Is Centrelink Giving out Money Too Easily These Days? Do We Need Tighter Laws to Prevent Centrelink Fraud?

xdigger on 08/12/2020 - 14:05
Last edited 08/12/2020 - 14:15

Is Centrelink Giving out Money Too Easily These Days? Do We Need Tighter Laws to Prevent Centrelink Fraud?

I was shocked to read on the news today that someone with "five joint home loan accounts" which I read as multiple investment properties could still access a huge amount of money from Centrelink.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/mum-who…

More disturbing is the fact that if she had kept quiet and didn't make her TV appearances she wouldn't have been caught. How many undetected Kim Castles are out there making a killing off Centrelink by lying low and gotten quiet hardworking Australians to fund their holidays and lavish lifestyle?

Do we need stronger policing of Centrelink funds and stronger regulations to ensure only the needy gets what they need and not give dishonest dole bulgers an unfair advantage in owning investment properties when young Australians today are having a hard time even getting their first homes? Also, is the single parent payment paraxodically bad for society by indirectly encouraging single parenthood (cue single moms with four kids by different dads living in social housing spending Centrelink money on drugs, etc)? In an alternate reality where the single parent payment didn't exist in the first place, do you think that those single moms would have reconsidered having kids as she wouldn't be able to afford them, and probably actually had to work an honest job and live a honest life, thus reducing crime rates?

Constructive thoughts and civil discussions are welcomed.

Poll Options expired

  • 310
    1. Yes, we need more stringent requirements surrounding the disbursement of Centrelink money.
  • 320
    2. No, we are not called the Lucky Country for no reason.
Financial

Comments

                        • Danstar on 09/12/2020 - 11:13

                          @brendanm: I haven't read all the previous posts except about contraception.

                          If I was in charge, I would make it for the (long term) unemployed to not be allowed to have kids. Yes it's harsh, but whether you like it or not. If you can't survive without government help, you shouldn't be bringing more children into your situation

                          Whether it by woman rocking up to a chemist to take a pill in front of a pharmacist / doctor or men getting the snip (or someone invent the pill for men)

                        • Kangal on 09/12/2020 - 12:33

                          @brendanm: I think you're both wrong.
                          It's highly impractical for the government to change bad people into good parents. And contrary, it's highly impractical for the government to change a good citizens mind into having children when they're absolutely opposed to it. And I mean ALL of them, we know a decent chunk of people can/do change.

                          The only plausible solution is to Break the Cycle.
                          That means having good exercise, nutrition, and education for the next generation…. and making them grow into successful, moral people who want to continue the life cycle. But having fair laws, systems, and incentives do go far in helping (or hindering) here as well.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 10/12/2020 - 04:47
        +1

        You only just stated in your comment above that the economy won't need people. Make up your mind!

        • AustriaBargain on 10/12/2020 - 05:01

          It’ll need people to keep consuming. What happens if people don’t have money, they stop consuming. Robots need people to buy, and businesses that use people will be like a luxury thing, McDonald’s will have table service because people like interacting with people. Even though an app or touchscreen could do the job, there will be excess people and a human services will become very popular. Being a server or some kind of servant, waiters, guides, massage therapist, all that kind of stuff will be sought after jobs because they will be the only human jobs going around. We could end up with young, attractive, sociable people earning more money than the average older person. You don’t see many middle aged waiters.

    • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 14:47
      +5

      Nah, this has the same effect as companies offering redundancy packages, the good people take the cash and leave and the people who are useless will stay.

      We need the people who want sterilization to have more babies, and the people who don't to have less, or we'll just end up in Idiocracy.

      • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 15:18
        +9

        People who really want kids won't care about $5-10k, it's nowhere near life changing money. People with extremely poor long term decision making, and who make poor choices in general, will jump at the chance.

    • ThithLord on 08/12/2020 - 14:56

      lol

      • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 15:50
        +1

        Lol why? It would be completely voluntary. What would be wrong with people making a choice not to have children?

        • ThithLord on 08/12/2020 - 15:51

          It's actually a funny suggestion - totally impractical but would yield results, I guess?

          • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 15:52

            @ThithLord: How is it impractical? I can see no downsides, apart from "muh GDP".

