Pensioners or centerlink recipients

What are the jobs? I got an ounce of silver that says they aren't 6 figure mine jobs despite the insinuation

 

Yeah, how dare they suggest a dole bludger bother getting out of bed for less than 100K! :lol:

 

+1!

Who said anything about mines? Plenty of non-mining jobs have been going wanting - many that even unskilled people can do if you assume that they can actually:
(a) reliably turn up on time a few days a week
(b) take a few basic instructions
(c) then do a few basic tasks

and, in some cases:
(d) be willing to do (a)-(c) for a pay level "only" double that of the welfare.

This is no doubt a big part of the reason why hardly anyone bothered applying in which case why the hell should we be paying the slackers welfare?

 

Low income jobs aren't much better financially than social security, especially for families. Also the way that social security is set up people are punished quite harshly for earning money. Plucking figures from the air it's like 50 cents in the dollar. So they go to work for $16 an hour and lose $8 in benefits but pay tax on the $16.

People on welfare aren't necessarily stupid. They do the sums, work out that a low income job means working 40 hours, commuting, running a car / public transport costs, putting up with idiots for 40 hours.... They do the sums and marry that up with the loss of lifestyle and freedom and think "not worth it"


I personally think making work pay rather than cut benefits is a better solution. I won't buy into the "Aussies are already paid to much" because that's in large part thanks to obscene real estate prices / rents and the fact that our dollar is overvalued. Knock it down to $0.55 and all of a sudden Aussie Workers are cheap(er) on the world stage.

 

^^^ Nugget I don't if you are arguing for or against but given your "I personally think..." I reckon the latter.

Work (roughly) pays what it is worth while welfare pays whatever the bureaucrats/pollies vote on to steal from others and redistribute. One is equitable and morally justifiable, the other is an injustice dressed up as "good" because it has a superficial resemblance to a certain Robin Hood fairy tale we all grew up with.

 

I lol-ed at the 'insinuation' bit !!

 

I like to try and see both sides of the argument.

One area I'm interested in at the moment is looking at payoffs. That is, what's the payoff? Why are they doing what they are doing? There has to be something in it for them otherwise surely they'd be doing something else :/


Those jobs aren't offering enough money or incentives to attract staff or social security is to generous. However I don't think that social security is that generous. So the jobs aren't that great either. When your choice is between a turd sandwich and a giant douche which do you choose? I think the one that involves the least effort would be the most attractive choice for most. I'm just throwing idea's out there.


FWIW I've never been on the dole nor received any direct payments / assistance.

 

why should they even be paying these people to go get a job?

bloody waste of tax payers money.

cut the dole completely and hire some policemen that aren't morons for once.

 

Rubbish. The society you currently live in and derive benefit from was paid for directly by the same people you are paying for their retirement. Instead of their money being put into a funded retirement fund, it was spent on infrastructure you currently benefit from. So the option you would face in the alternative is not paying for pensioners income whilst being taxed through the nose to pay for huge government debt to pay for the countries infrastructure. So to say it is directly detrimental is not exactly true or at least not telling the whole story. While, I would like us never have been put into that position but it's a catch 22.

For me, the bigger moral hazard is not the middle class welfare state and the rest of the rubbish, but the mentality that one person should pay a bigger share of his or her hard earned for the benefit of "society" You fix that one issue, and the rest falls into line.

 

The oldest known fragment of civilization is hemp cloth. The best oil for humans to ingest is hemp oil. the strongest natural plant fiber, etc etc etc etc And, only been been "illegal" for 100 years out of 6000yrs. and your answer is smoke it.

im not on the dole or on a pension.
i earn more here in Tas than i would in any WA mining town or community and most chefs earn in any major capital city. $150k+
(iron and gas are the 2 higher paying sites. Gold mines pay less). I also travel 200km between my multiple jobs here if you want fair dinkum commitment and not just dribble on about anti dope rhetoric. im not broke or in any financial peril and not likely to be. But i would not like to sell up here in a depressed market and move my 5 kids to a remote location that may shut down at any moment. 4000km away from the rest of our family. and neither would you.

