Hi Belly, In Australia there is truly, real grinding poverty in the mist of plenty. Housing affordability is a huge problem down my way. I "looked over" a joint a while back, where by my calculation there is 15 or 16 people living, including kids and a baby with her single mum. These people are living on the top and back of a shop, one bloke lives in the "garage" at the rear, at $250 a week, he has a job, works nights in a kitchen. Most of the adults are working. The place has been partitioned (illegally) into flats one kitchen, toilets up and down. I don't know what the landlord gets for the shop but he's pulling in about $2200 a week from the rest of the joint, and on top of that he "works out" how much they have to chip in for water and electricity per quarter. The place is a fire trap, but what can you do, close the joint down and a dozen people at least are on the streets. There is a pub that's closed down, but its full of people, they are going to have to get out soon, the pubs up for redevelopment.
As the "gentrification" takes place around us, through The Greens we really have a fight on our hands to get affordable housing included in new developments. With O'Farrell removing council powers, its an uphill battle fighting developers on that score alone.
I know you will laugh at this, but I am very much pro development, as are most of my Green friends, what we are is pro sustainable and people friendly developments. There are no more than us who want to see old run down factories, warehouses and slums replaced with new. but it can't be all about profit alone, at the expense of people.

....Work Choices from Howard failed the test of fairness

Yes Paul, for a VERY SMALL minority.

Now the problem was, that by installing labor, due largely to the anti WC campaign, we are now approaching $300 billion of debt and our borders, THAT WERE INTACT are now out of control.

Now I don't care about percentages, what I know is $300 billion, is $300 billion.

....Rechtub no doubt would want to tax them on what they found.

Utter crap Belly.

You speak of welfare reform, yet ignore the most important reform of all, that being, stopping the cash.

Stop the cash, you control the waste, control the waste, you redirect welfare to where it was intended.

So guys, if you want to 'oil the economy' as you say, bring in a transaction tax, that taxes every single financial transaction.

That would see hundreds of extra dollars, each and every week, returned to the tax payer. Now THAT would oil the economy.

Furthermore, it would remove much of the UNPAID WORK, performed by employers, as personal income tax and GST would no longer exist.

As for affordable housing, it's a major problem, however, one of the contributors has been the impost on land lords, whereby there are now strict laws in place which can lead to the LL being sued for silly thing, like a tear in the floor coverings.

What the laws have done is forced many land lords to spend thousands of dollars, bringing cheaper homes up to standard, and of cause, this has effected rents.

Now while I understand the purpose of these laws, some of which are over the top, it has seen many cheap houses in the rental market either renovated, or replaced, a move that sees rents increase.

It's a catch 22

Paul while the debate you and I are having is worth while I am more than reluctant to feed Rechtubs disjointed rants.
In his most recent post he does a valiant job af avoiding truth and side stepping the fact, he is trying to avoid his own threads path, have once more been proved quite wrong.
I will however tell of my concerns re housing.
An American state has a form of commune for street people, it is above slum dwelling and they worK together quite well.
If Labor or any center left side is ever to govern again they must confront public housing.
The general public have every right to be concened about the sub culture in many current such housing areas.
My work for wages thought may be the answer rather than sponsoring current failed plans.
RIP HAZEL.

rehctub, on this thread you started, the commonality is about one group in society supporting another, and what mechanisms we are to accept to deliver that support. It is a philosophical stance we take as to whether we support and to what degree we support, for a better word, "socialism" in society. From your posts I believe you trust in a form of conservative liberalism, whereby the onus is placed more on the individual to take responsibility for their well being. I too, as I'm sure Belly does, support the notion of individual responsibility. However where you and I differ is I believe through intervention by the state at an early stage, and in a broader capacity, society can deliver collective support to those perceived as truly in need.
I am not a supporter of 'middle class welfare' which is seen by conservatives as justifiable, that being a reward for past diligence by the recipient, example a baby bonus for all. Although I dismiss that conservative argument and tend to see it for what it really is, no more that a cynical vote buying exercise.
It is a belief on mine that the "system" we have developed in Australia over time is a good one. It delivers both stability and a degree of certainty for all. The system is not perfect by any stretch, but it is workable, and it does by and large meet our expectations. We will argue long and hard about what the ideal should be, but I for one do not wish to embrace the extremes of the far right or the far left.

Paul while we are debating a subject dear to my heart we too, are highlighting Rechtubs failure to defend his imposable thoughts.
But while you may disagree welfare ,if it is to be of use will be reformed.
And it needs to be.
Unlikely you will agree, but *achievable change* that is change that most on all sides will agree with must come.
IF Labor fails after defeat, to confront its reform, we will get reform, a one sided but unchangeable one.
You would be surprised that some, not all, not most, of my reform would be the above mentioned community living.
Your $250 for a room, is true but increasingly it puts folk sleeping on the street, we can do better.

Belly; "Unlikely you (Paul) will agree, but *achievable change* that is change that most on all sides will agree with must come."
In fact, I do tend to agree with your statement, social justice is not static but dynamic. What we must be careful of, and I do charge some section of the labour movement with this, that they negate principles in the quest for power, merely for powers sake. I have never been a great advocate for consensus politics, but that is not to say there is no room for agreement with compromise. So often we are diametrically opposed to some, that common ground is unachievable, that is the time we must stand and fight for what we believe in. Principles are important.