First I am not proposing Socialism.
And not asking for more or less Socialism than we have.
My thoughts are a review of what we have.
Australia and New Zealand, the British Ilse's to some extent have Socialism within the only system I know of that works,Capitalism.
But for this threads sake, while I may refer to Americas much less help for its poor I want to break a cycle.
In the years 1972 till 1975 Labor bridged a gap, the poor had not been well treated before then.
This trend, in my view has gone on too long and too far.
A truth is Labor gives too much.
Liberals take too much.
This and any form of Socialism must move in to the 21st century.
A sense of entitlement, stunning at times,seems to live in many who receive social welfare.
So what do we do?
I got the idea for this thread from a TV story about smashed housing, government low rent housing wrecked deliberately.
Who pays, we all do,but what if welfare payments had a deduction taken out, just the offenders, would it both stop the wrecking and pay for it.
Australia, in my view will never neglect its poor as America does but do we need to fix welfare and not pay those who do not need it social security?

Social welfare, Belly, is a sensible form of insurance. It's purpose is to make the needy sufficiently independent so they do not pose a problem to everyone else. Large numbers of poor people spread disease and disorder. They take to petty theft and other criminal activities. They become a huge burden on the police and force the wealthy to live in gated ghettoes. The USA is a perfect example of a society in which a desperately poor lower class is emerging along with the problems I just mentioned.
Of course there will be rip offs - they are as human as the executive who does the same thing, but that's peanuts compared to the cost of protecting society at large from predatory poverty.
An independent, non-political organisation should determine the level of adequate funding, and it must be administered by an independent authority. All welfare must be removed totally from religion. If you're concerned about fraud, ask to see the books of any religious welfare group. They are not obliged to divulge their financial status, despite the fact the all religious charities - so called- are funded by the taxpayer.
Only an accountable, non-political, non-religious organisation should be entrusted with welfare, because it is the most important thing if we want to live in a non-violent society, and the cheapest form of security by far.

America is so free they forget about the social well-being of unemployed and non insured persons. Lets hope we never take that road.
There are people that will take advantage of public housing, and welfare rorts.
As a society we must maintain a level of welfare and housing, if that is socialism, so be it. A mix of socialism and private enterprise is of benefit to all.
There are those that would deny a livable wage being paid for jobs that are seen as being untrained or jobs that have no value to an employer, but have to be done.
If that attitude took hold, the place would smell like a country dunny in no time. All jobs have value to a community.
Too far one way, the system won't cope and too far the other way, then society will fail.
We need rational thinking when we make laws and amendments to existing laws. We are lucky to have a balance of both worlds, where private enterprise and social stability can live together as one

ybgirp, I see your point, but I don't like it very much.

You are suggesting we pay "protection" money to the no hoper & the hood, hoping this will get them to leave us alone. Well mate, it sure doesn't seem to be working. The streets, & our property was much less at risk in days of yore, when the real threat of punishment kept these much safer.

During the depression the lady in an isolated farm house had no need to worry, when a swagy came to her door. He was not likely to knock her off, or down. He was not likely to rob her. I suppose it could be we raised better people, when there was more stick & less understanding in a kids life, Then again it could be he was more likely to be caught & punished, than today.

Giving handouts, as we do today, just gives the hood more time to plan his activities.

To put the unemployed to work building roads, railways, or simply cleaning up the mess out of national parks would be a better idea, & they would be too busy during the day for criminal activities. Even make work, painting rocks white is a better idea.

Then again, perhaps we would be better off spending that welfare money on much larger police forces. A cop on the beat on every street might keep us safer than protection money, & would generate much employment.

