So to clarify, you do support a high population Australia as long as it's not brought about by immigration? Unabated local population growth is OK?
You do understand that the majority of people coming to Australia as immigrants don't have access to welfare. They get here because they're supposedly work ready and coming in to fill areas of skill shortages within the economy.
To get an idea of the truth regarding access to welfare for immigrants -
https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/47temporary_residence.htm
Refugees receive the same social security benefits as everyone else. They account for the smallest caterogry of immigration as well.
Some other myths that are perpetuated:
Myth: Refugees living in Australia receives a larger weekly allowance from Centrelink than age pensioners.
Fact: A single person with no dependent children applying for the Newstart Allowance (whether or not he or she is a refugee) receives over $250.00 LESS per fortnight than a single age pensioner.
Myth: Refugees receive higher rates of payment under Centrelink programs than other Australians.
Fact: Centrelink payments are calculated at exactly the same rate for both refugees and non-refugees.
The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS) provides assistance to asylum seekers living in the community who are experiencing financial hardship. ASAS offers income support to cover basic living expenses, paid at 89 per cent of the Centrelink Special Benefit (which is usually paid at the same rate as the Newstart Allowance). This equates to around $446.00 per fortnight, or around $300.00 less than the single age pension.
The truth is Australia has some of the hardest to access social welfare in the world, and it's more tightly targeted to need than pretty much anywhere else as well.
Now you might believe smoking Joe's big lie "…the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian." The truth is most Australians get more from the system than they put in! Unless you’re earning at least $1,174 per week, you’re taking more from the tax system than you’re contributing. Or, to use Joe’s terms, at least 60% of Australians are ‘leaners’!
Now before you say why should the top 40% support the bottom 60%, it's pretty much because they can afford to - as the below chart shows. Being one of those in the 40 I'm happy to help those less fortunate, though I'd like to see a better targetting of assistance, and make the whole system a lot more efficient.
Now as SirRumpole has said, the tax churn of paying tax and receiving benefits is plain bad. The dead hand of Govt at each step makes that an expensive option. So policies that change the tax system to provide those on lower incomes with a similar outcome as they do now, helping to avoid the churn, would do a lot to make the system more affordable and easier to understand.
The massive amounts of largesse around super has to stop. Poor people shouldn't have to see higher income taxes just so a very small percentage can accumulate massive amounts of money in super. $1M at 5% provides someone with a tax free income of $50K a year. That's above the 47K median income, which for a single person is reduced via tax and high rental costs. Super is not the only way to save for retirement. I doubt those who can hit the $1M in super target would suddenly stop saving for their retirement.
Possibly the easiest way to make super fairer is via taxing contributions at the marginal rate. The 15% tax on earnings is still a pretty big incentive to save within super. The low taxing of super earnings is now starting to be the biggest component of tax forgone. A change like this would also mean those who lost out from the removal of the LISC will actually get a benefit for their super contributions.
The primary residence being outside pension assets has to stop. Possibly the easiest way forward is to bring the value of land within the assets test, along with a decent jump in the assets limit for those who don't own property. Land values are calculated for each state already, they are updated every 5 years, and there's well established processes in terms of challenging the valuation. It also avoids trying to determine the value of the structures on the land.
Quarantine NG to new builds, funnel the savings into building affordable housing. The increase in construction activity will increase economic activity and tax receipts.
There's so much that can be done to make the way we raise tax revenue simpler and fairer, but so far it's not on the political agenda.