None of you seem to be aware of the huge demographic problem that
we are heading towards.

Yes yes, all our pensioners should live in splendor, but when will
any of you get real about the situation. This week's Economist
crunches some figures on it. By 2050, a third of the rich world's
population will be over 60. The demographic bill is likely to be
10 times bigger then the fiscal cost of the financial crisis.

People are living longer, they need pensions, they need healthcare
and somebody has to pay! The money is simply not there.

Australia is at least addressing the problem, through super payments,
through Costello putting money away in the future fund, but we
still have so many pensioners of various kinds, sucking on the Govt
teat, that virtually every $ paid in personal income tax, just goes
for welfare payments! We have as many people receiving welfare,
as we have taxpayers.

As the population ages, things will get worse, not better.

Martin Ferguson has been over in the West, threatening oil companies
that if they don't commercialise their finds, their leases will be
removed. He knows full well that the Govt could earn 10 billion in
royalties a year from those investments.

Fact is, the money has to come from somewhere children, your bit
of tax is not going to do it for all those pensioners.

That is the reality.

Dear Yabby,

History has proven that the natural process
of disease, catastrope, and war, controls
the population and ultimately boosts the
economy.

Today, with climate change, and make note
that the Conservatives are in denial of
climate change - because they want the natural
process to control the population. And, ultimately,
give them financial gain.

So, get rid of the environmentalists/humanitarians
- and we will definitely
have a catastrope - which will solve our welfare
problems.

Yabby I don't remember anyone saying pensioners should live in splendor - comfortably above the poverty line is certainly not an unrealistic expectation.

There is always enough money. Huge amounts of money is wasted by governments on projects that really do nothing to improve situations, only give the appearance that something is being done. You only have to look at the money thrown at Indigenous projects that have done little over the past 40 years to change the health and living outcomes for many Indigenous communities.

The money spent on corporate welfare. The money wasted on propping up big money sporting events and clubs that could easily be funded through corporate sponsorship. The money wasted on the senior public service salaries which over the years has increased markedly while 'real' services in the public service has declined.

It is really as simple as prioritising what we deem most important, fair, equitable in a humane and caring society.

Foxy, sometimes you write some interesting posts, but that last
one was plain ridiculous. You are confusing the emotionally
overwhelmed with the rationally aware. Reality does not got away,
when you close your eyes and wish it would.

Pelican, thats the point, there is not always enough money.
Because of the many millions of people on welfare, to give each
of them more, takes such huge sums, growing as their numbers grow,
that even if you wiped out many things that you claim, it would
still not add up to enough. Paying everyone just 10% more,
would swallow another 12 billion $.

Money given to the MV industry is not corporate welfare, but a
reason for them to stay here and provide jobs, which is what voters
want.

Industry is pretty rational. If it doesn't pay, we shut it down
and do it elsewhere, where it does pay. Many large companies don't
even own the buildings which they use, its all long term leases
from REITs. So see it as bribes from Govts, to keep their doors open
and employ locals.

Consumers don't care either, most seemingly prefer imported vehicles.
Govts will calculate how many seats they would lose, if GM, Ford
and Toyota, plus their suppliers and their suppliers, all shut up
tomorrow. So they basically bribe em. But even that amount,
I gather around 600 million a year, would not even make a dent
in your fund to increase pensions by 30% or whatever.

Never forget the law of unintended consequences.

Dear Yabby,

I do the best I can with what I've got...
as you so succinctly often put it to me
- 'female logic.' Or - 'Nanny wit?' :)

Anyway you may be interested in the TV program
that's coming up this Monday evening (22/06/09),
on Channel 9, at 6pm, called - "Prime Minister's
Costs." I'd say - Worth a look.

I agree with Pelly's take on Government prioritising
where money is spent.

Government Departments would
be a good place to start in downsizing over-paid
executive positions - especially ones that are
unnecessary.

Just as one example - There was a case
where the position of Chief Librarian in charge of
a large Regional Public Library Service wasn't
enough for the Government - they appointed a CEO
(jobs for the boys?) from another Council, over the
Chief Librarian. The CEO was getting a huge pay packet,
he knew nothing about libraries, and yet his was the
signature that had to be on everything before it could
be done.

The Chief Librarian continued to run the
Library Service - under the jurisdiction of the
CEO. Two huge salaries - instead of one. What a waste!
And the book budget and staff were slashed that year!
This is only one small example.
Government Departments are full of these examples.
Frontline staff - necessary staff - are the ones
that are cutback - be it in libraries, hospitals,
Child Protection Services - or other crucial industries.
CEOs and their huge paypackets - are simply moved around
to other departments.

In difficult financial times - this can't go on.
And that's something that you should be able to
see.

*In difficult financial times - this can't go on.
And that's something that you should be able to
see.*

Oh I see it very well Foxy, its one of the reasons why
Costello was a good treasurer! Fact is, it does not
matter how much money that the Feds throw at health
and education, it won't be enough and they will want more.

Thats why you need a treasurer who puts the break on
the public service, who make these decisions, so that
they have a look how they could spend what they get
with less waste and more wisdom.

Thats why private enterprise can usually do things more
efficiently. When its our own money being wasted, we
take notice, but the public service has little respect
for the poor old taxpayer.

My point to Pelican is however this: The projected expenditure
for welfare this year, is around 120$ billion, or the entire
income from personal income taxes. That is huge money.
So to pay everyone say 30% more, you would need 36 billion
extra $. Remember that much of the waste that you talk about
is State Govt waste, not Fed Govt. So you tell me where you
are going to find that kind of money within the Federal
Budget.

Next point, due to demographics, ie the baby boomers retiring,
each year more and more, our ratio of you to old is changing
and there will be more and more pensioners, wanting pensions,
but also health care. That means new hips, open heart surgery
for 80year olds, expensive subsidised drugs etc. Its huge
money.

Now I know that you disliked Kennet, but I remind you that
Kirner had nearly bankropted the State of Victoria and it needed
a Kennet to come in and shake up the public service, for
few politicians every achieve it.