Given that our government is funding so many non in-house expenses, we now appear to have a situation whereby every funding promise is going to have to be a case of robbing from Peter to pay for Paul. Either that, or they simply invent a new tax.

Either way, I liken our system to a mother pig, with ten teets, with which to feed fifteen piglets.

Surely even Bilnd Freddie can see this is simply unsustainable and the waste simply can't continue.

Is this really what we, the tax payer, go off to work and pay our taxes for?

They did not invent it but they implemented a new tax the one they said they would not - The Carbon Con (tax) more money for a very few rich people like Al Gore and more money for politicians to waste.

Gentle men, are you aware the current tax rates are less than under Howard?
Over all tax reform is a must, but lets us not invent problems.

Belly - and are you aware that under Howard we had a $20 Billion dollars surplus now we have approx $200 Billion DEBT. Guess who who is going to end up paying that off. Sorry to blow your argument.

So Belly, is it fair to assume our taxes could come down, our pensioners could live well, our schools, hospitals etc could have the funding they need, if not for our policy of supporting every swinging dick in the world.

One can only imagine where we would be today if all those billions hadn't been poured into these lost causes, and I say lost causes because little, if anything has been changed by the billions spent.

With mining widely tipped to detract, where will the next wave of billions, flagged for these causes, boat arrivals and war to name two, come from.

what a coincidence the art of squandering is brought up here. Only a few days ago I talked with former work mates & said that isn't it funny how 20 years ago we lacked certain infrastructure. Some 50 million Dollars later we're still lacking the same thing. We've come a long way alright.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can
always depend on the support of Paul.
(George Bernard Shaw).

The federal government's tax take is the biggest in real terms in history. Yet they still cannot balance the books.

Perhaps the Federal Government needs a Leader
with a flat head and big ears who can balance
almost everything - however, he'd also have to
know what to do with it once the balancing was done.
Balancing after-all isn't everything.

can always depend on the support of Paul.
Lexi,
Historical evidence shows us that the Pauls of Australia always swim back & clamber aboard the SS CONSERVATIVE as soon as the SS LABOR has sprung a leak.
Many hangers on go missing because there weren't any life rafts.

Anyone would be better than the dye rinsed carrot top with the pinocchio nose (probably from all the lies told) and the large posterior.

"INDUSTRY is gearing up for a new clash with Labor after being told that tax breaks and incentives worth $6 billion would be cut "no matter what" as part of budget savings"

Labor wants us to believe that they are making budget "savings" by ramping up taxes. What a joke.

Do you think it's ok to still have subsidies when you have a miner earning a million dollars / hr.

Do you think it's ok to still have subsidies when you have a miner earning a million dollars / hr.
579,
Patience, once the resources from Africa & South America get tapped no-one will want to buy ours anymore. Too much drain for subsidies you know.
It is obscene how much profit is being made but at the least these companies employ people from part of their profits. What I find even more obscene is the last federal Parliamentarian pay rise & the obscenely huge number of cronies they employ & pay with OUR MONEY ! They don't even bother about profit they just grab our money & people like yourself quite happily oblige them in keeping this obscene band wagon on the roll. Doesn't the word integrity hit any nerve at all with people like you ?
How'd you like it if you had to work for a living & give half of it to someone else for doing nothing, because that's the situation we have now & you're defending it.

Let's acknowledge the realities around us.
Australian Government spending as a percentage
of GDP is amongst the lowest in the OECD.
Amongst the things the Government pays for are
many things business says it wants - such as
transport, infra-structure, like roads and ports,
as well as education and training for businesses
looking for skilled workers.

They also want lower taxes and lower Government spending,
and they also want all the good things that the
Government provides - more infra-structure, a stable
rule of law, a sound currency, Government-funded science
and research and Government subsidised public health
care for their workers.

Well guess what folks - these things cost money.
Teachers cost money. And Australia is actually already a
low-taxing nation.

Indi old boy, i don't know how someone can get so much out of a simple statement. Au iron ore is the best grade found anywhere in the world, that is why mining here has been so stable for years.
I am defending nothing, i did not even mention govt; pay's
Mining does not need govt; hand-outs to make ends meet, Iron Ore mining should be nationized, instead of being owned by someone earning 1 mill / hr.

