Two Million Australians live Below the Poverty Line (1 Viewer)

[Captain Gh3y]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/08/29/1188067191905.html

Two million Australians below poverty line

ONE in 10 Australians is living in poverty and faring worse on key health indicators than people in other rich nations, a report shows.

An Australian Council of Social Services report found that 9.9 per cent of Australians, or nearly 2 million people, fell below the international poverty line in 2004 — a line set at half of the country's median disposable income for a single adult.

The report, Australia Fair: International Comparisons 2007, details disparity between Australia and 29 other wealthy OECD nations across a range of areas from poverty levels to health and housing.

The report is based on a combination of research including Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, international comparative reports from the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and research from the University of New South Wales.

The report stated that in 2004 more than 1.9 million, or almost 10 per cent of Australians, lived below the poverty line, estimated at an income of $249 a week per person.

Social groups more likely to live below the poverty line included more than 40 per cent of unemployed people, 39 per cent of single adults over 65, and more than 30 per cent of all those people whose main income is social security, the report found.

It also found that according to the UN Human Poverty Index — an indication of the standard of living in rich countries — Australia ranked 14th out of 18 nations, ahead of only Britain, the US, Ireland and Italy.

Andrew Johnson, the executive director of ACOSS, said the report demonstrated that the nation's poorest were not benefiting from solid economic growth.

"Despite the good economic times and large budget surplus, it's not fair that 2 million Australians are struggling to access necessities like affordable housing and dental care," he said.

While Australia has a relatively high life expectancy and spending on health, Australia compared poorly with other countries in relation to indigenous health and dental health.

The report showed that while indigenous populations in New Zealand, the US and Canada all have worse health than the rest of the population, the gap between indigenous life expectancy and that of the rest of the population in Australia is about double the gap in those countries.

It also showed that Australians' oral health is in the bottom third of OECD nations. An estimated 40 per cent of Australians are unable to access dental care when they need it, the report stated, including at least 500,000 people on waiting lists for public dental health.

A spokeswoman for federal Health Minister Tony Abbott said figures for 2004-05 showed that health expenditure in Australia grew by 10.3 per cent from the previous financial year to $87.3 billion or $4319 per person.

The report also showed that Australia fared well above average in some areas, including employment, home ownership and economic growth.

Last year, Australia had an average of 4.9 per cent unemployment, compared with an OECD average of 5.9 per cent.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

So are we meant to just give money to these people so they have better lives?

How many do you think are there because of their own doing?

I have no sympathy at all.

 

[withoutaface]

"a line set at half of the country's median disposable income for a single adult."

See, this is why relative poverty is retarded. Even if everyone lived in mansions made of platinum you'd still have people living in 'poverty'.

 

[pattii]

I thought the whole australian population was rated in the top % of the worlds richest. is that wrong?

 

[Enteebee]

a line set at half of the country's median disposable income for a single adult.

Wait wait... so poverty is really a measure of the disparity between the rich and poor in a country? Since when is this so?

 

[withoutaface]

Wait wait... so poverty is really a measure of the disparity between the rich and poor in a country? Since when is this so?

Since Marx came and fucked with shit.

 

[S1M0]

The problem goes beyond simply giving these people money. They need to work for themselves and contribute their share to the economy for them to get out of poverty.

 

[jb_nc]

The problem goes beyond simply giving these people money. They need to work for themselves and contribute their share to the economy for them to get out of poverty.

Social groups more likely to live below the poverty line included more than 40 per cent of unemployed people, 39 per cent of single adults over 65, and more than 30 per cent of all those people whose main income is social security, the report found.

 

[Azamakumar]

"a line set at half of the country's median disposable income for a single adult."

See, this is why relative poverty is retarded. Even if everyone lived in mansions made of platinum you'd still have people living in 'poverty'.

< half of the median income is considered relative poverty. Doesn't mean that they're actually living in shithouse conditions, just not faring as well as the high flyers in a society filled with em.


Yeah I agree with that iamsickofyr12 guy that throwing money at it (particularly mine) won't fix the problem, but given the statistics shown, I'm not too worried, seeing as it is largely people dependant on transfer payments which make up the 2 million.

 

[Enteebee]

err actually, if 'the problem' is our score on this test, throwing money at it through 'progressive' (i.e. taxing the higher brackets more) and giving it to the poor in the form of welfare is exactly what will fix it

 

[Azamakumar]

err actually, if 'the problem' is our score on this test, throwing money at it through 'progressive' (i.e. taxing the higher brackets more) and giving it to the poor in the form of welfare is exactly what will fix it

Could be argued that progressive taxes discourage economic activity, thus resulting in a larger piece of a smaller pie effect, rather than the smaller piece of the larger pie people in the lower brackets are currently able to attain, simply because they are willing to work for it.

