What are you guys spending the free $1080 on???

What are you guys spending your free $1080 on??? Probably not many people will get is since majority of the ozbargainers here earn > $125K HAHAAH

Ref

Comments

  • +64 votes

    For $52 per month you can make a lasting difference to the life of a child like Jess. Together we can give some of Australia's most vulnerable children the support they urgently need.

    https://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/sponsor-a-child/australia

    Thats a taste for the future with this mob

    • +12 votes

      This is a good charity for helping Aussie kids from families doing it tough.

      • +92 votes

        Maybe if we voted for a party that supported these people in the first place we wouldn't have to rely on charity. But instead a grand in a few people's pockets and cuts to social services it is

        • +7 votes

          Which party?

        • +4 votes

          Voluntary redistribution of wealth is good. Coercion is bad.

          • +7 votes

            @locknuts: Perhaps read up on the tragedy of the commons.

            There's a comment a few lines down about deadbeat parents. I suspect that our social security system would completely fail it if was all based on a voluntary system.

            In fact we don't even need to speculate. Just look back into history to see the wealth, health and social inequality that existed before (and prompted) the creation of social security systems.

            • +20 votes

              @SirDale: People shouldn't have children if they can't afford them. I couldn't care less what anyone else does with their lives, but to bring a child into the world when you are in no position to provide for it really irks me. I know of one guy who would spend all the money on pokies and alcohol, and come Christmas time Vinnie's, Smith family etc would give the kids presents, which he would proceed to sell. That's one hell of a good upbringing.

              It is enabling poor behaviour, work ethic, and complete lack of personal responsibility, as well as responsibility toward your family.

              • +19 votes

                @brendanm: @brendanm. That's one example. So now no one should have a safety net because you know of one (profanity).

                Remember it's possible people can have kids and be able to afford them and then their circumstances change. Family tragedy, sickness, industry closing, there's many ways.

                Yes there'll always be moochers but don't position this as simply personal responsibility and lifestyle choice.

                • +17 votes

                  @mooney: Go to some crappier suburbs. Go to the shopping centres. Have a look around. You think all these people had 5 kids then simply "fell on hard times"? Lots of people consistently make terrible choices and have no forward thinking. The ones that suffer are their children, and the society that has to support them all.

                  • +7 votes

                    @brendanm: Thanks for your reply. That's the exact same point you made before. Yes there will always be some people who 'abuse' the system. But a rich country should always have a social safety net.

                    Let than 0.05% of people who wish to abuse it go nuts, their quality of life will be crappy. I'd sooner accept that then the alternative which is not having it available for people who need it through no fault of their own.

              • -4 votes

                @brendanm: Fair enough, since you're all about work ethic and personal responsibility, if you choose not to have children, you shouldn't be permitted to use services provided by anyone born after you hit child bearing age. Since it's user pays, and you haven't paid the price by contributing to the pool of people who are providing those services. Need heart surgery. Sorry there aren't many older surgeons available and you haven't contributed to the pool of younger professionals.

                • +4 votes

                  @syousef: I have children. I also pay my share of taxes. Not sure what you are on about to be honest.

                  I simply said people who can't provide for children, should not have them.

                  • -2 votes

                    @brendanm: I am on about providing for children being the responsibility of the community not just the parent. I am on about children who are discarded by society because their parents are unwilling or unable to provide for them. I am on about those kids being quite literally the future of our workforce.

                    • +3 votes

                      @syousef: Parents are the ones with the primary responsibility. Money and food is not all a child needs, they need love, support and encouragement.

                      You realise that the children of people on welfare are much more likely to be on welfare themselves? Not exactly the future of your workforce.

                      Parents that are unwilling to provide for their children shouldn't have them.

                      •  

                        @brendanm: It takes the village to raise the child. Parents certainly have a role, but a child that is loved and looked after by parents but bullied and ostracized by society won't fare well either.

                        Nor does the child have any say in how responsible and caring their parents are.

                        I am saying we should all take more collective responsibility for the welfare of children. This provides a buffer when parents.

                        Finally we have a terrible welfare model and we can do much better, so that the cycle isn't repeated as is currently the case. But I'm not JUST talking about children with parents that require welfare. I'm talking about collective care for all children. As a society we do it very badly.

                        • +2 votes

                          @syousef: Noone trusts each other, there is no "village" here anymore.

                          I amount not at all saying that we should not give money/support to children who need it, as you say, they certainly can't choose their parents.

                          What would you suggest as an alternative to our welfare system? It sure isn't perfect, but nothing ever will be.

