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.

Belly thanks, your thread was a valuable one. I do have to agree with Hasbeen re your comments to Rehctub, not sure what in that post you were so bothered by. Are you sure you are not reacting to past battles rather than the actual post?

The discussion has a messy element, in a pure sense there is a case for no public support for those who can afford to support themselves but there is also a case for saying that those who've been responsible and have provided a net contribution rather than drain on societies financial resources have paid for the infrastructure that's in place that deserves some recognition. The measures used to determine contribution and the amounts involved in such a recognition would be some what subjective.

In a pure sense I'd like politicians to butt out of social engineering and to let people get on with their lives living and or dying by their own choices but I don't like the extremes of that case either. If we are going to have government rewarding particular behaviours and punishing others, if we are going to have forced taxation which is then given to others then we should at least take some care about the behaviours we reward and the ones we punish.

Peoples capacity to provide for their own current expenses and future is impacted by the level of taxation imposed on them, a point thats often missed in the argument about whats often derisively called middle class welfare.

R0bert

May be the bloke that spent every last cent week by week supported the economy more so than the miser. It could just that the chooks have come home to roost, by not supplying a pension to the well off.
So Butch etc; there lots of different ways of looking at your particular problem.

Many people believe that the poor are in poverty
because they are idle and prefer to live on
"handouts."

This view is held, even by people who don't know
poor people, who've never tried to raise a family
on welfare payments, and haven't the vaguest idea
what poverty is really like.

Opinion polls repeatedly show large sections of the
population favouring cuts in welfare spending, or
favouring plans to "make welfare recipients go to
work."

These attitudes are a result of the ideology that
holds that everyone has the same chance to get ahead.
If those who get ahead can claim credit for their
success, then those who fall behind must, therefore,
be blamed for their failures. Therefore the poor
are supposed to need incentives to work, rather
than help at the expense of the taxpayer.

There are no complaints, however, about how the
country pays out more in "handouts," to the non-poor
than to the poor. This fact generally escapes
attention because these benefits take the indirect
form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions, rather
than the direct form of cash payments.

I guess it all comes down to what sort of society we
want to live in. I believe that although there are
people who do rort the system - (rich and poor), there
are many who need our help - and it should be provided
for them. The poor are a highly diverse group.

Many work full time at unskilled jobs that will never pay
much. Many live in areas of chronic unemployment, such as
depressed rural regions or decaying urban neighbourhoods,
where industries are in decling. Many have only recently
become poor, and most don't stay poor for long. Each year,
about one-third of the nation's poor families manage
to climb out of poverty. Of course there are those who
are trapped in long-term poverty. Their numbers are drawn
from groups such as drug-addicts, alcoholics, illiterates,
mentally disordered, and so on.

Where would they be in we insisted on "Contribution
Testing?"

Lexi, many do not understand that ANY money that goes into the domestic economy is good for all. Social security recipients are renown for not saving money, everything they get goes straight back into goods and services.

We are paying more in interest payments on govt debt per month than we pay out on social security per month.

I think the people who complain about it are unhappy that they do not receive a benefit….they begrudge it. The way the economy is going they may have an opportunity to experience it firsthand very soon

Individual>> 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<<

Exactly, you hit the age, you get all the benefits regardless of whether you are a Packer or a Dobbs.

Rechtub>> And we wonder why people cheat taxes<<

Only the rich sport, the PAYE schmuck can't cheat anything except donations to charity.....lol.

sonofgloin - Correct remember years ago when Allan Bond paid only 1 cent on the dollar as tax.

Lexi SOG I can not see how expecting welfare recipients to do a bit of work for their money can ever be detrimental. Surely one would expect decent people to want to repay the kindness of others to some extent.

It would also help ease the social tensions we see displayed by some of our totally welfare dependent public housing tenants displayed in Woodridge recently.

If these people were at work 8 hours a day, it would limit drinking & trouble raising time.

If the work were physical, probably the only work they are capable of doing, they may be a bit tired at end of day, & have less energy for fighting, or causing trouble.

We continually hear about helping these poor folk with self respect issues. Surely paying not welfare, but day labor rates to the same amount, for a reasonable numbers of hours work could only be a good thing.

Asking what sort of society we want is interesting. I want an equitable society, not one that gives a free ride to some, & simply extracts money from others.

Hasbeen "I want an equitable society, not one that gives a free ride to some, & simply extracts money from others.

I don't mind a free ride for those who genuinely need it but not for those who just want a free ride.

