Welfare, introduced as an old aged or invalid pension around the turn of the 19th century was introduced to provide support for seniors with those eligible receiving around one quarter of the average annual income.

Today, there are all types of hands dipping into the cookie jar as welfare covers a much broader range of recipients from single parents to seniors and almost everything in between.

When you have a system that not only pays one to have children, but then supports the children that the parents most certainly knew they could not afford to provide for, the question must be asked, how long can such a system continue before either the payers of this system, they being the 58% of tax payers that pay positive taxes, or the distributors of the welfare dollars, the governments, simply run out of funds to hand out?

Do you really think it is fair for someone to have children, knowing full well they can’t support them, then expect someone else to foot the bill?

Where is this going to end?

The system is necessary as is in a hope that these kids you are supporting will grow up to be taxpayers and support you in a later time.

Rehctub asks

'Do you really think it is fair for someone to have children, knowing full well they can’t support them, then expect someone else to foot the bill?'

If we have money for sports, we have money to burn for the environment, we have money for Women's Affairs, we have money for drinking and gambling, we have money for immigration, we have money for the Arts, we have money for public servants to fly around the world on junkets constantly, we have money for the fauna, we have money for abortions,we have money for tourism, money to bail out banks and business so I really think spending a bit on our most precious resource (children) is money well spent.

Dont forget the money spent on the military.

Without welfare we could all join our comrades in china and india working for 50 cents an hour. Welfare is a safety net that affects the wages and conditions of all our workers. If there was no welfare there would be a race to the bottom as employers took advantage of the desperate and lower wages would eventuate across the board. Not to mention the increase we would see in crime.

How would you like it if some "dole bludger" came to your boss and offered to work for half of your current salary? Your boss would jump at the chance and you are now screwed. You will have to make a better offer and become more and more competitive price wise. Remember labour is just a commodity like any other and capitalists will always try to reduce their costs including what you cost them as a worker. Hence why they are all moving to china where the workers are only one step above slaves.

Welfare should be a minimum safety net for all and not handed out madly to every Tom, Dick and Harry. It should provide the basics of life and allow one to live without having to resort to crime or eating dogfood. It should not be given to people who work or for having children or to landowners. It should be reserved for the sick and disabled, the old and the idiotic, children and maybe for veterans especially traumatised and wounded ones.

I also personally think you should have to work for your dole money. Not full time but to an amount of hours commensurate with how much benefit you receive. In most cases 1 or 2 days per week. Make it flexible and useful. No painting rocks or building trails to nowhere. Maybe even extend it to other forms of community service like bushfire brigades, surf clubs or meals on wheels type things. They are always looking for new members to help out. Get rid of all the monkey tricks and visits to Centrelink and proving you looked for work. As long as you dont have a job and did your required activity you would get paid. This would act as more of a safety net than it does now and it would save millions in wasteful and humiliating Centrelink processes and actualy provide useful and needed community improvements. Paying people to sit on their bums and watch tv or surf forums like this is bloody stupid and self defeating. It encourages and facilitates sloth and drug taking, obesity and other harmful habits that are hard to break and make going back to a normal working life very difficult indeed. The unemployed would be seen in a different light if people knew they were working for their pittance each week. Even more so if some of their work for the dole projects actually had some benefit to the community.

Sadly it wont happen because then who would the politicians have to demonise and whatever would tabloid tv and the shock jocks do without their sensationalist bash a dole bludger stories.

P.S. what is it with this word limit. Why is it only 350 words? Sorry I need more.

Welfare is there to provide a minimum standard of living for all. It was introduced because Governments realised that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, and will always lead to a sub-class of society. Without welfare this sub-class is a constant source of danger to society, from petty crime to revolution. Since it's introduction it has slowly grown to cover more and more of the financially challenged, and at the same time those in power have forgotten the lessons of history. The rise of the business model of Gov' has blinded them to the basic facts, and is re-introducing the sub-class. This will come back to haunt them, I hope. I can't help but wonder how the welfare bill compares to the cost of retired politicians, that's running into billions now, but the facts are a state secret, FOI can't touch it, it's much too important for we mere mortals to be allowed to know. It doesn't even appear in any Budgets, state or federal, they take out their money before anything else, and don't include it, gosh, I wonder why?

