How can anyone possibly complain about Australian welfare?

I'm sorry, but I have to vent here. I probably deserve the dose of stupidity I've experienced the last couple of days because it's my fault for spending so much time reading social media, but I really can't fathom how so many of our people have the nerve to complain about Australia's welfare system.

Our welfare is so good that the main complaint against it in recent years has been that it's too good. We have among the highest rates of tax redistribution in the world and have rightfully earned the moniker of a "welfare state".

Now we suddenly have a massive influx of unemployment, and Centrelink has agreed to waive the requirements to means test or even prove that you're looking for another job, and people are still complaining!

Where is this coming from? Have we really bred an entire generation of adult brats who have been taught that the world is an injustice if they don't get exactly what they want, when they want it?

Mod: Discussions are welcome and not everyone has the same point of view. If you are struggling, please see our Mental Health Wiki

Comments

  • +142 votes

    Have we really bred an entire generation of adult brats who have been taught that the world is an injustice if they don't get exactly what they want, when they want it?

    Yes.

    When you give people free things for too long, they stop being grateful for it (if they were in the first place) and start thinking of it as expected and an entitlement.

    Look at the thread about Woolies and Coles not having paper catalogues. Putting aside that the two shops still have discounts, you have people there accusing the shops of profiteering unethically just because (they thought) the shops were no longer discounting as much or as heavily as they did before.

    Complaining about not getting a discount. And those comments had plenty of people voting them up too.

    Examples:

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/526369#comment-8481682

    And

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/526369#comment-8482817

    EDIT Though I wouldn't go so far as to tar an entire generation. As expected, the whiners tend to be more vocal, whereas the reasonable people just go about their business and try to avoid the crazies.

    • +11 votes

      The empty can makes the most noise. Most reasonable people will have worked and saved so that in the event of a rainy day, you can use it. But why do that when you get money from the government anyway.. and if not enough, just make more noise.

      • +1 vote

        Yeah… SMH reporting that the government might step in and offer up to 80% wage subsidy.. WOW

        I dont know man - i live a (really really extreme) frugal live, using an iphone 7 which has a cracked screen, work for 1.5 days for the government and take home only 3.5 days worth of pay, but end up not receiving anything at tough times like that. I am sole income earner with (house)wife, parents and 2 kids.

        Of course, i am grateful that i still have my job and still getting paid well, and grateful that Australia has given me an opportunity to live a better life. Definitely feel sorry for people like waiters or barista or cleaners who dont earn much to begin with (thats my guess) so life must be tough now and rightfully deserve government aid, but for people with similar/equivalent/better profession and still end up lining up for centrelink payment, I'd argue thats one's financial irresponsibility so why do they expect financial aids at times like this.

        And these benefits gotta be funded by someone - they are the future Australian generations who will have to live with high level of national debt to the extent tax income isnt sufficient to fund these benefit. We're seeing the same thing happen in many other countries but never learn from it.

    • +4 votes

      Completely agree with you. Everyone is under so much pressure - those that are infected with covid, those working in the frontline and those who have lost their jobs. I just see customers, people on facebook complain about centrelink and why they can't just send money to 100,000 aussies like there is a magic send button.

      The lack of patience, the me-first attitude with panic buying and hoarding, the sense of entitlement is on another level. A lot of my colleagues feel why should they work hard and save hard, when the government gives such a big handout and little incentive to find work.

      People lack empathy and patience in this trying times.

      • +7 votes

        People lack empathy and patience in this trying times.

        This is ironic given the big spiel you have in your post. People are scared and worried. Have some empathy and patience for their behavior in this trying time eh?

      • +3 votes

        A lot of my colleagues feel why should they work hard and save hard, when the government gives such a big handout and little incentive to find work.

        We work hard and save hard because that has its own rewards. We contribute to the world and to our own families, and have more control over our destinies than all the people upset at losing their jobs right now.

        Be grateful you can work and that you've been responsible in your own affairs. Being on Centrelink is NOT fun in the slightest, and these gestures are just to stop anyone starving or being evicted in the interim.

    • +10 votes

      Actually I was there this morning and none of the regular stuff was on special. It was quite jarring to be paying full prices for everything. Quite obvious when you look down the chips, drinks and cereal aisles.
      Some Easter specials only.
      I'll leave it to you to decide why it's that way.

