The uphill path for Generation Y

Az said :

bundah said :

Spoken like a true GenY….

Irony.

But refute the premise … Babyboomers ARE the most entitled generation of all time. Easy jobs, free uni, a demographic bubble that has every political party kissing their arse. (negative gearing etc.)

As Boomers get more and more conservative, so does the entire Australian political landscape. It sux 🙁

And don’t be so down on Gen Y – who do think is going to be changing the bedpans and chasing down dementia walkabouts? Gen X? Those b@#$%#ds are too busy scheming how to get hold of the family assets before they’re all blown on Winnebagos and cookie-cutter holidays to Europe.

Amiright?

You are fortunate that the Human Rights Commission does not have include “age” as a right or you would be cited for calling babyboomers en masse as “b@#$%#ds” in a non-endearing sense.
Just as the Nazis blamed the Jews for the problems of Germany, people like you are repeating claims made in some media outlets that baby boomers are all that you have said without any proof or foundation.
To set the record straight about the babbyboomer generation being the most entitled etc. let’s look at the points you raise in the order you have listed.
Easy Jobs: There were no “easy jobs” when I left school and if one thought the job was meant to be “easy” (meaning little application was required) then they wouldn’t have that job anymore and no correspondence would be entered into (no “nanny” agencies to hand you a Kleenex and money).
In fact, at that time, “easy” and “job” did not appear in the same sentence such were the community values.
Without family support life was tough as the only alternative accommodation was at boarding houses which took about 80% of net take home pay. Very few people could afford a car. Most students finished their final exams on a Friday in November and commenced work full time the following Monday. No “gap year” in those days.
Free University: There is no such thing – never has been – never will be. In the 1960’s one could apply for a Commonwealth Scholarship (note the operative phrase is “scholar”) which was awarded to selected final year secondary students on their abilties, not rights. There were also Teachers’ College Scholarships. Both had strings attached which meant that if the accepting student did not finish the course they were bonded to pay the State the cost of the education. Also, on successful completion of the course the graduate had to work exclusively for a Government Department best suited to their studies at any location nominated by the State, for at least 3 years. Again, without family support (especially for those living in rural areas) it was impossible to take up these offers (no such thing as “youth allowance” to assist).
Negative Gearing: It was hard enough for most of us to acquire our first home let alone buy an investment one. Home loans were regulated and one had to have one third deposit (which had to be saved first) before any consideration would be given to a loan. The deposit money was usually generated by a second job. Negative gearing came much later in life and only for a few. Canberra is overwieghted with negative gearing because it is entirely different to the rest of Australia. If we were to believe what you were saying every babyboomer would have negatively geared properties and there would be no emerging aged pensioners as some in the media claim.
Politics: There are no degrees of conservatism. One cannot be more conservative or less conservative (unlike some of the chardonnay socialists I know). A lot of conservatives don’t look to politicians to solve their problems either – we have learned through experience that success and security comes from personal effort.
Gen Y: You mention bed pans in a derogatory way. You wouldn’t if you had to use one. Also, you talk of “chasing down” dementia patients. I’ll forgive you for that because you have probably never had a close relative with the terrible condition. If you did you would not apply such repugnant terminolgy to victims of dementia. I am glad the moderator did not edit your comments out because people with attitudes like yours need to be exposed.
I have been visiting a high care facility for the aged most of the past week and note the dedicated and caring staff are mainly babyboomers (only a few of the residents are). The only Gen Y workers appear to be from outside Australia so you and your Australian Gen Y peers should never have to handle a bed pan in your working life.
I think you have answered you own questions as to why we are “so down on Gen Y”.

Az said :

bundah said :

Spoken like a true GenY….

Irony.

But refute the premise … Babyboomers ARE the most entitled generation of all time. Easy jobs, free uni, a demographic bubble that has every political party kissing their arse. (negative gearing etc.)

As Boomers get more and more conservative, so does the entire Australian political landscape. It sux 🙁

And don’t be so down on Gen Y – who do think is going to be changing the bedpans and chasing down dementia walkabouts? Gen X? Those b@#$%#ds are too busy scheming how to get hold of the family assets before they’re all blown on Winnebagos and cookie-cutter holidays to Europe.

Amiright?

Sounds as though you like to file people into certain slots, and don’t like anyone but those you associate as being like yourself and a similar age. These generations have always seemed so blurry and arbitrary to me, so I would be interested why these classifications are so important to you.
As you like to label people, you would call me a baby boomer (although on the younger side if you want to be precise), and like many of my generation I never got the opportunity to go to university. So, it was free! To most of us that was irrelevant. It wasn’t considered a ‘right’, but a privilege. A few in my class went. I can think of two, but there might have been others. Instead most of us went out and got (first) jobs that possibly you would consider beneath you. I apologise if I am presuming wrong here. I don’t want to come across as presumptuous as you. University was only for the few; not as now when it seems that the masses expect to attend. I imagine it would be hard these days to get a good job in the public service without a degree. I have never been a public servant, but I knew others who started work at about the same time as me, who joined the public service. They didn’t have degrees. You didn’t need one as much then, because most people never went to university. These days I imagine they would have gone to university.
I just had a thought. When less people went to university it was easier for it to be free, as there were not so many people to pay for. Free, and suddenly ‘everyone’ wants to go and expects it as a right, even if perhaps some of them would be more suited to doing a trade or similar. Then costs go up (because of the number of people claiming a university education is their right) and suddenly university is no longer free. No need to argue with me. I’m not claiming this is why university is no longer free. Just a thought.
So, why are labels so important to you? Why do you come across as bitter, and dare I say, spoilt? It might cost money, but at least these days you have a much better chance to go to university than most people of my age had. Free means nothing to people who never had the chance to partake of this.

bundah said :

Spoken like a true GenY….

