How does the welfare system work

[GetToTheGone]

I've been involved in supervising a work for the dole program, In my opinion its a good idea but not all see it that way. Helps give work experience and learning new skills that can be used to help find work.
But out of the 20+ people involved so far I was lucky to get 3-4 people turn up each day.
Yes some picked up some work but for the most part they didn't want to be there, they didn't want a job and didn't want to have to look for a job.
Not one of them had a good thing to say about the welfare system or the job agency that was meant to be getting them a job they didn't want.
One person went out of his way to find work and it had him moving towns to get it.
I don't believe this is what everyone on welfare is like but from this group this is what I found when talking with them.

[car10002]

With the welfare allot of people appreciate it and are happy with what they get and understand it meant to get by and a few little things now and then that minimum wage people do and if you's think about it minimum wage is no better or actually worse because welfare you get concession and it's tax free and minimum wage you pay tax and no concession even though you get a little more your no better off if you's think about it

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

asagaai, you'd mentioned that it sucks when you have to replace a leaking washing machine or other busted appliance. It must suck having to dip in to your mortgage (at what, 4%?) to get it repaired or replaced. I've had to do that any yes it does suck. There's no sarcasm there.

But how about some perspective:

Meanwhile the person at the bottom of the rung, who also gets stuck with a busted washing machine, can't dip in to their mortgage. Their options are:

1) Nimble it, & move on<tm> with loanshark repayment rates
2) Wash their clothes at the laundromat ($$$ per wash, plus time to travel to/from laundromat if they have a car, plus fuel costs)
3) Don't wash their clothes.

Some other points to your questions posted:

* Good on you for completing your tertiary education and for holding a job for 27 years. Some people can only dream of 27 years of ongoing employment, not to mention tertiary qualifications.

* Lower standard of living compared to someone on an old age pension? So you'll be lowering your standards from Heinz beans to No Name beans?

* I'd like to see a range of people in the bottom tax brackets (or who are on centrelink and always have been) who have managed three overseas holidays in their lifetime.

* You receive no govt assistance because you earn above the threshold. The threshold's there for a reason.

* You must be proud that your daughter is committing to completing her degree for a noble profession.

I see in your sig that aside from not only owning 4 cars, the 4th is a brand new FG-X XR8. Can I have everyone here on Fordforums who receives centrelink payments in lieu of income please put your hand up if you've bought your FG-X XR8 courtesy of centrelink?

Ghia5l- yeah- I was fried/saturated with the stress of cases over last 3 weeks- huge stress, unhappiness, minimal pay and lots of stress...

But, did not go in to work today, I am fried, spent $110 on synthetic penrite oil (which I paid for in post tax dollars from my hard earned cash) and spent 2 hours changing my gearbox oil.

It was that or doing laps at a 50 meter pool to detox, and I decided to work on my FGX XR8 and happy I did, it actually de-stressed me, and just polished off a red bottle of wine and I now feel Human.....

But you are right, my family has 2 brand new cars and one older 2009 Civic, all paid for- and I am self employed, so I am lucky and really have no reason to complain- does not stop me bitchin on a Friday though.

About negative gearing, how about negative gearing for new residences AND young people getting their first home/investment- give the young ones a needed hand up.

[MITCHAY]

Welfare should be that you have food in your belly, clothes on your back and a roof over your head. Basic human rights. It should be a short term thing not a life long dependency.

I'd rather be the bloke not on it than the person who has to live on it. What sort of life would that be even if it is free.

[drz250]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Welfare should be that you have food in your belly, clothes on your back and a roof over your head. Basic human rights. It should be a short term thing not a life long dependency.

I'd rather be the bloke not on it than the person who has to live on it. What sort of life would that be even if it is free.

Australia has the fifth-highest cost of living in the world. I agree that welfare should primarily designed to cover the bare necessities.

...but surely you understand the bare necessities don't come cheap in Australia.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by The Yeti

Bull **** utter bull ****, I think negative gearing should be limited but killing it would screw it for renters (the land load would actually need a return on their investment if they got rid of it, everyone seems to forget this)

The communist party now talks of limiting it to new homes, the only people that helps is the Salim Marhaga types flogging their cookie cutter boxes and again once the land load sells it it's useless as the land lord would need to to get a return.

