How effective is our Social Security System?

[krisbarry]

Caring goes out the windows when it comes to rulings that Centrelink must follow under the law of the federal government.

Laws are laws and no matter how much we define care/nurture/support there is only so much money to go round and many people who should have access don't get it, while many that do have access shouldn't be getting it.

The cancer patient gets denied, while a person suffering alcohol abuse gets it.

The gambler gets it, while the saver/worker doesn't.

What a mixed up world we live in

 

[Prospector]

One thing which bugs me too, while we are talking in this mode! In SA, a druggie who is overdosed gets ambulance transport for FREE, everyone else has to pay, dearly!

 

[nioka]

STC


If you think pensioners here get too good a deal then I can't begin to imagine how you would regard the NZ system where the pension is not even means tested! Everyone gets it at age 65 regardless of assets and income.
I have no idea how it's funded.

Julia

The year I started work, 1947, the federal government introduced a taxation surcharge which was to fund pensions on retirement. This went into a fund similar to the new futures fund. The more you earnt the more you paid and everyone was entitled to a pension on retirement. I think iit was in the 60s when a greedy government "absorbed" the fund into general revenue and the surcharge into the tax system and then introduced the means test into pensions,which was highway robbery to a lot of us who had contributed to the fund.
You now have superation which is really no different to the original surcharge. Will your grand kids resent you drawing your super in the future.
How safe is your super? Thats another subject. Do you have a safety net if it fails?
Funny how perspectives change with age.

 

[nioka]

No one is owed anything, infact taxes paid today are used today. Taxes paid yesterday have already been spent. People seem to think if they work all their lives or battle in wars that they are owed a pension, this is not actually correct. As they work or fight in wars and pay taxes through their lives they use many of the resources paid for by tax payers. They use hospitals, roads, schools, public transport, etc etc. This is one of the biggest mis-conceptions of a welfare system, and who is owed what, how, when, where and why.

All I can say to this is GROW UP . Read my earlier post.

 

[Prospector]

The year I started work, 1947, the federal government introduced a taxation surcharge which was to fund pensions on retirement. This went into a fund similar to the new futures fund. The more you earnt the more you paid and everyone was entitled to a pension on retirement. I think iit was in the 60s when a greedy government "absorbed" the fund into general revenue and the surcharge into the tax system and then introduced the means test into pensions,which was highway robbery to a lot of us who had contributed to the fund.

I never knew this! In that case, how dare we treat (old aged) pensioners in the way we do! And how did the Government get away with it! Shame on us!

 

[Happy]

I never knew this! In that case, how dare we treat (old aged) pensioners in the way we do! And how did the Government get away with it! Shame on us!

Also government is so keen on helping every other country spreading money around, money which should be spent on those who paid taxes and deserve proper treatment.

 

[krisbarry]

Do we owe money to the crack addict, the homeless person, the mentally ill person, the widow, the war vetran, the pokie addict, the smoker with lung cancer who cannot work, the sexually abused...the list goes on.

Off course we owe money to everyone, I mean its hard to put a price on ones life, no matter the circumstances.

The people over 70 of course are owed a pension, just as much as a 20 year old today, will in 45 years time is owed that same pension too. Don't forget that the 20 year old has a super fund, but a massive education debt to pay also.

Every generation has its cross to bear so to speak.

Many countires do not have a old age pension or a war widows pension or a war pension.

 

[ghotib]

Two points off the top of my head:

1. The Social Security system doesn't work for people who are self-employed. I'm thinking in particular of the experience of a friend who's built, run, and sold several businesses over 35 years, all highly profitable, all operating as a sole trader. The current one is an ironing service that includes pickup and delivery. She recently broke her leg while she was doing a delivery and couldn't work at all for a couple of weeks and not much for a couple of months. None of the temporary assistance measures Centrelink offers for this kind of situation applied because she couldn't provide a certificate from an employer saying when she'd be returning to work.

More generally, I think everyone could win if people were supported in building up self-employment opportunities instead of being forced to go for job interviews that all sides know are an empty gesture. But that's a mammoth change to taxation and workforce thinking as well as Social Security - next lifetime maybe.

2. I get the feeling that the system relies way too much on ticking boxes and not enough on its staff for deciding who is entitled to what - for example those stupid cases recently where kids with appalling cancer didn't qualify as sick enough for Centrelink support. Not surprising I suppose: all big organisations are trying to replace human knowledge, judgement, and common sense with something cheaper and more uniform. And the good side of that is that it reduces the effect of bias, bad mood, and corruption. But I think we'd do a lot better if we could work to a system something like insurance claims assessment, where there's room for the assessor's experience and opinion to count. Of course, that would mean that the staff can't be interchangeable, untrained babies and that you might actually have to pay them decently - oh well.

