OK Yabby lets have a look at this Welfare Budget of $80 B – not your stated $90 B.

There are 2.7 million Australians on some form of government support - up from a million a decade ago when the Howard Government took office.

The paradox of welfare under this Government is that it has boosted spending on electorally popular "middle-class welfare". Massive subsidies on private health and child care, baby bonuses and cash handouts for self-funded retirees have been paid to millionaires and paupers alike.

Andrew McCallum, President of the Australian Council of Social Service says: “I think that the Treasurer's actually provided a very good welfare budget, but most of the welfare goes to those earning over $100,000 a year.

I mean, they've done very well out of this. They've lost their super tax surcharge, and in a couple of years they'll be paying virtually no tax at all. The top five per cent income earners really have done very well, while those on welfare are really going to be punished.”
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1364604.htm

This means that one of the biggest beneficiaries of the latest budget has been people like Col Rouge – if his boasts are to be believed.

A complete perversity that sees taxpayers subsidise braces for middle-class children while poor people can't afford to see a dentist!

Now Col I have never suggested “punishing” tax rates. I have simply pointed out the rort that is negative gearing. GST is really where excessive taxes hit hard. Having been on low income and paying the same GST as those on high incomes is hardly equitable.

While you would probably rather see people starve, a welfare safety net is simply a necessary part of living in a democratic humane society. I have had personal experience of welfare. It is very depressing and demoralising having to claim for welfare, however I would’ve lost my home without it.

Australia is a wealthy country by any measure. How it treats all its citizens is a measure of its humanity.

Scout “the rort that is negative gearing”

If someone were to invest in shares instead of houses,

The income (dividend) would be assessable for tax, just like property rental income is assessable for tax.

If they were to borrow funds (commonly called leverage as well as Gearing) to buy those shares, the interest they pay would be a valid cost to offset against the assessable income, just as the interest payable on real estate is offset against the rental income derived from real estate. Basic Australian Tax Law.

If the shareholder disposed of the shares at a profit or a loss, the gain or loss would be assessable for capital gains tax, just like real estate.

“Negative gearing” is not a rort, regardless of your personal view which seems to come down to “people should not be allowed to prudently conserve their resources by holding investments”.

You might be happy with government savings bonds being the only form of deferred consumption but for a lot of us, such notions display the worst of nanny-state interference in things which government should not be squandering their time, effort and our tax dollars on.

“Having been on low income and paying the same GST as those on high incomes is hardly equitable.”

You pay GST on those things which you choose to buy and not on those things you do not buy. People who choose to spend more on goods and services will pay more. If you do not like spending so much on GST, I suggest you take control of your spending.
Try saving something for your old age, like I do.

I suggest , invest where you can get a good but reasonably safe return. Real estate is an excellent option (lower volatility than Shares).
However, if you have money in Superannuation funds, you are already a property and share speculator, what do you think of that?

I am “balancing” my strategies. Something else which whilst reasonably secure (lacking in risk), offers far better returns (a “niche” opportunity but sorry, I am not sharing where or how).

Scout, I kept the FR supplement about the 06 budget. The forecast
is 91.7 billion for welfare. Another 40 billion for health,
18 billion for defence, then 17 billion for education. Voila,
just on those, the majority of the federal budget is spent. 75%.

Yup, they are giving more assistance to workers who earn less,
I don't have a problem with that. A wise Govt helps people to
help themselves. Most on welfare could help themselves a bit more.

If I was unemployed, I can think of 100 ways to make a living.
A mop and bucket and "Yabby's Cleaning Service" would open tomorrow.
People want their gardens done, lawns mowed, pets taken for walks,
handyman repairs done, houses cleaned, etc. etc. the service industry is endless. Babysitters are in big demand, now thats not really hard work, anyone can do it.

So IMHO, alot of the welfare story is simply about attitude, its not for lack of opportunities out there.

Considering the % of expenditure spent on welfare in this country,
yup its generous. Now you can argue that those with kids should get less etc, my point is that if you look at the big picture, Australians on welfare are doing ok. If I had toothache, I'd soon find a job to pay for a dentist. If you don't like the conditions that employers offer, so start your own business. You are an intelligent lady, with lots of verbal skills, as you have shown on here.

Sorry Col,

Perhaps I should have clarified it for you – by inequality I meant “social or economic disparity” (Collins English Dictionary). Must have been one of those pearls you were talking about!

I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make with your example of services in remote areas (or in fact any of them). I suppose all those people who live in country areas do have the choice to move to the city. We could all then just grow veggies in our balcony gardens and shoot pigeons as they fly overhead.

In fact why not just invite the world’s entire population to live here so they can access everything we have. No clean drinking water in Africa? Come to Melbourne, we have the best in the world. No health services in Iraq because we bombed all the hospitals, get over here and get your medicine yourself. You people “chose” to have your infrastructure destroyed. Get your arses into gear you slackers!

There is something amiss with your logic about the “opportunity for equality”. I think what you are trying to say is that we all have the opportunity to rise to a level of “equality” of material wealth (and personal development), and that those who don’t have squandered that opportunity. Following from that logic, if we all took the opportunity that supposedly exists, then one of the consequences would be that there would be no investment properties, we would all own our own home and wouldn’t need to rent. Not only that we would all be able to live in a mansion on the North Shore, or in Toorak. Another consequence would be that, say we all ran our own business, there would be no employees. If we all became our own boss, there would be no-one to collect rubbish, clean toilets, work in a mine, work in a factory etc. because if you had a choice you wouldn’t do those things for a living. Who would build our mansions? I would actually really like you to explain how you conceive that this would work.

Cont...

Of course we shouldn’t discourage sportspeople to do their best, but we don’t need to pay them millions while others starve - particularly as they are not actually producing anything which is useful to humankind (entertaining maybe).

Being considered tall, requires the existence of short people. Without them, a “tall” person is just whatever height he/she is.

I believe it was Isaac Newton who said “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”.

I didn’t suggest that the state should be the arbiter of equality, I said it exists to police inequality (i.e. social or economic disparity). If you don’t agree, tell me what you think would happen to the economic disparity if there was no state, no laws, no police to protect private property, no capitalist ideology pumped out to us justifying a situation where a minority of people have access to all the benefits of human endeavour while the majority starve by calling it “legal” and therefore “honest”? No “rule of law” to fall back on.

Col

1. You are comparing apples with oranges by trying to claim negative gearing is just like buying shares. Negative gearing is a manipulation of the system. Deliberately setting up a loss to make a claim on tax. It is a loophole that should be closed.

2. GST. I do not make 'choices' with regard to electricity, water, gas etc. These are essential services and incur GST. Originally GST was supposed to be a 'luxury' tax - it is not it affects everyone irrespective of income.

Yabby - The $80B is from current budget. If you want to indulge in petty point scoring stick to Meg1.

While I agree some people can do more than they do to earn money - not everyone can just pick up a mop and go cleaning. I know I don't have the physical capacity anymore due to a chronic illness. As I pointed out in previous posts the majority of people on welfare ARE trying to get off it. Again I will point out that it is a small minority who are indeed bludgers - they will always exist. Why should the majority be penalised for the few? Why is tax fraud virtually ignored? Why are penalties lower for white collar crimes than other crimes?

It is very easy to pick on people who are powerless and vulnerable to exploitation. This attitude of 'I'm OK, so anyone who isn't must 've brought it on themselves' is only one step away from sociopathy. You have stated yourself that we are social creatures, why when it comes to welfare do you approve of corporate and middle class welfare and wish to deny it to low income people?

If you are going to claim that the welfare budget is too high, then I suggest you look at the entire picture rather than focussing low income people.