Handout Nation

Julia · 18 October 2008

kennas said:
I'm in two minds on this one.

Good to know you acknowledge that.

Yes, we should be providing food, clothing, shelter and healthcare to our own people as a priority.

But at the expence of millions of people dying of starvation in Africa?

Yes. Just so. There comes a time when we realise all the billions in aid to Africa have been sucked up by the corruption of that continent. If you adopt your first stance, you'd acknowledge this misery as part of the process of natural selection, wouldn't you?

Or propping up the PNG economy so the country doesn't fall into the abyss?

Ditto, with the proviso that there could be some self interest involved in Australia not allowing a failed state on our doorstep.

In a globalised world, we can't not assist those less well off than our own privilidged society. Lets face it, we're pretty bloody lucky to have been born in Australia. Having seen absolute total abject poverty and misery first hand in Africa, I'm thanking the big tea pot in the sky.

You can't seem to make up your mind, Kennas.
If there's simply not an unlimited pot of funds, then we need to look after our own citizens right here in Australia.

There needs to be some balance in handouts that's for sure. Perhaps Snake you think we just haven't got that balance right at the moment?

I have no problem with the hand out to pensioners. They've been doing it very tough indeed, especially those who don't own their own homes. I doubt there will be many pensioners, whether age, disability or carers who will not use their $1400 constructively. Maybe some long needed car repairs, home maintenance, even a visit to the dentist.

But, having just written out yet another fairly substantial cheque to the ATO, I sure as hell resent these tax dollars being wasted on $4000 worth of crappy toys in a single family at Christmas.

In terms of caring for those who need it, it's a bit sad that Rudd & Co acknowledged the plight of pensioners not in any genuine sense, but only when they were told to give the economy a quick start.

I guess we can look at this situation two ways: (1) with a sense of compassion for those who need help, (and I'd hate to live in any society which failed to provide this), and (2) in a purely objective and pragmatic way where we eventually have to say there are too many people and the oldest/weakest/sickest can no longer be supported.

Sean K · 18 October 2008

Julia said:
You can't seem to make up your mind, Kennas.

You know I like to play devils advocate occasionally, as well as expressing my own opinion.

I just fail to make it clear who I am at times...

Major source of conflict post drunken conversations..

Apologies to anyone I have had the horns on with....

eeeek

DJZ · 18 October 2008

chops_a_must said:
Yep. Because the US has such a healthy society with no adequate social support system.

What the OP I think is getting at, is the middle class welfare.

I simply cannot believe how much lack of thought went into your comment though Kennas.

Seriously. There has to be a system where people through no fault of their own, become disabled or whatever through the actions of drunk drivers, criminals etc are supported. There has to be a system to support kids and adolescents who are trying to set up a new life away from violent and abusive households. There has to be a system to enable youth with the talent and intellect, to be able to train and be educated for roles they are more capable of than other people in society.

Because otherwise you don't get the best out of society. Talent goes to waste.

But the middle class vote grabbing welfare policies of both Howard and Rudd are obscene.

Honestly... say for instance, you and your wife had 5 kids (not saying anything, purely hypothetical), and you were still in the army. She can't work for obvious reasons, and relies on you. You get killed in the field. Do you honestly expect society to effectively assign your wife and kids to lives that they might as well not even bother living?

I'm sorry, I just don't want to live in a society that makes absurd decisions like that.

What happened to Charity? People do like to look after other people if they are in the position to do so. Why does the Government have to get involved? they are usually the ones who put the people into the impoverished positions to begin with.

If there weren't so many taxes to pay for our over the top and outright socialist welfare system, and we had a monetary system that wasn't based on debt so people could actually save without inflation eating away at everything, then people would be in a position to give alot more to charity and the less fortunate would be taken care of through that, free market forces.

Why do you believe the Government have the forethought and understanding to distribute welfare in a fair and equitable manner?

