A recent news article whereby a single mother is wrongly accused of owing $24,000 by centrelink, shows just how the system is failing to remove some from the age of entitlement.

The following is an extract 'her own words' which pretty much sums it up, she says, “It’s just really upsetting and confronting because, I was thinking, the rate that I paid back Centrelink debt in the past would be about $50 a pay cycle,” she said. “More than that at a time I just simply couldn’t afford it. So I thought, ‘Is it going to be for the next 10 years that I’m going to be paying this back? How am I ever going to be able to get ahead?’.”

Obviously this lady's future plans don't include getting a job any time in the next ten years.

Why are we still pussy footing around with people who do as they please, yet feel entitled to beliving that there is no problem expecting the tax payer to pay their way.

Do you ever read anything you post about?

The reason she was asked to replay the money was because she already HAD a job, the automated system just thought she might have had MORE than one.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/28/call-to-suspend-centrelink-system-after-single-mother-receives-24000-debt-notice

You have no idea. I know your type- worked at a successful business and have enough money to not worry about welfare. You're alright Jack, bugger everyone else.

Hi Bugsy,

So you're saying that she earned $ 24,000 plus, without telling Centrelink ? She wasn't fined at all ? That she is now still working, but complaining about paying back $ 50 per week ?

So she was over-paid $ 24,000 ? Perhaps she could think of those weekly repayments as a sort of tax - you know, the money that many people pay every week as long as they have a job.

Or she could think of it as $ 24,000 that she borrowed, and that she can now pay back what she owes on easy terms ? After all, she 'borrowed' it and is now paying it back at a pretty low rate of interest, less than 0.2 % p.a., a total of $ 2000 in interest, $ 4 per week on $ 24,000 (on a declining balance?) over 520 weeks.

Next time, she could invest 'her' $24,000 at, say, 4 % p.a., and earn $ 960 p.a. - and pay back only $200 p.a. ! $ 760 clear ! She might have to declare it as income, but she would still have the $ 24,000 at the end of it, so $ 960 income [less tax] forever. Why aren't they teaching kids financial maths in school these days ?

Joe

Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

Assuming your version is correct, Rehctub, what tax-payers should do, is to refuse to provide this lady with goods and services, but tell her: "keep your money to yourself, we do not take stolen money".

If you own a shop or provide a service, you are entitled to ask your customers: "where did you get this money from?" and if the answer is "government", then one should refuse to accept that tainted money.

Joe,

Bugsy provided the link, so why didn't you read it?

She told Centrelink about the money she earned. Centrelink is entirely at fault. Their automated system is so dumb that it assumed she worked two jobs and only declared half her income. And their staff are so grossly incompetent that they failed to correct it as soon as she pointed it out to them.

________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,

That sounds eerily like something you've previously posted about Sodom!

Businesses should not discriminate.

Dear Aidan,

You provided no reasoning to substantiate your view that businesses should not discriminate: until and unless you provide some such rationale, I will have to assume that this is an axiomatic/ideological stand.

Anyway, does this mean that your business would be happy to receive payments for its services even if it knew that the money that it receives was stolen?