Remove this Banner Ad

Politics Centrelink

  • Thread starter Thread starter hamohawk1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Big_Luch said:
Who does and how do they mis-represent it?

Out of all those buckets of people there is one portion of it that have the ability to work, now some of course struggle to find a job, but there are also some who could be doing something who choose not to. Those people who could be working are the ones people have an issue with and they cost us all a crap load of cash.

Saying this number is smaller than that number doesn't make 'dole bludging' right. If it does, let me know how.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, when dole bludgers do it, the Gubmint gets up in arms, but when they themselves and their buddies rort the system, they don’t make the same song and dance.

IMO IF it’s fine for people (who use creative accounting and loopholes) on the top it’s fine for people on the bottom (who use creative accounting and loopholes).
 
NSWCROW said:
Yeahnar , you jumped in as soon as you saw it , threw out a " oh you're supporting this so you must be on the dole " assumption - that basically means you got triggered by my 1st post.

And i never said " Misusing welfare is good " , did i ?



Did i ?



See my point now ??
Or go with another mocking implication ?
Click to expand...

I, on the other hand, believe that rorting the system should be conditional on whether or not people on the top are allowed to do the same thing.
 
radiojake said:
I like the part where people imply that the dole is generous or that it's easy to live on

If it was that easy, you'd be stupid not to quit your job and collect the dole too -
Click to expand...

Unfortunately if a person decides to be a scumbag and work as a teacher, nurse, police officer, soldier etc and get median salary, if they decide to buy a house (and can manage to get one) the bank is legally allowed to keep them at poverty level, and because they work at ~median salary they cannot get any concession for power, communications, transport, health etc they can equivalently be like someone struggling on welfare.
 
RupieDupie said:
I, on the other hand, believe that rorting the system should be conditional on whether or not people on the top are allowed to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Conservative calculations based on government figures put the cost of parliament at more than $1m a day. The cost of almost all of Australia’s 76 senators and 150 MPs and their staff flying to Canberra is estimated at more than $300,000 for a four-day sitting week.

 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Number37 said:
Conservative calculations based on government figures put the cost of parliament at more than $1m a day. The cost of almost all of Australia’s 76 senators and 150 MPs and their staff flying to Canberra is estimated at more than $300,000 for a four-day sitting week.
Click to expand...

And we are paying them to do nothing (relative to government rather than relative to Gubmint - looking after mates, rorting the system, and suckering in the public to get heaps and heaps of munny), but, as you point out, it costs so much money for them to do this nothing. What a bunch of ineffectual jerkoffs.
 
RupieDupie said:
What if they don’t have another property?

When they use the equity from the second property, does their salary increase?
Click to expand...

I think i agree with you on this one.
The price of housing is set by the amount of income.
If you gave all everyone in Australia a $20 000 pay rise , the price of housing would immediately go up by a few hundred thousand.
Then those who "won" the auction ( If winning is being prepared to pay more than everyone else ) will cry that they can't afford childcare etc.

A decent house seems to have a bricks and mortar cost of up to $300 000. It hasn't gone up much since the industry is always finding innovative ways to make it shonkier.. i mean cheaper. Then there's the land , location, proximity to work, pretty view, being better than the Joneses. Its this latter that is totally determined by the buyer.

Not sure what you are getting for your money in a high priced apartment.
 
Gough said:
Those guys are still in Parliament though. They're a cancer on our country that needs to be cut out at the next election, Imagine a scenario where Kevin f***ing Andrews is the voice of reason and you'll realise how divorced from reality these guys really are.
Click to expand...


" Job Snob "

All that would've taken was a jobactive employee turning up to work in a shit mood and bang , cut off
Oh you don't want to work with explosives because you have kids ??? - AXED
Oh your backs hurting - SORRY AXED


Open to abuse and that's what that coward abbott counted on
 
SaintsSeptember said:
I think i agree with you on this one.
The price of housing is set by the amount of income.
If you gave all everyone in Australia a $20 000 pay rise , the price of housing would immediately go up by a few hundred thousand.
Then those who "won" the auction ( If winning is being prepared to pay more than everyone else ) will cry that they can't afford childcare etc.

A decent house seems to have a bricks and mortar cost of up to $300 000. It hasn't gone up much since the industry is always finding innovative ways to make it shonkier.. i mean cheaper. Then there's the land , location, proximity to work, pretty view, being better than the Joneses. Its this latter that is totally determined by the buyer.