579...Iron Ore mining should be nationized, instead of being owned by someone earning 1 mill / hr.

It's called, buying shares!

Would you like some asx codes to help you choose where you may RISK your money?

So what do we get for that $1m per hour.

Jobs, both directly and indirectly.

Meanwhile, the likes of Hugh Jackman can make as much as $60m by simply making a single movie and this doesn't get a mention.

Wayne Swan has bagged our miners to the point of calling them 'tax cheats' yet they create billions for the economy.

What a joke that man is.

rechtub,
I understand your concern, but aren't your confusing waste with prioritizing?
Of course, the public purse cannot stretch to funding every demand, so we have to decide as a community what matters most.
And the process by which we do that is called democracy.
And, yes, one person's priority is another person's waste of money.
It comes down to values, which of course, vary from person to person.
I was disappointed when Campbell Newmann defunded the annual Premier's book prize, but I can understand that others, who perhaps don't read, may have a different priority.
So, precisely which priorities do you consider to be wasteful?
Anthony
http://wwww.osbervationpoint.com.au

And something I meant to add, rechtub,
<<supporting every swinging dick in the world>>
You don't think that might be a tad hyperbolic...
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Anthonyve,

I've found this on the web.

My apologies ahead of time - but I couldn't resist.

What's the difference between a picture of
Kim Jong Un and a picture of Tony Abbott holding
a potato?

One's a dictator and the other
is a dick'n'tater.

Hi Lexi,
I love it.
I read it at a good time. I'd beenreading about Paul Ryan's budget proposal in the US, anf I was badly in need of cheering up.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve, what are my problems with waste.

Afagn war.
We have spent billions on this war, lost something lime 35 brave young lives and achieved what?

We are staying until 2014 says madam PM. Why? Is it because the US says so?

The objectives of the war were to rid the world of two terrible people. That was done a year or so ago.

Our objective now is to change another's world. Can't be done, but hey, let's waste another few billion trying.

Boat people.
Why the continued waste?

What have we achieved, and more importantly, how can we fix this when the indonisian authorities are obviously corrupt and a major part of the problem.

We can fix it, it's called a big stick, but no one wants to use it, they just want to waste more millions on talks.

Now when I was a kid starting work, one worked, paid taxes and retired on a livable pension.

That's gone, because my pension, along with many others pensions, have been taken to provide for outsiders.

How am I going so far?

Now we have thus thing called foreign aid, and if you wish to prioritize where the aid is spent, then so be it. But dont come looking for more simply because that budget did not allow for the labor's brain wave open door policy.

At least not until our people are all housed, fed, clothed and provided for.

After all, is looking after ones own FIRST too much to ask for?

Sounds like a whinge to me Butch. You'd be happy with low end workers getting paid peanuts, and people living under constant threat.
Iron ore is the very dirt we walk upon, it is a national wealth. How can it belong to one person, or group of persons.
It was Tom Price an American that found the high quality of Australian iron ore in the Pilbara, and coaxed the govt; to mine it.

<<After all, is looking after ones own FIRST too much to ask for?>>

It could be, rechtub, it could be; under certain circumstances.
Hint: look up the word 'selfishness' in the dictionary.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anton, how can you call is selfish, when our wealth is distributed much more wiidely than most other nations and, we have a better support system as well, however, that is proving to be our undoing, as it is our generously that these people come for.
579
With the level of training assistance available, anyone can improve their skills.

There is simp,y no excuse for most.

As for sharing the wealth, what are royalties if not a sharing if the assett?

Rechtub, your post is difficult to interpret, but anyway...
I didn't suggest all Australians are selfish, but I can certainly make room for the notion that quite a few are.
And some of those would be the folk agonizing over a few thousand refugees amongst a population of twenty three million.
And a few others are those who resent that our taxes are ised to support those who are struggling.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve - I would say a cost of $4.6 Billion dollars for the latest Government scheme to stop boat is not small change that is before the usual blow out in costs by 100 to 200% in less than 1month close to 2000 have arrived a lot by the royal Australian taxi service we call a navy. The last boat with 99 on it was not even detected by anyone till
Federal Police boarded the boat at the entrance to a island's lagoon at Cocos Islands.
Border protection can't even find a fishing boat, what is the good of wasting Billion for these new Navy Destroyers.