      • +4 votes

        Actually yes! I usually buy most things on special, I know markdown days for meats and always buy cheap! Now everything is just full price… My inner ozbargainer is struggling with this 😕

        • -1 vote

          Went to Coles this morning and they had the usual amount of stuff on special. Go to Coles!
          Seems only Woolworths felt like profiting off Covid19.

          • +1 vote

            @bmerigan: Woolies don't set the specials, they work in conjunction with the product manufacturer/distributor if there will be a discount. If both parties done agree, no discount.

            TLDR - Colesworth don't set the discounts on their own.

            •  

              @serpserpserp: So how does Coles have the discounts but not Woolworths?

              • -2 votes

                @bmerigan: https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/catalogue#view=catalogue&...

                Plenty of specials in the catalogue. But if you don't see enough to your liking, refer back to my answer champ.

                •  

                  @serpserpserp: The checkout operator at Woolworths commented on it too - I'm not making it up.

                • +1 vote

                  @serpserpserp: Don't know what this showed up for you… but in my postcode this was the least specials ever… no normal everyday items just one $29 salmon to make it look like a normal sale on the front, the usual varied pricing for one scant page of fruit… eg red delicious apples $4… (often is depending on market pricing and season) and the rest is a bunch of easter chocolate which is fake full prices marked down to still be way more than normal chocolate.

                  Sorry but this proved against your point. I'm with @bmerigan… way less specials than usual on everyday needs.

                  Lets be realistic, I never pay full price for the whole bunch of things that Woolies / suppliers play games with… the ones that are regularly on sale. The true price is the cheaper one, its all just marketing tricks. But almost none of it was there in that brochure. I guess its supply and demand

        • +1 vote

          too true. I'm spending an easy 30-40% more than normal simply because there are no specials on, and fruit/veg has gone through the roof.

      • +3 votes

        We noticed this too - lots of stuff we buy when on special… none of it was…. just an interesting observation given they are probably the least impacted businesses in Aus! Draw your own conclusions

    • +33 votes

      Yes Corporate Welfare is out of hand!

      Tax concessions to the wealthy costs SIX times more than the dole.

      Welfare for the top end of town needs to go:

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-26/tax-concessions-put-w...

      • +10 votes

        Not only is that wildly misconstrued, but even were it true, they create infinite times more productivity than those on welfare.

        They also pay infinite times more taxes.

        So still a better investment.


        Hint: read your articles and understand them before you link them. The article is about wealthiest households and you're talking about corporate welfare.

        • -5 votes

          "wildly misconstrued" bullshit! Infinite times more productivity what garbage. Yes in some cases it's true but in many it's rubbish. Like the share trader or the investment property owner. Most of the people on welfare are not on it by choice, a fact lost on many. Oh and don't get me started on Corporates. For years they have been bleating that the govt needs to run surpluses ( so they they can get a corporate tax break ), pushing for a higher GST, which is a regressive tax. And now when the shit hits the fan it's " what can you give us " we need cash, stimulus and big government.

          • +3 votes

            @gravel: Again, please understand the concepts you're criticising. I'd actually agree if you'd used HFT traders as an example, but normal share traders and property investors? Look up liquidity of capital.

            pushing for a higher GST, which is a regressive tax.

            I don't see a problem. Pay tax based on how much you actually consume, not how much you earn (which is how much productivity you create for society).

            It takes away the disincentive to be productive, and actually incentivises saving (more saving = less spending = less GST paid).

            What exactly do people on your side of the argument have against people being financially responsible and saving money?

            Most of the people on welfare are not on it by choice

            Of course they're not on it by choice, but for large proportion of these (not all), all the actions which have led them to be on welfare were by choice.

            Spending instead of saving. Putting money towards that holiday instead of an investment property. Not applying themselves in school and/or uni. Pursuing a "fun" degree instead of a safe, stable one.

            • +10 votes

              @HighAndDry: "but for large proportion of these (not all), all the actions which have led them to be on welfare were by choice." sorry but that is a comment born of pure ignorance. Very very few people on welfare are on it because of their actions. Your under the illusion that their is such a thing as equal opportunity for all, trust me there is not.
              Pay tax on what you consume? But the problem is that the less you earn the more ( as a % ) of your income you pay as tax. A coffee for a low skilled worker is way more than a bank exec. We need to maintain a progressive tax system. Most property investors ( I am not talking developers of commercial and residential ) invest in existing stock which does zip for the economy. In fact quite the reverse. Courtesy of our neg gear arrangements they actually rob the budget in favour of their personal wealth accumulation add to that the ridiculous 50% deduction on CG and you begin to see how welfare for the wealthy works.
              " Spending instead of saving. Putting money towards that holiday instead of an investment property. Not applying themselves in school and/or uni. Pursuing a "fun" degree instead of a safe, stable one."
              Not really worth commenting on because it does not reflect reality.
              Oh I understand the concepts, you clearly do not.