The talk that it would make housing more affordable is all so bull **** because after the correction it would go back to the way it is.

What we need is for people to stop putting their freaken hand out for everything and the current generation not to expect it handed to them.

Quite frankly I do not give a dam about the renters it is all about shoring my self
up for when I retire.Negative gearing also put's more rental properties back out onto the market & to take pressure off the council/public housing market.(whether it does this or not though is debatable.)You also hear the "wingers". complaining that the landlords are "ripping" people off and making heaps of money.Again what a lot of BS!Again you have to maintain it,strata fees rates etc.....So quite frankly you want to rent it? You pay "market" rates!Rant Over!!!!!

[Cav]

Here is something to ponder so that your blood pressure does not take a hit when you hear about the welfare ripoffs ....

In trying to get help to those that REALLY need welfare you will get ripped off by those that are not in that category. That is the cost you bear. What becomes important therefore is managing % of people ripping off the system.

Hard to accept?

Then think about it this way. I was an volunteer advocate for war veterans for just under 10 years. I helped veterans through the maze of dealing with the Dept. of Veterans Affairs and the Veterans' Review Board. I assisted blokes that were on the edge of eligibility and who may have been er, shall we say, stretching the system a bit.

I made and presented cases to DVA and the VRB for these blokes even though I had my doubts that they were genuine. My reasoning was that a medical professional had made a diagnosis and the veteran met the eligibility criteria. It was not about what I thought. If DVA tightened up the rules to weed out the suspect claims, then some of those needy war veterans may slip through and not get the help they needed.

So which is worse?

The needy missing out, or a few rorters getting through the system

[LTD Ute]

Originally Posted by hackney

Quite frankly I do not give a dam about the renters it is all about shoring my self
up for when I retire.Negative gearing also put's more rental properties back out onto the market & to take pressure off the council/public housing market.(whether it does this or not though is debatable.)You also hear the "wingers". complaining that the landlords are "ripping" people off and making heaps of money.Again what a lot of BS!Again you have to maintain it,strata fees rates etc.....So quite frankly you want to rent it? You pay "market" rates!Rant Over!!!!!

Negative gearing is a rort. Investment in property, like all other investments
Is gambling on a profit.

Why should I hedge your bets out of my tax dollar?

Only if you build the much needed extra housing stock should tax relief be available.

And your attitude towards renters sucks, they are your customers!

This is the Australia we live in, where the top end expects handouts
and screw the the little fella. We've become greedy heartless bastards.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by LTD Ute

Negative gearing is a rort. Investment in property, like all other investments
Is gambling on a profit.

Why should I hedge your bets out of my tax dollar?

Only if you build the much needed extra housing stock should tax relief be available.

And your attitude towards renters sucks, they are your customers!

This is the Australia we live in, where the top end expects handouts
and screw the the little fella. We've become greedy heartless bastards.

Why is it a rort? It is perfectly legal.Gambling,really? You must be talking about the Stockmarket. No sorry you are plain wrong(I have been doing it for awhile.) Attitude towards customers? Well I have had a few problem renters & they where a real "headache" & I have had some very good & and lovely people.But as I alluded to in my previous post it is all about me guaranteeing my retirement!Plain and simple as that.

[LTD Ute]

Originally Posted by hackney

Why is it a rort? It is perfectly legal.Gambling,really? You must be talking about the Stockmarket. No sorry you are plain wrong(I have been doing it for awhile.) Attitude towards customers? Well I have had a few problem renters & they where a real "headache" & I have had some very good & and lovely people.But as I alluded to in my previous post it is all about me guaranteeing my retirement!Plain and simple as that.

That's cool bro, I just don't want to pay for your retirement.

I'd rather my money give a leg up to someone less fortunate.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by LTD Ute

That's cool bro, I just don't want to pay for your retirement.

I'd rather my money give a leg up to someone less fortunate.

