You've made a pretty good assessment of the way things are, rehctub.
The question is:
Do you think that's the way things should be?

Well, yes, I do.

Banks can't simply lend out of compasion, they need security and assurance that the loan will be repaid. As I stated, the last thing they need is bad publicity, so they avoid it.

On the other hand, if a younger family member were to offer to guarantor the loan, then I see little problems here.

Kendra
he costs of poor health and maintaining a home can in fact lead people to lose what they have

I agree. Many pensioners can't afford to keep thier homes simply due to rates, as a result of the value.

I have sid for years that if you reside in a your residence for a period of at least ten consecutive years, then the rateable value should be frozen. This alone would save many pensioners from having to sell up due to skyrocketing rates.

Some homes are now worth in excess of 10 million$, why should the owners have to pay rates based on that if they have lived there, raised a family and now wish to reside there for the rest of their lives.

However, I still doubt anyone on the 100 poorest list own a home, car or even have a place they call home. Remember, we are talking about .0005 of the population, or there abouts.

Some interesting contrasts there, rehctub. You believe things are pretty right the way they are, except rates should be frozen in some circumstances.
On a thread about the 100 poorest people, you are worried about people living in houses worth more than 10 million.
Fascinating.

Nicely observed, Grim.

Grim “My sincere apologies, Col Rouge; for some reason I was under the impression you were quite successful.
If you haven't really been the success you wanted to be, of course you have my deepest sympathy. Cheers.”

Ah I always find sarcasm to be the antithesis of “success”

So me, “quite successful”?

I never ever presume myself to be either “successful” or otherwise, Grim.

I know I have done some things which I think and others would agree could be deemed “successful” (my two daughters being the crowning glories (oh Maslow’s ‘success of offspring’ comes to mind - you should read it)) and other “things” which have been total failures (which we will not dwell upon).

More importantly, I enjoy the experiences of my life, more than becoming disheartened by them.

Yet, even more important than that, I still feel I have not reached my “peak”. I feel I still have things to contribute and goals to score, I am embarking upon a new marriage, which will bring me the love, kinship and a partner who will see me achieve those goals.

“successful” is something for other people to assess of me.

“successful” or not, is something I would not wish to see written on my tombstone but rather than a word like “happy” or “ethical”, a real word, which conveys something about me, rather than shallow perceptions others might have of me.

Of course, those who hanker after “success” often find it alludes them and end up bitter and twisted, envious of we, for whom it holds no currency and they do tend to have an outlook which might be described (coincidentally) as “Grim”.

So, judge me as you wish.....

You, like me, are free to do as you want....

To make sarcastic asides and evade answering my points in debate.

As to whether you are more or less successful than I, makes not a hoot of difference to me.

I have moved on beyond the point where the opinions of others and other trivia matter...

and this is merely advise: you should try to grow a little too.

Maybe the 100 poorest people should ask themselves what makes then poor?

Is it the Gods contriving against them?

Are they poor because those who have more are being greedy?

Should those who have the ability to succeed be forced to support the economically bereft?

Should those who are poor be appreciative of the compassion shown by those with the heart and generosity of spirit to take on their burden?

OR are people poor because they just make poor life choices for themselves?

To welfare entitlement: I refer everyone to what the erudite Mrs Margaret Thatcher said to people who expect money from government:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

The poorest will be the poorest regardless of the assistance possible from government.

The poorest will be the poorest not because other people forced them into poverty.

The poorest will be the poorest because they just “do not get it” (being what life is about and how to manage their circumstances).

And of course, “poverty” is as much a state of mind as it is a state of material wellbeing.

The only way to adequately support the 100 poorest would be to administer their affairs for them..

and I really do not think they deserve to be treated that badly …

there are, after all, some things worse than “poverty”;

like denial of personal choice and freedom.

Red Col said:

Maybe the 100 poorest people should ask themselves what makes then poor?

Is it the Gods contriving against them?

The short answer is yes. The departure from the Christian principles of government and the decline in Church attendance, is directly in relationship with the increase in poverty. I asked the Anglican Archbishop in Sydney about twelve months ago, to consider appointing a woman to a vacant parish as Vicar. I received a prompt answer, saying and I quote: This cannot be legislated for by the Commonwealth or anyone else, if it is against the teaching of the Bible.

The Gods, is a symptom of secularism. Belief in a God, any God, is central to government of any description. Chairman Mao became God of China. The order was believe in me or die. Stalin became God of Russia, and Mugabe is God of Zimbabwe. At least these regimes only had one God, and everyone knew that if they bucked that God, they would die much faster than if they obeyed him without question.

The Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, so aptly described by former High Court Justice McHugh, as enabling Parliament to legislate to kill all blue eyed babies, in the Essenberg transcript is the creation of Gods, instead of Almighty God. Read the transcript for yourself: He said: I mean, Parliament established its authority over the monarch ( God) after the struggles which led to the execution of Charles I and the flight from the kingdom of James II in 1688. But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.

http://beta.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2000/385.html

Without a Christian commitment, this statement is possible from one of the Gods Col refers to. I think Justice Mc Hugh worshipped racehorses or something, and was unwilling to face the fact that legislatures are in fact fettered by the Constitution. In 1996, he was one of the Justices established the “Kable Principle”. He got one of these decisions wrong