At what point should you not expect Government welfare?

[Smurf1976]

What gets me going is that fact that you can have

$5million house and $200000 cash and get a pension

$200000 house and $5million shares and get nothing.

I just don't get it.

Residential real estate and all things associated with it are essentially a protected industry in Australia. Shares and other investments are not. Simple as that.

 

[sydboy007]

The primary residence sacred cow will never be touched. It's political poison.

It will eventually need to be tackled though. I do not understand how someone with a $million house can feel justified in not selling it and help pay for their nursing care.

 

[sptrawler]

Very Very good original post Syd

What gets me going is that fact that you can have

$5million house and $200000 cash and get a pension

$200000 house and $5million shares and get nothing.

I just don't get it.

MW

Well Doc it is simple, you can't eat your house, you can't spend it.
I personally would prefer to have a $200k house and $5mill to spend and get no pension.

What pizzez me, you are a single parent with 70% full thickness burns and are deaf due to the drugs used to save your life. You work 3 1/2 days a week and can't use the government accoustic system to get reasonabe hearing aids, you have to support your son and buy crappy hearing aids for $4,000 when you could get $12,000 ones if you were on the dole. You also pay HBF because you never know when you will need surgery, but it has to fit in. By the way you earn $37,000 a year. LOL
By the way I'm talking from the third person the person, the above never complains, actually she sees bills as a challenge to be overcome and a victory when it's achieved. She doesn't complain about the injustice, just gets on with it. She sees life as a challenge and doesn't waste time wondering why it is so hard for her, yet appears so easy for some of her friends. She is a joy to be around.
If there was ever a person that should be held up as a shining light on how to suck it up and get on with it, she is it.
But you say" the Labor government help the disabled"
I say nothing changes only the people in the chairs.LOL








b

 

[sptrawler]

The primary residence sacred cow will never be touched. It's political poison.

It will eventually need to be tackled though. I do not understand how someone with a $million house can feel justified in not selling it and help pay for their nursing care.

Why, they probably paid taxes to supply the university you studied in, also from what you have said. They may have paid taxes that that subsidied your parents income.

 

[sptrawler]

The primary residence sacred cow will never be touched. It's political poison.

It will eventually need to be tackled though. I do not understand how someone with a $million house can feel justified in not selling it and help pay for their nursing care.

So how do you reconcile someone that comes here on a boat with no papers, then gets nursing care?
How do you know they haven't millions over in who knows where, but want to avail themselves of our welfare system.
Much easier to bag the easy target.

 

[sydboy007]

Why, they probably paid taxes to supply the university you studied in, also from what you have said. They may have paid taxes that that subsidied your parents income.

Then if we keep the primary residence sacred cow, how do we afford to pay for the doubling to tripling of people in aged car over the next couple of decades?

If you need to move out of your house into some form of assisted care, then shouldn't have to make a reasonable contribution to it? I own a house and certainty wouldn't expect to hold onto it in the same situation.

 

[sptrawler]

Sorry Sydboy, you obviously touched a nerve.
Someone nearest and dearest, overcomes obsticles that would make you $hit.

 

[sptrawler]

Then if we keep the primary residence sacred cow, how do we afford to pay for the doubling to tripling of people in aged car over the next couple of decades?

That's a supposition you are stating, which actually conflicts with the statement that SF retirees are getting too many tax breaks.
I for one expect to pay for my own retirement and am quite sure it is possible. My mother in law is self funded at 80yrs old and will be self funded till death.
Rolling out this diatribe that the old will send us down the toilet is garbage.
Think about it, if a person retires at 65 tommorrow with $2m in the bank that he or she has saved.
Firstly they have paid tax on it in one way or another.
Secondly, if it earns 4.5% interest that is $90k they won't spend that. Therefore they won't get any handouts.

What you are saying is they are not paying tax on it, but if they didn't have it they would cost $30k a year. jeez

Also let's not forget, they paid tax while accumulating it.

What are you sugesting tax them on it, then tax them on it as income later, wtf
Why would you put anything into super, give me a 12% pay rise and sod it.

 

[stewiejp]

Regarding the $5million house / $200,000 cash+shares vs $5million shares / $200k house - the shares will draw an income (hopefully) through capital gains and dividends. The house if you live in it will not create an income you can actually spend unless you sell it or rent it out.

The real issue IMO is people like the above example worth essentially 5.2 million dollars trying to draw a $200 per week pension when they should not need to.
Fair's fair.

 

[medicowallet]

Why, they probably paid taxes to supply the university you studied in, also from what you have said. They may have paid taxes that that subsidied your parents income.

Yes, because their forefathers paid no taxes etc. and don't forget the ratio of their payments to retirees is much less than the current younger generations face in the future... this argument has been done to death on these forums before, and there is no reason to disbelieve the reality that will face the current gen y etc. Oh, and they will NEED to have dual income to merely survive, and sacrifice the lifestyle of the Aussie weekend and fair go that many of us older folk enjoyed.

The older generations have left the younguns in a worse position imo.

Regarding the $5million house / $200,000 cash+shares vs $5million shares / $200k house - the shares will draw an income (hopefully) through capital gains and dividends. The house if you live in it will not create an income you can actually spend unless you sell it or rent it out.

The real issue IMO is people like the above example worth essentially 5.2 million dollars trying to draw a $200 per week pension when they should not need to.
Fair's fair.

You can mortgage the house to supplement your desired lifestyle. I understand this is the kind of argument that the government makes, but it makes no sense at all. An asset is an asset is an asset.

 

[sydboy007]

Yes, because their forefathers paid no taxes etc. and don't forget the ratio of their payments to retirees is much less than the current younger generations face in the future... this argument has been done to death on these forums before, and there is no reason to disbelieve the reality that will face the current gen y etc. Oh, and they will NEED to have dual income to merely survive, and sacrifice the lifestyle of the Aussie weekend and fair go that many of us older folk enjoyed.

