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

[Azamakumar]

i'm not suggesting, i'm stating facts. of the approx 175,000 people on benifits for psychological disabilities there is a significant number with anorexia or severe OCD, though most of them probably also receive benefits through their carer receiving a pension rather than directly claiming the disability pension. amounts to the same thing though, and i have on problem with it.

So you're saying it's perfectly fine for obese people to claim disability pensions because of lifestyle choices? Which fucking fairy world do you live in?

do you actually have any statistics about "freeriders" or do you just believe today tonight? all welfare systems make errors, it's inevitable. we can have our system now, where we cover all of the people who need it, but make mistakes every now and then and give benifits to 5% who dont. or we can make the system stricter eliminate that 5%, but our mistakes will now be not giving benefits to 5% of people who do need it. and dont feed me bullshit about we should make our system error free, the current system is already understaffed. if make it error free would cost twice as much as just accepting that we overpay some people with benefits.

No I don't have statistics, how would you suggest they be obtained? Asking everyone if they can see despite the guide dog and dark glasses, or are they genuinely blind.

My posts don't refer to numbers, similar to katie's ones. They point out that any dickhead could walk into centrelink and say 'LOL I LOOKED FOR TWO WEEKS BUT THEY DONT WANT TO EMPLOY ME LMAO" and walk out with a fucking welfare payment made into their accounts fortnightly. It's merely the fact that some people are even allowed the same privileges that people who are genuinely unfit for employment/wheelchair bound for life that makes me want to throttle people like you, who say "LOL FUCK IT WE SAVE MONEY THIS WAY'.

Eventually the problem will snowball as more people get money from the government because of poor lifestyle choices. I'm all for saving taxation revenue and whatnot, but it's the attitude that needs to be fixed before we are left with a country of lazy fuckwits that don't care about anyone else as they sit back at home, waiting for that welfare.

 

[veridis]

So you're saying it's perfectly fine for obese people to claim disability pensions because of lifestyle choices? Which fucking fairy world do you live in?

no. you are wrong.

My posts don't refer to numbers, similar to katie's ones. They point out that any dickhead could walk into centrelink and say 'LOL I LOOKED FOR TWO WEEKS BUT THEY DONT WANT TO EMPLOY ME LMAO" and walk out with a fucking welfare payment made into their accounts fortnightly. It's merely the fact that some people are even allowed the same privileges that people who are genuinely unfit for employment/wheelchair bound for life that makes me want to throttle people like you, who say "LOL FUCK IT WE SAVE MONEY THIS WAY'.
Eventually the problem will snowball as more people get money from the government because of poor lifestyle choices. I'm all for saving taxation revenue and whatnot, but it's the attitude that needs to be fixed before we are left with a country of lazy fuckwits that don't care about anyone else as they sit back at home, waiting for that welfare.

you obviously have no idea how cetnrelink works. please, basing your argument on today tonight style parodies of the welfare system just makes you look ignorant. unless you can claim a disability, old age or some other type of pension, you are not allowed to stay on the generic centrelink unemployment benefits for an extended period of time. no matter what you two think you are complaining about, it is not people on unemployment benefits. the only "freeloaders" in the system are those who are fraudulently claiming disability pension or other long term benefits, not those simply on the dole.

 

[Azamakumar]

no. you are wrong.



you obviously have no idea how cetnrelink works. please, basing your argument on today tonight style parodies of the welfare system just makes you look ignorant. unless you can claim a disability, old age or some other type of pension, you are not allowed to stay on the generic centrelink unemployment benefits for an extended period of time. no matter what you two think you are complaining about, it is not people on unemployment benefits. the only "freeloaders" in the system are those who are fraudulently claiming disability pension or other long term benefits, not those simply on the dole.

I just disagree with the fact that people are allowed to return to the dole after a few weeks of employment. Or claim a disability pension because they ate too much fast food.

 

[veridis]

i agree that i think the medicalisation of lifestyle diseases such as obesity is absurd. as for people returning to the dole after a few weeks of work, as annoying as it is i just can't evision a system that appropriately deals with this extreme minority without adversely affecting the vast majority that do use the unemployment benefits for their inteded purpose, as a short term measure between jobs or to allow sufficient training to re-enter the workforce.

 

[jb_nc]

yeh its like lets spend $100 million dollars investigating ppl to make sure we dont have to pay $10 mil to ppl that may not really deserve it.

$100 MILLION? WHY STOP THERE 10 BILLION.

WELFARE CHEAT S DOLE BLUDHBERS

sfdahghsahjgha argggggg

 

[jb_nc]

i heard every dole cheat invests their money in meth labs

FUCKING DOLE CHEATS

 

[Azamakumar]

Nah but then you have to pay it all back.

 

[Snaykew]

Everyone on welfare benefits is a welfare cheat. Even people who have families and no limbs.

 

[onebytwo]

LOL...the poverty line is at half the median disposable income. so people beneath the lower quartile live in poverty. By global standards thats luxury.

 

[moeyk]

How can 2 million Australians live below the poverty line, thats 1 in 10 people. Thats just stupid, and also how would you guys know the situation of the familys? Only because u declare yourself 'middle-class citizens' so shouldnt it be your duty by religion to help those in need? or did you totally scrap religion when it comes to funding from your own pocket. Those who are on welfare, yes some may be cheating it, but do you know why they arent working? Possibly a death in the family? Possibly they cant find a job? Until you get of your own butt and research you shouldnt argue the topic.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

How can 2 million Australians live below the poverty line, thats 1 in 10 people. Thats just stupid, and also how would you guys know the situation of the familys? Only because u declare yourself 'middle-class citizens' so shouldnt it be your duty by religion to help those in need? or did you totally scrap religion when it comes to funding from your own pocket. Those who are on welfare, yes some may be cheating it, but do you know why they arent working? Possibly a death in the family? Possibly they cant find a job? Until you get of your own butt and research you shouldnt argue the topic.

Well that didn't make any sense.

 

[Azamakumar]

How can 2 million Australians live below the poverty line, thats 1 in 10 people. Thats just stupid, and also how would you guys know the situation of the familys? Only because u declare yourself 'middle-class citizens' so shouldnt it be your duty by religion to help those in need? or did you totally scrap religion when it comes to funding from your own pocket. Those who are on welfare, yes some may be cheating it, but do you know why they arent working? Possibly a death in the family? Possibly they cant find a job? Until you get of your own butt and research you shouldnt argue the topic.

Because there should be a tax on success amirite? I work hard to give my family a good life, and that puts the onus of idiots that don't want jobs onto me as well.

Do you think before you talk or are you part of that 10%?

 

[radmadjules]

im going to invest my dole money in a

child pornograph ring

good on you.
im sure you will be going somewhere in life

 

[williams180]

there should be zero welfare in a state with no governemt intervention in an economy now thats a good pure free market

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Disclaimer: Legally, I'm classified as disabled for this reason but I choose not to receive a pension because I'm not a fan of the welfare state. I don't believe anyone should receive welfare unless they're disabled, a war veteran or short-term unemployed. (As for the old age pension? I'm not sure except I believe the retirement age should be raised.)

What about homeless people? Drug addicts?

 

[volition]

What about homeless people? Drug addicts?

If you really cared, you'd donate your own money to private charities that dealt with this. Or convince others to voluntarily give their money. Not forcefully take it with the threat of violence!

People really oughta put their money where their mouth is, not just make other people pay money to a system that breeds welfare dependence.

 

[Iron]

You know, we're living in a society. This selfish philosophy which asserts that you have no interest to look out for anyone but yourself is hopelessly bankrupt and sums up everything that is wrong with the post-war world.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

If you really cared, you'd donate your own money to private charities that dealt with this. Or convince others to voluntarily give their money. Not forcefully take it with the threat of violence!

But why go to the lengths of convincing people, who obviously do not want to be convinced (if we look at some of the libetarians on this website) and who obviously do not care, when it's far easier to take it by threat of violence? It achieves its purpose, it's fair (although not to the greedy rich folks who whinge about their 45% tax threshold) and it works!

Well, if I could afford to look after myself properly to begin with then I might be concerned with others to the point I'd be willing to salary sacrifice to pay for their welfare.

