15 March 2012

Public Housing not an unconditional home for life?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
117

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.

Join the conversation

117
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Sorry to double post.. but the next ‘related story’ http://the-riotact.com/public-housing-gets-a-hurry-up/4726 is from 2007. Talking about public housing tenants earning over 80k a year have a year to buy the house or move out…. WHY on earth 5 years later has nothing been done ????

Some of the people in government housing do work and do the right thing, and for people like that the government should implement something like the old housing trust where they can purchase there government house, then housing can replace those homes. They also need to toughen up on things like the penaltys for damage to the homes ect.

But can we please remember that not all people in government housing are bludgers, some work probably low income but never the less they work and contribute to society. And guess what also pay taxes, so I think that some people need to get off their high horses and realize that they are not the only tax payers out there.

I also know a woman who is in a government house who has 2 children herself, one has a sever disability and needs constant care, so this woman is unable to work due to this reason, but she felt like she was not contributing to society so she started doing emergeny foster care, she has children of all ages from various situations, on a short term basis until they can be place into permanent foster care or in some cases adopted, people who contribute to society in such a special way certainly do not deserved to be called bludgers.

Supamum – No one cares about those people doing the RIGHT thing because the sad reality is that they are probably the minority. What gets on peoples nerves are the actual bludgers.. those who just rort the system to get a ‘free’ house for life. Or ‘free’ money for life.

I love my elderly neighbour, but there are 3 government houses in my street, hers included that are 3 or more bedrooms and only have 1 person living in it and yes they have all lived in their houses for more than 10 years, but there are families who need those houses. There are probably families squeezed into a 1 or 2 bedroom unit that they can simply ‘swap’. But this won’t happen because the Government won’t ‘uproot’ someone who had lived in their house for that long. Those people have to willingly give up their house. It’s just insane.

I watched a mate leave her abusive husband with her 18month old child in tow and spent the next 6 months couch surfing and living at the woman’s shelter because there was no emergency housing. 2 years later she has since moved interstate where she could afford rent and is STILL on that waiting list.

Watson said :

Genie said :

Or go work and save money like the rest of us tax payers and rent privately or buy a house.

What a novel idea?! I bet no one else has ever thought of that.

It sickens me that there are so many who think that kids should be punished for being stupid enough to being born to stupid parents.

I think it is sad that people live their whole lives on welfare. They’ve tried various stick and carrot strategies to change this and as far as I know, none of them made much of a difference. But I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to every child in our community. Unless we legalise child labour and allow them to try get out of the misery without our assistance.

They have not tried any ‘stick’ policies, they’ve just been differing sizes of ‘carrot’. A true courageous move would be to use the stick against those currently to prevent future generations from suffering. Would you condemn 10 to save 100? Or would you insist that every single one needs to be treated equally regardless of the suffering that is inflected on everyone in doing so?

Its about the larger picture and future consequences.

Genie said :

Or go work and save money like the rest of us tax payers and rent privately or buy a house.

What a novel idea?! I bet no one else has ever thought of that.

It sickens me that there are so many who think that kids should be punished for being stupid enough to being born to stupid parents.

I think it is sad that people live their whole lives on welfare. They’ve tried various stick and carrot strategies to change this and as far as I know, none of them made much of a difference. But I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to every child in our community. Unless we legalise child labour and allow them to try get out of the misery without our assistance.

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.

Those figures aren’t quite right. Family Tax Benefit B is only paid once, not once per child, so the amount would be $4K not $20K. The total family income would be around $51K. i don’t know how much of that they would pay in rent. It’s still quite a lot but we should get our facts right.

jimbocool said :

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.

So nice to know that there is someone else out there who understands and comprehends just how many dollars that family is receiving.

Looks like we’ve finally made it. Today Tonight on Thursday did a story on “the public housing scandal” where “the rich are getting priority over the poor”. They said that Canberra is the only place where public housing tenants have a house for life.

The bottom line is, the wealthiest jurisdiction in Australia has got the highest percentage of subsidised housing, for historical reasons.

People need to realise that ACT Housing’s concept of ‘market rent’ is way below what workers on low incomes have to pay because they are not on the gravy train. Getting into public housing is like winning the lottery – you never have to leave, no matter what – a luxury which even people paying mortgages, let alone private renters, do not have. If you claim to have ‘mental health’ or ‘substance abuse’ issues and turn your immediate environment into a criminal slum – bad luck for your unfortunate neighbours, who may well be battlers that deserve housing support.

Between the lowlife rorters and the middle class spongers, no wonder people in genuine need can’t get affordable housing.

As for the Greens, they continue with their unbroken record of economic illiteracy and self interest. Firstly, the notion that selected people should be subsidised to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in case something bad happens in their lives is so idiotic that one can only assume that close family or friends are involved. Secondly, they seem to think that the way forward is to promise free money to pay for their absurd schemes. Do any of them have the faintest awareness of what is happening in Europe, and why?

Genie said :

I think I’m inclined to agree with the people stating that if you’re already on welfare and have another child… why should the government automatically up their centrelink payments !

If I were to have a child my pay would be CUT not increased.

In all honestly, the Government needs to get out there and completely revamp all these stupid legislations that are too old and barely applicable to today’s society. They also need to spend the money hiring additional staff to review EVERY SINGLE PERSON who receives Centrelink or lives in a Government house. It shouldn’t matter if someone has lived in a house for 10-20+ years. If they got their house 20 years ago when they had 3 kids, and since then the kids have moved out, why should they be living in a 3+ beddy house. They are no longer entitled to it. They can easily be moved into something smaller.

As for the opposite.. If you got a 3 bedroom Government house 5 years ago when you were unemployed and only had 2 c
hildren and now have say 5 children.. TOUGH ! Wait your 3 1/2+ years for a swap. Or go work and save money like the rest of us tax payers and rent privately or buy a house.

Genie I agree with most of what you are saying, especially about each individual/family needing to be assed individually. I feel that the people in government housing who are doing the right thing sometimes seem to have it harder than thoes who are doing the wrong thing, that’s where individual assessments would be effective. In some cases people receiving centrelink and in government housing are finincially better off not working, because after rent increase, Childcare costs ect they would be in a similar finincial position, which is where centrelink and housing ect need to make changes, otherwise these people will not find work or change their situation. Something like ok you haven’t worked for 2 years, you have 3 months to find suitable employment or work for the dole or loose you payments.

Some of the people in government housing do work and do the right thing, and for people like that the government should implement something like the old housing trust where they can purchase there government house, then housing can replace those homes. They also need to toughen up on things like the penaltys for damage to the homes ect.

But can we please remember that not all people in government housing are bludgers, some work probably low income but never the less they work and contribute to society. And guess what also pay taxes, so I think that some people need to get off their high horses and realize that they are not the only tax payers out there.

I also know a woman who is in a government house who has 2 children herself, one has a sever disability and needs constant care, so this woman is unable to work due to this reason, but she felt like she was not contributing to society so she started doing emergeny foster care, she has children of all ages from various situations, on a short term basis until they can be place into permanent foster care or in some cases adopted, people who contribute to society in such a special way certainly do not deserved to be called bludgers.

I think I’m inclined to agree with the people stating that if you’re already on welfare and have another child… why should the government automatically up their centrelink payments !

If I were to have a child my pay would be CUT not increased.

In all honestly, the Government needs to get out there and completely revamp all these stupid legislations that are too old and barely applicable to today’s society. They also need to spend the money hiring additional staff to review EVERY SINGLE PERSON who receives Centrelink or lives in a Government house. It shouldn’t matter if someone has lived in a house for 10-20+ years. If they got their house 20 years ago when they had 3 kids, and since then the kids have moved out, why should they be living in a 3+ beddy house. They are no longer entitled to it. They can easily be moved into something smaller.

As for the opposite.. If you got a 3 bedroom Government house 5 years ago when you were unemployed and only had 2 children and now have say 5 children.. TOUGH ! Wait your 3 1/2+ years for a swap. Or go work and save money like the rest of us tax payers and rent privately or buy a house.

devils_advocate4:45 pm 17 Mar 12

supamum said :

What about people who genuinely cannot have this “shot” mandatory hysterectomy or mandatory abortion?

80th-trimester abortion FTW.

devils_advocate3:41 pm 17 Mar 12

MWF said :

It’s actually kind of creepy that the people totally dependent on welfare are finanically abled by govt. assistance to breed more than those of us who work and earn.

Mike Judge actually made a movie with this as the premise, it’s called “Idiocracy” and the starting sequence shows the adverse selection process. It was a great premise for a movie but not executed particularly well. You may get a laugh out of it though. Two laughs, max.

supamum said :

HenryBG said :

supamum said :

HenryBG said :

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.

BTW my above post refers to your comments too… But I guess you think living as an ignoramus is blissful.

Yes, how ignoramus-like of me to overlook the obvious possibility that this useless bludging couple “living on $20,000/year” have suffered 5 instances of “contraception failure”.

As far as your situation goes, it appears that you’ve chosen to have a baby with a scrounging criminal. Apparently you want a medal for it?

I noticed your comment: “Some of us are well educated, from good family’s ect. ”
Here’s a hint: people who really *are* well-educated paid attention for the full 10 minutes on the day apostrophe usage was taught and can as a result successfully use an apostrophe. People like you did whatever it is you people did in the back of the classroom in lieu of learning.

Just to clarify; I did not have a child with a criminal, that’s was in reference to someone else’s post. I am a widow. For the record, I was educated at the best private school in the state, and hold a university degree. My use of apostrophes or the lack of is a very trivial point, especially considering I am posting via an iPhone.

My point to you was in reference to the comment you made about government enforced contraceptive shots, in some circumstances pregnancy is a result of something totally uncontrolable, what do you suggest in this instance? Government inforced abortion?

I do agree that in the instance of the family with five children, that it is highly unlikely that they were all the result of contraceptive failure. I just don’t agree that mandatory contraceptive shots (there’s only one type of contraceptive administered by a “shot” or needle, and it has numerous side effects some quiet serious. There is a percentage of people who cannot use this method of contraceptive) are even an option. What about people who genuinely cannot have this “shot” mandatory hysterectomy or mandatory abortion?

I don’t know why I’m even responding as we both know it would never happen in this country.

In addition after reading your post again, my use or lack of an apostrophe is irrevelavant when you didn’t even realize that to be grammatically correct it should have been spelt families. Wonder what a person like you was doing on that day at school?

GardeningGirl1:02 pm 17 Mar 12

Rephrasing my previous post, it seems ridiculous that in an era when more reliable contraception is available SOME people who are the most dependent on government assistance are having larger families (trying not to make generalisations about all families with kids who are living in guvvie housing, I grew up in one myself).

GardeningGirl12:55 pm 17 Mar 12

I’m not comfortable with the idea of government enforced contraception methods, but there seemed to more correlation between size of families and what people could afford in previous generations so it seems ridiculous that in an era when more reliable contraception is available the people most dependent on government assistance are having larger families. If couples paying off mortgages can successfully make the decision to postpone having a baby or another baby until the interest rate drops or would-be mum reaches eligibility for long service leave to help with time off after the birth or whatever, then why can’t public housing tenants postpone enlarging their families until they improve their circumstances? Perhaps there needs to be stronger disincentives like knowing that government assistance cuts out at a certain point, eg having another baby does not get you a bigger guvvie?

IrishPete said :

So your DV-perpetrator ex- is still a Defence employee? Charming.

IP

IrishPete, not only that, they are supporting him. This is despite the fact he pled guilty to assault and we were the victims. Apparently you can’t be sacked for assaulting a minor in his profession. In mine you can…

Finally, DHA couldn’t wait to kick us out of the house with nowhere to go in Canberra winter. We had 28 days to vacate and that was it. No assistance for the family, it’s about the member after all.

HenryBG said :

supamum said :

HenryBG said :

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.

BTW my above post refers to your comments too… But I guess you think living as an ignoramus is blissful.

Yes, how ignoramus-like of me to overlook the obvious possibility that this useless bludging couple “living on $20,000/year” have suffered 5 instances of “contraception failure”.

As far as your situation goes, it appears that you’ve chosen to have a baby with a scrounging criminal. Apparently you want a medal for it?

I noticed your comment: “Some of us are well educated, from good family’s ect. ”
Here’s a hint: people who really *are* well-educated paid attention for the full 10 minutes on the day apostrophe usage was taught and can as a result successfully use an apostrophe. People like you did whatever it is you people did in the back of the classroom in lieu of learning.

Just to clarify; I did not have a child with a criminal, that’s was in reference to someone else’s post. I am a widow. For the record, I was educated at the best private school in the state, and hold a university degree. My use of apostrophes or the lack of is a very trivial point, especially considering I am posting via an iPhone.

My point to you was in reference to the comment you made about government enforced contraceptive shots, in some circumstances pregnancy is a result of something totally uncontrolable, what do you suggest in this instance? Government inforced abortion?

I do agree that in the instance of the family with five children, that it is highly unlikely that they were all the result of contraceptive failure. I just don’t agree that mandatory contraceptive shots (there’s only one type of contraceptive administered by a “shot” or needle, and it has numerous side effects some quiet serious. There is a percentage of people who cannot use this method of contraceptive) are even an option. What about people who genuinely cannot have this “shot” mandatory hysterectomy or mandatory abortion?

I don’t know why I’m even responding as we both know it would never happen in this country.

supamum said :

HenryBG said :

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.

BTW my above post refers to your comments too… But I guess you think living as an ignoramus is blissful.

Yes, how ignoramus-like of me to overlook the obvious possibility that this useless bludging couple “living on $20,000/year” have suffered 5 instances of “contraception failure”.

As far as your situation goes, it appears that you’ve chosen to have a baby with a scrounging criminal. Apparently you want a medal for it?

I noticed your comment: “Some of us are well educated, from good family’s ect. ”
Here’s a hint: people who really *are* well-educated paid attention for the full 10 minutes on the day apostrophe usage was taught and can as a result successfully use an apostrophe. People like you did whatever it is you people did in the back of the classroom in lieu of learning.

TheDancingDjinn12:09 am 17 Mar 12

Watson said :

Chop71 said :

supamum said :

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.

Maybe a thank you to Mr (& Mrs) Taxpayer for providing a roof over your head would be a start.

supamum said :

As a single working mum

Correction, You’re a Single (Part-Time) working mum

Man, there are some haters out there. So anything but working full-time is bludging, is it? No regard for the needs off the child/ren this person is raising?

On the one hand there are the complaints about kids destined to be dole bludging criminals, on the other hand a refusal to contribute in any way to anyone else’s child’s well being.

Such a community spirit.

100 Dollars he is also the first to scream “where are the parents”?? when little Micheal/Michelle do something naughty and we hear about it – you expect them to work full time, and raise productive kids who will be decent members of society. But if they stay at home and raise their kids they are automatically a bludger – damned if you do, damned if you don’t with this guy…

Ian said :

Genie said :

[
WHY did you have 5 kids if you can’t afford to support them?

This last point is one that really shits me. Surely one of the considerations people think about when choosing to have kids is can they support them?

Any extra kids you decide to have are your problem not ours.

Shit yeah. As a young girl/teenager/woman I always wanted to have LOADS of children.

I very soon realised that the only people who can afford to have loads of children are those with very high incomes or those on welfare. I work. I earn. I pay my way. I am not eligible for any middle class welfare, whatsoever.

It’s actually kind of creepy that the people totally dependent on welfare are finanically abled by govt. assistance to breed more than those of us who work and earn.

Chop71 said :

supamum said :

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.

Maybe a thank you to Mr (& Mrs) Taxpayer for providing a roof over your head would be a start.

supamum said :

As a single working mum

Correction, You’re a Single (Part-Time) working mum

Man, there are some haters out there. So anything but working full-time is bludging, is it? No regard for the needs off the child/ren this person is raising?

On the one hand there are the complaints about kids destined to be dole bludging criminals, on the other hand a refusal to contribute in any way to anyone else’s child’s well being.

Such a community spirit.

Chop71 said :

supamum said :

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.

Maybe a thank you to Mr (& Mrs) Taxpayer for providing a roof over your head would be a start.

supamum said :

As a single working mum

Correction, You’re a Single (Part-Time) working mum

Yes I am employed part-time I work a minimum of 35 hours a week, and have done so since my child was 9 months old, whom might I add has a disability, meaning I have to solely cover his medical expenses which might I add most of which are not covered by Medicare.

I pay taxes too, just like you. You wanna get into the argument of people manipulating the system, well then let’s discuss the men living in 3 bedroom govmnt houses alone, claming unemployment benifets, working for cash and not paying child support… Even more interestingly lets discuss the govmnt agency’s and department who have done nothing about it even after being informed of the “fraudulent” activitys of these people, even when supplied where they are working ect.

So chop… Don’t be so quick to judge… Maybe you should take a walk in someone else’s shoes before you expect them to give thanks to you… Just out of curiousity… What line of work are you in? Do you contribute to society?

Riotact lens should also be applied to the government-funded housing associations. Tenants are subsidised there too, to 25 per cent of their income – and there appears to be no requirement to not own housing elsewhere. One tenant in the inner north occupies a three-beddy, and has just quietly bought a house in Tasmania.

nyssa1976 said :

When I went through my separation, I applied for Housing. I earned under $80k and had 3 children with me at the time (the eldest is now 18 and out of home). I was escaping DV and was told by Housing that I didn’t qualify at all. I asked her “do I need to go part-time or quit my job because I can’t afford to pay 2/3 of my wage in rent”. She back tracked.

Now I am still paying 2/3 of my wages in rent, struggling with bills etc and yet I should have qualified on several points.

It truly boggles the mind that people who earn over twice what I do (and as a single parent at the time) were able to live in government housing but I had to use charities to feed my kids for the first few weeks as I had no money thanks to high rent (and when you’re escaping DV you just get what you can and be thankful you aren’t in that situation anymore).

On another interesting note, my ex still lives in our old DHA house by himself and it’s a 4 bedroom house. Taxpayers are also funding that. I think it’s time those who pay their taxes and do the right thing are given more than those who don’t (the usual druggies etc not the elderly).

So your DV-perpetrator ex- is still a Defence employee? Charming.

IP

HenryBG said :

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.

BTW my above post refers to your comments too… But I guess you think living as an ignoramus is blissful.

Ian said :

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?

This last point is one that really shits me. Surely one of the considerations people think about when choosing to have kids is can they support them?

Having said that, I don’t know that particular family’s circumstances – they may have been able to afford them at one time and fallen on hard times. But plenty of people do breed voraciously and wait for the taxpayer to pick up the tab for them.

I reckon welfare payments should be worked out on the family size you had when you first went onto welfare. Any extra kids you decide to have are your problem not ours.

This is a very ignorant comment to make… Have you considered that not all pergnancys are planned, contraceptives are not 100% effective, women get raped and as a result of these things and more sometimes It can be out of our control, but I’m guessing your ingenious answer to this is abortion? Or as Watson said why not shoot them… While we’re at it we should probably put alcoholics, drug users, gamblers, unemployed, the mentally and physically disabled into this category too? Would that make you feel better about where you taxpayer dollars go Ian?

And just FYI Ian your not the only taxpayer in this conversation.

supamum said :

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.

Maybe a thank you to Mr (& Mrs) Taxpayer for providing a roof over your head would be a start.

supamum said :

As a single working mum

Correction, You’re a Single (Part-Time) working mum

TheDancingDjinn5:44 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.
Here’s my 2 cents worth –
WHY did you have 5 kids if you can’t afford to support them?

While i agree mostly with everything you say, You obvioulsy know that abortion, and adoption are some pretty hard and difficult things to go through. The suggestion that they are to be on contraceptives is a brilliant one – but there is alot of people out there that are not going to terminate. And i don’t think they should be forced to, which is why the contraception idea is a great one.
I myself didn’t know i was pregnant till i was 27 weeks, i had exactly 14 weeks to get my and my partners ass readyto be young parents – we did it, jobs, home, the lot. Was it stressfull? – hell yeah!, was it accomplished? you bet your sweet ass it was :D. We are going to get unplanned pregnacies in this world, thats just fact. Forcing them to take responsibility for the unlanned pregnacy should be a must. Housing should not be used for people to continuing on their breeding, it’s a small step up help into the world when you need it.

HenryBG said :

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.

Wouldn’t it be more effective just to shoot them? Since we seem to be firmly on the Darwinian path now, that would ensure they cannot procreate.

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?

This last point is one that really shits me. Surely one of the considerations people think about when choosing to have kids is can they support them?

Having said that, I don’t know that particular family’s circumstances – they may have been able to afford them at one time and fallen on hard times. But plenty of people do breed voraciously and wait for the taxpayer to pick up the tab for them.

I reckon welfare payments should be worked out on the family size you had when you first went onto welfare. Any extra kids you decide to have are your problem not ours.

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!

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

colourful sydney racing identity3:23 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

colourful sydney racing identity2:23 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.

colourful sydney racing identity2:20 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.

colourful sydney racing identity2:18 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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

colourful sydney racing identity1:32 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?

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?

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.

GardeningGirl11:24 am 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?

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?

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.

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.

colourful sydney racing identity10:43 am 16 Mar 12

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 🙂

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.

SnapperJack said :

A first step towards greater equity in public housing would be to take David Eastman’s unit off him.

Didnt they finally do that?

Another argument that you shoudl be a fit and proper person to have taxpayer subsidised housing for the term of your natural life.
(and yes I know David Eastman has that at Hume).

Dont trash the house, dont break the law – or forfeit your entitlement to taxpayer subsidised housing, IMHO

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?

And as a society we need to protect and at times nurture the less fortunate so as to give them opportunity in life.

Of course, skanky bogan scum who treat properties like dirt or who are a nightmare for neighbours need to be kicked out until they can appreciate what they are being given.

Yes, and yes.

In the US, they often have issues where a town or city is so expensive, that the workers who do the basic essential work cannot afford to live there (resort towns, Manhatten etc). So they have things like rent-controlled properties, or company-sponsored housing.

If you see the lines of commuters coming in from NSW every day, yes some of them have moved for lifestyle reasons, and many have moved out there so they can afford a home.

The government housing sector needs a good look before the situation where low-paid industries find that no one can afford to work for them. I think we’re hearing the start of this from the retailers actually.

miz said :

They are probably only now earning a decent income because they were able to qualify at that time and things got stable.
Second, just because someone is earning OK money now does not mean they are going to be on OK money for the rest of their life. Plenty of people are on contract even in the public service, and ‘kicking them out’ may mean they are back on the list before long. Churn helps no one in the end.

So what, if someone is in the public housing system its best to get them locked in forever ‘just in case’ they might be dropped from a contract or lose their job? No, I don’t buy that BS excuse.

Public housing is supposed to help people get back on their feet, not provide a parachute in case the off chance things go wrong a couple of years down the track. Private renters and home owners deal with the exact same thing, its reality.

colourful sydney racing identity8:20 am 16 Mar 12

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.

Wow, I actually agree with Alistair Coe.

I think the last paragraph neatly sums up the problem

‘Security of tenure for public housing tenants has caused the Greens public relations problems in the past when one of their former MLAs, Deb Foskey, continued to live in her publicly owned Yarralumla cottage after she was elected to the Assembly, paying $270 a week while on a salary of about $100,000.’

If the ‘or market rates, whichever is less’ aspect was removed and Dr Foskey had been require to pay 25 per cent of her income, she would have been paying more than $200 a week more, which in turn could have been used by ACT Housing to assist people in need.

miz said :

Almost an entire generation of ordinary working people who previously would have been eligible for public housing are now struggling in private rental with no way out. [As a housing tenant, I understand this – I had to move 7 times in 10 years in private rental (owners wanting to sell, move back in, six months with no shower, etc) and never, ever want to go there again. Didn’t care when I was child free, but no one should have to do that with school age kids.]

Oh, gee, you had to move house, you poor thing.

Meanwhile, a single mother fleeing an abusive husband has nowhere to live because well-off people like you are clogging up the public housing system. It’s an outrage. Stop sponging and take responsibility for your life.

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.

miz said :

I would like someone to tell me how much a debt-free single income household of four needs to be earning in order to have a bank agree to lend them the money (say, 95 per cent) to buy a basic three bedroom house in Canberra and be able to pay for rates etc.

Last time I checked, the bank required repayments to be no more than ~50% of income. So, assuming a fairly-cheap three bedroom house is now $450k (yes, I know you can get one a bit cheaper in Charnie or Banks), which means repayments of around $33k. So, the bank could approve the loan with an income under $70k.

However, you said a single-income family of four. So, they will take into account the extra expenses of dependants and other things (also, size of credit card limits etc.) In this case, in income approaching $100k will be required.

The banks have online calculators you can use to figure this out: http://nab-calculator.realestate.com.au/

Miz, thanks for giving this thoughtful comment. You make some really good points. it’s quite complicated. It’s not fair to call those people parasites and cry for them to be kicked out.

It is simplistic to equate the numbers of ‘market rent’ payers in govt housing and the number of people on the waiting list. First, all people in public housing qualified to enter it. It is not their fault the system has become so ‘targeted’. They are probably only now earning a decent income because they were able to qualify at that time and things got stable.
Second, just because someone is earning OK money now does not mean they are going to be on OK money for the rest of their life. Plenty of people are on contract even in the public service, and ‘kicking them out’ may mean they are back on the list before long. Churn helps no one in the end.
Third, the tenants are not to blame for this problem. The two actual problems are: (a) the fact that there is just not enough public housing, and (b) the eligibility criteria has narrowed far to far.
These may seem incompatible, but actually they are both symptoms of the same policy – the dictates of the former Howard Govt to only provide tied grants to States and Territories (the housing agreement). This foolish policy started at the height of the economic rationalist fad – far less money was provided to S & Ts, and the housing agreement dictated that States and Territories must limit eligibility to welfare recipients. This did not, and still does not, make good policy, and has the effect of creating ghettos instead of decent suburbs (particularly noticeable in other States where there are large public housing clusters). Almost an entire generation of ordinary working people who previously would have been eligible for public housing are now struggling in private rental with no way out. [As a housing tenant, I understand this – I had to move 7 times in 10 years in private rental (owners wanting to sell, move back in, six months with no shower, etc) and never, ever want to go there again. Didn’t care when I was child free, but no one should have to do that with school age kids.]
OK, so we have 12-15 years of public housing supply and waiting lists to catch up on. But it is unfair to blame current public housing tenants, regardless of how much rent they pay, for this situation.
It is also worth noting that public housing tenants are similar to private rental tenants in that they can’t afford to buy a home unless a scheme such as the former Housing Trust Loan scheme is reinstated. So, it’s lose, lose.
Finally, I would like someone to tell me how much a debt-free single income household of four needs to be earning in order to have a bank agree to lend them the money (say, 95 per cent) to buy a basic three bedroom house in Canberra and be able to pay for rates etc. That would be more like the starting point at which you could perhaps consider asking people to relocate, bearing in mind the transience of some households (eg ACT Housing count teenagers’ incomes in their totals), and the fact that lots of people have considerable debts. I strongly suspect the amount needed would be more than people think.

Jamie Wheeler10:18 pm 15 Mar 12

Another major issue is ACT Housing allowing people to occupy large properties without being eligible. I personally know a guy living all by himself in a three bedroom house in Weston Creek after a family seperation brought about by his drug addiction and violence. After two years he’s still bonging on and drinking all day while his dogs occupy the property. He has a strong sense of entitlement and refuses to move to single person accomodation. Rather than evicting him he easily works the system and continues to live it up in style courtesy of the public while needy families on low incomes go without! Get tough on these bludgers AS WELL AS people on middle incomes who can afford private housing.

GardeningGirl8:54 pm 15 Mar 12

marcothepolopony said :

Recently I have noticed the departure of an elderly lady who had raised her children in her three bedroom government home over the past 35 years.
Her garden was immaculate and well established; she took much pride in her little home. But she lived there alone these days, ‘time to go Mrs’.

Over the past months since the new tenant moved in the house and yard have fallen into disrepair, with overflowing bins, garbage bags all over the front “lawn”, papers and other rubbish just about everywhere you can see.
Naturally with the rain the ‘lawn’ has become an eyesore, not mown in months by the looks.

So for the neighbours of this govie who do take pride, it must have been a shock to get a new tenant with no respect for their lovely new government home. I feel for the neighbours and those, like me, who must pass by every day. It’s a mess.

That’s so sad for a number of reasons.
A block from that era would be a reasonable size. I hate to suggest it but dual occupancy? I hate the thought of the loss of an “immaculate and well established” garden but realistically not every tenant wants outdoor space for anything beyond somewhere to park the cars and let the kids run around. So building two new houses to provide accommodation for two families on the waiting list might make more sense than refurbishing an old not energy efficient house to provide a home for one family and their associated rubbish. The potential downside is having twice as much problems on the property, but the behaviour of some tenants is an issue that needs addressing anyway separate to the issue of a shortage of housing. Perhaps tenants who have shown themselves to be responsible should get first pick of newly built homes and tenants who haven’t behaved responsibly should be downgraded to smaller and older properties and pay a fee for additional inspections and the services of a mowing company until they figure out how to treat what society provides for them properly.

Visitor01Q said :

I’m not for kicking them out.

But I do think they should change the legislation so that public housing tennants pay 25% of their income in rent.

Right now, it’s 25% to ‘market value’, but if these people enjoy reduced rent when their income is low, then they can top up the rent when their income is high. Lets see how many stay when their rent is 25% of $180,000 !

Awesome idea. The bludgers would move out quick smart.

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?

The $80,000 figure does not refer to the eligibility limit. Which is actually half that for a family of 2 (doesn’t specify adults or parent/child).

From http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/hcs/social_housing/eligibility_for_public_housing
“As from 23 February 2012 the income barriers applying to rental housing assistance are as follows:

Single Applicant – $620 gross per week
Family of two persons and joint tenancies – $775 gross per week
Family of three or more persons – $775 plus $103 each for the third, fourth,fifth person etc.”

So you’d have to have about 9 kids to be eligible on a $80,000 annual wage.

I’m not for kicking them out. But I do think they should change the legislation so that public housing tennants pay 25% of their income in rent. Right now, it’s 25% to ‘market value’, but if these people enjoy reduced rent when their income is low, then they can top up the rent when their income is high. Lets see how many stay when their rent is 25% of $180,000 !

JazzyJess said :

Just out of curiosity, at what point does one qualify for public housing? I rent in the private market and earn less than $80,000 but it has never occurred to me that I could or should apply for public housing.

This is the real issue: normal people like Jess take responsibility for their lives. Others, supported by the Greens, want the government to spoon-feed them and wipe their bottom afterwards.

The Greens believe in a massively interventionist state – it’s no co-incidence that discredited ex-communists are trying to re-invent themselves by hijacking the Greens, who used to be a party dedicated to *conservation*, not radicalism.

Darkfalz said :

poetix said :

I can’t believe that someone with a household income of $183,000 is in public housing, according to the article.

Anyone on a decent income who holds on to public housing should be ashamed of themselves, given there are really desperate people in our community.

You do realise that someone at that income is obviously paying market rate rent? They’re not getting cheap housing, maybe they just don’t want to move because they like the place and have friends around.

I ended up paying $320 pw in my 1 bedroom unit during my brief stint in public housing – surrounded by lowlifes paying $50 pw of their Centrelink. When you earn enough, it’s not subsidised any more.

