care about your work ethic_" with
> "_All workers are good and all employers are bad_" and suggest it's the same statement.
> ...




Yes and they are going to be in a lot of $hite, for lending money to people begging to get into the housing market, as a lot of people on here were complaining about.
Now as the housing market turns down, everyone starts complaining, about why they gave them a loan.
Like I said, no one takes on responsibility anymore, the loony left has made the go to excuse they made me, they didn't give me the opportunity, I couldn't help myself.
It's about time Australia got back to its roots and FFing got on with doing a FFing job and doing it well, rather than looking for the next muzbuz coffee outlet. IMO
Otherwise google Brazil and study up, because that's where it will end, l'm retired so I don't give a ratz.
But hey the grandkids that live with me, they are learning mandarin, the 8 year old is doing really well, the 3 year old is still struggling with English.
As for your struggle in the factory, unless you are the shop steward, with an opportunity to further yourself in the union or ALP.
Just move onto something else.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yes and they are going to be in a lot of $hite, for lending money to people begging to get into the housing market, as a lot of people on here were complaining about.
> Now as the housing market turns down, everyone starts complaining, about why they gave them a loan.
> Like I said, no one takes on responsibility anymore, the loony left has made the go to excuse they made me, they didn't give me the opportunity, I couldn't help myself.
> It's about time Australia got back to its roots and FFing got on with doing a FFing job and doing it well, rather than looking for the next muzbuz coffee outlet. IMO
> ...



I'm not struggling in the factory but even if I was, why should I leave after years of service to then go and start from the bottom again somewhere else? I think that's a common failing in these arguments from the tawdry right.. _"If you don't like your job, leave"... _why should they leave if the employer is doing the wrong thing? It's a massive cop-out IMO.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I'm not struggling in the factory but even if I was, why should I leave after years of service to then go and start from the bottom again somewhere else? I think that's a common failing in these arguments from the tawdry right.. _"If you don't like your job, leave"... _why should they leave if the employer is doing the wrong thing? It's a massive cop-out IMO.




Maybe the factory has moved on, and your living in a past dimension that the factory can no longer survive in?
I have a really really close relative, that gets in more $hit than Ned Kelly, I've bailed him out endlessly.
We finally got him through an apprenticeship at 33, but he still wanted to suck on the ffing pipe, so we gave up.
Now at 38 he has found something he wants to do, and has finally got his life on track, thank ffk.
I would never have guessed it was his thing, he wants to be a chef, WTF bikie to chef? Go figure.
I guess what I'm saying is that technology is changing, jobs are changing, companies are changing. 
If it isn't your bag, it won't stop the change, just alienate you, maybe just change streams.
Sorry about the language, but it was a really difficult part of my life, not saying that this part is any easier, add to that silly Billy and it turns to $hit again.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe the factory has moved on, and your living in a past dimension that the factory can no longer survive in?
> I have a really really close relative, that gets in more $hit than Ned Kelly, I've bailed him out endlessly.
> We finally got him through an apprenticeship at 33, but he still wanted to suck on the ffing pipe, so we gave up.
> Now at 38 he has found something he wants to do, and has finally got his life on track, thank ffk.
> I would never have guessed it was his thing, he wants to be a chef, WTF bikie to chef? Go figure.



My past dimension was lifters were rewarded and leaners were not. These days it seems to be the other way around as arselickers and climbers become more numerous. It's much easier to attain a higher KPI by abusing your good workers and handing non important cooshy jobs to the bludgers. I wouldn't describe that form of corruption as survivable. Regressive yes, moving on? No.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> All this makes the assumption that all workers are good and just want to help the employer, I have had several instances of workers that take great joy, in causing mayhem in the workplace



Been there, seen that and I do agree that such workers ought to be dealt with.

But then the only time I’ve experienced outright demarcation it came from management not workers or a union, both of whom opposed it.

Cost them a fortune but it was all about controlling individuals not about maximising profit.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> My past dimension was lifters were rewarded and leaners were not. These days it seems to be the other way around as arselickers and climbers become more numerous. It's much easier to attain a higher KPI by abusing your good workers and handing non important cooshy jobs to the bludgers. I wouldn't describe that form of corruption as survivable. Regressive yes, moving on? No.




