JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

What a load of ****

Bill? Bill is that you?

 

[c2105026]

Young and without work? Take up fruit picking, says Liberal senator Eric Abetz

Sweet Jesus the poll result under that article is alarming. Essentially, it turns out we live in a society that believes that someone who can't be bothered working is entitled to the money I earn working my arse off.

So effectively, the more I work and the higher my income the more people I can support to remain unemployed. What a strange, strange Country we live in.

So you are effectively saying that you would prefer people starve and/or be homeless so you can have a bit more money? Pfft.....

 

[c2105026]

Hockey and abbott have been drumming into us the last couple of weeks that we must all share the pain
Didn't think you were exempt

Indeed.
If he doesn't like the favourable budgetary arrangements he finds himself in here, he is free to move to Asia and live as the average person there does, as a Lib backbencher suggested recently.....

 

[c2105026]

 

[iChris]

So you are effectively saying that you would prefer people starve and/or be homeless so you can have a bit more money? Pfft.....

everyone prefers to hold onto as much of their money as they can. it's called being human.

I think by that jester means people who intentionally bludge off the system and choose not to work - they are out there. but some righties seem to think that means everyone who is not working chooses not to work, even the ones that for one reason or another lost their jobs because after all they did choose to loose their job didn't they? the cutting of the safety net is I think not a move to weed out these bludgers but to help balance the budget and make themselves look good and a attempt to clutch onto and keep at least one promise that they made. if the coffers where in the green you could probably safely bet the nets would have remained.

 

[c2105026]

everyone prefers to hold onto as much of their money as they can. it's called being human.

I think by that jester means people who intentionally bludge off the system and choose not to work - they are out there. but some righties seem to think that means everyone who is not working chooses not to work, even the ones that for one reason or another lost their jobs because after all they did choose to loose their job didn't they? the cutting of the safety net is I think not a move to weed out these bludgers but to help balance the budget and make themselves look good and a attempt to clutch onto and keep at least one promise that they made. if the coffers where in the green you could probably safely bet the nets would have remained.

Well....not everyone. I see where you are coming from but I know plenty of generous people I have met through my charity work. At one end there is a reasonable 'i'd like to have enough to have a comfortable lifestyle' - fair enough, most are like that. However I have seen some posts on here that smack of utter ego-centrism. They already appear to be quite well off, but still they aren't satisfied. So sad.

Yes some people do play the system and rort it. My 'work' brings me in contact with many adolescents, and even at 15-16yrs age you can tell those who will make a go of things and those who will wind up a lifelong centrelink client. However many/most unemployed folk have it tough, and try to make a go of it anyway. But much of it is desperately futile. If you repeatedly have jobs where 40 people apply for one position, people miss out and stay on the job queue. Your Tassie example highlights this. No country has ever had full employment, and the new measures will see at least a few people plunged into utter survival-status poverty. I feel there are more sociable/sustainable things one could have done with the Budget.....

 

[Calaber]

This question of sufficient employment for the unemployed is vexing in a country as large as ours.

Some time back, there was discussion on this forum along the same lines as this current one, where some members stated there was plenty of work available if you were prepared to go looking for it. I pointed out an example not unlike the Tasmanian one. The local community totals around 15,000 residents going by the most recent census figures I have seen. Two years ago, an aluminium smelter, by far the largest employer in this area, closed down. Something like 500 jobs were lost overnight. Those jobs would have all been of a similar skill level, so the competitiveness of each unemployed individual would have been similar to his discarded colleagues. How do 500 similarly skilled people within a small community all find work at the same time? It doesn't happen. If those employees were prepared to pack up home, sell out and move, perhaps a very considerable distance, they might find work, but how many are prepared to make that sort of life-change voluntarily? Or are even in the position of being able to?

As for the perception that unemployment benefit recipients are all dole bludgers, that needs to change but unfortunately, I think we all see plenty of examples that reinforce the belief that the unemployed are deliberately sponging off the employed. I think that the Government has a responsibility to identify and deal with those who deliberately seek to enjoy a life of "all play, no work", and perhaps even apply penalties, not just amnesties, to long term offenders. The same sort of responsibility applies to TPI recipients - particularly long-term recipients who are still of working age. If people are found and proven to be malingerers, remove their benefits. They will obviously claim they can't live without income, which will always be a problem initially, but how else can the government (any government - Liberal or Labor) properly police the handing out of public money?

Regarding charity (and charities). Perhaps there are just too many. We often get door knockers representing different charities that we have never heard of. There seems to be an overlap with some of them, where more than one charity is established to address a social problem already being addressed by another charity. That seems pointless - if they consolidated their resources into the one charity, their " administrative costs" would be reduced and there might be more money available to deal with the problem.

The other issue I have personally with charities is that door knockers these days want you to sign up to regular, periodical direct debits from your personal accounts, rather than accept donations at the door. I can understand the need for safety for door-knockers not carrying around cash, but how many people, like me, refuse to sign up to direct debit because of bad experiences in the past? And how many people are willing to continue to make donations on a regular basis to just one charity? This policy, to me, is costing charities dearly. People can be generous up to a limit, but asking them to sign up to regular periodic donations is a bit over the top for many people and this could be undermining the willingness of people to be charitable.

 

[c2105026]

This question of sufficient employment for the unemployed is vexing in a country as large as ours.

