Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 12:20:37 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Nov 2, 2013 12:45:08 GMT 7
Ending welfare state is critical for futureEIGHTEEN months ago Joe Hockey called for the end to the Age of Entitlement. Western pluralism since the Second World War, he argued, had basically sent the developed world broke. “Socialist governments are blindly wedded to increases in expenditure while conservative governments are blindly wedded to not increasing taxes. So once the cycle of economic growth comes to its inevitable end, the problem is exacerbated,” he said. If Greece, Spain and Portugal demonstrated anything, it is this fact. When economies hit the wall, countries loaded with entitlements are hit the hardest. Hockey now finds himself at the end of that economic cycle in Australia. The two solutions, as Hockey appeared to be arguing in his 2012 speech, were simple. Either install dictatorships that aren’t subject to pesky elections or, more seriously, graft some backbone into both the socialist and conservative sides of politics. Hockey was right about the general principles. Middle-class welfare has to be consigned to history if future generations are to afford the same standards of living we enjoy now. The Treasurer’s unfortunate task is putting his tough talk into action. The Commission of Audit will give him political cover for this. And welfare reform will be at the heart of it. The Disability Support Pension is now the fifth-largest federal spending item. It’s dragging on the budget like a fiscal anchor. Former Labor minister Jenny Macklin tried to renovate this welfare legacy, which began as a pension fund for returning World War I soldiers. The DSP is a vital safety net for the disabled, but it has also grown beyond what most people would consider reasonable. There are many claiming this pension who shouldn’t be. There are now 825,000 on a DSP. No one can reasonably argue that is sustainable. The government anticipates around 460,000 people will be eligible under the NDIS. Work that one out. The last Intergenerational Report paints a pretty dim picture of this country’s future under current spending. Costs are only going to increase. And Australia’s standard of living will erode over time as a result. But fiscal rectitude on its own won’t be enough. Governments still need revenue, and the economy needs to grow. And the only way Hockey will be able to maintain revenue flows, in the absence of a mining bonanza, will be a blitz on regulation. Hockey has already outlined infrastructure. But that in itself won’t be achieved unless the government embarks on some major investment and business reforms. When big business complains about IR laws, they are primarily talking about unions and strikes. You can bet the government will tackle this. But the more pressing reforms are those affecting small business. And when they talk about IR reform they are talking about penalty rates. When it becomes too expensive, businesses stop hiring. It’s as simple as that. But IR is only part of the equation. Occupational Health and Safety laws are cited as a greater cost problem. Harmonisation of OH&S under the previous government saw the NSW model - argued to be the safest but also the most expensive - become the national standard. This meant business costs went up in every other state. Unwinding a lot of this sort of stuff won’t be easy. The burden killing small business is having to deal with the three tiers of government. A cultural reflex in Australia sees governments respond to risk with more regulation and legislation, as if legislation itself is a virtue. The more risk-averse they become, the harder it is for business to deal with them. The Coalition’s one-stop shops for environmental regulation as a concept is a positive reform, but illogical unless unnecessary regulatory burdens are also examined. The challenge for Hockey is whether he waits for disaster to happen - such as rocketing unemployment - to make the case for radical changes, or act now to avoid the disaster. How the country addresses this problem now rests with this government - in this term. It can’t be put off. blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/simonbenson/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/ending_welfare_state_is_critical_for_future/
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Nov 2, 2013 12:49:55 GMT 7
Right wing blogger mouthing off in the Murdoch press.
The burden killing small business is having to deal with the three tiers of government.
