|
|
|
|
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/13/2009 12:57:07 AM | Hell yes, access to government benefits makes it too easy for those that don’t want to work, not to. And there are plenty that don’t want to.
what are we, as a country, spending on welfare/social security?
According to a paper from the budget policy division, (Treasury dept) the budget spend for 2007-08 is:
Billion
Social security and welfare $96.5 (41%)
Health $43 (18%)
Gen govt services $32.2 (14%)
Defence $19.9 (8%)
Education $17.8 (8%)
Infrastructure, tspt & energy 9.9 (4%)
Industry & workforce $10.4 (4%)
Community services and culture $6 (3%)
http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1352/PDF/03_spending_growth.pdf
I'm horrified to think that most of the tax I pay goes directly to support others that don't work. Now, I have NO PROBLEM supporting the disabled, elderly, carers, mothers with young children etc etc but I do have a problem supporting healthy adults that simply don’t work because they don’t want to. If they don’t want to work that’s fine – I understand (especially on Monday mornings) but unless you can support yourself without bludging on others, then you get out of bed and you go to work. That’s life – sometimes it sucks, and sometimes it………well, yeah…..sometimes it still sucks, but hey, there’s always wine for those days.
I have a single parent friend who spent the time that her kids were at school, teaching prisoners non-violent behaviour and social skills, I knew another who sat on the then state advisory committee for social housing, and another who spent his spare time developing community gardening and farming projects, all voluntarily...so that's where some of our taxes are going.
I’m not sure what point is being made here. Were these people unable to work because they were sick or caring for someone? If so, they are entitled to be on a benefit and don’t have to justify what they do with their time to anyone. But, if those people were able to work, then why didn’t they? If they could work and yet didn’t, why would the fact that they do voluntary work be justification for being on a benefit? I too do voluntary work, but I do it around a full-time job – I give up my own time and don’t expect anyone to subsidise me for it.
In a previous life I ran a business which employed people. Early on in the piece I used to advertise the positions with Centrelink who would send applicants over for interviews. What a joke. Most (yes MOST) of these people had no intention whatsoever of getting a job and they made it obvious. Some turned up for the interview in singlets and thongs, or turned up two hours late (mind you – I guess this IS Qld). Some were even blatant enough to tell me in the interview they didn’t want the job and were just there to get me to sign their form. Once I rang a young man to tell him he didn’t get the job, and as soon as he heard my voice he assumed I was ringing to say that he had, and boy, did he panic. He yelled “I cant get this job, I can’t work. I’m only here for a surfing holiday!!!” Man oh man…….it was depressing.
By the way, it’s interesting how often Kerry Packer’s quote on paying tax always comes up in these debates. Mr Packer got quite incensed when accused of avoiding tax and claimed those making such claims were trying to ‘blacken his character’. The famous Kerry Packer quote was:
I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.
So, it seems that Kerry’s point was that he paid the right amount of tax but no more because he wasn’t going to donate extra to buffoons to mismanage. Fair enough. | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/13/2009 2:12:01 AM | Edit to above ^^^
According to a paper from the budget policy division, (Treasury dept) the budget spend for 2007-08 is (Billions):
Social security and welfare $96.5 (41%)
Health $43 (18%)
Gen govt services $32.2 (14%)
Defence $19.9 (8%)
Education $17.8 (8%)
Infrastructure, tspt & energy 9.9 (4%)
Industry & workforce $10.4 (4%)
Community services and culture $6 (3%)
The Federal Government also gave the States around $50 billion in 2008, and they will have spent some of it on health, education, and infrastructure as well.
But none of it on Social Security, since that's solely a Federal responsibility.
The $96 billion spend on social welfare presumably includes all payments? Like staff costs.... and aged pension, disability support, carers, unemployment, sole parents etc etc so it would be interesting to see what percentage of the $96 billion is being payed to lazy people.
Half? A quarter? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?
I wonder how much they spend on stationary and printing?
Australia
GDP 2007 $908.8 billion.
GDP 2008 (estimate) $1.013 trillion
Australia is a developed country, with a prosperous multicultural society and has excellent results in many international comparisons of national performance such as health care, life expectancy, quality of life, human development, public education, economic freedom, and the protection of civil liberties and political rights. Australian cities routinely rank among the world's highest in terms of cultural offerings and quality of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
Everyone knows the big spending departments are Social Welfare, Health, Education, and Defence - all the usual suspects in terms of election year rhetoric.
So I didn't search for departmental budgets because that seems irrelevant, they all spend what they need to according to government policy, and Australia continues to prosper.
I figure that given our economic circumstances, Australian citizens are entitled to expect that schools will be modern and well equipped, that teacher numbers will be sufficient, that schools will be appropriately located so that education is available to all.
It also seems reasonable to expect Federal and State governments to provide a decent and affordable health care system that can be accessed by everyone.
Likewise, we should have decent roads to drive on, and good public facilities generally. Not as a hoped for thing, or a favour the government does and might change it's mind about - but as an entitlement.
We are also entitled to protection by our armed forces.
Are we not also entitled to social support if/when assistance is required?
Australia is a wealthy country, we have a stable and non-corrupt system of government whose primary role is provide those things.
| |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/13/2009 4:23:38 AM |
I’m not sure what point is being made here. Were these people unable to work because they were sick or caring for someone? If so, they are entitled to be on a benefit and don’t have to justify what they do with their time to anyone. But, if those people were able to work, then why didn’t they?
