Government plans to crack down on welfare dependence

The Government has announced it will make changes to the welfare system.

Is Australia’s welfare system working? Recent data overwhelmingly suggests that it is not.

A new report by accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found that Australia is racking up a $160 billion welfare bill every year, based on 15 years’ of data.

Using actuarial analysis, PwC identified the three main groups most at risk of getting caught in the welfare trap: young carers, single parents under 18, and some students.

The report detailed how long individuals from these groups were likely to spend on welfare, along with the overall cost to the taxpayer.

According to the report, there are 11,000 young carers (aged 15-14) in Australia and each will spend 43 years on welfare, costing the taxpayer $5.2 billion, or $500,000 each. Young single parents (under 18), of which there are 4,370, will spend 45 years on welfare, costing $2.4 billion. And 6,600 students (who moved from student payments onto working age payments) will remain on some kind of welfare for 37 years, at a cost of $2 billion.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter said a “revolutionary change” was needed to break the welfare dependency cycle. He suggested that rather than implementing programs created by bureaucrats, Australia needs to “crack the back” of long-term welfare reliance by investing in education and training services.

“We already spend $160 billion on direct welfare payments and what this new data is telling us is that for too many people inside the system the money flows but nothing changes and lives are not improving,” he said.

The Government aims to implement programs targeting at-risk group with The Australian Priority Investment Approach, which is all about intervening early and ensuring the groups most at-risk groups have access to training and jobs.

A $96 million Try, Test and Learn Fund will also allow states and territories, the non-government sector, academics and stakeholders to test out ideas for reform.

These programs mirror New Zealand’s controversial Job Ops and Community Max program, pioneered by Paula Bennett in 2009.

Mr Porter said that changes to the welfare system have been based on “intuition”, but with solid data now providing a framework, decisions will now be “evidence-based”.

“What we've been doing largely to this point is acting on something that looks a bit like intuition – we do things that we think will work, because we understand the mechanics of why they should work.

“The money will flow as the results flow.”

Read more at www.abc.net.au
Read more at www.afr.com

Opinion: Change starts somewhere

The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) has been quick to criticise the Government’s approach, claiming that it focuses on young people while neglecting an entire group of older Australians already in the welfare spiral.

New figures from the Department of Social Services (DSS) reveal that the number of older Australians on welfare is rising, with 31.5 per cent of the 768,000 Australians on Newstart aged over 50.

In his maiden speech to the National Press Club, Mr Porter announced that he wouldn’t support ACOSS’s recommendation to increase the Newstart allowance by $53 per week. A move that would cost the Federal Budget $7.7 billion, rather than the $96 million the new welfare program is set to cost.

While the focus on younger groups is important, it’s necessary for the success of any welfare system overhaul that changes are made to help all groups. Figures show that almost half of over-50s on Newstart stay on it for two years, and 20 per cent stay on it for four years. Comparatively, younger people generally move off the payment much more quickly.

Mr Porter claims the data collected in the $34 million report (commissioned by Mr Porter’s predecessor Scott Morrison) from PwC, meant the Government could predict what will happen to all at-risk groups in the future.

Mr Porter claims the data collected in the $34 million report from PwC, meant the Government could predict what will happen to all at-risk groups in the future.

“That allows us to predict what will happen to groups going forward, and not just large groups, not for instance everyone on Newstart – it allows you to drill down into very, very small groups of people who share similar characteristics,” he said.

Despite older Australians on welfare also being in need of assistance programs, when you consider that the three at-risk groups identified in the PwC report are likely to remain on welfare for a number of decades, it makes sense why the Government is implementing programs to assist them first.

Overhauling the welfare system is a huge task. If the Government’s first priority is to save money rather than simply create support systems to help people, then it is correct to start with programs to get Australia’s most at-risk groups into training and jobs.

Hopefully, similar programs to help older welfare recipients will follow shortly.

What do you think? Is the Government right to focus on the younger at-risk groups? Do you think a New Zealand-style welfare program will be helpful in Australia? If you’re on welfare, do you feel more could be done to support you?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Boof
    21st Sep 2016
    10:28am
    I really think that "The Aged Pension", should be governed by a tribunal, much the same as "Pollies" wages and conditions are now decided. Just the age pension, which is unique. Most other pensions have lots of variables. Most recipients of Aged Pension, really do not have much control in the act of getting themselves onto other forms of survival, owing to their frail condition.
    motaleon
    22nd Sep 2016
    6:20pm
    Pensions are not the only issue. Medical and pharmaceutical expenses now receive NO RESPITE. We used to get a miserable 29 cents in the dollar for expenses over $1500: now it is zero. The medicare coverage of pharmaceutical items is continually being wound back. Older citizens, including war veterans are in greater need of support but are getting less and less But the politicians go on from strength to strength. Bravo democracy!
    jackie
    21st Sep 2016
    11:05am
    I thought carers were supposed to be saving the government money. I think it's disgusting picking on young people that have the huge responsibility and burden of looking after disabled family members. If you push them off the system who will take care of their disabled relative? Are they expected to die just like the many rejected DSP applicants?

    This money will go toward the $130 Million for displaced persons across the globe. Our permanent increased refugee intake from 13,750 to 18,750. They will have priority over our skilled migration intake and special intake of 12,000 refugees from the Syrian and Iraq humanitarian crisis. The One World Order agenda is close to fruition.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:17am
    As a carer - I can assure you of two things:-

    1) If someone had to come in, paid out of the NDIS money, to do the caring, the cost would be astronomically higher than $123 a fortnight.

    2) $123 a fortnight does not even cover the cost of fuel to run to doctors and hospitals, let alone provide a consoling beer at the end of the day filed with the demands of providing for another full-time.

    I'd say let the detractors go out, cop their $123 a fortnight, and take on a high intensity caring role for a month.... then we'll talk.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    11:47am
    I agree, Trebor. The way this nation treats carers is a disgrace.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    12:04pm
    I have a step-daughter who works on caring, paid by NDIS - she earns a couple of grand a week after tax. The difference is I do the job for her mother seven days a week while she works four long shifts a week, and I receive the $123 a fortnight as told. She also doesn't fork out for the fuel etc for her patient's errands etc.

    I don't begrudge the money going to caring for people or the rate of pay - she looks after some crazies (I don't? - well there ya go) as well as others - I'm just pointing out the reality of these figures.
    KSS
    21st Sep 2016
    1:16pm
    Trebor you are looking after your husband's ex-wife (or partner at least)! That is a decision you have chosen to make. If you want to be paid more, then get qualified and get a carer's job as your step-daughter has done. I note here she is not looking after her own mother!

    Part of being a family is that family members take care of each other, indeed in the marriage service you even promise to do so. Why should this be made a Government/taxpayer responsibility?
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    1:58pm
    Would the government rather see disabled people begging on street corners? Oops - sorry for asking - that's a moot question.... since our illustrious governments have decreed that we will be part of Asia, I guess the beggars will become part of the scenery (they already are)...
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:14pm
    KSS, put yourself in the position of some carers I know. If, having struggled through a poverty-stricken childhood and starting work at 15 on a basic wage, you were unfortunate enough, a few years later, to parent a seriously disabled child who needed 24/7 attention and expensive medical care, would you think it reasonable for society to declare that you should bear the burden of care with no income to sustain you, your child, or the rest of your family? Love doesn't pay the bills. Some of us, in this society, have sufficient human decency and compassion to endorse a social welfare system that enables those who - for no fault of their own - cannot sustain ourselves to be supported by society. The luckier enjoy an unfair share of national resources, exploit labour at far less cost than it is worth, and use every trick in the book to minimize tax - yet scream protests when the less fortunate ask for just a little support.