Governments are usually always lacking because of the bureaucracy involved, they never provide enough and in the right areas no matter what they do. I believe people within society who understand the "on the ground" issues would do a better job if they got together and ran charity organizations, less bureaucracy, less fat, less waste, more achieved, which would be possible, if the free market had more control over the markets capital, instead of it being at the behest of Government and Bankers.

Sean K · 18 October 2008

DJZ said:
What happened to Charity? People do like to look after other people if they are in the position to do so.

All part of the survival insticts of the human animal.

If you give to others then you expect to receive in return, or develop some sort of self esteem from the act.

Altruism does not exist.

:couch

Garpal Gumnut · 18 October 2008

DJZ said:
What happened to Charity? People do like to look after other people if they are in the position to do so. Why does the Government have to get involved? they are usually the ones who put the people into the impoverished positions to begin with.

If there weren't so many taxes to pay for our over the top and outright socialist welfare system, and we had a monetary system that wasn't based on debt so people could actually save without inflation eating away at everything, then people would be in a position to give alot more to charity and the less fortunate would be taken care of through that, free market forces.

Why do you believe the Government have the forethought and understanding to distribute welfare in a fair and equitable manner?

Governments are usually always lacking because of the bureaucracy involved, they never provide enough and in the right areas no matter what they do. I believe people within society who understand the "on the ground" issues would do a better job if they got together and ran charity organizations, less bureaucracy, less fat, less waste, more achieved, which would be possible, if the free market had more control over the markets capital, instead of it being at the behest of Government and Bankers.

you've hit the nail on the head.

I've had a little to do with Vinnies and they can sure help the poor better than any government can.

and they are finding it tougher to get donations since government put their noses in it.

gg

steve999 · 18 October 2008

I just got paid $5k from the government for making babies and I don't feel guilty at all for taking it. I think it equals about 1-2% of the tax I've had to pay over the last 10 years. It's the only government handout I've ever received so I'm happy to take it. Anyway, the ATO just decided they wanted another $2.5k in tax for something I missed in my tax return from a few years ago so I don't get to spend it anyway.

The people who annoy me are the tradies etc who do the jobs on the side for cash. I'd be happier with a higher GST and no income tax

Sean K · 18 October 2008

steve999 said:
I just got paid $5k from the government for making babies and I don't feel guilty at all for taking it. I think it equals about 1-2% of the tax I've had to pay over the last 10 years.

Congrats on the bambinos!!

However, the tax you pay is for some important social infrastructure that makes Australian great. Like roads, and stuff.

Don't take traffic signs and the police for granted.

steve999 · 18 October 2008

kennas said:
Congrats on the bambinos!!

However, the tax you pay is for some important social infrastructure that makes Australian great. Like roads, and stuff.

Don't take traffic signs and the police for granted.

I'm happy to pay the tax, however I'm pretty sure I pay quite a bit more than other people who earn just as much money as me...

I work full time in a job where I can't get any cash on the side etc to pad my income. My wife stays at home to look after the children so we don't put any pressure on childcare or claim the childcare rebate.
We can't split my income, so we pay more tax than if we both worked and earned half my wage each.

I also know people who take heaps of cash on the side and so pay less tax than me, and also "split" the income with the wife, which means they end up paying less tax agin and can also claim family tax benefits etc and get the rudd christmas bonus.
/endrant

It would also make my tax return easier if there was no income tax

numbercruncher · 18 October 2008

Boggo said:
And is the first stage of creating a sub-prime mortgage situation, now where has that popped up recently

The price of every house that is for sale in Australia has just gone up by precisely the value of the grant.

Crazy concept.

Im really surprised by the amount of people who believe this .... the market has been swamped by stock and the trend is dowwn, way way down ...

This is clearly aimed at Generation Y - (18 to 28yrs ) whom only 5pc of have entered into home ownership ...... seems to me they refuse to be sucked ito the giant ponzi/pyramid scheme .......

Happy to be wrong though, a few short months shall tell !!

DJZ · 18 October 2008

kennas said:
All part of the survival insticts of the human animal.