One was a carer and the other two were single parents with young children.
The point, or rather points, I was making is that firstly welfare recipients are not all lazy, and secondly that people can contribute to the country in ways other than just paying tax. Personally I don't have a problem with my tax dollars paying a centrelink payment to someone who is helping to reform prisoners.And no, they weren't justifying what they do with their time, they were giving to an area of the community that they felt passionate about and that needed support, it can be difficult to find paid employment when ones available hours are restricted. Incidentally the work that my friend did in community gardens lead to the creation of paid jobs. I was also posting some personal experiences in response to Naamahs statement that the process of community helping those in need is becoming dehumanised.
So, doesn't that work out to be about 43% of the gross revenue being spent on social security?? (80.1 billion as a percentage of the 187.6 billion)
It seems I need to retract my statement to Photoman...
You really should check things before you post, else you might add to the 'us and them' mentality.
...because it appears we weren't comparing apples with apples. The figures I posted were the percentage of GDP whereas his were the percentage of government revenue from tax.
I don't have a great deal of knowledge on the government and economics (where's that 'passing economist') but since we live in a capitalist society I think it's better to make judgments and decisions, and form opinions based on the GDP rather than simply on government taxes, the country doesn't run entirely on the public purse...perhaps if we lived in a communist country it might be different. 
Now, I have NO PROBLEM supporting the disabled, elderly, carers, mothers with young children etc etc but I do have a problem supporting healthy adults that simply don’t work because they don’t want to
I couldn't agree more, and it seems the largest portion of the welfare pie is given to the the aged and families.
2005–06. Welfare expenditure for older people was the highest, accounting for
43.6% on average of combined Australian Government and state and territory government
expenditure. About one-third (33.2%) of welfare expenditure was for families and children.
Just under one-fifth (19.2%) went to people with disabilities and the remaining 4.1% to
‘other’.
Makes me think of parents in some third world countries who continue having more and more children only to watch them starve, in the belief that more children equals more wealth. Humans are the same the world over.
ANd in farming subsitance communities absolutely more children equals wealth aka realistically food cos more hands to work the land.
Yes it is simplistic, and yes I am aware of the birth control issue of third world populations, but I still think there a parallel can be drawn. To me it seems futile to keep producing people to work the land, when the land is no longer workable. | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/13/2009 6:20:58 AM | Hey MyForumsite, thank you so much for clarifying all of that. (haven't seen you for a while, welcome back  ) and yeah Jules...I understand the difference now as well. 
I noticed (and I am paraphrasing something I read earlier cos I didn't save the link) that some other countries have unemployment/old age benefits that are based on what a person was earning prior to becoming unemployed/retiring. For example they might get about 75% of what they were earning, for a period of time, based on how much they 'put in' to the purse when they were working and paying tax. Then, for unemployment, they go back to the minimum payment after a period of time. Those who have never worked only get the minimum payment. So the more you were earning/contributing, the more help you will get when/if you need it. Whereas in Australia it's pretty much the opposite.
It also seems reasonable to expect Federal and State governments to provide a decent and affordable health care system that can be accessed by everyone.
Likewise, we should have decent roads to drive on, and good public facilities generally. Not as a hoped for thing, or a favour the government does and might change it's mind about - but as an entitlement.
We are also entitled to protection by our armed forces.
Are we not also entitled to social support if/when assistance is required?
Yes, but for me it's a matter of degrees, and observing situations where, for some individuals, there seems to be an overinflated sense of where entitlement begins and ends. In relation to the comparisons you've drawn there...well, in much the same way that I don't feel I was 'entitled' to receive public money after my husband died, even though I was apparently 'eligible' ...when it comes to roads, armed forces and medical, I similarly don't feel 'entitled' to have public money used to ...bitumen my driveway, provide a personal armed body guard to patrol my fenceline, or pay for me to have botox. There are limits to 'entitlement' even within the scope of what I might perceive 'the government' should provide.
I have observed examples where I personally believe the sense of 'entitlement' that evolves in some individuals is inappropriate...even selfish, when one considers that this is money from other people... always summarised as 'the government' when it is preferable to obscure the human face of the taxpayers, even as the human faces of the recipients are held forward for consideration.
The Federal Government also gave the States around $50 billion in 2008, and they will have spent some of it on health, education, and infrastructure as well.
But none of it on Social Security, since that's solely a Federal responsibility.
So, $50 billion divided between all the states. Even if added to the amounts already allocated to health , education and defence...still leaves us with $96.5 billion on welfare, and $130.7 billion for health, education and defence combined.
I wonder how much they spend on stationary and printing?
You wonder how much of $96.5 billion is spent on stationery? Well Defence gets $19.9 billion and can manage to buy weapons and stationery. Smaller envelopes?
To me it seems futile to keep producing people to work the land, when the land is no longer workable.
Absolutely agree.
and I do humanity not capitalism
The earning can seem rather distasteful, but the spending...not so much. So do you also 'not do' the spoils of capitalism? Venetian lingerie? Ballgowns?  | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/13/2009 6:50:59 AM | All these questions that go to the administration of the public finances of one of the most fortunate countries in the world leave me cold. The comparisons of various figures that can be hunted up from various government reports are problematic to say the very least.