    Once upon a time people recognized an obligation to the society that enables them to work and enjoy rewards. Not now. Greed and selfishness has driven a mentality that declares the needy worthless and undeserving and the greedy ENTITLED TO HOARD GOLD. What a sick world!
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    2:34pm
    The issue isn't about being paid more - it is the ceaseless attacks by this government on those who are spending their pittance and a lot more doing a job that would cost the same government a far higher figure.
    ex PS
    26th Sep 2016
    12:37pm
    KSS, maybe we need to look a bit deeper. A persons spouse is diagnosed with extreme anxiety, they have two choices, give up work and look after the spouse or leave and leave the task to someone else?
    Apart from the moral aspect of helping the family stay together, would it not be more cost effective for the spouse to be compensated for having to give up work. I have been in a similar position and have to say, I was only days away from resigning and staying home to look after my spouse.
    I was extremely lucky in having good friends, relatives and neighbors who were able to help out.
    It is very trite to make statements about families looking after family members but the reality is that these people have their own problems to deal with.
    Last time I looked it was a responsibility of government to look after those in society who could not look after themselves or have the rules changed and nobody told us. People who stay at home and look after relatives save this country billions, if they just gave up and turned their problems over to the government, we would have a real financial crises on our hands.
    Aussie
    28th Sep 2016
    12:58pm
    Here is KSS making stupid statements again and again you are total ignorant tabout the real wold total insensitive person PO you are nothing not a person ....what are you ???? No feelings for others suffering only you ....selfish
    Need to go to church and learn about love caring sharing and compasion for others in need
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:15am
    I don't do welfare... I draw on my decades of social security contributions... contributions that are proportionately vastly higher than politicians in putting funds into their retirement scheme.

    Welfare is a state of mind, a policy direction, or an intention to ensure some degree of personal well-being - Social Security is the bought and paid for remuneration as Pension of Unemployment Benefit to which everyone is Entitled (no trade mark).

    The use of the pejorative term 'welfare' is used to down-grade those who receive Social Security, and is unacceptable.

    Now that we've cleared that up - let's look at our Social Security system..... for those who disagree - don't let the door hit you on your way out.....
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:30am
    Nah, then - let's look at this.

    You average person thrown out of work has to wind cash etc down to zero before receiving assistance via Unemployment Benefit Entitlements.

    Your average family can be bringing in $80-100k pa and still receive some form of Social security.

    Why is that? Especially when some of these are business families who manage to write off a large part of their living expenses before getting to taxable income.

    Your average business gets Social Security in many ways, including tax breaks and even government direct handouts - yet such businesses can earn billions.

    Why is that do you think?

    My point is simple - what is needed is an instant cessation of these small scale (and small-minded) attacks on those receiving Social Security - and a thorough and comprehensive detailed look at what actually constitutes Welfare and Social Security here - and how the massive expenditures to those with little to no real need can continue.

    I will add that the continuation of payments to those without real need does not overall change things for the better - rather, it creates an environment in which costs of living etc rise to meet the ability of those who can pay - rather than to meet the ability of those who cannot. Thus the form of Social Security to those above a certain level of income is in reality inflationary in causing rising costs of living.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    11:51am
    You hit the nail on the head, Trebor. Cutting payments to people in need doesn't save money - regardless of the reason for their need and regardless whether or not they might be regarded as ''cheats''. Any cuts in their income flows on to increased needs for social services, increased crime, increased addictions, etc. etc. etc. Conversely, cutting middle class welfare saves money without imposing significant hurt, and attacking business tax reduction saves a lot of money without causing hurt.

    The government has its priorities all wrong, and sadly the greedy privileged majority support the government because these wrongful policies feed their greed.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    11:58am
    Rubbish Rainey people are getting these carer allowances not to care for someone but as extra welfare money. I know of many cases where this is happening.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    12:05pm
    You are always free to report them to Colonel C'Link, OG - just stop whining about things you know nothing of in reality. You don't know their situation.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    12:08pm
    But I do know their cicumstances Trebor that is the problem.
    john
    21st Sep 2016
    12:11pm
    TREBOR. THIS!
    Rae
    21st Sep 2016
    12:12pm
    A good point Trebor. Prices are being forced up by a very few high income earners skewing the average wage figure and social security for families earning over $120 000.

    At that figure it is a joke that they need any extra support.

    I managed to raise a family, pay all my own childcare, pay a mortgage and save money in compulsory super on less than $60 000 a year.

    Of course there was no coffee on the way to work or lazy Sunday brunches.Or family holidays in Bali and weekends in Sydney.

    And don't get me started on those overpriced SUVs needed to show off to the other mums at the private schools.

    I object to paying wealthy income earners to raise their own kids.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    12:12pm
    HOW do you know their circumstances? If so, why have you not done your civic duty and reported wrongdoing?
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    12:15pm
    Totally agree, Rae - there needs to be a lower ceiling on who gets benefits from government - not the endless attacks on those at the 'bottom' of the well (those inside The House Without Windows - the one from which you can never seen anything of value? I'm considering using that title for my partial auto-bio about my upbringing - but I think someone has already used it...)
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    12:16pm
    Buggar - yes they have - in 1923....
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    12:20pm
    What is the point Trebour as Centrelink already know about these people? I talk to Centrelink regularly about many issues.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    1:59pm
    If they are wrongdoers, eventually The Good Colonel will get around to them....

    What this issue does NOT need is just another government propaganda campaign and jihad against all on the supposition that a few are rorting the system.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:05pm
    Then obviously you got it WRONG, OG. Your nasty judgmental attitude and vile assumptions about people you know nothing about were thankfully ignored in favour of PROPER investigation. So shut up with your nastiness and leave the poor disadvantaged battlers alone.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    2:33pm
    No I'm just being realistic and can see through the antics of people who want others to think they are so smart getting paid to do nothing.
    Star Trekker
    21st Sep 2016
    2:44pm
    OG, get your facts straight, not all carers are in for the money. I get 2 Carer Allowances. One for my son who is Autistic and one for my daughter who has a rare genetic disorder. My husband has heart problems and is on the DSP. I get a Wife's Pension. I would love to work but I already do that 24/7 anyway without the perks of holiday pay, sick pay or Superannuation.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:46pm
    You have no right to judge, OG. You don't know what you are on about. People who are trained to assess have declared you WRONG, so shut up with your vile condemnations and false accusations and leave honest, decent people alone. They are far, far better than the likes of you.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    2:54pm
    So we should let the single mother who can't make ends on what she gets in welfare get paid a carer's allowance for every old person in her neighbourhood. That is one of the things that this report is trying to address. I can give more example of more abuse of this allowance too.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    5:10pm
    I seriously doubt anyone would take on a ''carer'' role for money at the rates the government pays. Maybe for a rich person who could afford to pay commercial rates, but certainly not for $123 a fortnight, or even a full rate carer's pension (which is tightly means tested). It's a pittance for a very tiring, stressful, emotionally demanding and often very physically taxing job. Carers are typically on duty 24/7, have no holidays or sick leave, have to pay someone high rates for even a few hours of respite to attend a family wedding, funeral, etc.

    I do know carers looking after folk who SOMETIMES appear to be healthy and not in great need, but nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors and some of those patients have mental problems that impose horrendous stress and hard work on their carers a lot of the time, and just not knowing when a mental ''melt-down'' might happen and how bad it might be is extremely taxing.

    If the government had to arrange care for these sick and disabled individuals it would cost many, many times the cost of providing carer pensions and allowances. Carers deserve respect and admiration for the service they provide to the taxpaying community.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    7:48pm
    Unfortunately Rainey not everyone sticks to the rules the way you do.

    I know about this single mother scheme because I had a young lady with a couple of kids apply for one of my properties. Her income from Centrelink was over $1000 a week stating she was caring for a page fill of old people. Now if being a carer is so hard how could so possibly be able to care for so many? I asked her how she managed to get so many and her reply was that many single mothers now do that and it was an easy way to get extra money out of Centrelink. She was also receiving quite a sum from the kids father plus all the family allowance payments. It was certainly a lot more than she could have got if she had a good job.

    Do you want me to tell you about others who say they mind each other's kids and get paid childcare from the government? It's not a bad earner if you have 4 or 5 kids each.

    These are only 2 of the schemes being used to exploit welfare.

    I think that is what this report is really about after reading it.

    Do you think that schemes like these are fair and reasonable? I certainly don't.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    9:15pm
    OG, this is total CRAP. Nobody gets $1000 a week from Centrelink for caring for any number of old people. And only SCUM would use one or two remote examples to brand and condemn an entire class of people.

    Yes, there will always be cheats. There are tax cheats - and most of them are filty rich. There are politicians cheating on allowance claims. There are cheats in executive positions in companies claiming expenses fraudulently. For every struggling welfare cheat, there are dozens of fraudsters ripping off the nation in other ways. The difference is that the poor old welfare cheats are hard up, and getting bugger all.