Ghoti (not bitter, just saddened)

Who will be discussing Julia? Hope it goes well.

Ghoti

 

[krisbarry]

I mean the farmer is within their rights to collect a hardship payment, and plough that same drought stricken soil again and again, till it comes good for a year or two, then he/she goes back on that very same payment when a drought re-occurs, which is quite often I must add.

I reckon we a throwing good money into a dust-bowl

 

[nioka]

I mean the farmer is within their rights to collect a hardship payment, and plough that same drought stricken soil again and again, till it comes good for a year or two, then he/she goes back on that very same payment when a drought re-occurs, which is quite often I must add.

I reckon we a throwing good money into a dust-bowl

You obviously don't know how hard it actually is to get drought assistance.

 

[krisbarry]

I hear the payment is very hard to get, jumping through hoops, and a whole area must be declared in drought, not just pockets.

I still think way too much farming is done on our land in regions where it shouldn't be done, and far too much farming is done using incorrect methods and incorrect crops.

My argument still remains, why throw money in a dust-bowl, when a buy out program will end it for good.

We need to start importing more fruits and veg into Aust. and re-training ex farmers into more drought tollerant crops or off the land completly.

 

[Share Bear]

I think work for the dole should extended to the majority of unemployment benefit recipients.

A lot of people find themselves hit hard times at some stage of their life, but everyone should contribute something to society.

 

[Happy]

Julia,

Just remembered this thread, and I wander if any feedback will be available?

 

[Julia]

Hello Happy

As usual with these things, much was discussed, not too much was concluded. Some agreement, much disagreement.

Overall the members of the group came up with most of the points made on this thread and "scored" the system mostly about a 7.

Thanks for your interest.

Julia

 

[bvbfan]

The pension will cease to exist in 15-20years time may take a little long but it will be gone and those who expect it to be around are dreaming.

I have a huge issue with the baby bonus, yes we do need to increase the birth rate to counter the aging population and to replace the people that dye but the way the bonus is paid is just stupid.
Some people are using it as a means to fund a holiday, tv or other electric gadget or a yearly bonus, then they also get parenting allowances, some of these people are on $40-50,000 a year.
The kids do it tough while the parent(s) live it up.
These just seems wrong and not fair on the kids.

 

[Julia]

The pension will cease to exist in 15-20years time may take a little long but it will be gone and those who expect it to be around are dreaming.

I have a huge issue with the baby bonus, yes we do need to increase the birth rate to counter the aging population and to replace the people that dye but the way the bonus is paid is just stupid.
Some people are using it as a means to fund a holiday, tv or other electric gadget or a yearly bonus, then they also get parenting allowances, some of these people are on $40-50,000 a year.
The kids do it tough while the parent(s) live it up.
These just seems wrong and not fair on the kids.

I think there will always be some sort of "safety net". If not, what would happen to all the people who have simply been unable, for whatever reason - perhaps lifelong disability etc - to accumulate retirement funds.

If you consider the very small amount which most people approaching retirement have at present, I can't see that that is going to turn around to everyone being fully self funded in the foreseeable future.

The latest changes to super rules are a good step towards this.

Julia

 

[insider]

I'd say centrelink is too generous to the wrong people... I needed money and because I had over 2500 dollars of shares they wouldn't help me... bastards

 

[Julia]

I'd say centrelink is too generous to the wrong people... I needed money and because I had over 2500 dollars of shares they wouldn't help me... bastards

As I understand the rules, if you had those shares under the umbrella of Super, then you could access Centrelink benefits. But I don't imagine you want to tie yourself down to Super at your age.

 

[bel532]

It's too generous for those 'work shy' people. With the current boom in the economy no one should be out of work.

The Baby Bonus was a ridiculous idea and almost made me vote for the Labour Party! Why should I pay taxes so people can procreate?

The length of time people are allowed to receive unemployment benefits should be restricted and not open ended. That will certainly concentrate the minds of the 'work shy'!

Unemployment benefits should only be used as a 'safety net'.

 

[Wysiwyg]

It's too generous for those 'work shy' people. With the current boom in the economy no one should be out of work.

The Baby Bonus was a ridiculous idea and almost made me vote for the Labour Party! Why should I pay taxes so people can procreate?

The length of time people are allowed to receive unemployment benefits should be restricted and not open ended. That will certainly concentrate the minds of the 'work shy'!

Unemployment benefits should only be used as a 'safety net'.

Seriously:-they are my thoughts exactly. After 3 months ...work for the mo.

Humourously:-The social security system isn't effective....I still have to work to make a living. (from what I've heard it is over $400 a fortnight and a sleep in every day thrown in)