My question was more along the lines of whether welfare can continue the way it is or will the cookie jar simply run dry.

I have no problem with having welfare as a safety net, it's just that it has expanded in such a way that one can now do the sums whereby they can choose to either 'work', or 'not work', this is provided they have enough children that they can't possibly afford.

What most people don't realise, or choose to overlook, is that the high income earner also has children of their own that they provide for and, in many cases, my own included, carry large sums of debt and put thier but on the line every day, esspecially if one is self employed.

I fear the system just can't continue this way. Then what?

rehctub:"Then what?"

The second phase of this economic disaster - the middle-class collapse when the Govt can no longer provide the subsidy that has enabled such conspicuous consumption and such conspicuous failure to repay mortgages on the part of the consumers. If the relatively small number who will lose their jobs in the first phase is added to by an enormous number who can no longer support their mortgages because they no longer receive the handouts they have relied on then the housing market will be in genuinely serious trouble, not just a downswing. The financial institutions that hold the mortgages will also suffer and so it goes on.

Every day I'm happier not to have a mortgage or to be relying on someone else's business to support me. It'd be nice to have a bit more capital, but you can't have it all.

"I can't help but wonder how the welfare bill compares to the cost of retired politicians, that's running into billions now, but the facts are a state secret, FOI can't touch it,"

not quite true, remember Capt Smirk and "his" Future Fund

The problem was that the Politically Correct "Wright Family" stuff from both sides of govt [getting a re-run again here] WAS allowed to stop people QUESTIONING the ethics of FF.

But take my ex wife as an example, put in $500 to ComSuper back in 1968 to 1975 or so, retired in 1976 [bad back you know] and got a million, just up to her "retirement age" [60 for wimmen]

and if she pegs it, 5/8 goes to her new hubby, who is a billionaire but no means test here as this is UNFUNDED SUPER

at same time Howard tried to starve male pensioners out to 67, but we zapped him

It's interesting how often ideology can trump reality when government handouts are under discussion.

>>Without welfare we could all join our comrades in china and india working for 50 cents an hour.<<

mikk, if you simply change that "without", to "with", the sentence would be far more accurate.

"Our comrades" overseas arrive at 50 cents an hour from the opposite direction, i.e. from a starting point closer to zero. To them, it is a living, a first step out of abject poverty.

If we continue to imagine that welfare is some form of protection from economic realities, then we will rapidly put ourselves out of business.

The underlying problem is that a government does not actually have any money of its own. We provide it, in various different ways. Through our paypacket, which is derived from the business that employs us. Directly from those companies in the form of a tax on the profits they earn after paying wages. And from our consumption (GST), which we pay for from what's left of our paypacket, that we earn from our employment.

If our businesses cannot compete because others are able to pay lower wages, then either i) revenue dries up and there are no taxes to collect, or ii) we have to lower those wages. And if the taxes dry up, and we continue to pay welfare, there will be nothing left to pay those fat cats who are employed by the government, and have those infinite pension rights that real businesses cannot afford.

Maximillion plays from the same songbook.

>>Welfare is there to provide a minimum standard of living for all. It was introduced because Governments realised that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair...<<

The "capitalist system", Maximillion, has been the engine from which governments acquired the money that they were then - subsequently, after the event, post facto, later on down the track - able to redistribute to the needy in our society.

Without capitalism, welfare at the levels we have become accustomed to, would simply not be possible.

Those "minimum standards" would head south in a heartbeat.

Pericles, you are demonstrating the "Government as a business" model, and within those terms I suppose you're more or less right.
I, however, reject that whole view, it flies in the face of the very reason why our ancestors fought and died to create and protect "Democracy". Under that model, we are rapidly re-establishing the Feudal System, complete with "right to rule", inherited power, money as the determinant of social worth, all the things that democracy was supposed to eliminate. Do you consider it "democratic" that a Packer or a Murdoch can "earn" millions, and pay less than 5cents on the dollar taxation, while we mere serfs must pay 20-30%? Many of the legal profession pay NOTHING! Doctors can get away paying on average 7cents per, and so on and so on, and don't even think about business, transfer pricing alone rips billions away annually, let alone foreign ownership or tax-havens.
Can you explain or justify that?