Do you suggest that your predicament is the same as that of the majority? If not, it's foolish to bring it up. If so, then you're deluded. Bring yourself and your family (I'm assuming that your parents pay for at least some of your lifestyle) down to the level of the majority of people who recieve large welfare benefits, then start complaining about how you're unfairly taxed. At the moment, I can safely say that the sheer majority of those who mostly fork out to help others enjoy a quality of life that is FAR better than those who recieve that same money.

Anyway, how is believing private charity > government welfare selfish?

Well I can't say this with any conviction, but surely there must be some kind of proof out there to suggest that;

a) most people don't give money to charities
b) most people wouldn't give money to charities
c) all the charities out there couldn't replace the work done by the government.

I mean, hey, if private charities WERE better than the government in terms of providing nessecary welfare then there would be no reason to continue to back the idea of government welfare. However I don't believe that's the case. Prove me wrong though.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

As I said in the PM, I don't quite understand why you weren't willing to say any of that publicly (I wouldn't have minded), but I replied via PM. It's a bit annoying with that character limit though. At the end of my PM, I had the word "yay" there, but those three characters put me three characters over the 5000 character word limit.

 

[volition]

I'm not sure if you're being serious but I largely agree with this.

Completely serious

You know, we're living in a society. This selfish philosophy which asserts that you have no interest to look out for anyone but yourself is hopelessly bankrupt and sums up everything that is wrong with the post-war world.

Yes, we live in a civil society, where we don't threaten violence against another person if they don't want to do as we ask them.

I'm saying that yes, rich people should help poorer people, but it should never be done against their will(because its immoral, read my response to Neb). It doesn't exactly mean that "you have no interest to look out for anyone but yourself", it just means that you shouldn't be made to. I ask you to think carefully about what gives you the right.

But why go to the lengths of convincing people, who obviously do not want to be convinced (if we look at some of the libetarians on this website) and who obviously do not care, when it's far easier to take it by threat of violence? It achieves its purpose, it's fair (although not to the greedy rich folks who whinge about their 45% tax threshold) and it works!

Wow, it's kind of hard to tell if you're being serious or not here. But ok, I'll take your suggestion seriously.

What gives you the right? Do you understand that you are using the threat of violence to take money away from people against their will? Can you not see what is wrong with this? It's no different to if you just walked around on the street with a gun, held it to a rich guy's head and said "gimme your money because I'm poorer than you". The fact that the govt does it all for you, does not excuse it. The govt is not a different moral agent, it is composed of people who must ALL be subject to the same standard. In short, the government should only be able to do things that we as individual people can.

Either EVERYONE is allowed to steal, or NOBODY is. Let's examine the case where everyone is allowed to steal. Ok, so let's say you get your wish, everyone is allowed to steal, but we have now encountered a problem. Whenever somebody tries to steal something, it's like they're saying "Your property rights are invalid, but mine are valid!". Property rights cannot be both valid and invalid at the same time. The only way around this, is to make it that NOBODY is allowed to steal.

You can't start saying some people are allowed to steal and others aren't, because this violates the idea that morals are universally applicable and logically consistent(I've just shown you how it wouldn't be logically consistent if everyone were allowed to steal).

who obviously do not want to be convinced

The fact that people don't want to be convinced doesn't excuse violence. The fact that libertarianism is not a commonly held belief shouldn't make me less inclined to believe it. What matters, is that it is 'right'.

I mean, hey, if private charities WERE better than the government in terms of providing nessecary welfare then there would be no reason to continue to back the idea of government welfare. However I don't believe that's the case. Prove me wrong though.

Private businesses generally are always > govt businesses. This is because there is very little to no incentive to spend money wisely in govt. Cos if govt fucks up, it can always just tax more from the people! There are also other economic reasons which I won't bore you with(if you want me to elaborate on these, let me know).

The problem is that nobody realises private charity is better than govt, and they continue voting for the status quo. It's like how hardly anyone realises that you don't really have the 'right' to disagree with what the govt does, seeing as you end up funding it anyway(eg. I may not agree with the war in Iraq, but I had to fund it anyway, which means my 'right to disagree' is purely imaginary). But people just invent rationales for govt existence AFTER the fact, as in, they just think of reasons why we need the govt because the govt jumps into an industry and makes it look like it is the 'natural owner' of that business area. Often its because the govt has legal monopoly over areas.