Marxist John Passant proposes this solution to Australian (so-called) poverty:
Taxing the rich and distributing some of the wealth we create for them to the 2.2 million below the poverty line or creating hundreds of thousands of well-paid including renewable energy jobs, or both, would address poverty.
As Cat readers know the Commonwealth government does this already.
Looking just at the Social Security and Welfare Budget of $131,656 million and then assuming, say, three million Australians living below the poverty line (even more generous than the ACOSS measure) that equates to (131,656,000,000/3,000,000) $43,885 per person.
Peter Whiteford has criticised this calculation saying that there are really 5 million ‘poor’ people in Australia – okay, assuming that number is true, that still works out to some $26,000 per person.
So a single mum with, say, three kids could get (4 x $26,000) $104,000. But, of course, she doesn’t. Why not? Well it is really up to our friends in Canberra to explain where the welfare budget actually gets spent.
So what is John Passant upset about?
She is responsible for the removal from 1 January of 100,000 single parents – 90 per cent of whom are women – from the single or partnered parenting payment to Newstart.
According to the Australian Council of Social Service, this will result in loss in weekly income of $60 to $110 a week for single parents when their child turns eight. Previously, this kicked in when the youngest child turned 16.
Macklin argues this will encourage more people into the workforce. It won’t. As the Labor Party’s Penny Wong and Craig Emerson pointed out when prime minister John Howard tried something similar as part of his infamous ”welfare to work” program, all it will do is increase their poverty and misery. It will, however, save the Labor government $728 million in four years, which is the real reason Labor is doing it. In 2005, the current Finance Minister, Penny Wong, condemned the Howard’s proposed changes, saying there was no evidence that ”dumping a sole parent or her children or a person with a disability in this country onto the lower dole payment would help them get work.”
As Passant should know, referring to any female politicians as ‘she’ is a form of misogyny – but let’s not go there today.
The whole kerfuffle arose when Macklin was asked if she could live on $245 a week and said she could. She probably can’t; but that isn’t the point. Jenny Macklin, over her life, has made choices that means she doesn’t have to live on $245 a week. She doesn’t have to live on charity.
Passant tells us:
A desperate single mum might take any below-award paying job just to survive. Prostitution might even be an option as the choice between food for the kids or not forces single parents to make grim decisions just to survive.
Ah the old chestnut – neo-liberalism drives women to prostitution.
Here is the thing: get a job, the welfare system is a safety net and is not designed to finance people’s lifestyle choices.
Update:
HT: Quadrant Online.
Sorry I can’t get past:
Ooh Honey Honey
4 Jan 13 at 9:50 am
As in, why the fuck don’t we take a break from creating it for them, and rustle up some wealth of our own, John?
Ooh Honey Honey
4 Jan 13 at 9:51 am
If you pay people to fornicate ($26,000/yr) you will get more fornication?
Forester
4 Jan 13 at 9:52 am
Yes – very common amongst lefties. Here is an article from the Oz that explains that view.
Sinclair Davidson
4 Jan 13 at 9:58 am
I don’t understand why single mothers whose youngest child is 8 or more should be paid (extra) to sit at home.
Sleetmute
4 Jan 13 at 9:58 am
Who is this Pissant?
(someone had to say it)
Rafe
4 Jan 13 at 10:04 am
Don’t you just love it:
“…servants of capital”
So ditch the shovel and use your hands?
“People on the dole are more than $100 a week below the poverty line.”
So stop taxing them John…
“John Passant is a tutor in the School of Political Science and International Relations in the College of Arts and Social Sciences at the Australian National University.”
Plenty of scope for spending cuts…
Forester
4 Jan 13 at 10:05 am
More broadly, this article is another example of the intellectual poverty of our universities. It’s about time all public subsidies for higher education were dispensed with. Students could still have access to an income-contingent loans system for a transitional period, but at (at least) market repayment rates with full international clawback. Any research funding should come on a consultancy basis from government departments, firms or non-profit groups. One benefit is that hopefully we won’t be constantly bombarded with as many of these government-funded clowns.
