Politics Centrelink

Remove this Banner Ad

Rotayjay said:
It is, and most other OECD nations including some of the famous Nordic countries.

One of the ideas behind it is that it would cushion the shock of going from working to living off Centrelink, and the six-month cliff would provide an incentive to find some sort of work before your rate drops dramatically. Does that help people who can't find stable suitable work or who employers don't seem to want (people over 55 for example)? Nope.
Click to expand...
My concern is the idea that the employer pays and the super component is scrapped

It feels like the government wants to move away from funding this idea

As to your last point it doesn't affect long term unemployed as there shouldn't be a "bill shock" component

It does put working over 55s in a "take this pay cut or else" position
 
GreyCrow said:
My concern is the idea that the employer pays and the super component is scrapped

It feels like the government wants to move away from funding this idea

As to your last point it doesn't affect long term unemployed as there shouldn't be a "bill shock" component

It does put working over 55s in a "take this pay cut or else" position
Click to expand...
The Coalition doesn't like funding anything to do with helping the unemployed or poor. Puritan American ideology that a person of working age needs to support himself or herself, and that inability to support yourself results from your own choices which you can quickly reverse. It's fantasy, but Cabinet is full of blue-bloods - the kind that bang on about 'I've never once asked for handouts, always worked hard, blah blah'
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Over The Post said:
***some***

***some***

***some***

Some campaigners drink and drive.

Some campaigners get high and drive.

Let's have a trial where we take away the car keys from everyone and give them taxi vouchers instead. You can't take an uber, or your local independent taxi driver, because we have a contract with only these specific taxi companies. What's that? It costs three times as much? Not our problem, look, the drink drive and drug driving has dropped by a few percent in our cherry picked data. It's working! What's that? You have to wait an hour for an ABC taxi to come from the next town over, instead of your bloke around the corner? Sorry, there's always edge cases. This is why we trial this. The trial has been going on long enough? No, no, we're waiting for the figures to come out on our side before we make it permanent. In the meantime our mates who own the contracted taxi companies are doing fine.


***some***

You're really happy to stigmatise, penalise and put the boot in to an awful lot of people to justify your ***some***.

The point is, people are being FORCED to buy NEW items, online or not, instead of far more affordable alternatives. Or from approved supermarkets/retailers at full price instead of local markets / roadside stalls etc. And yet it's their fault if they cannot budget or make ends meet.
Click to expand...

What do you think should happen?
Shall we ignore the "some".
No child shall live in poverty .....except "some". That's what old Bob should have said.
Every Australian shall have the right to starve their children so they can play pokies.
Or maybe those Australians should have their children placed in better hands.....ooops best not go there.
 
Kingpin said:
And of course the old favourite - "i HaVeNt HaD a SiCk DaY iN tHiRdY fOoOuR yEeEeArS!" 🤤
Click to expand...

Clowns like this fall into three categories:

1) They're the old farts who crap on about how they always managed to secure work, not realising that times have changed.

2) They're the younger types who talk tough about how they could do any work if they had to, and chide others for being too snobby and arrogant to do so, but when it comes time to walk the walk they mysteriously aren't to be found.

3) They're the younger types who think that menial job providers are like charities, wherein they'll take on any unemployed person no matter what they've been doing before.
 
twotooto said:
Then there's the - "mate, I know me sh*t, I been in this gig for thirty five 'ken years!"
Reality - knows jack sh*t...**** on bull :tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...
I never lived in this time, but I've heard some stories about a time when a person could walk into a business in Australia, ask for an entry-level job, and then spend thirty plus years there working their way up.
 
Rotayjay said:
I never lived in this time, but I've heard some stories about a time when a person could walk into a business in Australia, ask for an entry-level job, and then spend thirty plus years there working their way up.
Click to expand...

In the early 1970's, my father started out his career in Warwick (a town in SE Qld, around 150 km southwest of Brisbane) as a bank teller, and managed to become a fairly high-ranking bank manager within around 10 years.

