The welfare state

[scumdog]

Fortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. As I for one would not want to live in a society where the those in need aren't looked after. What would happen do you think if all Benefits were stopped?

Ah,,.. 'NEED' you say, a bit different to a chosen lifestyle eh?

[Smifffy]

Speaking from experience on receiving a benefit a few years back when my twins were little, I decided after trying to manage on a benefit I'd go back to work. At that stage I received, DPB, Accomodation supplement and Special Benefit. So, when you go back to work, the Special benefit goes, the accom supp drops by over half and the DPB adjusts accordingly downwards. That meant that any job I did, the first 18 - 20 hours went on just making up the money I lost. On top of that there was childcare for my twins (then$180 per week). I lost money (around$150 per week overall) in going back to work and for a while struggled even more than when I was at home. For me it was still worthwhile to get away from the stigma of it all, but I can understand how for some people it ends up in the too hard basket.

Good for you!

What I see as part of the problem is the entrenched attitudes. From my point of view you got yourself work, and continued to be a productive, contributing member of society. It may be semantics, but you didn't lose $180. The $180 payment you were receiving from the taxpayer to help you out of tight spot ceased.

I don't know you, and I don't wish you any ill, and it isn't personal.

I often hear people saying they won't get a job because they will lose too much of their benefit. It is such now that to actually be worthwhile getting off a benefit to go to work, one would need to go straight into management. In the past the average working bloke had gone on strike and been hungry for weeks on end, even getting involved in violence for just a few extra dollars a week.

For those that don't understand, the benefit is there because you can't work, no so that you don't have to work.

[Flip]

Good for you!

What I see as part of the problem is the entrenched attitudes. From my point of view you got yourself work, and continued to be a productive, contributing member of society. It may be semantics, but you didn't lose $180. The $180 payment you were receiving from the taxpayer to help you out of tight spot ceased.

I don't know you, and I don't wish you any ill, and it isn't personal.

I often hear people saying they won't get a job because they will lose too much of their benefit. It is such now that to actually be worthwhile getting off a benefit to go to work, one would need to go straight into management. In the past the average working bloke had gone on strike and been hungry for weeks on end, even getting involved in violence for just a few extra dollars a week.

For those that don't understand, the benefit is there because you can't work, no so that you don't have to work.

Its that old sense of entitlement thing again. Why should I work when I am entitled to a free $180/w payout. Then complain because the first 20 hours pay only cover my lost $180.

I am a hardliner lefty myself but this doesn't extend to the long term unemployed and professional solo parents. As far as unemployment goes a fairer system would be to say cover folk at say 80% of their wages for say 1 month then reduce it by 10% every month there after.

[FJRider]

Fortunately I don't see this happening any time soon. As I for one would not want to live in a society where the those in need aren't looked after. What would happen do you think if all Benefits were stopped?

"Need" is one thing ... as opposed to "Can't be bothered" ... an entirely different matter. The easy option is always the popular (usually FIRST ) choice ...

Look to the countries that dont have "benefits" ...

Ah,,.. 'NEED' you say, a bit different to a chosen lifestyle eh?

According to the court pages in any newspaper ... it's listed as an "occupation" ...

[Howie]

Ah,,.. 'NEED' you say, a bit different to a chosen lifestyle eh?

True, but how do you differentiate between those in need, and those choosing a lifestyle??

I personally could have made the choice to go on the DPB Ten years ago, but choose to keep working to show my children that life isn't a free ride. If I had gone on the DPB I would have undertaken to study probably towards a degree of some sort, instead I keep working, and also started a part time business that gave some very good returns while it was operating. By doing that my kids missed out on my time being spent on them. There lies the biggest challenge to a Single parent where the other parent isn't around. The quality time spent wirh the children vs Money to raise them in a reasonable lifestyle!!

[FJRider]

True, but how do you differentiate between those in need, and those choosing a lifestyle??

Ask those that turn up for job interviews in jandals ... ripped jeans ... a smoke hanging out of their mouth ... three days growth on their face ... and twenty minutes late for the interview ...

The quality time spent with the children vs Money to raise them in a reasonable lifestyle!!

By "quality time" ... do you mean 24 hours a day, seven days a week ... ???

A "reasonable lifestyle" is expected/demanded ... on the benefit by some ...

[Howie]

"Need" is one thing ... as opposed to "Can't be bothered" ... an entirely different matter. The easy option is always the popular (usually FIRST ) choice ...



