Doesn't the government already subsidize costs in addition to providing payments? Not sure on this one. Or is the subsidy the payment?

FIFA should buy all the rights off PES and make it all encompassing. All in order to create a better game. I hate the rights being scattered.

I hope WSW win the GF 16/17 and Popovic signs to replace Ange to begin after 2018 WC. I think Popa would be better to sort out our defense and he would also send Timmy to the scrap heap.

Russia's strategy in the middle east is superior to the USA's.

Every aspect of non-integration that we accuse Muslims of, Jews are just as bad or worse.

Trump is less likely to be involved in foreign wars than Clinton.

Australia needs to develop nuclear weapons.

A negative income tax is a good idea.

Politicians who are in power during times where the deficit is greater than 2% of GDP can not ever hold another position within the public service again.

Sonya Kruger at it again saying there shouldn't be scholarships reserved for the LGTBI community.

I actually agree with her words. Scholarships should be merit based. I have a problem with giving out scholarships under certain people in favour of others. When i'm a rich old racist i'm going to create a scholarship for white people only just to wind up people who think that there should be targeted scholarships.

Theres more of a proportion for the sexual minority to be represented in scholarly/ intellectual communities. As opposed to work that can be done by 3 year olds (ie woodworkers, boilermakers, welders, labourers)

This gay agenda is happening because they are inside the political system

Ha ha brilliant. 'Gay' art shows or prizes or writers forums or left handed hammer holders always brings a wry smile to my dial.

What exactly is gay art anyway? Unless it's homosexual erotica isn't art art? (And actually can't heterosexual artists paint gay art too? Maybe they haven't the 'lived' experience and are excluded.)

Can't see why anyone painting a landscape or a bowl of fruit needs to even have the opportunity to their work into a 'gay' exhibition.

Weird.

You completely misunderstand the basis of "affirmative action" and targeted scholarships.

Now, to be clear I am not talking about this particular scholarship - I don't know anything about it to comment.

But in general terms, that argument of "places should be awarded on merit" misses the point that groups of people are UNDER-represented to begin with. So unless you are arguing that certain groups of people are inherently less intelligent, less capable etc, then you can only conclude that there are people who are good enough, but because of institutional issues (poverty, lack of services etc) they aren't getting picked up.

So these scholarships try to act as a circuit-breaker to get the minority group into "the system" in order to break down the disadvantages that exist.

Now, you can argue about the effectiveness or otherwise of specific programs, but that is a separate issue.

The point is that there are people of merit who are missing out because of poverty, deprivation, and yes - bigotry and racism (whether intentional or institutional).

I know that in many states rural students get extra gradings on their year 12 results because of the issues they face with lack of resources, and difficulty in attracting teaching talent etc. But people only complain about affirmative action when indigenous people get it.

Representation reminds me of the people whinging because there aren't any gay people in Star Wars.

I am aware of the pretext for these scholarships, nothing has changed in a long time.

The inverse of your argument is that there are people getting scholarships because of skin colour......

What is shit about applying for scholarships is that they ask you if you're aboriginal or torres straight islander. They did when I applied at Griffith University. It's not relevant. Give them their own scholarships rather than rigging existing ones.

They also ask for that information for statistical purposes...

Its not rigging anything. If you start from the position that there are indigenous people who are missing out despite having merit (for reasons of poverty etc) then these scholarships are redressing the balance.

My thought is that the fairest criticism is that it is addressing the issue at the wrong point in the process. There should be more focus on addressing the underlying issues which cause the problem in the first place. But that isn't simple either.

Also use? I have an issue with being asked those sorts of questions in such situations. It shouldn't be important.

I don't know how this became about aboriginal people but you're not wrong. Throwing scholarships at a few kids doesn't solve wider issues.

Edited by bethfc: 1/8/2016 04:28:02 PM

You can have a carbon tax, you can have gay marriage, but just remember this is all that it comes down to in the end->

Yes the government does subsidise costs in addition to providing payments.
The social security system needs to be overhauled in Australia and needs to encourage people to get back to work rather than depend on welfare. At the moment, the current system is completely means tested and, whilst this works well on paper, it actually discourages people from getting off welfare once they're on it.

Rather than looking at the level of welfare paid to people, we should be looking at the amount of time spent on welfare. Abbott's proposal of a 6 month exclusion period where people under 25 years had to wait 6 months before being eligible for NewStart and only receiving NewStart for 6 months before another exclusion period starts was a brilliant idea and would genuinely encourage people to look for work and keep their jobs once they find work.