The burden killing small businesses is the free lunch the big companies get off the government. When I was in business there were products I could not buy for the price Coles was selling them at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 12:58:51 GMT 7
Hockey calls for the " End of the age of entitlement" he means the few scraps the unemployed and disabled are entitled to not the entitlements the wealthy and politicans get, their entitlments will increase at a result of ours being taken away. l bet the money they save kicking people off welfare will go to larger grants to posh private schools so they can build new Olympic sized swimming pools and tennis courts, also $150,000 grand handouts for wealthy women to take 6 months off to have a baby. also Surprise surprise another huge pay rise for politicans and judges , also poor old GIna reinhart and twiggy are paying so much tax they cant afford to upgrade their fleet of private yatchs , better give them a tax break, also spend a few billions buying some more of those fancy fighter jets from the USA that don't work to keep the yanks happy. Australia is the wealthiest or one of the wealthiest countries in the world and has little debt , it can easlily afford the welfare bill but many would rather spend the money elsewhere rather then helping the disadvantaged.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Nov 2, 2013 13:38:58 GMT 7
Looks like OHS is getting the evil eye as well, truly moronic behavior, you lower workplace safety standards and the next generation pays for the extra disabled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 14:10:37 GMT 7
The article says theres 825,000 on the DSP and 460,000 will be eligible for the NDIS, so maybe they want to move the 365,000 not eligible for the NDIS onto Newstart or a new pension with mutal obligation and jobsearch requirements. l guess that would help pay the massive cost of the NDIS
|
|
|
Post by zingzingzing on Nov 2, 2013 15:08:50 GMT 7
I'm sure half of those on DSP would take the offer of moving perminatly overseas, that way, they would cut costs anyway.
Getting people on Newstart is only increase the problem, not decrease it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 2:52:23 GMT 7
I'm sure half of those on DSP would take the offer of moving perminatly overseas, that way, they would cut costs anyway. Getting people on Newstart is only increase the problem, not decrease it. If Half moved overseas the Job networks wouldn't be able to get their hands on them and make hundreds of millions off them, l bet the job networks are eyeing off the 365,000 on the DSP not eligible for the NDIS as potential forced clients and huge revenue source.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Nov 3, 2013 7:16:41 GMT 7
The truth would be that the vast majority of Australians, which includes pensioners, would never consider starting a new life overseas regardless of the advantages. Relocation is a major step and far too adventurous for most people.
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on Nov 3, 2013 7:29:48 GMT 7
The article says theres 825,000 on the DSP and 460,000 will be eligible for the NDIS, so maybe they want to move the 365,000 not eligible for the NDIS onto Newstart or a new pension with mutal obligation and jobsearch requirements. l guess that would help pay the massive cost of the NDIS Frankly, that's not a sign DSP is too generous; it's a sign the NDIS has been targeted exclusively to those who are worst-off without it. I probably won't get anything under NDIS. That's not because there's not really anything wrong with me -- even denied the procedural fairness of having my specialists' reports taken into account in my most recent assessment, under the new harsher tables, I still got 20 points... and I still haven't declared to CL that I have PTSD as well, which would likely add another 5-10 points -- it's because the things I am able to do include picking up a spoon and putting food in my mouth; lifting a brush to brush my own hair; getting myself on and off the toilet, etc. And I am lucky to have a partner who, when I'm really sick and need help with things like showers, doesn't see it as a chore and actually enjoys rubbing soap all over my body. And who is learning to cook, mostly so that he can feed me healthy gluten-free meals on the many evenings when I'm too exhausted (from doing a whole hour or two of physical activity that day) to cook a meal for myself. I don't begrudge NDIS money being targeted to people who can currently only get a council care worker to come in twice a week to bathe them or help them shower. Really, they do need it more than I do. There are things I need that I half-hoped NDIS might help with. I can't afford to go to a swimming pool to do my physio atm. It took me months of scraping money together to (mostly) sort out my mobility issues... but I can only afford one tank of petrol a month, so my being able to get around is basically theoretical only. There are courses I could do that might help me start earning money and self-supporting again, but I'd have to earn the money first to pay for the courses to help me maybe earn money. Ha. All the things I mentioned would be necessary for me to get off DSP, but no funding is provided anywhere for any of it. The Job Network / Disability Employment Services have funding only to talk at us about writing resumes and finding job ads in the newspaper. But they can call and offer a $3K bribe to any business that might hire us!! Which is great, considering I can't get there to do the job, and don't have the physical stamina to be there all day anyway... employers love people like me, right? DSP is targeted to anyone whose disabilities prevent them working. NDIS is for people whose basic care needs have been neglected under the current haphazard funding model. They're different schemes with different purposes. That's absolutely fine -- the things I need aren't as serious or necessary as needing a carer to come empty a bedpan more often so I'm OK about money going to people worse off than me -- so long as it's not used as a way to paint the rest of us as bludgers and kick us off DSP. As I keep saying, the most sincere way the government could show its commitment to getting PWD off DSP and back into the workforce, is to reverse the decline of PWD in the public service workforce. Twenty years ago 5.8% of public service workers had disabilities; now it's 2.9%. If they want us off DSP, that's where they should start.
|
|
|
Post by macadamianut on Nov 3, 2013 8:20:54 GMT 7
Politicians like this make me so mad!!! There was a movie recently about a finacial apocalypse by greedy corporations. The people responsible were declared white collar criminals and a bounty put on their heads. If it was reality, I would have no sympathy if politicians were also included.
