Poverty and welfare pimps

Adam Creighton has a must-read piece in The Australian:

Forty years ago last month the Henderson Poverty Inquiry put the “poverty line” in Australia, for a couple with two children, at an income of $62.70 a week, equivalent to about $28,600 a year in today’s money. By that considered evaluation of the range of goods and services deemed essential, poverty in Australia must be a thing of the past.

Today, an equivalent unemployed couple with two children enjoys $37,190 a year in direct cash social security payments from the taxpayer, excluding any other indirect federal or state government assistance, according to the Melbourne Institute. Equally, a single mother with four children receives $45,344 a year, which is, also, entirely net of income tax.

That is an astonishing number; $45,344 pa net of income tax. That is a number that needs widespread exposure. Being a single mother with four kids normally results from a series of choices – bad choices except for the perverse incentive where you get to loot the treasury and those individuals who make better choices.*

When thinking about how much we spend on welfare there are two others sets of numbers we need to keep in mind.

First the distribution of the income tax. I calculate this number (using different metrics) every year based on the latest ATO data.

So some numbers – the top one per cent of income earners pay 17.7 per cent of net income tax at an average effective tax rate of 41 per cent. The top five per cent of income earners pay 34.1 per cent of net income tax at an average effective tax rate of 36 per cent. The top 25 per cent of income earners pay 67.9 per cent of net income tax.

Second the distribution of the welfare spend. I’ve played around with some numbers here too.

The great American economist Deirdre McCloskey specifically argues that the policy of taxing the rich so that the poor might prosper has failed. She gives two reasons why that is so. First, following Robert Nozick, taxation is a form of slavery and is associated with various economic costs. She also argues that most social spending is not designed to benefit the poor, but rather the middle class. She illustrates this point by means of a back of the envelope calculation. The US government collects about 25 percent of US GDP in taxation and if a third of that amount were distributed to the 34 million Americans described as being ‘poor’ then each one would receive about US$30,000. A family of four – two parent and two children – would have a combined income of US$120,000 and could hardly be described as being ‘poor’ with that level of income. She concludes by observing, ‘So it must not be true that the government’s taxes go mainly, or even much at all, to the poor’.

It is possible to replicate that thought experiment in Australia. According to the Budget Papers the federal government intends to spend $121.9 billion in the 2011-12 financial year on Social Security and Welfare. That sum of money – 33.3 percent of the federal budget – does not include health, education or housing – items that also constitute welfare spending. Making the assumption that there could be as many as two and a half million poor Australians that level of expenditure would be enough to transfer over $48,000 to each of them. Even if we considered that the government should distribute money to the bottom twenty percent of Australians that would still amount to over $29,000 each.

As Adam Creighton points out, however, Australia simply does not have a poverty problem – we have a welfare problem and in particular we have articulate poverty pimps.

Crude politics is to blame. Politicians, encouraged by the welfare lobby whose existence depends on maintaining the “poverty” charade, have offered an even greater array of payments that they know, deep down, are not justified. It is difficult to see how this sad trend can ever reverse given the timidity most politicians now display.

Freezing social security payments in nominal terms and ending, prospectively, child payments for third and subsequent children might be a politically realistic place to start. Nevertheless, curbing such payments will prompt howls of protest and prove extremely difficult for any political party, however dedicated in principle.

Before that can happen the arguments need to be prepared. Putting out information on who gets what, who pays and, to be blunt, who deserves to get a hand out is the place to start. That does mean making value judgements about relative merits – something people are loathe to do. In particular the role of poverty pimps needs to be exposed and debated.

* No doubt the bleeding heart types will point to some individuals who become single parents through no fault of their own. I understand that can and does happen.

This entry was posted in Economics and economy, Taxation. Bookmark the permalink.

237 Responses to Poverty and welfare pimps

  1. stackja

    poverty pimps

    ALP like US Dems love the needy poor.

  2. cynical1

    “Freezing social security payments in nominal terms and ending, prospectively, child payments for third and subsequent children”.

    Yes. I’m not aware of any jobs that give you an increase in pay because you have more children.

    Limit the payouts.

    Breeding is a career move for some..

  3. Jannie

    The welfare lobby benefits from having a large constituency of poor people; entire classes of socialist professionals are dependant on the deskilling and demotivation of the lumpenproletariat. No wonder the unwashed turn to methamphetamine.

  4. * No doubt the bleeding heart types will point to some individuals who become single parents through no fault of their own. I understand that can and does happen.

    Once or maybe twice, yes. After that it starts to look like a calculated decision. This is why halting payments for subsequent children might be the way to go.

    I would like to argue that sole parent payments have slowed or halted the abortion rate in Australia, but they manifestly haven’t, so there goes that justification straight out the window.

    I think also a major change in living standards has taken place, for the better, but rents have also become very high. $45,000 doesn’t go very far if you have to rent in the private market. Government housing, though, is much cheaper, and that’s what many of these people get as well.

  5. Tardell G

    Gee. I never realised I grew up poor till reading this.

  6. But there’s also the case of buying votes.

    Any government can do this quickly and expensively by ensuring that the welfare-dependent class is as large as possible, and then promising that it will always be this way.

    Oh, hang on …

  7. Andrew

    Do you think that now forcing wymin to return to work when their youngest is well settled in primary school (a source of considerable lulz to me when Gillard inflicted that on the Evil Ex) has adequately removed the incentive for poor choices? And yes, in many cases they were choices.

  8. boy on a bike

    People can become single parents through no fault of their own – but that doesn’t mean they need to rely on welfare. They can work and do quite well for themselves – if they want to. It’s not easy – but it can be done.

  9. 2dogs

    No doubt the bleeding heart types will point to some individuals who become single parents through no fault of their own. I understand that can and does happen.

    I understand how much those same bleeding heart types would scream if the degree of such fault were to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of benefits to be paid.

  10. Rabz

    $45,000 doesn’t go very far if you have to rent in the private market.

    I’d doubt that figure includes ‘rent assistance’.

  11. Being a single mother with four kids normally results from a series of choices

    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc. If that costs half of my income and half of yours, them so be it.

  12. Token

    * No doubt the bleeding heart types will point to some individuals who become single parents through no fault of their own. I understand that can and does happen.

    My former sister in law received “good” advice from “friends” who were able to brief her how much money she was entitled to if she broke up her family.

    She was the type who thought they was a great idea.

  13. candy

    Being a single mother with four kids normally results from a series of choices

    If there are different fathers, I would say definitely there are a series of choices going on. It’s a very poor outlook for a child in those circumstances on many different levels.

  14. Token

    Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc.

    Sure, but that is not how our welfare bureaucracy works.

    What was the exact thinking when the Liars Party & Greenfilth removed the requirement that parents prove via receipts that the “schoolkids bonus” was spent on tools and consumeables to educate the child?

    You can bet the decision was targeted at the parents who vote, not the children who can not.

  15. boy on a bike

    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc.

    Spot on – the kids certainly deserve all that and more. Which is why the parents should get jobs in order to pay for it. The kids will get a lot more if the parents are working.

    I’m sure that is what you meant to say.

  16. Jazza

    I see single mothers struggling on their own, fathers who don’t want to talk about costs of their daughter’s day care, but who want to take the daughter at w/e so the week is free for working and earning–while the mothers find it hard to work and so bear all those costs. The law is no help as these days it is expected that parents will have their own settled custody agreements to take to Centerlink.
    Talking of going to court is frowned upon and ignored, for the most part. The single mother, too is often at the mercy of a landlord who can make annual increments in rent while the fixed social security basically remains the same or increases far less proportionately.
    I have a grandie in her thirties, who is a single mother of three after two abusive relationships–better off without either, but each “”man” wants to pay nothing or very little after a struggle, and yet have access to the son and the daughter–all”care” and no responsibility–the second “man” sends his two year old back without even a nappy on her bottom!
    I recently discovered this mother gets about the same amount I do with pension and super–and has children of 14, 5 and 2,so she lives on the smell of an oily rag but does her best,they always have good food–she manages to squeeze in one day a week working in a restaurant–but it costs her child care fees.
    My advice to her,considering what the law states, was to inform the child’s father she wants and intends to pursue at court, fully equal custody not the farce he’s forced upon her–then they would take week about–never ideal for a child but my grandie doesn’t believe in keeping a child from the father nor does she rubbish him to the child,so is perhaps too malleable–neither bloke ,as it’s turned out from lovey beginnings, could live up to her character,but what a pity she somehow felt each time the chap was all she was worthy of–grr!
    I think the family court laws are woeful–and Howard and Gillard are to blame as well as the civil libertarians who have made it so police cannot touch a runaway child and social workers rule with their never saying “no” to any child,and telling wayward teens they “respect” their wishes!!
    We have definitely thrown out the baby with this bath water,since parents hold all the costs and have none of the rights any more it seems to me!.

  17. None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc. If that costs half of my income and half of yours, them so be it.

    If they were my kids, they’d cost me more than half my income and that of my husband’s! We’d probably spend the lot on them.

    But they are not my kids. They are someone else’s kids. And someone else is actually responsible for their being generated and born.

    And that person is the one who can and should be paying for them.

    If they cannot and will not pay to maintain and support their children, then the children can and should be removed, and given to a family that is willing to maintain and support and love those children into a better life.

  18. mizaris

    People can become single parents through no fault of their own – but that doesn’t mean they need to rely on welfare. They can work and do quite well for themselves – if they want to. It’s not easy – but it can be done.

    That’s how it was done when my granny, God rest her, had to bring up 2 children when she was widowed in the 30s. It certainly wasn’t luxury, but it didn’t make her kids any the worse for it. They managed (private) rent, food, schooling etc. There was no widow’s pension either. Just honest hard work and economising and getting on with it. Many of today’s single parents squeal when they realise that it’s time to get of their ass and go back to work.