According to the court pages in any newspaper ... it's listed as an "occupation" ...

ok so if someone can't be bothered!!

1) How do prove it is that they can't be Bothered.

2) why have they fallen into that behaviour pattern?? is it an addiction problem (alcohol, drugs, gambling etc)

3) Did the education system let them down as they didn't fit in the one size fits all system we have. Was it purely a poor up bringing, or do they have some sort of educational disorder that wasn't picked up??

4) if you are put down long enough the why should I bother behaviour comes into play. I have seen more than one young person have three or four different jobs over a period of a year or two where the only reason they haven't kept a job is the company that hires them run's out of work by losing contracts, or no more work coming in, or through resizing of the work force in larger organisations.
The problem with this is that the person involved starts to feel why bother trying to get a job as I'm just going to be used and spat out again.

[FJRider]

ok so if someone can't be bothered!!

1) How do prove it is that they can't be Bothered.

2) why have they fallen into that behaviour pattern?? is it an addiction problem (alcohol, drugs, gambling etc)

3) Did the education system let them down as they didn't fit in the one size fits all system we have. Was it purely a poor up bringing, or do they have some sort of educational disorder that wasn't picked up??

4) if you are put down long enough the why should I bother behaviour comes into play. I have seen more than one young person have three or four different jobs over a period of a year or two where the only reason they haven't kept a job is the company that hires them run's out of work by losing contracts, or no more work coming in, or through resizing of the work force in larger organisations.
The problem with this is that the person involved starts to feel why bother trying to get a job as I'm just going to be used and spat out again.

1) When you ring them up offering them work at nine in the morning ... they cant because they're just up an want breakfast first ... and want to take the kid's to the park in the afternoon while the Mrs is at the Warehouse ...

2) Because it's the lazy option ... don't have to ... means WONT ...

3) See no: 2)

I myself have been through this ... but with GOOD reports (in writing) from past employers ... one or two weeks (at most) out of work ...

Thing to remember ... having the "can't be bothered" attitude, means they'll never be spat out again ... EVER ... few employers employ them.

[allycatz]

Its that old sense of entitlement thing again. Why should I work when I am entitled to a free $180/w payout. Then complain because the first 20 hours pay only cover my lost $180.

I am a hardliner lefty myself but this doesn't extend to the long term unemployed and professional solo parents. As far as unemployment goes a fairer system would be to say cover folk at say 80% of their wages for say 1 month then reduce it by 10% every month there after.

Not complaining, just stating how it worked. Up until my last child left for Uni, I could still get $169 per week in Family Support payments because I was working. I think the cut out rate for these payments has been $60k with up to 6+ kids?


My ex and I had our own business that cleared 150K after tax, not sure that the Govt would want to pay 80% of that although the tax paid on that more than covered the years benefit I received

[Howie]

Ask those that turn up for job interviews in jandals ... ripped jeans ... a smoke hanging out of their mouth ... three days growth on their face ... and twenty minutes late for the interview ...

I have no doubt that some do turn up as you say, and of the number that do some are probably hoping not to get the job, with others it could simply be a lack of self estem, No money for clothes, unfortunately modern society is very image driven.

By "quality time" ... do you mean 24 hours a day, seven days a week ... ???

A "reasonable lifestyle" is expected/demanded ... on the benefit by some ...

Interestingly enough parenting is a 24/7 job when your kids are young. I can well remember the one night every 4 weeks that I got to myself, the times I had to leave work to pick up sick kids, the times I had to stay home to look after them etc.

But no quality time is the time you put into doing things with your kids, be it teaching them to ride a bike, helping them with homework, taking them for bushwalks, helping with their chosen sport or interest, sharing the good and sad times they have and trying to teach them some life skills along the way.

[Howie]

1)

I myself have been through this ... but with GOOD reports (in writing) from past employers ... one or two weeks (at most) out of work ...

Thing to remember ... having the "can't be bothered" attitude, means they'll never be spat out again ... EVER ... few employers employ them.

I too have been through a few restructures/ re- engineerings/ re-sizing's
of work place's fortunatly only being affected once so far. Like you I was out of work for about a week. Some aren't that lucky though.


now you observing a behaviour, not an attitude, you can't tell a person's attitude by there behaviour, unless you know(not assume you know) the reason that they are behaving that way!!

[FJRider]

I have no doubt that some do turn up as you say, and of the number that do some are probably hoping not to get the job, with others it could simply be a lack of self estem, No money for clothes, unfortunately modern society is very image driven.

