No Contraception, No Dole ???

Reduced government expenditure means less govt take from GDP, which means more money can cycle freely through the economy = more jobs.
yeah.... no.

reduced government spending usually means outdated infrastructure, inadequate services etc...

rarely does it mean more jobs
 
yeah.... no.

reduced government spending usually means outdated infrastructure, inadequate services etc...

rarely does it mean more jobs

So we should make the the most byzantine taxation system in the world to create an endless supply of ATO + accountant jobs?

Productivity drives living standards growth, not paper shuffling job protectionism.

Let me know how supporting non-productive jobs at the ATO creates modern infrastructure and services. ;)
 
We are blessed to have such a generous welfare system, but cursed to have so many people abuse it.

I have always been a fan of the idea of neutering everyone at birth, then getting fixed once proven to be a capable parent... of course that will never happen and who defines a capable parent?

Not everyone on welfare abuses it...It's not fair to stop people on welfare from having children...but I sure can see why it is good in theory.

Random drug tests on the other hand, would be good to see, weekly would be better....but going to Centrelink is already a painful, slow experience without adding in pee tests to every visit, that said, if they are getting paid, then why not sit at Centrelink for a day, it's not like they are working!

I did try to get benefits when I was studying in 1999, but cause my parents owned their house, and dad earned a huge $24,000 I wasn't eligible...but neighbours of mine whose parents didn't own their house (due to investments), but had an income of ~$150,000 were eligible. Obviously I survived: I've been blessed to have never "needed" welfare.
 
but cursed to have so many people abuse it.

People keep saying this, but I'm yet to see any proper evidence of extensive "abuse".

I'm sure everyone's heard of stories of it, including myself, but I also know literally countless people who aren't abusing the system and genuinely need it.

I think it comes down to the same problems as reducing that last few percent of crime or unemployment - not really feasible or practical.
 
People keep saying this, but I'm yet to see any proper evidence of extensive "abuse".

I guess it depends on which circles you move in.

Many years ago, when my children were babies, I used to take them to the local Playgroup. Most of the mothers there were on benefits.

There was the couple who were on the dole. She refused to work as she had to look after the children. He refused to work because he was a bankrupt, and refused to have 'his' money docked if he earnt a certain amount.

There was another couple, again on the dole. She didn't want to work, again due to children, and he just plain refused to work. He used to look at the phone book and pick random businesses that he 'applied' to for a job when filling in his dole form.

There were endless discussions from those on welfare, as to which charities to approach, and how much you could get from them. As I recall, some of the Mum's had them on a rotating roster, and would go to a different one each week/fortnight, as well as making sure they got their entitlements for discounted phone & electricity, and applying for hampers/toys for Christmas.

Then, a former neighbour of mine used to come knocking (well, she didn't, she sent her son to do it for her) for all manner of handouts. Small stuff, but it was continual. Oh, Mum's run out of XX can she borrow some? That was annoying, but not too bad.

She really took the cake one day, when she asked me for a lift to an appointment she was late for. Stupid me said OK & she took me to a charity place, had me wait for her, then came out, happy as Larry with a big bag of groceries. She showed me what she had & said "Do you want some? There's plenty inside, you don't have to see anyone, just help yourself".

Then on the way back home she was telling me all about this card that she had. It was like a credit card, but apparently it was loaded with $$ to be spent at the supermarket, and she regularly got it topped up. This was the appointment she so desperately needed to get to.

Apparently, according to her, you need no evidence that you are in hardship, you just tell them that you are having troubles making ends meet - rent is late, car needs fixing, etc - and they will give you some 'help', which she recommended that I do the same, because, you know 'everyone does it'.

Hmmm.....no, they don't!

Anyway, we no longer see anyone from the Playgroup. That ended when the kids went to school, and since we moved a long time ago now, we thankfully don't see that neighbour. And guess what? We don't see first hand, anyone rorting the system anymore, but we know they are out there.
 
So we should make the the most byzantine taxation system in the world to create an endless supply of ATO + accountant jobs?

Productivity drives living standards growth, not paper shuffling job protectionism.

Let me know how supporting non-productive jobs at the ATO creates modern infrastructure and services. ;)

not quite. we should think of all the possible consequences.
just because we reduce taxes doesn't mean there will be more jobs in the economy.

most likely the same thing will happen as with all the previous tax cuts - people will just go out and buy a new TV/iphone etc. since we don't manufacture any of those, the main beneficiary will be Chinese economy.
 
most likely the same thing will happen as with all the previous tax cuts - people will just go out and buy a new TV/iphone etc. since we don't manufacture any of those, the main beneficiary will be Chinese economy.

We are not talking about a one off large payment. We are talking about a tax-cut, so much smaller, but available each and every week.

So, thinking about this, there would be more spent on eating out, movies, retail, both online & in stores, kids sports activities, etc. I don't think it unreasonable that some of these places will need more employees.
 
The extra sales which boost the profits at JB Hifi, being distributed to all the shareholders inc Australians, pensioners, superfunds etc. Who then spend their money on goods and services which cycle through again.

The extra sales which means that little suzie working at JB Hifi is hired, who supports herself in university, who comes up with a revolutionary new product which sells for millions.