Well I asked for it!
Two posts from my side of the fence seeming to not want any review.
And dear old Grumpy hasbeen,who would on past records flog the lot of them.
Socialism has failed, in every country that ever tried it.
It too, has suffered by other things miss using its name, Nazi, Communist, and THINGS I can not call it a country,like North Koria.
I here in these pages , have been flogged by the left, because they quite wrongly, think Labor deserted its roots.
Behind my views a truth, they will hide from lives.
We pay for it.
And Blind to the pain views like Hasbeens are growing.
IF Socialism, in the minor for we have it, does not change, we face the electorate supporting the American system!
A western nation fighting health care branding it communism!
Letting it returned soldiers live on the streets.
In between left and right, reality lives.
We must re think what we want from our tax dollars.
You once saw women who had to stay with bashing husbands to feed the kids.
We have gone too far.
Now women. single women have kids as a source of income.
As the screaming comes about single parents having to find work after the youngest turns SOME WOMEN are out their trying for yet another unloved child.
We can do better than that.
Employ those who while on SS get more than they would working.
Stop the transition from long term unemployed to pensions, currently Doctors benefit as much as patient by this fraud.
Room exists to cut waste cut unneeded welfare and by stopping people walking away from fines imposed serving little time in prison, at our expense, take the fines from SS.

The way I see it is that instead of an over-generous welfare our authorities should focus on preventing the need for welfare. Give people opportunities & jobs & reward their efforts instead of what's been happening in the past few decades.
No wonder so many just say stuff it with all these regulations, permits, licenses etc.
A huge percentage of this dreadful situation is borne of authority.
Prevention is better than cure and a hell of a lot cheaper too.

Hasbeen,
The good old days weren't really that good, I just did a brief search and the rates of incarceration in 1930 were double what they are today and in real terms it would appear that crime generally was far worse in the past than it is now. Today there are about 10,000 people incarcerated in NSW, in 1930 it was around 7500, but in 1915 there were around 13500 inmates, adjust that for population size and the picture is startling, Australia didn't have a safe and orderly society until the 1950's.

Belly,
Who's the "we" who pay for the actions of the feckless and indolent?
I don't pay any tax because I only earn about 48K a year and have two kids, the vast majority of Australians would be in a similar position, I'm skeptical of the quoted "average" wage being 70, it'd really be more like 50 a year.

Jay that just means our judges are are bleeding hearts, or on instructions not to give custodial sentences, as we don't have enough holiday camps to accommodate all the crims.

Those who lived through the 50s & 60s know damn well how much safer it was to wander a dark street at night, even as a kid, than it is today. As I said elsewhere, we did not even have a key for the front door.

The fact that a crook can have 64 charges treated as "first offence" today should tell you our governments don't want too many convictions, that is if you want to see the truth.

Look in the right places & I'm sure you will find a bunch of statistics generated by government funded academics to agree with you. The problem is that there enough of us with real time experience of those times, & these fairy tales just don't hold water when tested.

Work that gets the hoods off the streets, & tired enough to go to bed at night is the first logical requirement, but I'd still rather see a lot of the money spent on more cops.

I do not come here to kick a dole receiver.
But to underline the very real waste and sense of entitlement, three generations of one familly on dole until they can convert to pension should stop.
The truth is we must change at some time or spiral down to the American system.
Some may need reminding, much of what we do here is in truth Socialism.
And cuts have been big in this area in Queensland and Victoria.
Government support for child minding, health,public transport and Education are in part welfare.
Subsidized medical costs for pensioners and pensions are subsidized.
YES know JOM said he pays no tax, WRONG.
GST and pay as you earn are only part of our tax, GST, not against it but it is often a tax on a tax take fuel tax.
I only want to remind if we do not reform we are in danger of seeing most go.
We can reform.
And get side benefits, if we implement my idea that fines will be taken from welfare, not short visits to prisons.
Or the smashed public housing must be paid for, from welfare.
We may see a reduction of these events.
And that is a benefit.

Introduce National Service ! Give people dignity & stop pampering the hangers-on.
Cut the public service pays & benefits by 15 %. Introduce flat tax. The solutions are out there, people just don't want to give an ounce.
Have lotteries to overcome the housing affordability & create income. Above all, create Laws which make illegal activities actually illegal.
Only do this if you want a better society of course.

A lot of what you say Indi has to do with policy why not get Abbott to use these ideas of yours, so you can put your ideas to the test.

Does having a safety net in the form of social welfare for the disadvantage have an effect on crime, I think statistics will most certainly prove it does. Murder rates per 100,000, a country like South Africa with no social welfare system to speak of 69/100,000, not unique amongst poor countries. In developed countries the USA 6/100,000 is worse than India 5.5. America' neighbor Canada 2, Australia and New Zealand 1.5. America has tough laws with plenty of police to enforce them, stiff penlites. So why is their murder rate is 3 times that of Canada and 4 times Australia and New Zealand's? I'm not suggesting that their poor social welfare system compared to the other 3 is the only contributing factor but it must be seen as one of the major factors. I think the US proves the lie that the answer to crime is a 'police state' with draconian law, it didn't work in England 200 years ago, with some 240 crimes punishable by death, and it won't work today.

I think you fail to note, Belly, that "social democracy" has been of absolute assistance in maintaining and fueling modern consumer society. When the only thing that keeps capitalism robust is "growth" it is essential that it organises society into consumers....that can't be achieved if a goodly proportion of the population are in the gutter.

That capitalism depends so totally on continuous growth is, of course, the fly in the ointment, but take away the social part of democracy and the modern West would flounder (more rapidly than is the case now).

Poirot, the conservative side of politics can't or won't understand your last posting. They believe in some kind of conservative utopia, where free enterprise will return billions in profits (to them), with no taxes, no social welfare, a big army to wage war and defend their asset, whilst the other 95% of the population starve to death. Something like a modern equivalent to the Dark Ages, but a bit tougher, and they think some of us are off with the fairies.

Paul,

What a load of bollocks. Is your position so feeble that you have to make a ridiculous straw man conservative to compare yourself against?

Conservatives accept that the economy cannot grow without growing the human capital. For this there needs to be decent schooling, tertiary and trades education, and a safety net for those who cannot fend for themselves.

What conservatives don't agree with the left is:

The plethora of "rights" that the left feels everyone is entitled to such as the right not to be offended, the right of someone on the dole to taxpayer funded electives such as IVF, sex change surgery etc.

Similarly the left feels that big government bureaucracies can plan and organise better than businesses, and that all services such as education, water, power, health, etc should be provided by the state. Conservatives believe that the BER school halls debacle, the $700 set top box upgrades and the NBN are classic examples of government waste and incompetence, and where businesses could provide better services for a fraction of the cost.

579,
Wouldn't it be good if Abbott et al would read & take heed of OLO ?

shadow Minister you and I clash.
But you make far more sense than Paul.
I remain ALP to the last toe nail.
But find no way to avoid we are spending increasing amounts in this area.
Fact is if, and it seem clear that it will be, Libs with win an easy election.
And if as expected Greens stand in the way of good Goverment, and they always will.
A Double Dissolution will take place.
Greens failing to understand how much damage they have done, even to them selves, will be given a near death blow.
And NEVER again hold the balance of power.
Then even if they need Labor in the senate,Liberals will reform welfare, with a butchers knife and chain saw.
I propose a solution both sides can live with.
That we left of center voters look truly at the waste.
My detractors say I am harsh, by doing that infer any change is wrong.
A reform of our tax system too is needed, we can combine both, in fact need to.
If continuing disregard for waste continues, think about it!
The electors will demand harsh actions.
I believe a job rather than the dole is life building and know most want it.
Extremes no longer carry weight in elections.
We pay for all welfare, why not reform superannuation.
Take all tax from it, BUT demand those receiving $600.000 at works end pay for their own future life not those earning $35.000

Belly of course you would agree with SM, after all you are one of the most conservative posters on this forum. Just because you might vote Labor it doesn't automatically make you 'left of center'. I have met many Labor supporters who are very conservative when it comes to social justice issues, you are no exception. As for industrial relations, the work place is full of Uncle Toms masquerading as union, people who at the drop of a hat are none too ready to do the bosses bidding.
SM, I thought you would have agreed with the founding father of the Liberal Party, Pig Iron Bob Menzies who believed in a 10% pool of unemployed to keep the working class in their place, good way of controlling wages and conditions. The conservative reduces everything to dollars and cents, we don't live in a society, we live in a economy, we are not people we are 'human capital' to be bought and sold like so much old rope. The driving force of Capitalism is war, and when needed humaan capital can be turned into cannon fodder.
Growing the bottom line is what its all about.

Paul in addressing you I break a promise made to my self.
We every one of us post in differing ways.
Some of our posts are our opinion.
Some are our view of reality, not reality.
Some is general comments, based on what our life, they differ, has told us is true.
I do all, but try ,and it gets me inn trouble, to follow what many/most think.
You are still locked inthe 1950,s, light on the hill us against them ,that in my view is rubbish.
Fact is, in my view Labor, at last, about 1983, found it to survive must govern for all of us.
Your 12% at its peak, should tell you this, 88% are firmly against you.
You hurl insults about conservative Labor.
But be grateful, extremely so, average Aussies never see your team, out side a Labor conference, demanding we? betray working class Australian who long ago, in fact came to the same conclusions I and representing Conservative SM,and true Liberals have, you are a pain, your party of morris dancers can never speak for us.
And Paul, this thread is about defending those things that are Socialism, in our economy, not letting the sheer unchecked mass destroy it.
Greens, extremist left, so like you, defend the indefensible.
We, if we reform this area,may in time help the needy very much more than we do now and save money.
A stable foundation for welfare, a cost efficient system.
Is not conservative, it increasingly is what middle Australia wants.
Sorry but your opinions are only that.

Well that is ok we are not going to talk about it.
But it is going to become increasingly important.
Fact is we can not afford to not review the whole thing.
World wide things such as aid are miss used people have little faith in unregulated hand outs.
And for my side of politics, reform may not meet our wants and wishes.

Paul,

Your assessment of what others believe shows that your grip on reality is very tenuous. It also appears that you are trying to fight an ideological battle that was lost decades ago. The wages of the working class has been lifted far more by capitalism and competition for labour than any union militancy.

Similarly, a firm grasp of economics (often called the grim science for reducing people to human capital) is the single most important factor in building the wealth of a nation, without which there is no social welfare.

Pig eyed Bob Brown and the other alien whisperers if ever given any real power would deliver a welfare state similar to Greece.

Something is very wrong here Shadow Minister.
You and I by our different views and nature are enemy's.
But in this matter peas in a pod.
Not as a defense mechanism against Paul, we do not need that,either of us.
A reality check is needed, if this had not been a hung Parliament Labor would have moved much more on tax reform and all Socialist spending.
Remember Paul PENSION has increased in record ways, it can be seen by most talking from those not in need offers more for the poor.
In my view much reform the greens stalled is about to be put in the hands of the incoming Liberal government.
Greens support for that idiot who stole million from share holders your twin dill leaders DEMANDS both major party,s even if it hurts preference each other to in this election and the double dissolution one to follow closely, leave radical thoughts policy,s and opinions in the phone box that the numbers should see now.

Belly,

We are on separate sides within the middle ground, neither of us much of those on the extremes.

Yes true this year will bring change my team sidelined but I think/hope they evolve past the power brokers/not face less but two faced Disease.
Thread about Aboriginal youth and justice fits here too.
Once informed, once folk have seen a house newly built then wrecked in the same year.
And understand we, only us, pay for it, they may see the way our taxes are spent is our business, and in my view our duty to watch.

A bit of a clarification may be necessary.

".. there needs to be decent schooling, tertiary and trades education, and a safety net for those who cannot fend for themselves".

Absolutely, but for conservatives this applies only to those who can afford to pay for them.
We have produced two-tiered health, education and legal systems in this country based on the ability of the individual to pay for each and the funding of the public areas is generally cut in order to subsidise private interests.

Also, the provision of public infrastructure should be funded by the public for the benefit of the public - not for just for a a select few who seek to make it a source for personal profit.

The government sold off Sydney Airport but who will be paying for a new one? The public. Private sources cannot do it.

Private ownership does not guarantee better performance but management does. I remember listening to the preamble to the Telstra sale legislation in the Senate where it said "this Government recognises that private interests are always more efficient than public ones". If this statement had not been removed it would have meant that it would be illegal for a private company to be less efficient than a public one and was a statement of ideology rather than a fact.

Most people cannot separate the concept of socialism from communism but when private interests fail, they still expect to be bailed out by public ones.

rache,

We are not of the privileged few, but my blood boils when I see <those who cannot fend for themselves>, using their expensive toys - x-box, ipads, playstations, top of the line mobile phones etc., and taking overseas holidays or stacking grocery carts with junk food instead of wholesome food.

Many of these enjoy the privilege of state housing, and free repairs when they damage said housing. These people who are so poorly off also drive nice cars, stress emergency room facilities in hospitals to avoid paying a G.P., fees, and have concession cards to cover a whole range of services available to these 'poor people'.

We do not take holidays, but use the equivalent amount of money to maintain top private health cover, and we're just getting used to using a secondhand computer - the first we've owned.

So what criteria exactly should be used to define who needs a safety net?

worldwatcher,

Fair enough but if you want to generalise further, what makes MY blood boil is the sight of the wives of apparently struggling professional people dropping their kids off a private schools from their SUVs while claiming all sorts of welfare, just because they can structure their family incomes in such a way to gain all those undeserved benefits and avoid paying taxes.

Then there are the pensioners who line up at their local clubs on pension days waiting for their chance at the poker machines or handing over their sometimes significant weekly Lotto System games and then call talk-back radio to complain about how badly off they are.

Meanwhile the dumb PAYE employee continues to subsidise both ends of this spectrum in the futile hope that there will be something left for them in the bucket when their own time comes.

People should assume some degree of responsibility for their own situations but not at the expense of creating a dog-eat-dog society.

If you look at the current Legatum 2012 Prosperity Index you will see we rank as the 4th best country in the world out of 142 countries for personal wealth and wellbeing.

The first 3 countries are Norway, Denmark and Sweden - all considered to be examples of socialist democracies.

Yet we never stop complaining.

rache I feel my views are closer to you.
I want to say however to some extent World watchers views are true.
Once and not all that long ago,both sides of politics rarely fought battles over Social Security.
While opposed to the bloke, in different times, Bob Menzies is worth researching.
His stated views on welfar and IR would if restated today see him branded Socialist.
My thoughts on this issue, I believe, are in defense of the Socialism that exists hand in hand with our Capitalist system.
IF we, from both sides of the debate,can not leave our biases in the bucket at the door, find ways to kill the waste we will confront real troubles.
America cares little if at all for its folk in need, it has the lunatic gun laws, its returned soldiers live on the street.
We are better than that, but even now some see every SS client as a bludger.

Rache,

The top 25% of earners pay about 70% of taxes while getting about 1% of social benefits from the government. The bottom 50% pay about 10% of taxes while getting 90% of the benefits. So Rache, the next time you complain about the crumbs involved in "middle class welfare" don't forget they pay the taxes for the much bigger hand out you are getting.

Taxing the middle class and giving nothing back has been shown to damage the sense of communal responsibility reducing the incentive the disincentive to reduce tax payment by structuring income. Juliar is giving the middle finger to the actual taxpayers because they don't vote labor.

Taxing the middle class and giving nothing back?

Isn't that the whole point - why "give something back" to those who may not need it at the expense of those who do?

What social group has more access to Health Care Rebates, Child Care rebates, Private School funding and Superannuation tax breaks?

Would society be better off and fairer if the wealthy paid less tax and the poor paid even more?

There's also more to the overall tax burden than just income tax, especially when you include the effects of a regressive GST.

I'm somewhat amazed that we have developed such a welfare state mentality and a sense of personal entitlement in this country over the last decade but it seems we're now stuck with it.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/single-parents-to-lose-pension-cards-20130112-2cmg1.html
This link is both painful and discriptive of our problem.
First yes rache I too want to know why we ever give welfare to middle class.
The they have the right, to get something back is blind to what welfare if not is, should be.
I have seen posters froth at the mouth, because the links actions are takeing place.
Both Give them more, and give them nothing views are held.
Note too, ALP caucus is thinking of a rise in the dole, probably taking up the savings made in the links case.
We must stop half hearted reforms,that do nothing.
If we make welfare a thing the needy get, not a reward for being single, and a parent, long term,we start to fix things.
I believe most folk want a job.
And too those things local government and the state once did, moweing nature strips, picking up rubbish, could be done by these folk.
I think if the welfare received is two days pay, at average wage, then those two days should be worked, as a community benefit.
Some on both sides, take bitter stance and say never.
Both hamper true reform, but believe me, we can not forever spill money on the greedy.
Reform in its self stops fraud as it is harder to hid.

Firstly

The term "middle class welfare" is a misnomer devised by labor to describe tax breaks incentives to encourage investment in private health and private schools which reduce government expenditure on public hospitals and health care.

The latest moronic action by labor has removed the private health incentives which recent estimates indicate have ripped nearly twice the tax "savings" out of private health, as hundreds of thousands reduce their schemes to the minimum hospital cover, which now goes on the public health system. The only win for Juliar is that the added burden falls on the states not federal.

SM respectfully, please do not use terms like MORONIC to insult Labor thinking and acting differently that you wish.
You are in fact, defending welfare [that is what the health insurance cuts you speak of are] for those earning far in excess of most.
And in introducing such terms you invite retribution, from me.
Another thread, well worth a look, from arjay, talks of what may appear unlikely events.
But this world is just a few steps not from recovery, but very real financial failure.
Welfare,born in England long ago.
First and in my view forever is about need not want.
We need to see only those in need get it.
Why give to those earning $80.000?
Fairness? feeble why give any one to beseen to be fair,not fair stupid in fact.
If the worlds economy does stop, so too will our economy, our exports will not be unwanted minerals but food.
We will not be able to be so free with welfare.
SM a truth, 42 years ago I found my self on the dole, this part of our country is no place to find a job.
8 dreadful weeks,of abuse and self loathing, I came near suicide
TRUE.
I still think most want to work, what is so wrong about rather than a hand out we give them a job? that returns something to the community.

Belly,

"moronic action by labor" is an oxymoron.

Just as the term "middle class welfare" is not actually welfare. This tax rebate is no more welfare than a shop offerring a discount to encourage sales.

The money that is spent on private health cover goes into hospitals and systems that the federal government does not have to pay for. The $2bn that federal Labor is going to "save" over 4 years is going to reduce money put into private health by an estimated $4-5bn. But Juliar does not care, as this added cost is for the account of the states, not the commonwealth.

A person earning $150 000 p.a. with the rebate is likely to buy a top grade health plan, without the rebate he is likely to buy the cheapest needed not to pay the penalty at a fraction of the cost.

Similarly the payment to independent schools saves the states a fortune in having to build and run new schools.

SM,

"Just as the term "middle class welfare" is not actually welfare..."

Correct!

The more accurate term is "middle class pork-barrel".

Poirot,

Lets use small words and concepts that you can grasp, an example:

There is a low fee independent school in the Southerland Shire, where for fees of about $8000 p.a. you can send your child. Or for $0 you can send your child to the local public school.

At the public school the government pays about $13 000 p.a. compared to $8000 p.a. for the private school. Which one provides the parent with the greatest tax payer funded "welfare"? Even a labor tragic should be able to do the maths.

This was a coaltion stroke of genius. The cost to the taxpayer of education was reduced, and the quality of education increased.

The same applies to the health care rebate which Labor in a fit of spite and moronic delusion want to reverse.

OK SM I am trying, but in truth you make it imposable not to return your serve.
Bloke I am trying harder than ever to change my style,not reduce my hard thoughts, but not to return serve to such as you.
I have, time and again, said you get away with far too much.
YOU, no one else, brought the political insults to life here.
Moronic? PLEASE! bloke it need not be said, But no heat intended no retractions a truly held view, a person known to you.
Is best described by that term, he lives in your mirror.
ALL unneeded welfare, payments to those who do not need it to survive is waste.
Liberals always cut first the poor and lower classes they tax them first, they, by the intended baby leave to high income,up to $150.000 a year incomes is welfare!
And in fact look and see undermines their right to cut any welfare.
SM heard of Sir Robert Menzies? maybe Pig Iron Bob?
He started a party that took middle Australia by storm, like his successor and admirer John Winston Howard.
What happened to that party?
Well in Howard's case he made WAR on his middle Australia with Work Choices.
You advocate your party do just that, reward the well off and make WAR on the less well off.
More Tea Party than Liberal me thinks

Belly,

There are no welfare payments made to the middle class.

Not one red cent of subsidy is received without the expenditure by the recipient of several times more in a such that saves the government money more than the subsidy. It makes pure businsess sense where the government saves more than it pays.

The removal of the private health subsidy is a pure federal money grab where the states will have to cough up much more to compensate.

It is not just moronic, it is greedy and devious.

