Here are some stats that should concern every working Australian. the Australian Tax Offices tax statistics for the 201011 financial year, which show that the top 5 per cent of income earners pay 34.1 per cent of net income tax and the top 25 per cent of income earners pay just over two-thirds of net income tax. Correspondingly, about 45 per cent of Australians pay no income tax at all Our welfare bill as blown out to over $131 Billion and consumes almost half of all federal government income. http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/html/overview_42.htm http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...ting-5000-a-head/story-fn84fgcm-1226351467594 We cannot sustain this, massive welfare bills are what trashed the economy in countries like Greece.
Correspondingly, about 45 per cent of Australians pay no income tax at all Is that working Australians or all Australians?
I would like to know what services are included in: $69,994 million - other purposes? $40,444 million - all other functions? Thats a $110 billion unaccounted for.
I would also like to know how much of that $131 billion is being spent on welfare supporting refugees? The governments own report stated that over 85% of refugees arriving by boat were still on some form of welfare up to 5 years. Maybe its not just the Australians who have their snouts in the welfare thoth. Rudd was also given an unassessed $600,000 per year pension for life and can work full-time. I know many pensioners who would like to be able to claim a full government pension and be able to work full time. Scum-bag pollies also have "their" snouts in the welfare troth, but like to blame the ordinary Australians for its increase.
ahhh yes, the good old Syndey Morning Herald. But what has that got to do with our gargantuan welfare bill? Did you read as far as; "Australia actually has the lowest level of middle-class welfare in the developed world and targets its spending to the poor more than any other OECD country"
YES I did, great isn't it, makes me proud to be an Aussie and help out a mate. Makes me glad I'm not American who won't look after those who are unable to look after themselves.
Yeppers I went from being a welfare basket case, to paying serious tax on good income earnings. Never complained about paying tax or the welfare system again
Our problem is we are looking after far too many who CAN look after themselves. I know several personally and know of many more.
We all receive or have received some form of welfare in our life.....yeah, gina and James too, it was called something else! The tax dodger is a welfare recipient.......maybe he's a thief???
Does meant that they're on welfare? Or, does it mean that they are not declaring their income, they're children, they're elderly, they are sick, the extreme poor, etc. who have either no income or it's too low to tax?
What he leaves out is the fact the tax structure is different to the US. You dont pay tax on your first $18350.00 earned in a year
Really the point is NOT welfare itself, it is the fact that welfare is depended upon. Corporate welfare, family payments and other welfare is money not well spent. It is NOT the case that these people need it or not, it is the fact that it is present. Emphisis should be brought to remove the incentive for such welfare but the problem is that wages are so high forcing prices up in a never ending spiral that can only spell disaster ultimately. Welfare is one major problem which cannot simply be handled by eradication. Many areas MUST adjust to remove the necessity for welfare to be present in many areas, the only problem is that Governments continue to use welfare to buy votes. So far this government has talked about this issue and has stated it would review the welfare system. The only problem is, MORE needs to be done than simply attacking the welfare system. This government made the right sounds before the election but still have not seriously address the situation and it continues to worsen
Read it for yourself. http://inside.org.au/who-gets-what-who-pays-for-it-the-welfare-state-debate-revisited/#
I know someone who gets a $600,000 yearly pension; $11,538 per week, and still able to work full time - Kevin Rudd and other retired politicians. Who did you say is bludging off the welfare system again? Shy's in comparison to a pensioner or welfare recipiant getting $18000 per year, and $346 per week.
in the 2005-2006 year $2382m Family and child welfare services .. Part A, B Docs, etc. schoolkids payment. $4999m Welfare services for older people and people with disabilities. $ 753m Other welfare services. http://staycritical.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/too-much-money-spent-on-refugees.html
I am a little amazed that people don't really know what constitutes welfare. Sure Pensions and unemployment are welfare but a percentage of health and educations also are made up with welfare as well. It could be argued that government paying health and education ARE welfare but that is considerably subjective to what is being paid for. Another thing that is extraordinary is that the government is pandering to that very sentiment by categorizing these things differently. It amazes me that these parties would divide the welfare budget into this area and that to pretend there is not a problem. I do note that this is the budget forecast for the 2012-13 under the ALP and that it does follow that deceptive nature Gillard began with BUT NOW I realize that many people swallow this garbage from their parties and that the government departments aid in pandering to that ignorance. Now while I have been critical of the ALP about this in the thread, the Coalition does seem content in simply making the noises. After 6 months of Abbott government all that has come out (at this present time) is a review on welfare support. I do realize that it is necessary to incorporate many measures to address the situation in the first government budget but so far they have been silent. All rhetoric in lead up to election campaign and before the election has fallen silent. I don't mean the superficial discussion of unemployment benefits, I talk about such things that are disguised in other areas as health education and family benefits to name a few. Addressing the issues of welfare, needs to address the reason that cause it NOT simply the welfare that is paid. The first thing is to establish exactly what welfare is before trying to adress the problem. They need to stop hiding the reality of welfare and face the facts of what it really costs the nation. For if you were to take into account health and education in the pie charts of your budget link you would see that welfare far outweighs the income tax revenue.