Even so you are tieing up several hundred thousand worth of capital which could be used to house someone more needy. I doubt the full opportunity cost is covered by the market rental.

GardeningGirl6:01 pm 15 Mar 12

Darkfalz said :

poetix said :

I can’t believe that someone with a household income of $183,000 is in public housing, according to the article.

Anyone on a decent income who holds on to public housing should be ashamed of themselves, given there are really desperate people in our community.

You do realise that someone at that income is obviously paying market rate rent? They’re not getting cheap housing, maybe they just don’t want to move because they like the place and have friends around.

I ended up paying $320 pw in my 1 bedroom unit during my brief stint in public housing – surrounded by lowlifes paying $50 pw of their Centrelink. When you earn enough, it’s not subsidised any more.

I can understand people not wanting to uproot their whole lives, change the kids schools, find a new local doctor and all the rest of it and then worry about their future earnings, just because at some point their income reached a threshhold. But situations like nyssa1976’s are wrong! The system obviously needs to be rethought. The only people who should have to be worrying are the ones who choose to abuse and trash the system that looks after them, not the people who are genuinely doing it tough or the people who are improving their circumstances.

Just agreed with something the Greens said… I feel dirty. I need to take a hot shower.

poetix said :

I can’t believe that someone with a household income of $183,000 is in public housing, according to the article.

Anyone on a decent income who holds on to public housing should be ashamed of themselves, given there are really desperate people in our community.

You do realise that someone at that income is obviously paying market rate rent? They’re not getting cheap housing, maybe they just don’t want to move because they like the place and have friends around.

I ended up paying $320 pw in my 1 bedroom unit during my brief stint in public housing – surrounded by lowlifes paying $50 pw of their Centrelink. When you earn enough, it’s not subsidised any more.

Maybe they should be turfing out the criminals and drug dealers…

When I went through my separation, I applied for Housing. I earned under $80k and had 3 children with me at the time (the eldest is now 18 and out of home). I was escaping DV and was told by Housing that I didn’t qualify at all. I asked her “do I need to go part-time or quit my job because I can’t afford to pay 2/3 of my wage in rent”. She back tracked.

Now I am still paying 2/3 of my wages in rent, struggling with bills etc and yet I should have qualified on several points.

It truly boggles the mind that people who earn over twice what I do (and as a single parent at the time) were able to live in government housing but I had to use charities to feed my kids for the first few weeks as I had no money thanks to high rent (and when you’re escaping DV you just get what you can and be thankful you aren’t in that situation anymore).

On another interesting note, my ex still lives in our old DHA house by himself and it’s a 4 bedroom house. Taxpayers are also funding that. I think it’s time those who pay their taxes and do the right thing are given more than those who don’t (the usual druggies etc not the elderly).

VYBerlinaV8_is_back4:53 pm 15 Mar 12

Mr Gillespie said :

The question of why housing and accommodation is expensive all around still remains the “elephant in the room”. Meanwhile, private rentals are ridiculously high, and public housing rentals, while cheap, still remain in severe shortage.

The real question is what can be done about the problem.

Just out of curiosity, at what point does one qualify for public housing? I rent in the private market and earn less than $80,000 but it has never occurred to me that I could or should apply for public housing.

Mr Gillespie4:19 pm 15 Mar 12

The question of why housing and accommodation is expensive all around still remains the “elephant in the room”. Meanwhile, private rentals are ridiculously high, and public housing rentals, while cheap, still remain in severe shortage.

A first step towards greater equity in public housing would be to take David Eastman’s unit off him.

Tenants can buy their home from the government at market rate if their situation improves. (Some caveats apply.) No-one concerned about that?

I have no problem with tenants whose situation has improved paying market rental rates for the property.

Chop71 said :

Even if they are paying Market Rent, which I doubt anyone actually does, there is still admisitration and other expenses that ACT Housing covers.

Rental, whether direct from an owner or through a real-estate agency has administration costs too. Add a few percent to market rate if you think that’s what the government needs to make the setup financially viable for the govt and/or motivate these people to seek private housing.

Public Housing in the ACT is a rort. Why should the average Jo support someone in Public housing earning $180k per year? Even if they are paying Market Rent, which I doubt anyone actually does, there is still admisitration and other expenses that ACT Housing covers.

Come on Greens, You really do have some nitwit ideas. (Al, I hope you’re not part of this)

its time there was a full audit of all public haousing in the territory.

Also, a revamp of the policies surrounding the use of such properties. For example, if you build a collection of domestic rubbish in your driveway say 12″ x 12″, then you should be asked to leave. You damage the property you are leasing, you should be asked to leave.

Simple.

And whilst I think I will get howled down by then, I believe you should be a ‘fit and proper person” to occupy governemtn-subsidised housing too. In other words, if you have committed a crime against society (ie. criminal conviction) then you shoudl not be allowed to occupy a government subsidised house. I mean if public servants can technically be dismissed for criminal convictions on this basis…why not public housing tenants?

I just believe public housing is there for people in need, and those who are willing to show respect to our community. And a heck of alot of public housing tentants do that. Unfortunately, there is a percentage there that does not, and some consideration needs to be given to the above in this regard.

Thoroughly Smashed3:13 pm 15 Mar 12

devils_advocate said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

My understanding is that tennants are charged 25% of their income or market rates whichever is less. It does seem that the easist way of dealing with this is to remove the ‘market rates’ aspect and just make it 25% of income.

This assumes (wrongly, in my view) that people won’t change their income earning behaviour (ie earn less) or otherwise manipulate their income to continue recieving the benefit.

Would you forgo 75% of a salary increase just to avoid paying 25% of it in additional rent?

Functionally CSRI’s suggestion makes the rent payment system just another tax. Most people I know are happy for their income to increase, despite the ATO’s cut.

There are whackjob tax protesters out there who deliberately earn less money because they read about someone doing it in some shitty novel and/or don’t understand marginal rate taxation, but there aren’t many of them.

devils_advocate3:04 pm 15 Mar 12

EvanJames said :

A situation where well-off people are occupying public housing while poor people couch-surf and live in their cars is pretty bloody disgusting though, and clearly the rules need to be re-drawn.

I would actually go a step further and say the whole concept of direct government provision of housing needs to be revised from first principles.

If we take into account opportunity cost, the government can’t provide the service any more cheaply than the private sector. Actually I would question if this is the case even based on direct cost.

