Ohh... so now it is “I don't understand you”... Major failure.... You say, but your post say different... So why is it you support that premise of stopping the government from doing what it promised???? Yes people have the right to have a different opinion and announce that as such. But when people simply try to insult because they are caught out in their own pedantic games then it becomes apparent they should PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH... Of which you show again you do not…
I'm a modern conservative and I agree with everything you wrote, except the first and last sentences.
Well, I am glad that you have procured the economic resources to be able to survive in such a system. That makes you truly exceptional.
That is the problem, NOT welfare itself but the fact that one needs it to survive. Welfare is not sustainable if your economy is based upon consumer mentality. I note today ALCOA (name probably spelt wrong) have laid off more people and closed, at least, their Geelong operations. This will have the drones running around trying to play the blame game just as in the car industry but the point is that these layoffs will cause further pressure on the welfare system while reducing the ability to pay for such. Simple to say this is a problem that needs to be addressed on an economic scale and is simply not about eradicating welfare. This is a problem that is costing the Australian economy a great deal of financial resources while continuing to push Australia away from the life style they can ill-afford.
No, well yes, but no its just I've heard the same thing for 30 years. It's natural for curiousity to be led by fear, its why the youngsters and short of mind get sucked into unions... its just not best practise to be led by selfish instincts such as fear. Given more time, expanded learning opportunities or just a longer perspective can broaden ones opinions if they dont get bogged down in bipartisan ego BS. I think there does need to be welfare to support a baseline quality of life, but not for the long term unemployed unless they have a medical reason (incl. mental health etc) - in which case treatment might be a better/cheaper option and better allow for alternate work arrangements to be arranged which will be more successful long term.
To me, the costs of not maintaining a certain standard of living, regardless of how little that person does to earn it, are almost always too high. People who abuse the system don't learn. They will scam whichever way they can. It is better to have them get government assistance than have them do the truly desperate, frequently illegal things such people do. Still, I'm glad that we both agree a certain minimum level is necessary for the long-term health of society.
No, I'd like to see some changes in how we approach the wealth inequality problem. To me, the problem is how we compensate people. I feel like the ratio of top-earners to bottom-earners is far too high. Right now, the top earners make between 200 and 400 times the amount of money as the bottom earners. I think if we were to bring that down to a reasonable ratio, by limiting compensation to something like 75 or 100:1, that would go a long ways. I think this would arguably less intrusive to the economy that something like minimum wage or increased taxes, while still addressing the problem.
It is refreshing to hear a new voice with enough intelligence to look at the situation from a holistic point of view rather than from a narrow tunnel vision angle like so many conservatives do. Bludgers are a fact of life. There are bludgers on unemployment benefits true, but most of them are honest enough to front up and say "Yes I haven't worked for 30 years, I don't want to work." They join up with people of similar ethics and get public housing, sometimes living in over crowded accommodation, pooling resources to survive. They spend their days smoking cigarettes, dope, sitting in parks drinking cheap grog. There are many of them, but in the big picture, they are in the minority, even though it appears they are not. There are also thousands, maybe 10's of thousands of bludgers with jobs. When I was 17 (43 years ago) I got a job as a cleaner labourer at a power station. On my first day, the foreman took me around the station and told me my duties. I was assigned to clean the number 2 boiler, I was told when I finished I could go to the meal room. An hour and a half later I finished and went to the meal room. I saw the foreman playing 500 with some other workers and went to ask him what to do next. He told me they had four players, I could wait for another three to come in or get a book from the bookshelf and read. He told me to bring something to do to fill in the time. I packed my stuff, went to the personnel officer and resigned. This systemic bludging is rife in a lot of industries and very common in government jobs. Working in health I found hundreds doing virtually nothing, yet earning enormous salaries. Over the years I have had this thorn in my side, the unions backed those workers, threatening strike action if the employers tried to change things. Maturity, research and observation have enlightened me as to what is really the problem. It is not the unions charter to create an environment for the bludgers, it is their charter to support the workers, it is the workers in these cases that are the bludgers. They infiltrate the unions and perpetuate the problem. The problem had it's hay day