http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/d0e4af64354d9e9d6fe81b99ef59cf9b We can't sustain this. Australia is borrowing just to hand the money over to welfare parasites. If it goes on, the bludgers will bring the country down. The welfare budget is expected to top $190 billion this year.
Have you got another link..links to the Australian just open up an advertisement to subscribe to the Australian..
To forumites.. Im not really billy the kid..Im magoo, as can be seen from the avatar.. Long story..but I know all my millions of fans (I know there are none) will welcome me back.... Adultmale..all links to the Australian are shown as an Australian commercial to subscribe to the Australian..have you any other links please..
Hardly fair to call pensioners welfare bludging parasites. After all this and dsp make up a significant amount of Australia's welfare budget. Poor farmers need assistance and so do those who have lived through natural disasters etc etc. Typical Murdoch news never gives anyone the full picture, they'll just run a line in their rag and some people grab it with both hands and run across to their neighbour and tell me what the front page of the Australian is saying.
Do you deliberately mislead people, are you just trying to sensentionalise your view, or are you so filled with misguided hatred you believe anything. The estimates for the year 2016-2017 from the site http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/WelfareSpend Please tell us which category are parasites. Assistance to the aged 63,057 m$ Assistance to veterans and dependents 6,405 m$ Assistance to people with disabilities 34,157 m$ Assistance to families with children 37,084 m$ Assistance to the unemployed and the sick 11,591 m$ Other welfare programs 1,529 m$ Assistance for Indigenous Australians nec* 2,161 m$ General Administration 3,671 m$ Total social security and welfare 159,654 m$, that's 160 billion anyway, not 190.
There'll be more of a crisis when the elderly start to discover that their super is gone... plundered by state and federal governments...
Welfare is very broad and I highly doubt anybody on this forum, that is an Australian citizen, claim that they have never been a recipient of some form of welfare. The "bludgers", are a rather small percentage in the entirety of the welfare budget, however it is a growth area that does need addressing as it is now multi generational. Governments want a certain percentage of the populace on welfare. Karl Marx once said something along the lines.... Once you nurture a dependency you can gain control of the thoughts. It all comes down to the fact that the government isn't raising enough revenue to pay for its costs. Simple economics folks...... Raise taxes or cut costs. It is truly that simple.
While the premise of the thread is correct, That welfare will bring down the nation, I do believe the issue is far deeper than the point of welfare bludger. Again I ask, why are their working people who needs to survive on welfare??? Why should the government subsidise exports to the tune of 60%+ just to make the products more marketable to the global community??? There are many forms of welfare and pointing out that possibly 2% of the population is to blame for a serious spending situation is ignoring the truth of the situation and leaves the nation locked in the debate of economy over social issues. While majority are being paid by the government pocket (ergo the tax payer) then Nobody will win. The age of entitlement will win over decency every time. Giving tax cuts to corporate Australia while promoting the jobs and growth benefit are rather short sighted as it reduces the tax income to pay for such welfare. People will say that while people get a job they will not be in need of welfare, ignores the welfare paid to the working poor. Welfare should NEVER be used to pay for a life style, but the use of the welfare budget to buy votes for the election of parties just demonstrates the failure of the Australian government to address the problems at hand…
an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. That is precisely what everyone he listed is doing. You might think that it's justified, but it's bloody obvious that they're all mooching off those who actually produce and pay taxes. That's what welfare is. I would immedietly and without replacement abolish all the programs he listed.
A lot of the unemployed and disabled are frauds though. I've known a lot that go from school to unemployment benefits, and when that gets too tiresome they 'suddenly do their backs in' while working some casual laboring job somewhere and never work again. At least that is what a few have told me they do. You can get strong meds for back pain, its easy to fake, and you get to live off welfare for the rest of your life..... that is if you get bored rorting the dole. Not to mention having kids to get extra cash. There needs to be some serious tightening in the handing over of welfare. Not only can we not afford to provide a pension to retirees in the near future, but we certainly cant afford to let bludgers rip off the hard working Australians who pay taxes and do the right thing. Sure the vulnerable need it, but bored lazy liars most surely do not!!