Not sure what you are getting for your money in a high priced apartment.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the Banks have access to data and mathematicians*, and are allowed to legally squeeze a person (put them at the poverty line for 30 years, which coincidentally = market value for a home loan). Back in Ancient times, when they used to be able to allegedly burn people on a stake for entertainment, I mean... religious purposes, these kinds of home loans would have been considered barbaric.

*I've met some of these guys**, and they are not dumb, and if you put X*** of them in a room for a few hours and gave them a**** problem to solve, they will solve it
**Disambiguation
***This is cf the infinite monkey typewriter problem, but rather looks at a threshold of people required to solve a problem
****This does not necessarily have to be mathematical problems, they could find a cure for baldness, yet there they are, sitting in a bank somewhere, wasting away
 
RupieDupie said:
Yep, and the Banks have access to data and mathematicians*, and are allowed to legally squeeze a person (put them at the poverty line for 30 years, which coincidentally = market value for a home loan). Back in Ancient times, when they used to be able to allegedly burn people on a stake for entertainment, I mean... religious purposes, these kinds of home loans would have been considered barbaric.

*I've met some of these guys**, and they are not dumb, and if you put X*** of them in a room for a few hours and gave them a**** problem to solve, they will solve it
**Disambiguation
***This is cf the infinite monkey typewriter problem, but rather looks at a threshold of people required to solve a problem
****This does not necessarily have to be mathematical problems, they could find a cure for baldness, yet there they are, sitting in a bank somewhere, wasting away
Click to expand...

To be honest the maths isn't that hard. Too many people operate on the basis of..." Me can get cash in me hand.... me rich "
Too many people ignore the fact that.....
"Just because someone gives you a loan doesn't mean its a good idea to take it".
There are banks, there are shonky loan agencies and pawn shops, there are people that will loan you anything and break your legs or worse if you don't pay them back.

If you choose one of those options don't come crying if it goes wrong. If you're too stupid to choose phone a friend.
It gets bad when there are so many who drive the market so high.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

SaintsSeptember said:
To be honest the maths isn't that hard. Too many people operate on the basis of..." Me can get cash in me hand.... me rich "
Too many people ignore the fact that.....
"Just because someone gives you a loan doesn't mean its a good idea to take it".
There are banks, there are shonky loan agencies and pawn shops, there are people that will loan you anything and break your legs or worse if you don't pay them back.

If you choose one of those options don't come crying if it goes wrong. If you're too stupid to choose phone a friend.
It gets bad when there are so many who drive the market so high.
Click to expand...

I like the cut of your jib, and you've hit the nail on the head, say if I asked you if you would like to be an administrator for a North Korean regime, you may, on principle, say "no", but there are people who are out there who will say "yes", especially when there is munny involved. Instantly we have a "positive" feedback loop.
 
RupieDupie said:
What if they don’t have another property?

When they use the equity from the second property, does their salary increase?
Click to expand...

The flaw in your thinking is that property prices can and do fall so if we tied median wages to median property prices then when property prices fell then so would wages which could cause all sorts of flow on issues as two neighboring suburbs can have different median prices and can be moving in different directions.

Salary alone is not the most important part of a loan application, no bank expects you to spend 30 years in the same job on the same money, all the bank wants to see is a solid employment history which indicates an ability to remain employed.
 
Last edited:
Bombermania said:
The flaw in your thinking is that property prices can and do fall so if we tied median wages to median property prices then when property prices fell then so would wages which could cause all sorts of flow on issues as two neighboring suburbs can have different median prices and can be moving in different directions.

Salary alone is not the most important part of a loan application, no bank expects you to spend 30 years in the same job on the same money, all the bank wants to see is a solid employment history which indicates an ability to remain employed.
Click to expand...

But firstly I’m comparing the two, median salary to median house prices to show that house prices are ridiculous, if houses are for housing.

Secondly if houses are for housing they could only be reasonable with respect to median salary. If a toss-pot wants to buy a house for $3M this shouldn’t increase median house prices in the same neighbourhood, alternatively when this toss-pot sells their house trying to recoup $3M and can only get $230K this shouldn’t decrease median house prices in the same neighbourhood. Yet if a real innovation is made in building / housing (more innovative than putting up a wall in the middle of a house and selling it as two houses), then this allows people to spend money elsewhere (outside of housing) = real economic growth in a country.