That is happening where my best mate works.
Their job, pick up waste, be that green waste or white waste.
One of the best workers, had a bad demeanour, he would tell the workers who came in with light load trucks, they weren't pulling their weight.
One of the guys claimed bullying, was given 3 months paid time off and a payout, the operator was removed from the section and transferred to another section.
The fallout:
The one accused of bullying has been promoted.
The person being bullied, was paid out a big payout, and now works in another Council doing the same job.
My mate now has to train up new operators, and it is stressing the $hit out of him.
My position, I'm a rate payer, who has seen my rates go up by 50% in the last two years and can say ffk all because I would get my mate in the $hit.
Like I said Australia is going down $hit river without a paddle. IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> These days it seems to be the other way around as arselickers and climbers become more numerous. It's much easier to attain a higher KPI by abusing your good workers and handing non important cooshy jobs to the bludgers.



You’ve explained it far better than me - that’s exactly what was going on in the situation I’m referring to.

I was the fool doing rather a lot of the proverbial lifting. Silly me was naive enough at the time to think hard work is always rewarded. Oh no it isn’t.

That’s what a lot of it comes down to really. There are people running businesses who reward their employees for high performance. That’s great but what they’re missing is that doing so is becoming less common and these days in many cases the path to promotion involves doing less not more.


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> That is happening where my best mate works.
> Their job, pick up waste, be that green waste or white waste.
> One of the best workers, had a bad demeanour, he would tell the workers who came in with light load trucks, they weren't pulling their weight.
> One of the guys claimed bullying, was given 3 months paid time off and a payout, the operator was removed from the section and transferred to another section.
> ...



I agree. Which is why I'm opposed to dismantling everything that's good about Australia and replacing it with everything that's bad about America in the area of workplace relations.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Been there, seen that and I do agree that such workers ought to be dealt with.
> 
> But then the only time I’ve experienced outright demarcation it came from management not workers or a union, both of whom opposed it.
> 
> Cost them a fortune but it was all about controlling individuals not about maximising profit.



I was in the unfortunate position of having a tradesman, urinating on workers below him in a PS, because he didn't like the job he was given.
Another time, I've had to front up to the manager to explain why I gave employees permission to have a beer, instead of deserts. They were installing diesel a genset in 45deg temps, at Wiluna. I had jarred one of the guys for sub standard work, and it was pay back.
Well the guy's, were never allowed to have a beer, instead of desert after that reaming. Just an absolute FW.
I guess , I'm old school, if you do your best you deserve recognition. Nowaday's it appears if you turn up, you need a ffgn medal. It doesn't bode well for Australia. IMO

Anyway, I've probably said my piece, I'll give the floor back to the back patters and say nothing more.
Unless someone really annoy's me. lol


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> You’ve explained it far better than me - that’s exactly what was going on in the situation I’m referring to.
> 
> I was the fool doing rather a lot of the proverbial lifting. Silly me was naive enough at the time to think hard work is always rewarded. Oh no it isn’t.
> .




So what did you do, you finally woke up and moved on. Jeez that was someone else's fault, or your fault for not wanting to step out of your comfort zone?
Now you've taken the big step, take it by the balls and show what you've got, you have a great grasp of system flow and what is required.
The National grid needs hands on people that can see both sides of the equation, your in S.A, go to your local member and tell them how the FFk it works.
Then we will have a poster in a high position, FFS the hardest thing about a job is getting it, you should have thought about if you can do it before you applied.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I'm old school, if you do your best you deserve recognition. Nowaday's it appears if you turn up, you need a ffgn medal



We’re on a pretty similar page.

Only real difference I think is that I’ve encountered worse attitude from a manager than I’ve ever seen from workers hence my comments.

Fully understood that those who have seen trouble originating from the workers will have a different perspective.