What definition of welfare would we like to use; normally it would not include unemployment benefits, which measure of GDP would we like to use there are three different ways of calculating this, all of which are slightly different, subject to revision and don’t include household production, the value of leisure time, or environmental quality .
Then there are the national accounts which are too tedious for words. Do we just want to take into account the revenues collected from all sources by all levels of government and then workout what proportion of that is distributed as transfer payments of one kind or another and then what proportion of this is spent on which ever definition of welfare payment we want to adopt and then express that as a proportion of GDP presuming we have made up out minds which definition of this we are going to use.
All of this can and is done by various government agencies and international bodies in a sensible manner but even understanding the choices that lie behind any one of these reports let alone coming to terms with the difficulties of comparing them with each other doesn’t strike me as a good use of time. What we do know is that we pay about 30 % of GDP to government in taxation making us one of the lowest taxed countries in the world.
The government redistributes the larger portion of this back to the community as transfer payments moving money to the least well off among us over the course of our life times. At sometimes in our lives we will be getting more back than we are contributing and at other we will be contributing more than we put in and so it is difficult to know what a snapshot of this taken in any year would mean. We can say that it is the majority in the middle that pay most of the taxes and the majority in the middle that receive most of the benefits in one form or another.
What can be said the proportion of revenues collected that are redistributed will increase as medical technology develops, the population ages, our concern for the environment increases and people demand more government service and subsidies of one kind or another but the fact is that the majority of what we pay in “welfare” in the strictest sense is distributed to people in real need at this particular time in there lives and the fact that some televisions talk show can always come up with some undeserving person doesn’t mean that the system is not generally being run well.
It essentially goes to the kind of people we are and what kind of country we would like to have surely we would want the government of return to us in goods and services, like child care, education and medical care the majority of what they collect in taxation and to provided for the less fortunate because you just never know when you are going to become one of them.
When we turn to questions that go to the welfare of people in less fortunate countries once you have started to think about these questing it is difficult to think of anything else. The relationship between population, poverty and the environment is well understood. Concerns for the environment are related to income at the level of the individual and the country, the environment is if you like a normal good upon which you want to spend more as your income increases or if you like no one can be expected to care much about air pollution until after they have had enough to eat.
The truly poor are not poor because they have a lot of children, they have a lot of children because they are poor, these children take the place of the transfer payments that they do not have access to, they for example take the place of old age pensions, how may poor children do you need to reach adulthood if they are to provided for you in your old age and if you are poor and your country is poor there will be a high infant mortality rate, and short life spans so how many children do you have to have if you are going to have enough children left to look after you if you should live to an old age.
The answer to this problem or at least an indispensible core component of the answer is that what is required in most of these countries is a vast improvement in women’s rights, women’s opportunities and the provision of education for girls these are the closest things there known to a magic elixir that can heal the world.
The answer to the questions of poverty and the protection of the environment is that they are intimately connected and there solution requires sustained economic growth which has only ever been generated by market economises, to which the environmental movement is often hostile, carefully regulated by competent and honest governments of the kind that we are luck to have. These governments would then collect taxes and redistribute them to the least fortunate minority and some few people who exploit the system at a cost that is probable smaller than that of trying to stop them. | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/13/2009 8:33:26 AM |
All these questions that go to the administration of the public finances of one of the most fortunate countries in the world leave me cold. Indeed, along with various other great chunks of your post, that's more or less what I meant when I said the departmental budgets were pretty much irrelevant. Because it actually doesn't matter.
These governments would then collect taxes and redistribute them to the least fortunate minority and some few people who exploit the system at a cost that is probable smaller than that of trying to stop them.
Well put, and again I was hinting at the same thing when I asked what the percentages were that are actually given to lazy people. The reference to stationary and printing I made was also hinting at the same thing.
A sense of proportion can be difficult to maintain in the face of such huge expenditures, but that's exactly what's needed to interpret the gross figures in any meaningful way. | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/13/2009 10:22:44 PM | Obviously this thread has covered quite a few different angles to capitialism...lifstyles..
government...statistics.. taxation....people.. attitudes.. perceptions ...rights..judgements..etc
I personally.. do not like any corrupt system..
Rorting.. in the government sector.. mismanagement...
In my opinion could be better managed.. more personal/individual... liability for the countries..funds.. etc..
I'd start there....personally ..if we are talking actual monetary value..
I'm not going to list rorting within the welfare system..that exists..(because people profit from giving this information,to overseas..people... and manipultors.. take adavantage..with the knowledge )
from loopholes...agreements..etc.. that can exist from. non australian born persons../citizens.. (btw..that is not racism nor directed at other races.. ).. just how people...
can envy Australians lifestyle.. and want to live here..(we are ranked 2nd in most desirable place to live.. ).. Do I know of ways people can rort our welfare system.. from people not born here?..yes)..
and I'm not gunna help em..
<div class='quote'>Is the government making people lazy?
Well...capitilism..works on making money.. the lazier people are.. the more others make money...profit from laziness...
eg we are told.. we need.. fruit and vegies everyday.. A serve is 1/2 a cup of vegies.. and pieces of fruit.. etc.. this will keep you healthy..fibre/vits/minerals etc)
eg...you don't want to cook a meal for your kids 7 days a week?.. no problem.. there is take away...
or tins..or frozen prefab food.. just add water.. ..
appliances.. like washing machines ..etc...
I hand wash.. (can't have a washing machine..cause we don't have that amount of water.. although I do use a laundromat as a luxury sometimes.. just an eg... on modern day appliances/living expectations in laziness.. as oppossed to what? progress..?.. better lifestyle..)capitilism wants you to work..make money..(have less time..) and pay others to do what you are too lazy to do....or are too tired.. dont have time to do..buy appliances to make things easier for you.... saves you time/effort...
not specifically welfare.....plus debt.. get into debt.. then you can't be lazy.. or own your own time.. your obligated..
<div class='quote'>Does easy access to welfare payments make people less inclined to look for work?
From my understanding...(and I will admit I'm not up to date on this as factual)...the welfare reform... actually ... stopped welfare being that easy?
Didn't say..? that you now have to work for the dole?... which is a couple days?.. and a certain amount of hours per week?(not accurate on this)
and if you don't or are late on a form etc.. you don't get paid for 6 weeks?
((i have no idea how much the dole is... but it seems to me.. IT would be hard to even pay rent..exist on?..going offa rental prices..)
I thought they made it harder for people to actually get the dole?
and from my understanding.. like my area.. nooone can move into low job prospect areas?.. unless family ties?.. is that still acurate? so not alot of people actually want the govt.. in their face/lifstyle everyday.. telling them where they can live.. what they can do with their time/days/weeks etc..
I'd say for alot of people.. this is incentive.. to not want govt assistance..I know people from aust..other countries that want to live where I do.. but they can't if they are on the dole...
<div class='quote'>Does the single parent pension provide an unintended incentive for women to just have kids and stay at home rather than look for work?
(by the way.. I know lots of dads who received this.. not just women..so who are making these women pregnant?... just quietly.. men are..mostly.. [
{yes some women choose ivf to have a child then go on the pension.. but statistically?..low?..)
so.. yep.. they ..menneed to take responsibility for birth control..(yes the govt is starting to make men pay for their part in pregnancy)...
as well as women.. true I know people who have fallen pregnant on the pill.. but condoms... well if a man dosen't want to be a father... or get a women pregnant.. why should she be soley judged?.)..works both ways..
Did'nt welfare reform.. change it.. that you only get the single person pension..until the child is 5?... school age.. at that time you need to undertake study? a career choice?...to keep it?(once again I'm not exact on this info..and don't they lose payment for.. the child once 16?... but still have to house/clothe etc...?
Didn't the welfare law reform.. crack down on fathers?...( and mothers if absent /working) so they pay towards their children's upkeep.. even if the mother/father is on a pension?..( ie the govt takes from the pension.. and the father pays?. what the govt used too? in part?from my understanding..?
I did read these reforms years ago..
but have not spoken to people in the situations..individually..
my sons 27.. its not relevant to me...
don't some working parents also get wefare payments for children?.. tax breaks.. etc/... family payments?..thats classed as welfare.. isn't it?
I don't get to claim kids on my tax.. but IT dosent worry me.. my time as a parent.. child dependant has passed... just saying... middle class welfare exists as part of the whole picture..
so alot of people with kids/working get free school.. govt family payments..
how much does that work out if they add up.. annual gross income and tax breaks..benefits returned..etc?
its all relative..
<div class='quote'>Lots of loaded questions here, now let's see what kind of responses we get
lots loaded questions.. but yet lot's of unasked questions within the welfare system...
which could be trimmed.. nods..
I have more to add.... on other issues brought up in this thread.. re humans/eco system/children/population..taxation..laws/
lifestyle..choices..depts.. etc.. but.. sigh its already long..and yep.. I hear the forum groan.. when I say I do have research on certain areas raised.. and as we know I dislike assumptions..labels..etc... cause they are ignorant..
hopefully I'll forget..to repost.. so take a breathe..
peace | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 6:29:48 AM | I just figure people are inherently lazy if given the opportunity... if food is readily available climatically helps...
and that leaves more opportunity for those who see that niche to prosper...
if everybody did everything for themselves... then who would have a job doing something somebody else didn't want to do?... you'd be too busy yourself...
so "lazy" people with more "wealth" in any community...governments even.. employ others to stop what they were actually going to do.. and come and do their work.... often to the detriment of their own home life ..often to their profit..
cash22...
many found that an easier way to make a living .... as more cash became available to those who manipulated labour/products and competition for those who would work for money rose..after they stopped using people with threat of violence to do said work for them....
some found that.. with guns.. you didn't need to pay wages.... they still do it to mine diamonds in Africa ,I hear...
nowdays.. there always seems to be more people than jobs at any one time...
and not everyone out of work or accepting benefits should automatically be considered lazy by the wider community...
if everyone was employed... wages would go through the roof when poaching employees between companies comes into play.. or vocal unions made demands for their exclusive services.....
the very stability of our system depends on a 4-6% unemployment rate... economists/Gov know that.. and factor it in to business.... and use them for a cheap political tool when need be... to feed the media "chooks".. as old Joh used to say.... divert attention... | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 7:48:30 AM | Always interesting when things are taken out of context like Packers statement or a play on figures. They do say with Governments "show me statistics and I'll show you lies".
I just love in an Annual Report from any organisation where the "Misc" expenses are higher than most of the things they can account for. Did anyboy notice in the figures listed at the top of the page by Myforumsite that the "Gen govt services" were $32.2 Billion dollars! Now compare that to Defence ($19.9 Bil) and Education ($17.8 Bil) and that's a BIG slush fund for Misc. They figure they can just label that amount of money "General" and nobody will ask where it went?
Now I know we have moved way off subject here but I'm going to add more to the "tax evasion" part of the debate. One of my employees friends just revealed how she has worked for 2 months for a well placed City restaurant/bar and gets paid cash every Sunday. The owner is a pr**k and held one week in lieu and short changes the staff on hours but 6 out of the 9 employees are not paying tax or getting any benefits. I was in the hospitality industry years ago and very few cafes, clubs, restaurants etc anywhere would have all or any staff actually "on the books". Who checks? Well obviously no one. Most of these places are open outside of the 9-5 "office day" and so they don't get checked.
So while we may have some cheats at one end taking what they are not entitled too we have just as many at the other side not paying their fair share. I bet though that the ones working for cash now are the first to line up when they loose the job. Then they expect free handouts from that "faceless government" that they were cheating before and complain that it's not enough to live on! | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 8:20:18 AM | why should the average joe getting a few hundred a week between jobs off the Gov get a conscious..?
when,, for every potential "rorter" of the dole there's probably a business somewhere rorting the system and it's workers for 10 times as much?... at all levels...
taking the example of the bar owner paying workers in cash.... who is actually rorting the system here to start with?..
the owner offering cash or the person accepting it...?..
if you're hungry and got bills to pay... someone will always take the cash ... human nature...
if you've got a business to run, cutting corners and red tape is always an option... human nature...
straying yet again from the OP.... as one does... | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 8:54:36 AM |
why should the average joe getting a few hundred a week between jobs off the Gov get a conscious..?
Clearly then, it's a waste of breath trying to get beyond the concept of this money originating from and belonging to the government.
 | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 11:10:05 AM | The nature of capitalism entails having people at the top, middle, and bottom of the wage scale. We are all taught if you work hard enough, you will get to the middle or the top, unfortunately, that’s simply not true. We can’t all be middle or upper class, someone has to do the low paying jobs and those people will always be at the bottom of the list.
Whether its lack of effort, lack of knowledge, fear of failure or simply a conscious choice not to participate in the rat race, is all rather irrelevant, there will always be a segment of the population which doesn’t like the rules of capitalism.
History has taught us if the peasant class is very unhappy, there will be a revolution and someone will be screaming “off with their heads”. Welfare money is little more than a payoff to prevent a revolution… King Louis and Marie Atoinette learned this lesson the hard way.
Maybe government welfare and various other payouts do encourage a bit of laziness, but it seems like a small price to pay compared to the alternative. | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 4:15:47 PM | but,Namaah..... the Government is ours... you seem to have trouble understanding this small point.... arms of government are set up to help people.... in many ways..
the money, a lot of it, .. they collect from US and for US.... it's our money held in trust by the Gov.... for the benefit of everyone.... it's not the governments money ... it's the countries money.....
part of living in a system.. is knowing what the system does......and how it works....
or the money is spent just to stop Revolutions.... | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 4:50:37 PM | The Kerry Packer quotes.. was that from a 60 minutes interview?....a longggg time ago?.. IF so.. I remember listening intently.. cause I like to learn from experienced people....
I know his comments... lead me to investigate/research, how rich people do minimise their tax... I learn't some very interesting stuff...... as I'm sure a few people did...
cause I talked to some... quite prepared to claim /organise their finances/legally... but yet pay as little tax(try get to a lower tax bracket/percentage).. as they could..
I've mentioned this before.. ... and I'm not sure if it was applicable to all govt workers or just hospital workers... But.. the govt....themselves.... informed these employers.. how to bring down their taxable income...
eg my mum could use a credit card up to $8,000..annually... on any exspense.. groceries/alcohol.. clothes etc... didn't matter and.. any family member could assist in this.. for eg.. she had a cedit card#.. I was given/approved by her to the bank in my name with a limit up to $7,000.. anything she or I purchased on said card #... went towards the $8,000.. in bringing down her taxable income..(all legal)
I would just do all my shopping on her card then go pay her the cash..(cause I don't like debt.. nor paying interest on debt)..PLus Im obviously totally trustworthy, otherwise my mum would''nt give me her card..
the point is..... why was'nt everyone who pays tax... able to do this?...fairness within a system..
I'm not up to speed with the latest tax stuff.. and I know some was changing this july? and next?.. so Ill check into it then.. otherwise Ive got a vague..idea.. (of what catorgory my return is../guidelines and just let my accountant do it..
So from my understanding... nooone is taxed on the first $6,000 they earn?... so If you live under $6,000 .. (yes I know people who do..and donot get any govt assistance... including being part of medicare)...
legally they donot.. have to lodge a tax return... They work for themselves.. have organised their lifestyle/living costs.. they can work..if they want.. or don't want..
when they want.. when they don't.. theyre not lazy.. in fact they do hard work..
but.. they feel free. their time is theirs.. no they don't drive nor have electricity.. nor phones.. theyre housing is not capitialism housing.. so housing cost is approx $400 a year(to council rates ) plus hours of work/time for their community.. roads are private..and maintained by them..(they also can work someone elses community time.. who will then pay their rates.. so no money needed.. except for food/clothes/candles or whatever ... each year
I know quite a few people.. who are entitled to medicare.. but they refuse it.. and pay the doctor visit/tests if need be,.... (1 was saving up for fertility testing.. about$600- $800?.. not sure).. whereas alot of people just get an ultra sound for free..
IVe seen grown men.. practically cry.. cause they are so staunch...berated//ranted about dole bludgers for decades.. only to find their back just collapsed.. and they have.. lain.. stubbornly.. unable to work..move.. etc.. to eventually.. getting a disability pension.. but gee.. they looked broken from it..(plus they worked from childhood.. so had no schooling.. so can't read/write.. to even ask for help.. to fill in a form?)
I live in a community where.. nooone would starve..unless theyre pride let them.. people who will give up their job for a couple weeks..to someone who needed it more (cause we dont have great housing/lifestyles as in fancy.. so costs can be low).. to someone.. who needs the work.. cause theyre kid is sick or hubby.. hurt himself.. etc..or we will have a whip around.. if we know someone is doing it tough..(I'd say..most people would not live the way we do though... they like all the luxeries money can buy.. and are quite prepared to work..get into debt for it.. some just prefer.. simple life.. no debt.. toys..etc.. )
most people I know..personally... (from all stages of capitilsm)... are grateful.. if given anything..
prepared to wear 2nd hand clothes.. dig a hole for a meal.. help a single mum.. or elderly women...chainsaw wood.. for her mending his clothes..etc..
Unless people sit/listen to others stories.. (got to love community)
ITs easy.. to assume/judge...
IN the cities.. IT would be alot different.. re needing money... (who knows your face?. your needs?...)
in the bush.. and if your not into consumerism.. unless needed.....well. .. you dont need that much..especially if no electricity or appliances.. or owning cars...
just a perspective...
besides capitialists.. need people who can never afford to buy homes.. etc.. so they can rent forever.. paying off the capitialists houses.. etc... if capitalism was taken off food/housing.. everyone .. would.. need less money.. and others wouldnt profit from those with less.. as much.....
maybe everyone could job share... sharing the 1wage..and hours..
they're tax would be lower.. their lifestyle/options.. would go down..(if it involved wanting to buy anything like a car/house.. and maybe people would feel..better about more equality?options?.... noone would be not working.. and nooone would.. be complaining... about them..not working... ...perhaps people might start.. complaining cause they want more work.. so they can have a better quality of lifestyle?
and as ive said IM not against capitialism.. im part of it.. but im not a huge consumer?
compared?.. but I am compared to some.. just I know how much my yearly costs are..
how much I need.. anything other than that is.. well luxury..a choice..
I dont need more than 2 pairs of boots.. 1 for work/outside ! for going out.. which become work.. ones once work ones die.. (plus I got a kids size foot so.. $30 every couple years.. ironically I get given shoes/clothes.. so have more than 2 pairs now..
I could not imagine going and doing a weeks work..eg $500.. to buy 1 pair of fancy shoes to wear a couple times in 10 years?... that's not worth selling my time for.. to me..
and yes i admit ive got no class/style you cant dress me up or take me anywhere.. ill admit it..
just a few different takes on it all.
peace | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 5:53:50 PM |
but,Namaah..... the Government is ours... you seem to have trouble understanding this small point..
but Beachhippy, you seem to have trouble taking that next step of logic....You said you didn't expect people to develop a conscience about rorting the government...which...is us. So in effect you don't mind some people rorting other people. And see, I do. I do mind some people rorting other people and feeling no sense of conscience. And if you look back at some of the info about tax payers I posted earlier, if anyone is rorting the government (whether by taking money when it's not really necessary, or failing to contribute) then it's not about rorting big companies or Kerry Packer, it's about rorting average people.
46.2 per cent of the tax burden is paid by those earning in the $25,001 to $75,000 income range, which is 63.7 per cent of taxpayers.
Direct taxes
* $142 billion (includes personal income tax $98.7 billion, company tax $36.3 billion)
You probably think you come across as very compassionate by condoning people rorting 'the government', but what you are condoning, in essence, is some people effectively denying other people help because they took what they didn't need, or failed to contribute. You are condoning theft of money that should rightfully be given to people in genuine need, or, not be taken in increased taxes from the average working stiff to replace the shortfall. It's actually not a compassionate perspective at all. That's the small point you seem to have trouble understanding. | |
|
| |
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 6:57:02 PM |
nice twist.... so welfare is theft now?....mmmmm
Ummm no... this is the theft....
why should the average joe getting a few hundred a week between jobs off the Gov get a conscious..?
I think you are the one twisting what is being said. I said
You are condoning theft of money that should rightfully be given to people in genuine need, or, not be taken in increased taxes from the average working stiff to replace the shortfall. It's actually not a compassionate perspective at all. So how you manage to comprehend that as me saying "welfare is theft", I have no idea.
Clearly you want your view to be seen as 'for the people', but you are equally being 'against the people' with what you are condoning, because if you condone theft from the public purse (whether by condoning taking money that is not needed, or failing to contribute appropriately), you are denying genuine recipients and taxpayers who subsequently have to pay more. But continue to misquote Kerry Packer and make this about 'them and us' if you will. I just don't happen to think it's a particularly useful perspective. | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/14/2009 8:10:29 PM | 46.2 per cent of the tax burden is paid by those earning in the $25,001 to $75,000 income range, which is 63.7 per cent of taxpayers.
And Im not arguing with you re your.. human/financial interaction..
but on this point...low income earners...$25,000...(well gist.. I ain't an accountant)..
well as I said I'm out of date since govt changeover re tax brackets/percentages.. not sure if some went down?
The $25,000 though.. is wayyyyyyyy different to higher tax brackets...
for eg.. $25,000 (without any claims.. to reduce taxable income)..
take $6,000 off.. nooone pays tax on that..... + $19,000...
and yes what Im quoting is a year ago... I will catch up once all the tax reform has taken place..this is an eg.. and dosent include kid rebates..http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080706042711AAgFxA8
Does anyone know the rate of tax return when your a individual and temporary resident? would i claim all may tax? my total gross income is around $18,000 to $19,000.my tax is around $5,500 i just started working last January because i just got here in Australia last December. any accountants or anyone who know's this please help me out......thanks..
the information about yourself is quite limited to produce the tax implication in regard to your situation.
Before determine what is your tax rate, it is important to work out whether you are an Australian resident for tax purposes.
If you are an individual, holding a temporary resident visa, staying in Australia more than 6 months, working in the same place and live in one place, and you intend to take up Australian Residency in the future and live in Australia permanently, YES...you are an Australian resident for tax purposes
(in case, some of these above requirement do not meet, you can assume as they do. According to your situation I think it is possible to get you in of the Australian resident for tax purposes)
If you are considered an Australian resident for tax purposes, your tax return would be...
assessable income = $19,000
Deduction = nil (yes, if applicable)
Total taxable income = $19,000
Tax on this income = ($19,000 - $6,000)*.15 = $1,950
because your taxable income is less than $30,001, you are entitled to low income tax offset of $750
Total withheld = $5,500
Estimated tax refund = $5,500 + $750 - $1,950 = $4,300.
(disregard medicare levy and related claim as more information is required).
So, to answer your question based on the information given, u cant claim all your tax withholding. the minimum u can claim is the amount of $4,300.
Hope this answer help.
Source(s):
http://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/64131.htm
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm
so as an eg only.. ^^^^ cause its prolly outta date...
so theortetically they would get most of any tax back.. ie.. $5,500 they paid.. take the $4,300 they got back..== a total of.. $1,200 paid in taxes..(on $19,000).. The tax on $25,000 would be ? 17%?.. used to be.. so 25take $6,000=$19,000=$2,500..less $750=...$1,750..... without rebates or refund on tax paid..
dosen't include any kids.. deductions etc..
tax does my head in...(only egs.. not accurate taxation)but the gist of amt of refunds.. and tax paid.. (would pay for a coupla potholes.. ..no where near schooling etc..)
sure pollies.. get this.. for petrol money?...maybe?
What I find unfair.. is... its not across the board.. in what.. different industries can...
claim..not claim...
ie Kerry taught us all.. indirectly.. setting up..or buying a co.. off the shelf.. (once thourourly investigated/clean from liability etc.. you pay co tax.. plus.. either family trusts.. different tax rates.. have all income get paid to a company then draw your wage from there.. heaps more tax breaks.. tax rates etc.. if over a certain tax bracket).. but of course.. its probably changed..
and will change.. bloody confusing.... just an eg though.. I know people in much higher tax brackets who know legal ways to minimise taxincome... kids/spouses.. etc...
ohh gawd tax does my head in.. and why I pay my accountant..
! politician tried to fight the unfair benefits pollies get.. re pensions ..tax free things etc.. he tried to refuse to take the benefits..(I can't remember his name.. )anyhoo the other pollies told him they are not giving the perks up.. so accept it.. he also apparently couldn't refuse it..
I will try and find his name...mandate.. but he too saw how unfair it was was the average person taxation/.. as oppossed to the pollies.. having a totally different.. rules.. in tax free monies etc.. ...
go figure..
peace | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/15/2009 3:09:06 AM | I think its too easy for people that are employed and financially stable to point the finger and look down on people on welfare. Sure there are many out there that cheat the system and have no intention of getting a job but that doesn't give anyone the right to assume that all people getting Centrelink benefits are lazy.
Try living a few months in the life of a person that needs these benefits and you may start to think differently. The people that lose their jobs because of the financial crisis, having to live on $450 per fortnight when money needs to be spent on food, petrol, bills, rates, insurance etc etc......the carers, the disabled, the homeless, the list goes on and on. More money should be spent looking after the needy instead of throwing away taxpayers money on frivilous projects like freeways, sports stadiums, sporting events (F1 Grand Prix)......what about the 50 million dollars spent when the Queen came to visit the country a number of years ago?.......the government wastes money every day. | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/15/2009 5:30:47 AM | I think it's interesting how a few people have chosen to quote world/French history to support their theories of why the Government may be paying "hush money" to keep the mob at bay.
That's not Australian history. Remember the Eureka Stockade?... that's right... Aussies tried to mob together against unreasonable upperclasses too... only to have ther bosses call up the military to fire upon it's own people.
But then again, that's also where our culture's value of mateship and a fair go for everyone comes from... and also the birth of the ALP, tall-poppy, and a deep "us vs them" mentality between the middle and the upper classes.
See, the economic reality of Australia up until the last decade has been one that's almost completely dependent on a couple of primary industries - mining, agriculture and wool. In essence, Australia was making a crap load of money, across a huge piece of land, with a tiny population.
So, natrually, security was a very big issue, and back then, it was very much a matter of strength in numbers... Anyway, you get the idea... More people were needed, a standard of living must be maintained, there was plenty of land, and plenty of money to go around, the government just shot a bunch of people, and everyone's feeling a bit of guilt... Hence our current level of welfare.