              • +7 votes

                @gravel: Totally agree.

                Some people seem to believe that being born into generational poverty and the abuse the comes along with that is just something that people can overcome by "just trying a little harder" at school or with finding a job. Complete lack of compassion and empathy for people's struggles.

              •  

                @gravel: I know someone who works for Centrelink. I don't know specifics, but there were many folks with hundreds of thousands in cash and/or assets who had their hand out.
                And this was well before COVID-19.

          •  

            @gravel:

            Most of the people on welfare are not on it by choice

            No one chooses to be poor.

            I could bum around all day and party all night and if you asked me, I don't want to be poor…

            … but I'd still be poor because of the actions I take.

            •  

              @tshow: Poverty is the natural state of humanity. Governments can’t solve poverty. The purpose of civilisation though is to create the conditions of prosperity for as many people as possible.

      • +12 votes

        Most of this is savings on payment of taxes.

        So the government taxes 50% of your income and gives back 5% and you say that’s Welfare.

        So if they increased taxes to 55% and give back 7.5% then the rich will get even more benefits than the poor. Which then will be even more outrageous

        Saddest thing is you believe that.

      • -1 vote

        Businesses keep society going, providing jobs that pay taxes, providing products, services, improving living standards and paying taxes as well. People on the dole don’t contribute anything.
        If you want to live in a society that do not protect businesses, feel free to move to Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea.

        • -6 votes

          Then perhaps business owners should be limited to the same pay as their lowest paid employees. Perhaps business's surplus income should go to the employees who's labour actually made the money. But no, oh, instead it goes to rich people to become needlessly richer.

          Please don't ever equate the game rich people play to the struggle poor people go through to survive. to us it's not a game.

          • +4 votes

            @sarahlump: It’s so easy to have strong opinions about what others do. Why don’t you start your own business and do what you suggest? Did you know 1 in 10 businesses fail? Investors risk their capital and business owners often put everything on the line: their homes, livelihoods, reputation, etc, while taking the burden of supporting all their employees’ families. As such, they reap the rewards when things go well, as it should be. The good news is that in free countries like Australia, anyone can go on business.

            •  

              @ge4: That would be “nine out of ten businesses fail in the first year”. This little episode will kill many of those that survived the first year. And yet we have whiners on here complaining the government is targeting small business.

              This economy runs on iron, coal and small business. That is who will eventually have to pay for these emergency measures.

          • +2 votes

            @sarahlump: That is the stupidest comment I have every seen. It would result in there being no businesses and no jobs because who is going to go into business and carry all the risk, when all they can receive for their investment is the same money as the lowest skilled worker in their business. It provides no incentive to succeed.

          • +2 votes

            @sarahlump: Why would I start a business, risk my home, my income, my families future, borrow money against my home, risk the money i've earned and saved up …. to just earn the same amount as somebody that's risked nothing. This is why socialism fails. If I'm just going to plod along like everyone else, why would I bother risking everything to try and improve things.

      • +1 vote

        And how much tax do wealthy people pay compared to those on the dole?

      •  

        How can a tax concession be regarded as a cost? A cost is if you spend money, doesn't apply for not taking as much money from someone.

    •  

      There is no reciprocal check with many Asian countries on income. A Malaysian PR fled back to Malaysia as he conned some new migrants and escaped jail for collecting TAB using a strong arm man . He is a rich millionaire. He returned years later and obtained pension.I dobbed him in. Nothing happened. I was told there is a huge list of people who abused the system and overseas PRs are the hardest. He simply said he lost all his money,

    •  

      Last Thursday, I saw with my own eyes - Woolies only had easter eggs on special; Coles had much more "normal" specials.

      Coles 1 - Woolies 0!

    •  

      Here I put down this unpopular opinion. It is quantitative easing in the name of stimulus package. The eco was already on life support BEFORE nCov.

  • +1 vote

    You see, other world leaders promised more and did things faster. Therefore we deserve better. Nevermind the facts or the implications or the consequences. Scream and shout so you don't miss out.