My personal view is about getting on with it. If there’s a problem then fix it, I’m not at all keen on demarcation, threats, strikes and so on. Fix the problem and get the job done.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> So what did you do, you finally woke up and moved on.



As a formal stafement I wish to clarify that the dud manager I am referring to is not, and to my knowledge has never been, employed by an electricity generation business either government owned or private.

The incidents I have referred to occurred quite some time ago in a workplace which involves electrical work but which does not own or operate power stations.

That I am now doing something else and living in SA is not related to this incident.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> We’re on a pretty similar page.
> 
> Only real difference I think is that I’ve encountered worse attitude from a manager than I’ve ever seen from workers hence my comments.
> 
> ...




The problem these days smurph, because of social media, everyone is a genius, they haven't been through both sides of the system and the left has the ear of the public.
Which will stay that way, untill it all turns to $hit.
Then they all turn around and say, Jeez it wasn't meant to be like this, I pay tax , I pay rates, I pay.;
FIX IT.
Australia is in a really bad place at the moment, we have a unrealistic push to renewables, we have a massive retraction of manufacturing, and we have a population that just have an unabated want.
I just can't see how all the variables can be met.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I wish to clarify that the dud manager I am referring to is not, and to my knowledge has never been, employed by an electricity generation business either government owned or private.
> 
> Or to be more specific and for the avoidance of doubt I am *not* referring to the Hydro-Electric Corporation also known as Hydro Tasmania / Entura / Momentum Energy.
> 
> The incidents I have referred to occurred quite some time ago in a workplace which involves electrical work but not power generation.



My appologies, if my comments ever suggested that, You have done nothing but commended Tassie Hydro.

I was more making reference to the fact you have moved, I would assume it is because it furthers your career, I did the same many times.
I was using it as a comparison, to someone who choses not to move, but would rather the company changed to facilitate the employees needs.
My appologies if it came over badly.
Having said that, I still think you step up into politics.
Australia really does need people like you, and I'm not taking the pi$$.


----------



## luutzu (16 October 2018)

tech/a said:


> Everyone was born naked and penniless
> 
> So everyone controls their destiny.
> It’s not until they look back at the
> ...




I heard somewhere that social mobility in the West has slowed and been in decline for quite a few decades now. 

I have never heard of anyone saying that when they were young, they want to grow up and work in some lowly, insecure job, living paycheck to paycheck. 

Maybe wrong and bad decisions were made along the way; maybe some are luckier than others... But reality is that for certain economic class, tax bracket... mistakes after mistakes can be made and it's no biggie. 

For some, one wrong step or one seriously unfortunate event happen and life's downhill from there.


----------



## luutzu (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> He is seen very little in the media, I had to google his name to find anything, so that isn't the case.
> He was just a hard working, level headed get on with it sort of person.
> I haven't talked to him in 40years, but when this topic came up, I thought I would google his name. As I thought he has done extremely well for himself.
> From my perspective, I came from England as an 8 year old, went to one primary school to grade 7.
> ...




Are you whinging about whining poms' descendants whinging and whining? 

The world does change a lot since you were knee high Homer. 

Higher education were free. Jobs were aplenty. Only a few people around the place. No foreign workers. No Chinese and Asian slave labour to compete with. Stuff like that.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Are you whinging about whining poms' descendants whinging and whining?
> 
> The world does change a lot since you were knee high Homer.
> 
> Higher education were free. Jobs were aplenty. Only a few people around the place. No foreign workers. No Chinese and Asian slave labour to compete with. Stuff like that.




Jeez your just like that Vietnamese meal that wont stay down.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> My appologies, if my comments ever suggested that, You have done nothing but commended Tassie Hydro.
> 
> I was more making reference to the fact you have moved, I would assume it is because it furthers your career, I did the same many times.
> I was using it as a comparison, to someone who choses not to move, but would rather the company changed to facilitate the employees needs.
> My appologies if it came over badly.



No worries.

I just wanted to make it clear to avoid any doubt.

The incidents took place a long time ago and nothing to do with the power industry. 

As for what I’m doing now, that’s a subject for another thread someday but the reasons amount to “been there, done that, know it all inside and out, here’s an opportunity.....”