Irony.

But refute the premise … Babyboomers ARE the most entitled generation of all time. Easy jobs, free uni, a demographic bubble that has every political party kissing their arse. (negative gearing etc.)

As Boomers get more and more conservative, so does the entire Australian political landscape. It sux 🙁

And don’t be so down on Gen Y – who do think is going to be changing the bedpans and chasing down dementia walkabouts? Gen X? Those b@#$%#ds are too busy scheming how to get hold of the family assets before they’re all blown on Winnebagos and cookie-cutter holidays to Europe.

Amiright?

JessP said :

Hmm, yes yes. All the budget changes are bad and should be stopped.

Lets just keep them all and put up the tax rates for everyone (including the GST rate) to pay for the billions it costs every year to keep all this stuff. Oh and to pay all the debt the country already has.

Lets not worry about the number of people on the pension, the dole or DSP because we know no one who ever dud the system. On the people getting family payments. Or child care rebate or whatever. Lets give everyone access but just increase the tax rates.

And close all the tax loopholes.

And just keep putting the rates up a bit more over time, to pay for them in the future when more and more people retire and want the pension or DSP or whatever.

Yeah fine.

I’m not sure what point you are really trying to make here…. I don’t think anyone truly believes all the budget changes are bad, or that something needs to done to bring the budget back to surplus. However when you read the facts of the budget, the coalition say one thing and do another.

They are spending more in this budget than Labors last budget.
They want to end the entitlement etc, but want to give people a fairly excessive Paid parental leave scheme.
They want to stop the poor from rorting the dole, but are happy for the rich to rort the tax system.

There are many, many things that could be done and won’t be done, because politicians are only about being reelected. Don’t think thats the case with this budget? Well they are just helping out the people who funded their campaign and who will do their best to get them reelected, just like Labor does with the unions.

arescarti42 said :

It’s not just about changing whether claims are made now or in the future. A major problem with the current negative gearing regime is that it can be used as a tax avoidance vehicle, by essentially allowing individuals to transform wage income taxable at their full marginal rate, into capital gains taxable at half that rate. Quarantining losses removes that loophole.

Not so sure about this. When the NG strategy was really effective was back in the late 80’s through the 90’s when the top marginal rate was close to 50% and you only had to earn $60k per year to get there. Also, inflation was higher, which pushed asset prices up more consistently. Back then, NG was a no brainer.

Fast forward to today, though, and you need to be a high income earner for it to be reasonably effective. Not much point buying an asset growing at an average of 5% p.a. in nominal terms when you’re only getting back 30% of the loss (although some of that loss is not actual cash).

As I said previously, quarantining the loss just means that the loss would be carried forward, not that it would disappear. There would also need to be some careful thought given to how this would work, to stop people forming companies or using trusts to avoid the new rules. Indeed, thought would need to be given as to what the new rules would really result in.

And don’t forget why the CGT 50% rule was brought in. A lot of anti-NG argument conveniently forget this, leading to some people believing that you really only have to declare half the gain in real terms, which is demonstrably false.

arescarti42 said :

Perhaps, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. What the Government needs to do is figure out what it’s actually trying to achieve, and then figure out the most economically efficient and cost effective way to do that.

If the goal is actually to increase housing supply and rental affordability, then there’s lots of ways to do that, but I think it’s pretty clear that current negative gearing system completely fails to do that, and on that basis, is a terrible use of Government funds.

Agree with this. So we need to think about what we really want. I’d suggest it would be a situation with a number of characteristics, including:
1) Encourages new builds
2) Provides for adequate supply
3) Rewards investment risk sensibly

Personally I think changing the depreciation regimen would achieve some of these things, but others are more a product of government behaviour. Making drastic changes too quickly almost always causes unforeseen problems.

We would also need to be careful that the government didn’t end up worse off. The government makes billions a year from stamp duty, many billions from GST, many billions from CGT, not to mention land tax, rates, etc. If people suddenly decided not to invest in property then that revenue stream from CGT alone would dry up overnight, costing far more than the cost of NG concessions.

Trouble is, no matter what we do with the tax rules, we can’t overcome the issues of governments drip feeding land for sale and failing to build adequate infrastructure in outlying areas. Until these problems are genuinely fixed, inner city property will be worth a lot more than would otherwise be the case.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

One issue with NG concession (which, as I’m sure you know, is neither actual law nor property specific), is whether quarantining of losses to offset future gains would actually achieve the desired result. The real outcome here would be to change when tax claims were made, rather than how much, because quarantining would presumably result in a ‘carrying forward’ of the taxable loss into years when cashflow was sufficient to support the loss.