  • +85 votes

    Cause our welfare supports lazy people more than the ones who need it. Someone who works hard and is jobless - makes sense. Someone who has been jobless for years - why do we need to give them double suddenly?

    There is rent support or assistance or waivers - but people with mortgage (who are essentially trying to do the right thing by building own asset) only get a freeze (and still ends up as an extra cost).

    • +6 votes

      Agree, you know our welfare system is broken when sole traders get shafted in the coronavirus handouts while the perpetual jobless gets free money. Only in Australia are the lazy rewarded and the hardworking punished through punitive taxes. Explains why large tracts of Australia are under developed while the continental USA of an equivalent size is comparatively developed.

      • -1 vote

        Shafted? I saw earler that small and medium business can get 20 - 100k. Not sure of the criteria

        • +3 votes

          The businesses don't get a hand out, its a tax credit/discount on tax with holding for employee's PAYG tax. In other words, they are just not taxing businesses as much instead of actually getting money. This is great for businesses that still have cash flow to pay staff, but bad for businesses that has no cash flow and needs assistance.

          • +5 votes

            @frankthetank: They are basically redirecting the tax their staff pay to the businesses owner rather than the government.

            Sole traders are getting screwed because they don't have staff, so aren't eligible for that handout.

            • +1 vote

              @brad1601: If after all these years of screwing the tax system still haven't gotten them enough of a head start for a rainy like this. They really don't have anyone to blame.

            • +1 vote

              @brad1601: But they are eligible for $550 a week newstart without the asset test or the requirement to look for work. That's double the current rate!

          • -2 votes

            @frankthetank: This is wrong. It's a tax credit that can be withdrawn as cash within 14 days.

            • -1 vote

              @chillin222: No, it’s not a tax credit that can be withdrawn as cash.

              It’s exactly as Frank said. It’s a tax credit that is 50% of the PAYG a business has to withhold. The cash withdrawals that I’m aware of are that businesses can apply to have Sep/Dec BAS quarters refunded but that will still need to be repaid down the track.

              Yes, as Brad noted, it’s tax that their staff would otherwise pay going to the small business instead of the government. Seems entirely logical though. The government is handing money out and small businesses are in dire need of help. Many won’t survive this downturn. Instead of the government just giving them a handout, by deducting from PAYG they: 1) make it automatic so the government don’t logistically have to collect money and then give handouts back to businesses - just do it in one step; 2) incentivise businesses to keep their employees - if you’re not paying PAYG, you only qualify for the bare minimum.

              Small businesses (<20 FTEs) employ about 45% of Australia’s workforce and many of them are too small to have cash reserves to pay their leases, sit on inventory, pay employees when their revenue is being smashed. The government needs to try to minimise the small businesses that go under to help the economy recover when we’re on the other end and stop unemployment rising dramatically.

              • -2 votes

                @hayne: Yes, it is a direct cash payment.

                "The payment will be delivered by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as a credit in the activity statement system from 28 April 2020 upon businesses lodging eligible upcoming activity statements.
                Eligible businesses that withhold tax to the ATO on their employees’ salary and wages will receive a payment equal to 100 per cent of the amount withheld, up to a maximum payment of $50,000.
                Eligible businesses that pay salary and wages will receive a minimum payment of $10,000, even if they are not required to withhold tax."

                •  

                  @JabbaXErnie: Thanks Jabba. You bolded the wrong part though.

                  “The payment will be delivered by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as a credit in the activity statement system from 28 April 2020 upon businesses lodging eligible upcoming activity statements.
                  Eligible businesses that withhold tax to the ATO on their employees’ salary and wages will receive a payment equal to 100 per cent of the amount withheld, up to a maximum payment of $50,000.
                  Eligible businesses that pay salary and wages will receive a minimum payment of $10,000, even if they are not required to withhold tax”

                  Businesses receive it as a tax credit. It’s not a cash payment that lands in your bank account. Even the minimum $10,000 is delivered as a tax credit. This means you need business tax payments to offset it before you get the benefit.

                  Try this link: https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Business-activity-statements-(BAS)/In-detail/Boosting-cash-flow-for-employers/

                  They’ve updated the language to refer to a cashflow boost instead of a payment. Likely because people are getting confused.