                          Instead of the "baby bonus", they should have had a payment for voluntary sterilisation, would have sorted the people who want kids from the deadbeats. More support for working parents wouldn't hurt either, but it's not too bad currently.

                          •  

                            @brendanm:

                            Noone trusts each other, there is no "village" here anymore.

                            You want to go back to the "good old days". You mean when people were burnt alive and tyrants ruled absolutely? Communities that pull together do better. That is the story of human history. But it is also the story of human history that people kill each other over possessions and beliefs.

                            What would you suggest as an alternative to our welfare system? It sure isn't perfect, but nothing ever will be

                            Do you expect to improve with an attitude like that? I made some suggestions above and you dismissed them out of hand. We should all be striving to improve health, education, welfare and general happiness of the population. The happier the world is on average the likely you and yours will be happier. Discarding children, fostering them out to abusive houses, dismissing them because their parents are irresponsible then wondering why they turn out to perpetuate the cycle is just foolish.

                            Instead of the "baby bonus", they should have had a payment for voluntary sterilisation, would have sorted the people who want kids from the deadbeats. More support for working parents wouldn't hurt either, but it's not too bad currently.stead of the "baby bonus", they should have had a payment for voluntary sterilisation, would have sorted the people who want kids from the deadbeats. More support for working parents wouldn't hurt either, but it's not too bad currently.

                            And you've just completely lost me. You trust that system not to get abused? You think these kids that grow up in poverty should be offered sterlization or starvation? The baby bonus shouldn't have happened either but your alternative is so much worse it belongs in a dystopian novel. Do not mistake your grumpiness, lack of empathy and unrealistic expectations for everyone around you to be responsible for moral fortitude and responsibility.

                            • +2 votes

                              @syousef: I meant 20 or so years ago before the news was full of fear mongering stories. I also never said what I wanted, I was stating what is happening. You sure like to try and make it personal.

                              Again, and you seem to struggle with this, I am not saying not spend time/money on children in bad situations. I'm talking about stopping them from getting there I'm the first place.

                              Obviously better education, health etc is good, but you can't just say such general things. What is "better education"? More teachers? Harder tests? No tests? Treating children as individuals rather than sheep as they are now?

                              I'm not sure where you get sterilisation or starvation from? I was suggesting it for adults, not for children, so that children and not bought into the care of assholes to begin with. I do not have a lack of empathy for the children, quite the opposite in fact. I have no empathy for people that completely failed at their own lives, then had children that they could fail to care for.

                              I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation that drug addicts and career criminals don't have children.

                              •  

                                @brendanm:

                                I meant 20 or so years ago before the news was full of fear mongering stories

                                Lol, you mean the times when we were gullible enough and had so little information that we believed everything we were told.

                                There are people still defending the war in Vietnam, commies!!!

                                Even in this modern age of information over 50% of yanks believed Iraq had something to do with 911 during the lead up to the invasion

                                • +2 votes

                                  @Baghern: No, I don't. I mean exactly what I said. Nowadays everyone is scared of the boogeyman next door that doesn't exist.

                                  Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

                        •  

                          @syousef:

                          It takes the village to raise the child.

                          I'm talking about collective care for all children. As a society we do it very badly.

                          LOL.

                          And 'the village' is full of village idiots. If I mention specifics I'll get banned. But in one example the number TWO comes to mind - that's all there is, not 724 (cue the clown music).

                          •  

                            @GregMonarch: The idiots are the product of the village. It is a viscious cycle. It requires the entire community to pitch in to overcome the influence of fools.

                            • +1 vote

                              @syousef: Or how about removing your children from the village, thus avoiding the 'fools' in it. ;-)

                              People readily admit they wouldn't allow drug dealers, pimps, and child molesters to babysit their daughter. But then they'll turn around and say things like, "It takes a village to raise a child…" - when they have no idea what 95%+ of the citizens of that village are teaching their child.

                              So no, it doesn't 'take a village'. Because the village contains closet child molesters, drug users, alcohol abusers, schools that teach the toxic falsely-called 'safe schools' agenda, and brain-addled nitwits who think a president is 'racist' or a 'nazi' because the other 'results of the village' (simpletons in the media) tell them to bleat it back.

                              Including the 'village' in a child's upbringing is exposing them to everything and anything, and then hoping somehow only the good, sensible, and normal sticks. When it's obvious children will accept and emulate - and many will become - what they see in others.

                              What it takes to raise a child (correctly) is a small circle of like-minded individuals. In fact, that circle should be as small as possible. Only as adults should they be exposed to all the crazy we've warned them about, so they correctly see it as abnormal.