If you give to others then you expect to receive in return, or develop some sort of self esteem from the act.

Altruism does not exist.

:couch

Not True Kenna's, I used to think along the same lines, Everyone ultimately looks after Numero Uno, and thats True, but only in the extreme's, when its becomes a decision or at least perceived decision of You vs Them.

But I have actually seen a documentary about a study into what happens within the brain when you give to someone WITHOUT expecting anything in return. What they found was that the brain lights up in a way that produces pleasure, so we are hard wired to help people if we can. Thats the main point, IF we are in a position to help we will, if we aren't the need for survival takes over, and some people I suppose have different threshholds and are constantly viewing the world us Me Vs Everyone, which I suppose leads to greed?

So in a society in which people are allowed to save and "Get Ahead", live a comfortable life without being squeezed for everything you earn, and ultimately not have to work so much, then people will naturally help others.

You'll always have the greedy, but there are more givers than takers in most societies.

somethign like that anyway lol

Sean K · 18 October 2008

DJZ said:
Not True Kenna's, I used to think along the same lines, Everyone ultimately looks after Numero Uno, and thats True, but only in the extreme's, when its becomes a decision or at least perceived decision of You vs Them.

But I have actually seen a documentary about a study into what happens within the brain when you give to someone WITHOUT expecting anything in return. What they found was that the brain lights up in a way that produces pleasure, so we are hard wired to help people if we can. Thats the main point,

Interesting points DJZ...etc..

I will of course disagree, because I think every action is based on a survival imperative. The way we dress, work, act, think, is all dependant on what will develop our self esteem and self actualisation, whatever that means...

I can not have a thought that can not be traced back to my personal goal to survive.

Just my thoughts of course, in my little corner of the world. Others will have another theory of why I act.

DJZ · 18 October 2008

kennas said:
Interesting points DJZ...etc..

I will of course disagree, because I think every action is based on a survival imperative.

In that case why do people risk there lives to help/save others, eg Police, Firefighters, Rescue Workers, for nothing more than the pay you could get working somewhere alot safer. Plus I know I would risk my life if the situation came around in which others where in desperate need of help, so surely not every action can be based on the will to survive.

Acts such as these could be called true Altruism couldn't they?

and when it came around to giving away only a fraction of what you earn or what you need to survive, the risk is very minimal, so why wouldn't you?

Charity works, Forced Charity doesn't(not as well anyway), Government Welfare is forced charity.

Sean K · 18 October 2008

DJZ said:
In that case why do people risk there lives to help/save others, eg Police, Firefighters, Rescue Workers, for nothing more than the pay you could get working somewhere alot safer. Plus I know I would risk my life if the situation came around in which others where in desperate need of help, so surely not every action can be based on the will to survive.

Acts such as these could be called true Altruism couldn't they?

Yes, on the surface, absolutely!!

Why would someone jump out in front of a bus to save anyone else?

Can you give any thoughts on that?

kennas

IFocus · 18 October 2008

numbercruncher said:
Im really surprised by the amount of people who believe this .... the market has been swamped by stock and the trend is dowwn, way way down ...

This is clearly aimed at Generation Y - (18 to 28yrs ) whom only 5pc of have entered into home ownership ...... seems to me they refuse to be sucked ito the giant ponzi/pyramid scheme .......

Happy to be wrong though, a few short months shall tell !!

Ive got a feeling some of it is about propping up the banks, if house prices fall to far it could leave them exposed.

Calliope · 18 October 2008

Julia said:
But, having just written out yet another fairly substantial cheque to the ATO, I sure as hell resent these tax dollars being wasted on $4000 worth of crappy toys in a single family at Christmas.

That strikes a chord with me. I am in the process of doing my tax return and I am not happy. Like hundreds of others I made the flight to safety from shares to term deposits. With tax at the marginal rate and high inflation the returns are minimal.