                  • +1 vote

                    @hayne: As mentioned in the article you linked:

                    "The cash flow boosts will be applied to reduce liabilities arising from the same activity statement. This will result in eligible entities being required to pay less to the ATO.
                    Generally where a credit exceeds your other tax liabilities, we will provide you with a refund of the excess amount.
                    You may also receive a refund if you overpay your activity statement because your system was unable to take the cash flow boost into consideration when working out how much was payable.
                    If you are placed in a refund position, we will generally deliver the refund within 14 days."

              •  

                @hayne: Agreed, it is actually a good measure that makes it a little bit easier for small business to pay staff a little longer in the face of catastrophic declines in revenue.
                Also an efficiently designed measure, not requiring a massive bureaucracy to implement too. It’s a pity not all the measures have been thought through as well.
                Doubling the Newstart for example, I thought was good to keep the economy ticking along, then I thought about it and realised it would be putting Newstart above the pay rates for low skill jobs like fruit and vegetable picking, which we really need to keep happening at the moment.

            • +1 vote

              @chillin222: Not sure why I was downvoted. This is correct.

      • +9 votes

        Lol, praising the American counterpart when their citizen had too fork out $35000 just for coronavirus testing, you must have been living in American tv drama for too long.

      • +1 vote

        No..it is because of water. Read up on geography.

        • +10 votes

          Yes. It's ridiculous to look at the USA, the largest economy the world has ever seen and the dominant world power for 80+ years, and Australia - a country of less than 28M people - and conclude the only reason Australia is behind it is because of "lazy people".

          Neoliberalism is a god damn cancer on society.

          • +2 votes

            @RolandWaites: Within my close circle of people I know I have 3 adults, that dont have a job since long time. 1 over 50, never capable of holding on to a job for more than 3 month, a 22 year old, who has never worked ( physically fine ) and a 25 year old who is going from Studies to studies, and getting weekly jobs ( still living home and sucking off the mother ).

            I would say Australia has plenty of "lazy" people.

            • +5 votes

              @cameldownunder: Oh my god - no one cares about your purely anecdotal evidence, man.

            •  

              @cameldownunder: So you've described an old person, somebody who clearly has some untreated illness and a student. You just choose to see them through your mean perspective as terrible people.

              • -1 vote

                @sarahlump: I've described a person that since his 20ties was never able to hold to a job. Now in his 50ties.
                The other person has no illness, unless you call Laziness an illness.
                And yes a student who has never taken on the hard reality of working 40+ hours a week for 48 weeks a year.

                All paid by the nanny state.

      • +3 votes

        Sole traders are not getting shafted. They are eligible for Centrelink and the ATO bonus $20k-100k payment if they are an employer.

    • +9 votes

      Good point, why do people who were already jobless before the crisis now need double the welfare? Surely they need less because they aren't going to the pub as much.

      • +37 votes

        Because the majority of those on 'welfare' don't actually go to the pub. Most spend considerable time looking for jobs that they will never get. A large chunk of these people are over 50 and are rarely considered for a position (that 100+ people applied for). They all have the same needs as everyone else and that is to pay their rent, utilities, medical and buy food. Then there are the single parents made to live….exist on the newstart pmt and face struggles everyday just putting a roof over their heads and food on the table.

        This extra payment has definitely given many hope that life will be a bit easier for a few mths, they won't have to choose to eat or pay rent. There has been a campaign to raise the rate of newstart that has be renamed Jobseeker allowance even though many on it can't work due to health issues but are not eligible for disability pension. So this is at least a small relief to the burden of living.

        Unfortunately many more will face the prospect of job searching and being treated like a 2nd class citizen by job networks when the time comes to re staff what remains of our economy.

        • +1 vote

          If they have survived so long with the standard newstart allowance, then wouldn't they survive without double?

        • +5 votes

          There should be some incentives to not make stupid decisions. Mothers who have children outside of marriage with drop kicks and then suffer as the drop kicks do what dropkicks do and run off. Old people with no skills and therefore can't compete with young people with no skills. It's a problem that welfare makes worse, we need jobs for people with low Iq's who cant/won't make good descisions. 10% of the population couldn't hold down a job at maccas because of intellect and we just throw out money, I guess its better than starvation but not a good long term solution. Welfare offsets the problem but doesn't help us fix it. We need vocations for low IQ people, it's a problem made worse by tech and the complicating work force that we have in 2020, the workplace is getting very technical for a lot of poor individuals.

