Government Handouts 101

Every so often in Australia the Government announces a policy that means a part of the community receives a benefit...most likely a large financial benefit. The most recent being Kevin Rudd’s stimulus package, however this is not the first, Howard did his $600 a child party trick a few years ago.
The problem with these benefits is there always appears to be members of the community who miss out. The current bunch of people who miss out mainly fall into 4 categories:
1. Singles or Couples with no Children;
2. Families with income over the threshold;
3. Singles or Couple whose children have grown.
4. Non custodial parents who pay child support.
Now the second group, families who have children who earn above the threshold, now I can understand their angst, all of a sudden a few thousand dollars of income can mean the difference between receiving money or not, and they still have the on going cost of raising their children. Maybe the grant should have been $750 per child and made too all families with children.
Next, non custodial parents, now if you frequent different news sites there are blogs with child support paying parents who have access once a fortnight who don’t get the cash. The comments that normally flow are those about the dead beat ex who uses all the child support money for everything but the kids...in most cases i really think this is an exaggeration, why because kids are bloody expensive. Can’t these parents be happy that their children will receive benefit from this, as in most cases this will happen. I honestly believe that our population is not filled with drunk, druggo mothers who don’t give a **** about their kids.
Group 3, although this might not occur in all situations, a lot of this people with grown children now have grand children.... and they will receive the benefit of the $1000 by having a great Christmas.
And the people with no children...they seem the most bitter, only because they have never had children. I swear if the $1000 was given to everyone what percentage would be spent on plasma’s and booze...well i expect that the singles would spend more on having a good time or buying a party dress for new years than those with kids... but so what. The money just needs to be spent.. on what it does not matter. The singles really don’t like their tax dollars going to family, they forget that these families also pay tax as well. They also forget that they have the increased FHOG available to them, i’m not crying foul that I only got $7,000 for my new build when if i waited 1 year i would have got $21,000. They also forget that in most cases that on several; years they will not be childless and will get the baby bonus, FTB and other random cash handouts.

But basically as best said by Peter 14.7
Exactly. The money is not all going to single mums with 10 children in rags.
1. You will fix tooth. Less future risk for son. Saves money in the future.
2. Your teeth means Dentist will keep in employ receptionist.
3. Receptionist will get her car serviced.
4. Mechanic keeps apprentice to service car.
5. Apprentice pays mum rent.
6. Mum buys food.
7. Coles pays farmer to provide food.
8. Farmer pays stock feed bill.
9. Stock agent fixes ute.
10. Mechanic keeps apprentice to service ute.

This is what the handout is all about.
Everyone in Australia will get the benefit of this...even self funded retiree’s because they should receive better earnings as the companies they hold shares in are not going to be up “s**t creek “ without a paddle.




P.s this post was made whilst under the inffluence of alcohol, whilst at this present time i think it is brilliant i am sorry if I have cause offence or made a million grammar or spelling mistakes, but i really needed to get it off my chest
 
The comments that normally flow are those about the dead beat ex who uses all the child support money for everything but the kids...in most cases i really think this is an exaggeration

not to derail your thread - but as a stepmother, and know those who are non-custodial parents - there are enough cases of the above for it not to be an exaggeration.

in my personal case, before i came along, hubby's ex would demand he pay half the kids everyday expenses on top of the support because (to quote her) "the maintenance is her money and the kids are extra."

i could list dozens of examples i have heard and seen - but i won't.
 
Leaving well alone from child support comments as I have no personal knowledge of same, I too still cant get over people who moan & complain.

At the risk of sounding like my mum....
1.when I recieved 'Child Allowance' for my son it got as high as wait for it....$20.40 a month - did I expect more - no we were happy with what we were given
2. when I bought my first house my partner had already owned a house with their ex so no FHOG for me - did it stop us buying the house - no we bought a house we could afford
3. when I bought a car I dove down the road & saw it cheaper....ok that one I made up but the point is everyone recieves different benefits (or not) throughout their lifetime.

I would love someone to throw me $1000 or so - but our circumstances mean we dont qualify for the payment - why not, because we sit nicley in Letiha's group 1 - we are a couple with a grown up child.