Sleetmute
4 Jan 13 at 10:06 am
In my opinion, those with lower intellect/education from an already dysfunctional social situation, don’t make “lifestyle choices”, but just fall into a situation higgledy piggledy.
That lack of education and social skills makes it hard for some to get a job, so I’m very much in favour of work for the dole.
Though $245 per week is not enough. Rent is at least $150.00 per week.
candy
4 Jan 13 at 10:10 am
Eight to 16 year olds in a single-parent family already are vulnerable enough. The payment allows the parent to be there for the child when it returns from school. The child has already lost one parent; Labor’s surplus obsession demands it lose two.
ilibcc
4 Jan 13 at 10:10 am
Did someone send John a link to this post? I’m sure he’ll rock up here to defend his position and argue for more marxist tax policy…
Tim
4 Jan 13 at 10:12 am
Get A Job. should be a liberty quote.
adrian
4 Jan 13 at 10:20 am
You mean like Sinclair, Steve K and Henry?
m0nty
4 Jan 13 at 10:21 am
That’s a luxury most children of working families (in the literal sense of the term) don’t have. Good parents teach their kids about respect for others and personal responsibility – they don’t have to be home at 3 o’clock to serve them a Milo.
Sleetmute
4 Jan 13 at 10:22 am
I’m reminded of some idiot years ago in Melbourne stating that women were giving up their assembly line jobs in preference to prostitution because the assembly line work was so “soul-destroying”. Passant is trying the same crap. Below award doesn’t equal poverty.
Keith
4 Jan 13 at 10:24 am
Well, mOnty, if they can’t survive in the market, then so be it. I’m not a great fan of Steve and Henry’s (recent) views on monetary/macro myself…
Sleetmute
4 Jan 13 at 10:25 am
Yep, that did it for me also. Who is this “we” and what wealth did “we” create for them?
You can have a system that encourages or at least doesn’t impede wealth creation, but someone still has to do the heavy lifting.
tbh
4 Jan 13 at 10:33 am
I am with Keith. In one breathe Passant says it won’t encourage them to get a job but in the next says it will encourage them in to prostitution
So apparently they will walk past all those legal jobs straight down to the ” staff wanted” advert at the brothel
Kingsley
4 Jan 13 at 10:33 am
‘fraid not m0nty – my salary is paid by international students. So Steve and I are already in a market – and thriving. Thanks for asking.
Sinclair Davidson
4 Jan 13 at 10:35 am
Where does this $245 come from?
Single mother with two children over 8 paying $150 per week rent will get: Parent pension ($245/wk), family tax benefit ($70/wk), rent assistance ($60/wk), plus if the father is a bum she will also get a further $160/wk if no (or less than) this amount is paid in child support.
All up such a mother would get at least $530/wk.
mundi
4 Jan 13 at 10:35 am
ilibcc, having a parent at home when a child finishes school must be wonderful. Most of us who raised children with both parents working have not had that luxury. We got by as a family OK raising 3 kids.
We did have a few rules and standards. School and study was important and monitored. No tattoos or piercings as they are not socially acceptable in all parts of society and employment and why limit yourself at an early age?
Today we have 3 well balanced kids in their twenties, all graduates in good jobs and this without having the luxury of being there after school.
Was this tough? Of course it was. As migrants who arrived here 20 years ago with small kids both my wife and I studied further to improve our qualifications. There were long hours at night with the kids because they had changed countries and education levels differed. We also came from a country with no social welfare and had only heard of the dole, never lived where people got paid when not working. Amazing how you have a different attitude when you are not accustomed to entitlement.
Tekweni
4 Jan 13 at 10:38 am
“Tax the rich” meme will be the political strategy for Labor this election year ( miners and polluters in2013 )– worked for Obama
blind freddy
4 Jan 13 at 10:39 am
Prostitution is not illegal. If he reckons women should not be forced to become prostitutes he can always phone Fred Nile and offer his support. But that would be beneath him. Fancy working woth someone who actually cares about the welfare of the disadvantaged.
