Budget 2014

[Paulrus]

i think them forcing unemployed people under 30 to wait 6 months to apply for the dole made me angriest tbh.
the point of the dole is that it's an immediate source of relief when you lose your job to give you some time to get back on your feet. if you're between 25-30, and too old for youth allowance, if you find yourself unemployed you're basically screwed for 6 months unless you can get support from your family. if the idea is to galvanise people into looking for work, they need to stop watching today tonight stories on 'dole-bludgers' because the vast majority of people on the dole aren't on it because they enjoy being on it.

to me it just kind of shows that old elitist attitude of 'if you're poor, it's your own fault for not working hard enough'.

[Russ]

Why shouldn't we be? Why shouldn't society as a collective provide one of the most basic needs to its citizens, health?

Are you saying that the greater the need, the greater the obligation to provide it? I reject that premise. In any case, shouldn't it need to be demonstrated that there is an entitlement to provision of 100% free healthcare?

[brenden]

Are you saying that the greater the need, the greater the obligation to provide it? I reject that premise. In any case, shouldn't it need to be demonstrated that there is an entitlement to provision of 100% free healthcare?

How do you reject that premise? Are you saying that walking past a hungry student on the street and reusing to buy them food is equivalent to walking past someone severely starving and refusing to buy them food?

[Jono_CP]

Did anyone else go to the Crown Casino Liberal Party Function with the likes of Costello and Hockey? Pretty cool, but a little daunting to see such rich schools like Haileybury...

[Sense]

It's not just churches, its any non for profit organisation. Churches aren't special, they're a class of non-profit organisations. The red cross isn't taxed for instance. I'm not 100% but your local kids scouting club isn't taxed either. Animal shelters, etc. The list on. 

Churches pick up a lot of slack charitable work-wise where the government fails as well.

Yes, but the animal shelter doesn't use a big chunk of its money on 'missions' with absolutely no benefit to the country. With all their leaders living the high life whilst ignoring all the sexual assault and fraud going on around them.

They're a corrupt organisation in every way. A business with so many criminals + no income tax = disaster.

[Chazef]

Yes, but the animal shelter doesn't use a big chunk of its money on 'missions' with absolutely no benefit to the country. With all their leaders living the high life whilst ignoring all the sexual assault and fraud going on around them.

They're a corrupt organisation in every way. A business with so many criminals + no income tax = disaster.

I don't think sexual assault has much to do with the economics of the church despite it obviously being an issue. I also think you're generalising religious institutions here like not all churches have a vatican where heaps of money is stored and even catholic churches don't necessarily contribute directly to all the elite leaders living the high life. I think the real question is whether they should be required to contribute to taxes despite already contributing to charity in society. Taxes are a kind of non-voluntary multi-purpose charity anyway.

[Orb]

i think them forcing unemployed people under 30 to wait 6 months to apply for the dole made me angriest tbh.
the point of the dole is that it's an immediate source of relief when you lose your job to give you some time to get back on your feet. if you're between 25-30, and too old for youth allowance, if you find yourself unemployed you're basically screwed for 6 months unless you can get support from your family. if the idea is to galvanise people into looking for work, they need to stop watching today tonight stories on 'dole-bludgers' because the vast majority of people on the dole aren't on it because they enjoy being on it.

to me it just kind of shows that old elitist attitude of 'if you're poor, it's your own fault for not working hard enough'.

I don't actually think it's a bad thing. Although the government should invest the money that they saved from this into providing more opportunities for employment, or education for that matter.

If people really didn't enjoy being on the 'dole' they should actively try to invest in themselves and make a better future. My parents came from disadvantaged backgrounds, having to commit themselves in the beginning to 60+hour work weeks with insanely for them to set me up.

The government should just quit the allowances altogether and grant employer's bonuses for hiring these people. Would make more sense and encourage these people to work for their money.

[M_BONG]

I don't actually think it's a bad thing. Although the government should invest the money that they saved from this into providing more opportunities for employment, or education for that matter.

If people really didn't enjoy being on the 'dole' they should actively try to invest in themselves and make a better future. My parents came from disadvantaged backgrounds, having to commit themselves in the beginning to 60+hour work weeks with insanely for them to set me up.

The government should just quit the allowances altogether and grant employer's bonuses for hiring these people. Would make more sense and encourage these people to work for their money.

Your parents were fortunate then. But not everyone are given these opportunities to be employed again. Finding a job isn't all about leaving the couch and just starting work and working hard.. Some people face discrimination because of age, level of education, criminal history, prejudices etc; these are where welfare should be reserved. I mean Abbott is on the record for saying homelessness is a choice to some - that his government can't stop people if they choose to be homeless. Like wtf?

And of course, I am speaking for the minority; welfare will be abused by some but I believe no one would genuinely be content to be living off $36 a day; everyone innately will want the best future, but circumstances don't allow that... welfare is there as a safety net to help the most vulnerable to survive; we can't really cut it simply through making assumptions like "oh they spend so much on alcohol and ciggies anyway" or "oh they're just lazy bums who don't want to work"... Especially when we have all the means to provide each and everyone of us with some form of economic security.

[thushan]

I don't actually think it's a bad thing. Although the government should invest the money that they saved from this into providing more opportunities for employment, or education for that matter.

If people really didn't enjoy being on the 'dole' they should actively try to invest in themselves and make a better future. My parents came from disadvantaged backgrounds, having to commit themselves in the beginning to 60+hour work weeks with insanely for them to set me up.

The government should just quit the allowances altogether and grant employer's bonuses for hiring these people. Would make more sense and encourage these people to work for their money.

Dude, the dole gives very little money anyhow.

