Australians get $1000 for Christmas

Generali

Zelie wrote: »

So the low-wage single person is to live in misery now while paying out extra to keep the middle-wage family content? And all the time they are not allowed to say anything about this being unfair (despite the fact that single people tend to pay out more that couples anyway) because 'it's an investment in their future' which may never be realised? Sorry, but that's messed up thinking.

Far better to spend the money on something else. Crime prevention, assisting with domestic abuse, helping people into work whatever - it would have fare more practical and useful application elsewhere.

Well IMO the best thing is to reduce redistribution altogether and let people earn, save and spend money as they see fit. You want kids? Pay for them. You want to retire? Save.

Too obvious though I guess.

Zelie

Generali wrote: »

Well IMO the best thing is to reduce redistribution altogether and let people earn, save and spend money as they see fit. You want kids? Pay for them. You want to retire? Save.

Too obvious though I guess.

I wouldn't be quite that heartless. Things happen and people need assistance. A family that can easily afford their outgoings will be in severe difficulties if one of the adults die. It's reasonable that other adults around will pitch in and help out - a benefits system which is beneficial to all.

The extreme of this is that we have a benefits culture. Where we take money from those without children and dish it out to those with children regardless of whether their parents could make accomodations in lifestyle. That's what annoys me, the idea that anyone on a low-income with kids is automatically unable to change their outgoings. I'm aware that many, many people live responsibly while on benefits, partial-benefits or low-income. But I'm also aware and have experienced directly people who complain about not getting benefits on time which will impact their foreign holiday. Or who choose not to work because they get more money for not doing so. It hacks me off that lots of people on this thread are basically saying 'won't somebody think of the children' rather than considering society as a whole.

sabretoothtigger

The simple pensions scheme idea works so long as we have more people working then wanting to receive. Problem is we have a low birth rate now and people live longer which means its no longer the pyramid shape it should be.

We are due to fail for not totally dissimilar reasons to madoff


I remember reading about the original benefits system, it seemed way harsher. If you had 4 legs on a chair when 3 would do then you had to burn that fourth leg before being allowed anything towards heating, etc
Mostly you wouldnt have been allowed a chair at all apparently

DKLS

worrypants wrote: »

could not agree more one oif the many reasons I left the Uk was the obscene amount of "my" money going on other peoples brats

why oh why should folk with no kids pay for other peoples!! if you choose not to overpopulate this already over populated planet then you should be rewarded for that !!

I will not pay for others kids that they cant afford so I shall never set foot in the UK again rant over

Good for you worrypants, Give it another 10 years and I will be living it up in the far east. Enjoying the results of MY labours.

I begrudge every penny of mine that goes to other peoples kids. If you cant afford them dont have them, and if you do have them and cant afford them then it should be down to charity to help out and not the state.

housesitter

adr0ck wrote: »

planet may be overpopulated but we are heading for a real pension crisis in the uk
the reason for this is people are living longer and not enough children are being born

The next big Ponzi scheme.
Just like the economy being over populated with debt but we need more debt to pay for the debt.

So we need more children now to pay for the elderly, what happens when they get older??

Population recession would do the world a big favour. Wars used to keep the population in check. The doom mongers would suggest one as a possible outcome of the present crisis.

carolt

I think giving $1000 dollars per child is a great idea. :T

Can I also suggest that targeting people whose names begin with 'c', live in rented accommodation, post on mse, etc, would really help the national economy?

Sorry, just getting rather fed up of all the taxpayer handouts going to homeowners.

I'd like to see some going to ME, please.

adr0ck

housesitter wrote: »

The next big Ponzi scheme.

thats pretty much what it is

and in the future we will be asking the next generation to put in a lot more than we did (going to be 2 workers supporting every pensioner very soon)

wouldn't surprise me if we they told all us old fogies then to go and jump

adr0ck

carolt wrote: »

I think giving $1000 dollars per child is a great idea. :T

Can I also suggest that targeting people whose names begin with 'c', live in rented accommodation, post on mse, etc, would really help the national economy?

Sorry, just getting rather fed up of all the taxpayer handouts going to homeowners.

I'd like to see some going to ME, please.

its $1000 per family - on average works out at $250 per child approx £100

adr0ck

Zelie wrote: »

That's nice. But why do I have to pay? .

i don't think you do......your not in Australia are you?

carolt

adr0ck wrote: »

its $1000 per family - on average works out at $250 per child approx £100

Well hey, it's better than nothing....

Shocked to discover I agree with your posts on this thread!