Lexi some of your arguments really are about the measures we use rather than the principle. Eg it gets more difficult over time to check hours worked and build that into the formula but we could conceptually make an allowance for that.

The principle is the starting place, the rest is detail on what can be done to get a more equitable approach.

R0bert

Hi all...

I've read and re-read BELLY's response to ROBERT'S topic. And I (think) I understand where both gentlemen are comimg from. BELLY ever the pragmatist and champion of worker's rights, simply outlines his case well, by describing his own personal process of underpinning his pension, pre-retirement.

On the other hand he draws our attention back to the precise function of 'welfare'. The States responsibility to provides for the basic, physical and material 'well-being' for those in need.

And as a supplementry pursuit, to provide a little irregular recreation for some like minded young Aussies, seeking to engage in a little extra-curricular 'rorting' ! The oft plaything of young Aussies, seeking to get an extra quid or two from government coffers, whilst on the dole !

Of course there's another much darker, sinister component to this overall economic equation, that's hitherto escaped a much closer level of scrutiny (in this thread) ? And that's the matter of Illegal 'boat' peaple.

A group who've came here for the explicit purpose of accessing the same level of advantages and benefits, as any Australian taxpayer who've worked their entire adult lives. Aussies like BELLY, and the many others similar to him !

I don't believe the latter fall truthfully within the aegis or definition of welfare beneficiaries ? Rather, they can only be defined as racketeers or swindlers. The appellation 'Welfare' recipient, makes a mockery of all those Aussies, who are in legitimate, and genuine need !

Simply my opinion only.

I think I’d like that R0bert.

Then the people here given residency for tax purposes only might get something back when in need.

you include tens of thousands of welfare for lifers and economic refugees
Philip S,
We have expressed our feelings about that many, many times here so there's no need to go into every pedantic little detail.
This puts me back onto my favourite track of flat tax as being the most fair system but there'll always be those who think the present system is better as in seeing so much overwhelming support here for it. The reason the subject of welfare keeps reappearing is because the present system is NOT WORKING. Sort the tax & we'll go a hell of a long way towards a better & less needed welfare system as well. As some here regularly say, do not punish the performers & reward the hangers-on. This is what's happening right now under the present system & I think it stinks. Look up the definition of welfare, it doesn't say it's for giving some hangers-on a free ride it's designed to support those in need. As for me that sounds pretty straight forward, no complexity at all. So why does Government make it so complex ? Remove the loop holes & the problems will be removed.

Hasbeen, belly just loves to hate me I think. But I think you might have him here.

It's funny how he so often accuses me of not understanding, then goes off at me without actually reading my post. But hey, that's belly, next thing you know he will be running off.

The bottom line is in most cases people of all ages get rewarded for effort, but not in this case for some reason.

It's a funny world.

o sung wu, I'm kind of hoping we don't spend to much time on side issues such as "ïr-regular boat arrivals". Likewise I'm not trying to address the way we deal with welfare for those with serious disabilities, a very different issue to the difference between those who have made different lifestyle choices and which behaviours our system rewards.

individual, I have a lot of sympathy for the flat rate tax idea provided the extremes could be dealt with in a sane manner.

I'm more in favour of a system that has some account for the effort/hours involved in making the money in the first place which our current system ignores completely. You work your butt off doing long hours because you need the money and the tax system takes more from you, you don't need the money as much and work less and your tax responsibilities are reduced.

R0bert

individual - Quote "We have expressed our feelings about that many, many times here so there's no need to go into every pedantic little detail."

To me this is wrong because when people become complacent and take things for granted, in this instance by assuming everyone knows about it. Then politicians have won and will assume people don't care about that as an issue.

I believe the issue with the current boat people from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan are going to end up being the biggest threat to Australia as we know it now and the future for our children than anything else.

Philip S,
point taken. The dilemma re the boat people is that there are so many thick Australians who hypnotised themselves into believing that the more boat people we let in the bigger the pool of future tax payers to look after the thick-ones pension. Most of the ones I spoke with I sorry to say are Labor supporters.
My line manager is like that & he manages our outfit accordingly i.e. running it into the ground sanctioned by high ranking bureaucrats. He'll be gone in three years on his $65,000 pension but the communities will have to battle their way out of the mess he is creating.