And, to repeat myself from a previous post, Age Pensioners should have their homes counted towards their assessment for the Age Pension. If someone can explain to me how it is fair that an Age Pensioner who rents a property and has absolutely nothing to their name receives the same Age Pension as someone with $100,000 in the bank living in a $2,000,000 house which they own, I will never speak of this topic again. Essentially, the government is funding older Australian's lifestyles because they know that they will be voted out if they take away peoples Pensions..

It seems to be a common debating tactic used by the people who appear on Triple J's 'Hack' or the ABC. The double-standards employed by these people is another thing altogether!

I mean, while this send up of 'The Bolt Report' is clearly a piss-take, it's a bit of a worry how close the 'Q&A' parody resembles the real thing these days...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycBKLRqNwyQ

I agree with you for once. It's a token gesture that rewards people for being who they are.  

Right.  So someone who scrimps and saves for 45 years, builds wealth and then retires isn't entitled to a pension because why exactly?

Fuck you.  If I pay taxes for 45 years I expect a a pension. (Caveat.  A line should be drawn somewhere with regards to super and savings which it already is.)  

And BTW someone living in a $2 million dollar house can't eat some of that house or sell bits of that house off to pay for the electricity bill or pay the rates.  A lot of folk in Sydney or the Goldie or Melbourne bought their houses 50 years ago for next to nix so why should they be punished.

And another thing $100k in the bank would last you about 3 years taking into account food, utilities, rates, insurance, car rego etc.

Wake up to yourself.

Right. So someone actually works there entire life and that somehow entitles you to social security because...why exactly? What next? Social security benefits for people who don't commit crimes and go to prison? Social security for people who have nice manners?
This is a topic in which I will run rings around you boy so keep the insults to yourself as you will just make yourself seem like a bigger fool.
Now listen up as you are about to receive an education.
There is already a "line drawn in the sand" and it encompasses more than superannuation and bank accounts. It's called an Asset and Income test and it is used to determine the level of social security in which an individual is entitled to on a fortnightly basis. In almost all cases, the family home is exempt unless the capital of the home is being used or can be used for income producing purposes i.e if you borrow against your principle residence to buy an investment property then the capital of your home will be partially included in Centrelink's Asset test or if your property is larger than 2 hectares i.e. farms. So yeah, you can quite easily unlock the equity in your home to generate an income in your retirement (Equity Unlock or Reverse Mortgage).
Historically, housing prices in Australia have been at a level where an individual would not be able to use the capital to draw an income and in this is still the case in a lot of places in Australia but for the majority of homeowners in Sydney and Melbourne and other capital cities, there is enough equity in their homes where they will be able to apply for an investment vehicle that will allow them to cover their ongoing expenses. What I am saying is that, where people have the capability to fund their own lifestyles, the Australian tax payer will not be forced to chip in via the old Age Pension.

People who purchased their homes 50 years ago are being rewarded now for their continued investment in the form of ever increasing house prices. The Age Pension for (some) homeowners is rewarding someone for already being successful and the government can redirect those funds to alternative areas like tax cuts for the people still currently working.

A couple, living in their own home with $100k in the bank will receive a combined Age Pension of a little over $33,000 after tax. They also receive discounts on car registration, utilities and rates. If they needed a combined income of $40,000 p.a. and received a standard rate of return on there deposit of 3%, there $100,000 bank account would last 19 years.

My argument, which I will break down for you so you will find it easier to address, is:
1. Why is it fair that the government provides an income to people who have been successful with their investments in their life?
2. Why is it fair that the government will make farmers to sell their family property because the government deems them to be big enough to generate an income but won't put wealthy Sydneysiders in the same position?
3. Why is it fair that when a person is unable to care for themselves and enters Aged Care, their home is included in their means testing but when an individual can take care of themselves, their home is excluded?

Label the census sensibly you dead heads!

What a goose.  The pension is not about being fair, it's a right.  It's the reward for busting your arse and paying taxes for 40 or 50 years.  It's society's way of saying thanks for all your hard graft.

It is so important that the blokes that drew up our constitution made an allowance for it. Perhaps you would like to take that up you objections with Henry Parkes. 

Otherwise fuck saving and trying create wealth, I may as well piss it all up against the wall and when retirement time comes I'll claim the pension.  Is that what you want?