    To wit, a conversation I heard in a checkout line on Saturday afternoon. 2 x single mums, aged maybe mid 20s, one whinging that her child was 8 next year and that she will have to find a job. Other says it might be better to have another kid. First one says, nah…I’ll sign up for some courses. Govt will pay for a tafe course and I don’t have to turn up if I don’t feel like it. laughter. shopping on counter – chicken nuggets, fruit juice drink in 6 pack small bottles, 2 x 200g pks salt & vinegar crisps, pkt lolly snakes, 4 x 2 litre coke and 2 packs cigarettes. Great nutrition and good to see MY taxes at work!!!!!

  19. Infidel Tiger

    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc.

    Great idea. They should be removed from the parents and placed with productive members of society.

  20. Token

    I have a grandie in her thirties, who is a single mother of three after two abusive relationships–better off without either, but each “”man” wants to pay nothing or very little after a struggle, and yet have access to the son and the daughter–all”care” and no responsibility–the second “man” sends his two year old back without even a nappy on her bottom!

    How many times have I noted we should spend more time discussing dead beat fathers instead of gay marriage?

    How many times have I tried to discuss the incentives the welfare system provides for rougues not to do their duty and the penalties for fathers who see doing their duty as important?

    When will our society spend less time on the social policy unicorns and more on the topics which will help chidren?

  21. hzhousewife

    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc.

    Which is why the money should be “attached” to the “kid” not the adult.

  22. dan

    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc. If that costs half of my income and half of yours, them so be it

    THOSE kids….half of MY income
    Well what about my kids and the $60,000 I need to find after tax to pay for their education each year? Should someone be giving me their income to fund that (I receive no government grants) ?
    If “half” of my income is OK, why not more? Why not take 90% and make my kids go to public school? After all those poor children of the wives who walk out of the home because they get $40,000 a year tax free and don’t need the husband anymore and are bored are hardly to blame.

  23. Docket62

    ” $45,000 doesn’t go very far if you have to rent in the private market.”

    Well that depends entirely on where you want to live. Sure, inner city suburbs are going to cost you, but modest rent is available in the burbs, it’s just not as “convenient”….

    “If they cannot and will not pay to maintain and support their children, then the children can and should be removed, and given to a family that is willing to maintain and support and love those children into a better life.”

    And that’s how we started down the dark path with the so called stolen generations philipa ….. So in 20 years well have the next tranche of generations seeking monetary compensation for the ‘injustice’ of something that should happen on a much more regular basis.

  24. dan
    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc.

    Which is why the money should be “attached” to the “kid” not the adult.

    Wealth requires work.

    It’s sad that after 5000 of development of human civilisation people like you(se) have apparently lost your understanding of how wealth is generated to pay for housing and so on. I thought only children thought money grew on trees.

    I agree there are probably some heroin babies etc out there that need state support but I doubt more than 1% of the population really qualify. And I work in a setting where believe me I see these malingering dopes every single day. The sad thing is that they actually believe they should be receiving the DSP and so on when in a sane society they wouldn’t possibly require it.

  25. Well that depends entirely on where you want to live. Sure, inner city suburbs are going to cost you, but modest rent is available in the burbs, it’s just not as “convenient”….

    Sometimes those cheap suburbs also unsafe for a young family, and it’s also a long way from the mother’s place of work – assuming that she’s working.

    I can entirely understand a woman on her own with small children wanting to live in the safest possible place she can afford.

    I know that the ones who suffer the most in this situation are the ones who actually want a better life for their children and are prepared to make sacrifices for it.

    Those who have given up and are firmly attached to the public teat are the ones whose feral children endanger the lives and wellbeing of the rest of us.

  26. The Pugilist

    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc. If that costs half of my income and half of yours, them so be it.

    I’d be more willing to pay that amount if we could be assured that none of the welfare payments are spent on cigs, booze and whatever else until the basic needs of the children are met. Of course, you can’t buy love, caring and attention for these poor little souls, but at the very least 50% or more of the fortnightly payments should be through vouchers or in kind. If the kids don’t make it to school in appropriate shape (clean, fed and with school equipment) then kids should be taken away, welfare cut off and, dare I say it, the neglectful parent(s) thrown into custody.

  27. .

    How many times have I noted we should spend more time discussing dead beat fathers instead of gay marriage?

    You and JC are correct.

  28. .

    If you want booze, cigs to stop impoverishing children of the indigent:

    Then stop taxing them so much.

    Cutting tariffs, payroll tax and land taxes along with abolishing wage regulation and occupational licensing would help the working poor and unemployed more than any ineffective dross from the Liberals or sanctimonious BS from the ALP and Greens.

  29. C.L.

    How many times have I noted we should spend more time discussing dead beat fathers instead of gay marriage?

    No, sorry.

    Supporters of homosexual “marriage” are wilfully encouraging outcomes for children that will – as a matter of axiomatic certainty – increase welfare dependency.

  30. dan

    I’d be more willing to pay that amount if we could be assured that none of the welfare payments are spent on cigs, booze and whatever else until the basic needs of the children are met. Of course, you can’t buy love, caring and attention for these poor little souls, but at the very least 50% or more of the fortnightly payments should be through vouchers or in kind.

    Paying effectively 50% of my income in income tax with the high proportion going to welfare, the poor starving children of Australia literally take more of my income than each of my children.

    So in addition to having these welfare queens ($45,000?) as my effective dependents financially, I would be funding people to decide on their actual upbringing and deciding everything that happens in their life including family budgeting as well. I wonder why tax minimisation is such a big industry.

  31. Docket62

    “Sometimes those cheap suburbs also unsafe for a young family, and it’s also a long way from the mother’s place of work – assuming that she’s working.”

    Riiiiight… The $45K were talking about is the single mother and that’s the income she receives NET of tax… If she’s working as well it’s for cash and she’s rorting the system. So let’s stick to what were talking about. Not all cheap suburbs are slums, if said mum is on welfare, and that’s the premise, then she doesn’t need to go to ‘work’, so she can live anywhere.. But those suburbs don’t have the right coffee shops, schools etc, and the father(s) may have to drive further to collect and drop off said brats…

    I see the welfare side of it all the time. FamilyA and B payments should be removed. They are a plague. A married couple on (modest) incomes, where both work and pull in $60k each will still qualify for welfare. WTF? And not just a little, were talking $12000 plus per year.

    On 45 net, you can manage private rent EASILY. In perfectly good suburbs. It’s not the safe suburbs they’re looking for, it’s one where they can walk to dan Murphy’s, which is near the TAB, Centrelink and all the other good stores they can shop in.. FMD

  32. H B Bear

    ACOSS is one of the most effective unions going around.

    No membership fees either.

  33. The Pugilist

    Paying effectively 50% of my income in income tax with the high proportion going to welfare, the poor starving children of Australia literally take more of my income than each of my children.

    Don’t get me wrong dan, I think 50% of my income is too much. Even 40%. But I suppose my point is that I would be less resistant to paying tax generally, if we could all be assured that those outcomes were even close to being achieved.
    Also, the destruction of incentives to ‘pull oneself up by one’s own bootstraps’ is the real kicker for me. Welfare destroys that and by doing so, slowly white ants civilised society.

  34. coz

    ‘So some numbers – the top one per cent of income earners pay 17.7 per cent of net income tax at an average effective tax rate of 41 per cent. The top five per cent of income earners pay 34.1 per cent of net income tax at an average effective tax rate of 36 per cent. The top 25 per cent of income earners pay 67.9 per cent of net income tax.’

    No mention of tax minimisation schemes, just the ‘effective’ tax rate, ha. Looks a lot more impressive that way, dunnit?

    Also failing to take into account tobacco taxation (a tax on the poor) will help with this completely skewed view.

  35. Noddy

    cynical1
    #1154990, posted on January 17, 2014 at 1:44 pm
    Breeding is a career move for some..

    Do you feel like you are missing out?

  36. H B Bear

    Adam Creighton is one of the most impressive business journos at The Australian. It is extraordinary to think this is the same organization that then went and hired Our Jessica.

  37. .

    Riiiiight… The $45K were talking about is the single mother and that’s the income she receives NET of tax…

    Net of direct income tax.

    Not net of direct and indirect consumption and resource taxes.

    New homes have a total tax bill in NSW that approaches 46%. Alcohol, tobacco and fuel is heavily taxed. Many imports have tariffs slapped on them. If she owns, she will have to pay rates – otherwise she’ll indirectly pay for her landlord.

    If you want things to be cheaper, then abolish most taxes and reduce the rest.

  38. Pedro

    “Supporters of homosexual “marriage” are wilfully encouraging outcomes for children that will – as a matter of axiomatic certainty – increase welfare dependency.”

    Been drinking today I see.

  39. H B Bear

    Good post too Sinc. Taking a break from the Slip ‘n’ Slide?

  40. Docket62

    New homes have a total tax bill in NSW that approaches 46%. Alcohol, tobacco and fuel is heavily taxed. Many imports have tariffs slapped on them. If she owns, she will have to pay rates – otherwise she’ll indirectly pay for her landlord.

    So what? We all pay these consumption taxes. And given that the consumption taxes capture a significant market (ie:tourist spend, ANYONE who legitimately pays tax in addition to this consumption tax) then the fractional percentage of people who also pay this but pay NO tax seems like a fair deal.

    “Alcohol, tobacco and fuel is heavily taxed. Many imports have tariffs slapped on them.

    Well, you know you could always not drink and not smoke… FMD there IS a choice you know! I gave up smoking when I was 21 because I couldn’t afford it. I didn’t drink until I was in my late 30′s because I couldn’t afford it. (Although I am having a dip at making up for that one)… And finally, the C63 I drive, just cost me more than $37,000 just in taxes, and $51,000 in import tariffs. As far as I’m concerned, if you decide to whelp 4 nuggets, the you pays the price! (Oh. I stopped at one because, I COULDN’T AFFORD MORE!!!)

  41. Ant

    Come the May budget, guess who one of the first organisations the media run to for an opinion always is.

    ACOSS! That’s right. The “peak” body for most welfare pimps. Because we just have to know what ACOSS thinks about just how much the government’s redistribution racket is going to get laundered through their operation.

