Punish the poor, reward the rich!

[krisbarry]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!

Exactly.

 

[mime]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

2005 and just as true today as it was then.

 

[SirRumpole]

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

This may be of interest as well.

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

 

[Klogg]

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

"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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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".