That's fine,but if you have ever rented,it has more than likely been an "investment"property owned by a normal "Mum & Dad" And quite frankly you're entitled to engage in what you call in this form of "Gambling" as well all legal & above board.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by LTD Ute

Negative gearing is a rort. Investment in property, like all other investments
Is gambling on a profit.

Why should I hedge your bets out of my tax dollar?

It's not gambling when historically, prices go up. Growing population plus dwindling land supply will always drive growth.

What I do find absurd is that we give a 50% capital gains tax discount. Why do they need any discount? If they have the funds to invest, they're doing better than most people, they certainly don't need a discount.

Further, we cant claim capital losses against our regular income, why can we claim our rental losses against regular income?

I'm betting if you made the cashflow situation worse where negative gearing is concerned, there'd be far less interest in it as a means of investment.

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by LTD Ute

Negative gearing is a rort. Investment in property, like all other investments
Is gambling on a profit.

Why should I hedge your bets out of my tax dollar?

Only if you build the much needed extra housing stock should tax relief be available.

And your attitude towards renters sucks, they are your customers!

This is the Australia we live in, where the top end expects handouts
and screw the the little fella. We've become greedy heartless bastards.

So buy your own investment property and compete against him.

If you've had tenants you would soon adopt his attitude.

If you had had bad tenants your attitude would be worse

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by b0son

It's not gambling when historically, prices go up. Growing population plus dwindling land supply will always drive growth.

What I do find absurd is that we give a 50% capital gains tax discount. Why do they need any discount? If they have the funds to invest, they're doing better than most people, they certainly don't need a discount.

Further, we cant claim capital losses against our regular income, why can we claim our rental losses against regular income?

I'm betting if you made the cashflow situation worse where negative gearing is concerned, there'd be far less interest in it as a means of investment.

Because without these concessions in most cases it wouldn't be a viable investment and then where would people live? How much rent would they have to pay

You could be the nicest tenant in the world but if it's not financially viable there's no way I'd be in the game

[b0son]

Originally Posted by The Yeti

Because without these concessions in most cases it wouldn't be a viable investment and then where would people live? How much rent would they have to pay

Supply/demand determines rent, not the landlord's cost. You don't see rent go up/down with interest rates.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by b0son

Supply/demand determines rent, not the landlord's cost. You don't see rent go up/down with interest rates.

Well actually you do,because if rates/costs go up you need to recoup & also the good old "supply & demand"thing.Cheers

[b0son]

Mmmm, yes and no. I remember in SA in the early 2000's, property prices in/around the CBD went up by huge amounts, in some circumstances, 30-50% over 2 years. You didn't see that reflected in rents by any stretch, in fact, rents went either nowhere or down because there was such a glut of new properties onto the market.

[LTD Ute]

Let me just ask, how many folks are on welfare payments and
have Internet access to contribute to this forum?

Your voice is only as loud as the change in your pocket!

In all things in life. Think about it. It is true.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by hackney

Why is it a rort? It is perfectly legal.Gambling,really? You must be talking about the Stockmarket. No sorry you are plain wrong(I have been doing it for awhile.) Attitude towards customers? Well I have had a few problem renters & they where a real "headache" & I have had some very good & and lovely people.But as I alluded to in my previous post it is all about me guaranteeing my retirement!Plain and simple as that.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The taxpayer shouldn't have to subsidise speculative behaviour when it all goes sour.

Oh and house prices ALWAYS revert to their intrinsic value, sometimes gently, sometimes abruptly. Those who think house prices always go up haven't been around long enough to experience the other side of the roller coaster.

[Franco Cozzo]

The people on the dole only account for 7% of our welfare bill.

I find it ironic how easily people arc up and complain about someone collecting $250/week on the dole, its not like they're living the life of luxury on their $250/week.

Then complaining about them spending money on smokes and alcohol, how many taxes does the government collect on smokes and alcohol?

Chances are the government is collecting a nice slice back of their $250/week they're handing out if someone on the dole spent it on alcohol and smokes.

I'd rather pay the 7% their $250/week rather than my workshop being broken into, my tools and equipment being stolen or a customer car being stolen, I'd rather be able to drive around in my car without fear of being pulled out of it, murdered and my car stolen by desperate people because we've cut off their means of living.

