Advertisement

Public Housing not an unconditional home for life?

By 15 March 2012 120

The Age has the long overdue news that the ACT Government is going to move to turf high income earners out of public housing.

The ACT Government is powerless to force middle-class households out of government homes, despite thousands of families being on the waiting lists.

Instead, housing bureaucrats can only ask tenants on more than $80,000 per year to ”reconsider” their continued presence in public housing.

But Housing Minister Joy Burch is considering legislative changes to send a message that public housing is not an unconditional home for life.

Roslyn Dundas from the ACT Council of Social Services predictably thinks this idea is not so great.

UPDATE 15/03/12 12:00: The Greens are not at all happy about the proposals:

ACT Greens Health spokesperson, Amanda Bresnan MLA, has described the ACT Government’s proposal to take market renters out of public housing as lacking a long-term vision for public housing.

“The Government is proposing an extremely short term solution to Housing ACT’s long waiting list. There also is no detail at all about how they would replace the revenue lost from those paying market rent,” Ms Bresnan said.

“In most of these cases we are probably talking about single, middle aged to older women, with very little superannuation. We need to think about what will happen to them in the long term.

“We also face the situation where if tenants believe they will be evicted once they earn a certain income, they could choose to stay in their home and earn a lower income. This is counterproductive to the aim of giving people stability and the ability to be a contributing member of the community.

“Tenants who can get to the stage of paying market rent in Housing ACT properties are able to subsidise those other tenants on low incomes.

“Evicting market renters will only make the Housing ACT portfolio more unviable. The Government needs to show the cost of replacing this revenue. There was no accounting for this in the Public Housing Asset Management Strategy that was just released late last year.

Please login to post your comments
120 Responses to Public Housing not an unconditional home for life?
#61
Thumper10:32 am, 16 Mar 12

Possibly a three strike rule?

Have bad tenants of a contract somewhat like a bond so that there is the threat of eviction?

Of course, one would hope that, having being turfed out, one would see the errors of their ways and attempt to rectify this.

#62
colourful sydney rac10:43 am, 16 Mar 12

Thumper said :

Of course, one would hope that, having being turfed out, one would see the errors of their ways and attempt to rectify this.

And I thought I was an optimist :)

#63
bitzermaloney10:56 am, 16 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Which Greens MLA spent years in her Yarralumla guvvie House despite being on a very good earner as an MLA? Is she still in it?
How did she justify selfishly denying a battered single mother a place in guvvie housing?

Deb Fosky, see… http://the-riotact.com/deb-foskey-in-public-housing-debate-gets-more-exposure/529

From memory it took her about 4 or 5 months to move out. Probably justified it by saying that she’d be unemployed after the next election.

Why isn’t there a review of people’s family/financial situation periodically (6 months, 1 year, 2 years)?

Understanding of course there are people that have genuine needs and limited opportunites to better their life circumstances, while others have ample opportunity (eg. Deb Fosky example). Seems that getting into Public Housing can be very difficult, but once in it appears near impossible to get out.

#64
EvanJames11:21 am, 16 Mar 12

Genie said :

You want a bigger house. You got yourself in this situation, did ways to get out of it instead of waiting for the Government to hand you the silver spoon you’re waiting for.

Yeah, it got my goat too. Entitlement mentality. Pump out children and then wonder where your big house is, a bedroom for each kid. That’s actually a pretty good lurk if it worked… I’d like a 6 bedroom house with lots of bathrooms, hmmm, I’ll need about 5 kids to get that…

And all those kids growing up in a welfare-dependant family are being inculcated with the idea that The Government Provides, not that you grow up and get a job.

I know that The Australian deliberately features rich people whining when their middle class welfare gets trimmed, because that paper has been campaigning against it for years. Maybe the CT is doing something similar.

#65
GardeningGirl11:24 am, 16 Mar 12

Thumper said :

johnboy said :

Have you thought what happens to the rest of us when the scum are no longer happily stoned on their couch in front of a big TV but are instead hungry, cold and out on our streets?

That does need some thought. If they’re stoned on their couch then fine. Drunk and throwing stuff at neighbours while abusing the hell out of everyone else is simply not fine.

Penalties of some sort? I don’t know.