    ANY scheme to provide benefits will be rorted by a tiny percentage of dishonest people. That's unavoidable. It's not good, but policing costs ten times more than accepting that it is always going to happen. The key to minimizing it is to structure the benefit program sensibly. What the idiots did with the taper rate will send cheating by retirees sky high, and I'll condone it every day, because the system is unfair and cruel and when the system stinks, people will try to find ways to achieve justice. Fix the unfairness and you reduce the cheating. It's simple. But the well-off are too damned selfish to fix anything. They are far happier persecuting those who are less fortunate and screaming vile abuse at decent people for being needy.
    Old Geezer
    22nd Sep 2016
    12:06pm
    I guess Rainey you really have no idea of what is really going on with welfare by your comments.
    TREBOR
    22nd Sep 2016
    12:34pm
    Sounds like that single mother would be better served by setting u a business to do the caring, employing a couple of people, being paid by the NDIS, and getting all the tax concessions while in theory earning nothing and still getting SM....

    That's how it's done, isn't it? Only a fool works for wages or for a government pittance....
    Anonymous
    24th Sep 2016
    7:49am
    Odd how OG and others are so quick to slam anyone on a pension - with no knowledge of their circumstances - yet never bother to highlight the hideous injustices by working people in positions of power.

    A C/Link worker I know sat giggling and dripping diamonds through an interview with someone who had serious mental issues due to childhood abuse, and was claiming disability due to serious back injury. She then declared ''he looked okay to me. He stood up without crying out in pain.'' She had been asked to review the Social Worker's notes explaining that childhood abuse had resulted in a terror of displaying any emotion or revealing that he was in pain. She had also been asked to interview his carer. She did neither, but disallowed his claim saying he could be ''eased back into employment over 5 years through voluntary work and physio''. He was two months off turning 65 and had never worked as anything other than a labourer.

    How come nobody talks about these morons ripping off the system getting fat salaries for being totally inept and negligent?
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:21am
    Dear Porter - wean the politicians and their mates** in the contracted public service high-flyer jobs off their overly fat 'entitlements' first - then we'll talk.

    ** John Howard's changes to the PS higher management was, in reality, nothing more than just another chance to give jobs out to the old mate's network. Most such are good at running a meeting - and that's about it.
    WTF
    21st Sep 2016
    11:25am
    Seriously.... we paid PWC $34M to analyse and report on data? Surely there was that skill level within the Federal Gov somewhere?

    The $96M pumped into education training (whilst a start) will be useless and wasted if there are too few jobs to accommodate the newly trained? Surely Part B of this 'initiave' is to spend money generating jobs for the newly trained or is the plan just to train up budding entrepreneurs?
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:38am
    Undoubtedly - the government has for decades sought to employ 'educated' people - they have endless arrays of people with degrees doing menial clerical tasks - and yet they always find it necessary to farm out the figures already compiled by those overpaid and over-educated clerks to some private firm to analyse.

    You don't imagine that could be because the PS operates on the lowest common denominator, do you, in that it does not employ people of true vision, independent thought, and solid forward direction - but only those who are 'tame'?

    Or that giving the mates in private firms work is the way to do business as usual?
    WTF
    21st Sep 2016
    12:19pm
    $34M could have been better spent elsewhere and surely those findings could have been arrived at using internal resources. No doubt the PWC 'report' will result in more follow-up analysis and reporting gigs.
    Old Man
    21st Sep 2016
    8:03pm
    You are so right WTF and you've highlighted a problem with governments of all levels and all persuasions. They promise they will reduce spending and immediately decimate the Public Service by giving redundancies and merging departments but at the end of all that, spending has gone up. The work that has been carried out by Public Servants has been farmed out to "consultants". Who are these "consultants?" They are, in most cases, the redundant workers who are using their expertise under a different payment program or mates of mates.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    10:56pm
    Bloke who fitted our phone line at the property (now sold for retirement), was plain about having been a Telstra employee and now doing so much better as a contractor. Less work - more money in the hand and more perks.

    Now - if that is the case............... (long pause).............. who is paying the difference???
    Jurassicgeek
    21st Sep 2016
    11:29am
    14/15 yr old carers? where?Why?how?... Kids should not have that kind of stress and responsibility...
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    11:36am
    If a parent gets cancer the social worker will fill out a form so that one of their kids get the carers allowance.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    11:54am
    And you object to a family getting a little financial help when a parent has a terminal disease, OG? In too many cases the kids DO take on a ''carer'' role, and it can destroy their plans for their future education and career. But the privileged who haven't been there are always quick to blame the victims of misfortune or injustice. I know you claim to live in some sort of utopia where people don't struggle with these horrendous challenges, OG, but in the real world nothing is as you want to claim.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    11:57am
    I merely answered a question Rainey so you comment was uncalled for.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:24pm
    No you didn't, OG. You slagged victims of misfortune, as you do constantly.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    12:00pm
    I love to dissect politician bullshot:-

    "for too many people inside the system the money flows but nothing changes and lives are not improving,” he said."

    So... errr.. Christian... BABY.... you are .. ummm.. expecting that throwing money at chronically ill people will lead to an 'improvement'? Did you suddenly find a cure for cancer, for quadraplegia, for MS, etc, etc, etc?

    What an unutterably self-serving and vapid comment - one designed with the obvious intent of suggesting that the cause of the costs is 'malingering'

    What is this man doing in his job?
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    12:11pm
    .. and it's hardly a 'flow' of money, turkey - it's a very thin trickle at the coal face.... bit of the old trickle-down is it? We at the top fling billions, you at the bottom get pissed on.....
    Tom Tank
    21st Sep 2016
    12:03pm
    The one thing we can all be sure of is that the LNP will NOT increase revenue from the wealthy to assist those in need of assistance.
    Common sense tells you that unless there are jobs what is the point of training and one could also ask why are we bringing in skilled people on special work visas and not training our own people?
    Reducing payments to poor people actually damages the economy as a whole as money is drained from a lack of spending power.
    One welfare area that desperately needs to be reined in is politician's pensions and perks on retirement. at the very least their pension should be means tested on the same basis as the aged pension.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    12:08pm
    Spot on - first create an environment in which all have a fair chance at a job - then criticise those without who are genuinely not making an effort AND (here's the kicker) can be proven to be not making an effort.
    4b2
    21st Sep 2016
    12:06pm
    Let us not confuse the Age Pension with welfare. Nor should we call a carers payment welfare. In this case the payments start after a child reaches the age of 16, prior to that they are unpaid workers. (I wonder if they are counted in the employment figures?)
    The government should get serious about welfare for the wealthy, such as the still generous tax arrangements for Super contributions, welfare payments for wealthy families to send their children to preschool, welfare should always be available for those in need, not for all because someone else is getting it. Put an income limit where welfare starts.
    john
    21st Sep 2016
    12:06pm
    I think that welfare is a subject that has to be looked at along side another issue. Employment!
    To change attitudes and to get people looking after themselves you have to have work, and good work and decent pay.
    The world of technology is changing everything, in fact it is planet changing , so we have more machines doing work than we do people.
    Its another industrial revolution in a sense except the industry is disappearing.
    So maybe we need a NEW.. New Deal, and to create programs for people to do work and get paid for it.
    If you just work on ways to get people OFF the welfare, instead of an answer for those peoples' problems with employment then you may have a very dangerous society to deal with.
    You can have a million ideas about cutting and slashing, its whats left after if you have no employment. This is about technological advance more than anything else.
    So where's the answer to JOBS!!!???
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    12:12pm
    No employment. Look at the problems that the increase in backpacker tax caused. Lots of these jobs but they seem beneath Australians to do them.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:21pm
    Not beneath fit, healthy Australians if the working conditions are legal and the wage meets community standards, OG. If those conditions aren't met, nobody should be permitted to take the jobs.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    2:28pm
    That's what is wrong with this country everyone wants a cushie job and with no one prepared to do the hard work.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:43pm
    Two million want A PAID JOB, OG. An opportunity to earn enough to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. And a chance to walk up the street without nasty people like you sneering at them and thinking you are above them. Stop with your vile, ill-informed condemnations of people whom society has disenfranchised. You are ignorant, arrogant, and extremely nasty.
    Rae
    21st Sep 2016
    2:45pm
    If those jobs have changed Rainey maybe it is time fit boomers went back to check it out.

    Once I did a bit of seasonal work as a second job and by living in a caravan could earn a fair bit ie $1200 in the early 70s. for a few weeks work.
    I'd do it again but not so quickly. Perhaps two boomers could share a task.