  42. Greg

    No doubt the bleeding heart types will point to some individuals who become single parents through no fault of their own.

    Yes, I hear there has been a recent rise in virgin births. The government should do something to stop them.

  43. A H

    It’s not the state’s role to maintain single mothers. Let the people who care about destitute single mothers give their money to a charity. We can then have competitive welfare, where people fund the most effective charity. Aside from that, single mothers can choose to give the baby up for adoption. And, as an extended point, a father should not be compelled by law to maintain a children born to a woman to whom he is not married.

  44. twostix

    Yes, I hear there has been a recent rise in virgin births. The government should do something to stop them.

    Widows Greg, widows.

    Who incidentally have always had a special place in western culture. Well that was up until the left decided to cynically absorb them into the “single mums” category alongside Jade and her five kids in Beenleigh.

  45. $45,000 doesn’t go very far if you have to rent in the private market.

    You can’t be serious, can you? Rent in the lower end of the private market runs maybe $200 per week – $10,000 per year.

  46. Tardell G

    Who’s this Sepsis plonker above that thinks that I should be responsible for other peoples kids?
    The most stupid thing I’ve read on the internet today for sure. Friggin’ bell end.

  47. Helen

    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc.

    So make income management mandatory for all on welfare. not just for NT aborigines.

    Voting needs to be changed to only taxpayers get to vote. Then we should see some changescourage.

  48. Adam D

    There are some perverse incentives in the welfare system. A good one I will never forget is the childcare rebate was drastically reduced when my wife went back to work (minimum wage stuff as well). Essentially a stay-at-home mother received a full rebate for childcare despite not needing it and someone who wanted to work was essentially doing so for reasons other than economics. Not to mention the cost of said childcare has increased proportionately with the amount of legislation passed in the sector.

    Reforming welfare is easy, I think you need to start from a position that nothing is free:
    Newstart: 6 month limit then must do some sort of community service or work for the dole program.

    Single Mothers: Must work after the youngest turns 1. Childcare cost heavily subsidised if necessary. Choose to be a stay-at-home mum then she can find a way to fund it. Kids need to see working parents. Family payments should not increase after 2 kids or at least at a very diminishing rate, your cost of living barely changes with each additional child.

    Disability/aged Pension: Must find suitable community service. Not just to ensure they work for there money but beneficial to the individual as well.

    Aboriginal Payments: Any specialised payments for people with different skin colours is outrageously racist and should be removed immediately.

    Educational support payments: Removed immediately. You can work part-time and study it just takes some hard work.

    Sickness Allowance: Scope for increased payments. Something I am genuinely happy to assist with.

    Rent Assistance: Should be Removed

    Child Care Rebate: I don’t mind for working parents ONLY. Plenty of scope to reduce dramatically but needs to be done with a reduction of regulations that have forced cost to skyrocket.

    Interestingly whilst looking up the welfare payments through wikipedia I came across this

    A controversial decision by both major political parties in 2006 and 2013, to transfer sole parents to the lower Newstart payment has placed sole parents well below the poverty line. Welfare groups have reported these parents, 90% of which are women, are turning to prostitution, have given up their education and are sleeping in their cars. This decision was made as an incentive to parents to seek work despite 77% already working.

    Seemed rather emotional rather than informative.

  49. Welfare like tax concessions are vote purchasing, nothing more nothing less.

  50. danno

    The welfare lobby always throws back at critics (as does Labor and the Unions) that business and farmers get the greater amount of welfare in the way of subsidies and benefits.

    I’d like to see businesses (and farmers) either succeed, or fail,but not be propped up as it captivates good people who could otherwise be more gainfully employed, it is also an inhibitor to competition.

    Don’t get me started on the barriers to entrepreneurship in Australia either!

    We really are captured by the “equality”, feel good, everyone is a victim, industry.

  51. Dan

    No mention of tax minimisation schemes, just the ‘effective’ tax rate, ha. Looks a lot more impressive that way, dunnit?

    My overall percentage (not marginal) as one of ‘the 1%’ is 34%, it’s listed on my instalment advice. That turns out to be a lot of money going to welfare schemes that don’t solve problems and in my view ultimately harm the recipients overall quality of life.

  52. .

    Well, you know you could always not drink and not smoke… FMD there IS a choice you know!

    Can I not wear clothes? No tariffs. Can I live on the street? No property taxes or rates.

    Your solution is ridiculous.

  53. adrian

    great article. well spotted.

  54. Pedro

    The sad fact is that “Think about the kiddies” actually does apply. It doesn’t matter how big a slut Jade of Beenleigh might be, once those kids are born somebody has to look after them. The fact of the incentive is not an answer to the question of whether the State should provide money to support the kids of single mums.

  55. .

    @SeditionaryI #1155200, posted on January 17, 2014 at 3:36 pm
    Welfare like tax concessions are vote purchasing, nothing more nothing less.

    No, they are not.

    You are a communist ratbag. You don’t belong here.

    You’ve got to produce something to have a taxable income.

  56. Yes, because the $1,000,000,000,000 we’ve spent on welfare in the last decade has really solved that poverty issue.

    Yes, welfare and tax concessions are the greatest means by which votes are purchased.

    None so elegantly crafted as the negative-gearing tax concessions given on investment properties, now so entrenched in the middle-class that scrapping that concession is now considered political suicide.

    There is nothing leftist about pointing out that your vote is being purchased either, it’s actually what is happening.

  57. Pedro

    “You are a communist ratbag. You don’t belong here.”

    Surely it’s the lefties who help make threads fun. Can’t have all the arguments just with the stuffy old conservatives and the god-botherers. ;-)

  58. Pedro

    “Yes, welfare and tax concessions are the greatest means by which votes are purchased.”

    Absolutely true, it can’t be denied. Of course that is totally irrelevant to the success or failure of the war on poverty.

  59. “Absolutely true, it can’t be denied. Of course that is totally irrelevant to the success or failure of the war on poverty.”

    Granted, but it does highlight the fact that they’re not really fighting to win…

  60. .

    None so elegantly crafted as the negative-gearing tax concessions given on investment properties

    …and what happened when Keating got rid of them…investment fell, rent and prices went up and he backpeddaled.

  61. twostix

    The fact of the incentive is not an answer to the question of whether the State should provide money to support the kids of single mums.

    I heard from a Dept of Human Services employee that there are rumours of an EBT style card with limitations on what can be purchased being looked at.

  62. .

    Now Sed…tell us how tax concessions haven’t boosted productivity.

  63. stackja

    #1155260, posted on January 17, 2014 at 4:06 pm
    Now Sed…tell us how tax concessions haven’t boosted productivity.

    Sed ALP, or work for Denis McDonough?

  64. Productivity has been in steady decline, also, doesn’t mean that tax-concessions aren’t vote buying.

  65. Pedro

    “Granted, but it does highlight the fact that they’re not really fighting to win.”

    They’ve probably worked out that it’s pointless. You can’t ameliorate poverty without adding to the pool of the low-income and the size of the pool turbo charges the power of the welfare lobby. It’s lose-lose for the conscientious.

    “I heard from a Dept of Human Services employee that there are rumours of an EBT style card with limitations on what can be purchased being looked at.”

    Food stamps Now! I expect the result will be additional cost for marginal gain.

  66. Welfare islike tax concessions are vote purchasing, nothing more nothing less.

    FIFY

    I’m afraid this is more and more the case, like the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Please God that goes into the dustbin of history ASAP.

  67. Brian of Moorabbin

    $45,000 doesn’t go very far if you have to rent in the private market.

    Sometimes those cheap suburbs also unsafe for a young family, and it’s also a long way from the mother’s place of work – assuming that she’s working.

    Philippa, love you like a sister, but honestly… You’ve got to be shitting me, you honestly believe both of those statements?

    Let’s assume 50% of that $45,000 goes on renting a 3 bedroom (or larger) place each week – $22,500 – divide that by 52 – that’s around $432 per week. For the sake of argument, let’s round that down to $400 per week.

    According to a quick search on realestate.com.au that gives a choice of 12456 residences just for Victoria…. and take a look at some of the locations: Altona (it was good enough for a Prime Minister), Cheltenham (just down the road from Brighton, Sandringham, and Beaumaris), Highett (between Brighton and Black Rock… just down the road from me in fact), Knox, Ringwood…. none of these could be classed as “cheap suburbs”, or even “unsafe”!

    Now I’ve never been to Perth, so I don’t know which suburbs are”cheap” or “unsafe”, but the same search criteria for WA gives a choice of 2002 residences. You’ll have to tell me whether suburbs like Como and South Perth, Kewdale, Belmont, Westminster, or Watermans Bay would be suitable or not.

    As Deadman said, a decent place can be found for between $200 and $300 per week, or $10,500 to $15,750 per annum… or approx one-third of the $45,000.

    This leaves the majority of the money to pay for everything else. There are plenty of people who manage it on their own income, let alone on welfare.

    Hell I know of three coppers in my area who are single mothers who manage on LESS than $45,000!!

  68. Empire Strikes Back

    “Yes, welfare and tax concessions are the greatest means by which votes are purchased.”

    You conveniently omitted discriminatory taxes.

  69. Helen

    The welfare lobby always throws back at critics (as does Labor and the Unions) that business and farmers get the greater amount of welfare in the way of subsidies and benefits.

    Evidence? I am not aware of any subsidies or benefits exclusively for farmers. Please tell me where they are so i can apply for them.

  70. Helen

    None so elegantly crafted as the negative-gearing tax concessions

    Happy to get rid of these IF Capital Gains tax also got rid of .

  71. Pedro

    I think it’s the diesel rebate that gets lefties in a special lather about subsidies for farmers and miners, and stuff like accelerated depreciation.

    I think there are two entirely different things, the definition of taxable income and handouts. But I think that tax ought to be much more transparent than it currently is.

  72. Jannie

    The welfare lobby always throws back at critics (as does Labor and the Unions) that business and farmers get the greater amount of welfare in the way of subsidies and benefits.