WhaleHunt Fun
4 Jan 13 at 10:41 am
“Who is this Pissant?
(someone had to say it)”
I’ve read his drivel before. He was always Pissant to me, and if you didn’t say it, I would have.
The Beer Whisperer
4 Jan 13 at 10:43 am
That’s true and I agree. One small problem though, the marginal worker, or potential worker is going to find it hard going finding a job when the minimum wage is perhaps the highest in the western world and possiby going higher still.
The market is rigged against the marginal worker.
And yes on a set date.. say giving people 10 months… the single mother’s pension should be abolished.
JC
4 Jan 13 at 10:44 am
Question for Passant.
Does he think people should use protection when having sex for recreational reasons or not?
JC
4 Jan 13 at 10:45 am
“Where does this $245 come from?”
That’s the Dole (per week).
And rent is at least $150.00 per week (in Brisbane) for one bedroom.
candy
4 Jan 13 at 10:46 am
So they do get more than $245pw, in fact, up to more than double that initial figure.
So, malignant marxist morons (BIRM) caught lying, again – who’da thunk it?
Rabz
4 Jan 13 at 10:47 am
Candy
Share.
JC
4 Jan 13 at 10:47 am
That is sharing a house, JC. $150.00 for a bedroom in a house in a suburb close enough to work to start any hours.
candy
4 Jan 13 at 10:49 am
And rent is at least $150.00 per week
Rental assistance is also available courtesy of those who work and pay their taxes.
Gab
4 Jan 13 at 10:50 am
Share the bedroom Candy. Plenty of immigrants did that when they first arrived.
JC
4 Jan 13 at 10:52 am
Well JC there are bunches of people, usually Indians, etc, three or so at a time who share a room, that goes on. Not really ideal in Australia.
candy
4 Jan 13 at 10:55 am
How is that the lefties are forever bashing on about “sex-workers” being in just another profession, except when they are trying to make some lame point, when suddenly it’s “oh noes… prositution!”?
Shameless.
mct
4 Jan 13 at 10:56 am
Stiff Cheddar.
JC
4 Jan 13 at 11:00 am
don’t be harsh, JC.
Look on the bright side, these social welfare changes disadvantaging the already disadvantaged gives the Steves and Monty a big headache.
They probably don’t know what to make of their compassionate party!
candy
4 Jan 13 at 11:06 am
How can a person look up to and respect their parents when their food, clothing and shelter was provided, not by hard work, but by a hand out from government? And then those bludgers bleat profusely that said payment was not enough! Not motivation enough even to get your parents off their backside and provide adequately for the basics in life. Hardly a role-model environment for any child.
Then for any government to say ‘we need to raise taxes to pay for welfare’ provides a haven for these lazy arsed wankers to not change. this undoubtably contributes to the lasting resentment of those who do graft, put in the extra hours and provide for their children towards those who suck at the teat of the DSS
Dan
4 Jan 13 at 11:08 am
“women were giving up their assembly line jobs in preference to prostitution because the assembly line work was so “soul-destroying”
What, there’s nothing soul-destroying about prostituting yourself?
The Beer Whisperer
4 Jan 13 at 11:12 am
“You get more of what you subsidize; less of what you tax.” Incentives, baby.
sdog
4 Jan 13 at 11:14 am
“Yep, that did it for me also. Who is this “we” and what wealth did “we” create for them?”
In honour of the upcoming Lone Ranger and Tonto movie, I’ll repeat the great punch line – “whaddya mean “we”, paleface?”.
It always bugged me though – why does a guy calling himself the Lone Ranger have a sidekick? Ain’t that an oxymoron?