This is why we have savings & investments - this is the biggest thing we can do ourselves to help ourselves as no one else is going to do it for us. We raised our child with the resources avaliable & I cant recall there being a time when our child was young that there were these sorts of packages - because they werent needed - or expected. Seems like whenever a company is about to go bust there is an expectation the government will step in - ABC Childcare a prime example - gov't subsidised childcare (something my generation didnt have access to) which I understand will now be supported by the govt for the interim.
As Letiha said - everyone will get the benefit of this package - it may not be by getting the $ directly,but indirectly everyone should benefit.

Ok must be the night for vodka fuelled ranting but it doenst make it any less frustrating!
Cheers
Stella
 
Letiha. How can I not respond to someone who admits enjoying the fruit of the vine, as I do. :D

Rudd is doing what all our PMs have done for as long as I can remember: Accept what the Yanks do as "World's best practice".

The old adage that "When America sneezes, we catch cold" is perfectly reasonable once you realise that we ape everything they do, but we don't have the "strong/large economy" they do.
 
But basically as best said by Peter 14.7

Quote:
Exactly. The money is not all going to single mums with 10 children in rags.
1. You will fix tooth. Less future risk for son. Saves money in the future.
2. Your teeth means Dentist will keep in employ receptionist.
3. Receptionist will get her car serviced.
4. Mechanic keeps apprentice to service car.
5. Apprentice pays mum rent.
6. Mum buys food.
7. Coles pays farmer to provide food.
8. Farmer pays stock feed bill.
9. Stock agent fixes ute.
10. Mechanic keeps apprentice to service ute.


Yes, but what happens next week, and the week after next, and the...........

One off payments mean one off spend. And a one off spend to boost an ailing economy is a PR exercise.

There is alot less effort required in giving money away rather than determining where money is to be spent, how it is to be spent, and how the funds are to be raised in the first place.

I don't argue with the fact that money will find its way into the economy but whether the money is being spent where it needs to be and how many times the money will circulate is the question. If the recipient spends the money on an imported good how much of that money stays in the country and truly benefits the economy?

The government needs to focus on a solid plan for spending and taxation rather than gimmicks to trade the country out of its current position.

Andrew
 
I think that many will see this one off gimme payment as a reason to buy a new imported TV/furniture/computer etc. In which case the retailer makes a small % of the cost, but the large portion will flow straight out of the country.

Something else, I also reckon that the families payment should have been made in early January, rather than before christmas. Money recieved now is more likely to be spent on extravagent gifts, alcohol, holidays, ie crap whereas during Jan it would be more likely spent on school uniforms/books etc, necessary expenses.
 
I think that many will see this one off gimme payment as a reason to buy a new imported TV/furniture/computer etc. In which case the retailer makes a small % of the cost, but the large portion will flow straight out of the country.

Something else, I also reckon that the families payment should have been made in early January, rather than before christmas. Money recieved now is more likely to be spent on extravagent gifts, alcohol, holidays, ie crap whereas during Jan it would be more likely spent on school uniforms/books etc, necessary expenses.

Exactley that is why it is better now people will buy uniforms and school supplies in January, the government is trying to get people to spend mney on things they would not normally spend things one.
 
My ex is on over 70, 00 pa of government handouts. No doubt my ex will recieve these new payments as well. Probably be spent on another overseas holiday or the like.

I wont receive anything, even though I earn less than the figure above. That doesnt bother me in the least. I am proud that I earn an honest living. I live a comfortable but not extravegant lifestyle. It just irks me now and then that there are an element like my ex in the community who have the ability to work but because of excessive payments dont have any incentive to contribute to society.

Lewis
 
$70k isn't hard to get. A friend of mine has a deadbeat sister with umpteen kids to various deadbeat fathers and gets about that. She's in Government housing too. She's taken it as a career path though, not fallen into that situation by a relationship breakup.

The thing is, her mother thinks she's doing it tough and gives her $1000 out of her pension to top up the 'pittance' the sister gets from the government, while the friend in question is at uni and doesn't qualify for Austudy because her husband earns $40,000.