It’s not just about changing whether claims are made now or in the future. A major problem with the current negative gearing regime is that it can be used as a tax avoidance vehicle, by essentially allowing individuals to transform wage income taxable at their full marginal rate, into capital gains taxable at half that rate. Quarantining losses removes that loophole.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Rather than limiting the concession to new builds, perhaps a better solution would be to increase the rate at which building depreciation could be claimed, but balance this by reducing the time across which the deduction can occur. For example, if you changed from being able to deduct 2.5% of the initial building value each year for 40 years to deducting 5% of the initial building value for 20 years, then new builds would suddenly become WAY more attractive, while existing stock over perhaps 5 years old would have a lot less demand.

Perhaps, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. What the Government needs to do is figure out what it’s actually trying to achieve, and then figure out the most economically efficient and cost effective way to do that.

If the goal is actually to increase housing supply and rental affordability, then there’s lots of ways to do that, but I think it’s pretty clear that current negative gearing system completely fails to do that, and on that basis, is a terrible use of Government funds.

NoImRight said :

You cant complain that the world wont listen if youve never given them any reason why they should.

The same could well be said for much of Gen Y, and especially for the uni students currently protesting at campuses around the country.

Re #36 (sorry wont let me quote for some reason) To be fair Dungfungus’ post starts with an incredibly pompous statement. How many people would really focus on someone who starts a speech with “Im really smart and heres why”. Especially when the author has a long history of statements that prove just the opposite.

You cant complain that the world wont listen if youve never given them any reason why they should.

HiddenDragon said :

There may be a moral to this story for Canberra – wishes, and hopes and idealised views of the world don’t create real jobs.

What? You mean kicking the poor until money comes flying out is not going to work.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Nor does it save the environment.

But, but, Direct Action(TM) is going to fix everything.

HiddenDragon said :

There may be a moral to this story for Canberra – wishes, and hopes and idealised views of the world don’t create real jobs.

Nor does it save the environment.

gazket said :

There would be plenty of jobs in Tassie if they expanded their agriculture industry . But gutsy young graduates from Tasmania probably wouldn’t want to get a callus and work on a farm.

Tasmania has always been an under performing state.

Yes, beyond the immediate issues arising from the “on again, off again” nature of the proposed changes to unemployment benefits for younger people, I thought this was the real issue raised by the statistic of 18,000 people chasing 500 advertised vacancies in Tasmania. As I listened, I found myself wondering about all those terrific “clean, green” jobs, and the “smart state” (or whatever it was going to be when the late Jim Bacon was running things), and the jobs from the big new ferry (also back then).

There may be a moral to this story for Canberra – wishes, and hopes and idealised views of the world don’t create real jobs.

There would be plenty of jobs in Tassie if they expanded their agriculture industry . But gutsy young graduates from Tasmania probably wouldn’t want to get a callus and work on a farm.

Tasmania has always been an under performing state.

Az said :

dungfungus said :

As a baby boomer, I have a lot of sound advice to give you…

Stopped reading right there. A member of the most entitled generation in history lecturing young people….

Wow.

Hey, you sound like my teenage son. If it is you Jason, mum has your dinner ready and your clothes are washed but no, you can’t borrow any more money.

.

Az said :

dungfungus said :

As a baby boomer, I have a lot of sound advice to give you…

Stopped reading right there. A member of the most entitled generation in history lecturing young people….

Wow.

The rest of the quote goes “As a baby boomer, I have a lot of sound advice to give you but from experience, Generation Y people are not receptive to advice from my generation (or any other demographic either).”
I don’t often agree it seems with dungfungus, but can you hear yourself. You just proved what he wrote.

Now to quote you…”Wow.”

Az said :

dungfungus said :

As a baby boomer, I have a lot of sound advice to give you…

Stopped reading right there. A member of the most entitled generation in history lecturing young people….

Wow.

Spoken like a true GenY….

dungfungus said :

As a baby boomer, I have a lot of sound advice to give you…

Stopped reading right there. A member of the most entitled generation in history lecturing young people….

Wow.

Hmm, yes yes. All the budget changes are bad and should be stopped.

Lets just keep them all and put up the tax rates for everyone (including the GST rate) to pay for the billions it costs every year to keep all this stuff. Oh and to pay all the debt the country already has.

Lets not worry about the number of people on the pension, the dole or DSP because we know no one who ever dud the system. On the people getting family payments. Or child care rebate or whatever. Lets give everyone access but just increase the tax rates.

And close all the tax loopholes.

And just keep putting the rates up a bit more over time, to pay for them in the future when more and more people retire and want the pension or DSP or whatever.

Yeah fine.

arescarti42 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

At the risk of getting into someone else’s argument, what about the sources of revenue the government has thanks to residential property investment? Rates, CGT, GST on new builds, stamp duty, developer fees, etc? Obviously these are all taxes levied for a variety of reasons, but I would have to wonder whether the government could collect so much CGT if people weren’t NG’ing. As I understand it CGT collected significantly exceeds NG concessions.

Of course, many would argue that CGT shouldn’t have a 50% discount, but that could be removed if inflation based indexing was reintroduced.

Agreed that residential property investment generates a lot of revenue for Governments, the key question is does the negative concession generate offsetting revenue elsewhere, that otherwise would not have occurred.

While the tax benefits offered by negative gearing are an additional incentive for people to invest, surveys typically indicate that they’re only a secondary consideration, with prospects for capital growth usually the deciding factor.