That’s why I don’t really like the idea of simply throwing them out, but simply letting them get away with anything secure in the knowledge they can just continue that way doesn’t work either.

Genie said :

Fender said :

CT has an interesting piece on the subject.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/when-five-kids-isnt-a-crowd-20120315-1v8l6.html
Not sure what I think about it but “quality journalism” is not a word that springs to mind.

This article really gets on my nerves and I have to say what most people are thinking.
This family is crying poor because they have 5 children and are only in a 3 beddy house an earning less than $20k per annum.
Here’s my 2 cents worth -
WHY did you have 5 kids if you can’t afford to support them?
If you’re so broke – go get a fricken job. There are tons of jobs out there ! Almost all of your children go to school. So it’s not like both parents need to be at home caring for them.

The 13 year old “can’t get no work done” because he shares a room with his 2 younger brothers. Ummm I shared a room with my sister until I was a teenager. I got plenty of homework done. It’s called do it in the kitchen or the loungeroom AWAY from the siblings.

You want a bigger house. You got yourself in this situation, did ways to get out of it instead of waiting for the Government to hand you the silver spoon you’re waiting for.

I saw that. I don’t want to judge any particular family because a blended family or multiple birth plus an unexpected job loss could put anybody in a more difficult situation than they planned for, but in general I agree. I don’t remember families that large being typical when I was growing up and anything beyond a parents bedroom and a room for the girls and a room for the boys was quite luxurious. If you want more bedrooms get a job so you can afford it, in the meantime go with the kitchen or loungeroom suggestion or why can’t one of the parents take the younger siblings outside for a ballgame or have storytelling time in another room during the older kids homework time or what about the public library, what is being done to make the situation work apart from whining for the government to provide more?

#66
HenryBG11:41 am, 16 Mar 12

Thumper said :

For instance, what about an old lady who has lived in this house all her life. Her children lived there. her husband, now deceased, live there.

It is her home. her complete life’s memories are tied up in this home.

It would seem very unfair to simply kick her out.

Crap. You move out of home when you go to Uni, you move home when you get a job, you move home when you get married.
You also move when you’re old and occupying a house that’s far too big for you, ESPECIALLY if it’s a house that belongs to somebody else and could be put to far better use.

If you want to choose to live in an unjustifiably over-large house all by yourself – buy yourself one.
Don’t expect the taxpayer to provide it.

#67
Dilandach12:28 pm, 16 Mar 12

johnboy said :

Have you thought what happens to the rest of us when the scum are no longer happily stoned on their couch in front of a big TV but are instead hungry, cold and out on our streets?

Yep. On the streets being cold and hungry. Yes, there will be some that turn to commit more crime to survive, there will also be others that will attempt to fix their ways, others that will not cope and possibly die.

Leaving a system that enables the scum bong away on the couch in front of their interest free purchased plasma with no intention to change or improve their situation whilst making life a living hell for those that live nearby versus being turfed out on the street and being told “no more, grow up and sort yourself out otherwise you’re going to starve to death”.

Now which system increases the scum allowing them to become an endlessly increasing burden that you end up having to pay for from cradle to grave as opposed to actually reducing the numbers and causing people to have a think about where they’re going?

#68
colourful sydney rac1:32 pm, 16 Mar 12

Dilandach said :

johnboy said :

Have you thought what happens to the rest of us when the scum are no longer happily stoned on their couch in front of a big TV but are instead hungry, cold and out on our streets?

Yep. On the streets being cold and hungry. Yes, there will be some that turn to commit more crime to survive, there will also be others that will attempt to fix their ways, others that will not cope and possibly die.

Leaving a system that enables the scum bong away on the couch in front of their interest free purchased plasma with no intention to change or improve their situation whilst making life a living hell for those that live nearby versus being turfed out on the street and being told “no more, grow up and sort yourself out otherwise you’re going to starve to death”.

Now which system increases the scum allowing them to become an endlessly increasing burden that you end up having to pay for from cradle to grave as opposed to actually reducing the numbers and causing people to have a think about where they’re going?

So you would condemn their children to a life on the streets, facing hunger and freezing temperatures and, in your words, die?