I'd rather let a few people abuse welfare (I know someone personally who lived their whole life on welfare and managed to do some cash in hand jobs and dodgy stuff, and he now has a house) than have people begging, starving on the streets. Although some might say "they deserve it, that's what they get for not working hard".

I'm angry.

[JellyDonut]

"cash in hand jobs"

teehee

[Orb]

Your parents were fortunate then. But not everyone are given these opportunities to be employed again. Finding a job isn't all about leaving the couch and just starting work and working hard.. Some people face discrimination because of age, level of education, criminal history, prejudices etc; these are where welfare should be reserved. I mean Abbott is on the record for saying homelessness is a choice to some - that his government can't stop people if they choose to be homeless. Like wtf?

And of course, I am speaking for the minority; welfare will be abused by some but I believe no one would genuinely be content to be living off $36 a day; everyone innately will want the best future, but circumstances don't allow that... welfare is there as a safety net to help the most vulnerable to survive; we can't really cut it simply through making assumptions like "oh they spend so much on alcohol and ciggies anyway" or "oh they're just lazy bums who don't want to work"... Especially when we have all the means to provide each and everyone of us with some form of economic security.

'Fortunate' to be discriminated by being asian and getting paid 20% less than 'white' workers? Don't think so.

There are always options if you truly wanted to get out of the dole. Mind, there are exceptions (eg. disability) and I fully support disabled people getting a reasonable living.
Yes, i'm considerably more fortunate than all the other people who are on the dole because I have an excellent working environment and fully supportive family and friends, but at the same time, if the govt regulated and encouraged employers to hire these people by paying incentives, there'll be more opportunities for those that want to build a better life.

Yes, we have the means to provide us with economic security, but why should we do this for the ones that don't do anything to contribute to society and don't want to either? They may not be genuinely content with getting $36 a day, but i'm sure there's plenty of options if you spent a bit of time (with government help) on education. For example, there's a significant shortage of roof tilers in vic, these people can go do that. It doesn't take a 4 year diploma or something to learn roof tiling, yet there's a shortage. This is due to the physical exertion that is required from long hours doing so. Bakers are also in shortage, many supermarket chains (eg. Coles, Woolworths) want to hire more bakers. These jobs aren't something that requires a 6 year university degree or something ridiculous. They're all careers that can fit people who want to work hard.

[M_BONG]

'Fortunate' to be discriminated by being asian and getting paid 20% less than 'white' workers? Don't think so.

Ok fine - even if accept your parents weren't fortunate, this does not preclude others from being more "fortunate" or having a secure, basic future. It's like saying "oh I experienced so much shit so you should too to see how it feels like"...

Yes, we have the means to provide us with economic security, but why should we do this for the ones that don't do anything to contribute to society and don't want to either?

Because it reflects well on our humanity and morality as a society to help those who cannot get out of unemployment. You will see that it is always the same type of people being unemployed - those who don't have two arms, those with a criminal history, those who cannot speak English, those who never had the opportunities to get a decent education. These are structural, institutional barriers which cannot be addressed by forcing them to go to work; for example - never having good parenting. It's not about saying "oh here.. we need more plumbers... go learn how to plumb". This is not the society I want to live in - where we push people into roles that they cannot fill. We cannot start treating people as economic units - our fundamental role as human beings is is not to contribute to the GDP or the economy. There is something more humane than that.
 

For example, there's a significant shortage of roof tilers in vic, these people can go do that. It doesn't take a 4 year diploma or something to learn roof tiling, yet there's a shortage. This is due to the physical exertion that is required from long hours doing so. Bakers are also in shortage, many supermarket chains (eg. Coles, Woolworths) want to hire more bakers. These jobs aren't something that requires a 6 year university degree or something ridiculous. They're all careers that can fit people who want to work hard.

You're making way too many assumptions here. I mean we don't even force people who have committed crimes to work. We pay around $200 to keep someone each day to stay in a cell because they committed a crime... they haven't contributed to society; why are we spending millions each year to rehabilitate them?

Also, what about individuals living in Indigenous communities or low socioeconomic areas whom our government has neglected? Are you genuinely telling me children should be sniffing petrol and our government do nothing about it? Do we really deserve to be left behind when we have the economic means to help?

You have completely missed my point. Welfare should be a safety net reserved for the most vulnerable - those who were born with less opportunities and cannot get out of it. There will be outliers, there will be those who exploit it. But a government policy that sees this small cause as a need for a universal policy to cut welfare for all is simply, appalling and missing the bigger picture.  The purpose of welfare has never been for it to become an alternative to employment. It is about leaving no one behind. Honestly, I am really ashamed that we are even arguing over whether we should hand out welfare to the most vulnerable in society when the Budget injects $4 billion to the mining industry, reduces company tax by 1.5%, spends $80 billion (or however much) on planes, and disproportionately taxes the poor more than rich....

[thushan]

Admittedly, going by what Hockey said to Ferguson, it seems as though he needs to lower company tax to keep companies in Australia and not ship off elsewhere, which would lead to a massive job loss; other countries are lowering their company taxes as well.

[charmanderp]

Keep it nice everyone. This thread is great for sharing thoughts but any cheap insults or otherwise derogatory comments will be deleted. It's been above board for now but things are getting heated and I wouldn't want anyone getting banned over this! Consider this a friendly heads up.

[M_BONG]

Keep it nice everyone. This thread is great for sharing thoughts but any cheap insults or otherwise derogatory comments will be deleted. It's been above board for now but things are getting heated and I wouldn't want anyone getting banned over this! Consider this a friendly heads up.

Yup. I do sense that this can get out of hand.. and often it's easy to confuse passion with insults online. I apologise to hamo if what I said is in any way offensive above. Nothing personal/derogatory (not even a shade) was intended.