I could, without effort take very serious offense with that Rechtub, and too with Hasbeens contribution.
Fact is I do not dislike either of you.
I have gardens in common with Hasbeen, in fact was going send him a package of day lillys, as his garden suffered, mine however has too.
Rechtub and I are football fans and not enemy's.
I as if truth matters, like my opponents views of me, have little regard for the extremes they post.
No RObert no carry over, that would be gutless.
My thoughts in this area are those in that post under attack.
Labor gave too much.
Liberals takes too much.
SOME bludge on Social Security.
To give to the rich is not SS it is purely silly.
The bloke peeing it up against the wall? bitter and not yet proved!
SOME, WOMEN for a start, never earn enough to save, a silly attempt to brand every poor person by targeting the unfortunate.
WELFARE lets talk of it honestly, it is our money paid in taxes but much more comes from business than us tax that is.
I rebut Rechtubs charges with his words.
CONSTANTLY through out the mans post history flows a bile against the poor.
Requests for food stamps to stop wasting the dole
Charges wages are too high, superannuation payments too high
Back packers are thieving by working their way around our country.
Put along side that, and Hasbeen charges, we now see both crying that I INSIST! we pay only those who NEED IT, not as they want the wealthy, Individual drops in with the thought? every one should get the pension.
REALITY gents, we can not go on forever wasting then starving, that is criminal.
Rechtub first consider do I have the right to do as you do?

Say Belly is wrong? but not ask you to reconsider your bitter bias against the poor.

Harsh words from me in that post.
But not aimed at hurting.
Not aimed at backing down either.
I after all, with pride am an ALP person.
A Social Democrat, WANT desperately, my party, and all such party's,to understand if we do not re construct welfare our opponents will.
That true reform can give more to the needy by taking from the greedy.
I see Americas failure, to provide for its poor, even its returned service men.
And fear the same here.
Why take on rechtub and Hasbeen Individual too?
Is open debate only for some.
If views so very much in my view wrong, can be posted MUST I NOT rebut them?
No harm meant but I with out fear will confront any call to reverse welfare, take from the poor and give to the rich.
Some out there may have the best reform thoughts we ever heard, but will not confront the view if you disagree with me it is because you hate me!
Rechtub re think that bloke.

Belly, firstly, I don't dislike you at all.

Now as for the pension, or more so, who gets it and who doesn't, just name one other thing in life where we get penalized for trying too hard.

Take a business. Now in any normal circumstance, ome would think you should be rewarded for creating lots of jobs, but no, not here, as businesses that employ too many get taxed extra in the form of pay role tax. Utterly absurd if you ask me.

The plain fact of the matter is that welfare, in all forms is simply too larger drain on the public purse and sooner or latter, most likely latter I am afraid, the powers to be are going to realize that.

There has been much talk about the dole, or more so, the fact that it is only $35 a day.

Yet, we have many UNDEREMPLOYED out there, going off to work for less than $100 per day.

At some point these poor soles will simply oppt to say in bed, esspecially if they raise the dole by $50 a week.

No work related expenses, no time sceduals.

This is a bit off topic I guess, but it's still very worrying.

But I do agree that everyone who retires should receive a pension, full stop.

You get rewarded for trying hard by your personal satisfaction, that does not relate to monetary terms as a reward.
Butch, first you wanted to pay peanuts because someone was doing an unskilled job. Now you want to cut pensions, Lead by example, and do that.
Many underemployed want to be underemployed, we have people working one or two hours a week and do not want any more. The statistics are on the govt; site.
That is how employed or unemployed are calculated around the world.
People without money cannot support the economy, so you cut your own throat.
You are jumping at shadows, everything will be fine.

"But I do agree that everyone who retires should receive a pension, full stop." If my memory serves me correct for a brief period in Australia's history we did experiment with paying everyone (no means test, Belly help me out on this) over 70 a pension. there was an outcry when Menzies applied for and was granted an old age pension on top of his other benefits. The government soon dropped the scheme.
I agreed with the compulsory superannuation scheme when it was introduced, unfortunately it was allowed to fall into the private hands who through fees and charges have made themselves the big winners and at the same time made supa for some ineffective. This particularly applies to the low paid and those that changed employers often.

Paul, super is not effected by changing jobs, unless of cause there is an out of work period.

However, I agree with you on who gets rich out of super, and it's most certainly not the contributor.

I always felt that super should have been government controlled, with an absolute guarantee, as this would have helped keep the sharks at bay.

As for a pension for all, there is no way any former government emplyee should receive benefits, plus a pension, that's just plain dumb.

579, take a pill mate, as nowhere have I suggested a cut in pensions.

You really should read what I post, rather than simply attack me with a loaded gun all the times.

The reality is that in this society, those who contribute the most, are rewarded the least and that in it's self is disgraceful in my opinion.

