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

[luutzu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sptrawler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tisme]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[luutzu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tisme]

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

Watch Medicare.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

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

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

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

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

 

[SirRumpole]

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

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

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

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

 

[Gringotts Bank]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sptrawler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame no one can find middle ground.

 

[luutzu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[luutzu]

Watch Medicare.

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

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

 

[luutzu]

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

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

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

I think that's true.

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

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

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

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

 

[sptrawler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[luutzu]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sptrawler]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Smurf1976]

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

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

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

 

[SirRumpole]

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

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

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

 

[qldfrog]

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

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

 

[Smurf1976]

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

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

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

 

[luutzu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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