He might be referring to Age Pensioners. A couple who owns a Home with $250,000 in the bank can get $1,300 a fortnight plus the pensioner card and all the benefits.

Considering the average home in Sydney is around the million dollar mark, I would say this is funding a lifestyle choice.

Thanks for posting this stuff.

Sometimes I wonder that if the general public was really aware of how little people receive on welfare, whether we would have a massive change in public perception.

Drives me nuts, because as you have shown, it is quite simple to find out the facts.

But obviously some people prefer to be judgemental and feel superior, than take a realistic look at how tough many people have it.

I'd love to see how you deck out your cardboard box on that amount a week.

No its not. Its the exorbitant cost of child care provision that negates the benefit of a wage. Infant daycare AFTER subsidies can cost you $70-$80 but your income from that day may be $85 -$100.

For a net gain of $20 you also have limited time to cook / clean and care for the child while also preparing for the following day.

Source: Im a parent - not an entitled wank who speaks on matters he dose not fully understand.

I don't think it really is that simple. You would be surprised at the levels of accessibility of NewStart and the Age Pension. Don't get me wrong, there are people who struggle to make ends meet when on social security but there are a significant group receiving benefits, that are legally entitled to benefits, but do not need them in the slightest.

Yes this is my personal experience too.

[-x No anecdotes please Glenn :lol:

Remind me to ask everyone opposed to Coal Seam Gas drilling what drilling company they use to operate their wells :lol: sometimes I miss Ricey and his multis

Edited by bethfc: 4/7/2016 04:10:18 PM

Edited by bethfc: 4/7/2016 04:11:59 PM

Just with two google searches you've admitted you could be under-estimating unemployment payments by $77 dollars per week ie you're out by 30%.

And thats just for the unemployed which is actually one of the smaller welfare costs.

Now go through how people manage their affairs to get pensions-aged and disabled.

Then do that for the family payments- hubby on cash work, qualify for full family tax benefits, parenting payments, childcare rebates benefits

the stay at home parent claim has some truth in it
the closest care centers to me costs 180 a day although the mrs doesn't stand to lose any centrelink in her case due to her imigration status

but childcare alone is a massive disincentive to working especially when you encounter the fear of leaving your defenseless pride and joy who can't even speak yet with a stranger so you can make a few dollars a day extra.
if you had centrelink benefits as well to think of then there may be no incentive to work at all apart from moral ones (but moral incentives can go the other way when your bub can't speak yet)

No doubt many have it tough, but if you make it easy the incentive to work is reduced and this effects GDP, tax revenue and the overall welfare burden. In the case of job seekers welfare should be tough, as it should incentivise people to find work and provide for their own living rather than expecting others to. For those through no fault of their own cannot work they should be provided with a comfortable existence.

Here's the thing. No matter what system you design there will be rorters and cheaters. And it's not just the poor scummers. Look at how many times super laws have had to change to stop rich cunce from taking advantage of the system.

BUT given you will always have rorters and cheaters I'm happy to accept that fact if that means little Johnny and Janey can go to school and mum gets a roof over her head or Dad draws the dole while he reskills and gets another job.

The issue is of course your unemployables and ne'er-do-wells that are on it for years on end.

But I've seen no suggestions here even going close to a solution. Typical Pauline Hanson squawking but no solutions. Complaining is easy. Coming up with an idea that works is another matter.

The UBI is interesting. I'm neither here nor there but it is fascinating to consider and would like to hear more.

Switzerland voted it down because they were worried about their country becoming a haven for undesirables (or so I read.) According to Draupnir this would qualify them as racists.

The cost of childcare is *one* reason.

But hey, its YOUR child, not the taxpayers. Can't afford to look after them, don't have them.

Yeah you're the one arguing to get the taxpayer to pay the cost of caring for your child, and I'm the "entitled wank"

Edited by enzo bearzot: 4/7/2016 04:20:56 PM

Barrie Cassidy (host of Insiders) is predicting the following:

Lower House-
ALP & Coalition end up with 72 seats each, with 6 crossbench (2 NXT, 1 each of Katter, McGowan, Greens, Wilkie).

Senate-
19 cross benchers. 9 of these will be Greens, with the other 10 made up of NXT - 3, 2 or 3 - Hanson, 1 or 2 - Lambie, 1 - Hinch, 2 - other.

The remaining 57 will be made up of Coalition - 30, ALP - 27.