Furthermore, our system is set up to support those who waste everything, yet punish those who save.

Where is the incentive in that?

As I say, it is little wonder many people cheat, or at the very least, minimize taxes in This country.

Surely a reward system would be better than a punishing system. In fact, if high income earners were rewarded for their efforts, ie, receive a portion of their taxes back in retirement, chances are our tax credits would rise, as cheating and minimizing taxes often leaves them sleeping with one eye open, not to mention the associated costs, such as structures and management of same.

rehctub, you and I agreeing on something, how long is this going to last? "super is not effected by changing jobs" yes they have changed the laws so a person can port their supea provider from one employer to another theses day. I helped a mate recently combine 5 accounts he had, all set up by different employers over the years into one account. Mate was single no dependents yet these small accounts had life insurance attached which he didn't need fees had been paid from each, they were becoming worthless with a $1,000 here $2,000 there. He may as well had the money and pissed it up they were never going to provide for his old age beyond a week or two. In fact many small supa accounts have become 'lost' people have just forgot about them. Not what compulsory supa should be about.
At one time the ideal of old age pension was to keep the single rate at no less than 25% of average wages. 25% was once the objective but governments have found that difficult to achieve. Changes to retirement age etc. At one time the average man retired at 65 lived to 72 and got a pension for 7 years, not uncommon for men to live well beyond 80 and women even longer, more and more oldies, more pension. One group of welfare recipients society don't like to attack as unworthy is old age pensioners.
Its my understand that ALL INCOME TAX = ALL WELFARE PAYMENTS in Australia today, other taxes and borrowings pays for everything else. For me that is a dangerous situation to be getting into. I support a welfare system that supports those that that need to be helped, no question about that, but I don't support middle class welfare, I don't support non means tested bonuses etc, in many cases government payments are not welfare but a gift (to win votes).

Butch do you drink beer? If so what kind do you like, we might have something else in common. I drink 'black old'. A 'Watermelon' who don't like "Chardy".

Butch. Pensions and means testing, is a good system. We do not need a system where for some reason means testing is not relevant.
So seeing you are not advocating cutting pensions to service pensions to people who do not need a pension. How do you propose paying for your master plan.
The eligibility age is being raised, as people are living longer and more people are coming into retirement age.
Unless you can put some concrete formulas up to support your proposal, it is just rubbish talk.

579m Without means testing come September 9th 2034 one James Packer aged 67 can apply for an old age pension of $712 per fortnight as a single or $1073.40 with spouse. The pension will still be at 2013 levels as there are now 22,000,000 old age pensioners in Australia. By the way bread is on special that week at the Wolliecole store the only supermarket in Oz, at 50 bucks a loaf.

579, I doubt anything short of serious tax reform can save our situation, however, if the incentive was there to pay taxes, many would choose to do so as opposed to cheating taxes.

You see each time an additional expense is placed on smaller employers, many simply take cash for themselves, which when you think about it is only fair, as to invest an extra dollar, one should be entitled for one for themselves, don't you think, because after all, many know that if they pay their correct amount of taxes, they won't be any better off at the end of the day.

The trouble is that the tax department and governments don't see it this way, as our collective expediture has outgrown our collective tax revenue stream and that disparity is only getting worse.

Rechtub, this is a rebutting of your thoughts not you OK?
RObert may have held other views it is for him to say.
But in my thread, and my posts here, my view is fixed.
I see too much waste, and want it stopped.
I see better ways to get something back from most dole payments.
I want to harness the costs of Social Security, to see more for the true needy, by cuts not expansions to our total spend on welfare.
I think unreservedly welfare was never about expanding to give the well off a reward.
In fact, without doubt, think as unlikely as it sounds, demands to pay every one a pension, is SOCIALISM.
Lets look at Greece, folk just will not pay taxes.
They hit the stop work and pension for life button, in their 50,s!
We, all of us, must confront our understanding *has to be questioned*
If we want to give more to those who do not need it and fail to see the costs to our economy.

Belly, while I don't completely disagree with your view, just remember, a portion of our taxes paid was to be put aside for our retirement.

It would have to be the greatest rip off of all times, and to think that not only do the rich (and I am not one) go without so much along the way, by way of increased medical bills, no discounts for raising their families etc, etc, but they then get told, sorry, you have done too well, so we need to take YOUR PENSION MONEY and give it to someone, or something, else.

All this despite the fact that high income earners have not only supported about 42% of the entire work force, but they have also paid ALL THE BILLS along the way, as the 42% 'ers have claimed more back from the system than they have contributed along the way.

But hey, let's not only offer them (the 42%'ers) full time support along the way, but let's reward them should they come up short in the end, at the expense of the high income earner.

I don't know of any other country where one can manipulate the system to such an extent, whereby not only do they NEVER EVER WORK but they also manage to raise multiple kids along the way, many of which follow the leader in the end.

And guess what, they get a pension for their NON EFFORT.

It is little wonder they arrive in droves here, as we are such a bunch of soft cocks.

Now as for welfare waste, we could bring it to it's knees tomorrow, by way of a debit card system (NO, NOT FOOD STAMPS. GET IT!) but hey, many, including yourself see that as too harsh.

If we want contribution testing for welfare than we must contribution test everything else also. Look at the disparities of parliamentarian's contribution to Super & those of the rest of us. Let alone the access to Super. The waste is far greater on the side of the Public Servants than those single mothers etc. even though that needs to be curbed.
Let's look at the cause of all this waste. It's things like the baby bonus & over-generous benefits for public Servants, consultants to Government, Academia, the Arts etc etc.
Last but definitely not least it's Labor Governments although the Liberals are doing their utmost to be just as incompetent. It's a race for idiots sponsored by morons.

If you want more money in the bin, nationalize iron ore mining. 80% of profits from iron ore goes overseas.
Butch is talking like Abbott he wants to give welfare to the uppercrust.
To give to the rich you must take from the poor.
Tax does need reforming so the well to do pay their comparative tax, without hiding behind tax free, and not being paid wages.
Low paid jobs demand low tax, high paid jobs demand high taxes.
And especially when the high paid, are employing the low paid jobs.

Ever heard of the USSR 579? They nationalised everything & look where that got them.

We are in enough trouble with the huge load public servant incompetents as it is. Make everyone a public servant, & we're all broke in 10 years, particularly if the incompetents are led by a drop kick like Gillard.

China only got out of the mire by converting their economy to a capitalist system. As a command economy they were starving.

Labor has done it's best to destroy our economy in many ways, but not being able to get rid of the useless, or the damn right disruptive elements in your workforce definition inhibits company growth. Once these people are in the bureaucracy, work slows to a trickle, & the more staff you have, the slower anything gets done.

Three cheers for Campbell Newman.

I am talking one section of commodities, not everything as you expanded it to. If time comes to cutting down on public servants, the public should be informed of the consequences and public service given six months to vacate before sackings begin.
That way the public can have a say wether this happens or not.
Public service sackings will effect services.
There are ways and means going about things.
With your industrial relations, you are going against the findings 100%
Published last week.

Public service sackings will effect services.
579,
Sackings etc are words that should not be used when advocating fewer numbers of public servants. Natural attrition & early voluntary retirement can be applied for a start.
Then, as the numbers decline the money saved from not having to pay them can be directed to building infrastructure. This would increase employment. Also, start a National service & you'll instantly reduce unemployment & two years later you'll end up with a pool of better citizens. Cut back on the attractive & excessive conditions in the Public Service & more will use their abilities to enter the private sector because it'll become way more rewarding & beneficial for all.
The trough is too small for so many mouths all at once but if we take turns everyone will benefit.

Indy what public servants are you talking about, Hospital staff, centerlink staff, Tax department.

Too right "Public service sackings will effect services" 579, getting rid of 40,000 unnecessary in & out trays in Canberra alone, would speed up response & action time by at least 30%.

Then we could add performance bonuses after that. The bonus is you get to keep your job if another 30% is cut off the time it takes to process everything.

I do agree we should start at the top. The top 3 layers could be dispensed with. Anyone with director, or general manager in their title should automatically go, & anyone who has directly assisted them should follow.

Any positions that become available to be filled only from private enterprise for 5 years, & wages to be frozen for 10.

The poms had a great system in the Solomons. No one was allowed to work for government for longer than 20 years. This way even senior bureaucrats had to return to their village, taking any gathered expertise, & some gathered cash with them.

We should halve this. Out after 10 years max, not to spread expertise, but to stop the accumulation of long term bludgers. A further term perhaps allowed after 5 years in private enterprise, refreshing their work ethic.

Why not privatize public pen pushers. If there are to many cheif's and to many indians, privatization could be the way.
No good sacking 40,000 and then bringing them all back after the system collapses.
How do you know there are too many on the payroll.
The Tax dept; is gigantic, but is that too many.
Social welfare, Foreign affairs, which ones do you start with.
I can't imagine the system employs people for no good reason, To eliminate some must pressure others.
These departments are support staff, for the people on the ground. If it makes life harder for the hands on people you have defeated your purpose. So give us some examples of the ones to go.