    Barnaby Joyce has suggested allowing an income of $5000 now with no effect on welfare payments.

    That sounds like a plan and might just save this years crops.

    It would be great for year 12 instead of that trip to Samoa and Fiji. They could earn some money towards Uni and perhaps credits on the job experience front as well.

    If Australians are there picking then the negative treatment would be seen.

    Years ago we were treated with respect by the farmer's and even shared a beer at the end of the day and a Sunday roast.

    Rainey there are people working all over Australia for cash in hand nowhere near official levels. They are not permitted but it goes on anyway. Avoids tax and all that.

    Maybe some Australians will get work out of this now.

    There are signs in shops all along the Eastern seaboard right now for junior and senior employees for the summer holiday season.

    Not sure if people are putting resumes in or not as the signs are not coming down.

    What the hell are the highly taxpayer funded work placement agencies mucking around at. They should only get money when they find someone a job and not before.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    2:49pm
    No Rainey I am realistic and haven't got my head is some utopian world where everyone is pampered to just because they are alive.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    5:17pm
    No, OG, you've got your head in some mythical utopian world where everybody is healthy, fit, healthy, educated, has had opportunity, and nobody has suffered devastating crisis or trauma, and if someone is not healthy and educated, they are lazy good-for-nothing scum. That world DOES NOT EXIST except in your warped imagination.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    5:19pm
    Furthermore, OG, in your sick mind, the world should be structured such that the privileged get everything, the poor get crumbs, and those who work their guts out and sacrifice lifestyle to try to achieve modest comfort should forfeit everything so the rich can have bigger parties.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    7:26pm
    You really have no idea about the wealthy at all Rainey. Most pay more than their fair share of taxes, contribute more than their fair share to charity and without them providing jobs we would be many times worse off. Do you contribute 10% of your income each year to charity?
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:00pm
    Nah... nah.. NAH! The truly rich pay what taxes they NEED to pay after all the perks....

    As for charity donation - SHOW ME!

    The wealthy retired provide jobs? Ah - so that's how all the carers get their money..... or is it that providing jobs at whim as long as the personal income is assured is the criterion?

    Who contributes 10% of their annual income to charity? NAME THEM!

    ... and I'll put them up for a Queen's birthday award....
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:02pm
    I've worked for wages and run businesses - let me tell you - my advice to everyone is not to work for wages....... business gets all its running costs - a wage earner does not.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:03pm
    NOWHERE in the late 1980's would I get an $8000k tax return as a wage earner..... that was about one third of my then mortgage....

    You can't fool me.
    Retired Knowall
    25th Sep 2016
    9:43am
    I do TREBOR, have done for over 15 years. Will turn 70 this financial year and still going strong. If you think running a business is so good you must still be running one....I am.
    However over 65% of businesses fail in the first 5 years, so it can't be that easy or everyone would do it.
    Biddy
    21st Sep 2016
    12:08pm
    I don't believe anyone likes being on welfare and if the Liberals think this is so then they want to go back to the drawing board and begin again,every time they get in to Government they always complain about welfare and pensions and come up with a band aid solution how many more offices or employment agencies will they set up to try and solve the problem and nothing works,what they really want to do is create jobs and keep the TAFEs open look into apprenticeships and get the young ones working,take the older ones of the checkouts,one only has to walk into Coles Or Woolworths and see all the elderly on the checkouts,also take those selve serve checkouts out of the supermarkets also look into the armed forces to create employment,all we hear are these quick fix programmess,sit down with the young and get their view of what is needed I'm sure you will be suprised in what is needed ,stop assuming that you all know what is best, and if you so some sort of example then they will follow but all you ministers do is get big money and expect everyone else to tighten their belt really you are quite the joke,for once get it right and stop blaming everyone else for your problem,Pensioners and those on welfare are not the problem but the ministers and the Government sure are ,we don't like having to be on welfare and I know I speak for a lot of people and we would change it if we could,but until there are jobs created and to stop all the factories from moving over seas then what do you want talk about a society on welfare take a good look at what we have to put up with,there is no future and you Government bodies will create a lot more it's not the young people's fault it's yours,you can shift the blame and accuse whom you like but until you start showing some example then it will continue all these quick fix programmes are just that Quick fixes the blame lies with you,get it right and stop the blame game,there are people out there whom really and truly want to work even if you do not believe this to be so cheers
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    1:57pm
    You got it right, Biddy, when you said you don't believe anyone likes being on welfare. People make it a lifestyle out of desperation and despair. And then they are blamed. It's not those on welfare who are the problem, but rather the selfish, self-serving society and cruel, inept government.
    Sundays
    21st Sep 2016
    12:43pm
    Welfare should be for the needy and it upsets me that the Government continues to demonise the most vulnerable in our society. I agree that there should be a cutback on middle class welfare. I also note that age pensioners can get a part pension, but more importantly the pension card with discounts on car registration, water, electricity etc if their income is less than $76,000. Surely, this is too high and a couple earning more than $60,000 do not need a part pension.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:02pm
    Agreed, Sundays, but people on $20,000 a year get NOTHING if they sacrificed lifestyle to accrue a tiny nestegg of savings. The system is broken!
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:29pm
    Middle class welfare has been around for a great many years - if we used it before retiring as most Australians have done - are we being duplicitous in our retirement when saying it is all now too generous?
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    2:37pm
    That's a fair point, Reasons - though it seems to me that reining in middle class welfare is a more important and pertinent issue than chopping away at the life's blood of those at the 'bottom' of the feeding chain....

    So if changes must be made - it must start with those who can afford to take a hit first...

    Nah, then - what was that about politicians and their mates and their perks etc?
    Anonymous
    24th Sep 2016
    7:43am
    And if we DIDN'T benefit from it, but sacrificed lifestyle to save for old age? Oh, just ASS-U-ME that anyone with a modest bank account must have benefited from handouts so screw them over and steal their savings, and leave them struggling. Yeah, that's really good for the nation! Prove to everyone that you are better off cheating on welfare, because workers and savers have everything taken from them. Then wonder why so many are on welfare!

    The illogical thinking astonishes!
    floss
    21st Sep 2016
    12:49pm
    Some young Carers do a great job but so how to sort the good from bad,certainly not by sacking C Link staff who have to sort out this mess.The excuse for a government that we have just do not have a clue.Yes high income families do not require hand outs that is where cuts must start but it will never happen till the country is in recession.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    12:53pm
    A recession is needed so that people realise how good life really is in this country. Unfortunately it will take genuine hardship that the prosperity of this country can be rebuilt.
    KSS
    21st Sep 2016
    1:34pm
    Surely Loony the point is that young children should not be carers in the first place. But given that many are (almost 16000 young carers or parents under 18), surely targeted efforts to give them the tools and support they need to get off welfare is better than condemning them to a lifetime of handouts.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:01pm
    They shouldn't be carers, but if they are, KSS, they DESERVE generous payment and a medal. They are saving taxpayers a fortune and doing a job most wouldn't even contemplate taking on, let alone doing it for the pittance carers are paid. They already have the tools to get off welfare when their caring role is done. They have a work ethic, integrity, and selflessness that few could ever hope to match. And they don't have an inflated opinion of their worth. They will work for far less than most would even consider accepting.

    Yes, give them educational opportunities and a helping hand to transition, when the time is right, from caring to paid employment. But stop bashing them. They are the salt of the earth. We need many more like them to cure this nation of its selfishness.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    2:02pm
    I forgot to add child labour to the credentials we will require to enter 'The Asian Century' alongside our fellow persons in Asia.....

    Funny how they are all so desperate to get here and board this apparently sinking ship. All those Indian doctors stay here - no way are they going back to the shot-holes to treat lepers and such when they can pontificate on handing out pills..... and reap a good steady income that is not goat's milk in a pail...
    floss
    21st Sep 2016
    1:01pm
    We have all missed the point.The problem started when we sold off all our jobs overseas, till that is reversed the welfare debt has to increase so bloody simple.
    Rae
    21st Sep 2016
    3:01pm
    Don't forget all that privatisation because governments shouldn't be running utilities they sold to other's countries government corporations. There's at least $15 billion in dividends alone every year gone.

