Peter, how we define poverty appears to be the nub of all this. I guess on one measure (global poverty) we are all in the Rockerfeller bracket and should be happy not to go hungry every night (tho I suspect alot of Australians do just that). Income seems to be the measure adopted by you and others. I wonder if housing affordability, access to dental care, decent schooling, a hospital bed when you need one or simply having some time to spend with your family and friends will ever get a look-in when it comes to determining how "well off" we are. Some people tell us we've never had it so good. I wonder "Is this as good as it gets?" If so, we are all the poorer.

The definition game (relative and absolute) is quite well known in economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

One thing is certain however; Peter Saunders suffers neither.

If we forget for a moment the definition of poverty and just look at what is happening in Australia at the moment. We are seeing a reduction in real wages for those at the lower end of the income spectrum due to WorkChoices, an increase in house repossessions, mortgage repayments which constitute a good portion of our take home pay and a record number of people seeking help from charities.

It is all very well to get tied up in defining poverty, but lets look at what is happening around us. Living in middle or upper class suburbia sometimes blurs and distorts our view of what is really happening in other parts of our communities.

Are there some people on disability pensions that could work? I am sure there are, but lets not make the rules so stringent that genuine cases are swept up in the quagmire. The recent case of the woman undergoing chemo for leukaemia and penalised for not turning up for an interview is just one example.

The number of carers has increased because of the lack of services for the disabled, the mentally ill and the aged - forcing more people to leave work to care for their loved ones on a meagre benefit. We may not like to think of it but there are people scraping by who do need some help and to waste time on definitions is superfluous, we all know that economic indicators are not worth the paper they are written on...I don't know anyone who really believes that CPI is a true reflection of the cost of living.

What a hate-filled article. I can tell you right now that a diability pensioner will live below anyone's definition of the poverty line. This will then include also all full-pension aged pensioners. Working off this alone and ignoring those that are on carer's pensions and sole-parent pension's (as they get FTB as well which all helps), using the author's figures and assuming that around 1/2 of the age pensioners are full receipients, then we have 700,000 + 1,000,000 = 1,700,000 people on poverty pensions. This equates to around 8.5% of the population, well above the estiamtes given by the author. Not to mention that diability pensioners and age pensioners generally dont get off their pensions.

Also, consider that the disparity highlighted by the author of the record-low unemployment levels, plus record high welfare dependancy really shows up how the unemployment figures have been manipulated by the changed reporting standards - more people have been moved off the unemployment registers and onto other welfare.

On the otherhand though, when we are looking at incomes, we should really be considering disposable incomes. Family tax benefit in particular is not taxable, so for most people that receive it, $5000 in benefit really equates to $7200 of "earned" money. Not that this makes a massive differencem but it all contributes, particularly when the benefit is being received for several children.

You would expect a spokesman for the Centre for Independent Studies to promote small government.

20% of Australians live in poverty. Most Australian workers would be plunged into poverty if they were not paid for 2 pay cycles, they wouldn't be able to make mortgage / rent payments, pay for their car loan.

Do we want to be like America where the fastest rising social class is the working poor, people who work multiple jobs and remain in poverty.

While we continue to have privatised job placement services which distort the market by rewarding agencies that place long term unemployed in short term positions we will fail to plan for future labour needs and fail to develop effective programs to address long term unemployment.

The only way that "real" incomes have risen "at all levels" is against inflation figures that are as arbitrary as the "poverty line".

When inflation models cars and consumer electronics but ignore basic foodstuffs and housing costs, it reflects a level of affluence that only some of us enjoy.

If you're in that bottom 11%, or even in the bottom 30%, it's a fair bet that all your income -- whether it's from the state or from your wages; these people don't have investment income -- goes on everyday basics: rent, food, transport, and supporting addictions. The wealthy barely notice those expenses, and enjoy the dividend of the high dollar by importing luxuries.

It *is* scandalous that two million working-age Australians depend on welfare. But not because they don't deserve assistance from the community. It's scandalous because the assistance provided does not sufficiently help them to help themselves. Welfare should create flexible employment opportunities for the disabled and home-carers, not pension them off. As things stand, unemployment benefits, parenting benefits, carers' benefits and the disability pension are direct payments of money (NT Aboriginal recipients now excepted, for no good reason), and impose a loss of income as the individuals concerned begin to earn a livable wage (or as their children reach school age). The welfare trap is real, and its teeth are sharp.

Welfare requires reform that springs the jaws of the trap and provides peoples' needs, including the need to participate in the social and economic life of the community, rather than just providing an income. People on full benefit in Australia are not profoundly cash-poor, but many are dependent, despondent and prone to dissipation.

Commentators have learned to decry "middle-class welfare", as though support from one's community is something to which only the very poorest are entitled, while at the same time begrudging the assistance given even to the most needy. Why not just bring back the poor-house, lock them up and force them to work for food?

All welfare should be middle-class welfare, because everyone deserves the rewards of belonging to the middle class.