Again, the above is just Barrie Cassidy's predictions based on the current count.

The cost of childcare is *one* reason.

But hey, its YOUR child, not the taxpayers. Can't afford to look after them, don't have them.[/quote]

:lol: but it's a human right to have children and expect the government to keep it alive.

What if the whole family is on the dole...:lol:

30% out. SQWAWK!!

Add 1 to the initial starting point of 1 and you get a 100% increase on the initial starting point.

It's still nowhere near anything approaching a "lifestyle choice" that anyone would actively choose.

Pensioners have paid tax all their lives and are entitled to it. I have no problem with pensioners. In Enzo world we'd be working until we're 80 I guess.

Disabled types? Nothing a bit of eugenics won't sort out.

I bet you're the type of bloke that earns $150k a year and still pisses and moans about everything. The gub'ment's taking my money blah blah, dole bludgers, foreigners, refugees.

I've got a mate just like you. Whinges about paying $100k a year in tax. Of course he has to make about $400k a year to pay that but that doesn't stop he whinging up hill and down dale about all and sundry.

You're on a good wicket, stop moaning.

Who do you think is going to pay for your pension if people don't have children?

It's either that or we ramp up our immigration to 400 000 a year and then you'll be whinging about that.

Many, many studies have shown it's pretty much neutral to the economy.



Edited by toughlove: 4/7/2016 04:26:00 PM

Sorry I thought the :lol: emotion indicated my sarcasm. Evidently not.

Evidently.

All jokes aside I do have concerns about the ability of certain couples to raise children. My mates sister is a prison regular ice addict. She has 2 children under the age of 5.

On this forum, you cannot question a persons right to have children without smug references to eugenics so lets not bother and agree that my original post was poorly written sarcasm.

Edited by bethfc: 4/7/2016 04:30:54 PM

Anthony Green was saying slim Lib majority on election night and nothing has changed since then.

Green >> Cassidy every time.

A good start would be to change the adoption v foster system. If a parent cannot get their shit together over several years, the child should be adopted, not shuffled through foster care endlessly because the parent may one day sort it out...

Cowan and Capricorn will be interesting. Both Liberals had slim leads and suddenly dropped by 1% within 2 minutes, putting Labor in front. Probably some temp updating the results.

I was watching the ABC coverage, and there WAS more counting past the point at which Green made that comment. Green's model is also largely automated.

He made manual overrides of some of those predictions during the broadcast - largely, the issue is around preference flows being different from the last federal election.

And there was some counting yesterday - absentee and postal ballots.

Not saying Cassidy is correct either. His is just an additional opinion in the mix.

The main issue is how much the postal votes will favour the Libs. From the postal votes counted yesterday, the predictions are that they will not be enough to turn enough of the seats to the Libs to give them majority govt.

Might end up being enough - just wanted to add in an updated opinion to the mix.

@Azza
yep, we will know a lot more tomorrow RE direction of postal votes.... at this stage its anyone's guess.

my daughter is a midwife........when she was at UNI she defended rigorously the poor down and out bastards....now she has to deal with them pregnant and on a myriad of drugs and their pathetic behavior she has changed her tune.....

The problem becomes who "judges" what is acceptable from a parent?

Laws already exist regarding the safety of children in regards to drug abuse by parents, however are we willing to commit more resources (money!) to these sectors to address the issues? As I cynically posted yesterday, it is hard for a political party to use such "results" to gain votes. As most likely addressing parenting issues will have a long term benefit of social issues (such as reduced crime rates, drug use, mental illness, respect etc.) when these children reach adulthood. So unless a party can retain power for about 16 odd years they won't be able to use such a measure as a political toy.

As sad as that statement is consider your own views. If crime rates started to fall this year you'd believe the current government (when we get one) was responsible. Even if "experts" told you it was because of a policy implemented 16 years ago by today's opposition party.

That's the big problem though. Parties only look so far ahead and will only usually do what's popular.

And? Wouldn't you say both of her perspectives are at the extreme?

EG - at Uni age, you don't know much about the world etc etc.

But if you are working as a nurse, a cop, a social worker etc, you are constantly exposed to the worst of things. It's not necessarily more representative of the totality of experience than being ignorant, its just at the opposite end of the scale.

You want to address addiction and its effects? Treat drug abuse as a health issue, not a crime issue.

Hasn't decriminalisation of drugs reduced consumption and crime rates?

Kids I went to school with got into drugs because it was cool and it negatively affected their lives.