The Beer Whisperer
4 Jan 13 at 11:17 am
Candy, you can get a four bedroom house for under $400/week just about anywhere. Share accommodation is the reality. In fact, share amongst a few other single mums and voila, you have the capacity to take on part time work while your other housemates take turns looking after the kids. It’s not rocket science.
If your average single mum just poots around the house for the first 8 years of your kids life watching Dr Phil it’s hardly going to motivate them to do anything. Then the day you tell them in a blind rage to stop being lazy and get a job, they are likely to murder you in your sleep.
Dan
4 Jan 13 at 11:18 am
“And rent is at least $150.00 per week (in Brisbane) for one bedroom.”
Heaven forbid they live with their parents to save on rent. Hell, they could even work part-time and bludge free babysitting off grandma. I mean, that’s how it used to be. Families supported their own, but the state is now your family, precisely how the leftards want it to be. After all, how could they convince anyone of the state being a benefactor to anyone who is not dependent on them.
The Beer Whisperer
4 Jan 13 at 11:28 am
Governments don’t actually earn the money they give out in welfare or any other program. It comes from individual and company taxpayers. Unless the single mothers managed to conceive without the involvement of a man there is a father somewhere who should be responsible for maintenance payments. If they are on the dole take as much of it as required as a lesson not to have children they don’t want to look after. Its not everyone else’s problem.
Andre Lewis
4 Jan 13 at 11:29 am
Seems the Conservative culture has been annexed by the nouveau riche who demand that little of their new found wealth should be awarded to the straitened.
Old conservatives (in culture, not age) remember that the family unit is the bedrock of society and nurturing of children within the family is paramount because they form the next generation.
The fact that a current generation has been raised with two parents absent – and have albeit turned out fine – does not negate the old principle that a child should always have a parent – not just a house – to return to in the afternoon.
The idea suggested by someone that parents don’t have to be around to serve their kids a Milo at 3p.m. is just rationalisation for the sad reality that is today’s society.
It remains an appalling scandal – and a vast irony – that Labor’s drive for economic credibility is partially financed by vulnerable single mothers.
ilibcc
4 Jan 13 at 11:34 am
Almost a Liberty Quote.
Sinclair Davidson
4 Jan 13 at 11:43 am
My thought exactly, when I read comments like this one at Blair‘s (and others just like it elsewhere):
Since when did it become more shameful and “unfair” for family members to help each other, and to depend on each other, than to demand free money from complete strangers?
I mean, I really do feel for families in situations like that, but where is the father, where is the rest of the family, where is the church, where is the local community in any of this? Charity should really come from the people closest to you – and likewise should be given to the people closest to you.
sdog
4 Jan 13 at 11:44 am
“Share the bedroom Candy. Plenty of immigrants did that when they first arrived.”
Sharing the bedroom is what got them into the fix in the first place.
WhaleHunt Fun
4 Jan 13 at 11:44 am
I’ve heard that somewhere before. Oh yes,
Biota
4 Jan 13 at 11:44 am
“financed by single mothers”? I suppose like cheaper imported cars are ‘financed’ by Holden and Ford through lower tariffs.
Sleetmute
4 Jan 13 at 11:44 am
Bullshit.
sdog
4 Jan 13 at 11:46 am
Plenty of Australian backpackers in London are piled up 3 or 4 to a room. It’s considered a rite of passage, part of the process, something to be endured until you land a higher paying job.
Incidentally said backpackers are not eligible for any type of state assistance from the uk government as a condition of their visa.
Funny how people with that spirit of enterprise and adventure are from the same country where having a government rent you a flat is considered a fundamental right. The only difference is that the backpackers self select as people with a bit of spark and enterprise, and the bludgers sit at home.
Incidentally the high rental costs of a place to live in Brisbane is directly related to government policies making it very difficult to develop land for more housing.
brc
4 Jan 13 at 11:54 am
“government policies making it very difficult to develop land for more housing.”
There you go again blaming former incompetent slop-feeding wastral governments for problems. Labor lowlifes are incapable of not being slothful ruinous parasites. They have spent their whole lives leeching and sucking and ruining. The real culprits are the useful idiots who voted them in agaian and again and again.