You can have someone with a university degree sweeping the streets, because the job has to be done by someone. Therefor everybody deserves a livable wage. What training, or no training has got nothing to do with it. A non productive job shouldn't mean you are a lesser person.

Wooden fishing boats don't show up to well on radar.
You have to be careful of what you do and don't do, if there are legal ramifications to your actions, you do not have a solution at all.
Sounds very well don't pick them up, send them back, not realistic when it comes down to it.

Phillip S,
As a non secuitur, your post works admirably well.
Meaning, I don't understand it's relevance.
Anthony
http://www.observationpiont.com.au

A non productive job shouldn't mean you are a lesser person.
579,
Academia is at the fore front in making that distinction but constantly bleating equal rights.
A non-productive worker should indeed not be seen as a lesser person, they just should be paid less.
Many in Authority would be below the poverty line if that policy were to be implemented.

The forum here is "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" I would say $4.6 Billion plus all the associated cost will have to be stolen from other things or funded by raising taxes

Yes Philip, so at what point do we say, that's enough!

Is it ten billion, fifteen, twenty.

Do,we cut back on health, education, or do we slash pensions, remove grants, do we cut funding to tech colleges.

Something has to give if we continue supporting these illegals, especially if all we can do is talk about it.

In a couple of sentences rechtub you've led to the "illegals" consuming the entire federal budget.
In the first place, they are not illegals. But, like the Opposition leader you appear to have some difficulty parsing that sentence.
In the second place, we are talking about 18,000 people out of a population of twenty three million, or 0.078%, less than one tenth of one percent.
But, as I've observed before, rechtub, what you lack in fact, you more than make up for with hyperbole.
But in any debate, there comes a time, mate, when you simply have to drag yourself - okay, kicking and screaming perhaps - back to reality, or at least to a place where reality is distantly visible on the horizon.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

85% of that twenty three million are still not on welfare after 5 years, and do not want to learn English without which they can not be employed, because if they have an accident and say I could not read the sign the Government will have the employer in court.
Also none of that 0.078% are homeless but there are thousands of the twenty three million homeless.

Anthonyve,
Well, you're obviously part of the agenda. The 0.078% you so easily dismiss the impact of will be a far greater percentage within a generation but I know you're fully aware of that otherwise you wouldn't push the barrow. Your "compassion" has nothing to do with commission has it ?
There's a slight chance I'm wrong but you certainly provide sufficient ground for conjecture.

Individual,
Commission?
what on earth are you banging on about?
Anyway, to put your mind at rest, I'm a semi-retired, financially independent, ex-corporate executive who writes and plays music to amuse myself.
And who cares about social justice.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

He wrote "compassion" not "Commission"
Quote "And who cares about social justice." In the world there are millions of potential refugees and real refugees are you happy for your benefits to reduced and taxes raised if x% of them can here are you willing to risk the future of any children or grandchildren and to what extent are you willing to go to support them.
A year or so ago the Anglican minister was looking for people to house the refugees in their homes, how many did you offer to take in?

Phillip S,
Read the post again.
He said, 'commission'.
And I still don't know what he's trying to say.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve sorry you were right. - I think what "individual" means is people have "compassion" but are the willing to make possible sacrifices to support that compassion. The potential of these boat arrivals if not stopped is incalculable for example the Government budgeted for 450 arrivals per month in less than 1 month we have had nearly 2,000 could you imagine if they got there hands on a large vessel. The money has to come from somewhere, that somewhere is the taxpayer. Of refugees being here over 5 years 85% were still on welfare after 5 years.

You got in just before me - you were quick to point out my error but you failed to answer my questions.
I would have been writing my apology as you were writing.

Ok, chaps, it's a typo it should be compassion. this predictive text bizo is not that hot is it?

Okay, thank you all. Now, I've got it... I think.
My point is that the language is rather inflammatory and - I would argue - disproportionate.
For example, Phillip S, "...the potential is incalculable..."
No, it's emminnently calculable.
If you are referring to the number of people who might come, there are several ways of calculating the upper and lower ends of the probably range, based on historical data.
If you are referring to the cost, well, that's also quite easy to calculate.
But I think you know that.
So, when you use a word like incalculable, you are... what's the polite way to put this? Exaggerating, that's the word.
My next point is that did compassion become a pejorative term while I wasn't looking? Personally I don't feel a bit insulted when someone accuses me of having compassion.
Social justice has a long history. Most cultures address it in one form or another.
The Bible, Torah and Quran talk about it extensively.
Social justice is what drives me.
Let's just have a mind experiment for a moment.
Let's just imagine that global warming - alright denialists relax, it's just a mind experiment - but let's just imagine that global warming were to make Australia uninhabitable; that the unthinkable happened and our country became a huge source of refugees rather than a destination.
When we grabbed whatever boat we could find and desperately headed for our nearest neighbours, how would we like to be received?
Just askin'
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

Ant,

Australian aid to the needy has always been by comparison to the rest of the world proportionately generous. The problem is that number of people needing aid world wide is far beyond Australia's capacity. There comes the hard decision of doing the best that one can within the available aid budget. Doing something small but significant for many, or a lot for a select few. The permanent residence that comes with welfare, housing, free schooling and medical, especially for those 85% (or so) that are unemployed, comes to somewhere near $50 000 p.a. per person. Which at the moment is ramping up spending at about $50m p.a. every month, as the illegal migration exceeds all historical norms.

The government of Australia while needing to focus on the needy in other countries, has a duty to consider its own citizens first. According to Bob Carr this could easily ramp up to 180 000 p.a. if a deterrent is not put in place.

Wrong I would guess that the budgeted 450 per month was based on the method you said but it is nearly now 2,000 not counting the 80 that were picked up overnight.
You can not calculate the cost without knowing the number that will arrive you can estimate but I would say 2,000 plus arriving as opposed to 450 estimated was not a very good calculation.
The fact the taxpayer has to support any that arrive is the issue.
In your scenario re global warming I would bet Indonesia would use there navy to STOP any people going there.
You still failed to answer my questions.

Con't Even the UN has said a lot of these people are Economic refugees so with that be your hypothetical scenario if flawed

Redone
Even the UN has said a lot of these people are Economic refugees so with that said, your hypothetical scenario is flawed.

Phillip,
Setting aside for the moment that this is a stupid question as it has no relevance to the matter at hand, as in one cannot generalise from the specific, I took none.
How and where and in what manner I support a whole range of charities is - not to put too fine a point on it - none of your, or anyone else's, business.
And if that question, which seems to be so important to you, is the best way you can think of to move your argument forward, then I think you've already lost.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Ant,

Actually, since you have retired and have an independent source of income, you are in the enviable position of being free from Labor's future tax hikes necessary to fund its profligacy. You sound like many of the greens and other bleeding hearts that are quite happy to spend other peoples' money on their causes.

Anthonyve - It is easy to call a question stupid, that the answer too may involve highlighting a hypocrisy on the part of the person being asked.
In fact it is a valid question that tries to ascertain whether you would put your money where your mouth is or are just blowing hot air.
By your failure to answer you have lost any credibility and your "cares about social justice" statement appears to only backed up in rhetoric rather than in substance.
Quote "And if that question, which seems to be so important to you, is the best way you can think of to move your argument forward, then I think you've already lost"
I have not lost any argument as you put it, I am having a discussion, which seems to have got too hot for you.

how would we like to be received?
Anthonyve,
I know how we would be. Not like here that's for certain.

Anton, those .087% cost $x and, why is that they deserve so much of our taxes, when this of us who habe paid tax all their lives get a pittance.

Simply divide the illegals budget, by the 18000 you mention, then apply that figure to the 23 million and why is it we, the 23 million don't get the same per capita, as after all, we are the ones paying the taxes.

Do you really think this is fair, do you.

As I said, they are illegals, as they are not invited. End of story.

Now another option is for you to rally your supporters and pay say an additional $200 per week in tax, so that tax can go towards providing for these people.

At least then you can feel all warm and fuzzy about your generosity, and the rest of us can get back to paying for the important issues that effect the lively hoods of OIR own people.

Good luck finding supporters, especially ones who will open their wallets .

The fact remains that we simply can not afford to continue paying out all these dollars for such a hopeless cause.

It's time to stop the boats.

Now that Nauru is back in the business the Govt just handed out contracts for health & catering etc. to the tune of 50 Million..
Whilst I agree with Nauru as a place to filter the refugees from the agenda driven I still fail to see why it costs so much. The Public Servants will be lining up for jobs there I guess.

Indi, the answer as to why it costs so much is simple. Publicly run.

They simply can't do anything in an affordable manner.

Anton
Just another point on your previous reply, the last time I checked, trespassing( entering one property without permission) was against the law.

In other words, illegal.

Now while I have no problem with you wanting your taxes redirected to this cause, as I respect your rights, please respect mine and don't expect me to support my taxes being wasted in this manner. Wasted, being my opinion.

Phillip S,
Yet again, you accuse me of not answering your - oh so important - question.
Yet, if you'd taken the time to read my reply, you would have seen that I DID answer your question.
If you cannot even read and comprehend a post, then there's little point in pursuing the issue with you.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Rechtub,
Two points:
First, at no time have I disrespected your opinion, I merely disagreed with it, as you often disagree with mine, as is your right. There is a difference between disrespecting and disagreeing with.
Second, I'm not sure when was the last time you checked, but you might have observed that the law of trespass does not apply to the issue of entering a country.
Moreover, that these refugees are not illegals is not my opinion, it's the opinion of the High Court and of the UN.
Perhaps you should take it up with them.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Just finished watching tonight's Q&A. I was amazed how many silly people I have to share my life with. It's worse than I thought. The supposedly funny one was just plain silly & the reporter only expressed dismay at every question put to her but didn't have a single solution to offer. The Minister well, he is Labor. The Bishop was cornered by the silly ones & clearly could not be bothered to argue with the mutts.

Anthonyve - At the top of page 7 I asked you 2 and a bit questions
1) are you happy for your benefits to be reduced and taxes raised if x% of them can here are you willing to risk the future of any children or grandchildren and to what extent are you willing to go to support them.
2) the Anglican minister was looking for people to house the refugees in their homes, how many did you offer to take in?
You claim I "cannot even read and comprehend a post" and claim "I DID answer your question."
It appears it is you who do not understand what you read. At no point on page 7 or after do you say yes or no to your taxes etc going up.
You say nothing about the effects on your children or grandchildren.
Furthermore you have made no commitment either way as to you having some refugees live in your house.
To quote you "Social justice is what drives me." does it drive you in substance or only in rhetoric.

individual - the figure you quoted will be a lot higher because the Government will be paying the charity organizations.

Philip,

Ant has answered you:

1 He has retired and is self funded, so he no longer pays taxes, those are everyone else's problem.

2 His obfuscation indicates that he has neither taken anyone in, nor does he contribute substantially to charity.

And P.S. the term illegal immigrant applies to someone that enters the country without a visa. I.e the immigration was not legal.

Phillip and Shadow Minister,,
Below is a copy/paste of a reply I posted yesterday at -as you will see - 11.54am.
Please note the last three words of the first sentence.
Gentlemen,
Please try to keep up.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

<< Phillip,
Setting aside for the moment that this is a stupid question as it has no relevance to the matter at hand, as in one cannot generalise from the specific, I took none.
How and where and in what manner I support a whole range of charities is - not to put too fine a point on it - none of your, or anyone else's, business.
And if that question, which seems to be so important to you, is the best way you can think of to move your argument forward, then I think you've already lost.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Monday, 10 September 2012 11:54:22 AM>

Ant,

I read it the first time, and yet again it says nothing.

Now that you are retired and self funded, you are immune from the predations of the ATO and labor trying to fund their ever more grandiose schemes. The largesse that you wish to dole out to the world's needy comes from taxes to which you contribute significantly less.

The man in the street needs to see his tax dollars spent wisely, and as I do, not spent before knowing how it is going to be funded. This government has 4 years of record deficits, in spite of having record revenues from mining. This year looks like going the same way.

Shadow,
Two points:
First, in the course of becoming financially independent, I had a few decades of paying an awful lot of taxes, and also, along the way, I spent two decades in the military.
Morover, on a good part of my current income, I still pay income tax.
So, I think I'm as entitled as anyone else here to express my opinion, thank you very much.
Second point is, that in your usual rant about ths government, and its deficits, you - somewhat carelessly, in my view - forget the GFC.
that we have come out of it with one of he lowest levels of unemployment in the world is due in part to the sensible action by Labor to stimulate the economy while incurring a managable debt level, through prudent deficits.
Result is that today Australia enjoys one of the lowest unemployment levels and almost the lowest public debt level in the developed world.
Not a bad result, I'd say.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Don't forget the mining boom with tax revenues in 2011 4x higher than in 2007, and labor still had a deficit.