Is it any wonder that Mr Rudd assures us that our deposits are safe. While our savings are in the bank the interest can be plundered by the taxman, and Mr Rudd can then transfer the money to all those non-savers with exhortations that they spend it quickly.

son of baglimit · 18 October 2008

hey - how about we have a need to show disclosure for govt handouts, like we do for shareholdings.

in 1993 i was on the dole for 6 months.

in 2005 my wife received a $4000 maternity payment.

in 2008 she received a $5000 maternity payment.

in the late 90's peter costello changed the CGT rules which meant i only had to declare half my capital gains if held for 12 months plus. i have used this several times, reducing my tax bill by thousands. it aint classified as welfare, but it certainly benefits the better off in society.

if i think of more i'll add to it.

ANYONE ELSE ?

nunthewiser · 18 October 2008

son of baglimit said:
hey - how about we have a need to show disclosure for govt handouts, like we do for shareholdings.

in 1993 i was on the dole for 6 months.

in 2005 my wife received a $4000 maternity payment.

in 2008 she received a $5000 maternity payment.

in the late 90's peter costello changed the CGT rules which meant i only had to declare half my capital gains if held for 12 months plus. i have used this several times, reducing my tax bill by thousands. it aint classified as welfare, but it certainly benefits the better off in society.

if i think of more i'll add to it.

ANYONE ELSE ?

well im about to get as many personal loans and credit cards as i can , transfer all assets , claim banktruptcy , spit out 15 kids and go on the dole till the financial crisis is over

gawd bless a sunburnt country

Smurf1976 · 18 October 2008

In my opinion the events of the past month or so have blown sky high all arguments that we can't afford to be funding health, education, welfare and so on.

If we can afford to blow massive amounts on the bankers' ponzi schemes which deliver nothing but pain to the masses then we could have afforded to spend the same creating a much better world.

I wouldn't consider myself socialist. But the bail outs of banks etc have blown a massive hole in the argument that we can't afford spending in other areas. Since the taxpayer has apparently been taking most of the risk, it's only just that from now on most (say 90%) of all bank profits are handed straight over to the tax office. My taxes are taking the risk, so that's where the profits should be going.

And since bank CEO's are effectively nothing more than senior public servants, given that government is underwriting their so-called businesses, it's fair that they (and all other bank staff) be paid the appropriate public service wages effective immediately.

That simple measure will fund all the welfare, health and other things we're likely to need. Imperfect yes, but I'd rather a bail out for the disabled, pensioners and so on than a bail out for the greedy as we've seen recently.

nunthewiser · 18 October 2008

Smurf1976 said:
And since bank CEO's are effectively nothing more than senior public servants, given that government is underwriting their so-called businesses, it's fair that they (and all other bank staff) be paid the appropriate public service wages effective immediately.

That simple measure will fund all the welfare, health and other things we're likely to need. Imperfect yes, but I'd rather a bail out for the disabled, pensioners and so on than a bail out for the greedy as we've seen recently.

Hear hear, well done top post , thanks

if only, hey

chops_a_must · 18 October 2008

Smurf1976 said:
I wouldn't consider myself socialist. But the bail outs of banks etc have blown a massive hole in the argument that we can't afford spending in other areas. Since the taxpayer has apparently been taking most of the risk, it's only just that from now on most (say 90%) of all bank profits are handed straight over to the tax office. My taxes are taking the risk, so that's where the profits should be going.

I'm waiting for 3/4 of the Unis around Australia to be bailed out.

Long live the liberals hey!

Handout Nation

Julia

In Memoriam

Sean K

Moderator

DJZ

Sean K

Moderator

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

steve999

Sean K

Moderator

steve999

numbercruncher

Beware of Dropbears

DJZ

Sean K

Moderator

DJZ

Sean K

Moderator

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Calliope

son of baglimit

nunthewiser

Smurf1976

nunthewiser

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Similar threads

Handout Nation

In Memoriam

Moderator

Moderator

Ross Island Hotel

Moderator

Beware of Dropbears

Moderator

Moderator

You are arguing with a Galah

Printing My Own Money

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency