The debate always seems to be about what people should receive if they are not as fit and able as others.

I see around me, people working full time jobs with disabilities while others are on a full disability pension.

They are quite capable of shifting to a job in their career path that avoids their “disability, better for all.
I have met in recent times, people who have the most distressing disabilities, and they try, and in some cases succeed to support themselves.

A “quad” with some use of one hand
Blind and fully employed.
Born with server disabilities, and makes a contribution.

Should they make a contribution for, to there standards, a pension for the fit and healthy?

If so, why
If not, then how do they not have to pay?

Then it begs the question with some people I know in the work place who suffer terribly, but continue working to support those “in need”

So are the proposed changes bad where it will mean relativity able bodied people have to work?

A disability pension should be for those that can’t make a contribution, not those than don’t wish to.

><(((º> Tomlinson, as usual, raises important questions about the welfare (yes that dirty word again) of ordinary Australians attempting to survive in a rapidly changing social and economic maelstrom.

><(((º> No doubt each of the questions he asks about the Howard governments reforms (and let’s not forget this in the context of the deathly silence of the 'opposition') will be played out over the next three years.

><(((º> People will suffer and unfortunately no recourse will be available.

><(((º> The 2007 federal election will be an election between two factional dogs fighting over one ideological bone. The new poor will be demonized and wedged.

><(((º> The rich will not only get richer they will ensure they remain richer. And unfortunately, John Tomlinson will be lauded as the prophet that no one wants to listen to, anymore.

Dunart, do you work in the public service, how come you are surrounded by people with disabilities that have jobs? That's great, where is it in Australia? Or is it in Telstra City, New Dehli. I've worked most of my life in plentiful cities and could always find work, but I'm office multi skilled and willing (and able) to travel.

This govt wants to get everyone off their butts and working (unless they're in labour - not labor!) so the next budget doesn't look like a bedsore (it won't be a pension next time around, it'll be a jar of vegemite per family) regardless of the fact they are moving jobs offshore, downgrading industrial relations etc. Where are the jobs these people, (especially disabled) are supposed to take up? Where are the employer incentives? Be very wary. Sounds like a great idea in theory. So did communism. But the communists mucked it up. Of course the capitalists wouldn't dream of doing their own nest. But hey, I'm just Molly the Pony! As long as I can buy my bows and ribbons - two legs good!

Rainer, what's with all the wavy things each post?

Hi di

I am not in the public service, but self employed.
I have met these people as a person that likes people and single these days. Friends or fiends of friends.

I used to employ people, but the system as costed them out of my reach, so have structured things to minimise the need for employing people.
It ends up they receive more than me, so what’s the point.
I work harder, and have the capital at risk.

The incentive I need to employee someone, is

• Profitable for the business
• No chance to be taken to court by a employee when I do it right
• Find an employee that will treat there job as though its there own business.
• Reduce labour requirements when have less need, without having to pay for the reduction

The disincentives we have are
• Unrealistic labour cost’s for the business income
• Huge regulation cost’s, they have to be payed for.
• I am guilty, even if the staff disobeyed a direct instruction, and caused an injury as a result.
• Can not reduce staff numbers when my business income takes a massive drop.

Australia is living well beyond its means, more than $1,000,000,000 (billion) per month now for over 25 years.

• That has to stop some time, then what?
• What’s wrong with a person in India, getting a job? (without un-employment benefits)

• Why should I, as an employer be required to subsidize employee wages?
• Who pays for the cost of regulations you talk about?(cant subsides your self)
• We have been creating a greater social wage for 50 years, creating a situation where,”richer get richer”, so lets continue doing this?

Maybe its time to rethink where we are going?

Maybe the urban productivity has to improve, instead of decline as it has. Yes I know the system tell us that productivity has improved, so why the higher prices for secondary products, and even bigger increase for tertiary products? (Relative to primary)

Let’s rethink instead.

Thanks for the post back Dunart, and establishing your position. There is a bit of a curates egg in being an employer and an employee. Both sides of the coin are Kings Head down. As an employer, I don't think I should pay for an employee where I've got nothing for him/her to do. It's throwing money away. And I won't even go into maternity leave payments (not discrimination - can't have your job back - mind you, just the fact that any employer, unless the father, should have to pay for anyone's pregnancy). But, if you employ me, your responsiblity should be that you have figured it out enough that there is enough for me to do 38 hours per week. And if you havent, I shouldn't have to scrub the toilet to make up the time (unless you have employed me as a cleaner). So, where do we go? casual where employers pay more and there is a disensentive toward loyalty? Not to mention security. I think the times are a changing, and as an ex union officer, the whole industrial relations has been on a mad pendulum for a long time. Employers freak out about unfair dismissals. If justified, it really is the easiest thing in the whole system to do. Every employer wants his/her employees to be honest, faithful and hardworing for their wage. But at the end of the day, don't forget, they don't reap the profits (if any). They just get paid a wage and if you want the flexibility on your end, (no business today, sans wage) the employees don't make the decision to close the doors on your business. It's hard to make a living out of a small business in this climate, let alone paying someone to stand there on your behalf and get paid. But as an employee, I'm still entitled to getting paid for you wanting me there.

Hi di,

You sure have established your position as

• I wont do any do any other work to help be productive while things are quite.
• You wish as an employee to share the profits the capital investor receives for his risk, but not the losses they are also libel for.
• You have entitlements, but seem to forget about the person who is offering you a job. What about his “equal” entitlements?
• In reality, it is employees that can make decisions to cause a business to close its doors, or need to reduce the staff numbers. They do this by demanding increased share of the gross, meaning it may not be worth the risk capital wise. Remember it could be your super fund that is making the investment
• Employees have huge buying power, and shifting their purchasing to another company means staff reduction needed.
• This could be because the employer is trying to do the right thing, meaning higher costs, but the employee’s are spending down the road.

If it’s so easy to make ends meet as an employer, why don’t you do it?

Would you like to talk about the billion $ plus a month loss this country overspends?
Would you like to talk about how you can subsidize yourself?

Now that would be interesting?

Regards