There was recently a hot topic here debating on welfare management (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/192729)
And this came out today -
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/joe-blasts-welfare…
I'm gutted. So I am that hardworking guy who works his arse off and get the same amount of disposable income as the blob next door who does nothing but reproduce and smoke weed.
Nice.
I feel you mate. I was paying more than 10k as Tax. Due to unforeseen reasons, I am out of job and extremely difficult to get job in IT now. Sad that I am now "eligible" for Centrelink payment. However I never have asked for and never taken a single cent from Centrelink. This money should go to needy people. I am in 30s and can go strong.
Day in and out I am searching for job, contacting agents but no luck so far. I am left with below options now
1: Offering discount of 25K on average salary for my experience. [ Any takers ? ]
2: Start looking for junior level IT jobs [will fill bad to snatch someone’s job]
3: Start looking for Non-IT job
I will not go for below at all
1: Centerlink payment regardless of how hard I need to change my lifestyle
2: Cry about “offshoring IT “ jobs where thousands of lads coming from overseas and Australians do not have jobs. Everyone knows about it.
which field are you in and where do you live?
pretty much have to work for peanuts as government gives 457 visa to anyone, and 90% of the IT industry is filled by foreigners, saving every dollar they have and sending home.
The bit that people like me (and it sounds like you too, unclesnake) cannot bring themselves to understand is that there are lots of folks out there who are happy to NOT have a purpose
I have a job that pays me really well - so well that I could quite happily sit and do it for the rest of my life, and yet I want to move on. Because I'm bored and want to feel more of a sense of achievement and completion than my current
But we have equipment operators on our sites that can quite happily sit and drive a truck, or operate a hand-stamping machine, or just input columns of data, everyday for the rest of their lives and they don't mind one bit
i actually envy people whose lives are so fulfilled by so little!
But my point is, I wouldn't fall into the trap of assuming that unemployed people deep down want to make a meaningful contribution…because a lot of employed people don't!
I'm waiting to see a factcheck on it because it smells like Murdoch/Liberal bulldust but I can't be bothered doing the math myself.
The youth allowance system is kinda bad.
You could make 9.4k a year not working at all. By working and earning $215 hours per week you can make an extra $11,200 a year on top of youth allowance and not pay tax as the total is just at $20,500. But if you were to work any extra hours and go over $215 per week then for every dollar over $215 they take 50-60c per dollar from youth allowance, so essentially only getting 40-50% of your normal wage.
And by making more than $215 a week you are going over the tax threshold which gets taxed heavily, I think all that extra money will get taxed 20-30%. So any work over $215 per week you only actually make 28-40% of your normal hourly wage which isn't really worth the time or effort leaving little incentive to go out and work.
Yep, when I was at uni I worked less and less every year as my hourly wage went up. Once you reached the threshold where Youth Allowance started to go down, it really wasn't worth the effort to work any more hours. I believe there is also a bulk payment now at the start of every semester (or at least there was for a while).
It wasn't even a bulk payment, just an extra $1000 at the start of each semester in addition to your regular fortnightly pay.
That's the one.
Yeh 1k but they were supposed to get rid of it by the end of last year but haven't yet so luckily i got it as i just started getting youth allowance this year.
I think it's awesome that i get all this 'free' money but I've worked as a casual for 7 years working as much as i could but now have to turn down multiple shifts every week, will be the same for holidays where i used to work 4-5 days a week.
So I'm basically getting government money where I'm quite able to work myself so it just encourages people to not earn for themselves but to rely on the government for money.
But I'm not going to turn it down when it gives me more free time and more time to study
Can't wait to see the charts for politicians. If any money is very unwisely spent they must be close to the top of the list. And the list of them seems to grow and feed of us long after they provide any value to society. When do we get a say on their payouts and support systems?
One of the favourite pollie rorts is buying a house in Canberra in the wife's name then claiming $270 per night travelling allowance to stay in it. That's a Hockey special but they are all at it.
Hockey is evil. That article is published by Newscorp.
I can tell you I've seen it first hand so I understand how you feel. I used to work for a bank and we used to have a couple of ladies who would come in every other day for no apparent reason. They would always be dressed in the latest Lorna Jane gear with coffee in hand and usually on the way to lunch with friends (the restaurants were located straight across the road). They didn't work but between the various payments from the government and child support from their ex, they were bringing in MUCH more than my already fairly generous salary and were living more than comfortably.
To be fair, for every one of these there are probably five others that never see a cent of child support and do it quite tough. It is what it is, if I ever get another opportunity to get some funds from the government I will be grabbing it with two fists.
Maybe they were prostitutes?
And also you have to consider that probably only 1/3 of that welfare payment only is there because that single parent has children e.g. family tax benefit, youth allowance. If the single parent didn't have children then the welfare payments would be much lower…
Mmmm weed… & reproduce :)
I can't believe the lack of compassion from some people. Going by that article why should a single working parent on 30k not be entitled to support? Why doesn't Hockey be more transparent and describe the welfare payments - I bet a chunk would be child care assistance. Not to mention; supporting the 2 children now who will eventually grow up to work and pay tax most likely to go on and have more children etc.
I'm all for welfare for the legitimately unemployed, disabled and pensioners who cannot support themselves, but why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford them, dont have them?
Why should my tax pay for roads that I don't use?
If you can't afford roads yourself, dont drive?
So I guess you don't do the following:
* Use public transport
* Ride your bike on public roads
* Buy anything that has to be transported directly to your home/office.
* Buy anything that has to be transported to a shop or retail outlet.
* Have the expectation for emergency services such as fire, ambulance or police to respond to incidents where required.
Not to mention that road users do partly fund roads through petrol excise and vehicle registration fees.
The simple fact is, unless you live off the grid and are completely self sustaining (providing own food and water) you still use and rely on the road infrastructure. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
@Cobalt_:
Actually to take it one step further - the only reason you COULD live offgrid is because of general taxes. Those taxes pay for the legislative (Pollies) who created property law and property rights so you can live on your own block of land, the executive (police) that will enforce those laws and bring to account those who trespass, and the judiciary (courts) who will ensure the laws apply to those who do trespass.
To live in Australia, even in the middle of the desert, you must pay taxes of some sort.
@Drew22:
No you just used a really terrible example to express it.
Taxes used for roads has obvious benefits to everyone who uses them directly or indirectly.
Taxes utilised to subsidise the cost of others having children does not. People could be justified in feeling aggrieved that politicians use tax payer funds in this way.
@Cobalt_: Children is the one way you guarantee the growth of a workforce in 18 years. It is the most politically safe, simplest, easiest option. Alternatively, don't subsidise the cost of having children, and income tax receipts collapse as people get old and go on the pension (which, funnily enough, hasn't been mentioned, even though it's the highest portion of the welfare budget [http://www.aihw.gov.au/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=60129544564]).
Your other option for raising the workforce then becomes skilled migration… but they took er jerbs! Or, reform the tax system from top to bottom, because income tax raises the bulk of tax revenue (since we all know how well the company tax works, mirite?)
So, there's your three options. [A] Pay people to have kids (also, higher risk of health problems for the kids if people have kids when they have money in their mid to late 30s… which then leads to a larger demand for the disability pension), [B] Skilled migration, which needs a Mike Baird-esque person to sell to the electorate, [C] Find a new way to raise tax revenue.
Now, which do you think is the easiest option for government? Babies, foreigners (because we love foreigners so much), or complete tax reform?
this is different, roads contribute to society, means of travel contributes to businesses and the economy.
@snook: You want to hope that the government paid up for some decent actuaries who used the data from the ABS to work out exactly what percentage of those kids wouldn't work.
If you're incredibly pissed off over the fact that there are a couple of welfare cheats here and there, then I genuinely can't help you. No one will ever reduce that number to completely zero. You might even find that the actual amount lost to fraud isn't that much [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi421.html]. $47 million over nearly 3000 cases. For comparison, the amount of tax Google avoided paying Australia this year was $130 million, or over 2 and a half times that. It's also about a quarter of the cost of one of those F35 planes Tony Abbott decided to buy 58 of (at $12.4bn).
The important thing is the bigger picture, which in this case is that in 15-20 years, there will be no one left to fund our ageing population's comfortable retirement.
So, your options are: find a lot of people to pay income tax (whether through babies or foreigners); raise tax another way; OR (I forgot this one last time) gut Medicare and Centrelink to absolute pieces.
Again, have you given more thought to the issue … circumstances do change ..
Kids aren't like cars - just sell it when you can't afford it no more. Who's to say they once could and now can't ? Remember we are talking human lives here not commodities. If we all waited until we could afford children chances are the women would all be in menopause by then and why can't the less fortunate be graced with birthing another life?
My wife has just been made redundant and if she doesn't have work soon who knows how we will get by - one of the first things I will be doing is going to Centrelink for help. Sorry to be such an inconvenience on your tax.
Redundancy = legitimately unemployed does it not? No issue with those who have come unstuck seeking help as per my earlier comment.
What bothers me is those who go into it and knowingly cannot afford it from the onset, and then cry poor that the government isnt doing enough for them.
If you can't afford them, dont have them?
But they did have them! Its happened, they are here! At what age do babies/kids become worthy of "your" taxes? THEY DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE HERE EITHER. Nice attitude.
why should I pay for someone elses kids?
To make you feel better lets just say that YOUR taxes built some nice sporting facilities and it was MY taxes that went towards the next generation.
cos they will pay towards your OAP
@tizey: Not to mention that struggling single parent with several kids are most likely going to grow up to pay for your pension & care, but then isn't that your choice to continue living ? So why should they pay for you in return ? That's about how logical your argument is.
I'll eat my hat if an age pension exists in 4 decades time.
If it doesn't then maybe that is all you will have to eat.
Age pension came to Australia about 110 years ago. It has been paid through 2 world wars, recessions and the great depression. Australia is richer now
that it has been at any time in the past.
Leaving old people destitute is widely regarded as a bad idea.
What makes you think age pension might be cancelled for you?
Wasn't superannuation introduced with the long-term goal of getting rid of the pension for the vast majority? I too would be very surprised if I got a pension in 40-50 years time.
Age pension was to become a means tested safety net, along with Super and other savings.
I hope that I'll be ineligible for the age pension, but I'll eat my hat if it doesn't "exist" in 40 years.
The title of this post is not wrong.
The fact is a persons home is excluded from the assets test, so a person could have paid off their own home and still receive support if their current income is low.
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/assets/
So yes the blob next door could be a millionaire (ie richer than you) and you would still be paying his dole.
I should also say that raising kids is hard work. I'm not sure which I'd prefer, working at 80k or raising 2 kids and having the same disposable income.
It is not quite as straightforward as that.
There is an upper limit on the value of your principle place of residence before it becomes part of your assets.
Clearly it would not be right for someone living in their own 5 million dollar mansion to be receiving benefits.
There is an upper limit on the value of your principle place of residence before it becomes part of your assets. Clearly it would not be right for someone living in their own 5 million dollar mansion to be receiving benefits.
There is no upper limit on the value of your home for Centrelink purposes. There are plenty of pensioners in multi-million dollar homes.
The system allows for that man in the $5mill house to receive $500,000 tax free from his $10mill super fund and still front up for bulk billing and his scripts for $6.10.from the chemist along with other concessions.
Well, they considered trying that for the age pension (for all the old people who live in houses that have since become located in really nice suburbs).
How did that go? (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-17/morrison-rules-out-fam…)
Mind you, the age pension is the biggest portion of our welfare budget.
Did you view the comparison table for incomes? The single parent is working for $30k a year, so they have a job. Yet you're saying 'the blob next door who does nothing but reproduce and smoke weed.'
There may be an issue with welfare, but at least talk facts..
Single parent earning 30K a year plus raising 2 children. That sounds like real work!
I'm not sure what welfare payments are included.
Looking at Centrelink's web site, Family Tax Part A would yield $9194, and a maximum Single Parents payment of $18860, but that is reduced if you earn over $6078, quite dramatically. In this case, it would be reduced by $9568 because the person is earning $30k.
So my best estimate is this person is entitled to less than half the figure quoted (Single parent $9291 and FTB PArt A $9194, total $18485).
Can anybody provide a source for the table, or suggest what payment could make up the other $20,000 it lists?
Hockeynomics, thats how. Just make shit up.
Yup I had to join up to reply to this. I've worked for 3 years and was made redundant recently. Gov reckons I'm not unemployed as I have a child in prep so I'm his carer and they pay me $200 a fortnight to "look" after him as wife is on maternity leave for this year. So basically Centerlink insists that I'm not unemployed but a parent. My apologies to all the hard working tax payers for "living it up" the last few months. If I'd known about this unemployment and $200 a fortnight drain on the economy, I would have made a choice 5 years ago not to have him.
When I was working, i never minded tax going into welfare as overall it does a fairly good job of stopping hungry broke people breaking into my home and making life difficult. Our taxes also flow from us to the welfare folk and then usually quite quickly onto businesses (Take monday off and walk into a local shopping center). Students, pensioners and unemployed keep our economy rolling while the "lifters" are busy 9-5, monday to friday. It makes me glad to know that my taxes are going back into the economy and a part of it returning to the gov as GST, payroll tax etc.
Unless we want to model our wonderful country after somewhere like Johannesburg, lets stop bashing people less fortunate than us. If you have a job, please just enjoy it and the lifestyle that comes with it. Don't let anyone tell you about people on welfare pushing a new Benz or buying an investment property on the coast. Some of our colonial masters take us for chumps. Let us stop fighting over crumbs (distractions) and look at the politicians on hundreds of thousands a year raping the system for all its worth.
People should appreciate having a good paying job. I have no problems paying welfare while my wages are good, for those who need it and are looking for work. For the bums who don't wan't to work i feel sorry for, as isn't having a job also about having a sense of purpose. So what if you lose some of your welfare by working, it gets you out the house. Only so much tv you can watch
I think family income should be split, utilising both tax brackets, and revoking child care, or at least making child care tax deductable. There should also be job sharing where by 2 people can work 10-2 instead of a fulltime job of 9-5. This would allow primary care givers to work.
There should also be more jobs created for the 50+ club, who want/need to work and are unskilled.
Block-quote People should appreciate having a good paying job. I have no problems paying welfare while my wages are good, for those who need it and are looking for work. For the bums who don't wan't to work i feel sorry for, as isn't having a job also about having a sense of purpose.
I agree by the problem with your first comment on supporting those in need, but for supporting bums, the problem is that the welfare system promotes these bums, there's no incentive for them to work, and this will get worse, these "bums" will only hold back society.
How rubbish is the thinking in that article?!
The article seems to refer to childcare assistance as "welfare", adds it to the "government assistance" column, and then this is becomes "disposable income".
2 big problems with this:
1) Childcare assistance is usually paid is directly to the childcare centre, so it never enters the parent's pocket, in which case it can never be disposable income (i.e. you cannot spend what you never had).
It can alternatively be paid to the parent as a partial rebate AFTER they have paid the full amount out of pocket to the child care centre. You incur an large expense and the government give you some of it (up to 50%) back. It's the same basic idea as a tax deductions for tools bought to do your job. To say it's "disposable income" is simply wrong - you have to spend it in specific ways under specific rules, and you only get part of it back at a later date. That is not disposable income. Disposable income is income that I can spend how I like on what I like.
So how to correct the figures? Since they seem to have maxed out childcare assistance to make the figures look as sensationalist as possible, the maximum childcare rebate you can get on 2 kids is $7,500 per child, and for this you need to spend $15,000 per child on childcare, or $30,000 total. So you need to reduce the "disposable income" figure by $30,000, because it is NOT disposable, you HAVE to spend that amount in that way on your kids childcare, or the figures do not balance. The "sole parent" corrected "disposable income" is now $36,304. Far from being more that the single person, it's actually much less, being approximately 60% of the income of the single person.
Oh, and supporting a family of 3 in a big city like Sydney or Melbourne on $36k is not exactly going to be a barrel of laughs.
2) The second problem: There is a fundamental question you need to answer about childcare first: Is childcare primarily: a) for the child, and their education and socialisation or development, or b) is it a glorified babysitting service? The answer to this question matters.
If you believe a), then to treat childcare as welfare for the parents makes about as much sense as saying that high school is welfare for the parents, and adding the cost of that to their disposable income. So you have a 14 year old in state high school? Okay great, that cost the government say $20k, so we're going to add that to the parent's "disposable income" and call you a welfare layabout. But The Telegraph won't do that because many of their readers are probably working families with kids in school (hello, bias!), and we accept as a society that school is for the child, not the parent. For some reason, that generally accepted and obvious idea vanishes for childcare, as though kids can think and learn and develop at age 5, but somehow cannot do the same at age 4.5.
Personally, I think that education matters, a lot, and from a very young age, and that the benefits of it accrue to the child primarily, and society secondarily. And certainly the parents benefit too, because they get to retain their sanity, by doing paid adult work, which they then pay taxes on. So parents paying half and society paying half is probably a pretty fair compromise. But name-calling childcare welfare, whilst not also calling state school welfare, is just sloppy thinking. Either do both, or neither, but be consistent about it.
In fact the whole article is really rather rubbish, it is more about political ideology, rather than a balanced description of the current situation, combined with a reasonable discussion about whether or not it should be that way.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your first sentence:
"Thinking in the article is rubbish".
As with anything else Murdoch dishes out.
Thank you nickj for your considered explanation of how the child care rebate system works but more importantly point out how the current government and its Daily Tele cheer-squad is cynically manipulating and dividing this country.
It's the Telegraph. The only thing that gives them more of a boner than shitting on welfare recipients, is shitting on snobby intellectuals. Just skimming over that article, it doesn't take a genius to realise the situations aren't comparable to the OS's.
Welfare bashing is a favourite part-time of certain politicians because it feeds into resentment and assumptions that people have when they feel they don't get what they deserve, ergo, someone else must be cheating. One doesn't need to watch Struggle Street or ACA to know that mooches and welfare cheats exist, but they're a drop in the bucket. It's the same scape-goating that tricks people into overestimating foreign aid as 20 or 30% GDP when it's nearly always a fraction of a percent.
The old 'divide and conquer' strategy in action.
Get the single plebs with no kids to hate the plebs with kids.
Distracts everyone away from those at the top who are cr@pping on all of us.
Gina Rinehart, a mine worker and single mum get a packet of Tim Tams to share. While the other 2 aren't looking, Gina grabs 11 Tim Tams and scoffs them, leaving one Tim Tam in the packet. As the others turn around, Gina warns the worker "be careful, that single mum is eyeing off your Tim Tam."
I think you mean; "Gina scoffed 11.9 of the Tim Tams, leaving the crumbs for the plebs to squabble over'.
This would be more accurate if it were to closer reflect to wealth inequality in the world.
Distracts everyone away from those at the top who are cr@pping on all of us.
And paying most of the taxes that support this country's welfare, infrastructure, health, education, defence, etc.
It seems everyone loves taking a shot at high income earners whenever they can. Like none of them worked hard to get to where they were. Australia is already a highly taxed country, it's hard enough to incentivise people to set up shop here if it wasn't for the comfortable lifestyle and (comparatively) relaxed working hours.
(comparatively) relaxed working hours.
Really? I want to work where you do!
Australians are amongst the hardest working and productive in the world. That's why they are in high demand as expats, and explains our country's wealth and "comfortable lifestyle".
Ah! Someone drank the Kool aid.
Research current and past wealth inequality. The system is way out of whack at the moment.
I like turtles
Turtles are the best.
Frogs too.
Yah. Nice. Now go to make babies!
Edit: wow, that actually is what disposable income means.
I am a "single person working 5 days a week" and I am outraged… at how misleading these comparisons are!
I can assure you that my daily living costs are nowhere near those of a single parent with two kids, given that they have two more mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, brains to teach, etc etc… need I go on? And by the way, they still have to work 5 days a week too! The welfare system exists to help parents raise their kids up and out of their situations despite what Murdoch thinks about it.
And about the "blob next door"… my parents "worked their arse off" in factories but still needed to claim some benefits to have the cash to raise my brother and I - they had the misfortune to be war refugees from a foreign country and thus their degrees were practically useless when they got here. I earn enough to place me in the second-highest tax bracket, but I never whinge about our welfare system - the very one that gave my parents hope for the future and me an education for my future.
Do you want to see the difference welfare makes? Come over and work in the USA for a while with me… over here in LA there is a place called Skid Row, which is home to literally thousands of homeless adults and children. What hope is there for them?
life while unemployed
had_lunch=false;
while time<1700 loop
{
read_news(300)
read_email(300)
realestate(900)
youtube(1500)
ozbargain(300)
sleep(1800)
coffee(300)
poo(120)
if (time > 1200 && !had_lunch)
{
lunch()
had_lunch=true
}
}
//vacuum before wife gets home
vacuum()
You've still got an investment property so I guess you've got some level of security if your managing that.
nah just dreaming
Ozbargain only 5 mins? :(
EDIT: Oh good, I had missed the repeat all loop :)
Why aren't you upset that 80 people have as much money as the bottom 50%?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2919540/Oxfam-report…
Why should I be?
They either worked hard to be where they are or had the fortune of inheriting something their parents worked hard for. I'd strive to be in the top 80.
Sitting around draining the welfare system ain't gonna get you anywhere.
Correction, they have used their wealth and influence to rig the system into creating more wealth and influence.
Have a look through the list of 80 billionaires. Some have clearly added more to the world by the efforts than they have earned in $$$. Others…. not so much.
Sorry I asked… I understand now who I am talking to… I should have seen clues from the first post but I try to consider people usually much more intelligent and I am usually disappointed.
Another reason why this country will always leak talent overseas….basically it's a country that punishes the riches, and feed the useless ones..
am i the only one concerned where the extra 5 came from??
(Pensioner couple with $400,000 non-home assets, disposable income $41,6555)
Re: topic this is linked to. Can someone please inform me, if you are earning $30 000 with 2 kids what government assistance do they get? Is it because children are under school age? You work to get off government assistance, you don't get both or do you? $30 000 why would you need assistance? Any help appreciated?
I am aware of family payment but most are entitled to that to some degree, how much depends on your income though. This isn't what i consider welfare assistance.
It is undoubtedly welfare. Cash from the government is what welfare is.
I looked at the numbers and it appears the hypothetical single parent is getting approx $9k in family tax benefit part A, approx $9k in parenting pension (reduced from approx $20k because they earned $30k) and approx $20k in childcare benefit and childcare rebate.
I think this is nonsense, because I can't fathom a low income earner putting both kids in full time day care to cover a part time job - why would they spend their meager income on day care they don't require, but it is allowed within the program rules, so is theoretically possible.
It's The Daily Telegraph…
Read it for entertainment, but I wouldn't recommend reading it if you are hoping for it to be informative (without bias).
I opened the link, and the list of the "top eight articles" on the right hand side go like this:
1.Lewis Dumped for Loz's new breed
2.Porn star paid $10 million to be PA
3.Aussie NFL player's cancer battle
4.YouTube has goat to be kidding
5.Murdered teen living in halfway house
6.Juror says Milat had accomplice
7.Unspoken Steve Irwin death pact
8.Throngs of bongs leave a stench
That really says it all…
IMO, in terms of the quality of journalism, this publication is verging on being on par with Woman's Day, New Idea, or the TV equivalent: Today Tonight and ACA…
Neg away haters B )
Haters gonna hate. Let them :) chewing gum for the eye balls and brain. Obviously everything on the net is true.. sigh. Nothing wrong with opinion but support it and you just did Kkuba. Yeah catchy titles there… pass. Nothing wrong with being informed as in educated but not one who encourages stereotyping/narrow mindedness. That shouldn't need an explanation as to why.
I used to work hard.. then I realise it's much easier to work smart..
Stop it. Your'e making my head hurt by thinking too much. Yes thinking a little is ok. Or according to some, not work at all. Sure to get you to millionaire status that way.
How the heck can you earn $30k from Centrelink a year?
Spread wide ;)
The only explanation I can come up with is they are claiming maximum childcare benefit and rebate for the two kids. It would require the person to pay a large part of their income in childcare fees to max it out, something like half their total income, which is obviously insane, but it is the only way I can see that the numbers could add up witjout it being a total lie.
Isn't someone supposed to be paying child support somewhere ?
Supposed to be exactly… that's a whole new topic. Still confused by how you get $30 000 with 2 kids from welfare? Psst what's the secret.
Thank you Mskeggs. You can claim childcare rebate but it's not money you get in hand however, is it? Sorry i do not know myself. You can work and still need assistance when you have children, particularly as the sole parent caring for the children.
If the other parent is contributing a mere approx $30 a month for a few children because they themselves are recieving assistance ( prefer that word to welfare) to LOOK for a job ( or one cash in hand LOL) and you work a job that manages to maybe/maybe not cover just the rent each week, how do you win? Not everyone has family or a responsible x partner but i don't know many single parents female and male who dwell on this, they make do!
They're probably is a lot of injustice. Isn't that life exactly? You can be a low income earner of 1 or 2 parents, a family with 1 income or a average wage earner and still not recieve benefits. Myself, even if i could i am too proud i guess (some say silly)to want housing or financial assistance. In the end it is usually the lives of the children who are affected. As much as you try you can only do so much.
There is no equality in life. Some people work any job around their kids to avoid child care. It doesn't get you far but being a parent is always their priority. They had children because they wanted them not to get assistance sheesh. When someone knows the secret, let me know.. :) Cheers guys.
As a sole breadwinner in the family and a father of two young kids, I have no problem with my tax $ get spent on supporting the poor and single parents who have it tough - and I pay nearly 30K a year in tax!
Instead of bagging those less unfortunate we need to focus on how to create opportunity for/encourage/force the unemployed to get back to work. A lot of people here need to think beyond themselves - the thinking such as "I don't have kids so why do I have to pay to support yours", well guess who will pay your pension when you are older? Guess who will pay for your medical bills when you go to the hospital and guess who will pay for the roads you drive up and down everyday? Or let me put it in a darker way - you tax money at least can buy you peace of mind to some degree - if I was a single parent who couldn't feed my kids, it would be a no brainer to choose between a loaf of bread and leaving your house alone!
And this comes from a formal international student who enjoyed absolutely f**k-all welfare while paid tons of money as tuition fees in uni. As I said, even today I pay almost 30k in tax a year while getting what, 300 and 400 bucks a month for childcare benefits.
The big problem on taxation is not supporting these in need, but ensuring the everyone pays what they should. There are lots of stories on the richest people paying tiny percentage of their income so I don't need to touch on that. Even from my personal experience, a lot of small businesses don't pay tax nowhere near what they should've been paying. Hell, lots of people who shared the same background with me sucked at uni, graduated but couldn't find a decent job so they have to run their own business. Some are more successful than others but most of them have health care cards while living in million-dollar houses and driving around in BMWs!
I agree. I don't mind paying tax.
What annoys me is the government. having sub-standard policies and short sighted… it sux to see money not allocated to where it's needed.
This problem is quite easily solved, stop reading the Telegraph.
Are people uneducated or just idiotic. Or attention seekers that make stupid comments because any attention is better than none. They must live in a bubble. The comment about.. don't have kids unless you can afford them. Don't let your parent's get old unless you are going to support your own family and them too! Hope you don't have an injury like a car accident and end up disabled. Or you better start saving now in case. Could go on forever. Think others have shown how dumb that comment is.
Why don't some x partners female or male get this one about having children? Oh hang on partners don't pass away, walk out or abuse you to leave you left to deal with raising children alone therefore making you a single parent NOT by choice, after you get married and have children. If only we could forsee the future.
I am thinking these comments come from someone who has no life experience, not experienced heart ache or REAL hardship which is often no fault of their own and probably cheating the system in some way. Money hungry. The kind that would feed themselves before their children.
Don't let your parent's get old unless…
So you see childbirth as some sort of inevitability? Why? Because it isn't.
Hope you don't have an injury…
I certainly hope I don't. But I'm not so naive as to think I'm invincible. So I'll make the appropriate lifestyle choices and take up only as much responsibility as I'm capable of handling.
Permanent disability is one thing but an injury temporarily preventing you from working is not uncommon, yet some people live paycheck to paycheck as if there was no such thing as injury. If that is you, then no, you can't afford children.
Or you better start saving now in case.
I started a long time ago.
Oh hang on partners don't pass away, walk out or abuse you…
Savings & life insurance/child support/sorry you chose a P.O.S partner, get a divorce.
Sure, some people do all the right things and still endure hardship entirely due to misfortune. I've got no issue with them receiving welfare, but how many people are in that boat?
If only we could forsee (foresee*) the future.
So we can't see the future. Right. But lets see some marriage statistics, lets see some mortality rates, let see some domestic violence data. These things are very real and they happen to people. Believe it or not.
But oh no, I hear you say, our relationship is special and better than that of the people in the 49,917 divorces granted in 2012 (ABS), we don't need to worry about those things.
Having children is a no change of mind life changing commitment. The real idiots are the ones who dive into parenthood without ever considering these risks, thinking they're somehow immune.
I have only just lost my job due to the company promptly being pushed into administration. Job market is tough and whilst I've been applying constantly I haven't had much luck and so have now made arrangements with Centrelink to hopefully get some money to get me by. Not being paid out entitlements when you are living pay-check to pay-check has meant I've got no other choice and I'm grateful that there is welfare in place to support me whilst I look for work. (unless the decline me because I have outstanding entitlements which haven't been paid, then grrr…)
Also if anyone is looking to hire….hello :)