WhaleHunt Fun
4 Jan 13 at 12:06 pm
“So apparently they will walk past all those legal jobs straight down to the ” staff wanted” advert at the brothel”
Most employers prefer prior experience anyway.
Paul
4 Jan 13 at 12:56 pm
Re: update
Macklin could probably live off $35/day, but she sure as shit would not be eligible for the dole
Dan
4 Jan 13 at 1:00 pm
Correct Forester.
I wonder if lowering the age limit to eight will simply encourage more gravy-train induced procreation.
Perhaps the criteria should be “when the youngest child turns eight or when twelve years of cumulative single parent benefits have elapsed”
Leigh Lowe
4 Jan 13 at 1:03 pm
Or they could limit it to the number of children you had when you first applied for the Single Mum’s Pension.
If your husband dies and leaves you penniless with 5 children to support, you get support until those children are to a reasonable age. If you leave your husband and take your two kids with you, and neither you nor your husband are up to the task of supporting those children, the taxpayer will step in and support /only/ those two children. If you accidentally fall pregnant as a teen and want to keep the baby, the taxpayers will help you out… with that one child.
With reliable taxpayer-subsidized birth control and abortion on demand, it’s hard to see why it’d be cruel to ask women who already have at least one child they can’t afford to support to wait until they’re in a more stable situation to have another one… or two… or three.
Working families – who DON’T automatically get pay-raises every time they have a child – somehow manage this balancing act all the time.
sdog
4 Jan 13 at 1:16 pm
Indeed in practice it generally goes the other way, especially if the mother has to give up more casual work due to more children, or the father has to cut down on overtime to provide more care.
brc
4 Jan 13 at 1:30 pm
Absolutely and now that the Queenslanders have finally unhitched themselves from the yoke of those
…incompetent slop-feeding wastral (sic) governments..
the sloths are revolting
Tintarella di Luna
4 Jan 13 at 1:36 pm
There is an assumption here that the single mums have sole custody of the kids and are looking after them 52 weeks of the year. It’s more likely that a lot of them have some sort of shared custody arrangement which may range from a weekend a month with dad to a 50/50 split. Speaking from the experience of our family, it is possible to hold down a full time job with a 50/50 split and draw on no govt benefits at all. It’s all a matter of wanting to work.
boy on a bike
4 Jan 13 at 1:56 pm
What do people think about the idea of increasing the dole payment slightly, have the work for the dole scheme immediately enforced on people on the dole but reduce the time or index the dole if someone has not found a job after a particular amount of time?
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 2:01 pm
I think that’s a very positive idea, Andrew, increasing the Dole but enforcing work for the Dole almost immediately. Not working encourages bad habits to set in, and looking for a job can be done at night mostly.
candy
4 Jan 13 at 2:10 pm
Looking for a job can be done at night, job interviews generally occur in daylight hours.
I would argue that the cost of complying with the requirements of recieving a wefare cheque for extended periods far out weigh its benefits
Dan
4 Jan 13 at 3:49 pm
Ah sdog, while it would give more ammunition for the Sandra Fluke’s of this world demand for the gubbermint to pay for their contraception, the longer term savings would make the limitation worthwhile. Sadly, it’ll never happen- the bleeding hearts will demand “think of the children” and the reformers will cave.
Cold-Hands
4 Jan 13 at 4:05 pm
I voted against the Australia Card when it was floated, but since then I’ve become more than a little concerned about the amount of people who dodge taxes and their child payments.
How about a card that details ones DNA in a central bank? Lots of scope here for identifying missing people, determining who the father of a particular child is – and making them pay up.
Lots of reasons for it, and the only reason against it is that I don’t trust government.