There are people cheating the unemployment benefits, there are people cheating disability benefits, there are people cheating insurance policies, there are businesses cheating employees, there are businesses cheating the tax department, there are employees cheating their employers, there are employees cheating the tax system. Not all people are cheating the unemployment benefits, not all people are cheating disability benefits, not all people are cheating insurance policies, not all businesses are cheating employees, not all businesses are cheating the tax department, not all employees are cheating their employers, not all employees are cheating the tax system. Good we have that out of the way. There are several different aspects to take into consideration here. First, work is not just to earn money for ourselves. Our work contributes to the wellbeing of our nation as a whole. Everything in some way contributes to the wealth of the nation, whether it be directly, building, mining, agriculture, manufacturing etc. or indirectly, transport, food, health or even more remotely, entertainment, sport, art, etc. Second, no job is more important then any other job in the big scheme of things. We also need, if we are to call ourselves a civilised and humane society, to look at what is "fair and equitable", a term Capitalists like. At uni in a subject on medicine and society we were asked a question. Two doctors are doing the rounds, the patient they are attending suffers a heart attack, one doctor is a veteran cardiac specialist, the other an intern. The intern sprints the 100 meters and grabs the "Crash Cart", racing it back to the patient. The older doctor grabs the paddles and resuscitates the patient. Which doctor saved the patients life? I forget who it was now, but I remember watching a NRL player who was retiring being interviewed. He had been one of the top players for his club and had been a rep player. The Interviewer said something like this with a grin "you have been playing First Grade for 10 years as a part of one of the most successful teams, you have played over 200 first grade games, how many tries have you scored?" "None" was the reply. Sometimes success is not because of those that are rewarded for it, but because of those that are just there doing their jobs. Now even being unemployed is "doing a job". Now let's put the bludgers in a box and put it aside first, we will deal with them later. There are genuine unemployed, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if we have 500,000 unemployed then at least 300K would be genuine. It is also obvious from both the way they determine the number of unemployed, and the number of people who are looking for work but are not unemployed, IE part time work for retirees, second job for people with jobs etc. So in actuality I would say the number of genuine job seekers (which is different from the number of unemployed) would be close to 500K. In May 2016 the abs published that there was 171,900 vacancies, now those jobs have to be competed for by 500, 000 people, which means that 330, 000 people won't work not because they don't want to, but because there just isn't enough jobs. Some sources put the number of job seekers at well over a million, but they include those looking to move up the ladder as being job seekers, that in my opinion is wrong as if they get the higher position then they create a vacancy for their old position. They do not take into account the bludgers that are unemployed and NOT job seekers, so I would say my 500K guesstimate is pretty "fair". Now I gave the figures for a particular month because I could, they publish the figures monthly. They are to a degree an indicator as to how the economy/country/government is "going". It also means that they fluctuate, sometimes it's purely seasonal (holiday periods, fruit season, etc). Sometimes it because companies make mistakes - Woolworths/Masters, sometime they just waste money or make bad decisions Mr. Palmer. Sometimes it is corporate greed, sometimes it is to compete, one of those fits Bonds. Sometimes it's because of technology, supersession, redundancy or overseas trends and markets Sometime companies just go belly up for a combination of reasons, sometimes things become amazing successes because of the fickleness of human kind and sometimes companies go down because of it. So what we have is a very volatile group, both the seekers and vacancies. Let's look at the vacencies. Some are absolute Bull... well let's just say it will make your roses grow anyway. For years in the places I worked in the public sector it was the same, it had to be, it was decreed by the government, we had to advertise every position. Now usually it went like this. My boss came to me and said that the senior analyst position was coming up, he wanted me to have it, I knew the job and was well capable of doing it. He said I would have to apply but it was a formality they had to do, but i knew stuff you couldn't know without having years of experience working as an analyst on the team it was a natural thing to do and fair as you earned it. What we really need and what we will eventually advertise for is a junior programmer. Eventually a "new" employee joined our team. He was laid off when a project he was contracted to by a private company working with us on our project ended and the company downsized. So it was just a reshuffle up the ladder. Oh one position was created. The guy who left our team went to work on the "My Gov" project which is designed to decrease the number of government employees. A smaller public sector, isn't that what we all want. On top of this there is increasing pressure on imported goods, internet shopping, the government (raising pension age, increasing work visas, etc). Add to this technology/productivity increases etc and you have more than enough to offset any foreseeable growth to any real extent, IF ANY. Add to this a world population that is increasing at an alarming rate, our health is getting better, mortality rates are dropping and we are living longer. Add to this the uncertainty of the fact that a few dozen people around the world have the power to plunge the entire world into a war or economic crash whether deliberately or not is not the point. There are at least THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE that will not get the 170K + or - jobs each month. Good people, could be you or me, could be our kids or grandkids. There is insurance you should take in case of sickness or being laid off through no fault of your own, I always had it, but most people don't. Maybe we should make it compulsory like "third party" insurance. This would not however cover those that are just entering the job market, and the ones