            • ThithLord on 08/12/2020 - 15:55
              +1

              @brendanm: Suggesting permanent body modifications and invasive surgery for a payment is impractical, man - C'mon. I'm not even talking about how they'd fund it

              • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 16:29
                -1

                @ThithLord: They are pretty standard procedures that people choose to do every single day.

                How they'd fund it? Quite easily, they had no problem finding money to throw at people to buy plasma TVs back in the day. Would be a drop in the ocean for the longer term benefits.

                • ThithLord on 08/12/2020 - 16:38
                  +1

                  @brendanm: Ethically I just can't really agree, and I don't think it'd be feasible. Would it work? Hells yeah!

                  • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 16:40

                    @ThithLord: The benefit is that ethically, you are not asking someone to do it, you are not forcing someone to do it. It is 100% individual choice, they decide what is most important to them.

              • [Deactivated] on 09/12/2020 - 11:05
                +2

                @ThithLord:

                Suggesting permanent body modifications and invasive surgery for a payment is impractical

                As opposed to the permanent body modification and ongoing permanent life changes brought about by the current payment for having a child :D

    • This Guy on 09/12/2020 - 16:36

      Our economy works on inflation. We import people to drive up demand and suppress wages, inflating the cost of limited availability assets. Unless we massively increase migration, your solution would finally bust the property bubble.

    • GrueHunter on 09/12/2020 - 20:15
      +2

      We will then be rid of the the "single mother with 7 kids" problem, and kids that are born will actually be loved and cared for.

      So your theory is:

      • Single parents don't really want their children and will routinely abuse them
      • Married couple always want their children and never abuse them

      Wanna think about that for more than five seconds and have another go?

      • brendanm on 09/12/2020 - 20:17
        -1

        That's a pretty low IQ take, but everyone is free to take one small excerpt and create their own reality from it I suppose.

        • GrueHunter on 31/12/2020 - 08:37

          All I did was add dot points to what you wrote

          Feel free to show which part was a mischaracterisation of your claims

          You can’t though because it was spot on

          • brendanm on 31/12/2020 - 08:41

            @GrueHunter: No thanks, you've twisted what I wrote to suit you, that's fine, but I won't be engaging in conversation with you, as you obviously have reading comprehension issues, and I hate repeating myself.

            Actually, I'll give you a tip, you've been far too black and white, as you people often are.

  • Drakesy on 08/12/2020 - 14:36
    +1

    Unfortunately the law is still 1 step behind as evidenced by this. This isn't restricted to centrelink though, the tax office has their fair share of tax refund cheats as does government organisations with people siphoning off funds and don't get me started on childcare centres…

    At the moment public tip offs seem to be the most effective way with the police heavily relying on this to start a case, with people who seem to have more than 2 brain cells able to rort the system quite easily.

    Centrelink i believe has some catching up to do, as it's the 1% who are ruining it for the rest of us.

  • jafs on 08/12/2020 - 14:42
    +24

    No one is getting "…a huge amount of money from Centrelink." People relying on Centrelink are living below the poverty line.

      • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 14:56
        +28

        Mate you clearly haven't looked into the issue beyond reading an article full of propaganda.

        People on the dole don't do fruit picking because it pays less than minimum wage when you factor in deductions for housing, board and transport, often half of your paycheck. If fruit pickering paid enough then people would do it, but the effort isn't worth the pay. Look at the contracts if you're not convinced, less than $10 an hour take home for hours of hard labour, when you could work in an airconditioned maccas or woolies for twice that.

        Farming lobbies don't want to have to pay actual Australian wages to keep profits higher, so year after year they strongarm the government using alarmist articles about rotting fruit into granting worker visas to poorer countries that are happy to take the $10 an hour after deductions.

        And you've clearly fallen for it.

      • robberbutton on 08/12/2020 - 15:08
        +15

        Australians on the dole couldn't be arsed to get off the couch and go to work.

        Can't be arsed to travel across the country for slave wages, you mean.

