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.