that were covered had to fit into a neat packet to qualify and to get the benefits. There is no private insurance that would cover all that social security covers even excluding the cheats and bludgers. So how do we get a "fair and equitable" system. If we did it through private sector as we do "third party" car insurance, it would need tight government regulation, control and policing. Look at what has happened in the early child care industry, terrorists managed to infiltrate and milk money out of our system. Greed for money or power, plain dishonesty, criminal influence and activity all infiltrate throughout the business world. Private enterprise do things for profit, that is they take in more money than they pay out. If the number or size of the payouts increase, so will the premiums. If the risk increases, so will the premiums, they HAVE TO make a profit. If they screw up with the money, whether legally or illegally, whether intentionally or not, if they haven't got the money, they may go to jail, BUT YOU WON'T GET PAID. So what the right want is for the government to either make insurance compulsory, or to make it so if you don't have it "stiff cheddar", go hungry. They are pretty happy at the moment insuring the low risk, premium paying people who have read all the fine print, and the government picking up the tab for the rest. No matter what, if you are paying private insurance all your life and never collect it you are lucky, but you have paid for all the people that did claim and the lunches of the executives and their exorbitant salaries which reflect more for what they do for the shareholders then what they do for you. Such a system would need heavy regulation and policing by the government, and the claims would need to be policed and regulated by the companies as well so double regulation, double policing just so some insurance companies can make a profit. The government would also be responsible for the rest that are uncoverable. This is not something that should be left to the market. It is about people's security, health, well being, shelter, food and safety. It is about things that are beyond our control, sometimes unforeseeable, sometimes unimaginable, sometimes just plain criminal. This sort of thing is too important to leave in that state. We need a fair and equitable system. The system is funded from the tax and the more you earn the more tax you pay. It could be a levy like the medicare levy. I know the medicare system isn't the best but it can be made similarly fair and equitable. A good and competent government could develop and successfully manage a fair and equitable system with varying levels of payout, where the profit component was channeled down to the low end of the scale. Of course everyone would be at a level commensurate with the level of tax they pay (health) or were paying (unemployment) so those that way, "bludgers" as you put it would be getting just a bare basic payment which could be as low as it is now. However the 50 year old guy who was assistant manager at Bunnings who left to take a position at Masters as manager would get enough to feed his family and pay his bills until he retrained or found another job for a 50 year old with a year 10 education and 35 years experience in hardware, ATM. With this system there would always be the option to bump up your coverage through private insurance. At the moment let's put all that energy into finding the other 300, 000 jobs before we worry about the few thousand bludgers.
If we get to virtually zero unemployment without dramatic changes to our employment practices and retirement arrangements, then it will be a bad reflection on our nation as far as technological advancement, our productivity, our ingenuity, etc without some other major factors coming into play, wars, etc.
It was my understanding that an individual had to comprehend the concept of unemployment before advocating a solution. It never took a genius to comprehend the Government data on unemployment has always been erroneous. The Government unemployment data figures for people who are employed included any individual doing any fulltime work; part-time work; casual work; volunteer work; and work for the dole schemes. When you consider individuals participating in volunteer programs and work for the dole programs are not paid employees. How many Australians are doing part-time work and casual work, but still need assistance? The estimate is definitely more than 500K unemployed Australians. How can anyone judge unemployed Australians, when there are countless Local; State and Federal ex-politicians claiming $hundreds of thousands in free tax payer funded lifetime pensions, who don’t financially need these pensions? Wouldn’t the first logical step in reducing the burden on the Australian welfare system be stopping all the ex-politicians lifetime tax payer funded pensions first. How can we judge an unemployed individual without first asking why everyone is saying nothing about Kevin Rudd being allowed to keep a $600,000 per year lifetime tax payer funded pension. When he is a multi millionaire, and able to work full time, and his tax payer pension is not reviewed? A $600,000 saving could fund 30 basic $20,000 per year aged pensions for a lifetime. So instead of funding 30 people who need financial support in their old age through pensions, we fund one parasite politician, who financially doesn't need it.
I did mention the error in stats and I reduced the total by about 50% to account for the bludgers just to demonstrate that even the 500k is approx 3 times the vacancies
The low intellect of the Australian has just been demonstrated. Lets all concentrate on, and debate, whether the unemployment number is 500,000 or 501,000, and we can all forget about the real issues. If this low intellect is across the employment board. Is it really any wonder why so many Australian jobs are being replaced by low skilled foreign 457 visa workers? Actually, it begs the question if these 457 foreign visa workers are not more intelligent than the mentally challenged "Aussies" they are replacing. Maybe there is a valid reason why Australians are only suited to volunteer work (picking weeds out of gardens), and not paid labour.
Exactly. I don't think anyone could know the correct figures, as you pointed out the criteria for being unemployed is dodgy to say the least. Another unknown is the number that are bludging on the system and not actively seeking work. The only real thing we know for a fact is that there are many many more seeking work than there are positions vacant, Yes I agree and alluded to 457 visas being a significant problem. There is a lot more to the problem than just getting the bludgers up off their collective Rses