Secondly, I can imagine some reasons why the Government might want to provide housing services directly, rather than just paying a realistic social security payment and allowing individuals to optimise their consumption bundle based on the amount of money (i.e. the argument that if they get the rent money as cash rather than in-kind, they’ll spend it on something irresponsible). But given the current use of the benefits provided through direct assistance, I remain to be convinced that the current situation is superior to a cash assistance model. It’s entirely plausible that there is a small, troublesome minority on whose account the direct government provision of housing is justified.

so basically my suggestion is that
a) someone get some data, as suggested above and
b) someone who knows something about stuff and things sit down with a blank piece of paper and come up with a system that achieves its intended outcomes.

/rant.

I hate to say it, but reading the Greens’ statement, I figure that an actual survey of just who is in public housing would be a good idea.

I never would have thought I’d qualify for public housing, but I earn well below $80k so I guess I would.

A situation where well-off people are occupying public housing while poor people couch-surf and live in their cars is pretty bloody disgusting though, and clearly the rules need to be re-drawn.

devils_advocate2:36 pm 15 Mar 12

bitzermaloney said :

To have no representatives at all you’d need to get approx 85% to vote “none of the above”.

How do we know it wouldn’t happen unless we give people the option? “None of the above” would certainly get my vote. Hell I could even see myself campaigning for it.

Maybe a RIOTAct poll is required? I’m not saying it would be representative, but it would be at least interesting.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:58 pm 15 Mar 12

Erg0 said :

p1 said :

sneakers said :

Secondly, how are they going to replace the revenue? Is that for real? By replacing old tenants who can now afford their own place with new tenants who have been waiting for who knows how long.

Jeezus .. is this too easy or am I overlooking something?

Well, if the people they are kicking out were paying the $500/w cap in rent. And the people that they are putting in the houses are very needy, and will pay the minimum (lets say, $50/w), then that could be $23,400 dollars less per house received in rent per year….

They’re clearly doing it wrong. They should kick out all of the low income earners and replace them with market renters, then we’d have the most profitable public housing system in the world!

What seems crazy to me is the idea that having less people on the streets and public housing kept for those in the most need will somehow not cost more than the current system. If we want better outcomes, we need to pay for them.

bitzermaloney1:54 pm 15 Mar 12

Watson said :

I am torn on this. I think the Greens do make some valid points. Not sure about the “they may need it later” argument.

I think this was Deb Fosky’s arguement, and probably a viable one for some of our current MLA’s.

bitzermaloney1:53 pm 15 Mar 12

devils_advocate said :

agree, but would go one step further and say that if there aren’t sufficient votes in favour of electing enough members, the Legislative Assembly gets shut down and the self-government law gets repealed.

That would be logical, however unfortunately under Hare-Clarke you only need about 14 – 16% to get voted in (depending on the number if seats for the electorate). To have no representatives at all you’d need to get approx 85% to vote “none of the above”.

p1 said :

sneakers said :

Secondly, how are they going to replace the revenue? Is that for real? By replacing old tenants who can now afford their own place with new tenants who have been waiting for who knows how long.

Jeezus .. is this too easy or am I overlooking something?

Well, if the people they are kicking out were paying the $500/w cap in rent. And the people that they are putting in the houses are very needy, and will pay the minimum (lets say, $50/w), then that could be $23,400 dollars less per house received in rent per year….

They’re clearly doing it wrong. They should kick out all of the low income earners and replace them with market renters, then we’d have the most profitable public housing system in the world!

It’s about time !!

A little birdy told me the other day that a neighbour of theirs recently bought a house and their children now live in the public housing property. It ashames me that our gov’ment allows this to happen.

And while I love some of my quiet elderly neighbours, there are several 3-4 bedroom houses on my street currently occupied by single occupants. Surely a family can make better use of these larger houses.

sneakers said :

Secondly, how are they going to replace the revenue? Is that for real? By replacing old tenants who can now afford their own place with new tenants who have been waiting for who knows how long.

Jeezus .. is this too easy or am I overlooking something?

Well, if the people they are kicking out were paying the $500/w cap in rent. And the people that they are putting in the houses are very needy, and will pay the minimum (lets say, $50/w), then that could be $23,400 dollars less per house received in rent per year….

““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.”

I didn’t have time to read all of this, but this statement doesn’t make sense.

Firstly, yes, they are providing a solution to the long waiting list. Coolngroovy.

Secondly, how are they going to replace the revenue? Is that for real? By replacing old tenants who can now afford their own place with new tenants who have been waiting for who knows how long.

Jeezus .. is this too easy or am I overlooking something?

I am torn on this. I think the Greens do make some valid points. Not sure about the “they may need it later” argument. But I do agree that it would be bad management to go ahead with this without a detailed financial plan that covers how Housing will deal with that loss of revenue. So not saying that it won’t be a good move, but I’d like to see the figures first.

I also agree with the fact that they should spend some thought on how to deal with people trying to reduce their income to keep their house. This is not just an issue with public housing, but with all income tested government assistance. I haven’t got a solution, but a balance needs to be found between allocating the money to who really needs it whilst giving people enough incentive to earn more income. I get family tax benefits and struggle with this myself sometimes. Any rise in my pay results in receiving 50% less of that amount in FTB. Which makes it appear as if any extra hours I work are only paid at half the normal rate. I’m not whingeing about it! I’m very grateful for the assistance I get. Just trying to explain how this can be an obstacle for some people.

marcothepolopony11:58 am 15 Mar 12

Recently I have noticed the departure of an elderly lady who had raised her children in her three bedroom government home over the past 35 years.
Her garden was immaculate and well established; she took much pride in her little home. But she lived there alone these days, ‘time to go Mrs’.

Over the past months since the new tenant moved in the house and yard have fallen into disrepair, with overflowing bins, garbage bags all over the front “lawn”, papers and other rubbish just about everywhere you can see.
Naturally with the rain the ‘lawn’ has become an eyesore, not mown in months by the looks.

So for the neighbours of this govie who do take pride, it must have been a shock to get a new tenant with no respect for their lovely new government home. I feel for the neighbours and those, like me, who must pass by every day. It’s a mess.

chewy14 said :

p1 said :

I always thought it should be a simple process to charge rent in public housing based on the persons income (take home income if you like, so it doesn’t punish people paying child support or other similar things). If a house hold earning $100k+ was paying double the market rent they would soon consider moving…

It would be pretty simple to check with the taxation system, and base it on the previous years taxable income (unless they lost their job).

Of course, kicking them out will also work, but it won’t solve the issue of housing shortages.

Exactly.

Why doesn’t the government just charge a percentage of income once you’re earning over a certain amount?
I’m sure paying $600 a week for a place worth $400 would be a great incentive to get your butt out of the public housing system and back into private.

I think the maximum rent payable to ACT Housing is capped at $500pw. This is the Government’s assessment of what rental values are in the ACT. This does not include any contribution to rates, water/sewerage or maintainence). Some houses owned by Housing are in older suburbs with enormous blocks – if privately owned the annual rates alone would be $4,000 so the ACT taxpayer is subsidising this indulgence. It is absurd to allow this to continue.

devils_advocate11:39 am 15 Mar 12

bitzermaloney said :

I propose that “None of the above” be made mandatory, and if it gets enough votes (using our convoluted Hare-Clarke system), then those seats remain vacant saving us not only dollars but also increasing our standard of living by not having to listen to additional whinges by people who have nothing to say but feel they should say it anyway.

agree, but would go one step further and say that if there aren’t sufficient votes in favour of electing enough members, the Legislative Assembly gets shut down and the self-government law gets repealed.

devils_advocate11:37 am 15 Mar 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

My understanding is that tennants are charged 25% of their income or market rates whichever is less. It does seem that the easist way of dealing with this is to remove the ‘market rates’ aspect and just make it 25% of income.

This assumes (wrongly, in my view) that people won’t change their income earning behaviour (ie earn less) or otherwise manipulate their income to continue recieving the benefit.

Public housing is for people who need help not people earning (relatively) good wages. Guvmint also needs to move on the elderly (or not so elderly) long time tennants liiving alone in a 3 bedder when the kiddies have moved out. These people need to be helped into a more appropriate home/unit and allow struggling families to get off the waiting list.

Having a govvie should not mean that you automatically keep it for life.

bitzermaloney11:25 am 15 Mar 12

It appeared to be Greens’ policy back in 2008 to remain in public housing:

http://the-riotact.com/deb-foskey-in-public-housing-debate-gets-more-exposure/529

If it’s good enought for members of the MLA, why not everyone else. (Note: Deb finally did move out of her public housing in Yarralumla, but not after a huge amount of preasure). I wonder if Shane, Carolyn, Amanda and Meridith have removed themselves from the waiting list?

Finally Roslyn Dundas is a former MLA for the Democrats. She was elected (with a huge 3.95% of first preferences… informal votes were 3.99%) because either:
(1) the voters of Canberra believed that a 22yr ANU student union rep had more life experience then the other candidates put forward in Ginniderra; or
(2) there wasn’t a “None of the above” options, which should be mandatory for all elections (especially our shire council).

I propose that “None of the above” be made mandatory, and if it gets enough votes (using our convoluted Hare-Clarke system), then those seats remain vacant saving us not only dollars but also increasing our standard of living by not having to listen to additional whinges by people who have nothing to say but feel they should say it anyway.

colourful sydney racing identity11:09 am 15 Mar 12

Cheap said :

I thought it was done as a percentage of your income? Or have they made sure that you never pay market rate for a house?

Actually come to think of it, I have a friend whose parents were both moderately high ranking public servants (probably $160,000 combined) who until last year still lived in public housing. It was quite a nice house, close to civic and indistinguishable from neighbouring private houses.

$160,000 combined does not make someone moderately high ranking in the APS.

My understanding is that tennants are charged 25% of their income or market rates whichever is less. It does seem that the easist way of dealing with this is to remove the ‘market rates’ aspect and just make it 25% of income.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back11:08 am 15 Mar 12

I reckon we should think about implementing a scheme where the govt rents property from private investors then ‘on-rents’ it to public housing tenants. That way it would be possible to increase or decrease the supply of housing as need be, and properties could be rented on a longer term basis much like Defence Housing.

Of course, some effort would need to be made to ensure properties weren’t damaged, and ways found to idenfity wear and tear versus damage, but these things could be dealt with.

We could then link such a scheme to tax benefits for people who develop new dwellings for such a scheme, to encourage increase in overall supply.

I thought it was done as a percentage of your income? Or have they made sure that you never pay market rate for a house?

Actually come to think of it, I have a friend whose parents were both moderately high ranking public servants (probably $160,000 combined) who until last year still lived in public housing. It was quite a nice house, close to civic and indistinguishable from neighbouring private houses.

p1 said :

I always thought it should be a simple process to charge rent in public housing based on the persons income (take home income if you like, so it doesn’t punish people paying child support or other similar things). If a house hold earning $100k+ was paying double the market rent they would soon consider moving…

It would be pretty simple to check with the taxation system, and base it on the previous years taxable income (unless they lost their job).

Of course, kicking them out will also work, but it won’t solve the issue of housing shortages.

Exactly.

Why doesn’t the government just charge a percentage of income once you’re earning over a certain amount?
I’m sure paying $600 a week for a place worth $400 would be a great incentive to get your butt out of the public housing system and back into private.

Roslyn Dundas is probably one of thoes smug *%}* in a govy house!! lol
how can anyone on a decent wage be so selfish to stay there… do they remember what it was like to struggle to find affordable accommodation?!
time they moved on… and let others who are in lower incomes get back on their feet too!!!!
I can’t wait till this happens! we should NOT be supporting thoes who can support themselves! kick the bastards out I say!!! about time!

I always thought it should be a simple process to charge rent in public housing based on the persons income (take home income if you like, so it doesn’t punish people paying child support or other similar things). If a house hold earning $100k+ was paying double the market rent they would soon consider moving…

It would be pretty simple to check with the taxation system, and base it on the previous years taxable income (unless they lost their job).

Of course, kicking them out will also work, but it won’t solve the issue of housing shortages.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:35 am 15 Mar 12

This is a good move, and long overdue.

colourful sydney racing identity10:35 am 15 Mar 12

poetix said :

I can’t believe that someone with a household income of $183,000 is in public housing, according to the article.

Anyone on a decent income who holds on to public housing should be ashamed of themselves, given there are really desperate people in our community.

If the report is accurate it is an absolute disgrace.

I can’t believe that someone with a household income of $183,000 is in public housing, according to the article.

Anyone on a decent income who holds on to public housing should be ashamed of themselves, given there are really desperate people in our community.

colourful sydney racing identity10:11 am 15 Mar 12

Not before time.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.