So you’d expect that changes to CGT revenue would be fairly muted without negative gearing, as the majority of negatively geared investors would still make the investment decision to invest without the concession (and this makes sense, the majority of negatively geared investors don’t have high incomes or marginal tax rates, so don’t derive much tax benefit anyway).

If you were to limit the concession to new builds only (as many commentators are suggesting), you could potentially raise a lot more revenue, because a much larger proportion of investors would be paying GST (currently 95% of newly negatively geared investors buy existing properties, which aren’t subject to GST).

I agree with most of this.

One issue with NG concession (which, as I’m sure you know, is neither actual law nor property specific), is whether quarantining of losses to offset future gains would actually achieve the desired result. The real outcome here would be to change when tax claims were made, rather than how much, because quarantining would presumably result in a ‘carrying forward’ of the taxable loss into years when cashflow was sufficient to support the loss.

There are also issues as to how investors would use these rules to their advantage. Consideration would have to be given as to whether someone could elect to claim a previously incurred loss in a given year or hold over to future years. It could be possible to buy a property that made a loss for, say, 5 years, then hold these losses over until a year when substantial other income was received. But then there’s be the issue of real versus nominal value of the deduction. Already it gets messy.

Rather than limiting the concession to new builds, perhaps a better solution would be to increase the rate at which building depreciation could be claimed, but balance this by reducing the time across which the deduction can occur. For example, if you changed from being able to deduct 2.5% of the initial building value each year for 40 years to deducting 5% of the initial building value for 20 years, then new builds would suddenly become WAY more attractive, while existing stock over perhaps 5 years old would have a lot less demand.

arescarti42 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

At the risk of getting into someone else’s argument, what about the sources of revenue the government has thanks to residential property investment? Rates, CGT, GST on new builds, stamp duty, developer fees, etc? Obviously these are all taxes levied for a variety of reasons, but I would have to wonder whether the government could collect so much CGT if people weren’t NG’ing. As I understand it CGT collected significantly exceeds NG concessions.

Of course, many would argue that CGT shouldn’t have a 50% discount, but that could be removed if inflation based indexing was reintroduced.

Agreed that residential property investment generates a lot of revenue for Governments, the key question is does the negative concession generate offsetting revenue elsewhere, that otherwise would not have occurred.

While the tax benefits offered by negative gearing are an additional incentive for people to invest, surveys typically indicate that they’re only a secondary consideration, with prospects for capital growth usually the deciding factor.

So you’d expect that changes to CGT revenue would be fairly muted without negative gearing, as the majority of negatively geared investors would still make the investment decision to invest without the concession (and this makes sense, the majority of negatively geared investors don’t have high incomes or marginal tax rates, so don’t derive much tax benefit anyway).

If you were to limit the concession to new builds only (as many commentators are suggesting), you could potentially raise a lot more revenue, because a much larger proportion of investors would be paying GST (currently 95% of newly negatively geared investors buy existing properties, which aren’t subject to GST).

These would likely not be popular with investors, because most new builds (at least as far as houses are concerned) are on the fringes of the city, and renters generally look to rent inner city. Investment properties need to be in areas of high demand, and usually the outer suburbs are not conducive to this. Keep negative gearing as is; get rid of it, but don’t only allow it for new builds, as this would further encourage suburban sprawl.
In the past I have rented out a couple of houses. Only the first two or three years were negative geared; most of their rental life the income was taxed.
There’s a thought. Perhaps only allow negative gearing for the first couple of years on a rental property, to assist the investor get started; then after that no negative gearing.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

arescarti42 said :

milkman said :

The strategy of negative gearing generates vastly more revenue for the government than the cost of the concession. It also reduces the amount of housing the government has to provide.

Oh really?

I challenge you to find one, just one, reputable source that supports your point of view.

To name just a couple on the other side of the argument, we’ve got preeminent Australian economists such as Saul Eslake and former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry pointing out that it costs the government many billions of dollars per year in foregone revenue, and does next to nothing to increase the supply of housing or reduce rents.

At the risk of getting into someone else’s argument, what about the sources of revenue the government has thanks to residential property investment? Rates, CGT, GST on new builds, stamp duty, developer fees, etc? Obviously these are all taxes levied for a variety of reasons, but I would have to wonder whether the government could collect so much CGT if people weren’t NG’ing. As I understand it CGT collected significantly exceeds NG concessions.

Of course, many would argue that CGT shouldn’t have a 50% discount, but that could be removed if inflation based indexing was reintroduced.

Seeing as over 90% of NG occurs on existing properties and not newly built ones I don’t think it would come close to the revenue foregone.
Although if someone wanted to do a detailed economic analysis of the effects of NG on the economy, what is the overall cost to the economy of artificially increasing prices through investors speculating on non productive assets instead of putting that capital to better use? What’s the opportunity cost of the policy?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

At the risk of getting into someone else’s argument, what about the sources of revenue the government has thanks to residential property investment? Rates, CGT, GST on new builds, stamp duty, developer fees, etc? Obviously these are all taxes levied for a variety of reasons, but I would have to wonder whether the government could collect so much CGT if people weren’t NG’ing. As I understand it CGT collected significantly exceeds NG concessions.

Of course, many would argue that CGT shouldn’t have a 50% discount, but that could be removed if inflation based indexing was reintroduced.

Agreed that residential property investment generates a lot of revenue for Governments, the key question is does the negative concession generate offsetting revenue elsewhere, that otherwise would not have occurred.