    If an investor did it you'd call them insane.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    4:19pm
    Yup - double or triple the cost for the same service.... all the while fattening someone's bank account.... if my mechanic put a new engine in my car that cost twice as much to run for the same performance and also signed me up to a contract where I'd pay a daily fee to use my own car - I'd be ropeable....

    21st Sep 2016
    1:30pm
    Charity starts at home. Learn to look after your own before spending time, effort, and money on some stranger who may not even appreciate it and continue to expect handouts for the rest of their miserable lives without raising a finger to earn their OWN living!
    KSS
    21st Sep 2016
    1:30pm
    From most of the contributions here it seems most would want to keep young carers, young (under 18s) parents and students perpetual welfare recipients as they are now for virtually all their working life. If a child is on welfare at age 14 and stays on it for 45+ years what life is that child (and subsequently their children) having. I see NO issue with targeting these high risk groups and giving them the tools and support they need to leave welfare behind. We have to break this generational welfare mentality where the child of a welfare recipient becomes a welfare recipient themselves.

    Then we have to look at other groups - those that make living on welfare a lifestyle choice. These NEETS (not in education, employment or training) as they have been dubbed, have been highlighted in the past week and it is time to put a stop to it.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    1:54pm
    First, we have to create jobs for the two million who want to work and can't, or can only find work for a few hours a week. When there are jobs, we can start worrying about how to fill them and what to do to motivate the unmotivated. The generational welfare mentality will prevail while there is no acceptable work on offer.

    That said, I'm in favour of sensible educational programs, opening up opportunities, and helping the disadvantaged to understand how to find and take advantage of opportunity. But walk a mile in their shoes before you assume you have the answers. The problem with society is that the privileged work on ASSUMPTIONS, lack empathy and compassion, and would prefer to victimize, bully and condemn than try to understand the challenges others face and find solutions for the REAL problems, as opposed to those imagined by the holier-than-though egomaniacs who live in a totally different world to the victims of their cruel policies.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with a young carer being generously paid, because they work bloody hard, save the state a boat load of money, improve society dramatically, and when they are no longer required to be carers they will get jobs because unlike the bulk of the population, they know the meaning of hard work and sacrifice. Caring is incredibly hard work and carers have to live on peanuts, while copping abuse from people who couldn't hold a candle to them when it comes to diligence and dedication.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    2:19pm
    Rainey I think we have all heard enough about those who sit on their posteriors and do nothing. You are right I don't care at all for these lazy people. The older some people get the worse they get and expect others to do everything for them even if they can do it themselves. They are not disadvantaged but bone lazy.

    Having had cancer twice and been through the treatment twice it was the people who helped themselves and didn't whinge that survived the ordeal. The ones that wallowed in self pity and expected others to do everything for them are no longer with us. So why should anyone help those who fail to help themselves?
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:30pm
    OG, one can only wish that someday you would experience REAL hardship and trauma - sufficient to teach you some compassion and human decency. Only the most vile and disgusting people judge others they know NOTHING ABOUT. You are sick! What our society needs more than anything else is to ERADICATE JUDGMENTAL SCUM.

    So you've survived cancer (maybe!). Pity it didn't kill you. The world would be a far better place. We simply don't need the cruel, nasty folk whose God-complex leads them to ASSUME they know everything about everyone and to blame everyone who suffers for their suffering. Put a sock in it. People like you are destroying our society.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    2:45pm
    Rainey I have experienced ore hardship and trauma that most people experience in more than one lifetime. I have no doubt that my cancer will reappear somewhere else but that's a battle for another day. However at my age I think something else will kill me first.

    I think people like you Rainey are destroying society pandering to these people who are too lazy to help themselves. Way to many people dependent upon welfare instead and that is what is destroying our society. Too much money for drugs, gambling or all the other vices of life.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    2:46pm
    I've had the cancer, the heart attack, the war wounds, the broken back, the leg that required crutches and walking stick for three years ... just to name a few.... and I've done many years of 18 hour days and out-performing all others by a country mile....

    I think I've earned the right to sit back and take it easy for a while.....

    However - on the reality side - I am renovating a house to fit better with my disabled ex for whom I am carer, doing all the running around and housework, running back and forth to hospitals etc for her, and on top of that I'm looking for a job... all that as a 67 yo pensioner....

    No need to thank me, Mal.. Billy ... I'll keep the country going while you play at politics............ nothing new there at all...

    Nah then - I reckon the carer payment should be doubled.... and back-dated a year.... I'd love a holiday.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    2:48pm
    Oh - I forgot to add I'm about to start volunteering at the local library since they are short, and also at the Sub-Branch and the Vets association..... gotta fill in your time somehow....
    Rae
    21st Sep 2016
    3:05pm
    Even in the Middle Ages there were hospitals to care for the sick, disabled and aged.

    How about the government build some and staff them so these kids can get on with school and earning a living.
    KSS
    21st Sep 2016
    3:50pm
    Are we now in a race to see who has had the harder more traumatic life?

    Come on people just acknowledge that Trebor is the paragon of all virtue and sainthood awaits and get on with life.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    4:10pm
    It's good to be recognised for my true worth - but I must say - I am NOT the Messiah.... though, of course, only the True Messiah would deny his own divinity...

    The only traumatic things about my life have been the episodes of emotional abuse.... everything else I can take... you see - I can handle the mud and the blood, I don't want medals and I don't need money.... what I want is for you with your Harvard mouth and your faggotty white suit to offer me some forking courtesy....

    Hang on - got carried away a bit there.... (cheesy grin emoticon needed)....

    21st Sep 2016
    2:09pm
    There A a lot of talk about welfare and the government cutting back on Age Pensions to make ends meet, well, it has just been revealed that Stephen Conroy got elected knowing he would resign from politics just after he qualified for $200,000 a year pension for the rest of his life and free flights. Now how is that for a government looking after taxpayers' dollars. Malcolm Turnbull you are a disgrace for treating old people the way you do with politicians like this CONway sucks the blood out of taxpayers' coffers while the government stands by!!
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    2:13pm
    Good luck to him he set a goal and now looks like he will achieve it. More people need to set goals and do what it takes to achieve them instead of whinging about it being too hard and not bothering.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:18pm
    If more people acted like the greedy leeching scum who steal from this country without making anything remotely close to a reasonable contribution the nation would be in a worse mess than it is now. We don't need maggots who set goals of ripping off the public. We need productivity and a social conscience.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    2:23pm
    Rainey you certainly lack tolerance of authority and our elected representatives. I hope you don't vote because if you do then it is people like you who elect them. They are not ripping off the public at all. I for one would not take on that job for the lousy pay they get compared to those in the corporate world. They have a job to do and they do it. Get over it.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    2:39pm
    'authority' is a bad word to bandy about around me.... out here I AM authority.... and elected representatives are servants to the people - not the other way around... and it's time they got used to it and got over themselves.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    2:39pm
    I lack tolerance of greedy scum who don't work and don't contribute to society, OG. And I lack tolerance of selfish, egomaniacal judgmental fools with a God-complex who condemn everyone who doesn't succeed in ripping off society to satisfy unmitigated greed.

    Polticians have destroyed this nation. They are grossly overpaid, inept, lazy, and many are corrupt and dishonest. I don't care what they THINK they would be paid in the corporate world. CEOs and Directors are often no better - and are hideously overpaid. But most pollies go into politics because they can't make it in the business world.

    If these overpaid morons were worth a tiny fraction of what they steal, the nation wouldn't be in such a mess. They would know how to fix it - WITHOUT bashing the victims of their incompetence.

    They have a job to do. The sad thing is they have neither the ability nor the will to do it. Their only concern is their own bank account.

    In a just world, nurses, toilet cleaners and road workers would retire on $200,000 a year and politicians would be on the OAP after living on fresh air until they turned 70.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    4:35pm
    Sounds to me Rainey that you are mighty envious of those that better off than you are. I say good luck to them and envy no one whether they are better off than me or not.

    They have a job to do and your circumstances are only 1 in 24 or 25 million so are of little significance.

    I have no problems with nurse, toilet cleaners or road workers but they like everyone else get the OAP if they qualify. Pollies don't actually get a pension but it is more like a superannuation that is part of their job package like many others who work. If you are so envious of pollies then why not stand up for election? Anyone can become a pollie.

    So please stop being so envious as it is so unbecoming of anyone.
    Alexii
    21st Sep 2016
    4:58pm
    Ss always, Rainey, well said!!!
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    5:14pm
    I'm not envious, OG. I'm actually quite comfortable compared to most, and very happy with my lot. I'm just disgusted with the unfairness, greed, and contemptible judgmental attitudes of the selfish.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    7:22pm
    Well that is the way you are coming across to me Rainey and many others would be thinking the same.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    7:33pm
    Name them.....
    moke
    21st Sep 2016
    3:21pm
    Carers aside we need them but talk about some of the others, training is of little use if there are no positions available even with experience. Let the oldies retire and then with training the younger people may have some chance of getting a job. Also does any one consider the amount of positions that have disappeared with the heavy number of imports. Our factories etc have gone and so have the jobs, so what will happen if it keeps up like this. More refugees and school leavers will have to be supported by the system doesn't sound good to me. Also the young single parents perhaps we need a system to cover them other than benefits. e.g. adoption a must perhaps they will think twice next time.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    4:12pm
    Everyone will be employed in hospitals, social security and welfare work.... Australia will become the hospital country of Terra to which all the damaged people will flock for care and treatment and a few dollars...

    People are already dying to get here......
    Alan
    21st Sep 2016
    3:26pm
    Happy that the Aged Pension level be set by a tribunal. Eligibility needs to be restricted to those who do not have the resources to provide for themselves. There are a significant number of people who are asset rich (because they choose not to convert some assets to money so that they can leave a bigger estate for their children) but cash flow poor. Upsizing to a bigger house in early 60's is used by some as a means to receive some pension. This is a loophole and needs to be blocked!!!

    The age pension should not be seen as an entitlement - it is costing the country a large amount of money. I support the payment of a modest pension - to allow people to live in dignity as they get older and more frail
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    3:42pm
    I agree the house is a bit problem with the OAP. That's why it is a good idea to have all the pension paid deducted from the sale of the house or any other assets after a person dies. It needs to be taken into account for the OAP and the sooner the better. It is now being abused by many people not just the odd one or two of yesteryear.

    OAP is not an entitlement. It is a welfare payment like all the others.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    5:13pm
    Alan, the cost of superannuation tax concessions is significantly higher than the cost of the OAP. How do you justify asking the taxpayer to subsidize the wealthy, support the poor, but kick those who worked hard and saved to be moderately comfortable in the guts?
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    5:17pm
    Rubbish Rainey it has been pointed out many times to you that the OAP cost mega bucks compared to the cost of super concessions.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    5:21pm
    You are WRONG, OG. The OAP costs LESS than superannuation tax concessions. And the cost of superannuation tax concessions is rising much faster than the cost of the OAP.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    5:25pm
    Quote from SMH, April 2014:

    ''The study, to be formally released on Tuesday, found the rate of growth of super tax concessions is greater than that of the pension despite the ageing population, meaning the cost of the tax concession will soon overtake the pension to become ''the single largest area of government expenditure,'' by 2016-17.

    '''The age pension currently costs $39 billion and superannuation tax concessions will cost the budget around $35 billion in 2013-14,'' the study found.

    It notes that the Commonwealth bill for these concessions is projected to rise at a staggering 12 per cent annually to be $50.7 billion in 2016-17.

    ''The overwhelming majority of this assistance flows to high-income earners,'' the report finds.

    ''Low-income earners receive virtually no benefit.''

    And these calculations don't take into account reductions in the cost of the OAP due to tighter assets testing and minimal increases.

    The RICH are getting all the taxpayer benefits, and thumbing their noses at the battlers who get bugger all!
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    7:20pm
    Sounds good to me as the rich are providing for their own retirement whereas those not benefiting will be supported by the OAP. Nothing wrong with that at all.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    7:37pm
    Ah - so having advantageous tax concessions is 'providing for yourself' and is not a form of Welfare (as opposed to Social Security)?

    Who'd have thunk it.....???

    ALL these concessions are a form of Social Security designed to generate well-being (that's the philosophy of welfare) - therefore - once there is clearly NO NEED to generate well-being (etc) via Social Security (see tax concessions for super) for any individual - their Social Security must stop....

    I thank the learned member for Oldegeezer for raising this fine Dorothy Dixer....
    Retired Knowall
    26th Sep 2016
    7:29pm
    MYTH: Superannuation tax concessions cost the budget $30 billion annually – more than the total
    spending on the Age Pension
    FACT: The actual cost of tax concessions is around $16 billion a year
    When you take into account the savings the government makes on the Age Pension as a result of super, and the
    impact of behavioural change (people shifting money from one tax-effective vehicle to another) that would occur if
    super tax concessions were removed, a more accurate estimate would be around $16 billion a year. This is shown in
    the diagram below.
    With the current legislated settings for the SG, expenditure on the Age Pension is projected to reach 3.6 per cent of GDP
    in 2054/55. In the absence of superannuation savings, expenditure on the Age Pension would be likely to reach 5.5 per
    cent or more of GDP and retirement incomes on average would be lower.
    Rodent
    21st Sep 2016
    3:53pm
    Dear OK, sorry not really picking on you but your quoted friends at the ACCI in their Tax White Paper Supplementary Submission 2015 said this about the Age Pension

    Qte There are two basic reasons for governments to support the income of retirees:
    ? to alleviate poverty by ensuring those who can no longer work have access to a basic standard of living
    ? to reward the contributions that the elderly have made to society
    If the age pensions were purely about poverty alleviation for those who were no longer working, then there would be a strong case for stricter eligibility criteria, such as those that apply to the disability support pension. Clearly this is not consistent with the expectations of the majority of the Australian community, which applies that public support for retirees at least partly reflects a perceived obligation to the elderly to provide some years of leisure in recognition of their contributions to society during their life. With life expectancies increasing a key question is whether that obligation is based on typical years spent in the workforce or a typical number of years of retirement.
    Rodent
    21st Sep 2016
    4:09pm
    Sorry Old Geezer I meant my comments for you not OK, TYPO
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    4:26pm
    So if the OAP is to reward the contributions that the elderly made to society then why do I not qualify for the OAP? As I don't then your second reason must be null and void. Therefore one can thus assume that the OAP is purely for the first one that is to alleviate poverty by ensuring those who can no longer work have access to a basic standard of living.

    Since my case alone make the second reason null and void then all your backup reasoning for it is thus also null and void.
    Rodent
    21st Sep 2016
    4:34pm
    Dear OG

    These words are NOT MINE they were from your mates at ACCI
    I make no claims as to their value

    I guess you don't qualify for the OAP for one or another reason

    Although I assume you are Eligible? you have CHOSEN not to apply, your choice, or your are well aware that your Assets are above the Threshold
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    4:43pm
    No I didn't apply as I know the rules and I don't qualify. I don't even qualify for a health care card. If I ever do then things will be in such bad shape that it won't be available any more anyway. Let's hope we never see that day.
    floss
    21st Sep 2016
    3:58pm
    Rae and Rainey you both know what is going on in Australia not like some old person.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    4:02pm
    I certainly know what is really going on in the real Australia.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    4:16pm
    Is that kind of like the Silent Majority and Middle America? Nixon made great play about that silent majority with their strident non-demands for everything and utter lack of vocalising any need etc, and Reagan felt that - along with 'trickle-down theory' (LMAO) - the true direction of the country should come from the comfortable middle classes and not the rabble... after all - they know better than the common herd what is right and wrong....
    Cranky
    21st Sep 2016
    4:26pm
    Another 30 od million dollars wasted by the Government in gather date to see who should get welfare assistance and those who shouldn't. I saw on the new today that Malcolm Turnbull agreed to take in a further 90 thousands refugees. They can't afford to look after their own without bring more people in to the country to go on welfare as there are no jobs for our own people but the government keeps wasting money whilst old aged pensioners are be forced to live on hand outs to get by because the pensioner is getting less and less every year whilst the politicians are living in luxuary - Max Jackwitx Grumpy)
    Alexii
    21st Sep 2016
    4:55pm
    It's just another disgusting attack upon those who can least afford it by the mob in government. They really don;t give a stuff for ordinary Joe Bloggs - only the rich and powerful.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    7:18pm
    Rubbish.
    Dancer
    21st Sep 2016
    5:11pm
    I have long believed that it is much better to have young people in work and allow older people to retire (on pension) at 65, rather than making older people work until they are 67 or 70. Young people are the ones who will take partners, buy houses, furniture and cars, have families - all generating more jobs and income (and generating taxes). Older people generally have "been there and done that" - so it makes sense to me to get the younger people into work and allow older people to retire on a decent pension... "decent" being the critical word here. Of course if an older person chooses to stay in work that's fine. Then as younger people accrue savings and superannuation and eventually retire, the cost of welfare/pensions will drop. Elementary? I don't know, I'm not an economist but it makes sense to me.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    7:17pm
    Older people can retire at any age but they won't be eligible for the OAP until a certain age depending on when they were born.