W.r.t. your second paragraph, median salary = median salary, in a hierarchically structured society everyone cannot increase their position to managers. Secondly, the bank calculates the amount of money they will lend based on a person’s salary, they don’t just pluck a figure out of thin air, they then calculate whether they will actually approve the loan based on, for example, risk, and as a bank does not give out a loan unless a person has equity, mortgage insurance, a guarantor and / or 20% deposit, the bank doesn’t inherit any risk, but does charge an interest rate, which is apparently calculated to include risk, that is, for an interest rate, they just pluck a figure out of thin air.
 
RupieDupie said:
But firstly I’m comparing the two, median salary to median house prices to show that house prices are ridiculous, if houses are for housing.

Secondly if houses are for housing they could only be reasonable with respect to median salary. If a toss-pot wants to buy a house for $3M this shouldn’t increase median house prices in the same neighbourhood, alternatively when this toss-pot sells their house trying to recoup $3M and can only get $230K this shouldn’t decrease median house prices in the same neighbourhood. Yet if a real innovation is made in building / housing (more innovative than putting up a wall in the middle of a house and selling it as two houses), then this allows people to spend money elsewhere (outside of housing) = real economic growth in a country.

W.r.t. your second paragraph, median salary = median salary, in a hierarchically structured society everyone cannot increase their position to managers. Secondly, the bank calculates the amount of money they will lend based on a person’s salary, they don’t just pluck a figure out of thin air, they then calculate whether they will actually approve the loan based on, for example, risk, and as a bank does not give out a loan unless a person has equity, mortgage insurance, a guarantor and / or 20% deposit, the bank doesn’t inherit any risk, but does charge an interest rate, which is apparently calculated to include risk, that is, for an interest rate, they just pluck a figure out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, if people start to spend money (that is, people have money), do you know what the banks do? They increase interest rates. If people aren’t poor, the banks aren’t happy; they thrive on our misery.
 
RupieDupie said:
Furthermore, if people start to spend money (that is, people have money), do you know what the banks do? They increase interest rates. If people aren’t poor, the banks aren’t happy; they thrive on our misery.
Click to expand...

As a bonus furthermore, the banks have tied up the income from future Australian labour for at least the next 30 years. This country is their “bitch” to do whatever they want.
 
RupieDupie said:
Furthermore, if people start to spend money (that is, people have money), do you know what the banks do? They increase interest rates. If people aren’t poor, the banks aren’t happy; they thrive on our misery.
Click to expand...

O dear just where does this kind of rubbish come from, banks actually prefer people to be successful, that is how they make more money, they don't make money if people are disadvantaged.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

RupieDupie said:
As a bonus furthermore, the banks have tied up the income from future Australian labour for at least the next 30 years. This country is their “bitch” to do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Nup, not true, very few people take 30 years to pay their mortgage thanks to rising property prices growing equity.
 
RupieDupie said:
But firstly I’m comparing the two, median salary to median house prices to show that house prices are ridiculous, if houses are for housing.

Secondly if houses are for housing they could only be reasonable with respect to median salary. If a toss-pot wants to buy a house for $3M this shouldn’t increase median house prices in the same neighbourhood, alternatively when this toss-pot sells their house trying to recoup $3M and can only get $230K this shouldn’t decrease median house prices in the same neighbourhood. Yet if a real innovation is made in building / housing (more innovative than putting up a wall in the middle of a house and selling it as two houses), then this allows people to spend money elsewhere (outside of housing) = real economic growth in a country.

W.r.t. your second paragraph, median salary = median salary, in a hierarchically structured society everyone cannot increase their position to managers. Secondly, the bank calculates the amount of money they will lend based on a person’s salary, they don’t just pluck a figure out of thin air, they then calculate whether they will actually approve the loan based on, for example, risk, and as a bank does not give out a loan unless a person has equity, mortgage insurance, a guarantor and / or 20% deposit, the bank doesn’t inherit any risk, but does charge an interest rate, which is apparently calculated to include risk, that is, for an interest rate, they just pluck a figure out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Median property prices move up and down, and they vary from suburb to suburb. If a house was brought for $3m then it was later sold for $230k would indeed reduce the suburb median but as I mentioned if you tie median wages to median property prices then you will have to accept that median wages should be able to move up and down just like property prices do.
 
Bombermania said:
Median property prices move up and down, and they vary from suburb to suburb. If a house was brought for $3m then it was later sold for $230k would indeed reduce the suburb median but as I mentioned if you tie median wages to median property prices then you will have to accept that median wages should be able to move up and down just like property prices do.
Click to expand...

I'm not tying one to the other, only putting a cap on one relative to the other - see what I'm saying? That is, if Australian houses are for 1) housing 2) housing people who live in the country, they could only ever be relative to median income.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom