“After two decades of being told, by major parties, that in order to help the economy the poor would have to make sacrifices, the debate has finally shifted”.

Is this right? I think that I follow most things fairly carefully, but I cannot recall either of the major parties saying such an horrendous thing.

“The first thing about low-income earners is that they don't spend much on imported cars and overseas holidays, which means less of the government's injection ''leaks out'' of the domestic economy”.
Just what is a low income these days? I know of a couple who have just returned from an overseas trip; regularly ski in New Zealand; own to imported cars, and have a good standard of living generally. They manage this lifestyle on $24,000 a year because they don’t owe any money: they knew how to MANAGE before they stopped working, and know how to MANAGE now.

Many people living purely on the age pension do alright, too. Simply because they knew how to MANAGE before they stopped working and do not owe money.

Now we have people relying on government age pensions who ‘need help’ because they did not MANAGE their money before the retired, and cannot now MANAGE their pension money. They have no practical priorities, and they do no budget.

We even have people these days thinking that they can retire and continue paying off a mortgage! They probably shouldn’t have had a mortgage in the first place.

...continued

...continued

The Rudd Labor Government, also unable to manage money, are going to ‘help’ these people out because they know they will go through the handout like a dose of salts and make retail figures etc look good for the Rudd Government, even if only for a short time while they (the Government) frantically try to find a way out of the mess.

Although the author gets this last point right, he doesn’t address Government cynicism, and the fact that is now clear that Australian governments, like all other governments, do what looks best for them.

Wealth does trickle down to the so-called poor. If it were not for the wealth generated by investments in industry, income tax paid by the ‘rich’ and the myriad other spin offs of wealth creation, there would be no ‘government’ pension. And, it is NOT the government’s money it is blithely ‘redirecting’ – it is the ‘rich’ people's - including those people the author describes as “…free marketeers … currently in retreat or in hiding…” Governments do not have money of their own; they take it (rightly in most cases) from those ‘awful’ ‘rich’ people.

While the money paid to bank CEO’s and others is outrageous, it has nothing to do with people who cannot manage the money they have.

As for the reference to unemployment benefits, there are nearly half a million people unemployed, while the government is still bringing in immigrants: another example of government mismanagement.

I agree with Richard Denniss. The disadvantaged in this country are
being used by the government to push the economy along.
Banks make money from the poor and everyone else. A few commentators argue that the poor will go out and buy plasmas and other types of electronic equipment and because of this they should not receive "hand outs". Actually this is exactly what the government want. It's not much good giving the poor an increase and in turn they put it in the bank and hoard it. The only ones who will gain from this is the banks and the poor.
Where we live in the western suburbs I say to the commentators the government has done well to give the poor extra money. How on earth are the big new shopping centres going to stay open and keep a work force paid so that they don't have to go on unemployment benefits. I say well done to the government for looking after the taxpayer, and the poor will be eternally grateful.

Mr Right IS right. I am living quite reasonably on the pension, but then, I don't owe any thing to anyone.

I'm not sure if I will ever be able to save enough to get the house painted, when it needs it, or buy a new kitchen, or a replacement car, but then, I'm not sure I should expect it to.

For these future expenses it would be nice to be able to quarantine some capital, [exclusively for this type of expense], & still get the full pension, but I can see the difficulty there.

One thing that does need real, & serious attention, is the problem of council rates.

If rates keep growing at the same percentage of income, as they have for the last 20 years, they will exceed the full pension in about another 15 years. We must stop these idiots spending so much, & restrict the rates increase to half inflation.

If this causes them money problems, they could close their planning departments, & save all that waste. I have yet to see anything that came out of a planning department that improved even one persons quality of life.

I agree with you, Mr Denniss - the focus has at last shifted to where it should have been all along. The beneficiaries of this change of focus will be the entire population, not just the people forced by circumstances often not of their own making, in receiving a little extra in their fortnightly pension. Lord knows, I can't see anyone skipping off to Monaco with their proceeds, but the local shops will certainly benefit, and as the retail industry is one of Australia's largest industries, then the flow-on will occur. I cannot see it being anything other than win-win.

Many people are ignoring the long term problem here.
We all know that interest rates are dropped in bad times, to stimulate the economy, and then increased in good times, to slow it down.
Well if pensions are increased in bad times, to stimulate the economy, then they will be decreased in good times, to slow it down.