Rajesh Koothrappali
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Melbourne
- Members Ride
- ya mum!
What a load of ****
Bill? Bill is that you?
Welcome to Just Commodores, a site specifically designed for all people who share the same passion as yourself.
What a load of ****
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.
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
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.
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.
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.