579,
In our area we have consultants appointed by the federal government to manage funding. They get an awful lot of money for doing what our Departments & managers should be doing. Why give millions to private enterprise for doing government work ? Obviously, one of them is not needed. Health bureaucrats taking a huge slice out of health services. Education consultants on very generous money just to travel around for no apparent outcome. CEA offices with more employees than clients. local govt CEOs on huge contracts for what ? They still pay big money (ours) to get consultants doing the job for them. Do you know how many hundreds of millions are spent on aircraft with Customs, ships, vehicles, offices etc ? where is the value for our tax Dollar. Don't sack people, reduce the money spent on them. Can anyone say that a Mayor for a community of 3000 should get 120 grand a year plus benefits. The CEO 300 grand plus benefits, Exec Officers 200 grand plus benefits is not immoral ?
An average of 10 grand a month for air travel to meetings plus travel allowances for each one of them ? That 579 is where our taxes are so tragically wasted. Then you have the legal lot, the fire lot, the Uni lot, the immigration & Centrelink lot etc etc. I'm not saying we don't need them, some of them are doing a reasonable job but the majority aren't yet they absorb the bulk of our Dollars & that's why everything is going to crap. Some even admit themselves that it is out of hand. It doesn't need a sudden axe but it does need cutting back via natural attrition & early retirement. They CAN afford that. In our 3000 strong community there are at least a hundred like this, imagine in the whole of the country.

individual, I think cutting the public service is a great idea, sack all those on say $40k p/a and above. Lets start with public transport, state rail first, sack those over paid engine drivers and controllers they must be 40K people for sure. I hear you asking who's going to drive my morning train, no problem, there are plenty of staff left at the previously over staffed state rail, the under 40 brigade, cleaners, ticket collectors etc, we'll get someone to drive your train, no problem. After the derailment, don't worry Stan the garbo will rush you off to hospital, quick as a flash, well after the lads have finished the morning run that is. We saved a heap by using Stan, those over paid ambos had to go! The medical staff at the hospital will have you stitched up in no time. I can say Col the ex-porter assisted by the girls from the cafe do a fantastic job when it comes to ops, no prob's, got rid of those expensive doctors and nurse, saved a motza.
You say your house was burgled while you were in hospital, shame, but again not a problem, Clem the council street sweeper will be around soon to get all the details, he'll have the perpetrators under lock and key before you can say "call the overpaid cops!"
579, can I count on your support for my fantastic idea?

Paul1405,
who's talking about cutting the public service ? I & others are for gradually reducing the number of public servants & their pay. You're obviously one of those bureaucrats when asked what your job is you can't think of an answer.
If you were as efficient in work as you are in covering your backside then all would be good but unfortunately that isn't the case.
You'd never concede that too many people do too little but cost us too much.
You really need two years in National service to get the gist. I see those parasites & how much taxpayers money they waste just to cover their backsides. It's criminal but I don't think you know what that is either.

individual,
"You're (Paul) obviously one of those bureaucrats" No
"when asked what your job is you can't think of an answer." Engineer
"You'd never concede that too many people do too little but cost us too much." As I do not have the same philosophical bee in my bonnet as you do, I will have to agree. I should say through many years of working with people I have come across a percentage whom I would deem to be lazy. Larger the organisation, more lazy people I have come across, stands to reason.
"You really need two years in National service to get the gist" Your hobby horse, this idea of some kind of National Service boot camp. Pack them off to the wilds of North Queensland, no idea of the un-reality of this notion. Spell it out for all to see, if its such a good idea.
How many people at a time?
Where will it operate?
What will people be doing?
How do they get there?
Where will they live?
How will they be fed and clothed?
How many people required to set up and run?
What logistic needed to get it up and running?
Will there be exemptions for study, jobs etc?
Will people get to go home during their 2 year stint?
What will you do with absconders?
What is the set up cost?
What is the on going costs?
What would be the cost per person?

Just a few questions off the top of my head. With your blind philosophy I'm sure you have never considered any of this. I await your answers. No answers I'll take it you have no idea.

your blind philosophy
Paul 1405,
All I can say re your list that you have absolutely zilch imagination & as my line manager is also an engineer I fully understand that you will never understand.
I discuss this with people all the time & let me assure you that 95 % are with me on the National service proposal. I'm of course talking about normal people with logic. It's only those in the public service & bureaucrats who are against it. Possibly because of self-interest but I suspect poor mentality is the major component.

You have pretty much shown you bias again 579, as you say to give to the rich, you must take from the poor.

So you are quite happy to take from the rich, to support the poor, but you simply won't have it the other way.

What the likes of you don't understand, or more so, appreciate, is that the rich already give so much to the poor, yet, rather than be grateful, you still want more.

Typical!

Again I rebut the words not the author.
579 you have been told! by rechtub who wants to do the opersite, take from the poor to give to the rich.
Find a dictionary, look up the words welfare.
Show me how we benefit the poor by giving every one welfare.
Look only at the last butcher shop you owned rechtub.
Could you pre tax afford to double running costs?
What would paying every one a pension do to the welfare bill?
My taxs fund schools,I have no kids in school should I rebel?
Why should my tax feed your kid?
Because that is how community is all about, welfare is for the needy not the greedy.
In self interest our country funds some business tax reduction, farmers get help in drought and flood fires ,to continue because we need them to.

individual,
Get a grip on reality. your failure to offer any sort of a concrete proposal for your hair brained 'National Service Boot Camp' show who's off with the fairies in cloud cuckoo land. The old 95%, there is always the dissident. If you want to give legitimacy to your argument, just add something like "95% agree with me," like your idea the 95% are in your imagination. "I discuss this with people all the time & let me assure you that 95 % are with me" Who, where, how many? If this vast majority are with you, name one major political party that supports your idea. During the last Federal election campaign whilst I was knocking on doors and holding street stalls, engaging with hundreds of voters, strangely, I found national service was almost never raised as an issue.
"talking about normal people" Naturally you are one of the "normal people" anyone who disagrees with you is seen as abnormal.
"It's only those in the public service & bureaucrats who are against it." Now we discover who are the 5%.
Then this: Why they oppose this fantastic idea: "Possibly because of self-interest but I suspect poor mentality is the major component"
Yes individual has nailed it "poor mentality" its the feeble mindedness of 5% of the population that is holding it all back.
"as my line manager is also an engineer I fully understand that you will never understand." Shows contempt for the educated.

Belly, your very argument is why so many of the rich, minimize their taxes.

Of cause legally minimizing them comes at great cost, by way of very expensive structures and managing of same, whereas, if many of the rich knew they would get a reasonable portion of their taxes back in retirement, I have no doubt many would pay the tax and avoid those complex and expensive structures.

And of cause, the structures I speak of, which I have myself, although not used at present, require constant updating because eventually governments find ways to close loop holes in the tax system.

Now as for welfare being unaffordable for all, that's the fault of governments, not high income earners, as they (income earners) only paid the taxes, whereas governments managed them and wasted them, in fact, they continue to waste them to a point whereby not only don't the rich receive support, but every day essential services are also under threat of collapse, all due to government waste and missmanagement of taxes.

They even introduced compulsory super as their continued waste was obviously leading to a point whereby governments knew they could not support most retirees.

Now of cause a real transaction tax would address many of these issues, but they simply won't go there.

Butch Your idea of welfare is incredible. Of course the rich minimize their tax, and leave it to the small players to pay the tax for them.
Every body knows that, so they have got no hope of getting a pension, tax cheats and fraudster's have no hope.
You need to have a good think at where you are going wrong.
The sort of people that you are talking about need no help, So keep your robin hood ideas to yourself.

Paul1405,
you really haven't a clue about community building, have you ! " Shows contempt for the educated. You got that right in the sense that you actually state educated but unfortunately I'm pretty sure you're attempting to imply that the educated are somehow part of the sensible. Do you realise how much damage has been & is being done as we speak by so-called engineers ? You sound so much like my line manager that I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are him. My contempt stems from long=term personal experience & the associated frustration that inevitably links with engineers when dealing with them. There were engineers who designed magnificent structures many of which have lasted way beyond their intended design. My experience with engineers over the past 40 years is disheartening to say the least especially the consulting engineers contracted by government bureaucrats at our expense. The aircraft industry, the marine industry, in fact many modern industries obviously engage real engineers who don't require to keep returning to the bureaucrats for more money to "upgrade" which in actual fact is always a mere fixing the mistakes made in the first place with our money.
If contribution testing were seriously applied to engineering consultants you'd find there is no contribution to speak of. No value for money whatsoever !

