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.

CatFan79 said:
Plenty of people are 'looking' or applying for jobs purely to satisfy the new start requirement.

Some oldie on sunrise this morning bitching because her jobseeker is dropping back..

Maybe if she'd made better life choices she wouldn't be in her 60s and reliant on a hand out. Nah it's Morrison's fault.
Click to expand...

So you think someone in their 60s, who might have paid a shitload more tax than you ever will, has made poor life choices?

Yeah man, she should have married a rich guy in 1980...
 
CatFan79 said:
Plenty of people are 'looking' or applying for jobs purely to satisfy the new start requirement.

Some oldie on sunrise this morning bitching because her jobseeker is dropping back..

Maybe if she'd made better life choices she wouldn't be in her 60s and reliant on a hand out. Nah it's Morrison's fault.
Click to expand...
What exactly were her poor life choices?
 
Ghost Patrol said:
So you think someone in their 60s, who might have paid a shitload more tax than you ever will, has made poor life choices?

Yeah man, she should have married a rich guy in 1980...
Click to expand...
If she worked most of her life she should really have something put away?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Gough said:
Morrison lifted a million or so people out of poverty at the start of Covid and rather than celebrate this not insignificant achievement he sent them straight back there. We can afford to do this, the government chooses not to.
Click to expand...
You might be happy spending years 'holding out for a position in management' but the dole has never ever been meant for people to sit on for their whole lives. It needs to go up but will always be just be enough to scrape by, Liberal or Labor government. If you want more than that get looking for any job you can do.
Ghost Patrol said:
I agree Kram, lets call it.

Old lady owns a house.
Click to expand...
So at least she won get done with deeming rates?
 
Ghost Patrol said:
So you think someone in their 60s, who might have paid a shitload more tax than you ever will, has made poor life choices?

Yeah man, she should have married a rich guy in 1980...
Click to expand...

If you're poor at age 60 you've made poor life choices, not debatable.

I think you need to go find out who contributed all the tax through their life.. it's not people like this.

Marry rich yeah, or manage your finances.
 
CatFan79 said:
If you're poor at age 60 you've made poor life choices, not debatable.
Click to expand...

Shit happens. Bad things can occur outside your control to turn your comfy little world on its head.

Are you trolling or just genuinely stupid?
 
CatFan79 said:
If you're poor at age 60 you've made poor life choices, not debatable.

I think you need to go find out who contributed all the tax through their life.. it's not people like this.

Marry rich yeah, or manage your finances.
Click to expand...
I have a question. What do you think we should do, then, with the at least 50% of people who do not make good financial decisions during their life?

Should we let them starve? Go without shelter, etc? Should it just be dog eat dog?

What would you do, ideal world?
 
Over The Post said:
sh*t happens. Bad things can occur outside your control to turn your comfy little world on its head.

Are you trolling or just genuinely stupid?
Click to expand...
This may or may not be the same poster that inherited a business from his father. Either way, he probably thinks the vagina you choose to pop out of is your first good or bad decision.
 
The tension seen in the last few posts is the tension of the left and right more broadly. Individualism versus collectivism. How much you've contributed to the tax system and what private arrangements you've made guarding against 'rainy days' versus giving money to people without money.

I note that (a couple of years ago at least) unemployment benefits cost less than Family Tax Benefit.

Research

Research
www.aph.gov.au www.aph.gov.au

Anyone who says that this country cannot afford to give job seekers more than $600 per fortnight is talking out of their arse. It is a sliver of the welfare bill and an even smaller sliver of the government spending pie. There is a difference between encouraging people to sponge off taxpayers and allowing people to live with some dignity.

Until UBI is introduced, make sure that those who are not at least trying to look for work are held to account. And make it easier to get on Disability Pension for those suffering from multiple health conditions that preclude them from any reasonable prospect of holding a job.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

And a large portion of people seem to have a very heavy chip on their shoulder about bludgers (almost as heavy as the chip on my shoulder about neoliberalism not looking after ordinary people).

There will always be bludgers. You can always at least require them to look for work - why should the ones who really want a job be punished, kicked and smeared in the media because of bludgers?

You might think the system is vacuuming your hard-earned dollars and giving them to bludgers. But one day, despite your best efforts and supposed genius smarts and foresight, you might get sick, injured or divorced, your employer could make you redundant or your business could go t*ts up. And if that happens, you will want a safety net that does not try to avoid paying you altogether, or gives you an amount that allows for one meal per day. That is the point of Centrelink, not chest-puffing about lifters and leaners.
 
CatFan79 said:
If you're poor at age 60 you've made poor life choices, not debatable.

I think you need to go find out who contributed all the tax through their life.. it's not people like this.

Marry rich yeah, or manage your finances.
Click to expand...


Says a supporter of a football club whose home ground redevelopment was largely paid for by taxpayers.

Geelong FC should have better managed it finances or had richer supporters and richer sponsors.

The point is we expect people to stay in the workforce until they are 65 and most people regardless of how good they are will have periods of unemployment and the rate of newstart is embarrassingly low for a country of Australia's wealth.
 
Bombermania said:
Says a supporter of a football club whose home ground redevelopment was largely paid for by taxpayers.

Geelong FC should have better managed it finances or had richer supporters and richer sponsors.