    I have heard the Unions and Left chant that mantra, but I imagine its easy to refute by looking at national accounts. As far as I recall, welfare (ex Health) amounts to about 40% of the federal budget. Now, I am pretty sure the farmers dont get that much.

  73. Jannie

    Dont farmers get the diesel rebate because they use their fuel on farm, and not on the public roads. That means they should not have to pay for the upkeep of roads which are used up/destroyed by other industries.

  74. twostix

    I think it’s the diesel rebate that gets lefties in a special lather about subsidies for farmers and miners, and stuff like accelerated depreciation.

    Leftists think that the state not taking money is “subsidising” that person because they think that all money and wealth belongs to “society” which is merely a 21st century euphamism for the State.

    The diesel rebate is given because the government taxes the farmer at the bowser for road use, something which a tractor isn’t going to be using. That this is beyond leftist understanding is worrying.

  75. gabrianga

    A friend of mine who recently retired sold his house and spent $175,000 on a travel home and is now off round Australia with his pensioner wife.

    Although he is not old enough to qualify for OAP he and his wife receive some form of “rental “assistance through Centrelink for moving round the country in reasonable luxury.

    How sweet it is!

  76. JC

    Stix

    Have you noticed, they’ve hit a higher level of greed these days. They basically want it all. And the attitude too is something else.

    Look at Stepford, he’s basically catatonic since he learnt the libs are taking a better look at all the disability hounds.

  77. Infidel Tiger

    I think it’s the diesel rebate that gets lefties in a special lather about subsidies for farmers and miners, and stuff like accelerated depreciation.

    The only private businesses lefties support are restaurants and cafes that don’t make money. They really are dumb as dog shit.

  78. JC

    And ecotourism, IT. Ecotourism. Tasmania is getting wealthy on ecotourism.

  79. Notafan

    I am a single mother with four children. When I wasn’t a single mother I went back to work when my children were (at the time) 12 months, 9 months ,9 months and 6 months respectively. Single mothers getting to stay home til their child was 16 (now 8) really got on my nerves. I paid more tax so someone else had the luxury of staying home.
    I became a single mother with four school aged children. I worked full time (and ran a small business from home) and made sure I got every red cent of child support I was entitled to and I also made sure I got half of the school fees for schools that were agreed to prior to separation.
    My kids have done pretty well three university grads from ‘top universities’ so far. I never whinged I just got on with it. I never made a lot of money but I do know how to make it stretch.
    I don’t have any time for welfare mums, you go on welfare and have more kids, no extra money for you. I would give five years maximum of income support at the higher rate then it is New Start and those rules kick in.
    As for our new migrants who make themselves unemployable by wearing the nijab, with their pretend divorces and community address swapping, enough, no more of them please Mr Abbott.

  80. God The Designer created the Universe and the laws that govern it which permit life to exist, and did not ask people to provide any money to live in it: so why are people using money to live on Earth? (Because money is made round to make the world go round?)

    God loves the people in the world, and gives everybody a free will to choose life rather than a futile existence that ends in death: so why do people abuse, harm, fight, hate, mutilate, rape, sodomize, cheat, spread venereal disease, steal, plagiarize, inveigle, deceive, lie, envy, and commit murder? (Because they all care and do not want the responsibility?)

    Unlike Australia, it is well documented that in the USA, individual income tax goes to the FED to pay the coterie of individuals, who own it, the interest on the money they print and loan the government. (Very sorry, old chap; this is a private racket company and no more shares are on offer.)

    Nevertheless, people living in Australia are still living in the Lucky Country and as Nick Cater has documented, for a significant minority, it is also a Lucky Culture…only, who knows for how long? (The climate will change and it will have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming–more like comeuppance. Not that I am a pom; nevertheless, that’s my tuppence worth… and are they rare!…What?…Tuppences! They are like hen’s teeth, really hard to find… but if the climate changes, like I am led to believe, and if some would have their way, a bleeding tuppence or two could be commonplace…Just as well that Harold Steptoe is not around, he would be going berserk with frustration.)

  81. Docket62

    “Well, you know you could always not drink and not smoke… FMD there IS a choice you know!
    Can I not wear clothes? No tariffs. Can I live on the street? No property taxes or rates.
    Your solution is ridiculous.”

    So it’s ridiculous that if you can’t afford something like drinking and smoking, then the government should pay for it with my money.? The solution to budgeting is to stay within it. If the beer and ciggies don’t make the cut, then out they go.. Simple mathematics, but not something that is even a consideration for some of the rat bags we speak of. A life of handouts, welfare and living off the earnings of hard working Australians.

    PS. ” Living off the earnings” used to be an offence years ago…. Now it’s called middle class welfare not pimping

  82. Paul

    “None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc. If that costs half of my income and half of yours, them so be it.”

    You can pay the ransom if you like, but don’t demand the rest of us do it.

  83. Lots of great ideas here.

    Concetta Fierravanti-Wells could rehabilitate herself pinching a few and sidling up to Kevin Andrews with few fresh policy ideas. We at the Cat won’t mind one bit.

    As Dot said, replacing welfare with cutting taxes on the poor and subsidising employers of low productivity workers would be a great start. Bring back income splitting.

    Just defund the welfare industry, a waste of money.

    Refer adulterers to the Lakemba Mosque.

  84. “You conveniently omitted discriminatory taxes.”

    An over-sight on my part, for which I do apologise.

    “Happy to get rid of these IF Capital Gains tax also got rid of.”

    Certainly, although much preferably if it were a part of a complete tax re-write that largely negated the need for the government to give your money back to you.

    “I’m afraid this is more and more the case, like the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Please God that goes into the dustbin of history ASAP.”

    As long as society demands government fix every problem with either laws or money I fear we’re going to be stuck with a whole host of pointless schemes.

  85. jumpnmcar

    Test dole bludgers for alcohol and drugs. Positive = no dole.
    They do it to me for the right to work and pay tax.
    And I’m not in charge of the safety of children.

  86. Now I’ve never been to Perth, so I don’t know which suburbs are”cheap” or “unsafe”, but the same search criteria for WA gives a choice of 2002 residences. You’ll have to tell me whether suburbs like Como and South Perth, Kewdale, Belmont, Westminster, or Watermans Bay would be suitable or not.

    As Deadman said, a decent place can be found for between $200 and $300 per week, or $10,500 to $15,750 per annum… or approx one-third of the $45,000.

    This leaves the majority of the money to pay for everything else. There are plenty of people who manage it on their own income, let alone on welfare.

    Hell I know of three coppers in my area who are single mothers who manage on LESS than $45,000!!

    I know, Brian. But Perth is actually HORRIBLY expensive to live in, and sadly there are a lot of dodgy suburbs.

    I searched the same website for a 3 bedroom place for rental between $250 and $350 a week. I got 778 results.

    Of the first 200 properties, almost all of them were in (non-prosperous) regional and remote areas in WA. I expected this. You used to be able to search realestate.com.au by metro area and even by metro region, but now you just have to do either a WA-wide search or by suburb, and that means you have to know your suburbs.

    I gave up after about 300 or so.

    I know of people who have moved to the country because it’s cheaper, but I think if you are raising a young family on your own, you need all the support you can get.

    If your support network – I believe this used to be called ‘family’, but isn’t always the case now – lives in the metro area, you are setting yourself up for a lot of problems if you move very far away from them.

    In WA, we have also suffered from the same galloping utility bill inflation that everyone else has.

    If a person owns – or almost owns – their own home or unit, it makes life a lot easier on $45K.

  87. sdfc

    And, as an extended point, a father should not be compelled by law to maintain a children born to a woman to whom he is not married.

    A father who chooses to avoid looking after his kids is a dog.

  88. And further to my last:

    Perth’s public transport system is a primitive mess, and very cumbersome. It takes ages to get anywhere on it, even when you can get from there to here (which you can’t always).

    This means that ‘to live in Perth’ effectively means ‘to run a car’.

  89. Notafan

    There was a piece in the paper a long time ago about a bloke who had a one night stand and was paying child support. MY ex BIL who is a journo was waxing sympathetic for the guy. I said one word
    CONDOM

  90. sdfc

    Stop whinging we have a good public transport system.

  91. sdfc, I don’t think we do, actually. It could be a lot better. In WA the infrastructure always seems to lag about 15 years behind the actual demand.

    But you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion.

  92. .

    So it’s ridiculous that if you can’t afford something like drinking and smoking, then the government should pay for it with my money.?

    No no no.

    You are paying tax for someone else to pay tax now. If they could pay less tax…then so could you.

  93. .

    @SeditionaryI
    #1155264, posted on January 17, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    Productivity has been in steady decline, also, doesn’t mean that tax-concessions aren’t vote buying.

    Let me guess, you think all tax cuts are tax concessions.

    They are vote winners for a good reason. You are equating the usefulness of greater private investment with encouraging more people to not work.

    You are confused and uneducated and ideology is sickening.

  94. .

    Productivity has been in steady decline, also, doesn’t mean that tax-concessions aren’t vote buying.

    Taxes went up, this was the result.

    Cue gormless vocalisation.

  95. Docket62

    Dot.. I need you to explain that rationale……. I minimise tax just like everyone who earns money legally. But the logic behind “You are paying tax for someone else to pay tax now. If they could pay less tax…then so could you.” Escapes me…..

  96. .

    Think harder.

    You pay taxes in part to pay welfare.

    A lot of what comes out of that welfare cheque pays taxes that are not income tax.

    You may minimise your income/capital gains taxes – but your rate and thus net income tax payable could be lower.

  97. sdfc

    Of course it could be a better, but fair enough Phillipa.

    None so elegantly crafted as the negative-gearing tax concessions given on investment properties

    They’re not concessions any more than any other deductable is a concession.

  98. Boambee John

    The principal beneficiaries of any welfare program are the administrators (be they public servants or employees of “charities”).

    Cap the income of the administrators at the welfare payment rate, and watch the “poverty” problem disappear. The first change would be to the definition of “poverty”. Set at a percentage of median income, it produces the perverse result that the simplest way to reduce statistical “poverty” is to lower the national median income by reducing the (pre-tax) income of those above the median.

    Start with senior public servants and the better paid members of “poverty” NGOs. Set their maximum pay as three times the median, if they are either employed by the taxpayer, or receive taxpayer money for their “cause”.

    The serious helpers (like the Sallies) won’t be affected significantly, but those who wish to “do well by doing good” might seek new career options.

  99. Docket62

    @.
    I think not puppy.
    I agree that a percentage of my tax payable goes to welfare. No question about that.

    You’re saying that if THEY didn’t have to pay GST for example (and they don’t on food, rent etc) then in some way, shape or form, I would pay less tax? How? You cited housing costs (construction not rental thereof) as holding 46% in taxes in NSW. I would dispute that, I think it’s crap. I do developments in Vic and yes there are GST costs in there (which in real numbers amounts to about 8% net) but that’s the only direct cost. Purchase stamp duty for both us as a vendor and the buyer amount to no more than 10% – so where are you pulling the other 28% from?

    Even with CGT which is substantially less than what most people believe it to be, I can still only get to about 23 or 24% and I’m dealing with actual numbers on a two lot subdivision I’m doing right now, not hypothetical numbers published on some website.

    So to summarise I have two issues with your comments:

    1. The 46% in taxes in my opinion and experience as a developer is purely mythical
    2. Reducing the consumption tax for single mothers with 4 kids on $45K a year net, does nothing in anyway to reduce the tax I pay, only tax minimization and planning will do that.

  100. Infidel Tiger

    sdfc, I don’t think we do, actually. It could be a lot better. In WA the infrastructure always seems to lag about 15 years behind the actual demand.

    But you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion.

    The last thing Perth needs is more public transport. We need better roads. Why they build two lane freeways staggers me.

  101. Docket62

    “None so elegantly crafted as the negative-gearing tax concessions given on investment properties”
    So it’s OK to negatively gear shares, or any other asset class that qualifies, but not property ? Why not. What categorizes property as different than a share? Because someone lives in it?

    Negative gearing is one of the few legitimate ways to reduce the burden of taxation, be it shares or property. It is perfectly acceptable, and produces growth in housing construction and incentivates investment creating housing that people can live in.

  102. Notafan

    Negative gearing is misnamed as a tax concession. Itw is no different to any other gross income minus deductions equals taxable income which rationally you would not do for a negative outcome but for the carrot of a future potential profit on sale. There have times when even in Australia property prices have fallen and people have lost money.
    I don’t know all the factors that seem to be influencing the ever upward prices of residential property but demand by high levels of migration must be one of them.

  103. sdfc

    To not allow housing investors to deduct expenses would be discriminatory.

  104. sdfc

    Try low interest rates as a driver.

  105. Notafan

    The GFC must have scarred a few stockmarket investors as well.

  106. craig

    Brothers ex works 15 hours a hour at 20 dollars an hour and with two kids, she can almost make full time wages on welfare, she was proud of it! I just walked away shaking my head……

  107. .

    1. The 46% in taxes in my opinion and experience as a developer is purely mythical
    2. Reducing the consumption tax for single mothers with 4 kids on $45K a year net, does nothing in anyway to reduce the tax I pay, only tax minimization and planning will do that.

    1. The HIA has put out several reports saying the taxes on a new dwelling in NW Sydney equal 40-46% of the purchase price, as has Peter Abelson’s firm. It’s not mythical. I’m surpsied that a developer like you would be so defensive of socialism.

    2. I don’t get why you don’t understand 2. – a proportion of their welfare pays consumption taxes. It makes no sense to pay tax for someone else to pay tax.

  108. tomix

    A father who chooses to avoid looking after his kids is a dog.

    Here’s how it works: Child support for 1 child- 18% of income over c. 15,000p.a.
    ” ” ” 2 children- 27% ” ” ”
    ‘ ” ” 3 ” – 33% ” ” ”
    Plus any other Orders the Judge may make.
    Like the idea of a bloke with an 82% top marginal tax rate living in his car?

    Or you could reconsider passing judgement on others personal lives.

  109. .

    I agree tomix.

    At theat point you are better off to give up and ‘hook yourself into the matrix” if you know what I mean.

    I totally agree. People’s personal lives are of no interest to us, as long as they don’t rely on the taxpayer for their choices.

  110. sdfc

    So blokes should just abandon their kids because they’re financial inconvenient?

  111. tomix

    You may never have been to the Family Court. It’s a real eye opener.

    Business hours: 9.00- 5.00 Tuesday thru Friday.

    Take a seat at the back of the Court. It’s Medicare for lawyers.

  112. .

    sdfc these horror stories abound. Working to be in poverty – and the wife left them and took the kids – not all of them bad husbands or dads.

  113. steiner

    I suppose if you consider being abandoned by a deadbeat husband a “bad choice” you will believe anything.
    It’s the cruelty that get’s me. If you’re poor, it’s your fault and you deserve nothing but contempt.

  114. tomix

    Who’s to say what sort of husband or dad anyone is. Are they looking for a new family?

  115. tomix

    Who made you an authority over anyone elses private life?

  116. sdfc

    I have been there Tomix. Went several times to support a friend about 10 years ago. It’s a crap place and the magistrates don’t seem to give a shit. As for the lawyers. They should be banned from the FC.

    I don’t understand why people don’t get their shit together.

  117. steiner

    Perhaps we need to have a conversation about deadbeat economists. Those whose prognostications are consistently wrong. Aggressively wrong, some might say. Those who don’t deserve taxpayer funded sinecures? Those who, for example, told us we would be suffering horrific inflation about now. Those whose promises of economic disaster were completely wrong. What can we say about funding the tertiary education welfare gravy train for failed economists?

  118. Habib

    I fail to see why if some bogan gives the ferret a run and refuses to pick up the tab for the resulting abomination, I get to be his sub. I sure as he’ll had nothing to do with the chemically enhanced procreation, so what’s my liability for the product, that’s just as likely to be lifting my laptop in a decade or so. It’s worse than kicking in towards Holden. When exactly did government users the role of charity?

  119. Habib

    Sodding ipad, “hell” not “he’ll”

  120. steiner

    I fail to see why if some bogan gives the ferret a run and refuses to pick up the tab for the resulting abomination, I get to be his sub.

    Are you talking about Sinclair Davidson’s record on economic predictions? Are his predictions of stagflation the abomination you are talking about?

  121. .

    Steiner – inflation is a tax on the indigent, it is always horiffic. It also also ever present and so by design.

  122. Habib

    “Userp” not “users”. Anyone know how to turn off predictive text?

  123. .

    Sinclair may be right, Steiner.

    31,600 full time jobs lost in December.

  124. kurt

    None of choices are made by the kids. Those kids deserve to have a food, clothing, housing, education, etc. If that costs half of my income and half of yours, them so be it.

    Sorry, but fathers have no rights when it comes to procreation. Having kids is the mother’s choice. She gets to decide whether she uses contraceptives, she gets to decide whether she wants to inform the father, she gets to decide whether to abort. Yet apparently its everybody else’s responsibility to pay for her choices. What a joke. Maybe if women were forced to explain to their children why they are living in poverty then there would be a lot less children living in poverty.

    And any man who has been through a custody dispute would attest that the family court very much sees children as the women’s possessions.

  125. steiner

    Steiner – inflation is a tax on the indigent, it is always horiffic. It also also ever present and so by design.

    Funny, I thought inflation was a tax on those who don’t own TIPS. Or those who are net savers (non TIPS) rather than net borrowers. Given the poor spend all they have each month, they really don’t have much in the way of savings for inflation to devalue.

  126. sdfc

    Sorry, but fathers have no rights when it comes to procreation. Having kids is the mother’s choice.

    Dickhead of the week.

  127. steiner

    Sorry, but fathers have no rights when it comes to procreation. Having kids is the mother’s choice. She gets to decide whether she uses contraceptives, she gets to decide whether she wants to inform the father, she gets to decide whether to abort.

    Hello – condoms?! You surely had to see that coming.

  128. tomix

    Heard that happens a bit in rural areas of Qld. Hit the Child Support Agency up for a valuation the day the test shows positive. Gauranteed income for the next 18 years.

    Unless the sperm donor necks himself along the way.

  129. Habib

    No Schweiner, I’m talking about your conception and hatching.

  130. .

    Funny, I thought inflation was a tax on those who don’t own TIPS. Or those who are net savers (non TIPS) rather than net borrowers. Given the poor spend all they have each month, they really don’t have much in the way of savings for inflation to devalue.

    You seem to misunderstand inflation devlaues their income and thus reduces purchasing power. The poor also not get mortgages.

  131. Rabz

    Habib, FFS, go into ‘settings’ to disable the predictive text.

  132. steiner

    You seem to misunderstand inflation devlaues their income and thus reduces purchasing power. The poor also not get mortgages.

    Thankyou Mr “.” ? I get it. Sorry to tell you, but the stagflation Mr Davidson was telling us to bet the economy on was in 2o11. It’s now 2014 and there is no stagflation. Even Mr Davidson has run away from his own prediction like dracula from a wooden stake.
    As far as the poor go, you are mistaken. Many poor people have enormous credit card and payday loan debts. You seem to misunderstand the credit markets invasive penetration of the working poor.

  133. Docket62

    “1. The HIA has put out several reports saying the taxes on a new dwelling in NW Sydney equal 40-46% of the purchase price, as has Peter Abelson’s firm. It’s not mythical. I’m surpsied that a developer like you would be so defensive of socialism.

    The HIA generally wouldn’t know if it’s own arse was on fire. Peter is an economist and although I could be wrong, has never developed anything other than his own bio. Ergo, said report was produced and supported by people who understand theory and not practice. The gulf between the two is huge. I use the example that if I gave you the instruction annual for a v8 engine and the parts, theoretically you could make an engine, but in reality, unless you’ve done it. It won’t start. As a developer, the last thing I’d support is socialism.

    2. I don’t get why you don’t understand 2. – a proportion of their welfare pays consumption taxes. It makes no sense to pay tax for someone else to pay tax.”
    Ahhh.. The taxes on taxes argument. Apologies it was hidden. We already do that on imports (GST on the import tax amongst a myriad of others) but using welfare as a whipping horse isn’t going to change that. Removing the payments as gratis will make a dent though. The small amount of double taxing that occurs isn’t going to tip the scales either way IMHO…I’d much prefer to implement some of the suggestions by others in limiting or eliminating middle class welfare.

  134. Infidel Tiger

    As far as the poor go, you are mistaken. Many poor people have enormous credit card and payday loan debts. You seem to misunderstand the credit markets invasive penetration of the working poor.

    Stupid fucks shouldn’t have lived on credit.

    If they need remedial lessons about compound interest perhaps Christopher Pyne can add that to the syllabus overhaul.

  135. .

    Steiner is actually professing inflation helps the poor. This is insane banality.

    You haven’t addressed a high increase in the unemployment rate even with a Christmas retail peak.

    You’re just talking smack.

  136. .

    Docket just read the report or part of it instead of being smug. Maybe you’re wrong.

  137. steiner

    Steiner is actually professing inflation helps the poor. This is insane banality.

    You haven’t addressed a high increase in the unemployment rate even with a Christmas retail peak.

    You’re just talking smack.

    No, you are flipping the switch to vaudeville – which I might say is amusing. Keep going!
    I’m reiterating two things:
    First – Sinclair Davidson’s prediction of stagflation was totally, and provably wrong, and, in my view, means he is just not credible as a commentator on economic policy or predictions until he apologizes. Not even when an editor tells him what sort of “opinion” piece they are looking for.
    Second – the obvious point that inflation assists net borrowers and hurts net savers. Empirically true.
    Another truism – the person rather than the issue is the target on this website. So much for libertarianism.

  138. .

    No. You are wrong.

    Inflation is present. Unemployment is rising.

    You made the silly comments about inflation, you can own them.

    Since you came in rambling with ad hom., suck it up, Princess.

  139. Sinclair Davidson

    To be clear – stagflation is a very real risk. It was so in 2011 and still remains so.

  140. sdfc

    If inflation wasn’t present unemployment would be rising a lot faster.

  141. steiner

    To be clear – stagflation is a very real risk. It was so in 2011 and still remains so.

    When?

  142. .

    No sdfc – Okun’s law implies if there isn’t enough technological change, and there is too much inflation and not enough growth, unemployment will rise.

    You’re also saying the Philips curve is real, even though being empirically debunked except in a very short run.

  143. Leo G

    When?

    The mix of rising prices and foundering growth, known as stagflation, are depriving the central bank of monetary tools to boost demand, Bank Rossii First Deputy Chairman Ksenia Yudaeva said at a Moscow conference yesterday (Tuesday 14 January 2014).

  144. Sinclair Davidson

    Until such time as the US QE program has been unwound.

  145. dd

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2814668.html

    It is the consequence of pursuing Keynesian economic policy. It should come as no surprise that the return of Keynesianism during and after the Global Financial Crisis could see the return of stagflation.

    (my bold).
    He said it was a possibility. He did not “predict” it.

  146. steiner

    To be clear – stagflation is a very real risk. It was so in 2011 and still remains so.

    Sinclair, you wrong in 2011 – there was no stagflation – it’s embarrassing that you don’t admit it. How absurd to say there was a ‘risk’ of something which is proved not to have happened. As economists you are judged by your predictions, there is no hindsight allowed – that’s not what you receive taxpayer dollars for.
    It’s equally irresponsible for you to reiterate your ridiculous prognosis of stagflation in 2014. I’m astonished you are trashing your professional reputation in this way.

  147. Infidel Tiger

    How absurd to say there was a ‘risk’ of something which is proved not to have happened.

    Struth! You must be up all night abusing climate scientists.

  148. sdfc

    Money isn’t neutral in the short term Dot. Particularly not in a high debt economy.

  149. Gab

    Looks like the same “steiner” troll that infests Bolt’s blog is here. Yuk.

  150. dd

    There’s a risk of war in the Korean peninsula. That doesn’t mean it will happen.
    There’s a risk – with lower rates of vaccination – of a deadly epidemic. Might happen, might not. But epidemiologists would be remiss not to warn us that we’re putting ourselves at risk.
    If you drink and drive, there’s a risk you’ll cause yourself and others injury or death.

    etc.

    Learn the difference between predicting an event with certainty, and talking about risk.

  151. JC

    Second – the obvious point that inflation assists net borrowers and hurts net savers. Empirically true.
    Another truism – the person rather than the issue is the target on this website. So much for libertarianism.

    Stop being a moron, schteiner. Inflation is the loss of purchasing power of the medium of exchange. The rich have assets against which value by and large will renominate if there is general price inflation. The poor, as you observed, have no assets and live paycheck to paycheck. Rising prices hurts them more than the rich.

    You’re an imbecile with a venomous tongue. Fuck off and stop trying to explain economics here to people, you dickhead.

  152. Sinclair Davidson

    Yep that is the definition of risk. More things can happen than are going to happen.

    Anyway I don’t believe for one second that you care about my professional reputation.

    Also I don’t recall being in possession of taxpayer dollars – perhaps you can provide a link to verify that claim.

  153. Sinclair Davidson

    Ah the impotent rage of losers.

  154. JC

    Sinclair, you wrong in 2011 – there was no stagflation – it’s embarrassing that you don’t admit it.

    Just look at the venom being spewed here.

    How absurd to say there was a ‘risk’ of something which is proved not to have happened.

    And also a thick one.

    As economists you are judged by your predictions, there is no hindsight allowed – that’s not what you receive taxpayer dollars for.

    That’s market economics, you gutter rat. Every market economist or an economist making market predictions or market like predictions gets it wrong quite often.

    It’s equally irresponsible for you to reiterate your ridiculous prognosis of stagflation in 2014. I’m astonished you are trashing your professional reputation in this way.

    Okay fuckface, are you going to apologize for the comment about how the rich are impacted more than the poor when experiencing general price inflation? Fucking moron.

  155. Sinclair Davidson

    steiner – now that I think more about it, I’d really be grateful if you could substantiate your claim that I’m on the taxpayer teat. My head of school has been carrying on about me not bringing in taxpayer money and only bringing in private money. So it would really help if you could dredge something up. There’s a good fellow. Don’t take too long now – my next review is in March.

  156. JC

    and schteiner, poor people, that is absolute poor people don’t have debt because banks don;t lend them any money for credit cards and mortgages by and large.

    “the poor” you were referring to in the babbling ignorant comment of yours are poor. Certainly not in an absolute sense. You greasy spiv.

  157. JC

    Dump the spiv, Sinc. Dump the worthless jackass.

  158. steiner

    Yep that is the definition of risk. More things can happen than are going to happen.

    Anyway I don’t believe for one second that you care about my professional reputation.

    Also I don’t recall being in possession of taxpayer dollars – perhaps you can provide a link to verify that claim.

    Sinclair, your predictions of stagflation carried weight. Are you saying they did not? I don’t recall a discussion of ‘risk’ around your prediction.

  159. JC

    How many leftwing losers come on here and berate Sinc because he made a market call a few years that QE would result on higher inflation in nations where this occurred? It’s actually very funny.

    Theoretically Sinc is correct… certainly 1/2 correct in a practical sense. Every single country that has introduced QE is aiming to raise the inflation rate higher…. ie Raise nominal GDP. That’s just a fact.

    At the very least Sinc is 1/2 right.

  160. JC

    Sinclair, your predictions of stagflation carried weight. Are you saying they did not? I don’t recall a discussion of ‘risk’ around your prediction.

    Fuckface, what name were you using at the time?

  161. JC

    The funny thing is that the Scott Sumner, the economist who has pushed hardest for QE has said a number of times stagflation could be an outcome… actually a quite likely outcome of QE… and would prefer it to outright deflation.

    Schteiner, you black hearted leftwing spiv, you out of your league. Way out of your league.

  162. Sinclair Davidson

    I don’t recall a discussion of ‘risk’ around your prediction.

    Your intellectual inadequacies are not my problem.

  163. sdfc

    Hands up whoever hasn’t made an incorrect forecast.

  164. JC

    Hands up whoever hasn’t made an incorrect forecast.

    Me. Never ever made a bad call. Ever.

  165. JC

    Just kidding sdfc. Even with a 5o/ 50 win lose ratio one can still make lots and lots of money from the market. The game isn’t a higher win loss ratio. The real game is money management, which is don;t ride losers. Only ride winners and be a pig about it.

  166. Sinclair Davidson

    JC – we all knew you were kidding. You’d be doing very well to have better than 55/45 win/loss ratio.

  167. JC

    JC – we all knew you were kidding. You’d be doing very well to have better than 55/45 win/loss ratio.

    Sinc,

    You look back on the trades over a year and you’d find only a few really pop out as stand out trades.

  168. sdfc

    I didn’t think you were kidding. I’m shattered.

  169. steiner

    Hands up whoever hasn’t made an incorrect forecast.

    You are very kind sdfc, but an economist with the influence of Mr Davidson in 2011 whose predictions were wrong is still making the same prediction today. Unlike many of his former contemporaries, he has not admitted he was wrong in 2011 but doubles down. A vanity play, in my view since he knows his views carry weight. What do you call someone who is aggressively wrong not just once but is a recidivist? And whose views have the ability to influence policy makers?

  170. sdfc

    Where do you think the Aussie’s going JC?

  171. sdfc

    Or Sinclair for that matter.

  172. sdfc

    What do you call someone who is aggressively wrong not just once but is a recidivist?

    An economist.

  173. JC

    What do you call someone who is aggressively wrong

    Schtiener. That’s what I’d call it. It’s German and means leftwing douchebag.

    Upthread you totally and comprehensively fucked up the impact inflation has on rich and poor but still haven’t acknowledged it, much less apologized you black hearted leftwing spiv.

  174. Infidel Tiger

    Where do you think the Aussie’s going JC?

    It has fluctuated 3 cents in a 5 days. Skittish beast at the moment.

    Buggered if I know why Stevens is jawboning it down. I’d say around 90 cents suits everyone.

  175. Infidel Tiger

    What do you call someone who is aggressively wrong not just once but is a recidivist?

    A lefty.

  176. steiner

    steiner – now that I think more about it, I’d really be grateful if you could substantiate your claim that I’m on the taxpayer teat. My head of school has been carrying on about me not bringing in taxpayer money and only bringing in private money. So it would really help if you could dredge something up. There’s a good fellow. Don’t take too long now – my next review is in March.

    Almost forgot about this. Are you seriously saying RMIT does not receive taxpayer funds, likely borrowed and incurring interest as we hear about around here incessantly, to pay your wages?

  177. Sinclair Davidson

    No, no. I have 3 overseas trips planned, so I’d like to see a stronger Aussie.

  178. JC

    Where do you think the Aussie’s going JC?

    Dunno. I thought we’d see 9400 at the very beginning of the year. We went to 90 and change and then collapsed to 88 cents this week. Feels like it wants to go down.

    I had a long position and got closed with a trailing stop. Looks like it really wants to head down though. No position in it now.

    I’m long USD against Yen and will hold this position.

  179. steiner

    Schteiner, you black hearted leftwing spiv, you out of your league. Way out of your league.

    Love the grammar JoCkitch. Love the ‘kitch’ part by the way. Unexpected but fabulously accurate.

  180. Infidel Tiger

    No, no. I have 3 overseas trips planned, so I’d like to see a stronger Aussie.

    I’d say 95% of Australians think a strong dollar is a sign of a robust economy. Unless you own a farm, mine or backpackers, you don’t want a low dollar.

  181. Sinclair Davidson

    I have no idea if RMIT receives taxpayer dollars. But I don’t and my wages are paid from student fees. So the link please – anytime in the next two months would really help.

  182. JC

    Buggered if I know why Stevens is jawboning it down. I’d say around 90 cents suits everyone.

    He’s trying to get it down on the cheap and will likely get caught out playing this shit. I mentioned this in one of my December currency dispatches from the trenches.
    Baldy is trying to engineer a lower Aussie without moving down interest rates or signalling looser monetary policy.

    The problem with this is that if Global GDP looks like it performs the market is going to ask him to show his cards or fuck off by appreciating the Aussie.

    What saved him this week was the weaker than expected US employment picture last Friday.

  183. Gab

    Seems like he’s got a man crush on you, Doomlord.

  184. Dan

    It has fluctuated 3 cents in a 5 days. Skittish beast at the moment.

    Not only that, the difference between what you can buy or sell at blew out to 9.5cents the other day

  185. JC

    Love the grammar JoCkitch. Love the ‘kitch’ part by the way. Unexpected but fabulously accurate.

    Typical, lowlife leftwing spiv. When everything else fails, the one thing left is Microsoft gram/spell check.

    You black hearted leftwing spiv, Schteiner. I’ve beaten you to the width of pancake.

  186. steiner

    I have no idea if RMIT receives taxpayer dollars. But I don’t and my wages are paid from student fees. So the link please – anytime in the next two months would really help.

    What a joke! The cash goes from consolidated revenue to RMIT to your wages. Too clever by half.
    HECS goes from taxes collected from students, to consolidated revenue, to the extent collectible.

  187. Sinclair Davidson

    Gab – yep sounds like it. Also sounds like a troll we had to smite some time ago, but I can’t recall which one.

  188. JC

    Not only that, the difference between what you can buy or sell at blew out to 9.5cents the other day

    Huh? Explain.

  189. Gab

    but I can’t recall which one.

    Yes, I can never remember the dumb ones. Nevermind, once Bolt’s back he’ll be all over his blog like a fly on stuff.

  190. Sinclair Davidson

    Consolidated revenue? My wages? There is a link? Really? You’ll have to provide a link for that too I’m afraid.
    My students are “fee paying”.

    I’m also concerned that you don’t understand the HECS system – Australian students are subsidized, but not international students, but business students tend to pay almost the full cost of their education. How this constitutes taxpayer dollars to me remains unclear.

  191. JC

    Gab – yep sounds like it. Also sounds like a troll we had to smite some time ago, but I can’t recall which one.

    Sounds like Greys. If I recall Greys used to make similar comments about some stagflation bullshit. Man he was a loser.

  192. Sinclair Davidson

    Gab – the argument that I’m an influential economist rings a bell. I wish I was, but alas no.

  193. Gab

    You’ll just have to try harder :)

  194. Sinclair Davidson

    JC – they’re all losers. Notice he doesn’t want to talk about my comments about debt and deficit. Just stagflation – which thankfully hasn’t materialised. But as I say to all the numb nuts who email or tweet me about it, I’m still worried about it.

  195. Sinclair Davidson

    Gab – maybe if I started warning about warming (something completely beyond economics) I’d be more influential as an economist? :-)

  196. Gab

    Well yes, you could do that, Sinclair. Also, it’s a problem you haven’t got your snout in the taxpayer trough. I think you need to get yourself a taxpayer-funded grant. That should do the trick.

  197. steiner

    Consolidated revenue? My wages? There is a link? Really? You’ll have to provide a link for that too I’m afraid.
    My students are “fee paying”.

    I’m also concerned that you don’t understand the HECS system – Australian students are subsidized, but not international students, but business students tend to pay almost the full cost of their education. How this constitutes taxpayer dollars to me remains unclear.

    Here’s the 2014 budget instructions for RMIT which contains the 2013 actuals for your perusal:

    http://mams.rmit.edu.au/coslibjkbos11.pdf

    Looks like HECS is the biggest number on the page. You know, that amount that is paid from the Commonwealth to RMIT. I am perfectly happy to say your wages are in no way government subsidized if you are able to confirm same. Deal?

  198. Gab

    I am perfectly happy to say your wages are in no way government subsidized if you are able to confirm same. Deal?

    Hmmmm … now where have I heard that exact same line before?

  199. JC

    The best predictions I’ve seen have come from the Australian Liars party. They stuck a tax on mining right at the peak of the commodities boom. Right at the top.

    They also gave the highest energy tax in the world at 23 bucks a ton and they were predicting the pwice of carbon going to 29 bucks a ton following rises around the world.

    Current price in Europe EU 4.58 or A$7.10 per ton, 4 times out.

  200. Gab

    The best predictions I’ve seen have come from the Australian Liars party.

    True. You could always depend on the reverse happening.

  201. Infidel Tiger

    Steiner, you are quite obviously on the taxpayer teat. STFU you disgusting leech.

  202. steiner

    Notice he doesn’t want to talk about my comments about debt and deficit.

    Oh, I thought that’s because debt and deficits were supposed to cause horrible inflation and high unemployment. Since, government spending crowds out so outrageously and deficits reduce confidence so appalling that the global economy imposes horrific interest rates on Australian borrowings. Exaggeration for effect notwithstanding, tell me where I’m wrong about your predictions, Mr Davidson?

  203. steiner

    Steiner, you are quite obviously on the taxpayer teat. STFU you disgusting leech.

    No you disgusting liar – not even close.

  204. JC

    Oh, I thought that’s because debt and deficits were supposed to cause horrible inflation and high unemployment.

    We had a lacklustre economy. Our GDP per cap hardly moved in the 6 years or Liars and unemployment moved higher. This during a commodity boom of biblical proportions.

    Since, government spending crowds out so outrageously and deficits reduce confidence so appalling

    Yep. We saw the evidence right in front of us you spiv.

  205. Infidel Tiger

    No you disgusting liar – not even close.

    Well you could be employed at a lab for experiments, but apart from that can’t think of a private enterprise job that would have you. So I’m assuming you inherited wealth? Help me out?

  206. JC

    No you disgusting liar – not even close.

    Yep, you are.

  207. steiner

    Yep, you are.

    Thank you for agreeing with me about your blogeague.
    It’s fascinating how quickly it all descends into abuse. No argument, then just bring out the ‘kitch’.

  208. JC

    Schteiner

    I’ve mercilessly destroyed each one of your points. You have nothing left, you disgusting black hearted spiv. Nothing. You couldn’t even get the rich/poor inflation thing right, you moron.

  209. Sinclair Davidson

    This is getting very boring – to demonstrate that my wages are paid out of consolidated revenue you need to do more than show that my employer receives HECS payments – a loan/subsidy from the government to students. When ALL of the students that I teach – and have taught for over a decade – are fee-paying students I’m not sure what HECS has to do with anything.

    A payment from consolidated revenue to me would have to be appropriated in the budget – so perhaps the budget papers would assist? Or any of the grant-awarding organisations?

  210. Sinclair Davidson

    Gab – I’m beginning to think its m0nty. He was also overly concerned about the government paying my wages.

    Or sancho anchovy or something.

  211. steiner

    Schteiner

    I’ve mercilessly destroyed each one of your points. You have nothing left, you disgusting black hearted spiv. Nothing. You couldn’t even get the rich/poor inflation thing right, you moron.

    Ha! It’s a little bit like calling something ‘world class’ – if you have to claim it, then it’s unlikely to be so…
    However, there are people that love you, JC. I love you. I really do. I only want the best for you. You have no need to feel badly. You should feel joyous you are being shown the light and the error of your ways.

  212. JC

    You should feel joyous you are being shown the light and the error of your ways.

    What errors, Schteiner? You haven’t shown any, much less countered any. You blackhearted, leftwing spiv, schteiner.

  213. Sinclair Davidson

    Far be it from me to point out that the link above actually relates to the budget process and gives an example from the Science college – I’m employed in the Business college.

    nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

    on that note steiner has done more than enough to derail the thread.

  214. Gab

    actually relates to the budget process and gives an example from the Science college – I’m employed in the Business college.

    lol. He’s a first class genius, yesiree.

  215. Sinclair Davidson

    Almost Homeresque; except for the spelling and grammar.

  216. Big Nana

    When my husband died I was left with 4 teenagers, 3 still dependant on me. I was already working full time, so started studying at night to regain my nursing registration. As soon as I was re registered I worked every overtime shift I could get, as soon as the kids were old enough to be left alone. Eventually I had enough for a deposit on a small unit. The kids left home, I pId off the unit, and immediately was put in a position of having to raise a couple of grand kids. Because one of the grandchildren was autistic I chose to drop back to part time work to give me more time with him. I maintained this until retirement age, sold up, cashed in my super and built a house. I can’t believe how single mothers with 3 or more children can ever claim poverty. They receive more than my part time wage was, yet I managed to both live comfortably and save. It meant giving up smoking and cutting down on my social life but it is totally doable.

  217. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    Krebs: Mein Fuhrer, Steiner …

    Jodl: Steiner konnte nicht genügend Kräfte für einen Angriff massieren. Der Angriff Steiner ist nicht erfolgt.

  218. “Let me guess, you think all tax cuts are tax concessions.”

    That isn’t what I said, nor does that even make sense, a tax cut isn’t a concession, an exemption or a specifically targeting rebate is a concession.

    “They are vote winners for a good reason. You are equating the usefulness of greater private investment with encouraging more people to not work.”

    Yes they are vote winners, which is why they’re offered by politicians, which only reinforces my original point regarding motive. Perhaps it is you who is poorly educated and confused, it certainly appears as such.

    “Taxes went up, this was the result.”

    The tax to GDP ratio has roughly stayed the same since Howard was Prime Minister, declining slightly. So, taxes didn’t go up, fees, charges and the over-all cost of employment went up at a Federal level whilst some states re-adjusted their taxes and like.

    A declining AUD would create upward momentum in productivity as returns on investments in USD grows as a result.

    As for welfare vote buying, if you had two candidates, one who said they would repeal negative gearing and use that money to house the poor versus one who opposed that idea, who would win?

  219. rickw

    ” $45,000 doesn’t go very far if you have to rent in the private market.”

    I rent a nice single bedroom unit in Melbourne, 6km from the CBD. It costs $1200 per month. If times were tough, you could easily fit a family of 4 in it.

    Of course, being on welfare in Australia doesn’t seem to require any belt tightening at all.

  220. Argy Bargy

    To add a very late two bobs worth, there is no such thing as a single parent, only absent parents. So instead of me having to support my own children plus every other bloke’s, make those absent parents pay up for their offspring. I don’t care if those absent dad’s all have to live in cheap hostels and cannot “start over with a new wife and family” (as I have often been told as an excuse by blokes I no longer consider friends), and girls who cannot name the absent parent – too bad honey. Keep your pants on or accept your responsibility!

    For those that say the kids did nothing wrong, why should they be punished? There are many couples with the means but not the chance to have children, so it is the parent that is imposing that punishment just through their own selfishness.

    End rant.

  221. Paridell

    Oh dear, the whole article is subverted by the footnote:

    “* No doubt the bleeding heart types will point to some individuals who become single parents through no fault of their own. I understand that can and does happen.”

    Social democracy rests on this very foundation!

  222. Leo G

    The tax to GDP ratio has roughly stayed the same since Howard was Prime Minister, declining slightly.

    The tax payments ratio peaked early in Howard’s first term as PM, and has dropped more than 3.5% to 10.2% in the most recently released figures. The Australian Government raised 80.3% of Australia’s total tax revenue in 2010 (total taxation revenue to GDP about 26%). The percentage of total taxation revenue attributed to central government in 2009-10 was the 6th highest of OECD countries.

  223. .

    As for welfare vote buying, if you had two candidates, one who said they would repeal negative gearing and use that money to house the poor versus one who opposed that idea, who would win?

    Now you are calling negative gearing a concession. This is nonsense.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re saying people ought to pay taxes on losses, and this is some sort of subsidy.

    This is clearly wrong, yet, you profess to be well educated and choose to be condescending.

    You are wrong. Accept it.

    The tax to GDP ratio has roughly stayed the same since Howard was Prime Minister, declining slightly. So, taxes didn’t go up, fees, charges and the over-all cost of employment went up at a Federal level whilst some states re-adjusted their taxes and like.

    Taxes went up. More taxes emerged. Rates went up.

    Taxes go up. Economic growth falls.

    A declining AUD would create upward momentum in productivity as returns on investments in USD grows as a result.

    You don’t know what you are talking about. Returns on US investments in AUD would increase and expand the capital base. An increase in external income does not raise productivity.

    As for welfare vote buying, if you had two candidates, one who said they would repeal negative gearing and use that money to house the poor versus one who opposed that idea, who would win?

    The one who opposed this, as Australians will remember when Keating did this and had to repeal it.

  224. .

    PS

    CGT has concessions, based on dwelling and sole trader status. These are usually perceived as fair.

    The ATO doesn’t refer to negative gearing as a concession. It is a deduction from your overall income tax payabale.

  225. .

    Correction: It is an offset.

    Calling it a concession is like calling business losses offset a concession.

    To do so would be using very questionable accounting standards.

    ‘We’re not going to tax your losses, so we’re giving you something…”

  226. Monkey's Uncle

    To add a very late two bobs worth, there is no such thing as a single parent, only absent parents. So instead of me having to support my own children plus every other bloke’s, make those absent parents pay up for their offspring. I don’t care if those absent dad’s all have to live in cheap hostels and cannot “start over with a new wife and family” (as I have often been told as an excuse by blokes I no longer consider friends)

    The problem with this is that much of the income support that single parents receive from the government (such as the parenting payment) are notionally designed to support the parent while they are not in the workforce, rather than to actually support children. Only some payments (such as family tax benefit) are notionally designed to cover the increased cost of raising children. Therefore the issue is not simply whether absent or separated fathers should have some financial responsibility towards their children via child support payments, which most people would agree with, but whether or not they should also be responsible for continuing to support their separated or estranged partner. Because presumably that is what would be required in order to enable absent or separated fathers to completely replace the current welfare for single (custodial) parents. i.e. they would have to pay not just child support but generous spousal support as well (presumably this is what you favour as you do not offer any other alternatives such as forcing custodial parents back to work etc.)

    If your wife was to leave you tomorrow, would you be happy to be obligated to turn over the vast majority of your earnings to her for many years if not decades after, even if it meant living in a tent, eating brown rice and giving up any hopes of moving on in life or finding a new partner and starting over? I think not. I suspect you only adopt such a harsh line with absent or separated fathers as you assume you will never be in the same position. No such thing as ‘there but for the grace of God go I’?

    Moreover, the statement that “there is no such thing as a single parent, only absent parents” has a germ of truth about it, but does not take into account deceased parents, donor sperm babies etc., but it also doesn’t take into consideration whether “absent parents” are absent by choice or not.

  227. .

    If your wife was to leave you tomorrow, would you be happy to be obligated to turn over the vast majority of your earnings to her for many years if not decades after, even if it meant living in a tent, eating brown rice and giving up any hopes of moving on in life or finding a new partner and starting over? I think not. I suspect you only adopt such a harsh line with absent or separated fathers as you assume you will never be in the same position. No such thing as ‘there but for the grace of God go I’?

    Yes, this presumption that all men who don’t want to pay up are just abusive, drunk arseholes with no prospects is laughable.

  228. Notafan

    spousal support

    I though child support was linked to the actual costs of children. There are no winners in family breaks up, least of all the children who have absolutely no say in it. Children are subject to so much crap in relationship breakdowns they deserve to be put first. Too many selfish parents, male and female around.

  229. dd

    I dont’ think it’s monty. This doesn’t sound like him, for example.

    I am perfectly happy to say your wages are in no way government subsidized if you are able to confirm same. Deal?

  230. Monkey's Uncle

    @Notafan,

    Thanks for pulling a whole two words of mine completely out of context to make it appear that I was claiming something that I was not.

    To make it clear for you, I never claimed that it was routine for absent, noncustodial parents (usually fathers) to be compelled to pay spousal support as well as child support to their former partner. At least, that is not what I think happens in most cases at present in Australia. What I was suggesting is that presumably that would have to start happening if one was to adopt the suggestion put forward by Argy Bargy, i.e. that we could largely replace or supersede the need for welfare support for single (custodial) parents if only we made absent or noncustodial parents pay up.

  231. tomix

    I though child support was linked to the actual costs of children. There are no winners in family breaks up, least of all the children who have absolutely no say in it.

    1. A C.S.A. assessment is triggered by a welfare claim. A request can also be made by either party. How the payee spends the payers money is the payees business. Most people make their own child support arrangements.

    The “think of the kiddies” argument again. You could always sell up all your assets and use the money
    to support the kiddies.[The libertarian approach]

  232. DrBeauGan

    Desipis has such pity for the children of unmarried mothers he is happy to contribute half his income to bring them up. He is even willing to contribute half of mine. Some of these children will become fine citizens, no doubt, and others will become thieving shits like Desipis. I am willing to make a contribution provided I get a say in how it is spent and on whom. We already have plenty of thieving scum, now having been provided with an ideology to justify theft. So instead of extorting my money and spending it not on children but a statistical smear, leave the money with me and send me the unmarried mothers via the internet and I shall send cash to be used for the welfare of the kids who merit it. I would prefer to send clothes and food parcels direct.

    A society in which half the population is encouraged to thieve off the other half using the government as standover man is not long for this world. Let’s try crowdsourcing instead.

  233. mareeS

    $45,344 is a pretty good living, even with 4 kids. The spouse and I qualified for $23 a fortnight in child endowment when our firstborn came into the world in 1983, and a month later Treasurer Keating slapped a means test on it. So, in 30 years we haven’t had a red cent from the taxpayer, except that the spouse now gouges the taxpayer the princely sum of half the unmarried mum-with-4-kids rate as an ex-combat person from 2 wars..

    You have to smile.

    One of our sisters-in-law is getting

  234. mareeS

    Hmm, one of our sisters-in-law…has never paid tax. Truly. She’s a complete bludger who knows all the lurks. We don’t speak.

Comments are closed.