individual, your latent hostility towards your line manager (boss) may be clouding your judgement. Some time ago you referred to your line manager in a post so I can only assume this person has been in the position for some time, from that I conclude he/she is performing to the satisfaction of their superiors. I note from your post you are a 40 year minimum, veteran of employment, not knowing you or your manager I again assume you may be suffering from "old man syndrome" where you find it difficult to take instruction from a younger person, seeing them as a wet behind the ears young pup, lacking your life experience, not uncommon in the work force. You have a degree of paranoia seeing me as your line manager, do you often see your line manager in others you do not like or disagree with? This could be an unhealthy fixation on your part. Some form of mediation/intervention between you and your manager may help to overcome the problem, its good to get it off your chest, so to speak,
When referring to educated persons with qualifications (Engineers) you say "long=term personal experience & the associated frustration". This associated frustration may be your desire to vent personal anger at missed past opportunities, failing to realise your full potential in life through your own short comings. This could also relate to your wish to "punish" younger persons through your national service idea, although you would see this as a wholesome endeavor and not a penalty. Are you an ex nasho, Vietnam maybe?
This is not meant as a criticism but as an observation, we all need help in life from time to time. I too are a over 40 year veteran of the work force and speak with some of life's experience.

Paul1405,
I don't actually have any "hostility" to my line manager as such. He is my fourth line manger in ten years & only two of them did a reasonable job & they got shafted because of it.
He is performing to the satisfaction of his managers for the simple reason that he is not performing hence he is easily controlled by them. All wants is to stay on long enough to build up his Supper account. At least that's what he told me and, he is three years older than me.
I can appreciate if you live down south you actually are required to show some progress to keep your job but in remote communities it is the opposite. The longer lack of progress can be dragged out the longer excess career public servants can be shoved off & out of sight. Of course only a few care about the community ! I have seen consultants being hired & then another consultant to help out the first consultant. Meanwhile budgets are blown to smytherines & blue collar workers reduced in numbers whilst bureaucrats seem to proliferate like the proverbial rabbits. You should see the airfare & travel expenses of these bureaucrats. You'd literally crap yourself . How all this is kept so out of the public eye is a true art. It is indeed nothing more than excessive welfare for bureaucrats. No contribution testing applied. If there were the ALP component within the public service would collapse over night from the backlash.

individual, In my working life I have come across very few people with the necessary people skills to make good managers. Discounting the lazy and incompetent, from the rest some have had excellent job knowledge, were nice people but lacked the ability to communicate, people who could not or would not listen and who often failed to impart their ideas and knowledge to others, in other words kept their subordinates 'in the dark'. Then there are those through personality traits could not manage people, the overbearing, the insecure the self controlling. there are many types, but all have one thing in common they can not get the best out of people. Unfortunately in Australia poor management skills is a big problem which has been around for a long time.

Paul1405,
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that why is it possible for incompetent people to occupy positions of authority. It would of course be utterly naive to think the situation could be addressed & solved but, why do we as the constituents allow this to become an epidemic ?
I know some of the incompetents are there because they are simply yes-people. I could accept it if that was the odd occasion but in Australia it's become a prerequisite to be incompetent if you wanted to get into the public service. That's the tragic of authority now in Australia. We have witnessed the dumbing down of our young, we tolerate the idiots who put up their hands to stand for election & we accept corruption in the public service. I think we need to take a really close look at the constitution & either abide by it or change it. The way things are lately is just pure hypocrisy & blatant corruption.
If we really are serious about contribution testing it is with the public servants & their pays & benefits we need to start. Remember bad things happen when good people do nothing.

"why is it possible for incompetent people to occupy positions of authority." Individual in an ideal world this would not happen, but then again in an ideal world there would be no incompetent people.
"why do we as the constituents allow this to become an epidemic?" That is the $64 question, but as I see it, the people. us, are not empowered to control society. Its rather naive of us to think that once in every 3 or 4 years we spend half an hour to wonder down to the local school to cast a vote and that's it, political control has now been established by the action of the masses.
"it's become a prerequisite to be incompetent if you wanted to get into the public service". Its not that public servants are any more incompetent that anyone else, its the nature of the beast that is the problem. Politicians of all persuasions need a bureaucracy for their governments to function, and we know that by their very nature bureaucracies are inefficient and wasteful. As society becomes more complex, politicians always seeking power, see a need to become more and more invasive in society, more rules, more laws and that requires ever more bureaucracy to administer the ever expanding rules and laws and so forth and on and on it goes. Is there a better way, I sure there is, but I can't think of it. can you? While every we have politicians, and we see them as necessary in a democracy, we will have a bureaucracy, politicians can't survive without it.