        “We did a bit of digging around why, and farmers said ‘one, they’re lazy’, and ‘two, we have to pay them’.
        “I’ve applied and been out to farms myself. The moment you say you’re a citizen you don’t get a response whatsoever.”

        https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/11/08/australi…

      • Quantumcat on 08/12/2020 - 15:12
        +6

        For an Australian to do fruit picking, they would have to live an itinerant lifestyle ie live out of their car or have a caravan. Fruit picking jobs don't last long, like a few weeks or months. You can't rent a house for that long and you can't rent a house for the in between periods - landlords want at least six months lease (if lucky - most want 1 year minimum) and there are penalties for leaving leases early, if an opportunity for fruit picking comes up last minute. You can't keep paying rent while you are on the job, you probably would barely break even as the pay is so poor. And what about if they have children? Do you want a generation of children who never go to school and live out of a car, and run wild while their parents are picking fruit as the pay would never come close to paying for childcare, and have little to no possessions? You don't think that would create a generation that will never find paying work as adults?

        This topic has been discussed before. Fruit picking can really only be done by backpackers, or Australians who live the waltzing matilda lifestyle by choice.

      • pharkurnell on 08/12/2020 - 15:38
        +14

        Why are there still poor Australians when there are jobs aplenty

        You keep rambling about jobs aplenty… Manure.

        You can apply for 100's and never hear from 1 of them.. Its not like 1970 where you can walk out of one job into another.. Maybe in wonderland there is.

        We have some extremely smart people in AU without work. People with lower educations are rooted… you can hire a high school drop out for your floor sweeper, or a genius, which would most companies choose?

        • modiika on 09/12/2020 - 17:34

          often teh drop out. not worried about them leaving. There's such a thing as being overly qualified.

      • striker5950 on 09/12/2020 - 11:04
        +7

        @dofdaus you copy pasted the same response 3 times and got negged to oblivion.. take a hint

    • AustriaBargain on 08/12/2020 - 14:47
      +11

      What is centrelink, $250 a week times 52, $13,000 a year? This parliamentary study quoted the university of crawford's recommendation of setting universal income at aged pension levels, $20,000 a year. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart… Centrelink for the unemployed is the cheaper option by far.

  • Luo18740 on 08/12/2020 - 14:45
    +5

    It's like the News.com.au Comments section has come to life.

    That tatt in the picture, though.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/12/2020 - 14:56
    +10

    $70,000 from the taxpayer she was not entitled to over six years

    So 12k per year then, the standard amount then…

    Slow news day then..

    • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 15:00
      +17

      How do you feel about pensions? They're the biggest drain on the economy by far, the biggest line item on the budget year after year, if we scrapped it and let the old people starve to death, we could be back in black immediately

      • robberbutton on 08/12/2020 - 15:09
        +13

        "Old people should stop being lazy, get off the couch and go pick fruit!" - dofdaus probably

        • xdigger on 08/12/2020 - 15:14
          -1

          Yeah mate that's a strawman argument right there as that's not what I said.

          This is not Sky news, please only comment if you want to be constructive and helpful to a civilised debate.

      • xdigger on 08/12/2020 - 15:11
        +1

        You're not really addressing my question but I'll bite. I agree the no one should ever "starve", but the pension should be means tested so those with million dollars properties as their homes should consider selling them or reverse mortgaging them without becoming a burden on taxpayers.

        Also to some extent people should be reliant on their savings throughout their lifetime instead of relying on a nanny state to fund their retirement. Or if my question is posed in another manner, if persons A and B have $800 each and A spends it all on a new PS5 and games all day to his delight, while B spends $200 on a used PS3 and squirrels the remaining $600 away for a rainy day, should we later subsidise A for basic needs for food and shelter when A has full autonomy in making his decisions and should therefore live with whatever he has sowed (or lack thereof)?

        • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 15:22
          +14

          The biggest welfare scammers are pensioners, the fact that a pensioner can have a 1 million dollar home and get a pension is so common that it doesn't even attract the news. Meanwhile a jobseeker has to live off of savings until a certain point before they get anything, to the point where many will just buy a new car before applying if they have more than 2k saved.

          I can understand being frustrated with wasted tax dollars going to people who aren't even grateful, but I don't understand why you would see people on JobSeeker bludging the system and get frustrated enough to post about it, when JobSeeker is barely even a blip in the budget compared to Pension and Aged Care Support: https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/05_About_Parliament/54_Parlia…

          • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 15:26
            +1

            @Jolakot: Why do you think pensioners/old people aren't expected to work?

            • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 15:29
              +6

              @ozhunter: By Dofdaus's logic, the oldies should be expect to pick fruit for slave wages until they keel over in the fields.