That's just one business which would benefit. Round and round we go.
 
So, thinking about this, there would be more spent on eating out, movies, retail, both online & in stores, kids sports activities, etc. I don't think it unreasonable that some of these places will need more employees.

i highly doubt that net jobs would be positive.

actually Newman has already done this exercise in QLD, i'd be curious to see how reduction of government spending affected jobs.
 
Yep - others have already hit the nail on the head.

The government is insanely inefficient. Having more people employed by the govt doesn't do much for Australia's GDP.
By reducing the cost of social welfare and tax administration these funds can be re-diverted. Either, as some have said, into lower taxes which increases national spend. Into projects, such as new roads, hospitals etc. Into other government services such as education and health.

What happens to the ones made redundant? Good question. Obviously these changes don't happen over night. You wouldn't (unfortunately) walk in and cut the staffing levels in half in a short period of time - it would be phased.
Some of the individuals would move into retirement, some would be re-deployed into other govt positions, some would go into the private sector. Yes, there will be some individual pain. However, if done properly, the impact could be minimal.

With savings of +$100bln/year, Im sure the rest of Australia would be thankful.

Blacky
 
Anyone in any doubt about the rorters only needs to go to the local Centrelink office about 8.00 to 8.30 in the morning.

Last business we had we used to watch dozens each day, jump out of work utes run in and put in their form, rush out jump in the ute and off to work :(

One of our friends used to work for Centrelink, she discovered 28 benefits going to one address. She showed her supervisor who asked her if anyone had complained, she replied no, the supervisor said forget about it as we are too busy................
 
i highly doubt that net jobs would be positive.

Strannik
Agreed - the initial result is net -ve jobs. However, as the cash starts to flow back through the economy the economy strengthens and job rates increase.

Though it is not immediate, and is very hard to measure and validate.

Regardless, I fail to see that a $135bln bill in welfare, as well as 50,000 people employed to manage the ATO/Welfare is even close to being money well spent.

Blacky
 
so say the government went ahead and simplified all the taxes etc so they don't need all the people managing them anymore.

what will all those people who have been laid off do? plus all the tax agents etc...? join the doll queue?


I suppose you think paying people to dig holes and fill them in again is a good idea?

Any increase in efficiency is good for the economy even if there is a temporary increase in unemployment. Getting rid of people who are not needed is good for the productivity of a nation. And if a nation is wealthy and productive, these people will be employed elsewhere.


See ya's.
 
Australia suffers from negative population growth and this is a significant danger to continued economic growth. We should be thankful for every new child that is born. Either that or come to terms with immigration - something many Aussies are uncomfortable with.

Assimilation or Integration seems to be a topical issue

Definition of assimilation :
"the state of being assimilated; people of different backgrounds come to see themselves as part of a larger national family."[1]

Definition of integration:"the action of incorporating a racial or religious group into a community."[2]
 
People keep saying this, but I'm yet to see any proper evidence of extensive "abuse".

I'm sure everyone's heard of stories of it, including myself, but I also know literally countless people who aren't abusing the system and genuinely need it.

I think it comes down to the same problems as reducing that last few percent of crime or unemployment - not really feasible or practical.

  • I know a billionaire. All people must be billionaires.
  • Actually I know someone who knows someone who is a billionaire. All people must be billionaires.
  • Actually I read an article about a billionaire. All people must be billionaires.
  • Actually a mate told me about an article he read about billionaires. All people must be billionaires.
 
So, thinking about this, there would be more spent on eating out, movies, retail, both online & in stores, kids sports activities, etc. I don't think it unreasonable that some of these places will need more employees.
That's assuming businesses hire more staff in line with their revenue increase. Or that the businesses are even located in Australia.

Woolies/Coles is using self-serve checkouts. Go to a movie or buy a DVD from Amazon, and a good portion of your money will go to the Yanks who own the films. Get an iphone and your money mostly goes to the US/China.

By the end of it, you'll only get a few cents per dollar going back to your average worker drone.
 
That's assuming businesses hire more staff in line with their revenue increase. Or that the businesses are even located in Australia.

Woolies/Coles is using self-serve checkouts. Go to a movie or buy a DVD from Amazon, and a good portion of your money will go to the Yanks who own the films. Get an iphone and your money mostly goes to the US/China.

By the end of it, you'll only get a few cents per dollar going back to your average worker drone.

What do you suggest then?
 
What do you suggest then?

There is no solution other than to accept the situation and build your own weath based on it and the likely outcomes to come. Like no pension.....

That is, I have never assumed I would get the pension at 65. Even when 20. Now almost 50 they first changes have come and before I get there, it will be no pension.

Unfortunately whilst ever we have a partisan political system that never agrees with the other we will not have any reform.

And what cache does that Reform have? Anyone can take any story and say, look at poor jimmy. Hungry, etc...lets ignore mummy smokes dope all day? take him away, noooooo that stolen generation stuff.

Add the welfare advocates who themselves live off the system administering it, don't want it end. They have job because it exists.

Macro economic and social reform is the only hope and it has two chances.

Peter 14.7
 
Back
Top