#69
HenryBG1:41 pm, 16 Mar 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

So you would condemn their children to a life on the streets, facing hunger and freezing temperatures and, in your words, die?

It empowers them to develop self-reliance, resilience, initiative and motivation.

Giving them free stuff they haven’t worked for robs them of those three things as well as pulverising their confidence and self-respect.

#70
jimbocool1:46 pm, 16 Mar 12

Genie said :

Fender said :

CT has an interesting piece on the subject.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/when-five-kids-isnt-a-crowd-20120315-1v8l6.html
Not sure what I think about it but “quality journalism” is not a word that springs to mind.

This article really gets on my nerves and I have to say what most people are thinking.
This family is crying poor because they have 5 children and are only in a 3 beddy house an earning less than $20k per annum.
.

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

#71
HenryBG1:53 pm, 16 Mar 12

jimbocool said :

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

I’m so glad my taxes are funding a breeding program for the stupid. How excellent.

#72
Dilandach1:55 pm, 16 Mar 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

So you would condemn their children to a life on the streets, facing hunger and freezing temperatures and, in your words, die?

As opposed to a childhood spent with abuse both sexual and physical. Drawn into the endless generational cycle of low income and high crime with little to no prospects. A sweet release is much more humane than encouraging generations to pass their social problems down to the next generation with no end in sight.

Some will continue to have children no matter what the situation they are in is but there are a lot that wouldn’t be born if their ‘parents’ were fighting for their survival. If they improved their social skills enough and saw that kicking holes in walls, threatening neighbours and generally being a menace isn’t too their benefit then it might filter down to children they may have or already have.

Its a large part of the problem, there is no line in the sand where “no more” really does mean “no more”.

#73
Chop712:01 pm, 16 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

jimbocool said :

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

I’m so glad my taxes are funding a breeding program for the stupid. How excellent.

Maybe they are not that stupid after all, $68k and they don’t have to work. I hope (but doubt) the 5 kids aspire to achieve something more than their parents.

#74
Watson2:02 pm, 16 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

So you would condemn their children to a life on the streets, facing hunger and freezing temperatures and, in your words, die?

It empowers them to develop self-reliance, resilience, initiative and motivation.

Giving them free stuff they haven’t worked for robs them of those three things as well as pulverising their confidence and self-respect.

I agree with your second statement but not with the first. Kids thrive on stability and security and if they don’t get that the consequence can be dire. And at least a home gives them some of that, even if the people in it may be unpredictable and untrustworthy.

I don’t think there is a black and white solution for his issue. I think it is naive to think that all of the welfare buldgers can be rehabilitated if you only use the right stick and/or carrot. For all sorts of reasons, you are always going to get left with those who would not try to take responsibility for their own lives no matter what you do. It is very sad for their kids indeed. But instead of wasting time and effort on trying to turn them into the sort of parents that they will never become, maybe there should be some mentoring scheme for those kids to try free them from the welfare cycle. Much better idea than making them suffer even more because their parents are useless, I reckon.

#75
colourful sydney rac2:18 pm, 16 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

So you would condemn their children to a life on the streets, facing hunger and freezing temperatures and, in your words, die?

It empowers them to develop self-reliance, resilience, initiative and motivation.

Giving them free stuff they haven’t worked for robs them of those three things as well as pulverising their confidence and self-respect.

At the risk of going all ‘won’t somebody please think of the children’, throwing kids onto the streets does not ‘empower them to develop self-reliance, resilience, initiative and motivation’. It forces them into a life of poverty, crime and prostitution.

#76
colourful sydney rac2:20 pm, 16 Mar 12

Chop71 said :

I hope (but doubt) the 5 kids aspire to achieve something more than their parents.

You are probably right, I really wish I knew what the solution was to intergenerational unemployment.

#77
colourful sydney rac2:23 pm, 16 Mar 12

Dilandach said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

So you would condemn their children to a life on the streets, facing hunger and freezing temperatures and, in your words, die?

As opposed to a childhood spent with abuse both sexual and physical. Drawn into the endless generational cycle of low income and high crime with little to no prospects.

Yep, forcing children onto the streets would be the best way to ensure they don’t end up physically or sexually abused. Seriously, give yourself an uppercut.