Winston SMITH
4 Jan 13 at 4:19 pm
Cold Hands,
the health care card that every single mum on the single parent payment has would already cover most of that cost and the extra $7 a month roughly that the government would have to shell out would save them bucketloads. So basically a good policy from sdog I reckon, especially since in my profession, I have come across more welfare dependant families with large numbers of children because it pays better than getting a job in some instances and has been used as a career choice for a lot of low socioeconomic families who are multi generational welfare dependant families.
Tator
4 Jan 13 at 6:38 pm
Most of the people who skip out on child payments are in collusion with the mother. They deliberately do not write the father onto the birth certificate. That way the mother can get the full $160 extra. In most cases the father can then ‘be a house mate’. This way the family is able to draw approximately $800 per week ($345 parent pension for mum, $100 rent assistance to mum, $70 ftbb to mum, $160 ftba to mum, $250 dole to dad). If the dad is able to bring a kid from a past relationship, the household can easily take in $1100 per week in welfare by both claiming the parent pension and all benefits.
Standard scam practice around the lower class suburbs.
Mundi
4 Jan 13 at 7:55 pm
If the payment were attached to the child, the multiple parents would have to fight over their share ONLY. Half a payment if the kid is shared 50/50. Dad would be more encouraged to stay around I reckon if he got a fair 50% share of the money right from the start.
hzhousewife
4 Jan 13 at 8:12 pm
Sinclair
in fact the number of people who are in poverty in Australia before they receive social security benefits is about 6.5 million, so if we divided up the welfare budget we would pay all poor people about $18,500 not $24,000 – and this would be a bit below the standard relative poverty line. also we would not be paying for any homelessness services, aged care services or help for people with disability.
Peter whiteford
4 Jan 13 at 10:16 pm
Err, “below-award paying job”? Wouldn’t that be breaking the law or something?
Amused
4 Jan 13 at 11:41 pm
Peter Whiteford, please provide a source for this remarkable statistic. Apparently, in one of the richest countries in the world, a quarter of the population would be “in poverty” if it were not for welfare payments.
Please clarify whether you mean “absolute poverty” or “relative poverty” when you do this. Because, if you are referring to “relative poverty”, then it is dishonest to measure it against the benchmark of a society where people receive benefits. It should be measured against the benchmark of where there are no benefits. However, if you are referring to “absolute poverty”, you need to tell us what that term means.
I have been around the block a few times about the benchmarking of “poverty” in wealthy countries, and the most striking thing is that the poor are always with us, no matter how rich the society gets.
These days, one of the definitions of poverty in rich countries is not having a computer and internet access. I bet that the genuinely poor buggers in places like Mali would be gobsmacked by that.
johanna
5 Jan 13 at 5:23 am
Oi, if people insist on using “relative” measures for poverty, by definition there will always be “poor” people…….. and perversely, the more “rich” people you have the more “poor” people you’ll create; and if the economy tanks and you lose your “rich” people, you’ll end up with fewer “poor” people.
The EU defines “poverty” as making 60% or less of the median income. If you had a society where 75% of workers made a million dollars a year and 25% “only” made $500,00/year, you would have more “poor” people than a society where every single person earned exactly one dollar a day.
This is interesting too — BBC News, November 2012: Is one in eight Australians really poor?
Jim
5 Jan 13 at 6:36 am
Johanna
It is relative poverty line set at 50 per cent of median income , but that is the line used by Sinclair in making his calculation. Currently that would equate to a bit more than $19,000 per year for a single person.
You can get estimates for poverty rates before social security payments either from the OECD or from the Luxembourg Income Study websites.
What do you think poverty would be if social security payments ceased?
Peter Whiteford
5 Jan 13 at 9:52 am
Peter – I keep choosing whatever number the welfare lobby indicate is the amount of poverty in Australia. Since I’ve started this exercise it has gone from about 2 million to your latest figure of 6.5 million. Mind you I do not believe for one instant that there are really 6.5 million people in Australia in poverty. By your count we would still have add in “homelessness services, aged care services or help for people with disability”.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Jan 13 at 10:00 am
Probably reduce dramatically or even disappear as people got jobs and private charity replaced welfare dependency and so on.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Jan 13 at 10:01 am
Sinclair
As I have pointed out many times you need to distinguish between pre transfer poverty and post transfer poverty. This is a basic distinction in the economic analysis of poverty. I don’t understand why you have difficulties with this point.