 

Exactly. People 'generally' want to move to the city centres rather than to rural areas (except for the seachange types).

I would usually agree with Bordsilver on this kind of thing, but you echo my thoughts on this topic almost exactly.

Having been on 'the dole' once myself, I know it can sometimes be hard to shift out of 'the comfort zone' or a certain way of life. For people to want to move to get a job - which may mean moving away from family, friends, a city they know, recreation, etc - they need decent incentives. Which is more pay or a better lifestyle.

Two ways to achieve this - offer the better incentives, or reduce current incentives to stay on welfare. Eg, if life on welfare truly sucked, then they might just take any job. That's the hard-line approach anyway. I'm not advocating it as such, but personally I think a shift from welfare payments to 'foodstamps' or something equivalent might be an option.

But still, none of what I said really addresses why people are on welfare in the first place. Australia has massive systemic issues, and basic welfare is not at the top of that list. Australia isn't the only country with such welfare.

Still, all of this 'anecdotal evidence' that 'dole bludgers' just smoke weed all day and sit back and laugh at the working man is nothing but another strawman. People shouldn't blame those who are on the dole - instead blame the circumstances that put them there.

 

Just curious if anyone on here is receiving middle class welfare. Rhetorical really.

I recall watching an ABC Q&A a woman in the audience was whinging to the P.M that she missed out in the budget, with some non specific information given by her and some deducing by the panel and the P.M it was clear that her household was earning over 200k a year awww "No welfare for you"!

Just last week I seen a vox pop concerning the Newman reforms, one woman who appeared to me to be middle class and late 20's perhaps mid 30's was asked what she thought about the state govts approach her answer was succinct and telling, she said " I thought they would have been giving it not taking away". a lot of people are on the teet , give it a break.

 

^ good comment, simply for the fact that you identify that it isn't 'dole bludgers' by themselves but the other handouts that get given by the Govt.

It's not necessarily a case of people who don't work. That just what A Current Affair would want you to think. Outrage i tells ya!

Buying votes perhaps? Hiding the effects of inflation perhaps? Stimulating the economy perhaps? Wasting money definitely.

 

All of those suggestions I strongly suspect successive Govts have painted themselves into this corner. People simply cannot live and have a sense of actually creating wealth and success on $64k a year especially not with a family...they are all debted out now and realise the $10,$20,$30, $40k in personal debt that made them feel like they were participating and keeping up with Mr Jones was nothing more than a day at the chariot races.

You know you have a bubble when you see young Australian girls spending $2k a month , nearly every month on hand bags previously reserved for the ultra rich....Now thats a bubble.

 

And how oh so easy that is going to make it to get ahead of the curve :

And it''s not just girls! I almost got into a fight a while back when I burst out laughing at a guy who told me he spent $300 on this (or similar) and that I didn't know fashion:

 

1. There is a case to be made for aged pensioners receiving some form of pension.
2. Assylum seekers should get NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! (that alone would STOP THE BOATS!!)
3. Anybody under 60 who is without work could receive some welfare assistance for a maximum defined period only - eg 12 months - thereafter nada.

That way things can go back to the way they used to be where family and friends look after THEIR OWN instead of having their resources stolen by government in order to give to people they dont know or even like!

 

REALLY???

so if i steal from you its okay as long as i spend the money????

mate - you're a couple of cans short :lol:

 

lol - there's just too much material in this thread ... i could go on a killing spree here!!

not worth it! :lol:

 

IMHO.

1. Pensioners are now dependant, they were promised the pension in return for their taxes so we can't throw them under the bus now.

2. Australia needs to take back it's own sovereignty and withdraw it's signatory to the UNHCR convention and return to Australians their own liberty to chose who and how people come to this country.

3. 12 Months? you bloody commie! You've changed. If you have been on the dole 6 months and are not willing to clean toilets or wash dishes to earn a living you should be a begger.

 

It is not too bad a deal.. $300 for a shirt and eight sheep!

Regards Errol 43