Bruce I see we can agree about government only setting conditions for business to do the job supplying.

However than you go way wrong. It does not matter what tax system you have, the money it collects takes it out of the productive hands that generated & earned that money.

You can't get it from the dropkicks, the only money they have is what was taken from a productive person already.

You can't get it from mining, we are already killing that goose now. It was nice while it lasted, but the bludgers reckoned they should get more of the spoils. I wonder when they will realise a bigger percentage of nothing is nothing, where a small percentage of a lot is a fair bit. Our golden egg laying geese are fleeing as our costs speculate beyond anything viable for them.

We see the dreadful jealousy of Gina. All the bludgers want her money. But she is exactly where we need the money. She reinvests & reinvests in productive enterprise, employing thousands. Give it to the bludgers the academics & the public servants, & it will be pissed up against a wall, even if that piss smells of chardonnay, it will do no one any good.

We have to reduce welfare to those who really deserve it, no longer give it to those who want it, & they should have to do something for it.

We can see with our middle east disabled, that for so many it's a
scam. It is time to seriously prosecute the doctors who are helping these scams.

My lady is a councilor, & was as big a bleeding heart as Foxy. However 2 years dealing with the long term unemployed had resulted in a huge change. She now knows most of them in this district are a waste of space, & money.

Hasbeen,
I can't dispute a single word in your post and, you've inadvertently offered a solution for the likes of Foxy. They should get out of their cosy offices & become councillors. That would be a greater education for them then they could ever hope for from their Uni. Imagine getting at least some understanding from exposure to real life ? They could really surprise us with posts that make productive sense, why perhaps even with a whiff of responsibility thrown in.

Unfortunately hasbeen, telling it as it is here on OLO, the truth, simply gets shot done by the do gooders.

I would go one further than you and say that all welfare should be quarantined and, if the recipients don't like it, tough sh1t, get a job.

The whole unemployment situation has been amplified by Ms Julia Gillard, while employment minister, when she went on her crusade to implement the highest minimum wage to low skilled workers, many of who are pretty much unemployable, especially now give our costs are so high.

As you quite rightly say, welfare should not be a way of life and, so many today adjust their lifestyles so as to make ends meet on welfare, with pumping out babies being one example, evidence being in the number of unwanted kids roaming our streets.

Welfare needs to return to basics whereby it's a 'hand up' not a 'hand out' because as long as it remains a hand out, there will always be exploiters.

Bah humbug, can you honestly say that all those exec's on multi-million dollar packages are EARNING that much cash? BS!
They rarely even work, they delegate, and go to lunch to "network", for which you may read "conspire and gloat".
I was the son of one and Chef to many, I've listened in on their conversations many a time, with disgust!!
What of our esteemed pollies?
Why does our PM get MORE money than the president of the USA?
What justification is there for their golden benefits for LIFE, and their widows after?
When you give money to the poor it goes on the odd luxury, roses for the soul, but mostly on necessities, and it is in general circulation, NOT tied up in the stock-market or a Swiss/Caribbean tax-free account.
The Trickle Down Effect has been long discredited, making the rich richer only ensures the poor, us, get poorer, there's only so much actual money to go around, and it was and IS the wealthy playing games with it that has lead to all our financial collapses from the Great Depression onwards.
Cont':

Why does our PM get MORE money than the president of the USA?
G'day Bruce,
It was Rudd the dud who raised the PM salary by $200,000.- after he took over from Howard.
As I have said many times on OLO, public service pays should not be so high. We need a salary ceiling for that quick-smart.

Cont':
As for this...
"However than you go way wrong. It does not matter what tax system you have, the money it collects takes it out of the productive hands that generated & earned that money."
When the wealthy accumulate large sums it isn't they that produce it, it's the workers, the consumers, they are basically parasites, not welfare recipients. Yes, there will always be cheats, the poor ones may get away with a few thousand and the Gov pursues them relentlessly, at high cost, yet when the wealthy cheat they get away with MILLIONS, and the Gov doesn't chase them at all, if they get sprung they either do a deal or the Gov' changes the rules to accommodate them.
Money gathered as tax is SPENT, returned to circulation, not hoarded as you apparently believe. It is the wealthy who tie up the money, us less well connected SPEND it, circulate it, and that pays for jobs and small businesses, a multi-million dollar stock portfolio pays for nothing, except a few dodgy lawyers and accountants, who usually take it out of circulation themselves too.
The simple fact is that with computerisation and modern technology there is NOT, and never WILL be, enough jobs for the whole population, the unemployed and disabled and seniors are with us permanently, blaming THEM for their position is ludicrous and totally unfair. Following your logic we'd do better just to execute the lot, that would be "fiscally rational", wouldn't it