I believe, and many of these people have retired, but their children have retained that attitude. Many of these now live with their parents and get the dole, or move into groups as stated earlier. Now this is only one small area of welfare abuse, but is a common theme. We can take these people off benefits but IMHO this will exasperate the problem not fix it. Firstly as you have stated the crime rate would increase. Mental health issues would increase, domestic violence, child abuse and an increase of beggars in the street. Ideally the money saved, eventually would be used to top up other wages and as you stated would less likely to be spent. The conservative way, which is the business way, would mean that any and all savings go on top of the balance sheet, which means higher dividends and a bigger bonus for senior executives. Let's look at a supermarket as an example. They install operatorless checkouts that reduce the staff levels and increase the throughput. This means a greater profit and increased dividends and increased bonus for senior execs. For some peculiar reason they feel that the workers should accept this, shrug their shoulders and toddle off to the dole office where they will be abused by AdultMale for living off his hard earned tax dollars. Let's look at our hypothetical supermarket. It employs approx 110 000 employees It has gross sales of $58.5 billion It has cost of goods of $42.75 billion It has cost of doing business of $12 billion It has rent, refit costs, tax etc of $13.5 billion Profit attributable to members .. $2.25 billion or approx 4% (3.8 ) Now that (4%) doesn't look much, but everything has been paid, this is the dividends, and that is fairly good. Now the CEO of this supermarket chain is earning approx $4.4 million (last year he earned $2 million) Now the staff, you know, those that stand for 8 hours a day at a cash register, the store persons lugging boxes and pushing trolleys, the cleaners mopping up the floors etc all see this gross difference in wages. They see their jobs going to robotic machines and they see the profits doubling and the CEO getting a 50%+ salary increase whilst they scream for a few dollars a week more. Now superficially it looks reasonably fair from a business perspective, 5% net profit is something most businesses would look to, they only had 3.8% so that seems low. The reason that this is a low figure is because they fine tune the business, dropping prices (supermarket price wars), keeping wages bill low (Opperatorless checkouts, min wages), standing over suppliers. Hidden in their costs there or hundreds of senior execs, transport companies, cleaning companies, property management companies, refit companies, the goods supplier companies and whilst they may not all earn the 4.4 mil, they do ear enormous salaries, somewhere in the vicinity of a billion dollars, approx 1.75% of the gross sales would be attributed to a few hundred senior execs. Workers who are struggling to just pay rent and buy food do not appreciate the gross differences in salaries, feeling that they do all the work and only barely have enough to live on. They cannot afford to buy homes as the higher earning execs are negative gearing and pushing home prices through the roof, paying larger mortgages, increasing rents but keeping them somewhat lower than their mortgage payments so they can pay less tax, hurting the lower income employees who cannot mortgage even a home, nor can they avoid tax. I said earlier I got a job at Woolworths when I was 17. It was a new store, our town never had a Woolworths until it opened. It had though, three small supermarkets, all privately owned by local businessmen. These men were the rich men in town along with a few other businessmen. We knew they were rich, they drove new Mercades, they went on holidays overseas. Driving around the town today I see their legacy. The town public pool is named the XXXX XXXXX Memorial pool as when one of their wives died, he built the pool for the town as a memorial to his wife who loved to swim. She said to him once that she wanted him to build a pool for the town as there wasn't one and she wanted to pay the town back for supporting their business and giving them a lifestyle they would never have had if it wasn't for the towns people supporting their business. Then there's the YYYY memorial arts centre, the GGGG memorial park and the towns cenotaph, donated to the town by HHHHHHH. Nowhere can I see the Woolworths memorial anything, nor the Coles memorial anything, Harvey Norman memorial or the bunnings .. and so on. Actually the above mentioned companies along with a few others caused the demise of dozens of small family business that DID keep the profits in the town. All this is just a very tiny example of what is happening, so would I go back to those days today? No way, we can't, population is increasing, changing, growing and evolving. So then must business. Some of us older people will remember a thing called Service Station, a name we still use today, but only in name. My son once asked why they were called service stations and not petrol stations (as is becoming more popular). I told him that is what they should be called today, as when they were called Service Stations, it was because when you went there you got served. Remember when you pulled up next to the bowser, a smiling attendant asked you " fill her up?" he would put the nozzle in your tank, clip a retainer to keep the flow going, pick up a squeegee and rag and start washing your windscreen. When the fuel was at the desired level he would shut it down, walk around to the drivers window. The driver may say "Thanks, could you check the oil?". "No problem" he replied. You would pop the bonnet and he would check the oil, water and battery. "All good he would say, that's 10 gallons, that will be 5 quid". You would give him the money, he would go inside and if needed return with your change. Smiles exchanged and you would drive off complaining of the price of fuel. We cant and never will be able to go back to that, times and things change, I just don't think we are going in the right direction. Business have to look at customers with a little more respect. They have to look at employees more as the means of their earnings and look after them better. They love the customers, what they really don't think about is that customers are employees. You cannot have high profits and low wages, not long term and not across the board. Something is going to have to give, or we will get increases in crime, violence, civil unrest and dissatisfaction. Already we see the rich starting to live in compounds, security fencing, CCTV and armed guards. This is just the beginning unless we relook at the direction we are going. I am not against change, not against progress, wow I have been working as a computer systems analyst for the past 10 years, progress is my job. We just need to do it RIGHT, and although I hate to say it as I have voted conservative most of my life. If the conservatives do not have a major shift in their ideology, they are doomed unfortunately. This is my honest opinion
Why don't we scrap the dole and have a department of employment? If you have no job you can go there and they will give you a job. the government should create work, there is plenty to do. In 2012 there were 634,000 people in this country doing nothing and getting paid out of the public purse and that is just the dole bludgers. We also have 827,000 on the disability pension, many of whom are perfectly capable of working. The numbers will be greater now in 2014. These are the welfare recepients I started this thread about. We should not be paying more than 634,000 people to sit on their arses doing nothing. Just think what 634,000 people could accomplish if they were put to work. Let's give them a job, no work, no pay. I say again it is not unreasonable to expect people to participate in the production of the goods and services they consume.
I believe we have too many wealthy recipients recieving welfare payments, but also believe we have too many recipients in the middle class and low socio-economic classes recieving welfare. Unfortunately we have a broken political system. Whereby politicians themselves have a welfare dependent mentality. Politicians will arbitrarily offer welfare hand-outs and inducements to certain groups of people to get themselves re-elected during election time. Once the politician is re-elected, and the countries economy flatlines; the people the welfare was given too come under attack and scutiny. No politician from any major political party, the media or the citizens ever ask politicians why they are taking unneccessary $billions in welfare payments. Does anyone ever ask why an extremely wealthy Kevin Rudd should be entitled to a $600,000 per year lifetime Australian welfare tax payer funded pension? Then the same politicians and "trial by media" try to convince the public that Mrs Smith on $18,000 per year welfare pension is costing Australia to much money, and cannot be sustained. LOL I don't think anyone has to have an extraordinary high IQ to understand and comprehend where the Australian welfare money is being wasted and squandered. $8 billion given away in foreign aid is welfare money that desperately needs to be spent here in Australia helping Australians in low socio-economic areas and situations to gain education that will benefit them and Australian businesses. The $8 billion should be use to hire TAFE teachers, and to investigate and format specific cirriculum that Australian businesses require, so this cirriculum can be taught to unemployed individuals. Therefore, we will not require foreign 457 visa workers coming to Australia to take Australian jobs, Australians will be educated in those specific areas. It should be mandatory for every school leaver or young individual who does not have a trade or specific qualification to participate in a TAFE course of their choosing, and to complete that course, while they are recipients of welfare benefits. The above are just two basic concepts of immediately helping to reduce the welfare dependency in Australia form a sociological and ecomonic perspective.
What do you think Kevin Rudd is doing for his $600,000 per year tax payer funded pension? Kevin Rudd is a wealthy man. Can you justify Rudd getting this money from the public purse for stiing on HIS arse and doing nothing, but condemn someone else for getting $18,000 per year form the public purse, and you don't know their real circumstance? Has Rudd got any form of diagnosed disability to warrant his pension payment? I bet everyone on a disability pension had to jump through numerous hoops of medical examinations and doctors reports before getting their meger pension, but Kevin didn't.
We all know why you started this thread, you are sick of carrying Australia on your back, and I don't blame you, you are such a benevolent man, I admire you so much.