              Pensioners had their entire lives, lived through the biggest boom times, to save money for retirement. I can't see why they couldn't support themselves from savings beyond being too lazy to have any.

              • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 15:42
                +1

                @Jolakot:

                I can't see why they couldn't support themselves from savings beyond being too lazy to have any.

                True, but at that point they're too old. People of working age, have even less of an excuse if they can't fund their day to day living, let alone for the future?

                • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 15:44
                  +2

                  @ozhunter: Too old how? Did they not realize they would one day be 80 and unemployable when they were 30 like everyone in the current generation does?

                  • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 15:51
                    +2

                    @Jolakot: They did, but maybe they were funding their current lifestyle and couldn't save up enough for the retirement years.

                    The unemployed on welfare now aren't even funding their current living expenses.

                    • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 16:06
                      +3

                      @ozhunter: Ok so you're saying they put no effort into planning for the future and now expect their kids and grandkids to bail them out?

                      The current generations have to fund their current lifestyles and save up for retirement years, while still paying 50+ billion to the people who didn't.

                      • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 17:37
                        +1

                        @Jolakot: I have more sympathy for those who couldn't save extra for their retirement and can't work than those who can work and can't pay their current expenses.

          • xdigger on 08/12/2020 - 15:30
            +1

            @Jolakot: I agree and am not sure why I'm being downvoted without reason, but I did mention the aged pension should be means tested so those with million dollars properties as their homes should consider selling them or reverse mortgaging them without becoming a burden on taxpayers.

            • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 15:32
              +3

              @xdigger: And yet you didn't start with that, you started with jobseeker

        • MontyMacaw on 12/12/2020 - 09:18

          When you pay your taxes all of your life a bit of it goes to pay for others like pensioners. When you become a pensioner you deserve to get the benefit of your contributions. I hope one day your wish for others comes back to bite you. Your ignorance and arrogance is right out of the neoliberal manifesto

      • ThithLord on 08/12/2020 - 15:11
        +2

        Dude, read DOF's previous comments. It's a sheet-show.

      • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 15:21
        -1

        That's the point of super mate, to wind back the amount spent on pensions.

        • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 15:25
          +6

          As someone in their 20's, you're saying I'm going to have to pay taxes my entire life to support a pension I'm never going to get because Super, which I have to pay for yet again, is supposed to cover it instead?

          How in the living hells is that fair?

          • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 15:28
            +2

            @Jolakot: Your taxes pay for a lot more than that. The generations before you had to pay for your education. You have to pay for people without a job. You have to pay for people with a disability. You have to pay for parklands if you don't use the park. You have to pay for peoples medical expense even if you never go to a hospital in your life.

            How is any of that fair? Not everyone can afford to pay, so some things are "crowd sourced", so people who are disadvantaged don't miss out.

            • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 15:36
              +5

              @brendanm: Reciprocal taxes are fine, the government paid for my education, so I fully expect to pay that back - with interest because they did a good job - to allow society to continue. I pay for jobseeker because one day I might need it, or my kids might need it. I pay for medicare because even if I don't need it now, I likely will as I age. Paying ahead for services I will need, or to pay back services I have received, is something I'm proud to do.

              Pensions though, I'm paying for them, and paying for super through employer contributions, without seeing any benefit other than having old people not drop dead around me, all the while constantly hearing them complain that it isn't enough.

              • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 15:48
                -1

                @Jolakot:

                Pensions though, I'm paying for them

                These people, who's pensions you are paying, are the previous generations who paid the taxes that allowed you to get the education you did.

                Why should other people who are never going to have kids pay for your kids education? Your family tax benefit, if any? Your childcare subsidy? What are they getting out of it?

                • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 16:03
                  +4

                  @brendanm: Your logic would hold up if in 40 years I could expect a pension too, but by almost all accounts that won't be the case.

                  Most pay-it-forward taxes are an investment; that money on education means that on average every dollar spent will be more than a dollar in taxes from better job prospects. It might be 40% return or a 2000% return, but it averages out well. If it didn't, society would collapse.

                  If we were paying 50b+ in pensions today so that we could expect our grandkids to spend the equivalent of 50b later on, and they could expect their grandkids to spend the equivalent of 50b etc, then great.

                  But pulling the ladder up? Not so much.