Howard found the provision of middle class welfare a great vote winner. However welfare is a means to redistribute income in society and not a tool to be used to win votes. Middle class welfare is something Australia cannot afford and is not necessary. Paying family benefits to households with incomes of $150,000 plus p/a is senseless, as these people are not poor, they may struggle at times with mortgages and lifestyle commitments etc, but by no stretch of the imagination could they be categorized as poor and we should not be redistributing income to those that are not poor.
Middle class welfare does not make for good economics, taking with one hand and giving back with the other. Australia instead of making handouts to the middle class, should be making provision for when the mining boom is over. This money would be better spent on education, Infrastructure, transport etc and not buying short term votes.

Paul,

Once again, you've openned your mouth without engaging your brain or bothering to read what has gone before.

Family benefits have never been paid to those earning over $150 000.

Wrong SM, are you saying families with a combined income over $150K p/a can not get family benefits such as Family tax benefit part A, large family supplement or rent assistance. Family with 5 kids under 10 paying rent, day care and after school care income $150,001, no welfare benefit? According to you no, wrong.
"you've openned your mouth without engaging your brain"

Hasbeen you know I try.
But your insulting description of any thing involving the ALP and its followers.
Brands you, not me or them.
Abbott,s proposed pregnancy leave is a start.
You are over confidant in your ability to know.
Leave you to arm wrestle with Paul.

Paul,

"SM, are you saying families with a combined income over $150K p/a can not get family benefits."

No I didn't, and you know it, or you wouldn't have asked.

Similarily trying to fabricate an imaginary family with dual incomes with 5 kids under 10. Really! Stop making straw men.

"There is a low fee independent school in the Southerland Shire, where for fees of about $8000 p.a."
SM I take it your from your posts you're from "THE SHIRE". I can just see a battler on $40,000 with 3 kids at school and a partner working part time living in Sutherland Sydney sending their kids to your low fee independent school, how many low income families have kids at this school and I don't mean the token 1 or 2 they all like to have on the books. If people are willing to shell out $8,000 a child then they should be able to pay $16,000 if they want their kid(s) educated by these "independent" people. Support Public Education

SM. My partners oldest son has five children 1,4,6,7 and 10. Don't you think we have large families in Oz.
You said "Family benefits have never been paid to those earning over $150 000." Son has his own business with a high income they get family benefit part A.

Paul,

Seeing your arguments, I can see why the greens are in trouble.

No your straw man Battler probably would not send his 3 kids here,

Secondly your statement "If people are willing to shell out $8,000 a child then they should be able to pay $16,000" is devoid of logic. The answer is that some can, but most can't.

Removing the subsidy would close the school, and put an additional 500 pupils onto the state public system, at a cost of about $7m p.a. that comes out of the state public school system. Which public schools would you have this amount removed from?

PS.

Are the family benefits paid to your partner's son or to his wife who is not earning $150k?

Not sure why I return.
Seems the point scoring has taken the idea I had and choked it.
RObert is trying to debate the issue in another thread, may be worth a look.
The subject,must receive attention from both sides of politics.
I remain convinced one side will give too much.
The other take too much.
Middle Australia deserves better.

Belly on this forum you make more comebacks than Dame Nelly Melba.

SM you jumped in with "you've (Paul) openned your mouth without engaging your brain."
If you don't want to take my word that a family with a combined income over $150k p/a can still get family benefits just go to the Australian Government Department of Human Services web site and check for yourself.
What are you the Shadow Minister for Potted Plants!
p/s Have a look at Australian history and see how often members of the Liberal Party have opened their mouth without engaging their brain." on a whole range of issues both internal and external. A party of fools no less and they have the hide to attack The Greens.
Can you tell me where the founding father of the Liberal Party Pig Iron Bob Menzies got the tag from? You wont know so I will tell you. He sanctioned the sale of Australian pig iron to Japan prior to WWII. When warned of the dangers of this action he retorted: "The Japanese are only use the iron to manufacture toys." February 1942 saw Menzies Japaneses "toys" raining down on Darwin killing Australians. It was all downhill for the Liberal Party from that point on. Here it is 2013 and they haven't improved.

You, at least this once Paul are right.
I think the thread, even if I started it has run its course.
And recommend the one RObert has started.
But before leaving again highlight, as shown by the hen house squabble between Paul, a green, and super conservative SM.
One side wants to give too much the other wants to reward those who need no help.
Poor fella my country.
We need leadership and need it badly.
Not enough come to the debate ready to find change that all can live with.