So whats the bright idea being proposed to be rid of all these burdensome DSPers without increasing the unemployment rate? They talking gas chambers nazi style yet?
Grrr.. so mad!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 11:13:01 GMT 7
Politicians like this make me so mad!!! There was a movie recently about a finacial apocalypse by greedy corporations. The people responsible were declared white collar criminals and a bounty put on their heads. If it was reality, I would have no sympathy if politicians were also included. So whats the bright idea being proposed to be rid of all these burdensome DSPers without increasing the unemployment rate? They talking gas chambers nazi style yet? Grrr.. so mad!! Yes the bastard polticans wont get rid of us by chucking us onto newstart because that will increase the unemployment rate by a huge amount making them look like bad economic managers. What l bet they want to do is create a new pension that's a lower rate and with mutual obligation and jobsearch, basically newstart dressed up as a pension , then they can move 300,000 or -400,000 DSp's that they consider to have some work capacity onto the new pension without increasing the official unemployment rate. Very sneaky because Even though they are required to look for work like newstarters they are not classified as unemployed because they are on a pension not newstart. l think they did something like that in the Uk recently. l bet that's what the Liberals would like to do here also, if they try it l hope the senate will block it.
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on Nov 4, 2013 3:40:54 GMT 7
So whats the bright idea being proposed to be rid of all these burdensome DSPers without increasing the unemployment rate? They talking gas chambers nazi style yet? Grrr.. so mad!! People seem to have forgotten that part of the Holocaust. The Nazis went after the people everyone agreed should be exterminated first: people with disabilities, gay people, Romany (gypsies), Slavs and Poles. (In fact, more Slavs and Poles were killed -- ~10 million -- than Jews.) Then, when it was an accepted solution to 'problem' people, they'd stirred up anti-Semitic sentiments enough that it seemed like a logical way to deal with the Jewish population / 'problem'. People also forget that 'round 'em up and gas 'em' wasn't a proposal that came out of nowhere. The government passed laws in 1935 giving Jews lesser rights than Aryan citizens, but the movement that stirred up hatred of Jews started long before then. It took almost a century of stirring up hatred to get to the point where most Germans were willing to go along with the extermination of Jews. (So obviously started long before Hitler came in with his 'Final Solution'.) I don't think Australia's at the gas chamber stage yet, but we do already imprison poor people who don't look like us and speak funny languages; we're just sticking to the ones who came here by boats to claim asylum (which is actually legal; we all have the right to flee and claim asylum in another country if we're being persecuted, and that right shouldn't be curtailed because who knows when any human being might need it) so far. That alone scares me. We're also at the stage where the government severely curtails the rights and freedoms of one group of people who are technically 'real' citizens, via the NT Intervention (where they intervened to protect Indigenous kids from being molested, supposedly, even though every white suburb in Australia harbours child abusers too). This is why I'm vehemently against governments disregarding ANY human being's human rights; why I'm against governments stirring up hatred against ANY group of people, even if they're not coming for me (yet). When governments get the idea that, "oh they're not citizens, we can do what we like to them," it's a slippery slope. Who else is on the 'not a real citizen' list?? They're working hard at making all poor people 'not real citizens'; working to make "taxpayer" the default standard for "citizen." (Unless you're a millionaire retiree; then you're a real citizen and SHOULD get money from the government, unlike those bludgers who are actually poor.) Nevermind that we ALL pay tax via the GST... unless we're filthy rich and our accountants can figure out how to claim it all back as input tax credits. There's already forced labour for unemployed people via 'mutual obligation' stuff; 'Work for the Dole' etc. They're already talking big talk about forcing all of us to do more to 'help ourselves'; talking in euphemisms about their real motives in all of it. Who knows where it's gonna end?