                  • studentl0an on 08/12/2020 - 16:24
                    +1

                    @Jolakot: Here's an interesting video about New Jersey's public employment pension scam, how it should have been illegal and how it's killing the entire city.
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFhMVIPodk

                    I know it's super long but it's really interesting to hear how pension funds can be setup to be a Ponzi Scam which can kill a city financially. The city ran out of cash and had to up property taxes on everyone to pay for the pensions.

                    I feel like what happened in New Jersey with pensions killing the entire budget, forcing a massive rate hike on property owners could happen to our entire country if we don't reassess aged pensions.

                  • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 16:31

                    @Jolakot: So you completely ignored the part about other people paying for your kids?

                    Also, there isn't much we can do about the pension now, it was a thing, and you can't just take it away over night, unless you enjoy senior citizens starving to death.

                    • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 18:04
                      +2

                      @brendanm: No, that's what the entire paragraph about education being an investment was addressing. I don't have any kids and don't plan on it for a while, if at all, but the education my taxes pay for now will mean more tax revenue in 20 years.

                      We can't get rid of it completely, but we sure as hell can cut it to the bare minimum by cutting loopholes such as million dollar ppors. If you're under 22, live away from home in a cheap sharehouse, but have a parent earning over 90k then you don't get enough to live on, but a pensioner gets full pension with a 4m mansion in toorak?

                      Could do a hell of a lot of social good if the pension was capped at full rate jobseeker too. If it's enough to live on, then it's enough to live on. If it isn't, it isn't.

                      • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 18:32

                        @Jolakot:

                        We can't get rid of it completely, but we sure as hell can cut it to the bare minimum by cutting loopholes such as million dollar ppors. If you're under 22, live away from home in a cheap sharehouse, but have a parent earning over 90k then you don't get enough to live on, but a pensioner gets full pension with a 4m mansion in toorak?

                        I agree. From what you were saying I thought you were suggesting that they should just cut the pension full stop.

                        • Jolakot on 08/12/2020 - 19:01
                          +2

                          @brendanm: I don't think anyone who's annoyed at the pension wants it cut full stop, beyond some hyperbole. Just for a fairer system.

          • MontyMacaw on 12/12/2020 - 11:33

            @Jolakot: Because you pay less tax on your super for a start. Not everyone manages to accumulate enough super. Women especially

    • GG57 on 08/12/2020 - 15:17
      +4

      But this forum topic (which you started) is about people ripping off Centrelink (i.e. illegally claiming benefits) and the laws around that.

      Now you questioning the value in having Centrelink or a social security system at all? Add in some words like 'climate change' and then comparing to the USA (but I'm not sure what the basis for the comparison is).

      Time for me to jump out of this one I think.

      • ThithLord on 08/12/2020 - 16:10
        +2

        You're a good person for always jumping in and trying, GG57. I see you. I see you.

  • tomokaicho on 08/12/2020 - 15:17
    +13

    We don't need tighter laws. We need to abolish the welfare system and give an Unconditional Basic Income of $300/week to all adult citizens - ALL of them, no means test.

    The current system welfare traps people and invites fraud or fudging.

    • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 15:25
      +3

      $300? So stingy.

      • tomokaicho on 08/12/2020 - 15:30

        Politics is the science of the possible.

    • Quantumcat on 08/12/2020 - 15:43
      +6

      We could probably afford it right now just by removing the department of human services

    • whooah1979 on 08/12/2020 - 16:18

      An UBI is an interesting idea, but will it be socially accepted?

    • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 16:34
      +3

      Do people not consider the effects of this? Wow, everyone now has more money, so prices go up on everything. Doesn't affect the people working + getting ubi much, but the people only on ubi would be getting shafted.

      On top of that, it disincentives working, and incentives getting ubi and doing cash jobs, while paying zero tax.

      • studentl0an on 08/12/2020 - 16:43
        +8

        The concept of UBI is that everyone gets it, and everyone pays for it but with higher tax brackets paying an increased levy for it the higher up you go. As tax is marginal, it's not going to deincentivise people from making extra money. We already have marginal tax and people aren't marching in droves to make LESS money.

        It's like what centrelink does already but with less steps and less bureaucrats required to keep the system running.

        • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 16:56

          Could just increase income taxes?