The older generations have left the younguns in a worse position imo.



You can mortgage the house to supplement your desired lifestyle. I understand this is the kind of argument that the government makes, but it makes no sense at all. An asset is an asset is an asset.

I think a fairer way would be for the Govt to provide a HECS style loan to someone who is asset rich / income poor.

A CPI based interest rate loan, payable on death and sale of the property. I would argue there is no actual cost to the former tax payer, they are just using the wealth they have accumulated to better help fund their retirement and health care costs.

There were only 34,300 pensioners when universal pension was introduced in 1909. The number of pensioners grew to 65,500 in 1910, which included 40,000 pensioners taken from NSW, QLD and VIC. The 200,000 mark was reached by 1935. These numbers doubled to 400,000 by 1954, 800,000 by 1971 and 1,600,000 by 1996. By the end of the 20th century they numbered 1,738,200

By 2030 the dependancy ratio of pensioners to tax payers will be around 25% - double what it is today. Unless super funds have had great performance over that time, I have no idea how gen X are going to survive the tax burden of this, unless all those boomers holding onto their house are bequeathing them to us - I for one have told my parents to sell the house and use it to fund their older years if required.

 

[sptrawler]

I I for one have told my parents to sell the house and use it to fund their older years if required.

As mine has done.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Perhaps you could provide the example which demonstrates "me" as being appropriate in the context discussed.

Julia and I caught the taxi
Julia and me caught the taxi :error:
The taxi came to pick up Julia and me
The taxi came to pick up Julia and I :error:

In the sentences above I/me is either the subject or the object. Where it's the object, it takes the accusative or objective form and becomes 'me'.

The taxi drove faster than I. ???
The taxi drove faster than me.

'Than' is a preposition, so any pronoun that follows it takes the accusative form... 'me' in this case. That's what I was taught. But Google said which one you use depends on whether 'than' is defined/used as a conjunction or preposition, and how posh and pretentious you want to sound!

 

[moXJO]

From today, I'll be paying $45 a day to go to work
By Renee Richards
1 July 2018 — 3:30pm


How much would you pay to go to work? I am a hospital-based physiotherapist and under the new childcare subsidy scheme that begins today, I will be required to pay $45 a day to go to work.

I have one daughter in childcare, three days a week, and am on maternity leave at the moment caring for my two-month old, who will start at childcare next year when I return to work. Under the former rebate scheme, half of my family's childcare fees were subsidised by the government, up to an annual cap of $7613.

The federal government's childcare changes come into effect today.

Photo: Glenn Hunt
Under the new scheme, the rebate is means-tested against the family income and once this reaches $351,248, you are no longer eligible, regardless of how much the primary carer earns. Because my partner is the main breadwinner in our family, we no longer qualify for any childcare subsidy. With the cost of quality childcare in the area we live, for both my children, I will now be paying $45 a day above my daily earnings (after tax) to go back to work and treat hospital patients.

Wow over $350k a year and don't want to pay $45 a day child care. Entitled much.
Trust the Guardian to run it.


https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/fed...0180701-p4zouo.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

[willy1111]

Wow over $350k a year and don't want to pay $45 a day child care. Entitled much.
Trust the Guardian to run it.


https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/fed...0180701-p4zouo.html?__twitter_impression=true

So she would be $45 a day better off to stay home and look after her child rather than go to work.

Her partner earns $350k plus so you wouldn't think she needs to work for the money.

 

[luutzu]

So she would be $45 a day better off to stay home and look after her child rather than go to work.

Her partner earns $350k plus so you wouldn't think she needs to work for the money.

Then get her employer to pay her more. Why should taxpayers cash subsidised family earning above $350K?

If she can't get them to pay higher, do what all parents from family whose work does not pay enough to cover their childcare cost: stay home and raise the kids themselves. Make a career sacrifice.

If she feel that that's asking too much, that she want to be at work and not be deskilled... that's where the other partner's high income comes in. Share the love.

Jesus man, we're all hot and bothered about single mums and low income family "rorting" the system. But this, this is too much.

 

[moXJO]

Jesus man, we're all hot and bothered about single mums and low income family "rorting" the system. But this, this is too much.

I'm for single mums receiving more money if there kids are well looked after. Personally I would prefer it if there were some kind of checks to ensure kids are being looked after and schooled. And some kind of penalty system if they drop the ball.
I'd rather these kids get a good start, than end up causing problems.

Take it from the wealthy entitled assholes like the one that wrote that article. Seriously, talk about deluded.

 

[luutzu]

I'm for single mums receiving more money if there kids are well looked after. Personally I would prefer it if there were some kind of checks to ensure kids are being looked after and schooled. And some kind of penalty system if they drop the ball.
I'd rather these kids get a good start, than end up causing problems.

Take it from the wealthy entitled assholes like the one that wrote that article. Seriously, talk about deluded.

Yea, parents, forget about being a single parent, need all the help they can get. So it's fine that they get some sort of financial assistance. Raising kids aren't cheap, and not easy.

But yea, asking for more cash when your family income is over $350K a year. Come on.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Whingeing so and so. I get no government assistance to live my life and I'm not complaining. Even more surprising is she wants to throw the 2 month old into childcare next year at over 1 year of age. WTF, another stupid person.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'd rather these kids get a good start, than end up causing problems.

Take it from the wealthy entitled assholes like the one that wrote that article. Seriously, talk about deluded.

Very strongly agreed.

If we're to put an end to inter-generational poverty and welfare reliance then giving children a solid education and start in life is critical in my view and I'm more than happy to see my taxes spent accordingly.