Peter
Peter Whiteford
5 Jan 13 at 10:17 am
Peter – read above.
Every time I do this calculation you come back with a bigger number.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Jan 13 at 10:20 am
If you look at the article Jim linked to above, not even the BBC (!!!) believes there are so many poor people in Australia.
To be blunt – the international benchmark for poverty is $1.25 per day. There are no poor people in Australia.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Jan 13 at 10:25 am
The average salary for Toorak residents is $132,252. Using relative poverty as a metric, anyone in Toorak on less than $66,126 a year is “living in poverty”.
sdog
5 Jan 13 at 10:33 am
sdog – not living in “poverty” on that income they’re living in Port Melbourne
Sinclair Davidson
5 Jan 13 at 10:37 am
D’ya reckon we should start up a food drive for them? Send some care packages? Buy them a goat for Christmas?
sdog
5 Jan 13 at 10:39 am
Peter, thanks for your response. You have perhaps misunderstood my point about the double-counting implicit in measuring ‘relative poverty’ against income levels where a significant proportion of the population is receiving various kinds of taxpayer funded income support benefits. The result is that incomes are higher, the relative ‘poverty line’ increases, while that statistic is being enhanced by taxpayer funded income support intended to keep people out of poverty.
Given the large proportion of the Commonwealth budget that is dedicated to welfare, any calculation of the effect of removing it must include increases in income to those who are currently paying the taxes that fund it. That kind of modelling is beyond my capacity, so I regret that I cannot come up with numbers on that question.
Perhaps as significant as income support is housing subsidies, especially public housing. The general rule is that rent is 25% of income, which is usually an income support payment. It doesn’t appear in the budget of States or the Commonwealth, but there are tens of thousands of properties where residents pay effectively peppercorn rent, have free maintenance, and pay no municipal rates or charges. For someone living in a capital city, this is easily worth $10 000 a year, tax free. For the property owner (usually a State government), the loss is even greater.
I am not a flinty-hearted advocate of abolishing social security at all – my mother’s family were Salvation Army people and my father is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. But I think that some fresh thinking is needed about these issues, before we end up broke and sapped of vigour like Europe.
johanna
5 Jan 13 at 10:40 am
Johanna
The effect you refer to does not occur since the removal of welfare would be offset by the reduction in taxes and the median would be unaffected. The only way that this sort of effect could occur would be if the median household received more in welfare than they paid in taxes, which is not the case in Australia.
Public housing subsidies are included in state government budgets.
And their value is also taken into account in some ABS analysis of income surveys (every 5 to 6 years).
Peter Whiteford
5 Jan 13 at 11:53 am
[...] Why not tax the rich? I post has some discussion about the definition of poverty. Fair enough. The problem is whether [...]
Why not tax the rich? III at Catallaxy Files
5 Jan 13 at 3:28 pm
Sinclair
Perhaps you should actually read the post you linked to. Where in it do I sat that there are five million people in poverty?
What I did say was that were are around five million people receiving social security benefits, and that this does not include people receiving family payments.
Since your own post no III shows that there are working households in relative poverty, these figures are entirely consistent. In fact I have also previously given pre-transfer poverty rates on your repeated postings about this.
So I do not keep changing my figures. You keep not reading what is actually written.
Finally let me say that it is perfectly possible to argue that there are inefficiencies in Australian social security arrangements, and it is also possible to argue that you are unconvinced by relative poverty lines. You argue that there is no real poverty in Australia because we should use a $1.25 a day poverty line (good luck with convincing many people of that).
However, what I object to is when you and others create spurious numbers to justify your opinions.
Peter Whiteford
6 Jan 13 at 9:11 am