The point is we expect people to stay in the workforce until they are 65 and most people regardless of how good they are will have periods of unemployment and the rate of newstart is embarrassingly low for a country of Australia's wealth.
Click to expand...

Yeah like I had anything to do with the KP re-development.. I should support a club with such high moral standards like Essendon right?

The duration and amount of benefit payments to unemployed should reflect years of income and tax paid... Then should drop over time.

Too many people who aren't motivated to work will rely on Newstart as an income if you increase it across the board. I think covid had proven this.
 
There'd be plenty of communities who would be absolutely devastated if benefits were slashed even harder than they are now, remember that pretty much all the benefit money goes straight back into the economy
 
Father Jack said:
There'd be plenty of communities who would be absolutely devastated if benefits were slashed even harder than they are now, remember that pretty much all the benefit money goes straight back into the economy
Click to expand...
It's simply bad economics in a recession.
 
Father Jack said:
There'd be plenty of communities who would be absolutely devastated if benefits were slashed even harder than they are now
Click to expand...

You just expect the covid bonus will last forever?

I guess this was inevitable.

Gough said:
It's simply bad economics in a recession.
Click to expand...

No, people kicking back on Newstart when there are jobs out there is bad economics.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

CatFan79 said:
You just expect the covid bonus will last forever?

I guess this was inevitable.



No, people kicking back on Newstart when there are jobs out there is bad economics.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, Jobseeker as it stands is triumph of ideology over good policy.
 
Rotayjay said:
The tension seen in the last few posts is the tension of the left and right more broadly. Individualism versus collectivism. How much you've contributed to the tax system and what private arrangements you've made guarding against 'rainy days' versus giving money to people without money.

I note that (a couple of years ago at least) unemployment benefits cost less than Family Tax Benefit.

Research

Research
www.aph.gov.au www.aph.gov.au

Anyone who says that this country cannot afford to give job seekers more than $600 per fortnight is talking out of their arse. It is a sliver of the welfare bill and an even smaller sliver of the government spending pie. There is a difference between encouraging people to sponge off taxpayers and allowing people to live with some dignity.

Until UBI is introduced, make sure that those who are not at least trying to look for work are held to account. And make it easier to get on Disability Pension for those suffering from multiple health conditions that preclude them from any reasonable prospect of holding a job.
Click to expand...
I'm not on the dole. Get some family tax benefit tho and I think what you are saying is obvious. And really no one wants to spend their life on the dole anyway. What a shit life that would be. You could make work for the dole a proper employment sceme. Pay people actual wages so they can contribute to the economy and spend their money in it. Legalise hardcore drugs so all that black money stays onshore etc etc.

People seem to be under the illusion that tax has to be collected before the government spends money. Its just an old neo liberal lie that Thatcher started when she tried to pretend that public money was actually taxpayer money. These days people believe it cos if you repeat a lie often enough people believe it. Nonetheless it drives alot of the nastiness around so called dole bludgers these days.

Personally I think a UBI isn't necessarily a good idea. It could just create a permanent underclass like a glorified dole, unless its pegged to GDP. Maybe we should just go soft fascist and pay everyone a percentage of the GDP on top of whatever else they earn. Make the cut off 250K per year for now, maybe even higher. Have a loan system to encourage entrepreneurial behaviour to help encourage innovation then remove limited liability and so called personhood for corporations.
 
ferball said:
Personally I think a UBI isn't necessarily a good idea. It could just create a permanent underclass like a glorified dole, unless its pegged to GDP. Maybe we should just go soft fascist and pay everyone a percentage of the GDP on top of whatever else they earn. Make the cut off 250K per year for now, maybe even higher. Have a loan system to encourage entrepreneurial behaviour to help encourage innovation then remove limited liability and so called personhood for corporations.
Click to expand...
I agreed with the rest of the post, but while this is a definitive possibility, the majority of human beings get so bored with leisure time that they will do something - anything - to alleviate the boredom.

At some point, we're going to have more than 50% of the population being utterly surplus to the work required to sustain the population. It's just going to happen, and it's arguable that - if we really tried to force it - we could reach that point pretty quickly in the first world. If we persist with the current Capitalist system there - in which the market drives companies ever further towards running at the most efficient they can be - the jobs that these people would hold will not exist within 100 years, simply wiped out due to inefficiency.

So, your permanent underclass is an inevitability anyway. And if it's an inevitability, perhaps we could look to finding a means towards encouraging humans to move into the directions in which we're going to need them (creativity, invention, coding, engagement, etc) instead of training them in skills that will be obsolete within 50 years?
 
Gethelred said:
I agreed with the rest of the post, but while this is a definitive possibility, the majority of human beings get so bored with leisure time that they will do something - anything - to alleviate the boredom.

At some point, we're going to have more than 50% of the population being utterly surplus to the work required to sustain the population. It's just going to happen, and it's arguable that - if we really tried to force it - we could reach that point pretty quickly in the first world. If we persist with the current Capitalist system there - in which the market drives companies ever further towards running at the most efficient they can be - the jobs that these people would hold will not exist within 100 years, simply wiped out due to inefficiency.

So, your permanent underclass is an inevitability anyway. And if it's an inevitability, perhaps we could look to finding a means towards encouraging humans to move into the directions in which we're going to need them (creativity, invention, coding, engagement, etc) instead of training them in skills that will be obsolete within 50 years?
Click to expand...
Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom