What a refreshing read! I did not realise that we are allowed to say those things in public.
Thank you, Mr Jones

Great article. Very well said.

a refreshingly honest article, a delight to read. In the movie, The Pursuit of Happyness, the father usually managed to get a roof over his head and for his son, too, but technically he'd be considered 'homeless.' But I'll bet you London to a brick he wasn't 'hopeless.'

Just so true.

It's all too easy to pontificate from the wilds of Queenstown, where rents and power bills are almost the lowest in Oz!?
Try living on just 50% of median income in Sydney, then write the same head in the sand article!
Both the conformation bias and the Sergeant Schulz Syndrome seem alive and well in tiny Tassie's western wilds?
Profiting from disadvantageousness, would be a lot more fruitful if we but eliminated disadvantageousness. This single and easily achieved outcome would quite massively boost discretionary spending and with it the badly under-performing domestic economy!
The article is fundamentally flawed, inasmuch as, it essentially argues for further reductions in the discretionary spend?
It's also like saying, we don't have enough money in Australia, to buy all Australian land?
If the better off took a haircut from over-leveraged overvalued assets, rather than artificially prop up land prices, with mostly borrowed foreign capital, more of us could afford homes and or farmland?
Instead of bleating about possibly a couple of hundred people allegedly rorting the welfare system? Name and shame just one?
Perhaps we could improve the welfare budget, and the economy boosting improved discretionary spend that would follow; just by entirely eliminating all of the welfare for the rich programs?
Negative gearing, as just one glaring example, costs the taxpayer in excess of five billion per?
And the now common practise of setting up subsidiaries in offshore tax havens; and then outsourcing massively overpriced service provision to them, costs the taxpayer, as much as 100 billion per?
Yet we seem to ,with our tiny minds and selective myopia, focus only on how we can rip away a few more miserable cents, from our most disadvantaged?
That said, we really do need to lift the tax burden of the backs of a diminishing pool of taxpayers!
To see how that might be done; read some of my earlier posts; given, I'm likely right up against word limits here?
Rhrosty.

The only people that actually profit from disadvantage, are the money hungry money grubbing landlords, that pack people ten to a room, in run-down ruins? Individualism writ large and loud!
Or the pay day loan sharks, with their one hundred percent plus interest rates. More me first and foremost individualism writ even larger and louder!
Or those middle men profit takers, who contract out piece work, to single mums or non English speaking recent arrivals, working dawn to dark in home garages; and helping themselves to most of the money, just for running a middle man shuttle service? [Ain't individualism and free enterprise just the most?
Why some of these self made men, were even born in the very log cabins they created, with their own bare hands!]
Or the second hand car shonks, selling often rebadged and or, unsafe rust bucket death traps to the unwary, or those that simply cannot get credit anywhere else. Yet still need their own wheels to actually get and keep a job!
All of which simply entrenches; and or, worsens real disadvantage!
There's so much more I could add, but I suspect it would be less fruitful, than casting biblical pearls, before biblical swine?
[By their fruits ye shall know them!]
Rhrosty.