To Dnicholson/wizofaust.

I did not say that all poverty is caused by stupidity, but from my former front row seat in the disadvantaged class, it sure looked like most of it was. Some people (like my mother) may become poor because of circumstances beyond her control, but such people can overcome adversity and can climb out of it. Welfare should be a helping hand to get people back on their feet, and I did see that process work with many people.

But what you and Johnj fail to understand, is that within a large section of the disadvantaged class there does exist a culture that considers it “smart” to not work. The two authors of this article we are commenting upon would never address that issue because they are too busy attacking white western society which they apparently despise, but choose to live under.

Another very good reason why poverty is increasing in prosperous Australia is because people like yourself have decided that we do not have enough poverty, so we must import more of it. Around 30,000 “refugees” flood into this country every year looting our social security systems which none of them have paid a penny towards its upkeep.

If you wish to reduce poverty in Australia, you don’t need Socialism, just stop importing welfare dependent and crime prone people. Next, remove social security support from criminal repeat offenders. The concept of paying drug addicts, car thieves, housebreakers, and armed robbers to steal from the public while they reside in public housing, is obviously idiotic. I know you will claim that they will steal to survive, but they do that anyway even though they now getting supported by the public they prey upon. All of these people are capable of working for a living, they just choose not to do so.

Here in Sydney, every cashier working in petrol stations is a Pakistani “guest worker” on contract. Do you seriously believe that with 500,000 “Australians” out of work, that we need to import cashiers from Pakistan?

redneck, then how *do* you propose to keep the "stupid" out of poverty?

I understand perfectly that there is a class of individuals that consider it "smart not to work". But as I've said before, for every person in that category, there are two others who genuinely do need welfare to give them a platform from which to become genuinely productive citizens. The former is a very small price to pay, given the benefits of welfare. Further, even if we could accurately identify true serial dole-bludgers and cancel their welfare payments, in all likelihood their aversion to work is ingrained enough that they'd rather turn to begging or stealing, which would make us no better off.

And as far as criminal repeat offenders go, again, taking their welfare away is hardly likely to the make the situation any better.
I might be prepared to examine possible benefits of a scheme to replace cash payments with food/clothing stamps for such cases, but out of sheer self interest, I'm not prepared to live in a society where criminals are 100% dependent on theft just for the basics in life.

Regarding refugees - I agree that if we are not able to adequately provide a mechanism for refugees to avoid poverty once they are here, we shouldn't bring any more. However, I believe Australia *is* wealthy enough that it can afford to support these people at a level above internationally-accepted definitions of poverty until they are on their feet and making their own way in life.

And no, I've never believed we truly *need* imported labour. But one has to wonder why it is that those native unemployed aren't prepared to take up jobs like service station cashiers.

Wizofaust, how is it that you expect me to come up with the solutions to poverty in Australia, while you think that your role is to simply sit on the sidelines and criticise?

The article by Anne Turley and Cath Smith claimed that it was “unconscionable” for a wealthy country like Australia to have serious poverty, and they urged all governments to work towards eradicating it. They are asking why Australia has endemic poverty, and I am giving the reason why.

The first thing to understand about poverty is that most of it is caused by stupidity. Stupid people are usually poor people, and stupid poor people are prone to gambling addictions, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, welfare dependency, criminal behaviour, drive like idiots, don’t worry about their health, don’t brush their teeth, eat fatty and salty food, breed like flies, and have poor impulse/ self control.

In other words, my dear Wizofaust, poor dumb people are a pain in the arse. And they cost smart productive people a fantistic amount to keep them. You can toss all the money you want at stupid people and they will find a way to waste it. The Federal government is building thirty new houses in Wilcannia for the local aborigines because they trashed the last lot of free housing.

I don’t know of any peaceful way to “cure” stupidity, other than to pay dumb people not to breed, or invest in research into in vitro Eugenics. But one thing is for sure, we have to stop importing stupid people into out country who are members of ethnic groups notorious for their welfare dependence, criminal behaviour and terrorism.

Social security is this nation’s costliest budget that dwarfs Defence, Education, Health and Scientific Research, and to even suggest that taxpayers must keep pouring oceans of cash into this financial black hole, when the only result of the trillions of dollars of welfare spending in the last forty years have been to increase poverty from 1 million to 2 million, sounds idiotic to me.

What's your solution? More taxpayer money?

Redneck, I don't believe that there is a significant percentage of human beings that aren't capable of being productive, useful citizens. It makes no evolutionary sense that this would be the case. OTOH, there are many people whose talents are not particularly valued by modern society, or who never get the opportunity to develop them.
For the unfortunate few that genuinely suffer mental or physical retardation to the point that they realistically can do little to contribute towards their own well-being, then those of us who can pay our own way are doing ourselves a big favour by contributing a small amount of our incomes towards looking after the underprivileged: firstly, because it gives them the best chance of contributing where they can, and not being forced to result to behaviours that would be far more damaging to society, and secondly, because we are human beings, and everything single school of ethical thought in existence (especially Christianity) is quite clear that a fundamental part of one's humanity comes through one's efforts to care for the less fortunate. Thirdly of course, there is always the very real possibility that you yourself may end up in such a situation one day, at which point I would expect your current attitude might change very quickly.

I see no evidence at all that the cost of welfare is any sort of drain on the standard of living for the rest of the country.
Indeed, there is almost something of a reverse correlation internationally - countries like Norway and Sweden with very high welfare budgets are doing quite nicely, while many developing or struggling "third world" economies have very limited, if any welfare expenditure.
The only apparent "exception" to the rule is the USA, which has comparatively low welfare spending, and a high average salary. But that average salary is a very misleading figure, because it is artificially boosted by a small percentage of people who earn exceedingly large salaries, and if you instead compare the incomes of the middle 80%, the USA no longer fairs so well.

Well Wizofaust, if you “believe” that all human beings are capable of being productive, responsible citizens who will gladly contribute to the common good, then I can only conclude that you have lead a sheltered life and have no conception of what it is like to live in a Housing Commission area where dole bludging is a serious lifestyle choice.

As a person who spent my childhood down the wrong end of town, I have a more realistic and jaundiced view of human nature than you do. International news crews have routinely visited high welfare dependency areas like Nimbin NSW to make TV reports to wide eyed foreign TV audiences who have been treated to the spectacle that Australia is willing to allow tens of thousands of working age young people to go surfing every day, and bludge on the Aussie taxpayer with impunity. One British student even wrote a pamphlet for his fellow students entitled “How to holiday in Australia, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.”

No wonder every welfare dependent minority is determined to barge uninvited into Australia.

Your “belief” that Australia can afford all this needs a bit of work also. Leaving aside the fact that our public hospitals are a disgrace for lack of funds, that people are being killed driving on sub standard roads, that our scientific researchers are leaving Australia in droves because research funds are practically non existent, emergency housing is at crisis point, and our ever shrinking army could not repel an invasion by New Zealand, the fact remains that two working age Australians are now struggling to keep one other person on welfare.

That we have managed to do this for so long is a testament to how productive some Australians are and how wealthy our country is in natural resources. But it is impossible to keep adding to the welfare queues forever without serious opposition from the very same productive people who are being treated like the Golden Goose by people like yourself, who think that the capacity of productive people to carry loafers is infinite.

Redneck, might it occur to you that your experience growing up has given you an unrealistic impression of just how many "unproductive" members of society there really are? Sure there may be tens of thousands, but out of a population of 21 million, it's not exactly a massive percentage. Further, I was talking about inherent ability to be productive. If you genuinely believe most dole-bludgers are too "stupid" to be productive, then given that I assure you no-one is going to support any sort of eugenic or forced sterilisation program, you need to provide a realistic solution. If, OTOH, you believe that most of them are *capable* of being productive, but choose not to be, because welfare is too easy to obtain, you need to demonstrate that reducing their welfare is realistically likely to inspire them to go out and get themselves a job.
As far as insufficient funding for hospitals etc. goes, well I agree entirely. The reality is that Australia's taxes are among the lowest in the world, and if we want decent services, and a safety net that is effective enough to prevent the type of entrenched poverty that exists in countries without one, then forgoing endless tax cuts would be a good start (polls seem to indicate most of us are willing to). Of course, there's also a lot of taxpayer money that disappears into bureaucratic blackholes, or gets spent poorly on questionable corporate handouts, which if rationalised would also make a good deal more money available for more essential servies. Further, our healthcare spending could be significantly reduced by looking at preventative measures: encouraging better diets and lifestyles, keeping people out of cars and off the roads as much as possible (road trauma costs about $6 billion a year, not much less than half than what is spent on welfare), and, as I mentioned in another thread, the fact that many terminally ill patients are being kept alive against their wishes doesn't help either.