Even in the late 1980's and early 1990's, he was earning good money (100k+) and was untouched by the early 1990's recession.

Good luck doing that nowadays. Many of the jobs in regional areas were linked to the local bank in some way, shape or form, and many (most?) of those have gone due to automation, offshoring and rationalisations.
 
Over The Post said:
From the "well, duhh" file:

www.abc.net.au

Bosses could be paid to cut wages and sack employees; JobMaker might break law: Treasury

Employers could sack experienced employees, replace them with workers earning just a third of the salary and get a taxpayer-funded grant to do it, previously secret Treasury documents reveal.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

I remember MacroBusiness speculating that JobMaker would do precisely this six months ago.

It's one of those ideas that seems reasonable enough on paper but in practice would be difficult to apply properly because it's too easy to rort as is.
 
DaRick said:
I remember MacroBusiness speculating that JobMaker would do precisely this six months ago.

It's one of those ideas that seems reasonable enough on paper but in practice would be difficult to apply properly because it's too easy to rort as is.
Click to expand...
As long as the LNP can use it to funnel money to donors, it’s allllll good.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Drum roll please ... the Jobseeker Payment will permanently rise by $25 per week.

What an utterly disgraceful decision. This was deliberately designed to tick a box and say that 'look at us, we listened' while the actual increase is so small as to be meaningless. Twenty five bucks will pay for a few more meals or a bit of fuel, but it is almost nothing in the broader context.

******* disgusting campaigners. No care for the Australian people whatsoever.
 
And they're ramping up the 'mutual obligation' bullshit, which will no doubt offset the rise by having more people fall foul of the system and get their benefits cut. But of course these millions of jobs that dole bludgers turn down a year will now get filled :rolleyes:
 
Rotayjay said:
Drum roll please ... the Jobseeker Payment will permanently rise by $25 per week.

What an utterly disgraceful decision. This was deliberately designed to tick a box and say that 'look at us, we listened' while the actual increase is so small as to be meaningless. Twenty five bucks will pay for a few more meals or a bit of fuel, but it is almost nothing in the broader context.

******* disgusting campaigners. No care for the Australian people whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It was a fine exercise in tokenism.
 
All $25 a week shows is "we've listened to people and we get there's a problem - we just don't care."

Either fix or don't. But don't expect a pat on the back for telling people that you don't value them.

$290 a week the Social Services Minister will get as an allowance for staying in Canberra tonight, even if she stays with a friend, in her own house, or in a backpackers.
 
Gives them a headline ...but we are raising it $50 a fortnight as they cut $150 a fortnight

Everyone was saying it needs to increase at least $50 a week so they halved it for spite and to harvest the dole bludger wedge vote
 
Father Jack said:
And they're ramping up the 'mutual obligation' bullshit, which will no doubt offset the rise by having more people fall foul of the system and get their benefits cut. But of course these millions of jobs that dole bludgers turn down a year will now get filled :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm sure organisations can't wait to be flooded with 1000's of useless applications.

This is going to make everyones jobs harder, except for the government.
 
Hawk Dork said:
Gives them a headline ...but we are raising it $50 a fortnight as they cut $150 a fortnight

Everyone was saying it needs to increase at least $50 a week so they halved it for spite and to harvest the dole bludger wedge vote
Click to expand...

If you're unemployed, or a recently employed person after spending time unemployed you would be out of your brain to vote for the libs. But sure enough, a vast portion do.
 
hamohawk1 said:
If you're unemployed, or a recently employed person after spending time unemployed you would be out of your brain to vote for the libs. But sure enough, a vast portion do.
Click to expand...
Too many ******* idiots fooled by that spectacled goose saying 'yada yada yada, Bill's gunna have higha taxes and take away ya utes!'

If you have any kind of social conscience, any concept of the fair go, or know anyone who is struggling to find work ... don't vote for the Coalition please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top