government forces you to employ people which you do not like against your will.
Yuyutsu,
Why the twisting of my words ? For what reason ? I didn't say I don't like those people nor did I say I am employing them.
What I did say was that the Federal Government's policy of employing people no matter how inept or disinterested for work is forced upon us, You & me & all the other taxpayers. I am not at all happy about blokes getting $1400 f/n for only showing up for 2 or 4 hours a day.

Does the Government really have policies which force private comapnies to employ certain people and pay them for hours they haven't worked or does it just provide incentives to employers to employ certain people?

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Individual,

<<Why the twisting of my words ? For what reason ?>>

Because I honestly did not understand, especially the word 'we' in "Where I live the Government stipulates that we employ a certain quota of certain people", which I took to be your family-business or company. Also, by "Where I live" I understood it to be some regional policy, so I suggested that you move elsewhere.

Government should not be involved in employment in any form or shape.
Whether one works or doesn't, when, where, what hours and how much they get paid, etc. is a private matter between the person who wants to work and the person who is willing to pay them for that work. This should have no connection whatsoever with welfare.

Now I sincerely still don't understand your post from Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:34:37 AM. If you want me to understand it, then you probably need to be more explicit.

In case your reference was to the public service, then yes, it should be decimated, in the literal meaning of that word, divided by 10!

Yuyutsu,
Fair enough. I did fail to say that by "we' employ I meant Local Government which had amalgamation forced upon us by Politicians incompetent Beatty & Bligh. The rott was instigated by Goss many years back & Beatty did a Keating/Gillard on him. Goss fancied himself as a cast of Big Goaf & failed just as miserably. We copped crap from them then & we still pay for those crapheads now.

All:
Okay, I guess it is time to throw more wood on the fire!

I think that every able-bodied unemployed person ( a person that is unemployed for more than six months, and living off the dole),should be drafted to a minimum of two years into a National Service type system ( non combatant at this time! ) where, if it was run the way it was in the 50`s,or along similar lines, an able bodied person could be taught the principles of cleanliness, self-discipline and the basic skills to become employable, after leaving the Service, or if choosing to, could be come a permanent member of the Defence Forces, serving the country. Two years would be sufficient time to improve a basic education level, should that be the case.

I know many do-gooders will squawk that this is "forced militarism"
or some other silly expression, but the alternative sure beats being unemployed and getting cut-off altogether, as could possibly happen in the not too distant future!

Anybody out there with any better solutions to solve the problems, which are only going to get worse, as the population increases and
the breeding of youngsters imbued with a mindset of "expectation" and "the world owes me a living"?

Dear Crackcup,

I take that as a legitimate provocation rather than a serious suggestion.

Yes, I did suggest a solution - a negative income tax to replace all welfare and the abolition of Centerlink.

So subsistence is free for all, but any comfort or luxury beyond that is subject to earning money (typically from work). A fixed tax-rate of say 30% from the first dollar earned, with no humps, bumps, margins, loopholes, exceptions and caveats, ensures an incentive to work because no matter what your situation is, for every extra dollar you earn you pocket an extra 70c.