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on Nov 4, 2013 3:44:02 GMT 7
Yes the bastard polticans wont get rid of us by chucking us onto newstart because that will increase the unemployment rate by a huge amount making them look like bad economic managers. What l bet they want to do is create a new pension that's a lower rate and with mutual obligation and jobsearch, basically newstart dressed up as a pension , then they can move 300,000 or -400,000 DSp's that they consider to have some work capacity onto the new pension without increasing the official unemployment rate. Very sneaky because Even though they are required to look for work like newstarters they are not classified as unemployed because they are on a pension not newstart. l think they did something like that in the Uk recently. l bet that's what the Liberals would like to do here also, if they try it l hope the senate will block it. I thought that's what Newstart Incapacitated was for. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if they added yet another payment to the roster, with different rules, regulations, procedures etc. Lord knows the system ain't complex and bloated enough already... Fine granular distinctions about what kind of 'poor' people are also scare me; trying to figure out ways to only give money to the 'worthy' poor and mostly just punish the 'unworthy'. And more and more of us get redefined as unworthy.
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on Nov 9, 2013 15:39:29 GMT 7
The Commission of Audit will give him political cover for this. And welfare reform will be at the heart of it. The Disability Support Pension is now the fifth-largest federal spending item. It’s dragging on the budget like a fiscal anchor. Former Labor minister Jenny Macklin tried to renovate this welfare legacy, which began as a pension fund for returning World War I soldiers. The DSP is a vital safety net for the disabled, but it has also grown beyond what most people would consider reasonable. I've been looking around for a while to fact-check this guy, and while the 'fifth largest' thing is true, it's also interesting what's higher on the list; i.e. the other spending categories he's chosen to ignore. He clearly has some interesting ideas about what spending is an 'anchor on the economy', and what's perfectly fine and dandy and should be left just as it is. Using the most recent actual figures available, i.e. 2011-12 (not the projections since their crystal ball may or may not be right), these are the top five spending categories in the federal government budget: #
| Category | Line item | Cost (millions) | 1
| Social security and welfare | Assistance to the aged | $48,231 | 2
| Other purposes | General revenue assistance - States and Territories | $47,149 | 3
| Social security and welfare | Assistance to families with children | $34,919 | 4
| Health | Medical services and benefits | $25,081 | 5
| Social security and welfare | Assistance to people with disabilities | $23,016 |
Source: www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst6-02.htmSo AP costs twice as much as DSP; no comment from him on that. Even though there's a huge 'retirement planning' industry, whose main purpose is to show people how to arrange their millions in assets to get maximum AP and also get to keep all their money to either spend on themselves or pass on to their kids... you know, help for the truly needy. FTB and other parenting payments cost 1.5 times as much as DSP; again, no comment from him on that. Even though the means test limits for FTB are what, $150K/year? Again, help for the truly needy. Medical services and benefits are also not means tested in any way... so again, this is one where wealthy people would suffer in the event of any cutbacks. I personally believe all sick people should be cared for regardless of means, but again, it's telling that he won't take on well-off people. Redistributing GST back to the states and territories... frankly, the state govt here in NSW are about as useful as tits on a bull. But it's in our constitution that we have to have state governments, so the federal govt has to fund em. Whether that's good for the eceonomy or not... no comment from him. But if they did do away with state govts, a lot of well-off politicians would be out of a job, so they're not in his sights for cutbacks. Who does attract his ire? Not the first- through fourth-largest recipients of federal government money, but only the fifth-largest: people too disabled to work enough to support themselves. There are a few of us DSPers with big accident compo payouts or other resources, but frankly, not many. And they only get DSP if they're too injured to work, even with funding for interventions to help them work. So pick on the poor and weak; give more to the rich and powerful. How very Rand-ian of him. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the far right wingers who call themselves Conservative these days, especially from News Ltd. But still, I'm shocked how blatantly these people are willing to go after the neediest so the 'deserving' rich can have more. Even if it's true that caring for those who are too sick to work slows down the economy a little (which I don't think it does, since poor people spend every cent we get so anything spent on us goes straight into the economy anyway), so what? What kind of society has the wealth we do, but can't find the money to care for their poorest and weakest members?
|
|