The generous pensions given to slimebag politicians is another issue and I don't 'condem' anyone. I am saying no one should be getting a free ride on the public purse if they are able to work for their keep. If they can't find a job then let's give them a job. If they don't want to work then give them nothing.
As someone who has worked hard all my life - I have never begrudged those on the dole or on disability or whatever else some of you grumble about. The only time I felt a twinge of 'jealousy' was maybe when I was exhausted from overwork and bumping into walls cos I was so tired... and thought it would be nice to be 'idle' for a spell. But the feeling soon passed. Anyone who is working is in an infinitely better position that someone who is not. Financially, helps confidence, gives a sense of purpose, and so much more. I've seen people out of work in all sorts of circumstances - sickness, disability, compo, unemployment benefit, and what-not. And money / budgeting was a big strain for all of them. If people are now meant to work until they're 70 and while ageism still occurs in the workplace expect a lot more unenployment in older workers. And spare a thought for those made redundant in older years when ageism does exist and makes it hard for these people to find work again. I was made redundant after 25 years in one organisation and was so grateful to have found work within a couple of months. The pay is somewhat crap compared to what I was paid before but I am grateful to be working and to be maintaining my life. Personally, I'm tired of people whining about people on welfare. Because there but for the grace of God go I and all that... It wouldn't surprise me if some of the people that moan about dole recipients aren't dole recipients themselves... It is the internet afterall...
I do understand the problem that concerns you, but its not as simple as pointing the finger at unemployed individuals and individuals on pensions. When politicians want to rally the citizens to a major cause, they enlist the help of the media to release biased psychological propaganda targeting certain groups. Those groups always seem to be unemployed individuals and individuals on pensions recieving low welfare payments. Politicians deliberately make these groups very easy targets, because they want to hide the real endemic welfare problem Australia is encountering. Politicians know welfare payments are a superficial problem, but they don't have the honesty or moral fortitude to admit that to the Australian citizens, who pay their salaries. In all sincerity, I would like you to take some time and think about the whole problem of unemployment and welfare payments, and ask yourself "where" is the problem coming from. I will be as honest as I can with you and other members. We run our family business, which has expanded into four other locations since my my grandfather/father first started it in 1952. We also operate a family farming business. I can tell you from personal experience that by legally being allowed to change "one" word or "one" sentence on an employee's application form, it would have been easier and less expensive for our business to get foreign 457 visa workers into our business, than hiring Australian workers under the current Government legislation. I can also tell you from the amount of unemployed individuals who cold-canvas our businesses on a weekly basis; that 99% who ask about work and leave their resume's are genuinely seeking employment. Unfortunately, Australian politicians, who are suppose to be looking after the Australian people have made it easier and less expensive for Australian companies to import foreign 457 workers that now supplant Australian workers, and force these workers onto unemployment benefits - welfare payments. Thanks to Australian politicians, the Australian people are not only losing their manufacturing prowess, but we are now also losing our jobs to foreign workers, and then everyone is wondering why our bloody employment rate is suddenly skyrocketing.
If the basic foundations of a societies welfare system (The Australian Government) is corrupt and rotten, then everything stemming upwards (Societies dependency on welfare) from the base will be an extension of that decay and corruption. When wealthy Australian politicians who retire from political office believe they are duely entitled to lifetime tax payer funded pension welfare; then its no wonder Australia has a psychologically uncontrolable welfare epidemic. Australian politicians paying people to have babies on a planet with a population exceeding 7 billion individuals, when every minute 18 people die of starvation in the world; is bloody ridiculous welfare hand-out thats needs to be immediately stopped. http://factcheckinginjusticefacts.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/asmaa-al-hameli/ Politicians excitedly hand-out welfare promises and payment to get themselves and their political parties re-elected, but when something dire happens to the economy, the first group these politicians blame for financially burdening the economy is the welfare recipients they bribed with welfare payments to get re-elected. LOL I think it would be fairly obvious to anyone now that we cannot trust politicians, and if we cannot trust politicians, then we cannot have them working for us anymore. We need to apply the same code of moral and ethical principals to politicians as we would friends and family. I don't believe anyone with an ounce of common sense would have a lying, untrustworthy, deceitful friend or family member working for them, or have them envolved in their private lives, and these same standards must be applied to politicians who run our country and make decisions that effect all our lives.