At any rate I see nothing wrong with enforcing programs such as work for the dole etc, imo it's the "LOL GOVERNMENT GOT MY BACK WITH $$$" attitude that needs to be stamped out. Do you really believe that it would be better to give more money to the poor, as opposed to throwing more money into education and retraining schemes to reduce the incidence of issues, such as but not limited to structural unemployment, which can be directly attributed to the large proportion of people falling under the category of impoverished?

 

[jb_nc]

Could be argued that progressive taxes discourage economic activity, thus resulting in a larger piece of a smaller pie effect, rather than the smaller piece of the larger pie people in the lower brackets are currently able to attain, simply because they are willing to work for it.

View the human poverty index, the countries with a higher level of taxation and transfer payments have a lower level of poverty.

At any rate I see nothing wrong with enforcing programs such as work for the dole etc, imo it's the "LOL GOVERNMENT GOT MY BACK WITH $$$" attitude that needs to be stamped out. Do you really believe that it would be better to give more money to the poor, as opposed to throwing more money into education and retraining schemes to reduce the incidence of issues, such as but not limited to structural unemployment, which can be directly attributed to the large proportion of people falling under the category of impoverished?

Work for the pension: 65 isn't old enough to quit yet.
Work for the disability: If you've got a pulse, we'll find a meaningless job for you.

 

[Enteebee]

Could be argued that progressive taxes discourage economic activity, thus resulting in a larger piece of a smaller pie effect, rather than the smaller piece of the larger pie people in the lower brackets are currently able to attain, simply because they are willing to work for it.

And that's what I'm arguing, I'm saying if we want to do better on this test then it doesn't matter if it's a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

View the human poverty index, the countries with a higher level of taxation and transfer payments have a lower level of poverty.

But if that index uses the same definition of poverty as this one does, that is no surprise... It is intrinsic in such a definition that such taxation will be successful. It is a generally accepted thing that capitalism leads to a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, the question is though whether the poor are better off or not.

 

[Azamakumar]

View the human poverty index, the countries with a higher level of taxation and transfer payments have a lower level of poverty.



Work for the pension: 65 isn't old enough to quit yet.
Work for the disability: If you've got a pulse, we'll find a meaningless job for you.

Yeah but it doesn't address the fact that the goverment is wasting close to billions paying people who should otherwise be employed. This would mean a higher taxation revenue because of increased economic activity as well as lesser transfer payments. The statistics don't lie, but they also fail to show the percentage of free riders in said economy.



Yeah also forgot to mention the success of the superannuation scheme in reducing payments made by the government as life expectancies were blown out.

 

[jb_nc]

But if that index uses the same definition of poverty as this one does, that is no surprise... It is intrinsic in such a definition that such taxation will be successful.

Of course considering the majority of the people in poverty by this definition aren't "working poor" (like in America) but pensioners and the disabled who rely on welfare to live; which apparently isn't nearly enough.

 

[Enteebee]

Of course considering the majority of the people in poverty by this definition aren't "working poor" (like in America) but pensioners and the disabled who rely on welfare to live; which apparently isn't nearly enough.

The definition of 'not nearly enough' used here though is a question of how they fare relative to the median population, not necessarily any more objective criteria where perhaps (under our capitalist system) Australia comes out better than this statistic suggests.

 

[jb_nc]

Yeah but it doesn't address the fact that the goverment is wasting close to billions paying people who should otherwise be employed. This would mean a higher taxation revenue because of increased economic activity as well as lesser transfer payments. The statistics don't lie, but they also fail to show the percentage of free riders in said economy.

First you assert these people "should be employed". Where is some evidence to suggest this?

Yeah also forgot to mention the success of the superannuation scheme in reducing payments made by the government as life expectancies were blown out.

No I didn't. The superannuation reforms came about in the Keating government sometime during '92. For many people 9% for 10 years before they leave the workforce is not enough, especially if you're self-employed.

 

[jb_nc]

The definition of 'not nearly enough' used here though is a question of how they fare relative to the median population, not necessarily any more objective criteria where perhaps (under our capitalist system) Australia comes out better than this statistic suggests.

So $249 per week is enough to live on?

 

[simplistic]

so if we removed centerlink would that solve the problem ?
considering those on it wont have food and then just die out
(very crude but ...;P)

 

[Enteebee]

So $249 per week is enough to live on?

That's a whole other argument, my argument here are only to disagree with the idea that people have it worse off in Australia relative to other OECD nations. Though, to answer your question... for me personally $249 per week on my own in social housing is enough to live on, it's not a great life but it's definately enough.