    Many people will retire early and spend down their capital crossing off their bucket list. Recent statistics show that these people and retires are spending their money travelling around our great country. This is good for our economy especially those towns that benefit from the grey nomads. These are the people buying new cars, caravans, motorhomes etc.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    11:10pm
    ... and under the Trebor Party, that OAP age will be 65.....

    (fixed for you).... (don't thank me - my reward is in doing good works, even if it is only 10% of the time)............

    No way should a person spend down their accumulated assets before being eligible for the Pension they've contributed towards all their life.... (I include in that the countless women who were 'home makers' for decades, as well as the current crop of (dare I say it?) New Home Makers....... (men and women).

    Each has contributed to this society - there is no differentiation between the level of input, and such a differentiation is purely an elitist nonsense.

    Would you suggest that my great-grandmother - were she alive today - should live with no Pension?
    Old Geezer
    22nd Sep 2016
    6:13pm
    My great-grandmother didn't get a pension in her day either. Spritely old dear that at 96 packed everyone's lunch for the next day and told them goodbye as she was going to die that night and she did. She could not read or write but worked to the day she died after having nineteen children. Only reason she did not have more is my great grandfather fell down a bank and broke his neck on the way home drunk from town.
    TREBOR
    23rd Sep 2016
    12:19pm
    Poor old Grampa - took the easy way out.... nineteen kids, you say?

    But life was simpler then - if she were alive today there'd be no way she could sustain herself.
    Rodent
    21st Sep 2016
    5:38pm
    Dear OG

    I seem to recall that you may have posted something that said as a result of the Jan 2017 Pension changes that pre retirees would not be affected by these changes- or words like that. If that's your View, but I may be wrong -have you read the Report titled Retirement income Adequacy -are we still making Progress? Its Joint Research by Willis Towers Watson and Melb Uni

    That report seems to say that Pre retirees will be adversely affected by the Jan 2017 Pension changes especially couples?

    Quote -As a result of these asset test changes, we can see there
    will be a significant impact on the proportion of couples
    expected to achieve a comfortable level of retirement
    income, with a reduction from 62% to 51%. On the other
    hand, singles are expected to be affected less with a
    reduction from 38% to 37% in the proportion of singles
    expected to achieve a comfortable level of retirement
    income

    I
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    7:12pm
    Only wealthy pre-retirees will be effected which is good because they should not have been given the OAP. Those that need the pension will not. Let's face it those couples with over $1m have more than enough to provide for their old age until such time their assets fall enough to qualify for the OAP. If you save for your retirement you should spend it on your retirement not keep your capital so that you are a hero to your heirs after you die. Those days are over and a good thing to.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    9:06pm
    Depends on what you mean by 'wealthy'. There are asset rich and there are cash rich people. MOST 'wealthy' people with a million dollar home do not have a cash flow anywhere near providing their basics.

    What needs to be looked at is those who either have access to many perks as well as family home.

    Kerry Packer springs to mind - his family companies etc merely loaned him the private jet and pilot etc.... he didn't have access to the funds to run them.... (whispers into armpit - BULLSHIT!)....

    That kind of thing is what needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Can't be that hard to see the difference between Jo Richekat who has had control of a business empire and Jo Inlieuofrich who spent a lifetime as a part-time checkout girl...

    You know why it doesn't happen? Neither the guts in government to stop the rorts, and self-interest since those with the hands on the reins are playing the same game, and then there is "Oh - I can't shaft Jo in tax! She's a long-time family friend and we went to private school together!"

    S'all lies... all lies....
    Anonymous
    24th Sep 2016
    7:45am
    Something seriously wrong with the brain of someone who claims a retiree who has only $375,000 in investable capital to last through maybe 30+ years of retirement is ''wealthy''!!!!!!
    Boof
    21st Sep 2016
    9:52pm
    Why does Rainey keep talking to OG. I haven't seen OG writing in these comments.
    TREBOR
    21st Sep 2016
    10:51pm
    OG is a lost soul and needs constant reminding that he/she is human.

    Salaam Aleikum.... you are welcome...
    Allie
    22nd Sep 2016
    12:23am
    Thank you Rainey and Trebor.

    As a carer I am too tired to respond to the heartless such as Old Geezer et al.
    Thank you from me, my husband, my tired sole parent daughter ( survivor of DV) with four year old and all those of us who are exhausted by Conservative Govt attacks.

    Much appreciated.
    TREBOR
    22nd Sep 2016
    2:23am
    You are welcome. Experience is here to toughen us - not maim us and leave us open to the assaults of every self-entitled clown who comes along.
    Rodent
    22nd Sep 2016
    7:57am
    For the attention of anyone interested

    In Yesterday's Fin Review - Laura Tingle said this -under an article titled Welfare, Super two sides of the same debate -when referring the PWC Multi Million Dollar Longitudinal Study

    Qte" Should assessments of the cost of "Welfare" in such a longitudinal sense included the cost of Tax Expenditures and revenue foregone for older people who are getting Superannuation Tax Concessions and enjoying tax free, other income in retirement? The Welfare debate and Superannuation debate really need to be considered as part of the same question".

    I thing that's a challenging question for all to consider
    Rae
    22nd Sep 2016
    9:49am
    Yes Rodent I re read that paragraph too.


    It is a can of worms really.

    All this talk of including the family home in the asset test and using it and now we have mutterings about the Tax concessions and other government largess to fund retirements.

    Those tax concessions are very like welfare in a lot of people's opinions who didn't get them.

    Family businesses, motels, boarding houses etc will all get dragged in if the family home does and it won't be fun for anyone who took advantage of the rules.

    The welfare bill is nearly 80% of all revenue spent today and rising.
    It is unsustainable.

    Pity some people are not wise enough to know when to be silent.
    CindyLou
    22nd Sep 2016
    9:13am
    I'm loathed to comment re welfare costs etc., however my experience / what I have observed is that there are some people (not seniors) who have absolutely no interest in working, they call their welfare payment their 'pay - payday'. Given that such people are in their 20s to 30s, then that's a lifetime of financial leaching until they are eligible for the OAP. Further, many of these people are in public housing, they have health care cards, are given vouchers (electricity etc) from charities.
    Not a great situation and leads to intergenerational welfare dependency.
    I have not got any idea how this should be halted (maybe work for the welfare payment doing real work, ie cleaning public spaces, but real work not some airy fairy job)
    ???
    TREBOR
    22nd Sep 2016
    12:47pm
    Are there any jobs out there for them?

    No wonder some of them end up on DSP due to depression, hopelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, cycles of violence, and over-attention from those in power.....

    Just saying.....

    Another not so odd aspect is that since the 'equalisation' of women days, the rates of female crime, violence, etc have all risen and continue to do so - since they are now pretty much (though not entirely) thrown into the same bearpit as men in striving to create a viable life, and under the same pressures of diminishing jobs opportunities etc.

    Ergo - the root cause of these issues is not the individual - it is the constricting social structure they are forced to live with.. and in. I recommend a return to 'full employment' and a policy of generating (dare I say it?) Jobs and Growth HERE first and foremost, and without 457 visas.

    (found the answer to Jobson Growthe - Beerand Prornz)....
    Rodent
    22nd Sep 2016
    9:30am
    Hey OLG


    Trying to get my head round your logic, Yesterday in part you replied this

    "Only wealthy pre-retirees will be effected which is good because they should not have been given the OAP".

    Given your difficulty, and others, including me about defining Wealthy what are you views abut the Small Pension these groups will receive after 1 Jan 2017

    A Single Home Owner will still receive a very small Pension when they have $525,000 in assets
    A Single None Home Owner will get a similar amount of Pension when they have $725,000 in Assets
    A Couple Home Owner can still receive a similar amount of Pension when there assets are $800,000 . and a Couple Non Home Owner will still receive a similar mount of Pension when they have $1,000.000 in Assets

    PS Small Annual Pension is less than $1400

    So is this outcome fair, who is wealthy , who should receive that SMALL pension and perhaps who should not - over to you for a determination please
    Old Geezer
    22nd Sep 2016
    12:05pm
    These asset levels are still too high but they ar an improvement on the current levels. People with that sort of money have money to spend so don't need the pension.
    TREBOR
    22nd Sep 2016
    12:55pm
    My point has always been - are these assets income generating, or are they not?