Some time back, there was discussion on this forum along the same lines as this current one, where some members stated there was plenty of work available if you were prepared to go looking for it. I pointed out an example not unlike the Tasmanian one. The local community totals around 15,000 residents going by the most recent census figures I have seen. Two years ago, an aluminium smelter, by far the largest employer in this area, closed down. Something like 500 jobs were lost overnight. Those jobs would have all been of a similar skill level, so the competitiveness of each unemployed individual would have been similar to his discarded colleagues. How do 500 similarly skilled people within a small community all find work at the same time? It doesn't happen. If those employees were prepared to pack up home, sell out and move, perhaps a very considerable distance, they might find work, but how many are prepared to make that sort of life-change voluntarily? Or are even in the position of being able to?

As for the perception that unemployment benefit recipients are all dole bludgers, that needs to change but unfortunately, I think we all see plenty of examples that reinforce the belief that the unemployed are deliberately sponging off the employed. I think that the Government has a responsibility to identify and deal with those who deliberately seek to enjoy a life of "all play, no work", and perhaps even apply penalties, not just amnesties, to long term offenders. The same sort of responsibility applies to TPI recipients - particularly long-term recipients who are still of working age. If people are found and proven to be malingerers, remove their benefits. They will obviously claim they can't live without income, which will always be a problem initially, but how else can the government (any government - Liberal or Labor) properly police the handing out of public money?

Regarding charity (and charities). Perhaps there are just too many. We often get door knockers representing different charities that we have never heard of. There seems to be an overlap with some of them, where more than one charity is established to address a social problem already being addressed by another charity. That seems pointless - if they consolidated their resources into the one charity, their " administrative costs" would be reduced and there might be more money available to deal with the problem.

The other issue I have personally with charities is that door knockers these days want you to sign up to regular, periodical direct debits from your personal accounts, rather than accept donations at the door. I can understand the need for safety for door-knockers not carrying around cash, but how many people, like me, refuse to sign up to direct debit because of bad experiences in the past? And how many people are willing to continue to make donations on a regular basis to just one charity? This policy, to me, is costing charities dearly. People can be generous up to a limit, but asking them to sign up to regular periodic donations is a bit over the top for many people and this could be undermining the willingness of people to be charitable.

Interesting post.

Looking for work can involve considerable time and money. When I was starting out as an engineer, it took me about 5 job interviews to land my final position, and this came from applying for about 15 different graduate programs. Each of these involved considerable travel, requiring money for fares, accommodation, meals etc. Even at $200 a pop it adds up. One struggling on $250 a week has limitations with this expenditure. Then there is moving for the actual job itself. When I was an engineer for period of 3 years I moved every 6 months. Each move had a moving fee of $2000 min. and meant a destruction of my social network/fabric, and the result at the end of it was an ongoing mood disorder. So there are personal and financial limitations of moving at the drop of a hat to find work. Even when I found substantiative work within the organisation, it included 5 job interviews in different part of the state.

As for charities - will agree with you there. My own charity (Camp Quality) has seen this and has sought to team up with a similar charity (CanTeen) to ensure that there is minimal cross-over. Before a child with camp quality will be looked after until they are 18. Now, the child when they turn 13 are now cut loose, and are offered Canteen, that does what CQ does for 13-24 year olds. Even still, there are CQ people who have doubts about it. Apparently in NSW there are 57 breast cancer charities! Another issue with charities is that many of the workers are paid and not volunteers. These paid people I believe get a commission, and are overly forceful. This makes the public view us volunteers differently, creating possible aversion. There is also the issue of getting enough places/times sell tickets - proliferation of charities has meant we personally aren't selling tickets in the numbers we did, so our raffles etc. have to go on for much longer to get a decent $$$ return.

 

[Jesterarts]

So you are effectively saying that you would prefer people starve and/or be homeless so you can have a bit more money? Pfft.....

If they have no intention of helping themselves, why should I?

 

[Jesterarts]

everyone prefers to hold onto as much of their money as they can. it's called being human.

I think by that jester means people who intentionally bludge off the system and choose not to work - they are out there. but some righties seem to think that means everyone who is not working chooses not to work, even the ones that for one reason or another lost their jobs because after all they did choose to loose their job didn't they? the cutting of the safety net is I think not a move to weed out these bludgers but to help balance the budget and make themselves look good and a attempt to clutch onto and keep at least one promise that they made. if the coffers where in the green you could probably safely bet the nets would have remained.

First post that we are on the same page I think.

Exactly it, if someone is able to work but chooses not to for ANY reason; type of work, wage too low, geographical inconvenience, etc, then if have zero interest in helping them. Their fate in terms of homelessness or starvation is their own.

If someone genuinely cannot work, which for me is someone who needs care to exist, then I am happy to help out.

My main frustration is that at the moment for those who are not unable to work, the welfare they receive is given out without and ROI. The suggested policy that Abbott has suggested appeals to me because only helps those who are willing to help themselves.

Also the fact there is a requirement for some sort of community based work to be carried out while receiving welfare.

Finally, it incentivises organisations to take on people and give them experience by subsidising their wage.

Seems like a positive outcome for almost everyone involved, the unemployment get experience and develop work ethic, tax payer dollars are used in a meaningful way and get ROI.

I do conceded that being such a big policy change, there will inevitably be some who fall through the cracks and this will show flaws in the system that need to be resolved. But I'm sure with time the policy will evolve to be more robust.