----------



## luutzu (16 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Jeez your just like that Vietnamese meal that wont stay down.




Never eat Asian food outside of Asian areas Homer. You never know how long it's been there.

Also, don't eat pork rolls on a hot summer day either. 

And oh, if you eat Asian and your tongue tingles, that's MSG.

Where were we?


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> No worries.
> 
> I just wanted to make it clear to avoid any doubt.
> 
> ...




Like I said, my appologies, if it came over badly.
But I do re iterate my comments on a political future, and maybe just having a quiet cup of tea with your local member, now you are away from your history.
I think, these politicians need to have a general chat with people from a power background, I doubt any of them have any idea what they are facing.
Again my appologies, sorry, but it all did become out of context.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Never eat Asian food outside of Asian areas Homer. You never know how long it's been there.
> 
> Also, don't eat pork rolls on a hot summer day either.
> 
> ...



Love Asian food, I will post a picture of Malaysia Lego land this weekend, taking the daughter and grandsons there. lol


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2018)

No worries, all good. Just wanted to ensure nobody’s jumping to any conclusions that aren’t right. 

Getting the thread back on topic, I see a common theme in a lot of things.

Failing to reward hard work.

The various issues with taxation and welfare.

Embedded high costs with things like utilities and parts of the public service.

Risk aversion from investors who just want to buy existing houses or shares of established major companies.

Etc.

All in my opinion are what happens when as a society we become fat and lazy, having not had a recession in over a quarter of a century.


----------



## lindsayf (17 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> No worries, all good. Just wanted to ensure nobody’s jumping to any conclusions that aren’t right.
> 
> Getting the thread back on topic, I see a common theme in a lot of things.
> 
> ...




In my workplace of about 10 years there is a particular psychopath bully manager who does as little as possible other than undermine productivity and morale in particular ways. That person has had a good crack at me at times and I have survived by making myself a hard target, going above..to the top.   I am now off the radar but others are on it and that person enjoys good tenure and money and power despite everything.  Yes it is a problem that such people survive let alone get to position so of power.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> All in my opinion are what happens when as a society we become fat and lazy, having not had a recession in over a quarter of a century.




I doubt if you are advocating we should have a recession to solve those problems.

So then, what else ?

FWIW I think changes are already taking place that are reminding us that life wasn't meant to be easy, like reduced full time work, more job redundancies by automation,  the rise of the gig economy, loss of industries like automotive, tcf etc, stubborn unemployment rate and stagnant wages.

So I'm not sure we all that fat and lazy.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 October 2018)

lindsayf said:


> In my workplace of about 10 years there is a particular psychopath bully manager who does as little as possible other than undermine productivity and morale in particular ways. That person has had a good crack at me at times and I have survived by making myself a hard target, going above..to the top.   I am now off the radar but others are on it and that person enjoys good tenure and money and power despite everything.  Yes it is a problem that such people survive let alone get to position so of power.



Good that you went above that turd to keep it real. I don't know your workplace culture but if everyone does a fair days work then he is on a power trip that will see his eventual demise. Managing people is a skill that can be learned.


----------



## sptrawler (22 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> FWIW I think changes are already taking place that are reminding us that life wasn't meant to be easy, like reduced full time work, more job redundancies by automation,  the rise of the gig economy, loss of industries like automotive, tcf etc, stubborn unemployment rate and stagnant wages.



Re read your post, it doesn't sound like a first World economy to me.



SirRumpole said:


> So I'm not sure we all that fat and lazy.




Well that is what Greece says.


----------



## lindsayf (24 October 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Good that you went above that turd to keep it real. I don't know your workplace culture but if everyone does a fair days work then he is on a power trip that will see his eventual demise. Managing people is a skill that can be learned.




It is a she - she has plenty of guile and charm to hypnotise the unwary and the naive..it is amazing how she can ge away with extreme incompetence and bullying.  Amazed that another CEO has chosen to leave her in despite what must be a myriad of complaints by now.  Something wrong with the culture when that happens - but that is what we are talking about.