              • -1 vote

                @brendanm: careful, Folau will come at you with a suit for religious persecution…

            • -3 votes

              @SirDale: All I'm saying is that a coercive tax system is necessary but inherently immoral. Voluntary redistribution should be encouraged wherever possible.

            •  

              @SirDale: I thought tragedy of the commons was just a theory and you'll have to explain to me how it's relevant here.

              • +1 vote

                @locknuts: Tragedy of the commons is 100% legit. Comes from a shared area (the commons) which was to be grazed/used by all of the locals somewhere in England. Outcome was that some people would overuse it - eventually there was nothing of worth left behind.

                If you view society as the commons, and that we all need to contribute to its upkeep. We can't all just take an expect an equitable distribution of resources, and not expect that some people will grab more that is good for the overall health of everyone.

                • -4 votes

                  @SirDale: I can't find any actual data on it. But it sounds like you're making an argument against communism? Free market pricing structures ensure that things become more expensive as they become more scarce. As the price goes up, more is produced as people try to capitalise on the high price, increasing supply.

                • +1 vote

                  @SirDale: I agree with your arguments about how we should all contribute to social upkeep……. but I'd be wary of citing the 'Tragedy of the Commons' as justification.

                  The theory was propounded by a reactionary ecologist to justify privatisation of public lands during the inclosure movements in England. These public lands were used in common for centuries, and the usage was regulated by custom and convention. However, such public lands were simply too valuable to be held 'in common' and were eventually taken up by private interests aided by Parliaments of the day. Aruging that the public were incapable of managing it themselves (the Tragedy, in the Tragedy of the Commons) serves to justify the seizure of public land by private interests

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts

                  Anyway, here's a bit more detail:

                  https://boingboing.net/2019/03/07/scientific-fraud.html

                  https://twitter.com/mmildenberger/status/1102604887223750657

          • +2 votes

            @locknuts: I will let the police, firefighters and medical people know.

            •  

              @IHatePeople: Should be funded by VAT like GST. Not perfect, but it's less like robbery.

              • +4 votes

                @locknuts: GST is a regressive tax. It is absolutely nowhere near perfect.

                • +1 vote

                  @Vote for Pedro: How is VAT regressive? 10% on a Ferrari is a lot more money than 10% on a Camry. The rich end up paying more and essentials like food are tax free.

                •  

                  @Vote for Pedro: Of course it's nowhere near perfect but consumption taxes are one of the most efficient and cost-effective taxes to implement - as I learnt at grad school. We should have lower income tax and higher GST. We'll never get it this though as politicians use income taxes and their rebates and deductions in order to target voters in certain sectors of the population in order to win or retain office - our super short election cycle sucks

        • -3 votes

          lol really. so why dont we vote for labor which only gives charity with tax payer money. instead why not generate jobs and wealth so people can fend for themselves.

          • +3 votes

            @porsche26c: "instead why not generate jobs and wealth so people can fend for themselves." The only jobs and wealth the conservatives generate is for their mates.

            • +9 votes

              @gravel: Cough union members sitting on Super boards for no real reason Cough

              • +1 vote

                @IHatePeople: Time to take a sledge hammer to these Industry Super funds!

              • +7 votes

                @IHatePeople: I know right. Bloody union representatives sitting on industry.

                Meanwhile, industry super funds outperform retail funds consistently. I wonder why.

                •  

                  @Vote for Pedro: I didn't realise that having union representatives was a requirement to have cheap fees (which is 80%-99% the reason why they perform than higher fee retail funds).

                  I mean Vanguard has a fee of 0.1%, obviously every industry super fund is cheaper than Vangaurd!

                  AustralianSuper = 0.32%
                  UniSuper Fund = 0.56%

                  My favorite was the (fake) insurance that couldn't be claimed.

                  How about this - we ban ALL the union funds and put it in a Government fund. How low would fees be then?

                  • +3 votes

                    @IHatePeople: Nice diversion attempt. Let’s go back to your primary attack.

                    You were upset that unions were on superfund boards. Now that you were called out with the fact that industry super outperforms retail super you try to divert attention.

                    The reason industry super outperforms retail is because they have the best interests of members at heart. And yes, that’s why union reps are there.

                    You do know superannuation was fought for and won by unions, right?

                  • +2 votes

                    @IHatePeople: Also, you’re peddling fake news as to the reason industry super performs better. The real reason is:

                    "Over the longer term, industry funds as a group have outperformed retail funds largely because of the way they have allocated their investments and their preparedness to vary those allocations to suit changing market conditions," Chant West senior investment manager Mano Mohankumar said.

