I am not completely disagreeing with you Yabby in that I also believe people have to take personal responsibility but where the government comes in is that they are elected to represent all sectors. This means creating equal access to opportunities that allow people to help themselves. If people don't 'grizzle' then democracy fails us, it is up to us to let the government know if we believe money is not being spent in the right areas.

Naturally you cannot please all the people all of the time but a government should not selectively serve one interest group at the expense of all others. We have to make governments accountable, you can call it grizzling if you like.

I saw that show about the pensioner with her $8 toothpaste but if you listened she had no choice but to buy the Sensodyne as it is the only toothpaste she can use due to a severe allergy. This was explained clearly on the show as well as why she needed to buy vitamins.

Gambling is a big problem and while it makes money for the operators it can be devastating to the addicts and their families. I don't know what the attraction is to gambling (or smoking or binge drinking) myself but it is a huge problem and there are many charities now providing financial and personal support to both the gambling addicts and their families.

*We have to make governments accountable, you can call it grizzling if you like.*

Pelican, I fully agree that discussion is a good thing, thats
why I take part in a forum like OLO.

OTOH when people go on and on about the Govt solving everything
for them, I think its not a bad idea to point out that the
best person to help us is ourselves. I see plenty of people doing
it every day and doing well.

I have no problem with Govts helping people to help themselves.
But I also know the realities out there. If I want work done,
there are any number of people on invalid pensions, offering to
do it for cash. I've been told by various others, that if they
are smart enough to screw social security out of the system and
avoid working, why should they not do it? That kind of
pisses me off, as I'd rather see more money spent on those who
are prepared to get out of bed and have a go, but just don't get
paid much.

Some of the people screaming loudest about wanting more from
Govt, are in fact quite selfish IMHO. For many of them feel
they have a right to screw the system if they can and feel
some kind of entitlement to a cushy lifestyle, at the expense
of the rest of us. Sorry, but I disagree with that ideology

I agree that there are those that will always exploit the system and will not behave with honesty or integrity.

A good system would have failsafe mechanisms to reduce these incidences but I know nothing is perfect. The difficulty is in trying to balance the rights of the genuinely needy with checks and balances to prevent abuse. This is not easy, maybe in a society that believes in the welfare safety net we have to accept that sometimes some will get away with it. If someone came up with a system that would prevent this we could sell tickets.

I don't want people out there exploiting the system and making things harder for the honest hard working people out there. I am with you on that one Yabby, but I don't want to see people who for no fault of their own are struggling beyond what we would think fair.

I have had a grand idea for reducing inflation - what if we link politician, executive, CEO and public servant salaries to CPI just like pensions are and then those who are really spending the money will be curbed. Inflation controlled. (tongue taken out of cheek now) :)

Pelican, the present rise in inflation is going to be more difficult
to contain, for its causes are global and quite different.

For the last 50 years or so, commodities got relatively cheaper
and cheaper over time, to the point of the ridiculous. In the late
90s, oil was down to 10$ a barrel for instance. Australia was
considered a backward economy, for relying on commodities.

What has now changed is that the easily mined stuff is largely
gone. Its not just oil, its from oil to phosphates to gold,
to you name it. Things like oil and phosphates are built into
our every day costs like transport, food etc. Somebody has
to pay for the increased costs and the question is who?

The same now applies to carbon. Introduce a carbon tax and
somebody has to pay. Companies won't pay, they will pass it
on, for they won't operate at a loss. If you want electricity,
fuel, food etc, it won't be there if people are making a loss
providing it. In a sense we are now paying a price for having
driven commodities down to ridiculously dirt cheap prices for far
too long.

More and more, we are seeing pensions not as a solution, but more
as a safety net for some. Our wealthiest generation on average,
are in fact the grey nomads/ oldies. They have sold their businesses/
farms, own alot of shares bought for a song a long time ago,
own ever increasing real estate. Its not uncommon for them now
to own houses worth over a million $, purely through the good
fortune of their location. Many have superannuation, but not
all of course.

Given all these assets, its only fair that taxpayers provide
a safety net, but if they want to live it up, its only fair that
they tap into their lifelong accumulated assets, rather then
leave the kids filthy rich one day