Certainly so, Ttbn.

---

Dear SteeleRedux,

This is all very well and I am glad for this couple and their son, but there was neither need nor justification for compulsion - the good of one person should not be achieved through harming another.

The NDIS levy ought to have been made optional, so that every decent and self-respecting tax-payer would happily and proudly tick (or not untick) that box where they choose to help their fellows in distress.

cheerful and others, if you read my initial ost i clearly said 'there are exceptions.

Of cause someone who is born disabled should be supported. On the other end of the scale is this young shark victim. I know he has not yet been supported, but should he?

There goes TTBN going on as if disability was a lifestyle choice. Who can predict a disability happening. Being a community problem it sounds only fair to have a community funded scheme. Those that want disability persons left to fend for themselves is political as much as it is personal opinion.

ttbn and Yuyutsu,

Charity could not and never did provide adequate services.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-conservative-myth-of-a-social-safety-net-built-on-charity/284552/

You two are making that up.

<<... the good of one person should not be achieved through harming another.>>

And what about the harm that we can know would come to scores more (not just those who need the services) for the sake of saving a few dollars in tax, Yuyutsu? Like I said earlier, your mansion won't look as good if it needs razor wire around the perimetre.

The establishing of useful services like the NDIS are not just vote-buying measures or quaint, experimental ideas that some idealist dreamt up one day. They are established, in part, because they benefit everyone to some degree or another. You could argue that people should be given the freedom to make the mistake of not contributing to vital services, but that would never happen under your libertarian model because it relies on having a very educated public, and that could never happen if education, too, relied on charity.

And besides, I think most of us would like to reap the benefits within or lifetimes.

So Steely, how much is it costing the taxpayer for full time care for one autistic child? It would have to be upwards from half a million a year for carers alone without the hundreds of bureaucrats sitting in offices in yet another high rise buildings full of bludgers. Help is one thing, the taxpayer taking over the entire load is just not affordable.

Just how many autistic can we afford before the whole GDP is consumed. Now there is money in it, just watch the numbers explode.

I am horrified by the number of mobility scooters cruising around my town & our supermarkets, since this rip off started. Usually driven by fat smelly people of one ethnic group renowned for latching on to any rip off of the public purse.

Helping the needy is one thing, sending everyone else & the country broke is not a way to help anyone long term.

doog,

Some disabilities in children ARE predictable when the lifestyle choices of some mothers are taken into account – abuse of substances like alcohol; putting off child-bearing while the self-indulgent female 'fulfills' herself right up to the dangerous years for conceiving a child; the modern inablility of young woment to cook simple, nutritious meals for themselves and their in vitro children, prefering junk food and highly chemicalised processed foods.

There is no 'community problem'. Some people have have bad luck; others have bad management skills. It's the way of life. The community should not have to pay for every damn thing that goes wrong in the lives of some individuals.

And, instead of ranting on about what I say about any subject, how about supporting your assertions on 'far right' politicians in the Coalition. You really cannot expect other people to discuss anything if you are merely antagonistic. There are two people no OLO whose posts I refused to read or respond to. I can add you to the list if you would rather put down than discuss. You don't have to agree with me, but when people stop talking things start breaking down.

I watched a video recently where it was said that free speech is not a right: it is the ONLY mechanism by which people with different views can talk without strangling each other.