Fencepost,

you write, "The crucial question though is whether the support levels are adequate to maintain folk in some kind of adequate life and dignity."

Dignity is hard if you depend on handouts from a capricious government agency which requires you to jump through new hoops every few months. Some justify it to themselves on the basis that their time is spent doing something worthwhile for which they deserve to be paid, whether it earns them a wage or not and whoever pays them; others are resigned to dependence or see it as normal; many more are simply humiliated.

The fact that the dole *is* enough to live on -- in squalor -- merely draws tight the dependency trap.

And as for whether anyone can contest the author's basic point; the point he wants to make is that the government should spend less, not more, on welfare.

I disagree profoundly. Wherever people remain physically incapable or psychologically dependent, it would be cruel to reduce welfare payments. Material welfare, in the form of practical assistance to people who could support themseves in different circumstances, is hopelessly inadequate.

The only good way to reduce the total welfare budget is to reduce the number of people who need payments, not the amount the needy receive. And the only way I can see to achieve that involves a large short-term increase in ancillary spending.

Realist,

It's nice that housing is a proven performer for small investors without significant 'risk' capital. Unfortunately the incentives and tax breaks given to encourage investment in housing apply not only to small investors, but also to big ones, developers and speculators. As a result, housing is somewhat overvalued in comparison with truly productive investments; indeed there is quite a bubble which, while it may subside gradually, may burst at any time. Why should negative gearing apply to large-scale housing investments but not to sound business finance? Why should people earning $20,000 a year in wages pay income tax, when there are people who have that much and more in rental income that they write off against mortgage interest?

Fencepost, it is not true that the percentage of the population earning half the average income is necessarily greater than 0.
For example, take:

3000000 households earning $30000/yr
4000000 households earning $50000/yr
2000000 households earning $70000/yr
1000000 households earning $100000/yr
100000 households earning $500000/yr
10000 households earning $10000000/yr

Mean household income = ~$58000/yr. Number of households earning less than half of mean income = 0.

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is something Australians don't understand but I DO sense the shock is that we are about to learn.

ie: Wheat Markets. To grow for food or grow fuel? GADS. Even if one could decide, WHERE do we plan to get the WATER?

Do we blame this on Climate Change, or do we blame it on the indices lacking in the national conversation?

We spend so much time bagging one another that we fail to hear the parts that might help us problem solve.

Childcare: Why is it that Europe and Asian communities understand the gift of lifestyle?

Schooling. Why do we blame the children and teachers for the erractic learning curves, the schoolyard bullying, the disconnected support links(shrinking) between community and schools.

Crime. Why don't we embrace the knowledge of those dealing with the problem. Household disturbance, drugs and the rest.

Welfare agencies - treated like idiots, stressed to the nines- expected to pick up the human pieces.

Woman. Equity urgently required. Our gender politics has gone backwards.

Share the Burden AUSTRALIA.

This show is not all about money, about whose got it and who has not. It is about our respect for eachother . We need to improve our inter-relationships.This is the real cultural and politcal poverty.

While we spend our time playing two-up, we will continue to undermine what we know about our national experience.

This is where the hard earned dollars are wasted.

Credit goes to those who realise this is not a game. Politic's is about everyday life. Australia has a diverse population with a diverse knowledge base. We need to utilise all of it.

Our networks are breaking down, our communities are "shrinking". I believe our critical intelligence is being undermined by our own bias.

Are we just a bunch of hot air "whingers" or do we have a ear and a eye on the way things might be in the future?

Do we care?

http://www.miacat.com
.

In Australia there is no such thing as poor. The only thing that is poor is the choices that people make. The government system is not perfect, and true, some abuse it, but its fair none the less. Greed is ripping this world apart, and you know it. The rich are getting richer and the poor don't even get the picture anymore. In all, you can put it down to the food chain. We still have long way to go before we grow up. I am sure in some past post I said we are still in the dark ages. In universal terms, we think on the level of a five year old. Think about it! WE still throw tantrums, we still fight over crap, and paranoia is now the new disease. I guess I am alone with these thoughts, but I will tell you this! My world is in Peace. Maybe one-day, mankind will help all, instead of its singular self.

"I invite the author to try and survive on $14,000/year or less - and find out what poverty really is."

You miss the point Tristan. There are hard working people who trudge
to work every day for 6 months, for that kind of money. They do
their share, they pay their way.

Others on welfare, get it easy. No alarm clock, no rushing off to
work, pile 6 in a house and the rent becomes quite affordable.
The Morning Show waits on tv, life is a breeze.

Personally I'd rather see their payments cut back, so that those
who work for 6 months for similar money and pay their way, pay less tax and are not
lumbered with taxation by those who get it easy and don't appreciate
the fact

Bronwyn,

The definition of unemployment as being less than one hour’s work a week has not changed since 1960. It is not determined by the government, but by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in line with international definitions. Here is the ABS account of unemployment measures: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2006-07/07rn18.pd