While the tax benefits offered by negative gearing are an additional incentive for people to invest, surveys typically indicate that they’re only a secondary consideration, with prospects for capital growth usually the deciding factor.

So you’d expect that changes to CGT revenue would be fairly muted without negative gearing, as the majority of negatively geared investors would still make the investment decision to invest without the concession (and this makes sense, the majority of negatively geared investors don’t have high incomes or marginal tax rates, so don’t derive much tax benefit anyway).

If you were to limit the concession to new builds only (as many commentators are suggesting), you could potentially raise a lot more revenue, because a much larger proportion of investors would be paying GST (currently 95% of newly negatively geared investors buy existing properties, which aren’t subject to GST).

arescarti42 said :

milkman said :

The strategy of negative gearing generates vastly more revenue for the government than the cost of the concession. It also reduces the amount of housing the government has to provide.

Oh really?

I challenge you to find one, just one, reputable source that supports your point of view.

To name just a couple on the other side of the argument, we’ve got preeminent Australian economists such as Saul Eslake and former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry pointing out that it costs the government many billions of dollars per year in foregone revenue, and does next to nothing to increase the supply of housing or reduce rents.

At the risk of getting into someone else’s argument, what about the sources of revenue the government has thanks to residential property investment? Rates, CGT, GST on new builds, stamp duty, developer fees, etc? Obviously these are all taxes levied for a variety of reasons, but I would have to wonder whether the government could collect so much CGT if people weren’t NG’ing. As I understand it CGT collected significantly exceeds NG concessions.

Of course, many would argue that CGT shouldn’t have a 50% discount, but that could be removed if inflation based indexing was reintroduced.

milkman said :

The strategy of negative gearing generates vastly more revenue for the government than the cost of the concession. It also reduces the amount of housing the government has to provide.

Oh really?

I challenge you to find one, just one, reputable source that supports your point of view.

To name just a couple on the other side of the argument, we’ve got preeminent Australian economists such as Saul Eslake and former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry pointing out that it costs the government many billions of dollars per year in foregone revenue, and does next to nothing to increase the supply of housing or reduce rents.

Fairly gutsy? Well-educated? The kid was a twit. He hadn’t actually looked into the details of what he was complaining about. He was trying to push a moot point and the Treasurer shut it down. If he is the face of Gen Y, then God help them.

It was symbolic of nearly all the questions on that episode of Q & A. I’ve never seen a more poorly informed audience, or more ridiculous questions. “I’m 30 and I can’t work forever. What’s the government’s plan to help me retire?”. Um, it’s called superannuation. Rather than blowing all your money on traveling and cars and clothes, start contributing to it. It was pathetic.

Codders111 said :

Since when has this website been overrun by radical conservatives? ……Australia is a wealthy country and there’s simply no reason why people here should be starving or homeless.

Damn straight Walker! Sometimes I’ve seen up to three posts in a row where no-one has called for Abbott’s crucifixion!

Seriously though, I doubt that political debate has ever reached such a low ebb as it is now. You cannot try and make a counterpoint without people immediately questioning your morality.

– Believe that maybe the current welfare set-up encourages inter-generational unemployment? You’re a HEARTLESS B*”TARD!

– Believe that Abbott may not be the anti-christ, or at least no worse than Rudd? You’re a pathetic neo-con, a mindless drone of the EVIL MURDOCH and probably YOU ARE ANDREW BOLT!

– Believe that perhaps not having hundreds of asylum seekers drowning at sea might be a good thing? You XENOPHOBIC RACIST! And what about that bloke who died on Manus!

And so on. I’m sure that the other side of politics could make an equal complaint against the conservatives, but really, has Australian politics ever been as polarised as it is now?

milkman said :

Whenever someone receives without working, someone has worked without receiving.

To each according to his contribution, aye comrade?

Ha! Just stirring the pot…

Walker said :

milkman said :

Whenever someone receives without working, someone has worked without receiving.

Which is why now is a good time to call it straight on things like negative gearing.

The strategy of negative gearing generates vastly more revenue for the government than the cost of the concession. It also reduces the amount of housing the government has to provide.

gospeedygo said :

Newstart/YA isn’t a holiday; it’s a utilitarian safety net to prevent the vulnerable falling even lower and suffer the dire consequences and outcomes caused by easily avoidable poverty which, surprise, surprise has consequences for everyone.

And in this initiative the government has got it completely back-to-front.

Instead of not receiving Newstart or YA for the first 6 months, it should be the other way around.

People should be entitled to benefits for 6 months only. After that they must get a job. A job…any job. Not the job they want or think they are entitled to…but whatever job is available.

Failing to take an offered job after six months should mean immediate suspension of all benifits.

milkman said :

Whenever someone receives without working, someone has worked without receiving.

Which is why now is a good time to call it straight on things like negative gearing.

Since when has this website been overrun by radical conservatives? A full 100% employment rate is not possible (outside the USSR at least), nor even desirable. No matter how ‘hard’ people work THERE WILL BE PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED!!!!! Newstart is just recognition of the reality that they need food to eat and somewhere modest to live. Australia is a wealthy country and there’s simply no reason why people here should be starving or homeless. Very few dole recipients are unemployed by choice.