          • studentl0an on 08/12/2020 - 17:03
            +1

            @ozhunter: I think it would be a great incentive for people to better fiscally manage if they are both getting and paying for the system. As it stands now those receiving centrelink do not necessarily pay for it unless they go over the tax free threshold.

            If the UBI is above the tax free threshold then those receiving it would also be paying a bit for it. I think that's a much better idea for social cohesion and reducing overheads that centrelink has in chasing everything up and verifying everything.

            I think for society in general it will lift everyone up if the lowest rungs are incentivised to manage their funds better and be invested in it, as they receive it.

            While I don't like the idea of increasing income taxes across the board I do think that adding another tax bracket in the top end would be a good idea that a lot more people would support. A marginal tax system in a capitalist economy should never deincentivise, because another guy can take that work and pay much less tax on it as he is in lower tax bracket. It's a huge incentive for competition.

            • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 17:09

              @studentl0an:

              I think for society in general it will lift everyone up if the lowest rungs are incentivised to manage their funds better

              UBI does the opposite of this.

              Not like UBI has never been tried. It's just not sustainable.

              • studentl0an on 08/12/2020 - 17:13

                @ozhunter: Why? Because you say so?

                We have a sustainable UBI here, it just costs more than UBI would and it's called centrelink.

                • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 17:18

                  @studentl0an: Because

                  UBI does the opposite of this.

                  As said, and as I stated higher up, when everyone suddenly has more money, prices increase. This doesn't affect people working as much as it does people on the ubi. Therefore, they are worse off.

                • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 17:18

                  @studentl0an:

                  Why? Because you say so?

                  Nah, it works because you say so, lol.

                  Because not being guaranteed consistent free money would make you more careful with what you currently have.

                  We have a sustainable UBI here, it just costs more than UBI would and it's called centrelink.

                  Depends what you mean by UBI, I wouldn't say centrelink counts as not everyone gets it. The admin of it cost(minus the income tax from employed workers) more than just giving everyone free money?

            • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 19:11
              -3

              @studentl0an:

              While I don't like the idea of increasing income taxes across the board I do think that adding another tax bracket in the top end would be a good idea

              That's the spirit, really smash those that are contributing, filthy rich people. I'm sure that totally wouldn't make them seek out some form of tax minimisation. The fact that people truly believe that some should pay more than 50% of some of their earnings on tax is insane.

        • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 17:16
          -1

          You basically ignored everything I said, and answered a question I didn't ask.

          • studentl0an on 08/12/2020 - 17:22
            +1

            @brendanm: I answered your question, here I'll spell it out again so that even you can understand it

            "Do we not consider the effects of this?" - Yes, everyone in Australia already has a guaranteed income with a Centerlink safety net so it's already happened here.

            "On top of that, it disincentives working, and incentives getting ubi and doing cash jobs, while paying zero tax." - I explained this well by saying WE ALREADY HAVE THAT HERE and furthered it with how marginal tax brackets work in that there aren't people marching to make LESS MONEY because they have to pay more tax in the top end.

            I'm for UBI because we already have a non-efficient system for it here with Centrelink, and that a real UBI will incentivise better fiscal management particularly if those receiving only it were able the tax free threshold and would have to contribute some of it back to the system.

            It's almost like you just want to lower job award rates?

            • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 17:27
              -1

              @studentl0an: That doesn't actually counter anything I said. We don't have a ubi, if you have any savings, you don't get money. If you have quit your job, you have to wait. Etc etc.

              I never said people would "march to make less money" I said they would pocket the now guaranteed $300, quit their jobs, and do cash jobs, while paying no tax, and making more money than they did before, with more free time.

              I never said anything about lowering award rates, not sure what that had to do with ubi. Onto similar thing is that increasing minimum wage also causes the floor price if goods to increase.

              You didn't have anything to say about a sudden increase in every single persons take home wage affecting inflation?

              • studentl0an on 08/12/2020 - 17:34

                @brendanm: 1) Ok so if you actually did you research on jobseeker asset test you would know that you can have a PPOR and $268,000 in savings for a single person and still get jobseeker payments if you don't have an income.

                2) People do that now on jobseeker, but very small because it turns out working award wages makes you a lot more than jobseeker, and the far majority of people like having more money and will work for it.

                3) Your argument is about people not doing work if they have free money, which they already have now if they choose. The reason the far majority of people don't is because it turns out working pays a lot better than centrelink, because of things like award wages. People already choose to work because the award wages are much more than jobseeker.