lets look at a hypothetical, the figures are just plucked out of the air but it is the theory I am showing. If someone has the time and inclination to find the figures that would be great. Let's say there is 1 million unemployed Let's say 200k are families,where one partner wants to work to support his family. Let's say 400k are young people just out of study Let's say 200k are the other partner from a single income family Let's say 100k are around 60 and looking for something to tie them over until 65 and the pension. Let's say 100k are bludgers, druggies, surfies and bums. Let's say there is 500k job vacancies. I would be concentrating on the list from top to bottom, not bottom to top like a lot of pollies, our prime minister and a lot on here want. We will always have some unemployment, it's intrinsic to capitalism. So if we HAVE to have it, why not let those who do not want to work bludge, and find jobs for those that do. Many years ago I ran in a federal election, speaking to farmers in the area they tried to blame unemployment on everything except the facts. He lived in a small rural community and worked a large wheat farm. I said to him that a hundred years ago or less, he would have employed dozens of workers to harvest, chip weeds etc. Today he hires a contractor who comes in with a few massive harvesters and within a few hours has done the work of dozens of men over weeks. Now where does rural unemployment come from? Why are our small towns dying? He went mechanised to make lore profit. The workers left town to seek jobs.
I complained about my taxes when I stopped working and we lived on my husband's income. Suddenly realized how much we had paid in taxes. Once my income was cut..we hardly noticed. I was just shocked that two people working 60-65 hours a week can have about as much spending income as one person working 60-65 hours per week.
There is definately more areas that constitute the meaning of welfare than just pensions and unemployment payments. Paying individuals to have babies is another welfare payment. Government subsidising private schools with public money is welfare payments Individuals earning over $100k still bludging on the public health care system is another form of welfare. Politicians being given $600K lifetime public funded pensions is welfare payments. $8 billion in free aid given away per year to help strangers instead of helping Australians in welfare we cannot affors anymore. Between $1 - $5 billion spent on a refugee problem is welfare we cannot afford anymore None of the above issues have ever been seriously raised or investigated, because no one wants to talk about the really hard problems that's bleeding our country dry.
Australians are one of the highest tax people in the world, and our country is still going down the drain. It wouldn't matter if you were paying 70% tax, politicians would find a way to squander it incompetently, and we would see no results. I don't think anyone needs to be a genius anymore to understand that politicians cannot manage Australia and its people anymore, and that we need a different approach.
I think you miss the point, the question is not IF welfare should be eradicated. The question is HOW to make it sustainable. Under the current system (something the ALP are applauded for) continued increases of welfare are eating at the support to pay for it. Even your own little scenario points to the fact of fewer jobs due to loss of manufacturing, YOU say that this means welfare is a must, but as you condemn Howard for having the lowest unemployment record in Australia at the end of his term you totally miss the point. AS stated, this is not simply an issue to eradicate welfare but a point to address the REASONS for welfare, one of them is exactly what you are saying, yet you ignore the fact that the ALP continued to eradicate manufacturing in Australia to placate a union base support of their party. It is all too funny when you want to promote one government over another and show clearly and distinctly you really don't understand the issues at hand. I also note that you only look to one area of welfare to support your theory that welfare is not a major issue facing Australia today. As this form of welfare makes decent impact on the nation due to the fact people on 457 visas need to be imported to fill jobs I wonder HOW you justify the increases of 457 visas (who have all their tax returned when they go home). While unemployment rises 457 visas rise… I don’t know about you but that just seems stupid to me… BUT what about family benefits used to bolster the incomes??? Why in hell should people need to have family welfare payments to supplement their incomes???
It is and unnecessary IMHO They pay a medicare surcharge. Pay peanuts, gey monkeys, we have to have a competitive salary to attract a worthwhile applicant, doesn't seem to work well though. Can't afford not to actually. Did you read where around 60% of this is on airport security? Um that's all we seem to hear about.
I would be very interested to know which government I promote over another, actually atm the government I would prefer is the Liberals except for one thing. They are lead by an idiot. Straight up, he is just a fool, bad news for Australia. Do you know that in the past 15 years I have only helped out in one polling place, handing out Liberal How to votes. He was worth it, I vote for the person, just don't follow parties like a sheep. Family benefits. My daughter, mother of one and her partner live on a total before tax income of around $700 per week. Rent is $450 per week. I tell you, they need the $300 per fortnight for part A and B We could start to fix it by taxing those 70 odd of the top income earners who pay NO TAX AT ALL. I personally know one guy (now found out by the ATO) who was earning in excess of 5 million a year but by the time his accountant was finished his taxable income was 20k. He has served his 12 months though. (much less than an honest crook would get for robbing a 711)
you see someone on 40-50K per year can't afford a "creative" accountant, can't afford to negative gear, can't usually afford a mortgage even. Certainly no tax dodges, tax havens, writing off losses and even future losses as the wealthy can They need some welfare, health, schooling, housing and child support