Since some of you seem only to care about yourselves I’d like to emphasise that at least a minimal safety net is in everyone’s interests. It improves group cohesiveness and and social mobility (both are economically beneficial in the long run), keeps crime low, and eventually gets spent on goods and services helping to create jobs and wealth for all!

Whenever someone receives without working, someone has worked without receiving.

dtc said :

What I dont understand is why people get so upset about ‘dole bludgers’.

If you think people are getting something for nothing, feel free to join them. You too can get something for nothing.

Whats that? You dont want to – surely you can survive happily on the dole like all those people you think do it volunarily. Its such a luxury lifestyle.

You want a house and car and children and being able to eat out and all of that? Well, guess what, thats your lifestyle choice and you can suck up the consequences.

If you see someone getting something and you feel offended, but you can easily achieve the same result yourself – go and do it and stop feeling offended.

(and, FWIW, I’m a gen X and have been employed continously since the day after I finished my uni degree)

The no dole for 6 months is the most odious of the budget changes. Its premised entirely on the belief amongst liberals that a bit of ‘get up and go’ is all that young people need and that, without it, people will luxuriate in a tax payer funded holiday and rip off all those rich people by requiring higher taxes. Its crap, very very few people on the dole want to be on it; and those that do chose it are unlikely to be great workers anyway.

I don’t agree with the proposed changes to the dole but the idea that someone doesn’t have the right to be offended by people bludging off welfare (of whatever kind, including corporate) is absurd.

No one envies their lifestyle, its simply the fact that we’re paying more tax than we should to fund it and id prefer that the money I earn remains mine as much as possible. If you don’t agree, id be more than happy to take a percentage of your wage. Come on, you won’t miss it and it doesn’t really matter right?

dtc said :

The no dole for 6 months is the most odious of the budget changes. Its premised entirely on the belief amongst liberals that a bit of ‘get up and go’ is all that young people need and that, without it, people will luxuriate in a tax payer funded holiday and rip off all those rich people by requiring higher taxes. Its crap, very very few people on the dole want to be on it; and those that do chose it are unlikely to be great workers anyway.

I would hazard a guess that the number of people on Newstart itself who want to be on it is essentially zero because anybody who truly wants to bludge their life away would have long since weaseled their way onto the disability pension.

What I dont understand is why people get so upset about ‘dole bludgers’.

If you think people are getting something for nothing, feel free to join them. You too can get something for nothing.

Whats that? You dont want to – surely you can survive happily on the dole like all those people you think do it volunarily. Its such a luxury lifestyle.

You want a house and car and children and being able to eat out and all of that? Well, guess what, thats your lifestyle choice and you can suck up the consequences.

If you see someone getting something and you feel offended, but you can easily achieve the same result yourself – go and do it and stop feeling offended.

(and, FWIW, I’m a gen X and have been employed continously since the day after I finished my uni degree)

The no dole for 6 months is the most odious of the budget changes. Its premised entirely on the belief amongst liberals that a bit of ‘get up and go’ is all that young people need and that, without it, people will luxuriate in a tax payer funded holiday and rip off all those rich people by requiring higher taxes. Its crap, very very few people on the dole want to be on it; and those that do chose it are unlikely to be great workers anyway.

neanderthalsis said :

By the look on this guy’s face, I imagine he probably had a fairly detailed and lengthy degree behind him. Does he really need to learn any more at this point in time?

I would say yes, he does. Obviously his original field of study was in an area where there is not sufficient demand for labour so he should retrain in a field where there are employment opportunities or move to an area where his skills are in demand. Having a degree does not mean that you are guaranteed employment and doesn’t put you at the top of the shortlist for advertised jobs. Instead of bleating about not being able to find a job people need to put more effort into making themselves more competitive in the jobs market.

There seems to be an all pervasive sense of entitlement that has crept into almost all sectors of the community. Merely having kids, having a qualification, having private health insurance, using childcare, running a manufacturing business or not having a job seems to make people think that it is the role of government to support their lifestyle.

Oh come on.
Lots of companies have cut grad intakes over the past 3-4 years, it’s very possible that someone could have done a degree in something as ‘useless’ as mining engineering and still missed a spot in grad rounds. Doesn’t mean they won’t enter the field in the next round the year after or through getting a job in the field through other means.

Should they get a job, any job to tide them over? absolutely

Should they spend months or even a year doing an unrelated Cert or Diploma that they’ll likely never use at the public’s expense? no, that’s a ridiculous waste of resources

While searching for a job (keeping in mind there are already job search requirements on newstart, ect) their Job Services Australia Provider will be watching them, pushing them to take any job that comes along and they face being breached if they don’t take a job that they’re offered (and the JSA providers reverse market as well) – given that I don’t see why they shouldn’t get newstart while search for a job. Discriminating based on age is obscene, good thing this BS is going to be shot down in the senate.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

justin heywood said :

Fairfax (SMH) ran a big piece on the weekend about the plight of two Year 12 St Andrew’s College students who, tragically, faced the prospect of abandoning their proposed overseas gap year due to possibly rising fees and reduced benefits.