It says it all when Pericles says

"If our businesses cannot compete because others are able to pay lower wages, then either i) revenue dries up and there are no taxes to collect, or ii) we have to lower those wages."

It would never even cross the capitalists greedy little minds to reduce profits now would it? Its always wages that have to go down.

With the greatest respect, Maximillion, those are entirely different questions.

>>Do you consider it "democratic" that a Packer or a Murdoch can "earn" millions, and pay less than 5cents on the dollar taxation, while we mere serfs must pay 20-30%? Many of the legal profession pay NOTHING! Doctors can get away paying on average 7cents per, and so on and so on...Can you explain or justify that?<<

You may as well ask whether it is "democratic" that a son is allowed to inherit his father's business fortune. To some, it is a basic right, to be able to dispose of one's property as one thinks fit. To others, property is theft.

As I said before, confusing ideology ("wouldn't it be nice if we shared everything") with reality, is pretty pointless. I can intellectually agree with your ideology as much as I like, but if its implementation means that my family will starve, then I'm sorry, I'm agin' it.

The absolute, stark reality is that if we shared the wealth of the world equally, you and I would be scratching out a living growing vegetables. Nobody could afford to build a plasma TV, or a car, or a mobile phone - there simply wouldn't be enough spare cash with which to start a business that would do this, let alone enough customers with the money to buy the stuff.

So it is important, for our own survival, to live in the world of the possible, and not in the world of "wouldn't it be nice if..."

>>Pericles, you are demonstrating the "Government as a business" model...<<

Not at all, Maximillion. I merely mentioned government in its role as a parasite on the bum of business, leeching off the workers to keep its favoured few in comfy superannualtion. Believe me, government would ban all private business enterprises in a New York minute, if it could.

Fortunately for all of us, it can't. But it certainly has a good solid stab at making it fiendishly difficult.

mikk, I'd hate for this to turn into an Economics 101 seminar, because that would be boring for all of us, including me.

But you miss the entire point when you say:

>>It would never even cross the capitalists greedy little minds to reduce profits now would it? Its always wages that have to go down.<<

If you reduce profits, your share price goes down. If your share price goes down, your Bank might decide you are no longer a good risk, and call in its loans. At the very least, it would increase your interest payments, which would squeeze your profits even further. This would make you a takeover target, and usually what happens in a takeover is that a ton of people lose their jobs.

Another of the impacts of reducing profits is that the government will get less in taxes. There are two possible reactions to this: increase taxes to make up for the shortfall, or get rid of a ton of public servants.

I know which one of those I favour. But that's just me.

Running a business is just a little harder than you seem to believe that it is.

First, it takes capital. If the returns on that capital are low (i.e. we implement the mikk "low profits" plan), then you won't find anyone willing to invest in the business. If no-one invests in the business, then no-one gets a job of any kind, forget about a well-paid one.

Then there is the permanent battle to stay relevant to your customers, which usually means that you have i) a good product ii) at a good price that is iii) well-known to your customers. So it goes without saying that you also need iv) great, well-motivated, properly-rewarded people.

I know that it might be difficult for you to believe mikk, but all this requires management skills, that stretch beyond a nine-to-five, pipe-and-slippers lifestyle.

All businesses live on a daily knife-edge, kept afloat - not by socialist rhetoric, but by the normal desires and aspirations of ordinary human beings.

Pericles, I have no objection to inheritance, merely the inequality of a tax system that bleeds the average citizen while rewarding those who need it least, and that’s the root of my question about its democratic credentials.
You again use the business model to couch your reply, and, as stated, within its confines you are right, to a large degree, I do not dispute that.
I said nothing however about sharing the wealth equally.
To answer you on wealth though, yes, capitalism has brought us to this point, agreed, but does that mean we must keep it forever? We’ve outgrown many things, why not that?
Given our global interconnectedness, and our computer technology, why not scrap the entire idea of “money” completely? Why have a medium of exchange at all? We could easily still organize our world to provide for all, and without the greed and suffering that has been its hallmark to date.
With education and health available to all, it’s not beyond our ability to design a social system that promotes research, development, and production/distribution to all.
To my mind, we lost our future when the system decided that profit wasn’t enough, profit-growth, every single year, had to be the goal. Nothing can grow forever without destroying/consuming something else, in this case, our happiness basically.
What is so wrong about making a reasonable profit and keeping the cost to the consumer low? Growth in profit must, by definition, lead to increasing prices, and wages to cover them, an endless destructive cycle, to my way of thinking.

It would never even cross the capitalists greedy little minds to reduce profits now would it? Its always wages that have to go down.

Well Mikk, this is not quite correct. Everyone assumes that businesses make a fortune and in some cases they may appear to, however people look at big business and all they focus on is the millions or billions in profits, they have little or no consideration for the capital outlay involved in making those profits.

Wages over the past decade have risin. Why then can't business profits rise by the same percentage, or this this just not fair in your view.

Another huge impost on business is compliance costs. These costs have gone through the roof in recent times. My public liability insurance cover has gone from 1 Million 20 years ago to 20 million today. Work cover is another.

Perhaps tax overhauling may be the answer.

Maximillion, as I have mentioned, there's nothing wrong with idealism. But it needs to be kept in perspective, when trying to deal with real-world problems.

The vast majority of people live very simple lives; they get up, go to work, collect their pay, drive the kids to soccer on a Saturday and visit the mother-in-law on Sunday. To suggest that next week, they should get by without money would be a little challenging, to say the least.

But let's assume for a moment that we have "outgrown" capitalism. You clearly would like to see it destroyed, as have many before you. But like them, you have nothing to offer as a replacement.

Try to imagine for a moment what you are asking those ordinary families to do.

>>...why not scrap the entire idea of “money” completely? Why have a medium of exchange at all? We could easily still organize our world to provide for all, and without the greed and suffering that has been its hallmark to date. With education and health available to all, it’s not beyond our ability to design a social system that promotes research, development, and production/distribution to all.<<

Sadly, for your vision at least, it will not be easy to replace money. After all, it was developed to simplify the exchange of goods and services, and does exactly that, for most people. It is easy to understand and convenient to use.

And it is worth pointing out that the "education and health available to all" that you mention is in fact based upon the exchange of individual skills and capabilities (teachers, nurses etc.) for a living wage. And the tools of their trade (schools, hospitals, pharmaceuticals) require capital investment, which also needs some form of exchange mechanism in order for it to work.

Money will be with us for a while yet. Get used to it.

There's no harm in imagining Utopia, Maximillion, it is a healthy and valuable activity. But don't allow those dreams to overlap too much with your daily life, as they are liable to distract you from the really important stuff.

Basically what you've said is we need money because we have money, a mobius argument.
You define everything as an exchange, that's the basis of capitalism, but why not define it as just giving? You say getting by without money would be a challenge for families, but why? Food would be available, power and water too, and everything else. You would have no need to pay for anything, so why would it be difficult?
"Sadly, for your vision at least, it will not be easy to replace money. After all, it was developed to simplify the exchange of goods and services, and does exactly that, for most people. It is easy to understand and convenient to use."
Again, "exchange", and again, I ask, why? Is it so hard to see a society that just gives? I give, you give, everyone gives, and all enjoy the fruits of that giving? If we rejected everything that was "too hard" to do, we'd not be where we are now.
Offer nothing to replace it? I thought I had, an egalitarian, giving society, with true justice, doesn't seem too bad an idea to me.
Your supercilious response belittles you, try explaining why the system is good rather than sneering at my "Idealism", show how this current system is so wonderful for the starving millions of the world, instead of just declaring that it must be this way because it's always been this way. That has a familiar ring to it, we would still be living in a Feudal, violent world if that attitude hadn't been fought and conquered.
And as for your final comment, what utter rubbish, and you embarrass yourself. You have my pity, what a horrid grey world you must live in.

Is not the ability to imagine, aspire to, and strive for, a better future the very Essence of what it is to be Human? There are always Luddites, those unwilling to dream, resistant to new ideas, fearing change. It would seem to me that every major advance in Human affairs has been made in the face of such resistance. Why try to chain our Dreams, to cry.."you must only try within the existing framework", it has never worked, the human mind accepts no such boundaries.
We would have halted our rise at the cavemen level if that view prevailed, surely? The very society we live in is the result of millenia of dreamers and fighters changing things, why should we stop now? Apart from human Life, nothing is sacred, nothing is "written in stone", the cessation of Growth is Death.

Now don't get snotty, Maximillion.

>>Your supercilious response belittles you, try explaining why the system is good rather than sneering at my "Idealism"<<

I was actually trying very hard to admire your idealism, despite its solid basis in fantasy.

Dreaming butters no parsnips, as my old granny used to say.

Nevertheless...

>>Is not the ability to imagine, aspire to, and strive for, a better future the very Essence of what it is to be Human? There are always Luddites, those unwilling to dream, resistant to new ideas, fearing change. It would seem to me that every major advance in Human affairs has been made in the face of such resistance.<<

Precisely. I could not agree more.

In fact, how do you think money was created in the first place?

I'll tell you. From precisely that wellspring of ingenuity and progressiveness that you admire so much.

I am sure that while the progressive fiscalites were promoting the concept of an intermediary system, where value was translated into a single, consistent, measurable form, the Luddites of those times were chuntering away in the background...

"Is it so hard to see a society that just gives? I give, you give, everyone gives, and all enjoy the fruits of that giving?"

The pro-money folk would undoubtedly have had an uphill battle, to introduce the concept. They kept meeting resistance, mostly along the lines of...

"Food is available, power and water too, and everything else. We have no need to pay for anything, so why do we need money?

But, as we know from history, the stubborn resistance to change of the nay-sayers was eventually overcome, as the logic and essential fairness of the exchange system was explained to them. Not to mention the enormous opportunities to trade with strangers from more than two villages away.

One of the fiscalites was even heard to say:

"The very society we live in is the result of millenia of dreamers and fighters changing things, why should we stop now?"

Now it appears you want to turn back the clock.

Can't quite see that as an improvement, myself.

"mikk, I'd hate for this to turn into a Capitalist Economics 101 seminar, because that would be boring for all of us, including me."

Fixed

"If you reduce profits, your share price goes down. If your share price goes down, your Bank might decide you are no longer a good risk, and call in its loans. At the very least, it would increase your interest payments, which would squeeze your profits even further. This would make you a takeover target, and usually what happens in a takeover is that a ton of people lose their jobs."

To me this is just an argument to close down the share market Casino.

"Then there is the permanent battle to stay relevant to your customers, which usually means that you have i) a good product ii) at a good price that is iii) well-known to your customers. So it goes without saying that you also need iv) great, well-motivated, properly-rewarded people."

So what business are you talking about. Never met a large company like that. A few small businesses maybe but they are all gone now swallowed up into multinationals. Multinationals who have no resemblance to your above statement. The overriding permanent battle is to increase profits as much as possible by any means possible.

OK Pericles, yet again you’ve NOT answered my questions, and yet again you prate on about the workings of the capital system. As I’ve said repeatedly, within the strictures of that system, you’re right, no argument.
Now, I’ll make it simple for you:
(1) Why is the tax system so un-democratic, so unfair to the PAYE workers?
(2) What is so bad about making a profit , without the need to increase it every year?
(3) Since we are now effectively a “global village”, why the need for a “medium of exchange” AT ALL?
(4) Can you explain what is good about a system that allows millions to starve, or live at subsistence levels, while food is wasted, destroyed, or thrown away elsewhere?
(5) Why do you define moving beyond money as turning back the clock?
(6) Can you tell me why you don’t consider yourself as resisting change when you so blatantly are?
(7) Was the world that gave rise to money the same as the one we now live in?
(8) Do you consider our society as having reached its zenith, no more progress needed? And if not, why defend it, and resist new ideas?

How about having a go at those? Please try to answer without lapsing into contempt for my “idealism”, or reiterating endlessly the business model we all endure.

as normal this thread has gone at a tangent, prior to one of the NGOs suggesting counselling and Graham winds the thread up

So let's get back on track where OP Rectum said:

"Welfare, introduced as an old aged or invalid pension around the turn of the 19th century was introduced to provide support for seniors with those eligible receiving around one quarter of the average annual income.

Today, there are all types of hands dipping into the cookie jar as welfare covers a much broader range of recipients from single parents to seniors and almost everything in between."

So, because of all the confusion, I have decided to release the CentreLink Chapter of my book free. After all your Cash for Comment brothers [and sisters] under Howard instuctions pirated the book, so it IS out there in the public domaim, albeit illegally [and still facing a million dollar lawsuit]

so goto http://www.ablokesguide.com to read it.

And you will note the reason for the conjunctive thread on Conspiracy Theories

And you too, Maximillion, are right, no argument.

>>As I’ve said repeatedly, within the strictures of that system, you’re right, no argument.<<

Within the framework of idealism, you are right to conjecture how life could really be beautiful, if only...

For the last time, I'm not knocking idealism, yours or anyone's. It is an important part of being alive.

But it is at the other end of the spectrum from practical reality. They are genuinely, semantically, opposite.

And as such, you should not confuse an idealistic solution (hey, wouldn't it be great if we were all nice to each other) with the practical necessities of daily life.

That's the only concession that you will ever need to make to your dreams.

Pericles, I give up, you just won't defend your position, so there's little point. Those who make statements should be willing to defend them, that's called discussion or debate, otherwise they are merely pontificating. I see no conflict between having ideals and the practical world, they are not mutually exclusive, unless you refuse to think, which would seem to make you a sheep, scared to dream, scared to rock the boat. Thank god we do rock the boat, if we didn't you wouldn't be able to sit so smugly in your chair praising the status-quo, it wouldn't exist, we'd still be hiding from the storm, begging the spirits to save us, lol. It wasn't stick-in the muds like you who got us here, it was the Idealists who made their dreams reality who built the world we know.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! This takes the proverbial biscuit, Maximillion.

>>Those who make statements should be willing to defend them, that's called discussion or debate, otherwise they are merely pontificating.<<

It is the sure sign of a lost argument when you accuse the other party of the very fault of which you are most guilty.

It is you, not I, who has been making the indefensible statements, and "pontificating" about the ease with which we could as a society, do without money. You have provided nothing, not a shred of support for this hypothesis, except for the trite "it's good to dream".

Here's a thought. Point out to me one of my "pontifications" that is unsupported. and for each one, I'll give you two of yours.

Deal?

DEAL!
You have not answered a single question I put to you. You posts are all about how the current system works, informative, but not relevant to my questions.
As for mine, I haven't ever claimed to have all the answers, that would be the height of hubris, but have put forward ideas that I thought merited consideration. Since you didn't respond to them, it was a little difficult to engage with you in debate.
Ball's in your court now, if you'd care to have a go at a few or all of the eight I posted before, I'll quite happily discuss your answers, and answer them in turn, or debate the mechanics of it all, as best I can anyway.
Labelling it Idealism and "not realistic" or "too hard" is merely sledging, not discussion, it's pointless really.
You are not unintelligent obviously, so away you go

The trouble with modern day welfare is that it has extended beyond the safety net principle to include middle class and corporate welfare.

Welfare in the form of handouts like the first home owners grants is inflationary for a start and only serves to perpetuate the current economic crises. Baby bonuses were part of the mindless Costello's one for each parent and one for the nation propaganda and while well-to-do middle class families receive their $6K bonus, the disabled and elderly continue to live in poverty.

Yes indeed what has gone wrong with the welfare system? Perhaps it should be called the pork barrelling system because any altruistic notions of aiding the truly needy has been thrown out with the bath water.

A well managed economy would utilise taxes for the purpose they were intended - to provide services, intrastructure and a fair and equitable safety net - not a windfall for the middle classes. I don't object to my taxes going to those who truly need a hand up but to see it paid to people who are fully employed is not what the system originally intended.

Imagine if this 'wasted' money was actually used on the health system, reducing waiting lists for dental and operative care and increasing mental health support and disability programs. Not to mention public transport infrastructure and rural health.

Here is some interesting feedback on welfare.

As some you you are aware I run two retail outlets, both located in average wealth areas.

Three weeks ago when the first $900 filtered through, I think to the pensioners, we saw a definate increase in consumer spending.

Last week, I think the $900 went to others on wefare and we had a definate surge in trade, up around 25%.

This week I think it is the somewhat 'better off' that have received thier $900 and guess what. Sales are shocking. I am tipping at least 30% down.

Now if my timing is correct this would suggest that what has happened is exactly what was predicted, that being that the better off have either saved the cash or used it to reduce debt. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

If I am right however, this makes my idea of a 'debit card' system with an 'expiry date' well worth considering in the future as it will force recipients to spend the money or loose it.