          I speak from experience, I'm not the brightest spark, but through forcing myself to learn skills, I've landed a well paying job and stability above what I probably deserve. So far I've figured it out but I respect others who can't, I've had help and pressure that most people aren't afforded

          •  

            @lew380: Cant agree more with you. All those low IQ jobs have been send to 3rd world countries. Government has been responsible for this situation. If they would have focused on developing industries in this countries and not just building homes and bring in people, we would have been in much better situation,

            • +2 votes

              @amsaini15: What garbage. It's better for everyone if we outsource these 'low IQ' jobs and just pay the poorest in our society so they don't starve. Forcing private companies to create low-skilled jobs here to employ them would just mean costs for everything go up for everyone else.

              • +2 votes

                @chillin222: And you think by sending job overseas and automation is bringing cost of everything down?
                This is exactly Colesworth said that people will have better service and low prices if self checkout is introduced. Plenty of checkout operators lost their job and what improvement you have noticed?

                Govt sold Electricity and it is still expensive.

                If we have more people on welfare, we are going backwards.

                •  

                  @amsaini15:

                  This is exactly Colesworth said that people will have better service and low prices if self checkout is introduced. Plenty of checkout operators lost their job and what improvement you have noticed?

                  Prices have fallen heaps at supermarkets over the past few years and service is way better! Stores are cleaner, bigger and have a better range. Never been to Woolworths Double Bay? They even have misting systems to keep the veges fresh.

                  I love the self checkouts… use to have to line up for 10mins on the weekend.

          •  

            @lew380:

            There should be some incentives to not make stupid decisions. Mothers who have children outside of marriage with drop kicks and then suffer as the drop kicks do what dropkicks do and run off

            Sh!t man this is too deep. Not sure why you didn't get massive downvotes for this as it's become a contraband fact to point out. Of course there are going to be women who experience unique circumstances that leaves them as single mothers but it's absurd to think this is some common occurrence. Most single mothers played a part in their own circumstance by being careless who they slept with. We dont want to become like the US where the single motherhood rate among some groups is over 70%. This type of careless behaviour needs to be discouraged else we just crate a cycle of continuing problems.

            •  

              @SlavOz:

              Most single mothers played a part in their own circumstance by being careless who they slept with.

              Every time I think you couldn't possibly have another terrible, mean-spirited opinion about a new group of people, you surprise. I guess single mothers are now joining welfare recipients, the Chinese, women in the workforce, and fast food servers in your burn book.

              •  

                @Strand0410: What burn book? Are you insinuating that pointing out careless or entitled behavior is akin to some form of vendetta? Stop the mental gymnastics.

        •  

          or many of the people getting benefits already just lost their cash in hand jobs so need the extra payment.

      •  

        Soon the majority of those on unemployment benefits will be those who have been newly unemployed.

      •  

        "Good point, why do people who were already jobless before the crisis now need double the welfare" or why change it for the new unemployed, they can learn to live on the smell of an oily rag like the existing unemployed.

      • +1 vote

        Awful opinion. Why should people who lost their job now deserve more support that someone who lost their job before? It's not like there's going to be a glut job opportunities anytime soon.

    • +19 votes

      I agree, why give everyone double. All people should receive the current amount before the increase. Then people can actually experience how difficult it is to live on what is given and have a little more sympathy for people who are on it, as well as advocating to have it increased so as to not be far below the poverty line (http://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/...).
      I have the feeling that because it's been increased, once a majority of people have returned back to paid work and the increase is removed people will go back to not caring and feel like it's plenty enough or too much for people who are then still on it.

      •  

        Guess you missed that the cost of living just skyrocketed and won't change for some time.

    • +4 votes

      Yes those poor lazy wealthy people getting handouts.

      Such bludgers: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-26/tax-concessions-put-w...

      • +1 vote

        Hmm…from the linked article, 57% of the claimed "handout" is the fact that the family home is not taxed for capital gains…which would only be realised if the family home was to be sold. Ok, strong maths…

        /s

        •  

          Couldn’t agree more with floppydesk. What a rubbish article.

          85% of the “handout” to the “wealthy household” comes from lower tax rates for super and not having to pay capital gains on family home (I.e. someone who saves for retirement and also saves up to buy a house).

    • +5 votes

      Lazy people are reliable consumers, which is what the economy needs.