Two wealthy kids can’t take a gap year paid by mummy and daddy to ‘find themselves’? Wow, what is this country coming to…

Haha, reminds me of a story a few years ago in the Daily Terrorgraph where a family were lamenting how difficult their lives were going to be due to government means testing of a family bemefit.
Apparently things were so tight that the family were going to be forced to sell their investment property to make ends meet. Funny stuff.

justin heywood said :

Fairfax (SMH) ran a big piece on the weekend about the plight of two Year 12 St Andrew’s College students who, tragically, faced the prospect of abandoning their proposed overseas gap year due to possibly rising fees and reduced benefits.

Two wealthy kids can’t take a gap year paid by mummy and daddy to ‘find themselves’? Wow, what is this country coming to…

gospeedygo said :

Attitudes like this have constantly made my blood boil since the welfare changes were announced, it’s utterly toxic and demonises all of those legitimate people on benefits you don’t hear about because of the stories of the mythical bludger who has stopped bothering to hide the bong when they have company and is living large on his/her dole money has been yelled in deafening roars from all the rooftops in the media for decades which has trickled down through to the attitudes people who know what it’s like to struggle but somehow forget all about it.

The ‘dole bludger’ is not some mythical being invented by ‘Rupertnews’. If you don’t know many, many people who are abusing the welfare system, then you either don’t get out much or you have a different view of what a welfare safety net should be.

gospeedygo said :

Have a bloody heart, read less rupertnews and get rid of that stale bootstraps mentality.

Fairfax (SMH) ran a big piece on the weekend about the plight of two Year 12 St Andrew’s College students who, tragically, faced the prospect of abandoning their proposed overseas gap year due to possibly rising fees and reduced benefits.

Now St Andrews is an expensive, inner city private school, but the SMH played the story straight. We actually WERE supposed to feel for these two and to take it as further evidence of Abbott’s heartlessness. This is only one example of almost blanket negative media coverage for the Liberals.

But apparently, it’s only Murdoch that runs any kind of agenda in the Australian media,

bd84 said :

It’s about time they stopped giving the lazy people a free ride on the dole, the proposed changes sound fairly reasonable, whether they work in practice might need done fine tuning, but it’s better than doing nothing.

If they thing dealing with gen Y is difficult, just wait for dealing with the next generation born after 1990, born to self entitlement, spoon feeding, never hearing “no” and hugs as discipline growing up.

Attitudes like this have constantly made my blood boil since the welfare changes were announced, it’s utterly toxic and demonises all of those legitimate people on benefits you don’t hear about because of the stories of the mythical bludger who has stopped bothering to hide the bong when they have company and is living large on his/her dole money has been yelled in deafening roars from all the rooftops in the media for decades which has trickled down through to the attitudes people who know what it’s like to struggle but somehow forget all about it.

They should have a job already. They’re not looking trying enough. They’re lazy. They’re afraid of hard work. They’re entitled and demand handouts for nothing out of the pockets of taxpayers.

It’s exactly the kind of attitude government has reinforced with this budget, through their subsequent pressers/interviews.

There are plenty of reasonable and level headed young people who really want and are more than prepared to work hard and make lives for themselves. Like the rest of the population they also want reliable access to food and stable accommodation.

Newstart/YA isn’t a holiday; it’s a utilitarian safety net to prevent the vulnerable falling even lower and suffer the dire consequences and outcomes caused by easily avoidable poverty which, surprise, surprise has consequences for everyone. Healthy, stable and productive people are very beneficial for society in a lot of ways, not all of them measurable.

Even in good times, job hunting, combined with the aforementioned instability can be a stressful, demoralising and lengthy process. Calling people lazy and entitled helps no one.

Have a bloody heart, read less rupertnews and get rid of that stale bootstraps mentality.

bigfeet said :

‘18000 job seekers to approximately 500 job ads in Tasmania’

So move then. I came to Canberra because that was where this job was. I would prefer to still be sitting in the tropics where I could put my boat in the water and get a couple of hours on the reef after work each day… but there were no jobs available…so I moved.

On the plus side though it is good to see Gen Y actively engaging with politicians and not just shouting them down.

Yeah, all the thousands of jobs The Greens were claiming would happen from their clean/renewable energy economy must have been already snapped up (all two of them).
The Tasmanian whinger on Q&A should complain direct to Christine Milne.

Kellamity said :

Forget having the government support your lifestyle, I would have been very interested to hear how you are expected to live if you are 28, have a mortgage (or even rent), and turn up at work one day to find that the business is going under and everyone will be out of work in two weeks. It can take months to find another job but the bills keep coming. The dole is barely enough to get by on (and doesn’t need to be any more than that) but it keeps you alive.

Exactly. there is a belief that the dole is being misused. I know many, many people who have been on the dole were well educated and struggled to find work for months and none of them wanted to stay on the dole, it was a pittance and they couldn’t understand why anyone would want to stay on the dole, but at least it fed them and kept some creditors at bay until they found a job.

This is just going to lead to more crime as people have no money. There are always going to be people who abuse the system, but start with those who have money and abuse the system like wealthy retirees getting a pension, the middle class as well. Why are the government not offering incentive based welfare as well.

That is the issue with the budget. Its the ideology of it. No one argues about making cuts, but why increase spending over the previous budget, then blame labor while also paying for a lot of expensive things in this budget that could wait a few years.

‘18000 job seekers to approximately 500 job ads in Tasmania’

So move then. I came to Canberra because that was where this job was. I would prefer to still be sitting in the tropics where I could put my boat in the water and get a couple of hours on the reef after work each day… but there were no jobs available…so I moved.