The stimulus package run by the government was at best mediocre. Too much was spent over too long leading to a deficit that was far higher than necessary.

The protection of jobs in the construction industry was so over done that wages spiked from labour shortage. Then instead of selecting infrastructure projects that were ready to go and sponsoring those, Labor went and built thousands of vastly over priced small buildings that were far from optimum, and don't forget the pink batts stuff up.

If the goal was simply to throw money at the problem, then labor succeeded admirably. If the object was meeting the objectives for lowest cost, then Swan's spending was an exercise in incompetence. Note that during the later part of this GFC, the tax take was higher than in 2007.

Anthonyve - A reply such as what you wrote was not really answering the questions that is why I wrote this
It is easy to call a question stupid, that the answer too may involve highlighting a hypocrisy on the part of the person being asked.
In fact it is a valid question that tries to ascertain whether you would put your money where your mouth is or are just blowing hot air.
By your failure to answer you have lost any credibility and your "cares about social justice" statement appears to only backed up in rhetoric rather than in substance.
You say you answered the questions, NO you avoided answering the questions with some lame rhetoric. To me this and you next reply backs up my assumption that "all talk no action"

Phillip S,
I have already said, in an earlier post that you evidentally didn't read properly that I have not had any refugees staying at my place.
Naturally, I might add. WHo does?
I have also said in an earlier post that how and which charities I support is none of your or anyone else's business.
Enough already, so let me ask you a question.
You accuse me of being all talk and no action, when you wouldn't know what I do.
So, let me ask you, what do you do that gives you the right to challenge me on my actions, inwhat is a forum about ideas.
My guess is, you're full of it.
But, I am only guessing so I'll give you the chance to respond.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthy old boy, I don't think anyone gives a damn what you do. What you do is so unimportant as to be ignored.

However it is what you advocate Thar is objectionable. You want to force every one to have their money spent on your objectives.

Now we know you are a fool, your posts tell us this everyday. We also know that what you advocate for Oz is very much to the disadvantage of us, our kids & their kids.

The fact that you demand that our money is spent in this way gives others the right to question you how much you do in support of these people.

It always sounds to fit with Maggies suggestion, that socialists are very generous with other peoples money. Bleeding hearts can be included in there as well.

As soon as I can get your hand out of my pocked, I promise to ignore you completely.

Anthonyve - I am going reply to your post using quotes from YOU to questions asked of you, if it makes no sense that is because you made no sense to others in your reply. In essence you avoided answering
I will apply this method to your current and future posts
From you quote
1 "the language is rather inflammatory and - I would argue - disproportionate."
2 "Setting aside for the moment that this is a stupid question as it has no relevance to the matter at hand, as in one cannot generalise from the specific, I took none."
3 "not to put too fine a point on it - none of your, or anyone else's, business." IN THIS case your business.
4 "And if that question, which seems to be so important to you, is the best way you can think of to move your argument forward, then I think you've already lost."

Phillip,
In other words, you have no answer to the same question.
Pot?
Kettle?
Black?

Hasbeen,
Phillip S has been badgering me for precisely that information, so clearly somebody is interested.
BtW, I don't recall demanding anything, so, once again, you're going off half cocked.
But, what else is new.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anton, So, $50 million is the budget, for a max of 500 people.

Now that's $100,000 per person.

One has to ask, how well cared for would our folks in aged care be, if the budget for caring for them, mostly past tax payers, was in the order of $100,000 per year, PER PERSON.

But no, most of them have to sell of the inheritance they worked so damned hard for, that's if they have some, which of cause was ear marked for their kids, just to have a bed to sleep in, a often awful meal and if their lucky, someone to bath them and change their bedding on a daily basis.

And remember, that $50 millions is only the figure, provided labor don't stuff that up as well.

The fact of the matter is that these ( call them what you like, but I prefer illegals) are far better cared for than our own elderly folk, not to mention anyone else who relies on government support.

Then of course there are the countless trips to centre link by our elderly, often having to justify every penny they spend, and god help them if they earn just one cent too much, cause all he'll can break loose.

Get the message.

Cat got your tongue Anton!