                4) My argument has always been… IT'S ALREADY THE CASE HERE! Everyone will be getting the money, but it turns out they will be PAYING FOR IT TOO, because that's what UBI is. You get it? We don't have to inflate for it because it's paid for. People receive UBI and they pay more for it the higher the tax bracket up they are. We already have marginal tax rates and levies such as medicare levy. The framework already exists here.

                I don't see how you can't understand it after spelling it out.

                • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 17:40
                  -1

                  @studentl0an:

                  I don't see how you can't understand it after spelling it out.

                  So it's a universal income, except for people who pay a higher tax rate, they likely pay more tax, so end up with a pay cut, to pay for the increase for everyone else?

                  In your summary, a ubi is literally just an increased jobseeker? So not a ubi at all?

                  • studentl0an on 08/12/2020 - 17:41

                    @brendanm: It appears now you are dropping your arguments but are still being argumentative just for the sake of semantics. I don't like conversing with people like yourself so whatever dude.

                    • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 17:43

                      @studentl0an: No, I stand by my argument if it's a proper ubi, that doesn't randomly get taken off people on a higher income bracket. Your weird version of a ubi that isn't actually universal, is simply jobseeker but with a higher payment.

                      Which do you want, an actual ubi, that every single person receives and doesn't have taken off them, or an increase in jobseeker?

                      You simply don't like conversing with anyone who doesn't kowtow to your point of view instantly. Dude.

      • Quantumcat on 08/12/2020 - 16:48
        +4

        People who want to work will work, same as now with Newstart. It will be no less disincentivising than it is now. It will actually be more incentivising to work - currently, if you work more than a very small handful of hours a week, you lose some of your payment. It is a huge barrier for people to take up employment because A) if they take up a very part time job they are earning very little per hour due to the cuts they will experience, and B) they are afraid to take up a full time job because if it doesn't work out they will have to apply again, and they have vivid memories of what torture that is, it takes weeks or months and meanwhile you might become homeless. By giving people guaranteed money, there is now no more barrier to taking up work, as working is no longer punished in any way. There is no harm in taking a punt on a job that you aren't 100% sure you are good enough for as if it doesn't work out you will still have enough money to pay the rent and eat and won't have to go weeks with no money while you apply again.

        What it really does mean though, is that people who want to contribute to society in less conventional ways are free to do so. Volunteering, the arts, music - things that make society grow and develop. People that feel driven to do things like this will be able to, instead of running the treadmill to nowhere filling out forms and having pointless meetings with job agencies. All those staff at DHS can do something more fulfilling to society than developing the software that enables the treadmill to nowhere, writing the policy that enables the treadmill to nowhere, or being the staff that people have to have meetings with on their treadmill to nowhere.

        • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 16:55
          -2

          It will actually be more incentivising to work

          So would lowering jobseeker.

          Volunteering, the arts, music - things that make society grow and develop.

          Lol, they can do that in their own time.

          • Quantumcat on 08/12/2020 - 17:06
            +2

            @ozhunter: Lowering jobseeker would make it even more disincentivising to work. You have hardly any chance at getting a job when you are homeless or even if you can't afford nice clothes to wear to an interview or a proper hair cut. Even if you do get a job, say with the help of a charity that lends you clothes or gives you a place to sleep or have a shower before an interview, you are likely to lose it again if you can't manage consistent showers or turn up very tired because you didn't have a safe place to sleep. Then you have to apply again and go through the weeks with no money. It would be easier to just not accept jobs and cope with the even more reduced money.
            The people who don't want to work won't work no matter what, but the people who do want to work will have a much easier time of getting and keeping a job if they have enough to live on in between.

            • brendanm on 08/12/2020 - 17:23
              +2

              @Quantumcat: Surely you know that most people in Australia aren't homeless due to a lack of money? Most are homeless as they have mental health issues, substance abuse issues, or both. Luckily, we don't give a shit about mental health here, so they get no proper help at all. When they get bad enough, they get sent to hospital, when they get slightly better, or they need the bed, they get sent to see sort of housing, where the then get kicked out due to their behaviours. They are then back on the street, and the cycle continues.

            • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 17:25
              -1

              @Quantumcat: You said It is a huge barrier for people to take up employment because A) if they take up a very part time job they are earning very little per hour due to the cuts they will experience

              This alone says people are less likely to work. The guy I know quit his part time job as jobseeker + the covid supplement is more than he makes.

              It's like you think whoever loses their job are instantly homeless.

              I think it's good we have a system to help those look for jobs. I think it's too generous(moreso the timeframe to get a job). I'm not

              • Quantumcat on 08/12/2020 - 17:37
                +1

                @ozhunter: How would you pay your rent if you have no savings and no income for an unknown period of time, and found it incredibly difficult to get a job even when you had a stable place to live? (Pretend you have no skills or qualifications, and remember that unskilled work is incredibly competitive). It really isn't hard to see how someone might become homeless against their will.

                This alone says people are less likely to work. The guy I know quit his part time job as jobseeker + the covid supplement is more than he makes.

                In normal times, this would not happen because you don't just get jobseeker instantly, you have to apply and wait weeks as they keep asking you for different paperwork. They've streamlined the process with covid as otherwise the staff could not cope with the increased number of applications.

                If there was a UBI, he would not need to quit his job to get more money. Anything he worked would be in addition, so there would be no reason not to work. The way the system is now, where you lose money by working, that definitely disincentivises working around that level (part time work and full time minimum wage work).

                • ozhunter on 08/12/2020 - 17:54
                  -1

                  @Quantumcat: I'd assume you would have savings. If you didn't and know jobseeker was getting cut, you should be putting aside money in case you do become homeless.

                  It's not like I'm supporting scrapping jobseeker entirely.

                  • Quantumcat on 08/12/2020 - 20:43
                    +1

                    @ozhunter: Are you really being serious? People on Newstart can barely afford to eat, let alone have savings. You can't even have savings from when you used to have a good job, as they make you wait and use up all your savings to live on before you are allowed to be on Newstart.

        • trapper on 10/12/2020 - 19:27

          It is a huge barrier for people to take up employment because A) if they take up a very part time job they are earning very little per hour due to the cuts they will experience, and B) they are afraid to take up a full time job because if it doesn't work out they will have to apply again.

          So if this is the issue then why not just fix this? that could easily be fixed with a little tweak to the existing rules.

          No need to reinvent the entire welfare system I mean.

          • Quantumcat on 10/12/2020 - 20:12

            @trapper: It can't work just by tweaking the rules. If some people get jobseeker and some don't and there's no gradual cut off of the payment as you earn more, then you could have two people on the same wage with the same hours where one is making twice as much as the other, just because they were more recently unemployed. The incentive to work through not losing any of your payment from working only works (lol) when everyone gets it no matter what.

            Not to mention the massive amount of bureaucracy around the incredibly complicated rules that hardly even make sense (as they have been added to and fiddled with for years without a proper overhaul where everything gets chucked out and you start again), plus the very complicated mainframe system from the 80s that calculates everything (40 years of spaghetti code on top of spaghetti code) and the complicated hacked together modern system that is attempting to replace it but never can (I worked both in SAP and with ISIS at DHS), it would make so much sense to throw away all that garbage and have something so simple that the existing systems at the tax office could do it while hardly noticing the extra work, and that would actually work and be fair and good for society too.

            • trapper on 10/12/2020 - 22:31

              @Quantumcat: You haven't got much imagination if effectively paying the dole to every adult in the country is your only solution.

              Here's a random idea that would cost untold billions less. A 'back to work bonus' of $10k after coming off centerlink and being in full time employment for six months.

              • Quantumcat on 11/12/2020 - 00:20

                @trapper: They already tried something like that and it didn't work. It is basically like gambling, it makes mathematical sense to play but people often prefer to hold onto something small that's guaranteed than risk it for a big payoff even if the odds are well in their favour.

                There is a lot of research about UBI showing it will be effective. It is just hard to completely reform as it has massive effects on both taxation and social security.

                • trapper on 11/12/2020 - 01:24

                  @Quantumcat:

                  They already tried something like that and it didn't work.

                  When and what?

                  There is a lot of research about UBI showing it will be effective.

                  What research? The costs would be astronomical.

                  Even just at the jobseeker rate. ~20 million adults * ~$15k per year = $300 billion

                  And that won't be enough for unemployed single parents etc so they will need a top up anyway.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join