Not 'needing' money is the big problem in areas like this, where the vast, vast majority of the population is on welfare (ranks the #1 white welfare town in Australia round here) and there's really no work around but you don't actually *need* more than you get in welfare, why bother moving to a different area and pay much more in accommodation when you can stay put and live comfortably? Or more specifically you *can't* move, because moving is very expensive and its impossible to find a rental from a few 100km away without a job already lined up, although I suppose someone like my neighbours could sell their house (assuming it sells in less than 2 years), pocket the change and stay on a mate's couch or a hostel initially, but that's high risk.

Its a trap.
 
Actually the ex already had it as her career path before we split. Just gets centrelink now on top of all the other income. So 70 000 is probably a very conservative estimate and also doesnt take into account the cash income the tax depatment doesnt know about or the child support.

My opininon is though that people like that will get there judgement day. Meanwhile I am happy that I have always been a hardworking and honest citizen. That's the way I was brought up. I Walked away with next to nothing and will start over knowing everything i build up from here on in will be through my own hard work - both mentally and physically. That was the hardest thing I have ever had to do because of the kids, but thats another story and not one for an investing forum. Presently I am doing my due diligence and will be purchasing a PPOR in the new year. It wont be a mansion. It will be a modest abode within my capability to repay. Of course I wont be eligible for the first homeowners grant although techically it will be my first home. I hope that this will be followed by an IP in the coming year.
 
Well as a single (defacto) without children I never expect to gain any benefit from government handouts to "working families" and I'm perfectly happy not to. I do wish the government would spend their money more wisely on infrastructure, education and on business rather than keep giving more and more money away to families with children though. Surely there are better ways to spend money to boost the economy than just endless handouts.
 
Exactley that is why it is better now people will buy uniforms and school supplies in January, the government is trying to get people to spend mney on things they would not normally spend things one.

You're under-estimating the stupidity of most consumers when it comes to what to spend money on at this time of the year, Letiha.

These people will always manage to be able to spend $2k on xmas - no matter how broke they are.
 
You're under-estimating the stupidity of most consumers when it comes to what to spend money on at this time of the year, Letiha.

These people will always manage to be able to spend $2k on xmas - no matter how broke they are.

many many many moons ago i worked at agc finance and was always stunned at this time of year, the number of poverty level people applying for $1000 (at 20% interest) to buy their kids christmas presents.

i couldn't fathon why they would choose to burden themselves to such a degree when they obviously couldn't afford it.
 
A friend and I were talking about the $$ given out last night and I couldn't believe that a single parent friend of hers - who happens to have a long term live in boyfriend :rolleyes: and 6 kids on the pension who lives in a housing commission house just used her money from KRudd to purchase herself or rather I am sure her boyfriend a Harley...very practical and wise use of the money I thought.
 
many many many moons ago i worked at agc finance and was always stunned at this time of year, the number of poverty level people applying for $1000 (at 20% interest) to buy their kids christmas presents.

i couldn't fathon why they would choose to burden themselves to such a degree when they obviously couldn't afford it.

Wow I used to work for AGC finance about 7 years ago just before they were baught out by GE. I remember so many single mums and welfare dependent people trying to buy hugely expensive TV's, stereos, etc etc and boy did they get abusive when they weren't approved or if they copped extra fees and charges because they couldn't afford (or be bothered) to pay the monthly charge. I just don't understand how people can get into consumer debt they obviously can't afford.

Also surprising were the number of wealthy people with very big incomes spending big on consumables. I would have thought they would know better.
 
2-3 days ago I was watching Sunrise with Kochie and on the bottom were they print the little bits of info it had that Rudd wants to give all pensioners and low income earners a new digital set top box so the can watch digital tv when avaliable !!!

I missed the news so I do not know if there is any other info about this
 
We can't get digital tv out here - is he serious? What would we use it for, a paperweight?

We stole a satellite dish (we bought the house under the satellite dish at least) and watch ABC and SBS on digital satellite but we're in an area blacklisted for the aurora cards from optus to get the commercial stations via satellite.

I'd be more than happy to accept a rainwater tank though, or an extension of the mains water system so I can have running water if the clouds forget to deliver for a few months too many.
 
Also surprising were the number of wealthy people with very big incomes spending big on consumables. I would have thought they would know better.


As we all know here; a big income and financial intelligence don't always exist in the same sentence - or house.
 
Back
Top