I've been mulling over some of the issues raised in Belly's earlier Welfare thread and some other bit's and pieces about inequities in how we do welfare and the kind of behaviours that it seems to drive.

I'm of the view that we need a safety net, both for those who lack the capacity to support themselves or who for a variety of reasons find themselves in a difficult spot.

I'm also of the view that the process of policing the safety net to weed out the abusers carries with it an enormous cost or a very intrusive nature.

It occurs to me that our welfare system by and large provides no recognition of past contributions or choices. The retire who's worked all their life, paying taxes along the way who for whatever reason finds them self dependant on welfare in old age is no better off under the welfare system than the person who has never paid income tax.

The person who looses a job because of a down turn in their field of work does not get additional support in recognition of past contributions.

Rather than the focus on means testing would we encourage better behaviours by providing a sweetener by contribution testing.

For those who have taken time out of the workforce to raise kids we could base the relevant portion of their contribution by the rate which those children pay taxes.

The contribution factor should be a net contribution - income tax minus government handouts over the relevant period. For the genuinely incapacitated we would need to address the issue differently.

R0bert

Robert, for many years I have maintained the system is turned up side down, as the more you earn, the more tax you pay, but the less you receive either in retirement, or upon hardship as you point out.

My view has always been that if you contribute large amounts of taxes, you should benefit by way of a healthy pension, you know, a kind of ' thanks mate' for you efforts approach.

I give you two scenarios, both based on an income of $100K per year (average) for 45 years.

Person one travels, buys cars, boats, spends every cent and ends up with very little, while person two invests, pays huge dollars to educate their children, then retires with a nice nest egg.

Now rather than rewards person two for thier efforts, we prefer to punish them and reward person one for their wasteful ways by way of a full pension.

And we wonder why people cheat taxes.

RObert posts like yours made that whole thread worth while.You understand what I was on about and few care to consider the whole picture, as is often the case, this time you, other posters often put the icing on the cake do better than I did in understanding the issue.

Rechtub, please do not take offense, I disagree with every single word.
First, as an example, my willingness to leave bed and return to work, RTA road trauma events.
To work every second of over time offered, saw me always pay maximum superannuation .
I after working from age thirteen till 55 took a redundancy, and started my last job.
Fixed income, salary, BUT HOURS FROM 12 TO 17 in a day.
UNDER EXISTING LAWS I GOT 15% Super contributions, but put $200 every week to it as well.
I was paying BIG TAX in both jobs, BUT Rechtub, it is my honest view you do not understand, *you by your view want more waste not less*
I provided for my own future, as I earned enough to do so, that is how it should be.
Without change, without responsible understanding of what the word WELFARE means we are doomed.
In what way mate, think before you fire up, is you constant demands for more for the already well off, a constant request from you, different than Labors Aledged wasting?
Rechtub thinks I pick on him.
It is not true, honesty impels me to stand against some of his views.

Everyone should be entitled to a pension full stop. How much pension everyone receives is up to each & everyone. I agree that someone who managed their dollars throughout life should not be penalised just as someone who blew their dollars should not get rewarded.
If the former has planned ahead then they will have more than those who failed to plan. Don't deny the planner, remind the non-planner where they went wrong.
Of course many planners have missed out due to incompetent Government whose parliamentarians don't lose any benefit for ruining peoples' plans & lives.

Belly did you actually read rehctub's post.

In saying you disagree with every thing he said are saying you believe in rewarding the bloke who pissed it all up against a wall.

That does not make much sense in the scheme of things, or in relation to your then telling how you provided for your own retirement.

I really can't figure out what you are actually saying in this one. Would you like to clarify.

individual - Quote "Everyone should be entitled to a pension full stop."

I would say every Australian, by everyone you include tens of thousands of welfare for lifers and economic refugees who have done nothing for this country but complain and riot when they don't get everything for nothing as soon as they arrive here.