#78
supamum2:23 pm, 16 Mar 12

As a single working mum, I am well aware of how difficult things can be, and there is one big problem with all the suggestions and answers you have all come up with. This is the fact that the whole system needs to be reviewed and possiably rewritten there will be reliefe on the housing situation unless the whole system is observed.
 
I currently reside in a Govt house, I work on a permanent part time basis and I have a child (under the age of 5) with special needs (not physical), I have considered working more hours to boost my income up, herein lie the problems… 1. Income goes up I will lose $0.50 in the dollar out of my parenting/carers payment. 2. I will have to pay higher childcare fees a)due to my child being in care more often and b)due to a lowered subsidy on childcare due to income increase. 3. My govt housing rent will increase. This is where the problem is I would have to work over 10 hours a week more to be less than $100 per week better off. Are we seeing the bigger picture now? Would you work over 10 hours for $100?
 
Second Issue with Govt housing yes some tenants are feral…. Thoese of us that are not still get thrown into the same basket… I have never had rental arrears, never had maintenance fees and my lawn is always mowed and my house is always clean and tidy, yet I ended up in a house with holes in the walls, stains all over the carpet, carpet lifted in numerous places no underlay in some areas, leaking shower, broken oven… I could go on but wont. My point here is I can understand why people on higher incomes don’t buy their Govt home anymore like people did years ago, a) theres not a financial incentive (reduced purchase price) b) a fair portion of them are like mine have been trashed (why spend $450,000 on that when you can get a house and land package for that price) It takes years to get a transfer… I would not even consider buying my house if the situation changed because its on the wrong side of town and its thrashed even though it is less than 15 years old. So I can totally understand why some people wouldn’t want to buy the property but if DHCS and the Govt let good tenants and those on higher incomes have the decent houses then just maybe these people would buy them… then the money could be reinvested into other propertys. this would also assist other problem areas like maintenance issues.. eg: newer propertys need less maintinence than older ones.

And just to all the haters out there just because we live in govt housing does not make us stupid, or bludgers… Some of us are well educated, from good family’s ect. We have just fallen on hard times or been victims or circumstance.

#79
EvanJames2:39 pm, 16 Mar 12

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

#80
Dilandach2:44 pm, 16 Mar 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Dilandach said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

So you would condemn their children to a life on the streets, facing hunger and freezing temperatures and, in your words, die?

As opposed to a childhood spent with abuse both sexual and physical. Drawn into the endless generational cycle of low income and high crime with little to no prospects.

Yep, forcing children onto the streets would be the best way to ensure they don’t end up physically or sexually abused. Seriously, give yourself an uppercut.

A valuable lesson would be learnt by the deadbeats, priorities lay not in smoking bongs and sinking piss all day but rather their own family and their futures. A nice dose of reality.

oh but instead lets just let them do as they wish. Its worked well so far right? It can only get better.

Give myself an uppercut? Zemanek would be proud.

#81
Watson3:03 pm, 16 Mar 12

EvanJames said :

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

All of these payments you mention are income tested except perhaps for the childcare rebate. The back to school bonus was a one-off payment back in 2009 and you do not get free laptops for kids. They are however tax deductible.

This kind of Tatcherist survival of the fittest drivel really annoys me. I feel happy to live in a society that supports people raising kids. There should be more of it.

#82
colourful sydney rac3:23 pm, 16 Mar 12

Dilandach said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Dilandach said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

So you would condemn their children to a life on the streets, facing hunger and freezing temperatures and, in your words, die?

As opposed to a childhood spent with abuse both sexual and physical. Drawn into the endless generational cycle of low income and high crime with little to no prospects.

Yep, forcing children onto the streets would be the best way to ensure they don’t end up physically or sexually abused. Seriously, give yourself an uppercut.

A valuable lesson would be learnt by the deadbeats, priorities lay not in smoking bongs and sinking piss all day but rather their own family and their futures. A nice dose of reality.

oh but instead lets just let them do as they wish. Its worked well so far right? It can only get better.

Give myself an uppercut? Zemanek would be proud.

If you read my previous posts you would have noticed that I agree intergenerational employment is a big problem.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that throwing children onto the streets isn’t it. There are a lot of countries in the world that have this approach, perhaps you would like to live in them, I know I wouldn’t.

