Belly, I generally agree with you. But what percentage of those 42% that rechtub is talking about do you think are 'bludgers' or are guilty of welfare theft? I would much prefer making sure that the truly needy aren't falling through the cracks, and they do fall through, especially with programs designed to try and eleminate the bludgers. I have seen it so often, every time a new 'initiative' or policy is enacted that is supposed to target those you so dislike, many more who don't deserve it cop the collateral damage. Again, not a hypothetical.

Maybe you should direct your anger at rechtub, as I cannot see what your problem is with me.

I DO have issue with not being able to call Gibo, Richard Cranium, but butcher can be called rectum...

What's with that?.

Here are my points
1. I don't brand everyone on the dole or welfare as a 'dole bludger' I do however feel that as a provider of the dole by way of taxes, I am entitled to expect that the recipients be in a state that would not hinder their ability to either find work or comply to industry requirements. Anyone have a problem with that?

2. CJ, the capitalist hater states that I offer a sub standard property for rent. For this I get branded as a 'slum lord' What he/she fails to recognise is that this sub standard property also attracts sub standard rental income. So where is the problem here I ask?

3. The article at the centre of this thread is factual. It appeared on the front cover of the weekend Australian and clearly states that some 42% of families contribute less in taxes (including GST, stamp duty etc)than they claim in financial benefits. Effectively, they are a drain on the remaining 58% who prop them up AND pay ALL the bills.

Now can't you all see that if this were not the case that our seniors, most in desperate need, would be better off if there were not so many mouths to feed.

Now I say to anyone who is in this 42% group. If you have elderly parents that are in need of finacial assistance while you sit back and collect walfare then shame on you. You should hold your heads in shame as that is as un-Australian as it gets.

Many of the elderly went without, fought in wars and lived like animals all so they could provide us with an education and a better life than they had lived in their younger years.

Remember they are our forefathers and this is their hour of need! We can't help them if we keep spending the cash.

Buggys, you say :they are less likely to be running a meth lab out of your lower end rental property

Then you say : the potheads ( they often have and alternative source of income),

So please explain what their alternative source of income is if it is not drugs?

rechtub, the article is merely at the start of this thread, it is by no means at the "centre" of it. That 42% (of families) is not the "unemployed" or pothead sub-group, they constitute only 5% of the population. That 42% is not "sitting back and collecting benefits at the expense of the elderly" at all, that's only your take on it, a pretty simple one at that. That you deduced that potheads can sell drugs as an alternative source of income when needed was very clever of you. Mind like a steel trap I can see, you had better be careful, it might go off and snap your neck.

Go back and read the story: the figure in Paul Keatings time was 38%, gee we had a real trouble with the junkies back then didn't we? And it just got worse as the economy got better, now it's 42% and the unemployment rate is less than 5%!

Oh and you may want to look into what the definition they use for "family" is: "The definition of families includes all of the nation's 9.754million so-called income units, including couples with children, single parents, singles, childless couples and the aged."

And to further the analysis: "The Melbourne Institute's tables suggest a clear welfare bias has operated towards couples with at least one parent in work." Pardon us for getting rebates for having children, clearly that just isn't on. We should just make sure that both parents are working, because thats what it takes to pay most rents these days (unless we live in a shack 2 1/2 hours away from the city of course).

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24381570-601,00.html

Your little rants about dole bludgers and drug-users in the context of these articles are, to say the least, misplaced.

rehctub: << CJ, the capitalist hater states that I offer a sub standard property for rent. For this I get branded as a 'slum lord' >>

As a small business owner, I'm hardly a "capitalist hater" - but I will admit to an antipathy towards slum landlords in general.

From Wikipedia:

"A slumlord (also spelled slum lord) is a derogatory term for landlords, generally absentee landlords, who attempt to maximize profit by minimizing spending on property maintenance, often in deteriorating neighborhoods. They may need to charge lower than market rent to tenants. Severe housing shortages allow slumlords to charge higher rents.

The phrase slumlord first appeared in 1953, though the term slum landlord dates to 1893.[1]

Traditionally, real estate is seen as a long term investment to most buyers. Especially in the developed world, most landlords will properly maintain their properties even when doing so proves costly in the short term, in order to attract higher rents and more desirable tenants in the long run. A well-maintained property is worth more to potential buyers.

In contrast, slumlords do very little maintenance on their property (ordinarily, just enough to meet minimum local requirements for habitability), and in turn offer low rent rates to lure tenants who will not (or cannot) pay high rent (and/or who might not pass background checks should these be required to live in the higher rent areas)."

I particularly dislike those slum landlords who suggest that low income earners who pay no net tax, as described in the article in The Australian, are bludging off the system. Many of those who are in this situation are families with several children and one breadwinner who receive more in family benefits than they pay in taxes due to their low incomes, and rehctub's attempt to characterise them as dole bludgers and drug addicts is contemptible.

Mind you, his stereotyping is probably based on the kinds of tenants he attracts to the substandard housing he rents out.