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2018)

lindsayf said:


> It is a she - she has plenty of guile and charm to hypnotise the unwary and the naive..it is amazing how she can ge away with extreme incompetence and bullying.  Amazed that another CEO has chosen to leave her in despite what must be a myriad of complaints by now.  Something wrong with the culture when that happens - but that is what we are talking about.



It's called affirmative action, it over rides all common sense and attempts to change the outcome.
Usually everything returns to the long term norm, so just slip on the mushroom hat and the Graucho Marx glasses and moustache, keep your head down and wait for the storm to pass.


----------



## luutzu (24 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> It's called affirmative action, it over rides all common sense and attempts to change the outcome.
> Usually everything returns to the long term norm, so just slip on the mushroom hat and the Graucho Marx glasses and moustache, keep your head down and wait for the storm to pass.




Got your NewsCorp subscription renewed did ya?


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Got your NewsCorp subscription renewed did ya?



I subscribe to nothing, I'm a pensioner and I can't even get a free read of the 'Australian'. 

But I don't have to read anything, to see where all the propaganda, is going.
Sooner or later people will wake up.


----------



## luutzu (24 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I subscribe to nothing, I'm a pensioner and I can't even get a free read of the 'Australian'.
> 
> But I don't have to read anything, to see where all the propaganda, is going.
> Sooner or later people will wake up.




Gut feel is quite dangerous Homer. Especially for White, senior Aussies living in Western Australia. 

How many group did I just insult?


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Gut feel is quite dangerous Homer. Especially for White, senior Aussies living in Western Australia.
> 
> How many group did I just insult?



Not enough, going by your likes score. 

I still reckon you are sitting in a call centre in Beijing, and posting through a ghost ISP.


----------



## luutzu (24 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Not enough, going by your likes score.
> 
> I still reckon you are sitting in a call centre in Beijing, and posting through a ghost ISP.




Heaven's net is wide, reaching the four corners of the world.


----------



## sptrawler (25 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Got your NewsCorp subscription renewed did ya?



Looking at the 'Australian' front page, there seems to be some really interesting headlines, which I can't read can anyone post them up?
Treasury in warning of savings raid.
ALP property tax may hit by July.


----------



## explod (13 May 2019)

The sad realities:-

*Australian Unemployed Workers' Union*
25 mins · 
In a recent survey, 98% of our members said being on Newstart made them socially isolated. This punitively low entitlement is creating an underclass of citizens who can't freely participate in our society. Our members have had enough - we continue to demand our leaders #RaisetheRate










-0:17


----------



## explod (13 May 2019)

These situations are tough and becoming common.  62 alone and no work.

*Federal election renews focus on Newstart and whether you can survive on $40 a day*
ABC North Coast 
By Leah White
Posted about 11 hours ago



	

		
			
		

		
	
PHOTO: Gae Guthrie says Newstart payments are not enough to live on. (ABC North Coast: Leah White)
RELATED STORY: Poverty in Australia has been pushed to centre stage
RELATED STORY: Here's what people have been asking us about the federal election
RELATED STORY: How many millennials are running this election? Meet a new breed of candidates
Living off $40 a day is the reality for more than 700,000 Australians who rely on Newstart payments to survive.

For 62-year-old Gae Guthrie, from Hastings Point on the New South Wales north coast, it means digging into life savings and compromising her health.

"You go without lots of things," she said.

"Food is probably the biggest thing for me ... I very rarely buy any meat.

"The doctor asked me once, because I've got brittle bones, he asked was I having meat, and I said I hardly ever eat any meat because it's just not affordable.

"So that affects your health."

Ms Guthrie said she received $754 a fortnight from the Government, which includes Newstart, Rent Assistance, pharmacy allowance and an energy supplement.

Deduct from that caravan site fees of $364 a fortnight, mandatory home and contents insurance, fuel to get her to and from her Newstart volunteer work, electricity, gas, water, medical bills and car maintenance (to name a few), and there's very little left for food or anything else.

"I don't know how people can live. If I balanced it all out, I'd be in the red.