For the record, I think something along the lines of the NT intervention would probably be a start, quarantining welfare payments, ensuring children attend school etc.

#83
Jim Jones3:41 pm, 16 Mar 12

Watson said :

EvanJames said :

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

Yeah, some working families can barely manage to replace their giant plasmas every couple of years, let alone buy a new-model Falcon, take the family to Bali, or lay some more concrete down out the front of the McMansion.

It’s tough being a battler.

#84
devils_advocate4:07 pm, 16 Mar 12

Chop71 said :

HenryBG said :

jimbocool said :

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

I’m so glad my taxes are funding a breeding program for the stupid. How excellent.

Maybe they are not that stupid after all, $68k and they don’t have to work. I hope (but doubt) the 5 kids aspire to achieve something more than their parents.

I’ve seen and experienced firsthand aspects of this, and with large catholic families you often get “natural experiments” approaching statstically significant outcomes. In summary, it can go both ways.

Sometimes the kids turn out to be absolute deads–ts. Sometimes they get so sick of being poor that they do whatever it takes to get out of it (good mate of mine in this situation was one of 8 boys, he went through law school with me, another of his brothers is an institutional banker, and the rest… well, yeah.)

I don’t hate the poor, but as for being poor, well I tried it once and it wasn’t really my thing.

#85
HenryBG4:17 pm, 16 Mar 12

supamum said :

Are we seeing the bigger picture now? Would you work over 10 hours for $100?
 

What a co-incidence – $100 is the same piddlingly insulting amount the government is proposing to pay me for losing a day’s work in order to perform jury service.

Clearly, whoever designs these systems can’t count.

#86
HenryBG4:18 pm, 16 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

EvanJames said :

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

Yeah, some working families can barely manage to replace their giant plasmas every couple of years, let alone buy a new-model Falcon, take the family to Bali, or lay some more concrete down out the front of the McMansion.

It’s tough being a battler.

You forgot to mention the 7 mobile phones owned by the “battler” household.

#87
HenryBG4:21 pm, 16 Mar 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

If you read my previous posts you would have noticed that I agree intergenerational employment is a big problem.

I don’t know what the answer is, ,..

I do: Welfare should be provided only to those who can provide doctors’ certificates demonstrating that they are fully up-to-date with their contraceptive shots – thus ensuring no child is born into a state of welfare-dependent poverty.

Very simple.

#88
peterh4:26 pm, 16 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

EvanJames said :

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

Yeah, some working families can barely manage to replace their giant plasmas every couple of years, let alone buy a new-model Falcon, take the family to Bali, or lay some more concrete down out the front of the McMansion.

It’s tough being a battler.

I am earning under 80K, paying the CSA, have the same TV I saved up for months to buy, don’t live in a McMansion, have a car that wasn’t new when I bought it, never been overseas on holiday apart from my parents sending me to fiji when I was younger.

I have lived in Ainslie village, I have slept on the street, been on the dole, am selling my house to enable my divorce to finalise and I have tried to pay back each and every person who has helped me over the years.

I am not entitled to the family tax benefits as I see my kids 1 weekend a fortnight. Am I a battler? dunno. I do know that until you have walked in my shoes, dealt with the cr@p I have been through over the years, don’t lump me in with the system cheats, the rorters.

#89
Watson4:31 pm, 16 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

Yeah, some working families can barely manage to replace their giant plasmas every couple of years, let alone buy a new-model Falcon, take the family to Bali, or lay some more concrete down out the front of the McMansion.

It’s tough being a battler.

Even more drivel. With property prices and rents and the cost of living the way they are, families who are eligible for these tax deductions are not living it up.

I sense some serious govt assistance envy in this thread…

#90
Watson4:31 pm, 16 Mar 12

Watson said :

Jim Jones said :

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

Yeah, some working families can barely manage to replace their giant plasmas every couple of years, let alone buy a new-model Falcon, take the family to Bali, or lay some more concrete down out the front of the McMansion.

It’s tough being a battler.

Even more drivel. With property prices and rents and the cost of living the way they are, families who are eligible for these tax deductions are not living it up.

I sense some serious govt assistance envy in this thread…

Damn that quoting is hard sometimes!

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.