Yabby seems to assume that those on pensions such as disability pensions by definition make no contribution to their own well being and therefore are totally reliant on taxpayer-funded handouts. A moment's thought on the subject would show that this ain't necessarily so, though it often is, depending on individual circumstances. If a person can make no contribution to their own welfare, is Yabby's inference that there should be no social security? Let's be clear about this, Yabby. Do you support a social security system and if not, what is your suggested alternative? And by the way, you also say that 'governments do not provide anything, other hard working taxpayers do.' Apart from the condescending attitude displayed here, when was the last time a taxpayer contributed taxes directly to a social security recipient? Last time I looked, it was government agencies that distributed pensions and provided services.

Scout, I perceive a different perspective. There is absolute poverty and relative envy. They are different propositions. One goes without, the other goes with less than whomever it is they compare themselves to. Perhaps it is a moot point but not without merit.

Julie, thanks for your article. The issue of the level of poverty in Australia is an absolutely critical one.

Up until now, all kinds of previously unthinkable degrees of misgovernment have been ultimately forgiven, three times so far - in 1998, 2001 and 2004, largely because this Federal Government has played again and again and again, as its trump card, the claim that our living standards have increased since it has come to office, and this claim, until now, at least, has never been seriously challenged.

The latest incarnation of this argument was the statistic, endlessly repeated during last years controversy over the introduction of the Industrial Legislation 'reform' legislation, that everyone's wages have 16% on average since this Government first won office in 1996.

Even though the social welfare lobby tries to make much of the fact that the wages of the poorest have not increased by as much as the wages of the wealthy, experience has surely shown that this argument has not carried much weight with public opinion. If this Govenment's policies have truly made everyone wealthier even if not by the same degree for everyone, then the corollory is that if the Government's policies had not been implemented everyone would be substantially worse off.

I think this single factor may go along way towards explaining why this Government is now, again, ahead, 52% to 48%, on the two party preferred basis, in the opinion polls according to today's Newspoll (see http://tinyurl.com/bbvly), up from 47.2% to 52.8% on 27 December.

Your article goes some way towards giving a more accurate picture of poverty in Australia, but I think it could have gone further. You make some valid criticisms of the CPI, but the true picture is far worse. As just one of many examples, CPI figures have NOT even included the massive increases in the costs of housing for some time now.

I have run out of space here, but I have gone into this in more detail in another forum in response to a piece of nonsense written by Peter Saunders of the CIS. (see http://tinyurl.com/9w4ka).

If I were a Master Of The Universe, how would I go about setting things up?

I'd arrange matters so that my wealth increased at an ever increasing rate (stock options, bonuses, golden handshakes, etc), and then keep myself silent and keep news of my affairs out of the public’s view, so that the Good Folk Of The Land invariably filled the silence with their verbalised wonderings about why they feel poorer, even though the official stats and indices (that my empire publishes) prove that they are better off than many others around the globe, and better off than their parents were. On a good day, I am even treated to the deluxe spectacle of seeing the Good Folk savaging each other as they seek out culprits to blame for their perceived plight.

I'd generally laugh all the way to my tax haven, whilst leaving the Good Folk to wonder at how to divide up the scraps I left them, as if they could enrich their lot by finding some smarter way to carve up their (ever shrinking) portion of the pie. Meanwhile, I am free to corner for myself the wealth that they generate in my name, sometimes pitying them for not realising that they live in a world of plenty, if only they were smart enough to claim it or wrest it from my clutches.

The way to keep an elephant bound to a small plastic stake in the ground is by learned helplessness (http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html).

"Do you support a social security system and if not, what is your suggested alternative?"

PK, sounds to me that you have jumped to your own conclusions, which have little to do with what I wrote. In answer to your above question, I support a system that helps those who cannot help themselves, I don't support a system that helps those who don't happen to feel like helping themselves. Big difference.

In answer to the second part of your question, no its not about being condescending. Its about empathising with those who work hard, get out of bed, go to work and pay their taxes. The many battlers.
You are correct, they don't directly pay those who don't feel like
doing the same, that does not mean that their hard worked for $ are not given to those who don't feel like getting out of bed in the morning.

Yabby,

Haven't you heard about mutual obligation? The system where people pretend to look for work and the Govt. pretends to pay them. I think newstart allowance is about $200 per week. The only way to exist on that in metro Australia is to stay in bed.

Do you really believe the unemployment stats? 1 hours work = employed.

It is easy to blame the victims and espouse the dole bludger myth.

The cost of living for the poor has risen disproportionately to that of the rich is an undeniable fact.