Anyways... that's the reason we have so much welfare... the reason for this post?... well... Namaah* has already said all the intelligent things about this topic anyway, so I'm just flaunting my random bits of knowledge, trying to look intelligent....
Oh, and to make a point that the welfare system we have up until now has been born from legitimate needs to bind our society together and grow as a nation. As we enter the 21st Century with the advance of technology and a new knowledge based economy, we have a chance to move away from our reliance on the primary industries, and the need for such a generous welfare system will soon reduce significantly.
*yeah, I know Namaah isn't the only one who said something intelligent... but Nana doesn't want me hitting on her anymore, and Photoman, Scholar and Julian aren't quite as pretty... | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/15/2009 5:47:58 AM | I have read most of the posts on here robfish and I don't think anybody said that "all people" on welfare are cheats or don't deserve it. Please read more carefully. As for the government "throwing away taxpayers money on frivilous projects like freeways, sport stadiums......"
Well the "frivilous freeways" are what take us working stiffs to where we work so some of us can generate an income and pay the taxes to support the others. As for the sports stadiums, well the people that pay the taxes should have some say in how they are used. So if we have a desire to be entertained by watching various sweaty people throw things at each other then that's our choice and the government, who we elected, do as we tell them.
I don't agree with big spending on visits by overseas government leaders but don't tell the Queen that, remember 'they' still lay claim to this island we live on. If you have any doubt on that then I refer you to the top left corner of our flag.
yeah, I know Namaah isn't the only one who said something intelligent... but Nana doesn't want me hitting on her anymore, and Photoman, Scholar and Julian aren't quite as pretty...
Torvold, now Julian and Scholar I can understand, but ......... | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/15/2009 7:33:14 AM |
The $96 billion spend on social welfare presumably includes all payments? Like staff costs.... and aged pension, disability support, carers, unemployment, sole parents etc etc so it would be interesting to see what percentage of the $96 billion is being payed to lazy people.
Half? A quarter? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?
Yes, good point. Obviously we have no idea because if we knew who it was who was rorting the system, well then, they would no longer be receiving benefits and rorting the system, and then this thread would be sort of…… empty.
some few people who exploit the system at a cost that is probable smaller than that of trying to stop them.
Nooooooooo (she is agast). The cost of pursuing the rorters is one we have to bear for the deterrent effect and to maintain community confidence in the system. Each time a welfare cheat is caught out and put in jail (and it happens every day) it has flow on effects – leverage if you like. The court cases and sentences when being reported are brought to the attention of the community. This causes those who are contemplating doing the same thing, or already doing it, to reassess the risk that they will get caught and face the consequences. Some will decide it isn’t worth the risk and some who are already rorting the system will call Centrelink and lodge a change in circumstances.
when,, for every potential "rorter" of the dole there's probably a business somewhere rorting the system and it's workers for 10 times as much?... at all levels...
So if business does it then it’s ok for individuals to do it too? What if an organised syndicate robs one of the major banks? Does that then make it ok for individuals to go and rob their local flower shop?
More money should be spent looking after the needy instead of throwing away taxpayers money on frivilous projects like freeways, sports stadiums, sporting events (F1 Grand Prix)......what about the 50 million dollars spent when the Queen came to visit the country a number of years ago?.......the government wastes money every day.
For sure the government wastes money every day, bucket loads of it, but you aren’t suggesting that makes it ok for people to defraud the government? Are you?
And ……..um……freeways are frivolous?
I live in a community where.. nooone would starve..unless theyre pride let them.. people who will give up their job for a couple weeks..to someone who needed it more
Now THAT is a community.
I hope we always have a compassionate society that recognises the intrinsic worth of all humans by supporting those that need the help of others. And I really wish that we could increase benefits to a level where those receiving welfare were free of the stress of having to ‘do without’ to make ends meet. And if there weren’t people taking from the public purse that weren’t entitled, then there would be more money to do just that.
Thanks for the welcome Naamah, I thought I had kicked the forum habit forever…..but dammit…. it seems the 12 step program didn’t work for me. Maybe I’ll try patches next time. 8-) | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:59:25 AM |
And ……..um……freeways are frivolous?
Yes, too much money is being spent in this area. Maybe more time needs to be spent on improving the public transport system rather than throwing away millions of dollars on a temporary fix (congestion). | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/16/2009 4:46:59 AM |
Maybe more time needs to be spent on improving the public transport system
Get out!
Im not using a bus....only mong's ride in buses. | |
|
| Is the government making people lazy?
Posted: 10/16/2009 8:29:30 AM | well... Namaah* has already said all the intelligent things about this topic anyway That's quite a compliment coming from one so intelligent himself. 
and the need for such a generous welfare system will soon reduce significantly
So, curious...what's the prediction then? How will it start, over what timeframe, etc?
And I really wish that we could increase benefits to a level where those receiving welfare were free of the stress of having to ‘do without’ to make ends meet. And if there weren’t people taking from the public purse that weren’t entitled, then there would be more money to do just that.
Now that is what I was getting at. There are two sets of people being rorted when rorting goes on...genuine recipients who miss out as a result and everyday taxpayers who end up paying more as a result. And acknowledging that is wrong is actually more accurately 'for the people' than condoning rorting of any kind. More power to ya MyForumSite.
And ... it's the Hotel California principle...you can check out anytime you like, but.... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