    Once again - I'm looking at buying a decrepit cruiser boat and fixing it up.... got all the tools and stuff... I was looking at one for $500. Does that mean when I spend weeks refining the beautiful timber work, re-doing the engine so as to incorporate non sea water cooling, totally re-doing the hull for total water-tightness etc, etc... and it becomes worth (say) $40,000 ...... I am suddenly rich?

    Also looking at building a homebuilt aircraft... say that becomes worth.. oooh... $50,000 .. once again, am I suddenly 'rich'?

    WHY should ownership of an expensive boat, caravan or similar be cause for pension reduction? It's not there to make money, and is this not the 'politics of envy' writ large, in swiping at those who WANT to go boating or caravaning or otherwise 'growing old disgracefully' on a Harley or whatever in their retirement?

    Bit different from, say, owning a holiday home that is rented out most of the year.... but surely people are entitled to work out what they want to do in their retirement, especially when they've probably spent years accumulating those things for just that retirement.

    Same applies to family home - though there would appear to be an upper limit somewhere. Again, though - in isolation, the family home is a place to live... it's hardly the fault of the owner that it is suddenly worth a kazillion on the market, and the argument here seems to, in reality, be with those who move from one to another, cash in after living long enough to avoid CGT, then do the same... (serial white ants)....
    Rodent
    22nd Sep 2016
    1:33pm
    So Old Geezer

    I don't call what you said is a determination!!

    But without putting words in your mouth it is already clear from your previous postings that ANYBODY who has more than ABOUT $375,000 should NOT Receive the OAP!!
    Old Geezer
    22nd Sep 2016
    2:02pm
    No I believe anyone can get the OAP as long it is paid back out of their estate when they die. That is the only fair way as that is what us fully self funded retirees do in reality. We pay for our own old age so why can't everyone?
    TREBOR
    23rd Sep 2016
    12:22pm
    Why should the OAP be paid back out of estate? It's been bought and paid for by a lifetime of contributions via tax.

    As for you SFRs - you've enjoyed plenty of tax concessions along the way amounting to significant Social Security to ensure your Welfare in retirement - so you've got nothing to complain about.

    You can have the OAP in return for paying income tax on your gross earnings without tax concessions...... how would that go?

    Let's just pay everyone the OAP and tax all income above that,including deemed income from fringe benefits, according to the tax scales for income tax.

    Easy................
    Rodent
    23rd Sep 2016
    12:52pm
    TREBOR

    Without running the numbers , huge task, your comments in reply to OG make good sense, provided the Income is the GROSS amount, and includes all forms of Income
    Anonymous
    24th Sep 2016
    7:39am
    So, OG, according to your self-serving logic, the taxpayer should fund the retirement of the wealthy through obscene tax concessions, but battlers who struggle to save should be forced to pay for their own retirement by either living on fresh air, draining their savings prematurely and becoming destitute, or claiming an OAP that has to be paid back from their estate.

    How about the rich pay back ALL the tax concessions they have claimed from THEIR estate? Then I'd say your proposal was fair.
    John
    23rd Sep 2016
    11:18am
    How ridiculous is this the government want to hit the pensioners all the time but lines of all pockets what's that with Kevin Rod he gets $150,000 payout for the rest of his life first class plane tickets for the rest of his life and we have to see you certainly need the money know if these people are not like cheese what I all the politicians are doing is learning their own pockets biggest supers big payouts windy come out of parliament I'm nobody is doing jack shit about it if I got into parliament I would cancel all the chauffeur driven cars freeze all the payments to the MPs are you 150,000 a year for the rest of our life is a joke I would start looking after the old people I would get the young people into jobs but the national service start building affordable commendation for the old people and I would you start doing all this start with the end please cancel all the flights free stop the big payouts they talked about freezing all the payouts to the banks what about Friesian all the big payouts them cells even see people backing in the streets and like myself living car for the last two years I can't afford $300 a week on the pension I just wish to God I could getting to parliaments know to talking about bringing in refugees about the all saying look after your own children first people are living on the streets and you want to bring more people into the country so more people can be on the street I am sick of this shit
    TREBOR
    23rd Sep 2016
    12:24pm
    Hard to read, but many good points there.....

    We need you to make that speech in Parliament... it'd take the party cronies a fortnight to work it out....
    Rodent
    23rd Sep 2016
    4:39pm
    In the PWC Report that was the basis for the Outrageous BS that Christian Porter was saying this is very relevant

    o This report has been prepared at the request of the Department to document the Actuarial Valuation of Australia’s social security and income support system as at 30 June 2015. It is not intended, or necessarily suitable, for any other purpose.
    The report relies on the completeness and accuracy of information compiled and provided by the Department. We have not verified that data is accurate or complete, but we have checked it for internal consistency and for consistency with other information summaries produced by the Department. We note that the Department also does not give any warranty as to the reliability or accuracy of the data provided to PwC for the valuation.
    There is a limitation to the accuracy of the results contained in this report because of the inherent uncertainty of any estimation of such long term costs. The issue of uncertainty is expanded upon in Section 8.4 of this report.
    We accept no liability for loss or damage howsoever arising in the use of this report by the Department for other than the purpose stated above, nor for any use of this report, without full understanding of the reliances and limitations noted above, or for errors or omissions arising from the provision of inaccurate or incomplete information to us. We accept no liability for loss or damages howsoever arising in the use of this report by third parties.


    Would you be happy with this type of warranty on a washing machine???

    24th Sep 2016
    8:08am
    I have a proposal for OG. I have a friend who will suffer terribly due to the changed assets test. I'll agree that he should have to pay back any OAP he received from his estate IF:
    (1) the estate of the incompetent army medic who failed to document a back injury and treatment is confiscated and paid as compensation to all the victims of his incompetence
    (2) the retirement fund of the inept C/Link worker whose negligence denied him entitlements for disability aid is confiscated and paid to the victims of her incompetence
    (3) the estate of the social worker who lied on an affidavit to stop this man being returned to a loving family and instead subjected him to years of abuse is confiscated and paid to victims of his wrongdoing
    (4) the estate of the man whose bullying resulted in a request for compassionate discharge from the army (and the man was later confirmed mentally ill and a serious bully) is confiscated to pay compensation to all his victims
    (5) the estate of the man who wrongfully denied army retraining to an eligible man, and boasted that he ''had the power to stuff up other people's lives'' is confiscated to pay compensation to his victims
    (6) the estate of the doctor whose negligence caused his wife to suffer years of undiagnosed illness unnecessarily is confiscated to pay compensation to victims of his incompetence
    (7) the wealth/estate of all politicians whose incompetence has stuffed this country is confiscated to put into a fund to pay NON-REPAYABLE pensions to those who suffered loss as a consequence

    Shall I go on, OG?

    Your double standards are sickening.
    Rodent
    24th Sep 2016
    8:14am
    This Comment may be late BUT readers who are interested in another Perspective of what Christion Porter was saying at the National Press Club might like to google this

    Christian Porter's Welfare figures are designed to Shock ....... go to the article by Greg Jerico of The Guardian -- and if Really Interested read some of his Readers comments
    Bowsa
    19th Oct 2016
    1:08pm
    There a few comments about the young paying the way for the older generation.Well,when I was working,that was for fifty years,I was paying tax and helping to support your grandparents ,maybe great grandparents.Most of any generation contributed to welfare .It is the ones that try to dodge their responsibilities as well as the lousy decisions by politicians that makes things worse.I really think that people who have been fortunate enough to of had a good run in life should be thankful for that.Surviving on the pension is possible providing you have been able to pay off your home,something I emphasise to my own boys and anyone who asks the question .I was fortunate enough to receive an amount of money from my parents estate to make the paying of my mortgage at the time of retirement.This is sometimes more generous with some and absolutely nil with others.Life is like that.I do not begrudge what people have made of their lives,even if they have been given a step up by someone.What we need to stop is blaming each other and get on with trying to keep our leaders honest and realistic.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.