                    "Specifically, they have always tended to have higher allocations to unlisted assets such as private equity, unlisted property and unlisted infrastructure (currently 21pc versus 5pc), which have performed well for them."

                    •  

                      @Vote for Pedro: There's a reason why some Industry Funds offer low cost index options. In reality its far from it. See attached article from The West Australian 28th January 2019 (Page 53 and Page 56). http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=2071094

                      "Rest does not disclose its use of only Macquarie True Index funds on its website or in its product disclosure statements but openly discusses the use of these funds in briefings with financial journalists. "

                      For those that ain't aware, Macquarie True Index Funds purchases swaps against your investment. So in effect investors are giving money away to Macquarie whilst it can (and potentially will) invest in other areas.

                  • +4 votes

                    @IHatePeople: And one last point: No retail funds made the top 10 in 2018. Should we blame unions for that as well?

        •  

          The cuts to health and education will cost people a lot more than $1000.

        •  

          You mean the mob that did the very same thing after the GFC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudd_Government_(2007%E2%80%9310) ) AND gave around 8 BILLION Aussie taxpayer dollars to bail out failed European banks? Is that the party you believe will help those who need it most?

        •  

          Labor was just in power not that long ago. I didn't see these people being taken care of much better under them.

      • +42 votes

        Sadly lots of those kids are doing it tough because the parents are deadbeats.

        • +18 votes

          Some, sure. But far from the majority. Most people on benefits, and/or living below a living wage are very hard working. The idea that poverty is a moral issue has been widely debunked but lives on with conservatives because it's more convenient and feels better to blame poor people themselves.

          • +2 votes

            @minklet: My wife grew up in Blacktown/eastern Sydney. She'a told me plenty, "most" of the people she was around when growing up were not hard working. She now works in mental health where she gets to deal with the aftermath of drugged up losers bringing multiple kids into the world with no hope at all, just to repeat the cycle over and over.

            Surely it's ironic that all this talk of "ending poverty" is actually impossible, purely because of how they measure it. It's anyone under 50% of median income. So you will always have people in poverty.

            • +13 votes

              @brendanm: No, poverty is measurable, it's not just the lower brackets. This comment is remarkably ignorant based on that idea alone.

              Your wife's experience is not data, it is purely anecdotal. However the hundreds of studies across multiple countries show the opposite. People want to be better if they get the opportunity

              @tshow

              It can actually, there's been long running experiments going back beyond Nixon that show that people are not inherently lazy and that they work. If you give them money they don't waste it, and it benefits society as a whole. The deserving poor as an idea has been around for centuries and it is simply not true, and a malicious, nasty idea.

              https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...

              Pointing out the few bad apples is not a rebuttal. There are bad apples in every aspect of society.

              Morality cannot be "debunked

              Strawman. That's not what I said

              •  

                @minklet: So is yours about most people on benefits are hardworking. They are not. Australia pays very good minimum wage. If they were, they wounldn't need to be on benefits.

                • +5 votes

                  @tm87: And people who are under or unemployed? Supporting family? (profanity) them right?

                  Australia has high minimum wage but high cost of living

                  • -3 votes

                    @minklet: Under or unemployed because they're unwilling to work. Sure, some work are harder than others. But why work hard when the government provide handouts?
                    If unskilled/low-skilled migrants can come here and carve out a living (because they don't get benefits and don't get to eat if they don't), so can these dole bludgers..

                    • +6 votes

                      @tm87:

                      Under or unemployed because they're unwilling to work.
                      dole bludgers

                      You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are just parroting baseless pish. Most people on centrelink benefits are desperate to get off them, you're focusing on a small segment who abuse the system. The Murdoch/Liberal method of blaming the poor for our problems really worked on you eh?

              • -7 votes

                @minklet: https://www.acoss.org.au/poverty/
                Have a read and educate yourself as to how poverty is measured.

                People don't want to get better. Lots of people are happy being scumbags. There are plenty of people who live/d in the western suburbs, they all say the same thing.

                "If you put give them money they won't waste it", this is quite obviously false, half the reason poor people are poor is because they make terrible financial decisions, buying a pack of Winnie blues or another hit of meth rather than dinner for their child. Hell look at all the dropkicks that had kids when the stupid baby bonus was brought in.

          • +3 votes

            @minklet:

            Most people on benefits, and/or living below a living wage are very hard working.

            Cannot be proven nor disproven.

            The idea that poverty is a moral issue has been widely debunked

            Morality cannot be "debunked".

            lives on with conservatives lazy people because it's more convenient and feels better to blame poor other people themselves.