The best part of it all, you've got multinationals who are profit shifting around the globe like Apple, who make their phone for $2, sell it to Apple Ireland for $900 and Apple Ireland sells it to Apple Australia for $901, Apple Australia sells it for $902 and pays tax on the $1.

There is no outrage about a multi billion dollar company ripping off Australian tax payers, just finger pointing at 7% of $200B which .1% are doing the wrong thing, funny enough we've got people pointing fingers at someone collecting $250/week from the tax payer but not complaining about Apple who are ripping us off millions.

Then things like the Government offering people like me $20,000 depreciation on purchasing new equipment for my business, why are they offering welfare in the form of tax advantages to people like me?

720,000-odd Australians out of work, and we're importing people on 457 visas to fill jobs? GTFO.

If the Government decided to randomly cut off all Centrelink entitlements to save themselves $200B, there would be no Canberra left, all the MPs would be pulled out of their houses and murdered. If you want to play that game be prepared for the consequences when you see the true nature of humans who have their backs against the wall and nothing to lose.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

The people on the dole only account for 7% of our welfare bill.

I find it ironic how easily people arc up and complain about someone collecting $250/week on the dole, its not like they're living the life of luxury on their $250/week.

Then complaining about them spending money on smokes and alcohol, how many taxes does the government collect on smokes and alcohol?

Chances are the government is collecting a nice slice back of their $250/week they're handing out if someone on the dole spent it on alcohol and smokes.

I'd rather pay the 7% their $250/week rather than my workshop being broken into, my tools and equipment being stolen or a customer car being stolen, I'd rather be able to drive around in my car without fear of being pulled out of it, murdered and my car stolen by desperate people because we've cut off their means of living.

The best part of it all, you've got multinationals who are profit shifting around the globe like Apple, who make their phone for $2, sell it to Apple Ireland for $900 and Apple Ireland sells it to Apple Australia for $901, Apple Australia sells it for $902 and pays tax on the $1.

There is no outrage about a multi billion dollar company ripping off Australian tax payers, just finger pointing at 7% of $200B which .1% are doing the wrong thing, funny enough we've got people pointing fingers at someone collecting $250/week from the tax payer but not complaining about Apple who are ripping us off millions.

Then things like the Government offering people like me $20,000 depreciation on purchasing new equipment for my business, why are they offering welfare in the form of tax advantages to people like me?

720,000-odd Australians out of work, and we're importing people on 457 visas to fill jobs? GTFO.

If the Government decided to randomly cut off all Centrelink entitlements to save themselves $200B, there would be no Canberra left, all the MPs would be pulled out of their houses and murdered. If you want to play that game be prepared for the consequences when you see the true nature of humans who have their backs against the wall and nothing to lose.

In the short term, cutting all forms of welfare would result in utter chaos and warfare. But at the end of it, the country would be the better for it. The system has supported and protected far too many morons and lazy scum at the expense of those that genuinely need a hand.

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by b0son

Supply/demand determines rent, not the landlord's cost. You don't see rent go up/down with interest rates.

How many land lords do you think would be investing in it if they couldn't make a return and had no tax incentives?

I'm tipping not to many?

The last one I sold was more trouble than it was worth and after the last **** tenant I sold it why because in the area it was in the return wasn't there and even with the benefits of negative gearing I didn't see any real return on investment so it got sold off.

How many do you think would be in the same boat if there were no incentives?

And don't think this will make housing more affordable, it might in the short term but after a correction the moaners will still complain about un affordable housing

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

In the short term, cutting all forms of welfare would result in utter chaos and warfare. But at the end of it, the country would be the better for it. The system has supported and protected far too many morons and lazy scum at the expense of those that genuinely need a hand.

Yeah head over to Detroit and Philli and see how your theory works.

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by The Yeti

How many land lords do you think would be investing in it if they couldn't make a return and had no tax incentives?

I'm tipping not to many?

The last one I sold was more trouble than it was worth and after the last **** tenant I sold it why because in the area it was in the return wasn't there and even with the benefits of negative gearing I didn't see any real return on investment so it got sold off.

