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.