"I'm just lucky I have a little bit of savings."

Ms Guthrie said her story was one example of many, and that's why she asked the ABC's You Ask, We Answer project to investigate: "How are people like myself expected to survive on Newstart?"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...wS3V7zsRr8iHeDUCYnuLnJmGPqyB1uCb5eGB_T90Zv9yI


----------



## PZ99 (13 May 2019)

Why is there mandatory home and contents insurance? That's her problem right there.

Talk about punish the poor, reward the rich. Any form of compulsory insurance is going to be a rort.


----------



## tech/a (13 May 2019)

This is very true and very tragic.

Does anyone have a solution?


----------



## willoneau (13 May 2019)

I'm not sure if this is relevant but, my brother was made redundant a few years ago and now only works part time about 20 hours if he wants to. He doesn't eat much has lost weight (hates the shops) and just gets by, yet he still spends $250 a week on smokes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2019)

This problem existed 30 years ago and it exists today.

For whatever reason a lot employers simply don't want to employ older workers. That's what it comes down to.

Whilst there are plenty of people in the 50's and 60's who are employed, if that job goes for whatever reason well then for many that's the end of paid work for them in practice. White collar professionals usually won't have much trouble for but for anyone else the options often end up as self-funded retirement, becoming self-employed or going on the dole for an extended period until they're able to access superannuation (if they have enough to live off it) or the Age Pension. There are exceptions of course but a lot of employers simply aren't interested in anyone in that age group no matter how good their skills and experience might be.

Solutions I don't really have beyond noting that skills shortages usually aren't a real thing and that if we stopped filling those jobs with overseas workers well then _someone_ currently living here would be employed instead. When business says "skills shortage" what they mean 9 times out of 10 is "we failed to plan ahead and train anyone".

If importing workers to fill such positions came with a requirement that a second person, a current permanent resident of Australia, had to also be employed as an apprentice well then I expect we'd see an improvement. Whilst that would mostly put younger people into those jobs, it must surely free up some other job which then becomes available to older people.

Point of all that being that I'd rather put people into work than have them on the dole long term in the first place. That then fixes their income problem. 

I'm not opposed to immigration per se but I don't accept as valid that we have a "skills shortage" in the sort of jobs someone can be trained to do in minimal time whilst at the same time we've got unemployed people who'd willingly give those jobs a decent go.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2019)

willoneau said:


> yet he still spends $250 a week on smokes.



No offence but smoking is old fashioned, obsolete and no longer required.


----------



## willoneau (13 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> No offence but smoking is old fashioned, obsolete and no longer required.



I agree totally, in my case never required.


----------



## qldfrog (15 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> No offence but smoking is old fashioned, obsolete and no longer required.



Unless you smoke dope for medicinal purpose ;-)
Which is trendy, newly fashionable and a must do it seems
While fully agreeing with weed being legal, it is as cigarettes a way to burn money and this seems to be lost in the debate
Living on 40aud a day is not easy doable here but most of the world is living for under 5 aud a day
Maybe we should look at why iur cost of living is so high more than bumping welfare expenses and making us as a country less and less competitive.
Food should not cost you more than 15 to 20 $, bulk billing on gp, so what is the problem?
Housing, and it can be linked if you take a clear unbiased look at both an Australian specific and a QE consequence, but akso on the weight of regulation and parasitism
Average returns for landlords are pathetic so please no greedy landlord story, but insurances body corporates rates water bills electricity costs, tax rates..these are what make someone on 40 dollars a day poor here
@Smurf, white collars are not exempt of age discrimination, what they do is turn into consulting or create or buy  their own business while eating their savings, but problems are the same


----------



## rnr (15 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Why is there mandatory home and contents insurance? That's her problem right there.
> 
> Talk about punish the poor, reward the rich. Any form of compulsory insurance is going to be a rort.




Just did a quick search of the internet using this question

"Is home & contents insurance mandatory in New South Wales?"

and the answer is NO, it is neither compulsory nor mandatory.