What they really need to do in Australia is what they do in some countries and that's your pension is paid at a rate that represents how long you've worked and paid taxes over your lifetime.  (How long you've worked not how much you've paid.)  To put that in simple terms the longer you work and pay taxes the higher your pension.  Bludgers and reprobates that only work for 10 years out of a 40 year working career get a pro rata amount.  (With obvious exceptions such as housewives, the infirm and the disabled etc.) 

As for your point 2.  A house is not an income producing asset if you live in it.  A farm usually is.

3.  Don't know enough about that.

And BTW a couple with $100k in the bank and no pension would last about 3 years, maybe 4. So yeah, don't give them the pension and let them eat PAL and whiskas for the rest of their miserable lives.

I bet you can't wait until we're all working until 80.  As if 75 isn't bad enough.

Its stuff like this that is making our youth weak and not want to go to war.

UO:

The "government" has no money. It merely steals the money from successful hard working people to provide for its nefarious, inefficient and often evil social engineering projects for those who don't deserve it.

When I'm in charge, the "government" will be renamed something more appropriate like "rich people's money"

and if you contribute more to the "rich people's money" fund then you will get a bigger say at the ballot box.

The Age Pension is definitely not a Right. You have a Right to a fair trial. You have a Right not to be discriminated against in your workplace. There is not Right in place where everybody is entitled to the pension, hence, not everyone receives an Age Pension. The Age Pension is not in the Constitution and is not a reward for paying tax for 40 or 50 years. Funnily enough, the people who paid the most tax in their life don't really receive much, if anything, from the Age Pension.
The irony of your argument about there being no incentive to save and pissing everything up the wall because you can just claim the pension is that this is exactly what is happening now. People will buy their home and then they will spend every last cent because when they retire, they can just get the Age Pension.
I don't agree that the government owes someone a favour because they paid more tax than others.


Following up on point 2. A farm is only an income producing asset when you have the ability to work the farm. Difficult to do when you are looking at retiring. A home for a lot of people is an income producing asset. Again, there is a thing called a Reverse mortgage.

3. When someone applies for Aged Care, the value of their home is taken into consideration less a deductible amount. This is to prevent people from sitting on assets which can be used to help fund their lifestyle. This will eventually be the system for the Age Pension but not for a while.

"islam" doesnt allow that.  it's allowed in some countries that have a muslim majority. there's a big fucking difference.  

there are lots of muslims that find polygamy and child marriage reprehensible.

i couldnt give a shit about polygamy. i think marriage and single partners is a dated concept that's forced onto people through socially coercive norm propaganda.   but it;s not a big issue for me because its always fucked up religious dudes with 10 wives.  always men getting what they want and then crying like hurt little whimps when someone questions it.  

listing something in a constitution does not define whether it is a right or not.  otherwise we would have virtually no rights in australia.

and people that pay the most taxes do get something.  roads, police, defence, politicians managing the country, schooling, hospitals, parks, wildlife preservation, industrial investment, most of the shit you do every day of your life has been influenced by the investment of taxes.

That is exactly what I am saying. It is not a Right nor is it in the Constitution. It is not there for  people who pay the most in tax. It is generally for the people who have not paid anything in tax.
My argument is that the way Centrelink assesses the family home when considering Age Pension entitlements is outdated and does not reflect the needs of people who genuinely need social security to maintain some sort of dignity.
My job is largely based around retirement planning and, although I don't come across many people without a home and not much money to their name, when I do the, the gap in there quality of life is enormous.
You might say "serves'em right for not thinking ahead" but the truth is many people are just unlucky in their lives. Illness and injury can hit without warning and when it does, it can be hard to recover. Also, people get made redundant at times in their life where they are unable to find work again and take time out to retrain. It effects their net wealth and ability to save.
What I am saying is that the Age Pension should be a safety net, not a reward.

I mostly agree with you and we've discussed this last time you posted. I don't like the idea of people having to move out of the house that they've lived in all their lives which is why I think I suggested some sort of sliding scale based on house value and the amount of time the person has lived in the property. It can get complicated but people parking all their money in their house so that it can be inherited by their children while living on the taxpayer (the pension is paid after all with money from current taxpayers not the tax money the retirees paid when they were working) is not right.

UO: 

Most libertarians are fucking morons who haven't actually thought through the implications of their economic ideas. 

The idea that the magical invisible hand will fix everything is moronic. 

No it was a fucking horrendous idea. There are simply not enough jobs out there at the moment, it would've seen both the crime and homeless rate's increase. If you want to cut waste in the welfare area get rid of the farcical work for the dole program and the useless job agencies/providers that help no one.