Yep, a fair go Aidan.

However it is not a fair go to expect a checkout chick on less than $35000 after tax to pay even more so some disabled, or anyone else on the public teat, can go swanning around university, with $168,000 tax free to spend on their fun. Four times the take home pay of many workers who fund the welfare bill is ridiculous.

"However it is not a fair go to expect a checkout chick on less than $35000 after tax to pay even more so some disabled, or anyone else on the public teat, can go swanning around university, with $168,000 tax free to spend on their fun."
Ah, you're whingng about something that never happens!

Some paralysed people need constant assistance, which is very expensive. But it is (rightly) paid for by the government. The money is there to cover expenses, not to spend on fun. And university study is not swanning, it's learning; usually with the expectation of being able to subsequently use what they learn to make money.

And when exactly did the government raise the lower rates of taxes? Or was the bit about paying even more just empty rhetoric?

" Four times the take home pay of many workers who fund the welfare bill is ridiculous."
Not when your needs are so great that multiple people are needed to attend to them. Fortunately most disabled people's needs can be met far more easily.

If they are that disabled Aidan, they won't be swanning around universities. If they are swanning around universities, they should do it the same way able bodied do it, or stay home, & reduce their drain on more useful folk.

Quite right there too Hasbeen!
We should surely not spend money on people who are a 'drain to the system'.

So we need to stop paying out ALL welfare payments then?
Including the aged pension and sickness benefits?
You can meet all your other retired mates for coffee down at the soup kitchen each day...

Hasbeen,

As I said, they're studying not swanning.
They should do it any way they can.
Your failure to acknowledge they can BECOME more useful folk shows that you're not willing to give them a fair go.

I am an average fairly healthy 55 yo and I pay a staggering $729 per month for my trauma insurance, which means if I need funds for treating a situation that occurs then provided the insurer cant weasel their way out of paying I should be ok. I pay less than that for my Harley.

The point is insurance is an option for most people and if people chose to go without then that's a personal choice. Furthermore, if the indulge in life style choices that make them uninsurable, then that's also a personal choice.

Of cause there are those who are disabled through no fault of their own and they have to be catered for. But if $168,000 is a true figure, that's ridiculous. But it would be typical of that stupid Gillard to leave such an unfunded mess.