The one's I saw ... were better dressed at the pub on the following saturday night ...

Interestingly enough parenting is a 24/7 job when your kids are young. I can well remember the one night every 4 weeks that I got to myself, the times I had to leave work to pick up sick kids, the times I had to stay home to look after them etc.

True enough ... but both parents and children need time to do things away from family ... to know how get on with OTHER people ... in REAL life ..

But no quality time is the time you put into doing things with your kids, be it teaching them to ride a bike, helping them with homework, taking them for bushwalks, helping with their chosen sport or interest, sharing the good and sad times they have and trying to teach them some life skills along the way.

I think thats called "child rearing" ... and it used to be normal ...

nowdays ... they learn that stuff on the net ...

[FJRider]

I too have been through a few restructures/ re- engineerings/ re-sizing's
of work place's fortunatly only being affected once so far. Like you I was out of work for about a week. Some aren't that lucky though.


now you observing a behaviour, not an attitude, you can't tell a person's attitude by there behaviour, unless you know(not assume you know) the reason that they are behaving that way!!

I witnessed an interview once ... after the attitude(behaviour ???) I described ... and the employer (mine as well) offered work at eight the next morning ... he sat bolt upright ... and found five excuses why he couldn't be there ... (one was a meeting with WINZ the next day ... to ensure he stayed on the benefit)

[rainman]

isn't it a socialist concept that the government should control that?

Probably, but I didn't figure you for a socialist.

Your view is nonsense, do your own research.

Sorry, but that is weak. You're the guy who made the original assertion, so either pony up the evidence for it, or have the balls to admit you're talking out of your ideological arse.

Or better yet, let's look at the facts. Let's remind viewers what the original statement was:
"You are aware, are you not, that wealth is more evenly distributed now than at pretty much any time in history?"
I give you: a picture.

See how that line goes up as you go to the right? That's the line that shows you are talking shit.

Not? Well on a National level there’s only two variables there, dude. Which is it, low income or high expenditure?

You're an engineer, you say? Hope you don't build anything I have to interact with.

Did not you read the last bit there, dude? We haven’t seen a genuine free market since governments were decided by votes from those who rely on markets being regulated in their favour. The closest you’ll see is the one in the local car park of a Sunday afternoon.

OK, I'll say this again, real slow. It's. Not. 1700. Anymore.

If you're pining for some utopian free-market liberteria that a) doesn't, b) won't, and c) can't exist, then, I'm afraid you're just a plain idiot, not even of the useful variety. (Pity really, I thought you worth debating with).

You and the rest of the ACT youth league can sit in darkened rooms or wherever and pine for idealism, the rest of us will get on with working on issues in the real world.

We pool our assets. Everyone in the country.

Sounds a bit like my socialist revolution... I'll vote for that!

Ah,,.. 'NEED' you say, a bit different to a chosen lifestyle eh?

Serious question. What percentage of benes do you think choose this supposed "lifestyle"? And on what (rational) basis do you hold that view?

[Ocean1]

Probably, but I didn't figure you for a socialist.

Correct. Although I do advocate intervention in markets in order to weed out the parasites.

Sorry, but that is weak. You're the guy who made the original assertion, so either pony up the evidence for it, or have the balls to admit you're talking out of your ideological arse.
Or better yet, let's look at the facts. Let's remind viewers what the original statement was:
"You are aware, are you not, that wealth is more evenly distributed now than at pretty much any time in history?"
I give you: a picture.

See how that line goes up as you go to the right? That's the line that shows you are talking shit.

But it doesn’t. It’s been going down since 2000. What’s more if that’s your idea of history it’s a fucking short baseline, where’s the rest of this century? Sounds to me like you’re the one full of shit.

OK, I'll say this again, real slow. It's. Not. 1700. Anymore.

If you're pining for some utopian free-market liberteria that a) doesn't, b) won't, and c) can't exist, then, I'm afraid you're just a plain idiot, not even of the useful variety. (Pity really, I thought you worth debating with).

You and the rest of the ACT youth league can sit in darkened rooms or wherever and pine for idealism, the rest of us will get on with working on issues in the real world.

So when you’re ungrateful enough to bitch about the lack of charity from those who actually generate income and demand that they produce more then that’s not idealism?

But if someone suggests that we can’t afford any higher subsidies for any more who don’t contribute to the pot then they’re idealistic?

Check.

That's not debating, dude, it's just plain old fashioned bullshit, no response required.