Kay, I want to commend you on your efforts and attitude.

One thing I am always struck by is the difference between my parents generation and the latest generation.

My mother knew how to cook, grow vegetables, sew, knit and a host of other important skills. My father learnt how to do plumbing, renovations, woodwork, car repairs and much more.

These skills they were taught and learnt of their own bat were crucial in raising our family of 4 kids on a single, relatively low income.

Today, I have friends who don't know how to cook, or even do their own laundry, let alone sew, garden or renovate. Somehow our society has moved away from learning these skills and so instead rely on paying someone else to do so.

Most people aren't in poverty in Australia, they just spent too much time watching TV (and other leisure activities) instead of learning the useful skills that help you avoid paying someone else.

I agree with Peter Saunders quite strongly as I have said this very thing before. Redefining poverty to inequality only serves socialist ideology.

Peter Saunders by arguing differing definition of poverty far from clarifying the issue muddies the waters. I am not sure what his intentions are, but they seem to be to reduce the levels of income support to people who have little or no income or are the working poor.

Instead of attacking business when they receive grants, tax breaks or other subsidies he take aim at the most vunerable and says its time to go it alone. Instead of offering the poor a better job or training or other assistance he advocates leaving them to capitalist market forces which will either kill or cure them of their 'attitudinal problems' and presumably their state of poverty.

Saunders in his second paragraph says 'logically there are only two models either the capitalist model or the socialist model. Why cannot there be other models or a combination of both which exists at present?
Perhaps we could adopt the U.S. model where private prisons hold a greater proportion of the population. Many of the inmates of which are there due tyo the failing of the unfettered capitalist system. I think not this is Australia and the grass is not greener in the other paddock.
One of the particular thing thats gets up my nose about these so called 'independent' think tanks is that they are not independent. They as has the Centre for Independent Studies got a particular point of view that they wish to propogate. The centre want to promote a right wing agenda where a capitalist society is free of government intervention.

Perhaps the consultants at the centre of independent studies could try some of there own medicine, live in rented accomodation and try to survive on $200 dollars a week, a typical amount of centrelink income support

tus Hi there. Haven't seen you for ages.

Now if you read my post without your blinkers on you might have understood that I said it first. But I'll say it again in more simple terms for you. Low income earners in Australia are poor only if they feel poor. Do you get that?

Now what is about Peter Saunders view of the world and the way it functions that would let anyone (except superior people like you and me) know that they can choose whether to be poor (because they can't afford NIkes) or fashionably quirky and cool (by buying Dunlop Volleys)?

Trust me, I also do not regard myself as poor either (and I bet I earn less than you) but I understand that it takes some insight and not just 'common sense' for many people to grasp this point, when the most salient aspect of success in our society is the ability to consume conspicuously. Got it this time?

And Saunders group is one of the most obvious sources of the idea that increasing wealth equals increasing happiness.

I don't think Peter or any of the other people who have supported his argument say that more money equals happiness.
He said that many people spend beyond their means and I said that people who prioritise wants over needs are misguided.
Kay put it best - you don't need lots of money as long as you are willing to put in some effort, forgo a few luxuries.
Plenty of people live on what would be considered a low wage, but they are happy.
you were spot on about the Volleys though - but apart from the fashion, they also have great grip for when you clean out the gutters on a tile roof. I'm too poor to hire a professional you see, but I enjoy the sunshine on my back - one of life's pleasures that doesn't cost a thing ;)

t.u.s

Agendas. Doncha hate 'em? Aramis1 thinks Peter Saunders has one, but I suspect that Aramis1 has one too.

"I am not sure what his intentions are, but they seem to be to reduce the levels of income support to people who have little or no income or are the working poor."

I read it as a fairly straightforward assessment of our somewhat squinty-eyed view of poverty. Poverty is an emotional concept, especially as it is a word that can be used for other forms of deprivation - cutural poverty, emotional poverty etc. Relative disadvantage is a completely separate matter, and should be treated by society in an eyes-open manner, if society considers it to be sufficiently important.

"Instead of attacking business when they receive grants, tax breaks or other subsidies..."

Your agenda is showing, Aramis1. You dislike private enterprise, but forget that by receiving "grants, tax breaks or other subsidies" businesses are able to employ people, in exchange for money, which they can then use to keep them from poverty. It sounds as though you are happy to keep a lot of people in "poverty", just so you can rage against the machine...

I'm right, aren't I?

On my 70K a year I'm not able to wear $300 jeans and own a 5 series beemer. Nor can I live in an inner city pad and eat out every night. Though I know there are many others out there who can afford those luxuries and more so I guess I should feel a sense of disadvantage? Luckily I have my priorities right and I know that I'm lucky to have what I do so I really don't give a stuff about what those above me are spending their money on.

You have to ask where it will end. In 50 years when people are travelling to the moon on sight-seeing trips will the poor bludgers who have to settle for the Bahamas be living in poverty?

Good article Peter.