----------



## PZ99 (15 May 2019)

rnr said:


> Just did a quick search of the internet using this question
> 
> "Is home & contents insurance mandatory in New South Wales?"
> 
> and the answer is NO, it is neither compulsory nor mandatory.



You wouldn't think so and neither would I but obviously it's one of the conditions of the site.

Looks like a false profit deal to me. Similar to where some people who live in units have a fixed deal where their electricity supplier is part of their strata by laws.

These sorts of schemes should be banned because it's an unfair burden on poor people who can't afford services they are forced to pay for.


----------



## Klogg (15 May 2019)

explod said:


> These situations are tough and becoming common.  62 alone and no work.
> 
> *Federal election renews focus on Newstart and whether you can survive on $40 a day*
> ABC North Coast
> ...





I hate to say it, but by the age of 62 if you need to rely on Newstart, you've done something terribly wrong for a good chunk of your life. That's basically retirement age, yet her savings are so small that she qualifies for Newstart.

And there are solutions to many of her problems. $182 a week for site fees alone are quite expensive for someone with that level of income. Remember, this is welfare. It's NOT designed to maintain a particular lifestyle, only to get by... How about renting a room in a house with other tenants? I know in metro Melbourne you can find a room + utilities for $150 a week. It's not pretty, but it works.

Add to that the fact she has a car. She's 62, not 102. An electric bike is a much cheaper option.

FWIW - I've made all of these changes in my life at one point or another. I was never on Newstart, but I know could live on it if I have to, because my spending has been lower than that previously.

IMO, we'd be better served moving toward a Singaporean model, rather than European.


----------



## PZ99 (15 May 2019)

No way! Singaporean models demand your money first


----------



## explod (15 May 2019)

Klogg said:


> I hate to say it, but by the age of 62 if you need to rely on Newstart, you've done something terribly wrong for a good chunk of your life. That's basically retirement age, yet her savings are so small that she qualifies for Newstart.
> 
> And there are solutions to many of her problems. $182 a week for site fees alone are quite expensive for someone with that level of income. Remember, this is welfare. It's NOT designed to maintain a particular lifestyle, only to get by... How about renting a room in a house with other tenants? I know in metro Melbourne you can find a room + utilities for $150 a week. It's not pretty, but it works.
> 
> ...



Not so in most and a growing number of cases, particularly women who maintain the home, have and care for the children then when they hit the 50s the bloke shoots through and the female starts from scratch. 

As a foundation member of the Australian Unemployed Workers Union I can assure you we have a real growing problem in this part of society.


----------



## Klogg (15 May 2019)

explod said:


> Not so in most and a growing number of cases, particularly women who maintain the home, have and care for the children then when they hit the 50s the bloke shoots through and the female starts from scratch.
> 
> As a foundation member of the Australian Unemployed Workers Union I can assure you we have a real growing problem in this part of society.



Interesting. I just had a look at some of the requests of the AUWU. I must say, some are very fair, others made me chuckle.

Some of them that I didn't agree with:
- Ending income management
- Job Guarantee Programs
- Reduce working week to 35 hrs
- Raise all benefits to $517 per week

All of these provide the wrong incentives in my view. Not to say that we shouldn't do anything at all, just that the extent of the demands is a bit much for me. In particular is the income management piece. To me, the worst thing we can do is throw money at someone without any limitations. Sure, some of the welfare recipients are there due to bad luck, but a large portion just don't know how to spend their money, nor find a job. Limiting their ability to buy non-essentials should be a top priority.

The other demands simply aim to make the country less productive. Paying each person ~$27k a year would lead many to not want a job. Along the same line, job guarantee programs result in no feedback for poor/great performance.

I like the idea of improving the system and credit to you for trying to make improvements, but I don't think I can get on board this particular movement (not that I'm suggesting you asked me to join).


----------



## explod (15 May 2019)

The days of expansion and therefore productivity are gone.  We need to employ people in methods of survival and reducing world population growth and adinfanitum.  Could write a book on it.  Scomo's rant on jobs, jobs and more jobs has no substance in reality and everyone knos it.


----------