    • +6 votes

      "Cause our welfare supports lazy people" spoken like a true ignorant fool. So someone that lost there job in say December is somehow different to someone who looses their job in March due to Covid-19. Go tell that to the retrenched 55 YO from last December that somehow is needs to survive on $270 a week, but if you lost your job due to the VIRUS well you deserve double.

      • -3 votes

        At 57 you should be earning over $100k a year in a management position. I'm almost at that stage already and I'm only in my late 20s (and no I didn't go to some fancy Uni). At that age if you were let go you should either have savings to live off or be in a strong enough position to get a job elsewhere relatively soon. If that's not the case I have to wonder what they were doing for the last 37 years of their working life.

        •  

          Do you have any idea of how anyone over 40 but worse for over 50 is treated when applying for jobs. Besides the large numbers applying for each job, the ageism applied to job applicants is so rampant.

          To say that person should be earning over 100k in a management position makes no difference, many ppl are not suited to that type of job and may be more suited to physical work that usually pays much less.

          It seems to me there are many 'high earners' that have no idea of the real world, they seem to have their rose coloured glasses on and believe it is as they see it to be. When they don't see the world others live in.

          I know that it is more than just luck that gets you into a job that pays more than 50/100k, I also know that opportunity or the ability to take advantage of opportunity is key and does require some goodluck.

          •  

            @Rel63: Luck has nothing to do with it. Networking? Sure, I'll submit to that - it's much easier to get a job if you've worked or had a few drinks with the right person in the past. I dont necessarily condone that but networking is a game anyone can play. Besides, it only accounts for about 20% of jobs out there. The rest are given to people who apply and prove their worth.

            In reality employers don't care about your age. It's all about the dollar value so if you can show you have good experiencing contributing to the bottom line and delivering results, you're gonna get hired. Plenty of CEOs and big time executives are in their 50s and don't have a problem getting rehired, even after their name has been dragged through the mud over sexual abuse or financial misconduct.

  • +33 votes

    I think if you've never dealt with the welfare system then suddenly having to deal with it comes as a shock but yes, Aussies are a perennial pack of whingers.

    This country is great and we do look after those at the bottom quite well.

    • +2 votes

      There is always someone with undiagnosed OCD and social anxieties complaining how they can’t get on the DSP and are forced to work and adapt like the rest of us.

    •  

      Nah, the welfare system here sucks.

      Don't even bother trying to get these payments. Not even worth applying.

    • +15 votes

      This country is great and we do look after those at the bottom quite well.

      But they think they're not.

      If you lived in the USA, welfare only last for a fixed time and then well, its tough luck. Get a job or live on the street.

      Not saying that is right, the USA is littered with homeless and its sad.

      But the way some Australians carry on, its like they're hard done by with no other means of a income in the world (hint working is one way but they don't want to do that)

      • +3 votes

        Welfare is different in America. It is compartmentalized rather than a single payment like in Australia eg food stamps, Section 8 housing, dissability benefits, unemployment benefits. US Section 8 housing is much better than government housing here; don't even get me started on rental assistance, which is pitiful given how expensive housing has become in Australia.

        •  

          don't even get me started

          Deal.

        • +1 vote

          Section 8 Housing is better than government housing here?

          Are you out of YOUR MIND?

          Or just don't know what youre talking about?

          Public housing in America is NOTORIOUSLY terrible. The buildings run by the governmetn have become open air slums that urban housing students STUDY as examples of how NOT to do public housing and how NOT to build safe spaces. They share more architectural traits with prisons than apartment complexes.

          Did you know that since the mid 2000s, NYC installled temporary spotlights using generators? Because the public housing was designed so poorly that there are immense shadows where people can be robbed and raped? So the solution was/is floodlights all over the place, to make people feel 'safe'.

          I don't know how you can spout such stupididty when you wouldn't last the weekend in American public housing before calling the Australian embassy to beg for a ticket home.

          Now, on paper, section 8 housing might sound like its better but its not. Thats because the qualities and standards of the housing are left to the private sector. The only landlords which take section 8 vouchers are SLUMLORDS. And because the housing itself is not owned by the government, it is much harder to fix. Because it requires tenants to complain, then the govenrment to assess the state of the housing, then to ask the landlord to fix it. What happens is the landlords evict the tenants and continue to rent housing with rats, roaches, asbestos, poor water quality, mold, etc.

          You have to know absolutely nothing about America to claim that section 8 housing is better than any other system in the world.

  • Top