How many do you think would be in the same boat if there were no incentives?

And don't think this will make housing more affordable, it might in the short term but after a correction the moaners will still complain about un affordable housing

So your theory is without tax incentives there wouldn't be investors? Which would cut demand, which in turn would cut house prices. The government themselves have said if they cut negative gearing it would hurt property values which is why they won't touch it.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

Yeah head over to Detroit and Philli and see how your theory works.

You'd be surprised how much welfare money goes through those parts of the US. It isn't in the form of direct payments, but their version of govco has ploughed billions into these areas in the wake of the GFC.

[lgpking22]

It does crack you up doesn't it the amount of middle class welfare people who always cry the loudest when its there money being taken like most things people with money have the means to crap on and complain the loudest so people listen the poor man has nothing so gets to eat cake.

[sprintman1]

Originally Posted by LTD Ute

Let me just ask, how many folks are on welfare payments and
have Internet access to contribute to this forum?

Your voice is only as loud as the change in your pocket!

In all things in life. Think about it. It is true.

Me for one

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by NAK302

well, all i know is welfare takes 48% of my income tax.

you're welcome...

Firstly it's 48% (45%?) of every $ earned ABOVE $180k. Unless you're stating you're voluntarily contributing from your entire earnings so that it's 48% ($86,400) - then in that case you're quite the philanthropist and I tip my hat to you, Sir!

Secondly welfare counts for 35% of government revenue, or 35% of that 48%. And 7% of the 35% goes towards dole-or-similar welfare.

So for one dollar you earn which is taxed at 48% (48c/$), 35% of that goes towards welfare (16.8c/$). 7% of that goes towards the dole or similar (1.176c/$). Damn, that 1c must really be busting your balls. And remember that 1c is for $1 ABOVE the $180k earnings that is taxed at the full 48% (or 45%?) rate...

Source: http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/con...5-Overview.pdf

asagaai:

You're perfectly entitled to vent your frustrations with the **** work can throw at you, I'd just taken your first post on face value of your thoughts on welfare recipients in general.

I hope the red went down well!

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by hackney

Quite frankly I do not give a dam about the renters it is all about shoring my self
up for when I retire.Negative gearing also put's more rental properties back out onto the market & to take pressure off the council/public housing market.(whether it does this or not though is debatable.)You also hear the "wingers". complaining that the landlords are "ripping" people off and making heaps of money.Again what a lot of BS!Again you have to maintain it,strata fees rates etc.....So quite frankly you want to rent it? You pay "market" rates!Rant Over!!!!!

Those fees tend to go up because of the increase in value from the property, which is in a way boosted due to all of those jumping in to the negative gearing game further differentiating the haves from the have-nots. The rent therefore goes up to (proportionally?) pass on the cost to the tenant.

[2011G6E]

Probably be summed up with one sentence:
"It's not a lifestyle choice, it's not there to support your choice not to work."

There's not an endless pool of money. It's got to come from those who do work.

Negative gearing is a good one...too many idiots saying it's "those rich ******" taking advantage of it.
Really?
I know quite a few people with units/houses which they own and rent out, some of them have a few houses. They do this purely for the tax advantages, nothing more...not for a charity, not out of some social need to provide homes for people...they do it for the tax breaks, full stop. And nearly every single one of them says the same thing every time a government talks about changing/doing away with negative gearing..."I'll just sell them all off and to hell with the hassle". That, or alternatively they say they might just stop renting it out and keep it vacant for themselves as a holiday home if it's an apartment or a small house in a popular coastal or city area.

Governments ought to be very very careful about changing negative gearing...the results would be a crash in house prices as thousands of homes suddenly came on the market, and people being thrown out on the streets because the landlord has stopped renting his house.

Go back to the old days of unemployment benefits...you only had so long to find a job, and if you ever were found to have turned down even one job offer of any sort, bang, no more benefits. You don't get to choose, you don't get to wait around for your dream job. You're living off hard working taxpayers money, and they demand that only lasts long enough to get you into some sort of employment, any sort.