On the plus side though it is good to see Gen Y actively engaging with politicians and not just shouting them down.

I think a lot of the commenters here are being overly critical of the individual but first let me say this. I am very critical of over educated and under knowledged individuals that our society is pumping out. There is a common perception that any education is good education and Hockey supports this view by his “earn or learn” philosophy. Learn what? Post Modern Feminist Thought, Greek History? Education has to be able to benefit society especially at this early stage, save those fluffy topics for your 40s-50s.

We have a big issue in this society where we expect an 18 year old to have an idea on what is a “good education”. Universities have proven that if you have enough money they’ll sell you an education in pretty much anything you want.

So where is the targeted education? If Tasmania has a shortage of agricultural engineers where is the targeting funding that reduces the costs for those degrees. Why is it exactly that the less “useful” degrees are commonly the cheapest? Shouldn’t we want young people at universities to learn things that will pay the biggest dividend back to society? Why do we let people receive HECS and do degrees of which we know there is a high chance that they won’t be able to get a job using that skill.
Let’s figure out what jobs we need now and in the future and then focus our education and HECS funding towards that and then help shape students so they know what they are getting themselves into.

Personally I really don’t need another arts degree graduate who had to go work in the public service because they can’t get a job anywhere else.

neanderthalsis said :

By the look on this guy’s face, I imagine he probably had a fairly detailed and lengthy degree behind him. Does he really need to learn any more at this point in time?

I would say yes, he does. Obviously his original field of study was in an area where there is not sufficient demand for labour so he should retrain in a field where there are employment opportunities or move to an area where his skills are in demand. Having a degree does not mean that you are guaranteed employment and doesn’t put you at the top of the shortlist for advertised jobs. Instead of bleating about not being able to find a job people need to put more effort into making themselves more competitive in the jobs market.

There seems to be an all pervasive sense of entitlement that has crept into almost all sectors of the community. Merely having kids, having a qualification, having private health insurance, using childcare, running a manufacturing business or not having a job seems to make people think that it is the role of government to support their lifestyle.

1000000% this.

If you can’t find a job in your preferred field then you should be looking elsewhere and potentially retraining rather than expecting the government to support you until you find your dream job.

I’m sick of people that complain about job availability, pay or conditions in their preferred field of work. The vast majority of people do jobs that they hate simply because it pays the bills. If you want to do a job that provides you with career satisfaction and inner warm and fuzzies, accept that you may have to sacrifice other things to get it. Or perhaps study in a field where there is continuous and predictable market demand?

As a baby boomer, I have a lot of sound advice to give you but from experience, Generation Y people are not receptive to advice from my generation (or any other demographic either).
There seems to be a common denominator in the comments so far namely “hard work”.
Hang onto your main job and get a second (or third) job doing something that no one else wants to do. Jobs like this attract premium rates of pay. You will prosper and other opportunities will present themselves.
Forget what you see on Q&A – it is all confected left wing nonsense.

Forget having the government support your lifestyle, I would have been very interested to hear how you are expected to live if you are 28, have a mortgage (or even rent), and turn up at work one day to find that the business is going under and everyone will be out of work in two weeks. It can take months to find another job but the bills keep coming. The dole is barely enough to get by on (and doesn’t need to be any more than that) but it keeps you alive.

By the look on this guy’s face, I imagine he probably had a fairly detailed and lengthy degree behind him. Does he really need to learn any more at this point in time?

I would say yes, he does. Obviously his original field of study was in an area where there is not sufficient demand for labour so he should retrain in a field where there are employment opportunities or move to an area where his skills are in demand. Having a degree does not mean that you are guaranteed employment and doesn’t put you at the top of the shortlist for advertised jobs. Instead of bleating about not being able to find a job people need to put more effort into making themselves more competitive in the jobs market.

There seems to be an all pervasive sense of entitlement that has crept into almost all sectors of the community. Merely having kids, having a qualification, having private health insurance, using childcare, running a manufacturing business or not having a job seems to make people think that it is the role of government to support their lifestyle.

As a proper gen Y (born prior to 1990), all I can say is people need to harden the firetruck up and get out and find a job themselves. I’ve had job since I was 14, gone through Uni, remaining in the low paying retail job after finishing Uni, got a degree related job and worked hard to pay off my HECS and now a mortgage. Hard work does it for you.

Just because you’ve gone and gone some qualifications doesn’t mean you’re entitled to anything or that a job will fall into your lap. Particularly if you’ve gone and done a useless degree like arts or communications which qualify you for very little.

It seems to be an age of “I’m too good for that job so I won’t apply for it” instead of the realistic you start at the bottom job and work my way up by working hard. If there isn’t demand for your work in your area, you travel or move to where there is work. If you’re that desperate for work, take any job you can get. No shame at working at woolies or if a cafe to pay the bills. Walk through the shopping centres etc and there are lots of jobs in windows of shops. There probably isn’t one for every person in this country, but there would be enough to put a dent in the unemployment line.

It’s about time they stopped giving the lazy people a free ride on the dole, the proposed changes sound fairly reasonable, whether they work in practice might need done fine tuning, but it’s better than doing nothing.

If they thing dealing with gen Y is difficult, just wait for dealing with the next generation born after 1990, born to self entitlement, spoon feeding, never hearing “no” and hugs as discipline growing up.