What ever happens our welfare system is 'running on empty' and simply cannot be sustained.

Another point of interest is that retirees seeking the pension is up by some 20% which is placing yet further strain on our failing system.

Something is gonna give!

What a strange claim, Maximillion, that you...

>>...have put forward ideas that I thought merited consideration. Since you didn't respond to them, it was a little difficult to engage with you in debate.<<

I presume you mean:

>>...why not scrap the entire idea of “money” completely? Why have a medium of exchange at all? We could easily still organize our world to provide for all, and without the greed and suffering that has been its hallmark to date.<<

I explained that this might not be easy, and gave plenty of examples why it is so.

Your response has simply been, to paraphrase, "if you can't dream, what's the point?"

>>OK Pericles, yet again you’ve NOT answered my questions<<

Unfortunately, your "questions" are unrelated to this discussion.

>>Why is the tax system so un-democratic, so unfair to the PAYE workers?<<

For example, this is an opinion, not a question. Which is fine, because this is an opinion forum. But you would need first to support it with some examples, and then show how those examples apply across the board, before it can be discussed properly.

Over to you.

Pericles, I concede you the field, I can see we're just speaking entirely different languages. Reiterating standard economic thinking does not constitute rational debate in my book, and as for the tax question, a millionaire paying less than 5c in the dollar as adverse to a worker paying 20+ seems unfair by definition. I asked if you could explain that, and you say it's just an opinion, well, it's an opinion held by most people, try asking, so there's little point in continuing and wasting posts, I hit my limit too quickly, lol.
I may think about making a separate thread at some point to follow up on my "Ideal", perhaps then you may care to contribute and we can try to reach some degree of mutual communication, as we've failed to here.
As for your final passage about supplying examples and their application, lol, as you want to set parameters and conditions for me, but won't respond to my queries in even hypothetical terms, I can see we're wasting our time here, so lets not.

Rectum now says:

Another point of interest is that retirees seeking the pension is up by some 20% which is placing yet further strain on our failing system.

Something is **gonna give**!

and you already made out pensioners "get too much" and were able to spend up big on your "outlet" [NPI]

Three weeks ago when the first $900 filtered through, I think to the pensioners, we saw a definate increase in consumer spending

buy maybe you are a baker and this was first loaf of bread for a month?

and as OP you pointed out:

"...support for seniors with those eligible receiving around **one quarter** of the average annual income"

OK Rectum [and your CT minders], if you read my book you will see I DID do the hard yards by firstly tabulating how much Capt Smirk stole from us, and secondly I put numbers to your [ie you and Smirk's hystrionics] "something has gotta give".

The obvious conclusion that [as always] my CTs are not theory but fact, can be seen from a comparison ie we can't afford a few billion for aged pension with Smirk took $65 billion FROM "that we could not afford" and put it in HIS Future Fund.

So why is the FF for Unfunded Super so big?

Well we are talking here to what used to be called "Fat Cats", finally retiring after putting in a lousy 14% contrib. They get 5/8 of retirement income and generally that would be about twice the average, so that is 5 TIMES the rate the aged pensioner gets

So Rectum et al, is it not the case that something has to give because of this greed from folks who never funded their super and not the aged pensioner

Divorce Doctor, you may well hate the world, but please don't grind your axe with me. From your name it would appear that you are one of the many who stuffed your life and hold others accountable. On the contory, I enjoy my life, but it does take a lot of hard work, esspecially being maried to the same lovely lady for 24 years.

With regards to pensioners, I must state AGAIN that I have the upmost respect for them. Although there are more of them drawing on the system due to the financial crisis, I do not blame them at all. In fact, I recon it stinks when one pays taxes all thier life then misses out because they were either hard workers, smart with thier money, or both.

The system is at breaking point because there are to many drawing on it and not enough contributing to it.

My fear going forward is that the GST will have to be raised which will put even more strain on the 'genuine needy'.

I don't like to support loosers, never have, never will! In my view they should exist on welfare and nothing else. Thier kids are the inocent vicims in all this as they often miss out. Stop the cash I say!

Oh dear, must have hit another nerve hey! Never mind DD perhaps you can think of another way to alter my name, it appears to be an obsession of yours hey.