            •  

              @tshow: Of course morality can be debunked. You can tell me that sacrificing children to the volcano is right and just and will bring us rain. I show you science that predicts the weather, and show you all the ways human sacrifice harms society. The idea that a moral position is absolute and can't be argued is just a lie people use to justify adhering to faulty morals. Human sacrifice is an extreme example but this applies to many things from mistreatment based on race/gender/sexual preference, to the bone headed idea that hitting children teaches them respect. Sam Harris' "Moral Landscape" is a great model, though I don't think all his ideas are great.

              • +1 vote

                @syousef:

                The idea that a moral position is absolute and can't be argued is just a lie people use to justify adhering to faulty morals.

                The reason why morality cannot be "debunked" is contained in your own response. You cannot debunk that which is not absolute.

                You can tell me that sacrificing children to the volcano is right and just and will bring us rain.

                That can be debunked because it can be scientifically proven to be false.

                •  

                  @tshow: "You cannot debunk that which is not absolute."

                  What utter meaningless nonsense is this? Did you get that from a freakin' fortune cookie? You can debunk any statement by providing a counter-example.

                  • +2 votes

                    @syousef: That's not debunking. That's debating. Significant difference between the two.

                    •  

                      @tshow: No. If you say X is true, and base what you do on X, then I show that X is false, that is both debating and debunking.

                      •  

                        @syousef: If X is meant to represent morality, and you already mentioned morality is not absolute then true and false does not apply as true and false are absolutes.

                        You can both debate and debunk, I do not claim to the contrary but they are indeed different.

                        In this case, you cannot debunk X.

                        • -1 vote

                          @tshow: "If X is meant to represent morality"

                          Are you misinterpreting what I'm saying on purpose? X is clearly a fact on which the morality is based.

                          e.g.
                          X = A race or gender or sexual orientation or sexual practice are vile and as a result.
                          The morality = Not to listen to, emulate, give rights to that race/gender/sexual preference and/or to punish people who practice it or are part of that class.

                          If I can disprove/debunk X, the "morality" falls because the basis of your morality is incorrect.

                          • +1 vote

                            @syousef:

                            Morality cannot be "debunked".

                            Oh, so now the goal post has moved to that which morality is based on.

                            If I were you, I'd be calling strawman all over the place.

                            • -1 vote

                              @tshow:

                              I said : Morality cannot be "debunked".

                              You said: Oh, so now the goal post has moved to that which morality is based on.

                              If Y follows from X, and I disprove X, it also invalidates Y.

                              No goal posts have shifted at all.

                              e.g. You say All bears are brown(X), Therefore hunters only need look for brown bears (Y). Then I show you a polar bear, which debunks X and in turn Y.

                              This is what I mean when I say you have no idea about logic. It's not hyperbole. You literally don't. You're completely out of your depth and are embarrassing yourself.

            • -2 votes

              @tshow: Most people on benefits, and/or living below a living wage are very hard working.

              "Cannot be proven nor disproven."

              Most is hard to prove. A much easier thing to prove is that it is easy to find hard working people on benefits or minimum wage. While we're on the topic, "Work for the Dole" is a vile program - it undercuts workers' bargaining power while providing no protection for the working conditions and rights of the Dole worker. A form of slavery, really. They can resist but the consequence is that they literally starve.

              • +3 votes

                @syousef:

                "Work for the Dole" is a vile program - it undercuts workers' bargaining power while providing no protection for the working conditions and rights of the Dole worker.

                I'm glad you can identify that an unequal yet mandatory exchange is vile. Perhaps you'd consider those who pay more taxes yet receive less in entitlements to be equally as vile.

                • -1 vote

                  @tshow: Sure if the tax rate was 90% as it had been for The Beatles, you might have a point. At the current level, and when we're not funding the basic needs of people, I think your complaints are silly.

                  • +2 votes

                    @syousef: Sounds like you're not pleased with the suggestion of equal application of principles.

                    • -2 votes

                      @tshow: Clean out your ears. That's not what I said at all. What it sounds like is that you are using a straw man.

                      • +1 vote

                        @syousef: My ears were and are clear. I don't need strawmen of clogged ears and poor reasoning.

                        • -2 votes

                          @tshow: Based on what you've said so far, I honestly don't think you're in any position to judge the quality of reasoning.

                          You don't seem capable of grasping a basic premise without misrepresenting it for a straw man, and you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "absolute" nor how it applies to logical reasoning. Nevermind what "equal application of principles" actually means.

  • Top